One day in the far distant future, historians will consider the wholeness of man and stop pretending that queers
emerged somewhere between Monday and Wednesday of last week. A number of theories are under debate in archaeological circles surrounding a "very unusual" discovery in an ancient Roman suburb. But none of these theories--at least as far as the media are concerned--consider that this may have been the first official and largest and most lavish gay bathhouse ever conceived.
Archaeologists have uncovered a private 5-acre villa about which we know three facts. The first is that it was the spectacular home of an ancient Roman equivalent of a billionaire, Quintus Servilius Pudens. Secondly we know that Quintus Servilius Pudens was a close personal friend of the openly queer Emperor Hadrian. Thirdly, this is the largest private bathhouse ever discovered.
One of the lead archaeologists on this dig, in making the announcement just last week of this major discovery, explained: ""The Romans had more leisure time than other people, and it's here in the baths that they typically spent their time. Because you could eat well, you could get a massage, you could have sex, you could gossip, you could play your games, you could talk about politics - you could spend the whole day here. However, to have a bath complex of this size, this scale, it's very unusual."
The Associated Press reports that this 2nd-century private bathhouse consists of an "exceptionally well-preserved two-story complex, which extends for at least five acres, includes ornate hot rooms, vaults, changing rooms, marble latrines and an underground room where slaves lit the fire to warm the baths."
In a gay world, the headline on the AP story might have been something like: "Archaeologists Unearth What May Be The First And Largest Gay Bathhouse Of Antiquity."
While many Roman Emperors have been the subject of endless Hollywood movies, PBS documentaries and various miniseries. I live for the day when someone has the courage and honesty to finally portray the spectacular love affair between the Roman Empire's most famous gay Emperor and the officially acknowledged love of his life, the young Greek boy, Antinous. Not only did Antinous enjoy near Empress status at the side of his Imperial lover, but when Antinous drowned during the sixth year of this relationship, the Emperor embarked on a radical departure from Roman tradition and declared the foreigner and commoner, Antinous to be a God--the official deification of homosexual love and same sex unions.
The elevation of Antinous to the pantheon of Roman Gods, the impact of his legendary beauty and the enduring love of Hadrian for this Greek boy had an extraordinary impact on the development of art. His image even carried over into Italian classical Christian art.
In fact, Antinous is one of the best-preserved faces from the ancient world. Many busts, gems and coins represent Antinous as the ideal type of youthful beauty, often with the attributes of some special god. They include a colossal bust in the Vatican (here), a bust in the Louvre (the Antinous Mondragone), a bas-relief from the Villa Albani (here), a statue in the Capitoline museum (the Capitoline Antinous), another in Berlin, another in the Lateran and one in the Fitzwilliam Museum; and many more may be seen in museums across Europe. There are also statues in many archaeological museums in Greece including the National Archaeological Museum in Athens, the archaeological museums of Patras, Chalkis and Delphi.
Hadrian and Antinous were at the center of a large circle of artists, musicians, poets, actors, playwrights and writers of which the "billionaire" Quintus Servilius Pudens was a part. And it was during this period that Pudens built what may have been the the world's largest private bathhouse--even larger than the one at Hadrian's own villa.
Anyhow, I'm just having some fun and connecting some dots from the perspective of a queer eye--something you'll not see in the media or in the guidebooks. Through the eyes of contemporary Western historians the homosexuality of Julius Caesar, Hadrian and Alexander the Great is either ignored or mentioned with great discretion. We wouldn't want our children growing up thinking that some of the greatest leaders in world history were poofs, now would we?
Network: 





















Comments:
(10)Add a comment
Friday 27 July
By cfromnyc
I do not think a queer eye works in this context and that is particularly why most historians do not label artifacts, structures, and persons from the classical period as being gay or being gay oriented. Romans and Greeks did not have the same notions of homosexuality that we have in this culture. Sex with men happened, but that didn't give you some sort of cultural label (which I think fits more with a gray filled spectrum of sexuality than the generally black and white and grey system most people prescribe to today). To them it mattered more if you were on top or on bottom, the bottom being more taboo. Finally, I wouldn't describe Hadrian's love of Antonous as a gay relationship (although examples of this exist in the ancient world e.g. Harmodius and Aristogeiton, the tyrant slayers) and more of a pederastic relationship in the Greek model. As for the bathhouse, what makes you think women didn't use it (or that all sex was purely homosexual)?
Reply
Friday 27 July
By kbham
I would like to point out to cfromnyc that while pedastry was a common practice in ancient Greece and Rome, Hadrian and Antonous' relationship was not pedaristic in nature. A pedastristic relationship would not be as long term as their's was, and certainly wouldn't have included the elevation of the younger in the relationship to deity status.
Also, as to the "gray-filled spectrum of sexuality," let's just be honest...in men at least, most of the time, bisexuality is a complete sham. How many middle aged or older men do you know that are bisexual? No, NOT ALWAYS, but most of the time, bisexuality just seems better to some than to say "I am gay."
http://www.spring.org.uk/2005/07/no-physiological-basis-for-male.php
Reply
Friday 27 July
By cfromnyc
kbham. Although the study you post has quite a few interesting implications, please do note the limits of your research:
"The researchers are, quite rightly, extremely cautious about the implications of their study which is based on a fairly small sample (101). It is unclear what the relationship is between physiological arousal and emotional and cognitive factors"
i.e. they didn't and could not account for a few rather important variables and their interactions in the study and you must be extremely careful with small sample sizes particularly in studies which use questionaires to determine factors.
Plus nothing in the NYT article even stated such a strong sweeping statement as you are suggesting ... just fluff and sensationalism. Rather it noted the rather tenous knowledge we have about this subject and the implications of this research. GLAAD also puts this to better light http://www.glaad.org/action/write_now_detail.php?id=3827.
As far as Antinous is concerned, I would just say let's not be hasty with labels. There is a lot of that culture we do not understand and it is not clear how Romans viewed that relationship later in life. What is certain is that it started out as pederasty - its closer to adopting a child and then taking that child as a lover later in life. Whether Romans still viewed the relationship as pederastic when Antinous was in his late teens is uncertain particularly since Hadrian is much much older.
Reply
Friday 27 July
By Greg
After reading Robert Aldrich's "Gay Life and Culture," it was nice to read this article and compare what each gathered about ancient Romans and homosexual relationships. It is very true what cfromnyc is saying - our culture and that of the ancient Greeks and Romans treat sexuality in very distinctly different ways. Though I enjoyed this article and understand Richard's view, I am happy that the media isn't labeling the sexuality of this archaeological finding, as we in the LGBT community often habitually do.
This past weekend I actually visited the latest ancient Greco-Roman art exhibit at the MET Museum of Art in NYC. Though I found many themes of homosexual relationships and/or homoerotic love (i.e. numerous statues of nude male "youths," athletic scene paintings, and drunken satyrs), I first found myself disappointed that those themes weren't pointed out in the descriptions. Later, I thought that such a mysterious culture should be left to our imagination, and not pidgeon-holed into what we understand as human sexuality.
On a lighter note, I misread the word "deification" the first time through, and got a little confused. Teehee.
Reply
Saturday 28 July
By Kevin
cfromnyc, you are so insulting. Do you believe gay relationships just sprang up yesterday? They didn't. Do you believe gay sensiblities just developed overnight? They didn't.
Greg... *roll eyes* You should know better. You know d*mn well that if it were a male and female together that no person would have a problem saying they were in a relationship. However, when it's two men or two women people get more cautious or try to deny that there was a relationship. It's really disturbing that you would let others deny YOUR history as a gay man.
Reply
Saturday 28 July
By Richard
Kevin: you said it well. This bizarre notion that same sex passion and its wonderful cultural manfestation is some 21st Century invention is ridiculous. Regardless of the words used, the people were the same. How sad that so many of us can't accept that and the naturalness of it.
Reply
Saturday 28 July
By cfromnyc
PLEASE READ MINE AND GREG'S POST MORE CLOSELY, YOU MIGHT REALIZE WHAT WE ARE SAYING.
What I disagreed with was whether Antinous and Hadrian had a gay relationship in the ancient world. As Greg so elegantly points out, what we should be wary of is pigeon-holing aspects of a different culture into classifications that MAY be unique to our culture. Men being sexually aroused by men is not anything new to the world, but how each culture interprets that attraction changes. Again there are relationships that people viewed as being homosexual and there are those that weren't viewed in that context. Different things were taboo then, and therefore, things were viewed with a different light. There are men in the ancient world that had sex with men and had happy relationships with their wives and thought nothing of it. Does that make him gay, maybe, but who are we to rain on his parade if he didn't think so. If he and the rest of his culture thought that having sex with ANYBODY was ok as long as you were the top then what can we do about that; do you want to go back in time and tell them it was wrong? Rather than being inflammatory and defensive about such notions, we as a community need to accept that people in the past viewed these things in different social contexts. I have had some perfectly social liberal professors view Roman society in the same way for good reason - when we start thinking about the past as a resident of the present, we get it wrong.
Read the following link THOROUGHLY if you want to understand why its difficult to label any ancient world relationship as gay, its quite well put read particularly her note at the bottom.
http://www.pothos.org/alexander.asp?paraID=42
Reply
Sunday 29 July
By Kevin
I understand what you are saying cfromnyc. You are saying that two men involved in a relationship thousands of years ago don't make them gay. If it were a man and a woman you would not deny that they were straight. Since it involves two men you are more cautious.
We aren't talking about Alexander. This just proves that you like many people would blanketly deny that anyone was gay thousands of years ago. BTW, the article states that there were different rules for aristocracy. So why won't it be surprising that a man would want another man of his own age or close to it? I'm sure that those types of relationships did occur even though they were condemned.
Reply
Tuesday 31 July
By whenson
I'm late for this discussion, but I recommend the first chapters of Boswell's "Christianity, Social Tolerance and Homosexuality" for a scholarly discussion of "gay" culture in antiquity. Even if you are familiar with his work, it's worth another look on these issues: the differences between classical Greek, Hellenistic, early Roman and late Republican/Imperial attitudes and mores - apples, oranges, pears, limes for purposes of comparison. He makes a strong case for the argument that the relationship between Antinous and Hadrian was characteristic of the evolving trend toward and acceptance of lasting erotic and supportive relationships between adult men in urban centers - distinguishable from the classic Greek model (late adolescent and 20-something in brief erotic relationship becoming lasting friendship) and the rather more Eastern paradigm of the catamite/older man.
That the incidence of sex between mature men of equal or near equal rank became more common in the late Republic and Empire is beyond any genuine dispute. Cicero's friend Milo was in such a relationship; the Emporer Galba was known to prefer mature soldiers (when told he had been proclaimed Emperor, he propmptly grabbed a handy, beefy centurion for a quick roll in the purple - with no clear indication whether as top, bottom or versatile. Juvenal and Petronius reflect the rich variety of the homosexual experience in the Empire, and that experience became more varied and complex as the Empire became increasingly urbanized and sophisticated. It would take almost 2,000 years for Western culture to regain that level of sophistication. So, while it's always a risky proposition to make direct comparisons of now to then (and not just in matters sexual), it is possible to find the antecedents of contemporary social phenomena.
Reply
Wednesday 22 August
By Roman archaeologist
I worked on the bath complex for the last two years. While your theory is interesting, it is probably more realistic to think of the baths in terms of seperating the sexes, as this was a current practice during this period.
Reply