I IP HIS I: Ii Barbara Feichtingen Gottfried Kreuz (Hg.) I , Beitrage zur altertumswissenschaftlichen Genderforschung Herausgegeben von Barbara Feichtinger und Georg Wohrle Gender Studies in den* 1 I Band4 Altertumswisse.nscha(ten: , I Aspekte von Macht und Erotik in der' Antike I : I l~I Wissenschaf~licher Verl~g Trier Feichtinger, Barbara; Kreuz, Gottfried (Hg.): Gender Studies in den Altertumswissenschaften: Aspekte von Macht und Erotik in der Antike I Barbara Feichtinger, Gottfried Kreuz (Hg.). Trier: WVT Wissenschaftlicher Verlag Trier, 2010 (IPHlS. Beitriige zur alte1iumswissenschaftlichen Genderforschung ; Bd. 4) ISBN 978-3-86821-272-3 Umschlaggestaltung: Brigitta-Disseldorf © WVT Wissenschaftlicher Verlag Trier, 2010 ISBN 978-3-86821-272-3 Alie Rechte vorbehalten Nachdruck oder Vervielfaltigung nur mit ausdrilcklicher Genehmigung des V erlags WVT Wissenschaftlicher Verlag Trier Postfach 4005, 54230 Trier Bergstra/3e 27, 54295 Trier Tel.: (0651) 41503, Fax: 41504 Internet: http://www.wvttrier.de E-Mail: wvt@wvttrier.de Vorwort Den vorliegenden Beitriigen liegen V01irage zugrunde, die anliisslich der 4. Tagung ,,Gender Studies in den Altertumswissenschaften" zum Thema ,,Eros und Aphrodite. Von der Macht der Erotik und der Erotik der Macht" am 12. und 13. Juli 2007 an der Universitiit Konstanz gehalten wurden. Filr das gro/3e Eñagement bei der redaktionellen Bearbeitung des Bandes sei Robin Hoffmann, Maiiin Krause, Philip Polcar und Simone Seibert sehr herzlich gedankt. Konstanz, im Herbst 2010 1;3arbara Feichtinger Gottfried Kreuz i Male Youths as Objects of Desire in Latin Lf terature: * Some Antinomies in the Pri:pic Model of Romr-. Sexuality i . j Jula Wildbetger (Frankfurt) . * This paper is intended as a contribution to a better understanding of masculinity within in the matrix of sexual relations described in 'Latin literary texts from the l st centmy BCE to the beginning of the 2nd centmy CE. 1 The methodological lever to be applied consists in focusing on men in the making, the young Roman male as an object of sexual' desire of both men and women. My aim is to point out an antinomy inherent in the so-called ,,Priapic model" of Roman sexuality, to show a dilemma that arises from this antinomy for male sexual agents and to discuss strategies used to evade if. The Priapic model is a conceptual grid that allows us to understan 1d Roman sexuality as stmctured by two parallel binaty oppositions.penetrator/pejetrated and dominator/dominated which combine a phy~iological description of t~e sexual act with a discourse on hierarchy and power. The term ,,Priapic model" wã first proposed by Amy Richlin, and the idea has been ext~nsively developed by Cr11ig Williams in his encyclopaedic study of Roman sexuality.2 I am drawing h~avily od this work, and although my paper is a critical engagement, with views proposed in it~ I am writing with deep respect for the achievements witho\.it which the further refl1ctions propounded here would never have been possible. Mf aim is not to deconstrur,t the antitheses of the Priapic model or to question its uniyersal validity, e.g. by snlitting it into sub-, , I models of several different masculinities or suggesting interferet1¢es with other discourses at the same or a higher level. On the contra1'y, I wish to discuss the Priapic model as a basic conceptual unit that reaches across the boundaries, e.g., of class or 2 These chronological limits have been chosen for literary rather than historical reasons. The study reaches out to Juvenal, and Juvenal must be studied together with Martial, whom he seems to imitate; Martial in turn refers back to Catullus. Certain changes of dress and hair style can be studied on male portraits (Petra Cain. Miinnerbildnisse neronisch-flavischer Zeil. Munich 1993) and are discussed in contemporary texts (e.g. Quint. Inst. 11.3.137-8; 12.10.47). It is not unlikely that such changes in appearance entailed corresponding changes in sexual befiaviour and attitudes. Neve1theless, the Priapic model discussed in this paper seems to be applicable* tl1roughout this period .. Amy Richlin. The Garden of Priapus: Se!wqlity and Aggression in Romc(njHumor. 2nd ed. New York, 1992 (!st ed. 1983); Craig A. Williams. Roman Homosexuality: I~e fogies of Masculinity in Classical Antiquity. New York and Oxford, 1999. The Priapic mod9l is to be distinguished from ve1y similar concepts, such as Eckhard, Meier-Zwiffelhofer's ,,Viri!lsf us" (Im Zeichen des Phallus: Die Ordnung des Geschlechtslebeñ im antiken Rom. Frankfurt ~n New York, 1993) in that it posits not a binaiy opposition betwee11 activity and passivity but ~;e we.en penetration. and being penetrated. A critical review of similar interpretations of Greei;: ~exual conceptions is James Davidson. ,,Dover, Foucault and Greek Homosexuality: Penetration *nd the T!*uth of Sex," P&P 170, 3-51. ' i. 228 Jula Wildberger sexual preference and argue that the contradictions and antinomies it entails are inherent and constitutive for this model. In the words of Craig Williams, Roman sexual agents are divided into ,,men, the penetrators" and the opposite group, i.e. ,,everyone else, the penetrated". Like Priapus ,,a Roman man was ideally ready, willing, and able to express his dominion over others, male or female, by means of sexual penetration." ,,Men's sexual partners were [ ... ] liable ipso facto to being disparaged women for being ,naturally' passive and inferior, cinaedi for deliberately seeking to act like women and a single sexual encounter was capable of two inte1twined meanings. With reference to the man on top, it was an act of domination or even aggression in which the masculine penetrative idenrity triumphed, while with reference to the person on bottom, it was forfeiture, an invasion, a loss." 3 In what follows I will first present evidence that the sexual status and roles of young men seem to paradoxically clash with this Priapic model while at the same time presupposing it. In the second pait of the paper I will show that these paradoxes derive from a ,,Priapic dilemma". Finally, I will look at some evidence indicating how older, adult males may have dealt with that dilemma and propose a hypothesis why such strategies are not yet applicable for young men so that, in their case, the inherent an- ~ tinomies of the Priapic model are more apparent and thus more easily observed. 1. Paradoxes of Youth The first paradox of youth to be discussed is the figure of the moechocinaedus (Luci!. 1058 Ma1x). According to the Priapic model the most basic distinction is that between sexual agents who penetrate and all other agents, or rather sexual objects, that are penetrated4• How then is it that adulterers, arguably the most successful penetrators of all, are frequently described as penetrated too, or at least as effeminate, i.e. with attributes that usually characterise the penetrated? The most famous moechocinaedus is probably ,,Catullus" in the Catullan corpus of poems. 5 3 Quoted from Williams (note 227), 7. 18. 182. 4 See Williams (note 227), 7 (quoted above) and also 160. 163 and chapter 5 passim. Both aspects of that persona, the aggressive penetrator and the effeminate cinaedus, have been highlighted and analyzed by William Fitzgerald. Catullan Provocations: Lyric Poetry and the Drama of Position. Berkeley, Los Angeles and London, 1995. Niklas Holzberg. Catull: Der Dichter und sein erotisches Werk. 2nd ed. Munich, 2002 focuses on the cinaedus Catullus, while the aggressive penetrator is studied by David Wray. Catullus and the Poetics of Roman Manhood. Cambridge, 200 I. An interesting parallel from visual culture are the representations :of Priapus in female garb discussed in: Stefanie Oehmke. ,,Halbmann oder Supermann? Bemerkungen zum effeminierten Priapos." Iii: Elke Hartmann, Udo Hmimann and Katrin Pietzner, eds. Geschlechterdefinitionen und Geschlechtergrenzen in der Antike. Stuttgmi, 2007. 263-76. Male Youths as Objects of Desire in Latin Literature 229 I I But ,,Catullus" is not the only such figure attested in Latin literatull~. 6 Williams, who presents a host of sources !on the connection betwejeh. adulte1y and effeminacy, advises us to ,,abandon the attempt to describe Roman co 1tepts of effeminacy in terms of sexual roles."7 Anyone who hcted contrary to any oft~~e traditional codes of behaviour could be stigmatised as not a real man. However, th'is doe~ not yet explain the particular connection between adultery and effeminacy th~t our sources often make. A more specific explanation put forward by Williams and others introduces a further distinctive marker of Roman masculiμity: moderation and self-control. What women, adulterers, cinaedi and other men desiring to be penetrated share, according to this explanation, is strong sexual desire and a corresponding lack of self-control. 8 As in the case oflovers in Latin love elegy9 or Lucretian amor (4.1058-144), this lack of self-control can be a deep emotional attachment. But even where no such emotional bonding occurs, the sources criticise an excessive sex life that leads to over-spending, inefficient management of one's estates and takes time that should ~e used for 'proper' business. 10 Wherever it does not serve prbcreation, sex appears as ~ form of excretion that is to be practised moderately and as ~nobtrnsively as possible. 1 j Plausible as this explanation is, it poses problems for the Priapic model of sexuality, which will be explored in more detail below. It seems to force us to dissociate penetration from sexual desire and pleasure. However, the erection of the male member, tho koy mmka of Priapic manhood m>d i~ in.trumont of oontrol 1d dominanoo, fo at 6 E.g. Plaut. True. 609-11 moechum malacwn,<cincinnatum, I umbraticu/um, (ympanotribam; Luci!. 1058 Marx imberbi androgyni, barbati moec(10cinaedi; Cic. Cat. 2.23 [ ... ) fmnes adulteri, omnes impuri impudicique [ ... ]. hi pueri tam le pi di ac delicati non so/um ama!-e. et amari [ ... ] didicerunt; Curio apud Suet. Jul. 52.3 omnium mulierum ztirum el omnium uii*orum mulierem; Liv. 39.15.9 simillimi feminis mares, stuprati et constupratores; Verg. Aen. 4.215-17; Sen. Contr. 1 pr. 9 expugnatores alienae pudicitiae, neg/egentes suae; Veil. Pat. 2.48.3 (on Curio) suae alienaeque fortunae et pudicitiae prodigus; Mart. 2.47; Iuv. (?) 6, 36521"24 • See also Catharine Edwards. The politics of immorality in ancient Rome. Cambridge, 1993. 70 f. 78 f. and Johanna Fabricius. ,,Grenzziehungen. Zu Strategien somatischer Geschlechtei*diskurse in der griechischen und romischen Kultur." In: Elke Hartmann, Udo Hartmann and Kah*in Pietzner, eds. Gesch/echterdefinitionen und Geschlechtergrenzen in der Antike. Stuttgart, 2007. 65-86. Fabricius explains Luci!. 1058 Marx as an example for a common litermy ,,figure of thought in Roman literature", an ,,oxymoron of two irreconcilable masculinities" which consists in ,,the coupling of exaggerated, aggressive virility with problematic effeminacy" (79, with further references in n. 56), 7 Williams (note 227), 142-53. 206-9. 212-15, quoted: 142. 1 • • ' ' I I I 8 Williams (note 227), 133-5. 138-42. 148-53.1177 f. 212-14; and, e.g., EdW1rds (note 229), 81-84. For a similar view on adulterers in Greek sources see Davidson, 29 f. I 9 Williams (note 227), 144. 154 f. and, e.g., Richard 0. A. M. Lyne. The L1tin Love Poets: From Catullus lo Horaz. Oxford, 1980. ! IO See, e.g., the evidence adduced by Williams (note 227), 38. 41. 43 f. 48 <11lator used as an.i1\sult by Plauh1s and Lucilius). Edwards (note 22~), 92: ,,Real Romans only h11 sex with their wives and even then not too often." I • • 1 11 Lucretius 4.1055. 1063; Hor. Sat. 1.2.116-1~; Williams (note 227), 38 011 oilets and brothels as related features of an urban environment. 230 Jula Wildberger the same time also a sign of sexual arousal or rather its essence if explained in the tetms of ancient physiology as a collection of fluids that cause both the swelling and a desire to ejaculate. 12 Priapic manhood would, it seems, per definitionem include immoderate and ever-present desire. Of course, this incompatibility of Priapic stance and ideal of moderation has been noticed, 13 and Williams himself discusses emotional selfcontrol as a component of Roman masculinity, but explicitly not as pati of the Priapic model. Yet it is doubtful whether such a dissociation can be made of concepts that are as closely connected through the facts of human physiology as these two. A further explanation for the sexual agent type moechocinaedus offered by Williams 14 is based on the practical aspects of adultety: an adulterer has to consoti with women, has to take greater care of his appearance or even to disguise himself as a woman in order to penetrate the female sphere, and such behaviour would have been regarded as effeminate in itself. This leads us to a second, related puzzle. Why should women prefer to be penetrated by men who act and dress up in a feminine way? Why should girlish young boys, who are the penetrated objects of male desire, be sexually attractive for women, and more so than grown-up 'real' men? 15 One obvious explanation might be that the same extraordinary beauty of such youths that attracts men is also the feature that attracts women to them. 16 But if women are sexually attracted by beauty in general and not by features of the male body in particular, e.g. a sign that the man is a good penetrator, why should they not desire sex with exceptionally beautiful women as well? To explain why women want beautiful men and not beautiful women, we would have to assume that this sexually attractive 12 See, e.g., the forth book of Lucretius' De Rerum Natura with the commenta1y by Robe1t D. Brown. Lucretius on Love and Sex: A Commentmy on De Rerum Natura IV, 1030-1287 with Prolegomena, Text, and Translation. Leiden, 1987 and Sabine Vogt. ,,Die ,Widernatiirlichkeit' des Kiniiden: Zur Reflexion iiber sex und gender." In: Therese Fuhrer and Samuel Zinsli, eds. Gender studies in denAltertumswissenschaften: Rollenkonstrukte in antiken Texten. Trier, 2003. 43-56. 13 E.g. by Davidson (note 227), 27. Williams (note 227), 153 sees ,,a certain tension" between Priapic and a more general model of masculinity: the Priapic model implies that ,,the male is by definition lustful," but masculinity in general implies ,,that these masculine impulses" are ,,kept in check". 14 Williams (note 227), 144 f. 15 In Petronius' Satyrica, for example, Trimalchio serves both his master and his mistress, apparently at the age of fomteen (7 5.11; Trimalchio uses the accusative, literally ,,for fomteen years"), and 16-year old (97.2), effeminate (81.5) Giton is not only a central object of male desire in the novel but also the lover ofTtyphaena (104 ff.). In Sen. Contr. 2.1.34-5 a slave boy, characterised as speciosus iuuenis (34), who was seen in the bedroom of a married woman might have been there for her pleasure or at the order of his master, her husband. In Matt. 2.62 Labieirns depilates himself, as he says, to please his girlfriend with his smoothness. In Iuv. I 0.295 ff. the satirist warns parents that a beautiful son will ce1tainly be subject to penetration and become an adulterer as well. Fmther references are collected in Williams (note 227), 59. 75. 77. 321 f. n: 72. On husbands who rape the adulterer they have surprised in bed with their wives see, e.g., Matt. 2.47 and 49; 2.60; Apul. Met. 9.28; Williams (note 227), 27 with notes 65 to 67. 16 Williams (note 227), 59. Male Youths as Objects of Desire in Latin Literature 231 beauty, though not gendered in itself,. sti •. 11 occurs in greater me~lsu .• re in male th11n in female youths. At first sight this idea !seems to be supported ~y two passages in Statius' Achilleis in which one individu~l is singled out from th lpeer group as possessing the same feature, beauty, to a much higher degree. Jn the Jj'St passage princess Deidameia stands out among the choms' of young women celebi*~ting Athena on the shore of Scyms. All excel in beauty, all wear the same attire and they all have crossed the threshold of puberty to be now eligible for marriage. Nevdrtheless, Deidamia shines fotih among her sisters like Venus or Diana among the nymphs in their company. 17 In the second passage, Achilles joins 'a similar chorus of women in honour of Bacchus, and now we have a two-tiered hierarchy of beauties. Just as Deidamia's beauty exceeds that of her sisters, so Achilles' beauty exceeds Deidamia's. 18 It is him, who leads the standards of the virgin band, him, the perfmmer of difficult moves with his strong arms unbound (and his sex graces him together with his mother's deception), the company admires. No longer the most beautiful of her own crowd is Deidamia, and brought up close to proud i Aeacides, she is defeated as much as she herself ?ppresses h~r sisters. , On closer inspection, however, we see that Achilles' beauty is cle~rly gendered not only through the manly militaty imageh that pervades the pas~age. 19 In fact, the nairntor explicitly refers to his gender as: a factor that joins (paritiC) his female dress and ornaments (mendacia matris) in enhrncing his beauty: So, hete again, masculine features combine with femininity in dres~ and gesture the intric~te dance moves of Achilles' big, i.e. muscular, aims to cre:ate an attractiveness thatl 1xclusively belongs to a male youth. That .it is thi.s s~ecific m 1 ale beauty. that attracts tlitf desire not only of men but also women 1s also md1cated by a companson of the twb passages. Whereas in the first passage Deidamia simply outshines th« other girls in tl}e group but there is no internal interaction between group and leadet', Achilles is admired by his companions. Deidamia is only attractive to the male outside observer Achilles and, possibly, the reader; Achilles is attractive to both outside observers (the reader) and the women whose sphere he has penetrated and whose dress and activities he shares. 17 Stat. Ach. 1.290-96 omnibus eximiwn formae decus, omnibus idem I cul/us et expleto teneri iam , fine pudoris I uirginitas matura toris annique lumen/es. I sed quantum uirid(,!s pelagi Venus addita Nymphas I obruil, au/ umeris quantum Dimra relinquit I Naidas, effitlge 1 t tan/um regina deco. ri I Deidamia chori pulchrisque sororibus obstat, [ 18 Stat. Ach. 1.603-08 ilium wi*gineae ducentem signa cateruae I magn ~ue dijficili so/ue11tem bracchia motu I (et sexus pariter decet et mendacia matris) I mirartur comites. nee 'iam pulcherrima turbae I Deidamia suae tantwnque admota superbo I uiñir1 ur Aeacide, qu.m/tum premit ipsa sorores. I - , 19 The militaty terms signa ducere and uincitu{* activate connotations of the 1 1 ilitary sphere also in cateruae, comites, admota, superbo and prenril. See also P. J. Heslin, P. J.17\)i~ie 1/'cmsvestite Achilles: Gender and Genre in Statius' Achil/eid.' Cambridge, 2005. 139 on tlly:soi as military standards in Ach. 1.950. * 232 Jula Wildberger Working with Greek as well as Roman evidence, David Konstan20 proposes an explanation for this phenomenon that women seem to have been attracted by ve1y young, girl-like males rather than older men with more unequivocally masculine bodies. His explanation implies a partial suspension of the Priapic model: women might show a propensity for ve1y young lovers because the adolescent offers the sexual services of a penetrator without, on the other hand, imposing the dominance an adult penetrator would asse1i over the penetrated. 21 The superiority of women in such relationships and also the acceptability of the desire might have been enhanced by assimilating the women to the model of male (penetrating) lovers of penetrated boys: women would thus play the dominant role of penetrators while being penetrated. 22 Konstan discusses pre-pubescent lovers, but extending his explanation to pubescent and post-pubescent males might be justified if one includes other factors that contribute to the power relation between a woman and her male lover, e.g. the difference in age or social status. However, precisely this pliability ofKonstan's explanation, the fact that it refers to the power relation of the agents as dete1mined by factors outside the sexual relationship itself and thus can be transfe1rnd to other constellations of unequal power, demonstrates that it is insufficient to account for the fact that there seems to be one patiicular type of lover prefel1'ed by women: the pubescent male. There is a third set of puzzling texts in which a young man's coming of age is described as becoming a woman, e.g. Mark Antony's crossing the threshold of adulthood by Cicero. 23 You put on the manhood toga, which you immediately turned into a woman's [toga]. Why should taking the manhood toga be identified with the assumption of a female role? If the sexual world is divided into penetrating men and all others that can be 20 David Konstan. ,,The Pre-Pubescent Lover in Greek Literature." In: Diotima: Materials for the Study of Women and Gender in the Ancient World. Ed. Allen Ross Scaife. Stoa Consmiium. 2001. http://www.stoa.org/hopper/text.jsp?doc=Stoa:text:2002.0l.0003. Last access 2 May 2009. 21 Williams (note 227), 7 f. points out the issue of dominance and social superiority negotiated in the Priapic model: ,,adult men of the dominant class" do not engage in relationships with equals but have intercourse with someone who is different and thus inferior because of his or her age, biological gender or sexual passivity. See also p. 18: ,,[ ... ], penetration is subjugation (in the sense that the act is held simultaneously to be a figure for, and to effect, subjugation), and masculinity is domination." 22 For our present purpose it is irrelevant whether women themselves conceived of their desire in such terms or whether male authors conceive of female desire in this manner. The sources used in this paper allow us only a glimpse on the latter, anyway. This whole miicle is about how men think and represent sexuality. 23 Cic. Phil. 2.44 swnpsisti uirilem quam statim muliebrem togam reddidisti. See on this passage Lewis A. Sussman. ,,Antony the Meretrix Audax: Cicero's Novel Invective in Philippic 2.44-46." Eranos 96 (1998), 114-28, who suggests that Cicero intended to create a comic effect by having the audience/reader of the speech imagine sturdy Antony in female dress (120). Male Youths as Objects of Desire in Latin Literãure 233 penetrated, why would Mark Anthony not simply keep the femiJne role of a pathic24 and just remain the object of penetration he had been as a boyb. i Why is he not described as someone who never grew up to become a real man, asHbmeone who, faith- ' I ful to the sexual role of his childhood, ~!ways had been and re :ained to be an unmanly, penetrated efleminatus? Why must he become a man first? : * One possible explanation in this case is that we are dealing with :invective, which is characteristically phrased in witty, paradoxical antitheses. 25 In addition, Cicero could have wished to highlight what Antony should have done, namely cease to be a possible object of penetration, by showing how he perversely turned his man's toga into the toga of a female prostitute. Encolpius in his invective against Giton* (Petr. 81.5) could have intended a similar jibe or Giton may have seriously been confronted with the question which sexual role he would prefer once he had the option to become a penetrator. 26 What shall I say about the other one, who, on the day of his manhood togμ, put on the matron's gown, who let himself be persuaded by his 'mother not to be a man, who performed a woman's services [for the slaves] in a prison farm? [ . I But the case of Statius' Achilles (Ach. l.l83-335) seems to be diff1rent. Here becoming a man is becoming a woman both in ~motional and social term~. The first appearance of a man's sexuality in the boy Achilles is the necessaty condition for his accepting the feminine guise. Contrary to 4ther versions of the mytH, Statius' Achilles only yields to his mother Thetis' wish that he hide as a girl at the b~urt ofLycomedes after he has fallen in love with princess *eidamia.27 It is the factlt~at he experiences the sexual arousal of a grown-up penetr*tor for the first time t~at turns him into a 2s , , I woman. '' 24 I use the term ,,pathic" in the technical sense of Latin pathicus in 01:der to refer to men who want to be penetrated. 25 Compare the jingles quoted in note 229. 26 Petron. 81.5 quid ille alter? qui die togae uirilis stolam sumpsit, qui ne uir esset a matre persuasus est, qui opus muliebre in ergastulo fecit. For the meaning of the last phrase see Peter Habermehl. Petronius, Sat1yrica 79-141: Ein philologisch-literarischer Kommenlar. Bd. 1: Sat. 79-110. Berlin and New York, 2006. 43. 27 In Ovid's Ars amatoria, for example, Achilles gives in to his mother's entreaties and then later, during his stay at Scyrus, develops feelings for the princess (l.681-704). Monica Silveira Cyrino (,,Heroes in D(u)ress: Transvestism and Pc/wer in the Myths of Heracles Jñ Achilles," Arethusa 31 [1998], 207-41) gives an overview of the d,ifferent versions. See also H+lin (note 231 ), 124, f. 28 Stat. Ach. 1.301-17 hanc ubi ducentem longe socia agmina uidit I trnx J1urr et nu/lo te111er(1/us pectora 1110/11 I deriguit totisque nouwn bibit ossibus ignem. I nee latet Virustus amor, sedlfax uibrata medullis I 305 in uultus atque ora 1'edit lucemque genarum I lirlg/til et inpulsam tdnui sudore pererrat. I lactea Massagetae ueluti cum pocula fuscant I sangf dne puniceo uel * e~bur corrwnpilur ostro, I sic uariis manifesta no/is palletque rubetque I 310 fl~~ma repens. eat a/que ultro ferns hospita sacra I disiciat turbae sei::urus et inmemor aeui, I ni z!dor el iunctae tenea/ reuerentia matris. I ut pater armenti quonda/n ductorque ji1turus, I cui n * ~dum lo/o peraguntur cornua gyro, I 315 cum socimn pas/us niueo candore iuuencam I aspicil, ardescunt animi pri234 Jula Wildberger This girl he saw from afar leading the train of companions and immediately the fierce boy, never before violated in his breast by any stirring, became rigid and drank the new fire with all his bones. Nor does the love he has drawn remain hidden. No, the torch brandished in his marrow returns to his mien and face and colours the light of his cheeks, striking it up and roaming through it with a thin layer of sweat. Just as when Massagetan Scyths darken milky cups with deep-red blood or as ivory is corrupted with purple die, so manifest in many signs pales and blushes the sudden flame. Forward he would go and on his own drive apart the friendly rites of his host, not caring about the crowd, forgetting his age, did not shame and respect for the mother at his side hold him back. Like the father of the herd he is, the one that some time will lead it, whose horns are not yet bent enough to complete the circle, when he sees a snowy cow, the companion of his pasture: his spirits flare up and for the first time on his mouth appears the froth of love. Happily the guardians watch and stop him. Achilles' first experience of love for a woman a manly emotion one would think breaks his manly resistance. It is a change of mind that removes the steadfast, ,,recalcitrant Achilles" from the youth.29 The new emotion ,,violates" him (302 temeratus; 308 corrumpunt) and aggressively burns him from inside as if a torch were moved to and fro in his innermost mairnw (304 fax uibrata medullis). 30 Achilles opens up to this intrusion like a woman to her penetrator and imbibes the fae of love into his bones (303 bibit ossibus ignem, 304 haustus amor). As a result, he shows the emblematic blush on a snowy white skin that characterises beauty made to be taken. At the same time, this love is also a masculine emotion of a ,,fierce boy" (302 trux puer) who becomes rigid (303 deriguit). His blush is a sweaty and pulsating return of the injected desire to the outside, not the reaction of a bashfully recoiling virgin. He is emboldened to break into the holy festival and only retained by a sense of shame and respect for his mother. That this reaction is a moment in the transition process from child to man is underlined by the simile in which Achilles is likened to a young bull promising with his first sexual arousal his future as successful father and leader of the herd (313-17). The patiicular attractiveness of adolescent youths is presupposed in all these texts and must, therefore, be a commonplace for the authors and their audience.31 And this is musque per ora I spumat amor, spectant hi/ares obstantque magistri. Heslin (note 231), 128 points out parallels to the assumption of the toga uirilis. 29 Stat. Ach. 1.284 indocilem quae mens detraxit Achillem? 30 As befits an epic poet, Statius moderates the double entendre by talking of bones in the line before. One famous model of this kind of erotic subjugation is, of course, Propetiius 1.1.1-4. It is notewotihy that Statius changes the less explicit contactum (Prop. 1.1.2 contactum nullis ante cupidinibus) to a much stronger word in his version (302 temeratus). 31 Williams (note 227), 11; Konstan (note 232). On Novi us Atell. 20 f. and other references see Williams (note 227), 26; on 15-year old Narcissus, desired by many girls and by many youths (Ov. Met. 3.353), 262 n. 29. Williams states that ,,the ideal male partner, the youth or boy of our M•I< Y outill< "' Objoot< ofD"k' ID L•tin Ute,ture 235 another the fomih riddle I wish to present: if the most basio sexual distinction is between penetrators and penetrated, why then are precisely those [l}ales most attractive to penetrators who are on the threshold i of manhood so that, in 1them, the distinction between penetrator and penetrated is bl~Ted? Concern for the 1e~l-being of the penetrated was not an issue that would haye influenced a Roman pederast to choose a more mature boy. What counted was the!pleasure of the man. So Jhy would a Roman man prefer to penetrate a youth that is more like a man than a boy?32 Why should it be imp01iant for the penetrator that the penetrated has a developed penis and so is able to penetrate others as wel1?33 ' Eve1yone (?) knows that a boy is better than a woman and how much better [the boy] is whose voice is a cockcrow, whose branch just turns into hardwood. One reason might be the patiicular tickle of a dangerous affair. 34 According to the well-known conceit that we desire more what is forbidden and pursue those who flee us, the penetrator may enjoy the achievement of seducing a reca.lcitrnnt young man rather than a compliant boy. 35 It is the dt1light of playing with fire, !of touching the untouchable and dominating the potentially dominant. This works best, of course, as long as things are left in suspense and the ,.ole of the young man i1 hot yet definitely decided. ! . I This is the source from which one of the :most sensual scenes in Roman poetry, Achilles' return from the hunt (Stat. Ach. l.1~8-97), derives its seductii~e power. Achilles makes his first appearance as a thorough 1 ly ambivalent beauty. O?\ivious to the effect he has on his mother a freezing shock tpat drives the blood from her skin (158) he is characterised by manly features such as martial arts and exerti~n (160) as well as sweat and dirt that make him look older and bigger than he is (1'.59); but he is also ,,still sweet to look at" (161 dulcis adhuc uisu): a snowy complel<!ibn highlighted with redness of (manly) fire and shiny golden hair. His gaze is still mild and more like his mother's than a man's. His virile heroism is not yet directed at an enemy in war but used to catch lion cubs to play with, and his childish joy makes him even more irresources, belonged to the age-group roughly equivalent to what is now called adolescence", when ,,boys were no longer prepubescent children, but not yet men" (19). Legally the youths of that age-group (14 to 20 years; further references Williams [note 227], 73-5) wej*e regarded as men. 'I 32 Williams (note 227), 81 suspects, on the basis of Suet. Tib. 44, that sr,yial contact with very young boys might have been regarded as uñ. cceptable. It is, however, qtrite unclear whether it is the age of the boys that Suetonius disapp~oves of or the oral practic . sl the children have to perform. 33 Novius Atell. 20 f. puerum mulieri praestcrre nemo <ne>scit, quanta lviet I melior cuius, uox gallulascit, cuius iam ramus roborascit. 1 1 . 34 Dio Chtysostomus suggests this in a Greek context (Or. 7.149-52), buts milar thoughts with regard to adulte1y are expressed in Hor. Sat. 1.2 and Mart. 3.33. See also Wi dams (note 227), 103 f. I . I 35 Call. Epigr. 1 Gow/Page (A.P. 12.102), imitdted Hor. Sat. 1.2.105-8; com1*are e.g. Ov. Am. 2.9.91 P1 10; 2.19.36; 3.14. 236 Jula Wildberger sistible so that the narrator breaks the distance with an enraptured exclamation (168 f.), thus venting the emotion that is building up in the reader too. 36 The reader is aroused by the teasingly attractive image of this manly boy, while at the same time Achilles' innocence and physical power add the thrill of secretly enjoying a forbidden fruit. In a similar way the boy's interactions with those around him are heavily eroticised. Not only is Patroclus already pining after him (174 f.); when he rushes to his mother, ,,entwining her with avid foremms I already weighing heavy in her embrace" (172 f.), a trace of something more than motherly love is perceptible. The reader is then treated to a full-blown bathing scene, in which Achilles' tutor Chiron fondly marvels at his pupil's body and even joins him in the water, ,,now caressing his breast, I now his powerful shoulders" (183 f.), while his mother perceives a choking mixture of elation and fear (184 angunt sua gaudia matrem), an emotion that seems to be motivated by more than just the concem about her son's safety during the Trojan war and that returns when, at dinner, Achilles sings of her marriage (194 f. ). 37 When, finally, Achilles curls up in the Centaur's aims for the night, prefen"ing the accustomed embrace to that of his faithful mother (196 f.), 38 the reader is likely to be haunted by naughty ideas that may be all the more pleasurable for their outrageousness. That such fantasies are not completely unjustified is confamed when Thetis carries Achilles off to Scyrus: like another Ariadna or Laodamia, Chiron pines at the sea shore, all nature weeping with him as if he were a new Acontius or Prope1iius (Stat. Ach. 1.232-41). Now it becomes clear that the teasingly innocent boy had, in fact, been encircled by just the kind of lewdly goggling desire Statius' reader might have felt: Fauns already miss ,,the boy's singing" (240) we know what bucolic singing might lead to and nymphs bewail the erotic encounters they had been hoping for all the time and of which they are now deprived (241). If penetration is an asse1tion of superiority in the Priapic model, such an asse1iion ought in principle be patiicularly effective when a man penetrates a potential penetrator, who obtains a higher rank within the hierarchy of sexual dominance than a woman or a younger boy. I am not aware of a statement to this effect by a Latin author, but a similar idea emerges from that famous epigram in which Straton (211ct BCE) classifies the desirability of boys according to their age. 39 In that poem, the sexual attractiveness of boys rises from the twelvth to the fifteenth year. A boy at the age of sixteen is regarded as something for gods. The poet leaves it open whether mortals may aspire to 36 Heslin (note 231), 182 shows how the scene is set for Achilles' arrival. 37 A different explanation is suggested by Heslin (note 231), 88: the song reminds her of the prophecy about Achilles' death. However, this is the moment when Thetis' anxiety is for the first time relieved to such an extent that she finally breaks into a smile. 38 196 f. [ ... ] blandusque umeris se innectit Achilles I quamquam ibi fida parens; adsuetaque pectora mauult. 39 A.P. 12.4 = no. 4 in Lucida Floridi. Stratone di Sardi, Epigrammi: testo critico, traduzione e commento. Alessandria, 2007. I Male Youths as Objects of Desire in Latin Liter,ture 237 such an object of desire as well; the phrase ,,year of gods" (12.r.s Oi;wv fro<;) could also mean that 16-year olds are of godlike beauty and afford theit !lovers a joy worthy of gods. As concerns older boys, howe'\er, the speaker makes thelpower hierarchy of penetrators explicit by declaring that s*h youths are out of litbjt for .him and only something Zeus, the most powerful of a11 gods, may seek. I I This declaration also points to another danger for the lover of young men, the always impending role switch that the speaker of Straton's poem expects as a certainty once the youth has reached the 181" year. 40 The predilection for well developed boys is a frequent theme in Matiial's epigrams and, as Hans Obermayer has shown;41 there is always a hint of suspicion that the master of these boys might be ititerested in playing the receptive role himself curiously enough even where Martial presents his own persona as the master of such a boy. 42 You watch us, Philomusus, while we're bathing, and why I have such big-pricked smooth boys you ask again and again. I'll answer your question frankly: i they ass-fuck oglers, Philomusus. ! * ~ Like Philomusus, the Muse-loving reade~* might have been asking himself what Martial needs these well-endowed slaves f01) and the reader's answer 1 ill have turned out to be something in the lines of what Martial promises to his ad~ressee. 43 Martial' s answer thus suggests that eve1yone, not bnly the epigrammatist an 1 CI his addressee but even the reader, does in private what he. i~. snubbing at in public. Wty else would he be so interested in the abdominal regions of~ stranger's slave boys?4'\ I The public scorn heaped on men who enjoyed being penetrated! I ay explain why a man might wish to have a boy penetrat~r rather than an adult 011.e. The youth of the other functions as a camouflage: he can be sold to the public as the receptive one so 40 Straton A.P. 12.4.7 f. ci i:i' fr1 rrcpãoTEpou Tl~ €xc1 rr6Bov, ouK£n mxll;c1, I &.'A'A' ijliq 1;11Tcl TOV Ii' &.rrapc1~6wvõ. 41 Hans Peter Obe1mayer. Martial und der Diskurs iiber miinnliche ,,Heterosexualittit" in der Literatur der fi"iihen Kaiserzeit. Tiibingen, 1999. 90 f. On the question of penis size see also Williams (note 227), 86-95 with a host of references. , 42 Mart. 11.63 Spectas nos, Phi/amuse, cum lauamur, I et quare mihi lamJ'mutuniali I sin/ leue. s ' I pueri, subinde quaeris. I dicam simpliciter (ibi roganli: I pedicant, Philp!111se, curio.l'Os. N.: M. Kay. Marlial, Book XI: A Commentmy. London, 1985. 209 points out that uriosus is also a ferm for the voyeur. I , 43 The epigrammatic revealing game can be enhanced by st1ggesting tha\ he pathic prefer~ the particularly shameful oral intercourse (Mart. ll.73). 44 A different play is pointed out by Kay (nõe 237), 209: the phallus is pil ,,apotropaic emblem against the evil eye" and thus an appropriate !means to punish curiosi. Not~,I however, that the evil eye is linked to the emotion of envy: the Muse-lover (Philomusus or th¢ t*eader) would thus be gratified because he is served to just the thing he had been staring at with envy. 238 Jula Wildberger that his pathic master can keep up pretences.45 However, a pathic master's wish to hide his true desire is not the only reason why adolescent penetrators are sought out. In the relationship between grown-up pathic and adolescent penetrator the role and the attractiveness of the young man seems to be similar to the function an adolescent lover can have for a woman: the youth of the penetrator affords the penetrated a position of superiority he or she would not have as the receptive partner of a man of equal age. It is also noteworthy that the fragment from Nonius quoted above and Straton's (in patticular A.P. 12.3) as well as Mattial's epigrams bear witness to a genuine interest in the evolving penis of male adolescents. It is not necessarily the big organ only that is of interest but rather the penis as something that grows and simply comes into being. 46 If, in the course of such [diatribes], a strong-man crosses your path, one just released from his pedagogue's supervision and from whose swelling penis the smith has just removed the pin, you summon him with a nod, lead him away andit's too shameful to say what you do, Chrestus, with your Catonian tongue. 2. The Priapic Dilemma Such observations, finally, lead us to a new explanation for the paradoxes and puzzles I have pointed out so far, an explanation that takes as its basis the intrinsic vulnerability of the Priapic stance. Boyish adulterers and adolescent penetrators of pathics appear as inferior to those they penetrate not only because they are younger or because they are slaves that have to obey their masters but also, I wish to suggest, because they are playing a non-dominant role in the sexual act itself. And this, paradoxically, comes about because of the potency and thus availability of their penetrative organ. Their erect penis is taken possession of, incorporated, devoured by a hungry, lusty pathic or female; it is perfonning a service in an aggressively demanding orifice. Different classes of evidence indicate that there is, indeed, this other side of the Priapic medal. First of all, it is remarkable that within the precise Latin vocabulary expressing various penetrative acts there exist two sets of verbs to describe the experience of the receptive pattner: three passive fo1ms (futui, pedicari and irrumari) and three active forms 45 See, e.g. Mmi. 7.62 and Sen. Epist. 47.7, where the one who is supposed to be the penetrator is revealed as receptive of the youth's penetration (Williams [note 227], 3 and 188-93 with finther references). 46 Matt. 9 .27 .10-15 occurrit aliquis inter is ta si draucus, I iam paedagogo liberatus et cuius I refibulauit turgidum Jaber penem, I nutu uocatum ducis, et pudet fari I Catoniana, Chreste, quad facis lingua. On the meaning of draucus see Richlin 1992 (note 227), 276; Kay (note 237), 224; Peter Howell. A Commentwy on Book One of the Epigrams of Martial. London, 1980. 308. Chrisler Henriksen. Martial, Book IX: A Commentwy. Vol. I. Uppsala, 1998. 148 f. explains that the fibula was a ring drawn through the prepuce to prevent the slave from having intercourse (Schol. Iuv. 6.379). i I Male Youths as Objects of Desire in Latin Literature 239 (crisare, ceuere andfellare). 47 This indicates that the experienc6 of being penetrated could also be conceived as an activity, for which I will use the ~echnical term ,,insertion". Moreover,fellare, the active vei*b !that describes oral recepfibn ofa penis il1 also transitive, i.e. fellatio is not conceived f!S something that happ"1nls to the orally penetrated person but as an activity that is done to someone or son!ething. This fits well with the many expressions we find in 6ur sources according to khich the receptive partner eats or devours the penis like, e.g., the anonymous hypocrite whom Martial unmasks as a fellator, who ,,watches strong-men with devouring eyes I and cannot look at cocks with lips inactive."48 ' Another set of sources in which penetration appears as something stiffered at the hands of the penetrated are descriptions that enhance the repulsiveness of the act: the penis faces the h01Tible prospect of being inse1ted into disgusting, gaping vaginas or anuses. One example will suffice.49 A two-toothed hag of a girlfriend, one who still remembers ancient Romulus, is being procured for you, within whose pitch-black groin50 lies a hidden cavity concealed beneath a flabby paunch. Covered with quivering hide, cobwebbed mould of yearlong frost obstructs the entrance. For you she is procured, in order that three dr four times this bottomless trench may devour your slippery head. Lie there as you wish now, sick and slacker than a snake: you will be rubbed on and on until ah, wre1tched, wretched one!' three or four times your size you'll fill up th~ cavity. This haughtiness of yours will serve you not~ing when with your quivering head you'll be dipped itjto the resounding ooze. 47 Williams (note 227), 161 f. 182 f., concentrating, however, on the cinaedus as actively rejecting and thus questioning or endangering traditional masculine identity. See also p. 94 on intercourse in which the recipient partner carries out the stimulating move1rient and Holt N. Parker. ,,The Teratogenic Grid." In: Judith P. Hallett and Marilyn B. Skinner, eds. Roman Sexualilies. Princeton, 1997. 47-65. 48 Mart. 1.96.12-13 [ .. :) special oculis deuorantibus draucos I nee oliosis men tu/as uidet labris. Compare also, e.g., Catull. 88.8 [ ... ] demisso se ipse uoret capite; Mart. 7.67.15 medias uorat puellas; Apul. Met. 8.26 exedas tam be/lum [ ... ] pullulum; CIL 4.2360 comedere ue111am; CIL 11.6721.34 esureis et mefelas. In some contexts the eating imagery may have been suggested by a patticular context, e.g. Cat. 33.3 f. nmn dexlra paler inquinatiore, I cufo filius est uoraciore; , Mart. 2.51.5 f. infelix uenter ~vectat conuiuia culi I et semper miser hi~ esurit, ille uorat; see Williams (note 227), 336 n. 87. 1 I J1 49 Priapeum Quid hoc noui est (App. Verg.) = b.26-37 Blicheler bidens wrli a Romuli senis 1111;111or I paratur, inter atra cuius inguina I latet ihcente pantice abditus specur ! uagaque pelle l~c/us annuo gelu I 30 araneosus obsidet forem sil,us. I ti bi !wee para/ur, ul 1u111 fer aut qua/er I !tore/ profimda fossa lubricwn capul. I licebil ãg~r angue lenlior cubes, I lere1lisl usque donec, a 11jiser, miser, I 35 .. triplexque quadruplexque comRleas specum. I superbia islq proderil nihil, si1/nt! I uagum sonanle merseris Iulo caput. See '.the discussion by Richlin ~nbte 227), 114-16, and compare also Priap. 12 and 46. A gaping añs is described Mart. 6.37. i I 50 Or ,,between whose pitch-black thighs". S~e Alessandro Franzoi. Quielai Venus. II Priapeo 83 Biich. Naples, 1998. 102. ' 240 Jula Wildberger In this Priapeum penetrating an ugly old vagina is envisaged as a punishment for impotence. It follows that the erection and the performance of the sexual act is here regarded as something independent of the penetrator's pleasure quite in 'agreement, paradoxically, with the masculine ideal of self-control and hardship adduced to explain the first of the four paradoxes of youth discussed above. Still, the ultimate purpose of all this is supposed to be the man's pleasure: the speaker chastises his penis because its malfunction deprives him of the pleasure he could have had (23 iuuante arte; 45 Venus iocosa). In other cases, however, sexual malfunction is regretted because it has rendered the man in question unable to give the service he is supposed to supply. In Petronius' Satyrica (132 ff.), Encolpius' failure to perf01m actually causes extensive and cruel punishment by the disappointed woman, and the treatment itself has the character of just another such punishment. Here, intercourse is no longer an enjoyable experience for the man. Instead, he has to function and perform, if necessary even under pain. Erections are brought about by aphrodisiacs51 or some other stimulation that is in no way enjoyable for the stimulated (Priap. 83.33-35), and that this can happen is the precondition for cases of male prostitution in which the prostitute penetrates his customers while perceiving what he does as extremely disagreeable or even disgusting. 52 Probably. the most drastic form such subjugation can take is rape. There is the theoretical possibility that the speaker of the quoted Priapeum actually means that he himself will cruelly rub his penis53 until it can penetrate the old woman. In this case, then, the impotent man would perform the act out of his own accord in order to punish his disobedient member. But a clear case of rape is described in Petronius, where a cinaedus uses force and inse1ts Encolpius' and Ascyltus' penises into his mouth and anus. 54 The cinaedus spat on me a most unclean kiss. Then he even came on top of the bed and with all might uncovered me while I was protesting. For a long time and intensively, but in vain, he did his grinding on top of my groin.[ ... ] 24 I could no longer hold my tears, but brought to the utmost point of misery[ ... ]. 51 E.g. Priap. 46.7; Petron. 20.6-7; 21.1. 52 Williams (note 227), 83 on Pomponius' lost Attelan farce Prostibulum; Naeuolus in Iuv. 9 sells his sexual services to a rich patron. The beautiful son in Iuv. I 0 is also in danger of becoming an adulter I publicus (310 f.): after he has conquered his first matron, soon others will buy him and wear him out so that he will become ugly (319-21): mox cum dederit Seruilia nwnmos, I fiet et illius quam non amat, exuet omnem I corporis ornatum. On Naeuolus and the repulsiveness of what he has to put up with see also Thorsten Fogen. ,,Zwei Satiren Juvenals: Anmerkungen zur Homosexualitiit in der romischen Antike." Forum Homosexualittit und Literatur 36 (2000), 63-74. 53 Compare distriuit in Petron. 24.4. 54 Petron. 23.4-24.4 [ ... ] immundissimo me basio conspuit [sc. cinaedus]. max et supei* lectwn uenit atque omni ui retexit recusantem. super inguina mea diu multumquefi"ltsh*a moluit. [ ... ] 24 non tenui ego diutius lacrimas, sed ad ultimam perductus tristitiam [ ... ] ab hac itoce equwn cinaedus mutauit h*ansituque ad comitem meum facto clunibus eum basiisque dish*iuit. Another such rape seems to have occurred in the fragmentary pmt 21.2 [ sc. cinaedus] modo extortis nos clunibus cecidit, modo basiis olidissimis inquinauit. Male Youths as Objects of Desire in Latin Literature 241 [ ... ],the cinaedus changed his horse and, having made a transition tom~ companion, rubbed him to pieces with his buttocks and kisses. , j *1 ' I Even Priapus himself, his genital always ready for action, can , e the victim oflsuch insertive assaults. He is worn out to death by insatiable women from the neighbourhood that want to be penetrated again and again. 55 * 1 * Help, citizens! for when will there be an end?or cut it off, my seed-giving member, which every whole night is tired out by the randy women of the neighbourhood, who are more horny than sparrows in spring or I'll burst and you won't have your Priapus any longer. In other passages the limits between rape and consent are blurred, in particular if the penetrator is a slave or dependant that is denied the right to refuse the sexual act. The young slave, for example, that has to serve effeminate priests as a concubinus in Apuleius' Metamorphoses greats Lucius, the donkey, on his arrival with words that indicate his discomfort at what he has to dq. 56 1 ! ! ,,At last you have arrived, a successor to myi most wretched toil! May you live long and please om masters and do something for my now exhat1sted loins." l There seems to be a ce1tain reluctance tJ see penetrating males as ! ictims, not only in modern commentaries but, as the ambigJity of Priap. 83 shows, al *eady in the ancient texts themselves. Even if women and pathics take the initiative, tpjs is supposed to be a form of self-denigration of the inse11ot* and not something that rumiliates the penetrator. Thus, for Williams, the disgusting and reviling descriptions of women and i : I I 55 Priap. 26.1-6 Porro nam quis erit modus? Quirites/ aut praecidite seminale membrum, I quad totis mi hi noctibus fatigant I uicinae sine fine prurientes I 5 uernis passeribus salaeiores, I aut rumpar nee habebitis Priapwn. For the meaning of porro see Christiane Goldberg. Carmina Priapea: Einleitung, Obersetzung, lnte1pretation und Kommentar. Heidelberg, 1992. 153. See also Davidson 2001, 25 f. In Greek sources, women and einaedi are regarded as insatiable, the physiological reason being that they cannot get rid of the fluids that arouse them. ,,Whereas men ejaculated, so finding a release and an end for desire, women's desire for sex was never ending" (25). This is reminiscent of Juvenal's description of Messalina after a busy night in the brothel (6.128-30): tristis abit et quad potuit /amen ultima eellam I clausit ad/we ardens rigidae tentigine uoluae, I et lassata uiris needum satiata recessit, [ ... ].However, in Juvenal women emit a considerable amount of fluid (e.g. 6.309 f.; 319). This is also because Juvenal does not distinguish , between the excretion of urine and of genital fluids (e.g. also in luv. 1.39 ~tetulae uesiea beatae). 56 Apul. Met. 8.26 erat quidam iuuenis satis e01pulentus, ehoraula doetiss!u[us, conlaticia stipe de mensa para/us, qui Joris quidem cireumiesfantibus deam eornu eanens Ji1ambulabat, domi 1uero promiseuis operis partiarius agebat eoneubinus. hie me simul domi eon.fpexit, llbenter adpqsitis largiter eibariis gaudens adloquitur: ,, uenisti tandem miserrimi laboris iitd 1 arius. sed diu ui1(as et dominis placeas et meis defectis iam lateribus eonsulas. " See also Apt,. Met. 8.29, wherr the priests find a well-endowed slave boy ancj greedily snap at his groin with ti eir mouths like a pack of predators: [ ... ] quendam fortissimum rl\Sfieanum industria laterum ~que imis uentris 'bene praeparatum eomitem eenae seewn addueunt paucisque admodum pra13f 11statis oluseulis 'mite ipsam mensam spurcissima ilia propudia ad!inlieitae libidinis extrema jlagilia infandis uriginibus efferantur, passimque cireu111ji1si nudatum supinatumque iuuenem execrandis or/busflagitabant. 242 Jula Wildberger pathics in the poems quoted above are to be explained as a product of the Priapic double standards according to which the penetrator is elevated, while the penetrated suffers humiliation. 57 While I do not wish to contest William's statement as far as he is describing the Priapic ideal, the sources seem to me also to yield a different picture, in which the penetrated is ,,on top"58 and the penetrating or rather ,,inse1ied" male the one that suffers, if not an invasion, still an experience of draining, ,,forfeiture" and ,,loss" (see above p. 228). The aggressive scorn of our texts is directed at a particular group of penetrated agents not, for example, boys and women who are unwilling or, at least, coyly pretend to be unwilling;59 it is the expression of an attitude towards a patiicular class of sexual agents who do not simply submit to penetration but aggressively demand to be penetrated and thus tum the Priapic man into their object of desire. But how can such dominant insetting sexual agents be pati of the Priapic model? Must we not revise the model or even reject it? I do not think so. On the contrary, I believe that the model necessarily implies the occurrence of aggressive insertors as a consequence of the Priapic model's narrow focus on the male genital and its penetrative function. The erect penis is the means by which masculine dominance and identity is asserted, but it is also the means to gratify the penetrated agent. In both cases it becomes a detached entity of its own, often taking the place of a person. The penis on its own has two gods, Fascinus and Mutunus Titinus, 60 and it occurs everywhere in the fotm of socalled ,,apotropaic phalli" or symbolically penetrating and thus humiliating sopiones. 61 This is the dominant penis, the phallus, as a sign of power. Yet, in a similar manner, the penetrators of aggressive inse1iors seem to be reduced to their penetrative organ, the insetied penis. It makes a ce1iain sense in the Priapic system that the value of a man is measured by the length of his penis62 and that penis and man are identified. 63 A patiicularly striking 57 Williams (note 227), 181 f. explicitly includes cases like that of Juvenal's Naeuolus (Sat. 9) and the concubinus in Apul. Met. 8.26. According to Williams, the only complaint of the concubinus is the physical strain of his services, while Naeuolus' misgivings about what he is doing start when he sees that the reward is insufficient. Naeuolus' description of his toils is then read by Williams as an attack ,,behind" the patron's ,,back" and as patt of his ,,aggressive stance" towards his patron. However, the beautiful son in Iuv. 10.319-21 gets his rewards and wastes away all the same. And even the simple fact that a man has no choice but to wear himself out because he is either a slave or needs the money could certainly be seen as an instance of ,,forfeiture" and ,,loss". 58 Quite literally ,,on top" is the cinaedus who rapes Encolpius and Ascyltus (Petron. 23 f.), whom Williams does not discuss in this context. 59 Williams (note 227), 185 f. 60 Williams (note 227), 92. 61 E.g. Cat. 37; Petron. 22.1. 62 Mart. 1.23; 1.58; luv. 1.41 partes quisque suas ad mensuram inguinis heres; 9.34. 63 Catull. 88.8 non si demisso se ipse uoret capite (se = his own penis); Ma1t. 11.72 Drauci Natta std uocat pipinnam, I conlatus cui Gallus est Priapus. The word order suggests that cui refers to I Male Youths as Objects of Desire in Latin Literature 243 I I example of this is how the insertor Lichas recognises and greets not his former penetrator Encolpius but Encolpius' penis, even shaking hands w\t\1 it. 64 Lichas, who knew me very well, also cam~ running as if he had heard, ijly voice too. He didn't look at my hands or face, but h1rned his eyes directly down to my groin\ extended his officious hand towards it, and said: ,,Hi, Encolpius!" ! l * I I This is only an extreme case of a general tendency to gaze not at t)le man or his body, but only at his penis, e.g. in the bath scenes described in various satirical texts. 65 A particularly interesting example is, again, prqvided by Petronius. Eumolpus witnesses how the youth Ascyltus finds himself without clothes in the bath because Giton has rnn away with them. 66 A huge crowd stood around him, applauding with most timid admiration. For his groin's burden was so massive that you'd have thought the man to be an outgrowth of the phallus. What a hardworking young man! I bet he has to begin today to finish tomorrow. So he immediately found help. Some Roman knight or other with a dubious reputation, they say covered the lost soul up with his own gmment and bore him off to jlis place, I think, in order to erploit his good fortune alone. j I Ascyltus is greeted with a mixture offeã* and respect,67 just as beqts agents within the Priapic model. Yet already in the next s¢ntence, the penis is detac!Jed from the person as the focus of attention; not the penis hangs from the man, but the man is an outgrowth, an appendage to the penis. A'nd as soon as the penis hJs become an entity of its own, Eumolpus imagines it to be a ~ource of toil for the man. jEumolpus is joking and exaggerating, of course: a penetrati~n is hard work because the penis is so long that it takes days to get it in and out agaif. All the same, the joke torks by exaggerat1 ! pipinnam; the comparison with Priapus, on the other hand, suggests that cui refers to draucus. In any case, the only thing we learn about the youth in question is that he has an enormous penis, belongs to a certain Natta, and that Natta jokingly plays down the size of the penis, thus showing how much he controls not only the youth but also his penis. 64 Petron. 105.9 Lichas, qui me optime nouerat, tamquam el ipse uocem audisset, accurrit et nee manus nee faciem meam considerauit, sed continua ad ingui11a mea lu111i11ibus dejlexis mouit ojjiciosam manwn et ,,salue" inquit ,,Encolpi". For the sexual connotations of officio.1*a111 see Habermehl (note 233), 412. 65 Sen. Nat. 1.16.3 in omnibus quidem balneis agebat ille di!ectum et aper/a mensura legebat uiros, [ ... ];Mart. 1.23; 1.96.11-13; 9.33; luv. 6.374 f. (quoted below); luv, 9.34-6 [ ... ] 11ilfaciet /011gi mensura incog11ita nerui, I quamuis le nudum spumanli Virro labello I u(deril [ ... ] (no explicit reference to the bath is made, but that is the place where such an encounter was likely to happen). 66 Petron. 92.7-10 ex altera parte iuuenis 11ud.us, qui uesti111e11ta perdider~11J 11011 111i11ore c!amoris indignatione Gito11a jlagitabat. 8 [ ... ], illw1i au/em fi'equentia inge11s ci1',cl1111ue11// cum plau,m et admiratione limidissima. 9 habebat enim 1i11guinu111 pondus tam grãJf. ut lpsum ho111/11e111 laciniam fascini crederes. o iuuenem laborid;mm: puto ilium pridie incipe/*J, poslero die ji11ir¢. I 0 itaque statim inuinit auxilium; nescio quis !enim, eques Roma11us ut aiqb~11f i11fa111is, .ma ~1este errantem circumdedit ac domum abduxit, dedo, ut tam 111ag11a fortuna .1*ol11s uteretur. Transl. on the basis of that by Patrick G. Walsh (Petrohius. The Satyricon. Oxford,'lf99). For the meaning of lacinia (,,Auswuchs") see J-labe1mehl (notf 233), 233. : I 67 Compare also Petron. 140.13; Williams (note 227), 90. * 244 Jula Wildberger ing a connection that is presupposed as something self-evident, namely the connection between penis size, penetration and physical effmi. That a big penis does not exist for the enjoyment of its owner but for the purpose of penetrating others is another such apparently self-evident connection that propels the action. As was to be expected (itaque statim), an inse11or of some social standing as eques Romanus appears and takes possession of his big lucky find (magna fortuna). The attribute magna indicates that the lucky find is not Ascyltus but rather his penis, while the grammatical gender of errantem points to Ascyltus. 68 Ascyltus is now wandering aimlessly about and seems to have lost any will of his own. Just before, he was angrily seeking Giton, his own ,possession', who had rnn away. The reader knows that Ascyltus' interest in Giton is a sexual one, Giton being the penetrated in that relationship. Now Ascyltus is described as lost and in need of help and allows himself to be led away by the insertor as if it did not matter that his sexual activity is to be directed at someone else. The sexually active male encounters a Priapic dilemma. Men are turned into victims and used because of their prodigious equipment. Even if, in some sense, the ,,supremacy of the phallus" is ,,reconfitmed" by the attention that desiring insertors give to the penis (Williams [note 227], 91), the very same phallus is contested in another sense: the phallus is the most desirable thing to have, but by being presented to the public, it becomes an entity of its own, is removed from the man it belongs to and made available to those who desire it. :o The more he corresponds to the Priapic ideal, the more a man is in danger to lose his manliness and to become a more or less replaceable ,,donkey on two legs" (luv. 9.92 bipes asellus).69 After the women in Juvenal's 6th Satire have worked themselves into a state of sexual arousal by perfmming the active moves of intercourse (crisare, seep. 239), they demand ,,men" (uiri) to be admitted to the Bona Dea orgy. There are, however, no Priapic penetrators who would wait eagerly for such an opp011unity to asse11 their dominance. The women have to summon their peacefully sleeping adulterers (330). Several ways to replace these sluggish, badly performing males are discussed slaves or the water bearer and it soon transpires that what the women really want can just as well be supplied by an animal. 70 But it is not even male animal sexuality, not even a ,,stud"71 they need. It is just a sizable penis. And so the victimisation of the male penetrator can actually lead to the loss 68 The terms for Ascyltus' genital (pondus andfaseinum) are neuter. 69 See also, e.g., Apul. Met. 8.26; SHA Comm. 10.9. 70 Inv. 6.329-34 ,,iam fas est, admitte uiros!" dormitat adulter, I ilia iubet sumpto iuuenem properare eueullo; I si nihil est, sentis ineurritur; abstuleris spem I seruorum, uenit et eonduetus aquarius; hie si I quaeritur et desunt homines, mora nulla per ipsam I quominus imposito clunem summittat asello. 71 This is the term used by Williams for the young penetrators whom inse1tors use to satisfy their desires. Male Youths as Objects of Desire in Latin Liter+ure 245 of his physiological masculinity. The paradox of the phallic dilemma is emblematically shown in the same Satire when Jvvenal describes the cas rption of a nameless slave by one of these female monsters. 72 ! I Some eqjoy unwarlike eunuchs and forever,~oft kisses and that there is no beard to be expected and no need for ab01tion. That is the greatedt pleasure, however, when in hot adolescence already mature parts are committed to the doctors, when the pubes is black already. And so the expected testicles, having grown first, as ordered, and now reached the desired weight of two pound~, are taken away by Heliodorus a loss only to the barber. 73 Drawing attention from afar and remarkable to eve1yone, does he enter the baths and without doubt invites the keeper of vine and garden to a contest: he, whom his mistress has tt1rned into a castrate. The virility and sexual heat of the budding youth is shown in a detailed close-up on the genitals; in time-lapse manner we watch his testicles grow to aq incredible weight. After they have been removed, the youth re-enters the stage as ode of the prodigious members that fascinate the baths with the focus* again on the pe1iis that by its size is ,,drawing attention from afar" (374). B\1t then the view becomeJ more distant, first comparing the youth as a whole to Priapus and, finally, seeing hjm as what he is: a eunuch, subject to the will and whims of pis female owner. , But even ifthere is no inse11or to take cohtrol, a man can be domh1~ted, in this case by his own member itself. In a number of tbxts the penis detaches i~Jelf from the man it belongs to and turns against him. I do nbt only mean the cases ihj which an impotent man describes himself as deserted or be~rayed by his penis 74 but !rpther those cases in which the penis seems to perform exactly the job it is supposed to ldo. I On the one hand, the erect phallus is the means and symbol of masculine dominion over all those it penetrates. As Williams puts it ([note 227], 86): ,,Priapus constitutes the most salient Roman icon: the mature male, amply capable of asserting his masculinity by penetrating others with his impressive member." On the other hand, ,,a man must" also ,,exercise dominion over his own body and his own desires [ ... ]" (140). Now, an erection is something that happens to a man: ,,monstrous lust blows up 72 Inv. 6.366-76 sunt quas eunuehi imbelles aemollia semper I oscula delec(ef/ el desperalio barbae I et quad abortiuo non est opus. ilia uoluplas I swnma ta111en, cu111 ia111jcflid(t matura i1111en/i:t I 370 inguina trad11ntur 111edicis, ia111 pectine 1nigro. I ergo expec/a/os ae i tw.1* creseere pri11/11111 I testiculos, postq11a111 coeperunt esse bilibres, I tonsoris tan/11111 dm nf nqJil Heliodo1~11s. I eonspieuus longe cunclisque notabilis intra/ I 375 balnea nee dubie + *todem uitis el h?rti I prouocat a do111inafactus spado. Lines 373ãb have been omitted as spurio{1s. i 73 Because the castt*ate will not grow a beard. i I I 74 Hans-Peter Obermayer. ,,Impotenz des Heldpn Potenz des Erzlihlers: D\ellntertextualitlit sexuellen Versagens in Peh*ons Satyrica." In: The1•ese Fuhrer and Samuel Zinsl/,1eds. Gender studies in den Altertu111swissenschaften: Rollenkonstrukle in anti ken Tex/en. Trier, 2003. 81-86. 246 Jula Wildberger his veins", 75 desire takes control of his body and changes it, for all to see. Priapus is not only the god that controls and intimidates, he is also the frozen image of uncontrollable, male desire, of a man who is ,,bursting with tumescence" (Hor. Sat. 1.2.118 tentigine rumpi), who needs to ejaculate, to relieve himself, in order to regain control over the aggressive member that is so obsessively thtusting against his shitt76 or navel, as in Priapus' surprisingly self-revealing curse. 77 Whoever plucks a rose here or a lily or stolen cabbage or unbought apples: destitute of boy and woman, by that very tumescence that you see on me may he burst thus I pray and endlessly with his cock in vain thrust at his navel. 3. Avoidance Stategies The embodiment of Priapic masculinity, the erect penis, is thus a very ambivalent thing and embroils its owner in an intricate web of conflicts. Because of its rigid availability, the erect penis can be used, controlled and dominated by an inse1tor. Its owner is no longer a man but a mentula, a toy for lewd women and pathics, to be devoured and sucked up into disgustingly gaping orifices. On the other hand, as long as the erect penis is not inse1ted, it manifests raging, uncontrollable desire a desire that cannot be fulfilled since the Priapic man cannot be a penetrator without it. As soon as he perceives the pleasures he seems to be seeking so obviously, he is wom out, slackens and thus becomes unmanly. 78 How can a man avoid this Priapic dilemma? His superior status and dominance depend on the fact that he has a well-functioning male genital. Yet precisely this genital can turn him into an inferior plaything without self-control. There is only one solution, I think, and this is the solution a grown-up Roman elite man is supposed to take: sublimation. He becomes a gentleman without abdomen. His genital is sublimated not even into a phallus, but into some sort of bodiless virility,79 75 Hor. Sat. 1.2.33 nam simulac uenas injlauit taetra libido. Compare also Sen. Conti'. 2.1.6 conuulneratum libidinibus. 76 Catull. 32. l 0 f. nam pransus iaceo et satur supinus I pertundo tunicamque palliumque. Note the first person pertundo: this is no longer Catullus but his mentula speaking. 77 Priap. 23 Quicumque hie uiolam rosamue carpet I jill'tiuumue holus aut inempta poma, I defectus pueroque Jeminaque I hac tentigine, quam uidetis in me, I 5 rwnpatw; precor, usque mentulaque I nequiquam sibi pulset umbilicum. Fmther references to this kind of bursting erection in Goldberg (note 241), 145. 78 Williams (note 227), 39; Edwards (note 229), 85 f. 79 Compare Williams (note 227), 167 f. on words like uir and uirilitas replacing a more direct expression for the penis. While this, of course, proves the impmtance of the male genital for masculine identity, it also shows to which extent that genital itself can vanish once the masculinity of an agent has been established. Male Youths as Objects of Desire in Latin Liter~ture 247 stiffness, rigidity80 or impenetrability. The appearance of adult e ite masculinity is not characterised by bodily features such as muscles or penis size, it manifests itself in certain manners, an outward appearance that hides and effaces rtther than enhances the body, as an utterly sexless virtus. 81 I I It is interesting to see what happens to Achilles' ove1whelming s~nsual .beauty, when he finally commits the decisive act of penetration and thus proves himself a man 82 in Statius' Achilleis: ,, With force he takes possession of his wishes and with all his heart I applies real embraces."83 Does this man have, a penis? His masculinity manifests itself not in his own body but in violence and force, in the reaction of the abashed moon (1. 644), in the anguished cries (645) and the fear of the raped woman. 84 Sirnilarly it is Juno's fear that marks the ,,turn of Jupiter's love" in the comparison with which Statius describes what happens between Achilles and Deidamia. 85 In both scenes the penetrative act is completely elided, and with all the erotic innuendos surrounding these scenes86 the demands of generic propriety cannot be the sole t*eason foi* this. If at all, the heroic body appears as a we!apon-wielding tool, as an jimpenetrable shield that withstands eve1y hardship. This is the new body of young A:chilles after he has fully assumed the role of wan'ior and m~n, when the story of his ~outh is retold, now not to the reader by Statius' narrator bht by Achilles himself tol his fellow soldiers I ' (2.106-9). Already then weapons in my hands, already!then the quiver on my neck and premature love of iron, my skin steeled py much sun and ice; no flaccid limbs on a weaklings' bed, but a slab of stone to share with my giaht tutor. i 80 Williams (note 227), 128 f. on softness as ,,the antithesis of masculinity". 81 For the republic see, e.g., Myles McDonnell. Roman manliness:, Virtus' and the Roman Republic. Cambridge, 2006. 167: ,,But what is odd about virtus is that there is no apparent connection between it and male sexuality, even where one might be expected. [ ... ]That vlrtus does not have a sexual denotation *is all the more striking for the fact that vir and other words related to it regularly designate male sexual activities." He also notes (168) that republican virtus is not even connected with procreation. For imperial Rome, Shadi Bartsch (The Mirror of the Self Sexualily, Self-knowledge, and the Gaze in the Early Roman Empire. Chicago and London, 2006) makes a similar observation: ,,In Roman ideology, virtue is not sexy; its absence is" (159), 82 Stat. Ach 1.561 f. [ ... ] Aeacidenfi1rto iam nouerat una /atenti I DeidamiC,1 flirum; 639 (Achilles to himselJ) [ ... ] teque marem {pudet heu!) nee 1 amore probabis? , I 83 Stat. Ach 1.642 f. ui potitur uotis et toto pedtore ueros I admouet amplexl1sr , 84 The fear continues after the act (1.562-3) as fear of detection. I i 85 Stat. Ach 1.588-91 sic sub matre Rhea iuuenis regnator Olympi I oscutc) securae dabat insidiosa sorori I ji-ater adhuc, medii donec reuerentia cessit I sanguinis el uersos Jelwana expauit am'ores. 86 For example Achilles' hot breath (1.585 f.) when he is close to Deidan/ijh; Achilles laughillg to himself when he hears that all men are proh:ibited from the rite (602); Ach Iles swinging the thyrsos with a heavy hand while the whole crowd fears and admires him (612 f.; compare Ov. Ars 1.696 quassanda est ista Pelias hasta manu). 248 Jula Wildberger He who was able to touch heatis with his singing (1.188-94; 1.240) now speaks a verbless military staccato. Now the returning boy is covered in blood, and kisses become the reward for a kill (2.127 f.). Love he only feels for the iron of this weapons. The moist, rosy complexion that has so delighted the reader is now just a hard, impenetrable cover. He does not cuddle at Chiron's protective shoulder, close to the breast he knows so well (1.195-97), but must lie on hard stone, cramped beside the spacious teacher. 87 If penetration and Priapic stance were the essence of masculine sexuality tout court, 88 why should men like Cicero be so squeamish about referring to men's private pa1is and using the word mentula?89 The man of standing is supposed to have a penis, to use it when he ,,applies himself to procreation",90 but never to show it. In Petron's Satyrica, Encolpius addresses his penis in a fit of anger about his impotence (132.111) but then feels ashamed and starts justifying himself and his right ,,to utter with candid tongue" what everyone practises anyway. Petronius plays with conventional taboos, defending obscene language in hackneyed te1ms of diatribes on atiless simplicity. 91 What is interesting is the precise nature of the obscenity Encolpius is ashamed of: not his erotic affairs with various partners or his attempts to have such affairs nor his impotence, which he has just characterised as extremely embarrassing,92 but the fact that he has spoken to his penis:93 87 Stat. Ach. 2.106-09 iam tune arma manu, iam tune ceruice pharetrae, I et Jerri properatus amor durataque mu/to I sole geluque cutis; tenero nee jluxa cubili I membra, sed ingenti saxum commune magistro. 88 Compare e.g. Williams (note 227), 18: ,,Like this phallic deity, a Roman man was ideally ready, willing, and able to express his dominion over others, male or female, by means of sexual penetration." Of course, Williams does not present things as simply as that. In later chapters, in pmiicular ch. 5, he shows that ,,[ ... ] the distinction between inse1iive and receptive role did not stand in a nonproblematic, one-to-one relationship with the opposition between acceptably masculine and unacceptably effeminate behaviour" (126). According to him, the most basic opposition constituting masculinity is that between domination and subjection (141), and the opposition between penetration and being penetrated is only one of several that had al/to be observed in maintaining one's masculinity (142). I differ from Williams's interpretation in that I do not posit a combination of sometimes contradictory binary oppositions under an ove1rnling principle of control and domination but try to show paradoxical antinomies within one of these binary oppositions, namely that effeminate subjection and loss of control is inherent in the purportedly dominant Priapic masculinity itself, an antinomy that goes beyond the tension between lustfulness and self-control ,,inherent in the Priapic model" that Williams notes in passing (153). 89 Cic. Fam. 9.22; see on this letter also Richlin (note 227), 18-26. Cicero also discusses the obscenity of other words for both male and female genitals. 90 Cic. Fam. 9.22.3 liberis dare operam. 91 I agree with Christopher Gill. ,,The Sexual Episodes in the Satyricon." Classicat:Philology 68 (1973), 184 f. that this is not a serious authorial statement but ,,simply another piece of Petronian pastiche". 92 See in particular the references to pudor in 132.7 and 9. 93 Petron. 132.12 nee minus ego tam foeda obiurgatione finita paenitentiam agere sermonis mei coepi secretoque rubore perjimdi, quad oblitus uerecundiae meae cum ea parte co1poris uerba I Male Youths as Objects of Desire in Latin Liter4ture 249 ,,[ ... ]that forgetting my usual decency, I had exchanged words with that part ot' my body the knowledge of whose mere existence men of a more severe character would not even admit." I As we learn.from the justification that ;follows (132.13), somed1ie with more shame and self-respect than Encolpius would n6ither talk to nor think ãout his genitals. And yet, Encolpius did not even use the wõld mentula, recurring ins1tJad to *elaborate circumscriptions like ,,"the one that had been the source of all my troubles" (132.7) or ,,shame of all men and gods" (132.9). 94 An epigram by Martial (1.58) makes an explicit connection between addressing one's penis and the subordination of the Priapic man to his genital. Martial presents ,himself' as quaJTelling with his penis, which complains that the epigrammatist is not willing to pay the price for a good-looking boy it, the penis, wants to have. Instead of calling his penis to order like Odysseus his rebellious heart (compare Petr. 132.13), the epigrammatist lowers himself to the level of his member and complains in turn that, of course, he would like to buy the boy and that it is not his but the penis's fault because it is too small and lazy to earn the astronomic income Phoebus, Who was able to purchase the boy, derives from his member.I This slm: allows Martial tb keep the epigrammatist's self-denigration at an acceptable level. Just as he does nbt actually admit to being penetrated by his slaves in 11.63 (see above, p. 237), he nor stops short at the very point where Priapic masculinity tmns the man into a venal S\:)X toy. Although he is disrespectable enough to have a peni~ with which he has conv¢rsations and whose counsel he would follow ifhe could, his ~genital is at least 'so weakland small that he is ! I I kept from utmost degradation. 95 : I A similar combination ofvenality96 and benises seems to be whatl~eneca Pater (Contr. 1.2.21-23) criticises as obscenities an orator should avoid. Contral1 to what one would expect, it is not the pornographic subject of the controversia itselflthat Seneca regards as obscene. He does not advise his readers to avoid pleading for a woman who having been sold into a brothel wants to become a priestess, although association with a prostitute was embarrassing in a public context and, accordingly, a common topic ofpoliticontulerim, quam ne ad cognitionem quidem admittere seuerioris notae homines solerent. See already 132.9 nam ne nominare quidem te inter res serias fas est. Obermayer (note 245), 87 f. reads this as a signal of intertextuality. 94 Gill (note 248), 177 f. notes that Encolpius' narrative uses less obscene la'nguage than we find in Catullus, Martial and the Priapea. ,,The n.iore physical and intimate t~e actions are, the more obliquely they are expressed" (178). The, effi .. ects Peh*onius intended to aci1leve in this manne.,r a\*e, according to Gill, ,,prurient indirectness" (179), literary parody and ,, i~parity between verbal style and physical content" so that the ,,dir~ctness of the sexual impact i~] undercut by the selfconscious style of representation", at the saine time maintaining the scene'Is character of a ,,\heatrical spectaculum" (180). ' 95 Mart. 1.58 Milia pro puero centum me mango poposcit: I risi ego, sed Phl bus prolinus ill~ ~edit. I hoc dolet et queritur de me mea mentu/a secum I laudaturque 111ea111 Plidjebus in inuidia111.'/ sed sestertiolum donauit mentula Phoebo I bis decies: hoc da tu 111ihi, pluris e11 am. I: 96 See on this point in Greek sources Davidson. 250 Jula Wildberger cal invective.97 He only criticises pat1icular expressions as lacking in taste.98 First he rejects expressions, which he characterises as ,,dhiy" (1.2.21 sordide) because they refer at the same time to the filth and venality in a brothel; then follow expressions that fall under the heading ,,obscene" (21 obscene). All passages under this heading refer to intercourse. The first two are references to anal penetration in very general and rather harmless te1ms but with increasing physiological details first as ,,a different kind of lust" and then as ,,playing in adjacent pat1s" (21 alio libidinis genere; 22 uicinis tamen locis ludunt). Then follow examples that are supposed to show that Greek orators are even less restrained in what they say and one Roman example that is regarded as at least as shocking (23 non minus obscene). The Greeks plead a case in which a maffied man catches a penetrating lesbian (tribas) with his wife and kills her. Again, Seneca does not find any fault with pleading the case itself but only with particular phrases that focus on the at1ifice by which the woman had got herself a penis: one Greek orator wonders how the ,,man", i.e. the male genital, ,,had either grown or been sown onto her", while the other speaks of ,,seizing" a ,,sham-man adulterer", where again the adulterer may stand for the adulterous genital. 99 In the last example, which is Latin and pe11ains to the same controversia as the first two, the woman who wants to become a priestess seems to hold the penis of a customer in her hand, possibly stimulating and thus ,,catching" his ejaculated sperm: ,,[ ... ] and while she was pushing back his lust, she caught it." 100 The gradation from ,,dirty" to ,,obscene" and from Latin to more licentious Greek as well as the introduction of the final Latin phrase as ,,no less obscene" suggest that the examples are supposed to be read as a climax with the most obscene at the end. As it seems, the most shocking thing an orator could say was a reference to a penis in arousal, even if that reference is so veiled that one needs a learned commentary to understand it. Outside of licentious contexts such as satire and epigram, Roman elite males seem to have avoided speaking about genitals and in pat1icular their own penis. But they also refrained from showing their body or drawing attention to it. Not only practices that gave men a feminine appearance were rejected: any attention to one's own body could seem unmanly, even bathing and other fo1ms ofhygiene. 101 It is telling that the middle path advocated by traditional voices in imperial literature102 is best suited to efface the 97 Williams (note 227), 42 f. 45 f. 98 Williams (note 227), 162 f. regards the explicit descriptions of sexual intercourse as Seneca's target of criticism. 99 Sen. Contr. 1.2.23 lyw Ii' foK6m1oa rrp6rnpov Tov &vlipa, <Ei> lyye;ytv11mf rn; ij rrpoolppamm; e;i M cjiqt-appe;va ~io1xov i:t-ãov. 100 Sen. Contr. 1.2.23 fortasse dum repellit libidinem, manibus excepit. See Richlin (note 227), 17 f. 101 Williams (note 227), 129-32, in pmiicular 130: ,,[ ... ] masculinity was associated with a ce1iain uncultivated roughness" and e.g. Sen. Epi~t. 86; Iuv. 14.194 f. 102 E.g. Sen. Epist. 5.2 f.; 114.14; Quint. Inst. 12.10.47. Male Youths as Objects of Desire in Latin Literlture I 251 male body: it does not smell, it is neither smooth nor too bristly,,it does not stand out. There is nothing edgy or remarkable about it. ! , I Cicero praises Ennius for saying ,,that !,the foremost scandal isi to show one's body naked among citizens.' Even if they rriaihtain sexual integrity, as ii believe it to be pos- ' I • sible, still they are concerned and anxi9us and all the more so b 1 cause they have to restrain and coerce themselves." 103 Cicero seems to see dangers of two kinds. Firstly, the naked men must avoid being aroused, which is striking if we think in terms of a simplistic Priapic model, where arousal anq subsequent penetration should not disgrace a man. Again we see how the elite code of behaviour demands the suppression of a man's sexual physiology. Secondly, the naked men must preserve their sexual integrity, i.e. refrain from the act itself. Cicero does not change the subject: he does not speak of those who ,,maintain their sexual integrity" (pudici) on the one* hand and others who anxiously restrain themselves (solliciti ... et anxii). Both characterisations pe11ain to the same men. It follows that sexual integrity here includes both sexual roles, those of the penetrator and the penetrated. The best explanado11 why penetration should constitute an infringement on the;man's sexual integrity (pi(dicitia) is that he is seen as subjected to insertion rather than las a dominant Priapic penetrator. What is so outrageous about showing ore's body, thus, is the ~att that t?e. agent affords pleasure to others. Whether these others are penetrators or msertors is irrelevant, just as young Achilles attracts both male and female admirers b~fore he becomes a sexless warrior. It is this availability fot .. * the gratification of othe\*s that characterises and, in the Roman eye, debases professi~nal performers such as attors and gladiators, whether they are desired as penetrators or as objects of penetrati~m. Just being looked at as an object of sexual desire besmi/*ches a man, not unlike1 the intercourse that defiles a virgin woman. This is the reason why a Roman elite ma!~ must avoid to be a source of pleasure for others. The desire for sexual integrity, for avoiding the dilemma of the sexually ready and available Priapic man, explains the strong objections against senatorial participation on stage and in the arena as we find them expressed in conservative sources and the rriany recommendations in rhetorical writings that are supposed to distinguish the orator from the actor. 104 103 Enn. Seen. 378 apud Cic. Tusc. 4.70 bene ergo Ennius ,,jlagili principium est nudare inter ciuis. c01pora. " qui ut sint, quod fleri posse uid~o, pudici, solliciti /amen el (t~xii .nm/, eoque magis, quod se ipsi continent et coercenl. See als(l Williams (note 227), 69-71 bn reservations against nudity. l I l * 104 See, e.g., Tac. Ann. 14.20 [ ... ] ut proce)*es Romani specie oratiomj11 el carminum sqaena polluantur? quid superesse nisi ut c01pora tjuoque nudenl el caestus ads1e1rc111/ easque pugna,s pro militia et armis meditentur? luv. 8.225 f.: Nero ,,prostitutes" himself on stage; Gell. 1.5.2 f. <jn the theatrical perf01mance style of the orator Hortensius; Bartsch (note 247),11138-82, in particul~r the section ,,Senatorial Safeguards"; Williams (note 227), 138-40; Catharine Edwards. ,,Unspeakable Professions: Public Performance and Prosti~1tion in Ancient Rome." In: lt\dith P. Hallett and Marilyn B. Skinner, eds. Roman Sexualities. ,Princeton, 1997. 66-98; Mã1d W. Gleason. Making Men: Sophists and Self-Presentation in Ancient Rome. Princeton, 1995. ! 252 Jula Wildberger Having thus analysed the Priapic dilemma and made a few suggestions how Roman men went about avoiding it, I should now t1y to explain the particular position of the young man in this system. It is obvious, that sublimation cannot work for the young man, at least not as well as it does for a fully grown adult. Sublimation presupposes the sublimated feature as a natural given and then transfo1ms it. Accordingly, one can only sublimate what already is a normal physical feature. However, in the adolescent male, these features are still developing. As it is changing dramatically, the body of the youth draws attention to itself. It cannot be ignored; it is interesting and pa1ticularly subject to the curious gaze, not only of inse1tors who watch the boy's hair and genitals grow but also of readers of refined poetry such as Statius' Achilleis. Together with his physiological equipment, the adolescent male must also develop his sexual desire that is supposed to be absent in young boys and then, again, blanked out in the adult male. And like the masculine body, this desire can only be sublimated after it has manifested itself. This difference between the adult and the adolescent man allows us to suggest a tentative explanation for the four paradoxes outlined above. The boy has to become a man before he can become a woman because only the man has sexual desires that can be turned in the wrong direction. Only as a man capable of desire can the youth become an avid inse1tor instead of a penetrator. It is at this liminal stage that the young man has to choose the role he prefers. With his growing body the boy develops sexual asse1tiveness, becomes demanding, active and thus more dominant. He is now no longer just someone who might be penetrated and, of course, this new option to become either inse1tor or penetrator also includes the possibility that he becomes both, i.e. a moechocinaedus. In contrast to the sexless adult elite man, whose body has been blanked out and is hidden under thick protective layers of propriety and cultural codes, the pubescent young man still has a visible penis and body and a strong sensual presence. Therefore, he can become the object of sexual desire for both men and women. For women, these youths are if I may say so the only real men available, whereas men might be attracted by two things: either by a male body suitable for both insertion and penetration or by something which reminds them that they, too, once had a man's body. The ve1y moment in which pubescent sensuality is transfo1med into sublimated masculinity is, I think, again captured admirably by Statius. It is the moment when Achilles takes the weapons Odysseus has laid out for him. All the time since Achilles was dressed up in women's clothes, Statius has been drawing the reader's attention to the contrast between the male body and its female attire by having the young hero's body struggle against and emerge from its gaiments (e.g. 1.768 f.; 1.837). Achilles' body thus was a constant focus of the nairntive and subjected to the reader's gaze. Now, with the sound of the war trumpet, while all the real girls run away in fear, the female dress falls off his breast without anyone touching it. Achilles takes the weapons, and his naked body vanishes into towering greatness with only a huge hand Male Youths as Objects of Desire in Latin Literature 253 and shoulders left. It becomes a light that instils fear and a giant, 1 1 1 Ju*eatening, rumpless stride and the fear of the others. 105 1 I Untouched his gmments fell from his breas~. 1 j Now the shield is grasped and the spear, tod small for his hand 1 who would believe it! and with his shm\lders he seemed to tower abov the Ithacian and the Aetolian warlord. So much do the shdden anns and heat of Mars with terrible glare unsettle this home. Superhuman in his step, as if he were just about to shout for Hector, he stands in the centre of the trembling house, and the young daughter of Peleus is missing. ' To sum up: the Priapic model of sexuality leads to a paradox. The over-einphasis on penetration, together with the unequal distribution of desire, undermines what the model is supposed to achieve. The superiority of the penetrator is undercut in two ways. [1] Because of the focus on the penetrative act, the penetrator is always in danger of being reduced to a penetrating, penis. [2] Emotional invo,lvement and the joy of sex being associated with the peneti*ated rather than with the penetrator, the receptive and thus passive role tends to bebome an _active agency, al) the more powerful for the emotions it invests. In the end, I a desiring agent joyfully I devours and incorporates the penis to which the penetratõ* has been reduced, whel'Jas the penetrator is petrified in a state of joyless rigidity. ' ! This Priapic dilemma is solved by sublh»ation: the elite m,ale recoils from any activity that would tum him into a source of pl~. asure for others and av11• ds reference to his penis or his body, replacing physical features of Priapic masculi ity with their sym1 ' bolic counterparts, such as uprightness,! stiffness, hardness and ~9ther forms of male dominance and superiority. This solutioh is not yet available to the pubescent youth, whose manhood is in the making: his developing body is still there to be seen and, accordingly, the source and target of all the opalescent forms of sensuality and aggression the desire of men and women can assume. i "'"""' aaaMm'a a J"''"" ""'"* I''"' ,~L, '""'""'" mMa conswnitur hasta I 880 (mira fides!) lthacumque umeris excedere uisi1s!1 I Aetolumque d11ce111: tantum subfta arma calorque I Martius honienda confundit luce penates. I inmanisque gradu, ceu protinus Hectora poscens, I stat medius tre}?idante domo, Peleaque uirgo V 885 quaeritur. Heslin (note 231 ), 241 sees ,,a clear phallic joke" in line 879, since the spear is ~ symbol for the penis, among other passages also in the parallel version in the Ars Amatoria.