Scan barcode
kricitt's review against another edition
challenging
slow-paced
4.75
Phenomenal survey of the topic in the title. Definitely academic in scope and language, but if you're interested in the landscape of homosexuality in Greek culture as a whole, this is worth a read. Dover is very matter-of-fact in his approach to "sensitive" topics, which is a breath of fresh air when so many classicists can tend towards the conservative vis a vis the gays.
ruric's review against another edition
3.0
Fairly detailed methodical description and analysis of homosexuality in Ancient Greece. Scholarly, detailed and academic but not beyond a lay person to read.
Looks at the law, manifestatio of eros and nature and society. Good, if somewhay dry, read.
Looks at the law, manifestatio of eros and nature and society. Good, if somewhay dry, read.
spacestationtrustfund's review against another edition
5.0
Satyrs were a godsend to artists who felt impelled to give expression to exuberant penile fantasies...Classics is a VERY SERIOUS DISCIPLINE. Ahem. The book's not too big, so even if it is a bit dry, take it slow and it shouldn't hurt too much.
Okay, all jokes aside, this is a landmark text in the study of ancient Greek sexuality and particularly same-sex relationships in Western classical antiquity. I won't
K.J. Dover's classic text on ancient Greek homosexuality (he conflates homosocial or even homoerotic situations with overtly homosexual ones, using the same singular label) works best as a research aid rather than a primary source. The book's most recent edition is still over 30 years old (which presents its own host of problems: despite the scores of vases included as examples, the code numbers used by Dover do not match up with museums' numerical filing systems in almost every instance); scholarship has, undeniably, moved on since. Not only has the field of queer studies grown exponentially in the intervening decades but the academic landscape of classics has become increasingly diverse, freshly supplanted with new ideas and advanced modern technology. Dover's research, which combines archaeological (such as mosaics or kylices depicting homosexual acts) and literary (such as poetry or law referencing it) evidence, may certainly seem impenetrable to a layperson or beginning academic but, when given a close read, is ultimately not only rewarding but genuinely engaging.
As for Dover's specific style, I personally find it incredibly amusing, however misguided at times (such as his views of women and rape). Despite the book's deceptively short length (and a good fifty pages dedicated to photographs and illustrations of relevant artefacts), it's a grower not a shower, and there's a lot of dense and academic information packed between the covers. It also helps that Dover doesn't proclaim to cover the entirety of ancient Greek civilisation—this is only one of the first studies of its kind, no matter how comprehensive in scope it tries to be—and instead limits himself to the 8th to 2nd centuries BCE. Since the book was first published in 1977, only three years after sodomy was officially decriminalised (not legalised) in the United States, much of Dover's opening statements are occupied with explaining his reasoning for writing such a text, including explaining how he would handle the conundrum of defining the word homosexuality, which he herein uses to refer to, and I quote, "the disposition to seek sensory pleasure through bodily contact with persons of one's own sex in preference to contact with the other sex." Bisexuality is almost entirely ignored, and certainly not mentioned by name; lesbianism is not even given the courtesy of a glance; the vastly different societal standards that formed ancient Greek conceptualisations of sexuality are skimmed with hardly a pause.
Dover's primary sources are laid out as the following: 1) poetry from the late archaic and early classical periods which mentioned and/or discussed homosexuality; 2) Attic theatrical comedy, particularly that of Aristophanes and his contemporary playwrights; 3) Plato, full stop; 4) Aiskhines's "Κατὰ Τιμάρχου" (Against Timarkhos), which Dover calls the "Prosecution of Timarkhos"; 5) poetry from the Hellenistic period which mentioned and/or discussed homosexuality. These are, quite obviously, very limited in scope, an unfortunate side effect of the time period. Interestingly, in a deviation from his later fellows, Dover eschews dissecting Plato, stating that:
Plato differed from most Athenians of his time in possession of wealth and leisure, in boundless zeal for the study of philosophy and mathematics, in a suspicious and censorious attitude to the arts, and in contempt for democracy (to which it is fair to add that he differed from them also in his ability to write in a way which combines to a unique degree dramatic power, convincing characterisation, vitality and elegance) [...]. Yet Plato's right to speak even for Greek philosophy—to say nothing of a right to speak for Greek civilisation—was not conceded by other pupils of Socrates, and although Plato gave great impetus to philosophy, neither his own pupils nor the philosophical schools which arose in the two following generations accorded his teaching the status of revelation.Basically, don't give more weight to the loudest voice, no matter how obnoxious he is. Dover instead directs the reader's attention to Against Timarkhos, which he calls "the only surviving work of [ancient] Greek literature on a substantial scale ... which is entirely concerned with homosexual relationships and practices" (something I myself would dispute—not because I think there are necessarily others, but because I think the topics in Aiskhines's work are more varied), and, antithetical to Plato's more high-society writings, was designed with the specific purpose of being read to a jury of average ancient Greek citizens. Against Timarkhos, Dover argues, is then more valuable than Plato,
If we want to discover the social and moral rules which the average Athenian of the fourth century B.C. treated with outward respect and professed to observe, we cannot do better than study the sentiments and generalisations which the forensic, orators make explicit, the implications of their allusions, boasts or reproaches, and the points at which they introduce, or omit to introduce, evaluative terms into a narrative.And Dover is certainly a pioneer in this regard, as well as in terms of how academics in the relevant fields, particularly those in ancient Greek queer studies, would go on to qualify and quantify these relationships and dynamics. This is scarcely more evident than when Dover explains how contemporary (to him) readings of homosexuality in ancient Greek sources have been influenced by a homophobic and heteronormative worldview, something I'm sure will strike a chord with modern academics as well:
I am far from claiming expertise in the interpretation of pictures, but I am fortified by seeing that experts sometimes err, e.g. in describing a typical pair of males engaged in intercrural copulation as 'wrestlers' or in taking a scene of homosexual courtship, in which hares are offered as gifts, as a 'discussion of the day's hunting.'We are still fighting this battle, homosexual and heterosexual alike. (Interestingly, Dover bluntly stated that his own heterosexuality gave him a leg up, so to speak, in legitimising the field; he also described himself as "fortunate in not experiencing moral shock or disgust at any genital act whatsoever, provided that it is welcome and agreeable to all the participants [whether they number one, two or more than two].")
Dover also takes great pains to compare examples of ancient Greek homosexuality to contemporary (for him) instances of homosexuality, whether innate or situational, noting, for example, that "No great knowledge of the world is needed to perceive the analogy between homosexual pursuit in classical Athens and heterosexual pursuit in (say) British society in the nineteen-thirties," and that, again,
Since it has been observed in our own day (to say nothing of Euboulos fr. 120) that segregation of males into armies, ships or prisons promotes homosexual behaviour, there is an a priori argument for an exceptional degree of such behaviour in Sparta and Crete.Some of Dover's arguments stand on shaky foundation, such as his statement that the "best we can do" is, firstly,
to make the reasonable assumption that [ancient] Greek homosexuality satisfied a need not otherwise adequately satisfied in [ancient] Greek society, secondly, to identify that need, and thirdly, to identify the factors which allowed and even encouraged satisfaction of the need by homosexual eros in the particular form which it took in the [ancient] Greek world.But it's not all side-winding about the question of why it's okay not to be heterosexual sans exception. "There is no sign ... in Aristotle, or indeed in Plato," Dover argues,
that a genital response to the bodily beauty of a younger male was regarded as a defect or impairment of male nature, no matter what view was taken of the duty of the law to prevent gratification of the desire aroused by this response. [...] So long as we think of the world as divided into homosexuals and heterosexuals and regard the commission of a homosexual act, or even the entertaining of a homosexual desire, as an irrevocable step across a frontier which divides the normal, healthy, sane, natural and good from the abnormal, morbid, insane, unnatural and evil, we shall not get very far in understanding Greek attitudes to homosexuality.Well put.
Speaking of well put, I'll close with one of my favourite sentences from the book, one which is (I think) particularly accurate:
if we could ask ancient Greeks why homosexual eros, once invented, caught on so quickly, widely and deeply, practically all of them (I exclude some philosophers and most cynics) would reply rather as if we had asked them the same question about wine: enjoyment of both females and males affords a richer and happier life than enjoyment of either females or males.
qulit's review against another edition
4.0
Read in order to support an essay argument. It was both informative and interesting in it offering links to other texts and interpretations. Dover breaks down arguments into simple terms with his commentary often being humorous making it an enjoyable read.
More...