Sexual Behavior in Ancient Greece
Legal regulation of sex amd marriage was part of ancient Greek life from the archaic period onward. The themes of sexual attraction, abduction, and sexual infidelity feature prominently in the Homeric poems, but reprisal for sexual peccadillos in Homeric society was a matter of private initiative.
In the classical period, the great goddess Aphrodite became the patroness of love and sex among the Greeks. Like the Phoenician Ishtar-Astarte cult, the worship of Aphrodite celebrated the power of sexual experience to transcend the munÂdane. By the fourth century B.C. Greeks had begun to distinguish between two aspects of Aphrodite. Aphrodite Ourania personified the higher, celestial qualiÂties of love and affection, while Aphrodite Pandemos celebrated the joys of sexÂual pleasure and served as the patroness of prostitutes.11eWilIiam A. Ward, “Reflections on Some Egyptian Terms Presumed to Mean â€?Harem,’ â€?Harem-Woman,’ â€?Concubine,’” Berytus 31 (1983) 67-74.
7W.M. Flinders Petrie, Egyptian Tales, ser. 1: IVth to XIIth Dynasty (New York: Frederick A. Stokes Co., n.d.), pp. 10-16; Ohlson, “Adultery,” p. 332.
8C. J. Eyre, “Crime and Adultery in Ancient Egypt,” Journal of Egyptian ArchaeolÂogy 70 (,1984) 92-105.
9Herodotus, Historiae 2. 135.
10Herodotus, Historiae 2.126. Another story describes Pharoah Rhampsinitus prosÂtituting his daughter; but Herodotus himself confessed doubts about the authenticity of this one; Historiae 2.121.
11Burkert, Greek Religion, p. 78; Sarah B. Pomeroy, Goddesses, Whores, Wives, and Slaves: Women in Classical Antiquity (New York: Schocken Books, 1975), pp. 6-7; Hans Herter, “Die Soziologie der antiken Prostitution im Lichte des heidnischen und christlichen Literatur,” Jahrbuchfiir Antike und Christentum 3 (i960) 72-73.
Greek thinkers subjected sexual activity to considerable attention. They never considered sex an evil, nor did they place a high value on sexual contiÂnence, but they had a keen sense that some kinds of sexual activities under some circumstances were immoral.[16] One sex offense that Greek writers conÂdemned in severest terms was adultery by a married woman. Public punishÂment of adultery was apparently unknown in the earliest periods of Greek history.[17] By the time of Philo Judaeus (ca. 13 b.c.-a.d. 45~50), however, adultery had become a serious crime, as had seduction of unmarried women and widows. These offenses could be punished by death or imprisonment; alÂternatively, the offended husband or father could require the malefactor to pay heavy compensation in order to avoid more unpleasant consequences. AlÂthough fidelity was demanded of wives, it was not required of husbands. NeverÂtheless certain obligations went with marriage: a law of Solon required married men to have sexual relations at least three times each month.[18] In addition, Greek opinion expected a married man to abstain from open or notorious relaÂtionships with women other than his wife, although flirtations and even sexual relationships with young men were not considered altogether incompatible with marriage.[19] But Athenian practice often failed to conform to Athenian ideals. Although Aristotle asserted that Athenian husbands had the same duty to observe sexual fidelity as their wives, neither law nor common practice penalized the straying husband as it did the unfaithful wife.[20] And despite the teachings of ethical writers, wealthy Athenian men often kept concubines; the law acknowledged their status and regulated their rights as well as those of their children. “We have mistresses for our enjoyment,” Demosthenes (384-322 B.C.) declared, “concubines to serve our person, and wives for the bearing of legitimate offspring.”[21]
Athenian law was particularly severe in dealing with the seduction of unmarÂried women.
The Athenians in fact regarded seduction as a more serious ofÂfense than rape, both because the law presumed that rape was an act of unÂpremeditated impulse and also because the seducer not only ravished the body of his victim, but also turned her feelings and loyalty toward himself and away from her husband, father, or guardian. The male authority figures were treated as the aggrieved parties in Athenian actions for adultery and seduction; the woman’s feelings were material and relevant only insofar as they affected the interests of her male authority figure.[22]Treatment of sexual offenses was not uniform, however, among the Greek city-states in the classical period. Athenian writers, for example, told denigratÂing stories about wife-swapping among the Spartans, implying that both the moral and legal standards of Sparta were vastly inferior to those of Athens. In point of fact, Athenian reports of Spartan sexual practices probably exaggerated both the frequency and the indecency of extramarital sex among their Spartan rivals. Much of our information about the Hellenic world comes from Athenian sources, which emphasize the superiority of their sex rules to those of other poleis.[23]
Ancient Greeks generally disapproved of sexual relationships or intermarÂriage between close relatives, and Euripides (480-406 B.C.) characterized the lack of a law prohibiting incest as a feature of barbarian societies. Greek law also penalized rape, whether of a man or a woman, sometimes by fines, sometimes by more severe measures.[24]
Prostitution was a commonplace of sexual life in ancient Athens, as it was in other early societies. Temples dedicated to Aphrodite were apparently served by sacred prostitutes like those of Ishtar-Astarte in Phoenicia.[25] Quite apart from prostitution associated with temples and sacred places, commercial prostitution was also common in Greek antiquity. Ample evidence survives concerning well- organized and flourishing brothels, usually managed by women.
These establishÂments were patronized by men of all types and social ranks, including philosoÂphers and rulers. While most prostitutes were probably slave women, significant numbers of them were resident aliens who found commercial sex a rewarding enterprise.[26] Intelligent and ambitious women of higher social origin often made careers as hetairai and sometimes established long-term relationships with men of power and wealth.Not all Greek prostitutes were women. Male prostitution was also common in ancient Greek society; this is scarcely surprising, given the near universality of homosexual relationships in ancient Hellas and the relative absence of social
stigma attaching to gay sex. It is at first glance a shade surprising that, while female prostitution was tolerated and free from penalty, a citizen who volunÂtarily had sex with another man in return for money lost his political rights; alien men who prostituted themselves were required to pay a special prostituÂtion tax. This discrimination against male citizen prostitutes was apparently based on a belief that since most prostitutes were slaves or aliens, the citizen who chose to make his body available for hire was a traitor to his social class and hence deserved to lose his citizenship rights as a result of his disloyalty.[27]
Thus the Hellenic world regulated sexual behavior of many kinds by legal restrictions and imposed penalties upon those who transgressed the norms. It is popularly believed in modern times that legal restrictions upon sexual conÂduct are a creation of Christianity and that ancient sexuality was free from legal curbs on sexual expression, but the evidence does not support this myth. LimitaÂtions on sexual behavior in antiquity differed in many ways from contemporary restrictions, but pre-Christian societies had their own sense of right and wrong, shame and guilt with respect to sex, and their legal systems reflected those attiÂtudes. Many ancient Greeks believed that pleasure, sexual or nonsexual, was not a worthy goal in itself.
Indeed, classical Greeks esteemed chastity as a virÂtue and linked it to the capacity for other kinds of praiseworthy self-denial, such as foreswearing excessive eating and drinking. Greek thinkers also imposed limits even on legitimate sexual relations and laid great stress on restricting sexÂual pleasure to appropriate times and places.[28] [29] The classical world scorned those who engaged in undisciplined sex as inferior creatures and ranked them with drunkards and gluttons, as persons who were incapable of self-restraint. Men who squandered their wealth on mistresses and dancing girls excited deriÂsion and indignation, rather than admiration, among respectable members of Greek society.ωAncient Greek religious observances also imposed curbs on sexual behavior. Greeks of the classical period considered intercourse and other forms of sexual activity a source of miasma, or ritual defilement, and required that certain kinds of cultic observances be performed by virgins or by priests who were required to observe chastity during the times when they ministered in the temples. But sex also rendered ordinary people unclean, and custom required them to purify themselves after sexual intercourse before returning to ordinary business.[30]
Plato
Prescriptions concerning sexual behavior in ancient Greece came mainly from philosophers, rather than from lawmakers. Plato (428/27-348/47 B.c.), by far the most influential Greek writer on love and sexuality, has left a deep and perÂmanent impression on Western beliefs about sexual morality. A profound ambiÂguity runs through Plato’s treatment of sexual relations and love. At times he saw sex as a positive element in human nature, a benevolent force in mankind’s psyche. But at other times Plato viewed sex as a distraction from the search for truth and beauty, a disturbing and negative feature of human experience, which men must learn to constrain within strict limits.
In the Symposium, Plato treated sex as a positive force. He described sex as a manifestation of love, and thus considered it a component of mankind’s eternal search for harmony beÂtween body and soul.[31] In his negative or “puritanical” mode, however, Plato viewed sex as a snare that distracted men from the love of wisdom. Sex, he maintained in the Republic, trapped men in a bog of sensuality, from which they found it difficult, or even impossible, to escape. Hence wise men should shun sex altogether or at least be wary of its allures. Men were better off when they were old, he added, since age cools the Iibidinal fires and this makes it easier for the elderly to seek true wisdom and love without sexual distractions.[32] In the Republic and in the Laws Plato argued that sexual relations ought to be restricted solely to procreative intercourse in marriage. Plato in these works voiced deep suspicion of sexual pleasure; pleasure, he thought, was excusable only when it was an unavoidable side effect of a virtuous act. Marital interÂcourse for the purpose of generating children produced enjoyment, he obÂserved, and sexual pleasure under these circumstances was morally acceptable. But he strongly condemned promiscuity and any sort of sexual experience in which physical gratification was the primary goal.[33] Whereas in his Symposium Plato had sung the praises of homosexual love and indeed seemed to believe that love in a proper sense could exist only between two men, by the time he wrote the Laws, he had apparently reconsidered, for in the Laws he conÂdemned gay sex as “unnatural” because it is not procreative. Moreover, he conÂtinued, gay sex is motivated solely by the desire for pleasure and thus lacks any redeeming virtue.[34] The restrictive side of Plato’s treatment of sex later found an appreciative audience among the Fathers of the Christian Church.Aristotle
Aristotle (384-321 b.c.) dealt with sexual matters in the context of his discusÂsion of the ethics of pleasure. Pleasure, Aristotle held, is not a good in itself and is certainly not the supreme good in human life. He was particularly critical of the pleasures produced by touch and taste. Humans shared these physical senÂsations with other animals, Aristotle maintained, and hence they should not be regarded as among the higher values of human life.
Aristotle also contended that seeking after enjoyable feelings leads to licenÂtiousness and makes men brutish. He was sharply critical of sex, which he conÂsidered an especially corrupting pleasure, not only because it produces exÂquisite gratification and hence seems particularly alluring, but also because it affects the entire body, not just certain parts of it.[35] Physical pleasures, such as sex and eating, were irrational desires, Aristotle thought, precisely because reason played little or no part in the pursuit and enjoyment of them. Thus they were inferior to the higher intellectual enjoyments that constituted worthy goals for human striving.[36] Aristotle did not condemn love, however, although he regretted its frequent sexual manifestations. The desirable kind of love, the truly human kind, in his view, was love that transcended physical desire and sexual passion, love that was cool, rational, and nonsexual.[37]
The Pythagoreans
Other schools of Greek philosophy agreed with Aristotle’s rejection of sexual pleasure as a proper human goal. The Pythagoreans considered intense sexual desire a special failing of the young, a phase that adults should outgrow as quickly as possible. They disapproved of sexual enjoyment even within marÂriage and held that married persons should voluntarily refrain from having sex for pleasure; when they copulated, they should do so solely in order to beget children. Even then couples should beware of the seductive allure of sex and should refrain from “excessive” intercourse, which meant any sexual act that did not aim at procreation.[38]
Epicurus
Epicurus (342-270 R.C.), unlike Aristotle and the Pythagoreans, viewed pleaÂsure positively. “Pleasure,” he wrote, “is the standard by which we judge every good.”[39] Thus Epicurus considered pleasure basic to ethical judgments.[40] But he sharply qualified this endorsement of pleasure as a human goal. Pleasure, he said, is not synonymous with sensual gratification; when he spoke of pleasure, Epicurus meant ease of mind and freedom from bodily pain, rather than “conÂtinuous drinkings and revellings and the satisfaction of lusts.”[41] Gross physical satisfactions, he taught, do not produce the good life. Sensual reward, accordÂing to Epicurus, is simply not an adequate criterion for moral judgments. TranÂsient fleshly joys, he thought, were treacherous and played no significant role in the ordering of a contented life.[42] Epicurus was particularly critical of the snares of sexual pleasure: “Sexual intercourse,” he declared, “has never done a man good, and he is lucky if it has not harmed him.”[43]
The Cynics
The Cynics were radical philosophers who rejected conventional Greek notions of morality and propriety. In contrast to the other Greek philosophical schools, the Cynics saw nothing wrong with enjoying sexual pleasure. Cynics believed that people ought to satisfy their sexual desires in the simplest and least comÂplicated way. Sexual relations between any two people were morally acceptÂable, according to Diogenes (d. ca. 324 B.c.), so long as both parties consented. Marriage required mutual consent as well, but it need not be an exclusive union: extramarital relations were not immoral, the Cynics thought. Men and women should be allowed to have sex with as many or as few persons of either gender as they choose. Diogenes saw nothing wrong in masturbation or with sexual activity in public. The sole criteria of sexual morality, from the Cynics’ point of view, were that sex ought to be simple, natural, voluntary and uncomplicated.[44]
The Stoics
The sexual doctrines of the Cynics attracted fewer and less influential followers in the Greco-Roman world than did other philosophical teachings. For the subÂsequent history of Western beliefs and attitudes about sex, the most important Hellenistic philosophical school was Stoicism, and the Stoics took a stern and restrictive view of sexual pleasure, which they thought was of trifling value.[45] Although enjoyment was natural, leading Stoics considered it a mere side effect of more elevated human aims, comparing it to the hair of the armpits, a trivial accessory, not worthy of serious consideration.[46]
Chrysippus (ca. 277-204 B.c.) adopted a more nuanced analysis of pleasure. He distinguished between hedone, an unhealthy kind of physical enjoyment, and hormai, by which he meant rational enjoyment, which is under the control of the mind.[47] The goal of the wise man, according to Zeno (ca. 334-262/61 B.c.) should be to avoid both pleasure and pain, although even the wise might experience “suspicions and shadows” of these feelings. Freedom from pain (ap- atheia), however, was distinct, in Zenos view, from insensibility. The apatheia that wise men valued meant an indifference to mere physical sensation, an indifÂference that resulted from an intellectual determination to free one’s self from the vagaries of passion. Pleasure and pain, as Zeno thought of them, were outÂcomes of mental processes faultily controlled by the intellect. For the Stoics, sensations of all kinds resulted from an imperfect ordering of rational priorities. Those who strenuously pursued pleasure showed poor judgment. The senses, as Seneca remarked, are not proper judges of what is good, and it is a mistake to rely upon them.[48]
The Stoics considered sex a special type of pleasure. Sexual enjoyment was in itself morally indifferent, they believed, but they considered that men make poor use of their time when they occupy their minds with such matters. Sex, like wealth, was not a worthy goal for reasonable adults to seek, and the pursuit of sexual pleasure was not conducive to a healthy morality.[49]
Sexual relations belonged in the category of the “lower appetites,” which the wise man refrained from indulging. The truly wise person, according to Stoic teachings, cultivated a sober and reserved demeanor; he abstained from sex and other lower concerns, such as eating and drinking, beyond the minimum essenÂtial for bodily health.[50] Accordingly, the wise man should strive to control his reactions to sensual stimuli, including erotic sensations. He should not, for exÂample, be aroused by the sight of his neighbor’s wife in the nude; rather he should censor these base feelings and discipline his reactions to bodily sensaÂtions. This mastery of the mind should be maintained even in marriage; it is wrong to lust after another man’s wife, but it is equally wrong to lust after ones own.[51]
Because sexual satisfaction ranked low in their scale of values, Stoics considÂered chastity a virtue of correspondingly high importance. Even in marriage the sexual relationship between a man and a woman ought to be minimal, if not altogether nonexistent. Any departure from the ideal of chastity, marital or nonmarital, made a person feebler and less virtuous.[52]
Oddly enough, some early Stoics had accepted the practice of free love and asserted that sexual relations need not be restricted to marital intercourse. Zeno had argued that general acceptance of free love would eliminate the probÂlem of adultery. Since the wise would be in control of their sexual impulses, he felt, freedom from restrictions on sexual partners would not lead to debauchery or sexual orgies. On similar grounds Zeno advocated nudity: he reasoned that since clothing concealed part of the body, individuals were unable to make inÂformed decisions about the selection of their sexual partners. Zeno further arÂgued that the use of clothing fostered unnecessary inhibitions, which a policy of public nudity would help to erase.[53]
Later Stoics sharply differed from Zeno on these matters. Musonius, for exÂample, maintained that sexual relations are only moral and lawful within marÂriage and that free love would promote licentiousness. The impact of marriage and sexual relationships upon civic harmony and public order concerned many Stoic teachers. Marriage, they believed, required governmental regulation and attention. Designed as an institution for the procreation and rearing of chilÂdren, marriage was too important to be left to the personal desires and whims of the partners. Likewise sexual relationships of all kinds had basic implications for public order; sex was a legitimate concern of the polis, and not simply the private business of the parties involved.[54] Indeed, sexual love (eros) was not only a legitimate interest of the polis, but because of its link to the birthrate was essential for the continued existence of the body politic. Sex, both in marÂriage and outside of it, was accordingly a proper matter for regulation.[55]
Seneca (ca. 4 B.C.-A.D.65), the foremost spokesman for Stoic views in the Latin-speaking world, warned that wise men should beware of the corrupting influence of pleasure, particularly sexual pleasure.[56] Wise men, he taught, cerÂtainly do not consider sexual pleasure the highest good; if they did so, there would be no depravity they did not applaud, no perversion they scorned, and this would be delirium, not wisdom. “Unchastity,” he wrote elsewhere, “is the plague of our time.” Ironically, he penned these lines while in exile on Corsica, following his conviction for adultery.33
A fundamental Stoic precept, one that exposed them to amused derision from adherents of other schools of thought, was the teaching that “all sins Jiamartematd) are equal. ” This paradox was the converse of another Stoic prinÂciple, that “all moral acts (katorthomata) are equal.” The principle of the equalÂity of immoral acts caused the Stoics embarrassment because it seemed to conÂtradict common intuitive beliefs about the gradation of offences against the moral code. The paradox implies, for example, that murder is no more serious than jaywalking and, therefore, that both offenses merit the same punishment, a conclusion that most people would reject as absurd. Nonetheless the paradox of the equality of sins was basic to Stoic beliefs. Thus, given the principle of the equality of immoral actions, sexual offenses were neither more nor less serious than other delinquencies.34
The Stoics’ generally disapproving view of sex rested on their belief that huÂman reason vanished during the sex act. Yet they also insisted that love was a virtue. Zeno and other leading Stoics distinguished, however, between sexual love and the “higher” love that they esteemed. The wise man will love, they maintained, but they meant thereby that he would endeavor to be in harmony with a beautiful object.[57] [58] [59] [60] This “higher” love was a moral imperative for attaining the peace of mind and spirit that was the overriding objective of human life, according to Stoic belief. Sexual love, then, was an inferior and potentially danÂgerous kind of love, a shallow surrogate for the intellectualized love that Stoics esteemed.36 Stoic teachings about sexual morality and its relationship to the goals of human life profoundly influenced the moral and ethical outlook of the Greco- Roman intellectual elite and were widely shared even by those who were in no sense Stoics themselves. As we shall see later, St. Pauls teachings about the role of sex in the moral order bear a marked resemblance to ideas that were common among Zeno’s disciples. Paul and the Stoic teachers certainly agreed in their negative views about sexual pleasure and about sex as a potentially destructive temptation that virtuous persons should resist, save for procreative marital sex. But, as we shall also see, Paul was no Stoic; he rejected many basic Stoic docÂtrines and, moreover, his loathing for sex contrasted sharply with the Stoic premise that sex was in itself morally indifferent.[61]