Pederasty
vol. XI p.897-906
Pederasty
1. General
It cannot be forgotten that pederasty is not a phenomenon limited to the ancients (eg. Aristot. pol. II 6, 6. Athen. XIII 603a shows awareness of pederasty in the celts; νοῦσος θήλεια of the Skythians Herod. I 105), <50> and it can only be fully appreciated within the scope of all our sources. Here, only what was particular to ancient pederasty can be brought up, while excluding the moral viewpoints often relegated to the background under the influence of old philosophers (eg. Jacobs Verm. Schr. III 222). <60> A theoretical handling is in Cael. Aur. IV 9.
The roots of pederasty primarily lie in the presence of a divergent sexual desire, which is probably more common in the south than it is in countries with a temperate climate. The position of the female sex and slavery also contributed. For the ancients, women were generally seen as inferior: <page break 897/898> marriage served the purpose of obtaining legitimate children, and other relationships served towards liberating sensuality. So, an enrichment of sensual drives couldn’t come from love towards females, but only from pederasty. This is clearly stated in the later common syncrises: Erotes 19ff., especially 31ff. (on this Bloch Dissertat. Argentor. XII 285) and Achill. Tat. cf. Plutarch’s Erotikos, esp. c. 4. 23. Ps.-Lukian II 35 (on this Prächter Hierokles 148). <10> What concerned slaves, at least in terms of releasing sensuality, must also have sometimes held true for pederasty, if it was also seen as inferior as time went on (see below p.901, 11). Ion already attests the fact that beautiful boys were chosen to serve at the table (ὡραῖοι) and that relationships developed between them and the guests (see below p.901, 50), and later sources are collected by Malten Herm. LIII 165, see also Ps.-Luk. 10 from Kallikratides who takes part in the dialogue: <20> ὁ Ἀθηναῖος εὐμόρφοις παισὶν ἐξήσκητο, καὶ πᾶς οἰκέτης αὐτῷ σχεδὸν ἀγένειος ἦν μέχρι τοῦ πρῶτον ὑπογραφέντος αὐτοῖς χνοῦ παραμένοντες. It’s probably not a coincidence that most sources we have about intercourse with slaves are from the Roman times. In his wedding poem 61, 126, Catullus presupposes that the young landowner had a concubinus, who seemed to have been above the other slaves, but who was sold after the master’s marriage: the jokes which play on this are likely to belong to ancient fescennina iocatio. <30> cf. Colum. I 8, 1 praemoneo, ne vilicum ex eo genere servorum, qui corpore placuerunt, instituamus. Trimalchio says (Petr. 75, 11) ad delicias ipsimi annos quattuordecim fui; nec durpe est, quod dominus iubet. A saying of the declamator Haterius in Sen. contr. IV pr. 10 shines a bright light on these customs, who cum libertinum reum defenderet, cui obiciebatur, quod patroni concubinus fuisset, said: inpudicitia in ingenuo crimen est, in servo necessitas, in liberto officium. <40> This is how Scapula allowed himself to be killed by a freedman who had been his concubinus (Bell. Hisp. 33, 4; falsely Aust vol. IV p.838). The contaminati and exoleti also belong here, see in Lex. cf. also Sen. ep. 95, 24 transeo puerorum infelicium greges, quos post transacta convivia aliae cubiculi contumeliae expectant. transeo agmina exoletorum per nationes coloresque discripta, ut eadem omnibus levitas sit etc. <50> People didn’t only buy handsome slaves to release their own lusts (Cic. Phil. 2, 45), but they also hired them out for this purpose (Val. Max. VI 1, 6).
Many people have spoken about foreign influence on the spread of pederasty, and they say that it came from Asia, and especially from Lydia. A certain oriental influence on, eg, Polykrates’ court (see below p.903, 50) is possible, but Herod. I 135 traces Persian pederasty back to a Greek model, and Plat. symp. 182b shows an awareness that in Ionia, and everywhere where Greeks lived among barbarians, <60> pederasty was thought of as shameful, since in those places the tyrants suppressed philosophy and gymnastics as well as pederasty.
2. Dorians
(see K. O. Müller Die Dorier II2 285). For the Dorians, we find pederasty as a legally and religiously recognised institution, though, of course, it was only for the Doric upper-class and was tightly connected to Doric knighthood. Crete and Sparta stand out most evidently; <page break 898/899> Plat. Leg. VIII 636 b says that the otherwise virtuous laws of Crete and Sparta broke down when it came to the prevention of pederasty. Aristot. pol. II 10 has Minos introduce pederasty to prevent overpopulation; cf. frg. 611 (Herakleides’ excerpt from the Politeiai) 15 about Crete ταῖς πρὸς τοὺς ἄρρενας ἐρωτικαῖς ὁμιλίαις ἐοίκασι πρῶτον κεχρῆσθαι, καὶ οὐκ αἰσχρὸν παρ’ αὐτοῖς τοῦτο. <10> Ephoros frg. 64 reports in more detail (from this, Plut. educ. puer. 15): the lovers would enact a pretend kidnapping of the boys, which imitated marriage by abduction, and was therefore old (vol. VIII p.2132, cf. the Corinthian story Schol. Apoll. IV 1212. Bethe 448); the lover would tell the boy’s relatives of their intentions three to four days in advance, and if the relatives wanted to prevent the kidnapping, this was considered to be an admission that the boy was not worthy of the lover (or the other way around). <20> If the relationship would be good for their social standing, they would only put on a faked opposition to the thief. The thief would then live with the abducted boy for two months in the country, and would instruct him in knightly matters (hunting is explicitly mentioned), and then he would return him into the city, after gifting him a war-robe, a cup, and a bull, as well as other rich gifts, which the boy’s friends would also take advantage of. The boy would sacrifice the bull to Zeus, <30> and would then talk about his time spent with the lover and about whether he liked it or not; if the lover had raped him, he could demand his punishment. These boys (κλεινοί) enjoyed particular honours in dancing and foot-races, and wore the war-garb presented to them by their φιλήτωρ as a gown of honour; since they were called παρασταθέντες, this shows that they fought alongside their lovers (cf. below about thebes). If a boy didn’t find a lover, this was considered shameful. <40> Cic. rep. IV 3 (on Crete and Sparta) obprobio fuisse adulescentibus, si amatores non haberent. Corn. Nep. pr. 4. In Sparta, the lover was called εἰσπνήλας and the beloved ἀῒτας (the word is also attested in Thessaly through Theokr. 12, 14): the former describes someone who blows courage or ἀρετή into their beloved (Aelian. var. hist. III 12 αὐτοὶ γοῦν [the boys] δέονται τῶν ἐραστῶν εἰσπνεῖν αὐτοῖς⋅ Λακεδαιμονίων δέ ἐστιν αὕτη ἡ φωνή ἐρᾶν δεῖν λέγουσα), and the latter describes the listener (or well-meaning: skr. avati, lat. avere). <50> Bethe Rh. Mus. LXII 438 seeks to demonstrate that primitive concepts of blowing-in were involved here, which here must be transferred into a sexual act, and of course it is possible that something of the kind did play a role now and then. However, it is difficult to see the origins of pederasty here, because the Dorians trace it back to life in camps (about military pederasty, cf. Ellis 10. 57. 285). The lover consorted with the boy from when he was 12 years old, and was responsible for his education: <60> if the boy behaved unchivalrously, then the lover would be punished (Plut. Lykurg. 17 A. 18E. in a vivid description). The lover was, alongside the boy’s male relatives, almost a guardian for the boy who wouldn’t have set foot in the agora before he was 30 years old (Plut. 25 A). Xen. resp. Laced. 2, 13 says that Lykurgos considered this relationship to be the best upbringing (a mutual heroic deed eg. hell. IV 8, 39); <page break 899/900> of course, his claim that sensual pederasty was frowned upon and that because of that the lovers felt forced into abstinence is indicative (below p.904, 44) and is a response to strong concerns: he himself has to admit that not everyone believed what he did. Cic. rep. IV 4 makes a less decisive statement: Lacedaemonii ipsi, cum omnia concedunt in amore iuvenum praeter stuprum, tenui sane muro dissaepiunt id quod excipiunt; conplexus enim concubitusque permittunt palliis interiectis - <10> a pitiable proposal, influenced by the moral ideas of a later time. For example, we hear that Agesilaos ἐν ταῖς καλουμέναις ἀγέλαις τῶν συντρεφομένων παίδων had Lysander as a lover (Plut. Ages. 2; Lys. 22). In his youth, Kleomenes had Xenares as a lover and later had Panteus as a beloved, who died a hero’s death with him (Plut. Agis 24, 2. 58, 13). <20>
We know about pederasty in Thera from the ancient stone inscriptions (7th century ?), which seem to show a connection with gymnastics and cult because of their content and where they have been found (IG XII 3, 536-601. 1410-1493, on this Hiller v. Gaertringen Thera I 152. III 67); we find rough οἴφειν in nr. 536-538, eg. 537 τὸν δεῖνα] ναὶ τὸν Δελφίνιον h(ο) Κρίμων τε(ῖ)δε ωἶπhε, παῖδα Βαθυκλέος. <30> Similar formulae are also found elsewhere, whether under Doric influence or whether it was an ancient tradition from the times of knighthood. We are told that pederasty was common practice in Elis and Thebis by Plat. symp. 182 b. and Xen. symp. 8, 32, and the latter makes the addition that χαρίζεσθαι ἐρασταῖς wasn’t seen as shameful, because the people there were too non-verbal to persuade them using words. He [could be either Plato or Xenophon in the german here] confesses that they still performed heroic deeds in battles together, despite their sensual intercourse. <40> In Thebes, a religious blessing on covenants of love took place at the grave of Iolaos (vol. IX p.1844); the lover gave arms to their beloved (Plut. Erot. 17). The sacred band of Thebes, 300 selected men, was - according to some - made up of ἐρασταί and ἐρώμενοι (Plut. Pelop. 18), and Pammenes (see there) instated it so that the partners would avoid being in any way cowardly out of fear and respect for their partner. After the battle at Chaironeia, when Philippos saw the that whole sacred band were prone, <50> he supposedly wept and cursed those who considered their relationships as something shameful. Dio or. XXII traces the make-up of the sacred band back to couples on Epameinodas. - The same knightly pederasty for Chalkis and its colonies is attested by the histories of Klemachos (Aristot. frg. 98 from Plut. Amat. 17) and the traditional song shared there: ὦ παῖδες, οἳ χαρίτων τε καὶ πατέρων λάχετ’ ἐσθλῶν, μὴ φθονεῖθ’ ὥρας ἀγαθοῖσιν ὁμολίαν⋅ σὺν γὰρ ἀνδρείᾳ καὶ ὁ λυσιμελὴς ἔρως ἐπὶ Χαλκιδέων θάλλει πόλεσιν. <60> As well as the Cretans, in Athen. XIII 601 e the Chalcidians turn up as the main proponents of pederasty (cf. Hesych. s. χαλκιδίζειν). This same kind of pederasty also turns up in cases where tyrants were allegedly or actually overthrown by couples (below p.901, 42), cf. Hieron. in Athen. 602a (justified doubt in Polemon frg. 53). Even Seleukos, who was around in about 200 BCE, composed a poem (Athen. XV 697 d) about marriage which contained pederasty, <page break 900/901> because people would have a boy as a helper in battles; cf. v. Hahn Albanes. Studien 176. 201.
3. Athens
Pederasty arrived at Athens via the Dorians, though in Athens it didn’t display its military character. Even Solon addressed this in his poems as well as in his laws, in his poems it was under a naive approval of its sensual character (frg. 25), and in his laws he was intending to regulate abuses. <10> He excluded slaves from the palaistra and from pederasty (Aischin. Tim. 238f., accordingly Plut. Sol. 1 and elsewhere), and in doing so he recognised that the two went together: this is confirmed by vases as well as various literary statements. cf. Plat. rep. V 452 c (Cretans and Spartans founded the gymnasia); Leg. I 636 c. Aristoph. Bir. 143. Aischin. Tim. 135 οὐκ αἰσχύνομαι αὐτὸς μὲν ἐν τοῖς γυμνασίοις ὀχληρὸς ὢν καὶ πλείστων ἐραστὴς γεγονώς. Plut. Erot. 4. 5 (IV 402, 8. 404, 18 B.). <20> Ps. Luk. Amor. 3. 9 (vol. VII p.2038, 2058). Many of the other later laws could be traced back to Solon too, those which only tended to regulate commercial pederasty which was seen as scandalous, and which we mostly know of from Aischin. Tim.; accordingly, relatives who hired out someone in their care for fornication were punished (§ 13); even ὕβρις against slaves was punished (§ 14, see vol. IX p.31). If someone was convicted of ἑταίρησις, <30> they were not only dishonoured and excluded from public office, but they were even excluded from speeches to councils and to the people (§ 19. 29. Demosth. 22, 30, see vol. VIII p.1372); Demosth. 22, 73 also mentions exclusion from temples. The fact that these laws were often sought out and (usually for personal interests) made use of is shown by Aristoph. Kn. 877, where Kleon boasts ἔπαυσα τοὺς βινουμένους τὸν Γρύττον ἐξαλείψας (from the ληξιαρχικὸν γραμματεῖον). So, pederasty was already common practice in the 6th century; <40> the description of the purity-of-tradition of the ancient times given by Aristoph. Clo. 973 is characteristic. Even early on, Aristogeiton turns up as a lover of Harmodios (see vol. II p.930, cf. above about other tyrannicides). Where tradition provides us with the most sources, in the 5th century, pederasty seems to have been at its height: the idea that Themistokles and Aristeides were rivals over the favour of the beautiful Stesileos (Plut. Them. 3) could be an invention, but Ion (FGH II 64) attests that Sophokles was φιλομεῖραξ. <50> Comedy presupposed pederastic relationships everywhere, and makes its most risky jokes about this topic, like in Aristoph. Kn. 428 κρέας ὁ πρωκτὸς εἶχεν (Vahlen Herm. XXVI 166). In Clo. 1085, the ἄδικος λόγος shows that only the εὐρύπρωκτοι played a role in the state; in Ekkl. 112 it says that the most competent orators were the πλεῖστα σποδούμενοι among the young people (on this Gerhard Phoinix 147). It’s downright astounding the number of terms comedy offers us for this topic (Meier 153). <60> Later, we find titles like Antiphanes’ Paiderastes, Diphilos’ Paiderastai. However, it’s the vases which have shown us pederastic scenes even from the time of the older black-figure style, though there are more in the red-figure, and these scenes are sometimes obscenely sensual (Hartwig Meisterschalen 237), and sometimes a depiction of the courting which would often go on in the palaistra (eg. Berlin 2184. 2291, a selection in Gerhard A. V. 278ff.). <page break 901/902> Eminent painters like Peithinos, Hieron, Brygos, and Duris participated in painting these scenes. According to Furtwängler Myth. Lex. I 1353, on strictly red-figure vases, Eros only appears in scenes that depict intercourse with men and epheboi; this was how much παιδικὸς ἔρως dominated social life (on this, cf. Eros in Plato, Ps.-Lukian Amor. 32). <10> As a result, alongside 528 names with καλός there are only 30 with καλή (Klein 2). Arch. Jahrb. XXXI Taf. 8 from Weege also belongs to this time period; Etruskische Malerei, Beilage II published Etruscan paintings which were purely Greek in style which unmistakably showed explicit sex scenes. How far the names of beloveds on the vases should be interpreted in terms of pederasty is uncertain; Wernicke’s idea that they refer to the vase-painters’ beloveds themselves (Die griech. Vasen mit Lieblingsnamen, Berlin 1890) is mostly wrong. <20> cf. W. Klein Die griech. Vasen mit Lieblingsinschr.2, Leipzig 1898. It was even necessary for boys to be accompanied by paidagogoi (see there), because they were in danger from lewd men (Plat. symp. 183 c, for later time-periods Casaubonus on Pers. 5, 30. Sievers Libanios 21). However, only disclosure of payment was seen as genuinely shameful: <30> accordingly, Ps.-Theogn. 1261. 1301 accuses his boy of an ἦθος ἰκτίνου and μαργόν, and Aischines praises unselfish pederasty (τὸ ἐρᾶν τῶν καλῶν καὶ σωφρόνων) and dismisses paid pederasty, and also gives a catalogue of relationships of both kinds (Tim. 137. 156ff.) while stressing the point that pederasty in and of itself should not bring reproach to either the lover or the beloved. cf. Aristoph. Plut. 153. Andok. I 100. <40> Lysias’ speech against Simon is about how the rivalry between Simon and the charged party over the love of a boy from Plataiai lead to violence: Simon gave the boy 300 drachma and made a legal agreement with him (§ 22), even though - according to what the prosecution claimed - all his assets only amounted to 250 drachma. Even worse is the image that Aischines’ speech against Timarchos unfurls: he intended to prove that Timarchos deserved atimia because of sexual offence and extravagance: even though a large number of the charges are fabricated, <50> they still display a general truth. In his youth, Timarchos took up residence in a iatreion, allegedly to learn the art of medicine, though in truth it was to sell himself. Then, for money, he went to Misgolas who was infamous for his conduct with musicians (§ 40f.). When Misgolas couldn’t pay him any more, he went from one hand to another and prostituted himself in a gambling house for a while (§ 53): <60> the question was whether the notarial establishment of such an agreement before witnesses would make the matter worse (§ 160). Commercial pederasty had spread so far that there were brothels for it (§ 74 τουτουσὶ τοὺς ἐπὶ τῶν οἰκημάτων καθεζομένους, cf. Diog. Laert. II 105. Mart. XI 45) and taxes on prostituting boys for this purposes were introduced (§ 119). <page break 902/903>
4. Mythical and historical couples
The fact that pederasty is never mentioned in Homer’s poems - or at the very least not by name - had already caught the attention of the ancients (Aisch. Tim. 142, cf. Ps.-Luk. Amor. 35); but later on, probably somewhat subconsciously, they began to view Homeric friendships in a pederastic light, and, for example, in Aeschylus’ Myrmidons, Achilles and Patroklos were in a pederastic relationship (fr. 153). They had also attributed pederastic relationships to Herakles and Apollo in poetry. Iolaos was a beloved of Herakles for the ancients (above p.900, 39), <10> and others name Hylas and Eurystheus. However, care should be taken not to date this interpretation too early without specific reasons for it (which Beyer denies). Apollo was taken as the lover of Hyakinthos (vol. IX p.9) and Admetos (Kallim. Hymn. 2, 47). The erotic interpretation of the kidnapping of Ganymede doesn’t turn up before Plato and Ps.-Theognis (Beyer 42). The motif that Laios’ love for Chrysippos was the origin of the long-lasting curse on the house of Labdakos turns up in Euripides at the latest; <20> Bethe (see vol. III p.2499) is inclined to trace this back to the ancient story of Oedipus. Most things of this kind (see Beyer) originated from the Alexandrian time period - at that time, Phanokles included a pederastic catalogue-poem in his Ἔρωτες ἢ καλοί.
In terms of historical characters I have yet to mention, I will name Hiero here: after all, when Xen. Hier. 1, 33 refers to Dailochos as his beloved, there must be some truth in it. <30> There was a story that Pheidias wrote the name of his beloved Pantarkes on the finger of the Olympian Zeus (Clem. Protr. 53, 4 p. 41, 18 St. Brunn KG I 160). Aristodemos of Kyme had the epithet μαλακός (Dion. Hal. VII 2, 4). Epameinodas had two beloveds, one of which died with him in the battle at Mantineia (Plut. Erot. 761 d). The Phocian Onomarchus is called φιλόπαις in Athen. XIII 605a. <40> The stories about Alexander the Great are likely rubbish: Dikaiarchos FHG II 241 reports of his love for the eunuch Bagoas (vol. V p.552), and of course, his relationship with Hephaistion has also been thought of as pederastic (Diogen. ep. 24). Antigonos of Karystos (p.117 Wil.) reports about the king Antigonos’ love for a musician.
5. Poetry and philosophy
Apart from Solon, Ibykos (vol. IX p.817) and Anakreon (vol. I p.2037) have glorified pederasty. <50> The boys honoured in these poems were probably Polykrates’ beloveds (περὶ τὰς τῶν ἀρρένων ὁμιλίας ἐπτοημένος Athen. XII 540 e), which v. Wilamowitz (Staat u. Ges. 92) compares with Mignons Heinrichs III. In his poem to Theoxenos (frg. 123 B.), Pindar places pederasty above love for women. The genuine elegies of Theognis show a similar relationship with Kyrnos as a Doric knight would have with his παρασταθείς, though the sensual element isn’t made apparent; <60> there is also the addendum which supports the ancient obscene custom in v. 1255. 1335 (cf. Ps.-Luk. Amor. 53). Love poetry dealt with pederasty since the 4th century. Theokritos writes about Herakles’ love for Hylas (c. 13) and humorously describes Eispnelos’ love for Aites (c. 14); an emulator (c. 23) writes about an ἐρωτικὸν πάθημα based on the hardiness of the beloved boy. Callimachus did not look down on pederasty (ep. 28, 5), and it became a common motif for epigrams: <page break 903/904> lots is offered from Meleager’s circle in Anth. Pal. XII 37-172. It became the fashion to transfer motifs of love for women onto pederasty, which we see on a large scale in Petronius’ novel, and on a smaller scale in eg. Tibullus’ poems for Marathus (Wilhelm Rh. Mus. LVII 55). To name just one thing, θυραυλεῖν at a boy’s door was just as common as doing it at a girl’s door: Theokr. 23, 17. Catull. 63, 65. Anth. Pal. XII 14. <10> For the sake of completeness, in his odes, Horace felt that mixing in pederastic motifs was necessary (Heinze on c. IV 1). For syncresis, see above p.898 5. Wilhelm 59. Ovid. Ars II 683. Then, in his Μοῦσα παιδική, Straton widely developed these motifs, which for him were only now playthings. A νόμος for cinaedi from a Sybarite Hemitheon is named by Lukian adv. ind. 23 (cf. Pseudol. 3). <20>
Philosophical debates about pederasty probably began in sophistry, and Lysias’ Erotikoi (a parody of Plato’s Phaedrus, attested by Ps.-Plut. Vit. 836 b) may have been a lingering echo of this. Socrates couldn’t avoid talking about it, on account of the social importance of pederasty’s development and his great interest in Doric affairs. The idea to improve pederasty not only from a knightly perspective but also from a philosophical one must have come from him, and Plato crafts his character deeply and artistically (Bruns Vortr. u. Aufs. 118). In the Phaedrus as well as in the Symposium, he tries to convert sensual love - whose healthy core he does not misunderstand with his very Hellenistic experience - into a philosophical eros (v. Wilamowitz Platon I 44. 363). At the end of his life, he turns up in Laws, and here, from the viewpoint of a practical statesman, he goes back on what he said and he rejects sensual pederasty absolutely (Bruns 141). <40> Plato’s dialogues had an enormous impact, and have influenced all later debates about pederasty. (In terms of later ones, cf. Plut. Erot. 4, eg. p.402, 4 εἶς Ἔρως γνήσιος ὁ παιδικός ἐστιν. Ps.-Luk. 31. Max. Tyr. diss. 18-21 H.). Antisthenes was abruptly dismissive of these, and in the Symposium Xenophon was influenced by him (Bruns 133. 138, cf. memor. I 2, 29); on the other hand, in Anab. II 6, 28, he only seems to have a go at the relationship between Menon and Tharypas because he ἀγένειος ὢν γενειῶντα εἶχεν (just like how for epigrammatists, the first growth of a beard showed that a young boy was no longer fit for pederasty). <50> While more ancient Stoicism picked up Plato’s philosophical eros (Zeno I 248 A. Bloch 273), Epicurus wanted nothing to do with it (Philod. mus. 78, 10 K.), and Cynicism held the same viewpoint (apart from a few regressions), which had the lack of homosexual tendencies in animals as one of its arguments; <60> it seems as though we also possess the remains of an anti-pederastic moral poem on a papyrus (Gerhard Phoinix 141). Even more popular is its treatment in Ps.-Demosth. Erotikos, who is attracted to a young apobatas and who suppresses his sensuality under Platonic influence (Wendland Anaximenes 71). The popular-philosophical polemic against it was taken up by Jewish people and Christians: <page break 904/905> for the former cf. Orac. Sibyll. II 73 with Geffcken’s evidence and Ps.-Phokyl. 3. 189f. (on this Rossbroich De Ps.-Phocylideis, Münster 1910, 28. 94), for the latter Paul. ad Rom. 1, 27; 1. Cor. 6, 9; 1. Tim. 1, 10 (Geffcken Zwei Apologeten 87. 233). - Incidentally, Plato’s stories about Socrates’ relationship with Alkibiades (Symp. 217a) and Charmides (Charm. 155d) had the consequence that Socrates was deemed a pederastes in ill-intended polemic (Helm Lukian und Menippos 229. Gesner Socr. sanctus paederasta, Comment. Soc. Götting. II 1). <10> The book of Aristippos accused Plato himself (Diog. Laert. III 29), though this book also attributed pederastic relationships to other philosophers, namely academics (v. Wilamowitz Antigonos 48).
6. Rome
The Romans considered pederasty to be a Greek custom. Cic. Tusc. V 58 about Dionysos of Syracuse: qui cum … haberet etiam more Graeciae quosdam adulescentis amore coniunctos. <20> This doesn’t necessarily imply that they took it on early. Of course, the stories about T. Veturius or C. Publilius (Liv. VIII 28. Val. Max. VI 1, 9. Dion. Hal. XVI 4, 2), which belong to the end of the 4th century, may well have been apocryphal (Meier 151), but the story about the aedile Marcellus’ (✝ 208) actions against Scantinius quod filium suum de stupro appellasset (Val. Max. VI 1, 3) should not be doubted. cf. also Liv. XXXIX 42, 5 = Plut. Tit. 18 (L. Flaminius takes a beloved boy into the province with him). <30> Plautus’ many references imply that his audience had just as much a keen ear for these kinds of references as an audience did at the time of Old Comedy (Asin. 703; Capt. 867; Most. 847; Pseud. 782. 1180. 1189). Catullus is full of these, and even if c. 56 and 99 are conventional, other poems still show a sincere concern for Iuventius’ chastity (c. 15. 21): pedicare and irrumare are common words for him, <40> no less than for those who lived in Pompeii, who wrote over the walls (eg. CIL IV 2375 Ampliate, Icarus te pedicat, Salvius scripsit. CEL 45). The accusation of being unchaste was no less usual for Cicero than it was for the Attic orators (Süss Ethos 249): see esp. Phil. II 45; p. red. sen. 11; Mil. 55 (of Clodius) qui semper secum scorta, semper exoletos, semper lupas duceret. Antony συμπράττων τοῖς ἐρῶσι καὶ σκωπτόμενος οὐκ ἀηδῶς εἰς τοὺς ἰδίους ἔρωτας Plut. Ant. 4, 5. <50> Horace is reproached for mille puellarum, puerorum mille furores (s. II 3, 325). During the empire, we find out a lot of gossip, especially about the debaucheries of the emperors: Tiberius (Suet. 43, vol. X p.517), Caligula (Suet. 36), Nero, whose pretend wedding with Sporus is described (Suppl. III p.388). Val. Max. VI 1 and Martial (eg. II 51, IX 8. XI 45. 88) offer all kinds of material. Remarks by the satirists like Iuv. 10, 295 are important, according to which the parents of a beautiful boy should always be concerned about his chastity (cf. 2, 17. 50). <60> What Quint. I 2, 2. 4. 3, 17 says about the danger in schools and from pedagogy is particularly important (on this Hor. S. I 6, 81 and Petronius’ novel 85). Notable too are the game-tokens on which impudens, cinaedus, pathice appear as common insults, just as they do in Catullus (Hülsen Röm. Mitt. 1896, 228). Of course, the themes in the declamations in Quint. decl. 3. prove little. <page break 905/906>
Mommsen Strafrecht 703 talks about law-giving. The stuprum cum masculo underlay raising-a-household (Val. Max. 5), and in the army it was punishable with flogging (Polyb. VI 37, 9). Around the end of the republic, there was a lex Scantinia, which attached a fine of 10 000 sesterces to it (Cael. Cic. ep. VIII 12, 3. Auson. epigr. 92 S. 346 P.). Justinian put it on the same level as crimes-against-chastity: the perpetrator was met with the death penalty, <10> and the victim lost half of their property; here, the influence of strict Christian morals can be clearly seen (Inst. IV 18, 4. cf. Nov. 77 p.382, 1. 141 with the argument of the ἄλογα, see above p.904, 58). The idea that things changed under German influence from the 3rd century and that pederasty was judged more harshly and was more carefully concealed is a claim from Seeck that is difficult to agree with (Unterg. d. ant. Welt I3 421): as far as it does hold true, the effects would have been achieved through Christianity. <20> cf. Cyprian ad Donat. 9 libidinibus insanis viros viri proruunt: fiunt, quae nec illis possunt placere qui faciunt … idem in publico accusatores, in occulto rei, in semet ipsos censores pariter et nocentes. damnant foris, quod intus operantur, admittunt libenter, quod cum admiserint criminantur. cf. what Libanios or. 37, 3 says of Helpidius (also or. 38, 8. 39, 5).
7. Literature
Meier in Ersch and Gruber III 9, 149-189. Rosenbaum Die Lustseuche im Altertum2, Halle 1845, 116. <30> Becker-Göll Charikles II 252ff. (there p.284 there is older literature). Ellis-Symonds Das konträre Geschlechtsgefühl, deutsch von Kurella, Leipzig 1896 (Chap. 3: Die Homosexualität in Griechenland). Bethe Rh. Mus. LXII 438. R. Beyer Fabulae graecae quatenus quave aetate puerorum amore commutatae sint, Leipzig 1910. cf. also the articles Kinaidos, Tribades, Weib. <40>
[W. Kroll.]
This article is referenced by: Lesbian Love
Previous article: Cleon (5)
Next article: Krisamis (1-2)