Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:09, 30 September 2008

This redirect does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Greece Mid‑importance This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Greece, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Greece on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GreeceWikipedia:WikiProject GreeceTemplate:WikiProject GreeceGreek Mid This redirect has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Classical Greece and Rome Mid‑importance This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome, a group of contributors interested in Misplaced Pages's articles on classics. If you would like to join the WikiProject or learn how to contribute, please see our project page. If you need assistance from a classicist, please see our talk page.Classical Greece and RomeWikipedia:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeTemplate:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeClassical Greece and Rome Mid This redirect has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. LGBTQ+ studies This redirect is of interest to WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-related issues on Misplaced Pages. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBTQ+ studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesLGBTQ+ studies

Comments

The Misplaced Pages entry for "Thebes" says the Dorians DESTROYED Thebes. So, how could the Dorians have introduced pederasty into a city "famous for" pederasty before the Dorians destroyed it?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.143.68.244 (talk) 20:24, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for that, I was wondering how to broach the topic. My concern was to indicate that they had been influenced by the Dorians, by whom they had been conquered, if I am not mistaken. How would you bring that in? Haiduc 12:00, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

The one line about "Boeotian swine" seems sketchy. Boeoetia was the sort of Appalachian region of ancient Greece, and I'd suspect that the Thebans, as residents of the biggest Boeotian city, were just getting some of that, versus any sort of directed anti-pederasty. Unless, of course, someone has some sources that prove me wrong. In which case, nevermind.

Hupperst borrows the term to use as the title of his paper: "Boeotian Swine: Homosexuality in Boeotia," by Charles Hupperts, in Same-Sex Desire and Love in Greco-Roman Antiquity and in the Classical Tradition of the West, ed. B. C. Verstraete and V. Provencal, Harrington Park Press, 2005, pp.180-190

He also gives two classical references, which I have added to the text. I agree with your view, it was probably a garden-variety type of xenophobic denigration. Haiduc 12:10, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Laius and Chrysippus and Pelops.jpg

The image Image:Laius and Chrysippus and Pelops.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Misplaced Pages:Media copyright questions. --08:04, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Removed improperly sourced section

I have removed another "Haiduc Special" from the article. Entirely apart from the inadequate form of the sources, they don't actually say what the text Haiduc has inserted purports them to say.

The content was:

Famous lovers ] was intimate with a young man by the name of Micythus.<ref>]</ref> Plutarch also mentions two of his beloveds ('']''): Asopichus, who fought together with him at the battle of Leuctra, where he greatly distinguished himself;<ref>Atheneus, ''Deipnosophists,'' </ref> and Caphisodorus, who fell with Epaminondas at Mantineia and was buried by his side. <ref>Plutarch, ''Dialogue on Love'' (''Moralia'' 761)</ref>.

Cornelius Nepos' biography of Epaminodas says absolutely nothing about the man being "intimate" with Micythus. It says he had "great affection" for him, which is ambiguous, and in context of Epaminodas threatening to arrest him.

His indifference to money was put to the proof by Diomedon of Cyzicus; for he, at the request of Artaxerxes, had undertaken to bribe Epaminondas. He accordingly came to Thebes with a large sum in gold, and, by a present of five talents, brought over Micythus, a young man for whom Epaminondas had then a great affection, to further his views. Micythus went to Epaminondas, and told him the cause of Diomedon's coming. But Epaminondas, in the presence of Diomedon, said to him, "There is no need of money in the matter; for if what the king desires is for the good of the Thebans, I am ready to do it for nothing; but if otherwise, he has not gold and silver enough to move me, for I would not accept the riches of the whole world in exchange for my love for my country. At you, who have made trial of me without knowing my character, and have thought me like yourself, I do not wonder; and I forgive you: but quit the city at once, lest you should corrupt others though you have been unable to corrupt me. You, Mycithus, give Diomedon his money back; or, unless you do so immediately, I shall give you up to the magistrates."

The Plutarch citation is less problematic but still evinces sloppiness. First off, attributing On Love to Plutarch is a misattribution (although a common one). It more properly is attributed to Pseudo-Plutarch, who wrote several centuries later. Second, the quote gives no details about Epaminodas' lovers at all, merely referring to them by name as "male concubines." So we can't even properly describe cite this as pederastic relationships (I agree that they probably are, the era being what it was. But we're held to a higher standard than "Eh, seems likely enough.") Nandesuka (talk) 17:15, 27 September 2008

Re Micythus, I will not debate here the correct translation of "adolescentulum quem tum Epaminondas plurimum diligebat." It is arguably in the domain of OR.

I will however request that you back up you claim that the Erotikos is commonly attributed to pseudo-Plutarch.

I will also request that you bring evidence that the love between Epaminondas and his two beloveds, Caphisodorus and Asopichus, was an exception to the normal pederastic attachment of the day. Haiduc (talk) 23:33, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Between Epaminodas and who? We don't know anything about these people except their names. If we don't even know their ages, how can we say anything about them in context of this article at all? Nandesuka (talk) 01:00, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

We know that these people belonged to the Greek tradition, which was pederastic. You claim that they may not have been pederastic lovers, in other words that they did not follow the tradition of the culture they belonged to. That is a contrarian view that has to be backed up. Therefore please support your contention with proper citations or withdraw it.

Also, please do not neglect the pseudo-Plutarch evidence request. Haiduc (talk) 03:15, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

So your claim here, if I understand it, is that all ancient Greek men should be presumed to be pederasts unless there is historical evidence to the contrary? Are you serious? Nandesuka (talk) 11:43, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Nandesuka and Haiduc - I think the main confusion in the modern era is the believe that any kind of hint towards romance = sex. This is further compounded by the idea that affect = romance. Rarely, are there friendships or simple platonic relationships in the modern view. The greatest confusion comes from when an individual is said to have a large sexual appetite, and thus every relationship is viewed as if it is sexual. Now this statement - "We know that these people belonged to the Greek tradition, which was pederastic." - is flat out wrong. No "tradition" is pederastic. There are Pedophilic tendencies and acceptances in certain cultures, but the term is also weighted improperly. For a long time ago 12 year old girls were seen as adults because that was middle age (dying at 24, after all), so by the above application the majority of history was filled with pederasty. The term "pederasty" is also anachronistic and muddles the actual tendencies between individuals. If there is a source that directly says there is a pedophilic relationship, then include it. If a source refuses to be that blunt and that certain, then it doesn't really belong. I would really like a source for this bold claim: "the main polis in Boeotia, a renowned center of pederasty,". Not only does it claim that pederasty was rampant in the city, but that it was known throughout for it. The paragraph then makes it seem as if they don't celebrate just pederasty, but forced pederasty, which is an even greater assumption. I've have many books on Greek myth, and not once have I seen such a claim as this. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:42, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I think we need to stay focused here. We are not analyzing the romantic or sexual aspects of the Greek pederastic tradition, what "all Greek men" did or did not do, modern thinking, or pedophilia. This is not a generalized discussion. We are debating whether Caphisodorus and Asopichus were pederastic beloveds or non-pederastic beloveds of Epaminondas. Period. That the two were beloveds of Epaminondas is part of the historical record, as per Plutarch. Nandesuka has put forward the novel claim that the nature of their relationship was non-pederastic. Thus, presumably, he is claiming that their love relationship was of a non-pederastic nature. Where is the evidence? I await answers to both my previous questions. Haiduc (talk) 16:15, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I've expanded to discuss some of the other problematic claims in the page, as there are little distinctions between actualities and opinion, and speculation is passed off as fact. Also, Misplaced Pages is not a place to debate, but to work together to create an encyclopedic page. It would be important to focus on encyclopedic language and be sure to state what the sources say in the way they say it. "Thus, presumably, he is claiming that their love relationship was of a non-pederastic nature. Where is the evidence?" The burden of proof would be that there was a sexual relationship. Otherwise, there is no right to make the claim. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:45, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I am afraid that your expansion only serves (perhaps unintentionally) to divert us from solving a problem we are now having with editor Nandesuka who has come in here with some not-very-credible claims and has imposed his view by fiat. So let's either confirm the apparently preposterous assertions of Mr. Nandesuka, or undo the apparent damage he has done to the article, and let's not engage in speculation without rhyme or reason. Haiduc (talk) 17:33, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Absence of proof: No, no evidence of sex, and without such a thing, there is no insertion of the material. It's quite simple, really: pederasty is not one-sided love for boys; it is not romantic love for boys that involves no contact; it is not romantic love for boys that involves a stroke of the face. "Pederasty," in reputable and non-pedophile definitions, is sexual intercourse or unwanted sexual activities between an adult male and males below the age of consent. To say that all men fond of boys were having sex with them, even if we assume that all fondness is erotic, is to suggest that I am having sex with every woman I find attractive.

Can Latin and Greek writers be specific about homosexual love when they choose to be? Yes. Was Plutarch, in Latin, writing centuries after the homoerotic societies of Athens are largely dismantled, writing with a presumption of male/male sexual contact? No. Was Plutarch capable of indicating when he was talking about such? Yes. That's that, then. This is not an Age of Pericles Athenian writing about andros to anthropos. This is a Romanized Greek writing at the same time as Juvenal, and we can see how friendly he is toward men with men by looking at his Satires. The burden of proof is on the one attempting to prove a statement about the affections of a long dead person. Prove it precisely and in an air tight manner, or it's not legitimate to say. (All seems infected that the infected spy,/ As all looks yellow to the jaundic'd eye.) Geogre (talk) 17:47, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

To put an end to all this vapid bombast, the two are eromenoi of Epaminondas. That is all we need to show in order to include them. Haiduc (talk) 20:52, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

"Both and his (second) eromenos, Caphisodorus died in that battle and were buried together." Stephen O. Murray, Homosexualities. p.42; How is an eromenos not in a pederastic relationship?

I note here Nandesuka's "hit and run" approach, making grand accusations and then failing to defend them. Haiduc (talk) 16:36, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

What's to defend? The Murray quote is the first actual evidence you've introduced into this discussion that rises above the level of "Oh, it's common sense!". If there's new evidence that wasn't in the removed material, raise it here -- as you are -- and we can discuss it.

On another subject, I note your shameful characterization of several editors disagreeing with you as a "gang bang." Please apologize.

Addressing the evidence, it is clear that there is more than adequate support, in several sources, to describe Epaminodas and Caphisodorus as lovers. But given that that's all we know about Caphisodorus, it's not clear to me how we can project the term "pederasty" upon the relationship. Thoughts? Nandesuka (talk) 17:59, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Apologize for being stomped? And at YOUR behest, after the way YOU have behaved?! We have known all along that they were lovers, had you only bothered to examine the evidence. Are you now claiming that an eromenos is not the younger partner in a pederastic relationship?! How long do you propose to prolong this charade? Haiduc (talk) 19:32, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I think that anyone who describes a disagreement over content as a "gang bang" owes an apology. Regarding your other question, as long as you insist in putting statements in articles that are not supported by the cited references, I will continue to raise the issue. As I have expressed to you repeatedly, the best way to avoid being challenged in this way is to be more rigorous in your sourcing. You have in the past promised to do this, but so far that hasn't panned out. Do you really not see -- to take the first example in this section -- that nothing in the source you cited indicates that Epaminodas was in a pederastic relationship with Micythus? Do you really not see why that is a serious problem? Nandesuka (talk) 19:50, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I had removed Micythus from the last version, which you seem to have deleted without reading, to avoid further fruitless debates. Even though the source states he was an adolescent which Epaminondas loved very much. But this issue is closed, as I agreed with the objections. Why have you removed the remaining material when the new source identifies the youths as eromenoi? Why have you not responded to my request for you to prove that Plutarch's Erotikos is spurious? Haiduc (talk) 21:40, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

"We have known all along that they were lovers" I think that, unless you knew them personally (of course), this is an assumption you have no right to claim. You may know that a book claims such and such is true. But you do not know yourself. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:20, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I know myself very well. Do YOU know yourself? Haiduc (talk) 10:52, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I never said that "Plutarch's Erotikos is spurious." I said it was more properly attributed to Pseudo-Plutarch, as are many of the other works in the Moralia. My point was, and remains, that the connection between the text that you write and the sources that you cite is, at best, tenuous. Nandesuka (talk) 04:19, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

You have once again failed to address the fact that the two beloveds are specifically described as eromenoi. And you have once again failed to defend your claim (which you keep repeating without bringing in any evidence) that the Dialogue on Love is by pseudo-Plutarch. You appear to be stonewalling. Haiduc (talk) 10:52, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I think Geogre has fully addressed the problems with characterizing these relationships as "pederastic", and don't see what else is left to say. Regarding the question of the authorship of the Dialogue on Love See F.H. Sandbach's textual notes on the Moralia, where he discusses the provenance of various pieces (including the one under discussion). One could address this by just attributing it as "Plutarch or Pseudo-Plutarch". Nandesuka (talk) 11:41, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Do I understand you right, that a Theban eromenos in a relationship with an older man is NOT in a pederastic relationship? Is this your last word? Haiduc (talk) 11:51, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

That depends on whether we're using your definition of pederasty or the actual definition. The two seem to be mostly unrelated. Nandesuka (talk) 12:05, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

So according to you an eromenos in relationship with an older man in ancient Greece was not in a Greek pederastic relationship. Right? Haiduc (talk) 14:34, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if Nandesuka would say it, but I would. The entire code of homoeroticism in Classical Greek relationships depends very, very precisely upon the young man not being "too young." He must be a youngER man who is entering into public life. Thus, he is not a "minor." To project a contemporary age of consent backward through time, even presuming there were one, and then to claim that this legal definition makes most of the ancient Attic world "pederastic" is shiftless. Hasn't Foucault already made this as clear as it needs to be? The younger man, in the Classical model, is probably around fifteen to nineteen, depending. It isn't the youth that creates the attraction, if there even is attraction, and it isn't the lack of physical development that is part of the appeal, if there is appeal, and the relationship is not equatable with marriage, if there is a relationship, and so claiming either "couple" status (when it may be a thing that lasts weeks or months) or "pederastic" most of all (which is specifically a term referring to underage orientation by one man for a boy) is nuts. Since the younger men were not "underage," they weren't even catamites. Utgard Loki (talk) 17:09, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

• Redirect-Class Greek pages
• Mid-importance Greek articles
• WikiProject Greece general articles
• All WikiProject Greece pages
• NA-Class Classical Greece and Rome pages
• Mid-importance Classical Greece and Rome articles
• All WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome pages
• Redirect-Class LGBTQ+ studies pages
• WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies articles