Notice: This is the official website of the All Empires History Community (Reg. 10 Feb 2002)

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Homosexuailty in Rome?

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123 4>
Author
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Homosexuailty in Rome?
    Posted: 18-Sep-2004 at 15:53

From what I heard 13 of the 14 first roman emperors were gay, And I am trying to get an understanding to see if gay marraige was allowed back then? I did pull this off a website describing a type of cermony they had for gay marriage but this is the internet so I want to see if it is a reliable source.

Roman marriage artcile(http://www.infopt.demon.co.uk/marriage.htm):

Much later, in 2nd century Rome, conjugal contracts between men of about the same age were ridiculed but legally binding. Such marriages were blessed by pagan religions, particularly sects of the Mother Goddess Cybele (imported from Asia Minor). At the ceremony, the bridal party consists entirely of men, who enter the temple and deck each other with "gay fillets round the forehead . . . and strings of orient perals." They light a torch in honor of the goddess and sacrifice a pregnant swine. One man gets up and chooses a husband for himself, and dances himself into a frenzy. Then he drinks deeply from a goblet in the shape of a large penis, flings the goblet away, strips off his clothes, and "takes the stole and flammea of a bride" and the two men are married.

Back to Top
Lannes View Drop Down
Baron
Baron
Avatar
Retired AE Moderator

Joined: 02-Aug-2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 439
  Quote Lannes Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18-Sep-2004 at 16:36

From what I gather, it was legal, or at least manipulative kinds of 'marriage'were.  Heres a site that raises several interesting points:

http://www.geocities.com/WestHollywood/Heights/5393/gaymarri age.html

τρέφεται δέ, ὤ Σώκρατης, ψυχὴ τίνι;
Back to Top
Tobodai View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar
Retired AE Moderator

Joined: 03-Aug-2004
Location: Antarctica
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4310
  Quote Tobodai Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18-Sep-2004 at 17:14
I thought it was fairly well known that the Romans were pretty big flames...Probably that adoption of Hellenistic culture
"the people are nothing but a great beast...
I have learned to hold popular opinion of no value."
-Alexander Hamilton
Back to Top
Lannes View Drop Down
Baron
Baron
Avatar
Retired AE Moderator

Joined: 02-Aug-2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 439
  Quote Lannes Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18-Sep-2004 at 17:43

Originally posted by Tobodai

I thought it was fairly well known that the Romans were pretty big flames...Probably that adoption of Hellenistic culture

They weren't so much into long-term relationships, but rather, were into 'fooling around'.  Just something the upper classes did for a time.



Edited by Lannes
τρέφεται δέ, ὤ Σώκρατης, ψυχὴ τίνι;
Back to Top
Cornellia View Drop Down
Baron
Baron
Avatar

Joined: 02-Aug-2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 474
  Quote Cornellia Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18-Sep-2004 at 20:18

Uh no, gay marriage wasn't common in ancient Rome, regardless of what those sites may tell you.

The ancients (including Rome) had a different viewpoint regarding homosexuality.  It only became a slur IF you were the passive member in the relationship.  That's why the rumor of Caesar's supposed relationship with Nicomedes caused a ruckus - Caesar was reputed to have been the passive party.

Rome's viewpoint on homosexuality was not uncommon in the ancient world and definitely not related to the hellenistic influence.   Marriage however was still viewed (for the most part) as being between man and woman and I really don't know of a legal case where a marriage contract between same sex lovers was legally binding in 2nd century Rome.  But that's not to say it didn't happen.

It is true that many prominent men in the ancient world did include male lovers in their sexual experience but I'm not sure if you really could label them as gay.    That is of course, not to say that some weren't - Hadrian is a prime example of one who obviously preferred men to women.  

Felix qui potuit rerum cognoscere causas
Back to Top
Cornellia View Drop Down
Baron
Baron
Avatar

Joined: 02-Aug-2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 474
  Quote Cornellia Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18-Sep-2004 at 20:19
But what all that meant is that homosexuality didn't carry the same stigma in the ancient world as it does today.
Felix qui potuit rerum cognoscere causas
Back to Top
Maciek View Drop Down
Knight
Knight


Joined: 02-Aug-2004
Location: Poland
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 57
  Quote Maciek Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30-Sep-2004 at 01:37

Yes Cornelia is definetly right. It is hard to explain the difference of it - in ancient and today but it was something much different. For ancient people it was just something almost normal to have the relation with the same sex but in the same time as we see from Caesar example it was a cause to make laugh from someone. So I'm sure there were no marriages like that because otherwise - it would be legal and not so fun for writers and politics...

 

My impression is that in Rome it became very similar (in one point) to what today is happening in Holywood - almost every famous man admitt that he has such relation - it's sometjing like fashionmaybe.



Edited by Maciek
Back to Top
Yiannis View Drop Down
Sultan
Sultan
Avatar

Joined: 03-Aug-2004
Location: Neutral Zone
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2329
  Quote Yiannis Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30-Sep-2004 at 04:42

It's amazing how much attention and debate does the topic of homosexuality get!

Anyway, it's no secret that ancient Greeks and Romans had no problem with it. But it was a different kind than it is today. Homosexual behaviour was not acceptable between grown ups and feminine behaviour was an absolute no-no if one did not wanted to be the ridicule of the city. Citizens were expected to marry and have children, not fool around dressed in pink . Homosexual behaviour was mostly restricted between teenagers and young men that would act as lovers and mentors (Eromenos and Erastes). It seems that penetration was not the case here but rather more of a Platonic kind or love.

The persians also had similar habits (including eunuchs). Some debate that they copied the Greeks on that. I'm not sure...

I'm under the impression that homosexuality was common and acceptable amongst the Vikings as well. What about other cultures?

The basis of a democratic state is liberty. Aristotle, Politics

Those that can give up essential liberty to obtain a temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. Benjamin Franklin
Back to Top
Tobodai View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar
Retired AE Moderator

Joined: 03-Aug-2004
Location: Antarctica
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4310
  Quote Tobodai Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30-Sep-2004 at 14:10

Its probably not the same thing but Temujin and Jamuka were said to share the same bed when young.

Thats prolly not sexual though, however I know one steppe ruler who was...Babur, Mughal conqueror of India!  I found this out by reading his memoirs, he had 4 wives who he never talks about and one who left him for "inadequat services" while he was infatuated by some teenager in Kabul.

"the people are nothing but a great beast...
I have learned to hold popular opinion of no value."
-Alexander Hamilton
Back to Top
Yiannis View Drop Down
Sultan
Sultan
Avatar

Joined: 03-Aug-2004
Location: Neutral Zone
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2329
  Quote Yiannis Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01-Oct-2004 at 03:51

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. 

 

Exactly! Right on the nail Cornelia.

The ancients (Greeks & Romans) were not concerned about homosexuality from a morale point of view. Our modern day morale is a result of Christianity or Islam etc and fear of sin. Such things were non-existant back then.

The ancients only concern on the matter was from the social point of view. A man was not supposed to offer but to receive pleasure and they were very immaginative in ways of receiving sexual pleasure. A man's sexual pleasure would come from women or men (slave or barbarian men) but free men were not supposed to be passive because that would undermine their social status. We have records in comedies where passive citizens in Athens are ridiculed by name in public.

 

 

The basis of a democratic state is liberty. Aristotle, Politics

Those that can give up essential liberty to obtain a temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. Benjamin Franklin
Back to Top
vagabond View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar

Joined: 07-Aug-2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 524
  Quote vagabond Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26-Oct-2004 at 02:09

Cornellia - you beat me to this one - I have to agree with you and Maciek and Yiannis here.

Don't know if anyone else noticed - but the second website cited above:

http://www.geocities.com/WestHollywood/Heights/5393/gaymarri age.html

was written by Paul Halsall, who I believe is also the editor of one of my favorite classics sites - the Internet History Sourcebooks - at:

www.fordham.edu/halsall

the site is already listed at our sticky thread of favorite classics sources online.

BTW - Temujin - is there something you want to share with us?  We promise we'll only chuckle a little bit in a very non-judgemental way...  ...Oh - you meant the ancient Temujin - nevermind...

In the time of your life, live - so that in that wonderous time you shall not add to the misery and sorrow of the world, but shall smile to the infinite delight and mystery of it. (Saroyan)
Back to Top
Gubook Janggoon View Drop Down
Sultan
Sultan
Avatar
Retired Global Moderator

Joined: 08-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2187
  Quote Gubook Janggoon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29-Oct-2004 at 20:03
Everyone was gay in the Ancient world.
Back to Top
vagabond View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar

Joined: 07-Aug-2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 524
  Quote vagabond Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30-Oct-2004 at 05:50

That quote is atributed to Edward Gibbon "of the first fiteen empreors Claudius was the only one whose taste in love was entirely correct.

"I am trying to get an understanding to see if gay marraige was allowed back then?"

In the Roman Empire - certainly - but as noted above - it was not common. There are few sources about such behavior from the Republic - just as there are few sources about anything. The Empire left behind a much greater historical record. Again - Maciek, Yiannis and Cornellia have addressed the morality issue - the Romans had no qualms about homosexual relationships, only about the social status of the participants being maintained.

Marriage was a completely different thing then than it is today. It was a formal, contractual relationship that transferred a woman from the control of her father's house to that of her husband. It was entered into only if the social status of neither family would be affected, if it were a good economic match, and offered the prospect of offspring with the correct lineage. Courtship between men and women as we know it today did not exist. Most marriages were arranged by the respective families with concern for the benefit of the family at large greatly outweighing any concern for the participants in the marriage.

There are two works that address the question fully and eruditely, one directly and one indirectly. Both mentioned in the Alexander the Gay thread: http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=841& KW=boswell&PN=0&TPN=1 are by former Yale professor John Boswell. He writes well and is very well documented. His references to primary sources are quite good. My only criticism would be his regular use of (untransliterated) Greek and Latin terms. Keep the dictionaries nearby.

The first, which won several awards including the National Book Award for history in 1981 (He's in good company - Kissinger won that category in 1980) is "Christianity, Social Tolerance and Homosexuality" Chapter 3 deals exclusively with Rome. In it he makes some very good points.

"Prejudices affecting sexual behavior, roles or decorum generally affected all persons uniformly. Roman society almost unanimously assumed that adult males would be capable of, if not interested in, sexual relations with both sexes. It is extremely difficult to convey to modern audiences the absolute indifference of most Latin authors to the question of gender."

"A very strong bias appears to have existed against passive sexual behavior on the part of the adult male citizen...But if an adult citizen openly indulged in such behavior he was viewed with scorn...Apart from general questions of gender expectations and sexual differentiation, the major cause of this prejudice appears to have been a popular association of sexual passivity with political impotence...He did not actually forfeit his position, but he invited scorn in metaphysically abdicating the power and responsibility of citizenhood."

Boswell goes on to quote many sources, including "The Elder Seneca who records a (legal) case in which a freedman is criticized for being his patron's concubine, but his lawyer responds that 'sexual service is an offense for the freeborn, a necessity for the slave and a duty for the freedman.' "

The second work by Boswell on this topic is less well known. "Same Sex Unions in Pre-Modern Europe" deals with the gradual progression of prejudice against the formal union of same sex couples.

Chapter 2 is: For Family and Country; Heterosexual Marriage in the Greco-Roman World - Here he discusses the institution of marriage as it existed then, both legal marriage and "sine manu" (those without authority).

"...The social institution of marriage...has been in most premodern societies primarily a property arrangement."

"It would not be an exaggeration to say that most upper class marriages before modern times were business deals, arranged with dynastic and property considerations uppermost in mind, and emotional and sexual aspects secondary."

Chapter 3 is: A Friend Inspired by God; Same Sex Unions in the Greco-Roman World In this chapter Boswell discusses what he sees as the general types of homosexual relationships: Exploitation of males owned or controlled by other males; Concubinage; Lovers; and Formal Unions.

"...there were also many same sex couples in the Roman world who lived together permanently, forming unions neither more nor less exclusive than those of the heterosexual couples around them."

" The poet Martial describes, at the opening of the second century 'The bearded Callistratus married the rugged Afer under the same law by which a woman takes a husband."

Boswell relates Seutonius' account of how the Emperor Nero "Married a man (named Sporus) in a very public ceremony with a dowry and a veil (flammeum)." "On another occasion, the emperor himself 'was given in marriage to a freedman, just as Sporus had been given to him.' "

In his discussion of Elagabalus' marriage to the athlete Heirocles, he says "he shocked his subjects with his utter lack of decorum in sexual matters, particularly because he flagrantly took a passive role with other males, behavior thought feminine and inappropriate for any adult male citizen, especially and emperor."

By the fourth century there began to be laws in Rome forbidding such formal unions. "...the era witnessed many dramatic transformations of traditional patterns. At the opening of the century Christianity was illegal, by its close paganism was punishable by death."

Later in the book he goes on to discussions of various formal unions recognized by the state and the church which did not disappear in parts of the Empire until much later. Basil I (ruled 867 - 886 CE) entered into two relationships with men that were celebrated in church ceremonies. These were in addition to his relationship with his predecessor Michael, his relationship to several concubines (some or all shared with Michael) and his two heterosexual marriages (one to a woman who was Michael's concubine).

In the time of your life, live - so that in that wonderous time you shall not add to the misery and sorrow of the world, but shall smile to the infinite delight and mystery of it. (Saroyan)
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07-Mar-2005 at 14:51

Originally posted by vagabond

Roman society almost unanimously assumed that adult males would be capable of, if not interested in, sexual relations with both sexes.

Yes, the Romans behaved as bisexuals NOT homosexuals.

 

Back to Top
Phallanx View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 07-Feb-2005
Location: Greece
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1283
  Quote Phallanx Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07-Mar-2005 at 17:46
Yiannis

The ancients (Greeks & Romans) were not concerned about homosexuality from a morale point of view. Our modern day morale is a result of Christianity or Islam etc and fear of sin. Such things were non-existant back then.


Aeschines, Against Timarchus 1.185

a man chargeable with the most shameful practices, a creature with the body of a man defiled with the sins of a woman? In that case, who of you will punish a woman if he finds her in wrong doing? Or what man will not be regarded as lacking intelligence who is angry with her who errs by an impulse of nature,while he treats as adviser the man who in despite of nature has sinned against his own body?

source:www.perseus.tufts.edu


Am I the only one to notice:
"sins of a woman" and  "despite of nature has sinned against his own body

Allow me to totally disagree, on how the ancient Hellines viewed same-sex relations.


Back to Top
Cornellia View Drop Down
Baron
Baron
Avatar

Joined: 02-Aug-2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 474
  Quote Cornellia Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14-Mar-2005 at 08:15

"sins of a woman" and "despite of nature has sinned against his own body"  can carry a whole spectrum of meanings.  I've not read the whole text this excerpt was taken from so I can't say what Aeschines was referring to.

What I can say is that the ancient world (not just Greeks or Romans, mind you) did not think of sexuality in terms of bisexuality or homosexuality or even morality.   Modern morality has no place in trying to understand the ancients.  If you can't grasp that, then you will never truly understand the world they lived in.

Women were expected to marry, have children and remain faithful but men could seek pleasure and partners among both sexes.  Now, its true that among the Romans at least (not familiar enough with the others to say), once you'd matured you should not take the more passive role in a same sex relationship. 

When Caesar's enemies insulted him because of the rumors of his affair* with Nicomedes, it was not because he was reputed to have had a same-sex relationship, it was because he was supposed to have taken the passive role in the relationship.

 

*I say 'rumors of his affair' because we have no proof other than the slander of his enemies that such a thing took place.

Felix qui potuit rerum cognoscere causas
Back to Top
Phallanx View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 07-Feb-2005
Location: Greece
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1283
  Quote Phallanx Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14-Mar-2005 at 22:35
Many attempt to connect the text only to prostitution, but once read (the original version since translations tend to vary), you will see that the whole homo-relations idea was condemned by the Hellines. Another good source would be Plato's "Republic".

One of the major problems in understanding ancient sexuality is the misconception of the term "erastes" that actually had nothing to do with a sexual act but with the admiration of beauty.

A character in Plutarch's Erotikos (Dialogue on Love) argues that the noble lover of beauty "falls" in love wherever he sees excellence and splendid natural endowment without regard for any difference in physiological detail.

So we see that gender just becomes an irrelevant detail and instead the excellence in character and beauty is what is most important. But isn't this exactly what "erastes" means ?

Robert Flaceliere in his book Love in Ancient Greece (trans. by James Cleugh. Frederick Muller Ltd., London; 1962) :
On page 140 he writes: "The permanent popularity of courtesans [hetairai] in ancient Greece is surely the best proof that homosexuals were either not consistently so or not particularly numerous.

It would be also very interesting to note a tale written by AESOP not very well known :

"ZEUS gave man all his vitues and his flaws through every hole in his body, from his ears , mouth ,nostrils and eyes , he left  "AIDOS" (shame) last.
He tried to put "AIDOS" (shame) through the asshole.
AIDOS (shame) reacted, finally, they came to an agreement that if anything else would ever go in the asshole after she (AIDOS) did, she would leave that body immediately, thats why homosexuals in ancient Hellas were called "kinaidos" .

If we are to brake the word down, we find that it is nothing more than he who kinei thn aido = kineo= to move , to meddle with things sacred and aidos = the personification of a conscience, of shame (it is well known that whoever provoked Aidos was always paid a visit from Nemesis.

Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21-Mar-2005 at 15:41

Originally posted by Yiannis

The ancients (Greeks & Romans) were not concerned about homosexuality from a morale point of view. Our modern day morale is a result of Christianity or Islam etc and fear of sin. Such things were non-existant back then.

Our modern day morale isn't totally a result of Christianity or Islam.

The Stoic philosophers during the first centuries AD (e.g. Musonoius Rufus) were talking about that men should show more respect to woman and give up their boylovers. The moral philosophers during this period condemned homosexuality and infidelity. These ethics made it later easier for Christianity to prevail.

 

Back to Top
conon394 View Drop Down
Pretorian
Pretorian
Avatar

Joined: 08-Dec-2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 165
  Quote conon394 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22-Mar-2005 at 10:03

Phallanx

 

Aeschines, Against Timarchus 1.185
a man chargeable with the most shameful practices, a creature with the body of a man defiled with the sins of a woman? In that case, who of you will punish a woman if he finds her in wrong doing? Or what man will not be regarded as lacking intelligence who is angry with her who errs by an impulse of nature,while he treats as adviser the man who in despite of nature has sinned against his own body?

 

Many attempt to connect the text only to prostitution, but once read (the original version since translations tend to vary), you will see that the whole homo-relations idea was condemned by the Hellines. Another good source would be Plato's "Republic".

 

Actually the only substantive issue in Aeschines against Timarchus is prostitution.

It was not a sodomey trial, or a trial about Timarchus having sex with men. The only actual issue is weather Timarchus should have his rights to be an active citizen stripped, because of either his past as a male prostitute and possably his alleged wasting of his inheritance.  More important, lets remember why the trial is taking place, Timarchus is a key ally of Demosthenes, and was caught up in the web of politics between Aeschenis and Demosthenes. Since Demosthenes never denies the actual facts of Timarchus prostitution (in retrospect in On false embassy), but Timarchus does recover his standing as a citizen, homosexuality can hardly be the key part of the case. Its too bad we dont have the defense speech from Demosthenes for Timarchus original trial. 

 

It is also important to note that at least three citizens are alleged to have kept Timarchus (according to Aeschines) but they are under no legal threat or sanction.  

 

Why suggest Plato. In general while Plato may have wanted only heterosexual sex in his ideal state, his work hardly supports the case that this was the actually norm in Greece. On the whole his works (and those of Xenophon) show (for want of a better word) homosexuality, was allowed in some places like Elis, banned in others and in many places (Athens) the situation was complex.

Back to Top
Phallanx View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 07-Feb-2005
Location: Greece
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1283
  Quote Phallanx Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24-Mar-2005 at 10:18
I think you might have misunderstood, sure homos did exist in ancient Hellas as they did in Persia, Egypt, in every society and civilization from the beginning of time. But never were they any kind of norm nor were they ever accepted.

In "against Timarchus" it is wrong to say that the only issue we find is prostitution.
If so, why would we find him mention laws against schools being open after sunset, abuse of slaves......... Anyway, that isn't important simply because the quote I used makes no reference to prostitution, but clearly to the "act" itself.

"the man who in despite of nature has sinned against his own body"

This sentence clealy shows us, how the ancient Hellines saw homosexuality.

True there were some places were this "act" might have been accepted, but this conclusion derives form a reletively "small" number of texts, since our knowledge on places as Elis (as in your example) is actually next to nothing.
Since Xenophon and Plato are mentioned, it would be interesting to see the "ideas" presented in their work.

In Plato's Symposium, where we are presented with the mystical realization of Plato's famous Doctrine of the Forms. Socrates, having been instructed in matters of love by the priestess, Diotima, seeks to show that by understanding "Eros" (love), we can learn to approach the Forms, toward which our souls are oriented. This is done initially by admiring a young man's body as a thing of beauty. One continues this "aesthetical ascent" by the admiration of all bodies, then on to human institutions -- such as the state -- until, finally, one can come to understand and love the beauty not only of nature but of the Supreme Beauty of God Himself: an evolutionary process that is ultimately meant to purify one's soul, and free one from the enslavement of the flesh.

In Xenophon's version of the Symposium (sometimes titled, Banquet), Socrates expounds on the importance of a love that transcends bodily desires. He tells one of his fellow banqueters that: "My heart is set on showing you ... that not only humankind but also gods and demi-gods set a higher value on the friendship of the spirit than on the enjoyment of the body. For in all cases where Zeus became enamored of mortal women for their beauty, though he united with them he suffered them to remain mortal; but all those persons whom he delighted in for their souls' sake he made immortal." It is this love , a love on a plane higher than that of the merely physical -- that has come to be known as "Platonic love" in all of the languages of the world. And it is just this love that set the standards of behavior that existed between teacher and boy, as well as between adult friends in ancient Greece. Though it never reached such lofty heights, the admiration of the beauty of the male form was also prevalent in the Roman world as evidenced by such as St. Augustine of Hippo (arguably Christianity's most heterosexual saint), who said that the body was obviously created for more than mere utilitarian purposes; it was also meant to be admired for its beauty. As an example, he cites the beard which has no functional purpose but was given to men to make them beautiful.

So that we have the combination of the need in the Greek world to develop strong, honorable, and physically capable men, coupled with a male aesthetic of the beautiful that was universally admired and sought. Add to this the aforementioned custom of putting the schooling of young boys in the manly arts and virtues into the hands of older men, and one begins to see that such a mix could be potentially explosive. For this reason, although these friendships were encouraged, there were -- according to many sources such as Xenophon, Plutarch, Plato, and others --tough restrictions imposed by custom and law. As an example, an older man (Erastis) might take on the training of a young boy (Eromenos), but under no circumstances was intimate touching allowed. The difference between homo-erotic friendships, and actual homosexual practices (in the modern sense of what it means to be "gay"), was clearly defined. The Greek ideal was a non-physical, purely pedagogical, relationship. That some, if not many, may have strayed, cannot be denied, but what is important here is to understand that those who did risked serious legal penalties such as banishment or death, and that such behavior was most emphatically discouraged and forbidden by custom and law.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123 4>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a [Free Express Edition]
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz

This page was generated in 0.078 seconds.