Maurice Keen R.I.P

I was extremely sorry to learn today of the death yesterday of the distinguished Oxford historian aurice Keen, Fellow Emeritus of Balliol.

I first became aware of him as a schoolboy when I borrowed his first book, on Robin Hood and the outlaws of medieval legend from the local library in my home town. This was a book he was subsequently to state in print that he saw as completely superseded by the work of others.

In later years I read his now standard text book on England in the later middle ages and he was to produce what has become the standard book on Chivalry.

 When in 1993 I came to Oxford to discuss the possibilities of research I was sent by G.L. Harriss, after ameeting with him at Magdalen, to discuss matters with maurice keen at balliol. The meeting was in his book-lined room in the oldest part of the college, and we sat either side of an electric fire on a cold March 1st deciding that Richard Fleming was a much more fruitful or practical topic of enquiry than my other possible lines of enquiry

During the following years I attended his lectures on heraldry in the fourteenth century and worked on improving my Latin with his wife Mary's tutorial assisitance
Maurice Keen was very much a traditional tweed clad Oxford History don, with a traditional courtesy that included all he knew. I was once told that he had described me as one of the last gentlemen scholars. I could not say if that is true, but I am sure that he was both a scholar and a gentleman.

May he rest in peace.

John Boswell on Same-Sex Unions

The other day I was engaged in a triangular discussion with two friends online which started when one forwarded me this article about the late Professor John Boswell of Yale's The Marriage of Likeness: Same-Sex Unions in Pre-Modern Europe published in 1994, the year in which he died.

I have a copy of the Boswell book somewhere, though I have never got around to reading it fully. I recall that when it came out critics said it was very interesting - but, and it is a very important "but" - that their main point seemed to be that the unions he describes were matters of "friendship" or "brotherhood", and not "marriage" - i.e. non-sexual compacts.

Other examples of such pacts are recorded - Maurice Keen has a fascinating article on two early fifteenth century English knights agreeing a business partnership (shares in ransoms and prizes etc) as brothers-in arms rather on those lines. We may well not make sufficient allowance for the existence and forms of friendship and its impacty on medieval and early modern people simply because today we have only partial evidence.

Equally historians with a contemporary agenda may find themselves writing about what are in essence present issues in their work on the past, or indeed go looking for evidence of what they want to believe happened, not what did happen.

In particular in Boswell's book there does also appear to have been a misunderstanding of what are mainly Eastern Orthodox liturgies - a point made by modern Orthodox commentators.

There is a good demolition job of the Boswell thesis which can be read here.

What is perhaps surprising is that eighteen years after its publication the Boswell book, despite very serious criticism of its argument and use of evidence, is still being cited by advocates of same-sex marriage as though its conclusions were unchallenged and incontrovertible.