Hi! I have some questions following the ask you answered about Pausanias (I apologize in advance for the length of the question, they're just too many)
What was considered "too old" for a lover in ancient Macedonia? What was the normal age for the King's lovers to be?
And, like anon asked, do you think Pausanias was in love with Phillip or was it all about the status?
Was it common for kings to be in love, or better said, to have a close relationship with his lovers (outside the bedroom, I mean)? Or how did those types of relationships worked? Do we know how Phillip and Pausanias' relationship was like, before he changed him for the other Pausanias and after the party incident?
And a side question, something that was never clear for me, did Phillip also rape Pausanias at the party?
Kings, Emperors, and Their Lovers
First, general Greek ideals (note ideals, not necessarily reality) tended to paint the eromenos as ranging from pre-teen to late teens. Supposedly, the ability to grow a beard marked the end of one’s attraction as a boy (eromenos) and the transition to being the erastes (lover). There’s a brief window where one could (in theory) be the eromenos to an older lover, but erastes to a younger beloved. There’s no hard-and-fast age, as people mature at different rates. So, for instance, in the novels, Hephaistion isn’t even 16 but can grow his beard. Alexander, at almost 19, is shaving because his beard is so patchy. Again, the younger age is similar; some matured sooner into pre-teen/early teen, although on pottery, we see some eromenoi who look (disturbingly) like older children. Most are clearly younger teens. The Romans, btw, were squicked by Greek pederasty, although it was the “free born boy” part that bothered them. The sexual use of slave children was shrugged off. It was more about status than age.
Yet there is a reason it was called Greek paederasty in the ancient sources, although that’s not a term we use much now except in very specific circumstances, as it tends to bring to mind modern child sexual abuse. There were two big differences. First, the very public nature of the courting—unlike the concealed coercion of abuse victims—made it difficult to conceal inappropriate behavior. Second, the eromenos had the power in the relationship to turn down the courting altogether, or to say “yes” or “no” to sexual activity. (Note below the young man grabbing the wrist of the older man, to stop him. Although it’s been pointed out he stops the hand to his chin [a courting gesture], but not the one reaching for his dick!)
Making parallels to women dating in the middle 20th century aren’t entirely off-base. It was the boy who asked out the girl, who could turn him down. And the girl was tasked with saying “no” to male advances because “he couldn’t control his passions.” Yet there was a problem of “no” being ignored (e.g., rape), or more powerful suitors coercing compliance. We’re back to the difference between the ideal and the real.
This is why I get really BOTHERED by the whole romanticizing of Antinoös and Hadran as gay icons. Antinoös was about 12 when Hadrian picked him up and took him to Italy, and Hadrian was already emperor. You don’t tell the emperor no, especially not one known for his short temper. Maybe Antinoös was a social climber and adored his position as the Hellenizing Hadrian’s eromenos, or he at least made the best of a bad situation. But we have nothing at all to tell us his thoughts, and some really disturbing/murky gossip surrounded his death in the Nile. Guys, it’s NOT a love story, and Antinoös was a victim.
That said, and however predatory Hadrian’s behavior may have been, most erasteis were no more plotting to seduce the cute 11-year-old in the palaistra than the average young man intended to lure his date into the backseat of his 1956 Chevy and rape her. But those people existed, both in the recent past and the distant past, and we shouldn’t forget it.
Now, I use the Hadrian parallel as the same issue would apply to the Macedonian king. In Becoming, Hephaistion thinks to himself that, if Philippos were to make a move on him, he’d have to consider carefully his reaction, as one didn’t just turn down the king.
But we have very little (e.g., virtually NO) evidence for what Philip’s relations with his lovers was like. No doubt, it varied. We have a hint that coercion may have been the case with kings, or at least a sense of opportunism. Philip wasn’t the first Macedonian royal killed by an eromenos. Archelaos was too. We’re told that, while out hunting, he was speared by a Page (or former Page) who was a Thessalian “prince” (e.g., a member of one of the four leading families). The reason? The boy had been promised that Archelaos would help him/his family regain their political position in return for his sexual favors. But that didn’t happen, and so the boy felt used by Archelaos, his timē besmirched, so he killed Archelaos. This prior example is often cited when we talk about what happened to Philip, to understand what may have been going through Pausanias’s head as motivation.
Yet w're also told that Pausanias didn’t want to step down as Philip’s lover, although why isn’t at all clear. Did he love Philip, or think he did? Or was he loathe to give up the status such a position gave him? Or both? Or maybe there was some other reason we aren’t told. Pausanias appears to have been a member of the ruling family in Orestis; did he (like the Thessalian earlier) want something for his family, and was angry at being replaced because he didn’t have it (yet)? Any of those is possible. We just lack any data whatsoever. We can say that, if Philip and Alexander of Epiros were lovers as Justin suggested, Philip did help Alexander to his throne. Justin implies he meant to do it all along, but that’s Justin’s love of scandal.
One of the jobs of an erastes is to shepherd his eromenos into adult male culture, such as the symposion and gymnasion. But also to further his general future, including into politics if of the higher classes. That’s part of what lies behind the Page’s resentment of Archelaos. By contrast, it looks as if Philip did perform that job, at least with regard to Alexander, and perhaps for his other eromenoi.
Philip had nothing to do with the party where Pausanias was raped. He was later targeted by Pausanias because he didn’t punish Attalos as Pausanias wanted. He only promoted Pausanias into the Pezhetairoi (the unit later called Hypaspists by Alexander). It’s called “bodyguard” (somatophylax), but shouldn’t be confused with the 7-man unit. The Pezhetairoi were the “bodyguard,” small /b/, for the king in combat. Philip then sent Attalos overseas with Parmenion. This might look like a promotion as the uncle-in-law of the king, but it smells (to me) like being kicked upstairs and got out of Pella. Nonetheless, it seems to have been that “promotion” of Attalos that set off Pausanias, who then targeted Philip as the un-just judge.
