Homosexuailty in Rome?

Well there is some evidence that Alexander possessed a more than friendly affection for Hephaistion:

But during this time it chanced that Hephaestion had a fever; and since, young man and soldier that he was, he could not submit to a strict regimen, as soon as Glaucus, his physician, had gone off to the theatre, he sat down to breakfast, ate a boiled fowl, drank a huge cooler of wine, fell sick, and in a little while died. [2] Alexander's grief at this loss knew no bounds.¹ He immediately ordered that the manes and tails of all horses and mules should be shorn in token of mourning and took away the battlements of the cities round about; he also crucified the wretched physician, and put a stop to the sound of flutes and every kind of music in the camp for a long time, until an oracular response from Ammon came bidding him honour Hephaestion as a hero and sacrifice to him. [3] Moreover, making war a solace for his grief; he went forth to hunt and track down men, as it were, and overwhelmed the nation of the Cossaeans, slaughtering them all from the youth upwards. This was called an offering to the shade of Hephaestion.

This has come down to us from Plutarch: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Pe rseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0243&layout=&loc=72.1

True, it doesn't actually say Alex had raging sex with the guy, but the death of a friend isn't the sort of thing which drives one to genocidal excesses. One would expect that if they were simply companions, the mourning would be alot less over-the-top. It takes the loss of someone much more intimate to drive a person to such wanton acts of lamentation.

Tad bit too... I couldn't be more actually

Well yes Aristophanes does mention "lakkoproktos" once, he uses the term "euruproktos" some 8-10 times and "kunaidos some 15 more...

Aristophanes actually manages to ridicule homosexuals in every occasion he mentions them, even when talking about the God Dionysus in "Frogs". The words "lakkoproktos", "euruproktos" and "kunaidos", are all used by Aristophanes to actually insult and ridicule homos..
Unless someone is ready to conceder that being called "hollow-assed", "wide-assed" and "shameless" is some kind of compliment.

I will agree, as you correctly pointed out, that it's a play meant to entertain.. so, concerning Aristophanes, Euripides or any other comedy and drama creator, it is completely wrong and inappropriate to use theatric plays as historical sources.
A play is just a play, it servers the need of learning together with entertainment. The most accurate sources are the myths themselves. It is equivalent to being a historian of the 41st century and attempting to study history of our times bases upon comedy shows.

Further proof in support of your "strying from normality" would be the myth of Laios. Oidipus was the son of Laios, Laios was the first "kunaidos" according to Hellinic mythology/history.
Laios had abducted and raped Chrysippos, for this Pelops cursed him to be killed by his own son.
So we find that the first ever recorded "pederast" was cursed and due to this curse, his whole family line was wiped out thanks to his "unatural activity".

We find that Oidipus married his mother (without knowing it) she kills herself and he blinds himself.
 The 4 children born by this unwanted marriage are also doomed, the brothers Eteocles and Polynices fall in battle killed by eachothers hand. Antigone is sentensed to death and Ismene asks for the same fate as her sister.  Justice is served for what their sick grandfather (Laios) had done.

When we know of such customs being passed down from generation to generation and plays written pertaining this exact myth. It is hard to believe that they would go against these traditions..

*What are the peculiar conclusions ?

Constantine XI

This is actually the exact same basis of the theory about Achilles and Patroclos being a homo couple.. Achilles mourning after Patroclos' death..

So whoever is in the damned position of losing a very close friend, someone he's gone through thick and thin and his reaction is similar to the two mentioned is a homosexual...

I guess I qualify then


Edited by Phallanx

Well not really sure to which nation you are refering to.. would it be his "campaign" against the Kossaioi but they weren't sacrificed but simply subdued..

The mourning after Hephaistion's death is actually nothing compared to his reaction after the murder of Cleitus, where as Plutarch tells us, if it wasn't for his body-guards he would have driven the exact same spear he used to kill Cleitus through his throat..

Speculations aren't proof

disgusting!

I'm going to admit first that I haven't read this whole thread and second that this is my first post 

Anyway, relationships in general in archaic societes typically were very different from what we understand today.

Many common things that we would consider homosexual today were normal and agreed upon then, such as men grooming eachother or holding hands. 

Take a look at Sparta, in my opinion the greastest greek city state. A society that is still considered by many stagnant, I call stable.  Besides the heliots, equality was most widespread in Sparta for both men and women.  It was also common that strongest bonds were made between men and men and women and women.  Men were men's lovers but not in the same sense as we use today.  This way when you go into battle you will not only act more organized, but fight harder to save your friend/lover/brother.  It was seen as weak to hold strong relationships in this way with someone of the opposite sex, or at least that's what I understand.

Normal... depends on how ones defines normal and of course each persons perception of the laws..

While today with the words 'heterosexual' and 'homosexual' we simply denote the sexual preference of an individual, the ancient Hellines used only a term similar to 'homosexual' that was 'kinaidos'.. while there was absolutely no definition for 'heterosexuals'..
Why this is of some interest/significance.. as I said while the terms today simply define one's sexual preference, the term 'kinaidos' actually shows us what they believed..  as Epicletus has said 'the beginning of knowledge comes from the analysis of names'... so we have :

'kinaidos' =  �he who �kinei thn aido� from
 �kineo�= � to move , to meddle with things sacred� and
�aidos� = �the personification of a conscience, of shame�

So in reality it is 'he who provokes shame'... we see to speak of acceptance when they claimed that homosexuals 'provoke shame' is rediculous..

Now what you mention about 'lovers' fighting side by side is the intentional mianipulation of the texts presented along with a number of others to construct this myth..
A simple example would be the Symposium of Plato, where we find all self proclaimed wanna-be historians attempting to connect the "sacred band of Thebes" to the text..
In all sites I've seen this presented as an argument they all use this "translation":
"(an army should be made up of lovers and their loves)"

When you take a look at the original text you find:
"(genesthai e stratopedon eraston te kai paidikon)"

So, we find the alleged lover theory but NO eromenos = (the "passive" lover according to the stupid theory they support)
but we find (paidikon) that means (a child, boyish, still in use today in modern Hellinic see "paidi") a very common word in Hellinic texts.

The strategic innovation of Gorgidas, was to change the form of Thebean battle tactics. Untill then the young (students)=(strength) were the front line and the older (tutor)= (knowledge) were in the rear.
He mixed them, combining the strength of the young with the knoledge of the old thus, creating an unbeatable army.

To top this off, just read what Philip said, when he saw them lying dead after the battle at Chaeronea.

'Perish miserably they who think that these men did or suffered aught disgraceful!'"
--
Anyway, while there are very limited if not non-existant text that support they myth of homosexuality being some kind of norm in Sparta, we have more than a few texts that support the exact opposite :

Xenophon, Constitution of the Lacedaemonians
2.13

[13] The customs instituted by Lycurgus were opposed to all of these. If someone, being himself an honest man, admired a boy's soul and tried to make of him an ideal friend without reproach and to associate with him, he approved, and believed in the excellence of this kind of training. But if it was clear that the attraction lay in the boy's outward beauty, he banned the connexion as an abomination; and thus he caused lovers to abstain from boys no less than parents abstain from sexual intercourse with their children and brothers and sisters with each other.

Xenophon, Symposium (The Banquet)
8.70

But the men of Lacedaemon, holding that "if a man but lay his hand upon the body and for lustful purpose, he shall thereby forfeit claim to what is beautiful and noble"--do, in the spirit of their creed, contrive to mould and fashion their "beloved ones" to such height of virtue,[71] that should these find themselves drawn up with foreigners, albeit no longer side by side with their own lovers,[72] conscience will make desertion of their present friends impossible. Self-respect constrains them: since the goddess whom the men of Lacedaemon worship is not "Shamelessness," but "Reverence.

Plutarch�s Lives Lycurgus
XVII 4

Their lovers and favorers, too, had a share in the young boy�s honor or disgrace; and there goes a story that one of them was fined by the magistrates, because the lad whom he loved cried out effeminately as he was fighting.

Plutarch�s Lives Lycurgus
XIV. 4

Nor was there any thing shameful in this nakedness of the young women; modesty attended them, and all wantonness was excluded. It taught them simplicity and a care for good health, and gave them some taste of higher feelings, admitted as they thus were to the field of noble action and glory. Hence it was natural for them to think and speak as Gorgo, for example, the wife of Leonidas, is said to have done, when some foreign lady, as it would seem, told her that the women of Lacedæmon were the only women of the world who could rule men; �With good reason,� she said, �for we are the only women who bring forth men.�

Claudius Ailianus 'History' III.12

Spartan 'love' had nothing to do with shamefulness, if there ever was any such a suspicion since they would have brought shame upon Sparta. The result would be the exile of both of the loss of their lives..

Maximus of Tyre  "Declamations' 20.e

'Any male Sparta that admires a Lakonian youth, admires him only as we would a very beautiful statue. For bodily pleasures of this type are brought upon them by Hubris and are forbidden..

BTW, Alexander sucks.  He was a stupid kid who just stole daddy's plans and throne

Totally different topic but it would be interesting to hear your arguments (in the correct one)

According to the law  'grafh etairisios' seen in Aescynes' Against Timarchus we know that whoever had gone public with his sexual preference was :

Not be permitted to become one of the nine archons, nor to discharge the office of priest, nor to act as an advocate for the state, nor shall he hold any office whatsoever, at home or abroad, whether filled by lot or by election; he shall not be sent as a herald; he shall not take part in debate, nor be present at the public sacrifices; when the citizens are wearing garlands, he shall wear none; and he shall not enter within the limits of the place that has been purified for the assembling of the people. Any man who has been convicted of defying these prohibitions pertaining to sexual conduct shall be put to death (19-20)

As I've said the text has been mistranslated and believed to only speak of prostitutes when he clearly says :

1.29
"H peporneumenos,�phusin, H etairikos:�=

"either prostituted or has became a "comrade/companion/mistress"

So the law obviously is refering to both prostitutes and homosexuals..

As for 'Kinaidos' the Suda online tells us :

 �i������

Translation:
Licentious, soft. And in the Epigrams: "as of a great kinaidos."[1]

Greek Original:
�i������: �������, �������. ��� �� �����������: �� ������� ��������.

Kinaida

Translation:
Also kinaidia ["perversion, deviance"]. Shamelessness.
[Note] that Chelidon was called the kinaidos of Cleopatra.[1]

Greek Original:
Kinaida: kai Kinaidia: hê anaischuntia. hoti ho tês Kleopatras kinaidos Chelidôn ekaleito.

Notes:
For kinaidos - Latin cinaedus - and its cognates see also kappa 1635. It has been termed "etymologically mysterious" (K.J. Dover, Greek Homosexuality [London 1978] p.17) and its exact meaning, if any, is still a matter of debate amongst scholars. J. Davidson, Courtesans and Fishcakes (London 1997), argues strongly for relating this and associated terms to sexual appetites of any kind which focus on the anus; N. Fisher (Aeschines, Against Timarchos, translated with introduction and commentary: Oxford 2001) 45ff and passim seeks to re-establish orthodox phallic associations.




Edited by Phallanx

Well my personal feelings/beliefs are beyond the topic, my interest in this topic, as in all others pertaining to Hellas is simply based on my deep interest in ancient Hellas and how some versions of history are presented..

Ancient Hellas, that has been intentionally used by clearly manipulating texts to prove that someting was a norm, that this sexual preference was accepted, when in reality the whole situation is quite different..
(no one is arguing it never existed, just that it was neither a norm nor widely accepted)

As long as I don't see manipulation of texts and we 'play' based on originals and not some wanna-be's presented translations, I honestly would find it quite interesting..

Originally posted by Cornellia The ancients (including Rome) had a different viewpoint regarding homosexuality.  It only became a slur IF you were the passive member in the relationship.

Can you please direct me to sources about this? I'm a beginner, but when I read e.g. Tacitus or Suetonius they both show disdain towards homosexuality.

On the other hand, if it's not allowed to be the passive partner in Rome, all homosex relationships (as we see them today) must be considered bad???

Originally posted by Constantine XI Could you provide a passage from one of the author's which you think shows this?

Ok, from Suetonius;


Augustus

68. In early youth he incurred the reproach of sundry shameless acts. Sextus Pompey taunted him with effeminacy; Mark Antony with having earned adoption by his uncle through unnatural relations; (...)
71. Of these charges or slanders (whichever we may call them) he easily refuted that for unnatural vice by the purity of his life at the time and afterwards;(...)
 
Claudius

33. He was immoderate in his passion for women, but wholly free from unnatural vice.
 
Otho

2. Having through her wormed his way into Nero's good graces, he easily held the first place among the emperor's friends because of the similarity of their characters; but according to some, also through immoral relations.
 
Vitellius

3. He spent his boyhood and early youth at Capreae among the wantons of Tiberius, being branded for all time with the nickname Spintria (...)
 
Titus

7. (...) he was also suspected of riotous living, since he protracted his revels until the middle of the night with the most prodigal of his friends; likewise of unchastity because of his troops of catamites and eunuchs (...)
 
Some of his most beloved paramours, although they were such skilful dancers that they later became stage favourites, he not only ceased to cherish any longer, but even to witness their public performances.