Spartan pederasty?

[Kineas]

I wouldn't deny that homosexuality existed in Sparta or Athens or anywhere else, but it is worth noting that, for instance, if homosexuality were the "norm" that some modern historians make it (wish it?) then Aristophanes's Lysistrata (Λυσιστράτη) (411 BC) would not have been funny.

Lysistrata is a comedy in which the women of Athens and Sparta refuse to have sex with their husbands until they make peace. The play was written in the darkest days of the 30 Year's War and if Greek men, or even men of the Hoplite Class in either state had been "mostly" or even "some" homosexual, the point of the play would vanish--it wouldn't have been funny then.

I'd further argue that Plutarch and Polybius are at the root of a great many tales of pederasty and the like. Look--let's face it, any system that allows the mature (men or women) special powers and privileges over the immature (men or women) usually results in sexual abuse. But... it seems to me that it suited later, mostly Roman, commentators to push the effeminacy of Greece. Most hoplites were farmers and small husbandmen or craftsmen who lived very plain, almost austere lives and didn't have time for orgies of any kind.

That said, I've also read a good deal of Greek poetry, and you can take Sappho (or Alcaeus, for that matter) in a number of different ways--probably just as they were meant to be.

But most of all, I'd recommend that anyone who is interested in this fraught and difficult subject read "Courtesans and Fishcakes," not because the author has all the answers, but because he argues that 5th C. Greeks weren't all wound up by sex--that's our problem, he says, and I think he has a point.

[sword121]

I wouldn't deny that homosexuality existed in Sparta or Athens or anywhere else, but it is worth noting that, for instance, if homosexuality were the "norm" that some modern historians make it (wish it?) then Aristophanes's Lysistrata (Λυσιστράτη) (411 BC) would not have been funny.

Lysistrata is a comedy in which the women of Athens and Sparta refuse to have sex with their husbands until they make peace. The play was written in the darkest days of the 30 Year's War and if Greek men, or even men of the Hoplite Class in either state had been "mostly" or even "some" homosexual, the point of the play would vanish--it wouldn't have been funny then.

I'd further argue that Plutarch and Polybius are at the root of a great many tales of pederasty and the like. Look--let's face it, any system that allows the mature (men or women) special powers and privileges over the immature (men or women) usually results in sexual abuse. But... it seems to me that it suited later, mostly Roman, commentators to push the effeminacy of Greece. Most hoplites were farmers and small husbandmen or craftsmen who lived very plain, almost austere lives and didn't have time for orgies of any kind.

That said, I've also read a good deal of Greek poetry, and you can take Sappho (or Alcaeus, for that matter) in a number of different ways--probably just as they were meant to be.

But most of all, I'd recommend that anyone who is interested in this fraught and difficult subject read "Courtesans and Fishcakes," not because the author has all the answers, but because he argues that 5th C. Greeks weren't all wound up by sex--that's our problem, he says, and I think he has a point.

I completely agee. It doesn't have to be about sex. From what I understand the original intention of pederasty in the Spartan culture was to become mentors and guardians and made them responsible for instilling arete in their young charges. The values of courage, virtue and excellence to grow to become great soldiers and great citizens or aristocrats. To become the best that they could be. These I feel were worthy intentions. I think of 'Merlin and Arthur'. Merlin as Arthur's teacher and guardian. Lord knows the young men of today could well benefit from having more mentors guiding them instead of floundering trying to make their own way and cocasionally coming away with skewed views of themselves and the world.

The sexual aspect of pederasty, I find rather suspect and questionable and a prime hunting ground for sexual predators. As we've said, they exist now, they surely existed back then. I've read somewhere that anal intercourse with your young charge was a punishable criminal act in Sparta.

Another thing to think about is quite often, emotional love and physical sex are translated as the same thing, although we all seem to know they aren't synonymous in our common modern understanding.

[Giannis K. Hoplite]

in our common modern understanding

This is the whole point of this discussion,the beginning and the end of it. My opinion is slightly different than those of Kineas and sword121,but there is no real point of debating(once again) since we can't know how representative the written evidence is,although it is clear it usually refers to physical sex(example Socrates admits he barely kept himself calm when he was sleeping under the same himation with the young Alcibiades). Lysistrata would still be funny since we're not talking about homosexuals but heterosexuals,meaning that a married man would have a regular relationship with his wife,but still he could participate in a sexual orgy with boys and/or women. And it seems to have been considered normal. And remember that Socrates was a Thetes, a rather poor guy,but still and Athenian citizen with full political rights (and habits).
Anal intercourse punished in Sparta? So it implies that other forms of sex were allowed. And the same act was punished,too,in Athens,but among adult men. And in fact the punished was the passive one,not the active.
Was it right or wrong? It doesn't matter today. Was it considered right or wrong then? Well,Socrates didn't consider it wrong,but Socrates was not representative example of the Athenian society's opinion.
Having participated in numerous such discussions my conclusion is that there is no conclusion and that anybody seriously interested in the matter aught to read the ancient texts for himself. They are much more clear that any moder perception.
Khairete
Giannis

[Paralus]

Too much attention has ben paid on the matter,not for any other reason but because some still today are not as open minded as the Greeks 2300 years ago.

Bingo! The entire discussion in a nutshell.

I'd argue the Spartan thingo though: there is ample evidence such relationshipscontinued into adulthood. Agesilaos is one whose "passions" are on his chlamys.

[PMBardunias]

I'd argue the Spartan thingo though: there is ample evidence such relationshipscontinued into adulthood. Agesilaos is one whose "passions" are on his chlamys.

There is no evidence for adult Spartan men engaging in intercourse with each other. The Erastes/eromenos bond remained important later in life, and the fact that it does is evidence that it was far more than sexual bond. One of my favorite instances of twisting evidence to match preconceptions or aggenda is the citing of a tale about a Spartan warrior who died fighting over his Erastes rather than let his body be taken. As if there is no bond between men that is worth dying over unless it involves genital insertion! And then another where Agiselaos' son would not seek preference for a friend with out getting sex in return.

That Agiselaos spends much of his time fighting the urge to play with persian youths is unreliable evidence for what happened at home. We need look no further than the modern example of the rape of Nanking to see how individuals reared in a tightly controlled culture behave when beyond the strictures of that society.

I also enjoy the fact that scholars have taken the fact that anal intercourse was known colloquially ta Athens as "Laconian style" as evidence for homosexuality. Perhaps they are unaware than you can do this with a woman too! In a culture where women marry at a comparatively late age, economic pressures push to small family size, and birth control options are limited, this becomes an important option. It is today for girls in many societies for the same reason. Some also believe that the notion of women/girl relationships at sparta is a misunderstanding and it is in fact men who could enter into an erastes-type relationship with unmarried girls.

We have more evidence for Spartan sexuality from primary sources than we do for the mechanics of hoplite combat, yet so often this is ignored and anectdotes or analogies are strung together in their place. I'll let the ancients speak:

Xenophon is quite clear, though so often dismissed, is clear when he
states (Constitution of the Lakedaimonians.2.1):

[12] I think I ought to say something also about intimacy with boys,
since this matter also has a bearing on education. In other Greek
states, for instance among the Boeotians, man and boy live together,
like married people; elsewhere, among the Eleians, for example,
consent is won by means of favours. Some, on the other hand, entirely
forbid suitors to talk with boys. [13] The customs instituted by
Lycurgus were opposed to all of these. If someone, being himself an
honest man, admired a boy's soul and tried to make of him an ideal
friend without reproach and to associate with him, he approved, and
believed in the excellence of this kind of training. But if it was
clear that the attraction lay in the boy's outward beauty, he banned
the connexion as an abomination; and thus he caused lovers to abstain
from boys no less than parents abstain from sexual intercourse with
their children and brothers and sisters with each other. [14] I am
not surprised, however, that people refuse to believe this. For in
many states the laws are not opposed to the indulgence of these
appetites.

Aristotle specifically addresses the homoeroticism of military
cultures and tells us Sparta is different from those who allow opened
homosexuality (and he is no apologist for Sparta as has been claimed
for Xenophon). http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/ancient/aristotle-
sparta.html

"the legislator wanted to make the whole state hardy and temperate,
and he has carried out his intention in the case of the men, but he
has neglected the women, who live in every sort of intemperance and
luxury. The consequence is that in such a state wealth is too highly
valued, especially if the citizens fall under the dominion of their
wives, after the manner of most warlike races, except the Celts and a
few others who openly approve of male loves. The old mythologer would
seem to have been right in uniting Ares and Aphrodite, for all
warlike races are prone to the love either of men or of women. This
was exemplified among the Spartans in the days of their greatness;
many things were managed by their women."

You really have to twist these quotes, or dismiss them, to render the meaning unclear. Saddly, true homosexuals in the modern sense of adult men involved in a romantic relationships were not free at all in ancient Greece to live openly that way. It is a shame that modern groups point to the greater acceptance of the physical use of men as a sexual outlet, but only if you were the "active" role, in the ancient world to bolster support for an emotional connection. Especially since the emotional tie, without sex, was much more accepted then.

[hoplite14gr]

Thanks for bringing Xenophon and Aristotelis into this Paul.
The biased views of Plutarch and Philostratos had been overated in my opinion.

Kind regards

[PMBardunias]

The biased views of Plutarch and Philostratos had been overated in my opinion.

You are welcome I am always amazed that these sources are simply dismissed when they are so much more knowledgable on the subject. My favorite is when they dismiss Xenophon as a Laconophile who is covering up the homosexual behavior of the Spartans. He of course does this because his morals and those of the other famous Laconophiles were ultimately derived from Spartan culture (the nation of philosophers). Oh, wait, if his moral outrage derives from Spartan culture, and spartan culture was pro homosexual bond between men, then why does he not accept homosexuality...D'oh!

I know of no one who would accuse Aristotle of Laconophilia.

[Giannis K. Hoplite]

And what about the biased views of Xenophon? Paul it's as if you imply Agisilaus and his environment would accept his likeness for Persian boys but not with Spartan boys? And Xenophons says "If someone, being himself an
honest man, admired a boy's soul..." so,if he wasn't an honest man what??? Xenophon presents the idealized Spartan Constitution,because there is no point to present the flaws of the Spartan customs!!! And Xenophon does not appear against homosexuality in general! He hasn't accused anyone as homosexual,nor his teacher Socrates! And again Paul I don't see why yous till try to "defend" the Spartans(and only the Spartans) against who? Those people/scholars who don't even try to realize that sexuality then and now are a completely different thing!
You did well to post Xenophon,but I think you do wrong to dismiss all other ancient writers who are "opposed" to him as unreliable sources so easily.
I'll repeat myself,the sources speak by themselves. No need to evaluate them to others with risking being totally wrong with our modern preconceptions.
Khairete
Giannis

[PMBardunias]

And what about the biased views of Xenophon? Paul it's as if you imply Agisilaus and his environment would accept his likeness for Persian boys but not with Spartan boys?

The question is not if Agiselaos' behavior shows that young Spartan men might have sex with younger spartan adolescents. They surely did, or at least saw this as something that was not sanctioned against. Such behavior was seen as "childish" something left behind and grown out of. The greek term is Paediskos or something like that. The question is whether Agiselaos wanting sex with a young man, though restraining himself from consumating it in Xenophon's story, says anything at all about the "institutionalized" nature of sexuality in the Erastes-eromenos relationship. It is like some future archaologist finding the notes on a paedophilic priests trial and demonstrating that being an altar boy is a sexual coming of age rite in our society.

As to bias in Xenophon, explain his bias to me. If he is pro-spartan and spartans are pro-homosexual to the point it is an institution, then why would he be anti-homosexual?? Obviously if he puts limitations on the sexual access of men to their eromenos then this reflects a spartan norm. The notion that he is embarrased to present a "true" homosexual sparta to the other greeks falls pretty short when he says they won't believe him because they are MORE accepting of such relationships.

And Xenophons says "If someone, being himself an
honest man, admired a boy's soul..." so,if he wasn't an honest man what??? Xenophon presents the idealized Spartan Constitution,because there is no point to present the flaws of the Spartan customs!!!

Clearly he is stating that the relationship cannot be based on sexual attraction, but the idea that the erastes would sometimes, maybe even often use his role to get sex from his eromenos is far different than the intended role of the relationship. Just like some priests have sex with boys, but their relationship is not based on it. Remember that the ancestor of this type of "godfather" relationship probably originated from an indoeuropean model that may well have been based on sex. The evidence is simply quite clear that this element was not considered compulsory in Sparta.

And again Paul I don't see why yous till try to "defend" the Spartans(and only the Spartans) against who?

Not defend the Spartans, for its pretty clear that the Thebans and Cretans still openly had sex with their "lovers" and this in no way diminishes them. In Crete the bonding ritual is clearly an abduction for sex (Oddly the fact that the Spartan Marriage rite mimics this is taken as evidence for ongoing pederasty!).

This is a question of truth. Spartans obviously did not openly flaunt sex with their "lovers". This was seen as a lack of control and frowned on by spartans in the way they frowned on all such lacks of control. Spartans did not fight so well because they "stood next to their sex parteners", which you will read ad nauseum. They fought so well in part because they stood with men they loved, hence the tie-in with eros and war. Brothers love and they were a band of brothers- complete with all the rivalries that implies.


[/quote]Those people/scholars who don't even try to realize that sexuality then and now are a completely different thing! [quote]

Sexuality is completely unchanged, only the prevailing acceptance. Under the most strict puritanical domination men still snuck off to engage in the "act that has no name". It is natural and unstoppable. The question is if a sexual relationship between men and boys was an institution at sparta or not and if homosexual relationships between adult men were openly accepted. Me, Xenophon, and Aristotle say no. It is a mark against Sparta that they could not accept such, just as it is a mark against Athens that Aristophanes can get a laugh by calling his rivals "wide-arsed".

[Timotheus]

Sadly, it is this warped version of ancient Greece that seems to stick in most people's minds! Usually the first comments I get from some colleagues at work when you mention Rome or ancient Greece, is ' they were homosexual weren't they?" :roll:

Doent help either that if someone mentions Alexander the Great the first thoughts are always "oh that gay general".

[Giannis K. Hoplite]

I thought it obvious and given that the Spartans did not accept adult sexual relationships openly,and for that matter,I haven't heard about any greek society that did. The question is always about adults and boys. However,even this relationship,that was not banned in many cities, will still cause the disgust for most modern unaware people-and for some scholars. What is the question? If the laws wrote it or if it happened in reality? I'm sure and i think you agree that the percentage of men that regularly had sex with boys was higher than that of today. This doesn't make them more gay than us. And if you accept that the way you're brought up infects your way of thinking,then you have to admit that sexuality changes over time and place. Customs,freedom and even laws infect it,it's not a purely biological process.
In the end I can't find serious disagreement between us,Paul. I just think that in the same way calling Spartans or other Greeks "Gays" is wrong, pointing all the time that Lycurgus' laws were more "modest" is also wrong. Nor the one neither the other will offer a realistic view of the unseen habits of the Spartans.
Khaire
Giannis

[PMBardunias]

The question is always about adults and boys.

Yes, and the proper term in our, at least in the US leal system, is paedophilia not homosexuality. Yet we don't read of rampant paedophilia in Greece, but homosexuality. In reality it was something distinct from both of our modern notions of paedophelia or homosexuality. The boys at the age "when they looked most beautiful" were used as proxy-women by men who would not find other adult males attractive. They looked at "beatiful" male youths and objectified them in art the way we do girls in our culture.

In the end I can't find serious disagreement between us,Paul. I just think that in the same way calling Spartans or other Greeks "Gays" is wrong, pointing all the time that Lycurgus' laws were more "modest" is also wrong. Nor the one neither the other will offer a realistic view of the unseen habits of the Spartans.

Perhaps I haven't been clear, I am not saying that Spartans did not engage in this behavior as part of their "unseen habits"- heck, meeting their brides required sneaking! I am saying that the laws of Lycurgus were more modest and required such sneaking. This is important because at the moment the prevailing opinion is that a compulsary homosexual relationship was part of a boys upbringing in sparta. This is to misunderstand the role of the erastes/eromenos relationship at Spartan and hampers our understanding of the role of women, offering an unrealistic view of the "seen" habits.

As to why this is an issue at all, I'll leave you with the words of Mike Gravel, a man who was a senator in our government and a candidate for the presidential nomination this year when he made this statement:

"If you have any knowledge of history -- ancient history -- in Sparta they encouraged homosexuality because they fight for the people they love, and if it's your partner and you love him, then you're prepared to die for him."

Again, and perhaps indicative of this fellow, there is nothing worth dying for except sex!

[Giannis K. Hoplite]

OK then,I'm with those who chose to say they don't have any knowledge of history --ancient history--]
Khaire
Giannis

[PMBardunias]

OK then,I'm with those who chose to say they don't have any knowledge of history --ancient history

Ha, sad isn't it. In discussions like this there are often two distinct levels, one I could have with you about subtle differences in definition and interpretation and one I would have to have with this fellow to disabuse him of his notions. Sometimes when the levels cross we seem to disagree when we really don't.

[Giannis K. Hoplite]

Yes,you put it correct.This is what happens many times. Crossing of "levels". What I usually try to do is pass the second with a simple mention of my opinion and i continue the rest in the first level. After all,this forum is designed for those who come willing to disabuse themselves of their notions. Isn't it?
Khaire
Giannis