STODGY & RAMBLING

Ancient Rome merits a contemporary investigation of its attitudes towards sexuality and homosexuality but sadly Craig A Williams book "Roman Homosexuality" is not capable of the task. Apart from the dull prose and paucity of illustrations. A pathetic eight pages of miniscule black and white photos, including the front cover which is repeated again inside the book itself. Williams actually has the audacity to state in the introduction that he will refrain from translating Roman sexual terms such as catamite, virgo, virtus, irrumator struprum, cinaedus, pudicitia, lingis, futuis, fututor, and fellator. The reader is therefore greatly hampered from the beginning 7) Who could not identify with this lament so universal is its longing to starve of the loneliness of old age? The most striking thing about Roman culture is that unlike the Greeks the Romans had no terms for gender specific sexuality. There were no homosexuals or heterosexuals only sexuality in Rome and it was craved constantly. ON this matter Williams selects extracts from Roman playwrights and poets that were openly critical of promiscuous men and women, who they termed lewd and greedy. However laws restraining adulterous conduct tended to fall on deaf ears. The average Roman parent when seeking a personal tutor for their beautiful son had to take into consideration the risk of his being seduced sexual though exclusive homosexuality existed as well. There was no social criticism because some men married other men, but castrati and effeminacy was disliked. This is because the Romans were a warrior society so they did not approve of extreme femininity in men which was associated with the promiscuity of womanizers and male prostitutes. Excessive attention to personal appearance was considered effeminate or feminine behavior not appropriate to a warrior. Who had to be ready to brandish the sword at a moments notice. But in reality it was a free for all and some people flaunted their camp-ness regardless. However the Romans disliked slobs. They expected high standards of personal hygiene from both their men and woman, no nose hair, no dirty armpits, no shapeless haircuts, no frumpy tunics and no sloppy shoes. The Romans admired beauty both male and female as much as they did sex. And celebrated their awe struck wonder of love in their text an example of which can be found in "Satyricon' by the Roman author Petronius "Ye gods and goddesses, what a night that was! How soft the bed! We clung together hot, and on this side and that we exchanged our wandering souls by our lips" Sadly juicy extracts such as these are few and far between because their lost within pages of Williams dull pontifications. A better book would be one that simply presented page after page of original Roman comments on their sex lives. accompanied by hundreds of fabulous illustrations.

The New Standard Reference

Williams has clearly written the best exposition of male-male sex and erotics in ancient Rome to date--no contest. He is particularly good at refuting the anthropologically more naive claims of "(pathic) homosexual subcultures" and "homosexuals" (as a culturally and/or personally acknowledged category) at Rome made male sex and erotics in ancient Rome, ignoring the issues of early historical development ("origins") and of men's/boys' subjective experiences. (2) While alluding at times to anthropological studies, he fails to weave anthropological insights into his analysis, sometimes even drawing inappropriate anthropological parallels--a fact partly responsible for problem (1). (3) Though frequently alluding to the anal receptivity of Roman freeborn youth, he fails to explore and explain the phenomenon (i.e., perhaps the rule that Roman boys could not be penetrated was a relatively late development predating our sources). I believe some suggestive evidence exists on this point. (4) Lastly, Williams' discussion of male-male marriage (Appendix 2) is entirely underdeveloped--and therefore unconvincing, inadequate, and disappointing.While the book gets 5/5 stars, I can only give it a 95%. Still, that's pretty darn good, and it seems unlikely the book will be superceded anytime soon.