ISBN 0-415-90097-2

90000
~E HUNDRED
YEARSoJ
HOMOSEXUALITY
 t' cmnlcd. ""More ThJn Ht· l:hrgain'"d For A vase-painter tcasc:s thc
t•rutK wnn-nuo¡¡~ ul nuk ~nnt·ty in d.a~!!oico~l Athcns by dl·picting an amorous boy rcspondmg
hh)fl'l..'llllm~IJ"ot!LJIJ~ thJn t'XPl'rtt·d to thc owrturL'S ofan cvidently startled J.duh suitor. Notc:,
lumnt·r. tlut tlll· buy h nm portraycd J.s ~t·x 11 .JI/y aroused by physical contact with the mau
\>,;hl)lll hl· Wl~hc~ tu L'nwuu.~c: hL' 1!. ~hown without an crection. (The J. Paul Gl·tty Mus~t~Ol:

lht' ( .Jrpentc:r l'.amtcr. Att1c Hcd-Fi¡;urt• Kylix. ca. 515-510 H. C. terracotta. di ameter ot nm
ll5 nn. K5. Af:.:!S¡
6JNE HUNr:>RED
YEARSof
HOMOSEXUALITY
ANO OTHER ESSAYS ON GREEK LOVE

DAVID M. HALPERIN

ROllTLEI>(;E
Lo'I>'Y'
NE\\. YoRK •
 ~q7CH;8W~s
:rv '872!>
Published in 1990 by

Rou_dOO~e _J Chapman and Hall. lnc.

An 1mpnnt of Rout1~-ugt.
29 Wcst 35 Str«l
Ncw York, NY 10001

, ¡991l by David M. Halperin

, in the United Sutes of Amcrica

All rights rc:servrd. No part of this book may be reprimed or reproduced or utilizcd in any
form or by any electronic, rnechanical or other means, now known or hereafter invented,
includmg photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system,
ithout pem1ission in writing from thc publishers.

Libnry oC Coagnu C.tlloging ia Publication D1ta

tulpmn, David M., 1952-
0ne hun_dred years ofhomosexuality and other essays on Greek
lovr 1 Dav1d M. Halperin.
81tliocra~~~;-;. (New ancicnt world series)
ISHN 0-415-91<1%-4; ISHN 11-415-91<1'17-2 (pbk.)
l. Homostxualny Male-G H"
u:~rs.l. Tide i1. Title: u;;:~;~:~~os;~:a~:;~y-Greece-
HQ7r,.2.GIIH3S !'1119
~J6.7.'62'1J'!4~5-dc2tl 89-33158
CIP
BritWo Uhrvy c.~o~op¡q '
~· David M. 1952- ID Pablicatioa Data
l. Grhundred.yc¡rs ofhomoscxualit . - .
l. T : ananu pniod Scx relati!ns (New ancJent world)
~16.7'110311
1SHNII-41~
'l-415-'l!•m-2(pb¡
Table of Contents

Prcface

lntroduction

Part 1

One Hundrcd Ycars of Homoscxuality 15

2 "Homosexuality": A Cultural Construct 41

(An Exchange with Richard Schneider)

3 Two Vicws of Greek Love: 54

Harald Patzcr and Michel Foucault

Part 11

4 Heroes and thcir Pals 75

Thc Dcmocratic Body: Prostitution J.nd 88

Citizenship in Classical Athcns

ó Why is Oiocima a Woman? 113

J5J
Notes
!/J
llibliography

Addcndum

lndcx

A Note..· on thc..· Author

 For
Elaine P. Halperin
Preface

This volume brings together, in revised and expanded form, a number of

m y previously published essays* on love, sex, and gender in ancient Greece.
All of the essays were written in the last three years, and they cluster around
a single theme: the erotics of male culture in the ancient Greek world. They
do not constitute a comprehensive and systematic treatment of that (large)
topic. Rather, they focus on selected aspects of it and explore a variety of
issues that have emerged from modern efforts to elucidare ir.
The words "Greek love" in m y sub-title represen< something of a tease.
They ha ve traditionally functioned (for example, in the title of a disreputable
and fascinating book by J. Z. Eglington, published in 1964, which is hardly
about Greece at all) as a coded phrase for the unmentionable term patderasty,
meaning the sexual pursuit of adolescent males by adult males. Paederasry 1
is, in origin, a Greek word; ir names a practice which classical Athenian
society not only tolerated but-under certain conditions, at least-actively
promoted and even celebrated. As such, paederasty has come to be seen
(whether rightly or wrongly, thc reader may judge from the essays collccred
here) as one of the distinguishing, not ro say peculiar, features of ancienr r
Greek civilization; ir has come ro stand for the whole of "Grcck love."
Thc prescnt volumc, howevcr, contains no essay cxclusivdy dcvotcd to
paedcrasry-although 1 shall have enough ro say about ir in thc íollowing
pages ro satisfy, 1 trust, thc curiosity of any reader who this
book inrrigued by thc allusion in the sub-titlc. lnstead, 1
thc widcr social components and conrexts of "Greek
that wc may come ro a tnorc satisfactory understanding
pacdcrasty ifwc do not vicw ir asan isolated, and thcrcfore .. 4uccr." institu-
tion but if wc regard it, rather, as mercly one strand in a largcr and mon·
intricatc wcb of crotic and social practices in ancient Gn"\·o:, rangmg ti-t.lnt
hcroic comradcship ro commcrcial scx. The result of this shiti: in cmph.otsis,
1 hope, will be ro broaden the scope of the srudy of th,· croti•-s of mak
culture in ancicnt Grcccc, to distance that study ti-ont thc.· n~t.xic.~rn mc.-dic,¡J/
forcnsic/social-scicntitic category of homosc.~xuality (with its ..:sscnti.&lirins.
psychologistic implications), and ro sugg•·st a number of theon·ncal din-..·-

* With thc- ex.t:cption of "Hcr0&.':-1 .uul theu llo~ls,

tions which futurc practitioners of classical studies, gay studies, and the
history of scxuality may fmd useful to pursue.
Thc writing and revising of these essays ha ve been generously supported
by two Fcllowships, both funded by the Andrew W. Mcllon Foundation,
from the National Humanitics Centcr (in 1985-86) and the Stanford Humani-
ties Ccntcr (in 1987-88); the latter gran! was matched by a sabbaticallcave
from thc School of Humanities and Social Sciences at thc Massachusctts
\nstitutc of Tcchnology. Further rcscarch monics wcrc provided by the
M.I.T Literature Faculty and by the School ofHumanitics and Social Sci-
cnces at M.I.T 1 am most grateful for all the institutional and intcllectual
support that these grants represen!.
Many people have contributed to my thinking abour the issucs discussed
below, and 1 ha ve tried to record their na mes, along with m y gratitude, in
thc hcadnotcs to the individual essays which have benefited from their
criticisms and suggestions. Here 1 must acknowledgc the thrcc most impor-
tan! intcllectual influences on my work, without which this book could not
havc bcen writtcn. They are K. J. Dovcr's Greek Homosexuality (1978), thc
first modcrn scholarly study of thc subjcct and a triumph of cmpirical
rcscarch; Michel Foucault's L'usa¡¡e drs plaisirs (1984; translated into English
as Tl~r Use ofPieasure in 1985), the second volumc ofhis unfinishcd History
of Sexuality (Foucault dicd of AIDS in 1984), notable for thc originality of

~
its theoretical approach as well as for the brilliance of its individual insights;
and John J. Winkler's The Constraints of Desire: The Anthropology of Sex and
Gender in .incient Greece (1990), a collection of essays whose combination of
philological mastery, critica! tact, methodological sophistication, intcllcctual
range, and human engagement scts a ncw standard for the interpretation of
ancienr cultures. 1 have had thc opportuniry ro readJack Winkler's essays as
rhey werc bcing writtcn and reviscd, as wcll as thc advantagc of working
dosdy wah thc1r author on a relarcd project-a book of cssays, co-edited
by us wlth Froma l. Zeitlin, cntitlcd Before Sexuality: Tht Construction of
Erotic Expnience in the Ancient Greek World (Princeton, 1990). Jack has en-
couraged me m m y work on the present volume from the start and, during
a per10d m wh1ch he was learning to mecr and to master thc challcnge of
hvmg Wlth AIDS, has frccly sharcd with me his knowledgc and his enthusi-
asm. He docs not agrcc wlth cverything in this book, but the work contained
in ir owes more than 1 can say ro the inspiration of his personal, political,
and inrcllcctual example.
Thc aut~or and publishcrofrhis volume have arranged ro donare halfof
thc author s procccds from lts sale ro the San Francisco AIDS foundation.

D.M.H·
Sranford, California
30 )une 1988
Introduction

"Omit: a reference to the unspeakable vice of the Greeks." With those

words, uttered in "a flat toneless voice," the Dean of a Cambridge college,
m the seventh chapter of E. M. Forster's self-suppressed novel, Maurice
(originally composed in 1913-14 and first released for publication upon
the novelist's death in 1970), interrupts a student who has been dutifuUy
translating aloud from the text of an unnamed classical Greek author. After
the class is o ver, one of the other students in it remarks indignantly to a
friend that the Dean ought to lose his fellowship for such hypocrisy: they
suspect his affectless tone of concealing a personal sympathy for the unspeak-
able. Iftheir interpretation is correct, the Dean would seem to ha ve succeeded
in imparting to his students, along with a knowledge of classical Greek, nor
only a sense of scholarly decorum-a heightened sensirivity to what one may
say and what one may not say when speaking about the ancienr Greeks-bur
also an exemplary model of self-censorship.
The episode takes on addirional significance, and grearer poignancy, five
chapters later, when the reader learns rhar the fines< classical scholar among
the students in the Dean's rranslation class has been drawn ro the srudy of
the classics because he considers that the ancient Grecks gave temperare and
exquisite expression ro homoerotic feelings identical to his own. Study of
the Greeks, especially Plato, has enabled this young man gradually ro accepr
himself and his desires as he had never been able ro do in rhe course of bis
religious upbringing; the Greeks provided an ideological weapon againsr rhe
condemnatory reftexes ofhis own Christian conscience, offering him, in its
place, "a new guide for life." Even roday, the Greeks continue to perform
analogous functions for many ofus: as Forster wrote, somewhat guardedly,
in a 1934 biography of bis menror ar Cambridge, Goldsworrhy Lowes
Dickinson, "The Greeks-and Plato parricularly-understand our pobucal
and social confusion, bur they are not parr of it, and so rhey can hdp
us. " 1 lt is not the purpose of rhis book ro deprive anyonc of • porenriaUy
meaningful ''guide for life. '' But ifwe are ever to discover who .. w.c" re~lly
will be necessary to examine more dosel y thC' ntany respcrts m whu.·h
are, it
~ 1 Onc Hundrcd y cars of Hmnoscxuality

, .. own"-and do not mcrcly confinn

• k scxua1 p ractices diiffi. r trom
Gree b our .. ,. or legitimare somc o f" our " etavor-
h . h d sumpuons a out us .., .
curren! e ertS e as nd our proiccts of idcntiiiCatton
·
1tc pracuccs.
· The mo ~~~ro~ b )1 •
nough 10 devise ·
an interpreta !Ion
(or disavowal, as thc case mayl e . on~ cthat foregrounds the historical and
of crotic cxpericnccs in classtca anuqm y Such al leas! is thc aim to which
cultural spccifteity of thosc cxpencnccs. '"b '
11 d hcrc are intcndcd to contri utc.
thc cssays co cctc . h 1 1890.s whcn Forster studied the classics
T nnes have changcdlf. smcc 1 eh" atewhich Lowcs ' 1
Dickinson evident y exer-
at Cambridge· the se -censors tp h f h h
cised (and whi.ch Forstcr duly rcproduced in his biograp y o t e man, w ere
. n ,·s •••ade of Dickinson's homosexuahty) has now becomc-at
no mcn t10 · · · tt
leas!, within the confines ofthc better American umversmes-more ama er
of personal choice than profcssional necessny. Wtthm the last two decades,
cspccially, political movements originatmg outstde the academ_y have so
transformed life within it that a classtcal scholar who studtes a~ctent Greek
sexual practiccs, including paederasty (the "unspeakable vtce at tssue m
Forster's ftctional translation class), can expect not only ro be tolerated by
rhe profession but to be materially rewarded by it as well. Little. wonder,
thcn, if, in the world of scholarship at least, the !ove that once (m ~lfred
Douglas's words) da red no! spcak its name-either because it was tradmon-
ally, in thc judicial phrasc, "notro be named among Christians" or beca use
at thc time Douglas wrote his maudlin lyric it did not quite know by what
namt• to call itsdf'-litde wonder if that once-silent !ove now cannot shut
up (as reactionaries are often heard to complain). What was once unspeakable
is nowadays so rompulsively voluble that Michcl Foucault took this apparent
reversa! in cultural practice as the starting point for his inquiry into the
history of scxuality.
Dcspite all thcse dcvclopmems, howcver, thc ban on speaking about
ancient sexual altitudes and behaviors had still not been totally lifted when
1 bcgan to study the classics at an American collcge in the early 1970's. M y
fellow studcnts and 1 read, to be surc, both the obsccnc and the pacdcrastic
pocms of Catullus at thc insistence of a young and politically engagcd
classical scholar whom wc revered, but we did no! translate all of them in
class. nor was the meaning of certain Latin words made known to us. The
authoritativc lexicons of the ancicnt languages wcre no! much hclp in that
departrnent: they defined the ancicnt tcrniS for thc lcss mcntionablc sexual
acrs in Latin, if the tcrms were Greck, and in Grcek, if the terms werc
Latin. Standard translations of dassical authors in thc Loeb Classical Library
omittcd passages judgcd to be obscenc or lcft them "in thc dccent obscurity"·'
of a dead languagc-translating Greck texts into Latin, allowing Latin tcxts
to stand untnnslatcd, or translating thcm (bizarrcly) into ltalian ': thcSC
.Uatcgll-s cffrctivdy scrved to conccal thc mcaning of the lcss cmnmon
ob..:ennics from cvcn profcssional scholars whilc cnabling thc inquisitiVC
 lntroduction 1 3

studcnt to locate unerringly the passages in which they occurred. But in

ccrtain cases even thc obscurity afforded by a dead language proved insuffi-
cicntly dark and deep for the "indecency" it was intendcd to conceal: when,
in 1930, towa~ds the end of his life, A. E. Housman (the English poet and
a leadmg classJcal scholar) proposed to clarify the meaning of various sexual
acts mentioned in Roman literature and, in particular, to explicate Roman
altitudes to sex between males-a tapie to which he brought a personal as
well as a scholarly interest-he chose to express himselfin Latin rather than
in English; Housman's intricate Latin style, however, was still too explicit
for the Board of Management of the C/assica/ Quarterly, which forbade the
Editor to publish Housman's essay (the essay had already been set up in
type, but that was as far as it got). Housman ultimately published bis essay
abroad, in the German classical periodical Hermes: it appeared in 1931, still
in Latin.'
To be surc, much lexical knowledge did exist at the time 1 was in college,
but it was scattered and buried in scholarly commentaries or in the notes
to learned articles. 1 eventually discovered that it constituted a body of
subterrancan lorc which circulated informally among classical scholars and
was communicated from like-minded professor to student in the course of
private conversations outside the classroom. Only within the Iast fifteen
ycars has that lore begun to emerge into the light of da y, facilitating scholarly
clarification of the more arcane Greek and Latin obscenities.' A telling
instance is the Greek verb /aikazein, an abusive term for fellation, whose
meaning was known to Housman and earlier scholars without ever having
been definitively established. That verb, along with its derivatives, was in
1980 the subject of an exhaustive and masterly study by H. D. Jocelyn in
the Proceedings ofthe Cambridge Phi/olo.~ical Society (Forster's fictional classicist
would ha ve bcen pleascd); /aikastria had beco discussed, in passing. only two
years befare, by K. J. Dover, a scholar ofimmensc philologicalleaming and
totallack ofinhibition but his rcmarks indicate that cven he, cven in 197!1,
still did not know cxa~tly what thc word mcant.' Even today. much work
remains to be done.
Although Forstcr himsclf was probably n.ot aware of..it. by thc time he
got to Cambridge "thc unspcakablc vtcc ot the Gn"Cks had alrcady em-
barkcd u pon its carl~r ofloquaciousncss. In a magisterial and dt."eply mftuen-
tial study of thc Grcck "raccs and citics," lirst publishcd in 1!12(}-24. Karl
Otfried Mlillcr dcvotcd a chaptcr to a detatlcd and busmess-bke conSider-
ation of rhc cvidcnt.·c tOr pac.xicrastic initiilti\lll rituals in Sparta and <:=n.~C'.
bchaviors which Mülln took ro be inhcritt.X'I from thc military pre-hlstor)'
of"thc t>orian racc" (Miillcr thcn·hy providcd Osear Wilde's Dorian Gray.
more than half a ct.•ntury latcr. with his un-Christian tirst namc)." Tht.• t.·~rb"'"Sl
publishcd work championing, passionatc )ove bcrwccn_ mcn too~ thc.· lorm.
in tKJC), of a traer on ··malc lovc"' in ancicnt Grt"CCC: ar wo~s wnttt.'lt b\-· an
 1 One Hundrcd y cars of Homoscxuality

. . h H.. ¡¡ ' who used the prestige of Greck

obscurc Swiss pastor, Hemnc odssb: ment that Plato must have
. h' day to makc the u tous argu
cu\ ture m ts own d f what was and was not truly
h d b tt grasp than most mo erns o
a a e cr fl Th ~ 1\owing ycar, !837, witnessed the publi-
.. t al" m mattcrs o ove. e o H E M .
na ur . 1 cdia of a scholarly article by M.- .- . eter
~~~~;~i:~\a ~~:::e: ~:c~~e~~:asty 'in thc ancient world; this would seem to
yl 1 pt'lation ofthe rclevant anctent texts, tfwe canJudge
ha ve becn arge y a com 1 b L R
b thc reviscd and expandcd version prcparcd a hundred years ater y .- .
y C . '" A these various litcrary producttons attest, scholarly
de l'ogey- astnes. s 'd ·r 1
. · 1· · "Greck \ove" developed side-by-St e, t not exact y
and pol tttca mtcrcs 1s m · · h
hand-in-hand, throughout much of the nineteenth century. Karl Hemnc
Ulrichs, whose earliest writings date to 1862 and who appears to ha ve bcen
the ftrst political activist for the cmancipation of sexual mm~~Ittes, drew
much ofhis inspiration from classical sourccs, espectally Plato; m thc next
decade the first study of "Greek ]ove" in English, by John Addmgton
Symo~ds, was explicitly designed to promote judicial reform, although
, many ycars passed before Symonds's work could be wtdcly ctrculated: a
limired cdition of one hundred copies appeared only m 1901-the year
Forsrcr complcrcd his srudies at Cambridge." The twenticth century has
witncssed a vcritablc cxplosion of writings on thc subjcct. u
A ncw era in rhe study of the hisrory of sexuality began in 1978, which
would also secm, in rerrospect, to ha ve been the high-watcr mark of the
recenr political movcment for lcsbian and gay freedom in the Unitcd States.
The new era was defined by thc appearance ofK. J. Dover's Greek Homosexu-
ality and by rhe English publication ofthe first volume ofFoucault's unfin-
ished History of Sexuality. Each work deserves an independent description.
Ir would be difficult to cxaggcrate rhc importance, within the fleld of
classical studies, ofDover's long-awaited monograph on homosexual behav-
ior in ancient Grccce. lts author was, and is, an cminent political and intcllec-
tual historian, a superb philologist, and a brilliant polemicist. At the time
he published Greek Homosexuality, Dover was Prcsident of Corpus Christi
Collcge, Oxford (thc book had been writtcn while Dover was Professor of
Greek at the University of St. Andrews); he had also been Presiden! of
the Oxford Philological Sociery and, a year before Greek Homosexuality
appeared, he had been knighted for his work in Greek history. He subse-
quently wcnr on to become Presiden! ofthe llritish Acadcmy. Dover thcre-
fore brought to the study ofhis controversia! subject an incomparable, and
we\1-deserved, academic prcstige. No less crucial to the rcception ofDovcr's
work than his credcntials as a scholar wcrc his credentials as a heterosexual.
which wcrc cqu¡¡¡lly abovc suspicion ("1 am fortunatc in not cxpericncing
moral shock or disgust at any genital act whatsocvcr, providcd that it is
wclcomc and agrceable to all thc participants," Dovcr coolly rcmarkcd in
thc Prefacc to his book), and both sets of credcntials wcrc celcbrated by
 lntroduction 1 5

reviewers. Whatever the book'~ other defects-and it did meet with many
hosnle and unfa~r rev1ews, commg from a variety of perspectives-it could
be accused of nelther fa~lty scholarship nor special pleading. In this respect,
the recepnon of Dover s work has differed gready from that of Foucault's.
Greek Homosexuality turned out, nonetheless, to be in many ways a mad-
dening book to read. 1t did not pretend to offer a full survey of its subject. As
the first modern, systematic, scholarly student of homosexuality in ancient
Greece, Dover maintained that the material on which to base a thematic
survey was lacking. And so his book took the form of a series of commentar-
ies on selected documents, bringing in other evidence from the whole of
Greek antiquity where relevant. Dover's interpretation of"Greek homosex-
uality" thus emerges seriatim from detailed analyses ofindividual documents:
it is not laid out before the reader in a single motion. Dover's discussion of
certain topics, such as the question of whether, to what extent, or in what
contexts the Greeks acknowledged or tolerated mutual desire between male
sexual partners (a matter on which Dover was attacked by a number of
reviewers), has to be pieced together from half a dozen different passages in
his book: he never deals fully with the issue in its own right. That is why
sorne reviewers and readers misunderstood him: they remembered what
Dover said in one context but not how he qualified or explicated his state>-
ment in another. Despite these annoyances and frustrations, however, the
great value of Dover's work has become even clearer with time. His book
richly repays rereading and close study by specialists. Dover's relendessly
empirical approach succeeded in its main purpose, which was to establish
once and for all a few basic facts about "Greek homosexualiry" in the face
of skepticism on the part of tradicional classical scholars. Among Dover's
main points were (1) that homosexual behavior among Greek males largdy
took the form of paederastic relations between a man and a youth; (2) that
the classical Greeks considered the desire of adult males for sexual pleasure
through contact with handsome youths to be normal and natural; (3) that
neither Athenian law nor Athenian custom forbade or penalized the sexual
exprcssion of such desire. so long as the lovers observc:d cenain ronventional
deccncies; and (4) that paederastic love>-affairs which conform<-d, at least
outwardly, to those conventions were regarded by Athenian society as
dcccnt, honorable, and-under certain circumstances--evcn praisewonhy.
John lloswell" has questioned (1) and David Cohen"has tried to ~fute (~)
and (3), but neither has b<..,n able to shake the mam results ot Dover s
research, nor is anyone else likdy to do so. .
Dover was concrrned, tirst and foremost, with establishing the facts ot_
the matter and with getting them right. He worked within a tradit!"" ot
empirical research whose aims and methods he was prepared to JUS!IIy, hut
he was not ronccrnt>d primarily with throrf'tical question~ ..That dm•ms~on
of the history of sexuality was taken up, with chara,·terlstlc bnlban<"<' and
(, 1 One Hundred Years of Homoscxuality

· b th late frcnch philosophcr and historian Michel

matchlcss penetranon, Y e · ¡· d · d
, ¡¡ Id was modern history; he spccta tzc m stu y-
Foucault. Foucau1t s own te . . . ¡ · h
. h · · · s of knowledge and msntunona practtce ad
mg how t e vanous regtmc h . h
shiftcd from the cnd of the Rcnaissance to the present da y. By t e nme e
h' · · · 1 thc history of scxuality, Foucault had already traced
bcgan 15 lmqutryf m 0 b r of modcrn institutions (thc medica) clinic, the
thc gcnca ogy o a num e . 1d
· 1 thc prt'son the scicnccs) along wllh the systems ofknow e ge
msane asy um, • · db h
and powcr that supported thcm and that wcre, in turn, co~sn~ute y t em,
1 thc human subiccts
pus ,
and objccts they produced. He mmally set out to
1 . f h • . f
do thc samc thing for "scxuality," to trace the evo u non o t e re.gtmes o
ower and knowledge that constituted human bemgs as thc consctous sub-
rects of thcir "sexuaJity"-and that did SO, moreover, by (among Other
means) rcquiring them to speak about thetr sexual expenences ..Foucault
intended to follow this evolution in the institutions and expcnences of
sexuality from the Christian confessional to the psychoanalyst's couch to
the EST weekend seminar. He discovered, however, that he could not pick
up the threads of this story in the Renaissance without taking for granted
too many aspects of "sexuality" whose specific conditions of emergence
needed to be established. So he abandoned his project as he had initially
' conceived it and devoted himselfto the study ofGreek and Roman antiquity.
Basing himself on Dover's work, as well as on that of many classical
scholars, Foucault produced an analytic interpretation of thc formation of
sexual expericnce in the ancient world that stands in marked contrast to
Dover's achievement: it is holistic, systematic, comprehensive (in its own,
highly specialized, terms), and general. As such, it dramatizcs the interpreta-
tive perils that Dover, by confining himself to scholarly commcntary on the
available documents, wisely avoided. Unlike Dover's work, Foucault's is
admittedly schematic; it also contains a number of elementary scholarly
errors. For all those reasons, it has preved vulnerable to attack from special-
ists: foucault-bashing now secms to have become, since the man's death in
1984, the favorite indoor sport of a host of lesscr intellectuals on both sides
of the Atlantic. For all that, thc interprctative gains which Foucault's work
on sex in antiquity represents cannot be exaggcrated. Foucault's analysis
has, tn effcct, thrown opcn a window on the articulation of sexual morality
In anctent Greecc, providing a clcar and cconomical analysis of its basic
~tructure. He thereby allows us t? sce what, perhaps, wc "always" kncw
ut ncver expressed lo oursclves tn such stmple and elcgant tcrms bcfore;
he fits scattered ptcces of knowlcdgc into a new and lucid pattcrn, and he
thcreby rconcnts our basic outlook on the material. 1shall ha ve a good dcal
1? say about Foucault's approach to the Greek evidcncc in "Two Vicws of
(,reck .Love •" tnc · 1¡,·lS volume, so 1 shall limit myself hcrc 10 1he
· 1uded tn
followtng observation.
The distinctive contribution which thc English publication in 1978 of th<
 Inrroductíon 1 i

firstvolume offoucault's History ofStxuality made to subsequent work can

be s1mply, 1f baldly, put: Foucault did for "sexuality" what feminist critics
had done for "gender. ,,. That is, Foucault detached "sexuality" from the
~hysical and biological s~ences uust as feminists had detached "gender"
uom the facts of anatom1cal sex, of somatic dimorphism) and treated it
instead, as "the set of effects produced in bodies, behaviors, and sociai
relations by a certain deployment" of "a complex political technology. ""
He divorced "sexuality" from "nature" and interpreted it, instead, as a
cultural production. He thereby made possible an extremely profitable alli-
ance between certain radical elements in philosophy and anthropology.
In the third section of "One Hundred Years of Homosexuality'" 1 shall
argue that Foucault's understanding of "sexuality" is not only helpful as a
way of thinking about sex in history and society but is also supported by
the ancient evidence. M y reason for dwelling on Foucault here is to describe
the enormous impetus that Foucault's work gave to anthropological tenden-
cies within the humanities and, specifically, to research into sexuality in all
arcas of the human sciences. For so long as sexuality, like sex. was thought
to be rooted in nature, historians and anthropologists guided by that assump-
tion were bound to unearth merely different "attitudes" to or "expressions""
of sexuality-historically or culturally variant responses to the universal
"fact" ofsexuality, local improvisations on narure's unchanging rheme; that
theme, moreover, regularly tumed out on inspection to be a remarkably
familiar one, uncannily recapitulating (and thereby reaffirming) tradirional
categories and experiences. Thus, historians might show that this or that
historical figure was "a homosexual" (Plato. for example) or "a bisexual'"
(Shakespeare); at a less rudimentary leve!, historians might measure the
social "toleration" ofhomosexuality or anthropologists norr che presence or
absence of homosexual bchavior in a culture. That sorne people might not
ha ve a sexuality to cxpress, or might have sexual cxperirnces unassimilablr
ro modero sexual catcgorics, was scldom a practicable conclusion ro draw
from the evidence uncovcred in thc coursc of research. Bur wirh rhe appear-
ancc offoucault's work, thc prcssing questions now beca me, .. How was sex-
ual cxperience constituted in a given culture?" ''In wharrerms wassexual expe-
ricncc constructed?" .. How was sexual expcrience disringuished from and
related to othcr sorts of cxperiencc, and how were rhc boundaries bdwC'C'Il
thcsc various kinds of cxperience arrirulated?" "WefC' sexual pleasurcs and
desires configured differently for different members of a given so..-iety and. if
so, according to what principies?"" "How did the terms employed by rhe nn-
ous mcmbcrs of human living-groups ro organize theír sexual cxpcnetlt.'"t'S
opera te, conceptually and instirutionally. so as ro con~r~r.ute hu~.an ~ings .a:s
the subjccts of sexual cxpcricncc? Whar orhcr areas ot hte ~en· •mphcart-d 1n
thcir opcration?" "How did rhe consrirurion of sexual subJt.:'"tS rdatf" ro thC'
constirurion of orhcr social tOrms? ofpower? ofknowltdttc?
H 1 Onc Hundrcd y cars of Homosexuality

.d d b Foucault by feminism, and by thc prcced-

Undcrthc impetus provt e. Y 1 carch into the history of sexuality,
. d d ore of empmca res . . h
mg cea e or. m . ce 1978 has becn rapid and scholarly ac!lvlty as
progrcss m thts ficld smd . h ords whcn much of wcstcrn Europe
b ccn .mtense. In a peno ' m o! kcr. 1w a rcactionary
'
torpor, cmbracmg Wlt
. .h
dA · eems to have sun m o . .
an meneas . h . th comforts of convcntional ptclles and
h 11 and cymcal en! ustasm e . b
a 0 ow . h d gogic possibilities of a sclf-servmg o scuran-
hina to redtscover t e ema . 1 b .
rus ... ll 1ferment within the universities has becn qmet Y ut mexo-
usm mte cctua hh d real strides
rabi' rocccding atan accclerating ratc, and researc asma e g . . .
y pf h sidcrable plcasures 1 have had in thc course of wntmg and
Onc o t e con h f · t" ysclf
rcvising thc cssays containcd in this book has been t al o acquam mg ~
with thc cnormous scope and variety of recen! work~ much of 11 htghly
sophisticated and cnlightcning, in the history of sexuahty. One of the pur-
poscs of this book, accordingly, is to take ~tock of our scholarly progress,
10 consolidatc irs gains, and to tssue an mtenm report-however ~potty and
incomplcte-on rhe results of ir. lf sorne readers may find ~y ~ltaUons _of
othcr scholars and m y referenccs to their work to be excesstve m quantlty
, or complcxity, 1 can only picad m y eagerness to tellthe scholarly_wor~d the
good ncws-ro show something of the breadth, scope, and dtverstty of
work rhat has bccn carricd out in the history of sexuahty over the last ten
ycars or so in half a dozen countries. And, in any case, 1 ha ve tricd to restrict
rhosc scholarly citations ro rhc notes, lodgcd al the back of this vol u me out
of the way of the non-scholarly readcr, ro whom 1 hope to ha ve something
1, amusing and compelling ro say.
\ '\ From all this recen! work on the history of sexuality a certain picture is
starting ro emerge. lts details are cxrremcly sketch y, and thcrc are large gaps
on its surfacc, sorne of which perhaps will ncver be filled in. But Jet me
attempt ro convey m y imprcssion ofit. Homosexuality and heteroscxuality,
as wc currcntly undcrstand rhem, are modern, Wcstern, bourgeois produc-
rions. Nothing resembling thcm can be found in classical antiquity. A certain
idcntificarion of the sclf with rhe sexual self began in late antiquiry; ir was
strengthened by the Christian confessional. Only in the high middle ages
did certain kinds of sexual acts start ro gcr idcnrified with certain specifically
sexual types of person: a "sodomite" begins to na me not mercly the person
who commits an acr of sodomy but one distinguishcd hy a certain type of
specifically sexual subjccriviry which inclines such a person ro commit rhose
acts; nonetheless,_ sodomy remains a sinful act which any pcrson, givcn
suffic¡cnt rcmptallon, may be induced to commit. In London and J>aris, in
thc scwnrccnrh and cighrccnth cenrurics, rhcrc appcar-cvidcntly for rhc
first lime, and in conjuncrion wirh rhc rise of companionatc marria¡¡:L-
soctal gathcnng-placcs for pcrsons of rhc samc scx with thc samc sodallY
dcviant altitudes ro scx and gcndcr who wish lo socializc and ro havc se~
wirh onc anorher. In London, thcsc are the so-called molly-houses, wherc
 lntroducrion 1 9

men dress as wome~ and assume women's names. This phenomenon contri-
butes ~o ~~: forma non of the great nineteenth-century experience of "sexual
mv~rston, or sex-role reversa!, in which sorne forms of sexual deviance
are mterpre~ed as, or .conflated with, gender deviance. The emergence of
homosexuahty out of mverston, the formation of a sexual orientation inde-
pendent of relative degrees of masculinity and femininity, takes place during
the la~ter part of the mneteenth century and comes into its own only in the
twenr:_erh. lts h1g~est expression is th~ "straight-acting and -appearing gay
male, a man dtstmct from other men m absolutely no other respect besides
that of his "sexuality." Although this personality type may ha ve been a
cherished ideal in earlier periods-as a fantasy image it is memorably realized
in the title character of E. M. forster's Maurice, for example-it is the
distinctive creation of the period after the Second World War, andas 1 write
it may already be on the wane.

This collection of essays is divided into two parts. Part One is largely
theoretical, and the essays contained in it address a number of issues that
have to do with scholarly method and curren! critica! practice. Part Two
contains examples of practicalliterary criticism and historical analysis which
apply sorne of the principies argued for in the earlier essays to a series of
concrete problems in the interpretation ofGreek culture. The six essays are
intended to be read as a sequence, but they may be read in any order,
although a good deal of what is said in the title essay of the collection is
taken for granted in the subsequent essays, and so rhe reader is encouraged
to have a look at it first.
"One Hundred Years of Homosexuality" sounds many of rhe major
themes heard elsewhere in this volume. Ir represents my best attempr ro
show not only that our own cultural assumptions are inappropriare ro rhe
interpretation of sexuallife in ancienr Greece but, more importantly, rhat a
radical rcinterpretation of sexual life in ancienr Greece has rhe potential to
transform our own cultural and sexual sel!:undersranding. In particular.
1 argue that the study of sexual life in antiquiry rcveals homosexualiry,
hcterosexuality, and even sexualiry irself to be rdanvely recenr and. htghly
culture-spccific forms of erotic life-not rhe basic building-blocks ol sexual
idcntity for all human beings in all times and places. bur peculiar and tndeed
exccptional ways of conceprualizing as wdl as rxpmmcon¡1 sexual desire. 1
appcal to the Grcek documcntary record lo~ evidence rhar sexual expenm<-n
and forms of erotic Ji fe are culrurally specthc, rhat they are nor uruversa! bur J
hiotorical, and 1 nmtend rhar ir may be possible ro re<-over sorne ·~ the ¡
indiKcnous mcanings attachcd ro sexual cxpcriC'I1ttS in ancimt Glft'\"t" 11 only~
we do not insist on viewing thr ancitnt documcnrs t~rough thr- pnsm "11
nu.ldt_•rn social and sexual catt•gorics. In thr lattcr part ut rhe C'Sü~'. 1 rnlvkk
 . . . h"ch sexual experience was articulated
a sketch of the distmcuve ways m w 1
· d · h cient Greek world. .
and orgamze m t e an . h se oflecturing to different aud1ences
\t has been m y cxpenenceh, mht ehcousr 1propound in the title essay tends to
U · d St tes t at t e t cs1 .
aroun d t h e mte a ' . mount of skepticism and resistan ce.
c\icit-quite understandably-a certam a l"t '· A Cultural Construct "
. · h" 1 me " 'Homosexua 1 Y · '
The second 1tem m t IS vo u. ' .th the sociologist Richard Schneider; it
takes the form of an mtervleW ws,ome of the questions that are typically
t attempt to answer .
represen s an ments 1 realize that it may not be poss!ble to
asked m response to my argu . ' . f h" k"
. . t 11 the ob;ections that may be raised to one s lme o t m mg,
ant1c1pa e a ' , ·· 1 1 d
and 1 know it is impossible to state one s own posltlon so e ear y _an
unambiguously that it cannot be misunderstood. M y goal m th1s mtervle."':,
then, is not 10 eliminate all misapprehens10n but rather to make more exphclt
sorne of the assumptions and guiding prme~ples that ha ve shaped m y wo~k.
In the process, 1ha ve also tried to make the best theoretlcal case I can nnagme
for "constructionism"-for the proposltlon, that IS, that sexual1dentltles are
not "given" by nature but are culturally constitutedor produced.
"Two Views ofGreek Love" is a report on anda critique of curren! trends
in classical scholarship that bear on the study of paederasty in ancient Greece.
Ilook spccifically at the work ofthe German classicist Harald Patzer as well
as at that of Michcl Foucault. Patzer and Foucault, 1 find, exhibit contrasting
intellectual styles and methods, and so they hclp to define sorne of the very
different contemporary tcndencies in the study of the history of sexuality.
In particular, Patzer's approach begins from the assumption that classical
Greek paederasty must not be interpreted in the light of modern sexual
catcgorics: in that respcct, it is highly congenia) to m y own approach. But
it sharply divergcs from my interpretation in highlighting the ritual element
in Grcek pacderasty. That cmphasis on ritual reflects, moreover, what is
now perhaps the dominant intellectual orientation among those classicists
who trcat paederasty in the light of Dover's evidence for the wide distribu-
tion of homosexual bchaviors in ancient Greece. Patzer also makes use of
sorne of the same ethnographic data to which 1 appeal in m y exchange with
Dr. Schneider and in my concluding cssay on the figure ofDiotima in Plato's
Symposium. Thus, by confronting Patzer's work, 1 am ablc both to clarify
further m y own position on the place of comparative ethnographies in thc
ongomg debate over the cultural articulation of sexual catcgories and to
criticize what has looked for sorne time to be thc emerging orthodoxy about
themea~ing ofpaederasty in classical Greecc (an orthodoxy, by the way, to
wh1ch Su Kcnncth Dover himsclf docs not adhere, as he has latcly madc
plain).'" And by comparing Patzer's interpretative tactics to Foucault's, 1
hope to demonstrate to dassicists, who ha ve been slow to embrace Fourault's
methods and insights, sorne of the advantagcs of Foucault's approach o ver
 lntroduction 1 11

that of traditional philology, which Patzer-despite his anthropological in-

tercsts-largely exemplifies.
"H~roes an~. their Pals," in Part Two, is a comparative study of three
narrattve t_radmons, each of whtch features a close friendship between two
male wamors: the Babylonian Gilgamesh E pie, the Books of Samuel in the
Old Testament of the Bible, and Homer's 1/iad. 1 examine each of these
friendships in order to gauge the extent of the structural and thematic
correspondences between them as well as to identify sorne of the distinctive
meanings that cluster about each friendship as it is represented in the different
literary traditions. The ultimate purpose of m y comparison is to define more
precisely the peculiar form of erotic life common to the three friendships
and to distinguish it from later Greek paederasty as well as from modem
homosexuality.
In "The Democratic Body" 1 attempt to document the existence and to
reconstruct the meaning of male prostitution in classical Athens. In particu-
lar, 1 ask why it was that any male of Athenian parents who had been a
prostitute in his youth was subsequently debarred from participating in the
communal life of the city. Under what conception of prostitution would
prostitution represen! a disqualification for citizenship? And under what
conception of citizenship would prostiturion constitute a violation of civic
duty? Treating prostitution and citizenship as complementary functions in
the code used to articula te the ideology of sociallife in classical Athens, 1seek
an answer to these questions by examining shifts in the cultural definition of
manhood in Athens, for it was in that half-articulated definition that social
and political practices were often rooted. 1 try to show that "citizenship,"
for free Athenian males, was a sexual and gendered concept as well as a
political and social one-and, hence, that the bounduy betwccn "private"
and "public" lifc was drawn in a radically different way from the way it is
drawn now: indeed, it is not even clear whether thc Grcck distinction
betwcen oikos and polis, between household and community, brought into
play anything likc thc modcrn notions of "privatc" and "public," "civil
socicty"' and "state. ''
Whcn ¡ originally sct out to writc the cssay on Diotima, 1 ~ad intcn.~
to cstablish thc cxtcnt to which Plato tmght be constdercd a fcmmtst m
f
comparison to his fcllow Athcnians. lly cmploying a woman, thc ~rophctess
Diotima, to articulare tht~ central tt"ncts ofhis crot1c rhcory m thc Sympt•SINift,
and by casting thosc: rc:nets in a ''fcminoccntric'' tOrm, Plato, 1 t~ought. ~as
implicitly criticizing thc sexual cthos of his malc contcmporartcs. Whtlc 1
still bclit·vc that somc vcrsion o( this thcsis is plaus•blt\ 1 bc.'Camc mon"
intcrcstcd, in thc coursc uf writin~ thc paper, in the polirics of ~Cild~r .J.Jh.t
thc politics of rcprcscntation implicit in Plato "s dccision ro cnun~·ut"'· ~n rhc
voicc of a woman. whar ¡5 (in thc tirst instancc ar lcast) a do"·tr•m.· or ni.Jic
12 1 Onc Hundrcd Years of Homosexuality

homocrotic dcsire. My thinking Jed me to inquire into the role of "the

fcmininc" in the social reproduction of maJe culture and to analyze the
charactcristic maJe strategy of speaking about womcn by speaking for
women. But once 1 put thc problem in those tcrms, 1 saw that my own
discoursc about Plato's Diotima reprcscntcd an instance of exactly the phe-
nomcnon 1 had sct out to cxposc and to criticize. Moreover, there appeared
to be no way that 1 could escape from that paradox, no "politically correct"
stancc that 1 could assumc, for the project as a whole was obviously impli-
cated in the samc politics of gender and the same politics of representation
as Plato's (far more intcresting) tcxt: no amount of discursive acrobatics
could enable meto talk or write m y way out of it. In discussing Plato, then,
1 found myself condemncd to reproduce the very structures of domination
that 1 had set about to make visible in Plato. In my essay on Diotima,
thereforc, 1 have attemptcd to dramatize this paradox and to suggest how
the contradictions inhercnt in it might themselves create further opportuni-
ties for a feminist critique.
PARTI
One Hundred Y ears of Homosexuality

In 1992, when the patriots among us will be celebrating the five-hundredth

anniversary of the discovery of America by Christopher Columbus, our
cultural historians may wish to mark the centenary of an intellectuallandfall
of almos! equal importance for the conceptual geography of the human
sciences: the invention of homosexuality by Charles Gilbert Chaddock.
Though he may never rank with Columbus in the annals of individual
achievement, Chaddock would hardly seem to merit the obscurity which
has surrounded him throughout the past hundred years. An early rranslator
of Krafft-Ebing's classic medica) handbook of sexual deviance, the Psycho-
pathia sexualis, Chaddock is credited by the Oxford English Dictionary with
having introduced "homo-sexuality" into rhe English language in 1892,' in
order to render a German cognate twenty years its senior.' Homosexualiry.
for better or for worse, has been with us ever since.
Before 1892 there was no homosexuality, only sexual inversion. But, as
George Chauncey, who has made a thorough study of the medicalliterature
on the subject, persuasively argues, "Sexual invcrsion, the term used most
commonly in the nineteenth century, did not denote the same conceptual
phenomenon as homosexuality. 'Sexual inversion' referred toa broad range
of deviant gender bchavior, of which homosexual desire was only a log1cal
bur indistinct aspcct, whilc 'homoscxuality' focused on the narrower issue of
sexual object choice. Thc diffcrcntiation ofhomoscxual desire from 'deviant'
gcndcr bchavior at thc turn of the ccntury rcftects a major reconceptua.liza-
tion of the nature of human sexuality, its relation to gendcr, and its role in
onc's social dcfinition. "·' Throughout thc ninctcenth century, in othcr words,
sexual prcfcrcncc for a pcrson of ones own sex was not clcarly distinguished
from othcr sorts of non-conformity ro one's culturally dctined sex-rok:
dcviant objcct-choice was viewed as mcrely one of a number of pathological
symptoms cxhibitcd by thosc who revcrsed, or "in verted,·· thcir proper sex-
rolcs by adopting a masculine ora feminine styk at varian<'C' with what was

15
lh 1 Onc Hundrcd Ycars of Homoscxuality

d opriate 10 their anatomical scx. Political aspirations

dccme d natura1an appr ·· 11 1920)
. d ( 1 \east according 10 one expert wntmg as a e as a
m women an a ¡ · 1 d. ·
e · e manifestations of a patho og1ca con 111on, a
fondness 10r cats 111 men wcr . . ¡
· f h ¡ · ¡ hcrmaphroditism tclhngly but not essent1a ly ex-
kmd o psyc o ogtca ,
prcssed by thc preferencc for a "normal" mcmber of one s own sex as a
sexual partncr.' . .
This outlook on thc mattcr seems to have bcen shared by the sc1ent1sts
and by their unfortunate subjects alike: inversion was not mcrcly a med1cal
rubric, thcn, but a catcgory of livcd ex penen ce. Karl Hemnch l]lnchs, for
cxamp1e, an o Utsp oken advocatc for the rights of sexual mmonues . .and the
.
founder, as carly as \862, ofthc cult ofUranism (based on Pausamas s pra1~c
ofUranian, or "heavcnly," paederasty in Plato's Symposium), descnbed h1s
own condition as that of an anima muliebris virili corpore inclusa-a woman's
soul confmed by a man's body.' That sexual object-choice might be wholly
independent of such "secondary" characteristics as masculinity or femininity
never seems ro have entered anyone's head until Havelock Ellis waged a
campaign to isolate object-choice from role-playing and Freud, in his classic
analysis of a drive in tbe Three Essays (1905), clearly distinguished in the case
of the libido between the sexual "object" and the sexual "aim. "'
, The conceptual isolation of sexuality per se from questions of masculinity
and femininity made possible a new taxonomy of sexual behaviors and
psychologies based entircly on the anatomical sex of the persons engaged in
a sexual act (samc sex vs. different scx); it thereby oblitcrated a numbcr of
distinctions that had traditionally opcrated within earlicr discourses pertain-
ing to same-sex sexual contacts and that had radically differentiatcd active
from passive sexual partners, normal from abnormal (or conventional from
unconventional) sexual roles, masculine from feminine styles, and paeder-
asty from lesbianism: all such behaviors were now to be classed alike and
placcd under the same heading. 7 Sexual identity was thus polarizcd around
a central opposition rigidly defined by rhe binary play of sameness and
difference in the sexes of the sexual partners; people belonged hcnceforward
to one or the other of rwo exclusive caregories, and much ingenuity was
lav1shed ~n the. mu.l.tiplica.~ion ofrechniques for deciphering what a person's
sexual, onentatlon really . was-mdependcnt, rhat is, of beguiling appear-
ances. Founded on posmve, asccrtainablc, and objecrivc behavioral phe-
nomena-on thc facts of who had sex with whom-the new sexual raxon-
omy could lay claim lo a descriptivc, trans-historical validity. And so it
crosscd the "threshold of scienrificiry"" and was enshrined as a working
concept in rhe social and physical sciences.'"
A scicntific advance of such magnitudc naturally demanded to be crowncd
by the creat1on of a new technical vocabulary, but, unfortunatcly, no objcC-
uve, value-frec words rcadtly lent themsclvcs lo the cnterprise. In !891.
JUSI une year befare thc mauguration of "homosexuality'" John Addington
 One Hundred Yea"' of Homosexuality 1 17

~ymon~s could still complain that "The accomplished Ianguages of Europe

m the nmeteenth cent~ry supply no terms for this persistent feature ofhuman
psyc~olo~r.· WJthout 1mpo~nng sorne implication of disgust, disgrace, vitu-
peranon. A number of hnguistic candidates were quickly put forward to
make good th1s lack, and "homosexuality" (despite scattered protests over
the years) gradual.ly man~ged to fix its social-scientistic signature upon the
new conceptual d1spensanon. The word itself, as Havelock Ellis noted, is a
barbarous neologism sprung from a monstrous mingling of Greek and
Latín stock; 12 as such, it belongs to a rapidly growing Iexical breed most
prominently represented by the hybrid names given to other recent inven-
tions-names whose mere enumeration suffices to conjure up the precise
historical era responsible for producing them: e.g., "automobile," "televi-
sion," "sociology."
Unlike the languages of technology (whether of producrion or ofknowl-
edge), however, the new terminology for describing sexual behavior was
slow to take root in the culture at large. In his posthumous autobiographical
memoir, My Father & Myself(1968), J. R. Ackerley recalls how mystified
he was when, about 1918, a Swiss friend asked him, "Are you horno or
hetero?": "1 had never heard either term before," he writes. Similarly, T. C.
Worsley observes in his own memoir, Flannelled Fool (1966), that in 1929
"The word (homosexual), in any case, was not in general use, as it is now.
Then it was still a technical term, the implications of which 1 was not entirely
aware of. " 13 These two memoirists, moreover, were not intelJectuaUy defi-
cient men: at the respective times of their recorded bewilderment. Ackerley
was shortly about to be, and Worsley already had been, educated at Cam-
bridge. Nor was such innocence limited-in this one instance, at least~o
the holders of university degrees: the British sociologist John Marshall,
whose survey presumably draws on more popular sources, tesrifies that "a
number ofthe elderly men 1interviewed had never heard the term 'homosex-
ual' until the 1950s. "" The Oxford English DiCiioJUJry. ongmaUy pubhshed
in 1933, is also ignorant of(ifnot willfully blind to) "homosexuality"·" the
word appears for che first time in the OED's 1976 th~volume Sup-
plement.u' .
lt is not exactJy my intention to argue that homosexuahry. as we co~­
monly understand it today, didn't exist before 11192. How, indeed. could ot
have failed ro exist? The very word displays a most workmanlike and
scientific indifference to cultural and rnvironmcntaJ factors, l~kmg only tu
the sexes of che persons engaged in the sexual act. M?reover, •fhomosexual-
ity didn 't exist before 11192, heterosexuahty couldn t bave ex•sted nt~~
ca me into being in fact like Eve from Ada m 's rib, e•ght years l.ater).
without heteros~xuality·, where would all of us be right now?
. · ofh- -~xuabty-strn'lly •pr•k"''l· •
The comparat1vdy recent genes•• .-ew~ . · he
twcntic .h-centurv affair-should provide a due to thc protundu:.,..· c.'lt 1
cultura\ issucs ovcr which, hitherto, 1 ha ve becn so lightly skating. How ¡5
it possib\c that until thc ycar \900 thcre was not a precise, value-free,
scientiflc tcrm availablc to spcakcrs of thc English language for designating
what wc would now rcgard, in rctrospect, as the mode of sexual behavior
favored by thc vast majority of pcople in our culture? Any answer to that
qucstion must dircct our attention to thc inescapable historicity of even the
most innocent, unassuming. and sccmingly objective of cultural represcnta-
tions.'" Although a blandly descriptive, rigorously clinical tcrm likc "homo-
sexuality" would appear to be unobjcctionable as a taxonomic device, it
carries with it a heavy complemcnt of ideological baggage and has, in fact,
provcd a signiftcant obstac\c to understanding the distinctivc features of
sexual life in non-Wcstern and prc-modern cultures.•• lt may well be that
homosexuality properly speaking has no history of its own outside the West
or much before the beginning of our century."' for, as john Boswell rcmarks,
"ifthe categories 'homosexual/heterosexual' and 'gay/straight' are the invcn-
uons of particular societies rather than real aspects of the human psyche
there is no gay history. "21 '

_ Boswell, of course, argues rhe contrary. He maintains, reasonabl

.nough. that any debate over the existencc of universals in human cultur~
musr dtstmgUJsh between,the respective modes of bcing proper to words
~~~~c~t~ and expenences : according w this line of rcasoning, pcople wh¿
term a:do~ Newton exp~nenced gravlty cven though they lackcd both the
purpose" ~;~oncep~ slm:larly, Boswcll claims that the "manifcst and stated
why humans r~~~o~i:i~~ds famous myth in Plato's Symposium "is to explain
heterosexual intercst " and mtoh_groups of prcdominantly homosexual or
• so t JS text along ·th b
classical antiquity vouches r th .' Wl a num er of othcrs from
· ' LOr e CXJStencc of h ¡· ·
(¡f not a universal) categor f h omoscxua Jty as an aneJen!
the word for it may be » ~ 0 ~man cxpcricncc-howevcr new-fangled
secm indecd to be a loc.u 1°": t crspeech of l'lato's Aristophancs would
s e amcus •or the d'lli · ·
1 erentlallon
hetcroscxuality because A . h of horno- from
. . . bctwccn
a d1stmcuon • th .nstop
, h anes's
d . taxon omy o fh uman bcmgs · featurcs
thcmsclvcs and those h d . ose W o cstrc a 1
sexua partncr of thc samc sex as
1'1atomc. w
passagc alonc th.
° CSire a sexual partnc f d'lli
r o a 1 crcnt scx.
'['h.
t:
. ' en, would sccm
posJtmg an ancicnt conc ·pt ·r . t 0 o llicr su fl'ICil'nt
. "
warrant Il,r
'
6
• ' not
11 ur doscr cxamination rcveals that A .an anc1cnt ·
cxpenencc, of homoscxua 1tY·
r
dJ>UnctJon bctwecn h< d h rlstophanes stops short of dcrJVIIIt: '
>mo- an eteroscxuality from his own myth jusi
 One Hundred Years of Homosexuality 1 19

when the logic. of his. analysis would seem to have driven him ineluctably
to 1t. That omlSSJon 15 telhng, 1 beheve, and worth considering in g 1
detail. * rea er
. According to Ari~tophanes, human beings were originally round, eight-
hmbed creatures, w1th two faces and two sets of genitals-both front and
back-and three sexes (maJe, female, and androgyne). These ancestors of
ours were powerful and ambitious; in order to put them in their place, Zeus
had them cut in two, their skin stretched over the exposed ftesh and tied at
the navel, and their heads rotated so as to keep that physical reminder of
their daring and its consequences constantly before their eyes. The severed
halves of each former individual, once reunited, clung to one another so
desperately and concerned themselves so little with their survival as separate
entities that they began to perish for lack of sustenance; those who outlived
their mates sought out persons belonging to the same sex as their Iost
complements and repeated their embraces in a foredoomed attempt to re-
cover their original unity. Zeus at length took pity on them, moved their
genitals to the side their bodies now faced, and invented sexual intercourse,
so that the bereaved creatures might at least put a temporary terminus to
their longing and devote their attention to other, more important (if less
pressing) matters. Aristophanes extracts from this story a genetic explana-
tion of observable differences among human beings with respect to sexual
object-choice and preferred style of life: males who desire females are de-
scended from an original androgyne (adulterers come from this species),
whereas males descended from an original maJe "pursue their own kind,
and would prefer to remain single and spend their entire lives with one
another. since by nature thcy ha ve no interest in marriagc and procr('ation
but are compelled to engage in them by social custom" (191c:--192b, quoted
selectively). Boswell, understandably, interprets this to mean that acco.~dmg
to Plato's Aristophanes homosexual and heterosexual mterests are both
exclusive and innate. " 24
But that, significan ti y, is not quite thc way Aristophancs sees it. The
conclusions that he draws from his own myth hdp to dlustratc thc lengths
to which dassical Athenians wcrc willing ro go in ordcr ro avoid con~ptuaJ­
izing sexual bchaviors according to a binary opposition bctween d•tlcrent-
and samc-sex sexual contacts. First of all, Aristophancs's myth generares
not two but at lcast thn·c distinl"t ''st·xualitics" (mall~ atrractcd t~ m~I('S.
fcmalc..·s attractcd tu tl·n¡alcs, and-~.·onsi~ncd alikc to a single cl.assJhf.'anon.
cvidcntly-malcs auractc..·d to tl·maks as wcll as fc..·maiC'S a~racrr:d.ro maln).
Morco ver, thc..·rc ¡5 not thl· sliRhtcst su~n~"~stion in anythmg Anstoph.alk~

* Ut·re fulluws .a dOSC' n•adinM of two o~ru:icnl tcxts.

lo !ll"~o:tiunlll
20 1 One Hundred Years of Homosexuality

says that the sexual acts or prcferences of persons descended from an original
female are in any way similar to, let alone congruent or Jsomo~ph!c Wlt~,
the sexual acts or preferences of those descended from an ongmal male;·5
hence, nothing in the text allows us to suspect the ex1stence of even an
implicit category to which males who deme males and females who desue
females both belong in contradistinction to sorne other category contammg
males and females who desire one another. * On the contrary, one conse-
quence of the myth is to makc the sexual desire of every human being
formal! y identical to that of every other: we are alllookmg for the same thmg
in a sexual partner, according to Plato's Aristophanes-namely, a symbolic
substitute for an originary object once loved and subsequently lost in an
archaic trauma. In that respcct we all share the same "sexuality"-which is
to say that, despite the differences in our personal preferences or tastes, we
are not individuated at the leve\ of our sexual being.
Second, and equally importan!, Aristophanes's account features a crucial
distinction within the category of males who are attracted to males, an infra-
structural detail missing from his description of each of the other two
categories: "while they are sti\1 boys [i.e., pubescent or pre-adult],"' they are
fond of men, and enjoy lying down together with them and twining their
limbs about them, but when they become men they are lovers ofboys.
Such aman is a paederast and philerast [i.e., fond of or responsive to
adult male lovers)"" at different stages of his lije (19le-192b, quoted selec-
tively). Contrary to the clear implications of the myth, in other words, and
unlike thc people comprehended by the first two categories, those descended
from an original male are not attracted to one another without qualification;
rather, they deSJCe boys when they are men and thcy take a certain (non-
sexual) pleasure m phys1cal contact with men when they are boys.'" Now
smce--as the forcgomg passage suggests-the classical Athenians sharply
dJstmgmshed the roles of paederast and philerast, relcgating them not only
to different age-classes but vlrtually to diffcrent "sexualities, .. ~, what Aris-
tophanes 15 desmbmg here IS not a single, homogeneous sexual orientation
common to all those who descend from an original male but rather a set
~f;,Istmct and mcommensurable behaviors which such persons exhibit in
I erefnt penods of their lives; although his genetic explanation of the diver-
suy
th oh sexual b object-choice among h uman bemgs . would secm to requir<
at t ere e sorne adult males who are sexually attractcd to othcr adulr

*Tobesure,acertamsymmen does b . b .
ofrh~ makmg a homosexual and ~hose ::a~:m el':"~cn the ~rou~s cornposcd, n·spccu~d~~
wruututed by Aristophancs in such a wa ng a hct~rosexual object-cholce: c;ach oft~1l:fll al
upautJl"S :u subjecb and objects of eroli/d;u .10 con_um both males and fe males in t~t·lr du 1 ~
•ymmt-try, howner, .md it may be doubte;s~e. Anstophanes does nothing to highhg~t thof
tht pa.ugr. hether 1t should figure in our mterpreuuon
males, Aristophanes appears to be w~o~ly ~naware of such a possibility, and
in any case he has left no room for 1t m h1s taxonomic scheme. *
That omission is all the more unexpected because, as Boswell himselfhas
pointed out (m response to the present argument), the archetypal pairs of
lovers from whom all homoerotically indined males are supposed 10 descend
must themselves have been the same age as one another, since they were
ori~inally halves of the same being. ~·No age-matched couples figure among
thelf latter-day offsprmg, however: m the real world of dassical Athens-
at least, as Aristophanes portrays it-reciprocal erotic desire among males
is unknown. 31 Thus, the social actuality described by Aristophanes features
an erotic asymmetry absent from the mythical paradigm used to generate
it. Now inasmuch as Aristophanes's myth is an aetiological fable, a projec-
tion of contemporary practices backwards in time to their imagined point
of origin, the meaning of his myth is necessarily determined, in the first
instance at least, by its contemporary reference. Even though the myth, in
other words, happens to posit as the ancestors of "modem" human beings
sorne pairs oflovers of the same sex and the same age who are animated by
mutual desire for one another, and who would therefore seem to qualify as
"homosexuals" rather than as either "paederasts" or "philerasts," the myth
is dearly not intended to explain mutual same-sex desire among coevals in
dassical Athens, and so we are not entided read "homosexual" desire into
the myth-especially on the basis of a detail in it whose significance is largely
the accidental creation of our own cultural preoccupations (if Aristophanes
admittedly fails to say anything explicit that would rule out such a reading
of his own myth, that is only beca use Plato did not anticipate the culrural
situation of his twentieth-century readership and so did not dream that
anyone would ever place upon Aristophanes's words what, to Plato's way
of thinking, would surely have been an oudandish interpretation). Those
Athenians who allegedly descend from a mythical all-male ancestor are not
defined by Aristophanes as maJe homosexuals but as wdbng boys when they
are young and as lovers of youths when they .~re old. Despite .~well, then,.
neither the concept nor the experienre ol homosexualuy JS known to 1
Plato's Aristophanes." . . other
A similar condusion can be drawn from careful exammanon of the
document from antiquity that might seem to vouch for the existenre both
of homosexuality as an indigenous category and of homosexuals as a nanve

* Nor doc-1 Aristophann makr any 1llowtntt m h•• myth IOr what wu ~~~
widcly sharcd. suual tascr amona hia fdlow A~WI citiHnJ---U.IDC'Iy. 111 ~
liltinM for Rood-lookin• womrn an~ boys ~that 11, • ~rx.ual ~-=
nclusivrly IC'nder-spcrifi" srxual obJ«<-choa«). Such a lacunl .
Aristophanes's myth (aa, m011 reccndy. Cantarrlla, 8+-85. •~• 11 ti) • •
•
11101 10 :~
Umplc ._.,..._ 01'

ITIIrction of contcmponry cxpnimcc.

species Unlike the myth of Plato's Aristophanes, a fam:u~ and rnuch.
excer ~ed assa e from a classic work of Gre~k prosc, t e ocurnent to
whic~ l r~fer ¡~ little known and almost ennreiy neglccted by rnodern
. . f.. l"t "·" its date is late, tts text IS corrupt, and, far frorn
h 1stonans o sexua 1 Y • f R
being a self-conscious literary artifact, it forms part 0 a o~an technic~
treatise. But despite its distance from Plato m. nme, m style, m language,
and in intent, it displays the same remarkable mnoc~nce of modero sexual
· d 1have chosen to discuss it here partly m order to show what
categones, an . . .
can be learned about the ancient world from texts that he outstd~ the recetved
canon of classical authors. Let us turn, then, to the mnth chapter m the Fourrh
Book of De morbis chronicis, a mid-fifth-century A. D. Latín translation and
adaptation by the African writer Caelius Aur_eiianus of a now largeiy lo51
work on chronic diseases by the Greek phystctan Soranus, who practised
and taught in Rome during the early part ofthe second century A. D.
The topic of this chapter is molles (malthakoi in Greek)-that is, "soft" or
unmasculine meo who depart from the cultural norm of manliness insofar
as they actively desire to be subjected by other men to a "feminine" (i.e.,
rcceptive) role in sexual intercourse. Caelius begins with an implicit defense
ofhis own unimpeachable masculinity by noting how difficult it is to believe
that such people actually exist;" he then goes on to observe that the cause
of their affiiction is not natural (that is, organic) but is rather their own
cxcess1ve destre, which-in a desperate and foredoomed atternpt to satisfy
Jtself -dnves out thetr sense of shame and forcibly converts parts of thcir
bodlcs to sexual uses not intended by nature. These men willingly adopt the
dress, gaJt, and other characteristics of women, thereby confirming that thc¡
suffcr ,not from a bodd Yd"tsease but ,Jtom a mental (or moral) defect. AftC!
sorne rurthcr. arguments
"F . in support o f th at pomt,
. Caelius draws an interesung .
Co mpanson: or JUSI as th h
Practise both k"Inds o f sex eare women called tribades [in Greek], because t e¡
m 'th
womcn than w"th d' ore eager to havc sexual intercourse Wl
so rhey 10 [ ·1 menan pursu e women Wtth · an almost mascuhne · 1ousy
· Jea
Thc mental dtos J. e.: the molles[ are affiictcd by a mental discase" (132-133).
case ID qucsuon h. h . ¡·kc
and is dcfincd as . · w 1' stnkcs both mcn and women a 1
a pcrvcmon of 1d . b<
nothing other than h . scxua eme, would ccrtainly scem ro
omosexuahty · ·
. Severa! considcrations combin. as 11 ISoftcn undcrstood toda y. , ct·
Ftrst of all, what Ca 1. e to prohtbtt that mtcrprctation, howcV
. e1us trcats as h . . 1 th<
deme on thc part of "th a pat o 1ogtcal phcnomcnon ts no
o f t he samc scx; quite th
et crmcnorw e ·
omcn 10r sexual contact w1th a pe 1
·rs•"
of satynasiS
. . . (a state of be contrary·· el scw here, m . dtscussmg
. . t h e nca trtlcnb
· h.
nc Jng or tcnsion in th
a normall
. Y e1cvatcd sexual dcsirc accompatUC · d Y
wh o suncr ce
from ¡1 (Dre gcnttals)
rh.
h . h . .
• . e ISsucs t e followmg advtcc to P
cor•,,
. mo ISQCUIJS, 3.1!1.18(~181) l5
IJo "01 admu visitors d . · .
. f h .. · iln p;anlcularly cr•"t'
nc:s• 0 "uc VlsUors would . . young women and boys. for thc attra cd·
agaiQ kiOdlc thc fccling of dcsirc in thc paticnt. 111Je
 One Hundred Years of Homosexuality 1 23

t~tn healthy persons, se~ing them, w~uld in many cases seek sexual gratification,
stJmulated by the tens1on produced m the parts [i.e., in rheir own geniralsJ.Jt.

There is nothin~ medically problematical, then, about a desire on rhe part

of males to obtam sexual pleasure from contact with males-so long as rhat
desire respects the proper phallocentric protocols (which, as we shall see
identify "masculinity" with an insertive sexual role); what is of concem ~~
Caelius, 37 as well as to other ancient moralists,'" is the male desire to be
sexually penetrated by males, for such a desire represents the voluntary
abandonment of a "masculine" identity in favor of a "feminine" one. lt is
sex-role reversa!, or gender-deviance, that is problematized here and that also
furnishes part of the basis for Caelius's comparison of molles ro tribades, who
assume a "masculine" role in their relations with other women and acrively
"pursue women with an almost masculine jealousy." lndeed, the "soft"-
that is, sexually submissive--man, possessed of a shocking and paradoxical
desire to surrender bis masculine autonomy and precedence ro other mm,
is monstrous precisely because he seems to have "a woman's soul confined
by a man's body" and thus ro violare the ancients' deeply felt and somewhat
anxiously defended sense of congruence between a person 's gender, sexual
practices, and social identity."
Second, the ground of the similitude between Caelius 's mol/.s and tribades
is not that they are both homosexual but rather that they are both bisexual
(in our terms). The tribades "are more eager to ha ve sexual intercourse with
women than with men" and "practise both kinds of sex"-that is, they have
sex with both men and women."' As for the molles, Cadius's earlier remarks
about their extraordinarily intense sexual desire implies that they tum to
receptive sex because, although they try. they are not able to satisfy them-
selves by means of more conventionally masculine sorts of sexual activity,
including insertive sex with women; 41 far from having dcsires dt~t are sr~c­
tured differently from those of normal folk. these gender-devunts des1re
sexual pleasure justas most people do, but they ha ve su<-h strong and intense
desires that they are driven ro devise sorne unusual and disreputable (thougb
ultimately fu rile) means of gratifying them. That diagnosis becomes expliat
at the conclusion of the chapter when Caelius cxplains why the discase
responsible for tuming men into mo/l.s is rhe only chronic disease tlut
bccomcs stronger as the body grows older (137).

For in other years when the body is still strong md can per{orm die- nomW
functions of lave, the Kxu.al desirc- (of thn< pcnonsJ assumcs a dual asp«t. .•
which the soul is excited somc-rimes whik playing a JNssive and somctJ.mft, whilr
playing an active role. 8uc: in the CISC' ofold men who han tole: c:hctr virilr powcn.
all c:heir sexual desire is c:umed in the opposire dircction and CCJrllSC'qUC"11tiY eu.;:
a sc:rongc"r demand for c:he kmininC' role in love. In fact. nuny infn rhat dMs IS
reaaon whv bovs too a~ victima ohhis afHiction. For. like okl mm. ~do IKK
24 1 One Hundred Years of Homosexuality

possess virile powers; that is, they ha ve not yet attained those powers which hav,
already deserted the aged."

"Soft" or unmasculine men-far from having a tixed and determinare sexual

identity, a sexual nature oriented pcrmanently in one specific dircction (ro.
wards other members of their own sex)-are cvtdcntly etthcr m en who once
cxpcricnced an orthodoxly masculinc sexual desirc in the past or who will
evcntually cxpcrience such a desire in thc future. They may well be men
with a constitutional tcndcncy to gendcr-deviancc, according to Caelius,
but they are not homosexua\s: being a womanish man, ora mannish woman,
aftcr al\, is not thc samc thing as bcing a homosexual. Moreover, all the
other ancicnt texts known to me which place in the same category both
males who enjoy sexual contact with males and fema\es who enjoy sexual
contact with females display one or the other of the two taxonomic strategies
employed by Caelius Aurclianus: if such men and women are c\assifted alike,
it is either because they are both held to reverse their propcr sex-roles and to
adopt the sexual styles, postures, and modes of copulation conventionally
assomted wtth the opposite sex or because they are both hcld to alternare
between the personal charact~~istics and sexual practices propcr, respec·
tlvely, tomen and to women. No category ofhomosexuality, defined in
such a way as to contam men and women alike, is indigenous to the ancient
world.*

m
Plato's testimony and Caclius Aurelianus's testimon e .
basic conceptual and historical point Hornos r y ombme to make a
and sexuality itself (as 1 shall ar u~ in exua uy presupposes.sexuality.
Homosexuality presu oses s g . a momcnt) IS a Inodcrn mvention.
uality implies that r::.e is ac;u:~:f.c~l~cause the very conccpt ofhomosex·
personality, a characterologicaf seat wi;h;~x~~al dl~ner;;IO;l lo the human
dcmes, and pleasures-a determinare sour ~ e m lVI ua of sexual acts,
sJOn proceeds. Whcthcr or not h d. ce rom whlch all sexual exprcs-
. suc a IStmct and u i~ d h 1
enllty actually CXiStS homosex r !'k n le psyc ophysica
ncccssarily assumcs that it d _ua lly ( 1 e hctcroscxuality, in this rcspcct)
oes. 11 poSIIs scxualit ·
of the sclf. Scxuality in this . Y as a constllutivc principie
scnsc IS nota purcly descriptivo tcrm, a neutral

* ln~d. as Manuli (19HJ), 151 and 2fJ1n o

delincd m sul·h a way a!t to be applic bl . , bscrves, evcn the category o( anatomical se"·
thought: .. thc notion ofsex nevcr get: fo:~oal~en and wo~cn alikc, does not cxist in (irC"I.'k
bur •~ expres~cd solcly through thc . IZc~ as a funenonal identity of male and IC:-Inalt.
berwccn male ;;md fcm;~)c indieated e rcprek;Jlatlon of asymmetry and of wmplcmcntariiY
10 4"nr ('rhc masculinc'l):" onstant Y by abstraer adj("ctives (111 1l1fly l'thc fcrniniw:'l·
 One Hundred Years of Homosexuality 1 25

representatio.n of sorne objective state of affairs. Rather, it serves to interpret

and to orgamze human expenence, and 1t performs quite a lot of conceptual
work.
First of all, sexuality defines itself as a separare, sexual domain within the
larger field of man's psychophysical nature. Second, sexuality effects the
conceptual demarcation and isolation of that domain from other arcas of
personal ~nd soc.iallife that have traditionally cut across it, such as carnality,
venery, hbertmtsm, vudlty, passJOn, amorousness, eroticism, intimacy.
lo ve, affection, appetite, and desire---to name but a few of the older claimants
to territories more recently staked out by sexuality. Finally, sexuality gener-
ares sexual identity: it endows each of us with an individual sexual nature,
with a personal essence defined (at least in part) in specifically sexual terms."
Now sexualidentity, so conceived, is not to be confused with gender identity
or gender role: indeed, one of the chief conceptual functions of sexuality is
to distinguish, once and for all, sexual identity from matters of gender-<o
decouple, as it were, kinds of sexual predilection from degrees of masculinity
and femininity. That is precisely what makes sexuality alicn to the spirit of
ancient Mediterranean cultures. For as the example of Caelius Aurelianus
makes plain, ancient sexual typologies generally derived their criteria for
categorizing people not from sex but from gender: thcy tended to construc
sexual desire as normative or deviant according to whether it impdled social
actors to conform to orto violare their conventionally defined gender roles."
Sexuality, then, is not, as it often pretends to be, a universal featureofhuman
life in every society. For as the word is used today (outside thc litesciences, at
least) 46 sexuality does not refer to sorne positivc physical property-such as thc
property ofbeing anatomically scxed-that cxists independently ofculture; it
does not rightly denote sorne common aspect or attribute ~fbodies. Unlike
scx, which is a natural fact, scxualiry is a cultural production' :ir represents the
appropriation of the human body and ofitS"crogenous zones by an ideological
discoursc. Far from reflccting a purely natural and unintcrprctcd recognition
of sorne familiar facts about us, scxuality rcprescnts a peculiar tum in conrep-
tualizing, cxpcricncing, and institutionalizing human naturc, a tum_ th~t
(along with many othcr devclopmcnrs) marks rhc rransition to modcmtty m
northcrn and wcstcrn Europe. As H.obl·rt Padgug, in¡¡ dassicessay on scxu,¡)-
ity in history. putti it,
wh.at wc considc..·r ''sc..·xu.ality" was, in the pn·-kKJUr~c..'OIS ""'~r.ld, .1 grour tl( .a.:b
and institutions not IU.'l"c.'ssarily linked ro onc.· .mothcr. or, •• thc..·y "".c..·rc hnLc.-J.
c.·omhincd in ways vt•ry ditlCn.•1U fnun our own. lnt~.·n.-oufS4.'. kmshlp. ,¡nJ dk'
f;nuily, ilnd gl·ndcr, did not form anythin~ likc .1 .. tidd" of scxuali_t\· R.lth('r . .,..,._.."h
KToup uf sl·xual ac.·ts was ,·omlc.'l'tl-d din'<'tly or mdirt'l·~ly-rhat ts. tormnt J'\.1" ,w-
institutiuns illnd thought pan ..·rns which Wl.' rc.·nd hl vlc.'W as ~·htl,·.ll, C."ú'~l''11 u" · ""'
social in naturc and rhc cum1C"Ctions cut o1noss our idea .,.,1 S('xu.abtv .1:~- .a t~IU!l·
dcta,·hablc.• t'run~ uther rhinRs. and as a Sl1'arate sphC'R" ol priv.alf' I."XIStl."'k'\'
26 ¡ One H undred Years of Homosexuality

. n of sexuality' there can be no conception

Where there is no such conceptto t' on that human bemgs are mdi.
h sexuahty-no no '
of either horno- or etero . r that they differ from one another
viduated at the leve\ of thm se~u~ tty' 1 types of being by virtue of their
in their sexuality or belong to ' eren
sexuahty." 1 ( d ulumately ofheterosexuahty) had
The mventton ofhomosexua '¡ty anh, tghteenth-century dtscovery and
the fust P ace, 1 e e d h 1
therefore to awatt, m bl ofphyswlog1cal an psyc o ogt-
1 ty as the tata1ensem e d h
defmmon o f sexua ' d d 1' gemtal functwns an t e concom-
ngthem !VI ua s f
cal mechamsms goverm bl th speCially developed part o the
f¡ f that ensem e Wl a
ttant !denu ¡canon o . ¡t had also to awalt, m the second place, the
bram and nervous system, f sexuahty as a smgular "¡nstmct" or
nmeteenth-century mterpretanon o 1 fe accordmg to tts own unassatl-
" dnve " a force that shapes our consCious ' d 1
ble lo, IC and thereby determmes, at least m part, the character an persona •
a fg h f us " Sexuahty on th!s latter mterpretatton, turns out to
1tyo eac oneo · • di
be somethmg more than an endogenous pnnctple of mottvatton outwar y
expressed by the performance of sexual acts; 1t !S a mute power subtly and
deviously at work throughout a w1de range of human behavwrs, amtudes,
, tastes, chO!ces, gcstures, styles, pursmts, judgments, and utterances. Sexual-
ity is rhus the inmost part of an individual human nature. lt !S the feature of
a person that takes longest to get to know we\1, and knowing it renders
transparent and intelligible to the knower the person to whom 1t belongs.
Sexuality holds the key to unlocking the deepest mystenes of the human
personality: it lies at the center of the hermeneutics of the self''
Befare the scientific construction of "sexuality" as a supposedly positive,
distinct, and constitutivc feature of individual human beings-an autono-
mous system within the physiological and psychological economy of the
human organism-certain kinds of sexual acts could be individual\ y evaluated
and categorizcd, and so could certain sexual tastes or indinations, but there
was no conceptual apparatus available for identifying a person's fixed and
determina te sexual orientation, m ueh less for assessing and classifying it. S2
That human beings differ, often markedly, from one another in their sexual
tastes in a great variety of ways (of which sexual object-choice-the liking
for a sexual partner of a specific sex-is only one, and not necessarily
the most significan! one) is an unexceptionable and, indecd, an ancicnt
observation;'' but it is not immediately evident that differences in sexual
preferencc are by their vcry nature more revealing about the tempcramcnt of
mdiVldual human bcings, more significan! determinants of personal idcntitY•
than, for cxamplc, dtfferences in dictar y prcfcrcncc." And yet, it would
ncver occur to us to refcr a person 's dictary objcct-choicc to sorne innatc.
charactcrological disposition or to sce in his or hcr strongly cxprcsscd and
e ven unvarymg prcfcrcncc for thc whitc mcat of chickcn thc symptom of'
profound psychophysical oricntation, leading us ro idcntify him or her tn
 One Hundred Years of Homosexuality ¡ z;

contexts quite removed from that of the eating of food as, say (to continue
the pracuce .. of combmmg Greek and Latin roots), a "pectoriphage" or a
"stethovore · nor would we be hkely to inquire further, making nicer
discnmmallons accordmg to whether an individual's predilection for chicken
breasts expressed itself in a tendency to eat them quickly or slowly, seldom
or often, alone or tn company, under normal circumstances or only in
periods of great stress, with a guilty or a clear conscience, beginning in
earliest childhood or originating with a gastronomic trauma suffered in
adolescence. lf such questions did occur to us, moreover, 1 very much doubt
whether we would turn to the academic disciplines of anatomy, neurology.
clinical psychology, genetics, or sociobiology in the hope of obtaining a
clear causal solution to them. That is because (1) we regard the liking for
certain foods as a m alter of laste; (2) we currendy lack a theory of taste; and
(3) in the absence of a theory we do not normally subject our behavior to
in tense, scientific or aetiological, scrutiny. 55
In the same way, it never occurred to pre-modem cultures to ascribe a
person 's sexual tastes to sorne positive, structural, or constiturive feature of
his or her personality."' Justas we tend to assume that human beings are not
individuated al the leve! of dietary preference and that we all, despite many
pronounced and frankly acknowledged differences from one anocher in
dietary ha bits, share the same fundamental set of alimentary apperites, and
hence the same "dieticity" or "edility," so most pre-modem and non-West-
ern cultures, despite an awareness of the range of possible variations in
human sexual behavior, refuse to individuare human beings at the leve! of
sexual preference and assume, instead, that we all share the same fundament.tl
set of sexual appetites, the same "sexuality." For most ofthe world's inhabit-
ants, in other words, "sexuality" is no more a fact of life than "dieociry."
Far from being a necessary or intrinsic constituent of the eterna) gr~m_mar
ofhuman subjectivity, "sexuality" seems to be one ofthose cultural hcoons
which in every society give human beings access to themsdvc-s as meanmgful
actors in their world, and which are thereby objecrivated. *

• In order to avoid misunderstanding. let tnC' cmph.asize th<~l 1 am not saymtr; 11 would bt
outlandish 10 categorize people ac:cording 10 dieu.ry prdMcm-.:-; 1 do not hd~vr "'" ~~·
between dietary and sexual object-chokr shows thal distin(ti()IIS Nsrd on obJt'Ct-dklltt arc-
absurd and that w_e _should plut· no mor~ l·rrdm_l-.:-_ tn sexual catrg:~:;h :";-!:~=
5
~)n t.he contrar~: u ts easy _to rnumer~te lorms ot dlC"tary bdtavK>r s uru:kr whk:h W'C' ttkr 1
classtf~ as .spcctftc ty~s ol human hc:-mgs; thrn:. are- _n•any l~•:;:.hts or hC'r pcnon.&htv. 1t,
pcnon s dtetary bchav1or, evC'II today, ro sORIC' ronsn~hW leatu 'tied as .an "¡n(li"C'l"'k' .. wbk"h
~or cxample, 1eal so lude as vutually to _starv_e myscll. _1 am •dmt1 tLaiJ c:bt&ftuc fn~ ~
IS to say t~at 1 bcl'O~C il particular sptr.·.,s ol pt'~· {;hna~ tOrl~ u5t 15 a~·l hJ!w _..
peoplc, wuh a prcuhar case hu;lory, prnumcd psylhology. a . .. J .as ... IC"ll..al
"loo mu_ch" or '"too often," 1 am ~arded as "K"xually rom~~ls•~~;~:-~ar,.~
compuls1ve," yct another sprdn o(huma•~ltmd. Whert'-as som; !;
(e.K .. prcfen·nce for whitc meat) src- ("ons•drn."d unrc-muk.abl ·
liT t~ "'ll ,...t:'d.
28 1 Onc Hundrcd Years of Homosexuality

To say that sexual categories and identities are objectivated fictions is not
to say that they are false or unreal, mcrcly that they are not positive,
natural, or csscntial fcaturcs of thc world. outstde of htstory and culture.
Homoscxuals and heterosexuals do exist, aftcr all, at lcast nowadays; they
actually desirc what they do: they are not dcludcd parttctpants m sorne
cultural charade, or victims of"false consciousness." Morcovcr, the modcrn
tcrm "homosexual" docs indced refer to any person, whethcr ancient or
modcrn, who secks sexual contact with another person of the same sex; ¡1
is not, strictly speaking, incorrcct to predicatc that term of sorne classical
Greeks." But the issuc befare us is not captured by the problcmatics of
rcfercncc: it cannot be innoccntly reformulated as the issue of whethcr or
not wc can accuratcly apply our concept ofhomosexuality to the ancients-
whether or not, that is, we can discover in thc historical record of classical
antiquity evidcnce ofbehaviors or psychologies that are amenablc to classift-
cation in our own terms (obviously, we can, givcn the supposedly descrip-
nve, trans-htstoncal nature of those terms); the issue isn't even whethcr or

,
not thc ancicnts were able to express within the terms providcd by their
own conceptual schemes an experience of something approximating to ho-
mosexuahty as wc undcrstand it today.'" The real issue confronting any

o~hers u~marked
others arr markcd.juSt as only so me aspectsofscxual behavior (e.g., homosexual ob'ect-choicc)
"' ma<kcd, wherm (c.g .. prefmnce for persons with blue eyes) remain 1

;,;::::~:,:~:::¿ 0~,:;:o:·~~;~:'~,'s~;~ests ~h~ d>etary categorics ha ve indced ~rovided, :~

w"h to thank Gcorgc Chauncey for supplying me with this formulation ofthe issue ) Morco ve (

a~
ynum (1987), and for examplc from :l:i~:l ~~;:n~s~~uct typologies o_fhul~lan bcmgs: scc
'>t'xual and dJetary morahty, scc Stcphcn Niss~nbaum lstory o:thc poss!bl~ l.mk_agc bctwccn
A mm~'S y/""" Gm/"m '"d H"ltl> R,.fom•. Conrributio~:x.. D>ft,. •nd Deln/uy "' J•cksmú•u
11
CT: (,recnwood Prcss, llJl'lll). · Med!cal H1story, 4 (Westport.
My argumcnt, then, is ~lmply dm: (1) thcrc scems
pr<fmnm are more.fimd''"""'l fcatum of the human ~~ e no way of proving that sexual
b

dtt'tuy prcferenccs don't, for thc most patt, dctermin~c sona~¡ty tha~ d!et~~y prcferences; (2)
thert·forc, '>exual pn:ft·renn:s should not be thought of as i~~;np_crsonalidentltlCS nowadays; (J)
rath~r, st·xual r:ttcgones b<~sed on prcft·renct' should be e . SIC constltuents ofthe pcrsonality;
contmgency ,., not the samc thíng as absurdit To b . onsldcred culturally co~tingent. NoW
~re con~ected-as Western notions ha ve tc:dcd to cb:urc, so long as onc's nottons of ''truth"
nature and "necc~slty'
to what is nawra.lly and ncccs·I~Cc
thc Rcnalssance-to nouons of
~~
huma? bcmgs rccognizc to bt· the case or not) therc ssanly and always the case (whethcr
3 tradltJOnal way of lookmg at thmgs IS d' d may be somc diff¡culty thalestabhshin~
>Cenung lo imp/y that u , fai>c. l!ut 1g;~u~o~ el•::
cuhun· rathor !han m naturc without ,,/;o'
mordmg tu .cxual ob)ect-choicc, mercly that 1! "mmg that ll IS falsc to catcgonzc pcopk
~:m~hnuons ar<, m>toad, just as conti>>gent, arbitrar""' natural or nemsary !O do so; ""h
·¡~ pcopk auordmg to dictary objcct-choicc. l!oth se~·.
'".d mnvcn!tonal as"' dassif>otio•"
' m•mtam that <omcthmg »n't, fact, in sho . '"'"are poS>>bk: ncuhcr is incv>uhk.
nmn.:rned hcrc ncuher Wlth ttuths nor falschood~or~~ ~ot to mamtal_n that it's ;J Iic. Wl' ,¡rt
oc~cpt bd~eve h~swtth wilhn~n<'''
IS

10 or m rcprmntations gcnerall rcprcsentauons, and our

pow<r than wuh thm truth. Y 10 do more wtth their n·prc><"""""'l
 Onc Hundred Years of Homoscxuality 1 29

cultural historian of antiquity, and ~ny critic of contemporary culture, is,

first ofall, how to rec~ver the terms m wh1ch the experiences ofindividuals
bclonging to past soc1et1es were actually constituted and, second, how to
measure and assess the diff~rences between those terms and the ones we
currently employ. For: as. th1s very controversy over the scope and applica-
bility of sexual categones !llustrates, concepts in the human sciences-unlike
in this respect, perh~ps, co~cepts in the natural sciences (such as gravity)-
do not merely descnbe reahty but, at least partly, constitute it.;' What this
implies about the issue before us may sound paradoxical but it is, 1 believe,
profound-or, at least, worth pondering: although there ha ve been, in many
different times and places (including classical Greece), persons who sought
sexual contact with other persons of the same sex as themselves, it is only
within the last hundred years or so that such persons (or sorne portion of
them, at any rate) have been homosexuals.
lnstead of attempting to trace the history of"homosexuality" as ifit were
a thing, therefore, we might more profitably analyze how the significance
of same-sex sexual contacts has been variously constructed over time by
members of human living-groups. Such an analysis will probably lead us
(and we must be prepared for this) into a plurality of only partly overlapping
social and conceptual territories, a series of cultural formations that shift as
their constitue"fs change, combine in different sequences, or compase new
patterns. The sort of history that will result from this procedure will no
longer be gay history as John Boswell tends to conccpcualize it (i.e., as the ¡:
history of gay people), but it will not fail to be gay history in a different,
and perhaps more relevant, sense: for it will be history written from the
perspective of contemporary gay interests-just as fcminist history is not.
¡
properly speaking, the history of women but history that reflects thc con-
ccrns of contemporary feminism. M• In thc following paragraphs 1 shall at-
tempt to exemplify the approach 1am advocating by drawing, m very crude
outlinc, a picture of thc cultural formation undcrlying thc classlcai_Atheman
institution of pacdcrasty, a picturc whosc dcrails will havc to be hlled m ar
sorne la ter point if this aspcct of ancient Grcek social rdanons 1s cver ro be
undcrstood historically."'

IV

Lct me bcJ~in by obscrvin~ rhat rhc attirud<•s and bchaviors pu~li··~y J¡s-
playcd bv thc citizcns of Ath<·ns (ro whom rhe surv1vmg ,.,.,den<< lor thc
dasskal pcriod c.~tlCrtivcly rc.""Stril-ts our powcr to gcncralizc) r~~n~ kl portr.a~
scx notas a collc.•ctivc cntcrprisc in which two or more pt•rsons J 01~ 1 dy c:·ngo~t:t
·
but rat hc.•r as an a'-·tion pcrtormc.·d nnn anotht'r "'- 1 ho~srt,l ro
by onc pcrson Ur-- · 1 h
cmphasizc that this formulation docs not purpurt ro dc.•s"Tilx·l""'-'.nn· ,. w ;at
30 1 One Hundred y ears of Homoscxuality

.. 1 , 1.k for all members of Athcnian society

.
thc expcnence o f sex was. real y 'd be those utterances an d acttons · of free
but to indicare how sex ts reprdesentbe y erheard and witnessed by other free
mtendc to e ov . ¿·
adult males th at were. . . d b this public, mascu 1me tscourse, is
"' S as consntutc Y . . k . .
adult ma1cs. ex, 11 15 . , point of view): tt ts not mt up tn
. t (accordmg to onc s E
either actor rmpac h. ,·nvariably has with someone. ven
. ot somct mg one .
a wcb of mutua\ tty • n . .. h e scx" or "to takc acttve sexual
. . ·, meanmg to av
the vcrb ap hro drsrazer , . . d . t an active and a passive form; the
p\easurc, .. ·ts carc fully dtffcrcnnate
. m 0 tique list (that we nonct h e1ess h ave
r s tellingly m a 1ate an 1
active 1orm occur • . ' . for ancient Mediterranean cu ture,
. b b
d
goo reason ° . . ,..
t conslder representauve
f
ccntnc to tt) o acts a1
th "do not regard onc's nctgh ors ut
h
rath er th an ce 1 d t done in regard to or through ot ers:
1 h b. cts themse ves an are no .
on ~;\e ssu ;a~ing, singing, dancing, ftst-ftghting, compcting, hangmg. one-
'::lf, d~in;, being crucifted, diving, fmding a treasure, havmg se:, vo~mngd
moving one's bowels, sleeping, laughmg, crymg, talkmg to t e go s, an
the like.""' AsJohnJ. Winkler, in a commentary on thts passage, observes,
"lt ¡5 not that second parties are not present at so me ofthese events \speakmg,
boxing, compcting, having sex, being crucifted, flattermg one s favonte
, divinity), but that thcir successful achtevement does,::,ot depend on the
cooperation, much less the beneftt, of a second party. .
Not only is scx in classical Athens not mtrmstcally relanonal or collabora-
tivc in character; it is, furthcr, a decply polarizing expenence: lt effecnvely
divides, classifies, and distributes its participants into distinct and radically
opposed categories. Sex possesses this valence, apparently, because it is
conceived to ccnter esscntially on, and to define itself around, an asymn1ctri-
cal gcsturc, that ofthe penctration ofthe body of one pcrson by thc body-
and, specifically, by the phallus"'-of another. Scx is not only polarizing,
howcver; it .s also hicrarchical. For the insertive partner is construed as a
sexual agent, whose phallic pcnetration of another person 's body expresses
sexual "activity," whercas the receptive partner is construcd as a sexual
patient, whose submission to phallic penctration exprcsscs sexual "passiv-
ity." Sexual "activity," moreovcr, is thcmatizcd as domination: the relation
between the "active'' and the "passivc" sexual partncr is thought of as che
same kind of relation as that obtaining betwccn social superior and social
infcrior.lí.H "Active" and "passivc" sexual roles are thcrcforc ncccssarily iso·
morphic with superordinatc and subordinatc social status; hcncc, an adult,
malc citizen of Athcns can ha ve legitimare sexual rclations only with statu·
tory minors (his inferiors not in age but in social and political status):
the propcr targets of his sexual desire in elude, spccifically, womcn, boys.
forctgncrs, and slavcs-all of them pcrsons who do not cnjoy thc samc Jc~al
and polrucal nghts and privilcgcs that he docs. ''' Furthermorc, what a citizcll
docs in bcd rcRccts thc diffcrcntial in status that distinguishcs him frolll htS
sexual partner: the citizen's sup~rio~ prestige and authority exprcss them-
selves 1~ h1s sexual prece~encc--1~ h1s power to initiate a sexual act, his right
10 obtam pleasure from 11, and h1s assumpt10n of an insertive rather than a
receptlve ~exual role. (~ven 1fa sexual act_ does not involve physical penetra-
uon, 11 sull remams h1erarch1cally pol~nzed by the distribution of phallic
pleasure: the partner whose pleasure 1s promoted is considercd "active "
while the partner who puts his or her body at the service of another's pleasu~e
is deemed "passive"-read "penetrated," in the culture's unselfconscious
ideological shorthand.) What Paul Veyne has said about the Romans can ./
apply equally well to the classical At_!:I_enians: they were indeed puritans when e
it carne to sex, but (unlike modern bourgeois Westemers) they were not /
puritans about conjugality and reprnduction; rathcr, like many Mediterra- r;
nean peoples, they were _p_~_rit~11~-~~<lll!.V:i_~!Y~>o «
When the sexual system of the classical Athenians is describcd in that
fashion, as though it constituted a separare sphere of life govemed by its
own interna! laws, it appears mcrely exotic or bizarre, one of the many
curiosities recorded in the annals of ethnography. But if, instead of trcating
Athenian sexual altitudes and practices as expressions of ancient Grcek "sex-
uality" (conceived, in modero terms, asan autonomous domain), we situate
them in the larger social context in which they were cmbedded, they will at
once disclose their systematic coherence. For the "scxuality" of the classical
Athenians, far from being independent and detached from "polirics" (as wc
conceive sexuality to be), was constituted by the very principieS on which
Athenian public life was organized. In fact, the correspondences in classical
Athens between sexual norms and social pracrices werc so strict that an
inquiry into Athenian "sexuality" per se would be nonsensical: such an
inquiry could only obscure the phenomenon it was intendcd to elucidare,
for by isolating sexual norms from social pracrices it would conccal thc sole
context in which the sexual protocols of the classical Athenians makc any
sensc--namely, the structure of the Athenian polity.
In classical Athens a relatively small group made up of the adult mak
citizcns hcld a virtual monopoly of social power and constitutrd a clearl_y
defincd élite within the political and social lile ofthe city-st•"'· Tbecxtraordi-
nary polarization of sexual roles in classical Athcns mcrcly rctlccts thc
marked division in thc Athenian polity betwcen th1s sooally supcrordina"'
group, composcd of citizens, and various subordinate_j¡!_oups (.UI Io.:k1ng
full civil rights, though not all cqually subordinare), ,-omposed respc<'tl\'d}' ~
of womcn, foreigners, slavcs, and childrcn (the lattcr th~ groups ,-ompn:o- .-
ing P<'rsons of both sexes). Sex between mcmbers ol thc supcn\1'\b~"'
group was virtually inconccivabk, whcrcas scx betwcen • n1ember ol thc
supcrurdinatc group and a mcmbcr of any one of the subordm•"' grouf"'
n1irrorcd in thc ntinutc dctails of its hir-rar,hical arrangcmC'Ilt . .AS wt tu""t'
•
 · f t uctured inequality that govcrncd thc lovcrs' wider
secn, th e re1auon o s r
social interaction.* . . .
Sex in classical Athens, then, was not a stmply a collaboratton m sorne
· t 'o mutual p\casure that absorbed or obscured, tf only tempo-
pnvate ques '' r . . h
·1 tlle social identities of its parttctpants. On t e contrary, sex was a
rany, f "l"d · lb
manifestation of personal status, a declaration o socta t e~ttt~; sexua e-
havior did not so much exprcss inward disposittons or mchnattons (al-
though, of course, it did also do that) as it served to posttton s~ctal ~ctors
in thc placcs assigned to them. by vtrtue of thetr pohttcal standmg, m thc
hierarchical structnre of the Athenian polity. Far from bemg mterpreted as
an expression of commonality, as a sign of sorne sharcd sexual status or
identity, sex between social superior and social inferior was a minia tu re
drama of polarization which served to measure and to define the social
distance bctween them. To assimilate both the senior and the junior partner
in a pacderastic relationship to the same "(homo)sexuality," for examplc,
would have struck a dassical Athenian as no less bizarre than to classify a
, . burglar as an "active criminal," his victim as a "passive criminal," and thc
two of them alike as partners in crime71 : burglary-like sex, as the Greeks
understood it-is, aftcr all, a "non-relational" act. Each act of sex in classical
Athcns was no doubt an expression of real, personal desire on the part of
the sexual actors mvolved, but thcir very desires had already been shapcd
by thc sharcd cultural definition of sex as an activity that generally occurred
only _b~twccn a citizcn and a non-citizen, between a person invested with
full CIVIl status and a statutory minar.
. The social articulation of sexual desire in classical Athens furnishes a telling
tllustratton of the mterdcpendcnce m culture of social practices and subjcctivc
cxpcrtcnccs. lt thereby casts a st~ong and rcvealing light on che ideological
dtmenstOn-thc purcly convcnttonal and arbitrary character-of our own
conccpttons of sex and scxuality. Thc Grcek record suggests that sexual
cho~ccs do not always cxprcss thc agent's individual essence or reveal thc
pro ound onentatton of the inner life of a person, indepcndent of social

* This account of thc principies that strucrurcd 1 .

docs nm capture, of coursc, what rht.• srmatio" of b:_cxu~ and _sonal _roles in c~assical Athcns
not in crotic phcnomenology hur in thc social . _mg 1 ~ lovc was hkc: 1 am mtcrcstcd hen:
publir mc<~nings .utached ro scx. Hencc, m disc;rt.J_culauon .uf st.·xu~l- cat~gori~s and in thr
prccedcnce is not intendcd eithcr 10 t·onvc !hat a 1551011 _of ~he. m ale Cl~lzt·n s s.(JCial and scxuJI
the~xtcruto which he may havccxpericnc:d bcin ~ crot:~ rcla11on fdt hh lo lum or ro obsru~
EO h1s bdovcd or ro his own de!iirc. Such fcdin : n lovc as; IP.~s uf mastcry-a5 "cnslavt•JIIt"llll
(M.-c J)ovcr (1974/, 20H; Goldcn fi 9H4 f 3 g _011 a lovcr s part Wl'fl' cvidt·ntly t·onvcnuou.a
chcmhcd (set• Xcnophon Sym . 4 l3-l 6 . Foucauh fi9HSf, 65-70) and pussibly c\"f 11
muld ;¡fford to luxuri¡tc i;l s=~JI~mfh. ~41 and (Jrwtlo,nicus 7.42). lndccd, thc citízc••-lovl:'
his
~df-ah;mdonment w¡~ at sorne le:~): ,~:l~C~Is:•:;ss or crotic_depcndt·ncy prc"t"i~l·ly hcL"~l~Sl' 1:~
~oual prcCmmcnrc was not injcopardy. atcgy and, 111 any case, his .u-1ual posn•on
and political lifc. Quite the contrary: the sexual identities of the classical
Athenians-their experiences of themselves as sexual actors and as desirin
7
human bei~gs-~eem to ha ve been insepara ~le from, if not determined by~
their social!dentltles, theu pubhc standmg. lf the Greeks thought sex was
"non-rebtional': in ~haracter, for example, that is because sex was so closely
tied to d1fferenuals m the personal status of the sexual actors rather than to
the expressive capacities of individual human subjects. Thus, the classical
Grcek record strongly supports the conclusion drawn (from a quite different
body of evidence) by the french anthropologist Maurice Godelier: "it is
not sexuality which haunts society, but society which haunts the body's
sexuality. " 73
Even the relevant features of a sexual object in classical Athens were
not so much determined by a physical typology of sexes as by the social
articulation of power. 74 Sexual partners carne in two significan ti y different
kinds-not male and female but "active" and "passive," dominant and sub-
missive. 75 That is why the curren ti y fashionable distincrion between homo-
sexuality and heterosexuality (and, similar! y, between "homosexuals" and
"heterosexuals" as individual types) had no meaning for the classical Atheni-
ans: there were not, so far as they knew, two different kinds of"sexualiry,
two differendy structured psychosexual states or modes of affecrive orienta-
tion, corresponding to the sameness or difference of the anatomical sexes of
the persons engaged in a sexual act; there was, rather. but ~ingle form of
~el!:ual experience which all free adult males shared"-making due aüowance
for variations in individual tasies, as óne -might make for individual palares.
This "universal" form of sexual experience could be looked at differendy,
to be sure, according to whether one viewed ir from the perspecrive of the
"active" or the "passive'' sexual partner, but irs essenti,3) nature did not
change with such shifts in point of vicw.
In the Third Dithyramb by rhe classical po<:t Hacchylides, the Athenian
hero Theseus, voyaging ro Crete among th<· seven youths and seven maidcns
destincd for the Minotaur and defcnding one of the maidens from the
advanccs of rhe libidinous Cn~ran conunandcr. warns him vehemcndy
against molesting any otor of thc Athenian yourhs (tin' iirhtón: 43)-:-that JS,
any girl or b(ly. Convcrscly, rhc.· antiqu.uiJ.n litttr.Jttur Arhc.~nacus, wn~1~g SIX
or scvcn hundrcd ycars latcr, is amazc.~ that Polycratcs, thc ryrant ot S...mos
in thc sixth ccntury H. C., did not sc.•nd tOr any boys ,,, .,.,,mtn o~long wtth
thc.· othcr luxury artidcs he importc."\1 ro Samos tOr his personal use -~unntt
his rcign, "dcspitc his passion for rdarions wirh males'' (12.54tlw.:-t•). N'""''
botlr thl· norion rhar an .tt't of hctl•roscxual a~~tgrcssion in itSt"lt m.1kt"'S rht-
a~grcssor suspt'l't of homosexual tl'lhicnács artJ rhc- mirror-orp..lsitt• 1 "'·)f~llt
rhar a pcrson wirh markl•J homoscxu.1l rc.·ndl·nnl'S is b..luu,t tu h.1nkt"r .arn.·r
hctc.·ruscxual contac.·ts are nonscnsical to us, assol'i.. rm.c .¡s '"'; c.k.l S1."Xu.aJ
ohjl•c.·t-choin· with :1 dctcrnunatc kind of""sl"XU.Ahty.'" .a tix,~ s..·xu.al n.atun·.
 indeed to enumerate a\1 the ancient
monumenta1 task , ·h
but it wouId b e a . "boy or woman occurs wtt perfect
. h"ch the alternauve fi . 11 .
documents m w 1 . ·r the two were unct10na y mter.
nonchalance in an erouc context, as 1
changcablc." . . bl t nt of male indifference to the sex of
. the 1magma e ex e d
A tcsumony to b -cularly startling to m o ern eyes, can
b .
sexual o ~ects, on
* e that may e par11
f
.
Hellenistic Egypt, datmg to 92 B. C.
. nage-contract rom ..
be foun d m a mar . t that "it sha\1 not be \awful for PhliJs-
. · 1 document supu1a es . ..
Th1s not untyplca b d1 b . g home anothcr wife m add1t10n to
ive hus an to nn . ..
rus \th e prospect . b ¡ "'" The poss1b1hty that
A o\lonia or to havc a concubme or oy- over. .
o~e's husband might decide at sorne point during one's marnage to set up
another household with bis boyfriend evidently f¡gurcd among the va~IOUS
potential domestic disasters that a prudent f1ancée w_ould be su reto a~tiCI~ate
and to indemnify herself against. A somewhat s1mllar expectau~n IS arucu-
lated in an entirely different context by Dio Chrysostom, a morahzmg Greek
orator from the late fust century A. D. In a speech denouncing the corrupt
morals of city life, Dio asserts that even respectable women are so easy to
seduce nowadays that men wi\1 soon tire of them and wil\ turn their attenuon
ro boys instead-just as addicts progress inexorably from wine to hard drugs
(7.15(}...152). According to Dio, then, paederasty is not simply a pis aller; it
is not "caused," as many modern historians of the ancient Mediterranean
appear ro be\ieve, by the supposed seclusion of women, by the practice (ir
was more like\y an ideal) of locking them away in the inner rooms of thcir
fathers' or husbands' houses and thercby preventing them from serving as
sexual targets for adult men. In Dio's fantasy, at least, paederasty springs
not from the insufficient but from the superabundan! supply of sexually
available women; the easier it is to ha ve sex with women, on his view, the
less desirable sex with women becomes, and the more likcly men are 10
seek sexual pleasure with boys. Scholars sometimes describe the cultural
formarion underlying this apparenr refusal by Greek males to discriminare
caregorically among sexual objects on the basis of anaromical sex as a bisexu·
aliry of penetration:, or-even more intriguingly-as a hetcroscxuality indif·
fercnt to lts obJcct, t but 1 thmk 11 would be advisable not to speak of it as

h * 1 Wlsh 10 emphasize that 1 am nor claiming that all Greek men feh such indifference: OJI
1 e '7trary • plenty of ancient evidence testifu:·s to the strength of individual prefrrences for ~
w:xua obj«t of ~ne KX rather than anothcr (see note 53). Hut many ancient documents bc;ar
wnncss 10ha cena m constJtutional rductancc on thc pan of thl· Grccks to predict, in any givell
mttancr,t t!l.t'x or anothcr man's bdoved merdy on the basisofthat man's past sexual behaV 101
Or prCVIOUS p;~ttrrn or St'XU;&) ObjCCt-choice.

dn t Th!i '' not r.oparadox•nl ;~s it may at f¡rst appcar. Whether thc object ofa free- aduh nta_le's
. ..:;r: t~rn• ou~ 10 bt ;¡ wom_an, a boy, a rorcigncr, ora sbve it rcmains from his point orv•e"'
or ::.(~~~m 1 e tocnk or .. d•ffercm" ur "other": it always beiongs to ;¡ diffcrent social categon'
 One Hundred y ears of Homosexuality 1 35

a sexuality at all but ~o descr!be it, ~ather, as a more generalized ethos of

penetratJon and dommatJon, a socio-sexual discourse structured b the
presence or absence of Jts central term: the phallus."' y
If that discourse does ~ot see~ to ha ve Iooked to gender for a criterion
by means of wh1ch to dlfTerentJate permissible from impermissible sexual
objeas (but to have. fe_atured, instead, a gender-blind distinction between
dommant and submJssJve persons), we should not therefore conclude rhat
gender was unimplicated in the socio-sexual system of the ancient Greeks.
Gender did indeed figure in that system-not at the level at which sexual
objtcts were categorized, * to be sure, but at the level at which sexual subjms
were constituted."' Let us not forget, after all, that the kind of desire de-
scribed by Greek sources as failing ro discriminare between male and female
objects was itself gendered as a specifically male desire. Now, ro define rhe
scope of sexual object-choice for men in terms independent of gender is
almost certainly ro construct different subjectivities formen and for women,
ro do so specifically in terms of gender, and thus ro define male and female
desire asymmetrically. For women and boys will qualify as equaUy appro-
priate sexual targets for adult men only so long as they remain relatively
stationary targets (so ro speak), only so long as they are content ro surrender
the erotic initiative ro men and ro await the results of male deliberation. A
sexual ethos of phallic penetration and domination, in which the gender
of the object does not determine maJe sexual object-choice. requires rile
differential gendering of both desire and power: if women and boys had the
kind of wide-ranging, object-directed desires that men ha ve, and 1fthey had
the social authority ro act on those desires. they would be more likely to
frustrare orto interfere with men's sexual choices.
Desire appears ro have been gendered in precisely this way in classical
Athens. Neithcr boys nor women were thought ro possess the sort of desires
that would impel thcm ro beco me autonomous sexual actors m thelf relanons
. .
wuh men constantly scannmg the erotlc onzon
· h · for attracnve candidatos
both
uniquely ~dapted ro their personal requirements. On the conrrary: sid-
women and boys, in different ways and for ditTerenr.reasons, were. ~re
cred sexually inert. Boys did not (supposedly) expenencedi anyederon~e 6rst
~: • desifC' was not recr m
at a11 •or adult meo, whcreas women 5
MS
. lf longing for
instancc to individual malc objects: it did not present ltsC as a

. ct: ir c:an be' tdt tn r!K m.ak hklll8 tOr

* Ev~n_ar rhtslev~l.. h~wevC't, gen~r h~d an ·~=rrassocurcdwuhwomcn(e ~- smOOih
sorne phys1cal characteriSIICS ofboys wh1ch Glft'k ~ _ 8od .. this volumC'f); the' ,.,lUrft'UII
and h;lirlesl sltin 1for details, s« "Tht l.kmoaatl~; yh 1 ~boys ate' .olttr.•ct•W 101 .as lootc
lilyn·ra wcnt so far as ro daim, according to Ck;archus. 1 a(I'III 7H) ~1 hgwcvtr. •111un
as thry rcsrmblr a woman" (Athconan-s. l.l.tJOSd). ~: lw ¡t.,. ~yllih Juod
iiPJ ..,.,.,s.
con~incingly that in a numbcor of ochrr ~~rlnlents bnU:...tic.t :. spt'·•tM·.dly ~IH.Uo.'\llulr'" b'
as Grerk males drfined 11K-m, includcd tcaturn tMt '1
contc.'mporary standarc:b.
one or another man ¡11 particular but asan undifferenti~tcd appetitc for sexual
· ·n other words out of a more d1ffusc and gcneralized
p\ casurc~
·
tt arose, 1 ' f h ¡¡
d d t 1n"1ned by the physiological cconomy o t e cmale body
sotnattc ncc . e cr . . . ,
and even then it was fundamentally rcacnve m character-:•t. appcared in
response to a specifiC male stimulus (whereupon, of course, lt 1mmed1ately
became insatiable) and it could be aroused, allegedly, by anyone (even a
woman)"' with the proper phallic equip~ent. *.As Andron~ache remarks,
with pardonab\e skepticism, in Eunp1des s Tr~¡au Womeu.. They say that
onc night in bcd dissolvcs a woman's hostility to sexual umon w1th a man"
(bb5-6b)."
Thc srx~<al system of classical Athcns, which dcfmed the scope of sexual
objcct-choice for adult men in terms independent of gender, was thereforc
\ogically inseparable from the grnder system of classical Athens, which dis-
tributed to men and to women different kinds of desires, constructing malc
desire as wide-ranging, acquisitive, and object-directed, whilc constructing
fcmale desire (in opposition to it) as objectless, passivc, and entircly deter-
mined by the female body's need for regular phallic irrigation."" lnstead of
. associating different sorts of sexual object-choice with different kinds of
, "scxuality," as wc do, thc classical Greeks assigned different forms of desirc
to diffcrcnt gcndcrs. The relation betwcen sex and gender in classieal Athens
thcn, was pcrhaps just as strict as it is in modern bourgcois Europe and
Amcnca, but 11 was elaborated according to a strategy radically differenl
fro~ that governmg thc rclation of sex and gendcr under the currcnt régimc
of scxuahty."
.For thos~. i~habitan.~s of the ancicnt world about whom it is possiblc to
rnerahzc, scxuahty obvlously did not hold thc key lO the sccrets of thc
uman pcrsonahty. t The meas u re of a free male in Greek societ was most
often taken not by scruumzmg his sexual constitution but by obs~rving how

* 1 must point out, once again, that 1am s cakin a •

nor abour thc actual phcnomcnology of scxuS lifc inganb~ut (,~L·ck canons of Sl'xual propriL·ty.
~p wnh many countcr-examplcs to thc encrali . ctcnt Grc~cc. lt w~uld be casy to cotnc
m~tano:, thar womt"n somL'timcs wcrc c!nsidL•rc~a;~ons 1.am ma~t~tg hcrc m arder to show, f~r
Hrp~olyluJ, Phal~ra becomt."S erotically obscsscd b .p:blc of p~rsum~ mcn. T_hus, in Euripidcs s
rece1ved much d1rcct encouragl'mcnt from him· h~ •.•e m.an m partll"ular w1thout having l·vcr
plrturt· 1 havc d~.Jwn, nught actually corrobora,tc ~; ctam.pl~, h~wl·vc:r, fa~ from rcfuting dlt'
:h:
~~rtraymg :~ouch mstancc:~o offemalc ''shamdcssm:ss" wc ~c~Jc~Jber that 1t was precise! y _bY
n r ~U!>og~ny. Hl!> ponrait of Phaedra was intcr n·t. t Eur_•p•des carncd his ancicnt rcpul.afiOII
01 .JI!> rc .. h!>m but a:~o !>I.Jndcr. Hanson note!> fu P . cd by _lns contc:mporarics, in othcr word~·
ad~r"•u.· and wmultcd .JI IJI.Jit' doctor (2'JS-, rthcr, that ¡f Phacdra h.ad followcd hcr Nurs~·_s
pt'lk'tntJon (real ur !>Jmulatcd) to l'.Jist· h·· %), h~ would must likcly havl' prcscribcd phalh(
t In fat·t, lht' vcry wnn· t o cr hystcncal symptom:~o.
1 d
thc m' Solea an. wnal suences ohhc blank individu ~~~~nng on "thc human pc.:rsonalUY . k
thr phy · P f and sct of prOicticcs e. · . .._

thc Nlem \tltJal and econmnic cunditiomt (urba al_ ~d~ng lo a much latcr era and bcsp~il-tl
Ir nw.- 11• capuahst, burcaucratic) that acetnnp 3111 ~
he fared when tested against other free males in pub!,· ..
. . ) e compeuuon War ( d
other agomsuc contests , not !ove served 10 reveal th · · an
. . ' e mner man the 1 ff
a free Greek male CI!Izen was made of." A striking exampl f h. ' su
. 1'~ h . . . eo t IsemphaSIS
on pubhc 1 e as t e pnmary locus of sigmfication can be found in the work
of Artemidorus, a master dream~analyst who lived and wrote in thc sccond
century of our era but whose basiC approach to the interpretation of drcams
does not di!fer-m this respect, at lcast--:-from altitudes current in the classi-
cal penod. Artem1dorus saw pubhc hfe, not erotic Iife, as the principal
tenor of dreams. E ven sexual dreams, m Artcmidorus's system, are seldom
real/y about scx: rather, they are about the rise and fall of thc dreamcr's
public fortunes, thc vicissitudes ofhis domestic economy." If aman drcams
ofhaving sex with his mother, for example, his dream significs to Artemi-
dorus nothing in particular about the dreamer's own sexual psychology, his
fantasy life, or the history of his relations with his parents; it's a very
common dream, and so it's a bit tricky to interpret precisely, but basically
it's a lucky dream: it may signify-depending on the family's circumstances
at thc time, the postures of the partners in the dream, and the mode of
penetration-that the drcamer will be successful in politics ("success in
politics'' meaning, evidently, the power to screw one's country), that he
will go into exilc or return from exile, that he will win his law-suit, obtain
a rich harvcst from his lands, or change professions, among many other
things (l. 79). Artemidorus's system of dream interpretation resembles the
indigcnous drcam-lorc of certain Amazonian tri bes who, despite their quite
different socio-sexual systems, sharc with the ancients a beliefin the predic-
tivc valuc of dreams. Like Artcmidorus, thcse Amazonian pcoplcs reversc
what modern bourgeois W cstcrners cake to be thc natural tl~w of significa-
tion in dreams (from images of public and social events to pnvate and sexual
meanings): in both Kagwahiv and Mchinaku culture, for example, dreammg
about the female genitals portends a wound (and so a man who has such •
d rcam ts. cspectally
. carcful whcn he han di es axcs or 0 ther sharp .impkment>
'1! h
t h e next da y); drcamt wounds do not sym bo IZC
l . th e. tt:
c·malc
.
gemtals.
... . •
Hot·l
thcse ancicnt and modcrn dream-intcrprctcrs, thcn, are mnon~~t ot sc.:xuald-
. , . . - · or anythmg wt wou
Ity : what is fundamental to thc1r cxpcncncc o 1scx 15 n bl' . d
rcgard as csscntially sexual;* it is somcthing csscntially outward. p_u JC, an f
. . 1. . 1 l'f as 3 dramat1zauon o
sonal. lnstcad of vicwing pubhc and po JtJCa 1 e .. ~.. .• hav-
. d. · c. d do tht•yst•csc.:xua 1L~
In IVJdual sexual psychology, as we Oltcn ten to , '. r .. f r -ultun:s
ior asan cxprcssion ofpolitical and social rdations. ~- "Sexua Jty. 0
L

• . . o not nel't.'surdy ti~ure JS st•xuJI Sl~llltit·r~

Note that t•ven thc hunu.n gemuls thcmsclves d (lfoJHta) Jr~Ut""' Ull·onsJJerJhl~
in al~ cultural or representational contcxrs: tOr example. ~~~~:-~:hnst's pt•ms ;ll•t pr1111..1nh· ..ll
detaJI, that thcre ÍS "reason (O think _that rn_edteval p~~rdi.lrt' ,IS tht• Wllllll\i~. hkcJlll!{ ;k!>h
a ~exual organ but as che obJeCt of cm:utnCISTOO ,md 1
wuh which it was associatcd in painting and 111 tcxt" (p. 4417 )
38 1 One Hundred Years of Homosexuality

nt European and American bourgcois develop

not sbape d b y sorne very rece
· but an effect Tbe social body precedes tbe sexual body•
ments, 1s not a cause · ·

V
lf tbcre is a lcsson that we should draw from this picture of ancient sexual
attitudcs and bchaviors, it is that we need to de-centcr sexwalrty from the focus
of thc intcrprctation of sexual expcricnce--and no! only ancient varieties o[
sexual cxpcriencc. just beca use modcrn bourgems Westerners are so obsessed
with sexuality, so convinccd that it holds the key to the hermeneuucs ofthc
sclf (and hencc to social psychology as an object of historical study), we
ought not thcrefore to conclude that everyone has always considered sexual-
ity a basic and irreducible elcmcnt in, or a central featurc of. human life.
\ndced, rhere are even sectors of our own societies to which the ideology o[

,
"sexuality" has failed to penetrare. A socio-sexual system featuring a rigid
hierarchy of sexual roles that reflect a set of socially articulated power-
relations rather than the determinate sexual orientations of those involved
has been documented in contemporary America by Jack Abbott, in one of
hts mfamous lett~rs writte~ to Norman Mailer from a federal penitentiary;
because the text 1~ now qmte inaccessible (it was not reprinted in Abbott's
book), and stunnrngly apropos, 1 ha ve decided to quote it here at length.

. h rea~ly was years, many years, befo re 1 began to actually realize that the women
m my hfe-the prostitutes as well as the soft, pretty girls who giggled and teascd
me/o dm~ch, my several wives and those of m y friends-it was ycars bcfore 1
~~a ¡z~- t at they were not v:omen, but men; years befare 1 assimilated the notion
buatt ;o:st:ea:;anlnl aptaur,alt.hl stlll o~ly know this intellectually, for the most part-
1~ 1.
r at remams to my k 1k · · ¡·k
to my temple and the sha en, now lt IS 1 e a hammer blow
the sexual !ove 1 have enj:e d e~ ~s ~rofound. Not beca use of the thing itself,
recall it), but because of sh:e Wlt d t ese women (sorne so devoted it aches to
betray me; so profoundly tome--h and anger-that the world could so intimatelY
uc an move me-a d h l
m y soul of a sickness, when that sickness has r n t en augh at me and accuse
and despairs so black as to cast this ni ht thescued me from ~en tal derangemenl
1 d~ not mean to say 1 never kne! h at su~roun?s us m prison into day.
imbeCJie could make such l . t e physical d1ffcrence-no one but all
ou.bt, that this was a natural sex that cm 1 , Wlt _ou.t reftcctmn or the slight~sl
d acatm.Itook't ·h .
attnbutc:s. that naturally complemcntcd ergcd_ wuhm the socicty of men, wtth
natural phcnomenon in thc society of wo.:uscuhne attributcs. 1 thought it wa~ ¡¡
and so t~~re seemed no gross misre en as _wcll. Thc attributes werc fenünnlt
us. mcn) women." Many of m pr~sentatm~ of facts to call thcm (amon~
handwme, cxtrcmdy neat, and olit: women had mcrely thc appearance ol
~eehng• today, that those attrib~tes yo~ng me~.
1 1 ha ve lcarned, analyzing n'Y
cmmme m any way as it appcars in t~a led femmme a moment ago were nol
e real female sex. These attributes seci'J1
 now 01 crel! a tendency to nee~, to depend on another man; to need
become a nval or to compete Wlth other men in the pu . ncver to
. . rsuus men aman th
selves, engagc m. lt was, It occurs tome now, almost boy· h- ' g . e~­
at all. IS not really fem~nme
This is ~he _way it ~lway~ was, _even in the Statc Industrial School for Bo s-a
penal insututton for JUVemle dehnquents-whe~e 1 served five years, fro~ a e
twelve to age seventeen. They we~e the possess10n and sign of manhood and git
never occurred to any of us that th1s was strange and unnatural. It ¡5 how 1 rew
up-a natural part of m y life in prison. g
It was difficult for ~e.to grasp the definition ofthe clinical term "homosexual"-
and when 1 finally d1d 1t devastated me, as 1 said."

Gender, for Abbott, is not determined by anatomical sex but by social status
and personal style. "Men"* are defined as those who "compete with other
men in the pursuits men, among themselves, engage in," whereas "women"
are charactcrized by the possession of"attributes that naturally complement
masculine attributes"-namely, "a tendency to need, ro depend on another
man" for the various benefits won by the victors in '·male" competition. In
this way "a natural sex emerge[s) within the society of men" and
qualifies, by virtue of its exclusion from the domain of "maJe" precedence
and autonomy, as a legitimare target of"male" desire. In Abbott's sociery,
as in classical Athens, desire is sparked only when it ares across the political
divide, when it traverses the boundary that marks out the limits ofintramural
competition among the élite and that thereby distinguishes subjects from
objects of sexual dcsire. Sex between "men"-and, thercfore, "homosexual-
ity"-remains unthinkable in Abbott's society (even though sex between
anatomical males is an accepted and intrinsic part o( the system), whereas
sex betwcen "men" and uwomen" does not so much implicare both partners
in a common "sexuality" as it articulares and defines the ditTerencC"s 10 status
between them.

VI
. . al' h long seemed to many
To diScover and to write the h1Story ofsexu lty 35. fli ('f ralways
3 sufficiently radical undcrtaking in irsdf. inasmuch 35 ns e ecr 1 no

• . round wolfll'fl, nol """· Bul ~11(' ~"\luid

Abbott, of coursc, uses quotanon marks only to su~ . rhat whtn mtamng 1s nor
~ardly ask for a bener illustrarion of rhc post-structura::st :~~~:rcnces wnhu• " systc'~ oi
_x~d by refrrence but is dctcrmined soldy by the P Y "bk· Jrhough Abltolt dctinn
••gnification, all hierarchical binarie5 are potentially """-""1. · 1~01 , 5 n1 hllltV • .,.ld»SUmt5
::·wo~.tcn'" by refercm:c to "mrn," as a suppl~"':erlt ro.rhc:o ~:arru~:".:timuon JII.ISl""Uiin~cy 15 .1
,,f
h~ten to r~p~rnt an unproblematic trrm,. Jt 1~ obvlo~;rnainnl by opposiuon •~' h1s .kh1111":;
tghly specaahzrd, trndt."lltious oiiC' whoSC' crrcrraa are de la 'C'd bolh '*"
.111d • ...,. wath
offranininity. Thcrrfore, in discussing Abbort'siC'XI, 1 have p '
quoration marlu.
 . . d . ) is 10 call into question the very naturalncss of What
the intentton behm 11 . our individual natures. But m thc cours,
1 k 10 be cssentta11o . .
we current Y ta e "bl dical proiect many h1stonans of sexuality
. ¡ t" that ostens• Y ra ' . . b
of 1mp emen mg _ erha 5 unwittingly-its rad1cal dcs1gn: y preserv.
seem to havc r~versed bf p y ofhistorical analysis not only have they
ing "sexuahty as asta e cathegor t ary they have ncwly idcalizcd it.'" To
r d "t but on t e con r • .
not denatura 1ze 1 h'. . f" cxuality" succecd in conccntratmg their
· f ct that ¡stones o s . .
the cxtcnt, 111 a • . h 1 tent are they doomed to fa1l as hrstories
r l"ty to JUSI t a ex .
,ocus on sexll• '¡f' ht that much) unless they also in elude as an mtegral
(Foucault h~ntse taug us . the t;sk of demonstrating thc historicity,
art of thcu proper enterpnsc . 1 .
p ·· f e modes of construction, and ideolog1ca contmgen-
condmons o cmcrgenc • . . . %
cies of thc very categories of analysis that undergud the•r own pracuc_e.
lnstcad of concentrating our attention speCiflcally o~ the h1story of sexuahty,
thcn, wc nccd 10 dcfmc and refine a ncw, and radical, h1Stoncal soc10logy
of psychology-an intellectual discipline designed to analyzc thc cultural
poctics of desire, by which 1 mean the processes whercby sexual dcsues are
constructcd, mass-produccd, and distributed among the vanous members of
human living-groups." We must acknowledge that "sexuality" is a cultural
production no less than are table manners, health clubs, and abstrae! expres-
sionism, and wc must strugglc to disccrn in what we currently regard as our
most prccious, uniquc, original, and spontaneous impulses the traces of a
prcviously rchcarscd and socially cncoded ideological script."" We must train
oursdvcs ro rccognize conventions of feeling as wcll as conventions of
bchavior and ro interpret thc intricatc tcxture of personallifc as an artefact,
as thc determinare outcomc, of a complcx and arbitrary constcllation of
cultural proccsscs. Wc must, in short, be willing to admit that what sccm
to be our most inward, authcntic, and priva te cxpcricnccs are actually, in
Adricnnc Rich's admirable phrasc, "sharcd, unneccssary and political. ""'
A littlc lcss than fifty ycars ago W. H. Audcn askcd, "Whcn shall we learn,
what should be clcar as day, We cannot choosc what wc are free to Iovc?" 11 • 1
1t is a charactcristically judicious formulation: !ove, if it is to be \ove, mus!
be a fn.-c act, but it is also inscribcd within a largcr circlc of constraint within
conditions that makc possiblc thc cxcrcisc of that "frcedom." Thc' task of
di~ti~guishing frce~om from constraint in lovc, of Icarning to trace thc
sh,ftrng and unccrtam boundarics bctwecn the sclf and thc world is a dizzy-
ing and, indccd, an endlcss undcrtaking. 1should Iike to propase ;he upcom·
1ng ~omosexual centcnary as an appropriatc dcadlinc to sct oursclvcs for
lcarn1ng 3 morl" modcst vcrsion uf thc lcsson that Audcn has assigncd
us, onc that thn"C gcncrations of fcminist scholars havc shown us hoW
10 approach. Thc projcct bcforc us has bccn well articulatcd albcit in '
co~parauvdy prosaÍ(: idiom, by jcffrcy Wccks: "Social proccss,cs construft
•ubjcctrvrtrcs not just as 'catcgorics' but at th 1 1 f. d" "d 1 dcsircS·
Thi!t pcrcc tion h . .. . . e cvc o m 1~1 ua . ri..
.1 . P ' ould be thc startmg pumt for futurc soc~aland h1S 10
ca ~tud•c~ of 'homoscxuality' and indccd of 'scxuality' in general. " 1111
 2
"Homosexuality": A Cultural Construct
An Exchange with Richard Schneider

Schneider. A conference at Brown University, "Homosexuality in History

and Culture, and the University Curriculum," held on 20-21 February 1987,
highlighted an ongoing debate between you, John J. Winkler, and others,
on thc one hand, andjohn Boswell, on the other, concerning the genesis and
cultural articulation of homosexuality. While Boswell argues that "horno-"
and "heterosexual" are categories that many (or all) societies implicitly
recognize, you contend that this dualism is actually a cultural construction
of thc last century or two in the West. 1 wonder if you could darify this
debate.

Halperin. The debate to which you refer reflects a longstanding (and.

so me would argue, sterile) ideological dispute within social science between
"essentialists" and "constructionists." As that controvcrsy applies to sexual
categories, it divides those who bclicve that terms like "gay" and "straight"
rcfcr ro positive, objective. culturally invarianr propenics of_pcrs~ns Jm thc
samc way as do the terms for differcnt blood-types or genenc tralts) f~m
those who believc that rhe cxpericnccs namcd by rhosc rcrms are artetacrs
of spccific, unique, and non-repcatablc culrural and social proccsscs. "Es~m­
tialists" typically considcr sexual prcfcrcncc ro bc dctcrmined _b_y suc~ rhm~s
as biological forccs or hormonallcvels. and trcat sexual idcnntiC'S as ro~na­
tivc rcalizations of gcnuinc, undcrlying ditTL'rences" (to _q~otc St~vcn p-
stcin, who dcvotcd an cssay in a rcccnt issuc of thc s,,a.drst R~vlt'!" t~ a~
cxploration and critique of this controvcrsy), 1 whcrcas "L--onstructJOmsrs
 d that sexual idcntitics come 10
¡ d · are !carned an ' Th
assumc that sexua emes . 'd 1' 'nteraction with othcrs. e debate
be fashioned through an md•v• ua_ s ~ sts largely recapitula tes thc old "na.
bctwccn cssenna ¡sts a
· ¡· nd construcnom
h
h · d · ·d ¡
1 tive inftuences on t e m lVI ua of
" ntrovcrsy over 1 e re a · present m 1
turclnurture co. -or as Boswell prefers, lt may re " ~re y
hcrcdity and en~~ronmentf 1 ~ -Iived scholastic quarrel between . r~ahsts"
thc most recent mstancc o a o. g f universals.' In any case, lt IS easy
. ¡· " er the. ex1stencc
and "nomma 1sts ov .
o ¡
. 1' ned 10 regard scxua categones as
·
by cssennahsts are me 1 . 1 1r
to undcrstan d w . d .1 the various soc1al or cu tura rorms
. 1 banging over nme, espl e ¡· h d'ffi
rclat•ve y une . k whereas constructionists be leve t at 1 erent
sexual exprcsston may ta e, ¡· . "
. d 1 es reduce differcnt "sexua ltlCS. .
times an p ac . p . 1 h t f the constructionists. Anthropologlcal
M ownposmonlscosetot a o f 1
y . h h t my satisfaction that patterns o sexua
and historical stud•es ave s own o ~ 1
, d con~¡gurations of desire vary enormously 1rom one cu ture
Pre•erence an 11 b ·
explain why human emgs m 1 erent
· d'ffi
to the next. 1 know o f nO Way 10 d' ,
cultures grow up, en masse, with distinctly different sorts of sexual lsposl-
tions, temperaments, or tastes, which they the~selves cons1der normal and
nalural, un\ess 1 am willing to grant a determmmg role m t~e constltutlon
,
of individual desire to social or cultural factors. But even 1f 1 am wrong
about thc causes of variation among patterns ofhuman sexual preference, the
extrnt of such variation still remains to be gauged, and that can be done only
if wc do not insist on defining it in advance of actual research, allowing our
currcnt presuppositions to fix the contours of what has yet to be discovered.
Constructionism may not turn out to be right in all ofits prcliminary claims,
but in the mcamimc it cncourages us to put sorne distancc betwcen oursclves
and what wc think we "know" about sex. And so, by brackcting in cffect
our "instinctivc" and "natural" assumptions, it makes it easicr for us ro
highlight diffcrcnt historical configurations of desirc and to distinguish vari·
ous means-both formal and informal-o( institutionalizing them .
. The very least that can be said on bchalf ofthe constructionist hypothesis,
m othcr words, IS that 11 1s 1rnmcnsely valuablc as a guide for future research.
lt_ duects the scholar's attention to the salient particularitics of sexuallife in a
giVen soc1cty, particularities that might ha ve gone unnoticed-or, if noticed.
unexammcd-m the absence of a rcsearch program that callcd for scrutiniz·
mg them. lt also helps thc interpreter rcsist thc temptation to intcgratc alien
or cxonc phenomcna mto a plausible discourse of thc known, into a pictur<
whosc appeal dcnvcs largcly from its familiarity to its vicwcrs. Whether 01
not thc accounts constructionists give of their own mcthods and aims are
cogcnt, whethcr or not the conclusions thcy reach are wcll-founded, th<Y
ha ve ccrtamly turned up . h · . 1e
h . . cnoug mtcrcstmg material to demonstrate 1 1
. cun¡'tlc;•hluc of thcir thcories. When thcy ha ve finishcd charting the variou'
soc¡a. an "tonca! constructions of sexual m , h 11 b . a bctt<l
posltlon to jud th J' d. canmg, WC S a e m
gc e va 1 11 Y of the constructionist hypothcsis and to deter·
mine whar, if.anyrhing,
. , can be said on behalf ofirs essenrializing competttors
.
1
In rhe meanume, 11 s too soon ro e ose off debate on rhe rheoretical issues:
rherc's too much work to be done. ·
Now, with respect to theq~est~on you raise, constructionists have demon-
strated, 1beheve, ~hat the d1stmct_•on between homosexualiry and heterosex-
uality, far fr~m bemg a fixed and 1mmurable feature of sorne universal synrax
of sexual des1re, can_ be understood as a particular conceptual tum in thinking
about sex and dev1ance that occurred in certain sectors of northem and
norrhwestern European society in the eighteenrh and nineteenth centuries.
The new conceptualization, moreover, seems to coincide with the emer-
gence, in the same period (or in the centuries immediarely preceding it), of
sorne new sexual types-namely, the homosexual and the heterosexual
defined not as persons who perform certain acts, or who adhere ro one sex~
role or another, or who are characterized by srrong or weak desires, or
who violare or observe gender-boundaries, but as persons who possess
two distinct kinds of subjectivity, who are inwardly oriented in a specific
direction, and who therefore belong to separare and determinare human
specits. From what 1 have been able ro tell, these new sexual rypes, rh<
homosexual and the heterosexual, do not represen! m<rely new ways of
classifying persons-that is, innovations in moral or judiciallanguag<-bur
new types of desire, new kinds of desiring human beings.
To say that homosexuality and heterosexuality are culturally constructed.
however, is not ro say that they are unreal, that rh<y are m<re figments of
rhe imagination of certain sexual actors. (Consrructionists somerimes ,,.,¡
as if they are saying something like that, and so there is sorne jusrificarion
for Epstein's ascription of such a belief ro them, bur rhat is nor-:-or, ar
least, ir ought not ro be-the construcrionisr claim.) Homosexualiry and
heterosexuality are not ficrions inasmuch as rh<re really are, nowadays.
homosexual and heterosexual people, individuals whose own demes are
organized or structured according ro the patt<m nam<d by rhose opposed
and contrasting terms. No one, save someone determined ro up~old 1 3
theory at all costs, would say thar homosexuals or hereros<xuals are Slmp Y
imagining things that they ar< dduded in supposing rhar rhey ar< attra~
ro one sex rather 'than anorher: they really do desir< whar rhey do, and r ar
· , 1·r wirhin som< srctors
•• a.tact about them. Bur ifhomo- and h<rerosexua• y- . "/"Ir (
of our culture anyway-arc not fictions, neither are they pure ./Mts '"~f 1- ~
such rhings u;ed ro be called), posiriv< and changelesslearur<S ofrh< natura
wor 1d. Rarher rhey are among th< cu1rura 1 rodes wh1ch · m anv sOCK'fY·
b" · 1· rhet·r
. • -~~~0
g1ve ~uman heings .access ro them~dv~s 35 mean•~ realizC'd Uu"-cualir~·­
expenenc<s and which are rher<by obJ<<r•var<d--rhar 15 ' d di 11 of rb<
Hcnce, wc need as Epstein has wriuen. ''a better un cn~t.&n "11y ~-sed
. . . . • . . _ , bJ spC"ak ot scxua ,..
collectiVIzatJon of subject•v•ty. We must be 3 e ro h· rne 111 vsnca.l
group identities without assuming tithtr rhar rhe ttn1 up ;as 50 ·
44 1 One Hundrcd Years of Homoscxuality

• doesn't exist and that its 'mcmber,

or biological unity, or that the 'gro~p . "' s
are indulging in a dangcrous mysniCanon.

1 predisposed to takc up with Boswell's

Sdmeidrr. Many gay peoph e are ality to be deeply rootcd in childhood
f< r thetr own omosexu y
argument, ce mg . 1 al categories or norms. our argument
and thus uncondmoned by cu tur 1 1 ·m to "know" intuitivcly ab
seems to contradict what many peop e e al out
thcmsclves-does it not?

. d · th" k so Thc more we beco me aware of the contingcncy

Ha 1perm. 1 on t m · . . . d b )" ·
of all forros of erotic life, the more we are diSmchnc to e. 1cve m such 1
thing as a "natural" sexuality, som~thing we are Slmply born mto. Now gay
sub-cultures provide abundan! ev1dence for the vast plurahty of posSiblt
sexual styles. Many gay peoplc must know, thcreforc, that "scxuality" is
not the sort of thing that comes in only two kinds (i.e., "hetero-" and
"horno-"). "Naturc" is not exhausted by these two possibilities of sexual
objcct-choicc. The better we get to know ourselvcs and our friends, the more
wc rcalizc-at lcast, 1do-how idiosyncratic and various, how unsystcmatic
, sexuality is: is a gay woman into S/M more like a gay woman who is nol
ora straight woman who is? And to the extent that we define "gayness" as
a kind oflifcstylc or outlook or set of values rathcr than as the performance
of certam sexual acts, to that extent we acknowledge that it is something
more than a sexual rcflex.
llut perhaps 1am dodg· · ·h
h . . mg your quesuon. Pcrhaps there is a sensc in whiC
t e construcuomst thesis is not l
The cult 1 . 011 Y counter-intuitive but is necessarily so.
ura construcuon of our se ¡· · ¡ d be
beyond the rcach of · . . xua ny IS a most surcly boun to
mtultlvc recall Fo · ·· Id d
about ourselves are n d b ·. r our tntmttons about thc wor an
itsdf: both are part 0~ thou 1 constnuted at the same time as our scxualiiY
sclf-conscious bcings thr~up~~:~s whereby we gain access to ourselves as
steps by which we wer gl guage and culture. lf wc could recovcr th<
e accu turated w 1¡·
accu1turated in the flrst 1 . • e wou 1d not ha ve bccn ver y sccur<
in 1 · P ace, •nasmu h · ly
ea.rmng to acccpt as e as acculturation consists prcc1sc
convcnt" 1 natural, norm 1 d · · · fact
. lOna and arbitrary Th . a • an Inevitable what 15 ID
~~ perhaps clearest in thc ca~c f~ arbJtrary character of sexual acculturatioll
Uon of human males who ~ eteroscxuality: the production of a popula·
cxmcd by a person oftheir re (supposedly) incapable of being scxuaiiY
evem wnho own sex und ral
e ut. so far as 1 kn . er any circurnstancrs is itsclf a cu 1' 0 .
out IOr an explan . ow • etther p d d cr•cS
thcrcforc b d. auon. No inquiry i rece cnt or parallcl, an o
Ahhough t~e •;orc_c~ from an inquirnt~
the origins of homosexualitY ~:.
hctcrosexuality~;~~t COf'lctptuali~atío! ::~ the origins. of heterosexual; ~~
cultural const . . •eh was a late and omoscxuahty precedes tha ~e
ruuton of homosexu l" ~athcr hasty appcndix to it-'11'
a lly 15 probably a mere reftcx of 1
social proccsscs that produced the (comparatively speaking) strange and
distincuvcly bourgcms. formauon represented by exclusive hetero sexua1lty. .
In other words, 1 thmk the cultural production of"the homosexual" is an
incidental result of the soc1al changes responsible for the formation of "th
heterosexual": in the course of constructing "the heterosexual," of producin e
sexual subjects constituted according to an exclusive (cross-sex) sexual oh~
ject-choice, western European societies also created, as a kind ofby-product
of that imperfect process, other sexual subjects defined by a similarly exclu-
sive, but same-sex, sexual object-choice. Homosexuals are, in this sense,
casualties of the cultural construction of exclusive heterosexuality. For that
reason, 1 don't think it makes any sense to ask what "causes" homosexuality
while ignoring heterosexuality, and any account that purports to "explain"
homosexuality in isolation from heterosexuality is bound to be inadequate
and should arouse immediate suspicion on political grounds-as a maneuver
designed to reassert the "normativity" of heterosexuality. Homosexuality
and heterosexuality are part of the same system; they are equally problem-
atic, and each stands in just as much need of analysis and understanding as
the other.'

Schneider. In arguing that "horno-" and "heterosexual" are role categories

peculiar to modern Western society, are you saying that homosexuality itsclf
does not cxist in other societies?

Ha/perin. M y claim is considerably more radical than that. 1 am claiming

that there is no such thing as "homosexuality itself' or "heterosexuality
itself." Those words do not name independent modes of sexual being.
leading sorne sort of ideal existen ce apart from particular human sooeues,
outside ofhistory or culture. Homosexuality and heterosexuality are nor ~he
atomic constituents of erotic desirc, thc basic building-blocks out of whJch
, . d Th ·ust represen! one of the
evcry pcrson s sexual _nature 1s ~onstructe · .. ey J .0 the course of
many patterns accordmg to wh1ch human hvmg-group~ 1 wn the bound-
rcproducmg themsclvcs and thetr social structures, have ra 11
aries that define the scope of what can qualify-and to whom-as se~ua ;.
attractivc. Hecause thcy happcn to be thc dominant organiZI~g pnndohp es o
osexuahry an erero-
scxual plcasurc and sexual dcsirc in our cu 1turc, hom d bch
scxualiry also rcprcscnt thosc carcgorics of sexual psyc~ology an. . J. VIO~
h . d wc mrcrpn:r m tt:nns o
t at Wc find most obvious and compclhng, an so h · . xcur-
thcm thc sexual phenomcna thar wc cncounter on our erhno~rap lt. c. own
. d r tc:'nd ro sc."C our
~~~ns through othl·r cultures. Hccausc .we 0 110bc't·ausl!' wc.· rrg.ard rh..·nt
sexual categorics as arbitrary or convenuon.al. and . ··h . ·xu.;~l- ami
a d' · 1 cons1dc.·r omosc:
..ccor mgly as cmpry ofideologlca contcnt, wr- ral and rr.ans-hisroric.·.al
heterosexual'' ro be purcly descriprive, rrans-cu~r~ Ñ rht•rc.· is norhang
tcrrns, cqually applicable ro cvl·ry culture and pt•no · ow
o\6 1 Onc Hundrcd y ears of Homoscxuality

s a wide application, so long as we

· ranting t h ose ter m W
necessari.\y wrong m g . h re-modero and non- estern socie-
. h h are not IUIIove to t e P . . · h
recogmze t at t ey d h t if we do ms1st on app1ymg t em to
tics to which wc apply them, a~ 11 \ to mistake the "data" produced by
. . must be care•u no h hi
those sooeues we h discovered rather t an somet ng Wc
our research for somerhing we ave '
have put there ourselves. ries for granted are well illustrated
f taking our sexua1catego . . h
The dangers o . correctly that many soc1etles ave
by the work of Boswell w~o, :~gum~g sexual pleasure from contact with
contained md•v¡duals capab ~ o etl~~at basis that homosexuality is univer-
membersoftbe~rownsex, e ~~son or regard homosexuality as a thing, an
sal. To be sure, evcn Boswe hoes nprescnce or absence can be simply and
. . cultural mventory w ose d 1.
ttem m ~ b k d off: be contcnts himself with the more mo est e 31m
posmbve y e ecaliety tak,es differcnt forms in different contexts, changing its
tbat omosexu ·b·
chancter according 10 its cultural environment. But ~edescn mg sa~e-sex
sexual contact as bomosexuality is not as innocent as 11 may ~ppear: mdeed,
11 effect1vely obhterates the many differen~ w~ys of orgamzmg sexual _con-
,
tacts and articulating sexual roles that are md¡genous to hu~an so~enes­
as if one were to claim that, because feudal peasants work Wlth the1r hands
and factory laborers work with their bands, feudal peasantry was the form
rhat proletarianism took before the rise of industrial capitalism!6 Does tbe
"paederast," the classical Greek adult, married maJe who periodically enjoys
sexually penetrating a male adolescenr share rhe sdmt sexu•lity with thc
"berdache," the Native American (lndian) adult male who from childhood
has taken on many aspects of a woman and is regular! y penetrated by thc
adulr male ro whom he has been married in a public and socially sancrionol
ceremony? Does the latter share rhe s•me sexu•liry with the New Guinea
tribesman and warrior who from the ages of eight to fifteen has been orally
inseminated on a daily basis by older yourhs and who, after years of orally
inseminaring bis juniors, will be married to an adult woman and havc
children of bis own? Does any one of these three persons share rhe s•"''
sexu•liry with the modem homosexual?' lt would be more prudent to ac·
knowledge that although there are persons who seek sexual contact wido
orher_ persons of the same sex in many different societies, only recently and
only In sorne sectors of our own society ha ve such persons--or sorne porci()ll
of rhem-been homosexuals.

Schneider . .As. a classicisr, you ha ve argued that the touted approval of

homoscxualory 1n ane~em Greece has been misunderstood that what W~
· d was not homosexuallove as such, but sorne
bei ng sancnonc ' other kindof
erotiC expresSJon. Could you explain your thinking on this question?
 Halperin. ~hat was approved, and (in certain contexts) even celebrated '
by free dass1cal Atheman males was not _homosexuality per se, but a certai~
hierarch1cal relanon o~ structured mequality between a free adult male andan
adolescent youth of cmzen status-ora foreigner or slave (the latter combina-
tions bemg cons1~erably less glamorous): Let me unpack this formulation.
First, the relanon had to be h1erarchical: for a sexual contact between
males to be deemed respectabl~ the persons involved could not stand in a
reciproca! or soaally symmetncal relation to one another but had to be
differentiated from one another in terms of their relative degrees of power
or status; every male couple had to mdude one social superior and one social
inferior. Second, the sexual acts performed by a male couple had to be
congruent with the power-differential according to which the relation was
structured: the superior partner took sexual precedence-he alone, that is.
might initiate a sexual act, penetrare the body of his partner, and obtain
sexual pleasure; thus, the lack of social reciprocity in the relation was mir-
rored by a lack of sexual reciprocity (the goods and services exchanged
between male lovers were both unlike and unequal in value). So long as a
mature male took as his sexual partner a statutory minor, maintained an
"active" sexual role vis-a-vis that person, and did not consume his own
estate in the process or give any other indication that he was "enslaved" to
the sexual pleasure he obtained from contact with his partner, no reproach
attached itself to his conduct. That, in brief, is what "the approval ofhomo-
sexuality in ancient Greece" carne down to.
The description 1 ha ve just offered is, to be sure, highly schematic, and
in any case it refers to tht moral conventions goveming sexual relanons between
males; it is not intended to define the limits of what could actuaUy go on. In
fact, there seems to ha ve been a kind of twilight zone between youth and
manhood where sexual relations between males of roughly the same age do
seem to ha ve occurred and were apparently tolerated. * Even in that mn~xt,
however, one youth seems to ha ve been callcd upon to play an "acave, thc
other a "passive" part, and 1 know of no evidence suggesnng that such~=
took tums or switched roles.' lt was possible for a youth on the , and
between adolescence and adulthood toa1remate between being. "active hi ·1h
"passive'' but only insofar as he was in volved in separare rd~n~ns ps;:in
different people; he could not be both "active" and "pasSIVC at 00
relation ro the same person. 111
. . . . . th , he 10 percent" is a roughly
Schne•der. lt IS an axiom of gay hberanon at '· ·r rd "mplies that.
constanr feature of societies worldwide. This claim. 1 va 1 • 1
* m le, drpiCI youchs olrouthly simallr
;¡¡Re. Numt:'rous courringscmn on Grrrk vasn. for cxa P
 of the availability of role catego.
. gcs regar di css . d
h o moscxua\ idcnnty cmcr ·cty 10 crcatc s
uch catcgones to accommo ate the
· 1 'd
. or forccs cvcry socl f the anthropo1og¡ca evl ence that
ncs- D havc a scnsc o .
variant minority. o you .
. thc "umvcrsa ar
1, gumcnt? Js our ex1stencc as a se\[.
1 f h. t '
\cads you to ~c¡cct 1 sin ular in thc anna s o !S ory.
conscious soCial catcgory tru y g
d that "almost any imaginable con.
Halpmn. John J · m
w· k\cr has observe
.
1 d
nahzcd as conventiona an perce!Ved
.
f 1 e can be ¡nsutu1lO h h'
f¡guranon o p easur 1 "" The notion that therc is no suc t ~ng as a
by ¡ts part!Clpants as natura . be comfortmg to gay people toda y' smce the
purcly natural sexuahty may k d h a hefty moral wallop smce the
1" which has pac e suc
\abe\ "unnatura. h Wmkler has shown, in thc ancicnt
early modero penod b(thoug In~\ a~ays. But to that comforting thought
world). has so o!te~he e~;t~~ ~!Sq:•eting poss!bility that thc subjectiviues
there correspon s · duce sexuah
enerated by human cultures may vary; sorne soc!eUcs may pro •
~~es that exclude homosexual desue a\together: a cla1m to th1s cffect has m
facl been made qmte recently m the case of an Amazonian pcoplc by Thomas
Gregor (al\ such ethnograph1c reports should be taken wnh a gram of salt,

~
however, and Gregor's own account raises not a few susplclons): 12 Of
course, many if not al\ societies produce people who are, accordmg to
the indigenous standards, sexual deviants. Such people, however, tend to
constitute themselves sexually in opposition to the prevailing local norms
rather than in terms approximating to the homosexual/heterosexual polaritj
familiar to us. Even when thesc deviants qualify as deviants by virtuc of
ccrtain homosexual bchaviors or practices, in other words, they do so in th(
coursc of rcversing the conventional definitions of who thcy "should" be in
thcir socictics, and so thcy simply mirror, in invertcd form, thc norms of
their own culture (just as homoscxuals today reverse the cultural dcfinition
of heterosexuality). In the classical world, the kinaidos or mollis, the man
who desires to be used "as a woman" by other mcn, may ha ve becn one of
the~c "casual_rics" of sexual acculturation, expressing in his own pcrson the
soCial potent!al for "error," the tendency of societics ro crea te inadvertently.
as it were, life-forms exactly opposite to thc ones they valorize. Hut, in anj
case, 1 ha ve argued that kinaidoi, even if thcy actually cxisted, represen red a
type quue dlS!tnct from what is specified by thc modero category of th<
homosexual.
. l personally do not find the possibility that thc proportion ofhomoscxuals
tn the general populat10n of a society may vary any more disturbing chaO
that the proportion of liberals and conscrvativcs in American socicty maY
vary. l.t may wcll be the_ case, as sorne anti-gay polemicists claim, rhat th<
num.bcr ofhomosexuals m our soc1ety has incrcascd during thc past ccnturY•
..but lt docs
. . not follow
,, that .the num bcr has mcrcascd
· .
ssmply as a rcsu (t of
.
permJssJvcncss, nor docs 1t follow that a moral crack-down wou1d clint 1..
nate thc "problem." Changes in patterns of sexuality d 1
. fi'lfl.. onotresutfrom
comparanvely super 1c1a uctuanons m the moral climatc· th .
. h·~ . h • ey are s•gns of
deep • seism1c s uts m t e structure
.
of underlying social re1at.10ns, and no
society has come close to learmng how to control the forces by which it is
constituted. 1 suspect that the
. tendency
. to. insist
. on a fixed percentage of
homosexuals throughout soc1et1es worldw1de •s a defensive response 011 the
part of gay people to the st1gma of "un?aturalness," and 1 hope we are all
now beyond that. 1 se~ nothmg wrong wuh bemg truly singular in the annals
of history: after all, 1f ever we achieve a society in which the relations
between men and women cease to be structured hierarchically, that would
be also be something of a singular achievement, and a good one.

Schneider. What would happen to your argument if, as seems possible,

sexual orientation turns out to have a biological or genetic basis?

Halperin. lfit turns out that there actually is a gene, say, for homosexuality,
m y notions about the cultural determination of sexual object-choice will-
obviously enough-prove to have been wrong. Even in that hypothetical
case, however, the scientists and their allies will still have a fair amount of
fast talking to do. Take, for example, the instance of the New Guinea
tribesman mentioned earlier. According to our hypothesis, science will now
be ablc ro reveal definitively whether he is or is not gay. Neither alternative,
though, is going to be very satisfactory. For, according ro one possibility,
thc tribesman isn't real/y gay-he jusi spends half his life having oral sex
with othcr males (which makes him start ro sound like a character out of
Jean Genet); according to the only other possibility, thc tribcsman really IS
gay, but thcn how shall wc explain why he shows no crotic interest m males
outside of initiatory contexts or why he does not hesitare ro marry and does
not cxperience any sexual difficulty in his adult relarions with women?
Far from solving the interpretative problcms raised by rhe erhnographiC
cvidcncc, in othcr words, thc hypothctical sci<'lltilic (gcnetlC) solunon SJmply
compounds them. . .. ·u be
Butl don't think it's likcly in any case that a scientitic "solunon. Wl h.
fo h · b · h, ppoSJIC dlre<.'tiOD (1 <
ort commg, and thc trcnd now sccms ro e ID t e 0 . .b . R
hormonal hypothcsis for cxamplc has rccently been d•spos.>l 01 ~ 0 ~
L · ' ' r h . b10
· Joaical or gcntu<
angcvm and his co-workcrs). "' Any argumcnt r t e
10 ~ d . ~ro
dctcnnination of sexual objcct-choicc that 1 can envision Sl'CnlS ~~n:~. of
be rcducrionist, and thus to be vulnerable ro rhe wdl-known_ J ~:bl; ro
de· · · .. · M:S an" not n.-um
hsc~_ 1 Ptlon ~bjcction-viz., that ~uman mca~m ,.th of gn."en lighr 1s nor
P YSical dcscnptions (h<'llCC ro spce~fy thc wave leng tar<.,·n).
to · . ' .. rhc .:xpc.·m:nc:c o ro .
MProvtdc an cxhausuvc defimtton ofthc.~ concept or 1 icnt.atltlll is itsdt
orcover, the scarch for a "scicntific .. aetiology of sc:Xllta ~r. as su..·h. Jusi: .a:;
a hornophobic projcct, and il: nccds to be SL'CI1 more f c.'.lr } -
 . · terms the capacitics of thc various
scientif1c attempts to d escribe m genettc ll abandoned-not b ccause o f t heir
human races have now been gene~a·~e racial differentiae obviously have
· nhere11t scientiflc absurdity (sorne vtsl f their long and odious history 0¡
1 b'lO1oglca
· 1 and
a acnetic cause) b ut ra ther because . o . tiftc inquiries mto
·
., . . nd JUSI as scten . f: ll .
comn\icity wtth ractsm-a 1 d females are startmg to a •nto
r .« between ma es an
ncurological d111crences
. ·¡ sons so too, Wl
·u the effort to disco verh'a genettc. or
disrepute for s1m1 ar rea • ~· eventually come to not mg, not so
hormonal basis for sexual pre erence h' h has never stopped research if
f · t"1flc progress (w IC . .
much for lack o scten . ~ 1 k of social credibility. All sc1enttfic
other motives for lt remamed)/s or t~rientation, after al\, spring from a
inquiries into the aeuology of sexual es from the notion that thcre exist
· plicit theory o sexua rae • d'
more or 1ess •m . . . es of human beings correspon mg,
broad general diVIsiOns bhetweekn typhomosexual and those who make a
t"lytothosewomaea . h
respec tve ,1 1 biect-choice When the sexual racism underlymg suc
heterosexua sexua 0 ' · 1 ·11 « portian
.mqutnes
. . IS
. more plain\y exnosed
r ' their rationa e Wl suuer pro -
ately--<>r so one may hope. . . h
In the meantime, it he\ps in eva\uating curren! sCienttftc work to ave a
good nose for smelling out a research plan that is designed to conflrm curren!
, categories of analysis rather than to cal\ those very categones mto qucstton.
Let's take asan example the neurohormonal hypothesis, which may be tht
most fashionable aetiological theory of sexual orientation around at tht
moment." This rearguard defense of the dominan! sexual ideology proceeds
by a particularly ingenious and cunning route. Since adult homosexuab
have finally been shown, despite many earlier "scientiftc" predictions to tht
conrrary and decades of supposedly conclusive rescarch, to be hormonall¡
indistinguishable from adult heterosexuals, the most recent biological at·
tempts to reify contemporary sexual categories have had to alter traditional
explanatory strategies, looking now to pre-natal neurohormonal influenccs
on the embryonic development ofthose who, many years latcr, turn out to
be homosexuals or heterosexuals. (According ro one expert, increased stress
on pregnant German women during the Second World War and its neuro-
hormonal consequences account for why "a higher proportion ofhomose~·
ual men were born [sic] in Germany during World War 11 than befare or
after the war.")" The hypothesized pre-natal neurohormonal influences ar<
admittcdly transient-they lea ve no clear trace, conveniently enough, in tb<
bodies of the adult homosexuals who might be tested for them-wherea•
the fetuscs or infants in whom rhey are supposed to operate have Iirtl<
occaston to make ellher horno- or heterosexual sexual object-choices (esP""
cially in the absence of another fetus), and so do not manifest their sexuabtY·
The first thing to notice about rhe theory, in other words, ¡5 that it JS 50
hypothetical that it's difficult to falsify. Nor are there any experirnen•:
currcntly underway, so far as 1 know, that would test this hypothesis as'
 Ug htto be tested-namely, by monitoring the neurohorm 1 . fl
o 1 f fi ~
a random samp e o etuses .rom the moment of con
ona m uences
. .
on . h 1development (such an expe cep11on untd the
Co mpletion of theu. psyc .osexua
ffi . ·
nment would
of cour~e, be fiend1shly d1 ~eult to dev1se, and no scientist wants 10 ha ve 1~
wait rhuty-five years before bemg abie to pubhsh the results of his or her
research). Th~ ~o~tthat ca~ be est~bhshed on the basis of current scientific
work is that md1v1duals wllh certam rare genetic defects whose hormonal
functioning 1s thereby 1mpaued are on average more likely ro become ho
sexuals-but such deductions are no more informative about the hu::
population al large than were earlier inferences about the criminality of
sexual deviants drawn from the observation of in mates in prisons or insane
asylums. And experiments performed on laboratory animals in support of
the neurohormonai hypothesis are often remarkable for the extent of their
unexamined assumptions about the relation between sex, sex-role, gender,
and sexual identity, as well as for their criteria for what counts as "homosexu-
ality" in a rat.
These are exacdy the sorts of experiments that might ha ve been performed
in Victorian Britain to prove the once-fashionable hypothesis that the so-
called lower orders of society were throw-backs to an earlier stage of evolu-
tionary development-inherendy Iess civiiized or morally advanced than
the professionai and ruling classes-if oniy nineteenrh-century science had
possessed a sophisticated genetics or endocrinology. Present-day scientific
research into sexual orientation is technically refincd, but the ideology in-
forming it remains as crudc and unreflective as its Victorian predecessor.
Justas onc might, even without undertaking a scientific srudy, bejustifiably
skeptical of an cxperiment designcd ro determine the generic or hormonal
"cause" of the underclass in American society-because one mlght 001
bclieve that sociologicai phcnomcna ha ve biological causes or because one
rnlg· ht be morally repelled by rhe idea of treanng · soc1a · 1meqw
· "ties as retlec-
tions of natural, essential, and unalterable biologicai differences am~n~
groups of onc's fellow-citizcns-so one is cntided to remaiD skeptiCa f,
think, about "scientific" cxperiments which provide a biologiCai warrant or
se xua 1rac¡sm
. .
and which are so plainly IDSCrl "bed • despl·re the goodhIDtennons
b"
of many individual scientists, in prevailing strategies of homop o la.
Sh . . d 1 rooted as one"s
e Hfldtr. Thc idea rhat homosexuahry was as eep Y . ed social
gendc f h hope for 10creas
r or racc has been a cornerstone o t e constitutc: a
tolerance and eventual ''liberation." Vour argurnent scems ro
challengc ro that hope, doesn't it?
l'r is .an .utetac.-r of
~•lprrin. No, 1 don't think so. Just becausc my srx~a 1 -~ lar cultures •r<
cu t~ral proccsses doesn't mean l"m not sruck with at. ~~:~;;rhanakC"stu~
conrmgenr. bur the personal identities and forms of erotu: 1
 . f h se cultures are no ! . To say that scxuality is learned
within thc honzons 0 t 0 1 d-any more than to say that culture
¡5 not to say th at 1 . . be un carne
"t can "bl r
bl ('m 1101 personally rcsponst e mr rny
. that ti ts mallea c. . b .
changcs ts to say lly responsiblc for certam aste values
. than 1 am persona . . b
scxualtty any more f iddle-class upbrmgmg: yet oth are
that wcre -par! a nd pared o my m
d , can that 1 can't inqutrc · mto,
· ·· .
cnttctze,
. · f y character. 1 on 1m f .
consututtvc o m b what 1am, but no amount o consctous
or try to understand how 1cam~ to e al k away from m y socialization and
rct\ection will enable me stmp y todw .
. lt al (or sexual) 1 enuty. . .
acqmre a new cu ur. h w politically useful it ts to clatm that
B l'm not sure m any case o 11 h"
ut . . ial and unalterable as gender or race. After a ' somet tng
sexuahty ts as essednbt . teenth-century German advocatcs for homosexual
~~-= y=
. h . ffort ro persuade their contemporaries that homosexua rl!y was
ng ts m an e 1 f .1. or acquired perversity for which homosexuals
not a sm or mora at mg . . . d h
themsclves were ro blame but was rather a natural condttton; mdee .' 1 _ese
militants succeeded so well in convincing the early sexologtsts of thctr vtew
that standard nineteenth-century accounts of"sexual inversion" often rehed
for their data on the self-representations of gay polemicists-with thc rcsuh
that instead of being sen! to jail for a ftxed term homosexuals wcrc now
shut up for life in insane asylums. Fighting entrenched social agencies and
practices with nothing but ideology is no! a game you can win (as feminists
have discovered), becausc culturally dominan! forces can always reconftgmt
whatever interpretation of yoursclf you may pul forward to suit their own
intcrcsts: no account is so positive as to be proof against hostil e appropriation
and transformation (thus, every positive image of womcn that feminis~
attempt to promote gets turned into an offensive stereotype). "' 1 don'! think
the possibilities for social tolerance dcpend u pon, m ueh lcss ought to dictare.
our own self-reprcscntations.
. There is, however, one kind ofhope for liberation that m y argument doCS
m effect deny. 1 offer no comfort to those who aspire to liberare us fro!tl
our curren! pleasures in favor of sorne more frec-wheeling, polymorphous
sexuahty. The assumpuon underlymg that liberationist position has to do
wnh the posstbthty of recovering a "natural scxuality" which an artificoal
and reprcssivc civilization has denaturcd. But there ¡5 no such rhing as 1
natural scxuahty, tf that refcrs toa sexuality unformed by a cultural discours'
that defines the boundartes of thc sexual and the non-sexual, of the attracu•'
and thc unattractt~c. Any system in which our dcsires were cntirely unstriJC"'
turcd by such a dJScourse, in which wc would be somehow free 10 choO~
at evc? stcp what wc found scxually attractive or gratifying, would not_ b~
a systcm of srxualuy at all-and 1readily confcss that 1 find thc idea ofhv•n~
under su eh a systcm as unthinkable asllind the idea ofbcing an ancicnt GrcC~
or a d•scmbod~ed spmt. Morcover, thc project of frecing us to cmbrac<
"natural scxuality" sccms to be a coercivc onc, and in our immediate situauofl
 "Homoscxuality": A Cultu l C
ra onstrucr ¡ 53

.1 can only serve the cause of repression by fortifying th .d 1 . . .

1etween " goo d" an d "b ad" sexua¡·ay. lf sexuality by defi e 1 eo. .Og1cal
. d1v1Sio
. n
b . . . h ' Inltlon, IS cod1fied
nd scnpted m certam respccts, t at does not mean it sh Id .
a W b ou In every case
be liberated. e must remem er that sexual boundaries d
constrict poss1"bT · h 1 °
not mercly
1 1t1es; t ey a_ so create possibilities: they describe zones of
frecdom, pleasure, and erot1c excaement.

Schneider. But isn 't. there a contradiction here? lf homosexuality is a cul-

tural construct, and tf such constructs operate at the leve! of individual
subjectivities to determme personal identity, how can any of us-indeed,
how can you-accept m any genume sense the position that you are arguing
for, a posltlon that would seem to place whoever occupies it outside the
cultural and sexual systems into which we were al! born?

Halperin. That's a very canny question, but l'm not ashamed of the awk-
ward spot it puts me in. 1 would be very untrue to the position l've been
arguing for if 1 didn 't acknowlcdge squarely and forthrightly the cognitive
dissonance it involves. 1 don't think there's any way that 1, or anyone else
who grew up in bourgeois America when 1 did, could ever believe in what
l've been saying with the same degree of conviction with which 1 believe,
despite everything l've said, in the categories of heterosexuality and homo-
sexuality. Those categories aren 't mere! y categories of thought, at least in
my case; they're also categories of erotic response, and they therefore have
a claim on m y belief that's stronger than intellecrual allegiance. That, after
al!, is what it means to be acculturated into a sexual system: the convent1ons
of the system acquire the sclf-confirming inner truth of "nature." lf one
could simply think oneself out of onc's acculturation, it wouldn't b~ accultur-
ation in the first place. And 1can't imagine dc-acculturating mysdl any more
than 1 can imagine de-sexualizing myself, as 1 said earher. Nor, once agam.
does it scem neccssarily desirablc todo so: every intellcctual pc~pecnve 0 ~
thc world is a perspective from a particular vantage point, alter all. ~ 1
frccly admit that in a scnse 1 don't, and couldn't possibly. btlltvt m wtha"
1' b ' ' 1 10 f conv1ct1on •• •
1ve ecn saying-not, at least, at the same deep eve d. :d perhaps.
cvc) at which my own desires are structurcd. Dur-prc •spohsc: : ·5 ¡5 not
by 1 . f h orld suc aSit1 •
a ong-held sensc that m y own expencnce 0 1. e w . h' rd intdlrcru•l
rcprcscntatiVl"-1 can affirm what l"vc been saymg wn 3 . 50 1 r rhc r:\'i-
conviction. Thcrc's just no other equally sensible way to mt<rt~e rc•:or.k-d
dcncc l'm familiar with or to understand thc gap berw~~ 1
expcricnces of pcrsons living in ancil~nt and in modern stXlc:
3
Two Views of Greek Love:
Hara\d Patzer and Michel Foucault

The earliest scholarly studies of"Greek \ove" proceeded from the a~sump­
tion that classical Greek society and sentiment were virtually umque m theu
acceptance-indeed, in their occasi~nal celebration-of ~aederasty and thal
it was therefore the job of the anaent btStonan to provtde a cogent causal

,
explanation for this (allegedly bizarre) phenomenon.' R:ecent :work, by con-
trast, has tended to interpret Greek sexual convenuons m a Wtder (compara-
tive, anthropological, or ethological) context' and to emphasize instead lht
uniqueness of modern European and American middle-class attitudes: VI<
are the ones, it seems, whose sexual norms and institutions require historial
explanarion. 3 Nor only does exclusive and "compulsory heterosexuality,'
as Adrienne Rich calls ir, • now appear ro be a distincrively modern, Weste!ll.
cvcn bourgeois producrion: rhe clinical concept ofhomosexuality, ro which
"Greek love" has ofren been unthinkingly assimilared, is rurning out ro be
less transparenrly descriprive, and more culrurally specific (hence, mor<
ideologically loaded), rhan earlier interpreters had assumed. The first major
work of classical scholarship ro address itself centrally to the conceptual
difficulries crea_red for rhe srudy of Greek sexual codes and practices by ne"
develop~ents m rhe hiS!ory of sexualiry is Harald Patzer's Die gritchischt
Knabtnl!fbt (1982). The solution ir presenrs-both scholarly and ideolo~
cal-ts perhaps revelatory of furure trends in classical scholarship, and tn
.any case 1t IS worth scrutinizing in sorne detail.
"In recenr years," writes Barry D. Adam, a Canadian sociologist, "ther<
has been a growmg reahzatlon that rhe contemporary social organizarion of
homoscxuahty mro lesbian and gay worlds is a socially and historic~IIY
umque dcvelopment and that the traditional academic consrruction of rh<
homo•ex~al' has participated in this reifying process. "' lt ¡5 the chiefvirt~
of Parzcr s monograph that lt r~fuses to collaborate in the reificanon U.
modcrn sexual catcgones. Patzer 5 projcct ¡5 to distinguish, once and for a

54
Greck Knabenliebe .
(i.e., paederasty) from homosexual"t
h G k ryaswecurrentl
derstand rt; Patzer argucs t at ree paederasty was at th Y
un . 1 'd' . ' e very least su h
eculiar (if not entrre y r rosyncranc) variety ofhomosex 1 . • e
ap . . f h d ua expressiOn that
th e apphcatJOn o .t e ,mo p
ern conccpt of homosexuality t ·
. o 1t can only lead
10 misunderstand.mg. atzer seeks mstead to give an account of Greek
paederasty that ~111 effe~nvely remove it from the context of modern sexual
typologies and msert lt mto an .entrrely different conceptual universe.
Classical Greek p~ederasty drffers from "homosexuality," according 10
Patzer, in the followmg respects: (1) Paederasty, as the word implies, refers
only to sexual relanons between adult males, on the one hand, and boys or
youths between the ages oftwelve and eighteen, on the other. (2) Paederastic
relationships, once begun, never extend beyond the youth of the junior
partner. (3) Paederastrc love-affarrs are not motivated by a peculiar, individ-
ual sexual inclination on the part of either person for a partner of the male
sex-an inclination of the sort that would displace or cxclude sexual relations
with women: on the contrary, the senior lover is usually married or, at least,
is accustomed to regular, heterosexual contacts with adult women. (4) In
order for a paederastic relationship to be wholly honorable and dignified in
the eyes of contemporary Athenian society, its sexual expression is restricted
to one, quite specific, mode of copulation-namely, the intercrural (i.e.,
"between the legs")-which spares the junior partner (and future citizen)
the effeminizing humiliation of bodily penetration and thereby ensures that
his eventual authority as an adult male will not be compromised before the
fact. (5) In a proper paederastic relationship, the younger partner does not
share in his older lover's sexual desire but, like a good Victorian wife,
surrenders out of a mingled feeling of gratitudc, esteem, and affeerion; he is
supposed to suffer and be still. 7 •
1t is possible, of course, to quibble with sorne details in Patzer's analySis.
Against (1), it may be recalled that there is extensive debate among the
ancient authors over the proper upper limit on the age of the JUruor pa>:"<r
(though most agree that the arrival of the beard marks the t<rmmus .01 ~
legitimare desirability)" and that the ready availability of male prostrtutes
and slaves provided Athenian men who were so inclined with an alternare
mod f h . ed b the moral convennons
e o omosexual expression unconstram Y b b. ·red
governrng · therr · relations with citizen youths. Agamst · (3) ' itmayf eo ~·... nd
th t h h ages o twenry a
h~ t e older lovcr was often a young man betw~ t e . d ro 5011u-onc
1 rrty who was thercfore quite probably unmarritd (or m.arnc h · !'lato 's
consrdcrably younger than himself) and that Aristophanes s speec. m, rexts
Sy · be f other ancren ·
rnposrum (1119c-193d), together with a num r 0 ,
tcshfie _ (cven ro rhe
. f' d' ·dual pre•cren~.....
P . s qurtc explicitly to the strength o rn lVI h rhan ano<h«· u
.aotnt of cxclusivity) for a sexual partner of one sex rat c:t~ •1 inlt"n.·ourse
l'l.hd · . ·dance o .m
· •garnst (4), we should bear in mmd that avor 1' "Noncthckss·
10 Pacderastic relations is rhc normative ideal, not rhc f('a ttY·
 d y cars oi Homoscxuality
Sh 1 Om: Hund re

• . . e d' stin uishing brtwccn pal·dcra~ty and holllost.·x:ua¡

Patzer s entena lOT 1 gh stain his central thcs1s that what thc G !ti·
U sound cnoug ro su d . b 1 ree~
are genera Y 1. , at all but rathcr . pac Hcrasttc e uvior With
h"b't'snothomoscxualt) , .. h ou,
ex t 1 ' l"fi d) homosexual dcsuc. O\\ ts suc a parado
(catcgorical and unqua tu: X to
be explaincd' k d E h
h ·¡ 1hypothesis of ancicnt Grcc pac crasty. tg ty ycar, ag,
Entehr t crbtluha da pathbrcaking articlc on "Dorian pacdcrasty" in whic'
E. Bct e pu IS e · d "
he maintaincd, by comparing thc custom~ o.f ~rc~aiC Crcte an S parta (hot~
Dorian statcs) with those of various "pnmmvc pcoplcs, that the ~lassical
Grccks inhcritcd from their Dorian invadcrs and ~onqucror~-an~ ~~~tmately
pcrverccd to rhcir own unnatural purposcs-a ntua~ practt~~ of tmttation ¡~
which oldcr males passcd on num.inous powers (chtcfly mtlltary and moral
\'itality) to thcgcneution of youngcr males by injccting them, through horno.
sexual copulation, with the magical potency thought to reside in thcir scmen. 1'
Bethc's thesis was indignantly rcpudiatcd by contcmporary classicists 14-of.
ten, as Patzcr righdy observes, on thc shabbiest of grounds-but it has resur-
faccd from time to time in subsequent scholarship, 15 and it sccms currently to
bccnjoying somcthing of a rcnasccncc, 1 ~ partly beca use Bethe's scant compar-
ati~e data ha ve si~ce beco supplemcntcd by a wcalth of new ethnographic
evtdcnce for t~c w1de distribution of ritualizcd homosexual behaviors among
~ribal p~oples 1 ' ~nd partly becausc recent, anthropologically oricntcd rcscarch
10 claSSICJ\ StUd!CS has brought t }" h f .
in ancicnt Grcccc.~~ lt is Patzer'~ a:~: traces o. what look likc initiarion ntua~s
mately to vindicare a version of Bet~:.:s~~ct~ate, corrcct~ m~dify, and ultl·
believes,t~un~erstandingtheparadoxof CSIS, f?r thcrc~n he~ thc kcy, he
se_xual dcsuc: m the context of an institup_acdc~a~ttc ?ehav1o~ ~~th?ut hom':
v1ew. copula~1on cca\es to be ancx rcssi~\On~hz~d .ntual of lnlttatlon, on hts
personal habuus, and become . p 0 of mdtvldual sexual inclination, of

social obhgation. (N ice works ~ns~~d thc ful~Umcnt of a univcrsally binding

Bccausc the classical Gre k '1 . can get u.)
d W e practtcc ofp d .
mo cr~ cstcrn culture," accordin ac erasty 1S cntirely "alicn to our
th~ honzons of our culture, and be g to Patzer, it is necessar to loo k be ond
~~~:· 5~~:::~~!~1 ~. thhat illuminatc t¡~n~,:~~ bordc~s of phil~logical sch~lar~
et nocentrism " A expenencc T fi d o
~ui~c¡ and Mclancsia he\ s p . n cxamination o . ·.. o_ re u_sc t~ o s
mstttut~on describcd by th~ fo:rtz.er to bring into : tntuauon ntcs m NeW
rcport 1s trans_mined to us by Strt~ccntury B.c. his:t~r focus thc Cretan
Crc~e, accordmg to this account ano 00.4.21). 'lihcn :tan Ephorus, whosC"
~amtly ~nd friends a fcw da.ys in 'a.d o\dcr malc who d ~oy comes of agc in
mg thet~ perfu~ctory show of resisvancc ~nd thcn ca.r ~suc~ him informs bis
thc hoy s rc~attons intervene in cart;~;te _hf thc lovcr i:l:s ~um off, ovcrcolll-
the boy to hts dndrtion (a. men's dubho ), PUr~ued by th 0 \Vorthy, however.
spends two months hunting ;r,nd t ~se), Stvcs hitn e~. the lave b ·ngs
eastmg With hirn inv:~tous gifts, :ndr;hc:ll
e countrysidc. ThC
e isodc ,·oncludcs ~ith a m~tual exchangc of gifts and with thc admissiun
0~ rhc boy ro tl~c l11p;hcst soc1al status. l~atzcr has a fairly casy rime dcmon-
srrating. by_ rc~crc~cc. to thc co~~a.ra~IVC c_thnograp?ic material, that rhc
Crctan ¡115 urut1on 1s mdccd an m1t1at10n ntc-onc m which, morl'Ovcr,
sexual intcrcoursc betwccn m~n and hoy sccms to play a rolc.l'' Thc more
ditlicult ras k Patzcr now faces 1~ to. relate su eh ritcs (for which he finds traces
in various parts of Grcccc, distrlbutcd cqually among IJorian and non-
Dorian raccs) to thc classical Athcnian institution of pacdcrasty.
Classical pacderasty, Patzer maintains, is a logical (though nor ¡11 cvcry
case a temporal) dcvclopmcnt from thc kind of initiation ritual attcstcd fur
rhe Crctans. lt differs from its anccstor in that (1) it aims at inculcating not
military but civic virtuc; (2) as a social obligation it is less universal and less
binding and is not ovcrscen by thc statc; (3) thc rclationship bctwccn lovcr
and bcloved is more privare and unconstraincd, though srill socially rcgu-
latcd; (4) it Rourishcs most conspicuously among non-IJorians. (Morcovcr,
although Patzcr ncglects to emphasize this, thc classical vcrsion ofpacdcrasry
he appcals to docs away, supposedly, with phallic pcnctration ofthcjunior
partncr and thcrcby implicitly abandons any prcrcnsc ofbcstowing bcnctirs
through sexual, as opposed to social, conracr; on Parzcr's own account,
thcrcforc, the continuing sexual elcmcnr in dassical pacdcrasty rcmains
uncxplained.) lntcrprcting classical paedcrasty as a modificd initiarion ritual
hclps to make scnse, according to Patzcr, of irs highly codificd and {to
his mind) peculiarly instirutional fcaturcs: ir cxplains (1) why homoscxual
cxpression is rcstrictcd ro remporally circumscribcd rdarions bctwLX"D an
adult m ale and a youth in the forma ti ve pcriod of bis dcvclopmcnt; {2) why
hicrarchical rclations obrain only bcrwc,·n pcrsons of rh,· same scx; (3) why
paederasty docs not cxcludc hctcroscxuality; (4) why pacdt'rasry is nor scxu-
ally or crotically reciproca); and (5) why pacdt•rasry is supposcd ro involv~o.·
carc for thc junior parrncr's physical and moral wdtarc. Whl'rcas in rht~
carlicr typc of pacdcrasry rhc qualiry rhar marh-d our a youth n worr_hy ot
a lovcr was bravcry, in rhc la ter rypc rhc qualiry rhar makes a yourh d~o.-slrabl~o.·
(mis now intrudcs u pon thc psychological scenc for rhc tirst tim,·) _is bcaury-
rhough, Patzcr hasrcns ro add, by "bcaury" (,,, ltalon) rhc ArhcnJans. un~cr­
stood nor mere physical comclincss bur rarh,·r a consrc:llarion ot pr•zcd
physical and moral cndowmcnrs· in rhc abscncc of rhc );ur,·r, corporcal
bcaury cffccrivcly lost irs powcr r~ attra<."t an honorablc Arh~o.·ni.an P~"'-d~r.ast
(a spccics of crotk lct-down rhar is nor unknown. 1 bdi~o.·n·. cv~n m our
modcrn Wcstcrn culture"). In rhis rransirion ti-om a so..-ially e~llUl't.'d .and
rigidly instirutionalizcd ritual of pacdL·rasry ro a much moR" inturmal onc.
r.hc l'~pcricncc of ~mmancnr m~Mical or numinous P~~cr.g•v:: ~~:~):ob::;
cxpcnl'ncc of crotl(." and acsthl·tu: Cl""Stasy (on rhc lovu s part.
such crutidsm n·nuins, ¡11 (Jarzcr's vicw. csscntially non-s('xu.al 111 l·h.u-
a,·rcr.211
 . . h. thesis immediately spring to mind. Whij
A number of obJecuons to t •s se that the rustic holiday prescribed, 1
. d b di right to suppo . •o1
Patzer 1s un ou te Y included sexual mtercourse, nothin .
b Cretan custom . . h
the happy coup1e Y 1 d s to attach any partlcu1ar Importan•·
, · fEphorus ea su h -to
Strabo s vemon ° d ·r in particular-rather t an, say, the t
the sexual elemcnt or to r;gar r'he focal point of the initiatory experienWo
• h f bunung -as . Ce.
months wort 0 h trality in this ritual of a mag1cal transfer of
Patzer's emphasis on tle ~enm manto boy through sexual contact recej~~
d mdltary va or .ro . . "
potency an h d seems to have been 1mported duectly from
no support from t e text an . hP )"k B h b ti .
. , Th at significance wh1c atzer, 1 e et e e ore h•m
New Gumea. e gre · b h '
• emark that in Crete lovers des1re oys w o are exceo.
attaches to Stra bo s r h . r
. JI b
uona y rave an d well-behaved ' instead . of those
. w o are exceptionally
. . .
. 23 is misplaced: the remark 1s plamly apologetlc m mtent and
good-1ookmg, . , · d"« ·
is framed as a tacit rebuke to the wnter s own soc1ety; a . Iuerent p1cture
emerges a few sentences later when Strabo says that it IS regarded as 1
judgment on the characters of those who are handsome and well-bom if
rhey fail ro obtain lovers in their youth-thereby implying that good lookl
and nobility in a lad were considered, other things being equal, eroric
stimuli in archaic Crete no less than in classical Athens. 24 Finally, Patzn
acknowledges that the Cretan institution is unusual in that it operatn
through elective aflinities and pair-bonding rather than through rituals thll
involve entire age-classes: but isn't such an admission tantamount to conced·
ing an importan! function to "personal inclination" in this paederastic sy>
tem? Strabo speaks ofthe senior partner asan erastes or Iover after all: dlil
would seem to be a textbook example of the interd~pendenc~ in culture oi
soaal pracnces and subjective experiences.
lt!Swhenwecomet0 patzer •s d1scuss1on · · of classical Athens t h at h~
contrast between paed -~
Obll.gat·1on ,mr.ens
, . 1 erasty as personal inclination and paederasty as soo
a 1pi ·bl . . · .
tion in el · 1A h auSI 111Y· That paederasty was indeed a soc•alins!IIU
asstca t ens-a · . . t~
variety of be fi . 1 n IRS!I!Ut!On often thought moreover, to serv .
ne 1aa purpose . ' . · 1 pi!'
quity will seriously d b s-no one, 1 thmk, who stud1es clasSica t)¡ 3
sexual desire no on 1OUh !; that. it was not also an express10n · o fd cep)y IP
· e, ope w11l b )" · ha~'
mevuably to deal w·th h ' e •eve. 1n approaching this top•c we
between that which' pew atH Ir. enry James once called "a traditional d1·ffierene< )lal
1
they know, that whi hophe now and that which they agrce to admit 1. b
they feel to be a part ~f ~~ey see and that which they spcak of, that wh•~,
lt "a grear virtue ofK J De and that wh•ch they allow to cnter literatur<· '
go · · · over'5 d uot'·
vernmg paederastic relati stu Yof the moral and social con ven ~,
pu~,c Ideal of "right trós" ~ns m classica) Athens that in distinguish•~.
~g. t of "thc gulf between roml. ns reprehensible opposite he never 1''
gn•mate trós doe de rca •ty and . ""' The ,de• 1
from h . 'In ed require conventlon. J1lal1¡
•m anythmg •hameful h that a lover neithcr doto a boy nor de h•P'·
' 1 at he not attcmpt to bribc or consrr•"'
 d that he sincerely wish to promote bis beloved's well-b · v .
an . 'd 1 . 1 b h . elng. Patzer lS
. ht 10 take th1s 1 ea senous y ut e 1s wrong 10 think th .
ng . h . . at 1t regulares all
decent behav1or-wrong, t at IS, to mterpret Dover's sketch f h .
·deal as a description of the social norm."' 0 1 e public
1 . d
Are we then to mterpret as sean alous .
the affectionate and h .
e armmg story
told about Sophocles by Ion of Ch1os-how the fifty-five year Id .
. . h h f fi. d o trag1c
poet, while_ d mmg at t e ome o a nen during bis tour of duty as general
in the Sam1an W ar '. managed to snatch a k1ss from the handsome lad who
was pou~in~ the wme and thereupon remarked to the assembled company
that he d1dn t tum out to be nearly so bad a strateg1st as Pericles had feared?-''
Orare we to suppose that Sophocles's ulterior aim was to groom the slave''
for a civic role that the latter was destined never to assume? Sophocles's
behavior on this occasion, decent though it seems to have been, does not
look like that of someone who is motivated principally by social duty. Just
as it would be wrong for a future historian of twentieth-century America ro
deduce from the pervasive ideal of marital fidelity among the American
middle classes that the marriages of respectable people were unfailingly
monogamous in practice or were universally thought to be so (and equally
wrong to infer from a reading of the novels of John Updike that the ideal
of monogamy did not significantly constrain the sexual choices of actual
married people), so it is wrong for Patzer virtually to imply that Greek men
made !ove to their boys with a copy ofPiato's Phatdrus firmly rucked under
one arm for easy consultation.
Patzer has, to be sure, a certain claim on our sympathy. He finds himself
in the unenviable position ofhaving to account for certain socially validated
homosexual behaviors in the absence of a contemporary soctal consrructJon
ofhomosexual desire. He has already been criticized by classicalscholars for
his laudable attcmpt to repudia te "homosexuality" asan instrumenrofhisron-
cal analysis;" now 1, in turn, a m about to criticize him for appealing ro some
equally unsound conceptions of "ritual" and "social dury" as subsnrutes for
modero sexual categories. M y aim in all rhis is ro h1ghlighr_ rhe ro":'
betwcen Patzer's interpretative lapses andsomeaspectsoftradJtJon~_s.c 1 :
m h d' · h' · · t ncronrhen«Uto 00
ct o m the human sciences. For, desp1te •• 10515 e h eh r
be
. yon d t h e boundarics of Wcsrern h1gh · cu1rure foor _r-ourallelswllhW'
h ·10115 ..,..
0
ollu · • ontdlectua1 oro
mtnatc classical Greck institutions, Patzer s own . . . L - dirioml
m· h · · pboront• .. rr•
an•. t oroughly circumscribc:d by assumpnons 101 much in mrall ro
pracucc ofhis discipline. In particular, Patzer remams.very as a ne<'CS-
thc · · · whKh requore,
Pnnnplcs of ninet~nth-century hermeneutJC~ . rc1atiK vtnrun.
sary(if li . d'. 1- h
nor .. utoclent)con mon ort esu ••
c~ssotanyonrerp
h' h ownprejudi<'CS
.
h
r arrhe reseorcher confronrand carefully seraside all •• or er •-ted wi<h ....¡:.
•nd p . . . ntorably artocu.. · .
reconceproons. -"Thosc: prmctples were nte .h Wilamoworz-
cren . . by Ulroc von
M ce ro the topic prcsendy under doscussJOn,. . )· l'laro's eronc dw-
oellcndorff (rhe greatest ofrhe rradirionol philolotlosrs ·
hO 1 <.)m: HundrL·d Y cars of HomosL·xuality

nry, he wrotc, "is rootcd in pacdcrastic fcclings that rema in alicn to us bccausc
thcy are contrary to naturc; noncthckss, w~· must not only gr~sp t~lcm histori.
cally bnt must cntcr into thcm sympathcucally, for othcrwtsc Socratcs Will
rnnain simply incomprch<..·nsiblc to us, and of Plato wc shaH r~tain only a
fadcd and distortcd ilnagc ... _u JJut, dcspitc rhcsc noble words, Wtbmowit2's
\nquirics into thc subjcct, as Patzcr himsdf ack~wwlcd?c~, produccd ncgligi.
b\c rcsuhs. Patzcr's own stratcgy rcscmblcs Wllamowltz s, howcvcr, insofar
as it \nvolv<..·s insisting on thc uttcr forcignncss ofGrcck pacdcrasty a.nd thcrc.
forc 011 thc ncccssity of purifying our conception ofit of anything that sccms
to \.w bound up wirh uur own cultural cxpcrienn·-including thc modcrn con.
ccptua\ization of homoscxuality.
l3ut 1t is not cnough simply ro rcfust· to prcdicatc "homoscxuality" of
ancicnt attitudcs and bchaviors. Thc largcr discontinuitics bctwccn thc dis.
cursiw formations rt·sponsíbk, rcspcctivcly, for classical pacdcrasty and for
modcrn homoscxualily rcmain to be spccificd. Patzcr continucs to assumc
that ~thcnian _pacdcrasty is primarily a mattcr for philological invcstigation,
that tt c_a~1 be J~olatcd from othcr aspccts of ancicnt social rclations (such as
th~· pos1t1on ot womL·n. which he omits ro discuss), and rhat its conflation
wa_h homo_scxual~t~ can be undonc by an cnlightcncd practicc of Kultur~t'·
h. . he ts unwJlluw
sclucllll'; . . . t>_ to undcrtakc • in short , tl1·e k.m d o f mvcsugauon
· · · mto
·
r_ e vcry con~Jtlons ot sexual mcaning thar might cnablc thc historian to
~Jtua~c. Ath~man p~<..·dnasty in its widcr cultural, sociological, or discursivc
Wlltcxt. Hcnn· hts hcrmcnc t" _ d
trism, as it is intcndcd to d u le procc urc, far from cscaping "cthnoccn~
n·vcrsc an illst.st, , h o, mcrcly lcads to a kind of cthnoccntrism in
' · mn.: on t e absol t h
an cthn 01 •raphic nar _. _.·. u e ot crncss. of thc Grccks, and thus to.
cJssJsm as o 1d as H . d \~
~ro otus -a tcndcncy to dwcH onl~
t>
on thosc ft·aturcs of ¡ , 1
a ll:n cu rurcs that . .
ways from "our uwn l p , tmprcss usas dtvcrging in intcrcsnng
homo!-.t:.·xuality-as-s.cx~al n l~tzc~ s c_asc, thc wc.ll-foundcd conviction rhat
1ca dshml roimpos.conthcGrccks -me mauon ts a d. ·
b tstmctlvc1y modcrn phcnomcnou
ty-wnhout-homocrotic' f '. Y way ofhcrmcncutic rigor, a pacdcra~~
hi!r.torical or thL· L'thn ~t"'mh_or wh!Ch therc is cqually no trace in cith<..·r thr
ograp te record
For c:vcn thc most thoroughl . -
to us-mdudmg thosc to ;. ~ :ttua1izcd instan ces of pacdcrasty knoWI1
duty-bound, su ~rimly K:t"Jc .1atzcr appcals for paral1ds-arc hardly ~o
be (h en.: b thcir out 1oo k , as he makcs thcm out ' o
, . IJ-atzcr Sl't·ms to h tan. tn
dcs.cnbcd a community in ~~~ h ccn mislcd by <me of his sourccs whtl
cnc:mumal homosexual cupul t_c males tcnd to lose thcir cnthusiasnl for
ha veto bL· sh<~.mL·d into it)· f: a~Jon aftcr thcy p;ct marricd and who thcrt:forf
s.uch ntt·s afford thcJr par~i ~-r rot~l cxcluding any dcm~nt of sexual dcsir~·.
andh
c:xntt:mcrlt
_ · as more th
cipants a considc . bl d . 1 . -tlr~·
ra l' cgrn- uf crotJC p C· 1 ~
ct non:ntn( to den y noticisnan onc anthropologist has notcd. ~~ ·•¡r ¡S J~
pcrhótps ti u: W()riJ\ lc;¡Jm~· a~t~m~ng tribal p<..·oplcs," writes Gilbcrt t {l.:rdt.
unty 011 ntualizcd pacdcrasty, "jbyl rcdtl''
. rhcir eroticism to customs and ~itcs, as it is cthnoccntric to 'rcad' .
10 g . ·r ations whcrc nonc cxtsts n.ll'. crotl-
cism mto st u ' . . .
In thc light ofHerdt .' warmng we can bcgm ro discern in Patzcr's misa -
thc 11·
pro Prl·arcd ethnograph1es
. . and m1sapphed mcthodologies
. ncamcnts Pof
a more sinister mterpretauve strategy. The ntual hypothesis ofGrcek paedcr-
asry conccals, 1 thmk, a ~otent1al (though unacknowledged) polirical
agenda-and that, 1 am a~ra1d, may be part of its contemporary appcal. Ir
cnables rhe a~c!C~t h1stonan ro exonerare .rhe ~reeks from the chargc of
acrually expenencmg any homoerotlC longmgs; 1t allows classicists ro nor-
malize Greek desire and ro recuperare ir for the cause of exclusive hercrosexu-
aliry. For by purifying paederasty of sexual desire and interpreting ir nor as
an expression of personal preference but rather as a form of social ritual (rhus
rclegating ir ro the category of activities ser apart from normal daily lifc and
only performed under specially sanctioned circumstances), Patzcr in effccr
maintains heterosexual activity as the ordinary locus of eroticism-cvcn for
rhc Greeks, des pite their various sexual peculiarities-and rhercby preserves
ir as the privileged and normative mode of human sexualiry."
h should not in any case ha ve been neccssary for Patzer ro go so far afield
in search of cultural analogues ro thc ancient Greeks. Sexual convenrions
alicn to "our modern Western culture," and more closcly approximating ro
rhosc of the classical Athcnians can still be found in abundante in scctors of
ourown socictics·'UI as wcll as in ~he scx-segregatcd socictics ofthc Mcditc:rra-
ncan basin. More rhan fifty years ago A. E. Housman observcd rhar what
seemcd to baffle his learned colleagues in Germany about thc pacdcrasnc
cthos inscribcd in thc obsccnc wit of ccrtain Roman cpigrams would be
immcdiatcly pcrspicuous to any modcrn inhabirant of Sicily or Naplcs:"
Contcmporary Mcditcrrancan sexual practiccs continuc to atford us 3 prom-
ising avcnuc of inquiry into thc convcntions of dassical Athcnian pacdc..·_usry;
lct 1 . . .:.
.us cxp ore tt, at leas t. befo re wc go whormg altc..~r srrangc . .
cultures m rhc..·
h.
futdc hopc of transccnding our historical situarion and so cscapmg tro~l r .'
sup d · M conrcnnon 1s
pose ly crippling constraints of our cthnon~nrnsm. Y . h.
nor th h « . · ·iuhts 1nto t ' prc-
at t e largcr cthnographic record ouL·rs us 110 ms 1:' h · .· hrs
nl~dcrn cultures ofthe Wcst (quite thc rcvcrse), ... ' mcrdy rha~ suc ~~~~~~ l)f
as lt d . « . h ~ . 'CVicL' ot sonu.: s
. ll ~es Oucr us should not be pn·ssed meo t c.: se.: . . • b ·tWL'Cil rh.:
~o L'ctivc disavowal or u sed to interpuse a false dini~..·al dJst.II~Lc.:_ ~. ~ .1 way
llttcrprl·tcr and thl" objccts of n1ltural interprctarion. lfthL'Cl' .1 ~1 -~~'-·"oriL'S,
15
to free f ·urrcnr s1..·xua la ~
it )" oursc 1Ves from th~..· conceptual ryranny 0 c. · •. t-.v mc..·JnS
of •c..·s not in an attL·mpt simply ro do .. way with rh_osL' l"Jtt.·g~r~;~~tJI;l~ rhc..·rn
h. a llll'thodological sleil,.ht uf hand but in an ctlor_r [l~ uml r ' ~- l'XJl·t.
C.:ttt..•ra·J· . ro •.• ranon!li-or, l .
as inst s .l,'~tont..·all.y ~.·onditioned. ,·ultural n·pn:sc.:nf; shion bur Jlso mhJbrr.
M: ·h anc..cs of a.n ldt.•ology~• wluch Wl' not only a h· d ·1 •,ul~ b.:gun ro
p0 1·c.: t.•l Foucaulr, whosc work Patzc..·r wholly nt.•gk•:~s, a 3 r~ph. apJ"-'.In"''.i.
lnt Us in thc right direction six Vt.~ars bt·fort.· l,arzc..•r s nwno~r
ll "ha y unlike rhc metaphysicians,
The study ~fhistory makcs ~;~ort~rs~ul but man~ mor~al ones.:•
ro possess m oneselfnot an -Foucault. quotmg Nietzsche 2

, . ofSexuality, originally projectcd as a six-volurn,

Michcl Foucault s Hostory h t'cal introduction, a vol u me on classi
·rsofatcorel ca
work, now conSIS d Romc during the Roman cmpirc an'
Grccce, a vo.lume on Grcece an A fourth vol u me on ear y
1 Ch nst~anity
. . ' "
an1
assortcd pubhshcd fragbments~mised but has yct to appear. This unfinishcd
monas .
ricism has long cen pr
h' h .
· f 1
1 50 much about thc hrstory o sexua theories and
masterprece, w IC 15 no .. h d . h
. . . bo the shifting condltlons t at etcrmmc t e naturcof
practJccs as 1t 15 a u1 . b .
one's rclation ro oneself as a sexual bemg, may tu~n o~t to e, cv.cn mits
1 ted form rhe most importan! contnbunon to the hiStoryol
current y trunca • . . d f . ,
Wc:srcrn morality since thc pubhcanon, a hundre ycars ago, o Nietzsche¡
On thr Gflltalogy of Morals.
Foucault himself invites the comparison to Nietzsche when he describll.
in rhe prefacc ro the second volume (on classical Greece), 0 the motive fm
bis unforescen and, as it happened, costly decision to interrupt work on the
original six-volume project announced in Volumc Onc and to extend iu
scopc backwards in time to include Graeco-Roman antiquity: in order ro
analyze the formation and devclopment of the modem experience caUed
"sexuality," he explains, ir was necessary first of all to discover the prove·
nance of the onc theme common to the otherwise discontinuous expcriences
of"sexuality" and "camality" (its Christian predecessor)-it was necessar!·
that 15 • to trace the " 'genealogy' " of desirc and of man as a desiring subje~
(p. 11). Desire, as it figures in contemporary experience, is not a natu<>
fven, Foucault reahzed, but a prominent element-though featurcd '" dll·
erent ways-ofboth traditional Christian and modcrn "scientific" discourl<·
research mto the origins 0 f" ¡· , · todo
r, d · h sexua ny thcrefore rcquires the histonan .
or eme w at Nietzsche had done for "go d" d " ·¡ " lf Nietzsche'
genealogicalinqu' ~ o an cvt . V 1 '"'
Two (with wh· hllryholtlen comes to mind in the coursc of rcading oduoO
IC s a beconce d' h . · y) 11
so not becaus F . . rne m t e rcmamdcr of th1s cssa • l~"
e oucau1t IS d~tectl . d b d d 1 ·nrerprt
tions--unlike A h Y m e te to it for indivi ua ' . 0¡
d' cussi~
Homeric valuc:s rt. ur M . · H· Adk'ms, •or
W '
.
N Ietzsche'sdistin ID
. b
<ni and Res 0 'b'/' ..
example, whosc 15
P " " 11/y draws heavily, 1 SI
·r ·¡cnt1Y· b•"'
lanes. ction etween th k' d f . . th< vo<' '
of good/bad and 00 . e ID so valuation implic1t m . siY ,,,
debbc:rately elabo · g d/evd-but because Foucault is consciouh ,Jll1
Nietzsche hclped ran~g the "critica!" tradition in modern philosoP y •"''
th. . to .ound " Ch . on8 o
.. lllg~, .•s thc practicc of · . aractcnstic of that tradition, am ell"'v~
. •u•PIC•on" (to borrow Pa t:eating morality as an objcct of h<'~u''~l'
ID other Words, conceive u Ricoeur's term): both Nietzsche and ,.,ct'r
'""'• whosc content e n;:••hty notas a set offormal and cxplici~ pbu' '''
an more or less accurately summarize
cultural discourse who~e modes of signification revealrhe condilions under
hich values are constltuted as such.
w Foucault's analysis, like Nietzsche's, is historical rather tha , .
. . n •UnCIIonal
intuitive rath~r than systema.nc, selecnve r~ther than exhausrive. Ir is no;
designed ro d1~place convenCional scho~arsh1p. Despite rhe impression that
one might rece1ve from the show of termorJal hoslility wirh which his work
has been greeted by ~emb~rs of the mrerested professions, .. foucault is not
rrying to beat classJCal phdolog1sts or ancient philosophers at their own
games, nor does he propase to make historical exegesis irrelevant; rather
he is trying to do something that traditio~al scholars do not do-somerhin~
rhat helps ro arrange and place the ms1ghts culled from philology in a
new and different light. His success, like Nietzsche's, reminds us that an
interpreter's scholarship need not be above reproach in order to be adequate
to the brilliant portrayal of a historical phenomenon. Dante, after all. man-
aged to seize u pon a set of meanings essential to the Odyssry without ever
having read it. And Nietzsche's The Birth ofTragedy conlinues, deservedly,
to reach a wide and varied audience, most of whose members have nev<r
heard of Ulrich von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff-or, if they ha ve heard of
him, know him not as Europe's supreme authority in the field of classical
philology but only as that curious fellow who hounded Nietzsche our of the
academic profession for having published his famous book."
Foucault's classical scholarship, to be sure, is nothing like so good as
Nietzsche's, but bis account of the sexual morality of fifrh- and fourth-
century B. C. Greece rurns out to be in substantial accord with the resulos
of the best recent work on the copie. Specialists have complained, not
unreasonably, about foucault's slapdash use of ancient sources and abour
his seemingly uncritical willingness to assemble a porrrait of Greek mor~
from the scattered restimony ofhighly unrepresentative authors. Foucaulr 5
reliance on philosophical and medica! rexts, in preference ro the resamony
of the Attic orators, comic poets. and vase-painrers who fumished K . .!;
Do ~er Wlt. h VJrtually
. . sourccs o f.m•orma~on
all h1s r . Grua Po'f'ular MMMI"f
. 10
. .
(wh~eh, however Foucault does not omit ro ate), his reunve neg
aurhors' social c~ntext or purpose in wriring, and his greater
10 what people say than ro whar they do are all causes for JUS .

foucault himself seems unsure ac times wltost morality,

Jea ofhis

br ~
==
~r_:. · 115
desen·b·mg. * The genius of his unprofesSlona . Jasucal~~<>MI
. 1approaeh • however. Gree«'
receptiveness to the general features of moral discoui'K 10 e '

*F , . . • plalnrd uqtart bv has llllftdC •

.. h _ouc.auh 1 concrntration on ..SC1rrUI6c trxu can br rx show hu• .,.-1 ~~
1
11 .'"hll,~ory oftnnh" (p. 12) and by hil cort'C'Spondinl con«f11~ ofdw v . - . ,._..
.. l:onstltuted as a morally probkmaac doma~ by rhe C'dUC~ csp«<lll)' • ~ ...
r:;r:;:•·"
11 Allthr:- samc, such a nq;lect of pr'IU'U IS • JU~ ............. " 10 aw« ...,._
ph r: Flynn, 532, to suapcoct h1m uf rcvcrtlllll from NitUklwan ·
fttomenoloRv
M 1 Onc Hundrcd Vl·ars of Homosl·xuality

. 1 arriculate a sorr ofmoral granunar common to Pop 1

1t cnablcs Foucau 1 ro . . alt'ke and thereby to attack familia u1'
d ~r .·t prcscnpnon r Proh.
scntiment an c.: tr~s ci h erspcctive. To his crcdit, Foucault ¡5 ali
lcms from a gcnutncly r~s. p thc irreducible particularitics of his v v~ 10
thc dan~crs 0
f homogcmzmg anou1
• . ·l cohcrent system: he frccly concedes that his
sources mto al_dcn:pdnv~ryy schematic ... a mere "sketch" of "ccrtain gcnPor.
uait ¡5 "cava ter an ve.: cr~
rraits" (pp ·. JOS, 277).• w"aknesscs it ts . a most tmprcss1vc
. . ac h.tcvcmcnt J
Uut dcspltl' a11 t11csc.: .. •. . anu
'csst·onal classicists nnght wdl cnvy (or bcgrudgc, as thc "'
onc t hat Pro " · ,, 'ycars which clapscd bctwccn t h e pu bl.tcauon · ofVolum '
may bc.) Thcc1g1 .
Onc and Two wcrc cvidcndy put t~ good u~c. Handtcappcd ~r~m thc OU!Stl
ti

by what he acknowledgcs to be an trrcmcdtablc lack of rcq~tsttc fa~iliarm

with classical Grcck rexts-though no~, apparcntly, 4 ,?Yan msuff1C1cm (for
bis purposcs. at Icast) grasp_ of thc clas~tcallanguages ~Foucau~t subm_iuN
himsdf to rhc rigors ofbas1c rcscarch m the ficld of anctcnt soctal rclanom
undcr thc tutclagc of Paul Veync, and he scems to ha ve emerged from thl!
scholarly apprcnticcship chastcned by thc cxpcricncc. E ven his rcspcct for
historical and philological mcthod appcars to ha ve grown o ver thc intcml
Thc diffcrcncc in thc intcllectual clima te ofVolumes Onc and Two is com·
spondingly palpable. Volumc Onc, for all its admittcdly bright ideas.•·
dogmatic, tcdiously rcpetitious, full of hollow asscrtions, disdainful ofh11·
torical documcntation, and carclcss in its generalizations: it distributcs m·~
a pcriod spanning from thc scvcntcenth to thc twcnticth ccnturics a graduJ!
proccss of changc wcll known to Foucault only in its latcr, mid-ninctccnth·
ccntury manifcstations. Volumc Two, by contrast, is becomingly molk''
in its tone. cautious in its intcrprctations, conserva ti ve in its adhcrcncc li
ancicnt litcrary sourccs, and tcntativc in its conclusions. Foucault he\\·
closc1y to _t~c lincs of intcrprctation laid clown by somc of thc soundcst lP~
most tradmon.al British and American classicists, such as K. J. DovcrJih·
Hdcn N~rth, and somcthing of thcir scrupulousness appears to ha ve rub~¡\
off on hlm. Most touchingly of all, pcrhaps he scems to ha ve lcarncd
?ood~cal, in his turn, from thosc scholars on this sidc ofthc A.tlantic(chtL1i
1

m Cahfornia, whcrc Foucault spcnr considerable time bctwccn Volup¡¡·

Onc and ~wo) who had once lcarncd so much from him and who wctlll~·
to .contammat.
h . · . blend of phcnomcnology 'and structur ahsll1
~ hlS.. d.lstmcuvc
StiH, it would bran d ~ f cu 1tural anthropology.
Wlt thcu nauvc b
. nJl,,,L;
his [ .. e a mlstakc to supposc that Foucault simply ah<~. 1 ~·
"thn~wd amlitar "archacological" and "gcncalogical" mcthods in ¡av~, 11
V ;e cscnpuun" (which is not, aftcr all, a historical proccdurcl ,\'
o umc Onc he wrot, .. S ,. f . a ~~~~
natural giv. h" h e, c~ua tty must not be thought o as , Jl11,,,-
which k eni wd IC . powcr tries to hold in check, or as an obscun: a... ,¡t\i'
now e gc tncs gr d ll h ·au t•~.
to a hiMorical constru _ a .ua ~~o uncover. lt is thc na me t at." Jitli(lllt 1
ct (duposuiJI: not a furtivc rcality that 1 ~
 Two Views of Greck Love 1

grasp. but .a great surfacc netwo~k ~n which thc stimulation of bodics, the
intcnsificat1on of pleasures, thc In~ltement to discourse, the formation of
spccial knowled~es, the strengt~emng of co~trols and resistances, are linked
to one a~?thcr, m accordan~e wtth a ~cw mouor strategies ofknowledgc and
power." ~olu~e Two stl~l finds htm unrepentantly concerncd with the
history of dts~urstve formattons, though ~o longer with "scxuality," which
he has persua~tve~y shown to b.e a ~odern production": his purpose remains
that of invest~gatt~g the constltutton of sexual experience-or, as he puts it,
"thc correlatJOn, In a culture, between domains of knowledge, types of
normarivity, and forms of subjectivity" (p. 10). What Foucault calls "experi-
encc" is circumscribed by these three "axes"; 5l it is the last of them that
pertains most particularly to sex, in his opinion.
Why is it, Foucault asks, that sexual behavior and the various activities
and pleasures associatcd with it comprise an object of moral preoccuparion
in our culture? How and in what terms did sex come to be consrituted as a
specifically moral domain? Thc stance of radical innocence implied by those
qucstions is far removed from the merely naive "objectivity" of thc tradi-
cional historian (such as Patzer), with bis studious avoidance of"preconcep-
tions" and "prejudices, '' 54 and it enables Foucault to reconceptualize moraliry
in such a way as to bring it within the purview of an histoire de lo pensée, a
history of thought as thought inhobits experiences and systems oftJCtion;~ (nor ro
be confused with the history of psychic and cultural represenrarions. or
"ideas"), 56 a project whose proper task is ro describe "rhe condirions under
which human beings problematize what rhey are, what they do, and the
world they live in" (p. 16). 57 The convencional approach, which Fouca~lt
considers valid enough but uninformarive for bis purposes, rrears morality
as a sct of values and rules of conduct rhar are prcscribed for individuals and
groups by various agencies of authority in thc socicry. such as thc. Church
or the family, and are either articulated explicitly in formal docr_-:m~-s and
codes ofbehavior orare handed down and enforced by a variery ot mtorm~l
strategics; ir also takes into accounr rhe actual behavior of indivi~uals. rhc•r
relation ro thc dominant valucs and rhc degr« ro which they resJst or obcy
a moral codc of whose contc~t they are more or lcss awarc (pp. 32-JJ).
Virtually all srudcnts of ancicnr morality, 1 think iris fair ro say, baH b«n
guidcd hitherto by a conccption of morality rhat approximatl-s .'0 thC' onc
Foucault outlincs. What is wrong wirh iris that ir places too mu"·h m~l·rp~a­
tivc wcight on rhc wntt"nt of a moral sysrcm and ign?n-s rhc dJS(.'UrsJvc
srrucrurcs that dctt.•rminc that systcm 's c~aracrcris~ic ::~~~a~n":.:nns of irs
e Foucaulr illustratcs tht' dcfcct of studymg ~orabty ..~ .mJ ChrJsrio~n
s:ntcnr by idcntifying four thcmcs atrestcd m bot~ r:~ tOr a ronrinun~
e u.rccs that would st"cm, in and of thcms~lves, .'~ ·rgr,uSt'ofiiiOJM.lg.lmy;
.th•c of sexual austcrity in Wcstcm culture: .t~ar ~t s.:x: p istolllt'C ro o~ppc.'ri
(Undl'lllnation of C'fTcminatc men; and glor1hcanon ot 1'('5.
 h h examined as to their content, may Well
These fou~ 1 emes, w en h sis or tonality in their pagan and Ch '.•~.e¡)
striking dtfferences m emp a . b ( valid hist . 1 . IISIJan
manifestations, and thcrc remam a num cr ~ . onca cnteria fo,
. .
d tstmguts mg . h' thc unt'quc flavor of othcrwJSe tdenttcal pagan and Chrisr,·
·d 1 •n
. d' . ns but traditional methods do not provt e a e ear and simp)
mter te1to , d. . . '
mcans of dcscribing thc concept~al or tscurstve g::!' separatmg, say, Gretl
from Victorian prohibitions agamst masturbauon .. E~en worse, ~uch the.
m atic continuities might seem to suggest that sexuahty ts a cultural mvariant
and that historical variations in its expresston merely refle.ct the differenti¡J
impact on scxuality ofthe various mechamsms employed 1~ dtfferent soci~
ties 10 rcprcss ir;"' butthat, as Foucault remarks, would be m effect to plac,
desire and the dcsiring subject outside the field of human history (p. 10).
Foucault devores a separa te chapter of Vol u me Two to the classical Grttk
expression of cach of thcsc four themes: "diaetetics," or the regimen b1
which one controls the economy of one's own body and physical style oi
life; "economics," or thc husband's relation to his wife and household:
"erotics," ora man's relation to boys and other objects of longing; and th•
will to truth, or the philosophical renunciation of sexual pleasurc. Foucauh
readily admits that the persistence of these themes raises complex questions
about continuity and discontinuity in the evolution of Western morality.
but he aspires to penetrare beyond such thematic correspondenccs by means
of an ;mphasis on "ethics" rather than "morals." following, apparendy.
He~.el s dtsnnctton between Moralitiit and Sittlichkeit, Foucault regards "eth·
tes, m pomted contrast lo "morals," not as a system of prescriptive cod~
and a pattem of behavioral response but as a relation that one establishcs
W1lh oneselfin the act of constituting oneself as a moral subject (this relation.
of
. course, ts not necess an·1 Ya self.-consctous . one, nor does tt . tmp
· 1Y 1he mot~l
mdependence
.. . of an m· d'lVt'dua 1•rom
e .
hJS or her society). In order ro rc•U e te th<
repreSSJve
. . 1, hypothests · " an d ro uncover the discontinuities between d'tli 1 e
rent
hlstonca 10rms of 1 . enc-
alogy of "ethics"· ts~xua expenence •. Fouca~lt sets out ro construct a gfth<
sub;ect as a b' · hts compnses, as 11 pertams ro sex, the genealogY 0 h.,,1
'
proble F ~ectofeth'tea1act10ns
•• su · and the genealogy of destre . as an er 1 ¡
rules, ::;; thcoucauhlt acknowledgcs that morality indudes both sysrem•i:l
(pratiqurs de so~ one andh' and form s o f " su b'~ecttvatton· · " an d seJf.- fash•0°¡,1·1
1 5
Greece featurc: 1'h0 "1 1 e other • but he finds that the morality of e as~~~~~
.
morahty (conr· ed.atter more th an t e 10rmer; hts htstory o anct se 0111
h e . . f ·cnt
codes and system mue fm Volu me Th ree), then, concentrares nett · her on"'
forn''
1
to them but anal s 0 '~es nor on human behavior that violares or conbCin''
constitute thcm ylzes t e prevalent modc or modcs in which huD1 30 ,·of1S·
. se ves as ethi 1 b' . n act
and 11 catalogo h ca su ~ects, as thc subjccts of thetr oW \1/h''
Foucault has tr~d 1 e tcchmques by mcans of which thcy do 50 ' 0 ¡ rh'
self. "'' 1 to wrue, tn short, is a history of .. tcchnologlcs
 Such a genealogy of manas an ethical_ subject must comprchend, accordin
10 Foucault, at leas! four asp~cls of eth1cal self-constiturion: (1) "onrology.~
or determmatlon of thc eth~eal substance, rhe material that is going 10 be
worked over by eth1cs-1.e., what parr or aspect of myselfis concemed wirh
ethical conduct, ;:vhat about "!e
1s taken as an objecr of moral observation
and control? (2) deontology,_ or mode of subjecrion-how do 1 esrablish
m y relation ro moral1mperallves, m what terms do 1 recognize my moral
obligations or define m y adherence to moral values? (3) "ascetics," or erhical
work-what do 1 ha veto doto become moral, what are rhe means by which
1 change myself in order to become an ethical subjecr? (4) "releology," or
ethical goal-how do 1 conce1ve the end lo which being moral will contrib-
ute, what is the kind of being to which 1 aspire when 1 behave in a moral
way? (pp. 33-35)." This way of selling the question allows Foucaulr ro
address the problem of understanding the lransition from pagan ro Christian
varieties of sexual experience not by asking how Christians rook over,
assimilated, or modified classical codes of morality (as historians of ideas
have done) but by asking how one's relation ro oneself asan ethical subjecr
changed with the coming of Christianity (pp. 38-39).'° Foucaulr's method-
ological apparatus has also proved useful ro scholars in historical disciplines
outside of classics"' as well as ro classicists who wish ro exrend Foucaulr's
analysis lo Greek texts omilled, either deliberare! y or inadvertendy (depend-
ing on one's es ti mate of Foucault's competence), from his survey. "".,
Because Foucault's exposition is deliberately schemaric, his rhesis is ~asy
lo summarize. The ethical material on which rhc sexual moraliry ol rhe
classical Greeks was supposed ro operare is whar rhey called aphrodisia;, rheir
mode of submission is chresis (whence rhe ride of Volume Two: L ""'·~'
des plaisirs translates chrtsis aphrodisiOn, "the management of venerea.l acts.
pleasurcs, and desires": an Arisrorelian rag);"' rhe cthical work. ro be~
formed is tnkrateia, "self-mastcry"; and rhe goal JS sophrosynt, a_ 103•
and untranslatablc term mc:ming something like "prudent modera~Jon. or
"capaciry for self-restraint." The tirsr rwo of rhese elements n:quue sorne
•mplification .
.. .
A Phro d1s1a . d f< ms of self....-xpresSJon
refcrs to thosc acnons, contacts, an or rd . lirs
rhar procure rhe individual a ccrtain rypc of pleasure. The ":'~ ·~P ..
sornct h"1ng vcry differcnt from thc modcm un dersrandina . 1!0
ol . scxu ..uv,
hi . rh.•r
a d" 6 r torce w.r n U:li
n~cor 1~g to Foucault, in that it ~OC'~ not re er ro~ mu :,. 5 orhcr rh.an rhc
akes Usclf fclr in aU sorrs of mduecr and dcvaous Y rocessn
perf¡ d ·
ormancc of sexual acrs· rarhcr. ir t.~agnares
rhe more rom:rt"rt" P
h X"U of
of 5 • 1 . ' . . d ·h. irs sphcrc r rec asf"'
se cx~a Clljoymenr: dphrodisrd. mcl~ es wn lfi SC"xual pll"nure. md
sc:ualuy ~har wc rcnd ro disrmguash-sc~ual a:r;¡rcun ofn.-spons•vcm."51i
conua) d~slrt."-and ~r rhcreby retlccrs rhc ~nrmu:~r rh.at produt."('S pkil.i~I'C'.
and ncctmg the dcs1rc that leads ~o. thc ad, th~ . furtht.·nuorc. qltn.lfib
the plcasure that cvokcs (anucaparory) dnm:.
 olity
oll 1 One Hundred y ears of Homoscxu

. brodite • are rneasured by their intensity

literallY "the things of Ap ding and typical Greek concern abo 3111
frequency (whence the corres~n -) as weU as by the direction of Ut a,¡
, oder tion or mcononen.- b. th.;.
agent s rn a . h d fines in every instance a su ~ect and an obj
current. soto speak, wh!C .cie nt Fin.Uy. aphrodisia are never bad in 1 ~
an active anda passtve ":bl:arlc for rwo reasons: first, t~ey represan,
selves but are rnoraUy P both men and beasts; second, the Impulse assoa.
lower pleasure, cobmmon 10 "byperbolic"-it tends greedily, if indulged u
a
red "'ith them ts Y nature
.
. c. · Ji · ·
d .r......uent satisfacnon, IClUSIDg lO trut ltS demands 10
•~
seek more: mrense ao '""
tbe bare Wrc:ments of need (pp. 49-61). , .
These :.:!ervations contribure ro Foucault s ~rst maJor conceptual break.
through. as 1see it: namely, bis ability to speafy ~o clearly the ground o1
the Grc:elts• consisten! assimilarion of sexual deStre t~ the other huiiUD
appetites-these being. canonicaUy, desues for food, dnnk, and sleep-ond
their tendency 10 view them aU as qualitatively interchangeable "necessirics,•
or compulsions, ofbuman narurc:67 (Plato, of course, is the bizarre exceptioa
ro tbis tendency," though Foucault apparendy has failed to notice this).
Foucauh succeeds in rc:capruring something of the Greeks' original outlool
wbm he pba:s the Gm:k debate about how much sex it is good to ha"
iDto tbc brger contrxt of"diaerctics," the technique for achieving a ptopcrl¡
baboced pbysical regimen. lt would be interesting to determine, Foucaulr
rrnwks, aacdy when in the development of Westem culture sex becalllt
mort moraUy problem.atic than eating (pp. 61-62); he seems to think dul
!lell woo out only at the rum of the eighteenth century after a long period
~~veequilibrium during the Middle Ages."' The evidence newly asseJII"
Y úroline Bynum in Ho/y Feast and Holy Fast (1987), howev"·
suggesrs that culrural 1 · ...k
linear afúi evo unon may not have been such a conrin°0 ""'
' as foucault •magines
11 .. • feature of moral lifl · · . dul
llllivmaJ intercliaioos ar e m class•cal Greece, Foucault observes.
IIDipttific. The Greeks e few and far between. They tend also ro be,..~
of whicb the mosc pr had no Decalogue, just sorne basic rules of rbur"'..,
onunrnt wer .
COUnlry: try noc 10 olfend the e. respect the laws and costo 01 s fo lfJJ
u.-

own .nature (pP. 6>.64¡ F gods; and don't violare rhe dictates 0 ~
Ranliag and acure ~ult draws from these observations anraJíl'
radíaJiy underd..- · ... _ · The general requirements of Greek
., any -~·nune uoc ddinit" f
,o....
;ndi""'-
1
doubt JIUtiCUlar IÍtuation; they •on o proper conduct for an b ,.,
.,¡ .'-munauy enforced¡ etb!cave room for a self-imposed (rhod8 ¡,.14
• Gr..~. rnale', moral fr~ le of sexual restrainl within the larsz..,·,
~.lbdr"' rnucb "'Íih the ~ Greek morality, in other words•riP"pi<·
..._.,;,.llloraJit.y 11 therc:!or bielden •• with the voluntarY (•n P Á
• '<culakd 111age e noc • matter of obedience to specif•< P r"
' or chrr,;,, of morallv unrntricted ptcasur<'·
moral value, eilher posmve or negalrv~, attaches to cerlain kinds of caresses
ostures, or modes of copulanon. lnstead the ethic g . '
sexu al P h f¡ . • overnmg the
usage of pleasures takes 1 e orm of a kmd of calculated economy of sexual
-ding: limit yourself to what you really need; wait until the mo 1
sp•.. d k . s oppor-
r:une moment to consume; an ta ~ m~o account your own social, political,
and economic status. ~exual_ morahty rs thus subsumed by the more general
practice of self-regulatron wuh rega_rd to enJoymentthat constituted for free
upper-class Greek males a~ art ofh~mg, a technique for maintaining personal
equilibrium, "an ~esthencs ~f bemg." Sexual morality is not pan of an
al!emptto norll_'ahze populano_n~ but an element in a procedure adopted by
a few people Wtth the arm of hvrng a beaunful and praisewonhy life-not
a pattem of behavior for everybody but a personal choice for a small élite.
Greek morality, Foucault concludes, does notjustify and intemalize interdic-
rions: it stylizes freedom (pp. 103-111).
Here is the point at which Nietzsche naturally comes to mind. In the
Third Essay of On the Genealogy of Morals, Nietzsche sought to distinguish
rhe origins and significance of what he called the asceric ideal from irs
multitude of subsequent adaptive uses, its later incorporation into a system
of purposes. Nietzsche ultimately saw in asceticism not a symptom of
weakness, not an example of the typically Christian tendency ro make a
moral vinue out of material necessity, but the expression of a powerful will.
Currently manifested in the secular priesthood of philological scholarship as
a will to truth (what Foucault, in the tille ofVolume One, calb a •olontidt
so•oir), the will expressed by asceticism was, according to Nietzsche, origi-
nally an instrument of the power-hungry; it derived not from moral scruplc:
or hatred of pleasure but from an instinct of mastery over self and orhers.
Foucault similarly sees the Greek moralists in rerms of a wiU ro powcr. a
srrategy for achieving dominarion of self and others: rhar is rhe key. m tus
Vlew, lo an erhic thar paradoxically combines caregorical perrrusSion and
voluntary suppression. Like Nierzsche, Foucault measures rhc changc m
oudook that accompanied the triumph ofChristianiry by gauging th~ exrentl
of. a 5h"ht
< · · h
m the valuation of activiry and pasSJVIty: 1 e pa
radigm nonerhe-
ol mora
VI"uc is no longer represcntcd by aman in a posir1on ofpowcr ~ho __.n
lcss rak ( 11 ) who " ourw..,..y
hel es no advantage of it but by a woman usua Y. her chasrirvl
a pless but able ro defend hcr moral inrcgnry (speohcally1 ideal of ,..Ji~
gamsr the onslaughr of thc wicked and powcrful: rhc classJCa 1 · ph..,Cal
'<stramr has yiclded ro an ideal of purity, based 00 a mode ol .......
llllc~r · " FinallY on< auy
~ lty U.ther than on one of self-rcgulanon. . ·~ whosc'
: : •n Founulr's own analys11 an instan« of a discunJYC' ot:lhc ...u
1 K•nn nKs Nietzsche lirsr glimpsed and heralded: th<
1 ten:;•;v --
," l<uth lo takc itJ<Ij as an obj<ct of genealogJCal scrunny ...;...-:.... mon1
of

conscqucnr hcitthtcnintz. of sclf-cunsciousnns. '" put C'f

 70 1 One Hundred Years of Homosexuality

. · d b Ued)-out of existence. As Foucaulr has Wr

sc1ence (as 1t use to e ca h. . h h. ltteo
clsewhere, with referencc to. Ni;~zsche, trut ts an error WJt a Istory frofll
which we are barely emergmg. r . 1 .
Unlike Patzer' then, Foucault treats sexual mora Jty m e a.s~Jcal Greece not
as a problem ro be solved, utterly remate from us and requmng unftinching
methodological intrepidity on the part of those who would rack!~ u. Rarher,
Foucault's study of the construction of sexual expenence ~.~~2 anctent Greecc
is designed ro be what he calls a "history of the pre~~~t, a genealogical
inquiry into the provenance of present-day "sexuahty. . ~s su~h. Foucault's
project is framed by contemporary conce~ns and qucstton~; lt. re~ects his
own relation (both conscious and unconscJOus) to current mstituttons and
practices. Written from the perspective of particular modern interests-
rather than from a "neutral" or "objeccive" posítion which, by situating
itself"outside" ofrhose interests (supposedly). conccals the extent ofits own
complicity in them-Foucault's genealogical explorations are undertakeo

f
with the avowed purpose of making a difference in the here-and-now; they
are intended to affect the way we think of ourselves and to hcighten our
awareness of the various ways in which wc are implicated in thosc régimcs
of power and knowledge within and against which we constitute ourselvcs. 11
Genealogy enables us to glimpse contingency wherc befo re we had scen only
- necessity; it thereby allows us to suspend, howcver briefty, the categories of
thou~ht and action within which we habitually conduct our lives. Foucault's
~lasstcal scholarship, then, is dcsigncd to liberate us in thc vcry limitcd bul
lmportant sense of providing us with a kind of mental lcverage against
:spects 0 ~ our world whích we might wish to experience diffcrcntly-or. 31
east, w.htch we might enjoy being able to imagine otherwise.
co~espuc ~r~r, the Greeks are hardly alien or lost to us. Thcy are, on thr
bec rary, a a out us-not because we are (allegcdly) thcir inheritors. not
fain:~ysed=~e::byl cbxpect thol find vestigcs of them buried within oursd~cs.
e encat ayer fh· · (¡ non.
anddisplaccmcnt. Rather, the 50 IStoncal encru~tation, trans orma sen!
onc of thc cedes in h' h Greeks are all about us msofar as they rcpre
"truths" about the; ICk wc transact our own cultural business: wc use ou:
our own experienc re~ s lto ~xplain oursclvcs to ourselvcs and ro cons.msc
es, lnc udmg ou 1 fi bcmg 3
repressed prescncc insidc us, or r .scxua expericnccs. Far ro m cllPY
an unexplicit margin f . a utoptan ahcrnativc to us, thc Greeks oc e
dosel y bound up wit~ammg our own sclf-undcrstanding; as su eh, thcY ar s
situated in history and o~r sclf-def~nitions, with our scnses of oursclv~
red fi cu turc as "d d d ¡· ·on
;o
o e me our relation to thc Gr~cks . cscen e from Grcek civi ¡zaU en~ inCO
wur cuhur~l, political, and person ts thcrc~ore to inject a ne~ de~ a ncW
"j ay of scctng ourselvcs and . al consc1ousness; it ¡5 to d1scov~r- ot.lr
• own skins.
Thc rcasons for rcading Patz
, posstbly, to crea te ncw ways of inhablttrtS
hol:arh
cr are, ostcnsibly, [he traditíonal se
 d' the scarch for "truth"), which tcnd to misconstrue the naturc
0 nes(inclu . tng thc ancicnt sourccs and to disavow thc "intcrcsted" quality
of our relanon tont with thcm. The reasons for reading Foucault, by cantrast,
of our engaghememe as thc rcasons for rcading Nietzsche: not anly does he
h t esa
are rnuc to understand considerably better what wc already know, but he
enablc us warc of the enigma we prcscnt to oursclvcs-and he hclps
rna kes us more h a to pursue the elustve
· proJCCt
· o fd'IScovermg,
· and ehangmg,·
us figure out ow
who we are.
PART 11
4
Heroes and their Pals

"1 wish we were labelled," remarks Rickie Elliot, the hero of E. M.

Forster's The Longest ]ourney (1907), to his best friend at Cambridge; thc
novelist adds,

He wished that all the confidence and mutual knowlcdge that is bom in such a
place as Cambridge could be organized. (F)or manis so made rhat he canno1
rcmember long without a symbol; he wished thcrc was a society, a kind of
friendship office, where the marriage of truc minds could be regisrcred. 1

Readers today-who are, if anything, rather too weU informed about the
dreary details ofForster's personallife'-may look with a certain knowing-
ness on Rickie's endearingly naive and somewhat pathetic pipe-dream of a
registry office for friendships. Rickie's longing to formalize and institutional-
ize bis relations with his maJe friends, we ligbtly assume, simply expresses
a displaced longing on tbe part of bis creator for public recognition and
validation of male homosexual pair-bonding.-' But tbere is another dimen-
Sion to Rickie's fantasy that migbt be easier to grasp if we could mana~ ro
resist both the complacentjoys ofbiograpbical criticism and the more mSJdi-
ous temptation to sexualize tbe erorics of maJe friendship. 1 subnut that
Forster has accurately understood wbat he calls, in tbe same passage. ''the
irony of friendship "-its paradoxical combinarion of social importan~ and
social marginality, its indeterminate status among the various f~rms ot sOCial
relations. Friendship is the anomtdous rdation: ir exists oursadc th~ m_o-:-e
thorougbly codified social networks formed by kinship and sexual ncs; ~ 1 15
"interstitial in thc social structure'' ofmost Westem culrures!l~ is thC'rdO~
rnorc frcl.'-ftoating, more in need of''labeling" (as forstcr pun u}-morc m
nccd, tbat is, of social and ideological detinition. . f"d lo~inl or
d ~omer's llidd reprcscnts an instance of prec1sdy th•s s~rt olo• ~ 1rclaiJOII
1

. chnitional activity· it cnabJcs us to gJimpsc a certain sp«IC"S sOCI.I \i'ben:

an tb ' . ¡· rv :onstrucoon.
1 < very act of being labeled, of undergomg uora ' ' hot ~·•iu
pur it that wav. however. mv dcscription mo~y sound somcw r-""-
 d . h d 1 not say for example, that the Iliad beautifi 11
or ten enthlo'!,s: wd Yh. obetween A~hilles and Patroclus or, perhaps thu )
portrays t e .nen s 1p . l"k ' at¡t
reflects something of what friendshlp was ' e among members of thc
warrior class during the Dark Age of Greece? M y reas~n for avoiding <>eh
of those two more convcntional interpretai!VC strateg¡cs-:-the appreciativc
and thc documentary' rcspectively-ls not that 1 cons¡der them invalid
(although 1 confess 10 having doubts abou_t both of them) but, rather, that
1 am intercsted in a dimension of the _ll•ad that hes ,bcyond thelr reach:
namcly, the Iliad's "symbolic" dimens10n (m ~orstcr s sense), 1ts role in
producing and purveying the means of collecnve self-understandmg that
constitutc social "la beis." 1 believe thlS d1mens!on of the filad emerges most
clcarly when Achilles and Patroclus are compared to similar pairs of heroic
warriors in two other texts from roughly the same penod: the Assyrian
Gilgamesh Epic and the Books of Samuel in the Old Testament. *
The Gilgamesh Epie and thc Books of Samuel offer one spccial advantage
for comparativc purposcs: they both contain clear and, atleast in the former
case, historically determinare (i.e., not merely hypothetical) strata.' Storie~
about Gilgamesh and Enkidu are told in a number of early, Sumerian myths;'
the Epic itsclf exists in a fragmentary Old Babylonian version, composcd
perhaps notlong after 2000 B. C. and written down around 1600 B. C., in
various intermediare versions, and in a fuller, more elaborate, though still
incomplete, Standard Babylonian version (alternately called the Assyrian or
the Late vcrsion), that seems to have been composed towards the end ofthe
second mlllcnnium, was currcnt in the first, and survives largely on seventh-
century tablets from Nineveh.' Thc Books ofSamuel (originally one book
'" Hebrew) are generally thought to represen! an amalgamation of rwo
sdourdccs, an Early and a Late Source (as thcy are aptly called) the former
ate to thc rc1gn ofS 0 1 · h . ' he
. d omon m 1 e m1d-tenth century and the latter to 1
penlo spafnhning the ycm 751)...{,50 B. C. (the agc of Homer) • Morcovcr.
anaY"'
hist ·
o r e differ t · ·
en vemons of thc Gilgamesh lcgend and of the Davr 1
·d·c
ones rcvca1s that tn ca h €'_ • ual
role in th . e case mcndship did not always play a ccn
e narratlvc that it d'd 1 th<
meaning or th 1 ' 1 not a ways posscss thc importancc . ..
, e va ues attachcd t0 . . h fi ran''l
marerial suggcsts th .bT n m t e mal version. The compa h p
bcrwccn Achill de ppos" llty, rhcn, that wc may rcgard thc fricnds 1.
fi es ílh atroclus d . d . soJllL
1xed, unchanging d . eplcte m our tcxt of thc !liad not as . 1
ancfact, thc prod , tan f •mm~vablc fcaturc of thc epic but as a hisrortO,

-----
thc •"h
uc o a particular turn of thought at a particular junctUfl

-~~~ bc-I~UII~cdJ.Jtcly .app<&rcm th.n the

"frll.,~~h• "lu,tonc<~l <~nd cultunl cunf,
. . . ~~"'''~
pnmt uf m y cornpui!Oon 1!0 nol, 111 thl· tars~.u ,"v,:' ¡JI
1 .11111 IH"il~n) but • ~~oomewh.at •nnrc lousc~U~.JIJ~m
kuuwn tu thc Gn·cks as ~lli/111 ( ~~. "'·h••'
loonuloKJul ~~ fur hcun~~otJc purpo~es uni chn_cd_mudcrn t·onn·pt c.allcd "fnt•ndshlp lll'to~
te~o~ory (wlnch, uf course, it;s~~t\lf 11 Wt•rt· a vahd .1ond umvcrs.ally ,¡pp
. h artistic elaboration of the tradirional material W .
'" 1 e . . . h 1 f h . . e are accordmgl
. d 10 mqmre mto 1 e va ence o 1 e spec1fic rerms in wh· h h . Y
enllt1e d 1c t ar fr~end-
ship is consrrucre . .
Comparison of the_ three narr_atlves reveals a common ser of structures
which serv~ ro orgamze the baSic elements thar constirute each friendshi
while allowmg plenty of sc~pe for themat1c vanation among the individu~
works. First, all three narratlve tradmons feature a close friendship between
rwo, and no more than _rwo, persons. Th~se two persons are always male;
rhey form not only a pau, but a relauvely ISolated pair: the rwo ofthem are
never joined by a third; there are no rivals, no other couples,'' and no
relations with women that might prove to be of a "distracting" nature. 1" The
relationship, moreover, whatever its sentimental qualiries, always has an
ourward focus, a purpose beyond itself in action, in the accomplishment of
glorious deeds or the achievement of political ends. Each of the six friends,
accordingly, is an exceptionally valiant warrior: we are dealing nor with an
instance of sorne neutral or universal sociological category called "friend-
ship," then, but with a specific cultural formation, a type ofheroic friendship
which is better captured by terms like comrades-in-arms, boon companions,
and rhe like. 11
The ideology implicit in this peculiar and distinctive mode of construcring
and representing friendship can be briefty described. Friendship, ir seems, is
something that only males can have, 12 and they can have ir only in couples
(the texts under discussion are, for the most part, uninreresred in exploring
the more general features of"men in groups") ..., The male couple consritutes
a world apart from society at large, and yet it does not merdy embody •
"privare" relation, of the sort that might be transacted appropriately m 3
"heme." On the contrary, friendship helps to srructure--and, posSibly. 10
privatize*-the social space; it takes shape in the world rhat lies beyond rhe
horizon of the domestic sphcre, and it requircs for its expression 3 ~ubru~·
or polirical staging-ground. This rype of friendship cannor gener.~r~ us own
~ais~n d'itre, evidcntly: it depends for its mcaning on the meaningtulnc.-ss ot
soctal acrion. t . .
.
Th h
e t rcc hcroic friendships befare us also ex • 1t 3 co
h.b. mmon ·m,..,..,pob-
hes " Th consasnng 1n .an
· ey are based alikc on a structural asymmetry · . l· slup
n:

-
unequal distribution of preccdcncc among thc membt.~rs ot !he 30~~ h.as
and a diffcrcntial tn·armcnt of rhem in thc narrativc: on(' ot rhe ti1C'I

' T-:h-;,-------- · "udus re.nutJ,. :\dulks. ''*('

t'
sh;~IJ 1101 1 dearc.·~t tn th..· ...,!k" of rhe ll~.ul: as thr ghost _01 ~~~r werc' ,~Ji\"('. h,,uduntc pblh
(:!.l7 7.... 7K 1 a?_an lrom our rlear romp.1n1011S. as wc Jul whc
t ). U. Sinos, 56, 60-hl. ~· ¡Jiffll). 1111.
Galg ih¡li •s clc-arelit in the case of thr (;ilt~amesh Eph."" , ..-conhntc 1"1 1; Hu"·.aw.l whta ht
lindsa~l'1~ cun~ives thr idea of going on an cxprdiuoo .lt'~insf: thc- ntOIU
n•udu wn-pina fron1 borrdom .and from .a ~ ul ~-
 ther· the latter is subordinated-pers
t importance t h an t h e 0 • . 1 onaUy
grca cr . 11 10 the formcr. Th1s e ement can be v . ·
socially, and narratolog•ca y- f h G'l mesh E . [¡ •nabiy
matcrialized: in the Sumcnan sourccs o t ~ ' ga p•c, or exampte,
Enkidu had originally figured as GJigamesh s servant (though even there he
. . ll d 'iend)·"the final Tablct ofthe Ep1c, wh1ch con.
IS occasJOna y tcrme a lf ' . d . '1 1 '"11
of a fra mentary translation of a SumerJan legen ' s•m• ar y refcrs to Enkidu
. g
as G t1games s scrv
h' ant (XII •
54) ·
The Old Baby
.
loman redactor
.
transformed
that tradition in the interests ofhis own themanc preoccupanons by ostensi-
bly cqualizing the relationship: now, Enk1du JS created,~s a match for Gii-
gamesh (11, v, 27; cf. I, ii, 31-32 [Assynan vers10n)), 1s called an equal
(masil. kima),'" and has complementary features (he IS shorter than Gilgamesh
but "stronger ofbone" 17 : 11, v, 15-17). But foral! that, the traditional design
of the material is hardly lost from view: it continues to be reflected, even in
the late version of the Epic, by the relative apportionment of precedencr,
power. and narrative prominence among the two friends. Gilgamesh still
has greater strength than Enkidu (1, v, 18),'" is older (VIII, ii, 8-9; X, i, 53-
54). and is the one whom the goddess Ishtar desires as a lover (Tablet VI);
he remains the protagonist of thc story, whereas Enkidu becomes his trusty
companion, guide, and protector-almos! a mascot, an expensive pet (lll,
i, 2-12; III, vi, 8-11; III, vi, 21-28 [Old Babylonian version); cf. VIII, ii, 4-
6). The LateSource ofSamuel achieves an interesting variation on this theme
by dJfferenually distributing secular and sacred preeminence: in the secular
ord<r, Jonathan is David's superior, being the king's son and successor,
whereas Dav•d 15 an entirely obscure person (an outsider, like Enkidu); in th<
sacred order, however, David isJonathan's superior, being God's anointed,
whereas
. . Jonathan is the scJon · o f a doomed royal house. Homer ach1eves' .
. h' a mg atroc1us, who-being the subordina te member 0 f
snnilar effect by m k' p
rhe re laIIODS lp-i h · 11 709·
cf. 16.140-42, 242~5 ysJCa Y weaker thanAchilles (e.g., 11.787, 16. ~
47, 9. 1~21 1 62()... ) and soc•ally subserv1ent to him (11. 786; cf. t.337
hence theone,wh 21 ·b11. 648-54), the older and wiser of the rwo andd,
• oseJo itist0 h . . rae
(1 l. 787-89) In all h . Watc over and mstruct hJS unruly com h
· treetradmon h h. yt'
structure to make -1 s, t en, t ere ts sorne effort to var .
• ' more compl f wer .n
the rclationship betw h , . ex, or lo redress the balance o po y
pemsts. · Heroic friend eenh.1 e mends·• nonet h e1ess, a fundamental asym m<lf . 1
They exhibir a pattern s(/P': 1•hen, are not merely dyadic but hierarch•",;
f .
0 an car11cr era from th
••m• lar to A · . . . d1cn<
menean radto and televtston aLI f he
hero with his side-kick ~c~mple of the Lonc Ranger and Tonto) o t
Finally, in allthree st~ri;: t~llhful retainer, his pal." .ttit<
verSJon of Tablet VIl i .. e Weaker orless favorcd friend dics. (/\ ¡-h -
arbitrarily • it would ~pp-:'· m;kes it plain that Enkidu is singlcd odut d>
he p ~ car-,or ·h f e<
. er ormed joindr with G .1 pums mcnt as a consequence 0 tb'
cxpcnd;¡ble fricnd, the on. ''¡;mesh.) Thc subordinare friend is thU' ·poi
e w ose death paves the way for thc pfiO''
 . d' further adventures. Death is thc climax of the friend h'
(11en s e most extreme expresstons · o f ten derness on the s tp, fthe occa-
·on of th fi . part o the t
••. d and it weds them orever (m the mcmory of the survt· wo
fr~en s, . h h . . vor, at 1easr).
it 1s not too mue to say t at death 1s to fnendship wh t .
Indeed' 20 a marnage
is to romance. ..
So much for. structural
.
affimttes among the three friendships· th
'd h . . ey are
f!iciently strtkmg to prov1 e a t emattc and narratological context (
su . ) "' fi h . . 21 not
. t a histoncal onc 10r urt er mterpretatJOn. Two questions rem .
~ . hd ~
First, what is the meanmg attac e to friendship in each of these three
rraditions? Second, what are the terms in which friendship is constructed? 1
shall attempt to answer both of those questions through a reading of each
of rhe three narra ti ves, taking them up in turn. Beca use m y interpretarion
of rhe !liad is in tended to be contextual-to be shaped, that is, by reference
ro rhe comparative material-1 shall treat the two non-Hellenic traditions
first.
The Gilgamesh Epie is ultimately an argument for the adequacy of mortal
life-and, especially, of civilized life-as the only sort of life truly livable
forman. 22 Gilgamesh, a figure larger than life, two thirds god and only one
rhird man (1, ii, 1), chafes against the limits of mortality. 23 He excels in every
human accomplishment, having built the inimitable walls of Uruk (1, i, 9-
15) and bested all of its inhabitants. 24 E ven so, he is nor satisfied: explaining
ro Enkidu his reasons for wishing to slay the monsrer Huwawa and cut
down the Cedar forest, he says:

"Who, my friend, can scale he[avenJ?

Only the gods (liveJ forever under the sun.
As for mankind, numbered are their days;
Whatever they achieve is but the wind!ls

Should 1 fall, 1 shall have made me a name:

'Gilg3mcsh '-they will say-'against ticrce Huwawa
Has fallen!'
A (name) that endures 1 will makc." forme!" .
(lll, iv, 5-8, 13--15, 25 JOid Habylonian verswni)

Like Ho , •. h r ro win glor)' tor

h' mer s Sarpcdon who urgcd his comrade <ll e h h d bc<n
•tnse)f . "' 'k A hilles w o a
.!'
lllillin or Y•eld it_ toothers (12.326-28). and e e hthit""' ~At.l; cf
1.352 g510 stake hiS hfc on "impenshable fame (kltos ap lf tor mor<allry
lllith ~ 4). Gilgamesh initially is willing to consok ;·~~~ roi< ex.~lrarion.
he, d e P<ospect of an immortal name." In this moo 0 "·h.Jkng< tshrar
n Enk'd h Ccdar Foresr.' . B
•nd kili 1 u conquer Huwawa and fell r e . h rhem. and tm• Y
l'lde ¡ thc Bull of Heaven which she sends to pums E kidu d~. and
n lflurnph through the market of Uruk. iJut thcn n
1!0 1 Onc Hundrcd Y cars of Homosexuality

Gilgamesh's glory apparently ceascs to consolc him; unablc 10

· f through scvcn days an d sevcn mg
grtc · h ts o f mournmg,
· Gilgam assu ag, h;,
to scck immortality instcad and, aftcr further advcnturcs, he fai] (jesh decid~
to obtain it. He cncounters various figures along thc way ~h
Ust barcJy¡
to dissuadc him from his scarch, among thcm an ale-wifc wh atte~~¡p 1
0

(rcminisccnt of thc advice that Thctis offcrs to Achillcs and 5

Ac~~~l
PCCch
offcrs 10 l'riam (24.128-31, 524-26, 601-20]) appcars to rcflcct es latcr
3
ancicnt Ncar Eastcrn wisdom litcraturc. :!ll topos in

"Gilgamcsh, whither rovest thou?

Thc life thou pursucst thou shalt not find.
Whcn thc gods creatcd mankind,
Dcath for mankind thcy set aside,
Lifc in thcir own hands rctaining.
Thou, Gilgamesh, let full be thy belly,
Makc thou mcrry by day and by night.
Of cach da y make thou a feast of rcjoicing,
Day and night dance thou and play!
Lct thy garments be sparkling fresh,

,
Thy hcad be washed; bathe thou in water.
Pay heed ro the little one that holds on to thy hand
Lct a spouse delight in rhy bosom! '
For this is the task of [woman]!"
(X, 1-14 [Oid Babylonian version])"

The pocm closcs (in lines that e h · . . .

ingtotheboatma h h b e ousopenmglmes) withGilgamcshcxhibll-
the majcstic rampn w 0 f as rought him back from his quest for immortalil!
· a certain pridarts od Uruk (XI • 305-09 ; C1.
smg · 16-21), thereby cxpre•
r 1, 1,
Our immortallone an contentment in thc achievcments of civilizcd lifc.
objects; thc life of ~~nghs are not to be satisfied but dcflccted onto attainabk
h e uman comm · fl · · (01
w at wc dcsirc, not th h" . umty urmshes us with a subsnrute
us for its absencc." e t mg uself but somcthing that will hclp ro consok

.P ~ys severa! complemcntary roles in the largcr th~

Enkidu's friendship 1
maric dcsign of th
e ep•c. hHIS promonon
fo r G"l gamcsh's unq . from scrvant to fricnd··" acCOunts
1
tum "firom thc pursuit uencf able. grte f at h"ts loss and motivares t h e 1a.trcr"
1 ,Y

Thc story of Enk,·d ' o . asnng fame to a literal quest for immortahtY·
u s ot~gm s an d acculturation suggests that his atran•<
w·11h e·¡ gamcsh rcpres '- . ,
ents a kmd 0 f ~ .
1
the m 1 · un'-''-"'0
b ys Ctlous potency f h USIOn of nature and culture. ¡
ur an civilization··" Enk"do 't e wilderness with thc hierarchical pow<',, 1
lo thc cp· • ' country to city also con rnb' bl'L
1 u s trans·t" c.
. . les cclebration f h 1 ton •rom
provld'.ng a match for e·¡ o t e advantages of civilizcd lifc. "" FinaiiY~,:
mgthcmhabitantsofUr~~amesh, Enkidu distracts his friend frolll op~ rd•
and d•rccts his supcrabundant cncrgics out~ a
 wards thc world, ratherthan inw~rds, towards his own communi
to Gilgamesh takes m Enktdu s company anticipa! d ty. Thc
Icasure . . es an underw .

o- .
P 1 wife's la ter advtce to find meamng through absorpf . h . ntes
the a e- h h 100 Jn t e mmutiae
f . tence rather than 1 roug attempts lo transcend it·the h 1.
.. • =~ftm­
that the ale-wife smg1es out as promtsmg .lo Gilgamcsh the consolator
p1easUres of human .compamonshtp are relattons with a cht'ld and a spouseY
lt is this )asl pomt that helps . to account for the particular way tha;
friendship is constructed m the Gtlgamesh Eptc. Gilgamesh's affection for
his friend is descrJbed m terms appropnate for relations both with kin and
with objects of sexual destre. Enktdu ts often called Gilgamesh's "broth ..
(abu):" Moreover, Gilgamesh's feeling for Enkidu is explicitly modeled :n
sexual attraction: in the two dreams that presage the arrival of Enkidu
Gilgamcsh takes pie asure in his vision of Enkidu as in a woman (though h;
docs not take such pleasure in Enkidu himself when the latter finally ar-
rivcs).'" The crucial phrase occurs only once (in the second dream) in the
extant fragments ofthe O Id Babylonian version (i, 3}-34)," but the Assyrian
ver<ion picks it up and repeats it relentlessly (1, v, 36, 47; 1, vi, 4, 14, 19; cf.
VIII, ii, 4-6)."' The phrase itselfhas been variously rendered: E. A. Speiscr
translatcs, "[lloved it] and was drawn lo itas though toa woman, "" whereas
Jcffrcy Tigay prcfers, "[lloved it, and lik]e a wife 1 caresscd it. "" Whatcvcr
thc cxact meaning of the problematic term bababu, '·' its implication is not in
doubt: the word that describes Gilgamesh's anticipated attraction to Enkidu
is also used to describe Enkidu's anticipated attraction to the prostitute from
Utuk, with whom he mates for six days and seven nights (1, iv. 15). When
Enkidu dies, morcover, Gilgamesh mourns for him like a widow (litcrally.
:·a wailing woman": Vlll, ii, 3) and veils his corpsc as ifit werea bridc (VIII.
11 • 17)." The point of these analogics to kin and objects of sexual d<-str~
scems to be that Enkidu's fricndship affords Gilgamcsh a prolcpnc tastcot
thc pleasurcs of human sociality, including marriagc and patcrmty. wlt,h
which he will be invited to consolc himself by thc alc-wifc atier Enktdu s
dcath."5
The mcamng · of thc fricndship bctwt.'Cn Davt·d an d Jona than is enrirdv·f
dc.•pcndcnt on thc function that has bccn anachcd to it by thc Late So~ro.· ~
thc Hooks of Samucl which is almos! solcly rcsponsiblc tor recounnn~ 11.
Thc E 1 ' . . d th . kingshtp anu '"
. ar Y and Late.• Sourccs ditlCr in thc1r atutu es ro ( . ·nrs:
t hClr e · · d h · ·h Samu.:1n.·prl'SC:
lh e E sumares ofthc importann· ufrhc pru.·sthoo w 1' h L . S<1uro.·
1 . k' h' t ,. at•
h . ar Y Sourcc is distinctly favorabk' to rhc mgs •P· t h. unwJsC'
dostdc to it, rcgarding it mcrcly as a conccssion by Gm. ro t -~. s .1 Sc."C:"r
c.·•nand. f ·spc.·L"ts So~mu~.: il ·
s o thc pcoplc· similarly thc Early Sourcc r< b. . ,¡ nwal
an d pro h ' ' . . h. as thc.· .ar ltc.r l .
Powc P l't, whcrcas thc.· La re Sourcc glonhcs _1111 • lr rukr Ltf o~lllsud.
'i'h. r, thc l'onduit ofGod's t3vor, and thus rhcJudg~.: l. h. ,..ssu•g ofth4'
' tw 0 S · 1 ayal ot t ' f h
kiugsh¡ . ourccs diffcr, thcrctOrc, in rhc•r ~~r ~ )o~vid. At.·c."ordin~ f\) r e
P from thc housc of Saul to thc hous&: ot 1
82 1 One Hundred y cars of Homosexuality

. Saul's court as a skilled lyre-player Wh

Early Source, Davtd fibtrst entefrdscmentia· from that position he rises to b o can
h s 1' · de outso • eco
soot e au speno 1 1 S 116 . 14-23). Alternately, David comes toS~·
Saul's armor-bearer ( amue · . D ·d · aul s
. . . G ¡· h(17·1-58).1netthercase, av1 nsestoapo ..
attenuon by ktllmg o 131 · . · d . Sltton
f . . Saul's court largely on h!S own ments, an nothmg is sa·d
0 prommence m . o S ¡ dJ h . . '
. 11 becoming king untd a•ter a u an onat an dte In batll
ab out h 15 eventua Y db d" · e.
According to the Late Source, by contras!, Go ~comes IssatiSfied withSaul
because Saul fails 10 carry out to the letter the mstrucu.ons from God t!J¡¡
Samuel had given him; rcjecting Saul whde Saul1s sull retgmng as ktng, God
scnds Samuclto anoint anothcr kmg from among the sons ofJcsse 10 Bethle-
hem (15:1-16:13), and Samuel's ~ct effecuvely transfers the t~ue kingship 10
David from Saul during the latter s bfeumc. The dramattc tcnSion 10 thenarra.
tivc ascribed to the Late Source derives from the acute and painful conlrasl
between the secular arder of authority, outwardly manifested by the courlof
Saul, and the sacred arder ofauthority, inwardly expressed by the charismalic
appeal of David, the anointed but as yet uncrowned king. That tension be-
tween outward appearanccs (or social power) and inward authority (or per-
sonal attractiveness) shapes the story ofDavid's election"' and is dramatizcd
by Jonathan 's love for him.
The fricndship between David and Jonathan, as it is depicted by the Late
Source, is. a sign of thc invisible transfer of royal authority from Saul lo
Davtd. lt " crucial to the telling of the story in the Late Source that af1er
Davtd has been anointed by Samuel, cverything conspires to advancc his
fortunes; no more manifest and visible sigo of the invisible transformalion
rhat has taken place through Samuel's secret intcrvention could be imagincd
than that the king'. s own son shou¡d desert the royal court in favor 0 f rhc
very man who 15 to usu h.15 1 . "'
this scenario· . . rp P acc. The dynamics of the friendshtp expr
out of his ~~~ I5Jonathan who falls in love with David (18:1-5), who gocs
reli · h ay to protect him from Saul (19·1-7) and who voluntarilY
nqu15 es to him th · · • rhc
text is entirel ·¡ e successton to the throne (23:15-18). By contras<.
YSI ent on th b. than-
whatevcr sentim h e su ~ect of David's feelings towards Jona he
ents emayh b * . l ¡ror
story that the Lat S ar or, after all, are clearly ¡rre evan ' or
~ e ource w· h d's ,av
rom Saul to David d h 15 es to tell, which is the shifting of Go h n'•
lave for David is an t e role played by Samuel in mediating it. Jonat ad's
rcsponse-whateovne marker of this world-historical event, whereas ()aV'nal
re er 1! may b · · pets0
mperament and ha 1. 1 <--15 mere! y an expression of h!S ...0r·
thy h. s ltt e plac · h . · ot<~
1
b '." ." contcxtthatJonath e. m t e deSign ofthe narrative. (!IS" sour<'
y Saul s daughter Micha!"· an s role had been takcn up in the Earlh pa•''
- : - : - - - _ · she 15 the onc who falls in love wtt
• A '<-~une ¡p 111'
('fniJtlonaJ dllk Pilrcntly indepcndent of estiliti tO
cxpr~• hl 1\css bctween tht tw . both the Early and the Late Sources 1 atba•• ,ls"
'devotiOn to thc:rn (2 So rncndr. (2fl:41); David's elt'gy for Saul andJoD
amuell:17-27).
 O) m arries bim in the place ofher elder sister Merab who h d . .
(18: 2 ' ised to h•m · (18·17-27)
. ' an d 1ater protects hlm · from aS ongmally
1(
beenpro m e au 19·11-
1 e ms that the Late Source •ound that tradition of conóug ll ·
17). t se 1" • a ove ro be

-K
. fli 1·endy remarkable, less tel mg as a symptom of the invisible
0
f God's grace, and there.ore
1' e h"fi.
transferred the role previously pi d b
h .
Saul's daughter. to ~au s ~on, s 1 tmg t ~ emphaSIS from conjugallove 10
-
k"
aye ·y
friendship-as 1f fnendshtp were somethmg less expected, more startling
and unusual, and therefore more _mysteno~sly revealing.
Perhaps this strategy of substttutmg fnendship for conjuga( (ove as a
motivating force in the narrative was suggested to the Late Source by the
invidious comparison that climaxes David's famous lament forJonathan and
Saul, after their deaths in battle: apostrophizingjonathan, David says, "Your
)ove ro me was wonderful, passing the love ofwomen" (2 Samuel1:26). In
context, this much-interpreted remark would seem to mean not that David
had sexual motives for preferringJonathan's love to women's but rather that
Jonathan's love for David was astonishing because-even without a sexual
component-it was stronger and more militant than sexuallove. Jonathan's
lave is uncanny, reflecting as it does David's divinely conferred charisma; ir
makes Jonathan a collaborator in his own effacement. lnstead of being
David's enemy, his rival for the royal succession, Jonathan becomes, as
David calls him in the words of the elegy, "m y brother Jonathan" (2 Samuel
1:26). As in the Gilgamesh Epic, so in the Books ofSamuel the relarionship
between the friends is constructed as both fraternal and conjugal.
The friendship between Achilles and Patroclus is constructed out of a
number of tradicional elements which reflect, no doubt, early stages 10 the
evolution of the legend, just as the asymmetry in the relations berween
Gdgamesh and Enkidu reftect the Sumerian versions of rhe story 10 wh!Ch
Enkidu was Gilgamesh's servant. Thus, the asymmetry in the relanons
between Achilles and Patroclus has been taken, plausibly enough, by Grehg-
oryN
, . agy to pomt . to the tradicional social con fi1guranon · onwhiCht<l<
.
mendsh.1 . h and h•sreramer
0 h P" rnodeled-namely, rhe relation between a ero . .. ·rual
rbt erapon (which Nagy derives from an earlier Anatolian r:rm tor n --~
su stnut " "" M cCarv has no'~
co
nvcnf
e and defines as "alter e•o"); W. Thomas a
1 ...
.
. heroes an
J their
char· tona clcments in the relations between Homer•c AchiJJc-s and
•otccrs h. h fi . d h. berween
Parrodus ,., w 1c also scem ro parallel the r~en s 1P . b Dale Sinos and
by"' · Other tradlUonal elcmcnts ha ve been srud•ed Y Achilles
w M Cl · hi b«ween
•nd .. · arkc, who sccs a doublct of the relanons P .. 1 (bis "'de.,
ratroc( . 1 d LlclpV us
colltp . us m thc friendship bctween Sthenc us an · e rheu hcaru
w,,,. '"1100 • Whom he honored beyond all othcrs his age. be<·aus 0 ¡ rh< 1/i.,J
· h y(."fSIOI1
thar h e · 5.325-26)." What 1 cake to be new "' 1 e J .. 1wnh whKh
Cos "· .

thc rcl~~rnd
. e own to us is not only thc human dt"pr hwd<W .
~ ~~ bur rht> Wii)S
io wh¡'~onship between Achilles and Patrodus is purtra.y< J. . in bofh rhc
e their fricndship is madc to image • as frirndsh•p OC'!!o
( ..•1 1gamcs11 Ep•"c alld in the Books of Samucl, . 1
the larger bonds of h
f Ulll
sociality. For Homcr dramatizcs thc socia cons~qu~nccs o ~chillcs's Wraan
. tly ¡,y showing us not only how 11 d•srupts hiS relation _rh
most pmgnan . d h" s "'•th
. 1 (' k heroes" but also how 11 estroys IS community of d
t 1lt' ot 1cr ,rcc h h un er
d . . h l'atroclus who does not share t at wrat and cannot f:ath ·
stan mg w1t • . · d h h h b ·~
Achillcs's behavior: l'atroclus tells hiS ,fnen t at e as ccomc amrklra,,
''l)
(16.- , w 1 e h"l Achilles • in rurn • treats 1 atroclus as somconc to whom
. th"lngs
musr be cxplained (e.g .. 16.80--86, 23.94--96,_24.592-95). Achllles's Wrath,
in fact, reduces his dcarest fnend ro the e~ononal prcd¡camcnt of his mosr
hat<·d cnemy: that is the point of Homcr s use of thc same similc at tht
beginning ofBook 9 and Book 16 to convcy the states ofidentical despcration
10 which Achillcs drives Agamemnon and Patroclus ahke: both mcn pour
out their tears, Homer tdls us (in Lattimorc's brilliant rendering of these
lincs). "like a spring dark-runninglthat clown the facc of a rack impassablc
drips its dim water" (9.14--15, 16.3-4)."
Once again, wc tind that the friendship is parasitic in its conccptualization
on kinship rclations and on sexual rclations. That is, it must borrow tcrmi-
nology and imagery from these othcr spheres of human relations in onkr
ro idcntify and define itsdf. l'atroclus performs many of thc functions for
Achilles that a wifc or fcmale dependen! normally performs in the Homcric
world": for examplc, he places food befare Achillcs when the two ofthcm
are dining alonc (19.315--17) and, when they are entertaining guests, iris
l'atroclus who distributes the bread (9.216-17; cf. 11.624--41)-a function
latcr assumed by Automcdon, Achilles's charioteer (24.625-26), who had
earlicr pcrformed other duties at mealtime (9.209)-whereas Achillcs carvcs
and serves the meat; Patroclus also makes up a spare bed for Phoenix when
Achillcs gives him thc nod (9.620--21, 658-59; cf. Odyssty 4.296-301. 7.33ó-
40). S•mllarly, m Phocnix's cautionary tale of Mcleager, it is the hero's w•f<
who mduces hlm, after the appeals of his friends ha ve failed, to recnler ¡he
f•ghtmg and save his community from dcstruction (9.585-99)-and, rhus.
shc p~cfigures the role that Patroclus will cventually play in Achilles's rrag:
~dy .. Moreovcr, her name, Cleopatra (9.556) is constructed from rhesarn•
mgu .. uc ;lements (kleos, pateres) as that of Patroclus only with th< ordcr
rcvcrscd .. Thc conjug 1 . . ' 11 . at Pa·
troclus's fun 1 . 3 assocJatiOns, howcvcr, work reciproca Y·. dcad
comrade 23e;;' Achlllcs, as chicf mourner, cradlcs the hcad of biS eh<
at Hector~s ; 6-317()2, thc samc gcsturc that is pcrformcd by Androlll'
<Unen 4 724) S0 h · 1
Thc omalogy e k. . : cae . tn a scnsc, is wifc to cae 1. thal
uom msh 1p e . ·1 r ro
pcrformcd by th. 1 pcr,orms a role in thc 1/iad Slllll a 'P"Uo
. e ana ogy from 11 . el· ~>
~~ a~toni!i.hcd by Achilles's scxua ove tn thc Books ofSanlU ~ 5 ¡ 11 11~
lntensuy, hesays(24.44-52 ~~ve for Patroclus bccausc it surpasshatf1lost
mcn bcar toward. b ), not thc lave of womcn but thc lo ve t 1 J~~.,
th": l'J.321-27) ~a rothcr or 3 son (and Achilles himsclf acknO~-~' h•'
. orcovcr, Homcr's use of kinship associations- 1
 of conjuga! associations-cmphasizcs the reciproca) charactcr of ..
use 1 , dependency on Achdles 1s child-like as Achi'IJ h h phrlra:
p rroc us s . . • es as t e dub'
3 point out to h1m m the famous simile at the bcginn1· f B lous
1 es at the funeral of p t ng 1o ook. 16
rastc to. thc poet al so compares A e h'll
(7-1 1)• fh' b (! 8 3 "' a rocustoahon
. 16-23) as well asto a (ath b
rrwurnt·ng for the
. loss o rs cu s . ..
er ewathng
rhe dcath of hrs son (23.222-25). At the same time, however, Patroclus is
oldcr and wiscr t~an Achllles and he has been appointed by his own father
ro actas Achilles s mentor: Fmally, the two men will be buried togcther
(23. 82-92, 126••;45-48), as 1f they were members of the same family (23. 84).
equal in death: . .
Thc strateg1es employed by Homer m constructmg the friendship of
Achilles and Patroclus thus recall srmdar strateg1es employed to similar ends
in rwo roughly contemporary sources from non-Hellenic cultures to rhe
East. In allthrce cases, the creators of the legends appealto conjuga) relations
and ro kinship rclations in order to define, ro make familiar, and ro situare
(both socially and emotionally) the central friendship they wish ro explore;
more specifically, they appeal to these other, better established and codificd
sorts of human rclations in order to make the friendship between the main
characters into an image ofsociality, ofhuman solidarity. Sociality has, ro
be surc, quite different and distinctive associations in each of rhe thrce
traditions, as we havc seen, but we find it constructed in each lirerary
composition out ofthe same, rathcr limited, repertory ofindigenous signifi-
ers*-namcly, kinship and conjugality.
In each of these narrative traditions, the friendship berwecn thc heroes
appcars to be an element that is crystallized relatively late in thc process of
formation of the transmitted texts. 1'14) Pcrhaps the impulse ro explore an~ ro
fix more preciscly the social mcaning offricndship reflccts a comm.on dcsue,
00 rhe part of the interconnected cultures of rhe eastern Mednerr.ancan
around the turn of the first millennium, to claim and ro colonize a l_ar_ger
sharc of public discourse, of culturalspacc, for thc play ofmale subjccrrvrry.
At any ratc, the crotics of male comradeship cometo occupy 3 more proma-
nenr pi · · Jrurcs and rcpre-
ace m thc collccrive imagination of rhcse var1ous cu · h
scnr3 r' . fi Jy rhroug out
h •ons of heroic fricndship come to cuculatc more rec . .1 _
t crn Th h"b't a saml ar p.~ra
d · ose rcprcsentarions, morcover, all seem ro ex 1 1 . 1-,y inro
OX· a)th · h' d C00JU~3 1
p . ·.1 ough their textual stratcgics make kms 1P 30. h 1 0 makc:-
c. ~IV¡ cged loci of signification for rcprcscnting friendshlp. ~ cykask.nship
'"<ndsh· · · 1' Thcy mvo e 1
and ~p mto a paradigm case of human soc1a ny. red :e rhc:-1n ro
lller;~flJugaliry, in othcr words, only to displ_ace r~em. ~o r:~c ro haw
had ""nRrs of fricndship. f•l This dialectic w1ll ultimare: Y.~ r.arion ot" rht'
Prcgnant implications for thc latcr history of the represe.: o
~
Our lhe . . . d· E M forscer"s n(l
vd"fJNl.olfltf"#
• ·
lournry, Wilh ans ~f rcpresenling friendship rc"maan l~mn~· · · ·
Whtch 1 be~otan. bears 1he dedicarion fr~Jtrtbtts.
 n:latmns bctwccn family and conununity. betwecJ~ oikos and po/is, in C
culture: in Plato's Rc¡mhlic, for example, thr utopta,~: cffon to unite ,¡;'<k
citiz<·ns of thc just city in thr bonds of traternallovc <'ffccttvcly does a~he
with thc social signiticancc of real brothcrs and ststcrs, of both kinsh· ay
· b b b · ·
conju~ality, altogcthcr. Havmg cgun y orrowmg tts soctal signifi
· 'P•nd
ami. n·pn·scntattonal. clcmcnts ~ro m k'1115 h'1P an deonjuga
. rtty. .m other w'""''d
;nalt· ¡>lti/ia mds up (in Plato's fantasy, at lcast) displacing them ent 0 ' 1'·
. ¡· d !te y.
This devclopmcnt completes, thoug h m a start mg an uncxpected fashi
a trend alrcady visible in carlicr litcrary construcuons of friendship. on,
Thc tinal point 1 wish to make has to do w!th the cultural specificity of
thc crotic expericncc rcprcsented m thesc early tcxts. The high pitch of
fccling evidcnt in rhc rclation bctwcen A chilles and Patroclus has led scholars
to arguc interminably about whethcr their romance was a sexual as well as
a comradcly one'''-dcspitc Homer's failure to describe any sexual contacr
bctw<·cn rhcm. Thc qucstion has bccn furrher complicated by rhe resrimonv
of rhc classical Grceks, who, looking ar the !ove of Achilles and Patroclu;
from the perspcctivc of their own social and cmotional institutions, tended
naturally to assumc that thc relation between the heroes was a paederasoc
onc.t.4 According to the Attic orator Acschines, for example, Homer did not
.. ' horher to describe rhe love-affair more explicirly beca use "he consideredthar
.
, thc exrraordinary dcgrec of rheir good will towards one anorher would be
self-explanarory to thosc among che audicnce who were cultivated peopk"
(1.142; generally, 1.132-33, 141-50).
llut iflarcr Greeks could agrce (and rhey could not all agree)"' rhat Achillo
and Parrodus were a paederasric couple, they had more difficulry deodmg
who played whiCh role in the relarionship.'~ In his lost trilogy, the Achi/le~; .
noto~t~us even m antiquity for the crotic cxplicitncss with which, in twoot.lb
sumvmg fragmcnts, Achilles eulogizes rhe rhighs and kisses ofParroclus (lrr
135, 136lRadt})-the tragic poer Acschylus made A chilles thc lo ver and P•:
trodus the belo d Th . ·th th<
d.ff. . ~e
. ·. at was no more than what was conststcnt Wl ·n
~c~~~;t~ldd~st~bunon of powcr in the relationship for. as we havc ~:~e~
Aesch ~u:'s ~t p~rsonal an~ narratological preceden ce o ver his com_ra othcr
y mmd, 1t was obv10us that Achilles must ha ve been on top JO .1
respectsaswell( J · 1G ·1 so'"
and sexual role~ a~lca reek pacdcrasty, after aH, tended to assimt ~t~ olhCI
detalls in Homs ·. Ut Ae~chylus's intcrpretation did not square ~tt pja!O·~
er s narranve as Ph d k · out 10
Syrnpo.siurn: "Acsch lus tal ' ae rus ta es eare co pmnt . )es W's lJ1
love with Pacroclu y~ A k~ nonsense when he claims chat Achtl P uodV'
buc than all [he ot~· ~ chilles was more bcautiful not only than 3 ort' bi
wu much youngcrc;h er~es, and he was still beardless, and furcherlfl
Modern n.:adcrs m an atroclus, as Homer says" (180a4-7). l;Js.si'J¡
Greek.~ c. onfronccd ahy n:as~nably feel amuscd at thc difficulties thc' to'P~
H w en trymg to h ies o!l 1
omcnc t<::xh and 0 e h . map t cir own sexual categor d . ,~eJl
°
n t e erotlc and cmotional pattcrns containe 111
 h e difficulties remain instructivo
But! os h" h h" .
for us as well Th d
· ey emonstrat
. h first place, the exten! to w tc s tfts m the articulati f . e,
111t e . h" h .. " on o social and
1 catgories (even wt! m 1 e same culture) can cause l"t .
scxua .. f h . . 1 erary e1assics
e the cnncal grasp o t e very mterpretattve commun 1·11·
ro eseap
.
es respons1bie
for canonizing them. So long as we, too, continue lo read the Iliad in the
light of la ter Greek culture-lo say nothmg of modern sexual categories-
we shall contmue to ha ve trouble brmgmg the frtendship between Achilles
and Patroclus mto sh~rper focus. The thrust of my analysis has been to
remove that relationshtp from the c~assical Greek context, lo which it does
no! properly belong, and lo msert 11 mstead into the context of an earlier
narrative pattern, known largely from surviving Near Eastern texts, con-
ccrning heroes and their pals. Rather than viewing heroic comradeship as
the origin of "Greek love," that is, 1 view it as the final playing-out, in the
Grcek epic, of an earlier narrative tradition. Once we situate Achilles and
Patroclus in their rightful context, the lineaments of their relationship will
come into clearer view, and we shall be able to interpre! the erotics of
their friendship in terms that do not have lo be borrowed from the sexual
catcgories oflater ages (including our own). And then modern inquiries into
"homosexuality" in Homer, like classical Greek inquiries into the respective
crotic roles of Achilles and Patroclus, may prove at last lo be genuincly
cnlightening-no! for what they reveal abou! the ancien! heroes, bu! for
what they tell us about those shadowy folk whom !he heroes themselves
simply describe as "those who are yet 10 be.""
 5
The Democratic Body: Prostitution and
Citizenship in Classical Athens
"You sct.• thcse p~oplc ht•rc, ~h~· ones who orrupy the hmthds and
admittcdly pracuse that acttvtty-wt.·ll. L'VL'Il tht·y, wht·nevn it
happms that thcy are dnven to it by nn·d, IH.'Vt•rtlll·kss nl.lkc somc
attcmpt to shicld thcmsclvt'S from disgrace Jnd ~hut tht•tr doors
Now if somconc werc to .tsk you, JS you wcn.· walkin~ a long thc
stret·t. what such a person was doing at that momcnt, you would
immcdiately namc the dccd, without seeing what was going 00
and wirhout knowing who it was who had gone insidc, hut smcc
you know for a fact wh.l.t thc pcrson's chosen tradc ts, you know
pcrfenly well what that pcrson is doing" (Acschines, 1.74).

This passage from a speech (" Against Timarchus") dclivcred by the An,
orator Aeschincs in 346/5 B. C. holds a number of surpriscs in store forthr
modern studont of ancient Greek prostitution. 1 First of al!, both the prostitu~e
and thc hypothetical client postulated by Aeschines are mal e. That the din11
is malc may occasion relative1y littlc astonishment: prostitution then, a1
now, catered almost exdusively to m en. 2 Thc sex of the prostitute, howevtr.
is perhaps more unexpected; in fact, prostitution in classical Athcns routine!y
cngagcd young men and "boys" (i.e., adolescent males) as wdl as womrn
of various ages. \
Youth seems to ha ve been a more stringent rcquirement for m ale than for
femalc prostitutes. A late antique text, un usual only in its explicitness about
thc fme points of male sexual taste in the ancient Greck world, may heip.to
cxplain why · lt portrays a debate between two m en o ver thc respecovr
mcrits 0 ~ womcn and boys as objects oflovc, and in the course ofthat.de:at:
the partlsan of women advanccs an argument whosc specific clainl g
unopposcd by thc advocatc of paederasty: "from maidenhood to middlc•;;;
befare thc time whcn the last wrinkles of old age fmally spread over f

1 fa ce, a woman is a plcasant armful to embrace " whcreas by che agc_ ol!
tlwcnty a boy is alrcady ceasing to be desirablc ;'for then the Iimbs. bcllld
argc and manly. ' are h ar d . thc chins that once
coverc d Wtth bristlcs a d h
' were soft are ro ugh 11''.J
· ere su ~~
with h-. ,.4 E h d ' . ~ t e wcll-dcvclopcd thighs are as tt w_ . ...dcd
.. ns. a e ctatl m th · d · . d s tntC••
to prod uce rcvu 1ston. and d. ts cscnpuon o. f ovcr-ripe boyhoo 1 tO ha'·l
01
n.:garded thc pre~cncc ofh ~sgust. ln parucular, Greck mcn_scc arrcr~tll
maturin h . . an upon thc chccks, thighs, and hmdqu o~'(i
to ha ve ~c~:~d \,wptt·h mtc~bslc sexual distaste.., (thc Stoics, who are hs~P: w,th
crmts~t e for m . . . · ns 1p
boy~ unttl thc lattc . h d h en to mamtam erottc re 1attO A.'l~hl
r rcac e t e scandalo 1 d f cwcntY '
managcd tu ~tomach such l. . . us y a vanccd agc o 1 . ;tllul\11
Iatsons-m thc · . . f nc atL l
writer-only by rcquiring thcir b f. tmagmatiOn o o_ d rli'''P
U · . 0 Y ncnds to shavc both chu1 an l,,.
ccau~c m antu.:¡uuy thc !locxual h.stcs of adult males dctcrmined rhc dlfl1
.en ' 1 lll.llllrl' JgL· \hown ful~<.tHlll\ll).!; . 1 ~ prn~lltl!k~ l he \.!'C-f'·IJIIII'f 'l'l"lll' re• h 11 '
'"'~'J'::~~\": 1:1 hl\ LkpldiOII oftlw WOIIIL"II·, ÚL<''· tlr,h .. 11 1d 11\ll'<lll.uun. h' m,h,.i!c th.il thc~·
)]1) ~~~ lthL"Irhr\1\ollth (lhL·I I'.IU]l;cttl 1\\ll~l"lllll
l'illlilll' -\t!l< l(,,J-~¡._:ur,
h.<il
hc1gln 1.:! í> , n 1 1\ 11hl1 ~q 1 ,J, o<ll• -\ 1
 Wcmn·n of a rnaturl' a~l' ~hown functionin~ a~ prostitutl'S. Thl' vasl'-paintl'r Sl'l'IIIS to h.l\'l'
«kn, pam\, 111 h1~ dl'plctJOII of thl' woml·n·~ fa ce~. tksh, amlmusculaturl', to mdJcatl' that thl'V

'''' lcJII~~n 111 th,.Jr ltr~t youth ITheJ l'aul ( ;,·tty Must·um, l'hmtla~. Attlc lkd-hgurl' Kyhx,
',]r¡ B ( lwJ~~ht 12 (, < 111 wJ<hh VJ 1 thaiiH'IlT ~O.H nn Hll A F. ~1)
 outh (or youthful appearance, at any rate)
- h cxual markct, y . \Vas
sions ot t es . ~ male prosututes.
an csscntial aunbutc or t be sure, was also prized for its sexual
m women, o f ¡· . 'PPeal
Youth fu1ncss . h rs preserve no lack o ma IC!ous gossip b
Anc.ent aut o a ou 1
ro adu1t mcn. . . hed old age of once-glamorous courtesans IVh
. bk and 1mpovens o
rhe mJsera d bl 10 command high prices, can no 1onger afford to b'
halt-srarvcd an una e ' d . e
b h . dwindling customcrs,. 'an many
choosy•ourrelf h. d •
anC!ent texts describ
1 e
h 1b le 'r[ ificcs-ranging from w1gs to a1r- ye to e evator heels'"
t cea ora '' b h. h ~ 1e prostitutes as
10 , facial powdcr madc from white lead - Y w lC . ema
well as orhcr womcn rypically attempt to conceal theu age and to d1sguise
assorrcd physical shortcomings. 12 But mature age did not necessarily prohibir
, woman from carning a living as a prostitute: male tastes varied" (two
Hellenisric epigrams portray female prostitutes dedicating, severally, a pur-
ple horsewhip, rcins, anda golden spur to Aphrodite), 14 and they seem to
havc included a liking for older women. 15 As one might expect, then, a
~exual market for maturc womcn is indeed attested in ancient sources (or,
at leasr, u is treared by them as a plausible possibility)." Males, by contras!,
werc demable ro ot~er males only between the onset of puberty and the
amval ofrhe bmd.'' In panicular, the hora (or youthful "prime") of males-
' slender
lll dzone bctween boy hoo d '" d manhood comprising what we now
ca ate a o1escence and d. .
und d correspon mg roughly to the life-stage of A menean
crgra u"es-represenred rh k d
exerc,,e_d whil · 1 d e pea of a m•le's sexual attractivencss an
of cla"'"l• Arhe u aste b h, an app arenr1Y Irresistible
· charm on oldcr res1'd ents
between yourhens, a d ot male and ~cm,1e, " free and slave. Once the f rontl·cr
VISib\y txoro¡ ("pna mhanhood had been crossed however a malc becamc
1 . . st Is pnme")l'~ ' ' .h
a _ternattng bttterness and r r21• -as many an ancient lover remarks wtt
giVhe him anything for it re" -and, in Aeschines's words "no one will

~
w
vo
""'' re any more" (1 ·95) · An oldcr malc who
a~on, to attract cith
, wts
. he d• fork
21

Íoo~g, and any adult m.lc

younger tha h.
t mcn or Women had to do bis bcst to loo
w o actually dd ( ·edro)
aduhcrou~ n ls Ycars was r bl 1 . or, what was worsc, tn 22 r
lntt:nuon 21M la ctob· . d . es o
provmce of th ~. ale prost' . e suspcctcd of pathtc cstr b,
Ac!.chtnc~ ose below the age 1;utt~n in classical Athcns was IargciY t '
cspccu.lly ü r~vcah,, funhcr th o majority. 24
n bk "" c~une o d. ' at tnalc p . . ot ;Jil
lo , vociluon for ;¡ r lsrcputablc aff: _rostitutton in Athcns was n di J
he very nonchal rnalc, but to h' au. To he a prostitutc was har Y,
"malt b ancc w th ITe one d'd h -hant'·
rcu . ~othellrtlplics ~ Whtch thc 1 . "?t covcr yo u wit s . ur"-'
b '19nzabic ft·•nurc f that such an e orbator lnvttcs his audicncc to ptct J
Us•nt,." o 1 o t eu b sta lish ·¡· ar ao
rn~k. d ~n y, unpn,~u r ;¡n l;¡ndsc rncnt was a fairly famll d ,r~
'" •<m k ~cted f ape And . 1 ductc)3oth
tollectcd . ;¡ . Pr05tnut rorn thc k . - tt apparcnt y con
01 1Jkc ¡'· A,. 'pctlill t¡x Ir Ion rnust hav llbOWtng gazc of passcrs-bY · ( h<O'
cwh 11 On¡ tht: e cen l f At. ut"-'s
lt' '-01n 1101 r k tarninK. cg¡¡l, for thc city o
~~ (lffcr¡din s of nulc and fcmalc prosut Ji-
Kthc Tnoral scnsibilitics uf his all
 for fear of losing his suit, so he must be convinced th h' 1.
ence,. consider t h emse1ves tnsu . 1ted b y t h e sort of conve at ts tsteners .
wtl1 no 1 h h . rsancy wuh the
of male brothels t at e tmputes to them-as they w 11 . h .
worId . . h . e mtg t tf any
. a attached to patromzmg suc estabhshments or if male . .
sngm . . f . . prostnut1on
•uour t'shed only m the margms o Atheman. soctety ' away from th e eyes of
respectable peopl~, _and were confined to a htdden world of vice whose access
was restricted to tnlttates by means of secret stgns and code-words. But that
does not appear to ha ve been. the case. The elderly Plato might dream of,
society in which all non-mantal sex would be attended with such infamy
(and, hence, wlth such a fear of dtscovery) that 1t would be driven wholly
underground, but even he acknowledges that the society ofhis imagination
would be so different from the one he currently inhabits as to be virtually
unrealizable in practice (Laws 838-841)."
Particular districts of Athens may have been especially favored by male
prostitutes: in his play The Mede, produced c. 369-8 B. C., the comic poet
Theopompus singles out the Lycabettus hill, a desolare region (srill in use
toda y for erotic assignations), as a locale where "lads gratify their age-mates"
(fr. 29).1ndeed, parks and other unfrequented places generally afforded those
too young, too poor, or too independent to work out of a house a secluded
spot in which to sell themselves or simply to meet their lovers" (scx, for
the Greeks, required a degree ofprivacy).'" The Peiraeus (the porr ofAthens)
and the Ceramicus (the Potters' Quarter) also teemed with brorhels ofevery
sorr." But prostitutes do not seem to have lodged only in special ghettoes
where citizens with no interest in patronizing them would never stumbl<
upon rhem. On the contrary, prostiturion (borh male and female) see!:'s
rather 10 ha ve been an ordinary feature of daily lite in classical Athens..
The apparent extent visibility and ordinarincss of malc prosmuno~ 1 ~
dassical Athenian soci~ty combin'c to argu<~and herc. perhaps. is ~he hna
surprlse auorded
"" by our passagc from Acschmes-tor. - th'. ub'•q u1ty ot pa<«r-
asty ·" Th
d ·
.
e male desire for sexual conracr wlth han sorne Y
d ourhs w., _ d
cn-
. cntly not confincd, as is soinetintcs allc.'g:c.xi, u to a tiny. l.'l.·c~t~u:. an
50 Pposedl · ·rrhc cxdusne prop-
on Y pro-Spartan arisrocra<·y ar Arhcns, nor was 1 1 h h 01 lar«
a y of a handful of articulare and prolitic inrcllecruals (a r oug) " Mal<
llhqu,t . d' . - d . h Soaannsm .
. . Y 11 1d com,· to be doscly idennhe wlt
Prostuutt ··' b . bn,.Jtv
· . P"'-'rn.-u '• J
011 apparently supported, and was m turn su. r·h. ·h h~wcv<r. are
·
based
llow .Pac.•dcr astu·· · constttuc.'ncy
· · con rours ot w d.IL • t rnc.·n."l'n.ary
(thc prce~sc
111. 111 ~Possiblc.· to dL·tc.·rntinc.·)· thc cxplic.:itly scxuaJ '"11 . s Jn~h ~ rhc.·n• 111
..:aus favu ·d b , . . . ~.·y d•snn~uls e: .J
toul', bur re. y thc 1ncntbcrs of that con~ntm:n. kut.msl\· h•~h-nundc: •
•nd tircle;or n.t.substan~.·c,_ from th~· ronta~ttiC: cons~Ji~u ¡,... ~t.~st J,•n't· wh~
"• e 1 b sly sdf-promoung adnurers o! rhc Arh< · .. w anJ ..-ho '"
dctf:.ncdc r;~.tcd in thc writings of Plato anJ othc.·r So..-r.ltlc.""SJd-tN.' L.Ju.:an"'rs
ed-,_, h L.. . n-as wou . ' ....
uf Ath . 1t so me cmbarrassnu.·nt. tu IK su b&. k·. tJur p.l'-"'"f'o
cntan youth by thc more: c.·hauvimstif da.ssiral hanJ lO ,
'12 1 l )nc Hundrcd Ycars of Homoscxualiry

o~y was not, cvcn among rhc honorable mcmbers of that beau
thc esscncc of pacdcrasty. Dcspite modern appcarance-saving el . "''"~.
. 1 . auns ro h
contrary, the crotic excitemenr an d bIttcrswcct ongmg aroused in A 1r
mcn (whcthcr low- or high-minded) by atrractive boys do not see rhen,n
bccn primarily of a phdosop . h'1c nature·" an d • w hen tirustrated obllltoh,
. '
PI · • Vlousl·
rcquircd something other than a pure1y a tome mc~ns of exprcssion. 1
Frustration must indecd have bcen a frequent cxpcncnce. It was exr
.d f h . remely
difficult and hazardous for a male rcs1 _cnt o At ens m the classical pcriod
to gain sexual acccss to any pcrs~n of cmzen status. The female relarionsof
Athenian citizens, as well as the1r male and female slaves, were prorected
from sexual assault by the laws against bia ("violence")"' and hybriJ ("out·
rage" or "inftiction of shame");·" free Athenian women were also shicld«i
from the advances of a would-be seducer by the laws against moikheia, which
was a more scrious crime than rape.'" Moikheia, a concept similar ro rhatof
"adultery" (by which the word is often translated) but considerably broo<kr
in scope, signified consenting but unauthorized sex with any female un<kr
the legal guardianship of a citizen-which is to say any woman of ciriun
status who was not herself a prostitute''' (Athenian women were life-long
staturory minors and were therefore always in the legal custody of a malc_
relarion). •• Cirizen women were also protected by the social cusrom ol
secluding them, to the greatest extent possible, in the interior, domesrrc
space ofthe Greek household and ofkeeping a close watch on their acrivrnes
and movements (rhe seclusion of women was more likely to have been"
upper-class idealrhan a social reality, however). A man caughr by a 011"'
l.n rhe acto f h avmg · sex wlth
· the latter's w1fe,· ·
mother, s1ster, d aughrer.. 0hr'
concubine kept "with a view to free children" (ep' eleutherois paisin) mlg
b Id (Draco-
e pur to death on the spot with impunity, 41 according to the 0 dd
nian?) law rhat dcfined the grounds ofjustifiable homicide." An apprehen ~"
seducer also faced a number of other heavy pcnalties, sorne of rheJil ex~
51 te1Y h um1·¡·Iatmg
· . h · k venrur
and unpleasant. 43 Moikheia was thus a h1g -rls d 1 in
·p~-
g1amorous, to he sure, if one could get away with it, but nn h 5 and
the best of circumstances. Contemporary moralists, both philosopl erdu<~
comi e poets, agreed that (female) prostitution offercd the pote nua secrr. '
111
a preferable altcrnative. In his comed y The Pentathlete, produccd :,de rh"
111 the middlc or latter part of the fourth century B. C.' Xenarchus
pomt memorably (fr. 4):
1111
111e•

T erri~le, terrible:, and uttcrly intolerable are thc practiccs of the yo~~hinJl~ ~
our cuy-hcrc, whcre thc:rc are, aftcr aii. vcry good-looking yollllbc:ir brf'~ ..
thc whorc-house!!., whom onc can rcadily see basking in thc suni, t colllr'l 111 ~il.
~ncCJvcrcd, strippcd for action and drawn up in batde-format~on (: ~ sqll 31 '~r
~,~ arnong whom one can selcct whatever sort one likes-thJn,. ag. up' la
5 nvclled, young, old, middle-aged, fully-ripcned-without setUil
 The Democratic Body 1 93

and stcalthily entering (another man's house to seduce his women(, or sli .
through the smoke-hole m _rhc roof, or gettmg oneself carried inside b tri~~lng
. heap of chaff. For the g~rls themselves grab people and drag th Y ery
10 a Id ''1' 1 f: h , h em 1n, nammg
thosc who are o mcn •tt_ e at er, t ose who are younger, "little bro" And
each of them can be had Wlthout fear, affordably, by day, towards eve~ing in
every way you like. ~utas for those women [i.e., respecrable women] whom ~ne
eirher can't see or ~an t see clearl~ when one looks a~ rhem, .hecause one is always
in a statc oftrembhng and fear, fr1ghtened and carrymg one 5 life in one's hands-
how 011 earth can men fuck them, Lady Mistress Aphrodite, whenevcr, in the
midst of humping, men remember the laws of Draco?

Thus spoke the voice of common sense. "*

Citizen youths were likewise protected from sexual assault by the laws
against bia and hybris,"' but the preservarían of their sexual integrity had to
proceed by a different set of legal and social strategies. That was pattly
because they could not be sexually impregnated, and so what happened to
1hem had fewer immediate consequences for the integrity of their famities
as well as for the eventual transmission of property and ancestral idenrity
within the family; it was also because they moved freely in 1he exterior
realm of public space, inhabited by men, to which different rules had 10
be applied. 47 An elabora te system of laws and social customs accordingly
restricted sexual access to the young males of citizen families, prevenring
slaves from courting free boys,"' insulating citizen youths from the sexual
overtures of their fathers' friends, •• protecting students and athletes from
abuse by their teachers and trainers, regularing access ro schoolrooms and
gymnasia, and rhwarring encounrers berween youths and their maJe elders
before dawn, afrer dark and in rhe absence of rhird patties. ••
Whereas unauthorized sexua] contact with a woman of citizen status w~s
always porenrially a serious crime, sexual conracr wilh a cirizen yourh dld
nol necessarily require rhe consenr of his guardian and was, al leasr m
Pnnciple, obtainable." Bur numerous obstacles remained. The paedet:nc
ethos of classical Arhens denied thej·unior mcmb.r ofa male couple a 5 abre
In lh • . h' lder lover: r e
e <ros (or "sexual passion") assumed lo ammate 15 0 h
:~ftUih Was expcctcd ro submir-il~ rhar is, he chose ro submil a~~':;;.~1c
amcd d . . . f fo rna of mmgl<U '
grarir esue of hts sultor soJdy out o a ee 1 ~ . r have (or so
Íl Wa~~~· and affcction (or philia)." A yourh therefo~~;~ ~:.1 ro yidd "''
ought) thc sexual motive rhal women suppo ·
- :u : ---T
lhe A h .
. ... ••an•N
d be ruuc.-h hdtc'l' tur yOUI... .
lllastt·r thcir d~ _e•~•an way of1hinking, of&:ourK. 11 woul h fthc'•r ~MI~""~ ...
111trs-illld a estres rathl"r than to expcnd thr .anl·C'stul wealt . 0 "'"""' thc' bnllhds _.,.s L-k71 '
: llla11 uf 110 :~one so_ rnslavrd ro his own drsirn as tt! rt«J 1 ~ ~~ diiSS('S (S\'l" l'ltwC"r 11'1 ~ -~;
:l...f6>-but b coun1 111 the eyes of other membcn ot rht- P" ~r ,... t('SI('If w r""nftiWI dwl
11MilKe 111 adul!e:~r samr ..:alc:ulus il was Rlor<' prudrnl lO hd
tlu· cntrcatics of a male lover; ~~rthermore, it was disgraceful for .
appcar to be too ea sil y seduced ... Thus, he had to be won by an h,, to
ritual of courtship, which could be lengthy, arduous, highly elabo,.,,
(good-looking young men were cclebrated for their beauty)," a~:'"P•titiv,
nuitc cxpensivc. Those who could not or would not lavish thc re .Posstb!y
.., . "'" b h qutsn,,,
and effort on such dcmandmg auatrs ut w o sought sexual cont "''
. 1 .
boys and young men could fim d m ma e prostltutes a more read ·r
act wnh
· 1 1 · · ( " f,
cdifying. outlet for theu sexua pro tatrests or pre erence, as Aeschine¡ .. y, 1 les,

l.llJS, calls it). '

The most relling evidcnce fonhe complete integration of male prostitution
into the very structures of dasSlcal Athem~n hfe also comes from the speech
of Aeschincs quotcd at thc outset. But tt docs not come from anythin
Acschines says. Rather, it derives from thc occasion of his speech, from th:
fact that it was writtcn to be delivered at a tria/: the evidence is furnished, in
othcr words, by thc speech's unarticulated social/political/juridical/scxu1!
contcxt. Aeschines's purpose in going to court is to parry thc prior attack
of Timarchus, a political encmy, who had indicted Aeschines on a charge
ofbctraying the interests of Athens toa foreign power; Aeschines's mcthod
is to accuse Timarchus of having prostituted himself in his youth. In ordct
to understand Acschines's strategy, to grasp how his accusation could func·
tion as a defcnsive tactic against an cssentially political chargc, it will be
necessary to elucida te the legal status of male prostitution as wcll as its social
and symbolic signiflCancc in the world of classical Athens.
Any Athenian male of citizen status whose body had at any time been hircd
out to anyone for sexual use forfeited, by virtuc of that very transaction. hiS
cnntlcment as a citizcn to take part in the civic and religious life of Athcns.
lf, thercforc, Acschines's prosecution of Timarchus pro ves to be succcs:,~
, (whteh m fact 11 dtd), Ttmarchus will suffer, at the very least, formal atmt
loss of status, or "disenfranchisemcnt": that is, exclusion from thc privtlegCI
of Athenian public lifc-including, not coinciden rally, the privilege ofbc~~
able to brmg a chargc of treason against Acschincs. "' Thc crimc of wh 1
Ttmarchus
. stands _accuscd ts· not, howevcr, prostltutlon.
. . 1t was not tllcgara
(m the scnse of betng an actionablc offense) for an Athenian citizcn or ~~tu·
y_outh _of cm_zcn status to prostitutc himself. To be sure, insofar as _pros e of
tton d!Squahficd an Athcnian malc from sharing in thc dcmocrauc rul i
thc ~~~~, and brought with it automatically (in theory at lcast) thc pcoahYh"o
ar1m1a lt w • . · ns w
en a '. . as ~ot. cxact1y legal cithcr: by discnfranchising cntzc aiusl
. g gcd ~n prosutuuon Athcnian law providcd a substancial dctcrrcnt ag be=
11,lc.pcclltally for wcalthicr citizcns or for those who might intcnd t~¡,!s
P0 be
mea dy acttvc and wh 0 couId t hereforc cxpcct thcir persona1 ercdcn vc'·
10
un cr constant atta k (1 ¡ d · )VIorc0 ,
~ ega an paralcgal) by thcir cncmiCS·
who &; 11 1
any gu•rd· h . cic~"'
- tan w o prostttut d b0 . .
¡ youth of ·t' e ¡ Y tn h1s charge. any pcrson ~ sc"LIJ
ct IZcn stonus into prostitution by offcring him moncY .or.
 Thc Democratic Body 1 95

nd anyonc who acted as a procurcr for an Ath .

favo"¡,/to have ruined the boy and to ha ve "defrauded [ entan youth was
thoug "-to ha ve deprived him, that is, ofhis sharc in th apostere.•J him of
thc cttY . . . '"" . "' h e commumty and
. . ht to partictpate m tts auatrs;· t e person who caus d A h .
h•s ng lf h fi . d e an t cnlan to
rostitute himse t ,.~re ore m curre grave_ pcnalties (including death, in thc
P f procurcrs). But once an Athcman had establishcd h" lf
case o h" tmsc as a
titute, neither he nor ts patrons faced any legal charges. •• Wh T"
pros • h . . . h" . . . . at •mar-
chus is accuscd Ol, t en~ IS exerctsmg ts cltlzen pnvtleges of speaking hefore
thc pcople in _the pubhc assembly and proposing laws and foreign policy
thcrc after havmg been, ,'".hts youth, a prostttute; the purpose ofthe trial is
to establish Ttmarchus s tdenmy as a pros mute, to strip him af his civil
rights, and tobar him from_ prosecuting his suit against Aeschincs. Once an
Athcnian had forfctted hts cltlzen nghts on grounds ofhaving been a prosti-
tute, it was a capital crime to cxercise those rights, M and the same law applied
to anyone who had forfeited his rights by failing to pay what he owed to
the state," by having beaten or omitted to support his parents, shirked his
military duties or thrown away his shicld (i.e., fled ignominiously from the
ficld of battle), or wasted his patrimony through extravagant living or
ncglcct of his estate-all acts that implied a shameful failure to fulfill one's
obligation to the community under the pressure of economic or physical
hardship."
How exactly docs prostitution fit into this scheme? A recent commentator.
after survcying thc entire range of offenses punishablc by atimía (or loss of
status) in classical Athens, a range of offenses that was even broader than 1
ha ve indicated here, concludes that "atimía was the penalty par exctlle•ce
which an Athenian might incur in his capacity of a citizen [sic], but not for
offcnses he had committed as a priva te individual.""' But that understandmg
of atirnía rendcrs obscure thc peculiar appropriatcness of tJtimia as a penalty
for prostitution. For if atimía actually was-as it secms indeed to ha ve ~eco­
a punishment for civic rather than for privare otTenses, thcn accordmg ro
what conception of prostitution would prostitution qualify for that penalty?
Thc v · 1 · . . . h f offenses puntsh-
ery tnc us10n of (male) prostJtUtiOn m t e catcgory 0 . . . licirlv
ablc by atimía, in other words would seem ro detine prosnrun~n •mp . ·
a~ of communal solidarity. and thus to blur thc distinct•~n bcr~~~
3. betrayal
CIVJc d . . · r rpi'C't'atJon ot r e:
_an pnvare offcnscs on which thc foregomg 10 e . .. d kss
~~an•ng of atimía depcnds For whar could be more "pravarc an
cavic" than scx' . · · f
Thc 1 . : . . . ion as a dcn:bcnon o
civic du og•c behmd thc conccptuahzan~n of prosr_•rur cnr of cirizc.'ll prosri-
tut.. ty and bchind thc conscqucnt dtsenfranchtsem . "d "''""' ofthc
c.:scnlcrg 1 . f h dentocranc• e: ....ro.
IIth . es most ck·arly from an ana Y"' o t < h" h h;tt ¡J,-ology><
011c ~n•an starc and of thc cultural pocrics of manhood w K ~lnc of rhc rirsr
taskc.: took for grantcd and acrivdy mobilizcd in irs sup~rr. bt.·inl{ a tOrn• ot
5 of thc radical dcmocrats at Athcns. who brou~ht uno
 govcrntnt'Ut bascd (in thcory at lcast) on universal maJe suffrag
'nabk cvcry citizcn ro participare (lit fqual tt•rms in thc corporatc b ed, Was to
e . . . . 1 Th .. . o Yofth
n.lmmunity and ro sharc m 1ts ru c. e transltton to a radtcal d e
- . . d . ·d cmocrac
thcrdorc rcqt~~rcd a_ scn_cs ?~m~asurcs rsignc ro uphold_t?c dignityany
autonomy-thc sor 1al v1abihty. 111 short-of cvcry (m ale) CitJZen, wh d
. . . d. . .• 1 atcvcr
h1s ccononnc nrcumstan~cs. Economic tspanu~s ~ou d not, of course, be
rliminatcd, nor wcrc scnous cfforts _madc to chmmatc thcm. But a li it
could he ser to thl' politica~ a~d soctal c~nscqucnces of such inequitics, a
zonc markcd out whcrc thctr mflucncc nught not extcnd. Thc body of thc-
malr citizt·n constitutcd that zonc.
At thc boundarics of a citizcn's body thc opcration of almost all social and
cconomic powcr haltcd. h~ Onc of thc eadiest constitutional regula.tions of
thL· cmcrging dcmocracy stipulatcd that a citizcn could not be enslavcd for
dcbt (although he still might be temporarily disenfranchiscd).&' which is to
say that his body could not bccome thc targct of cconomic, physical, or
sexual violcnct·. r.? Nor could a citizen be tortured to produce cvidcncc in a
court of law, as slavcs and foreigncrs might be: his body was thus cxcmpt
as wdl from judicial violcnce.h11 Thc vcry body of a citizcn was sacrosanct:
foreigncrs and slavcs, once again, might be manhandlcd in various ways,
but a citi:zcn might not (cxccpt under ccrtain exceptional circumstanccs, such
as that of bt·ing apprchcndcd in thc act of committing moikhcia). Frcedom
from scrvility, c-xcmption from tonurc, and corporcal inviolabiliry wcrc
markns thar distinguishcd citizcns from slavcs and from forcign residcn!S
in Athcns. T o viola te thc bodily sanctity of a citizcn by trcating him as onc
w~uld a sl.aw, by manhandling him, or cvcn by placing a hand on his bod~·
wtthout h1.s cons_cnt was not only to insult him pcrsonaBy but to assaulrthc
corporatt· mtcgnty of thc citizen body as a wholc and to offcnd its firrcdy
c~aht~rian spirit.'''' Ir was an act of l¡yiJris, or "outragc," which signitird tbc
VlolatJon of a status distinction, thc attcmptcd rcduction of a pcrson to J
status bclow thc onc he actually occupicd ("using free men as slavcs.
Dcmo~thcncs looscly .but VIvidly dctined it f21.1H0-81)).?u Hybris was th~S
thc antl-dcmocratic en me parexallence, and it caBed clown u pon che offcndtr
thc full wrath of tht· dcmocratic judicial systcm. -. ,
Prostuution can bt• k f . . 1. as h1nn~
ont·~clf out "for 1 .• ~po ~n o ' ~spcciall~ m thc case of ma es, ucal JS
h. l· .. tybm (eplt liyhm)-mcanmg, "for othcr pt·opk to :1 ll

t ,(y p ~ase:, to use onc:'s body for thc purposcs of thcir own pkas.urc. der
v.as un c:~stood, for cxamplc, that aman Wl·nt to prostitutes partly 1110r hll

¡ tp~~·~~:~d't'h·xual pldcashurcs that wcrt· thought dcgradin~ w tht• pcrS(hlll :.¡fe

cman tathe
m boyfricndn (i . • .
ld . f 11 1s
cou no~ thncfore ca sil y obtam rol bjl'(tt•J
to dq~rading sc;::~t:::soral s~x, for .mstan~c). n The liability to .be ~~p,¡gio~·
uon-hentc unfit t madc prostnutcs tmpurc in [he Athcnta~ H_¡~nd·
sumluly, d~c lena tho ~crfor_m sancd dutics on behalf of th~ clljf tlcll'-lh
g 0 Umc n·quucd for a man to purify h1ntSC
 sexual contact with a pros ti tute was, at lea.st in sorne places throu ho
aftcr . r Grcck world, longer than the penod required fo ·r, g ur
he anc1en . .c. 75 F , r pur1 1cat1on
t . coursc w1th a w11c. or a rrec ma 1e, then, to be a pr 1.
(ter ¡nter b h . . f h os ltute was
a . 1 r ro choosing to e t e VICtlm o w ar would ha ve been h d ,
cquivacn 1 hb'AKJD .aones
surrender nor been vo untary, y rrs. s . . over puts it,

Thcre seems little doubr t~at in Greek e yes the male who breaks the 'rules. ol
legitimare eros detaches h1m~elf from the ra~ks o~ male citizenry and classif&es
himself with womcn a~d fore1gn~rs; the prostuute 15 ~ssumcd to ha ve broken rhc:
rulc:s simply bccause h1s econom1c dependcnce on cbents forces him to do whal
they want him todo; and conversely, an~ male be~ieved to have done whatever
his senior homosexual partner{s) wanted h1m todo 15 assumed to have prostituted
himsel( lt is not only by assimilating himself to a woman in the sexual act
that rhe submissive male rejects his role as a male citizen, but also by deliberately
choosing to be the victim of what would be, if the vicrim werc unwilling, hubris
1= hybrisJ. The point ofthe fierce sanctions imposed by Attic law on hubris was
that the perpetrator 'dishonoured' (atimaztin) his vicrim, depriving him of his
standing as a citizen under the law, and standing could be recovcred only by
indictment which in efTcct called upon the community to reverse the situarion and
put down the perpctrator. T o choose to be treated as an object at the disposal of
another citizen was to resign one's own standing as a cirizen Ji.e., to embrace
a1i1nía of one's own accord]. 7h

Because thc classical Athcnians, in other words, tended both to construct

social and sexual roles hierarchically and to collapse the distinctions between
thcm, associating sexual penetration and phallic plcasurc alikc with social
~omination, n any citizen male who beca me a prostitutc positioned himsclf
10 a socially subordinare rclation ro his fellow citizens: he losr his cquaJ
footing with thcm and joincd instcad rhc ranks of womcn, forcigners, and
s~avcs-rhosc whose very bodies, rcceptive by detinition to the administra-
tiVe or plca.sure-seeking projccts of thc masculine and thc powerful, a.c-
kno~lcdgcd thc citizens of Athcns as thcir righdUI masters. Fo~ a .01alc
of Cltlzcn status, thcn, prostitution signitied a refusal of thc consorunon~
s~feguards of his bodily integrity provided by rhe Arhenian democracy; u
~cp~cscnted a forfciturc of his birrhrighr as an Athcnian ro sharc 00 an ~ua.l
nasas Wi~h his fcllow-citizcns in the govcrnment ofthecity. To be a prostatu~c
~c~nt, 111 cffc:ct, to surrcndcr onc's phallus-to discard rhe markcr of onc 5
d CIQ..scxual preccdcnet."--and so it was next ro enslavement. ~h~ ~onr
e~radation a citizcn could sutll·r equiv~lcnt ro volunrary d&rrunaz~non~
nyonc wh . ' 1- nomic m."L·cssny 0
Krccd ( 0 prost1turcd himsdf, whcrhcr out o eco. 111 . dicartd by
thar .sexual dcsirc is lu~·vcr mcntioncd as a possible monv~), edtn buy ir ..,
·rhl· ~i:sturl· thar his autonomy was for sale ro whoevc~ wash ;,.,fsudl
:a ciriz y a.s a collecrivc cntity was supposedly vulnerabk 10 thc' pe rruprion by
e••-vulncrablc to pcnetrarion by forcign inftUC'n« or ro co
 Private enterprise. No pcrson who. prostituted bl b
himself could be all
h. OWed t
spcak bcfore thc pcople in the pu blIC assem y ecausc '' words lllight o
be his own· he might ha ve bcen hired to say thcm by someone clse so not
' · · · h fA h ' ltleon
whosc intcrests did not c~t~Cidc WJth t ose 0 t cns, or h~ mighr sirn 1~
want to bring abour a pohnca~ chang;lthat w?~ld advance hJs ~rivare int~/.
ests at the expense of the pub loe good -scrv1hty and grecd cv1dently b
thc dominant fea tu res of his personality. * The acccptancc of mane c¡g
·
sexual favors vio1arcd thc. tdeal o f se lf-su fliJetency w h.Jch, paradoxically
y 001
cnough. constituted rhc b.asts of mutual trust among membcrs of the citi ·
collcctivc, who had ro assumc that thcir common int~rests as fuH and eq:~
sharcrs in rhc privilegcs of democracy guaranteed theu common purpose m
advancing thc welfare of thc city, even whcn they disagreed with one
, anothcr. But a prostitutc gave up thosc intereses. He showcd a willingness
ro serve (in rhc worst way) thc plcasure, the interests ofhis client; he proved
himself thc instrumcnt of another person's p)easure, or the slavc ofhis own
straitcned circumstances111 or luxurious tJstes, and he thercby demonstrated
rhat he had ceased to be an autonomous actor in his own right. Such ¡
pcrson threatened the coherence of democracy from within and had to be
discnfranchiscd.
The institution of the democracy at Athens brought with it, then, the
social production and distribution to the citizens of a new kind of body-a
free, autonomous, and inviolable body undifferentiated by distinctionsJC of
wcalth, ~lass, ?r status: a democratic body, the si te and guarantee of personal.
and polnical mdependence. That, of course, was rhe ideal; the reality ot
economic hardship and social dependency was quite different, 113 and the poor
oftcn found thcmselves performing the sorts of menial ducies routindy
assigncd to slaves-and therefore being assimilated to slaves in the estima.te
of thcir more fonunatc neighbors. ~ But the reality of cconomic and sowl
life was not in cvcry case the poim of thc democratic reforms: rhe democrac~:
was nor cxpccrcd to function perfcctly or to extend its benefits indiffereotl~
to cveryon~ in practicc. In thc fourth century B.C. the Attic orator. De::~
thcnes s~eCificaHy denied that Solon (an carly-sixth-century law-g¡ver ion ..
by the umc of Demosthcncs had turncd into a kind of "author [~nct deJ
~~.ta~hc.d co. thc democratic constitution of Athcns as a whoJc)Ks had tntenhcr
Is cgJ~Iatton to prcvcm citizcns from engaging in prosticurion altoget -h~
~c~ord.mg to Demosthencs, Solon did not wish w "check" or ·:pun;:cJ
o a~rm} malc prostitutcs-had he wished todo so he could havc tlll~-óó·
a vhanctyhofharshcr pcna1tics-but to prcvcnt thcm frorn going into po :¡ocr
w ere t cy might d 0 dly co•
th 1 h so me rca 1 damagc; Solon did not, allegc ' can'
e: aw e cnacted a "hcavy" law (by which Dcmosthcnes sccrns to lll

• Bem._. thc: h¡bn of ;att¡tJun . . - tll or ,onll''ulli

thcm wuh pro~ututcs: ~ce: Hcn~ the honcsty of pohtacl¡ns by compnmg thc.-mJid (:on'c4V
y, ll-16. W-24. ~. on thc cv1dencc froln (
 Thc Democratic Body 1

w that would impose an cconomic burdcn on thc vast majorit of

la . including those airead y so poor as to have scant m fy thc
cluzens. . h di ffi cans o earntn
a Iivclihood). bccause It ar ~ a ectcd any~ne: "for Solon saw that mos~
ofyou. though you ha ve thc nght to speak [m the public assemblyj, do not
speak" (22.30). * Apart from safeguardmg the political arena from potcntial
oligarchs, then. t~e ~oal of th~ democrauc legislation was not practica! or
moral but symb~hc:_ ~~ was dcs•g~ed notro alter the facts of Athenian social
lifc or w reform tnd1v1dual Athemans but to disscminate among the citizens
of Athens a new collectivc self-understanding, an image of thcmselvcs as
free and autonomous and cqual ~articipants in the shared rule of the city
prccisely insofar as they were all (nch and poor alike)-in priflciple, at Jeast-
cqually lords over their own bodies.
That ideologica) face-saving stratcgy was a vi rally important one. Beca use
distinccions of status in classical Athens, as we have seen, tended w be
congruent with sexual roles, thc poorer citizens were hable ro find themselves
dcgradcd by economic dependency, by the social fact of bcing at thc beck
and can of their wealthier compatriots; thus deprived of their autonomy,
assertiveness, and frccdom of action--oftheir masculine dignity. in shon-
they were in danger of being assimilated not only to slaves but ro prosri-
tutes, AA and so ultimately ro women: they were at risk of being effeminized
by poverty. The merest suggestion to that effect, of course. would ha ve
been shockingly hybristic, and we do nm find it expressed outright in our
sources, but a sensitivity ro chis issue can be discemed in the exrreme care
with which thc Athenians differentiated honorable and dishonorable forms
0 ~ sexual relations between citizen males (so as to uphold the masculi~e
~Jgnity of the subordina te partner);"7 it can also be disccmed ~n the ~ubhc
:~~~e of ~ggressive masculinity rcprcsented by r~c ciri~en-sold~e~ (or ho~
ue ), _an Irnage cultivated by the upper strata ot dassJcal_ Atht.:nu.n soaet)'
osrcnsJbly on behalf of evcryonc."" A submergcd assoCJatJon b.erween pov-
crry and f{; . . . ·- ¡ mcnt m rhe coll(("-
tive . ~ emmacy must ha ve rcma~ncd a stgmtJcant .e e _ recisdv such
an a:oh_uc_al unconscious of At~cma~ cu~ture. and ~~ wa~ ~re ~- By
soctatJOn that thc democranc legtslanon was designe [ p r . 1
consrructing corporeal sovcrcignty as thc princip.1l. ifnot chc.sok.fpoA=
rneansof . h- d. ityH·mzcno
tnighr rec~peratmg wharevcr othcr losses to . IS agn omit: depcndcnc~·.
thc dc~;avo1~ably suffcr through e~ltOrccd s~CJal or. c~o=f Jdl·nse of t•vcr~·
citizl·n' ocr~tlc constitu~ion. madc u rhe ulnmate hnc
In lll:ts~~ra] and polincal mrcgr~ty. . , -t3.r from bc.·mg Jc'ml.)(·
n scnsl', howc..~vcr, prosmuuon at Achc..ns

-:-:----
In lhi~ s _ . - "'~""""''
hr lo<' rt".lti .1) "' ,._u'<: ~
"\U~lrti,-u 10111: 1 $C, tht• dlst•nfr.ttll"hrst·mnrt ol~n,sUIUit"S. ".11:,("),· 1111 n·t"rt)tK..J.tsrobc' ..,.
1-'lcu lor ro ~ Jl-s-~r
-'l"tiVt' l"HIZl'Ushrp: rhost" Arhcmr_3ns so rhc- 111 ,1 "'"ct.-.J P""~
"'"l'h'h': sruurt·s wrrc dd.,.urt-d, 10 dTccr. trom c~~:cnrsm~
""'' •,_ ""'~ .....t jtt~' s<\'fft-W~~ ÍIS \'1>-lhk- Al"l 1'"'"'1 '~'llo.10\
"""''" .... ~~ .................. 1>111 '" .......... 1'"'-"11'\11~""' llo.\W \\'t ,,~. 'lloo
• ..~ ,..'<1 ,,_ ,kro..,'1'an..· "'""' .'1.111•"1!1. th<- 1\"1\'t"" ,.,...¡11t\1 """'
.~..,....,.¡ J'C'"'"I "'S."'"'·
th<- OOIIU •niutt>.'t ,,f .'l.t!..-t11• 11 J<-111 ,,-.~.,. 111 ~lo
.....-.n............ (<ta«'l ""~ ••• ~t "'' ~"" "'-'111(11 ., • i""'< ..;.:'"'
tt..... "~ th< roo..il '" .u th< ,'lllJ('I\, ~\~\11, \\"(' ....... ""'-~· 1"11\~
>la,,.."'"*"' .n..t ~·~ th<-tll 111 "''"''''' "'' """"'' "'\''"'"-·""""
"""'"'""'"""' .-t«h-.n¡:. m"' ·s.,"'"''""• ""'""' '""11..1 >ttlll "' h.tw ¡.,.,
thal • "'"'1«\' "' "'" J<.n..., ...n..· "'' """.: .. """"•1 rko.nr.: ttnla"""'
~,,,¡.,.,..... 1""'4"Nt.: ,..-·th< "-cl\4\...t..'."' At a11'' ur.:. ít wa• '"1 "'" "''"""'-
s.,...._,.. ~•mN th< !l.t•mu.k ,.,.· • """~ ,'flu•..~r i11 'llot ~ lw""
\att-.1\"'rm <arh--dur..l ,.,....run· l\.1..·, ,-,mli<' 1"'<1 l'híkmon 1lf. ~\: lhr '!'tlktt
IS t-\-.Jcnd\' ,'WW' ,"\t.· tbr '"'"'\.\! n.nt 1'("$\."'\1<'\f tn'"' . . tf\\th."' llt'\'r'S.'Qt\·'"'-. r,,

s.,. . .,..·,. "''~ . . . ""''""' ""'4"1ri<-<.

t\ull ''"" ;..~ .a b.-..· "-"" th<- Wilr ,,t n'tt\''-lt:'~ h:w ''"-~ \\'('f'(' lb<- hm, ~--
':'.~'\, ~" '~'"''t'l' d\fs f"h'."th..'("--.1: ~....T.ah\."' ..~. ~~· Z(US.. .mJ .aSA\.... ,,. \1
*'
sh..~ \.n..''O.. 'So.....¡,_"'C\~' ~ thr ._,.,. IUit ,'\(· \'\.'\Ul\f%. ntt.'" .u\J S("('ÍI\11 thtm -.in
~k- ,'\.~'WII ,...,·1\M\M'(' m.~hth..n~ tn \\'.1\'"S tM~- ~'\UIJ '""· """t-..tnd
;o;Qb.....J. ,.,,'«'m • ,-.n.~ ~- ),:..,·.an..""'- ~irrc-J al'kt rim"\.1 \'lUI ~S'"""""''~~
1"~....,. .;... .d Thr' 'l'l:and thett 1\al.:-d, Sl' \'\lU """"' 't t'C' h.-..'IIN.: what """ ${'(
-..U''""~ \',:'IQ J..'Wl't h,arrm ro i(.d. ~tt' \"llUI'S'C'4f;, \'\.'U l\a\~ ~~
D-

.._.~ ,,.__ b..""" s-."\~ T'hr J,._..._y l$ • ü ''J'ft\· \.. "l('

'~"- .and in,,.
ho.'f\- 1\c'rt
._·,a hil: ......-~ .."\f n.."\\"Sm'5it• .anJ. $he- ~'t sh,· .aw.ay 11\'lftl ,,...., ~
~~ _.. . 1\... tt. JWI as. v.."'U hl~ .anJ m Vt.ia.atc''"« v..'.a\· """'bkc. ~Ú"'U'-'"""'._
Id.""""'~' 1\, hdl • .$. 'QII....mm!ol !\.'1. ~"\ ",th """'·-..:
 ho.>\W~r. whal 1• U11pur1a111 11 11<11 !he lileraltnuh or falaily of lhc
11"~!he •••" lhal il '"'"Id be pu~hdy lUid_ 111 daukal A.thcn1; fYat more
t'l "" . !he 1111dcnWidllt« ol the rclu1on bdwccn JHOIIiiUiion • d
,canlt$ •lh h' ..~ .n
,,...,..v
1" , whidt il expff$:1C'$, n 1-~--1 ""ll 11 may o""' no rcliablt ICitiman•
' th
dtc hi>o~t•ri•·•l••·hie~ntelll ul ~ on, lit u cr wurds, thc otory lold by
•
)111 .k\CIO ulkr p.lSSihle lltsllll" mro the rodcs of iklcial alld sexual lit<
¡knt<~l A.lhclts: il sh<'ws dttl 11 lem ~ pcoplc i11 dassical Alhcns could
:-: prosli 11io11 ~· an i1uri11sk denten~ uf thc de~1oaacy (!Or ""'' is
al dtc' 1$<TipriUII ol I~IS, SCXU~I ffN~II\ IU Sol~t Slll'llfi~). A.lld. sin11luly.
lt t<WUIII of S.llo11 s hllift<'ll'l' ol the 0111 ot A.phrodi1e Pandcmos 11111-
rtly ....,~ "' ~ in1p':"hable, ~ should ~101 dis1niss il bcli:trc obscrvin¡¡
t tite i111CfPrctallOII •lt ~~~~ 1mphcu 111 " micas 11 leas! onc ot' thc
-•blc nlctlliftllS assoda!Cd with A.phrodi1e's o:ull cpilhct in fuunh-
tw'V Athcns, .. Whcther or nol daaakal A.thens ao:tuaUy mainlsincd prt\011·
._ h.\IISCd in sratc brothcls al artilidally dcprcsscd priccs in arder 10 onakc
n nailablc "' cvcn the poom1 cirimts (as thc fralllllctll ol Philcmon
~ft!S). dassio:al A.thct1ians wcrc evidcndy willing IU ascribc an intpomnr
alliut<Uon 1U !he wide social disrribulion of malc scxu.al pkasurc, Alld
thtt this was due 10 Solon or 1101, proslirulion ar A"""'-un-iltc ar
illdt"-was pNvcrbiaUy dtcop'"' (scc Appcndix 2 IUr dctails),
ht produclion al Alhcns of a dcmoaolic body was, obviously ~.
mu of no snt.U ronscqucncc !Ur womcn as wcU as IUr mm. For 11
iiN 1101 only thc dislribulion 10 .U thc n1alc cililcns oi an iri'C'Ntably
saalinc.• body bu1 thc appropriarion of thc aCIUÜ bodits ol individu.ll
...,•for thc purposcs of malc sexual plcasurc, Mort'Ovcr, ro dclinc dtc'
1 "' !he malc cirimt as sociaUy and scxu.allv aaacrb\'C' was also ro ,_..
• !he lradilional dclinilion ot' rhc 1\,malc bod\' as sociaUv and scxually
>iSSi~ in rhc vcry s1n1crum ot' A.rhenian ...,;lo.Tacy: ir .was 10 D< da:
' 01 Alhcttian womcn cvcn more ,-J....clv 10 thc -'ill sipilicana ol
bo.lits. Togcthcr ,...¡lh rhc dcn1ocraric prÓvision ot' o:hcap bnlchds-
bv.s "' PftliCCt lhc in~C~~riry of thc "'""'· •• rhc IMnily and ~
':: 11'~."'bcrship in •n ..;~Hu rhc basis ot' puti<ipacioa Íll dot_ liiC o1 tite
.:;:¡ •~d f'<drawist« thc lints ot' inhcrirancc so u 1\\ ~. . .._.
. kuiShip,'"' l'hcsc rc!Urms had rhc dkcr bodl o1 ..,.,.. . . . .
~lloro of rhc wi"'-and-ntothcr within thc houschold and .,.. I'('SGt(tiiC
-~...... .
.. ot Won1cn cvm more nart'Owly ro dtar ~: dwy ~ _.
.... . . . ....
Od ~y"' rhc-,'USIUdy ofa malc .,,....., a -~
1bty.,.¡
?",.........
1<\'css 1u rhc- qal. polirical. and .-u~Nnt ~ ol A~,_
tite

--- rhc ... ......__.y throu¡¡h rhc .....ciallolb«....... . •

'~ I'Cpftscn, rhc darlt uadcnidc ot' Soloot •• ...,._¡ -....-
<loo\ ~pie in thc ~ ot'"thc ,_, ....... "!'*" ~~­
.... .... : tf Solon could cloim dtat his - . - - ......
bauttciuY ........ mulÍitll ...__.. · - .....
102 1 Onc Hundred Years of Homosexuality

Earth from ""slavcry" to the social ins~i.tutions of •nale society,•tk, 0

democratic legislation had thc counterva1hng cffect of deepening th 1her
dcncy of real Athcnian women on their male rclations. 1111 e depen-
Two distinctive features of Athcnian life in the dassi~al period lllighl
viewed in the context of these developments. The first1s the extrao d" be
phallicism thattypically (though not invariably) characterized sexual: lnary
sion in dassical Athens. Sex was phallic action, atleast in the eyes of At~Prcs.
men"": it revolved around who had the phallus, was defined by wha:"""
done with the phallus, and was polarized by the distribution of ph ~¡''
pleasure. Sexual pleasures other than phallic pleasures did not coun: :~
articulating sexual roles or sexual categones: caresses and other gestores that
did not fit the penetration model also did not figure in evaluating or classify-
ing sexual bchavior. This emphasis on the phallus among the dassical Athcn-
ians bccomes casier to understand when the social dimensions of the phallus
as a cultural signifier become more visible.
The second feature of Athenian life that might profitably be placed in this
contcxt is the increasingly strict demarcation of the public real m as a maJe
prcscrve 111·' and, thus, as a place of potential exposure and violation for
women. Those women who do inhabit the public space are either prostitules
or are assumcd to be sexually acccssiblc to men, 1114 and respectable women
who en ter that space are thought to open themselves thereby to the risk of
sexual assault. lll!> In arder to maintain her honor. a woman required thc
shelter of a household and the protection of a male guardian. Hence, we find
a sharp conceptual and social division in Athens between respcctable and
non-rcspcctablc womcn, bctween the wifc and the whore. Such a division
is, to be sure, not uniquc to classical Athcns: the social vulnerability of adult
males through thc sexual behavior ofthcir womcn is a generalized and well·
known featurc of Mcditcrrancan societics; the "split" betwecn w•fe and
whorc, as it structurcs thc m ale psychc, has long bcen a staple of psycho~na~
lytic litcraturc} 11f> But in the Athcnian evidencc wc scc this "split" socJal_ly
claboratcd, enacted, and capitalizcd upon; it is enlisted for a spccific socia~
~ purposc-that of consolidating the corporatc body of male citizcnry. _Th~
Greek historical record, thcn, allows us to catch as it werc, a cultural ¡tcW
that is often claimed to lead sorne sort of ide~l cxistcncc (whcthcr as ~
uni~crsal_ catcgory ofthc human psychc ora universal structurc of patri~r~:a..
socicty) m thc act of bcing formally institutionalizcd and inscrted 111 ·t~·
con_crctc systcm of social practiccs in arder to serve a varicty of concrt:
so~t.al en~s. . .011 11 (
1he discnfranchiscmcnt of m ale prostitutcs and thc chcap provtsl. . ·e~
fcmal~ prostitutcs bcg to be sccn togcthcr, thcn, as complcmentarY asp~~r
of a smglc ~cmocratizing initiativc in classical Athcns in tended ro sho~~·i••~
thc m_a,.,~uhnc dignity of thc poorcr citizcns-to prcvcnt thc111 fron• ; eh"
cffcnumzcd by povcrty-and to promotc a ncw collectivc inlaKc 0
 as masculine and ass~rtive, as ~aster of its pleasures, and as
. ·,en bodY h uperordinate s1de of a senes of hlerarchlcal and roughly
"" nerua 11Y on
. .1 es. ns in status: .master vs. slavc, free vs. unfree, dominant
pe1r· 1d!Sttnctto . . .
0ngrucn. . tive vs. passtve, Inscrtlvc vs. recepttve, customer vs.
e bnuss•ve, ac .. lf
vs. su cilizen vs. non-ciUZen, man vs. woman. . , among the Kabyle,
prosurule, 1 11 express his sensc of mahenable and ureduc1ble masculinity
an' . h' b sic social and sexua1 1'dcnuty
dulrmaeca · ) , b y saymg,
· " 1, too, ha ve a
(that 15 • h ",,..;in classical Athens, it seems, the symbolic language of de-
ntoustac e, claimed on behalf of each citizen, "1, too, ha ve a phallus." Rather
ntocracyproIaw prostitution on t h e part o fA t h eman· C1t1zens,
·· t h e democra1ic
rhan ou:ion of Athcns sought to establish the poli ti cal and ideological incom-
consnlu . d .. h b' ...
p•tibility of citizensh1p an . prosutut10n, t ere y mcorporatmg_ prosntuuon
(ifonly 35 a disquahfiedacuvlty) mto the symbohc codes of dasstcal Atheman
polilical and personal hfe.
As such, 1hc disenfranchisement of male prostitutes and 1he cheap provi-
sion of female prostitutes belong to a series of developments in the cultural
poetics of Athenian manhood that took place during the era of the emerging
democracy. Notable among them is the invention of the ithyphallic herm
as the tutelary door-keeper and guardian of the household. lt is of course
impossible ro know exactly when these structures-quadrangular posts of
'type distinctive lo Attica, "~ with a head of Hermes carved at thc top and
an creer penis carved at the bottom -beca me common in classical A1hens:
srone herms (of which numbers ha ve survived) werc doubtless preceded by
wooden herms, and none of those stood a chance of being preserved. uH lt
"''Y1~e significant, however, that herms do not appear on vase-painlings
~1°11 ~()..5()(} B. C., which is also the period to which are da1ed 1he earlicsr
is~nhe crms that have come down to us. 1111 That vcry momcnt, moreover,
e same on . h. .
Pseudo-PI e 10 ~ tch a scaltering of lirerary rexls (the earliesr bcmg 1he
herms 10 ~tome Hrpparchus [228b-229eJ) place Hipparchus's inlroducrion of
enrly ser tt~ca. A ruling son of 1hc ryrant Pcisis1ra1us, Hipparchus appar-
rh, rural 1"P crms ar halfway points on thc roads lcading lo Arhens lrom
hcrms as p0 Wnshrps . · Ro b'm Os borne accordingly intcrprets thc H1pparc
· han
t . rornolmg " 1' b . h h 1' ..
:¡t1d~ divorccd . ~ sp lt et~l~ct~ town and country by. whtc t l' CISJ~
f thl'lr do . ~ohucs from da1ly hfc and hcnce madc cas1er thc acccptanct:
,, mtnauon f h r .
h~t aspl'ct of h. 0 t. e 10rmcr. " 111 Hut for our purposcs thc mon~ p~rn-
1 car absorpt· t e hcrms IS thcir immcdiatc popubritv and widt• distributiOD,
~al houschoi~n by rhc Clcisthcnic dcmocracy and rh~·ir adoprion by individ-
1
ur the· toplcs
. ' ddas rcstd--"' 11 t.la 1 d oor-kccpcrs. Tht• 1IIIport
· ot· (.) s bo rnc:•• s· w·ork
·~u, h a rcssdh . kl h
tu b,. '. 1 •t thc hcrm .e.. en· has bccn clcarly sccn by John J. Wm cr. w ~
&ftcr: ~.llch Whcn it ~s a l~vchng sign "-or, at lcast, ~ha~ it t·v~ntual~)' cune:
r,., 1 In • Poi' · as Wrdcly dcploy"d durin" 1hc Ck·rsrhcnrc pcnod and
1 Yo ltlca) co · ~ . · f
nrollps h mmumty whosc atomif units an· n·pn"St'ntanv~.-s 0
' t e hcrm cxprcsscs tht• nutional ~.-qu;,~lity of t•a,·h hous,·hold.
rcprcscntcd ¡11 thc pcrson of its patriarch and symbolizcd by a sirn l'fi
imagc of thc man-a bcardcd facc andan upright phallos. ""' The e p Iied
. h d rechon
of hcrms may be anothcr symptom, m ot ~r "':or s, of t.hc growing scnsc
of masculinc sclf-asscrtion and thc new pndc m mascuhnc egalitariani
that accompanied the consolidation_ of thc dem~cracy at Athcns, tn and t~:
al so cxpressed thcmsclvcs in thc sooal constructton of a symbolic opposition
bctwccn citizcnship and prostitution.
Dcmocracy at Athcns, thcn, was not what wc might call a purely "politi-
cal" systcm; it was a systcm of sex and gendcr as well. The sociallcgislation
which gavc all free adult males of Athenian parentage a ¡)otcntial say in the
govcrnment of thc city brought with it a clearer articulation of gendcr
categories and a strictcr enforcement of sexual roles (at least for the key
playcrs in thc political game), 114 thcreby crcating an ideal of masculinity
with both sexual and political applications. In arder to grasp the distinctive
political, juridical, social, and sexual codes that combined to adumbrate thc
identity of the ideal citizen at Athcns in thc classical period, and in arder to
bring that ideal citizen into sharper focus, we nccd to vicw him against thc
background of at lcast thrcc other social typcs in rclation to which his idcntity
was defmcd: (1) thc enslavcd foreign women who (for the most part) staffcd

~
the brothcls which thc citizen might easily visit; (2) the respcctablc wives,
mothcrs, and daughters shut out of all but the rcligious dimcnsion of Athen-
ian communallifc; and (3) the invisible othcrs, the (young) mcn and boys
who sat, out of sight of the political arena, in the male brothels and bath-
llDuscs, thosc who from the offacial point of view wcre social non-persons
an~ did not cxist cxcept to serve thc pleasure of their more rcspecrablc
ne1ghbors-and also to cmbody all the social liabilities from which t~c
cit~zcn himsclf, ~y virtue ofbeing a citizen, had been frccd. lt is only ~ith:r
t~~sc cr~ss~cuttm~ f1elds of gcndcr, scx, and status that thc mea~mg
ntizenshlp m class1cal Athcns appears ¡11 all its ideological complexaty.

Appendix 1: Aphrodite Pandemos and Temple Prostitution

In the sccond ccntury A.D. Pausanias a travcl-wriccr described a placc:of

worship, below thc Ath~nian Acropoli~. dcdicatcd to A,phroditc Pandc~';;
(1.22.3). Reccnt cxcavat~ons ha ve sccurcly placcd that shrinc bclow an 0 _
t~e southeast of thc basuon of Athcna Nikc at thc en trance to the AcroP.
hs. 11 ~ The cult was. cvidcntly active throughout the fafth ccntury .!:J.C..¡
although thc cult tltlc Pandcmos. ¡5 not attcstcd in litcrary 50 urccs Ul 1~1 .
thc middlc. of thc fourth 111 ' and 1 ~ not dcfmitivcly matchcd up wiih t ~
archacolog1~al rcmains until th~ thnd. I:Jut Aphroditc Pandcmos must ~;~e
bccn .cstabh~hcd a~ a local ~etty at Athcns much carher than that.
qucst1on thcrcforc ts: what d1d hcr cult cpithct mean? . ('1
Plato, Syrnposiurn 1K1Jd-82a, and Xcnophon, Syrnposium S.lJ-10. 111terpr
 The Dcmocratic 8ody 1 105

. , h'on consisten! with thc story ofits Solonian fouridation:

p1ndcd1°s imnifies
a ,as 1 them the " popu1ar " or " v~ 1ga~ " ('r.c., ph ysrca)
10
· 1 d'rmen-
rhe word s g d · e But they also define pandemos rn opposltron to ourania,
sion of croll<
, eSir ·
"descended u ")
from ranus , a term w h'IC h th e y tnvest · with
"hcavenly ~or t'ous ethical signitication. Bccausc the pandimoslourania con-
ahighly ten e~: exploited hcre for wholly idiosyncratic philosophical pur-
rrast scehms '~aning which thesc authors ascribe to pandimos does not sccm
pO. scsrem · · 1·rmport o fh
' he face of it ro represen! t h e orrgrna t e cu1t eplt
'h et. A
hkdy on 1cctable interpretation of the cult title is offered by Pausanias
more rcsp . ,
(!. 22 .3), who explains that Theseus (a mythrcai •Ounder of Athcns) csta?-
1' hcd the shrine when he brought the Athcmans rnto onc clty apo ton
J:món, "from the demes" (or surrounding townships). A related, though not
idcntical, explanation is provided by Apollodorus of Athens in thc sccond
cenrury H. C., who refers the goddess 's title to her proximity to thc agora, thc
market-place and political center of Athcns, where the dimos (or "pcople")
gathcrcd of old in its assemblies. 117 Both of these explanations offcr support
for a civic interpretation of Aphrodite Pandemos as a guaranror of social
harmony among rhe citizens. 11 "
Now Pausanias and Apollodorus might ha ve been relying on accounts by
thc Atthidographers (carly chroniclers of Athens); altcmatcly, they might be
mcrcly guessing at the meaning ofpandimos: perhaps thcy do not wish to acccpt
what thcy considcr to be the disreputable interpretation ofpandimos proffcrcd
b~ Plato and Xenophon. Rather than dismiss thc tcstimony of Plato, Xcno-
p on, Pholcmon, and Nicandcr in favor oftwo latcr and mutually contlicting
accohunts, both of which refcr to events so far in thc lcgcndary pasr that thcir
aut on can 0 h h
well b ." ' . ave ad accuratc knowlcdgc ofthcm (although thcy might
<rad'r· e prcservmg an earlicr tradition) wc should rry ro rcconcilc rhc rwo
••onswhi eh t hey represen t. Now rhat
thc 50 . 1
• wc ha ve a clearcr undcrsundmg . of
rchabi~~: conrcxr and significance of prostitution in classical Athcns, wc can
surc ~h~~c thc association of pandimos with common or bodily Sl'Xu.al plca-
owra~ia a1 e recognizing thc Platonic-Xcnophontic contrast of pa,dimos with
Whilcrct:.a _tendcntious, philosophical cxploitation ofthat tcrm; simil.arly.
Wecansri:lhlng thc idcntification ofptmdimos with common sexual plcasure.
0 hhe dern cons_truc it in a positivc, public-spiritcd scnsc.--.as a proclamation
~12 ~~~,
Cn body f e lng o f sexual incquitics and thc imparting to the m a1e
lllocratizatio 0 ~ ncw phallic pridc. To interpret pandimos in terms ofthe de-
111 Pro n ° sexual plc.asurc docs not cxdudc a civic function for the cult
~ 1 \t 1 c ~ an~ maintaining social harmony .among thc citizcns. Such .a
~cario ~~· 111 fact, is prcóscly wh.at wc might cxpccr from thc templt•'s
-'r~hd W en he e en trance to rhc Acropolis. Pcrhaps it is wh.at Plurarch had in
1\f l~;,andhirn n~rnb"·red Solon among thosc who crowncd Ertil "king .and
"olia 1~3, ). w 0 mokes things fit to~ther" (b.uiltus /Ni orclt.i•/Ni ,.,_,;._.
1116 1 Onc Hundrcd Ycars of Homoscxuality

A scxicr cult of A phroditc was located outsidc of Ath

W ay, ncar tno d crn 1) ap h m:. d e d"tcat10ns
. .
wtth representatio
cns on th S
f e acred
bccn found thcrc'" (no such dcdications to Aphroditc Pan'd" 0 vulvae ha.,
emosha
havc turned up). We also hear ofa temple to Aphrodite Por • "A PP<nto
the Whore," at Abydos in the Dardanclles: thc cult epithet e~~ phroditc
according to Neanthes (a third-century B. C. historian) 1•• the pmtemoratcd,
. . . • a r1ot1srn f
a local prostitute. Temple-prostltut1on on a grand scale rem;111·5 f0
cent o the
ancient Near,~ast appears to ha ve occurred only on the periphery of thc
Greek world · -wlth the poss1ble exception of Corinth, where in Roman
times (according to Strabo, 8.6.20) the famous and wealthy shrine of
Aphrodite owned more than a thousand temple-slaves who workedaspros-
titutcs, making Corinth the Amsterdam of the ancient world.'" (In thc
classical period the city of Heraclca in Pontus evidendy had so many male
pros ti tutes that Stratonicus, a famous wit, is said to ha ve called it "Androcor-
inth. ")"' In 464 B. C. a native son of Corinth by the namc of Xcnophon
promised to dedicate a hundred girls to Aphrodite if she helped him on to
victory in the Olympic games. She did-hc won both the foot-race and thc
pcntathlon-and he not only fulfilled his vow to hcr but commissioncd
Pindar, who had also composed a victory odc in honor of his athlctic
achicvemcnt (Oiympian 13), to celebrate his lavish gift to thc goddess. Frag-
mcnts of Pindar's somewhat embarrassed encomium survive (fr. 122 Sncll):

Young girls who wclcome many strangers

with your hospitality,
handmaidcns of seductive Pcrsuasion in wealthy
Corinth,
you who kindlc blond tcars of smokc from frcsh

,
grcen frankinccnsc, fl.itting oftcn
in your thoughts to heavcnly Aphrodite, the mother
of desircs,
to you, my childrcn, frt.'C from accusation, shc
has grantcd to cull thc soft, swcct fruit
of youthful bcauty in your lovcly bcds of dcsirc.
Evcrything done undcr compulsion is fine.

Hut 1 wondcr what thc lords of the lsthmus

will say to me, now that 1 have dcvised
this sort of bcginning for thc charming festive
song, joining m y lot with common women.
Wc ha ve taught thc nature of gold on a purc
touchstonc.
Mistrcss of Cyprus (Aphroditcl, hcrc to your grovc
Xcnophon has brought a hundred-limbcd hcrd
 The Democratic Body 1 107

of maidens to graze. an~ he takes joy

in rhe fulfillment of h1s vows.

Appendix 2: Prices

1 am about ro dwell at what sorne readers may find great and perhaps
unnecessary length ~n the quest10n ofthe pnces reportedly charged by Greek
prostitutes. My ch1ef mot1~e for so dotng IS to counteract a prevailing
dency on the part of class!cal scholars to overlook such "sordid" matrers,
::n when the evidence is available. The Oxford Classical Di<tionary, rcvised
in 1970, contains no entry for "Labour," "Work," "Wages," "Fees," "Pay,"
"Salaries" (there is an entry for salarium, howcver), "Economics," "Employ-
ment," "Taxation"-or "Prostitution" (except for "Prostitution, Sacred").
11 is time we dealt more fully with these topics. *
The prices charged by prostitutes seem to ha ve remained relatively stable
rhroughour antiquity, des pite occasionally severe fluctuations in the value
of metal currency. To be sure, prices could vary enormously within a single
community at any point in time: the Peripatetic philosopher Lycon, while
a philosophy student at Athens, reportedly managed to acquire an exact
knowledge of the fees charged by all the prostitutes there (rhe Periparetics
t~ded to be snappers-up of unconsidered trilles). IJ.t Prices might also vary
Wlth ~he sexual position requested. 125 The lowest price on record is rhe one
mentooned by Philemon, fr. 4, quoted above: one obol (a sixth ofa drachma);
the samc price figures in a story abour Anrisrhenes rhe Socraric, who is
~~~posed ro ha ve remarked. u pon seeing an adulrerer bearing a hasry rerrear,
ob~~~~.~~ble fellow, whar a lot of danger you mighr ha ve escaped for an
· Ir would be hazardous ro infer from rhese sources rhat a cut-
~ílte prostitute in fourth-century B C Arhcns cost no more rhan an obol,
(l~;e.;er, because "one obol" may.si.:nply be a meronym for '"dirt cheap"
1
~ two bits" in old-fashioncd American slang).
lab ne obol would have bcen a minimal fce indced. In 408/7 B.C. day-
orcrs Wo k· · f re eam-
ing a dr r mg on rhc Erechrhcum on rhe Arheman ~cr~po IS v:e
lempl achma per da y;'" by 329/8 hired laborers (misthotOI) workmg 00 rhe
skillc:s at_ Eleusis were still getting only a drachma anda halfper day. but
anda ha~ftlsans-such as bricklayers and plastercrs-collectrd ~wo ~r rwo
a drachm d d. · ·nscripnons m ron-
nccri011 With ac, an workcrs cmploye m '-·arvmg • rions {s;ri,)
alonc. 1lll T the same projcct received seven obols a day forra h
he daily kc,·p (trophl) of public slaves (dimosioi) arrached ro 1 e

~
lb~-
••••rct
""""'"~"'"...'"
l'ot¡~~·dt·r, ruls. 1; or Pfl\:es h.as in fa("t ~~~ fully l""OII«red by (ier~t.an s~ ~~hr 1~ 10rrnanoll
111 th 11 ~4J...-47 • _and Herler, Ht~S. from whom 1ha~eder~v~ 100110M\· purpo&C 11 to
~ •h•s ltlatcrial ~~ndlx and who providc- additional d«ails 01n1trt'd ~re-.
CCSIIblc lo EnMiish readrfs.
same works was half a drachma-threc obols-pcr da 12,
sexual fccs as low as onc obol when Philemon's e dy. lf there ...
ome y w •ere
t1ley surcly rcprcscntcd thc chcapcst pricc available , . h as Perforllled
1 tOr t e se 1 ,
s aves owncd by a. brothcl-kccper, which doubtless procured xua use 0¡
only the most rudnnentary satisfaction. the custolllcr
In the fourth century B. C. the Athcnian comic poet The
(whethcr longingly or indignantly, wc cannot say) of a placopohmpus 'Peaks
h .
ratc courtcsans e argc a stater-that IS, at Athens, two drachmae (fr 2
eweresec d
t• ·
thc first ccntury B. C. l'hdodemus ofGadara claims in anepigra i ).In
a girl who offers a bulk-purchasc plan-five drachmae for twe~ 10 .req~~~
.l . h < 11 . h
w h1 e m t e 10 owmg century a rat er obscure epigrammatist by the
e Vtstts -

of Bassus (evidently a Roman writing in Greek) boasts of the two-ob ·~~e

e .
d cman d ed b y one onnna 1.\1 : h ow <tar t h ese pnce-quotauons
. . refl.ecro 30"y
actual experience of the market is hard to say, but there are grounds for
skcpticism. Onc drachma seems to have become the proverbial fee for
commercial sex in the Greek literary tradition: it is the amount demando!
for thc sexual use of a dancing-girl in the Thesmophoriazusae (1195), a comed¡
by Aristophanes staged in 411 B.C.;m it is the sum willingly paid by the
A u gustan cpigrammatist Antipatcr ofThessalonica, l3.l and it is treatcd asthe
standard cost of sexual gratification by l'lutarch (Moralia 759e) towards thc
turn of the second century A. D.
At the upper end of the scale, by contras!, therc docs not seem to havc
been any limit on what could be charged: fancy boys, respectable women,
and glamorous courtesans could ask for any amount the markct in luxum:~
would bear. In the classical period, Aeschines (1.158) mentions thc,"'~,rp
onc Diophantus, an Athenian citizcn who appealed to a mag1strate or by J
in collecting thc four drachmac owcd to him for his sexual favors ding
foreigncr: whether that su m represented his en tire fee or only the outsta~s thc
balance of it cannot now be determined, although the context sugbg~s more
formcr; perhaps, as a youth of cmzen . . status, o·top ha~ tus was'd ahave 1
sold
. cxpcnsive than an ordinary boy 134 (a ccrtain Eucratcs 15 sa~ . ro undcr rhc
himsclf for an obol). m Strato, a Grcck cpigrammatist ~rltmga boY who
,
high Roman cm pire in thc carly second century A.~-· p1Ct~!e~y conrr~sl.
asks for flve drachmae (the dclighted poct offcrs h•m ten). a gen"'"'"
thc kept women in Lucian's Dialoxues ofthe Courtesans, wntt1cnhoeS cosr rwo
.
or two latcr, cons1dcr f1vc drachmae a eh cap pr1cc
. (8 • ]4 ·2. .S (6.1), '·"<'0 pd
0
drachmac in 7.2]): an cighteen-year-old girl (7.3), or a vlfgl cvcn de"'',
norma11y bring in a mina (onc hundrcd drachmac)-or canA gifroflhrt,
twicc that if thc customcr is pcrsonally unappctizing (7.J)J vc-girl''" 01 :~
hundrcd drachmac is sufficient to purchasc a namclcss 5 I~laracan ~oY·w 11
procure thc regular companionship of Thcodotus. a fr~~- litiganrs 11' 1b31
rhc late f1fth ccntury B. C .• at lcast according to host• 1~ ·gant c)aiP 151
diffcrent law-suits~ in thc laner case, howcver, the othcr •U
 The Dcmocratic Body 1 109

. o ponent has vastly' magnified the ~mount he actually gave rhe lad.'"
biS P ggeration reaches a new he1ght 10 a letter 1mpured 10 rhe aurh h'
Sucbexa . h' . h' h M 1 . . OtS!p
ofrhe Artic oracor Aesc mes, m w IC e anopus IS satd ro have proscituced
bis youtbful prime for three tho~~~nd drachmae (the rotal yield, presumably,
fi m a briefiflucrauve career). In fourth century B. C. New Comedy ar
rob s rhe company of an accomplished hetaira (see below) costs fir
Ar en . "' d .1 " om
twenty to sixry m~nae, an ~ne gtr who earn~ more chan ten whores
mbined" brings m the fantasuc sum ofthree mmae a day from a wealthy
;~reigner.'" The height of such hyperbole is reached in rhe tales concerning
rhe famous courtesans ofthe claSSJcal penod-LamJa, Lais, Phrync-who are
said to have charged up to ten thousand drachmae for a single rendezvous 1-4 1
(rhougb in her old age Lais is reported to have settled for a srater or even
rhree obols).'"
As rhis disparity between the amounts charged by different prosritures
suggests, there were a variety of sexual markets operating in antiquiry, each
with its own clientele and social function. At the bottom of the heap were
rhe pornai, or female "whores," who staffed the brothels. These were pre-
mmably slaves owned by a pornoboskos, a "whore-shepherd" or brotbel-
keeper, who also had ro pay a tax on the income generated by tbcm ro a
nate official with the title of pornote/Onis, oc "whore-tax-farmer. " 1-4i When a
wealtby man in the Epitrepontes, a comedy by the fourrh-ccntury B.C.
Athenian comic poet Menander, complains rhat his son-in-law spends
twelve drachmae a da y at the brothel (136--37), he may either be understand-
ably shocked at his son-in-law's extravagance, since rweJve drachmac mighr
normally have gone a long way in such establishments. or he may be
revealing his own tight-fistedness, since twelve drachmae is a trivial sum
to the fantastically rich and romantic young men depicted in Attic Ncw
Comedy.
· On thc nexr rung up were the streetwalkers, •..,. who might be free bur
unpoverished women, either foreign residents or citizens, as well as slavn,
and who plicd their tradc in the open. Archaeologists have recovered a
•anda) d · d b Greck word
AKo es•gne to lea ve imprinted in the dust of the street t e . f
su . LOUTHJ ("follow me") and similar messages appear 011 • ':arJ<tlY0
d ~VIVJng ancienr objccts·'-47 a~ong the Church Fathcrs, Clcment ot A ex~
r¡a Was th • 1· · · •• The sort
of oroughly convcrsant wirh this mcthod of so 1000 ~· .ned tO
us r~sponse that might be evoked by such rechniques has bcen •magl .~
"Wh~·:" anonymous epigrammatist: ''Grectings, miss.:: ::Same ~;:o
for askinth~.r ..":'alking ahead of you?" ''What's it to you? ,.!.~;.:tare you
~:"'king ~ , .. ~.he's the lady of our house." "May o~.e.~op1~ , "Take heart."
'fhis muer .....A mght." ''Got anyrhing wirh you? Go · werehircdtOr
transitor h. You can't. " 14" Both whores and sr~walkers m .odi,ally
to a bro~ s~xua) use, though presumably a dient mtght .re~~ .0 pC'I1
e where he had found a woman or boy to h•s 1 1 tl·
 More expensivc than whorcs or strectwalkcrs were the .
dancers and flute-players who provided the indispe bl vanous fcrna•
. h ' . . nsa e ente t .
symposra, wealt y men s drmkmg-parties and wcrc h" d ~ r •••rncnt ,1
IC

an evening by thc host to perform music~l and scxualrrc . or the 'Pace of

.
hts ISII serviccs for h.
gucsts. · These entcrtainers wcre likcly to ha ve b '"' •nd
. . cen s1aves b
women wlth slendcr means and thc reqmsitc training might also h;vc ut frct
thetr hvmg ,!~ thts fasluon. Thcy cou!d be spokcn of interchangeablearncd
prosmutcs. · Accordmg to Anstotle s Constitution of Athrns (SO 2) Ywuh
thc rcsponsibility of thc astynomoi, thc officials in charge of good ' ~ w.,
the city, to sec to it that flute-girls and other hircd fcmale musical ent or <rrn
ertatners
chargcd no more than two drachmac (for an cvcning's work, onc assumes).•i!
This rcgulation was part ofthe city's sumptuary laws, whose purposcwasto
conserve the wealth ofthe citizens by prevcnting mcmbers ofthcproperticd
classcs from competing with one another at lavish entertainmcnt and thercby
ncedlcssly squandering their resources. Skillful musicians and beautiful dan-
ccrs were evidently in great demand and, if not for the law (or, perhaps,
cven dcspite it), they could cause a spiraling escalation in entertainmcnt
costs. Just how valuable such girls might be, and how routine werc thc
sexual demands placcd u pon them by their profession, can be glimpsed from
thc following entry in a treatise belonging to the Hippocratic medica! corpus:

A kinswoman of mine owned a vcry valuablc singcr, who used to go r\,e.,

hod
regular intercourseJ with men. It was important that this girl should not :~~¡:;
pregnant and thereby lose her value. Now this girl ha_d heard thc ~ort ~he set.-G
womcn s¡y to each other-that whcn a woman is goJ~g -~~ conc~IV~, and kcpt
rernains insidc hcr and does not fall out. She digcsted thls m orm.anoshc told hcr
a watch. Onc da y shc noticed that the sccd had not ~o7e 7:tha~a;:jump up and
mistress, and thc story carne to.rnc. Whcn 1 hc~r~\';a ~oAftc;shchaddonclhiS
down touching hcr buttocks Wlth hcr hecls at cae d fi~l ut on thc ground. and
no rn~rc than scvcn times, thcrc w.as ~ ..~oisc, thc scc e o
thc girl lookcd at it in great surpnsc.
. . is importafll
1 ualify as prosntutcs, Jt n col.lid
Although concubincs do not tru Y q 1 · 1 Arhcns a'"' ·h
b h m noncthclcss. In e assJca d rrangc: wn
to say a fcw words a out t e b. • (p Jlaké) or he coul a f olnan
1 saconcumc tJ h -oaW h
purchasc a fcma 1e s a~c a . h t a conrract, to cnjoy t e us~ althoul(
another man, cithcr wl•:-th or ~ttbi:~gc was nota transitor~[~la~~ff~rcd froll~
in thc 1attcr's custody. C~nc~ tly and capriciously. t b ing a dowr!
thc man cou1d termina te Jt a ru~ that thc wontan did not \¡mate. 1"" "
marriagc, among othcr rcspccts. ~~ b thc un ion wcrc not lcgt with w-holl~
with hcr and thc childrcn produce to ~e maintaincd by thc :an
rJl¡~ht rrPr~~
concubinc could cxpcctf h~~c;~~·abitation. Conc:~binagc ~~~: rhosc §l.·~·ro
shc livcd for thc tcrm o t .cu ngcmcnt to marr~agc arn
!oocnt an altcrnativc domcsnc arra
 Thc Dcmocratic Hody 1 111

thcnian population too P??r, or too marginal in status, to

o<f be residen! rrymtO
A Athenian citizen famd1es but wbo nonetbcless wisbed
· ·· r b" ·
ire to nt 3 . . 11 precarious economJC posJtJon 10r t etr marnageable
ospsccure a mmlfna y cl"tizen for bis part, migbt decide to acquire a concu-
"' A Athcman '
woatcn. n ead had a family and wanted a regular sexual outlenbat did
bine ,¡he alr /, ancial obligations or muluply new burdeos on b1s estate;
no< creatc ncdwhmsclf in such a situation, for example, if bis wife died after
he "''g ·he fin h"''" severa! healthy maJe chddren. . "'
· But t h ere were no doubt
having borne ''"sible motives for maintaining a concubine. By designating
other pos . h ¡ ·
man Y b" age a sexual! y excluSive one, a man e ped to define biS concu-
thc concu '"one witb whom he Ji ved "with a view to free children" (wbich
biDcassome d ·f h b·
,f[ordcd hcr greater legal safeguards an , 1 t e concu me were a slav~;
pcrhaps raiscd the offspring of the umon to the status of the fatber).
Altcrnately, two or more men m1ght acqUJre JOmt shares m a female slave
for the sake of their own sexual enjoyment (as Timanoridas and Eucrates
rcportedly bought Neaera for a su m ofthirty minae: (Demosthenes,) 59.29);
or, the owners of sucb concubines could hire them out for sex or lend them
to friends as a favor or for a special occasion. Hence, the institution of
concubinage fulfilled sorne of the same functions as prostitution.
At the highest end of the scale of commercially available sexual partners
were the hetairtd, the "companions" or mistresses, 15"' who have also becn
referrcd to throughout this discussion as courtesans. Tbese might include
women from respectable families who made a living from their bcauty
and sexual availability, forcigners who maintained houses of pleasure, kept
th . ~ ' anddern'1mondames
Womcn · o f vanous · sorts. lflll Sorne of these women ouere a: d

supp'""vorstoaf r
nyonc .ara (h"1g h ) pnce,· others attemptcd to wm . thc constan!
orto oncma h . .
kccpin h . . n or anot er-or, m sorne cases, of several men at a nme.
mistrc! cae f 10 tgnorance of the orhcrs. Srill orhers bccame rhc life-long
~ Milcsiacs 0 wealrhy cirizens: rhe mosr nororious of rhese Jasr was Aspasia.
mg a so." ~ 0¡:''"· who livcd with Pericles and had children by him, includ-
CJ.Iizcn ¡11 ° t e samc namc whom he managed ro ha ve made an Arhcnian
~OnJic Poc;~ntr~vcntion of his own citizcnship law. Thc contemporary
<oncu b"lne"-ratiOus h. • how . cvcr, reterre r d ro Aspas1a . as Pene. 1es 's pa11aKt,
L"
or
conson of Ath w .•eh nughr ha ve bccn a more courteous designarion tOr rhe
~rtc cpithet "dcns lcading starcsman, had ir nor been pretixed by rhc.~ Hom-
~:.~:gor¡l's ofk:g-faccd";u,, no doubr rhc dividing linc bctWt't'l1 rhe rwo
,.,plllcd a hrtairQpt .womcn w as 111 . d"•srmcr.
. .....- Anothc.~r com1c
. poer. A nax1·¡ as.
rch¡ as a Wont h . . ••
~l•sll~cs on of ~ratitudc.· 0 0111 w o_ s~b~urs ro hcr lovc.~r pn•s ltharm ( .asan
lhc <"os hrr"¡'" intcrchan: .~ood-~111 : tr.A 21), bur in anorhcr pass~gc.· Ana;!..:
•tltb 111 u~:_of tnaintainingcabl~ ~•thporne (''whon·"), as lluver.pomts out .•
•tt~,, 1 hcr 011 Whc.·thcr. ~ 3 h~ ~·ura depended on thc.~ seo~ ot h~·r parron s
:.as :t. c0111 p . hat •s, he wanrc.~d ro spc.·nd .a m~hr w1th hc.·r, ro
a 111011 • or to cnjoy thc t.•xdusivc.· use.· of hc.~r-iusr .IS rhc.·
112 1 One Hundrcd Years of Homosexualily

cosl of a common prostitutc incrcascd as thc client's de

. f mands b
rcstrictivc: most cxpenstve o a11 was to purchase a prost' ecarne lllo
. . liUie out . re
his or hcr owncr. In thc htgh-pnced world of Athenian N nght frorn
hetaira who is down on her 1uck c~n expect no better thane~ C~rnedy, a
occasional ten drachmae by consentmg to be a rnan's dinne P ck up an
an cvcning, ,.. b ut m. L uctan . (fiour or titve centuries later) wer companio
h '
n •or
carnmg· onc ta1cnt (' stx t housan dd rae h mae¡·m etght
· months (Dearofhtt··
·1 """
Courtesans, 8) and ehargmg . a customer two talents for exclus·•• ogues •'th
. 1 '
tve nghr.
hcr affcction (15.2). The standard fee for one night with the legend h .10
· Athcns, such as Phryne an d Gnathaena, would seem 10ary
of classtcal hav ''"""'
b
. "''· t'f we can trust (w h'te h we sure1y can ' t) t h e reports of Iater,e srar.
a mma, een
struck gossip-mongers who seem to ha ve had the ear ofChrislian apologists:
1hc lattcr liked to boast lhat God demanded fewer sacrifices from 1he faithful
1han did whores. '"' At any rate, prostitution was evidently lucrative for
sorne women: in the fourth century B.C. Neaera is said to have raised
on occasion twenty minae from her wealthy lovers and her own assets
(!Dcmosthcnes,]59.3G-32), and in Captas, in Egypt, in 90 A.D. proslitutes
had 10 pay a special passport fee of 108 Egyptian drachmae, whereas other
womcn gol by with paying only twenty. ,.,
6
WhY is Diotima a Woman?
"No~ f~r the discour_se .about trOs which 1 once heard from a
Mannne1an woma~, DJOtlma, who was leamed in that subject and
in many oth~r thmgs-she once got the Athenians to perform
sacrifices agamu the plague and thereby procured them 3 ten-year
delay of the disease-and it was she, as well, who taught me
erotics: 1 shall uy to run through for you, entirely on my own
(insofar as 1 can), on the basis of what Agathon and 1ha ve agrecd
to, the discourse she pronounced."
-Plato, Symposium 20Jd

l. The Problem

Socrates is the speaker of these words. The occasion ofhis uttering them
is a symposium, an all-male drink.ing party, held at the home of the newly-
victorious tragic poet Agathon. The topic of conversation at Agathon"s
symposium is eros, or passionate sexual desire, and in keeping with the
paederastic ethos of classical Athens, to which Agathon and most of his
guests subscribe, the evening's discussion of eros is couched almos! exclu-
sively in maJe, homoerotic terms. Socrates hasjust cross-examined Agarhon
about the latter's stated views of eros and, in so doing, has refured them (..
least, to his own and Agathon's apparent satisfaction).' He is abo~r ro reD
rhe story of how his own views of eros, once similar to Agathon 5• were
refuted in turn by Diotima, a prophetess, who imparred ro him an ~cc~unr
of trós which he now believes and which he commends to others (-1-b).
o·IO[lma
. ts• better mformed
. . o f men -Lan
about the destres u• ar< ffieD !hem- be
selves. Without her expert intervention in their atTairs men would ne:ver 1
able 10 uncover the true sources, objects, and aims of !heir own dcsires- 1
takes
a woman to reveal men to themselves. tonma 5
o· . . instrucnon. mort-
ling to IJ'I('D
over, does not consist in enlightening mcn abour women, rev~ realm
onfly what they could not themselves be expected 10 discover • u~~.,. rhc
o Ckp . f bemg suppDKW .
••clus~:tence forever dosed off to them by virtue :har o;;,.;ma p,..;unJs
to Socr e p~cservc of another sex. ()n the co.?trary. iJtrtJSittff: s.,,.,.,$;,.,.
A

21 1bs...;.~es " an cthic of .. correct paederasry (lo ol1hos ~d enhan<"rn~ rdarrons

berw,. •.~f. 210a4-S. 211 b7-d)' aimed ar re~ulannga tounols. "" onrp<•r-
ccn liten"' and ""boys .... She thereby tounds. or re-

~
•••d jllniu~ernts "n1c~" (llndrrJ in Gl'ftk) and "boys"
(ptllfln:. . rz.
· by,""UII'o'dlidlh)lht-::
~r ro rh&Mit •~,. ~
•Pproprlatc- :::~~en In a pacdcrastic rclationsblp ~tnlp«<HunJrc'd Yr'll" ,,(tkw*
llott 2ft. on, ~Kardln• oftheir ac:tual alft: s« C.lnt
tant institution of male society in classical Athens .. providing at the sa
time an idcological (philosophiCal) JUStlficanon for It. llle
W\ · Diotima a woman? Why dtd Plato select a woman to ...
lY \S . h . . lnJhatc
Socratcs into thc mystcncs of .a malc,. omocrottc dcsuc? lt might sccrn
that any adcquate answcr to thts qu~.snon would have to emerge from an
undcrstanding of "sexual differencc m Hcllcmc anttquity and from the
uniquc. or distinctive, ~r (at th~ vcry lcast) charactens~IC attnbutcs. of womcn
as thcy wcre defined m claSSical Grcck culture. lt Is only by tdentifying
thosc gendcr-spccific fcaturcs bclongmg csscnnally to womcn m the Grcek
ima~ination that wc can discovcr, or so onc mtght supposc, thc sourccs of
Dio;ima' 5 superior crotic cxpcrtisc--and, thus, determine exactly what it ¡5
that quaJif¡cs hcr, in Plato's eycs, to be a professor of (malc) desirc.
llut the projcct, so described, turns out in practice to be highly paradoxi-
ca1. For it focuscs-ncccssarily-not on womcn but on mcn; it provcs to be
\css about "sexual diffcrcncc" than about m ale idcntity. Or, to be more
precise. it traces thc inscription of malc idcntity in ancient rcprescntations
of fcmalc "diffcrcnce" and thereby rccovcrs not thc prcscncc but thc absence
of "the fcmininc" from malc constructions of it. Rathcr than attempt to
escape thcsc paradoxcs, 1 ha ve tricd in what follows to makc thcir operation
vis1blc al thrcc lcvcls of thc analysis: (1) at thc lcvcl of Plato's tcxt, which
wi\\ be shown both to construct and to dcny fcmalc "diffcrencc"; (2) at thc
\c~d .of s.cho\ar1y commentary on that text, which in its cfforts to cxplicatc
Dtottma s gcnd.er h~s ~ephcated Plato's own tactic, eithcr dcnying hcr diffcr-
~ncc or rc~olvmg ~t mto male identity; and (3) at thc lcvcl of my own
~ntcdr?rctattvc practtcc, which by crasing fcmalc prescncc from the terms of
tts tscoursc, evcn as it adhe
d d \'fi res to an ostcnsibly fcminist program, rcpro-
uc\cs an\ cxcmh 1 t~s thc vcry stratcgies of appropriation-charactcristic of
ma e cu turc-t at tt purports both to illuminatc and to criticize.
2. The Question and Two e
ommonsense Answers
Lct us rcturn, thcn, to thc or' . \
again, in aH innoccncc, "Why ¡ ;~tn~ qucstion, and bcgin by asking, once
answcrs to thi!l. qucstion that ~ t~t~ma a woman?" Thc two most plausible
alikc to takc a ncgativc form· \)~ve. ce~ put forward hithcrto ha ve tended
is not aman. Each of thc a;gutottma 15 a Woman, appan:ntly, beca use shc
bncfly. mcnts for this solution is worth rcvicwing
According to thc ftr!l.t. argumcnt P\
youthful Socratcs a!. havmg bl.'l'n init' a.t 0 . could not afford to porcray thc
by an oldcr and wiscr ma/r bccausc 1:~c~ lllto thc ~lystcril·s of crotic dcsirc
~uggc~tcd to Plato's contcmporarics thc ~ Portratt would ¡ ·vicably !uve
¡;.
im.•Kht into thc naturc of crotics \ to thc --~cratcs owcd his ~~~uch-vauntcd
pdcdcra<,tic lovcr. 4 Now that i!l. an insin ~sstonatc tninistr- t" . f fornH:r
. uattl.1Jl lllato strcn::,{:.·~~vo w:ntcd w
\ll.JI• '' \.t IL r-. .rl d !)ylnpo,nun th,porrm~ tlll·np.,dvn 111 ll'IIIIIHih' .JttlrC h:rn.dc cnrcrt.lllll'f'
' 111 VIIit 11111 ... 11 di oHllllllll.IIIIIJH'III ('1ht J P.nrl ( ;,·uv Mli\Clllll. f he Hfl\l'l'• l'.llllh'L lln~ll~
-·•J.' la rl d" llr• putlt·r ¡ At11r H:n.l 1 1 ~ 111 (' ( u p. 1 Vpt· B. _.HI~-470 Jl.( h'l r.h tlfl.l. hcr~hr
1! otl.tiiH 1t r Hfo Al 2'J \J
116 1 Onc Hundrcd Years of Homoscxuality

avoid, not only bccause it would have lcnt the stamp of Socratic
to a soctal · pracnce
· for w h'1ch PI ato h'1mself entertamc
· d the hveliest
· approva)
.
· Id h h d h rniStrusr
but, more importantly, bccause 1t wou ave a t e cffect of valorizin
thc Athenian msntut1on of paedcrasty on thc very grounds on which PI ~
l'ausanias, carlicr in the Symposium, had cclebratcd it undcr the high-so~~:~
ing cultic titlc of Aphrodir€ Ourania (or "hcavcnly lovc"). 5 For Pausani
had argucd that a youth who is eager for moral self-improvemenr rn:'
legitimatcly, even laudably, choosc to gratify the sexual passion of an old:.
and wiscr malc in exchange for obtaining from his lover thc edifying insrruc-
tion he desircs (182d-185c, esp. 184b-c). '' But Plato, for a variety of philoso-
phica1 reasons, wishcs to repudiare the paederastic ethos articulatcd by Pau-
sanias7 a1ong with the economic model uscd tojustify it (cf. Symposium 175d;
Republic 5181>-d): that is the point ofthc famous episode in which Alcibiades
proposcs to Socrates preciscly the sort of transaction endorscd by Pausanias
and receives from bis admircd preceptor a sharp and uncompromising rebuff
(Symposium 218c-219d). 1fPiato, then, had represented the youthful Socrates
as having benefited-howcvcr passionlessly-from the erotic expertisc of a
mature male, the principie underlying Socrates's subsequent rejection of A1-
cibiades would ha ve been obscured, and Plato would ha ve riskcd conveying
to his audience an imprcssion diametrically opposite to the one he is deter-
mmcd to convey. Or so thc ftrst of thcse two arguments gocs.
The second ~r~umcnt harmonizes niccly with the prcvious one. lt so
hap~s t~at D10t1rna's discussion of erotic dcsirc issues, significan ti y, in the
spe;>f•cauon of a set of procedures to be followed by any truly serious student
of correct paederasty " h 11 · 1f h
been a male he . h ass cea sn. t eauthorofth~se~rescnpno~s a.
· · h d
, . f ' m•g t well ha ve been suspected of bcmg mfluenced m biS
orammg o them by av · 0 f 1
. · Id b an~ty personal factors, inasmuch as his own scxua
ac t tvny wou e matcnall fli d h
proposcd. Diotima b co Y a ~etc by whatcver crotic curriculum e
of thc erotic disci~l' y hntrast, ts not pcrsonally implicatcd in the content
then, by omitting t:c s ke recommends to the aspiring pacderast. Plato,
ma eama1eth h · · d ·e
manages to clothe that doct . . h e ~out p1ecc of his crouc octrm •
invcsts his chosen spokesO:lne m_ the guJSc of purc disintcrcstedncss; he also
troubling sourccs of person:~. Wttl an casy transccndcncc ovcr potcntially
l>iotima's serene mastery ofhlnvo ve~cnt in thc subject undcr discussion."
perform hcr appointed task 0~r ~a~enal givcs hcr thc rcquisitc authority to
Plato's dialogue.', Wts om-bearer Within thc largcr schcmc of
1 havc no wish to quarrcl with thosc who a
woma~ beca use she may not be aman. lndccd ~~uc t~at Diotima must be a
1 ha ve JUSt run through to be plausible cnou~h 0:hs1d~r thc two argumcnts
lcav~ mat~rs therc would be, in cffcct, to collab thctr own tcrms. But to
trad1t1on~ m VI citcrn culture that dcfmc . .. orate with thosc agc-old
tcnd to construc woma.n as a mere abscnccc:;::_ 1~ubjcct" as m ale and that
a e prcscncc · Once wc ad1nit
 'bTIY that there may be more to bcing a woman than not being a
th< P0551 11e obliged to seek for positive reasons behind Plato's startling
manwear
. '. to introduce a woman mto · t h e e1anms'h , masculine society of
deCJSIOnn's household m. order to en )'1gh ten a group o f arnculate
· paederasts
h
b 1 othe mysteries o f erot1c
Agat . d es1re.
. "'A ny sensJtJVe
. . rea d er of the Symposium
' .~"surely acknowledge, after all, that Diotima 's gender loudly calls atten-
:~n 10 itself within the drama tic setting of the dialogue.
Plato provides his modero readers with sorne additional encouragement
10 search for a positive philosophical dimension to Diotima's being a woman.
He hints unmistakably that Diotima's gender is not without its significance
for the erotic doctrine she articulates. Diotima underscores the specifically
"feminine"* character of her purchase on the subject of erotic desire by
mcans of the emphatically gender-polarized vocabulary and conceptual ap-
pmtus that she employs in discussing it. She speaks of eros as no maJe
does, striking a previously unsounded "feminine" note and drawing on a
previously untapped source of "feminine" erotic and reproductive experi-
cnce. In particular, Diotima introduces and develops the unprecedented
imagery of maJe pregnancy, 11 insisting on it des pite what might seem to be
the wild incongruousness of procreative metaphors in a paederastic context. l.!
In Diotima's formulation, men beco me pregnant (kyein), '-' sulfer birrh pangs
(Odis)," bear (gennan)" and bring forth (tiktein)" olfspring, 17 and nourish
thc~r young (trephein). '"lndecd, the aurhcnric aim of croric dcsire, accordmg
to J?iotima, is procrearían (206e). 1" Diotima's gender, rhen, is nora me~eJy
~er•pheral fact or an accidental circumstance, unconncctcd ro her reachmg;
lt is, apparently, a condition of her discourse, and ir is inscribed in whar she
says. Just as all the other spcakers in Plato 's Symposium project onro ErJs <he
~eatur~s of their own personalities, 21 ' so Diorima, too, sce~s ro be cxJsten-
tlally •mplicared in the contenr ofher croric docrrincs;t by v~rruc ofrhc very
~~nguagc she uses ro enunciare them, shc Ices her audiencc know ~har_ a
Woman" is speaking-or, ro be more precise, that Socratcs is spt"akmg m
what he expects his audiencc to recognizc as a woman's voit."C". Ar any ra~.
lllato clcarly mcans us ro notict.• rhat Diorima 's conceprualization of mu
derives from a spccifically ''f'-·minine'' pc.-rspccrivc ..f
llK 1 Onc Hundrcd Ycars of Homoscxuality

What is it about such a pcrspcctivc that Plato cspccially prizcs? N · .

ate answcr prcscnts use · lf. 1'1 ato ' s auuu
· d e to women ts· notoriouslyounmed,.
a b"
lcm:'1 Thc Jow sona . Jan d ccononuc . status o f w~mcn m
. e1assical Athcns,"rhc
m IV¡.
disparaging pronounccmcnts by m~le authors m gene~~!, and the thorough.
gmng dcprcnauon offemales by Anstode m parucular · ha ve madc ¡1 difficul
for studcnts ofthe classical period to identify those positive values convention~
ally associated with womcn by Plato's contemporaries which Plato might
ha ve sought 10 actualize through his sponsorship ofDiotima. In what follows
1propase, ftrst, 10 rcview sorne (but by no mcans all) ofthc explanationsthat
scholars havc offered for Diotima's prcsence in the Symposium and, then, ro
add to them two novelones of m y own which are dcsigncd to highlight Plato's
philosophical exploitation of femininity (as the ancients tended to construct
it)* My general aim is to sharpen our awareness ofthe strategics by which the
Greeks mapped socially and ideologically signiftcant distinctions onto biologi-
cal differcnccs between the sexcs;" more specif!Cally, 1 should like to contri-
hure a chapter to the still largcly unwriuen history of thc function of "the
femininc" in the social reproduction of m ale culture-whosc latest chaptcr,
no doubt, is rcprcscnted by thc appropriation offeminist scholarship by malc
acadcmics (thc present author not cxcepted)."

l. Diotima and Platonic Psychopathology

Thc various cxplanatory hypothcses advanccd in the scholarly literature

can be convcnie?dy divi~ed into threc basic groups according to whet_hcr
thcy rcfer Plato s portntt of Diotima to personal. historical, or doctrm~l
fact~~s. Lct ~e hcgin with thosc cxplanations that conncct Plato's artistlC
dectston to hts personal tempcramcnt. Scholars are occasionally hcard to
rc~ark (tho~gh. none, so far as 1 know, has yet confidcd this argumcnt to
pnnt) that Dtotlma's presenc · h S h b en a
dost.1: heterosexual· Pl e m~ e ymposium shows Plato to av~ e
twecn th '. hato, on thts account, sought to cndow rclauons be~
his conteemscxes _wu greater dignity by skctching for thc edification of
ponncs an attract · · h e
bctwccn a man and tv~, plcturc of a fruitful intcllcctual cxc angd
a woman Oth an
her doctrines to Plato's U· d h
· ·
cr co~mcntators relate DtotJnlíl .
t.-ntrcnchcd in Platonic s:hc~c h-o~oscxuahty-a diagnosis fast bcconung
qucn~cs of thc spirit of ~a~~~;p~bolndc~d. onc of thc uncxpcctcd _cons~d
class1ca\ studics in rcccm . . h ut sexual mattcrs that has ammatc
~c:ho\arly htcraturc of a fl~c~s fas bccn thc suddcn outpourin~ into thc.'
about thc psychology of ho~o:x::l;ly r~vealcd acadcmic halluánations
· • anclcnt and modcrn. l)aul Plass, for
 1 has assembled a collcction of twcntieth-century clinical evidcncc"
cxamP e, orts to documcnt just how thickly fantasics of malc prcgnancy
rhat purpout the mncr
· 1·Jvcs o fh omoscxua 1 mcn; h e suggcsts furthcr that
cluster ab , . . , ' '
Diorima's talk of' f,rcgnanc~: .b1~th pang~. and dchvcry. may rcprcsent a
k'nd of gay "argot, a set of m phrascs whosc emot10nal value tecters
:ecariously on the cdge betwecn self-affirmation and self-mockcry. 2' Bcn-
~ert Simon, by contrast, interprets Diotima's procrcative imagery to be
"typical of pregenital sexual fantasy" and goes on to relate the central themes
ofPlato's philosophy toa trauma experienced by the philosopher as a child
upon witnessing the primal scene . .1n In a much more light-handed and witty
cssay, Dorothca Wender claims that Plato's willingness to grant a certain
measure of authority to women stemmed from his sexual disposition: he
didn't like women, but since he was a "paedophile" and therefore indilferent
to the sexuality of women he did not feel threatened by them, and so he had
littlc motive to deny them social equality when they merited it-unlike
Xenophon, for cxample, a heterosexual man who liked women, and likcd
thcm in thcir place." The chief accomplishment of this school of Platonic
intcrprctation, in m y view, has been to demonstrate that ifMichel Foucault
had ncver existcd it would ha ve been necessary ro invent him.

4. Diotima and Athenian (Literary) History

Common at lcast implicitly to thc vicws of all thc aurhoritics circd 50

far is the as~umption that Di~tima was not a real pcrson bur a ticrional
crcarion of Plato's. Many reccnt srudenrs of thc Symposimn sharc rhar ~s­
surnption, but rhcy werc not always so numerous as rhcy are roda y. Wnh
occasional cxceptions such as Wilamowirz (who dcdarcd himsclf a rhor-
oughgoing agnostic abour Diotima 's historical cxisrcncc) u and Buey (who
dcnicd ir altogcthcr) .u classical philologisrs ofrhc nincrcrn~h and carly_ ~~e~;
ticrh ccnrurics tended to granr Diorima a measure ofhisrorrcal authL·nOLity.
and thcir argumcnrs still mcrit considcrarion. Forcmosr an~o~S: rhosc_a~gu­
ITlcnrs is thc claim rhar Plato doL'S nor normally introduce hcnr•ousdp~~sor;;
·
lhto his dialogues _, 5 E ven
11 usJons
otl~hand
·
a · Plato ro P'-"opk
111
an P .n-e
k · .. · r·0115
are on occasion co;1firmed in thL·ir hisrori~o:al acL·uracy by Gn·'"~~ ~~~~~~~~ ~-h~
or so ir is allcgL'd "' and rhosL· Platonic: ,·haraL·n·rs, suc~ _as ~~ ~~'p::o;;;n rhc
havc ycr ro turn ~p in our sourn·s 111J.Y wdl_ ~'-· ,·as~a.r~'-·sl; J.r~fs ..·;~rr,·n-J
documl•ntary rcL·on-1. 17 ThtKythd,·s (2.47 . .1) resufrl~S rofr e ear . lUtbn•J.k o~r
· . . h , . pn'l"l•ding JtS 4. ISóiSUOU!'i (.
lltndc1u·e uf thc plague m r. c yc;ar~ . fon•i 11 r,1pht•tt·ss llllt'hr
Athcns in 4]0, and it is not mconn••va_bll' t~at a . d-~)a~nmo~rn.lv n:lfcc:r
ha ve bcl'll calle~ in tO! consul~ar_ion ~t~ran~ t a:' ap~:•o aboul rht• mrt·r~·c.•nr•on
Plato's rct·ollc,·non ot_what he had lxel,l tc.¡!·~,(th,• A~ht•mo~ns .1 d,-...·.aJ,· .mJ .1
of a Pclop01liiL'Sian Wltl·h-ductor on he: ha ~ h r l'lo~hllll'-"lu~o.k:o;; ..kro~ds
half bcfOn· his birth."' Sonu· sc.:hulars h.IV'-' .Jr~ue r ol
 d d Ycars of Homoscxuality
120 1 One Hun re

. . , .dentity that secm irrclevant to the dramatic cont .

about D¡ottma s 'w-Socrates tells us how, by ordcring the Atheni ext In
wh!Ch they occur h 1 ans to
.6 she managcd to avert t e p ague from Athens 6
Perform sacrt 1ces, c.
d such details would thcre.ore secm to acquirc the rin
or ten
years (201 d) -an fE . . g of
historical authenticity." But the parallcl case o . plmcmdes, who staved off
1' . invasion of Attica for ten years by Similar means (Laws 64 )
2d
the eman " "d . 11 b . 1 e'
does not inspire confidence_; Epim_em .,es lS a too _o. V!ous y a stock folktale
figure (whatcvcr his histoncal ongm), and the w!lhngness of_some histori-
ans'·' 10 uphold his authenttclty on the b~SIS ofthe analogy to D10t1ma should
be a warning 10 the rest of us. Other h!Stonans ha ve cla1med to unearth an
ancient Mantineian tradition offemale philosopher-sagcs, 44 but that tradition
rcpresents, in all likelihood, a folktale of the modern academic variety.
More compelling is the argument that m no extant source does Socrates
name as bis tcacher a person who cannot be shown to ha ve existed histori-
cally;" Diotima, who did indeed "teach" (didaskein) Socratcs erotics, accord-
ing to his own testimony (Symposium 20ld5, 204d2, 207a5; cf. 206b5-6,
207c6),"' would be the sole exception. But this argument begs the fundamen-
tal question ofhow we are to assess Diotima's function in Plato's drama-
turgy: docs her role more dosel y resemble that of Callicles or Er?" Should
we, that is, regard her as a real person oras apure dcvice, ajamesian.fice//e?
Such qucstions, unfortunately, are not easy to answer in principie; they lie
~r the core ofinterpretation. Moreover, the pertinent issue for the interpreter
15 not whether Diotima actually existed but what it is that Plato accomplishes

by introducing her into the Symposium, and that is not an issue whose
resolution depends on Diotima's historical authenticity. This point will
bccomc clearer, perhaps, once all the alternatives ha ve been explored.
The search for Diotima has turned up a considerable number of ancient
verbal and pictorial documents, including most notably a large sculpted
rehef,
M found in the agora at Mantme~a
. . and now housed m · t h e N ational
useum at Athens, which dates to approximatcly 41 ~O B. C. and depicts
a woman holdmg in her hand what appears to be a liver· shc was cvidentiY
~:~:ptuotrtant local prophetess." This and the other do~uments do indccd
e a remarkable d · "fi Jy non<
ofthem 6 . h . an ••gm 1cant body of material; unfortunate • 1. O
urn•s es tesnmo h . . f the re JC
or sufficientl 1 ny t at lS e1ther conclusivc (in the case o . d by
Platonic inft y car Y to ~sea pe suspicion of having becn contammate 1•
uence In we h · h . . de mo•
strably indep d · •g mg t e fact that no mention of DIOilma
en ent of PI . possc 55
vastly fewer ato surv1ves we should remcmbcr that we G ~k
names of el . 1 0 f re•
men and that a b asslca Greek women than we do namcs l 3,cd
against the1r pr num .cr of cultural factors ha ve systematically mi~~ cck
name for a wo:erva~ 10~· 4... Diotima, of course is a pcrfcctly good . ·~) ~·
Scholars havc an (u ,. sccurely attested in the carly classical perlo ~'
11 . suspcctcd PI · be sur<· .
we •• 1n the etymol atomc wordplay in its etymology • to . ¡01 a ol
ogy of thc namc of Diotima's birthplace: !)¡ot
 Why is Diotima a Woman? 1 121

lilerally, somelhing like "Zeus-honor from Prophel-

. . means, .h d d b
Manuneta PI 10 may have wts e lo un erscore y mcans of such a
· · ' s we 11-mg
viJie, "'' and. . as sources of Dtollma · h oracu1ar au1hori1y. Bul
pun therehgtoU me prieslhoods m · e1asstca
· IG reece were m · effiec11he properly
. f: 'lies "and girls be1ongmg
inas rn uchasso . lo t h ose 1amt
r ·¡·tes w ho were expected
of certatn. amt es were
' often given approprtate· 1y august names-a fact re-
be pnestess r G k . "
to . he actual names attestcd 10r ree pnestesses -the aptness of
ftected 10 1 · h h' · 1 ·
. . , ame need not count agamst er IStonca extstence, nor need il
Dtottma'bed s n Jinguistic gamesmarts h'tp on PIato ' s part. " Moreover, 1he
10
be asen ofSocrates's mother, t h e m1'd w11e, . reported to h ave been Phaenare1e
·r IS
~::etttus !49a; Alcibiades Major l31e)-literally, "she who brings virtue to
light"-and if thal na~e,_ whtch ts almost too go~d to be true, _IS nol take~
10 be an outright Joke (tt IS attested as a woman s name m Anstophanes s
Ac11arnians [49] and is, more suspiciously, recorded as the name ofHippocra-
tcs's molher, who was also a midwife according to later legend), hardly any
motive remains for doubting the authenticity of Diotima's. Let us suppose
for the moment, then, that she was an actual person. Wha1 should follow
from that supposition for our interpretation ofher function in Plato's Sym-
posium?
. There are lwo alternatives. •• First, it may be the case that Plato's account
'" the Symposium is an accurate, or roughly accurate, reporl of an actual
conversation lhal really did take place between Socrates and Diotima many
ycars before the dramatic date of Agathon's drinking-party: such was the
. · · ay¡or, 10r
h'VtewofAET r
example. 57 The very nouon,
•
however, 1hat the
1~stoncal Socrates was actually initiated into the mysteries ofPlatonic love--
depe saydnothing of 1he Th eory o f Forms, on whtch · Plato ' s eronc· doctnne·
Propnh 1s-around lhe middle of the fifth century B. C. by a Peloponnesian
claitn e10ess ts so
. Wt
'ldl Y tmprobable
. as to deprive its adherents of any further
.
Dtotitna asenoush
h · '"Th e second and more bkely
eanng. · a¡temaltve
· ts
· that
fiction s' 1 ough a real person, functions in the Symposium as a dramatic
L_ • omewhat · h
"'"" his n •• 10 t e manner of Parmenides in the Platonic dialogue that
'" other w '~e. The literary character corresponds ro an actual individual,
115 •uthor ~ s, hulthe situalion depicted in the dialogue is rhe invention of
forward 1~ ,•rmenides, of course, is an appropriate figure for Plato ro bring
'"th a 5P<cifica))
rtttctze
p lb e Th . eory of Forms, since 1hat theory had tts. ortgms
. .
be fragmenrs ~f armentdean problema tic.'" But even in rhe event that all
~~n losr and lb and references to Parmenidcs which we now possess had
¡0 ato •ti)) furni ~~ hts na me meant as little to us as Diotima's does now,
,/1~~'lllple, a ~ es ~s wirh enough relcvant information about him (he is,
u, ~'' 1 lllinimal~rnudable logician)" ro makc bis prcscnc:e in rhe p.,..,.;.Ws
d;,, ery little peri- perspicuous. In Diotima 's case, by contras!, Plato gives
"""• •bou1 '"_•nt tnformation: Socrates says only that he will relate •
ttros Which hl• onl·e heanf fro1n a wontan uf M;annne•.a.
Diotima, who was learned in that subjcct and in many other thin
. ' . ti h G gs, and
who gavc thc Athcmans ten years rcpneve rom t e reat Plague by d .
. . a Vts..
in!!, thcm to sacnfice-presumably m 440 B.C. (201d). Although wc
n;vcr rule out the possibility that the most prominent authority on ero;an
ftfth-ccntury Greece was a certain Diotima, whose name and doctrines ha~n
wholly vanished from the historical record, nothing in Plato encourages u:
to cntcrtain it. Nor does Plato, superb portraitist though he is, attempt 10
give us much of a portrait of Diotima, as he might well ha ve done had he
decided to breathc life into a well-known historical personage (though,
admittcdly, his portrait of Aspasia in the Menexenus is hardly more lifelike,
despite its historical basis, but then Plato seems to be less interested in her
than in hcr relations with Pericles). Far from being vividly individualized,"
Diotima keeps a cool distance from us: she remains aloof-suavely imper-
sonal and provocatively business-like."" We still have to figure out what
she's doing in the Symposil4m.
There is yet a third possibility, however. The impetus to make Diotima
a woman may have had its origin in history but not in actuality: that is,
Plato m ay ha ve bcen responding to a previous, and now largely lost, literary
tradition. The tapie of Socrates's relations with women seems 10 have
fumished a staple, in fact, of Socratic litcrature in l'lato's time.'~ In the
Memorabilia, or ."Recollections" of Socratcs, for example, Xcnophon tells
the story of a VIS!! pa~d by Socrates and his friends to Theodote, a famous
htrGira or courtesan, whom Socrates procccds to question and instruct in his
usual manncr about the art of seduction (3.11; cf. 2.6.28-39). Theodore,
scanuly dad, happens to be posing for a paintcr at thc momcnt the company
arnves, and Socratcs inquires ofhis fricnds whcthcr they oughr to be obliged
10 her for allowmg them to sce hcr beauty or shc to them for the privilegc of
bemg
S
admucd.
.
After a brief• 1'fb rcath tak'mg, dtsplay
. . . · g
of dtscurstvc rcasonm •
. ocr~tcs tnumphantly concludcs, "Wc airead y dcsirc to touch what wc ha ve
seen, we shall go away e ·t d d 1
· < d1 . XCI e • an when wc ha ve gonc we shall fcc an
unsaus.tc ongtng Thc natural · e . .
\. b . d. . m.crcncc •s that wc are pcrforming a scrvtcC
dl.ct.,. y sprca lllng hcr rcputationJ and shc is rcccivinu it" (3.11.2-3). Thco-
o e ts cvcntua y pcrsuadcd of S , n
· · h. .. ocratcs 5 cxpcrtisc in thcsc and othcr mattc:rs
an d mvttcs tm to vtslt hcr oftcn h. .
to join hcr partics buten . ' tho w lch Socratcs rcsponds by dcclintng
couragmg cr to au. d h' d" . . . ·s
to rcccivc hcr-"unlcss " h dd en ts 1scuss1ons; he pronllsl:-
. e a s rathcr un ll ¡ .. "th
me llokc bcttcr" (3.11.1>-lll) Th·, . ga ant y, 1 havc somconc W'.
antiquily and was takcn up b~ ~ cplsodc cv_1dcntly bccarnc notorious 111
Thc figure who sccms to ha::dscq~cnt wrucrs on Socratcs. ,,.,
Aspa~ta, a M•lcsian woman who o~thnatc~ such storics about Sm.·ratcs JS
.

. was t e m1strcs 0 f t.) · 1 J"kc

1 hcodotc, a lu.·taira. In thc cxtant Socu.tic lit· s ene e~ ~nd wa~, t
~Of:Ute\ u, moM fully adumbratcd ¡ Pl , craturc Aspasta s rclanon to
n ato s Mc•tlt'Xtnus, whl·r~ Sncratl'S
 . Aspasia as his instructor in rhetoric (didaskalos peri rhitorikis·
cla1ms h h ·
2JSe; cf. 236c~) and says that s e as made r_nany other men _good orators,
.ally Pendes (235e). He goes on to recite a funeral orat10n which he
el
cspe . •
maintains (236ab), Aspas1a composed partly from what she happened 10
invent on the spur of the moment and partly from fragments of a previous
funeral oration delivered by Pericles which, however, Socrates also ascribes
10 her authorship. Socrates adds that he learned the speech from her and was
ncarly beaten by her for failing to get it right (236bc); he is in the ha bit of
visiting her, evidently (249d), and he knows sorne ofher political speeches
as well (249e). Menexenus, nonetheless, remains politely skeptical abour
Aspasia's responsibility for the discourses which Socrates persists in ascrib-
ing to her (236c, 249de).
Most of the other literary passages bearing on Socrates and Aspasia pertain
ro erotic matters, somewhat more in keeping with the tone of the Theodote-
cpisode in Xenophon's Memorabilia."" Elsewhere in that work, for example,
Xenophon's Socrates claims to ha ve gotten good advice from Aspasia about
match-making (2.6.36); in Xenophon's Oteonomicus Socrates offers to intro-
duce Critobulus ro Aspasia who, he says, can speak abour the relations
between husbands and wives more knowledgeably than he can (3.14; cf.
2.16). Antisthenes, perhaps the most philosophically ftamboyant of Socra-
tes's disciples, wrote a Socratic dialogue entitled il.spasia," now loS!, in
which he described Pericles's passionate attachment to thar lady;"" how
Antisthenes portrayed Aspasia and how he treated hcr rclations with Socrares_
cannot now be securely reconstructcd. h'l Anorhcr Socratic, Aeschmes ~t
Sphettus, also composed an Aspasia"' which sccms to havc trcat~ eronc
themes;" he portraycd Peridcs as breaking down in rears whde dctendmg
Aspasia against a charge of impiety, 72 dr..~scribed Aspasia ·~ cross-cx~m•naoon
of Xenophon and bis wifc on rhc subjcct of marriagc. ··' and daimed _rhat
Aspasia madc the hithcrto undistinguish<..J Lysicles (wit~ whom shc lw<..J
· ft y after thc dcath of Pcrick-s) the hrst
bnc · man m
· Athens.. • Th<' Alexandnan
· ed
poct Hcrmcsianax includt.~d rhc: (so t3.r as wc know) prc..·viously un.urt-st f
. . . .
t a1e o f Socrates's passion tor As pasta m d n.t cr e~ h h r ·rogcn"Xlus "·,uaJOJ.tuc- o
. . h·. Jos
thc lovcs of famous pocts and philosophc..-rs in rhe rhud ~~ _ot ~s ·h '
·1 · 1., · •B b 1 a pupd ot t.r..n.-s \\ t.l
e cg1ac pocnt, thc Lt••Jtlfhln. Hc..·rodiC"US ot _a Y on,. ·nr.rlt-J Pn•s 1,.,
flourishcd around 125 U. C. and wror~- an a•~r·~Piaro~.·~ rr::rn~c..-J AsJ""SJ4 .AS
plrilos0krate11 ("A H.c:ply ro rhc..· .uinun:r ot Socraru ), . fJn-sst...-1
Socratcs's rr1iii,JidaskaiM, h1s . . · 1 • dquorc..-dapc..Knt.lc.
msrruc..·ror m ove:. a•~ . ·h· ·h ·h. o~ltt•n•o~rc-h·
to Sonatc..·s omd supposc..-dly t.-omposcd by Aspas•~· m wl -~" J s. \. P'luro~n·h~
advisc..·s and ,·hatlS Soa<~tt•s abour his p;~ssion tor A,.• I.l. c..-s .. S T.lh."S\¡;
. h · 11 rdCr ro Asro~sl.l .1:11 · ,.,..
Ludan, ,M<~ximus ot l_'Y~· and A~ ('fl•.a_cu~ a . 'vft"m.· nt.ilmto~m SJ"."··fk·,¡Jh·
tcach~..·r;·' Maximus of 1 yrc. an~ Sym:~•.".!i. ut (..~ ·ourmuc.-s tiJ bt" ;~SMx·•o~rcJ
that sh,• tamzht s,n·ratc..•s crotKS. Asp<iSIOI !i ll.llllt: '
124 1 One Hundred Years of Homoscxuality

with that of Socrates's throughout antiquity"' and eventually seem

come interchangeable w1t . h o·10t1ma
. 's. HO All o f th ese passages as S lolibe-
many others have been assembled and exhaustively analyzed by awe as
. . recent
QuellrnforscheriH,' Barbara Ehlers, who de~1ves Vlrtual_ly the entire tradition
from Aeschines s lost d1alogue, the Aspasra. In that d1alogue, as she labori-
ously reconstructs it-on very slender but not unreasonable evidence-
Aspasia did not appear in person; rather, Socrates cited her words and her
example alike in order to demonstrate that erós can be an instrument of moral
improvement, a positive moral force in its own right (whether Socrates
portrayed Aspasia as his instructor in erotics, as Ehlers claims, is, on my
reading of the evidence she presents, much more doubtful)."' lf Ehlers is
correct, Plato's Diotima may be a stand-in for Aeschines's Aspasia"': Plato
did not wish to bring forward the same personage to fill the role of erotic
expert because he wanted to distinguish bis own views from those of Aeschi-
nes's; in the course of taking over and transforming Aeschines's erotic
doctrine, he also displaced and replaced Aspasia with Diotima."'
1 fmd this line of reasoning both attractive and helpful. lt cxplains, fust of
all, Plato's choice of an otherwise obscure woman to play what is after all
a crucial role in bis dialogue and it accounts for his rather perfunctory
characterization of her: Plato can afford not to particularize her personality
because she is filling a function previously performcd by a much more
notonous personage. Whereas Aspasia fits comfortably into the design of
the Mtntxtnus (smce the topic of that dialogue is political rhetoric and
AspaSia had a reputation for making her lovers into successful politicians),
she would be quite out of place in the Symposium where Plato clearly wants
to put sorne distance between his own outlook 'on erOs and the customary
ahpproach to that topic characteristic ofthe Athenian demimonde."' Secondly,
t 1s way of answenng . ,
f h our questmn puts Diotima's gcnder in the forc1ron 1
o t e exp1anatory strategy·
.
h h
· rat er t an making her gcnder thc consequcncc
f h
o sorne ot er, putat1vel . · h
Plato had a · Y more lrnportant, considcration, it imphes t at
pnmary reason fo ~ · b h
mouthpiece ofhis erot' h r prc errmg a woman, any woman, to e t e
woman who was nol lcht ~ry · But in arder to replacc Aspasia with anothcr
a tiGirG Plat h d ·
authority, another mean f • ~ . a to find an alterna te source of erouc
pronounce on the subjec~ 0 f sust~tntng his candidatc's claim to be ablc t~
Sappho" as a fount of erot~ e~o~lcs. ln the Phc:~tdrus he appcals to "the fa u
looks to re1igious sources ~fwts ho~ <23Sc); in the Symposium, howcvcr, he
bchcvcd by thc Greeks to h aut onty • to which sorne Grcck womcn wcrL'
Diotima's vocation ¡5 to beave alc~css.w; This solution suggcsts thcn, that
gendcr' not vict versa. Plato .:xt in
am~~ ~t lcast part by rcfcr~ncc to hcr
historical figure of a prophctcssa) es h~Ot•~a a prophctess (or appLals to thc
k h ,Ont lSVICW b d
to m a e er a woman: he was not obr d ' ccause he has alrcady decide
had resolved to articulate his doctri lg~ to make her a woman bccausc he
nc t rough thc mcdium nf a sccr.
 . 'rna Divination, and Platonic Metaphysics
s.Dloll •
f if Plato had wanted to invoke a religious authority, he need not ha ve
cho::n a woman: he had manifold devices ready to hand for putting the
prestige of tradmonal w1sdom at th_e serv1c_e of h1s o~n philosophy. In fact,
Plato's usual strategy for mtroducmg posmve doctrmes into his dramatic
dialogues is ro ascribe them to the authority of so me more august personage
rhan Socrates. The briefest survey ofPiato's writings reveals rhe exrraordi-
nary flexibility and adaptability of this transparent subterfuge. In the Meno,
forexample, Socrates ascribes the doctrine of recollection to certain unnamed
"men and women who are learned in divine matters (sophoi peri ta thtia
pragmata]"-specifically, "those priests and priestesses who have made ir
their business to be able to give an account (logos) of the funcrions rhey
perform" (81ab)." In the Charmides, similarly, Socrares, pretending on rhe
advice of Critias to know a cure for the ailment affiicring rheir handsome
interlocutor, claims to have acquired medical expertise, while on military
duty in Thrace, from one of the doctors who attend rhe god-king Zalmoxis
(156d-157c, 158b, t75e)."' Elsewhere, Socrates appeals for aurhoriry roEr
(Repub/ic 6!4b ff.), to "one ofthe sages" (Gorgias 493a!-2), ro "sorne clever
fellow, perhaps a Sicilian oran ltalian" (Gorgias 493as-6), and-in the case
of the myth in the Phaedo-simply to "someone" (108c8; cf. Theaemus
20lc8, el). In short, Socrates is quite eclecric abour rhe authorities he ares
and ls hardly averse ro revealing rhe sources of his wisdom. "Once lleam
something," he declares in the Hippias Minor, "l never rum around and den y
1! or prerend that whar l've learned is m y own discovery. Rarher, 1 praJSC
my teacher for being a wise man and 1 make clear whar Ileamed lrom him"
(Jnc; cf. Repub/ic 338b). Diorima's funcrion in rhe Symposium. rhen, •s bur
one variation on the recurring theme of Socratic modesrr and Pla~c
anonymiry."' As Paul Friedlander remarks, Diorima is "rhe h•ghesr embodi-
menr, as ir were, of rhe more or less vague "somebody' whom (rhe Pbrom<
Socrates) frequently posits playfully in conversarion_ ••. anorher
arder to conceal himselfironically"; but in rhe case ot D•onma. Fned . dus
per;:::
adds. ..there is much disagreement on the meaning and purposc' ot
creation. """' .
B . . . d ose .. behind J)Jonm• s
ut lt m1ghr be objecred that "rhe meanmg an purp Js l) nn.. "s
Voc t" d
. a lon an gconder are not as ob:K."ttre as r1 F ·ed(ander preren
. . 10
the pn"'-"'C"f'fS
ldcntity as a prophctess is direcdy conn«tcd. on oJIC' VIC'W' ':C. .:k :trHIC' of
she arriculatcs: like the doctrine of r«allcction in the Mnt"· r ~ ro dx
erotic aspiration in the Symposium properly demands to be' en= ,~~~J .bk
ilUthorship of a man or a wom.an who is leamed in dJVUit' "'~ h· tin rfw,t
to give an .account ofhis or her sacrcd functiOil· ... l>totun• _'""t'"n: 1nft"'"«W-
dcs"-·ription neatly enough: not only does hcr """-on.l ofsLM'-::.IIIC' martC'fS.
''''U ... on behalf of th~ Ath~nians vouch fUr hcr expc'rt•• ••
bu1 she also providcs, in thc form of her doctrine of dacmonic 111 ed"tation .
a 1ucid account of the commerce bctwcen 1 . . mcn and. gods
. which is dcstgned
. ·
10 explain the opcration of Grcek re tgtous practtcc m general and of h
own spccialty, matJiiké, in particular (202~203a). To thc extent that Pla~~
charactcrizes Diotima at all, he charactcrtzcs her as a prophctess and h
makes much of her identity as someonc skilled in the mantic arts: at 0 e
point, in response _ro her declaration thatt_he aim ~f ero tic dcsire is "procr:~
ation in the beaunful, both m body and m soul, Socrates rcmarks that it
would take the art of prophecy (manteia) to figure out what Dio tima means
(206b9). Socrates, in fact, has good reason to be baffied, as Diotima subse-
quently acknowlcdges when she employs vocabulary proper to the mystery
rcligions in ordcr to represent her own teaching, implicitly at lcast, as a
rcvclation: she spcaks of the possibility of Socratcs's being "initiated into
crotics" and shc divides her own disquisition into two parts which shc
associates, respective! y, with the Lesser and Greater M ysterics (209e5-
210a4)-thc formcr having to do with thc erotic aim (207a5-209c4), the
lattcr with thc erotic object (210a4-212a7; cf. Gorgias 497c). To all these
hints in thc Symposi1<m, morcover, one might add Socratcs's tcaching in thc
Phardrus that mantike and rros are akin to one another insofar as they are both
forms ofbcneftcial madncss (244a-245c)."'
Plato's mantic imagcry is replete with philosophical significancc. for
despne what Plato's Eryximachus alleges (to his disgrace),''J Platonic erotics
tshnot a sctence but a mystery-at least, for those who ha ve yet to complete
t e mysuca\ ascent to the f orms. 'M T o study croucs . ts
· not mere! y to exp1ore
the phenomcnon of se ¡ · f
l. . xua attracnon but to inquire into the structure o
rea ny, on\y a correct u d d" h
f . n erstan mg of the naturc of bcing will un loek t e
sccret o our tmrnonal lo · ,,., b
means of h•"s e ngtngs. As Plato's Aristophancs establishcs Y
••mous myth · h 1
dcsirc is not what m 1 . m t e Symposium, thc ultimatc aim of scxua
os anctents and d · . · ( 1
sexual intercourse) but h" mo erns ahkc bchcvc 11 to be na me Y•
somct tng ¡ ·
impenetrable mystery e se, something that may wcll rcmam an
. evcn to thc . h
spcnd thctr cntirc livcs togcth .. mast cxpcncnccd lovers. Thosc w 0
onc anothcr •.. according t A ~r could not say what thcy wish to gain frol11
. o nstophan "N 1
tntcrcoursc, or that for th . . k. cs. o onc would think it was scxua
. .h h e sa e of sex e h . h".
umon Wlt t e othcr. But · · . ac partncr so carncstly cnjoys 15
. . tt ts clcar th
~omct hmg cls~, whtch it is not abl . at thc soul of ca eh lo ver wants
tt wants •nd hmts at it" Oncd) • e_ to say, but it divines (manteuestlrai) what
· h. · nnstoph , ,
JU!!.t. a!!. mue m nc~d of prophccy to rcv~~cs s lovcrs, in othcr words, stand
a~ Socra_tes stands m nccd of it whcn .. ~~ to thcm what thc rcally dl·sirl'
crotJr a1m. And J. uM · S .
. ·. as · ouatcs grccts Ir . nc
. y
he 15 qucstio d b y Dmtima about t h ..:·
;u~, once s~c unvcJls it, with wondcr a t~t~nu.'s dcfinition of thc crotif
Anstopha~cs hypothcsizcs, ifllcphacstus:. a.mazcntcnt (20Hb?) l'Vl'll so.
thcy wcrc m bcd having scx and offcr to f ~reto "PProach 1 l ' .. whilc
use thctn. wo nv..:rs
lltht a single hl·itl~. thl'Y
 . tly recognize the true goal of their desire (!92de). Without
wm•~ .. d ¡· .
wou lit of such a pnvdege g 1mpse mto the deep structures of their
h bene• .
t e . . n "" both the most expenenced lovers and Socrates himself might
monvatiO . d .
. ignorant of the reason an purpose behmd their own erós-what
z:::rhanes and Diotima alike call its ait~on_ (!92e9; 207e7; cf. 207b7, c7).
In the Repub/ic, Socrates uses language sJmdar to that employed by Aris-
rophanes in the Symposiu~ i_n ?.rder to describe our difficulty in apprehending
rhc nature of the Good: 1t 1s what every soul pursues, that for the sake of
which it does everything, something whose existence it divines (apomanteues-
thai)," but cannot seize upon; rather, the soul remains "at a loss and unable
ro grasp adequately what it is" (SOSde). The ultimate erotic object, which
Diotima reveals to be the Beautiful and which is quite possibly just another
aspect of the Good, poses analogous problems for the human understanding:
the project of identifying the precise idea or value instantiated in all the
objects of one's longing may take one, unaided, a lifetime to complete-as
Proust la ter discovered. Plato is not, of course, the first Greek to use Eleusin-
ian imagery in speaking of erós-that honor goes, perhaps, to Euripides,
who referred in a lost play to those "uninitiated (ate/estoiJ in the labors of
mis""-but his emphasis on the mysterious quality of erotic experience and
on the difficulty of penetrating to an accurate understanding of it retlecrs a
systematic element in his thinking. If philosophy is a form of revelation.
then the mystery religions can provide a metaphor for philosophical enlighr-
enment. But in arder to prevent Socrates from appearing in rhe Symposium to
bes~me sort offake mystagogue-which is how Arisrophanes had porrrayed
h•m m the Clouds (e. g., 143)-Plato needed to rransfer rhe iniriarory funcnon
proper to a professor of desire from Socrares ro his alter ego. DIOnma.
And if Diotima is ro qualify as an official represt•ntativc of rhe EleusmJ.UI
mysteries,"" according to rhis argument, she will need ro be.· a woman.
But that, unfortunatdy, is wherc rhis linc of reasoning brcaks down:.
serves very wcll to explain why Plato clothcs his rm·raphys¡cal tht-orrcs 1
nnagery borrowed from thc Elc.~usinian mysteries-indc.""t.xi. much mo':
rnight be said about the corrcspondcn"·c.~s bctwc.~n rhe mysrcr1c.-s and _PI.tro s
crotic doctrines, both of which shan' an intc.·n.'st in thc.· procc..•ss('S. ot t-.ut~,
dcath, and rc•u·wal in thc miradc.·s uf sc.·x and imrnortaliry-bur •.r d(l&.~J r
cxplain why Dioti;na is a wom.m. For unlikc thc.· g~.·nc.·ral run ot dJSSJt.·o~l_
( •rcc
' k cults Lkvotc:d to various kma · 1c.· dC'Itu.-s.
· · an d un lik<·. uth<·r nt<'S "' k·
l>cmctl'r in parrkular, thc.· Ell·usinian mystl·ril'S w~.·n· J,muno~n..J h\: . 11 ~~'\.1
otlkials.'"' That, in t3c.·r, is why Akibiadl'S omd his tiu·nds l"ln&lt.i he.· ,¡u.~~c.
f . . . k. . Jlt' rrk'!'Oth• nllc: ..u
o parudym~ th1.· mys_tL'ril'S, l'ach of thl·n~ ~a 111 ~ a se."~~~ •0 he.· sun". rhcn·
an (all-malc) symposmrn (Piutan·h, .'o./ab1.ulrs 1'1.1). 1 ,.¡
Wnc also wu;ncn associatcd wirh thl· t·uiE--c.uu· pnc.•slt.'SS of ll..·mnc.•r .AJI .
Kore, twu hicrophantids, and possibly a prit•stt•ss l,f l•lun'·. "' he.· t'X.Al~. J' ~s
thc rc~ular priesresscs ofthc.· sanc.·ru ..uy 1" 1-hur rhc.· ,·hn·t"otli&.'t..'TS wc.·n· ro~" u
128 1 One Hundred Years of Homosexuality

cxclusively from the (male) members oftwo prominent Atticge •

and sorne, if not a11 , o f the mysragogor, • · t he pnests· who actuallyne, or, cla ns,
· · · · and m
the rites of tmttanon · d ucted peop1e mto · t h e cult were per,orrn ed
. • 1
asome
Diotima's gender, then, ts not properly construed as making a . n.
reference to the Eleusmtan • ·
mystenes, · w2
an d PI ato can h ardly have borspecrfrc
. d' . . 1 . d rowed
a woman from earlier Socrattc tra mon stmp y mor er to justify his prac .
of crowding Eleusmtan · · tmages
· aroun d h'ts metap h ystca · 1 " re-structurin trcef
what there is on the scaffolding of what is more and less real."'"' g0
Now that we are, at last, at the end of this digression, it may be useful 10
take stock of our progress. 1 am arguing (1) that the mysterious nature of
Platonic eros is not sufftcient in itself to explain Plato's choice of a female
spokesman for his erotic theory and (2) that Plato need not ha ve emulated
Aeschines and Antisthenes in making Socrates's conversation with a woman
the occasion of an erotic discourse ifit hadn't suited his own purposes: Plato
is so resourceful in creating specious authorities for Socrates to cite that, if
he had wished, he could well ha ve imputed Diotima's doctrine to sorne male
sage or other whom Socrates need never have met (thus sanitizing the
paedogogic relation of any possible paederastic overtones) but whose ac-
count of eros he had somehow managed to learn-that is, by the same
devious and indirect means, whatever they were, that he managed to absorb
the myth of the Gorgias, the myth of the Phaedo, or the myth of Er in the
Rtpublic.
One might even argue, for that matter, that it very nearly doesn'l suit
Plato'spurpos~s to introduce a woman into the Symposium to play the role
of a phllosophrcal authority: Plato has gone out ofhis way, after all, from the
very ourser ofrhe narrarive, ro make Agarhon's drinking-party an un~sually
ma~~hne affarr · Greek symposia, of coursc, were by definirion men s par-
ucs . bur, as Xenophon's own Symposium (ro say nothing of Attic vase-
pamtmgs)rllusrrares, rhere was plcnty of occasion for women ro be presenr
ar them, , rhough 111 no d.rgm·r,red capaciry, ro put it dchcare . ¡Y· "" .Ar
Agarh on s, by conrrasr veryrh 1 non
has been ru1ed out from • e cusromary orgy of inroxicarion and copu a
th ff ro
pipe ro herself or ro rhe woe srar_r and rhe fturc-girl has becn scnr o irs
reappearance at Agarh , "'¡en msrde (176a-e); the fcmalc scx makc\
flute-girl in row (21 2cdo)n Fs onhy whcn Alcibiadcs sraggers in wirh anor er
. urr crmor
sium take special care tu d" l"f e, t he fitrst two speakcrs at t he sy mpo- ~
from f1guring among the t rsqua .
1 y borh
f
• '•or womcn and womcn 's rros
rros
ingcnious lengthti to deval:~·~lo t~~ proposcd encomia: l'hacdrus p;o~s ro
to A.chi1les's philit~ for his co cedst¡s s erOs for hcr husband in comparlson
Aeh1-11es•s trastes,
• or active lov mra e Parroc1us (whom Phacdrus consl··dcrs
) . .
wifc (17'.1b-ti!Ob),"'• whilc .. :~ 'JUst •• he disparagcs Orphcus's rrós for bis
h " san•as restri t - ~ . to
t e dcvo~ces ~f vulgar Aphroditc" (181b2 ~~~~ women as objccts ot ~rCil
''ut for (uomc) praisc by Aristoph ), pacderastic rrtis is also sutglcd
anea (l'Jtc.."{.._1Y2a7). Alcestis is rchabili..
 1 by Diotima (208d) who, like Plato's Aristophanes, detaches th
caced onf y •5 from the gender of both its subject and its obiect (she has e
lue o ero fi h h . • no
va e than does Pausanias or t e p ySJcallove of men for women: 208e-
more us"" Far from ·
ptcturmg· · h'15 firiends by describing
Socrates as amusmg
)
209e. ·
. . ate relattons wtt. h a f:amous woman, as Aeseh'mes apparently did and
bJSpriV , .
as Plato himself dtd m the Menexenus, the auth.or of the Symposium has taken
care co banish w~men fro~ the d~!mattc settmg as well a~ from the copies
of conversation m that dtalogue. The ulttmate effect 15 to achieve che
maximum possible contras! when Socrates conjures up his encouncer with
Diotima, rendering her erotic authority so intrusive and making what she
says so inappropriate to the terms of the foregoing discussion that ir is hard
co account for Plato's decision to include her simply by supposing thar he
was somehow wedded to an earlier tradition in Socratic literature or that for
sorne reason he had to employ a prophetess at all costs in order to articulare
his erotic doctrine. Those considerations may help to explain Diotima's
presence, but they are not sufficient in and of themselves ro account for it.
1 think it is time to confront the programmatic importance for Platonic
doctrine ofDiotima's being nota surrogate for Aspasia, nota prophet-
ess, not an Eleusinian priestess, but a woman.

6. Erotic Hierarchies and Platonic Reciprocities

1 venture to suggest that Diotima's gender serves ro thematize rwo ofthe

most distinctive and original elements ofPlato's eroric theory. By rhe very
fact ofbeing a woman that is Diotima signals Plato 's departure from certam
aspects of the sexual ;thos of his male contemporaries and thereby enables
him to highlight sorne of the salient fcatures of his own philosoph_y. For
Plato's philosophical explorations of erotic desire issue in a model al eroac
dynamics that, in ar leasr rwo respecrs, corresponds ro rhe model, or m::;
of desire consrrucred as "fcmininc" according ro rhe rerms ofrhe sex/g
sysrem of classical Arhens. . . ar lct alonc a
lt Would be wrong ro ascribe ro rhe Arhemans a 001 ~ Y· . .. A ·
e ·
onststent, .
not1on .
of women-a smgle ·
d1scourse 0 f ''rhc temmmC'.b s 01
die:'
many socicties the idt."'iogy of gender in classical Athens was su ~t.~"t n1 tOr
shifting requir~ments of masculine intercst; ir rheretOC'C' had room m.•~'rbar
all . . , ·¡ h. -al explo~tan<•n 'q
sorts of contrad1ctory nouons. Plato s pht osop 1' 4 A . mfantt
ideoloKy capitalizcs on two, mutually conflicting, aspects ot n. c.~~urn
ro onc.:• ('·r~ae k sterrotypc women are ¡ess abl·e: rhan men. 1\> J'CSISI P ·
. . .. red mt<.• t•K U< 1 ~
L- ~~.¡ .,hrs l..lf
f 1 •
0 a 1sorts; thcy cnjoy sex too much. and on("C' IIUtl.il • d ft' •nJU.CC rhar
scx thcy bt·comc insatiablc and potentially trC"achcwus. n:tl y·h.Jc.t llll'\' rhcir
own children-if n«essary--or to inrroduc.'t" 11 supptW~K)US '.0111cs1 do 1101'
husband's houschold. Accordintt to a setunc.i slc."rt'\ll'~~· "wK' c...bft'"t ro
possess (as mcn do) o:~ tree-ftoatinK desire rh..u r.a•lt(Co'S tn.Jnl ' ·
130 ¡ One Hundred Years of Homosexuality

another, stimulated in each case by beauty, nobility, or other cult 1

. h h . d . . d" . ura Valu
advcrtiscd ~y thc obJCCt; rat er: t eu d estr~ ts co; ~~:~?ed ~y their physic:~
nature, whtch atms a~,frocreatton an nee s to u 1 ttse by drawing off
1
substance from men.
In Plato's conception (male) eros, properly understood and expressed .
not hierarchical but reciproca!; it is not acquisitive but crea ti ve. Plato's rnod~~
of succcssful erotic. dcsue effecttvely mcorporates, and allocates to rnen,
the positivc dimenston of each of these two Greek stereotypes of women
producing a new and distinctive paradigm that combines erotic responsive:
ness with (pro)creative aspiration."' 1 shall take up each ofthese two points
in turn, treating thc first in this section of my essay, the second in the
following scction. In order to appreciate the nature and cxtent of Plato's
originality in each department, we must begin by measuring how far the
sort of desire defined and prescribed by his erotic theory departs from
the conventional undcrstanding and experiencc of male desire in classical
Athens.
1 have already argued in the title essay of this collection that sex, as it is
represented in classical Athenian documents, is a deeply polarizing expcri-
ence: constructed according to a model of penetration that interprets "pene-
tration" as an intrinsically unidirectional act, sex divides its participants
into asymmetrical and, ultimately, into hierarchical positions, defming one
~artner as "~~tive" and "dominan!," the other partner as "passive" and
subrmss_t~e. Sexual r~les, moreover, are isomorphic with status and gcn-
der roles, mascuhmty IS an aggregate combining thc congruent funcuons
of pen~tratton, activity, dominancc, and social preceden ce, whereas "femi-
mmty 51 &~tftes penetrabthty, passivity, submission, and social subordma-
tton. In thts socto-sexual systcm, thc position of the junior parmer in a
paederasuc rclattonship was F h . d "' ccs-
saril roblematic • as ou~au 1t as pcrsuasivcly arguc • a ne
.yp . . onc. The Atheman cthos governing thc proper sexual
en¡oyment of ctttzen youth ·fli 1 · s
b d · h s attcmpted to ncgotiatc the rcsulting dt tcu uc
Y cnymg t e youths a sig -~ h . • · h ·r
rclations with adult men lt m •cant 5 are m thc cxpcricncc of eros m t Cl
rulers of Athens 10 h.b· . was clearly unacceptablc, after all, for thc futurc
anyonc cspcciaUy to ex • tt any cagcrn
th . ( css or dcstre
. to submn . t hcmsc 1v es to
X ' . . cu eventual) pccrs lll
cnophon ts cxphcit: in his S . .·
docs not sharc in thc man's 1 ympos 1. 14 ~· Socratcs cmphasizcs that "thc hoY
sobcr, he looks upon thc ~~as~e 10 lntcrcoursc, as a wontan docs~ cold
accuracy uf Xcnophon's ch:rae;. _ru~k with sexual dcsirc" (H.21 ). 114 'I'h~·
fwdt'-if not of thc social and 5 e c.:r~zatlon of thc convcntional Athcnian atfl-
ingly confirmcd by thc pktor~~ua. tUiwdlity conccalcd by it-is ovcrwhclrn-
lOr on Attic vascs as wcll as brcprcsc~tations of malc homosexual be ha v-
A . h ' Cl d y a vancty uf . In
n~top ancs s . ow s, for cx¡mplc, just Ar iiOCicnt literary sourccs. .
tJunal morahty' dc:ducs that il wcll-brcd YOl~~nlcnt, thc defender of rradl-
would ncvcr do anvthinK ro
 the interest of a lover, such as immodestly meeting his gaze· "h
courage k' . , . . e
en Id not go about spea mg m a wrced, effemmate voice to his lover
wou as his own procurer with his eyes" (979-80). 115 Since the Greek~
:;;:r;d the source of eros in the eyes (ofthe belovcd, usually), and since they
nsidered eye-contact between lover and beloved the erotic stimulus par
~:cellence,'" the respectable youth's downcast eyes signify his refusal to
engage in th~ opening phase~ of an _erotic rela~ionship. Aristotle, for whom
reciprocity ¡s a necessary mgred1ent of fnendsh1p (Nicomachean Ethics
8.Jl55b27-1156a5), refuses to consider the erotic relationship between man
and boya species of friendship on precisely these grounds 117;

[In rhe case offriendships based on pleasure and uriliry,J the friendships are mosr
enduring when they [the two friendsJ gel the same thing-e.g. pleasure- from
each other, and, moreover, get it from the same source, as witty people do. They
musr not be like the erotic lover and the boy he ]oves. For rhese do not rake
pleasure in the same things; the lover takes pleasure in seeing [gazing arJ his
belovcd, whilc the beloved takes pleasure in being courted [or servedJ by his lover.
Whcn the beloved's bloom is fading, sometimes the friendship fades too; for the
lover no longer finds pleasure in seeing his beloved, while the beloved is no
longer courted by the lover. Many, however, remain friends ifthey have similar
characters and come ro be fond of each other's characters from being accustomed
~o them. [In the category of friendships berween contraries! we might also
mclude the erotic lover and his beloved, and the beautiful and the ugly. Hrnce m
erotic lover also sometimes appears ridiculous, when he expects to be loved in thC'
same way as he laves; that would presumably be- a propC'r exp«tarion ifhe we_rc-
lovable in the same way. but it is ridiculous when hC' is not (.'\'ico,adttdlf Et/tl{.f
S.IIS7a3-14, 1159bll-19, trans. lrwin, with my amplitications).

Perhaps the first hint of Plaro's dcparture from th<' hierarchical nor~
govcrning sexual relations bctween males can be ¡(lintpSL·d in Aristophanes 5
speech in thc Symposium; as Foucault has obscrv<-.1. Aristophanes's 0~~~~
that cach lovcr is half of a former whok• individual makcs thc destre 01 ea<
human bcing forntally identical to that oft.·vcry othcr, and so militatt."S agamhst
th . · · . 1111 Note hoWC\'C'r. r ..1r
e asymmctry of convt.·ntJOnal paedt.·rastJC rclanons. ' h·
A.ristophancs avoids drawing such d conclusion tfom hi~ ~w~ ~·yr _· 10 1
d · 1 . 1 h ronc tndivlulU s .li'C
ass1ca Athenian socicty as ht.• portrays 1t, ma e omoc 1 b ·.o.k
Ph1·¡crasts and pa<·dcrasts 'by tunrs ( 191<-6-1 9~b5)
- · · PI ato makes
. •h' . ,·an "
/'lt.Hflnu.
With thc convt.•ntional ethos of Athcnian pat.~crasty onl~ ~~~ t '" n~r
whcn Socratcs dt.•s'-·ribcs rhc dynamic of attracrion obt.Jintng 10 .1 p
rl'lationship bt.•twct.•n lovcr .1nd bdovc.~:
. sitlll] lUFS n• "J""llt rhc ltl\'C'r:
IWhl·n luvcr omd hcluvl"<l are togl•thcr . .a AuoJ ut p.as ~ 11 ) 111,)0" dk' f('St
o~nd p.nt of it i:s ahsorbc.•d within him. but ~h~l h: ~~:1 ~~~::....a:;t-:,.mJu'fl tYoat ...
tluw!oo olwav outsidc him: a.nJ .as .a bn·.ath ul wuui "r
132 ¡ One Hundred Years of Homosexuality

smooth hard surface, goes back to its place of origin, even so the stream fb
turns back and re-enlers the eyes of the fair beloved; and so by the natura~ heauty
·11 reaches his soul and gives il fresh vigour, watcring thc roots of the w_c •nnel
. . Ings and
quickening them to growth: whercby 1he soul of lhe beloved, m ns turn, is filled
with love. So he (oves, yet knows not what he loves: he does not understand, he
cannot tell what has come u pon htm; hke one that has caught a diSease of the eye
from another, he cannot account for 1t, not reahsmg that h1s lover is as it were ¡¡
mirror in which he beholds himself. And whcn the other is beside him, he shares
his respite from anguish; when he is absent, he likewise shares his longing and
being longed for~ since he possesses that counter-love which is the image oflove,
though he supposes it to be friendship rather than love, and calls it by that name.
He feels a desire, like the lover's yet not so strong, to behold, to touch, to kiss
him, to share bis couch: and now ere long the desire, as one might guess, leads to
thc act {255c--e, trans. Hackforth}.

Whal 1he beloved experiences or oughl lo experience, according to Plato, is

not philia bu1 eréis, specifically an anteréis ("counter-love" in Hackforth's
translalion)-lhat is, an eréis in relurn for eréis, which is an image or replica
(eidéilon) of his lover's eréis. Because eréis, on 1he Platonic view (as we shall
see), aims al procreation, nol at possession, and so cannot be sexually
realized, Plalonic anteréis does not lead eilher lo a reversal of sexual roles or
10 the promotion of sexual passivity on the part of the beloved. Rather.:
Plato a\1 but erases the distinction between the "active" and the "pasSIVe
partner-or, lo pul it better, lhe genius ofPlato's analysis is that it eliminales
passtvtty altogether: according lo Socrales, bo1h members of 1he relationshtp
become acltve, desiring lovers; neilher remains a merely passive objecl of
destre. By grantmg the beloved access lo a dirccl if reflected erotic slimulus
and thereby mcludi h.101 10 · h ' ' t"c
· be ng 1 e communily oflovers Plato clears 1he ero 1
re1atton tween men d b • d
a\lows th b 1 d an oys from lhe chargc of exploitativeness an
e e ove to grow h"l1 . . f the
Forms '" Th h . P osophtca\ly in 1he contemplatton o
· us, t e way lS el de · · the
exprcssion of desire d . heare 10r a greater degree of rcciproc1ty m .
an lnt eexch f . maniS
now fre-e to return his old 1 auge o affecuon. Thc youngcr .
er o ver' s pa · . · pnety.
Plato dramatizes his the f . ssmn wnhout shame or 1m pro
. ory o erot1c r · · . · d. (ogucs,
whcre relauons between So ec1procny 1n thc Socrauc 1a
. crates and th . b dant 1y
dlustrate the reciproca! dyna . f e membcrs of bis cuele a un
culminatc in the actual conv:·~ o Platonic erOs. Sorne of thc dialogucds
aggressivc erotic role: the Cha:•~n of a heautiful youth to an active ~n
playfully to "force" {i.c., rape) ~ •• ends With its titlc characler thrcatcntllg
So~~r:te.s lfthe latter resists his pursuit (t7bb
ff.); 121 ' in the Alcibiades Major,
ccdc!t that ''wc shall in alllikcliho~~s s.youthful interlocutor ruefully con-
. your ro1e an d you mine" (tJ:,d)
taIr. mg rcvcrse the ~sual pattcrn, Socratc s• 1
121
arounds than subtlctics of crotic ps h
1 More ts at stake in thcsc turn-
homoerotic cthos of classical Athcns h~: d~ ogy: Plato's remodcling of thc
Irect consequenccs for his progran•
 .1 sophical inquiry. Erotic reciprocity animares what Plato considers
h10
ofPbesl ·
sorl of conversatJons, t h ose m
· w h"h
te each"mterlocutor is motivated
lhe rch within himself and to say what he truly believes in 1he confidence
w~ . .
lhal il will not be mtSunderstood; mutual destre makes possible 1he ungrudg-
ing exchange of questJons and answers whtch constitutes the soul of philo-
sophical practice. Recipr~cuy finds its ultima te expression in dialogue.'"
Plato's (male) fellow-cltlzens, accustomed as they were lo holding one
anolher 10 an aggressively phallic norm of sexual conducl-and, conse-
quently, to an ethic of sexual domination in their relalions wilh males and
females alike-preferred not to acknowledge or to undersland mutuality in
eros. To be sure, they kept themselves in line by taunting one anolher with
the scare-figure of the kinaidos, of the man who will do anything for pleasure
and active! y enjoys submitting himselfto sexual dominalion by other meo. 121
And a few widely scattered texts admit that sorne meo actually enjoy "pas-
sive" sex. 124 But, for the most part, erotic reciprocily was relega1ed to 1he
province of women, who were thought capable ofboth giving and receiving
pleasure in the sexual act at the same time and in relation to 1he same
individual, and whose enjoyment of sex is, at least according 10 Teiresias in
Hesiod's famous myth, 125 far more intense than that oftheir maJe parmers. '"'
Like the interlocutors in a Socratic dialogue, women are both active and
passive at once, both subjects and objects of desire: as Phaedrus and Dioti~a
agree in Plato's Symposium, Alcestis's heroism proceeds from her acnve rros
(179b-J80b, 208de). 127 Only women, according ro the customary Greek
tdtom, normally experience anteros''": Xenophon's Socrates, speaking of a
newly and happily married man, says that he desires and is desired m .~rum
by his wife (eron tes gynaikos anteratai: Symposium 8.3). '"' The "passtve role._
detined in relation ro a conception of "activity ·· modeled 00 the acr ol
~enetrarion, is an indignity for a man ro assume and a sympront of m~
tncapacity for him ro enjoy but on che Greek view iris natural and narur . }
pleasurable ro a woman. The
posirive pleasure women rake in paSSJu:;?
contri bu red ro justifying in masculine eyes, their sociaiJy as we~ 35 SC'X . . y
b · ' . · h · · yment ot rhe paSSJV<
su or~mate position in Athenian soc1ety • tor r e•r cnJO srirurcd 10 such .a
role stgnified ro Greek men rhar wonu:n are naturaiJy con
Way thal lhey aclually desirt ro lose th< ":'"le of th< '~ex:Ontin!IIY dassn
In thc scvcnth book ofthc Nicomachr~n :_rlucs, ~n.sr::rourse ;~montt dwsc
t~c prcdilcction in males for the "passtvc role m 1 ~abiru.arJon. sinc.."t" rhcy
d1spositions which are discase-likc or a rcsult of h he docs not dc."ll~· thc
are ~l~a~urablc ~ithout bcing naturally so. alrhou!se of such ~rae~:
posstbthty that m sorne cases na~re may be r:ed~cribc- a:!i •J.a"·kulfl m scJt-
Hc thcn gocs on ro observe rhar no one coul tb.ln ,,.. we so
control' those tOr whom naturc is the cause, any ~~~~lR'bur J.n." ml.lltt•R....t"'
describe) womcn (lit.) bccause they do not mount sc.·xu.illl1~illt"''l'-"" 111 .a nun .s
(1 14Hb26-35).~.... Whar is a sign ofmoral tAilui'C' or tnn
natural to a woman. Lct us not put words into Aristotlc's 111 h
that 110 onc blames womcn 10r l' l'k'
1 mg to b e pcnctratcd bccauseout . .'. he says
. . . h' d' . . . Jt Js natu 1
for thcm to hkc Jt. But m t IS vcry prc 1sposlt10n to pass1vity it . ra
to mcasurc, or so Aristotlc secms to 1mp . 1y, t h e cxtcnt of thc infer·Js poss•bl
. e
. ,
womcn's naturc to mcn s. 111111ar notlons appcar m Aristotle's biol .
, s· . IOflty O[

writings and thcy contmue to e ce oe to ay y reputable sexo! ogJcaJ

· b h d d b .
psychoanalysts, gynaccolog1sts;. an d p h'l
1 osop h crs. u 1 oglsts '
Plato's contemporarics routinely contrasted malc and fcmale eros in ter
ofhicrarchy and reciprocity, rcspcctivcly. Recall Xcnophon's emphasis:
thc psychological distance bctween the man's inflamed desire and the boy's
sobcr disintcrest: "the boy does not share in the man 's pleasure in intcrcourse
as a woman does. "That remark is well illustrated by Attic vase-painting:
according to Mark Golden, who has made an exhaustive study of this
particular thcmc:

Women on thc vases often appcar to enjoy sex. But passive homosexual partners
show no sign of pleasure; they have no erection and usually stare straight ahead
during intcrcoursc. Women in vase paintings are depicted in a wide variety
of sexual postores and are often shown being penetrated from behind. Women
are sometimes shown leaning on or supported by their male lovers, physically
dependen! on them. Passive males, however, regularly face their partners.
Thcy are upright; it is thc active partner who bends bis knees and (often) biS
head. 132

A corresponding cmphasis on womcn 's sexual and psychological responsive-

ness 10 mcn emerges from James Rcdfield's discussion of the place and
funcuon of kharis in thc Greek idcology of marriage (c. g., Semonides, fr.
7.86-1!9\Wcst])."·'
Afterthc classical period, thc contras! between women and boys as sexual
objccts m tcrms of the rclative degrces of thcir rcsponsivcncss to adult males
bccomcs more cxplicit.'" "1 don't ha ve a hcart that's wild for boys," wntcs
the Hcllcmst•c cpigrammatist Mcl a h k "What dchght
is thcrc in . . . . e gcr, w o gocs on toas , . . .
l l mounung mcn 1f 11 mvolvcs taking \se. plcasurc) WJthout g¡vJng
any? Aftcr all, onc hand washes anothcr " (fJalatine AnthoiOI/Y 5.20II ~
Mdcagcr, 9\Gow-P J) 'fh . . u"h
"· dCClp
· h ' bl . d'agc · e rcmamdcr of thc tcxt 1·s corrupt ' buten o 1·"· [
im /ra e 10 m .. •cate that Mclcagcr madc thc lo ve of womcn an cxp "~
l:ucd~h ~~"1;rast. S•mllarly Ovid, in thc sccond book of bis Art of L•"" j
311 ~..·qua
0 owmg proclamatton: .. Lct thc man and woman derive
f el
P•rt o P ca•ure from th . 1h f rhc
two panncrs· th . . e au; ate couplings that do not gratify cach o •'~
Plut· ·h ·h.' •t ISwhy 1 am lcss inclincd to thc lovc ofboys" (6112-114)·
are • e amplomnK thc .. f ~ . . . thL'
bcncf•u. uf M:Xual lo c.a.usc o . eros m marriagc and cntphaslZIIl~ ·ss
b()th putics h b ve, notes that unprcgnation cannot takc place unk
ave ccn moved or affcctcd by onc anothcr; he Kocs on to
 he union of husband and wife with unerotic partnership th
crast t l'k . s at are
e00 1 -ixtures of separate e1ements, 1 e Ep1curus's atoms which ll'de
mereY"' 1 . 769 r: 1 co 1
but do n ot fuse (Mora ta e.;
. . a so, 140ef; 142e-143a).'"' In che Ero-1es, a
work included in the. Luc1amc corpus that belongs to the same genre as
p]utarch's work just clted, the c~n~rast between the love of women and the
!ove of boys is even more exphett; the advocate of the former argues as
follows:

Why do we not pursue those pleasures that are mutual and bring delight to the
passive and to the active partners? Now men's intercourse with womcn
involves giving like enjoyment in return. For the two sexes part with pleasure
only if they ha ve had an equal effect on each other-unless we ought rather 10
heed the verdict ofTeiresias that the woman's enjoyment is twice as grear as rhe
man's. And 1 think it is honourable for men not to wish for a selfish pleasure or
to seek to gain sorne prívate benefit by receiving from anyone the sum total of
enjoyment but to share what they obtain and to requite like with like. But oo ooe
could be so mad asto say this in the case ofboys. No, rhe active lover. accordiog
to his view ofthe matter, departs after having obtained an exquisire pleasure. bur
the outraged one suffers pain and tears at first, rhough the pain relents somewhar
with time and you will, men say, cause himno further discomfon. burofpleasure
he has none at all (27; trans. Macleod).

The most entertaining and sophisticated version of this debate occurs in

the second book of Leucippe and Cleitophon, a Greek romance by Achilles
Tatius. 1 quote, at obscene length, the remarks of rhe advocate of women
from the forthcorning unexpurgated translation of Achilles Tanus by John
J. Winkler:
A woman •s body IS . . . . h d h lips are render aod soli
well-lubrtcated In the e1me • an er . 1 wedg<d
for kissing. Therefore she holds a man 's body wholly aod ron~_!._. widl
into her embraces, into her very Aesh, and her partner is .rotally cnrom~-¡¡
pleasure. She planr:s kisses on your lips like a seal touchlng ":arm w:.
tkllps
*
knows what she is doing she can swceten her kisscs. C'mpl~ymg nor y
but rhe leerh, grazing all around rhe mourh with gende ru.!".i.e~r pe.L. • - ·
When the sensations nam1.'d tOr Aphrodne are' mou~bll8 J rhrashts .about
gocs frantic with plcasurc.". she kisses with mouth w•dc 0 ~ ~ hnr ro&Kh tikc:
lk 1
1 e a m¡¡c.f woman. Tongues all rhc wh•·1 t 0 "'er1ap and
. """''·
-L> «as s.an•riY fll
passionatc.• kisses within kisses. Your p.arr in hdght('lung rhc ...-asu
opL·n your muuth. rodire's ....·rion. sh(' nunnc:11vcn
Whcn a woman rl"achC'S rhe vcry go.~l of A~ . :i.l\' ru rhc hrs wi~h .1 Jovc-:-
gasps with that huming dclighr and_ her gasp nsL"S qu•~ a•..J k'--'kir~g kll' a ••~
brt"<~th, and rhc.•re it mc.·ets a lost k1ss. wantkrm~ •be: . th 11 ..., ~nkl" rfK' ht~
down: this kiu minglt.•s with rhe lovt"-brc.-arh ,anJ_ n."tU"11 "' 11 rinnl,· r:.s«"~•:d ••*
Th . . . bL' u 1t weft'll..,
_ &: h~.art thm as lussrd, confun-d, _rhro: 111":11· w..,U ro tbc rl--'' ~ ~-
~.:hc:sr u would follow alonll. dr.iw&nt~; nsrU ur
13b 1 One Hundred Years of Homosexuality

Schoolboys are hardly so well-educated in kissing, their embraces

their love-making is lazy and devoid of pleasure (2.37). are •wkward,

Whilc the speaker emphasizcs thc pleasures accruing to the lov o

. er trorn
intcrcoursc with a fcmale partncr, he makcs 1t clear that her responsiv
d l h l ' . N d
contributes a great ea to er ov_er s enJoymcnt. or oes the advocate eness
of
paedcrasty have much to say agamst that spcCific argument:

His kisses, to be sure, are not sophisticated like a woman 's, they are no devastating
spcll of lips' deceit. But he kisses as he knows how-acting by instinct, not
technique. Here is a metaphor for a boy's kiss: take nectar, crystallize it, form ¡1
into a pair oflips- these would yield a boy's kisses. You could not have enough
of thcse: howcver many you took, you would still be thirsty for more, and you
could not pull your mouth away from his until the very excess of pleasurc
frightcned you into cscaping (2.38).

Here all the emphasis is on the subjectivc sensations of the lover: he does
not tcll us what, if anything, his partner experiences or what it is like to be
thc recipicnt of a malc lover's amorous attentions. The description is utterly
sclf-rcfcrential and narcissistic: the boy registers on the lover's consciousness
only insofar as he is thc vehicle for a certain sort of priva te pleasure and thc
occasion of insatiable dcsire on the lover's part. 137
Sexual rclations betwren women may rcvcal with particular clarity t~e
mutuahty of crottc rcsponsivcness that is supposed to characterize women 5
eroUc!Sm-•f. that 1s, we are to believc the somewhat idealized promouonal
adverusement devised by Simone de Beauvoir: "Bctween women love ts
contempla ti ve; caresses are intcnded lcss to gain posscssion of the other than
gradually to re-create the sclf through hcr; separatcness is abolished, thcrc
15 n~ strugglc~ no victory • no dcfcat~ in cxact rcciprocity cach is at once

sub]hcct and object, sovereign and slavc; duality beco mes mutuality. "''"Sorne
suc constructton of ~ ¡ · · · lf to
Pl h . ema e erouctsm sccms to ha ve commendcd ttsc
b ato, t e only Wntcr of thc classical period to spcak about sexual desirc
etwecn womcn (Sympo · !<JI 2 ,., he
could fmd in it anima e~·;~ ~ -5); at least, Plato valucd it insofar as l
lovers who are .o· ~ t e rcclprocal erotic bond that unitcs philosoph!CO
(cf. l'lato l.mr/7 •;41yde)ngTahged in convcrsation and the qucst for truth
. ' · e · e 1dcal mterl . · d b s ·ratcs.
cxpencnccs dcsirc and arouscs it in o . ocutor, cxcmphhl' y . ~.e . ele
are c4ua1ly cncouragcd to t k. . ~hcrs, and thc mcmbcrs of h1s c~r f
k l a e an acttvc ag · . h ·utt o
. now cdgc cvcn as thcy continuc to scrv : . gr~ssJVc part m t e purs .. of
tnipnation to others (cf. IJlotinus, Cnnto~:s Objccts ?.f dcsirc and so.urc<:.S ul
can ~ervc a~ a mirror for any oth. . 5.H.tt ). Smee any bcauuful so
to the contcxt of physical rclat· cr ,brcctprocal dcsirc nccd nut be confincd
. 10ns ctwccn th . 1 st
accordmg tu Ollt' rc;ading of IJht~rdnu 25« • . e scxcs (which Plato, at e~ .
k:, appcars to ha ve dcspiscd) ...... 1 he
 . f utuality in erós traditionally imputed to women in Greek culture
k!Pd o m h . h . d .
therefore find a new o me m t e erotic ynam1cs of Platonic love *
cou Id ·

1. Erotic Acquisition and Platonic Procreation

1now turn to the second feature ofPiato's crotic doctrine that sets it apare
from che conventions governing maJe eroticism in classical Athens and
assimilates it instead toa "feminine" paradigm-and, hence, is appropriately
figured by a female authority on erotics. In a separare study, 141 1 ha ve argued
that it was characteristic of the ancient Athenians to regard sexual desire as
an appetite and, hence, to construe it (by analogy with hunger and thirst) as
an acquisitive passion, a longing for the possession and consumption of a
desirable object. Now Lesley AnnJones, in an importan eforthcoming paper,
has shown that such a conception of erós-with its emphasis on the object-
dircctcd, acquisitive nature of desirc--represented to the Athcnians a spe-
cifically "masculine" model of erotic dynamics. Female desirc, as the Greeks
constructcd it, tended by contras e to be related to the physiological economy
of thc female body-to the body's needs, rather than the mind's desires;
hence, it is not aroused by individual objects but is governed insread by the
requirements of woman's physical consritution with its generative limc-
tions. 142 The unreconstructed Socrates proves to be typically "masculinc" in
hlS oudook, and that is exacdy wherc he goes wrong when Diotima rmtrally
Interroga tes him: in response ro her question about what thc lovcr of che
hcautiful desires, Socrates answcrs, prcdictably cnough, "To ha ve it" (204d).
Diotima is not satisficd with that answcr and evcnrually rcvcals to Socrarcs
th~t " eros• 15
· not for (se. thc posscssion ol] che bcaunful.
· as you th'mk: ""Whar , . e
15 lt for, thcn?" he asks. "Iris for birth and procr<·anon m rhe bcaunful. sh
rcplics (206c)."-' .
This is not thc place to explica te Diotima 's doctrint.• of t.•rotil.~ P~~crcatltl:·
lt will be sufficicnt mcrcly to note that J)iotima"s hctcrodox dchmt•on oft r:
138 1 One Hundred Years of Homosexuality

erotic aim has momentous consequences for Plato 's view of erot' .
ICJntent"
ality: "For the picture of man as pleasure-chaser," Gregory VI Ion.
observed, DJOtJma · · "subst1tutes
· ·
an 1magc o f man as crcator, producastosha s
14' . h 1d . . er, new
maker." The not1on t at sexua eSJre a1ms not at physical grat'fi . •
·
but at moral and mtellectua 1 se lf.-express10n, · at the release of the1 1Cat1on
lo ,
own creative energ1es, · IS · one to w h'ICh PI ato remams · deeply committ Ver d 1s
reappears in the Phaedrus, where spoken discourses that are written i~ ;h 1
souls ofthe listeners become the speaker's sons (h~fis: 278a6), 145 and it figure:
most notably in a famous passage of the Republu, where the philosopher's
erós enables him to achieve intellectual intercourse with "what really is," to
beget (ge""a") intelligence and truth, and thereby to cease at long last from
travail (ódis: 490b).'"'In the Theaetetus, moreover, Socrates describes himself
as a midwife and represents his dialectical method as a technique for deliver-
ing other people's ideas (148e-151d, 157cd, 160e-161b, 184ab, 210b-d) 141
Such an understanding of the function and purpose of erotic desire not
only diverges from the conventional Athenian outlook in general: it also
departs specifically from the traditional masculine paradigm of erotic pursuit
and capture (most familiar to us from the lyric poetry ofthe archaic period)""
and structures itself instead according to a model of erotic responsiveness
whose central terms are fecundity, conception, gestation, and giving birth.
Plato's theory of erotic procreativity, in short, is oriented around what bis
contemporaries would have taken to be a distinctively feminine order of
experience. 1....
To be sure, the metaphor of intellectual and masculine conception is-if
not exactly conventional-at least not entirely original with Plato, although
11 does not seem to be attested earlier than Aristophanes's Clouds: in that
play, Strepsiades is reproached by one ofSocrates's disciples for kicking the
door of the Thinkery and thereby causing the miscarriage of a newly con-
ce~vcd pla~ (135:-37).'"'1D the Frogs a great poet is charactcrized as one who
" fecund. . ' alth
(gonornos) . ough the term 1s · not 1mmediatcly
. ·
persp1cuous and
rehqu~res sorne clucJdatJon (96-98); later in the same play Aeschylus daims
t at a poct . must beget (t''- · ) . '
lll'leln cxpresstons that are equal in magmtu e to
· d
the senuments aDd th h h .
e d.
dCltn h' . oug ts t ey express (1 058-59) Similarly Cratmus,
10g lmsclf ID Th w· fl l. . ' . d
ma·IDt · h ' '"~ asK from thc chargc of drunken dccrcp1tU e,
a10s t at no man wh 0 d · k h'
deccnt '" A d · X nn s Water can produce (rikrein) anyt mg
. n 10 cnophon's e d' fl
tion a. gcstating (kyrin: S.4_ 35 :;•P•• ••. a character spcaks of mental re. cc-
approachcs l'lato's imao . ). h ut noth10g 10 the prcvious litcrary rrad1t1<>D
ftgure of oapeech-or ev
.,ery ID t he Symp osnon. · 1>1ato turncd what was a nu:·re
al1cg,,ry andan cxphcit ;;:;gper aps. a dcad mctaphorl!'.2-into an extended
u.ally íl!) no onc had done b;;.m~~-~ cb.borating it dc1iberatcly and systemat~
Wa!. to takc iilll cmhcddcd habortc. f _Or, to be more precise, what Plato did
lo•pcech(dh
bc:cumc dctuhcd from a spccifac rcfi
h
. an t ought) that sccms to avt:
crcnt m thc fcmalc hodv and. farst, to rr·
 . "feminine" by associating it with the fcmalc person of Diott'm
body 11 as . a
em h hcr extended use of gender-spectfic language, then to disembody it
throug 1·11 to turn "pregnancy" into a mere imaj¡e of (maJe) spirituallabor
~~· . . . . '
. Socrates's male votcc at once embodtes and dtsembodtcs Diotima's
JUSt as 154
female presence.
Sorne scholars, however, ha ve doubted that Plato's language images what
the Greeks too k to be a charactcristically feminine experience; 155 they point
ro the widespread Greek tendency to regard the male parent as the only
generative agent and to treat the female parent as a human incubator-a
notion supported by the god of medicine himself in Aeschylus's Oresteia, '"
though implicitly repudiated by Plato in the Timaeus. 157 Recent studies of
Greek embryology, however, ha ve shown that a majar, if not the dominant,
theme in ancient thinking on this tapie emphasized the contribution which
the female makes to conception; '" not only are Alcmaeon, Parmenides,
Democritus, Empedocles, and Epicurus, among others, reported by sorne
sources (of widely varying quality) to ha ve held that women emit seed, ""
but the Hippocratic writers and the anonymous author of a gynaecological
treatise transmitted to us as the tenth book of Aristotle's History ofAnimals
went so far asto insist that woman's sexual pleasure is neccssary for concep-
tio? beca use unless she achieves an orgasm she will not cja~ulate her .seed. 1
1
:•

Anstotle's contrary view, articulated in On the Genrrat10n o( Anrmals,

proved to be short-lived in antiquity: it was abandoned by Strato ofLamps>-
cus, Herophilus, Erasistratus, and was ridiculed by Calen,'" although it
subsequently regained its credibility. ~0.1 More decisive than the academJC
disputes ofthe Greek physicians, however, is the kínshíp structure ol clasSJcal
Athens: the law permittcd half-brother and -sistcr to marry only ífth<'Y ~ere
descended from different mothers thereby in ctfcct denying che clatm ol che
Aeschylean Apollo that the father ' is th<· only true paren<. '"' The
vedches••
that Plato's contemporaries gcncrally dísbdieved that women pla. any
co ntn·b utory role m . conceptton
. cannot p1·aus1'bl Y be mamtamed.
. . t"d b Dtori-
But thcrc are cvcn more telling indications that what 15 mt.a~g k Y_ RSJJ-
' e . . . · · · d d whatthe (,rec " 0
ma s 11gurauvc languagc m thc Symp,,srunr 15 m cc . -dt"d ot nu:n"'h'
t:rcd a fcmininc gcndcr-spcciti,· ex penen ce· Thc clue 15 pro vi _ 1 ~ . .1-JulC,.:..
b ' - · but bv Dtonm• '"'
Y thc rccurrcnt, ifbanal. rdc:rcnCl' ro procreanon . . · J:,c...-w~..,. 11 scxu.a~
tion of a peculiar rypc of cruri!·ism in which rhe d•stull~r;on J.\ Jr,~;tullll'ltt
and reprodtKtivc functions h,¡¡s bt.'l'll totally abolish<.·d. . Rll~~~~ ~~ J.. rirmht
thar pn•crtatitm is rhc aim u( ero ti~.· dt>Jirt' dq~. .nds,. ~•_r~..·r_ Jt-f:·uc~..· rtR· Jd~
. . . . · .1 • x:fUl'UVl" ~l (1\ 1(~ ••
unnmsnuus assmul.ttmn ot scxuJ. to n.: pn 1 .. i -s Jtr1·1H nh.'.lll h.l
culty oftnnslating thc lTntral tnms in ha vol·ab~ J.f~· 'l~<·unJ''~ 11'' J)..x~
b,· pr<.'u-nant " "to ~..·oncdvc," or rn~..·n.·ly "ro be tcrtl L llhr ·-~ In l·at ..un p.as-
f'O , . ' .. ''t(l\'111" plrf . . .J
h•ltos nu·an ··~.._·onccpu_on," ''procr_~..·o~nou, .0:1..'1\UJ.I JmK·ns.rün rhu!o. ~c." IK'l~
sa~~..·s )Jlato's ~..·mphasas Sl."('111S ro to~lllul thl · 1 .»;. ..,J ut us lw utrk*
b~..·,¡ury in ordcr ro procreare, tOrno c.·nlnt· unru ~-as""''
14ll 1 Onc Hundrcd Ycars of Homoscxuality

(206cd, 209b); in thc prcscncc of thc ugly we "contract" and "s .

Diotima declares, cmploying an almost embarrassingly anat hnvci up,"
'b h 1' 1· " h Orntca] 111
phor to descn e t e sou .s revu ston •ro m t e formless (206d). "'' llu"'·
othcr passagcs the cmphasts IS on thc procrcattvc dtmension thc t '"
. . h d b h ' conncq,o
bctwccn thc two bcmg furms e y t e Greck vcrb tiktein, "to generate ~
and 1ts dcnvanvcs, whtch cover both sexual and reproductive functio ;.,
Thus, whcn wc attainpubcrty, our naturc desircs tiktein, which it is no;:ble
todo in an ugly mcdmm but only m a beauttf~.~ one; moreover, the inter-
coursc of man and woman IS a tokos (206c3-6; cf. 209bl-2). The climax
to which bcauty summons us, however, is manifestly not of a sexual kind
as cvcry studcnt of "Platonic love" knows: beauty arouses only those wh~
are alrcady prcgnant, and intercourse culminates not in orgasm but in giving
birth (206cd, 208e--209e). The two strands of sex and reproduction are
so thoroughly interwoven in Diotima's discourse that they are virtually
impossible to disentangle, as the following passages illustrate: "When what
is prcgnant draws ncar to the beautiful," Diotima tells us, it rcjoices, "engcn-
dcrs {rikrei], and gives birth [gmnai]." and thereby is "released from grcat
travail{ odis]" (206de); thc young man who is spiritually pregnant with moral
virtue "cherishes beautiful bodies rather than ugly ones because he is pregnanr"
(209b4-5). In short, Diotima speaks as if erotic desire consisted in an exctt~,;,
tion brought on by pregnancy and climaxing in thc ejaculation of a baby.
Even the figure of Diotima seems to span and unite in itsclf these two
dimensions of human experience: she reveals, in addition to her powcrful
grasp of ero tic phenomenology, something of a maternal dimension. Whcn
Socrates asks her what philosophers are, if neither ignorant nor wisc, she
replics chidingly, "Why such a thing is obvious even to a child!"(204bl).
and throughout thcir convcrsation she gcntly incites her interlocutor wtth
the goad of indulgcnt raillery, in thc customary fashion of Greek mothcrs
anncnt and modcrn. nu
Diotima's systcmatic conflation of sexual and reproductivc functions indi·f
cates that Plato has shiftcd, intcllectually and mythopoctically, toa rcalm_ 0 5
dcsnc convcnuonally markcd as fcmalc. For womcn's erOs, as thc Grc~.:k
cons~ructcd it, did not aim now at (non-procrcativc) plcasurc, now at rcpro·
dJu.cuon, as .m.cn's di?: but was intimatcly bound up with procrcation. 171 As
1 tato put~ 1t m thc 1 irnaeus, 172

t~t:n: ll!. 10 womcn a living animal passionatdy dc..·sirous uf makin~ childn·n ¡i.l'··
t e. omb, whJch, 1whcn it rt:mains fruitlc~s fur a Ion~ time..· past its se..· a son. bc..·Jr~
~~~ lrr;tatl~n h.arshly · _wandl'Ting all about thc body blocking the channds of th~·
0~c~t. 1 4 ~ 1 . not •llowmg thcm to hrc..·athc, thcrc..·by driving thc hody to cxrren_ 1c
1 ·I'Pt:.ttJou <ttu.J producing all !i.OTt!o uf illnc..·sses until thc..· desire and passJllil
\:;oJ ~' 111411 .md ~om;.an drivc thcm togcthl.·r, plu~king down tlu· fruit frolll thC:
w;,~:~'~K tn:C!!.\o' thcir rcpruductivc systcms\ ami sowing in thc..· furrt)W ol thl'
tvmK < rtc<~turc!o unfonncd and invHtihlc bnau!loc..' nf thl·ir smo~lltu:ss (9trd)·
 Why is Diotima a Woman? 1 141

, sexual nature desires to give birth;m the womb is an animal avidum

woman S
. '" That t h e wom b 1s
, " fi . " .
cager or procreanon 1s also a view en-
d
•tneran '· . 1 .. f h .
' . d in the gynaecolog1ca wntmgs o t e H1ppocratic corpus, which
shnne . 1 . b h d .
treat women's ~exuahty on y as lt ears on t e ynam1cs ofreproduction'"
d which pers1stently conflate sexual and reproducnve functlons-prescrib-
an sexual intercourse for diseases of the womb and curing gynaecological
IOg ' h d' . d
complaints w1th ap ro ISiac rugs.
m.
The amalgamation of women 's sexual and reproductive functions is not
simply an artide of faith among certain authorities, however, but is implic-
itly rooted in ancient habits of thought-specifically, as the passage from
che Timaeus illustrates, in the age-old homology between woman and earth.
That the earth is female and that women are earthy, especially in comparison
with men, seems to be a feature of Greek cosmology; m as Aristotle says,
"MaJe is what we call an animal that generares into another, female that
which generates into itself. That is why in the universe as a whole the earth's
naturc is thought of as female and mother, while the sky and sun or such
others are called begetters and fathers" (Generation of Animals 716314-17). ""
The same outlook is written into the engyé, the Athenian betrothal ccrcmony.
in which the father of the bride says to her future husband, "1 give you this
woman for the plowing of legitima te children. "'"' lt reappears in the sym-
bolic language of the ritual practices associated with such common Greck
cults as the Thesmophoria, which represents the relation of husband to
wife as a domestic form of cultivation homologous ro agriculturc whe~by
women are tamcd mastercd and made fruitfUJ. 1,.. 1 The notion also surtacC'S
in the tendency of,the naturai philosophers and medica! writcrs ro insist rhat
Women are physically colder and wcttcr than mcn'"' and n:quirc c~nsrant
irrigation by men to kcep thcir bodics hcalrhy; '" in che abs<·nce ".' 01 ''~~·.
women's sexual functioning is aintlcss and unproducri\·c, mcrd~· 3 torm ot
rottenncss and dccay, but by the application of mak pharmacy 1t b<'CODl<'S
at once ordcrly and fruitful. . . . . ·xual ca ..·in·
h may be typical of patriarchJI t..·ultun's ro VIL~w worm:n 5 sL P_ ·
fimctionally-as a mcans of producin~ rhildn~n tOr mcn-r.athc.'r rh.m. .1~ .an
autonomous domain of dcsirc, a subjt..·f..·nvity of ont..•'s own. At Jll~ ~.;,~~:
. . l) . a's ,-ollapsm~ ,lr tn•.:
the rcluctann· of modcrn n·adc.·rs to das,·cn• 111 •onm ·h· rhc
distinction bctWf..'f..'ll sc.·xual and n·pnldtlf.."tivc.· tUau·tions 311 ~pp4-·al to ~". a:ur\·
' .. . . J • 0 f •xnr.'TI'-'IU:C.' IUJ~ cotl~
(,rccks took tu bL.· a spl•nhcally knunlllf..' or a ~- r·- 1•. t·nuk
sunwthinl7 of thc l.'Xtf..'llt tu whil·h n.mtc.·mporary mall- ,lttltlll 0 "·'1 "-:k•AYI-
. . . " . . . . . . . . . -with thc.·ar aru.·a,·nr ., ' ,..
nut~nsm l"OIIlCidL'--111 thas onc r~·spnt, -~t h.:ast L.lk smul.u tll rh.u ,·xhaban...J
cal turchL·ars. Fur n.·f..·c.·nt l'x.pn·sslons ot ;m outlo - h. rh.m rh,·
by l·lassil·al ( ;rcck masculinist dis,·oursc Olll.' m."l-..1 luok ~"' -~r~.' ~XJ"-lln-nn.
l.'nli~htL'IIf..'d disóplim.• of modt·rn KYil.ilCO.llo~y · ,uu.· ot \\ '~....:,..:,: urtr:'-' "''"
has writtcn, "Tht..• fundamental biulogK t~,-r,,r 111 't..lltlc.'l:.~:h. M.'t.'c.'II,Un
IUothcrhood bal:.uu·cd by thc t"al·t that St'XUJI pi1.'JSU l!io c.'ll .
142 1 One Hundred Years of Homosexuality

or even absent. " 1"' Now that, to be surc, was sct clown du ·
nng the d
befare the Kinsey Rcports (when, no doubt, it was true)· but e ark days
' ven afte
years of scientific progress the author of an article on "Ps h rtwcnry
" bl' h d · h h' d d' · yc ology
Gynaecology' . pu ts e . m t e t Ir . e ttt~n ~.C a standard collectio •nd
cssays on chmcal obstetncs, could snll wnte, Chtldbirth sh Id n of
• 00 ~~
crowning fulfilment of a woman s sexual development; her ph . e
· h b h' d n1H4 YSical and
psychological destmy ave een ac tevc . In fact, at least halj f
gynaecological textbooks published in the United States between 19: 3 rhe
· e
1972 (when m y tmormanon · runs out ) mamtam
· · t h at t h e sex drive in wo and

a1.ms pnman
. .1y at repro ducnon,
· not at sexua J p Jeasure. IHS The refusaltnen ro
separa te sexual pleasure and reproductton m women seems also to underlie
the tradicional insistence of modern gynaecologists on the reality and irnpor-
tance of the vaginal orgasm, an insistence that continued for decades after
Kinsey claimed to observe that portions of thc vagina contain no nerve
endings and therefore lack all sensation; thus, one expert writing in 1962
sternly warns women to lea ve the clitoris alone: "If there has been rnuch
manual stimulation of the clítoris it may be reluctant to abandon control, or
the vagina m ay be unwilling to accept the combined role of arbiter of sensation
and vehicle of reproduction. " 1" 6 This emphasis on the mcrging in femalc
eroticism of the otherwise isolated impulses to sexual pleasure and to repro-
duction casts into a modern medica! idiom what our evidence indicares ro
have been at least a prominent theme in Greek constructions offemale eros. 1"'

8. Plato's Erotic Theory and the Politics of Gender

Plato's exploitation of this thcme raises a complicated and interesting

question about the cultural politics of gender. For the interdepcndence of
sexual and reproductive capacities is in fact a feature of maJe, not femalc.
phystology. To be surc, neither in men nor in womcn docs sexual dcsuc
necessard~ aim at procrcation. But it is only in men, not in womcn, that
~p~oductton dcpends on sexual desirc and that rcproductive function c.a~"?!
e ISolated from sexual pleasure (to the chagrín of Augustine and othcrs),
whercas .1 0 womcn orgasm and rcproduction are cntircly indcpcndcnt, a~
cvcn An~todc and Galen maintaincd. uw Plato thcn would scctn to be
constructmg fcmale dcsirc according toa malc p~radig~-as his cjacuiawrY
mo~cl of fcmalc procrcativity suggests· he would sccm in fact to be intcr-
prcttng as "f> · · .. • • ' · ··
h. h . cmi.ntne and allocating to mcn a form of sexual cxpcncnCl:
w le 1~ mascuhnc to b · ·h 1·¡cnatcd
f egm Wit and which mcn had prcviously a
rom thcmsclvcs b d ~ · ·r hat
he~ bchmd l'l , ~ e l~tng as f~mininc. In othcr words, it looks as 1 W .
projcct th .· ato s crottc doctnnc is a doublc movcmcnt whcrcby nu:l1
fl(;\vc~ l·n t<htr ov-:n sexual cxpcricncc onto womcn only to rcabsorb it rhcrn-
< (IUISC of a"~· ' . " h · 'ng
because 1t ~u u . h . cmmmc e aractcr. This is particular) y intngui
e.KCSts t ;u l1l ordcr tu fadlitatc thcir own appropriation ofwhat
 l o be the feminine men have initially constructed .. , ...
h y take . h'l . ••mtmntty"
t e d' g a male paradtgm w 1 e creatmg a social and pol1·11· 1 .d 1
cortn 10 h' . cateaof
ac ulinity" defined by t etr own putattve ability lo isolale wha
"mase . 1 on1y
can actually tsolate--name1y, sexual pleasure and reprodurn·
wornen . on, rt-
creative and p~ocr_eattve sex. .
The determmatton of men to a~qutre the powers 1hey ascribe (whether
correcdy or incorrectly) to women ts a remarkably persis1en1 and widespread
feature of male cultur~. For many years now a number of anthropologists
and lheir psychoanalyttc collaborators ha ve been detailing the various strat<-
gies by which males, in many different c~lt_ures, arrogate 10 1hemselves the
power and presuge of fe~ale ~pro)c~eattvtty: these slralegies range from
tites of ceremomal munlanon, m which adolescent boys, in the course of
separating themselves from their mothers, inscribe female characters into
their own flesh, ''" to the couvade--the stylized enactment by males of false
pregnancy, labor, and giving birth coinciden! with the actual pregnancy and
labor of a female family member (a practice that seems to ha ve survived in
Western societies in the form of certain psychosomatic illnesses that rypically
afHict the husbands of pregnant women)'"-to, it has been claimed, the
modern, male-dominated professions of obstetrics and gynaecology, in
which men superintend and make themselves responsible for the successful
realization of women's fertility. '"'
The most elaborate deployments of maJe pseudo-procreative imagery
often occur (appositely enough, for the purposes of Platonic comparisons)
in a paederastic context-specifically, in secret maJe initiation riruals ~~
studied in N ew Guinea) that feature sexual contact between men and boys.
The explicit ideological basis for such rituals is the notion that men are 1101
born but made, that boys will not become men through a natural_ proctSS
of unassisted growth but must be transformed into men by means of mmcate
machinations (including sexual contact with grown men)designed 10 rram-
fer physical prowess and social identity from one gencranon of males 10 the
nex1. Thus, ritual paederasly represenls 1hc procreation of males by m~
after boys have been born physically and reared by women. they must o

b ' ' . h bolic order ol

orn a second time culturally and inrroducc:d mto 1 e sym o _,_ •

" ' • . notm~~g•vn

masculinity" by mcn. Thc processcs by which one genc~ano roductive
btrth to thc succccding onc are explicitly thematized as tem~e rep or
f¡ · . . . ·fi ·on otthe rongue.
uncttons: ntual nos.~blc<-ding, ear-ptercmg, sean tcan _, h oral
Pcn·l· · · · · · · 1""' t:.or exarnplc . .Utu t e
1 e lhClslon s•gn1fies malc menstruauon, 1' -~ 1""' Ir
inscmination of youths by older males is represented as b":~;-~ ~~tllll
sccms that whcn men go about reprodu<·ing th~mselves saeta :.:.,:;"ro daJJU
and acculturating the ncw generation of youthlul maks. t~Y &hmd
for thcmselvcs a reproductive capacity analogous ro th ..r ot ""'"'~~. t:.~T 1)1..
their claim, it is often alleged, lies a sensc uf n.. k jnadcoqua<"Y u•:omp<,...,..
Women's awesome powcr to gcncratc nC"W li.IC.•. Mcn srnvC' IU"
144 ¡ Onc Hundrcd Ycars of Homoscxuality

for thcir perccivcd lack, for thc abscncc of a womb on this .

. . . • VIcw b
of a kind of cultural subhmauon -by appropnating procrea . ' Y liicans
. . h . 11 llvc fun .
from womcn and rcconsututmg t cm ntua y in thc form of 1 ctJons
. cu tural
tices.'"" Such procedures ha ve b ecn mtcrprcted, howcvcr, with a 1, Prac.
. . f .. 1 " b , a1
ut as a mal e t t cast cnu
Plausibihty, not as an .cxpresswn o m a e cnvy
. . ,,, s rategy ~
controlling reproduct1vc pohucs. or
In thc light of all this cthnographic cvidencc, Diotima's metaphor f
.. so liialc
prcgnancy and partunllon would appcar to be not only not incongruous
but, indecd, to be vmually mcv1tablc, g1vcn the pacdcrastic sctting ofPlato's
Symposium. Diotima's figurat1vc language has m fact bcen situated in just
such a cross-cultural context by Barry D. Adam, a Canad1an sociologist.
Noting that in Mclancsia scx betwccn mcn and boys is rcpresented as "onc
among many ways in which mcn reproduce themsclves in opposition 10
womcn," Ada m interprcts Greck paedcrasty as a crucial clement in "thc
social rcproduction of male culture" which functions as "a second stagc
of parenting that succeeds thc mother-child relationship. "'''" Nothing so
claboratc and cxplicit as the New Guinea initiation rituals has been docu-
mcnted in the case of classical Grcece, to be sure, but some cvidence for the
existencc of roughly similar rites in thc archaic period has come clown to
us. ,., Bachofen found examples of the couvade attested in ancient sources;'"
moreovcr, Greek males oftcn voice a longing for the possibility of mak
asexual gcncration""-seeming to fear, correspondingly, thc prospcct of
female parthenogcnesis (and, hence, male usclessness). M And Greek men's
fantasies about being ablc to give birth to themselves and their own institu-
tions without the complicity of women usually in vol ve the coiiptation of
"the feminine" in sorne suppressed capacity or other-think of Athena and
thc Erinyes in Acschylus's Oresteia. 211] .

Diotima's function in thc Symposium invites a similar intcrprctation. Dio~t­

ma's ~cmininc prcscncc at the originary sccnc of philosophy, at onc of_tts
foundmg _momc~ts, contributcs an csscntial ingrcdicnt to thc lcgiti~auon
of thc phJiosoph1cal entcrprisc; her prescnce endows thc paedagogJc pro-
cesses by which mcn reproduce thcmsclves culturally-by which thcy c~.m­
mumcatc th~ sccrcts of thcir wisdom and social idcntity, thc "n1ystcncs of
malc authonty, to onc anothcr across thc gcncrations-with thc prcstígc of
fcmalc procrcativity. Diotima's crotic cxpcrtisc, on this vicw, constitutcs an
acknowlcdgmcnt
. . bY mcn o f the pccuhar . powcrs and capaCitiCS
. · o f wotncu;
h
t m., l>•ottma is a b· . . . hcr
fcmíninit in o~d. wo~an ccausc Socrattc phtlosophy must horroW. he
Y. cr to sccm to lea ve nothing out and thcrcby to cnsun: t
~ucce~!-. 0 ~ 1_ts 0 ": 11 procrcativc cntcrpriscs, thc continual rcproduction of its
umvcr\ahzm~ dlscour.. . 1 ~u"'
Hur l'l 1 , c. . se 111 t le malc culture of classical Athcns.- . 1
a o s n~urauon 0 f h 1e · . bJilCl
\txu- 1 . d . t e cmmmc gcndcr by mcans of thc cotn l
lene:~<~~ h rcpro~ucuvc ima~cry which Diotima uses to convcy thc centra
· cr crotu: thcory-;md which, in turn, uses Diotima to guaranrc.·c.:
 feminine character of the experience it images-does .
he allegedi Y l. . . not s•mply
t an instance of ma1e cu1tura 1mpenahsm, a typica] attempt b
represen 1 "d'ffi , . d . . Y men
1 ize female 1 erence m or er to e1a1m 11 for a universalizing 1
10 coon . PI . . . mae
d1.scours e· For al .the same
.
time as ato mvests DIOtlma with an eror·
" . .. 1c an
d
pmpe h 11.e authonty,
. .
h1s construal of her d1fference takes back wh ·
, uu
.
gwes, denymg m effect. the autonomy . of women s. experience
. . · We can
distinguish two strateg1es that combme to cancel DIOtlma s "difference.
First, as we have ~een, Plato's figuration of~iotima's supposed "femininity"
rcinscribes male 1den11ty m the representa non of female "difference": it is a
projection by men of their ow_n experience onto women, a male fantasy
intended for mternal consumpt10n-a vers10n of pastoral. Second, to con-
struct woman as the presence of a quite specific maJe lack is to deny her
difference just as surely as it is to construct her as a lack of maJe presence:
such a procedure does not truly acknowledge otherness, does not admitthe
possibility of an autonomous experience different from that of meo, but
rreats woman only as "the inversed alter ego of the 'masculine' subject or its
complement, or its supplement. """ Hence, when Diotima speaks, she does
not speak for women: she silences them. •~
The radical absence ofwomen's experience-and, thus, ofthe actual femi-
nine---from the ostensibly feminocentric terms of Plato's eroric doctrine
should warn us not to interpret Plato 's strategy simplistically as a straightfor-
ward attempt to appropriate the feminine oras a symbolic theft ofwomen's
procreative authority. For Plato 's appropriarion of the Other works not only
by misrecognizing the Other but by construcring "the other" as a maske.l
version of the same-or, to borrow the ]anguage ofJulia Kristeva, it works
by constructing a "pseudo-Other. ..>n To study thc various Sllateg•es by
which men simultaneously construct and coopt femak "ditTerence," in other
words, is not at all to study men's altitudes towards (real) women; rat::~
u 1S to study the male imaginary, thc specular pocncs of malc •dennty .
sclf-dcfinition. 21 '" The pscudo-fcminoccntrism implicit in Plato's sragmg ol
Diotima's discourse is, as Nancy Miller (writing about a modero vmety
of pscudo-feminocentrism) puts ir, "a stratcgy claborated to tra~slate h
masculinc sclf-affirmation"; " 'woman, '" shc adds, "is thc kgal hcnon. 1 e
prescnt abscncc that allows thc malc bond of privilegc and aurhonry l<~
consritutc itsclf within rhc laws of propcr cir<"ulation" "rhc phallO<~'Iltn<
. economics of rcprcst.·nration. "11."" . . . ft·arurr Llfflassit·.d
1 he use of "womcn" to liccnsc malc spcc<'h " a strlkmg .. Al h gh
Grcck hi~h culture. As Hclcnc Folcy has reccntly t•mphaslze.l. ~ ."~he
. . h ~ h a R"hgaous LliK m
Womcn m fact play virtually no pubhc rok ot <l 1 . an h . 0311 ,.,.¡¡1\-
politkal and soriallitC of :mrient Greecc.·. rhey domm..1n.· r e amo~~:rion
,
o f (dcck mcn ro a dcgrt.~ almost unpara 111t.• e: In 1 ¡.
d. rh·e: W<"''""' rr>u .
·l.ll:itll1 t\l rfk•
Grcck writt.·rs uscd thc femalc--in a f3shion rh.;~t b':'rc nt e ~ . pcrinK"'If
livl~s tll.. 'll1al wnmcn-to undcrstand. l'xpn.·. · • ~~,·rwtl(l"· '10 .. x
with the problems and contradictions of their culture."'"' Wh
·1 f 1 · at 1 hav
10 suggest is that the s1 ence o actua women m Greck publi 1., e tried
· 1" women "('mvented bY ma 1e authors) in Ge hek and the
volubility officuona
. ree cuit
cxpression do not represen! opposcd , contra d 1ctory, or paradox· 1 ural
. h lea feat
of dassical Greek soctety but, on t e contrary, are connected 10 0 ures
by a strict logical necess1ty.
. G k ffi .
ree men e ect1vely silenced w
neanoth
er
. omen b
speaking for them on those occas1ons when men chose to address si ·r, Y
· bl' dh · dh ·
words 10 one another m pu IC, an t ey reqmre t. e s1lence of women in gnttcant
public in. orderto ma~~ thcmselves heard-and. to 1mpersonate women-
wtthout 1mped1ment. As Agathon (not Plato s Agathon, th1s time b
Aristophanes's) says, explaining t~e relation between hi~ compositi~n ~~
tragedies about women and h1s hab1t of dressmg m women s dothes, "What-
ever we don't have, we capture by mimisis"-that is, by imitation or repre-
sentation (Thesmophoriazusae 155-56). 212
The essential element in Plato's staging of "femininity," similarly, is a
mimetic transvestitism. 213 What is crucial for Plato's strategy is not that
Diotima present a woman's perspective but that she reprcsent it in a form
that is recognizable tomen. This insight casts a new light on the ethnographic
evidence cited above and offers a way of rereading it that more closely fits
the features ofPlato's text. According to this new interpretation, the viability
of the procedures by which m en reproduce themselves culturally depends
on a paradoxical combination of success and failure in their assumption
of "feminine" attributes. E ven in the midst of mimicking menstruation,
pregnancy, giving birth, and breast-feeding, the male actors must share with
their audience the understanding that their procreative performances are
symbohc, not real-that nose-bleeding is not menstruating, that oral insemt-
nanon ts nor breast-feeding. The point of all those rites, after all, is to turn
boys mto men, not into women: for the cultural construction of masculinity
10 succeed it is necessary that the process intcnded to turn boys into men be
genumely efficacious, no less "generative" than female procreativity itself.
but 11 ts also necessary that the meo who do the initiating reta in their identity
as men-something they can only do if their assumption of "femininc"
~ap~Citlcs and powers is understood to be an impcrsonation, a cultural
tctlon, or (at the very least) ¡ · " cu-
line" and "fe · · , • mere ana ogy. Thc cultural traffic tn mas .
non-confoun;~~~~: c~a~acters, in ~~hcr words, is prcdicatcd on th_c basiC
men in the cours y ~ gendcrs.. The "fcmininc" idcntity acqutrcd by
0r 1
e o per.ormmg rtt 0 f · · . . t be an
incompletc identity d. es lnltlat10n thcrcforc mus
• an lts status as fi · · athcr
thanatotalappropriatt'on f" h e: . 3 . lctton-as an impcrsonauon r .
O t C ICffilnt " ) •ctiYC
puncturing ofthc illusion ct'th b ne -:-must be cxposcd by a se e .
. • er y a dropp f h h rnattz·
mgofíhstatus¡smask lnth' mgo t emaskorbyat e ·J:.
. . · ts contcxt how . d ysru•-
~atlon: 1t 1s not il stntcgy dcsigncd sim' 1 cvcr, cx~~surc 1s not e~ .0115
In thc cultural discoursc of d P Y to ffiilkc Vtstblc thc.· contrad•ct~ .
gen er so as to cxplode thc various ntean•n~!i
 .. asculinity," "fcmininity") constituted by it. On th
h as m .b e contrary· the
(suc f self-exposure contri u tes an essential element 10 th ·
Y act o 1 . d h , e successful
ver . ofthe symbo 1c proce ures w ereby 'masculine" and .. , . . ,
peranon . h. . •emmme
~entities circula te Wlt m a contmuous system of maJe self-representation.

9_Sexual p 0 Jitics and Textual Strategies

That Diotima's "femininity" is illusory-a projection of maJe fantasy

mboliclanguage employed by men in arder to explain themselves and thci:
sy h h · ·
desires 10 one anot er across t e generat1on~1S similarly acknowledged b~
Plato. The textual strateg1es of the S~mpos1um reveal Diotima's fictionalit~
as much as they conceal 11. Plato hmts that Socrates has-if not simply
invented Diotima out of whole cloth-at least shaped the doctrine he ascribes
10 her to suit the needs of the present occasion. Socrates avails himself of
Diotima's authority, first of all, to depict Eros as a barefoot philosopher,
thereby portraying the god as a mythic embodiment of himself: in effect,
Diotima teaches that Eros by its very nature is intrinsically Socratic (203d).
Alcibiades later confirms this identification ofSocrates andEros by describing
Socrates in terms that recall the ones Socrates himself had used to describe
Eros (219e-221b). 215
Next, Socrates has Diotima rebut the view of eros that Aristophanes had
articulated a few moments earlier, on the samc evening as his own speech
(205d-206a). To be sure, Socrates is not so artless asto have Diotima allude
by name to his "future" interlocutor: she merely claims ro have heard a
version of what turns out to be Aristophanes's account of ms from other
unspecified sources (she introduces her refutation with the vague but n~e­
theless pointed phrase, kai /egetai mftl .~e tis /ogos: "sorne peoplc say. ).
But Aristophanes is not fooled: Plato's narrator tells us that when Socrares
had finishcd speaking Aristophanes tried to say something inasmudt 4S Som~­
tes [not Diotima] had mentioned him by rr{erring ro his spttch '"hu own <pNdt
(212c). The sudden eruption of Alcibi~des into the scene saves Socra~
fro m havmg · to confront Aristophanes •s 1mp· ¡·JCII· ehallenge to D100ma
. . ds
authenticity, but the suspicion has airead y been planted in the reader s mm ·
Similarly, Socrates claims that bis carlier conversation with Dlonn~a do~
ta1.• h o· rim~ ·s .arguments (:In
s so pcrfectly with thc prcsent discussion t at 10 reed
be used to complete his reply to Agathon; converscly. th< preDI~~~. ·al
u b cd 10
· raer mru uK" avr-1(
pon Y Socratcs and Agathon can be import . "" Unless th<
foundation on which Diotima builds hcr own lesson 10 erotiCS- . . thal be
author of thc Symposium has been so beguiled by hls own •ros,.~) beb.-1. in
doc ' · d • ·¡Ji g sus¡>n•SJOD" 5
l)" 5~1 t ~OtlCe thcsc strains_on thf' rea C'f S Wl. O Woll1t tO kf ~T<&~:~
IOtlnta s autonomous ex1stence. he must at.:tually ·L ... •uism.-
a·
ma 5k s¡·•p and to cxpose "Diotima" asan e C'Cr 0 f Socr>tl< ventn
·k .......
ti·miuiO('"'
Anothcr hint that Diotima mav be nor a pt"rson bur' •nas · .1.
cosrume designed from rhe srart to be worn by mcn, can b ,
· ·
implied contrad1c11ons t e Poros an dPen1a
o fh · myt h . In the sto eround·In th,
or origin, of Eros, w h 1c . h o·1011ma
. narrares, p enia ("Poverty" ry ofthe, b"trth,
seduces Poros ("M eans ") an d rhereby conce1ves · • w h0 derives 01
E ros, h" Wan" . t)
. mor hcr, h"IS cnr h USiasm. ~ " IS UgiJn
and poverty from h 15 wr mvestigat" '"
. ~ h" 1 . •on and h"
resourcefulness in settmg traps ror IS ove-obJects from his fath (2 IS
· · · f
d8). Clcverness (sophoa) IS an attnbure o Poros (204b6)-who is, in a er 03b2-
thc son of Met1s,• · " cunmng • mte
· 11"•gence " (203b3) -an d yet 11· 1·s Porosnywho<ase;;
rricked by Penia. An analog~us reversa! of roles appears to be played out in
rhe narrative of the Syn~posJUm. Dmuma.' a sourcc of wisdom, represents
something of the plemtude of Poros, wh1ch 1s what Socrates represents 1
his fellow symp~~!asts, although compared to Diotima both he and they ar~
figures of Penia.- Agathon, hke Alc•b•ades, IS awarc of hiS lack and, like
Alcibiades, believcs he can draw offsome ofSocrates's wisdom by seducing
and possessing him: "Come here, Socrates," Agathon urges his guest, "and
recline next to me, so that 1can la y hold of you and thereby enjoy the benefu
of that piece of wisdom which occurred to you while you were on the porch;
for it's clear that you found it and have it." Socrates, of course, rebukes
Agathon, declaring bis own wisdom to be as tenuous as a dream and explain-
ing that, in any case, it is not in the nature of wisdom to flow from onc
person to another likc liquid flowing from a fuller vessel to an emptier
onc (175c-e)."'' And yet, despite Socrates's denials, sorne such hydraulic
transaction secms to ha ve taken place between himself and Diotima. Socrates
appears to have drawn off sorne of Diotima's wisdom, ro havc been filled
sufficiently full ofit to makc him, by bis own admission, an expert in erotics
(177d7-8, 198dl-2) and to makc bis soul a repository of at least sorne ofthe
goldcn adornments which Alcibiadcs discovers in it.'~' Diotima, howevcr,
has been effectivcly cmpticd in thc process; she is cntircly uscd up in thc
course of hcr brief appearancc in the dialogue. Dcplctcd by Socrates, shc
vamshes, hut Socratcs'scrotic wisdom and his entrancing specchcs endure (as
the elaborare narrativc framc ofthc dialogue attcsts), rcmaining in perpetua!
cnculauon m Athcnian society. 221

10. Condusion

.. Havcfyou any notion how many books are writtcn about womcn in thc
coursc o onc year"'' Vir · · W , 11· e
in ¡1no "H · gmta oolf askcd thc audicncc ata womcn s co l:g
'"'· ave you any n0 t"1011 h . you
awarc that you are pcrh h ow many are writtcn by mcn? Are , ..... ,,
Four ycars late .'·r· 3 ps. t e most discusscd animal in thc univcrsl'·
r, as 1 In rcspons t 0 h · bl. ·hcr
·
S1gmund Frcud b. . h" e t ese qucncs from his English pu " k
rcccmly rnadc 11 tq~~n 1b5 hypothctical lccturc on "Fcmininity .. (a wur
fo)k 1w,_, 0 onous Y thc hrilliant commcntary of luce Irigaray). ¡¡s
 " dics and Gendemen,- Throughouthistory people have knockcd their
La . st the riddle of the nature of femmmny- No .
h ·ads agam . bl h r Wl 11 you havc:
cea cd worrying o~er ~hls pro em-t ose of you who are men; to rhose of ou
es P women th1s Wlll not apply-you are yourselves the problem .. :u1 y
~~ .

In rhe light of Woolfs questions and Fre~d's formulation, 1 shall appear 10

ha ve been engaged throughout thts e.ssay m wrestling with a man •5 problem
about 3 man's text: my own ostensible mvol_vement with women's issues
will be seen to ha ve concealed-~nd, thereby, 1n a sense, to have disdosed-
a more fundamental preoccupatton wtth tssues of great tradicional impor-
tante to meo. 1 had begun this paper by promising to identify those positive
values conventionally associated with women by Plato's contemporaries thar
Plato might ha ve sought to actualize through his sponsorship ofDiotima. In
rhe end, however, 1 ha ve had relatively little to say about women but quite
a Iot to say about meo. 1 have uncovered Diotima's absence rather than her
presence: that very absence, moreover, has proveo to be the empty cenrer
around which m y entire discussion has revolved. Diotima has rurned out ro
be not so much a woman as a "woman," a necessary female absence--
occupied by a male signifier-against which Plato defines his new erotic
philosophy. And m y own interpretation ofPlato has exemplified the same
strategy, insofar as it has appropriated a feminist perspective for the purpose
of legitimating its own discourse about the erotics of male culture.
But ifl ha ve reproduced, in effect, the traditional male srraregy ofspeakmg
about women by speakingfor women (the very strategy rhar served ro era~
Diotima's feminine presence from Plaro's Symposium in rhe first pbcr), 1! 1
ha ve recovered not Diotima 's presence but hcr absencc and rhereby obs.:ured
thc real political significance of Plato's decision ro represenr a woman sur-
passing men in the practice of philosophy (a dccision doubtles•!Y nor uncon-
ncctcd to Plato's admission of women to his own Academy). -~ 1 can dum
to have done so as part of an effort to expose, to illustrate. _and to n:ve~
the assumptions articulatcd wirh su<·h deliberarely devasratmg candor bv
Frcud in thc opcning gambit ofhis lc,·rure. To be explicir, whar 1 ha>·c rnc:d
to do is to suggcst that whcncvcr thcrc is a question of u~dcrstal~ng
womcn, lt· 1s
· usually nrt'll, not womc.·n, w ho ('m Frcu • d's wrv· tormul•non)
. ht'- .
are themselvc.·s thc problcm-who constitutc, that is, tht" ve-r~· C1U(.tl11.1. t )
think they are trying ro penetra te.·. For ''ti.:•mininiry '' must <.:unnnuc.· f'\l ~n~~
a •n . . . 11 b ·f· :t.' w ''nl.&S'-"Uhnuy
h yst~ry so long a_s 11 1s dctm<·d who Y Y re '~e~~ i a mak Lo··k.
w cthcr as a lack ot malc prcsencc or as thc pn-stnu 0 . 1. _
Thus, Plato's textual practic.·c along with the rr;~dmon °1 s~o:hoJ¡r ~ ~~~­
m~n_tary gcnc.·ratcd by ir (induding my own conunt"_nr.ar~·): _Jr.am.ar~z:xu.U
OfiKII · d· · · · h. anv ~o:hSl"\.lUnt: .1bout
. 1ary a~~ mc.•scapablc t·ontradu.·t•on w1t .!n · . 11 ·-m.aknt~t fJrlll'
dJtTc.·rcnn.·"·-'\ thar constructs such ''ditli:rt"n« o~synum.-cr•~"' " .. td rtwc
gl'lh. lt.·r (~ul·ss which?) the peculiar lo,·us "'r sirt.· ol "Jdl\-n"fk"(' -.u
!50 1 One Hundred Years of Homosexuality

rhereby ultimately denies "sexual difference" altogerher .

. 11 ' reconsru .
instead as what Teresa de Laurens ca s sexual (in)diffirence. u,, E Uttng ¡1
be feminist ana1ysts,
· such as m y own, w h.1~ h atms· ven a would.
to establish and 10
guish, or to salvage and preserve, what ts authentically "femi . .?"''"·
.
inauthentic male construcnons o f" the 1emmme,
r . . "
must succumb ntne
t h fr orn
. ¡· . ¡· . ot esa~
tendency so long as tt e mgs to an essenna 1St nonon of female "d ...,. "''
. d d. . 1 tuerence"
each progresstve_ attempt}o. transcen tra Jtto~a male-oriented discour :
about "sexual dtfference (m the hope of bemg able to specify wh ses
!l enuinely "feminine"), orto inventa "politically correct''
. .
space outst·d " "
e such
discourses, supposedly free from structures of dommatton (whether social
or episremologtcal), stmply reproduces at a htgher level of abstraction th
very asymmetry from which it had sought to escape. Insread of repeatin e
vain attemprs to transcend this originary contradiction, then, 1 ha ve tried 1 ~
elaborate and enlarge it, identifying and analyzing sorne of the various
straregies by which men continually reinscribe male identity in their repre-
sentations of female "difference" (as illustrated by Plato's representation of
Diotima as well as by scholarly representations of that representation). For
it is precisely by working within such contradictions, 1 believc, that feminist
criticism can create its most effective opportunities.
To conclude that Plato has in effect reinscribed male identity in his repre-
sentation of female differcnce is not to answer the question 1 have been
asking rhroughout this essay but to move well beyond it. 1 have argued that
Plato found in "woman" a figure for representing two properly philosophical
(i.e., mal e) values: reciprocity and creativity. Gender enters the text ofPiato's
Symposium, then, not as it enters the text of Aristotle's Generation of Ani·
ma!s-not, that is, as a subject of inquiry in irs own right-but as parr of a
larger ftg~rative project whose aim is to represent the institutional and
ps:cho!ogtcal conditions for the proper practice of(male) philosophy. Wom-
en s tros, .". Plato understands it, is evidcntly like the attitudes and dispost-
ttons exhl~ttcd by th~ ideal (maJe) philosopher who is engaged in thc search
for truth. Dt~tlma, m short, is atrope for "Socratcs": '"shc" is a figure by
means ofwhtch Plato imagcs the reciproca! and (pro)creative erotics of
~male) phtlosophical intercourse. That stratcgy of figuration, howcvcr, is
tstln~tlve to the Symposium~ in thc Phaedrus by contrast whcrc Socratcs is
pcrmtncd to assert explicitly thar thc most philosophical ~orl of malc lovcrs
>re ammatcd by a · ¡ . . · ·d
b ) PI reciproca crottc deSlrc (255c-c quotcd and dtscuss<
:r o;e ' . ato ~an a~ord large1y to ignore womcn: 'he is ablc to talk about
0B~t '¡~c:~-ro~uy ~ucctly and docs not nccd to rcprcscnt it figurativcly ·
1ot1ma 1s not a woma b ,, k anY
scnsc to inquirc · t h n ut a woman," it no longcr ma es
m 0 er gendcr F •• " pe·
in thc rcpresentational eco · or wo~an, too, turns out to be a tr0 , . :
¡Jways a sign of somethi:omy_ of Platos tc~t (as clscwhcre), "wotn.~n ¡s
mcn (a!. thcy sce th l g clsc-of a spunous sexual ''diffcrcn'-·c thal
cmsc ves) at once lack and posscss. Nothinll; ¡11 hcrsclf.
 , . that pseudo-Other who both makes good what men want d
"wolllan ts from wantmg . anyt h'mg at a11; sh e ts. an alternare male ide an.
11
15 men d nty
exclllP tant accessibility to men 1en s men a fullness and totality th 1
whose cohn~ ro dispense (supposedly) with otherness altogether. "Femini a_
ablesr e . h b fi 1·.. . n
'", is not referennal, t en, ut tgura . ~~ ts stf.uctured like,," trope in the
•1Y f being constructed as the oppostte of mascubmty according ro
sense
the Jogic of "s~me-but-d'ffi
0
1 erent
" w h';ch , m
· e 1asSica
· 1 rhetoric, defines the
22
tions of 51mtle and metaphor. To mtstake thiS construct for "rhe
opera
hentically femmme. . . . woul d t h r
ere.ore amount to t he most elementary al
·~;torical errors, which is to confuse a figura! with a literal denominarían.
~ut ¡1 is hard to see how any represention of"the feminine" that defines it,
in essentialist terms, as the opposite of"the masculine'' will not be vulnerable
10 a similar critique. lf we follow thislogic, we find that from the perspective
0 ( the male world, at least, there is no such thing as authentic femininiry.
"Woman," and "man," are figures of male speech. nc Gender-no less than
sexuality-is an irreducible fiction. 22' And soto ask why Diorima is a woman
is to pose a question that ulrimately has no answer.
 Notes

(full references to works cited here only by the author's Jasr namc-or, in the case of multiple
works by the same author, by the author's last name and the year ofpublic.uion--can be found
in rhe Bibliography.)

lntroduction

E. M. Forster, Goldsworthy Lowes Dickinson (1934; repr. New York, n.d.), 46.
See Herzer, 15-17.
Sce Michael Heseltine, trans., Petro11ius, Loeb Classicallibrary (Cambridge. MA. 1956).
xviii. A revised version ofHesehine's rranslarion. resroring rhe passages omirred by him,
was published by the Loeb Classical Library in 1%9.
See Waher C. A. Ker, trans., Mtutial: EpiRrllms, Loeb CbssicaJ Library (london, 1925-
27}, rwo volumes.
For this information 1 am indebted ro Jocdyn, -14. n.
question is cited in my Bibliography.
6 Sce, for cxamplc, Jeffrey Henderson, Th~ M11trd•t~ Mau~: Olmnw lAn~ ¡, .4m:t C~
(Ncw Ha ven, 1975); Amy Richlin, ''Thc Meaning of lm.lfl4rr in C~tullus .md Mama~.
CldJsital Philolo~y. 76 (1981), 40-46, and 711~ CMirtlms ~fPridpru: StXNIIIity.,.¡ -~,..
¡, Rommr Humor(New Ha ven, 19H3);J. N. Adams. _711~ Lati~ Sl-A"II41 J'«".""'al')' (l~
1982); and thc numcrous srudies by H. D. Jocdyn 10 thc LJV"POIJI ClrJJJrt.H ,y.,Mly
elscwherc.
Dovcr (1978), 182; in his supplcmcnt.ary notc."S ro the Hrirish p.aJX'rluct .:'\ÍitKJI1 o((;m/t
HorHost.YUdlity, llover corn'("tt'd rhc error.
H Müllcr, Di~ lJ.Jrier, 4.4.h-9 = G~J.-Irrtlrtt lttllt?lisd•rr Sti"''!" ,.,¿ .'W• • ~ ~~~~:~·
1844), 111, 2H5-9.l. (1 ho1ve Se\."11 only rhe sn:und cd1t1011 ol th1s wt•rl:..) ~ rd"-'Uolk.
the va~ious ~L"SOilil.m't."S whkh th1.· o~foiJt.'L"tive ''Donan" at-qur_n-d amLN~~ 8 " 11 ~~:.:u 1 • 10 ~
1
as a drn·~.·r rf uniniL'ndcd n-suh of Müllcr's study, 5« Lrndo1 IX._ ~· ~ 7S
Ueilluty o~nd rh~.· Constitution of o1 'Homosexual' Code." l'kll,.,.... ,,,.,.~~. ·
(SprinM 1~9), 1-H. clip. 211: . Khrnl H f-kllolih. l:""" IJtr
9 1 ~~ve s~-ru only o1 mpy of the sC'L·ond rdition,. wh•_ch rs ur , ",.,.J (.~..:~ •
~".""'rlrtltfo flirt c;,¡m,.,, ilrrr 8.-.zit'lruPWC"f zur (.,.J,·It~_dur, l-•=1:~ ,;¡,~.
Zrrlt'N, tldt-r , ..ltrSCirMNJlrrl iiM pllfllllfisrlw Litltt'. iltrr w~
N111t.r-,,.,¡ 1-'6/ftrlrultlh CMünstrr. Swiu«Land: •uthlv. n.J. ).
 1 ha ve nol sem 1 ~e original artide by Meier, entitled "Paederastia," in the A.ll .
Hrt(yclopiidie der Wusrnsrlra.fi Nrtd KNnsttn, cd. J. S. Ersch andJ. J. Gruber (l . . ~ttnn11 r
3.9.149-88. Meier's work i.s almost exclu~ive~y .a~cessible in the ampl~;.~~lg, 1~'7),
M.·H.-E. Meier, HistCJirtdtl a•noNr_(rt(dans 1a11trqN1tt, rev.cd.by L·lt. de Pogey~~~::~n:
(Paris, 1930). l'lr¡

11 Sce Kcnncdy. 43-53.

12 J. A. Symonds, A P,obltm ¡, Greelt Etlrin, bei"t dH i11quiry i11to tire plrenome11011 of sex
inrmsicm, addrrsstd esp~óally ro m~di(al psy~holotists ~ruljuris~s .(London, 190~): the essay ::~
originally composrd m 1873, pnvately c1rculated m an.ed.mon often cop1es in 1883.later
rcvised, ~nd p~sthumousl~ ~ppended 10 the fir~t prmtmg of Havelock Ellis's Sex11111
lnvmio" m Apnl, 1897. Elhs s work had to b.e w1thd~awn from sale, however, when ih
publisher was convicted on a charge ofobscemty, and 11 has not been publishcd in England
since.
for further information, see the partial bibliographies supplied by Boswell (1980), 1'7n.;
the Editors' general introduction to Halperin, Winkler, and Zcitlin; and thc notes 10
"Two Views of Grcek love," in this volume.
14 Boswcll (1980), 28-30; (1982-83), 109, n. 42; (1989), 75.
15 "Law, Society and Homosexuality in Classical Athens," Past & Prewrt, 117 (November
19H7), .l-21. This has already proved to be an inftuential cssay, but its arguments and
conclusions should be trcated with considerable caution.
Foucault's theoretical approach to sexuality has been turned back and applied 10 gender
by Teresa de laurelis, TI.'(IUJoloRits of Gtndtr: Es.say.s on Thtory, Film, arrd Ficrio11
(Bioomington, 1987), esp. 1-30.
17 Foucauh (1978), 127.
IH Dover (1988).

1 One Hunclred Years of Homooexuality

Earlier venions of this paper have appeared, under rhe present ride, in Diacritics, 16, no. 2
(Summer 1~86), 34.-45, esp. 34-40; undtr the 1ide, ..Sn bcfore Sexualiry: Pederasry, Politics,
and Power tn ClassJcal A.thens," in Hiddt, Jrom Hi.story: Raltaiming the Gtay tand Usbitall PtJsl, ed.
Geor~e Ch~uncey, Jr., Martin Bauml Duberman, and Martha Vicinus (New York: New
~me~can Library, 1989), 37.53, 482-92; and undtr the title, "ls There a History ofSexualityl"
1 ~ 1kl'>'. """ l'llro~, 28.3 (October 1989). 257-74. The present essay is closely based on
t d Cealrher works; 11 was fint rec:ast for delivery at a conference on "Homosexuality in History
~~ 7 u ~re, and the. Univcrsity Currículum," hcld at Bruwn University on Fcbruary 211-21 •
.' an hwas later gaven as a public lecture at l>uke Univcrsity on April 2U, 1987. Subscquent
~niDns ave been presentcd at a confcrcncc on "Thc Body and Lilcratun:" at the Statc
r"~Vt'rtol~ o~ N.:~Vork.at B~ffalo; atthe Univt'rsity ofCahfornia al Santa Cruz, the University
;. llew R~xac~ 1 e Umvcrsaty uf California in San Francisco, Ohio Statc Univcrsity, Habson
:o,:~~nt~',: s:::C~It.y, H.arv;d U~i~ersity, Wnleyan Univcrsny, Hrown Univcrsity, and
and C:Vt'nl& for having ::~:;~~~e 1~0: 1 :~a~a. 1a!'h gratcful lo th~ organizers ofthcSC' confer.enccs
riKorou~ snu1iny 1 owe a consideraJe de~: well as.to m y a~d1encrs ~or their sympathruc but
Dlt' lo rc:vase ;md c:xpand Ibas paper and su e:fgratuudc lO Georgr <.hauncey, Jr. who \lf~ed
Bany ll Adam, Judith M. Hcnnru, Ma~p, ;cd how l.maght go about it. 1 also w1sh to t_hank
Ann Cumman1. Kosaa1 Demelis, judilh F/ Boatw~1gh1, ~ohn Hodel, Elizabeth A. clark.
Gutwnth, Jran H.Haastrum John Kle' rster.' Erneilittne FrtNI, Maud W (Jieason, Maddyn
l'atlr'norl,l>ameiA.I'ollock•H Al ~ner.' RJchar~ ll. Mohr, (;lenn W. Mosl, Cynthta H.
' · an apno, Manlyn H. Skinnrr, Emcrv l. Snvder, Grcgory
 ohn J. Winkler, a.nd Sylvia Yanagisako for much friendly hdp and advice and for
1/Jasros. 1 1 ble suggesuons.
r~urflcrous va ua
W. Burchfield, ed., A Supplement lo thr Oxford En~lish Dictionary (Oxford, l9?h)
1 Sec ~ s.v. homoscxuality. lnasmuch as the same entry in the OED records the use 0 (
1
!~e w~rd by J. A. Symonds in_ a lener_ of the ~ame !ear, it is in fact most unlikdy
that Chaddock alone is re_spons1bl~ fo~ lts Enghsh comage. The first use of rhe tcrm
"homosexual" in an Amencan medicaiJournal also dates to 1892, according tojonathan
Katz, Gay/Ltsbian Almt~nac (New York,_ 198~), _232n._; the passage in which rhe word
occurs, however, turns out to ha ve been hfted In 1ts entlrety from Chaddock's translarion
ofKrafft-Ebing (see note 17, below, for a full citation ofthe rclevanr article).
The terms "homosexual" and "homosexuality" appeared in print for rhe first rime in 1869
in rwo anonymous pamphlets published in Leipzig and composed, apparendy, by Karl
Maria Kerrbeny. Kertbeny (né Benkert) was an Ausrro-Hungarian rranslator and lillblltn.~r
ofBavarian extraction, nota physician (as Magnus Hirschfeld and Havclock Ellis-mislcd
by false clues planted in those pamphlets by Kertbeny himself-maintaincd); he wrorc in
German under his acquired Hungarian sumame and daimed (rather unconvincingly), in
the second of the two tracts under discussion, not ro share the sexual tasres denominatcd
by his own ingenious neologism. For rhe most reliable accounrs of Kertbeny and his
invention, see Herzer; Kennedy, 149-56; also, Féray. The carlier of Kertbmy's two
pamphlets is reprinted in the Jahrbuch fiir sexudle Zwischmstu.fon, 7 (1905), 1-66.
Dynes, 67, notes that Kertbeny's term .. might have goneunnoticed had not: fKmbmy's
friend] Gustav Jaeger popularized ir in rhe second edition of his Entdedtung tkr Stele
(1880)." In fact, "homosexuality" owes its currency ro Kratft·Ehing. who ernploycd an
adjectival form of it in rhe second edirion ofhis Psychopathi11 srxu11lis (Sruttgart, 1887). 88.
explicitly acknowledging Jiiger as his source for the word; he carne ro use rhe new
tcrminology with increasing freedom and frequency in subsrquent cdirions. S« Herur.
6-9, esp. 6: "For Jiiger the same rhing holds as foralllarer users ofKen:bmy's ECTJnS,
includiog Kertbeny himself: nowhere is a reason given for using these new ~~rds- The
new nomenclature is introduced withour discussion~ informamm on the ongm of dx-
words is omitted, as are detinitions." . bsr-
The year 1869 also witncssed rhe inuoduction of a terminological compc11~r (su _
quently favored over .. homosexuality" by both Krafft·Ebing and MoU), dir e~
Stxual~mpfindung ("contrary sexual feeling"), by Carl Friedrich Ono Wesrp~l an.an arock
which Féray, 16 and Michel Foucault rake ro be rhe inaugural evml ot the DC'W_ en.
(sec: note 52, bel~w): C. Westphal, '"Die contr~.re Se~ua~mphn~un_~·~~c:....:
neuropathischen (psychopathischen) Zustandcs, .1.rr*•~" fiir _Psydrlllln ~· amdr
hrit~n. 2 (1870), 73-108 (r_he ti~· fascicle of this ~olume. lh w~chro w_:.,,., ~.dio.
appears, was actually pubhshed m rhe lanc.T part ol IM69, acrord 1 . intl: bsl 0 ¡
Herzer, 17-18). St.~ Foucaulc (197M), ..J. who tcoes on to provldt and~tcrt~ 1i.ancors
the lexical novelries fashioncd in this pcr1od to caralog~ ~~:- ~=~:.n·J
of sexual behavior. On nomendarure gcnerally. s« <.bu,_-
._. . . ,. JI

l~ltcnn.,srxualirr mt~sculiur (Par1s, 19HS). I~P'. ~Sfl; Wftls

1 Chauncey (19Kl-8.1), 116. Sn- Fouc.·ault (1978)._ 37-.311; Hrl:~:p.-hc tOrllu.IIIM~
(19111/a), H2tT.; Marshall; Dnidson (fOrthcomm&)- To. be' "Suli· c-na111t ,Jdl" _......
of "inversion" a1 a clinic.·al term (by Arri~ ~a_mass••· •IUI.;;~ '17-lf';"· dwca~
St'ls~alc.•," Rivisttl sprrilflftl,.lr ¡¡ _tMti•trifl r ~ ,..,., ~· wr) ~Jt'-~ .1 Jtc..k...,.
puhhshed Ulr u( '"invrnion" rhat Ellis, J. was ~blco ro~tlw Wi.wd ,,,-._,.... ,,....ttr-
Kerthcny's roinase of"homOIC'xuality," bu•_EUIS SUipt"' Ul?lfs.. al •-' uw. ...W 11 w•
ably _oldrr: it ~eems ro have bcdl well nrabliahc'd !;•. :--Hc.\lftlo_.xudr,..'" lt\· ,._.,...
«rta1nly a common desiaurion rhro&~~hoot clw 1 ·
156 1 Notes to Chaptcr 1

did not really begin to achieve currcncy in Eu~ope until the Eulenbur aff: .
1908 (see Féray. 116-22), and even thereafter lt was slow in gainin g 31 r of 191:17..
main point in any case, is that "inversion," ddined as it ¡5 by rc~e ascendancy. 'fhe
dcviancc, r~presents an age-old outlook on sexual non-conformity, whe::"'~.~o gender-
ality" marks a sharp break with traditional ways of thinking. as omOSell.u~
Chauncey (1982-83)._117-22, citing W. C. Rivers, '_'A Ncw Mal~ Homosexual Trait ) "
Alitnist and Ntu_rolo~ul, 41 (~920), 2~-27; ~~~ pers•stencc of th1s o~dook ¡11 the u~j~'
States, along w1th sorne of tts pract•cal (md1tary, _legal, and ecclesJastical) application~
has now becn documented by _Chaunccy (1985!86) m a study ofthe role-specific moralit'
that once governed sexual attatudes ~nd pracuces a"_l~ng members of the United Stat~
Navy (for cven more recent exprcssaons of the tradmonal outlook in Great Britain, sec
thc citations discussed by Marshall, 149-52). See, also, Albert J. Reiss, Jr., "Thc Social
lntegration ofQuecrs and Pcers," Social Problrrns, 9 (1%1/62), 102--20, with refcrences
to earlier work; Gagnon and Simon, 240-51. The dassic statemcnt of the "inversion"
thesis is the opening chapter of Proust's Sodom and Gomom1h: see Marcel Proust, A /Q
rrchrrdu· du trmps ptrdu, ed. Pierre Clarac and André Ferré (Paris, 1954), 11, 601-32, esp.
fll4-15, 620-22; Remtmbraflct ofThifiRS Past, trans. C. K. Scott Moncrieffand Terencc
Kilmartin (Ncw York, 1981), 11, 623-56, esp. 637-38, 643-45.
Scc Hubert C. Kcnncdy, "Thc 'Third Sex' Theory ofKarl Heinrich Ulrichs," in Hütorictll
Prrsptctivts Ofl Homosrxmdity, cd. Salvatore J. Licata and Robert P. Petersen = jowmal of
Homosexwality, 6.1-2 (1980/Kl), 103-111; now, Kennedy, 43-53. In the light of the
current self-reprcsemations of so-called transsexuals, 1 should point out that Ulrichs was
attempting to account for his own pauern of sexual object-choice, not merely for his
personal sense of sexual identity (sorne of the various issues that ha ve fagured in the
history of efforts to distinguish sexual identity from object-choice are treated by Dave
King, "Gender Confusions: Psychological and Psychiatric Conceptions ofTransvcstism
and Transsexualism," in Plummcr, 155-83).
Sc:e Chaunccy (191!2-83), 122-25; Marshall, 137-53; Davidson (1986/87), 251!-71; Neu.
153ff. For the modern distinction bctwecn "inversion" (i.c., scx-role reversa!) and "homo-
scxuality," s.cc Tripp, 22-35.
for the _lack of congruence between traditional and modcrn sexual categories. see the
~ugge~uve comparativc ~ate~ial discusscd by Hcrdt (1984), viii-x; De Martina and
chmm, l-111. Thc new SCIChtlflc conccptualization ofhomoscxuality reflccts, to be surc,
a mu~h oldcr habit of mind, distinctivc to nonhcrn and northwcstern Europe sincc thc
::::~si:~·::;~"Swhercby sexual acts are coucgonzcd not according to thc modality o~ scxu~l
f assumcd by thc sexual partners but rathcr according to the anat01mcal se: X
0 the pcrson~ engagc~ in thcm: !ioec Trumbach, 2-9, with notes. This ha bit of mind sct·ms
1 ~ ha ve bc."t"n shapc_d: 1_0 Íh turn, by thc samc aggrcg;¡tc of cultural factors rcsponsibk for
~e d~uch uldcr daviSion, acccntuatcd during thc ltcnai!l.sancc herwcl'll Eurupcan and

a
c llcn;ncan marriagc-pattcrns; northcrn and northwcs¡crn F:uropc typically cxhibits 3
::~e::~, h~~rln~gc ~lwccn maaurc coevals, bilateral kinship "Ystcrn, nL·olocal rnarriagc.
and carl~ ;e:n:lco:a~:~:· cwh::c~~ ~cdi~crr~ncan ,.u~icti~·s .m: durac·tL·rizcd by latl' nlalc
lc;
inhibtted circulatiun of 1 ~ nhncal km~h•p org;mazat•on, patrivarilm:al marna~c, .a~d
in thc Fift«nth C'..ent , 'M'"~- M. Smnh, ·: 'The Proplr ofTuacany and thrir Farn•hrs
(II.JHI), lifi-2K; rrt·ern ~~;k h:;t':::!uor Mr_d•tenanean?'" Journtd of Family Hisfttry•. 6
n_•arn<~Ke·paucrn: lee M. K. Ho pkins ~~~evadcncc for thc an~_aquuy ufthl' Mt·diu:runt_a~
Srudlrs, IK (1%4/M), 311'J-27; ~choud 1! ~aARr~~fRo~lan (,.,Jut Muriagc." 1\)p~/~JIIOf
qunu:cs 1n thc.- Roman hmily .. C.1 . 1 ¡,.,.~lrr' Men s AKe at MarriaKe and 1ts (.on":"
ltmh. "AKr ;u MarnaKc <~nd,ah; ~:=~~·ho•lldo~oRr. _K2 (1'1H7), 21-34, esp. JU; Marth;~1
· A Saudy of Nc:o-lb.bvloman ,111 d N,,,.
 S rian Forms." Cornpartltive Sludies in s:ciety and History, 29 (1_987), 715-47 (but, for
As ~sing arguments, see Brent D. Shaw: The Age ofRoman G1rls at Marriage: Sorne
:~~onsiderations," journal of Roman_ Stud~es, 77f1987J, ~; ~on.~ld G. Herring, "The
( Egyptian Women at Marr1age m the Ptolemarc Penod, paper delivcred on
Age 0 J989 at the 120th annual meeting of the American Philological Associ:nion
January 7• • •
in Baltimore).
E.g., K. freund, "A ~aboratory ~ethod ~or Diagnosing Predominance of Horno- or
Hetero·Erotic Jnterest m the Male, Behtwror Research tmd Therapy, J (1%.3-64), 85-93;
N. McConaghy, "Penile Volume Change to Moving Pictures ofMaleand Female Nudes
in Heterosexual and Homosexual Males," Behavior Research and Therapy, 5 {1%7), 4.3-
48. for a partial, and critica), review of the literature on testing procedures, see Bemard
F. Riess, "Psychological Tests in Homosexuality," in Marmor, 296-311. Compare thc
paralld tendency in the same period to determine the "uue sex" of hermaphroditcs: see
Foucault (t 980/a), vii-xi. Vanggaard, 17 and passim, differentiates further bctween nonnaJ
(or "pseudo-") and abnormal {or "inverse"-i.e., inverted) homosexuality; in rhis he
follows a taxonomic tradition that originated with lwan Bloch (see Ellis, 4) and rhar
dcrived, in its turn, from the mid-nineteenth-century physiological distinction between
(acquired) "perversity" and (congenital) "perversion." Similarly. Lionel Ovesry, Homo-
stxuality ami Pseudohomostxuality {New York, 1%9), attempts ro m ove bcyond rhe consri-
tutional model of sexual preference rowards an adaptive one by arguing thar 5C'Xual
fantasies may be rooted in "dependency needs" or "power needs .. rather rhan in a
determinare sexual orientation. On this poinr, see Takeo Doi, Tht Anatomy ofDepmdnrct,
trans. John Bester (Tokyo: Kodansha, 1973), 113-21.
See Foucault (1972), 190, for the inuoduction ofrhis concepr; for iu applicarion ro d~
history of sexual categories, see Davidson ( 1987/88). 48.
10 On the emergence of the concept of homosexuality, SC'C' Jetfrt'y Wttks. 'Sins and
Diseases': Sorne Notes on Homosexuality in rhe Ninetcmth Cmrur)'." HisiOrf W~.
1 (1976), 211-19, and Weeks (1981/b), 96-121; also, Ma,.hall; Gcorgcl. M.,..., ..,;.n-1-
ism tJtld Stxuality: Resptctability antl Abnormal Stx~M~Iity in MoMm l::"uropt (Ntw York:
Howard Fertig, 1985), 2~7; now, Ed Cohen. '"Legislaring rM Norm: From ~~
ro Gross lndecency," Soutlr Atla11tÜ Quflrttrly. tiM.I (Winter 1'*19). UU-217 For .1 ~
discussion of the sociological implications. s« Mdntosh, who .also ex.amincs sol* ot thc'
quasi-theological refinements (.. bisexualiry,'" ylatc.'llt hontOSC'xuabt}·.'" "~,.,:;
uality") that have been added to this intdiC"<"tu.al struc."tUrt' morder ro ltun:rns lts c."Cft
concept. . . .. ..
Other sociological critiques, dc-ri\·~ from "s)"mbobc.· interac."1IOIIISm or la~
throry," can be found in Gagnon .and Smton, l.l_'t--.17. J?b-81; Kennnh Plumnana::.,_
Stigma: A11 INitrflctittnút .1.wJUnl (London, 1975), 9~1111. ~d Pl~nt~r--: (I'M~,. 1\~
Pon5C.', ldtlllitits in ,,.,. Lts"i•n H"&JriJ: Tllr -"•"·wl C&Jff$tnr•:lu•N 11;1 5Ñ·~I: (. l)fll"nbrrJ ""("M
SoC"iolotn. 2H (Westpon, CT: litn"'twt-...'CJ Prns. l'l?tl): Thdn•.a~ ~- W('UI .. ¡,...
'llointc' .and "Heintc' (i.ay: Se-xual tkhol\"101" 1ond Homosexual M.ale ~~~~~~­
t~.f Hom.•.srxMIIIily, 4 (1'178/"N). 14.\-Stt, and c;.y !tltw, c;..y S,lws: n.-l: N.~·twl\ht.•.
11_{ Hom.lst.\"IMIIJntlitlt'S (Nf'w Yc.ltk. lrv1n~con, 19HJ); John Hart z...~ ~: l,:.l •. N ......
t•ds., .,.,.,. 1'111"1'')' •H llink"t•u••!IH..,.,.•w~llfll•ty (london, Jf¡JMI): n~~; l" t.._._ .......,....."'"
ll't, II•,.•Uf'.\"IUII.1..-ts, .4t"l••rs, ...J /Jnu1 rs (Ntw York, 1.._1), V _.¡ ~
sexualldnuuy: A Concrpt 111 Nn-dofl)dimr~."•n llur..\.,.,¡~~~t~..,J
Gririr~tl·n,..•mi.-•lluwJ•).,.,,..I~t~""...,"Y·'~·l-.ltiWl\1 · u.alldrnliDI" l'LIII'-
by RtC'h.ard R. Troidftl, _"Sdf, SC'If-l:t.)RA'pc. ldnuac,-• .and .............:.., 1,._ ~ll .....l·
atruC'tlltl Nn-d oflkfin1t1un .and l:ht1Corftltl3hlllll, .._,..,._._,~~~ ~ ..._...,_.
117-IINl: Mu·harl W Ros1. "lkvund dw BtolotJ:k: .. Mudl-1. ,._
158 1 Notes to Chapter 1

and Homosexual Rescarch," Jounud of Homostxuality, to.J.-4 0984)

"Bisexuality: Rcassessing Ou_r .Paradigms of Sexuality," in Klcin 'a~~ 70:j. il Palll
further difficulties (moral, chmcal, conceptual) are treatcd by E M W'olr, 21 ...14·
hostile witness), "Confusit~g C?,ncepts about the C01~cept ofHomo~exu:~:ell ..IJ;utison (~
37 (1974), 34!)-49; Le< Buk, The Myth of ClaSSieal Homosexualit . ~: p'Y<hio""r
Behavioral Psychotherapist," in Marmor, 376-90; Salzman; llobertJ. Sy.ll ae~s frorn ~
with thc Tcrm 'Homosexuality,'" The Hillsidt)oumal ojCiir~ical Psych::, er, Problenu
25· llené Girard, Thit~gs Hiddtn sit1ce tire Fo•mdation ofthe World trans St ryh 2 0 980), 3...
Michacl Mctteer (Stanford, 1987), 335-38; Alan Soble, "Prefa;e: Ch~ngi? ~n Bann and
of Human Sexuality." in Shelp, 1, xi-xxiv, esp. xvii-xix. g onceptions
A Problrm ¡,, Modrrn Erlli(S, quoted by Weeks (1977), l.
While rondemning "homosexuality" as "a bastard term compounded ofGreek and Lt.
elements" (p. 2), Ellis acknowledgcd that its classical ety~ology facilitated its diffusi::
throughout the European l~ng~ages; moreov~r, by_ consentmg to employ it himself, Ellis
hclped further to populanzc lt. On the phdolog1cal advantages and disadvamages of
"homosexuality," see Féray, 174-76.
13 This passage, along with others in a similar vein, has been well discussed by Marsball.
14 MarshaU, 148, who goes on to quote the following passage from the preface to a rccent
survey by D. J. West, Homosexu.::dity Retusessed (London, 1977), vii: "A generation ago
the word homosexuality was best avoidcd in polite conversation, or referred to in muted
terms appropriateto a dreaded and scarcely mentionable disease. E ven sorne well-educated
people were hazy about exactly what it meant." Note, however, that Edward Wester-
marck, writing for a scholarly audience in Tht Origin and De11rlopment of tht Moral Ititds,
could allude to "what is nowadays commonly called homosexuallove" (vol. 11, p. 456)
as early as 190S. Westermarck's testimony has escaped the OED Supplement, which
simply records that in 1914George Bemard Shaw felt free to use the word "homosexuar
adjectivally in the New Statesman without further explanations and that the adjective
reappears in Blnclrwood's Ma.Razine in 1921 as well as in Robert Graves's Good-bye to All
TlltJI in 1929. The French version of "homosexuality," by contrast, showed up in the
Larousse mensuel illustré as early as December, 1907 (according to Féray, 172).
tS The only meaning attested for "Lesbian" in the first edition of the OED pertains 10
carp~try, ~~t to s~x_uali~y. This suggests that the OED's omission of"homosexuali:~:
from ns ongmal edmon 1s not a mere oversight that can be entirely accounted for by
word's recent coinage.
16 Th~ e~rl"=_st ~iterary occurrence ofthe German loan-word "homosexualist," ofwhich ~:~
?~D ls Slmdarly ignorant, took place only in 1925, to the best of my knowlcd~e, aost
ltlllusuatesthe novelty that evidendy still auached to thc term: in Aldous Huxley 5 Th d
&mn Lralles we f•nd the following exchange between a thoroughly modero aunt an
her up-to-date niece, who are discussing a mutual acquaintancc .
.. , sometimes doubt," IAunt Lilianl said, "whether he takcs any intercst in wonlc:n
at ~~~- Fundamentally, unconsciously, 1 believe he's a homoscxualist." 1
Perhaps," said Irene grave1y. She knew her Havelock Ellis fl'art 111, Chaptcr 1 l·
(Tht rarliest occu f "h d 5 fro•n
I':IJI.) rrencc 0 omoscxualist" cited in thc OHD Supplcm1.-nt ate

~cc':;ding, onc:e_at~ain, tu the dubious testimony ofthc OHD's 197(, Supplement. U.~;.:
;Í~C' ~~~,~~x~ahty. The ()Jil>doescstablilh, to be surc thal the adjectivc "heleroscxu:9 ~
llut whaat ~':sll~e .. homosexual," appcared in print fo,' the first time in English in lh ;~
t e word actually me;¡n at that date? Thosc who cmp1oyrd it sttm 10 a
 r frorn unanimo_us ¡~ their understan~in~ ofit. A distinguished _American alimist,
been ~m le, summarizmg m 1_892 ~rafft-~~mg s ~axonomy ofsex_u~l d~~orders, uses "her-
for::xuafs" 35 an alternare des~g~au~." for psrch~cal ~crmaphrodmsm and defines "het-
e:sexuals" in a note by e~pla1~1n~, In t~ese mchnat1on~.to both sexes..o~cu~ as wdl asto
:bnormalmethodsofgrauficat!~~ (here.: mothe~w~rds, h~terosexu~l. ~~g~diesapproxi-
J what we now mean by basexual ):Jas. G. K1ernan, Respons1bdny 10 Sexual Per-
. ?
=~~:.,, Tht Chicago Medie~/ Recorder, (1892), 18~21 O(qu_otation on pp. 198-99n.; 1am
. debted ro Vernon A. Rosa no 11 forcalhng m y attent1on to th1s usage). Noterhat Kertbcny,
;~e coiner ofthe term "homosexual," o~posed it not to "heterosexual" but ro nomwlstxual
in bis published writings; the earlicst prmtcd occurrencc of"hcterosexuaJ'' (in German, of
course) rherefore had to wait until thc second cdition ofjigcr's Entdtcltung dtr Setlt in 1880.
Nonerheless, Kertbcny did employ both htltrostxual and homosexual as early as May 6, 1868,
in rhe draft of a letter addressed to Karl Hcinrich Ulrichs: sce Kennedy, 152-53; Herzer, 6-
9; féray. 171; and note 2, above. On thedcpendenceof"heterosexuality" on "homosexu.al-
iry." see Féray, 171-72; Bcaver, 115-16; E ve Kosofsky Scdgwick, "Epistemology ofrhe
Closet (1)," Rarita11, 7.4 (Spring 1988), 3'k>9, esp. 53-56.
18 For a parallel argument, see Grecnblatt, 32: "Though the term 'individualism' is rd:nively
recent, a ninctecnth-century coinagc, the cxistcncc of individuals has long seemed ro be
a consritutive, universal elemcnt in the naturalstructure ofhuman experience and hence
more rhe basis than thc object ofhistorical investigation. But rhe belatedness ofrhegeneral
term for the phenomenon of individuals should make us wary of assuming rhe suble
existence ofindividualism as a category ofhuman Jife. "See Davidson {1987/88), 44-
47, on the "link betwcen sexuality and individuality"; also, 17: .. the history ofsexu.a.liry
. an arca in which onc's historiography or implicit epistt"mology wiU sramp. virtu.a.lly
irrevocably, one's first-order historical writing."
19 Sorne doubu about the applicability ofthe modem concept ofhomosexualiry ro .ancienr
varieties of sexual expericnce ha ve becn voiced by Devereux, 71-76; MacCary. 1'78-85:
Patzer; Richardson, 106-07; Sergent, 46-47; and by Fernando Gonzalez-Reigosa and H~w­
ard Kaminsky, "Greek Homosexuality, Greek Narcissism, Greek Culture: Thelnvennon
of Apollo," Tire Psycholristory Review, 17.2 (Winrer 1989), 149-81. esp. 168.
On the eighteenth century as a transitional era in the Wesr. sce Mclntosh; Trumbach; 00
varieties of sexual non-conformity in thr early modrm era, s« rhe essays in Robert
Purks Maccubin, ed., 'Tis Naturt's Fault: UMwtb~Jriud St-xt~o~lil)' dMrin~ dlt ~·nt;gll=~
(Cambridge, 1987), and in Kent Gerard and Gerr Hek.m.1, cds.. Tllt P,rsu•t ,~- ,.!j
Male Hornosexuality in Renaissanct anJ I:.Niitlrltllllttnlli.urr.JfJt (New York, 19119) - }OM
of Homosexuality, 16.1/2 (1988). . .
Hoswell (1982-83), 93. Proponents of this viC"w (which. Boswtll:~~~
more baldly categorical is Hullough. 2. h2: "ho~oscx~al~ry h.as al Y
R'J=; :::::
hC'm. Jtt-J7;
has bren a constanr in history, and irs prcsen~ 15 deu ) •ncluck Hocq~ . Rubul
Vcyne (1978), 52; Padgug; Wccks (1~1/b), 'lh--1.21: 8r.1y~ M-9, .'~"!,~7..M 7 1!18).
(1984), 285-86; lle Manim~ and Schnun: Rou""'llc (1986), ..59-ttl: hcrJ AdditaorW
most pcrtinendy, rhe contnbuton to Plummer (IWII); ..a~d, no~. Grtftlho rd.,1C' rhr ,_.
fuL'I for thc tirn of historicism c~n ~ f~und in the wrJIIn~s~:..'.h;7~s (IQtkJ); J}conniS
of homoscxuality to rhe rise ol ,·.1p11.1hsm: S« Hot-qumg · ~lll 7 John ll'f·
Altman, Tht Homosrxwlizc~titJn tJ,( Allttri'" (N~w Yo~k., !9M2). ::lTtklm,..:,.•. I(IU-1.\
1niliu, .. Capitalism ,md (i.ay ldt•ntity." in Sn1tow. Sra~KII~ ·.ap~r.lbllll .anJ rhc-
Ad..am (19K5/b). Fur .a difl'C-rrnt t"nlphasis on tM CUIIIJa."tJOII : ' : '..~uwo~rJ 1 M.uxilt
upprenion oíhornOKxu.als, IC'C' ~an-e and R~berts; l.>avtd ~A e i-Junr 1"~· ,!'11--tl.
Throry uf G;ay L1br-r.alion," .'ifKMiist Rewlt111M. no . .28 ""' b. H ';1 »trr••· "'Capll&lalo••·
lriaar~y (llltiS/h), IY2-Y7; l>.avid ~· (~~hertc and (~~(..~. ~-.v....tl\tli&J'.
8urr•ucracv.andMakHonlmrxu.allty, Cilll~ ·
160 1 Notes to Chapter 1

8 (1984). 33-Sb; Eve Kosofsky Sed~wick, Bttwee~~ ~en: ~"Riish Literaturr tmd Mal
social Dtsirt.' (New York, 1985~: Mtchacl M~o~, _The Gentle Boy frorn the)) tJioHio.
Classes': Pederasty, Domestic•ty, and Cap1tahsm In Horatio Alger," Represem:~gerous
(Summer 1987), 87-100; and c.f. th.e exemplary di~~~ssion ~f ~ specific instance b110"s. 19
Hall, "Reformism and the legtsl~non ofC~nscnr: m Pemussrveness and Colltrol: ~!tu~rt
<!ftlrr Si.;t.:tits Lt~islatio11, ed. Nat1onal Devtancy Conference (London, 1980), l-4J, ~~:
NI.
So Dynes. vii-viii.
23 Boswell (1982-83). 94-101, ingenuously noting that "The problem is rendered
diff1cuh in thc present case by thc fact that the equivalent of gravity !in sexual ma~ore
hasnol yct been discovcred: thcre is still no essential agreement in the scientific comm:e~l
o~bout thc nature of hum~n scxuality .." B~l1ough. 3, simil~rly appeals to Aristophan:·~
myth as "onc of thc earhcst explanauons of homosexuahty.
24 Boswcll (1982-83), 99; compare Auguste Valensin, "Piaton et la théorie de l'amour"
Érudts, 281 (1954), 32-45, esp. 37. '
25 Somcthing like this point is implicit in Brisson, 42-43; see, also, Neu, 177, n. t. Myown
(somewhat different) rcading of Aristophanes's speech is set forth in greatcr detail in
Halpcrin (1985), 167-711; 1 have rcproduced sorne of m y earlier formulations hcre.
26 Thc tcrm "hoy'' (paiJ in Greek) refers by convention to thejunior partner in a paederastic
relaüonship, or to onc who plays that role, regardless of his actual age; youths are
customarily supposcd to be dcsirable between the onset ofpuberty and the arrival ofthe
beard: see Dovcr (1978), 16, 85-87; Bulliere, 605-14; Kay, 12~21.
27 On thc meaningofthctcrm "philerast," see Elaine Fantham, "Ztlotypin: A BriefExcursion
into Sex, Violence, and Litcrary History," Photnix, 40 (1986), 45-57, esp. 48, n. 10.
28 For an cxplication of what is mcant by "a certain (non-sexual) plcasure in physical contact
with mcn," s« note 31, below.
29 ~L"C Dover (1978), 73-109; a general survcy of this issue together with the scholarship 011
11 can be found in Halpcrin (1986).
Public lecture delivcred at Brown University (21 February 1987).
In Halpcrin (1986) 1 argued that thc picturc drawn by Plato's Aristophanes is a historic~lly
accurate .representation of liJe ~nornl co~rventiom govcrning sexual bchavior in dasslcal
Athe.ns, 1f not of thc rcality of sexual bchavior itsclf. To be sure, the pacdcrastic cthos ~f
~lassl~al Ath.ens did not prohibit a willing hoy from responding enthusiastinlly 10 hl~
ovc~. 5 physlcal attcntions: Aristophanes himself maintains that a philerast both "cnjoys
~n! ~clcome!!i" (khaireiiJ, IIJpazeJfhai: 191c-192b) his lover's embraces. But that c:thos
1 ~tlpulate that whatevcr cnthusiasm a boy cxhibitcd for sexual contact with his Jov~·r
~.~a~~ fr~m sour~ othcr than sexual dcsire. The distinction bctwccn "wclcorning" and
th~"';:r. a lo~r 11 carcs!ies, as it applies to thc motives for a boy's willingncss, spcllcd
decc~cyerer~c~ twcen wantinK lo coOpcratc and wanting to subnlit-hc:ncc, bctwc~·u
~oizmg he:: bc:c::~c:~:yr~:l:· also, Rousscl.lc I'19H61, 260); that distinction is worth. en~~~~~
mi•undrrstanding (a!i whcnre .of ~odern tnterp~eters lo observe it has lcd. tu COI~s•d.{ uclll
dep1llio1111 un Attic pottcr =~stonans of.scx~ahty, for cxamplc, misn·admg thc frcq IJtl!,
takc rho!oc paillllllg!i 10 bc~vida· boy leap1ng mto his lovcr'!i anns lscc l)ovcr (19'7H)·~Irc).
A ~rry fcw Grct"k documcnts :nce for thl• strc.ngth of thc j~niu~ partncr's stx~al .d{L·wrd
1he1r tar.1mony in d . ccm lruly amb1guous on th1s pmnt, and Jiu ve HVI l
amb1gu~,~ 111 , but v::•;n:;;:~:u:cc ~alperin (19H6), M, nn. 10 and 11, and (¡(,, ~· 1 4~ ~ 5 ~
llanctuary on Ac:ginil, re rud . p,, ,., a .fra~mcnlary pamting on a tripod-pyx1s fr /Ir.•
1 11
P U{ed 111 Dactru:h von liuthmer .. ,.,1'
Ama.ris JJdillltr aHd
 V'ut·Painting in Sixth-Ctntury ~.C. Athens CA:talibu, 1985), 237. for an cxamplc
World~ th~se-painters could play wnh the convenuons, s~e the tondo of a kylix by rhe
-ofboenter Painter (Geuy Museum 85.AE.~S), recently ~ubhshed by Bothmer, in which
Carp boy grabs bis sedarc-and ev1dently aSiomshed-adult suitor: the image ¡5
3n amdoro~s as rhe frondspiece to this book. (See Addendum.)
repro uc
Boswdl's general rhesis is. sup~orte~ b_y a series of impressive ar~~menrs as weiJ as by 3
32 vasr array oftextual and h1stonca~ cnat1on; 1 ha ve confined m y c~11que ro that very smaiJ
rtion ofhis evidence about wh1ch 1 am competcnt ro forman mdependenrjudgment,
rut1 observe rhat scholars in other fields often ha ve similar complaints abour Boswell's
use ofhis sources: see, for example, the Scholarship Commiltee (Gay Academic Union),
ed., Homosexuality, lntoferarrce, and Christianity: A Critica/ Examination ofjohn &swell's
Work, Gai Saber Monograph No. 1 (New York: Gay Academic Union, 1981); MacMul-
len; Payer, 135-39; Wright (with the qualificalion by Petersen); Amo Schmitt, "AIIes nur
Schei Bemerkungen zujohn Boswell," in De Martina and Schmitr, 37--45; Richard B.
Hays, "Relations Natural and Unnatural: A Response ro John Boswdl's Exegtsis of
Romans 1, "joumtdofReligious Ethüs, 14(1986), 1~215; Kari EJJen Gade, "Homosexual-
ity and Rape of Males in Old Norse Law and literature," ScandinavitJn Studies, 58 (1986),
124-41. esp. 124-25; Glenn W. Olsen, "St. Anselm and Homosexualiry," in St. A.lfse/,
ami St. Augustine: Epücopi ad saecultJ, ed.Joseph C. Schnaubeh and Frederick Van Aettrm
(Millwood, NY: Krauss, 1988), 91-139.
33 The notable exceptions are Bullough. 3-5, who cites it as evidenCC' for rhe supposcd
universality ofhomosexuality in human history. and Boswell (1980), 53n., 75n.
34 See Schrijvers, 11.
35 1ha ve borrowed this entire argument from Schrijvers, 7-8; rhe same point had b«n moldr
earlier--unbeknownst to Schrijvers, apparendy-by Boswell (1980). 53. n. JJ; 75, n. 67.
36 Translation, with emphasis added, by Drabkin, 413.
37 As his chapter ritle, "De mollibus si ve subdctis," implics. For an euliC'r substantive L1K of
mol/is in rhis almost technical sense, SC'C' Juvenal, 9.~. On rhe meaning of'*"lis. S« die
rather enigmatic discussions by Boswell (19tltJ), 76. .and Phihppe AnCs. MSl: P.aul ~ tht
Flesh," in Aries and Béjin, 36-39; for the word's Jue-r t«hnical use in thc mcdUeval
penitentials, sec the citations provided by Boswell (1980). IHO, n . .JH, .and by P.ayn. I7U.
nn. 113, 114 (with discussion on pp. 40-41).
IH See, esp., rhe pseudo-Ar;srorel;an p,¡,¡..,..,.
4.2to, well d;seus><d by l)over (191!1). 1 ~
70, and by Winkler (1989/b); gene-rally. Roswdl (19tl0), 5..1; Foucaulr (19K5)• .»t-l.f.
19 Compare Ae•ch;ne•, 1.185o T;mar<hu• ;, "aman wh<>" mal<;., body bur h" commo~
.a woman's transgressions" and hu thri'C'by uoutragC'd himsdf ,-onrracy 10 ~S
(discussed by llove-r IJ97HJ, hU-f»H); (llr a simil;~r (ormulation, l4."r Hyp<r.dcs. tr •
~enyon = Rutilius Lupus, 2.6, and .:omp.u'C' thr (;rt'tlr .411tlwl".fY· ll ~j~-::.,~,.::::
hgurr o( thc lriN4iJ~$, or (iNt~tduJ, the- man who .act1vdy dnun ro sub m '-""' •IICI
to t~e sexual uses ofothrr me-n. SC'C' Winklrr (1989/.a) .and Gira~~· ~~~LTnN~
22, •• the-refore quitC' ~ronR ro d,r,ml that "Beforr the snond hall ol thC' rNII dwl: ..
persons o( il detrrman.ate ,r,natonucal sex could not be' thuught "-' bt ~·
Jlllychologil:ally, ofthe oppoaitr lt'X."
. Wt.·l,...aN.:an.tAIIw ...aJ
rht•l.;,~tmJJhr.. lt".,.,.lfl~l'"""""."-""·ftlrlfii~UIOtC"rprr "~ .l.U\,
by St:hr\ivrrs, 32-l..l, who securn rh .. tC"ad•na by otlllfC llvld.. 'twd betnt~IC'.,...t
where Tc•rnaas, who had bcen both a n1,r,n and a WVI..-. 15 ~TI ~ ...._
m th.:- tirld of VnMJ .,,,...., Comp.stC" ~n'"""· .s..tr"'"" ·U.& __.,
 1 follow, once again, the insightful commentary by Schrijvers, IS.
1 quote from thc translation by Drabkin, 905, which is based 00 h.
nonethdess speculative, reconstruction (acccptcd by Schrijvers, 50) of 1 ~ plausiblr, b11
rupt text. For thc notion expresscd in it, compare Proust, 111, 204, 21 ; (;speratdy cor~
111, 203. 209 (English): discussion by E ve Kosofsky Sedgwick, "Episte~~~h text),.
Closct (11)," Rarirao, 8.1 (Summcr 1988), 102-30. gy ofth,
43 Anon., Dt pl1 ysiogr~omonia SS (_vol. 11, p. 114.5-14 FO~ste~); Vettius Va.lens, 2_16 ( 7
KKroll); Clement of Alexandna, Pt~edagogus 3.21.3; f1rm•cus Maternus, M1ultrsis:.~ 1'\t
16 and 7.25.3-23 (esp. 7.25.5). ·
44 Sce Jcffrcy Wceks, "Qucstions of Jdentity," in Capl.an, 31-51.
45 Gleason trenchantly analyzes many other examples of this outlook, which even od
rcmains largely unchanged in Mediterranean cultures: see Gilmore (1987/b), esp. ~~t{
46 For sorne dcfanitions of ~ex and sexuali~y..as bio~ogical ..c?ncepts, see lynn Margulis,
Dorion Sagan, and lorratne Olendzensk1, What IS Sex? m Thr OriJlill and Evo/111¡011 of
Srx, cd. H. O. Halvorson and Alberto Monroy (New York, 1985), 69-85.
47 For a similar insistcnce on the distinction between sex and sexuality, see Davidson (1987/
88), 23-25; Hcndcrson (1988), 1250. Becausé so much of my argument derives from
Foucauh, 1 should point out that Foucault himself decisivcly abandoned the distinction
bctween scx and sexuality, asl have drawn it. Not only is Foucauh's final conceptionof
"scx" much less positivistic (he categorically denies that "sex" is a biological fact), but
his own understanding of the distinction between "sex" and "sexuality" reverses the
scquencc postulatcd here: "sexuality," on his view, arises in the cighteenth century and
cventually produces "sex," asan idea interna) to its own apparatus, only in the nineteenth
century. Sce Foucault (1978), 152-57; (1980/b), 190, 210-11.
48 Padgug, 16. Compare duBois (1984); Moodie, 228: "We tend to think of sexuality as a
psychological unity. Different aspects ofthe selfsuch as 'desire', 'moral ideals', 'proper
condun', 'gendcr altitudes', 'personal rclationships', 'mental images', and 'physical sensa·
tions' tend to be tied together by us to form a particular sexual character. With ~he
~lf thus sexually defined, homosexuality and hcterosexuality are seen as specafic
personality types."
49 Padgug, M, an¡¡lyzes the connection between the modern interpretation of sexuality asan
autonomous domain and the modern construction of sexual idcntitics thus: "che most
commonly hcld twemieth-century assumptions about sexualiry imply rhat it is a separare
:ategory of e~istence (lik~ 'the. economy,' or 'the statc,' othcr supposcdly indepc•~dc~l
phcres 0 ~ realuy), almost •dent1cal with thc sphcrc of privatc life. Su eh a view ncccssatat~s
~~e_l~cataon_ 0 ~ s~xuality within the individual as a faxed esscncc, lcading toa classtr
0~;;:::~ •~d::~~~al and socic~y an~ to a varicty of psychological detcnni~isms, :~~~
h. K ' ull-blown b1ologtcal dctcrminism as well. Thcsc in turn mvolv
:::1 ~~~m~ uf cont~mporary sexual ntcgorics as universal, static, and pcrmanenl,
a e or 1 e analysn; of all human bcings and all socicties."
50
Sp~ ~rayF, 247-Sl; laqueur; l>avidson (19M6/M7) 25K-fl2· also Wc.-cks (l'JHfl), 13 (p.1.ra·
rasmR oucauh)· "our cultu h de 1 ' ' ' ductiorl
and gc:nitallly and.to 'de . _re .as ve opcdanotionofsexualny linkedto rc:p~o . oí
" 1uuality" . v_aattOns from thcsc. " Thc biological conccptuahzaUnll
SI . . a~o an ansunn "neatly di11posed of by Tripp, 10-21.
~e: fouuuh (1978), lJ8....lt-J; (19Htlla), VIÍ-xl; (1tJH5), JS--52.
~2 Sc:t Fou.:ault (1-nM) -43· "A d ti wat
1 UICKory o((urbici&.n.acts~ ~ lnÑ by lhe ancient civi.l ot nnonical cod~s, ~t~domYb.el·l
or them. l"he mnekenlh-c~:uClr perpctralur was nothmg mon:" than the JUtldlcal ~u ~r
ry homowxual became a pcrsonage. a pasl, a cast' h1S10 Y•
 ildhood. in addition to. bcing a type .of life, a ~ife form. an~ a morphology. with
an~ a ~:Creet anatomy and poss1bly a ~yster1ou.s physaology. Nothmg that went into his
an ld~rnposition was unaffected ~y h1s sex~a~n~. _Jt was ev.erywh~re presc:nt in him: at
ro•a!oor of all bis actions .because 1t was the1r ms1d~ous and mdefimtely active principie;
rh~uen irnmodestly on ~1s fa~ an.d body because.•t wa~ a secret rh~t always gave itself
"' 1 as consubstannal w1th h1m, less as a habnual sm than as a smgular nature." C(
away.b 1 ~ 9· Weeks (1977), 12; Richard Smnett, Tht Ft~/1 of Public Mt~n (New York
;;;, :S: p;dgug, 13-14; Féray, 246-47; Schnapp (1981), 116 (speaking of Attic .,..:
intings): "One does not pamt acts that charactcnze persons so muchas behaviors rhar
:cinguish groups"; Payer, .~.esp. 40-41: "there is no word in general usage in rhe
penitentials for homosexuahty as a category. Furthermore, the distinction betwetn
homosexual acts and people who might be caJied homosexuals does not seem ro be
operarive in these manuals. " (also, 14-15, 140-53); Bynum (1986), 406; Perersm.
Jn rhis light, the significance of Westphal's famous article (see note 2, above) is clear:
rhe crucial and decisive break with tradition comes when Wesrphal defines .. conrnry
sexual feeling" not in terms of its outward manifestarions bur in rerms of irs inward
dynamics, its distinctive oritnlt~tion of the inner life of the individual. Apologizing in a
note for the necessity of coining a new formula, Wesrphal explains, "1 have chosen
the designation 'contrary sexual feeling' at the suggestion of an esreemed colleague,
distinguished in the field of philology and classical studies, inasmuch as we were unable
ro succeed in constructing shorter and more apt correlatives. The phrase is intended to
express the fact that 'contrary sexual feeling' does not always coincidentally concem the
sexual drive as such but simply tht jet'ling of bting dlitMtttl, wirh ont's mlirt ;,nn hnrw.
ftom ont's own st'x-a less developed stage, as ir were, of the palhological phenomenon"
(p. 107n.; m y emphasis: 1 wish to thank Linda Frisch and Ira Levine for as.sisting me wilh
the translation ofthis passage; a nearly idmtical version hí15 now been provided by Herzer.
18). See Davidson (1987/88), 21-22, who identifies a .. psychiarric sryle ofreasoning rha.r
begins, roughly speaking, in rhe second half of rhe nineteenth cenrury. a period during
which rules for thc producrion of true discourses abour sexuality change radicaUy. Xxual
identity is now a matter of impulses, tastes. aptirudes. satisfactions, and psych•c
lraits."
53 For auestations to the strength of individual preferenccs {evm ro the poinl ofexdusivity)
on the part of Greek males for a sexual partner of one sex rarher rhan another, S«. ~.g ..
Theognis, 1367....f)8; Euripides, Cyclop:s SllJ.-84; Xeno~n. AMl.ai:f 7.4.7-8: Aesc~
1.41, 195; rhe Li.fo o(Zt'no by Antigonus ofCarystus. cned by Arherueus. IJ ..56Jr,
fragment of Seleuc~s quored by Athmaeus, 15.697dc- (,. Powdl. 176); an anony..-
dramatic fragment cited by Plutarch, Mtm~IU.7Mf-767a (z= Nauck. '1116, #JSS; KLJd. 111•
467, #36C.J); Athenaeus, 1.2.S4tk, U.6Uie and ff.; Achilles Tarius. .2.JS.2-~l; ~
Lucian.' l:'rOit:f 9-10; Firmicus Matrrnus, .W.rllt:su 7 IS.I-.2; anda number 0~1'~~
by VatiOUS hands contairK<I in the P.lllliPU' .1111Mi~y: S. 19, 65. 1ltJ,llll. m.- wdl
12.7, 17, 41, 87, i4s, 19.2, 1911. aud,.Uilfl. S«. M''neraU)·. llove-r (1'178). f'l..~\; ~~
(19H2-HJ), 'M-101; Winkler(l'lf.W/a);and, fora hstofp.tllagd. Cla.u~Couruu~~)
J)'NOplifWt Jt "Jimtl"rJ .i /',1111.._, MlliiU/ill: .1Mif'lfFS Ktff1 tf J.litu (t-ariS: .uthur. .

!;4 Fou~o.·auh (1911~).

111, 51-Sl, rc-m.nks that 11 would be- incn-nrinl!l 10 ~; : ;
when in the evolv•nM couriC' of Westn1'1 rultural history SC'X b«an,:......~ •• '-"'.
pmblenu.tic than coalina; scc, •lso, Foucauh (1911..1), 2,.')9; (IW). 1"-".. ~ ~............nw
Fouuult's an1wer to rhat qUC'Ition, s« "'Two Vitws oftired. LovC'. • • w .

SS Hilary Putnam. RNMt~, T,..fll .,.J HUW, (Camhrtclp. 1._1): IStt-~1\. ~ ~~

~nal~ain1 the varioUI critnia by whkh ~ J~ n ..rwn. ~=*llr:.Y n__.....w ol.'
•mphes rhat ~ are riaht to conuder srxual P"'ifl'cm'ft RHl«
164 1 Notes to Chapter 1

the human pcrsonality rhan_dietary p':ferences, but his ~rgument remains eircurn .
35 Pumam himself emphas1zcs, by h1ghly culture-spec•fic assumptions about se;cr;bed.
and personhood. ' 00d.
56 Hencc. some studcl~ts o~ classic~l Greek. medicine prefcr to speak of ~he authors or
gynaecological ueauscs •.? rhe ~~p~ocrattc corpus as concerne~ cxclusiVely with hu~hc
"gcnitality" n.ther rhan sex~al~ty : scc, for example, Ma~uh (1980~, 394; (19SJ), 15a~
Rousscllc (1980), 1092. For s1mda~ arguments about ~ena1ssan~e ~amting, 10 the effc~;
that it is concerncd (pace Leo Stemberg, _Tht Sex.uallly o~ Chnst "'. Rtn_aissancr 11 ,1411 d
MoJrm Ohlivior~INew York, t983J) not w1thjesus s sexuahty but wnh h1s genitality, ~
llynum (1986), 405-111: Davidson (1987/88), 25-32.
57 1 acccpt, in this sensc, thc point insistcd upon by K. J. Dover: "The fact that thc object
ofhomosexual dcsirc in the Greek world was almost always, hke Ganymede, adolcscon
docs not justify 1thc) denial that (paederasty) is homosexualiry. Homosexuality is a
gcnus definable by the sex of the person participating (in reality or in fantasy) in action
lcading towards genital orgasm, and the predilecrions of a given society at a givcn time
constitutc one or more species of the genus" Uoumal of Hrlleni( Srudies, 104(1984), 241~.
SS Thus, Boswell (1982-83), 99n., argues that the term "pacderast," at leasr as it is applicd
to Gn:nhon by Longus in D4plmis tmd Chlot 4.11, is "obviously a conventionalterm for
'homosexual,' " and he would presumably place a similar construction on paiderasris
and pl1i/eras1is in the myth of Plato's Aristophanes, dismissing my interpretation as a
terminologinl quibble or as a misguided attempt to reify lexical entities into categories
ofcxperience.
59 For a philosophinl defense and qualification of this claim (and of other, similar! y "con-
structionist," claims), sce Jan Hacking, "Making Up People," in Heller, Sosna, and
Wellbe•y. 222-36, 347-41!.
Sce Joan Kelly, "The Social Relation of the Sexcs: Methodological lmplications of
Womcn's History," in Womru, Hisrory, and Theory: Tlrt' EHays oj]oa" Kelly (Chingo,
1984), 1-1K.
See, now, Winklcr (1989/a). Scc, gcnerally, Hendcrson (1988)-thc single best, most
compreh..-nsivc and rdiable introduction to Grcek sexual mores for non-spccialists.
6 2 Sce, gcncrally, Dovcr (1978), 16, 84-106; Foucault (1985), 46-47.
ft3 On thc chanctcnstic failurc of "culturally dominant idcologics" actually to dominatc all
scctors of a socicty • and for a dcmonstration of their grcater pertincnce to thc dominan!
*~~~~:~ thc domi~atcd dasscs, scc Nicholas Abcrcrombic, Stephcn Hill, and Hryan_ S.
of 3 pa;t~~~a~~~:~::~ ldeoloRy Thes~s (~on~on, 1~U), esp. 7U-1 ~7. For the ~ocu)m~•.•tatl~~
C . .. , . . e, see 1~. M. Smnh, Marnagc Proccsscs m thc Enghsh 1 ast. SOl
cd~~;:u~~~~ ~~ fltr_ World We ~d.llt Gai11td: Hislories of Jlopulalio" a11d 8c1Cial Stnl{lli~·
44'1-4J. y n lcld, l~~ehard M. Smnh, and Keith Wrightson (Oxford, 19H(l), 43-91J, es

M Scc Winklcr (19K9/b).

t,s Ar_~cmidorus, Or~rirotrilictJ 1.2 (pp. 8.21-IJ.4(1ack)
61, Wmkler (1989/b). ·
1'1 1uy "phallu~~o" rather lh;,m "penis" b ¡Vl'
~~oyslcm docs not always turn 0 ccau~e (1) ~hat qualifies as a phallus 111 dus ,hsniU •n
phallu~~o and pcni~ h.ave dte sam:~ 10 .h.:· a pems (scc note H3, bdow) and (2) L'VL'Il wh~"'
II~IL"ns•on, or meauin .. h;lllus"xtc:nslon, or rcfctL•nt·c,_ ~lu.·~ still du nut ho~vt• du· ~·11 1 v
umpii~Jirr hut thats¡¡mt• itc~n ltJJrtll hctnkcns no_t ~ spcclhc ltl'ln uf thL• rn.alc ilnóltOIII~'
me,.nmg of "phallu•" ¡, uhim,.tcl Ulldrr.'hr _drsmpr'~" o( a cuhunlsignitit·r; (."\) h~m·c.' d,l
Y delcrnunL-d by 111 funnion in thc lararr sono--M xu
 . . . that which penetrares, that which enables its possessor ro play .an
discollrse: l.e.•llt;s and 50 forth: see Rubio (1975), 190-92.
" ccive" scxua ro e, . " . . .
3 h (19SS), 21 s, puts 1t very w~ll: sexual. rdatJons-always c_o~ooved 1n rerms of
tí8 fouc.au 1 of penetrarion, assummg a polar1ty that opposed actiVJty and passivity-
rhe mode ac~eing of rhe same type as the relationship berween a superior and a subordi-
werc sce~ ~~vidual who dominares and one who is dominated, one who commomds and
nate. ahn momplies one who vanquishes and one who is vanquished."
onewoc '
69 In arder ro avoid misundersta~ding, 1 sho~ld e':?phasize tha.r b~ calling all persons
bdonging ro rhese four groups statutory mmors, 1 do not w1sh e1ther ro suggest thar
rhey enjoyed the same status as one another o_r to obscure the many differences in status
rhat could obtain between members of a smgle group-e.g., between a wife anda
courresan-differences that may not ha ve been perfecdy isomorphic with the legitimare
modes of their sexual use. Nonetheless, what is striking abour Athenian social usage is
rhe tendency ro collapse such distinctions as did indeed obtain between differenr categories
of social subordinares and to creare a single opposition between them all, etJ masse, and
rhe class of adult maJe citizens: on this point, see Golden {1985), 101 and 102, n. J8.
Veyne (1978), 55, and (1985). Cf. Alan Dundes,Jerry W. Leach, and Bora Ózlcok, "The
Srrategy of Turkish Boys' Verbal Dueling Rhymes," joumtJI of AmerictJn Folltlore. M3
{1970), 32s-49, supplemented and qualitied by Mark Glazer, "On Verbal Duding Among
Turkish Boys," journal of American Follt/ore, 89 (1976), 87-89;). M. Carrier, "Mexican
MaJe Bisexuality," in Klein and Wolf, 7~5; De Martina and Schmiu, esp. 3-22;
Michael Herzfeld, The Poetics of ManhooJ: Contest tJnd Idemily in a Cretatl Mountain ~ 'il/4.~
{Princeron, 1985); now, Gilmore (1987/a).
1ha ve borrowed this analogy from Arno Schmin, who uses ir ro convey whar rhe modcm
sexual categories would look like from a traditionallslamic perspective: see OC' M.arrino
and Schmitt, 19.
72 See Dover (1978), 84; Henderson (1988), 1251: "Social status detined onr's sexual idenriry
and determined the proper sexual behavior thar one was allowed."
73 Godclier (1981), 17.
74 On this general theme, see Golden (1985). for somt romparative material, s« Ad.am
<1985/a), 22; Oe Martina and Schmitt, 3-22; Gill ShephC'rd. ''Rank. Gcnder• .and Homo-
scxuality: Mombasa as a KC'y ro UndC'rstanding Sexual Oprions," in Caplan, 240-?U.
75 The samc.· poi11t is made, in thc coursc ofan orherwisc uncnlighteniDfl: (from rhC'src:."'ilhst's
point ofview) survcy ofGrC"c.•k social rdations. by 8cmard l. Murstcin. LIIW • •V.J.· • .-J
MtJrria.~,. 1hro11~h lhl" A.~ts (New York, 1974), 58.
'll So Jladgug, l-4; Sann.•, 12-14.
Sce Padgug, .1, who rninakc.•nly o~sc.·ribc.-s AthrnKus's e unrnt to Alc-x•s uf ~ftk"IS ¡·
f:GrHist 539, fr. 2).
K St"C lluvc.•r (197M), 6.1,....(,7, ti.u an c.·xtensivc, but admittc.'dly panial. l&st: ~;...~~:;,~~"NIUA
t'llamplcs, sc.•c.• ){ichardslln, 111. For ritual rcttulanm•s. s« ParkC'I". IH. l ( •
9 1) 1"tbllmiJ 1 104, translatc.-d by A. S. Hunt ar1d C. C. Edt¡ar. in N'~~::~,:~~::
ar~J N'''"~"· t'd. Mary b.·tltowitz o~nd Maun"C'n 8. F~nt (B.Ih•m''"'· ~~~ rs 1,.,,._·.¡J¡I\·.
translo~tion as pruvidal, alon.-; w 1th a hdpful discuss1011 oftM- do..""YniC'fll 1·
hy Pomcroy, H7.....tN. . _.., 1_
"U . 55 í 1he- :nt"IUC' b\" MI,Mulkft.
nc hiiC.'xualité dl'" sabraMC'": Vt'yne (1'17~), 51)-. ; ..: · ' MIK'"'"' 41 a .. .__."u.thl:' . .
Othcr sc.·hol.an who dC'scribr thc anCk'lll bduviOI"oll phml
'17. sa- . ""X!tt. 111 eM·
indudc Drisson; Schnilpp (l'iftll), 11&-17; KdliC'fl, •~1. Lo~wrn•~ · NM:.
166 1 Notes to Chapter 1

West," The Nrw Republic (July 8, 1985), 25-37, esp; ~0--32 <;v_it~ doubts). Comra ~ad
13 : "to speak. as ¡5 common, of t_he Grceks, as btsexual_ ts dlcgitirnate as ~ell ~ug,
that mcrely adds a new, intermed1a_te cat~go_ry, ..whercas tt was precisely the cat~ sanee
thcmsdves which had no mcaning m ant1qmty. &orles
Cf. Robinson, 162: :·th~ reason why a het~rosex:ual majority_ mi~ht ha ve looked With a
tolcrant cye 00 'ac~IVC homosexual prac_t1ce a",'long the m~nonty, and even in some
mcasurc within theJr own gr?up I_!J, IS ~rediC~ably a se~Jst one: to the heterosexual
majority, to ~hom (in ama~ s _umvers~) th~ good .wo~a~ ts kata physin ~~-e., naturally]
passive, obed 1ent, and submiSSIVC, the ~ole of the acuve . homosexual w 111 be tolerable
precisely because his goings-~n can, wuhout too much dtfficulty, be equated with the
'role' ofthc malehe/erosexual,l.C., todominatc and subdue; what the two h<~ve incommon
is greater rhan what divides them." But this seems to me to beg the very question that
rhe distinction between heterosexuality and homosexuality is supposedly dcsigned 10
sol ve.
82 An excellem analysis of the contemporary Mediternnean version of this ethos has been
provided by Gilmorc (1987/b), 8--16.
R3 By "phallus"l mean a culturally constructcd signifier ofsocial power: for the terminology,
see note 67, above. 1 call Greck sexual discourse phallic because (1) sexual cont<~Cts are
polarizcd around phallic action-i.e., they are defmed by who has the phallus and by
what is done with ir; (2) sexual plcasures other than phallic pleasures do not count in
catcgorizing sexual contacts; (3) in order for a contact to qualify as sexual, one-and no
more than one-of the two partners is required to ha ve a phallus (boys are treated in
paederastic contexts as esscntially un-phallused [see Martial, 11.22; but cf. Palalinr Amhoi-
OKY 12.3, 7, 197, 207, 216, 222, 242) and tend to be assimilated ro women; in the case of
scx between women, one partner-the "tribad"-is assumed to possess a phallus-cquiva-
lent [an over-developed clítoris[ and ro penetrare the other: sources for the ancient
c_onceptu~lization of the tribad-no complete modern study of this fascinating and lon~­
hved ftcuonal type, which survived into thc early decades of the twentieth cenrury. ts
k~own to me-ha ve been assembled by Friedrich Karl forberg, MamHJI of Clasúcdl
brololo.n. trans.Juhan Smuhson [Manchester, 1H84; repr. New York, 1966),11. JO!Hi?;
Hrandt, 3~~28; Gast~n Vorbcrg, G/osst~rium rroricum JHanau, 1965], 654-55; Werne~ A.
Krenkel, Masturbatton m der Antike," Wismmhafiliche Zrirschrifi der Wilhelm-Prtlk·
Unrvmiliir -~os/ock, 28 [l~J79J, IS9-7H, esp. 171; sce, now, Judith P. Hallctt, "Female
~0.":'~rotrctsm and the Denial of Reman l~eality in Latin Litera tu re," Yale Joumal o_{
Crrllcwn, 3.1 \191-i91, forthcoming).

li4 ~::: ~~~~:s:.ght 10 the.acute critu:isms of 01n carlier version ofthe prescnt essay by SylviJ
at th gfi · Sex <~nd~ender: You Can't H<~veOnc Wnhout thc Other," Papcr presente~
(:2() ~~;s;;;t' meetmg ofthe Society for Cultural Anthropology, Washington. J).C
liS ~alpcnn (IIJH(1), 63-{)f,- <liso _ . . 11 ?"
m thi1 volume. ' ·note)!, abo ve, and scLtton fí of"Why is J)¡otrma a Wonu

lt(,Stt luci;&n, DiaiOJlUt's of lht CourlntltU

is(usstun uf C,¡diu~
Aurelranus aa well u note H3, above
H7 See Dover (l'J74), lfl1-f12. .
lt!S \ce lhlpc-nn (1985) H 4--(lf
Jouu (IYIJI/b) ' ' '• and llet:tlon 7 of"Why is Dtotima a Woman?" in this volurnc,

WJ 1 ammdcbl~rd for thu ubserv.;u&on lo J . . orl~

Carulma at Cha~l Htll, who llOkl 1Prufnsor ll·ter M. Smnh ofthc UniVl'UII_Y ofN thi~
hat Sapphn iiUd Plato .ue thl• chicf cx~·l·puons 10
 Notes to Chapter 1 1 167

See further, Paul A. Rahe, "The Primacy of Politics in Classical Greece,"

gener.:al 'U:,: .,~ 1 Rtvitw, 89 (1984), 265-93, who makes a similar poinr in the coursc of
A"''"''" .rst:;hematic and idealized portrayaJ ofthe political culture of classical Greece.
an ochenN•se
90 Compare, e.g .• Herodotus, 6.107.
R F. Price, "The Future of Dreams: From Freud to Arremidorus," P;ut and Prtstnt,
91 ~¡ 3 (November 1986), 3-37, abridged in Halperin, Winkler, and Zeidin; scc, also, Fou-
cauh (1986). 3-36, esp. 26-34.
92 See Waud H. Kracke, ''Dreaming in Kagwahiv: Dream Beliefs and Their Psychic Uses
in an Amazonian lndian Culture," The PsychtNJnalyti,. Study ofSociety, 8 (1979), 119-71,
esp. 13()-32, 163 (on the predictive value of dreams) and 13().-31, 142-45, 163-64, 168
(on the reversal of the Freudian direction of signification-which Kracke rakes ro be a
cuhuraiJy constituted defense mechanism and which he accordingly undervalues);
Thomas Gregor," 'Far, Far Away M y Shadow Wandered ': The Dream Symbolism
and Dream Theories of the Mehinaku lndians of Brazil," American Ethnolollist, 8 (1981),
709-20, esp. 712-13 (on predictive value) and 714 (on the reversa) of signification), largdy
recapitulated in Gregor, 152-61, esp. 153. Cf. Foucaulr (1986), 35-36: "The movemcnr
of analysis and the procedures of valuarion do not go from rhe act ro a domain such as
sexuality or the ftesh, a domain whose divine. civil, or naturallaws would delineare the
permitted forms; they go from the subject as a sexual actor to rhe other areas of life in
which he pursues his [familia), social, and economic} activity. And iris in the relarionship
between these different forms of activity rhat rhe principies of evaluarion of a sexuaJ
behavior are essentially, but not exclusively, situared."
93 duBois (1984), 47-48; Edmunds, 81-84.
94 Jack H. Abbott, .. On 'Women,' "New York Re11i~ of&olts, 28.10 Oune 11. 1981). 17.
Ir should perhaps be pointed out rhar rhis Jyrical confession is somrwhat ar odds wirh rht
more gritty account contained in rhe edited excerpts from Abbou's ldters dur were
published a year earlier in rhe New Yorlr RtPitw of &olu, 21.11 Oune 26, 19M.J). 34-J?.
~One might compare Abbon's sraremenr wirh sorne R"marks urtered by Brnurd Bou~
10 a_ similarly apologeric conrexr and quored by Richard lkmstein, "Francrjails Two 81

a B1zarre Case ofEspionage," Nrw )-.orlr Ti,es (May 11. 19861: "1 wasshartft"C'd 10 Dm
that he (Boursicot's loveroftwenry yearsJ is aman, but m y ronviction remains unsJu_t.abk
thar for me at th.at time he was rrally .a wom.an and was rht: tirst lovC' of my b~. )
95 Sce Davidson (1987188), 16.
% SeC' P.adgug, S: "In any approa~o.·h th.at rakes u prcdetermincd .and universal rhe c.acqGI1CS
of sexu.aliry, real history disappears."
9? S~. now, HenriquC"s, Hollw.ay, Urwin. CouzC', and WaltndiPC'- Also. Rw.:..(l'i7S).
I7K-HJ; GodC'Iier ( 1976), 295-%: "The proccss o( reproduaniJifi--sc'xu.ab~Y· 1 --;::

its hroadesc sense--can only exist if ar is st4HrtlirMI~ ro thr fq)fOdak·rioll. ol ~ ~

rclalions; thar subord111arton. rakn thC' form, tirst of &11, ~frhc' subo~ ~'tt-:;spttel
to th~o.· rrpruduC"Unn of kinshap rc.J.artons. TIM' subordinar•~ of .-x.wbr,;.~ :.:~b
h~o.•r\' ts nol y.:-t 1~ s~bord~nation ~f onC' SC'X ro thC' orlwr 111 chnrr:ault·rhe tulk'fM)IIHilf
...-·s
ra~hrr lhr: suhurdmatlon of a doman• ~f sOC1al pract1CCS ro rhr (Olida. b\ vtrtlk' ol 1t5 n.t.1r
~~~ othC'r so..ulrrl.a11on11-lt's thc- posnion l_har rhar dom•111_o..'"'~'="l."UJ'Ift·,.. r#k' ,urtM"C'
•n n-produ'"m.- thC' dcqlatructui'C' ofrhco sonC'I"y, nur chC' po!llhOI111 . , , , _. .....,.a.rv.
ol:sunalrr,diry, 1nthC' visiblc-h~archy ofinstirunollls._ llur lhat ~~ dn••:•""' ~­
ol thC' pm~s• of repruducin' ~~~ tu che procns_ ul ~011 .._.,..,.,_.¡
~
sunalrelalionli, has COIIC't'C'U' dfn"ts "'" tlw JlnHII ol •adtv~ ......_..-.~ ,.,. &ndn.....,...
rhar th.:y rstahhsh wirh one anodwr an:urd1nt1 ro thnr ·~· J1w rco~aM-.. 1 ..,.,, 1v,... 11
mus1 tN,.il rn dw I."OIUtraillla puraed by rhc.· lun~•tonll.. ul ._.....,
168 1 Notes to Chapter 2

difTercntly, the desire of each indi~id~al is no~ au~horize~ unless it ¡5 directed

'others' who .fir in with the funct1~111ng o~ km.~h•p rel~t1~ns and, through th~o thost
reproduction of the ensemble of soc1al relauo~s. For. a Similar argument, see Do:j the
Donham. Hisrory, Powtr, Idrology: Tllemes "'. Mt~rxum tl~ld Amhropology (Carnbridl.
forthcoming). Further empirical support for th1s approach 15 provided by Moodie as ~e,
as by the anthropological studies of Hcrdt (1981) and (1984), whose irnpo t . el!
mmari:r:ed by Adam (1985/a), 29: "Most remarkablc in the Melanesian exam;l 15 • WeJI
:ay ¡11 whirh thc kinship code functions successfully to create catcgories ofthe ates 15 ~he
and the erotic. These structures _d~ work, such that s~xual arousal occurs and ¡5 c::s~:~
mated repeatedly for most par.t1c1pants. . Sexual mterest does arise at the prescribed
suucturallocarions and prescnbed categor1es of people, regardless of gender, are eroti-
cized."
98 Cf. William Simon andJohn H. Gagnon, "Sexual Scripts," Society, no. 153 = 22.1 (198 4),
53-60, esp. 53, and "Sexual Scripts: Permanence and Change," Archives ofSexual Brhdllior,
15.2 (1986). 97-120, esp. 100: "Desire is not reducible roan appetite, a drive, an instinct;
it does not create the self, rather it is part of the process of the creation of the self."
99 "Translations'' (1972), lines 32-33, in Adrienne Rich, Divin,R into the Wrtck: Poems 197!-
1972 (New York, 1973), 40-41 (quotation on p. 41).
'"C:mzone" (1942), lines 1-2, in W. H. Auden, Collected Potms, ed. Edward Mendelson
(New York. 1976), 2~57 (quotarion on p. 256).
Weeks (1'181/a), 111.

2 "Homosexuality": A Cultural Construct

(An Exchaage with Richard Schneider)

An earlier versíon of this intcrvicw was published in the Harvard Gay and Lesbiati Newslrllrr,
5·. 2 1= 3) (Fall1987), 3-7. 1 wish to thank its editor, Richard Schneider, for the stimulating
dlscussion thatled up to this exchange. 1 also wish to thank Edward Stein for a thoroughgoing
and searching critique of the rcviscd text.

Epstein, 11. Sec:, also, l~ubin (19&4), 27!).....76, who defines "sexual esscntialism" as "the
Idea that scx is a natural force that exists prior to social life and shapcs its institutions.
Sexual t'!lsentialism is embcdded in thc folk wisdoms ofWcstcrn societics, which considcr
~x 10 be c.tcrnally unchanging, asocial, and transhistorical. Dominatcd for ovcr a cc:ntury
C:sc:~;i:l:e·;~:chiatry, and .psychology, thc acadcmic study of sex has ~cp.r~duc;~
hormone~ ~r th:i:e flclds classafy scx as a propcrty of individuals. 1t may rcs1d~ 111 1 ~ul
within thesc ethno:~~c~es. h may .be construed as physiological or psy~h~l~gacal.onal
dc:tcrm~nants .., Boscu:~tafic Cd.tcgonc~, scxuality has no history and no .~~~mhc~nt 5 ·¡jvc
and pqurative labclwcll .< 19H9), 74, ngh~ly .observes that "cssentialism 11 ~. rctroa~cru
speóalists in an fle~pphed by construcuomsts to thc outlook they opposc: no n1°
For a gcncn.l :onsa~::11. themsclvcs. csscnt.ialists," he points out. . ·no·s
u Moralldcntnie!l· Ve ~lon~~sexualcsscntlalismanditscritics,scejackKatz, ·. 5 ~ aud
Chu1•m· .. A . · nfaabahty and 1\t.'Sponsibility in lmputations uf lkvlann T
Uaanc R~:hard:,:c•~.¡!~"~:.' o.f SoáoloRy. HO (1974175), 1369--90; Wccks (19K.IIa) .. ~~~~~
tJndHomosrxudl ltl~ririrs~ e ~~~mma uf E~sentiality in Homosexual Thco~y." 111 Bm~V
IM), ~J;(;regory A S ;"llcal.?'htortlletd luurs:::: Jounlalo.fHomosexu•luy, .Q.2-~ (.1 1111 ~
ufldcrnnyilnd~ be 1· P .agu~, MaleHomo•exualityinWesternCulturc:lhcl>dc:n )
l'J-...43. 1-or 1 ~ ~ull~~u:::: Hlstonu11tc~arc~. ")ournal "JHo.mosexualily. 10.3-4 (1~~
ment uf thc quesuon as ¡1 pertams tn homoscxuo~hcy •
 . whose own modified, dialectical version of constructionism approximares ro rh 1
fp5¡~:~ raken here.
pos Pearcc and Robcrts, 51: "althou~h w_e ~~su~e that al~ men and wo~en a_re potenriaJJy
S:xual rhe Jikely panern~ng o~~he1r act1v~t1es 15 determme~ from rheu earhest moments
!~sociality when gender ¡denunes are ass1gne~ to rh~m w1_th the att~ndant ~xpecrarions
conceming appropriare con~uct for so~cone w1~h t~e1r particular genrral eq~1pment. Thr
dominant definitions effectmg the ~oc1~l orgamsatJon of_sexual_conracr: wdJ constanrJy
define Jikdy options for them and wdl remforce or undermme the1r changmg self-conccprs
rhroughour their lives." Compare Weeks (1980), 19: "A homosexual identity is nor given
in narure, nor is ir simply imposed as a social control on a deviant minority: ir is rhe
product of a long social process involving both delinition and self-definition. And
all rhese definitions, categorisations, regulations are social impositions upon the flux of
sexual possibilities there in the human animal ar rhe time of birrh." These formularions
niccly balance the contriburions made to the formation of a personal identity by soci.al
organization and cultural codes, on the one hand, and by individual inrerprer.arion or
re5ponse, on the other.
See Boswell (1982-83). Now, however, Edward Stein, in an unpublished lecrureon "The
Philosophy of Sexual Preference" delivered at thc Stare Univeniry of New York ar
Purchase on April17, 1989. demonstrates rhat, pace Epstein, essenrialisrs and consrrucrion-
ists do not _nc=cessarily hne up on opposire sides of rhe narure/nurrure or determinism/
voluntarism debates.
Epstein, 45.
Freud made something like rhis poinr sevenry-five years ago in a foomore ro rhe rhird
edition of his Thret Essay5 0 , tht Theory of Stxuality: "Thus from rhe poinr of view of
psycho-analysis rhe exclusive sexual inreresr felr by men for women is also a problem
thar needs elucidating and ¡5 not a self-evidenr facr b.ascd upon .an arrr.acrion rhar is
ulrimarely of a chemical nature" (Strachey, VIl. 146).
1 owe rhis analogy to Henry Abelove.
See Rubin (1984), 28.5-86, for a similar argument.
Sce, e.g., Aeschines, 1.132-35.
9 Sl"C Dover (1978), 86-87; Golden (1984). 321-22; Un~areni. U. An intC"IT!Itintc rr~r=
Dlc~nioned by Dover (no doubt bC"l·ausc it is so latl'), is Xmophon of Epm::;~ -~~,;.:. ~
wh•ch describes a lovr-affair bctwecn. rwo hoys who wert" ttorh 50 Y:~~ vnn rhnr
ag~. that no onc suspl'Cted th~m ofbc.·mg lovl'"rs and so ~o onc arrc:"pr th,r~l\1 OIK' ,,,-
bcmg alone togcthcr (or havmg Sl'"X); thl'" tt•xr nukl'"S dC"at. howc:vc · . · ro
~.h~m ..cxpcril·no..-d mis,
or "sl·xu~l po~ssi~lll," iOr thl' t.Jther. who ~.:r~~;.:~::.:,~.
puy and "haVl' ln('n·y" on rht•lormcr: 11 wouiJ n'("lll, thcn. rhat 1
at least in its outwud maniiCsunons. ro the COIIVC'IIIIl'NI.J.I ~trC'rll
llovcr (I'J7H), H7, l"iting rhc nst' ofthl' bC'aunli.ll (~ntobulus 1n Xn•Llf'l;•;.;~.~·::
H.::!, whu is nt•wl)' marrit-d (2.3), tht' ~·kwcd ofm.ar1~· okfcr mcn. and 1 ~ n'f"
ymmKt'r Ckini"s (.... U~IH)-.all .at rhc w.nu· nme.

Wmkll'r (I'JH'J/o~). " .. ..ruk.JtJUIM .anK"''t: rM l\lkh~rYku

(;n·p:nr, H: nutt•s tlto~t honmseJUlollity 11 t•xdudt-.:1 .md S"-'-HI. r .,.,."'. "" 1ch .,.,..,.
lnd1a1u ut ( :,·ntr.J.I Urazll; he rh.., l MOl"!!! ro dcx·un•~ 1 • ,,n PP· ~ 111 "'''""' n-l'.!lkllll'
"" li.Jrt'llf:llrr w"!i aMl· to induce IUIIIt" rncmtM.-n ~~ thc: :~5bc- 1 ~: ::~~ ....., ,.11J t-.. , ... k!. _
wnh hun ("as younp: mrn hr_¡1:.a11ld s~1n such haM~-s::.....~, 111 nt,t.Í.aao.w..K'f\ ·~ ..to.•=-.u.thf'
~=-~i1si:,~rt't~~~~:: •:u~;,::r1 ~:. :::;:~:, 1 !~ :~;:· :~:~,~~~_..tw ,.. . . .-xuAI wr.;o~nbn
170 1 Notes to Chapter 3

13 Ron Langevin. ed., Erotic Prtjtrtlllt, Gttldtr lder~tity, tmd Ax~rt'ssio11 ¡11 Me,: Ntw R
Srudits (Hi11sdalc, NJ: Lawrencc Erlb~um, 198~), 227:-59, 27~80. Earlier Work issutstorn,
rized by Michael Ruse, Homosexunl.ry: ~ Phllosophunl l11qu•ry (Oxford, I9S8), 8 ~~a­
who defends the value ofhormonal stud1es but who does not mcntion (ahhough he~:·
know) Langevin's research. Y
14 The new sumllld, at least on one view (see n~te _15, below), is represcnted by lee Ellisand
M. Ashley Ames, "Neurohormo"nal Funct1~nmg and_ Sexual Oricntation: A Theory of
Homosexuality-Heterosexuality, Psycholc.gwrl Bulletrn, 101.2 (1987), 233-58.

15 Jerry Woolpy. "The Biology ofHomosexuality," ~arlhtunite (Winter 1989), 9-tt (quota-
tion on p. 9), reproducing the phras~ology of Elh.s and A~es ~preceding note), 247. 1
wish 10 thank Adam Thorburn for calhng my anent10n to th1s art1de. The original studies
of pre-natal stress in Germany were conducted by the notorious Gunter DOrner with a
variety of collaborators and published in Endokrinolotit, 75 (1980), 365-68, and in Exptri-
mmt'd ,md Clirtica/ Ettdocrino/ogy, 81 (1983), 83-87.
16 Stt, gcnerally, Sander L Gilman, Diffirenct and Ptuhology: Sttreotypes ofSexuality, R6 ce,
and MadtleH (lthaca, NY, 1985).

3 Two Views of Greek Love: Harald Patzer and Michel Foucault

This essay represenu an amalgam of two earlier papers. Versions of the first paper appeared
undcr the title, "One Hundred Vean of Homosexuality," in Diacritics, 16, no. 2 (Summer
1986), 34-45, esp. 40--45, and under the title, "Normahzing Greek Desire," in ClaSJilS: A
Discipline 12nd Profossion in Crisis?, ed. Phyllis Culham and Lowell Edmunds (Lanham, MD:
University Press of America, 1989), 257-73. An earlier version of the second paper was
published under the title, "Sexual Ethics and Technologies of the Self in Classical Greece," in
the Americ12n jounrd/ of PhiloloJly, 107 (1986), 274-86.

E.g., .M.-H.-.E. Meier, Hisroirt de l'12rnour grecdturs l'12ntiquité, rev. ed. by L.-R. de Pogey·
Castnes (Pans, 1930; orig. ed., 1837); also, Bethe.
Thc trend se~ms t~ ha ve begun with a chapter on "The Perversions of Lave" by Paolo
Man~gazza In Gl.• amori dt~li uomini (1885), translated by Samuel Putnam as The Sexual
RtldtiOJIJ ofMa~ltrnd, ed. V1ctor Robinson (New York: Eugenics Publishing Co., 1935).
7~; also, Richard F. Durton, trans., Tht Boolt of tht Thous12nd Nights a11d d Nigllt
~'thc t~d~· 1886):.~· 20S-54 (the famous "Terminal Essay D." on what Burton called
14NJ, Volu~~~7~C,~~~ Edward Wcstermarck, Tht OriJlin onrd Drvelopmtnt oftht M~;~
Br . "·. 190K), 4Sft-tW. More recently, Vanggaard; Trumbach. 2 '
. emmer, Rancour-Lafemere, 341-54; Adam (19H5/a); Scrgem, esp. 40-54; Moodi~.
So Trumbach· Gisela 01 'b E · s
Vorwrtri/5 (fra~kfi 197; treu- hrenberg, Tabu Homosrxualitiil. Dit' Gm ichtr tiHf
Hundred Years 0~'~ ); Wec:ks ~I~K0) •. 16-17; Vcyne (1985), 2K; and Halperin, "One
omosexuahty, In thls vo1ume.
4 Adrienne ltich, "Compulsor H .
Stamell, and Thompson, 177 !2115 ~terosexualuy and Lesbian Existencc,"
Ad<~m (19M51b). (,511,
A srmllar argument h¡¡d bcm d. .
endy unbeknownst 10 Patzer~~yc: .;;;!:~-much more sketchily, to be surl',
7 In all th1s Patzcr follows dOI 1
r
np 41-45. The Vlctorian e lhe .arguments advanced a drcack earlier by VangtJ;aard
ana 0 1Y 1' e1aborated by llover (197H). 'M.I.
 ver (1978), 16, 85-87; Bufliére, 605-14; Kay, 120-21.
see Do . "The Democratic Body: Prostirution and Citizcnship in Classical Athens,
9 ~:a~~~~e.
S<e [)over (1978), 171; Golden (1984), 312, n. 18; Sergent, 39.
10 ¡¡ ..,.,¡ "One Hundred Years of Homosexuality" in this volume, note 53 for a
See a1r- 0 • . . •
partial list of passages from anc1ent wnters that record a preference by males for sexual
contact with males.
12 K.J. Dover, whosc ingenious and largdy convincing reconS[ruction ofthis ideal provides
the basis for Patzer's argument, actually presents evidence for the prevalence of anal
intercourse in Greek paederasty: see (1978), 99, tOOn.; now, Golden (1984), 314, n. 34.
13 Bethe's work was based on the first ethnographic reports from New Guinea and on the
earlier philological study by Karl Otfried Müller, Die Dorier, 4.4.6-9 = Geschichtenhellen-
ischer Stiimme und Stiidte, 2d ed. by F. W. Schneidewin (Breslau, 1844; repr. Graz, 1969; orig.
ed. 1820-24),111, 285-93, who had argued for the antiquiry ofDorian paederasry and had
emphasized its educational function; the chapter on paederasty is somewhat eJJipricaiJy
rranslated in the English version: C. O. Müller, The Historyand Antiquitiesofthe Doric Race,
rrans. Henry Tufnell and George Cornewall Lewis, 2d rev. ed. (London, 1839; ong. ed.
1830), 2 vals. Bethe's rheory secms ro reflecta fashion in rhecompararive religionofhisday:
e( Theodore Schroeder, " 'Divinity' in Semen: A Srudy in rhe Erotogenerics ofReligion,"
Alit11istand Neuro/ogist, 41 (1920), 93-101; Schroeder's earlier work had appearedcontem-
poraneously with, and independcntly of, Bethe's.
14 AnatoiSemenov, "Zurdorischcn Knabenliebe," Philo/ogus, 70(191 1), 146-50; AlbertRu~
persberg, "Eispnilas," Philologus, 70(1911),151-54. Comparethearrirudearticub.redlifiC'CII
years larer by T. Ziclinski, Tite Religion of Ande11t Cruce, rrans. G. R. Noyes (Chicago.
1975), 73: "sorne go further land) speak of'ferishism' in rhe rdigion ofanrirnr Gctter.
Excellenr: now we ha ve a common religious foundarion for rhe Greeks and for lhe-savages
ofUpper and Lower Guinea" (quoted by Bemard Frische-r, TheSct4/ptttl W"rd: Epi(JIMIIIISM
and Philosophical Rtcruitment in A11tient Greett (Berkcley, 1982J, 105).
15 An instance is RolfLagerborg. Dieplatonistltt' LieM (Leipzig, 192h), esp. 42-44.
16 See Wion; Vanggaard, 12,32-45, 61-70; Bremmc.-r: CartiNgr; Oswyn Murray, "Sy~po­
sion and Minnerbund," in C""cilium l:"irme XVI (Pro'":c:a:lings ofrhC' 16th lnrem•rional
Eirene Confcrence), rd. Pavel Oliva and Ale-n• Froliko\•a (PragUC', 19112). 1, .f7-5.2; CalaiiiC'
(1984), xi-xvi; Durand and Schnapp, 57~: Schnapp ( 1QS.f): KC"Uls, 274-'19. C"Sf'~ ~
Sartre, 14-16; Sergent; CantarC"IIa, 77-HJ: am.:l. most rC'Ct'nrly,Jan N. BremmC"F.
cents, Symposium and Pederasry," in Sy,.potu•. cd. Oswyn Murray ((?x~nl. ~~m­
ing). Cf., howcvcr. Oswyn Murray, ''ThC' Symposion as Social Organtunon. ;\.~:
195-~9, esp. 199: "we do not ha ve rhe e~ideru-.:- ro talk aboul rhe 0 F{C.a~;::~dftk-c fnvn
men m early Greccc. Ar lcast 1 do nol thmk rhar we should IJ~Md".ahse ..
Sp.uta and Crete, or throw it baL·k 1nro tfKo d1stant pasr, w1thout c:an."ful tb..lllghr.
17 ThL• most important studtcs are b)· F. K.arsch-Haack. V.S ,tleidt.t~A~n·~:::~.:
N4turl'i#lrer(MuniL·h, 1"'1_1); (;un_••ar Lan~tmann, _Tire ~~Wofl ~~~:::.:~ -~
(London, 11.,127); D. Mahnowsk~, !'" .'\eA"IMI L!~ ~~ S•"'«"1 .,,-.v.,..,.J _.....,..,
(N,·w York, IIJ:N); Wllliants; C. S. Ford and f. A. Brada, ~ '";\ Psl'·ho.'MU·
(New Vurk, JI.,ISI);j. Van Daal, DrrrM ('fh<o HquC', IQM); A~~ Bk ~~Ehmt~·
1ytic Scudy o( che Hullroan:'r." M..,., n_.s. II_U~h). 22t~.VJ~. ..(FranktUrt. J'IWJt;
'*'"""lwrlrt•itsritnt. Z•r irutiftlrictfwlltw PiiMNstw ..,, PywJ .-1 ~;;:. ~wth AnKT'I"Mii
Hrrdl (19111) .and (19M..); Charle-s C.allendC'r .1nd l« M. Kuchnm. llar \IWiob .1 _,._
Brrd•chC'. •· _e:•"'"'' A•M,.,o.t1· 2<4.4 (1Wl1). 44J-70; WC'11t011 ~!.._ ""·,:.,. s,.rt~.J •
Mr .'\uprnflri,.,. •Hwr Sr.rtldliry (Nc-w York, IoM"); w•r l. W-·"·
172 1 Notes to Chaptcr 3

Flrslr: Sexual Dirlrrsity ;, Amrricdll lt~dia~~ Cultllre (Bos~on, 1986); sce, gcncraiJy Bl
wood. Scc, also, E. E. Evans-Pritchard, Sexuallnvers10n aman~ thc Azande,, A,,,. a.ck.
Authrt~polo.~ist, 72 (1970), 1428-34, who contrasts thc Azandc wnh thc Grceks. trrco,
18 Ht·nri Jcanmairc. "La cryptie lacédémonienn~," Revu~ dt•s étudt•s .l!recques, 26 (]qlJ) 12
50 and Cmmi l'f Ct1urt'tn. Ewli sur I'Mucatwtl spartwtr t'l sur fes ritt·s d'adolncr/U~ J 1~
/'d;,,;quilt: /rrllft1iqrrr (Lillc, 1939); George Thom~on, At·scllyfus a11d ,¿tht'lls: ~ Study in~;:;
:V
Stlcial Or(~ilrs l!f Drama, 2d cd . (london. 1946), alter ~urkcrt, Kekropldensage Und
Arrhcphoria: Vomlniriarionsnru~ zum Pana.thcna_cn~es_r, _Hermrs, 94 (19M), 1-2S; An.
do Hrdich, Paid1·s r parthrt~oi, lst1tUto pcr gh stud1 n11cme1 ed t:-geo-anatolici: lncunab 1
:racca, 3ll (Romc, 1%9); Waltcr Burkert, "Ape_llai und ~rollan," Rlldt~is_ch_es Museuur~¡:
p¡ 1 ¡¡0 ¡ 11 ~ir, IIR (1975), 1-.21; Calamc (1977); Fntz Graf, Apollon Dclphuuos," MIISI'III/I
Hd••l'f;WIII, Jó (1979). 2-22; Pierrc.· Vidai-Naquct, "Recipcs for Greek Adolescencc," in
Gordon, ]63-HS; Cartlcdge; Giacomo Costa, "Hcrmes dio dellc iniziazioni," c;.,¡¡1¡¡
dassüa r cristiatla, 3 (19H2), 277-95; Walter Hurkert, H_omo Namrs: The Amhropolo~y of
.4uá1•11¡ Gm·k SMri~áal Ritual aud Myth, trans. Pcter Htng (Hcrkcley, 1983), 84-93, and
(1985), 2ót)...b4; Kochl; Gregory Nagy. "Pindar's Olympia11 1 and the Aetiology ofthc
Olympic Gamcs," Transaai01u ~~(tl1r Amcrica11 Philoloxica/ Associatiot1, 116 (1986), 71-H!!;
Scrgcm; and thc forthcoming artide by Bremmer (cited in note 16, above). For an
opposmg point of vicw, however, which emphasizes that "rituals of manhood" in Mcdi-
terranean cultures are relativcly unformalized, Ji fe-long affairs, see Gil more (1987/b), 15-
ló, and compare Dover (1988).
For a similar mtl'rprctation, see, most rcccntly, Kochl, 105-0
prcvious scholarly literature on the tapie.
A more sub1le discussion ofthc function of paedcrasty in "the social reproduction of male
culture" is provided by Adam (1985/a); many of the works cited in notes 16 and 1!1,
~bove, apply 1hc ritual modcl to ancicnt Greck paederasty with greatcr interpretativc
nuance.

Sec St·rgenl, 11-15, 3H. On the conncction betwcen erOs and the hunt in Greek culture,
see ~!erre Vidal-Naquct, "The Black Humer and the Origin of the Athenian Cpht'bría,"
111 Gordon, 147-62; Horthwick; Marcellkuenne, Dio11ysos Slaitl, trans. Mireillc Mucllncr

and ~~mur~ _Muellncr (8altimorl·, llJ7Y), 23-52; P. Schmitt andA. Schnapp. "lmage et
~~.'Ciete l'n (,rtTe ancwnm·: Les représl·ntations dl·la chassc ct du banquet," R('l,•llr arciltolo·
~•qu 1 :_(IYH2: 1), 57-74_; Gundel Koch-Harnat·k, Kuah1·t¡/idJt' 1md Til·rxt·sdutlkl·: Jl¡re B1•dt: 111! 111·~
•m padmi~IISCht:~· Er:::u·IIUti~JSYSh'lh Atllt'IIS (Hcrlin, 19H3); Nancy Fclson nubin and W!lham
~errm S.1lc, Melca~t·r ~nd Ody~scus: A StruCiural .md Cultural Study of the Grt•t·k
S ~ntmg-~aturauun Myth," Arrthusa, lh.l-2 (19H3), 137-71; Durand and SchtUP~:
11~ ~~~::!~)~)~va~~: Sl't' now Froma Zcitlin, "Configuratium uf lhpl' in Gn·ek Myth.
· ·'Y Tomasclh and ltoy Ponc.·r (Oxford, llJH(J), 1.22-51. 261-M
:,~: ~omc cautionuy rem~rks, emphutzing that "the Ncw (iuÍnl'J malc ntlts. and tlll'
Ken~) p;,~~~:;;·.:t~1~1c:~~y0~11 :;s are inducted
uno thl·m. appt·ar tu combmc _spcdt·s ol~-~
rq:,1ons of lhc tribo~l P Id .. 11
W.Jys from thosc 111 01hcr parh of Mdam:)l.l and uth
23 Wor · sce Kccsm~. S
lit·tlw, 447, 4C:,2-Sl snml.uly Sn .., . .. ~l'
cv1denn· ft•r thc punible si ;l;tir=~n~, ~~; also, 2'-.1, 37, where Scr~cnt nott'S ami thsllll~
24 g n: ol malc ht·auty lll CretJ.n paedt·rnty
( lnnublllly u an t'tollr stunulu~ 111 1 . . . lt'
.J(nuK qunt· ~umlu hnes of 1-'a . ~ assln_l Athen~. see l•latu, Lyu".l 2115t·-d. Fur a t"riiii.Jl '
2~ Henry j.llll~l. "The Ar~ of _u:er ~ .:e;~dniK of Strabo, scc Duvc.·r (liJKH). 124.
Hou~. 1%1-i), 37J......441H 1 fi~Uon, flarii¡J/ flortraiu (IHHH; repr N~w York: Hnkdl
quotatJun un p. 4U5).
 978) 1250., remarked by Jeffrey Henderson in his review of Dover (Ciassical
¡¡, D•"' (l 11 .Y,s-791. 434) and by Nussbaum (1979), 156.
world. 12
7 pover (1978), 39-49. . .
2 For a case srudy of rhe differences m class1cal At~ens bet.ween the public ideal of sexual
28 conduct and rhe social norm (as rcvealed by soc1al practJCes), see Winkler (1989/a).
The story ¡5 quoted verbatim ~~ At~enaeus,. l3.60~d (FGrH_isl 362, fr. 6 = Sopho-
1} eles, Tcstimonium 75 Radt); lt 15 d1scussed m detall by Ungarem, 9-10.
JO Further grounds for supposing that the hoy in question must indeed have been a slave
are supplied by Golden (1985), 98, n. 24.
JI E.g .• by K. J. Dover in his review ofPatzer in thejournal ojHelltllif Studies, 104 (1984),
239-40, esp. 240 (1 quote the passage in "One Hundred Years ofHomosexuality," in rhis
volume, note 57).
J2 This outlook is well satirized by Nietzsche in On tht Gtntaloxy of Morals, 3.12. For .r
general consideration of the issue, see David E. Linge's editorial inrroducrion ro Hans-
Georg Gadamer, Philosophicaf Hermentutics (Berkcley, 1976), xi-lviii; mosr recenrly,
Thomas Nagel, Tht View fro'" Nowhere (New York, 1986}.
JJ Wilamowitz, 1, 44.
34 Seejamcs Redfield, "Herodotus the Tourist," Classical Philoloxy. 80 (1985). 97-IIH.
35 Williams, 158: "1 am told that sorne boys are more arrractive and consequendy rrcc-ivr
more attention of rhis kind (i.e., 'sodomy') than do others. .. Herdt (1981). J: '"AI-
though homosexual practices emerge from ritual trauma, abundant evidence indicares that
most youths also experience them as pleasurable and erotically exciting""; 282: '"alrhough
initiates. are initially impelled into this .rct foral inseminarionf. rheir larc-r participarion
(e.g., choice of partners, frequency, interpersonal tone) is mosdy a marter of pcnon.al
i~te~es~. Bachelors tend ro engage regularly in homosexual feii.Jtio. _Thc-y K'C'DI (imprrs-
Siomstlcally) excited by it, joking among themselves abour especully anraa:nvt bo~-s
whom they prefer as fellators, but are oti:en willing or wanring ro have scx wrrh .rny
appropriate initiate"; 287-88: "most youths still'dcsirc" sex wirh boys. NotJUSl m~· S(".·
for what comes to excite the bachdor is a cert.a.in modc:- of srructun."d erorrc en("OWih.T
~etween um~quals; first with boys. rhen with womcn. fMfen an- not simpl)· b~~r~g
time by fooling around with initiatl""S. IHJachelors .rre somerimn J'U 510 natc'l~• tOn.:l
of particular boys"; 319: '"Homosexual practices. in varying degr«S. are (UC'fad.
And thar enforced role conrponl-nt, in addnion tu boys · grrat ncaj or de-sin= hJ 'M.ume
mc-n.' ~s enoug~ lo determine th.rt lrheyl.rre not hon1~xuals. n~ 10 ~: ::=~:.:.
V1ewcd thts way, then· is llll n·.rslm ro 1gnon.- the tact rhat r1ruah.n:u
is also a pl·rsonal. evnuually erout· exJ'l'"T1l'1K\'." Compan: Moodic. .!.f.l
lt. Herdt (19H4). Hl, n. St); Ml'nc."r.ally. Hl·rdt"5 mrroductiOfl ro rh1:10 ..-oJunK·. PJ'· 1 ~ 1 ·
esp. (,_\-(,4.
17 1 wish tu th.rnk Marilyn 8. Skinnc."r ti.u hdpintt nlt' wlth this tOnnulo~tklll.
1M Sl-c <.:h,.uncl'Y (I'IHS/Mb): M.rrshall, 149-U: AlbenJ. Rcus.Jr. ··n...·!~~~·::;;:
uf(.Ju,,·rs ,. 11d V...'C"n,Ms,,.,,., p,.,¡,¡...,.1, 9 (1%llbl). 1112--lU. wuh re- ~n":~.DI$.­
~urk, tO,.tcn••n .and Sunun. l4U--SI, Vangtco~.lrd. ~)...SH; ~rker Ruu;::. .U.• .,.. A>p .
•~_''tltl)', 111 (M.uch/Apral 1~7-'). 34-JS . .rnd ,'j,•A"JMlliAJW""'"~ -•m.•ttk-f~
1."!..\·pl''~"~ rll,·l,_-.kriUI ( ·~..J(Ne~ York. 1'176); .r~ A':_.~, h ....t...H. H..,.,...,..
lnr .a 1 um·hduwn: A Psy-.·ho•nalytu· ( &"11151ik•unotl ~Ante' .u ,.. lftH.IIII\"1" , 11 nnw~
'''"'· ,\7 (1'17H). 75-HH, w~ inttrpn-ts lunen,·.rn ~lNII IRW JD,.1..-•• ,t~Jo~•l H
huniOM.·~u.aln" 1h.:1.1 h.a,. 1vrn !IVntholll"olll" dtspl.k"C'd. S«.,
174 1 Notes to Chapter 3

.. 'Women • " Ntw York Rtllitw of Books, 28.10 Oune 11, 1981 ), 17 in ..
Abbott. On • r " ·n this volume. • On~e
Hundrcd Years of Homoscxua uy, 1 . .

39 Housman 4()8, n.l. Fuller indications can be found m th~ oral histories collected arnon
the inhabi~anu ofSicily by Gavin Maxwell, Th~ Tt_" Parm ofDetuh (New York, l%0)~
com are J. M. Carricr, "Hom~scxual Bch~v1or m ~ross-Cultural P~rspecrive," ¡~
Mar~or, too-2Z. For carlicr penods._ sec Gu1do Ruggtero, Tht Bormdanrs of Eros: Stx
Crimt arul Stxuality ¡11 Rtmlissa11ct Vtrrut (Londo~, 1_985), esp. 10~5, 159-61;James M..
Saslow, G¡mymtdt ¡11 tht Rrrraissancr: Hornostxllallly m Art a11d Sontty (New Ha ven, l9S6).
40 Seesection 8 of"Why ¡5 Diotima a Woman:" in this volum~, for an attcmpt 10 interpret
Greek practices ¡11 rhe light of the New Gumea ethnographu:s.
Sce Sru:art H:all, "Culture:, rhe Medi:a and the 'Ideological Effect,' "in MtJss Comnrunicarion
ar1d Socitl}'. ed.James Curran, Mich~el Gur~vitch,J.anet Wool}aco~t, ~~al. ~~on~on, 1977),
315-48. esp. 330: "ideology as :a somd prtJctiCt consrsts of the subject posrt10mng himself
in the specifrc complex. the objectivated fidd of discourses and codes which are available
10 him in language and culture at a p:articul:ar historical conjuncture" (quoted by Ken
Tucker and Andrc:w Treno, "The Culture of Narcissism and the Critica) Tradition: An
lnterprc:ti..-e Essay," Btrktlt}' Jounud oJSaciolORY· 25(1980), 341-SS(quotation on p. 351 ();
see. generally. Hall's discussion ofthe constitutive role ofideology in "Deviance, Politics,
and the Medi:a," in Dtviar~ct tJnd Social Control, ed. Paul Rock and Mary Mclntosh,
Explorations in Sociology, 3 (London, 1974), 261-305. On homosexuality as ideology,
see Hocquenghem; on homosexuality as a demystification ofideology, see Beaver. But
stt Foucauh (1980/b), 118, who finds fauh with the concept ofideology for three reason·
(1) it tends to dcfrne itselfas the opposite to "truth"; (2) it posits the existence ofa trans-
historic;a) "subject"; (3) it stands in a secondary relation to a material or economic
de1erminant.
Foucault (1977), 161; the quotation is from Tlrt WtJndtrtr tJtrd His ShtJdow (Opinions and
Mixed Statements), no. 17.
43 L'IIJIIRt drs plaisin (Paris: Gallimard, 1984), translated into English by Robert Hurley as
Tht Vst o!_Piraswrr (New York, 1985). All pages references in this essay will be to the
French cdmon, and alltranslations of Foucauh contained in it-unless othcrwise noted-
aremyown.
44 Arthur W. H. Adkins, Mrrir arrd RtJponsibiliry: A Sr11dy ill Grttk Vcduts (Oxford, )%{1).
45 ~"' Fou"ul~ (1977). 139-M. fot • di"ussion of the differences betwcen convention•l
lstory a~d genealogy"'; also, Foucauh (19H3), 237-43. For a commentary, sce thc lucid
::::~ 1 JFlynn,l ~P- 531-32: "Foucauh's point, howevcr, is not to uncover somcthing
but 10 ur:v::e::.~ ~~~: ':~~;s,!: precondition, suc~ as H.cidcgger's tJirthtia, forc~amplc:
project is Nietzschcan ... Stt p ty of ~ruths that truth was imcnded to contam. Th~
"Fm;allnterview .. R . 'gc:ncrally, Drcyfus and ltabinow Hl4--17· Michcl Foucauh.
4(, ' llflf4tl, 5 (1985), 1-13, esp. 7-10; (19HO/b), 133. '

Sec the_r~vlc:ws by Nussbaum (1985) and by Ldkowitz.

47 Pacr Wdham M. Calder 111 d . .
drncr, JII69-J9JI "" A•r-' ·~ ., U/ruh IIOII Wr14mowitz-Morlltlldorff: Sdecrrd (.'cJI'f'I'SPI'''"
only by_ 1hok interes:;~"~~ th~~~~~~:~!::?t- 13: "Toda y Di~ Gt'burr du 1"ra.~¡jdit ~~ re a~
Wagnen:an opera to Gr k . tography of Nietzsche or thc rclanon °
remains thc fundamenta~o~~a~:!~~ ~;:~owitz' l:inlrirunR ill dit• ,erirchiuht• 'f'ra~ildlt
411 llover (1'174).
4IJ Nuulnum (I9K5), 14, plainly im Ir .
caull"ladu knowledgcofGr~ke•~~t~o~t, huwcver, llating ouniKht-that fo"-
an atm ; she apparently bases tha1 iminuatiotl ''"
 Notes to Chapter 3 1 !75

, ftcn uncritical use of sorne fauJty texts and translations in the bihngual Budé
foucault 50 1 to David Konstan, New York Times Book Review (December 22, 1985)
series: see her rep y
4• 29. h wever, repeatedly claimed that his thought owed less to phenomenology,
SO foucauhj· ~ and Marxism than it did to Nietzsche: see foucauJt (1984), 336; also,
s!rucrurla 15 d 'sennett, 3-5; Foucault, "final lnterview" (note 45, above), 8--9.
foucau t an
1 The phrase "thick descripti_on" .. was _app~?priate~ f~.om ~:lbert Ryle by Clifford Geertz
5 and applied to anthropologiCal readmgs of soctal texts : see Geertz, Thr lnterpretation
ofCultures: Selected Essays (New York, 1973), 5-20, 448-53.
52 Foucault (1978), 105-06.
53 Se< Flynn, 532-33.
54 See Foucault (1977), 146-47, 152-53, 158-59, 162-63, for further rem.arks on hisroric.al
objectivity.
55 Foucault (1984), 334-35.
56 Reiner Schürmann, " 'What Can l Do?' in an Archaeologic.al-Genealogical Hiscory,
journol of Philosophy, 82 (1985), 540-47, esp. 542.
57 Foucauh defines "problematization" as "the ensemble of discursive and non-discursive
pracrices that makes something enter into che play ofthe rrue and the false and conscirures
i! asan object of thought (whether in che form of moral retlection, sciencitic knowledgc.
political analysis or the like)": interview with Fran~ois Ewald, "Le souci de l.t veritt","
Ma~azint littérairt, 207 (May 1984), 18, quoted by Flynn, SJJ.
58 See Foucault and Sennett, 6, on the shifting significanceof m.tScurbarion in moraJ discoursc-
about sex.
59 ~f. G. Rattray Taylor, Sex in Hisrory (New York, 1954), JJ: "The history ofcivibz.trion
15 the history of a long warfare between the dangerous .tnd powerful iOrces of d)(' •d. .and
the various systems of taboos and inhibitions which man h.ts erected to control dx'm."
60 See foucauh (1983), 240; Foucaulr and Sennett, 3--5.
61 Fouc.ult (1983), 230; Foucault and Sennett, 3-5.
62 See, also, Foucauh (1983), 237--43. for an t"Xplanarion ofhis an.tlyrical method
63 See Foucault and Sennett, 5. To "Y· " ldkowiu, 465, does. th.r "~·,:~:.~:.
?ave been mterested in what Gr~k .~".d Rom.t_n wnren s.a•d about S('('flh" n!Jit" t"xao:tfy
mfluence on our ways of thmkm~ 1s tht"rdOf'(' to get hiS whole l'f'
backwards.
64 E.g., Moodie.
65 E.g. Edmunds. _ _ .. Nrw· )-..,t Ti~ lJN/1
66 See Flynn, 5.15, and J)o~,v¡rJ Kon.sto~.n, "Ll"ttt'r w the Ednur, ir in fouo,·.auk'~ ork .-d
Rrvirw (Dct·cmht•r 22, IW45) -4, who_'-~~~·rvt-s th~! tht- W'-~7d~~=" st11St' t-ur n:p~ •
conceptuo~.l vm:.ahulary dO('~ not S1fi!;ll~~·,. plcas~rt ~'; 1 ~h:n~-~f th'-· (;n"<'k ..,...".._."' , ..
Vt·m~culu L'qU.lV;IIt'nt-ollt~cu .an ob\IOUIIIy ~~~~b.aunr (!lltl5l, H. h.a) .1•\.'\IJO..J ftw&.·.a.ak
th_t.· SlllMU(.u). llm; punH 15 rrupo.JUIII, b<-n~ASC' r wt_•nl int.·rsl-utrhun.lll ~ rt..14tofl ·"' pie'...
ol cnrploying, unwutrn~ly. • niiiC'tt"<'nth-•.:con:,~lrts r~rurc---r 1• "'ho.-tht-t- f*...,..,.... D"'
an.l utn~.·.-,k\'1111¡.1; (,~~k ,·unrnrvt'~:·::: rvconn 011 ,,,-,~·K\ "--hu1 th.ll '""~"
!>Utt.·
al'trvlly, '". IOIUl"thru:~l lO 8 rl'ffklnS rr.a&:k-1
!>C'IIS.&IIOII, ólll
Arrstutt'han) pmblcorn.atr~. ('vuJc::;-~~ 1101 .~.... tilr
\>f rftc , . , - - -
trvm ~..... ~ _. •
!:"::
~~~~:~..;·,·.::•::,~:.:~i'co:r~cr~~~~:':::~~7,-al dnKoU~ b~ ph•toiuei..,.aJ ~r~n•mrc....'"~'" 1 ~
176 1 Notes ro Chapter 4

enou h of a classical scholar even ro pcrceive the issues," Nussbaum clairns), fouc
no:ds his'\exts with rather more precision than Nussbaum who, in her baste to ~lult
;ilamowitz to Foucault's Nietzsche, has apparently confused aphrodisia With lttdon~. ay
67 Hcinz Schrcckenberg, A, 11111der. U11ttrsutl11mgtn zur Gtschichre dts Wortgebraurhs => Zrrrr"11111
Jlt (Munich. 1964), esp. 50-61; Dover (1978), 61)-.62. '
(l8Stt Halperin (1985), 164-tí9.
69 Foucauh (198.1). 229; also, Foucault and Sennett, S-6; Foucault (1986), 141.
70 In Foucault and Senneu, 5-6, Foucault illustrares this sh~ft by attem.pting to document a
change in thr emphasis of sexual ethics from a concern wnh ~enetrat1on to a concern with
erce1ion. See, also, thesole published excerpt from Foucault s Volume Four, "Le combar
de la chasceté," in Philippe Aries and André Béjin, cds., Sexualitis occidtntalrs = Cormt~~mi­
ltltior~s, 35 (1982}. 15-25; translated into English by Anthony Forstcr in Aries and Béjin
(1985). 14-25.
foucault (1977), 144. See Charles Taylor, "Foucault on Freedom and Truth,"
a111/ rlrr Humarr Slirrrm: Philosophical Paptrs, 2 (Cambridge, 1985), 152-84.
for rhe incroduction ofthis term, see Michel Foucault, Discipline and Punish: The Birrh of
rht Priso11, trans. Alan Shcridan (Ncw York, 1977), 31.
73 See Foucauh (1977), for thc Nictzschcan distinction bctween Hrrltunfi ("provcnancc"),
EntsttlrunR rorigination"), and Urspnmx ("origin").
74 See Hcnriques, Hollway, Urwin, Couzc, and Walkerdinc, 104; also, Dreyfus and Rabi-
now, 11H-2S.

4 Heroes and their Pals

~~.carlicr vcrsion ofthis paper, entitled "Homcr and thc Literary Consnuction offriend-
sh!p, was prcscnt~d on Deccmbcr 30, 1987, ata Panel on PhilitJ, organizcd by GaiiAnn Rickerl,
al the ann_ual mecnng of1he American Philological Association in New York. 1 wish to rhank
lhe or~am~r of rhe Panel for inviling me lo join it as wcll as m y fellow pandists, Eva Stehlc,
~th Schctn, and Mary Whidock Blundell, for much stimulating discussion. 1 also wish lo
1 ank Mark W Edwards for a most hclpful critique of thc revised venion.

f¡,~· Fome~. TI.~ LD~xeu)oumty (New York, 1%2), 69 (chapter 7). C( Hammond and
t~ano::u:~~~i l:~~~~,',",~titutionalizacion, fr~cndship is more private, less open toscrutinr,
P lagc. Thcrc are no ntuals 10 describe and no slatistics to reporl.
2 More than one wants 10 kn b (, . k
c. M ,_: . AL;'- ow can e ound m the superb hiography by P. N. Furban •
· onrn. 1P (Ncw York, 1977-1978).

3 forsttr himKif suggests such an · . . d

mg: .. Nature has no use for _mtc.rprctauon m the coded passage ¡ n_1ediatcly prc,~· -
~usb.ands, rL,ponslbk fathcr~· sh, ha.s cut her stuff diffcrcntly. Jluu~ul su1~s, lo~lll~
IR our span: time. Abram and s:~e~ a~c whac shc wants, and if Wl" an· fncnds 11 must h:
sea, and di 11trilct' the politin of E~~:c~r sor~owful, Yl'l their Sl't"d bccamL' as sand o~.~~ll
that ~ourv!Yes of l>avid and Jonatha P.~ at ~h1s mo_mrnt. Out a fcw vcrsl"S uf poetrY rs ul
acrcpto~m:e. n. h IS a typtcally Forstcrio~n fusiun uf prutL'SI ar
4 Hanunoud andj,.hlow 241 h .
llonalrz.ed frtcnds1np~bl 1 ~~,:,:;un by wa~ of connast to 1he pronunenn· of cnsut~:
rtac•. Htnce,soctal•nenarsts knd rs, trad~ fnends, bund friends--in nou-WL'Sitrn llK.
chanctcn re of thc W .. 10 rcgard thr compara1ively infurmal 11 un of fricndshiP
ese as ,. vague msmuuon," evcu an Minsututionalized nun-instiiU-
 " uasi~instirurion" (justas the role of"friend" is "a quasi-rolc"): for refcrences,
•icll"o<' q d andJablow, 243, 257.
secJ-lamrnon
• Se< Tigay. 2. . . . d"
' . 23-JS, summar1zmg earher stu 1es.
6 Scc T•gay,
Sct gencrally. Tigay.
1 ' be t G May and Bruce M. Metzger, eds., The New Oxfortl Annotated Bible wilh
8 sccHcr r ·
,¡,Apo"yph• (New York, 1977), 330.
8 r sce rext at note 50, below, on Sthenelus and Dei'pylus in Homcr. The friendship
9 be~ween Sthenelus and Diomedes also seems to mirror, if only distandy, rhar bcrween
Achilles and Patroclus (compare, for examplc, lliad 16.97-100 with 9.45-49).
10 David is rhe only one of the six whose wife is menrioned, although Jonathan was
undoubtedly married: his childrcn figure in 2 Samuel. Achilles and Parrodus each have
rhcir own concubines-though Achilles has more than one, and Patrodus's concubine is
agift from Achilles (/liat/9.663-68, 24.675-76). Gilgamesh's closest family mcmber seems
to be his mother Ninsun.
Hammond andjablow, 245: "Thc tradition always dramatizes the devotion bcrwccn maJe.~
fricnds, usually a dyad, forgcd in an agonistic setring."
12 See Hammond and Jablow, 241-42, for an cmphasis on the ideological signiticancc of
this postulare.
13 C(. lionel Tiger, Mtn in Groups (New York, 1969}.
14 See thc discussion by Tigay, 29-30.
IS All citations ofrhe Gilgamesh Epic, unless othcrwise noted, refel" ro thc:- late ("Assyrian"
or "Standard Babyloniann) version and employ the customary merhod o( cirarion by
tablct, column, and line. 1 ha ve specified rhe Assyrian version hrre b~:cause 1am expliatly
concerned in this context with the Old Babylonian version.
Tigay, 30; also, 46, n. 26, for l"eferences ro Enkidu's being ''likr'' Gdgamt."Sh in rhe Okf
Babylonian vcrsion.
All English quotations from rhe Gilganu:sh Epic, unlt."Ss othrrwisc noraf. are- Jeriva:l
from the translation by E. A. SJX"iser. in .iná,·m -"~"' &utf'nt 1i.·xrs r~·lo~ri~tl 1" ":;1:.'()1;/
Trstamrm, t.•d. J. H. Pritchard, 3d t.-d. wirh supplt. (Prinn-ton. 1969: here~tter :t. n.
72-99. Jacobsen (l'J76), 199. says Enkidu is "l!'quo~lly as srron!t" ~s Gilf(.lmt."Sh.
18 Unlcss thc prostitutc, who spe.1ks rh1s lilw. 1s mt.•rd,.· .lth:'nlphng ro rousc.· EnkiJu tt~·
appcaling to his l·ompt.•ririvc spirir.
So (ircsserh, 15. On this panc.·n1, st.'C.' o~mmond .anJJ~blow . .25!-SJ.
C[ GtC"ssclh, 15-lh. . . h" Gil ~h F.p•,· ,.nJ dK' Jlwl._
01111
Fnr other nnnpar.uivc.· lrc.":ltmt.•llfs ol di<' lnc.•nJsh•F'1 1" 1 . B IL ,-ump.an~lft ~"· .,~11 o1
St.•t• Sinos, 5H; MaL-(~uy, Hl~).J. 1117 1 h.1w nC'II Sl'C'II a nsrelll.lt
thl· thn'C.' rd.uionships dis,·usn-d hc.•rt

Su l:n·sst.•lh. . ,. l\, .1 nun·..· lhor~•U~Ch .&nJ uatoch· .an.ah~ '.

1 nvt·r~o~mpht)· ht.•r..• lur rh,· . ,. ul ._'C.-~"."ml), 111 thc v..arious t'lrr.l.llfl '"''""''"" .~r rft,.• f.f*.
l:IIK•nu·~h's mutiv~uun • .15 al 11 n.•pn'St'nle"\i
'it"l' funych . .!S-:.~7

!_. 1_1t1Uuw 1hc 1 ~''"'r~·tauun.ufT•K~~. •:~ hc"umn-. •~f""wlh M,,.......,..~

!~ l·ur parallcla; 111 •m·lt"nl N' ar E.nt"rn
111v1h11. II.'C' TIM.IY, lf•4-hr;.
178 ¡ Notes to Chaptcr 4

26 Thc passagc is brilliantly discussed by Redfacld, 99-103.

27 Sttjacobsen (l 97fi), 215-17. So in the Sumerian myth, entitled."Gilgamesh and the land
of the Living" by ¡15 translator Samuel Noah Kramer .. t~e s1ght of people dying had
prompted Gilgamesh 10 joumey ro t~e Cedar Mountam m order to sct up his narne·
Tigay. 29. For an altemate interprrtauon ofthe rdevant passage, sce Forsyth, 2S-2fí. ·
28 Ser the discussion by Tigay, 167-69.
29 1havedeparted from Speiser's translation by reading, ~ith Tigay, 168, "a spouse" instead
of"thy spouse" in line IJand by restoring "woman" mstead of"mankind" in line 14: see
Tigay. 168, note 17, for thc evidcnce on which this restoration is based.
30 Scc: Kilmer, 131.
31 Critics who complain about the Gilgamesh Epic's supposed "pessimism" (see the survey
by Gresseth, 2-3) may be reacling to this theme; for an alternare view of the poem, scc
Held, 139-40.
Ser. generally, Giuseppe Furlani, "Das Gilgamesch-Epos als Hymnus auf die Freund-
schaft, .. trans. Rüdiger Schmitt, in 04s Cii,Ra,u•sth-Epos, ed. Karl Obcrhuber, Wege der
Forschung, 215 (Darmsudt, 1977), 219-36.
33 The Akkadian words are ibru and ldpp11: Tigay, 30. For line rcferences in the early versions,
stt Tigay. 30, note JO. and 46, note 25.
34 Tigay, 29-JO.
35 Stt UÍilliam Berg, E.rly Vi~il (London, 1974), 15-17; Halperin (1983), 91-94.
JI> Scc Tigay, 198-213.
37 For references, stt Tigay, JO, note JO.
38 F~r opposing views, arguing for the existence of a sexual component in the love between
Gllgamesh and Enkidu, see jacobsen (1929/30); Kilmer; Held, 137.
39 See Tigay, HH.
4 ° For a detailed discussion of the sexual ¡
136-37.
ilmer;

41 ANET, 7~.
42 Tigay, HS.

43 ~~~·;:bsm (192\1/30), 69, n. 2, and, now, Tigay, JO, not<lt; 184, no!< 22; 274, ,dGilg.
44 5ft- Kilmer, 1311.

4S :=;· Tigay, 1114·not< 22. Kilm«, 130, emphasiae> Gilgamesh's tejection ofthc aJ<-wtfi•
Jac::: ~;;~r -;:~he supplement to Tablet X. iii, printed in ANI::'T, 507. S~. al~oh
Enkidu com ~ . t':.l, who remarks, "Throughout thc epic 1hc rrlalionshtp Wll
. pe wnh, and replaces, marriage" (p. 21Hn.).
46 HaJpcnn (1983), '16-':.17.
47 The E.uly Source is of cou . ·
Jonalhan:'" 2 ~~uel ':.l:l~.iaware ofthc tradinon ofthe covenant between IJavt
48 Naay. 2'12-«:fl; al10 s 21j.... ·e
·n.,~ utd IJ ' anos,. 311; ~ore rec.:mtly, V A. L. (;reenhalgh. "The H~rnc_n
.~,,. (Umv ~ofutd then Ha•tor•nllmplicatiun1," BMIInin of 1lw lnslifMtr .,¡ CWIIc.l
""•Y Lundon), 2"1 (19112). 81- 1.
 M"cary. 127-36 .
.s9 9 A fresh review of the various intcrprctations of the mcaning of phi/os in
51'1 Clnkc. ~
·scholars ha ve put forward, togcther with a defense of the word's emorivc
~omcr. t athas lately been provided by James Hooker, "Homeric phi/os," Glolla, 65. J-
d11ncnslon.
2(1981). 44-65.
51 See. for example, /liad 9.190-91, wirh rhe remarks by Clarke, 390-91.
52 S« Redficld, 7.
SJ Scc Beye, 8, who also notes that not every repetition of a simile in Homer is nccessarily
significant. Cf. Cedric H. Whitm¡an, Homer and the Heroic Tradítíon (New York, 1958),
279-80.
54 So Clarke, 390.
SS Beye, 8.

56 See Nagy, 102-11; Sinos, 41, with references to earlicr discussions.

57 See Nagy, 108--09, who compares this passagc to 9.628-38.
58 Similar/y, Gilgamesh storms over the corpse ofEnkidu "like a Jion, Like a lioness deprived
of(her) whelps" (VIII, 18-19): nored by M. L. Wesr, )Review of Burkert (1984)/.
l••m•lof Hel/enic Srudirs, 106 (1986), 233-34, esp. 234.
59 For ' differenr inrerprerarion of rhe meaning of rhe double burial, see Sinos. 58-<;.2.
60 This is elearer in rhe case ofrhe Gilgamesh Epic and rhe Books ofSamuel, bur see M. L.
~est, "The Rise ofthe Greek Epic,"JounuJ/ ofHt>llt'nit Studit>s, 108 (1988), 151-72. esp.
70· on the late inftux of Near Eastern ideas and themes inro the Grerk cpic rr.adirion-
a _cultural repertory to which belongs, in Wesr's view, rhe lirerary el.abor.arion of rhe
frrendship of Achilles and Patroclus in rhe flitMJ as we h.ave ir; more gener.ally. \VaJrer
Burkert, "Oriental Myth and Literature in rhe Uiad," in Hiigg, 51-Sh, .and 8urkerr (1'.184).
Cf._ J:iammond andJablow, 246: "With hindsight, rhe n.arratives offri_endship secm ro bC'
pohtrcal propaganda for abrogating familia) ties in favor ofm.ale sobdariry ...
62 See Vlastos (19HI), 11-19; Richard Kro~ut, "Egoism. Love . .and Poliric.al Ofli« rn Plaro.
Philosopllical Rrviru•, 92 (1973), JJU-44. esp. JJ6-J7; and c.·f Aristode's L·ririque In tM
P"Iilics 2.1262bl-25.
f>.l Roc•ntly, Clarke has argued for thc S<'xu•l ont<rprern;on; tor rount<r-ar~uon<nts. '';
D. S. Barren "The Frie11dship uf Ac.·hilln and l,atrodus," C/.usu11l &111'till, 5 7 .h (Apn
19HI), H7-9J.'and Patzer. 94--98. Sec, tcenrrally. llovrr (J97H), IWt-9'9. A ~ood comrru-
mise is ofl'ered by Mac.·Cary. 178-'lU.
r~ Thc lirc.-rary !;uurc.·es ho~w h..-en nlllcc:rc.·d hy Scct:an Radt <111 AcsL·hylus. li ~·~hZ!
survcy uf che pi~·torial cvidenn.•, SC."'.' Stclla G. Millrr, "Eros ~~~~ r::.~:::.;!.L~
Am,•rimll .J••Urnfll ·~/".4nhiii'''"~Y· 90 (19116). 159-70, ~p. 16.'t-t.o •
,._, 1
h.,.
schol~nhip un Aes,·hylm's Aollillf'is

hS S« Xcnuphun, Symp.,sium M.:\ l.

i'lfl (:Jnkc.•, .lKM. . d "l'heM ..kiiiJICtl.dWCWr~H

ft7 :::·~~!~~~ ~~:;:;~~:.-::.~:s;:,~:.:':',!~!:n::::~a:IJ~Ih"'· ~- -~ , Yu ct ,_.......
1'17.1\. "1-11\.&
180 ¡ Notes to Chapter 5

5 The Democratic Body: Prostitution ond

Citizenship in Classicol Athens

Earlicr versions ofthis essay ha ve appearcd ~nder th~ title, "Aten e, il corpo violato," in LD storia
dtllaprostitu::iolll', ed. Guido Ruggicro = Stona r Dos.ut>r, 4._25 (January 1989): Dossit>r, 4-23. and
undcrthcpresent tidein the South Atlantic<?uartrrly, ~8.1 (Wmt~r ~ 989), 149-6(~, and in Diffirrllcrs,
4 (19R9), forthcoming. 1am gratc:ful to Gu1do Rugg•ero, for ongmally proposmg that 1 writcthis
cssay, and ro John J. Winkler, for encouraging meto do so and a~visin~ me ~very ~tep ofthe way.
Michaeljameson providcd me with gencrous hdp and much Stlmulatmg d1scussJon throughout
thc revision of thc paper; Cynthia B. Pattcrson offcred valuable and friendly criticism. David
Cohcn, Susan Gucnd Cole, Thomas A. J. McGinn, andjosiah Ober read the penultimate draft
and contributed further comments and corrections. An abbreviated version was delivered as a
lecture ata panel on "Body Politics and Bodies Politic in the Classical World" ata conference on
"Pedagogy &: Politics" at The Lesbian and Gay Studies Center at Vale on October 30, 1988, whcre
it bencfited from a lively discussion. All remaining imperfections are m y own.

Thc documents relating to prostitution in the ancient Greek world ha ve been collected
by Schneider; Brandt, 329-410, 436-40; Herter; Krenkcl (1978) and (1979); and Keuls,
15}-203. 1 have freely pilfered from these compilations.
We do not hear from any classical Greek source of women frequenting maJe prostitutes
(but cf. Aristophanes, fcclesinzusnr 877-1111 and Wetdlh 959-10%; later, Parmenion, 13
IGow-Page, who n01e the novelty of the themel): the Iaws goveming citizenship, mar-
riage, and inhcritance in thc classical Greck city-state, and the social customs giving men
control of women's sexual choices, madc such a possibility unthinkable. But we do
hear ..'h?ugh_ quite exceptionally, of women patronizing female prostitutes: our fullest
dc~cnpt1on, _m a second-century A.D. author (Ludan, DitJIORUts of the CourleSdtJS 5),
mtght explam the otherwise cnigmatic allusion ro helnirisrriai by Plato's Aristophancs at
SympoJiutn 191c2-S, wcre it not that Ludan (5.2) seems ro have sct out deliberatcly ro
gl?ss the Platonic passage. Cf. also Anacreon, fr. 13 (PMG 358, p. 183); Asclepiades, 7
(Gow-Page). Sec, gcncrally, llover (1978), 172-73.
Male prostitution in dassical Athens has not been much studied: Brandt, 436-40; Dover
~ 97 8), IIJ.-.4:2; and K_renkcl (197M) and (1979), 183--MS, provide general discussions. For
;;:~~~~=~ sec (m addition ~~_Aeschines, 1, our bcst sourcc) Lysias, 3; Aristo~h~ncs,
constructi~n of ~~~~:; ,~;,:ornbllln 1.~.1_3; 1Dcmosthcncs,J Lrtrer 4. 11; Wilamow•tz s re:
JKH p 195). C . ofEupohs(m Kock, 1, 33U);andcf. Anacreon, fr. 43.5 (PM<·
Athrnian c~mi:a;;::· ,~fe: !:•~ess ~thrr~i~ notcd, all ~italions of rhc fragmcnts of ~ht•
citiun forcxcrcising his civic ri ~11ck 5 cchtlo~). In the mtdst of prosccuting an Athcllla~
a prostnutc (scc bclow), Ac,.ch~nc 5 after havang 1ost h1s legal daim to thcm throu_gh bL'III~
tcmptinKtoundcrmincthepnctic;~; 195· hast~ns ~o rca_ssurc thc cot~rt that he ~s nu~ oll
lstomakcsurcthatthoscwho ursue"ma_lcprosututlon: h1s prufcsscdoum, nn tht•~:on_tnr,y .
and n·•idc.-nt alicnuo 1u 11011 b pd . such young m en as arecasily caught turn tn fon:tgn~ rs
cluzcn,. m tht' procc:s5. Ma~ ;":::::~~fW:Irarrlu.·~prr.frr" Wlt_hout c;ausmK h.&rm tu Atlwn•an
Athm~us, thc compilt·r of a late o~rnin :: c1las.slcal At~ens tstrcatcd .1s ~ rnu~ull' rnar_u·r h;,
Ac:lc:hn~e,., 1 7S-7f1), AleiU!i,l"r 242 . E ~li ttnary nusccllany, wh~ ntcs (m add~uun '.
l.o~en•us, 2.9.1115. That ptu!Uitution,in~,, 1 ~:!1ou15 • fr. 241; d. Aulu~o (iclhus, 2.K. 1-4; 1)¡ogt·m,:
d¡c da!ililt:al pcnud by l>emu~thent's 22 M nalrs a!i wcll asfcnulcs 1stakcn fu,·gro~ntctll
12.l.l2,andaruundthcturnofthe ' d · · 111 thl' ~mnd c:cntury U.(:. "y Pulyh11n.
ChryMnlom. 7 133, and ~pu.:tetua~~ ce•nury A.l >. by even•ut·h 5tern morahsts o~s lllll
refltfnlt:a tu Jnalt" pru1 t1tuluJn 111 l~tl';•::;:~::·!~:~~~~~:~lliltch, Mor~tliiJ 751Jf-7f'Ak:. Fur
 . ¡; ·res 25-26 (trans. Macleod); on the genre ofthis debate, to which Plurarch's
¡ ~do-Lu';;'"hill: Tatius, 2.3J-38, also belong, sec Friedrich Wilhelm, "Zu Achilles Tarius,"
,.,_.uandM~mm.für Philolo~ie, 57 (1902), 5S...75 {passages from rhese works are cired in
Rht~ms~t~f"Why ¡5 Diotima a Woman?" in this volume). For orher complaints about thc
~~~:, artributcs of maturing males, similar to the complaints voiccd herc, sec rhe Palatint
~,~ogy, 5.277 (Erarosrhenes Scholasricus); 11.326 (Auromedon: 10 JGow-PageJ); and 12220
{Srnro). 1r ¡5 rypical ofso.me lar~ antrque. author~ ro articulare exphady rhe sexual assumpt1ons
which dassical authors eJther d1d not wrsh or drd not need to spcll out.
Scc, e.g., Xenophon, Symposium 4.28; Alcaeus of Messene, 8; Asdepiades, 46; Mdeager,
90, 94; Phanias, J; Philip, 59 (Gow-Page); Plurarch, Moralia 770bc; Phi Jostra tus, Letters
13, 14; Palatine Antholo~y. 5.277; 11.51, 326; 12.186, 191, 195, 220. Cf. Theognis, 1327-
28; l'lato, Protagoras 309a; Diocles 4 (Gow-Page); Palatint Antholo~y. 5.28 (Rufinus); 1J.SJ;
12.13, 21, 39, 40, 174 (Fronro), 176, 204, 215, 249; Arhenacus, 12.518ab, 13.605d; ps.-
lucian, ErOtts 10. Many furthcr sourccs are cited, in thc course of a general discussion of
this theme, by Tarán, who properly notes thar the tirst appearance of down upon a boy's
cheeks is often treated by Greek writcrs as an enh,uuemmt of his attracrivencss: l'.g ..
Homer, Iliad 24.347-48 and Odyssey 10.278-79; Plato, Protagoras JfJ9ab; Xenophon.
Symposium 4.23; Thcocritus, JS.RS; anda variery oflater aurhors, induding Philosnarus,
Lrllers 13 and 15, who expatiates upon this tapie. See, aJso, MarriaJ, 11.22, wirh rhc
va~ua.ble commcntary by Kay, 118--21, esp. 120. The evidence provided by Gn'Ck VJsc.--
pamtmgs corroborares this testimony: sec Dover (1978), 71; Golden (1984). 3.22.
Athenaeus, 13.564f, 56Sf; cf. Philostratus, Lmer 58. (This appears ro relfel·t a l.ater
misundersranding of rhe Sroic doctrine of erOs, which defined ercis not .:1s a dc.'Srre ro hne
sex but as "an impulse ro form friendships, according ro Diogcnes Laernus. 7. IJU: sa.·
the entries 66C and 670, with arrachcd commenrary. in A. A. Long and D. N. Sl-dk·)•.
~ds.'' The Hellenistic Phi/osoplrers ICambridge, 1987J, J, 423, 430: 11. 41N-IIJ, 424.) for an
lllSIStencc on preserving an isomorphic relarion bl·twl'C'I1 .Jg't'-l'.:ltl"goril'S and Sl'XU.JI roles.
sce the Pale~ti11e Amholo~y. 12.228, 255.
Anaxilas, fr. 22; Amiphanes, fr. 26.12-15; EpKratt'S. fr. 2J.1; Machon ..\llll-.111\t~~·).;
illso, Philctacrus, fr. 9; Timocks. fr. 25: Herod1cus (quotl-d b\· .A.rhl•n.Jl'Us. l... ).
Palatifl'' Antholo~y. 5.21; 6.1, 18-.211• .28J: 11. .260: 1 l.tl7, 71-7.1, 1-';t..
8 ludan, Dialo~ul's ofdre c,,,,·smu 11 . .1. 1.2.5; p,¡,,,;,,,..-tnth••l•':f:Y· 11 hl'l. Cf Ph•l,lSturus.
Lmer22.
9 lucian, Di,do~u 1·s 1,ftln· (.'tmrlt'$JIU Jl ..l; I'J/JIItli' .intlto•lo~e)·· '1 IJoJ. 11 1'?-t'IIJ (~f A..:hdk~
Tarius, 2.JH ..2; ps.~Lut'I.Jn, l:'nitl'l .JO; Po~/o~riPit' .intlt.•l·~ey. 11 M. ""~
Alex1s. fr IJH.7-H. (~f Xt·nuphun, (}('1-,,,.,,,,.-,,, 1tl.2
. 1' ., l ' f 1 \':<oi.JS. 1 l.f. Ansnoph.NK~.
~k·x1s, fr. 9H.17: M.uuo~l, 1 72.h;, Alophn•n., .f - - ,¡.- 'Ri i. x,·nuph~lfl, (}¡·.,.,...,....._.
l:rdrsia.:.ll.s.r1·.H7H, 929, W72, .lthl Uc·J/111 ltlto.J, F.~.~·d;•;·-44ltl, .auJ. li.•r 1... r,·~~·al ~
111.2; IJ1u <..hry!oUSlUIII, 7 117: /'o./oJIUU' .1llth.~•-~.~ ~Urlhl•r, Lloi\'J li ~~·v~l_,.l, l'lrn ~
l'l'IMUphu·.alun·urn·nn·s.l SJ, ~.v pJrHiylllf<llf. Sn:. . ¡, ) -'""'"'' ,,, iJK Hr.•""'t ..
Ml·;&~IJIIK uf rht• Wunl,(.'rnmo~ .1nJ l'llt,.IIIIIN71.:~~~:J:;;:~ •.;.t.'.
11 ._,.,.. ,·tlt"j ..... . - .
M¡•Juilll'oJHfl,illrooJSou'flol''• l11(1oJ~5), ltloJ..-111,
l'omltf1NIIt' Jln'l<l'"' (1 vun. 1~7"i), .U-.l~
'u·~·. Ml'twro~lly, linll•·• tt•n·,·•uus nurt:l, es
1\n!llluph.an,•. l.fH (K.a~:-d-Au~ounl •thr l.ath.'r l•••h·· .urlh•"~h•t'• .. ~·
A\tlt·platt.'w., t. .antl 1!\ (( iu" t•.a.-,o•, ~·lll' ~~"
- l'ttlotfiNr Allllloll•':ltY· :\ 11_1.t .an~l 211.:! !rw.-.: A
r;!: t'anW'f'lll'· "'\u l•'f'M•k·, t.•ll 1 ,..,.......

l·nlr"y, 27~-.11.12, r'!ill .!'U. 11:\

182 1 Notes to Chapter 5

15 Philodemus, 2 (Gow-Page); PtdtJtint t\nt~olo.u. 5.20, 26, 304: Phil~stratus, Leller SI·
cf. Ovid, An 11matorill 2.6~ .. 1n the s1xth century A. D. Paul~s Sdentiarius clairncd
to prefer the old age of one Phdmna to the charms of a young g1rl (Palt~tir~r AntltoloRy,
5.258).
16 Aristophancs, fr. 1~ (Kassel-Austin); X~archus, fr. 4:9; Asclepiades, 41 (Gow-Pagc);
Machon, 422-24 (Gow): Plurarch, Moralu1 12Sab; Ptdtlllnt Ar~tholoRy, 6.47, 11. 73. Once
again, the vasr-paintings corroborare the evidence derive~ f~om literary sources: for older
women shown as prosritutes, see Keuls, 176-86, who VIVIdly conveys the harshness of
their lot. For the depicrion offemale prostitutes on Greek vases, see, generally, Ottoj,
Brendel. "The Scope and Temperament of Erotic Art in the Greco-Roman World," in
Studits in Erorir Art, ed. Theodore Bowie and Cornelia V. Christenson (New York, t 970),
~9. esp. 19-42; Sutton, 46-56, 99-105, 290-304, 347-69.

17 For some expressions of resistance to this rule, sec Euripides's celebrated remark about
Agathon ('"even the autumn of beauty is beautiful"), related by Plutarch, Moralia 770c,
and by Aelian, V11ri11 Histori11 13.5; see, also, Strato in the Palatint Anthology 12. 10, 178,
248; Philostratus, Utttr 15: discussion by Tarán, 103--05.
18 See Dov" (1978), 172.
19 Aeschincs, 1.95; cf. Pherecrates, fr. 71.
20 See, in addition to the texts cited in notes 4 and 5 (above), Alcaeus of Messene, 7, and
Thyrnoclcs, 1 (Gow·Pagc); P11latint Atrthology, 12.229 (Strato).
For thc sexual appcal of rnale youthfulness to women, see Homtrir Hymn to Aphroditt
225-36; Dio Chrysostorn, 7.117; Pausanias, 7.23.1-2; Lucian, DitJioRuts oftht Courtes11ns
7.2-3; ps.·Lucian, HrOtts 9; Pal11ti11t A11tholoRY· 6.76 (Agathias Scholasticus).
22 Alexis, fr. 264; Lucian, Tht l.Rnorant Boolt-Colltrtor 23. See the discussion of the depiction
of Agathon in Attic comedy by Dover (1978), 144.
23 Sec, for cx.arnple, the díscussion of "the smooth style" in masculine grooming habits
throughout antiquity by Glcason, at notes 63 and 64.
24 Scc Acschincs, 1:94, 162 {idcntifying the Mclient"lmiithósammoil with the "senior" (pm·
byrrros_l partncr m the relationship); cf. Ephippus, fr. 20; Demonhencs, 19.233, 285;
Aeschmes, 1.194; Timaeus, FGrHisr 566, fr. 124b.
25 zmhin"'·. 1.119-20; Pollux, 7.21lbe< Hme<, 106; Dove< (1978), 30. The aneienl5ou•c<:5
R':,~~=~:~g -~~15 tax hav_c bL'Cn assembled by Th. Lenschau, "l'omikotr ttlo1," in Paulys
1
(Stunsa~. 0~~~~. 41: ~ 1~~~hrn Altt'r1um5wiurmch"'fi, cd. Georg Wissowa, vol. 22, P'· 1
26 Winklcr (19H9Ja); cf. Parker, 95 .
TI Sec Hertcr, Mh.

2H ~:. ~omerh llie~~ 1 4~3.1-4(); Hcsiod, ThroRony 56-57; Herodolus, 1.21.13.2; DiHoi Lo.eoi
id~rus~n;:,.i:c~ili~= 1 ;~ 5·4·3l-34; Apollonius ofRhodcs, ArRonllufica 2. HI1S-25; Arlcnl·
IUH; Walcot, 14S-4fí. {;( Athen~cus, 12.S17ef: discussion by llover (1974), 206; Ar.thur.
requircd could be: mini~ ~ese hines, l. 74, 90; l>emo~tthenes, 22.22. ~he degrec or pnvarY
bu . . a • by uur itandards at lcast: Sophodes is sa1d to have made loVL'
lU a Yuu~suk thc nty wall or Athen5, lying upon thc boy's hime~tior1 (or Mdoak") and
wr~PP 10 K 1 e two of_them in his own chlamis ("mande"): Athenacus, 13.fJil4dL·; scc, alsu,
~,:~~~ ((.ow·I-'•Kr). S1~ilar expcdientl ~re depicted on AltiL' vasL"-painrin
. 3-.:,
) • ~. An ex,epuon to all th1s wuuld havc bec-n !iCK wnh hirL'
mtt'n.a•nrn, amon1 fricnd1, at an all·male 1ymposium: 1ec Appcndix 2 IUr Jctail~.
 Notes lo Chaptcr 5 1 lllJ

r rhe l'eiraeus, scc Aristophanes, ~ean: 165, with schoJia; Acschincs, 1.40; Thco.pompus
!'1 ~Chios. FGrHist 115, fr. 2911; Alc1phron, 1.6.2; Pollux, 9.5.34. For the CeramiCus, see
Alcxis. fr. 203; thc scholia tJd Anstophancs, .Km~hts 772, andad Plato, Parmettidts 127c;
Hesychius, s. v. KmJtneikos. For furthcr dcta1ls, see Hcrtcr, H5-86, HH.
Xcnophon, Mtmorobilia 2.2.4, who doubtless exaggerates thc extent o( prostirurion o~t
Arhens for rhetorical effect.
JI 1infcr from rhc cvidence 1 ha ve prescnted thus far rhat m ale prosrirurion in dassicaJ Arhcns
did indeed exhibir a specifically paederastic character (so, also, KrenkeJ fi97RJ, 49). Therc
is, of course, no way of knowing whether rhe paederasric modd, which mapped onto
rhedininction oflifc-stages bctwcen man and yourh a whole series offurrher hierarchit·.al
distinctions in sexual conduct between active and passive, insertiveand receprive, dominanr
and submissivc, and desiring and non-desiring roles, was mainrained in rhe world of thc:
maJe brothel, espccially since a customer could prcsumably obtain wharever he was willing
ro pay for. In late antiquity Greek authors occasionally menrion males hiring orher males ro
pcnetrate thcm sexually (the eunuch pricsts ofthe Syrian goddess Atargaris in ps.-Lucian,
Tlle Ass 35-38, are a c:~se in point), but our besr evidence for rhis marker derives ti-on~
Roman sources:Juvcnal's Ninth S:~ tire, forexample, portraysa malehusderby tht•nameot
Nacvolus who considcrs a largc penis ro be a husrler's chiefsexual asscr (fv,~r:i tm·murtl ;,.-o_e-
llilnllervi: 34;pem•m Jrxitimum: 43-44) and who, although he will sexuaiJy pt·nerrare .m yont--
malcor femalc-who pays him (cf. 25-26), depends for his Jivelihood on .. dulr _m .. Jes; t•ven
Naevolus, howevcr, customarily rakespains rolook boyish (12-15). Cf. Perromus, ~2 - ~- 9·
105.9;Seneca, Natura1Qu('stio 11s 1.16.1-3; Marcial, J. 96.10-13, 9.33; IJ.hJ, 88; IJ¡oC.tssl
80.16.1-5. See, gcnerally, Kay, 179, 208, ad Marri.al. 11.51 .. nd tiJ. Iris probable thólt in
classical Athcns, however, male brothds catt•red l.ugdy roadulr men 's ras te for ~~ole_sc:nrs.
which secms to ha ve been for inserrive anal intercourse: s«, c.g. Tlm.Jt>US, f-(,rHt.(f Stih.
fr. 124b (discussed by Dover (1978(, 103). .
32 Sce, for cxamplc, the reviews of K. J. Dovt•r's Grl.'dt HcJmc•ü•.nt.rlity b~· E.., l. Bo\\-"lt" In
Th" Prlican (1978-79), 39-42, and by Robinson, lhl--fl2. Gllltr.r, S.Jrtrt", -· 1
33 Plutarch, Moralia ?S la 752a; Lucian, Dialc~(!ut'! ~~r tlft' C.•tlrti'JJII.• lO: Akrphwn.
Athenaeus, 13.572b; ps~-Lucian. t::rcit,·5 21-2-f ..ll. J5• .JH-.f~. 51
34 See, also, Acsch;ncs. l. 132-35.
j
35 Scc Foucauh (19HS), 195-%. l
l
184 1 Notes to Chapter 5

9.3h.H; cf. Lysias, 1.30; Aristotle, C"nstitution ofAthtru 7.1, 57.3: discussion by Harrison
32-33; Col< (1984), 100. '
43 Cf. lysias, 1.24-26, 49 (a phrasc uscd to defme slaves by Dio Chrysostom, 15.24);
lucus. K.44; Xenophon, Mtmt.JrabílitJ 2.1.5; IDcmosthcnes,J 59.65-66: for an ingeniaos
intcrprctation of these passages, sec Cohen, 158-59, who observes that the practice of
killing thosc adulteren caught in the act may ha ve fallen out of fashion in Athcns by
thc dassical pcriod. Punishmmts for adultery-in thc popular imagination, at lcast-
comprised aporhaphtJHítlósis, or "radishmcnt" (anal rape ofthe seduccr by means ofradishcs
ldaikon?J), and (pubic?) hair-pulling: sec (with scholia) Aristophancs, Clouds 1083; Tltts·
mophoritJzusar 537; Wtalrh 168, and, for a skcptical commemary, David Cohen, "A
Note on Aristophanes and the Punishmcnt of Adultery in Athenian Law," Ztitschrift dtr
Sauigny-Srifiungfor Rrclrtsgtschiclut (Romani11ischc Abteilung), 102 (1985), 385-87.
44 For the exhibition of prostitutcs to customers, see (in addition to Philcmon, fr. 4, quoted
bdow), Euhulus, frr. 67, 84; Philostratus. Lrrrrr 19; and thc vases discusscd by Keuls,
15M-59.
45 Compare Eubulus, fr. 67; Xcnophon, Mtmorabilia 1.3.14-15 and Symposiutn 4.38; Cerci·
das, fr. S (Powell); Diogcnes Lacrtius, 6.4; lucretius, 4.1063-67; Horacc, Satirts 1.2.111-
l4; Marcial, tJ.32.
46 lysia~~o, 1.32; Acschincs, 1.15.
47 Se< Foucauh (1985), 1'17-'1!1.
48 ~cschincs, 1.138-3':1; Plutarch, Morali4152d, 751b, and Lift ofSolon, 1.3. Furthcr sourccs
IR M.-H.-E. Mcier, Histoirr Jr l'amour grrc dans l'antiquiti, rcv. cd. by L.-R. de Pogcy-
Castrics {París, 1930), 284-90.
4tJ Cf. Ari5lophane!t, BirJs 137-42.
50 Aeschincs, 1.9-12, 111.
51 Foucault (teniS), 198.
52 Scc Halpcrin {1986), 63-66, and scction 6 of"Why is Diotima a Woman?"
53 Dover (1978), 81-91; Vlastos (19'K7), tJ>%.
54 Sec llover {197M), 1t 1-24.
SS Anchines, 1.1, 3, 14 19 21 28-29 -4'l 46 5 88
195; lkm01thencs, 22.21- 4
2 JO- ' : • 1, 72-73,87, 119, 134, 154, 160, 164, 1 •
di~eussionoftMevrdcncc,sC::Ilo:;· ~f. llemos1hcncs, 24.1K1; 45.79. For thc dcarcst
account by Hansm, 54---914,
np. 74 23-34; also, thc highly dcta~lcd an~ ~alu~blc
.'!h:),
For a discussion ofhow thc: law was ."h~uld, ho_wcver, he rcad wtth a crmcal cyc.
§(1 f th 1" · l . b apphed m pracncc, sce Winklcr (19K9/a).
1 ;:'mO:,::~.c~,J~~;, =~;~~~~e tria! ofTimarchus, Acschincs, 1.1-2, 19-2CI;
sc. ""C
57 For 1hc: discinction betwa..-n "aulomatit·" and wh " ..
~~« Hamwn, ct.p. f-/~,7 The vcry fact that onc:c< 1at 1 have bccn nlling "formal awru~.
~ormallllim/4 ("by &cntcnu·," In Hansm' ~ na d _&oto court to t.ccurc anothcr pcrson _5
In cla~osrcal Athrn• w;rs, in prat:tit:c, lc!i& ~h:~~~;~!;~~~1 ) indicate~ that "auwmatic" dlifHI•I
§K IJcmollhmcs, 45.7'J and 21.'12. Y autnrna11c.
!1'1 Anchmn, 1 ll-14, IM4, and cf. 43. ~ lluvc:r O'rni), 27 _ K l4
2
t•l \u, also, m thc nw uf ft•maiC' prustilutc:s uf t:lltzen 1111 ' · · 9.
llk-mu&thennl. YJ.67; l'lutan·h, Lifr oJ,,.. 0 ¡011 2l.l A.~l1 (Mad)uwcll. 126): l.ysrat., tO.I ;
un ah" purnt· 1ft' justus Hermann lip11us, n.., •llisrh, ntndcrn authorilics 1eem to _•R~
I'J,.,_I~). 4:Vt; Thaltwirn, •Hrr•lrlrrl• •'•Phi .. 1,._ 1R,•tht Ulld Ruhrn•l'r/ilhrtff (LC' 1 P~"'"'
' NJs Rr•l-l!,.crrl.,pt!hlir tlrr tlrtSJinltt'tl
 ¡¡msu•issmsclraft, ed. Georg Wissowa, H.2. (Srurtgart, 1913), cols. 1372-7.1; Harrison,
.llttrl /) wdl 126· Dovcr (197M), 27-34, esp. 29: "if an Athcnian ritizcn madc no secrcr
J7·Mac o • • . .
ofÍ!is prostitution. did not prcsc~t _h•mself for the allocauon of otliccs by Jor, ded~rcd
hJs unlitness if rhrough somconc s madvcrtcncc he was clcctcd ro officc, and abstamcd
(rom cmbarking on any ofthe proccdurcs forbiddcn to him by thc law, he was safc from
prosrcution and punishmcnt." Compare Parkcr, 96: "offcndcrs are not cxiJed or pur ro
dcarh bur dcprived of'honour' and forccd to find a place amid rhc tlorsam offorcignncss
~nd vice rhat laps around the citizcn body.

~1 Acschines, 1.20, 72-73; cf 32. Hansen, 54, cmphasizcs that rhc only sorr of tllimía that
was actionablc was a "second" offense-i.e., a failure to abide by rhe resrricrions upon
one's conduct imposed by an airead y exisring condirion (wherher formal or informal) o{
111imía; so, also, Harrison, 37.
fl2 Demosthenes, 21.182.

03 Aeschincs, 1.28-32, 154, 194-95. Sec Winklcr (19H9/a).

M Hansen, 72-74 (quotation on p. 74).
65 111 this ~aragraph 1 shall be summarizing the argumcnu advanccd by Winkler (1989/a),
whose mterpretation 1 foiJow dosel y.
66 A~istodc, Comtitlltiofl of Atllem 6.1; Plutarch, L~fo ofSolotl, 15.4. 23.1. For some rc~·enr
r:mterpretations ofthc mcaning of"debt" in archaic Athens. s~ Oswyn Murray. l::.drly
Grmr(Giasgow, 1980), 181-84; Wood, 93-96. On temporaryJtimid, sec:Hansen. 67- 70·
67 On the sexual use of slaves in antiquiry, se< P<t<r Brown, TI.- &dy a.,J Soody.' Mm.
Wo,lll"/1 at~d Srxual Ret~ut~dtJtiotl ;, Early Chrütia11ily (Ncw York. 19Hl'l). 2'.1.
r,¡¡ lysiu,D.27, 59. SecMacDowcll, 246--47: now, C. Carey. "A Not<·on To~ru~·::.:r~:;;;
~OinlCide Cases," Historia, 37 (1988). ~41-4~. who argu_~~ ~har ~:.hs~~i.~~- ~~~:~" -.·uy. rh-.·y
e Athens could be IOrturcd in conncctJon wnh cas-.·s ;~tlunn~ r IKILk ¡,r wounJm¡.t.
ould not lc.•gally be tortured ro produn· cvidl'ln"l' .H m.ds (or hon
sl"e Demosthcncs, 21. 17H-NU; on lryhris 35 .r collc-t·rivl' msulr. St'C 1krndsthl"l1l"S. 21 . 45; ¡\.,...
schincs, 1.17
A . . . rohrbrrt.J n,·hn.• .I!(.IUIJ;I WllUIL"II .ruJ
cschmes, I.IS--17, l'mphasizcs rh.n Atht'11 1311 ':~h~ rh..· sr.rtutL' 111 qu..-~'""' prohr ,,,.J
slavl'S (so, also, f)l·mosth-.·ru:s, 21.46-4~), j,ut 1 n· ..·rurli.·usL'S.I,.::.rmsrrht·rrAthL'IJI.III
{pac(·l~oussdlc 11 tJH(•I. 25H-59) was .111 ~1kdr~~::::~ m_ '::,:
11 ...11 ,~,J sJ.rn·:. wrrlullrl "-,:.rn.l Ju,-
M;llardrans orowncrs-rh.u is, 11 prohlbrttd tn.·nrz..~¡s. (.y c.·,,¡,.¡ 1~4). Jrl'l.
for thl- fact that du·y hdnnMt'i.ltu Arlu·n::,~:,. p,n·..-r 11 .,~ 1 - _14--_ 1..,_ ,.,.1, _15 ~~-u~:'

~~~-~~e:~;;;·. in 1~~~~. ~~~~~.....·:~ .. ~.~:~~~:::;':~·:.'~·~~..~~~~~:·,•~-li.·r::::•.:;;::~':•:.:\ ~~:~~~~~ ,!~~:. :. ~ ~~~hr·. . .11

llkmusth-.·m·:.J, Lo·llc-r4.ltl--ll '"lu-tloll"'- ) f
dnwn upun him .1'>-' o un•· 711. JS'i. "ho•n.· rhe ~w•~
l•hu.udJ, Alo•ro~l••• 1·1.!•. M.aru.ol. 11 lt·~ln~,:~: ~~~::::, ·.oJ..-•1•1•· tlun¡.¡:~ rh.ar lwau-
IJIIII.&IL'!o hl!o .amh<"lll<" h) '~1 ~;.'·~1 1 1 1 t'
1 111 " 1 ,.-rl.,riiiL~ !1, lii/N.
, hu!o \ <ll!oiUIIIL'f' rl'lJ 11 ':'"'.,. _.. ,,.,,,.,,l..-ro,t okt&r••'"'fl "'_''';,:.~~-,·,:·,~' ;~~:..~~ .1--.f.
l.f- l'i. 111-
l·ur l"\IILIL'IIlL"IhoiiUI.tl M"' ,,.,. J;¡.ooJ.wJo·• ,..,.,,. ( 1 ~~ ,, .. ,·hll, W'~"ff...,- .'\
l
)I.L"IIl"l.&lly. V 1 ;r.a~""·";·,ll•~·;~· •;•_171. Jh.no·r ¡Jlf?f(J, 11 ~ ~·~; 11 ,,i.,t... -n..
,., 1'\-lf• . .!l'-:t''t•"""' :.: .... , ...· u-.......~,,.,,.,,,,....t:.·•'" ';,.:,,,.,Jt.,,,..,,..,......,..,.
lr-1--;:::::
K;o·nkd,"h·l~"'":;"';';~~; __.,.,¡ i ..ullnllltl.' H··=~~,.~-,.... J.- 1 ,,...,..,tol :"'..~
:;. . . .
rE::·;~·::~~~~::~:~~:".~:~~~.-::;¡· ~: ~.~;~:_. ~~;~:- 1... u ....... -~ "'"'' ...... •• .. ~ , ..
18b 1 Notes to Chapter 5

Wtallh 149-52; Machon, 226-30, 327-32, _422-32 (Gow); Di?scorides, 7 (Gow-Page);

Ptdarint' AnthoiDRY• 5.116 (Marcus Argentanus) and 11. 73. ~ (N1carchus); pseudo-Lucian,
Eróres 27; other documents are listed by Kay, 163, ad Marnal, 11.43;Jocelyn, 20 (with p.
SO, n. 83); Krenkel. "Tonguing," 39.
74 Archedicus, fr. 4; Timaeus, FGrHist 566, fr. JSb: Polybius, 12.13: discussed by Dover
(1978), 99. Also, Aeschines, 1.19, 188; Demosthenes, 22.73, 77; 24.181; 1591.73-86, 107-
\3. See Parker, 94-97.
75 See Cole (1991 ).
76 Dover (1978), 10~104. Cf. Paul, Romsns 1.26: pathi t:Jtirnit~s.
77 See "One Hundred Years of Homosexuality" in this volume.
78 But sce Anacreon, fr. 43.5 (PMG 388, p. 195), for thc tcrm tthtlopomos, illing (male)
whore"-which, however, seems to be mere1y a term of abuse.
79 See Aeschinet, 1.29, 188.
80 Cf. Dcmosthenes, 22.30-32.
81 Sec Dover (1974). 109-10, for tht Athcnian ttndmcy to cquate poverty with moral
incapacity.
82 Consider in this context the statutory rcgulation of dress in classical Athens, where the
wearing of sumptuous dothing was severely restricted: sec Harrianne Milis, "Greek
Clothing Regulations: Sacred and Profane?" Zeilschrift for PtJpyrologie und E'pigraphik, SS
(1984), 255-65, esp. 262-6S; A. G. Geddes, "Rags and Riches: The Costume of Athenian
Men in the Fifth Century," Classical Qwarterly, 37 (1987), 307-31.
K3 Stt Ste. Croix, 179-203, esp. 181-86.
84 Golden (1984), 310, n. 9. For an exprenion of the outlook that identified even non-
laboring employees with slaves, see Xenophon, MemortJbilitJ 2.8.J.-...6, discussed by Ste.
Croix. 181-82.

85 ~~~t' Demo,.hen", 22.25; Aeschine•. 1.17-18 (with commentary by Dover ll978J,

86 See, for example, Demosthenes, 19.200: "IDon't thesejurors know, Aeschines,J that you
worked as a der_k for the magistrales and could be corrupted for two or thrtt drachmae?
J. And to thmk thatl such a man las you had the nerve to) seek a judgment against
another on a _cha_rge of prostitution!" Cf. Xenophon, Hdlenica 2 .3. 4s-49 on "men who,
t~rough ~s~1tutton, would sell the city for a drachma": Dover (l 974), 109. See. further.
~Ht~;a:~:~~:;:~;.::.' tlu: HeroL-s are at Hand," Joumal ofHellertic Sludies, 104 (19K4).
87 See Dover (l978), Jl-1(1}; Golden 0984), lll-1(,; Foucault (19H5), 187-225.

Kl! ~~:~:~:~.:~::':~.:::·~~~:~:~;· interpre¡, the fonction the a.k,ia" Dnumn in '"

ict!:,:gy,whof'llrryonr-all
0 [

intmll and purpoKS or the civic do partiCipatc:- in that ritual n•prcscnt, fur all
populalion. the cligiblc girls in tht• Athcruan

89 :;r;;:,;~:;,lr:~~~~~~~~;•;;~:~oP':e~o~, r~ .. 4 (_q\loted below), ami Nil"~nJd~

AthL-nacus, ll.SfHd-r. 1t ¡11 quite P't~•i~le. : / cou~~rHu;.271-272, _fr. 'J, both c:~v~
lo me,_ that thC' tw~ tourcet are nut indepcndC'nt ~~~o~:•r::,::~h~::~~;ro m•Y lK
tmbrmdc-nng on l'htlemon, who may have invenled the h · 1 hopt' 111
n1akc- citar, 1 am in any ralt' k11 concernc:d here with lh; ,;:!;h•::7he~~:·r;'(wh 1 ch i11,
turpr•tngly, ckfended by Herter. 73, •Kalnlt more nun•emut •kepun, inclut.iinlll: nu
 Notes to Chaptcr 5 1 1117

rnr . lO), or with its valul' as a tt•stimony to thc actual ~cform~ of Solon, tha_n 1 am
~irh ;be possibilityof usi~g i~ t~ show ~har so me p<."'Oplc 111 classJcal Athcns cvJdcntly
considcred prostitution an mtnns1c consutucnt of dcmocracy.
1 Thisgives an unintendcd twist to Arisrodc's statcmcnt in thc Politics that SoJon's rcforms
grantcd the poorcst citizens only "thc barcst minimum" (th1 ana~kaiotatéll dyt1atni11: 2. 9.4
= J274al6)-of political rule, that is. 1 am grateful to Martha Nussbaum for pointing
thisour tome.
91 Athenaeus, 13.569d, with Kaibcl's reading, at1a,Rké11, for the transmitted akmén.
92 lhavebcenguided in m y translation ofthis fragment by Charles Burron GuJick's Loeb version.
93 According to Nicandcr, 1-'GrHist 271-272, fr. 9, prescrved by Athenaeus, J3.569d, and
by Harpocration, s. v. Pandimos Aphroditi = FGrHist 244, fr. J 13.
94 Sce Plato, Symposium J80d-182a; Xcnophon, Symposium 8. 9-10. These passages are
discussed in Appcndix 1.
95 See the proverb, "Thcjourncy to Corinth docs not profir every man "-i.e., nor everyonc.•
can afford a trip ro Corinth: Strabo, 8.6.20; Horace, l:.pistles 1.17.36 (Brandt, 34(~1).
Sce, also, Aristophanes, Wealth 149-52.
96 is~bul~s, frr .. 67.7, ~4-?-7; Xcnarchus, fr. 4.16; Theopompus ofChios, ~GrHist 115, fr.
7 (wnh W1lamowuz s emendation). Cf. Horace, Satires 1.2. 119-22: D1o Chrysosrom .
. l4(J; Athcnaeus, 13.568d; Palatine A11tholo~y. 9.416.5.
97 He"''· 73, inclin" to believe in the hisrorical rruth of rhe Solonian bmthds bccause he

98 : : ~::::• =·~,::.:~.~.: ·;:,~::::7n:0~:::::·:~:.~~:ni;::;:.yk~:,::.~~:~~~:::.::v.

99 Solon, fr. 36.3-7 (West).
lOO See A. frcnch, "Solon's Act of Mediarion. Antichthl)n, IH (19~4). l-1.!
~f. Wood, 1tS-20, who spcculatcs on tht• rd.arion bc:tWL"l.-.'11 So/on"s.llfle.'r.ltltll1 of rht•
peasantry," as shc calls it, and thc.· rcstricrion o( womcn"s nlrc-rry-nghts
1112 For an attcmpt to rccovc.·r a com L'ting imc:rprc.•r.:.~tion o( SL'X 011 rhc p.rrr of
Womcn. sct• Winklcr (19K9/c).
1113 St'e Vcrnant (1lJ74).
104 Anacrc:on. fr. 4.1.4-5 (I'MG 3HH. p. 195) . .l!llS(l("I.:.Jt~·s bn:.Jd-H·/I,·rs
Eubulus, fr. IJH. 011 ~.rr)dml-sd1,•rs.
lOS Sl"l" Cok (19H4). 97 lkb .111 ,.,.r m t

~l"t". l'Xdlllpl~," S.I~IIIUU.i ~'(. :11 .~:,~,,Un,:;~~,::.: ,l;:n:::·~.~::. :~<"\ . .:; 17V-<III
flJT rrt·ml,
.
Spht·rc nf tuvt·. Ltlllln#lldum• 1•' tlr~~.:: ,.,·~:.,,,., lr.lll~ l~•d•..r.r.l N., ......~~~".'!;;;.':;..:·
~ •.•. I'Jc:rrt· Ununlll"U, (),.r/m•· '''" . ~~n.t •.. 1'-1..,.7). 1.'. "h··~·"·~••uh•ll ,.",., ul.u
\tudll"!o 111 ~nd •• l AruhrUJ'"'"~.:·~~~:: ~~ •.:.niiUI<I~ nl.llll<k".alo· 11.1"" 111 ho>ll<llJI, th f r
:'.·.~~~·:.~::·1:::.~:~·::·~~.:.~::~~::.~:~:~~.:~•.11<" ,, .ltiU.-11 111<~11.111111"
IUH llt•n>llnlll\, ~ <;1 l. Jhmt·oholn. h ~74~· ~11\.1111.1~. 1

i~ j~/i i;·:;:;~ :¡y;:,~ ~ :.:~ i~ ;:~: : ~ ;~ ~; :~;~;~: :¡:~: : .~ : : :.~: ;:. •··,.··~.~;;:
188 1 Notes to Chapter 5

Osborne, 57.
JohnJ. Winkler. "Representing the ~od~ Politic," Rtlrrarsals. ojMa11hood, Manin Classical
Lectures (Printtton: Princeton Umvers1ty Prc:ss, forthcommg).
113 Cf. Osbome, 53, 511-<>1, 65.
114 Winkler (1989/a).
115 IG f. 700 (= l', 832); 11!. 659 (SIG' 375), 4596, 4862; for thc most recent excavations,
sec G. Dontas, Prakrikd (1960), 4-9, and To Ergo" (1960), 10-13; l. Beschi, "Contributi
di topognfia atcnicse," Amruc1rio dtlla Scuola tmhtolo,RittJ di Ate,r, 45/46 (1967/68), 520-
26. 1 owc: these rcferenccs, along with thc rcst of the information in this Appcndix, toa
work in progress entitled "Aphrodite in Athens" by Michadjamcson, who has graciously
a11owed me to makc use of it here.
116 Plato, Symposi11m 180d-82a; Xcnophon, Syrnposium 8. 9-10; Menander, K~lax fr. 1 (S:md-
bach :::: 292 Kock).
117 FGrHisr244, fr. 113: Harpocration, s.v. Patrdim~s Aphr~diti.

118 The dcdication to Aphroditc by one (Pyth)odoros in the 470's B.C. (A. E. Raubitschck,
Drdiralioru.frolll rhr All1t11ia11 Acropolis (Princeton, 1949), #296, pp. 318-20:::: /G ll, 700
:::: IG 1"\ 832), including a reque5t for agathOn aphrh~r1iat1 and relicf from slander, is
suggcstive but not decisive. See, also, James H. Oliver, CHrn~kraria, the Gods, at1d the Free
World (Baltimore, 1960), 91-117; F. Sokolowski, "Aphrodite as Guardian of Greek
Magistrales," Har11ard Thrological Re11irw, 57 (1964), 4; Francis Croissant and Franc;ois
Salvial, .. Aphrodite gardicnne des magistrats," Bulletin de c~"esp~ndance htllirriqur, 90
(I'IM), 465-71.
119 Kambourgolou, Archaio/ogiko11 Ddtion, 114 (1892), 4; Prakrika (1892), 11; l. Travlos,
Pralrrik11 (1937). 25-41; IC te.
457n, 4574-4585.
Athenaeus, 13.572ef::: 1-'GrHist 84, fr. 9.
At ~ryx in ~icily, according to Strabo, t..2.6; in Cyprus, according to Herodotus, 1.199;
al Comana m Pontus and Comana in Cappadocia, according ro Strabo, 12.2.3 and 12.3.3t.;
and at many other more obscurc locations: for a complete overview, see Herter. 72-73;
Ste. Croix, 154, and 5tlK-fí9, nn. 34-4().
Di~ Chrysostom, 37.34; Athcnaeus, 13.573c. Scc H. Conzclmann, "Korinth und die
Madchen der Aphroditc: Studicn zur Religionsgeschichte dcr Stadt Korinth." Naclrrichll'll
~r;. Alradrmit• drr Wiul'mcllajírn i11 GiillitiJlrn, (lhilosophisch-historischc KlassC" (1%7), 245-

123 Athenaeus, K.35h:d.

124 ~;~~~~;k.;.2.S47d, cuing Antigonus of Carystus. For varymg prices,
125 l'lillo comicus, fr. 114.17.
121> Uiogc:o~s Lac:orlius, 11.4; cf. Ccrcidu, fr. S.31 (llowdl).
127 IG ll, 374.404-17: Sic <...:ruix, 577 , n. 22 _
12K IG lf, 11172-73, e-sp. u.n.li-K: Stc. CtOIX, IH5-Ht'>; 577, 11.
1211 \te Cru111, IHf1 .

IJIJ Phllodt.·mu•, 25 (Guw-P:~tcc) = l'aldiÍIIt Attlhl>lt~,tty. 5.121>.

111 ~uus, 1 ((iuw_-l'ilgc) = fld/dtinr Amlu>loRy. 5.125; rf. l'l:~utu~o, C:idrllariot
1, fnr lhC' t'pUiKI Jiulro/t1ri1 i!ppht'd lo PrtiSIIIUil'!i
 , Cf p]aw conucus. fr. 174.17.
JJ. . SJ (Gow-Pagc) = Pa/atillt' Alltholo,(!y. 5. 109.
¡1.1 Anupatcr. . . h d d
· Krcukd (1978), 53, sornehow infcrs from thl~ passag~ that four drachmae was t e stan ar
¡}1 (re (or boys and was fixcd at that su m by Clty offic1als.

n; Arhcnacus. 6.241c.

13 ~ Pnfnti11r A111holo~y, 12.239.

1J7 C( Epicratcs, fr. 9.
/38 Hypcrides, 3.2-3.
/.W lysias, 3.22-25.
1411 Pscudo-Aeschines, Letler 7.3.
141 Sce A. W. Gommc and f. H. Sandbach, Menander: A Commentary (Oxford, 1973), 298,
aá Menandcr, é"'pitrcpontes 136.
14.2 Menander, Kolax 128-30.
1.jJ Aulus Gellius, 1.8; Schol. ad Aristophanes, Wealth 149. Gnarha:ena is said ro ha ve de-
mandcd a thousand drachmae for Gnathaenion, her grand-daughrer: Machon. 340 (Gow).
1-14 Epicrates, fr. 2/3.22. Cf. Plato comicus, fr. 174.17; Antiphanes. fr. JOO; Machon. 30H
(Gow); Plautus. Poenulus 868.
145 Philonidcs, fr. S; Pollux, 7.202.
146 E.g ....Phtynichu,, k 33. Pe.hap• it wa. to mch women that thc tecm pe:"'· "int;ntty-
~an, was applied: sce Eupolis, fr. 169, with scholia; Plato comicus, ti-. 155: Theopompus
°
Chlos, FGrHisr 115, fr. 213.
147 Schneidcr, col. 1345.
14ij Clemcnt of Alcxandria, Pat•daJ!O,'!IIS 2. 116.
149 PaltUillr AmholoJ,!y. 5. 101. A similar cxch.mg<.'. which 1ssm•s m J nwrc s.1risúaorv resolu-
tlon f~r hoth partics, is ponraycd by Philodc..-nms, -1- (Gow-PJ~el; Jll unsuca·~sful J.n,·mpr
ata Pick-up is rcprcscnted by Antiphi1us, 1-1- ((;ow-PJgt·l
Sl'e Hcrtn, 97-9H.
Mcnandcr, Pt·rikdr.mu·m' .l-1-\l.
This SC<.'Ills tu be.• th<.• rq~ulation n.·ti.:rn·J ro hy H\·pc..·n,ks.
on]y

(
IHippt)n .1tc~1. Ju tlu· s,,.,.,/i,,,;,uwo· ·~1 tho· <.'hifJ IJ ( =
7 · with m y ;unphli(",ltiUil
s,.,. ls,J.t·u~ ..l.l9

~~~::.,~~: ;.1• ~~,:~. . ;~.·::~~~~u~·: ~::7''(:~':u~~~'~.·':.:,',;L~ :~,.J,~~·,: ~";l~~-·~. ,';:, •1~,'~:·~~~.~~~.~~~ ~e,:,':.: .~;~
ht·r uwut·r nn·d ul lwr ntiJ>h,•n. 1 1-4. Xt·nupho•n ••1 i:ph,.... u~. "' "' .,..
t )n tlu~ lo~~l--·dl~plllt'd - po>illl. ~,.,. t ·\"lulu.a H l'.alh"'""',_ ""l"ll<>S<" :\rh•·"o.ln tt;~sunJ~.
l."i.J.•Hooll .-\llfi>/Wly. lnnlhoHnm¡.¡
1'>7 ..,,.,. l'.ath""''ll (¡•••·oo·,hn)l, lll>tt•l wh•• <'111
190 ¡ Notes to Chapter 6

xynt ("woman"); it occurs for th~ first time alone, as a noun, in Herodotus, 2.135.5, and
in Aristophanes, Ptdct 440.
HlO See Xenophon, Mtmorabilia 3.11, for a detailed picture of this world and its economic
has('.
llll Cratinus, fr. 241; cf. Plutarch, Lift ojPtriclt5, 24.7.
lb2 The Greck system of dassifJcation, distinguishing as it does between a porni, hetaira, and
pallaki, secms to correspond exactly ~o the system do~um~n~ed b_y Moodie, esp. 245, for
South African townships in the twenueth century, wh1ch d1stmgmshes between a noNxoxo,
intombi, and ishwrshwt. Since the South African context also fcatures paederasty, it merits
special attention for the purposcs of comparison with the classical Greeks, and Moodie
himsdf claborates sorne of th~ analogies.
163 Anaxilas, fr. 22: Dover (1978), 21.
164 Menand~r. S4mi4 392-93.
1fi5 Machan, 451 (Gow); Athena~us, 13.584c: see Gow, 120, .:~d Machan, 340.
166 Hener, S3.
167 OGIS 2.674: Pomeroy (1975), 141.

6 Why is Diotima a Woman?

An earlier version of this pap~r was presented at a meeting of the Women's Classical
Caucus in Dec~mber, 1981; subsequcnt, progressively revised v~rsions were read ata series of
conf~rences (starting in January, 1986)-"Perspectives on Lov~. Marriage, Friendship, and
Se11.uality in Antiquity" at the National Humanities Center; "Bodies and Minds: s~xuality and
Dcsire in the Ancient World" at Princ~ton University; "lnterpreting Plato" al the Univcrsity
of c .. lifornia. S,¡nu Cruz; "lmages of Women in Ancient Greece" at Emory Univcrsity-as
wcll u u the Stanford Hum,¡nities Center, Babson Collegc, and the Center for Literary and
Cultural Studies at Harvard Univcrsity. 1 am grateful to the organizers and audiences ofthese
evcnts for their intcrcst as wdl u for thcir suggestions, many ofwhich ha ve becn incorporated
hcre. 1 w1sh lo thank in particular aria-Viktoria Abncka, Harry Berger,Jr., Ernestine Fried_l.
Jean H. Hagstrum, Judith P. H,¡\lett, Myra Jehlen, Madeleine H. Kahn, Eva C. Keuls, David
Konsun, John P. Lynch, Mmh,¡ Nussb,¡um, Richud Parry, Cynthia B. Patt~rson, ll.ichard
P.lottcrson, Ruth P~rry, Sarah H. Pom~roy, Dan1el L. Selden, Nicholas D. Smith, Gregory
Vlastut,JohnJ: ~inklcr, ,¡nd Froma l. Zeithn for much stimulating, sustained, and pertinent
adv!Ct'. Thc ongmaltmpctus for th!S p;r,per ume from Susan Amy Gclman: 1 ha ve spccificd thl'
n.uurc of m y dcbt lo hcr m ~otc lO, bdow_ An abbrevi.lott"d venlon of this cssay appears 111
H.Jip~nn, Wmkl~r, and Zcnhn, 2S7-3UM

~i::,l''11~~"';,~,~~~:\ ~~~:~~·0~~c:t~~~:,;~ccn;;'::i::. of the refuuuun; Pcn

2 On l'luo's cunc~pllon of pu•dctalllc orrhorb, 1ee Kranz (1926/;a), 445
3 Scc Pl,¡to, Sympouum 177d, 1"lHd; lpiJ 204bc; /Jht~rdnu 227c, 2S7 . Th '>Hb· Xcntl·
~han, Mrmorabilit~ 2.11.~: Sy.~npo1ium K.2; Ac•chme, Socntuu~"': fr. ~;.l;';;>~~~~~~r). (111
~~:::,'.~l (~;~;:·~~~:;~ ::~~~-l.,ndcr, 1, 44--Sil; (;uthrit·, J'JI.)....IJK; l)tlvt•r (IIJ7H), \~.l-llll;
4 E..g., Thomn Guuld, Plt~ronir i..)w (London, 19~3), 193, n. 34: "By chou•in
.J wo~
t-.r lu·., Plaw) a.voided the aug1e•non t~at th~ wne on.r wu thr- yourhful s!ratr•' ~
'Piatunac' lonr.' (What Plato actually wnhcd to rule out, to he predte, •u
thl!' pullihilii'Y
 Notes to Chaptcr 6 1 191

lh~t Socrates and his instructor in erotics had been sexual, rarhcr than merely
.. 'Piatonic,' " lovers.)
• On thc cults of Aphroditc Ourania and Aphrodite Pandemos ar Athens, see Hug-Schóne,
' 41 -43; Halperin, "The Democratic Hody" (in this volumc), Appendix 1. The associarion
ofthc Athcnian cult of Aphrodite Ourania with prostitution, to which KrelJ (1972), 444,
h~s newly caiJcd our attention, depends on late and tenuous cvidencc.

fl Dover {1978), 91, summarizes Pausanias's argument; sce PenwiiJ, 145-47, for a sympa-
thetic trcatment of Pausanias's general outlook.
7 Harry Neumann, "On the Sophistry of Plato's Pausanias," Trtmsa{/iom ofth~ Amerüa11
Philologi(a/ Association, 95 (1%4), 261-67, argucs rhis point rather cruddy; sce Krüger,
95-104, esp. 99-101. Eryximachus's definition of erOs as a harmonious accord betwecn
opposite principies that are hareful ro one anothet (186de and ff.) ís borh an elaborarían.
u Eryximachus himself acknowledges (186b), anda reáuctio aá absurámn of Pausanias's
(ormulation of Uranian paederasty; Arisrophanes and Agathon, by conrrast, argue th,u
ttOs obtains berwcen likes (192a5, 195b5), not-as Pausanias and Eryximachus hadas-
sumed-between unlikes: see Brendinger, 9-17; Krüger, WS--06. For Plato's oudook on
the traditional controversy over whether Jove ¡5 a relarion between likes or unlikcs. sce
Glidden.
192 ¡ Notes ro Chaprer b

12 Cf. Plass, 48:.. the notion ofpregnancy does seem in sorne respects rather awkward
in defense of pederasty. . " 1shall argue bdow, howevcr. tha~ in a traditional paederasric
context procreativc language is not only not out ofplace but 15, on the contrary, almost
inevitable.
13 Symposium 206cl, 7, d4, 7-8; 208e2; 209al-2, bl, 5, eJ.
14 Symposium 206el.
1S Symposi••• 206cll-d1. 3, S, 7, eS. 7-8; 207all-9, b2, d3, 7, e4; 208al; 209a4, b2-4, c3-4,
8, d7, e2-3; 210a7; 211al. b3. 1 ha ve followed Kranz (1926/a), 443, in treatingxrmum and
gtrltstlu'i in Diotim~'s vocabul.uy as active and passive expressions, respectively, of the
same idea; but see Wilamowitz, 11, 172.
16 Syrnposium 206b7, c3-4, 6, dS, eS; 209a3, b2, c3; 210cl, dS; 212a3, S.
17 Symposium 208b5 (apobltJstfmtJ); 209c5--e4 (paidts, tkgona).
18 Symposium 207b2, S; 209c4; 212.a6.
19 This notion recurs, somewhat altered, in the Theaetetus, esp. 148e-151d: see
20 See Friedl3nder, 111, 2S; Brentlinger, 19-21.
1 refer only ro the recent controversy: Wender; Christine Pierce, "Equality: Republic V,"
Mo11isr. 57.1 (1973), 1-11; Anne Dickason, "Anatomy and Destiny: The Role ofBiology
in Plato's Views of Women," Philosophical Fornm, 5.1-2 (1973-74}, 45--53; Sarah B.
Pomeroy, "Fcminism in Book V of Plato's Republic," Apeiron, 8.1 (1974), 33-35, and
"Plato and the Female Physician (Rrpublic454d2)," Americanjournal ojPhilology, 99 (1978),
4%-SUI.l; ChristineGarside Allen, "Plato on Women," Femi11ist Studies, 2.2-3 (1975), 131-
38; Brian Calvert, "P1ato and the Equality ofWomen," Phoe11ix, 29 (1975), 231-43; W. W ·
Fortenbaugh, "On Plato's Feminism in Republic V," Apeiro11, 9.2 (1975), 1-4; Geddes,
37-39; Martha Lee Osborne, "Piato's Unch.anging View of Wom.an: A Denial rhat
Anatomy Spells Destiny," Philosophical Fornm, 6.4 (1975), 447-52, .and "Piato's Femi·
nism," Ph.D. diss., University of Tennessee, Knoxville (1978); Julia Annas, "Piato's
Republic and Fcminism, Philosophy, 51 (1976), 307-21; Saxonhouse (1976), (1984), and
(19K5), 37-62; Susan Mollcr Okin, "Philosopher Queens .and Privare Wives: Plato on
Women and thc Family," Philosophy a11d Public Affairs, 6 (1977), 345-69, rcproduccd in
thc course_ o_f a longcr discussion in Wome11 ir1 Westem Political Thought (Princeton, 1~79).:
15-~0; W1lham Jacobs, "Plato on Female Emancipation and rhc Traditional Famtly •.
Apmo~, .~~ (1978), 2~-31; lynda langc, "The Function of Equ.al Educ.ation in Platos
RqJu_bhc, m The Sexum of Social tmd Political Theory: Womm tllld Reproductioll from PililO
ro Nlrt:uche, cd. lorenne Clark and lynda langc (Toronto, 1979), 3-15; Harry lcsscr,
'"PI.ato's Fcminism," PhiloJophy, 54 (19"/4J), 113-17; Nicholas D. Smith, "Thc logic of
p!~to's Fcminism," JounltJI of Social Phílosophy, 11 (19KO), 5-11, and (19H3), 4hH-74 ;
Glallon~o, 10~-34; O'lJricn, IJIJ-.39; Singcr, 77-H1; Moniquc Canto, "Thc l'olitit:s of
Women s Bodtcs: l~cftections un Plato," in "flt.: ¡:l'mtJie Hody ¡11 W,-srrm Culrun•: Collttmpo·
' 11'Y l'mpect~v.:¡, ed. Susan Rubin Suleiman (Cambridge, MA, 19H(,), 3.:W-53; Canurdla.:
SK-SIJ; l>av&d Cohcn, "The legal Status and Politica1 Role of Womcn in l'lato's uws,
~tVI.It' intrmstiollalt dts droils dt l't~miquirt, 3d ser. 34 (19H7), 27-4U; (ircgory Vlastos.
Was 1-'lato a Femmist?" 'fimrs Lirtrsry Suppll'ftltlll, No. 4,4H5 (March 17-2.'\, 19H'J), 2 71~·
~; and cf. Krell (1975). For thc carlicr history ofthc qucstion, scc.• now Natali~ l~arrl:"
Hlue5tonc, Womt'll and rhr ldet~l Socirry: PltJto's Rcpublic tmd Modem Myrhs ~~/ (,mJcr
(Amherst, MA, 1987), 21 fT.
22 \t.'C thc- in~ormat~ve, s~btlc, andjudiciou11 account by David M.Schaps, Hmrwmif lli.thl~
of Womtn rn Annrnr <,rttft {Edinhurgh, I 1J79), whu shows that A1henian wontcn wcn:
dtsadvantagcd by <:umpamon with wo&nen in other parts of classinll~rec<:c. See. a150 '
 Vicror Ehrcnberg, 'fhe People of Aristophat1es: A So<ioiD!IY ~(0/J Attic Comrdy, 2d rev. ed.
(New York, 1962), 192-207; W. K. Laccy, The /'ami/y;, C/assical Grem, Aspecrs of
Gr«k and Roman Life (lthaca, NY, 1968), esp. 15-32, I!Kl-76; JuSI; John Gould,
"Law. Custom and Myth: Aspects of the Social Position of Womcn in Classical
Athens, jourt~al of Hellmic Studies, 100 (1980), JH-59, with rcfercnccs to prcvious
work on the tapie; now, H. S. Versnel, "Wife and Hclpmate. Womcn of Ancicnt
Athens in Anthropological Perspective," in Sexual Asymmrtry: Studies ;, Atuimt Socirty,
ed. Josinc Blok and Petcr Masan (Amsterdam, 1987), 59-86. Thc horrilic picturc
rrcently painted by Kculs should be viewed with caution; the rclatively conventional
sketch by Cantarella is untrustworthy in a diffcrent way. More balanced is S.uah H.
Pomcroy, GoJdem:s, Whorrs, Wivts, and Slaves: Women ;, Classical Antiquity (New
York, 1975), esp. 57-92. Cynthia Patterson, "Hai Attikai: Thc Other Athcnians, in
Rrsmin,R Crtusa: Ntw Mrthodolo_Rical Approachrs lo Womm ;, Allliquity, cd. Marilyn
Skinner = Helios, 13.2 (Fall 1986), 49-67, provides an important correcrive ro somt•
o( thc more extreme claims advanced in the litcrature.

23 Sce, generally, History of A 11 imals 538a22-b23, 608a21-bl8 (authcnticity disputed); Parts

ofA11imals 661 b27-662a6; Generation of Animals 732a 1-11; Politits 1254b 1.3-1 S, 12SCJb2-4;
on the female as a "natural deformity, '' "monsrrosity," or "inferrile maJe," see Gt'nt'rari,m
of Auimols 723a2f>-30, 728al7-21, 737a27-30, 765b!l-767bl3, 775a-1-22. 784a-1-/l; and
sce Galcn, Onthe Usefolness ofthe Parls oftlu· Body 14.6, who daims (14.5) to be foiJowing
Aristotle.
Once again, 1 cite only the rcccnt lirerature, beginning with r~e fundame:"~.al srudy ;
Robertjoly, "L.a biologie d'Aristotc," Revur philosophiqur dt' la frat~CI'I'I d,-1 Err·~~r. 1•
~1968~, 219-53, esp. 224-25, 228--29, 241-44; Anrh_ony Preu_s. '"Scu:ncc ~; p~~~~~!J
In ~r1stotle's Generation of Animals, "]oumal o.ftlu· Hrs~ory o..f1!'"'°KY· 3 · 1 0;·. Chrisrinc
~cu·n_ce aiJd Philosophy ;, Aristotlt's Biolo,~ical Wc~rks (Hddesh.rtm. 1 ~ 75 >[,, , ul'." C<Jn.uilolll
!,
1111
Ga~s1de, "Can a Woman He Good in thc Same W~y .as a M~~9: Src hL~I! R. L. Cl..arlc,
Plulosopl1ical Review, 10 (1971), 534-44, esp. 534-37; Geddes. 37 ·. · d ~ 975 .1 :!'lltt-1 J (.3
Arist~tle's Mtm: Speculations upo". Arisl'''~liall ~"'!.';:'~;::!~.·~~~:: His1;,;, 41\J/iti· . .;,,
heavdy apologcric trearmcnt, parnally rcm1.ctcd 111 1 d f 1 . rountl'rL"\i tw Joh.. nnc."S
cal Tlrouxlrt, 3.2(1982), 177-CJI); Horow~rz,<~. cr~~~a~s;;.~h: ~.s:.,~ ,,,- ,.,f,~ey. J11Jil"Nj,
Morsink, "Was Aristode"s Hiology SL"xJs~ .. -::. from ·Horowirz"s Ns 1c c.·ho~l"!!"r): \l' W
H3-lt2, who nom·thcless fails to sa~c.- Anstotcn 111 .-4rtidn '"' :4m1,,1/1·.! l:tlru.• ,¿
Forrcnbaugh, ''Aristodc on Slavcs and _Wo~. • d Mrc.·ho~rd Sor.. f!l• (Lt111Jlln. JCI"77).
Politics, cd. Jouarhan Uarucs, Mako~m.,~::::)~~:~~;.s ..~;,,,,~1!''<1"'''-' J'.-ln.•l•"'' .-;,..,:,,..• ~ _,.,ll:
13~-3~; Simon ~y l. Rt•íl~ewl~c·s ~":./,:.o-;~ Mc."nulin.•s ¡:k¡,. Cl.1su• JL·s l.t'IUL'~. ~.t ~~~~ll-4~:
prt'}ll,~l's, Acadc.~nm.• H.oyak c.h: HdguJU · J'IH\) lh1-7tl: cmssdk (1~ ).. li'i
(l:Jrussdls. 19KU); M;muli (IIJHU) •. ~)5-CIH, o~nJ..~ur.lj i,~w Thñ•r~. ,,,..,. S,h.•lo~..•l••"7r;,._.~
Pctl'r Tumuhy, "Arisrotlc.-, fL'IliiiiiSIIII ·:~1~7 (flllll.l Si!>!o.l. ""ll•t'rf"' ,tdl.. .'l~•nn~ '.f74-
(IIJHI). 450-6~: So~i"d: c..:.~n~·"~::·~¡:.~~~r.',: <._. 111 1"-._" •• M.1nuh. "'"'' Sts!o.l. ~';',~-~~:~~;~..:_ 11 .1,
llll'nll J¡ una g_m,·,·ulugl.•..tllo). 1· llll Wunu·n. l'lt•l•'·"'''"''''ll"''u"}. H~ l'll•l·•·"'rh}. ,.,¡
77; Allt•n; f: SfMr!>hurl •. Arl!>hllt 1 F "lii."IU"t' in ¡\rc:oh>tlc·.. m 11 '"'""" ." 1 ,,.. llun•• ¡~1.
(;o~n·lh B. Mo~rrht·ws, "'(,,·mkr .1n• ¡.!i 1 •{l'lulo•,·'l'"l"· ~llf'l' 11 "' "'
j.llllld 1.. ThuiiiJl!OUII .illdlol/•1111111, ''""'""'

lh-25: C. 'o~nro~rdb. 5')-hl

!4 1 hurruw dnli lln·mui;~Utll~.~¡.,,m y L ,.._.?)
lll ¡\nfL'IIL"r, .f')-l• 5 · L'!l/' l .,,.,. ,,,.,.,.,,.,,,. (N•'" ,,r.
. ¡\hu· fo~nhut· .mol l'o~ul '"'11 '· " . rh•· h"""~ ''' IIK' .............
SI"L', nuw. . . lll,fi"I~IAIIlhll~ oll fltoiUIII.I .• "HUriiJUIII'I"~~;~,h" ,J'fHII. ' . .f.,"!, ~ ..,
~~~~~-~;:;,:,',::~II:L;II:rol\ ¡,f,-.l, ,./o•lltl 111 u~hh· !UIIIIfill 111""!>, .,,
194 1 Notes to Chapter b

contrast does not doubt rhat Plato was homosexual by te~perament ~P· 25), but observes
that Di~rima's insistence on the impor_rance of p~creauon as th~ :um o.~ desire has the
effect of structuring rhe erotic dynamiC of Platomc l~v~ accordmg ~~ a heterosexual
paradigm": he concludes, "What started as a pederastlc 1dyl ends up m ~ranscendental
marriage" (pp. 40-42). Cf. Saxonhouse (1984), 11-22, for an analogous lnterpretation.

27 Se< Wilamowitz.l, 42-49; Kdscn; Bres. 229-32; Wender, 216-18; Vlastos (1981), 25-26;
Burnyeat, 16, n. 23.
28 Thc evidcncc, such as iris, is less than compelling: see, e.g., H. Nunberg, "Homosexual-
ity, Magic and Aggression," lnttmati1111al )ournal of Psycho-Amdysis, 19 (1938), 1-16;
D. w. Cory, Tl1t Httmostxudl in Amtrica (New York, 1951), 201; James A. Knight,
"Falsc (lregnancy in a Male," Psychos11matic Medicine, 22 (1960), 260-66;John Money and
GcofTrcy Hasta, "Negro Folklore of Male Pregnancy," ]ourmll ofSex Research, 4 (1968),
34-50. Thc anthropological side to this story is discussed below.
29 J>lass, 50-51.
30 Bcnncu Simon, Mir~d tlrld Madntss ;, Ancient Greect: Tht Classical R11ots ojM11dert1 Psychiatry
(hhaca, NY, 1978), 308, n. 20, and 171-79. The fundamental psychoanalytic study is by
Kelscn; sec, also, Nocl Bradley, "Primal Scene Experience in Human Evolution and its
Phantasy Dcrivativcs in Art, Proto-Science and Philosophy, '' Psychoanalytic Srudy of
Soritry. 4 (1967), 34-79, esp. 52-58; Paul Plass, "Eros, Play and Death in Plato," Amtricar~
IIIIIIRO, 26 (1969), 37-55; BrC:s; Charles Hanley, "An Unconscious lrony in Plato's Rtpub-
li(," Psy(hDIJIItJiyti( Quarrtrly, 46 (1977), 116-47; Bohner~Cantc; MacCary, 8~4. 191-
95.
Wcnder, 224-27.
Wilamowitz, 1, 379-80; carlier, Zcller (quotcd by Rettig 11876], 262).
33 Bury, xxxix; carlicr, K. F. Hermano, Dt So(ratis maRistris (Marburg, 1837), tlff.; 17, n.
37 (cited by Rcttig 118761. 262, who also inclines to this vicw).
34 T~e carlicst advocatc for Diotima's historicity citcd by ltcttig (1876), 262, is Crcuzer,
W1rntr )ohrbüchtr, 56 (IK31), IK5ff.
35 Hug-Schonc, xlvii n.; Taylor, 224; Kranz (1926/b), 321; E. R. Dodds, cd., P/dlo: GOR-
GIAS (Oxford, 1959), 12, with rcfcrcnccs to carlicr work. Cf. Godel, 14, 26-27.
3f. Gode), 2(~2_7. cites thc case of a lavish offcring to Pythian A pollo madc by Aristocrates,
son of S2cclhas, which is casually mcmioncd at GorRias 472ab and sccmingly confirmcd
by 1': 1• !72-but, in fact, thc inscription rcfcrs to thc homonymous grandfathcr of
Plat~ 5 Amto~ratcs, and Godcl (or Plato) has simply confoundcd the two: sec J. K.
Dav•ea, Athtnum Proprrtird J:tJmilirs 6(HJ-J(J(J B.C. (Oxford, 1971), 56-57, #1904.
37 W. Dittenbcrgcr, .. Zu Plutarch," Jlf.'rmrs, 3H (1903), 313-14; Hug-SchOnc, xlvii n.
38 Hug~SchOne, xlvii n.; cf. Kranz (192(¡/a), 437-3K.
J9 But,
1SCJ-.Sfor an dimcrprctation th at defiend ~ t he re1cvanc:c or su eh de tal'1 s, scc N uss baum (1979),
2
' an (1986), 177, 19S; also, Saxonhnusc (19K4), 20-22.
Hug-SchOne, xlvii n.; Taylor, 224; Kriiger, 142-43.
: . Wilamowitz, 1, 38Ur~; l~obin (1929), xxiii n. Furthcr parallcls are adduccd by Kury.
95, aJ Plato, Symp,fium 21Jid4.
42 Sct Waltc-r Uurkcrt "C • z . .
1-'#rilflltJRir, IIJS (1'Ni .ors .. um gnct:h&s_chcn 'Schamanismus,
, ..
h . · 11 1 M•utll,._fiir
~ tlfiU(. t Qfl?), 12.,_
31· l'h r 1 ), Jt....SS, Marccl Detu~nnr, Lts Mnit"l tlr Id.,,,.,,
(P;UII. 1 17
(~e' 1 •p~ HorKcaud, Rtfhtrrht>t sur lt ditN Pdn Hibliothrca Helvccica Rom•na.
ome, 1117'1), lt.U; VC"rnant (I'JK2), 70, 76-79. ,
 Notes to Chapter 6 1 195

,ds SitzUIINsber. d. Berl. Akad. (1891), 387 ff.; Kern, "Epimenides," Paulys Realencydopii-
~J ~Je;dassiJchen Altertumswissenschafi, ed. Georg W1ssowa, vol. 6, pt. J (Stuttgarr, 1907),
cols. I7J-78. 1 owe these references to Kranz (1926/a), 437-38.

~ Gustave FougCres, Mantinée e~ I'Arcadie orienta/e, BibliothCque des Écoles fr.anc;aises

d'Arhénes et de Rome, 78 (Pans, 1898), 325-30; Godel, 14-21.

45 This argument has been made to me in conversation by Nicholas D. Smith.

40 See Kranz (1926/a), 438-39.

47 The analogy between Diotima and Er is discussed by Robin (1929), xxiv-xxv.

48 Literary references are collected in Otto Jahn, ed., Platonis Symposium, 2d ed. rev. by H.
Usener (Bonn, 1875), 16-18; for references to pictorial representations ofDiotima, see
Hug-Schóne, xlviii n. For the relief, see Gusta ve Fougeres, "StCie de Mantinée," Bulletin
rlf cormpondance hellénique (Ecole franc;aise d'Athenes), 12 (1888), pl iv and pp. 376-80;
Hans Móbius, "Diotima,"jahrbuch derdeutschen archijofo~ischen lmtituts, 49 (1934), 45--60,
esp. 58; Kar) Schefold, Die Bildnisse der antilun Dichter, Redner utJd De11ktT (BaseJ, 1943),
66; Brunilde Sismondo Ridgway, Fifih CetJtury Styles in Greek Sculpture (Princeron. 1981),
141-42.
49 These factors are discussed by Just, 161; Schaps; Sommersrein, esp. 418. n. 56. on Diotima
(who would not, however, ha ve been affecred: see note 63, below); Jan Bremmer,
4"2Plutarch and_rhe Naming ofGreek Women," Americanjournal_ofPhilolo~y. 102 (198~).
5-26. Suffic1ent numbers of women 's na mes do survive ro p..-ov1de at leasr sorne m.,ren.aJ
for rhe social historian: see Mar k Golden, "N ames and Naming ar Arhens: Three Srudies, ..
Echos du Monde Classique/Ciassical Views, 30, n.s. S (1986), 245--69. esp. 246-52. The daim
by Keuls, 88-90, that sorne Greek women m<~ y nor h<~ve bet:"n given n<~mes -'f ;¡JJ should
be resisted.

SO Dover (1980), 137; citatiom in Kranz (1926/a), 437.

Rettig (1876). 263; Bury, xxxix; Dover (1980), 137. foiJowed ~y Nussb.lu,:JI:~~:
and 467, n. 28; co11rra, Taylor, 224. The suggestion by.Th_eodor Gomp<-rz. (, .atl(o..'tJOn;_
trans. G. Berry (London 1913) 11 J% that "thechadobJt<1ofrhaserhe~.lb~c-d U~
promoted in the Symp~sium ~a; in ;ealiry Daon o( Syru'Use (d. P.au/ S~orrv. ss•b:
Plato StJi.d IChicago, t933j. 45) supplies, as Hury (xxx•x n.)-.Jott;:~::s~: 1 ;::;:11 ~:--r: N~
C)(pla~ataon for tht!' choice of D!otam,¡'s_ ~ame. low_t·n::.. •::;-
substltutc for .1nd duphcare ot _tht'l)phrlti, ..,'h:·
,t.
hun~.1n bnn.,: ~-h~l ho~s
o~ttrabu ICl\ 11 JJ, IÜr rdi:f'('flt"C"S hl rhc-
complt•ted th(.• crotac asct!'nt, .1t .'\ymp•'i1"'_"' - 1-.1"' (s'--c r · ,{(Mil" as .,. 11 ü-n,tUI '"

schnlarly literatur_c un the rcsonann.•s ol th.ll ~~~~:~:~ ,¡~~,:·;~;,,¡ (l.l" tMIC" ,-,.Mrl.f lt".,. ftc.•r
asH·ndm~ tht• phalosophu.".al hu.·rar,·hy onr bn
spct"t·h)." ,.., ,;,.,.,.,r.l»ftll
1
c;2 SC"t' Judy A. Turnl.'r, Hlf;'NFI.-il .1ufNi.u'r~<•" t!l ¡.,.,..,Jr ["tJc-st
diss Univt•r!HIY uf ( ".ahllHm•. So~nu lt.arbo~r.a ( 1""..\) e·¡,.,,,,,,,_,..._.,,.
Bl.IISt' Noifi;Y· "Th(' N.llllll'tl: ul Alhl;"ltullll l~•rls. A c.-,_. 111 p,
(I•J7HI711), .W~h4 hu·h ..-.-nu nutrdy ••• h,,..- c-!'h·af"('t .,hol..l.-h-· J..~
~4 1 owr 1h11 lnw ut .lf't'UIIIl"fll, w ., ;\ h H I.._M'IIrf'•'l
uf lliUIIIII.t'l IIIIIIIU". lll tht" kunllllllf'Ul'tlllll t • .IU ~.._,..~
\ Phar ... ....w'thllf'l_..._¡..,.
~1\ SC'II' <Outhnf', J711, n 1; nmuvral, 7, 1... n. ·,: .,.J h T~- §ciiiW.,........ . . . . . . . . . .
t-v A. lhuhtn..hrll, R..l~- 1'1 :2. ,-ul•. 1; 2 - 6 ·' "
tnpio· • ...- pnlvlo.,.,l hv T.rllllnl, 1111"
196 1 Notes to Chapter 6

56 1 wish to thank Nicholas D. Smith for helping me sort out the various possibilities.
57 Taylor, 224-25.
58 See Kranz (1926/a), 438. Should a fuller argument to this effect be required, Dover (1980),
10, dutifully supplies one.
59 So Hug-Schone, xlvii n.; Kranz (1926/a), 438; Erbse, 206.
60 Charlotte L. Stough, "forms and Explanation in the Phaedo," Phronesis, 21 {1976), t-30,
esp. 29-30. See, also, Friedrich Solmsen, "Parmenides and the Description of Perfect
Beauty in Plato's Symposiutn," Amerietm}ournal ofPhilolo}ly. 92 (1971), 62-70; Rosamond
Kent Sprague, "Symposium 211a and Parmenides Frag. 8," Classical Philolo,Ry. 66 (1971),
261.
See Harry Berger,Jr., "Piato's Flying Philosopher," Philosophicol Forum, 13 (1982), 385-
407.
62 Wilamowitz, 1, 380n.
63 1t might perhaps be supposed that such avoidance of detailed characterization on Plato's
part merely expresses the same respect and courtesy that also opera tes in the law-courts
and on the comic stage and that militares against the mention of a respectable woman's
name: see Schaps, 330; Sommerstein. But that would be to misconstrue the Greek
convention. Only those women are not mentioned who are decently secluded at borne
and whose names are therefore not presumed to be known by males outside the family.
That is not the case with Diotima: she is a public figure, after all-someone to whom the
Athenians turn ata time of public crisis, someone at least as well known as the Athenian
priestesses whosc names can indeed be mentioned without impropriety (Sommerstein,
395-96). Severa! other considerations reinforce this line of interpretation. First of all,
Diotima is a foreigner, unconnected toan Athenian male by blood-tie or by marriage, so
far as we know, and hence not someone whose name must be suppressed out of deference
to the feelings of one's fcllow-citizens. Secondly, shc is for Plato's dramatic purposes a
famous woman: far from attempting to conceal her name, Plato ¡5 prodiga) in his use of
it (201d2, e8; 202d12; 204a8, d5; 2116b5; 207c5; 208b8; 212b1), though he also refers to
her more obliquely by her place of origin (ht Manti11ikt RYIIi or xtnt: 201 d2, 204c7, 211 dt-
2~ cf. W. Dincnberger, "Ethnika und Verwandtes," Htrmes, 4211907), 1-34, esp. 14).
fl~al~y. Som~erstein presses two further points: (1) by the time Socratcs mcntions
Dlollm.:a she 1s probably dead; (2) it is likely that no other man was prescnt on the
o~casions when Socrates rcpresents himself as addressing hcr by name {41K. n. 56)-
~lven the freedom with which Plato trcats Diotima, thcn, it would hardly haw bccn
d1srespectful of him to tell usa Jiu le more about her.
M Sce Erbse, 2W-t4, who argucs that Xenophon's portrayal ofSocratcs's positive aUiiUde
to women_ dcscrves more credence than it has reccivcd; cf. (;.iallon~u, K1-K5. Kahn has
now provlded a thorough treatment of Socratic erOs in Socratic litcraturc. Also. Krdl
(1975), <1116.

(,S Stt, e.g., Athenaeus, S.22Uef, t2.53Sc, 13.58Hd.

(~, Most of th~ in~on~ation in ~~~~ paragraph comes from Ehlers. On this general tupi~,
compare Fn~dnch Schlegel, .. Uber die Diotima," Studirn dts lrlassischrn AltrriiUN$, cd. E..
üehlc:-r, Krimchc Fricdrich-Schlegcl-Ausgabe,l. 1 {Paderhorn, 1979), 70-1 t5o (l"!li'-'Y tirsl
pub!. 17'J5).

~~'7"KUt., 5.220d; UiuKc:-nrs Larrtius, (,.16. fraRmcnts are collcl·tc- in lliumar. 2~

 611 Fr. 1 (Diumar). The story told by Plutarch, Perirles 24.S-6, derives from Antisthenes's
dialogue, as Arhenaeus, 13.589e, testifies (unless we emend the rext ro read Aesthints,
who seems after all to be Plutarch's source (cf. Perirles 24.4]: see note 72, below).

69 Ehlers, 30-34, esp. 31 n., basing herself on Athenaeus, 5.220e, imagines a scene in which
Socrates resists rhe blandishments of Aspasia 's flute-girls; she argues, wirh sorne plausibil-
ity, rhat the dialogue may ha ve depicted Aspasia as rhe embodiment ofmoraJJy corrupring
hitlo11é(cf. Heracleides Ponticus, apud Athenaeus, J2.533cd); Wender, 222-23, bycontrasr,
notes that Diogenes Laertius ascribes to Antisrhenes, on the authority of Diodes, the
saying that tJreti is the same for a man as for a woman (6. J2)-a passage neglecred by
Ehlers (but discussed by Kahn, who nonetheless follows Ehlers).
70 Arhenaeus, 5.220b; Diogenes Laertius, 2.61; fragments in Dirrmar, 275-SJ. The aurhm-
ticity of Aeschines's dialogues was challenged in anriquity by Menedemus of Eretri.a,
ldomeneus, .and others: Diogenes Laertius, 2.60-63; Athenaeus, 13.61 lde.
71 See Ehlers, esp. 63-- HXl.
72 Fr. 25 (Dinmar). The story in Athenaeus, JJ.589e (and e( pseudo-Luci.m, Erates 30),
goes baek to Aeschines, as Plutarch, Pericles 32.3, testities.
73 Fr. 31 (Dittmar}. Reported by Cicero, De üwentiont 1.31.51-53, who is subs~uen~J)~
quoted by Quintilian, Instilutes 5.11.27-29; see, also, Marius Vietorinus. in Rhetonolllh"1
minores, p. 240.31ff. (Halm).
74 ~eported by Plutareh, Pericles 24.4. For Aspasi.a's poliric.al or rhe-rori~al abilir! . .~": ht;
1nftuence on her Iovers, see Sebo). ad Plaro, Menexmus 235e = ~.alh~. ~~k~mr
(Kock); Schol. ad Aristophanes, AlharniatiS 527; Didymus. Sy"!P 05' 11'!'· arcd h):;,,,., 73 _
of Alexandria, Stromateis 4.19.122; Harpo~rarion . .s.v. AspasJa; ~hdosrr:r;::tarn·mous,
pseudo-Lucian, ErOtes JO. An expanded vers1on ofrhe story e.an be tound 10 1 . Syrwt.t
Greek treatise preserved only in Syriac rranslarion (cd. ~aul de ~..Jgar~;~";:,:l~~h:15 ,..,.
ILondon, 1858], 177-95; trans.J. Gildcme_isrerand F. Buchde-r,. ~rdr,·..mr pomon is
asltisrOs," Rheiniuhes Museum /iir Philotcwr. 27 f1H72J, S20-J8). r
translated and discussed by Ehlers, 74-77.
75 Athenaeus, 13.S97a-599c, esp. S99ab = fr. 7.H9-94 (Powdl). ~• , ()n
. d SlK·ratcs b\· Hc.·r~k. PLC· - ~-
76 Athenaeus, 5.219b-c; the wrses are a~s•gnc ~o , -4 'i~y ,, .-41flll'l.l'• h Tr.,¡,h•"'
Herodicus, scc: lngemar Díirinl't. Ht·rodltU:J thr (.rdttlf'tllf. • •
(Stockholm, 1941 ).
198 1 Notes to Chapter 6

1 differ from Kahn, with whose excellcnt account 1 otherwise find myself in general
agreement.
82 See Kranz (1926/a), 438; for similar vicws. see K. F. Hermano, Di.sputatio de Aeschinis
Somuici rtliquiis (GOttingen, 1850), 19; Gigon, Komme,tar on Xenophon, Mttnorabilia
2.6.36; Konrad Gaiser, review of Ehlers, Archiv jUr Geschichte der Philosophie, 51 (1969),
200-209, esp. 208. (1 owe these rcfercnces to Charles Kahn.)
83 Cf. Ehlers, 131-36. following the interprctation ofDittmar, 40-41.
84 Dover (1980), 137, notes that "Socrates' words labout DiotimaJ'she taught meta erOtiktJ'
(201d5) are a slyly humorous reminder of anorher kind of erOtikos logos, in which a
smirking youth tells his friends about the accomplishments of a hetaira ('Rhodopis taught
me all 1 know ')''; on the earlier tradition of erOtikoi loxoi, cf. Hug-SchOne, x-xv;
Fram;ois Lasserre, "Erótikoi lt~Roi," Museum Helveticum, 1 (1944), 169-78. lt should also
go without saying that Plato would not wish to suggest that a brothd is the proper place
to learn the secrets of Platonic love.
85 Cf. Rosrn, 224: "h is no accident that Socrates learnt physics from a man (i.e., Anaxa-
goras), but politics and the erotic mysteries from women. The domain of the political-
religious is essentially that of peace, associated with the womanly arts of child-rearing,
housekeeping, weaving, and the like." (That politics is a womanly art would ha ve come
as a surprisc to Pericles.)
86 See Wilamowitz, 1, 380; 11, 170-71; Morrison, 42-43.
87 See Bruce Rosenstock, "Rereading the Republic," Arethusd, 16.1-2 (1983), 219-46, esp.
221-22, on the signif1cance of Zalmoxis and the connection with the nightlong festival
of the Thracian goddess Bendis which provides the setting for the first book of the
Republic.
88 See, gencrally, Friedlindcr, 1, 126-53; Philip Merlan, "Form and Content in Plato's
Philosop~y·:.Jowmll~ ofrhe History ofldetJs, 8 (1947), 406-30; Ludwig Edelstein, "Piatonic
Ano~ymuy, Ame~carr]oumal ofPhiloloRy. 83 (1962), 1-22; Paul Plass, "Platonic Ano-
~~:;~. and lrony m thc Platonic Dialogues," Arrreriam Journal of Philology, 85 (1964),

89 Friedlli.ndcr •. 1, _148; he th~ ~oes _on to discuss sorne ofthe usual interpretations: (1) By
~ea~ of ~J1o~ma Plato d1su~gu1shes his own views from Socratic philosophy. (2) 1t is
or t esa e o courtcsy ~o ~·s host that Socrates ascribes Agathon's notions to his own
fo~r:"~' 5elf/~d a~ows D1ot1ma to refute them, thus avoiding having to make a personal
crUicJs~ o gat on .. (3) As a good dialectician Socrates cannot permit himsdf to make
a speec . (4) As an Jg.no.rant ~an Socrares cannot prescnc himself as a uide to rhc
lranscendentalldcas. S1 dar v1ews are voiced by Robin 0929), xxv-xxvii~
On Diotima as prophetess, see Robin (1929), xxiii-xxiv.
Saxonhouse (1984), 20, contcnds, however, that it would hav. b . b. {i A h ·ns tu
have sufTcred thc plague brforr thc outbreak of th P l e c_en eltcr or t e
D101ima with a lack ofpolitical foresight in postpon:n ~~~~onn~s1an ~a~ and shc U~~s
to the problem uf Diotima's gendcr, she concludes· "~h' [plymK th1s hnc of rcasonll g
the cxprrts in rrolilrt--abstract lsicJ from the politic~l ~d e~alc and th1.• philosophcr-
a woman btcause thc Joven he describes are unlikr th;:al~~:cratcs lcarns of lo ve fr~:;
Spl't'Ches; thcy are apolitical." cused lov1.·n oftht earl
lf2 Hut cf. J'imarus 7Ub-72d, wherc Plato appears to retr f f
mantic mthusiasm. On the mediatinR function of rrds, ::~e ron~ this !lilnRuinl' vicW 0
and l'latomc Dialcctic," PhroNrdJ, 4 (1'159), 12«~34 rry Stannard, "Socratic Ero•
 Notes to Chapter 6 1 199

93 Friedlinder, 111, 15-18; Krüger, 105-19; Brendinger, 11-12; Penwill, 147-49. Eryxima-
chus ¡5 rreatcd more sympathetically by Ludwig Edelstein, "The Róle of Eryximachus in
Plaro's Symposium," Transactions ofthe American Philo/ogical Association, 76 (1945), 85-103,
and by David Konstan, "Eryximachus' Speech in rhe Symposium," Apeiro11, 16 (1982),
40-46, who also survcy earlier work on the subject.
94 J wish ro thank Richard Patterson for helpful guidance on this point. On rhe traditional
conncction between philosophical wisdom and the mystery religions in Greece, see
Vernant (1982), 57-60; a rather more fanciful account can be found in Godel. Plato
frequently adverts to thc EJeusinian mysteries in metaphysical conrexts, especiaJiy in rhe
Pllaedo, Republic, and Symposium: see FriedHinder, 1, 71-72, and for a Jisr of citarions, see
Samuel Scolnicov, "Reason and Passion in the Platonic Soul," Dionysius, 2 (1978), 35-
49, esp. 45, n. 24.
95 What follows is a summary of an interpretation set forrh ar greater length in Halperin
(1985), 167-69.
96 For Plato as a "depth psychologist," see the eloquenc and persuasivediscussion by Glidden,
46-53; E. R. Dodds, The Greeks and the Jrrational, Sather Classical Lecrures, 25 (Berkdey,
1951), 218.
97 Fr. 897.6-7 (Nauck 2) = Athenaeus, 13.56lab; thc contexr is unknown. The fragmenr as
a whole seems ro anticipare the idea which, according ro Ehlers (who neglecrs rhe
fragment), originated with Aeschines-namely, that erOs conduces ro virrue. For rhe
connections betwecn the ero tic doctrines of Euripides and rhe Socrarics. SC'C' Hden No~.
Sophrosyne: SelfKnowledge and SelfRestraint ;11 Greek Literature, Comdl Srudies in Cl.assl-
cal Philology, 35 (llhaca, NY, 1966}, 7~74, qualified by Vlasros (1981}, 21. n. 63.
98 Cf. Kranz (1926/a), 445-46, and (1926/b), 322, whoargues rhat Diorima represt."'Dtsherself
as a hierophant of the mystcries.
99 See, generally, Clinton; H. W. Parke, ¡:t:stivals ofthe Athmian~. A_spccrs o{Grcc~ ~n~
Roman Life (hhaca, NY, 1977), 57--62; Erika Sirnon, 1-"estivaiH!I :1.mca: .411' .1.rc~ ~e•
Co,mnenlary, Wisconsin Srudies in Classics (Madison. 198.3). 27-29, .W. .
lowenstam 92 claims rhat rht.· mysric vocabulary cmploycd h)· StXrares's llionm;. In
the prcsenc~ of,three persons (Akibiades, Phaedrus. and Et)"XIIllac.·hus) "'"~ "'~::::
to be cxilcd 011 the chargl." of ~ro~ani_ng the rnystc.·r.it'~. :m~::: :h.at ~~::~:~~:-,h:r 3ioll'rilq{C'
1
profanes rhc mysteries of erOs m h1s hfe. For anothc:r mgt'n PP
trials toa rcading uf rhe Sy•nposium, sc..-c Nusshaum (19H6). 1%.

Clinton. esp. 6K--lJ9, H6. 97-911. . ~,( lltounl.l .as rlk-

Tht.·rc.· an•. uf ,·ourse, othcr ways of rrant~g rht·. c.·ulruro~l ~ntt-~1'1:..,.. 111 rfk' 1-:ullli'fi•IÑ>.
fl•male li.nuutcr of a rnaiC' insrirurinn--:''nc rhmk~. tor ,•x.unpiC'.. ':' ~:c.-.J rhar lltown.a, .as .a
d. Zc.·itlin (l'nl4); Lor.aux, 119-5."\; {..ase..l2U--1 Ir m_attht ht: l)t • ··m.-k·) .-nJ di("
dJdstc.· ,ric.·src.·ss. plays a sinular ndc.·, umttnM m hcrsc:lr rtk· n.uuul 11 ' 1 ~ 11 h 1lltlflnl.l.
divinc.~hut wc rnusr he.· ,·.arditl ru .1\"0hl du· .l.m~··rs ul :.lht•tn.an.ufltlU. .alt~~Jt.-h.a~~oft'. :~~IM"
1 u ,·uuh.l 1101 t•t"C."nrly 1-· pn·sc.·nr .u AM.arhon s !>\"1111""-'"'unt. 1:. pn~um 1 ".,.,. 1, 1.. "'
w 1 01 .1 olrflu•NttJ. a var~ut l~kl· Adtt"ll.l, han .1 .()'N(• .1 wom.ln ¡JII!.L!l. 11:~:.:. tn•~rnu'ftf
l!lo 1 ~ ahs~Juu·ly nurhmM ro lurC'¡4n.•un,t ht•r put.111n• ,·ho~slll\: 111 ,.,,urr.u~ 1 .. nt"'k"'!ll-. .u
15
d~ ~rr pruphcrn· ,mthunty Ir '" .,~¡.,,, IIII.,J,·.a,hn"' ''' .,r-·.ak ''' l"h••flnt.l Alli ,~,f)~oml" .....-mf
~: ,·usr.nn.ary 111 tlw !Oodtul.arlv hr.·utun.·. tlwn.·b~ IIIIJ•I,·•nlll~.ll 111•1fllll.l ~k,.;,~ ... ~u,..,rh
:,IJkC'. lln rh•· 1unrr:u ~·. 1 1 lo~tu un1lt!ii tu rnt•nu••n .an\ J'll"l" fiuu·tr•~•-th•: ',,. !>ht· 11,., mo~nlk
, 1 1111 , 111 ,. ti•M"•Iw ~.~~· .111\ wlu·r..· 1h.11 !Ooht• 1s .1 rrlt'!>ft'!ii~; hr nunh "~
¡,,,. ,..,J
,,.fw-t 111•
!':,u·rU•n· (to'fllltol: Jtlhl), Jltl.'liUIU.IhJ,· tht• !liUr1 \ll l'"'f'lt'rfiM' th.ll fl"'~"'l.l 'll l...rh.1pl liwn"
1, 1u 1oht"l" o~l•u h.1d (t0r tl"lftnt•TI hlllnu·rant tC"m•h· ,.,.JIIW'U, R'lll' 1 kn,l, tt
200 1 Notes to Chapter 6

is an analogy between Diotima and Lysistra.ta, whose ~ame and authority m~ y be intended
to allude to that ofher contemporary Lys1mache, pr1estess ~f Ath~~a Pohas: see D. M.
Lewis, "Noteson Atticlnscriptions (11), XXIII: W~? Wa~ Lysistrata. An~ue~l ofth~.British
School e~t Athtns, 1 (1955), t-13; Helene P. Foley, The Female lntruder ReconsJdered:
Women in Aristophanes' Lysistrtlltl and EcclesitJzusae," C/assical Philology, 77 (1982), 1-
21, esp. 8; Loraux, 157-96. for an interes~ing treatme_nr_ of sorne comparative material,
see Elizabeth A.Ciark, "Ascetic Renunciauon and Femmme Advancemcnt: A Paradox of
Late AncientChristianity." Ascetic Pietyt~nd Womttr's Faith: Essays on Late Ancie11tChristian~
ity, Smdies in Women and Religion, 20 (Lewiston, NY, 1986), 175-208.
103 Vlastos (1981), 56.
104 See John Patrick Lynch, "The Ancicnt Symposium asan lnstitution: Social Drinking and
Educational Issues in Fifth Century Athens," Laetaberi.s (Journal of the California Classical
Association), n.s. 4 (Spring 1986), 1-15, esp. 6-7, who compares the symposium to the
modern instilution of men's clubs and bars.
tOS On sex at the symposium, especially fellatio, and its dcpiction on vases, see Keuls, 160-
69, 18()-86, 212-13, 267-73; Dover (1978), 182; Golden (1984), 313-14; Borthwick, 32.
106 To be sure, Phaedrus does deem Alcestis more heroic than Orpheus; he criticizes the
lauer not for being in lave with a woman but for being a sissy; and his comparison of
Achilles to Alcestis is not intended to promete phili11 over erO.s but only to suggest that
it is nobler to lay down your life for another when you have less incentive to do so.
Nonetheless, thc effcct of what Phaedrus says is to dismiss both erO.s for women and the
t'rOs of women from che discussion.
107 Erbse, 201-02.
108 That is, her approval of Alcestis does not imply approval of heterosexual object-choice
per se-another reminder that Plato does not consider the sameness or difference of the
scxes of the sexual partners to be valid criteria for differentiating between kinds of
"sexuality."
ICJ'J Knnz (1926/b), 321-22; Singer, 79; Saxonhouse (1985), 52-54; Freeman, 172-73.
1111 See jones (1991/b); FouC>ult (1985), 130-33.
111 1 wish to thank Froma l. Zeitlin for making this aspect of Plato's strategy clear to me.
C~ Saxo~~~use (~9HS), 62: Plato "has found in women-thosc who give birth, those
w o are 1 erent rom t~e m.a~es. those who are closer to the private realm-a symbol
that ~comes useful for h1s cnt1que of an Athenian society devoted h oliticallife of
ambmon, money, and war." to t e P
112 Foucault (1985), IK7-225, esp. 215ff.
113 Scc, gcnerally~ l>over (1978), S2-53, M-85, Hll-Otl; furthcr, Goldcn
1984)· Halperin
(1986); and Wmkler (1989/a). In the paragraphs that fi 11 1h ( ' ·
of Halpcrin (19H6), which should be consultc:d for ~ ~1 owd ave su~marizcd thc thc:siS
u c:r ocumentat•on.
114 Quoted by Uover (1978), S2; scc, also, Foucault (19K5), 223-24
liS Dover (I'J7K), K5. .
1J(, S« thc sourccs cited by Halpcrin (19HS), 192, n. Jfl, ;and . d
Elízabeth A. Ratchford, "lphígcnia's V~l: Ae~ehylus A by Dav1d ArmstronB an
ln11i1utr of Clt~Jiiclll Srtulits (Univcrsity of London) J 2 1~:;non 228-48," Bullrtin f1f 1"'
117 S.. Patzer, 121-22. ' ), l-12, plates 1 and 2.
118 Foucault (1985), 232-33, 242-43.
119 Foucault (1'!1!5), 239-411.
1:J'J Ser Thomas S. W' Lrwis, "Thc Brothcrs of Ganymcdc " ¡ B
etp. 161. For biurin in thr ll'IIIC' ofrapc, He Aristoph,anc: ;c,n and Stciner, 147-"'
' ,.,h U192_
 121 Se< Friedlander, 1, 49, 139-42; further, Kahn's discussion of Aeschines's AlcibiiJJitS. See,
;¡Jso, Plato, Lysis 222a, where the entire conversation grinds to a haJt when Socrates
proves rhe logical necessity of ero tic reciprocity.
l22 Halperin (1986), 7f>-79.
123 On the figure of the kinaidos, see Winkler (1989/a) and Gleason.
124 E.g., Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics 1148b2f>-35; pseudo-Aristotle, Prob/ems 4.26; Caelius
Aurelianus, On Chronic Diseases 4.9.137.
125 Hesiod, fr. 275 (M-W); cf. Ovid, Metamorphoses J.Jif>-38.
126 On women's pleasure in intercourse, sec (HippocratesJ, OntheSetd4; Arisrorle, Gmeration
ofAnimals 727b9-IO, 727b3S...36, 728a9-ll, 728a31-32, 739a29-35; Soranus, GyntlfCDIOf/Y
1.37-38, 44; Galen, On the Sttd 2.1; Usefolness ofthe Parts 14.9, 11. Cf., also, Aristotle,
Generation of Animals 721bl5; 723b32; 724a3; Lucretius, 4.1192-1208. Additional sources
are cited by Lonie, 120-21.
127 On this point, see Rettig (1882), 424. Cf. Dover (1978), 52; also, the comment by Schnapp
(1981), 110: "L'amour hétérosexuellen Gr«eJ esr sous Je signe de la réciprociré aJors que
l'amour homosexuel est sous celui de la sociabilité."
128 For a possible exception, see H.alperin (1986), 66n. Cf. SiJvana fastt, Eros: l•_fo,prtl' il
culto, Pubblicazioni dell' lstituto di filologia classica e meclievale, 49 (Gcnoa, 19!"J, ~
42, who ascribes anterOs to the erómenos, the junior partner in a parderasric reJaaonsb1p,
whereas the term, when predicated of maJe subjects, normaJJy signifi~ ~v.aJry in ,_s::::
Dover (1978), 52, to whose list of citations should be add'cd Eunp1dcs, R/tnlls 1 •
Plutarch, Moralia 760b; Athenaeus, 540e.
129 Anterastilis is the Greek name of a prostitutr in Plautus's PonwiMS.
130 1 quote the translation provided by Dover (1978), 16S.
13 . . b6 727b6-JJ. 729a9-ll. a24-bll, 7.1111.2~.
1 Anstotle, GenertJtion of Anrm•ls 724a35- • . Problcm of Masocbism " in
732a2-10, 768b15-30. Cf. Sigmund Freu_d,_ "J.he E_c~o~;:chrsubjt'ctin.lch.ar.lcterisli­
Strachey, XI~, 15?-70, esp. _162_: mas':r~~~~i=-:~:r.a~. or copul.ared with, or ~JVing
cally female s1tuat1on; they s_•gmfy, d~S/b) .34-6?). Also, J. R. Willson, 0/Jnt'lms ..,¿
birth to a baby" (a~d cf. lnga~~.~~~ rraits ;hat compt'*' rhe COR' ofthc- fem_.a~ person.al-
~ynecology (Sr. Lou•s: 1?71), 43.sochism• .and pass•viry"': James. 89.': -Fmu~Jnlly tmds
ny are feminine n.arc•ssls~, m~asculiniry ro tYIC' acti\"t". rntlns, _a~xrous tor rrpcatrd
to be passive and reccptiYC', ... Thomas JefTro.1tr. p,.;....,m 11..1 c.,,...·.H~y (~ondon,
drmonstrations of potc"nCY · "' ~f rhr srx drivr in rM man 11 thr u~ to domm.atr ~~
1%7), 726: "An importanr fea~to has will: an lht wumm ac.'"qUit'k"'CTIC'C' re.• W mastcrtul
women Jsit) and subjusatC' h: Scully .and Hart. lllroNt). fn>m htrC' n •s a small srrp lo
takes a high place" (quot~stit~s (Cambrilltcc.•. I'IN). SU-SI. who c."l.liiS~n wd•sm o~n.J
Thum.as Natcd. McW~• 1 ~ bur upho!Js • dlsUm"tnm bftWft'lll mak o~nd frmo~le srxu~luy
masoc.·hisn••o be ~rvC'I'•:::·:~t p.assiv•cy; d lhl" Jetmsr •lf'""normal s.ldtl-mn~·h•snl b)"
in tl•rms of ~~:;t-4. Sinul.u vlrws WC'IT nlUtiiK'I~· C"xprnsN 1n rhr m•rr•.a,rt manu-
Saut~n. 17~:ztl's',11 uf I\J.1II'!i. s« Jo~c.·kM•n. r..l~\
als ol thr 1 \1\-1,. !WC', aa.o, l~w\"1' (1~7M). ltU:l\; Surtan. 1~ • .!2~25. PtJSWbiC'
132 (ic.lldc'n (1~),; thr
usu.al Jt&IIC'MI .art' d 15,-uun:l by ("lidm (IWM), .\21-:-ll. o~uJ bv Kcub;
drvianon• ,...,,~~? hu lurlhrr Jn.n1ss•c.MI. H'C' HOnr Hundrcd Yrus c.IJ HorttoK"!LWbt) ·
l71-tl... ~;,~~~ ••;. lidie' .\1
In lh•• H.&"Jtirld. "Nutl"' ,,... rhc- <lin't'll. Wrdd•'l·'"" A.....M. IS (19112), 181-,_11. np 111..!-
1.13 !:.':7- l'lllo~n•r (I'M4). IIYU-. .il; Vf'l'llant: (I'MI).
202 1 Notes to Chapter 6

134 See Foucault (1985), 245; (1986), 148-49, 151-52, 161-64, 179-80, 181-82, 206-10, 219-
26.
135 Bizarrely interpreted by L. P. Wilkinson, "Ciassical Approaches. IV: Homosexuality,"
Eruountrr, 51.3 (Scptember 1978), 21-31. esp. 30, who concludes that the hoy doesn't
have 311 orgasm because he is below thc age of puberty; Keuls, 275, seems to be under
thc same impression.
136 On this ideal ofunity in marriage, see Lisette Goessler, Pluldrchs Geda11ken iiber die El1e
(Zurich, 1962); Foucault (1986), 162, who also cites Antipater, Peri~4mou, apud Stobaeus,
Florile~ium 25.
137 The outstandii'l.g counter-example to the pattern 1 have becn describing is provided by
Petronius, 132-if, as recent editors argue, the passage in question has indeed becn
displaced from a paederastic context and inserted into a scene ofheterosexuallove-making
where it did not originate: "The mere loveliness of his body called to me and drew us
into love. There was the sound of a rain ofkisses as our lips met, our hands were clasped
and discovered all the ways oflove, then our bodies were held and bound by our embrace
1iam alli~ara mutuo amhitu corportJ J until even our souls were made as one soul [tJnimarum
quoq11t tnixturtJm(" (trans. Heseltine-Warmington). Richardson does not comment on this
passage. which would seem to posean obstacle to his interpretation.
138 Quoted from Tl1t Stcorrd Stx, trans. H. M. Parshley (New York, 1974), 465, by Stigers,
54. See, now, the elaboration of this outlook by Irigaray (1985/b), 23-33 and 205-18.
139 Unfortunately, Plato's exacr meaning is not clear, because the key word, hettJiristritJi,
occurs nowhere else in the cb.ssical period and its meaning is known only from the later
glosscs of ancicnt lexicographers: see Dover (1978), 172-73.
140 See Dover (1978), 163n.
141 Halporin (1985), lf>4-66.
142 jone. (1991/b).
143 Halperin (19!15), 177-78.
144 Vlastos (1981). 41; cf. 21: "Beauty stirs us so dceply, Plato is saying, because we ha ve the
power to crcate and only the bcauty we love can release that power."
145 See, generally, Pl1ardnu 275d-27Hb, wherc dtJlona, ptJttr, and adtlphos recur (commentary
by Jacques Derrida, "La pharmacie de Platon," LtJ dissimilltJlio" IParis, 1972), 69-197, esp.
84--95), _although Socratcs also employs agricultural imagery in spcaking of litcrary
productlon: cf. Page duBois, "The Homoerotics of thc Phaedrus," Pacific Coast Philolo.()'.
17.1-2 (1982), 'HS, esp. 14. and duHois (19!18), 117-7H. .
l.U. Bumyeat, 13, calls our anemion to the "degenerare" vcrsion of this passagc at Rrpuhlic
41J6a, whcrc intcrcoursc bctween unworthy pcrsom; and philusophy produces (!(t'rltiOII:
a2 , 016 ) bastards and sophisms. For other instances of procreativc ima~cry in Plato, scc
Pltt~tdrus 27Sd-27Kb; ·rlrratltllu 14Hc-151d, with Burnyeat's discussion.
147 ~or an c_xcellent discussion of possiblc tensions bctwc:cn the accuunts uf crotic procrc:;~tion
10 thc Symposi~m and of intellcctual midwifcry in thc "fhrarlf"lm, sc.·c.• Hurnyc.·at; un thc
mea~mK ofthc •magc of mldwifery itsclf, sc.-c l~uth Padcl "Wmnen· Modcl for Pu5!iCSSIUII
by (,reek IJ;¡~mons," in lmaRts oj Wonrl"tt in A.nriquiry, ;d. Avc.·nl .Camcrun and Améhc.·
Kuhrt (IJetrun, I'Jti:l), l-19, esp. 11.
148 For 01 ,cons~ctus_ ofliterary suurces, !oc.'c: Maria <:raz1a onannu, "ll5scrvatinn• sul tc.·n•.a
cklb KIUsta rcclprocni& ólntUrosa d;~ Si!.ITu a1 cmnici " CJuadtnri 1ttbiiiiiiÍ di culrura cf¡l.uiul.
1.(' (ll'?~~· llf)-~J, ;and Anne I.Cnsonl Giacomelli, .:The Jmltic.-c- of Aphrudi~e in Sapphu
Fr l. 1 ranJaclhiiU o.frltt A.mrrunlt l'hiloloRirtJI A.nociariolt. tlt) (1'J Jl. IJS-42. whu dl!lccrn
 che same erotic dynamic in Sappho and in thc maJe lyricists alikc; for a study of Sappho 's
marked deviation from the dominant maJe pattcrn, sce Stigcrs, 46-49. For sorne corrcs-
ponding pictorial sources, sec Christiane Sourvinou-lnwood, "A Series ofErotic Pursuits:
Jmages and Mcanings," Journal of Hellenic Studies, 107 (1987), 131-53.
l49 1wish ro make it clear that 1 do not considcr there to be anything inrrinsicaJJy mascuJinc
about an crotics of pursuit and capture or anything intrinsically fcminine about an crotics
ofprocrcativity. Thc masculine and feminine paradigms of crotic feding discusscd here
refer to fcaturcs of the classical Greek sex/gcnder system, not to ideal typcs; 1 wish
rhcrcforc to dissociate m y own views cxplicitly from rhe frcquent and typically obscuran-
tist claims about thc conncction bctween femininity and generation-as exemplified by
the following statemcnt of Jung's: "Die Psychologie des Schópfcrischen isr cigenrlich
weibliche Psychologie, denn das schópfcrischc Werk w.iichst aus unbcwussten Ticfen
cmpor, recht eigcntlich aus dem Reichc der Mütter" (quoted by Krdl f1975J, 4<KJ).
Compare Rochclle Paul Wortis, "The Acccptance of thc Concept of Maternal Role by
Behavioral Scicntists: lts Effects on Women," Ameritatl }o11mal o.f Ortlropsythiatry. 41
(Octobcr 1971), 733-46; also, Callaway.
150 Scc Tarrant, 120. For this and for the passages rhat follow 1 a m indebted ro Bumycar, 14•
11. 4.

151 Fr. 199 (Kock).

152 Sce LSJ. s. v. rikró, IV
153 So T arrant, 122.
154 1 wish to thank Maria-Viktoria Abricka for calling m y arrcnrion ro rhts ~spccr ofPJaro's
strategy.
155 Th . . . d 0 fPI irio11. n.s. 2 (1975). Jlh-
us, Dtskm Clay, "Piatonic Srudtcs and rhe Sru Y aro.' · .. "ri ... d Robin
32, esp. 124-25, takes kyeitl in the SympMirmr to mean "be tC"Cund or pt' ' ·
(~964), 1.3-14. .~ , . St."<" Lesh· tOr .l surn·~· ,,{ dK.'
l::!u,~euides 658-66ll: thc farhcr al~m· quahhl'S. as ~~~Jih .. m ..-4 Hu~,,ry ,~t"Em¡,ry.•/,~~Y· 1J
anctcnt embryological~ conrr~vers•t.•s: aJ~o~ Jos~~lli--.19 : And RAnkin. 14ln. fdr.l t~slln~r-
~d., rcv. A. HughL'S (CambndgL", 1959!.· (,~d::, A
llo inro ,¡nrhrop-.,J,,~,~·.lJ pc.·r.opc.•,:tl\(',
mg anc:mpt to put thL' claims ofthL' AnciJ}Jt ro lfJ
sce Dclancy; also, Rcad. 14; ()"flaht.•rry. 17-hl. t.-sp. ~- ·
157 H.ankin, 141-42; pllCi' Morrison, 54. C(. Krdl (I 97S).
ISK Lluyd, H6-94: J)ecit.·rmt.• (197(1), HH-HI. . . ~o; l-ll .-a,11 rfKf 111 piA•'l'li,
J)¡• Jj¡· ,,,,,,/i,f 1 ,:, ~,':~l~ ~1 ~ 1 ,.". 11~..!1'' MAnuh/t,<Jtfll)f
1
151.) Tlll·se rL·ports (by Censorinus, 10

howcvt.•r, and tlu·ir ;.u·,·u.r_a_,·y .'·~:~~~--:~-~~:-~~··:~~·:,~-; l ~7~..¡. pnw11k-" A ,f,·rAI '"" '111'
;,,,.,f.
405, 1~ 1 ,ll"t'~'Jll rlu:t
Sl'\'nJS ::rv
?H......HII; J'n•us. ""' ,..,. Otr t/lr
L"an·ful sL·ruuny. s,.,_., .1ls• · .1 ·; 1 hJ"''' .1,:n"''' rho~f w 1•rn•·n •''~''' ~·~'l~" ~ . .·, 1 ;~-u~:K"'ll ~'
Tht.• Hipr•ll"ratu· w.n.ft•rs :•·•·"~. ~~· '"'""' 1 ;!1-.!~. f)l•t"•'·""' •'' lf :'''""(:. ~~; h>r ¡fK·,-.u~rK"'l.·­
s,·,·d/N,Iflm'''fllll' (.luid ........ \ 1 -¡,IHI·~ fjJ',I.\; llo1nt. ~~- •l.f. '''111.'": .f 1111,¡ 11-.f r.tlllo'l 1h.1U
M.muli (II,IHU), 405: •~··::s;'~~.:;,~,-ruu;t 111 ""''m''f'· M'"l' 1 ),::::; ·~·;,,,,,,;',,, "'"'"'""' """":~':
uunht•rw-.·t.•n urJ.'A~'; 1,J~I~ ..f4 ,...t17 "''""·lhm,.sdk 11' ~ ','~· •.' ll ~.... u,, 11 ,~,·1k! ''"' 1·. ~:,.,.l
.. l.lfl'll,¡••'"' Mo~nnh 1 ·l ,. 11," 11, wolllll'U). '"'''·- l· ~, ......f '"'" n•" f'"''"j.
.!.f. f,_lf,h.W...-.1'1 {.1M r,:hm~,'h'.~~~un·. lh•· ""'"" •"""'1''"•'' •'' 1•·•:; ..,: w-. ,..,,,rn "'' •"""'',.,.,. ~:
Ul. Jnd (I'IHI'I).l7·-:.:,u!nuf'•'"''"' n·rn..fuo·u,,· ..t.-.•1:~.:,.,,,.,.,-.t ,., '"'"""'" "'' :: 1~
1, 1 ,. 11 ,audru•••Uirl~ · ., 11111 , '"''· rhJI ro•n1.1k "'"""'. '"' '.'1~.,, ... t 11 ,, ¡.., •· •'' '"" ~ ,...,....
f)dJII~Y· otf•. 11 · 11 ·l .-~t •.-k·¡ 1,tur•'""'"l'k,f,.:!t'l ,~ ""'''¡,.,n,.th'1 '
~~·;~··::~:",';,:~·.~:.·,:·:..,~~ ;:;.:.,,, 17 ,,, , , (;, .. n...•t~•'·- -
204 1 Notes to Chapter 6

writc:n, such as thC' Hippocratics. who con~~ rhe rxiste~CC: of female se.ed, agrec wirh
Aristotle and rhe A.eschylean A.pollo in ass1gnmg thr prmc1pal procreat1ve role ro the
male.
S.., generally, Gmtr.rion of Anim•ls 1.19-20. 726a30-729a33, esp. 727b6-11, 728a31-33;
also, 739a20-bt9 (refuting the arguments of HIStory of An1m11ls 10, as Rousselle I1980J,
1101-04, notes).
162 Stt Manuli (1980), 406-08; Preus; Micharl Boylan, "The Galenic and Hippocratic Chal~
Jenges ro Aristotle's Conception Theory, ")oumal oftlrt Hislory of BiolORY· 17 (1984), 83-
112; and, for the later tradirion, Brown, SS-61. Soranus, GynatcoloRr 1.37, maintains the
link berween pleasure and conception in women, alleging even that a woman who conceives
when raped must to ipso ha ve fclt an unconscious, preixistent desire~ Calen, however, held
that pleasure is not a necessary condition of conception (Dtlocis 4jfoctis 6. 5).
163 Horowitz, 183-89. Cf. Allen; Rousselle (1988), 29-32, who emphasizes the continuing
influence of Aristotle in late antiquity. According to Thomas Laqueur, "Orgasm, Genera-
tion, and the Politics of Reproductive Biology," Rtprtstnldlions, 14 (Spring 1986), 1-41,
belief in a causal connection between orgasm and conception in women was not aban-
doned until the late eighteenth century.
164 Set' Harrison, 22-23, who notes that at Sparta the rule was the exact opposite, hence in
line with the views of the Aeschylean Apollo. Cantarclla, 45-46, offers sorne alternate
interpretations of the meaning of the Athenian prohibition against the marriage of uterine
siblings.
165 Vlastos (1981), 424, dismissing scholarly objections to translating lrytin as "be pregnant,"
docs not seem to ha ve noticed that in certain passages ofPiato's dialogue the word cannot
mean "be pregnant" in any simple or straightforward sense (e.g., at 206c human beings
are said to be pregnant btfort intercourse which is in tum called a rolros). But, despite this
crucial incoherence, Plato's vocabulary-as Burnyeat, 14, n. 5, justly says-"allows no
backing away from thc implications ofthe metaphor lof pregnancy and conception). "
~ora fuller discussion of"pregnancy" in the Symposium, see Burnyeat, 8, who notes that
m Plato "pregnancy is the cause, not the consequence, of Iove; and the birth is love's
exprnsive manifeslation."
166 Su Dover (1980), 147, who notes that Diotima's description or the positive effect of
beauty on 1he soul-the soul "mclts," "relaxes"-images a female rather than a malc
sexual response.
167 Sce Knnz (1921>/a), 443.
1611 T;is clause wu condemned u a gloss on 1; ,.;. by llst, Rückerr, Reuig, and Hug. whose
e ltonal dec1s1ons _doubtless reflect a certain uneasincss about thc way rolros is uscd here;
the clausc was retamed as genuinc by Stallbaum, Cousin, and Zeller (Robin (1964), 14n.).
169 Cf._Iri~~ay (1 985/a), 738'., for a discussion of Freud's construcüon of _fomdlt procrcative
dnart 1n JUSI: these phallic terma.
Seto Kranz (1926/b), 322-23. Particularly expressive ofthc tone Diotima ukcs In ta1kmg
toSocrates are the following passagn: 202bt0, 204bl, 207, 2_ 4• 2< el, 209es-2t(la4. llne
m•ght c~mpare thc way that Jocasta's maternal idcntity is rcprctcntcd by SophodC't m
thc OttltpuJ Rtx through her magisterial opcning speech: "Why ha ve you two rau.ed thlt
~srlns q_uarrel ~ words? An:n't you ashamed to be pursuing private grudgC"s when the
cny ~~ ~·s•ck as 11 •s? Why don't you come insiCie, Oedtpus, and you, Creon, go homr
~or thC' m~rn •naloaue, cf. Ernestine Fnedl, V.aJililrd: A Vill•~ in Mfltltm <;,tct.
~~K Studtrs In Cultural Anthropo1ogy (Ncw York, 1%2), 78-M1. By conuast, ROSCII•
r.J, Judan I>IOttma 10 br "a m•sculine woman, who domin1 tr1 Socratn, prcfers ch•1drC"n
 Notes to Chapter 6 1 205

frhepsyche ro rhose ofrhe body, and herselfaspires to synoptic vision";John P. Anton,

~The Secret ofPiato's Symposium," Southern]ournal ofPhilosophy, 12 (1974), 277-93, esp.
282. however, takes Diotima's rebukes to Socrates to express her prophetic anticipation
of what Anton considers his erotic and educational faiJure with Alcibiades.
171 SeeJones (1991/b).
112 See Colin Murray Turbayne, "Plato's 'fantastic' Appendix: The Procreation Modelo(
rhe Tionaeus," Paideia, S (1976), 125-40.
J7l Cf. Symposium 203c3--4: tikttin epithymti htmon he physis; is rhere a pun on physis here,
which also means (female) geniralia? (See Winkler (1989/d(, 217-20.)
174 Manuli (1983), 189.
175 Rousselle (1980), 1092, 1098; Manuli (1980), 39}-94, describes rhe ropic addressed by
Hippocratic gynaecology as women's ''genitality" rather than "sexualiry" and discusses
the physicians' isolation of and concentration on the reproductive funcrion in women
(pp. 39}-403); so, also, Manuli (1983), 152.
176 Rousselle (1980}, 1095, ascribes a beliefin the therapeutic vaJue ofsexual inrercourse and
pregnancy to the female patients as weH as to the Hippocratic doctors; see. also, ManuJi
(1980), 400-m, and (1983), 157-58; Lloyd, 84-85, for conrrasring rrearmenrs ofrhis issue.
On the ancient practice of prescribing for women drugs made from animal parts assoaat~
wirh male potency, see LJoyd, 83; note rhat rhe pJant "cydamen," which oftm figures m
Hippocratic prescriptions for a variety ofgynaecological complaints. is said by Theophras·
tus (HistoryofPiants9.9.3) to beuseful inph;ltra, presumably love-potions: LJoyd. 1'!9. IJJ.
177 Cf. G. E. R. Lloyd, Polarity ami Analogy: Two Typ~s of A~wmmtJfltlll 111 &rly Gr«lt
Thought (Cambridge, 1966), 15-85; Vemanr (1974), 149-50: duBo>S (1\1811) ••l'l-<!5. _
l78 D. M. Balme, trans., Aristotl~'s DE PARTIBUS .1.N/M.1.L/UM :rot~x:
GENERA TIONE ANIMALIVM 1 (with p11ssa~es.from 1/.I-JJ. Clarc"~J;n ~~ ~·•rh rhe
(Oxford, 1972), 23. Cf. Aeschylus, fr. 44 (Radt); Plato, M~xrnlls .23 e-- ·
cautionary remarks ofLoraux. 89n. •
17 1 842--41 \IU:~111111N"'k'i ..............5. _....,,.
9 See Menander Perilfeirotnrni 435-36/1013-1 4, Dys(il liS -~)
726-27, Frag~entum dubium (p. JOO Sandbach). ti-. 720 (K ·_ . ll.l
J9H..';) .,,..,_.,.,, Sn'. ~r.dll'. A liT
Detienne (1977), 7~1; Ver•_tan_l (~9!11); _Hurkerr ~,.JtJ.;;,-,..j..,...,,.,dw.1.,t"'-.Jnmll , ....,,
Chandor Bru~tfield, _Th~ _Att•~ f~1~w•ls ".1 ~;~ AverComp.an,·. r"'MI 1. !_v.-.w. ~VI rtK-
Monographs 10 Classll"al St~d1es (~alem. ~" r•'-·ult~re. o~nJw"unro. Ftwo~n"'-"\VIStnk"f"VI
conncction bctwet-n the festtvalsof l)e•::::.". ~;!ek \\'OOIC'fl who wrR" '"' sw.lk fUr11t1':,":;-
ofthe meaning ~fthc Th_c~mopho;"~i;nnd mll "",. rrruntph ~wrr tM.11 "",. •TIC'fl.r•,: ,.-.ro
intl'rprl"tin it _(111 oppos~uon 10 1 l.lfl·). ( )ntht" km.t.k r,..,.,-h· o~s .m1t* LmJ ~w ru:._,..._h.
women's fl"rtihry, 5t''-' Wmk!rr (I'IH . 1 l"'tt'Ws 1 ~; 1-.nd.u. l"r,...,. 4 ~S]. ~., ••\M*w
Thrugnis, 5H2: ~cs,:h~lu~.l~~~~~;:;,;;s Rr.\ 1111. 115·. 14M.\, 14""~~~~~~~~~ .."·11.
•1.miJtoru·StJIJ. lro~clunlolf'~\ j~,.,."us•r IH. 21. Pl•h,. t."•~rl•.• «Jhtoo.' 1 \'tll ArtNinJo.tnD.
12KI,Iclfl IUIJS, O«slrsS ..• l Fu.,.,.,..ios.\!,S,,ro~nu•.<·~·ol.~l l ·,,. .u ,':'. .fll tlln
Mcortllia 144b; pn•ud•~-An:::::":~,,;, lo\ v~·nto~nr (1.,74). , ... ~ 4 1. .tul~:~, .
C)m•i,.lorrt'til'd 1 51. 2-::~.~-.II.!Uil' (ll,ln'). 1. ofll Jl,t, :'w-.11~•~. '""'· l '"'\.1~. "ff,4&~
m.lrr1.1Kl' a• u.nun~: . tuolr• qutllt-.Jiw Ar~•h.. h-. «.;~• ~;;;:,";:',,, ¡. ,..,. 1 U.
Sl"Cihc-upinionnf l·.n•t;..;,.,. 1 ~7. \of, l••h·n. rlll IIK ,\n<J. "i. ',.,.._. An .......... (~
t-1 jl~ll'f""'•"·•J. Nr,!/ lwl~h•••••al-l•rt""'•"'"'''nd.'\rta · 1 4 .....-~ ......•
~~~r.-7,wh~;;.~~:• 7(~:~~~~;M.tl;
iJI .41111..,.1' 7 . '\1 1"
11. ~\h.l·1N'tl>~ : 7~ 1;;.;'/i.';~;.:
l't'loltl~• 4 ~-"?V.~U--.M. ol
... b• ._·..-l.
,.,......,_. '1"] l... ,.......,.
~~;1 ;1~ 1 ::~:.~ 1 ~,.,.~ 1111 .t In.. t 'lrnt"ll PI Alfo• .......... ·
206 1 Notes to Chapter 6

Glcason). Se< Lesky. 31-38/1255-62:Joly, 80-81: Said, 113-15;James Longrigg, "Galen

on Empedocles (Fragment 67)," Philo/oJIUS, 108 (1964), 297-300: May, 1, 382n.: Lloyd,
90_9 l;Jones (1991/a). The homology between women and earth m the anc1ent medica)
writers ¡5 discusscd further by Hanson; the coldncss and wetness of women is treated by
Carson.
Since as 1 ha ve stated above, Greek notions of women were not stable or consistent
but vari,able according to the context ofmasculine interest, women's bodies can also be
thought ofas hotter than men's ifit is to men's advantage that they ~e so: ~ee P~rmenides,
quoted by Aristotle, Parts of Animals ~a29-30; the anonym~us wrne~s (1dent1fied as the
Hippocratics by Hanson) to whom Anstotle refers at Gtntrtl.tron of Atmnals 4.1. 765b; and
the author of (HippocratesJ, Diseases of Women 1.1, who cla1ms that women are moister
bur warmer. Hanson maintains that the Hippocratics generally considered women
warmer, and cites Epidtrnics 1.13 (case 14). 3.17 (cases 7 and 12) as evidence; so, also,
Manuli (1983), 159. For other instances of the same outlook. one might mention the
various Greek expressions that represent women's bodies as stoves in which phalluses
and babies are cooked: see Jeffery Henderson, The Maculatt Muse: Obscene Language in
Allir Comrdy (New Haven, 1975), 47-48: duBois (1988), 110-29.
E.g .. IHippocrates], Or1 the Seed 4: see Foucault (1985), 12~30. A similar view was
expressed by Marie Stopes, the modero British sexologist, who claimed that women's
bodies required rhe periodic infusion of male secretions in arder ro escape being physiolo-
gically "surved": see jackson, 66.
183 Willard R. Cooke, Essrnria/s ofGyt~troloxy (Philadelphia, 1943), 59-60, quoted by Scully
and Bart, 1046.
184 James, 893, quoted by Callaway, 169 (italics mine).
185 Scully and Bart, W48.
186 langdon Parsons and Sheldon C. Sommers, GynecoloRy (Philadelphia, 1962), 501~2.
quoted by Scully and Bart, 1047 (italics mine). For a critique ofthis tradition as it surfaces
in psychoanalysis, see Irigaray (1985/b), ~7.
1H7 Dctienne (1977). Cf. J. Hillman, Thr Myrh of Analysis (Evanston, 1972), 224-25:
we encounter a long and incredible hisrory of theoretical misadventures and observational
errors in maJe sciencc regarding the physiology of reproduction. Thesc fantastic theorics
and fanlastic obscrvaaions are not misapprchensions, thc usual and nccessary mistakes on
the roa_d to scientif1c progress; thcy <~re rccurrenl dcprecalions of the femininc phrased in
the unn~pea_cha~lc, objeclive language of thc sciencc of the pcriod. The mythic factor
recurs d•sgu•sed m the sophislicated new evidencc of the age" (quotcd by Zcitlin I19H41.
180); cf. Anne Fausto-Sterling, Myths ofGender: Biolotical Throrirs about Womt'n and M 1''1
(New York, 19H5). For a discussion of Grcek scicnce as thc "litcrate rcprescntation of
G.reek_ fol~lorc ·" see lloyd, 201-17; al so, nobcrt Joly, Lr Niveau dr la scietrce hippocratiqtu• ·
ConlrrbUIIO" ala psycholoRit de l'hbtoirt des sdtnrrs (París, 196h).
lktl E.g.~ Augustinc, Dt nupliis fl lOncupiscentia 1.4.17, 1.27.24. Scc Paula Frcdriksc:n. "Au-
gu!ttme and his Analysls: The Possibility of a Psychohistory," Sounditrts. (JI.2 (I'J7H),
206-27, esp. 21(~17; Hrown, 61-t17.
~rislotlc, Crnt~atíon of A.nimals 727b(~l2, 72Ha31-33, 73lJa29-31; Galcn, I>t ltuiJ a.fJi'ctiJ
,.5. ~~ Manuh {ICJHCI), 4CJ~»>; U.ousscllc (ICJHO), 1101-04, 1111-12.
lc.MJ ~telhcim, HJf~JH;j. S. l.a Fontainc, "Rituahution ofWomen's LifL--Crisc5 in HuM,isu,
m l"hr lntrrprt'tllllon o.fRitual: Eu4 y1 ;, Honour o( A.. J. RichtJtd.s, l-d. la Fonlain«.' (lomlun,
IV72), ISCJ-.HlJ, rlp. IHO; J. van Hui, "The l.f.oir of Women as Carc-Givrrs," Rtfilm'úty
11rul lhr l'o1ition of Womm: A.nthropoltJRiclll llllpm (Ancn, 1975 ), 97-123, np. lltJ-1H.
 Notes to Chaptcr (, 1 207

For a general survey, scc P G. Hi_viCrc, "Thc Cm_1vadc: A_ Problcm ll.cborn, Ma 11 , n.s.
9 (1974), 423-35; Rancour-Laferncrc, 362-64, wnh plcolllful rcfcrcnces ro rhc medica!
andscholarly lircrarurcs, ro whoch should be addcdjocl Rochman, W O. Goldrhorp, and
Chrisrinc Simmons, "Fathcrs in Labour, Nf'W Society (Octobcr 16, 1~175), 143--45.
Callaway, 170; Kittay (note 196, bclow), 114-15.
193 Sec:, esp .. Hcrdt (1981). On maJe initiation rites fcaturing pscudo-procreativc imagcry
(but not ncccssarily sexual contacts bctwccn mcn and boys), scc Hcad; Robcrr Murphy,
"Social Structurc and Scx Antagonism," Southwestern Joumal ofAmhropolo~y. 15. 1 (1959),
81-96; Bcrrclhcim, 113-21; M. J. Meggitt, "Malc-Female Relarionships in rhc Highlands
of Australian Ncw Guinea," American Anthropolo~ist, 66.2 (1964). 204--24; M. AJJcn, Ala/e
Cu/ts tnld Secret lnitiations in Melat1esia (Mclbournc, 1967); Hogbin; L. R. Hiatt, "Sccrct
Pseudo-Procrcation Ritcs Among the Australian Aborigines," in A"'hropolo,ey in Ocrania:
Essays Pr~srmed to Jan Ho~bi~t. cd. Hiatt and ChandraJayawardcna (Scranron, PA. 1971),
77-88; Langncss; Marilyn Strathern, Womcn in Betwem: Female Roles ;, a Alah· World
(London, 1972).
194 On maJe mcnstruation (not necessarily linked with paederasry). see Rcad. 15: Bcrrelhcim.
105-08; Hogbin, 87-89, 91, 114-21; Langness, 203; Anna S. Mcigs, .. Malc Pregnancy
and thc l{cduction ofScxual Opposition in a New Guinea Highlands Socicry. ~-thm,Jo,ey.
25 (1976), 393-407, esp. 397-400; Herdr (1981), 185, 190-94, 24+--ln; L• Fon!Jine. 127-
29; Gregor, 186-94; Chris Knighr, "Menstrual Synchrony and che Austr.alian R.unbow
Snake," in Blood MaJliC: Thr Anthropolo~y of MnJStrnaticm. cd. Thomas Buckle~· ~nd
Alma Gottlieb (Berkcley, 1988), 232-55, wirh furrher refL•rcnccs ro rht• Jnrhropolog¡c.d
literature.
195 Herdr (1981), 211, 234-35.
196 For a frank avowal to rhis cfTect by the Kunapipi. see ~auJJ WL·JdL'~L·r. .\[,·t~.srruJIIt'~ Jnti
Mr11opause (Ncw York, 1976), 105. for somc_ofrh: L'Jri~L'r lit~·r.¡run·,o;;;,;,~L~ cw Yo:;
Margarct Mead, Mah• at1d Femalf-: A St~1dy oj thr s~·xrs 111 J (:/'o~'~~;;:lt· Mt·n~rn 1 .mon: A
1~49), 102-<)4; Bcttdhcim; H.urh W l1_d~ and T~t·::;:,::,l;,,:~,,,¡ t>(P,·;·.·h,, __ i,o~ly.•ú. _.;:.~
Rnual Alternativc to the OL·dipal Tr.ansltiOil. /llttnt X J.¡n;ton· c,,;l(-cpl. 111 .\lclfhl'11".~·
(1977), 17-31; Eva Fcdcr Kinay. "Womb_En,•y: An E_. p NI !<J~..J). 9..J--I.!S. ,-sp. 11~1.!;
Essays ;, Frmi"i.st Tlu·ory. cd. Joyn· Tn·bdt:~~~ (:;~~;:.::~~'~ r:,·,h,· Jl!o,,-h,wuh·ntlltt•r.Jlllrt·.
lhncour-Laferncrc, 369--H4, esp . .l71~71.,"(1 ;rt'f.'k mJtt•n.11. wh 1d 1 h•'"~·u·r ..~,.,,,J) ~~;-
For a somewhat J.tl.llogous JJlflrO..JLh tt . . l~.f.) 1-.-._,..;J . .o~rui "(. uh1t Mo.Jds
simplistic litL•ralism of "t•nvy" IIHilkls. SL'C.' Zt·nhn ( . . 11\ t I•IX.!l. 1!'1- ,. ... ,·sr l·f7~.
tlw Fcmalc: H.itL'S uf l>itmysus .Jmi lklllt'lt'r. .irc~J":::.'·,;.,; h ,f,kn 1 n·.tiU""'· h1 111rltt' ..Jk

1
nunparing pJ,¡tunit· plnlu!ooph}'· umk rsh~;'• 1t J!o ~.:,::..~ 11 ,"lm•···Jb. ,( Nu,.)l>JUIII ~~~~..
111
fJsl"inJtion with li'n•mint· st·t·n·t!o, ~·::~~~',;;,,.;,,n.:.lth•n "'"''"'· "'""-':t :,;;,~;;:~';,.,u
IH9-lJO, fur J !oinuldr .lr~unat·nt. M\ . , ,,t;--(11•. S4-·.S.". 1'" u'.:. u¡ 1
ditll·rL·nt lt·.ui provuktt lly ¡:,.,¡hn (l'll'tS). t!of . .

;::~:.:·.:~..~-~~·:.:·~.::·.: ..,.... ·"·: "!·.~~:.~:::.:~·::.~::::.::.~·:::::.~:.'.:·::.::~:::~:~:;.:~:::.:·e;~

"Wunu·n'!t phy!oh·Jit·,,._,•n•l,~·.~:1 :,',~ f"'' "",. ''''"''''~'~'. Jn•l ,hJIII.Ifl·
.. un!o IIIUSl In· u\Tn·,u•u ¡,, 1
208 ¡ Notes to Chaptcr 6

E.g., Aristotle, Gtnrratiotr of At~imtlls,74lb4-5: ~ce Horo:itz, 194--95; Manuli (1980),

202
406-08; Detienne (1976). Compare O Flaherty, .. B-29, 37 3H.
Sce Zcitlin (!98 4), for the dcfinitive study ofthis theme in Acschylus; also, Arthur, t 11-
203
12.
Cf. O'Brien (1981), 127-33, esp. 132: "Plato is struggling with the biologically_ based
204
rcalirics of malc rcproductivc consciousncss. Thc product~ of fcmal~ rep~oducuvc la-
bour-spccics integrar ion and genctic contin~ity_-are _dcprlv~d of thetr u_nny of undcr-
standing and action preciscly becausc this umty 1s not mmJcdJatdy ac_ccssJble t~ mcn. lt
must he mediatcd. The cxpt•ricntial moments of female ~eprod~Jctlvc conscJousne~s,
continncd ¡11 actuallabour, are tlnts denigrated and dehumamze_d, gtven a low va_lue whtle
thc-y are- quite frankly imitatcd in a 'higher' sphere, the creatton ~: con_ccpts m a> ma~e
intercourse of spirit and thought"; duBois (1988), 169-83, esp. 169: 1 bchev~ that llato s
appropriation of thc rcproductivc mctaphors of Greck culture ~sed to dcscnbc _the place
of womcn and his use of this metaphorical nctwork to authonze the m ale phtlosopher
are Jinkcd toa mcraphorical projcct-to the task of a monistic metaphysics, thc positing
of a one--father, sun, god-who is the source and origin of the good."

205 lrigaray {1985/b), 156.

206 for this and much of what foilows, 1 owe a great deal to the work and conversation of
Madc!cinc H. Kahn.
207 Julia Kristcva, Le textc du romat1 (The Hague, 1970), 160. 1 owe this rcfcrcnce to Miller,
49.
20H For thc most cxtensivc mcditation on this wpic, see lrigaray (1985/a), who analyzes both
Freudian psychoanalysis and Platonic metaphysics in these terrns but fails unaccountably
to discuss Diotima (1rigaray is followcd by duBois \1988\, 169-83, who concentrates on
thc Phaedrns and similarly ncglects Diotima); that omission is partially (if perfunctorily)
rcctificd by Frccman.
209 Miiler, 49.
210 Hclcnc P. Foley, "Women in Grcece," in Grant and Kitzinger, 1301-17, esp. 1301-02;
compare the statement quoted by Woolf (1957(1929\), 45n., from F. l. Lucas, Tra~edy,
114-15: "lt remains a mange and almost inexplicable fact that in Athena's city, whcre
women were kept in almost Oriental suppression as odalisqucs or drudgcs, the stage
should yet ha ve produced figures likc Clytemnestra. JTJhe paradox of this world
where in reallife a respectable woman could hardly show hcr face alone in the street, and
yet on the stage woman equals or surpasses man, has ncver bccn saüsfactorily explained."
Lucas gocs on, in the passap;c Woolf cites, to note that "in modcrn tragcdy the samc
predommance ex1sts." Woo1f conducts hcr own survcy of litcrature; hcr conclusion, if
accurat~. suggests that this paradox ofsocial oppression and poctic liccnsc may not be so
distinctlve to Greek culture as Foley imagines: "if woman had no existen ce savc in thc
fict~on writtc~ by men, one woul~ imagine her a person uf thc utmost importancc; very
vartous; hermc and mean; splendtd and sordid~ infinitely bcautiful and hideous in thc
extreme; as grcat as aman, sorne think even greater. liut this woman is in fiCtion. In fact
she was locked _up, _heaten a~d ftung a~out t~e room. A ver y quecr, compo!iitc bcing
thu_s e~erges. lmagmattvely she 1s ofthe h1ghest 1mporunce~ praCiic.Jily shc is completdY
ins•gmf1cant. She pervades poetry from cover to covcr; shc is all but absent from hi!itutY·
She dominatcs the livcs of kings and conqueron in faction; in fact she was the si ave uf
any hoy whose parent• forccd a ring ~po~ her fmger. Sorne ofthe most mspired words,
sorne of thc most profound thoughts m htcrature fati from her lips; in rea11ife shc could
hardly read. could tcarcely tpell, and was the propeny of her husband" {pp. 45--4f•)
 Notes to Chapter 6 1 209

211 See Case, 318: "the supprcssion of actual women in rhe dassical world creared rhe
invention ofa representation ofthe gender 'Woman' within the culture. This 'Woman'
appeared on the stage, in the myths, and in the plastic arts, representing the patri.archal
values artached ro the gender of 'Woman' while suppressing the expcriences, stories,
(eelings, and fantasies of actual women."
212 See Zeitlin (1981), 177-78. For a close parallel that does not depend on gender-crossing,
see Robert C. Toll, Blackinx Up: The Minstrtl Show in Ninetttnth-Century Amtricll (New
York, 1974).
213 for some different accounts ofSocratic transvesrirism, see Bohner-Canre, 69-BJ;)ohn
Brenkman, "The Other and the One: Psychoanalysis, Reading, the Symposium," in
Littrllture and Psychoanalysis: The Question of Reatling-Otherwise, ed. Shoshana felman
(Baltimore, 1982), 396--456, esp. 426, 448--50; Page duBois, "Phallocentrism and its
Subversion in Plato's Phardrus," Arethusa, 18 (1985), 91-103, amplified in duBois (1988),
174-83; Freeman, 172; Stanley Rosen, "Piatonic Hermeneurics: On rhe lnrerprt>tarion o(
a Pbtonic Dialogue," in Proceetlings of the Boston Area Colloquium in Ancirnt Philosophy:
Volume 1 (1985), ed.JohnJ. Cleary (Lanham, MD, 1986), 271-88, esp. 285. On transvesri-
tism in Greek culture, see Zeitlin (1981), 177-81, and (1985), 65-66, wirh further refer-
ences on p. 89, n. 9; duBois (1988), 17~77; Nicole Loraux, "Herakles: The Super-MaJe
and the Feminine," and fram;oise fronrisi-Ducroux and franc;ois Lissarragu~, "from
Amb1gu1ty to AmbJVa)ence: A Dionys1ac Excurs1on rhrough rhe 'Anakreonnc V.ases.
both translated by Roberr Lamberton in Halperin, Winkler, and ZenJm.
214 The issue, of course, is considerably more complex than 1 ha ve ~ad_e ir our :!~,!:':
culture, for example, in which both women and men "menstruare•. ~Jghr 0 ~ rd . h
tion mean something quite different from whar ir means wh~ lt 15 ~ar wrr !
gender-specific physiology? In such a culture, in orher words, mlgdhr nor mens~';;;r;;;y
. .ti . h "eh borh men an women pen
Slmply refer ro (e.g.) a proccss ofpun•c~~raon w 1 • Dtl "JSIIitu.,e Rhi: A,. Esur""
undergo, albeit in different ways? See Gdbcrr L~~~~· La Jonr;~ine. i29. For ;~n analysis
Vnderstanding Rirual (Cambridge, 1980). ~~~ni ~~d (~lille) nosc-bkoeding in rhr .ancient
of t~e relar~on betwcen (fc_m;~le) m~s.r~:: 00 m<~nY points w 1rh rhe_ resuJts o( .anrhropo-
me~Jcal wntcrs-an anal~siS that cotnCI (ICJCJI/.a). ;~nd, for rhe ~r..aev.ll anafotcuc'. s«
logJcal work in Mclanes1a-see Jones
Bynum (1986). 421-22. 436. cr.ates (ühionn:l l:""nis in his 0 " ' " 1 mo~~ur in
215 M.iiXimus ofTyrc. 24.4. rcmarkrd r;;; So che ,--omic na~ (s«. in ;~c:kl111on ro Ansrorho~­
thc image ofhimscl~as it ha~ ...~':.~psi:~ fi" 9 fKo,·kl).

.:1
.
ncs's Clttuds, Eupohs. fr. JS2, . nuu:ls ro ,·xrn"Ss rhe unbn:~t"l"l ''"""nnu•r,· '''
Notl' thc U!il' of h",.,/o,(t'itf .and rrs '-;::;fons: IWb'l. d'l; 1t"~·.·"'· ~ JOIM. MI t!h~
. · che rwo convr . 1 . 11 hunsdl \uth ll••lUIIIoll. 1tU~ •
.
assumpt1ons span~•":ocrares's jusritko~uon h.n R"r ..,. 101:
far Agarhon); 20h: (_ k~..·s 0 vcr).
hf•. d. di. J4 (l>ioruna r.a IU 11 I7C._ 7f'l, C'!ir 17,.. suspt"1tn!il rho~r Pl,lf•l w~s
• e rounds rhal Wd.an~dW .• ,.._t t•• ,u'l"l"pl rhr c-o~rh Jlo.lrtll so( J)),M"Imol.'
h w_as un r~c:~l(un wnh h1» n"iltf&r: n"tu: hn-..· nlntmnf rtwu d.:c-plltnrn ro J)u.lC'tmol'
havlllfC a "·,·.,..11¡,· Jot·armr. tlth&·r '"·~·:':: '"'"" h•r rurpt'St.'ll ,,,.,.rn .. n· a" lholt llrt.Kifllol
!il:'('l"l·l~ .~· ~ tJur)"• ""~'"· 111.11111~1115. ',h~ '" rnou'llll..... bv .. tk11lll1, .l1i hlli lllllnl>"ftlf".
hr5corltiiY1~ 111 • lh'' l•l,ltt•nu· ~'" 1 •111:·,, ..~ ru lll" nwn rhtlu~thb : simd.atl\'. NOOm ( 1'1..."~1.
ht'n" !IIIP~ til•"l lht' ~~~~.rt'l\' f'l\'l'lllftl~l d 111 2"ii rh.at llwfiUI.I 111 rhc- I"ITolltOII no.ll
UI(IM'
wht'n.';ll 111 •n•t l·n.-.IUinolt-r. l. l-414- · .lll ' ·,· '"''. nl.t!il. MfunJ •·hM-h dw ,...fUIU..
,.,~v~:.:,"~~ 11 , 11 rhr 111.tfo•lll• . ~.::~;;::;C'I~~r11 :~~;,;., ..., h.as twon1 h•ll,, ..,rJ ~""fttfflí bY
~:H~ril .... ¡(llll•C'olll• :;.;n~:~·.~:l:; t•t tblo"IIUKII1 tlf.hoW Pld•l "-1RIC'IIIIIC'Io .... IWI S..lil..........
luy¡.•('I1!1UIIIolllf
210 1 Nores to Chapter b

undermine his own n~rralorial rtliability, see Harry ~erger. Jr .. "Facing Sophists: Sacra-
tes' Charismaric Bondage in Protaxoras," RtprtStiiii:Uions. S (1984), ~91, esp. 72-74.

218 See Lowcnstam. 98, on this "confusion ofroles"; e( Saxonhouse (1985), 54, who empha-
si:zes Socrates's idenrification with Prnia.

219 On rhc magical qualiries .associated with Socrates's person in Socraric litcrature, see
Dorothy Tarrant, "The Touch ofSocrates," Classica.l Quartrrly. n.s. 8 (1958), 9>-9H. On
the imagery of filling and tmptying in the Sympo.iiUm .• see LowC"nstam, .~8-89, W:97;
Hruce Rosenstock, "Socratc:s' Ncw Music: The Symposntm and the Phardo (unpubhshed
ms.) For interprerations of rhe Alcibiades episode asan illustration of the myth of Poros
and Pmi4, see O'Brien, 128--129; Lowenstam, 98-100.
Compare Lowenstam, JI)().
Sec m y paper, "Plato and rhe Erotics ofNarrarivity," in Mtthodolo_(ical Apprruuhes to Plato
and Hi.s DitJio_(uts, ed. James Klagge and Nicholas D. Smith, forthcoming.
222 Woolf(1957(1929J), 26. "What could be the reason, rhen, ofthis curious disparity, 1
wondered." Woolf continues. "Why are women so much more interesting to men
than menare to women?" (p. 27; see, generally, pp. 26-37).
223 Freud, "Fcmininity," Ntw Ltcturrs 011 Psych~Amdysis, trans.james Strachey, in Strachey,
XXII, 112-35 (quotation, with Strachey's italics, on p. 113). See lrigaray (1985/a), 13fT.,
esp. 13: "ltisa maner, thcn, foryou, men, tospeak among yourselves, men, about woman
who is not at all interested by the rcception or production of a discourse concerning tht
riddlt, rhe lo.fO.(ripht which she represents to you. The mystery which is woman thus will
consritute tht Gim, tht objta, and tht sport of a masculine discourse, of a debate among men
which will not pose thc quesrion to her, which should not concern her. About which she
should know essentially nothing. (1 quore here the translation provided by Timothy
Murray in Thtdlrt Journal, 37(1985), 272.)
224 See, e.g .. P. Oxy. 3651í; Diogenes Laerrius, 3.46: discussion by Alice Swift Riginos,
Plt~tonica: Tht Antcdott.s conctrnin_( tht Líft tJnd Writin_fs of Plato (leiden. 1976), 183-84. (1
wish to thank Mar y lel"kowitz for providing me wirh these referenccs.)
225 Note that "sexual differencc" is typically put inro rhc singular, as ifthere werc only one
difference between the sexcs that really counted.
226 Sce Teresa de lauretis, "Sexuallndifference and lesbian Rcprescntation," ThttJirtJounud,
40 (1988), 155-77, who derives this concept from luce lrigaray, esp. lrigaray (1985/b),
86: in Westem discourses on femalc sexualiry (psychoanalytic discourse is the case in
~oin~ here) "tht frminint occurs only within modtls and law.s dtvi.std by mtJit .subjtct.s. Which
1mphes rhat rhere are nor real! y two sexes, bur only one. A single practicc and rcprcsenta-
tion ofthc sexual." See, also, lrigaray (1985/a), 2H: frcud, dcfining "sexual diffcrcnccs
!note lriga_ray's plural! as a function of rhe a priori of thc samc," has "rccoursc, to
support thls demonstration, to the age-old processcs lof classical philosophyl: analogy,
companson, symmetry, dichotomic oppositions, and so on"; he therchy ex poses "sexual
'andiffermce' "as a condition oftraditional mctaphysical coherencc. lngaray also rcnders
lhll conupt ~y hcr punning co1nagc hom(m)ostxualir;-a conccpt best ¡Jiusrrared hy l~c
tcxlual practlcc of thc conscrvative Brirish philosopher Rogcr Scruron, esp. x, who: 111
b11 dlsc~SIIon of (~lero)sexual dcsirc, rctains the masculinc pronoun fur bolh rhe suhjcCt
and objcct ~f dc~•re_. on thc ground that "it is stylisrically corrcct." Herc wc ser rhc
paradox~eal nr~phca11ons of whar Scruton calls "naditional practicc" plainly cxposrd: by
rcg~larly trca11ng the UDKcndcred subjrcr as malc and rhus cxcluding womcn, it c.·reatc.'!
a umtary, um~crsahzing d~scoursc whoiC' uniqurly masculine tcrms, for all thcir ostrnsiblc
mvolvcmn11 1n fletcn.-cx111 parad1gms, produce an unintcndcd homocrotic cffcc1-prc-
 cisely the conjunction that lrigaray's coin.age is d~signcd. t~ represen t. SccJoncs (1991/a),
who makes a similar argument about H1ppocrat1c med1cme.

117 See Glenn W. Most, "Seming and Bcing: Sign and Metaphor in Aristotlc," in Crtalivily
anJ tht fma~i11ation; Case Studies from the Classical Axe to the Twentieth Ctlltury, cd. Mark
Amsler, SEUdies in Science and Culture, 3 (Newark, 1985), 11-33.
228 Cf. Monique Wittig, "The Straight Mind," l'tminist/ssues, 1.1 (Summer 1980), J(JJ-.11,
who, having argued that " 'man' and 'woman' are political concepts of opposition, and
thc copula which dialectically unites them is, at thc samc time, the onc which abolishes
them" (p. 108), concludes that" 'woman' has meaning only in heterosexual sysrems of
thought and heterosexual economic systems. Lcsbians are not women" (p. 110); Rubin
(1975), 178-80.
229 1wish to thank Daniel L. Selden for supplying me with the formulations contained in the
Jast two pa.ragraphs.
 Bibliography
0 [ frequently cited works

Adam, Bmy D. 1985/a "A S

Ad
Evidence on Homo~e gtR
;r~cture, and Sexuality: Relfecrions on the J\nthropological
xua e atJons .. : 19-33 in BJackwood.
am, Barry D. 1985/b. "Structural Fo d . f h G
Society and History, 27:658-71. un atJons o t e ay WorJd. •• Comparative Studies;
Allen, Prudence. 1985 Th
1250 (MonrreaJ). . e Concept of Woman: The AnStolt'li'an Revolution 750 B. C. to A.D.
Ardener, Shirle ed 197 .
Wome , 5Y·. · 8. Defimng Ftmtlles: The Narurt of Wamm in Sociery. TM Oxford
. n s enes (London).
Anes, Philippe and B . .. .
Prtsem T:' C'Jih, Andre, eds. 1985. Westt'm SexHality: P,11ttitt llrul ~qn ;, Past """
•mes. Trans. Anthony Forster (Oxford).
Arrhur, Marilyn B 1983 "Th
Ord . · · e Dream o( a World withour Womm: Ponics and rhe Cirdn of
<r >n the Theogo•yProoemium." ArtthUS4,16.1-2:97-116.
Beaver. Harold 1981/82 " .
8:99-JJg. · · Homosexual S1gns (In Memory t!,{Rtdt~nd &miles) ... Critic•ll"''"i'J'.
Beth• E 1907 "o· d .
phil~loNie, Ó2 :4;_;;_•sche Kn.abcnliebe: ihre Erhik und ihrr fd« ... Rlrn;,Utlws .MMsnml./iir

Bettelheim, Bruno. 1962. Symbolit Wounds: Pubnry Rit~s IHI#Itlw &vit~t~s M•l~. ~v. cd. (N~w
York).
Beye, Charles Rowan. 1984. "Repe.ared Similes in rhe Homeric Poems '": 1-1.1 in SIJJin Prrmttrrl
10 St~rling Dow on His Eig/ttinlr BirtlrJ•y. Gl"ft'.lr:, Roman, and Byranrin~ M~ 10
(Du,ham, NC).
lackwood, Evelyn, ed. 1985. Antlrropolé.Wy tiiHI HtMUU~XtMI &lw11iM ""j..,,..¡-_lH#IIIUJH,..,.¡ily,
11.3-4.
Hohner-Cante, Marir-Hél~nrJHannaCWiyphc-J. 1~1. PIM.wu ~"#;a-..liti c;,;srMW ........r-
siqwt pltuonicitnnr (ToulousC').
Borrhwick, E. K. 1vn. "Startina a Han:o: A N~.-.tr on Ma..·lton, tr. I.S (G~.·•·). N &Jkflllf ·~1 *
lnslilwlt of"Cit~ssi(•/ Sltllli" (Un1veni1y nfl.alrfklon), .?4:.•1-.Jt\.
UosweiJ, Johl~. 14Mt(J. c•nstNIIIIy, ,\'«•-' l ........ r • ..,;/ lhwtMrJnM!ity CÑif""""" .. ,.,_.,.
Uuropr .1ft•,. ''' lfr,tiNNi'\f oftltr ( ...,mtiM l;iw '" rltr , _ , . , . (."ntltf'1 (Chu·•«'''·
Bo•weii,John. 1'1112-K.1. "RrvolulltiiiS. LIIU\'<"I"I.Ih .lncl Se-xual C1tqrorws'"· ,..,_JIJ 111 .llurcn
and StC'iner

J
214 1 Bibliography

Borhmcr, Dietrich von. 1986. "An Archaic Red~Figure Kylix."J. Pt~ul Gttty Mustum}ournal,
14:5-20.
Boyers, Robert, .and Steiner, George, eds. 1982-83. Homosuutdity: Sacril~t, Visiotl,
StdmdtUIIdi, 58-59.
Brandt, Paul(pseud. "Hans Licht"J. 1932. Stxu;d Lift in Ancitnt Grttct. Trans. J. H. Freese.
Ed. Lawrence H. Dawson (London).
Bray, Alan. 1982. Homosexuality in RmtJiSsdnct ErtgltJIId (London: Gay Men's Press).
Bremmer, Jan. 1980. "An Enigmaric lndo-European Rite: Paederasty." Authusa, 13:279-98.
Brendinger,John A. 1970. "TheCycleofBecoming in the Symposium": 1-31 in Tht Symposium
of Plato. Trans. Suzy Q. Groden (University of Massachusetts Press).
Bres. Yvon. 1968. ú psychologit dt Piaron (Paris).
Brisson,luc. 1973. "Bisexualité et médiation en Gr«:e ancienne." Nouvelle revuede p.sychtJntdyse,
7:27-48.
Brown, Peter. 1983. "Sexuality and Society in the Fifth Century A. D.: Augustine andjulian
of Eclanum": 49-70 in TritJ cord.J: Scrirri in onou di Amt~ldo Momiglit~no. Ed. E. Gabba
(Como).
Buffiere, Félix. 1980. Eros tJdolescmt: ltJ ptdért~.stie dt~m ltJ Grtce tJntique (Paris).
Bullough, Vem L. 1979. HomomcutJiiry: A HiJtory (New York).
Burkert, Waher. 1984. Die oriellttJlisinende Epoche in der griechisclten Religion und LitertJtur.
Sitzungsberichte der Heidelberger Akademie der Wissenschaften, Philosophisch-hinori-
sche Klasse, 1984.1 (Heidelberg).
Burken, Waher. 1985. Greelr Religion. Trans. John Raffan (Cambridge, MA).
Burnyeat, M. F. 1977. "Socratic Midwifery, Platonic lnspiration." Bul/erin ojtlte lnstitute oj
Clt~uictJI Studies (University of London), 24:7-16.

Bury, R. G., ed. 1932. The Sympo.sium of PltJto. 2d ed. (Cambridge).

Bynum, Caroline Walker. 1986. "The Body ofChrist in the Later Mi
Leo Steinberg." Re~NJisstJnce QutJrttTiy, 39:399--439.
Bynum, Caroline Walker. 1987. Holy Fe11s1 tJnd Holy FtJst: The Religious Significt~nce ofFood to
Medie11t1l Womm (Berkeley).
Calame, Claude. 1977. Us cltonm dejeunesfilles en Grtce tJrcht~i"qwe. Filologia e critica, 20-21
(Rome). Two volumes.
Calame, Claude. 1984. "Eros inventare e organizzatore della societi greca antica":
L'11more in Grecit1. Ed. Calame. ld ed. (Rome).
Callaway, Helcn. 1978 ... 'The Most Es~ntially Female Function of All': 163-
85 in Ardener.
Campnc". Silvia. 1983. "Madre Materia: llonne, casa, cittl ncll' antropología di
ll-79 in Campoe, Manuli, and Sissa.
Campesc. Silvia, Manuli, Paola, and Siua, Giulia. 1983. Mt~drt mtlltTitJ: $otiologia e biolo.fitl dtlltl
flcm1111 1'""
(Turin).
Cantarclla, Eva. 1987. P.mJCJr~~'s Dtlut"ltTs: Tlrt Role 11fld Sl4hU of Womtn in Grttlt 11nil RDifttlfl
A.nlifUily. Trans. Maurttn 8. Fant (8altimorc).
Caplan, Pa1, cd. 1987. Tlle Cullflr41 Conslrwclion of Srxt~t~lily (London).
Canon, Annr. 1989. "Puttins Hcr in Hcr Place: Woman, Dirt, and llesire'': in Halperin,
9/inlr.lrr. and Zeitlin.
 Bibliography 1 2!!

p 1 1981. "The Politics ofSpartan Pederasty." Procmlin11s ofthe Cambridllt Phi/o/olli-

Cardtdge. au . .
"' Socitty, n.s. 27.17-36.
cur. Suc-EIIen. 1985. "Ciassic Drag: The Greek Creation of female Parts." Theatre journal,
37:317-27.
Chauncry, George, Jr. 1982-83. "From Sexuallnversion to Homosexuality: Medicine and the
Changing Conceptualization of Female Deviance": 114-46 in Boyers and Steiner.
Chaunccy. George. Jr. 1985/86. "Christian Brotherhood or Sexual Perversion? Homosexual
ldentities and rhe Construction of Sexual Boundaries in the World War One Era." Jounral
ojSocial History, 19:18~211.

C/arke, W. M. 1978. "Achilles and Patrodus in Love." Hermes, 106:381-96.

Clinton, Kevin. 1974. The Sacred Officials ofthe Eleusinian Mysteries. Transactions ofthe Ameri-
can Philosophical Society, 64.3 (Philadelphia).
Cohen, David. 1984. "The Athenian Law of Aduhery." Revue inten~atiomde des droits Je l'anti-
quitt, 3d ser., 31:147-65.
Cole, Susan Guenel. 1984. "Greek Sanctions against Sexual Assault." C/assia1l Philology. 79:97-
113.
Cole, Susan Guenel. 1991. "Gynaixi ou themis: Male and Female in rhe Greek LtKts St~crtlt."
Helios, 17.2:forthcoming.
Davidson, Arnold l. 1986/87. "How ro Do the History ofPsychoanalysis: A Reading offrcud's
Tllrer Essays on the Theory of Sexut:rlity": 252-77 in The Trü•l(s) of Psyclroat~~~lyJIS. Ed.
Franc;oise Meltzer. Criticalltrquiry, 13.
Davidson, Arnold l. 1987/88. "Sex and rhe Emergcnce ofSexuality. Critict~llnfuirr. 14:16-
48.
Davidson, Arnold 1. forthcoming. "Ciosing Up the Corpses: Oi_seases of St-xuabt)' .md rhc'
Emergence of the Psychiatric Style of Reasoning"; fol'thcommg in .\fNNINN .,,¿ !tlrtiHrJ:
l="ss11ys in Ho11our of Hil11 ry Put1111m. Ed. Gwrge Boolos (Cambridge).
Delaney, Cuol. 1987. "Secds of Honol', Fidds of Shame"; 3~ in Gilmo« pqg?
De M.artino, Gianni, and Schmitt, Arno. 1985. Klrillt' Schri,lint .:u.: •i$cltm..W,,Iulln ..,;,._,.,¡,,,¡,
•md Hrotik in dtr muslimi$chm Crsl'llscha,l; (Berlín: aurhor).
Detienne, Marcd. 1976. ''Potagerie de femmes ou romnlnlt engn•drC"r St"UIC' r,,,'t'rSC'S, >-
6o7S-Rt.
eticnnl', Moarcel. 1977. Thr Gmlt'NS ·~1' ;4dc»u'$ ·
(A.rlanric Highlands, NJ).
D"•ven:ux. George. 1968. "Grec
Osl'"nu$, 42:fl9-92.
l>ittrn.lr, llt-ml'ldl. l'oll.! . .-tts<hiiW.' '"'" ShJot'lt•'·' St,... ~""~~' 1 lloYIIIll~...,.,
t•hiluln~i:o~l.·ht· Ulllt'f"'ll~ hml~t·n, .21 ( lkrlm)
l>over. K. J. 1'ol7] ... Cioassit';lll (ir«k Auinutn ''' .
l>uvr-r. K J. t•n•. Gn"ck l'upNI<~r .IU•""'"Y '" tiK .,,
l>ovt·r. K J l'oi7H. c;rrrlr 11••"'•'·'.-·'""'''f (l•"~'lur•l 'n-di. _.,.,t ,_., ..,, .• _..,.,. ... ,< ·... m ..........l
l>over,Krnnr-lh.N.Illttll 1"""' Sy"'f"•',.""' (.,unt>r~I(C'~•ll' Wrn tJKc,".,..,..,MJ,.,.,...,..,
1 I'IHtl "(irn:-k lluruulll'lloU.IIhn· _,nd hull.llll1oll , .,j,.H'\')' ,-_.-~. ~
)Juv::· ~-,,¡,,.,,,..¡ ,..,.,.,., 1 .,,1.,,.11' 11 lln•H" lttr,.ftlrr, llt•""l ·
f(hli.•ull
216 1 Bibliography

Drabkin, l. E., ed. and trans. 1950. C11tlius ON ACUTE DISEASES ••d ON
CHRONIC DISEASES (Chicago).
Dreyfus, Hubert L., and Rabinow, Paul. 1983. Michtl fOuctJtdt: Beyo,d Structuralism rmd Herme-
neutics. 2d ed. (Chicago).
duBois, Page. 1984. "Sexual Difference: Ancient and Modero." Pacific CcuiSl Philology, 19.1-
2:43-49.
duBois, Page. 1988. SowiN.R the Body: Psych04ntllysis .,J Ancient Rtpresentations oj Women
(Chicago).
Durand, Jean-louis, and Schnapp. Alain. 1984. "Boucherie sacrificielle et chasses initiatiques":
48-66 in LA citi dts imG~s. Ed. anon. (Paris).
Dynes, Wayne. 1985. Homolexis: A Historical and Cultural Lexicon ofHomosexutdity. Gai Saber
Monograph No. 4 (New York: Gay Academic Union).
Edmunds, Lowell. 1988. "Foucault and Theognis." CltJssictJI and Modem Literalurt, 8.2:79-91.
Ehlers, Barbara. 1966. Einr 11orplt1tMisclar Dtulung dts sokralischtn Eros. Dtr Dit~log Aspasia dts
Sokratilrtrs Aisclaints. Zetemata, 41 (Munich).
Ellis, Havclock. 1922. Srxual /n11trsion = Studits in tht Psychology ofSex, Vol. 11. 3d ed. (Phila-
delphia).
Epstcin, Steven. 1987. "Gay Politics, Ethnic ldentity: The Limits ofSocial Constructionism."
Sotialist Rtllitw, nos. 93/94 = l?.l-4:9-54.
Erbsc, Hanmut. 1966. "Sokratcs und die Fraucn." Gymnasium, 73:201-20.
Féray,Jcan-Claude. 1981. "Une histoire critique du mot homoscxualité." Arcadit, 28, nos. 325-
328oll-21, 11!>-24, 171-81, 246-58.
Flynn, Thomas R. 1985. ''Truth and Subjectivation in the Later Foucault. "joumal ofPhilosophy,
82:531-40.
Folcy, Hclenc P., ed. 1981. Rrjlrcrions of Womtn in Antiquiry (Ncw York).
Forsyth, Ncil. 1987. Tht Old Entmy: Salan and tlat Combdt Myrla (Princeton).
Foucauh, Michel. 1972. Tht Archatology ofKnowltdgt anrJ Tht Discoursr on Languagr. Trans. A.
M. Sheridan Smith (New York).
Foucault, Michel. 1977. "Nietzsche, Gcnealogy, History": 139-64 in Languagt, Counttr·Mtm·
o,.,, Prtltlict: Stltcltd Essays tlnd lnltrvitws. Trans. Donald F. Bouchard and Shcrry Simon.
Ed. Donald F. Bouchard (lthaca, NY).
Foucault, Michcl. 1978. Tht History of Stxualily. Volumt /: An 1ntroducrion. Trans.
Hurl~ (Ncw York).

Foucault, Michcl. 1980/a. "lntroduction": vii-xvii in Htrculint &rbin, &ing rht Rtctntly DistOII·
trtd Mmroirs ojt1 Nintttmlh-Ctnlury Frmcla Htrmaplrrodilt. Trans. Richard McDougall (New
Yo•k).
Foucaulr, Michcl. 1980/b. Powtr/Knowltdgt: Stlrcttd lnttrllitws and Othtr Wrilings 1972-71. Ed.
Colin Gordon. Trans. Colin Gordon, Leo Marshall, John Mcpham, and Katc Soper
(Brighton, Susscx: Harvcstcr Press).
Foucauh, Michcl. 1983. "On the Gcnealogy of Ethics: An Ovcrvicw of Work in Progms":
229-52 in Dreyfus and Rabinow.
Foucault, Michcl. 1984. "Prcfacc to Tlw Hiltory oJ Sa.,•lity, Volurnc 11." Trans. \Villilm
Smoclr.: 333-39 ín Tllt Fo~tc•Mit Rallkr. Ed. Paul Rabínow (New York).
Foucaul1, Michel. 1985. Tlr1 UJt o}PitaJMrt. Thc Hi1tory of Scxuality, Volumc Two. Tran1.
Robcrt Huricy (New York).
 . hel l9116. Tht Cart ofthe Se/f. The History ofSexuality, Volume Three. Trans.
fo caulr M~< . k)
u 0 ~, 1 Hurley (New Yor .
R M' hel and Sennelt, Richard. 1981. "Sexuality and Solitude." London Review of
foucaull, IC '
1Jo6ks. 3.9:3, s-7.
Frceman, Barbara. 19116. "lrigaray at The Symposium: Spe.aking Otherwise": 17{}-77 in Stxual
Dijftrmrt. Ed. Robert Young = Oxford Lllerary RevJtw, 8. 1-2.
Friedlinder, Paul. 1969. Plato. Trans. Hans Meyerhoff. Bollingen Series, 59. Volume 1: An
I•rroductio•. 2d ed.; Volume 111: The Dialoguts. Second and Third Ptriods (Princeton).
Gagnon, John H., and Simon, William. 1973. Sexual Conduct: The Social Sources of Human
Stxuality (Chicago).
Gtddes, Anne. 1975. "The Philosophic Notion ofWomen in Antiquity. '' Antichthon, 9:35--40.
Giallongo, Angela. 1981. L'immaJlÍIIt dtlltl dorma nella culturtl JlrtctJ (Rimini).
Gilmore, David D., ed. 1987/a. Honor and Shamt and the Unity of tht Mtditmantlln. Special
Publication of the American Anthropological Association, 22 (Washington).
Gilmore, David D. 1987/b. "lntroduction: The Shame of Dishonor": 2-21 in Gilmore (1987/
a).
Gleason, Maud W. 1989. '"The Semiotics of Gender: Physiognomy and Self-Fashioning in the-
Second Century c.e. ": 389-415 in Halperin, Winkler, and Zeitlin.
Glidden, David K. 1981. "The Lysis on Loving One's Own." Classüal Qu12rtnly. 31:39-59.
Godel, R. 1954. "Socrate et Diotime." Bullttin dt I'Assodarion Guillaumt Butli, 4th ser., No.
4:3-30.
Godeliet, Maurice. 1976. "Le sexe comme fondemcnt ultime de l'ordrc social ct cosmique chez
les Baruya de Nouvelle-Guinée. Mythe et réalité": 2M-306 in Stxut~liti tt p011Wiir. Ed.
Armando Verdiglione (Paris).
Godelier, Maurice. 1981. "The Origins of MaJe Domination." Ntw Llfi Rtvirw, 127:3-17.
Golden, Mark. 1984. "Siavery and Homosexualiry at Athens. Plromix, 38:.308-24.
Golden, Mark. 1985. "Pais, 'Child' and 'Siave.' "L'Antiquiti classiq,.t, 54:91-104.
Gordon, R. l., ed. 1981. Myrh, Rtligion tJIId S«i~ry (Cambridge).
Gow, A. S. F., ed. 1965. Machon: Th~ Frt~gmmls (Cambridge).
Gow, A. S. F., and Page, D. L., eds. 1965, 1968. n~ G'"lt Atrrlro_ltJAy: Hrllmistií lipi.fni"Uh~nd
Th~ CtJrlt~nd of Philip """ somt tonttmportl'}' tpigrt~ms (Cambn~). Two volumc11 rK ·
Grant, Michael, and Kitzinger, Rachel, cds. 1988. Ci11iliZt1liorr of tltt .411ffl'WI MttlitnrillfNrl.'
Grrttr tJnd Romt (New York).
Gr~nberg, David f. 1988. Tht Co1Uirutli1Ht of HomliStX~Uiity (Chu."aMo).
Grcenblatt, Sccphen. 1986. "Fiction and Fnct1011"· JH-52. .12'l--.ll m Hrllc-r, Sosn.a.
Wellbcry.
Grcgor, Thomas. 19HS. AnxiC'NJ PINsllrtJ. 11tt Se.,·,..ll~ll'ts ·~1·•" .411fh1Z"'"'""" ~¡,(C. "hK.IIIf'')
Grcsscch, Grr.ald K. 197S. "Thc- GiiM.an,nh Eru:- .and Homc-r" C:J.snt"•l./....,""'1• 111 .f CArni-
May):1-IH. . . ¡.,,¡,.,__,.,
Guthrir, W K C. 19611. A llulcory ·~{ l ;,...... 1 ¡I,IJ,,.,)'. 1· .,..,. ,.,,..( .mtw)' ·
({:.ambridlc-).
H.a~kfurth, R. lnnt. 1'1~2. ,.,,,,,.J
l'futnlnt• (\ ·amb~•dtf:c-). (' 1.,_,,..,..,¡,.,.,.,.._
JlllMII• Hublll, rd IWO '1-.~l;rwlt llnw•uolfll~llldtr fi.,.,.(."""'fll
218 1 Bibliography

(Procmlings oj tht SteonJ Inttrnlltiontd ~ympo~ium at tht. Swedish lnsti::t in Athens, 1-S junt,
1981). Skrifter utgivna av Svenska Instltutet 1 Athen, 4, 30 (Stockho ).
Halperin, David M. 1983. Brfore Ptlstoral: Theocritus and thr Ancient Tradition of Bucolic Poetry
(New Haven).
rOs and What Men Call Love." Ancimt Philosophy, 5:161-
Halperin, David M. 1985.
204.
Halperin, David M. 1986. "Plato and Erotic Reciprocity." Classicaf Antiquity, 5:60--80.
Halperin, David M., Winkler,Johnj., and Zeitlin, Froma 1., eds._1989. Before Sexuality: The
Cotutruction of Erotic Experienct in tite Andent Gretk Worfd (Prmceton).
Hammond, Dorothy, andjablow, Alta. 1987. "Gilgamesh and the Sundance Kid: The Myth
of MaJe Friendship": 241-58 in The Makit1~ of Masculiflities: The New Mm's Studies. Ed.
Harry Brod (Bastan).
Hansen, Mogens Hcrman. 1976. Apagoge, Endeixis and Ephcgesis agairut Kakourgoi, Atimoi
and Pheugontes: A Study in rhe Athenian Administration ofjustice in the Fourth Century B. C.
Odense Univcrsity Classic:d Studies, 8.
Hanson, Ann Ellis. 1989. "The Medica! Writers' Woman": in Halperin, Winkler, and
Zeidin.
Harrison, A. R. W. 1968. Tht Law of Athens, 1: Tht Family and Property (Oxford).
Hdd, George F. 1983. "Parallels between The Gilgamesh Epic and Plato's Symposium." journal
of Near Eastern Studies, 42:133-41.
eller, Thamas C., Sasna, Morton, and Wellbcry, David E., eds. 1986. Reconstructing Jndividual-
üm: Autonomy, Individuality, 4nd the Srlf in Westtrn Thought. With Arnold l. Davidson,
Ann Swidler, and Jan Wau (Stanford).
Hcndcrson,Jcfrrey. 1988. "Greek Attitudes Taward Sex": 1249-63 in Grant and Kitzingcr.
Hcnriques, Julian, Hallway, Wendy, Urwin, Cathy, Couze, Venn, and Walkerdine, Valeric.
1984. Ch4nging the Subjut: Psychology, Sorial Regu/4tion 4nd Subjeaivity (London).
Hcnry, Madcleine Mary. 1985. Menander's Courte.sam 4nd tht Greek Comic Trt1dition. Studien
zur klusischen Philologae, 20 (Frankfun)
Herdt, Gilben H. 1981. CuarditJn.s oftht 1--'lutes: ldioms o.f MtJsculinity (New York).
Hcrdt, Gilbert H., ed. ICJH2. Ritual.s of MtJrrhood: Malr Initiatio11 in Papua Ntw (;uinea (Hcrkclcy).
Herdt, Gilbert H., ed. 19K4. RitutJiizrd Homosexuality ¡,. MeltJntfitJ (Herkclcy).
Herter, Hans. 1964:1. "SoziO)OKIC der anukcn Prostitution 1m Lichte dcr hcidnil>chcn und christ-
lichen Schriftum." ]ah,bufh {Ur Antikr und ChristtHtum, ):70-111.
Herz~~ Manfrcd. 19H5. "Kertbcny and thc Nameleu Luvc." ] 014 , 114 1 o( Homouxuality, 12. 1:1-

He!tChinc, Michacl. 1%9. Prt,OIIÍIH cv. E. H. WummKtnn. Lm·h Classtcal Ltbrary (C;~m-
brldgc, MA).
Hocquenghem, Guy. 197M. Homo1rxua/ Drsirr. Tran5. Danadla l>antt:our (Lundun)
l-loKblll, bn. 1'1711. Thf' Jfi,md of MmstrutJtir~~ Mrn: Hrli,Jliotr irr Wo~r''· Nrw e; inra (S, rauwn.
PA).
Jlorowuz, Maryannr Clinc. 1976. riatotle and Woman." Jowr~rdl oj thr HIJtory ,if Brolt'fY·
9,183-213.
Houm'"''· A. 1:.. I'J31. "Pracfanda." flrrmrt, M:4U2-Il
 Bibliography 1 219

Arnold. and Schone, Hermano.' eds. 1909. Symposion .. 3d ed. Platons ausgewahlte Schrif-
Hug;"', ed. Christian Cron and Juhus Deuschle, 5 (Le~pztg).
1985/a. Speculum ofthe Other Woman. Trans. Gillian C. Gill (hhaca, NY).
lrigaray, Luce. . . .
lrigaray, Luce. 1985/b. This Sex K'huh ls Not One. Trans. Cathenne Porter, Wlth Carolyn
Burke (lthaca, NY).
/rwin, Terence, trans. 1985. Aristotle: Nicomachean Ethics (lndianapolis: Hackett).
Jackson, Margaret. 1987. " 'Facts ofLife' or the Eroticization ofWomen's Oppression? Sexol-
ogy and the Social Construction of Heterosexuality": 52-Bt in Caplan.
J•cobsen, Thorkild. 1929/30. "How Did Gilgamei Oppress Uruk?" Acta Orientalia, 8:62-74.
Jacobsen, Thorkild. 1976. The Treasures ofDarkness: A History ofMesopotamian Reli~ion (New
Haven).
J•mes, G. W. B. 1963. "Psychology and Gynaecology": 11, 885-96 in British Obstrll'ir and
Gynaecological Practict. Ed. Aleck Bourne and Sir Andrew Claye. Jd ed. (London).
Jocelyn, H. D. 1980. "A Greek lndecency and its Students. •• Proct-nlin,Ks of tht' Cambrid,Kt-
Philological Socit'ly, n.s. 26:12-66.
Joly, Robert. 1960. Recht-rches sur le traité pseudo-hippocratique du Ritimt-. Bibliorheque de la
Faculté de Philosophie et Lettres de J'Universiré de Liege, 156 (Paris}.
Jones, Lesley Ann. 1991/a. "Andrology in rhe Greek Medica) Writers. Ht-lios. 17.2:forrh-
coming.
Jones, Lesley Ann. 1991/b. "The Politics ofPleasure: Female Sexual Responst 1n Greek McdicaJ
Writings." Helios, 17.2:forthcoming.
Just, Roger. 1975. "Conceptions ofWomen in Classical A1hens. Joumt~l '?_{t
Sorieoy ofOx.ford, 6.3:153-70.
Kahn, Charles. Unpublished. "Sokr11tikoi lo~oi as background for rhe mtt'rpm.uion ofPiaronic
dialogues" (mss.).
Kay, N. M. 1985. MtJrtial Boolt XI: A C!Jmmmtary (London).
Keesing, Roger M. 1982. ulntroducrion": 1-4.l in Herdr (1982).
Kclsen, Hans. 1942. "Platonic love." Trans. Gcorgc.- H. Wilbur. ·"'"'""'"' /IJM.et'· ~1 =-~llfl.
Kcnnl•dy, Huhl•rt. 19HH. tllriclu: Tht• L~fo·and W••rkJ<!(Karl Há ,Jt l 'lnc-lt.(, Pr•lffnT••I•·"'~
Gay Movemmt (Hoston: Alyson).
Kculs, Eva c. JI)H5. Tllt' R•·il{n ••fth•· l'hallu.c '.\Udll\•liiiC:í ,,. ,1,..1rwf .1tlrtw~ (New York.,!
Kilmcr, Anm· Dutlkorn. I~K2.· "A Nt,te ,,,. .m t.lveriOI.lkl"\t \l'ord-PI.Iy •n dk' A:k.t~f..aa
GiiK;~mesh": 1_.2H-.l2 in 7.1Kl~ .~{ ~.\11.~1- -~~~r_n·t/~i.-M ·~ ~·s~:;~~:. sr~';'~;;
thr Oa.ui1m 11/ hiJ St'l'f'Hiit'tlt lf1rtiiJ..y. ht. lo. '"" llnd. · .1 ·
K. n. Vt"Cnh~,f (1-l"llh.'n). ,,..,,_¡ ..1
lt·in, Fntz ..m.J Wull: Tnnulh\' J.
220 1 Bibliography

Krell, David Farrell. 1975. "Fcmale Parts in Tim11eus." Arion, n.s. 2:~21.
Krenkd, Werner A. 1978. "M3nnliche Prostitution in der Antike." Dtu Alrertum, 24:49-SS.
Krenkel, Wcrner A. 1979. "Pueri meritorii." Wissenschajiliche Zeitschrift dtr Wilhelm·Piec/r.
Univmitiit Rostodt, 28:179-89.
Krüger, Gcrhard. 1983. Einsicht und Leidmscha.ft: l>ds Wtsen des platonischen Denknrs. 5th ed.
(Frankfurt).
La Fontaine, Jean. 1985. JnititJtion (Harmondsworth).
Langness, L. L. 1974. "Ritual. Power, and MaJe Dominance." Ethos, 2:189-212.
Laqueur, Thomas. 1986. "Orgasm, Generation, and the Polirics ofReprodu~tive Biology": 1-
41 in SexNtdity and tite StKial Body in the Nineteenth Century. E d. Catherme Gallagher and
Thomas Laqueur. Reprrsentations, 14.
Ldkowitz, Mary. 1985. "Sex and Civilization." Pdrtisan Review, 52:460-66.
Lesky, Erna. 1951. Die Zeugungs- und Vererbungslehren der Antikt uruJ ihr Nt~chwirlten = 1225-
1425 in Akadcmie der Wissenschaften und der Literatur in Mainz, Ahhandlungen der
geistes- und sozialwissenschaftlichen Klasse, Jahrgang 1950, No. 19 (Wieshaden).
Lloyd, G. E. R. 1983. Science, p.,Jidort aruJ Ide.,J.,gy: Studies in the Lije Sciences in Ancient Gruce
(Cambridge).
Lonie, lain M. 1981. The Hippotratic Treatises "On Generati.,n" "On the Ntlture ofthe Child"
"Dis~11ses IV" Ars Medica: Texre und Untersuchungen zur Quellenkunde der Ahen
Medizin, 2. 7 (Berlín).
Loraux, Nicole. 1981. Les enfonts d'Athina: ldées tJthéni~nnes sur ltJ cit.,yenneti ~~ ltJ divisi.,n des
sexes (Paris).
Lowenstam, Steven. 1985... Paradoxes in Plato's Symposium." RtJmus, 14:85-104.
MacCary, W. Thomas. 1982. Childlike Achilles: Ontogenydnd Phyl.,~ny in the ILIAD(New York).
MacDowell, Douglas M. 1978. The Luv in Cldssicdl Athens. Aspects ofGreek and Roman Life
(lthaca, NY).
Macleod, M. D., trans. 1%7. LMtiGn. Vol. 8. Loeh Classical Library (Cambridge, MA).
MacMullen, Ramsay. 1983. "Roman Attitudes to Greek Love." Hist.,rid, 32:484-502.
Manuli, Paola. 1980. "Fisiología e patologia del femminile negli scritti ippocratici dell' antica
ginecología greca": 393-408 in HippocrGticG: Actes du Colloque hippocrdtique de Pdris (4-9
sq~tembre 1978). Ed. M. D. Grmek. Colloques intemationaux du Centre National de la
Recherchc Scientifique, SH3 (París).
Manuli, Paola. 1983. "Donne mascoline, femmine sterili, vergini pcrpctue: La ginecología greca
tra lppocrate e Sorano": 147-92 in Campesc, Manuli, and Sissa.
Marmor, Judd, ed. 198(1. HomosexuGI Belrt~t~ior: A Modmt Rupprdisdl (New York).
Marshall, John. 1981. .. Pansies, Perverts and Macho Mm: Changing Conceptions of MaiC'
Homoscx.uality": 133-54 1n Plummer.
May, Margarct Tallmadgc, trans. IW.S. Gdlen: On rllr lJsefolneu oftlle Pdrts oftllt &dy (hhaca.
NY).
Mclntosh, Mary. 1%8/fN. "Thc Homosexual Rolr." SociGI Prohl~ms, 1fd82-92.
MJikr. Nancy K. 19111. .. 'l's' in Draa: Thc Scx ofRccollection." Tll' l.:igllteentll CtntNry: Tllt~~ry
dtiJ lnlerprdtJiifHI, 22.1 (W'intcr):47-~7.
Moodic, T IJunbar. 1W7/KM. "Migrancy and M1lc SC'x.u11ity on tht Soulh Afncan C.old
Minn. • }•""'' •f .'io.lllmt A.foic•n Sruflier. 14:22K-~
 . S l%4. "Four Notes on Plato's Symposium." Classical Quarttrly, 14:42-55.
Mornson. J. . 1979 The Best of the Achaeans: Conupts of the Hero in Archaic Greek Potlry
Nagy. Gregory. ·
(Baltirnore). . . .
Nauck, August, ed. 1926. TraJlÍCorum Graecorum fragmenta. 2d ed. (Le1pz1g).
Neu,Jerome. 1987. "Freud and Perversion": 1, 153-84 in Shelp.
Neumann. Harry. 1965. "Diotima's Concept oflove." Americanjournal ofPhilology, 86:3~59.
Nussbaum, Martha. 1979. "The Speech of Alcibiades: A Reading of Plato's Symposium."
Philosophy and Literature, 3:131-72.
Nussbaum, Martha C. 1985. "Affections of the Greeks." New York Times Book Review (10
November), 1~14.
Nussbaum, Martha C. 1986. The FraJlility of Goodness: Luck and Ethics in Greek Tragedy and
Philosophy (Cambridge).
O'Brien, Mary. 1981. The Politics of Reproduction (Boston).
O'Flaherty, Wendy Doniger. 1980. Women, Androgynes, and Other Mythical Beasts (Chicago).
Osborne, Robin. 1985. "The Erection and Mutilation of the Hermai." Prouedit~gs of the Cam-
bridge Philoloj!ical Sodety, n.s. 31:47-73.
Padgug, Robert A. 1979. "Sexual Matters: On Conceptualizing Sexuality in History." Radical
History Review, 20:3-23.
Parker, Robert. 1983. Miasma: Pollutiotl and Purification ;, Earfy Greek Religion (Oxford).
Patzer, Harald. 1982. Die griechische Knabenliebe. Sitzungsberichte der Wissenschaftlichrn GeseU-
schaft an der Johann Wolfgang Goethe-Universitit Fr.ankfurt a m Main, 19.1 (Wiesbaden).
Payer, Pierre J. 1984. Sex and the Penitentials: The Development of iJ Sexual CoJe 5~1150
(Toronto). ·
Pearce, Frank, and Roberts, Andrew. 1973. "The Social Regul.ation of Sexual Behaviour and
~he Development oflndustrial Capitalism in Britain": 51-72 in Conlmtport~ry Sori•l Prohlmu
m Brirain. Ed. Roy Bailey and Jock Young (Westmead: Saxon HoUSC').
Penwill, J. L. 1978. "Men in Love: Aspects ofPiato's Symposium ... R{IMUJ, 7:143-75.
Peradotto, John, and Sullivan, J. P., eds. 1984. Womm in the Ancirnl WorlJ: Tlle :1RETHVSA
PtJpers. SUNY Series in Classical Studies (Aibany).
Petersen, William L. 1986. "Can ARSENOKO/TA.l He Translated by 'Hontosexuals'?" VigiliM
ChristitJntJe, 40:187-91.
Plass, Paul C. 1978. "Plato 's 'Prrgnant' Lover." Symbol•r OsltatfiStS, S.J:-47-55.
i'lummer, Kenneth, ed. 1981. Tlle Mt~ltin,f o_frler MoJt'fW H.,.l~St'XJMI (London: Hutchinson)
i'omeroy, Sarah H. 1984. WoMm in Htlltniiric /itrpt_{ftw A.lrx•..Mt-to Cl,...,.,. (Nrw York).
i'owell,John U., ed. 1925. Collf'(ttlnN Alrx•Nílri,..: RrlifttiM"'i...,rrs ~,.. Crt~"-.""'"' .1n..m
Prolrmdicdr 32~146 B. C. (Oxford).
Preus, Anthony. 1~77. "Galen's Critu:ism of Anstotk-'s Cort<"rpnon ThC'ory. M_,,,.,.,.,./
":1.*
History o_f Bioi&JRY· 10:6S--K5.
Rancour-bfrrrierr, Daniel. l\ltl5. SWtu ,,,- 11H 1-lrJ.: A111 l:isMy '"' fltr E.....,..., f!( ~
$rxN•Iity. Approachn to Sc-miori,,, 71 (lkrlin: « Gnaytft).
Rankin. H. 1> IW..l ... (>n ADIAPLAS1"A Z0/.1:(Piam, TimHUS91 d.l). '"Pitf~. JO?:I.w-
45
"-orad. K. E 1"1!\l ... Nam• Cuh ofttw Crntnl Hlahlands, Nrw auuw. "(~. l.l 1 1--.l.'-
222 1 Bibliography

Rcdfield, James M. t 975. Nature and Culture ;, the lliad: Thr Tra,l!edy of Hector (Chicago).
Reuig, Georg Ferd. 1876. Plc~totiS Symposio11 (Halle).
Rcttig, G. F. 1882. "Knabenliebe und Frauenlicbe in Platons Symposion." Philologus, 41:414-
44.
Richardson, T. Wade. 1984. "Homosexuality in the Satyricon." Classica et Mediaevalia, 35:105-
27.
Robin, Léon, ed. 1929. Le Banquet. Platon: Oeuvres completes. 4.2 (París).
Robín, Léon. 1964. LtJ thtorie pltJtonicirnne de l'amour. 3d ed. (París).
Robinson, T. M. 1981. [Review ofDover (1978).] Phoet1ix, 35:160--63.
Rosen. Stanley. 1987. P/tJto's Symposimn. 2d ed. (New Haven).
Roussdle. Aline. 1980. "Observation féminine et idéologie masculine: le corps de la femme
d'aprCs les médecins grecs." Am1ales (E.S.C.), 35:1089--1115.
Rousselle, Aline. 1986. "Gestes et signes de la famille dans I'Empire romain": 1, 231-69 in
Histoire de /afmnille. Ed. André Burguiere, Christiane Klapisch-Zuber, Martine Segalen,
and Fram;oise Zonabend (Paris).
Roussellc, Aline. 1988. Pomeill: On Desire llnd the Body ;, Atltiquity. Trans. Felicia Pheasant
(Oxford).
Rubín, Gayle. 1975. "The Traffic in Women: Notes on the 'Political Economy' ofSex":
210 in Towllrd lltl Amhropolo,lly ofWornen. Ed. Rayna R. Reiter (New York).
Rubín, Gayle. 1984. "Thinking Sex: Notes for a Radical Theory ofthe Politics ofSexuality":
267-319 in Plellsure at1d Dan,ller: Explorin.fl female Sexuality. Ed. Ca role S. Vanee (Boston).
Sai'd, Suzannc. 1983. "Féminin, femmeet femelle dans les grands traités biologiquesd'Aristote":
9~123 in Llljemme dam les sociétés llntiques. Ed. Edmond Lévy (Strasbourg).
Salzman, Leon. 1980. "Latent Homosexuality": 312-24 in Marmor.
Sartre, Maurice. 1985. "L'homosexualité dans la GrCcc anciennc." L'Histoire, 76 (March):l0-
17.
Saxonhouse, Arlcne W. 1976. "The Philosophcr and the Fl·malc in the Political Thought of
Plato." Politifal Theory, 4.2:195-212.
Saxonhouse, Arlcne W 19H4. "Eros and the Fcmalc in Grcck Política! Thought:
tion of Plato's Symposíum." Polllilll/ Theory, 12:5-27.
Saxonhou~e, Arlcnc W 1985. Womm Ítl tht History of Politiwl TIJOU,Ilht:
MachJavrllí (New York).
Schaps, David. 11177. "Thc Woman lcast Mcntioncd: Etiqucttc and Womcn's
Qullrtnly, 27:323-30.
Schnapp. Alam. 1YH1.
10:107-17.
Schnapp, Alain 1'184. "Eros en chassc": 67-83 in Ll (1/t dts irnll.(!I'S. Ed. anun. (Pans)
Schncider, K. 1Yt3. "Hetairai": cols. 1331-72 in Jldu/y¡ Hea/-bl(ydopiiJi 1• dn c/iHJÍS(
AltrrlwmswuwiUha{l, K.2. Ed. Georg Wissowa (Stutt~art).
Schrijv~rs . i'. H. I?KS. ¡;¡,~ rnrdizitJiuh.. blr/iinm!l dtr miint~lirhttl Hm 111 , 51 .x 1wlitlit awJ J,.,
Atlli
(CarlmJ Aurrl1anus Df: MORBIS CHRONICIS IV CJ) (Amsterdam: U. "· (irlim·r)
Scruton, l~nKL'T. IIJK6. Stxual Dc-1irr: A M111al Jlhil"sophy P,( 1h 1• botif (Nl·w York).
\cully, l>roma, ;md Bo~rt, l'aulinc. llJ73. "/\ Furmy Thinl( tlappcncd , 111 thl· Way to thc ( >nlitl'
Wumcn 111 Gynccolol(y Tcxtbook!i." Amni(atr)t~unral 11 f.~oriolll_t}l, 7H:IU4~511
 Bibliography 1 223

rd Richard. 1988. "The Eleventh Ode of Bacchylides: Hera, Artemis, and the Absence
Seaf:r Dionysos. "joumal of Hellenic Studies, 108:118-36.
Sergent, Bernard. 1986. Homosexuality in Greek Myth. Trans. Arthur Goldhammer (Boston).
Shelp. Earl E., ed. 1987. Sexuality and Medicine. Philosophy and Medicine, 22-23 (Dordrechr:
D. Reidel). Two volumes.
Singer, Jrving. 1984. The Nature ofLove, 1: Plato to Luther. 2d ed. (Chicago).
Sinos, Dale S. 1980. Achilles, Patroldos and the Meaning ofPhilos. Innsbrucker Beitriige zur
Sprachwissenschaft, 29 (lnnsbruck).
Smith, Nicholas D. 1983. "Plato and Aristotle on the Nature ofWomen. "joumal ojthe History
ofPhilosophy, 21.4:467-78.
Snirow, Ann, Stansell, Christine, and Thompson, Sharon. 1983. Powers ofDesire: The Politics
of Stxuality. New Feminist Library (New York).
Sommerstein, Alan H. 1980. "The Naming of Women in Greek and Roman Comedy.
Quadrmi di Storia, 11 :39~418.
Stc. Croix, G. E. M. de. 1981. The Class Struggle in the Ancient Grerk Worldftom thr Arthtlit.
to the Arab Co11quests (London).
Stigers, Eva Stehle. 1981. "Sappho's Private World": 45-61 in Foley.
Strachey,James, ed. 195~74. The Sttmdard Editio11 ojthe Complete Psycholo.f!ilal "orlts t!fS(
Freud (london). Twenty-four volumes.
Sutton, Robert F.,Jr. 1981. The I11 teraction betwee11 Mer1 and WOmen Pomayed "" •
Pottery. Ph.D. diss., University of North Carolina, Chapd HiJI.
Tarán, Son ya Lida. 1985. "EISI TRIKHES: An Eroric Motif in rhe Gruk .1nthoiOKY· ]ou17141 M

of Hdlenic Studits, 105:90-107.

Tarrant, Harold. 1988. "Midwifcry and the Clouds." Classitlll Quarrnly . •\8:116-.22.
Taylor, A. E. 1960. Plato: Thr Ma11 a11d his Work. 7th ed. (London).
Tigay, jeffrey H. 1982. The l:.'volutiotr oftlrr Gi(eamesh Epi< (Phil.lJdph•.a).
Tomin, julius. 1987. "Socratic Midwifery." Classi<al Quarr,Tiy . •17·\17-102.
Tripp, C. 1\.. 1975 Tllr HomfJsexual Mt~tri:.: (Nt•w York).
Trumbach, n.ando;ph. 1977. "LonJon's Sodonlirt""s: Homosexu.1l l:kh.l'-"1"-... r .1n.J W('Stt""rn Cul-
ture in thc Uhh Century. ·· -''"'"'''' ofS•••·,.,J Histt•ry. 11.1-.U. .
Ungarl·tti,Jolm R. 19K2. "llt"-Mur.ahzin}l; Mnr..Ju~·· Wht•r,·l-,.,,,('r's <;m-kH·-'.;•··''""111)" Lr.n
Us. J•'""''"'!fH,,n,•n·.,·uality,H.I:I-17 . ' '"'"" \ldJ,·Ui~rlJ{N'·"' Y..rkl
Vanggaard, Thorkil. I'J72. /'llaJI,íJ ..1 Symb,,J.mJ ' 1·' H'·' 1' ry · . .• Ju
Vc-rnanc. jl·an-P 1t•rrt• I'J74. "Ut•suo~-l·krmi-. Sur l't•xJ•R"S!tltll~~·l;~";'.~:.'1 ~~ (;s"~i;,,~:: 5 ¡
mnuvt•mt·nl cht•Jr: l•·s tin·,·,."· l. I.2+-7Cim .u,.m.. ,., f'rn.•«' . ~ ~-
t•rnanl lt•.m-l 11l'rrt'. I'JHI "Entn• ~ 1 ''" ''1 J•~·~x. 11''"' f.lr--l;•,u
aru;l~ollt'. I..JI-71• 111 Alytlu· ,., ~·"it"lf" ~""
lfll"
(,m•· ,,.uwNI' ( .-n..
Vt•rn.mt Jt·.an-l11t'rrt• 1'114.2 Tllf" 0 "·'''"·' ••l (;,..,.1.- l'lr•*·'"' thhh".l, NYI.
Vt'Y'"'· ;,.,ul. l•nH "1 ... l:..nullr ,., l'amuur ,.,u,. k U.lur-l·•nr•n·
, ,
1 1 111 1
J/t.
h••••lfC"'

n•lll""'
J.'!l

.-t.,-J,·•'
j'
f

\.\:·::~:'·I'IH!\ "II•IIIUI'IIt':\U.thl\" '" '''"'"' R.un••" :!:ro-·'~"' rri.., .-u.ll._, ..,

lOn•t~ury J'IHI '""''""' Sltlti••"' ltl ,.,f tl'nnn•run: ,-N.,..,
(in•fi,UIV I<Ht7 "'•" 1" 111 "''"' ( ·¡.,,,,.,/I.,)Mt~rf,.. J"·.'
224 1 Bibliography

Walcot, Peter. 1978. "Herodotus on Rape." Artthusa, 11.1-2:137-47.

Weeks, Jeffrey. 1977. Coming Out: Homosexual Politics i11 ritain,.frornthe Nineteemh Century 10
tht Prrsent (London).
Weeks, Jeffrey. 1980. "Capitalism and the Organisation ofSex": 11-20 in Homosexuality: Power
& Politics. Ed. Gay Left Collective (London).
Weeks, JefTrey. 1981/a. "Discourse, Desire and Sexual Deviance: Sorne Problems in a History
ofHomosexuality": 76-111 in Plummer.
Weeks,Jeffrey. 1981/b. Sex, Politics and S()(iety: Tht Regulatio11 ofSexutllity sit1u 1800 (London).
Wcnder, Dorothea. 1984 (1973). "Piaro: Misogynist, Paedophile, and Feminist": 213-28 in
Peradotto and Sullivan.
Wilamowitz·Modlendorff, Ulrich von. 1920. Platon. 2d ed. (Berlin). Two volumes.
Williams, F. E. 19.36. P4p114ns ojtht Tr<Jns-Fiy (Oxford).
Winkler, John J. 1989/a. ''Laying Down the Law: The Oversight of Men's Sexual Behavior in
Classical Arhens": 45-70 in Winkler (1989/d).
Winkler, John J. 1989/b. "Unnatural Acts: Erotic Protocols in Artemidoros' DrttJm An<Jlysis":
17-44 in Winkler (1989/d).
Winkler,john J. 19R9/c. "The Laughter of the Oppressed: Demeter and the Gardens of Adonis'':
188-209 in Winkler (1989/d).
Winkler,johnj. 1989/d. Tht Ccmstrair~ts ofDtsire: Tht A11thropoloRY ofSex 41111 Gtndtr in
Crttct (New York).
Wion, Frida. 1970. "L'amour grec." Bullttin dt I'Associ<Jtion Guiii<Jumt Budé, 4th ser.:249-58.
Wood, Ellen Meiksins. 1988. Pt4S4Ht-Citiztn and Sl411t: Tht Foundations of Athtni<Jrr DtmocrtJCy
(London).
Woolf, Virginia. 1957 11929). A Room ofOnt's Own (New York).
Wright, David F. 1984. "Homosexuals or Prostitutes? The Meaning of ARSENOKOITAI (1
Cor. 6:9, 1 Tim. 1:10)." Vitiliat Chrütian<Jt, 38:125-53.
Zeillin, Froma l. 1981. "Travesties ofGender and Genre in Aristophanes' Thtsmophorit~zousat":
169-217 in Foley.
Zeidin, Fro~a l. 1984. "The Dynamics ofMisogyny: Myth and Mythmaking in the Ortsltia":
159-94 m Peradouo and Sullivan.
Zeidin, Froma l. 1985. "Piaying the Othcr: Theater, Theatricalily, and thc Feminine in Greek
Drama . ., Rtpmtnldtiom, 11:63-94.
 Addendum

While this book was already in press, 1 had the good fortune to read
several sections of an important work in progress on Homosexualíty and
the Athenían Democracy by Professor Keith DeVries of the University of
Pennsylvania. In the course of a wide-ranging discussion of many issues
connected with his topic, DeVries documents the depiction on Atric pottery
(black-ligure, mostly, with particular attention to the work of a painter
termed The Affecter) of reciprocal erotic contacts between adule males-
scenes whose signilicance had hitherto been neglected or insullicienrly ap-
preciated by historians of ancient Greek sexual behavior. DeVries also cata-
logues instances of che portrayal on Greek vases of a reversa] of convenrioml
erotic roles between man and boy. This testimony, though relarively scanry
and in need of careful interpretation, makes me inclined to qua.bfy or to
moderare even further sorne of che already tentative general daims about
the nature of Greek paederasty advanced here and there throughour these
essays (on pp. 47, 130-31, and 160-61, for example) and it absolucelyreqw':;
me to correct the impression, with which 1 left che reader on pages/J and
160-61 (Chapter 1 note 31) and which 1 had myselfbeen under unn. rea f
0
DeVries's study, that my condusions were based on a compJC"te rt'vtt'W

the pictorial evidence.

Index
Abbott,Jack H., 38-39, 167, 173-74
Ach;lles, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 83, 84, 85, 86,
87,128,177,179,200
Achillts Tatius, 135, 163, 181
Ackrrley,J. R.,17
Adam, Bany D., 54, 144, 154, 159, 165,
168, 170, 172,207
Adkins,ArthurW.H.,62,174
Aeschines Rhetor, 86, 88, 90, 91, 94, 95,
108, 109, 161, 163, 169, 180, 182, 183,
184,185,186, 189
Aeschines ofSphettus, 123-24, 128-29, 190,
197, 199,201
Aeschylus, 86, 138, 139,144, 172,179,200,
205,208
Agathon, 113,121, 128, 146, 147, 148, 182,
190,191,198, 199,209
Alcenis, 128, 133, 200
AldbW!es, 116, 121, 123,127, 128,132,
147,148, 191, 199,201,205,210
Alcmacon, 139
Anaxilas, 111,181,190
Antipater ofThesulonica, 108
Antisthencs, 107, 123,128,197
Aphrod;t<,68,90,93,100,101,104,105,
106,116,128,135, 182, 187, 188,191,
202
Apollo,34,84,105,139,1S9,172,182,
194, 203, 204
Apollodorus of Athens, tOS
Aris~ophanc~o, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 55,108,
121,126,127,128,129,130,131,138,
146,147,160,164,180,181,182,183,
184,185,187,189,190,191,192,197,
200,209
Ariarotlc, 110, 118, 131,133, 134, 139,141,
142, 150, 179, 184,185,187, 193,201,
204,205,206,208,211
Artemidorus, 37, 164, 167, 182,205
Aspasia,l11, 122, 12J, 124, 129,197
Athena,104,144,199,200,208
Athenaeus, JJ, J5, 12J, 16J, 165, 17J, 180,
181, 182, 18J, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190,
196,197,199,201
Athens, 11, 21, 29, JO, JI, J2, JJ, J5, J6,
J9, 58, 88, 90, 91, 92, 9J, 94, 95, 96, 97,
98, 99, 100, 101, 102, IOJ, 104, 105, 106,
107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 11J, 114,
118, 119, 120, 12J, 129, !JO, 132, IJ7,
IJ9,144,!54, 160,161,171,172,173,
1-1~~~~~~~~~1~1~
191,19J, 195,198,200
Bacchylides, J3
Bachofen, t 44, 207
Bassus, 108, 188
Beauvoir, Simone de, 136
Bethe, E., 56, 58, 170, 171, 172
Bosweii,John, 5, 18, 19, 21, 29, 41, 42, 44,
46, 154, 159, 160, 161, 163, 164, 168, 169
Bury,R.G.,119,194,195,209
Bynum, Carolinc Walker, 28n., 37n., 68,
16J, 164,209
Caelius Aurclianus, 22, 24, 25, 166, 201
Chaddock, Chades G;lhert, 15, 15S
Chauncry,George,Jr.,1S,28n., 154,155,
156,173
Clark.e, W.M.,83,179
Cohcn, David, S, 154, n.1 S, 180, 183, 184,
192
Corinth, 101,106,187
Cratcs,123
Cratinus, t 11, 138, 180, 190
CrC'tC', 3, 33, 56, SR, 171
226
 lndcx 1 227

p,;d, 76. 78,81-83, 176-78 Gnathaena, 112, 189

IJ,;dson, Arnold 1., 155, 156, 157, 159, Godelier, Maurice, 33, 165, 167
161,162, 163. 164, 167 Golden, Mark, 32n., 134 165 169 171
de I,auretis, Teresa, 150, 154, 210 173,181,186,195,200,20.1 • •
pemerer, 127,205, 207 Gregor, Thomas, 48, 167, 169,207
Drmocritus, 139
Demosthenes, 96, 98, 111, 112, 180, 182,
183, 184, 185, 186 Hegel, 63, 66
DioCh')'sostom, 34,180,181,182,184, Heraclea, 106
187, 188 Herdt, Gtlbert H, 60, 61,156, 168 171
Dorians, 3, 56-58, 153 173,207 •
Douglas, Alfred, 2 Hermesianax, 123, 197
Dover, K. J.. x, 3, 4, 5, 6, 10, 32, 35, 58, 59, herms, 103, 104
63, 64, 93, 97, 111, 153, 154, 160, 161, HerodicusofBabylon, 123
163,164,165,166,169,170,171,172, Herodorus, 60, 167, 173, 182,187, 188•
173, 174, 176, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, !89, 190
184,185,186,190,191,195,196,198, Herophilus, 139
200, 201, 202, 204 Hesiod, 133, 182,191,201,207
Hipparchus, 103, 187
Hippocrares, 121. 139. 141, 189,201.205,
Egypt, 34, 112, 157 206
Ehlers, Barbara,124, 196,197,198,199 Homer, 11, 62, 75, 76, 78, 79, 83, 84, 85.
Eleusis, 107 86, 87, 111,176, 177, 178. !79, 181, 182
El!;s, Havelock, 16, 17, 154, !55, !57 158 Htmli, Heinrich, 4, 153
Empedocles, 139, 205,206 ' Housman, A. E.. 3, 61, 153, 174
179 76, 77,78 . 79 • 80 • 81 • 83 • 177 • 178 •
Enkidu,

Epicurus, 135, 139

Ion of Chios, 59
Epimenides, 120, 195 Irigaray, LucC', 148, 1S9, 201.202.204,206.
Erasistratus, 139 208,210,211
Eu ripides, 36, 127, 163, 182, 188, 199,201.
2
05, 207
Jocdyn. H. 0., J. ISJ, 185. 186
Jonathan, 78. 81. 82. 83, 176, 177. 178
Foley, Helene P., 145, 18-l, 200,208 JonN, tnlt-y Ann. 137. 166.200.202.205.
Forster, E. M., t, 2, 3, 4, 9, 75, 76, 85, 153,
206.209.211
176
Foucault, Michd. x. 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, B. 10, 32.
40, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68. 69, 70.
71. 119, 130, 131. 154, 155. 157. 161. Kin~y. AlfrtJ. 142
Konsr.1n,I).1Vtd,J75, 18.\,Jq(l, 1'1(1
162,163.164,165,1~.1M,t74,t75. KraJfr-l:hin,:. R... h.ard 1'\)fl. 1~- I.S5. l.'iY
176, 183, 184, 186,200.202.206
Kru;ft'V.I,_Iull.l, 145. ]08
Freud, SiKrnund, 16. 148, I4'il. 167. 169,
tR7, 201,204,208, 210
FriC'dl:tndC'r, Paul, 12S. 190, 192, 198 · 199 •
J..,au,IIW
~:~:·~¡!·~";2~~-~~'~J.'i. ,,.,,_u~.,._
201. 209

,_,, 204 . .zo.-.. lfll, IHl. 111.1. ,,., po!Y

1 "'""· 107
'·'"· 111. lott~.11-•
228 1 lndex
MacCary, W. Thomas, 83, 159, 177, 179,
194
Manrineia, 120, 121
MaximusofTyre,l23,197, 209
Mdcr, M.-H.-E., 4, 154, 170,184
Mclcagcr, 134, 181
Mcnandcr, 109, 183, 188,189, 190,205
Millcr, Nancy K., 145,208
Müllcr, K. 0., 3, 153, 171
Nagy,Gregory,83,172,178,179
Ntaera, 1ti, 112
Neanrhes, 106
NewGuinea, 46, 49, 56, 58,143,144,171.
172, 174, 207
icander, 105, 186, 187
inzsche, Friedrich,62,63,69, 70, 71,173,
174,175,176
oilto.s,ll, 86,101
Orpht'us, 128, 200
Osborne, Robin, 103, 187, 188
Qv;d, 134, 161, 182,201
Padgug, Robcrt A., 25, 159, 162, 163, 165,
166,167
Parmcnides, 121, 139, 183, 196,206
Patroclus, 76, 77, 78, 83, 84,85, 86, 87, 128,
177,179
Patzcr, Harald, 10, 11, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59,
60,61,65, 70,159,170,171,172,173,
179,200
Pausanias, 104-05, 182, 183-84, 187
Pcr;clcs,59,111,122,123,190,197,198
Phaenarerc, 121, 195
Ph;lcmon, 100, 101, 105, 107, 108, 184,186
Philodemus of Gadara, 108
Phrync, 109, 112
p;ndar, 106, 172,205
Plass, Paul, 118, 191, 194, 198
Plato, 1, 4, 7, 10, 11, 12, 16, 18, 19, 20, 21,
22, 24, 55, 59, 60, 68, 86, 91, 104, 105,
113-51,160, 164, 166, 172, 179,180,
181, 183, 187, 188, 190-210
Plato comicus, 188, 189
PICM:iRUI, 136
Plutarch, 105, 108, 123, 127,134,135,163,
180,181,182,183,184,185,189,190,
194, 195, 197,201,202,205
P"'!cy-C..u;n, L. R. de, 4, 154, 170,184
Rcdficld,Jamcs, 134, 173, 178,179,201
Rkh, Adr;cnnc, 40, 54, 168, 170
Semonides, 134
Simon,Bennetr,119,194
s;nos, Dale, 77n., 83, 177, 178, 179
slavcs/slavcry, 30, 31, SS, 92, 93, 96, 97, 98,
99, 102, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 184,
185,186
Socratcs, 60,113, 114,116,117, 120,121,
122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129,
130, 131, 132, 133, 136, 137, 138, 139,
140,147,148,150,190,191, 196,197,
198, 199,201,202,204,205,209,210
Socraticism, 91
Socraria, 91, 199
Solon, 98, 99, 100, 101, 105, 183, 184, 185,
187,189
Sophoclcs, 59, 173, 182,204,205
Sparta, 3, 56,91,171,204
Smics, 88
Strabo, 56, 58,106, 172,187,188
Strato, 108, 181, 182
Strato of lampsacus, 139
Stratonicus, 106
Symonds,John Addington, 4, 17, 154, 155
Synesius, 123, 197
Taylor, A. E., 121, 194, 195, 196
Teiresias,llJ,IJS, 161,199
Thcodotc, 122, 123
Thcopompua, 91, 108
Theseus, 33, 105
Thucyd;dcs, 119, 187
Timarchus, 88, 94, 95, 161, 184, 185
Ulrichs, Karl Heinrich, 4, 16, 156, 159
Vcyne,Paul,31,64,159,165,170
Vlastoo, Gregory, 138,155, 179,184,190,
191,192, 193, 194, 199,200,202,204
Wccko,JcfFrey, 40, 155, 157, 158, 159, 162,
163,168,169, 170
Wender, Dororhea, 119, 192, 194. 197
W ntermarck, Edward, 158, 170
 lndex 1 229

Xenarchus, 92, 182, 187

Wilamowitz·Moellendorff, Ulrich von,
Xenophon, 32n., 104, 105, 106, 119, 122,
59-60,63.119,174,191,194,209
1~1·1~1~13~13~1~~~
Wilde, Osear, 3 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 186, 187,
Winkler,Johnj.,x,30,41,48,103,135,
154,155, 161, 163. 164, 167, 169, 173, 188,190, 196, 198
180,182,184, 185.186, 187,188, 190, Xenophon ofEphesus, 169, 189
200.201,205. 209
Woolf, Virginia, 148, 149,208,210
Zeus, 19, 100, 121,191,207
Worsley, T. C., 17
A Note on the Author

DAVID M. HALPERIN is Professor of Literature in the School of Hu-

manities and Social Sciences at the Massachusetts lnstitute ofTechnology. He
has published widely on Greek and Latin bucolic poetry, on the relations
between ancient Greece and the Near East, and on a variety of topics in
literary history, comparative literature, Greek philosophy, Soviet literature,
and the history of sexuality; his work has appeared in Crítica/ Inquíry, The Ya/e
Revítw, The South Atlantíc Quarterly, The Virginia Quarterly, Díacrítícs, Partísan
Revítw, Ancíent Philosophy, Classícal Antíquíty, American Journal of Phílology,
Classícal Journal, Transactíons of the American Phílologícal Assocíatíon, and in
many different collecrions. In addition, he is the author of Btjore Pastoral:
Theocrítus and the Ancient Tradítíon of Bucolic Poetry (Yale University Press,
1983) and is co-editor, with John J. Winkler and Froma l. Zeitlin, of Btjore
Sexuality: The Construction of Erotic Experience in the Ancient Greek World
(Princeton University Press, !989f He has been a Fellow of the American
Academy in Rome, the National Humanities Center, and the Stanford Hu-
manities Center.
 UNAM
FECHA DE DEVOLUCIÓN
El lector se obliga a davolvar asta libro antes
del vendmlento de préstamo senaJado por el
último sello
9 7 8041 5 900973