Wikipedia fallacies #2 Athenean Pederasty.

Athenean Pederasty

The first contradiction one comes accross when reading this entry in wiki is that the common and widespread practice of “pederasty” as presented in the entry titled “Homosexuality in ancient Greece” became an “upper class” custom only to again change and just 2 lines down become “encouraged by the Athenean society” .

Anyway, I guess they’ll eventually make up their minds.

We then hear the outrageous claim that it was Solon hat founded the tradition of homosexual relations among Athenean men and youth (still not clarified if this took place among the “upper class” or was a “widespread” custom). A Solon who as we know was the very founder of the laws which Aeschines cites in his Against Timarchus” (see related article pertaining to Laws against homo- and pederastic ralations. In their attempt to support this claim, the authors of this entry totally distort the text of Athenaeus of Naucratis who’s Deipnosophists they claim to quote. The distorted text appear as “boy in the lovely flower of youth, desiring his thighs and sweet mouth.” when in reality the text states:

Deipnosophists 13.79.5

“μηρών ίμείρων και γλυκερού στοματός”

“longing for thighs and sweet mouth”

The authors then try to attribute homosexual relations to Harmodios and Aristogeiton, to whom they first attribute the title of “lovers” prior to any reference to the significance of their actions, conveniently taking Thucydides’ account instead of reading what the numerous ancient texts and the Cambridge Ancient History (Cabridge University Press 2000, page 299) which clearly states that “the motive for the murder was political“..
But even so, how could anyone misunderstand what Plato tells us in his Symposium ?

Plato Symposium 182c:

[182ξ] φιλοσοφία καὶ ἡ φιλογυμναστία: οὐ γὰρ οἶμαι συμφέρει τοῖς ἄρχουσι φρονήματα μεγάλα ἐγγίγνεσθαι τῶν ἀρχομένων, οὐδὲ φιλίας ἰσχυρὰς καὶ κοινωνίας, ὃ δὴ μάλιστα φιλεῖ τά τε ἄλλα πάντα καὶ ὁ ἔρως ἐμποιεῖν. ἔργῳ δὲ τοῦτο ἔμαθον καὶ οἱ ἐνθάδε τύραννοι: ὁ γὰρ Ἀριστογείτονος ἔρως καὶ ἡ Ἁρμοδίου φιλία βέβαιος γενομένη κατέλυσεν αὐτῶν τὴν ἀρχήν.

[182c] and all training in philosophy and sports, to be disgraceful, because of their despotic government; since, I presume, it is not to the interest of their princes to have lofty notions engendered in their subjects, or any strong friendships and communions; all of which Love is pre-eminently apt to create. It is a lesson that our despots learnt by experience; for Aristogeiton’s love and Harmodius’s friendship grew to be so steadfast that it wrecked their power.

Why would they misinterpret the word friendship, why would they ignore the true meaning of pederasty which Plato describes (181c) as of the “heavenly Aphrodite”, which has nothing to do with wantonness , why ignore the words of Plato in his Hipparchus, who although provides a questionable account on his death, tells us exactly what their relationship was (229c) Harmodius “πεπαιδεῦσθαι ὑπ᾽ ἐκείνου” (was educated by him [Aristogeiton]), why ignore the numerous accounts which speak of their contribution to the fall of tyrany but choose to promote the context of a single text and finally why not see how their relationship was used in real life and not some philosophic discussion which is by no means an accurate source for deducting conclusions upon everyday realities ?
Aeschines, Against Timarchus 140

Ἁρμόδιον καὶ Ἀριστογείτονα, ὁ σώφρων καὶ ἔννομος, εἴτε ἔρωτα εἴτε ὅντινα τρόπον χρὴ προσειπεῖν, τοιούτους ἐπαίδευσεν, ὥστε τοὺς ἐπαινοῦντας τὰ ἐκείνων ἔργα καταδεεστέρους δοκεῖν εἶναι ἐν τοῖς ἐγκωμίοις τῶν ἐκείνοις πεπραγμένων.

Harmodius and Aristogeiton, men pre-eminent for their virtues, were so nurtured by that chaste and lawful love—or call it by some other name than love if you like—and so disciplined, that when we hear men praising what they did, we feel that words are inadequate to the eulogy of their deeds.

We then move on to the claim of vase paintings suggesting the “dominant status of pederasty in Athenian social life”.. One can’t but wonder how on earth a total of some 30 vases (A.Georgiades “Debunking the Myth of Homosexuality in Ancient Greece”) which indeed do depict a homosexual scene and are presented by K.J.Dover, a Dover that is considered an authority in the field, can justify the outreageous claim of “dominant status”?

One of the most important and prestigious publishing houses in Hellas is that of Ekdotike Athenon, in their series of books dedicated to Hellenic Art there is one volume about ancient vases. In their attempt to measure the amount of vases in total, they conclude that the total of vases unearthed in Athens alone reaches 80.000!!!, 80.000 vases from Athens and despite the fact that Dover managed to find a total of 30, (the rest are either non-related to the subject or simply based on wild assumptions, they dare distort history by claiming “dominant status”.

Of course Dover attempts through mistaken interpretations to find homosexual scenes, for example, according to Dover the well known “Achilles mending Patroklos’ wound” is related to homosexuality.

Accoding to Dover the painter was under great pressure to conceal Patroklos’ genitals.

or this fine example (seen on Dover’s book cover)

In which the hoop, holds a symbolism of its own !!!

We could continue with suggestions that a tiny scortum and large penis or the opposite are such indications or that a boy is standing in a “pose of embarassment” while a man is conversing with a woman, indicates either jealousy or that he wished he had taken the initiative himself !!
The fact of the matter is that 30 vases or even if we were to raise this number to 100, 200 or even 500 or 1000.. are under no condition an amount that could justify the outrageous claim of “dominant status” simply becuase they do not even constitute 1% of the total vases unearthed in Athens alone.

After such exaggerations, distorting the purpose of the paidagogos is no real suprize. According to the “Harry Thurston Peck, Harpers Dictionary of Classical Antiquities” the “paidagogos” was:

(paidagôgos, “boy-leader”). The name among the Greeks for the slave who had the duty of looking after the son of his master while in boyhood, instructing him in certain rules of good manners, and attending him whenever he went out, especially to school and to the palaestra and gymnasium.

As anyone can see, the “fiery courtship” the authors claim had very little to do with the institution of the ‘paidagogos’.

While they continue by noting the existance of laws, they, either due to ignorance or mallicious intent, jump to totally flawed conclusions by suggesting that citizens were allowed to have sexual relations with children. One can’t but wonder how they’d miss the laws cited in Aeschines’ “Against Timarchus” especially since they note it as their source?

Against Timarchus 16

[Ἄν τις Ἀθηναίων ἐλεύθερον παῖδα ὑβρίσῃ, γραφέσθω ὁ κύριος τοῦ παιδὸς πρὸς τοὺς θεσμοθέτας, τίμημα ἐπιγραψάμενος. οὗ δ᾽ ἂν τὸ δικαστήριον καταψηφίσηται, παραδοθεὶς τοῖς ἕνδεκα τεθνάτω αὐθημερόν.

If any Athenian shall outrage a free-born child, the parent or guardian of the child shall demand a specific penalty. If the court condemn the accused to death, he shall be delivered to the constables and be put to death the same day.

While the use of “outrage” in the traslation may be misleading the use of ‘ὑβρίσῃ’ in the original leaves us no doubts what so ever. According to the “Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon” :
ὑβρίσῃ=wax wanton, run riot, treat him despitefully, outrage, insult, maltreat.

But even if they didn’t understand it when reading Aeschines’ speech, they could have read Demosthenes’ “Against Midias”

Demosthenes, Against Midias 47

[47] “Νόμος

ἐάν τις ὑβρίζῃ εἴς τινα, ἢ παῖδα ἢ γυναῖκα ἢ ἄνδρα, τῶν ἐλευθέρων ἢ τῶν δούλων, ἢ παράνομόν τι ποιήσῃ εἰς τούτων

[47] “Law

If anyone assaults any child or woman or man, whether free or slave, or commits any unlawful act against anyone of these

So in short the whole claim of any such form of action being accepted or even allowed is nothing but a total fallacy as the laws cited clearly indicate.

They continue with a reference to “tradition” which they have done anything but respect by again making reference to Harmodius and Aristogeiton, but also add the questionable account of Atheneus on Cratinus and Aristodemus found in his Deipnosophits (13.78). But the problem isn’t if the account is questionable on the basis that Diogenes Laertius mentions the pair being Cratinus and Ctesibius (Life of Epemenidis III) or not, but that the only account of it (Atheneus) clarifies that it isn’t true !!!

Athenaeus Deipnosophists 13.79

τα περί Κρατίνον και Αριστόδημον πεπλάσθαι φύσιν

(the story) of Cratinus and Aristodemus is fiction

Why on earth totally disregard what your source clearly notes about the couple if not to intentionally promote the notion of acceptance of homosexual relations?

They the rediculously attempt to find proof of acceptance of homosexual relations in the speech of Perikles noted in Thucydides. But as already explained in the article “Pederasty“, Perikles’ speech has little to do with homosexual relations but to the contrary we see that the true meaning of “εραστής” through his metaphor. As the ‘εραστής’ seeks nothing more than his ‘ερώμενος’ virtue, his charater, his spiritual elevation, that will allow him to accomplish truelly greaty feats. In order to accomplish this, not even his life is a great enough price to pay, especially since the ‘ερώμενος’ in our case, is the city of Athens itself.

Yet another intentionally distorted quote to present acceptance of homosexual relations, this time even implicating the father. The authors selectively quote and intentionally take out of context a quote from Xenophon’s Symposium and present it as follows:

Wikipedia’s distortion:

It was proper for the lover to respect the authority of the boy’s father. According to Xenophon, “Nothing [of what concerns the boy] is kept hidden from the father, by a noble lover.”

But what does Xenophon actually say?

Xenophon Symposium 8.1.10-11

[10] εἰκάσαις δ᾽ ἂν καὶ τοὺς ἔρωτας τὴν μὲν Πάνδημον τῶν σωμάτων ἐπιπέμπειν, τὴν δ᾽ Οὐρανίαν τῆς ψυχῆς τε καὶ τῆς φιλίας καὶ τῶν καλῶν ἔργων. ὑφ᾽ οὗ δὴ καὶ σύ, ὦ Καλλία, κατέχεσθαι μοι δοκεῖς ἔρωτος.

[11] τεκμαίρομαι δὲ τῇ τοῦ ἐρωμένου καλοκἀγαθίᾳ καὶ ὅτι σε ὁρῶ τὸν πατέρα αὐτοῦ παραλαμβάνοντα εἰς τὰς πρὸς τοῦτον συνουσίας. οὐδὲν γὰρ τούτων ἐστὶν ἀπόκρυφον πατρὸς τῷ καλῷ τε κἀγαθῷ ἐραστῇ.

[10] One might conjecture, also, that different types of love come from the different sources, carnal love from the ‘Vulgar’ Aphrodite, and from the ‘Heavenly’ spiritual love, love of friendship and of noble conduct. That is the sort of love, Callias, that seems to have you in its grip.

[11] I infer this from the noble nature of the one you love and because I see that you include his father in your meetings with him. For the virtuous lover does not make any of these matters a secret from the father of his beloved.”

So Xenophon is talking about “Heavenly Spiritual Love”, that of friendship and noble conduct and NOT that related to carnal lust. To the disappointment of the wiki authors, their notion of homosexuality being accepted is but a conveniently constructed myth by homosexuals in their attempt to legitimize same sex.

They then continue by misquoting Aelianus’ “Various History”, according to these individuals, in 11.11 we should find an account of Xanthippe’s jealous rage. Unfortunately the verse in question has nothing to do with the notion in question but actually states:

Aelianus Various History 11.11

Ότι Διονύσιος Σικελός περί την ίατρικήν εσπούδασε καί αύτος, και ίατο και έτέμνε και έκαε και τα λοίπα.

Dionysus Sicelus also had studied medicine, and cured and cut (as a surgeon) and burnt ..etc

While the verse is indeed found only a couple of lines down, the whole point which they neglect to mention is that the Atheneans literally detested him for his defection and siding with Sparta, an action which literally changed the outcome of the war.
The very fact that no contemporary account of such relations exists, added to Plutarch’s account of false accusations against him (Lives Alcibiades 19-21) of showing disrespect to the Eleusinian goddesses make us conclude that this indeed is propaganda.
Had Alcibiades been implicated in such relations, we know that they could have simply enforced the laws cited in Aeschines’ “Against Timarchus” since they existed since the time of Solon and by doing so, strip him of his position, making the constructed accusations totally worthless since they could accomplish their objective by simply citing the law.

Nice try “boys”, keep them coming.


Wikipedia fallacies

In Wikipedia (yes the “encyclopedia” that anyone can edit) we find an article titled “Homosexuality in ancient Greece”. Beside the obvious interest in the topic, what caught my attention was the total rejection to provide the slightest explaination to WHY quotes are taken out of context (intentionally?), distorted and presented in such a manner to support the twisted agenda that some obviously are striving to promote.

To the article…..

The first audacious claim one comes across, is that homosexual relations between men and boys were… quote “widespread” unquote. To legitimize this claim, they allegedly present quotes from various texts of the Hellenic anthology.

The first one we come across is that of Herodotus 1.135 which is already descussed in “Pederasty”, the second, is an alleged quote from Plato’s Phaedrus 227a:

The exact text according to perseus.tufts is as follows:

Phaedrus 227a

Original :

ὦ φίλε Φαῖδρε, ποῖ δὴ καὶ πόθεν;

παρὰ Λυσίου, ὦ Σώκρατες, τοῦ Κεφάλου, πορεύομαι δὲ πρὸς περίπατον ἔξω τείχους: συχνὸν γὰρ ἐκεῖ διέτριψα χρόνον καθήμενος ἐξ ἑωθινοῦ. τῷ δὲ σῷ καὶ ἐμῷ ἑταίρῳ πειθόμενος Ἀκουμενῷ κατὰ τὰς ὁδοὺς ποιοῦμαι τοὺς περιπάτους: φησὶ γὰρ ἀκοπωτέρους εἶναι τῶν ἐν τοῖς

Translation :


Dear Phaedrus, whither away, and where do you come from?

From Lysias, Socrates, the son of Cephalus; and I am going for a walk outside the wall. For I spent a long time there with Lysias, sitting since early morning; and on the advice of your friend and mine, Acumenus, I am taking my walk on the roads; for he says they are less fatiguing

Its actually mind-boggling how on earth anyone would try to relate this quote to the notion of homosexuality, but it seems that the wonderkids at Wiki managed to do it..

The next quote presented which allegedly supports their objective, which is to promote the fallacious notion that homosexuality was accepted comes from Xenophon’s, Memorabilia 2.6.28. Only this time, we don’t have some quote that needs interpretation since the hidden meaning is only seen by the individual that added the source, but a clear act of distorting the text’s meaning since they have intentionally nit-picked the quote and taken it out of context to support their cause.

Xenophon’s, Memorabilia 2.6.28


[28] ἀλλὰ θαρρῶν, ἔφη, ὦ Κριτόβουλε, πειρῶ ἀγαθὸς γίγνεσθαι, καὶ τοιοῦτος γενόμενος θηρᾶν ἐπιχείρει τοὺς καλούς τε κἀγαθούς. ἴσως δ᾽ ἄν τί σοι κἀγὼ συλλαβεῖν εἰς τὴν τῶν καλῶν τε κἀγαθῶν θήραν ἔχοιμι διὰ τὸ ἐρωτικὸς εἶναι: δεινῶς γάρ, ὧν ἂν ἐπιθυμήσω ἀνθρώπων, ὅλος ὥρμημαι ἐπὶ τὸ φιλῶν τε αὐτοὺς ἀντιφιλεῖσθαι ὑπ᾽ αὐτῶν καὶ ποθῶν ἀντιποθεῖσθαι, καὶ ἐπιθυμῶν συνεῖναι καὶ ἀντεπιθυμεῖσθαι τῆς συνουσίας.


[28] Courage, Critobulus; try to be good, and when you have achieved that, set about catching your gentleman. Maybe, I myself, as an adept in love, can lend you a hand in the pursuit of gentlemen. For when I want to catch anyone it’s surprising how I strain every nerve to have my love returned, my longing reciprocated by him, in my eagerness that he shall want me as much as I want him.

The objective is clear, since when reading this nit-picked quote, the reader will indeed comprehend that what they are talking about is nothing more than homosexual relations. BUT since this isn’t wiki and the perversion trying to be promoted is not accepted, I’ll do what they should have done and add the following verse which clarifies exactly what Xenophon is writing about and exposes the individuals that composed this wikipedia article for what they really are trying to do. Which is striving to promote their sexual preference through distortions and intentional manipulation of texts.

Xenophon’s, Memorabilia 2.6.29-30


[29] ὁρῶ δὲ καὶ σοὶ τούτων δεῆσον, ὅταν ἐπιθυμήσῃς φιλίαν πρός τινας ποιεῖσθαι: μὴ οὖν ἀποκρύπτου με οἷς ἂν βούλῃ φίλος γενέσθαι: διὰ γὰρ τὸ ἐπιμελεῖσθαι τοῦ ἀρέσαι τῷ ἀρέσκοντί μοι οὐκ ἀπείρως οἶμαι ἔχειν πρὸς θήραν ἀνθρώπων.

[30] καὶ ὁ Κριτόβουλος ἔφη: καὶ μήν, ὦ Σώκρατες, τούτων ἐγὼ τῶν μαθημάτων πάλαι ἐπιθυμῶ ἄλλως τε καὶ εἰ ἐξαρκέσει μοι ἡ αὐτὴ ἐπιστήμη ἐπὶ τοὺς ἀγαθοὺς τὰς ψυχὰς καὶ ἐπὶ τοὺς καλοὺς τὰ σώματα.


[29] I see that you too will feel this need when you want to form a friendship. So do not hide from me the names of those whom you wish to make your friends; for I am careful to please him who pleases me, and so, I think, I am not without experience in the pursuit of men.”
[30] “Well, Socrates,” said Critobulus in reply, “these are the lessons I have long wished to learn, especially if the same skill will serve to win a good soul and a fair face.”

Honestly how should one characterize the individuals that resort to such pathetic distortions??

We then come accross the questionable account of Atheneus. Questionable simply because the author is justfully not titled as a historian and this early Christian writter commits several mistakes, fine examples is the Bagoas issues explained in the article related to Alexander, he mentions Ulpian numerous times and mentions his death when Ulpian dies at a later date (and in a different manner) so he must be talking about some other figure without providing any info and thus misleading, he attributes a quote to Hieronymus the Peripatetic, when this quote is identical to what Plato has written, he claims that the ‘Band of Thebes’ was founded by Epameinondas when we know it was Gorgidas..etc .but anyway.

Since the band is mentioned and Atheneus uses it in his text as an example, lets look at the text.

Plutarch Pelopidas 18

δεον εραστή παρ’ ερώμενον ταττειν. φυλέτας μεν γαρ φυλετών καί φρατόρων ου πολύν λόγον εέχειν εν τοίς δυνοίς, το δ’εξ ερωτικής φιλίας συνηρμοσμένον στίφος αδιάλυτον είναικαι αρρήκτον…

but that he should have joined lovers and their beloved. For men of the same tribe or family little value one another when dangers press; but a band cemented by friendship grounded upon love, is never to be broken, and invincible; ….

Most scholars agree that Plutarch’s account originates from the text of Plato in whih we read Phaedrus statement:

Plato’s Symposium 178e-179a

[178ε] οὐδενὸς ὡς ὑπὸ παιδικῶν. ταὐτὸν δὲ τοῦτο καὶ τὸν ἐρώμενον ὁρῶμεν, ὅτι διαφερόντως τοὺς ἐραστὰς αἰσχύνεται, ὅταν ὀφθῇ ἐν αἰσχρῷ τινι ὤν. εἰ οὖν μηχανή τις γένοιτο ὥστε πόλιν γενέσθαι ἢ στρατόπεδον ἐραστῶν τε καὶ παιδικῶν, οὐκ ἔστιν ὅπως ἂν ἄμεινον οἰκήσειαν τὴν ἑαυτῶν ἢ ἀπεχόμενοι πάντων τῶν αἰσχρῶν καὶ φιλοτιμούμενοι πρὸς

[179α] ἀλλήλους, καὶ μαχόμενοί γ᾽ ἂν μετ᾽ ἀλλήλων οἱ τοιοῦτοι νικῷεν ἂν ὀλίγοι ὄντες ὡς ἔπος εἰπεῖν πάντας ἀνθρώπους. ἐρῶν γὰρ ἀνὴρ ὑπὸ παιδικῶν ὀφθῆναι ἢ λιπὼν τάξιν ἢ ὅπλα ἀποβαλὼν ἧττον ἂν δήπου δέξαιτο ἢ ὑπὸ πάντων τῶν ἄλλων, καὶ πρὸ τούτου τεθνάναι ἂν πολλάκις ἕλοιτο. καὶ μὴν ἐγκαταλιπεῖν γε τὰ παιδικὰ ἢ μὴ βοηθῆσαι κινδυνεύοντι— οὐδεὶς οὕτω κακὸς ὅντινα οὐκ ἂν αὐτὸς ὁ Ἔρως ἔνθεον ποιήσειε πρὸς ἀρετήν, ὥστε ὅμοιον εἶναι τῷ ἀρίστῳ φύσει:

and in the selfsame way we see how the beloved is especially ashamed before his lovers when he is observed to be about some shameful business. So that if we could somewise contrive to have a city or an army composed of lovers and their favorites, they could not be better citizens of their country than by thus refraining from all that is base

[179a] in a mutual rivalry for honor; and such men as these, when fighting side by side, one might almost consider able to make even a little band victorious over all the world. For a man in love would surely choose to have all the rest of the host rather than his favorite see him forsaking his station or flinging away his arms; sooner than this, he would prefer to die many deaths: while, as for leaving his favorite in the lurch, or not succoring him in his peril, no man is such a craven that Love’s own influence cannot inspire him with a valor that makes him equal to the bravest born

Besides the evident which is that this relationship exhalts honor. the reference to shame of being seen commiting anything shamefull ..etc
What is extremely interesting is the continuous reference to παιδικὰ which is defined in the “Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon” as:

παιδ-ικός , ή, όν,
A. [select] of a child, for or like a child, boyish.

2. playful, sportive,

3. puerile

So we either come to the unhistoric conclusion that children were enlisted in the ancient Hellenic military or that this is indeed nothing more than a philosophic text and should be strictly viewed as one and that the reference to “παιδικὰ” (puerile = lack of maturity) is an indication of mixing the troops and combining the strength (and lack of military matuirty) of the young with the knoledge of the old thus creating an unbeatable army.

While Plutarch’s Pelopidas is selectively quoted to support the existance of such an army, very few make reference to the quote which he puts in the mouth of Philip and by doing so overhtorwing any suspicions on what the ‘band’ was all about.

Plutarch Pelopidas 18.23-24


Απόλοιντο κακώς οι τούτους τι ποιείν ή πάσχειν αισχρόν υπονοούντες.


“Perish misserably any man who suspects that these men either did or suffered anything that was base.”

As we continue reading this article we find reference to Sappho which according to David M. Halperin’s (Queer studies professor well known for his class “How to Be Gay”) entry in the Oxford Classical Dictionary who the article notes as its source, was indeed a “Lesbian” (with the meaning attested in the late 1800’s)…
One can’t but wonder how this Prof. could overlook the fact that Hesychius in his Lexicon’s entry Lambda 696 clearly notes:

Lambda 696
αίτίας είχον ατόπους αί από Λέσβου


false accusations (on the women) of Lesbos.

A similar account is found in the Suda Lexikon entry Sigma 107:

καί διαβολήν έσχέν αίσχράς φιλίας

and false accusation/slander of having shameful friendship

The Suda also tell us of her marriage to Kerkylas and of their daughter Kleis, but equally if not more interesting is entry Sigma 108 in which we read:

au(/th di’ e)/rwta Fa/wnoj tou= Mitulhnai/ou e)k tou= Leuka/tou katepo/ntwsen e(auth/n.

threw herself into the sea from the cliff of Leukates for love of Phaon of Mytilene.

Sappho’s poems aren’t actually described as erotic (not in the conventional form) but as describing a form of “terror”, she never describes the feelings as we usually see with terms of joy, happiness..etc.. but as a torment. She never describes the joyfull feeling seen in others but an emptyness, pain and misery left from emense passion…

From the above among other sources, we know for a fact that she was a mother and wife that wrote “epithalamia”= “wedding songs” that spoke, not of lesbian affairs but of the beauty of young girls that were about to become wifes and mothers themselves. But unfortunately even though her poems are lost and we only have one in whole (saved by Dionysos of Hallicarnasos).. while the rest are mere fragments that hardly allow us to understand the topic, let alone deduce alleged homosexual emotions, the “scholars” seem to insist on supporting what to the rest of us remains a huge unanswered question.

Finally a partially correct historic account in this article !!!

Even though the authors should have centralized on informing their readers of his poetic style “Cleomachean” and should have informed us where they came to the outrageous conclusion that the Chalcideans adopted “pederasty”, the reference to Cleomachus, while correctly mentioned as an example of a homosexual affairs is equally interesting, since Strabo clarifies whom the other participant is and leaves us little doubt about the distinction between his relationship and that of an “εραστής- ερώμενος”.

Strabo, Geography 14.1.47

εἰς ἔρωτα ἐμπεσὼν κιναίδου τινὸς καὶ παιδίσκης ὑπὸ [τῷ] κιναίδῳ τρεφομένης

having fallen in love with a certain cinaedus and with a young female slave who was kept as a prostitute by the cinaedus

for the meaning of “κίναιδως” see “defining homosexual”

Unfortunately one correct account doesn’t pt an end to the fallacies. This time we hear the outrageous claim of Achilles and Patroklos having a homoerotic affair. In support of this claim we read another quote from the Prof. with the agenda, David M. Halperin.
Here we learn that Plato in his Symposium and Aechines in his Against Timarchus allegedly provide us with proof of this relationship.
It seems like some are in desparate need of re-reading the text for Aeschines clarifies exactly what kind of relationship he’s talkig about when he quotes Euripides:

Aeschines Against Timarchus 151

ὁ τοίνυν οὐδενὸς ἧττον σοφὸς τῶν ποιητῶν Εὐριπίδης, ἕν τι τῶν καλλίστων ὑπολαμβάνων εἶναι τὸ σωφρόνως ἐρᾶν, ἐν εὐχῆς μέρει τὸν ἔρωτα ποιούμενος λέγει που:

“ ὁ δ᾽ εἰς τὸ σῶφρον ἐπ᾽ ἀρετήν τ᾽ ἄγων ἔρως
ζηλωτὸς ἀνθρώποισιν, ὧν εἴην ἐγώ.”

Again, Euripides, a poet than whom none is wiser, considering chaste love to be one of the most beautiful things, says somewhere, making love a thing to be prayed for:

“There is a love that makes men virtuous
And chaste, an envied gift. Such love I crave.

Its based on this notion of love that Homer informs us of Patroklos’ obligations as the “ερώμενος”:

Homer Iliad 11.786-789:

τέκνον ἐμὸν γενεῇ μὲν ὑπέρτερός ἐστιν Ἀχιλλεύς,
πρεσβύτερος δὲ σύ ἐσσι: βίῃ δ᾽ ὅ γε πολλὸν ἀμείνων.
ἀλλ᾽ εὖ οἱ φάσθαι πυκινὸν ἔπος ἠδ᾽ ὑποθέσθαι
καί οἱ σημαίνειν: ὃ δὲ πείσεται εἰς ἀγαθόν περ.

‘My child, in birth is Achilles nobler than thou, but thou art the elder though in might he is the better far. Yet do thou speak to him well a word of wisdom and give him counsel, and direct him; and he will obey thee to his profit.

The Myth of Zeus and Ganymedes

I’m sure everyone has heard of the myth of Ganymedes who according to specific circles is abducted and allegedly raped by the God Zeus.

Lets see how the texts present it:

Pausanias, Description of Greece 5.24.5

ὡς δὲ αὔτως Διὸς καὶ Γανυμήδους ἀγάλματα: ἔστι δὲ Ὁμήρῳ πεποιημένα ὡς ἁρπασθείη τε ὑπὸ θεῶν Γανυμήδης οἰνοχοεῖν Διὶ καὶ ὡς Τρωὶ δῶρα ἵπποι δοθεῖεν ἀντ᾽ αὐτοῦ.

and likewise images of Zeus and Ganymedes. Homer’s poem tells how Ganymedes was carried off by the gods to be wine-bearer to Zeus, and how horses were given to Tros in exchange for him

Homer, Iliad Il. 5.265

τῆς γάρ τοι γενεῆς ἧς Τρωΐ περ εὐρύοπα Ζεὺς
δῶχ᾽ υἷος ποινὴν Γανυμήδεος, οὕνεκ᾽ ἄριστοι
ἵππων ὅσσοι ἔασιν ὑπ᾽ ἠῶ τ᾽ ἠέλιόν τε,

For they are of that stock wherefrom Zeus, whose voice is borne afar, gave to Tros recompense for his son Ganymedes, for that they were the best of all horses that are beneath the dawn and the sun.

P. Ovidius Naso, Metamorphoses 11.755

raptusque Iovi Ganymedes

Ganymede taken by Jupiter

P. Ovidius Naso, Metamorphoses 10.155-60

Rex superum Phrygii quondam Ganymedis amore

arsit, et inventum est aliquid, quod Iuppiter esse,
quam quod erat, mallet. Nulla tamen alite verti
dignatur, nisi quae posset sua fulmina ferre.
Nec mora, percusso mendacibus aere pennis
abripit Iliaden; qui nunc quoque pocula miscet
invitaque Iovi nectar Iunone ministrat.

The king of all the Gods once burned with love
for Ganymede of Phrygia. He found
a shape more pleasing even than his own.
Jove would not take the form of any bird,
except the eagle’s, able to sustain
the weight of his own thunderbolts. Without
delay, Jove on fictitious eagle wings,
stole and flew off with that loved Trojan boy:
who even to this day, against the will
of Juno, mingles nectar in the cups
of his protector, mighty Jupiter.

Note that the word ‘amore’ according to the ‘Charlton T. Lewis, Charles Short, A Latin Dictionary’ means:

love (to friends, parents, etc.; and also in a low sense; hence in gen., like amo, while caritas, like diligere, is esteem, regard, etc.; hence amor is used also of brutes, but caritas only of men; v amo init.)”

Ovid Fasti 6.148

rapto Ganymede dolebam

I grieved at Ganymede’s abduction

Vergilius Maro, Aeneid 1.32

et rapti Ganymedis honores.

grace bestow’d on ravish’d Ganymed

The only reference of anything that would imply sexual relations from what I’ve been able to find comes from Atheneus, who while originally mentions that the Cretans believe that it was Minos that “άρπασαι” (carried off) Ganymedes and that the Chalcidians claim that it was Zeus that “αρπάσθηναι” (carried off) Ganymedes from their own lands… He then informs that Sophocles in his lost text titled “Colchian women” claims that Zeus was set “aflame by his thighs”..

One can’t but notice that although the texts make no reference to rape and while we have only one early Christian account of something that would imply a form of sexual relations even if that implies intercrural sex and that coming from a lost text. The so called authorities of ancient Hellenic sexuality have chosen to circulate the rape myth even though there is nothing to support it, not only that but they intentionally overlook the text of Xenophon which gives us a totally different insight on the issue.

Xenophon Symposium 8.30


[30] καὶ ἐγὼ δέ φημι καὶ Γανυμήδην οὐ σώματος ἀλλὰ ψυχῆς ἕνεκα ὑπὸ Διὸς εἰς Ὄλυμπον ἀνενεχθῆναι. μαρτυρεῖ δὲ καὶ τοὔνομα αὐτοῦ: ἔστι μὲν γὰρ δήπου καὶ Ὁμήρῳ“γάνυται δέ τ᾽ ἀκούων.
”Hom.τοῦτο δὲ φράζει ὅτι ἥδεται δέ τ᾽ ἀκούων. ἔστι δὲ καὶ ἄλλοθί που“πυκινὰ φρεσὶ μήδεα εἰδώς.
”Hom.τοῦτο δ᾽ αὖ λέγει σοφὰ φρεσὶ βουλεύματα εἰδώς. ἐξ οὖν συναμφοτέρων τούτων οὐχ ἡδυσώματος ὀνομασθεὶς ὁ Γανυμήδης ἀλλ᾽ ἡδυγνώμων ἐν θεοῖς τετίμηται.

And I aver that even in the case of Ganymede, it was not his person but his spiritual character that influenced Zeus to carry him up to Olympus.
This is confirmed by his very name.
Homer, you remember, has the words,“He joys to hear;”

Perhaps Homeric Poems that is to say, ‘he rejoices to hear;’
and in another place,‘harbouring shrewd devices in his heart.’

This, again, means ‘harbouring wise counsels in his heart.’ So the name given Gany-mede, compounded of the two foregoing elements, signifies not physically but mentally attractive; hence his honour among the gods.


There’s a huge misconception that has been promoted for obvious reasons about what “pederasty” actually was .

The very first written account of possible sexual relations (since only much later texts refer to it as such) between a man and a youth comes from Thebes and the myth of Laius, a Laius known mostly due to the accounts and plays related to his son Oedipus.

Laios while being the guest of Pelops fell ‘in love’ with his son Chrysippus and abducted him, for this, Pelops cursed him to be killed by his own son.

As the story goes… Oidipus killed Laius and then married his mother (without knowing it) she kills herself and he blinds himself, never to be heard of again.

The 4 children born by this unwanted marriage are also doomed, the brothers Eteocles and Polynices fall in battle killed by eachother’s hand. Antigone is sentenced to death and Ismene asks for the same fate as her sister.

Αίδως (Aidos) being provoked by the κίναιδος (see “defining homosexual”) grandafather, puts Nemesis into action and we find that due to his actions not only he, but his whole family line was wiped out.. Justice is served for what their perversed grandfather (Laios) had done ..

Now the first written account related to homosexual relations is highly interesting and comes from Herodotus. The interesting thing about this account is that he does NOT use the misinterpreted terms ‘εραστής-ερώμενος’ but when accusing the Hellenes of allegedly teaching ‘pederasty’ (as defined in all translations) to the Persians, he describes the activity as :

Herodotus 1.135 :
ἀπ᾽ Ἑλλήνων μαθόντες παισὶ μίσγονται

“παισὶ μίσγονται” is exactly the same terminology Plutarch used when critisizing Herodotus for this among other claims:

“On the Malice of Herodotus” 857.C.2:

Πέρσες μέν φυση παισί μίσγεσθαι παρ’ Έλλήνων μαθόντας

So what does this “παισὶ μίσγονται” finally mean?
παισὶ = child
μίσγονται = mingle with, have intercourse with.

So why use two words to describe the same activity that one word allegedly represents ?

Probably because the following quotes indicate that the ‘εραστής-ερώμενος’ relationship was something else, something that could be desribed as a tuto-student relationship.

Plato, Euthydemus 282b
“there is no disgrace, Cleinias, or reprobation in making this a reason for serving and being a slave to either one’s lover or any man, and being ready to perform any service that is honorable in one’s eagerness to become wise.”

Plato’s Symposium,184b

“it is our rule that, just as in the case of the lovers it was counted no flattery or scandal for them to be willingly and utterly enslaved to their favorites, so there is left one sort of voluntary thraldom which is not scandalous; I mean, in the cause of virtue.
It is our settled tradition that when a man freely devotes his service to another in the belief that his friend will make him better in point of wisdom, it may be, or in any of the other parts of virtue, this willing bondage also is no sort of baseness or flattery. Let us compare the two rules”

Xenophon Symposium 8.8
[8]“Now, I have always felt an admiration for your character, but at the present time I feel a much keener one, for I see that you are in love with a person who is not marked by dainty elegance nor wanton effeminacy, but shows to the world physical strength and stamina, virile courage and sobriety. Setting one’s heart on such traits gives an insight into the lover’s character.”

Xenophon Symposium
[26] Furthermore, the favourite who realizes that he who lavishes physical charms will be the lover’s sovereign will in all likelihood be loose in his general conduct; but the one who feels that he cannot keep his lover faithful without nobility of character will more probably give heed to virtue. [27] But the greatest blessing that befalls the man who yearns to render his favourite a good friend is the necessity of himself making virtue his habitual practice. For one cannot produce goodness in his companion while his own conduct is evil, nor can he himself exhibit shamelessness and incontinence and at the same time render his beloved self-controlled and reverent”

Plato’s Republic 403b
“may not come nigh, nor may lover and beloved who rightly love and are loved have anything to do with it?” “No, by heaven, Socrates,” he said, “it must not come nigh them.” “Thus, then, as it seems, you will lay down the law in the city that we are founding, that the lover may kiss and pass the time with and touch the beloved as a father would a son, for honorable ends, if he persuade him.”

As anyone can see, every single one of these quotes related to the ‘εραστής-ερώμενος’ relationship, give a meaning of obtaining knowledge and virtue, none of them refer to anything sexual .

Another text in which the misunderstood term ‘ἐραστής’ is used is that of Thucydides. Where in 2.43 while presenting us with Perikles’ speech we read:


ἀτολμοτέραν δὲ μηδὲν ἀξιοῦν τὴν ἐς τοὺς πολεμίους διάνοιαν ἔχειν, σκοποῦντας μὴ λόγῳ μόνῳ τὴν ὠφελίαν, ἣν ἄν τις πρὸς οὐδὲν χεῖρον αὐτοὺς ὑμᾶς εἰδότας μηκύνοι, λέγων ὅσα ἐν τῷ τοὺς πολεμίους ἀμύνεσθαι ἀγαθὰ ἔνεστιν, ἀλλὰ μᾶλλον τὴν τῆς πόλεως δύναμιν καθ᾽ ἡμέραν ἔργῳ θεωμένους καὶ ἐραστὰς γιγνομένους αὐτῆς, καὶ ὅταν ὑμῖν μεγάλη δόξῃ εἶναι,ἐνθυμουμένους ὅτι τολμῶντες καὶ γιγνώσκοντες τὰ δέοντα καὶ ἐν τοῖς ἔργοις αἰσχυνόμενοι ἄνδρες αὐτὰ ἐκτήσαντο, καὶ ὁπότε καὶ πείρᾳ του σφαλεῖεν, οὐκ οὖν καὶ τὴν πόλιν γε τῆς σφετέρας ἀρετῆς ἀξιοῦντες στερίσκειν, κάλλιστον δὲ ἔρανον αὐτῇ προϊέμενοι.


but you ought not to be less venturously minded against the enemy; not weighing the profit by an oration only, which any man amplifying, may recount, to you that know as well as he, the many commodities that arise by fighting valiantly against your enemies; but contemplating the power of the city in the actions of the same from day to day performed1, and thereby becoming enamoured of it. And when this power of the city shall seem great to you, consider then, that the same was purchased by valiant men, and by men that knew their duty, and by men that were sensible of dishonour when they were in fight; and by such men, as though they failed of their attempt, yet would not be wanting to the city with their virtue, but made unto it a most honourable contribution.

The metaphor is obvious, as the ‘εραστής’ seeks nothing more than his ‘ερώμενος’ virtue, his charater, his spiritual elevation, that will allow him to accomplish truelly greaty feats. In order to accomplish this, not even his life is a great enough price to pay, especially since the ‘ερώμενος’ in our case, is the city of Athens itself.

Alexander the Gay ??

Was Alexander homo- or bi-sexual ???

All progressive so-called scholars will rush to state “his sexual prefference is of no interest to us”
Interestingly enough they conveniently went around this very statement to support a movie that presented the very notion that is allegedly of “no interest to us” …
Even National Geographic got into the game and conveniently published the Hellenic issue that was related to Alexander and made clear reference to his unproven sexual preference the same time that the reactions for the movie began….

Hypocricy !!!!

Today that we see everyone making claims on Hellenic history, after the Egyptians conveniently claiming that he is the son of Nectanabo, the Jews claiming that the Bible had foreseen his arrival and manipulating facts to present him kneeling before the priests of Solomon’s temple, the Romans making claims of being his inheritors, our beloved Northern neighbors claiming him to be a Slav… well claims from the homosexual community are of no real suprise… (especially after reading the “Gay Manifesto” [see Uncategorized])

But was he really homosexual ???

No true scholar of either ancient nor modern times has provided any ounce of proof for this alleged prefernce. Among hundreds of quotes that could be presented, one of the most interesting comes from Athenaeus of Naucratis and his “The Deipnosophists” (X.45). There we we learn that :

“And Hieronymus. in his “Letters”, says, that Theophrastus says, that Alexander was not open to ‘bodily pleasures’; and accordingly, when Olympian had given him Callixene, a Thessaian courtesan, for a mistress, who was a most beautiful woman, and all this was done with the consent of Philip, {for they were afraid that he would become effeminate } ( ευλαβουντο γαρ μη γυννις ειη) she was constantly obliged to ask him herself to do his duty by her.”

This part of the text clearly indicates several interesting aspects of Alexander’s early life and the public opinion towards homosexuality..
We find his mother and father feared that his continence towards ‘bodily pleasures’ are an indication of an effeminate future.

This quote actually indicates the true norm, which is that homosexuality was viewed upon as a plague that should be treated with, and actually destroys all claims of Phillip’s alleged acceptance (or participation) towards homosexual relations.. It is actually simple logic to note that the ‘preference’ in question was never accepted as the very reference to fear makes this quite clear to us..

But he always continient ???
lets take a look at Alexander’s character as depicted in the texts of Plutarch.

Life of Alexander 21.4 :

“But Alexander, esteeming it more kingly to govern himself than to conquer his enemies, sought no intimacy with any one of them, nor indeed with any other women before marriage”

Life of Alexander 21.5

“But as for the other captive women, seeing that they were surpassingly stately and beautiful, he merely said jestingly that Persian women were torments to the eyes.1 And displaying in rivalry with their fair looks the beauty of his own sobriety and self-control, he passed them by as though they were lifeless statues for display.”

On the Fortune or the Virtue of Alexander 9

“Thus, in the first place, the very scope and aim of Alexander’s expedition speaks him a philosopher, as one that sought not to gain for himself luxurious splendor or riches, but to establish concord, peace, and mutual community among all men.”

On the Fortune or the Virtue of Alexander 11

“Therefore we may behold in Alexander a warlike humanity, a meek fortitude, a liberality poised with good husbandry, anger easily appeased, chaste amours, a busy relaxation of mind, and labor not wanting recreation.”

On the Fortune or the Virtue of Alexander 11

“I know not how to give a greater applause to the actions of Alexander, than by adding the word “philosophically,” for in that word all other things are included. Being ravished with the beauty of Roxana, the daughter of Oxyarthes, dancing among the captive ladies, he never assailed her with injurious lust, but married her philosophically.”

On the Fortune or the Virtue of Alexander II. 2

“I could have wished, said Alexander, rather to have lost a part of my kingdom than to have seen Thessalus vanquished. Yet he neither interceded with the judges nor anywhere disapproved or blamed the judgment; believing it became him to be superior to all others, only to submit to justice.”

We literally could go on and on, presenting quotes that refer to Alexander’s high moral standards..
We must however note that it is at least unfair that this man, a man that was so abstemious, would see his name slandered by a handfull of ignorant self-proclaimed historians that choose some 2000 years after his death, to promote a specific agenda on his shoulders, ..

Some have tried to suggest that the recorded fact of Philoxenus wrtting to Alexander about a young boy is an indication of his sexual preference.
Conveniently all these ‘scholars’ choose to ignore the fact that, while the proposition of the governor that attempted to gain Alexander’s favor by sending the usual gifts he would send to the Persian King is well recorded, but on the other hand, so is the responce Alexander gave in return well recorded..
How could anyone speak of acceptance to such relations when we know that he was literally in outrage asking his men if he had ever done anything so shamefull to justify Philoxenus’ disgracefull proposition and responded by giving him the title of “vilest of men” (Plutarch’s Alexander 22.1) ??

The very record of his responce should have been more than enough to discharge any such thought.. But in this day and age, it seems that clear records of his denouncing the very though of such a relation are not enough to stop the promotion of the specific agenda..

Another little incident that has conveniently used by these ‘progressivists’ to promote the specific agenda, is that of Bagoas. In order to understand this, we’ll compare the conveniently used version as presented by Athenaeus of Naucratis and his “The Deipnosophists” and that presented in Plutarch’s Lives Alexander..

Athenaeus of Naucratis and his “The Deipnosophists” XIII 80

“Alexander the King was also very much in the habbit of giving in to this fashion. Accordingly, Dicarchus, in his treatise on the Sacrifice at Troy, says that lie was so much under the influence of Bagoas the eunuch, that he kissed him in the sight of tho whole theatre; and that when the whole theatre shouted in approval of the action, he repeated it”

Plutarch’s Life of Alexander 67.4

“We are told, too, that he was once viewing some contests in singing and dancing, being well heated with wine, and that his favourite, Bagoas, won the prize for song and dance, and then, all in his festal array, passed through the theatre and took his seat by Alexander’s side; at sight of which the Macedonians clapped their hands and loudly bade the king kiss the victor, until at last he threw his arms about him and kissed him tenderly.”

This is the event that according to these ‘scholars’ proves that Alexander was homosexual.
Of course the quote, indicates nothing remotely close, but rather indicates that after the crowd’s demand, the King rewarded Bagoas with a kiss.

But is the whole kiss (on the cheek) actually so significant or have these specific scholars driven by their agenda overlooked specific facts ??

Is it possible that they ignore the Kallisthenes event and the famous quote “ I am going away only with the loss of a kiss.” ??

While totally foreign to Hellenic customs, Alexander having encompassed in his troops a large number of foreigners, accepted their custom of ‘proskynesis’.. A custom that of course was never enforced on the Hellenes but rather adopted by a partion that saw it as a ideal chance of getting in good graces with Alexander..Of course Kallisthenes as a student of Aristotle would never accept degrading himself by accepting this barbaric custom…
So as Arrian describes

Arrian Anabasis book 4 chap 12 :

“Alexander drank from a golden goblet the health of the circle of guests, and handed it first to those with whom he had concerted the ceremony of prostration. The first who drank from the goblet rose up and performed the act of prostration, and received a kiss from him. This ceremony proceeded from one to another in due order. But when the pledging of health came to the turn of Callisthenes, he rose up and drank from the goblet, and drew near, wishing to kiss the king without performing the act of prostration. Alexander happened then to be conversing with Hephaestion, and consequently did not observe whether Callisthenes performed the ceremony completely or not. But when Callisthenes was approaching to kiss him, Demetrius, son of Pythonax, one of the Companions, said that he was doing so without having prostrated himself. So the king would not permit him to kiss him”

Is the prostation some form of proof that Alexander was probably some kind of raging homosexual that had intercourse with every single member of his court or does this simply indicate the adoption of a foreign custom that some have strongly critisized ??

Obviously the second..

What is highly interesting when readnig these texts is a difference that may not be so appearant in the translated text.
Athenaeus clearly mentions this event and refers to a eunuch Bagoas, while Plutarch that gives a far better description of the event, makes no reference to eunuch but to a favorite..

From what we know, the ‘titles’ of ‘eunuch’ and ‘eromenos’ do not consort together, due to the second’s pedagogic character. But even if we were to accept this ‘title’. Should we actually believe that Alexander,who’s continiency we noted above would chose to ‘take in’ Darius’ personal ‘eunuch’ and present him in public when he wouldn’t even think of having any sort of relations with Roxanne prior to their marriage ??

This is the very same man, that reacted in total outrage and continuously asked those around him if he had ever done anything so shamefull to accept the disgracefull proposition by Philoxenus..
So what could have changed now, is there possibly something we’re missing here ??

Its obvious that everyone eventually gets the reputation that he deserves.. While Atheneus may be quite pleasant to read and has recorded several recepies and everyday habbits, under no condition can he be titled a historian nor a biographer of Alexander, for throughout his entire work, his very names is mentioned some 10 times all in all. Plutarch on the other hand, is considered one of the three authorities (he, Diodorus and Arrian) on Alexander’s life and for a just reason..
While Atheneus passes through the event in only 3 lines, Plutarch gives us a fully detailed representation and thanks to him we know that there were actually 2 individuals named Bagoas.

Plutarch clearly makes reference to 2 Bagoas :

Plutarch Life of Alexander 39:

“To Parmenio, moreover, Alexander gave the house of Bagoas at Susa, in which it is said there was found apparel worth a thousand talents.”

Plutarch “On the Fortune or the Virtue of Alexander” B’ 5:

“The eunuch Bagoas took up the kingship of Persia and bestowed it upon Oarses and Darius.”

So does Arrian make clear reference B’ 5:

“My father was killed by conspirators whom you instigated5 as you have yourself boasted to all in your letters; and after slaying Arses, as well as Bagoas, and unjustly seizing the throne contrary to the law of the Persians, and ruling your subjects unjustly, you sent unfriendly letters about me to the Greeks, urging them to wage war with me.”

But so does Diodorus in both books 16 and 17. Here we learn that Bagoas was an Egyptian chiliarch and that thank to him was the Egyptian revolt supressed. Artaxerxes takes him into his court and makes a eunuch out of him..
To cut a long story short, he is eventually poisonned by Darius and died..

These events took place well before Alexander’s campaigne had ever begun. So it is more than obvious that Atheneus, who as we said is neither a historian nor his biographer is simply mistaken and that there was no eunuch named Bagoas in the theater..

Is it really possible that these scholars that strive to prove he was either homo- or bisexual have simply missed these facts ???

To my disappointment I’ll have to say deffinitely not


Here we will post a list of laws against homosexual and pederastic relations as recorded in the text of Aeschines known as Against Timarchus.

But first lets add a little bit of info. We’re in the middle of the 4th cent. BC during which the 2nd Athenean Alliance is in a great crisis due to the continuous growing power of Philip. The Atheneans, are separated into two major groups, one lead by Demosthenes and Hyperides which considers Philip nothing more than a tyrranic conqueror which will enslave and alienate the Atheneans and the rest of the Hellenes from their democratic norms and a secondlead by Isocrates, Phokion and Aeschines which see him as the great hope to finally unite the Hellenes under one leader and destroy the Barbarian threat (see Persian empire). Under the circumstances one can understand that backstabing, accusations of treason, bribery..etc were common.

In an attempt to present the agreement made by the Athenean ambassadors and Philip as void (since it desolved 2nd Athenean Alliance), Demosthenes’ “group” accused Aeschines of taking bribes from Philip. Aeschines’ prosecutor is Timarchus, a member of Demosthenes “group”. Aeschines, instead of trying to refute the accusations against him, takes a totally different turn and tries to totally avoid the trial by making reference to laws that existed since the time of Solon (7th cent. BC) and by doing so, literally deprived Timarchus of all his political rights.


Aeschines, Against Timarchus 12

Hellenic Original

[Οἱ δὲ τῶν παίδων διδάσκαλοι ἀνοιγέτωσαν μὲν τὰ διδασκαλεῖα μὴ πρότερον ἡλίου ἀνιόντος, κλειέτωσαν δὲ πρὸ ἡλίου δύνοντος. καὶ μὴ ἐξέστω τοῖς ὑπὲρ τὴν τῶν παίδων ἡλικίαν οὖσιν εἰσιέναι τῶν παίδων ἔνδον ὄντων, ἐὰν μὴ υἱὸς διδασκάλου ἢ ἀδελφὸς ἢ θυγατρὸς ἀνήρ: ἐὰν δέ τις παρὰ ταῦτ᾽ εἰσίῃ, θανάτῳ ζημιούσθω. καὶ οἱ γυμνασιάρχαι τοῖς Ἑρμαίοις μὴ εἄτωσαν συγκαθιέναι μηδένα τῶν ἐν ἡλικίᾳ τρόπῳ μηδενί: ἐὰν δὲ ἐπιτρέπῃ καὶ μὴ ἐξείργῃ τοῦ γυμνασίου, ἔνοχος ἔστω ὁ γυμνασιάρχης τῷ τῆς ἐλευθέρων φθορᾶς νόμῳ. οἱ δὲ χορηγοὶ οἱ καθιστάμενοι ὑπὸ τοῦ δήμου ἔστωσαν τὴν ἡλικίαν ὑπὲρ τετταράκοντα ἔτη


The teachers of the boys shall open the school-rooms not earlier than sunrise, and they shall close them before sunset. No person who is older than the boys shall be permitted to enter the room while they are there, unless he be a son of the teacher, a brother, or a daughter’s husband. If any one enter in violation of this prohibition, he shall be punished with death. The superintendents of the gymnasia shall under no conditions allow any one who has reached the age of manhood to enter the contests of Hermes together with the boys. A gymnasiarch who does permit this and fails to keep such a person out of the gymnasium, shall be liable to the penalties prescribed for the seduction of free-born youth. Every choregus who is appointed by the people shall be more than forty years of age

Aeschines, Against Timarchus 13

Hellenic Original

ἐάν τινα ἐκμισθώσῃ ἑταιρεῖν πατὴρ ἢ ἀδελφὸς ἢ θεῖος ἢ ἐπίτροπος ἢ ὅλως τῶν κυρίων τις, κατ᾽ αὐτοῦ μὲν τοῦ παιδὸς οὐκ ἐᾷ γραφὴν εἶναι, κατὰ δὲ τοῦ μισθώσαντος καὶ τοῦ μισθωσαμένου, τοῦ μὲν ὅτι ἐξεμίσθωσε, τοῦ δὲ ὅτι, φησίν, ἐμισθώσατο


if any boy is let out for hire as a prostitute, whether it be by father or brother or uncle or guardian, or by any one else who has control of him, prosecution is not to he against the boy himself, but against the man who let him out for hire and the man who hired him

Aeschines, Against Timarchus 16

Hellenic Original

[Ἄν τις Ἀθηναίων έλεύθερον παῖδα ὑβρίσῃ, γραφέσθω ὁ κύριος τοῦ παιδὸς πρὸς τοὺς θεσμοθέτας, τίμημα ἐπιγραψάμενος. οὗ δ᾽ ἂν τὸ δικαστήριον καταψηφίσηται, παραδοθεὶς τοῖς ἕνδεκα τεθνάτω αὐθημερόν. ἐὰν δὲ εἰς ἀργύριον καταψηφισθῇ, ἀποτεισάτω ἐν ἕνδεκα ἡμέραις μετὰ τὴν δίκην, ἐὰν μὴ παραχρῆμα δύνηται ἀποτίνειν: ἕως δὲ τοῦ ἀποτεῖσαι εἱρχθήτω. ἔνοχοι δὲ ἔστασαν ταῖσδε ταῖς αἰτίαις καὶ οἱ εἰς τὰ οἰκετικὰ σώματα ἐξαμαρτάνοντες.]


If any Athenian shall outrage a free-born child, the parent or guardian of the child shall demand a specific penalty. If the court condemn the accused to death, he shall be delivered to the constables and be put to death the same day. If he be condemned to pay a fine, and be unable to pay the fine immediately, he must pay within eleven days after the trial, and he shall remain in prison until payment is made. The same action shall hold against those who abuse the persons of slaves.

Aeschines, Against Timarchus 17

Hellenic Original

ἴσως ἂν οὖν τις θαυμάσειεν ἐξαίφνης ἀκούσας, τί δή ποτ᾽ ἐν τῷ νόμῳ τῷ τῆς ὕβρεως προσεγράφη τοῦτο τὸ ῥῆμα, τὸ τῶν δούλων. τοῦτο δὲ ἐὰν σκοπῆτε, ὦ ἄνδρες Ἀθηναῖοι, εὑρήσετε ὅτι πάντων ἄριστα ἔχει: οὐ γὰρ ὑπὲρ τῶν οἰκετῶν ἐσπούδασεν ὁ νομοθέτης, ἀλλὰ βουλόμενος ὑμᾶς ἐθίσαι πολὺ ἀπέχειν τῆς τῶν ἐλευθέρων ὕβρεως, προσέγραψε μηδ᾽ εἰς τοὺς δούλους ὑβρίζειν. ὅλως δὲ ἐν δημοκρατίᾳ τὸν εἰς ὁντινοῦν ὑβριστήν, τοῦτον οὐκ ἐπιτήδειον ἡγήσατο εἶναι συμπολιτεύεσθαι.


Now perhaps some one, on first hearing this law, may wonder for what possible reason this word “slaves” was added in the law against outrage. But if you reflect on the matter, fellow citizens, you will find this to be the best provision of all. For it was not for the slaves that the lawgiver was concerned, but he wished to accustom you to keep a long distance away from the crime of outraging free men, and so he added the prohibition against the outraging even of slaves. In a word, he was convinced that in a democracy that man is unfit for citizenship who outrages any person whatsoever.

Aeschines, Against Timarchus 21

Hellenic Original

Ἐάν τις Ἀθηναῖος ἑταιρήσῃ, μὴ ἐξέστω αὐτῷ τῶν ἐννέα ἀρχόντων γενέσθαι, μηδ᾽ ἱερωσύνην ἱερώσασθαι, μηδὲ συνδικῆσαι τῷ δήμῳ, μηδὲ ἀρχὴν ἀρχέτω μηδεμίαν, μήτε ἔνδημον μήτε ὑπερόριον, μήτε κληρωτὴν μήτε χειροτονητήν, μηδ᾽ ἐπὶ κηρυκείαν ἀποστελλέσθω, μηδὲ γνώμην λεγέτω, μηδ᾽ εἰς τὰ δημοτελῆ ἱερὰ εἰσίτω, μηδ᾽ ἐν ταῖς κοιναῖς στεφανηφορίαις στεφανούσθω, μηδ᾽ ἐντὸς τῆς ἀγορᾶς τῶν περιρραντηρίων πορευέσθω. ἐὰν δέ τις παρὰ1 ταῦτα ποιῇ, καταγνωσθέντος αὐτοῦ ἑταιρεῖν, θανάτῳ ζημιούσθω


If any Athenian shall have prostituted his person, he shall not be permitted to become one of the nine archons, nor to discharge the office of priest, nor to act as an advocate for the state, nor shall he hold any office whatsoever, at home or abroad, whether filled by lot or by election; he shall not be sent as a herald; he shall not take part in debate, nor be present at public sacrifices; when the citizens are wearing garlands, he shall wear none; and he shall not enter within the limits of the place that has been purified for the assembling of the people. If any man who has been convicted of prostitution act contrary to these prohibitions, he shall be put to death.

Here we must note a mistake in the translation.
While the translation speaks of “prostituting his person” the original makes no reference what so ever to “prostitution” but clearly states ἑταιρήσῃ .
According to the comprehensive “Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon” ἑταιρήσῃ = unchastity.

The difference is indicated further in the text:

Aeschines, Against Timarchus 29

Hellenic Original

φησί, “μὴ ἐστρατευμένος, ὅσαι ἂν αὐτῷ προσταχθῶσιν, ἢ τὴν ἀσπίδα ἀποβεβληκώς,” δίκαια λέγων. τί δή ποτε; ἄνθρωπε, τῇ πόλει, ὑπὲρ ἧς τὰ ὅπλα μὴ τίθεσαι ἢ διὰ δειλίαν μὴ δυνατὸς εἶ ἐπαμῦναι, μηδὲ συμβουλεύειν βουλεύειν ἀξίου. τρίτον τίσι διαλέγεται; “ἢ πεπορνευμένος,”φησίν, “ἢ ἡταιρηκώς:” τὸν γὰρ τὸ σῶμα τὸ ἑαυτοῦ ἐφ᾽ ὕβρει πεπρακότα, καὶ τὰ κοινὰ τῆς πόλεως ῥᾳδίως ἡγήσατο ἀποδώσεσθαι. τέταρτον τίσι διαλέγεται


“Or the man who has failed to perform all the military service demanded of him, or who has thrown away his shield.” And he is right. Why? Man, if you fail to take up arms in behalf of the state, or if you are such a coward that you are unable to defend her, you must not claim the right to advise her, either. Whom does he specify in the third place? “Or the man,” he says, “who has debauched or prostituted himself.” For the man who has made traffic of the shame of his own body, he thought would be ready to sell the common interests of the city also. But whom does he specify in the fourth place?

The use of both terms πεπορνευμένος (according to Liddle & Scott “to prostitue” and ἡταιρηκώς ( according to Liddle & Scott = to keep company) clearly indicates that the laws did NOT apply ONLY to those that had prostituted themselves, but also to those that had formed homosexual relations.

Aeschines, Against Timarchus 46

Hellenic Original

ἐὰν μὲν οὖν ἐθελήσῃ ὁ Μισγόλας δεῦρο παρελθὼν τἀληθῆ μαρτυρεῖν, τὰ δίκαια ποιήσει: ἐὰν δὲ προαιρῆται ἐκκλητευθῆναι μᾶλλον ἢ τἀληθῆ μαρτυρεῖν, ὑμεῖς τὸ ὅλον πρᾶγμα συνίδετε. εἰ γὰρ ὁ μὲν πράξας αἰσχυνεῖται καὶ προαιρήσεται χιλίας μᾶλλον δραχμὰς ἀποτεῖσαι τῷ δημοσίῳ, ὥστε μὴ δεῖξαι τὸ πρόσωπον τὸ ἑαυτοῦ ὑμῖν, ὁ δὲ πεπονθὼς δημηγορήσει, σοφὸς ὁ νομοθέτης ὁ τοὺς οὕτω βδελυροὺς ἐξείργων ἀπὸ τοῦ βήματος.


If therefore Misgolas is willing to come forward here and testify to the truth, he will be doing what is right; but if he prefers to refuse the summons rather than testify to the truth, the whole business will be made clear to you. For if the man who did the thing is going to be ashamed of it and choose to pay a thousand drachmas into the treasury rather than show his face before you, while the man to whom it has been done is to be a speaker in your assembly, then wise indeed was the lawgiver who excluded such disgusting creatures from the platform.

We move on to Misgolas, Timarchus’ ‘lover’s’ testimony, (who makes no reference to payment) the accounts of others and the conclusion that he not only had homosexual relations but also prosituted himself.

Aeschines, Against Timarchus 52

Hellenic Original

ἐὰν δ᾽ ὑμᾶς ἀναμνήσας ἐπιδείξω, ὑπερβαίνων τούσδε τοὺς ἀγρίους, Κηδωνίδην καὶ Αὐτοκλείδην καὶ Θέρσανδρον, αὐτοὺς δὲ λέγων ὧν ἐν ταῖς οἰκίαις ἀνειλημμένος γέγονε, μὴ μόνον παρὰ τῷ Μισγόλᾳ μεμισθαρνηκότα αὐτὸν ἐπὶ τῷ σώματι, ἀλλὰ καὶ παρ᾽ ἑτέρῳ καὶ πάλιν παρ᾽ ἄλλῷ, καὶ παρὰ τούτου ὡς ἕτερον ἐληλυθότα, οὐκέτι δήπου φανεῖται μόνον ἡταιρηκώς, ἀλλὰ (μὰ τὸν Διόνυσον οὐκ οἶδ᾽ ὅπως δυνήσομαι περιπλέκειν ὅλην τὴν ἡμέραν) καὶ πεπορνευμένος: ὁ γὰρ εἰκῇ τοῦτο καὶ πρὸς πολλοὺς πράττων καὶ μισθοῦ, αὐτῷ μοι δοκεῖ τούτῳ ἔνοχος εἶναι.


But if, saying nothing about these bestial fellows, Cedonides, Autocleides, and Thersandrus, and simply telling the names of those in whose houses he has been an inmate, I refresh your memories and show that he is guilty of selling his person not only in Misgolas’ house, but in the house of another man also, and again of another, and that from this last he went to still another, surely you will no longer look upon him as one who has merely been a kept man, but—by Dionysus, I don’t know how I can keep glossing the thing over all day long—as a common prostitute. For the man who follows these practices recklessly and with many men and for pay seems to me to be chargeable with precisely this.

While the translation “kept man” may be misleading, the definition provided by the Liddle and Scott provides little doubt to what is actually written.

Finally a quote that actually depicts what they believed about such relations:

Aeschines, Against Timarchus 185

Hellenic Original

ἔπειθ᾽ οἱ μὲν πατέρες ὑμῶν οὕτω περὶ τῶν αἰσχρῶν καὶ καλῶν διεγίγνωσκον, ὑμεῖς δὲ Τίμαρχον τὸν τοῖς αἰσχίστοις ἐπιτηδεύμασιν ἔνοχον ἀφήσετε; τὸν ἄνδρα μὲν καὶ ἄρρενα τὸ σῶμα, γυναικεῖα δὲ ἁμαρτήματα ἡμαρτηκότα; τίς οὖν ὑμῶν γυναῖκα λαβὼν ἀδικοῦσαν τιμωρήσεται; ἢ τίς οὐκ ἀπαίδευτος εἶναι δόξει τῇ μὲν κατὰ φύσιν ἁμαρτανούσῃ χαλεπαίνων, τῷ δὲ παρὰ φύσιν ἑαυτὸν ὑβρίσαντι συμβούλῳ χρώμενος;


Such, then, was the judgment of your fathers concerning things shameful and things honorable; and shall their sons let Timarchus go free, a man chargeable with the most shameful practices, a creature with the body of a man defiled with the sins of a woman? In that case, who of you will punish a woman if he finds her in wrong doing? Or what man will not be regarded as lacking intelligence who is angry with her who errs by an impulse of nature, while he treats as adviser the man who in despite of nature has sinned against his own body?

The phrase παρὰ φύσιν ἑαυτὸν ὑβρίσαντι (to wax wanton himself against nature) actually says it all.