|
| |
Greco-Roman Sexuality as Distorted by the "Progressive"
Imagination
Perhaps you have seen certain programs on the History
Channel purporting to describe Greco-Roman sexual views. In particular,
you may have noted that the Greeks and Romans, according to the experts chosen
to speak by the producers, were not only tolerant of the practice of pederasty,
but considered it a normal aspect of human sexuality. Without writing a
treatise on the subject, let me summarize the main arguments and supporting
evidence used by scholars to support that view. I think you will agree
with SoothSeeker that there is no good basis for that belief, which was offered
first by a man who admitted after his retirement that he himself was homosexual,
and was sustained, bolstered, and extended by an academic community dominated by
liberal intellectuals (it is no coincidence that the conception and growth to
legitimacy of such areas of study as Queer and Women's studies coincided with
the growth of this otherwise unprecedented orthodox view of Greco-Roman
sexuality). The evidence will be summarized in bold-faced type, the
conclusions drawn from it by liberals in italics, and my analysis in
Roman type.
- Ancient men were ridiculed for being "passive" members of homosexual
acts, but rarely ridiculed for being "active" members. Therefore
it was not frowned upon to be the active member. The male fulfilled his
proper role as long as he was the penetrator, regardless of whom or what he
penetrated. As you can see, the evidence really does not support any
of the conclusions offered by the "progressive" academics. It makes them
possible, nothing more. The only thing it really demonstrates is that it
was more of a mark of bad character to be the passive member of the act, which
is in line with the rest of Greco-Roman culture which considered it a mark of
bad character for a man to put himself in the role or position of a woman..
- Greek heroes and demigods were often put by classical authors into the
pederastic roles of erastes and eromenos. Therefore
love-making between an older man and a youth was considered normal and even to
be emulated. This whole argument boils down to the meaning of the
root of the words erastes (lover) and eromenos (beloved, or "lovee").
It has become part of classical orthodoxy to break the various Greek words for
"love" into four and pretend that their meanings were sharply delineated from
one another: that philein meant "to love like a sibling or friend,"
eran meant "to love sexually," stergein meant "to love like a
child" and agapan meant "to love with respect and awe." The very
fact that a teenager can "love" his favorite food and "like" the girl he wants
to date should be enough to caution us against assuming such clear
distinctions existed. But we need look no further than the words
attributed to Socrates by Plato in the Symposium, one of the most oft-cited
pieces of literature on the question of love in ancient Greece, to find him
using the verb eran to describe his perfectly Platonic (this is the
source of the term!) relationship with a younger man who had even tried (so he
said, though it may have been a joke) to seduce him. Socrates' words
might be taken to indicate that he experienced some physical desire for the
young Alcibiades (or he might also have been joking), but even if he did, he
restrained himself and asserted the fact with evident pride. This proves
one thing: it was not right, in Socrates' mind, to gratify any such desire if
he experienced it. Erastes and eromenos cannot be taken to
refer exclusively to physical relationships, but referred to close bonds
between men and boys, some of which became physical and some of which did not.
No one ever boasted of having consummated a physical relationship of this
sort, but it was a harmful rumor when it spread. Again, the evidence
indicates that sexual relations between men were taboo.
- There are prominent characters in Aristophanes who dream of a utopia
wherein they can safely gratify their homosexual or pederastic fantasies.
Therefore homosexual fantasies were for the Greeks an acceptable facet of
normal male libido. Quite to the contrary, just as Homer Simpson
represents a type that is ridiculed because it is rejected by mainstream
society (no one aspires to be a beer-swilling, irresponsible moron who relies
on dumb luck to stave off his otherwise inevitable self-destruction),
Aristophanic "heroes" represented in many ways the underside of Athenian
culture. Their behavior was a caricature of the real low-lifes of
Athenian society, and as such their behavior is mostly funny because it
shatters norms of behavior that mainstream society relied upon.
Homosexual or pederastic fantasies were therefore a symptom of the decay of
Athenian culture, and thus by definition rejected by the mainstream.
- History records the homosexual and pederastic escapades of many a Roman
emperor. Therefore it was well-accepted practice in Roman society
for a prominent male to engage in sexual affairs with male youths.
Roman emperors like Hadrian may well have had young proteges and had the same
sort of relationship that Socrates had with Alcibiades. Beyond that, the
evidence is equivocal. The state of historical record of the emperors is
such that it is often poisoned, and usually inextricably, by reports
circulated during the emperor's lifetime by enemies (thus recent historical
work has begun to propose that we not accept every bad thing recorded about
Tiberius, Nero, and others, but that they be taken with a grain of salt).
It would have been profitable, if there was a taboo against pederasty and
homosexuality during Hadrian's lifetime, for political rivals to exploit any
close relationship with a younger man and imply that the emperor was engaged
in an embarrassing physical relationship. Therefore, it is not necessary
to conclude that such relationships were real. And since there is a long
and well-documented history of such attacks by political rivals (Cicero
against Antony, for example), it is more than likely that the taboo still
existed and that it was exploited by enemies and picked up by historians.
It might yet be true, but it was not sounded about proudly by the participant,
but only circulated by others. This certainly implies that there was
reason to keep silent about it, and this implies that it was, indeed, taboo.
We have little enough evidence that it is impossible to be dogmatic.
But the evidence certainly does not justify the enthusiastic certainty of the
liberal, feminist, and "queer" scholars who have persisted in digging up more of
the same inconclusive evidence that has always existed to bolster an idea whose
primary purpose is not to understand an ancient culture, but to provide
legitimacy to the gay rights movement of the modern age. It is unfortunate
that the movement pinned their hopes to such flimsy arguments. The notion
of a Greco-Roman culture that elevated pederasty to the level of normalcy is
very popular in "progressive" circles, but (like so many of their ideas) is
extremely unlikely to represent the truth.
| |
|
