This post is so wrong. So wrong. Every time I see it I get irritated, but I don’t feel like I can argue with it directly because it’s mostly wrong in the “gross oversimplification” manner rather than anything specific to its point (not that I’m entirely sure what that point is... oh well....)
But like. Contrary to what the wording suggests, there was no ONE point in history in which queerness suddenly became unacceptable and was censored everywhere. That’s not how history works. Leaving aside the fact that making generalizations about locations ALL OVER THE WORLD, over a very vast and poorly defined period of time, is never going to yield a solid argument, whether or not a given piece of literature was “acceptable” or “normal” in its portrayal of queerness is heavily context dependent, and how it’s received is going to go through cycles. People have been denying the queerness of Sappho’s poetry since antiquity! Certainly one would expect the nature of that denial to shift depending on the era, but using that as an example of something that was considered “normal” at its time is just misleading.
(Which, relatedly.... so many posts about how queerness was universally accepted in The Past seem to completely ignore misogyny and patriarchy. “Oh, it was totally fine and expected to express attraction to your own gender” I mean sure, to a degree.... for men. For M E N. f/f relationships were often perceived and treated very differently.)
Every single era in which something is published has varying and often contradictory ideas about sexuality and gender and relationships. And the way in which those elements of a given work are construed is very dependent on context and specific audience. (Because, you know, the past is not a monolithic entity, but rather populated by many diverse people and organized according to many complex institutions.) Like, just looking at Western society now - narratives about what queerness /is/, and what it means, and whether or not or under what circumstances it’s acceptable, are so, so different depending on where you are, what you’re talking about, and what subcultures you’re interacting with! I don’t know why people expect historical periods and locations to be any different! Like, in the English Renaissance, for example - attitudes towards homosexuality were actually very complicated! It’s not just something that can be distilled into “it was accepted” or “it was condemned.” (I mean, what do we even mean by “acceptance”? How are we even constructing relationships and personal identity under this model? This all has to be teased out.)
I feel I’m not being very coherent, but basically - treating the past as some sort of amorphous blob in which queerness was totally normal and accepted right up until it wasn’t, at which point everything was censored and completely unacceptable, is inaccurate and does a disservice both to the censorship that happened in antiquity and after AND to the ways in which people were able to express those sorts of feelings even in the face of repression. Good day!
(Also, one final note - Catullus 16 is not an example of censored queerness. The meaning of that poem is basically just “If you don’t like my work, then suck my dick.” Catullus did write poems about other men, and those actually would be an example of something that’s considered ~queer~ today but was fairly unremarkable at the time, but that’s not what’s going on in number 16. Oh my god.)














