Dogma Style

Forster’s use of Plato’s Symposium as a feature in the novel Maurice lends a classical foundation to the theme of the novel.The ancient Greeks were accepting of sexual relationships between members of the same sex, even though the Law specified that a man should take a wife. Contrast that with the prevailing attitudes of Maurice’s day: the Law was the same, take a wife, yet there was no tacit understanding that one could have sexual relations outside that social framework as there was in Plato’s time.

While Maurice broke ground for its day, it can be seen as just a modern adaptation of Plato’s dialogue on the subject of sexuality. Just as Plato acknowledged the proverbial white elephant in the room by bringing sexuality out into public discourse, Forster aims for the same goal, although it would take years for the novel to reach a wide audience. The turn of the 20th century was a time of great changes in our society. The world was becoming smaller through communications. The geographic world as we know it had been discovered and mapped. Forster lived in a modern era of enlightenment where, it seemed at the time, there was little more to discover. Naturally the thinking man should turn his light of discovery inward toward his most intimate of secrets: sexuality.

In Maurice’s time a man branded with the label of homosexual would face grave, even fatal consequences. The prudent, noble man would have no use for such selfish and self-indulgent proclivities. It would run afoul of virtues, honor, and the Christian morals that had become the basis for what is socially acceptable in England. Man was to serve one God, one country, and one woman and family. The Greeks served many gods, some masculine and some feminine. The ideals of virtue and honor held true in Plato’s time, yet the concept of morals had not been corrupted by monotheistic dogma. Simply put, Plato’s characters enjoyed the passions of their bodies without the guilt that modern religion had instilled in the society of Maurice’s time.

The simplistic contrast and comparison notwithstanding, man (and woman) are complex beings with many needs beyond the prurient. When “descent” society dictates with whom these personal needs may be met, a part of the soul is left un-nurtured. If we are creations of God, made in his image, then would it not stand to reason that the needs of the flesh are to be satisfied by flesh just as the needs of the soul are to be nourished by God? These are innate parts of the human experience: created by God, stifled by Dogma.