- cross-posted to:
- herfriend@sappho.social
- historymemes@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- herfriend@sappho.social
- historymemes@lemmy.world
You must log in or # to comment.
Explanation: Historians used to be extremely reluctant, due to lingering Victorian-era mores, to acknowledge GSMs in history. Nowadays the problem is much reduced, and historians are generally more open to acknowledging the GSM identity or possible identity of historical figures.
The Roman Emperor Elagabalus is now generally considered, if a third of the stories repeated about them by contemporary histories are true (and while Elagabalus was unpopular, the stories are remarkably specific accusations to level against someone), to have been trans or NB.
I would say they still are reluctant. Maybe less so. In modern conversatioms, there is a very subtle implication that acknowledging queerness is inappropriate unless very explicit - even then you will get comments like “they didn’t have the same understanding about orientation or gender identity”.
In otherwords, there is still a strong undercurrent that straightness should be the default, rather than just one of the options.
even then you will get comments like “they didn’t have the same understanding about orientation or gender identity”.
I mean, it IS true. If you asked someone from 1910 if they were queer, they wouldn’t understand you either, you’d have to launch into a very long explanation to cover the cultural baggage in that term, and how it doesn’t just mean “homosexual”.
And then, even if they just finished enjoying male-male intercourse with their
partnerlive-in friend, they would vehemently deny any such thing and be heavily offended.Honestly, historians are just cagey about anything that can be argued about. Typically they wan’t to use language that is either verifiable or culturally specific (e.g. pederasty). One lecturer I know also emphasised that direct equivalency can be frankly problematic (e.g. lots of examples of Roman “homosexuality” is older men and younger boys). At the end of the day we can’t speak to identity in most cases, and that identity will be culturally situated. We can talk about actions. Can’t say if Julius Caesar was bisexual, can say he probably had sex with both men and women. Does sound like tiptoeing around to people used to saying “gay” not “men who have sex with men”.
That kinda language is common among both cisgendered straight and LGBTQ+ researchers btw.
But isn’t straightness the most common, which is why it’s a good bet
Straightness as defined in the modern day, not necessarily. For the first ~200 years or so of Roman Emperors, only ~4/18 would’ve been ‘straight’ as we would recognize it.
(Claudius, definitely; Vespasian, probably; Antoninus Pius, probably; Lucius Verus, possibly. You can add Marcus Aurelius if you want, but there’s some speculation on his inclinations, if somewhat fringe)
Augustus, Tiberius, and Caligula are all noted to have had male sexual favorites. Nero married men. Galba was noted, specifically, as liking older, ‘hard-bodied’ men. Otho took Nero’s castrated husband. Vitellius had male favorites. Titus was a party boy and total bicon. Domitian was noted to have a castrated male favorite. Nerva is suggested to have been gay. Trajan was overwhelmingly gay. Hadrian had the Senate deify his deceased boytoy. Commodus had male favorites.
I was thinking more about when you consider random people
I mean, unless one is thinking that the Emperors were drawn from some sort of Biologically Bisexual Elite™, it would probably be not dissimilar, in terms of attraction if not necessarily opportunity to sample all the boytoys one wishes, for random people.
I mean the elite often do act different to the common people and their behaviour was sometimes very scandalous, which is why it was so widely written about
Elite act differently from the common people generally for increased ability to act on their wishes. In a society where the elite is not a closed cultural caste, common people and elite generally share tastes, in broad terms, even if fashions and fads differ.
With all due respect to OPs interest in gender and sexuality throughout history (always good!), you would be hard pressed to find a serious classics department without some researchers in gender and sexuality in the ancient world in the last 30 years. You wouldn’t learnt about it in school/general popular history because you would have to read large amounts of ancient texts mocking trans/gender-non-conforming people in crude language. It’s better left to university or the wide range of books and articles on the topic. About Elagabalus in particular, they are really well known and you can find discussions of their gender identity (in period appropriate terms) in lots of places, but it’s got problems as an example. Of the two major sources, the Historia Augusta is pure trash and Cassius Dio is an obvious hit piece. His source is " I spoke to people who know, trust me bro, no he didn’t act feminine in public, but he did in private, trust me bro". It’s not that Elagabalus wasn’t gender-non-conforming (and I encourage everyone to read more about it in Cassius Dio book 80, it’s easily available), it’s just that similar allegations were made about a lot of unpopular emperors. Especially check out Suetonius’ life of Nero for very similar stuff, Tiberius too. Or just start reading Martial’s epigrams and stop when a man is called “effeminate” or a woman “masculine”. Tl;dr there’s lots to explore here. At least like 50 years of fairly accessible scholarship and digitised ancient sources. 😁
Like I said,
Nowadays the problem is much reduced, and historians are generally more open to acknowledging the GSM identity or possible identity of historical figures.
As for Elagabalus specifically, Dio is one of the more reliable ancient historians, and does not assert that most of Elagabalus’s behavior was private. Quite the contrary. Only a few accusations - such as the lurid and questionable claims about private religious ceremonies - are claimed to have been performed in secret. Most of the accused actions, such as the demand to be called a lady and not a lord to one of their male favorites, were purportedly done in public, which would make contradicting Dio’s account much easier for any readers - especially as Dio was writing for an elite audience which would have likely had connections amongst Senators and Equestrians who would have had opportunity to see or at least rumormonger in Elagabalus’s circle whilst alive.
Cassius Dio is the most reliable source because we have crap sources for the period. The fact is that there are good reasons not to take his stuff on this particular topic at face value, and we don’t have the other sources that might contradict him. I wouldn’t criticise a historian (or a student) for reading it as just more transphobic invective, even if I personally think there’s something to it as LGBT history.
As to the privacy, that’s how I read these bits of Dio, he is quite coy about what is happening in the palace vs outside of it. Maybe I’m too skeptical.
