The Catamites of Tiberius?

[billd89]

I've been closely examining Philo's DVC. In most translations, this startling bit is generally neutralized. It should be translated precisely, because Philo provides an extraordinarily detailed description of child sex-workers, as he saw them. That itself raises questions, but I argue this diatribe indicates a target, at a particular Time and Place. WHERE then, should these "symposia" take place?

a) Politically, with ire directed at some nemesis, it might be the home some phenomenally wealthy AND well-connected homosexual. Philo may be delivering an acidic critique of the conspiratorial royal household of Tiberius or Gaius, or rather some ethnic noble close to the throne. Ergo, this would be a snapshot not of Imperial catamites (Capri, c.25 AD) but rather a decadent freedman of great wealth. However, alternately,

b) IF Philo's earlier point* was correct -- as these pederast expatriates have already been or will soon be disowned by their families -- he would be speaking more about some venue in the cosmopolitan Mediterranean, c.15-25 AD. Ergo, this is a description of a 'scene': a subculture in Alexandria or another large city of the Empire. It isn't clear if Philo means exactly the same crowd of alcoholics, but some pay for the privilege, by subscription; that wouldn't occur on a royal estate, yet it might in some debauched version of 'hotels' nearby.

It remains unclear HOW Philo himself should know these scandalous venues so intimately, but again: I very much doubt this is an 'imaginary exercise' in rhetoric; he's detailing a specific fashion his readers might know about vaguely; his precise description says "I was there!"

* "47. Living in this way, they will persist to become homeless and hearthless: foes of parents, wives, and children, enemies even of their own country, even of themselves, for a life soaked and wasted is a conspirator against all."

De Vita Contemplativa {Edit: I am using AI -- Claude and ChatGPT3.5 -- to refine my earlier translations w/ DeepL and GoogleTranslate **}:

50. διακονικὰ ἀνδράποδα εὐμορφότατα καὶ περικαλλέστατα, ὡς ἀφιγμένα οὐχ ὑπηρεσίας ἕνεκα μᾶλλον ἢ τοῦ φανέντα τὴν τῶν θεωμένων ὄψιν ἡδῦναι· τούτων οἱ μὲν παῖδες ἔτι ὄντες οἰνοχοοῦσιν, ὑδροφοροῦσι δὲ βούπαιδες λελουμένοι καὶ λελειασμένοι, οἳ τά τε πρόσωπα ἐντρίβονται καὶ ὑπογράφονται καὶ τὰς τῆς κεφαλῆς τρίχας εὖ πως διαπλέκονται σφηκούμενοι·

51. βαθυχαῖται γάρ εἰσιν ἢ μὴ κειρόμενοι τὸ παράπαν ἢ τὰς προμετωπιδίους αὐτὸ μόνον ἐξ ἄκρων εἰς ἐπανίσωσιν καὶ γραμμῆς κυκλοτεροῦς ἠκριβωμένον σχῆμα· χιτῶνάς τε ἀραχνοϋφεῖς καὶ ἐκλεύκους ἐπαναζωσάμενοι, τὰ μὲν ἐμπρόσθια κατωτέρω τῶν ὑπὸ γόνου, τὰ δὲ κατόπιν μικρὸν ὑπὸ τοῖς γονατίοις, ἑκάτερον δὲ μέρος οὐλοτέραις ταῖς σειραίαις ἐπιδιπλώσεσι κατὰ τὴν τῶν χιτωνίσκων συμβολὴν συστέλλοντες ἐκ πλαγίων κόλπους ἀπαιωροῦσιν, εὐρύνοντες τὰ κοῖλα τῶν πλευρῶν.

52. ἐφεδρεύουσι δ’ ἄλλοι, μειράκια ἢ πρωτογένεια, τοὺς ἰούλους ἄρτι ἀνθοῦντες, ἀθύρματα πρὸ μικροῦ παιδεραστῶν γεγονότες, ἠσκημένοι σφόδρα περιέργως πρὸς τὰς βαρυτέρας ὑπηρεσίας, ἐπίδειξις ἑστιατόρων εὐπορίας, ὡς ἴσασιν οἱ χρώμενοι, ὡς δὲ ἔχει τὸ ἀληθές, ἀπειροκαλίας.

50. Attendant slaves of the most alluring shape and utter beauty are paraded in, not merely for service but rather to gratify the lewd gaze of the lechers when put on display. Those still boys pour wine, while the adolescents, meticulously bathed and smooth-skinned, serve as water-carriers. They apply cosmetic foundation to their skin, paint their eyelids with makeup, and artfully plait the hair on their heads, tied up in a krobylos (wasp-like) knot.

51. For they wear long hair, either unshorn or cut only above their foreheads, evenly trimmed bangs shaped precisely into a circular arc. They are clothed in spider-webbed, transparent white tunics, the front hem tucked just below their genitals and the back slightly below their buttocks, each side cinched with curled ribbons in extra folds at the tunic's seam, allowing the fabric folds to drape at the sides, accentuating the hollow of their ribs.

52. Others are in held reserve, adolescents or those just past puberty, their youthful beards barely in first bloom, having recently graduated from pederasts’ playthings to a lewd grooming for more strenuous services, flaunting the purported 'wealth' of the banquet-hosts (as those who use them know) – but in truth, of their boundless depravity.

** You may want to compare standard translations by Colson [1935] and Yonge [1855}, which obviously didn't satisfy me.

On the contrary, here is an Apologetic Interpretation (rationalization):

[DCHindley]

OOOOhhhh-Kay ...

Are you saying that Philo's Therapeutae were running an escort service for pedophiles and hebephiles?

Seriously?

A while back I offered my amateurish literary analysis and segregated the narrative between Philo's personal(?) notebook entries while attending their meetings, hearing their choirs and such. This text I color coded red.

Then there was a layer of comments about these notes, probably by Philo himself as he ruminated upon them while editing for future publication. I had this color coded blue.

It was apparently never published in his lifetime, as the third & final level of editing was that of a highly intelligent and wizened aristocratic type, who I suggested was his kinsman Tiberius Alexander. I let this be in black type, and includes chapters 50-52.

The description of these "love feasts," with all the comments about sparing no expenses and going into such extreme detail to please the patron, sounds a lot like the extravagant parties that Herod Agrippa threw for Gaius in Rome, described by Josephus. Perhaps Tiberius Alexander had attended one, or at least read reports by attendees, with amused disapproval.

Maybe T. Alexander saw some of that kind of entertainments Agrippa may have given to reward his Alexandrian patron (who had financed his trip to Rome to attempt to get back in Tiberius' graces), when the newly appointed "king" Agrippa I passed through Alexandria on his way to his kingdom, the former tetrarchy of Herod Phillip with some additions of Ituraean sub-regions near Damascus. This was the backdrop to the story of Carabbas, as many Greek residents of Alexandria hated the Judeans, and vice versa, so they were always antagonizing one another.

But I think it was not that, rather T. Alexander, who was a Roman knight with rank in Alexandria, with his own military and social contacts in Rome, who probably got dispatches from his friends and contacts who might have attended some of the parties Agrippa threw for Gaius, describing the debauchery. In his final editing of his cousin's unpublished work, he ruminates on those experiences, adding in the process a layer of his own worldly advice about such matters, mainly the excesses. T Alexander was not himself a profligate man, having served as a thoroughly Romanized Judean, a one time prefect of Egypt, who was at another time Roman governor of Judea-Samaria-Edom, and also general over Roman legionary forces used in the Judean war of 66+CE.

DCH

[billd89]

Ahhh, no. Sections 40-63 are about the Greeks or Romans (its unclear exactly WHO) contrasted with the Therapeutae.

IF T. Alexander (Jr.) was held as a child hostage and raised at the Imperial Royal Court (I cannot remember where I read that, sorry), it is indeed possible that this nephew detailed court shenanigans to Philo himself as gossip.

However, I wouldn't call an Alexandrian child raised in Rome or wherever in Italy a "thoroughly Romanized Judean" -- he wasn't a "Judaean" at all.
Also, he was widely considered an apostate Jew (although that is no longer the consensus view).

A while back I offered my amateurish literary analysis and segregated the narrative between Philo's personal(?) notebook entries while attending their meetings, hearing their choirs and such,. There there was a layer of comments about these notes, probably by Philo himself as he ruminated upon them while editing for future publication. It was apparently never published in his lifetime...

Are you fluent in literary Greek, or using Yonge's translation, to come to this conclusion?? I am well aware that 'interpolations happen' -- but I 'very much doubt' (to put it politely) those here claiming competency to re-write the NT based on their own hunches* from Sunday School readings the KJV, sorry.

*re: Marcionite Conspiracy Theories.

[Peter Kirby]

I am well aware that 'interpolations happen' -- but I 'very much doubt' (to put it politely) those here claiming competency to re-write the NT based on their own hunches* from Sunday School readings the KJV, sorry.

*re: Marcionite Conspiracy Theories.

Subtext at its finest! Who's the target? Who can say?

Really, I'm impressed.

[billd89]

Tiberius Alexander born c.14 AD and raised at Tiberius Court from 24 AD (Aged 10?) would indeed have seen things, until c.36 AD.

If T. Alexander Jr. were Philo's source, Tiberius and/or Caligula could have been the obscured targets. That late-dates Philo's Essene and Therapeut works, however.

[DCHindley]

Hmmm,

It was Herod Agrippa who was a child "hostage" in Rome. Most if not all of Herod's children were shipped to Rome for their "education" but they were also pawns to be used if Herod was killed. These all lived quite different lives from one another, as temperament and ability dictated. Some were never given a post, others were given posts, as things came up by chance.

Contrast to the Judean convert king of Adiabene. He sent his kinsman, who he had spared the death they might have otherwise expected from most kings who take power, to both Rome and Parthia as "hostages," raised and educated in their patron country's ways, for use as bargaining chips in the poker games of international politics.

Tiberius Alexander was related to the Alabarch of the Judean community in Alexandria, which was exceptionally large and held a lot of sway with the owner of Egypt, the emperor himself. Philo was also related to this same Alabarch. Obviously, some of the Alabarch's family assimilated to Roman ways, having acquired Roman citizenship in some way (maybe the Alabarch had been granted citizenship), and accumulated the wealth needed to have earned that knighthood. Philo spoke of fellow Judeans who had abandoned their religious ways as having gone astray. He himself had started down that same path (he was clearly trained in Platonic & Stoic philosophy) but caught himself, and returned to his roots.

Only Roman knights were appointed as prefects in Egypt by the Emperor himself. So yes, T. Alexander was connected, but I always figured it was due to his relation to the Judean Alabarch, but I do not recall this being attributed to a relationship to Herod or his kin.

No formal literary training, although I have some well respected published handbooks bought over the years. I don't segment Philo's DVC as most do. When I see what appears to me to be sketch descriptions from, that I assume to be Philo's own notes from his youth. What appears to be expansions of these notes as commentary, I take to be signs of editorial efforts on Philo's part. Since ever since the invention of writing and the development of literary culture, partly edited notes are published posthumously by sons, students, or their library slaves/freedmen, all the time, including in antiquity. Who would be in a better position to do that that a relation who was wizened, but also aware of Philo's own conflict with the Roman way versus his ancestral way, and wanted to remember Philo as a wise man, adding his own confirmations to the things that Philo's comments, from his own unique POV.

You can't see that?

DCH

[DCHindley]

I was referring to "Alexander the Alabarch" of Alexandria, which I had always thought to be a representative for the Judeans of the city. The Wikipedia entry for him says that his was a custom's position, and he was very wealthy. He apparently had connections in common with Hasmonean as well as Herodian princes/princesses. Philo was Alexander the Alabarch's older brother.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_the_Alabarch

This Wiki article doesn't say much about his advocacy for Judeans resident in Alexandria. I have understood this to be as a sort of an ethnarch, similar to the "ethnarch of Aretas" (after Paul's a** in Damascus), but answering to the emperor Tiberius rather than to the Nabatean king. Even if he was the ethnarch advocating for Judean interests, he was probably not a religious authority in his own right. I'm sure he kept up good relations with the religious Judeans, but he was quite Romanized himself.

Of his sons, I was referring to Tiberius Julius Alexander, the future prefect of Judea and later Egypt itself, and Titus' 2nd in command in the Judean rebellion. The youngest son, Marcus Julius Alexander, had been married to Agrippa I's daughter Berenice.

DCH

[billd89]

Wiki is more authoritative than you here, unfortunately:

Tiberius Julius Alexander (fl. 1st century) was an equestrian governor and general in the Roman Empire. Born into a wealthy Jewish family of Alexandria but abandoning or neglecting the Jewish religion, he rose to become the 2nd procurator of Judea (c. 46 – 48) under Claudius. While Prefect of Egypt (66–69), he employed his legions against the Alexandrian Jews in a brutal response to ethnic violence, and was instrumental in the Emperor Vespasian's rise to power. In 70, he participated in the Siege of Jerusalem as Titus' second-in-command.

T. Alexander (Jr) -- born a Jew, certainly -- was raised as a Roman citizen; his military and politcal life-history is entirely consistent with that -- not what you imagine. He is considered an apostate because of what he did -- nothing indicates any loyalty whatsoever to Judaean Jews, he didn't advocate for "Judaeans" but rather (as a Roman authority) crushed their uprisings, thwarted their goals. His highly literate uncle couldn't even read Hebrew! Etc., etc.

As for wealthy children shipped off to Rome as 'hostages', it was extremely common and there's extensive literature on that. It scarcely needed mention, and T. Alexander is perfect example of one of these lost children. He bore absolute loyalty to Rome, in spite of his Judaean ancestry.

Without intending to offend, I must say your Judaean thesis sounds fantastical, and your overall interpretation far too eccentric, when you miss the most obvious bits. By contrast, I try to stay on point, clarifying the (Greek) text itself. Does anyone here fail to grasp why 'determining interpolations' must occur at that level, not from Yonge's (garbage) translation? Those who cannot see I cannot help, sorry.

Back on topic, now. De Vita Contemplativa says:

50. διακονικὰ ἀνδράποδα εὐμορφότατα καὶ περικαλλέστατα, ὡς ἀφιγμένα οὐχ ὑπηρεσίας ἕνεκα μᾶλλον ἢ τοῦ φανέντα τὴν τῶν θεωμένων ὄψιν ἡδῦναι· τούτων οἱ μὲν παῖδες ἔτι ὄντες οἰνοχοοῦσιν, ὑδροφοροῦσι δὲ βούπαιδες λελουμένοι καὶ λελειασμένοι, οἳ τά τε πρόσωπα ἐντρίβονται καὶ ὑπογράφονται καὶ τὰς τῆς κεφαλῆς τρίχας εὖ πως διαπλέκονται σφηκούμενοι·

51. βαθυχαῖται γάρ εἰσιν ἢ μὴ κειρόμενοι τὸ παράπαν ἢ τὰς προμετωπιδίους αὐτὸ μόνον ἐξ ἄκρων εἰς ἐπανίσωσιν καὶ γραμμῆς κυκλοτεροῦς ἠκριβωμένον σχῆμα· χιτῶνάς τε ἀραχνοϋφεῖς καὶ ἐκλεύκους ἐπαναζωσάμενοι, τὰ μὲν ἐμπρόσθια κατωτέρω τῶν ὑπὸ γόνου, τὰ δὲ κατόπιν μικρὸν ὑπὸ τοῖς γονατίοις, ἑκάτερον δὲ μέρος οὐλοτέραις ταῖς σειραίαις ἐπιδιπλώσεσι κατὰ τὴν τῶν χιτωνίσκων συμβολὴν συστέλλοντες ἐκ πλαγίων κόλπους ἀπαιωροῦσιν, εὐρύνοντες τὰ κοῖλα τῶν πλευρῶν.


50. Attendant slaves of the most alluring shape and utter beauty are paraded in, not merely for service but rather to gratify the lewd gaze of the lechers when put on display. Those still boys pour wine, while the adolescents, meticulously bathed and smooth-skinned, serve as water-carriers. They apply cosmetic foundation to their skin, paint their eyelids with makeup, and artfully plait the hair on their heads, tied up in a krobylos (wasp-like) knot.

51. For they wear long hair, either unshorn or cut only above their foreheads, evenly trimmed bangs shaped precisely into a circular arc. They are clothed in spider-webbed, transparent white tunics, the front hem tucked just below their genitals and the back slightly below their buttocks, each side cinched with curled ribbons in extra folds at the tunic's seam, allowing the fabric folds to drape at the sides, accentuating the hollow of their ribs.

Whether or not T. Alexander was kept as a harem boy in the Court of Tiberius, Philo's account is extremely visual. Given this almost photographic (pornographic?) description of the boys' fashion, Philo (or someone very close to him) must have been an eye-witness. One simply doesn't recall extensive detail like that, second-hand, from casual conversations, gossip, even from relatives. Perhaps his brother (visiting his son) wrote down what he'd seen? We're still in the same eye-witness category, at any rate.

And this fact would also wholly contradict the minority thesis that Philo was writing fiction here, "idealizing" an "imaginary" group of Jewish mystics and their parallel nemesis sub-culture. No, this sort of detail can't be fictional -- that's obvious enough to me; your mileage may vary.

[billd89]

De Vita Contemplativa says:

51. βαθυχαῖται γάρ εἰσιν ἢ μὴ κειρόμενοι τὸ παράπαν ἢ τὰς προμετωπιδίους αὐτὸ μόνον ἐξ ἄκρων εἰς ἐπανίσωσιν καὶ γραμμῆς κυκλοτεροῦς ἠκριβωμένον σχῆμα· χιτῶνάς τε ἀραχνοϋφεῖς καὶ ἐκλεύκους ἐπαναζωσάμενοι, τὰ μὲν ἐμπρόσθια κατωτέρω τῶν ὑπὸ γόνου, τὰ δὲ κατόπιν μικρὸν ὑπὸ τοῖς γονατίοις, ἑκάτερον δὲ μέρος οὐλοτέραις ταῖς σειραίαις ἐπιδιπλώσεσι κατὰ τὴν τῶν χιτωνίσκων συμβολὴν συστέλλοντες ἐκ πλαγίων κόλπους ἀπαιωροῦσιν, εὐρύνοντες τὰ κοῖλα τῶν πλευρῶν.


50. ...They apply cosmetic foundation to their skin, paint their eyelids with makeup, and artfully plait the hair on their heads, tied up in a krobylos (wasp-like) knot.

51. For they wear long hair, either unshorn or cut only above their foreheads, evenly trimmed bangs shaped precisely into a circular arc. They are clothed in spider-webbed, transparent white tunics, the front hem tucked just below their genitals and the back slightly below their buttocks, each side cinched with curled ribbons in extra folds at the tunic's seam, allowing the fabric folds to drape at the sides, accentuating the hollow of their ribs.

I did use AI -- Claude 3 (which is brilliant, but not flawless) -- and it mentioned something that I'd mused about, fleetingly.

The emphasis on the youths' appearance, grooming, and dress is striking. Philo's attention to the details of their hairstyles, makeup, and revealing clothing underscores the performative and sexualized nature of their roles. It would be interesting to examine how these fashions and practices relate to broader cultural norms and beauty standards of the time.

I wonder about the FASHION, because (like accents) that tends to be localized. The particular and note-worthy fashion which Philo has so carefully identified should be a distinct cultural marker. So: does it seem these boys are styled like Cleopatra, and therefore 'Egyptian'?



If so, Egyptian-styled catamites do not fit Capri so much as ... Alexandria (or environs). If this was a portrait of a Roman decadent's scene at Alexandria, should we suspect Aulus Avilius Flaccus as the target of Philo's critique? The 'drinking subscription' might have been a sort of paid access to the Praefectus of Egypt, in days of drinking sprees (to celebrate Dionysos or Agathos Daimon). All this underscores the relevance of contrasting (i.e. comparing) those others -- 'Greek' pedo wastrels -- to Philo's noble 'Jews'. Same-same but different!

[DCHindley]

What about Ant 18, 289+?

[289] But king Agrippa, who now lived at Rome, was more and more in the favor of Caius;

and when he had once made him a supper,

and was careful to exceed all others, both in expenses and in such preparations as might contribute most to his pleasure;

nay, it [Agrippa's ability to throw an event bigger than anything even imagined by Stephan Huller,] was so far from the ability of others, that [even] Caius himself could never equal, much less exceed it (such care had he [meaning Agrippa] taken beforehand to exceed all men, and particularly. to make all agreeable to Caesar);

hereupon Caius admired his understanding and magnificence,

that he should force himself to do all to please him, even beyond such expenses as he could bear,

So, here we have Agrippa, a client king who happened to prefer to hang around Rome, purportedly just to be of service to emperor Gaius, who had also appointed him as a king. All that nastiness of having to actually go there (Herod Phillip's former tetrarchy) in order to "arrange things" (meaning tap into its revenue stream to secure the ability to live in Rome) was past him. So, when Gaius had determined to place his statue in the Jerusalem temple, Agrippa had selflessly (I guess you could say) sacrificed his own self security and income stream to do the right thing for Judean people, and throw a party like no one had ever thrown before, even the emperor himself. He apparently thought of "everything."*

I would hazard a guess that "king" Agrippa made a show of his Herodian family connections, imitating Herod the Great's flamboyant "eastern" style of rule. He (unlike Herod the Great) was amiable, but like him could be very generous to others, and apparently able to organize complex events in a forceful and well planned/orchestrated way, that Gaius found both amusing and enjoyable. He gave up the chance to be gifted a larger kingdom or prestigious revenue properties, and made the decision to ask Gaius NOT to erect his statue in the temple of Jerusalem. Gaius was concerned that Agrippa made THAT request, instead of asking for a larger kingdom with better revenues than he already had, as expected, and relented, but deflected his anger at Petronius.

Gaius could have taken affront and lashed out, as he did with Petronius, guv'nor of Syria, for his well intentioned foot dragging. When that letter came from Gaius, telling him to off himself, received luckily after the dispatch that informed him that Gaius had been assassinated, Petronius felt that God had protected him for his concern for the Judean people. He certainly took this turn of events, plus the earlier miraculous rainstorm that occurred as he deliberated what to do as the delegations begged for him to intervene, as signs from the Judean God signaling that he was making the right decision.

Would he have committed suicide had the events unfolded differently? There probably would have been another Roman civil war, IMHO. He was a reasonable, and compassionate man, quite the opposite of the typical understanding that Romans were all evil rapacious oppressors, which is a Sunday School trope believed even today by several moderate-conservative academics who should know better, including Charlesworth. These Herodian "oppressively taxing" tropes have been exploded by folks such as F Udoh (on Herod the Great's revenues and tax collection policies) and M Horning (on Antipater's very long rule of Galilee & Transjordan, despite its tragic end).

Considering that Tiberius J Alexander's own sister was married to king Agrippa I at one point, I think it entirely possible that he was informed of his brother-in-law's shenanigans as a courtier of the emperor. If he ever talked to Gaius about his ancestral customs, you wouldn't know it from Gaius' actions with the statue, but he seemed to have high esteem for Agrippa as a friend and event planner. In a way, Agrippa was the Stephan Huller of his day,** bringing in the best chefs, bakers, attendants borrowed from other households, and entertainers, apparently better at it than any of his peers, including the emperor's own household managers.

I am not saying that the final editor HAS to be T J Alexander, but to me he was a good candidate for the dismissive POV about excesses in entertainment prevalent at Rome. Of course <aaarrrgghhh!!> This *could* be Philo's own words, but I am aware that Philo's works circulated under various names, so I think that posthumous publication by a relative, possibly in more than one edition, is a not-unlikely scenario. Philo and this final editor had different POVs, which is reflected in my analysis. You could argue that these are signs of changes in Philo POV that developed over time. Go ahead, I will not be offended ...

DCH

*Yes, I believe that Agrippa may have included beautiful and/or handsome youngsters among the servants he recruited for his party for Gaius, IF THAT IS WHAT GAUIS WANTED, which considering Tiberius' propensity for such things, if such things influenced Gaius, is likely.
**Yes, an overstatement.