Last updated 09/07/24: Online ordering is currently unavailable due to technical issues. We apologise for any delays responding to customers while we resolve this. For further updates please visit our website: https://www.cambridge.org/news-and-insights/technical-incident
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 22 January 2016
Sexuality is a term used to describe the conception of sexual being, a characteristic unique to humankind and, like any other concept, a product of culture. It is aspects of this cultural construct that I shall attempt to examine here. I shall focus on the conception of sexuality of one Byzantine individual, as this can be reconstructed from his voluminous writings: St. Neophytos the Recluse, the late twelfth- and early thirteenth-century Saint of Cyprus. A holy man may seem a peculiar subject for an inquiry into conceptions of sexuality. But focussing on Neophytos has the advantage of offering us the rare opportunity, in terms of Byzantine sources, of examining the thought-patterns of a Byzantine man from close quarters, and concerning a subject as important, as intimate and as elusive as sexuality. For even though sexuality was as universal an experience as in any other culture, very few Byzantines discussed it in writing and even fewer in a manner as personal, as direct and as extensive as Neophytos the Recluse did. Why Neophytos discussed sexuality in his writings more extensively than other Byzantines is an interesting question, and one to which we shall return at the end of this paper.
* This paper went through many phases before assuming its present form. In chronological order, thanks are due to Prof A.A.M. Bryer, Prof Meg Alexiou, Dr Paul Magdalino, Dr Chris Wickham, the members of the ‘Interdisciplinary Approaches to the Ancient World’ Seminar at the University of Cambridge, and Dr J.F. Haldon, for their commentary and constructive criticism.
For a brilliant study of the formation and development of early Christian attitudes to sexuality see Brown, Peter, The Body and Society. Men, Women and Sexual Renunciation in Early Christianity (London, Boston 1988)Google Scholar, which appeared after the present volume of BMGS had gone to press.
1. I will not reiterate here my understanding and use of terms such as ‘culture’, ‘ideology’, ‘gender’, ‘patriarchy’, ‘reality’, ‘power’, since I have already done so through the pages of this journal on past occasions. See especially my ‘Holy Women and Witches: Aspects of Byzantine Conceptions of Gender’, BMGS 9 (1984/85) 55–94.
2. On St. Neophytos’ life, writings and the paintings of his caves, see Holy Women and Witches, above, and the bibliography in its note 5. To that must now be added Cormack, R., Writing in Gold. Byzantine Society and its Icons (London 1985); and Wharton, A., Art of Empire (Princeton 1988).Google Scholar
3. Beck, H.G., Byzantinisches Erotikon (1984).Google Scholar
4. I am here distinguishing between a direct contribution to the discourse of sexuality, which Neophytos made, and indirect contributions to it through references to eroticism in e.g. the love romances of the Late Byzantine Period. See Beck, Erotikon; and note 6, below.
5. On Byzantine conceptions of gender see my Holy Women and Witches, cited in note 1.
6. On the social forms through which sexuality is inscribed within discourse, see Foucault, M., The History of Sexuality, I (London 1979) esp. 11.Google Scholar
7.
ed.
Delehaye, H., ‘Saints de Chypre’, AB
26 (1907) 161–297, esp. 170.16-.21.Google Scholar
8.
Ms. Cod. Athen. 522, fol. 67β (hereafter cited as Book of Fifty Chapters).
9.
ed.
Delehaye, , Saints, 181–97
Google Scholar, esp. 188.11-.12.
10.
Ms. Cod. Paris. Suppl. Gr. 1317, fol. 125β (hereafter cited as Catecheseis).
11. See e.g. the tract 
which distinguishes between geinos (earthly) and ouranios (heavenly) eros: Makarios Chrysokephalos, XIV
(Cosmopolis 1793) 439–40.
12.
Ms. Cod. Coisl. Gr. 287, fol. 5β (hereafter cited as Interpretation of the Commandments of Christ).
13.
ed.
Hadjiioannou, I. (Athens
1935) esp. 44
Google Scholar (hereafter cited as Psalms).
14.
Ms. Cod. Paris. Gr. 1189, (hereafter cited as Book of Panegyrics) fols. 29γ-38δ, esp. fols. 31β-32α; 
, ibid., fols. 38δ-57γ, esp. fol. 53δ; 
(cited in note 9) 184.21-.30; see also Book of Fifty Chapters, fol. 52δ.
15. Ibid., fol. 37α. The idea that it is a kind of overflowing of the soul that ignites passion is repeated elsewhere, e.g. in Catecheseis, fol. 171α.
16.
St. John Chrysostom, MPG 59, col. 564; MPG 61, col. 710; MPG 62, col. 428.
17.
St. John Chrysostom, MPG 55, col. 333;
Ralles, G.A. andPotles, M., 
I-VI (Athens 1852-1859)Google Scholar (hereafter abbreviated to Syntagma) II, col. 643.
18.
: St. John Chrysostom, MPG 57, col. 30.
19. See
Koukoules, Ph., 
I-VI (Athens 1948-1955)Google Scholar (hereafter abbreviated to BBP), 1/2,16–18;
Grosdidier, J. de Matons, ‘La femme dans l’empire byzantin’, Histoire Mondiale de la Femme, III, ed. Grimai, P. (Paris
1967) 11–43, esp. 31.Google Scholar
20. See Zonaras’ commentary on canon Thirty-six of the Council in Laodicaea: Syntagma, III, 204; and for Alexios’ complaint see Meyer, P., Die Haupturkunden für die Geschichte der Athos-Kloster (Leipzig 1894) 177.Google Scholar
21. Symeon the New Theologian, Hymnes, I-III, ed. Koder, J. (Paris 1969-73) II, 476 Google Scholar (no. 39.14) I, 288 and 294 (no. 15.149–53 and 207–8). See also Kazhdan, A. and Constable, G., People and Power in Byzantium (Washington D.C. 1982) 69, 71.Google Scholar
22. Symeon the New Theologian is much more explicit in his parallels: for him, Christ is a bride-groom and his soul is his bride with whom he unites in marriage, the soul thus receiving his seed: Symeon, Hymnes, I, 292–6, no. 15.174–5, esp. verses 220–30. See also Kazhdan and Constable, People and Power in Byzantium, 71.
23. Book of Fifty Chapters, fols. 409β, 410α.
24. See Tannahil, R., Sex in History (London 1979) 127–34 Google Scholar; Sherrard, P., ‘The Sexual Relationship in Christian Thought’, Studies in Comparative Religion 5/3 (1971) 151–72 Google Scholar. Eventually outright rejection of marriage was considered to be a heresy. The Markionistai, for instance are referred to by St. Basil as people who are damned because, ‘despising marriage and rejecting wine, they in effect say that God’s creations are polluted’: Syntagma, IV, 197. See Goody, J., The Development of the Family and Marriage in Europe (Cambridge 1983) 85, 158–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
25.
(cited in note 7) 170.8–171.8.
26. Catecheseis, fol. 52β. The image of the human soul as a fortress under constant attack by demons, especially through the ‘gates’ of the five senses, was an established part of Christian imagery: see, for example, St John Chrysostom, De inani gloria et de educandis liberis, ed. Malingrey, A.-M. (Paris 1972) para. 23ff Google Scholar. See also Mango, C., Byzantium. The Empire of New Rome (London 1980) 224–5.Google Scholar
27.
ed.
Toniolo, E., in ‘Omilie e catechesi mariane inediti de Neofito il Recluso’, Marianum
36 (1974) 238–62, esp. 254.281-,284.Google Scholar
28. See
Armenopoulos, K., 
ed. Pitsakes, K.G. (Athens
1971)Google Scholar (hereafter Hexabiblos) 359, paras. 5 and 7 respectively. See generally Koukoulès, BBP, 1/2, 227–8, 230–5. For the story of Skleros Seth, see Nicetae Choniatae Historia, ed.
Dieten, J.L. van (Berlin
1975) 148.8-.95.Google Scholar
29.
ed. Delehaye, Saints (cited in note 7) 221–8, esp. 142.27–143.8.
30. Commenting on a diataxis concerning those who try through magic to destroy the salvation (soteria) or sanity (sophrosyne) of other persons, Balsamon clarifies that this concerns ‘him who practises magic which draws towards eros the wise, or who devises plans against people’s salvation’. The punishment prescribed is the confiscation of property and exile. See Syntagma, I, 188–91.
31. See e.g. Theognosti Thesaurus, ed. Munitiz, J. (Brepols-Turnhout 1979) 12, para. 12.Google Scholar
32. E.g. St. John Chrysostom wrote that the three worst sins were: first, causing factions within the Church; second, committing fornication; and third, greed (MPG 61, col. 151).
33. E.g. in the Panegyric concerning the fallen monk in Palestine the demons lead the monk to murder after he had committed sexual sins. The suggestion is clearly that murder is a graver sin: 
(cited in note 7) 169.16–170.8. In the Panegyric for St Diomedes the Young fornication is mentioned as one (but not the only or gravest) of many sins: 
ed. Delehaye, Saints (cited in note 7) 212–20, esp. 220–12-.20. See also: 
ed.
Kyprianos, Archimandrite (Venice
1779) (hereafter Hexaemeros) 186.34-.36, 191.8-.16Google Scholar; Catecheseis, fols. 121β, 124α; Psalms, 13, 82; Ms. Cod. Lesb. Leim. 2, 
ed.
Congourdeau, M.-H., ‘Discours sur les Saintes Lumières de Néophyte le Reclus’, 
8 (Nicosia 1975-77) 113–85
Google Scholar, esp. 153.478-.481.
34. See Tannahil, Sex in History, 129, pp. 149–50.
35.
Book of Fifty Chapters, fol. 32α-32β; Hexaemeros, 191.19-.21; 
(cited in note 27) 254.275-.281.
36. Psalms, 101.
37. Theognostos’ Thesaurus is a provincial work written between 1204 and 1252. See Theognosti Thesaurus, Introduction, XXVI-XXIX.
38. Ibid., 134, para. 4; and see also 136–7, para. 8; 141, para. 4; 143, para. 10. A strikingly similar attitude in a different culture is that of the Sarakatsanoi of modern Northern Greece reported by Campbell: Campbell, J.K., Honour, Family and Patronage (Oxford 1964) 326–8.Google Scholar
39. Ms. Cod. Lesb. Leim. 2, fols. 294α-294β; and 
(cited in note 33) 146.3-.4. Cf. Corinthians, 6:9–10; Romans, 1:26–27.
40. Catecheseis, fols. 175α-175β.
41. E.g. the Ecloga (ed. Burgmann, L., Ecloga. Das Gesetzbuch Leons III. und Konstantinos’ V [Forschungenzurbyzantinischen Rechtsgeschichte 10. Frankfurt a. Main, 1983])Google Scholar, promulgated in 741 by Leo III and Constantine V, still accepted cohabitation as constituting marriage. The Procheiros Nomos, issued in 907/908 by Leo VI (see Schminck, A., Studien zu mittelbyzantinischen Rechtsbiichern [Forschungen zur byzantinischen Rechtsgeschichte 13. Frankfurt a. Main 1986] 55–107 Google Scholar, esp. 98–102), held that simple cohabitation was not enough to constitute marriage; Leo VI the Wise (886–912) laid down that the only legal and valid marriage was that blessed by the Church. Under Alexios I Komnenos (1081–1118) marriage at Church became obligatory for slaves, too: the wedding service followed to this day by the Orthodox Church was prescribed under the same reign. See Ecloga, 76, para. 9; Procheiron Auctum, in JGR, VII, 1–136 (also A Manual of Eastern Roman Law. The Procheiros Nomos, transi Freshield, E.H. [Cambridge 1928]) esp. 61ff., chaps. 4, 17, 26Google Scholar; Les Novelles de Léon Vile Sage, edd. Nailles, P., Dain, A. (Paris 1944) N. 89 Google Scholar (imposing the nuptial blessing) and also N.18, N.23, N.31, N.32, N.74, N.98, N.lOO, N.101, N.ll 1, N.112. See also Syntagma, II, 500ff, For the evolution of legislation concerning marriage, betrothal, the family, see esp. Schminck, A., art. ‘Ehe’, in Lexikon des Mittelalters, III (Munich/Zurich 1986) 1641–1644 Google Scholar; art. ‘Ehebruch’, ibid. 1660; and Beaucamp, J., ‘La situation juridique de la femme à Byzance’, Cahiers de civilisation médiévale 20 (1977) 145–76 CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Also, Buckler, G., ‘Women in Byzantine Law about 1100 A.D.’, B 11 (1936) 391–416 Google Scholar; Fledelius, K., ‘Woman’s position and possibilities in Byzantine society with particular reference to the Novels of Leo VI’, XVI International Byzan-tinistenkongress, Akten II/2 (JöB 32/2 [1982]) 425–32 Google Scholar; Grosdidier, J. de Matons, ‘La femme dans l’empire byzantin’, Histoire Mondiale de la Femme, III, ed.Grimai, P. (Paris 1967) 11–43, esp. 14–15, 17–18 Google Scholar; Patlagean, E., ‘L’enfant et son avenir dans la famille byzantine (IVe-XIIe siècles)’, Annales de démographie historique. Enfant et sociétés (Paris 1973) 85–93 Google Scholar; O’Faolain, J. and Martines, L., Ator in God’s Image (London 1973) 89–99 Google Scholar; Koukoulès, BBP, IV, 93; Meyendorff, J., Byzantine Theology. Historical Trends and Doctrinal Themes (Oxford 1975) 196–8 Google Scholar. In the eleventh and twelfth centuries Church and State were particularly interested in enforcing legislation concerning consanguinity and affinity as impediments to marriage. See Laiou, A., ‘The Role of Women in Byzantine Society’, XVI InternationalerByzantinistenkongress, Akten 1/1 (JOB 31/1 [Vienna 1982]) 233–60 Google Scholar, esp. 235. On the prohibition of marriage between blood or spiritual relatives, see Balsamon’s commentary on the 27th canon of Basil and the 53rd canon of the Sixth Oecumenical Council, in Syntagma, IV, 161–4, II, 428, 32; Hexabiblos, IV, 231–41, paras. 7, 8; Koukoulès, BBP, IV, 95. For a recent general comment, see Garland, L., ‘The Life and Ideology of Byzantine Women: a Further Note on Conventions of Behaviour and Social Reality as Reflected in Eleventh- and Twelfth-Century Historical Sources’, B 58 (1988) 361–93.Google Scholar
42. Goody, The Development of the Family, 45, 59, 83–90, 155–6.
43. Expressions of the fear of female sexuality, manifested through the conception of female sexuality as essentially polluting, are found in many diverse cultures: see
Douglas, M., Purity and Danger (London-Boston-Henley
1969) 146–54
Google Scholar. For examples with specific reference to fear of female sexuality and ideas of female pollution in modern rural Greece and Cyprus see Campbell, Honour, Family and Patronage, 31–32, 154, 269–72, 276–8, 290–1;
Boulay, J. du, Portrait of a Greek Mountain Village (Oxford
1974) 102–3, 105–7
Google Scholar;
Blum, R.,Blum, E., The Dangerous Hour. The Lore and Culture of Crisis and Mystery in Rural Greece (London
1970) 12, 14–15, 19–21, 22, 42, 46(9), (10), (11), 47(14), 48(18), (21), 49(23), 47–48(17), 298–300
Google Scholar;
Friedl, E., Vasilika: a Village in Modern Greece (New York
1962) 77
Google Scholar;
Peristiany, J.G., ‘Honour and Shame in a Cypriot Highland Village’, in Honour and Shame. The Values of Mediterranean Society, ed. Peristiany, J.G. (London
1965) 171–90, esp. 182–3
Google Scholar;
Papacharalambous, G.H.,
(Nicosia
1965) 30–43.Google Scholar
44. Interpretation of the Commandments of Christ, fol. 38α.
45. See e.g. Hexabiblos, 349, para. 1: fornication by unmarried men is punisnea by flogging of six lashes, whereas adulterers receive twelve lashes.
46. Even though he in fact confirmed ‘the more humane solution’ of punishing both parties by slitting the nose: Les Novelles de Léon VI, N.32.
47. See the Ecloga, 79–81, XVII, paras. 25, 26, 28; Hexabiblos, 346, para. 14, 347, para. 19; Les Novelles de Léon VI, N.19, N.32.
48. Hexabiblos, 346, para. 14; 347, para. 19.
49. Bryer, A.A.M., ‘Eclipses and Epithalamy in Fourteenth-Century Trebizond’, in Tribute to A.N. Stratos (Athens 1986) 347–52.Google Scholar
50. See Patlagean, E., ‘Byzantium in the Tenth and the Eleventh Centuries’, in A History of Private Life, I. ed.Aries, Ph., Duby, G., transi. Goldhammer, A. (Cambridge, Mass.,-London 1987) 550–641, esp. 602.Google Scholar
51. Ibid., 602. Similarly, the adulterous wife continues to be the worse offender in twentieth-century rural Greece. Among the Sarakatsanoi the punishment is nothing less than death. See Campbell, Honour, Family and Patronage, 152.
52. Ecloga, 79, XVII, para. 25.
53. Les Novelles de Léon VI, N.32; Procheiron Auctum, para. 12; 295, para. 142; Syntagma, I, 252–3; Hexabiblos, 346, para. 14–347, para. 18.
54. Syntagma, I, 73–74; Procheiron Auctum, 83, IX, 5; Ecloga, 36–37, 11, para. 22.
55. For an analysis of aspects of patriarchal expression in Byzantium see Galatariotou, Holy Women and Witches.
56. The insulting words are cited, e.g., in the eleventh-century Peira of Judge Eustathios, in the writings of Psellos, Anna Komnene, Christophoros Mytilinaios, in the twelfth-century works of Eustathios of Thessalonike, Niketas Choniates, Tzetzes. See Koukoulès, BBP, III, 304–7.
57. See e.g. Theognosti Thesaurus, 178.467–180.513.
58. Cf. also St. John Chrysostom, MPG 61, cols. 151–60.
59. Catecheseis, fols. 124α-125β, 126α, 126β-127α.
60. Theognostos is referring to the apophthegmata of St. Anastasios: Theognosti Thesaurus, 190.82-.102; see also Syntagma, IV, Letter of Dionysios to Basileides, 10. The same idea is encountered elsewhere, e.g. in the writings of Sts. Athanasios and Amphilochios (the latter writes that he who leaves his wife’s bed to go to another woman’s loses his soul): see respectively MPG 28, cols. 656–7, qu. 97; Theognosti Thesaurus, 143–4, para. 10.
61. Ms. Cod. Lesb. Leim. 2, fol. 294P; Interpretation of the Commandments of Christ, fols. 37α-37β, 63β-64α; Book of Panegyrics, fols. 55β-56α. Cf. Matthew, 5:28.
62. Catecheseis, fols. 23β, 54β, 55β, 56α, 193β. Cf. Exodus, 20:17.
63.
: St Basil, MPG 30, col. 704.
64. Aeschylus was but one of its earliest exponents. In his commentary on the Oresteia, Thomson, G. draws attention to the affirmity between horan (‘seeing’) and eran (‘loving’): Aeschylus, Oresteia, ed. Thomson, G. (Cambridge 1938) I, 427–8 Google Scholar; II, 53–54. I thank Prof. M. Alexiou for this reference.
65. The code of honour of many societies often includes an expectation that when an unmarried woman walks past a man on a path she will lower her eyes so as to avoid eye-contact and sensuality. For an example from modern rural Greece, see Campbell, Honour, Family and Patronage, 326.
66. Catecheseis, fols. 54β-56α.
67. Interpretation of the Commandments of Christ, fols. 37α-39β, 63β (cf. Matthew, 5:28) 64α.
68. St. John Chrysostom, MPG 61, col. 151.
69. St. John Klimakos, MPG 88, col. 893.
70. St. Antiochos, MPG 89, col. 1480.
71. Theognosti Thesaurus, 18, para. 5; and see note 37 on dating.
72. Cecaumeni Consilia et Narrationes, ed. Litavrin, G.G. (Moscow 1972) 226.27–228. 4Google Scholar; Cecaumeni Strategikon et incerti scriptoris de officiis regiis libellus, edd. Wassiliewski, B.,Jernstedt, V. (St. Petersburg 1876/repr. Amsterdam 1965) 54.21-.26 Google Scholar. See also 212.7-.8, and for other examples of Kekaumenos’ mistrust of women see 176.20–178.11, 202.12–204.30, 220.9–10; cf. 230.8-.9, 224.23–246.12 (Litavrin ed.).
73.
in Makarios Chrysokephalos, XIV
(cited in note 11) 380–434, esp. 416–7.
74. Psalms, 42.
75. Ibid., 55.
76. Catecheseis, fols. 193β-193β.
77. According to canons (going back to the Council in Trullo) monks or nuns must not leave the monastery without some urgent reason, and only if they have received the consent and blessing of their abbot or abess. Balsamon notes that nuns are not allowed to stay out overnight, whereas monks are. See Syntagma, II, 414–5 (canon Forty-six).
78. See e.g. Syntagma, II, 416–9 (canon Forty-eight of the Council in Trullo) stating that no woman is allowed to enter a male monastery, and vice versa. Zonaras gives the example of a monk staying overnight in a nunnery as the ultimate of scandals. Balsamon’s commentary testifies to the resilience of both the monastic rules and their breaches: referring to Justinianic legislation he says that no pretext, including having a relative in a monastery, should be used by a man to enter a nunnery, or by a woman to enter a monastery. See also Theognosti Thesaurus, 88–89, para. 13, referring to canon Forty-seven of the Council in Trullo (692), according to which disobedient monks or nuns who stay overnight in, respectively, a nunnery or monastery are to be excommunicated.
79.
Typika of nunneries contain such provisions for a gatekeeper (pyloros or thyroros) who should be old and pious and who should allow no one to enter the convent without the abbess’ prior knowledge and consent. The function of the gatekeeper is to maintain the nunnery ‘not to be trespassed upon by men’ 
See ‘Le typikon de la Théotokos Kécharitomênè’, ed.
Gautier, P., REB 43 (1985) 5–165
Google Scholar, esp. 75.1017–77.1037; also 61.741-.761, 129.1922-. 1953, 147.2287-.2291 (also in MPG 127, cols. 991–1128, esp. col. 1009, col. 1032, cols. 1046–8); ‘Le typicon du monastère de Lips’, ed
Delehaye, H., Deux typika byzantins de l’époque des Pakologues (Brussels
1921) 106–36
Google Scholar, esp. 115.18-.19; ‘Le typicon du monastère de Notre-Dame 
ed. Delehaye, ibid., 18–105, esp. 59–60. See also
Galatariotou, C., ‘Byzantine Women’s Monastic Communities: the Evidence of the Typika’, JöB
38 (1988) 263–90
Google Scholar; Grosdidier de Matons, La femme dans l’empire byzantin, 39–44.
80. Catecheseis, fols. 153β-154β. See St. Basil’s canonical Letters II and III to Amphilochios, referring to epitimia imposed on nuns who commit carnal sins: Syntagma, VI, esp. 140–1, 217. See also the synopsis of the Holy Canons, where Basil’s canons Seven and Fourteen (concerning nuns losing their virginity) are cited: Syntagma, IV, 404–6. See also Syntagma, VI, 389–96. (Matthaios Blastares, concerning nuns fallen into sin); ibid., I, 212 (Photios’ Nomokanon, concerning abduction and defloration of nuns); ibid., II, 315–6 (canons of the Council in Trullo, concerning nuns having sexual relations with bishops, priests, deacons, subdeacons, psalmers, readers, and porters); ibid., IV, 429 (canon of Nikephoros Omologetes, concerning rape of a nun and imposing an epitimion on her, too); ibid., IV, 443 (canons of John Nesteutes concerning a nun who knows that another nun is gujjty of fornication [moicheia] or pederasty [paidophthoria], 446 (on bestiality committed by women); ibid., V, 581 (entalma laying down that priests officiating in nunneries must be old and eunuchs so that no scandal will be caused).
81. Catecheseis, fol. 176α.
82. Panegyric for St. Theosebios Arsinoetes (cited in note 9) 188.4-.11.
83. Catecheseis, fol. 116β Less explicitly, Neophytos refers to monks’ sexual conduct also in other passages, e.g. in Interpretation of the Commandments of Christ, fols. 60β, 95α; Catecheseis, fols. 66α, 96β-97α.
84. See e.g. Syntagma, I, 258; II, 483–5, 409–11; III, 197–8; IV, 437–8.
85. Theognosti Thesaurus, 75–76, para. 5; 108ff., para. 2;. and 180–3, respectively. For a fifteenth-century complaint of monks’ and priests’ sexual activities inside monastic walls, see Bergades, Apokopos, ed. Alexiou, S. (Athens 1971) 24.189-.200.Google Scholar
86. Written after 1112. See 
, ed.
Papadopoullos-Kerameus, A., Noctes Petropolitanae (St. Petersburg 1913) 1–87, esp. 11.Google Scholar
87. Ibid., 74–83.
88. See Galatariotou, C., ‘Byzantine Ktetorika Typika: a Comparative Study’, REB 45 (1987) 77–138.Google Scholar
89.
75.
90. Ibid., 81.
91. Life of St. Leontios of Jerusalem (cited in note 73) 415–9.
92. Genesis, 19:4–11. See Boswell, J., Christianity, Social Tolerance and Homosexuality (Chicago and London 1980) 92–95 Google Scholar; Tannahil, , Sex in History (cited in note 24) 141–3 Google Scholar; McNeill, J., The Church and the Homosexual (Kansas City 1976) 42–50.Google Scholar
93. The verb suggenometha means ‘becoming familiar with’, or ‘making the acquaintance of. It does not clearly refer to sexual activity, and the Hebrew verb ‘to know’ of which suggenometha is meant to be a translation is itself very rarely (in ten out of 943 occurrences in the Old Testament) used with sexual connotations. See Bailey, D.S., Homosexuality and the Western Christian Tradition (London 1955) 2–3.Google Scholar
94. Hexaemeros, 225.5-.14.
95. See e.g. Theognosti Thesaurus, 6–7, para. 13.
96. ‘Interpretation of the Odes’, in Psalms, 131.
97. Balsamon, citing the Basilika: 
Syntagma, IV, 220. The last punishment is also found in the Procheiron Auctum, 300, para. 191.
98. Catecheseis, fols. 125β-126α.
99. Ibid., fol. 220β; also fols. 125β-126α; Book of Fifty Chapters, fols. 67α-67β.
100. Theognosti Thesaurus, 143, para. 10.
101. Ms. Cod. Lesb. Leim. 2, fol. 295α; Catecheseis, fol. 175α. Cf. Corinthians, 6:9–10; Romans, 1:26–27.
102. Novel 77, 1–2; transi. Tannahil, Sex in History, 143–4.
103. Procopii Caesariensis Opera Omnia, ed. Haury, J., III, Historia quae dicitur arcana (Leipzig 1963)Google Scholar 76.1-.12, esp. 76.8-.9.
104. Malaias, John, Chronographia, ed. Bekker, (Bonn 1831) 436.3-.16.Google Scholar
105. Procheiron Auctum, 300, para. 190; 302, para. 214.
106. Novella, 141, preamble and para. 1; transi. Tannahil, Sex in History, 143–4. On Byzantine legislation on homosexuality see Boswell, Christianity, Social Tolerance and Homosexuality, 171–4.
107. Theognosti Thesaurus, 6–7, para. 13 (cf. Romans, 1:27); see also 192.152-.163.
108.
Theognosti Thesaurus, 192.152-.163.
109. By ‘taboo’ I mean a categorical prohibition whose breach would bring shame and fear of supernatural punishment. On the nature of taboos see Douglas, Purity and Danger; Tambiah, S.H., ‘Animals are Good to Think and Good to Prohibit’, Ethnology 8 (1969) 423–59 CrossRefGoogle Scholar. The ‘universality’ of the incest taboo was proclaimed, amongst others, by Lévi-Strauss, C.. See his ‘Structural Analysis in Linguistics and in Anthropology’, in idem, Structural Anthropology, I (Harmondsworth 1972) 31–54 Google Scholar, esp. 51. This has been conclusively refuted. See Hopkins, K., ‘Brother-Sister Marriage in Roman Egypt’, Comparative Studies in Society and History 22 (1980) 303–54 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Fox, R., Kinship and Marriage (Harmondsworth 1967) 54–76 Google Scholar; Goody, , The Development of the Family, 39–45 Google Scholar; Leach, E.R., Social Anthropology (Glasgow 1982) 51.Google Scholar
110.
: Theognosti Thesaurus, 192.152-.163 (referring to the writings of St. Anastasios of Sinai: see Anastasii Sinaitae interrogationes et respon-siones, MPG 89, 329–824, 8 esp. 392B-393C7). The strongest Church argument against homosexuality has been traditionally derived from Paul’s Romans, 1:26, who indicts it as 
See McNeill, The Church and the Homosexual, 53–56.
111.
Theognosti Thesaurus, p.192.152-.163.
112.
ed. Delehaye, Saints, 207–212, esp. 209.14–210.2.
113.
ed.
Tsiknopoullos, I.P., 
(Nicosia
1969) 69–122
Google Scholar (thereafter cited as Typikon) 80.5-.8.
114. The other two reasons were (a) that the abbot was heretical, and (b) that women were allowed to enter the monastery: Syntagma, IV, 428 (canons Seventeen and Eighteen of Nikephoros Omologetes); 4316 (canon Nine of Nikephoros, Patriarch of Constantinople).
115. Typikon, 95.15-.17.
116. Cf. Ptochoprodromos’ monk Hilarion, who complains that his duties as a novice include having to bath the abbot, the oikonomos and the ekklesiarches of the monastery: Poèmes Prodromiques en grec vulgaire, ed. Hesseling, D.-C., Pernot, H. (Amsterdam 1968) iii, 53.111-.116.Google Scholar
117. Typikon, 96.5-.6.
118. Ibid., 101.16.
119. Ibid., 95.23-.27.
120. Ibid., 89.15-.19.
121.
(cited in note 86) 77–83 (chap, forty-five).
122. Theognosti Thesaurus, 154, para. 32.
123. Ibid., 134.785-.787. Together with fornication, adultery, and homosexuality.
124. Ms. Cod. Lesb. Leim. 2, fol. 295α; Catecheseis, fol. 175α. Cf. Corinthians, 6:9–10.
125. Contrast, however, the canons of John Nesteutes which impose an epitimion of forty days for masturbation, but one of only eight for ‘masturbating each other’: Syntagma, IV, 437.
126. Catecheseis, fols. 173β-174α. A similar attitude is found in Theognosti Thesaurus, 172–3, para. 61. See also ibid., 191 (4); and the letters of Dionysios to Basileides and of Athanasios to the monk Ammoun, and the canonical answers of Timotheos of Alexandreia (Question and Answer XII): Syntagma, IV, 12–13, 67–77, 338.
127. In a parallel example from modern rural Greece, Campbell points out that the Sarakatsan woman who fails to conform to a code of sexual shame is conceived of by the community as having been reduced to a beastly state (she is, for example, called ‘a bitch’). The implication is that her behaviour is shamefully unrestrained and consists of the reflexes of her sexual instincts. See Campbell, Honour, Family and Patronage, 269–72.
128. Book of Fifty Chapters, fols. 8β, 32β. Cf. Genesis, 6:6–7:24.
129. Catecheseis, fol. 165α.
130. Catecheseis, fols. 169β-170α, 171α.
131. Interpretation of the Commandments of Christ, fol. 38α.
132.
: Catecheseis, fol. 165α.
133. We do not of course know whether such rules were kept, or how widely. See Patlagean, Byzantium in the Tenth and Eleventh Centuries (cited in note 50) 576.
134. Catecheseis, fols. 173α-173β.
135. See above, and note 41.
136. Catecheseis, fols. 174α-175α.
137. Les Novelles de Lépn VI, 296, N.89; transl, by O’Faolain, andMartines, , ed., Not in God’s Image (London 1979) 93–94 Google Scholar. Cf. Corinthians, I, 7:25-:28.
138. Adultery flourished in the Court in the twelfth century and in the Kommenian period it was often tinged by incest (in the cases, e.g., of Manuel I or Andronikos). See Kazhdan and Constable, People and Power in Byzantium, 71-72; Patlagean, Byzantium in the Tenth and Eleventh Centuries (cited in note 50) 574–6, 602.
139. For St. Basil, see MPG 31, col. 1464. For Paul, see Corinthians, I, 7:9. An often quoted phrase. See e.g. St. John Chrysostom, MPG 61, cols. 151–60, esp. col. 153.
140. It is an idea deeply rooted in Greek culture. For an example of a forceful expression of it in modern Greek literature, see Kazantzakes, N., Asketike (Athens 1971) esp. 71–89.Google Scholar
141. Book of Panegyrics, fols. 55β-56α. Also, ibid., fols. 56β-57α; Interpretation of the Commandments of Christ, fol. 176β. Cf. Matthew, 16:24.
142. Interpretation of the Commandments of Christ, fol. 167β; Book ofPanegyrics, fol. 188β.
143. For a similar example given in a non-Neophytic Byzantine source see Moschos, John, Pratum Spirituale, MPG 87.3, cols. 2852–3112, esp. cols. 2854–6. Pratum Spirituale, MPG 87.3, cols. 2852–3112 Google Scholar, esp. cols. 2854–6.
144. Book of Panegyrics, fol. 177α.
145. Matthew, 19:12; Mark, 9:43-.47. Book of Panegyrics, fols. 71β, 83β.
146. See Syntagma, II, 29–31; 676–7; IV, 404; see also ibid., I, 187–8; and generally Tannahil, Sex in History, 128.
147. Interpretation of the Commandments of Christ, fol. 92β
148. Neophytos also uses the taboo of incest elsewhere, in a process of de-sexualising female saints and ‘good’ women. See Galatariotou, Holy Women and Witches, 78 ff.
149. Hexaemeros, 191.22-.25, 228.14; cf. Genesis, 25:25-:34, 26:34–28:9. It is within this context that the Holy Cross is hailed by Neophytos as the propagator of ‘self-control by the married’: Book of Panegyrics, fol. 51β. Neophytos also notes Moses’ law that men are to avoid sexual relations with their wives during a time of fasting: Catecheseis, fol. 209β.
150. See note 41, above.
151. See note 24, above.
152. Respectively: Panegyric for St. Theosebios Arsinoetes (cited in note 9) 188.1-.2; Catecheseis, fols. 174β-175α.
152. Catecheseis, fols. 193β-194α. Cf. Corinthians, 7:25-:28. Also, Panegyric for St. Theosebios Arsinoetes, above, 187.37–188.19.
153.
ed.
Tsiknopoullos, I.P., Apostolos Barnabas
17 (1956) 205–8
Google Scholar, esp. 206.24-.30; Catecheseis, fol. 13b; Panegyric for St. Theosebios Arsinoetes, above, 185.29-.34; Homily on the Annunciation of the Virgin Mary (cited in note 27) 252.263–254.296.
154. See Galatariotou, Holy Women and Witches, 86–94.
155. Panegyric for St. Theosebios Arsinoetes, cited above, 185.34-.36; 185.36–187.36.
156. Theognosti Thesaurus, 200–1, paras. 10–11.
157. Hexaemeros, 187.20–188.13.
158. Book of Panegyrics, fols. 216b-217b. The same question, with a slightly different answer, is found in Theognostos: Theognosti Thesaurus, 5, para. 8. Augustine’s belief was that sex in the Garden of Eden, if it had ever taken place, would have been a spiritual affair, with no ‘unregulated excitement, or any need to resist desire’: Augustine, C. duas epist. Pelag., I, 34, 17; translation by Tannahil, Sex in History, 130.
159. For a basic outline of this period the best introduction is still Hill, G., A History of Cyprus, I (Cambridge 1949) 257ff.Google Scholar
160. Concerning the flight of the aristocracy see 
ed.
Cobham,
Excerpta Cypria (Cambridge
1908) 10–13
Google Scholar, esp. 10.12–11.4; Catecheseis, fol. 83β. Concerning the flight of, e.g., the (probably Constantinopolitan) bishop of Paphos Basil Kinnamos see also
Mango, C. ‘Chypre, carrefour du monde byzantine’, XVe Congrès d’Études Byzantines, V/5 (Athens
1976) 9.Google Scholar
161. The Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem, with its western laws, Court and feudalism, was virtually transplanted to Cyprus overnight. See Hill, generally, A History of Cyprus, II (Cambridge 1948) 1–137.Google Scholar
162. The endowment of Latin sees involved the diminuition of the property of the Cypriot Orthodox Church. See generally
Hackett, , History of the Orthodox Church of Cyprus (London
1901) 74–76
Google Scholar. The Latin persecution of the Cypriot Orthodox Church began in earnest with the expulsions of Cypriot bishops: see
Lampros, ,
14 (1917) 14–50
Google Scholar, esp. 39, no. 25, 11.12-. 17, 41–43;
Sathas, K.N., 
II
Venice
1873) 5–19
Google Scholar (for Patriarch Germanos’ letter to the Cypriots in 1223 urging them not to concede to Latin demands and for the Cypriot Archbishop Neophytos’ answer).
163. There is no doubt that the majority of the Cypriot population suffered during the closing centuries of rule by Constantinople. From Neophytos and from other sources, and in common with the general situation in other Byzantine provinces of the time, we know that Cyprus suffered from corrupt and oppressive administration, from the imposition of crushing taxation, and from poor military organisation. For the relevant bibliography and discussion see Galatariotou, C. From Man to Holy Man. A Case-Study of Sanctification in Byzantium (Cambridge University Press, forthcoming), esp. Part. II.Google Scholar
164. For just one example of Neophytos’ belief that Cyprus was a part of Byzantium even in c. 1214 — some twenty-two years after the imposition of Latin rule — see his references to the Byzantine emperor as ‘our most faithful and God-crowned emperor’; the basileus, despotes, autokrator, and ‘regas of Cyprus’, to whom the Recluse advises his monks to go with a petition in times of need, and Who may be expected to extend a helping hand with the affairs of Neophytos’ monastery of the Enkleistra: Catecheseis; Typikon, 78.14–79.2, 79.3-. 12, 90.20-.27. See the discussion in Galatariotou, op. cit., Part II.
