The central question that prompted the inquiry that guides this exam is regarding the role of male homoerotic desire in medieval romance. More narrowly, I am seeking to interrogate how, a feudal patriarchal society such as that of medieval France and to a more limited extent in England, that relies so heavily on fixed notions of heteronormative desire and gender roles, allows space in its literary texts to deal with these homoerotic desires.

At this point in my research, I'm finding that medieval romance, while it certainly promotes gender roles and categories of desire that support feudal patriarchal economic values, were probably read "with a grain a salt" by medieval noble readers. In other words, the courts at which the romances circulated understood that the romantic desires and courtships in these poems were hyperbolized and idealized. Real human beings only sought to imitate those courtships in limited ways.

While my initial question was how medieval readers/listeners resolved the seemingly inherent tensions between the heavily heteronormative relationships portrayed in the romances and the virtually ubiquitous moments of homoerotic attraction between men also contained in them, I have come to believe there was, in fact, no such tension for medieval readers. These two apparently contradictory vectors of desire are actually NOT at the expense of each other, but rather reveal a complex and highly specific brand of masculinity unique to men of the privileged estates.

How are these vectors not contradictory? The reason can be discovered by understanding the economic system underlying the cultural values embraced by the feudal aristocrats. In my neglectfully basic summation of the feudal system, wealth consolidation was enforced by an obsession with kinship networks and bloodlines. Heteronormative marriages were required in order for families to not only hold onto their coveted lands and assets, but was also the best means for acquiring more (until this system was eroded and the desire for "more" inspired the colonial gaze---but that's a whole other dissertation!) So, basically, if nobles wanted to remain in their privileged lifestyles, they abided by the rules of arranged and appropriated marriages. Thus, there was no need for romantic desire (or even erotic desire) to bring together spouses and force them to live in heternormative marriages. Finances took care of that. Actually....maybe not much has changed
since then...:)

Therefore, I'm arguing that thinly veiled (but not explicit) homoerotic desire was NOT seen as a threat to marriage or heteronormativity as a system, as it is in the contemporary moment--although with gay marriage increasingly being sanctioned, marriage has managed to only recently neutralize that threat through assimilation by including same-sex couples--and therefore was tolerated. This is not to say, however, that knights could don pink armor or attach fairy wings. Medieval codes of masculinity were strict and rigid. However, what I hope to illustrate is that the degree to which homoerotic desire between men was tolerated is parallel to the extent to which it served the function of enforcing the values and expectations of men's militant and feudal behaviors.

More to come soon...

PLEASE feel free to comment and offer feedback! Anyone who is interested!