The Fairy Emperor

[Augur]

Interesting string, which seems to raise questions less about sex and homosexuality than it does about the remarkable Roman tolerance toward truly outrageous behavior by its leaders, particulary in light of Rome's traditionally strict moral and social standards during the Kings and Republic.

 

As already mentioned by several contributors, homosexuality itself was not considered "outrageous" during the late Republic and early Empire. It was probably only a source of rebald humor (eg. the raunchy marching songs of Caesar's legions) at lower classes, and snickered behind-the-back rumors among the Boni.

 

What is of greater interest is how so many groups of Rome's most prominent and powerful stakeholder groups -- Senate, Assembly, Preatorians, etc. -- were willing to put up with behaviors we would all agree should be considered outrageous to any thinking person. Which raises the question: what is outrageous?

 

Most of us have focused our interest on Rome and Roman history because we feel a sense of kinship, perhaps even affection toward Romans themselves: the old they're like us, we're like them assumption. There are obvious conflicts with this "us = them" assumption and one need not go too far to find them. Perhaps the two most conspicious examples of this are: first, Rome's universal acceptance of the insitution of slavery and, second, the popularity of slaughter and murder as intertainment. Face it folks, people who have lived their lives surrounded by slavery, and who flock to watch mass brutally violent gladiatorial murder ARE a wee bit different from us.

 

So, one of the many reasons "outrageous behavior" was tolerated for so long was because Romans felt different about what was outrageous. Despite all the sophistocation, charm and order we may ascribe to Rome, it was still a life filled with harsher realities than many of us can grasp.

 

[Oh my. Please accept my oppologies for drifting so far from the topic of this string]

[Ursus]

And I think the Romans of the Republic and early Empire would look at our times and gape with astonishment at some of our own prejudices.

 

Certainly the Romans had a different cultural construct than ours. But I'm not so sure it's automatically poorer by vitue of slavery and gladiatorial games. Official slavery in the West has only been out of style for a 140 years, anyway.

[Carla]

well as i recall. homosexuality itself was not dissapproved of in the roman world

 

BUT...

 

It was whether or not you gave or recieved that determined how people thought of you. If you gave you were manly and all grrr but if you were passive you were seen as weak, subordinate and damned girly.

 

 

(think it was juvenal that the evidence comes from, as well as other factual historians)

[Carla]

not that Juvenal was 100% relaible and accurate as he wrote his satires for the audience in the sphere of comedy , but a good source nonetheless. I meant, "as well as historians". please ignore the "other" in previous post.