GRICE E CASINI: L'IMPLICATURA CONVERSAZIONALE DEL NATURISMO -- IL CONCETTO DI NATURA A ROMA -- FILOSOFIA ITALIANA -- LUIGI SPERANZA

 

Grice e Casini: l'implicatura conversazionale del naturismo – il concetto di natura a Roma -- filosofia italiana – Luigi Speranza (Roma). Filosofo italiano. Grice: “I like Casini – he takes, unlike me, physics seriously! But then so did Thales, according to Aristotle! – At Clifton we did a lot of ‘physical’ rather than ‘metaphysical’ education!” – Linceo. Studia a Roma sotto Nardi, Antoni, e Chabod. Si laurea sotto Spirito (disc. Gregory) con “L'idea di natura”.   I suoi interessi di ricerca in storia della filosofia si sono successivamente estesi all'intreccio tra filosofia e scienze sperimentali nel Settecento, soprattutto attorno alla figura di Isaac Newton e alla diffusione della sintesi newtoniana nella cultura filosofica europea, a proposito di filosofi come D'Alembert, Buffon, Maupertuis, Clairaut, Eulero, non senza tener conto dell'opera divulgativa di Voltaire, fino a collocare in tale contesto Kant.  Insegna a Trieste, Bologna, e Roma.  Le sue ricerche riguardano Diderot e la filosofia dell'illuminismo, i nessi tra rivoluzione scientifica e riflessione filosofica, l'origine e diffusione della fisica di Newton, le vicende del mito pitagorico tra "prisca philosophia" e "antica sapienza italica", le dispute sorte attorno al darwinismo.  Altre opere: “Diderot "philosophe", Laterza); Mecanicismo -- L'universo-macchina: origini della filosofia newtoniana, Laterza); Rousseau, Laterza);  Introduzione all'illuminismo, Laterza -- razionalismo); Newton e la coscienza europea (Il Mulino); “Progresso ed utopia” (Laterza); “L'antica sapienza italica. Cronistoria di un mito” (Il Mulino); “Hypotheses non fingo” (Edizioni di Storia e Letteratura); “Alle origini del Novecento: "Leonardo", rivista filosofica di Firenze (Il Mulino); Il concetto di creazione (Il Mulino).    La lista di autorità e l’accenno alla filosofia nazionale preludono al Platone. --Paolo Casini.   Si tratta di un saggio dedicato all'evoluzione del mito pitagorico nella cultura europea. Senza cadere mai nella rassegna erudita, l'autore segue passo passo le trasformazioni del mito dalla sua prima incarnazione nella cultura romana alla riscoperta operata nel Rinascimento, alle discussioni storico-archeologiche  e alle strumentalizzazioni politiche del Sette-Ottocento.  Giuseppe Bottai o delle ambiguità (Un'erma bifronte - Leader revisionista - Nella babele corporativa - La guerra di Pisa - «Starci con la mia testa» - Apologia – Espiazione) - 2. Ugo Spirito: «scienza» e «incoscienza» (Una teoresi postidealista - Teorico dell'economia corporativa - Il «bolscevico» epurato - «Mutevolezza e instabilità» - «Scienza», «ricerca», «arte» - Guerra e Dopoguerra - Alla ricerca del padre) - 3. Camillo Pellizzi: il fascio di Londra e la sociologia (Genius loci - Tra Roma e Londra - Pax romana in Albione - «Aristòcrate» - Dottrina del fascismo - Il postfascismo e la «rivouzione mancata» - Verso la sociologia) - 4. I doni di Soffici («Si parla» - «Scoperte e massacri» - Sguardi retrospettivi: tragedia e catarsi - Docta ignorantia - «Commesso viaggiatore dell'assoluto» - Genus irritabile vatum - Un dialogo tra sordi - Amici e nemici) - 5. Un autoritratto (A metà ventennio – Riflessi - Tra casa e scuola - Agrari in Toscana - I primi pedagoghi - L'Istituto Massimo sj - Vinceremo! - Il passaggio del fronte – Dopoguerra - Scuola a Firenze - Al Liceo Tasso) - 6. Studium Urbis (Gli anni Cinquanta - Nardi e Chabod - Eredità idealistiche - Ideologie in crisi – Diderot - Roma, gli amici - Savinio, Carocci - La naja – Intermezzi - Olivetti, Ivrea - La "cultura" della RAI – Let Newton Be - Anni di prova) - Indice dei nomi Order   Zoogonia e "Trasformismo" nella fisica epicurea Giornale Critico Della Filosofia Italiana 17 (n/a): 178. 1963. Like Recommend Bookmark L'universo-Macchina Origini Della Filosofia Newtoniana Laterza. 1969. 1 citation of this work Like Recommend Bookmark  10 Zev Bechler, Newton's Physics and the Conceptual Structure of the Scientific Revolution. Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science 127. Dordrecht: Kluwer  (review) British Journal for the History of Science The "Enciclopedia italiana". Fringes of ideology Rivista di Filosofia Political Theory Like Recommend Bookmark Éléments de la philosophie de Newton (review) British Journal for the History of Science Isaac Newton Like Recommend Bookmark  10 Rousseau e l'esercizio della sovranità Rivista di Filosofia Jean-Jacques Rousseau Like Recommend Bookmark  9 Il momento newtoniano in Italia: un post-scriptum Rivista di Storia Della Filosofia 2. 2006. Like Recommend Bookmark  5 Newton in Prussia Rivista di Filosofia Newton 1 citation of this work Like Recommend Bookmark  27 François-Marie Arouet de Voltaire, Éléments de la philosophie de Newton, critical edition by Robert L. Walters and W. H. Barber. The Complete Works of Voltaire, 15. Oxford: Voltaire Foundation, Taylor Institution, British Journal for the History of Science 17th/18th Century French Philosophy Like Recommend Bookmark Lo spettro del materialismo e la "Sacra famiglia" Rivista di Filosofia Lumi e utopie in uno studio di Bronislaw Baczko Rivista di Filosofia The New World and the Intelligent Design Rivista di Filosofia Anti-Darwinist ApproachesDesign Arguments for Theism Like Recommend Bookmark Scienziati italiani del Seicento e del Settecento Rivista di Filosofia Kant e la rivoluzione newtoniana Rivista di Filosofia Kant: Philosophy of Science Like Recommend Bookmark » Ottica, astronomia, relatività: Boscovich a Roma (1738-1748).« Rivista di Filosofia Introduzione All'illuminismo da Newton a Rousseau Laterza. 1973. Like Recommend Bookmark Newton e i suoi biografi Rivista di Filosofia Diderot e Shaftesbury Giornale Critico Della Filosofia Italiana L'iniziazione Pitagorica Di Vico Rivista di Storia Della Filosofia 4. 1996. Like Recommend Bookmark Per Conoscere Rousseau with Jean-Jacques Rousseau Mondadori. 1976. Jean-Jacques Rousseau Toland e l'attività della materia Rivista di Storia Della Filosofia British Philosophy, Misc L'eclissi della scienza' Rivista di Filosofia Rousseau, il popolo sovrano e la Repubblica di Ginevra Studi Filosofici Il mito pitagorico e la rivoluzione astronomica Rivista di Filosofia Newton, Leibniz e l'analisi: la vera storia Rivista di Filosofia 24 397. 1982. Like Recommend Bookmark  13 Francesco Bianchini (1662-1729) und die europäische gelehrte Welt um 1700 Early Science and Medicine History of Science Like Recommend Bookmark L'antica Sapienza Italica Cronistoria di Un Mito. 1998. Pythagoreans Like Recommend Bookmark  16 Candide, Theodicy and the «Philosophie de l'Histoire» Rivista di Filosofia La filosofia a Roma Rivista di Filosofia Vico's initiation into the study of Pythagoras Rivista di Storia Della Filosofia Pythagoreans Topic   Order   Teoria e storia delle rivoluzioni scientifiche secondo Thomas Kuhn Rivista di Filosofia  Il problema D'Alembert Rivista di Filosofia Semantica dell'Illuminismo Rivista di Filosofia Cheyne e la religione naturale newtoniana Giornale Critico Della Filosofia Italiana  Newton's Physics and the Conceptual Structure of the Scientific Revolution (review) British Journal for the History of Science Isaac Newton Like Recommend Bookmark  1 Diderot and the portrait of eclectic philosophy Revue Internationale de Philosophie Diderot Like Recommend Bookmark  6 "Magis amica veritas": Newton e Descartes Rivista di Filosofia Isaac Newton Like Recommend Bookmark La Natura Isedi. 1975. Like Recommend Bookmark Voltaire, la geometria della visione e la metafisica Rivista di Filosofia Leopardi apprendista: scienza e filosofia Rivista di Filosofia Studi stranieri sulla filosofia dei Lumi in Italia Rivista di Filosofia  Il metodo di Foucault e le origini della rivoluzione francese Rivista di Filosofia Rousseau e Diderot Rivista di Storia Della Filosofia Diderot « philosophe » Revue Philosophique de la France Et de l'Etranger Continental Philosophy 1 citation of this work Like Recommend Bookmark Newton: gli scolii classici Giornale Critico Della Filosofia Italiana La ricerca embriologica in Italia da Malpighi a Spallanzani Rivista di Filosofia  L'empirismo e la vera filosofia: il caso Scinà Rivista di Filosofia 8The Newtonian moment in Italy: A post-scriptum Rivista di Storia Della Filosofia Classical Mechanics Like Recommend Bookmark  6 James, Freud e il determinismo della psiche Rivista di Filosofia Freud Grean: Shaftesbury's philosophy of religion and ethics. A study in enthusiasm (review) Studia Leibnitiana  Herschel, Whewell, Stuart Mill e l'«analogia della natura» Rivista di Filosofia Newton: the classical scholia History of Science 22 (1): 1-58. 1984. 1 reference in this work 15 citations of this work Like Recommend Bookmark Diderot et le portrait du philosophe éclectique Revue Internationale de Philosophie Morte e trasfigurazione del testo Rivista di Filosofia L'universo-Macchina Origini Della Filosofia Newtoniana Laterza. Bechler, Newton's Physics and the Conceptual Structure of the Scientific Revolution. Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science 127. Dordrecht: Kluwer (review) British Journal for the History of Science Éléments de la philosophie de Newton (review) British Journal for the History of Science 2Isaac Newton Like Recommend Bookmark  6 The "Enciclopedia italiana". Fringes of ideology Rivista di Filosofia Political Theory Il momento newtoniano in Italia: un post-scriptum Rivista di Storia Della Filosofia Rousseau e l'esercizio della sovranità Rivista di Filosofia  Jean-Jacques Rousseau Topic   Order    5 Newton in Prussia Rivista di Filosofia saac Newton 1 citation of this work Like Recommend Bookmark  27 François-Marie Arouet de Voltaire, Éléments de la philosophie de Newton, critical edition by Robert L. Walters and W. H. Barber. The Complete Works of Voltaire, 15. Oxford: Voltaire Foundation, Taylor Institution,  (review) British Journal for the History of Science 26 (3): 360-361. 1993. 17th/18th Century French Philosophy. Grice: “An assumption generally shared by those who wrote and read the tests surveyed in Latin is that male desire can normally and normatively be directed at either male of female objects. If this configuration is held to be NORMAL or NORMATIVE, we might expect that it would also be represented as NAATURAL, and it is thus worthwhile to consider the role played by the discourse of NATURE in ancient representations of sexual behaviour. This question is both hughe and complex.Important discussions include Boswell, 1Foucault, 1986, 150-7, 189-227, and Winkler, 20-1 36-7 114 8. but one thing is clear: the ancient rhetoric of nature, as it relates to sexual practices, displays significant differenct from more recent discourses. Boswell, for example, observes that while “what is supposed to have been the major contribution of Stoicism to Christian sexual morality – the idea that the sole ‘natural’ and hence moral use of sexuality is procreation, is in fact a common belief of amny philosophies of the day’ at the same time, ‘the term UNNATURAL was applied eto everything from POSTNATAL CHILD SUPPORT to legal contracts between friends (Boswell, 129, 149 cf. 15: ‘The objection that homsosexuality is ‘unnatural’ appears, in short, to be neither scientifically nor morally cogent and probably represents mnothing more than a derogatory epithet of unusual emotiona impact due to a confluence of historically sanctioned prejudiced and ill-formed ideas about ‘nature.’”Thus, as Winkler notes, the contrast between nature and non-nature, when deployed in ancient writings simply ‘does not posess the same valence that it does today’ Winkler, p. 20 Moreover, nearly all of the texts that offer opinions on whether specific secual practice is in accordance with nature are works of philosophy. The guestion does NOT seem to have seriously engaged the writers of texts that directly spoke to and reflected popular moral conceptions (e. g. graffiti, comedies, epigram, love poetry, oratory). For this important distinction between the morallyity espoused by a philosopher and what we might call popular morality, see the introduction and chapter 1.  In short, as Richinlin warns us, the question I ‘something of a red herring, since the concept of nature takes a larger and more ominous form in our Christian culture than it did in AAncient Rome, whetere itw as a matter for philosophers’.Richlin, p. 533. But it may nonetheless be worthwhile to attempt a preliminary exploration of how the rhetoric of NATURE was applied by some ROMAN PHILOSOPHERS to sexual practices, particularly those between males.In other words. I would like to go a step or two beyond that ‘nature’ is generally used by Roman moralists to justify what they approve of’ (Edwards 88 n. 87). always bearing in mind, however, that to the extent that it was mostly taken up by philsoeophers, the question of ‘natural’ sexual practice seems not to have played a significant role in most public discourse among Romans. Nonphilosophical texts sometimes do deploy the rhetoric of NATURE in conjunction with sexual practices, at least insofras they as they offer representations of ANIMAL bheaviour, one possible component in arguments about what is natural.2-6, and Win3, on Philo’s description of crocodiles mating. kler, 2See for example Boswell, 137-43, 15 It will come as no surprise that Roman writers images of animals’ sexual practices are transparetntly influenced by their own cultural traditions. Thus in no Roman text do we find an explicit appeal to animal bhehaviour in order to condemn sexual practices between males as unnatural.Such an argument does occasionally appear in Greek texts, such as Plato, Laws 836c (martua parag Omenos en ton therios phusin kai deiknos pros ta toitauta oux aptomenon arena arrenos dia to me phusei touto einai – and Lucian Amores 36. To Be sure, Musonius Ruffus’s condemnation of sexual practices between males as para phusin might imply a reference to animal practices, and it is possible that in some work now lost to us the Roman Stoic followed in Plato’s footsteps in being explicit on the point. A Juvenalian satire does make reference to animal behaviour in orer to condemn cannibalism (claiming that no animas eat member s of their own species Juv. 15 159-68. And in a passage discussed later in this appendix, Ovid has a character argue that NO FEMALE ANIMAL experiences SEXUAL DESIRE for other females. These claims are as unsupportable as the claim that sexual practices between males do not occur anong nonhuman animals.This is obvious to anyone who has spent time with dogs. With regard to the academic-study of the question, the remarks of Wolfe, Evolution and Female Primate Sexual Behaviour, in Understanding behaviour: what primate studies tell us about human behaviour Oxford, p. 130 are as illuminating as they are depressing. ‘I have taked with several (anonymous at their request) primatologists who have told me that they have observed both male and female homosexual bheaviour during field studies. They seemed reluctant t publish their data,  however, either because THEY FEARED HOMOPHOBIC REEACTIONS (‘my ccolleagues might thank that I am gay’) or because they lack a framework for analysis (‘I don’t know what it means’). On the latter point Wolfe insightfully comments that the same problem affects our attempts to understand ANY sexual interactions among primates. ‘Because the alloprimates do not possess language, it is impossible to inquir into their sexual eroticism. In other words, homosexual and heterosexual behaviours can be observed, recorded, and analysed, but we cannot infer either homoeroticism or heteroeroticism from such behaviours (p. 131). But the fact that we do find animal behaviour cited by Roman authors to CONDEMN such phenomena as cannibalism and same-sec desire among females, but not SAME-SEX desire among males, merely proves the point. These rhetorical strategies reveal more about ROMAN cultural concerns than about actual animal behaviour. A poem in the Appendix Vergiliana introduces us to a lover hhappyly separated from his beloved Lydia. In the throes of his grief he cries out that this miserable fate NEVER BEFALLS ANIMALS: A bull is never without his cor, nor a he-goat without his mate. In fact, sighs, the lover: ET MAS QUACUMEQUE EST ILLA SUA FEMINA IUNCAT INTERPELLATOS SUMPAUQM PLORAVIT AMORES CUR NON ET NOBIS FACILIS NAUTRA FUISTI CUR EGO CRUDELEM PATIOR TAM SAEPE DOLOREM? (Lydia 35-8). The lover is melodramatically weepy and that consideration partially accounts of his ridiculous claim that male animals are never to be seen without their mates. Still, amatory hyperbole aside the verses nicely illustrate the tendency to shape both natura and animal bheaviour into whatever form is convenient for the argument at hand. Thus, Ovid,s suggesting that the best way to appease one’s angry mistress is in bed, portrays sexual behaviour among early human beings and animals s as the primary force that effects RECONCILIATION (Ars 2 461-92. The poet offers a lovely panorama in which animal behaviour is invoked as a POSTIIVE paradigm for specific human practices: unting otherwise scattered groups (2. 473-80) and mollifying an angry lover (2. 481-90). Less than two hundred lines later, the same poet invokes animalas as A NEGATIVE PARADIGM, again in support of a characteristically human concern: discretion in sexual matters. IN MEDIO PASSIMQUE COIT PECUS HOC QUOQUE VISO AVETIT VULTUS NEMPE PUELLA SUOUS CONVENIUNS THALAMI FURTIS ET IANUA NOSTRIS PARSQUE SUB INJIECAT VESTE PUDDAN LATET ET SI NON TENEBRAS AT QUIDDAM NUBIS OPACAE QUAERIMUS ATQUE ALIQUID LUCE PATENTE MINUS (Ovid, Ars, 2 615-20). Drawing his objets lesson to a close, Ovid holds up his own behaviour as a pattern to follow. NOS ETIAM VEROS PARCE PROFITEMUR AMORES TECTAQUE SUNT SOLIDA MYSTIFCA FURTA FIDE 639-40. And we are reminded of the strategies of this pasage’s broader context. If you want to keep your girlfriend happy, do not kiss and tell: that is the argument in service of which animal behaviour is invoked as NEGATIVE paradigm. These to Ovidian passages illustrate the utilyt of arguments from the animal world. Just look ant the animals and see how much we resemble them; just look at the51-5.  animals and see how far we have come.An epigram by theGreek poet Strato gives the later poin an dineresting twist. We huam beings, he writes, are SUPERIOR to animals in that, in addition to vaginal intercourse, we have discovered ANAL INTERCOURSE, thus men who are dominated by women are really no better than mere animals (A P 12 245 PAN ALOGON soon bivei monon oi ligkoi de ton allon zoon tout exkomen to pleon pugizein eurotntes hosoi de guanxi kratountai ton alogon zoon ouden exousi kleon. It all depends on the eye – and rhetorical needs – of the beholder. OS it is that Roman writers show how Roman they are through the picture they paint of sexual practices among animals of the same sex. Ovid himself, in his Metamorphoses, imagines the plight of young girl named Iphis who has fallen in love with another girl. In a torrent of self-pity and self-abuse, she expostulates on her passion, making a simultaneous appeal to NATURA and to the animals that is reminiscent of Ovid’s sweeping review of animal bheaviour in the Ars amatorial just cited. But this time the paradigm is an emphatically negative one. SI DI MIHI PARCERE VELLENT PARCERE DEBUERANT SI NON ET PERDERE VELLENT NAUTRALE MALUM SALTEM ET DE MORE DEDISSENT NEC CACCAM VACCA NEC EQUAS AMOR URIT EQUARUM: URIT OVES ARIES SEQUITUR SUA FEMINA CERVUM SIC ET AVES COEUNT INTERQUE ANIMALIA UNCTA FEMINA FEMINEO ONREPTA CUPIDINE NULLA EST (Ov. Met. 9. 728-34) As with Lydia’s lover, so here we have the melodramatic expostulations of an unah[py lover, and similarly her view of animal behaviour does not correspond to the realities of that behaviour. Still, these arguments are pitched in such a way as to invite a Roman reader’s agreement, and the sexual practices invoked as natural and occurring among the animals demonstrate a SUSPICIOUS SIMILARTY to the sexual practices and desired SEMMED ACCEPTABLE BY ROMAN CULTURE (the female never leaves the male, heterosexual intercourse is a convenient and pleasurable way of unting different social groups, and females never lust after females), or to specifically HUMAN EROTIC STRATEGIES: we do not copulate in public, and we should not kiss and tell if we want our to keep our partners happy. It cannot be coincidental that, whereas Ovid invokes animal behaviour in the context of a girl’s tortured rejection of her own passionalte yearnings for another girl, the mythic compendium in which this natrratie is found is peppered with stories involves passion and sexual relations between males. Both Orfeo (after losing his wife Euridice) and the gods themselves (whether married or not) are represented as ‘giving over their love to TENDER MALES, harvesting the BRIEF springtime and its first flowers before maturaity sets in” Ov. Met. 10. 83-5 ORPHEUS ETIAM THRACUM POPULIS FUIT AUCTOR AMORET IN TENEROS TRANSFERRE MARES CITRAQUE IUVENTAM AETATIS BREVE VER ET PRIMOS CARPERE FLORES. The stories that Orfeo proceeds ts to relate include those of the young CYPARISSUS once loved by Apollo Met 10.106-42 and the tales of Zeus and Ganumede, Apollo and Hyacinth (Met 10 155-219 Consider also the beautiful sixteen yer old Indian boy Athis and his Assyrian lover Lycabas (Met. 5 47-72. A passage which echoes of Virgil’s lines on NISUS AND EURIALO discussed in chapter 2. And the remark that the stunning but haughty young Narcissus, also in his sixteenth year, had many admireers of both sexses (Met 3 351-5.None of Ovid’s characters arever questions the NATURAL status of that kind of erotic experience or invokes the animals in order to reject it. Aulus Gellius preserves for us some anecdotes that further demonstrate the manner in which animal bheaviour could be made to conform to human paradigms. Writing of (IMPLICITLY MALE) dolfns who fell in love with beautiful boys (one oft them even died of a broek heart after losing his beloved) Gellius exclaims that they were acing “in amazing human ways” 606C-D and Plin N H 8 25-8 for this and other tales of male dolphins falling in love with human boys. Gell 6 8 3 NEQUE HI AMAVERUNT QUOD SUNT IPSI GENUS SED PUEROS FORMA LIBERALI IN NAVICULIS FORE AUT IN VADIS LITORUM CONSPECTOS MIRIS ET HUMANIS MODIS ARSERUNS. Cf. Athen 13 Once again, the comment tells us more about ‘human ways’ than about dolphins. The elder Plini, who alo relates this story regarding the dolphin, introduces his encyclopeic discussion of elephants by observing that they are nonly the largest land animals but the ones closest to human beings in their intelligence and sense of morality. In particular, they take pleasure in love and pride (AMORIS ET GLORIAE VOLUPTAS), and by way of illustration of the ‘power of love’ (AMORIS VIS) among elephants he cites two examples: ONE MALE FELL IN LOVE WITH A FEMALE FLOWER_SELLER, another with a young Syractusan man named MENANDER who was in Ptolemy’s army. Likehise he tells of a MALE GOOSE who fell in love with a beautiful young Greek MAN, and of another who loved a female musician whose beauty as such that she alstro attracted the attention of a ram. -4. NEC QUIA DESIT ILLIS AMORIS VIS, NAMQUE TRADITUR UNUS AMASSE QUANDAM IN AEGYPTO COROLLAS VENDENTEM ALLUS MENANDRUM SYRACUSANUM INCIPIENTIS IUVENTAE IN EERCITU PTOLEMACI DESIDERIUM EIUS QUOTIENS NON VIDERET INEDIA TESTATUS 10.51 QUIN EST FAMA AMORS AEGII DILECTA FORMA PUERI NOMINE OLENII AMPHILOCHI, ET GLAUCES PTOLOMAEO REGI CITHARA CANENTIS QUAM EODEM TEMPORE ET ARIES AMASSE PRODITUR. Plin N H 8 1. MAXIMUM EST EPLEPHANS PROXIMUMQUE HUMANIS SENSIBUS QUIPPE INTELLECTUS ILLIS SERMONIS PATRII ET IMPERIORUM OBEDIENTIA, OFFICIOURM QUAE DIDICERE MEMORIA, AMORIS ET GLORIAE VOLUPTAS 8 13Turing to the concept of NATURA as it applied to sexual pracyices by ancient writers, we being with basica basic problem. The very term NATURA has various referents in those texts. Sometimes NATURA seems simply to refer to the way things are or to the INHERENT nature OF something, sometimes to the way things SHOULD be according to the intention ordictates of some transcendent imperative. Thus Foucault speaks of ‘the ‘three axes of nature’ in philosophical discourse. The general order of the world, the orgginal state of mankind, and a behaviour that is reasonably adapted to natural ends.Fouctault, p. 215-6. See also the discussions in Boswell, p. 11-5, where he distinguishes between ‘realistic’ and ‘ideal’ notions of nature, Beagon, and Levy, “Le concept de nature a Rome: la physique, Paris). The first two of these axes are evident in a wife-variety of Roman texts. Departures from what is observably the usual PHYSICAL constitution of various thbeings could be called NONNATURAL or UNNATURAL even by nonphilosophical authors. The Minotuar, centaurs, a snake with feet, a bird with four wings, and a sexual union between a woman (the muthis Pasiphae) and a bull.snAnon De Differentiis 520 23 MONSTRUM EST CONTRA NATURAM UT EST MINOTAURUS. Serv. Aen 6. 286 (centaurs) Suet Prata fr. 176.113-5  snakes with feet, birds with four wings. Serv. Aen. 1. 235.11. Pasiphae and the bull. Te elder Plinty claims that breech births are ‘against nature’ since it is ‘nature’s way’ that we should be born head first.n N H 7 45 -6. IN PEDES PROCIDERE NASCENTEM CONTRA NATURAM EST RITUS NATURAE CAPITE HOMINEM GIGNI MOST EST PEDIBUS EFFERRI. PLiQuintilian argues that to push one’s hair back from the forehead in order to achieve some dramatic effect is to act ‘against nature’.Quint I O 11 3 160 CAPILLOS A FRONTE CONTRA NATURAM RETRO AGERE. and Seneca himself opines that being carried about in a litter is ‘contra natural’a, since nature has gives us feet and we should use them.Sen. Epist 55 ` LABOR EST ENIM ET DIU FERI AC NESCIO AN EO MAIOR QUIA CONTRA NATURAM EST QUAE PEDES DEDIT UT PER NOS AMBULAREMUS. Finally, the belief that physical disabilities and disease are UNNAUTARAL, and thus, implicitly, that a healthy body displaying no marked derivations from the form illustrates what nature designed or intended, surfaces in a number of texts, arnign from Celusus’ mdical treatise to Ciceroo’s philosophical works to declamations attributed to Quintilian, to a moral epistle fo Seneca to the, to the Digest.2 1. 60 pr. MOTUS CORPORIS CONTRA NATURAM QUAM FEBREM APPELLANT. Quint. Decld. Min. 298.12 WEAK AND MALFORMED BODIES ARE IMPLICITLY CCONTRA NATURAM. Celsus Medic 3 21 15. On fluids that are retained in the body contra naturam. Cic Off 3 30 MORBUS EST CONTRA NATURAM. Gell. 4 2 3 Labeo defines morbus asHABITUS CUIUSQUE CORPORIS CONTRA NATURAM QUI USUUM ETIUS FACIT DETERIOREM. Cf. D. 21 1 1 7. D. 4Along the same lines, some ancient writers also suggest that to harm a healthy body with poisons and the like is unnatural.Quint Decl. Min. 246.3 the plaintiff refers to a substance as a venenum QUONIAM MEDICAMENTUM SIT ET EFFICIAT ALIQUID CONTRA NATURAM. Sen Epist 5. 4. To torment one’s body and to eat unhealthy food is CONTRA NATURAM. As for the third of the axes described by Foucault, anthropologists and others have long observed that proclamations concerning practices that are in acoordance with nature often turn out to reflect specific cultural traditions. As Winkler puts it, for nature we may often read culture.Winkler p. 17. In the same way Edwards p. 87-8 discusses a passage from Seneca (Epist 95.20=1) discussed in chapter 5, having to do with women who violate their ‘nature.’ She concludes that ‘Seneca was not reacting to naturally anomalous bheaviour. He was taking part in the reproduction of a a cultural system.’ So too Veyne , p. 26. ‘When an ancient says that something is unnatural, he does not mean that it is disgraceful (monstrueuse) that that it does not conform with the rules of society, or that it is perverted OR ARTIFICIAL”. Roman sources of various types certainly support that contention. Thus, for example, violations of traditional PRINCIPLELS OF LANGUAGE AND RHETORIC which are surely among the most intensely cutlrual of human phenomeno are SOMETIMES SAID TO BE UNNATURAL.Serv. Comm. Art Don. 4 4 4 PLINIUS AUTEM DICIT BARBARISMUM ESSE SERMOVEM UNUM IN QUO VIS SUA EST CONTRA NATURAM – Serv Aen. 4. 427. REVELLI NON REVULSI. NAM VELLI ET REVELLI DICIMUS. VULSUS VERO ET REVULSUS USURPATUM EST TANTUM IN PARTICIPIIS CONTRA NATURAM cf. Sen. Contr. 10, pr. 9 – tof the rhetorician Musa. OMNIA USQUE AD ULTIMUM TUMOREM PERDUCTA UT NON EXTRA SANITATEM SED EXTRA NATURAM ESSENT. One legal writer invokes the rhetoric of NATURA to justify the principle of individual ownership (joint possession of a single object is said to be CONTRA NATURAL.D. 41 2 3 5 CONTRA NATURAM QUIPPE EST UT CUM EGO ALIQUID TENEAM TU QUOTE ID TENERE VIDEARIS. Interestingly, another jurist argues that the principle underlying the institution of slavery – that one person can be owned by another – is actually ‘unnatural’ (D. 1. 5. 4. 1. SERVITUS EST CONSTITUTIO IURIS GENTIUM QUA QUIS DOMINIO ALIENO CONTRA NATURAM SUBICITUR. In a Horatioan satire we read that NATURA sees it that no one is every truly the ‘master’ of the land that he legally owns, and Natura puts a limit on how much one can inherit (Hor. Sat. 2. 2. 129-30, 2.3.178). Sallust describes the violation of the cultural and more specifically philosophical tradition priviliengy the SOUL over the BODY as UNNATRUAL.Sall. Cat. 2. 8. QUIVUS PROFECT CONTRA NATURAM CORPUS VOLUPTATI, ANIMA OVERI FUIT. SALLUST. Likewise, practices violating Roan ideologies of MASCULINITY are represented as INFRACTIONS NOT of cultural tranditions s but of the natural order. Cicero’s philosophical tratise DE FINIBUS includes a discussion of the parts and with some clarity functions of the BODY that illustrates the relation between NATURE and MSASCULINITY with some clarity Our bodily parts, Cicero argues, are PERFECTLY DESIGNED to fulfil their functions, and in doing so they are in conformance with nature. But there are certain bodily movesmesns NOT in accord with nature (NATURAE CONGRUENTES> If a man were to walk on his hand or to walk backwyasds, he would manifestbly be rejecgting his identity as a human and thuswould thus be displayeing a ‘hattred of nature’ (NAUTRAM ODISSE). Cic Fin 5 35. CORPORIS IGITUR NOSTRI PARTES TOTAQUE FIGURA ET FORMA ET STATURA QUAM APTA AD NATURAM SIT APPARET. The claim that walking on one’s hand is unnatural nicely illustrates the gap between ancient and more recent uses of the rhetoric of nature – cfr. Dodgson). The next illustration Cicer o offers of bodily moveents not in accord with natura concerns correctly masculine ways of deporing oneself. QUAMOBREM ETIAM SESSIONES QUAEDAM ET FLEXI FRACTIQUE MOTUS, QQUALES PROTERVORUM HOMINUM AUT MOLLIUM ESSE SOLENT, CONTRA NATURAM SUNT, UT ETIAMSI ANIMI VITIO ID EVENIANT TAMEN IN CORPOMUTRAR MUTARI HOMINIS NATURA VIDEATUR ITAQUE A CONTRARIO MODERATI AEQUABILESQUE HABITUS AFFECTIONS USUSQUE CORPORIS APTI ESSE AD NAUTRAM VIDENTUR (Cic. Fin 5. 35-6. Deemed ‘agaist natture’ are certain ways of carrying oneself that are ‘wanton’ and ‘soft,’ movements lthat, like walking on one’s hand or stepping backwards, clasi the with thvident purporse of the body’s various parts. Implicitly then, nature wills men’s bodies to move and to function in certain ways. Men who violate these principles of masculine comportment are acting BOTH EFFEMINATELY (as we saw in chapter 4, militia is a standard metaphor for effeminacy) AND UNNATURALLLY. Cultural traditions regarding masculinity – here, appropriate bodily gestures – are identified with the natural order.Similar conddemnations of inappropriate bodily comportment, marked as EFFEMINATE, abound: walking daintily, scratching the hair delicately wih onefinger, and so on (see chapter 4 in general and see Gleason for a general discussion of physiognomy and masculinity in antiquity. How, then is the rheotirc of nature applied to same-sex practices? One scholar has recently suggested that the elder Pliny describes men’s desires to be anally penetrated as occurring ‘by crime against nature’ Taylor, p. 325. But that is probably a misinterpretation of Pliny’s language. IN HOMINUM GENERE MARIBUS DEVERTICULA VENERIS EXCOGIGATA OMNIA, SCLERE (or CCCELERE naturae FEMINIS VERO AOBRTUS Plin N H 10 172. The phrase DEVERTICULA VENERIS which one might translate (by-ways of sex’ or ‘sexual deviations’ is vague. There is no reason to think that it refers to specifically, let alone exclusively, to the practice of being anally penetrated. Moreover, the phrase SCELERA NATURA or SCELERE NATURAE, rather than ‘crime against nature,’ is most obviously transated as ‘crime OF NATURE,’ that is, a crime perpetrated BY NATURE.This is indeed the way Plinio uses the phrase elsewhere, noting that we ought to call earthquakes ‘moracles of the eart rather than crimes of nature’ (NH 2 206 – UT TERRAE MIRACULA POTIUS DICAMU QUAM SCLEREA NATURAE. See Beagon, p. 29. In other words (pace Taylor and Rackham Loeb Classical Library translation, I take the genitive NATURAE to be subjective rather than objective. I have not found any parallels for such an objective use of a genitive noun dependent upon scelus. In any case, Pliny is not implying that all sexual desires or practices between males are unnatural: in this same treatise, significantly called the HISTORIA NAUTRALIS or Natural Investigations’ he reports the story of a male elephant who fell passionately in love with a young man from Syractuse as an illustration of the obviously natural power of love of love (amoris vis) among elephants; likewise, he reports the story of a gosse who loved a beautiful young man.Plin N H 8 13-4, 10.51More explicitly referring to those men who take pleasure in being penetrated, the speaker in Juvenal’s second satire riducules menwho have wilfully abandoned their claim on masculine status by weaking makeup, participating in women’s religious festivals, and even taking husbands, and notes with gratitude, that nature does not allow them gto give birth.Juv. 2 139 40. SED MELIUS QUOD NIL ANIMIS IN CORPORI IURIS NATURA INDULGET STERILES MORTUNTUR. For Further discussion see Appendix 2. The orator Labienus decries wealthy men who castrate their male prostitutes (EXOLETI, see chapter 2) in order to render them more suitable for playing the receptice role in intercourse. These men use their rinces in UNNATURAL WAYS (contra natural), and the natural standard they they violate is apparently the principle that mature males both should make use of the PENISES and should be IMPENETRABLE.Sen Contr. 10. 4 17. PRINCIPES VIRI CONTRA NATURAM DIVITIAS SUAS EXERCENT CASTRATORUM GREGES HABENT EXOLETOS SUOS AD LONGIOREM PATIENTIALM IMPUDICITIAE IDONEI SINT AMPUTANT. Firmicus Maternus refers to men’s desires to be penetrated as CONTRA NATURAL (5. 2. 11), and Caelius Aurelianus’s medical wirtings also reveal the assumption that men’s ‘natural’ sexual function is TO PENETRATE and not to be penetrated.9 137. NATURALIA VENERIS OFFICIA. Cael. Aurel. Morb. Chron. 4 In short, nature’s ditactes conveniently accorded with cultural traditions, such as those discouraging men from seeking to be penetrated, or those deterring them from engaging in sexual relations with other men’s wives: in a poem that urges on its male readers the principle that NATURA places a limit of their desires, Horace remocommends, as implicitly being in line with the requirement of nature, that men avoid potentially dangerous affaris with married women and stick to their own slaves, bh male and female.Hor. Sat. 1 2 111. NONNE CUPIDINIBUS STATUAT NATURA MODUM QUEM … Se chapter 1 for further discussion of this poem. Cf. Sat. 1. 4. 113-4: NE SEQUERER MOECHAS CONCESSA CUM VENERE UTI POSEEM. In one of his Episles (122) Seneca provides a lengthy and revealing discussion of ‘unnatural’ behavours that include a reference to sexual practices among males. He beings, however, by despairing of ‘those who have perverted the roles of daytime and nightime, not opening their eyes, weighed down by the preceding day’s hangover, until night begins its approach. Sen Epist 122 2 SUNT QUI OFFICIA LUCIS NOTISQUE PERVERTERINT NEC ANTE DIDUCANT OCULOS HESTERNA GRAVES CRAPULA QUAM ADPETERE NOX COEPIT. These people are objectionably not simply because of their overindulgence in goof and drink but because they do not respect the proper function of night and day.Comparing them to the Antipodes, mythincal beings who live n the opposite side of the globe, he asks. Do you think these people know HOW to live when they don’t even know WHEN to live? 122.3 HOS TU EXISTIMAS SCIRE QUEMADMODUM VIVENDUM SIT QUI NESCIUNT QUANDO?and this pervesion of night and say, is, in the end, ‘unnatural’. INTERROGAS QUOMODO HAEC ANIMAO PRAVITAS FIAT AVERSANDI DIEM ET TOTAM VITAM IN NOCTEM TRANSFERENDI? OMNIA VITA CONTRA NAUTRAM PUGNANT, OMNIA DEBITUM ORDINEM DESERUNT (Sen Epist. 122.5). He then proceeds to tick off a serioes of bheaviour that are similarly CONTRA NATURAM. First, people who drink on an empty stomach ‘live contrary to nature’ Sen. 122 6 NON VIDENTUR TIBI CONTRA NATURAM VIVERE QUI IEIUNI BIBUNT QUI VINUM RECIPIUNT INANIBUS VENIS ET AD CIBUM EBRII TRANSEUNT. Young men nowadsays, Seneca continues, go to the baths before a meal and work up a sewat by drinking heavily; according to them, only hopelessly philistine hicks (patres familiae rustici … et verae volupatigs ignari) save their drinking for after the meal.Sen Epist 122 6. ATQUI FREQUENS HOC ADULESCENTIUM VITIUM EST QUI VIRES EXCOLUNT UT IN IPSO PAENE BALINEI LIMINE INTER NUDOS BIBANT IMMO POTENT ET SUDOREM QUEM MOVERUNT POTIONIBUS CREBRIS AC FERVENTIBUS SUBINDE DESTRINGAT POST PRANDIUM AUT CENAM BIBERE VULGARE ETS HOC PATRIS FAMILIAE RUSTICI FACIUT ET VERA VOLUPTATIS IGNARI. The latter comment, with its contrast between URBAN AND RUSTIC life, austerity and luxyry , is a valuable reminder of us. The standard violated by those who drank betweofre eating was what we would call a cultural norm. But for Seneca they were violating the dicates of NATURE, abandoning the proper order (debitum ordinem) of things. This important point bust be borne in mind as we turn to the next practices that come under Seneca’s fire: NON VIDENTUR TIBI CONTRA NATURAM VIVERE QUI OMMUTANT CUM FEMINIS VESTEM? NON VIVUNT CONTRA NAUTRA QUI SPECTANT UT PUERITIA SPENDEAT TEMPORE ALIENO? QUID FIERI CRUDELIS VEL VISERIOUS POTEST? NUMQUAM VIR ERIT, UT DIU VIRUM PATI POSSIT? ET CUM ILLUM CONTUMELIAE SEXUS ERIPUISSE DEBUERANT NON NE AETAS QUIDEM ERIPIET (Sen. Epist 122. 7). The concept of the proper order is very much in evidence here, and here again the order shows unmistakable signs of cultural influence. Just as those who turn night into day or drink wine before they eat a meal are engaging in unnatural activities, so men who wear women’s clothes live contrary to nature – yet what could be more cultural than the designation of certain kinds of clothing as appropriate only for men and others as appropriate only for women? Moving on to his next point, Senceca continues to focus on extermal appearance. Men who attempt to give the appearance of the boyhood that is in fact no longer theirs also ‘live contrary to nature’. Again the order of things has been disrputed. Boys should be boys, men should be men. But these particular men want to LOOK like boys in order to find older male sexual partners to penetrate them. Such is the thenor of Seneca’s decorous but blunt phrase, ‘so that he may submit to a man for a long time’ (ut diu virum pati possit’). If we filter out Seneca’s moralizing overlay, this detail gives us a fascinating fglimpse oat Roman realities. These MEN scorned by Seneca acted upon the awareness that MEN would be more likely to find them desirable if their bodies seemed like those of BOYS (not men): young, smooth, irless. Moreover, the very fact that these men made the effort suggests that th actual age of the beautiful ‘boys’ we always hear of may not have mattered to their loveers so much as their youthful APPEARANCE.Cf. Boswell, p. 29, 81. All of this is very much a matter of CONVENTION, of CULtURAL traditions concerning the ‘proper order’ of things, but Seneca insistently pays homage to NATURA.Cf. Winkler, p. 21. “Contrary to nature means to Senea not ‘outside the order of the kosmos’ but ‘unwilling to conform to the simplicity of the unadorned life’ and, in the case of sex, ‘going AWOL rom one’s assigned place in the social hierarchy’”. The importance of this order is especially clear in the climactic illustrations of those who live ‘contrary to nature’. These are people who wish to see see roses in winter and employ artificial means to grow lilies in the cold season; who grow orchards at the tops of towers and trees under the roofs of their homes (this latter proving Seneca to a veritable outburst ofm moral indignation)., and those who construct their bathhouses over the waters of the sea Sen. Epist 122 21 NON VIVUNT CONTRA NATURAM QUI FUNDAMENTA THERMARUM IN MARI IACIUNT ET DELICATE NATARE IPSI SIBI NON VIDENTUR NISI CALENTIA STAGNA FLUCT AC TEMPESTATE FERIANTUR.  Finally Seneca returns to the example of unnatural practices that sparked the whole discussion: those who pervert the function of night and day aengage in the ultimate form of unnatural behaviour (Sen Epist 122 9 CUM INSTITUERUNT OMNIA CONTRA NATURAE CONSUETUDINEM VELLE NOVISSIME IN TOTUM AB ILLA DESCISCUNT LUCET SOMNI TEMPUS EST QUIES EST NUNC EXERCEAMUR NUNC GESTEMUR NUNC PRANDEAMUS. That the practice ofs of growing trees indoors, of building bathhouses over the sea, and of sleeping by day and partying by night should be considered unnatural makes some sense in relation to notions of the ‘proper order’ of things. Plants should e outdoors, buldings should be on dray land, and people should sleep at night. But that thes practices should be cited as the most egregious examples of unnatural bheaviour – they constitute the climax of Seneca’s argument – demontrastes just how wide the gap is between ancient moralists and their modern counterparts on the question of what is natural. With regard to mature men who seek to be penetrated by men, the third of Seneca’s examples of unnatural behaviour, Seneca makes in passing a surprising remark. CUM ILLUM CONTUMELIAE SEXUS ERIPUISSE DEBUERAT NON NE AETAS QUIDEM ERIPIET? 122.7. The clear implication is that a nature man certainly ought to be safe from ‘indignity’ (here a moralizing euphemism for penetration), but ultimately the very fact that he is MALE, REGARDLESS OF HIS AGE, ought to protect him. With with one pointed sentence, then, Seneca is suggesting that MALENESS IN ITSELF IS IDEALLY INCOMPATIBLE WITH BEING PENETRATED, and since sexual acts were almost without exception conceptualized as REQUIRING penetration, this amounts to positing the exclusion of sexual practices BETWEEN MALES from the ‘proper order’. This is a fairly radical suggestion FOR A ROAM MAN TO MAKE, and Seneca was no doubt aware of that fact. He slips the comment quietly into his discussion, makes the point rather subtly (it makight ake a second reading even to REALISE IT IS THERE), and then instantly moves on to other, less controversial arguments. FOR as opposed to Seneca’s suggestion that EVERY MALE, even a boy, should somehow be ‘rescued’ from ‘indignity,’ the usual Roman system of protocols governing men’s sexual behaviour required the understanding that A BOY is different from A MAN precisely because they COULD BE penetrated without necessarily forfeiting EVERY CLAIM to masculine or male status (see especially chapter 5 on this last point). But Seneca, waxing Stoic, here voices a dissenting opinion, as does the first century A. D. Stoic philosopher MUSONIUS RUFUS, in one of twhose treatises we find the remark that sexual practices BETWEEN MALES are ‘against nature’ (‘para-physical’) Muson, Ruf. 86. 10 Lutz para phusin. The remark needs to be be put in the context of Musonius’s philosophy of nature. According to Musonious, every  createure has its own TELOS beyond the goal of simply being aalive En a horse would not b e fully living up to its telos if all it did was to eat, drink, and copulate (106.25-7 Lutz)., while the TELOS or goal of a human being is to live the life or arete or VIRTUS. Thus, “each one’s nature (phusis) leads him to his particular virtuous quality (arete), so that it is is a reasonable conclusion that a human being is living in accordance WITH nature NOT when he lives in pleasure, but rather when he lives in virtue” 108.1-3 Lutz). Elsewhere he opines that human nature (phusis – anthropine phusis, natura humana, Hume, Human Nature) is not aimed at pleasure (hedone, 106.21.3 Lutz). Consequently, luxury (truphe) is to be avoided in EVERY way, as being the cause of INJUSTICE (126.30-1 Lutz). By implication, then, eating, drinking, and aopulating are not in themselves evil, but they can easily become sgns of a life of luxury, and if those activities aconstitute the goals of our existence, we are FAILING TO FULFIL OUR POTENTIAL AS A HUMAN BEING, namely, the practice of virtue, or reason, and consequently, not living IN ACCORDANCE WITH NATURE, but against her (paa phusin). Thus, as part of a regime of SELF-CONTROL (MALENESS OR MASCULINITY AS SELF-CONTROL, not addictive behaviour or weakness of the will) Musonius argues that a man should engage in a sexual practice only within the context of marriage for the purpose of begetting children. Any other sexual relation, even within marriage should be avoided. T”Those who do not live licentiously, or who are not evil, must think that only those sexual practices are justified which are consummated within marriage and for the creation of children, since these pratcttices are licit (NOMIMA). But such people must think that those sexual practices which hunt for mere pleasure are unjust and illicit, even if they take place within marriage. Of Other forms of intercourse, those committed in moikheia (I e. a sexual relation with a freeborn woman under another man;s control) are the most illicit. No more moderate than this is the INTERCOURSE OF MALES WITH MALES, since it is a DARING ACT CONTRARY TO NATURE. As for those forms of intercourse with with females apart from moikheia which are not licit (kaTa nomon) all of these are too shameful, because done on account of a lack of self-control. If one utside  to behave temperately (TEMPERANTIA, CONTINENTIA) one would not dare to have relations with a courtesan, nor with a free woman outside of marriage, nor, by Zeus, with one’s own slave woman (Musonius Rufus, 86.4-14 Lutz). As I argued in chapter 1, Musonius’s final remark reveals the extent to which the sexual morality that he is preaching is at odds with mainstream Roman traditions. Nor is his suggestion that men should keep their hans off prostitutes and their own slaves the only surprising statement to be found in the treatises attributed to Musonius. He elsewhere aargues against the obviously widespread practices of giving up for adoption or even exposing unwanted children (96-97 Lutz), of EATING MEANT (here he explicitly contrasts himself with the many hoi polloi who live to eat rather than the other way around (118-18-20 Lutz) or SHAVING THE BEARD (128.4-6 Lutz), of using wet nurses (42.5-9 Lutz), and most appositely, of allowing husbands sexual freedoms not granted to wives (96-8 Lutz). Thus his condemnation of sexual practices between MALES is issued in the context of a condemnation of ALL SEXUAL PRATICES other than those between husband and wife aimed at procreation (strictly speaking, vaginal intercourse when the wife is ovulating) and also in the context of a a suspicion of all luxury oand of pleasures beyond those relating to the bare necessities of life. Thus he condemns sexual relations between males as contrary to nature (the implication being that the two sexes ARE DESIGNED TO UNITE WICH EACH OTHER IN THE CONTEXT OF MARRIAGE), while sexual relations between malesand female outside of marriage are criticized as ‘illicit (para-noma) and as signs of lack of self-control. Here Musonius is obviously manipulating the ancient contrast between law or convention (nomos) and nature (phusis) and interprestingly procreative relations within marriage are ultimately given his seal of approval not because they are more ‘natural’ than tother sexual practices, but because they are ‘licit’ or ‘conventional’ (nomima), just as adulterious relations are most ‘illicit’ of unconventional (paranomotatai). In other words, Musonius invokes the rhetoric of nature only by way of secondary support.. A male-male relation is no more ‘moderate’ than a adulterious relationa dn anyway, he adds, they are ‘unnatural’. But a relation between a man and another man’s wife, while implicitly ‘natural’,is in the end more ‘illicit’ than a male-male relation. Even for the Stoic Musonious, NATURA may NOT be the ultimate arbiter. Interestingly, when he describes sexual practices between males as being against nature, Musonius does not appeal to animal bheaviour as does Plato in his Laws (836c). Indeed, such an argument sould have ill-suited Musonius’s argument elsewhere that humans are different from other animals and should not takem them as a MODEL FOR BHEAVIOUR. Thus he argues that wise men ill not attack in return if attacked – such revenge is the province of MERE ANIMALS – 78.26-7 Lutz) – and that, while among animals an act of copulation suffices to procude offspring, human beings should aim for the lifelong union that is marriage (88.16-17 Lutz). Finally, there is an important distinction to observe between Musonius’s remark concerning sexual practices between males and later Christian fulminations against ‘the unnatural vice’ which came to be a code term for ‘sodomy’. On the one hand, Musonius did not go so far as to condemn such relations as THE unnatural vice. Indeed, if we think about the implications of his words, relations between MALES do not even constitute the ULTIAMTE sexual crime. He declare that ADULTEROUS relations are ‘the most illicit of all’ (paranomotatai) and thus clearly more ‘illicit’ than relations between males which are howevery ‘equally immoderate’. Furthermore Musonius’s approach to the problem of sexual behaviour differs from later Christian moralists in a fundamental respect. As Foucault puts it, according to Musonius, ‘to withdraw pleasure from this form (sc. Of marriage, to detach pleasure from the conjugal relation in order to propoeseother ends for it, is in fact to debase the ESSENTIAL composition of the human being. The defilement is not in the sexual act itself, but in the ‘debauchery’ that would dissociate it from marriage, where it has its natural form and its rational purpose” Foucault p. 170. Cicero ro in a passage from one of this major philosophical works, the Tusculan disputations, approaches the ascetic stance advocated by Seneca and Musonius Rufus, although he nowhere makes an explicit commitment to the extreme suggested by Seneca and preached by Musonius. Speaking in the Tusculan Disputations of the detrimental effects of erotic passion, Cicero observes that the works of Greek poets are filled with images of love. Focusing on those who describe LOVE FOR BOYS (he mentions Alcaeus, Anacreon, and Ibycus), Cicero notes thain an aside that ‘NATURE HAS GRANTED A GREATER PERMISSIVENESS (maiorem liicnetial)” to men’s affairs with women. Cic. Tusc. 4. 71. ATQUE UT MULIEBRIS AMORES OMITTAM QUIVUS MAIOREM LICENTIAL NATURA CONCESSIT QUIS AUT DE GANYMEDI RAPTU DUBITAT QUID POETAE VELINT AUT NON INTELLEGIT QUID APUD EURIPIDEM ET LOQUATUR ET CUPIAT LAIUS. The comparative (MAIOREM LICENTIAL is noteworthy. NATURE has granted ‘greater’, not exclusive license to affais with women than to affairs with BOYS. The Latter are evidently NOT FORBIDDEN BY NATURE. Discouraged perhaps, but not outlawed. This is a BEGRUDGING ADMISSION, in perfect agreement with the tenor of the whole discussion of sexual passion which had opened thus. ET UT TURPES SUNT QUI ECFERUNT SE LAETITIA TUM CUM FRUUNTUR VENERIIS VOLUPTATIBUS SIC FLAGITIOSI QUI EAS INFLAMAMATO ANIMO CONCPISCUNT TOTUS VERO ISTE QUI VOLGO APPELATUR AMOR – NEC HERCULE INVNEIO QUO NOMINE ALIO POSSIT APPELARI  TANTAE LEVITATIS EST UT NIHIL VIDEAM QUOD PUTEM CONFERENDUM. (Cic. Tusc. 4. 68). These words disparage sexual passion as a whole – particularly a hot, inflamed desire (QUI EAST INFLAMMATO ANIMO CONCUSPICUNT) whether indulged in with women or with boys. NATURA, according to Cicero, makes it easier to indulge in this passion with women, so that when  men DO INDULGE IN IT WITH BOYS, they show just who DEEPLY THEY HAVE FALLEN VICTIM TO LOVE – that treacherous and destructive power, ‘te originator of disgraveful behaviour and inconstanty (FLAGITTI ET LEVITATIS AUCTOREM (4. 68), as G. Williams notes. In fact, remarkably enough, Cicero later claims that love itself is not natural. Cic. Tusc. 4 76. If love were natural, everyone would love, they would always love, and would love the same thing: one person would not be deterred from loving by a sense of shame, another by rational thought, another by his satiety – ETENIM SI NAUTRALIS AMOR ESSET ET AMARENT OMNES ET SEMPER AMARENT ET IDEM AMARENT NEQUE ALIUM PUDOR ALIUM COGITATIO ALIUM SATIETAS DETERRERET. Cicero’s remark on NATURA and sexual relations with women is in fact fact little more than a a passing comment. Still, its implications deserve some consideration. In what whays does NATURE grant ‘greater permisiveness’ to a relation with aa woma than with a boy? Why does Seneca suggest that men’s MALENESS ought to preclude them from being PENETRATED, and why does Musonius Rufus condemn ALL SEXUAL PRACTICES BETWEEN MALES as unnatural? These philosophers’ comments seem to rest on certain assumptions about the function of sexual organs. Certainly Seneca emphasixes the notion of the proper order or debitus ordon, according to which men should not drink wine before eating, grow roses in the winter, build buildings over the sea, or PENETRATE MALES. In short, some kind of ARGUMENT FROM DESIGN seems to lruk in the backgrounf of Cicero’s Seneca’s and Musoniu’s claism. The penis is ‘designed’ to PENETRATE a vagina. TA vagina is deigned to be penetrated by a penis. Similarly the passage from Phaedrus Fables 4 16 discussed in chapter 5 implies, whitout actually using the word NATURA, that males who desire to be penetrated (molles mares) and females who desire to penetrate (tribades) have A FLAWED DESIGN. When Prometheus was assuming these people’s bodies from CLAY, he attached the genial organs of the opposite sex in a drunken slip-up. But his more popularizing account only specifies that those males who DESIRE to be penetrated are anomalous. It does not designate those men who seek to penetrate other males as unnatural. On this model, a sexual act in which a master penetrated his UNWILLING MALE slave  is NOT UNNATURAL. By contrast, according the philosophers discussed here (Musonius most expliclty) this act would be unnatural.  But on the whole very few Roman writers seem to have taken this kind of argument to heart. In general, ROMAN MEN’S BEHAVIOURAL codes reflect an AWARENESS that the PENIS IS SUITED for purposes OTHER than penetrating avagina, and that the vagina is NOT the only organ suited for being penetrated. Such is the implication of a witty comment in an epigram of Martial’s addressed to a man who, instead of doing the USUAL WITHIN with his BOY and analyy penetrating him, has been STIMULATING THIS GENITALS. This is objectionable because it will speed up the process of his maturation and thus hasten THE ADVENT OF HIS BEARD (11.22.1-8). Martial tries to talk some sense into his friend and the epigram ends with an APPEAL TO NATURE. DIVISIT NATURA MAREM PARS UNA PUELLIS UNA VIRIS GENITA EST UTERE PARTE TUA Mart 1 22.9-10. The comment is of course a witticigm. Note the logical contradiction that this playful invocation of nature creates. If the penis is designed by nature for girls and the anus for mmen,how can a man use a boy’s anus in the way nature intended (i. e. to be penetrated by men) and at the same time use his own penis in the way nature intended (i. e. by penetrating a girl? See chapters 1 and 5 for further fsucssion of this epigram together with Martial’s humorous invocation of the paradigm of nature with regard to masturbation. but if the humour was to succeed, the notion that a boy’s anus is designed by nature for a man to penetrate cannot have seemed outrageous to Martial’s readership. After all, the rhetorical goal of the epigram is to steer tha man onto the path of right behaviour, the path which Martial’s won persona, dutifully, even proudly, followed. This sort of comment – rather than the passing remarks of such philosophers as Cicero, Seneca and Musonius Rufus, reflects the mainstreat Roman understanding of what constitutes NORMATIVE and NATURAL sexual beavhiour for a boy and for a man. It is significant, moreover, that neither CCicero nor Seneca nor Musonius Rufus nor any other survinving Roman text, philosophical or not, argues that a MAN’s *DESIRE* to penetrate a boy is ‘contrary to nature’. Musonius, for one, speaks ony of the sexual act (SUMPLOKAI). We return to the Epicurean perspective offered by Lucretius cited in chapter i. SIC IGITUR VENERIS QUI TELIS ACCIPIT ICTUS SIVE PUER MEMBRIS MULIEBRIBUS HUNC IACULATUR SEU MULIEUR TOTO IACTANS E CORPORE AMOREM UNDE FERITUR EO TENDIT GESTITQUE COIR ET IACERE UMOREM IN CORPUS DE CORPRE DUCTUM. Lucr. 4. 1052-6. This are lines from a poem dedicated to teaching its Roman readers about ‘the nature of things’ (de rerum natura 1.25). cf. Boswell p. 149 “Lucretius’s De rerum natura dealt with the whole of ‘natura’ but it was the ‘rerum’ of things – which suggested to Latin readers what modern speakers mean by ‘nature’”. Obviously the SUSCEPTIBILITY OF MEN to THE ALLURE of boys and women is a PART OF THE NATURAL ORDER for Lucretius. The beams of atomic particles that EMANATE from the bodies of boys and women and attract men to them are an integral part of the nature of things. It is the mentalitly evident in such diverse textsa Lucretius’s poetic treatise On the nature of Things, Martial’s epigrams, and graffiti scrawled on ancient walls that we need to keep in mind when we evaluate the comments of Musonius Rufus, Seneca, and Cicero. These are the words of three philosophers. Cicero expounding on the danger s of love, Senceca inveighing against the corrputions of the world around him, and Musonius arguing that men should engage only in certain kind of sexual relations and only with their wives, the goal being the production of legitimate offspring and not the pursuit of pleasure. These pronouncements tell u something about the world in which these three philosophers who made them lived, and about what men and women in that world were actually doing. Seneca for example is hardly fulminating about imaginary fices) but they tells us even more about Cicero, Seneca, and Musoiuns, and their own philosophical allegiances We have every reason to believe that comments like their rpersented a minoriy opinion. Indeed, the men AGAINST whom Musonius argues, who believed that A MASTER has absolute power to do ANYTHING HE WANTS to his slave, is precisel that man shoes VOICE dominated the public discourse on sexual practice. Moreover, as Winkler (p. 21) trenchangly observers, Seneca’s condemnation of such ‘unnatural’ behaviour as growing hothouse flowers or throwing nightime parties, ‘though articulated as universal, is OBVIOUSLY DIRECTED AT A VERY SMALL AND WEALTHY ELITE – THOSE WHO CAN AFFORD THE SORT OF LUXURIES Seneca wants ‘ALL MANKIND’ to do without”, It is telling, too, that Cicero himself never makes this kind of APPEAL TO NATURA in the SEXUAL INVECTIVE sscattered throughout the speeches he delivered in the public arenas of the courtroom, Senate, or popular assembly (see chapter 5), and that the argument appears NOWEHERE ELSE IN the considerable corpus of Seneca’s moral treatises. Likewise, it is worth noting that Musonius Rufus’s who makes the most extreme case, not only wrote his treatise in GREEK rather than Latin, as if to underscore its distance from he everyday beliefs and practices of Romans, but as a philosopher omitted to stoicis in a way that Cicero and and Seneca are not. As Haexter reminds us, Cicero proposes manydifferent rhetorical and philosophical positions in his speeches, letters, and dialogues, and Seneca’s epistles to Lucilius offer a tentative and experimental mixture of Stoicism and other philosophical schools (many of his earlier letters end with quotations from Epicurus, for example). In any case, Boswell, cp. 130 citing ancient sources claiming that the very founder of stoicism, Zeno, engaged in sexual practices with males (perhaps even exclusively) tnote that many ancient stoics actually seem to have considered the question of sexual praticess between males to e ETHICALLY NEUTRAL. Finally, It is worth noting that both Seneca and Cicero were thought not to have practiced what they prached. In a discussion of how Seneca’s behaviour often stood in contracition to his own teachings, the historian DIO CASSIUS observes that although he married well, Seneca also “takes pleasure in older lads, and teachers Nero do to the same thing, too”. Dio 61 10 4. Tas te aselgeias has praton gamon te epiphanestaton egme kai meikarious exorois exaire kai tauto kai ton Nerona poietin edidaxe. The historian goes on to insutate that Seneca fellated his partners, speculating on the reason why refused to kiss Nero. One might imagine, Dio notes, that this was  because he was gisuted by Nero’s penchant for oral sex. But that makes no sense given Seneca’s own relations with his boyfriends (61  10 5 o gar toi monon an tis hupopteuseien hoti ouk ethele toiouto stoma philein elegxketai ek ton paidikon autou pseudos on).  The younger Pliny (Epist. 7.4) informs us that Cicero addresses a love poem to his faithful slave and companion Tiro. Of course neither of these pieces of information tells us anything about Cicero’s or Seneca’s actual experiences. Cicero’s poem could have been a literary game and the stories a out Seneca that constituted Dio’s source may well have been unfounded gossip (For Cicero and Tiro, see McDermott and Richlin. P. 223, Canatarella p. 103 assumes that they actually ENJOYED A sexual relationship)). On the other hand, is it not impossible that Cicero actually DID experience DESIRE for Tiro and that Seneca DID enjoy the company of MATURE MALE SEXUAL PARTNERS. And abovre all it is important to recognize that later generations of Romans (the younger Pliny and Dio) were willing to IMAGINE THOSE THINGS HAPPENING. Dio’s gossipy remarks and Pliny’s comments on Cicero remind  us of the cultural context in which a philosopher’s allusion to NATURA must be placed.  ( Paolo Casini. Keywords: naturismo, naturalismo, natura, nazione, patto sociale, la legge naturale, l’uomo, contra natura. “antica sapienza italica” razionalismo, la metafora della lume, illuminismo, Bruno, il patto sociale --  Refs.: Luigi Speranza, “Grice e Casini” – The Swimming-Pool Library.