History is inevitably colored by misconceptions, which are most often believed unquestionably by a multitude of naive well-intentioned but mainly half-educated, misguided, ephemeral sympathizers, superficial fools and “everyday” idiots. Who defend them with obsession and devotion. In our days, these erroneous concepts spread with …. lightning speed, are promoted by printed and electronic media, acquire “legitimization” and prestige with each new repetition and are ultimately academicized. A typical example of such a non-existent misconception is the claim that the university philosopher Aristotle Nicomachus of Stagira “wrongly taught that flies had only four legs”, with a related description of insects in one of his books “On Animal Histories”. The very learned philosopher allegedly … never bothered to count them, leading his readers to repeat a mistake for a thousand years.
But Aristotle, in his said criticized description, was specifically talking about “mayflies”, the primitive insects related to flies (which in the northern hemisphere make their appearance mainly in the month of May, which is why they were called “Mayflies” in English), which actually use only the four hind and middle legs for walking. The front pair have evolved into prehensile limbs with which they hold on to their mate. The best we can say about this unintentional disparagement of Aristotle is that it exasperated his unnecessarily arrogant and “in the know,” supposedly observant and precise readers, who judged to feel superior to the great philosopher without any valid reason.
A much more harmful phenaki, a collective unfounded pseudo-history about our ancient ancestors, is as ancient as they are. It claims that Greek men routinely engaged in anal intercourse with their younger friends and partners. From this belief arises the well-known ethnic insult referring to men who engage in anal intercourse, whether with another man or with a woman, that they are having sex “in the Greek way.”
But a careful reading of ancient Greek texts and a thorough survey and examination of Greek art 1 shows that the educated Greeks, while appreciating and praising ethical male love, at the same time denounced this particular form of carnal pleasure mentioned above in the harshest terms and considered it a gross insult and a fundamental indignity, falling into the category of the most vulgar acts. Their moral stance naturally and directly implies the existence of its opposite, just as light implies and defines darkness by its opposite. But since this is the case, why in our modern era have we devalued, devalued, marginalized and rejected the Greek light, while all this time we have been systematically focusing on the shadows of their love life, behavior and culture? And why have the (mostly concealed) repeated condemnations of anal intercourse by the Greeks been constantly distorted as general condemnations and demonological aphorisms of “homosexuality”, while they contained no such purpose or destination?
The battle of Christianity with Hellenism certainly played a crucial and essential role in this event, as the Fathers of the Church attempted to discredit and destroy the old religion from its foundations. Clement of Alexandria is the foremost among them, as in his work “The Exhortation to the Greeks” (an ancient Greek Christian exhortative or exhortative text in thirty-eight chapters) – (2.33.5-6) 2 he deliberately lumps all myths about male love under the same category, that of “fornication”, of illicit intercourse, such as that which takes place outside Christian marriage: Clement classifies those ancestral myths with an extensive, symbolic and prescriptive background, as well as an extensive “canonical” infrastructure, such as the myth of the abduction of Ganymede by Zeus, an abduction that led to the divine empowerment and ultimately to the apotheosis of the abductee. The Christian theologian and “church father” also cites warning-moralizing myths, such as the one about the abduction of Chrysippus by Laius, which led to the rape and death of Chrysippus. [We note that in the person of Chrysippus (all the myths about whom are related to his death) are connected the traditions related to the two “cursed” clans, made famous by ancient Greek tragedy: the Atreides of Mycenae and the Labdakides of Thebes.]
The localist-nationalist zeal among the Greeks themselves, organized and devoted to their City-States, also played an important role. The Athenians, in this regard, systematically ridiculed other Greek states, sincerely or not, because they brutally indulged in an unacceptable disgrace that the most morally cultivated and intellectually refined city of Pallas abhorred.
We should also blame our erroneous perception of the many actual incidents of such behavior in antiquity, as reflected in notorious examples recorded by ancient historians, who usually did so in the context of the discussion of the revenge that the young man later brought upon his abuser, 3 as well as in the condemnation directed by ancient writers against the underworld of signed contracts of “sale of sexual favors” and taxable child prostitution. But these, even if they were not violations of the legal code,4 were violations of the moral code, and were therefore reported by the ancients with disapproval and derision, not admiration.
But why have modern historians, supposedly professionals in a more scientific field, not refuted the old misunderstandings? 5 Has the need for self-justification on the part of scholars inspired by male feelings, who for this very reason are more likely to be drawn to the obsessive negative study of the Greeks, led them to normalize the place of anal sex in Greek antiquity and to reject contrary evidence, driven by the urge to affirm the value of same-sex love between men and the reluctance to question its pointless historical identification with anal sex?
The “mainstream” scholars of the established sexual belief have latched onto the evidence for the delinquent practice of anal sex among Greeks as a way of expressing their sometimes legitimate and sometimes homophobic aversion, while also accusing Greeks of child abuse. Regardless of this and regardless of the underlying expediencies, speculation is cheap, so the analysis of their causes and motivations must remain a matter of deep ongoing study. The first thing we need to do here is to show that the generalized claim is false, whether it is fraudulent out of anti-Greek racism or glorification of homosexuality or is the product of half-heartedness.
Footnotes
1. Of the hundreds of vases that in some way suggest male love, the number that depict or suggest anal sex between men is minimal. Of these, some depict excited satyrs and to induce comic effect, while others depict some comic revelry with overjoyed comastes / entertainers (comos = nightly outing of the banqueters in the streets with candles and masks, musical instruments and songs – nyctody), a revelry in which inhibitions and judgment have probably succumbed to drink. Only one vase shows two young men having intercourse and is perceived as a surprising anomaly by a spectator in the same scene. (H. A. Shapiro, section “Leagros and Euphronios: Painting Pederasty in Athens” in T.K. Hubbard, “Greek Love Reconsidered,” pp. 16-18).
Many important historians have interpreted this almost complete absence of graphic/artistic elements as evidence of a pervasive social presence. Sir Kenneth James Dover, as a scholar of Greek prose and Aristophanes’ comedy, was one of the leaders of this “dance” of preachers of Greek male pederasty. Responding to critics of the first edition of his work “Greek Homosexuality”, he argued: “I was and am well aware that there may have been significant differences between representation and reality… For example, the fact that the comedy assumes that anal penetration is the normal mode of homosexual intercourse suggests that the overwhelming preference of angiographers for the mode of “diamerism” is extremely conventional and I would not resist such a suggestion.” [Diamerism refers to phallic crushing in the inner thigh area]
Of course, Dover is the “veteran” pioneer of the modern study of Greek homosexuality and in the various findings he advanced, many followers of his view later “joined” him. This school of thought explains art as euphemistic (comedicating or praising, even if something bad or unpleasant is being suppressed). It is much more likely that our modern interpretations are defamatory, in a “rock and mortar” logic, where whatever one chooses, one’s choice will have negative consequences. Dover deliberately and artfully used abundant evidence from vase painting as a counterweight to the idealized image of homoerotic relationships found in the great Plato.
Thus, the dominant theme in classical studies was the assumption that Greek pederasty automatically implied penetrative unnatural sex. Dover, Foucault, David Halperin, and other figures in 20th-century literature took a similar position.
Certainly, David Halperin’s work on ancient Greek sexuality, particularly in “One Hundred Years of Homosexuality and Other Essays on Greek Love,” challenges the modern concept of “homosexuality” as an adequate framework for understanding Greek sexual practices. He argues that the Greeks did not view same-sex relationships through the same lens of identity and categorization as we do today. Instead, Halperin emphasizes the fluidity and social context of ancient Greek eroticism, highlighting the importance of factors such as age, social status, and power dynamics in shaping sexual interactions. [David Halperin is an American theorist in the fields of gender studies, queer theory, critical theory, material culture, and visual culture.] Challenges modern categorizations: Halperin argues that the modern concept of “homosexuality” as a fixed identity is a product of 19th-century Western thought and does not apply to ancient Greece. Emphasizes a focus on social context: Halperin emphasizes the importance of social context in understanding Greek sexual practices.
For example, pederasty (the relationship between an adult male and a young boy) was, in his view, a socially acceptable practice, but was not simply seen as a matter of instinctive sexual attraction between two men. He supports the Social Construction of Sexuality, that is, that sexuality in ancient Greece was not a fixed, individual characteristic, but rather a social construct shaped by cultural norms and power relations. It highlights the fluidity of sexual desire and practice in ancient Greece, where individuals could engage in both same-sex and opposite-sex relationships (Amphisexuality), without necessarily being categorized as exclusively homosexual or heterosexual.
It is therefore clear that “Greek Love” is a Cultural Construction: Halperin’s work explores how the supposedly “Greek love” was not a monolithic concept, but rather a diverse set of practices and ideas about love, desire, and social relationships.
Against this prevailing and insulting misconception, some honest and upright scholars have formulated courageous objections (David Cohen, “Sexuality, Violence and the Athenian Law of “Insult”” and Harvey Yunis in his translation of Plato’s “Phaedrus”, pages 151-152)
The great Plato is clear and not an ideologue as his various critics say: “…We now say these things at greater length than necessary, indulging in memory and longing for the past; as for beauty, as we say, it shone among other substances when it was in heaven, and here on earth when we descended, we distinguished it most clearly as it shone through our purest sense; the eye It certainly presents itself to us as the sharpest instrument of the bodily senses, but it cannot see wisdom (for wisdom would provide a terrible love if it presented such a visible image of itself to vision), nor can the eye see the other essences that we love, but now only beauty has the privilege of being most visible and most lovable.
Therefore, the man who has not recently remembered the heavenly mysteries or the corrupt one does not immediately rise there to the idea of beauty when he beholds here on earth its likeness, which bears his name, so that he does not feel reverence when he looks upon the beautiful, but surrenders to pleasure as the four-legged animals attempt to mount (“ride”) and to procreate (“procreate”), and is not afraid of his relationship with cruelty and is not ashamed of pursuing pleasure other than nature; but the man who is fully initiated into the mysteries of the heavens and who has formerly considered a great number of substances, when he sees a godlike face, which is a beautiful image of the heavenly beauty, or a body which by its shape recalls to the “…the essence of beauty, first he is seized by a certain horror and some of the sacred terrors that he once felt enter into him, then, looking towards the boy, he feels respect as if he were a god, and if he were not afraid that his enthusiasm might be characterized as boundless madness, he would sacrifice to him as if he were an idol, as if he were a god.”
The “unnatural” intercourse declared as “They go in the manner of a four-legged animal.” describes with derogatory connotations the position in which the coupling takes place, the lover behind the beloved standing on all fours. (Guy Cooper and Karl Wilhelm Krüger, AGPS – “Attic Greek Prose Syntax”, 1998, University of Michigan Press). For “vaién” as a transitive verb, referring specifically to the coupling of animals, see Aristotle “Tῶν περὶ τὰ ζῷα ἱστοριῶν” 546b7-9, Ἀχαὐον τον Ερετριούν” 546b7-9, Ἀγαὐον τον Ερετριούν, “Tragicorum Graecorum fragmenta” (TrGF) – excerpt 28, Herodotus (“Histories”) 1.192.3 [“Tritantaichmes also had his own horses—apart from those he used in war—eight hundred males, stallions and sixteen thousand female mares; for each male of these horses mated with twenty mares.”]
Also, the word “paedosporeῖν” used in the Phaedrus is rare [Liddell, Scott, Jones “Ancient Greek Dictionary” (LSJ)] and its literal meaning — to sow, that is, to beget, children — is obvious, but here it clearly does not indicate the intention of the lover, but the penetration and ejaculation, which are associated with the birth of children.
Anal intercourse, even when the passive participant freely consented, was considered an act of blasphemy (Aristotle “Nicomachean Ethics” 7.114 8b30, Demosthenes “Against Androtion” 22.58, Aeschines 1.185, “Memoirs” of Xenophon 2.1.30).
The renowned scholar of law and classical studies David Cohen [from 1998 to 2002 as Professor of Rhetoric and Classics at the University of California at Berkeley, from 2004 to 2014 as Professor of Humanities and from 2017 as Professor of Classics at Stanford University] writes in his book “Law, sexuality, and society: the enforcement of morals in classical Athens” (Cambridge, 1991):
“In Athens, however, law and custom did not assign a legitimate role of initiation to sexual intercourse with boys even under narrowly defined circumstances. On the contrary, the law forbade a whole range of activities that could lead to the corruption of boys, and the law of indecency may have made prosecution at least a theoretical possibility for any completed act of sexual intercourse with minors. In short, the breadth, variety, and overlap of Athenian laws seem to reflect a society that was struggling for a time to deal with persistent patterns of behavior that were seen as endangering the well-being of the city. The mechanisms of public law were developed to deter and punish such behavior and to protect free boys.”
Therefore, anal intercourse would debase and dishonor the young man, which is why it is so strongly condemned. Plato describes anal intercourse between males as contrary to nature, also in the Laws [1.636c (“para physin”), 8.836c (“that which is not of nature”) and also (“deina kai ilegal”), 254b1],
The great Cohen refers to similar views expressed by other writers. In the face of the widespread distortion and criticism of Plato’s condemnation of anal intercourse, this passage was correctly understood by Plutarch in “On Love” or “Erotica” 751d-e.
Gregory Vlastos (1907-1991) in his book “Platonic studies” 2nd edition Princeton University, 1981: 25 [Vlastos was a distinguished scholar of ancient philosophy and the author of many works on Plato and Socrates. He transformed the analysis of classical philosophy by applying techniques of modern analytic philosophy to reformulate and evaluate the views of Socrates and Plato.]
For the discussion and oppositions about “nature” and sex in late Greek literature, see also the book by Simon David Goldhill (professor of Greek literature and culture and associate and director of Classical Studies at King’s College, Cambridge), “Foucault’s virginity: ancient erotic fiction and the history of sexuality” (Cambridge University Press, 1995, Chapter 2, “The Gay Science”, pages 46-111.
2. “Provocative to the Greeks” – “…. Far be it from him to tell of his adultery everywhere and the corruption of children. For the gods among you did not abstain from children, whether from the gods of Olya, or from Hyacinth, or from Pelops, or from Chrysippus, or from Ganymede, as you say. These are the women of yours who worship the gods, and who wish for their own husbands to be like them, so I, the wise, desire that they may be like the gods, just as hens desire; these are the ones your children revere, so that men too may become images of fornication, taking the gods for granted. But the men of the gods themselves, perhaps alone, are scornful of aphrodisiacs;”
3. “As for those who, not having any evil disposition, were forced by fraud or force into submission, there is none whom they regard with greater aversion and hatred than those who did this deed, and they exact the most savage revenge on them when the opportunity presents itself.” Plutarch tells this story, about Periander, tyrant of Ambracia, who met his end at the hands of his vengeful lover. He also mentions, in this context, Crates who killed Archelaus out of hatred and disgust that he still felt because in his youth he had sexually abused him, and Pytholaus who murdered Alexander of Pherae, a notorious young rapist.
Aristotle in his Politics (V.10) mentions Derdas who murdered Amyntas the Younger, and of course we must mention Alexander the Great’s father, Philip II of Macedon, who was, according to one version, murdered by Pausanias, his disgruntled former lover. Perhaps the earliest such story is the almost legendary account of Archias of Corinth, who died at the hands of Telephus, his former lover. (Apparently, to fit the pattern of such stories, Telephus had been raped by his later victim and took revenge for the abuse after reaching adulthood.) (Plutarch, “Ethics” / “On Love” 23)
4. As a relevant modern example, we see such a division today in the United States. Prostitution is legal in some counties in Nevada, but it would be difficult to argue that all educated Nevadans believe en masse that prostitution is moral or that the vast majority of them frequent such establishments.
5. The dominant theme in classical studies was the assumption that Greek pederasty automatically implied penetrative anal intercourse. Thus the prevailing view was formed, with Dover, Foucault, Halperin, and other “luminaries” of 20th-century literature. Against this dominant misconception, some have raised objections (see David Cohen, “Sexuality, Violence, and the Athenian Law of “Vexation”” and also Harvey Yunis, translation and editing of Plato’s “Phaedrus,” pp. 151-152).
Even K. J. Dover, the most influential historian of Greek homosexuality in the last thirty years, dismissed Greek eros as a deep and enduring sensitivity to adolescent male beauty, but judged it as “episode behavior on a surface level” (“Greek Homosexuality,” 1978, p. 203).
David Halperin obsessively and paradoxically imagined Greek desire for men as an impulse for the more capable to penetrate the orifices of weaker individuals, a thing that is not about gender, in order to subjugate these individuals. But the insulting national insult remained, delaying the proper scholarly study of Greek male eros for many decades.
