pothos.org

Sikander your words are a breath of fresh air. Finally, someone is taking a level-headed approach. Alexander could not have known more about human relationships than what his society had taught him and his society (no offence here to any Greeks out there) was one in which homoerotic encounters most certainly occurred, as they do today. The fact that the Greeks were responsible for many important discoveries and patterns of living does not disqualify them from being and having been subject to the same human impulses that have been pulsating through our world since the dawn of time. I challenge anyone who does not believe this to go to Greece and live in a Greek village among the locals and listen to the stories they have to tell. You may just be fortunate enough to be privy to the knowledge that not only sodomy, but also forced incest and bestiality were common practices there, as they are and have been in many other countries. This is not to say the general population of the country accepts these practices; it is merely human nature. In those places where social mores are looser and other priorities are at the fore, sexual morals take a back seat; like when men have to train for war for years without seeing a single woman because the future of their city state is at risk.

I do need to stress though that the homosexual behaviour of ancient Greek cultures was vastly different to that of today, purely because of the dramatic change in our modern culture which allows women the privilege of choosing their own sexual destiny outside of the bonds of marriage. This is why we cannot call Alexander or the Spartans homosexuals; it has an entirely different meaning today. Homosexual men today are not interested in women after coming out; they are simply not attracted to women in any sense. This I have from past gay friends. It is not about simply behaviour but overall orientation.

Alexander may have been a homosexual; he may not have been. We cannot know. This does not mean he didn't strive for the divine, the noble and the good. What is important is that we know enough about his character to be confident that, given the knowledge about an issue of his behaviour that caused disapproval, he would have made definite attempts to change. He cannot do this now he's dead, to suit us. That's why he speaks to us so powerfully from beyond the grave; why he still rules, in a sense. This is why, in my opinion, he is the most powerful moral mortal ever to have walked the earth and why no mortal will ever equal him.

Ciao XX

Alita wrote:Alexander may have been a homosexual; he may not have been. We cannot know. This does not mean he didn't strive for the divine, the noble and the good. What is important is that we know enough about his character to be confident that, given the knowledge about an issue of his behaviour that caused disapproval, he would have made definite attempts to change. He cannot do this now he's dead, to suit us. That's why he speaks to us so powerfully from beyond the grave; why he still rules, in a sense. This is why, in my opinion, he is the most powerful moral mortal ever to have walked the earth and why no mortal will ever equal him.

Yo!?

I don't quite know where to begin with that. The "most powerful moral mortal"; "strive for the divine, the noble and the good"? Sounds like Mother Theresa, Francis of Assisi, Ghandi and Jesus Christ rolled into one. Or a fourteen year old girl describing the Bay City Rollers back in the seventies

Believe I’ll take my cold-ridden head to the comfy chair for the Waratahs/Stormers rugby game. The ‘Tahs can’t be as embarrassing as last week.

Alita wrote:What is important is that we know enough about his character to be confident that, given the knowledge about an issue of his behaviour that caused disapproval, he would have made definite attempts to change.

Such as when he stopped wearing Persian dress and dismissed all the Persians from his court, because Cleitus the Black was a bit unhappy about it, and thanked Cleitus for putting him on the straight and narrow?

Sorry, I don't think so. Not least because, when you are effectively the ruler of the world, you don't have to give a damn about what anyone else thinks of you. He had already been reminded, in 328BC, that what he did was the law, even if it broke what others perceived as being natural/moral/statute law. And he didn't stop his orientalising because a few old-guard Macedonians didn't like it. Why, therefore, change any other behaviour because some people felt a bit awkward about it?

ATB

I challenge anyone who does not believe this to go to Greece and live in a Greek village among the locals and listen to the stories they have to tell. You may just be fortunate enough to be privy to the knowledge that not only sodomy, but also forced incest and bestiality were common practices there, as they are and have been in many other countries

I assure you, most of the people living in Athens today have roots from villages from all over Greece. At my village there are no such stories. Incidents like these where they could have happened are isolated. And that's the way it was even 200 years ago. Heck, the Scots had the name of screwing around with sheep, but what does this mean? That in every Scottish village people used to visit their sheep often for their sexual needs and that this was widespread? I doubt it. They were isolated cases. That's my point.

But again, lets not compare societies. Different cultures.

Paralus: You made my point exactly. There may be 100.000 homosexuals in Sydney. What does this mean? That the whole population is keen on homoerotism? If an archaiologist from the future found a gay Mardi Grass event tape what would he think? That this is represantative for the society of Australia?

From the Oxford Classical Dictionary:

Sexual relations between persons of the same sex certainly did occur (they are widely attested in ancient sources), but there were not systematically distinguished or conceptualised as such, much less were they thought to represent a single, homogeneous phenomenon in contradistinction to sexual relations between persons of different sexes. That is because the ancients did not classify kinds of sexual desire or behaviour according to the sameness or difference of the sexes of the persons who engaged in a sexual act; rather, they evaluated sexual acts according to the degree to which such acts either violated or conformed to norms of conduct deemed appropriate to individual sexual actors by reasons of their gender, age, and social status ...

Greek and Roman men (whose sexual subjectivity receives far greater attention in the extant sources than does women's) generally understood sex to be defined in terms of sexual penetration and phallic pleasure, whether the sexual partners were two males, two females, or one male and one female. The physical act of sex itself required, in their eyes, a polarization of the sexual partners into the categories of penetrator and penetrated as well as a corresponding polarization of sexual roles into 'active' and 'passive'. Those roles in turn were correlated with superordinate and subordinate social status, with masculine and femenine gender styles, and (in the case of males, at least) with adulthood and adolescence. Phallic insertion functioned as a marker of male precedence; it also expressed social domination and seniority. The isomorphism of sexual, social, gender and age roles made the distinction between 'activity' and 'passivity' paramount for categorising sexual acts and actors of either gender; the distinction between homosexual and heterosexual contacts could still be invoked for certain purposes (e.g. Ov, Ars am. 2.682-4; Achilles Tatius 2.33-8 ), but it remained of comparatively minor taxonomic and ethical significance.

In other words, whether the person you were having sex with was male or female was of less importance than was your, and their, level of participation and what it signified in terms of social status, etc.

ATB

Greetings,

Marcus said: "In other words, whether the person you were having sex with was male or female was of less importance than was your, and their, level of participation and what it signified in terms of social status, etc. "

And yes, as I will continue to assert, *how* was more important than with *who*.

Regards,
Sikander

Efstathios wrote:

No matter that such homoerotic behaviour was part of the Pages institution where the sons of the nobility were, essentially, taken hostage by and bound to (sometimes literally) the king.

Where is this written, or implied?

Head cold aside Stathi, I thought long before submitting this reply. That because, it would seem, no matter the evidence produced the result will be the same: no homoerotic relationships amongst the Macedonian court, pages or anywhere else in ancient Greece. No matter the Spartan Agoge actively encouraged such; no matter Thebes being in a position to constantly supply an elite corps of three hundred solely male lovers; no matter the following from Diodorus:

There was a Macedonian Pausanias who came of a family from the district Orestis. He was a bodyguard of the king and was beloved by him because of his beauty. When he saw that the king was becoming enamoured of another Pausanias (a man of the same name as himself), he addressed him with abusive language, accusing him of being a hermaphrodite and prompt to accept the amorous advances of any who wished. Unable to endure such an insult, the other kept silent for the time, but, after confiding to Attalus, one of his friends, what he proposed to do, he brought about his own death voluntarily and in a spectacular fashion. For a few days after this, as Philip was engaged in battle with Pleurias, king of the Illyrians, Pausanias stepped in front of him and, receiving on his body all the blows directed at the king, so met his death

The incident was widely discussed and Attalus, who was a member of the court circle and influential with the king, invited the first Pausanias to dinner and when he had plied him till drunk with unmixed wine, handed his unconscious body over to the muleteers to abuse in drunken licentiousness. So he presently recovered from his drunken stupor and, deeply resenting the outrage to his person, charged Attalus before the king with the outrage. Philip shared his anger at the barbarity of the act but did not wish to punish Attalus at that time because of their relationship, and because Attalus's services were needed urgently.

This, of course, describes a “homosexual” relationship between the king (Philip) and one of his pages. Note that it is the drunken rape that is – understandably – the outrage, not the homoerotic relationship. That the fellow had seemingly graduated seems largely irrelevant: he resents the fact that Philip has fallen in love with another page of the same name. Justin (most likely using Theopompus as his source via Hammond’s logic) reports Alexander of Epiros was the subject of another of Philip’s relationships (Justin 8.6. 4-8). Of course this will be all Philip’s doing – he had the problem yes? Not likely. Such relationships within the school of pages were likely not notable. Those with the king possibly more so. Theopompus again:

Philip's court in Macedonia was the gathering-place of all the most debauched and brazen-faced characters in Greece or abroad, who were there styled the king's companions. For Philip in general showed no favour to men of good repute who were careful of their property, but those he honoured and promoted were spendthrifts who passed their time drinking and gambling. In consequence he not only encouraged them in their vices, but made them past masters in every kind of wickedness and lewdness. Was there anything indeed disgraceful and shocking that they did not practise, and was there anything good and creditable that they did not leave undone? Some of them used to shave their bodies and make them smooth although they were men, and others actually practised lewdness with each other though bearded

Even allowing for rhetorical exaggerration, it has to be remebered that Theopompus was resident at Philip’s court for some time. He was a contemporary of the events and wrote for an audience familiar with those events – not four hundred years later. Such had to be believable – even if exaggerated – and so would have a basis in fact. In the words of modern historians:

Waldemar Heckel: Pausanius of Orestis seems to have been a Hypaspist, but his alleged sexual relationship with Philip would have been the product of his younger days, when he served the king as one of the Kings pages; for it seems that homosexuality was common, if not encouraged, at the court. Marshals of Alexander’s Empire

N Hammond: …his (Diodorus’)source was Diyllus and the account is dependable, especially in its understanding of Macedonian institutions, including the School of Pages in which homosexual relationships with oder men often developed. Philip of Macedon

Bosworth: He (Philip) also, it seems, founded the institution of the Pages: the sons of prominent nobles received an education at courtin the immediate entourage of the king, developing a personal attachment to him while necessarily serving as hostages for the good behaviour of their families. Conquest and Empire

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

This is, of course, the environment in which Alexander grew up. He too was a “page” – royal son or not. This is the instutuion he maintained without – as far as we know – any alteration. One imagines that went on unchanged, along with the royal court, into Asia.

What to make of Bagoas? “Alexander’s favourite” as Plutarch reports him and a sexual partner of Darius and Alexander as Curtius reports. Well, as we have decided, Curtius is unreliable and as for the rest “it is Alexander we are talking about”.

Never say never, but, I believe that this will be the last I’ll have to say on the subject. It goes round in ever diminishing circles of denial. In my opinion, homoerotic relationships existed in the time under discussion. They were fostered under intuitions such as the Spartan Agoge and the Macedonian Pages. They appear in the sources and garner little attention: they are not remarkable. It matters not at all to my view either of Philip or his son and what they accomplished. I do not have the hang up.

Keep going Sikander. You are making an uncommon amount of common sense.

Sikander Hail. I comment what you picked up as fundamentl Farrel didnt have the forve or the will to be a great commander.

Richard Burtons Arguments with Philip were masicaly up yours father and really did hold him in contempt which could have been Burtons Charisma and power. Farrel on the other hand had the look in his eye that Kilmer could as easily have clipped him rount the ear causing him to cry and be sent to bed.

Kenny

Such as when he stopped wearing Persian dress and dismissed all the Persians from his court, because Cleitus the Black was a bit unhappy about it, and thanked Cleitus for putting him on the straight and narrow?

Sorry, I don't think so. Not least because, when you are effectively the ruler of the world, you don't have to give a damn about what anyone else thinks of you. He had already been reminded, in 328BC, that what he did was the law, even if it broke what others perceived as being natural/moral/statute law. And he didn't stop his orientalising because a few old-guard Macedonians didn't like it. Why, therefore, change any other behaviour because some people felt a bit awkward about it?

I said Alexander was moral; I did not say that he was subject to the whims of a few racist or bigoted acquaintances. He had enough sense to know when to bow to the desires of his men and when to try and push them so that they might realise the vision he had: of a united empire which he was responsible for presiding over. His oath in 324 B.C. evidences his desire that all his subjects should get along and not squabble over superficial issues like dress. He thought like a king. But he also had philotimo; he would not willingly place his feet on another king's table and he had enough conscience to be sorry when he did something wrong. Having a temper does not make one a devil.

I assure you, most of the people living in Athens today have roots from villages from all over Greece. At my village there are no such stories. Incidents like these where they could have happened are isolated. And that's the way it was even 200 years ago. Heck, the Scots had the name of screwing around with sheep, but what does this mean? That in every Scottish village people used to visit their sheep often for their sexual needs and that this was widespread? I doubt it. They were isolated cases. That's my point.

Good point Stathi. The word isolated says it all. In the same way, an isolated incident of homosexual behaviour does not make a man a homosexual, especially if he is driven to it by circumstances and peer pressure.

Seriously though, you never heard stories like that? I must know some pretty wicked people - or wicked storytellers!

I was unable to really sit down over the weekend, but I see that this thread has come quite a way. Well since Paralus' last post I don't think I'll bother adding much more. I'll just answer some of the points that were directed specifically towards me.

Efstathios wrote:Kekoro, i have one remark. Have you read "The last wine" by Marry Renault? It shows the love between 2 men, one teenager and the other of the age of 25, and later on the teenager finds a woman to marry, and in result the relationship between the two men seases. And we see that this annoys them, as they still have a desire for eachother. Of course Mary Renault puts it in a more romantic way throughout the book. But heck, would a society permitt this kind of love between two people, and when the non adult became an adult, or got married, that it had to stop? This doesnt make sense. It would be sadistic. I was reading the book, and what Renault wrote just didnt make sense, if you know what i mean.

It's Keroro.
I haven't read it, no. As far as it being sadistic, sexual mores often do have an element of sadism to them. Princesses used to be married off to Kings they had never met to seal alliances in the middle ages. Is this sadistic? Yes. Does it therefore not make sense?

The suggested system of antiquity does make sense, just not from a romantic point of view. It makes sure that bonds are formed between the older and younger generation, acts as a form of symbolic violence to reaffirm the power of the older men over the younger, provides the youth with an adult who could ease his introduction to society, and finally, when attention turns to the women, ensures that virgins are available for marriage and childbearing. From a sociological, functional point of view this makes perfect sense.

Efstathios wrote: And i ask this, if indeed what happended was what you said, and what most of the people believe, wouldnt we have more information? I mean, this homoerotic relationship between young men e.t.c. must have been a main element in the life of Athens for example. But yet none of the works that we have are devoted in such an event. We dont have any tragedies, plays, poems e.t.c. about the love of two men, like Marry Renault's book. Dont you find that strange?

We only have Plato's symposium talking about some kinky Philosophers and a bi-sexual Alciviades. Ok, what does this say?

When something is part of everyday life it does not necessarily merit much attention in the media. If (only if) homoerotic relationships were part of everyday life then one should not expect to see many direct references to it. It is just part of how things were done - part of the background - taken for granted.

Efstathios wrote: Since we dont have anymore information about these matters, we cannot say what really went on. But i believe that if there was something like this going on, we would have more information about it.

I do disagree with you here, I believe that we have plenty of evidence about homoerotic relationships in ancient Greece. It takes more effort to argue against it than it does to argue for it. However, without the benefit of any videotape evidence I doubt that you will be convinced. (Joke ).

Getting back to the point of the discussion - was the depiction of Alexander's sexuality justified in Stone's movie? Considering that you have accepted that most people believe that homoerotic relationships went on in the time the film was set can you not accept that it was reasonable that Stone included this (briefly) in the film? Here we have a large number of very well informed people telling Stone that in their opinion ancient Greece and Macedonian society had homoerotic relationships, and you have accepted that this is the basis of the assumption that Alex and Heph had such a relationship. So can you not see why Stone included this? If he had chosen to disregard this advice then would he not have been guilty of a gross level of arrogance? I'm not asking you to praise him or his film here, just to understand the situation he was in and the choice he had to make before accusing him of trying to sex up the film deliberately.

Seems to me that in a film that is about Alexander himself and not his "accomplishments", leaving the sexuality out would have been silly (the Burton film, Hephaistion did not even exist for all intents and purposes). edited: I do recall reading about a TV series pilot prior to Star Trek in the early 60's) with William Shatner as ATG and his best buddy was named Cleander (not Hephaistion..why???).

As I read once, somewhere, one does not usually attempt to deify their drinking buddy. If anything, Stone did not go into their relationship (and I don't mean a sex scene) enough. Would love to have seen the pyre..now THAT'S devotion.

Karen, thanks for that Kos diary, that was interesting. I hadn't been there in ages, the newest format makes it hard for me to see comments so I gave up. I take it there has been the usual kerfuffle over this there.

Alita wrote:I said Alexander was moral; I did not say that he was subject to the whims of a few racist or bigoted acquaintances. He had enough sense to know when to bow to the desires of his men and when to try and push them so that they might realise the vision he had: of a united empire which he was responsible for presiding over.

Actually, at the risk of being pedantic, what you said was:

What is important is that we know enough about his character to be confident that, given the knowledge about an issue of his behaviour that caused disapproval, he would have made definite attempts to change.

It was that statement I answered; and I still stand by it - Alexander was made aware of various issues of his behaviour that some (at least) of his friends/army disapproved of, and he made no effort to change. This is a different point from the one you are now making.

ATB

Karen, thanks for that Kos diary, that was interesting. I hadn't been there in ages, the newest format makes it hard for me to see comments so I gave up. I take it there has been the usual kerfuffle over this there.

Well, someone said Lord of the Rings was racist, and someone else scoffed, and several bad words were exchanged, so I suppose you could call that the usual kerfuffle. Suggest going over there and trying changing your comments settings; they're right on each diary. Or wait until they unveil DKos v. 4. Looks like I'm going to be doing some artwork for it (I'm buddies with a frontpager or two).

To haul this back to Alexander, he gave up on the proskynesis idea due to strong opposition, so I don't think it's fair to say he never changed his mind when people objected to his behavior. There's his acceding to turn back from the Hyphasis, too.

Warmly,
Karen

marcus wrote:It was that statement I answered; and I still stand by it - Alexander was made aware of various issues of his behaviour that some (at least) of his friends/army disapproved of, and he made no effort to change. This is a different point from the one you are now making.

ATB

But some, if not most, of the behavior that the Macedonians were trying to get Alexander to change was pro-unification bhavior that was considered to be non-Macedonian. I would say that he was right to reject that.

I'm not convinced that he was the on the dark side in what he was doing vis-a-vis the Persians and Indians.

As always, it's a shame that he died when he did so we can't see if he could have pulled off whatever he had in mind.

Now, if we coould ever contact an alternate universe where he did...

Keroro, you remind me of the people that go along with everything they feed them with. I mean, it all seems possilbe to you with this matter. Just because a homosexual poet and tutor, Walter Pater in 1870, and his band that were also homosexuals, started this serrade by saying that homosexuality flourished in ancient Greece. And they had an answer for everything. Surely, no matter aukward the answer was , they had to stand by their theory.

In 1874 he was turned down at the last moment by Benjamin Jowett, Master of Balliol for a previously promised proctorship. The reason remained a mystery until recently, when records were found documenting an affair with a nineteen-year-old undergraduate, William Money Hardinge. Hardinge had attracted unfavorable attention as a result of his outspoken homosexuality and blasphemous verse, and was allowed to withdraw rather than be expelled

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Pater

How was it possible for homosexuality to flourish in a society that had strict laws that forbade it?
Because laws are meant to be broken.

Why would a society allow people to fall in love with eachother but later systematically ban their relationship?
Because that was how it was. The Greeks amongst other things are proven to have been also sadists.

How could Alexander follow the Persian custom of accepting the most beautifull women of the empire in his bed, whenever he could of course, and in the meanwhile [edited] Bagoas and Hephaestion?
Oh, he could take multiple opponents every night, that's why he woke up in the noon.

Need more?

Why did Alexander refused the male prostitutes that Filoxenos proposed as present, and cried out loud about the obscene of the situation and asked for the pimp Theodoros to be destroyed?
Because he didnt approve for male prostitution, he considered it to be a shame.

Oh, well HELLO? And what about the women that were brought to him from all over the empire? They were essentially like prostitutes. So he discriminated between male and female prostitution when homosexuality was supposed to be a normal thing amongst the Macedonians and the Greeks. And this makes sense to you?

Why would the ancients call homosexuals "kinaidoi", which is a word that describes a shamefull act, but still they approved it so widely?
Because words are only words. They didnt really count, as laws also didnt count.

And the list goes on.

The funny thing is that before Pater there was not a theory like this about a whole society of homoerotism e.t.c. It seems that people before Pater were stupid. It took a homosexual to be able to decrypt the truth.

And i dont want to begin with the translators. "Oh, not again", Amyntoros will think. But heh, what can i do? Some time ago i over-analysed the passage from Arrian that caused a lot of fuzz. That passage that reffered to the Greek mercenaries fighting the Macedonians in Issus.

Moreover the feeling of rivalry which existed between the Grecian and Macedonian races inspired each side in the conflict.

which is undisputably mistranslated from the ancient Greek original. Who knows how many more mistranslations, deliberate or not, we will find if we compare the original with the translation.

This whole matter has became a futher ridicule because of the internet. Every ignorant person that just copies something goes and makes a website where the same old things get repeated. Hephaestion was Alexander's lover, ancient Greece was the paradise for homosexuals, how Socrates banged Alciviades, and all this crap i keep seeing. And all of that because of that Walter Pater.