| 
| How,
Where and with Whom: The Politics of Sex in Ancient Greece - June 2004 |
Sources
|
| A
catchy title to pull in the punters and entice them away
from going punting proper was appropriate for an MCR lecture
on a warm afternoon in May. This paper, in living up to the
promise of that title, discusses the politics of sex through
an investigation of the sexual positions and activities of
women, men, slaves, foreigners and satyrs (half men, half
horse creatures) as depicted on the pots and pans that surrounded
the ancient Greeks. The question for this paper is: how does
the display of the sexual act itself contribute towards the
making, breaking and maintaining of social, political and
gender hierarchies in the societies within which the images
are visible? What does it mean to put, what we today might
consider, 'private' business on public display? What indeed
are the politics of sex?
Such an investigation is not itself
new in Classical scholarship, yet a re-visit is merited for
three reasons.
First, today's society is still grappling with this very
question: how to evaluate private sexual choices as a marker
of public character and status. In the latest spate between
Sven Goran Eriksson and the press over his liaisons with
an FA Club secretary, the argument was partly whether Sven's
private affairs should have any bearing on his ability to
perform his public role as manager. Should your sex life
have a bearing on your role and status in society?
Second, despite such debate over the role of sex in our
society, images of sex from societies such as those in ancient
Greece, are considered, not as being able to contribute to
this debate, but, at best, as titillating erotica, sold in
calendar form from Sparta to Samos. Such packaging desensitises
us from understanding how these images worked within the
society in which and for which they were created and stops
them from bringing their full weight to bear on our 'sex
debate' today. The 'position of the month' doesn't really
get us very far, except in highlighting our own voyeuristic
tendencies.
Third, where these images have been considered
in their original context, their role has often been characterised
as maintaining strict social, political and gender boundaries
within ancient Greek societies. Boundaries, which have then
often been used as moral support for the strict sexual mores
of their investigators' own eras.
In this paper, I hope to
address these issues by arguing that, if we do take some
time to position (ourselves and) these images properly, a
much more dynamic and unbalanced picture of social distinction
emerges. The politics of sexual positioning - the how, where
and with whom of ancient Greece - is a much more complicated
world than the tourist calendars could suggest. Far from
being mere pornography, these images not only illuminate
how Greek societies regulated themselves, but can also help
us to understand the role and meaning of the "Sven sex" debate,
which we find ourselves in today.
Before we delve into the supposed kamasutra of
ancient Greece, let me first define what we are going to
look at: the art produced in democratic Athens during the
sixth and fifth centuries B.C. "Democratic" Athens
was a place where only citizen men could participate in the
democratic business of the city: a long way from what we
understand as democracy today. Women, slaves and foreigners
were excluded. Such a polarization between those who were "in" and
those who were "out"; between the citizen male
'Self' and the woman, slave and foreigner 'Other', can help
us to understand a famous statement of Athenian civic identity: "I
am not a slave, I am not a foreigner and I am not a woman".
The logic was: if I am not part of the Other, I must be part
of the Self.
One such occasion that crystallised this demarcation
of Self and Other was the Symposium: an all male party, where
men got together to drink, play games, talk philosophy and
politics and fornicate with each other and with prostitutes.
Participation in the symposium confirmed your male citizen
status and it was at these symposia that many of the images,
which we will be discussing, were displayed.
What were these images displayed on? Potters and painters
in Athens churned out clay vessels of different shapes and
sizes all with specific uses- carrying water, wine, drinking,
cooling etc. and on which they painted scenes. The content
of these scenes varied enormously from myth to daily life
to sex to fantasy to horror and to death.
The images of sex
depicted on these pots portrayed different types of people
(namely, men, women, slaves and foreigners) having sex in
different ways in different places. As such, the male citizen
who used these pots and looked at these images learnt about
how the Self and Other had sex. By seeing what the Other
did, the citizen learnt what he should not be doing (if he
wanted to be part of the male citizen Self). In short, these
images seem to have confirmed for the viewer what was 'correct'
sexual activity for the male citizen.
So what did the Other do? Women were politically inferior
to men in Ancient Athens, but also held great power as they
were key to the continuation of the citizen race. Yet that
role was continuously threatened by a woman's supposed natural
promiscuity and high sex drive. This was itself due to, according
to medical writings, their bodies being dominated by their
sexual and reproductive organs as well as their lack, according
to philosophers such as Plato, of a control mechanism in
their brains.
The images displayed on the pots at the symposium went
a long way to both constructing and confirming these stereotypes
of the female Other to those attending.
A woman's ability
to run amuck was shown by the mythical stories of the Amazons,
who killed their husbands and cut off one of their breasts
to fight against, typically, Greek citizen men. Not only
Amazons were shown as fighters, but 'normal' women who had
subverted the natural order to such a degree that they fought
with large erect penises.
|
Images of women engaged
in sexual activities were also displayed for the male viewer,
which confirmed the notion of a woman's unquenchable sexual
appetite. Women were portrayed as avid masturbators (unlike
the citizen male for whom masturbation was a faute de mieux
reserved for slaves). Women 'liked' using multiple sex toys,
and one was even shown using an upside-down amphora - the
vessel used for storing wine for the symposium - to pleasure
herself (Figure 2).
|
|
Figure 2 - Woman misusing an amphora.
Source: ARV 238,5 |
This image demonstrated
not only a woman's sexual appetite, but also the deviant nature
of both the appetite and the woman, since such activity subverts
the 'correct' use of the amphora as a vessel for pouring wine
at the citizen male symposium. How could women ever be citizen
men, when they didn't even know how to use an amphora properly...
Indeed
so subversive was the female sexual appetite that women were
thought to enjoy (and were shown as enjoying) relations with
other women and even with animals.
By depicting women engaging
in these types of sexual behaviour, these images not only justified
the social and political inferiority of women but also outlined
to the citizen male what he shouldn't be doing if he wanted
to maintain his own superior position.
Slaves were depicted
engaging in masturbation like women. Moreover slaves were often
depicted as having large phalluses. Contrary to today's obsession
with size, the Athenian citizen male did not consider a large
penis as an advantage, since it closely connected its owner
with the animal kingdom, particularly the donkey, which was
a subservient animal. The large penis was a sign of lower class
status rather than masculine prowess and we only need look
at the plethora of ancient Greek male nude statues with small
unobtrusive penises to confirm this. Indeed athletes and young
men used to tie up their penises (a process called infibulation)
to minimalise their appearance.
Images on Greek pots also portrayed
foreigners as having different sexual tendencies to the Athenian
citizen male. Foreigners were thought of as principally effeminate.
This identified them with females, and so male foreigners were
often shown in the less dominant receiving position when
having sex with Greek men (Figure 3). When having sex with
each other, they were portrayed as having sex in such an
acrobatic way so as to put both partners in an effeminate
position (Figure 4)
|
|
Figure
3 - A Greek man approaches
a Persian man who is bent over. The image runs round two sides
of the same vessel
Source: Keuls 1985 Fiv.261 |
|
Figure 4 - Scythian men's
acrobatic sex acts
Source: Sutton 2000 Fig. 7.4 |
Images of the Other having
sex helped to construct a pattern of how not to have sex if
you were a citizen male. At the same time, some images on pots
showed citizen men engaging in sexual relations demonstrating
how they should have sex.
In their relations with women, these images clearly demarcate
two categories of relationship - one with hetaerai (the prostitutes
of the symposium) and one with wives. Interestingly, images
of the citizen male actually having sex with his wife were
very rare indeed! Wives were portrayed sitting inside the
house waiting for the drunken husband to return, or approaching
the bedroom with oil flasks, or, in mythical stories, being
raped by their husbands, but actual marital sex between citizen
man and his wife was almost absent.
|
| |
|
| Such an absence rings
louder when we place it in relation to the plethora of images
that show detailed sexual encounters between men and hetaerai.
Men were shown in the act of penetration, always in a dominant
position, and often with a money-bag present in the image to
characterise the nature of the act (Figure
5). Multiple orgy
scenes were also represented with men occasionally shown beating
the hetaerai, both as part of the sexual act and, it seems,
as punishment for poor performance. |
|
Figure 5 - man and hethera with
money purse
Source: ARV 923,29 |
| Citizen men are also
portrayed having relationships with other citizen men. Here
a complex line had to be negotiated since in having sex between
men, one at least had to be in a receiving position, thus imitating
a foreigner or a woman. At the same time, actually being penetrated
(in any position, dominant or not) was also tantamount to identifying
yourself with a woman. A form of sex was thus often employed
(in the images on pots at least), which allowed both males
to dominate and which avoided penetration. This was called
'intercrural sex', where men faced each other and placed the
other's penis between their thighs (Figure
6). In their relations
with other men and with citizen boys, it seems, seduction and
pursuit was fine, yielding to that seduction in a conventional
way was not. |
|
Figure 6 - two men face one another for intercrural
sex in the centre of the image.
Source: ABV 297,16.
|
In this way, images on
pots used at the symposium probably mirrored events going on
in front of them. It would be wrong to deny that there wasn't
an element of titillating erotica about them. They may even
have acted as spurs to action. However by re-presenting such
behaviour in art, these images also helped to confirm and structure
how the Athenians saw particular acts and with whom they associated
them. This in turn marked the boundaries between the male citizen
Self and the woman, slave and foreigner Other. How you have
sex and with whom (or what) made explicit social, political,
ethnic and gender differences. That expression of Athenian
civic identity "I am not a slave, I am not a foreigner
and I am not a woman" might well also have run: "I
do not masturbate, I am not penetrated, I am always dominant".
However, strict boundaries and sex have never been easy bedfellows. Into this
clear-cut picture of sexual behaviour and social boundaries must now be introduced
the creature called the satyr.
A creature half horse-half man, standing on two horse legs with an enormous permanent
erection, the satyr was incredibly popular in images on pots throughout the sixth
and fifth centuries B.C., particularly on pots designed for the symposium. The
satyr frolicked around drinking wine, acting drunk and dancing with Dionysos
- the God of wine and the symposium just as the male citizens did. |
| Yet satyrs have often
been thought to sum up everything the citizen male did not
want to be since they had all the bad (sexual) traits of women,
slaves and foreigners. Satyrs buggered each other and gave
each other oral sex (Figure 7). They exposed themselves and
masturbated turned full frontal towards the viewer. Names,
such as Terpekelos (meaning 'shaft pleasurer'), were painted
above them, chosen specifically to highlight their 'shameful'
activity. They showed off the size of their penises by hanging
things off it and balancing wine cups on it (Figure
8). They
dressed up to look like foreigners and used their penises as
weapons. A satyr was even portrayed in a 69 position with a
deer. Moreover, to solidify his connection with the Other,
one satyr was portrayed as having sex with an amphora, subverting
its 'proper' use just as we saw a woman doing (although at
least, in order to penetrate the amphora, he had to use it
the 'right' way round!) |
 |
Figure 7 - Satyrs as the other
Source: Berlin 1964.4 |
|
Figure 8 - Satyr balances a
wine cup on his penis
Source: Berard 1989
Fig 171 |
Satyrs have often been
thought to merely reinforce the boundaries we have already
seen. In being half horse, half man, the satyr naturally goes
too far and thus helps the watching citizens guard against
breaking those sexual social and gender barriers. Or does he?
Instead of guarding those boundaries, does the satyr actually
show how easily they are confused? Does the satyr, in being
sexually Ÿber-zealous, womanise the man within
him and show how easy it is to become part of the Other?
Such
an interpretation has been bolstered by the more recent study
of images on pots, particularly those created between 520-470BC,
which have long been disregarded by scholars intent on preserving
what they thought was the strict sexual code of ancient Greece,
which in turn was being used to support the strict moral code
of their own times.
In this period of turbulence surrounding
the Persian wars, there were images on pots of citizen men
allowing themselves to be penetrated in a non-dominant position
like women. There were images of men masturbating like slaves.
Men were even shown to invite buggery by offering their anuses
to the viewer(s) of the pot and seen to have sex with animals,
just like women and satyrs. Indeed men were possibly even more
Other than satyrs, as they were shown to vomit and defecate
at symposia, something satyrs never did.
Citizen man, as those
images of the half horse half man satyr and these occasional
images of men behaving badly suggest, was not so far away from
all the categories of Other as we have been led to believe.
Together, these images have subverted the very clear distinctions
other images seemed to have put in place.
|
| At the same time, and
continuing down to the end of the fifth century BC, satyrs
started to look, in images on pots, increasingly like the citizen
man. The supposed antithesis of citizen man increasingly became
indistinguishable from him. They dressed like old citizens,
chatting up the handsome young men (Figure
9). In these images,
the satyr's body, once so distinguishable from that of a man,
humanised to such a point that the two were synonymous. Satyrs
even started to imitate the mythical heroes of Athens, like
Perseus and Heracles. |
|
Figure 9 - Satyr on left chatting
up a youth
Source: Berard 1989
Fig 192 |
However, satyrs did not
only imitate citizen man, but all the categories of Other as
well. They imitated slaves and low class workmen: treading
grapes, cooking, caring for donkeys and sculpting. Satyrs echoed
the activities of foreigners and women echoed satyrs by dressing
up to imitate them.
The satyr made the citizen viewer double
take about the differences between him and every other section
of society by copying each of them (with regard to their sexual
antics); by taking over their roles or imitating them in everyday
activities and by letting themselves be imitated. The satyr
was everyone from slave to woman to foreigner to citizen
man. He linked them all through his character and thus tore
down the boundaries that those initial images, even those
of the satyr himself, set up (and which generations of scholars
have been happy to accept). If the satyr could be all of
these categories, then how much real difference was there
between them?
The satyr thus challenged the citizen viewer
to think about how he defined himself and whether the Self
and Other boundary really existed at all. |
One drinking cup demonstrated this inter-changeability very
well. On one side, a satyr's face looked directly at the
viewer (Figure 10). The foot of the cup had been replaced
by a set of male genitalia. When the user drank from the
cup, he drank from the satyr. Moreover when he lifted the
cup by the handles to drink, a satyr face on the other side
of the vessel covered his. The drinker presented 'his' satyr
face, and pointed 'his' genitalia at the other members of
the symposium. While he drank, the citizen man literally
became the satyr with all that such a transformation entails.
|
|
Figure 10 - A drinking cup with
Satyr faces
Soiurce: Oxford 1974 344
|
Images of sexual antics
on pots in Ancient Athens thus both structure and subvert a
way of defining citizens and non-citizens by their sexual practices.
They seem to, instead of just structuring a firm line between
Self and Other, make that line purposefully problematic and
they leave that problem as a matter for the viewer.
Each individual citizen is made to re-consider what he thought
he had understood about sex at the very time and place where
he may well be engaging in it, in front of others, at the
symposium, attendance at which was supposed to confirm his
citizen status. Indeed the place where the boundary between
citizen man and non-citizen man is most likely to be reached
- in the heady midst of the wild symposium party à is
the place where these images (are themselves placed to) question
where that boundary actually lies.
Through these images, bought and chosen by the symposium
giver, the citizen symposiast is forced to think about what
exactly a citizen is and what exactly a citizen does. Moreover
each individual reacted (and then acted) within the symposium
group, in front of that group. Images of sex forced the viewer
to think, (re-)act and thus to some extent define himself
in front of his fellow citizens.
In a similar way, members
of the MCR as part of the audience group to this paper in
May, defined themselves to that group by their reactions
to, and thoughts about, the images shown (although readers
and college authorities will be glad to hear that this was
as far as the similarity with the ancient symposium went!)
The question of sex and society is not a new one. What these
images throw up is the implausibility of sexual behaviour,
or behaviour in general, offering strict boundaries which
are able to demarcate a Self and an Other, an "Us" and
a "Them". Such a polarisation ignores the grey
middle ground and the satyr, in Athenian art, seems to have
been used to make an issue of just such an area. The point
of these images seems to me, not to come to a conclusion
about where the boundary lies, but to make the issue of the
middle ground a source of constant debate and discussion,
through which society is able to evolve. Such discussion
continues to this day in, at the very least, the form of
Sven, the press and the MCR Graduate Lecture series.
My thanks go to the MCR president for inviting me to speak
in May and to Mr D. Murphy in calling for this contribution
to the College Magazine, as well as to you, the readers,
for taking the time to peruse it.
|
| Sources |
|
| ABV
- Beazley, J.D. Attic Black-Figure Vase-Painters 1956, Oxford
ARV
- Beazley, J.D. Attic Red-Figure Vase-Painters 1942, Oxford
Brard
- 1989 Brard, C. et al. A City of Images 1989, Princeton
Keuls
1985 Keuls, E.C. The Reign of the Phallus: sexual politics
in ancient Athens 1985, Cambridge Mass.
Sutton 2000 Sutton,
R.F. Jnr. "The Good, the Base and
the Ugly: the drunken orgy in Attic vase painting and the
Athenian self" in Not the Classical Ideal: Athens and
the Construction of the Other Cohen, B. (Ed.) 2000, Boston
p.108-22
|
| |
|
|
|
