Friday, February 6, 2015

Untangling Early Christian Attitudes Part 4

Greetings all!  For health reasons, among others, I put the blog aside for a while, but feel the urge to finish.  Since I know that an 18 page blog post would choke some folks and bore others, I will continue to post a few pages at a time.  The blog posts that proceed this one are the earlier parts of this paper.  In order to understand how we got to the anti-homosexual attitudes that still exist today, it is helpful, in my opinion to understand where they came from.  The following section of the paper is an attempt to explain the changing of attitudes towards homosexuality from supportive to against during the switch over from the Roman Republic to the Roman Empire.  The attitudes for or against homosexuality don't fit perfectly into the switch over, but we see the attitude against homosexuality gaining a foothold shortly after the Roman Empire begins, so it is an easy frame of reference.

So, the question that begs to be asked is, “What caused the change?”  While no one has a clear answer, declining birth rate may have begun to cause problems for homoromantic couples, while at the same time beginning to lead to a condemnation of abortion and other forms of birth control.[1]  The birth rate was on the decline in the Roman Empire around the turn of the Millennium.[2]  Since Roman leaders needed to keep their armies up, the acetic traditions and homosexuality, as well as non-reproductive sexual contact, would likely have been problematic for the Empire.  The leaders would likely have thus started a campaign to reduce asceticism, abortion, and exclusive homosexuality.
Plutarch in the 1st century CE wrote that male relationships were not based on love.  He referred to them as “the lowest depth of vice,” so we can see the beginnings of a swing from acceptance to rejection.  Though I am unsure whether or not he was referring to relationships with the men both being of the same age or pederasty.[3]  And, Pliny the Elder, also from the 1st century, “condemns pathic behaviors as ‘persersions of sex’ … achieved ‘by crime against nature,’” and “Seneca levels the same criticism at transvestitism.”[4]  Ovid wrote at least one poem where a woman who loved another woman was unhappy at the prospect and complained that such was not the case in the animal world.  Obviously Ovid didn’t know animals or at least the character didn’t.[5]  So, a change appears to occur shortly after the start of the Common Era. 
Roman law was going through a metamorphosis as well.  The Lex Scantinia and the Lex Julia neither one specifically mention non-abusive same-gendered romance.  The first was used against rape, pedophilia/pederasty, etc.  The latter was specifically against adultery, though it was thought to have been used in some charges against same-gendered adultery, this does not indicate that it was a law against homoromantic couples.[6]  The law also indicated, “A married woman’s sexual involvement with another woman was defined as adultery.”[7]  So, while the law was going through a change, it was not a radical departure.  Clement of Alexandria in second century CE claimed that homosexuality was not illegal in Rome in his lifetime.[8]  These laws, which admittedly were written in the 3rd and 1st centuries BCE, appeared to be receiving more use and attention against non-heterosexual couples during the latter part of the 2nd century CE. 
In addition to the use of laws, physicians’ attitudes were changing.  Soranus, the physician of the first century BCE mentioned earlier, was leading the revolution of sexual abstinence.  He indicates that the loss of semen is unhealthy for the body.[9]  Soranus also considered homosexuality a disease.[10]  By the first century of the Common Era, “Musonious Rufus taught that sexual relations are reprehensible even in marriage unless they had a reproductive purpose.  For the same reason – the fact that it was sterile – homosexual intercourse was to be condemned.”[11]  So, while there were folks who had no problems either with or expressing homoerotic love, some did.  One must be careful to weigh all of the factors when determining the attitudes of an entire people.
Now, the laws really begin changing.  By the 3rd century CE, “Emperor Philip attempted to outlaw homosexual prostitution.”[12]  While one may be tempted to claim that clearly homosexuality was outlawed by this, Justinian’s code in 534CE made suprum cum masculis “illicit sex with males” illegal indicating that until then not all sex between males was illegal.[13]  Sadly, I could find little information about sex between women during this change.  While the Roman laws against homosexuality were put in place by Christian Emperors, this does not indicate that pagans “of the same class” were any more accepting of same-gender romance by the time the laws were enacted.  This would likely be due to the ascetic movement within pagan circles.[14]  Boswell also notes that Roman legal cases against homosexuality increased in the third century CE, but all forms of homosexuality were outlawed in the sixth century.[15]




[1] Pandora’s daughters 128-29
[2] Greenburg pg 160, Miller pg 9
[3] Fone 61
[4] Taylor 325
[5] Brooten pg 274
[6] Richlin pg 570
[7] Downing in LHC pg 47
[8] Fone pg 46
[9] Cantarella pg 189
[10] Taylor 348
[11] Cantarella pg 190
[12] Fone 46
[13] Crompton 143
[14] Greenburg, Bystryn pg 527-28
[15] Boswell pg 70-71

No comments:

Post a Comment