pothos.org

Amynotoros: Isn't it in this site, under "Lovers" section that we read the quote from Curtius?

Euxenippus was a boy "still very young and a favourite of Alexander's because he was in the prime of his youth" (Curt. 7.9)

I wasnt suggesting anything else rather than that. Nor i was trying to force an answer from you by suggesting pedophilia as you said, so that you can definately reply as i wish. Oh, you should have known me better by now. Any misinterpretation from my side is unintentional and mostly due to rush, not anything deliberate.

If you have noticed i usually use the word teenagehood, or teenagers, exactly as to not be misinterpetated. But in this case Justin, Aelian and Curtius talk about boys, which means the same to them, boys as in not yet adults. And Curtius said "a boy still very young", which means a young teenager. So i used that. Young boys as in teenagers and young teenagers.

The rest in a little while.

I believe that these sexuality debates should focus on correctly quoted sources; should show an understanding of ancient culture; should not reflect any personal bias, prejudice, or intolerance; and should not be offensive to our gay members and readers. This is not the answer that you were seeking but it needs to be said.

As a gay member and reader, I would like to thank you for this, Amyntoros. The constant negative implications about homoeroticism, the equations of it with pedophilia, promiscuity, exploitation, "unmanliness," cowardice, weakness, etc., that I see in these arguments, I find deeply offensive, and I'm sure that others do too.

Karen

So, the Athenians, and other Greeks too, often used to bring "hetaires", and "pallakides", to a symposium who sat with them at their "anaklindra", and sometimes after the wine they would begin sexual games and all that. This is not actually an orgy. The Roman aristocracy on the other hand, used to expand this kind of festivity to the point that they also got mixed all toghether, and thus created an orgy. When people talk about the Roman orgies, they usually include everything out of the ordinar that they did, including excessive eating, the vomiting afterwards in order to eat more, and the sex and all that.

Some people tend to mix up the Roman orgy, with a Greek symposium. That isnt of course the case. The Greek symposium was the lighter version of the Roman orgy, and most of the times the symposium went on with just wine drinking, and discussions. And we are always talking about the people that had the money to do that.

Things in Macedonia were not much different in the royal palace, maybe a little more excessive, as they drank the wine unmixed with water, "akratos oinos". The pallakides were also included in the main course. For boys i cannot speak, as i dont have any information.

But what we know about Alexander, is that he was not like his father in these matters. We know that he was self controled in matters of sex. As people might say, we were not in his tent as to know for certainty. But we get a general picture. That of course does not mean that there werent some times where he might have taken part in some sex games. But we just dont have that kind of information.

Justin, Curtius, and Claudius Aelianus. Find out what do they have in common, and you win. I will only say at this point that the work of Athenaeus has many historical innacuracies, and he is considered to be a gossiper, even more than Curtius was. That doesnt mean that their work doesnt contain interesting and soetimes valuable information (such as Aethenaus' books), but they are not to be based uppon either.

That comes in connection with the famous quote of Plutarch about the boys from Corinth and the reaction of Alexander. Why would Alexander reject them and be so mad about it, since according to Justin, Aelian, and Curtius he liked boys? What difference do they have with the two eunuchs that were in the Persian King's service and later on in Alexander's service? Euxenippus and Bagoas were the equivalent of the hetaires. It just doesnt fit. If Alexander had been fond of handsome boys, and since he supposedly had affairs with the two eunuchs, he wouldnt reject the Corinhtian boys.

That's my view on the matter. On what actually happened with Bagoas and Euxenippus, i dont know. And i dont think that there is anyone that can answer that with certainty. If the Roman writters were correct, then that means that Plutarch for example was incorrect about Alexander's personality, and so we must review many of the aspects that we know and that he informs us of.

The constant negative implications about homoeroticism, the equations of it with pedophilia, promiscuity, exploitation, "unmanliness," etc., that I see in these arguments, I find deeply offensive, and I'm sure that others do too.

What exactly do you find offensive Karen? Do you believe that the practise of pederasty among an adult and a teenage boy, as according to some people happened, is good? Well i dont. Did someone say that you are doing something wrong? You are being defensive about you being homosexual, and i understand it because our society may have made you feel that way, but our discussion here now is about men that seduce teenagers. And why some people protest that this didnt happen in the way that some scholars think it did. This doesnt have anything to do with homosexuality as being something right or wrong.

What exactly do you find offensive Karen?

I reiterate:

The constant negative implications about homoeroticism, the equations of it with pedophilia, promiscuity, exploitation, "unmanliness," weakness, cowardice, etc., that I see in these arguments

Do you believe that the practise of pederasty among an adult and a teenage boy, as according to some people happened, is good? Well i dont. Did someone say that you are doing something wrong? You are being defensive about you being homosexual, and i understand it because our society may have made you feel that way, but our discussion here now is about men that seduce teenagers. And why some people protest that this didnt happen in the way that some scholars think it did. This doesnt have anything to do with homosexuality as being something right or wrong.

Well, I just went back and read your first post on this thread, and it far from confines itself to men seducing teenagers. Mostly it's about Alexander and Hephaistion, but at one point you wrote "That alone excludes any homoerotic relationship with anyone at that point." You also make reference to Alexander and "men." The current episode of this tedious debate started with Kenny decrying the Stone movie for portraying Alexander having sexual relationships with Hephaistion and Bagoas (who as played by Francisco Bosch is very adult).

Of course no one approves of pedophilia. But as several people have tried to explain to you, pedophilia is not homosexuality, and most of this debate has been about homosexuality. You can't change that by changing the subject now.

No, I am not being defensive about me being homosexual. I feel no shame about my sexual orientation, however much "society," or at least some portions of it, would like me to. I just think it's wrong that people be despised for it, and I have not only a right, but an obligation, to say so. I wonder if you understand where I'm coming from here -- that it is still possible to get beaten up or even killed for being gay, in 2007, in western nations?

What makes something wrong rather than right is that it harms somebody. What makes sexual behaviour harmful is if it's forced on someone, if they are not in a position to consent or refuse. This is why rape is harmful and a crime, why sexual abuse of children is harmful and a crime (a child is not in a position to refuse an adult since all adults are in positions of authority relative to a child), and why sexual harassment in the workplace is harmful and a crime (an employee is not in a position to safely refuse a boss). But sex between people who freely agree to it, whoever they are, harms no one. (Unless one is cheating on a partner, but that's another issue.) That's why it's not harmful and that's why in societies that have freed themselves of religious prejudice, it's not a crime.

Discriminating against someone for who they have consensual sex with, on the other hand, does cause harm, and thus has been made a crime in many countries (including my own, Canada).

Karen

P.S. Note to Paralus: you and I have had our differences, but I have to tell you that when I read "Nobody expects the Sexual Inquitision" I laughed so hard I almost fell off my chair.

Yes I know I said no more but…

karen wrote:What makes something wrong rather than right is that it harms somebody. What makes sexual behaviour harmful is if it's forced on someone, if they are not in a position to consent or refuse. This is why rape is harmful and a crime, why sexual abuse of children is harmful and a crime (a child is not in a position to refuse an adult since all adults are in positions of authority relative to a child), and why sexual harassment in the workplace is harmful and a crime (an employee is not in a position to safely refuse a boss).

Ahh, let’s see…Yes, yes, yes. Yes, yes and yes. And I could not have put it better had I written it. Now, excuse me a minute….

Efstathios wrote: But what we know about Alexander, is that he was not like his father in these matters. We know that he was self controled in matters of sex. As people might say, we were not in his tent as to know for certainty.

Oh garbage. Whatever we have about Alexander is almost all well after the fact and excusatory, idolising and moralising in tone. Those which aren’t you dismiss as “unreliable”. We have far less hero worship when it comes to the accounts (that which we have) of his father. Too, these are much more readily accepted.

karen wrote:Discriminating against someone for who they have consensual sex with, on the other hand, does cause harm, and thus has been made a crime in many countries (including my own, Canada).

Yes again. Except, of course, to the south of your border. If you look among those states down there, you’ll find one tucked away headed by a Prime Minister John Howard who refuses to recognise same sex marriages or unions.

karen wrote:P.S. Note to Paralus: you and I have had our differences

Really? I hadn’t noticed. That nursing home bed approaches….

karen wrote:…I have to tell you that when I read "Nobody expects the Sexual Inquitision" I laughed so hard I almost fell off my chair.

I’m glad. At least someone got the point. If only Stathi had taken it the same way. Let’s face it, he is the inquisitor no? Where is William of Baskerville when you need him?

Hi Paralus:

When you said states south of the border of Canada I immediately and naturally thought of certain united ones... let's not talk about the status of gay rights there. Aren't Aussies mad at Howard for supporting Bush in his middle eastern madness? Anyway, it's just a matter of keeping at it. Discrimination based on sexual orientation has been in the Canadian Bill of Rights for at least a decade, or perhaps two, but same-sex marriage only just became legal here.

Re the inquisition, I'm sure many more than me got the point. I'm out of the closet, don't forget. Latent Montypythonality is a very common inclination, for all people often keep quiet about their leanings that way for fear of being judged perverse. I really think that if pythonuals -- other than the flaming ones -- were less straight-acting and more open and honest by, for instance, freely indulging their desire to recite the Dead Parrot Sketch or say "Wankel rotary engine" in public places, this would be a kinder, more tolerant world. But no, alas, it has to be all, you know, nudge nudge wink wink.

Unexpectedly,
Karen

You haven't lived until you have sang "The Lumberjack Song" in a logger bar up in the woods!

Effeminate...seems that's the crux of the whole debate about ATG's sexuality. The idea that a bunch of beefed up man killers (the heroized Macedonians on the Alexander Saropchagus come to mind) couldn't possibly find each other sttractive. It wasn't about being feminine...though that is certainly the modern view of many. Someone mentions homoerotic behaviour and the image of a certain stereotype immediately comes to mind for some.

As for the slave boys from Corinth..I have always felt that what offended ATG most was the idea that someone would dare to think he had to BUY it.

I have time constraints today and I would like to address some other threads so I will limit myself to the response below.

Efstathios wrote:Amynotoros: Isn't it in this site, under "Lovers" section that we read the quote from Curtius?

Euxenippus was a boy "still very young and a favourite of Alexander's because he was in the prime of his youth" (Curt. 7.9)

I wasnt suggesting anything else rather than that. Nor i was trying to force an answer from you by suggesting pedophilia as you said, so that you can definately reply as i wish. Oh, you should have known me better by now. Any misinterpretation from my side is unintentional and mostly due to rush, not anything deliberate.

If you have noticed i usually use the word teenagehood, or teenagers, exactly as to not be misinterpetated. But in this case Justin, Aelian and Curtius talk about boys, which means the same to them, boys as in not yet adults. And Curtius said "a boy still very young", which means a young teenager. So i used that. Young boys as in teenagers and young teenagers.

Well, Efstathios, I apologize if I misconstrued your intent in this instance. However, you did refer to several ancient sources when writing of “young” boys so I had no way of knowing that you were thinking only of this quote from Curtius. This is why I said that debates should focus on correctly quoted sources. Oh I realize that it is not always possible – that many general discussions do not need such references and that not every member has the quotes to hand – but when you are specifically addressing a certain excerpt and wish to discuss it in context then I believe we need to have the source before us. I’ll reproduce the full quote below for the purposes of discussion.

Curtius 7.9.19
[19] So he received the Sacae delegation courteously and gave them Euxenippus as their companion for the return journey. Euxenippus was still very young and a favourite of Alexander’s because he was in the prime of his youth, but though he rivaled Hephaistion in good looks he could not match him in charm, since he was rather effeminate.

How young do you think Euxenippus could have been to be trusted with this assignment? Fourteen? Fifteen? Less? A boy began his instruction as a page at the age of fourteen, I believe. Do you really think a boy still undergoing his education – a boy with no real experience of political or diplomatic relations - would have been removed from training and sent away with a foreign delegation which Alexander obviously meant to impress with his courtesy? It would not have been wise on Alexander’s part to send a youth who was still learning about how the army and the court functioned, nor would it have been gratifying to the Sacae delegation.

Curtius says that Euxenippus was “very young” and “in the prime of his youth”. As a delegate of the court, he would have been thought to be so if he were sixteen, seventeen, or even a couple of years older, don’t you think? Not every youth of the period had the exceptional skills and character of Alexander who commanded the army at sixteen, but I would say that this is the very earliest age at which one might expect a boy to be given such an assignment.

Taphoi has an alternative interpretation by the way and has stated in his book a belief that Euxenippus was actually Bagoas. I’ll leave it to him to provide the details, if he wishes, but as no one claims that Bagoas was a child my argument above still stands.

athenas owl wrote:As for the slave boys from Corinth..I have always felt that what offended ATG most was the idea that someone who dare to think he had to BUY it.

Exactly!

Best regards,

amyntoros wrote:Taphoi has an alternative interpretation by the way and has stated in his book a belief that Euxenippus was actually Bagoas. I’ll leave it to him to provide the details, if he wishes, but as no one claims that Bagoas was a child my argument above still stands.

There is no manuscript authority for the existence of anyone called "Euxenippus" at Alexander's court. This name is a rather wild interpolation by a modern editor of Curtius called Hedicke. The manuscripts of Curtius read "Excipinon" (Codices Bernensis, Florentinus, Leidensis, Vossianus) or "Escipinon" (Codex Parisinus). The Latin verb excipio can mean to greet or welcome. I think it likely therefore that Curtius meant that this young man was Alexander's Greeter or Welcomer (as well as one of his lovers). The Sacae delegation probably only spoke Persian and not Greek. Their escort therefore had to be someone who spoke Persian and Greek. Curtius also says that "Excipinon" was "not at all manly". Everything therefore suggests that he is Bagoas.

Best wishes,

Andrew

I have removed a post from this thread and, consequently, all the responses. Please read Sikander’s “Sticky” thread under Related to Public Forum post by Marcus where it is requested that members “refrain from discussing both personal modern views, for or against, orientation issues and personal likes and dislikes regarding private behaviours on this public forum and move such personal discussions to private email if they feel it worth doing.”

Regards,

Ah... i missed the post. Hadnt checked the forum for some hours, and look what happened. Anyway, it got out of hand i suppose.

And by the way, this forum limitation needs revising. Surely you cannot just ban a discussion by initially stating as defacto that homosexuality and mores were different than they are today, so one must not percieve it according to his own view, or the modern view. I just brought you some examples that state the opposite. it's like there is no antilogue to something that in my oppinion, and others' too, is wrong, or partially wrong.

However if you think that people that watch these discussions from schools e.t.c, might be offended, i abide to the rules and i wont say anything more. Although the internet is a vast open space where anyone can see discussions and things much worse.

But i strongly oppose to not continung a discussion like this because it might offend homosexual people, that they think that you are accusing them every time that this kind of discussion takes place, and get defensive, and your arguments are being rejected as homophobic, although you are reffering to ancient quotes. When i get statements like "the sexual preferences and genre does not play any role in one's behaviour" then what can i say? it's beyond my understanding.

I will respect your decisions, although i disagree. But i repeat, that i dont know what was written in the last post that was the fire-lighter for the deletions.

I have copies of all the posts, Efstathios. Please contact me by email if you wish to discuss this further.

Best regards,

karen wrote:Aren't Aussies mad at Howard for supporting Bush in his middle eastern madness? Anyway, it's just a matter of keeping at it.

This Aussie black duck is. There are lots more of us. We weren't even asked and not told until ship boarding time for the troops. Obama pegged JWH well though. His come-uppance is coming I suspect.

What really rankles is the Foxtel-like attention span that saw the US (and us) depart Afghanistan - without even a political marriage in place to settle the local lords - thus allowing the modern day versions of Spitamenes near enough to free hands.

Enough "modern" musing, I shall be upbraided by the mods.....