<< 1 >>
Rating: 
Summary: STODGY & RAMBLING
Review: Ancient Rome merits a contemporary investigation of its attitudes towards sexuality and homosexuality but sadly Craig A Williams book "Roman Homosexuality" is not capable of the task. Apart from the dull prose and paucity of illustrations. A pathetic eight pages of miniscule black and white photos, including the front cover which is repeated again inside the book itself. Williams actually has the audacity to state in the introduction that he will refrain from translating Roman sexual terms such as catamite, virgo, virtus, irrumator struprum, cinaedus, pudicitia, lingis, futuis, fututor, and fellator. The reader is therefore greatly hampered from the beginning by the absence of a Latin glossary and dictionary to guide them through Roman terminology. William's book is liberally sprinkled with extracts from conservative poetry and plays which express mock outrage at licentiousness and addictive sexual behavior. In Seneca "Naturales Quaestiones" the character Hostius Quadra confesses that "I simultaneously submit both to a man and to a woman. Yet I also play the man's role to someone else's disgrace, using, that redundant part of mine. My entire body is engaged in stupra (1.16) Williams without exception considers the playwrights sexual prudery as being typical of all Romans tastes which is a dangerous assumption because reading actual Romans graffiti in which ordinary Romans brag about the numerous men and women they have slept with implies that the Romans could not be classified as sexually up tight. Their puns, jokes and pranks suggest a high voltage spiritual but bawdy people who considered every sexual act a blessing from the gods. You would hardly know this from Williams dry historical accounts, weighed down inappropriately as they are with references to contemporary French and American philosophers and social theorists. Their inclusion only makes the reading of his book more laborious. However quotes from actual Romans give fleeting insight into their culture and everyday lives. Such as a prayer to the Roman phallic god Priapus from Julius Agathemerus which asks that the following wishes be fulfilled. "Grant me a flowering youth: grant that I may please good boys and girls with my naughty penis, and that with frequent fun and games I may chase away the worries that harm the soul, and that I may not fear old age too much" (Cil 14, 3565,2-7)
Who could not identify with this lament so universal is its longing to starve of the loneliness of old age? The most striking thing about Roman culture is that unlike the Greeks the Romans had no terms for gender specific sexuality. There were no homosexuals or heterosexuals only sexuality in Rome and it was craved constantly. ON this matter Williams selects extracts from Roman playwrights and poets that were openly critical of promiscuous men and women, who they termed lewd and greedy. However laws restraining adulterous conduct tended to fall on deaf ears. The average Roman parent when seeking a personal tutor for their beautiful son had to take into consideration the risk of his being seduced by his teacher. The parents themselves had access to both male and female slaves and freeborn lovers some of whom were notorious lesbians, concubines and male prostitutes. In fact the Romans would provide male and female lovers to bribe jurors to ensure a legal case produced a favorable outcome, if they could afford it. The Romans though lusty did not approve of pedophilia and past laws banning what they classified as Amicitiae mos Graecorum or the " Greek practices". Where an adolescent would come under the wing of an older man. The vast majority of Roman men would be classified today as bi-sexual though exclusive homosexuality existed as well. There was no social criticism because some men married other men, but castrati and effeminacy was disliked. This is because the Romans were a warrior society so they did not approve of extreme femininity in men which was associated with the promiscuity of womanizers and male prostitutes. Excessive attention to personal appearance was considered effeminate or feminine behavior not appropriate to a warrior. Who had to be ready to brandish the sword at a moments notice. But in reality it was a free for all and some people flaunted their camp-ness regardless. However the Romans disliked slobs. They expected high standards of personal hygiene from both their men and woman, no nose hair, no dirty armpits, no shapeless haircuts, no frumpy tunics and no sloppy shoes. The Romans admired beauty both male and female as much as they did sex. And celebrated their awe struck wonder of love in their text an example of which can be found in "Satyricon' by the Roman author Petronius "Ye gods and goddesses, what a night that was! How soft the bed! We clung together hot, and on this side and that we exchanged our wandering souls by our lips" Sadly juicy extracts such as these are few and far between because their lost within pages of Williams dull pontifications. A better book would be one that simply presented page after page of original Roman comments on their sex lives. accompanied by hundreds of fabulous illustrations.
Rating:
Summary: STODGY & RAMBLING
Review: Ancient Rome merits a contemporary investigation of its attitudes towards sexuality and homosexuality but sadly Craig A Williams book "Roman Homosexuality" is not capable of the task. Apart from the dull prose and paucity of illustrations. A pathetic eight pages of miniscule black and white photos, including the front cover which is repeated again inside the book itself. Williams actually has the audacity to state in the introduction that he will refrain from translating Roman sexual terms such as catamite, virgo, virtus, irrumator struprum, cinaedus, pudicitia, lingis, futuis, fututor, and fellator. The reader is therefore greatly hampered from the beginning by the absence of a Latin glossary and dictionary to guide them through Roman terminology. William's book is liberally sprinkled with extracts from conservative poetry and plays which express mock outrage at licentiousness and addictive sexual behavior. In Seneca "Naturales Quaestiones" the character Hostius Quadra confesses that "I simultaneously submit both to a man and to a woman. Yet I also play the man's role to someone else's disgrace, using, that redundant part of mine. My entire body is engaged in stupra (1.16) Williams without exception considers the playwrights sexual prudery as being typical of all Romans tastes which is a dangerous assumption because reading actual Romans graffiti in which ordinary Romans brag about the numerous men and women they have slept with implies that the Romans could not be classified as sexually up tight. Their puns, jokes and pranks suggest a high voltage spiritual but bawdy people who considered every sexual act a blessing from the gods. You would hardly know this from Williams dry historical accounts, weighed down inappropriately as they are with references to contemporary French and American philosophers and social theorists. Their inclusion only makes the reading of his book more laborious. However quotes from actual Romans give fleeting insight into their culture and everyday lives. Such as a prayer to the Roman phallic god Priapus from Julius Agathemerus which asks that the following wishes be fulfilled. "Grant me a flowering youth: grant that I may please good boys and girls with my naughty penis, and that with frequent fun and games I may chase away the worries that harm the soul, and that I may not fear old age too much" (Cil 14, 3565,2-7)
Who could not identify with this lament so universal is its longing to starve of the loneliness of old age? The most striking thing about Roman culture is that unlike the Greeks the Romans had no terms for gender specific sexuality. There were no homosexuals or heterosexuals only sexuality in Rome and it was craved constantly. ON this matter Williams selects extracts from Roman playwrights and poets that were openly critical of promiscuous men and women, who they termed lewd and greedy. However laws restraining adulterous conduct tended to fall on deaf ears. The average Roman parent when seeking a personal tutor for their beautiful son had to take into consideration the risk of his being seduced by his teacher. The parents themselves had access to both male and female slaves and freeborn lovers some of whom were notorious lesbians, concubines and male prostitutes. In fact the Romans would provide male and female lovers to bribe jurors to ensure a legal case produced a favorable outcome, if they could afford it. The Romans though lusty did not approve of pedophilia and past laws banning what they classified as Amicitiae mos Graecorum or the " Greek practices". Where an adolescent would come under the wing of an older man. The vast majority of Roman men would be classified today as bi-sexual though exclusive homosexuality existed as well. There was no social criticism because some men married other men, but castrati and effeminacy was disliked. This is because the Romans were a warrior society so they did not approve of extreme femininity in men which was associated with the promiscuity of womanizers and male prostitutes. Excessive attention to personal appearance was considered effeminate or feminine behavior not appropriate to a warrior. Who had to be ready to brandish the sword at a moments notice. But in reality it was a free for all and some people flaunted their camp-ness regardless. However the Romans disliked slobs. They expected high standards of personal hygiene from both their men and woman, no nose hair, no dirty armpits, no shapeless haircuts, no frumpy tunics and no sloppy shoes. The Romans admired beauty both male and female as much as they did sex. And celebrated their awe struck wonder of love in their text an example of which can be found in "Satyricon' by the Roman author Petronius "Ye gods and goddesses, what a night that was! How soft the bed! We clung together hot, and on this side and that we exchanged our wandering souls by our lips" Sadly juicy extracts such as these are few and far between because their lost within pages of Williams dull pontifications. A better book would be one that simply presented page after page of original Roman comments on their sex lives. accompanied by hundreds of fabulous illustrations.
Rating: 
Summary: All information needed.
Review: I have found this book, when added with K.J. Dover's Greek Homosexuality, to offer me all the information I needed on the subject of homosexuality in Classical Antiquity. Williams does not make enough, perhaps, of the fact that the Romans' low estimate of any male citzen performing the passive role in sexual intercourse - that they equalled with adultery and rape in the single legal category of *strupum*, in contrast to the Classical Age Athenians' idealization of the supposedly pure love between the younger *eromenos* and his *erastes* had much to do with the realities of Rome as an oligarchical political system where no member of the ruling oligarchy was supposed to submit to another, in contrast to the more democratic and egalitarian Athenian mores, where you were supposed to learn to obey in order to learn to give orders. But then, this is a conclusion that was already there to be drawn. Superb book, highly recommended.
Rating:
Summary: Excellent as Expected
Review: In college, I took Professor William's class on "Greek and Roman Sexuality" and looked forward to attending his lectures every other day and his excellent insights on the erotica of the time, as well as the social commentaries. I learned more from that class than from many others and still enjoy reading the books, poetry, and plays reflective of that period that we explored in that class. Williams is a woderful teacher, and this book puts so much of what he taught to his classes into the written word..its an excellent reference material I would recommend to all.
Rating:
Summary: Excellent as Expected
Review: In college, I took Professor William's class on "Greek and Roman Sexuality" and looked forward to attending his lectures every other day and his excellent insights on the erotica of the time, as well as the social commentaries. I learned more from that class than from many others and still enjoy reading the books, poetry, and plays reflective of that period that we explored in that class. Williams is a woderful teacher, and this book puts so much of what he taught to his classes into the written word..its an excellent reference material I would recommend to all.
Rating:
Summary: A masterpiece
Review: This is one of the very best books ever written on gay history. Strong words! Why would I say that? I say that simply because I have been studying gay history (off and on) for my entire life, and, while the general picture of male love in ancient Greece became clear quite early, I was never able to quite make sense of what the Roman attitudes were. And frankly -- neither was anyone else working in the field. About the best you could come up with was: "contradictory evidence." Plenty of evidence for male love, quite a bit of evidence that it was, in some circumstances at least, a Very Bad Thing. Now the picture is clear. Williams brilliantly dispenses with the term "homosexuality" in the very first pages, and paints a very persuasive picture of Roman sexuality in general. The important -- overriding -- overwhelming factor here was not some idea of "gay" or "straight" -- it was "citizen" versus "non-citizen." Sexual behavior between citizens was a disgrace. It was scandalous. It was totally forbidden -- unless of course the two citizens were married. The wife in such a marriage was expected to be faithful. The male, apparently, was not. But his outside activity was limited to slaves and prostitutes, both of which were relatively abundant in ancient Rome. There a male could sow his wild oats, always provided that he took the "masculine" role. If he took the "passive" role, well, that was a dead secret that could not ever be spoken of. Now, if you think of it, eliminating slavery and prostitution would wind up giving that Roman male no sexual freedom at all. Even more interesting is the startling contrast that emerges with the practice of the ancient Greeks. In Greek culture, the normative form of male love was expected to occur between citizens: one was older than the other, but they were of (eventually) equal status. It was therefore possible to express love for fellow citizens -- and the love affairs were very much expected to be honorable and long-lasting. Anal intercourse was specifically outlawed in such relationships. In ancient Rome, on the other hand, it was IMPOSSIBLE to form a significant love relationship with another male citizen. Such attentions had to be diverted to slaves and prostitutes. One fairly predictable result is that a lot of slaves had sexual experiences unwillingly, and that the Roman Empire became hated among its subject people precisely for such very bad behavior. This widespread rape of male slaves (apparently rape is the correct term) could well have accounted for a lot of the violent homophobia of later times. Highly recommended!
Rating:
Summary: A masterpiece
Review: This is one of the very best books ever written on gay history. Strong words! Why would I say that? I say that simply because I have been studying gay history (off and on) for my entire life, and, while the general picture of male love in ancient Greece became clear quite early, I was never able to quite make sense of what the Roman attitudes were. And frankly -- neither was anyone else working in the field. About the best you could come up with was: "contradictory evidence." Plenty of evidence for male love, quite a bit of evidence that it was, in some circumstances at least, a Very Bad Thing. Now the picture is clear. Williams brilliantly dispenses with the term "homosexuality" in the very first pages, and paints a very persuasive picture of Roman sexuality in general. The important -- overriding -- overwhelming factor here was not some idea of "gay" or "straight" -- it was "citizen" versus "non-citizen." Sexual behavior between citizens was a disgrace. It was scandalous. It was totally forbidden -- unless of course the two citizens were married. The wife in such a marriage was expected to be faithful. The male, apparently, was not. But his outside activity was limited to slaves and prostitutes, both of which were relatively abundant in ancient Rome. There a male could sow his wild oats, always provided that he took the "masculine" role. If he took the "passive" role, well, that was a dead secret that could not ever be spoken of. Now, if you think of it, eliminating slavery and prostitution would wind up giving that Roman male no sexual freedom at all. Even more interesting is the startling contrast that emerges with the practice of the ancient Greeks. In Greek culture, the normative form of male love was expected to occur between citizens: one was older than the other, but they were of (eventually) equal status. It was therefore possible to express love for fellow citizens -- and the love affairs were very much expected to be honorable and long-lasting. Anal intercourse was specifically outlawed in such relationships. In ancient Rome, on the other hand, it was IMPOSSIBLE to form a significant love relationship with another male citizen. Such attentions had to be diverted to slaves and prostitutes. One fairly predictable result is that a lot of slaves had sexual experiences unwillingly, and that the Roman Empire became hated among its subject people precisely for such very bad behavior. This widespread rape of male slaves (apparently rape is the correct term) could well have accounted for a lot of the violent homophobia of later times. Highly recommended!
Rating: 
Summary: What the ancients thought about gender is important- buy it.
Review: This is your chance to replace rumor and speculation with fact. How may times have you over-heard some Blow Hard go on and on at a cocktail party about how masculinity was expressed and thought of in Classical Times and wondered just how much of a blow hard he might REALLY be? Buy this good book to find out (The hard back is simply but beautifully bound too.)
Rating:
Summary: All information needed.
Review: Williams has clearly written the best exposition of male-male sex and erotics in ancient Rome to date--no contest. He is particularly good at refuting the anthropologically more naive claims of "(pathic) homosexual subcultures" and "homosexuals" (as a culturally and/or personally acknowledged category) at Rome made by scholars like Amy Richlin, Rabun Taylor, Jon Boswell, John Clarke, and Bernadette Brooten. Though he makes no mention of it, I can't help thinking he chose his main title, _Roman Homosexuality_, because the (unjustly) famous book by K. J. Dover is titled _Greek Homosexuality_. (His book is better than Dover's.)The book is not, however, without its flaws and shortcomings. (1) Williams aims merely at a phenomenology of male-male sex and erotics in ancient Rome, ignoring the issues of early historical development ("origins") and of men's/boys' subjective experiences. (2) While alluding at times to anthropological studies, he fails to weave anthropological insights into his analysis, sometimes even drawing inappropriate anthropological parallels--a fact partly responsible for problem (1). (3) Though frequently alluding to the anal receptivity of Roman freeborn youth, he fails to explore and explain the phenomenon (i.e., perhaps the rule that Roman boys could not be penetrated was a relatively late development predating our sources). I believe some suggestive evidence exists on this point. (4) Lastly, Williams' discussion of male-male marriage (Appendix 2) is entirely underdeveloped--and therefore unconvincing, inadequate, and disappointing.While the book gets 5/5 stars, I can only give it a 95%. Still, that's pretty darn good, and it seems unlikely the book will be superceded anytime soon.
Rating:
Summary: The New Standard Reference
Review: Williams has clearly written the best exposition of male-male sex and erotics in ancient Rome to date--no contest. He is particularly good at refuting the anthropologically more naive claims of "(pathic) homosexual subcultures" and "homosexuals" (as a culturally and/or personally acknowledged category) at Rome made by scholars like Amy Richlin, Rabun Taylor, Jon Boswell, John Clarke, and Bernadette Brooten. Though he makes no mention of it, I can't help thinking he chose his main title, _Roman Homosexuality_, because the (unjustly) famous book by K. J. Dover is titled _Greek Homosexuality_. (His book is better than Dover's.)The book is not, however, without its flaws and shortcomings. (1) Williams aims merely at a phenomenology of male-male sex and erotics in ancient Rome, ignoring the issues of early historical development ("origins") and of men's/boys' subjective experiences. (2) While alluding at times to anthropological studies, he fails to weave anthropological insights into his analysis, sometimes even drawing inappropriate anthropological parallels--a fact partly responsible for problem (1). (3) Though frequently alluding to the anal receptivity of Roman freeborn youth, he fails to explore and explain the phenomenon (i.e., perhaps the rule that Roman boys could not be penetrated was a relatively late development predating our sources). I believe some suggestive evidence exists on this point. (4) Lastly, Williams' discussion of male-male marriage (Appendix 2) is entirely underdeveloped--and therefore unconvincing, inadequate, and disappointing.While the book gets 5/5 stars, I can only give it a 95%. Still, that's pretty darn good, and it seems unlikely the book will be superceded anytime soon.
<< 1 >>
| 
