davet@oakhill.UUCP (Dave Trissel) (03/27/85)
In article <789@trwatf.UUCP> root@trwatf.UUCP (Lord Frith) writes: >> Male prostitution was taxed by law - there was even a yearly holiday >> off for male prostitutes. > >Wait a minute. Was prostitution a state-subsdized activity? If so, >then did the male prostitutes obtain a full day's pay on their day >off? If a private institution then did they received some sort >of fixed compensation during a holiday from their "pimp?" > Whats even more interesting is that homosexual prostitution was not only tolerated but actually taxed by Christian emperors in Eastern cities for nearly two centuries after Christianity had become the state religion. [From Boswell's 'Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality' Ch. 3 Pg. 70 - commenting on the legality of homosexuality in Rome:] Homosexual acts could hardly have been illegal in Augustan Rome, where the government not only taxed homosexual prostitution (43) but accorded boy prostitutes a legal holiday; (44) ... [Footnote 43] This tax was collected by all emperors, Christian and non-Christian, well into the sixth century. That it guaranteed the legality of homosexual relations - at least with prostitutes - is stated explicitly by Lampridius for the West (Historia Augusta, Elagabalus 32.5-6) and Evagrius for the East (Ecclesiastical History, PG, 86:2680) [Footnote 44] Corpus inscriptionum Latinarum, 1.2.236 (A.D. 6-9); cited by Griffin, p.102. While we are on the subject of Rome, Christian Fundamentalist like to often repeat their affirmation that one of the reasons for the decline of Rome was due to Homosexuality. This makes the following paragraph striking, again from chapter 3 this time page 73: It is worth noting ... that the period of greatest output of gay literature was not during the decay of the Empire at all - homosexual writings from the third century on became increasingly rare - but from the first two centuries of the Empire, when Rome was at the zenith of its power and prestige. Petronious, Juvenal, Martial, ... and many of the later Greek poets - all worked not in the collapsing Empire of the third and fourth centuries but in the thriving, vital Empire of the first and second, following the traditions of Vergil, Catullus, et al. who had written earlier. By the time the Empire was clearly in decline, very little literature dealt with homosexual themes, and that which did - like the 'Affairs of the Heart' - depicted a society in which tolerance of homosexuality was declining as rapidly as political stability. It is highly ironic that some of todays Christians complain about the dangers of 'other' groups causing our country to fall down due to excess sexual immorality when THEY were the ones accused of such in the past. (Does this prove karma?) From Chapter 5, page 131: Many pagan writers objected to Christianity precisely because of what they claimed was sexual looseness on the part of its adherents, (32) and much Chistian apologetic was aimed at defending Christians against the common belief that they were given to every form of sexual indulgence - including homosexual acts. (33) This belief seems to have been at least partly rooted in fact. Even Chrysostom had to admit that gay sexuality was absolutely rampant in the Christian society of fourth-century Antioch from the highest level on down. [Followed by a lengthy quote from Chysostom proving it.] [Footnote 32] E.g., Tacitus 'Annals' 15.44; Pliny 'Epistles' 10.96. [Footnote 33] An especially interesting example of this is Minucius Felix's 'Octavis,' a defense of Christians against extravagant charges of immorality, including ceremonial fellatio and temple prostitution; see esp. chap 28. For Christian immorality (real and pretended) in general, see Noonan, esp. chaps. 3 and 4. One remarkable aspect of almost any history you study is how often and easily people's ideas change as time goes on. Especially how directly opposing beliefs can be held by the same group of people given enough elapsed time. From Chapter 5, page 134: Not only does there appear to have been no general prejudice against gay people among early Christians; there does not seem to have been any reason for Christianity to adopt a hostile attitude toward homosexual behavior. Many prominent and respected Christians-some canonized-were involved in relationships which would almost certainly be considered homosexual in cultures hostile to same-sex eroticism. Antierotic pressure from government and more ascetic schools of sexual ethics was in time to achieve the supression of most public aspects of gay sexuality and ultimately to induce a violently hostile reaction from Christianity itself, but this process took a very long time and cannot be ascribed to widespread attitudes or prejudices among early adjerents of the Christian religion. To a contemporary observer of social trends, it would probably have seemed that the examples of Ausonius and Paulinus or Perpetua and Felecitas [Christians who exchanged openly passionate letters] to each other would in the end triumph over the hostility of Ambrose and Augustine, and that Christian sexual attitudes would be focused on the quality of love, not the gender of the parties involved or the biological function of their affection. Nuff said. Dave Trissel {ihnp4,seismo,gatech}!ut-sally!oakhill!davet