pothos.org

I am continuing the discussion about the "effeminate" thing here, and my reply to paralus, as to not make the post about music another "was Alexander gay or not rant".

Here it goes:

The boy liked the finer stuff and appeared to not like women

Dont concentrate your argument only to women. Actually he didnt think of sex important at that time, or maybe at any time during his life. And given the fact that his parents were afraid that he would become effeminate, we can exclude men also. His parents were at the point that they were afraid that he would become effeminate, not that he was.

That also makes any specculation about Alexander having something with Hephaestion non applicable. And if anyone argues about being effeminate had nothing to do with having something with a man at those times, i will ask this:

Would he become more effeminate by music and arts, and not by having something with another man? Meaning that his parents would be afraid of him being effeminate only because he was good with music, but not by supposedly having something lets say with Hephaestion?

That alone excludes any homoerotic relationship with anyone at that point. If Philip had suspected anything between Alexander and another man he would have surely intervened with his famous gentle manners. Yet he didnt try to take Alexander away from his friends. Not for that matter anyway.

All is based on the remark by the sources that his parents were afraid that he would become effeminate.

Also lets say that later on, that wasnt a matter anymore. He didnt give sex an important role in his life, but that didnt stop him of having a relationship with Barshine, early during the campaign. Or devoting many nights with the women that were send to him from all over the empire. To all these attest the sources for us.

Oh well, nothing of course excludes something with a man. But who might that man be? There is absolutely no indication about him and Hephaestion havng something during the campaign. And as i stressed above, probably not during teenagehood too.

And well, Bagoas cant be considered a man now, can he? And we get no indication that their relationship was something more than him attending for Alexander's massages e.t.c.

But there is something with Bagoas that needs further research. The information that Bagoas was an eunuch was given to us by Athenaus, who wasnt Alexander's biographer, and Curtius, who we know how reliable he was anyway.

Lets see what Plutarch writes about that matter:

We are told, too, that he was once viewing some contests in singing and dancing, being well heated with wine, and that his favourite, Bagoas, won the prize for song and dance, and then, all in his festal array, passed through the theatre and took his seat by Alexander's side; at sight of which the Macedonians clapped their hands and loudly bade the king kiss the victor, until at last he threw his arms about him and kissed him tenderly

Here Plutarch doesnt reffer to Bagoas as an eunuch, but a favorite. And we know that favorites were the boys that were send to Alexander to be at his court, and for paidagogic (educational) reasons only. Is it possible that Athenaus just mixed up this Bagoas with the other Bagoas, who indeed was an eunuch, and who killed Artaxerxes? And Curtius indeed refers to Bagoas as being Alexander's eromenos, which also means that he was his favorite, as for educational reasons. (See Plutarch's description about Erastis and Eromenos at Sparta and Athens, for further information).

Edit: Plus, it is not mentioned where the kiss was. It may have been at the chick.

Twenty something views and no comment: tells you something.

Stathi, that’s the most convoluted argument I think I’ve ever read. We should clear up one thing here. The quip from Philip about Alexander’s artistry with a lyre rests, for its punch, not on the fact that Alexander is good therefore effeminate, but that he had the time to become good at it. That he ever was able to find time to enjoy listening was the thing. As well, if you’re going to quote me do it properly:

Paralus wrote:The boy liked the finer stuff and appeared to not like women - unlike his rather ecumenical father. In any case, the fact is - as you say - it was part of the education. As Karen says, the boy had to learn the basics - of most everything - so as to be king. The point of Philip's jibe that he should be "ashamed” to play "so well" is as Plutarch says: "...for a king it is surely enough if he can find time to hear others play".

Really Stathi, it’s as if I’d quoted Andrew thus:

Taphoi wrote:The Alexander of the ancient sources was an artist...

To which I could say that the sources say absolutely no such thing. Alexander capable of a fourth century Sistine Chapel in Babylon? I think not.

Efstathios wrote: His parents were at the point that they were afraid that he would become effeminate, not that he was.

Not quite. It appears to me they were rather concerned at his distinct disinterest in female company and sought to alter an evident male behavioural “lapse” on the lad’s part. Which in no way rules out homoerotic relationships; just that there seemed no concomitant heteroerotic interest.

Efstathios wrote:If Philip had suspected anything between Alexander and another man he would have surely intervened with his famous gentle manners. Yet he didnt try to take Alexander away from his friends. Not for that matter anyway.

Why? Alexander was – like the sons of other leading Macedonian nobles – in the “school” of Pages. Did Philip ask Pausanias’ father to intervene? Did Alexander of Lyncestis ask his father to intervene? It was not unusual, nor was it unexpected. The lack of interest in a female was though.

Efstathios wrote: The information that Bagoas was an eunuch was given to us by Athenaus, who wasnt Alexander's biographer, and Curtius, who we know how reliable he was anyway.

Lets see what Plutarch writes about that matter:

We are told, too, that he was once viewing some contests in singing and dancing, being well heated with wine, and that his favourite, Bagoas, won the prize for song and dance, and then, all in his festal array, passed through the theatre and took his seat by Alexander's side; at sight of which the Macedonians clapped their hands and loudly bade the king kiss the victor, until at last he threw his arms about him and kissed him tenderly

Here Plutarch doesnt reffer to Bagoas as an eunuch, but a favorite. And we know that favorites were the boys that were send to Alexander to be at his court, and for paidagogic (educational) reasons only. Is it possible that Athenaus just mixed up this Bagoas with the other Bagoas, who indeed was an eunuch, and who killed Artaxerxes? And Curtius indeed refers to Bagoas as being Alexander's eromenos, which also means that he was his favorite, as for educational reasons. (See Plutarch's description about Erastis and Eromenos at Sparta and Athens, for further information).

Edit: Plus, it is not mentioned where the kiss was. It may have been at the chick.

I’d liked to have shortened that quote but, given my admonition above, thought better.

Leaving aside what we learn from ancients not writing directly about the subject of our interest (Polybius comes to mind), last things first. If we get down to where the kiss was placed we are missing the point entirely. For all we know Alexander may have given Bagoas a tongue in the ear. Fact is, he kissed him tenderly – as he would his “favourite". One gives a “polite” kiss to the hand; a peck to cheek or forehead. Where does one place a tender kiss?

This Bagoas is a “youth” or “young man”. This is the fellow “donated” as a youth in 329/8 by Narbazarnes. He is not to be confused with the serial regicide committer of some dozen years dead. The only possible other candidate is Bagoas son of Pahrnuches who, along with Oxyarthes (Darius’ brother), are the only two known Iranian Companions at the time of the mass weddings. I’d think it as likely that this fellow will have been doing a song and dance act for Alexander as would Ptolemy, Peucestas or Seleucus.

Finally, simply because you disagree with Curtius does not, per se, make him unreliable. All the four “sources” are “unreliable” in one way or another. Certainly none are entirely satisfactory. If you choose to dismiss Curtius, please do so on less specious grounds.

Efstathios wrote:Would he become more effeminate by music and arts, and not by having something with another man? Meaning that his parents would be afraid of him being effeminate only because he was good with music, but not by supposedly having something lets say with Hephaestion?

In a word, the answer is yes! I never expected to be quoting from a Wikipedia article, but here are a couple of excerpts from the Classical Definition of Effeminacy:

In Greek society, effeminacy (Greek: ἀνανδρία – anandria; μαλακία – malakia; Latin: mollites) was a term applied to men who were perceived as having the quality of unmanliness, softness or delicacy, shown by moral weakness, cowardice or a lack of perseverance. It was a condition of failure to live up to the ethical and social standards expected of a male citizen. It could also refer to races, cultures, and societies as a whole. . .

To the Greeks, men could be made either manly or effeminate. The Socrates character in Plato's The Republic observed that "too much music effeminizes the male; …when a man abandons himself to music to play upon him and pour into his soul as it were through the funnel of his ears those sweet, soft (malakos), and dirge-like airs of which we were just now speaking. . .” Music softens the high spirit of a man but too much 'melts and liquifies' that spirit making him into a feeble warrior. For Socrates, the guardians must be trained right "lest the habit for such thrills make them more sensitive and soft (malakoteroi) than we would have them."

So the word effeminate had different meanings in ancient times – something I’ve tried to explain before – and its use when refering to music has nothing whatsoever to do with attachments between men. (And a quick note here on the ‘moral weakness’ mentioned in the first quoted paragraph, lest it catch your attention. Morality and sexuality are not one and the same.)

Efstathios wrote:If Philip had suspected anything between Alexander and another man he would have surely intervened with his famous gentle manners. Yet he didnt try to take Alexander away from his friends. Not for that matter anyway.

We really need to direct you to some of the ancient sources on Philip’s own sexuality, don’t we? It may take me a while to gather them together, but rest assured that Philip would have had no concern for Alexander’s relationships with his friends. Wishing that his son would take up an interest in women is an entirely separate issue.

Best regards,

Greetings,

May I interject another thought? I think there is some confusion here between effeminate behaviour and homosexuality. While it is true that there are gay men who act in what some define as "effeminate", it is also true that there are gay men who act as masculine as any other male in whatever culture they happen to be in. It is also as true that heterosexual men fall into various behaviour patterns, including the fact that some heterosexual men "act effeminate" and some heterosexual men act in a manner more acceptable as "masculine" in their culture. This is because ways of being are inherently *human* and cultural constructs are used to define what, in each culture, constitutes "masculine" or "feminine" behaviours and characteristics. These assigned characteristics can vary greatly culture to culture.

In the past as today, I am certain that there were distinctions *in behaviour* amongst the homosexual men present in the Makedonian culture. I also have no doubt that people then, as now, differentiated between these behaviours since a "manly ideal" included the idea that a man was dominant in hissociety. It was a hierarchal culture, after all, with males at the top. Certain behaviours that would lead people to see a male "taking on a female role" would not be approved,especially in a warrior culture with a king at the top. but at no time does this mean that *all* male homosexuals would act in an effeminate manner. That the discussion is actually revolving around two separate issues- effeminacy and homosexuality- indicates that we are still making false assumptions about *all* male homosexuals and how they act.

That Philip and Olumpiada were concerned about Alexander being "effeminate" does not lead to the conclusion that they were concerned about same-sex attachments but that they *were* concerned about how those attachments would express themselves in terms of whether Alexander was seen as the dominant person in a relationship; it also points to a concern that he was *not* interested enough in women to lead them to see him as the dominant person. Had Alexander been more like his father- ie, having both male and female attachments in which he dominated- I suspect they would not have been so concerned.

I suspect that, having less-selective adults around him, Alexander made a decision early on to be the one in charge of who, when and how he would form attachments; it was part of his control over his surroundings, his "safety net", if you will, and his pride. But this doe snot lead one to conclude he formed no attachemnts, or that he formed *only* female attachments.

Finally, just because a man is castrated does not make him "effeminate" or less a man, despite some cultural mythology to the contrary.. War wounds,accidents and disease- then and now- can castrate men. This does not make them "less a man", though certainly, *because* of cultural attitudes, men can *perceive* of themselves as less than a full man.. but that attitude *can* be overcome, and often *must* be overcome for the man to lead a full life *as* a man..

Regards,
Sikander

Whilst acknowledging the importance in studying gender relationships and sexuality in the ancient world, I must admit it's an area of inquiry that has failed to stimulate my own interest.

I realize that many ancient sources are replete with information that pertains to homoerotic behaviour, but I was wondering; can archaeology assist us in this study of homoerotic activity in the ancient world? Can it somehow be observed through material remains found at various sites? (I wouldn't even know what you would look for).

I'm quite certain I have seen vases and murals from antiquity which supports the notion of homoerotic activity existing in the ancient world. But to be truly analytical, I guess we have to ask ourselves - how representative or reflective are such images of the era they come from? Do these images represent contemporaneous society or are they some form of artistic stylization/expression? - or any other number of possible suggestions. I have no idea!

Can ancient funerary practices assist us? Are funerary inscriptions available which speak of such relationships? Perhaps it would be a good study for some budding archaeologist to consider - if it hasn't already been done.

Hope you don't mind me sharing my thoughts.

cheers!

sikander wrote: I think there is some confusion here between effeminate behaviour and homosexuality. While it is true that there are gay men who act in what some define as "effeminate", it is also true that there are gay men who act as masculine as any other male in whatever culture they happen to be in. It is also as true that heterosexual men fall into various behaviour patterns, including the fact that some heterosexual men "act effeminate" and some heterosexual men act in a manner more acceptable as "masculine" in their culture. This is because ways of being are inherently *human* and cultural constructs are used to define what, in each culture, constitutes "masculine" or "feminine" behaviours and characteristics. These assigned characteristics can vary greatly culture to culture.

Exactly what I was going to say. "Effeminacy" has nothing to do with "homosexuality" (or "homoerotic behaviour", or whatever we are deciding to call Alexander's sexual activity these days).

ATB

Homosexual relationships were not considered indicative of effeminancy, and were sometimes seen as essential to the proper development of a male citizen (like the relationship between as erastes and eromenos).

Well excuse me, but that comes in contrast with the explanations that are given to us from the sources about erastis and eromenos. Why would Plutarch for example wrote that there was nothing sexual between the erastis and eromenos, but the purpose was strictly paidagogic? And furthermore that whoever broke that rule was punished even by death?

Elaborate social protocols existed to protect youths from the shame associated with being sexually penetrated. The eromenos was supposed to respect and honor the erastes, but not to desire him sexually. Although being courted by an older man was practically a rite of passage for young men, a youth who was seen to reciprocate the erotic desire of his erastes faced considerable social stigma.

from our dear wikipedia.

Do you recall of Alexander having an older sexual partner when he was young? Yet his father chose to educate him in the Greek way.

So beware, you philosophers who indulge in passion contrary to nature [para phusin], who sin against the goddess of love,-beware lest you also are destroyed in the same manner. For even boys are handsome, as the courtesan Glycera, in the account given bv Clearchus, was wont to say, only so long as they look like a woman.

By Athenaus.

Efstathios wrote:Well excuse me, but that comes in contrast with the explanations that are given to us from the sources about erastis and eromenos. Why would Plutarch for example wrote that there was nothing sexual between the erastis and eromenos, but the purpose was strictly paidagogic? And furthermore that whoever broke that rule was punished even by death?

Efstathios wrote:Do you recall of Alexander having an older sexual partner when he was young?

Ahh, I see. There were no homoerotic relationships in ancient Greece or Macedonioa. Well almost absolutely none. Those that were were represent the tiniest of tiny minoritories, the errant, silly few. When they were caught they were all put to death: survival of the species and all.

Funnily enough the Spartans seem not to have put to many to death and god knows they could have done in a few. Philip - Alexander's father - seemed not to suffer greatly from death over his dalliances, though the same cannot be said of the unfortunate Pausnias. Either Pausanias for that matter, the goddess of love seems to have caught up with them in spades.

Appears the goddess finally caught up with those debauched buggers (oops) who so spectacularly made up the Sacred Band as well.

It's alright though: I get it now. Alexander would not ever have indulged in such because there were no homoerotic relationships in Greece. Funny about his old man.

It all turning into some sort of....Sexual Inquisition....

Crash! Noooobody expects the Sexual Inquisition!! Our chief weapon is denial, denial and dismissal. Our two weapons are denial and dismissal and a ruthless obfuscation, Ah!. Amongst our weaponry are such diverse elements as denial, dismissal, a ruthless obfuscation and an almost fanatical re-translation of the sources! Unrighteous Pothonians, how do you plead?

Ahh, I see. There were no homoerotic relationships in ancient Greece or Macedonioa. Well almost absolutely none. Those that were were represent the tiniest of tiny minoritories, the errant, silly few. When they were caught they were all put to death: survival of the species and all.

Michael, i did not say, and i say it for the 100th time, that there were no homoerotic affairs.

But yet, through the irony, you got a part of the truth. it was indeed minorities that may have been keen to these behaviours. The aristocracy mainly. The philosophers, some artists, generals, politicians even. We only get information about them.The higher classes.
This theory was proposed by some scholars, such as Bruce Thornton.

One thing to attest to that is some of the people that may have practised it, also thought it was shamefull. Plato gives us some hints, with Socrates' discussion with Callicles.

[What about] the life of passive homosexuals (kinaidon), isn't it awful and shameful and wretched? Or will you have the audacity to say that they are happy, if they have enough of the things they need?" To which a shocked Callicles replies: "Aren't you ashamed ... at leading the discussion to such a topic?"

Georgias [491e -92a & 494e]

Was Socrates a pederast, or homosexual? I dont know. But many other philosophers and writters were. Such as Sophocles, for whom Athenaus attests. The incident with the young boys' cape, e.t.c. Alciviades. Agathon. All these men were part of the aristocracy, or the higher circles.

There is a confusion on where the laws end, and where the outlaws are being made legitimate. If you know what i mean. And where the laws were actually forced uppon. We have examples as to laws that are actually take action, against homosexual and pederasty incidents, but also for people that got away with it. That both in Athens and Sparta. What does that mean? Exactly what it means today. Laws are meant to be broken by those who have the power to do so.

About Alexander and the quotes from Justin, Athenaus and Curtius i will writte later on.

Efstathios wrote: Michael, i did not say, and i say it for the 100th time, that there were no homoerotic affairs.

But yet, through the irony, you got a part of the truth. it was indeed minorities that may have been keen to these behaviours. The aristocracy mainly. The philosophers, some artists, generals, politicians even. We only get information about them.The higher classes.
This theory was proposed by some scholars, such as Bruce Thornton.

No, no Stathi - I got the point in its entirety. You, though, missed it entirely. You've got it backside up (oh dear, done it again).

In general terms, the lower classes only miss out on what the "higher classes" do because they can't afford it. The average Athenian citizen was not about to stump for a four horse chariot entrant in the Olympics. Alcibiades certainly could and did.

The lower class need only the inclination and the opportunity to follow the same man's sexual frivolities though - unless he has to pay for them.

Why is it, do you think, that we hear of the "higher classes": the artists, the generals and politicians? Because it is those that feature in our accounts. The average Athenian demesman appears as faceless hoplites at Marathon but it is Miltiades we hear of; he appears on the rowing benches at Salamis but it is Themistocles and Aeschylus that we hear of; he follows a precocious, greedy and ambitious young general to Sicily and is mentioned as one of many slaughtered whilst we hear of Alcibiades in Sparta and we read of tens of thousands of faceless Macedonians who followed their king for ten years accross Asia but is Alexander, his senior staff and others pertinant to the telling of the stories that we know of.

In all the histories ever written by any ancient author, the day to day lives of the "lower class" citizens run a distant second to the main character(s). Why would any of them care to waste good papyrus on the personal lives of the average Athenian demesman or Macedonian phalangite?

In any case, the post was meant as an ironic, humorous signing off. Enjoy it as such, there'll be no more from Paralus.

Greetings,

Please note: "What about] the life of passive homosexuals (kinaidon), isn't it awful and shameful and wretched?"

Note the word *passive*... that word might well lend much credence to the argument about the *roles* taken in same-sex relationships. Again, since women were "less than", it is reasonable to suggest that men perceived as *passive* (effeminate) partners would be frowned upon.

Regards,
Sikander

I really don’t want to get into another discussion about how a homoerotic culture is not defined by pederasty; that homosexuality is a modern word, etc. Instead, Efstathios, I will go through a door which you have opened. (Italics in the quotes are my own.)

Efstathios wrote: Michael, i did not say, and i say it for the 100th time, that there were no homoerotic affairs.

But yet, through the irony, you got a part of the truth. it was indeed minorities that may have been keen to these behaviours. The aristocracy mainly. The philosophers, some artists, generals, politicians even. We only get information about them. The higher classes. . .

Was Socrates a pederast, or homosexual? I dont know. But many other philosophers and writters were. Such as Sophocles, for whom Athenaus attests. The incident with the young boys' cape, e.t.c. Alciviades. Agathon. All these men were part of the aristocracy, or the higher circles.

Alexander was part of the aristocracy. He is considered by many to have been a “philosopher king.” He was a general. As ruler of Macedon and Persia he was certainly a politician. Undeniably a man of the higher class or higher circles.

You have acknowledged that there were people of status in society who had homoerotic affairs. Alexander shares that status. Must you not now include Alexander in the group of people that were open to homoerotic relationships?

James Davidson's excellent and very accessible book Courtesans and Fishcakes: The Consuming Passions of Classical Athens covers the subject of homoerotic relationships very well, I think. One thing that struck me from reading it is that male/male relationships were not universally 'Greek', but accepted/discouraged on a polis to polis basis. For example, while the Spartans and Thebans encouraged it and the Athenians found it acceptable (though it had to be strictly controlled), the people of Corinth and the Ionian cities frowned upon the practice. Sikander makes the same points as Davidson: it wasn't the relationship itself that mattered, it was the role of each person and how they carried themselves, especially in public.

It's pretty clear that the Macedonians of Philip and Alexander's day did not discourage male/male relationships. Pausanias was expected to take his being replaced in Philip's bed with grace, but did not. He goaded his younger 'replacement' by calling him, essentially, a whore . . . which lead to the young man's death (in battle, to 'clean the tarnish from his name'). The man's friends took revenge on Pausanias by making him the whore. Philip didn't (and probably felt he shouldn't) intervene. We all know how THAT ended The whole arc of Philip's life likely impressed upon Alexander the need to be extremely picky in who he trusts with his affections -- male or female.

Very interesting conversations!

Scott

Amyntoros: Yes. It could also apply to Alexander. However there were Aristocrats that were not keen to homoerotic relationships, orgies e.t.c. Just remember Pericles and Aspasia. Also we know that Alexander wasnt the man that would take part in orgies, and he was very self controled as for his sexual desires.

Of course there is also the other side. Athenaus, Justin, Curtius and Aelian attested that Alexander was very fond of young boys.

Before i tell you what i think about that, please tell me what do you believe.

Efstathios wrote:Amyntoros: Yes. It could also apply to Alexander. However there were Aristocrats that were not keen to homoerotic relationships, orgies e.t.c. Just remember Pericles and Aspasia. Also we know that Alexander wasnt the man that would take part in orgies, and he was very self controled as for his sexual desires.

My, my, Efstathios – what is this about orgies now? Tell me, pray, where on earth do “orgies” figure in the ancient sources about Alexander? Orgies have nothing whatsoever to do with the discussion at hand. On other matters, the fact that there were people of the same social status who did not have any homoerotic inclination is completely irrelevant. My point was that your own words negate any previous argument which you have made that Alexander could not have had sexual relationships with men because he was a king and kings wouldn’t do that, or because there were laws against it, or because his father would have disapproved (note that his father was of that very same social status), etc.

Of course there is also the other side. Athenaus, Justin, Curtius and Aelian attested that Alexander was very fond of young boys.

Young boys? There’s a wealth of implication when those two words are used in conjunction. One may presume that you are talking about a child, yet there are no such references in the sources. And by using that expression you are inviting me to deny the evidence presented because no one would be expected to approve of pedophilia, would they?

The word “boy” when used alone is a different matter – it simply means someone who is not yet a man. My own son is sixteen; six foot three and still growing; 300 pounds of mostly muscle; sexually (though not emotionally) mature. Yet he is still a boy and not a man. Efstathios, I don’t know if you are being disingenuous or if you have been doing your own translating again.

Before i tell you what i think about that, please tell me what do you believe.

What do I believe? 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.

Best regards,