"Transgender" is a contemporary political term that contains a number of different agendas in the here and now. The science of *transsexualism,* however, may offer a clue as to what was really going on with Elagabalus.
Ray Blanchard identified two types of male transsexual. Autogynephiles are heterosexual men who become aroused at the thought of being a woman. Homosexual transsexuals are gay, effeminate men who inhabit stereotypes of the female in order to attract males, emphasis plural. Michael Bailey found that almost all of the subjects he studied who fit this category were sex workers by choice. They enjoyed "the hunt" for men to have sex with. On the one occasion he observed a homosexual transsexual meet and marry the man of his dreams, that subject reverted to his former lifestyle in less than a year IIRC.
If there is any core of truth at all to the story, this seems a likely explanation for Elagabalus. Your account definitely resonates with my reading of the experts.
This is an excellent and well-researched essay, though I do disagree to some extent with the conclusion. I agree that many Roman histories are to various extents unreliable, with a notable example being the portrayal of Tiberius in Tacitus' "Annales" probably being more of a discussion of Domitian through the medium of Tiberius than a discussion of Tiberius himself. However, with regard to Elagabalus, I would likely favour the views of historians who prefer to filter the sources than to disregard them entirely. Whilst some of the accounts are fictional and a large number are exaggerated, I do not believe that these sources are completely without some merit. I will need to read more of the works that you cite and others before I can fully judge. This has given me a lot to think about, especially in regard to changing Roman perceptions of freedom and the relationship between the senatorial class and the Principate.
Thank you. That's interesting about Tacitus. It echoes a theory I have seen some historians advance that Suetonius's biography of Tiberius is really about Hadrian. If it has been food for thought, at least it was of some use. Be interested if you have any further thoughts after looking through some of the citations. Happy reading!
Could you please post some more information about that theory regarding Suetonius's writings about Tiberius? I would be quite interested in reading it. I wish I could likewise supply better links and citations for the discussion of Tiberius being a cipher for Domitian other than the link below this paragraph, but I am trying to remember something mentioned in an undergraduate lecture or seminar. I think part of the conflation of the two also comes from the fact that Titus and Domitian restored issues of coinage that had existed under Tiberius.
The essay was certainly more than just food for thought, as I did thoroughly enjoy it and it was enlightening, as I am more familiar with the earlier Principate than I am with the Severan period (I have experience of identifying and recording coins from the Severan period and have read some things about it, but I am deeply aware of my own ignorance on the topic, even if I have likely come off as a bit too confident). I hope I did not phrase myself too sharply, as I do understand and agree with many of the critiques of the literary sources. I just instinctively disagree with some historians who seek to throw away the literary sources regarding Elagabalus, since, as you mentioned, this raises questions as to why writings about other emperors should be accepted. I will need to delve into my books and those that you have cited to be able to properly articulate a more detailed response especially on the topic of the Elagabalium, since it reminds me of some discussions I remember about the issue of archaeological evidence regarding the Italian countryside in the first century BC and the writings of Plutarch. I look forward to reading more of your essays, especially more relating to Rome.
You didn't come off that way at all! (Not that I would have minded; many people know a great deal more than me, and ancient history by its nature permits of multiple interpretations.) I just went to check what I thought was the source re Suetonius/Tiberius, and I was wrong. It was Tacitus. I'd got mixed up because of the dates and Suetonius's association and fall from favour with Hadrian.
One, the royal family at Emessa were not Arabs, simply Hellenized Levantines. The Arabs lived further to the south-east.
Two, the Romans were often keen on foreign gods and their incorporation into the pantheon was routine from very early times, though snotty patricians who wrote history tended to culitvate a nativist or chauvinust position for the sake of the written record. The standard procedure of the state priests during times of war involved magical rites to win over the tutelary gods of hostile peoples.
The politics of the modern stuff veers into insanity IMO.
The best approach is Nietzschean: scepticism about the written word. With the wealth of archaeology this is possible in ways that we're not always possible.
"Transgender" is a contemporary political term that contains a number of different agendas in the here and now. The science of *transsexualism,* however, may offer a clue as to what was really going on with Elagabalus.
Ray Blanchard identified two types of male transsexual. Autogynephiles are heterosexual men who become aroused at the thought of being a woman. Homosexual transsexuals are gay, effeminate men who inhabit stereotypes of the female in order to attract males, emphasis plural. Michael Bailey found that almost all of the subjects he studied who fit this category were sex workers by choice. They enjoyed "the hunt" for men to have sex with. On the one occasion he observed a homosexual transsexual meet and marry the man of his dreams, that subject reverted to his former lifestyle in less than a year IIRC.
If there is any core of truth at all to the story, this seems a likely explanation for Elagabalus. Your account definitely resonates with my reading of the experts.
This is an excellent and well-researched essay, though I do disagree to some extent with the conclusion. I agree that many Roman histories are to various extents unreliable, with a notable example being the portrayal of Tiberius in Tacitus' "Annales" probably being more of a discussion of Domitian through the medium of Tiberius than a discussion of Tiberius himself. However, with regard to Elagabalus, I would likely favour the views of historians who prefer to filter the sources than to disregard them entirely. Whilst some of the accounts are fictional and a large number are exaggerated, I do not believe that these sources are completely without some merit. I will need to read more of the works that you cite and others before I can fully judge. This has given me a lot to think about, especially in regard to changing Roman perceptions of freedom and the relationship between the senatorial class and the Principate.
Thank you. That's interesting about Tacitus. It echoes a theory I have seen some historians advance that Suetonius's biography of Tiberius is really about Hadrian. If it has been food for thought, at least it was of some use. Be interested if you have any further thoughts after looking through some of the citations. Happy reading!
Could you please post some more information about that theory regarding Suetonius's writings about Tiberius? I would be quite interested in reading it. I wish I could likewise supply better links and citations for the discussion of Tiberius being a cipher for Domitian other than the link below this paragraph, but I am trying to remember something mentioned in an undergraduate lecture or seminar. I think part of the conflation of the two also comes from the fact that Titus and Domitian restored issues of coinage that had existed under Tiberius.
https://ancientromanhistory31-14.com/home/tiberius/source-issues-tiberius-and-tacitus/domitian-and-tiberius/
The essay was certainly more than just food for thought, as I did thoroughly enjoy it and it was enlightening, as I am more familiar with the earlier Principate than I am with the Severan period (I have experience of identifying and recording coins from the Severan period and have read some things about it, but I am deeply aware of my own ignorance on the topic, even if I have likely come off as a bit too confident). I hope I did not phrase myself too sharply, as I do understand and agree with many of the critiques of the literary sources. I just instinctively disagree with some historians who seek to throw away the literary sources regarding Elagabalus, since, as you mentioned, this raises questions as to why writings about other emperors should be accepted. I will need to delve into my books and those that you have cited to be able to properly articulate a more detailed response especially on the topic of the Elagabalium, since it reminds me of some discussions I remember about the issue of archaeological evidence regarding the Italian countryside in the first century BC and the writings of Plutarch. I look forward to reading more of your essays, especially more relating to Rome.
You didn't come off that way at all! (Not that I would have minded; many people know a great deal more than me, and ancient history by its nature permits of multiple interpretations.) I just went to check what I thought was the source re Suetonius/Tiberius, and I was wrong. It was Tacitus. I'd got mixed up because of the dates and Suetonius's association and fall from favour with Hadrian.
A great summary of the story. Two points.
One, the royal family at Emessa were not Arabs, simply Hellenized Levantines. The Arabs lived further to the south-east.
Two, the Romans were often keen on foreign gods and their incorporation into the pantheon was routine from very early times, though snotty patricians who wrote history tended to culitvate a nativist or chauvinust position for the sake of the written record. The standard procedure of the state priests during times of war involved magical rites to win over the tutelary gods of hostile peoples.
Thank you. And yes, will correct the first - was far too loose a shorthand. It's all very subject to politicisation in the modern literature, too ...
The politics of the modern stuff veers into insanity IMO.
The best approach is Nietzschean: scepticism about the written word. With the wealth of archaeology this is possible in ways that we're not always possible.
It was a very good article btw and a lot of fun.
Really appreciate it!