![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Because I am very normal, I like to use my jstor access to read scholarly articles about history a whole lot. Mostly medieval history, but I do like to dabble, and I’m always interested in queer history. Recently, I’ve become very interested in a poem called simply Na Maria by a trobairitz called Bieiris de Romans. It is a very sweet and romantic poem, I think, and one written from one woman to another. I love it so much I’m writing historical fiction about it. This is what I like to do anyway (my fanfiction magnum opus is a 95k word lesbian historical au. With footnotes. And a bibliography.)
Anyway because I am writing historical fiction about this medieval poem, I am trying to read as much scholarship as possible on this medieval poem. And it has gotten EXHAUSTING, because scholars have spilled like three million buckets of ink on how it couldn’t possibly be gay, because it’s “about the Virgin Mary,” (this, at least, scholars have debunked, as well as one guy who asserted everyone was misreading the name Bieiris and it actually said “Alberic”), or that they’re “actually arguing over a man,” or, most popularly, that it reflects the language of courtly love poems between women that just express friendship which means that the language cannot possibly also reflect romance.
I do think this argument has some merit; intimate language between women was apparently normalized at the time. That Being Said, I’m also getting really annoyed at some of these scholars, who are I guess just presuming that ambiguous language can’t possibly hold multiple meanings. And who are all ignoring the very wonderful lesbian letters between nuns compared to the poem by John Boswell, who observes that they are similar in language. Thanks John Boswell. There’s probably an argument to be made that lesbian letters between a pair of medieval german nuns may not really be relevant to a medieval French poem, but I saw another scholar compare the poem to courtly literature that was like half a millennium older than it and also German, and about men (Charlemagne and one of his vassals, and jeez does it get homoerotic (but apparently this is a purely platonic descriptor that expresses courtly ties), so I kind of think this comparison is fine, actually.
Anyway I think I’m so mad about this because looking at the poem it feels so obvious to me, and yet people are hemming and hawing and writing entire academic papers to prove that it’s not even remotely possible that the poem could have even a grain of lesbian desire in it. What’s wrong with a poem being ambiguously queer? Why are we always required to “prove” queerness in history, but never straightness? Can one scholar sit down and point to me where the heterosexuality in this poem is? I have had enough.
Here’s a translation of the poem, translated by I think Marcelle Theibaux.
Lady Maria, your worth and excellence,
joy, understanding, and exquisite beauty,
the warmth of your welcome, your excellence and honor,
your elegant conversation and charming company,
your gentle face and amiable gaiety,
your gentle gaze and amorous mien—
all these things are yours, without deviousness.
And these things have drawn my truant heart to you.
For this reason I plead with you— if true love pleases you—
and my joyfulness and sweet submission
could elicit from you the succor that I need,
then give me, lovely woman, if it’s pleasing to you,
the gift in which I have most joy and hope.
For in you I have fixed my heart and desire,
and from you I have derived all my happiness,
and from you— so many times— my painful yearning.
And since your beauty and worth enhance you
above all women, so that no other is superior,
I plead with you— please! It would bring you honor,
too, not to love some suitor who’d betray you.
Glorious lady, woman, enhanced by worth, joy,
and gracious speech, my verses go to you.
For in you are gaiety and happiness,
and every good that one demands of a lady.
I wanted to let the poem speak for itself, but I have a bit of an observation. Something I noticed on this particular reread was Bieiris’ employment of the language of submission. That is a courtly trope- a knight in courtly love was expected to venerate, and yes, submit to, his lady. Why can’t Bieiris employing it here have a romantic meaning for her, too?
Anyway because I am writing historical fiction about this medieval poem, I am trying to read as much scholarship as possible on this medieval poem. And it has gotten EXHAUSTING, because scholars have spilled like three million buckets of ink on how it couldn’t possibly be gay, because it’s “about the Virgin Mary,” (this, at least, scholars have debunked, as well as one guy who asserted everyone was misreading the name Bieiris and it actually said “Alberic”), or that they’re “actually arguing over a man,” or, most popularly, that it reflects the language of courtly love poems between women that just express friendship which means that the language cannot possibly also reflect romance.
I do think this argument has some merit; intimate language between women was apparently normalized at the time. That Being Said, I’m also getting really annoyed at some of these scholars, who are I guess just presuming that ambiguous language can’t possibly hold multiple meanings. And who are all ignoring the very wonderful lesbian letters between nuns compared to the poem by John Boswell, who observes that they are similar in language. Thanks John Boswell. There’s probably an argument to be made that lesbian letters between a pair of medieval german nuns may not really be relevant to a medieval French poem, but I saw another scholar compare the poem to courtly literature that was like half a millennium older than it and also German, and about men (Charlemagne and one of his vassals, and jeez does it get homoerotic (but apparently this is a purely platonic descriptor that expresses courtly ties), so I kind of think this comparison is fine, actually.
Anyway I think I’m so mad about this because looking at the poem it feels so obvious to me, and yet people are hemming and hawing and writing entire academic papers to prove that it’s not even remotely possible that the poem could have even a grain of lesbian desire in it. What’s wrong with a poem being ambiguously queer? Why are we always required to “prove” queerness in history, but never straightness? Can one scholar sit down and point to me where the heterosexuality in this poem is? I have had enough.
Here’s a translation of the poem, translated by I think Marcelle Theibaux.
Lady Maria, your worth and excellence,
joy, understanding, and exquisite beauty,
the warmth of your welcome, your excellence and honor,
your elegant conversation and charming company,
your gentle face and amiable gaiety,
your gentle gaze and amorous mien—
all these things are yours, without deviousness.
And these things have drawn my truant heart to you.
For this reason I plead with you— if true love pleases you—
and my joyfulness and sweet submission
could elicit from you the succor that I need,
then give me, lovely woman, if it’s pleasing to you,
the gift in which I have most joy and hope.
For in you I have fixed my heart and desire,
and from you I have derived all my happiness,
and from you— so many times— my painful yearning.
And since your beauty and worth enhance you
above all women, so that no other is superior,
I plead with you— please! It would bring you honor,
too, not to love some suitor who’d betray you.
Glorious lady, woman, enhanced by worth, joy,
and gracious speech, my verses go to you.
For in you are gaiety and happiness,
and every good that one demands of a lady.
I wanted to let the poem speak for itself, but I have a bit of an observation. Something I noticed on this particular reread was Bieiris’ employment of the language of submission. That is a courtly trope- a knight in courtly love was expected to venerate, and yes, submit to, his lady. Why can’t Bieiris employing it here have a romantic meaning for her, too?
