Marvelling at a youth's good looks. The gaze and Classical pederastic culture in ancient Greece

(1)

Marvelling at a youth’s good looks

The gaze and Classical pederastic culture in ancient

Greece

MA thesis in Ancient History

By: Nicky Schreuder (s1342460)

Supervisor: Dr. K. Beerden

Date: 26/07/2019

(2)

1

Cover: Drinking cup (kylix) with youth running, attributed to the Triptolemos Painter (c. 500 BC). Museum of Fine Arts Boston, inv. 13.81.

(3)

2

Introduction

Lord Henry looked at him. Yes, he was certainly wonderfully handsome, with his finely-curved scarlet lips, his frank blue eyes, his crisp gold hair. There was something in his face that made one trust him at once. All the candor of youth was there, as well as all youth’s passionate purity. One felt that he had kept himself unspotted from the world. No wonder Basil Hallward worshipped him. He was made to be worshipped.1

The young man described here is Oscar Wilde’s (1854–1900) eponymous protagonist in The

picture of Dorian Gray, and this is the moment where the adolescent gets introduced in detail

to the reader. What is happening in this passage quoted is clear – a man is observing the beautiful Dorian in an almost voyeuristic way. Henry Wotton and his friend Basil Hallward walk into the latter’s studio and find him sitting at the piano. They get acquainted and the laudative description ensues. Establishing the radiance of Dorian’s beauty functions within the story as a contrast with the young man’s later sins and ugly nature, but it is also a prime example of the ‘gaze’. Wilde’s novel is imbued with homoeroticism, which in turn is associated with aestheticism.2 Dorian is subject to the (literal) gaze of Henry, that of Basil, but likewise the reader is forced to ‘look’ upon the supposed ethereal beauty of the protagonist through these characters’ points of view; in this moment Gray is being objectified as a marvel of beauty. His appearance, moreover, coincides with Western beauty standards of the time that were seen as symbolising the good and divine. So inevitably the work contains Wilde’s own gaze as well, which is culturally determined in relation to his own predilections of the ideal male youth.

In Victorian times Greek culture was of highly inspirational value, and the focus on Plato (c. 427–c. 348 BC) shines through in Wilde’s work. The ‘upper-class male homosocial desire’3 is reminiscent of the ancient custom of pederasty, which gets featured in the ancient philosopher’s Symposion, for instance.4_{Exceptions and other types of male-male desire aside,} pederasty is generally understood as the elite educational relationship between an adult erastḗs (‘lover’) and a youth; the erṓmenos (‘beloved’). A similar relationship (though never explicit) can be recognised in the interactions between Lord Henry and Dorian Gray, the latter of whom is continually objectified by the gaze as he cannot outgrow his desirable adolescence and the allure that accompanies it. Looking and erotics are interlinked.

1_{O. Wilde and J. Bristow (ed.), The picture of Dorian Gray. The 1890 and 1891 texts. The complete works of}

Oscar Wilde, vol. 3 (Oxford 2005) 19.

2_{J. Carroll, ‘Aestheticism, homoeroticism, and Christian guilt in The picture of Dorian Gray. A Darwinian}

critique’ Philosophy and Literature 29 (2005) 1-19, at 3.

3_{E. Kosofsky Sedgwick, Between men. English literature and male homosocial desire (New York 1985) 176.} 4_{I. Hurst, ‘Victorian literature and the reception of Greece and Rome’ Literature Compass 7 (2010) 484-495, at}

(5)

4

Historiography and inquiry

This thesis is concerned with the theoretical gaze and optic performance in relation to pederasty and therefore it will be an interdisciplinary analysis. The gaze, widely used within sociological studies, has rarely been applied systematically to homoerotic expressions of classical Greece in order to attempt to gain a further understanding of same-sex cultural patterns. Yet the study of the phenomenon of Greek pederasty itself does go a longer way back. Love between men had been recognized earlier by those such as Wilde, but it was in the beginning of the 20th century that it became a serious subject of scholarly interest and inquiry. Trailblazing, J. Beazley published multiple articles on Attic vases which also included those with (homo)erotic paintings and inscriptions, therefrom giving the first systematic analysis of pederasty in the visual arts.5 Notable scholars who advanced upon the study of male homosexuality in ancient Greece were M. Foucault and K.J. Dover, who wrote their highly influential works decades after Beazley did.6 Dover’s Greek homosexuality especially has achieved an iconic status within the study of sexuality in antiquity. Both Foucault and Dover characterised the institution of

paiderastia on the basis of a dominant/active and submissive/passive dichotomy. In other

words, domination was what defined the relationship between erastḗs, who took on the active and penetrative role, and erṓmenos, who took on the receptive role and was thus ever at risk of denigration. In a patriarchal society like the Athenian democracy, masculinity was valued. Taking on a passive role endangered this manly ideal in theory as passivity equaled emasculation. Hence it was the adult citizen male who actively pursued and loved, and the youth who was beloved; the boy was already socially inferior for he had not reached adulthood (i.e.

manhood) nor acquired his citizenship yet. D. Halperin emphasises starkly the prominent role

of domination within same-sex relationships. He sees sex in Classical Athenian society not only as

…[a] deeply polarizing experience: it effectively divides, classifies, and distributes its participants into distinct and radically opposed categories. Sex possesses this valence, apparently, because it is conceived to center essentially on, and to define itself around, an asymmetrical gesture, that of the penetration of the body of one person by the body – and, specifically, by the phallus – of another. Sex is not only polarizing, however; it is also hierarchical. For the insertive partner is construed as a sexual agent, whose phallic penetration of another person’s body expresses sexual ‘activity’, whereas the receptive partner is construed as a sexual patient, whose submission to phallic penetration expresses sexual ‘passivity’. Sexual ‘activity’, moreover, is

5_{J. Beazley, ‘Some inscriptions on vases III’ American Journal of Archaeology 39 (1935) 475-488.} 6_{K.J. Dover, Greek homosexuality (London 1978); M. Foucault, Histoire de la sexualité (Paris 1976-1984).}

(6)

5 thematized as domination: the relationship between the ‘active’ and the ‘passive’ sexual partner is thought of as that obtaining between social superior and social inferior.7

This sexual-role dichotomisation and the act of penetration has permeated scholarship ever

since.8 However, more recently a countermovement has emerged and pederasty as a

homosexual practice is consequently being nuanced in favour of highlighting its homosocial facets.9 W.A. Percy stresses that the continuous focus on (sexual and thus social) domination has hampered further meaningful research into the topic, and that there are still many facets left unexplored because of this ‘Dover dogma’.10_{It is also becoming clear that the unambiguous} dichotomy aforementioned might not have been the absolute standard, as T.K. Hubbard and C. Hupperts have sought to prove. Thus Hubbard sees it as actually masculinising instead of potentially effeminising for the elite boys to be a man’s erṓmenos during their younger years: the older man took on the role of a tutor and would instruct the boy about appropriate gender roles and their future role in society.11 Additionally, he undermines the dominant/passive scheme by highlighting literary examples of equal intragenerational partnerships or those where ‘switching’ was involved.12_{In a similar vein Hupperts has identified age-peer couples on} black-figure vases, showing that Greek homosexuality does not necessarily equal pederasty.13

Yet even when taking into account that paiderastia was an elite institution with political and social functions, that does not negate the simultaneous existence of any erotic or amorous feelings. Increasing attention is being paid to the emotional bond between erastḗs and

erṓmenos, and the supposed frigid and unwilling behavior of the youthful lover is being

carefully revised on the basis of sources like archaic poetry wherein their active participation and passions are articulated.14 J.N. Davidson has effectively but thinly argued for the existence of the intense emotion of passionate love (erȏs) that was initially and primarily felt by the pursuing erastḗs, which in turn could develop into philia – mutual love: ‘Erȏs is an ambition,

7_{D.M. Halperin, One hundred years of homosexuality. And other essays on Greek love (New York and London}

1990) 30.

8_{W.A. Percy, ‘Reconsiderations about Greek homosexuality’ Journal of Homosexuality 49 (2005) 61, at}

13-14.

9_{See e.g. T.K. Hubbard, ‘The irreducibility of myth. Plato’s Phaedrus, Apollo, Admetus, and the problem of}

pederastic hierarchy’ Phoenix 67 (2013) 81-106; Percy, ‘Reconsiderations about Greek homosexuality’.

10_{Percy, ‘Reconsiderations about Greek homosexuality’ 13-17.}

11_{Hubbard, ‘Athenian pederasty and the construction of masculinity’ in J.H. Arnold and S. Brady (eds), What is}

masculinity? Historical dynamics from antiquity to the contemporary world (New York 2011) 189-225.

12_{Hubbard, ‘The varieties of Greek love’ The Gay & Lesbian Review Worldwide 11 (2004) 11-13, at 12-13.} 13_{C. Hupperts, Eros dikaois. De praktijk en de verbeelding van homoseksualiteit bij de Grieken (Diss. Universiteit}

Amsterdam 2000).

(7)

6 philia is a relationship.’15 In fact, erȏs was principally used to denote the ardent love between men. Thus, looking at the gaze can prove to be a worthwhile tool for the study of pederasty as it may provide deeper insights of culturally defined predilections as well as emotions that were associated with this practice. This, in turn, is important considering that the ‘…interplay between personal emotions and political and social factors is an essential component to the understanding of erotic and sexual relationships in the Greco-Roman world.’16

A little over a decade ago, S. Goldhill already noted ‘[t]he erotics of the gaze’ to be a topic of broad and then current interest.17_{Desirous viewing of the body and beauty have indeed} been explored in multiple ways within classical studies, but research to the amorous (male) gaze is mostly conducted in relation to heterosexual expressions in either literature or art.18 Well-known, almost archetypical, examples are the Knidian Aphrodite of Praxiteles (fl. 4th century BC), or the gradually more scantily draped korai of earlier times that teased the male gaze.19 That does not mean the existence of a homosexual viewing has not been acknowledged, as indeed it commonly has. It has been pointed out that artistic objects were primarily centered on male reception and that it was initially the male body which provided an eroticised display and as such became objectified.20 The archaic kouros was such a display – statues of idealised youths who were potential erṓmenoi.21 Decorated vases and the so-called ‘courting scenes’ between man and boy depicted on them also allowed for desirous homosexual regards, yet these are rarely held under close scrutiny with the theoretic gaze in mind. Authors often remark that a male gaze was present, as A. Richlin did when claiming that instead of the woman the boy was object of the gaze, and give scant examples but do not delve deeper in the antique meaning and manifestations of it.22 However, doing so may reveal interesting paradigms of pederastic

15_{J.N. Davidson, The Greeks and Greek love. A radical reappraisal of homosexuality in ancient Greece (London}

2007) 23-33: Philia is not a clear-cut term, however. Philia is often translated as ‘friendship’ and it could be applied to virtually all close relationships, including those of lovers. This is the more rational side of love, though Davidson shows it can denote matters such as ‘making love with a boy’ and being overcome by desire as well.

16_{L.R. LiDonnici, ‘Burning for it. Erotic spells for fever and compulsion in the ancient Mediterranean world’}

Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies 39 (1998) 63-98, at 63.

17_{S. Goldhill, ‘The erotic experience of looking. Cultural conflict and the gaze in empire culture’ in M.C.}

Nussbaum and J. Shivola (eds), The sleep of reason. Erotic experience and sexual ethics in ancient Greece and

Rome (Chicago 2002) 154-194, at 154.

18_{As it is in Goldhill’s aforementioned chapter as well.}

19_{M.D. Stansbury-O’Donnell, ‘Desirability and the body’ in T.K. Hubbard (ed.), A companion to Greek and}

Roman sexualities (Malden, MA and Oxford 2013) 31-53, at 40-45; R.J. Barrow, Gender, identity and the body in Greek and Roman sculpture (Cambridge 2018) 40-41.

20_{Barrow, Gender, identity and the body in Greek and Roman sculpture, 9.}

21_{T.J. McNiven, ‘Sex, gender and sexuality’ in T.J. Smith and D. Plantzos (eds), A companion to Greek art vol. 2}

(Malden, MA and Oxford 2012) 510-524, at 520.

22_{‘…[W]e cannot read our own experiential categories onto a group of cultures that had sexually objectified young}

males for a millennium. In John Berger’s famous dictum about the male gaze, “Men look at women. Women watch themselves being looked at. This determines not only most relations between men and women but also the relation of women to themselves”... For “women” read “boys.”’: A. Richlin, ‘Reading boy-love and child-love in the

(8)

7

emotions and thought.. McNiven has in fact touched upon L. Mulvey’s influential theory of the gaze in relation to certain heterosexual erotica on vases, where a man could look at paintings of youths and their intimate relations with hetairai, but this is only one limited aspect of a possible pederastic gaze.23

One study that most clearly utilises the gaze as tool for researching pederastic culture is A. Fountoulakis’ research wherein perceptions and representations of erȏs in the epigrammatical Mousa Paidika are explored using said theory.24_{He effectively shows that in} the poems an important impetus for the establishment of an emotional connection between desiring man and desired boy is oftentimes the act of looking upon the latter’s body.25_{Gazes of} both the author and reader are directed towards the narrated bodies and their beautiful qualities, such as their plumpness or captivating eyes which instill in the poetic self a fire of longing.26 The Melic (lyric) poetry of the archaic age and the homoerotic eye within them has in part been explored previously by scholars such as C. Calame and Hubbard27 as well and are therefore not featured extensively. Instead this thesis is a sense complementary to these articles and shall thence investigate other sources besides poetry on the basis of the question of how the gaze and looking played a role within Attic pederastic culture as established in Classical Greece (5th and 4th centuries BC). Ergo, it focuses on how the gaze influenced (literary) depictions and its actors to give a more comprehensive view of the pederastic gaze.

Methodology and sources

The word ‘(homo)sexuality’ has been used several times already, though this is not altogether an unproblematic term. Much ink has been spilled on the discussion of how homosexuality should be defined and how it should (or should not) be studied in relation to ancient cultures, but for the purpose of this thesis only a brief overview and explanation of the usage of this term

Greco-Roman world’ in M. Masterson, N. Sorkin Rabinowitz and J. Robson (eds), Sex in antiquity. Exploring

gender and sexuality in the ancient world (London and New York 2015) 352-373, at 360; Stansbury-O’Donnell,

‘Desirability and the body’ 47-48; McNiven, ‘Sex, gender and sexuality’ 519-522.

23_{McNiven, ‘Watching my boyfriend with his girlfriend. The eromenos and the hetaera in Athenian vase painting’}

American Journal of Arcaheology 105 (2001) 255-256.

24_{A. Fountoulakis, ‘Male bodies, male gazes. Exploring erȏs in the twelfth book of the Greek Anthology’ in E.}

Sanders et al. (eds), Erȏs in ancient Greece (Oxford 2013) 293-311.

25_{Fountoulakis, ‘Male bodies, male gazes’ 295-298.} 26_{Ibid., 297.}

27_{C. Calame, ‘The amorous gaze. A poetic and pragmatic koine for erotic Melos?’ in V. Cazzato and A. Ladrinois}

(eds), The look of lyric. Greek song and the visual. Studies in archaic and Classical Greek song, vol. 1, Mnemosyne. Supplements, vol. 391 (Boston and Leiden 2016) 288-289; Hubbard, ‘Pindar, Theoxenus, and the homoerotic eye’ Arethusa 35 (2002) 255-296.

(9)

8

suffice.28 When studying emotions and senses one deals with utterances or (artistic) expressions that at first glance seem to capture personal or individual passions as regards sexuality. Yet ever since Foucault it has been generally recognised that sexuality is a modern social construct which differs from perceptions and manifestations of ‘sexuality’ in premodern periods. This rests on the notion that the ancient Greeks or any premodern people did not think in terms of personal sexual identities, which supposedly only happened during the transition of modernity in western Europe.29_{Sexual behaviour is thus shaped by cultural and social patterns.}30_{This is valid, and} allows the historian to adequately study said utterances as part of a cultural frame. It likewise provides the opportunity to apply the theory of the gaze upon selected sources. However, claiming that sexuality is solely shaped by corresponding societies and their ideologies is both unethical and unlikely. Sexuality is both a mixture of nomos and fusis in the sense that individual predilections must have had a part in framing one’s sexual views and activities next to the undebatable influence of customs and mores. The same applies to emotions and attitudes pertaining to homoeroticism (and pederasty). With all this in mind, ‘homosexuality’ can be used as a term denoting the amatory facets of the pederastic custom while recognising that it is not limited to this.

But most importantly, as mentioned previously, the current theory of the gaze will be applied to this certain aspect of ancient Greek cultural history. To the purpose of this the first chapter is dedicated to outlining the relevant theories regarding the gaze (namely psychoanalytical scopophilia, Lacan’s ‘gaze’ and Mulvey’s ‘male gaze’). Plato and a selection of his works take center stage in the second chapter. It concerns more specifically dialogues as his Symposion, Charmides, Lysis and Phaidros which are fundamental to the study of ancient Greek homosexuality. This is followed by a section on seductive Greek pederastic vases of the red-figure tradition.31_{It is inevitable that some of the paintings discussed fall just outside the} aforementioned timeframe of the fifth to fourth centuries, since the artistic tradition of depicting male-male desire on vases already reached its zenith prior to the dawn of the Classical era, yet it is part of a pederastic tradition that is still recognisable in the later vases as well as literary

28_{For a more comprehensive outline, see e.g. M. Skinner, Sexuality in Greek and Roman culture (Malden, MA}

2005) 7-10 and Hupperts, Eros Dikaios, 5-19.

29_{Halperin, One hundred years of homosexuality, 25, 35. Halperin therefore, along with others, argues that}

‘sexuality’ in fact was nonexistent in antiquity.

30_{Hupperts, Eros dikaois, 5, 18.}

31_{Greek vases have been extensively researched within pederastic studies, see e.g. Dover, Greek homosexuality}

for some examples; H.A. Shapiro, ‘Courtship scenes in Attic vase painting’ American Journal of Archaeology 85 (1981) 133-143; G. Koch-Harnak, Knabenliebe und Tiergeschenke. Ihre Bedeutung im päderastischen

Erziehungssystem Athens (Berlin 1983); M.F. Kilmer, Greek erotica on Attic red-figure vases (London 1993); A.

(10)

9

sources. Lastly, the Greek novel and other Hellenistic-era passages from literature shall be addressed in the fourth chapter. Even though these writings clearly originate from a later date than the Classical period (they were composed roughly between the first and fourth century AD), it is highly likely that the authors of these works harked back to Athenian Classical culture when including instances of male same-sex love between characters. It therefore does not necessarily reflect any contemporary social realities and this makes the literature useful for the study of Classical pederasty.32

The aim of this research is not necessarily to approach the subject diachronically, but to present a comparative analysis between the selected sources that shall function as case studies. As to the geographical restriction (i.e. Attika), it is because of the clear predominance of Attic literature and art available to scholars that the focus will be limited to Athens and its intellectual tradition and influence. (Military) forms of homosexuality in Peloponnesian Sparta or Beoetian Thebes, for example, are thus excluded.

32_{K. Haynes, Fashioning the feminine in the Greek Novel (London and New York 2005) 152; Jones has argued}

that matters like masculinity in the novels, for instance, do often reflect imperial period paradigms: M. Jones,

(11)

10

Chapter 1 Gaze theory

Gaze theory has garnered a lot of (popular) interest in recent times. Following the #metoo movement, but also before, Hollywood movies are being scrutinised with the concept of the ‘male gaze’ in mind: how does this result in the framing of women on the white screen as an objectified ‘other’? Film theorists have set out that this male gaze includes direct or indirect voyeuristic processes. Much the same has been acknowledged in visual arts of the West. The man looks and the woman is to be looked at; ‘[w]omen watch themselves being looked at…Thus she turns herself into an object–and most particularly an object of vision: a sight.’33

The concept of the heterosexual gaze has thus become an important tool within gender studies and feminist theory and scholarship to look at the position of women across several media. Yet desirous looking may not merely be directed at the woman, nor is the gaze as tool for research an invention of film theorists such as L. Mulvey. The derivation of aesthetic pleasure and appreciation of looking at the human body from a male point of view was already a topic of Sigmund Freud’s studies, and ever since his theorising the idea of the gaze has been adapted and advanced upon. This chapter shall concern itself with these advancements and will set out what the ‘gaze’ actually is and how it functions, as well as the criticisms it has received. It closes with an argument for its application to the ancient sources.

1.1 The psychoanalytical approach

When Freud published his Drei Abhandlungen zur Sexualtheorie in 1905, he introduced the term Schaulust/scopophilia to denote the (erotic) pleasure of seeing and being seen, encompassing respectively voyeuristic and exhibitionist urges.34 This Schaulust was observed to develop during the infantile years when children begin to get inquisitive and wants to know about the hidden and forbidden, preluding any voyeuristic desires during adulthood.35 This could consequently result in a disorder where a man perversely and obsessively desires to look upon the woman’s body and derives pleasure from this.36_{To look is furthermore associated} with the active/masculine, and to be looked at with the passive/feminine.37 Freud’s manner of

33_{J. Berger, Ways of seeing (Harmondsworth 1972) 47.}

34_{S. Freud, Drei Abhandlungen zur Sexualtheorie (5}th_{ed., Leipzig 1922) 23; J. Jagodzinski, ‘Scopophilia’ in R.L.}

Jackson and M. Hogg (eds), Encyclopedia of identity (California 2010) 660-662, at 660.

35_{Freud, Drei Abhandlungen zur Sexualtheorie, 59; Jagodzinski, ‘Scopophilia’ 660.} 36_{Freud, Drei Abhandlungen zur Sexualtheorie, 23.}

(12)

11

psychoanalysis has received much criticism for its phallocentrism, but the notion of Schaulust proved instrumental in the formulation of the theory of the gaze by J. Lacan decades later, who in turn inspired (feminist) movie theorists. Indeed, scopophilia is denoted by some as one of several facets that creates the patriarchal sexual order.38

Lacan split his gaze, le regard, in two dimensions; one that connotates directly looking at something or someone, the eye, and being watched by the Other with a pre-existing gaze (‘I see only from one point – but in my existence I am looked at from all sides.’).39_{This is reminiscent} of the self-evident distinction between seeing and being seen as Freud had postulated, but Lacanian psychoanalytic theory puts forward the idea that a society possesses a culturally shaped gaze.40_{To illustrate this he nevertheless reveals a rather gendered interpretation as well,} for this all-seeing aspect reminds him of the woman who enjoys the fact that she is being looked at, but only if the one who observes does not reveal that they know that she finds satisfaction from it.41 Again, the woman is seen as subject of the gaze, but this is not the main quality of the

le regard because in the end everyone is subjected to the gaze.

Central to his thesis is the identity and identification of the self and the ensuing anxiety that accompanies it. This starts during the mirror phase when the individual is still a child and looks upon its own reflection, realising that it is distinct and different from the other while constructing an ideal image of itself. This self-image is in essence narcissism and misrecognition (méconnaissance) because the child initially identifies itself with the societal, and thus ideal/perfect, Other. Down the line an awareness of a gap between how others see him and the conscious self-image occurs.42 Because the subject becomes aware of the outside gaze, that is, the collective sight of all other people in society, he tries to adapt to it, yet will never know if he succeeds in his aim to adapt successfully and how he is perceived.43_{Nevertheless,} this stage of narcissism can be revived. Gazing upon exemplary, ideal objects or images could lead to narcissistic identification.44_{This likewise results in the desire for the Other and to adapt} to an ‘object’ that symbolises what one lacks in order to conform to the socio-cultural gaze by

38_{C.T. Manlove, ‘Visual ‘drive’ and cinematic narrative. Reading gaze theory in Lacan, Hitchcock, and Mulvey’}

Cinema Journal 46 (2007) 83-108, at 86.

39_{J.A. Miller (ed.) and J. Lacan, The four fundamental concepts of psycho-analysis, trans. A. Sherican (London}

and New York 2018) 72-73.

40_{Jagodzinski, ‘Gaze’ in R.L. Jackson and M. Hogg (eds), Encyclopedia of identity (California 2010) 302-305, at}

303.

41_{Miller (ed.) and Lacan, The four fundamental concepts of psycho-analysis, 75.}

42_{Stansbury-O’Donnell, Vase painting, gender, and social identity in archaic Athens (Cambridge 2006) 59.} 43_{Miller (ed.) and Lacan, The four fundamental concepts of psycho-analysis, 83; Stansbury-O’Donnell, Vase}

painting, gender, and social identity in archaic Athens, 57

(13)

12

adopting its qualities.45 Consequently, a person can form a social identity and act upon it through identifying with the object.46 Through the act of looking at the societal gaze, an identity is formed which in turn influences behaviour.

1.2 The feminist take

When discussing an erotic gaze, as is the intention of this present study, it is Mulvey’s pivotal47 theory of the masculine gaze in cinema that provides an invaluable framework for pleasured looking. Mulvey, film theorist, was influenced both by Freud and Lacan when she set out her ideas of the position of the man and woman in traditional Hollywood cinema. More specifically she researched how women are framed in the male (world)view. She found that the man is the domineering bearer of the look, and the woman is a spectacle, defined by her ‘to-be-looked-at-ness’.48_{This reflects the structure of unequal power relations between man and woman.}

Woman displayed as sexual object is the leit-motif of erotic spectacle: from pin-ups to strip-tease, from Ziegfeld to Busby Berkeley, she holds the look, plays to and signifies male desire. Mainstream film neatly combined spectacle and narrative…The presence of woman is an indispensable element of spectacle in normal narrative film, yet her visual presence tends to work against the development of a story line, to freeze the flow of action in moments of erotic contemplation.49

The woman is depicted in a voyeuristic way to satisfy the man’s desire and fantasy as the woman is framed according to the male gaze, therefore objectified. It is all about the body, and cinematography focuses on this by putting focus on parts that are (erotically) appealing like the breasts, backsides and legs but also close-ups of her face. There are no expressions of her agency or feelings which in fact get denied through this objectification. This notion is not exclusive to cinema. It is widely recognised that in (early) modern European painting a man’s gaze was likewise directed towards the voluptuous female bodies displayed for their pleasure.50 Literature, too, can describe desired objects in a picturesque manner and provide a platform for the gaze. This makes an erotic impact and momentarily keeps the plot from advancing.51_The gaze may thus affect the narrative pace while the interplay between narrative and

45_{Ibid., 83-85; Jagodzinski, ‘Gaze’ 303; Stansbury-O’Donnell, Vase painting, gender, and social identity in}

archaic Athens, 57.

46_{Stansbury-O’Donnell, Vase painting, gender, and social identity in archaic Athens, 58.}

47_{Thanks to Mulvey the notion of the ‘male gaze’ became a hot topic not just within film theory but also art}

history, literature studies and gender studies in general.

48_{L. Mulvey, ‘Visual pleasure and narrative cinema’ Screen 16 (1975) 6-18, at 11-12.} 49_{Mulvey, ‘Visual pleasure and narrative cinema’ 11.}

50_{Berger, Ways of seeing, 45-64: The primary example is that of the early-modern nude.} 51_{Ibid., 11-12.}

(14)

13

depiction/description affect the gaze.52 In this way, the eyes of men fix objects which P.B. Salzmann Mitchell aptly calls a ‘fixing gaze’.53

The male protagonist gazes at the woman and the camera along with him, which makes the viewer adopt such a male point of view as well. Hence the phenomenon is always threefold when studying source material, whether it be art or literature: creators gaze; personas gaze; audiences gaze, and this is all socially informed. One of the results of this is that the woman expects to be looked at and judged accordingly, making her act upon it by adapting to the reigning ideals.54_{Through this structure of viewing man begets power.}55_{This aforementioned} aspect of looking clearly harks back on Freud’s notion of voyeuristic scopophilia although she explicitly adds that this gaze is both curious and controlling.56_{Lacan’s influence can be found} when she discusses narcissism, which is also presumed to be part of the process and denotes the identification of (male) viewers with leading characters, or ‘ego ideals’ whom they are fascinated with and recognise themselves in.57 The protagonist is more often than not male and heterosexual, but he is not an object of the erotic gaze. He is the perfect, complete and powerful ideal of the ego who controls the action, reflecting ideas of (active) masculinity.58 These cinematic figures are essentially the objects Lacan describes to recreate the mirror phase and the image thence created, which is equal to the societal ideal. The female character, on the other hand, stagnates or freezes the action within the story in order to highlight the eroticizing and captivating impression of the woman before she ultimately gets woven into the narrative.59

52_{P.B. Salzmann-Mitchell, A web of fantasies. Gaze, image and gender in Ovid’s Metamorphoses (Columbus}

2005) 68.

53_{Salzmann-Mitchell, A web of fantasies, 68.}

54_{This is called the ‘objectification theory’: B. Moradi, ‘Objectification theory. Areas of promise and refinement’}

Counseling Psychologist 39 (2011) 153-163, at 154.

55_{N.S. Rabinowitz, ‘Women as subject and object of the gaze in tragedy’ Helios 40 (2013) 195-221, at 195.} 56_{Mulvey, ‘Visual pleasure and narrative cinema’ 8.}

57_{Ibid., 10.} 58_{Ibid., 12.}

(15)

14

1.3 Criticisms and reactions

Clearly, Mulvey’s gaze reflects the patriarchal and heterosexual hegemony of modern society as only the woman can be looked upon through a desirous lens. But it has been recognised that the heteronormative scheme as explicated by Mulvey is not the sole existing one even if it is presently overrepresented. The homosexual or queer gaze has been coined specifically to denote the (culturally constructed) way of looking when it pertains to members of the same gender, and has primarily been applied within literary and film studies.60

With a queer gaze, the gender dichotomy is no longer as clear-cut or static. In essence the binary and heteronormative opposition and division between male and female gets problematised because it is not only the woman who is object of desire. Concepts like gender performance and gender performativity as propagated by J. Butler in her seminal work Gender

trouble. Feminism and the subversion of identity can clarify more aptly how gendered behaviour

and expressions emerge.61 In it, she argues that gender is constructed through acts, which are predetermined by (sub)cultural markers or the mores of a society.62 Power relations have an impact on matters as body image and makes one take on a (gendered) role. The idea of Man and Woman in gaze theory actually represent positions of power and are not necessarily related to biological sex. The queering of the concept of the gaze is only one of the reactions to Mulvey, however, as differing manifestations of gazes are also explored.63

T. Modleski and C. Glenn have shown that Mulvey’s concept is not always as straightforward as she proclaims it to be by revisiting the question of who derives power through the act of looking.64_{Through reexamining protagonists in Hitchcock films, as Mulvey} did, Glenn reveals interesting consequences for the way the gaze can be complicated when taking into account relations of power between observer and observed. At first glance, the leading roles in movies like Rear Window (1954) and Vertigo (1958) engage in controlling

60_{C. Pullen, Straight girls and queer guys. The hetero media gaze in film and television (Edinburgh 2016) 41-64.} 61_{J. Butler, Gender trouble. Feminism and the subversion of identity (New York 1990).}

62_{Butler, Gender trouble, 9-10, 18-21.}

63_{Scholarship has attempted to expand on the essentialist view of Mulvey (i.e. active/male and passive/female) by}

indeed looking beyond the heterosexual scheme, but also by introducing the notion of the female gaze which made it possible to study the gaze more aptly from different perspectives. It is no longer assumed the pleasures of the female spectator are not catered to or that they enjoy media the same way as men, nor that viewings are confined to one’s own gender. Similarly some scholars are of the opinion that Mulvey casts women too easily into the role of the object. Nor does it take into account the experience and representations of people of colour. This female gaze shall not be addressed in this present study for it clearly focuses on male-male desire, though this does not necessarily negate that women had their own gaze in relation to pederastic culture. However, this is near impossible to trace and reconstruct.

64_{T. Modleski, ‘Remastering the master. Hitchcock after feminism’ New Literary History 47 (2016) 135-158, at}

(16)

15

voyeuristic practices regarding the female romantic interests. In both films, the man forms an erotic attachment through the gaze while in Vertigo he objectifies the graceful and captivating female character through ‘…fetishizing her image as the feminine ideal’.65 Yet, when examining how the protagonist is framed and how he acts upon his gaze, it appears that he himself becomes passive and powerless in the process.

Many shots are dedicated to showing close ups of the protagonist and how he is watching. The audience, in effect, sees him gaze which makes him into an object as the story unfolds. This becomes even clearer as it is effectively the romantic interest, embodying the perfect woman, who is in control through her successful modes of seduction, entrapping the man in her schemes.66_{Simpler put, the active and passive roles get blurred as the man ‘emasculates’} himself by being the object of the audience’s gaze and being under the proverbial spell of the woman, who in turn adopts a more commanding position through her to-be-looked-at-ness. 67 The man thus remains the bearer of the desiring look although this does not equal masculine dominance, but indeed the ironic loss of power and control.68 In the same vein, viewing an image can have the power to paralyze the looker, reversing the fixing gaze of Mulvey.69 This is a nuance with potentially great impact as this gives the presumed object of desire more agency and power than Mulvey’s theorem allows for.

1.4 Relativity and application to ancient Greece

Using modern theories in relation to the ancient world cannot heedlessly be done. The gaze, however, can prove to be a valuable analytical tool to approach antique sources with despite different patterns of gendered behaviour and ideas on the workings of vision.70 Mulvey’s theory has quite enthusiastically been received within academia and applied onto a variety of sources, both visual and literary, from different eras. Indeed, the existence of the gaze is not limited to the modern world, as everyone in every age observed others with their own socio-cultural framework. In particular, a male gaze also existed in the ancient Greek world with its societies patterned along male power and dominance.

65_{C. Glenn, ‘Complicating the theory of the male gaze. Hitchcock’s leading men’ New Review of Film and}

Television Studies 15 (2017) 496-510, at 498.

66_{Glenn, ‘Complicating the theory of the male gaze’ 499-500.} 67_{Ibid., 500-501.}

68_{Ibid., 502.}

69_{Salzmann-Mitchell, A web of fantasies, 68.}

(17)

16

Pederasty and the desiring of young men was an integral part of Athenian elite society which resulted in a distinct imagery, visually and literary, associated with it. Subsequently, this means that one cannot purely speak of a male gaze as previously discussed when looking at homoeroticism in the Greek sources because of the heteronormativity inherent to the theory. Men are generally still the spectators, but they look at and revel in the sight of the adolescent male body instead of that of the woman.71 Other than the gaze being male, it is essentially a queer/homosexual one as the woman gets replaced with the youth. However, the queer gaze proper does not convey the assumed (unequal) power relation between (watching) erastḗs and (watched) erṓmenos, so it is more apt to describe it as a male gaze in a homosexual male context, or indeed a male pederastic gaze. As Fountoulakis also acknowledges, in the case of Greek paiderastia it is desirable to draw a distinction with Mulvey’s gaze which is why he brings forward the notion of the male pederastic gaze.72 He thus distinguishes it as a subcategory of the masculine gaze to be used when researching pederastic culture while it simultaneously connotates the queerness of it. Within this study, this means that the (potential) erȏmenos will be looked at as object of the male pederastic gaze and how he is seen and positioned in the experiential perspective of an erastȇs.

Mulvey gauged that the woman was defined by her to-be-looked-at-ness, which ties in with Freudian scopophilia and fetishistic voyeurism. In the case of the erȏmenos this means that the role of beauty and criterions of attractiveness can be ascertained through the gaze and the importance that is ascribed to it vis-à-vis vision. How are physical features and behaviour of the youth described, like his hair or grooming and how does the sight of this affect the lover or observer? Furthermore, do such markers define the described youth, making him into a passive and eroticised object of spectacle fixed by the man’s eyes? The performative and controlling power of the male pederastic gaze is to be surveyed in relation to its assumed active and possessive (if not penetrative) capacity that leads to erotic reflection.

A subsequent supplementary feature possible to discern is then whether the youngster is shown to acculturate to this gaze, like Berger explains when women get confronted with the omnipresent male gaze. It is assumed the object of the gaze internalises it and so plays along with the objectification of himself which, in turn, he might start to enjoy.

71_{That is, in the outside social sphere where men were more likely to meet other men and youths than women.}

The visibility and presence of women outside of the home is actually a question that inspires ongoing debate, but clearly men came into more frequent contact with the female nude in the form of art. A woman’s ideal modesty (aidos) implied that ideologically she was in fact not to be looked at hence why she was draped in robes.

(18)

17

But the bifurcation of the phallocentric active/passive dichotomy that has successfully permeated modern scholarship on Greek homoeroticism might well be nuanced through the gaze as well. As Glenn has pointed out, the male gaze may render the onlooker powerless instigated by the sight of the partner. Remaining the principal bearer of the desiring look, he does not necessarily gain experiential dominance as the object of desire is in effective control through her, or indeed his, (bodily) charm. The power dynamic of spectatorship gets blurred via an emotional reversal of power relations that is inspired and given shape by the gaze.73 Recognising such instances within the ancient sources might aid in turning further away from the Dover dogma with its focus on sexual domination in favour of appreciating the (emotional) pederastic experiences.

Whenever possible, Lacan’s narcissistic gaze is also retraced. In general, Greece had no lack of ideal images such as statues or literary (heroic) figures and these could lead to narcissistic identification, or indeed a form of self-consciousness: ‘The desired object may become a projection or mirror image of the subject’s own idealized self.’74_{With the source} material used in this thesis, this applies principally to the paintings on pottery where there is a clear audience, most often the male symposiast, and the depiction with characters they gazed at. Through this Lacanian mode of identity-forming subsequently the (desiring) gaze of the symposiast, as well as that of the figures depicted on the earthenware, can be researched.

In order to give a clear overview of the theoretical framework, a table is added with the criteria to analyse the sources with, which also summarises gaze theory as set out above:

Male pederastic gaze

Act of looking o Scopophilia; pleasure in eroticised looking

o The adult man looks; the youth is to be looked at

Representation o Youth as sexual fantasy

o Focus on face; (sexualised) body parts; eyes; cloaked, uncloaked

o The youth as an image → Objectification

73_{Interestingly, this seems to happen in Straton of Sardis’ (c. 3}rd_{century AD?) laudatory Mousa Paidike whose}

work is commonly treated as an unrepresentative excess of the poet. Apparently an avid admirer and participant of pederasty himself, he expresses in his poetry that it is often the glances of boys that turn the older man into a prey of the desire he feels for the beautiful youths, rendering him powerless: P.G. Maxwell-Stuart, ‘Strato and the Musa Puerillis’ Hermes 100 (1972) 215-240, at 215; Fountoulakis, ‘Male bodies, male gazes’ 307.

74_{And in addition, ‘[t]he lover comes into being only through confrontation with his own desire in the gaze of the}

(19)

18 Reflection – consequence for erastḗs o Empowerment/man as dominant and

controlling

o Fixing gaze (erotic contemplation) o Loss of power

o Identification with/as ‘ideal’ image

Reflection – consequence for erṓmenos o Internalisation of pederastic gaze

o Empowerment through to-be-looked-at-ness o (Re)affirmed passivity

(20)

19

Chapter 2 Catching the eye of Sokrates. Plato, Xenophon and the pederastic gaze

Plato’s importance for the study of male homosexuality cannot be understated, and his works are often used when studying pederasty. The philosopher reveals his outright fascination for the custom by making homosexual erȏs subject of debate in several of his dialogues. That the (pederastic) gaze within Plato’s writings or surrounding the figures featured in them has not yet been carefully researched seems, therefore, odd. The cause of this is the philosophical nature of his works. It does not seem obvious that there is a gaze to research surrounding the practice of pederasty. Dover maintained that Socratic philosophy was not a source to be relied upon when investigating pederasty as ‘…eros for wisdom is more powerful, and more important to Socrates than eros for a beautiful youth.’75_{All homoerotic interactions or expressions are for that reason} assumed to centre on the ascent towards Beauty as aspect of the good.76

It is true that Sokrates’ (c. 470–399 BC) attitudes towards ‘base’ male-male desire as explicated by his followers differ quite drastically, ranging from disapproval of such intimacy to its celebration. Yet what is constant is the reoccurrence of expressed pederastic attraction and the situating of scenes at settings associated with courtship that was a vital component of the institution.77_{Sokrates, in both Platonic and Xenophontean accounts, is indeed susceptible} to the beauty of youths around him (even if, in Plato’s Symposion, Diotima urges him during his younger years to rise above interpersonal philia to attain direct contact with the true Form of Beauty itself).78 Additionally, both writers were familiar with the practice that was a significant part of their (aristocratic) culture and it is only likely that this is reflected in their writings when the topic of homoeroticism and desire is brought up. Even if Sokrates’ aspired endgame was to lure the boys in philosophical discussions.79 How these young men are described and what their effect on the man is subsequent to gazing at them is examined, without delving too deeply into any philosophical messages in the chosen sources. Plato is in this a

75_{Dover, Greek homosexuality, 157.} 76_{Ibid., 161.}

77_{A. Lear, ‘Ancient pederasty. An introduction’ in T.K. Hubbard (ed.), A companion to Greek and Roman}

sexualities (Chichester 2013) 106-131, at 117.

78_{Pl. Symp. 211c-212a; Hupperts, Eros dikaios, deel 2. Plato en Sokrates. De ware eros. Een analyse van het}

symposium van Plato (Diss. Universiteit van Amsterdam 2000) 312; See, however, P. Genest, Socratic eros and

philia (Diss. John Hopkins University 1992) for a differing interpretation where (pederastic) love remains part of the Socratic acquisition of virtue. Summarised, he argues that ‘[a]n intimate personal relationship is necessary continuously through the ascent to the Beautiful’ (ii) as set out in the Symposion and other works.

(21)

20

starting point, yet Xenophon of Athens’ (c. 431–354 BC) Symposion is also helpful to paint a more complete picture of the impact of the gaze within these elite circles.

Otherwise, theories of vision within Plato’s treatises have been previously noted and studied. For the ancient Greeks, erȏs and the eye were inseparable.80 For a modern reader this does not strike as strange because of the familiarity of visual attraction. However, the experience of gazing at an attractive partner was vastly different in classical antiquity as it was assumed to contain an actual forcible, if not tactile, power.81_{In order to understand the strong} impact of the gaze as regards the ancient sources it is essential to provide a general overview of the Greek appreciation of seeing and the science of the eyes before the youths and Sokrates in Plato and others are discussed.

2.1 Ancient theories of sight

Significant concepts used to explain the action of seeing were intromission and extramission, which are recurrent in the visual theories of the 5th_{and 4}th_{century. Demokritos (c. 460–c. 380} BC), figurehead of Atomism, brought forward the notion of vision being of a tactual and physical nature where the object of someone’s sight is being imprinted on the eye in the form of an image (eidolon).82_{Thus this replicant image of what the seer observes settles into the eye} and subsequently passes through to the mind and soul to make the seer reflect on it.83_Epikouros’ (241–270 BC) summary of Demokritos’ view explains it most clearly:

For particles are continually streaming off from the surface of bodies, though no diminution of the bodies is observed, because other particles take their place. And those given off for a long time retain the position and arrangement which their atoms had when they formed part of the solid bodies… We must also consider that it is by the entrance of something coming from external objects that we see their shapes and think of them.84

The result of this whole process was seeing. These ideas were also applied to erotics, and indeed frequently so. Someone’s beautiful appearance alone is in literature from the Homeric epics onwards often assumed to inspire great passion within the seer, making erȏs a deeply affecting force to the eyes that could even incite physiological effects on the body.85 This force was not

80_{See e.g. Pl. Phdr. 251b.}

81_{B. Leyerle, ‘John Chrysostom on the gaze’ Journal of Early Christian Studies 1 (1993) 159-174, at 160.} 82_{Stansbury-O’Donnell, Vase painting, gender, and social identity in archaic Athens, 61-62.}

83_{Ibid., 62; S. Bartsch, The mirror of the self. Sexuality, self-knowledge, and the gaze in the early Roman Empire}

(Chicago 2017) 58.

84_{Diog. Laert. 10.48-49.}

85_{See e.g. Hom. Od. 18.212 where it is described that desirous looking loosens the knees; Sapph. 31; Plin. HN}

(22)

21

uncommonly equated with violence, as Xenophon’s Sokrates remarks that a lovely face could wound the observer much like the maddening-poison sting of a scorpion would.86 S. Bartsch emphasises accordingly that such visions constituted an erotic penetration of the body by the

eidolon of the desired body that enters through the eyes.87 Vision and emotion were thus closely connected.88 Plato was influenced by this Democritean theory, for in the Phaidros he relates not only that sight is the sharpest of the senses, but also that, when looking at a beloved, the man is warmed ‘…as the effluence of beauty enters him through the eyes…’89_{More generally} he also recounts in another text that erȏs flows in from without and that it is first and foremost introduced through the eyes.90_{Looking upon such beauty in turn functioned as a stepping stone} for the philosopher/erastḗs to reach the Form of Beauty.91

Extramission posits the eye as a more active agent when seeing, maintaining that rays flow from the eye in order to create vision.92 The eyes are in this sense light-bearing and the stream that emanates from them is like fire that touches the object one is gazing at. It is not visible because it is alike the light of the day. When this ocular stream touches the object, its perception gets carried back directly into the mind.93 These theories were not entirely mutually exclusive, as Plato referenced to both intro- and extramission, and so does Ploutarchos who in turn was influenced by Platonism. The latter recognises that the image flowing from the beautiful affects the seer and intensely so, but at the same time the glances (or rays) that come from the eyes of desire’s object can melt a lover and even hold the power to emotionally destroy him.94

Next to a certain way of eroticised looking and framing that is part of the pederastic gaze, ancient optics are an additional aspect to keep in mind as it helps explain the reactions men had (or were thought to have) when facing beautiful young men.

86_{Xen. Mem. 1.3.13.}

87_{Bartsch, The mirror of the self, 58.}

88_{This is made explicit in Gorg. Hel. 17, for example, where it is explained that the sight of Paris’ handsomeness}

is caught by Helena’s eye, which directly influences her behaviour and brings love to her mind.

89_{Pl. Phdr. 150d, 151c.} 90_{Pl. Cra. 420b.}

91_{Pl. Phdr. 151a-c; Bartsch, The mirror of the self, 81-82.}

92_{Stansbury-O’Donnell, Vase painting, gender, and social identity in archaic Athens, 62.} 93_{Pl. Tim. 45b-d.}

(23)

22

2.2 Plato and the youths of Sokrates’ time

Plato grew up in Athens’ upper-class environment and became a pupil of the infamous Sokrates during his adolescence.95 As such the man was intimately familiar with the elite custom and norms of pederasty, both because of him being a part of the higher social circles and his acquaintance with Sokrates. As previously stated, love is a theme featured often within the Socratic dialogues and this may very well reflect the latter’s interests, next to the ever present focus on ethics. In fact the philosopher claims more than once that he is an adept at love.96_Plato himself accordingly presents him in several of the dialogues as (having an image of) a man ‘…liable to fall in love with beautiful young men’ despite his supposed sexual abstinence.97 Nevertheless, Foucault, Halperin and others term the expressions of erȏs or homosexuality herein as ‘Platonic erotics’ or ‘philosophical (homo)erotics’ as it does not always conform to the traditional view of pederasty (sexual role reversal and reciprocity,98_{for instance, are} sometimes implied or set out and there is often a philosophical ulterior motive), but this puts away these sources too easily. Descriptions of attraction and reactions to physical beauty surely reflect contemporary pederastic paradigms, and can therefore be researched with the gaze in order to unveil expected/cultural patterns of action and thought in homoerotic situations.

2.2.1 Charmides

The Charmides is assumed to be one of Plato’s earlier works and centers on a typical Socratic-dialectical discussion the work’s eponymous young man and Kritias99_{hold with Sokrates to} come to an understanding and definition of the virtue ‘sophrosyne’, which pertains to matters as moderation, common sense or self-knowledge. This discussion ends in aporia, with neither of the interlocutors coming to a satisfying answer or insight as to what this virtue actually entails.100_{Erȏs and the ascent toward the Form of Beauty are never seriously debated or} explored in this dialogue, which makes Sokrates’ homoerotic actions in the narrative all the more striking.

95_{A.S. Mason, Plato (Durham 2010) 9.}

96_{See Pl. Symp. 177d (‘I would hardly say no, since the only subject I can claim to know about is love.’); Pl. Symp.}

198b; Pl. Theag. 128b; Pl. Men. 76c; Pl. Lys. 204b.

97_{Pl. Symp. 216d, 219c.}

98_{See e.g. Pl. Alc. 1 where, towards the end of the dialogue, Alkibiades states he will act as a lover (not beloved)}

to Sokrates.

99_{Charmides and Kritias would later become part of the Thirty, an oligarchic government after the Peloponnesian}

War. They were also related to Plato, coming from the same aristocratic family.

(24)

23

The text commences with Sokrates’ return to Athens after a long military service during the Peloponnesian War. Straight away he goes to is a wrestling school in order to ease back into Athenian social life. But after exchanging pleasantries with acquaintances and sharing stories of the war and his life as a soldier at the battlefront he reveals the true purpose of his visit as he is in search of ‘…rising young men [that] had distinguished themselves for wisdom or beauty or both.’101_{Clearly the philosopher wants to follow his passions, not only in finding youths to lure} into his philosophical circle and to engage in debates with, but also to feast his eyes on their beauty. Already he reveals his (or indeed the pederast’s) scopophilia and that the handsome young are inevitably subjected to leering gazes of adult men judging them for their beauty.102 It is no coincidence either that he went towards the gymnasion’s palaistra for this, the stage for pederastic courting where the (athletic) male nude was exhibited and celebrated. This erotic focus was indicated and made explicit by the sculptures of the god Eros that generally adorned the architecture of these grounds.103 If anything, Sokrates’ presence there reveals the man’s underlying homoerotic interests.

He does not have to wait long before the greatest beauty, Charmides, enters the grounds along with an undisclosed number of lovers. It appears not all that uncommon for the famous (and pretty) to have had multiple erastai. Alkibiades, too, could boast to have multiple admirers among whom Sokrates.104 In the Symposion, Alkibiades even forbids the philosopher to look at other good-looking men, demanding that the gaze be fixed on him at all times.105 Ploutarchos mentions in his biography of the politician that he was courted because of his ‘brilliant youthful beauty’ but also that he was subsequently ridiculed for his wanton walking.106_{This wantonness} frames Alkibiades as a kinaidos, or effeminate man, but it might also imply that he had been aware of the pederastic gaze and internalised it while subsequently objectifying himself in the sense of purposefully attracting sexual attention by manner of his strutting about. The erṓmenos could take pride in having an older lover to (ideally) guide and teach him so it was a good thing

101_{Pl. Chrm. 153d-154a.}

102_{See also Diotima’s claim that ‘…beautiful boys and young men…now drive you and many others to distraction}

when you see them.’: Pl. Symp. 211d.

103_{Percy, Pederasty and pedagogy in archaic Greece, 112.} 104_{See Pl. Alc. 1; Pl. Symp. 213c-d.}

105_{Pl. Symp. 213d.}

106_{Plut. Alc. 192-193: The aggressor, one Archippos, actually insults Alkibiades’ son, but does so by naming all}

(25)

24

to be wanted.107 In turn this makes the lack of having a suitor potentially humiliating, which could prove an incentive to play to the pederastic gaze.108

The impact of the pederastic gaze is expressly highlighted when Charmides comes into view:

…the young man appeared to me a marvel of stature and beauty; and all the rest, to my thinking, were in love with him, such was their astonishment and confusion when he came in, and a number of other lovers were following in his train. On the part of men like us it was not so surprising; but when I came to observe the boys I noticed that none of them, not even the smallest, had eyes for anything else, but that they all gazed at him as if he were a statue. Then Chaerephon called me and said—How does the youth strike you, Socrates? Has he not a fine face?

Immensely so, I replied.

Yet if he would consent to strip, he said, you would think he had no face, he has such perfect beauty of form.

And these words of Chaerephon were repeated by the rest.109

Charmides is first and foremost characterised by his appearance, which is notably striking in both a figurative and literal sense. The men objectify him explicitly by directing attention to his perfect body or otherwise pointing towards other physical features as his face. In their eyes, he is a sexualised object and subsequently gets depersonalised. He signifies male desire and the described reaction to it must be similar to the pederast’s expected emotional experience. His presence leads to erotic contemplation or admiration to everyone present, even the boys. This is remarkable enough for Plato to emphasise and implies that they, as supposed object of the male pederastic gaze, were not assumed to possess such an objectifying gaze of their own. This reflects the inherent unequal power balance between seer and seen: the erastḗs actively looks and the erṓmenos is to be passively looked at. Of course, this passage also establishes the captivating allure Charmides must have possessed. Yet this gaze does not completely back up Mulvey’s theory. The young man is essentially presented as powerful, because the sight of his appearance overwhelms the men in the room and renders them in a petrified state of bewildered awe. In fact, they are struck dumb. When considering the profound force that was ascribed to

erȏs in relation to the eye, this does not surprise. Power relations between lover and beloved

are thus made ambiguous through the gaze for on the one hand the youth is made into a sexual

107_{Pl. Ly. 206a.}

108_{T. Brennan, ‘Socrates and Epictetus’ in S. Ahbel-Rappe and R. Kamtekar (eds), A companion to Socrates}

(Chichester 2009) 285-298, at 294; Thgn. 1271 suggests much the same wherein Theognis accuses his boy of ‘slutting around’.

(26)

25

object for the pleasure of the adult man, but on the other hand this scopophilia weakens him and leaves him flustered and surrendered to love. Hence representation of the youth as an objectified image and sexual fantasy, as well as reflection of the erastḗs which results in a loss of power, are exemplified in this passage.

Sokrates has, at this point, not shown the same intense reaction and asks if his soul is as fair as his looks, to which he gets an affirming answer.110 Initially it seems Sokrates is implicitly critiquing this passion-driven gaze and attitude of the men about. He wishes to engage in philosophical discourse with Charmides, so he is fetched to sit beside the man much to his ephemeral delight.111_{It does not take long for the atmosphere to turn markedly sexual again,} but this time it is Sokrates who becomes overwhelmed:

I began to feel perplexed, and my former confidence in looking forward to a quite easy time in talking with him had been knocked out of me. And…he gave me such a look with his eyes as passes description, and was just about to plunge into a question, and when all the people in the wrestling-school surged round about us on every side—then, ah then, my noble friend, I saw inside his cloak and caught fire, and could possess myself no longer; and I thought none was so wise in love-matters as Cydias, who in speaking of a beautiful boy recommends someone to “beware of coming as a fawn before the lion, and being seized as his portion of flesh”; for I too felt I had fallen a prey to some such creature.112

The Athenian feels perplexed, cannot control himself anymore and expresses he feels as if seized by Charmides, and violently at that when considering the analogy of a predator and prey. This is not unlike Xenophon’s Sokrates who exclaimed that the impact of a pretty face on the eyes was like a scorpion’s sting. More than once he puts himself in a passive perspective in relation to the beautiful youth but it is plain that Charmides remains subjected to the objectifying gaze. And emotionally, the adult or (prospective) erastḗs felt as if possessed or taken by the boy. In this case remarkably so because he catches sight of part of Charmides’ naked body beneath his cloak. Presumably, he saw his genitals which would mean that these body parts were highly attractive to the (adult) man, or otherwise merely a glimpse of skin that nevertheless inspired great passion. But more than that Sokrates claims to be aflame after glimpsing voyeuristically at the adolescent’s body, underlining the erotic force of vision. This metaphor also suggests aptly the intense emotional reaction in the form of suffering that gazing at the youth’s sexualised body could inspire. This is not merely a typical trait of Sokrates as boy-crazy113 but it seems to be a reoccurring theme within the expression of desire for a

110_{Pl. Chrm. 154e.} 111_{Pl. Chrm. 155b-c.} 112_{Pl. Chrm. 155d-e.}

113_{G.A. Nall, for instance, sets Sokrates apart in his craze for beautiful young men, suggesting that his expressed}

(27)

26

youngster, as it is also present in (late) archaic lyrical poetry.114 Additionally it can be tentatively inferred from the quoted poem by Kydias (fl. 5th century BC) that such a response and the accompanying emotions upon seeing an object of desire were indeed considered common and part of pederastic culture in the classical era, too. In the Phaidros, Sokrates explains to the eponymous interlocutor that such behaviour is driven by compulsion that makes the older lover want to appreciate his young partner with all senses – touch, hearing, sight – and never leave him. Therefore he does not mind serving him in all manners.115_{Even though Plato} does not describe the young man’s entrancing appearance, it is clear that he is still framed by the pederastic gaze and that his presence is defined by his (erotically attractive) body that is repeatedly focus of attention.

However, not merely Charmides’ body has an affective quality. A bit earlier on in the passage, Sokrates mentions the look he gave him, and even though he does not describe explicitly if it has any (physiological) effect on him, the way he phrases it indicates that it indeed was a factor that plunged the man into his perplexed state. Desirability came from the eyes of Charmides, even if his look was, on his part, not intended as seductive. In an ironic inversion, it is actually the gaze of the youth that begets him power because it (partially) renders Sokrates insecure and overwhelmed. This, too, is a trope that can be found in lyric poems with phrases such as ‘Eros, melting me once more with his gaze from under dark lids…’ and Pindaros’ (517– 438 BC) exclamation that any who catches a glance of a boy’s returned gaze could (and should) toss one on the waves of desire.116 This actual gaze is vastly different from that of the older man, however, as the youth is not described to check out the man’s body let alone that his gaze objectifies him. Yet the result does subdue the older male because it is part of the boy’s charm if not erotic force that emanates from him. For Sokrates, the consequences for the adult man, which results in a loss of power in this case, is central to his experience with beautiful youths.

Lastly a comment can be made about the modest behaviour that was encouraged in boys of the right age. Charmides naturally possesses it, indicated by his blushing when Sokrates compliments him, which made him ‘…more beautiful than ever, for his modesty became his years.’117_{When out in public (aside from the gymnasion) boys wore cloaks to cover themselves}

biosocial and demographic perspective. A response to Dover, Foucault and Halperin (Diss. State University of

New York 2001) 154-157.

114_{See e.g. Anac. Fr. 359 PMG: ‘I love Cleobulus, I am mad for Cleobulus, I gaze at Cleobulus.’; Ibyc. Fr. 287}

PMG: ‘…I tremble at him [Eros] as he comes…’

115_{Pl. Phdr. 240d-e.}

116_{Ibyc. Fr. 287 PMG; Pind. Fr. 123 Snell-Maehler; see also Simon. Fr. 22.12: ‘And alluring desire from his}

eyelids…’

Marvelling at a youth's good looks. The gaze and Classical pederastic culture in ancient Greece