Martha C. Nussbaum and Juha Sihvola

The University of Chicago Press Chicago and London

Martha C. Nussbaum is the Ernst Freund Distinguished Service Professor of Law and Ethics at the University of Chicago. She is the author, most recently, of Women and Human Development: The Capabilities Approach and Upheavals of Thought: The Intelligence of Emotions. Juha Sihvola is professor of history at the University of Jyväskylä, Finland. He is the author of Decay, Progress, and the Good Life? Hesiod and Protagoras on the Development of Culture and the editor of Ancient Scepticism and the Scepticist Tradition.

The University of Chicago Press, Chicago 60637 The University of Chicago Press, Ltd., London

11 10 09 08 07 06 05 04 03 02 1 2 3 4 5

ISBN: 0-226-60914-6 (cloth)

ISBN: 0-226-60915-4 (paper)

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

The sleep of reason : erotic experience and sexual ethics in ancient Greece and Rome / edited by Martha C. Nussbaum and Juha Sihvola.

p. cm.

Includes bibliographical references and index.

ISBN 0-226-60914-6 (cloth : alk. paper)—ISBN 0-226-60915-4 (pbk. : alk. paper)

1. Sex customs—Greece —History —Congresses. 2. Sex customs—Rome— Congresses. 3. Sexual ethics —Greece —History —Congresses. 4. Sexual ethics —Rome—Congresses. 5. Greece —Civilization —To 146 B.C.— Congresses. 6. Rome—Civilization —Congresses. I. Nussbaum, Martha Craven, 1947– II. Sihvola, Juha.

HQ13 .S54 2002

306.7'0938— dc21 2001052755

Oœ The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of the American National Standard for Information Sciences —Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Materials, ANSI Z39.48-1992.

This book is printed on acid-free paper.

Contents

Acknowledgments ... vii

Introduction ... 1

Martha C. Nussbaum and Juha Sihvola

1. Forgetting Foucault: Acts, Identities, and the History of Sexuality ... 21

David M. Halperin

2. Er o ¯ s and Ethical Norms:

Philosophers Respond to a Cultural Dilemma ... 55

Martha C. Nussbaum

3. Erotic Experience in the Conjugal Bed: Good Wives in Greek Tragedy ... 95

Maarit Kaimio

4. Aristophanic Sex: The Erotics of Shamelessness ... 120

Stephen Halliwell

5. The Legend of the Sacred Band ... 143

David Leitao

6. Plato, Zeno, and the Object of Love ... 170

A. W. Price

7. Aristotle on Sex and Love ... 200

Juha Sihvola

8. Two Women of Samos ... 222

Kenneth Dover

contents

9. The First Homosexuality? ... 229

David M. Halperin

10. Marriage and Sexuality in Republican Rome: A Roman Conjugal Love Story ... 269

Eva Cantarella

11. The Incomplete Feminism of Musonius Rufus, Platonist, Stoic, and Roman ... 283

Martha C. Nussbaum

12. Eros and Aphrodisia in the Works of Dio Chrysostom ... 327

J. Samuel Houser

13. Enacting Er o ¯ s ... 354

David Konstan

14. The Erotic Experience of Looking: Cultural Conﬂict and the Gaze in Empire Culture ... 374

Simon Goldhill

15. Agents and Victims: Constructions of Gender and Desire in Ancient Greek Love Magic ... 400

Christopher A. Faraone

Appendix. Major Historical Figures Discussed ... 427

Contributors ... 431

Indexes ... 435

Acknowledgments

This volume derives from a conference held at the Finnish Institute at Rome (Institutum Romanum Finlandiae) in 1997, itself part of a series of con-

ferences held beginning in 1991, aimed at bringing Finnish scholars in an- cient Greek and Roman philosophy into closer contact with scholars from other parts of the world. (All the other conferences have been held at the University of Helsinki.) A conference in 1991 on ancient Greek rhetoric and its philosophical treatment inaugurated the series. It was followed in 1994 by a conference on Hellenistic philosophy of mind, now published as The Emotions in Hellenistic Philosophy, edited by Juha Sihvola and Troels Engberg-Pedersen (The Netherlands: Kluwer, 1998). A conference in 1996 on ancient Greek skepticism is now published as Ancient Scepticism and the Sceptical Tradition, edited by Juha Sihvola, in the series Acta Philosophica Fennica (Helsinki: Philosophical Society of Finland, 2000). A conference in 2001, at the University of Jyväskylä, addressed the relationship between philosophical theory and political practice. All of the conferences were sup- ported in part by funding from the Academy of Finland, to which we ex- press warm thanks. The Finnish Cultural Foundation also supported our ef- forts, and we also express warm thanks to them, and to Paavo Hohti.

The conference in Rome was made possible by the gracious hospital- ity of Paivi Setälä, then director of the Finnish Institute at Rome. We are enormously grateful to her for her enthusiasm for our project, her scholarly

acknowledgments

participation, and all the arrangements she made to receive an unusually large and diverse group of scholars on the premises of the institute. The in- stitute’s beautiful site on the Janiculum, commanding an extraordinary view of the entire city, was an ideal setting for discussion and collegiality. The nearby American Academy at Rome provided lodging for some of the con- ference participants.

The editors wish to express their warmest thanks to Doug Mitchell, the editor who shaped the volume and encouraged us at every stage; to Neil A. Coffee for his meticulous and judicious reading of the proofs; and to Rick

A. Furtak for his excellent work preparing the indices.

Introduction

Martha C. Nussbaum and Juha Sihvola

What desires do you mean?

Those that are awakened in sleep, when the rest of the soul— the rational, gentle, and ruling part— slumbers. Then the beastly and sav- age part, full of food and drink, casts off sleep and seeks to find a way to gratify itself. You know that there is nothing it won’t dare to do at such a time, free of all control by shame or reason. It doesn’t shrink from trying to have sex with a mother, as it supposes, or with anyone else at all, whether man, god, or beast. It will commit any foul murder, and there is no food it refuses to eat. In a word, it omits no act of folly or shamelessness.

That’s completely true.

On the other hand, I suppose that someone who is healthy and moderate with himself goes to sleep only after having done the follow- ing: First, he rouses his rational part and feasts it on fine arguments and speculations; second, he neither starves nor feasts his appetites, so that they will slumber and not disturb his best part with either their plea- sure or their pain, but they’ll leave it alone, pure and by itself, to look for something— it knows not what— and to try to perceive it, whether it is past, present, or future.

Plato, Republic 571C–D

introduction

This domain of phantasms is no longer the night, the sleep of reason, or the uncertain void that stands before desire, but, on the contrary, wakefulness, untiring attention, zealous erudition, and constant vigilance.

Michel Foucault, “Fantasia of the Library”

Sex eludes rational control, and yet, for that very reason, it is constantly reasoned about. And so it was, intensely, in ancient Greece and Rome. To-

gether with ubiquitous allusion to the ungovernable properties of sexual desire and erotic love went an outpouring of reasoned ethical argument, and often philosophical argument, about the management of desire. Most ancient Greeks and Romans would have agreed, to at least some extent, with Socrates and Glaucon: the appetites are very difficult to manage by rea- son, and the sexual appetite perhaps most difficult of all. And yet they did not give up, any more than Socrates does. Just as Plato’s Socrates proposes an elaborate program of philosophical discipline to control the erotic con- tent of dreams, so in countless ways the Greeks and Romans reasoned ethi- cally about sex, calling philosophy to their aid. From the time of Socrates onward, philosophy of one sort or another was ubiquitous in discussions of sexual ethics, and the philosophers, for their part, were less detached aca- demicians than immersed cultural participants, who took their problems from the culture and hoped to shape the culture in their turn. They pro- posed arguments about sexual problems, and they also, as does Socrates, proposed practices of self-management that went with the arguments.

Michel Foucault, in the passage we have taken as our second epigraph, speaks of the modern period when he speaks of a constant discourse about sex that exercises constant vigilance and creates a proliferation of catego- ries, shaping not only discourse, but also action and even desire. But as his important writings on Greek and Roman antiquity show, he also believed that this description applied to the Greeks. The classification of pleasures, the obsessive watching over the self, the participation of philosophy in the attempt to turn lawless dreams into good dreams: Foucault was right to see in all of this an enduring preoccupation of the ancient Greek philosophi- cal tradition and of its Roman continuations.

But although sexual ethics is obviously a very important part of the work of the ancient Greek and Roman philosophers, until recently schol- ars of these philosophical traditions had done little to address this portion of their work and their cultural influence. There were several causes of this

introduction

omission. First, a dominant Anglo-American conception of what topics were philosophical and what topics were not put sex, and even love and friend- ship, on the outside of philosophy. In the shadow of logical positivism, all topics concerned with value were suspect. Even ethics and politics could win their place in the curriculum most easily by focusing on the study of ethical and political language. This legacy of the positivist era derived further sup- port from a peculiar British-American prudery that put some topics off lim- its to the serious academic. These topics included love and friendship, about which it seemed difficult to speak without sentimentality and gush. These topics were thought “womanly,” meaning not serious; and so women, if they wanted to be taken seriously, had to avoid them all the more. And the list of forbidden topics included, above all, certain subjects that were not in any case regarded as fit for public discourse in good society.

Although prudish reticence about sex was perfectly general in Anglo- American scholarship of the Victorian and post-Victorian era, the Greeks came in for a disproportionate share of it, because anyone could see that many of their discussions focused on same-sex acts and desire. But same- sex activity, while widely practiced, and publicly recognized by law and pen- alty, was not one of the things concerning which it was thought fit to speak, especially in the presence of the impressionable young. Typical, in the post- Victorian era (which extended, in classical scholarship, all the way into the 1960s) was the response of Clive and Maurice’s tutor, in E. M. Forster’s Maurice. When the undergraduates reach the part of Plato’s Phaedrus where same-sex passion is described in moving poetic language, this tutor dryly observes: “Omit: a reference to the unspeakable vice of the Greeks.” Many translations, and even some editions of the original texts, followed this ad- vice, omitting sexually explicit material even at the price of conveying a to- tally misleading impression of the texts and the cultures from which they derived. Lexica and other expert tools of scholarship offered the scholar no assistance in discovering the meaning of erotic images and terms. (It was common to find “unnatural vice” or “a beastly act” listed under quite a few different definienda, with no guidance as to which putatively unnatural or beastly act was designated by the term in question. The student of Catullus who wanted help distinguishing pedicare (to play the penetrative role in an anal sex act) from irrumare (to play the penetrative role in an oral sex act) would have had none from the dictionary of those days, and this was the situation generally, in both languages. Most bizarre was the behavior of the Loeb Classical Library, a set of facing-page Greek-English and Latin-English translations. When the Greek was sexually explicit, the English on the right-

introduction

hand page abruptly switched to Latin. And when the Latin was explicit, in the old edition of the poet Martial, the right-hand page switched to Italian—as if any foreign tongue at all would protect the young scholar from contact with potentially corrupting material. (These defective editions have now all been replaced.) This situation, of course, made it more or less impossible to do good scholarship on the sexual aspects of literary and philosophical texts. There is a less obvious further reason why there was no good scholar- ship on ancient Greek and Roman sexual ethics until recently. To do good scholarship on ancient Greek and Roman philosophy it is necessary to link the writings of the philosophers to their historical and social context. This need is less acute when the topic is logic, mathematics, cosmology, or the philosophy of language, for these are all, in a way, specialized philosophical topics, and the philosophers were not so greatly in conversation with other cultural practitioners when they addressed them. But when the topic is eth- ics or politics, the need to do interdisciplinary scholarship becomes very great. It is extremely difficult to understand the force and meaning of Plato’s and Aristotle’s proposals, or even their terminology, without an extensive study of popular morality, difficult though that is to study well. When the topic is sex, the need is perhaps greatest of all, for it is really next to impos- sible to understand what the philosophers are saying without extensive study of cultural paradigms, of a sort that requires familiarity with history, literature, and visual art. Greek and Roman philosophers talking about sex are likely to be indirect, discrete, and elliptical, so if we look only at what they say, we are likely to miss many insights that a study of the Greek ora- tors, of Aristophanes, and of vase painting will reveal to us, insights that ul- timately prove essential to the full decoding of what the philosophers say. Obvious though this point should have been, it was not taken to heart until very recently. Classics is an interdisciplinary discipline: art history, epigraphy, papyrology, philosophy, philology, literature, history, linguis- tics, science, gender studies, and no doubt other disciplinary approaches are all in there together, inhabiting the same department or faculty, and one might expect rich interdisciplinary work to flower in such an atmosphere. Sometimes this has happened, but more often each subfield has tended to go its own way, linking itself more to its subject discipline (philosophy, his- tory, art history) than to the work of other students of the same time and

place who are their colleagues.

This segmentation of classical scholarship did particular damage to the study of ancient ethical thought, because philosophers were more than usu- ally cut off from their partners in classical scholarship. Ancient historians sometimes belong to a history department, but usually they also belong to

introduction

the classics department and at least encounter literary scholars at depart- ment meetings. The extraordinary revival of first-rate study of the ancient Greek philosophers that began after the Second World War, led by the work of G. E. L. Owen in Britain and Gregory Vlastos in the United States, took place almost entirely within philosophy departments, or, in Oxford, in the philosophy subfaculty. (Cambridge was always an anomaly, since ancient philosophy has always remained in the faculty of classics. This has done some good to interdisciplinary scholarship, and some harm to conversa- tions with other philosophers.) The main concern of Owen, Vlastos, and most of their pupils was to establish that the ancient thinkers had some- thing philosophically interesting to say, and to show what that was. This was, and is, a wonderful way of approaching these thinkers, and it has pro- duced work of lasting importance. But it was insufficient, and it proved par- ticularly narrow in the area of ethics and politics, where knowledge of his- tory and culture is especially crucial. Owen, an extremely knowledgeable classicist and historian of science, did wonderful interdisciplinary work himself in the area of science and mathematics. His work was always in- formed by close philological scrutiny and by attention to historical context. But he had little interest in ethics, and he did not encourage his pupils to gain the sort of knowledge of ancient history and literature that would be required to approach ethical topics in a subtle contextual manner. More- over, he had a profound aversion to topics dealing with love or even friend- ship and mocked them extremely. Sex itself did not appear to him to be a topic of serious academic study. Vlastos was far more interested in these top- ics, and strongly encouraged his students to pursue them, and yet one may feel even in Vlastos’s own work an undue isolation of the philosophical texts from their cultural surroundings.

If the great scholars were too narrow, their pupils were typically more so. In Oxford, the ascendancy of PPE (philosophy, politics, and econom- ics) over greats (a course that combined ancient Greek and Roman history, philosophy, and literature with modern philosophy) as the primary degree course for young philosophers meant that scholars of ancient Greek phi- losophy who wanted to be taken seriously as philosophers had increasingly to commend the Greeks to peers who had only a glancing acquaintance, if any, with the texts, and almost no acquaintance with their surrounding cul- ture. This exacerbated an already existing tendency to write about Greek philosophy in a detached acontextual way. High-level discussion groups fo- cusing on Greek philosophy almost never sought out the participation of the leading scholars in ancient history and literature who worked on re- lated topics. And the Roman thinkers who seemed hard to study acontex-

introduction

tually, and equally hard to commend, as philosophers, to analytic philoso- phers who were ignorant of ancient cultures, played almost no role in the curriculum.

In the United States, things proceeded in a similar way, but even more extremely. Most American scholars of ancient Greek and Roman philoso- phy start their study of the languages very late, in college or even in gradu- ate school. This means that they have little time to get the kind of compe- tence that would make it possible for them to read ancient historical and literary authors, or to gain the respect of expert classical scholars in these areas. Teaching, typically, almost entirely within departments of philoso- phy, they teach almost always from translations and do not get the practice in being a classical scholar that might over time lead them in the direction of new interdisciplinary work. Quite a few expert scholars of ancient Greek philosophy do not know Latin at all, so the study of Roman figures, so important for the topic of sexual ethics, suffers greatly. (Even though, obvi- ously, many Roman thinkers write in Greek, scholars who do not know Latin ought to discourage themselves, and usually do, from pronouncing on such authors when they cannot read the language in which other contem- poraries were writing and in which the thinkers themselves probably spoke. Thus, it is unwise to write on Epictetus and Marcus if you cannot read Cic- ero and Seneca in the original!) Often the leading experts are active as phi- losophers in other contemporary areas and spend a lot of their time that way, rather than reading ancient history; always they are eager to attract the attention of those who are active in other areas of the philosophical pro- fession. Young scholars have to appeal to philosophers in other areas if they want to get jobs at all. All this shapes, in some ways for the good, but in other ways for the bad, the nature of scholarly work, making philosophical scholars not always the best of commentators on areas that need interdis- ciplinary cultural understanding to be well studied.

And yet the philosophers have some essential insights to contribute to the study of ancient Greek and Roman sexual ethics. For, as the essays in this volume will show, these two cultures were suffused with argument about sex, much of it deriving from philosophy. Although the nature of that dif- fusion varies with period and place, from the time of Plato to the second century _A._D. it is difficult to study sexual ethics well without understanding the contributions of the philosophers. But understanding the contribu- tions of the philosophers to cultural conversation is not a matter of casu- ally pulling out this or that nugget of insight about sex; usually it requires a much deeper and more extensive study of their arguments, as they discuss

introduction

sexual matters in the whole context of a philosophical system with elabo- rate views about mind, emotion, and ethical value. Philosophy is an expert discipline, and training in the analysis of arguments does enable people to go much further with the analysis of Plato and Seneca than they could go starting from literature or cultural history alone. So the absence of the philosophers from a developing scholarly dialogue about sexual ethics has done real damage.

By now, we have all the basic equipment we need to do good interdisci- plinary work on ancient Greek and Roman sexual ethics. Foucault’s general description of modernity, quoted above, applies with considerable force to the current situation in classical scholarship. The erotic domain is no longer a silent space, the “uncertain void that stands before desire.” Erotic life has become a central scholarly preoccupation. Sex acts, sexual desires and fan- tasies, the ethics of sexual conduct in different times and places — all are now pored over with “wakefulness, untiring attention, zealous erudition, and constant vigilance.” This description is true of scholarship on sexuality in almost any area of the humanities and the social sciences. But in no area of scholarly endeavor is this shift more striking than the study of ancient Greece and Rome.

Kenneth Dover’s Greek Homosexuality, originally published in 1978, in- augurated an era in which honest and meticulous scholarship, unimpeded by prudery or embarrassment, confronted the difficult problems of recon- structing the history of sexual activity and desire. It might have been Dover whom Foucault was describing, for it is hard to imagine a scholar whose work on the previously hidden domain of sexual life is more characterized by wakefulness, untiring attention, zealous erudition, and constant vigi- lance — and one should surely add to these a somewhat un-Foucauldian virtue that is absolutely central in Dover’s canon, the love of truth.

A few years after Dover’s magisterial volume appeared, the second and third volumes of Michel Foucault’s History of Sexuality, building on Dover’s pathbreaking historical research, advanced the conceptual sophistication of the enterprise by posing significant questions about the parochialism of the very concepts through which we had investigated the ancient world. Foucault took Dover’s analysis one step further: the cultures of Greece and Rome confront us not only with different norms for behavior and desire, but also with different basic concepts and categories. (So much is implicit in Dover’s work, but he did not develop this idea explicitly in a general comparative manner.) Foucault argued persuasively, for example, that our own strong binary division between homosexual and heterosexual orien-

introduction

tation did not exist in anything like the same form in the ancient Greek world, nor did that world contain the idea that sexuality is an area of spe- cial moral anxiety, which at the same time contains the inmost secrets of one’s being. Both Dover and Foucault showed how thoroughly the sexual domain is shaped by social norms, and they persuasively argued that these norms affect desire itself, not merely its expression in conduct.

These works have generated a great deal of valuable scholarship, in- cluding theoretical work, historical reconstructions, and detailed readings of texts of many different times. Scholars such as David Halperin and the late John J. Winkler have extended Foucault’s theoretical contribution with detailed readings of particular texts and issues. Recently Craig Williams’s first-rate Roman Homosexuality has emerged, a long-awaited companion to Dover’s Greek Homosexuality on the Roman side and worthy to stand com- parison with that classic work. Writings on sexuality have increasingly forged interdisciplinary connections, as literary scholars have become increasingly knowledgeable about the history of art and about political and social his- tory, and as cultural historians increasingly understand literary texts to be part of their domain. (The general shift within history from an exclusive emphasis on political history to a focus on cultural and social history has greatly assisted this development, forging new methodologies and posing new questions.)

Philosophy, however, remains, even today, too far outside the picture. Philosophers, though somewhat more likely than previously to address the literary and cultural surroundings of a philosophical argument, still do so, often, in too cursory a fashion. Meanwhile, literary scholars and historians too rarely connect their work firmly to the arguments of the philosophers— or, when they do, they all too often treat them unphilosophically, lacking interest in the structure of their arguments or the history of an argument within a philosophical tradition. As we have suggested, this lack of connec- tion is the philosophers’ fault much of the time, for the unusual self-regard of that profession, combined with the historical and literary ignorance of many of its practitioners, does not make for rewarding interdisciplinary dialogue.

But there are encouraging signs. Particularly important has been the re- opening of interest in post-Aristotelian Greek philosophy, spurred by the distinguished series of triennial international Symposia Hellenistica, which have by now brought out a fine series of volumes on major areas of Hel- lenistic thought, both Greek and Roman. Turning to this philosophical pe- riod naturally conduces to interdisciplinarity of approach. For when one deals with the Hellenistic schools and their Roman continuations, it is vir-

introduction

tually impossible to pretend that one is dealing with isolated great works and almost necessary to draw connections to a cultural context. And al- though there is still too much of a tendency to use the Roman texts only as source material from which to reconstruct the positions of the great Greek thinkers (Epicurus, Zeno, Chrysippus), it is difficult not to read the Roman texts, and if one reads them one cannot help seeing their deep rootedness in Roman political and cultural life.

Thus, the turning to Hellenistic philosophy has led to at least some interdisciplinarity on the part of philosophers. One might mention with honor the pathbreaking joint seminar on Roman philosophy taught by philosopher Jonathan Barnes and historian Miriam Griffin at Oxford, which produced the excellent volume Philosophia Togata in 1989, and a sequel in 1997. And, more important still, one should mention the successful efforts of Jonathan Barnes and Julia Annas to change the Oxford curriculum to in- clude a Hellenistic paper among the options, something that caused at least some further philosophers to turn their attentions to later Greek and Ro- man thought. Cambridge, faced with fewer curricular obstacles, has proved a rich breeding place for first-rate work on later Greek philosophy, much of it interdisciplinary in character. Figures such as Myles Burnyeat, Malcolm Schofield, G. E. R. Lloyd, and David Sedley have greatly contributed to the reawakening of attention to history and literature among the philosophers. In London, Richard Sorabji and other younger scholars have pursued a sim- ilar program. In the United States, the revival of interest in Hellenistic phi- losophy has moved more slowly, given the need to focus on authors who can be taught in departmental courses in philosophy and in the “great books” courses that form a staple of undergraduate education, and given the limited linguistic resources of many practitioners. But the increasing presence of good translations of the primary texts, with helpful philosophi- cal commentary, has eased the job of instructors who really would like to teach Sextus Empiricus, or Seneca, or Cicero to their philosophy under- graduates. Teaching them often makes people more likely to write about them, and also to hire younger scholars who write about them. Such an in- creasing presence of later Greek and even Roman thought in philosophy departments has led, in turn, to an increasing presence of interdisciplinary awareness in the approach to all philosophical texts and issues.

Meticulous cross-disciplinary studies in sexuality, studies that take the historical context of Greek and Roman societies seriously, are also prompted by the fact that ancient Greek norms and arguments traced to ancient philosophers have been used, especially in the United States, in modern sexual controversies concerning, for example, ordinances aimed at

introduction

protecting gays and lesbians from discrimination. Some opponents of gay rights have tried to justify their arguments with reference to the authority of Western secular philosophical tradition going back to Plato and Aris- totle. They have interpreted the Greek philosophers as agreeing with mod- ern conservative Christian views that claim that only conjugal sexual ac- tivity is free from the shameful instrumentalization of the body which is necessarily found in homosexual relations and even in masturbation. These kinds of claims have, however, been based on superficial and often mislead- ing readings of Greek texts. Modern sexual controversies cannot of course be decided by appeals to the authority of great philosophers whether or not their arguments are interpreted correctly. We cannot say whether opposi- tion to gay rights is mere prejudice or a legitimate interest simply on the ba- sis of what this or that great historical figure said. Historical studies in an- cient philosophers’ views of sexual ethics are, however, very important in order to improve our arguments in modern controversies. Seeing that it was possible for the Greeks to think differently of things that many moderns have regarded as natural or even necessary helps us to remove the false sense of inevitability of our own judgments and practices. But this is not all. The Greeks were not just an anthropologically interesting other in rela- tion to us; there were among them excellent philosophers whose texts still show us arguments that our own reason can assess as having great rational power.

Dover’s Greek Homosexuality showed that first-rate work in the history of sexuality required the joint resources of history, literary study, and philos- ophy. At the same time, it left much work still to be done. Dover’s work did not really extend into the Hellenistic era, a very rich ground for such inves- tigations, nor did he even attempt the description of Roman cultural norms. Even in the periods he did cover, there were many authors and texts that he did not discuss. Furthermore, he was always skeptical of philosophy: as he announces in his recent autobiography, the questions of philosophy seemed to him obvious and not very interesting, so it is not surprising that the part of his book dealing with philosophical texts has struck many read- ers as in need of supplementation. Foucault was more interested in the phi- losophers—but not really as arguers. He used Plato, Aristotle, and some later Hellenistic thinkers as sources for the history of culture, rather than as thinkers in their own right. If philosophers far too rarely ask in what ways a philosopher is part of his cultural context, Foucault too rarely asks in what ways a philosopher is a strange outsider in a culture, connected to a specifically philosophical tradition that shapes his response to cultural developments.

introduction

Much, then, still remains to be done. Many texts need to be revisited with new questions in mind, and the philosophical debates about sexual ethics need to be further analyzed in a way that is both rigorous and in- formed by a sense of literary genre and historical context, in dialogue with experts in literary and historical analysis. Sometimes a small nation can pro- vide valuable scholarly paradigms, avoiding the parochialism of the hyper- disciplinary scholarship of larger nations. In Finland, a strong analytically oriented (and therefore largely Anglo-American-oriented) philosophical culture has long coexisted with a small but high-quality classics commu- nity. The problems of academic segmentation are certainly not unknown to the Finnish classicists, and there are philologists who avoid all contacts with philosophy and philosophers interested in Plato and Aristotle who have little command of classical Greek. However, the fact that the number of people interested in ancient Greece and Rome is relatively small may also give some advantage to Finnish scholars. People tend to band together— as, for example, in the remarkable project that has led to the translation of major philosophical works of Aristotle into Finnish (now virtually com- plete), a project that engaged the energies of a remarkable team of scholars from philosophy, classics, and history. Scholars cannot afford to be narrow if they want the field to survive: an expert trained in ancient history may end up writing a commentary on Aristotle’s Analytics and talking on the radio about Dover’s and Foucault’s views on sexuality; an expert in medie- val logic may write on the Nicomachean Ethics, a leading officer of a cultural foundation on the Rhetoric and Poetics, a lecturer in business ethics may write a scholarly work on the Topics. Even though the original intention of the se- ries of Finnish conferences on topics in ancient Greek and Roman philoso- phy was to encourage younger Finnish scholars by bringing them into con- tact with leading scholars from abroad, learning has clearly traveled in both directions, as the foreign scholars themselves have learned from the warm interdisciplinary cooperation of the Finnish classical community.

The topic of sexual ethics thus seemed a natural one for a Finnish- American conference to address. This volume grows out of a conference held at the Finnish Institute at Rome in 1997, which brought together lead- ing scholars from Europe and North America for a discussion of ancient Greek and Roman views about erotic experience and sexual ethics. From the beginning we sought a broad interdisciplinary group, and we also sought scholars who could profit from one another’s insights to craft their own work in a more sensitive and interdisciplinary way. Since both organizers are, above all, philosophers (though Nussbaum actually got her Ph.D. in classics and Sihvola in history), the decision was made from the beginning

introduction

to make philosophy central to the discussion but to situate philosophy in a wider cultural conversation. This would be done by the inclusion of clas- sicists from other disciplines, especially those who already conceived of their work in a broad interdisciplinary manner.

The conference aimed to bring together two questions that are too often kept separate: How is erotic experience understood in texts of various different kinds, and what normative ethical judgments and arguments are made about the sexual domain of life? Erotic experience has been a staple of classical scholarship; recent work by scholars such as Dover, Foucault, Winkler, and Halperin has made enormous progress in situating the texts historically and helping us understand the extent to which the erotic eye is a specific cultural artifact, rather than a part of some precultural nature. But studies of sexual ethics (especially within the domain of philosophy) too rarely are informed by the rich and subtle cultural analyses of ero¯s that recent scholarship has brought forth. Studies of erotic experience, on the other hand, are sometimes too little informed by an understanding of the normative arguments of the philosophical traditions. This is especially true of work in Hellenistic and Roman cultures, where the philosophical schools had broad cultural influence. Most politicians, poets, and orators would have been far more intimately acquainted with the arguments of Stoicism and Epicureanism than are, typically, today’s historical and literary scholars. After the conference we commissioned additional chapters by Dover,

A. W. Price, and Christopher Faraone, added two further chapters by Hal- perin (on lesbianism) and Nussbaum (on ero¯s and ethical norms), and asked Samuel Houser and David Leitao for permission to include their al- ready written papers in the collection.

The chapters in the volume are difficult to organize, because almost all of them are in some ways interdisciplinary. Thus, an organization according to primary discipline, which we originally tried, came to seem both mis- leading and in some ways false to the nature of the enterprise. A chrono- logical organization is not altogether satisfactory, because so many of the chapters range broadly across time, and most deal with more than a single century. An organization according to primary culture (Greece versus Rome) is probably most misleading of all, since so many of the chapters deal with post-Aristotelian Greek philosophy, much of which is reconstructed through Roman texts, and therefore also with Roman texts whose debt to a lost Greek original is often likely but uncertain. Many deal, too, with the authors of the “Second Sophistic,” whose work is highly intercultural. One could call Musonius a Roman, and that would not be false, but he is also, as Nuss- baum argues, a Platonist and a Stoic (not to mention one who probably

introduction

wrote in the Greek language). What is interesting is sorting out the contri- butions of all these elements. So we have finally settled on a (rough) chrono- logical organization as the least misleading; we hope that the reader will be encouraged to pursue the many thematic connections among the essays. As soon as we announce the chronological principle, we violate it, by beginning with Halperin’s “Forgetting Foucault,” a general discussion of methodology that cannot be categorized chronologically but that helps to set the scene for the subsequent chapters (almost all of which respond, in various ways, to Dover and Foucault) by reassessing Foucault’s legacy and clearing up some pervasive misreadings of Foucault’s philosophical contri- bution. In particular, Halperin addresses some current clichés about sexual acts and sexual actors, arguing that Foucault never held that the Greeks did not distinguish types of sexual actor and going on to give a more nuanced account of what (in Foucault’s view, and in Halperin’s) is the real difference between the ancient Greek categories and those that obtain in the contem- porary world. Although Halperin’s chapter has been published elsewhere in the meantime, it was originally presented at the conference and was an in- tegral part of the discussions that ensued. Clearly, getting clear about what Foucault’s claims were and what we should make of them is a major part of

any recovery of ancient Greek and Roman debates about sexual ethics.

Halperin’s chapter is followed by Nussbaum’s “Ero¯s and Ethical Norms,” a chapter that is both arguably chronologically first, at least in terms of its starting point (beginning with visual art of the early fifth century _B._C._E.), and concerned, like Halperin’s, with general methodological issues and the reassessment of Foucault’s legacy. Nussbaum traces a debate about the ethi- cal status of ero¯s that engages a sequence of philosophers, from Plato through Aristotle and Epicurus to the Greek and Roman Stoics and their Platonist critic Plutarch. The question is whether a passion as violent as ero¯s is said to be can ever be good for the beloved; or, is passionate erotic love compatible with kindness, restraint, and generosity? She argues that the philosophical debate cannot be well understood without seeing the philosophers as par- ticipants in a cultural debate. (Indeed, she criticizes her earlier work on Plato for not attending sufficiently to social context.) And she argues that the debate has consequences for our assessment of Foucault’s legacy. While Foucault focused on a narrow range of norms (primarily in the area of self- control and self-management) when he examined Greek philosophical texts dealing with sexual pleasure, the tradition actually provides us with a far richer and more interpersonal set of considerations, which, in her view, are rightly regarded as ethically central by the Greek thinkers: norms of kindness, noncruelty, nonegoism, reciprocity. (This chapter was previously

introduction

published but has been extensively revised.) Recovery of this richer ethical debate helps us to understand what we might possibly have to learn from an engagement with Greek texts and arguments.

Marriage does not take center stage in the philosophical debate about ero¯s and sexual pleasure until we get to Rome. Both Plato and Zeno the Stoic, the leading ancient Greek theorists of sexual pleasure, seem to have been relatively uninterested in the sexuality of women and tend to focus al- most all their analysis on pederastic relationships. Even when we are deal- ing with nonphilosophical materials, writers about Greece of the fifth and fourth centuries have tended to think that sex in marriage is an uninterest- ing topic, believing that marital sex was generally agreed to be unerotic and primarily reproductive in nature. There is evidence for that view, but there is also unacknowledged evidence for a different view, which suggests a far greater continuity than we might have imagined between the Greek poets and their Roman philosophical and poetic successors. Maarit Kaimio’s “Erotic Experience in the Conjugal Bed” breaks new ground in the analysis of Greek views of marital sexuality, arguing that there is actually a great deal of evidence in the tragic poets for the view that both husbands and wives found considerable pleasure in marital sexuality and that deprivation of that sexuality was regarded as a major loss. By a careful study of the range of words associated with the marital bed, she shows that the fifth century had elaborated a complex conception of marital sexuality, thus preparing the way for the much later discussions of that topic (including philosophi- cal discussions) by Hellenistic and Roman authors.

Kaimio’s treatment of tragedy insists on the importance of genre and its conventions for good analysis of material in this area. Stephen Halli- well’s “Aristophanic Sex: The Erotics of Shamelessness” does the same for Old Comedy. The works of Aristophanes are an invaluable source for any scholar trying to reconstruct the history of ancient Greek sexual customs and norms, and even sexual language. Sexual matters are simply discussed with a frankness that would be impossible in literary or philosophical texts. The comedies have therefore become a mainstay of historical analysis and are used extensively by both Dover and Foucault. Halliwell argues that we cannot analyze Aristophanic sex well unless we focus on the peculiar prop- erties of the genre — in particular, its preoccupation with the flouting of proprieties and with a general shocking shamelessness. Halliwell focuses on Ecclesiazousae, a play that has often been brought into philosophical debates because of its similarities to some aspects of Plato’s Republic. His analysis shows that a good understanding of genre complicates this con- nection greatly, making it very unwise to draw any straightforward parallels

introduction

of the sort that are often drawn, and unwise even to make straightforward claims about what Aristophanes recommends. Both Kaimio and Halliwell, in different ways, show what ancient literary genres do and do not offer to the philosophically inclined scholar wishing to pursue the history of de- bates about sexual ethics. They see the poets as participants, along with the philosophers, in a cultural conversation, but within limits set by the genre within which they work.

In Plato’s Symposium, the first speaker, Phaedrus, claims that an army composed of eraste¯s/ero¯menos pairs would be unusually fine, because each lover would vie to outdo the other in daring and virtuous exploits. This pas- sage has frequently been connected with the famous Sacred Band, an elite Theban corps that apparently was organized on that principle— although scholars differ about whether the reference shows that the Symposium was composed before the Sacred Band was a reality (Dover) or once the band was well known (Nussbaum, arguing that the reference coyly exploits the gap between dramatic date and date of composition). Most scholars com- menting on the Symposium— and on related Stoic texts that make pederas- tic ero¯s central to civic bonds—have tended to assume that the Sacred Band is a genuine historical corps really organized on an erotic principle. Leitao’s “Legend of the Sacred Band” shows how weak the evidence actually is for the historical reality of an elite corps consisting of erotic pairs. He urges the philosophical scholar toward a much more nuanced reading of history, ar- guing that the band is standardly used for normative purposes, as an em- blem of the connection of pederastic ero¯s with freedom from tyranny. For this very reason, we cannot have much confidence in it as history. So what looks like the historical context of a philosophical work may actually be part of the moral philosophy itself.

We now turn (again, since Nussbaum’s chapter already discussed the Symposium and Phaedrus) to Plato, and to Price’s “Plato, Zeno, and the Ob- ject of Love,” which discusses the connection between pederasty and ped- agogy in Plato and the Stoics. Addressing himself to the claims of Nuss- baum’s chapter, Price offers a subtly different reading of Plato’s relation to his tradition. He sees the tradition’s central problem less as inhibiting vio- lence and promoting kindliness than as reconciling the asymmetry of the partners to a pederastic relationship with the reciprocity and the reciprocal appreciation of character that typifies the ethically best form of love and friendship. He argues that while Plato’s Phaedrus took this problem very seriously and made some progress in the direction of its solution, by in- sisting on the antero¯s (answering ero¯s) of the younger partner, the real breakthrough is made by the Stoics, and in virtue of developments made

introduction

possible by their philosophy of perception. For the first time it became pos- sible to understand how the bodily form of a younger man might express virtue and make it visible. Price argues, against Nussbaum, that the Stoic solution to the cultural dilemma is successful and admirable, “weav[ing] innovation within tradition” in a constructive way. Philosophical theoriz- ing, he concludes, can both enrich and change life — if it is “quickened as much by collaboration as by resistance from the world of experience.”

Aristotle has already been briefly mentioned in the chapters of Nuss- baum and Price, and Sihvola now devotes his chapter, “Aristotle on Sex and Love,” to the detailed reconstruction of Aristotle’s views about ero¯s. This is a notoriously difficult task, because it involves sifting evidence drawn from works of many different types, including, prominently, works on logic in which erotic examples are used en passant to illustrate logical relationships. This task of reconstruction has already been attempted by Price in a justly admired appendix to his Love and Friendship in Plato and Aristotle, but Sihvola gives the evidence a more extensive treatment, coming to slightly different conclusions. Like Price, he stresses that the relationship between eraste¯s and ero¯menos is asymmetrical but contains the potential to develop in the direction of equality and full reciprocity. Unlike Price, he sees Aris- totle as in that sense a rather bold cultural innovator. And he insists that Ar- istotle’s ero¯s is more deeply passionate, more intense and exclusive, more connected to vulnerability and risk than previous commentators have un- derstood it to be. The most surprising claim he makes is that this passion- ate element remains a part of ero¯s, for Aristotle, even after its transforma- tion into a virtuous and reciprocal philia is complete.

Not too surprisingly, the chapters so far have focused not only on male- authored texts, but also (Kaimio’s and Halliwell’s excepted) on texts that say little about Greek women in any way. It is almost impossible to write the history of same-sex sexual relationships between women in Greek an- tiquity. Sappho’s poetry and what exiguous amount can be known about her life have been analyzed again and again from the most wide-ranging viewpoints. But other evidence is so sparse that there has seemed to be noth- ing much to say. Dover’s “Two Women of Samos” argues that one small piece of evidence delivers a great deal of information, if we mine it with all the resources of technical philological and historical scholarship: a fragment of the third-century poet Asclepiades, in the Greek Anthology, which attacks two women, apparently for same-sex lovemaking. Looking at every word of the fragment with his customary care, knowledge of genre, and extensive scholarship, and connecting it to other pertinent pieces of evidence (for ex- ample, the remark about same-sex female relationships in Plato’s Sympo-

introduction

sium), Dover argues that the poem is strongly hostile to the two women. The question that must then be posed is, Why should same-sex relations between women be attacked while male same-sex relations are strongly fa- vored? Dover argues that one factor is surely the tendency to regard pene- tration as the essence of aphrodisia. Whatever the case, we have reason to see in Greek culture, over several centuries, a striking anxiety and an embar- rassed silence about same-sex relations between women.

Dover’s chapter was in part inspired by Bernadette Brooten’s Love be- tween Women (1996). In his second chapter in the volume, “The First Ho- mosexuality,” David Halperin engages with Brooten at greater length, argu- ing that she has failed to notice some important discontinuities between ancient same-sex relations between women and modern lesbianism. It is, he argues, a big mistake even to speak of “ancient lesbianism,” as if there were a recognizable thing that we know from our culture that we have now discovered in the past. In a broad discussion of both ancient evidence and the modern origins of our contemporary sexual categories, Halperin ap- plies some of the careful scrutiny of cultural discontinuity that marks his work on male homosexuality to the difficult area of women’s relationships. Agreeing with the general line of Dover’s argument, but developing the point over a longer period, in relation to a wider range of texts, Halperin con- cludes that what the ancient Greeks and Romans found disturbing was not sexual contact among women as such, but rather a woman’s playing an as- sertive masculine role, deviating from usual gender categories. The passive recipient of such a woman’s attentions could have same-sex relations, and even enjoy them, without incurring social disapproval.

We now move to Rome (which has figured already in parts of Nuss- baum’s and Price’s treatment of Stoic ethics, and in Halperin’s analysis of lesbianism). From this point onward, the ethics of marriage become a cen- tral focus of the essays. In “Marriage and Sexuality in Republican Rome: A Roman Conjugal Love Story,” historian and legal scholar Eva Cantarella fo- cuses on the republic, and on a strange incident in which Cato apparently gave his wife Marcia to his friend Hortensius, so that he could have chil- dren— and then took her back after the task had been performed. She ar- gues that this case of “surrogate motherhood” needs to be analyzed against the background of ethical norms of the period, and especially a particular Roman ideal of conjugal sexuality. When so analyzed, it is less bizarre than it initially appears; and the case serves as a lens through which to examine Roman norms.

Musonius Rufus is a little-studied but very important Roman Stoic phi- losopher. Known in antiquity as “the Roman Socrates,” he developed views

introduction

of female education, marriage, and female virtue that had great influence in antiquity and are still worth studying now. In “The Incomplete Feminism of Musonius Rufus, Platonist, Stoic, and Roman,” Nussbaum argues that Musonius cannot be well studied if he is not seen both as a participant in a complex Platonic-Stoic philosophical tradition and as a participant in de- bates about gender roles in contemporary Rome. She then produces a sys- tematic philosophical analysis (the first in recent scholarship, to her knowl- edge) of the arguments of two of Musonius’s most fascinating works, “That Women Too Should Do Philosophy” and “Should Daughters Get the Same Education as Sons?” along with briefer analyses of several works on marriage and sexuality. Nussbaum argues that Musonius is an odd combination of the progressive and the conservative, in some ways in advance of his culture, in other ways rejecting radical proposals of earlier Stoicism in order to adhere to conventional Roman norms.

Dio Chrysostom is another figure who was highly influential in antiq- uity but is relatively neglected today. Although he is a quasi philosopher, with strong links to the philosophical tradition, philosophical scholars ig- nore him. And his views on sexuality have not been systematically studied in a way that brings to bear the insights of recent scholarship on the history of Greek and Roman sexuality. Houser’s “Ero¯s and Aphrodisia in the Works of Dio Chrysostom” is an ambitious and far-reaching study of Dio’s views on same-sex relationships, arguing (in a way that corroborates Foucault’s general thesis about ancient sexuality) that Dio’s ethical worries focus not on same-sex conduct per se, but on indulgence and lack of self-control.

David Konstan’s “Enacting Ero¯s” develops further the themes of his im- portant scholarship on ancient conceptions of philia, or friendship, and on reciprocity and symmetry in erotic relations. Starting from a passage in Lucian’s Dialogues of the Gods in which Zeus worries that his terrifying ap- pearance makes him unlovable, Konstan argues that ancient conceptions of erotic love, while often focused on the norm of self-mastery (as Foucault argued), also made room for a different set of norms, focused on symme- try and mutuality. This set of concerns gave rise to a norm of male sexual attractiveness that is very different from the norm of the dominant pene- trative male: thus, Dionysus, soft and feminine, is lovable to women in a way that the terrifying Zeus is not. In a wide-ranging discussion moving (chronologically) from Homer and Euripides to Catullus and Lucian, Kon- stan argues that norms of sexual reciprocity, while especially clearly devel- oped in male-female relations, also make their appearance in the context of pederastic relations.

Simon Goldhill’s “ Erotic Experience of Looking: Cultural Conflict and

introduction

the Gaze in Empire Culture” studies philosophical and literary views about erotic gazing in the second century _C._E., focusing on novelists Achilles Ta- tius and Heliodorus, Christian thinkers Clement of Alexandria and Ter- tullian, and Jewish Platonist Philo. Goldhill argues that Stoic theories of knowledge and perception are broadly influential during this period, and that we cannot understand the theories of erotic gazing produced by these authors without detailed familiarity with the Stoic position. Against this background he traces the moral debate about the “erotic eye,” and the con- nection between vision and (morally assessable) desire.

It has long been acknowledged that one of our significant sources for popular norms and conceptual categories in the area of ero¯s is the papyro- logical, epigraphical, and archaeological evidence for the use of magical spells in the Greco-Roman world. One of the most influential articles (the title article) in John J. Winkler’s Constraints of Desire (1990) was devoted to this topic. Christopher Faraone has recently produced a major book, An- cient Greek Love Magic (1999) systematically analyzing the magical papyri on this set of issues. In his chapter in the present volume, “Agents and Vic- tims: Constructions of Gender and Desire in Ancient Greek Love Magic,” drawing on material that ranges over both cultures and a number of cen- turies, he develops the insights of the book further, asking what evidence the material on magic gives us about the Greeks’ and Romans’ understand- ing of gender categories and of varieties of desire. Against a dominant view that holds that the Greeks believed women to be sexually insatiable and uncontrollable, he argues that, while evidence for that view exists, there is also a good deal of evidence for a contradictory view; that women are self- controlled and interested in philia, while men are uncontrolled and focused on intercourse.

The essays come to no single set of conclusions. There are internal dif- ferences among them: for example, Price, Nussbaum, and Sihvola all have different views about which thinker best addressed the problem of the selfish character of ero¯s, reconciling pedagogy and pederasty; Kaimio and Faraone appear to have subtle differences concerning wives and what they want. But the common theme of all the essays is complexity, for almost all, in differ- ent ways, contend against simple orthodoxies in the depiction of ancient Greek and Roman sexuality, both its norms and its categories, arguing that a more complicated picture ought to be preferred. To an orthodoxy that holds that the Greeks thought a good wife was not interested in sex, Kaimio opposes the poets’ complex and often sympathetic portrayals of sexually desiring wives. To a more recent orthodoxy that says that the Greeks rec- ognized only types of act, not types of actor, Halperin opposes a more

introduction

complex (and, he argues, more correct) reading of Foucault that gives us a more subtle account of the differences between ancient and modern cul- tures. Against the tendency to use Aristophanes as a straightforward source for popular thought, Halliwell contends that the complexities of genre com- plicate any such appropriation.

Because the essays focus on the ethical, it is in that area above all that their plea for a complex understanding is most urgent. We find a general agreement (among, for example, Nussbaum, Price, Sihvola, Konstan, and Kaimio) that the ethics of ero¯s, in both Greece and Rome, focused not only on self-mastery but also on reciprocity; that men worried not only about penetrating and displaying their power, but also about being decent and kind, and about being loved for themselves; that women and even younger men felt not only gratitude and acceptance, but also joy and, frequently, sex- ual desire. What is more, these norms were the subject of debate and con- versation — prominently including philosophical conversation— as people understood themselves to have erotic options, and searched for the option that was humanly best. (We should never forget, however, that we have vir- tually no unmediated access to women’s views about all these matters.) In general, the essays see ancient Greco-Roman culture not as a monolith in which rigid norms produce an unvarying series of similar subjects, but, instead, as a scene of searching and arguing, sometimes playful and some- times deeply serious, in which people, surprised by a new thought, seize the norms tradition gives them and twist them around to a new purpose, or discover a space between the articulated norms in which a newly imag- ined form of life can flourish— a world in which ideas illuminate the ac- tual, and experience gives its richness to the world of ideas.

Chapter One

12 3 4 5 Следующая ⇒

Последнее изменение этой страницы: 2019-06-10; Просмотров: 232; Нарушение авторского права страницы