Symposium - AIC

Ruby Blondell – Sandra Boehringer
psychological identities, the butch and the fem (models that seem easily legible to a modern
audience). But in our view none of these interpretations is adequate to the complexities of the
dialogue, which can be properly understood only in light of its Platonic subtext.
This subtext emerges most strikingly with the use of one particular word. When Clonarium
reports the rumor she has heard about women in Lesbos she calls them hetairistriai. This is only the
second appearance of this word in our ancient sources. The first, of course, is in Plato's Symposium.
In his myth, Aristophanes tells us that the slices of the all-female primordial creature include in their
number the hetairistriai (191e). What exactly does he mean? The word hetairistriai cannot be
translated "lesbians" or "homosexual women," since these categories did not exist in the ancient world
(where sexual behavior was not used to construct such psychological identities). Nor does it refer to
all the women resulting from the splitting of the primordial female. It refers, rather to those who are
attracted strongly to other women. Aristophanes gives us no further information about these women,
who take their place among the fantasies and distortions licensed by his role as a comic playwright
(cf. 189b). But Lucian's Clonarium defines the word hetairistria her own way: "they say there are such
women in Lesbos, masculine looking (arrenopos), not willing to have it done to them (paschein) by
men, but preferring to associate (plêsiazein) with women as men do". In other words, she associates
sex among women with masculine attributes and sexually active behavior, suggesting gendered role
reversal among the women she calls hetairistriai. But Clonarium is reporting mere hearsay. Nor did
she participate in Megilla's soirée. Leaena's eye-witness account will provide a much less clear-cut
picture than Clonarium's characterization of the hetairistria might lead us to expect.
Let us start with the women's appearance. According to Leaena, Megilla is "terribly manly"
(andrikê). What exactly does this mean? Megilla is not masculine in her general appearance or
physique. The wig, when worn, is undetectable. The only physical trait that marks her as "manly"
looking is her baldness--an effect that any woman could produce by shaving. Besides, she presents
herself as a neaniskos, a "youth", not a mature man. The cultural mark of a neaniskos is precisely the
absence of confirmed physical signs of virility, and retention of the softness and sexual indeterminacy
of childhood. Megilla is, then, sometimes androgynous and sometimes feminine, depending on the
presence or absence of her wig. She does not have a "masculine" physique. Note, too, that Leaena
mentions no physical signs of masculinity in Demonassa, even though she is said to have "the same
skills as" Megilla and both of them behave at times "like men". It is character and behavior, rather
than appearance, that are emphasized throughout the dialogue.
Perhaps, then, when Leaena calls Megilla "manly" she means that Megilla will play the
"active" sexual role in relation to her partners and assign them the "passive" role (like the women
Clonarium has heard about in Lesbos). But the larger picture does not support this model. Demonassa,
despite being designated Megilla's "wife", has "the same skills" as Megilla and, like her, behaves "just
like men do" in actively kissing and embracing Leaena. Leaena too takes the initiative at times. There
is thus no simple active-passive or masculine-feminine reversal. Nor does the dialogue portray just
one sexual act between two people. There is sex between Leaena and Megilla, sex between Megilla
and Demonassa, and sex among the three women. The confusion is further fostered by Megilla's selfproclaimed
identity as as a neaniskos. By claiming this identity, Megilla subverts the passive/active
binary associated with conventional representations of male homoeroticism. She is both "manly" and
"active", like an erastes, but the phrase kalos neaniskos clearly codes her as one who would, in a male
homoerotic relationship, play the role of an eromenos. Like Plato's Alcibiades, "Megillus" is an
eromenos who asserts "himself" as an erastes. At the same time, "his" pleasure described in a way that
suggests the excess associated with female sexual response. Leaena presents herself, by contrast, not
as experiencing reciprocal pleasure, as a woman would be expected to do, but as merely in it for the
gifts she receives in return--or perhaps, like an eromenos, for the education (!).
Lucian sows even more doubt by leaving us uncertain what exactly Megilla has "instead of
what men have". Most scholars assume that she is referring here to an olisbos (a dildo) to "replace"
the male sex organ. If so, however, her use of it does not conform to the expectations raised by the
presence of such an object. The olisbos is typically represented as bringing pleasure to the person
penetrated (whether it is a matter of solo or group use). But Megilla, who uses the object in question,
also experiences obvious pleasure herself. Moreover neither the word olisbos nor any equivalent
appears anywhere in the text. Megilla's specific practices therefore remain veiled in mystery. Rolereversal
(a woman taking the role of a man) is thus not the way to explain sex between women, as
shown in this dialogue. Rather, what is culturally and socially "masculine" (gender) circulates among
three women without completely or permanently characterizing any one of them. The claim that
Lucian is relocating sex between women into the framework of a binary active/passive relationship
modelled on conventional representations of male homoeroticism is equally untenable.
82