Part of the
confusion in recent scholarship regarding same-sex relationships in early
Christianity lies in the word homosexual. Both homosexual
and heterosexual seem to be confusing
and poorly defined words. If a man rapes
a boy, while it is same-gender sexual contact, it is above all pedophilia. The same would be true if a man rapes a
girl. It is certainly other-gender
sexual contact; however, it is above all pedophilia. While pederasty may have been defined as sex
between an “adult” and a youth of up to 25 or 30 years old,[1] it
is important to understand that this is at its root pederasty, not homosexuality nor heterosexuality. If a man is convicted of raping a woman, it
would be folly to conclude that the society in which he lives considers
heterosexuality repulsive or abominable.
Yet, this is what many scholars have done. Therefore, one should use caution when trying
to understand the influences that shaped the attitudes of the leaders of early
Christianity.
Miller contradicts
an earlier claim that homosexuality was not understood by the ancients the way
we understand it today[2]
when he talks about Plato’s Syposium
where Aristophanes discusses the myth of creation.[3] In the myth, people were originally
doublets. There were three doublets,
namely a man-man doublet, a woman-woman doublet, and a woman-man doublet. The people were split in two and one partner/half
of the doublet is constantly searching for their mate or “other half.” Smith also refers to this myth[4];
however, he recommends using caution in interpreting this myth because of,
“Plato’s playful and subtle use of irony and humor.” According to Adams ,
Plato felt that democracies (republics) would accept homosexual activities
while tyrannies would discourage them.[5] So well known were the homosexual men in Rome that even mannerisms,
which oddly enough coincide with certain stereotypes of gay men today, were
easily spotted. Lisping, swinging hips,
posture, and others were noted by such men as Juvenal. [6]
To understand
attitudes towards homosexuality in ancient Rome , one would do well to consider that
attitudes varied much like they do today.
It is also helpful to remember that the person trying to understand the
attitudes of the ancients are also colored by their own attitudes. Satlow indicates that an adult male citizen
who is passive in sexual encounters is reviled while the female who has sex
with another female is considered someone who shirks her duty in “her political
place within the society.”[7]
Yet, “There was probably no law against homosexuality per se until fairly late
in the Empire.”[8] Taylor
points out, “There is plenty of ethnographic and
anthropological evidence that the actual behavior (the ‘reality’) and the way
it is socially characterized (the ‘concepts’) are often radically at odds.”[9] So, tweezing out the truth can be a
challenge.
Few scholars have
taken on the task of understanding ancient Roman attitudes towards
homosexuality like Saara Lilja. She
points out, “‘The exploitation of any kind of effeminacy for the purpose of
jokes about passive homosexuality’ is found in both New and Middle comedy”
(roughly from the end of the 5th c. BCE to the beginning of the 3rd
c. CE.)[10] She also notices that, “One further
difference between Plautus and New comedy is the fact that cooks and other
persons who were low on the social scale never make homosexual allusions in New
comedy, whereas the same characters in Plautus’ plays have predilection for
vulgar homosexual jokes.”[11]
She also notes, “In Plautus’ plays, “the homosexual relationship in question
usually exists between a slave and his master.”[12] It is important, however, to keep in mind
that one cannot look to comedy to explain reality within a country. It only shows an aspect of that reality.
Lilja, in order to
fully explore the topic, looked at Roman laws and lawsuits. She found that Valerius’ history has 12
sexual charges being charged as against the law. 6 of these are heterosexual and six
homosexual. Lilja concludes, “This fact
alone shows that it could not be homosexuality as such that was condemned, any
more than it could be heterosexuality as such.”[13] Boswell agrees with her.[14] Lilja goes on to point out that the earliest
instance of the law’s use is against a man who tries to force himself on a
citizen who had become a slave to pay off a debt. When the slave refused, the owner beat
him. The second oldest is over a tribune
who was called before the comitia for trying to coerce a subordinate into
sex. The third was over a man who tried
to seduce a young boy and was called before the comitia by the boy’s father.
Another was over a man who had sex with a young boy. When accused, he claimed the boy was a
prostitute. Another case involved a
soldier who killed his tribune while attempting to escape his sexual
advances. Marius acquitted him.[15]
Some people have
used these lawsuits in an attempt to prove that homosexuality was against the
law in ancient Rome . However, those who claim that these are
indeed proof that homoromantic relationships were condemned generally by
Romans, should keep in mind that such a statement proves that heteroromantic
relationships were also condemned by Romans since Livy mentions a similar story
in which a Queen kills a Roman soldier for attempting to sexually assault her.[16] Boswell points out correctly, “The suggestion
is not that heterosexual practices were considered reprehensible but that
sexual assaults on the unwilling invited retribution from either the victim or
the state.”[17] So, a negative attitude towards homosexuality
in general cannot be proven from these lawsuits.
Likewise, a
positive attitude cannot be proven from comparing the heterosexual lawsuits
with the homosexual lawsuits. To find
the general attitudes of ancient Rome ,
one can consider some of Roman history.
Since many Romans knew Greek history, it may be helpful to remember to look
at what would be fairly common knowledge.
“The Theban army composed of homosexual lovers was reputed to be
undefeatable.”[18] These men would fight and die for one another
and were greatly respected. Also,
Socrates loved Alcibiades in a homoromantic relationship between folks of the
same age range.[19] Even one of Rome ’s foundation myths included the story of
Nisus and Euryalus who were involved in a homoromantic relationship and so
devoted to one another that they died for each other “on the plains of troy.”[20]
It has also been
reported that in Greece ,
some female couples went through ritual marriages as in the case of Agido and
Hagesichora.[21] In order not to be completely one-sided, I
would like to mention that in addition to pederasty in men, there was also
reported pederasty in women’s relationships.
Plutarch wrote that in Sparta ,
there was a pederastic relationship between a woman and a chosen girl. Cantarella also quotes a poem from Anacreon
to a girl from Lesbos in which it becomes
clear that the “girl” is so much younger that she has no desire for Anacreon
and goes after someone closer to her own age.[22] So, it seems clear that both male and female
homoromantic relationships existed in ancient Greece, and Romans would have known
about them.
[1] Smith pg
230
[2] Miller
pg 1
[3] Miller
pg 6
[4] Smith pg
239
[5] Adams pg 522
[6] Fone pg
51
[7] Satlow
pg 2
[8]
Greenburg, Brystryn pg 519
[9] Taylor pg 321
[10] Lilja
pg 39
[11] Lilja
pg 40
[12] Lilja
pg 46
[13] Lilja
pg 106
[14] Boswell
pg 63
[15] Lilja
pg 106-08
[16] Boswell
pg 64
[17] Boswell
pg 64
[18]
Greenburg, Brystryn pg 517
[19] Fone pg
20
[20] Fone 46
[21] Cantarella pg 83
[22] Cantarella pg 84-87
Nice. A lot of work on your part.
ReplyDelete