The World Beyond BetterMost > The Culture Tent

Mary Renault Book Discussion

<< < (25/54) > >>

Kerry:

--- Quote from: injest on January 11, 2007, 08:05:10 am ---now the Rhodian! we are not going to hear anything good of her (and can you blame him!) even the description...slim and 'swarthy'?? no woman would want to be described as SWARTHY!! that invokes a big ol hairy neanderthal!! yes, it means dark and all but yuck! LOL! and to imply that she is some half breed...(strain of Egyptian) ALexias is subtly insulting her.

--- End quote ---

'Fraid I'm compelled to disagree with you on this point, Jess. I'm crazy about ancient Egyptian civilization. They were sooo advanced. And the people were largely so elegant and attractive (if we can go by the statues and tomb paintings). Modern, somehow. For example, their stylized abstract painting style. And the almost contemporary design of their clothing, jewellery and pottery. I consider the portrait bust of Nefertiti to be one of the greatest works of art to survive the ancient world. It is truly stunning. Re the mixed heritage thing, drawing on my own observation, I have noticed that often such people combine the beautiful aspects of their diverse background. For example, olive skin and black lashes, combined with azure blue eyes. Gorgeous! (PS, my Oxford English Dictionary defines "swarthy" as "dark complexioned." Not a bad thing, surely?)

injest:
no not at all....but we use certain words for men and not for women....(typically) so for a MAN to be swarthy evokes dark and sensual, exotic.....

for a woman? no....if I were going to describe a dark skinned woman I would use more feminine terms....'olive skinned and dark haired'..I just don't see using THAT word to describe a woman...

and I am not saying the part about her being an Egyptian having anything to do with her looks....but at this time in history when the idea of Greek purity and division between peoples that to be a half ANYTHING is not considered good...

Kerry:

--- Quote from: Zander on January 11, 2007, 06:05:59 am ---I've already read it - I think I've read all the Mary Renault books she was one of my favorites.  I'm following where you've got up to and interst should be given to the relationship between Alexis and his father (and also his father's past history  ;) )  My comment was a generalisation that although there are relationships between the sexes, we don't get the unimpeachable evidence of a character we would recognise as "homosexual" / Gay in our modern context.

--- End quote ---

I’m going to be boring, boring, boring again, and ask that we get a little background behind us, prior to progressing further.

I recommend “The Oxford Companion to Classical Civilization,” published by Oxford University Press. It covers everything you ever wanted to know about the classical world in readily understandable (though, sometimes challenging) laymen’s language.

Under the main heading of “Homosexuality,” there are the following sub-headings:
* Deviance & Toleration
* “Greek Love”
* Lesbianism
* Origins & Causes
* Pederasty
* Periodization

Let’s begin with the main text re “Homosexuality” proper (or should that be improper?!):

No Greek or Latin word corresponds to the modern term “homosexuality,” and ancient Mediterranean societies did not in practice treat homosexuality as a socially operative category of personal or public life. Sexual relations between persons of the same sex certainly did occur (they are widely attested in ancient sources), but they were not systematically distinguished or conceptualised as such, much less were they thought to represent a single, homogeneous phenomenon in contradistinction to sexual relations between persons of different sexes. That is because the ancients did not classify kinds of sexual desire or behaviour according to the sameness or difference of the sexes of the persons who engaged in the sexual act; rather, they evaluated sexual acts according to the degree to which such acts either violated or conformed to norms of conduct deemed appropriate to individual sexual actors by reason of their gender, age, and social status. It is therefore impossible to speak in general terms about ancient attitudes to “homosexuality,” or about the degree of its acceptance or toleration by particular communities, because any such statement would, in effect, lump together various behaviours which the ancients themselves kept rigorously distinct and to which they attach radically divergent meanings and values. (Exactly the same things could be said, of course, and with equal justification, about “heterosexuality”)

It is not illegitimate to employ modern sexual terms and concepts when interrogating the ancient record, but particular caution must be exercised in order not to import modern, western sexual categories and ideologies into the interpretation of the ancient evidence. Hence, students of classical antiquity need to be clear about when they intend the term “homosexual” descriptively – i.e. to denote nothing more than same-sex sexual relations – and when they intend it substantively or normatively – i.e. to denominate a discrete kind of sexual psychology or behaviour, a positive species of sexual being, or a basic component of “human sexuality.” The application of “homosexuality” (and “heterosexuality”) in a substantive or normative sense to sexual expression in classical antiquity is not advised.

Greek and Roman men (whose sexual subjectivity receives vastly greater attention in the extant sources than does women’s) generally understood sex to be defined in terms of sexual penetration and phallic pleasure, whether the sexual partners were two males, two females, or one male and one female. The physical act of sex itself required, in their eyes, a polarization of the sexual partners into the categories of penetrator and penetrated as well as a corresponding polarization of sexual roles into “active” and “passive.” The roles in turn were correlated with superordinate and subordinate social status, with masculine and feminine gender styles, and (in the case of males, at least) with adulthood and adolescence. Phallic insertion functioned as a marker of male precedence; it also expressed social domination and seniority. The isomorphism of sexual, social, gender, and age roles made the distinction between “activity” and “passivity” paramount for categorizing sexual acts and actors of either gender; the distinction between homosexual and heterosexual contacts could still be invoked for certain purposes (e.g. Ov. Ars am. 2. 682-4; Achilles Tatius 2. 33-8), but it remained of comparatively minor taxonomic and ethical significance.

Any sexual relation that involved the penetration of a social inferior (whether inferior in age, gender, or status) qualified as sexually normal for a male, irrespective of the penetrated person’s anatomical sex, whereas to be sexually penetrated was always potentially shaming, especially for a free male of citizen status (e.g. Tac. Ann. II. 36). Roman custom accordingly placed the sons or Roman citizens off limits to men. In Classical Athens, by contrast, free boys could be openly courted, but a series of elaborate protocols served to shield them from the shame associated with bodily penetration, thereby enabling them to gratify their male suitors without compromising their future status as adult men.

David In Indy:
??? 

David In Indy:
You all are scaring me a little because I have NO idea what you all are talking about.

I think I'm too stupid for this thread.  :-\

Maybe if I reread it another 100 times I'll understand it a little.  :P ...  :)

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page