One of the interesting things Manion does in this book -- though I believe she attributes the practice to someone previous -- is using "trans" as in "to trans gender" as a verb. (I don't think trans has quite made it through all the grammatical parts of speech yet, but it's worked its way through preposition to adjective to noun, so verb was a reasonable next step.) Sometimes a particular bit of imagery or re-framing can click an idea into place, and trans-as-verb did that for me.
I've been working on how to express and explain a unifying historical concept between female same-sex desire and trans-masculine identities and performance. The current view of sexuality and gender as being completely independent axes becomes a hindrance to understanding how people in history understood their own and other lives. It also encourages the treatment of historical persons as the "property" of specific modern identities--and those identities as a scarce and valuable resource. It's part of what encourages people to see a sharp divide in history between "femme-femme" love and desires/relationships that evoke a masculine-feminine dynamic.
If "trans" is an adjective or a noun, it tends to be treated as an either/or category. One is either trans or cis. A binary. But if "trans" is a verb, then it's an action that can be done to different degrees, either intermittently or continuously. One can trans gender a little or a lot, and it was still transing gender if one stops doing it. It's no longer a defined border to be crossed; a different territory to be inhabited. (My imagery is flashing on the classical Roman regional definitions of trans-alpine and cis-alpine Gaul: territories defined by their relationships both to Rome and to the mountain barrier.) Viewed in this context, one can understand any type of behavior, presentation, or inherent characteristic that does not align with a culture's established gender archetypes as performing the action of "transing" without the need to make a judgment about whether that action has effected a change in the person's category status.
This is a way of framing the idea that I need to think about some more and explore further, but I think it could be very useful for discussing historic lives without hitting some of the trip-lines that move the discussion into arguing over who "owns" those lives.
Manion, Jen. 2020. Female Husbands: A Trans History. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. ISBN 978-1-108-48380-3
Chapter 2: The Pillar of the Community
[The following is duplicated from the associated blog. I'm trying to standardize the organization of associated content.]
One of the interesting things Manion does in this book -- though I believe she attributes the practice to someone previous -- is using "trans" as in "to trans gender" as a verb. (I don't think trans has quite made it through all the grammatical parts of speech yet, but it's worked its way through preposition to adjective to noun, so verb was a reasonable next step.) Sometimes a particular bit of imagery or re-framing can click an idea into place, and trans-as-verb did that for me.
I've been working on how to express and explain a unifying historical concept between female same-sex desire and trans-masculine identities and performance. The current view of sexuality and gender as being completely independent axes becomes a hindrance to understanding how people in history understood their own and other lives. It also encourages the treatment of historical persons as the "property" of specific modern identities--and those identities as a scarce and valuable resource. It's part of what encourages people to see a sharp divide in history between "femme-femme" love and desires/relationships that evoke a masculine-feminine dynamic.
If "trans" is an adjective or a noun, it tends to be treated as an either/or category. One is either trans or cis. A binary. But if "trans" is a verb, then it's an action that can be done to different degrees, either intermittently or continuously. One can trans gender a little or a lot, and it was still transing gender if one stops doing it. It's no longer a defined border to be crossed; a different territory to be inhabited. (My imagery is flashing on the classical Roman regional definitions of trans-alpine and cis-alpine Gaul: territories defined by their relationships both to Rome and to the mountain barrier.) Viewed in this context, one can understand any type of behavior, presentation, or inherent characteristic that does not align with a culture's established gender archetypes as performing the action of "transing" without the need to make a judgment about whether that action has effected a change in the person's category status.
This is a way of framing the idea that I need to think about some more and explore further, but I think it could be very useful for discussing historic lives without hitting some of the trip-lines that move the discussion into arguing over who "owns" those lives.
# # #
James Howe née Mary East had a biography unusual in tracing financial and social success, a happily married life with a wife who not only knew about her female husband’s background but had partaken in establishing their identity, and in passing through the revelation of their assigned gender relatively unscathed, despite a fair amount of drama.
[Note: I included Howe’s story in a podcast on real life queer historical stories that would make a great non-tragic movies.]
Manion has dug through archives and legal records to turn up more details of Howe’s life and marriage then I’ve seen previously. As a very brief sketch -- and with the understanding that there are parts where Howe and other involved parties may have had reason to tell the version of the story that would present themselves in the best light –- here is the gist.
Around 1732, two young women of age 16 or so, Mary East and Mary Snapes, having determined not to marry men and being intimate friends, decided to “live together thereever after”. Recognizing that this would be easier if they were taken for a married couple, they flipped a coin for who would be the man, and thus Mary East became James Howe.
Manion questions whether this division of roles was truly as arbitrary as Howe’s story implies, and points out that the story seems tailored to avoid threatening existing gender structures. In any event, after they married, they moved away from their home – a necessary prerequisite for success – and set up as tavern-keepers. A combination of good business sense and at least one lucky accident enabled them to repeatedly upgrade their business, and they ended up fairly wealthy and as pillars of their community. Their one peculiarity was that they hired no servants and did all the work of their business themselves. Presumably for reasons of privacy.
We might know nothing about this fascinating couple except for two events. A woman named Bentley, who had known them as children, recognized Howe and begin extorting small sums of money for her silence. Then, just before Bentley’s demands went from manageable to outrageous, Mary Snapes died from an illness.
After a calculation of risks we can only guess at, Howe responded to the violent demands of the extortion by appealing to a neighbor for help and revealing their assigned gender. The neighbor colluded in trapping the extortionists who were sent to prison. Howe returned to living as Mary East and retired with a considerable fortune, though bereft of the company of their wife of 32 years.
Manion analyzes the role that a successful marriage played in establishing Howe’s credentials as a man. Indeed, except for Mrs. Bentley, whose knowledge was based on personal recognition, no one seems to have questioned Howe’s maleness. But Manion traces how contemporary accounts and later histories manipulated perception of Howe’s gender via whether and in what circumstances they were granted male pronouns.
Manion tackles the intersection between lives like Howe’s and 18th century feminism. One might expect feminists to embrace proof that those born female could demonstrate the ability to succeed in life in a life reserved for men, but there was an uneasiness among feminist thought around behavioral gender-crossing. The question of whether women’s equality could be based on the fundamental equivalence of men and women, or whether it needed to work around an understanding of men and women as fundamentally different, was hotly debated. Several examples are given of feminist opinions on either the general concept, or specific examples, of persons-assigned-female “transing” gender, either via male-coded pursuits or via gender-crossing lives.
The chapter concludes by tracing shifts and reframings of how the Howes’ story was understood through the 19th century, and the challenge such lives present us to embrace a multiplicity of forms of gender and sexuality, coexisting throughout history, rather than requiring all lives to fit neatly into a set of mutually exclusive categories.

A graphic novel telling the romance between two women in service, set in a time of social change and opportunity. One character is unapologetically plain and plump, the other is a bi-racial daughter of the English presence in India. There’s lots of exploration of family, loyalty, community, and the tricky balance between security and making a life of your own. And sex. There’s lots of sex. Which I hadn’t quite expected to see on the page given the feel of the cover art and description. Not a problem, just not expecting that. There are some fun bonus “self-fan-fic” extras at the end, including a modern-setting AU of the characters. This historic grounding of the story is wonderfully detailed and accurate and the art is delightful.

Being a massive Jane Austen fan, I’m also something of a sucker for spin-offs that do fun things with her characters. Though I have strong opinions on some of the ones that didn’t work as well for me. This is a fun, reasonably fluffy, series in which Mr. and Mrs. Darcy play amateur detectives while encountering all manner of characters from other Austen novels in the context of cozy murders. The writing is competent, though not scintillating (and without a serious attempt to mimic Austen’s own prose). There were a few plot holes one could drive a four-in-hand through and some of the character motivations were shaky, but that’s been an issue throughout the series and yet I keep reading them. This is the sixth in the series, of which there are seven in total, and as the title suggests, brings in the characters from Persuasion, as well as a few other Austen-based side characters.

I'm still trying to figure out the factors that broke through my "reading block" in the past month. One definitely seems to be adding hard-copy books back into the mix, which is how I picked up this one. Another factor I'm beginning to suspect may have helped was trying to stop think about reading as "reading to review" and just read. It's not like I have a significant "voice" as a reviewer, and I started out posting reviews of books just to have a space to think about them a little more. But it's also the case (especially as an author myself) that I know the impact that even small voices can have in the aggregate in giving books visibility. (Even if those small voices aren't necessarily enthusiastic. I spend a lot of time focusing on sapphic fiction and my place in the book ecosystem. So it can be easy for a quiet voice to whisper that I have an obligation to read certain types of books. Which...no, I don't. And maybe that's part of my problem. Anyway, on to the review.
Not so much a collection of short fairy-tale-inspired stories as a chained series, reminiscent of the 1001 Nights, in which each narrator concludes by asking a secondary character in her story to explain what her back-story is. The tales are familiar but their interpretations are new and decidedly queer. The structure made it hard for me to put down, due to the individual stories being so bite-sized, and the tantalizing way they were linked together. “Just one more, then I’ll put it down.” Emma Donoghue is a great writer at any length, but if you want a seductive introduction to her style, this is a good entry point.

Lately I’ve been plucking books almost randomly off my to-be-read bookcase (which really needs to be organized so it’s not quite so random). I’d rather forgotten about picking up this one. A somewhat dated (with respect to gender politics) short gothic with mystery elements, set in an ancient villa and the Etruscan catacombs beneath it. Archaeology, ancient mysteries, terrible family secrets, lots of peril that might have been avoided if people talked to each other more about the odd things they knew about the villa and its former inhabitants. A great study in re-interpreting the protagonist’s understanding as new facts come to light (with a chance for the reader to be a step and a half ahead of her in figuring out what’s going on). The introduction by Paul di Filippo accurately describes it as a bit of a blend of Daphne du Maurier and Thomas Burnett Swann.

A novella(?) set in the author’s Dominion of the Fallen series, with a tight little murder mystery embedded in the familial/court politics of the underwater dragon kingdom. Lots of drama, angst, peril, and socio-political negotiation to provide distraction from the murder. And that’s just between our dragon & fallen angel married protagonists. I’m going to guess that this story might be a bit too in media res for any reader who hasn’t read the Dominion novels, but you should go read those because they’re really good. (If you like drama, angst, peril, and socio-political negotiation.)

A while ago I started working my way through reviews of things I’ve read in the last year or two. Ha, ha, yes, my up-to-datedness is that bad. And then in the last month or so, I finally seem to have broken through my “reading block”. So let’s spend some time getting reviews done, though they’re going to be briefer than I sometimes write. I’m scheduling 18 reviews (following my usual one-blog-per-day maximum) which gets me caught up with everything in my spreadsheet, though I need to comb through iBooks and other files to see if I’ve overlooked something.
The premise for this kickstarter-based anthology was so solidly in my sweet spot that I not only backed the kickstarter immediately, but I was inspired to write a story to submit for it. (Alas, they didn’t take my story, but perhaps it will see the light of day at some point.) The basic premise, inspired by a piece of art, was “two women, one with weapon skills, one with more social/courtly skills, plunge into adventure and romance.” The settings range from classical fantasy worlds to space pirates, with a wide range of character types, story flavors, and interpretations of that premise. The variety is such that I’d predict if the basic concept attracts you, there will be at least one story that’s perfectly on target for you, and more that are thoroughly enjoyable. Some of my favorites were: Freya Marske’s “Elinor Jones vs. the Ruritanian Multiverse” for its delightful self-conscious poking fun at tropes and the process of storytelling; the delightfully bittersweet worldbuilding of Cara Patterson’s “Little Birds”; the comic romp that is Elizabeth Davis’s “The Epic Fifth Wedding Anniversary of Zayne the Barbarian and Tikka the Accountant”; and the twisty emotional tightrope of Aliette de Bodard’s “The Scholar of the Bamboo Flute.” The only story that didn’t really work for me and felt ill-suited to the theme was Elaine McIonyn’s “The Commander and the Mirage Master’s Mate” whose characters simply felt incompetent in their setting and which spent far too much attention to the technical details of the martial magic and not enough developing the plot.
I inadvertently took a 2 month break in blogging this book, so it may make sense for interested parties to go back and review my coverage of the Introduction.
Manion, Jen. 2020. Female Husbands: A Trans History. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. ISBN 978-1-108-48380-3
Chapter 1: The First Female Husband
In 1746, in England, Charles Hamilton married Mary Price. While Hamilton was not the first person assigned female (PAF)[see note] to be called a “female husband” or to marry a woman, Hamilton’s case solidified the use of the label female husband, and in particular Henry Fielding’s fictionalization of Hamilton’s life established a number of the tropes that would be associated with the concept from then on.
[Note: PAF (Person(s) Assigned Female) is a usage I’ve only recently begun seeing in online conversations. The arguments used for preferring it to “AFAB” (assigned female at birth) generally center around it being “person-based language”. On a more practical level, since I’m normally using language of this type to talk about specific individuals or categories of individuals, it’s simply more direct and concise than “AFAB individuals” or the like. I don’t know how widespread this usage is, or whether it will increase in acceptance over time, so I’ll probably define it in use, at least for now. But given that use of PAF makes the text flow more smoothly, I’ll probably shift to using it unless I come across some reason to find it less acceptable.]
Mary Price, per her testimony, was not aware of Hamilton’s history and was not agreeable when she came to understand that Hamilton did not have male anatomy. This realization was delayed after the marriage, as they enjoyed sexual relations on multiple occasions which Price reported as having involved penetration. Initially, Price had no basis for believing there was anything unusual about her marriage.
The court case that Price brought to extricate herself from the marriage focused heavily on the sexual details. Price entered into the marriage willingly – even eagerly - and genuinely liked Hamilton. So it wasn’t a foregone conclusion that her realization of Hamilton’s anatomy would be a deal-breaker. Nor was it automatically something one might bring to trial - an expensive and uncertain proposition.
A number of aspects of the case were in flux in 18th century society. Ideas about sexual activity were only starting to shift from a more diffuse range of erotic practices to focus on penetrative sex. And legal cases were in the process of shifting from a victim-driven civil context to a state-driven, more formal code. That Price’s case was taken up pro bono by professional lawyers reflects the unexpected significance placed on it.
Social commentary around the case, and particularly the popular desire for severe punishment, point to public concern focusing not on Hamilton’s gender preference, per se, but on the marriage, and particularly its implied sexual nature. Hamiltons “crime” was the act of deceit, but specifically deceit in order to engage in a sexual relationship viewed as unnatural. The court, however, settled on a charge of vagrancy, a rather flexible charge often used to enforce order and manage undesirable people. The punishment was relatively severe - whipping and hard labor - and had an element of public messaging to warn off others who might engage in similar performances or relationships.
For unclear reasons, this publicity was far more successful than was typical for such cases. The story was taken up by the press, not only throughout England, but in America and Europe. Playwright and novelist Henry Fielding was responsible for bringing the phrase “female husband “to public attention, but both the phrase and the phenomenon of marriage of a PAF to a woman pre-dated him.
The first known recorded instance of the phrase “female husband” in English was in a 1682 ballad, telling the story of a PAF who had ambiguous genitals and was probably intersex. Trained as a midwife by the woman who adopted them at birth, the issue came to attention when they got a woman pregnant. The law ruled that this proved them to be male. They were legally reassigned as male and required to marry the child’s mother.
Somewhat in contrast is the 1680 marriage of James Howard and Arabella Hunt, in which the court tentatively suggested that Howard was intersex – a suggstion she denied and disapproved, claiming instead that the marriage was “a prank”. The fact that Howard was wealthy (and Hunt was popular in court circles) precluded a “vagrancy” charge. (Instead the charges was bigamy, due to Howard’s pre-existing marriage to a man.)
For a PAF to present as male and legally marry a woman was neither common nor rare in the 17th to 18th century. Fielding simply attached a fixed label to the concept via his fictionalized story of Hamilton’s life.
Use of the modifier “female” with male-coded categories was a trend in the Enlightenment, shaping and framing attitudes toward gender. This fixation on the stories of “female [male-coded-concept]” expanded the context for including women in popular culture, while still marking them as nondefault state.
Mid-18th century English culture included a number of gender-blurring and gender-crossing practices. Carnivals and masquerades gave license to both male and female cross-dressing. These contexts also licensed women’s participation in public culture without a male escort.
At the same time, scientific rhetoric was embracing the idea of sexual difference under the “two sex” model, which saw gender differences as qualitative, not simply quantitative. This reframed the “transing” of gender boundaries, not as a moral or social offense, but as being in conflict with biology and reason.
The chapter continues with a detailed discussion of Fielding’s text and its relationship to Hamilton’s facts. Fielding’s interpretation focused on two themes: feelings of sexual possessiveness and the sexual body. In Fielding’s version, Hamilton was living as a woman with a female lover when that lover engaged in a sexual relationship with a third-party (male). Hamilton became frantically jealous and determined that the only way to compete successfully for the love of a woman wants to become a man. So in Fielding’s view, sexuality (the object of desire) is fixed and innate, but gender is easily changeable to align with heteronormative requirements. [Note: the court case does not discuss any such relationship and indicates that Hamilton had been presenting as male since age 14.]
Fielding’s narrative largely, but inconsistently, changes pronouns to reflect the strength of the social establishment of Hamilton’s gender as-read - using female pronouns when read as female and early in transition, when Hamilton’s gender performance was more tenuous, and male pronouns as Hamilton’s male presentation became solidly established. When Hamilton’s wife became suspicious and then challenged Hamiltons identity, Fielding reverts to female pronouns.
Fielding also framed Hamilton as being unsuccessful at performing a male role in penetrative sex, whereas the historic Hamilton appears to have been successful, and Hamilton’s wife understood herself to have enjoyed penetrative sex as expected with a man. Fielding’s agenda was to reinforce the gender boundaries by depicting Hamilton as incapable of successfully crossing them. Manion notes that Fielding was friendly with actress Charlotte Charke, who engaged in a more irregular and playful form of gender-crossing and this may have shaped his understanding.
Hamilton’s story doesn’t end with Fieldings revisionist version. Several years after Hamilton’s trial and punishment, they traveled to the Colonies, aiming for Philadelphia but (due to a storm) landing in North Carolina and gradually making their way north, again practicing the profession of quack medicine. In Philadelphia, Hamilton came to the attention of authorities for being unqualified to practice medicine. Only in the course of this investigation was Hamilton’s trans identity determined, and accounts describing the case moved from male to female pronouns at that point, reflecting not Hamilton’s identity, but public perception of Hamilton’s status.
Unlike in England, the authorities could find no basis for changing or punishing Hamilton, although they took the step of detaining Hamilton to see if anyone would bring a complaint. The record is silent on further details. The very lack of those details suggest that Hamilton was released.
Ten years later there is a record in the same area of a Charles Hamilton being charged with horse theft, and from the description of person and profession it is likely the same Hamilton. But this time there is no reference to gender issues, perhaps because Hamilton was not apprehended for the alleged crime.
Hamilton became something of a trope in popular crime fiction with their deeds being revised and expanded in repetition.
(Originally aired 2021/07/03 - listen here)
Welcome to On the Shelf for July 2021.
Pride month is over but the pride lives on year-round! Though “pride” isn’t necessarily the goal to aim for. “Pride” is an interesting concept to represent a social movement. The word has two contexts. One meaning is sense of satisfaction in accomplishment. One can be proud of having finished that first draft of your novel. Or proud of successfully training for a marathon. One can be proud of accomplishments at all levels: riding a bicycle for the first time or winning the Tour de France. Pulling off a perfect dinner party or establishing a successful catering business. But that’s an odd definition in the context of identity. If I say, “I’m proud to be an American” what the heck does that even mean? It’s not something I accomplished or worked at. It’s an accident of birth. If I say, “I’m a proud lesbian,” does that mean I worked hard to become one and might have failed along the way?
Social movements that use the idea of “pride” generally use the word in a different sense: as the opposite of shame. The slogan “gay pride” had a resonance in the ‘60s and ‘70s because for the entirety of the 20th century we’d been told we should be ashamed of being gay. It was modeled on movements like Black Pride, where people stood up, took to the streets, and say, “No, I will not be ashamed of who and what I am. I will not accept that my very existence makes me a lesser human being.”
There are some who argue that “identity politics” – focusing your awareness and activism around inherent characteristics – is a bad thing. But identity has always been at the heart of social politics. What was new in the 20th century, across very many groups, was the idea that you could reject the political and social oppression turned on you because of your identity, whether that identity was race or ethnicity, religion or social class, gender or sexuality.
Identity is a continuing theme in studying queer history, revolving around the Foucaultian debate between queer being something you do versus being something you are. The rise of identity-awareness in the 20th century confuses the issue of studying the past. Today we are so focused on identities, intersecting identities, micro-identities, that we can find it difficult to imagine queer people in the past not sharing that same sense of identity – or hard to connect with them emotionally if we don’t share that.
Identity has its limits as an organizing principle. One failure mode is difficulty identifying with people who don’t share our same openly-defined identities. Another failure mode is found in experiencing pride as the flip side of shame, it should be clear that the goal of pride movements of all types should be the elimination of even the suggestion of shame. When there is no longer shame, there will be no need to counter it with pride. Then we can focus on the other sense of the word: pride in accomplishment, when artificial barriers and restrictions no longer stand in our way.
News of the Field
If you’ve already signed up to attend the online Golden Crown Literary Society conference, or you’ve been thinking about it and need a little push, I’ll be participating in a panel I suggested on why authors write historical fiction—what the telling of stories set in the past means to us both as writers and as readers. The conference is spread out over multiple weekends in July, which makes participation easier for those who can’t or don’t want to take time off work for it. The history panel “Yesterday Once More: The Uses of Historical Fiction” is on Sunday July 25 at noon Eastern Time. Check out the other programming and think about taking this opportunity to attend. Online conferences are really changing access to events, although there are some parts that don’t translate to the virtual experience. There’s a link to the conference schedule in the show notes.
Publications on the Blog
So, the blog. Ah yes, the blog. Can I retroactively declare that the Lesbian Historic Motif Project Blog is taking a little summer vacation? Because that seems to be what’s happening. What’s really happening is that my day job has been all-consuming for the past month or so, with a lot of late evenings and even weekends getting swallowed up. So expect more updates on the blog when I have time to do the readings. I do seem to have broken though my fiction reading block, though. More on that a little later.
Recent Lesbian Historical Fiction
And now it’s new books time! I have four June books and five July books for your consideration this month. A lot of series stories, for those who love to follow characters across multiple books. And rather delightfully, a slight majority of this month’s books are set prior to the 19th century. I love seeing stories from earlier eras. As far as settings go, these books follow typical patterns: mostly England and the US, but then one each from mythic early Greece, mythic Viking-era Scandinavia, and an alternate medieval China – if you will forgive the cultural anachronism of using the word medieval about a non-European setting.
That’s actually a topic of serious academic debate, by the way. Is there a concept of the Middle Ages that makes sense to apply world-wide? Or are the Middle Ages something that only exist with respect to Western culture, given that the “middle” in question is the era between the fall of Rome and the Renaissance? And then there’s the question of how the word “medieval” gets used in an ahistorical way to indicate certain myths about violence, social hierarchies, and anti-intellectualism that derive far more from pop culture than from the actual middle ages. In certain ways, applying the word medieval to non-Western cultures, simply because an event is contemporary with that period, is a form of cultural imperialism. But in other ways, worldwide cultures are connected in interdependent ways that mean the historic eras defined for one culture describe conditions that affect their interactions with other cultures.
Defining the “end of the middle ages” in terms of Europe’s cultural and intellectual Renaissance may have little meaning with respect to Asian cultures. But the changes that drove the Renaissance also affected trade, travel, and contact between cultures. And on a more questionable side, marked the start of Western colonial expansion. So – getting back to the start of this digression – while describing a story as set in “medieval” China may not be useful in describing what was going on in Chinese culture itself, it does situate the setting of the story with respect to waves of contact, trade, and influence that are relevant to that setting.
But this is a digression. I’m not really here to teach world history. My goal when describing books is much more simple. I want to let readers know what to expect. I want to let you know whether you’re getting ordinary history or a mythic history that might include demi-gods and supernatural creatures. I want to give a sense of how closely the story sticks to cultural settings and attitudes that we have solid evidence for, and which ones use a historic setting as a jumping off point for “what if” stories, even if there are no overt fantastical elements. Some stories are set in a solidly-envisioned past set with people, events, and locations that aren’t in the history books. Others invoke real events and people while telling stories about them that—as far as we know—never happened. And everything in between.
That’s one of the reasons it’s hard to define which books I include under the Lesbian Historic Motif Podcast, and which I decide don’t fall under our scope. My approach to the borders of historical fiction is in many ways a feeling—a flavor—rather than a set of rules. It results in some inconsistencies. In general, I don’t include books set in secondary worlds, but I do include books set in a fictional analogue of a real historic culture. The core focus is on purely historical settings, but I’ll generally include stories with settings that historic people told stories in. Several of the books this month fall in that category, telling stories about mythic amazons of ancient Greece or adventures out of Arthurian legend.
Just as the “historic” part of this podcast’s scope is rather fuzzy around the edges, the “lesbian” part can get equally fuzzy. And I don’t mean just because I use that word to stand in for all types of sapphic characters. This month’s books include several where a person-assigned-female is being read as male by the other characters on a long-term basis. There’s a long-standing tradition in lesbian historic fiction to use gender disguise as a trope for drawing on the wealth of heterosexual plot-types. But not all such books intend to tell sapphic stories, and not all such characters understand themselves to be women in disguise. The tricky part is that it isn’t always easy to determine the author’s intentions from the available publicity materials about the book. And—quite frankly—you can’t always rely on how the book is tagged in Goodreads or Amazon.
I lean toward being inclusive—not because I’m discounting transgender aspects of the stories and characters—but in part because I can’t always tell how the character identifies, and in part to honor the deep intertwined histories of lesbian and transmasculine experiences. So, for example, among this month’s books we have a character who is read universally as a man, who is referred to in their own point of view scenes with male pronouns, but where the author has tagged the book as having a lesbian relationship, and included hints about the character being “not who he says he is.”
In another book, the protagonist’s backstory includes taking on her dead brother’s identity and thereafter being read as male. But in the book’s publicity materials—including the title—the character is referred to with female pronouns. In another story, a woman takes on a male identity specifically for economic reasons in the American frontier. I have no interest in trying to draw sharp dividing lines around gender presentation to determine which books get included in this podcast and which don’t, but you may have noticed that I generally point out my uncertainty and try to avoid applying labels that the author might not have intended.
So what are this month’s new books?
June brought us four books set across a wide swath of time, all set within Europe.
The Women of Apasas (Amazzi Warriors and Queens #1), self-published by Elizabeth Reign, features an Amazon warrior and a refugee priestess from Crete who are drawn together by fate and desire. Love, duty, and distrust set a difficult challenge for them.
Viking Quest, self-published by Edale Lane, unsurprisingly takes on a Viking-era setting. Sea voyages, battles, and treachery all feature in this romantic adventure between a princess bent on revenge and a damsel in distress seeking her freedom.
Lie With Me, self-published by Patricia Spencer, is one of the gender-blurring stories I mentioned earlier. To all appearances, Julien D’Avenant is an exiled French nobleman fleeing the terrors of the Revolution, but D’Avenant is also a contradiction. A dandy who adopts the fashions of the sans-culottes; an anarchist bent on acquiring the property of the widowed Countess Wyndham; a recluse who invites the young countess into his home. And within those contradictions, D’Avenant is definitely not what he seems. I’m going to confess I get frustrated with books that combine tags for “lesbian romance” with a superficially heterosexual plot description. I’m going to trust the author’s description, that D’Avenant is in gender disguise but not male-identifying, and I’m going to trust that the story handles gender-crossing motifs with awareness and sensitivity. I wish it was available somewhere other than Amazon so I’d be inclined to find out for myself.
The Dawn of the Rose (Love and Thorns #2), self-published by Sarah Swan, is a loosely independent sequel to her 18th century Scottish romance Like the Down of a Thistle, but set almost a century later. In this book, a descendent of the previous book’s protagonist takes ship for America and crosses paths with a stowaway running from the law. In the claustrophobic confines of the ship, they must negotiate trust and secrets. But someone else knows about the stowaway and their danger will only increase.
July brings us a couple of mainstream publications as well as continuations of three lesfic series.
For those who enjoy sweeping epic fantasies, check out Shelley Parker-Chan’s She Who Became the Sun from Tor. In the 14th century, in Mongol-ruled China, a young girl claims her dead brother’s identity and the great destiny that was foretold for him. Zhu has a will to survive, and the fortunes of war turn survival into much more. There are sapphic themes in the book, though it certainly isn’t a romance. And Zhu’s gender-crossing doesn’t align closely with modern concepts of identity. But if you’re in the mood for a chunky epic this may be your lucky day.
Another gender-bender is the anthology Sword Stone Table: Old Legends, New Voices, edited by Swapna Krishna & Jenn Northington from Vintage. A collection of gender-bent and race-bent stories of the Arthurian mythos from names such as Roshani Chokshi, Maria Dahvana Headley, Ken Liu, Silvia Moreno-Garcia, and Nisi Shawl—just to mention the authors I’ve enjoyed fiction from in the past. The original Arthurian stories were far more diverse than you might think, but this collection celebrates that diversity in new forms. I have to confess quite honestly that I don’t know for certain whether any of the stories is specifically sapphic, but I think it’s a good enough bet to include in this list.
Kim Pritekel’s Wynter series from Sapphire Books gets a third volume, Justice Won, following two chance-met allies on a train heading for California. But their journey, and perhaps their lives, hit a snag in the town of Wynter, Colorado, and the lives that had begun to be braided together may be torn apart.
Renee Dahlia’s self-published Great War series also gets a third volume, Her Lady's Fortune. In the aftermath of WWI, wealthy philanthropist Priya Howick can only realize her project to assist war widows by accepting a partnership with Rosalie Sanderson, the determined head of a banking dynasty. But Priya and Rosalie have met before—for one glorious and disastrous night in the time before the war. The ache of that wound may derail their project before it even starts.
The two previous series books look like they stand alone fairly well, but Murder and Gold (Cantor Gold #5) by Ann Aptaker from Bywater Books may appeal most to continuing fans of the series. For quite some time, Cantor Gold has been navigating the hazards of a criminal career in mid-20th century New York. Dead bodies aren’t exactly a surprise for her—even if one of them is one of her recent one-night stands. Nor is she any stranger to becoming a target of the police investigating the murders. But new currents are stirring in the ‘50s. Homosexual organizations are becoming visible and vocal. And that complicates Cantor’s understanding of her own identity at a time when she can’t afford to be distracted.
What Am I Reading?
And what am I reading? I hinted earlier that I seem to have broken through my reading block at last. And about time, after well over a year of having a hard time turning the pages. In the past month, I’ve actually managed to finish four books, though only half of them have sapphic themes.
Alyssa Cole’s contemporary “Runaway Royals” series features How to Find a Princess, in which two women with difficult personalities clash over the possibility that one of them just might be descended from the mysteriously disappeared queen of a small Mediterranean kingdom. I loved the way Cole handled the two women’s quirks and damages, and how they gradually came together. I was a bit less enamored of the surprise twist at the end, but you may enjoy it more than I did.
One of the things that’s helped me get back into reading fiction is picking up physical books, rather than trying to read everything on a screen. I stare at screens entirely too much as it is, and for the last year most of my socializing has involved staring at pixels as well. So maybe I should have tried physical books a bit earlier. Goodness knows I have an entire bookcase of untouched volumes that I’ve been accumulating over the last couple decades. But since I mostly buy ebooks these days, that means my hard-copy reading has been older publications.
I’ve finally read Emma Donoghue’s collection of re-fashioned fairy tales, Kissing the Witch. “Collection” isn’t quite the right word, since it’s actually a set of chained stories (sort of like the stories in the 1001 Nights), in which each story ends with the protagonist asking a secondary character what her story is. All the stories are very very queer, and given that this is Emma Donoghue, they’re excellently written. It was actually hard to put the book down and not finish it in a single gulp, they were just that addictive.
My other paper read is from a Jane Austen themed murder mystery series by Carrie Bebris, with Mr. and Mrs. Darcy from Pride and Prejudice playing the roles of amateur detectives. Many other recognizable Austen characters wander through the plot. The specific book I read was The Deception at Lyme, which I think is maybe the fourth in the series? It’s exactly the sort of fluffy, light comfort read that got me through grad school back in the ‘90s. The prose isn’t brilliant – not even a particularly close imitation of Austen – and there are some plot holes you could drive a four-in-hand through, but perfectly enjoyable.
And speaking of comfort reads, I finished the month by reading A Wizard’s Guide to Defensive Baking by T. Kingfisher (who is also Ursula Vernon). Vernon is an amazing writer of hard-to-categorize fantasies. In this book, a teenage baker-wizard saves the city with the help of an animated gingerbread man and her magical familiar. A sourdough culture named Bob. It’s…well, let’s just say it’s hard to describe other than that. You might think that a fantasy adventure in which sourdough culture plays a key role would be a shameless ploy for the book-dollars of the quarantine Sourdough Tribe, but the book was actually written a decade ago and gathered a bunch of publisher’s rejections until the time became perfect for its publication.
Let’s hope my newfound reading momentum keeps up. I have a lot of books waiting for me.
Your monthly roundup of history, news, and the field of sapphic historical fiction.
In this episode we talk about:
Links to the Lesbian Historic Motif Project Online
Links to Heather Online
(Originally aired 2021/06/19 - listen here)
Today’s essay is going to tackle the intersection of several topics that can involve misunderstanding, reinterpretation, and shifts in how language is used. But those ambiguities lie at the heart of understanding how Western women of the 16th through 18th centuries talked about platonic love – and we’ll get to what they meant by that very shortly – how that love was experienced and expressed in same-sex contexts, and whether neo-platonic love was compatible with sexual desires and relationships.
There’s a popular meme that hangs out on the internet that takes an image of two women being physically affectionate, or a passage from a letter or diary expressing love between two women, and captions it with “Yeah suuuuure they’re ‘just good friends’ *cough* lesbians *cough*.” In my opinion, this meme fundamentally misunderstands two important and contrasting elements of queer history. One is the position that sexual activity provides a hard, bright line that separates friendship and romance. The other is that we can look at people in history and definitively assign them to the categories of queer and straight. The topic of platonic love – as understood in the early modern period – provides a rich framework for exploring those topics.
Neo-Platonism
I’m going to start by noting that I am not a philosopher or a historian of philosophy. I’m going to over-simplify things and will probably get some of the details wrong. And the exploration of neo-Platonism reaches far beyond questions around the philosophy of love. Today’s essay is looking at a very small slice of neo-Platonic philosophy in the context of a fairly narrow span of history. But let’s start with some basic groundwork.
Plato was a Greek philosopher – specifically, Athenian – who lived around the 4th century BCE. Together with his teacher Socrates and his student Aristotle he’s among the most familiar of the classical philosophers. The topics of his teachings covered the entire scope of human experience and existence in addition to the world in general. Among the through-lines in his teachings was the idea of idealized essences or true natures that represented the purest form of a thing, a concept, or an experience. This becomes relevant later, so remember it.
Neoplatonism arose in the 2nd to 5th century CE in the context of a general interest in Greek scholarship within the Roman Empire. But wait, I hear you say! The 5th century is a long ways from the Early Modern period. Well, yes, let’s keep going with this capsule history. Because of its focus on unattainable idealized forms and on the concept of all reality deriving from a single unified origin, Neoplatonism was compatible with and attractive to early Christian philosophers. Plato was, in some ways, promoted to being an honorary proto-Christian.
As part of Christian philosophy, Plato’s ideas continued to experience waves of interest and revival throughout the medieval period and Renaissance. It was this Renaissance revival of Neoplatonism and the ability of Plato’s legacy to jump the gap to being embraced by Protestant philosophers as well, in England and elsewhere, that brings us to the subject of platonic love in the Early Modern period. And here we need to step back earlier again.
Platonic Love
Because Plato was concerned with relating messy complicated imperfect things in the real world to idealized, perfect philosophical concepts, his opinions on love encompass the whole spectrum from complicated, imperfect loves to pure idealized loves. Being Greek, he had multiple words to express certain parts of that spectrum, including eros from which we get “erotic”, which generally refers to love that involves the libido; philia which is a love of friends and companions, a love of virtue embodied in specific people; agape which is an abstract love for all humans, for nature, for God; and a number of other distinctions for a full seven types of love. These types of love were not considered exclusive of each other. And in the messy, complicated way of things, what one felt for another specific human being was generally a mixture of several of them.
Thus, if “platonic love” referred to any type of love included in Plato’s philosophy, then it would mean all types of love. But as the terminology developed, it had a more specific meaning, in large part because eros becomes treated as the default against which other types of love are contrasted.
But Plato’s view on eros was not a simple matter of “pants-feels” as the kids say these days, because he (in the voice of one of his characters in the Symposium) describes a sliding scale from “vulgar” eros which involves the desire for physical pleasure or reproduction, and “divine” eros which may be inspired by physical beauty but transcends physical responses to evolve into love of a person’s best qualities. This was the goal for the philosopher interested in achieving perfection and becoming one with the universe: to love with divine eros. And it is that form of love that the concept of “platonic love” was based on – a love that was expected to be inspired by sensory attraction, but to transcend the pursuit of pleasure. It isn’t a separate state from “vulgar eros” but rather a different pole along the sliding scale.
Platonic Love and Gender
When Neoplatonism was incorporated into early Christian philosophy, which was already thoroughly imbued with ascetic ideals, the idea that love was nobler the farther it got from bodily pleasure was seized upon eagerly. By the Renaissance, the concept of “platonic love” as defining an affection based on love of a person’s nobility, beauty, and spiritual qualities was firmly established, especially as contrasted with love based on the sex drive.
And now we need to step back again and talk about gender dynamics within the philosophy of love. Because, of course, the opinions voiced in Plato’s Symposium were not concerned with love between men and women. Oh, that could fall under the category of “vulgar eros” to be sure, and the love expected between husbands and wives could be categorized as a “family duty” sort of love. But the question of “divine eros” came into the question when considering the best way in which a mature man might experience and express his love for a youth. That topic is very complicated and I’m not going to get into the details in this show. If you want a deep dive into the topic, it’s one of the subjects that Foucault’s The History of Sexuality is very good about. (As long as you can cope with a discussion that functionally erases the existence of women.)
But the point is that same-sex love has always been a through-line in the concept of Platonic love. In the Renaissance, neoplatonic ideas about love provided a context for male philosophers talking about the idealized love of men for other men in ways that could skirt the third rail of sodomy and embrace a variety of intense friendships as being, not merely acceptable, but the pinnacle of human relations. Within this framework, the ideal love was only possible between equals, and that meant it was not possible between men and women – between whom there would always be a distinction of superior and inferior.
Women were not entirely left out of the discussion, however. In 16th century Italy, Agnolo Firenzuola in his discussion of Platonic love describes how women may “love each other’s beauty, some in purity and holiness, as the elegant Laudomia Forteguerra loves the most illustrious Margaret of Austria, some lasciviously, as in ancient times Sappho from Lesbos, and in our own times in Rome the great prostitute Cecilia Venetiana.” This is the scale between “divine eros” and “vulgar eros” recognized as being possible between women. Firenzuola treats both types as being related, though perhaps as two faces of the same coin rather than ends of a continuum of attraction.
But increasingly, references to “platonic love” become narrowed to what Plato considered “divine eros”, the type of admiration and affection that had transcended bodily pleasures. In English, we see this more specific sense of the word “platonic” established in common use in the title and content of the 1635 play by William Davenant “The Platonick Lovers,” which both flatters and satirizes the fashion for Platonic affections in the circle of Queen Henrietta Maria. The platonic lovers of the play – who are free to express physical affection publicly specifically because their love is not erotic – are brought around in the end to the joys of sexual desire.
Henrietta Maria’s patronage of neo-platonic approaches to love came out of her connection to the French précieuse movement – a female-led social and literary fashion for courtly love, witty and refined conversational games, and a push-back against the culture of seduction and misogynistic sexuality prominent at the French court. In England, the culture of platonic love found expression in poetry and literature that maintained the principle that men and women were capable of having egalitarian relationships with each other that derived from an affinity of minds rather than an attraction of bodies. Friendship required equal partners, but men and women could be friends because “The soul has no sex” as they proclaimed.
Perhaps predictably, this position was more common among women than among men. Men were happy to apply neo-platonic principles to extoling the joys and primacy of male-male friendships as the pinnacle of social bonds, but when writers such as poet Katherine Philips tried to solicit support from male philosophers for an extension of platonic principles to women, the answers could be less than satisfactory at times, often considering women incapable of true friendship to men, and not even entertaining the possibility of true friendship between women.
But neoplatonic philosophy underlay two long-term shifts in relations affecting women. It contributed to the growing concept of “companionate marriage” in England – the idea that heterosexual spouses could have a relationship based on spiritual and intellectual companionship as well as for the purpose of procreation or economic partnership. And neoplatonic philosophy created a context for women to form, discuss, and express same-sex bonds in a framework that allowed them to place such relationships on the same standing as marriage.
In various forms, from the 17th through the 19th century, women’s same-sex relationships had a series of accepted public models, derived from the principles of neoplatonic love, that gave them personal permission and public license to express that love using the forms and language used for heterosexual bonds. But were such relationships “lesbian” in any meaningful sense? That’s a multi-layered question.
The public discourse around neoplatonic love between men and women featured a lot of debate around the question of sexuality. Was it possible for a man and woman to love each other platonically and not have it inevitably veer into a sexual relationship? Keep in mind that we’re talking about eras when there was a certain level of assumption that if men and women were private together one could assume that sex occurred. In part, this was due to the lack of social power and protections for women to refuse, and the general lack of consequences for men who took advantage. So the notion that a man and a woman could have an intimate intellectual relationship that was completely non-sexual was almost as radical as some of the fringe religious movements that sprang up in the same era. Some mixed-sex platonic relationships succeeded in staying non-sexual, some eventually added a sexual component, some were from the start both platonic – in the sense of having an intellectual bond – and sexual. To some extent, this aligns with Plato’s original concept (whether you buy into it or not) that love was a sliding scale of mixtures of idealized and sexual desire.
So how do we interpret women’s publicly-expressed platonic relationships in the 17th through 19th centuries? When women are declaring their love for each other, proclaiming eternal devotion, expressing a desire to share their lives, and describing their admiration for the beauty, intellect, and personality of other women, do we assume they’re also having sex? Or do we assume that of course they aren’t having sex because – duh! – they told us it’s “platonic”?
We can look at this from two angles: the use of the actual word “platonic,” and the question of how pairs of women existing within the platonic friendship tradition approached sexuality. For that matter, we can take a third angle: is the question even relevant?
So did women use the term “platonic” in a way that actively excluded the possibility of sexual relations? The answers are varied. The 16th century Italian philosopher Tullia d’Aragona wrote a neo-Platonist treatise Dialogues on the Infinity of Love in which she argued that the only truly moral form of love was one that recognized both sexual and spiritual desires – and recognized that women were equal to men in both realms. While she focused on male-female relations, she presents a position that recognizing the spiritual aspect of platonic love does not mean excluding the sexual.
At the opposite end of the scale of meaning – and decidedly later in time – we have the example of Anne Lister contemplating the nature of the relationship between Eleanor Butler and Sarah Ponsonby and whether it was “purely platonic”. In the context of the diary entry (and knowing that Lister’s relationships with women were definitely sexual) it's clear that she is using “platonic” in a sense that excludes sex. But one might quibble that her choice of words “purely” platonic suggests the possibility of relationships that were, if you will, “impurely” platonic and included sex.
One difficulty in asking the question of how and when people used the term “platonic” in a sense that excluded sex (rather than simply not focusing on it) is the scarcity of women’s writing discussing same-sex sexual activity in open terms. Similarly difficult is interpreting satirical writings on women’s platonic relationships that allege or imply a sexual component (whether the relationship is with a man or another woman). But as I don’t have examples where the specific word “platonic” is used in these satires, I’ll leave that question aside for now.
Moving on to how women engaged in same-sex platonic friendships actually behaved with respect to a sexual component, we run into the complication of defining “sex”. The extensive writings of the précieuses and salon culture of the 17th and 18th centuries provide a lot of discourse on the question. Salon culture constructed an ideology that prioritized intellectual and spiritual bonds over physical passion and the bodily demands of reproduction. In the context of a Cartesian mind/body duality, salon ideology emphasized the mind as a gender-free zone.
But salon discourse defaulted to assuming carnality to be heterosexual. Although homoerotic possibilities between women eventually made their way into the salon dynamic, they were not part of the basis for the debates and conversations that form our evidence for their participants’ beliefs and ideas. So even as women expressed sentiments to each other in passionate and bodily terms, this was not necessarily treated as being in conflict with the emphasis on rationality. At least in the early stage of salon culture. Later we see criticism of platonic principles evolving to treat the focus on intellectual bonds as being asexual or prudish, rather than as anti-heterosexual. When interpreted in that way, the contrast with women’s observable passionate expressions of same-sex bonds could be re-categorized either as hypocrisy or as covert lesbianism. Which…ok, so is there a problem with that? But it does suggest that the prevailing understanding of platonic relationships wasn’t supposed to include sex. At least from the point of view of their male critics, who just might be a tad biased on that point.
If we have few direct glimpses into how female platonic friends were behaving in private, what can we glean from what they did write about their relationships? We know that platonic love encompassed admiration of physical beauty as well as intellect and personality. We know that essential qualities in a platonic lover included honesty and openness, empathy, the sharing of hearts and minds, faithfulness, and an equal return of love. We know that the word “love” was an essential component of discourse and that a falling off or betrayal of platonic bonds could break a heart. We know that women considered their platonic bonds with other women to be superior to relations with men, even when the practicalities of life might stand in the way, in part because it was free of the imperatives of economic or genealogical need. From women’s writings we know that same-sex platonic love could be expressed with vows, with embraces, with kisses, with sighs, with a hope for “raptured nights and tender days,” with a pledge to join “hearts, lips, and hands.” They compared their relationships to that of famous historical pairs, both male same-sex friendships and famous heterosexual couples.
If all those descriptions stop short of unambiguous descriptions of the sort of sexual relations their critics sometimes accused them of, let us note that women of the literary classes rarely wrote openly of sex with men either, and yet we know some of them were engaging in it! If neo-platonic literature focused on intellectual and spiritual bonds, it was a view of intellect and spirit that admitted sensual and physical expressions of love. And if the philosophy of platonic love sometimes openly rejected or derided sexual desire, we must keep in mind that “sex” was often defined solely within a heteronormative context.
So can we assume that women expressing platonic love to each other always shared what we would consider a sexual relationship? No, though it’s clear that sensual appreciation and expressions of love were considered an expected part of such relationships. But there are examples where the word “platonic” is definitely used in opposition – or at least contrast – to “erotic.”
Can we assume that platonic relationships were always considered incompatible with sexual activity? Equally no. If they were, the question wouldn’t have been up for debate in much of the philosophical literature. And some of those philosophers clearly considered erotics to be a parallel and independent dynamic from platonics. But it’s a reasonable interpretation that women who presented their love as platonic had a relationship that prioritized other attractions than erotic desire.
And this is where we come to question number three: does it matter? Is this the right question to ask? When we explore the question of how to understand or how to label female couples in history, why is the topic of sex given such primacy? Why is that the bright dividing line between how we classify relationships? Why should a description of two women in an intimate, loving partnership be met with derision if it describes them as “friends” as if that friendship doesn’t count unless we assume they were having sex? Conversely, why should the suggestion that they might be having sex be met with panic and horror?
The reflex to insist on one or the other position as a default is equally flawed. And relying on the proof (or the assumption) of sex as the requirement for finding queer reflections in the past is a fragile mirror, too easily shattered. If whole swathes of history are populated with platonic lovers, let us embrace them as part of the queer continuum, regardless of what they are or aren’t doing in bed. Because they are inherently queer. They have rejected the heteronormative paradigm in some degree, and they are part of our legacy.
In this episode we talk about Neo-Platonic philosophy, the evolution of the concept of “platonic love”, and the complications of interpreting the nature of women’s same-sex “platonic love” in historic contexts.
Links to the Lesbian Historic Motif Project Online
Links to Heather Online