Greek
Homosexuality
HOMOSEXUALITY AND THE BIBLE
Jonathan and David Series, Supplement
By Bruce L. Gerig
Turning
to ancient Greek history, one finds it divided into the Archaic Period (800-500
BC); Classical Period (500-400 BC); Late Classical Period (400-323 BC), ending
with the death of Alexander the Great; and Hellenistic Age (323-30 BC)―this
whole period following several centuries after David’s reign in Israel (1005-975
BC). Still, the friendship of David
and Jonathan has been compared in the past to that of Achilles and Patroclus
in Homer’s The Iliad and to that of
Alexander and Hephaestion,1
since both the Hebrew and Greek civilizations shared a “common East Mediterranean
heritage” (Gordon).2 However, note should also
be taken of homosexuality that existed in the earlier Mycenaean civilization,
centered in Greece (2000-1200 BC) and spread to the island of Crete (cf. the
“Chieftain Cup,” ca. 1575 BC).3 Recently a new study of The Greeks and Greek Love (2007)
has appeared by James Davidson, a professor of ancient history at the University
of Warwick, England, which offers an important reappraisal of Greek homosexuality.
This article will present a summary of his ideas, along with references
to other scholarly views and Greek texts, to discover what light Greek homosexuality
might shed on the Jonathan and David story.
In
fact, Greek Love is one of the “knottiest subjects” a modern historian can
tackle.15 Davidson takes the best from Michel Foucault (sexuality
is always culture-particular) while rejecting the worst (homosexuality did
not exist prior to the 19th century);
16 and one of his major contributions in The Greeks and Greek
Love is to distinguish between Greek Love or “homosexuality,” strong same-sex
desire in ancient Greece, and “Homosexualities,” those “peculiar and specific
same-sex ways” that became associated with Athens, Sparta, Crete, Elis, Thebes,
and other autonomous city-states and places in the larger Greek world and
at different times between the 8th-4th centuries BC—where one finds erōs (sexual desire) displayed variously as self-sacrificing,
playful, patriotic, hungry for knowledge, admiring of boyish beauty, whorish,
squalid and seductive.17 Foucault argued that Dover showed that, on the one hand, the
Greeks “had no notion of it [homosexuality] . . . , and, on the other hand,
they had no experience of it.
A person who slept with another of the same sex did not feel homosexual.
That seems to me fundamental” (Foucault).18 However, people without a word for “green” still distinguished
this color from other colors (Davidson); and the ancients knew what “gravity”
was without knowing Newton’s term (Boswell).19 Likewise, the Greeks knew what homosexual love was, without
the adjective “homosexual.”
At the same time, this does not mean that they perceived or experienced
gay love exactly like today.20 As John Boswell noted, “[T]he homosexual/heterosexual dichotomy
is crude and imprecise,” yet it does “correspond to types of actions and feelings
which can be distinguished by this criterion” in human experience.21 In fact,
Davidson notes that what is so interesting about all of the forms of Greek
Homosexualities, in different places, is how they combine basic elements of
‘ordinary’ homosexuality, including falling in love, pursuing someone, having
sex, and becoming a couple in certain cases.
Thus the Greeks localized something that was universal, conventionalized
something that was natural, and socialized something that was intensely personal.22 Greek Love is difficult to understand because sometimes the
ancient texts seem to approve of it, even celebrate it, while at other times
they appear very anxious and condemning toward it.23 At first glance it may seem like the superhuman Heracles (Latin:
Hercules), who performed the Twelve Labors, and Iolaus, his constant companion,
were just best friends, engaged in a brotherly kind of love; yet later Theban
same-sex couples take Heracles and Iolaus as models for their own relationships,
which are clearly sexual. As Charles Huppert notes, all of the Greek gods
(except for Ares, the god of war) fell in love with young men; and Greek mythology
also contained numerous stories about heroes and demigods who pursued youths
(e.g., Heracles, Laius, Orpheus, Minos, Tantalus, and Meleager).24
Achilles
and Patroclus. Homer
(8th century BC) mentions no nights of passion between Achilles and Patroclus
at the Trojan War (ca. 1200 BC); yet much of later antiquity, including Aeschylus
(Myrmidons frag. 135-136), Aeschines (Against Timarchus 142),
Athenaeus (13, 601A), Plutarch (Erotikos 751C), Philostratus (Epistles
5, 8), Lucian (Amores 54), Athenaeus (13.601), and Martial (11.44),
thought that they were lovers.25 For example, Aeschylus (ca. 525-ca. 456 BC) in his tragedy Myrmidons
has Achilles rebuking Patroclus for getting himself killed and not showing
more “reverence for awesome thighs, oh how ungrateful you proved for kisses
thick and fast”—thighs that earlier had been involved in “god-fearing intercourse”
(Aeschylus frags. 135-137 Radt).26 Then Plato (ca. 429-ca. 347 BC) has Phaedrus say that “Aeschylus
talks nonsense when he claims that Achilles was the lover [erastēs]; because he was more beautiful than Patroclus, more
beautiful than all the heroes, and still beardless. Besides he was much younger, as Homer says” (Plato,
Symposium 180a Nehamas
and Woodruff; cf. Iliad 11.785-787).27 So, the younger Achilles was viewed as the erastēs (pursuing lover), with his attendant the older Patroclus
being the erōmenos (beloved
one), even though Athenian Greek Love held that the erastēs should always be the older partner.
Although
Homer mentions no sexual intimacies, the love of Achilles for Patroclus is
central to the plot of the Iliad; and his grief over Patroclus’s death
provides the emotionally intense conclusion of the poem.28 The champion Achilles, miffed at Agamemnon, leader of the Greek
expedition to Troy, refuses to fight until his companion Patroclus is killed
by the Trojan prince Hector. When Achilles hears of Patroclus’s death, he heaps
dust on his head and sobs so uncontrollably that Antilochus, the messenger
bringing the news, grabs the hero’s hands for fear that Achilles might kill
himself (Iliad 18.19-35). When Thetis, Achilles’ mother,
hears her son crying, she comes from the sea depths to see what is wrong (18.36-77);
and Achilles tells her, “[M]y dearest companion is dead, Patroclus, who was
more to me that any other of my men, whom I loved as much as my own life .
. . . [Now] I have no wish to live” (18.81-82, 91-92 Rieu). Later Achilles says to his dead
companion: “Oh, Patroclus, my heart’s delight! . . . How often you yourself,
my most unhappy and beloved companion, have set a delicious meal before me
in this hut, with speed and skill . . . . Not that I lack it [food]. I lack you” (19.288, 315-317,
320-321 Rieu). Mourning
for his “dear companion,” he refuses to eat (19.345-346 Rieu). Then Achilles goes on a rampage
(chapter 20) and kills Hector (chapter 22); and returning camp, he hosts a
funeral feast to honor Patroclus (23.25-30), and afterward falls asleep.
The ghost of Patroclus appears to him, with “the same lovely eyes and
same clothes as those he used to wear” (23.64-69 Rieu). He asks Achilles to bury their bones together,
which Achilles agrees to do (23.82-85, 94-96). (As Boswell notes, mixing bones together in a funeral
urn was normally reserved for married couples.29) Then Achilles asks, “But come nearer to me now,
so that we can hold each other in our arms,” but when Achilles reaches forth
his arms, nothing is there (23.96-99 Rieu). En route to the funeral bier, Achilles cradles
Patroclus’s head in his hands (23.136-138), just as Andromache, wife of the
slain Hector, will later do with her husband (24.722-724). After the funeral cremation,
Achilles began to weep again “for his dear companion whom he could not banish
from his mind.” Sleep
eluded him, and he “tossed and turned from side to side, always thinking of
his loss, of Patroclus’ manliness and spirit” (24.3-7 Rieu). When Thetis appears to Achilles
again, she asks, “My child, how much longer are you going to eat your heart
out in lamentation and misery, forgetful even of food and bed? It must be a good thing to
make love to a woman . . .” (24.128-131
Rieu, italics added). Here
Achilles cannot sleep, “longing for Patroclus’s manliness and spunk [menos]”
(24.6-7 Davidson). Davidson notes that while
menos in the broader sense can mean “courage, mettle,” a
long text by Archilochus (frag. 196a.52 and Solon frag. 9.1) shows that it
can also refer to “semen” (in Britain “spunk” is used as a euphemism for “semen”30). Scholars have
objected, calling such a reading ‘cheap’—yet Thetis’s suggestion, “It is good
to have loving intercourse even with a woman” (24.130 Davidson) can only refer
to sexual intercourse; and this most logically points back to Achilles’ earlier
tossing and turning in bed, yearning for Patroclus’s menos (sexual love).31 One cannot help but notice Achilles’ constant embracing and
touching of Patroclus’s dead body:32
when Thetis finds him, he lies holding Patroclus (19.4); and later he lays
his hands on his chest (23.18), implores his ghost to embrace him (23.96-97),
and fondles Patroclus’s head (23.136-137).33
A
number of parallels can be seen here between Achilles and Patroclus’s relationship
and that of David and Jonathan.
Although Homer does not describe the handsome physical features of
Achilles (as is done with David, 1 Sam 16:12, etc.), he does mention Patroclus’s
“lovely eyes” (23.67 Rieu); and the repeated references to the “godlike Achilles”
(1.122, 131; 9.199, 485; 17.402, etc. Rieu) surely point to his superhuman
muscular body, just as Gilgamesh earlier was praised for displaying “manly
vigor,” being “seductively gorgeous,” and having a “mightier strength” than
any other man (I 236-238 Epic of Gilgamesh Foster, p. 10).
At least, Plato and Phaedrus (above) saw Achilles as “more beautiful
than all the heroes.” Yet, it is only after one
in each pair dies that the depth and primacy of their love becomes clear. As W. M. Clarke notes, “Achilles’s
grief is hysterical, his breakdown appalling, his sense of loss unhealed and
unending . . . .”34 Achilles cries out to the dead Patroclus, “O Patroclus, my heart’s
delight! Oh, my misery
. . . . [my] beloved companion” (19.288, 315-316 Rieu), and he calls him “my
dearest companion . . . whom I loved as much as my own life” (18.80-82 Rieu),
which recall David’s tender words in his eulogy spoken to the dead Jonathan,
calling him “my brother Jonathan; greatly beloved [na‘im, or ‘delightful’35]
were you to me; your love to me was wonderful” (2 Sam 1:26 NRSV), along with
the Biblical narrator’s earlier words explaining how Jonathan “loved him [David]
as his own soul [nephesh, or ‘life’36]” (1 Sam 18:1 NRSV). Then there is the contrast
in both cases of their same-sex love being ‘better’ than heterosexual love—noted
when Achilles’ mother urges him to find solace in heterosexual sex while instead
he dreams of the sex he had with Patroclus (24.5-7, 128-132), just as David
recalls how the wonderful “love” and sex he had with Jonathan surpassed all
heterosexual love and sex that he had known (2 Sam 1:26c).
At
the same time, all four heroes on occasion have sex with women. Homer notes this specifically with both Achilles
and Patroclus (9.663-668); and David, after leaving Jonathan, will sometimes
display strong feelings for women (2 Sam 11:2-5), although he often took wives
for political gain; and Jonathan will take a wife after David leaves (2 Sam
4:4), finally giving in to his father’s unrelenting insistence (1 Sam 20:30-31). Achilles never marries (most
men under forty in ancient Greece would still have been unmarried);37 instead, Patroclus becomes the center
of Achilles’ life, just as Jonathan becomes the center of David’s early life,
totally sidelining his wife Michal. Yet, intimate sexual relations between the male
partners are only hinted at in subterfuge ways: The distraught Achilles yearned for Patroclus’s
menos (semen), while David in his emotional
parting scene finally sunteleias magalēs . . . uperebalen (‘exceeded unto a great finale’ [van der Pool], i.e.,
came to an ejaculation, 1 Sam 20:40 Septuagint). Usually the champion Achilles
takes the lead, giving instructions to Patroclus, e.g., to lay out food or
run errands (9.202-220, 620-623; 11.611-617), although Patroclus, still a
manly warrior, will later fight bravely and give his life for Achilles. In 1 Samuel Prince Jonathan
usually takes the lead, although David later shows masterful leadership in
obtaining the throne and Jerusalem.
Homer appears to have made up a novel name, “Cleopatra,” for Meleager’s
wife, which most scholars believe is an inversion of and hidden reference
to “Patroclus” (kleopatra = patra-kleo = patroklos). However, in contrast to the
lovely “Cleopatra” (9.556) who keeps Meleager (another hero in the Iliad)
away from battle for her bed, Patroclus goes out readily to fight in place
of Achilles.38 Likewise, David uses a secretive code-word in his eulogy, sebi (“gazelle,” 2 Sam 1:19, cf. v. 25), which most scholars
believe alludes primarily to Jonathan—who was agile in battle, handsome in
form, and really the main subject of David’s grief, love and tribute. Of course, there are many
differences, as well, between the relationship of David and Jonathan and that
of Achilles and Patroclus:
The former story gives fewer and briefer details, covering only a few
months of sharing time together, and with little evidence of a culture that
honored homosexual pairing (yoking).
And, with the latter pair, there is no covenant made, no great eulogy
recorded, and no calling and preparation of the main character for a larger
spiritual mission.
Other
wedded male couples. Not only did Homer
place the devoted intimacy between Achilles and Patroclus at the heart of
the Iliad (ca. 700 BC),39
but same-sex couples remained prominent throughout the ancient Greek period.40 Diocles,
from Corinth and victor of the stadion
in 728 BC (a foot race of ca. 200 meters, the most prestigious event at the
Olympics), eloped with Philolaus, his lover from Thebes, to escape his mother’s
incestuous passion. This
couple may be the oldest known ‘historical’ homosexual couple in Greece.41 Wedded couples, the oldest manifestations of Greek love, also
include Heracles and Iolaus, his little helper, who appear ca. 700 BC together
on Boeotian brooches (ornaments fastened to clothing),42 Boeotia referring to the region around Thebes. Iolaus, pictured both as a
youth and a bearded man, helps Heracles especially with the difficult Labor
of killing the many-headed, snaky Hydra of the Lerna marshes.43 Heracles
had numerous male lovers (as well as women), although the one most closely
linked to him was Iolaus from Thebes. Later, male Theban couples visit Heracles’ tomb
and exchange oaths of love and loyalty (Plutarch, Erotikus 761d). Iolaus was also offered sacrifices,
together with Heracles, at Marathon, a city located ca. 20 miles NE of Athens.44 Xenophon (ca. 453-ca. 354 BC) spoke of Boeotian men being “yoked
together,” using syzygenetes, a word
for heterosexual “marriage” (suzeugnumi = “to yoke together,” syzygy = “a yoked pair”).45 Other
same-sex couples include the Athenian city steward Leodamas and “his wife
Hegesander” (Aeschines, Against Timarchus 110-111), the founders of
Athenian democracy Harmodius and Aristogiton, and Sappho and her “yoke-mates.” What especially characterized
same-sex yoking was the exchanging of oaths, which automatically made these
pairs comparable to heterosexual married couples.46
In
4th-century Athens, Socrates in Phaedrus describes
two males who, though they do not take the higher road (of divine love) and
instead ‘consummate’ their love and go on “doing this for the rest of their
lives,” even after “they have passed beyond it [sex],” because they have exchanged
“such firm vows,” they will not be “sent into darkness” in the afterlife,
but their lives will be “bright and happy as they travel together . . .” (256b-e).47 In Crete
committed male relationships came into being through an abduction ceremony.48 In Sparta
men contracting a same-sex relationship were responsible for the behavior
of their erōmenoi (beloveds),
which means that these relationships were recognized by the authorities.49 In Thebes
the erastēs (lover) often gave
his youthful partner a one-and-only gift of weapons at his coming of age. Since opposite-sex marriages
were often arranged by families without any wooing or courting, these same-sex
weddings, based on falling in love, were more like modern Western marriages.50 One can
see common elements here and in Jonathan and David’s relationship, including
the taking over of common words for heterosexual marriage, with syzygy (a yoked pair, marriage) and berit (a covenant, pact, marriage alliance).51 Also, as
with Greek male yoking, it is Jonathan’s falling in love with David which
leads to their sharing life-long oaths and pledges (1 Sam 20:16-17,42; 23:17-18). The Biblical story also contains
a gift of weapons presented to David as a youth entering manhood (1 Sam 18:4).
One Wedding Pyxis, a
mid-6th century, three-legged box from Athens52
(University of Mississippi Museum) pictures on its separate legs three kinds
of Greek wedding scenes: a bride unveiling herself to her husband, two women
sharing a single cloak, and two pairs of standing males having intercrural
sex.53
Greek
Homosexuality in Athens, in the region of Attica. Usually when
scholars write about Greek homosexuality, they focus on Athenian Homosexuality,
since so many important literary texts and images come from Attica.
First, it should be noted that people in the past, especially before
1800, reached puberty about 4-5 years later than now, with probably diet as
a major factor.54 Also, although the ancient Greeks seemed not to remember birthdates
that well, they were an age-class society. According to the Athenian Constitution, written
by a pupil of Aristotle, citizenship was given to youths when they “seem to
have reached” the age of Eighteen (Athenaiōn Politeia 42,1-2).55 Scholars
have differed over the age of a meirakion
(Davidson: Stripling); however, Davidson agrees with Kenneth Dover, S. C.
Todd, and Waldemar Heckel that in classical Athens this probably referred
to an Eighteen- or Nineteen-year-old.56 Young males were divided up into: (1) Under-Eighteens:
Boys (paides); (2) Eighteens
and Nineteens: Striplings or Cadets (meirakia, neaniskoi); and (3) Twenties
and older (andres), which
included Twenties to Twenty-Nines, and the Thirties and over, the Seniors
(presbutai).57 However, the term pais
(boy) could be applied to any male under twenty; and a paiderastēs (admirer of boys) was interested in this range. Eighteens and Nineteens were
generally considered “not properly bearded,” which meant that they were still
smooth-cheeked or they had just begun to show the first fuzz on their cheeks. Unlike the Romans, the Greeks
did not shave their beards.58
Davidson
notes that Greek had a range of words for “love” which sometimes produced
a “high degree of ambivalence” and a “minefield of possible misunderstandings,”
including philia (intimate love, but Skinner: friendship59) and erōs (the love drive).60 Agapē (fondness)
could include a sexual relationship, or not.61 Pothos (longing) was
a yearning when the love-object was absent, and himeros (a sudden urge) when the love-object was present (cf.
Socrates, in Plato’s Cratylus).62 Contrasted with Aphrodite, who embodied desire for women, the
god Eros had special jurisdiction over Love for Boys; and erōs (wanting the pleasure of something, usually sexual)
could knock your life off track, rob you of common sense, and keep you up
at night, driving you mad—although in a broader sense erōs was sometimes applied to a hunger for food, dance,
sleep or war (cf. Homer).
Context was everything.63 Erastēs (plural
erastai) often has been translated as “lover” and erōmenos (plural erōmenoi) as “beloved,” although the former in many cases was
only an “admirer” from a distance, and the latter might be completely unaware
of an admirer’s devotion.64 So, an erastēs was
primarily “one possessed by a driving love,” while an erōmenos “was the object of that love.”65 Socrates
explains how a man can be “struck by the boy’s face as if by a bolt of lightning,”
while he struggles to maintain his self-control (in Plato’s Phaedrus
254b).66 A Stripling who responded favorably to an admirer engaged in
charizesthai (favoring), which it was right for the Boy to do if
his erastēs was giving
him practical wisdom.67 The Greeks had loaded words and euphemisms as well, e.g., pugai (buttocks) seems mostly to have been avoided, with
hedra (seat) used in its place. Genitals were regularly referred to as the aidoia (shamefuls, discreets).68 The Greeks
also commonly referred to having sex with euphemisms like: mixis (mixing), homilia (associating), plēsiazō (being close), and sunousia (being with). Still, they had direct words like laikazō (to perform oral sex), an act which was considered
vile and a “pollution.”69 They had no direct word meaning “to fuck,” although katapugōn (right up the buttocks) could be used to refer to an
“ass-bandit.”70 Every society has its vulgar words
for certain denigrated sexual acts—although some individuals, in spite of
the taboos, will still be drawn to and indulge in those very same acts.
So,
how was Greek Love practiced in Athens?
Plato
recognized both a “heavenly” love and a “carnal [vulgar, common]” love. There the way of same-sex
love was more “elaborate” than in other places, but far “lovelier.” It’s all right to fall in
love with a youth, especially if he is noble-born and of high quality; and
if an admirer makes a catch, that’s a good thing too—except that sex should
not be used for money, political gain, or power (Plato, Symposium 180b-182a).71 Erastai came in two types: The wolf-pack erastai included those groupies, pests and suitors who competed
in their devotions for a Stripling, bringing him gifts, songs and promises,
while the Super-erastēs, or chosen one, the Winner, got to accompany his favorite to athletic
events as his Sponsor, his publicly-recognized Other Half.72 The Greeks
viewed the erastēs as a victim
who couldn’t help himself, because he was so ‘hung up’ on a Stripling. On the other hand, the erōmenos was to remain erotically passive (although some boys
were known to flirt, e.g., batting their eyelashes).73 Related
to “favoring” (charizesthai), the beloved
was free to respond or not, although a gracious exchange was thought both
to reveal and refine the boy’s personality (psyche).
He could hug or kiss, or do more in his lover’s arms; yet the main
focus for an erastēs should
not be simply to get sex with the boy.74 Foucault tried to distinguish between philia (simply being good friends) and erōs (sex), which Davidson says really makes “no sex in
the Greek context, where, of course, sex is conceived in terms of charis [gracious reciprocation].”75 Still, Striplings
were not to become ‘notches on the bedpost,’ and special scorn was heaped
on boys who were believed to welcome being penetrated.76 Of course,
loving someone might end up in bed, although sex was nothing that you would
‘note in your diary,’ and there was a reluctance to write about it or picture
it. As Xenophon (Anabasis
2.6.28) noted, sex belonged to aphane,
the realm of the invisible.77 At the same time, certain laws dealt with matters of modesty
and shame, fathers in Athens had slaves called paidagōgoi to chaperone their boys outside the home, and in the
gymnasium Striplings (Cadets) were forbidden from mingling with the younger
Boys, who shared the same training grounds but played at opposite ends.78 However,
at Eighteen, ephebes (“in bloom” =
Stripings) had a spectacular coming out at the gymnasium, when they ran a
naked torch race (probably a relay race); and afterward they were not so well
guarded.79
Still, there was no one single mos Graecorum (Greek way); and love and sex did not always follow the proscribed ideal, even in Athens.80 Although pursued Striplings were to remain passive with an admirer, even Socrates acknowledged that while the Boy thinks about love for his erastēs as “friendship,” his desire “is nearly the same as the lover’s, though weaker: he wants to see, touch, kiss, and lie down with him; and of course, as you might expect, he acts on these desires soon after they occur” (In Plato’s Phaedrus, 255e Nehamas and Woodruff).81 Xenophon relates how Critobulus, the fuzz “creeping down in front of his ears,” was dreamily infatuated with his older classmate Clinias, who in turn had a boyfriend in Ctesippus (Plato, Symposium 4.23.26). Socrates was afraid that Critobulus has kissed Clinias, a dangerous thing to do, but Critobulus’s obsessive erōs for Clinias persists—even though an Athenian younger male was not to become a love-struck suitor.82 Adult men also sometimes had older boyfriends, as with Isocrates (Socrates’ favorite), well into his twenties, and Lysias (Phaedrus’s favorite), who was older still.83 Moreover, 4th century Athenian Homosexuality changed radically, as porneia (Davidson: whorishness84) arrived in the city, in the form of sex-slaves who served their masters as live-in lovers, handsome cithara-boys of notorious (loose) reputation who with their lute-like instruments and other talents entertained drinking parties, and politicians who had come to power more through their ‘physical talents’ than anything else. As might be expected, these changes provoked much discussion among the philosophers, including Plato, Xenophon, and Aeschines, about what Greek Love should be about. Foucault believed that all of this theorizing about true love, accompanied by a rejection of sodomy, was designed to render the love of boys acceptable by denying what actually happened. Instead, Davidson views this as a “charis crisis,” because sexual favors from male prostitutes and boy slaves now seemed so much more easily gotten.85 Special scorn was heaped on boys who slept around as common prostitutes,86 who became increasingly available. One Athenian speech-writer Lysias (ca. 445-ca. 380 BC) in Against Simon relates a struggle that went on for years (including everything from stone-throwing to attempted murder) between Simon, who hired an expensive live-in rent-boy (Theodotus), and an unnamed speaker, who later stole (or retrieved) the Stripling away from him. The Athenian statesman Aeschines (389-314 BC) in his speech Against Timarchus tells another story of a prostitute, who was bribed to leave his house of prostitution to go live with Misgolas, a wealthy man, who then becomes enraged to find Timarchus out sleeping with some foreigners like a “common prostitute.”87