Chapter 5: Monarchs, Bisexuality, Gender
Fluidity and Power (TP)
In this chapter, I shall continue
with my feminist and LGBTQIA philosophy interpretation and analysis of
Spinoza’s TP 6.5 from my previous chapter, by examining the following sentence:
“…quod rex libidini obnoxius omnia saepe
moderetur ex libidine unius aut alterius pellicis aut cinaedi.”[i]
quod
|
rex
|
libidini
|
obnoxius
|
omnia
|
who, that, which, what
|
ruler,
king,
monarch,
masculine noun but
not exclusively used to refer to males, eg:
“of
royal persons, a prince, member of the royal family:
|
libido-inis:
Feminine noun Sexual desire, passion, appetite,
fancy, lust,
Longing
May refer to immoderate passion, lust,
or may be used in a general sense eg longing to
hear an oration eg
“est
lubido orationem audire”[iii]
|
liable
See also Sallust’s usage of the phrase libidini
obnoxious
translated to simply mean passion
(De Coniuratione Catilinae, chapter LII, 21-22):
“animus
in
consulundo liber
neque delicto
neque
lubidini obnoxius”[iv]
“in deliberation a free spirit, tied neither to
wrongdoing
nor to passion”[v]
|
each, every
|
saepe
|
moderetur
|
ex
|
libidine
|
unis
|
often, frequently
|
guide, control, regulate, govern
present, passive subjunctive, 3rd
person singular
|
out of, from, according to,
by reason of, because of,
as a result of
|
Libido-inis:
Sexual desire, passion, appetite, fancy, lust,
Longing
See above: may be immoderate or in general sense
|
one
(numerical)
|
aut
|
alterius
|
pellicis
|
aut
|
cinaedi.
|
aut…aut…
either…or…
or…or else…
|
Meaning one of two possibilities;
Former…latter
|
Concubine, mistress,
male prostitute
|
…or
|
effeminate man;
(and insults for a gay man)
|
Shirley’s version reads:
“…a king who is a slave to lust
has all his governmental decisions controlled by the caprice of one or another
concubine or sodomite”[vi]
Elwes translates this as:
“…a lascivious king often manages
everything at the caprice of this or that mistress or minion.”[vii]
These are unhelpful translations
because they have unpleasant and erroneous overtones in this context.
Libidini comes from
libido/libidinis which can simply mean desire for the person one loves. In Part
3 of the Ethics, Elwes translates Spinoza’s definition of libido as sexual “desire
and love” “Whether this desire be excessive or not”[viii].
Hence, by Elwes’s own translation of the Ethics, the word sexual desire/libido
is not invariably immoderate, or a negative word, or implying something
potentially unethical and unsavoury, as the word lascivious does. Shirley’s
phrase of being “a slave to lust”[ix]
is equally judgemental and at odds with Spinoza’s broader definition of libido.
Thus, these translations introduce a judgement which need not be intended by
Spinoza.
Translating moderetur as manages,
I think, is also a poor fit for Spinoza’s political philosophy. The section in
which this sentence appears focuses on kings and the monarchy. Indeed, as I discussed
in my previous chapter, Spinoza’s eunuch example in the sentence following this
one (see interlineal chart above) is situated in the context of arguably the
most powerful king in the ancient world, Alexander the Great. The Shirley edition
implies in a footnote that the king referred to in this sentence is not
relevant to the following quote about a eunuch, by claiming it refers to a
different king[x].
However, I think there are too many unique parallels between the two sentences
for them not to be following on from one another. In this way, I suggest an
alternative reading for this sentence where, unlike in the Shirley edition, the
king is Alexander the Great and the cinaedi is his beloved eunuch. Although I
agree with the “governmental” sense of Shirley’s translation, I’m unsure why he
changes it from a verb to an adjective and adds in the word “decisions”[xi].
Furthermore, it is unclear why Shirley adds the word “controlled”[xii]
which is a secondary sense of moderetur. I think its best equivalent verb is
governs because this makes more sense in the context of kings and rulers.
The second time sexual desire
(libidine) appears in this sentence, both Elwes and Shirley switch to the word
caprice, perhaps to be in keeping with some Roman writers’ usage of the
expression ex libidine to mean irrational, whim or caprice[xiii].
However, I’m unconvinced that caprice best fits the context or event in the
quote from Curtius that follows this sentence[xiv].
As we saw in my previous chapter,
Orsines’s execution[xv]
was not exactly the result of a capricious monarch: Orsines had defied the king’s
request that Bagoas receive a gift from him, and Orsines insulted his beloved
Bagoas by regarding him as though he were a prostitute. Other men had also been
killed as a result of disloyalty to the king, Alexander the Great, so it was
not purely on a whim. It could be argued that it was whimsical to assume
Orsines was guilty of robbing the tomb. If one wanted to keep this usage of ex
libidine, I think the word irrational would be better because it is in line
with Spinoza’s overall rationalist philosophy. However, monarchical power in
bygone historical times was often exerted in accordance with subjects’ loyalty
to their king so may not be as irrational as it appears to later generations.
One could argue that Elwes
assumed that the first usage of the word libido should be translated as
lascivious because it fitted the context of kings in the ancient world who
could have many concubines. Indeed, Bagoas had been a concubine of Darius III,
the previous king of Persia before Alexander’s invasion and Alexander himself
had several spouses. However, Elwes does not choose to translate pellicis as
concubine, which is not only a standard meaning of the word but is also related
to the word paelicatus meaning concubinage (which could be either female or
eunuch spouses). I suggest that the word concubine would suit this sentence
better so I agree with Shirley’s word choice here. Elwes translates pellicis as
mistress which, although it is an equivalent word, does not sit well in the
context of Alexander the Great or the rest of section 5[xvi].
Indeed, Alexander the Great did not have mistresses, but ended up marrying the
few women with whom he was in a sexual relationship. Furthermore, Plutarch
perceives him to have a high sexual moral code with both women and male lovers,
depicting how Alexander the Great refused to sexually objectify women or let
them be ill-treated by other men and was ethically outraged when men attempted
to sell him boys[xvii].
Hence, I suggest gender and sexuality bias is being introduced at the
translation layer in this section where the choice of words are unfairly
depicting bisexual kings as excessively lustful and sexually unethical.
Further textual evidence of the
way the meaning of the sentences and examples are stretched in translation is
the word cinaedi. Unlike Shirley, I think the last word in this sentence,
cinaedi, possibly foreshadows the eunuch Bagoas in the next sentence because it
can refer to an effeminate man.
Shirley uses the rather indelicate and
injudicious word sodomite which is offensive in tone. It also does not assist
understanding. It means Shirley has to break the train of thought by
disassociating the references between the two sentences[xviii].
It makes Spinoza seem to jump from referring to one king then suddenly quoting
a different king’s life from a different era[xix].
As I mentioned above, sexual orientation/preferences and being a eunuch were
distinct identities in the ancient world, as I think they would be today. So,
it disconnects the word cinaedi from castratum[xx]
which disrupts the possible theme of effeminacy. However, Elwes has cinaedi
down as minion which I think is a mistake because it does not seem to occur as
a possible translation in regular Latin dictionaries. Minion introduces the
assumption that the advisors (especially if women or effeminate men or gay men)
are somehow inferior, working for the monarch as a type of servant, which is an
overtone not present in Spinoza’s original Latin text. Had Spinoza intended the
unsavoury overtones of lascivious or minion, he would have used the adjective pathicus-i
which he does not. So there is a great deal of translator creative licence in
this sentence which is presenting an additional obstacle to a reader’s
understanding of Spinoza’s treatise.
Hence, I suggest the most
probable meaning of TP 6.5[xxi],
based on Spinoza’s definition of libido in his Ethics[xxii],
is:
…that a king who was liable to
desire/love, often governed with desire/love for either a concubine or
effeminate man. (my translation)
Spinoza was, I think, right to
take account of the main political advisor to a monarch. There are various
examples of these down the ages from the kings Spinoza mentions, such as
Biblical King David (c 1000 BCE) and Alexander the Great (356-323 BCE), to monarchs after Spinoza’s lifetime,
such as Queen Anne (United Kingdom). In chapter 7, Spinoza states:
“For besides that a king soon
perishes, when his soldiers cease to desire his safety, it is certain that
kings are always in the greatest danger from those who are nearest their
persons. The fewer counsellors, then, there are, and the more powerful they
consequently are, the more the king is in danger of their transferring the
dominion to another. Nothing in fact more alarmed David, than that his own
counsellor Ahitophel sided with Absalom.” [xxiii]
The reader is referred to 2
Samuel XV:31 which recounts how King David suffered from the problem of cunning
and disloyal advisors. Ahitophel, his advisor, is deceitful and deserts King David
behind his back and joins his opposition, led by Absalom, King David’s son. Ahitophel
was a jealous man while Absalom was ambitious to be king so the two were a
lethal combination. It is in 2 Samuel XVII:1f, however, that we learn of how Absalom
and Ahitophel plot the downfall of King David[xxiv].
Ahitophel’s strategy is to round up 12,000 men and launch a (military/style)
surprise attack on King David and strike him when he is weak and least expects
it. Absalom sees nothing wrong with this attempt on his father’s life, despite
being so loved and adored by his father who would have preserved Absalom’s life
over his own. Thus, Spinoza shows with this example that those closest to a
monarch (advisors; family including offspring) can also be the most dangerous, as
is the case with Absalom.
Perhaps a parallel situation of
jealousy and cunning among political advisors is Sarah, Duchess of Marlborough,
(1660-1744) and (Baroness) Abigail Masham (1670-1734). Like Bagoas, both the
Duchess of Marlborough and Abigail were lovers of a monarch, in their case, Queen
Anne (1665-1714). However, the Duchess of Marlborough fell from favour when she
threatened to make public their correspondence to reveal her lesbian
relationship with Queen Anne in a jealous attempt to end the Queen’s lesbian
relationship with Abigail.
Like Bagoas, the Duchess of
Marlborough enjoyed a very equal and personal/sexual relationship with her
monarch and they went as far as using the titles Mrs and Mrs for each other in
private to eradicate the status difference between them[xxv].
This was not altogether that unusual. Queen Anne’s sister, Mary, also enjoyed a
personal, intimate relationship with Lady Frances Apsley, whom she referred to
as her husband[xxvi].
Some thought that the Duchess of Marlborough wielded so much power and
influence that it was as though, in practice, she was the ruler, more than
Queen Anne. This is similar to Orsines’s remark that assumes Bagoas is, in
effect, the ruler of Persia more so than Alexander the Great. It is difficult
to quantify or assess just how much Bagoas ruled. Did he rule more than Alexander
the Great or alongside him? It is thought that the Duchess of Marlborough’s power
did not usurp Queen Anne in any way, but rather provided her with solid and
vital support. Nevertheless, this is not to underestimate the major political
role the Duchess of Marlborough played in helping Queen Anne rule. She was not
only Queen Anne’s closest political advisor and representative but was also
Groom of the Stole, Keeper of the Privy Purse, Ranger of Windsor Great Park and
Mistress of the Robes. This is an impressive list of important roles to occupy,
and they include positions rarely occupied by women. To this day, Sarah is the
only woman to be listed as the main Ranger of Windsor Great Park. In this way, the
Duchess of Marlborough was not restricted by gender expectations. She took on
roles which are still perceived as, what people refer to as, ‘jobs for the boys’
including being in charge of royal finances[xxvii].
Her strident, dominant, confident and commanding manner did not conform to stereotypically
feminine characteristics but she did not feel the need to change who she was.
Perhaps the Duchess of Marlborough could be said to be a masculinised woman much
as Bagoas was an effeminate man. Both were not only intelligent and influential
advisors, but also highly politically powerful ones who were of crucial
importance to their respective monarchs.
Thus, Spinoza is correct to point
out that these advisors do not always come from the social groups that one
might assume. Nowadays, the Duchess of Marlborough, (Baroness) Abigail Masham and
Bagoas would be considered extraordinary that they are part of the LGBTQIA
community and yet wield political power. Furthermore, they provide examples of
people in the past who did not seem to lower or change their expectations in
life as a result of their gender identity, unlike a high percentage of people
in the 21st century. Nor does Spinoza limit his social and political
expectations according to gender stereotypes in his political philosophy. Through
Spinoza, we learn from history that social expectation is shaped by visibility.
Contemporary society is prone to the Orsines syndrome of being shocked and
disparaging of people who do not neatly fit within their culture’s gendered
stereotypes and the roles people of various identities should occupy in
society. Today, there is still a tendency to view members of this community as
being a recent fad as though they have neither an historical or cultural past
nor a precedent of obtaining top political roles with influence and power. Whereas,
Spinoza deconstructs narrow gender stereotypes simply by educating his readers
to expand their concepts of how people have lived throughout history. Impressively,
Spinoza’s political theory holds true even after his time, showing that he has
foresight and that his treatises have contemporary relevance, which is the mark
of a very solid theory.
[i] Benedict de Spinoza, Opera: DE
INTELLECTUS EMENDATIONE, TRACTATUS POLITICUS, EPISTOLAE., ed. C.H. Bruder,
EDITI ONIBUS PRINCIPIBUS DENUO EDIDIT, EDITIO STEREOTYPA, (google e-book), vol.
II (Leipzig, Germany: TYPIS ET SUMTIBUS BERNH. TAUCHNITZ JUN., 1844), 76,
https://books.googleusercontent.com/books/content?req=AKW5QadzEPDWXpqdc1w64BhFzajGArDBTQxm7-OplWX-YAvgSP9r0aWjRuX_tWKyc91-v3Gs_dl8Bj6OsIx-MXggSVv8YstyN_hv_92hGuIgl7pjaissVrP4yATRaHCCUioseMVU8P140b-vRAVXK3X2671uEoDyNHgJNglQzeqMHaWArZG409KntocN2v_33hMNHHIie-SfXal-O7pNaaJTNnYo5Vdp_tP0ZStSFL2ajcir8s3q1LHnTpfqUrXkIlOd7woTP-bA2LMP2J729nBFPsQz-WHMOw.
[ii] D. P Simpson, Cassell’s Latin-English,
English-Latin Dictionary (London: Cassell, 1987), 522.
[iii] Simpson, 345.
[iv] Crispus Sallustius, ‘Bellvm Catilinae’,
Educational section of univerity website (online course materials),
LATN2310 LATIN HISTORICAL TEXTS 1
(University of Queensland), 11 December 2001,
https://www.uq.edu.au/hprcflex/lt2310/cl220.htm;
https://www.uq.edu.au/hprcflex/lt2310/saltext6.htm;
https://www.uq.edu.au/hprcflex/lt2310/trans52e.htm.
[v] Sallustius.
[vi] Benedictus de Spinoza et al., Political
Treatise (Indianapolis: Hackett Pub, 2000), 66.
[vii] Benedict de Spinoza, THE CHIEF WORKS
of BENEDICT DE SPINOZA, trans. R. H. M. Elwes, REVISED EDITION. London, UK,
vol. I, BOHN’S PHILOSOPHICAL LIBRARY. SPINOZA’S WORKS. (London: york street,
covent garden: GEORGE BELL & SONS, 1891), 318,
http://lf-oll.s3.amazonaws.com/titles/1710/1321.01_Bk.pdf.
[viii]
Benedict de Spinoza, THE CHIEF WORKS
of BENEDICT DE SPINOZA, trans. R. H. M. Elwes, REVISED EDITION. London, UK,
vol. II, BOHN’S PHILOSOPHICAL LIBRARY. SPINOZA’S WORKS. (London: york street,
covent garden new york: 66, fifth avenue, and bombay: 53, esplanade road
cambridge: deighton, bell & co: GEORGE BELL & SONS, 1901), 184,
http://lf-oll.s3.amazonaws.com/titles/1711/1321.02_Bk.pdf.
[ix] Spinoza et al., Political Treatise,
66.
[x] Spinoza et al., 66.
[xi] Spinoza et al., 66.
[xii] Spinoza et al., 66.
[xiii]
Simpson, Cassell’s Latin-English,
English-Latin Dictionary.
[xiv] Spinoza et al., Political Treatise,
66.
[xv] Curtius Rufus Quintus, Historiarum
Alexandri Magni Macedonis Libri Qui Supersunt, ed. Stangl Thomas (Leipzig,
Germany: Verlag von G. Freytag, 1902), 284, https://archive.org/details/qcurtirufihisto00stangoog/page/n9.
[xvi] Spinoza, THE CHIEF WORKS of BENEDICT
DE SPINOZA, 1891, I:317–18.
[xvii]
Lucius Mestrius Plutarch, ‘Alexander’,
educational, trans. John Dryden, The Internet Classics Archive, accessed 16 May
2019, http://classics.mit.edu/Plutarch/alexandr.html.
[xviii]
Spinoza et al., Political Treatise,
66.
[xix] Spinoza et al., 66.
[xx] Spinoza, Opera: DE INTELLECTUS
EMENDATIONE, TRACTATUS POLITICUS, EPISTOLAE., II:76.
[xxi] Spinoza, II:76.
[xxii]
Spinoza, THE CHIEF WORKS of BENEDICT
DE SPINOZA, 1901, II:184.
[xxiii]
Spinoza, THE CHIEF WORKS of BENEDICT
DE SPINOZA, 1891, I:334.
[xxiv]
Rabbi N. Scherman and Rabbi M. Zlotowitz,
eds., Tanach (The Torah/Prophets/Writings, the Twenty-Four Books of the
Bible Newly Translated and Annotated), Stone edition, The Artscroll Series
(Mesorah Publications Ltd., 2008).
[xxv] ‘Queen Anne’, Royal, Historic Royal
Palaces, no date given,
https://www.hrp.org.uk/kensington-palace/history-and-stories/queen-anne/#gs.clq80o.
[xxvi]
‘Queen Anne’.
[xxvii]
‘The Spending Habits of Queen Anne’,
Royal, Blenheim Palace, no date given,
https://www.blenheimpalace.com/visitus/sarah-marlborough/.
