Englishmen, he was also late in life a pander of Italian boys in Venice. 36 There was, as A. O. J. Cockshut says, "an absolute gulf" between Rolfe's conduct in Italy and his ideal of friendship:
|
| | When Rolfe writes of homosexuality, he invariably does so in the coarsest, most brutal way. He can only write of it when all his higher aspirations, whether toward God or the imaginary friend, are laid asleep. His higher and lower nature can never be on stage together. There is absolutely nothing corresponding to the wistful talk about the love that dare not speak its name. And the imagined, long-desired, impossible perfect friendship is utterly chaste. 37
|
Love, in Rolfe's view, had nothing to do with the flesh. As he wrote to Temple Scott about "heterosexuality":
|
| | Carnal pleasure I thoroughly appreciate, but I like a change sometimes. Even partridges get tiresome after many days. Only besotted ignorance or hypocrisy demurs to carnal lust, but I meet people who call that holy which is purely natural, and I am stupefied. I suppose we all deceive ourselves. To blow one's nose (I never learned to do it) is a natural relief. So is coition. Yet the last is called holy, and the first passes without epithets. Why should one attach more importance to one than to the other? I don't think that I want to know.
|
| | Some talk of wickedness, and vulgarly confound the general with the particular. Of course you re wicked, every instant that you spend uncontemplative of, uncorresponding to, the Grace and Glory of your Maker. That may be forgiven, for that Real Love forgives. 38
|
Such logic, in Cockshut's opinion, plunged Rolfe into a self-destructive state of mind during his final years of penury and paranoia. He yielded to "an amalgam of two separate and partly opposite impulses: theological despair, and a desire, by piling sin on sin, to punish God for not taking him at his own valuation and making him a priest." 39
|
In Stoddard's far sunnier Catholicism, which Rolfe would have considered self-deceiving, the spiritual and the carnal were happily wedded, without any sense that he was heaping sin upon sin. Publicly, of course, Stoddard seemed to conform to "the ideology of nonsexual Christian brotherhood," which "legitimized (nonphysical) intimacy between men by precluding the possibility that such intimacy could be defined as sexual." 40 As George Chauncey, Jr., has shown in regard to the Newport scandal of 1919 and 1920, in which Episcopal and other Protestant leaders leapt to the defense of a fellow clergyman accused by the United States Navy of "lewdness" in his ministry to sailors, the churchmen's stigmatizing of same-sexual acts, rather than individual disposi-
|
|