Fro m ‘Filthy Catam ite’ to ‘Queer Ico n’: Elagabalus and the Po litics o f Sexuality (1 9 6 0 –1 9 7 5 ) M AR K N U G E N T Elagabalus. The n am e evokes an im age of a depraved sybarite “treadin g in silver dust an d san d of gold, his head crown ed with a tiara an d his clothes studded with jewels, workin g at wom en’s tasks in the m idst of his eun uchs, callin g him self Em press an d beddin g ever y n ight with a n ew Em peror, picked for choice from am on g his barbers, scullion s, an d charioteers” (H uysm an s 1959, 45).1 Such portraits of Elagabalus derive, ultim ately, from the accoun ts of the em peror’s reign (218–22 C .E.) provided by D io Cassius, H erodian , an d the author of the H istoria Augusta. These historian s represen t Elagabalus as an orien tal despot pron e to extravagan ce of all sorts an d as a religious fan atic determ in ed to im pose a Syrian god upon the Rom an populace.2 They also report that the em peror cultivated a fem in in e appearan ce; that he m arried three wom en (in cludin g a Vestal Virgin ) an d on e m an ; that he had a sexual predilection for wellen dowed m ales; an d that he asked his court physician s to con struct a vagin a in his body.3 Elagabalus, if these sources are to be credited,4 was an em peror gon e wild. The exploits of bad em perors have exercised a poten t fascin ation down through the cen turies, but differen t form s of im perial m isbehavior have drawn atten tion depen din g upon what political an d m oral an xieties happen ed to be ascen dan t in a given cultural m om en t. M odern s have ten ded to regard, for in stan ce, Elagabalus’s taste for gastron om ical n ovelties as little m ore than a sideshow curiosity, but have seized upon the em peror’s effem in acy an d sexual ‘devian cy’ as sign ifican t factors behin d his ultim ate ruin .5 This ten den cy relates directly to the prom in en ce that gen der an d sexuality have assum ed, as sites of political con testation , in m odern Western societies. W ithin this particular cultural clim ate, Elagabalus has becom e an icon ic figure through whom ideologies of gen der an d sexuality can be n aturalized, con tested, an d ren egotiated. Elagabalus, in deed, has com e to occupy an especially com plex position in the H E L I O S , vol. 35 n o. 2, 2008 © Texas Tech U n iversity Press 171 172 H ELI O S m odern im agin ation , because the historical sources, in revilin g the em peror as a gen der an d sexual devian t, en able a variety of differen t con tem porar y iden tification s: m odern readers of Elagabalus’s lives can iden tify the em peror as ‘hom osexual,’ ‘bisexual,’ or ‘tran sgen dered.’6 All three of these iden tification s in volve a certain violen ce to the historical sources, but all can n on etheless claim to be groun ded in an cien t “eviden ce.” This article exam in es represen tation s of Elagabalus in three texts published between 1960 an d 1975: Alfred D uggan’s Family Favourites, Kyle O n stott an d Lan ce H orn er’s Child of the S un, an d M artin D uberm an’s Elagabalus. In asm uch as the publication dates of the selected texts span a form ative period in the developm en t of m odern sexual politics, they can serve as an ideal site for exam in in g differen t represen tation s of Elagabalus durin g a tim e of substan tial political ten sion an d cultural chan ge. In all three texts, Elagabalus em erges as a ‘queer icon’: a n on -heterosexual represen tation that perform s sign ifican t ideological work in either n aturalizin g or challen gin g popular con structs of the ‘queer’ (n ot in ever y case strictly ‘hom osexual’) m ale. This study, then , delin eates the differen t ways that represen tation s of Elagabalus con tributed to the politics of sexuality between the years 1960 an d 1975. Family Favourit es; o r, “It Was All at Bo tto m H arm less Eno ugh” The earliest of the three texts is Alfred D uggan’s Family Favourites. Published in 1960,7 this n ovel belon gs to a lin e of quality historical fiction s that the O xford-educated author com posed in rapid succession durin g the later years of his life.8 Writin g a n ovel about Elagabalus was an audacious m ove for D uggan ,9 who had cultivated a broad-based readership by the early 1960s (Waugh 1983, 626), an d Family Favourites appears—if reviews in the popular press are an y in dication 10 —to have discon certed that public, especially in the author’s Britain .11 Although m ost critics con sidered Family Favourites to be an artistic success, a n um ber expressed reservation s about D uggan’s choice an d han dlin g of m aterial. In a review for T he Times Literary S upplement (14 O ctober 1960), for in stan ce, H arold Beaver wrote: “[W ]hy brin g [Elagabalus] back on to the stage? W hy . . . does M r. D uggan turn to this youth in his silks an d jewels from the M iddle East?” Behin d Beaver’s question in g there seem s to be a con cern that D uggan’s depiction of Elagabalus is perhaps too charitable for the public good: “M r. D uggan’s achievem en t is that he has m ade his Elagabalus a gen tle, wayward, passion ate youth, N U G E N T —From Filt hy ‘C at amit e’ t o ‘Q ueer Icon’ 173 and not at all unattractive” (em phasis added). The equivocal reception of Family Favourites in Britain can be attributed to the fact that the n ovel was published there durin g a tim e of “m oral pan ic” (Weeks 1989, 14, citin g Cohen 1972, 9) over the social im pact of m ale hom osexuality.12 The critical disquiet over D uggan’s in sufficien tly cen sorious depiction of Elagabalus draws atten tion to the fact that Family Favourites, workin g to rehabilitate the em peror as a figure of ‘legitim ate’ in terest, offers a defen se of his hom osexuality (which is n on etheless un derstood to be abn orm al) in term s reson an t with ‘liberal’ sexual politics that so troubled British reaction aries in the 1950s an d 1960s. D uggan is a can n y judge of what con tem porar y sen sibilities are prepared to tolerate,13 an d he m an euvers expertly at the boun ds of propriety. Ren derin g the figure of Elagabalus palatable durin g a tim e of m oral pan ic over m ale hom osexuality takes som e doin g, an d the author adopts several strategies to facilitate this en d. D uggan’s first m ove is to select a n arrator—D uratius, a m em ber of the Praetorian Guard—who can serve, by virtue of his un im peachable heterosexuality, as a m ediator between the reader an d Elagabalus. The em peror’s hom osexuality com es to seem ben ign when defen ded, even if in m easured term s, by a hard-bitten soldier who proclaim s his own “Celtic distaste for un n atural love” (192). D uggan’s secon d strategic decision is what prom pted such an xiety on Beaver’s part: he chooses to represen t Elagabalus n ot as a debauched effem in ate, but rather as an im pulsive an d virile youth. D uggan’s determ in ation to ren der Elagabalus in offen sive to m id-twen tieth-cen tur y ideals of m an hood is eviden t from the youth’s first appearan ce, as high priest of the Syrian sun god, in a procession at the cult cen ter of Em esa. In this scen e, D uggan em phasizes Elagabalus’s m an lin ess by settin g up a con trast between the youth—whom D uratius, as a visitin g observer, deem s un like a “feeble orien tal” (73)—an d the other participan ts in the religious rite. D uratius deplores the dan cin g slave boys who com e before Elagabalus in the procession : Then cam e a little group of dan cers, scatterin g rose-petals as they jigged. These were han dsom e boys; but the pain t on their faces an d wigglin g of their bottom s showed what kin d of boys they were. This sort of thin g creeps in because orien tals can n ot thin k straight. First they decide that on ly m ales m ay serve a m ale god; then , because they them selves like pretty boys, they en courage som e of these boys to behave as fem ales. If Elagabalus was as m an ly as they supposed, he m ust have disliked som e of his servan ts. (72) 174 H ELI O S But the n arrator fin ds Elagabalus to be a charism atic figure: The boy, though he looked childish for his age, was yet a perfect m in iature of the D ivin e Caracalla. This m ean s that he was strikin gly han dsom e. Ben eath a fan tastic head-dress of gauzy silk peeped a cluster of golden curls; his eyelashes fluttered like butterflies; as he m oved his head I caught a glim pse of huge brim m in g violet eyes. The elaborate orn am en ts an d face-pain t which were part of his ritual costum e m ade his beauty seem that of an exquisite doll. But this perfect beauty had in it n othin g of the fem in in e; even the lon g em broidered gown could n ot con ceal his m an lin ess. (73) D uggan en acts, in this passage, a curious reclam ation of Elagabalus’s m asculin ity: the description of the em peror assiduously evokes tradition s of his effem in acy even as it in sists that his appearan ce con tain s “n othin g of the fem in in e.” D uggan , in fact, revels in the artificial, an d hen ce ‘fem in in e,’ details of Elagabalus’s ritualized self-presen tation (the “fan tastic head-dress of gauzy silk,” the “elaborate orn am en ts an d face-pain t,” an d the “lon g em broidered gown”), all the while claim in g that this costum in g veils an un derlyin g ‘authen tic’ m asculin ity. In this con text, the hom ophobic caricature of the slave boys serves to poin t up Elagabalus’s m an lin ess. W hereas the boys are grotesques for whom ‘real’ m en can feel on ly disdain , Elagabalus is a youn g em bodim en t of a m asculin e ideal (“a perfect m in iature of the D ivin e Caracalla”). For the boys, face pain t in dicates an essen tial depravity (“what kin d of boys they were”); but, for Elagabalus, it is m arked as artificial an d tem porar y (“part of his ritual costum e”), separate from an d un able to con ceal his essen tial n ature.14 The disavowal of Elagabalus’s fem in in ity as a superficial ven eer is un dercut, however, by behaviors that are clearly coded as effem in ate. O n ce, D uratius describes Elagabalus as “floun cin g across the room ” (100), on ce as “utterin g . . . little falsetto scream s” (184). Such in con sisten cies suggest that D uggan’s represen tation of Elagabalus is defin ed by the im peratives of popular con sum ption : the pervasive n otion that all hom osexual m ales are effem in ate n ecessitates the attribution of the occasion al fem in in e m an n erism to Elagabalus, if the em peror is to rem ain iden tifiable as such. D uggan’s en gagem en t with a popular audien ce also leads to a sim plified sexual n arrative for Elagabalus. U n able to recon cile the em peror’s histor y of relation s with both sexes an d the strict heterosexual/hom osexual dichotom y in m id-twen tieth-cen tur y sexual discourses, D uggan im poses a hom osexual iden tity on Elagabalus. An early N U G E N T —From Filt hy ‘C at amit e’ t o ‘Q ueer Icon’ 175 con versation between D uratius an d Elagabalus’s gran dm other Julia M aesa establishes that “it’s boys he likes, n ot girls” (117), an d the text dem on strates tim e an d again the fixed n ature of this preferen ce. Even a wrestlin g con test between two fem ale prostitutes, which Julia M aesa arran ges in an attem pt to in duce heterosexual desire in her gran dson , fails of its in ten ded result. The youth is m oved on ly to pity for the van quished party: “I was sorr y for poor Gun da, even though she looks so ugly: red bruises on a skin like the belly of a fish, an d that horrible fem ale softn ess that rem in ds m e of m y wetn urse. The silly girl seem ed to thin k I m ight wan t to caress her. Can you im agin e an ythin g m ore disgustin g? There’s a sm ell about wom en that turn s m y stom ach. . . . I shall n ever touch a wom an for m y own pleasure.” (122–3) Even tually, the m an ifest failure of Elagabalus’s first weddin g—a “sad, half-hearted affair” (188), after which the em peror aban don s his bride, Corn elia Paula, for a dual sam e-sex weddin g (189–93)—com pels Julia M aesa to con clude that Elagabalus’s hom osexuality is an un fortun ate, but im m utable, con dition : “[H ]e has n ever loved a wom an . I don’t kn ow what wen t wron g with him , but we m ust adm it that he will always prefer boys” (195). The n arrative bears out Julia M aesa’s prediction . Elagabalus dism isses both Corn elia Paula an d his secon d wife Aquilia Severa, the Vestal, still virgin s (217, 238), an d when , n ear the en d of the n ovel, Elagabalus does wed, from gen uin e affection , the m otherly An n ia Faustin a, D uratius abruptly addresses the reader thus: “You will n ote that his first n orm al love affair had m ade n o differen ce to the Em peror’s private life . . . , an d his affection for H ierocles [a m ale lover] was un im paired” (251). The perem ptor y rhetoric (“You will n ote”) an d the euphem istic, m ultivalen t lan guage (the phrase “private life” refers to Elagabalus’s im plicitly m ore deeply felt hom osexual attachm en ts) together con stitute a ten den tious—an d awkward—attem pt to m argin alize the em peror’s heterosexual “affair” as an in sign ifican t aberration .15 The awkwardn ess of D uggan’s efforts to accoun t for Elagabalus’s m arriage to An n ia Faustin a suggests the difficulty that an author attem ptin g to adhere to the historical record, as D uggan gen erally does in his n ovels, can en coun ter when im posin g a m id-twen tieth-cen tur y sexual iden tity upon the em peror: the an cien t sources con tain biographical data that resist in corporation in to such a schem a. D uggan addresses, but scarcely resolves, this difficulty by form ulatin g Elagabalus’s relation ship with 176 H ELI O S An n ia Faustin a as the exception that proves the rule: D uratius in sists that it “m akes n o differen ce.” D uggan’s determ in ation to im pose a con tem porar y hom osexual iden tity is especially m arked given that the author som etim es dem on strates fam iliarity with Rom an sexual ideologies—what sexual practices were con don ed, an d what cen sured.16 D uratius, for in stan ce, debates with Julia M aesa an d Elagabalus’s tutor Gan n ys whether Rom an s would deplore their em peror’s sexual relation ship with an older, dom in an t charioteer, should the affair becom e com m on kn owledge (132–3). D uggan thus gestures towards the prohibition again st a m an assum in g the receptive position durin g sexual in tercourse in Rom an ideologies of m asculin ity (W illiam s 1999, 18, 163). But these m om en ts, in their rarity, poin t up the fact that D uggan , as a m idtwen tieth-cen tur y n ovelist en gagin g with a gen eral public, chooses to con struct Elagabalus’s sexuality within the dom in an t bin ar y of con tem porar y sexual discourses. Certain ly, D uratius’s apologetics on Elagabalus’s behalf focus n ot upon the sexual roles that he plays, but upon the sex of the partn ers with whom he plays: “The Em peror’s private life was his own affair, an d it seem s ridiculous to m e to hold that it is m ore wicked to love boys than girls” (186). The rhetoric of this defen se in sists, m oreover, upon a “private life” that is Elagabalus’s “own affair”: whereas D uratius’s toleran ce for Elagabalus’s hom osexuality is qualified an d person al (“it seem s ridiculous to m e”), the em peror’s right to privacy is a given . This rhetoric owes som ethin g to n ascen t tren ds in ‘liberal’ thought regardin g hom osexual devian ce in 1950s Britain , as in stan tiated in the Wolfen den Report of 1957.17 This report recast the term s of the debate over hom osexuality by acceptin g psychological m odels of hom osexuality an d con ten din g that govern m en t’s purpose was n ot the regulation of private m ores, but the m ain ten an ce of public order (Weeks 1989, 242–3). Again st phobic con structs of sodom y as a vice or con tagion with a peculiar capacity to sap a society’s vitality, the report gave legitim acy to the argum en t that the sexual practices of m ale hom osexuals,18 as the expression of an un fortun ate con dition , should be regulated by the strictures of private m orality, n ot by the coercive force of state apparatus. The sam e kin d of thin kin g is eviden t in D uratius’s con ten tion that Elagabalus was n ot, ultim ately, a harm to society, because his sexual devian ce rem ain ed a private m atter: “[I]t was all at bottom harm less en ough. . . . H e hurt n obody, an d frighten ed n obody, an d did n ot throw away the taxpayers’ m on ey” (206). W hile it would be goin g too far to propose that these apologetics con stitute a polem ical in ten t such as in form ed the writin gs of som e authors in N U G E N T —From Filt hy ‘C at amit e’ t o ‘Q ueer Icon’ 177 the 1950s an d 1960s—on e thin ks im m ediately of M ar y Ren ault 19 —who drew upon Greco-Rom an an tiquity in an attem pt to en courage the readin g public towards a m ore sym pathetic un derstan din g of hom osexuality, it is clear that Family Favourites—this n aughty caprice of a n ovel— does, at least, register the begin n in gs of a cultural shift. C hild of t he Sun; o r, “N ever Trust a Filthy Catam ite. They’re U nstable” The secon d text is Kyle O n stott an d Lan ce H orn er’s Child of the S un. Published in 1966,20 this n ovel is a gay bodice-ripper from a pair of Am erican authors best kn own as con tributors to the Falcon hurst series.21 The Falcon hurst books—lurid potboilers set in the An tebellum South—were an en orm ous popular success for O n stott an d H orn er,22 an d the authors acquired a substan tial followin g am on g gay m en , because their n ovels, despite bein g orien ted prim arily towards a heterosexual readership, featured (in on e critic’s sum m ation ) “vivid an d abun dan t description s of m ale bodies an d gen italia” in addition to occasion al depiction s of hom osexual in tercourse (Bron ski 2003, 364–5). Perhaps in ten din g to parlay the success of the Falcon hurst books in to the em ergen t m arket for gay m ale fiction ,23 O n stott an d H orn er produced two n ovels with sign ifican t hom oerotic con ten t in the m id-1960s: R ogue R oman 24 an d—the m ost fan tastical of the pair—Child of the S un.25 M ore a porn ographic farrago than a work of historical fiction ,26 Child of the S un outstrips D io Cassius’s R oman H istory an d the H istoria Augusta in sheer erotic in ven tiven ess. This n ovel is n ot for the fain t of heart. But even pulp fiction perform s “cultural work” (Bergm an 1999, 26): Child of the S un em ploys Elagabalus as a figure in which con structs of the hom osexual as an irredeem able reprobate an d a com pulsive n eurotic can be un ited. The n ovel, in so doin g, draws upon an d gives support to psychoan alytic m odels of hom osexuality dom in an t in the m iddle decades of the twen tieth cen tur y, but it also departs from such discourses by suggestin g that the m ost extrem e m an ifestation s of hom osexual n euroticism —which it delin eates with relish— m ay be alleviated through the redem ptive power of ‘un con dition al’ sam esex love. O n stott an d H orn er follow D uggan in con structin g Elagabalus’s hom osexuality as an im m utable con dition , an d they explain away the em peror’s heterosexual m arriages as un con sum m ated arran gem en ts with various n on sexual ben efits (132, 205–7, 282, 294). O n stott an d H orn er represen t m ale hom osexuality as a m an ifestation of acute m isogyn y: like D uggan , 178 H ELI O S the authors depict Elagabalus as un able to abide the “sickly sm ell of wom an” (130), but the em peror’s aversion to wom en assum es a greater prom in en ce in this n ovel than it did in Family Favourites. Elagabalus is afflicted with such an extrem e horror of fem ale bodies that, even when he cedes that, as em peror, he m ust take a wife (a con clusion he reaches on ly after the court physician s explain that he can n ot produce an heir with H ierocles: 282), he is un able to stom ach the experien ce of in spectin g Rom an n oblewom en assem bled as can didates for m arriage: [A]m on g the carefully dressed an d bejewelled dam sels there was n ot a sin gle on e that in terested him —n ot a on e. They were either too large or too sm all, too fat or too thin , too blon d or too brun ette, an d . . . they were all girls. H e shuddered as he looked at them , tr yin g to picture him self in bed with on e of them . The ver y thought n auseated him so that he could n ot eat the verdan t oysters on his plate. (284) O n stott an d H orn er often set Elagabalus’s aversion to fem ale bodies again st his delight in fem in in e self-expression an d object choice. W hen , for in stan ce, Julia M aesa an d Soaem ias in troduce Corn elia Paula as a suitable con sort, the em peror in sists that she be rem oved from his presen ce, but n ot without also dem an din g three tim es that the m aiden’s am ethyst stola—which he pron oun ces a “gorgeous dress”—be con fiscated for his own wardrobe (130). The text draws atten tion to the em peror’s en thusiasm for all thin gs fem in in e as a way of prom otin g the idea that ever y queer m ale secretly desires to be a wom an . Elagabalus, in fact, con fesses as m uch: “That’s what I would like, dear Gan n ys, to be a girl” (71). (O n stott an d H orn er hew m ore closely to the historical sources than does D uggan in this respect.) O n stott an d H orn er, then , depart from D uggan’s represen tation of Elagabalus in that they m ake n o effort to den y or veil the em peror’s effem in acy. In stead, the authors fashion Elagabalus as a depraved effem in ate, elaboratin g upon tradition s of the em peror’s m uliebrity an d prodigious libido in order to rein force the cultural categor y of the m in cin g, whorin g queer. The text draws upon all the fam iliar stan dards from the an tigay repertoire, in troducin g Elagabalus as a figure at on ce bestial (he has “the felin e grace of the cheetah”) an d un n atural (his brows are “precisely plucked to an exact sym m etr y”: 5),27 an d describin g the em peror—in various n arratorial registers—as a “sn ivelin g sissy” (32), a “ridiculous little queen” (57), a “weird herm aphrodite” (57), an d a “sim perin g catam ite” (172). The authors, m oreover, depict Elagabalus’s desires as, in the m ost N U G E N T —From Filt hy ‘C at amit e’ t o ‘Q ueer Icon’ 179 literal sen se, legion : while residin g at Em esa, he beds ever y soldier un der the age of thirty in the local legion (61). N or does the text leave an y doubt about which sexual position Elagabalus prefers: the ver y first erotic scen e establishes that the em peror takes pleasure in bein g pen etrated (20). O n stott an d H orn er’s relian ce on psychoan alytic m odels of sexuality becom es apparen t early in Child of the S un, when the text im putes Elagabalus’s hom osexuality to the in fluen ce of a dom in eerin g an d possessive m other: “Soaem ias, the boy’s m other was determ in ed that n o other fem ale would ever have an y place in her son’s affection s, therefore Varius would n ever be perm itted to love a wom an” (8). An absen t father—Caracalla, in O n stott an d H orn er’s accoun t—also factors in to the developm en t of the em peror’s sexual iden tity. Elagabalus’s lon gin g for a father figure fin ds expression in an in cestuous fan tasy in volvin g a bust of Caracalla: “O n ce I fell in love with that bust,” the youth recalls, “an d ever y tim e I passed it, if n obody was lookin g, I kissed those cold m arble lips, wishin g that they could kiss m e back. I wan ted Caracalla. . . . Im agin e! Wan tin g to sleep with m y own father. Well, it would have been an experien ce. At least I’d have kn own what m ade m e” (52). O n stott an d H orn er devise for Elagabalus a person ality defin ed in large part by the m an y n euroticism s associated, in popular an d pseudoscien tific discourses, with hom osexuality. The followin g passage illustrates the com poun d of pathologies presen t in the em peror’s psyche: Again he turn ed an d viewed him self in the m irror. H e becam e N arcissus, in love with his reflection , an d after studyin g him self for several m om en ts, he lean ed forward to im plan t his lips on those reflected in the silver. “I look like a charioteer, dear Gan n ys.” H is fin ger traced the lin es of his cheek in the m irror. “O h, how han dsom e I am . An d I shall be a charioteer. In spite of all that m other says to the con trar y, I shall be on e. I shall drive for the Green s in Rom e because green is m y color.” (73) N arcissism ; the fetishizin g of “real” m en , like charioteers; the oddly in tim ate relation ship with his m other, again st whom Elagabalus here rebels— the em peror is a perfect in stan tiation of the hom ophobic theor y that the hom osexual is m erely a woun ded m ale. Elagabalus, m oreover, un dercuts whatever m asculin ity he does attain through his desire to becom e a charioteer with the flippan t—an d, it m ust be said, fabulously cam p—rem ark: “I shall drive for the Green s . . . because green is m y color.” But Child of the S un does offer Elagabalus at least the possibility of redem ption from perverse n euroticism , without m akin g that redem ption 180 H ELI O S con tin gen t on a ren un ciation of his hom osexual iden tity as such. The n ovel bein g a rom an ce, after all, this possibility takes the form of the han dsom e charioteer H ierocles, whose chariot crashes directly ben eath the im perial box in the Circus M axim us (135). The pair recogn ize in stan tly that they are soul m ates: “Were I n ot Caesar, H ierocles, an d were you n ot a slave, but we were sim ply two people, on e n ot bepurpled an d the other n ot beslaved, how would you address m e?” O pen -eyed, his gaze steady n ow, H ierocles con sidered the question for som e tim e without his eyes leavin g those that looked at him . O n ce or twice, his lips form ed soun dless words but n o voice gave them m ean in g. Tears appeared in the corn ers of his eyes an d rolled down his cheeks. W hen he did speak, he spoke with effort. “I would address you as beloved.” (143) The experien ce of true love causes Elagabalus to regret all of his previous dallian ces: H e saw the lon g, en dless procession of faceless bodies pass before him —bodies that he had used an d en joyed. . . . For the first tim e he regretted them —the slaves, the priests, the soldiers, the paragon s of m an hood whom he had caused to be assem bled so that he could prostitute him self. N ubian s, Egyptian s, Arabs, Syrian s, Sm yrn ian s, Greeks, Gauls, Briton s, Span iards, an d ever y other tribe an d n ation ality. . . . H e hun g his head to hide his sham e. (146) Even greater chan ge com es over Elagabalus when H ierocles, with the perspicacity en dowed by love alon e, discern s that the em peror’s n euroticism is the product of a loveless childhood, an d proceeds, in Elagabalus’s presen ce, to den oun ce Julia M aesa: “I kn ow that n obody has ever loved An ton in us for him self alon e. You n ever loved him , Augusta. To you he was a m ean s of power. H is m other n ever loved him . . . . N ow, Augusta, An ton in us has som eon e who loves him , som eon e who would die for him if he but ask. Perhaps you will see a n ew An ton in e.” (152–3) H ierocles’ prediction proves correct. The charioteer’s declaration of un con dition al love, in fact, in spires an im m ediate chan ge in Elagabalus, who thereafter strides through his apartm en ts “without his usual m in cin g N U G E N T —From Filt hy ‘C at amit e’ t o ‘Q ueer Icon’ 181 steps” (154). But the redem ption of Elagabalus—a ten tative an d n ot always straightforward process—begin s in earn est when the lovers aban don the im perial court for an isolated villa. D urin g this rustic in terlude, the em peror acquires for the first tim e a m asculin e aspect: There was a chan ge in the boy. H is face, bereft of pain t, his lon g locks trim m ed, his flowin g robes of silk exchan ged for a sim ple lin en tun ic, had chan ged his whole appearan ce. . . . [H ]is whole dem ean or was far rem oved from the sim perin g catam ite who had sold his favors in the baths an d the Suburra. . . . [N ]ow he was n o lon ger herm aphroditic in appearan ce. . . . H e lost som e of his m in cin g walk an d air y affectation s, an d was coarsen ed a bit by H ierocles’ m asculin ity. H is voice deepen ed an d lost its high-pitched querulousn ess. (172–3, 182) Back at Rom e, Elagabalus pursues this course of chan ge: m oved by H ierocles’ devotion in the afterm ath of a failed assassin ation attem pt, the em peror con cludes: “Perhaps it is tim e for m e to be a m an” (216). Such developm en ts are predicated upon the idea that an affair with a ‘real’ m an , foun ded upon ‘gen uin e’ love, m ay serve as a cure for the m ore flam boyan t m an ifestation s of hom osexual disorder. W ithout challen gin g discourses that con struct hom osexuality as a form of dam aged com pulsion , the text allows for the possibility that hom osexual relation s align ed with the ideology of heteron orm ative rom an ce m ay have am eliorative effects. But while this allowan ce m ay register an in cipien t rupturin g in the dom in an t discourses of hom ophobia, precursin g the gay liberation m ovem en t, Child of the S un forecloses en tirely the possibility that a queer m ale can be a stable an d productive m em ber of society. The chan ge in Elagabalus’s dem ean or turn s out to be im perm an en t—in an abrupt reversal, the text declares that his “good” behavior is a specious perform an ce (282)—an d the em peror’s in ability to regulate his libidin ous im pulses ultim ately precipitates his en d. (Both Elagabalus an d H ierocles die at the han ds of a tribun e whom the em peror assaults sexually.) If there is a m essage in the n ovel, it fin ds expression in a rem ark of Julia M aesa: “N ever trust a filthy catam ite. They’re un stable” (35). Indices o f Change: Bo o k Co vers The m arketin g of Family Favourites an d Child of the S un reflects an d exploits—n o less so than the n ovels’ con ten ts—popular attitudes towards hom osexuality in the early an d m id-1960s. Sin ce both n ovels wen t 182 H ELI O S through several prin tin gs over the en suin g decade, the covers of differen t edition s—design ed to appeal to the evolvin g sen sibilities of con sum ers— also provide an in dex for chan ge in the sexual cultures of Britain an d Am erica durin g the late 1960s an d early 1970s. A selection of five covers datin g from 1960 to 1973 will serve to dem on strate chan ges in publishers’ m arketin g strategies an d, by exten sion , the wider sexual cultures. The m arketin g of Family Favourites over tim e dem on strates a progression from defen sive obfuscation of the n ovel’s hom oerotic con ten t towards prom otion of the work as a “decaden t” com m odity. The cover of the British first edition (1960) was design ed to avoid offen din g a con servative public (see fig. 1). This cover depicts Elagabalus as a strappin g youth in arm or, flan ked by fem ale relation s an d m ale atten dan ts, in cludin g a hirsute D uratius. The em peror’s im m ature features, especially his large eyes, give an im pression m ore of boyish in n ocen ce than of effem in acy. The an drogyn e courtier stan din g on the left behin d Elagabalus provides the on ly in dication on the cover of the n ovel’s hom oerotic con ten t. (This figure represen ts the eun uch Gan n ys, but could easily be read as fem ale.) The syn opsis on the in side flap is m ore suggestive. It describes Elagabalus as “a m ost un usual an d in deed outrageous Em peror” an d “a m an’s m an in ever y sen se of the expression”—euphem ism s servin g to code the em peror as hom osexual. The con clusion of the syn opsis assum es a defen sive posture: “We are shown the an cien t Rom an s as they appeared to them selves. H oni soit qui mal y pense” (Sham e on him who thin ks evil of it). Cartoon ish m asculin ity, decorous hin tin g, an d defen sive posturin g—the cover suggests the delicacy with which an author, n ot to m en tion his an xious publisher, m ust approach the topic of hom osexuality durin g a tim e of m oral pan ic. N o such an xiety about the possibility of a disapprovin g reception registers in the cover of a British reprin t from 1973 (see fig. 2). Elagabalus appears on this cover ever y bit the effete hedon ist, restin g his head on his han d in an attitude of un checked boredom . Gon e is the defen siven ess from the syn opsis on the in side flap, although m uch of the text from the first edition has been retain ed. Sexual liberation has worked won ders. This cover of Family Favourites aim s to rouse in terest with the allure of decaden ce, the hin t of in iquity, the im age of an en ervated practition er of vice lollin g ben eath a gigan tic fan . The m arketin g of Child of the S un displays a sim ilar m ovem en t from strategic expression s of m oral sen tim en t towards opportun istic perm issivism . The cover of the British first edition (1966) seeks to balance an elem ent of decadence with m oral instruction in good m easure (see fig. 3). This cover represents Elagabalus as a sexual deviant, sporting green eye N U G E N T —From Filt hy ‘C at amit e’ t o ‘Q ueer Icon’ 183 shadow an d jewelr y. The em peror holds his han d ben eath his chin in an effem in ate gesture. In keepin g with this sen sation al im ager y, the syn opsis on the in side flap in troduces Child of the S un as a “big, lusty, vivid n ovel”; it proceeds, however, to explain that the work’s in ten t is to provide a portrait of “weakn ess an d stren gth” by delin eatin g both the “evil in fluen ces which shaped [Elagabalus’s] life from childhood” an d the em peror’s “en richin g frien dship with the youn g H ierocles.” (The precise n ature of Elagabalus’s “frien dship” with H ierocles is left for the reader to in fer.) The cover of the British paperback edition (1968) likewise asserts the n ovel’s m oral value. The fron t cover reproduces—in slightly m odified form —the im age from the first edition , but the lan guage of the syn opsis on the back cover is stron gly cen sorious. After den oun cin g Elagabalus as “degen erate . . . effem in ate . . . licen tious . . . cruel,” the syn opsis goes on to quote a review suggestin g that Child of the S un has an edifying purpose: the n ovel is said to offer “lesson s in licen tiousn ess . . . a study of im m orality an d its effects on a civilization .”28 The cover of the Am erican paperback edition (1972), featurin g artwork by the erotic fan tasist Fran k Frazetta, provides an arrestin g con trast (see fig. 4). The im age on the fron t cover— a m uscled charioteer in a red loin cloth posin g before a m ature Elagabalus—is overtly hom oerotic. The back cover, which reproduces the figure of the charioteer, plays up the n ovel’s sexual con ten t. The syn opsis below the im age takes a sen sation al approach: it in dicates Elagabalus’s hom osexuality (“Varius spurn ed wom en . H is erotic lon gin gs searched out a ver y differen t kin d of love”) an d prom ises tales of “perverted passion s” from which “even the voluptuaries of Rom e recoiled in horror.” The release of Child of the S un in such a cover represen ts an attem pt on the part of its publishers to capitalize on the m arket for gay m ale fiction that em erged alon g with the gay liberation m ovem en t in the early 1970s.29 Elagabalus; o r, “Yo u Press To o H ard against the Bo undaries o f Fo rm ” The last of the three texts is M artin D uberm an’s play Elagabalus. Staged in 1973, at a N ew D ram atists workshop in N ew York,30 an d published two years later in the collection M ale Armor, Elagabalus dates from a tim e of psychic turm oil an d in tellectual ferm en t in the life of its author,31 an Am erican historian an d gay rights activist. (D uberm an is curren tly D istin guished Professor of H istor y Em eritus at the City U n iversity of N ew York’s Lehm an College an d Graduate School.) D uberm an has described the early 1970s as a period durin g which he was “treadin g water” (1991, 184 H ELI O S 271) in his struggle to accept his hom osexuality. D espite com in g out—in prin t—as a gay m an in 1972,32 he was un able to relin quish old habits of self-hatred an d rem ain ed alien ated from the n ascen t gay liberation m ovem en t.33 D uberm an , in fact, harbored grave m isgivin gs about the certitudes with which m an y gay activists approached the project of sexual liberation , an d he was con cern ed that com in g out m ight prove to be a self-lim itin g gesture.34 Con flicted an d isolated, D uberm an turn ed to the theater as a vehicle through which he could process person al an xieties an d in tellectual problem s related to his sexual iden tity: “In ven tin g gay characters, an d puttin g words in their m ouths,” he explain s, “allowed m e to begin the slow process of com in g out” (1991, 128). In his plays, the author labored above all to defin e an d challen ge the social con strain ts that regulate expression s of gen der an d sexuality am on g m en —what D uberm an term s “m ale arm or” (1975, xii).35 D irected at an audien ce strugglin g again st oppressive paradigm s of gen der an d sexuality, Elagabalus is an in ten sely person al36 challen ge to tren ds in the gay liberation m ovem en t an d a m editation on the usefuln ess of the past as an in strum en t for rem akin g the presen t. The play is con cern ed with a privileged youn g socialite, Adrian ,37 whose refusal to act out the tradition al scripts of m asculin ity an d heterosexuality jeopardizes his fam ily’s political am bition s. Ever un predictable, Adrian resists easy categorization . H e is flam boyan t an d in clin ed towards cam p, but avoids an y “trace in voice or gesture of what is called ‘effem in acy’” (281).38 Adrian , furtherm ore, does n ot assign him self a sexual iden tity, an d en gages in flirtatious ban ter with both the stable han d D an n y an d his Latin a m aid Faustin a. The youth’s disin clin ation to iden tify him self as either hom osexual or heterosexual reflects D uberm an’s own theoretical am bivalen ce about the dom in an t bin ar y of twen tiethcen tur y sexual discourses an d his attraction , durin g the early 1970s, to the idea that “bisexuality m ight be the ideal stan dard again st which a ‘healthy’ sexuality should be m easured” (1991, 210). For D uberm an , however, bisexuality was m ore a theoretical stan ce than an actual practice (1991, 211), an d this discon n ect between in tellectual position an d lived experien ce com es through in the play: Adrian m ay praise Faustin a’s “m ature vagin a” (295), but he has sex with D an n y. The bisexual D an n y is him self skeptical about Adrian’s purported in terest in wom en : “Ya in to chicks at all?” he asks, suggestin g that the true an swer is n egative (294). Adrian’s am biguous self-presen tation is in ten ded as a m ode of rebellion . “That’s what upsets people: diversity of taste,” he rem arks to his fam ily’s physician , D r. An scom be (311). Adrian en gages in a con stan t N U G E N T —From Filt hy ‘C at amit e’ t o ‘Q ueer Icon’ 185 struggle again st rigid categorization s of sexual experien ce an d con ven tion al lim its on self-expression . Referrin g figuratively to the restrictive society in which he m oves as “Rom e,” he decides that “on e can n ot com bat Rom e by becom in g Rom e” (325). Sin ce the youth recogn izes that the established order has an in sidious aptitude for co-optin g to its own purposes the m an ifold devices of resistan ce, he is un sure “how to grieve, or fin d relief from it. To fight Rom e—an d n ot becom e Rom e” (326). Fum blin g towards liberation , this self-described “true searcher” (340) hits upon a n ovel stratagem : Adrian determ in es to free him self from the strictures of gen der an d sexuality by fashion in g him self as a m odern -day Elagabalus, adoptin g the person a of the em peror an d em ulatin g his public sexual tran sgression s. W ith deran ged repartee an d osten tatious costum es, Adrian sets out to provoke both fam ily an d frien ds. W hen the youth en coun ters adverse reaction s, he retreats in to a m an ic reverie, speakin g as though he really were Elagabalus an d addressin g the m em bers of his fam ily by the n am es of the em peror’s relation s (e.g., his gran dm other Julia as “Augusta M aesa” [284])—a defen sive m echan ism that proves especially frustratin g to others. Adrian’s m other, Selen a, discern s the true in ten t of her son’s teasin g charade: “It’s a calculated con ceit. The boy wan ts m ore than on e life” (300), but m ost of the youth’s relation s respon d to his eccen tric perform an ce with rage. Julia takes particular um brage at his an tics, which she views as “delusion s” (300) with the poten tial to dam age the fam ily’s reputation : AD RIAN : M y n ature is prodigal. JU LIA: Your ban kers agree. You m ust give up the stables. They sen t m e to tell you. They seem to thin k I still have in fluen ce with you. I told them they were quite m istaken . Besides, it is your con duct, n ot your fun ds, that con cern s m e. N ow that you are of age, your m on ey is your own —an d you can waste on ly your own . But the fam ily n am e is a join t possession . Besm irch it, an d you ruin others besides yourself. AD RIAN : But what is it I do, Gran’m ère, that causes so m uch dism ay? I like to ride horses. An d dan ce. JU LIA: You press too hard again st the boun daries of form . (287) As Adrian strives to escape rigid codes of m asculin ity an d sexuality, he en ds up exposin g him self to the ver y m odes of hom ophobic oppression that he sought to escape. Ten sion s between Adrian an d his fam ily com e to the fore when he decides that, followin g Elagabalus’s exam ple, he will 186 H ELI O S m arr y both a wom an an d a m an : Faustin a an d D an n y. W hen Julia learn s of the public celebration s that Adrian plan s, she determ in es that the tim e has com e to put an en d to Adrian’s un con ven tion al behavior—to put an en d to Adrian. Sen sin g im m an en t dan ger, Adrian chooses self-im m olation , but on his own term s, com m ittin g suicide in spectacular fashion at a gala that he has arran ged. Aware that his suicide will be a public relation s disaster for his fam ily, he rem arks with bitter iron y to Julia: “The results will be ever ythin g you wish. The process ever ythin g I wish” (346). Adrian’s suicide thus represen ts an act of defian ce again st those who would com pel him to stay within “the boun daries of form .” Before en din g his life, m oreover, the youth gives a speech about the destruction of Carthage: “Rom an soldiers plowed an d sowed the soil with salt, an d laid a form al curse on an y m an who should build upon the site. . . . Today Tun is m arks the origin al site. But there’s a Carthage in M issouri” (350). Adrian takes up again the figurative description of an oppressive society as “Rom e,” an d, fashion in g him self as Carthage, observes that, although Rom e did ultim ately obliterate her an cien t foe, epon ym ous cities have been foun ded in subsequen t ages. If Adrian’s stratagem for self-liberation does n ot provide success, it does n ot result en tirely in defeat, either; for as his fin al words im ply, there rem ain s always the possibility that som eon e else, perhaps adoptin g m odes of resistan ce other than those he has devised, will succeed. D uberm an’s Elagabalus, then , explores the ten sion s between the free— an d, in Adrian’s case, often ludic—expression of person al sexual iden tity an d the expectation s of (high) society. It dram atizes, m oreover, the difficulties an d dan gers of articulatin g resistan ce to heterosexual m asculin ity, of m ovin g beyon d “m ale arm or.” Elagabalus explores the self-em powerin g an d self-destructive con sequen ces of a fluid sexual iden tity, an d in terrogates the usefuln ess of iden tifyin g an d em ulatin g historical figures who did n ot adhere to form s of sexual self-expression orthodox in their own tim e for those “m ovin g toward an un-arm ored territor y” (D uberm an 1975, xiv). The figure of Elagabalus stan ds, within the text, as a paradigm for action ; but he is also a caution ar y exam ple, an d the play can be viewed as a m editation on the peril an d prom ise in heren t in the project of appropriatin g historical figures as sites of resistan ce to dom in an t discourses of sexuality. Elagabalus con cludes that such acts of appropriation are, ultim ately, in adequate for the com plex process of liberation , a poin t that Adrian suggests when he rem arks: “W hat’s past is past. O n e should n ever look back—except in hon est em ulation . W hich of course presum es an hon est em ulator” (339). N U G E N T —From Filt hy ‘C at amit e’ t o ‘Q ueer Icon’ 187 Fro m ‘Filthy Catam ite’ to ‘Queer Ico n’ There is a sign ifican t divide separatin g the n ovels of D uggan an d O n stott an d H orn er from D uberm an’s play. W ith the adven t of the gay liberation m ovem en t, it becam e possible for Elagabalus to play a role in an explicit an d fully realized, even if failed, attem pt at liberation . The ‘filthy catam ite’ cam e out as a ‘queer icon’ (in the fabulous sen se of the phrase). But the recogn ition that there was, between Family Favourites an d Elagabalus, a sign ifican t progression does n ot im ply a sim plistic teleology, in which Elagabalus cam e to be rescued irrevocably from hom ophobic cen sure an d adopted as an em blem of sexual freedom . Q ueer icon s are n othin g if n ot m alleable, an d com petin g ideological deploym en ts of the em peror can coexist with discon certin g ease in a sin gle cultural m om en t. For this reason , even if, as D uberm an suggests, there are problem s with attem pts to en list Elagabalus as a fellow soldier in the cause, it is n ecessar y at least to im agin e what he can do. The altern ative is worse.39 N o tes 1. This description of Elagabalus com es from Joris-Karl H uysm an s’ decaden t m asterpiece À rebours (Again st N ature). I quote Robert Baldick’s tran slation . The Fren ch text (as established by Grolleau) reads: “[M ]archan t dan s de la poudre d’argen t et du sable d’or, la tête cein te d’un e tiare, les vêtem en ts brochés de pierreries, Élagabal travaillait, au m ilieu de ses eun uques, à des ouvrages de fem m es, se faisait appeler Im pératrice et chan geait, toutes les n uits, d’Em pereur, l’élisan t de préféren ce parm i les barbiers, les gâte-sauce, et les cochers de cirque” (1929, 50). 2. O rien tal aspect an d habits: D io Cassius 80(79).11.1–2; H erodian 5: 3.6, 3.8, 5.4–5, 6.9; SH A, H eliogab. 23.3, 26.1. Extravagan ce: D io Cassius 80(79).9.1–2; H erodian 5: 5.3–4, 6.9; SH A, H eliogab. 19.1–9, 20.4–21.7, 23.1, 23.3–24.6, 26.1, 27.6, 28.6–29.1, 30.2–7, 31.1–5, 31.8–32.5, 33.3–6. Religious fan aticism : D io Cassius 80(79).11.1–12.1; H erodian 5: 5.3, 5.6–6.1, 6.3–9; SH A, H eliogab. 1.6, 3.4–5, 6.6–7.5, 8.1–2, 24.7. 3. Effem in acy: D io Cassius 80(79): 5.5, 9.1, 14.3–4, 16.4; H erodian 5: 5.5, 6.10, 8.1; SH A, H eliogab. 23.5, 31.7. O pposite-sex m arriages: D io Cassius 80(79): 5.4–5, 9.1–4, 13.1; H erodian 5.6.1–2; SH A, H eliogab. 6.6. Sam e-sex m arriage: D io Cassius 80(79): 5.5, 14.1, 14.4–15.4; SH A, H eliogab. 10.2–5. D io Cassius an d the author of the H istoria Augusta provide differen t n am es for Elagabalus’s husban d: D io Cassius, H ierocles; SH A, Zoticus. Sexual predilection s: D io Cassius 80(79): 13.2–4, 16.1–6; SH A, H eliogab. 5.1–3, 6.4–5, 8.6–7, 33.1. Sex chan ge operation : D io Cassius 80(79).16.7. 4. N on e of the sources are un problem atic, although D io Cassius’s an d H erodian’s accoun ts have, at least, the virtue of bein g con tem porar y. Sym e (1971, 2) fam ously dism isses the Elagabalus n arrative in the H istoria Augusta as a “farrago of cheap porn ography.” It is worth n otin g that the H istoria Augusta itself expresses skepticism about the 188 H ELI O S credibility of the m ore outrageous charges again st Elagabalus that it records (30.8). Arguin g for the literar y design of the Elagabalus book in the H istoria Augusta, M ader describes the em peror as a “topos run am ok” (2005, 151)—a phrase also descriptive of Elagabalus’s postclassical reception. 5. Elagabalus’s gastron om ical extravagan ces are a source of acute con cern in the H istoria Augusta: H eliogab. 19.4–6, 20.5–7, 21.3–4, 23.8–24.1, 30.2–6, 32.4. The ten den cy to attribute Elagabalus’s dem ise to outrage over the em peror’s gen der an d sexual ‘devian ce’ does have a basis in the historical sources: D io Cassius 80(79).17.1 an d H erodian 5.8.1. Early m odern accoun ts of Elagabalus’s reign developed this idea by associatin g the em peror’s sexual ‘devian cy’ with societal declin e; see, e.g., Gibbon 1776 an d Chaussard 1802. Such argum en ts con tin ue to be in fluen tial: con tem porar y reaction aries often advan ce the claim that hom osexuality or gay m arriage ‘caused’ the declin e of the Rom an Em pire. 6. The iden tification of Elagabalus as “tran sgen dered” or “tran ssexual”—based on D io Cassius 80(79).16.7—is especially com m on on the in tern et. The website eTran sgen der, for in stan ce, describes Elagabalus as “on e of the m ost prom in en t an d cultivated tran ssexual wom en of an tiquity” < http://etran sgen der.com /viewtopic.php?f= 9& t = 371> , accessed 29 M ay 2008. “The U n told H istor y of Elagabalus,” an on lin e essay by Laura D arlen e Lan sberr y, states: “If an y facet of the historical description s are [sic] in the least accurate, Avitus was what we to day have term ed transsexual” (bold in origin al) < http://www.aztriad.com /elagabal.htm l> , accessed 29 M ay 2008. 7. The British publisher of Family Favourites was Faber an d Faber; the Am erican , Pan theon Books. Citation s in this article refer to the Faber an d Faber edition . 8. For biographical in form ation on Alfred D uggan , see the obituar y that Evelyn Waugh (1983) delivered over the BBC an d subsequen tly published in T he S pectator. Q uen n ell (1976, 121–2) provides a lively portrait of the youn g D uggan at O xford. See also D erbyshire 2005. 9. Sin ce D uggan rem ain ed a private figure durin g his years as a n ovelist—preferrin g the com pan y of his wife an d a few in tim ates, he avoided the publicity that ordin arily atten ds a successful career in letters (Waugh 1983, 626–7)—it is difficult to determ in e what drew the author to Elagabalus. 10. N otable reviews in clude: Phoebe Adam s, for T he Atlantic (April 1961, 119); An on ym ous, for T he N ew Yorker (18 Februar y 1961, 138); H arold Beaver, for T he Times Literary S upplement (14 O ctober 1960, 657); D udley Fitts, for T he N ew York Times Book R eview (5 Februar y 1961, 4); an d Carolyn M athiasen , for T he W ashington Post (12 Februar y 1961, E.7). 11. Am erican critics seem to have been m ore willin g to view Family Favourites as a n aughty caprice. In a review for T he Atlantic (April 1961), for exam ple, Phoebe Adam s described the n ovel as an “am usin g” depiction of “the m ost am iable pervert . . . am on g the m an y oddities that graced the Rom an purple.” In a review for T he N ew York Times Book R eview (5 Februar y 1961), D udley Fitts seem s likewise en tertain ed: “This is n ot the Elagabalus that you an d I wen t to school with, but n o m atter. It’s refreshin g to have som eon e m ake thin gs less bad than they probably were.” Yet Fitts wrote, too, that D uggan deserved praise especially for approachin g the figure of Elagabalus (“n ot . . . a prom isin g subject”) with great discretion : “The best thin g about M r. D uggan’s fiction al recon struction is the restrain t with which the job has been han dled. The tem ptation to go CO LO SSAL! SU PERB!! D ECLIN E AN D FALL W ITH D ECAD EN T RO M E!! N U G E N T —From Filt hy ‘C at amit e’ t o ‘Q ueer Icon’ 189 O RGY W ITH TH E O RGIES!! m ust have been alm ost irresistible; but M r. D uggan has resisted.” 12. Jeffer y-Poulter (1991, 8–67) an d Weeks (1989, 239–41) docum en t the British m oral pan ic over m ale hom osexuality in the 1950s an d 1960s. 13. Critical praise for D uggan’s restrain ed depiction of Elagabalus (e.g., Fitts 1961) attests to the acuity of his in stin cts in this respect. See above, n ote 11. 14. It is im portan t to add that the reclam ation of Elagabalus’s m asculin ity is form ulated in racist term s: the boys’ effem in acy poin ts up an orien tal in ability to “thin k straight,” but Elagabalus—with his “golden curls” an d “violet eyes”—does n ot, in D uratius’s estim ation , “resem ble a feeble orien tal” (73). 15. The un usual secon d-person address in this passage suggests D uggan’s awaren ess that Elagabalus’s m arriage to An n ia Faustin a poses a particular challen ge to the sexual n arrative that he has con structed for the em peror: political pressure an d religious m otivation do n ot adequately explain why Elagabalus would en ter in to this relation ship, as they did in previous in stan ces (183, 228–30), given that, in D uratius’s words, “[H e] could n ot have chosen an yon e less suitable” (248). The author has a ten den cy to apostrophize the reader when exigen cies of n arrative result, as here, in in coheren ce or im plausibility. The open in g sen ten ce of the n ovel supplies an other exam ple: “You m ay thin k it odd that a m ere Praetorian can write easily en ough to com pose his m em oirs; in gen eral we are a rough lot” (11). 16. See Skin n er 2005, 192–282 an d W illiam s 1999, with further bibliography. 17. O n the Wolfen den Report an d its im pact, see Jeffer y-Poulter 1991, 28–46 an d Weeks 1989, 241–4. 18. Lesbian ism seem s n ot to have served to the sam e exten t as a focal poin t for the m oral pan ic of the 1950s an d 1960s (Weeks 1989, 240). British crim in al codes did n ot regulate lesbian sexual activity (Jeffer y-Poulter 1991, 3; Weeks 1989, 99, 105–6). 19. Sweetm an (1993, xii-iii, 146–8) discusses Ren ault’s treatm en t of hom osexuality in her fiction . 20. The British publisher W. H . Allen an d Co. released the first edition of Child of the S un. In Britain , Pan Books Ltd. published a paperback edition in 1968. In Am erica, Fawcett Publication s, In c., released a paperback edition un der the Gold M edal Books im prin t on ly in 1972. Citation s in this article refer to the Fawcett Gold M edal Books edition . 21. M axa (1975, 20) provides a brief biography of Kyle O n stott in a W ashington Post article on the Falcon hurst phen om en on . The reporter describes O n stott as an eccen tric bachelor “n ot particularly fon d of fem ale com pan ion ship.” It has proved m ore difficult to obtain a biography for Lan ce H orn er. The author’s n am e suggests a pseudon ym . 22. By the m id-1970s, the Falcon hurst series had attain ed sales of 16,000,000 (M axa 1975, 21). Two of O n stott’s con tribution s to the series, M andingo (1957) an d D rum (1962), were successful en ough to in spire film adaptation s, in 1975 an d 1976, respectively. 23. Str yker (2001, 107) observes a sign ifican t growth in the gay m ale paperback m arket from 1965 on wards: she coun ts 30 such volum es datin g to 1965, an d an other 100 to 1966. Str yker bases her statistics on the catalogue of erotic gay paperbacks com piled in N orm an 1994. M iller (1997, 53–66) provides a catalogue of m ain stream gay paperbacks. 24. H orn er’s R ogue R oman (1965) gives the im pression of bein g a test as to whether 190 H ELI O S the author’s readership, n ot to m en tion the authorities, would be receptive to m ore prom in en t hom oerotic con ten t: the n ovel’s heterosexual protagon ist has a gay sidekick, an d it features several hom oerotic scen es, although n on e com pares with its heteroerotic scen es in term s of explicitn ess. 25. This m ovem en t in to the gay fiction m arket was profitable: R ogue R oman an d Child of the S un appear to have been popular successes (Bron ski 2003, 364). 26. Child of the S un thus reflects the ten den cy for gay m ale paperbacks published after 1965 to dispen se with literar y preten ses in favor of sim ple “sexual wish-fulfillm en t” (Str yker 2001, 109). O n stott m ade n o claim to literar y aspiration s: he refused to edit drafts of his n ovels, which he described as “vom it” (M axa 1975, 20). 27. In represen tin g Elagabalus as both bestial an d un n atural, the text dem on strates the way that hom ophobic discourses can occupy, sim ultan eously an d seem in gly without con tradiction , logically in coheren t position s. H alperin (1995, 33) delin eates this dyn am ic as follows: “H om ophobic discourses con tain n o fixed proposition al con ten t. They are com posed of a poten tially in fin ite n um ber of differen t but fun ction ally in terchan geable assertion s, such that when ever an y on e assertion is falsified or disqualified an other on e—even on e with a con ten t exactly con trar y to the origin al on e—can be n eatly an d effectively substituted for it.” Also (34), “H om ophobic discourses are in coheren t, then , but their in coheren ce, far from in capacitatin g them , turn s out to em power them . In fact, hom ophobic discourses operate strategically by means of logical con tradiction s.” 28. The cover attributes this in terpretation of the n ovel to a review for the O ldham Evening Chronicle. I have been un able to obtain the full text of the review. 29. O n the growth of the gay m ale fiction m arket begin n in g in 1965, see above, n ote 23. The em ergen ce of a substan tial m arket for gay m ale fiction in the early 1970s was sudden en ough to surprise even established practition ers of the gen re. For exam ple, Sweetm an (1993, 272–3) reports that M ar y Ren ault, who had been writin g n ovels featurin g affairs between m en sin ce the early 1950s, was aston ished by the im m ediate, en orm ous success of T he Persian Boy upon publication in 1972. 30. D uberm an (1996, 112–4) has discussed the difficult circum stan ces surroun din g this production . Workin g within severe con strain ts of budget an d tim e, the playwright staged, in N ovem ber, “five very ragged perform an ces” (114). An audio recordin g of the N ovem ber 4 perform an ce resides in the holdin gs of The N ew York Public Librar y (H um an ities an d Social Scien ces Librar y, M an uscripts an d Archives D ivision , “M artin B. D uberm an Papers, 1917–1997,” cassettes 02808–02809). (I have been un able to access this recordin g.) D uberm an con sidered the N ew D ram atists production to be an un m itigated catastrophe: “N ot even off-off-Broadway beckon ed. N ot even m y frien ds were en couragin g” (1996, 114). The playwright revised Elagabalus for publication in M ale Armor (1975, 280; 1996, 118). 31. D uberm an has delin eated his person al an d in tellectual developm en t durin g the early 1970s in a pair of com pellin g autobiographies (1991, 158–301; 1996, 17–26, 49–67). 32. D uberm an cam e out in a volum e on Black M oun tain College (1972a, 227) an d in a N ew York Times article on “H om osexual Literature” (1972b, 6, 28). D uberm an (1991, 223–4, 257–66) recoun ts the em otion al processes behin d his decision to com e out an d surveys the respon ses (for the m ost part, n egative) to this act of public disclosure. N U G E N T —From Filt hy ‘C at amit e’ t o ‘Q ueer Icon’ 191 33. In a diar y en tr y from 1971, for exam ple, D uberm an (1991, 212) writes: “Ever sin ce the Gay Liberation Fron t em erged an d I’ve thought about tr yin g to tie in with it in som e way, I’ve been paralyzed by am biguity. W hat it seem s to com e down to is that I’ve in tern alized for so lon g the social defin ition of hom osexuality as a pathology an d curse that I’m un able to em brace a differen t view, though I’d desperately like to.” O f his em otion al state at this tim e, D uberm an (1991, 160) observes in retrospect: “I was less afraid of exposure (I was, after all, exposin g m yself in m y plays) than of givin g up a fam iliar way of thin kin g about m yself.” 34. In his N ew York Times literature review, D uberm an (1972b, 29) expressed a con cern that the gay liberation m ovem en t m ight succum b to “the tem ptation (spawn ed by the desire for quick self-con firm ation ) to replace an older set of m yths about sexuality with a n ew set.” After com in g out, D uberm an began to question whether self-iden tification was an act of self-liberation . Troubled by a rem ark that Carlos Castan eda (1991, 260) m ade durin g an in terview with Psychology Today (“The m ore you are kn own an d iden tified, the m ore your freedom is curtailed. W hen people have defin ite ideas about who you are, an d how you will act, then you can’t m ove”) an d un certain about the best course of action , he resisted further affiliation with the gay liberation m ovem en t: “H avin g already, in com in g out, given the straight world an opportun ity to label an d m in im ize m e,” he recalls, “I was reluctan t to let the gay m ovem en t accelerate that process” (1991, 271). 35. D uberm an (1975, xii) defin es “m ale arm or” as “the devices we use (which then use us) to protect ourselves from our own en ergy, an d especially from our sexual en ergy: the strategies that help us grow a skin —an d then keep us in it.” 36. Elagabalus seem s alm ost to in vite biographical readin gs. D uberm an , for in stan ce, n am es the character of D an n y, the protagon ist Adrian’s lover, after a youn g tough with whom he had been in volved in a turbulen t relation ship durin g the years prior to writin g the play (1991, 218–22, 224–9, 240–1, 246–7, 253–6). D uberm an (1991, 213) reports that on e frien d, after atten din g a perform an ce of an other play datin g to the sam e period (Payments, also published in M ale Armor), rebuked the playwright for “n eedlessly trivializin g [him self] through thin ly disguised public con fession .” 37. The n am e Adrian is surely in ten ded to evoke an other “gay” em peror: H adrian . 38. This description of Adrian com es from Elagabalus’s “List of Characters.” D uberm an (1975, xiii) rem arks in the “In troduction” to M ale Armor that Adrian’s selfpresen tation “derives from the n ewest social dicta about the n ecessity for an drogyn y.” 39. This article has ben efited from the atten tion of those presen t at a U n iversity of Victoria sem in ar, in N ovem ber 2006, an d at the Lam bda Classical Caucus pan el “Q ueer Icon s from Greece an d Rom e,” held durin g the APA an n ual m eetin g in Jan uar y 2007. M y than ks are due to all who com m en ted on those occasion s. I owe a particular debt of gratitude to Ruby Blon dell, the organ izer of the Lam bda Classical Caucus pan el an d editor of the presen t volum e. This article is dedicated to Ben jam in Crotty an d Yurie H on g: optimi comites. Wo rks Cited Adam s, P. 1961. “Potpourri.” T he Atlantic April: 119. Beaver, H . 1960. “Eccen tricities of Elagabalus.” T he Times Literary S upplement O ctober 14: 657. 192 H ELI O S Bergm an , D . 1999. “The Cultural Work of Sixties Gay Pulp Fiction .” In P. J. Sm ith, ed., T he Queer S ixties. N ew York. 26–41. Bron ski, M . 2003. Pulp Friction: U ncovering the Golden Age of Gay M ale Pulps. N ew York. Chaussard, P. J. B. 1802. H éliogabale, ou Esquisse morale de la dissolution romaine sous les empereurs. Paris. Cohen , S. 1972. Folk D evils and M oral Panics: T he Creation of the M ods and R ockers. N ew York. D erbyshire, J. 2005. “Alfred D uggan’s Past.” T he N ew Criterion Februar y: 28–33. D uberm an , M . 1972a. Black M ountain: An Exploration in Community. N ew York. ———. 1972b. “H om osexual Literature.” T he N ew York Times Book R eview 10 D ecem ber: 6–7, 28–9. ———. 1975. “Elagabalus.” In M . D uberm an , M ale Armor: S elected Plays, 1968–1974. N ew York. 279–352. ———. 1991. Cures: A Gay M an’s Odyssey. N ew York. ———. 1996. M idlife Queer: Autobiography of a D ecade, 1971–1981. N ew York. D uggan , A. 1960. Family Favourites. Lon don . Fitts, D . 1961. “A Kin d of N ero the Kid.” T he N ew York Times Book R eview 5 Februar y: 4. Gibbon , E. 1776. T he H istory of the D ecline and Fall of the R oman Empire. Vol. 1 of 12. Lon don . H alperin , D . M . 1995. S aint Foucault: Towards a Gay H agiography. N ew York. H uysm an s, J.-K. 1959. Against N ature. En glish tran slation by R. Baldick. Lon don . (O rigin ally published as À rebours [Paris 1884]) Jeffer y-Poulter, S. 1991. Peers, Queers, and Commons: T he S truggle for Gay Law R eform from 1950 to the Present. Lon don . M ader, G. 2005. “H istor y as Carn ival, or M ethod an d M adn ess in the V ita H eliogabali.” CA 24.1: 131–72. M axa, R. 1975. “The M aster of M an din go.” T he W ashington Post 13 July: 20–2. M iller, L. 1997. “The ‘Golden Age’ of Gay an d Lesbian Literature in M ain stream M ass-M arket Paperbacks.” Paperback Parade 47: 37–66. N orm an , T. 1994. American Gay Erotic Paperbacks: A Bibliography. Burban k, CA. O n stott, K., an d L. H orn er. 1966. Child of the S un. Green wich, CT. Q uen n ell, P. 1976. T he M arble Foot: An Autobiography, 1905–1938. Lon don . Skin n er, M . B. 2005. S exuality in Greek and R oman Culture. M alden , M A. Str yker, S. 2001. Queer Pulp: Perverted Passions from the Golden Age of the Paperback. San Fran cisco. Sweetm an , D . 1993. M ary R enault: A Biography. N ew York. Sym e, R. 1971. Emperors and Biography: S tudies in the H istoria Augusta. O xford. Waugh, E. 1983. “Alfred D uggan .” In D . Gallagher, ed., T he Essays, Articles and R eviews of Evelyn W augh. Lon don . 625–8. Weeks, J. 1989. S ex, Politics, and S ociety: T he R egulation of S exuality since 1800. 2d ed. N ew York. W illiam s, C. A. 1999. R oman H omosexuality: Ideologies of M asculinity in Classical Antiquity. N ew York. Figure 1. Fam ily Favourites: British First Edition (1960) Figure 2. Fam ily Favourites: British R eprint (1973) Figure 3. Child of the Sun : British First Edition (1966) Figure 4. Child of the Sun : American Paperback Edition (1972)