to do with homosexuality, or even his stated subject?" She finds herself forced to conclude that Mr. Hay must have felt "some urgent need to display his vast learning and erudition."

Lest I be accused of condemning without proof or explanation, here, briefly, are some of the complaints which I lodge against this famous article, and which quite prevent me from taking it seriously-whatever the degree of Mr. Hay's knowledge and competence, which I am not questioning.

To treat, in a review of homophile studies, of the "moral climate of Canaan in the time of the Judges," it would seem necessary to have one's eye open constantly for the possible homosexual implications of the facts mentioned, whatever they might be. It would also seem necessary to avoid going clear back to the Flood and so becoming entangled in all the complexities of the historical theories concerning the cultural history of the Middle-East in the first thousand years B.C. Yet, that is precisely what Mr. Hay has done; he tells us successively of the invasion of Egypt by the Hyksos, of the tribulation of the Levites, of the Sumerian cults, of the lunar cult and its rites, of the matriarchate, of the elaboration of the text of Deuteronomy, of the analogies between the unique God Yahweh and Baal, Elohim, etc. What is the relationship of all this to homosexuality?

True, it may be "the basic fabric" before which are unrolled the dramas of Sodom and Onan. But the scenery swallows up the rest of the stage!

This error would not be so bad if only this rubbish of data, historic, religious, sociological, did not swarm with inaccuracies and approximations.

There is, in the Old Testament, a word upon the interpretation of which are based all the theories of the biblical condemnation of homosexual practices: it is the word Kedeshim.

one

Whether the Kedeshim of whom the Bible speaks are considered as sacred prostitutes or as simple priests or "lay monks," or whether the homosexual practices are linked or not to the cults of "idols," the historian's whole perspective on the problem of the prohibition of these practices by the law of Israel is found to be modified.

Now, Mr. Hay does not seem to doubt the existence of the problem; he writes quite boldly: "Kedeshim, in Hebrew, signifies especially the holy sodomites." This is precisely the point which it was necessary to prove! Furthermore, he considers the Kedeshim as "berdaches" (those magicians of inverted sexuality of certain primitive peoples of North America), and he derives from all this discussion a conclusion, quite without foundation, concerning these noble "berdaches," devoted to their friends, not transgressing any law, and, in sum, enjoying officially a waiving of the laws of condemnation of Deuteronomy. It is truly astonishing!

Furthermore, Mr. Hay gives from the Code of Hammurabi and the Hittite Code interpretations of which the least that one can say is that they are not very solid and yet he hangs upon them a whole historic theory.

Even worse, Mr. Hay makes use of one of the most important words of his text by giving to it various meanings according to the humor of the moment. I refer to the word "sodomite" which is here used for "male prostitute," there for "onanist," etc.

I note in passing that, in his long explantion of the episode of the destruction of Sodom, Mr. Hay comes to the same conclusions as does the Rev. D. Sherwin Bailey ("Homosexuality and the Western Christian Tradition") without having the elementary honesty to give him the credit.* As for the authors cited in support

*Mr. Hay states he had not at that time. seen Dr. Bailey's book.

8