Talk:Greek love

Proposed new version

I propose making this the new version of the article. I've eliminated a lot of general and peripheral concepts as these can be better covered with links. I will try installing this new edit in about week. Please discuss any problems or any omissions that you find here and let me know if you need extra time to consider my edit. Thanks Amphitryoniades (talk) 21:45, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Proposed new version
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Not to be confused with Philhellenism. Greek Love Heracles (r.), Eros (c.) and Iolaus (l.). Foot of the so-called “Cista Ficoroni”, Etruscan bronze casting ritual vessel, 4th c. BCE. Villa Giulia Rome. Greek love is a term that is capable of various meanings within the context of Homosexuality and Pederasty. Homosexuality in ancient Greece Pederasty in ancient Greece Plutarch, Plato, Socrates Greek Philosophy Renaissance Marsilio Ficino Neoplatonism Neoclassicism Greek love is a modern term Greek love is a relatively modern English term It has not yet obtained a widely accepted meaning or use and Quotation marks are generally placed on either or both words, i.e., "Greek" love, Greek "love" or "Greek love". However, it is generally relevant in studies of Homosexuality and Pederasty and it features in the titles of books and essays on those subjects. The range of meanings within that context is quite broad and depends on the author. For example, John Addington Symonds was one of the ‘Uranians’, a group of British intellectuals who sought to formulate concepts of homosexuality at a time when homosexual behaviour was illegal. When discussing the topic of idealized pederasty, often associated with ancient Athens, he defined it as follows: I shall use the terms Greek Love, understanding thereby a passionate and enthusiastic attachment subsisting between man and youth, recognised by society and protected by opinion, which, though it was not free from sensuality, did not degenerate into mere licentiousness. A very different use of the term is made byRichard A. Posner, ( author and judge, United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in Chicago) in discussing the difference between men who prefer sex with other men, and men who prefer sex with women but were quick to substitute a man or (preferably) a boy when women were not available; "The first group dominates the homosexual subculture of today; the last group dominated "Greek Love" ( which should really be called Athenian Love because we know little about the sexual customs of the other city states). Provided we are aware of this difference, we shall not get into trouble if we call Greek love homosexual." The term Greek Love is capable of yet another meaning when translated into German as "griechische Liebe". This term has been found in German writings between 1750 and 1850, along with other terms as "socratische Liebe" (Socratic Love) and "platonische Liebe" (Platonic love), signifying male-male attractions. These are associated with educational, civic and philosophical ideals as well as their sexual implications. Apart from its perceived historical connotation, no such term is found in any surviving text from any ancient source. Terms such as Mos Graeciae (Greek custom) and Mos Graecorum (the Greek Way) have some parallel significance and yet they were never deployed in reference to pederasty, but for a variety of Greek practices. Sources: Notes: References: Bibliography: Crompton, Louis (1998). Byron and Greek Love. London: GMP. ISBN 9780854492633. Crompton, Louis (2003). Homosexuality & Civilization. Cambridge: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press. ISBN 9780674022331. Fone, Byrne (1998). The Columbia Anthology of Gay Literature. New York: Columbia University Press. ISBN 9780231096706. Gustafson, Susan (2002). Men Desiring Men. Detroit: Wayne State University Press. ISBN 9780814330296. Haggerty, George (1999). Men in Love. New York: Columbia University Press. ISBN 9780231110433. Kuzniar, Alice (1996). Outing Goethe & His Age. Stanford: Stanford University Press. ISBN 9780804726153. Maccarthy, Fiona (2004). Byron: Life and Legend. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux. ISBN 9780374529307. Posner, Richard (1992). Sex and Reason. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. ISBN 9780674802803. Symonds, John (2007). A Problem in Greek Ethics: Paiderastia. City: Forgotten Books. ISBN 9781605063898. Taddeo, Julie Anne (2002). Lytton Strachey and the Search for Modern Sexual Identity: the Last Eminent Victorian. New York: Routledge. ISBN 9781560233596. Tamagne, Florence (2004). History of Homosexuality in Europe, 1919-1939. New York: Algora Publishing. ISBN 9780875863566. Williams, Craig (1999). Roman Homosexuality. Oxford Oxfordshire: Oxford University Press. ISBN 9780195113006. See also: Eros Homosexuality in Ancient Greece

I'm uncomfortable with such a bold move without hearing anything from the main editor. Also setting a two day deadline also seems like a bad idea, a week would be minimum since so many editors are not here daily. I also think dropping a note at WT:LGBT may make sense - Im looking at doing an overhaul with a draft at the talkpage; could folks have a look and comment, etc. At least in this way we have more of a sense that we have had a chance at at better decision. -- Banjeboi 01:35, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

This is fine by me. I've changed my schedule to 'about a week' but I can hold off longer still if you want. The article has major conceptual flaws and people need time to realize that for themselves. We have to be really disciplined in our choice of what material to include. Otherwise the article really is just a venue for lifestyle advocates. You are welcome to paste a note for the gays, if you like. My view is that it isn't a gay issue or a hetero issue or a pederast issue - it's an encyclopaedia issue and that's the way it should be addressed. Thanks for your response. Amphitryoniades (talk) 03:15, 1 November 2009 (UTC) I've now changed my schedule to "Dunno when". There seems to be a distinct lack of interest from the current editors of this article and almost nobody else has showed any real interest either. I would edit the article myself, as proposed, but the extensive changes would then cause me to be branded a vandal by Cluebot, which would misrepesent the edit and no doubt stir up an immediate swarm of outraged opposition against me. So long as I do nothing, I can at least enjoy a quiet laugh at the absurdity of the situation. Amphitryoniades (talk) 02:48, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I would make sure that the information that you are ommiting, and are relying on links to talk about is actual there. For example, Romantic Pan-hellenism, is not very well covered. SADADS (talk) 01:33, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi Sadads. Thanks for your input. No article should be used as a store for information that properly belongs elsewhere. There are many articles about the Romantic period and many of them would be suitable for information about Romantic Pan-hellenism. However, none of the philhellenic figures in the Romantic movement used the phrase 'Greek Love' (as far as I know). The reason for including Romantic Pan-hellenism here seems to be that the phrase 'Greek Love' appears in the title of a book about Byron. If the author of that book used 'Greek Love' to signify 'Romantic Pan-hellenism', then we should mention it as one definition used by a named author, but it should not be used as an excuse to turn this article into an article about homosexuals or pederasts in the 19th century. Similarly the definition by the American judge (that 'Greek Love' is practised by frustrated heterosexuals) should not be used as an excuse to discuss homosexual rapes in the prison system. The article is about the phrase 'Greek Love' and how it has been used by different authors. The uses are quite varied and there is no scholarly work dedicated to this topic - it's original research - but since we're stuck with it, we have to make the best of it. Again thanks for your reply! Amphitryoniades (talk) 03:41, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I have dropped in after seeing the notice in WT:LGBT. I am somewhat skeptical of the soundness of the proposed edits, since I detect a certain political slant in the present effort. It is perceptible in the broad-brush attacks Amphitryoniades is using, such as I find a phenomenon very common in articles about pederasty - the misrepresentation of sources and branding editors lifestyle advocates. However, looking at the mess this article has become (I just now deleted a lengthy and semi-literate flight of fancy on Greek customs) he could hardly make it much worse, and nothing is irreversible. I will put the article on my watch list and help out as best I can - I have no idea what the article should say, but I do think the topic is worth exploring. Haiduc (talk) 13:30, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

After finding this discussion mentioned at the Sexology and sexuality WikiProject, I've reviewed the current and proposed versions of the article and done some research to see for myself how the term is used in academic contexts. Based on that work, I support replacing the article with the proposed new version. The new version minimizes the original research issue compared to the prior version that also includes general comments not specifically connected to the term as noted in sources. I don't see any reason not to post the new version and continue the improvements from there. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 07:06, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Roman views of 'Greek' love

If you're trying to establish an historical framework, the Romans seem to be missing. The Romans were obsessed with defining themselves in relation to the Greeks, both admiring the Greeks more than any other non-Romans and yet considering themselves morally superior to the Greeks — in other words, the Romans had a very complex attitude toward the Greeks, and to Greek erotic practices. I've found at least one source that would locate the creation of the concept of 'Greek' love in the Roman Republic: Roman Homosexuality offers an online preview. Here's a source that looks at Greek love in the context of Hellenization at Rome. Greek Love in Late Antiquity is a potentially useful chapter in another book.

I hope those working on the article realize that the first sentence says almost literally nothing: "Greek love is a relatively modern English term synonymous with other similar phrases." You could substitute a thousand other phrases for "Greek love" and the real content of the sentence would remain the same (zilch). A modern English term for what? The sentence needs to answer that. And although I've only glanced at the material I've offered above, you may find that the Romans spoke of "Greek" love — but this would have to be examined by an editor who understood the Latin involved. Cynwolfe (talk) 20:03, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the sources, Cynwolfe. I've followed the links and this is what I found:

• Your link Greek Love in Late Antiquity refers to a book titled 'Homosexuality and Civilization' by Louis Crompton. Crompton uses the phrase Greek love in the body of the text without punctuation and I haven't been able to find his definition of the phrase anywhere. I think he uses it as a loosely descriptive phrase for homosexuality and sometimes he seems to distinguish it from pederasty as here (I quote in italics):

"...Plutarch, Athenaeus and Aelian recorded the history of Greek love from its earliest times, while poets from Theocritus to Nonnus celebrated pederastic affairs in idylls, epigrams and epics." (page2)

• Your link Here's a source refers to an essay titled 'Roman Attitude to Greek Love' by Ramsay MacMullen, in a book titled 'Homosexuality in the Ancient World' edited by W.Dynes and S.Donaldson. Here again I haven't yet found a definition of the term Greek Love. Moreover, Macmullen seems unable to make up his mind to call it "Greek love", 'Greek love' or Greek love (no punctuation). I assume he is simply using the term as a loosely descriptive phrase.
• Your link Roman Homosexuality refers to a subheading titled '"Greek" Love: Pederasty and the Gymnasium' in a book titled 'Roman Homosexuality: ideologies of masculinity in classical antiquity' by Craig Williams. Again notice the confusion about how to label Greek Love! Obviously it is not a term people are familiar with - not even scholars who write at length about sexuality seem to know how to use it.

Theses three sources can be mentioned in the article, since they do use the term 'Greek Love' in some way. But, unless we can locate the authors' exact definitions of the phrase, we are going to have problems informing the reader what they mean by it. Amphitryoniades (talk) 05:33, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

It is not clear what point you are trying to make by focusing on punctuation. I think we can safely look past the punctuation to the sense of the phrases. Also, in your first example, I think you misunderstand Crompton. Quite the contrary, instead of distinguishing it, in that phrase he assimilates Greek love to pederasty. Haiduc (talk) 12:42, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Punctuation helps distinguish between You are Green (i.e. your name is Green), You are green (you are the colour green or naieve), You are 'Green' ( (you advocate alternative energies) and You are "Green" (I am quoting somebody else's comment about you). Without the punctuation, you can't be sure which meaning I am employing. The three mentioned authors (Crompton, Ramsay, Williams) use different punctuation and this indicates they have different understandings of the phrase Greek Love. It also indicates that they are not borrowing the term from a common source. Context can help clarify usage but the three authors are writing in different contexts. Ramsay seems to be using the term to signify a specifically Roman view of homosexuality (pederasty?), Crompton a specifically Hellenistic view of Homosexuality (pederasty?), while Williams seems to be quoting somebody else about homosexuality (pederasty?). I am reading the three authors via a Google preview and I cannot find in any of them a definition of Greek Love. Possibly they consider the phrase too insignificant and non-technical to require a clear definition, or maybe they understand it simply as a synonym for homosexuality (pederasty?) - in which case we shouldn't be dedicating an article to it since those terms are already covered elsewhere. Can you find their definitions? Amphitryoniades (talk) 00:08, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I too only have web access right now, as I am away from my office. I do not think that punctuation is the key to this issue, and I agree with you that the term can be used in different ways. The real question is whether, after setting aside all instances in which the term is used interchangeably with male homosexuality, pederasty, and anal intercourse, anything is left that is unique. And what is that thing? It is not a question to which I have an answer, and have always deferred to the main editors of this article in the hope that they can produce an answer. The last best hope for that would be the version by Blanc, going back to June 14 of this year. If it is not there, it is not anywhere. Haiduc (talk) 02:02, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Haiduc, for clarity could you express on the idea presented above as to replacing the current version with the proposed version and going forward from that or some merging of the versions? If the proposed version is seen as a good step forward then that might be the way to go. If not are there chunks that can be used to move things forward? -- Banjeboi 02:20, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for mediating, Banjiboi. However, Haiduc has been editing this article since March 2007 and yet he admits above that he has no idea what the article should be about. He cannot contribute intelligently to this article until he first works out what it is about. If he can't understand the importance of punctuation, he will never work out what it is about. It is about the term 'Greek Love'. If he continues to regard it as somehow vaguely synonymous with 'homosexuality' and 'pederasty', he will continue to overload this article with peripheral and irrelevant issues. Amphitryoniades (talk) 21:49, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Homosexuality and pederasty peripheral to Greek love?! You must know something I don't. And yes, I do admit I have come here to learn more than to teach..... I just checked to see who you might be, and I see you are the gentleman with whom I collaborated on the Solon article. I thought we worked together rather well there. Maybe we can repeat that here. Please go ahead with your re-write and I will do my best to assist.

Benjiboi, much of the 6/14 piece seems to beg the question. I think it best to have a re-write and then restore anything of value that directly relates to the topic and has been left out. The same approach, of course, holds for the current version. Haiduc (talk) 03:02, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

OK first off to Amphitryoniades, please stop perceived, actual and veiled personal attacks. They run counter to building a healthy environment in which we work with each other. My spelling and grammar are certainly not strong points yet I'm often able to help on subjects I have absolutely no knowledge to point out issues that others may have missed. Likewise many editors simply tweak one error and move on. All are welcome to edit and we must be welcoming. This is a part of the nature of wiki or community editing, as a whole we likely will create a better article. Unless I'm misinterpreting what Haiduc has stated it sounds like replacing the current version with a rewrite is generally acceptable and those interested can rescue content that is indeed needed from the old version. -- Banjeboi 04:02, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I think we still need to clear up a few issues. Thus:

4 propositions

There needs to be agreement over what the article is about before we go any further. Otherwise the process of rewriting it will be long and drawn-out, with edit and counter-edit. These are the propositions I think we need to subscribe to if we are to get anywhere:

1. The founding editor does not own this article i.e. we don't need his/her further input or permission to edit this article;

2. The article is not about human sexuality i.e. it is not about homosexuality, pederasty or frustrated heterosexuality. The article is about the phrase Greek love and how it has been used as a term in scholarly books/articles about human sexuality; therefore:

3. The article includes a list of authors who have used the phrase and brief summaries of how they have used it; therefore:

4. Links are used wherever possible so as to avoid reduplication of content e.g. if an author uses Greek love to define pederasty in ancient Greece, we link to articles on pederasty in ancient Greece, or if it defines a specifically Roman view of homosexulaity, we link to relevant articles on homosexuality in Roman times. We do not write sections dedicated to pederasty in ancient Greece or homosexuality in Roman times.

These propositions will result in a shorter article than now exists but at least it will be an article with a clear sense of purpose. Amphitryoniades (talk) 05:43, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I largely agree:

1. Self-evident and applicable to everyone.
2. Agree to the extent that we do not "know" what it is and we document its usage.
3. Some summaries will be brief when the subject is covered elsewhere. Others may need to be more fully developed.
4. Yup.

Haiduc (talk) 09:36, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Then we're pretty much in business. However, I'm wary about the option to develop summaries "more fully". There is an ocean of articles covering sexual themes that can be linked to or which can even be expanded later to allow for a link. If by some extremely unlikely chance, we can't find a suitable link, then a stub can be created and we link to that. The stub can then be developed later. My concern is that this article, with a powerful euphemism for its title (i.e. Greek Love), will always attract editors eager to promote an unpopular sexual orientation (e.g. pederasty, pedophilia) - that's why we need to be quite strict about how the article is developed. Amphitryoniades (talk) 22:50, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually we're talking about doing when simply doing is needed. What Haiduc is referring to is summary style, that is, for example, a list of five Foo kings can summarize each of them if individual articles already exist. If one of those on the list doesn't have one then the list article is where relevant content "grows" until someone feels a separate article could work, then it too is simply summarized at the main list. Please start the follow through and see where the content and sourcing leads. -- Banjeboi 23:04, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

With all due respects, Banjiboi, I have a right to outline my expectations. The problem with this article all along has been the kind of "simply doing" and the "growth" you are allowing for. Amphitryoniades (talk) 23:20, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

You certainly have the right to outline your opinions on how the article can move forward but it sounding a lot like you intend to exert the very same WP:OWNerish issues you allege others have done. Instead anyone can and should edit, it may be a bit bumpy but likely will work if given a chance. Everyone seems to be coming to the table and looking forward to a better article. Our reader's deserve such and your rewrite looks quite promising. -- Banjeboi 23:56, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the good news is we almost put this article on secure foundations. The bad news is - not quite. Or at least not yet. This is not like any other article. It arose from original research (there is no scholarly text dealing with the history or uses of the term 'Greek Love'). Everyone thinks they know what it means (for me it arouses visions of semi-naked flute girls at a symposium) and they edit accordingly. The result is an article which is about sexuality in general and not about the term 'Greek Love'. Unless we commit ourselves to brief summaries of the various definitions of Greek Love, it will continue to outgrow its proper territory - as it did before it was nominated for deletion. The article is about the term as defined by various authors - that's all it is about. It's silly to talk about developing sections to include topics not covered elsewhere in this encyclopaedia. That puts the article back on the path to failure. I intend editing the article according to the expectations I have outlined here. If my edits aren't supported - fine. I don't engage in edit wars. Amphitryoniades (talk) 01:21, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

New Edit

I've installed the edit previewed here on the Talk Page. It would be helpful if people discussed any changes here before editing, at least until things get into a settled state. Thanks Amphitryoniades (talk) 22:35, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

As far as I know, there are only 3 more authors to be cited in the article as using the term Greek Love - Crompton, MacMullen and Williams. Crompton in particular seems fond of the term, using it also in 'Byron and Greek Love'. It's possible that he makes identical use of the term in his two books. That would deserve mention. Amphitryoniades (talk) 23:07, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Basically good beginning. I am making some corrections and additions, please do not take it the wrong way if I am doing it in vivo rather than in vitro, I think it is simpler all around that way. Haiduc (talk) 01:47, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi Haiduc. You added to the lead that GL has been used as a euphemism by Hume and in a study of Aristotle by Gillies in the 18th century. Could you please quote their usage of the term here. Their usage would be interesting enough from a historical point of view to deserve quoting in the article. Amphitryoniades (talk) 02:43, 15 November 2009 (UTC) I've been googling Hume and GL for an hour trying to find his use of GL but without success. It's an extremely important quote you've located, Haiduc - Hume is a major figure in European thought and his use of the term would validate this article even in the eyes of sceptics. Can anyone else locate it? The lead needs to be rewritten around that quote. If we can quote an obscure figure like Symonds, we certainly must quote Hume. Amphitryoniades (talk) 04:09, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I've located the two quotes. They do indicate that the term was used, but it's not clear from the texts that the term "euphemism" applies. The sources do not define the term. Here are the quotes with links to the full text:

If you consider aright, there is not one stroke of the foregoing character, which might not be found in the man of highest merit at Athens, without diminishing in the least, from the brightness of his character. The Greek love, their marriages *, and the exposing of their children cannot but strike you immediately. [footnote] *The laws of Athins allowed-a man to marry his sister by the father. Solon's law forbid pæderasty to slaves, as being an act of too great dignity for such mean persons.

-- Essays and treatises on several subjects: in two volumes By David Hume

[in a footnote]Some sentences are omitted in this chapter, either as containing repetitions, or as relating to the subject of Greek love ; a perversion of sentiment to which Aristotle, of all the philosophers of his age, shews himself the most decided and most zealous adverfary. None of them, indeed, as has been erroneously supposed, patronize such an abominable degeneracy; but Aristotle alone, in his moral and political writings, uniformly treats the subject with that marked reprobation which became a philosopher superior to the prejudices and fashions of his own times.

-- Aristotle's Ethics and politics: comprising his practical philosophy, Volume 2 By Aristotle, John Gillies

In both, as far as I could find with Google, those are the only uses of the phrase in those books. The Hume quote, based on the nearby footnote, seems to use the term with regard to the practice of pederasty, though the asterisk does not directly follow the term in the text. In the Gillies text, the term appears only in a footnote where it is described as a perversion but not defined. Neither source provides direct commentary about the term itself, so care should be used to avoid interpretations that could result in original research. I edited the lead with this in mind, but there still may be too much assumption regarding the Gillies quote, since pederasty is not even mentioned in that source, so a further clarification may be needed. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 05:52, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for this. Hume is such an important name the readers will certainly want to know how he used the term GL. Unfortunately his meaning is a bit obscure and I don't think we can include it in the lead but we should use the quote in the body of the text. We shouldn't interpret it for the reader - we should merely explain the context (an imaginary dialogue). Let the readers decide for themselves if it's a genuine application of the term GL. That's my opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amphitryoniades (talk • contribs) 06:21, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

There is a 1898 edition here [5] where Hume's phrase 'The Greek love' is re-phrased as 'The amours of the Greeks'. Evidently Hume's phrase was felt to be strange somehow. It seems strange even now and I'm wondering if it was in fact a typographical error - maybe it should have been something like "The Greek notion of love". The problem is that Hume uses it only once. It's pretty clear from the context of the dialogue that it refers to pederasty. I think Hume's quote would make a thought-provoking conclusion to the article. An encyclopaedia should encourage critical thinking about sources. Maybe other editions of his essays contain still more variations of the phrase Gl. Amphitryoniades (talk) 21:50, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure how strange Hume's phrase was thought to be. My hunch is that "amours" is an euphemism on top of an euphemism. Though I only included two early sources here, I actually came across several more in my search. I imagine that the phrase and the concept were quite common in those days among the educated classes. After all these people were trained to read the Greeks in the original and could not fail but notice the bent of their tastes in love. Yes, quoting it in full would be nice. Haiduc (talk) 22:41, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Looking at Book II CHapter 4 in my copy of the Politics, (The Penguin Classics edition translated by T A Sinclair,) the cut section seems to concern how the holding of children in common might lead to sexual intercourse between fathers and sons or between brothers. So "Greek love" refers to some sort of same sex relationship, but it is not clear whether it entails a pederastic element.

However, I think these would only merit the briefest of mentions. This article shouldn't be about the customs of the ancient Greeks but about how some authors in later eras up to recent decades thought that the Greek custom was somehow a model for them and their contemporaries. The fact that "Greek love" was used as a euphemism by scholars provides an explanation as to why advocates then adopted the term and is interesting to that extent. If there was some clarity on what Gillies understandign of GL was, it might also give an idea of what his romanticising contemporaries meant by the term. But he found the subject sufficiently unpleasant not to want to go into details. Which means we ahev to fall back on what these romantics said and how more recent studies have explained their writings.--Peter cohen (talk) 01:16, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

The article is about the term GL as used by authors. Hume's use of the term is problematic/questionable but that is relevant in an article about how the term has been used. I think the quote and a couple of sentences will suffice for that (it should include mention of the fact that the term was edited out/reworded in a subsequent edition). If the Romantics used the term GL, cite it. Otherwise, all we have regarding GL in a Romantic context is Cromptom's book about Byron. Crompton's use can be summarized in one or two sentences. I'll be offline for some days. Amphitryoniades (talk) 21:41, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Hume's 'Greek love' or 'Greek loves'

As far as I can yet discover, the rewording of Hume's "The Greek love" as "The amours of the Greeks" derives from the 1874/5 Green and Grose edition The Philosophical Works of David Hume vol.3 (London). Apparently Green and Grose, though generally reliable, edited Hume's writing to correct spellings, punctuation and typographical errors to suit themselves - see here for comments on their work by a modern scholar [6]. I think Hume's The Greek love is probably a typographical error for The Greek loves, a phrase that actually appears later in the Dialogue:

The Greek loves...arose from a very innocent cause, the frequency of the gymnastic exercizes among that people;

Green and Grose seem to have arrived at this same conclusion since they reword The Greek love as The amours of the Greeks as if simply paraphrasing The Greek loves.

I still think Hume's use of the phrase The Greek love deserves mention, even though it probably a typographical error, but we should include mention of the rewording by Green and Grose (The amours of the Greeks) as well as Hume's own The Greek loves. Hopefully the reader will conclude that sources should never be accepted uncritically. Amphitryoniades (talk) 02:03, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you about Hume's phrase. I find it interesting that after his use of the phrase there is a spate of other such uses both in England and in France. Either it was in common use at the time or he coined it and it struck a chord of appropriateness. As for its being in the singular or the plural, that seems irrelevant to me. We are still talking about the same thing, affections that were inspired by men and boys being naked together. Haiduc (talk) 10:04, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I'll include a summary of Hume's use. A few things worth noting here: Hume isn't coining or defining a term. He uses The Greek loves just as he might use The English loves, as a common phrase. Only the context establishes the homosexual(pederastic?) reference. The context does not refer to boys but to males of 'university' age. The word 'pederasty' appears in a footnote associated with 'The Greek love' but pederasty is a word that can refer to boys or youths or young men. It's unfortunate that it confuses such different age groups. Modern laws are very particular about such differences. I think I should also point out that your original reference to Hume actually misrepresented his use of GL - it can hardly be a euphemism for pederasty when pederasty appears in the associated footnote, and indeed his use of the phrase is far more problematic than you led us to believe. Amphitryoniades (talk) 22:14, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that's a similar point I tried to make when I first found the quotes. To describe the use as a euphemism would be original research because that is not stated in the source. The source also does not define it as a synonym for pederasty, though it at least does associate the terms in the footnote. It's not clear from Hume what was intended regarding the age range of the relationship partners. Also, it's not clear whether or not the difference is between the singular and plural forms of the term is significant. "Greek love" may imply a type or style of love or relationships; but while "the Greek loves" could imply the same, the plural also could imply a set of stories that may have been part of the vernacular of the time. We should mention that the term was used because it's relevant historically, and there's enough in the source that it can be associated with pederasty or homosexuality in general, but we need to avoid assuming definitions that are not directly stated in the source. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 22:50, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Hume lumps Greek love, exposing children and marriages as practices that "cannot but strike you immediately." Yet you would fashion it as a "common phrase." Common things are never striking. You go against Hume's sense.

Pederasty is indeed a term that refers to youths of various ages, from early adolescence to college age. Hume does not distinguish because what was significant to the English of his time is the relationship itself, not whether it occurred with a fourteen or a sixteen year old. Thus you again go against Hume's sense when you would style these relationships as taking place only with men of university age. Some may well have been that, but any attempt to restrict the age to this or that bracket is doomed to failure, Davidson notwithstanding. You well know that Greece spanned three continents and two millennia.

We do not know why the 1898 editors changed the phrase. Maybe by then the meaning had drifted closer to "sodomy" and that presumably is not what Hume was talking about. It seems to me that you are construing Hume's GL as problematic, even using contortions like assuming the man misspelled a term that could not have rolled easily off his pen. Let's not go through all these gyrations and just take it as face value - the man was talking about Greek men's love for peri-adolescent males, a love which he treats in neutral terms to the point of indicating the Greeks held it to be of great dignity. Keep it simple. Haiduc (talk) 01:18, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

See here (p. 44) for a reading of eighteenth century usage of GL as euphemistic. And here (p. 18) for the nineteeth. Haiduc (talk) 01:35, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Those are good references, we should use them. But neither of those sources mentions pederasty - both of those sources describe only (in direct quotes, respectively): "euphemism for same-sex sentiments" and "one of the available euphemisms for homosexuality". "Keep it simple" as you wrote, is an excellent method, when simplicity is supported by clear sources. But I don't see in the Hume text, or in the new sources you provided, sufficient support for your interpretation about what Hume meant by the way he used the term. If there is more in the sources you listed that do support that, what is the page # where that appears? --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 02:14, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Please be clear. Exactly what is it you disagree with? Haiduc (talk) 08:59, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

In those two sources, "Greek love" is described as a euphemism for homosexuality as used during those time periods. That is a clear and useful piece of information for the article. But those sources do not associate the term with pederasty, so we should leave that out when mentioning those sources. Also, those sources do not comment on Hume's use of the term. Hume's use is plural and not singular - you said that was a misspelling, but there is no source for that either, all we have is the various texts of the Hume editions. I think that Hume's use is important and should be mentioned - I suggest that we do that by including the unmodified quote from Hume, and without third-party interpretation of what he meant, unless we can find a scholarly source that comments on Hume's use of the term. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 19:02, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Agree with presenting GL as a euphemism for all kinds of homosexuality. Disagree with the sources not commenting on Hume. The source that comments on 18th c usage obviously applies to Hume who was an 18th c figure. That being said, I do not think we need to draw that conclusion for the reader, let him do that for himself.

Hume's usage seems to be both plural and singular, and in both cases he is referring to homosexual encounters, in the first instance explicitly pederastic ones, in the second implicitly so (it is simply a historical fact that the great majority of Greek relationships we know about are age-structured ones; egalitarian ones are as rare as hen's teeth). Again we are in substantial agreement - as long as the Hume material is included in toto, the reader can draw his own conclusions about what is pederastic and what is not. Haiduc (talk) 20:57, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I've now included a brief summary of Hume's use of GL, relying largely on quotations and avoiding speculation. It's an example of how I think the article should develop, allowing authors to speak for themselves as much as possible without any interpretation by us. I'm not sure how many authors can be quoted on the subject of GL. If there are quite a lot of them, priorities will need to be sorted out. Amphitryoniades (talk) 06:29, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I expanded Hume's quote a little to demonstrate more clearly that GL is represented by him in a censorious context. I suspect he was not nearly as hostile as his readers to ancient Greek sexual mores but the fact is he uses words like 'blameable' and 'absurdly' to characterize Athenian views on pederasty. The Symonds quote on the other hand is openly sympathetic to Athenian sexual mores because he was writing for a group of like-minded individuals - he self-published. It's worth noting whether or not GL is used as a term of reproach or as a term of approval - emotional overtones are inevitable with such a term as GL, otherwise authors would have restricted themselves to conventional vocabulary like 'homosexuality' and 'pederasty'. Amphitryoniades (talk) 22:46, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Amphitryoniades, you are skating on thin ice. "However blameable"?! What is he really saying? You see censorious, I see a man speaking to a censorious crowd, covering his ass and dropping double entendres. As a matter of fact, I see a man speaking through the censorious crowd to a more savvy and open-minded audience. My advice is to drop the censorious interpretation for Hume, since we will never agree on it, and keep it for Gillies, who is a much-more one-dimensional author and about whom we are in agreement. Haiduc (talk) 00:11, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Haiduc, you said that the term is a euphemism. What's the difference between that and censorious? The real thing can't be stated, so an alternate word is used to hint around and imply the thing that can't be said right out. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 00:37, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea what Hume really thought about homosexuality. Maybe he was really homophobic but liked to present himself as a dispassionate philosopher. Maybe he was really a raving queen but liked to present himself as straight. For all we know, Gillies too could have been a raving closet queen but that also is mere speculation. Both writers however are at pains to ensure that there is no doubt about which side of the fence they are sitting on publicly - their readers belonged to the British elite at a time when Britannia ruled the waves, God was in his heaven and homosexuals went to hell. Haiduc's original edit declared that Greek love was a euphemism since 1764, citing both Hume and Gillies. If Hume is covering his ass, he is not alone. Amphitryoniades (talk) 06:54, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

"I have no idea..." Exactly. And I have many ideas. All irrelevant. The best way to resolve this is to leave interpretation out. Jack, euphemisms do not necessarily imply censoriusness. When you excuse yourself from the table to go to the "little boys' room" are you expressing moral disapproval??? Haiduc (talk) 10:14, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Haiduc, there is no interpretation or speculation in the fact that Hume publicly distances himself from homosexuality (pederasty?) with qualifiers like 'blameable' and 'absurdly'. The interpretation and speculation only exist when we wonder how far he really distanced himself from it. Yes we should avoid speculation and No we should not remove statements of fact that are significant for our understanding of how GL has been used. The term/phrase GL often comes with connotations of approval or disapproval and that is what Jack means when he talks about the term having euphemistic/censorious qualities - it can be used either way. If during dinner with Mother I say I want to go to the "little boys' room", it's a euphemism. If I say it during a dinner with my boss, it's a strange alternative to the more usual "I want to go to the toilet" and it actually draws attention to what I am about to do, which might interfere with his continued enjoyment of the meal. The audience and context determine the exact meaning. In Hume's day, the audience and context could hardly admit a euphemistic application of GL. However, I'm happy to consider rephrasing "censorious context" and maybe there is a phrase we can agree on. Amphitryoniades (talk) 00:15, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I liked the way you phrased it, that "he distances himself." Seems a lot more neutral and encompassing, and we are no longer imputing any motives. Haiduc (talk) 00:36, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I've now used the phrasing suggested above and it's time to move on. How was GL used in the Romantic period? I'm certain it was never used as a euphemism in any publication, though it might have been used as a euphemism in private correspondence between like-minded individuals. So far all we have is Crompton's book about Byron. If he quotes from any correspondence, we can quote it also, and then we can summarise Crompton's own use of GL. However, since the original edit of this article included the fatuous observation that the Romantics would certainly have known what GL meant, I suspect that they never actually used the phrase in any clear sense. Who's got the sources for the Romantic use of GL? Could someone please provide some quotes? Amphitryoniades (talk) 01:20, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree with moving on. I did edit the text to reflect Hume's complex approach. Gillies is in no way equivalent, his reproof is so vehement it neither needs explanation nor should it be treated in the same terms as Hume's. Haiduc (talk) 01:43, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Mos Graeciae and Mos Graecorum

I have restructured things so that readers can more easily follow the evolution of the term. Hopefully the subsections can be further expanded. I have not yet come across much of interest from the Romantic period, when we do we will have to separate that out as well. Haiduc (talk) 13:23, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Haiduc, your latest edits are a big step backwards. You have now used the introduction to expand the separate topic of Mos Graeciae (and you refer to the plural as More). This article is not about Mos Graeciae - it is a quite separate term with a very different history. You say it has 'parallel significance' but that's your personal opinion - you are in effect defining GL as a form of Mos Graeciae. Who are you to define it? We need quotes by authors. In fact, your edit distracts us from the next step forward, which is to identify quotes showing how Romantic figures used the term GL. Amphitryoniades (talk) 23:27, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Sloppy on "mores," I stand corrected. But let's see how we got to the Romans. As you will recall, the previous version had:

==Ancient historical use==

Apart from its perceived historical connotation, no such term is found in any surviving text from any ancient source. Terms such as Mos Graeciae (Greek custom) and Mos Graecorum (the Way of the Greeks) have some parallel significance and yet they were never deployed in reference to pederasty, but for a variety of Greek practices.

That, as it turn out, was wrong (Davidson should have stuck to writing about ladies of pleasure and sea food). I corrected it on the basis of the new references, and stuck the text in the intro, to provide context. It need not be there if you think it distracting, it could go in a separate section, before the others, to show how the Greeks had been used in the past. The relevance is there since Hume and the others were surely conversant with Roman literature. Also, look at Williams, 63 and 291. Cicero's text foreshadows Hume's, to say the least. I think the material is important and provides background. It was not all that distracting before, when it was wrong, I think it is even less distracting now, that it has been corrected. Haiduc (talk) 00:57, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

You are engaging in original research. You are being careless with sources again. Comments about Mos Graeciae were previously attached to the bottom of the article and that's why they were not distracting. Moreover the previous comments did not include your personal selection of ancient sources. You have expanded the comments outside their proper scope. You'll need to revert to my last edit. Amphitryoniades (talk) 01:17, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

In fact, trying to follow your arguments in relation to your source, Williams, it appears that you are actually citing Williams to support one argument about Mos Graeciae (that it was never code for pederasty) and then citing him again to prove how he has somehow misunderstood his own sources (Williams makes some references to pederasty as Mos Graeciae). In fact you seem to think this discrepancy has something to do with the difference between singular and plural. I think the apparent discrepancy comes down to this - when Williams says Mos Graeciae was never code for pederasty, he means it was never exclusively used for pederasty. Mos Graeciae could refer to any Greek custom and that could include a very Greek kind of pederasty, as defined on page 63(italics mine):

...it is not homosexuality but specifically pederasty in the Greek sense of publicly acknowledged relationships between adult citizen males and freeborn adolescent males (future citizens) that constituted what from a Roman perspective was peculiarly Greek in matters erotic; precisely this erotic configuration will be the referent of the term pederasty throughout this study.

So I think there is some support in Williams for the position that Mos Graecia has some parallel significance with a very Greek kind of pederasty. However since Mos Graeciae refers to anything that the Romans considered typically Greek - such as toasts at a symposium, excluding honourable women from dinner parties, using olive brances in supplication, torture devices, etc etc etc - the parallelism is actually very small. Your present edit exaggerates the association of GL with Mos Graeciae - the Romans very rarely used Mos Graeciae to refer to pederasty:

In sum, ancient writers both Greek and Roman, display no preoccupation with pederasty as a distinguishing characteristic of Greek culture. page 72

In other words, if you had mentioned 'Mos Graeciae' to a Roman, pederasty is one of the last things he would have understood you to mean. You need to read your sources carefully otherwise you will continue to misrepresent them.

Oh and here, for the record, is your current edit, which you've included in the introduction to the article:

Roman terms such as Mos Graeciae (Greek custom) and Mos Graecorum (the Way of the Greeks) predate it and have parallel significance. Though according to one modern view they were never deployed in reference to pederasty, but only for a variety of other Greek practices, the term (in its plural form, More), was in use in Roman times as a pederastic reference. Cornelius Nepos applies it to the youthful indiscretions of Alcibiades, and Cicero to the pederastic relations of the Greeks in general. (references 1,2 and 3 are all to Williams)

I've spent several hours sifting through all this stuff and I would much appreciate it if you spared me the need to do it again. Amphitryoniades (talk) 06:48, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the above analysis and conclusion. Also, Williams goes further on page 72: "Neither do the surviving texts preserve any phrase like 'Greek love' " He concludes the section with this clear and unambiguous statement: " 'Greek love' is a modern invention. "

It's significant for this article that ancient writers did not use the phrase "Greek love". And, if we were go venture beyond Williams' specifically-related statements into the wider area of ancient writers' comments on Greek customs in general, ie, the "Greek way", what we can get from Williams as a source,as Amphitryoniades noted, is that those phrases were not codes for pederasty but rather referred to a wide range of practices of which sexuality was only a part. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 07:00, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Upon further consideration, I have removed that paragraph from the article. It's not even about the term that is the title of the article; it's about other terms, with other meanings, that were used in ancient times. The article is about a term of modern usage, and the source that we have regarding its use in ancient times says clearly: it was not used. Unless there is another source that says the term was in use in ancient times, we must use the reliable source that we do have. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 08:01, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I've continued to consider whether there is a way to include Mos Graeciae and Mos Graecorum in the article. There may be enough basis in the Williams source to mention the terms, but we need to come up with a way of expressing it that is stays tight to the source and does not result in undue weight or synthesis. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 23:36, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Verifying sources for l'amour grec

The sources did not verify for the following text; I have modified it in the article and removed a duplicate source:

In French we find it as "l'amour grec," referring to Greek pederasty, as early as 1776.[12][13]

[12] ^ Encyclopédie OU DICTIONNAIRE UNIVERSEL RAISONNÉ DES CONNOISSANCES HUMAINES. Mis en ordre par M. De Felice. SUPPLÉMENT. TOME VI; p667; Yverdon, 1776

[13] ^ De l'homme: de ses facultés intellectuelles, et de son éducation By Helvétius; p21

Regarding the Felice source: Here is a link to the relevant page. It displays the same text regarding Plutarch word-for-word that appears in the Helvetius source, so it's not a second reference, it's a duplicate. And the cited use does not mention pederasty anyway.

Regarding Helvétius: There are two uses of the term "l'amour grec" in the book, on pages 203 and 246. The page listed in the article, p21, does not include the term. Neither of the uses in that source refer to pederasty. Here is are links to the relevant pages: p.246 and p.203. By the way, while Wikipedia policy allows the use of sources that are not in English, it is preferable to use English sources when they are available. In this case, the book has been translated. Here are the links to the relevant pages of the English edition: p.196 and p.237 Here are the two quotes, translated from the French, where the phrase "l'amour grec" appeared (the unusual spelling and typos are in the original):

Solon, the fagacious legiflator of Athens, made little account of this monkifh chaftity (18), If in his laws, fays Plutarch,, he exprefly forbids flaves to perfume themfelves, and the love of young people, it is, adds the hiftorian, that even in the Greek amours Solon did not fee any thing difhoneft. But thofe haughty republicans, who purfued without fhame alLforts of amours, would not debafe themfelves by the vile profeffion of a fpy or informer : they did not betray the intereft of their (Country, nor violate the property or liberty of their fellow.citizens.

The second quote is a footnote to the first quote:

(18) The monks, themfelves, have not always held chafHty in equal efteem. Some of them, called Mamillaires, have held, that a man might, without fin, feel the bofom of a nun. There is no act of lafcivioufnefs, that fuperflition has not in fome part made an act of virtue. In Japan, the Bonzes may love men, but not women. In certain cantons of Peru, the acts of the Greek loves were acts of piety ; it was an homage to the gods, and rendered publicly in their temples.

Neither of those uses define the term as related to pederasty. It's possible that's what was intended, or simply same-sex acts in general, but whatever was meant is not defined in the text. All that is supported by this source is the fact that the phrase was used by Helvétius, but it's original research to interpret what he meant by it.--Jack-A-Roe (talk) 07:54, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Jack, did you read this: If in his laws, fays Plutarch, he exprefly forbids flaves to perfume themfelves, and the love of young people, it is, adds the hiftorian, that even in the Greek amours Solon did not fee any thing difhoneft. (In the original, "aimer les jeunes gens")??? This is the reference to pederasty, and this is the standard reading of Plutarch and has been so for two thousand years. I am not drawing any original conclusions. Please restore "In French we find it as "l'amour grec," referring to Greek pederasty."

As for the material on the mores Graeciae, I apologize for my rushed edit, I misread the sources. Here is a corrected version:

In Roman times, terms such as Mos Graeciae (Greek custom) and Mos Graecorum (the Way of the Greeks), when applied to a man's relations with male adolescents, were understood to be indicators of pederasty. Cornelius Nepos thus describes the youthful indiscretions of Alcibiades, and Cicero the pederastic affairs of Dionysius.

It is important, as I mentioned above, to show this continuity of association between Greek ways and male love, and it is important to do so in chronological order. This term did not appear in a cultural vacuum. Haiduc (talk) 13:11, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

The quoted phrase "the love of young people" is vague and non-specific and could refer to many different practices. It does not say "love of adult men with boys". Also, it's part of a longer quote with a wider range. And in the footnote, Helvétius mentions same-sex love but does not limit it to age-structure. Applying an interpretation based on ideas from your prior studies to a source that does not directly state the same interpretation is a synthesis, a form of original research.

Regarding Mos Graeciae and Mos Graecorum, those terms are not the same term (or translations of the same term) as the title of the article. That content is reviewed in the prior talk page section above, where it is noted that in Williams where those terms are discussed, the author specifically states that the term "Greek love" is modern, not ancient, and that those other terms do not specifically refer to pederasty. If you want to continue the discussion of those ancient greek terms, please do so in the appropriate section, so we don't have the same conversation in two places at once. Thanks. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 19:41, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Jack, when he mentions "the love of young people" Helvétius is discussing Plutarch's comments on Solon's approach to pederasty. Here are Plutarch's writing on Solon, as to exactly what the slaves were forbidden to do: "He also wrote a law forbidding a slave to practise gymnastics or have a boy lover, thus putting the matter in the category of honour and dignified practices, and in a way inciting the worthy to that which he forbade the unworthy."(Gk: καὶ νόμον ἔγραψε διαγορεύοντα δοῦλον μὴ ξηραλοιφεῖν μηδὲ παιδεραστεῖν This Helvétius renders (in my translation) as "If in the laws, says Plutarch, he expressly forbade to slaves to perfume themselves [NOTE: In the original, xeraloiphein, "to rub dry with oil," a practice associated with gymnasia.] and to love young people, it is, adds this historian, that even in Greek love Solon saw nothing dishonest." As you can see there is nothing vague about that, and refers specifically to adult men's love of boys (paiderastein, if you prefer not to read Greek). This has nothing to do with my prior studies, this has to do with not assuming that Helvétius misunderstood Plutarch's use of a common and obvious term, παιδεραστεῖν (paiderastein, to love boys) which would be a novel interpretation of history that you probably should not make here. I question the utility of a discussion style that instead of offering substance substitutes rote pointers to Wikipedia regulations, but if we are to quote chapter and verse, you will note that we are specifically enjoined not to allow blind obedience to regulation to interfere with intelligent article writing. Nonetheless, after a closer reading of the footnote, where I agree with you that Helvétius discusses practices (the Peruvians) that can be described as male love rather than pederasty per se, I will amend the text that needs to be restored to the article to read: "In French we find it as "l'amour grec," referring to male love, including specifically Greek pederasty."

It is of no importance that Mos Graeciae and Mos Graecorum are not the same term as the title of the article. They are related, and show that in certain instances "Greek way" could be a signifier of male love. This was discussed as such in a modern text on male love (Williams'). Thus they are relevant here. While they do not specifically refer to pederasty, they were used as indicators of pederasty in the instances cited. As long as we do not claim anything more than is claimed by our sources, we are within our rights to mention the matter as a matter of editorial discretion.

Finally, please do not delete again my reference to the Enlightenment. Both Hume and Helvétius are acknowledged Enlightenment figures, there is nothing controversial about this material having come out during this period, and I fail to see how you are serving our readers by obscuring this fact.

Amphitryoniades, I agree that Crompton's use of the term says nothing about Byron. We need to continue looking, it would be hard to believe the term died out at a time when male love was in ressurgence (Byron, Shelley, etc.). Haiduc (talk) 01:33, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Regarding Mos Graeciae, that term will of course be explained when we quote Williams towards the end of the article, where he says that Mos Graeciae was never code for pederasty and that there was no Roman equivalent for GL. It belongs at the end because that is where we are going to quote contemporary authors. Mention of Mos Graeciae certainly does not belong in the intro since it has very small relevance for GL except via the work of Williams. Haiduc you should stop worrying about small nuances in phrasing and get on with the hunt for sources. This article is dead unless we come up with more sources. We've got one use of GL by Hume (which later editors clearly interpreted as a typographical error for Gls), we have a quote from Symonds (who self published) a quote from Crompton (who apparently never studies GL at all), a quote from Williams who says GL is irrelevant within the Roman context, a quote from an American judge who defines it as heterosexual frustration - and what else? Amphitryoniades (talk) 04:04, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Structure (and the Romantic period)

Haiduc, it is too soon to divide the article into sub-sections. Yes chronological order is a good way to set out quotes but we don't know yet if we have enough info to fill the sections you have earmarked. Let's gather the info first and then work out how to structure it.

The Romantic period is next in chronological order after the quotes by Hume and Gillies and that's what we should concentrate on. I have found here [7] a pdf copy of the introduction to Crompton's book 'Byron and GL' and it's very disappointing. It's clear from the intro that Crompton is engaging in speculation - scholarly speculation but speculation all the same. He talks about 'decyphering the code' of Byron's correspondence and he admits there is danger in reading too much into it but, worst of all from our perspective, Greek love is clearly a marketing tool and he doesn't have anything meaningful to say about its use. I quote:

"But if homosexual and gay are both words that would have puzzled Byron's contemporaries, the expression 'Greek love' - which I have used in the title of this work - would have been intelligible to them and would have carried resonant historical and literary associations...to anyone as intimately familiar with the classics as Byron was, the phrase would have brought immediately to mind such poetic or historical traditions as the legends of Ganymede and Hyacinth, the exploits of Aristogeiton and Harmodios, and the story of Antinous." page 11, Introduction.

This is hardly more than an apology for using 'Greek love' in the title of the book - if he had anything meaningful to say about Byron's use of the phrase GL, 'would have' would have been unnecessary. Also, I don't know why Crompton assumes that a phrase like Greek love would only have stimulated homosexual/pederastic visions in Byron's mind, especially since Byron was bisexual even on Crompton's own admission. I could equally well assert that Greek love would have brought to Byron's mind visions of Philocleon and the 'torch' (i.e. female flute-player) in Aristophanes 'The Wasps', or any other male/female encounters that stud Greek literature.

Obviously we are not going to get anything more out of Crompton's book than a speculative interpretation of the possible significance of GL - the quote I have given here is probably the most we will get from his book. Can anyone come up with some clear use of GL in a Romantic context? Amphitryoniades (talk) 00:01, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

This article has certainly suffered the agonies of trauma, near-extinction, and unexpected re-birth. It is now of course struggling through a second infancy and at this stage one can hardly predict a healthy life to follow - though I am impressed with the commitment and energy of the editors whose previous (abortive) work I recall with varying degrees of pleasure and frustration! At least one was part of the 'Move to delete' faction, which of course does not mean that his current researches are valueless. It may be worth recalling the status of the article at the time of 'trauma' [earlier version]. At the time I was attempting a comparative study of up-to-date scholarship on the Greek love topic, and had barely begun to amass the raw material when the Vandals moved in.

The term itself is essentially as it appears: it is used with reference to male love as practised by the Greeks, which was sufficiently extraordinary to attract the interest of scholars and historians throughout the ages. The broad context of the meaning we understand, and today scholars vie with each other to find new facets and forms of words to unravel the complexities which surround the term. In his introduction to his massive study: 'The Greeks and Greek Love - a Radical Reappraisal of Homosexuality in Ancient Greece' (2007), James Davidson writes:

"For centuries, Greek Homosexuality or Greek Love - what the Romans referred to as 'the Greek custom' (mos Graeciae, mos Graecorum) - has been one of the knottiest problems in all of Western history." (Incidentally he gives clear sources for the description: Nepos Alcibiades, Cicero Tusc.) He allows himself 600 plus pages to unravel this knot.

The in-depth work of minds such as Dover, Hubbard, Davidson who treat of this subject must form the basis of any understanding of the topic and the huge concept it stands for. It is the authoritative voices which must be listened to if we have any chance of coming up with an acceptable summary of an intriguing cultural phenomenon. It is the only approach which makes sense to me, if indeed I can contemplate any further work here in the context of WP. Dominique (talk) 01:35, 30 November 2009 (UTC) Dominique (talk) 22:04, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Let me cover a number of disparate points here.

1. The advice to not worry about small nuances is wise, but the problem I am concerned about is the usage of the letter of Wikipedia rules to reduce and dumb down the article, counter to the spirit of Wikipedia rules. So while the points in question may be minor, the issues are not. We have a chance to set down here a clean, stable, and solid foundation for the article, let's keep it that way.
2. As for continuing with the Romantics, I find it fascinating that after the initial English spate the discussion shifts to the continent, with a flood of Romantic period mentions in French and few if any in English (I have not yet checked the Germans in detail). That aside, I suggest that we work on the various chronological section as we find material, rather than in order.
3. I would not worry too much about the past history of the editors here. We are all reasonable and rational people, I am sure we will be able to sort things out very well. As for the substance of the article, we need to be careful not to assume that it was/is used for male love as practiced by the Greeks, but that rather it was simply the common denominator of a number of different views on male love, perhaps one euphemistic in nature, and one used to tag constructs that resembled to greater or lesser extent what the Greeks actually did, which itself is not a unitary thing but a very wide panoply of customs, practices, and infractions of those customs, spanning more than two millennia and the whole of the Mediterranean basin. Many arrows, some hitting and some missing a moving target. Compare, for example, Davidson's and Breen's ("Eglinton") projections. Maybe we should title this "Greek loves." Haiduc (talk) 10:53, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Reply to Haiduc and Dominique

Dumbing down the article, Haiduc? We have cut the article down to the sources on which it is based in order to avoid original research. Original research is outside the scope of an encyclopaedia. Dominique, you made this apology for the article in your comments above (italics mine):

It may be worth recalling the status of the article at the time of 'trauma' [earlier version]. At the time I was attempting a comparative study of up-to-date scholarship on the Greek love topic, and had barely begun to amass the raw material when the Vandals moved in.

In fact, Dominique, this article has been around since 23 December 2005 and you have been editing it since 8 October 2006. That's a long time to amass the 'up-to-date' raw material needed for this article. Evidently the raw material is hard to find and maybe it isn't even out there. Let me quote you again from your comments above, where you are quoting one author:

"For centuries, Greek Homosexuality or Greek Love - what the Romans referred to as 'the Greek custom' (mos Graeciae, mos Graecorum) - has been one of the knottiest problems in all of Western history." (Incidentally he gives clear sources for the description: Nepos Alcibiades, Cicero Tusc.) He allows himself 600 plus pages to unravel this knot.

Perhaps you haven't read Haiduc's mis-interpretation of Williams's work (see further above) or the subsequent comments by myself and by Jack-A-Row. Mos Graeciae is not the Roman equivalent of Greek love. Williams makes that point very clearly (and that's after he cites passages from Nepos and Cicero, whom you rely on). Mos Graeciae referred to anything that the Romans considered distinctly Greek and they hardly ever used it in relation to pederasty or homosexuality.

Also I'll draw attention to the identitiy you make in the phrase Greek Homosexuality or Greek Love - if Greek love is to be identified with Greek homosexuality then this article should be merged with articles on Greek homosexuality. However, this article is not about Greek homosexuality - it is about the term Greek love. I started editing this article with an open mind, trying to find out if indeed we are dealing with a notable term. On the sources I have seen so far, I have to say NO, Greek love is not a notable term. It is a set of terms, all with different meanings, most of them defining homosexual/pederastic behaviour in ancient Greece (for which we already have articles), and with some uses being user-specific (eg Symonds and Prosner). Point me out a source that clearly shows that Greek love is a term in fairly wide use outside the context of Greek homosexuality. That will silence my doubts. Amphitryoniades (talk) 10:46, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

It is risky to keep on batting about replies to what I think you meant in reply to what you think I said. I will simply implement the changes to the material to which I am objecting, and we can work at a practical, rather than a theoretical level. I also would not harp too much on my mis-interpretations. I am constantly learning as I edit, and if I make a mistake I am happy to correct it. You too did a great deal of learning at the time of our collaboration on the Solon article, learning that is all to your credit. Haiduc (talk) 12:54, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I have addressed what I characterized as a dumbing down of the article. I will defer to you for the moment and hold off restoring the material on mos/mores. That need not follow my formulation of above, but will need to show that by labeling "Greek" a male love relationship the Romans sexualized, indeed pederastized it. Haiduc (talk) 13:16, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Source clarification - Nepos Alcibiades 2.2: ineunte adulescentia amatus est a multis more Graecorum; Cicero Tusculanae Disputationes 5.58: haberet etiam more Graeciae quosdam adulescentis amore coniunctus Dominique (talk) 19:57, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Jack, Helvétius applies the term "amour grec" to the Peruvian rites, in the footnote. As far as the Japanese bonzes, you are right, he only mentions that they loved men and not women, thanks for picking that up, I will correct it. Haiduc (talk) 01:20, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

We need more sources

It's clear that GL has been used as a paraphrase for Greek homosexuality but will somebody please point out a source that shows GL in wide use in some other context. The nearest I have come so far is this Google preview supplied by you Haiduc [8], which is a forward by Norman Page to an edition of Wilde's novelette on Dorian Gray (page 18), and I quote:

The use of Greek mythology and art as a fertile source of allusions may imply an awareness that homosexual affection and practise was a well-established feature of ancient Greek society; in nineteenth-century England, "Greek love" was one of the available euphemisms for homosexuality. Later examples include Ganymede and Hylas...

Page then gives an example of the use of 'Ganymede' as a term for a sodomite but he gives no example of GL as a euphemism for contemporary homosexuality and it isn't even clear if he is actually referring to contemporary homosexuality at all. So this is hardly more useful than Crompton's lame-ass comment that the Romantics "would have known" what GL meant. I also found this comment in Gustafson's book about German intellectualism and homosexuality in the 18th century, where she comments on Haggerty's book 'Men in Love':

Haggerty demonstrates in Men in Love how the eighteenth-century obsession with "Greek love" (and the cult of friendship associated with it) became a model of love between men for for upper-class intellectuals and poets of eighteenth-century England (page 32)

However, this text includes a footnote, as follows:

See Haggerty's introduction for a summary of the scholarly debates about the nature of eighteenth-century quotations of "Greek love". Many scholars consider these quotations of male friendship to be stylistic (see the collection of essays by Mauser and Becker-Cantarino, for example). I agree with Haggerty that in cases such as those of Grey, Walpole, Beckford - and I would add Winckelmann, Goethe and Moritz - invocations of Greek love and male friendship are appropriated precisely in order to facilitate the expression of desire between men. (page 229)

Notice these things: 1)Gustafson uses Gl as a term in her own book and it is by no means obvious from her comment here that Englishmen in the 18th century actually used the term themselves; 2)scholars disagree about what the Englishmen actually meant by their choice of language; 3)Haggerty and Gustafson only identify three Englishman they think used the language to express homosexuality. In summary, it is hard to locate and interpret uses of GL outside the context of ancient Greek homosexuality. The sources I've seen thus far are vague and unsubstantiated. This is a real worry and I'm still waiting for an answer. Does anyone have access to Heggarty's book and can we have a quote from it please? Is there any reliable source that shows GL in wide use as a term for modern homosexualty or pederasty? Amphitryoniades (talk) 03:13, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Greek love - something of a tease

Doing my own online researches, I'm coming to the conclusion that 'Greek love' is not really a term that authoritative scholars take seriously. Consider how it has been used in the titles of books:

• 'One Hundred Years of Homosexuality: and other essays on Greek Love' by David Halperin, in which the author argues that male citizens in ancient Greek states used sexual penetration of women, slaves and boys as an expression of political empowerment, and in which he admits that he uses 'Greek Love' in the title as something of a tease - page 4 here [9]
• 'Greek Love Reconsidered' edited by Thomas Hubbard, comprising 4 essays in response to Halperin's thesis
• 'Byron and Greek Love' by Louis Crompton where the author justifies his use of GL in the title on the basis that Byron and his contemporaries would have known what it meant, in the intoduction page 11 here (code for "actually I haven't studied their use of the term at all") [10]
• 'The Greeks and Greek Love' by James Davidson, whom Dominique quotes with great respect but whose standards of scholarship are castigated in this review by a real scholar, Thomas Hubbard, here [11]

Is 'Greek Love' a term that deserves an encyclopaedia article all to itself? We need more sources that show it is not just a joke nor just a marketing gimmick nor just a synonym for ancient Greek homosexuality nor just a translation of a German phrase nor just slang for anal intercourse. We need sources that demonstrate its wide use as a notable English term. Amphitryoniades (talk) 22:21, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate your analytic approach, and so far it has served us well. The only thing I would criticize is your implied argument that "Greek love" needs to be a particular thing. As I indicated above, there is no question that it is anything but. The best we can hope for in this article is to document the shifting nature of its uses and meanings. I see that as a useful exercise. It seems to me that any concept that has been around since Roman times and has been used by major personages in literature and philosophy, and has been taken up by many major European languages would be of interest to historians of sexuality at the very least.

Davidson does come across as a real piece of work. See the va et vient in the BMCR. Haiduc (talk) 00:04, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Davidson defending Davidson is not so significant as Hubbard demolishing Davidson but thanks anyway. Your edit providing sections for Gl in different eras (e.g. Victorian age) is inappropriate for the material we have. Here is a more appropriate division:

1. Homosexuality and pederasty in ancient Greece: dealing with GL as a synonym for these and including, for example, Hume and Gillies, as well as Davidson's 'soft' interpretation of pederasty, his quote about Mos Graeciae, followed by Williams' more scholarly analysis that Mos Graecia in not code for GL, and then by Halperin's 'tough' view of pederasty - the section will show that GL has been used as a critical, a euphemistic and an ironic term for ancient Greek homosexuality/pederasty.

2. Greek love as a title in essays and books: dealing with the books/essays and the issues I raised just above, developed from Halperin's ironic use as mentioned in the previous section and including Crompton's speculation that GL functioned as a de facto term when words like 'homosexual' were not available

3. The German usage: dealing briefly with speculative analysis of 18th century developments of a homosexual language in Germany (Kuzniar and Gustafson) and some possible parallels in England (Haggerly).

4. Specific definitions: dealing with the personal definitions by Symonds and Prosner

This division is appropriate for the material we have. We must continue to be careful to let the authors themselves do almost all the talking so that we can avoid straying into interpretation and original research. Even with this arrangement, however, it is possible that this article is a mistake - we have no scholarly overviews of our subject and that makes this OR, no matter how much we try to avoid it. Amphitryoniades (talk) 02:21, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

This new outline looks like a solid improvement. The prior scheme in chronological sequence supports a synthesis that the term represents a unified concept that developed over time. But there are no sources telling us that. The term is used in various ways depending on who used it and in what context. Organizing by type of use rather than time period would help to avoid synthesis. That makes it a better approach. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 09:02, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

As long as no information is lost I have no objection to trying another organizational scheme, though it seems a bit of an arbitrary imposition to me, and I fail to see the significance of the usage of the term in titles. It is a bit like studying marriage and making a big deal of the fact that books about marriage feature the word in the title.

Jack, I have no idea where you getting your notion of synthesis from. We both seem to describe the topic in the same terms, as a fluid term that has seen a number of usages, but you see synthesis and I don't. If anything, organizing by time is a neutral, hands-off approach, while organizing by topic in this case is the very essence of synthesis, since we are pigeonholing the various authors into little boxes of our own making. Haiduc (talk) 14:51, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

drive-by contribution

I don't have a lot of time to contribute to what is clearly a very involved discussion, but I thought I would share two quotes the editors of this article might find interesting.

• From Neil McKenna, The Secret Life of Oscar Wilde, [12]: "In his privately printed and cautiously circulated A Problem in Greek Ethics, John Addington Symonds wrote: 'The Dorians gave the earliest and most marked encouragement to Greek love. Nowhere else, indeed, except among the Dorians, who were an essentially military race, living like an army of occupation in the countries they had seized, herding together in barracks and at public messes, and submitting to martial drill and discipline, do we meet with paiderastia developed as an institution.'" This shows a 19th-century writer using the term "Greek love" as an equivalent for Greek pederasty.

• Oliver Taplin's review of Davidson's The Greeks and Greek Love in the Guardian [13]: "The Greeks and Greek Love is an extraordinary achievement, ranging far and wide across times and places, across cultures and disciplines." A favorable review, though of course Taplin also finds some faults. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:51, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Akhilleus, oh what a surprise. You'll have to get out of your chariot if your are going to hit the target! No srsly. We already have this quote from Symonds:

I shall use the terms Greek Love, understanding thereby a passionate and enthusiastic attachment subsisting between man and youth, recognised by society and protected by opinion, which, though it was not free from sensuality, did not degenerate into mere licentiousness.

Why would he define GL in this manner if it were already a term widely in use? Especially, why would he define it in a self-published work clearly designed for like-minded individuals who might be expected to be familiar with GL already, if indeed it happened to be widely in use? As for Taplin's review - here is a quote:

This is so much more stimulating than the caution that is conventional in scholarly publications (mind you, it is a caution that most of us are right to observe, since if we tried to flourish such panache as Davidson we would merely look silly.

Yes and Davidson does in fact look silly after Hubbard's demolition.

I'll wait a few days before restructuring the article. I would like this article to succeed, simply as a project I have got involved in, but truly I think the sources we are using would be better employed in other articles, where there is no danger of OR. There is no road map for what we are doing here. Amphitryoniades (talk) 06:00, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

No road map? I think that is a subjective assessment that you could make about any article. There is never a road map, if there were you could probably computerize this whole process. Also, you ask, "Why would he define GL in this manner if it were already a term widely in use?" Since we are playing with ideas on this page, I might opine that he defined it as he did NOT because the term was not in wide use, but because the term WAS in wide use but had many meanings, most of them negative as they were filtered through the Christian bias. In this instance he is pointing to a positive interpretation, the moderate and legitimate eros (sophron and dikaios) between man and youth which IS erotic but stops short of degrading practices (I am representing the Greeks' view here). This is something that needs to be elaborated upon in the article so that the reader will understand what Symonds was talking about. Haiduc (talk) 10:23, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Glissement sémantique

One overall characteristic of the continuing discussion so far can be described as 'piece-meal source reliance'. If this is a big subject - which is now assumed - editors really have to read more. The impression I have is that while there is assuredly a flurry of activity in acquiring information e.g. uses of the term GL through recourse to snapshots of references gleaned from the Internet (nothing wrong in that) , these are too often limited to reviews or selected lines therefrom, rather than the books themselves, or such quotations that are readily available and suit the purpose of the moment. We are dealing here with a subject of contradictions - rather than one that has many meanings - and judgments have to be made on the basis of the wider context, rather than a couple of lines happily alighted upon. The chatter about Davidson is a case in point: a simplistic definition in the Intro can hardly convey the riches to follow (and the huge resources called upon in the discourse), and nor should one expect it to.

And what of the subject? That has to be the starting point, and whatever 'interpretations' are put upon the form of the title, it is the concept which must prevail over secondary 'definitions' and slang usage. Before being accused of pre-empting an agreement on this point, let me say simply that the body of historic, literary and scholarly support for the interpretation of Greek love as 'amor more Graecorum' is overwhelming, and that writers who assume this - including those, like Shelley, who go to great lengths and complicated language to disguise what they wish to reveal - are confident in that assumption even if there are strong disagreements about this or the other historic, linguistic or political aspect. Talking of Shelley, his 'Discourse on the Manner of the Antient Greeks relative to the subject of love' is certainly relevant, even if his title departs (only) slightly from ours, and even if he raises controversial issues e.g. the enslavement of Greek women and the superior beauty of Greek males. As for less illustrious writers who - for reasons of religious or moral orthodoxy - present a severely negative view e.g. of pederasty, or to try to obscure the 'age factor' either for reasons of disapproval, personal distaste, or even - as one suspects these days - to promote a 'respectable' gay agenda, a collective decision to relegate these few transgressors to an appropriate place in the hierarchy of acceptable sources should not be difficult to achieve. Hubbard has interesting things to say about this.

As to the form of the article, that will emerge and cannot be set in stone at this point. History, philosophy, aesthetics, linguistics, literature must all be drawn upon in the creation of what must surely result - if the laws of probablity have any relevance here - in a fascinating study which would attract the attention of a discriminating public and even its approval.--Dominique (talk) 16:32, 5 December 2009 (UTC)