Effeminacy and Paris

I.
Some general points when it comes to ancient Greek culture and certain attitudes relevant to the topic:
Moderation, first of all, was a thing the Ancient Greeks considered paramount; moderation in sex, food, drink, pleasure, clothing - you name it. Self-control and nothing *too much*, of anything. I think this can be reflected in Menelaos' Book 13 speech: "There is satiety in all things, even sleep and even love, and in sweet song and blameless dance [...] But the Trojans are insatiate of battle." He twice juxtaposes (before and at the end of this speech) the Trojans' supposed insatiability (lack of moderation) for war with that one can have "enough" of all things, even those much sweeter than war itself.

Both men and women were supposed to show self-restraint when it came to sex; it was a virtue, and furthermore, self-restraint and moderation was part of what made a man "manly", if you will. Part of Aeschines' speech Against Timarchus argues that he has shown a lack of moderation in his behaviour in all parts of life; seeking out men (whether "unsuitable" or not) to sleep with (as the presumed receptive partner), food, chasing after women; all this made him unfit for what was otherwise a male citizen's rights and responsibilities both. Women being modest and chaste were similar for them, and an extra step further than a man's "moderation". At the same time, women were considered "naturally" more sexual, having less self-control (that was why it was extra important they exercise self-restraint and being chaste), and being focused on pleasure, which leads into the connected idea that a man who does not... becomes feminized.

(Something illustrated by Lucian of Samosata's A True Story, in the very first parts of it, and talked about below: .)

And contrary to what one might think, in general the love of boys wasn't effeminising (later, it would start to gain that association) - though as always, excessive sex no matter the partner "dooms" you, and being the one taking cock is of course effeminate (because being penetrated is what women do). Instead, a too intense interest in women, whether in sex or just spending time with them, becomes effeminising. Like draws to like, and if you associate too much with it, it will "taint" you. Plutarch is of course much later than the Iliad, but this bit from the Amatorius (750f forward) might work as a general illustration:

"Now if this be the passion you talk of which is to be called Love, it is a spurious and effeminate love that sends us to the women's chambers, as it were to the Cynosarges at Athens. [...] thus the true genuine love is that of boys, not flaming with concupiscence, as according to Anacreon the love of maids and virgins does, neither besmeared with odoriferous ointments, nor alluring with smiles and rolling glances; [...] whereas that other love, nice and effeminate, and always nestling in the bosoms and beds of women, pursuing soft pleasures, and wasted with unmanly delights, that have no gust of friendship or heavenly ravishment of mind, is to be despised and rejected of all mankind."

In fact, a man being willing to break law and convention to be with a woman he desired to such a degree he'd try to sleep with a married woman would *also* feminise him. Or, throwing that wround, being effeminate made a man suspect of being an adulterer. For example, apparently a Syracusan law (mentioned by Phylarcus) stated that any man who paid excessive attention to his appearance and personal grooming could be identified as an adulterer or a kinaidos. So the connection between decorative appearance on a man is tied both to immoderate sexual interest in women (as well as characterising him as attractive to said women), but general sexual deviance - a kinaidos was someone who liked to be penetrated.

There's also parts of Electra's speech to Aigisthos' corpse in Euripides' Electra that are pretty illuminating (930ff):
"Among all the Argives you would hear this: "That woman's husband", not "that man's wife". Although this is a shameful thing, for the wife to rule the house and not the husband[...]You were insolent because you had a king's house and were endowed with good looks. May I never have a husband with a girl's face, but one with a man's ways. For the children of the latter cling to a life of arms, while the fair ones are only an ornament in the dance."

Male beauty coupled to a lack of manliness, dance (which can have erotic, if not outright sexual, connotations) contrasted with martial ability and virtue.

It's long, so the rest under here.

II.
For the Iliad specifically, Christopher Ransom in his Aspects of Effeminacy and Masculinity in the Iliad (2011) summarises up a couple other points:

"In the Iliad, childishness and effeminacy are often referred to in order to define masculine identity. Women and children are naturally not operative in the adult male world of warfare, and so can be clearly classified as ‘other’ within the martial sphere of battlefield insults. Masculine identity cannot be formed in a vacuum, and so the feminine or the childish is posited as ‘other’ in order to define the masculine by contrast." and "Idle talk is characterised as childish or feminine, and is repeatedly juxtaposed with the masculine sphere of action." as well as
"Effeminacy is linked to shame [...]; if acting like a coward is a cause for shame, and prompts Menelaos to call the Achaians ‘women’, then effeminacy is seen as shameful in the context of the poem."

And while neither dancing nor sex are something that a man who engages in will become effeminate for, the former is explicitly posited as a peace-time pastime only, and sex is only to be had at the right time (and in the right amount). So, in the Iliad's (as well as the whole war) circumstances, neither of those two activities are proper to prioritise, and are at points set up in juxtaposition and contrast to war and martial effort.
Additionally, physical beauty alone doesn't make a man in any way feminized - otherwise quite a few male characters would be effeminate! - and in fact, a well-born, "heroic" man will be beautiful because it befits his status. (Insert basically any big-name male character in Greek mythology here.) But, there's a limit and some caveats to this; physical beauty in a man (not a youth) must be balanced out against other "virtues", and if, in especially the context of war as in the Iliad, a man's martial ability is lacking, his handsomeness becomes a source of scorn instead, because he can't "back it up".

Here's our most notable "offenders":
Nireus of Syme, who in the second book of the Iliad is called the most beautiful among the Achaeans after Achilles, but "he was weak, and few men followed him". Syme is a small island, but I don't think the "few men" here is supposed to be assumed because of a lack of numbers on the island. His beauty is all there is to him, and no one wants to follow him because he's not sufficiently (manly) able in war.
Nastes and/or Amphimachus of Miletus, wearing gold in [his/their] hair "like a girl", which the narrator then calls [him/them] a fool for and that he will be stripped of those pieces of jewellery when Achilles kills him, and, again from Ransom's article; "Thus, the effeminised male, characterised by his feminine dress, is brought down by the ‘proper hero’, and the effeminate symbolically succumbs to the masculine."
Euphorbus, the man who first injures Patroklos - this is an edge-case, because the text itself isn't obviously condescending or condemning Euphorbus compared to Nastes/Amphimachus. It simply describes him wearing his hair in a style of hair ornaments that pinches tresses in at the middle. But, the narrator still goes to the effort to make this extra description, not just the more general/usual mention of the hair being befouled in the dust as the man killed falls to the ground.

(In the intent of being somewhat exhaustive, two other potential edge-cases:
Patroklos, who does perform some tasks at the embassy dinner in Book 9 that would usually be done by women. And it's not as if Achilles doesn't have women who could deal with the bread and similar. It's not remarked on, or marked in the text in any way, compared to the other characters previous.
Menelaos, even more of an edge case, but like Patroklos he's described as gentle, and by Agamemnon and Nestor's indictment doesn't act when he should, being more prone and willing to let Agamemnon take point. Could say it ties into how Helen in the Odyssey is the more dominant partner in terms of social interaction, as well.)

And then there's our last "offender", who we see more of in terms of his lacking in living up to proper (Iliadic) masculinity; Paris. Before going into that, I want to touch on something else.

III.
That being what the idea of the Trojans being "barbarians" does to the Trojans in later sources. In the Iliad itself, while the Iliad does have a pro-Achaean bias, the Trojans and their allies aren't really portrayed in the same way as happens later (but not consistently so), coming into shape during and after the Persian Wars. In summary, it's during this time the Trojans gain the negative stereotypes of the eastern "barbarian"; luxurious, slavish (but also tyrants! one basically ties into and enables the other), and effeminate.

Not all "barbarians" were considered the same, with the same stereotypes attached to them; northern (Scythians, etc.) barbarians were considered violent and warlike, "savage" if you will.

Edith Hall's book Inventing the Barbarian (1989), is all about this, but have a couple hopefully illuminating quotes about how these stereotypes were expressed, especially in drama/fiction:


So what happens is that all Trojans get tarred with this eastern barbarian brush, as illustrated by the Trojan Women, for example, where Hecuba's description of Paris' looks when he came to Sparta is steeped in the eastern barbarian luxury terms. Which comes attached with other connotations. Another example is in the Aeneid (by a character, not the narrative); "And now that Paris, with his eunuch crew, beneath his chin and fragrant, oozy hair ties the soft Lydian bonnet, boasting well his stolen prize." Notes here: 1. This is said by a character, not the narrative itself, and someone using this as an argument against Aeneas and his Trojans, but the stereotype itself isn't something new; 2. "That Paris" = Aeneas. While this might be more about Paris as a seducer and abductor of Helen, given the emasculation of the rest of the Trojans and then the additional effeminate touches with Aeneas' supposed dress and hair, I'd say it's not just about that; 3. The word translated here as "eunuch" (semivir, "half-man"), by a quick look in Perseus' word tool, is also straight up used about effeminacy, though of course a eunuch wasn't a "full"/proper man and often viewed as effeminate, too, so they're tied together.

This is a development, of course, and we can't know how completely the later ideas of effeminacy would've been reflected in the times when the Iliad was crystallized. But on the other hand, those ideas about effeminacy wouldn't have sprung ready-made out of nothing in the Archaic/Classical era, either. Even in the Iliad, there are clear criteria for what makes a man properly manly/martial, which isn't really followed along the lines of later eastern barbarians/Greeks. So in the Iliad itself obviously not all Trojan characters would be equally easy to cast in an effeminate light.

But, again, we come back to the easiest target, the one who, by the way he's juxtaposed against another character who exemplifies the "war as (part of the) male gender performance" in the Iliad, stands outside of that. The one who basically, as he is portrayed in the Iliad, by the stereotype of the later eastern barbarian becomes the arechtypal "eastern barbarian Trojan".

Paris.

IV.
So, let's talk about Paris!

At the very basic level when it comes to Paris and his place in the Iliad, is that he is the foil and contrast to his brother Hektor in specific, as a warrior and as a man. But in that specific reflection he is also the contrast against almost every other male character, Achaean and Trojan, in the Iliad.

What does this mean?

-Cowardice; he's slack and unwilling as Hektor accuses him of. No way to know if this is specifically because he's always afraid of martial engagement, as in the moment we see before his duel against Menelaos, since being unwilling to fight in deadly combat could be for many different reasons. (He is not always slack and unwilling, however; he is out there on the battlefield with the rest at the beginning of Book 3, and after Book 6 he is, as far as we know, out there with the rest of the Trojans, from beginning to end. His unreliability in his martial efforts is another angle.) Not returning to the battlefield and instead sleeping with Helen, and then, again, not returning immediately after they're done could probably be considered part of cowardice as well. Paris' not returning without being prompted (in one case, if he's being honest, by Helen herself) undoubtedly has several connotations and implications.

-He is one of, if not the worst, fighters among the commanders, on both sides. His martial prowess isn't up to snuff. As we see in Book 3 where Hektor calls him out on retreating, he notes that Paris' beauty would have the Achaeans believe Paris is one of the Trojans' foremost champions, for the idea is that this physical excellence would be paired with martial excellence. But it isn't, because of Paris' cowardice and his lack of martial ability, and tying into this, then, is;

-Paris' beauty. As noted earlier with Nireus, physical beauty not backed up by martial prowess makes you less than, and the epithet used most often for Paris to call him godlike is specifically about his physical looks. There are other epithets (also sometimes used of Paris) that mean "godlike" in a more general way, but the one most often used of Paris is specific. And, that particular word is what's used when Paris first leaps forward in Book 3; the narrative is using theoeides every single time Paris' name is used in Book 3. And so we get something like this, from J. Griffin in his Homer on Life and Death (1980): "...the poet makes it very clear that the beauty of Paris is what characterizes him, and is at variance with his lack of heroism..." as well as from Ransom in his article: "Again the suggestion is that Paris’ beauty is empty, and that he is lacking the courage or other manly characteristics that would render it honourable. [...] Paris is set against Menelaos, a ‘real’ man by implication, and he is told that his skill with the lyre and his beauty would be no help to him then."

-His pretty hair gets insulted at least once (by Hektor) and potentially twice, the second time by Diomedes in Book 11 (the phrase used is uncertain whether it's about Paris' hair or his bow; that it could be his hair, being worn in a particular style, has been an idea from ancient times). And we know what sort of fuss the Iliad makes of pretty hair in men who do not otherwise live up to being properly masculine according to its ethos.

-Being an archer. The bow wasn't the manliest weapon around, and the Iliad disparages its use on the battlefield (selectively!). Paris is basically our archetypical archer, who gets insulted for being an archer and less manly because of that. Diomedes' insult in Book 11 lays this out very clearly; he straight up calls the bow *not a real weapon*, and by implication in his further speech implies Paris is no different than a woman or a child. Now, many people are insulted on the Iliadic battlefield by being compared to women or children. But none of these men are archers - or Paris, who Diomedes has just insisted has given him a(n insignificant) injury, by a "not real" weapon, that is the same as if a woman or child hit him. He's denying Paris' martial ability and masculinity several times over.

-The first part of Diomedes' litany of insults is worth looking at as well; "kera aglae = shining/glorious in horn", which is variously translated as either splendid in your crown of curls/glorying in your hair/bow. The translation varies because the Ancient Greeks also didn't know what was meant, exactly, and while I prefer the 'hair' option (because the bow is superfluous as it's mentioned right after), bow would emphasise again the uselessness of such a weapon; Paris' martial skill is useless and less manly.
But what's more interesting in the case of if it might mean Paris' hair (as a way of dressing it, is meant); it puts an emphasis, again, on Paris' looks and the effort he makes in his presentation. Effort he shouldn't put there. And a third option that I don't know if translators ever use is that it might mean 'penis', which shakes out into "glorying in your penis". So, an insult about Paris' prowess being in the bedroom instead of on the battlefield, which is, of course, unmanly.

-His focus on dancing and music, as brought up by both Hektor and Aphrodite (and, though in a more general insulting context with other sons being mentioned as well, by Priam). The problem is, again, of course not his skill or interest in and with these things, but that he is better at these than combat and that he shows more interest in them and, by especially Hektor's implications, puts more effort and focus in these than martial endeavour.

-His sexuality. As noted earlier, a man should show moderation and self-restraint. Paris, giving in to his desires and having sex in the middle of the day and during a tense moment, even if the forces aren't supposed to be fighting at that very point in time (neither he nor Helen would know Athena has induced Pandaros into breaking the truce), is certainly not showing any sort of moderation. He shows no hesitation in bringing up his desire to sleep with Helen, and has to be fetched from the innermost parts of his and Helen's home. The place where the women clearly are considered to be, which is not where a man should linger.
There is a similar lack of moderation and self-control in how Paris doesn't just sleeping with, but runs off with, someone else's wife - he wants Helen so much he (through whatever means) removes her from her husband's house.

I can't emphasize enough how much especially his speech about how much he desires Helen and the subsequent sex isn't some epitome of macho male sexuality and prowess. Rather, this is the epitome of feminized weakness to sex and pleasure. Paris goes through several possible words to describe his ardour and the pleasure of sex to Helen, and Paris throws himself whole-heartedly into the weakness he is displaying.

-Paris' physical presentation. There is a lot of focus on his dress and how it makes him look (Aphrodite practically objectifies him for Helen's pleasure when she describes him to her!), and that his clothes are gorgeus. Again, have a quote from Ransom about that Aphrodite-Helen scene: "This scene captures his essence perfectly. Once more Paris’ looks and dress are emphasised [...] and, in Aphrodite’s speech, the poet explicitly disassociates him from his martial endeavour." Connected to this we have his first appearance earlier in this book, where he's described as not wearing full armour but a leopard pelt. Here's Griffin again: "[...] so he has to change into proper armour before he can fight - and we are to supply the reason: because he looked glamorous in it."
Now, I don't think it's that simple, because other people wear animal pelts in the Iliad; Agamemnon and Menelaos both do so, as does Diomedes and Dolon. However, Agamemnon and Menelaos both wear theirs as part of a full martial dress and they're clearly meant as part of a display of authority and martial prowess. Diomedes, though he's not otherwise fully armoured as this is part of his dress during the meeting before the night raid, is clearly meant to be similarly glorified (Dolon is more of a question, considering how he's portrayed otherwise). Paris is specifically not wearing a full set of armour, even if he apparently has it at home, so in the end I'd agree with Griffin that, given the other instances of Paris' clothing being extravagant/beautiful, this is indeed an instance of "because he looked glamorous in it".

But as Ruby Blondell puts it: "The destructive power of "feminine" beauty is most ostentatiously displayed, among mortals, in the person not of Helen but of Paris. In contrast to the veiling of her looks, Paris's dangerous beauty is displayed, glorified, and also castigated. [...] His appearance is unusually decorative, even in battle. His equipment is "most beautiful" (6.321), glorious, and elaborate (6.504), and his outfit includes such exotic details as a leopard skin (3.17) and a "richly decorated strap (polukestos himas) under his tender throat" (3.371)." (Helen of Troy (2013))

Too much attention to one's looks would, again, be feminising. (Taking it as an aside because I don't remember where I read it or the source of the statement, but a note to an article I once read quoted a source as saying that a man paying too much attention to his hair was an indicator of either being an adulterer, or effeminate.) Men who were excessively interested in women might then come to decorate themselves further to attract them (because this sort of decorating oneself was thought to be attractive to women when a man did it).
In the Heroicus (Philostratus), Paris is described as polishing his nails and painting his eyes, and in conjunction with the Iliad's focus on Paris' hair and his perfumed bedroom, this could be contrasted with a description of an effeminate character from Longus' novel Daphnis and Chloe: "His hair was glistening with perfumed locks, his eyes were shadowed; he wore a soft cloak and fine slippers, heavy rings sparkled on his fingers." (trans. Goold)

-His attitude towards the whole (Homeric) heroic ethos of the Iliad. Not just his unwillingness or lack of martial prowess, but rather the "personal motto" he expresses to Hektor in Book 6; "victory shifts from man to man". And, while I wouldn't say this is at all a typical mark of an effeminate man in terms of the Ancient Greek outlook on these matters, you do have to set it in connection to his other martial "failings". As Kirk in his The Iliad, a Commentary, vol. 1 (1985/2001) says: "He thus attributes success in battle to more or less random factors, discounting his personal responsibility and performance." and, another point of view from Muellner in The meaning of Homeric εὔχομαι through its formulas (1976) about this same "motto":



-As a brief little point, when it comes to his being a lyrist; that, too, was often edged in ideas of effeminacy. So while, of course, no man is effeminate just because they may take up the lyre at some point, as this was very much part of a genteel and elite culture, if one dedicates one's life to it, that starts to have an effect on how the person is viewed.

-A comment on Paris' epithet of "husband of lovely-haired Helen". While I heavily doubt there's any implication of unmanliness made in the Iliad itself by Paris being called this epithet, compared to the other elements to how Paris is portrayed, in Euripides' *Electra* Electra has a statement about Aigisthos that it's shameful for man to be known as being a woman's husband, instead of the other way around. My guess is that Iliad-wise (or within the epic tradition of the Trojan war), Paris' epithet is factual; he *is* the husband of Helen, nothing more or less. But by the point we get to Archaic/Classical Greece, the audiences would look at such an epithet - while still factual - differently. Especially in conjunction with everything else around Paris, I think.

So what you have, then, in sum is Paris being very much non-masculine. In the Iliad itself he is, at the very least, not conforming to the martial and cultural expectations and mores of the Iliad's/the Homeric masculine ethos. Even if you add in/change some of how the Trojans might view things, Paris would without a doubt still be non-conforming. Myth-wise, he certainly is so, both before and after the Persian Wars and the changes to the Trojans' general perception at the hands of the Athenian tragedians happened.

Here's Christopher Ransom again, to tie things up: "If gender is performance, Paris is simply not playing his part; if ‘being a man’ requires a concerted effort and a conscious choice, it seems as though Paris’ choices are in opposition to those of his more heroic brother."

V.
And lastly, some scattered quotes from ancient sources about Paris, roughly ordered from earliest to latest:

"Accursed Paris, outstanding only in beauty, woman crazed, seducer-[...]The long-haired Achaeans howl in laughter thinking you our first champion, because your appearance is beautiful - but there is no strength in your heart, nor any courage.[...]Your lyre and the gifts of Aphrodite would be of no use to you, nor your hair and looks[...]"
"[...]he is on his bed in his own room, radiant with beauty and dressed in gorgeous apparel. No one would think he had just come from fighting, but rather that he was going to a dance, or had done dancing and was sitting down. (The Iliad, Book 3)
-I think these two Iliad quotes boil things down nicely. Hektor's lines are very much haranguing Paris for his lack of manliness in what Hektor chooses to insult. The focus on his beauty and the clothing in Aphrodite's lines add to it, for the clothing (and their emphasised beauty) especially would enhance said beauty. Aphrodite also bringing up dancing, and this is yet another notch in how he is so attractive and sexual/*sexualized*; the dancing grounds and dancing by young women and men were loci of sexuality.

"No! my son was exceedingly handsome, and when you saw him your mind straight became your Aphrodite; for every folly that men commit, they lay upon this goddess, [990] and rightly does her name begin the word for “senselessness”; so when you caught sight of him in gorgeous foreign clothes, ablaze with gold, your senses utterly forsook you." (Euripides, Trojan Women)
-This one is pretty straightforward, especially keeping in mind all the above and Edith Hall's discussion of the words connected to eastern "barbarians" by this point. And, too, however, that 'ablaze with gold' would imply he's wearing (a lot) of jewellery, which is not really a manly thing to do.

"Vainly shall you; in Venus' favour strong,
Your tresses comb, and for your dames divide
On peaceful lyre the several parts of song;
Vainly in chamber hide

From spears and Gnossian arrows, barb'd with fate,
And battle's din, and Ajax in the chase
Unconquer'd; those adulterous locks, though late,
Shall gory dust deface." (Horace, Odes)
-Double focus on his hair, and through that, Paris' behaviour (playing music, avoiding battle), all of it disassociating him from martial effort and into a more "feminine" sphere.

So then Achilles you, who overcame the mighty, were subdued by a coward who seduced a Grecian wife! Ah, if you could not die by manly hands, your choice had been the axe. (Ovid, Metamorphoses, Book 12)
-Quite literally spelled out in the text that Paris isn't manly, and that he's so very much *not* manly that Klytaimnestra, a literal woman, would've been the preferred slayer instead!

"And now that Paris, with his eunuch crew, beneath his chin and fragrant, oozy hair ties the soft Lydian bonnet, boasting well his stolen prize." (Virgil, the Aeneid)
"[...]shall we endure a Phrygian eunuch hovering about the coasts and harbours of Argos [...]" (Statius, Achilleid)
-Again, the "eunuch" here is "semivir", so Paris is explicitly emasculated and made out to be effeminate, for while it might be used of a eunuch (who is a "half-man", it's otherwise attached to effeminacy or other gender/sexual deviance.)

"And he washed him in the snowy river and went his way, stepping with careful steps, lest his lovely feet should be defiled of the dust; lest, if he hastened more quickly, the winds should blow heavily on his helmet and stir up the locks of his hair." and "he [Paris] stood, glorying in his marvellous graces. Not so fair was the lovely son whom Thyone bare to Zeus: forgive me, Dionysus! even if thou art of the seed of Zeus, he, too, was fair as his face was beautiful." (Colluthus, Rape of Helen)
-I don't think I need to say much about that dainty description of Paris' behaviour and the care he takes to still look as put together and beautiful for when he reaches Sparta, do I? The second quote, though, I think deserves some comment, because Collutus twice in short order compares Paris to Dionysos, and as we saw in Hall's book, Dionysus in the Bacchae is associated not just with a foreign man, but someone who would be tarred with the stereotypes of the eastern "barbarian". And Dionysos has long, of course, been portrayed with a particularly feminized beauty, not just in drama.
On top of this, much earlier than Colluthus we have Cratinus' Dionysalexandros, a satyr play where Dionysos takes Paris' place for both the Judgement and kidnapping Helen. To note is that while the satyrs are followers of Dionysos, their uses as chorus in satyr plays wouldn't necessarily have them attached to Dionysos (often, they seem in fact to have removed themselves from him). And in this circumstance, then, Paris isn't just compared to the effeminate Dionysos, Dionysos straight up (though disguised as Paris) replaces him for a part of the play.

It all starts in the Iliad, but it certainly doesn't end there, and by the end his effeminacy is just all the more explicitly stated in text as effeminacy.

(Christopher Ransom's article can be read right here: https://www.academia.edu/355314/Aspects_of_Effeminacy_and_Masculinity_in_the_Iliad
Edith Hall's book can be downloanded on her own website: https://edithhall.co.uk/product/reading-ancient-slavery/
Meriel Jones' Playing the Man: Performing Masculinities in the Greek Novel can be found as an unpublished thesis here: https://cronfa.swan.ac.uk/Record/cronfa42521 (but also exists as a published book).)