XVIII.

Upon a topic of great difficulty, which is, however, inseparable from

the subject-matter of this inquiry, I shall not attempt to do more than

to offer a few suggestions. This is the relation of paiderastia to Greek

art. Whoever may have made a study of antique sculpture will not have

failed to recognise its healthy human tone, its ethical rightness. There

is no partiality for the beauty of the male sex, no endeavour to reserve

for the masculine deities the nobler attributes of man's intellectual

and moral nature, no extravagant attempt to refine upon masculine

qualities by the blending of feminine voluptuousness. Aphrodite and

Artemis hold their place beside Erôs and Hermes. Ares is less

distinguished by the genius lavished on him than Athene. Hera takes rank

with Zeus, the Nymphs with the Fauns, the Muses with Apollo. Nor are

even the minor statues, which belong to decorative rather than high art,

noticeable for the attribution of sensual beauties to the form of boys.

This, which is certainly true of the best age, is, with rare exceptions,

true of all the ages of Greek plastic art. No prurient effeminacy

degraded, deformed, or unduly confounded, the types of sex idealised in

sculpture.

The first reflection which must occur to even prejudiced observers, is

that paiderastia did not corrupt the Greek imagination to any serious

extent. The license of Paganism found appropriate expression in female

forms, but hardly touched the male; nor would it, I think, be possible

to demonstrate that obscene works of painting or of sculpture were

provided for paiderastic sensualists similar to those pornographic

objects which fill the reserved cabinet of the Neapolitan Museum. Thus,

the testimony of Greek art might be used to confirm the asseveration of

Greek literature, that among free men, at least, and gentle, this

passion tended even to purify feelings which, in their lust for women,

verged on profligacy. For one androgynous statue of Hermaphroditus or

Dionysus there are at least a score of luxurious Aphrodites and

voluptuous Bacchantes. Erôs himself, unless he is portrayed according to

the Roman type of Cupid, as a mischievous urchin, is a youth whose

modesty is no less noticeable than his beauty. His features are not

unfrequently shadowed with melancholy, as appears in the so-called

Genius of the Vatican, and in many statues which might pass for genii of

silence or of sleep as well as love. It would be difficult to adduce a

single wanton Erôs, a single image of this god provocative of sensual

desires. There is not one before which we could say--The sculptor of

that statue had sold his soul to paiderastic lust. Yet Erôs, it may be

remembered, was the special patron of paiderastia.

Greek art, like Greek mythology, embodied a finely graduated

half-unconscious analysis of human nature. The mystery of procreation

was indicated by phalli on the Hermæ. Unbridled appetite found

incarnation in Priapus, who, moreover, was never a Greek god, but a

Lampsacene adopted from the Asian coast by the Romans. The natural

desires were symbolised in Aphrodite Praxis, Kallipugos, or Pandemos.

The higher sexual enthusiasm assumed celestial form in Aphrodite

Ouranios. Love itself appeared personified in the graceful Erôs of

Praxiteles; and how sublimely Pheidias presented this god to the eyes of

his worshippers can now only be guessed at from a mutilated fragment

among the Elgin marbles. The wild and native instincts, wandering,

untutored and untamed, which still connect man with the life of woods

and beasts and April hours, received half-human shape in Pan and

Silenus, the Satyrs and the Fauns. In this department of semi-bestial

instincts we find one solitary instance bearing upon paiderastia. The

group of a Satyr tempting a youth at Naples stands alone among numerous

similar compositions which have female or hermaphroditic figures, and

which symbolise the violent and comprehensive lust of brutal appetite.

Further distinctions between the several degrees of love were drawn by

the Greek artists. Himeros, the desire that strikes the spirit through

the eyes, and Pothos, the longing of souls in separation from the object

of their passion, were carved together with Erôs by Scopas for

Aphrodite's temple at Megara. Throughout the whole of this series there

is no form set aside for paiderastia, as might have been expected if the

fancy of the Greeks had idealised a sensual Asiatic passion. Statues of

Ganymede carried to heaven by the eagle are, indeed, common enough in

Græco-Roman plastic art; yet, even here, there is nothing which

indicates the preference for a specifically voluptuous type of male

beauty.

It should be noticed that the mythology of the Greeks was determined

before paiderastia laid hold upon the race. Homer and Hesiod, says

Herodotus, made the Hellenic theogony, and Homer and Hesiod knew only of

the passions and emotions which are common to all healthy semi-civilised

humanity. The artists, therefore, found in myths and poems

subject-matter which imperatively demanded a no less careful study of

the female than of the male form; nor were beautiful women wanting.

Great cities placed their maidens at the disposition of sculptors and

painters for the modelling of Aphrodite. The girls of Sparta in their

dances suggested groups of Artemis and Oreads. The Hetairai of Corinth

presented every detail of feminine perfection freely to the gaze. Eyes

accustomed to the "dazzling vision" of a naked athlete were no less

sensitive to the virginal veiled grace of the Athenian Canephoroi. The

temples of the female deities had their staffs of priestesses, and the

oracles their inspired prophetesses. Remembering these facts,

remembering also what we read about Æolian ladies who gained fame by

poetry, there is every reason to understand how sculptors found it easy

to idealise the female form. Nor need we imagine, because Greek

literature abounds in references to paiderastia, and because this

passion played an important part in Greek history, that therefore the

majority of the race were not susceptible in a far higher degree to

female charms. On the contrary, our best authorities speak of boy-love

as a characteristic which distinguished warriors, gymnasts, poets, and

philosophers from the common multitude. As far as regards artists, the

anecdotes which are preserved about them turn chiefly upon their

preference for women. For one tale concerning the Pantarkes of Pheidias,

we have a score relating to the Campaspe of Apelles and the Phryne of

Praxiteles.

It may be judged superfluous to have proved that the female form was

idealised in sculpture by the Hellenes at least as nobly as the male;

nor need we seek elaborate reasons why paiderastia left no perceptible

stain upon the art of a race distinguished before all things by the

reserve of good taste. At the same time, there can be no reasonable

doubt that the artistic temperament of the Greeks had something to do

with its wide diffusion and many sided development. Sensitive to every

form of loveliness, and unrestrained by moral or religious prohibition,

they could not fail to be enthusiastic for that corporeal beauty, unlike

all other beauties of the human form, which marks male adolescence no

less triumphantly than does the male soprano voice upon the point of

breaking. The power of this corporeal loveliness to sway their

imagination by its unique æthetic charm is abundantly illustrated in the

passages which I have quoted above from the _Charmides_ of Plato and

Xenophon's _Symposium_. An expressive Greek phrase, "Youths in their

prime of adolescence, but not distinguished by a special beauty,"

recognises the persuasive influence, separate from that of true beauty,

which belongs to a certain period of masculine growth. The very

evanescence of this "bloom of youth" made it in Greek eyes desirable,

since nothing more clearly characterises the poetic myths which

adumbrate their special sensibility than the pathos of a blossom that

must fade. When distinction of feature and symmetry of form were added

to this charm of youthfulness, the Greeks admitted, as true artists are

obliged to do, that the male body displays harmonies of proportion and

melodies of outline more comprehensive, more indicative of strength

expressed in terms of grace, than that of women.[184] I guard myself

against saying--more seductive to the senses, more soft, more delicate,

more undulating. The superiority of male beauty does not consist in

these attractions, but in the symmetrical development of all the

qualities of the human frame, the complete organisation of the body as

the supreme instrument of vital energy. In the bloom of adolescence the

elements of feminine grace, suggested rather than expressed, are

combined with virility to produce a perfection which is lacking to the

mature and adult excellence of either sex. The Greek lover, if I am

right in the idea which I have formed of him, sought less to stimulate

desire by the contemplation of sensual charms than to attune his spirit

with the spectacle of strength at rest in suavity. He admired the

chastened lines, the figure slight but sinewy, the limbs well-knit and

flexible, the small head set upon broad shoulders, the keen eyes, the

austere reins, and the elastic movement of a youth made vigorous by

exercise. Physical perfection of this kind suggested to his fancy all

that he loved best in moral qualities. Hardihood, self-discipline,

alertness of intelligence, health, temperance, indomitable spirit,

energy, the joy of active life, plain living and high thinking--these

qualities the Greeks idealised, and of these, "the lightning vision of

the darling," was the living incarnation. There is plenty in their

literature to show that paiderastia obtained sanction from the belief

that a soul of this sort would be found within the body of a young man

rather than a woman. I need scarcely add that none but a race of artists

could be lovers of this sort, just as none but a race of poets were

adequate to apprehend the chivalrous enthusiasm for woman as an object

of worship.

The morality of the Greeks, as I have tried elsewhere to prove, was

æsthetic. They regarded humanity as a part of a good and beautiful

universe, nor did they shrink from any of their normal instincts. To

find the law of human energy, the measure of man's natural desires, the

right moment for indulgence and for self-restraint, the balance which

results in health, the proper limit for each several function which

secures the harmony of all, seem to them the aim of ethics. Their

personal code of conduct ended in "modest self-restraint:" not

abstention, but selection and subordination ruled their practice. They

were satisfied with controlling much that more ascetic natures

unconditionally suppress. Consequently, to the Greeks, there was nothing

at first sight criminal in paiderastia. To forbid it as a hateful and

unclean thing did not occur to them. Finding it within their hearts,

they chose to regulate it, rather than to root it out. It was only after

the inconveniences and scandals to which paiderastia gave rise had been

forced upon their notice, that they felt the visitings of conscience and

wavered in their fearless attitude.

In like manner, the religion of the Greeks was æsthetic. They analysed

the world of objects and the soul of man, unconsciously perhaps, but

effectively, and called their generalisations by the names of gods and

goddesses. That these were beautiful and filled with human energy was

enough to arouse in them the sentiments of worship. The notion of a

single Deity who ruled the human race by punishment and favour, hating

certain acts while he tolerated others--in other words, a God who

idealised one part of man's nature to the exclusion of the rest--had

never passed into the sphere of Greek conceptions. When, therefore,

paiderastia became a fact of their consciousness, they reasoned thus: If

man loves boys, God loves boys also. Homer and Hesiod forgot to tell us

about Ganymede and Hyacinth and Hylas. Let these lads be added to the

list of Danaë and Semele and Io. Homer told us that, because Ganymede

was beautiful, Zeus made him the serving-boy of the immortals. We

understand the meaning of that tale. Zeus loved him. The reason why he

did not leave him here on earth like Danaë was that he could not beget

sons upon his body and people the earth with heroes. Do not our wives

stay at home and breed our children? "Our favourite youths" are always

at our side.

A Problem in Greek Ethics Being an inquiry into the phenomenon of sexual inversion, addressed especially to medical psychologists and jurists · 第 43 / 47 题