#ancient sexuality

[jeannereames]

Cut the Old Queers Some Slack

This post brought to you by a review of Sandra Boehringer’s Female Homosexuality in Ancient Greece and Rome, which recent translation I posted about earlier with no little excitement. The BMCR review annoyed me for a couple reasons.

First was an assumption that when a book is translated, the author should retool it to modern terminology.* In the end, the reviewer said maybe just the forward from Boehringer should have addressed trans issues—which isn’t an invalid point—but other parts of the review seem to slam Boehringer for not doing more revisions for the new English translation (from a French original published in 2007). This leads me to….

Second issue: this assumes a uniquely Angliphone understanding, and even more, a British one (the reviewer teaches at Leeds), where the issue of TERFs is more pressing than in the US. Here, transphobia and transmisogyny is rooted more in religious objections than a subsect of radical feminists (who may not be religious at all). It’s not that the US has no TERFs, but it's not nearly the issue (ime) as in the UK.

Every country has its own quirks of bias. And the author is French. If I’ve learned anything about Queer culture in my almost 60 years on this planet, it’s that the pressing issues in one country are manifestly not the pressing issues in another—particularly across language lines. To assume they are (or should be) centers Angliphone culture in a way that annoys me.

OTOH, yes, especially US English-speakers have poor linguistic skills to read non-Anglophone scholarship as a result of bad public-school language education. But access to good language education is a matter of MONEY, which gets us into issues of social class, et al. That’s a different kettle of fish (which deserves its own post about wealth gate-keeping in academia).

But I do my best to remain cognizant that the ways we talk about queer culture and concerns differ even in Anglophone countries, never mind those of non-English speakers.

So that was my second big issue with this review.

The reviewer acknowledges that the original came out in 2007, and queer scholarship about the ancient world has moved on, particularly as regards recognition of non-binary ancient figures. But she can’t seem to keep from knocking Boehringer for not magically keeping up.

Folks, grant the Old Queers some slack here? When I was young, it was just LGB. Then LGBT. Now it’s an alphabet soup. I’m quite sure young queers who read “An Atypical Affair: Alexander the Great, Hephaistion Amyntoros, and the Nature of Their Relationship,” could take exception to my phrasing in places. Hell, I’ll revise portions of it for my bio on Hephaistion and Krateros.

But it was published in 1999! And I actually wrote the thing in 1996 as a class assignment, then revised it in 1998 for that 1999 publication date.

Remember, some of us have been in this fight a while. I do my best to keep up with current terminology—and do genuinely want to do so—but it’s kinda gauche to slam authors for material previously published, especially in such a rapidly changing field.

To expect an author to substantially retool a prior publication for a translation is uncool. Real revision takes a lot of time. Not something I think many people fully understand. It’s not a matter of a couple weeks’ tweaks. If she were to produce a revised/second edition, that might take years. I’d rather have the book translated than wait five years for Boehringer to revise it. I can take it in the spirit of its original publication date: 2007. Could she have been more straightforward in her new forward? Perhaps. But French concerns aren’t British ones.

——

*Let me also say—as someone whose work is currently being translated—we may not have as much control as readers assume. I sent a letter to the Italian publisher, all but begging them to PLEASE keep the Greek transliterations of names and Greek words with Dancing with the Lion. They said they would, but I can’t force them to do so. For all I know, the Italian translation could be a dumpster fire. I hope not, I trust not, but translations are dicey. And if academic translations are quite different from fiction, be aware of the limits original authors face with translations.

[aandvarchaeology]

Please click the link for the British Museum website being informative and referencing papers for once!

extremely dedicated scholar hunched over a desk studying scrolls by the light cast by an ancient roman lesbian oil lamp

[trans-androgyne]

Touching on the history of transmasculinity some more, here are some usually derogatory terms that have historically been used for people considered masculine women (due to gender presentation, sexuality, or both, as sapphism and transmasculinity are conflated):

Tribade: Comes from the Ancient Greek concept of "tribadism" (scissoring/rubbing genitals together), especially descriptive of masculine women who use a dildo to penetrate other women

Tom/Tommy (as early as 1773): "Tom" originally referring to masculine prostitutes and women who prefer to associate with only women; often used for women considered sexually aggressive or otherwise "loose"

(Female) Invert (from 1860s): Based on the pathologizing concept of "sexual inversion," which proposed that there was essentially a continuum of "perverts" with sexual/gender deviants from femmes who prefer women but would also have sex with men to "true inverts" who feel themselves to be men trapped in female bodies; often associated with sexual aggression

Bulldyke/Dyke (from 1920s): Especially describing lesbians considered more masculine in appearance, believed by some scholars to come from a word meaning hermaphrodite

Lezzie/Lesbo (from 1930s): Shortenings of lesbian often used in a derogatory manner and applied to people who "look like lesbians" regardless of their actual sexuality

And of course, slang terms like "carpet muncher," "muff diver," and "bean flicker" have been used to describe lesbian sex, and often applied to anyone seen as a woman who liked women

[sarafangirlart]

It’s funny how only modern audiences desexualize Hephaestus and act like he doesn’t care about sex and lets Aphrodite have relationships with his (able bodied) brothers. Meanwhile the ancient Greeks (who were violently ableist) had him have multiple sexual partners and several children and not only that, some of those children went on to make orgy cults.

[cartoonscientist]

uh oh guys the organics found us

[jcollinswrites]

JC!!!!!!!

I loved the update ommmg. I love how different the route is. Your variations are beautiful. From MCs sister to choosing if we were married before. I adored it.

I died of embarrassment at spilling the wine because bruhhhhh. I also just loved the description of MC telling them everything wrong with the security in the palace. It made me alil smug for my MC 😍

I hate the stupid creepy priest! Death to his dumbass 💀😭

I have a question tho. So seeing as we can choose our sexuality. How are same sex couples viewed in the kingdom? Should i expect some bullshit from people? And also how would that apply to the King especially. It's a two part question.

1. Could they marry someone of the same gender? Especially when it comes to shit like carrying on bloodlines being so important to nobles 😒 or would he have to take on a concubine 🙄 imagine your husband going to go sleep with some random chick while you wait for him to come back. Kill me please 😭😭😭

But i know that's how some things just are.

2. How would they react to an MC on the thief background especially romancing the king. Bet the nobles would loooooovvveeeeee that!

Okay I'm so sorry for this longass message 🫣🫣🫣

Oh you read it! ^^ I was awaiting your comment with bated breath O.O (lol jk..... or am I? o.o)

I put some variations in the code that are unique to every origin :D For example the noble has the widower variable, the thief has the option to have higher dreams in life, the captain will be able to decide if they are a war veteran, and I haven't decided the priest yet (:

Now I'm gonna go on a huge ramble about the marriage/sexuality, so I'll put it under a wrap 😅 You don't have to read it unless you are interested lol cuz it's gonna be looong... (consider yourself warned)

Okay, so according to my knowledge, in Ancient Egypt, married life and sexuality in general was a bit of a taboo in public. You could do whatever you wanted, at home, in private. We have a lot of documents from that time that describe that couples were actually very affectionate towards each other and had a healthy sex life, but they didn't really make it a big deal in public. (unless you were gossiping with your bff maybe)

Marriage wasn't a very official thing either, like it is now. They didn't really have weddings. When the bride moved in with the groom, they signed a contract, and bang, they were considered married. Anyone could get a divorce too. The most popular reason was infertility or cheating, but women could initiate divorce as well based on whatever reason.

Now, a lot of historians in the past (and even today) would look at an ancient document describing f.ex. "two women living together with a child and a cat", and they would go 'aww they must have been such good friends'. Like...... you know....? Friends. Riiiight...

On that note, no, people in the story won't give you crap about it because it always happened, in every age, we just nowadays tend to make it into this huge deal, as if everything other than heterosexuality has just been invented yesterday. A lot of ancient societies were so much more accepting than we are today. (just think of the Greek or Romans)

The carrying on the bloodline thing is an interesting question. There is a funny debate between historians about Ramesses II's children. Because according to original sources, he had around a hundred. They all had the title 'prince' or 'princess', and others like 'Beloved Son of the King', 'Beloved Daughter' and stuff like that. Most historians think that proves that they were all biological children. Others say he might have just adopted a lot of kids and gave them the title. We can't know for certain which one is true. It could be a mix.

In my not-expert opinion, if Egyptians accepted divorce and stuff, they probably accepted full-on adoption as well. Even as an 'official' way to continue a bloodline. Nobles could have one official wife, plus keep concubines if they wished (IF they wished, they didn't necessarily do it), then the couple had the option to 'adopt' any kid from a concubine and raise them as their own. We also know for certain that an heir didn't have to be even related to the king to inherit the throne. This didn't happen often, but it happened. (Ramesses I was just a friend of the previous king f.ex.)

This problem won't come up with Narmer though because he already has an adult child. And the noble MC is a thirdborn, their older siblings all have children, so the bloodline is already secured. Captain MC has two mothers, living together, like "very good friends" *wink wink*. Priest MC is an orphan.

For your second question, most of the story is going to take place on the road, sort of like a quest thing, and by the time MC & Co. come back to Thebes, MC won't be a 'nobody' anymore. I planned lots of different endings based on your previous choices, but rest assured, even if you play a thief origin, you can have a happy ending with Narmer. If you play a woman, he could even make you Queen Consort. For a guy or non-binary MC, he'll give you some bullshit title named 'Beloved Companion' or something and be done with it.

Sorry for the awfully long answer lol this is a subject I'm passionate about 😅 Thanks for reading and please continue to send messages! ^^

[a-gnosis]

Hi dear. I've been following your comics for a while now. I also absolutely adore your Dionysus and it seems like you do as well! Do you have any book recommendations for someone who wants to learn more about Dionysus as a god associated with sex and subversion of sexual roles? I can't seem to find satisfying answers from just theoi.com alone.

Hi! Dionysos certainly is a fascinating character. I'm glad you like my version of the god. ^^

Unfortunately I haven't read any book that focuses entirely on this aspect of Dionysos. It is mentioned briefly in the chapter "Sexuality and the Gods" in Greek and Roman Sexualities: A Sourcebook by Jennifer Larson.

One article that Larson recommends for further reading is "Riding the Phallus for Dionysus: Iconology, Ritual, and Gender-Role De/Construction" by Eric Csapo.

It is also discussed a bit in the chapter "The Anthesteria and other Dionysiac Rites" in Polytheism and Society at Athens by Robert Parker.

In Ancient Greek Cults: A Guide, Jennifer Larson means that the analyses of how Dionysos subverted gender roles and other societal norms are largely based on the portraits of Dionysiac worship in Greek poetry and myth, above all the Bacchae of Euripides, but that a study of Dionysos' cults and the historically attested behaviors associated with them yields a different picture:

"In practice, the worship of Dionysos was not truly subversive; instead, it offered outlets for physical and emotional self-expression within socially acceptable contexts. Furthermore, Dionysiac cult was smoothly integrated into Greek civic systems of worship, with ecstatic and private components balanced by state-sponsored festivals and conventional sacrifices."

If anyone knows any good books or articles on this subject, feel free to add.

[noxxxxsworld]

The Hymn to Inanna

By Enheduanna

Translated by Jane Hirshfield

⋆｡°✩ ⋆｡°✩ ⋆｡°✩ ⋆｡°✩ ⋆｡°✩ ⋆｡°✩ ⋆｡°✩ ⋆｡°✩ ⋆｡°✩

Lady of all powers,

In whom light appears,

Radiant one

Beloved of Heaven and Earth,

Tiara-crowned

Priestess of the Highest God,

My Lady, you are the guardian

Of all greatness.

Your hand holds the seven powers:

You lift the powers of being,

You have hung them over your finger,

You have gathered the many powers,

You have clasped them now

Like necklaces onto your breast.

—

Like a dragon,

You poisoned the land—

When you roared at the earth

In your thunder,

Nothing green could live.

A flood fell from the mountain:

You, Inanna,

Foremost in Heaven and Earth.

Lady riding a beast,

You rained fire on the heads of men.

Taking your power from the Highest,

Following the commands of the Highest,

Lady of all the great rites,

Who can understand all this is yours?

—

In the forefront

Of the battle,

All is struck down by you—

O winged Lady,

Like a bird

You scavenge the land.

Like a charging storm

You charge,

Like a roaring storm

You roar,

You thunder in thunder,

Snort in rampaging winds.

Your feet are continually restless.

Carrying your harp of sighs,

You breathe out the music of mourning.

—

It was in your service

That I first entered

The holy temple,

I, Enheduanna,

The highest priestess.

I carried the ritual basket,

I chanted your praise.

Now I have been cast out

To the place of lepers.

Day comes,

And the brightness

Is hidden around me.

Shadows cover the light,

Drape it in sandstorms.

My beautiful mouth knows only confusion.

Even my sex is dust.

—

What once was chanted of Nanna,

Let it now be yours—

That you are as lofty as Heaven,

Let it be known!

That you are as wide as the Earth,

Let it be known!

That you devastate the rebellious,

Let it be known!

That you roar at the land,

Let it be known!

That you rain your blows on their heads,

Let it be known!

That you feast on corpses like a dog,

Let it be known!

That your glance is lifting toward them,

Let it be known!

That your glance is like striking lightning,

Let it be known!

That you are victorious,

Let it be known!

That this is not said of Nanna

It is said of you—

This is your greatness.

You alone are the High One.

—

O my Lady,

Beloved of Heaven,

I have told your fury truly.

Now that her priestess

Has returned to her place,

Inanna's heart is restored.

The day is auspicious,

The priestess is clothed

In beautiful robes,

In womanly beauty,

As if in the light of the rising moon.

The gods have appeared

In their rightful places,

The doorsill of Heaven cries "Hail!"

Praise to the destroyer endowed with power,

To my Lady enfolded in beauty.

Praise to Inanna.

[jeannereames]

How many love interest did Alexander have in all of his life? I just recently found out he had an affair with a prostitute named Camaspe and apparently she was the one who was the first to have a physical relationship with him although not for long.

Love your work! 💕

Alexander’s Reported Lovers

Just an FYI … Kampaspe (Campaspe in Latin, also Pancaste) is a character in the second volume of Dancing with the Lion (Rise), as I wanted a second female voice and also a slave’s perspective. Even better that she was born to privilege, then lost it. She was reportedly a Thessalian hetaira from Larissa, which was handy as the Argeads had a long history of ties to the city of Larissa. I wrote about her before in a post from the blog tour the publisher had me do when the books first came out. You can read it HERE.

That said, she’s probably a Roman-era invention, mentioned only by late sources (Lucian, Aelian, and Pliny) all with one (repeated) story: Alexander as Super-patron. Reputedly, he gave her to his favored painter Apelles when, commissioned to do a nude,  Apelles fell in love with her. Alexander kept the painting, Apelles got the girl. You bet I’ll have some fun with that. Kampaspe will remain a major character throughout the series…but not as Alexander’s mistress.

When trying to figure out how many sexual partners Alexander had, we must ask which were invented—or denied. Remember: ancient history wasn’t like modern (academic) history. It was essentially creative non-fiction. It inserted speeches, dialogue, even people and events to liven things up and/or to make a moral point. Or it obscured people and events, if that worked better.

Modern readers of ancient sources must always ask WHO wrote this, WHEN was it written, and what POINT did the author intend? Also, especially with anecdotes, look at the wider context. People are especially prone to take anecdotes at face value and treat them as isolated little tales. Yet CONTEXT IS KING.

A lot of our information about Alexander’s love life comes from Plutarch, either in his Life of Alexander or his collection of essays now called the Moralia. Another source is Curtius’s History of Alexander. And finally, Athenaeus’s Diepnosophistai or The Supper Party (really, The Learned Banqueters). All wrote during the Roman empire and had tropes and messages to get across.

Of the WOMEN associated with Alexander, I’m going to divide them into the historical and the probably fictional, or at least their relationship with Alexander was fictional.

Of the certain, we can count one mistress, three wives, and one probable secret/erased liaison.

Barsine is his first attested mistress for whom we have ample references across multiple sources. Supposedly, she bore Alexander a son (Herakles). Herakles certainly existed, but whether he was Alexander’s is less clear to me. As the half-Persian, half-Greek daughter of a significant satrap, she had no little influence. Monica D’Agostini has a great article on Alexander’s women, btw, in a forthcoming collection I edited for Colloquia Antiqua, called Macedon and Its Influences, and spends some time on Barsine. So look for that, probably in 2025, as we JUST (Friday) submitted the last of the proof corrections and index. Whoo! Anyway, Monica examines all Alexander’s (historical) women in—you guessed it!—their proper context.

Alexander also married three times: Roxane, daughter of the warlord Oxyartes of Sogdiana, in early 327. He married again in mid-324 in Susa, both Statiera (the younger), daughter of Darius, and Parysatis, youngest daughter of the king before Darius, Artaxerxes III Ochus. Yes, both at once, making ties to the older and the newer Achaemenid royal lines.

Out of all these, he had only one living son, Alexander IV (by Roxane)—although he got his women pregnant four times. If we can trust a late source (Metz Epitome), and I think we can for this, Roxane had a miscarriage while in India. Also, Statiera the younger was reputedly pregnant when Roxane, with Perdikkas’s help, killed her just a few days (or hours!) after Alexander died.

That’s 3 …who had baby #4?

Statiera the Elder, Darius’s wife. Netflix’s proposal of a liaison between them was not spun out of thin air. Plutarch—the same guy who tells us ATG never even looked at her—also tells us she died in childbirth just a week or three before the battle of Gaugamela, Oct. 1, 331. Keep in mind, Alexander had captured her right after Issos, Nov. 5, 333. Um … that kid wasn’t Darius’s. And if you think ANYbody would have been allowed to have an affair with such a high-ranking captive as the Great-King’s chief wife, I have some swampland in Florida to sell you. More on it HERE.

Now, for the probably fictional….

Kampaspe, I explained above.

Kallixena was supposedly hired by Philip and Olympias (jointly!) to initiate Alexander into sex, because he didn’t seem interested in women. (Yes, this little titbit is also in Rise.) Athenaeus reports the story as a digression on Alexander’s drinking, and how too much wine led to his lack of sexual interest. But within the anecdote, the reported reason for his parents’ hiring Kallixena was because mommy and daddy feared Alexander was “womanish” (gunnis).

Thaïs was linked to him by Athenaeus, almost certainly based on her supposed participation in the burning of Persepolis…which didn’t happen (or not as related; archaeology tosses cold water on it). Thaïs was Ptolemy’s mistress, and the mother of some of his children.

Athenaeus also mentions a couple unnamed interests, but all illustrate the same point: Alexander is too noble to steal somebody else’s love. Two are back-to-back: the flute-girl of a certain Theodoros, Proteas’ brother, and the lyre player of Antipatrides. The last is a boy, the eromenos of a certain Kalchis, a story related apart from the women, but with the same point.

Even more clearly fictional are his supposed encounters with the Amazon Queen Thalestris and Queen Kleophis of the Massaga (in Pakistan). Reportedly, as Onisikritos was reading from his history of Alexander at the court of King Lysimachos (who’d been a close friend, remember), Lysimachos burst out laughing when Onisikritos got to the Amazon story, and asked, “Where was I when this happened?”

Now, when it comes to his MEN/BOYS, the ice is thinner as no names are definitively given except Bagoas (in a couple sources, chiefly Curtius and Athenaeus). We also have a few generic references to pretty boys, as with Kalchis’s boyfriend mentioned above, and some slave boys offered by a certain Philoxenos, who he turns down, a story told by both Plutarch and Athenaeus.

Curtius alone suggests two more, but at least one is meant to show Alexander’s descent into Oriental Corruption(tm), so it’s possible Curtius made them up. At the very least, he used them for his own narrative purposes. Sabine Müller has a great article on this, albeit in German. Still, if you can read German: “Alexander, Dareios und Hephaistion. Fallhöhen bei Curtius Rufus.” In H. Wulfram, ed., Der Römische Alexanderhistoriker Curtius Rufus: Erzähltechnik, Rhetorik, Figurenpsychologie und Rezeption. Vienna: Austrian Academy of Sciences Press, 2016, 13-48.

Romans had a certain dis-ease with “Greek Love,” especially when it involved two freeborn men. Fucking slaves was fine; they’re just slaves. Citizen men with citizen boys…that’s trickier.

Curtius labels two youths “favorites,” a phrasing that implies a sexual affair. One is mentioned early in the campaign (Egypt) when Alexander is still “good”; the other after Alexander begins his slide into Persian Debauchery. These are Hektor, Parmenion’s son (good), and Euxinippos, described as being as pretty as Hephaistion, but not as “manly” (bad). Curtius employs Bagoas similarly, even claims he influenced imperial policy for his own dastardly goals. Gasp!

Yes, of course I’m being sarcastic, but readers need to understand the motifs that Curtius is employing, and what they really mean. Not what 21st century people assume they mean, or romantically want them to mean. (See my "Did Bagoas Exist?" post.)

What about Hephaistion? I’ve discussed him elsewhere in an article, but I’ll just remind folks that it’s nowhere made explicit until late sources, in large part because, by the time we meet Alexander and Hephaistion in the histories, they were adults, and any affair between them would be assumed to have occurred in the past, when they were youths. (See my “It’s Complicated” and a reply to them maybe being “DudeBros.”)

This is why we hear about Alexander’s interest in youths, not adult men. It would be WEIRD to the ancient mind (= Very Very Bad) if he liked adult men. In fact, by comparing Hephaistion to Euxinippos, Curtius slyly insinuates that maybe he and Alexander were still…you know (wink, wink). That’s meant to be a slam against Alexander (and Hephaistion)! Therefore, we cannot take it, in itself, as proof of anything. Alexander’s emotional attachment to Hephaistion, however, is not doubted by any ancient source.

So, all those people are attached to Alexander in our sources, but over half may not be real, or at least, may not have had a sexual relationship with him. There may be (probably are) some that simply didn’t make it into the surviving sources.

Yet I’ve mentioned before that we just don’t find sexual misconduct as one of Alexander’s named faults. Even Curtius and Justin must dig for it/make up shit, such as claiming Alexander actually used Darius’s whole harem of concubines or held a drunken revel through Karia after escaping the Gedrosian Desert. (Blue Dionysos and drag queens on the Seine at the Paris Olympics got nothing on his Dionysian komos!)

Drink, anger, hubris…he sure as hell ticked all those boxes. But not sex. In fact, a number of sources imply he just wasn’t that randy, despite his “choleric” temperament. Some of the authors credit too much drink (bad), others, his supreme self-control (good). He’s more often an example of sexual continence—as in the stories from Athenaeus related above. He also didn’t rape his captives, etc., etc.

Make of that what you like, but I find it intriguing.

[thegreekwriter]

Read Athenian Arrow Now!

Yassou, my name is Panagiota Moisakos. I'm half-Athenian and half-Spartan which makes me fully Greek. I wrote a forbidden romance novel set during the Peloponnesian War in Ancient Greece called "Athenian Arrow" on Wattpad. Here is the synopsis:

Set during the Peloponnesian War, Athens and Sparta are battling their differences. While the leader of Sparta argues uncompromisingly with the leader of Athens, the Spartan leader's son Andreas is sent on a quest to steal supplies from Athens, unarmed. While running through the capital of Greece, he meets Athens' finest archer, Alexi. Believing that an unarmed man should not be killed, Alexi decides to not shoot the arrow he had aimed at the Spartan.

But when troubles of trusting a Spartan arise, Alexi finds himself in a predicament that would change the course of his life forever, especially when the two start to develop a unique connection the more time they spend together. But with Andreas being Spartan and Alexi being Athenian, how will the two come to love while their cities are at war?

Their predicament only grows more complicated when the elderly Athenian leader offers the lead position to one of his most trusted soldiers, Alexi, to lead Athens into victory and stop this war once and for all. Will Alexi accept this fortunate opportunity? Or will conflict of interest be the start of Athens' downfall?

I hope you all enjoy the story as much as I did creating it. Thank you to everyone who reads it and gives it love. Your support means the world to me 💙

[queeringclassiclit]

Achilles & Patroclus

from The Iliad by Homer

submitted by anon

[sarafangirlart]

I remember someone posting that Zeus in Disney’s Hercules is the most accurate modern depiction of him, I heavily disagree.

If anything it’s the most egregious example of modern media whitewashing Zeus’s horrible actions. Zeus is at his worst in Heracles’s myths, he raped Alcmene in the form of her husband, (either out of lust or power) and forced her to bear his child and to use that child to exert his power over mortals by deciding that he would rule “all those around him” and by that he meant Mycenae, one of Hera’s favorite cities and unsurprisingly she was angry over this and tortured Alcmene by prolonging her labour and Zeus does nothing about it, if anything once he found out what Hera has done, he didn’t punish her or Eileithyia, he punished Ate his own daughter just for being the goddess of delusion. Then Zeus keeps neglecting Heracles and doing absolutely nothing 99% of the time when his wife was putting his son through hell.

So no, the movie is completely wrong to portray Zeus as a loving family man, it’s wrong to also make Hera Heracles’s biological mother.

[xenonmoon]

The Contendings of Horus and Set (and homosexuality in Ancient Egypt)

(The image is the Chester Beatty Papyrus I, written in hieratic, containing the mentioned story)

In my last post I (affectionately) called Set "the Gay Uncle of the Egyptian Pantheon" and promised to elaborate more on it in another post.

(CW: sexuality talk, bits of violence and- lettuce. No strong language)

First, a "little" foreword on homosexuality in Ancient Egypt: this is a very complicated subject as I gathered since, well- we don't know very much about it. The few accounts that survived are either disputed or offer little information on the general attitude towards same-sex relationship outside the single case.

It's also difficult to talk about heterosexuality, homosexuality and bisexuality in ancient times at all since the way we know them is a relatively modern concept (the word homosexuality is first attested in 1868 on a letter to Karl Heinrich Ulrichs by Karl-Maria Kertbeny) and before christianity became mainstream the biggest concerns were at best pointed towards the practices (mostly, Taking It™).

For everything else, relationships were just relationships.

The best known example of a same-sex couple were these guys, since it's likely the earliest recorded in history:

They're Khnumhotep (ẖnm.w-ḥtp(.w)) and Niankhkhnum (nj-ꜥnḫ-ẖnm.w), two royal servants and confidants who had the prestigious task to be the king's head manicurists. In their mastaba tomb in Saqqara are depicted in poses traditionally reserved for couples - like holding hands, embracing and kissing.

However, both of them had wives (Khenut and Khentikawes) and 6 children each.

Ancient Egyptians were very passionate about fertility - which is understandable considering how easily people could die any day for any reason back then. The more children you had and the more the chances that at least one of them survived to adulthood and could carry on jobs and duties.

So as long as you were a (re)productive member of society, it wasn't a big deal that you enjoyed / preferred the company of an individual of your same sex.

The big deal was, as I mentioned, Taking It™ for two main reasons:

Power dynamics. Assuming an active role during the intercourse meant at the same time asserting your dominance and/or humiliating the person on the receiving end of it

Something that I understood as "guy takes up the role of a woman during the intercourse but with none of her reproductive power" which considering how massively important being fertile was to them... well. Makes it a practice as sterile as the desert

And guess who was the god of deserts? our guy Set

(and also storm, disorder and violence to be precise)

His name was written either stš, swtḫ, swtj or stẖ depending on the time period (the Greeks just went with Seth)

He also loved eating this particular vegetable a normal amount (keep it in mind, we'll need that later):

Set was one of the children of Geb (the god of the Earth) and Nut (goddess of the sky) along with Osiris, Isis and Nephthys - who he was married to.

Osiris was king at the time and upheld the rule of ma'at (ideal natural order, fundamental concept of AE culture) along with Isis, his wife-sister.

At some point Set murdered Osiris, tore his body into pieces and scattered them all around Egypt. Reasons for this act may have been:

Osiris kicked him

Osiris had an affair with Nephthys

Isis and Nephthys in the form of either a falcon or a kite searched for all pieces and with the help of Anubis put them all together in what is considered the first mummy in Egyptian tradition. Isis uses her wings to briefly fan new life in Osiris' body and the two conceive a child, Horus.

Osiris' resurrection was not permanent and after his time was out he became ruler of the Duat (the realm of the dead), while Isis raises Horus in secret until he was old enough to come back to challenge Set for his throne.

The dispute took the form of a series of competitions (like racing with boats or fighting each other in the form of hippopotami) and legal judgement before the assembled council of gods, the Ennead.

During one of the competitions Isis tried to help her son while he was locked in combat with Set but accidentally spears Horus - he got FURIOUS and beheaded his mother. Then tried to fix it by sticking on the body a head of a cow. No one will ever notice, amright? (This gives the mythological origin of the cow horn headdress Isis sometimes is depicted wearing)

Horus repeatedly defeats Set in the various competitions and is largely favoured by the the other gods, but the head of the Ennead was Geb and Geb liked Set so they were stuck in this limbo situation of tie for years.

and then - brace yourself. Now it comes the key moment of this story.

Set and Horus have sex.

I'm serious

The details of this obviously varied from account to account (as most of myths in Ancient Egypt, it was almost expected to have different variations of it depending on the time period and place)

According to one account, it was deliberately only to humiliate him

According to another, he genuinely wanted to bang his nephew other than the act of dominance / humiliation thing, he didn't take no as an answer and got him drunk

According to another one again it was consensual, Horus agreed on condition that Set would've given him part of his strength (my fave)

But Horus was a smart birb and he either caught Set's seed with his hands (don't ask me how) or removed it in secret, so to make Set believe the act was successful. Horus tells his mom about what happened and the morning after they plan something.

Horus wanks on some lettuce and Isis serves it to a clueless Set.

Who eats it all.

The next time the Ennead were called to judgement, Set mentions having laid with Horus as a mean to demonstrate he has asserted his dominance over him so he had the right to claim the throne for himself. Horus disagrees. Geb verifies who of the two had the other's seed in his body and-

Set did.

Horus thus won the dispute

They eventually reconcile with each other and shared the lands to rule (which might have been fertile lands of the Nile to Horus and foreign deserts to Set, or one had the land and the other the sky, or the two traditional halves of the country). With this reconciliation, the dualities they represent are also reconciled into a united whole restoring order after the conflict.

(according to other accounts Geb played the bitch and gave sole reign to Horus, to other much later when Egypt was a bit in a bad place Set was utterly defeated, exiled and/or destroyed)

Funny thing is that Set actually got pregnant from the tainted lettuce and gave birth to either:

A golden disk on his forehead

Thot

Thot's moon disk (in versions where Thot is present during the dispute)

Well ancient Egyptian mythology sure is something huh

[hecates-corner]

STOP 👏 LABELING 👏 ANCIENT 👏 GREEK 👏 FIGURES 👏 OR 👏 DEITIES 👏 AS 👏 SELECT 👏 SEXUALITIES 👏

IF THEY DID NOT HAVE A LABEL THEN 👏

WE SHOULD NOT TRY TO LABEL THEM NOW 👏

THAT 👏 IS 👏 FOR 👏 THEM 👏 TO 👏 DECIDE 👏

[amphibious-thing]

Actually I do just want to clarify this point because it was brought up. The dominate rhetoric in 18th English (& colonial) culture saw the agent (top) in m/m anal sex as assaulting the pathic (bottom) even in consensual cases. The agent not only received social stigma but could be sentenced to death for the perceived "assault". The penetrator not receiving social sigma or backlash because he was still preforming the masculine role is, to my understanding, more of an ancient Greek thing (ancient Greek history is not my area so take this with a grain of salt). If anything it could be argued that the agent received more social stigma because he was seen as the aggressor in the crime. However in consensual cases the pathic was understood has having consented to the assault and thus could also be sentenced to death for sodomy. William Pulteney in A Proper Reply to a Late Scurrilous Libel; Intitled, Sedition and Defamation Display’d states: "It is well known that there must be two Parties in this Crime; the Pathick and the Agent; both equally guilty." I have a longer post talking about the topic if you're into that sort of thing.

[jeannereames]

Hello Dr. Reames I hope you’re doing well

I have a question. I was reading everything you’ve written on your blog about alexander and hephaistion and in a post you mentioned that as alex and hephaistion became older their relationship became more complicated. Could you expand more on what you mean by that? In what ways did it become complicated?

Why Alexander and Hephaistion as Lovers as Adults was “Complicated”

I’m not entirely sure whether the asker means the historical people, or the characters in my novel, so I’ll answer for both, as the answer is somewhat the same, but in the book, I can add more specificity. One must be more circumspect about the historical people.

First, if they were never lovers (the historical people), then the only complication would have been Alexander’s increasing power. No matter how much freedom Hephaistion had, the murder of Kleitos showed that a drunk, furious Alexander could do terrible things, even to people he considered like family. As ATG aged, he had more cause for anger, and he also drank more.* So there was that.

But returning to the question of whether they were lovers, my colleague Sabine Müller doesn’t think they were—largely because she believes they met as adults. And THAT gets to the heart of why—if they were lovers—their relationship would have become more complicated across time. They aged.

The Greeks placed homoerotic attachments among the stages of life. A preteen/young teen was the beloved, or pursued partner (eromenos). Once he got a beard, post 18-ish (e.g., ephebe age), then one became the lover, or pursuer (erastes). Any relationship one had previously enjoyed with an older lover was expected to transmute into very close friendship/affection. Then, around the late 20s/early 30s, one would settle down and get married. It was still all right to chase younger boys, but only for a little while. Doing it too long earned “dirty old man” status, although we have evidence of older (40+, even 50+) elite men doing just that. Also, males of any age could pursue affairs with hetairai and other prostitutes (male or female), as well as with slaves of any age.

Two adult men still “carrying on” as if they were teens/young men was considered unseemly. By the time both were past 20, and certainly past 25, they shouldn’t still be having sex with each other. Although if they’d been long-time lovers as youths, they might get nods for loyalty (v. the playwright Agathon and his long-time lover, Pausanias) … and friends didn’t ask what they did behind closed doors. But this was easier to pull off as a slightly counter-culture artist playwright than a king and his increasingly important marshal.

So that’s why Alexander and Hephaistion would have experienced complications as they aged—assuming they stayed lovers. And they may not have. Even if, as youths, they were lovers, as adults, they could each have moved on. Curtius names other youths (not just Bagoas) with whom Alexander might have had a fling. It’s subtle in the text, but the Latin word used could imply something. We don’t have similar attestations for Hephaistion, but I wouldn’t expect us to, so that’s meaningless. Remember, our histories are laser-focused on Alexander, with details about other marshals appearing only if/when they matter to the main story. So, we have the name of Philotas’ mistress only because she became Krateros’ source for dirt on what Philotas said about Alexander as pillow talk. If not for that, we wouldn’t even know he had a mistress. Ergo, we MUST assume there’s a lot of information about the men in high positions around Alexander that our sources simply don’t relate (and perhaps didn’t know).

Now, in terms of Dancing with the Lion, the age thing very much is the problem, as Hephaistion is the elder but Alexandros king. They can continue a relationship for a short while (a few years), but AS KING, Alexandros would be assumed to be the “active” partner (erastes), and that would damage Hephaistion’s reputation—because he’s older (and was originally the erastes). For an older male to accept the passive role (bottoming) was demeaning, making himself “like a woman.”

That’s why the penultimate scene in Dancing with the Lion: Rise is so important! Hephaistion “flips the script,” explaining why he considers bottoming the position of power—startling Alexandros, who never thought about it that way.

Going forward, their friends will ignore any continuation and not examine it too closely due to respect for their loyalty to each other. But this works only for a little while. After Granikos and leading up to Issos, the pressure is on for Alexandros to find a nice girl to make his mistress and move Hephaistion into the role of Older Friend (without benefits)—which he does with Barsine. Yet I don’t plan to have them entirely give up their romantic liaison, so that requires concealment for Hephaistion’s benefit. And it’s not fully successful. Some push back against Hephaistion by enemies does owe to disrespect for his “preferences.”

But keep in mind, I’m speaking now of the fictional characters, not necessarily the historical people. My Hephaistion is pretty high on the Kinsey Scale, in the 5-6 range. Keeping the respect needed to command successfully as his political star rises means he must wear a mask, or find a beard, to use slang. One of the (several) points behind my series is to show it wasn’t necessarily any easier to be gay in “tolerant” ancient Greece. It was just difficult in different ways.

———————

* Before anyone asks, no I don’t think Alexander was an alcoholic, even a “functional” one. There’s literally not enough evidence to say for sure, pace J. M. O’Brien (Alexander the Great and the Invisible Enemy). O’Brien may not call him an alcoholic, but he certainly implies it.

We have two complicating factors that make any sort of real determination difficult: first, the nature of banqueting at the Macedonian court, and second, the fact that historians record the exceptional, not the usual. Symposia (drinking parties) in the Greek world were already venues for both competition and display, and Macedonians didn’t customarily dilute their wine, unlike (many) Southern Greeks. The king was not only expected to keep up, but to excel in all things, including his ability to drink. So there’s that. Add to this the fact historians don’t tell you about the 56 times the king held a symposion where nothing exciting or out-of-the-way happened. They’ll tell you about that 57th when something bad DID happen.

Even in antiquity, there was debate about whether Alexander drank too much, with detractors and Roman-era rhetoricians using him as an exempla of Drinking is Bad (especially in rulers), while apologists (like Aristobulos) claimed he didn’t overdrink, he just liked conversation so he stayed late, lingering over his wine.

Hmmm. I’m going with Door Number Three: yes, sometimes he drank too much, especially as stresses piled up, but if he’d been an actual alcoholic, even a functional one, he probably couldn’t have accomplished everything he did. For one thing, availability of alcohol on the march would’ve been sporadic, so I suspect those famous drinking parties were what happened when they got their hands on some wine, in between long stretches where they probably didn’t have much, if any.