#Women scholars in Classics

[jeannereames]

Hello, I hope you're well :D I have some questions related to Olympias.

Was she "de facto leader of Macedonia" as it says on wikipedia? She was also regent for her cousin Eacides, and for a few months also regent on behalf of Alexander IV?

I’ve actually written a fair number of entries on Olympias. But in most, I refer to THE leading authority on her life: Elizabeth D. Carney. The number of articles (and books) this woman has written is a just a little scary!

If you are interested in Olympias, ignore everything on the internet (even me) and go and buy Beth’s book: Olympias: Mother of Alexander the Great. It’s been out a while, so you can probably find it used at a fair price, or find it in a library, especially a university library. If you can’t find it or afford to buy it, ask the library to get it for you via “interlibrary loan.”

Bonus. She’s easy to read, has a very good narrative style (imo). And yes, when she gives lectures, she talks just like she writes. Ha. (Not all authors do.) When I’m reading Beth’s stuff, I can almost always “hear” her voice in my head, amusingly.

Anyway, just start there; she will answer every question you have, and some you never would have thought of. Very rarely can I give such a singular “Go read this” suggestion as with Beth’s book on Olympias. She has several other good ones, including on Macedonian women generally, and on Eurydike, Philip II’s mother (e.g., ATG’s grandmother).

Now, as for my own posts on Olympias, here are some. I mention her quite frequently (as a search of “asks” + “Olympias” will show), but these are some of the longer ones.

Olympias’s role in Macedonia was complicated, and she was not de facto leader except in some respects, especially as it involved religion. When it came to war, and politics, that was Antipatros. That may be one reason Olympias eventually retreated to Epiros later in Alexander’s campaign, where she had more influence. But again, Beth’s book is much better about explaining all of that.

How Old Was Olympias When She Married Philip? A general post on Olympias herself and her background, that should help contextualize where she came from and what expectations she may have had, for her role as Philip’s 4th or 5th wife.

Olympias’s Relationships with Philip’s Other Wives. This discusses dynamics in a polygamous household like Macedonia.

Did Philip and Alexander of Epiros Have an Affair? While this is more about Olympias’s younger brother, it addresses, again, family dynamics in Epiros and Olympias’s role at the court (both courts).

Finally, a pair of posts on Philip’s murder, and Alexander and Olympias’s (non-)role in it. IMO.

Who Killed Philip of Macedon?

Did Alexander and Hephaistion (and Olympias) Know about the Plot?

Hope all this helps!

[ephemeral-winter]

makes me so crazy how basically every iconic anglo-american female medievalist of the twentieth century was at least a little bit queer but nobody ever talks about it as a structuring force of institutional medieval studies

[sarasa-cat]

[oh-dear-so-queer]

Elizabeth Carter, the classical scholar and translator of the Greek poet Epictetus, called Catherine Talbot 'my passion, I think of her all the day, dream of her all the night and one way or another introduce her into every subject I talk of.'

"Normal Women: 900 Years of Making History" - Philippa Gregory

[probablyasocialecologist]

Despite Sparta’s reputation for superior fighting, Spartan armies were as likely to lose battles as to win them, especially against peer opponents such as other Greek city-states. Sparta defeated Athens in the Peloponnesian War—but only by accepting Persian money to do it, reopening the door to Persian influence in the Aegean, which Greek victories at Plataea and Salamis nearly a century early had closed. Famous Spartan victories at Plataea and Mantinea were matched by consequential defeats at Pylos, Arginusae, and ultimately Leuctra. That last defeat at Leuctra, delivered by Thebes a mere 33 years after Sparta’s triumph over Athens, broke the back of Spartan power permanently, reducing Sparta to the status of a second-class power from which it never recovered. Sparta was one of the largest Greek city-states in the classical period, yet it struggled to achieve meaningful political objectives; the result of Spartan arms abroad was mostly failure. Sparta was particularly poor at logistics; while Athens could maintain armies across the Eastern Mediterranean, Sparta repeatedly struggled to keep an army in the field even within Greece. Indeed, Sparta spent the entirety of the initial phase of the Peloponnesian War, the Archidamian War (431-421 B.C.), failing to solve the basic logistical problem of operating long term in Attica, less than 150 miles overland from Sparta and just a few days on foot from the nearest friendly major port and market, Corinth. The Spartans were at best tactically and strategically uncreative. Tactically, Sparta employed the phalanx, a close-order shield and spear formation. But while elements of the hoplite phalanx are often presented in popular culture as uniquely Spartan, the formation and its equipment were common among the Greeks from at least the early fifth century, if not earlier. And beyond the phalanx, the Spartans were not innovators, slow to experiment with new tactics, combined arms, and naval operations. Instead, Spartan leaders consistently tried to solve their military problems with pitched hoplite battles. Spartan efforts to compel friendship by hoplite battle were particularly unsuccessful, as with the failed Spartan efforts to compel Corinth to rejoin the Spartan-led Peloponnesian League by force during the Corinthian War. Sparta’s military mediocrity seems inexplicable given the city-state’s popular reputation as a highly militarized society, but modern scholarship has shown that this, too, is mostly a mirage. The agoge, Sparta’s rearing system for citizen boys, frequently represented in popular culture as akin to an intense military bootcamp, in fact included no arms training or military drills and was primarily designed to instill obedience and conformity rather than skill at arms or tactics. In order to instill that obedience, the older boys were encouraged to police the younger boys with violence, with the result that even in adulthood Spartan citizens were liable to settle disputes with their fists, a tendency that predictably made them poor diplomats. But while Sparta’s military performance was merely mediocre, no better or worse than its Greek neighbors, Spartan politics makes it an exceptionally bad example for citizens or soldiers in a modern free society. Modern scholars continue to debate the degree to which ancient Sparta exercised a unique tyranny of the state over the lives of individual Spartan citizens. However, the Spartan citizenry represented only a tiny minority of people in Sparta, likely never more than 15 percent, including women of citizen status (who could not vote or hold office). Instead, the vast majority of people in Sparta, between 65 and 85 percent, were enslaved helots. (The remainder of the population was confined to Sparta’s bewildering array of noncitizen underclasses.) The figure is staggering, far higher than any other ancient Mediterranean state or, for instance, the antebellum American South, rightly termed a slave society with a third of its people enslaved.

[monstercangirlofficial]

Recommending some of my favorite rap songs. As a latin american trans woman, I didn't grow up with rap, but I learned to listen to and appreciate it. These are some great songs I think everyone should hear, and hopefully add to their playlists. These are Spotify links, but you can find these songs elsewhere too. My favorites are in blue:

Pop Rap: She's a Bitch by Missy Elliot (1999); Comfortable (ft. Babyface) by Lil Wayne (2003); Savage (ft. Beyoncé) by Megan Thee Stallion (2020); Too Many Nights (ft. Don Toliver & Future) by Metro Boomin (2022); Never Lose Me (ft. SZA & Cardi B) by Flo Mili (2024)

Classic Rap: My Mic Sounds Nice by Salt-N-Pepa (1986); South Bronx by Boogie Down Productions (1987); Welcome To The Terrordome by Public Enemy (1990); Born and Raised In Compton by DJ Quik (1991); When In Love by MC Lyte (1991)

Gangsta Rap: Gimme the Loot by The Notorious B.I.G. (1994); Cloverland (ft. Botany Boyz) by DJ Screw (1996); The Art of Peer Pressure by Kendrick Lamar (2012); Norf Norf by Vince Staples (2015); Tear Gas (ft. Rick Ross & Lil Wayne) by Conway the Machine (2022)

G-Funk: Nuthin' But A "G" Thang (ft. Snoop Dogg) by Dr. Dre (1992); Funkdafied by Da Brat (1994); It's Supposed to Bubble by UGK (1994); Dusted 'N' Disgusted (ft. 2Pac, Mac Mall & Spice 1) by E-40 (1995); Can't C Me by 2Pac (1996)

Conscious Rap: Proletariat Blues by Blue Scholars (2006); 4 Your Eyez Only by J. Cole (2016); Blood of the Fang by clipping. (2019); Iman (ft. SiR & JID) by Rapsody (2019); I Love You, I Hate You by Little Simz (2021)

Abstract Rap: Accordion by Madvillain (MF DOOM & Madlib) (2000); Mural by Lupe Fiasco (2015); The Punishment of Sisyphus by Hermit and the Recluse (Ka & Animoss) (2018); Magician (Suture) by Milo (2017); Arugula by Junglepussy (2020)

Jazz Rap: Jazz (We've Got) by A Tribe Called Quest (1991); 93 'Til Infinity by Souls Of Mischief (1993); The World Is Yours by Nas (1994); Yesterday by Noname (2016); Live! from the Kitchen Table (ft. Ghais Guevara) by McKinley Dixon (2023)

Trap: Ridin' N' Da Chevy by Three Six Mafia (1999); Love Don't Live (U Abandoned Me) by Gangsta Boo (2001); Kay Kay by Chief Keef (2012); Digits by Young Thug (2016); Poppin by Rico Nasty (2017)

Experimental Rap: Spiritual Healing by dälek (2002); Persistence by Lil Ugly Mane (2015); Ain't It Funny by Danny Brown (2016); Thug Tears by JPEGMAFIA (2018); Superman That by Injury Reserve (2021)

I strongly recommend checking out other songs by these artists, the albums these songs are from, more songs from these genres and others I didn't include, and to explore everything hip hop has to offer (especially hip hop made by women). Feel free to add any artists and songs I (obviously) missed, that you think deserve more love and recognition, particularly independent music. Enjoy!

[solisaureus]

Everything I Hate About Rick Riordan's Interpretation of the Hunters of Artemis

I believe that Rick Riordan has good intentions and that he has done a lot to promote inclusivity in YA fantasy, both at a fictional representation level and at a level of authorial diversity. However, he has fumbled the ball numerous times in his writing, and my biggest complaint against him is his handling of the Hunters of Artemis. So I wrote an essay on everything I hate about it.

Part I: Mythological context

Artemis is the ancient Greek goddess of the hunt, nature, unwed maidens, animals, archery, childbirth, and other domains. She is known for keeping a company of nymphs and inhabiting the wilderness with them, giving rise to Riordan’s concept of the Hunters of Artemis.

Artemis is also famous for being a virgin goddess, vowing never to marry. The concepts of virginity and marriage in ancient times and the understanding we have of them today are quite different. Here is an excerpt describing Artemis (and Athena’s) status as virgin goddesses from Goddesses, Whores, Wives, and Slaves: Women in Classical Antiquity by Sarah Pomeroy:

“The Artemis of classical Greece probably evolved from the concept of a primitive mother goddess, and both she and her sister Athena were considered virgins because they had never submitted to a monogamous marriage. Rather, as befits mother goddesses, they had enjoyed many consorts. Their failure to marry, however, was misinterpreted as virginity by succeeding generations of men who connected loss of virginity only with conventional marriage. Either way, as mother goddess or as virgin, Artemis retains control over herself; her lack of permanent connection to a male figure in a monogamous relationship is the keystone of her independence.”

Note how this differs from modern Western concepts of marriage and virginity. Marriage, for a woman of antiquity, means a monogamous, submissive union with a man. A virgin, in the context of Artemis and her Hunters, is an unmarried, independent woman, not a woman who does not desire sex or romantic love. It is likely that Riordan, as a classics scholar, knows this.

Artemis was known to keep companions in the myths, both men and women. Orion is the most famous male companion of Artemis, and in some iterations of the myth he is a lover of Artemis. Another notable figure is the nymph Callisto, who was exiled from the Hunters after Zeus raped and impregnated her in Hesiod’s Astronomia. (According to Hyginus’s recounting of this story, Zeus seduced Callisto by disguising himself as Artemis, insinuating that Callisto and Artemis had been lovers). I assume this is where Riordan got the idea that becoming “smitten with boys” (The Titan’s Curse, p. 38) gets you kicked out of the Hunters.

Another known devotee to Artemis was Hippolytus. In the play Hippolytus by Euripides, the eponymous character (the son of Theseus with the Amazon Hippolyta), was enamored with the hunt and had no desire for marriage, worshipping Artemis as his patron. His disinterest in romance offended Aphrodite, and she cursed Theseus’s wife Phaedra to fall in love with Hippolytus. The rest of the play does not end well for either of them, but the important thing is that ancient Greek plays did acknowledge unmarried male devotees of Artemis. This, combined with the myth of Orion, confounds Riordan’s choice to interpret the Hunters as exclusively female.

Part II: Feminist separatism

So, given the existence of Orion and Hippolytus, where does the anti-men thing come from? One possible explanation is the story of Actaeon, who spied on Artemis while she was bathing, and was harshly punished for his indecency when Artemis transformed him into a deer and set his hunting dogs on him. But mythologically, the Hunters were not exclusive to women, and in a modern context, I think Riordan’s interpretation of them as such is inappropriate and irresponsible.

In the 1970s, there was a movement to form communities of exclusively lesbians who seek to escape patriarchal society by forming insular colonies, known as lesbian separatism. On a surface level, it might seem empowering — many lesbians and other women seek to escape the male gaze and heteronormative expectations, and making their own exclusive all-female social communities may seem like a utopian escape. But this movement was notoriously transphobic, with these lesbian separatist communities explicitly rejecting transgender women and relying on gender bioessentialism to determine who was “really” a woman or a lesbian. It was gatekeeping in its most radical form (Separatism by Andrew Matzner).

So for Riordan’s Hunters to model feminist separatism (except with celibate women instead of lesbians) is a similar TERF trap. It is never clarified in canon whether the female requirement for membership includes either closeted or out transgender women, or if the Hunters expel transgender men who come out after joining the Hunters. Given that the Hunters — a community of people who seek to reject conventional patriarchal society — would likely appeal to queer people of all ages, genders, and sexual identities, why is it exclusive to adolescent celibate girls?

Part III: Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell

In The Dark Prophecy, Riordan supplements the lore of his Hunters with a bombshell: female Hunters who fall in love with each other are expelled for breaking their oath of virginity. Emmie, who is Hemithea of ancient myth and had been a part of the Hunters for millennia, was excommunicated with her lover Jo, and they form a new life together in Indianapolis. This is described as a voluntary, heartwarming departure and a show of the two women’s commitment to each other.

The positive spin that Riordan puts on this story is shocking, considering the fact of the matter is that these characters were forced to choose between their family and their queer love. Losing one’s family, especially one that had been Emmie’s whole life for literal ages, as a result of coming out is a homophobic tragedy any way you look at it. How are we supposed to think positively of Artemis or the Hunters after seeing them cast out their own because of their lesbian relationship? Especially when LGBTQ homelessness as a result of this exact trauma is such a prominent problem?

Hell, in The Sun and the Star, Nico di Angelo expresses that his worst fear in coming out as gay was to be abandoned by his friends or ostracized by his community (p. 216, 219). Yet this is exactly what happened to Emmie and Jo when they came out in the Hunters. The fact that this outcome is acknowledged as terrifying and traumatic in The Sun and the Star makes it baffling that it’s framed as congenial and unavoidable in another Riordan book.

The fact that the Hunters are a militant force makes the expulsion of lesbians reminiscent of another notable LGBTQ rights issue: Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell (DADT). This American legislation, which was in effect from 1994 to 2011, prohibited openly gay, bisexual, or lesbian individuals from serving in the armed forces. It was acceptable to be closeted while serving, but disclosing one’s identity as lesbian, gay, or bisexual resulted in being discharged. The repeal of DADT in 2011 was seen as a major victory for LGBTQ rights in America…which makes it concerning that Riordan would implement the same policy for his fictional militia in a book that was published in 2017. And then portray it as positive and empowering.

Riordan doubling down on the “no romance allowed” aspect of his iteration of the Hunters by excluding lesbians from membership is a bizarre commitment to his misconstrued translation of the ancient Greek concept of virginity. Remember that Artemis’s vow of virginity was a commitment to independence and a rejection of marital submission to a man in a patriarchal society, not a condemnation of romance and sexuality. By this definition, virgins include lesbians, and it is ridiculous to construe two women’s romantic commitment to each other as violating the oath of virginity. Riordan’s choice to vilify lesbians in the Hunters was his choice, not an appropriate application of mythology. Considering that Artemis has been used as a relatable cultural icon for modern lesbians, this seems especially insidious.

Part IV: Asexual misrepresentation

Asexuality is a spectrum of queer identities which describe those that experience little to no sexual attraction to other people of any gender. Aromanticism is a related spectrum of queer identities entailing little to no romantic attraction or interest in other people of any gender. There is a very broad range of asexual and aromantic experiences, including those that overlap with other queer experiences, including lesbianism. Asexuality is not the same thing celibacy and aromanticism is not the same thing as being single. Rick Riordan does not seem to grasp this, construing his anti-romance portrayal of the Hunters as a haven for aromantic and/or asexual girls such as Reyna Avila Ramírez-Arellano.

While a community like the Hunters, with its emphasis on rejecting patriarchal, heteronormative standards, would certainly appeal to many aromantic and/or asexual individuals (as well as most other queer people), there are several issues with conflating the lifestyle of Riordan’s Hunters with asexuality/aromanticism.

First, the Hunters in this setting are exclusively young girls, with the oldest being Thalia Grace, who is 15. Feeding into the stereotype that asexual/aromantic people are immature and childish is hardly positive representation. Second, requisite celibacy is not the same thing as natural asexuality. In fact, I find the whole enforced celibacy, anti-romance thing weirdly Catholic and repressive for a group of people devoted to a Pagan goddess of nature and unconventional independence.

I will iterate it again, this is a reductive, ill-fitting application of the ancient concept of virginity that is associated with Artemis. It is valid for modern asexuals and aromantics to admire and relate to the mythology of Artemis, but Riordan’s misapplication of this association does a disservice to asexuals, aromantics, and queer community as a whole. Riordan’s Hunters feed the harmful, incorrect stereotype that asexuals and aromantics look down on all forms of romantic/sexual love (including queer love) and see themselves as superior to the culture of love and sex. This is not positive aromantic/asexual representation.

Part V: Alternative interpretations

With all of this said, the Hunters serve an important narrative role in Riordan’s stories and a lot of potential as an alternative life path for demigods. Abolishing the Hunters would do the story and its setting a disservice; but I believe they should’ve been written very differently.

The Hunters should maintain their core purpose of an uprooted existence, rejecting conventional society to connect with nature. They should provide community for those who are not served by the heteronormative, cisnormative patriarchy. This would include people of all ages, genders, and romantic/sexual identities. There should be an emphasis on solidarity among marginalized sexual and gender identities instead of overt hostility and gatekeeping.

Members of the Hunters should be discharged only when they decide to rejoin mainstream society or settle down with a lifestyle that is incompatible with the aforementioned purpose of the Hunters. I believe this structure would be far more empowering and liberating than what Riordan has envisioned.

[sagelasters]

𓇼 Metaphysical philosophers, connection to the mind.

Anne Conway 

Lady Anne Conway was one of the few female philosophers in the seventeenth-century and notable for her legacy in STEM. Her work consisted of the three layer hierarchy, in which she classified them as ‘species', Anne believed that although all creatures are born with a body, the spirit/soul/mind is better and has the possibility to be perfect like ‘God’. She rejects the material world and explains that suffering is a part of spiritual recovery. All creatures have the potential to be ‘perfect’, but nowhere near the perfection of ‘God’, she stated. The context of ‘God’ here can be interpreted in a different lens, it doesn’t necessarily entail religions. The context of so-called creatures are human beings limited by the laws of our Earthly realm. ‘God’ however are the ones who broke free, it is the limitless consciousness, it is the ego. 

Gargi Vachaknavi

Gargi Vachaknavi is a notable Vedic scholar and daughter of sage Vachaknu, she explores the knowledge of metaphysics and what was beyond the body. Gargi explains the journey of ‘koham’ (Who AM I?) and that the inquisitive mind aids us in the revolution of finding ‘soham’ (I AM). She challenged the notions of existence by daring to ask challenging questions like, what was the ‘woven, warp and woof’? Referring to what is beyond human understanding of the world beyond the sky and earth. It is notable that Hinduism seems to be the few religions where divine knowledge can be passed to both men and women equally. Although there is sadly a lack of English source materials, Gargi’s philosophy revolves around the fundamental ontology of the world. 

Plato

Plato is one of the oldest philosophers during the Classical era in Ancient Greece. He is a big believer in Dualism, separating the body and mind into two substances (the mind can live without the body even after death). His most famous theory is allegory of the cave where prisoners trapped in a cave believed that the shadows on the wall were their reality, the prisoners regarded the cave as true and nothing else outside of it exists. Eventually, one of the prisoners steps outside and is faced with true reality or enlightenment. The prisoner returned to the cave and tried to tell his peers, only to meet with hostility because everything they’ve known their entire life was false. The lesson of his allegory was the escape from ignorance, one must question every assumption they have about the reality they call ‘real’. Plato believed that reality is created by the mind. 

Hypatia of Alexandria 

Hypatia was a renowned astronomer, mathematician, hellenist, and philosopher in the Classical era of the Roman Empire. Most of her work did not survive through the test of time, but she was a strong believer in Neoplatonism. Neoplatonism was coined from Plato’s Platonic theory that argues that the world which we experience is only a copy of an ideal reality in which lies beyond our material world. Overall, Neoplatonists believed that happiness and prosperity can exist without an afterlife. Hypatia’s belief in Neoplatonism drove her to seek knowledge in mathematics and astronomy.  

[magnetothemagnificent]

Famous Jewish royalty and nobility as Disney Princesses:

Growing up, I loved Disney Princesses, but I never saw any representation of Jewish princesses. Which was a shame, because I grew up with stories of strong Jewish women, I just never got to see their stories in mainstream media. I have two younger sisters, and I wish they could grow up seeing just one Disney Princess from our culture and heritage. So, being an artist, I decided to take the five classic white princesses, and redesign them to be five strong Jewish royalty and nobility. I decided to represent a large swath of time periods and locations, just like Disney Princess stories cover different time periods and locations, and to celebrate the diversity of Jewish history. So, let's go!

Queen Esther

For Cinderella, I chose to depict Queen Esther, because they both share themes of concealing one's identity. Esther is the heroine of Megillat Esther, a book in the Tanakh. She was forced to become the wife of the Persian king Achashverosh, but because of it she was able to save the Jewish people from genocide at the hands of Haman. Queen Esther might be a "typical" choice, but I think that not many people truly appreciate her and her story, despite how well-known it is.

Qasmuna

For Belle, I chose the poet Qasmuna, because Belle is a studious woman, and Qasmuna was a scholar and a poet. Qasmuna was an Arabic-language Andalusian poet during the middle ages. Not much is known about her, but she is one of the very few recorded Jewish Arabic-language poets of her time. Some sources attribute her to having been the vizier Shmuel HaNagid (Samuel Ibn Nagrillah)'s daughter, making her the closest to royalty as was possible for a Dhimmi at the time. I depicted her wearing lavish clothing, but also wearing a yellow shawl and a gold calf necklace to signify her Dhimmitude.

Licoricia of Winchester

For Aurora, I chose to depict Licoricia of Winchester since Disney's Sleeping Beauty takes place in England. Licoricia was a 13th century English businesswoman and community leader. She funded and lent money to prominent gentile figures at the time, including King Henry III. She is considered one of the most influencial Jewish women in her time. She was murdured, possibly in a robbery, but her murderer had never been found or held accountable. I based her outfit off of the recently unvailed statue of her in Winchester, England.

Queen of Sheba

For Ariel, I chose to depict the Queen of Sheba, since they both traveled long ways to a different place. The Queen of Sheba is mentioned in the Tanakh and Apocrypha, as well as folktales. She traveled to the Kingdom of Israel to meet King Shlomo and test his wisdom. Many have attributed her to being the woman voice in Shlomo's Song of Songs. She was a powerful and wealthy leader, and almost managed to best Shlomo in knowledge. According to tradition, she converted to Judaism and travled back to Ethiopia and led her people towards Judaism.

Queen Shelmazion

For Snow White, I chose to depict Queen Shelamzion. Queen Shelamzion was one of the last independent Jewish rulers of Judea before the total Roman takeover. Roman sources absolutely smeared her name, likely because Shelamzion was a powerful Jewish woman who opposed the Roman occupation. However, Shelamzion was a good rular, who attempted to make peace among her people, and is credited with saving seventy sages from Roman slaughter. It is said that because of her righteousness, during her rule, it rained only on Shabbat so that farmers would not miss out on needed worktime due to the rain, since they weren't working on Shabbat anyway, and that the harvest in Judea were always bountiful.

I hope you learned something and appreciate my depictions of Jewish Disney Princesses :)

I have a ko-fi if you'd like to tip, but there's absolutely no obligation.

[id in alt text]

[uwmspeccoll]

Classic Lessons in Love

Publius Ovidius Naso (43 BC-AD 17/18), more familiarly known as Ovid, was a Roman poet most famously known for his mythological history of the world, Metamorphoses. His satirical and sometimes dark take on all the intricacies of love and relationships is exhibited in Ars Amatoria. The Art of Love is a 1971 English translation edition of Ars Amatoria, translated by English classicist and scholar of Latin poetry B. P. Moore (1877-1955), with pen and ink illustrations by British artist Eric Fraser (1902-1983). The edition was designed by Robert L. Dothard and printed at the Press of A. Colish in Mount Vernon, NY, for members of the Limited Editions Club in an edition of 1500 copies on specially-made, oyster-white, mould-made paper crafted at the Arches mill in France.

In the first book of Ars Amatoria, Ovid guides men on how to successfully find a woman. In the second book, we see Ovid's advice shift towards maintaining a healthy relationship with one's partner. The third and final book, produced two years after the first two, focuses on advice for women on how to win and keep the love of a man. The work, however, was considered salacious and was banned by Emperor Augustus, with the charge of it being immoral, and is one of the few examples of the Roman government censoring a Roman author’s writing.

The topic's typical scenarios are presented engagingly, incorporating elements from Greek mythology, daily life in ancient Rome, and universal human experiences. Ovid offers hilarious advice, such as how women can keep their lovers from becoming neglectful by making them artificially jealous. He also advises men to never argue with their mistresses, as it could lead to expensive gift-giving in order to reconcile. When it comes to the sexes, it seems some things never change!

-Melissa, Special Collections Classics Intern

View other Classics posts.

View more posts from the Limited Editions Club.

[kingsanddragonsandgods]

⁂Early life:

Princess Visenya Targaryen of Runestone was born on the last day of the year 90AC, at her mother's ancestral home.

The newborn child was named after the Conqueror Queen, Visenya, by her father and anointed by holy oils seven days after her birth at the Sept-by-the-Sea in Runesport.

Queen Alysanne, who held the child during the ceremony is noted for having remarking that ‘the girl has all of Viserra’s beauty, but Alyssa’s temper’ to which the King is said to have answered ‘Gods be good’.

As Princess Visenya grew, her parents continued to battle, using the young girl as a pawn in their conflict, with both parents appealing to the King and Queen to take their side on occasion.

During her early years she grew especially close to her natural born brother, Orys Stone, the illegitimate son of Prince Daemon by Lady Rowena Royce, Lady Rhea’s older third cousin. The young boy was brought into Lady Rhea’s household in the year 90AC, following the passing of his mother.

From the age of five, her parents’ estrangement was permanent, with Prince Daemon returning to the Crownlands and Lady Rhea and their daughter remaining at the Vale. After royal intervention it was agreed that the Princess time was to be split between living in Runestone with her mother, and between the Red Keep and Dragonstone with her father, alternating during the seasons, summer and winter was spent on the Vale, while spring and autumn in the Crownlands, special celebrations were shared.

Her education appears to have been strict and somewhat old-fashioned, thus, in addition to her studies, Grand Maester Runciter notes in his journals, she was taught spinning and weaving and had an innate talent for weaving intricate tapestry. From the year 92 forward, Visenya, who had been betrothed to her newborn cousin, Prince Aerion, was expected to become Queen Consort, and her education reflected it. Her betrothed passed away in his cradle two years later, and Visenya was then betrothed to his newborn brother, Prince Aelor.

Her tutors at the time, Maester Adelin, Archmaester Vaegon and Master Petrarca of Volantis, regarded Princess Visenya as an extroverted, lively, highly intelligent, and strong-willed girl. Prince Daemon was reported to be proud of her horsemanship and marksmanship.

Because of her outstanding intellect, and his blunt favoritism, King Jaehaerys named Princess Visenya as his cupbearer in the Year 96AC, at the age of six.

The young princess often was allowed to discuss the classics, philosophy, and the affairs of state with ambassadors and envoys visiting the court of Jaehaerys. Moreover, she was personally acquainted with the painters, musicians, writers, and scholars who lived in and around the royal court.

Princess Visenya if often considered one of, if not, the best educated women of her generation.

The year 96AC marked another milestone for Princess Visenya: on the eight moon of the year, the young princess bonded and became the first rider of a she-dragon she named Huraxes. The same dragon that as a hatchling had been brought to Princess Daenerys Targayen. Huraxes had pearly scales and iridescent wing membranes, with pale and pinkish flames. The princess was allowed to bond with the she-dragons by royal decree after falling ill with a bolt of Spring Fever that nearly took her life.

Matches for Princess Visenya started being discussed by the Small Council, brought up by the Lord Hand. Thought Visenya was heiress to the largest fortress in the Vale and to the Ladyship of Runestone, it was argued that as she was a Princess of the Realm, the matter of her marriage was a prerogative of the King, which infuriated Prince Daemon, who at the time occupied the seat of Master of Law, the Grand Master agreed that such line of thought might anger the Vale, as the Princess was highly regarded by her people and her second cousin, the Lady Jeyne Arryn. Lord Corlys suggested his own son as a match for the princess, four years her junior, most likely to tie another dragonrider to his house. His Grace put down all talks of marriage for his niece, agreeing that such was the right of his brother and good sister to choose her match.

For the celebration of his niece's fifteenth nameday, the king ordered seven days of celebrations, with a tournament and grand feasts. The Queen's absence was noticed, excused as Her Grace was in the early stages of her final pregnancy, and Visenya was allowed to sit in the seat usually reserved for the consort; she was crowned Queen of Love and Beauty by the Dornish Ser Eldric Dayne, the Star in the Morning.

Since the Princess's return to court early in the spring of 104 AC, Visenya had caught the king’s eye, and it is reported that Viserys and his niece have become very close, spending hours each day in each other's company, promenading in the gardens, hunting in the Kingswood, and dancing together during feasts and balls.

The king is said to have spoiled his niece with lavish gifts, including presenting her with a manse in King’s Landing, a country estate crossing the Blackwater Rush and later a sea palace in the Reach.

⁂Marriage and Queenship:

After the death of Queen Aemma Arryn in the Year 105 AC, Princess Visenya, aged 15, became the 2nd wife and Queen Consort of her uncle, King Viserys I Targaryen. Their betrothal was announced a month following the queen’s passing, and a private ceremony was held three months later in Dragonstone.

It was a scandal at the time, as not only the King’s new marriage was announced a moon after the late queen’s passing in childbed, but it had also been rumored for some time that Viserys and Visenya had been lovers.

More salacious tales propagated by the fool Mushroom during the Dance of the Dragons tells of the princess sitting on her uncle's lap during feasts, kissing him shamelessly, and nibbling his fingers sensually as he fed her like a beloved pet; of the king fondling her breasts in public, and announcing to his courtiers that he and his niece would retire to make love. These have no contemporary support, with Septon Eustace calling such tales absurd and slanderous.

Over the matter of his marriage to his niece Viserys claimed that the marriage was in the public interest and ordered a grand celebration for the occasion of his new queen's coronation, to happen after the end of mourning period for Prince Baelon. Visenya was the first Queen Consort crowned in a separate ceremony from the reigning King. During the occasion the apparent advanced state of the queen's pregnancy caused a new wave of rumors that Visenya had been the King's mistress while the queen was still alive and that their child was conceived out of wedlock.

In their more than two decades of marriage, Visenya and Viserys had fourteen children, all survived into adulthood, something that the maesters attribute to the queen’s management of the nursery. Visenya’s role as a mother was glorified throughout the realm, their young new queen’s obvious fertility was seen, by the smallfolk and nobles alike, as both a bless from the Mother and a sign from the gods. With the birth of her twin girls, Princess Viserra and Princess Rhaelys, coins were issued, portraying her as the Mother, an allegory that would repeat itself many times for the remaining of her husband’s and son’s reign. If in her maidenhood, as a young princess, Visenya posed as a model for sculptures of the Maiden, in motherhood and queenship, she was now the Mother.

Although it was not the norm of the age, and in fact, apart from the late Queen Alysanne, no other queen receive such a honor, King Viserys granted Visenya a seat on his Small Council, leaning on her for advice on varied subjects due to his respect for her opinion and good judgment. She became a formidable figure with far-reaching influence during this time. According to some sources, her influence was such that Queen Visenya effectively ran the government alongside the Hand of the King.

In the year 115AC, around the time of her stepdaughter’s wedding to Ser Leanor Velaryon and in the years that followed, the Queen Consort started to work and put her own trusted people in ever higher positions to strengthen herself and her sons through them.

Visenya acted as her first husband’s regent after his health decline, sat in her eldest son’s war table following Viserys’s death.

⁂Personality:

Some historians have contended that to some extent she deserved her negative reputation propagated by her stepdaughter following the death of King Viserys I, despite the inaccuracies of the claims that she was sexually disreputable or regarding the legitimacy of her children, other criticisms of her were valid: she was ambitious, proud, obstinate, and masked her cunning behind a sweet-toned voice and flawless manners.

Princess Rhaenyra described her as a woman of reckless extravagance and wantonness, who seduced a grieving man, and whom the King nonetheless loved passionately and faithfully. It is widely known that those part of the Black Court of the Princess of Dragonstone took to call the queen ‘the King’s Great Whore’ and ‘Lady Concubine’, however always away from both the queen and the king’s ears as well as her supporters, further spreading the rumors of an extramarital affair while the late Queen Aemma still lived and questioning the validity of the legitimacy of their children. Despite rumors spread on her sons legitimacy supported by the queen's supposed lasciviousness, all of Visenya’s children resembled those of her lineage.

In her youth, Visenya was celebrated as ‘the most beautiful creature in the world’ and that there was ‘nothing lacking in her that the most beautiful girl should have’. Ser Alyn of Hull would reflect later in her lifetime that regarding her appearance ‘there were few women who could compete with the Queen in her prime’.

Visenya was fiercely independent, a trait she shared with her mother. Mellos described her as having ambitions to match her pedigree. However, Archmaester Gyldayn notes that Visenya was fully aware that a woman in Westeros could not hold power in her own right. Instead, Visenya orchestrated the rise of her sons.

Capable of acts of extreme ruthlessness, she, in contrast, was also able to demonstrate uttermost kindness and charity.

⁂Issue:

At four and thirty of age by the time of their weeding, Viserys was already considered in his middle age. The union however proved itself to be a happy one, and together they had 14 children, nine sons and five daughters.

Visenya had been taught the importance of receiving an education and came to play an extensive role in her children' education, resulting in the creation of a "superior breed of princes."

Queen Visenya was know to call her children her 'precious jewels', and took great pride in all of them, she was particularly close to the princesses Alyssa and Elaena, however it is said, that from all her children, her favorite was Prince Aegon.

edited on 11/04/2024

[theygotbitchesinmedia]

okay so here is her review: https://arkadymartine.wordpress.com/2015/09/27/the-traitor-baru-cormorant-a-reviewresponse/

admittedly its from 2015- i haven't poked around to see how she may have changed how she feels about it, and i know she did blurb seth's recent scifi novel (Exordia), so there's no bad blood there or anything. it's also a positive review, in general- she ends with this sentence: "I highly, highly recommend this book; I have not thought so much about something I read in a long time."

i am also coming into this as someone who has read all of seth dickinson's work for the game destiny, where he was near-singlehandedly responsible for a good oh… 80% of the interesting women (& overall interesting concepts lol!) in the game, and his writing of one of those characters in particular as a complex and flawed character got him bullied viciously off of all social media. if you've tried to find his social media presence and havent found anything, that's why. so i mayhaps have a little more emotion in the game.

THAT SAID. here are some specific parts from her review i find really fucking annoying! and color the way i feel about Memory & Desolation, despite them being so incredibly targeted at me as a classics person AND someone who fucking loves the specific sub-genre of scifi her novels are.

"[Traitor] asks a question which I find compelling as a student of an empire and as a queer woman. That question is: what do we gain by complicity? What do we – we barbaroi, we women, we queer people, we imperialized – what do we get when we say yes? When we say yes I will hide my true nature? When we say yes I will subsume myself into the beautiful machine? When we say can we speak English? Or the literature I love just happens to be written by straight white men – and mean it, too, mean it with the kind of depthless love that a person can have for a text that speaks to them, which holds up a mirror to them?"

i dont think the use of the greek word for barbarian does anything here (she also keeps coming back to the greek term orthos in her review, which also pisses me off lol), i dont think empire is a "beautiful machine," and i don't think the invocation of identity politics is useful. like. i know she's a byzantine scholar but if your first association with empire is purely a finite Historical Empire instead of, like, modern US imperialism, or British colonialism, you are going into this discussion with a certain set of values and opinions! a set of values and opinions that let you call an empire a "beautiful machine" in all earnestness. this claim probably seems unsubstantiated and nitpicky now just from this excerpt but ill come back to it with more i promise. on the idpol front, she also says immediately after this that she does believe that straight people can and should write queer people, but that they should listen to queer people when they point out those errors. she then continues:

"But then, critique: there are two points on which I think Dickinson’s portrayal of a queer protagonist has faltered, and I think both of these errors arise from the fact that he isn’t part of – as far as I know at the time of writing this review – a queer community. Firstly, I disbelieve Baru’s awareness of her own desires… …For the first portion of the book, her queerness felt more like a character trait assigned to her for reason of plot than a naturally built part of her as a person… Secondly, I wonder where queer people in Falcrest are…"

theres more to these excerpts, but. i personally didnt find the depiction of baru's desire to be unrealistic, and also this was a review of Traitor, specifically, so where on earth would baru have heard about queer people in falcrest? and more importantly, why should we care so much about queer people in the imperial core? moreover i think the way seth does it with svir is very very well done, and illustrates the hypocrisy of empire in a way that does NOT seem like what martine is asking for here!!!

"Why am I invested? I myself am a student of empire. I’m a Byzantinist. My academic work is about empire and its seductions; it is the animating principle of my professional life. And: I am myself someone who loves order over disorder. Who looks for systems in all things. Who is comforted by structures; who is concerned deeply with propriety. But here’s my real criticism of this book: I don’t buy the seduction of the Masquerade. And I think if this book fails, it’s there: in that its empire is too easily read as undesirable. As profane, unethical, fundamentally wrong. It is really overtly evil." … "The Masquerade isn’t civilized. It’s civilization, but I don’t recognize it as civilized, and this is a problem with a constructed empire. An empire relies on itself as the definition of civilization – I would footnote here Ann Leckie’s Imperial Radch as a SFnal example of an empire which is built on this principle, and which, for this reader at least, achieves the facsimile. (But then my ancestors were not enslaved, we were exterminated; not annexed, but exiled. Perhaps I like the Radch better than the Masquerade because I can find a place for myself in it, and cannot imagine a place within the Masquerade someone like me would ever be safe –)"

and THIS. THIS RIGHT HERE IS MY BIGGEST PROBLEM. critiquing the masquerade as not "seductive" enough, calling it too evil to have people join it- how does someone miss the point THIS badly??? like. are you FUCKING serious??? how do you read a book about the immense violence of colonialism and your problem is that it is boohoo too violent for people to join willingly. google literally fucking anything the US has done ever!!! and the invocation of the concept of "civilized" as an objective quality, despite the recognition that the empire constructs what counts as "civilization" is so fucking unserious/simplistic/juvenile! why do you need to imagine yourself a place in the empire? in the imperial core specifically!

and i think this particular approach bleeds into her books. i read them at Least 2 years ago, so this is mostly vibes-based, and i will avoid spoilers.

there is such a focus on the allure of the imperial core, on the "beautiful machine" of the empire as she calls it. there is violence done, but it is abstracted away from the wealth of the imperial core. there are no economics there. the empire sees her independent station as a backwater, and there is some cultural tensions there, but there is no realistic violence and exploitation! it is not clear at all what maintains the empire, besides some abstract idea of trade. i also don't know what her Point is with the naming & language conventions, which are very clearly inspired in part by ancient Mayan- e.g. the empire and core planet are called Teixcalaan. and idk this may be reductive of me but i think if you are going to pull features from civilizations that have been colonized and use them to inspire fictional colonizing forces, you ARE saying something there! idk! and like, the ancient Mayan

and on the ~representation~ front, i also don't think she does a better job than seth tbqh!!! i felt like the characters getting together came out of nowhere and felt anticlimactic- there is also not the tension i think there should be with the main character being an ambassador-ish and the love interest being… idr. junior intelligence officer iirc? idk! and for all her critique of baru's desire for women not feeling "real" or present enough, i do not remember the main character in Memory having any real focus on it!

i enjoyed Memory just fine, but i don't think it says anything interesting or novel or even critical about empire, and i found her review of Traitor extremely shallow and useless, if very revealing about her own outlook on empire lol!!!

this has been at best Minorly proofread and edited but im not like, writing an academic essay on the matter and so i apologize for any inconsistencies.

oh man thanks for this this is really interesting. i went and read the whole thing and i agree a ton with your critique. i'm going to stick my thoughts below the cut because i went on for a bit here, in typical fashion.

i personally didnt find the depiction of baru's desire to be unrealistic, and also this was a review of Traitor, specifically, so where on earth would baru have heard about queer people in falcrest? and more importantly, why should we care so much about queer people in the imperial core?

NO BUT EXACTLY... for starters this is explicitly a novel about colonized people taking place in a colony where none of the major characters are from the empire. where, when, and how would we take the time to explore what queerness looks like for them and more importantly, like you've asked, why the hell should that be a priority for the narrative in this case.

in terms of 'i found this to be an unrealistic depiction of queer desire' 9/10 times i feel like what that means is 'i found this to be an unrelatable depiction' which is an entirely different critique. i know i'm working with two additional books worth of context that martine isn't working with here. but even taking into account just the characterization we have for baru in traitor i think this is suuuuch an unfair complaint. i'm gonna pull the entire quote she says about baru's sexuality here because i have additional specific gripes with it.

Firstly, I disbelieve Baru’s awareness of her own desires. In the first portion of the book, I do not ever feel the weight of Baru’s own awareness of her sexuality; there is an absence of carnality, a kind of intellectual version of lesbian desire which is, to me, inconsistent with the sort of desire I expect. Not until the introduction of Baru’s eventual lover Tain Hu do I get a sense of Baru as a woman who loves women. Further, considering how very much the Empire of Masks and Increastic philosophy criminalizes the sin of queer desire, I wish Baru had struggled more with the nature of her desire. For the first portion of the book, her queerness felt more like a character trait assigned to her for reason of plot than a naturally built part of her as a person. This markedly improved in the second half, where Baru notices women in a way she does not notice men.

For starters, it is insanely hypocritical to me to complain that her desire both isn't carnal enough and she processes it too intellectually, but that she isn't struggling enough with it. Baru intellectually processes things! That's her entire character from the getgo! She also has a difficult time conceptualizing other people as fully realized beings with their own agency. These character traits paired together don't make for a particularly passionate and carnal relationship to her sexuality. She is also, at her absolute oldest in this book, 21! (Or 22? I can't remember. I know she spends 3 years in aurdwynn) and has spent her entire youth being groomed to be a scholar. Of course detached intellectualism is her primary way of navigating all things. Why wouldn't it be?

Baru primary motivation is to save taranoke, she wants to save the taranoki way of life, and part of that way of life includes an acceptance of nonhetero nonmonogamous relationships. Sure, a different character arc may have involved baru actually internalizing and then having to break free of the trappings of race, gender, and sexuality that the empire tries to impose upon its citizens. but that's not baru and acting like this is a writing flaw rather than a character choice is insane to me.

There's absolutely no reason for Baru to lie awake at night pontificating about how wrong and dirty of her it is to want to have sex with women because we are never lead to believe even for a minute that Baru puts any emotional weight in incrasticism. She doesn't conceptualize it as sinful she conceptualizes it as illegal!

And "Not until the introduction of Baru’s eventual lover Tain Hu do I get a sense of Baru as a woman who loves women. " is killing me in particular because like. Yeah. Tain Hu is baru's first love. thats the point. But beyond that this is just not being able to see anything other than what she's looking for because i think the chapters covering baru's childhood make it pretty clear that her feelings for aminata and cousin lao (im not double checking the name but im pretty sure it was this) are deep and strong. the fact that they're not as explicitly and straightforwardly romantic and sexual as her relationship with tain hu doesn't change that, and in fact, points to baru's struggle with/development of her sexuality that she claims was somehow missing in this book.

like i just simply can't see anything here but someone who is seeing an emotional landscape they can't relate to and assuming that means it's flawed writing. skill issue frankly.

She's also fucking insane for acting like the masquerade is too cartoonishly evil to be appealing. once again im going to post her full quote here because i think its important to see

its empire is too easily read as undesirable. As profane, unethical, fundamentally wrong. It is really overtly evil. It punishes sexual “deviants” with mutilation and death. It murders children callously. It inflicts plague and withholds vaccines. It lobotomizes its own emperors for the sake of convincing its populace that the emperor is just. Most of all, the Masquerade is a eugenicist empire: it is explicitly founded on not purity of bloodline but on purification of bloodline, on making people useful to it. It makes people: it breeds them carefully, it indoctrinates them through schools, it uses drugs and operant conditioning to transform their minds and make them into automata tools. It commits every atrocity that a modern Western reader recognizes as abhorrent. This is a problem. It is a problem because we are asked, as readers, to believe that there are reasons besides blackmail that a person would willingly become an agent of the Masquerade. We are asked to imagine that the Masquerade is a beautiful machine.

for starters. "It commits every atrocity that a modern Western reader recognizes as abhorrent." MODERN WESTERN EMPIRES DID, AND OCCASIONALLY STILL DO, MOST OF THESE THINGS!!! THIS IS US! WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT!!! I FEEL INSANE!!!!

I think the book makes it more than explicitly clear why the empire is appealing??? it has all of the capital???? its building schools and sewage systems and importing food and goods and teaching reading and writing??? baru's own internal narrative often shows her own strife at the fact that the empire has made genuinely incredible scientific advancements that offer significant improvements in quality of life to many, many people. martine actually acknowledges this in the next paragraph of her review, and then brushes it away as not being good enough. why? what about that doesn't convince you?

she is seeming to hugely ignore the fact that in the case of aurdwynn specifically, the bureaucracy of the empire is coming in to unseat feudal aristocracy! what the masquerade offers may not be particularly tempting to most of that ruling class, but its economic opportunities are more then believably appealing to the common people. i think this is made pretty clear when baru's ploy to use the fiat bank to make loans to the aurdwynni people and basically lessen the massive tax burdens from the duchies wins her huge favor with the public.

and frankly even for the ruling class the potential economic benefits are massive too if you're willing to participate in the empire properly. yes the empire doesn't have Moral appeal. it doesn't fucking have to. it owns pretty much every economy outside of the oriati mbo. the fact that that's not enough for her is as you've pointed out really really showing her biases and blind spots. 'no reason besides blackmail' MONEY!!!! MONEY! IT'S MONEY! THIS IS A BOOK ABOUT ACCOUNTING! HOW DID YOU MISS THAT!!!

and the invocation of the concept of "civilized" as an objective quality, despite the recognition that the empire constructs what counts as "civilization" is so fucking unserious/simplistic/juvenile! why do you need to imagine yourself a place in the empire? in the imperial core specifically!

And this is really it for me too, yeah. It's gross. It's absolutely gross. "An empire isn't believably appealing unless I, personally, find it appealing" there are people alive who are eugenicists, who love community policing, who believe in race science. the masquerade is an empire for them. the thing about empires is that they are only actually empowering for an incredibly small subset of people, and the fact that You, Specifically, Arkady Martine can't imagine being one of those people in this instance doesn't make it not believable. This is a shatteringly individualist way of engaging with a work.

As for your points about the way she handles empire in her own book obviously i can't have anything to say there because i haven't read it yet, but i do absolutely agree with you on this bit:

and idk this may be reductive of me but i think if you are going to pull features from civilizations that have been colonized and use them to inspire fictional colonizing forces, you ARE saying something there! idk! and like, the ancient Mayan

1000% i don't think this is reductive of you. whether or not you're consciously saying anything is one question but it's a choice that absolutely doesn't exist in a vacuum. out of curiosity i googled her to see if she was of mayan descent or anything and maybe she chose that due to some personal ties to the subject matter but she doesn't seem to be. which of course i don't think means she can't or shouldn't draw any inspiration from there but i do think all of these sorts of choices are meaningful

i don't really have much to say here to round off a conclusion but. wow. deeply deeply telling review that does not particularly make me want to read anything she has written beyond this.

[catalinadearagonsblog]

"Intellectually, Katharine was very much a woman of ‘the Renaissance’. It was curiously appropriate that she had been born at Alcalá de Henares, where in 1499 the most advanced university in Spain was established (La Universidad Complutense). In the years 1502–22, the university produced the celebrated ‘Polyglot Bible’, in which the Old Testament was printed in Caldean, Hebrew, Greek and Latin and the New Testament in Greek and Latin; it was one of the emblematic works of what was called ‘the New Learning’, the rediscovery of the culture and values of classical antiquity and their application to the contemporary world. Katharine knew Cardinal Francisco Jiménez de Cisneros, who had supervised the project – indeed, she had been born in his palace – and came in time to form friendships with some of the leading members of the great generation of humanist scholars who were transforming European letters – Antonio de Nebrija and Juan Luis Vives among the Spaniards; Thomas More and John Colet among the Englishmen. Indeed, Katharine was part of a generation in Spain which was learning to value women in quite a new way; as an expression of this, the University of Alcalá (like that of Salamanca) even appointed women to professorial chairs. Truly, the world was changing at an astonishing rate."

Patrick Williams, Katharine of Aragon: The Tragic Story of Henry VIII's First Unfortunate Wife 

[rightwheretheyleftme]

“[…] the sole divine exception to male dominance and exploitation of mortal females was Dionysus. After Ariadne, the Cretan princess, has been seduced and abandoned by Theseus on the island of Naxos, Dionysus rescues her, marries her, and remains a faithful husband. Dionysus, of course, was a popular rather than an aristocratic god.”*

- Goddesses, Whores, Wives, and Slaves: Women in Classical Antiquity (1975) by Sarah B. Pomeroy

*There are only 2 stories about Dionysus raping women, both appear in Nonnus’ Dionysiaca which was written in C5th A.D. Scholar H. J. Rose claims that “Anyone who uses Nonnus as a handbook to any sort of normal and genuinely classical mythology will be grievously misled.”

[woundedtolove]

Hi, i'm sorry this is so out of the blue but would you mind sharing sadomasochistic literature recs pls? I love your other rec lists<33

yo not out of the blue at all. i realise i post a lot of content related to sm.

for fiction: besides the obvious bataille, you should look into colette peignot's collected writings under the name laure.

for some rewritten material on her there's kathy acker's my mother demonology. but everything by kathy acker relates to the subject: blood and guts in highschool, empire of the senseless.

(sidenote from an interview w kris kraus on her biography: According to Eleanor Antin, Kathy worked at a massage parlor in Solana Beach for a while, and she did not give massages. [...] She was also, at the same time, tutoring Latin. / If she didn’t give massages, what did she do? / Well, hand jobs, probably.)

another classic but story of o written by pauline réage plus its beautiful illustrations by leonor fini. it's actually said her fantastical owl masks inspired the character of o + she was really close to andré pieyre de mandiargues, whose one story la marge was adapted by walerian borowczky in immoral tales. then there's sacher masoch's venus in furs. you've probably already heard of anais nin's delta of venus.

i specifically highly rec mary gaitskill. bad behaviour is a great short story collection - one of the stories specifically inspired the film secretary (2002). her essay, the trouble with following the rules, on rape culture and agency published in harper's bazaar (later repub in somebody with a little hammer) is one rare occurrence of nuance and grace accorded to women who've had sexual experiences that are difficult to categorise. it gives a rundown of the ways she personally relates to feminist scholars on the subject too.

there's problems by jade sharma. for a more modern story of the eye, try ryu murakami's ecstasy.

for non-fiction (disclaimer that i mostly haven't read these but they are on my list):

gilles deleuze, masochism: coldness and cruelty ; avgi saketopoulou, sexuality beyond consent ; virginie despentes, king kong theory

if you're similarly interested in boundary-pushing experiences, the limits of the body, attraction to the horrific (i getchu) this is moreso sociology, aesthetics, psychoanalysis focused:

elaine scarry, the body in pain ; anne dufourmantelle, in praise of risk ; sylvère lotringer, overexposed: perverting perversions ; umberto eco, on ugliness

other media: the podcast drunk church, the director catherine breillat.

hope this is of help & if you read anything tell me how it went. i'm always looking for more stuff on the subject too.

[transmutationisms]

i think the reason this site loves to fawn over emily wilson and anne carson is ultimately because people would rather buy into the fantasy of 'diversifying' the classics via the entry of white women scholars than actually look beyond the bounds of what has been deemed 'canonical' or otherwise challenge that designation