Notes to Pages 26–28 159
by the earthquakes of 465; Hodkinson, PWCS, 81–82, 103, 123, 371–72, 406–7, 420, 438–40, who
envisages it as a strategy aimed at preventing a division of the family patrimony; and Pomeroy,
S Wo, 37–39, 46–49, who draws attention to the manner in which polyandry strengthened the
power of women.
- Eıspnē ́las: Theoc. 12.13 and Callim. F68 (Pfeiffer) with the scholia. See also Plut. Cleom.
3.2; Ael. VH 3.10, 12; and Hesych. s.v. empneî. In this connection, one should note Xenophon’s use
of empneîn at Symp. 4.15. Patron, protector, friend: Plut. Lyc. 16.12–18.9, Mor. 237b–c; Ael. VH
3.10, 12. For an overview, see Paul Cartledge, “The Politics of Spartan Pederasty,” in Cartledge, SR,
91–105; Kenneth J. Dover, “Greek Homosexuality and Initiation,” in The Greeks and Their Legacy:
Prose Literature, History, Society, Transmission, Influence (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1988), 115–34
(esp. 123–24); Birgalias, OES, 221–52; Ducat, SE, 164–68, 196–201; and Stefan Link, “Education
and Pederasty in Spartan and Cretan Society,” in SCA, 89–111. See also Brelich, Paides e parthenoi,
I 113–26; and Claude Calame, Les Choeurs de jeunes filles en Grèce archaïque (Rome: L’Ateneo and
Bizarri, 1977), I 350–57. It is perhaps worth adding that it is quite possible, but by no means cer-
tain, that the Spartans followed the Thessalian practice (Theoc. 12.14) of using the term aΐtas or
“hearer” to designate the erō ́menos; they are known to have used the term in the archaic period for
describing young girls: Alkman F34 (Page) with scholia. - Surrogate father, expected role: Cic. Rep. 4.3.3, Plut. Lyc. 18.8–9, Ael. VH 3.10. Rules of
decorum and eventual abandonment of passive for active role: cf. Xen. Lac. Pol. 2.12–14, whose
treatment of the relations between the two as Platonic may be ironic, with Ar. Lys. 1173–74; Pl.
Leg. 1.636a–b, 8.836b–c; Mart. 4.55.6–7; Photius s.v. kusolákōn, whose testimony belies Xeno-
phon’s claim; and see Cic. Rep. 4.4.4, who reports that the law allowed the two to embrace and to
share a bed but not to remove their cloaks. Ritual abduction of bride, dressed as man, her hair cut
short in manner of boy: Plut. Lyc. 15.4–6, 16.11 with Annalisa Paradiso, “Osservazioni sulla ceri-
monia nuziale spartana,” QS 24 (1986): 137–53. Cf. the Argive law concerning married women
adorned with beards: Plut. Mor. 245f. At Lacedaemon, the abduction could be more than a ritual:
Hdt. 6.65.2. It is also possible that there was a pre-marital period in which young Spartans had
sexual relations of a sort with maidens in the same fashion as each did with his paıdıká, as Hagnon
of Tarsus (Ath. 13.602d–e) contended. Cf. Lupi, L’Ordine delle generazioni, 65–194, who regards
the practice of pederasty and the treatment of these maidens as elements in an elaborate system
of population control, with Kennell, “Age-Class Societies in Ancient Greece,” 24–42. Political char-
acter of institution and Australian/Melanesian analogue: Rahe, RAM, I.iv.6. - Indifference regarding wife: Plut. Comp. Lyc. et Num. 3.1–4. Membership of pederastic
pair in same sussıtíon: Pl. Leg. 1.636a–b. Stationed in close proximity but not alongside one another
in the battle line: Xen. Symp. 8.35. Note Hell. 4.8.37–39, where the paıdıká in question may well be
a Spartiate. Sacrifice to Eros before drawing up phalanx: Sosicrates FGrH 461 F7 ap. Ath. 13.561e–f.
It can hardly be an accident that Plato equates Spartan practice in these matters with that on Crete:
consider Leg. 8.836b–c in light of Ephorus FGrH 70 F149. Victory, safety, and pederasty: consider
Ath. 13.561e–f in light of Onasander 24. In this connection, see Daniel Ogden, “Homosexuality
and Warfare in Ancient Greece,” in Battle in Antiquity, ed. Alan B. Lloyd (Swansea: Classical Press
of Wales, 2009), 107–68 (esp. 117–19, 139–47). - Cf. the principle to which Antigone in public appeals (Soph. Ant. 1–10, 21–38, 69–77,
80–81, 83, 86–87, 89, 93–97, 448, 450–70, 499–507, 937–43) with that to which, in the same set-
ting, Kreon appeals (162–210, 280–314, 449, 473–96, 635–80); note the character of their ex-
change (508–25); consider the initial attitude of the chorus and that attributed to the people of
Thebes (582–634, 683–733, 781–805, 817–22); note the focus of Antigone’s soliloquy (891–928);
and see Bernard Knox, The Heroic Temper: Studies in Sophoclean Tragedy (Berkeley: University of
California Press, 1964), 91–116. Fundamental and ineliminable though this tension may be, many
scholars are oblivious to it: see, for example, Cynthia Patterson, The Family in Greek History (Cam-
bridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1998).
68.Consider Letter of 31 October 1823 to A. Coray, in The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, ed.
Andrew A. Lipscomb and Albert Ellery Bergh (Washington, DC: Thomas Jefferson Memorial
Association, 1903–7), XV 482, in light of Charles-Louis de Secondat, baron de La Brède et de
Montesquieu, L’Esprit des lois 1.5.2, in Œuvres complètes de Montesquieu, ed. Roger Caillois (Paris:
Bibliothèque de la Pléiade, 1949–51). In eighteenth-century France, Jefferson’s opinion was widely