Κίναιδος/cinaedus is a term used both in Greek and Latin sources for a figure most commonly noted for his effeminate gender display and sexual degeneracy whether expressed through a willingness to be anally penetrated or as a more general insatiability1. Several scholars writing on the kinaidos/cinaedus have invoked this ‘deviant’ figure as the antithesis of acceptable ancient masculinity, the antitype of either the Athenian hoplite or the Roman sodalis2. Thus looking towards classical Greece John Winkler revealed the power which the figure of the kinaidos occupied in the Athenian imaginary when it came to socially acceptable displays of masculinity. Whilst doing so he also called into question the existence of such individuals by saying: ‘it is quite another question whether outside of the amusing or vituperative arenas of discourse where the image of the kinaidos is found there were any real-life kinaidoi’3. In examining the evidence for cinaedi at Rome Amy Richlin likewise questioned how such individuals’ actual lives can be accurately understood when ‘a historian might doubt their very existence, attested as it is only by hostile sources’4. And whereas in the literary texts from Athens and Rome, as both Winkler and Richlin point out, mentions of the kinaidos/cinaedus are of a pejorative nature, outside of these ancient cultural centers there are mentions of ‘real-life’ men who do identify and are identified as kinaidoi in more neutral terms.
At least one pair of individuals in antiquity did consider themselves to be kinaidoi and inscribed their names as such at the temple of the goddess Isis on the island of Philae in the first century BCE:
Τρύφων δίς, [θ̣]εοῦ κίναιδος ἥκ[ω] παρὰ τὴν Ἶσιν τὴν ἐν̣ Φ̣[ίλ]αις· (ἔτους) λε̣ʹ, Θα̣ὺθ ια̣ʹ.
Στρούθειν ὁ κίναιδος ἥκω μετ<ὰ> Νικολάου.5.
Tryphon son of the same, the god’s kinaidos I came to Isis of
Philae; Year 35, 11th day of Thoth.
Strouthion the kinaidos I came with Nikolaos (I.Philae II 154-55)6.
These two inscriptions are the only attestation of self-identified kinaidoi in the extant evidence; yet alongside these inscriptions from Philae there are a number of other Greek documentary sources from Hellenistic and Roman Egypt which also mention kinaidoi7. This article will discuss these sources and examine how the mention of kinaidoi in these texts might contribute to our understanding of this term more widely.
Although mentions of kinaidoi in Greek documentary sources from Hellenistic and Roman Egypt are in no way as extensive as the Greek and Latin literary sources, neither are they an insignificant contribution to an understanding of this figure. This evidence consists of one ostrakon and six papyri. Also included in this study is a letter, P.Hibeh I 54, which does not use the word kinaidos but does seemingly describe one by the actions and attributes which are ascribed to kinaidoi by ancient authors. Lastly this study also includes a discussion of a list of objects which features a hapax legomenon derived from the word κίναιδος. The chronological and geographical spread of this evidence is contingent on the survival of the papyri, therefore the presence of kinaidoi at any one place or time cannot be generalized. Five of these documents date to the mid to late third century BCE (O.Camb. 1, P.Col.Zen. II 94, PSI V 483, P.Hibeh I 54, P.Enteux. 26) with one account of contributions securely dated to the second century CE (P.Fouad I 68), and a papyrus (P.Dubl. 14) dated to the second or third century CE. Kinaidoi are attested in three main types of document: first, those which record payments made by kinaidoi; second, accounts which specify payments made to kinaidoi; and third, correspondence in which they appear as named individuals.
In his discussion of the Philae inscriptions Étienne Bernand remarks that dancers and pantomimes often adopted expressive names and consequently reads Tryphon and Strouthion as ‘speaking names’ which signify their bearers’ profession as performers8. Tryphon or ‘Precious’ (formed from τρυφή, luxury), although apt perhaps for a kinaidos, is a relatively common name in the papyrological sources9; Strouthion or ‘Birdy’ (formed from στρουθός, sparrow) is more notable. For, as Jean Antoine Letronne first pointed out, the association of the kinaidos with the ἴυγξ bird (known also as both σεισοπυγίς and κιναίδιον) and its tail-wagging motions is made by more than one ancient commentator which makes it more than likely that Strouthion’s name reflects his performance style10. Letronne also noted that proper names ending -ιον such as Strouthion are most often assigned to women but that Strouthion’s gender is confirmed by the male article ὁ (κίναιδος) in the subsequent text of the inscription11. Letronne’s observation raises the possibility that Strouthion’s name not only references his professional performance but his effeminate gender performance also. Louis Robert has subsequently argued that the feminine name form, -ιον, is used in inscriptions both here and elsewhere as a diminutive applied to young boys and that rather than signaling effeminacy per se it is a name given to Strouthion by his admirers as a form of endearment12.
The adoption of such ‘speaking names’ is absent in the other documentary mentions of named kinaidoi. For although in PSI V 483 the name Kallianax, either ‘Pretty-prince’ or ‘Lovely-lord,’ could be read as describing some form of extravagant behavior, the use of the term kinaidos in Kallianax’s specific case (see below) rules out the possibility that he, like the two kinaidoi at Philae, had such an occupational ‘speaking name’. Rather the remaining six papyri and one ostrakon present a mixture of Egyptian and Greek names: Psenamounis and Hatres are Egyptian names (O.Camb. 1; P.Fouad I 68) whereas Kallianax and Dionysios are Greek names (PSI V 483; P.Enteux. 26). Caution needs to be applied, however, as in Hellenistic and Roman Egypt names are not always reliable markers of ethnic identities13. For instance Psenamounis clearly is an Egyptian theophoric name, ‘son of Amun’, yet the collector of his salt-tax payment, Dorion, has a Greek name also borne by Egyptians14.
Payments made by kinaidoi
O.Camb. 1 and P.Fouad I 68 record payments made by kinaidoi: the first by an individual called Psenamounis in 250 BCE and the second by Hatres in 180 CE. Whilst O.Camb.1 is clearly a receipt for payment of the salt tax, ἁλικῆς, the context for P.Fouad I 68 is unclear.
O.Camb. 1 (250 BCE)
(ἔτους) λε Φαμενὼθ γ
ἁλικῆς διὰ Δωρί-
ωνος
Ψε̣ναμο̣ῦνις
κίναιδος (δραχμὴ) α
(Year) 35 on the 3rd day of Phamenoth
for the salt-tax (issued) by Dori-
on.
Psenamounis
kinaidos, 1 (drachma)
This receipt written on a ceramic fragment shows that Psenamounis has paid the standard amount for males during this period, 1 drachma15. This ostrakon follows a fairly standard formula for such receipts and κίναιδος in this document is in a position more commonly occupied in other salt tax receipts by a patronym16. Without any other comparanda for receipts issued by Dorion which likewise distinguish individuals by occupation rather than by patronym it is not possible to say whether κίναιδος can assuredly be read as an occupational category here; however, the term as used in this receipt certainly serves as a means of distinguishing this Psenamounis from any other individual in the vicinity with the same name.
W.G. Waddell describes P.Fouad I 68 as a list of ‘Tax-Payments’ in his editio princeps but, unlike in O.Camb. 1, the papyrus gives no indication of what tax exactly is being recorded or indeed if this is beyond doubt a list of tax contributions17. Yet even with such an uncertain context the text does provide some useful information about the categorization of kinaidoi. P.Fouad I 68 begins with the date on which this group of individuals was recorded then each entry follows more or less the same formula: name, patronym, sometimes a further qualification (i.e. mother, grandfather), occupation, and amount18. The kinaidos Hatres is mentioned in line 23.
|
|
|
|
|
|
The formula used to record individuals shows that κίναι[δ]ος is an occupation in the same manner as cowherd (βουκ(όλος)) in line 21. If the document indeed records the payment of taxes, the fact that Hatres pays an amount equal to the other occupations on the list also suggests that a kinaidos had the same fiscal status as a number of other occupations such as tinker (κασιτεροπ(οιός) line 3), tavernkeeper, (κάπ̣η̣λ̣(ος) line 5), and fuller, (γναφεύ(ς) line 12). In P.Fouad I 68 Hatres appears to sit within a humble social stratum. The system of government in place in Roman Egypt openly acknowledges him as a legitimate individual and furthermore collects profit from his ‘kinaidic’ activity rather than attempting to prohibit it20.
P.Fouad I 68 does not present all of its recorded individuals as being equals since it mentions a slave who is liable for a considerably smaller payment in line 22. This entry emphasizes the socioeconomic position of the kinaidos within a fiscal hierarchy whereby Hatres is equal to a number of other individuals yet above the standing of Kronion the slave. Thus P.Fouad I 68 presents Hatres the kinaidos not as a stigmatized individual (at least not fiscally), but rather as someone on an equal standing to individuals with a range of occupations and thus liable for the same amount of monetary contribution. O.Camb. 1 and P.Fouad I 68 confirm that the kinaidos was a recognizable identity in both Hellenistic and Roman Egypt. Furthermore the prevalence of other occupations in P.Fouad I 68 strongly suggests that kinaidos was likewise an occupational category. P.Fouad I 68, however, gives no indication as to exactly what forms of activity a kinaidos was indeed recognizable for. This question is perhaps better answered by the three documents which record payments made to kinaidoi.
Payments made to kinaidoi
Unlike the previous documents P.Col.Zen. II 94, C.Ptol.Sklav. I 91, and P.Tebt. I 208 recto contain no internal means of dating the exact year in which they were written. Approximate dates for these examples are possible since P.Col.Zen. II 94 comes from the Zenon archive whose documents date from 261 to 229, and the accounts in C.Ptol.Sklav. I 91 are entered in bronze drachmas which indicates that it comes from the later Ptolemaic period21. P.Tebt. I 208 recto is ascribed the dates of either of 95 or 62 BCE. P.Col.Zen. II 94 is the only document in which the monetary amount paid to kinaidoi can be ascertained. All three documents come from a similarly rural setting: P.Tebt. I 208 recto and P.Col.Zen. II 94 are accounts of agricultural expenses whereas C.Ptol.Sklav. I 91 records the accounts of a village club. Furthermore in each example it is possible to connect these kinaidoi with a performative context by the additional mention of flute players.
The most fragmentary text is P.Tebt. I 208 recto which contains the words κιναίδοις μουσικ(οῖς) who receive most likely as payment, a measure of barley.
P.Tebt. I 208 recto (95/62 BCE)
εἰς τὸ Τρίστομον ̣ . . .
κιναίδοις μουσικ(οῖς) γε . . . . . . Πετ̣ε̣σ̣ο̣ύ(χου) θεοῦ μεγάλου κρι(θῆς)
(ἀρτάβαι) . . .
for Tristomon22 . . .
for the musical kinaidoi . . . . . . of the great god Petesuchus23
(artabas) of barley…
Although it can be surmised that on this occasion the kinaidoi were employed as some kind of performers, the adjective μουσικ(οῖς) may refer either to performers of music or to individuals performing to musical accompaniment24. This matter is made clearer in P.Col.Zen. II 94 in which a kinaidos and a flute player are accounted for separately which suggests that, whether the kinaidos sang, danced, or did both simultaneously, he did so with some form of accompaniment25.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Alongside the performers, the kinaidos (line 2) and the auletes (line 5), P.Col.Zen. II 94 records various agricultural workers as well as a tax collector (line 8). Notably the kinaidos receives the highest amount paid to any of these individuals – 3 drachmas and 4 obols. This is more than each of twelve workers at cutting received and the difference between the amount paid to the kinaidos and the flute player is great indeed. One reason suggested by Reinhold Scholl for an economic imbalance between auletai and kinaidoi is that flute playing was not a full-time occupation27. Indeed a flautist is recorded as having other forms of income, namely livestock in P.Tebt. III 882 l.22: flute player Iakoubis, son of Iakoubis 13 sheep, 7 lambs, and 1 goat (αὐλητής Ἰακοῦβις Ἰακούβιος πρ(όβατα) ιγ, ἄρ(νες) ζ, αἲξ α).
A kinaidos and an auletes are again found together in what appears to be the fragmentary minutes of some form of social association (C.Ptol.Sklav. I 91) which gathered regularly in various locations such as a storeroom and the harness-room of a stable and which sometimes entertained invited guests28.
C.Ptol.Sklav. I 91 frag. 5 = SB III 7182
Χοία[ ]κ[
ἐν̣ τ̣ῇ σ̣[κευοθήκῃ
- ἱερ̣ο̣π̣[ο]ι̣[ο]ῦ [Δ]ι̣[καίου]
Ἑρμίας
Βάχ[χος]
Θίβρων
Δημᾶς
Κάρπος
Κάμαξ
Ψαμμήτιχος
Δίκαιος
(γίνονται) η, (τούτων)
ἀσύμβολος Ἑρμίας
λ(οιποὶ) ζ
εἰς οὓς ἀνήλωται
παρὰ τὸν ἀφι̣η̣[
οἴνου Μεμφί(του) κ̣[
Ἑλλανίκῳ αὐλητῇ [
καὶ τῷ κιναίδῳ [
Choia[k][assembled]
in the h[arness room
with Dikaios as leader of sacrifices:
Hermias
Bak[chos]
Thibron
Demas
Karpos
Kamax
Psammetichos
Dikaios
(total) 8 (of them)
Hermias noncontributing
leaving 7
for whom was expended
excepting the one exempted[29
wine from Memph(is) .[
for Hellanikos the flute player[
and the kinaidos [
C.Ptol.Sklav. I 91 is made up of five fragments and the document records at least five separate occasions on which the club assembled. There are three separate mentions of payments made to flute players: first Demetrios from Krokodilopolis (frag.1 col. 3, l.1), second an unspecified flautist (frag.2, l.3), and lastly the flautist named Hellanikos (frag.5, l.18). From what survives of this document it seems that a kinaidos was engaged on a single occasion only, which suggests that as in P.Col.Zen. II 94 the one kinaidos cost significantly more to hire than the various auletai. All three documents confirm that kinaidoi were participating in performances in Hellenistic Egypt. The higher price paid to the kinaidos in P.Col.Zen. II 94 and the single documented appearance of a kinaidos in the village club (C.Ptol.Sklav. I 91) further suggest that the performance of a kinaidos was not of equal value to that of flute players. In light of these documents it might be inferred that for mixed audiences of villagers in the chora, including slaves, it was a special event to see a kinaidos perform30.
Correspondence and a petition concerning kinaidoi
The earliest example of correspondence mentioning a kinaidos (PSI V 483) comes like P.Col.Zen. II 94 from the Zenon archive. This letter is addressed to Zenon, the estate agent of Ptolemy Philadelphus’ dioiketes Apollonios, by Amyntas, an important member of Apollonios’ household at Alexandria31. It begins.
PSI V 483 (258/7 BCE)
Ἀμύντας Ζήνωνι χαίρειν. Καλλιάν̣[α]ξ̣ [ὁ] τέκτων ὁ κίναιδος
παροινήσ̣[ας] κλίναις αἷς κατεσκεύακεν Ἀπολλων̣[ίωι].
Amyntas to Zenon greetings, Kallianax the carpenter, that drunk kinaidos,
prepared the couches for Apollonios. (lines 1-2)
Here κίναιδος is used in apposition as an insult – Kallianax ... the drunk kinaidos. Unfortunately as there is a break in the papyrus at παροινήσ̣[ας...(?)] and therefore a textual gap until the mention of the couches in the following line of the letter it is impossible to ascertain precisely what Kallianax has done to provoke Amyntas’ displeasure. Amyntas does, however, end the letter with some advice to Zenon regarding Kallianax which again a break in the papyrus makes difficult to interpret exactly.
ἐὰν οὖν που παραβάληι, καλῶς ἔχει μὴ ἀγνοεῖν ὑ̣[μᾶς(?)
Ἀπολλωνίωι ἐμφανίζειν μηθὲν αὐτῶ[ι] π̣[ι]στεύειν.
If then he ventures something, it is well [that you] not ignore […]
to make clear to Apollonios not to trust him in any way (lines 5-6).
Kallianax's bad behavior is attested in another document from the archive. In PSI V 495 a certain Herakleitos writes to complain that the same Kallianax has been talking idly, κατηδολεσχηκέναι,32 and has not been doing or saying what he claims to have said and done, ἐ[β]ε ̣[βαιώσατο μήτε πεπραχέναι Κα]λ̣λ̣ι̣άνακτα μήτε εἰρηκέναι μηθὲν τοιοῦτο, ἀλλὰ καὶ τὸ τουναντίον ἔφη̣.33 PSI V 483 is particularly notable as it serves as the only documentary source where κίναιδος is not used as an occupational category but rather as a pejorative term. Indeed this is evident since Kallianax's occupation, carpenter (τέκτων), has already been stated and the results of his work, couches (κλίναις), are then mentioned.34 From what remains of the fragmentary correspondence concerning Kallianax the overall sense is that he is someone to beware of and that it is his behavior rather than his occupation which earns him the particular title of kinaidos.
Finally, a petition from the Ptolemaic period mentions the bad behavior of an individual whose occupation was that of kinaidos. A man named Ktesicles writes.
P.Enteux. 26 (221 BCE) trans. Bagnall and Derow (lines 10-14)
δέομαι οὖν [σου], βασιλεῦ, [μ]ὴ πε[ριιδεῖν με ὑ]πὸ τῆς
θυγ[ατρὸ]ς ἀδικού[μ]ενον καὶ Διονυσίου τοῦ φθε[ί]ραντος [αὐ]τὴν κινα[ί]δ[ου, ἀλλὰ προστάξ]αι Διοφά[νει] τῶι [στρατ]ηγῶι ἀνακαλεσάμενον αὐτοὺς διακ[ο]ῦσαι [ἡμῶν]
τῶι μ[ ̣ ̣] φθε[ίρ]α[ν]τι αὐτὴν χρήσασθαι Διοφάν[η]ν ὡς ἂν α[ὐτῶι φαίνηται, Νίκην δὲ]
τὴν θ[υγατέρ]α μου ἐπαναγκάσαι τὰ δίκαιά [μ]οι ποιεῖν...
I beg [you] therefore, O King, not to allow me to be wronged by my
daughter and by Dionysios the kinaidos who seduced her, but to order
Diophanes the strategos to summon them and hear us out [and if I am speaking
the truth(?)] for Diophanes to treat her seducer as [seems best to him, but] to
compel [Nike] my daughter to do justice to me.
It is notable that in this petition to Ptolemy IV Philopator it is heteroerotic rather than homoerotic behavior which is cause for concern when a kinaidos named Dionysios is blamed for seducing (φθε[ί]ραντος) a women named Nike. Scholars contest whether the kinaidos had both a fixed sexual object choice and a preferred mode of sexual congress, i.e. anal penetration by other men, yet both Greek and Latin primary sources often describe kinaidoi/cinaedi as being sexually involved with both men and women35. P.Enteux. 26 therefore strengthens the argument made by scholars such as David Halperin and Craig Williams that the use of the term kinaidos/cinaedus in no way provides evidence for a stable homosexual identity in the ancient world36.
A hapax legomenon
P.Dubl. 14 is the latest Greek document from Egypt that can be associated with the word kinaidos, if not conclusively with the personage.
P.Dubl. 14 (trans. McGing)
[ ̣] ̣αν σοὶ̣ προ̣[ ̣ ̣ ̣]ε̣χθ[ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣]
[ ̣ ̣]υτ̣ον̣ καὶ μασχαλιστ̣ὴ̣ρ̣ α̣ [ ̣] ̣[ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣] ̣[ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣]
[κ]αὶ π̣[ε]ρ̣[ι]σκ̣ε̣λίδες β κυμβαλωτῶν δι[ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣]
καὶ κε̣ρ̣κίδιον α καὶ κιναιδάριον περ[ι]σίδ[ηρον ̣] ̣[ ̣ ̣]
κ̣α̣ὶ̣ ἐνώτ̣ι̣[ο]ν κ̣ρ̣εμαστὸν καὶ σηκ̣ίον καὶ κάδων ν̣ ̣ ̣
[ ̣ ̣ ̣]σ̣λε ̣ ̣ ̣[ ̣ ̣] ̣[ ̣ ̣ κ]ά̣τ̣ο̣πτρον̣ [ἔ]χ̣ων ἐπιγραφὴν ̣ ̣ον
[ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣]π̣[ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣]τ̣ερος κ̣α̣ὶ̣ κ̣ι̣θών. ἐάν τις μηνύσῃ
[ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣] ̣ ̣ε̣ ̣ ̣ ̣[ ̣ ̣ ̣] ̣[ ̣] ̣θ̣ιωνι
... to you ... and 1 band ... and 2 anklets of cymbal-players ... and 1 shuttle
and a kinaidarion cased in iron ... and a hanging earring and a bag and ...
of jars ... a mirror with an inscription ... and a cloak. If anyone lays
information ... to -thion.
The document's context is as unclear as its text is fragmentary: Brian McGing proposes that this may be a list of stolen objects. It is dated by its neat and widely spaced script to either the second century or perhaps early third century CE.37 The κιναιδάριον περ[ι]σίδ[ηρον is some sort of iron-cased object. This hapax legomenon, McGing suggests, could be some type of musical instrument, just like the accompanying noun κε̣ρ̣κίδιον which can mean not only weaver's shuttle but also tympanum.38 Thus the κιναιδάριον might be imagined as being some kind of iron-edged instrument like, for instance, a tambourine. Such a suggestion also gains support by the inclusion in the list of π̣[ε]ρ̣[ι]σκ̣ε̣λίδες β κυμβαλωτῶν, a pair of cymbal-player's anklets. More importantly, P.Dubl. 14 suggests that the performance tradition of the kinaidos evident in Egypt during the Ptolemaic era continued well into the Roman period: a suggestion which P.Fouad I 68, dated to the reign of Marcus Aurelius, helps to corroborate with its inclusion of Hatres the kinaidos. Moreover, both the fragmentary nature of P.Dubl. 14 and its hapax legomenon are good reminders of the limits of the extant evidence -- be it literary, epigraphic, or documentary -- and its ability to truly uncover any full picture of a kinaidos' daily existence.
A comparison with other sources
It is not so much the kinaidos/cinaedus’ position as performer which has drawn modern scholarly attention but rather the term’s tendency to denote a more totalizing conception of identity: ‘a “life-form” all to himself’ as Maud Gleason puts it39. And whereas the evidence discussed above suggests that κίναιδος in Hellenistic and Roman Egypt is mostly an occupational term for a performer, as PSI V 483 shows, it was not always used in this way. Notably, the sense of kinaidos as passive homosexual is completely absent from the papyrological sources40. The remaining part of this article will therefore explore how the kinaidos in Greek documentary sources from Hellenistic and Roman Egypt relates to other comparable evidence.
Craig Williams in particular has argued that it is the kinaidos/cinaedus’ effeminate gender display rather than his sexual proclivities that is this figure’s constitutive feature41. And although the documentary evidence discussed so far neither confirms nor denies such a proposition, a letter that concerns an effeminate performer has been read as referring to a kinaidos:
P.Hibeh I 54 (245 BCE) trans. Bagnall and Derow (lines 1-17)
Δημοφῶν Πτολεμαίωι χαίρειν. ἀπό[σ-]τειλον ἡμῖν ἐκ παντὸς τρόπου τὸν
αὐλητὴν Πετωῦν ἔχοντ[α] τούς τε Φρυγίους αὐλ[ο]ὺς καὶ τοὺς λοιπούς,
κ[αὶ] ἐάν τι δέηι ἀνηλῶσαι δός, παρὰ δὲ ἡμ[ῶ]ν κ̣ομι̣-
ε̣ῖ̣. ἀπόστειλον δὲ ἡμῖν καὶ Ζηνόβιον τὸν μαλακὸν ἔχοντα τύμπανον καὶ
κύμβαλα καὶ κρόταλα, χρεία γάρ ἐστι ταῖς γυναιξὶν πρὸς τὴν θυσίαν·
ἐχέτω δὲ καὶ ἱματισμὸν ὡς ἀστειότατον...42
Demophon to Ptolemaios, greeting. Make every effort to send me the
flute-player Petoüs with both the Phrygian flutes and the rest; and if any
expense is necessary pay it and you shall recover it from me. Send also for
Zenobios the effeminate (malakon) with a drum and cymbals and
castanets, for he is wanted by the women for the sacrifice; and let him
wear as fine clothes as possible...
This document was first read as referring to a kinaidos by J. G. Smyly in the editio princeps, who drew a parallel with a mention of an effeminate cinaedus in Plautus’ Miles Gloriosus: tum ad saltandum non cinaedus malacus aequest atque ego (668)43. Indeed further details from the letter support such a reading when compared to other literary sources. Thus the mentions of the percussive instruments carried by Zenobios, the style of his musical accompaniment, and the kind of garments in which he is requested to perform all have multiple literary parallels44.
P.Hibeh I 54 raises, however, some of the difficulties in comparing documentary sources with the extant literary evidence. For instance malacus is used by Plautus as a term which describes not only a cinaedus dancer but also an adulterer of women, the moechus malacus who appears in the Truculentus (609-10) and who, like Zenobios in P. Hibeh I 54, carries a tambourine, tympanotribam (611)45. Κίναιδος and μαλακός are not synonymous terms in the speeches of Aeschines which notably provide the most detailed evidence for the kinaidos in fourth century Athens. For example in On the Embassy Aeschines uses kinaidos as a pejorative term against Demosthenes (2.88, 151) but quotes an assembly speech in which Demosthenes calls himself μαλακός without this word carrying the former term’s same opprobrious sense (2.106)46.
Three further Greek papyri from Roman Egypt also use the word μαλακός in a performative context: P.Oxy. III 413 and P.Oxy. LXXIX 5189 appear to be scripts for mimes which feature characters with this name; P.Berol. inv. 13927 is a list of performance titles and props which mentions ‘the one of the effeminates’, τὸ τῶν μαλακῶν, as one of its performance titles47. Since the central character from Herodas’ second mimiamb is a kinaidos (2.35) and a Megarian bowl from the Louvre (C.A. 936) also shows a group of men labelled kinaidoi, in a scene most likely depicting a mime, it is certainly possible to view malakos and kinaidos as two distinct character types in this genre of drama48. Therefore the extant evidence suggests that kinaidos and malakos are terms which are best considered as similar but not necessarily synonymous. Furthermore Athenaeus’ account of other categories of effeminate performers (14.620d-621d), such as the magoidos, lusioidos, and hilaroidos, attests a richer and more varied tradition of effeminate performers than the extant evidence can sufficently flesh out.
Although a comparison between documentary and literary sources poses many methodological issues (not least of differences in genre, date, purpose, audience, and cultural context) two points are starkly evident: first, the performative valence present in the documentary sources is also present in the literary sources; second, the particular homoerotic aspect of the kinaidos present in literary sources is absent from the documentary papyri. Plautus, Macrobius, Pliny the Younger, and Petronius all refer to the cinaedi in performative contexts such as dinner parties, dancing schools, and a priapic ritual49. Apuleius’ Metamorphosis and the novel The Ass attributed to Lucian both contain an episode in which a band of kinaidoi travel through the countryside performing spectacular flagellations to raise money for the dea Syria50. Yet in both Apuleius and Petronius the kinaidoi are also depicted as voracious in their desire to be sexually penetrated (both orally and anally)51. Catullus 16 begins with the poet threatening two of his rivals Aurelius and Furius, pedicabo ego uos et irrumabo, | Aureli pathice et cinaede Furi (1-2), ‘I will bugger and face fuck you, Aurelius pathic and Furius cinaedus’. In this example the connotations of cinaedus are of sexual passivity rather than a non-elite performer of song and dance since both men are described in 11.1 as social equals of the poet (comites Catulli). Martial’s epigrams feature numerous examples of the sexual proclivities of the cinaedi and he goes so far as to claim that one cinaedus called Charinus has been sodomized so frequently that he has worn away his asshole52.
The discrepancy between kinaidos/cinaedus as a sexually loaded term in literary sources and as a sexually neutral term in documentary sources creates the impression that whereas Greek and Roman authors tend to portray the kinaidos/cinaedus as being abject in their respective home loci of Athens and Rome, the appearance of the kinaidos in the territory of Hellenistic and Roman Egypt does not elicit similar concerns. Winkler’s suggestion that in fourth century Athens the kinaidos was a discursive and imaginary stereotype is complicated by the case in Hellenistic and Roman Egypt, where the texts which Winkler draws from (Plato’s Gorgias and the speeches of Aeschines) do appear to have been in circulation53. As Dominic Montserrat points out, the Platonic dialogues were a central feature of the Alexandrian education and, as more than one scholar has suggested, Herodas’ second mimiamb, written in Alexandria, alludes to Attic forensic oratory. In particular there is a striking similarity between the name of the kinaidos, Battaros, in this mime (2.35) and the two names which Aeschines inveighs against Demosthenes: the nickname Batalos (1.126, 131, 164) and the slur kinaidos54.
The absence of any link between homoerotic behavior and the kinaidos in Greek documentary sources from Hellenistic and Roman Egypt cannot be explained by the generic conventions of each type of evidence. For instance several documentary sources do mention homoeroticism, just not in connection with kinaidoi. Five marriage contracts from the Ptolemaic period specify that the husband may not support a younger male lover (παιδικὸν)55. In P.Zen.Pestm. 51 (another letter from the Zenon Archive) a certain Hierocles writes to a doctor called Artemidoros. Hierocles is concerned that if he takes charge of a palaestra in which he has a financial share then he will consequently be accused of doing so in order to gain sexual access to the youths who train there56. More sexually explicit references can be found in P.Oxy. XLII 3070, a letter from the 1st century CE in which two individuals named Apion and Epimachus write that they will sodomize a third party called Epaphroditos57. A graffito (c. second century BCE) from the temple of Amun-Re in Karnak (SEG 8 662-3) threatens to anally penetrate (ἐπυγίζοσαν) its addressee Ptolemaios in the street58.
The attitudes to homoeroticism shown in these sources have not been understood unanimously: Bernard Legras concludes that hostility to homoerotic practices in all of its forms, whether pederastic or coeval, increases during the Roman period; Dominic Montserrat argues that the evidence does not demonstrate a single prevailing attitude59. Both scholars are in agreement, however, that homoerotic practices are on the whole understood in terms similar to earlier Greek pederastic protocols: thus a younger beloved is the desired object of an elder lover (as evidenced by the marriage contracts and P.Zen.Pestm. 51); and that for a male to be penetrated by another is shameful (as evidenced by P.Oxy. XLII 3070 and SEG 8 662-3)60. Yet whereas the discourse of sexual practices between males shares some commonality across Greek, Roman, and the Greco-Roman cultures that developed in Egypt, the kinaidos who is so often a marker for the abject penetrated male in sources from outside of Egypt is notably absent from similar discourses in Greek documentary sources from within Egypt.
It lastly remains to discuss mentions of the kinaidos/cinaedus in Greek and Latin epigraphic sources from outside of Egypt. Such a comparison is helpful in determining to what extent either the occupational (as performer) or ontological (as sex/gender deviant) sense of kinaidos/cinaedus predominates. Only one inscription from Apollonia, modern day Pojan in Albania, from the second century CE, specifically mentions the performative valence of kinaidos. This epitaph (I.Apollonia 226) is dedicated to Proklos by his father who calls his deceased son a kinaidologos: a performer of kinaidic speech61. Most other epigraphic sources, however, conform to the use of the word as a pejorative term. The majority of these are graffiti from Pompeii which in more than one instance connect the individuals mentioned with homoerotic behavior: so for example CIL IV 2319b reads ‘Vesbinus [is a] cinaedus, Vitalio butt-fucked him’ and CIL IV 1825 has been read as ‘Cosmus slave of Equitia is a great cinaedus and a cocksucker who keeps his legs apart’62.
Whereas kinaidos when used as a pejorative form of abuse at Pompeii clearly has sexual connotations, these connotations are noticeably absent from PSI V 483. An inscribed tomb tile from Rhegium (SEG 39 1062) perhaps serves as a more useful comparison with the case of untrustworthy Kallianax. This ‘speaking-tile’ calls out an individual named Soterichos as both a kinaidos and a ‘pseudo-potter’, Σωτήριχε κίναιδε ψευδοκαμινάρι63. In this instance the negative sense of kinaidos, as with Kallianax, appears to refer more to the individual’s deceptiveness than to any form of sexual licentiousness64. The word κίναιδος is also applied in both PSI V 483 and SEG 39 1062 to a type of craftsman – a carpenter and a potter respectively – which seems strikingly contrary to the more typical image of the effeminate kinaidos found in other sources. Indeed it could be precisely this incongruity between the handler of hard wood or fired clay and the dissimulating performer of soft dance and music which arguably lies at the root of the pejorative force in these two instances.
A comparison of documentary, literary, and epigraphic evidence inevitably raise more questions than it answers in regards to the semantic range of the word κίναιδος/cinaedus across different genres and cultural contexts. This analysis is nevertheless useful for understanding the function and uses of the word. In each genre of evidence the word can be used either to denote a kind of performer or as a pejorative term with connotations of some form of unacceptable behavior. While the performative character of the kinaidos seems to have some continuity across all of the different types of evidence, the connotations of the term's pejorative use appear to vary. They are predominantly sexual in the literary evidence (i.e. Cat. 16.1-2), both sexual and non-sexual in the epigraphic record (i.e. CIL IV 2319b; SEG 39 1062), and non-sexual in the one pejorative use from the papyrological evidence (i.e. Καλλιάν̣[α]ξ̣ ... ὁ κίναιδος).
In conclusion, κίναιδος in Greek documents from Egypt refers on the whole to a category of professionals who, from their close association with flute players in the papyri, can be understood as performers of some description. Only a little can be said to sum up the status of the performers and what they actually performed. The financial evidence shows that they are liable for contributions equal to a number of other occupations (P.Fouad I 68), yet are not exempt from the salt tax (O.Camb 1) as other more esteemed performers reportedly are65. They appear to be in a more advantageous position than the flautists who accompany them (P.Col.Zen II 94) and may be part of a wider tradition of effeminate performers (P.Hibeh I 54). Two further points are notable: first, that kinaidos is used as an occupational designation over a considerable period of time – the third century BCE until the second century CE, or possibly later; and second, that one cache of documents, the Zenon archive, demonstrates that κίναιδος was used in the third century BCE both as an occupational designation and as a pejorative term in the same cultural context. These points in turn raise the more far-reaching question of whether the performative valence of the kinaidos/cinaedus has more significance than scholars have previously accepted. The cinaedus as a performer at Rome has been discussed, but this significance has become secondary to discussions of its broader ontological force66. The discussion of this figure in fourth century Athens in no way takes the importance of this performative aspect into account.