Folks,The sexuality debate is getting a little tired. There have been a number of very confused and very confusing posts. Nearly everyone has been notably modern-minded in how they approach the issue - not a good starting point!If you were to ask Alexander whether he was gay or bisexual or heterosexual, he wouldnGÇÖt understand what you were referring to.For the record: The sexual identity of an Hellenic Ancient was not defined by their preference for men or women or boys (although the latter posed some ambiguous problems), it was defined by the role they assumed during a union; either active or passive, the former usually considered the more laudable, although the latter was not necessarily bad. Period.Between two GÇÿactiveGÇÖ mature males it would be assumed that their bond would be one of GÇÿPhiliaGÇÖ (friendship - but much more intense than we understand it) rather than GÇÿErosGÇÖ. These two forms of love are very distinct, although neither is less passionate than the other.To get a reasonable idea of how it might work read (donGÇÖt shake the heads) RenaultGÇÖs GÇÿLast of the WineGÇÖ, where a relationship develops over some years to maturity. She mightnGÇÖt be a world authority, but she gets closer to understanding the mechanics and emotions of male bonds between Ancients much better than we have in our discussions here. One of her key characters is named Lysis; this is done in a quite deliberate reference to Plato. IGÇÖll mention this again in a moment.Before the arguments start, let me list a few texts worth perusing. These would just be for starters.ARISTOPHANES - all of him. His humour can be very earthy and illustrates clearly that the sexual tags some people have persisted in using in their postings are entirely redundant.
PLATO - particularly the speech of Pausanias in the GÇÿSymposiumGÇÖ; GÇÿLysisGÇÖ - a pivotal critique of relationships based on both Philia and (briefly) Eros, and clearly the guide Renault reached for when treading through this minefield; GÇÿPhaedrusGÇÖ - more of the same but with a loftier emphasis.
ARISTOTLE (let us not forget, AlexanderGÇÿs personal tutor): GÇÿNicomachaean EthicsGÇÖ - the section dealing with male friendships, a subject Aristotle undoubtedly would have discussed with his charge at some point.Also, as an excellent overview of the subject, a quick glance at James DavidsonGÇÖs recent publication, GÇÿFishcakes and CourtesansGÇÖ.As an aside: I have never read or encountered second hand any reference to Spartan women shaving
The Sexuality Thing
Moderator: pothos moderators
Re: The Sexuality Thing (cont)
As an aside: I have never read or encountered second hand any reference to Spartan women shaving their heads. Furthermore, I would be astonished if the scurrilous Aristophanes, who includes Spartan women in his plays wouldnGÇÖt have made some joke of it if they did engage in this practice. He did not.We used to be in the habit of consulting contemporaneous texts and references on this forum, before positing theories. ItGÇÖs a habit, IGÇÖd suggest we return to.
Re: The Sexuality Thing
You guys should read more. I was sure I had read it. I dont have the reference, but I have lifeded this from my E files. Plutarch Lycurgus.
Refering of course to the Spartans.In their marriages, the husband carried off his bride by a sort of force; nor were their brides ever small and of tender years, but in their full bloom and ripeness. After this, she who superintended the wedding comes and clips the hair of the bride close round her head, dresses her up in man's clothes, and leaves her upon a mattress in the dark; afterwards comes the bridegroom, in his everyday clothes, sober and composed, as having supped at the common table, and, entering privately into the room where the bride lies, unties her virgin zone, and takes her to himself; and, after staying some time together, he returns composedly to his own apartment, to sleep as usual with the other young men.
Refering of course to the Spartans.In their marriages, the husband carried off his bride by a sort of force; nor were their brides ever small and of tender years, but in their full bloom and ripeness. After this, she who superintended the wedding comes and clips the hair of the bride close round her head, dresses her up in man's clothes, and leaves her upon a mattress in the dark; afterwards comes the bridegroom, in his everyday clothes, sober and composed, as having supped at the common table, and, entering privately into the room where the bride lies, unties her virgin zone, and takes her to himself; and, after staying some time together, he returns composedly to his own apartment, to sleep as usual with the other young men.
-
Tre
Re: The Sexuality Thing (cont)
Hello Aengus!It's only tiring to those who sorta 'get it,' but unfortunately a lot of people don't and don't want to, let alone the differences in being an eromenos and an erastes, the social implications of such and the impossibility of switching roles. One can only get into so much detail on the Forum when trying to be basic. And the whole area of sexuality is written about by Athenians and therefore has an Athenian slant. The best contemporary book on Ancient Greek Homosexuality is the one by Kenneth Dover which also contains good pictures of the vase paintings and what I consider a reasonable discussion of the art and its inferences as to practices for those who care to read further. It does not however, address Alexander and Hephaistion or same age same sex practices of Macedonian males, dealing mainly with the Athenian model. As for Renault's book "The Last of the Whine" (OK I couldn't resist), it's not one of her better books IMHO, however, in the Persian Boy she makes a major mistake by casting Alexander as Hephaistion's eromenos through Bagoas' thoughts of him being Hephaistion's 'boy.' Simply wouldn't happen. Dave, have some mercy - it would take ages to read through all of this stuff and Aengus is about as well read as we get on this forum, but thank you for illustrating once again you have to be careful when thowing out a spear on the forum - it can turn into a boomerang at any time and I have an occasional lump to prove it 
I must admit to some laziness of late about citing references when I write, so I suppose I am equally guilty.It's people that make this forum interesting because not everyone is at the same degree level of study, and there is certainly an element of fun ducking and dodging as we wade through the minefield we call the ancient world. If we can teach one person something new, it's all worth the ride.Regards,Tre
I must admit to some laziness of late about citing references when I write, so I suppose I am equally guilty.It's people that make this forum interesting because not everyone is at the same degree level of study, and there is certainly an element of fun ducking and dodging as we wade through the minefield we call the ancient world. If we can teach one person something new, it's all worth the ride.Regards,TreRe: The Sexuality Thing
Dave,I understand your point. However, I have three translations of Plutarch's Lives and in the relevant passage (Lykurgus XIV) they select the verb 'cut' twice and 'trim' once. No one mentions shaving.I'm not being a stickler, but there's a world of difference between a short-cut (even a crew-cut) and a skinhead.Laters. A.
Re: The Sexuality Thing
Agreed. But I would say that the error is in a modern interpretation. Shaving over cutting short is a grey area. At army boot camp they shave the heads of the recruits, but this is using clippers. I think this is clutching at straws. Why did'nt you mention this before? I mean no offence but you could have shared this before and helped rather than niggling over an interpretation. Saved in the dictionary does say remove hair with a razor. Slang is different, and I know should not be used in historical study. But this is a forum. I am not sure who posted this originally, I know I had a dig about using modern sources as well, but I think this is a bit petty.Dj
Re: The Sexuality Thing (cont)
A very fulsome compliment there, Tre; not sure it's entirely deserved, but thank you.In regard to Renault's casting of Alexander as eromenos: Although I can't recall where I encountered it, I did read a snippet that argued for Achilles playing eromenos to Patroclus' erastes. Not the conventional way to view the gruesome twosome, I grant you. However, if this was a view that she (Renault) thought to be current at the time of Alexander, she may have felt justified in applying it to his nibs on the grounds that he would automatically emulate his greatest hero.Personally, I don't agree with it. I cannot see Alexander assuming a passive/receiving role in anything, irrespective of what precedents might have been set by heroes, except when he was very young.You're right to point out that most of our knowledge of Hellenic sexuality is taken from the Athenian point of view. The list I cite is made up of an entirley Athenocentric bunch. Nonetheless, given the Macedonian court's penchant for taking its lead in matters social from Athens (from the time of Archelaus onward, at least), I would be surprised if there were any marked differences in sexual behaviour. Perhaps a narrowing of the age gap that Plato implies as suitable between participants - he can be quite puritanical, especially when contrasted with Aristophanes.I think we ought to approach the issue as simply as possible. Exploring the nuances is difficult in this day and age, without getting bogged down by our own preconceptions. Active or Passive remain for me the two broad categories of sexuality for all inhabitants of the Ancient world - men, women, children, the lot. I have no doubt that they themselves would be baffled by our own era's obsession with a more particular labelling system.Haven't read the book you cite. Is his name really Ken Dover? Christ alive! One slip of the tongue, and that could become a hilarious name for an expert on Greek sexuality.Laters. A.
Re: The Sexuality Thing
Maybe it is petty, but I had a reason. P Dubois implied in previous posts that the Spartan grooms would have their intended brides' hair shaved off so as to make her more attractive. It was part of the whole homoerotic debate that's been droning on for the last week or so.This, in a word, is nonsense. The clipping she received was more likely ceremonial, probably part of a purification ritual. And it wasn't a shave.I'm not trying to score points - honestly. If I didn't cite Lykurgus immediately, it's because I didn't know that passage was the one being used to support the shaving theory. Why? Because it says nothing about shaving - it mention trims or cuts instead. Not that I know Lykurgus intimately - I don't. But I do know that if, while reading it years ago, I had read there of skinhead Spartan women, I would have remembered it. Because no such memory existed, I didn't look there until you referred me to the passage. Now! Does that explain why I didn't stump up the required clarifications immediately?
-
Tre
Re: The Sexuality Thing (cont)
Hello Aengus!A very fulsome compliment there, Tre; not sure it's entirely deserved, but thank you.Well, I have read your book excerpt, not to mention your previous contributions and some of your reviews on Amazon. Michael Wood's ears are still burning You know your King - it's the highest compliment I can give.In regard to Renault's casting of Alexander as eromenos: Although I can't recall where I encountered it, I did read a snippet that argued for Achilles playing eromenos to Patroclus' erastes. Not the conventional way to view the gruesome twosome, I grant you. However, if this was a view that she (Renault) thought to be current at the time of Alexander, she may have felt justified in applying it to his nibs on the grounds that he would automatically emulate his greatest hero.I think perhaps, she did it for dramatic effect and somewhat of an explanation as to why Alexander was not particularly active sexually in the context of the book. And darn, I have read the Akilleus as eromenos to Patroclus' erastes as well, but not sure where. Probably in one of the plays no doubt.Personally, I don't agree with it. I cannot see Alexander assuming a passive/receiving role in anything, irrespective of what precedents might have been set by heroes, except when he was very young.Actually, his standing as a prince of the royal house would have allowed no one to be his erastes - it would have had to be a social superior, and there was no one outside of his father who qualified.You're right to point out that most of our knowledge of Hellenic sexuality is taken from the Athenian point of view. The list I cite is made up of an entirley Athenocentric bunch. Nonetheless, given the Macedonian court's penchant for taking its lead in matters social from Athens (from the time of Archelaus onward, at least), I would be surprised if there were any marked differences in sexual behaviour. Perhaps a narrowing of the age gap that Plato implies as suitable between participants - he can be quite puritanical, especially when contrasted with Aristophanes.Macedonia being a war culture allowed for quite a bit of difference from the Athenian model, which was most certainly not practiced exactly as preached. However i would agree that the royal house was more classically Greek in its presentation with Kings seeking lovers from the page ranks, i.e. younger and of a socially acceptable level, whereas the pages sought lovers from their own age group and
You know your King - it's the highest compliment I can give.In regard to Renault's casting of Alexander as eromenos: Although I can't recall where I encountered it, I did read a snippet that argued for Achilles playing eromenos to Patroclus' erastes. Not the conventional way to view the gruesome twosome, I grant you. However, if this was a view that she (Renault) thought to be current at the time of Alexander, she may have felt justified in applying it to his nibs on the grounds that he would automatically emulate his greatest hero.I think perhaps, she did it for dramatic effect and somewhat of an explanation as to why Alexander was not particularly active sexually in the context of the book. And darn, I have read the Akilleus as eromenos to Patroclus' erastes as well, but not sure where. Probably in one of the plays no doubt.Personally, I don't agree with it. I cannot see Alexander assuming a passive/receiving role in anything, irrespective of what precedents might have been set by heroes, except when he was very young.Actually, his standing as a prince of the royal house would have allowed no one to be his erastes - it would have had to be a social superior, and there was no one outside of his father who qualified.You're right to point out that most of our knowledge of Hellenic sexuality is taken from the Athenian point of view. The list I cite is made up of an entirley Athenocentric bunch. Nonetheless, given the Macedonian court's penchant for taking its lead in matters social from Athens (from the time of Archelaus onward, at least), I would be surprised if there were any marked differences in sexual behaviour. Perhaps a narrowing of the age gap that Plato implies as suitable between participants - he can be quite puritanical, especially when contrasted with Aristophanes.Macedonia being a war culture allowed for quite a bit of difference from the Athenian model, which was most certainly not practiced exactly as preached. However i would agree that the royal house was more classically Greek in its presentation with Kings seeking lovers from the page ranks, i.e. younger and of a socially acceptable level, whereas the pages sought lovers from their own age group and-
Tre
Re: The Sexuality Thing (cont)
Hello Aengus!A very fulsome compliment there, Tre; not sure it's entirely deserved, but thank you.Well, I have read your book excerpt, not to mention your previous contributions and some of your reviews on Amazon. Michael Wood's ears are still burning You know your King - it's the highest compliment I can give.In regard to Renault's casting of Alexander as eromenos: Although I can't recall where I encountered it, I did read a snippet that argued for Achilles playing eromenos to Patroclus' erastes. Not the conventional way to view the gruesome twosome, I grant you. However, if this was a view that she (Renault) thought to be current at the time of Alexander, she may have felt justified in applying it to his nibs on the grounds that he would automatically emulate his greatest hero.I think perhaps, she did it for dramatic effect and somewhat of an explanation as to why Alexander was not particularly active sexually in the context of the book. And darn, I have read the Akilleus as eromenos to Patroclus' erastes as well, but not sure where. Probably in one of the plays no doubt.Personally, I don't agree with it. I cannot see Alexander assuming a passive/receiving role in anything, irrespective of what precedents might have been set by heroes, except when he was very young.Actually, his standing as a prince of the royal house would have allowed no one to be his erastes - it would have had to be a social superior, and there was no one outside of his father who qualified.You're right to point out that most of our knowledge of Hellenic sexuality is taken from the Athenian point of view. The list I cite is made up of an entirley Athenocentric bunch. Nonetheless, given the Macedonian court's penchant for taking its lead in matters social from Athens (from the time of Archelaus onward, at least), I would be surprised if there were any marked differences in sexual behaviour. Perhaps a narrowing of the age gap that Plato implies as suitable between participants - he can be quite puritanical, especially when contrasted with Aristophanes.Macedonia being a war culture allowed for quite a bit of difference from the Athenian model, which was most certainly not practiced exactly as preached. However i would agree that the royal house was more classically Greek in its presentation with Kings seeking lovers from the page ranks, i.e. younger and of a socially acceptable level, whereas the pages sought lovers from their own age group and
You know your King - it's the highest compliment I can give.In regard to Renault's casting of Alexander as eromenos: Although I can't recall where I encountered it, I did read a snippet that argued for Achilles playing eromenos to Patroclus' erastes. Not the conventional way to view the gruesome twosome, I grant you. However, if this was a view that she (Renault) thought to be current at the time of Alexander, she may have felt justified in applying it to his nibs on the grounds that he would automatically emulate his greatest hero.I think perhaps, she did it for dramatic effect and somewhat of an explanation as to why Alexander was not particularly active sexually in the context of the book. And darn, I have read the Akilleus as eromenos to Patroclus' erastes as well, but not sure where. Probably in one of the plays no doubt.Personally, I don't agree with it. I cannot see Alexander assuming a passive/receiving role in anything, irrespective of what precedents might have been set by heroes, except when he was very young.Actually, his standing as a prince of the royal house would have allowed no one to be his erastes - it would have had to be a social superior, and there was no one outside of his father who qualified.You're right to point out that most of our knowledge of Hellenic sexuality is taken from the Athenian point of view. The list I cite is made up of an entirley Athenocentric bunch. Nonetheless, given the Macedonian court's penchant for taking its lead in matters social from Athens (from the time of Archelaus onward, at least), I would be surprised if there were any marked differences in sexual behaviour. Perhaps a narrowing of the age gap that Plato implies as suitable between participants - he can be quite puritanical, especially when contrasted with Aristophanes.Macedonia being a war culture allowed for quite a bit of difference from the Athenian model, which was most certainly not practiced exactly as preached. However i would agree that the royal house was more classically Greek in its presentation with Kings seeking lovers from the page ranks, i.e. younger and of a socially acceptable level, whereas the pages sought lovers from their own age group and-
Tre
Re: The Sexuality Thing - The rest of it
classically Greek in its presentation with Kings seeking lovers from the page ranks, i.e. younger and of a socially acceptable level, whereas the pages sought lovers from their own age group and there is certainly an implication in that tirade on Macedonian sexual practices, that males tended to be lovers well past adulthood. You know, like but different kind of scenario.I think we ought to approach the issue as simply as possible. Exploring the nuances is difficult in this day and age, without getting bogged down by our own preconceptions. Active or Passive remain for me the two broad categories of sexuality for all inhabitants of the Ancient world - men, women, children, the lot. I have no doubt that they themselves would be baffled by our own era's obsession with a more particular labelling system.Alexander would have punched someone in the face who asked such questions, that's for sure :-)Haven't read the book you cite. Is his name really Ken Dover? Sir Kenneth J. Dover, indeed. Christ alive! One slip of the tongue, and that could become a hilarious name for an expert on Greek sexuality.You should enjoy his serious discussion of what err, length would be considered beautiful by Greek standards and whether or not certain acts pictured on the vases are possible or not, because he doesn't personally know Not to belittle the book, it is an excellent read but you will smile, and I'm sure he did too.Regards,Tre
Sorry for the double posting! Don't know how I did that.
Not to belittle the book, it is an excellent read but you will smile, and I'm sure he did too.Regards,TreSorry for the double posting! Don't know how I did that.
-
S
Re: The Sexuality Thing (cont)
Greetings,
Good point- I tend to forget that other people may not realize active versus passive was a focus; we've actually covered that long ago on this very Forum, using both Dover and Jeanne's work as a reference. But in reality, this is still a factor in modern perceptions about gays, Aengus. The question of who does what and how is somehow critical to some people, and it relates directly to the concept of active versus passive, so we haven't changed *that* much, eh?.
Ah well, on to other topics...
Regards,
Sikander
Good point- I tend to forget that other people may not realize active versus passive was a focus; we've actually covered that long ago on this very Forum, using both Dover and Jeanne's work as a reference. But in reality, this is still a factor in modern perceptions about gays, Aengus. The question of who does what and how is somehow critical to some people, and it relates directly to the concept of active versus passive, so we haven't changed *that* much, eh?.
Ah well, on to other topics...
Regards,
Sikander
Re: The Sexuality Thing (cont)
Tre,I agree, the intellectualism on the site is what draw me to it. Being an Aussie I have thrown my fair share of boomerangs *by cricky*. Bloomin thing often hitcha in the head. I have bruises of my own.
Re: The Sexuality Thing - The rest of it
Yes, that Michael Woods review - hammered out quite late one night after much wine and bellicose talk with some pals who put up with my antics in Egypt. He really does exaggerate a lot, though; his claims about the route between Siwah and Bahariya were positively farcical. If he were a serious academic his reputation would have been destroyed on the basis of that section alone. Perhaps I was a bit vitriolic. Still . . . at the time it felt quite good to apply the knife. It occurs to me that you're supported in regard to the age to which they, Macedonians, might continue their relationships - somewhat older than the norm.I think it's Lane Fox who cites Theopompus as saying of them (a bit gratuitously, I'd imagine) that "they are not restrained from buggery by the fact that they have beards", not to mention his other dig that the Companions were more like hetaerae than hetaeroi. Although he's not Antiquity's most reliable source, Theopompus' insinuation is pretty unambiguous.Actually, it would be interesting to have a look at this more closely. Anyone know offhand if Perseus or any other outfit have a translation of his fragments available online?Vis-a-vis the appropriate 'length': one of the reasons offered for a certain minimalism in Hellenic sculpture is that the relevant proportions were carefully worked out so as to distract as little as possible from the overall physique, which was considered the serious object of desire. Too much would be obscene and tacky; too little risible. It works actually. I first saw it years ago, but I still think the Hermes by Praxiteles in Olympia is one of the most serenely beautiful figures ever sculpted, Cellini's Perseus in Florence coming a close second. In both instances, a more lifelike attention to the relevant detail would only detract.Very silly of me to overlook the obvious social reason why Alexander could never play eromenos to anyone's erastes. Thanks for the direction.I noticed this morning over coffee that Davidson in 'Fishcakes and Courtesans' refers to Dover frequently. It's also interesting to note his insistence in his introduction that Greek sexuality remains a much misunderstood and under-researched area.By the way, you're not exactly an amateur on the knowledge front yourself. I recall very few of your spears turning into boomerangs.Laters. A.
-
H
Re: The Sexuality Thing (cont)
Hello Aen
I have enjoyed reading your postings, and I salute you as a fellow Alexandrian, but gotta tell ya - your last para - re: Ken Dover - was almost responsible for me showering my screen and keyboard with early morning coffee as I strove heroically to contain my laughter. Love your sense of humour!
Halil
I have enjoyed reading your postings, and I salute you as a fellow Alexandrian, but gotta tell ya - your last para - re: Ken Dover - was almost responsible for me showering my screen and keyboard with early morning coffee as I strove heroically to contain my laughter. Love your sense of humour!
Halil