[lit-ideas] Roman Masculinities

  • From: Jlsperanza@xxxxxxx
  • To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Sun, 11 Nov 2007 20:46:41 EST

Below some amazon.com reviews on this book by Craig I'll try to find. If  
only for the references to Loeb Romana Bibliotheca authors who would otherwise  
be rather dry.
 
I like Williams's idea that the main paradigm for the Roman was  
'master/slave', rather than the customary gender division. 
 
Any comments or additions, welcome -- especially as they relate to authors  
in the Canon of the Loeb. I notice that the illustration of the cover in  
Williams's book is to the lover of Hadrian -- of "Hadrian's Wall" fame.
 
D. Ritchie was commenting on the silly vogue of having "--- studies" for  
anything, or everything. There's this "Masculinities Studies" which is 
something  
Loeb would not have heard of, as he would have taken it for granted!
 
Cheers,
 
J. L. 
 
J. L. Speranza
       The Swimming-Pool Library
 
 
 
"catamite, virgo, virtus, irrumator struprum, cinaedus, pudicitia, lingis,  
futuis, fututor, and fellator"
 
 
Ancient Rome merits a contemporary investigation of its attitudes towards  
sexuality and homosexuality but sadly Craig A Williams book "Roman  
Homosexuality" is not capable of the task. Apart from the dull prose and 
paucity  of 
illustrations. A pathetic eight pages of miniscule black and white photos,  
including the front cover which is repeated again inside the book itself.  
Williams 
actually has the audacity to state in the introduction that he will  refrain 
from translating Roman sexual terms such as catamite, virgo, virtus,  irrumator 
struprum, cinaedus, pudicitia, lingis, futuis, fututor, and fellator.  The 
reader is therefore greatly hampered from the beginning by the absence of a  
Latin glossary and dictionary to guide them through Roman terminology.  
William's book is liberally sprinkled with extracts from conservative poetry  
and plays which express mock outrage at licentiousness and addictive sexual  
behavior. In Seneca "Naturales Quaestiones" the character Hostius Quadra  
confesses that  
"I simultaneously submit both to a man and to a woman. Yet I also play the  
man's role to someone else's disgrace, using, that redundant part of mine. My  
entire body is engaged in stupra (1.16)  
Williams without exception considers the playwrights sexual prudery as being  
typical of all Romans tastes which is a dangerous assumption because reading  
actual Romans graffiti in which ordinary Romans brag about the numerous men 
and  women they have slept with implies that the Romans could not be classified 
as  sexually up tight. Their puns, jokes and pranks suggest a high voltage 
spiritual  but bawdy people who considered every sexual act a blessing from the 
gods. You  would hardly know this from Williams dry historical accounts, 
weighed down  inappropriately as they are with references to contemporary 
French 
and American  philosophers and social theorists. Their inclusion only makes the 
reading of his  book more laborious. However quotes from actual Romans give 
fleeting insight  into their culture and everyday lives. Such as a prayer to 
the 
Roman phallic god  Priapus from Julius Agathemerus which asks that the 
following wishes be  fulfilled.  
"Grant me a flowering youth: grant that I may please good boys and girls with 
 my naughty penis, and that with frequent fun and games I may chase away the  
worries that harm the soul, and that I may not fear old age too much" (Cil 
14,  3565,2-7)

Who could not identify with this lament so universal is its  longing to 
starve of the loneliness of old age? The most striking thing about  Roman 
culture 
is that unlike the Greeks the Romans had no terms for gender  specific 
sexuality. There were no homosexuals or heterosexuals only sexuality in  Rome 
and it 
was craved constantly. ON this matter Williams selects extracts from  Roman 
playwrights and poets that were openly critical of promiscuous men and  women, 
who they termed lewd and greedy. However laws restraining adulterous  conduct 
tended to fall on deaf ears. The average Roman parent when seeking a  personal 
tutor for their beautiful son had to take into consideration the risk  of his 
being seduced by his teacher. The parents themselves had access to both  male 
and female slaves and freeborn lovers some of whom were notorious lesbians,  
concubines and male prostitutes.  
In fact the Romans would provide male and female lovers to bribe jurors to  
ensure a legal case produced a favorable outcome, if they could afford it. The  
Romans though lusty did not approve of pedophilia and past laws banning what  
they classified as Amicitiae mos Graecorum or the " Greek practices". Where 
an  adolescent would come under the wing of an older man. The vast majority of 
Roman  men would be classified today as bi-sexual though exclusive 
homosexuality  existed as well. There was no social criticism because some men 
married 
other  men, but castrati and effeminacy was disliked. This is because the 
Romans 
were a  warrior society so they did not approve of extreme femininity in men 
which was  associated with the promiscuity of womanizers and male prostitutes. 
Excessive  attention to personal appearance was considered effeminate or 
feminine behavior  not appropriate to a warrior. Who had to be ready to 
brandish 
the sword at a  moments notice. But in reality it was a free for all and some 
people flaunted  their camp-ness regardless. However the Romans disliked slobs. 
They expected  high standards of personal hygiene from both their men and 
woman, no nose hair,  no dirty armpits, no shapeless haircuts, no frumpy tunics 
and no sloppy shoes.  The Romans admired beauty both male and female as much as 
they did sex. And  celebrated their awe struck wonder of love in their text 
an example of which can  be found in "Satyricon' by the Roman author Petronius  
"Ye gods and goddesses, what a night that was! How soft the bed! We clung  
together hot, and on this side and that we exchanged our wandering souls by our 
 
lips"  
Sadly juicy extracts such as these are few and far between because their lost 
 within pages of Williams dull pontifications. A better book would be one 
that  simply presented page after page of original Roman comments on their sex 
lives.  accompanied by hundreds of fabulous illustrations.  
In college, I took Professor William's class on "Greek and Roman Sexuality"  
and looked forward to attending his lectures every other day and his excellent 
 insights on the erotica of the time, as well as the social commentaries. I  
learned more from that class than from many others and still enjoy reading the 
 books, poetry, and plays reflective of that period that we explored in that  
class. Williams is a woderful teacher, and this book puts so much of what he  
taught to his classes into the written word..its an excellent reference 
material  I would recommend to all.  
I have found this book, when added with K.J. Dover's Greek Homosexuality, to  
offer me all the information I needed on the subject of homosexuality in  
Classical Antiquity. Williams does not make enough, perhaps, of the fact that  
the Romans' low estimate of any male citzen performing the passive role in  
sexual intercourse - that they equalled with adultery and rape in the single  
legal category of *strupum*, in contrast to the Classical Age Athenians'  
idealization of the supposedly pure love between the younger *eromenos* and his 
 
*erastes* had much to do with the realities of Rome as an oligarchical 
political  
system where no member of the ruling oligarchy was supposed to submit to  
another, in contrast to the more democratic and egalitarian Athenian mores,  
where 
you were supposed to learn to obey in order to learn to give orders. But  
then, this is a conclusion that was already there to be drawn. Superb book,  
highly recommended.  
Williams has clearly written the best exposition of male-male sex and erotics 
 in ancient Rome to date--no contest. He is particularly good at refuting the 
 anthropologically more naive claims of "(pathic) homosexual subcultures" and 
 "homosexuals" (as a culturally and/or personally acknowledged category) at 
Rome  made by scholars like Amy Richlin, Rabun Taylor, Jon Boswell, John 
Clarke, and  Bernadette Brooten. Though he makes no mention of it, I can't help 
thinking he  chose his main title, _Roman Homosexuality_, because the 
(unjustly) 
famous book  by K. J. Dover is titled _Greek Homosexuality_. (His book is 
better than  Dover's.)The book is not, however, without its flaws and 
shortcomings. 
(1)  Williams aims merely at a phenomenology of male-male sex and erotics in 
ancient  Rome, ignoring the issues of early historical development ("origins") 
and of  men's/boys' subjective experiences. (2) While alluding at times to  
anthropological studies, he fails to weave anthropological insights into his  
analysis, sometimes even drawing inappropriate anthropological parallels--a 
fact  partly responsible for problem (1). (3) Though frequently alluding to the 
anal  receptivity of Roman freeborn youth, he fails to explore and explain the  
phenomenon (i.e., perhaps the rule that Roman boys could not be penetrated 
was a  relatively late development predating our sources). I believe some 
suggestive  evidence exists on this point. (4) Lastly, Williams' discussion of 
male-male  marriage (Appendix 2) is entirely underdeveloped--and therefore 
unconvincing,  inadequate, and disappointing.While the book gets 5/5 stars, I 
can only 
give it  a 95%. Still, that's pretty darn good, and it seems unlikely the 
book will be  superceded anytime soon.  
This is your chance to replace rumor and speculation with fact. How may times 
 have you over-heard some Blow Hard go on and on at a cocktail party about 
how  masculinity was expressed and thought of in Classical Times and wondered 
just  how much of a blow hard he might REALLY be? Buy this good book to find 
out 
(The  hard back is simply but beautifully bound too.)  




************************************** See what's new at http://www.aol.com

Other related posts:

  • » [lit-ideas] Roman Masculinities