Good article. And I sympathize with the problem, as I work with Alexander, and of course, his "sexuality" (a term I question anyway) is very much a matter of speculation. More specifically, I study Hephaistion, and wrote an article on the two of them many years ago. But I often get asked if Alexander were "gay." It's not a term I'm comfortable with. But I am all right with calling him "queer," which although modern, is nicely loose and broad. But I get the difficulty with trying to explain to people the problem with the sources, particularly late ones, and why we must be so very careful about what is said in them.
It's a tricky problem because one is almost trying to negotiate two minefields at once - the ancient notions of sexuality and gender identity and modern ones whilst unkind people are trying to fight over them both.
I often get asked if Hadrian was 'gay' and, like you, it's an uncomfortable thing to stick a pin in. I don't think, if one could sit down with Hadrian and explain what the modern notion of 'gay' means, that he would identify that way. I tend to end up saying that he had a very unhappy marriage and was in love with someone who wasn't his wife.
Indeed. And with Macedonian royal polygamy, marriages were rarely/never made for love anyway. Plutarch tried to turn everything into a love affair for his own moralizing purposes. ATG was in love with Hephaistion, although whether they were even still sexually involved as adult men is questionable. Maybe, but it would have been highly transgressive. Which has nothing to do with their emotional ties. A difficult thing to convey in the modern world. And with Hardian, all the more problematic given Antinoos's age and the dubious matter of "consent" when the erastes is the damn emperor. Who tells him "No"?
An interesting article. But I have a question not related to Elagabalus (of whom I'd never heard before, by the way): In the article, you write that The Historia Augusta is part nonsense and part historical facts and "contains information that is not only historically accurate but is also the only source for such history that we have". How do we know it's historically accurate when this is the only source? And how do you make the difference between fact and fiction in general?
For instance, it's the only source that names Hadrian as the emperor who built the wall that bears his name across the north of what is now England and that the Antonine Wall in Scotland was the work of Antoninus Pius.
There was also a governor of Egypt under Commodus by the name of Decimus Veturius Macrinus, who for centuries was assumed to be a complete fabrication of the Historia because there's no other mention of him anywhere in any source or from any archaeological context and there also didn't appear to be a gap in the known governors for him to fit in. He pops up a few times in various jobs, and it was just assumed that he was an invented person used simply to plug holes in the author's story, plus his rise through the ranks makes no sense because he gets promoted at an alarmingly quick rate compared to the normal procedure.
But then in the 1950s, someone found an inscription with his name on that was dated perfectly to the period the Historia describes.
For about 100 years or so, covering most of the 2nd Century AD, it's pretty much the only historical source we have for that period, and all of the history in that period seems pretty accurate. Suetonius was writing at the time of Hadrian (he was a secretary in the royal court), but he was writing about an earlier period.
Sorry it took me so long to write this: Thank you so much for that extensive and very interesting answer! I wasn't expecting such a long and detailed reply. I very much appreciate it.
Good article. And I sympathize with the problem, as I work with Alexander, and of course, his "sexuality" (a term I question anyway) is very much a matter of speculation. More specifically, I study Hephaistion, and wrote an article on the two of them many years ago. But I often get asked if Alexander were "gay." It's not a term I'm comfortable with. But I am all right with calling him "queer," which although modern, is nicely loose and broad. But I get the difficulty with trying to explain to people the problem with the sources, particularly late ones, and why we must be so very careful about what is said in them.
Thank you for the kind words.
It's a tricky problem because one is almost trying to negotiate two minefields at once - the ancient notions of sexuality and gender identity and modern ones whilst unkind people are trying to fight over them both.
I often get asked if Hadrian was 'gay' and, like you, it's an uncomfortable thing to stick a pin in. I don't think, if one could sit down with Hadrian and explain what the modern notion of 'gay' means, that he would identify that way. I tend to end up saying that he had a very unhappy marriage and was in love with someone who wasn't his wife.
Indeed. And with Macedonian royal polygamy, marriages were rarely/never made for love anyway. Plutarch tried to turn everything into a love affair for his own moralizing purposes. ATG was in love with Hephaistion, although whether they were even still sexually involved as adult men is questionable. Maybe, but it would have been highly transgressive. Which has nothing to do with their emotional ties. A difficult thing to convey in the modern world. And with Hardian, all the more problematic given Antinoos's age and the dubious matter of "consent" when the erastes is the damn emperor. Who tells him "No"?
An interesting article. But I have a question not related to Elagabalus (of whom I'd never heard before, by the way): In the article, you write that The Historia Augusta is part nonsense and part historical facts and "contains information that is not only historically accurate but is also the only source for such history that we have". How do we know it's historically accurate when this is the only source? And how do you make the difference between fact and fiction in general?
For instance, it's the only source that names Hadrian as the emperor who built the wall that bears his name across the north of what is now England and that the Antonine Wall in Scotland was the work of Antoninus Pius.
There was also a governor of Egypt under Commodus by the name of Decimus Veturius Macrinus, who for centuries was assumed to be a complete fabrication of the Historia because there's no other mention of him anywhere in any source or from any archaeological context and there also didn't appear to be a gap in the known governors for him to fit in. He pops up a few times in various jobs, and it was just assumed that he was an invented person used simply to plug holes in the author's story, plus his rise through the ranks makes no sense because he gets promoted at an alarmingly quick rate compared to the normal procedure.
But then in the 1950s, someone found an inscription with his name on that was dated perfectly to the period the Historia describes.
For about 100 years or so, covering most of the 2nd Century AD, it's pretty much the only historical source we have for that period, and all of the history in that period seems pretty accurate. Suetonius was writing at the time of Hadrian (he was a secretary in the royal court), but he was writing about an earlier period.
It's a very odd book!
Sorry it took me so long to write this: Thank you so much for that extensive and very interesting answer! I wasn't expecting such a long and detailed reply. I very much appreciate it.