That "homosexual" Achilles

[Jona Lendering]

I would agree. However I don't think that I've come across any ancient greek word that means homosexual.

Which is, indeed, the point: the ancient Greeks had no concept corresponding to "sexual orientation".

[Giannis K. Hoplite]

I would agree. However I don't think that I've come across any ancient greek word that means homosexual.

Which is, indeed, the point: the ancient Greeks had no concept corresponding to "sexual orientation".

Well,for that I'm not sure,because there is always some indication that the practice of homosexuality was disaproved by the people of theprevious generations, if not everywhere,at least in Athens. Also Philip who supposedly said that no one should ever say that these men(the dead sacred band) have been disgraced. Xenophon who needs to say that the relatonship between Erastes and Eromenoi in Sparta was not sexual,and that homosexuality was actually banned. So certainly they didn't consider it a good thing up to some period. Based on Plato I'd say that in Athens it became a "fashion" after the Persian wars and the rise of Sparta. It also corresponds to the time that Athens accepted other customs and practices due to the extended trade. It is interesting that at some point there were the elders and especially the noble who disaproved homosexuality because it was a Doric custom and that it was already an open practice in Athens too.

[Paralus]

I would agree. However I don't think that I've come across any ancient greek word that means homosexual.

Which is, indeed, the point: the ancient Greeks had no concept corresponding to "sexual orientation".

Well,for that I'm not sure,because there is always some indication that the practice of homosexuality was disaproved [...]Also Philip who supposedly said that no one should ever say that these men(the dead sacred band) have been disgraced.

This subject is always "controversial". Like debates on ethnicity it eventually ends up with modern conceptions being pasted onto ancient cultural practice. I believe Jona is correct; more so with his previous comment:

I think the Greeks themselves would have said that acts, not people, are homosexual.

And that is if they had a concise concept of homosexual.

All that said, the reference to Philip II above relates in no way to sexuality but to arête. Indeed the Sacred Band did not disgrace themselves or their history at Chaeronea.

Xenophon who needs to say that the relatonship between Erastes and Eromenoi in Sparta was not sexual,and that homosexuality was actually banned. So certainly they didn't consider it a good thing up to some period.

There is a case to be made, with Xenophon, that “methinks he protests too much”. In purely practical terms it beggars belief that buggery was not practised in Sparta. Whilst that might be baldly put, it remains a fact that the “Lycurgan” agoge actively fostered such relationships. As Paul Bardunias has noted, sexual liaisons were to be expected.

[PMBardunias]

I think the Greeks themselves would have said that acts, not people, are homosexual.

In terms of our modern concepts, all Spartan and perhaps all Greek homosexuals in general would have had to be on the "down low", since they would have been expected to be married and have children no matter what they did on the side. The problem for a greek would arise if he were taking the passive role in a relationhsip with another man- as the many epithets that Aristophanes uses to belittle them graphically portray. This could arise from them being seen to act "feminine" as causes trouble in our modern culture, but I think it was more seen as them acting childish. Such male-male interaction seems to be something that was accepted, but that they were expected to outgrow.

There is a case to be made, with Xenophon, that “methinks he protests too much”. In purely practical terms it beggars belief that buggery was not practised in Sparta. Whilst that might be baldly put, it remains a fact that the “Lycurgan” agoge actively fostered such relationships. As Paul Bardunias has noted, sexual liaisons were to be expected.

“methinks he protests too much”, implies that he wants to hide the sex from his audience which makes no sense given his audience was accepting of such relationships. The important distinction that needs to be made is not whether or not sex occurred, but if it was an obligatory and expected part of the relationship. For example when a couple marry they are expected to have sex and a lack of participation by one party is enough to break the union. Thus sex is an institutionalized part of marriage- even if there are some sexless marriages.

What Xenophon makes clear is that in Sparta this could not be the case. Sex, no matter no frequent, was not a basis for the relationship, but an exploitation of the social bond. This is important because sex may well have been an integral part of the bond between man and boy in Crete and Thera- and may have been an ancestral relationship in indo-european culture.

[Paralus]

There is a case to be made, with Xenophon, that “methinks he protests too much”. In purely practical terms it beggars belief that buggery was not practised in Sparta. Whilst that might be baldly put, it remains a fact that the “Lycurgan” agoge actively fostered such relationships. As Paul Bardunias has noted, sexual liaisons were to be expected.

“methinks he protests too much”, implies that he wants to hide the sex from his audience which makes no sense given his audience was accepting of such relationships. The important distinction that needs to be made is not whether or not sex occurred, but if it was an obligatory and expected part of the relationship.

Not that Xenophon wants to "hide" such sex from his audience; rather that he wants to keep his audience from assuming that such relationships might be seen as a socially accepted norm in Laconia. From this remove in time it is difficult to form a clear understanding of what exactly others knew of the "secretive" Laconian state. It is a fair bet that knowledge of such relationships existed - Xenophon himself describes these relationships (Agesilaos / Lysander for example).

Complicating matters is the ambivalent attitude of the Macedonian "upper class" to same sex relationships. Echoes of the agoge (though more of the Persian court) ring in Macedonian practices such as the paides basilikoi and the agema of the hypaspists.

Certainly Philip II is well attested as having little social or “moral” qualms about same sex relationships and we can readily assume he was not of that opinion on his “pat” (Malone). The whole story of Pausanias is related without any social comment until the handing over of same to the muleteers. Here it is not the act of buggery that is condemnatory but the complete lack of consent by the “out-of-it” Pausanias: the barbaric rape is unacceptable.

Peter Green (Alexander of Macedon p11)writes it up best:

Most Macedonian nobles preferred the manly pleasures of hunting, carousing, and casual fornication. Sodomy – with young boys or, at a pinch, with each other, they also much enjoyed…

[PMBardunias]

Not that Xenophon wants to "hide" such sex from his audience; rather that he wants to keep his audience from assuming that such relationships might be seen as a socially accepted norm in Laconia.

I agree that he doesn't want it to seem acceptable, but I think this is because the spartans did not want it to seem acceptable even to themselves. Often the best way to fool others is to fool yourself. I think this concept goes a long way to explaining Sparta, where they cultivated their almost mythologized austerity and the rest of the behaviour even among themselves- no matter that they may let laws "sleep" when it suits them. Hypocrisy was surely a virtue at sparta, but then wasn't it Socrates, heavily influenced by the Spartan lifestyle, who said that no philosophy whose goals you actually attained was worth subscribing to?

[Paralus]

I believe it was. Socrates "admired" (if that's the right word) the austerity that was the Spartan goal. I do agree with your line about fooling yourselves before you can readily fool others. The "shows" put on for visitors from other states reinforcing the Spartan elan might throw light on this.

Indeed hypocrisy was one the main Spartan virtues. Letting laws "lie" or "sleep" at the state's convenience became the norm as oliganthropy took a suffocating hold on the Laconian state. This was a condition the state was not equipped to deal with as land ownership continued to concentrate into fewer hands - of ever strengthening grip - as to do so will have meant throwing over one of the great pillars of the Spartan myth: that the state had never had and would never suffer the same suffrage / debt / civil strife that most others went through as they evolved over time. The lie was put to that during the agonies of Spartan resistance to the cancer of oliganthropy which metastised into painful and certain decline over the two centuries following Leuktra. Periodic outbursts of land / sufferage redistribution were like bursts of failed radiation or chemo. In the end, the state could not do what Athens and others had done and address the issue. That would have meant abandoning the myth of the "Lycurgan" system and dealing with the benficiaries of the oliganthropy who'd little interest in parting with their accruals.

[tsafa]

There is something missing from our modern day understanding of sexuality. It is that through most of human history, sex was an act of one person dominating another and bringing them under their control. The closest thing we have in our modern society is the sex that occurs in Criminal Prisons. In that context it is not likely that Achilles and Patroklos could have had sexual relations and both retained their status as warriors. It is entirely likely that both Achilles and Patroklos would have had sex with lower class males or females without negative consequence.

The relationships that developed in 5th century Athens between men and boys, and set a model for the rest of Greece, seem to be an entirely different animal. That was a mentor/student relationship. The mentor was not suppose to actually penetrate the boy. The idea behind that relationship was idealization. The physical form of the young boy was considered to be ideal, but he lacked knowledge. The knowledge of the older man was considered to be ideal, but he lacked an ideal physical form. The association of the two transferred the positive qualities of one to the other. The man/boy association ended when the boy went into the army and became a man himself.

We know from one of Socrates dialogues that Socrates rejected homosexuality. I am not sure if he is rejecting the man/boy relationships or homosexuality among grown men. I have gotten the impression that by Socrates time an elite culture had developed within Athens that actually stretched the bounds of acceptable homosexual behavior. The difference being a man having sex with a slaveboy... vs having sex with another free citizen. I suspect this may be what Socrates is actually condemning. It seems odd to me that he would condemn the man/boy association since it was not suppose to be sexual anyway.

It is interesting to note that in Greek mythology, there is only one two example of homosexuality. This is interesting since the Greeks anthropomorphism their gods. The fact that homosexuality among grown men does not appear often in mythology says something about what would be normal society. I suspect that any homosexual trend that appeared in Athens would have been limited to the elite and developed out of a feeling that the Athenians were above social restrictions. We see something similar to this today among celebrities.

I believe many of the plays in Socrates time where meant to be spoofs. We know for certain that they were political. They often made fun of politicians. I believe one cleaver one did not dare attack Pericles directly... but portrayed his concubine as a prostitute in an effort to get at him when she was actually of noble heritage but a foreigner (non-Athenian). The plays often took parts from earlier works, like the Iliad, and expanded on them. If the man on man homosexual trend was growing in Athens, it would also make sense to that the plays would have played up to that in an effort to gain favor. I believe that the audience determined who was the best playwright every year. I do not consider as fact any information created in the Classical and Hellenistic period relating to back the Mycenaean era. The Homeric epics themselves are suspect to later influences since they were committed to writing sometime around the 8th century BC.

There is something very telling in the victory of Philip II of Macedon over the Thibans, where he made a speech saying that they should not be looked down upon for their homosexuality. The Thibans fought in pairs of males lovers and died together. Philip II speech hints that while man and male-slave relationships may have been common, homosexual relationships between free men where not.

Philip II's speech supports the idea that the common view of sex in the ancient world was of one person in a higher standing dominating another person of a lower standing. It did not matter if the one dominated was male or female as long as their status was clear. Sex between equals upset this balance.

[Dan D'Silva]

Its more emotional or admirable that he seeks revenge for the death of his lover as opposed to very very close friend.

Well, I actually find it to be the opposite. I think it's more touching that someone could react so strongly to the death of a "mere" friend, where you might not expect it. Just my opinion, course.

[geala]

...
There is something very telling in the victory of Philip II of Macedon over the Thibans, where he made a speech saying that they should not be looked down upon for their homosexuality. The Thibans fought in pairs of males lovers and died together. Philip II speech hints that while man and male-slave relationships may have been common, homosexual relationships between free men where not.

Philip II's speech supports the idea that the common view of sex in the ancient world was of one person in a higher standing dominating another person of a lower standing. It did not matter if the one dominated was male or female as long as their status was clear. Sex between equals upset this balance.

I wouldn't say that only "male- male slave"-relations" were accepted. That would perhaps be more true for the Roman society. In Greece relations between free men were possible. That indeed posed the problem if the men had to be active, determinant, strong, independent and overall a kind of "machos", so it was a difficult habit to be the receiving part. The tense ritual of "man-boy" or sometimes better "man -young man" relations was a solution.

Often we look only at Athens or perhaps Sparta. Aristophanes, Xenophon and Plato, perhaps Aristoteles were mostly cited who mock at homosexual behaviour or more or less dislike it. But for the question of acceptance and ubiquity of male-male sexual relations the moral view and ethical adjudgement of some persons, even well known persons, is without meaning. The testual and social context and the frequency, in which it is mentioned, and also by these persons, is far more important. From this point of view I got the feeling (it's just that, not a statistical research) that male-male emotional relations with a sexual context were very far spread in the (higher) Greek classical and hellenistic society.