who reject anal penetration, promiscuity, and effeminacy

and














































Godly


Fight










ARISTOTLE'S

NIKOMACHEAN ETHICS

and

CICERO'S

TUSCULAN DISPUTATIONS

by
Bill Weintraub

PROLOGUE

XX. Will you, though you have seen boys in Lacedaemon, young men at Olympia, barbarians in the arena submitting to the heaviest blows and enduring them in silence -- will you, if some pain happen to give you a twitch, cry out like a woman and not endure resolutely and calmly?

"It is unbearable ; nature cannot put up with it."

Very well.

Boys endure from love of fame, others endure for shame's sake, many from fear, and yet are we afraid that nature cannot put up with what so many have endured in such a number of different places?

Nature in fact not only puts up with but even demands it ; for she offers nothing more excellent, nothing more desirable than honour [honestas], than renown [laus], than distinction [dignitas], than glory [decus]. By all this number of terms there is only one thing that I want to express, but I employ a number, in order to make my meaning as clear as possible.

What I want to say in fact is that far the best for man is that which is desirable in and for itself, has its source in virtue or rather is based on virtue, is of itself praiseworthy, and in fact I should prefer to describe it as the only rather than the highest good. Moreover, just as we use language like this in speaking of what is honourable [honestum], so we use the opposite in speaking of what is base [turpe] : there is nothing so revolting, nothing so despicable, nothing more unworthy of a human being.

~Cicero, Tusculan Disputations. 2.46, translated by JE King.

Μarcus Tullius Cicero (106 - 43 BC) was a Roman orator, lawyer, and politician (and a philosopher). He was the head of the Roman bar, and very ably served his country, including as consul in 63 BC, and provincial governor.

In 45 BC, his personal life in ruins due to a bitter divorce from his wife Terentia and the death of his beloved daughter Tullia, and with no place for him in public life under Caesar's dictatorship, he turned to philosophy, and in very short time produced more than seven books, including The Tusculan Disputations.

The Disputations take place at Cicero's villa in Tusculum, and are in the form of a dialogue between "M" -- probably Marcus or Magister -- and a youth, "A" -- almost certainly an Adulescens -- that is, a young Man of about 18 years.

In Book II of the Disputations, M asks the youth if he believes that pain is the greatest evil, and when the youth says Yes, M responds -- Really -- greater than dishonour or disgrace ?

The youth immediately recants, and agrees with M that dishonour is a far greater evil.

M then presents many examples of how a Man should behave towards pain -- all of them illustrations of Aristotle's point in the Nikomachean Ethics (ca 330 BC) that the supreme moral virtue of Manliness -- is about the facing and endurance of pain.

And that we learn to endure pain -- through enduring pain ; which is to say that the possession of any moral virtue, including Manliness, is a function of training and habit.

In order to understand the ancient Greeks and Romans, we have to understand these two key points : that dishonour is a far greater evil than pain, and that Manliness is in its essence a habit, the result of many years' training in facing and enduring pain.

Cicero :

A. I consider pain the greatest of all evils.

M. Greater even than disgrace?

A. I do not venture to go so far as that and I am ashamed of having been dislodged so speedily from my position.

M. You should have been still more ashamed had you clung to it. For what is more unworthy than for you to regard anything as worse than disgrace, crime and baseness? And to escape these, what pain should be, I do not say rejected, but should not rather be voluntarily invited, endured and welcomed?

A. I am entirely of that opinion.

~Cic. Tusc. 2.14, translated by JE King.

. . .

Cicero then discusses the benefits of habit and training among two groups : Roman Legionaries ; and Gladiators :

Cicero :

M. Military service in fact -- I mean our own and not that of the Spartans who march to a measure accompanied by the flute, [1] and no word of encouragement is given except with the beat of anapaests [2] -- as for our "army" (exercitus -- training) you can see first what it gets its name from [3] ; then the toil, the great toil of the march ; the load of more than half a month's provisions, the load of any requisite needed, the load of the stake for intrenchment ; for shield, sword, helmet are reckoned a burden by our soldiers as little as their shoulders, arms and hands ; for weapons they say are the soldiers' limbs, and these they carry handy so that, should need arise, they fling aside their burdens and have their weapons as free for use as their limbs.

Look at the training of the legions, the double, the attack, the battle-cry, [4] what an amount of toil it means! Hence comes the courage in battle that makes them ready to face wounds. Bring up a force of untrained soldiers of equal courage : they will seem like women. Why is there such a difference between raw and veteran soldiers as we have lately had experience of? [5]

Recruits have usually the advantage in age, but it is habit which teaches men to endure toil and despise wounds. Nay, we see too wounded men frequently carried out of the line of battle, and the raw untrained soldier on the one hand uttering disgraceful lamentations however trifling his wound, whilst on the other hand the trained veteran, made more brave by the advantage of training, only wants the surgeon to put the bandage on him . . .

Footnotes :

1 The Spartans marched slowly to the sound of the flute, Thuc. V. 70. Cf. Milton, Par. Lost, I. 550:

Anon they move
In perfect Phalanx to the Dorian mood
Of Flutes and soft Recorders; such as rais'd
To highth of noblest temper Hero's old.

2 The marching metre, as in the Spartan poet Tyrtaeus.

3 "Exercitando," -- Training -- according to Varro.

4 Called "baritus" and given when the lines engaged.

5 Cicero is thinking of Caesar's veterans and Pompey's untrained troops in 48 b.c.

~Cic. Tusc. 2.37, translated by JE King.

. . .

M. The force of habit is great. Hunters pass the night in the snow on the mountains : Indians suffer themselves to be burnt ; boxers battered by the gauntlets [2] do not so much as utter a groan. But why mention those who regard an Olympic victory as equal to the consulship of olden days? [3] Look at gladiators, who are either ruined men or barbarians, what blows they endure!

Footnotes:

2 The gauntlets were of ox-hide stiffened with lead and iron, cf. Virg. Aen. 5. 425.

3 Cicero means that in the old days the consulship was prized as the reward of merit : the dictator Caesar gave it to his friends and even appointed one of them consul for a single day.

See, how Men, who have been well trained, prefer to receive a blow rather than basely avoid it! How frequently it is made evident that there is nothing they put higher than giving satisfaction to their owner or to the people! Even when weakened with wounds they send word to their owners to ascertain their pleasure : if they have given satisfaction to them they are content to fall. What gladiator of ordinary merit has ever uttered a groan or changed countenance? Who of them has disgraced himself, I will not say upon his feet, but who has disgraced himself in his fall? [1] Who after falling has drawn in his neck when ordered to suffer the fatal stroke? [2] Such is the force of training, practice and habit. Shall then

The Samnite, [3] filthy fellow, worthy of his life and
place,

be capable of this, and shall a man born to fame have any portion of his soul so weak that he cannot strengthen it by systematic preparation? A gladiatorial show is apt to seem cruel and brutal to some eyes, and I incline to think that it is so, as now conducted. But in the days when it was criminals who crossed swords in the death struggle, there could be no better schooling against pain and death at any rate for the eye, [4] though for the ear perhaps there might be many.

Footnotes:

1 Cf. Byron, Child Harold's Pilgrimage, Canto IV. cxl.

I see before me the gladiator lie:
He leans upon his hand -- his manly brow
Consents to death, but conquers agony.

2 Cicero was killed in the proscription of 43 BC. When the executioners overtook him he thrust his neck as far forward as he could out of the litter and bade them do their work.

3 A verse of the satirist Lucilius. Samnis was a gladiator armed in the fashion of the old Samnites and often a native of Samnium, cf. App. II.

4 In Boswell's Journal Dr. Johnson says, "I am sorry that prize-fighting is gone out. . . . Prize-fighting made people accustomed not to be alarmed at seeing their own blood or feeling a little pain from a wound."

~Cic. Tusc. 2.40-41, translated by JE King

. . .

It is universally agreed then, not merely by the learned but by the unlearned as well, that it is characteristic of men who are brave [fortis], high-spirited, enduring, and superior to human vicissitudes to suffer pain with patience ; nor was there anyone, we said, who did not think that the man who suffered in this spirit was deserving of praise. When then this endurance is both required of brave men and praised when found, is it not base either to shrink from the coming of pain or fail to bear its visitation?

And yet, perhaps, though all right-minded states are called virtue [virtus], the term is not appropriate to all virtues, but all have got the name from the single virtue which was found to outshine the rest, for it is from the word for "Man" [vir] that the word Virtue [virtus] is derived ; but Man's peculiar Virtue is Fortitude, of which there are two main functions, namely scorn of death and scorn of pain. These then we must exercise if we wish to prove possessors of virtue, or rather, since the word for "virtue" is borrowed from the word for "man," if we wish to be Men.

~Cic. Tusc. 2.43, translated by JE King.

Bill Weintraub :

Cicero says that Man's peculiar Virtue is Fortitudo -- Fortitude -- scorn or contempt of death and of pain.

And we should understand that Fortitudo is Cicero's translation into Latin of the ancient Greek word andreia = ανδρεια -- Manliness -- one of the four platonic virtues, and the word which Aristotle uses for the Supreme Virtue -- which, again, is Manliness.

(And, as we'll see, Cicero agrees that Fortitudo is the Supreme Virtue.)

Fortitude, as discussed here by Cicero, may seem to us to be just one aspect of Manliness -- the Willingness and Ability to Fight, which in its Roman version is the Courage to Confront, and the Ability to Maim and/or Kill -- one's opponent.

But really, and while Fortitude may seem to be more about Willingness and Courage than it is about Ability, obviously one reason that the Man has scorn for death and pain -- is that he knows how to Fight.

Which is why Aristotle says that Training is of Supreme Importance.

And Cicero fully agrees.

Also :

It's no accident that Cicero, in talking to an adolescent Roman, cites Gladiators as examples of "men, who have been well trained, [who] prefer to receive a blow rather than basely avoid it."

Because that's what, to the Romans, Gladiators were meant to be : Examples and Exemplars of Fighting Men who put Honour before pain and death.

That they were low-born and criminals was very much to the Romans' point : even the low-born criminal could, with proper training, Fight Honourably, prefering "to receive a blow rather than basely avoid it."

To learn to stand up to blows face to face was, both to the Greeks and Romans, and as Aristotle says, of Supreme Importance.

The most important point that Cicero makes, however, is this :

And yet, perhaps, though all right-minded states are called virtue [virtus], the term is not appropriate to all virtues, but all have got the name from the single virtue which was found to outshine the rest, for it is from the word for "Man" [vir] that the word Virtue [virtus] is derived ;

but Man's peculiar Virtue is Fortitude, of which there are two main functions, namely scorn of death and scorn of pain. These then we must exercise if we wish to prove possessors of virtue, or rather, since the word for "virtue" is borrowed from the word for "man," if we wish to be Men.

So :

Although all right-minded states are called virtue [virtus], the term is not appropriate to all virtues, but all have got the name from the single virtue which was found to outshine the rest, for it is from the word for "Man" [vir] that the word Virtue [virtus] is derived ;

but Man's peculiar Virtue is Fortitude, of which there are two main functions, namely scorn of death and scorn of pain. These then we must exercise if we wish to prove possessors of virtue, or rather, since the word for "virtue" is borrowed from the word for "man," if we wish to be Men.

Manly Virtue, which is Manliness, outshines, says Cicero, all other virtues ; indeed, all other virtues "have got the name 'virtue' from the single virtue which was found to outshine the rest" ;

for it is from the word for "Man" [vir] that the word Virtue [virtus] is derived.

And Man's peculiar Virtue is Manliness, which includes Fortitude, and of which there are two main functions, namely scorn of death and scorn of pain.

These then we must exercise if we wish to prove possessors of virtue, or rather, since the word for "virtue" is borrowed from the word for "man," if we wish to be Men.

And what Cicero says could not be clearer.

IF WE WISH TO BE MEN, WE MUST POSSESS SCORN AND CONTEMPT FOR PAIN AND DEATH -- SCORN AND CONTEMPT WHICH IS ENABLED BY MANLINESS -- THE WILLINGNESS AND ABILITY TO FIGHT.

To Cicero, as to Aristotle, as to Xenophon, and indeed to any Greek or Roman, Fighting confers Manliness, while Manliness enables Fighting.

Aristotle :

And so with Manliness : we become Manly by training ourselves to despise and endure terrors, and we shall be best able to endure terrors when we have become Manly.

If that isn't clear to you, we can make it clear by putting it in more colloquial terms :

And so with Manliness : we become Manly by training ourselves to stand up to blows face to face, and we shall be best able to stand up to blows face to face when we have become Manly.

Which means, at its most basic :

And so with Manliness : we become Manly by Fighting, and we shall be best able to Fight when we have become Manly.

So :

ARISTOTLE :

FIGHTING CONFERS MANLINESS ; MANLINESS ENABLES FIGHTING.

CICERO :

ALL VIRTUE DERIVES FROM VIRTUS, WHICH IS MANLINESS, THE WILLINGNESS AND ABILITY TO FIGHT, AND TO SCORN DEATH AND PAIN.

Now :

I said that Fortitudo is Cicero's Latin translation of the ancient Greek word Andreia, which means Manliness, and that Cicero (106 - 43 BC) agrees with Aristotle (384 - 322 BC) that Manliness is the Supreme Moral Virtue, the Supreme Ethical Excellence.

So :

First we have a footnote from Cicero translator JE King, writing in 1927 :

Cicero invokes the four cardinal virtues, prudentia or practical wisdom (φρονησις), temperantia (σωφροσυνη), fortitudo (ανδρεια), iustitia (δικαιοσυνη), cf. III. 16.

Of all the Greek philosophers, Cicero most admired Plato, and the cardinal virtues are platonic.

Cicero :

There is a mighty power in the virtues ; rouse them, if maybe they slumber. At once you will have the foremost of all, I mean Fortitude, who will compel you to assume a spirit that will make you despise and count as nothing all that can fall to the lot of men.

Next will come Temperance, who is also self-control, and called by me a little while ago 'frugality,' and will not suffer you to do anything disgraceful and vile. But what is more vile or disgraceful than a womanish man?

Justice even will not suffer you to act in such a way ; there seems but little need for her in this case, but yet her plea will be that you are doubly unjust, since in demanding, in spite of your mortal origin, the attribute of the immortal Gods, and in repining at the repayment of the gift [ -- Life -- ] you have received as a loan, you are longing for what is not your own.

What answer moreover will you make to Prudence when she tells you that, for her, virtue is self-sufficient for leading a good life as well as a happy one? [1] And should Prudence be tied and bound to dependence on external things, and not owe her beginning to herself and return again to herself, so that in full self-dependence she seeks nothing from elsewhere, I do not understand why she should be held deserving of such passionate worship in words or such an eager quest in act.

Footnote :

1 The subject of Book V. It is the function of prudence to distinguish between bad and good.

~Cic. Tusc. 3.36, translated by JE King.

So :

Fortitude -- the scorn of death and pain -- is, among the Virtues, foremost of all.

And Fortitude is Andreia which is Manliness.

Why then, doesn't Cicero say so, by saying simply that Virtus is foremost.

Virtus, after all, does mean Manliness.

Except when it doesn't.

That's the problem.

In the Latin of his day, virtus can refer to any number of virtues :

Manly Virtue, which is Manliness, outshines, says Cicero, all other virtues ; indeed, all other virtues "have got the name 'virtue' from the single virtue which was found to outshine the rest" ;

All other virtues "have got the name 'virtue' from the single virtue which was found to outshine the rest" ;

for it is from the word for "Man" [vir] that the word Virtue [virtus] is derived.

And Man's peculiar Virtue is Manliness, which includes Fortitude, and of which there are two main functions, namely scorn of death and scorn of pain.

These then we must exercise if we wish to prove possessors of virtue, or rather, since the word for "virtue" is borrowed from the word for "man," if we wish to be Men.

And what Cicero says could not be clearer.

IF WE WISH TO BE MEN, WE MUST POSSESS SCORN AND CONTEMPT FOR PAIN AND DEATH -- SCORN AND CONTEMPT WHICH IS CONFERRED BY MANLINESS -- THE WILLINGNESS AND ABILITY TO FIGHT.

In addition, Cicero seeks to free his young Roman readers of their fear of pain and death.

And that's another reason that he uses the word Fortitudo.

But it doesn't matter.

To both Aristotle and Cicero, Manliness is the Supreme Ethical Excellence, the Supreme Moral Virtue.

And to Cicero, in particular, all other virtues "have got the name 'virtue' from the single virtue which was found to outshine the rest" -- that is, from Manliness, Agenoria, Andreia, Areté, Virtus, the Willingness and Ability to Fight.

I've been saying that for the last seven years at least, and to me, as to Cicero, it's obvious.

All Moral Virtue, all Ethical Goodness, derives from Manliness.

Both in Latin, where virtue is virtus, and in ancient Greek, where it's αρετη.

And the source of the word areté is Ares, the God of Battle-Fight-War, as Liddell and Scott tell us :

[Areté is] goodness, excellence, of any kind, esp. of manly qualities, manhood, valour, prowess (like Lat. virtus, from vir)

And, Liddell and Scott add,

From the same root [ARES] come areté, ari-, areion [better -- more Manly], aristos [best -- most Manly], the first notion of goodness being that of manhood, bravery in war; cf. Lat. virtus.

And, as in Latin, so in Greek :

All other virtues [aretai] "have got the name 'virtue' [areté] from the single Areté which was found to outshine the rest" -- that is, from Manliness, Agenoria, Andreia, Areté, Virtus, the Willingness and Ability to Fight.

In both Latin and Greek, all Virtue flows from Manliness and Fighting, all Virtue is an expression of Manliness and Fighting, all Virtue is rooted in Manliness and Fighting.

Bill Weintraub

September 25, 2020


EPILOGUE

XX. Will you, though you have seen boys in Lacedaemon, young men at Olympia, barbarians in the arena submitting to the heaviest blows and enduring them in silence -- will you, if some pain happen to give you a twitch, cry out like a woman and not endure resolutely and calmly?

"It is unbearable ; nature cannot put up with it."

Very well.

Boys endure from love of fame, others endure for shame's sake, many from fear, and yet are we afraid that nature cannot put up with what so many have endured in such a number of different places?

Nature in fact not only puts up with but even demands it ; for she offers nothing more excellent, nothing more desirable than honour [honestas], than renown [laus], than distinction [dignitas], than glory [decus]. By all this number of terms there is only one thing that I want to express, but I employ a number, in order to make my meaning as clear as possible.

What I want to say in fact is that far the best for man is that which is desirable in and for itself, has its source in virtue or rather is based on virtue, is of itself praiseworthy, and in fact I should prefer to describe it as the only rather than the highest good. Moreover, just as we use language like this in speaking of what is honourable [honestum], so we use the opposite in speaking of what is base [turpe] : there is nothing so revolting, nothing so despicable, nothing more unworthy of a human being.

~Cic. Tusc. 2.46, translated by JE King.


So :

At Rome, which is an Honour Society, what is honourable and morally noble [honestum], is opposed to what is dishonourable and morally base [turpe].

Just as, in ancient Greece, also an Honour Society, To Kalon is opposed to To Aischron -- so at Rome, Honestum is opposed to Turpe.

And says Cicero,

[F]ar the best for man is that which is desirable in and for itself, has its source in Virtus or rather is based on Virtus, is of itself praiseworthy, and in fact I should prefer to describe it as the only rather than the highest good.

What that means is that to Cicero, Virtus -- Manliness -- is not merely the Highest Good but the Only Good.

That may sound hyperbolic to you, but when you read the Greeks and the Romans, it soon becomes obvious that that's what they believe.

That Manliness is not merely the Highest Good, but the Only Good, in the sense that, as Cicero says, all other Goods flow from it.

That's why Xenophon says to the Persians, at a moment of great peril, that the Greeks have no other good save Arms and Manhood :

Because, obviously, without Arms and Manhood, all other goods will be taken from you.

Manliness, then, is the Only Virtue.

And you can read more about what Xenophon said, and its significance, here.

Now :

When the issue of Honour and Pain first comes up, Cicero says to his young friend,

For what is more unworthy than for you to regard anything as worse than disgrace, crime and baseness? And to escape these, what pain should be, I do not say rejected, but should not rather be voluntarily invited, endured and welcomed?

"To escape disgrace, crime and baseness, pain should not be rejected, but should rather be voluntarily invited, endured, and welcomed :"

That's why, at the very beginning of this essay, I presented a series of pictures, including these :

The Boxers and MMA Fighters in these photos have voluntarily invited, endured, and welcomed pain :

That's what Fighters do -- they invite, welcome, and endure pain.

As do Gladiators, who, though they be ruined men or barbarians, nonetheless, through training and habit, have obtained the ability to scorn both pain and death :

They are, therefore, exemplars of what a Man should be :


Bronze Statue of the Roman Emperor Hadrian
Wearing a Breastplate Decorated with
Scenes of Nude Gladiators Fighting


So :

Here's a brief summary of what Cicero says :

CICERO :

  1. DISGRACE AND DISHONOUR ARE FAR GREATER EVILS THAN PAIN AND DEATH

  2. WE HAVE TO BE TRAINED TO FACE PAIN AND DEATH -- BECAUSE THE ABILITY TO FACE PAIN AND DEATH IS A MATTER OF HABIT AND TRAINING

  3. LEGIONARIES AND GLADIATORS ARE EXAMPLES OF MEN WHOSE TRAINING ENABLES THEM TO FACE PAIN AND DEATH UNFLINCHINGLY

  4. THE PECULIAR MALE VIRTUE IS FORTITUDO, THE SCORN OF DEATH AND OF PAIN -- AND CLEARLY FORTITUDO IS AN ASPECT OF VIRTUS, THAT IS, MANLINESS -- AND VIRTUS, MANLINESS, OUTSHINES ALL OTHER VIRTUES -- BECAUSE IT TAKES ITS NAME FROM VIR -- MAN -- SO THAT ONLY IN UNION WITH VIRTUS, ONLY IN UNION WITH MANLINESS, CAN WE CALL OURSELVES MEN

  5. ALL VIRTUE THEREFORE FLOWS FROM MANLY VIRTUE, WHICH IS VIRTUS, WHICH IS MANLINESS / ANDREIA / ARETE

Again, in both ancient Greek and Latin, the word commonly translated into English as "virtue," is either Areté -- which means Manly Excellence which is Manliness ;

or Virtus -- which also means Manliness -- the Willingness and Ability to Fight.

In the case of Latin, the word for virtue is Virtus -- which is why Cicero uses the word Fortitudo -- but he makes abundantly clear that Virtus as Manliness is the key Virtue, that it outshines all others and is the source of all others.

Aristotle, who precedes Cicero -- 384 - 322 BC vs 106 - 43 BC --

Aristotle, as we'll see, teaches that all Moral Virtue -- all Ethical Excellence -- is a matter of training and habit ;

and that therefore it is of supreme importance how a child is raised and what he is taught.

A child who's taught to stand up to blows face to face and to stand his ground -- will stand up to blows face to face and stand his ground -- both as a child and as a Man.

A child who isn't taught that -- will suffer from excessive fear, and effectively won't be a man.

He'll be an effeminate coward.

So -- we learn how to endure pain -- by enduring pain.

Fighting therefore confers Manliness.

While Manliness enables Fighting.


So, to both Aristotle and Cicero,

Training in Fight and Fighting itself confers Manliness -- the Willingness and Ability to Fight.

And Manliness in turn enables Fighting -- that is, because Manly Men scorn both pain and death, they're not afraid to Fight, but rather, as Cicero says, voluntarily welcome, endure, and invite, the pain of Fight into their lives.

As Warrior NW did with the pain both of Wrestling and of MMA.

Manliness, then, like all the ethical excellences and moral virtues, is a matter of Training and Habit.

If a boy is trained to stand up to blows face to face, and therefore develops the habit of facing his opponent -- he becomes Manly.

A boy who isn't trained soon becomes excessively fearful of fight, of pain, and of death, he's afraid to face an opponent -- and becomes a cringing, effeminate, coward.

That's what happens.

Manliness, says Cicero, is the most important of the ethical excellences aka moral virtues.

It outshines all the other virtues, which are derived from Manliness -- Virtus -- because Virtus is derived from Vir.

In Latin, the word for Virtue -- Virtus -- derives from the word for Man and Fighter -- Vir.

In ancient Greek, the word for Virtue -- Areté -- derives from ARES -- the God of Battle-Fight-War.

In both cases, FIGHT is the sine qua non -- the "without which NOT" --

To both the Greeks and the Romans, you can NOT have VIRTUE -- without FIGHT.













This is from an email to NW :

One of the things you and I have often discussed is the definition of the Latin word Vir.

It means both Man and Fighter.

Not Man or Fighter, but Man and Fighter -- both, and simultaneously.

That matters, because it tells you how Roman society conceptualizes Men, and what Men are supposed to be.

And that conception has a real world impact.

Cicero, for example, a leader in Roman Society, is very clear that Virtus -- Manliness, which is the Willingness and Ability to Fight -- is by far the most important Virtue, that it outshines all the other virtues, and that all the other virtues emanate from it.

Because Cicero and his peers think that way, it influences, among other things, how children, and in particular boys, are raised.

If Vir means both Man and Fighter, and if the Supreme Virtue, Virtus, is Manliness, it becomes not merely important, but, as Aristotle says, of Supreme Importance, that boys are raised to become Fighters.

What that would mean for someone like yourself, NW, is that instead of having your first real experience of Fight when you were 20, you would have had it when you were about seven.

And that training in Fight would have continued into your adult life.

Fighting would have been a constant in your life.

You would have been taken to see exhibitions of Nude Fight Free Fight -- Boxing, Wrestling, and Pankration --

and you would have also been taken to Munera -- Gladiator Displays.

From your schoolmasters, from your parents, from all significant adults, you would have heard constant exhortations to Fight.

Not to turn the other cheek, but to Fight.

Your childhood games would have been about Fighting -- including you and your best buddy taking turns hitting each other -- to see who could hit harder.

When the time came for you to choose a profession -- well, there were really only three professions for Men who came from good families :

    War

    Law

    Administration

And before you could have a career in Law or Administration -- such as the Administration of a Province -- you had to serve in the Military.

You had to go to War.

In the Military, you would have found yourself in the constant company of other Men -- Fighting Men, like yourself.

No women -- just Men, Fighting Men.

I think you would have enjoyed the experience.

And many similar experiences in your life.

Your life, in short, both as a Man and as a Man who's attracted to Aggression and the Beauty of Guys who Assert that Aggression -- would have been radically different.

And all because the word Vir means both Man and Fighter.


The Roman emperor Hadrian (117 - 138 AD) is one of the Great Men of History -- I discuss Hadrian and his beloved Antinous in The Deification of Antinous.

Hadrian, who led his legions into battle, trained as a Gladiator -- not so as to Fight in the arena, but to better Fight on the field of Battle.

This is a statue of Hadrian which he sanctioned :


Bronze Statue of the Emperor Hadrian
Wearing a Breastplate Decorated with
Scenes of Nude Gladiators Fighting

In this statue, the Fighting Gladiators Instantiate Fighting Manhood -- the Willingness and Ability to Fight ; while Hadrian, who, again, trained as a Gladiator, was an ardent PhilHellene -- Lover of Greek Culture --, and had a Beloved named Antinous, personifies the Roman Warrior God Mars.

And this is a statue of his lover Antinous, also in the guise of the God Mars -- the War God :

The Romans began their calendar with the month we call March, which was sacred to Mars, the father of Romulus and Remus and thus the primogenitor of the Roman people.

That's how important Fighting was to the Romans.

Let's take one more look at the statue of Hadrian with the Nude Fighting Gladiators on his breastplate :


Ancient Greek and Roman Men had not been effeminized, or heterosexualized -- or, of course, christianized -- that is to say, de-wild-ed, un-savaged, tamed, and unrelentingly domesticated -- in the way males in our time have been.

Put differently, the Greeks and Romans were Manly to an extent that most of you would have a very hard time conceptualizing or just comprehending.

They were neither tame nor domesticated.

They were Men -- wild and free.

And that's true of the many Warriors and Warriordoms they Fought -- Kelts, Teutons, Picts, Galatians, Macedonians, etc.


Roman Sarcophagus
Roman Legionaries Fight Nude Galatians

They were all Men -- wild and free.

For example, there's a Latin word -- Ferocitas ; it means wildness, fierceness, courage, spirit, intrepidity ; fierceness, barbarity, ferocity

And it derives from Ferox : wild, bold, courageous, warlike, spirited, brave, gallant, fierce

All of which is to say -- Manly.

Fighterly.

Willing and Able to Fight -- Ferociously.

So :

To the Greeks, and the Romans, the words Masculinity, Manliness, Manhood, Manly Spirit, Manly Excellence, Manly Goodness, and Manly Virtue -- always refer to Fighting -- Fighting Masculinity, Fighting Manliness, Fighting Manhood, etc.

And we can see that in Greek Warrior Names, which are aggressive and combative, and often make reference to violence and brute force.

Polybiadas, for example, a Spartan name, means Son of [das] Mighty [poly] Violent Force [bia] ;

While Alkibiades, an Athenian name, means Son of [des] Valiant [alkimos] Violent Force [bia].

And we're soon going to look in depth at the work of Aristotle, the pupil of Plato and tutor of Alexander the Great, and Aristotle's discussion of the Ethical Supremacy of the Moral Virtue of Manliness -- that is, of the Willingness and Ability to Fight.

So let's consider Aristotle's name, which in ancient Greek is Aristoteles.

The first part, Aristos -- Most Manly --, derives from Lord Ares -- as Liddell and Scott so helpfully tell us :

From the same root [ΑΡΗΣ -- ARES] come areté / areta [Excellence], ari-, areion [better -- stronger, braver, more Manly], aristos [best -- strongest, bravest, most Manly], the first notion of goodness being that of manhood, bravery in war; cf. Lat. virtus.

~Αρης, defined by Liddell and Scott.

And, Liddell and Scott add,

[Areta is] goodness, excellence, of any kind, esp. of manly qualities, manhood, valour, prowess (like Lat. virtus, from vir)

~Αρετα, defined by Liddell and Scott.

Notice the emphasis on "manly qualities, manhood, valour, prowess (like Lat. virtus, from vir)."

Manly qualities are qualities which define the Willingness -- Valour -- and Ability -- Prowess -- to Fight.

Aristo, then, means Most Manly -- while Teles means both Purpose -- and Perfection.

Aristoteles is He who is Most Manly -- that is, Most Willing and Able to Fight -- in Purpose and Perfection.





















Me and the other boy would Fight, and at the same time
our cocks -- our hard cocks -- would Fight each other



Fighting.

My work is about Fighting.

Violent, Brutal, Bloody --

Fighting.

And it's always been about Fighting -- all my life, my entire life.

It's been about Fighting.

My life and my work have been about Fighting.

My sites and my work are about Fighting.

Including my work about Phallus-Against-Phallus.

That too is about Fighting and has always been.

So :

As I conceived of cock-rub as an adolescent, it was that me and the other boy would Fight, and that at the same time our cocks -- our hard cocks -- would Fight each other.

Fight.

Violently and Brutally.

That's how I conceived of it -- as a youth -- and that's how I still conceive of it -- as a Man.

As a combination, a combining, of Phallus and Fighting.

A combining of Phallus and Fighting in which the Phallus -- my Phallus, the Man's Phallus -- would become, like all other elements of the Man's body, subordinate to the overwhelming and indeed inescapable need of his Fighting Manhood --

To FIGHT :


Me and the other boy would Fight, and at the same time
our cocks -- our hard cocks -- would Fight each other


So :

Just as my fists would Fight my foe's fists, my arms his arms, my legs his legs, my pecs his pecs -- so would our hard cocks Fight each other.

And again, that Fight would be an impossible-to-deny expression of each agonists' Fighting Manhood, his Fighting Manhood, not his genital manhood -- for as I conceived of this Fight as a boy and as I've conceived of it as a Man, it's not about sex.

It's about Fighting and Fighting Manhood.

Yes, there's a passage through rage to love, yes there results a Harmony of Parts Naturally at War.

But before there can be Harmony, there must be Discord, there must be War.

The effeminized guys who write to me want an amorous Manly harmony without its necessary precursors of Struggle and Strife, Contention and Conflict, Discord and Battle and Fight ; but that's not possible.

Because within the male-male matrix, the absence, the lack, the want, of Battle-Fight-War -- of Fighting -- of Fighting which confers Manliness --

The absence of that Fighting which confers Manliness -- can lead to only one thing, and that is UN-manliness, which is and has always been -- analism.

That is, anal, promiscuity, and effeminacy.

History tells us that within a culture, you can have Manliness or UN-manliness -- but you can't have both.

In the sense of both being normative.

In our culture, which is hedonist and ethically nihilist, analism is normative, and Manly Love -- that is, an Exclusive and Faithful Love between Two Men, each of whom is Willing and Able to Fight -- Love between Warriors, Love between Combatants, Love between Fighters, Love between Men --

Manly Love -- is deviant.

In ancient culture, which is Warrior Culture, Manly Love is normative, and analism is deviant.




Chairademos kai Lykeas
Athenian Warrior-Lovers
who died in Battle together
and were buried together


Spartan Kylix
Spartan Warriors
with
Fighting Cocks


A Boy Victor in Fight Agonia in the Panathenaic Games
The Youth's Testicles are Prominently Displayed




[At Sparta,] they go into a place surrounded by water [known as Plantanistas, or Plane-Tree Grove], choose up sides, and fight as if in actual war, although as naked as we Athenians are, until one team drives the other out of the enclosure into the water, the Sons of Herakles beating the Sons of Lykourgos or vice versa ; after this contest there is peace and no one would strike another.

~ Lucian, translated by Sweet.

Cicero witnessed that Fighting.

This is his description as it appears in The Tusculan Disputations.

Cicero :

Pain seems to be the most active antagonist of virtue ; it points its fiery darts, it threatens to undermine Fortitude [Manliness], Greatness of Soul and Patience. Will Virtue [Virtus] then have to give way to pain, will the happy life of the wise and steadfast Man yield to it?

What degradation, Great Gods of Heaven!

Spartan boys utter no cry when their bodies are mangled with painful blows ; I have seen with my own eyes troops of youngsters in Lakedaimon Fighting with inconceivable obstinacy, using fists and feet and nails and even teeth to the point of losing their lives rather than admit defeat.




Fighting.

My work is about Fighting.

Violent, Brutal, Bloody --

Fighting.

And as you just read in Cicero, the ancient world was about Fighting.

Violent, Brutal, Bloody --

Fighting.

Ancient Men were constantly immersed in Fighting -- and Manliness.

Biologically, Culturally, and Spiritually, Fighting and Manliness reigned Supreme.

Which is why when a Greek, a Fighting Man, refers to his Phallus as his Andreia, his Manhood, he's thinking of it as his Fighting Manhood, and without question, therefore, as a Weapon, a Manly Weapon, a Fighter's Weapon, an instrument of Battle-Fight-War -- a Spear, a Sword, a Club.

To be used Combatively, and Aggressively -- Roughly, and Brutally.

Roughly.

And Brutally.

For example, the great classicist and poet Robert Graves, in his encyclopedic The Greek Myths, points out that when a God like Apollo or Zeus desires a mortal woman, he doesn't chat her up or bring her flowers -- he simply takes her -- "roughly."

Roughly.

The ancient Greeks thought that women were mere receptacles for Man's seed.

Nor would they concede that the female body contributed physical characteristics to the baby which was born from it.

As the God Apollo says in Aeschylus' Eumenides, woman is the soil in which Man plants his seed :

Apollo :

The mother is no parent of that which is called
her child, but only nurse of the new-planted seed
that grows. The parent is he who mounts. A stranger, she
preserves a stranger's seed, if no God interfere.

~translated by Lattimore

Apollo goes on to say that proof there can be a father without a mother is Athene, daughter of Olympian Zeus.

This belief is persistent throughout antiquity.

Indeed, 500 years later, a Greek writer refers to the woman's "womb [as] fertile ground for ploughing, as it were, and sowing."


Nude Farmer with Iron Plough

To the Greek, the Phallus is analagous to an Iron Warrior Implement, a Weapon -- Hard and Un-yielding.

And the same with a Roman speaking of his Warrior Membrum Virile -- the Manly Member, always Willing and Able to Fight, Manful, Worthy of a Man, Brave, Bold, and Imbued with Fighting Spirit.

When the Greek intellectual Plutarch wrote, in Greek, an essay on Philostorgia -- that is, tender love and warm affection -- towards one's offspring, the Roman writer Fronto said that it would be impossible to translate even the title of the essay into Latin, because there was no such quality as philostorgia, that is, tender love or warm affection, at Rome -- and consequently no word for it.

Which means that ancient Greek and Roman Men were unlikely to think of their Phalluses as organs to be used tenderly, or affectionately, or lovingly.

Again, to both the Greek and the Roman, the Phallus is analogous to an Iron or Steel Warrior Implement, a Weapon, a Club, a Sword, a Spear -- Hard and Un-yielding -- and to be used as such.

Now :

I don't expect you guys to understand or believe what I'm saying, and that's because of your abysmal ignorance, the consequence of your never-ending refusal to do that reading in ancient literature which would enlighten you.

You don't understand, for example, what happened when an ancient city was taken by the enemy and sacked.

But what happened is that the defending warriors were killed, and their women were raped.

Repeatedly, in many instances.

While groups of soldiers stood around watching -- and waiting for their turn.

A woman of high birth, like Hektor's wife Andromache, might be taken by a high-ranking enemy, such as Achilles' son Neoptolemos, and kept for years as a sex -- and baby-making -- slave.

During the rapes and afterwards, the city was pillaged -- looted.

Ancient soldiers, both Greek and Roman, regarded the rapes and loot as essential -- they were perks, or if you prefer, entitlements, and a commander who tried to prevent them from raping and pillaging -- would face a violent and well-armed mutiny during which he'd likely be killed.

During the Roman civil wars, Brutus, "the noblest Roman of them all," who had written a book on Virtus -- a book which is now lost to us -- was forced by his legionaries to promise them that the Peloponnesus -- about half of the Greek peninsula -- would, in victory, be theirs to sack -- to rape and pillage.

Quite a promise.

I said that a high-born woman like Andromache might be kept for years as a sex-slave.

So were many of the other women, but they were just common prostitutes, owned by a pimp.

We get an idea of just how many from Plutarch's essay titled "On Being a Busybody" :

Inquisitiveness, in fact, is indicative of incontinence no less than is adultery, and in addition, it is indicative of terrible folly and fatuity. For to pass by so many women who are public property open to all and then to be drawn toward a woman who is kept under lock and key and is expensive, and often, if it so happens, quite ugly, is the very height of madness and insanity.

~Plut. De Curiositate 9, translated by Helmbold.

[J]ust as at Rome[, in the marketplace,] there are some who take no account of paintings or statues or even, by Zeus, of the beauty of the boys and women for sale, but haunt the monster-market, examining those who have no calves, or are weasel-armed [have exceptionally short arms], or have three eyes, or ostrich-heads, and searching to learn whether there has been born some "Commingled shape and misformed prodigy" . . .

~Plut. De Curiositate 10, translated by Helmbold.

Basically, the ancient Greek and Roman world, and particularly, of course, the Roman Empire, was awash in slaves.

Many, many women were sold into sex slavery.

As could be beautiful boys as well -- something the Romans rarely admitted to, but Plutarch is quick to point out.

Which means, again, that ancient Greek and Roman Men were unlikely to think of their Phalluses as organs to be used tenderly, or affectionately, or lovingly.

Again, to both the Greek and the Roman, the Phallus is a Warrior Implement, a Weapon, a Club, a Sword, a Spear -- Hard and Un-yielding -- and to be used as such.

And that's how you need to think of it too.

Not as an effeminized and deformed sex toy --

But as a Warrior Implement, a Weapon, a Club, a Sword, a Spear -- Hard and Un-yielding -- and to be used as such.

Read the Iliad -- not one of you has -- and then try to tell me that Achilleus thinks of his Phallus the way you do.

Of course he doesn't.

He thinks of it the way the Greeks do -- the Warrior Greeks, the Homeric Greeks.

And what's needed is not that Achilleus becomes you -- but that you become Achilleus.

That's the point of the Epic.

And the Phallus.

Plato says of the Phallus that it's "disobedient and self-willed, like a creature deaf to reason, and it attempts to conquer all in its raging lusts."


Wherefore in men [andron] the nature [physis] of the genital organs [ta aidoia] is disobedient and self-willed [apeithes kai autokrates], like a creature that is deaf to reason [zoon anupekoos logos], and it attempts to conquer all [epicheireo krateo pas] because of its raging lusts [epithumia oistrodes].

~Plat. Tim. 91b, translated by Bury and myself.

Phallus seeks to Conquer Phallus.

Cock seeks to Conquer Cock.

And Plato understands that the Nature of Man -- his innately Combative and Aggressive Nature -- leads inevitably to Warrior Contest which leads to Warrior Conquest.

Just as he understands that the Nature of Phallus -- which in its raging lust attempts to Conquer All -- leads inevitably to Phallic Contest which leads to Phallic Conquest :






Man Seeks to Conquer Man.

And Phallus to Conquer Phallus.

Boners and Fists.

The problem you guys have is that you get boners, but you're afraid to make a fist.

Nevertheless, Boners and Fists is what Man2Man is about.

And it's Violent and Brutal.


Violent and Brutal
Brutal and Violent

So :

My work is about Fighters.

My work is about Fighting.

My work is about Fighters Fighting

In my work, the contest of phallus against phallus is always presented as a combative and aggressive act, and is always accompanied by the equally combative and aggressive Fighting of arm against arm, leg against leg, fist against fist.

My work is about Fighters Fighting -- Man Against Man , Phallus Against Phallus.

There are more than 1200 pages in my sites.

Almost all of them have pictures of Fighters Fighting.

That Fighting is unmistakably Violent, often Brutal, and frequently Bloody.

Again, it is unmistakably so.





Throughout my work and my sites there appear Manly images, Martial images of Fight-Battle-Combat-Strife-Struggle-War, images of Fierce Fighting Manhood and Pugnaciously Perfect Manliness, and most of those Masculinist, Phallo-centric, and implicitly Pagan images are Bloody, Violent, and Brutal -- as Man2Man Fighting is and should be :


That's Fighting.

Bloody, Brutal, and Violent.


NW :
Beautiful face taking some pain and shedding some blood.
He's got some good man-balls.



That's Fighting.

Bloody, Brutal, and Violent.

And that's how I think of Phallus-Against-Phallus and have thought of it since childhood :

Once aroused, the Phallus is Brutal and Violent, just as Brutal and Violent as Fighting Men themselves, and like those Fighting Men, it seeks, in its raging lusts, to Conquer all.

And as such, it's an instrument and expression of Fighting Manhood, and not of anything else.









My work and my sites are about Fighting.

Not just somewhat about or 75% about or even 95%.

My work and my sites are about Fighting.

Including that part of my work and my sites which is about Phallus-Against-Phallus.

Phallus-Against-Phallus is about Fighting.

Just as Man Fights Against Man ;

So Phallus Fights Against Phallus.

Phallus-Against-Phallus is an expression of Fighting Manhood.

That's the way I conceptualized it as a boy, and that's the way I've conceptualized it as a Man.

Phallus-Against-Phallus is an expression of Fighting Manhood.


Me and the other boy would Fight, and at the same time
our cocks -- our hard cocks -- would Fight each other


Boy would Fight Boy, Phallus would Fight Phallus.

And that Fighting would be Violent and Brutal.

Specifically :

The Fighting of Boy Against Boy would be Violent ;

And the Fighting of Phallus Against Phallus would be Brutal.

That was my conception.

And it hasn't changed.

Not one iota.

That's why there's so much discussion of Fight, Fights, and Fighting in my work.

And so many pictures of Fights and Fighters -- Bloody, Violent, and Brutal -- on my sites.







Again, those pictures of Fights and Fighters -- Bloody, Violent, and Brutal -- are on my sites because my work and my sites are about Fighting.

And those of you who don't like Fighting, or who don't approve of Fighting's Brutality and Violence --

Shouldn't be here.

You'd be happier somewhere else.

There are, after all, a gazillion sites for feminists and for their "gay male" admirers and supporters.

For it's as my foreign friend says :

The heterosexual society cares only for women. It sees men only as a problematic group that comes in the way of what is called women's rights.

Gay males are among the most ardent supporters of heterosexualization. They represent the dust bin created by the heterosexualised society to contain the mutilated / negativised remnants of male-male sex that survives after the intense oppression of them in the mainstream...

Gay males (when I say gay males I mean effeminized and anally-receptive males and those who penetrate them) derive immense power from the heterosexual society. In fact they owe the heterosexual society their existence.

~The Power of the Masculine

And, you know, that post dates from 2006.

But it hasn't aged.

Instead, with each passing day, its Truth becomes more obvious.

And more clear.


So :

Fighting.

My work is about Fighting.

Violent, Brutal, Bloody --

Fighting.



And that's what Aristotle is about too, when he discusses Manliness -- and the other Manly Moral Virtues :

Fighting.

Aristotle :



And so with Manliness :
We become Manly by training ourselves to despise and endure terrors,
and we shall be best able to endure terrors when we have become Manly


Manliness
We become Manly by training ourselves to despise and endure terrors,
and we shall be best able to endure terrors when we have become Manly


Aristotle :
And so with Manliness :
We become Manly by training ourselves to despise and endure terrors,
and we shall be best able to endure terrors when we have become Manly.


And so with Manliness :
We become Manly by training ourselves to stand up to blows,
and we shall be best able to stand up to blows when we have become Manly.


And so with Manliness : We become Manly by Fighting, and we shall be best able to Fight when we have become Manly.




Again :

Fighting confers Manliness, while Manliness enables Fighting.

It's important to understand that essentially symbiotic relationship.

And Manliness and Fighting, working together, are Ethically Excellent, and Ethically Supreme.



Ethically


Supreme


So :

To Aristotle, every moral virtue, every ethical excellence, exists as a mean between a vice of excess, and one of defect.

For example, the moral virtue of Generosity.

The vice of excess is prodigality -- the tossing away of one's money.

The vice of defect is meanness -- the refusal to help a friend in need.

Similarly, and regarding the Supreme Moral Virtue and Ethical Excellence of Manliness, the vice of excess is over-confidence or rashness ;

while the vice of defect is UN-manliness, effeminacy, cowardice, which is the unwillingness to face pain, the fear of pain.

Aristotle :

[10] He that exceeds in fear is a coward, for he fears the wrong things, and in the wrong manner, and so on with the rest of the list. He is also deficient in confidence ; but his excessive fear in the face of pain is more apparent.

[11] The coward is therefore a despondent person, being afraid of everything ; but the Manly Man [ho andreios] is just the opposite, for confidence belongs to a sanguine temperament.

[12] The coward, the rash man, and the Manly Man are therefore concerned with the same objects, but are differently disposed towards them : the two former exceed and fall short, the last keeps the mean and the right disposition. The rash, moreover, are impetuous, and though eager before the danger comes they hang back at the critical moment ; whereas the Manly are keen at the time of action but calm beforehand.

[13] As has been said then, Manliness is the observance of the mean in relation to things that inspire confidence or fear, in the circumstances stated ; and it is confident and endures because it is noble [kalos] to do so or base [aischros -- shameful, base, dishonourable, ignoble] not to do so.

~Aristot. Nic. Eth. 3.7.11, translated by Rackham and myself.

So :

What Aristotle tells us is that the essence of the defect and vice of UN-manliness, effeminacy, cowardice -- is the coward's "excessive fear in the face of pain."

The essence of the vice of UN-manliness is the fear of pain and the inability to face pain.

"It is for Facing what is Painful that Men are called Manly."

And it's for fearing what is painful and refusing to face that pain -- that males are called, and behave as, UN-manly, effeminate, cowards.

How does a person learn to face pain ?

By facing pain.

Aristotle -- and the other Greeks -- all say so.

How does a young person, a young man, a youth -- learn to stand up to blows face to face ?

By standing up to blows face to face.

Again, the ancients all agree :

Moral Virtue -- all Moral Virtue -- is a question of habit.

Habit which has been carefully and ceaselessly inculcated since childhood.

And which results in what Cicero calls Fortitudo, which is Virtus, which is

mortis dolorisque contemptio

Scorn of death and scorn of pain.

As Aristotle explains :


Blessedness is not a product of action,
but itself consists in Activity of a certain sort :
It is a Mode of Life.
~Rackham intro xvi


Aristotle :

[II] Virtue [αρετη -- excellence] being, as we have seen, of two kinds, intellectual and moral [διανοητικος kai ηθικοσ], intellectual excellence is for the most part both produced and increased by instruction, and therefore requires experience and time ; whereas moral or ethical excellence is the product of habit (ethos), and has indeed derived its name, with a slight variation of form, from that word. [a]

Footnote:

[a] Prof Rackham : It is probable that εθοσ, 'habit' and ηθοσ, 'character' (whence 'ethical,' moral) are kindred words.

Bill Weintraub : So that ηθικοσ αρετη -- ethical excellence -- is the product of εθοσ -- habit.

[2] And therefore it is clear that none of the moral excellences formed is engendered in us by nature, for no natural property can be altered by habit. For instance, it is the nature of a stone to move downwards, and it cannot be trained to move upwards, even though you should try to train it to do so by throwing it up into the air ten thousand times ; nor can fire be trained to move downwards, nor can anything else that naturally behaves in one way be trained into a habit of behaving in another way.

[3] The virtues [a] therefore are engendered in us neither by nature nor yet in violation of nature ; nature gives us the capacity to receive [b] them, and this capacity is brought to maturity by habit.

Footnotes:

[a] Prof Rackham : αρετη is here as often in this and the following Books employed in the limited sense of 'moral excellence' or 'goodness of character,' i.e. virtue in the ordinary sense of the term.

Bill Weintraub : Put differently, when Prof Rackham uses the English word 'virtue', he means moral virtue and/or ethical excellence ; and the most important and paramount ethical excellence, which comprehends all the others, is Manliness.

[b] Bill Weintraub : Aristotle says that nature gives us the capacity to receive the virtues -- and that capacity is discussed in our List of Warrior Theurgic Words, beginning with the word Form and continuing through Matter, Receptacle, Scission, and Substantiality.

And you must read that section -- that is, from Form through Substantiality -- which isn't long.

Nevertheless, you have to read it because, as Prof Rackham points out in his Introduction, Aristotle "assumes in his reader a knowledge of Plato's writings" -- and you have to have that knowledge in order to understand what Aristotle is saying.

[4] Moreover, the faculties given us by nature are bestowed on us first in a potential form ; we exhibit their actual exercise afterwards. This is clearly so with our senses : we did not acquire the faculty of sight or hearing by repeatedly seeing or repeatedly listening, but the other way about -- because we had the senses we began to use them, we did not get them by using them.

The virtues on the other hand we acquire by first having actually practised them, just as we do the arts. We learn an art or craft by doing the things that we shall have to do when we have learnt it : for instance, men become builders by building houses, harpers by playing on the harp. Similarly we become just by doing just acts, temperate by doing temperate acts, Manly by doing Manly acts.

[5] This truth is attested by the experience of states : lawgivers [such as the Spartan Lykourgos, father of the agogé,] make the citizens Manly by training them in habits of right action -- this is the aim of all legislation, and if it fails to do this it is a failure ; this is what distinguishes a good form of constitution from a bad one.

[6] Again, the actions from or through which any virtue is produced are the same as those through which it also is destroyed -- just as is the case with skill in the arts, for both the good harpers and the bad ones are produced by harping, and similarly with builders and all the other craftsmen : as you will become a good builder from building well, so you will become a bad one from building badly.

[7] Were this not so, there would be no need for teachers of the arts, but everybody would be born a good or bad craftsman as the case might be. The same then is true of the virtues. It is by taking part in transactions with our fellow-men that some of us become just and others unjust ; by acting in dangerous situations and forming a habit of fear or of confidence we become Manly or cowardly.

And the same holds good of our dispositions with regard to the appetites, and anger ; some men become temperate and good-tempered, others profligate [promiscuous] and irascible, by actually comporting themselves in one way or the other in relation to those passions.

In a word, our moral dispositions are formed as a result of the corresponding activities.

[8] Hence it is incumbent on us to control the character of our activities, since on the quality of these depends the quality of our dispositions. It is therefore not of small moment whether we are trained from childhood in one set of habits or another ; on the contrary it is of very great, or rather of supreme, importance.

~Aristot. Nic. Eth. 2.1.8, translated by Rackham and myself.

Book II, Chapter 2 :

Right action
conforms
with Right
Principle

[2.2.1] As then our present study, unlike the other branches of philosophy, has a practical aim (for we are not investigating the nature of virtue for the sake of knowing what it is, but in order that we may become good -- Manly -- , without which result our investigation would be of no use), we have consequently to carry our enquiry into the region of conduct, and to ask how we are to act rightly ; since our actions, as we have said, determine the quality of our dispositions.

[2] Now the formula 'to act in conformity with right principle' is common ground, and may be assumed as the basis of our discussion. (We shall speak about this formula later,[a] and consider both the definition of right principle and its relation to the other virtues.)

Footnote:

[a] Prof. Rackham : i.e., in Bk. 6. For the sense in which 'the right principle' can be said to be the virtue of Prudence see 6.13.5 note.

[3] But let it be granted to begin with that the whole theory of conduct is bound to be an outline only and not an exact system, in accordance with the rule we laid down at the beginning, that philosophical theories must only be required to correspond to their subject matter ; and matters of conduct and expediency have nothing fixed or invariable about them, any more than have matters of health.

[4] And if this is true of the general theory of ethics, still less is exact precision possible in dealing with particular cases of conduct ; for these come under no science or professional tradition, but the agents themselves have to consider what is suited to the circumstances on each occasion, just as is the case with the art of medicine or of navigation.

[5] But although the discussion now proceeding is thus necessarily inexact, we must do our best to help it out.

[6] First of all then we have to observe, that moral qualities are so constituted as to be destroyed by excess and by deficiency -- as we see is the case with bodily strength and health (for one is forced to explain what is invisible by means of visible illustrations). Strength is destroyed both by excessive and by deficient exercises, and similarly health is destroyed both by too much and by too little food and drink ; while they are produced, increased and preserved by suitable quantities.

[7] The same therefore is true of Manliness, Temperance, and the other virtues. The man who runs away from everything in fear and never endures anything becomes a coward. Similarly he that indulges in every pleasure and refrains from none turns out a profligate, and he that shuns all pleasure, as boorish persons do, becomes what may be called insensible. Thus Manliness and Temperance are destroyed by excess and deficiency, and preserved by the observance of the mean.

[8] But not only are the virtues both generated and fostered on the one hand, and destroyed on the other, from and by the same actions, but they will also find their full exercise in the same actions. This is clearly the case with the other more visible qualities, such as bodily strength : for strength is produced by taking much food and undergoing much exertion, while also it is the strong man who will be able to eat most food and endure most exertion.

[9] The same holds good with the virtues. We become temperate by abstaining from pleasures, and at the same time we are best able to abstain from pleasures when we have become temperate. And so with Manliness : we become Manly by training ourselves to despise and endure terrors, and we shall be best able to endure terrors when we have become Manly.


MANLY

Pleasure and
pain the test
of Virtue

[2.3.1] An index of our dispositions is afforded by the pleasure or pain that accompanies our actions. A man is temperate if he abstains from bodily pleasures and finds this abstinence itself enjoyable, profligate if he feels it irksome ; he is Manly if he faces danger with pleasure or at all events without pain, cowardly if he does so with pain.

In fact pleasures and pains are the things with which moral virtue is concerned.

For pleasure causes us to do base actions and pain causes us to abstain from doing noble actions [καλον].

[2] Hence the importance, as Plato points out, of having been definitely trained from childhood to like and dislike the proper things ; this is what good education means.

~Aristot. Nic. Eth. 2.2.1 - 2.3.2, translated by Rackham and myself.

So :

These are Aristotle's key points regarding the role of habit in inculcating Manliness :

  • Pleasure and pain are the things with which moral virtue is concerned.

  • Moral virtue aka ethical excellence is the product of habit.

  • We become just by doing just acts, temperate by doing temperate acts, Manly by doing Manly acts.

  • It is by acting in dangerous situations and forming a habit of fear or of confidence that some of us become Manly and others cowardly.

  • The man who runs away from everything in fear and never endures anything becomes a coward.

  • And so with Manliness : we become Manly by training ourselves to despise and endure terrors, and we shall be best able to endure terrors when we have become Manly.

  • In a word, our moral dispositions are formed as a result of the corresponding activities.

  • Hence it is incumbent on us to control the character of our activities, since on the quality of these depends the quality of our dispositions.

  • It is therefore not of small moment whether we are trained from childhood in one set of habits or another ; on the contrary it is of very great, or rather of supreme, importance.

So :

At its most basic, a boy becomes Manly by learning to face pain ; a boy becomes a coward by running away from pain.

That's what happens.

Most of you reading this have spent your lives, in fear, running away from pain -- specifically, the fear engendered by the potential pain of a fist to your face.

As a consequence, you're not Manly ; and you cannot, no matter how hard you try, attract to yourself -- a Man who is Manly.

That's the problem.

You could solve it ; but you're afraid to.

Once again, how does a young person, a young man, a youth -- learn to stand up to blows face to face ?

By standing up to blows face to face.

Functionality and consciousness



Once again :

This, epitomized, is what Aristotle says about how Men achieve the Moral Virtue of Manliness :

  • Pleasure and pain are the things with which moral virtue is concerned.

  • Moral virtue aka ethical excellence is the product of habit.

  • We become just by doing just acts, temperate by doing temperate acts, Manly by doing Manly acts.

  • It is by acting in dangerous situations and forming a habit of fear or of confidence that some of us become Manly and others cowardly.

  • The man who runs away from everything in fear and never endures anything becomes a coward.

  • And so with Manliness : we become Manly by training ourselves to despise and endure terrors, and we shall be best able to endure terrors when we have become Manly.

  • In a word, our moral dispositions are formed as a result of the corresponding activities.

  • Hence it is incumbent on us to control the character of our activities, since on the quality of these depends the quality of our dispositions.

    By dispositions he means moral dispositions.

    Manliness is a moral disposition -- it is the moral disposition to behave in a Manly fashion.

    It is the disposition to Fight.

    Not to run.

    But to Fight.

    My work is about Fighting.

  • It is therefore not of small moment whether we are trained from childhood in one set of habits or another ; on the contrary it is of very great, or rather of supreme, importance.

Cicero agrees with all of that.

Which is why he says

Far the best for Man is that which is desirable in and for itself, has its source in virtue or rather is based on virtue, is of itself praiseworthy, and in fact I should prefer to describe it as the only rather than the highest good.

What is best for Man is that which is desirable in and of itself, has its source in Virtue and is based on Virtue, is of itself praiseworthy, and in fact should be described as the ONLY, rather than the highest, Good :

Manliness.

And every other Roman agrees.

Which is why the great historian of the Roman Revolution, Ronald Syme, says that :

"[At Rome,] Virtus itself stands at the peak of the hierarchy, transcending mores."

~Syme, The Roman Revolution, 1939, 157.

Virtus -- Manliness -- stands at the peak of the hierarchy, transcending all other morals, all other virtues.


The Moral Virtue of Manliness, which is the Ardent Willingness and Requisite Ability to Fight, to Fight Man2Man, and which is the ethikos areté, the Supreme Moral Virtue, the Supreme Ethical Excellence, is, according to Aristotle, primarily about the Man's willingness -- a willingness which is a moral trait -- about the Man's willingness to face pain.

Aristotle :

Though Manliness is concerned with feelings of confidence and fear, it is not concerned with both alike, but more with the things that inspire fear ; for he who is undisturbed in face of these and bears himself as he should towards these is more truly Manly than the man who does so towards the things that inspire confidence. It is for facing what is painful, then, that Men are called Manly. Hence also, then, Manliness involves pain, and is justly [δικαιος] praised ; for it is harder to face what is painful [λυπηρος] than to abstain from what is pleasant.

~Aristot. Nic. Eth. 1117a, translated by WD Ross and myself.


It is for Facing what is Painful that Men are called Manly


Aristotle :

It is for Facing what is Painful that Men are called Manly


Aristotle :

It is for Facing what is Painful that Men are called Manly

Aristotle :

It is for Facing what is Painful that Men are called Manly


Aristotle :

It is for Facing what is Painful that Men are called Manly



Aristotle :

It is for Facing what is Painful that Men are called Manly


So :

"It is for Facing what is Painful that Men are called Manly."

That is, It is for Facing what is Painful that Men are deemed to possess Manliness :












Aristotle :

Though Manliness is concerned with feelings of confidence and fear, it is not concerned with both alike, but more with the things that inspire fear ; for he who is undisturbed in face of these and bears himself as he should towards these is more truly Manly than the man who does so towards the things that inspire confidence. It is for facing what is painful, then, that Men are called Manly. Hence also, then, Manliness involves pain, and is justly [δικαιος] praised ; for it is harder to face what is painful [λυπηρος] than to abstain from what is pleasant.

~Aristot. Nic. Eth. 1117a, translated by WD Ross and myself.


It is for Facing what is Painful that Men are called Manly

Now :

When Aristotle speaks of over-confidence or rashness, does he mean too much Manliness ?

Answer :

No.

Aristotle explains at length what he means by "rashness" in his extended and extremely useful discussion of Manliness, which begins at Book 3.6.1 of the Nikomachean Ethics.

Basically, rashness or over-confidence is a false Manliness.

It appears at first to be Manly, but on close inspection, it isn't.

Here's part of what Aristotle says :

[3.6.8] The rash man is generally thought to be an impostor, who pretends to manliness which he does not possess ; at least, he wishes to appear to feel towards fearful things as the Manly Man actually does feel, and therefore he imitates him in the things in which he can. [a]
Footnote:

[a] i.e., in situations not really formidable.

[9] Hence most rash men really are cowards at heart, for they make a bold show in situations that inspire confidence, but do not endure terrors.

So the rash man is actually an impostor, "who pretends to a manliness which he does not possess," being really a coward at heart.

A rash male cannot endure terrors, he fears and cannot face pain.

The Manly Man can and does.

Aristotle :

[T]he Manly Man is proof against fear so far as man may be. Hence although he will sometimes fear even terrors not beyond man's endurance, he will do so in the right way, and he will endure them as principle dictates, for the sake of what is noble [καλον] [a] ; for that is the end at which virtue aims.

Footnote from Prof Rackham :

[a] i.e., the rightness and fineness of the act itself, cf. 7.13 ; 8.5,14 ; 9.4 ; and see note on 1.3.2. This amplification of the conception of virtue as aiming at the mean here appears for the first time : we now have the final as well as the formal cause of virtuous action.

Bill Weintraub : The "formal cause" of virtuous action is the individual's "aiming at the mean" between excess and deficiency ; the "final cause" of virtuous action is the individual's decision to act for the sake of what is καλον -- kalon -- that is, what is both Morally Beautiful and Morally Noble.

Which leads us to Prof Rackham's :

Note on 1.3.2 :

Καλον is a term of admiration applied to what is correct, especially (1) bodies well shaped and works of art or handicraft well made (see iii. vii. 6), and (2) actions well done ; it thus means (1) beautiful, (2) morally right. For the analogy between moral and material correctness see ii. vi. 9 :

Aristotle :

[2.6.9] If therefore the way in which every art or science performs its work well is by looking to the mean and applying that as a standard to its productions (hence the common remark about a perfect work of art, that you could not take from it nor add to it -- meaning that excess and deficiency destroy perfection, while adherence to the mean preserves it) -- if then, as we say, good craftsmen look to the mean as they work, and if moral virtue, like nature, is more accurate and better than any form of art, it will follow that moral virtue has the quality of hitting the mean.

~Aristot. Nic. Eth. 3.7.2, translated by Rackham and myself.

And it's Prof Rackham who tells us that Aristotle is "a thinker and writer of extreme precision."

And that's what 2.6.9 is about :

"moral virtue -- Manliness -- has the quality of hitting the mean"

and the mean is Kalon -- Manliness :

Bodies well made, through Actions well done.

The Actions -- the Fightings -- are Noble, Honourable, and Beautiful.

And confer Moral -- aka Ethical -- Supremacy.

Thus, because "moral virtue, like nature, is more accurate and better than any form of art, it will follow that moral virtue has the quality of hitting the mean."

And to see the truth of what Aristotle's saying -- that Moral Virtue -- which is Manly Virtue -- which is Manliness -- is more accurate and better than any form of art, just look at this pic of the Combative Congregation :

Aristotle :

And the Manly Man will endure terrors as principle dictates, for the sake of what is Noble -- Καλον -- for that is the end at which moral virtue aims.

It is the Fighter's willingness to endure the terrors, to endure the pain -- to face the pain and take the pain -- which makes the act Beautiful.

Uniquely Beautiful.

Noble and Beautiful.

Καλος


Wrestling Team
USS California
1921-22
Καλος
At Pearl Harbor, 102 Fighting Men
died aboard the USS California,
and 62 more were wounded

Aristotle :

What form of death then is a test of Manliness [andreia]? Presumably that which is the noblest [kallistos]. Now the noblest form of death is death in battle [polemos -- battle, fight, war], for it is encountered in the midst of the greatest and most noble of dangers [megistos kai kallistos kindunos]. And this conclusion is borne out by the principle on which public honours [Tima] are bestowed in republics and under monarchies.

The Manly Man [ho andreios], therefore, in the proper sense of the term, will be he who fearlessly confronts a noble death [kalos thanatos], or some sudden peril that threatens death ; and the perils of polemos -- battle, fight, war -- answer this description most fully.


Wrestling Team
USS California
1921-22
Καλος
At Pearl Harbor, 102 Fighting Men
died aboard the USS California,
and 62 more were wounded

Aristotle :

And every activity aims at the end [telos -- fulfillment, completion, consummation, result] that corresponds to the disposition of which it is the manifestation. So it is therefore with the activity of the Manly Man [ho andreios] : his Manliness is noble [kalos] ; therefore its consummation is nobility [kalon], for a thing is defined by its consummation ; therefore the Manly Man endures the terrors and dares the deeds that manifest Manliness, for the sake of that which is noble.

~Aristotle, Nikomachean Ethics, 1115a-6, translated by Rackham and myself.

Again, Kalos at its most basic means both Noble and Beautiful.

And it's pain -- the pain of Fight -- and the Fighter's Willingness to Face and Take that Pain -- which confers Nobility and Beauty.

I'll have more to say about this -- below.

For now :

The end at which moral virtue -- ethical excellence -- aims, is Nobility -- Καλον -- Kalon ; and, as we discussed The Combative Congregation, Kalon is a term of admiration for bodies well made, actions well done.

Καλον -- Moral Nobility -- which is Manliness.

And the action in question is always Fighting :





Aristotle :

It is possible to fear terrors too much, and too little ; and also to fear things that are not fearful as if they were fearful.

Error arises either from fearing what one ought not to fear, or from fearing in the wrong manner, or at the wrong time, or the like ; and similarly with regard to occasions for confidence.

The Manly Man then is he that endures or fears the right things and for the right purpose and in the right manner and at the right time, and who shows confidence in a similar way.

Bill Weintraub :

This is an important statement -- and a statement of extreme precision.

To understand its importance, we need to contrast it with what Aristotle tells us about the opposite of Moral Virtue -- which is Moral Evil :

Moral Virtue then is a settled disposition of the mind determining the choice of actions and emotions, consisting essentially in the observance of the mean relative to us, this being determined by principle, or whatever we like to call that by which the prudent man would determine it.

[16] And it is a mean state between two vices, one of excess and one of defect. Furthermore, it is a mean state in that whereas the vices either fall short of or exceed what is right in feelings and in actions, virtue ascertains and adopts the mean.

[17] Hence while in respect of its substance and the definition that states what really is in essence virtue is the observance of the mean, in point of excellence and rightness it is an extreme. [aristos, eu, akros]

[18] Not every action or emotion however admits of the observance of a due mean. Indeed the very names of some directly imply evil, for instance malice, shamelessness, envy, and, of actions, adultery, theft, murder. All these and similar actions and feelings are blamed as being bad in themselves ; it is not the excess or deficiency of them that we blame.

It is impossible therefore ever to go right in regard to them -- one must always be wrong ; nor does right or wrong in their case depend on the circumstances, for instance, whether one commits adultery with the right woman, at the right time, and in the right manner; the mere commission of any of them is wrong [amartano].

[19] One might as well suppose there could be a due mean and excess and deficiency in acts of injustice or cowardice or profligacy, which would imply that one could have a medium amount of excess and of deficiency, an excessive amount of excess and a deficient amount of deficiency.

[20] But just as there can be no excess or deficiency in temperance and justice because the mean is in a sense an extreme, so there can be no observance of the mean nor excess nor deficiency in the corresponding vicious acts mentioned above, but however they are committed, they are wrong; since, to put it in general terms, there is no such thing as observing a mean in excess or deficiency, nor as exceeding or falling short in the observance of a mean.

~Aristot. Nic. Eth. 2.6.15-18, translated by Rackham.

Contrast what Aristotle says about adultery -- which is a form of sexual promiscuity -- and which "must always be wrong" -- that it doesn't matter whether the act is done "with the right woman, at the right time, and in the right manner; the mere commission of any of them is wrong [amartano]" --

With what he says about Manliness :

The Manly Man then is he that endures or fears the right things and for the right purpose and in the right manner and at the right time, and who shows confidence in a similar way.

What the adulterer does is always wrong.

While what the Manly Man does is by definition always Morally Upright and Morally Excellent.

Aristotle :

For the Manly Man feels and acts as the circumstances merit, and as principle may dictate.

And every activity aims at the end [telos -- fulfillment, completion, consummation, result] that corresponds to the disposition [ -- in this case, Manliness -- ] of which it is the manifestation. So it is therefore with the activity of the Manly Man [ho andreios] : his Manliness is noble [kalos] ; therefore its consummation is nobility [kalon], for a thing is defined by its consummation ; therefore the Manly Man endures the terrors and dares the deeds that manifest Manliness, for the sake of that which is noble.

~Aristotle, Nikomachean Ethics, 1115a-6, translated by Rackham and myself.




And Manliness, again, is the chief moral virtue, the most important ethical excellence, in Aristotle's system of Ethical Virtue in The Nicomachean Ethics, which Rackham tells us is the most important exposition of ancient Greek Pagan and Hellenist Ethics -- which we have :

Aristotle's review of the virtues and graces of character that the Greeks admired stands in such striking contrast with Christian Ethics that this section of the work is a document of primary importance for the student of the Pagan world.

And what makes it so important is first of all the extreme precision of Aristotle's thought and writing, and the fact that Aristotle makes constant reference to what the Greeks of his time actually believed and how they actually behaved.

To them, as to the Romans and the Kelts and the Teutons etc, Manliness is the most important Moral Virtue -- by far.

Manliness -- Fighting Manhood -- and its accompanying Fighting -- is the Summum Bonum -- the Supreme Good.


So :

My work is about Fighting.

Because Fighting is the Supreme Good.




Aristotle :

[T]he Manly Man is proof against fear so far as man may be. Hence although he will sometimes fear even terrors not beyond man's endurance, he will do so in the right way, and he will endure them as principle dictates, for the sake of what is noble [καλον] ; for that is the end at which virtue aims.

~Aristot. Nic. Eth. 3.7.2, translated by Rackham and myself.

So :

"It is for Facing what is Painful that Men are called Manly."

That is, It is for Facing what is Painful that Men are deemed to possess Manliness.

And the Manly Man will endure terrors as principle dictates, for the sake of what is Noble -- Καλον -- for that is the end at which moral virtue aims.

And Manliness, again, is the chief moral virtue, the most important ethical excellence, in Aristotle's system of Ethical Virtue in The Nicomachean Ethics, which Rackham tells us is the most important exposition of ancient Greek Pagan and Hellenist Ethics -- which we have :

Aristotle's review of the virtues and graces of character that the Greeks admired stands in such striking contrast with Christian Ethics that this section of the work is a document of primary importance for the student of the Pagan world.

And what makes it so important is that Aristotle makes constant reference to what the Greeks of his time actually believed and how they actually behaved.

To them, as to the Romans and the Kelts and the Teutons etc, Manliness is the most important Virtue -- by far.

Manliness -- Fighting Manhood -- and its accompanying Fighting -- is the Summum Bonum -- the Supreme Good.


So : Let's look at another picture of Fighters and Fighting, another picture of Manliness, which is Kalon -- both Manly Beauty and Moral Nobility :

And you can see once again that Kalon is

  1. Bodies well made ; and,

  2. Actions well done.

Καλον :

Kalon comprises Moral Nobility, Manly Honour, and Manly Beauty.

Would these guys have Moral Nobility, Manly Honour, and Manly Beauty -- to the Greeks ?

Absolutely.

Their Moral Nobility stems from their Willingness and Ability to Fight --

Specifically, to stand up to blows face to face.

Which they clearly have done.

Again :

It is for Facing what is Painful that Men are called Manly

So :

Fighting confers Moral Nobility.

In addition, Fighting as they have has generated and added to their Manly Honour ;

While Fighting has given them a Manly Beauty which is both physical and spiritual.

And notice that the Fighter and Warrior on the right has tattooed on his arm, SPQR -- SENATUS POPULUS QUE ROMANUM -- The Senate and People of Rome -- and what appears to be a Roman Helmet, topped by a Victory Wreath.

While the Fighter on the left has his hair done up in a top-knot.

Which was the style among Imperial Roman Boxers :

These two truly Magnificent and Manly Men aren't the only MMA Fighters to have symbols of ancient Warriors on their flesh.

Many -- many -- have them.

For example :

And in the pic below, you can see that the Fighter on the left bears on his body a succinct statement of a belief which was held virtually universally by Men in the ancient world : Death before Dishonour.

As I say, that belief was held virtually universally by Men in the ancient world, including Cicero and Aristotle :

Aristotle :

Manliness . . . is prompted by a virtue, namely the sense of shame [aidos], and by the desire for something noble [kalon], namely honor [timé], and the wish to avoid disgrace [aischros -- dishonour, disgrace, moral ugliness].

Honour is Noble ; and that's because it derives from Fighting Men and their Fighting Manhood.

The Ethical Supremacy conferred by Fighting Men and their Fighting Manhood is the source of all Manly Honour.

And of Nobility.

That which is Noble -- Nobility -- Καλον -- is, like Honour, inextricably intertwined with Fighting Men and their Fighting Manhood.

Because Nobility is Selflessness -- Selflessness-in-Fight.

Aristotle :

And every activity aims at the end [telos -- fulfillment, completion, consummation, result, objective] that corresponds to the disposition [ moral disposition -- in this case, Manliness -- ] of which it is the manifestation. So it is therefore with the activity of the manly man : his manliness is noble [kalos] ; therefore its consummation is nobility [kalon], for a thing is defined by its consummation ; therefore the manly man endures the terrors and dares the deeds that manifest manliness, for the sake of that which is noble.

~Aristotle, Nikomachean Ethics, 1115a-6, translated by Rackham and myself.

Most of you don't know what being a Man is about.

You don't.

But it's about Fighting.






That's what it's about.

It's about Fighting.

And choosing Honour -- which is Manliness --

While scorning pain and death.

As Aristotle says, "The Manly Man endures the terrors and dares the deeds that manifest Manliness, for the sake of that which is Noble -- Καλον."

And you endure the terrors and dare the deeds -- through Fighting.

Fighting confers Manliness.

Manliness enables Fighting.


So :

For many Fighters, the traditions of the ancient world, the ancient Combatant Cosmos and its Warriordoms, still live --

Live in their Manly Hearts and Martial Souls.

Indeed, our word "martial" derives from the Roman God Mars and the Latin adjectives Martius and Martialis -- Of Mars, Loving War and Fight, Possessed by Pugnacitas -- Pugnacity.

And this is a beautiful image of Male Pugnacity -- and of the Masculine Peace and Manly Harmony which Reign when the Man2Man ManFight is done :

It's a Harmony of Parts -- Naturally at War.

So :

There's a passage through rage to love -- as I often say.

The ancients were well aware of that passage.

Lucian, in describing the Fighting in Sparta's Plane-Tree Grove, its Plantanista, tells us so.

At the two entrances to Plane-Tree Grove, where Spartan youth engaged in Nude Gang Fights, stood statues of Herakles -- and Lykourgos -- the Spartan Law-Giver and Wolf-Worker who gave Sparta its Eunomia -- its Good, because Manly, Order.

Lucian:

[At Sparta,] they go into a place surrounded by water [known as Plantanistas, or Plane-Tree Grove], choose up sides, and fight as if in actual war, although as naked as we Athenians are, until one team drives the other out of the enclosure into the water, the Sons of Herakles beating the Sons of Lykourgos or vice versa ; after this contest there is peace and no one would strike another.

~ translated by Sweet.

"after this contest there is peace and no one would strike another"

FIGHTING -- brings Order and Peace.

And Discipline, Harmony, and Restraint.

Order, Harmony, Discipline, Restraint.

Manly Moral Order.

Masculine Harmony.

Manly Discipline.

Masculine and Moral Peace.

Masculine Discipline, Manly Harmony, Masculine Restraint, Manly Order.

"and no one would strike another"

Iamblichos says the same thing.

He speaks of The Harmony of Opposed Principles, A Harmony of Parts Naturally at War.

How many authentically great and wise Men have to say that, before you figure out that it's True ?

Man can never be separated from Fight, nor Fight from Man.

Man can never be separated from Warrior, nor Warrior from Man.

For Man is Naturally at War with Man, Phallus Naturally at War with Phallus.

Phallo Machia and Andro Machia are locked together in an eternal and kosmic dance.

And to Dance is to Fight, to Fight is to Dance -- as Iamblichos also understands.

Even the imposition of one "part" on another, while apparently distressful to that part, is necessary and beneficial to the harmony of the "whole," a principle which, Iamblichus says, "we see exemplified clearly in a dance" (De Mysteriis 56, 14-15).

~Gregory Shaw, Theurgy and the Soul : The Neoplatonism of Iamblichus

For Iamblichos, "part" = Man, "whole" = the Cosmos, God.

And the Dance is a Pyrrhiche, a Warrior Dance, a Dance of War, a Dance of Life, the Dance of Life.

So :

Even the imposition of one Man on another -- as in MMA -- as in Ground and Pound in MMA --


Ground and Pound

Even the imposition of one Fighter on another, while apparently distressful to that other, is necessary and beneficial to the harmony of the Whole, of the ManFight, which is a Warrior Kosmic Principle, a Principle of the Warrior Kosmos.

Ground and Pound is necessary to the Harmony of the ManFight, the Harmony of Things Naturally at War.

Man is Naturally at War with Man.

Phallus is Naturally at War with Phallus.

Phallus Against Phallus.

Man Against Man.

And as I said, if Man Against Man is the Supreme Good, if Man Strenuously Struggling Against Man in Fight Agonia is Supremely Good --

So is the Strenuous Struggle of Phallus Against Phallus.

ManFight in both aspects is both Supreme, and Supremely Good.


So :

Manliness -- that is, Masculinity, Manhood, Fighting Manhood, Manly Excellence, Manly Goodness, Manly Virtue, Manly Spirit, Fighting Spirit -- are all synonymous.

And they all mean the same thing :

The Ardent Willingness and Requisite Ability to Fight.

Bill Weintraub

October 17, 2020




Now :

In 1983, I sought out Training in Self-Defense, which I got, and then went on from there to Train in Karate.

The Training in SD and then Karate was a huge revelation to me.

I was taught how to punch, how to kick, how to block blows, how to turn simple objects like a rolled-up magazine or a set of keys into weapons which a criminal would fear and seek to avoid.

And the initial training -- in how to throw and block blows -- that is, in how to stand up to blows face to face -- was, again, a huge revelation to me.

It put me in touch, for the first time in my life, with my male aggressive power :


For ten years prior to Training, I'd looked fruitlesssly for a lover.

Within just a few months of beginning training, I met Brett.

Indeed, once I'd begun training, I found myself mobbed by Men -- all of whom wanted a piece of me.

Which they could not have.

Only Brett could.

Xenophon :

All Men want to ally themselves with the Manly.


In case you've forgotten, Manly means Willing and ABLE to Fight.


That's why you need to Train.


Question :

Is throwing a punch in self-defense -- violent ?

Answer :

Of course it is.

Look at this pic :

This Man's been hit in the face ; he's retaliating by hitting back.

He's defending himself.

Violently.

He has to.

If he retaliates with less than his full, violent, force, his opponent will annihilate him.

Not just in the boxing ring -- but on the street too.

Plato understands that -- and says that the ability to defend oneself -- is vital -- to both the individual and the state :


For a good and blessed life, the first requisite is neither to do wrong oneself nor to suffer wrong from others [adikeo heteroi -- others, but also euphemistic for kakoi -- the bad, mean, ugly, base, wicked, evil]. Of these, the former is not very hard, but it is very hard to secure the power [dynamis] of not suffering wrong ; indeed, it is impossible to gain this perfectly, except by becoming perfectly Manly [teleios agathos]1.

So likewise a State may obtain a life of peace if it becomes Manly [agathos], but if cowardly [kakos], a life of war both abroad and at home. This being so, all men must train for war [ton polemon gymnasteos] [829b] not in war-time, but while they are living in peace.

Footnote 1 :

"Perfect Manliness" secures this "power of not suffering wrong" : people do not lightly provoke the Manly Man, the Perfect Warrior.

~ Plat. Laws 8.829a-b, translated by Bury and myself.

All Men must Train for Battle-Fight-War
~ Plato of Athens

And of course Plato's right --

Training is key.

You have to Train.

So :

IN THE ANCIENT WORLD, THERE'S A COHERENT AND UNDISPUTED INTELLECTUAL, PHILOSOPHIC, AND RELIGIOUS TRADITION IN WHICH BATTLE-FIGHT-WAR -- IE, POLEMOS -- IS THE FATHER AND KING OF ALL :

THIS TRADITION RUNS FROM HERACLEITOS TO KRATYLUS TO PLATO TO ARISTOTLE -- AND THEN TO IAMBLICHOS -- whose "Harmony of Opposed Principles" is Herakleitos "Unity of Opposites."

Heraclitus

In Herakleitos' view of the world, the mutual transformations of matter are not an accidental feature, but the very essence of nature. Without change, there would be no world.

Herakleitos acknowledges this in his praise of War and Strife :

We must recognize that War is common, Strife is Justice, and all things happen according to Strife and Necessity.

War is Father of all and King of all ; some He has made Gods, some Men ; some slaves, some Free.

To Die in Battle is superior to all other forms of death.

Iamblichos :

These oppositions, held in measured grades of opposition and proportion, make up the framework for physical manifestation.

-or-




















Forest Griffin vs Stephan Bonnar
This is a great Fight,
Violent and Brutal.
Search it out on
youtube and watch it
from beginning to end.



























So :

WAR IS GOD.

BATTLE-FIGHT-WAR IS GOD.

PUGNA IS GOD.

WAR IS THE FATHER OF ALL.

FIGHT IS THE FATHER OF ALL.

FIGHTING IS THE FATHER OF ALL.

FIGHTING IS THE SUMMUM BONUM, THE SUPREME GOOD, THE SUPREME EXCELLENCE.

FIGHTING CONFERS MANLINESS.

MANLINESS IS THE THE SUMMUM BONUM, THE SUPREME GOOD, THE SUPREME EXCELLENCE.

MANLINESS ENABLES FIGHTING.

FIGHTING AND MANLINESS ARE THE SUMMUM BONUM, THE SUPREME GOOD, THE SUPREME EXCELLENCE.

THERE WERE TWO TEMPLES IN ROME DEDICATED TO HONOS AND VIRTUS, THE ONE MANLINESS AND VALOUR, THE OTHER ITS REWARD -- HONOUR

WE FIGHT SO AS TO EMBODY AND ENACT, TO INSTANTIATE, THE IDEAL MANLINESS, THE IDEAL FIGHTING MANHOOD, THE IDEAL MANLY EXCELLENCE, MANLY GOODNESS, AND MANLY VIRTUE, BRUTAL AND VIOLENT, OF THE WARRIOR WORLD OF BEING, THE WARRIOR KOSMOS, HERE IN THE WARRIOR WORLD OF BECOMING, THE COMBATANT COSMOS.

WE STRUGGLE, MAN AGAINST MAN, EACH TO MAKE OUR COMBATANT MANHOOD PERFECT -- PERFECT IN VICTORY -- PERFECT THROUGH FIGHTING.

WE UNDERSTAND THAT FIGHTING CONFERS MANLINESS, AND THAT MANLINESS ENABLES FIGHTING.

THEREFORE WE CONSTANTLY CHALLENGE AND PROVOKE OUR FELLOW FIGHTERS, THAT THROUGH THE STRENUOUS PHYSICAL STRUGGLES OF MAN AGAINST MAN IN MANFIGHT, WE MAY EMERGE, VICTORIOUS AND PERFECT, AS WARRIOR GODS, SUPREME IN MANLINESS, LOCKED IN ETERNAL AGGRESSION IN THE WARRIOR KOSMOS.




Here's what Aristotle says in his Nikomachean Ethics, the best and most complete exposition of ancient ethics -- extant.

Aristotle :

  1. That pleasure and pain are the things with which moral virtue aka ethical excellence is concerned ;

  2. That pleasure causes us to do base -- that is, ignoble and shameful, actions ; and pain -- that is the fear of pain, the excessive fear of pain -- causes us to abstain from doing noble actions [καλον] ;

    And the ancient Greek word Kalon -- Καλον -- which means Moral Virtue, Moral Beauty, Moral Nobility, and Manly Honour -- is extremely important.

    Please click on the link and read the definition all the way through.

  3. That the moral virtue which we and the ancient Greeks call Andreia -- Manliness --, and which, again, is conferred by Fighting, is about pain ; and,

  4. That we call Men Manly (Andreios) -- for their willingness to face pain :

Aristotle :

[6] First of all then we have to observe, that moral qualities are so constituted as to be destroyed by excess and by deficiency -- as we see is the case with bodily strength and health (for one is forced to explain what is invisible by means of visible illustrations). Strength is destroyed both by excessive and by deficient exercises, and similarly health is destroyed both by too much and by too little food and drink ; while they are produced, increased and preserved by suitable quantities.

[7] The same therefore is true of Manliness, Temperance, and the other virtues. The man who runs away from everything in fear and never endures anything becomes a coward. Similarly he that indulges in every pleasure and refrains from none turns out a profligate, and he that shuns all pleasure, as boorish persons do, becomes what may be called insensible. Thus Manliness and Temperance are destroyed by excess and deficiency, and preserved by the observance of the mean.

[8] But not only are the [moral] virtues both generated and fostered on the one hand, and destroyed on the other, from and by the same actions, but they will also find their full exercise in the same actions. This is clearly the case with the other more visible qualities, such as bodily strength : for strength is produced by taking much food and undergoing much exertion, while also it is the strong man who will be able to eat most food and endure most exertion.

[9] The same holds good with the virtues. We become temperate by abstaining from pleasures, and at the same time we are best able to abstain from pleasures when we have become temperate. And so with Manliness : we become Manly by training ourselves to despise and endure terrors, and we shall be best able to endure terrors when we have become Manly.


MANLY

Pleasure and
pain the test
of Virtue

[2.3.1] An index of our [moral] dispositions is afforded by the pleasure or pain that accompanies our actions. A man is temperate if he abstains from bodily pleasures and finds this abstinence itself enjoyable, profligate if he feels it irksome ; he is Manly if he faces danger with pleasure or at all events without pain, cowardly if he does so with pain.

In fact pleasures and pains are the things with which moral virtue is concerned.

For pleasure causes us to do base actions and pain causes us to abstain from doing noble actions [καλον].

[2] Hence the importance, as Plato points out, of having been definitely trained from childhood to like and dislike the proper things ; this is what good education means.

~Aristot. Nic. Eth. 2.2.1 - 2.3.2, translated by Rackham and myself.




αγωνια
a contest, struggle for victory ; gymnastic exercise, wrestling













The great Greek philosophers Sokrates and Plato spent a lot of time debating and defeating the hedonists of their day.

Plato wrote three very powerful books detailing that debate, beginning with the Protagoras, continuing in the Gorgias, and culminating in the Republic, one of the most important works of Western literature.

In the Gorgias in particular, Sokrates identifies hedonism with those who in his day, engaged in anal.

And since anal was proscribed -- forbidden -- by the Greeks, he uses that fact to defeat the hedonists.

Here's the debate -- the hot-headed hedonist is a guy named Callicles, and he's debating Sokrates:

Socrates. Come now, let me tell you another parable:

Consider if each of the two lives, the temperate and the licentious, might be described by imagining that each of the two men had a number of jars; the one man has his jars sound and full, one of wine, another of honey, and a third of milk, besides others filled with other things, and the sources which fill them are scanty and difficult, and he can only obtain them with a great deal of hard toil. Well, one man, when he has taken his fill, neither draws any more nor troubles himself a jot, but remains at ease on that score. The other, in like manner, can procure sources, though not without difficulty; but his vessels are leaky and unsound, and night and day he is compelled to fill them constantly, and if he pauses for a moment, he is in an agony of extreme distress. If such is the nature of each of the two lives, do you say that the licentious man has a happier one than the orderly? Do I not convince you that the opposite is the truth?

Callicles. You do not convince me, Socrates, for the one who has filled himself has no longer any pleasure left; and this, as I was just now saying, is the life of a stone: he has neither joy nor sorrow after he is once filled; but a pleasant life consists rather in the largest possible amount of inflow.

Soc. Well then, if the the inflow be large, must not that which runs away be of large amount also, and the holes for such outflow be of great size?

Cal. Certainly.

Soc. The life which you are now depicting is not that of a dead man, or of a stone, but of a plover [a bird thought to drink and then to eject the liquid]; you mean that he is to be hungering and eating?

Cal. Yes.

Soc. And he is to be thirsting and drinking?

Cal. Yes, that is what I mean; he is to have all his desires about him, and to be able to live happily in the gratification of them.

Soc. Capital, excellent; go on as you have begun, and have no shame; I, too, must disencumber myself of shame: and first, will you tell me whether you include itching and scratching, provided you have enough of them and pass your life in scratching, in your notion of happiness?

Cal. What a strange being you are, Socrates! a regular stump-orator.

Soc. That was the reason, Callicles, why I scared Polus and Gorgias, until they were too modest to say what they thought; but you will not be too modest and will not be scared, for you are such a manly fellow. And now, answer my question.

Cal. I answer, that even the scratcher would live pleasantly.

Soc. And if pleasantly, then also happily?

Cal. To be sure.

Soc. But what if the itching is not confined to the head? Shall I pursue the question? And here, Callicles, I would have you consider how you would reply if consequences are pressed upon you, especially if in the last resort you are asked, whether the life of a catamite is not terrible, shameful, and wretched? Or would you venture to say, that they too are happy, if they only get enough of what they want?

Cal. Are you not ashamed, Socrates, of introducing such topics into the argument?

Soc. Well, my fine friend, but am I the introducer of these topics, or he who says without any qualification that all who feel pleasure in whatever manner are happy, and who admits of no distinction between good and bad pleasures? And I would still ask, whether you say that pleasure and good are the same, or whether there is some pleasure which is not a good?

~Plat. Gorg. 494e, translated by Jowett and Lamb.

So: Socrates asks, "Is there some pleasure which is not a good?"

And the word "catamite" in the original Greek is kinaidos, that is, one who is anally passive, and/or who participates in anal penetration.

That is, an analist.

"Is there some pleasure which is not a good?"

Anal.

The life of an analist, says Sokrates, is "terrible, shameful, and wretched."

And Callicles doesn't dare disagree with him.

Because the cultural prohibition against anal is too severe.

I have no question that privately, Callicles thinks anal is okay.

That to his mind, "If it feels 'good,' do it!" and "It's all sex and it's all good!" -- are imperatives.

But he doesn't dare say so -- regarding anal.

Because again, the cultural prohibition against anal is too severe.

As it should be.

To learn more about that cultural prohibition, click here, or just read this :

Aesop's Fables, translated by Laura Gibbs (2002)

528. ZEUS AND SHAME

Zeus kai Aischyne Ζευς και Αισχυνη

Perry 109 (Chambry 118 *)

After he had created people, Zeus immediately implanted in them all the possible human character traits, but he forgot about Shame. Since he didn't know how to get Shame inside the human body, he ordered her to go in from behind. At first Shame protested, considering Zeus's request to be beneath her dignity. When Zeus kept insisting, she said, 'All right, I will go in there, on the condition that if anything comes in there after me, I will leave immediately.' As a result, people who engage in sodomy have no sense of shame.

Note the definition of Aischyne = shame for an ill deed ; and

Those who engage in anal = katechomenous : κατεχομενους ; andra pornon : ανδρα πορνον -- male harlot



















Ιn Harvard's Loeb Classical Library edition of Plato's Statesman, there's a translator's note regarding the Greek word Andreia -- which means Manliness, Manhood, Manly Spirit :

The word andreia ανδρεια has a much wider meaning than the English "courage." Like the Latin "virtus," it [the Greek word "andreia"] embraces all qualities which are desirable in a perfect man, especially the more active and positive virtues. When applied to one particular kind of virtue it is applied to courage, but throughout this discussion it is used in the wider sense, for which there is no single English equivalent.

This is a somewhat confused, in part, and from my point of view, pronouncement from the translator, Prof Fowler, who was writing in 1921, but it's useful because its central point is right on the mark.

In order to understand that, we need to look at what Prof Fowler has said sentence by sentence :

  1. Prof Fowler: The word andreia ανδρεια has a much wider meaning than the English "courage."

    Bill Weintraub:

    Actually, andreia doesn't mean courage -- it means Manliness, Manhood, Manly Spirit.

    Please click on this link -- ανδρεια --

    so you can see that I'm telling you the truth.

    Andreia -- ανδρεια -- means Manliness, Manhood, Manly Spirit -- which is Fighting Spirit, just as Manhood is Fighting Manhood.

    So, in that sense, Prof Fowler is right :

    The word andreia ανδρεια has a much wider meaning than the English "courage."

    Because andreia means Manhood.

    Why then does Prof Fowler say "courage?"

    Because he's writing in 1921, and in 1921, courage was understood to be an essential and constituent part of Manhood.

    Fighting Manhood.

    As I've explained and have continued to explain in this Lexicon from the Prolegomena forward, True Manhood is the Ability and Willingness to Fight -- and Courage, Bravery, Valour, etc -- are all, obviously, part of that Willingness and Ability.

    But they're not the only part, and for just that reason, "courage" or "bravery" or "valour" alone -- and even though that's what you often see in the English texts -- is not an adequate translation of the Greek, as Prof Fowler goes to on to say :

  2. Prof Fowler: Like the Latin "virtus," it [the Greek word "andreia"] embraces all qualities which are desirable in a perfect man, especially the more active and positive virtues.

    Bill Weintraub:

    That's absolutely correct, and it's the critical point.

    I made that same point in the discussion and definition of Andreia, of Areté, and of related words like agathos, and by now you should be very familiar with those discussions and thus that critical point :

    Like the Latin "virtus," it [the Greek word "andreia"] embraces all qualities which are desirable in a perfect man, especially the more active and positive virtues.

    Again, Prof Fowler is correct :

    Like the Latin "virtus," Andreia embraces all qualities which are desirable in a perfect man, especially the more active and positive virtues.

    All qualities.

    All.

    But what does he mean by "the more active and positive virtues?"

    He means what we can call the Warrior Virtues, the Fighting Virtues, as you can see from Lewis and Short's 1879 definition of the Latin word Virtus :

    f. vir [man], manliness, manhood, i. e. the sum of all the corporeal or mental excellences of man, strength, vigor; bravery, courage; aptness, capacity; worth, excellence, virtue, etc.

    Both Andreia and Virtus, then, mean Manhood, Fighting Manhood, that is, the sum of all the corporeal and mental excellences of Man :

    strength, vigor ;

    bravery, courage ;

    aptness, capacity ;

    worth, excellence, virtue.

    In short, Manhood is Goodness.

    Warrior Goodness.

    Fighting Goodness.

    And we can see that quite clearly simply by revisiting the link which contains the definition of andreia -- ανδρεια -- and which reads as follows :

    manliness, manhood, manly spirit, Lat. virtus

    Because when we click on that link for virtus, this is what we see :

    manliness, manhood, strength, vigor, bravery, courage, excellence

    And that's just the short list.

    Because in an expanded definition, which bears Lewis's name alone, and which appeared in 1890, Prof Lewis defines Virtus as

    Manhood, manliness : Strength, vigor, bravery, courage, excellence ; Valour, gallantry, fortitude ; Goodness, moral perfection, high character, virtue ; Worth, merit, value.

    And that's what Andreia, Areté, and Virtus mean -- Manhood -- Fighting Manhood -- and all the Noble Excellences and Virile Virtues which Fighting Manhood brings to those Men who, in their own lives, celebrate and exalt it : Vigour, Strength, Might, Power, Mastery, Potency ; Valour, Gallantry, Fortitude ; Manly Virtue, Manly Honour, Manly Goodness, Manly Moral Perfection and Self-Control, Manfully High Character ; Virile Value, Martial Merit, Warrior Worth.

    And that's exactly and precisely what Prof Fowler means when he says "[the Greek word 'andreia'] embraces all qualities which are desirable in a perfect man, especially the more active and positive virtues."

    Andreia "embraces all qualities which are desirable in a perfect man" --

    A Perfect Man.

    A Man such as you would find in the World of Being.

    The Warrior World of Being.

    Because Plato is talking about Warriors -- when he uses the word.

    Which is why Prof Fowler says, "the more active and positive virtues."

    He's talking about Men of Action.

    Warriors.

    Perfect Warriors.

    "Action is a Man's job, my lord."

    Do any of you remember that?

    It's in the Prolegomena, and it's said by a Boiotian Warrior to Alexander the Great.

    "Action is a Man's job, my lord."

    "Andreia embraces all qualities which are desirable in a perfect man, especially the more active and positive virtues."

    The Perfect Man is a Warrior.

    The Perfect Man.

    The Perfect Warrior.

  3. Prof Fowler: When applied to one particular kind of virtue it is applied to courage,

    Bill Weintraub:

    I'm not entirely sure what Prof Fowler means in this one clause -- it would appear he means 'when applied to one kind of virtue in isolation from other virtues it is applied to courage' --

    Though if that's what he intends, he really should say, 'when applied to one kind of virtue in isolation from other virtues it is sometimes applied to courage or bravery or the like.'

    Because, for example, in this line from Plutarch's Life of Dion, describing an encounter between Plato and the tyrant of Syracuse, the translator, Bernadotte Perrin, writing in 1918, says,

    At this meeting the general subject was human [andros -- man's] virtue [Areté -- Manhood], and most of the discussion turned upon manliness [andreia -- Fighting Manhood].

    So -- "Human Virtue" and "Manliness / Manhood" are juxtaposed, equated, identified one with the other.

    Except that the phrase Perrin translates as "Human Virtue" actually reads the Areté of Man -- that is, the Manly Excellence of Man -- which is the Manhood of Man -- the Man's Fighting Manhood.

    At this meeting the general subject was the Manhood of Man, and most of the discussion turned upon Fighting Manhood.

    Sound redundant?

    In that case, you need to review Liddell and Scott's definition of Areté

    From the same root [ARES] comes areté ... the first notion of goodness being that of manhood, bravery in war; cf. Lat. virtus.

    Manhood.

    "the first notion of goodness being that of manhood"

    And, Liddell and Scott re-inforce that point by saying that areté is

    goodness, excellence, of any kind, esp. of manly qualities, manhood, valour, prowess, Hom., Hdt. (like Lat. vir-tus, from vir).

    Manhood.

    "goodness, excellence, of any kind, esp. of manly qualities, manhood, valour, prowess"

    Manhood:

    The first notion of Goodness.

    The first notion of Goodness is that of Manhood.

    Manhood.

    True Manhood, which is Fighting Manhood.

    And the word Perrin translates as "Manliness" is Andreia; which, once again, is how the standard Ancient Greek Lexicon, written by Liddell and Scott, translates it:

    andreia

    manliness, manhood, manly spirit, Lat. virtus

    Nevertheless, sometimes, a translator will render the word "Andreia" as valor -- as happens in this passage we looked at in Biblion Proton when Sokrates is talking about the "broken ears" -- battered and broken from Boxing -- of the Spartans and their allies:

    The Spartans owe their superiority to fighting and valor

    Doesn't matter.

    Because the word is still -- Andreia -- MANHOOD:

    andreia

    manliness, manhood, manly spirit, Lat. virtus

    Which means that the passage actually reads -- and meant, to a Greek -- this:

    The Spartans owe their superiority to Fighting and Manhood.

    And Manhood of course is Fighting Manhood.

    Which means that the passage actually reads -- and meant, to a Greek -- this:

    The Spartans owe their superiority to Fighting and Fighting Manhood.

    So -- if this passage sounds redundant --

    At this meeting the general subject was the Manhood of Man, and most of the discussion turned upon Fighting Manhood.

    that's because it is.

    Because that's the way the Greeks thought.

    Areté -- Fighting Manhood -- derives from Ares -- the God of Fighting Manhood ; and Andreia -- Fighting Manhood -- derives from Andros -- Man -- who is Man -- who is Manly -- who possesses Manhood -- because He Fights :

    αρετη Αρης

    ανδρεια ανδρος

    In Masculinist cultures like the Warriordoms of Ancient Greece, informed as they are by the Warrior World of Being, the Warrior Kosmos, the constant repetition of the words for Man, Manhood, Fighting, Fighting Manhood, and the God of Fighting Manhood -- becomes incantational :

    Ares, Areté, Andros, Andreia.

    And that incantational repetition becomes in effect a cultural message which unceasingly extols -- Fighting Manhood.

    Moreover, in terms of integral or "involved" Virtue, which we've repeatedly discussed, Andreia means Fighting Manhood.

    That's what it means -- and that's what Prof Fowler, writing almost a hundred years ago, almost certainly means also.

    Once again, he's using the word "courage" instead of Manhood, because, in 1921, when he was translating, courage was understood to be a constituent of Manhood.

    But it no longer is so understood.

    In addition, in 1921, most educated people studied first Latin and then Greek, and in the course of studying Latin they were introduced to Virtus, and the concept of a Manhood which embraces all the positive and active virtues of the perfect Man.

    Afterwards, when they studied Greek, they encountered Andreia, and it's reasonable to assume that their professors told them that Andreia was the Greek equivalent of Virtus -- and, moreover, that's what they would have learned when they looked up the word in their print edition of Liddell and Scott :

    manliness, manhood, manly spirit, Lat. virtus

    But of course that was in 1921 ; it's now 2014, and almost no one studies Latin and Greek.

    And, in any case, the word "courage" alone isn't adequate -- and never has been -- as Prof Fowler has the decency to state and admit.

    Yet words like "courage" or "bravery" or "valour" are what you often see in English translations -- when the Greek text reads Andreia or Areté.

    But Andreia and Areté mean Manhood -- Fighting Manhood -- which is the sum of and which embraces all the noble excellences of the perfect Man.

    Which is why I have to keep stressing what exactly it is that Andreia and Areté and Manhood -- actually mean.

  4. Prof Fowler: but throughout this discussion it [andreia] is used in the wider sense, for which there is no single English equivalent.

    Bill Weintraub:

    "throughout this discussion" -- Prof Fowler is referring to the discussion in the Statesman, which is the Platonic dialogue he's translated, and the discussion he refers to is, basically, about how the Statesman, the Ruler of a City-State, can achieve what we might call balance in and among the various components of virtue such as andreia and sophrosyne (self-control) and thus balance in his citizens -- who, of course, are Men.

    Paul Shorey: The Statesman,

    like the rulers in the Republic and the Laws, is to control marriages and the propagation of the race, especially with a view to blending by both eugenics and education the oppositions of the energetic and sedate temperament.

    ~What Plato Said

    (And that, by they way, is yet another transparent borrowing, by Plato, from Spartan practice :

    At Sparta -- aggression -- which is an expression of Fighting Manhood -- was "blended" with obedience -- which is an expression of self-control.

    Those twin Spartan Virtues of Aggression and Obedience were ceaselessly inculcated into the boys in the agogé, and it's reasonable to assume that eugenically, that blend was what the Spartans were looking for :

    [Lykourgos, the Spartan law-giver,] made it honourable [kalon -- morally beautiful] for worthy men to share children and their production, and derided people who hold that there can be no combination or sharing of such things, and who avenge any by assassinations and wars. Thus if an older man with a young wife should take a liking to one of the well-bred [kalos kai agathos -- noble and brave, noble and virile, morally beautiful and manly ; see also kalokagathos -- a man as he should be] young men and approve of him, he might well introduce him to her so as to fill her with noble [gennaios] sperm and then adopt the child as his own.

    ~Plutarch, Lycurgus, 15.7, translated by Talbert.

    "Fill her with Noble Sperm" is exactly what the Greek says ; and "Noble Sperm," in the Spartan context, is Sperm created by a young Man who possesses a good-to-magnificent physique, and, true product of Ta Kala and the Agogé, is both fiercely Aggressive and instantly Obedient.

    And that of course is the purpose of the exercise -- to preserve and extend that Pugnacious and Harmonious Young Man's -- and his Noble Sperm's -- bloodline.)

    So, Prof Fowler says, "throughout this discussion it [andreia] is used in the wider sense, for which there is no single English equivalent."

    "no single English equivalent"

    Well, perhaps that was true in 1921, and perhaps not.

    Perhaps, by 1921, the word Manhood was becoming a bit too blatant and too strong for educated and increasingly heterosexualized taste.

    But what I'm doing in this Lexicon of Manhood, clearly, is to make the term Fighting Manhood the single English equivalent.

    And I'm doing that by demonstrating that the term Fighting Manhood can be said to incorporate all these other Greek words -- Areté, Arren, Agathos, Agathon, eupsychia, Eukosmos, Kalos, Kalon, Kala, Orthos, Timé, and so forth -- which words, as a practical and functional matter, all *reduce* to Fighting Manhood.

    So -- if we come back to this statement by Prof Fowler --

    The word andreia ανδρεια has a much wider meaning than the English "courage."

    Like the Latin "virtus," it embraces all qualities which are desirable in a perfect man, especially the more active and positive virtues.

    We can see that that's true.

    We look again at Lewis and Short's definition of Virtus :

    f. vir [man], manliness, manhood, i. e. the sum of all the corporeal or mental excellences of man, strength, vigor; bravery, courage; aptness, capacity; worth, excellence, virtue, etc.

    Both Andreia and Virtus -- and Areté -- mean Manhood, Fighting Manhood, that is, the sum of all the corporeal and mental excellences of Man :

    strength, vigor ;

    bravery, courage ;

    aptness, capacity ;

    worth, excellence, virtue.

    In short, Fighting Manhood is Goodness.

Fighting Manhood is Goodness.

Both the First, and the Last, Notion of Goodness.

Fighting Manhood is Goodness.

And if Fighting Manhood is Goodness --

Fighting Manhood is the Spiritual Essence -- of Man.

It is Manly Goodness.

It is the Manly Idea of Good.

It is Man's Idea of Good.






And while, as we've also discussed, Plato himself never defines the Idea of Good, he does say that its attributes, its constituents, are truth [aletheia], beauty [kalon], and symmetry [symmetria].





xxx

















Fighting Manhood is both Heroic and Virtuous.

Encompassing both Flesh and Spirit,

Fighting Manhood both Ennobles and Exalts.

Bill Weintraub

January 30, 2014





Recently I've been reading John Milton, the great English poet and defender of the Puritan and Parliamentary Revolution. I've been reading his prose pieces -- which were written to advance that Revolutionary cause. If you think I'm dogmatic and militant -- you should read Milton. But his militancy helped bring about the freedoms we have today. As Warrior Brian said to me in an email regarding the need to organize:
If an army went into battle without proper training and organisation they would lose. Historic example, in the English Civil War (1642 to 1646) the army of King Charles 1st was better organised and won most of the first battles; however Oliver Cromwell trained and organised the men fighting on Parliament's side into the New Model Army, and they won! If they had not been so organised the King would have carried on as the dictator he had been. Maybe eventually we would have got the freedoms that we enjoy now but it would have come more slowly and the monarch would have given them very grudgingly; so organisation is as you say vital to winning.
And Militancy is vital -- to organization.












Two points :

  1. How to read Liddell and Scott's definitions of ancient Greek words :

    In Liddell and Scott's definitions of ancient Greek words, the words in italic type are the actual definitions of the Greek word, while the words in roman type are explanatory and/or serve to link several words.

    For example, in this entry on

    Aidos : reverence, awe, respect for the feeling or opinion of others or for one's own conscience, and so shame, self-respect, sense of honour

    reverence, awe, respect and shame, self-respect, sense of honour are the actual translations of the word ; that is, Aidos can mean and can be translated as reverence, awe, respect, shame, self-respect or sense of honour.

    The last three definitions derive from the first three in the way that Liddell and Scott explain in roman type :

    reverence, awe, respect for the feeling or opinion of others or for one's own conscience, and so shame, self-respect, sense of honour

    In other words, because the Warrior has reverence, awe and/or respect for the feeling and opinion of others or for his own conscience, he may feel shame, self-respect, or a sense of honour.

    So -- to take a specific instance -- in Sparta, the young Warriors were taught to always give up their seat to an elder Warrior.

    A young Warrior, seeing an elder Warrior who needs a place to sit, will give up his seat to that elder because of the reverence, awe, or respect he has for the opinion of his peers or the promptings of his own conscience.

    If he does not give up his seat, he'll feel shame.

    While if he does offer his seat to the elder, he'll experience self-respect and a sense of honour.

    Same with keeping his place in the Hoplite formation.

    The Warrior would feel shame if he broke ranks and ran away.

    While he feels honour when he stays at his post.

    Thus aidos can mean both shame and honour or self-respect, and it derives from the sense of reverence, awe, and respect which the Warrior feels for the opinion of his elders, his peers, and his own conscience.

    And -- if you go to the definition of aidos as it appears in our Lexicon, you'll see that I've written an explanation under Liddell and Scott's definition -- which expands upon what I've just said.

    Here's another example :

    Areté / Areta : goodness, excellence, of any kind, esp. of manly qualities, manhood, valour, prowess (like Lat. virtus, from vir)

    So -- areté / areta (the Doric form of the word) -- can be translated as goodness or excellence of any kind, but especially of manly qualities -- qualities such as goodness, excellence, and virtue -- thus areté / areta can be translated as Manly Goodness, Manly Excellence, Manly Virtue -- or just plain Manhood, which is really what the word means when referring to a human male -- and Liddell and Scott add, valour, prowess --

    Which makes perfect sense, because valour is the Willingness to Fight, and prowess is the Ability to Fight ; and Areté / Areta is Manhood, which, at its most basic, is The Willingness and Ability to Fight.

    And, Liddell and Scott say, under their entry for Ares,

    From the same root [ARES] come areté, ari-, areion [better -- stronger, braver, more Manly], aristos [best -- strongest, bravest, most Manly], the first notion of goodness being that of manhood, bravery in war ; cf. Lat. virtus

    So they repeat the word goodness, saying "the first notion of goodness being that of manhood, bravery in war."

    And in both definitions they refer the reader -- and this is a VERY IMPORTANT POINT -- with the words "cf." = confer = compare Lat. = Latin -- virtus.

    They tell the reader to compare the Greek word areté / areta with the Latin, that is, Roman, word, virtus.

    Why?

    Because, and again this is a VERY IMPORTANT POINT, from the Renaissance forward, boys were taught Latin FIRST -- and then ancient Greek.

    Again, kids learned Latin BEFORE they learned Greek.

    That was the standard pedagogy for centuries -- and until very recently.

    Therefore, Liddell and Scott FREQUENTLY make reference to Latin words -- assuming that their readers, most of whom are students, have already learned some Latin -- and perhaps a lot.

    And those students certainly would have learned the Roman words vir -- man -- and virtus -- which is usually translated as "virtue," but which really means, according to Charlton Lewis, another 19th-century scholar, "manliness, manhood, i. e. the sum of all the corporeal or mental excellences of man, strength, vigor; bravery, courage; aptness, capacity; worth, excellence, virtue, etc."

    So :

    Both Areté / Areta and Virtus mean Manliness, Manhood, i. e. the sum of all the corporeal or mental excellences of man, strength, vigor; bravery, courage; aptness, capacity; worth, excellence, virtue.

    Which is something I explain in three places in our Lexicon, Understanding the Core Position and Actual Meaning of Andreia-Areté-Virtus within the Culture of Fighting Manhood ; Fowler's Translator's Note ; and The Attributes and Qualities of Fighting Manhood.

    Which is that Areté / Areta / Andreia -- and Virtus -- mean and are essentially the same thing or, if you prefer, set of attributes.

    Of which *the most important*, consistently, in both cultures, both of which are Warriordoms, is Fighting Manhood, which is The Ardent Willingness and Requisite Ability, to Fight.

    Again :

    Liddell and Scott expect the average student of Greek, who in their day would have been an adolescent boy, or perhaps younger, to have already encountered the Latin / Roman word Virtus, and know what it means.

    They also expect the boy's teacher, who's a classicist and who knows both Latin and ancient Greek -- to make the comparison for the boy.

    Which means that when you read a Liddell and Scott definition, and see a reference to a Latin word which, on the Perseus website, is always a clickable link -- you should click on it -- and see what the word means.

    Because, again, Liddell and Scott expect, and not without reason, that you know what it means.

    So :

    That's how to read a Liddell and Scott definition.

    The words in italic are the actual translation, the words in roman are explanatory, and the comparisons to Latin words, indicated by the notation "cf. Lat." -- matter.

  2. Please note :

    This Word List is not the Lexicon.

    This Word List is just a list of words.

    If all you do is glance at this list, without reading the Lexicon itself, you

    a.) Will not learn or otherwise benefit from either the Lexicon or this list; and

    b.) Will betray yourself to me if you write to me -- because I know when someone's done the reading -- or hasn't.

    Put differently:

    The Lexicon spells out and otherwise makes plain the relationship between and among these words.

    The list doesn't.

    It's just a list.

    Translation:

    There is a HUGE difference between this list -- and the Lexicon.

    So -- if you want to stay abreast with the Alliance, and understand why the Alliance thinks and acts as it does --

    And what that means for your one sweet and precious life --

    You need to read the Lexicon.

Bill Weintraub









Achilles' slaying of Hektor is the first and most important example of how a self-less self-love, when combined with
the Warrior's natural instinct for aggression, leads to heroic self-sacrifice ; for Achilles knows that by choosing
to slay Hektor and so avenge his Lover's death, he himself will die young -- as Plato explains :


Achilles, son of [the Goddess] Thetis, the Gods honored and sent to his place in the Isles of the Blest, because having learnt from his mother that he would die as surely as he slew Hector, but if he slew him not, would return home and end his days an aged man, he bravely and with grace [tolmao] chose to go and succour [bontheo] his lover Patroclus, avenged [timoreo] him, and sought death not merely in his behalf but in haste to be joined with him whom death had taken. For this the Gods so highly admired him that they gave him distinguished honour [Timé], since he set so great a value on his lover. . . . For in truth, there is no sort of Areté -- no sort of Manly Excellence, Manly Goodness, Manly Virtue, and Fighting Manhood -- deemed more Honourable [timao] by the Gods than this which comes of Romantic, Passionate, Love between Men [Eros] .

~Plat. Sym. 180a, translated by Fowler and myself.

In Ares Is Lord, we regard Achilles, as did the ancients, as the single most Manly Man, ever to live.

And the great classicist Werner Jaeger tells us that Achilles was the Pattern-Hero for all subsequent Greek and Roman Men.

Readers can learn more about Achilles' Self-Less Self-Love and Heroic Self-Sacrifice in Chapter III, Part IV of Biblion Pempton.









    Let's begin with the ancient Greek word Andreia -- Manhood -- which is defined by Liddell and Scott as Manhood, Manliness, Manly Spirit -- and which derives from Andros -- Man.

    Andreia -- Manhood -- which in this Lexicon we define and refer to as Fighting Manhood -- has attributes -- one classicist names fifteen -- which every Man Struggles to Attain -- so as to Perfect his Manhood.

    Put differently, the Perfect Man, the Man every male should strive to be, the Man in full possession of his Fighting Manhood, has all of the positive and active attributes of that Fighting Manhood :

    • Vigor -- Strength, Bravery, Courage, Manly Excellence ;

    • Valour -- Gallantry, Fortitude ;

    • Virtue -- Manly Goodness, Moral Perfection, High Character ; and,

    • Value -- Martial Merit, Warrior Worth.

    Once again, these are the positive and active attributes of Fighting Manhood -- which every Man strives to attain, and which are understood to be contained within the term Andreia, which is defined as Manhood, Fighting Manhood :

    Strength, vigor, bravery, courage, manly excellence ; Valour, gallantry, fortitude ; Manly goodness, moral perfection, high character, virtue ; Warrior worth, martial merit, virile value.

    Because Andreia was understood to contain those attributes by ancient Men, it's sometimes -- and particularly in the 20th century -- translated as valour, or courage, or virtue, etc.

    Such translations, however, are misleading to the average and contemporary reader.

    The proper translation of Andreia is Manhood, Fighting Manhood, with the understanding that such Manhood contains all the attributes of the Perfect Man -- the attributes listed above.

    And classicists commonly say so.

    For example, this is from Prof Fowler's translator's note, which we discuss in Biblion Pempton of our Lexicon :

    The word andreia ανδρεια has a much wider meaning than the English "courage."

    Like the Latin "virtus," it embraces all qualities which are desirable in a perfect man, especially the more active and positive virtues.

    [emphases mine]

    So : Andreia means Manhood -- Fighting Manhood -- and all its active and positive attributes or, per Fowler, virtues, all those qualities which are desirable and are to be found in the Perfect Man -- that is, Man as he exists in the Warrior World of Being, the Warrior Kosmos :

    Strength, vigor, bravery, courage, excellence ; Valour, gallantry, fortitude ; Manly goodness, moral perfection, high character, virtue ; Warrior worth, martial merit, virile value.

    That's Andreia -- Fighting Manhood.

    What about the other ancient Greek word, Areté / Areta?

    Aside :
    "Areté" is the Attic Greek or Athenian version of the word ; while "Areta" is the Dorian Greek or Spartan version of the word.

    Because, for the Holy Communion of Ares Is Lord, Lykurgan Sparta is the model and indeed perfect Warriordom, I prefer the Dorian word Areta, which is also the form used by poets like Pindar.

    But if I'm quoting another scholar, like Werner Jaeger, and he uses the Attic form of the word -- that's what you see.

    The important thing to remember is that Areté and Areta are the same word -- expressed in two different dialects.

    So :

    What about the other ancient Greek word, Areté / Areta?

    Well, one might say of the Greeks that they were so enamoured of Fighting Manhood that they invented not one, but two words for it, Andreia and Areta.

    And in one sense, that wouldn't be far off.

    For Areta also means, and particularly though not exclusively in the period which most concerns this Lexicon -- Archaic and Classical Greece, 776 - 323 BC --

    Areta also means Fighting Manhood.

    And Areta has the same attributes as the Greek Andreia and the Roman Virtus.

    And like Andreia, and because Areta is understood to contain those attributes, it too is often, and particularly in the 20th century -- translated as valour, or courage, or virtue, or even, as you'll see "esteem" -- that is Honour.

    Which, by the way, is correct -- but, as you'll also see, too limiting.

    So : What, if any, is the difference between the two ancient Greek words Andreia and Areta ?

    Primarily, this :

    Areta is often defined as "Excellence."

    But it's a particular kind of excellence.

    Classicist CM Bowra :

    Goodness, or areté, was an intrinsic excellence that existed in all things.

    If we accept Prof Bowra's brief definition, which we can, we can ask --

    What then is Man's "intrinsic excellence"?

    And answer :

    It's Fighting Manhood.

    Liddell and Scott say so :

    [Areta is] goodness, excellence, of any kind, esp. of manly qualities, manhood, valour, prowess (like Lat. virtus, from vir)

    And, Liddell and Scott add,

    From the same root [ARES] come areté, ari-, areion [better], aristos [best], the first notion of goodness being that of manhood, bravery in war; cf. Lat. virtus.

    A Man's Intrinsic Goodness exists and is expressed in his Excellence in Manly Qualities : Manhood, Valour, Prowess, Bravery in War.

    Which is to say, Fighting Manhood -- the willingness to confront an opponent and the ability to defeat him.

    The Willingness and Ability to Fight.

    Fighting Manhood.

    Fighting Manhood is the essence of Man -- the intrinsic excellence, per Bowra and Jaeger and many others, which exists within all Men and which only requires, in Platonic terms, that it be UN-forgotten -- and nurtured -- to be realized.

    For that reason, and based upon Liddell and Scott's definition, within the Alliance and Ares is Lord, we define Areta as Manhood, Manly Goodness, Manly Excellence, Manly Virtue.

    Now :

    The idea that areta, like andreia, has many attributes which all reduce to that which is necessary for the Ideal or Perfect Warrior is expressed by many classicists.

    For example, Douglas Gerber, in his Loeb Classical Library translation of the great Spartan national poet Tyrtaios, translates one line from the poem which begins

    You are the unconquered blood of Herakles

    thus :

    when one [a Warrior] runs away, all esteem [areta] is lost.

    In a footnote, Prof Gerber says

    ["Esteem"] is a somewhat free rendering of areté, a word which here encompasses the qualities of excellence deemed necessary for one to be an ideal soldier.

    "[areta] encompasses the qualities of excellence deemed necessary for one to be an ideal soldier"

    That is to say, the qualities or attributes needed to be the ideal soldier, the Ideal Warrior, the Perfect Man.

    And "esteem" is here just another word for Honour.

    When one runs away, all Honour [Tima] is lost

    Which is without question, true -- cowardice, UN-manliness, anandria -- utterly destroys Honour.

    And in a Warrior Society, a male who can't or won't fight -- is dishonourable and disgraceful.

    So, in theory, Areta means excellence.

    But in actuality, it reduces, as Liddell and Scott say it does, to excellence in Manliness -- that is, Manly Excellence, Manly Goodness -- which is Fighting Manhood.

    Areta, like Andreia, is Fighting Manhood.

    And Areta;, like Andreia, encompasses all the qualities of excellence displayed by the Man, the Warrior, in full possession of his Fighting Manhood.

    We can see that very plainly in another poem by Tyrtaios, probably his most famous surving poem -- the Suda, a 9th-century AD Byzantine encyclopedia, tells us that he wrote Five Books of War Songs for the Spartans which did not, alas, survive.

    But this one did :

    I would not mention or take account of a man for his prowess in running or wrestling, not even if he had the size and strength of the Cyclopes and outstripped Thracian Boreas in the race, nor if he were more handsome than Tithonus in form and richer than Midas and Cinyras, nor if he were more kingly than Pelops, son of Tantalus, and had a tongue that spoke as winningly as Adrastus', nor if he had a reputation for anything -- save furious [thouros] valour [alke].

    For no man is good in war unless he can endure the sight of bloody slaughter and, standing close, can lunge at the enemy.

    This is excellence [areta -- Fighting Manhood, Manly Goodness, Manly Excellence], this the best [aristos -- most Manly] human prize and the fairest [kallistos -- most noble and most beautiful] for a young man to win.

    This is a common benefit for the state and all the people, whenever a man with firm stance among the front ranks [promachos] never ceases to hold his ground, is utterly unmindful of shameful [aischros] flight, risking his life and displaying a steadfast spirit [thumos -- Fighting Spirit], and standing by the man next to him speaks encouragingly.

    This man is good [agathos -- good, brave, Manly] in war. He quickly routs the bristling ranks of the enemy and by his zeal stems the tide of battle.

    And if he falls among the front ranks, pierced many times through his chest and bossed shield and corselet from the front, he loses his own dear life but brings glory to his city, to his people, and to his father. Young and old alike mourn him, all the city is distressed by the painful loss, and his tomb and children are pointed out among the people, and his children's children and his line after them. Never do his name and good fame perish, but even though he is beneath the earth he is immortal, whoever it is that furious [thouros] Ares slays as he displays his prowess [aristeuo -- to be best, not just in courage, but in prowess] by standing fast and fighting for land and children.

    And if he escapes the doom of death that brings long sorrow and by his victory makes good his spear's splendid boast, he is honoured [timao] by all, young and old alike, many are the joys he experiences before he goes to Hades, and in his old age he stands out among the townsmen ; no one seeks to deprive him of respect [aidos] and his just rights [dike], but all men at the benches yield their place to him, the young, those of his own age, and the elders.

    Let everyone strive now with all his heart to reach the pinnacle [akros] of this excellence [areté], with no slackening in war.

    ~Translated by Douglas Gerber for the Loeb Classical Library's Greek Elegiac Poetry.

    So :

    You'll notice first off that Tyrtaios begins by dismissing one attribute of andreia and areta -- prowess or ability, in this case in athletics, that is, wrestling and running -- by saying he'll take no account of a Man who has a reputation for anything -- save furious valor.

    And the word he uses for valor is alke -- which means -- valor.

    Tyrtatios doesn't use andreia or areta -- because he wants to be specific.

    He's looking for one aspect, one attribute of andreia / areta -- and that is, the ability to "endure the sight of bloody slaughter and, standing close, [to] lunge at the enemy."

    This, he proclaims, is -- excellence, says Gerber -- but what it really is, is what Liddell and Scott say it is --

    Manly Excellence -- which is --

    Fighting Manhood -- "the best [most Manly] prize and the fairest [most noble and most morally beautiful] for a young man to win."

    And that's absolutely true : Within the Dominant Masculinist and Warrior Culture of Fighting Manhood, it's Fighting Manhood which is the best -- that is, Most Manly -- prize and therefore the Most Noble and Morally Beautiful -- for a Young Man -- a Young Warrior -- to win.

    Such a Fighting Man, Tyrtaios says, is good in war -- and the word for good is agathos, which, you'll remember, is the adjectival form of areta, and which therefore, like areta, partakes of all the attributes of the Perfect Man, the Ideal Warrior.

    So : Such a Fighting Man, says Tyrtaios, is Good / Excellent, that is, Manly, in War -- routing the enemy -- specifically, by breaking the enemy's phalanx φαλαγξ -- and through his zeal -- stemming the tide of battle.

    And, within the context of this poem, that's what was necessary.

    Sparta was engaged in a 20-year-long life-and-death struggle with a neighboring city-state, Messenia.

    The Winning City would Win ; the losing city would be razed to the ground and its inhabitants and their descendants enslaved in perpetuity.

    When this poem was written, Sparta was losing ; Tyrtaios had been brought in, from Athens, and on the advice of the oracle of Apollo at Delphi, to turn that around.

    And he did, by telling the Youth of Sparta that the only thing which mattered -- was Fighting Manhood.

    The sort of Fighting Manhood -- Furious Valour, Fierce and Ferocious Ardent and Eager Willingness -- which can "endure the sight of bloody slaughter and, standing close, lunge at the enemy."

    And, in another poem, Tyrtaios is very specific about what that means in practice :

    Come, take courage, for your stock is from unconquered Herakles -- not yet does Zeus hold his neck aslant [likely meaning: Zeus has not turned his face from you] -- and do not fear throngs of men or run in flight, but let a man hold his shield straight toward the front ranks [promachoi], despising life and loving the black death-spirits no less than the rays of the sun.

    You know how destructive the deeds of woeful Ares are, you have learned well the nature of grim war, you have been with the pursuers [dioko] and the pursued [pheugo], you young men [neoi], and you have had more than your fill of both.

    Those who dare to stand fast at one another's side and to advance towards the front ranks in hand-to-hand conflict, they die in fewer numbers and they keep safe the troops behind them ; but when men run away all areta -- all Manhood -- is lost. No one could sum up in words each and every evil [kake] which befalls a man, if he suffers disgrace [aischros]. For to pierce a man behind the shoulder blades as he flees in deadly combat is gruesome, and a corpse lying in the dust, with the point of a spear driven through his back from behind, is a shameful [aischros] sight.

    Come, let everyone stand fast, with legs set well apart and both feet fixed firmly on the ground, biting his lip with this teeth, and covering thighs, shins below, chest, and shoulders with the belly of his broad shield; in his right hand let him brandish a mighty spear and let him shake the crest [lophos] above his plumed head in a fearsome [deinos] manner.

    By doing mighty deeds, let him learn how to fight and let him not stand -- he has a shield -- outside the range of missles, but coming to close quarters let him strike the enemy, hitting him with long spear or sword; and, also, with foot placed alongside foot and shield pressed against shield, let everyone draw near, crest [lophos] to crest, helmet to helmet, and chest [sternon] to chest, and fight against a man, seizing the hilt of his sword or his long spear.

    ~ translated by Douglas Gerber ; an older translation, along with the original Greek, can be found at Tyrtaios on Perseus.

    So :

    What's necessary is for the Warriors "to stand fast at one another's side and to advance towards the front ranks in hand-to-hand conflict" ; and to not run away, because if you flee all Manhood is lost and you die, shamefully and gruesomely, the point of a spear driven through your back.

    Instead, exhorts Tyrtaios, let the Warrior stand fast and do mighty deeds, coming to close quarters, striking the enemy with long spear and sword, and then drawing even nearer, shield pressed against shield, crest to crest, helmet to helmet, and chest to chest -- Fight, seizing the hilt of his enemy's sword or his long spear.

    And if, says Tyrtaios, such a Warrior, possessed of such Fighting Manhood, and Fighting among the promachoi, the front ranks, falls, he becomes immortal, known to all and forever for his prowess -- his aristeia.

    And if he lives, he's respected, and treated justly.

    Wherefore : let everyone strive to reach this acme of excellence, this Areté, this Fighting Manhood.

    So :

    We have two words : Andreia and Areta.

    And, in the human context, they both mean the same thing : Fighting Manhood.

    Areta derives from Ares, and Andreia from Andros.

    But -- that difference -- is really not great.

    Because :

    Areta -- Fighting Manhood -- derives from Ares -- the God of Fighting Manhood ; and Andreia -- Fighting Manhood -- derives from Andros -- Man -- who is Man -- who is Manly -- who possesses Manhood -- because He Fights :

    αρετη Αρης

    ανδρεια ανδρος

    The two words, then, Andreia and Areta, converge ; it's a circle, and a cycle, and a Virtuous one.

    For, in Masculinist cultures like the Warriordoms of Ancient Greece, informed as they are by the Warrior World of Being, the Warrior Kosmos, the constant repetition of the words for Man, Manhood, Fighting, Fighting Manhood, and the God of Fighting Manhood -- becomes incantational :

    Ares, Areta, Andros, Andreia, Mache, Machetes, Machomai, Aristomachos, Promachos, Protomachos, Andromachos.

    And that incantational repetition becomes in effect a cultural message which unceasingly extols -- Fighting Manhood.

    So -- and to make this as clear as I can --

    In his translation of Plato's Symposion, Prof Lamb translates Andreia as "valor."

    While, in his translation of Plato's Menexenus, that same Prof Lamb translates Areté -- as "valor."

    Two different ancient Greek words yield, in translation, the same English word.

    But not, in my view, and at this time, the right English word.

    I personally feel that Lamb's use of "valor" is more appropriate in the Menexenus than in the Symposion, but in both cases, the actual term should be -- Fighting Manhood.

    Of which Valour -- is just one attribute among, if not many, at least three others -- Vigor, Virtue, and Value -- and which together make up the principal attributes of the highest value, Fighting Manhood.

    And that point must be made clear to the reader -- in the way which I hope I have here -- and in the way that Prof Fowler does in his translator's note.

    And, in that regard, I encourage you, to further your own understanding of Andreia, as well as Areta; and Virtus, and the pitfalls in how they're translated, to read the discussion in Biblion Pempton of Prof Fowler's translator's note.

    What about the Latin word Virtus?

    Virtus corresponds to the Greek word Andreia.

    Virtus, like Andreia, encompasses all the qualities of excellence displayed by the Man, the Warrior, in full possession of his Fighting Manhood.

    And both Virtus and Andreia derive from their language's word for Man -- Virtus from Vir, and Andreia from Andros -- and both reduce to Fighting Manhood.

    That said, is there a Latin word which corresponds to the Greek Areta?

    Not so far as I can tell.

    There's Excellentia, meaning superiority, excellence, perfection.

    And Praestantia -- preeminence, superiority, excellence.

    But neither appear to have the meaning of "an intrinsic excellence which exists in all things."

    That appears to be unique to Areta.

    But Virtus, again, corresponds to the Greek Andreia, which means it occupies the same place in the Roman Aggressive and Combative Masculinist Culture of Fighting Manhood --

    As Andreia does in the Greek Aggressive and Combative Masculinist Culture of Fighting Manhood.

    And in both cultures, Fighting Manhood is, for Men, all-encompassing.

    The ultimate test of Manly Goodness -- Manhood -- is always to be found in Fighting -- as Liddell and Scott say :

    [Areta is] goodness, excellence, of any kind, esp. of manly qualities, manhood, valour, prowess (like Lat. virtus, from vir)

    . . .

    From the same root [ARES] come areté, ari-, areion [better], aristos [best], the first notion of goodness being that of manhood, bravery in war; cf. Lat. virtus.

    "like Lat. virtus," they say ; cf. (compare to) Latin virtus.

    Andreia, Areta, Virtus.

    Fighting Manhood : Manly Goodness, Manly Excellence, Manly Virtue.

    Jaeger :

    The Greek nobles believed that the real test of manly virtue [Areta] was victory in battle -- a victory which was not merely the physical conquest of an enemy, but the proof of hard-won areté.

    Bowra :

    Although men went to war initially because their cities' reputations were at stake, they also did so for personal gain and for personal satisfaction. The fighting was essentially hand-to-hand, taxing a man to his utmost, physically and mentally. Thus war gave a man an opportunity to display those qualities most admired by his fellows. His prowess not only gained him their admiration [esteem] but also brought honour [Tima] to his city and was in equal measure a source of pride to himself and his family. Some idea of the intensity of this public pridefulness can be gotten from an epitaph on a stone slab in a tomb, dating from about 600 B.C., found on the island of Corcyra. It honours the courage in battle of a warrior felled by Ares, the God of War:
    This is the tomb of Arniadas. Him flashing-eyed Ares destroyed as he fought by the ships at the streams of Aratthus, displaying the highest valor [aristeia] amid the groans and shouts of war.

    Jaeger :

    [T]he areté of a hero is completed only in his death. Areté exists in mortal man. Areté is mortal man. But it survives the mortal, and lives on in his glory, in that very ideal of his areté which accompanied and directed him throughout his life.

    Translation :

    [T]he Manly Virtue, Goodness, and Excellence of a hero is completed only in his death. Manly Virtue exists in mortal man. Manly Virtue is mortal man. But it survives the mortal, and lives on in his glory, in that very ideal of his Fighting Manhood which accompanied and directed him throughout his life.

    Arniadas' Manly Virtue, his Manly Goodness and Manly Excellence, was completed only in this death, when he displayed "the highest valor -- the hightest aristeia -- amid the groans and shouts of war."

    Arniadas' physical form was destroyed as he fought by the streams of Arrathus ;

    But his Manly Virtue survives the mortal, and lives on in his glory, in that very ideal of his Fighting Manhood which accompanied and directed him throughout his life.

    And that's what his grave stele is about.

    And you can see a picture of the stele of Arniadas here.

    I have my own favorite among such epitaphs, and it's this one, from Gerber's Greek Elegiac Poetry, dated to the 3rd century BC :

    Stranger, the dust that brings glory to men conceals here in its bosom Timocritus [Timé - critos = Honour Chosen], honoured [timao] by the Muses. For when the brave man [agathos] came into conflict with the sons of the Aetolians on behalf of his homeland, it was his desire either to be victorious [nikao] or to die. He fell among the front ranks [promachos] and left his father with pain beyond measure, but he did not lose sight of his noble [kala] upbringing [paideia]. Taking to heart the Spartan declaration of Tyrtaios, he chose valour [Areta -- Fighting Manhood, Manly Goodness, Manly Excellence] ahead of life [bios].

    So again, it's Timocritus, the Honour Chosen, who chooses Honour by putting Fighting Manhood and its Manly Goodness and Manly Excellence, ahead of Life.

    Having prayed for Victory or Death, He Fights and Falls in the Front Ranks, thus honoring his Noble -- that is, Selfless -- Upbringing.

    There are many inscriptions like this one, including, as we'll see, among Fight Agonia Athletes, Agonists, and they speak to the ubiquity, as well as longevity, of the Dominant Masculinist Culture of Fighting Manhood, which consistently taught Men, both Greek and Roman, to choose Manhood, Glory, and Honour -- over sensual pleasure, over money, and over length of days.

    That culture was highly idealistic, its idealism rooted in the Warrior World of Being, the Warrior Kosmos.

    Which is why Werner Jaeger refers, correctly, to its "permanent truth and indestructible ideality."

    The Truth and Ideals of the Warrior Kosmos are permanent -- and indestructible.

    So -- and just to recap :

    Both Andreia and Areta -- Manhood -- which in this Lexicon we refer to as Fighting Manhood -- have attributes which every Man Struggles to Attain -- so as to Perfect his Manhood.

    Put differently, the Perfect Man, the Man every male should strive to be, has all of the positive and active attributes of Fighting Manhood :

    • Vigor -- Strength, Bravery, Courage, Manly Excellence ;

    • Valour -- Gallantry, Fortitude ;

    • Virtue -- Manly Goodness, Moral Perfection, High Character ; and,

    • Value -- Martial Merit, Warrior Worth.

    Once again, these are the positive and active attributes of Fighting Manhood -- which every Man strives to attain, and which are understood to be contained within the terms Andreia and Areta -- and Virtus too :

    Strength, vigor, bravery, courage, excellence ; Valour, gallantry, fortitude ; Goodness, moral perfection, high character, virtue ; Warrior Worth, Martial Merit, Virile Value.

    And classicists understand that.

    Prof Fowler, writing in 1921 :

    The word andreia ανδρεια has a much wider meaning than the English "courage."

    Like the Latin "virtus," it embraces all qualities which are desirable in a perfect man, especially the more active and positive virtues.

    [emphases mine]

    Prof Gerber, writing in 1999 :

    ["Esteem"] is a somewhat free rendering of areté, a word which here encompasses the qualities of excellence deemed necessary for one to be an ideal soldier.

    But :

    Just because Andreia and Areta are understood to contain those attributes, qualities, and virtues, they're sometimes -- often, actually, and particularly in the 20th century -- translated as valour, or courage, or virtue, etc.

    Such translations, however, are misleading to the average and contemporary reader.

    And the sort of translator's notes I've cited are few and far between.

    For example, on page 25 of Greek Elegiac Poetry, Prof Gerber translates areta as "valor."

    By exhorting them [the Spartans] to valor [areta], he [Tyrtaios] captured Messenne in the twentieth year.

    Yet the Greeks would have heard and/or read that sentence as "By exhorting the Spartans to the Manly Goodness and Manly Excellence of Fighting Manhood -- Tyrtaios captured Messene in the twentieth year."

    And then, a few pages later, Prof Gerber translates andreios -- the adjectival form of andreia -- as "brave" :

    Tyrtaios composed and left them [the Spartans] elegiac poems and by listening to them, they are taught to be brave [andreios].

    But andreios is the adjectival form of Andreia -- and it means Manly and all the qualities and attibutes of Manliness.

    It's not until page 57 that Prof Gerber offers his corrective translator's note, which, like Fowler's, tells the reader that andreia and areta encompass all the qualities of excellence which are desirable in the Perfect Man -- the Perfect Warrior.

    So :

    The proper translation of Andreia is Manhood, Fighting Manhood, with the understanding that such Manhood contains all the attributes of the Perfect Man.

    And the proper translation of Areta -- most of the time, and particularly in the literature of the archaic and classical periods -- is also Manhood, Fighting Manhood, with the same understanding that such Manhood contains all the attributes of the Perfect Man :

    Strength, vigor, bravery, courage, excellence ; Valour, gallantry, fortitude ; Goodness, moral perfection, high character, virtue ; Warrior Worth, Martial Merit, Virile Value.

    And it's crucial that you understand that.

    If you're reading, in translation, almost any author of the classical period in particular, and you see the word Virtue or Valour, chances are that in the original Greek, the word is areta, and it actually means Manhood.

    Just as, if you see the word Courage or Valour, chances are that in the original Greek, the word is andreia, and it actually means Manhood.

    And in an age like our own, when both the word and the idea of Manhood are constantly denigrated -- that matters.

    For just that reason, and once again, I encourage you, to further your own understanding of Andreia, as well as Areta and Virtus, and the pitfalls in how they're translated, to read the discussion in Biblion Pempton of Prof Fowler's translator's note.

    Bill Weintraub

    January 30, 2014










We discuss Lord Ares throughout our Lexicon of Manhood, which is dedicated to the God.

It should be noted that our view of Lord Ares, as of the other Greek Gods, is that of Plato :

That the Gods are Godly -- we would say "good" -- that They hate falsehood and lies and deceit, and are simple and true in word and deed -- and that They love Manliness, and that for a Man and a Warrior, the noblest goal, therefore, is to be a "God-fearing Man [theosebes] and God-like [theios] -- in so far as that is possible for humanity."

And that's why Plato's view of Ares, as presented in the Kratylos, is not of some fiend-like destroyer spirit insatiate of blood --

but of a God who's Virile because He's possessed of Fighting Manhood and the requisite Hardness to express that Fighting Manhood:

Ares, then, if you like, would be named for his Manliness [arren] and Fighting Manhood [andreion], and for his hard and unbending nature, which is called arratos ; so Ares would be in every way a fitting name for the God of Battle, Fight, War [polemikos Theos].

~Plato. Krat. 407d

You can read more about Plato's view of the Gods in Biblion Pempton -- Book V -- of our Lexicon of Manhood, Chapters I and II.

Here is some of the discussion of Lord Ares in particular which can be found in Biblion Pempton -- Book V -- Chapter III Part II :

The Warrior World of Being, the Warrior Kosmos, is home to Lord Ares, the God of Warrior Askesis and of Warrior Adventus -- Askesis being the Discipline needed for the Adventus, the Realization, of Manhood.

Lord Ares -- God of Fight, God of Manhood, God of Fighting Manhood.





























Fighting -- of which Lord Ares is God -- is without question the most important element in the Askesis, the Practice and Discipline of Philoneikia, Philonikia, PhiloTimia, and Enkrateia -- which leads to Fighting Manhood's Adventus.

Adventus is achieved through Askesis -- through the physical training, discipline, and structure of Fight.

And the mental discipline of Enkrateia -- of Manfully Moral Self-Control.

Further, because Ares is the God of Manhood, He's the Divinity of Manhood's Adventus, its Actualization.

Manhood can only be fully actualized, realized, and arrive -- with His help.

Which is why Communion with Lord Ares, particularly Communion with Lord Ares as the Fight itself, is so important.

Which means that Lord Ares is present and essential for both the Fight -- Askesis ; and Manhood itself -- Adventus.

Lord Ares is the God of Men -- and it's only through his agency that males can become Men.

Lord Ares puts Agapenor, the Love of Manhood, into the male soul ;

He provides the Askesis, the practice and discipline, of Fight, whereby that Love is UN-forgotten ;

And He provides the Askesis, the practice and discipline, of Manly Moral Self-Control -- Enkrateia --

For He's the God of Kratos -- of strength, might, power, mastery, victory -- and so the source and father of krateo, enkrateo, and enkrateia.

As well as the God of Menos -- might, force, strength, prowess, courage ; Sthenos -- might and strength of all kinds, moral as well as physical ; and Bia -- bodily strength, force, power, might, including manly violent bodily force.

These are some of the many epithets of Lord Ares :

Α Ρ Η Σ
Πολεμιστης

Α Ρ Η Σ
Οβριμος

Α Ρ Η Σ
Θουρος

Α Ρ Η Σ
Χαλκεος

Α Ρ Η Σ
Βαθυπολεμος

Α Ρ Η Σ
Πολεμαδοκος

Α Ρ Η Σ
Βιατας


Warrior Ares

Mighty Ares

Furious Ares

Brazen Ares
Stout and Strong

Ares
Plunged Deep in War

Ares
Fight-Sustaining

Violent Ares

Lord Ares is Agapenor ; Lord Ares is Fight ; He's Strength and Power, Might and Force, the Violent Bodily Force of Men ; He's Mache and Neikos and Polemos and Hamilla and Athlos and Agonia and Agonisma ; He's Pale and Pankration and Pugme and Pugmachia and Pugillor and Pugna and Luctor and Luctatus and Luctito and Luctatio ; and Lord Ares is Andreia-Anorea-Areta itself.

And, when Adventus is achieved, Lord Ares is present as its Manifestation.

Lord Ares is Fighting Manhood.

We Worship Him.



    Xenophon's very charming and instructive treatise on Hunting with Hounds, the Kynegetikos, begins as follows :

    Game and hounds are the invention [eurema -- invention, discovery, thing discovered not by chance but by thought] of Gods [Theoi], of Apollo and Artemis. They bestowed it on Cheiron and honoured him [timao] therewith for his righteousness [dikaiosyne]. And he, receiving it, rejoiced [chairo] in the gift [doron], and used it.

    And he had for pupils in venery [kynegesion] and in other noble [kalos] pursuits -- Cephalus, Asclepius, Meilanion, Nestor, Amphiaraus, Peleus, Telamon, Meleager, Theseus, Hippolytus, Palamedes, Odysseus, Menestheus, Diomedes, Kastor, Polydeukes, Machaon, Podaleirius, Anti-Lochos, Aineias, Achilles, of whom each in his time was honoured [timao] by Gods. . . .

    Following this prooimion, Xenophon examines in great detail the mechanics of hunting hares with hounds.

    The translator, Prof Marchant, believes that the Kynegetikos was Xenophon's first attempt at writing, undertaken when he was probably about thirty years old -- his friend and teacher Sokrates would have still been alive, and Xenophon would not have yet joined with 10,000 other Greek mercenaries in their attempt to invade Persia and overthrow the Great King, a journey which would be life-changing for Xenophon.

    And that his "target audience," as we would say today, would have been 18-year-olds, "youths of Fighting age," that is, young Men who were now old enough to Fight in Battle, and who were also now old enough to learn to hunt in an organized and disciplined way.

    Prof Marchant :

    The Kynegetikos is full of Xenophon's zest for hunting, his pietism [devotion to the Gods], his insistence that before you try to do a thing you must understand how to do it, and, above all, his belief in the efficacy of diligence and toil [ponos].

    In Chapter VII, for example, Xenophon discusses, again in great detail, the breeding of hounds, and even gives this list of names :

    Give the hounds short names, so as to be able to call to them easily. The following are the right sort: Psyche [Spirit], Thymus [Fighting Spirit], Porpax [Shield Handle], Styrax [Spike], Lonche [Lance], Lochus [Ambush], Phrura [Look-Out], Phylax [Guardian], Taxis [Battle Array], Xiphon [Sword], Phonax [Eager for Blood], Phlegon [Blaze], Alke [Valour], Teuchon [Implement of War], Hyleus, Medas, Porthon [Destroyer], Sperchon [Hasty], Orge [Wrath], Bremon [Growler or Howler], Hybris [Wanton Violence], Thallon [Bloomer], Rhome [Might], Antheus [Blossom], Hebe [Youthful Strength, Vigour], Getheus [Joy], Chara [Delight], Leusson [Stoner], Augo [Shine], Poleus [Translator's note : Rover], Bia [Strength, Force, Violent Force], Stichon [Row of Soldiers], Spoude [Speedy], Bryas [Swell], Oenas [Ace], Sterrus [Rugged], Krauge [Howler], Kainon [Killer], Tyrbas [Brawler], Sthenon [Strong], Aither [Sky], Aktis [Sunbeam], Aichme [Spear-point], Noes [Translator's note : Counsellor], Gnome [Judgement], Stibon [Tracker], Horme [Attacker].

    ~Xen. Hunt. 7.5, translated by Marchant.

    In order to understand this list, and its significance in the Masculinist and Martial Warrior Societies of Ancient Greece, and particularly that of Sparta, we need to re-visit something we discussed in Biblion Proton, something the great classicist Werner Jaeger said about PhiloTimia, Areté, and the Greek system of naming :

    Ambition [PhiloTimia -- the Love of Timé, of Worth, the Love of that Worth which accrues to a Man through his Prowess in Battle, his Prowess in Fight --] is the aspiration of the individual towards that ideal and supra-personal sphere in which he alone can have real value.

    Areté [The uniquely Male, Manly Excellence known to us as Fighting Manhood] exists in mortal man. Areté is mortal man. But it survives the mortal and lives on in his glory, in that very ideal of his areté ; which accompanied and directed him throughout his life.[24]

    So, Jaeger says, the ideal of areté -- the Ideal of Manly Excellence -- accompanies and directs the Greek Warrior throughout his life.

    And there's a footnote -- number 24:

    24. This is especially manifest in the Greek system of proper names. They frequently were taken from the realm of social ideals and therefore often refer to such concepts as glory, reputation, fame, etc., and in addition were combined with some other word which expressed the degree of or reason for such fame or reputation (such as Pericles, Themistocles, etc.). The name was an anticipation of the future areté of its bearer ; it set, as it were, the ideal pattern for his whole life.

    [emphasis mine]

    So -- those wonderful ancient Greek names -- names which were given at birth, remember -- names such as Thrasymachos -- Bold in Battle -- and Aristomachos -- Most Manly in Battle -- were, as Prof Jaeger properly says,

    an anticipation of the future areté -- the future Manly Excellence -- of its bearer ; it set, as it were, the ideal pattern for his whole life.

    Let's repeat that:

    An ancient Greek name like Protomachos -- Foremost in Battle -- or Nikomedes -- Victorious Virility -- is an anticipation of the future areté -- that is to say, Manliness and Fighting Manhood -- of its bearer ; it sets the ideal pattern for his whole life.

    And that's why Xenophon, a lover of horses and hounds, cares about the names given these dogs at birth.

    Because a dog too has, at least potentially, Areté.

    As we talk about at length in Chapter III of Biblion Pempton, and as you can learn simply by reading the discussion which follows our definition of Areté / Areta --

    Every thing and every being has its own Areté, its own Excellence, put there by whoever fashioned that thing or being, and existing latent within the thing or being until circumstances are such that it can be realized, achieved, and lived.

    For a Man, Areté is without question Manhood, Fighting Manhood, and all the attributes of Vigor, Valour, Virtue, and Value which belong to the Fighting Manhood of the Ideal and Perfect Man.

    But a dog too has areté -- and if its life circumstances are right, that areté will be realized and lived.

    Further, to the Greeks, as to many peoples, the Areté / Areta of a dog, particularly a male dog, is close or similar to that of a Man.

    The dog, the Spartans said, was "the most valiant of domestic animals."

    While Plato praised the High Spirit -- Thumos -- of the dog, and said that one should look for a similar High Spirit in those destined to be the Guardians, the Warrior caste, of his ideal Republic -- welcoming to friends, and unrelentingly hostile to foes.

    So the Greeks, and particularly Greek aristocrats like Xenophon and Plato, routinely equated dogs with Warriors.

    Which is understandable, since dogs, like Men, who are by nature Warriors, Hunt and Fight.

    Xenophon's list, then, and to paraphrase Jaeger, is

    an anticipation of the future areté -- the future canine excellence -- of its bearer ; it sets the ideal pattern for his whole life.

    For just that reason Xenophon's list, if we exlude the names intended for the female dogs, enlightens us as to the qualities that Xenophon, the classic soldier of classical Greece, believes are desirable in male hunting dogs -- and in Fighting Men :

    Fighting Spirit, Shield, Spike, Lance, Ambush, Look-Out, Guardian, Battle Array, Sword, Eager for Blood, Blaze, Valour, Implement of War, Destroyer, Wrath, Growler, Violent, Might, Youthful Strength, Vigour, Strength, Violent Force, Row of Soldiers, Speedy, Swell, Ace, Rugged, Howler, Killer, Brawler, Strong, Spear-point, Judgement, Tracker, Attacker.

    If that list in any way mystifies you, and if in particular it seems too violent to you, you can learn more about Greek Warrior Names, and their relationship both to the Ideal of Areté / Areta, and to the times in which Greek Warriors lived, simply by clicking on this link.

    Now :

    Having discussed, in great technical detail, what a young Man needs to successfully go hunting with hounds, Xenophon ends his treatise as follows :

    [12.1] With the practical side of hunting I have finished. But the advantages that those who have been attracted by this pursuit will gain are many. For it makes the body [soma] healthy [hygieia], improves the sight and hearing, and keeps men from growing old ; and it affords the best training [paideuo] for war [polemos].

    [2] In the first place, when marching over rough roads under arms [hopla], they will not tire : accustomed to carry arms for capturing wild beasts [ther], they will bear up [aireo] under their tasks [ponoi]. Again, they will be capable of sleeping on a hard [skleros] bed and of guarding well [phulax agathos -- being a Manly Guard of] the place assigned to them.

    [3] In an attack on the enemy they will be able to go for him and at the same time to carry out the orders that are passed along, because they are used to do the same things on their own account when capturing the game [agra]. If their post is in the van they will not desert it, because they can endure [karteria dynamai].

    [4] In the rout of the enemy they will make straight for the foe without a slip over any kind of ground, through habit. If part of their own army has met with disaster in ground rendered difficult by woods and defiles or what not, they will manage to save themselves without loss of honour [me aischros -- without shame] and to save others. For their familiarity with the business will give them knowledge that others lack.

    [5] Indeed, it has happened before now, when a great host of allies has been put to flight, that a little band of such men, through their fitness [eutaxia -- good order, discipline] and confidence [thrasus], has renewed the battle and routed the victorious enemy when he has blundered owing to difficulties in the ground. For men who are sound in body [soma] and mind [psyche] may always stand on the threshold of success [eutyche-o].

    [6] It was because they knew that they owed their successes against the enemy to such qualities that our ancestors [progonoi] looked after [epimeleia] the young men [neoi]. For in spite of the scarcity of corn it was their custom from the earliest times not to prevent hunters [kynegetes] from hunting over any growing crops ; and, in addition, not to permit hunting at

    [7] night within a radius of many furlongs from the city, so that the masters of that art might not rob the young men of their game. In fact they saw that this is the only one among the pleasures [hedonai] of the younger men that produces a rich crop of blessings [agathoi -- Manly Goods]. For it makes sober [sophron-- sober -- that is, having control over the sensual desires] and upright [dikaios -- Manfully Morally Ordered] men of them, because they are trained in the school of truth [aletheia] (and they perceived

    [8] that to these men they owed their success in war [eutyche-o polemos -- success in war], as in other matters) ; and it does not keep them from [apostereo -- rob them of] any other honourable [kalos -- morally beautiful] occupation they wish to follow, like other and evil pleasures [kakai hedonai -- evil, shitty, pleasures] that they ought not to learn. Of such men, therefore, are good [agathos -- Manly, that is, Willing and Able to Fight] soldiers [stratiotes -- in this instance, citizen-soldiers] and good generals [strategos -- citizen-generals] made [gignomai].

    [9] For they whose toils [ponoi] root out whatever is base [aischros] and froward [hybristikos -- insolent, wanton] from mind and body and make desire for virtue ["virtue" is not correct. The word is Areté -- Manhood, Manly Excellence, Fighting Manhood ; if you still don't understand why "virtue" is an inadequate translation of Areté, please review the article on Understanding the Core Position and Actual Meaning of Andreia-Areté-Virtus within the Culture of Fighting Manhood, the Translator's Note, and the Lexicon entry for the Attributes and Qualities of Fighting Manhood] --

    [9] For they whose toils [ponoi] root out whatever is base [aischros] and froward [hybristikos -- insolent, wanton] from mind and body and make desire for Areté, Manly Excellence, Fighting Manhood, to flourish in their place -- they are the best [aristos -- Most Manly], since they will not brook injustice to their own city nor injury to its soil.

    . . .

    [12] But many of those who talk in this way [that is, are critical of hunting], blinded by jealousy [phthonos], choose to be ruined through their own evil [kakia] rather than be saved by other men's virtue [Areté -- Manhood, Manly Excellence, Manly Goodness, Manly Virtue, Fighting Manhood]. For most pleasures [hedonai] are evil [kakai], and by yielding to these they are encouraged either to say or to do what is wrong.

    ~Xen. Hunt. 12.1-12, translated by Marchant.

    Bill Weintraub:

    Xenophon continues on in this vein for some time, and I encourage you to click on the link and read all he has to say.

    But this passage is particularly useful and germane :

    It was because they knew that they owed their successes against the enemy to such qualities that our ancestors [progonoi] looked after [epimeleia] the young men [neoi]. . . . In fact they saw that this is the only one among the pleasures [hedone] of the younger men that produces a rich crop of blessings [agathoi -- Manly Goods].

    For it makes sober [sophron-- sober -- that is, having control over the sensual desires, the passions] and upright [dikaios -- Manfully Morally Ordered] men of them, because they are trained in the school of truth [aletheia] (and they perceived that to these men they owed their success in war [eutyche-o polemos -- success in war], as in other matters) ; and it does not keep them from [apostereo -- rob them of] any other honourable [kalos -- morally beautiful] occupation they wish to follow, like other and evil pleasures [kakai hedonai -- evil, shitty, pleasures] that they ought not to learn.

    Of such men, therefore, are good [agathos -- Manly, that is, Willing and Able to Fight] soldiers [stratiotai -- in this instance, citizen-soldiers] and good generals [strategoi -- citizen-generals] made [gignomai].

    So :

    Xenophon isn't a Platonist -- indeed, as I pointed out earlier in this Lexicon, it's not unreasonable to think that, despite their being the same age and coming from the same social class, despite their both being students of Sokrates, and despite their shared admiration for Sparta -- Xenophon had little use for Plato.

    Nevertheless, what he here very clearly enunciates are Warrior-World-of-Being values of the sort that Plato too praises and wishes to see inculcated into the Guardians and other citizens of his various ideal city-states.

    So -- Xenophon starts by saying that the progonoi -- the ancestors -- had looked after and taken great care of the young Men, in this as in all other aspects of their upbringing.

    To both Plato and Xenophon this is both obvious and absolutely necessary.

    Both Men recognize that human beings must be schooled, trained, raised, brought up, and taught -- both skills -- and Values.

    Both Men also recognize that most pleasures are suspect, and that far from being either necessary or benign, most are un-necessary, vicious, evil, and malaign.

    But that hunting, to the extent that it is a pleasure, is not one of them.

    For, says Xenophon, hunting "is the only one among the pleasures [hedonai] of the younger men that produces a rich crop of blessings."

    And the word Marchant translates as "blessings" is agathoi, the plural of agathos, which is the adjectival form of Areté, and which therefore means, in this context, that which is both Manfully Excellent and Manfully Good, that which is expressive of Manhood -- Fighting Manhood.

    Which emanates from the Warrior World of Being, the Warrior Kosmos.

    So -- we use the word "goods" to refer to material benefits -- such as food, eg, "baked goods" -- or possessions, as in "all his wordly goods."

    But we also use the words "good" and "goods" to refer to non-material benefits -- such as "social goods" -- "altruism and sharing are social goods."

    And in the context of Xenophon's treatise, which is Martial and Masculinist, hunting confers "Manly Goods" -- non-material benefits which are Manly --

    [hunting] is the only one among the pleasures [hedonai] of the younger men that produces a rich crop of agathoi -- Manly Goods.

    And, of course, the rich crop of blessings, of Manly Goods, produced by the "pleasure" of Hunting -- is Manhood --

    Fighting Manhood --

    And all its attributes.

    This question of agathoi -- "goods" -- comes up in another of Xenophon's books, and easily the most famous, the Anabasis, Xenophon's account of the trip "upcountry," that is, into Persia, of some 10,000 or more Greek hoplites, part of a mercenary army put together by the Persian prince Kyrus, who wants to overthrow and replace his brother, the Great King.

    Kyrus and his Greeks travel deep into Persia and Fight a Battle at a place called Cunaxa.

    The Greeks easily win their part of the battle, but Kyrus is killed in the Fighting, and his cause dies with him, leaving the Greeks trapped deep inside of Persia, surrounded by hostile forces.

    The Great King sends a Greek-speaking emissary named Phalinus to try to persuade the Greeks to surrender -- most especially to give up their arms, their hopla, the very arms which make the Hoplite Formation possible, and which the Persians are still unable to beat.

    Phalinus has his say, and the Greeks dispute with him, among them, Xenophon :

    Then Xenophon, an Athenian, said:

    [12] "Phalinus, at this moment, as you see for yourself, we have no other possession [agathos -- "good," that is, Manly Good] save arms [hopla] and valour [Areté -- Manhood, Fighting Manhood]. Now if we keep our arms, we imagine that we can make use of our Manhood also, but if we give them up, that we shall likewise be deprived of [stereo -- deprived of, robbed of] our lives [somata -- living bodies]. Do not suppose, therefore, that we shall give up to you the only possessions [agatha -- Manly Goods] that we have ; rather, with these we shall do battle [machomai -- fight] against you for your possessions as well."

    [13] When he heard this, Phalinus laughed and said : "Why, you talk like a philosopher [philosophos], young man [neaniskos], and what you say is quite pretty [ouk acharistos -- not unpleasing] ; be sure, however, that you are a fool [anoetos] if you imagine that your Manhood could prove superior to the King's might [dynamis]."

    ~Xen. Anab. 2.1.12-13, translated by Brownson.

    Bill Weintraub:

    Phalinus here unwittingly sums up the issue in both Xenophon's and Arrian's Anabatai -- Would Greek Manhood prove superior to Persian might?

    The answer, in both cases, was Yes.

    Might is an aspect of Manhood, but Manhood is more important, more encompassing, and more powerful -- than might alone.

    Notice also that Xenophon uses the word agathos -- good, but that Prof Brownson renders the word as "possession."

    Yet it's Xenophon's use of the word agathos that makes his remarks "philosophical."

    "We have no other Good save Arms and Manhood."

    That one sentence alone can stand as the Warrior Creed.

    Xenophon continues :

    "Do not suppose, therefore, that we shall give up to you the only Goods that we have ; rather, with these we will Fight you for your goods as well."

    That is, With our only Goods, our Arms and our Manhood, we'll Fight you and take from you your goods, your arms, your land, and your manhood -- too.

    We will Fight you -- and we will UN-man you.

    And Xenophon means what he says.

    Throughout his life, Xenophon believed it was the Destiny of Greek Manhood -- to Fight, Conquer, and UN-man -- Persian.

    Let's return to the Kynegetikos.

    In the context of the Kynegetikos, which, like the Anabasis, is Martial and Masculinist, Hunting confers "Manly Goods" -- non-material benefits which are Manly --

    [hunting] is the only one among the pleasures [hedonai] of the younger men that produces a rich crop of agathoi -- of Manly Goods.

    And, of course, the rich crop of blessings, of Manly Goods, produced by the "pleasure" of Hunting -- is Manhood.

    Fighting Manhood.

    For hunting, says Xenophon, "makes sober" -- that is, it helps give the young Man control over his passions, his sensual desires -- and that matters because to Warrior Ethicists like Xenophon and Plato, sensual desires and pleasures must always serve Manhood -- and never the reverse.

    The only legitimate use of pleasure -- which is a function of the world of becoming -- is to serve Manhood, Fighting Manhood -- which is an expression -- of the Warrior World of Being.

    And hunting, says Xenophon, gives the young Men control of their sensual desires and thus helps make "Manfully Morally Ordered Men of them, because they are trained in the School of Truth" --

    And the School of Truth of course is the Warrior Kosmos -- the Warrior World of Being and its Values and its pre-eminent Value, its Idea of Good -- Fighting Manhood.

    Xenophon continues :

    (and they -- the progonoi -- the ancestors -- perceived that to these Men -- that is, to Morally Ordered Men -- they owed their success in war, as in other matters) ; and it does not rob them of any other Honourable and Morally Beautiful occupation they wish to follow, as do other and evil pleasures that they ought not to learn. Of such Men, therefore, are Manly, that is, Willing and Able to Fight, citizen-soldiers and citizen-generals made.

    So -- evil pleasures -- kakai hedonai -- will rob a Man, will steal from him, any other Honourable and Morally Beautiful occupation he wishes to follow -- which to Xenophon's mind, as to those of his fellow Warriors, will always be an occupation which centers on Fighting ; which is why, he says, "of such Men are Manly -- that is, Willing and Able to Fight -- citizen-soldiers and citizen-generals made."

    Hunting, in other words, and says Xenophon, will impart the Values which make a Man more Morally Ordered and thus a better Warrior.

    Does Plato agree?

    Yes!

    Training to be a Warrior, which includes hunting skills, is a core part of his programs, his ethical programs, in both the Republic and the Laws.

    As Jaeger says, and as we discussed in Chapter II, Part II of Biblion Pempton :

    In many details, the ethical doctrines of Plato and Aristotle were founded on the aristocratic morality of early Greece . . . . The class limitations of the old ideals were removed when they were sublimated and universalised by philosophy : while their permanent truth and their indestructible ideality were confirmed and strengthened by that process.

    Plato's ethical doctrines "were founded on the aristocratic morality of early Greece," which was Homeric Greece, a purely Warrior Society.

    These doctrines were and are possessed of "permanent truth" and "indestructible ideality."

    Translation : They're part of the World of Being, the Warrior World of Being, which explains their persistence over vast quantities of Time.

    The point to all this being that while Plato and Xenophon did not, apparently, get along, they came from the same society, the same Masculinist and Martial Warrior Society, and shared the same Masculinist Values, the same Warrior Norms.

    And when you've read deeply, as you should, in ancient literature, you'll see that Xenophon's and Plato's Warrior Ethics are not the exception -- they're the rule.

    They're what Men in a Masculinist, Martial, Phallo-Centric, and by nature Pugnacious Warrior Society think about Life and the Right Way -- the Warrior Way -- to Live.

    Xenophon :

    [9] For they whose toils [ponoi] root out whatever is base [aischros] and froward [hybristikos -- insolent, wanton] from mind and body and make desire for Areté, Manly Excellence, Fighting Manhood, to flourish in their place -- they are the best [aristos -- the Most Manly, that is, the Most Willing and Able to Fight], since they will not brook injustice to their own city nor injury to its soil.

    . . .

    [12] But many of those who are critical of hunting, blinded by jealousy [phthonos], choose to be ruined through their own evil [kakia] rather than be saved by other men's virtue [Areté -- Manly Virtue, which is Manly Excellence, which is Fighting Manhood, ]. For most pleasures [hedonai] are evil [kakai], and by yielding to these they are encouraged either to say or to do what is wrong.

    Bill Weintraub:

    Men can only be Saved through other Men's Manly Excellence, their Fighting Manhood.

    Which is to say that

    A Man's Manhood can only be Saved through the Experience of another Man's Manhood

    A point Xenophon repeats frequently, as he does in his Lakedaimonian Constitution :




    [4.1] For those who had reached the prime of life [hebao] Lykourgos showed by far the deepest solicitude. For he believed that if these were of the right stamp they must exercise a powerful influence for good [agathos -- Manly Excellence] on the state [polis].

    [2] He saw that where the spirit of rivalry [philoneikia -- love of strife, love of eager rivalry] is strongest among the people, there the choruses [choros] are most worth hearing and the athletic contests [gymnikos agon -- naked contests] afford the finest spectacle. He believed, therefore, that if he could match [symballo] the young men [hoi hebontes] together in a strife of valour [Eris peri Areté -- a Struggle of, for, and about Manhood -- not just valour, but all the attributes of Manhood] , they too would reach a high level of manly excellence [andragathia -- Manly Excellence]. I will proceed to explain, therefore, how he instituted matches [symballo] between the young men.

    [3] The Ephors [ephoroi], then, pick out three of the very best [akmazo] among them. These three are called Commanders of the Guard [hippegretai]. Each of them enrols a hundred others, stating his reasons for preferring one and rejecting another.

    [4] The result is that those who fail to win the honour [ta kala] are at war [polemeo] both with those who sent them away and with their successful rivals ; and they are on the watch for any lapse from the code of honour [ta kala].

    [5] Here then you find that kind of strife [eris] that is dearest to the Gods [Theophiles], and in the highest sense political -- the strife that sets the standard of a brave man's [ton agathon -- a Manly Man's] conduct ; and in which either party exerts itself to the end that it may never fall below its best [kratistos], and that, when the time comes, every member of it may support [arego] the state with all his might [sthenos].

    [6] And they are bound, too, to keep themselves fit [euexia], for one effect of the strife is that they fight [pukteuo -- strike with the fist] whenever they meet [symballo -- come together, are thrown together, come together in a hostile sense]; but anyone present has a right to part the combatants [machomai]. If anyone refuses to obey the mediator the Warden [paidomonos] takes him to the Ephors; and they fine him heavily, in order to make him realize that he must never yield to a sudden impulse [orge] to disobey [krateo] the laws [nomos].

    ~Xen. Const. Lak. 4.1-6, translated by Marchant.

    Bill Weintraub:

    Perrin translates the first sentence in Paragraph 6 as "And they are bound, too, to keep themselves fit, for one effect of the strife is that they spar [pukteuo -- box, fight, spar] whenever they meet [symballo -- are thrown together, come together in a hostile sense]. . ."

    And while it's true that one definition of pukteuo is "spar," it's clear from the rest of the paragraph and the use of the word philoneikia in Paragraph 2, as well as the word symballo throughout Chapter 4, that not sparring, but an actual and all-out fist fight is what is meant.

    Talbert's translation, is, then, more accurate :

    They must keep themselves physically fit too, since their rivalry actually makes them come to blows when they meet.

    That makes sense, since if all the Men were doing was sparring, there'd be no reason for "anyone present," as Perrin says, "to seek to part the combatants."

    The Rivals are Combatants, and the Fight is an all-out Fight.

    This isn't the YMCA or a meeting of the Women's Christian Temperance Union -- it's Sparta.

    And the Struggle, the Fight, is a True Fight , a Fight of, for, and about -- MANHOOD.

    And to Xenophon, as to any True Warrior, such Fighting is in the best and highest sense political, that is, of benefit to the polis, the city-state -- and Dearest to the Gods.

    Just as Achilles' decision to serve Manhood by avenging Patroklos is timao -- Honored and Deemed of the Highest Worth -- by the Gods.

    The Gods Love Manhood, Fighting Manhood, and those who live in its service.

    Which means that the Gods Love Warriors, and Warriordoms.

Finally :

In the Anabasis, the emissary of the Great King, Phalinus, says to Xenophon, "You talk like a philosopher."

That's right, and it's because Xenophon is a philosopher.

He's rarely so regarded today, but the ancients -- his peers -- recognized him as a philosopher -- Xenophon "ho philosophos" -- who was schooled by Sokrates.

Xenophon is a moral philosopher, an ethicist, and that's why he writes.

He's interested in and greatly concerned with Right and Wrong, Virtue and Vice, Honestum et Turpe -- which for him, as for us, comes down to Manhood and want of manhood -- Andreia - Areté / Areta -- and an-andria.

He's not interested in ontology or epistemology etc.

He's a Warrior and a Military Man, and what interests him is Manliness.

That's why he's been read for 2400 years.

And also why he's the only ancient author whose work has come down to us intact.

That's to say, we have a copy of everything he wrote.

That's not true of anyone else, so far, at least, as I know.

But it is of Xenophon.

He has survived, and endured, and will continue to -- so long as there are Men.

Bill Weintraub

  • Leonides : Leonidas I, king of Sparta, Herakleides, and Hero of Thermopylai.

    He ruled from 491 to 480 BC.

    ΛΕΩΝΙΔΗΣ
    Wm Smith, writing ca 1873 AD :

    (*Lewni/das), king of Sparta, 17th of the Agids, was one of the sons of Anaxandrides by his first wife, and, according to some accounts, was twin-brother to Cleombrotus (Hdt. 5.39-41). He succeeded on the throne his half-brother Cleomenes I, in B. C. 491, his elder brother Dorieus also having previously died. When Greece was invaded by Xerxes, the Greek congress, which was held at the Isthmus of Corinth, determined that a stand should be made against the enemy at the pass of Thermopylae, and Leonidas had the command of the force destined for this service. The number of his army is variously stated : according to Herodotus, it amounted to somewhat more than 5000 men, of whom 300 were Spartans ; in all probability, the regular band of (so called) ιππεις selected by the Hippagretae. The remainder of the Lacedaemonian force was to follow after the celebration of the festival of the Carneia. Plutarch affirms that funeral games were celebrated in honour of Leonidas and his comrades, before their departure from Sparta ; according also to him and Diodorus, it was said at the same time by the hero, that the men he took with him were indeed few to fight, but enough to die ; and, when his wife, Gorgo, asked him what his last wishes were, he answered, "Marry a brave husband and bear brave sons." Herodotus tells us that Leonidas selected for the expedition such only as had sons to leave behind them, and mentions an oracle besides, which declared that Sparta could not be saved from ruin but by the death of her king. When the Greek army was assembled at Thermopylae, there was a prevalent desire on the part of the Peloponnesians to fall back on the Isthmus, and make their stand against the Persians there ; and it was mainly through the influence of Leonidas that the scheme, at once selfish and impolitic, was abandoned. When it was known that the treachery of the Malian Ephialtes had betrayed the mountain path of the Anopaea to the Persians, after their vain attempts to force their way through the pass of Thermopylae, Leonidas, declaring that he and the Spartans under his command must needs remain in the post they had been sent to guard, dismissed all the other Greeks, except the Thespian and Theban forces. Then, before the body of Persians, who were crossing the mountain under Hydarnes, could arrive to attack him in the rear, he advanced from the narrow pass and charged the myriads of the enemy with his handful of troops, hopeless now of preserving their lives, and anxious only to sell them dearly. In the desperate battle which ensued, Leonidas himself soon fell. His body was rescued by the Greeks, after a violent struggle. On the hillock in the pass, where the remnant of the Greeks made their last stand, a lion of stone (so Herodotus tells us) was set up in his honour ; and Pausanias says that his bones were brought to Sparta forty years after, by one named Pausanias ; but if he was the same who commanded at the battle of Plataea, "forty" must be an erroneous reading for "four".

    ~L.9.leonidas-i-bio-1

    Pausanias, writing ca 170 AD :

    [7] Cleomenes had no male issue, and the kingdom devolved on Leonidas, son of Anaxandrides and full brother of Dorieus. At this time Xerxes led his host against Greece, and Leonidas with three hundred Lacedaemonians met him at Thermopylae. Now although the Greeks have waged many wars, and so have foreigners among themselves, yet there are but few that have been made more illustrious by the exceptional Manhood [Areta] of one man, in the way that Achilles shed luster on the Trojan war and Miltiades on the engagement at Marathon. But in truth the success of Leonidas surpassed, in my opinion, all later as well as all previous achievements.

    ~Paus. 3.4, translated by Jones and Ormerod.

    Diodorus Siculus, writing ca 50 BC :

    Concerning the actions of Leonidas and his Men at Thermopylai -- Who would not regard their Manhood [Areta] with wonder [thaumazo] ? They with one accord did not desert the post [taxis] to which Greece had assigned them, but gladly offered up their own lives for the common salvation [koinos soteria] of all Greeks, and preferred to die bravely [kalos] rather than to live shamefully [aischros]. The consternation of the Persians also, no one could doubt that they felt it.

    [2] For what man among the barbarians could have conceived of that which had taken place? Who could have expected that a band of only five hundred ever had the daring to charge against the hundred myriads? Consequently what Man of later times might not emulate [zelo-o] the Manhood of those Men who, finding themselves in the grip of an overwhelming situation, though their bodies [somata] were subdued, were not conquered in spirit [psyche] ? These Men, therefore, alone of all of whom history records, have in defeat been accorded a greater fame than all others who have won the fairest victories. For judgement must be passed upon Manly Men [Andres Agathos], not by the outcome of their actions, but by their purpose [prohairesis] ; in the one case Fortune is mistress [Tyche kurios -- Tyche has the power], in the other it is the purpose [prohairesis] which wins approval [dokimazo -- which is put to the test and then approved].

    Bill Weintraub:

    Cf Leonidas as quoted by Plutarch in the Apophthegmata Lakonika (which, to be fair, was compiled after Diodorus wrote his History) :

    Being asked why the Most Manly of Men prefer a glorious death [endoxos thanatos] to an inglorious life [adoxos zoe], he said, 'Because they regard the latter as the gift of Nature [physis], and the former as being in their own hands [nomizo]'.

    ~Plut. Apoph. 51.14, translated by Babbitt and Talbert.

    [3] What man would judge any to be more Manly than were those Spartans who, though not equal in number to even the thousandth part of the enemy, dared to match their Manhood against the unbelievable multitudes? Nor had they any hope of overcoming so many myriads, but they believed that in Manliness and Manly Goodness [andragathia] they would surpass all men of former times, and they decided that, although the battle they had to fight was against the barbarians, yet the real contest and the award of that meed which is bestowed as the prize of Manliness they were seeking was in competition with all who had ever won admiration for their Manhood.

    [4] Indeed they alone of those of whom we have knowledge from time immemorial chose rather to preserve the laws of their state [poleos nomous] than their own lives, not feeling aggrieved that the greatest perils [kindunos] threatened them, but concluding that the greatest boon for which those who exercise Manhood should pray [euktaios] is the opportunity [tychano] to play a part in contests [agones] of this kind.

    [5] And one would be justified in believing that it was these Men who were more responsible for the common freedom [koinos eleutheria] of the Greeks than those who were victorious at a later time in the battles against Xerxes ; for when the deeds of these Men were called to mind, the Persians were dismayed whereas the Greeks were incited [paroxuno] to similar Manliness and Manly Excellence.

    [6] And, speaking in general terms, these Men alone of the Greeks down to their time passed into immortality because of their exceptional Manhood.

    Consequently not only the writers of history but also many of our poets have celebrated their Manly Excellence ; and one of them is Simonides, the lyric poet, who composed the following encomium [enkomion] in their praise, worthy of their Manhood :

    Των εν Θερμοπυλαις θανοντων
    ευκλεης μεν α τυχα, καλος δ' ο ποτμος,
    βωμος δ' ο ταφος, προ γοων δε μναστις, ο δ' οιτος επαινος.
    ενταφιον δε τοιουτον ουτ ευρως
    ουθ ο πανδαματωρ αμαυρωσει χρονος.
    ανδρων αγαθων οδε σηκος οικεταν ευδοξιαν
    Ελλαδος ειλετο. μαρτυρει δε και Λεωνιδας
    ο Σπαρτας βασιλευς, αρετας μεγαν λελοιπως
    κοσμον αεναον τε κλεος.

    Simonides Fr. 4 (Bergk)

    Of those who perished at Thermopylae
    All glorious [eukle-es] is the fortune [Tyche], fair [kalos -- noble and beautiful] the doom [potmos] ;
    Their grave's an altar [bomos ho taphos], ceaseless memory's [mnestis] theirs
    Instead of lamentation [goos], and their fate [oitos]
    Is chant of praise [epainos]. Such winding-sheet as this
    Nor mould nor all-consuming time shall waste.
    This sepulchre [sekos] of Manly Men has taken
    The fair renown [eudoxia] of Hellas for its inmate [oiketes].
    And witness [martys] is Leonidas, once king
    Of Sparta, who hath left behind an Order [kosmos]
    Of All-Powerful Manhood and Ever-Lasting Glory [megas Areta kai aenaos kleos].

    Simonides Fr. 4 (Bergk)

      (There is considerable reason to think that these lines were part of a poem sung at the shrine of the fallen in Sparta.)

    Diod. 11.11, translated by Oldfather and myself.













    Bill Weintraub :

    We start with some words from

    Prof Wm Race, translator and editor of Pindar :

    There is no doubt that [Pindar's epinikia -- victory odes] refer to historical persons and events (indeed every ode has an actual victory as its occasion) and that Pindar presents a disctinctive personality, but these aspects of the poems are subsidiary to their generic function of praising Men within the religious and ethical norms of aristocratic fifth-century Greece. In E. L. Bundy's formulation they constitue "an oral, public, epideictic literature dedicated to the single purpose of eulogizing men and communities."

    [For example :]

    Upon winning the chariot race at the Pythian games in 470, Hieron, ruler of Syracuse, was announced as a citizen of Aitna, thereby publicizing his founding of that city in 476/5 with 5000 settlers from Syracuse and 5000 from the Peloponnesos. (Diod. Sic. 11.49) The ode celebrates that founding in a broader context of harmonious peace, achieved in the polis by good governance, maintained against foreign aggression by resolute warfare [Battle of Himera {himeros = longing, yearning, love} 480 BC Gelon of Syracuse v 100,000 Carthaginian soldiers, Battle of Kyme 474 BC Hieron of Syracuse v Etruscan navy], and, on a cosmic scale, gained and held against the forces of disorder by Zeus' power, exemplified by Typhos' confinement under Mt Aitna.

    ~ Wm Race Intro to Pythian I, for Hieron of Aitna, winner chariot race

    Prof Race :

    Pindar's poetry expresses the conservative, so-called archaic, mores of the sixth and early fifth century. His thought is ethically cautionary and contains frequent reminders of man's limitations, his dependence on the Gods and nature, and the brevity of life's joys. He espouses moderation (metron, kairos), the aristocratic ("Doric") values of order (eunomia), civic concord (hesychia), and reverence for the Gods (eusebeia).

    His gaze is primarily backwards to the models of the past [Bill Weintraub: That's true of virtually all Greeks and Romans], as they are exemplified in the legends from Hellenic myth, and it is against these that the victors' achievements are measured.

    Bill Weintraub:

    That's an important statement.

    "The victor's achievements are measured" against those of the legendary Heroes of Hellenic myth.

    Again, this is true for virtually all Greek and Roman Men.

    Through the process of Mythic Identification, the ancient Greek identified with mythic heroes and modeled his life upon theirs.

    The most important of those mythic heroes was Achilles, who, by choosing Manhood over a long life became, as Werner Jaeger says, the "pattern-hero" for all subsequent Greek Men.

    We look in depth at Achilles' choice in Chapter Three of Biblion Pempton of our Lexicon of Manhood.

    In addition, sometimes Prof Race translates the word Areta as "achievement."

    Which means that the victor's Manhood is measured against that of the legendary Heroes of Greek myth.

    Which, and without question, is also true.

    Prof Race :

    To help guide the reader, I point to some recurring words that appear in the epinikia :

    • Areta -- Αρετα -- the realization of human excellence in achievements
      Bill Weintraub :

      I like Prof Race's definition of Areta, because of the word "realization," which is paragignomai -- advent, Adventus -- and the term "human excellence," which 99.99% of the time in Pindar is the Man-Victor-Warrior-Hero's Manly Excellence, which is Manhood.

      So : In Pindar's epinikia, Areta is the realization of Manhood through achievement -- which is very often, though not always in Pindar, achievement in what our society calls Fight Sport, but which would be better called Fight Agonia and Agonisma : One Man's Strenuous and indeed Agonizing Physical Effort to Overcome Another.

      This is very clear in, for example, Olympian 10, for Hagesidamos of Western Lokri, victor in boys' boxing, 476 BC, when the poet compares Hagesidamos' struggle against his adversary with Herakles' against Ares' son Kyknos.

      Classicist Basil Gildersleeve :

      In the first encounter Kyknos was aided by his father, Ares, and Herakles fled acc. to the proverb, ουδε Ηρακλης προς δυο [Herakles not against two]. But our Lokrian Herakles, Agesidamos, found his one adversary too much for him, and he would have failed, had it not been for the help of his trainer, Ilas, whether that help was the training itself or encouragement during the struggle. The parallel of Patroklos and Achilles with Agesidamos and Ilas gives reason to suspect that the adversary was an ingens [formidable] Telephus of a boy.

      It's in such struggles that boys -- and Men -- realize their Manhood.

    • phua -- φυα -- one's inborn nature (also syngonos συγγονος and syngenes συγγενης)

    • Theos -- Θεος -- the divine component of all human achievement (also Daimon Δαιμων, potmos ποτμος, etc.)

    • ponos -- πονος -- the hard work required for success (also dapane δαπανα, expense)

    • aglaia -- αγλαια -- the splendor of success (also one of the Graces)

    • charis -- χαρις -- the joy of celebration and charm of poetry (also personified as the Graces)

    • kleos -- κλεος -- the renown which rewards hard-earned success (also doxa δοξα and kudos κυδος)

    • sophia -- σοφια -- the poet's wisdom, including poetic skill, inspiration, and ethical knowledge

    • chreos -- χρεος -- the poet's obligation to praise areta Αρετα

    • philia -- φιλια -- the bond among good men (also xenia ξενια, guest-friendship)

    In a footnote, Prof Race adds that "Often these positive elements are set in contrast to the envy (phthonos φθονος) of ill-wishers and the darkness (skotos σκοτος) and silence (siga) that attend failure."


    Bill Weintraub:

    With Profs Race and Gildersleeve's words to help guide us, let's look at Lord Ares as He appears in Pindar's Victory Odes.















    However, Fight cannot make some Gods and some Men, some slave and some Free --

    Without Fighting Manhood.

    Without which Men cannot Fight.

    So :

    As a practical matter, there's some bleeding and bleeding over between Fight as the Father of All and Fighting Manhood as the Primal Love.

    Because Fight cannot exist without Men and Manhood, and Manhood cannot exist without Fight.

    Fight and Manhood are symbiotes.

    It's that simple.

    And it's why one Deity, Lord Ares, is the God of Fight, Manhood, and Fighting Manhood.

    (Actually, Ares is, as Plato says in the Kratylus, the God of Fight and Manhood.

    Ares, then, if you like, would be named for his Manliness [arren] and Manhood [andreion], and for his hard and unbending nature, which is called arratos ; so Ares would be in every way a fitting name for the God of Fight [polemikos Theos].

    ~Plato. Krat. 407d

    But most of the people reading this are too stupid to understand that Manhood is about Fighting -- and not about sex.

    Which is why I have to keep saying Fighting Manhood -- instead of just plain Manhood --

    even though by now, after more than four books of discussion, you should all just take as a given that Manhood is Fighting Manhood.)

    So :

    In the Warrior Kosmos, as well as within the Warriordom, Fight is the Father of All Fighting Manhood, Fighting Manhood is the Father of All Fight, Fighting Manhood is the Primal Love, and both Fight and Fighting Manhood are the First Cause.

    Making Fighting Manhood -- again, functionally -- the Idea of Good, the Supreme Excellence.

    Plato uses the phrase

    αριστος των αιτιων = aristos ton aition = best, most excellent, most Manly, of causes ;

    The First Cause or Primal Cause is then the best and most excellent -- and thus the most Manly -- of causes.

    And the Most Manly of Causes can only be Fighting Manhood.

    Plato also says

    Now to discover the Maker and Father of this Universe [All] were a task indeed; and having discovered Him, to declare Him unto all men were a thing impossible.

    ~Plat. Tim. 28c, translated by Bury.

    The word Plato uses for Universe is "All" -- pantos -- the same word that Heraclitus uses for All -- pantos -- πας

    So: what Plato actually says is "to discover the Maker and Father of All were a task indeed; and having discovered Him, to declare Him to All were a thing impossible."

    While Heraclitus says, "Fight / Fighting Manhood is the Father of All and King of All."

    Which means, and, for the third time, functionally, that Plato and Heraclitus, though separated by perhaps a hundred years, are saying essentially the same thing :

    Fighting Manhood is Father, Author, and King -- Primal Cause -- of All ;

    Manliness -- which is Fighting Manhood -- is the Primal Cause -- of All.

    And that Proten Aitian, that Primal Cause, is identical to the

  • Proton Philon : Primal Love.

    from Protos πρωτος = first, primal ; and

    Philos φιλος = loved, beloved

    Fighting Manhood is the Primal Love -- of Every Man.

    Every Man Loves Fighting Manhood -- First -- before any and all other loves.

    Σπαρτη

    SPARTA : One of the major Classical city-states of ancient Greece.
    Type: Unfortified city
    Region: Lakonika

    Physical:

    Located ca. 50 km inland on the wide and fertile plain of the Eurotas valley, Sparta is almost completely surrounded by major mountain ranges. In contrast to other ancient Greek cities, Sparta was not a compact fortified city-state center with monumental civic and religious buildings. It was a loose collection of smaller villages spaced over a large rural area and 6 low hills (cf. Thuc. 1.10.2). The highest of these knolls (ca. 25 m) served as the acropolis and location for the Temple of Athena Chalkioikos. In the Hellenistic period a theater, stoa and agora were built near the acropolis, but the Temple of Athena and the earlier remains at the Sanctuary of Artemis Orthia on the W bank of the Eurotas are almost the only archaeological remains from Archaic and Classical Sparta.

    The location and the militaristic character of early Sparta made city walls unnecessary, but as Spartan power weakened construction of fortification walls began (in 307 B.C.). The 10 km long circuit wall was completed in 184 B.C.

    Description:

    The location of Homeric Sparta is uncertain, and historical Sparta was traditionally a Dorian foundation of the 10th century B.C. By the 7th century B.C. Sparta had conquered all of Lakonika and Messenia and by the 6th century all of the central and SW Peloponnese was under direct Spartan control.

    In the 5th century B.C. Sparta had control of the Peloponnesian League and in 405 B.C. defeated Athens. The reversal of Spartan power, however, began with their defeat by Thebes in 371 B.C. In 369 B.C. Messenia was liberated and by 195 B.C. Sparta had lost all of its political dependencies.

    Under the Romans, Sparta enjoyed a degree of prosperity, in part, because of Roman admiration of the Spartan tradition of discipline. The Romans revived the ancient initiation rites for Spartan youths at the Sanctuary of Artemis, but in a debased touristic manner in which the Spartan youths were flogged in an amphitheater constructed around the altar of Artemis. Sparta survived the Herulian invasions of 267 A.D., but was devastated by the Goths in 395 A.D. and finally abandoned.

    Σπαρτη

    From the Princeton Encyclopedia of Classical Sites :

    SPARTA Lakonika, Greece.

    In the heart of the fertile Eurotas valley ca. 56 km S of Tegea and 48 km N of Gytheion; the alluvial soil is fertile, the climate auspicious, and the low hill site protected by mountains and sea. Very few prehistoric remains are known, but a major contemporary settlement has been excavated about 3 km NE at the Menelaion. About 950 B.C. at the earliest Sparta was occupied by Dorians and settled as an agglomeration of villages (Pitana, Limnai, Mesoa, and Kynosura); the city wall, not begun until the late 4th c. and eventually completed in 184, measured 10 km in circumference and enclosed an elliptical area 3 x 2 km lying N-S.

    In the 8th c. B.C. led by its two kings, the city embarked on the warmaking which by about 545 had brought "two-fifths of the Peloponnese" (Thuc.) under her immediate control. The inhabitants of the fertile Eurotas and Pamisos (Messenia) valleys were reduced to serfdom (Helots); those occupying more marginal land remained free but were denied political rights in Sparta (perioikoi). Thereafter Sparta expanded through diplomacy and by 500 B.C. had organized its subject-allies into the Peloponnesian League. In 405, supported by its allies and Persian gold it defeated Athens, but its supremacy in Greece was soon cut short by the Thebans: defeat at Leuktra in 371 was followed by the very first invasion of Lakonia and the liberation of Messenia in 369. After 243 Sparta was weakened by successive attempts, also led by its kings, at necessary social reform and in 195 lost its perioikic dependencies. But under the Roman Empire the city enjoyed a remarkable renascence of prosperity and reverted superficially to the rigid self-discipline of its heyday. Having survived the incursion of the Heruli in A.D. 267, the city was ruined by the Goths in 395, and finally abandoned.

    Σπαρτα

  • Spartiates : a Spartan ; the plural is Spartiatai -- Σπαρτιαται

    Unfortunately, some translations and other English texts use the English word "Spartiate" for the singular and "Spartiates" for the plural -- but neither is correct, and really there's no reason not to use the proper Greek singular and plural : Spartiates, Spartiatai.

    Σπαρτιατης


    Σπαρτιαται

    Related:

    Spartethen : from Sparta

    Σπαρτηθεν

  • Spartos : I. sown, grown from seed : metaph., sparton genos σπαρτων γενος children of men, Aesch. ;












  • Attributes : The Attributes and Qualities of Fighting Manhood

    Writing in 1890, classicist Charlton Lewis defined Manhood in a list of fifteen attributes of the Ideal Man.

    In 1921, Prof Fowler, also a classicist, said, in a Translator's Note, that the Greek word Andreia, that is, Manhood,

    embraces all qualities which are desirable in a perfect man, especially the more active and positive virtues.

    We can, then, easily and comfortably combine what Lewis and Fowler said, in a list of the Attributes of Manhood, the Qualities of the Ideal Man, the Perfect Warrior, grouped under four categories : Vigour, Valour, Virtue, and Value :

    • Vigour :

      Strength

      Might

      Power

      Mastery

      Potency

    • Valour :

      Ardent and Eager Willingness to Fight

      Gallantry : Nobility -- that is to say, Selflessness -- of Spirit and Action

      Fortitude : The Manliness needed to Undertake and Endure Hardship, Particularly in Fight or in the Service of Fight

    • Virtue :

      Manly Goodness -- which is Fighting Manhood

      High Moral Character -- which is in large part the Ardent Willingness to Fight

      Manly Honour -- Honour is generated by, and accrues to, Men -- through Fighting

      Moral Virtue, including Manliness, Temperance, Generosity, Greatness of Soul aka Pride, Love of Honour, Good Temper, Truthfulness, Friendliness, and above all,

      Moral Nobility, which is Selflessness -- specifically, that Selfless Self-Love which leads the Warrior to acts of Heroic Self-Sacrifice -- and thus to Glory

    • Value :

      Martial Merit

      Virile Value

      Warrior Worth

    So -- in the last of the categories, we see Ability or Skill, which is what gives a Warrior a significant part of his Value, Merit, and Worth, in a Fight.

    While Valour is about the Willingness, the Ardent Eagerness, to Fight.

    In between are Vigour -- the Excellence of the Manly Body ;

    And Virtue -- the Excellence of the Manly Soul.

    When, in an ancient text you see the Greek words Andreia Ανδρεια or Areté / Areta Αρετη / Αρετα, the latter used in the context of a human male ; or the Latin word Virtus -- you need to understand that all three mean Manhood in all its attributes, and that any other translation -- be it valour, virtue, courage, esteem, etc -- is inadequate and misleading.

    For, as Prof Fowler says,

    The word andreia has a much wider meaning than the English "courage."

    And a much wider meaning than the words "valour, virtue, esteem," etc

    Andreia embraces all the Qualities which are desirable in a Perfect Man, especially the more Active and Positive Virile Virtues and Noble Excellences.

    Finally, we should be clear that in a Warrior Society, the core attribute of Manliness will always be the Willingness and Ability to Fight :

    That is, the Courage to Physically Confront an Opponent, and the Ability to Physically Defeat Him, in a One-on-One, Skin-on-Skin, Face-to-Face, Man2Man Fight.




  • Andro Machia / ManFight : Ares Is Lord, Alliance, and Warrior Theurgic term for Nude Free Fight -- ManFight -- between two Men, each Man strenuously striving to overcome the other, and both Men strenuously struggling to Perfect their Manhood, their Fighting Manhood.

    Within Ares Is Lord, the Alliance, and Warrior Theourgia, Andro Machia / ManFight can and does take two forms :

    Which are defined and discussed immediately below :



  • Phallo Machia : Phallo Machia -- Greek for Phallic Battle, Fight, Combat -- is the Phallic expression of ManFight -- the strenuous physical struggle of one Phallus to overcome and conquer another.

    So :

    Just as one Man seeks to overcome and conquer another in the agones of Fight Agonia ;

    So does one Phallus seek to overcome and conquer another in the agones of Phallo Machia.

    In both cases, Man and Phallus strenuously struggle against Man and Phallus to bring their Manhood to Perfection.

    ManFight is always of, for, and about Manhood -- Fighting Manhood.

    ManFight -- even in the form of Phallo Machia -- is never about sexual manhood ;

    It's always about Fighting Manhood.

    Within the Holy Communion of Ares Is Lord, all Men under the age of forty-five are expected to train in Fight Agonia at least three days a week ; and all Men between the ages of eighteen and twenty-eight are required to engage in a public, nude, full contact Fight Agonia event sanctioned by the Communion -- at least once a year.

    Phallo Machia, by contrast, and although overseen by the Communion, is conducted privately, between agonist and ant-agonist, erastes and ant-erastes.






  • Heterosexualization : an historical process which

    1. eliminates same-gender environments and replaces them with mixed-gender environments ;

    2. creates and then imposes upon men a false definition of masculinity, in which "real men" are constrained to be, both affectionally and sexually, exclusively heterosexual ; and

    3. medicalizes and ghettoizes same-sex affection, intimacy, sex, and love ; while dictating that all same-sex sexual expression be played out within the heterosexual paradigm of male and (pseudo-)female -- thus, the gay male categories of top/bottom, active/passive, dominant/submissive, butch/bitch.

    Crucial to this process is the denigration, curtailment, and dismissal both of the male's natural male aggression ; and of his natural male attraction.

    Under heterosexualization, the male is steadily divorced from contact with other males, and forced into constant contact with females ; while the two key attributes of Natural Masculinity, male aggression and male attraction, are forbidden him.

    Please note :

    Heterosexualization is an historical process, similar to and resulting from Industrialization.

    Historical processes such as Industrialization and Heterosexualization are not, by and large, under human control.

    They simply happen.

    When they do, they often give rise to belief systems aka ideologies aka "isms."

    For example, Industrialization gave rise to three isms :

    • Liberalism, by which is NOT meant democrat vs republican, but parliamentary government, accompanied by civil liberties and civil rights, including voting rights, which were slowly extended to more and more of the populace of such nations as Great Britain and France ;

    • Fascism -- Italy, Germany, Spain, etc.

    • Communism.

    Those were the three great isms of Industrialization, and they dominated the 20th century.

    What about Monarchism?

    No.

    Monarchism was a hold-over from Feudalism.

    It lasted into the 20th century, but in most places didn't survive WW I.

    Similarly, Heterosexualization, which is an historical process, has given rise to isms -- including heterosexism, analism, and feminism.

    It's true that feminism in its most recent incarnation -- that is, of the last 45 years or so -- has become increasingly aggressive about furthering heterosexualization, and destroying all and every single-gender space.

    But the same was true of liberalism, communism, and fascism -- they all supported industrialization and sought to advance the process of industrialization within the countries they controlled.

    Nevertheless, industrialization preceded and in effect gave birth to those isms.

    As did heterosexualization.

    All of which is to say that heterosexualization is not the same as feminism.

    Heterosexualization is a basically blind, historical, process.

    Feminism is an ideology and belief-system, similar to communism and fascism, and is under the direct control of those women and their male allies who at any given moment are shaping opinion within and otherwise directing the movement.

    Put differently, and as one of our Warriors has said,

    Male-male sex is isolated only because in the West, its spaces and its customs are completely heterosexualized (i.e. made mixed gender with pressures to be heterosexual). But heterosexual spaces are themselves unnatural --- and it was only through the immense financial and technological power brought by industrialization that Western society could create such artificial and unnatural heterosexualized environments.

    See also Natural masculinity, Sexual dimorphism, Heterosexism, Analism, Sexual orientation, Labels, Frot.

    And our Ares Is Lord / Man2Man Alliance policy paper Sex Between Men: An Activity, Not a Condition.


  • Ethics : Classicist Werner Jaeger :

    Remember that the Greek for 'good' [agathos] does not merely have the narrow ethical sense we give it, but is the adjective corresponding to the noun areté, and so means 'excellent' in any way. From that point of view ethics is only a special case of the effort made by all things to achieve perfection.

    "From that point of view" -- which is the Greek point of view, the Greek Warrior point of view -- "ethics is only a special case of the effort made by all things to achieve perfection."



    Which means that Warrior Ethics, which is Manly Ethics, Manly Virtue, Manly Wisdom, and above all, Manly Goodness, is epitomized by Two Men, Two Naked Fighting Men, Struggling to Perfect Their Manly Excellence, Their Fighting Manhood.

    Because Manly Excellence, Virtue, Goodness, and Ethics is Excellence, Virtue, Goodness, and Ethics that's Willing and Able to Fight.

    Again, Manly Ethics, which is Manly Virtue, which is Manly Goodness, is epitomized by Two Men Struggling in Fight to Perfect Their Manhood, and there's No Higher Good or Goodness than this :

    Again, this is the Summum Bonum, the Highest Good, the Supreme Good :







F I G H T I N Gxx M A N H O O D

The Fighter's Willingness to Confront his Opponent, the Courage he needs to Confront his Opponent,
is instantiated by his battered and bloody face ; while his raised arms instantiate his Ability --
the martial merit, virile value, and warrior worth, he needs -- to Defeat his Opponent.

    Fighting Manhood is the Ardent Willingness, and Requisite Ability, to Fight.

    In terms of the Communion of Ares Is Lord, then :

    To instantiate is to be awakened to an Ideal, like Fighting Manhood, from the World of Being, and then give it physical form in the world of becoming.

    Specifically, and, once again, in terms of the Communion of Ares Is Lord, instantiation means to be awakened to the Ideal of Fighting Manhood emanating from the Warrior World of Being and give it physical form in the world of becoming -- by training to be and becoming -- a Fighter.

    That's what the Gods want you to do.

    That, to be specific, is what Lord Ares wants you to do :

    To take on the physical form and training of a Fighter so that you can

    1. Commune with Lord Ares ; and

    2. Participate in the core task of embodied humanity : to impose Order on the chaos of the world of becoming.

    instantiate

    See also:

    Embody and Enact

    Pyrrhiche









  • Manly Love : Like Manly Honour and Manly Excellence, Manly Love is Love that's Willing and Able to Fight ; put differently, an Exclusive and Faithful Love between Two Men, each of whom is Willing and Able to Fight -- Love between Warriors, Love between Combatants, Love between Fighters, Love between Men.

    For example :

    In the Iliad, Achilleus and Patroklos are Manly Lovers, that is, two Men who Love each other, both of whom are Willing and Able to Fight.

    Achilleus is the greatest Warrior at Troy ; while Patroklos is his Therapon, his Comrade in Arms -- he's Achilleus' charioteer.

    So Patroklos is lower in rank than Achilleus.

    But he's still a great Warrior in his own right, as is demonstrated in Book XVI of the Iliad, the Αριστεια Πατροκλου, The Manly Deeds of Patroklos that Win the Meed of Valour -- in which Patroklos, fighting on his own, kills many Trojan and Allied Warriors, including the great Warrior Sarpedon, who's the Son of Zeus.


    Hypnos and Thanatos tend to the body of Sarpedon

    Similarly, in the Spartan Story of Kleonymos and Archidamos, both Men are Warriors.

    Archidamos is older and higher in rank than Kleonymos -- he's the son of one of the two kings of Sparta ;

    While Kleonymos is the most promising youth -- which is to say, the most Manly youth -- in the Agogé.

    Both die in battle -- Kleonymos in 371, Archidamos in 338.

    Xenophon tells us that

    while his [Kleonymos'] death caused extreme grief [aniazo ta eschata -- to grieve to the utmost] to Archidamus, still, as Kleonymos promised, he did not bring shame upon Archidamos, but rather honour.

    ~Xen. Hell. 5.4.33, translated by Brownson.

    And that's a simple but very compelling statement of the essence of Manly Love.

    In such a Love, neither Man, by his actions, brings shame upon the other, but Honour.









  • Male Parthenogenesis / Manly Parthenogenesis

    There are a number of stories -- among the ancient Greeks, and other peoples -- known to classicists and others as Myths of Male Parthenogenesis -- from parthenos -- maiden / virgin ; and genesis -- creation.

    In biology, parthenogenesis refers to the process "in which an unfertilized egg develops into a new individual" -- that is to say, a virgin birth, seen most often among insects.

    But in mythology, there are found many myths of male parthenogenesis, in which Men are created -- without women.

    For example, as classicist Charlton Lewis points out in his definition of the Latin term terrigena, of men sprung up from the sown dragon's teeth, in the ancient Theban foundation myth, armed Men spring from the ground where the teeth of the dragon -- a son of Ares -- have been sown by Kadmus, and immediately fall to Fighting among themselves.

    The sowing of the dragon's teeth, then, is one such myth of male parthenogenesis -- though of course the earth may be looked upon as female.

    But the dragon himself is male, and his teeth are clearly his sperm.

    The spermatic teeth are sown, and immediately spring from the earth as fully-grown and armed Men -- hoi Spartoi.

    The male desire to be free to reproduce without the female is, again, common and strong.

    Indeed, Adam, the original Man of the three great Abrahamic faiths, gives voice to it in Book X of John Milton's great poem Paradise Lost, when he laments the creation of Eve, who has caused him to sin :

    O why did God,
    Creator wise, that peopl'd highest Heav'n
    With Spirits Masculine, create at last
    This noveltie on Earth, this fair defect
    Of Nature, and not fill the World at once
    With Men as Angels without Feminine,
    Or find some other way to generate
    Mankind?

    And Adam's correct -- God, in Milton's version, had, before creating Man, peopl'd highest Heav'n with Spirits Masculine.

    However, Milton tells us, those Masculine Spirits have the ability to change their sex.

    But only one avails itself of that ability.

    That spirit changes sex because it wishes to mate with Satan.

    The newly transgendered spirit is named "Sin."

    Satan impregnates Sin, and their offspring is -- Death.


    Related:

    Autochthon

    From:

    Autos -- self ; and chthon -- earth

    Related:

    Amphiktyon

    Related:

    Gegenes

    Related:

    Spartoi

    Related:

    Terrigena




  • Prowess : Merriam-Webster online defines Prowess as "distinguished bravery; especially : military valor and skill" ; and "extraordinary ability"

    Valour, remember, refers to Willingness -- the Warrior's Ardent Willingness to Fight.

    Therefore, for our purposes in this Lexicon of Manhood, and in The Man2Man Alliance and Ares Is Lord, we define Prowess as :

Exceptional Ability in Combat


  • Warriordom : Alliance and Ares Is Lord term for a Warrior Culture.

    A Warriordom is a Masculinist and Martial, Phallo-centric, Pagan, Patriarchal, and Pugnacious culture in which the Warrior, and his way of life, is supreme.

    Warriordoms exist physically in the world of becoming, in the horatos kai haptos kosmos, the visible and tangible cosmos, but they are rooted in, their values emanate from, the Warrior World of Being, the Warrior Kosmos.

    At one time, most of the world's cultures were Warriordoms.

    And Warriordoms were Dominant Cultures -- it was their norms, their standards of behavior and belief, which mattered.

    Just so that's really really and crystal clear, let's say it one more time:

    Warriordoms are Dominant Cultures -- it's Warrior norms, Warrior standards of behavior and belief, which matter and hold absolute sway.

    Warriordoms are Cultures fashioned of Men, by Men, and most of all, for Men --

    Fighting Men.


    In any Warriordom, Manliness Manly Excellence Manhood Fighting Manhood, is both the Sanction and the Idea of Good.

    It's Fighting Manhood which impels to moral action and determines moral judgment ; and it's Fighting Manhood which is the Good Purpose in that Controlling Mind which is both Able and Eager to Achieve that Purpose.

    Fighting Manhood, then, and its earthly adjuncts, Fighting Men, Warriors -- are identified with Light, and the Forces of Light -- Light, which is Virtue, and Virtue, which is Fighting Manhood.

    And Yes, I know that's both a tautology and an incantation.

    It's with just such tautologies and incantations that Dominant Cultures, including Warriordoms, drive home and re-inforce their most basic and foundational beliefs.

    So :

    In Warriordoms, Fighting Manhood, which resides in the World of Being, and its earthly adjuncts, Fighting Men, Warriors -- are identified with Light, and the Forces of Light -- Light, which is Virtue, and Virtue, which is Fighting Manhood.

    Want of Fighting Manhood and UN-manliness -- an-andria -- and the UN-manly -- are associated with the forces of darkness and death.

    We can see this very clearly in Warrior Literature, in writers as disparate as the Roman poet Ennius (239-169 BC) and the Greek philosopher Plato (428-348 BC).

    For example, Ennius, who we discuss in Biblion Pempton and in the Ancient Latin Word List, and who had a huge influence on all subsequent Latin literature --

    Ennius, in his writing, sets up a dichotomy, in which the True Warrior, the True Follower of Virtus, which is Manly Excellence, which is Manliness, which is Fighting Manhood, will always be, in his actions, guiltless and innocent.

    As well as, as we'll see, free from sensuality -- and steadfast and true.

    While any act which does not partake of Virtus, of Manly Excellence and Fighting Manhood, "lies lurking in dim darkness, fraught with guilt."

    Virtus -- Manly Excellence aka Fighting Manhood -- partakes of Life and Light.

    That which is not-Virtus, UN-virtus -- in ancient Greek, an-andria -- want of Manhood, UN-manliness -- partakes of night, death, and darkness.

    As we see when we look at these lines from Ennius' play Phoenix, which is based on the Iliad :

    [I]t behooves a man of true Virtus -- of true Manliness, true Manly Excellence, true Fighting Manhood --
    To live a life inspired, to stand steadfast [sto]
    With guiltless fortitude [in-noxius fortitudo] in the face of foes.
    The man who bears himself both pure and staunch [purus -- clean, pure, unstained, free from sensuality -- and firmus -- strong, steadfast, stable, enduring, powerful, faithful, and true] --
    That is true liberty. All conduct else
    Lies lurking [lateo] in dim darkness [obscurus nox], fraught with guilt [ob-noxiosus].

    ~Ennius Phoenix 311, translated by Warmington and myself.

    Ennius was a student of the Greeks, and part of what he's saying he's certainly picking up from Plato and other Greek writers, including those many anecdotes which, in Plutarch's capable hands, would become the Apophthegmata Lakonika, The Terse and Pointed Sayings of the Spartans.

    But he's also an important thinker in his own right, and he's saying that the Warrior, that is, the true follower of Manliness, should act always with innocent bravery and guiltless fortitude while keeping himself clean and pure, free from sensuality, and strong, steadfast, faithful and true.

    It's an important formulation, borrowing from the Greeks while at the same time expanding upon them.

    Thousands of years later, the great mythographer and student of heroism, Joseph Campbell, will echo Ennius when he describes the Hero as "the uncorrupted son of nature, pure in the yearning of his heart."


    But, and as I said, it's not just the Roman Ennius.

    Look at how close in thought the fragment from Ennius, written in Latin ca 200 BC, is to Plato's "In Union with Valour -- that is, Fighting Manhood" speech -- from the Menexenus, written in Greek ca 400 BC, and which we first examined in Biblion Tetarton :

    Whatever else you practice you must practice it In Union with Fighting Manhood, being well assured that when divorced from this all possessions and pursuits are base and ignoble. For neither does wealth bring honor to its possessor if combined with an-andria -- want of manhood and UN-manliness -- for such an one is rich for another rather than for himself -- nor do beauty and strength appear comely, but rather uncomely, when they are attached to one that is cowardly and base, since they make their possessor more conspicuous and show up his cowardice ; and every form of knowledge when sundered from that which is just, right, lawful, and Manfully well-ordered [dikaios] and the rest of Manly Excellence, which is Fighting Manhood -- is seen to be plain roguery rather than wisdom.

    ~Plat. Menex. 246d

    So first Plato, the Greek philosopher, and then Ennius, the Roman poet, are saying that the lack of Areté -- Virtus -- of Manly Excellence, which is Fighting Manhood -- is fatal to anything else a male might attempt to do.

    Without Virtus, says Ennius,

    All conduct else lies lurking in dim darkness, fraught with guilt.

    While without Areté, declares Plato,

    [A]ll possessions and pursuits are base and ignoble ; and every form of knowledge when sundered from that which is just, right, lawful, and Manfully well-ordered [dikaios] and the rest of Manly Excellence, which is Fighting Manhood -- is seen to be plain roguery rather than wisdom.

    Without Manliness and absent Fighting Manhood, "all conduct else lies lurking in dim darkness, fraught with guilt ; all possessions and pursuits are base and ignoble ; and every form of knowledge is seen to be plain roguery rather than wisdom."

    It must be emphasized that these are common sentiments among Warrior Thinkers in Warriordoms, even two as disparate as Athens and Rome.

    Once again :

    In Warriordoms, Andreia-Areté-Virtus -- Manly Excellence aka Fighting Manhood -- partakes of Life and Light.

    That which is not-Virtus, UN-virtus -- in ancient Greek, an-andria -- want of Manhood, UN-manliness -- partakes of night, death, and darkness.

    That being the case, the True Warrior, that is, the True Acolyte of Manliness, should and always will act with guiltless bravery and guileless fortitude while keeping himself clean and pure, free from sensuality, and strong, steadfast, faithful and true.


    Now :

    Having seen, that in Warriordoms, the Sanction and Idea of Good -- which is Andreia - Areté - Virtus -- partakes of Life and Light -- and is quite properly and naturally identified with Life and Light --

    Which is to say that Manhood, Fighting Manhood, is the Giver of Life and the Bringer of Light --

    And that Fighting Manhood is Soter -- Savior -- that it saves and preserves both Life and Light themselves --

    We can then entertain two propositions and a conclusion :

    1. Given that Paul Shorey, the brilliant and extraordinarily erudite scholar who's one of the world's leading Platonists, maintains that as a functional matter, the Idea of Good, is, to Plato, the Good Purpose in some Controlling Mind Eager and Able to Achieve that Purpose ; and,

    2. Given that it's clear from ancient literature, not a little of which I've presented to you in the five books of this Lexicon, that the Idea of Good aka the Sanction in a Warriordom is what I've called, for the purpose of this Lexicon, Fighting Manhood, which is the same as Manly Excellence, which is the same as Manliness, which is the same as Manly Goodness, which is the same as Manly Virtue, which is the same as Manly Spirit -- and which consists at its most basic of the Man's Ardent Willingness and Requisite Ability to Fight ;

    3. Then Fighting Manhood *is* -- as a functional matter -- the Idea of Good referred to in Book VII of Plato's Republic, in which Sokrates says :

      Sokrates
      [I]n the region of the known [the World of Being] the last thing to be seen and hardly seen is the Idea of Good [ie, Manhood], and that when seen it must needs point us to the conclusion that this is indeed the cause for all things of all that is right [orthos -- standing erect, upright, morally righteous] and beautiful [kalon -- both aesthetically and morally beautiful, partaking of Manly Moral Beauty], giving birth in the visible world [the world of becoming] to light, and the Author of Light and itself in the intelligible world [the World of Being] being the authentic source of Truth and Reason, and that anyone who is to act wisely in private or public must have caught sight of this.

      ~Plat. Rep. 7.517b-c, translated by Shorey

    So :

    Given that the Idea of Good, the Supreme Excellence, is, functionally, the Good Objective or Principle in some Controlling Mind Eager and Able to Achieve that Objective --

    and given then that that Supreme Excellence is Manly Excellence, which is Manhood, Fighting Manhood --

    and that Fighting Manhood is thus the Idea of Good and the Sanction --

    Let's see how what Sokrates has said -- plays out :

    Sokrates
    [I]n the region of the known

    The region of the known is the World of Being, the World of Knowledge and Truth -- that which is Known [gnostos] -- as opposed to opinion [doxa].

    The only True Knowledge is the Knowledge of the World of Being.

    What we think we know of the world of becoming is, like the world of becoming itself, too shifting and changeable to ever be truly known, or to ever be more than opinion.

    the last thing to be seen and hardly seen is the Idea of Good,

    the Idea of Good is the last Idea, Form, or Essence which is "seen and hardly seen" -- "hardly seen" because it's difficult for the embodied souls of the world of becoming to fully see, to fully awaken, to fully UN-forget and thus fully grasp the Idea of Good [agathou idea] -- which is the Supreme Good, which is the Supreme Excellence, which is Manly Excellence, which is Supreme and Absolute Manhood, Fighting Manhood, which is Perfect, Pure, Eternal, and Immutable.

    and that when seen it must needs point us to the conclusion that this is indeed the cause for all things of all that is right [orthos] and beautiful [kalon],

    And once you've experienced Supreme and Absolute Manhood, Pure and Unadulterated Manhood, Manhood which neither comes into being nor ceases to be, but which is Perfect, Pure, Eternal and Immutable --

    you conclude that this Pure and Supreme Manhood is the cause for all things of all that is Orthos, of all that Stands Combatively Erect and is Righteously Upright, and of all that is Kalon, of all that is Manfully and Morally Beautiful.

    And all those who have Fought -- who have been part of the Un-ending and Eternal Kosmic Fight -- know that this is True.

    So :

    The Supreme Excellence, which is Manly Excellence, is the cause for *all* things of *all* that is right [orthos] and beautiful [kalos] :

    Orthos = standing erect, morally upright, righteous --

    Orthos means right, means morally right and upright, means righteous, means standing erect.

    It's a typical Manly ancient world identification of Righteousness -- Virtue -- with Manhood -- Fighting Manhood.

    Because Men stand Erect to Fight.

    What about Phallus?

    Yes, the word orthos can be used to refer to the erect male member, the Phallus.

    For example, in Pindar's Pythian 10.36, there's a reference to the erect arrogance [hybrin orthian] of donkeys who are about to be sacrificed to the God Apollo.

    But as you can see, the reference is to Phallus not so much in its sexual aspect as in its Fighting aspect.

    In the ancient world, Manhood is about Fighting.

    That's why Liddell and Scott say, regarding Areté, that "From the same root [ARES -- the God of Manhood, Fight, and Fighting Manhood] comes areté [Manly Excellence] . . . the first notion of goodness being that of Manhood, Bravery in War ; cf. Lat. virtus."

    The first notion of goodness is Manhood, bravery in war, "cf" = compare to Lat. virtus -- Manliness, Manhood, Bravery, Courage, Valour, Gallantry, Fortitude.

    And, they add, Areté / Areta is goodness, excellence, of any kind, esp. of manly qualities, manhood, valour, prowess (like Lat. virtus, from vir)

    So Manhood is Fighting Manhood, it's bravery in war, it's valour and prowess, that is, Willingness and Ability -- to Fight.

    While :

    Kalos = Morally Beautiful, redolent of Manly Moral Beauty -- the Moral Beauty which comes from the Fighting Man's Ability and Willingness to Fight -- and from Fighting -- from the Fight -- itself.

    giving birth in the visible world to light, and the Author of Light and itself in the intelligible world being the authentic source of truth and reason, and that anyone who is to act wisely in private or public must have caught sight of this.

    Giving birth in the visible world, the world of becoming, to light -- because in the world of becoming, Fighting Manhood is the Conveyor of Life and Light --

    and in the intelligible world, the World of Being, the Warrior World of Being, the Author of Light and its own Author or Cause -- Fight is the Father of All -- Fight is the Father of All Fighting Manhood -- which is The Primal Love and The First Cause --

    and the only True Source of Truth and Reason.

    And please be clear :

    There is some bleeding and bleeding over between Fight as the Father of All and Fighting Manhood as the Primal Love.

    Because Fight cannot exist without Men and Manhood, and Manhood cannot exist without Fight.

    Fight and Manhood are symbiotes.

    It's that simple.

    And it's why one Deity, Lord Ares, is the God of Fight, Manhood, and Fighting Manhood.

    So :

    In the Warrior Kosmos, as well as within the Warriordom, Fight is the Father of All Fighting Manhood, Fighting Manhood is the Primal Love, and both Fight and Fighting Manhood are the First Cause.

    So that -- in order for a Man to be a Man --

    in order for a Man to Stand Erect, to be Righteous and Upright, to travel the Path of Manly Moral Beauty -- the Way of Manly Truth, the Noble Warrior Way of Manly Reason --

    whether in private life or public affairs --

    He must have "caught sight of," "been awakened to," "have UN-forgotten," Supreme and Absolute Manhood --

    in the Warrior World of Being.

    Which is why Warriordoms and Warriors believe, to a Man, that

    Fighting Manhood is indeed the cause of all that stands erect, of all that is morally upright and righteous, and of all that is manfully and morally beautiful, giving rise in the visible world to light, and the author of light and itself in the intelligible world being the authentic source of truth and reason, and that anyone who is to act wisely in private or public must have caught sight of this.




  • Warrior Theourgia : In the Holy Communion of Ares Is Lord, Warrior Theourgia -- Warrior God-Work -- in English, Warrior Theurgy -- is a series of highly structured rites, practices, and disciplines that enable the embodied male soul to UN-forget his Fighting Manhood and realize his Warrior Godhood ;

    And which lead to the creation of a visible and tangible cosmos, a Warriordom, which is located within the Combatant Cosmos, the Warrior World of Becoming, and which is rooted in and informed by the Warrior Kosmos, the Warrior World of Being.

    To learn more about Warrior Theourgia, please visit our list of Warrior Theurgic Words, directly below.





  • Assimilation : like the ancient Greek Homoiosis, becoming similar or like to

    Discussion :

    The goal of Warrior Theourgia is the Deification of the Male Soul -- its Theogenesis -- a process which requires the loss of its particular and partial perspective, and its Assimilation to the Whole, the Warrior Whole, which is the Perfect Order of the Warrior Kosmos.

    That may sound complicated but it's not -- it's really just Warrior 101.

    And it's a question, as I said, of perspective -- of whether the soul's perspective is particular and partial, "localized," idios and pleonektes -- to itself ; or Whole, that's to say, Global, Universal, and, Kosmic -- Warrior Kosmic.

    Perfectly -- Teleos -- Kosmios and Eukosmos -- Well-Ordered and Orderly.

    Τελεως Κοσμιος και Ευκοσμος

    Τελεως --

    Perfectly.

    For example, when Airman 1st Class Spencer Stone, a member of the US Air Force, heroically disarmed a terrorist, his commanding officer said that Stone exemplified -- we would say instantiated or embodied and enacted -- a key Air Force value -- "Service Over Self."

    Selflessness.

    He had demonstrated, in Aristotelian terms, that Self-less Self-Love which leads to Heroic Self-Sacrifice.

    Now --

    Before going futher -- what do I mean by Self-Love ?

    I mean what Aristotle meant by it, as explicated by classicist Werner Jaeger :

    [Aristotle] explains that human effort after complete areté is the product of an ennobled self-love (φιλαυτια) [philautia]. This doctrine is not a mere caprice of abstract speculation -- if it were, it would be misleading to compare it with early conceptions of areté. Aristotle is defending the ideal of fully justified self-love as against the current beliefs of his own enlightened and 'altruistic' age; and in doing so he has laid bare one of the foundations of Greek ethical thought. In fact, he admires self-love, just as he prizes high-mindedness and the desire for honour [Timé -- Worth], because his philosophy is deeply rooted in the old aristocratic code of morality. We must understand that the Self is not the physical self, but the ideal which inspires us, the ideal which every nobleman strives to realise in his own life. If we grasp that, we shall see that it is the highest kind of love which makes man reach out towards the highest areté: through which he 'takes possession of the beautiful'.

    The last phrase is so entirely Greek that it is hard to translate. For the Greeks, beauty meant nobility also [kalos]. To lay claim to the beautiful, to take possession of it, means to overlook no opportunity of winning the prize of the highest areté.

    But what did Aristotle mean by the beautiful? Our thoughts turn at once to the sophisticated views of later ages -- the cult of the individual, the humanism of the eighteenth century, with its aspirations towards aesthetic and spiritual self-development. But Aristotle's own words are quite clear. They show that he was thinking chiefly of acts of moral heroism. A man who loves himself will (he thought) always be ready to sacrifice himself for his friends or his country, to abandon possessions and honours in order to 'take possession of the beautiful'. The strange phrase is repeated: and we can now see why Aristotle should think that the utmost sacrifice to an ideal is proof of a highly developed self-love. 'For,' he says, 'such a man would prefer short intense pleasures to long quiet ones; would choose to live nobly for a year rather than to pass many years of ordinary life; would rather do one great and noble deed than many small ones.'

    These sentences reveal the very heart of the Greek view of life -- the sense of heroism through which we feel them most closely akin to ourselves. By this clue we can understand the whole of Hellenic history -- it is the psychological explanation of the short but glorious aristeia of the Greek spirit. The basic motive of Greek areté is contained in the words 'to take possession of the beautiful'. The courage of a Homeric nobleman is superior to a mad berserk contempt of death in this -- that he subordinates his physical self to the demands of a higher aim, the beautiful. And so the man who gives up his life to win the beautiful, will find that his natural instinct for self-assertion finds its highest expression in self-sacrifice. The speech of Diotima in Plato's Symposium draws a parallel between the struggles of law-giver and poet to build their spiritual monuments, and the willingness of the great heroes of antiquity to sacrifice their all and to bear hardship, struggle, and death, in order to win the prize of imperishable fame. Both these efforts are explained in the speech as examples of the powerful instinct which drives mortal man to wish for self-perpetuation. That instinct is described as the metaphysical ground of the paradoxes of human ambition.

    Aristotle himself wrote a hymn to the immortal areté of his friend Hermias, the prince of Atarneus, who died to keep faith with his philosophical and moral ideals; and in that hymn he expressly connects his own philosophical conception of areté with that found in Homer, and with its Homeric ideals Achilles and Ajax. And it is clear that many features in his description of self-love are drawn from the character of Achilles. The Homeric poems and the great Athenian philosophers are bound together by the continuing life of the Hellenic ideal of areté [Manliness, Manhood, Manly Goodness, Manly Excellence].

    ~W. Jaeger, Berlin, 1934

    [emphases mine]

    So --

    Aristotle says, in speaking of Self-Love, that "the Self is not the physical self, but the ideal which inspires us" ; and that, "the utmost sacrifice to an ideal is proof of a highly developed self-love."

    The ideal is always at once Noble and Beautiful -- Kalos ; and Noble Beauty aka Moral Beauty -- Kalon -- always reduces, as readers of this Lexicon know, to Areté / Areta, which is Manhood.

    Fighting Manhood.

    Meaning that the Self is not the physical self, but the ideal -- Fighting Manhood -- which inspires us.

    So it's a paradox, as so many Truths of our earthly and not-so-earthly Existence are : the Man with the most highly-developed Self-Love, that is, the most highly-developed Love of Fighting Manhood, is the Man who's most willing "to Sacrifice himself" -- for an Ideal -- which is Fighting Manhood.

    Jaeger :

    The utmost sacrifice to an ideal is proof of a highly developed self-love

    The ideal, again, is Fighting Manhood.

    And the "pattern-hero," in Jaeger's phrase, for that utmost sacrifice, that sacrifice of self, is Achilles.

    Whom Alexander spent all his life trying to emulate.

    And that Self-Sacrifice requires, always, and ultimately, Selflessness.

    L E O N I D A S



    Which is why Selflessness is a core Warrior Value.

    As core to the American Airman Spencer Stone as it was to the Spartan Warrior Zeuxidamas.

    According to The Air Force Times,

    Stone . . . said he fully expected to be mowed down when he charged the gunman on the train in Belgium.

    "I didn't think I was going to make it -- at all," Stone said. "So I was very shocked when I hit him."

    . . .

    Although he has been called a "hero," Stone said he considers himself just another airman.

    "I believe any other airman in the Air Force would have done the same thing," he said.

    Stone said he didn't have a plan when he ran at the gunman. He credits his Jiu Jitsu skills with saving his life in the scuffle, during which he was stabbed about an inch-and-a-half from his carotid artery and almost had his thumb severed.

    Even though he expected to be killed, Stone did not hesitate to try to stop the gunman from killing the passengers on the train.

    "I'm not going to run away," he said. "I'm not going to leave everyone to die. I'd rather die trying than sit back and watch everyone get slaughtered."

    Take note of what he says, because it really matters :

    "I'm not going to run away" [and save myself while leaving everyone else to suffer and die.]

    "I'm not going to leave everyone to die."

    "I'd rather die trying than sit back and watch everyone get slaughtered."

    At the moment of crisis, Airman Stone loses his partial and particular perspective and thinks globally.

    He thinks of his fellow passengers, his fellow human beings.

    And he acts -- to save, not himself, but his fellows.

    This statement is particularly significant, because it's indicative of a key Warrior value, a Warrior-World-of-Being value, A-philo-psychos -- disregard for mere life :

    "I'd rather die trying than sit back and watch everyone get slaughtered."

    Life is less important to Airman Stone than doing what's required of him as a Man, a Fighter, and a Warrior.

    And in that regard, American Airman Spencer Stone and Spartan Warrior Zeuxidamas are cut from the same cloth.

    So -- what's required is for the male soul to lose its partial or particular or localized perspective, and gain instead a Global and Kosmic -- Warrior Kosmic -- Perspective.

    When Stone, who was on vacation, ran at the terrorist, he wasn't thinking of himself -- he was thinking, at the least, of the other passengers on the train, and in a larger sense, of humanity itself -- as President Hollande of France pointed out in his speech prefatory to making Stone and his comrades Knights of the Legion of Honour.

    So Spencer Stone's perspective went from partial and particular -- Spencer enjoying himself on vacation -- to Global and Kosmic -- what's needed to save these three hundred people, and, in a sense, humanity.

    Being determines consciousness.

    A passenger in a train has his own partial and particular concerns.

    But a Warrior -- a Warrior who wants to be homoiosis Theo -- to be like to a God -- a Warrior God -- has to think Globally and Selflessly.

    When He does, He becomes like or similar to the Whole, the Warrior Whole, which is the Warrior Kosmos, and thus becomes Assimilated to the Perfect Order and Perfect Measures of the Warrior Kosmos.

    He becomes a Warrior God.

    In the Holy Communion of Ares Is Lord and Warrior Theourgia, we call that process :















    By Bill Weintraub

    Why is there both a World of Being and a Warrior World of Being -- the Warrior Kosmos ; and both a World of Becoming and a Warrior World of Becoming -- the Combatant Cosmos ?

    The answer involves both Functionality and Consciousness :

    • Functionality :

      According to Plato, the Idea of Good is the most important Form or Principle or Essence or Paradigm or Ideal in the World of Being.

      Yet, as renowned Platonist Paul Shorey points out in his introduction to Vol II of the Loeb Classical Library edition of Plato's Republic, "nowhere in Plato's writings are definite controversial arguments or substantive principles of ethical philosophy or rules of practice deduced from the idea of good."

      Which means, Prof Shorey tells us, and looked at functionally (and I'm paraphrasing), that the Idea of Good is "simply" the Good Purpose in some Controlling Mind able and eager to achieve that Purpose :

      Prof Shorey :

      . . .the idea of good is simply the hypostatization of what the idea of good means for common sense in modern usuage. It is the good purpose in some mind able to execute its purposes. It is what such a mind conceives to be the supreme end to which all other ends are subordinated and referred. (p xxx)

      The cause of any political or social institution is the purpose or idea of good in some controlling mind, and as Coleridge said and Mill repeated after him, the best way to understand any human institution or contrivance is to appreciate that purpose. That will throw a flood of light on everything. (p xxxvi)

      Bill Weintraub :

      So it matters whose Mind -- is doing the Controlling.

      In the case of Sparta, it was the mind of Lykourgos and the minds of all the Spartan Warriors who followed in his footsteps, and whose collective mind constituted the Spartan Homonoia -- the Lakedaimonian oneness of mind and thought, the Lakonic unity and concord.

      The Controlling Mind was a Warrior Mind.

      Indeed, and in the case not just of Sparta, but of the ancient world in general, the Controlling Mind was and is that of the Warrior.

      The Controlling Mind is the Warrior Mind.

      Which means that --

      Functionally, in the ancient world, and AS IT IS FOR US, the World of Being is the Warrior World of Being, and its Idea of Good is the Warrior Idea of Good, which is Fighting Manhood.

      That, to me, is not complicated -- it's simply a matter of Function or what we can call Functionality.

      And please remember, in that regard, that this Lexicon you're reading is titled MANHOOD : A Reductional, Functional, Teleological, Incantational, and, above all, Sanctional Lexicon.

      Functionality matters.

      So, and per Prof Shorey, Fighting Manhood "is the good purpose in some Mind" -- in the case of the ancient world, the collective Masculinist and Martial, Patriarchal, Pugnacious, Pagan, and Phallocentric Warrior Mind -- "able to execute its purposes. It is what such a mind conceives to be the supreme end to which all other ends are subordinated and referred."

      "the supreme end to which all other ends are subordinated and referred"

      Remember what we discussed in Warrior Theourgia and Warrior ManFight : Understanding the Relationship between Fight Agonia and Phallo Machia :

      ManFight -- which is, per Prof Jaeger, "Two Men Struggling to Perfect Their Manhood" -- Their Fighting Manhood -- is the Summum Bonum, the Supreme Good, "the Supreme End" or Purpose, "to which all other ends are subordinated and referred."

      And if that's the case, which it is, then functionally there has to be a Warrior World of Being, a Warrior Kosmos, Areios Kosmos, in which Fighting Manhood is the Idea of Good -- the Highest Good, the Paternal Father, Father and King of All, Father and Author of All.

      Because it's Good, Supremely Good, for Two Men to Fight, to engage in a Struggle of, for, and about Manhood.

      And Fighting Manhood is the Father of that Fight, and the Author of All which comes after.

      Which means that everything else is "subordinated and referred" to Fighting Manhood, to Manliness, to Manly Spirit.

      Fighting Manhood Is the Idea of Good.

      Ares Is Lord.

      Manhood Is God.

    • Consciousness :

      If, functionally, one's Idea of Good is the Martial and Masculinist, Patriarchal, Pugnacious, Pagan, and Phallocentric Warrior Idea of Good, which is Fighting Manhood, then one's consciousness or attention will quite naturally be devoted to that part of the World of Becoming in which Fighting Manhood is most operational -- and that's the Warrior World of Becoming, which we call the Combatant Cosmos.

      You see that quite clearly in the works of an author like Xenophon, most of whose writing is devoted to the Principle and Ideal of Fighting Manhood.

      That's obvious in historical works like the Anabasis and the Hellenika, but it's particularly clear in the Kyropaidia, which is described as an "historical romance," the romance in question being Xenophon's Life-Long Romance with Sparta and the Spartan Ideal of Warriorhood.

      Xenophon's Portrait of his Ideal Warrior is billed as that of Kyrus the Great ; but the Hero depicted isn't the historical Kyrus, but an amalgam of Agesilaos, Klearchos, and other Spartan Heroes, along with Xenophon himself, Sokrates, and the younger Kyrus, whom Xenophon followed into Persia.

      The Kyropaidia is a brilliant book -- among other things, it is, to my mind, the definitive manual on how to turn boys into Men -- and, not surprisingly, it was much loved by the Romans, including Men like Cato and Cicero and Scipio Africanus the Younger.

      Indeed, the Kyropaidia was for Scipio his "vade mecum" -- a guidebook and manual which was always at hand.

      So :

      In Iamblichan thought, the Cosmos is constantly being generated by the energeiai -- the energy, the acts, the operations -- of the Gods.

      If so, then clearly -- again -- the Combatant Cosmos is constantly being generated by the energeiai -- the energy, the acts, the operations -- of the Warrior Gods.

      Again, it's a question of consciousness or attention.

      The focus of the Warrior Gods, like that of Warriors, is on Fighting Manhood.

      Clearly, then, the attention of the Warrior Gods will be aimed at that part of the World of Becoming where Fighting Manhood is both venerated and exercised.

      And that's the Combatant Cosmos --

      The Warrior World of Becoming --

      Which is rooted in and constantly being in-formed by the Warrior Kosmos -- the Warrior World of Being.

    Finally, in Warrior Theourgia, when we refer to the Warrior World of Being, we use the word Kosmos with a "K."

    While when we refer to the Warrior World of Becoming, we use the word Cosmos with a "C."

    Thus a Kosmic Principle is a Principle of the Warrior World of Being, the Warrior Kosmos ;

    while a Cosmic Event envelops the Warrior World of Becoming, the Combatant Cosmos.




  • Kosmogonic Assimilation : The process through which, and by means of Warrior Askesis, through Askesis Areios, the Warrior Asketes directs the powers of his particular soul (mikros kosmos) -- his little kosmos -- into alignment with the Powers of the Warrior World Soul, an aspect of the Warrior Kosmos, and by so doing, gets direct participation in the Whole.

    This is something NONE of you understand.

    Yet by giving up his idios and pleonektes, by directing the powers of his particular soul into alignment with the powers of the Warrior World Soul, he's finally gone beyond thinking that the world was created for his sake -- he now understands that he was created to serve the world.

    He's given up his selfishness and become selfless -- and his Self-Less Self-Love has prepared him for Heroic Self-Sacrifice.

    In so doing, the Warrior has become a theios aner, universal and divine yet particular and mortal.




  • Embody and Enact : In Warrior Theourgia, Divine Principles from the Warrior World of Being, the Warrior Kosmos, are embodied and enacted, that is to say, they're instantiated, given sensible -- visible, tangible, physical form -- here in the Combatant Cosmos, the Warrior World of Becoming --

    Again, in Warrior Theourgia, Divine Principles, such as Fighting Manhood, which is the Principle of Principles, and which emanates from the Warrior Kosmos, aren't merely contemplated or talked about, but are embodied and enacted, they're given visible and tangible form here in the Combatant Cosmos, the Warrior World of Becoming --

    And when that happens, it's a "Work of the Gods," -- a Theourgia -- in which the human soul, which, remember, is divine, participates, both as recipient and beneficiary.

    So -- when a Divine Principle like Manly Virtue - Manliness - Fighting Manhood is embodied and enacted as part of Warrior Theourgia, that event, that instantiation, that mimesis, is a Work of the Gods, in which the male soul is both recipient -- it receives the God-Work -- in Iamblichan terms, it's the hypodoche or receptacle of the God-Work -- and its beneficiary -- the male soul benefits from the God-Work.

    Immensely.

    Because as that soul -- ideally, and over time -- as that soul, through continually embodying and enacting Divine Principles like Manliness and Manly Virtue -- assimilates to, becomes increasingly like to, increasingly similar to -- the Perfect Orders of the Warrior Kosmos --

    That male soul -- achieves its Warrior Godhood.

    And becomes not just a God-like Warrior.

    But a Warrior-God.






    Because it's through the Askesis Maches, the Discipline of Fight, that Men realize their Manly Excellence, which is their Fighting Manhood.

    So :

    Just as Excellence is intrinsic but latent in all that exists, including Man, and has to be realized in order to be expressed, so it is that for the Generated and Sensible Realm, the World of Becoming, to be complete and completely Ordered, the Principles and Ideals of the Warrior Kosmos have to be realized and then expressed in the Created Cosmos through being Embodied and Enacted.

    Because Embodiment and Enactment is crucial to the imposition and realization of Kosmic Order -- in and through the Warriordoms of the World of Becoming.








  • Receptacle : In ancient Greek, Hypodoche : Matter in the World of Becoming which is capable of receiving a Form emanating from the World of Being.

    Again, a receptacle is matter -- and while Plato uses many different words for matter, Aristotle uses the term hule, and that's the word Iamblichos uses --

    So that a receptacle is matter, which is, as Prof Shaw puts it, "receptive to an informing principle [from the World of Being]."

    Prof Shaw :

    Each level on the chain of continuity became the "receptacle" of its superior. Thus, the role of any level would be alternately "formal" or "material," depending on whether the movement was up or down the chain. This "functional" view of matter had been outlined by Aristotle in De Anima (430a, 10-13), where he says that the soul's cognitive powers are "matter" for the forms which they receive, i.e., insofar as anything is receptive to an informing principle, it is matter/hule with respect to that principle.

    [emphasis mine]

    So -- if the In-Forming Principle is Fighting Manhood, your manly soul is the receptacle of that Principle, and in that respect is "matter."

    Similarly, in a Fight, you and the other guy produce, through your actions, a receptacle for Lord Ares, who is the Divine Principle of Fight.

    Again :

    The In-Forming Principle is from the World of Being and emanates from the World of Being.

    The receptacle is, by definition, "matter" of the World of Becoming and receives the Form or In-Forming Principle in the World of Becoming.


  • Scission : cutting -- as in :
    The Paternal Monad produced matter out of the scission [cutting] of materiality from substantiality [ie, all Formal qualities] . . .











    Prof Shaw :

    Iamblichus's whole/part theodicy ["a vindication of the divine attributes, particularly holiness and justice, in establishing or allowing the existence of physical and moral evil" -- Google] held that the experience of evil was rooted in an incomplete perception, in a partial identity not yet sacrificed for the good of the whole (DM 186, 11-187, 3 ; cf book 4, chap. 5). In this Iamblichus was simply following Plato who, in the Laws, discussed the whole/part dichotomy in a similar way. Having outlined the order of the world, the Athenian stranger [that is, Plato,] says that individual souls must also make their contribution. They exist, he tells his listener, "in order that blissful existence be obtained for the life of the whole ; not for your sake was the world generated -- but you were born for its sake." (Laws 903c).

    The Part is generated for the sake of the Whole.

    You -- the embodied male soul -- exist "in order that blissful existence be obtained for the life of the Whole."

    Not just for you -- but for the life of the Whole.

    The Cosmos wasn't created for your sake.

    You exist -- for the sake of the Cosmos.

    The Combatant Cosmos.

    The Warrior World.

    And your existence is justified and has meaning only to the extent -- that you contribute to that World.

    That Manly World.

    To contribute to that Manly World requires that you yourself become Manly -- that you yourself become Willing and Able to Fight.

    Because you can't contribute to the Combatant Cosmos --

    Unless and until you yourself -- are a Combatant.

    A Manly Man.

    A Warrior God.



    And to become a True Combatant, a True Asketes and Athletes, your vision can be neither "partial nor fixed in unresolved oppositions."

    For example, there was this statement in the NY Times obit of climate-change scientist and astronaut Piers Sellers, who said, not long before he died,

    As an astronaut I spacewalked 220 miles above the Earth. Floating alongside the International Space Station, I watched hurricanes cartwheel across oceans, the Amazon snake its way to the sea through a brilliant green carpet of forest and gigantic nighttime thunderstorms flash and flare for hundreds of miles along the Equator. From this God's-eye-view, I saw how fragile and infinitely precious the Earth is.

    I'm hopeful for its future.

    That Man had a God's-eye-view.

    And so must you.


  • Paternal Mind / Paternal Monad / Paternal Father : The Unitary and Creator Spirit, the Father and King of All

    Discussion :

    A Monad is a Single Unit -- One ; from the Greek Monas, Monados -- a unit, monad.

    So it's basically the same word in ancient Greek -- as it now is in English.

    While a Dyad is Two, a Triad, Three, etc.

    And the Paternal Mind / Paternal Monad / Paternal Father / Paternal One are the same deal -- the same Entity.

    What about the term Paternal Father ?

    Isn't that a tautology -- in other words, isn't that like saying Father Father ?

    Yes.

    Why would the Greeks do that ?

    Because when it comes to the categories of Manly and Male, their use of language is incantational.

    Thus when Xenophon addresses his soldiers, he doesn't just say "Stratiotai" -- Soldiers.

    He says "Andres Stratiotai" -- Men Soldiers.

    Which, like Paternal Father, is a tautology, since in Xenophon's day, there were no female soldiers -- only Men could be soldiers.

    Why then does Xenophon address his troops as "Men Soldiers" ?

    Because he really really really likes the concept of Man and all the Manly Values which attach to that concept, Values which are not only core to but inseparable from Xenophon's Way of Thinking and his Way of Life.

    Both of which are the Warrior Way.

:

    That's what Xenophon believes.

    And that belief is rooted in the Warrior World of Being identification of Man/Manly, in such Alpha-Rho words as Arren and Arsen, with Lord Ares -- God of Fight, God of Manhood, God of Fighting Manhood.

    Put differently, Lord Ares is the source of Areté / Areta, which is "goodness, excellence, of any kind, esp. of manly qualities, manhood, valour, prowess (like Lat. virtus, from vir)."

    That's Liddell and Scott's definition ; and, Liddell and Scott add,

    From the same root [ΑΡΗΣ -- ARES] come areté, ari-, areion [better -- stronger, braver, more Manly], aristos [best -- strongest, bravest, most Manly], the first notion of goodness being that of manhood, bravery in war; cf. Lat. virtus.

    So :

    Lord Ares -- who, as you will see, is the Paternal Father -- is Manhood, Fighting Manhood, and thus the source of all Manly Excellence.

    Just as the Roman God of War Mars, Father of Romulus and thus Primogenitor of the Roman people, is the source of all Mas -- Masculinity, which is Manly Virtue ;

    So is Lord Ares the source of all Areté / Areta, which is "goodness, excellence, of any kind, esp. of manly qualities, manhood, valour, prowess . . . the first notion of goodness being that of manhood, bravery in war; cf. Lat. virtus."

    Lord Ares is the source of all Manly Excellence, which is Manhood, Fighting Manhood.

    And Xenophon understands that, feels it at the very core of his being, because Lord Ares has put Agapenor, the Love of Manhood and Manliness, at the heart of every male soul, and because Xenophon's Warriordoms, Athens and Sparta, have repeatedly helped him to UN-forget that Manly Love.

    So that both as a Youth and a Man, Xenophon has been able to live a Life of Manliness -- and to write about that life in a way that instructs other Youth and Men -- in the Manly Ways of Fighting Manhood.

    Indeed, Xenophon's many books extolling Manliness, including and especially the Anabasis and Cyropaedia, have educated Boys, Youths, and Men -- for more than two thousand years.

    So :

    The Root is ARES -- Alpha - Rho - Eta - Sigma : Α - Ρ - Η - Σ ;

    And it's the Greek letters Alpha - Rho : Α - Ρ -- which we see repeatedly.

    In words such as Arren -- Alpha - Rho - Rho - Eta - Nu : Α - Ρ - Ρ - Η - Ν -- male, the male, masculine, strong --

    Which the Greeks make into a substantive, a noun, to Arren : το Α - Ρ - Ρ - Η - Ν -- Manhood, Manliness, Virility, Strength ;

    And Areté / Areta -- Α - Ρ - Ε - Τ - Η -- goodness, excellence, of any kind, esp. of manly qualities, manhood, valour, prowess, bravery in war ;

    And Arratos -- Α - Ρ - Ρ - Α - Τ - Ο - Σ -- hard, firm, solid, unbending ;

    And Areios -- Α - Ρ - Η - Ι - Ο - Σ -- which means both devoted to Ares, warlike, martial, and, as a substantive -- Warrior.

    And Xenophon understands, as does every Greek Man, the plain fact that Lord Ares -- ΑΡΗΣ --, God of Fight and Fighting Manhood ; and such World of Being Principles -- ΑΡΧΑΙ -- as Manhood, Manliness, Virility, Strength, Goodness, Excellence, and Virtue -- are inextricably intertwined and interlinked, and that you cannot have one without the other.

    That there is no Goodness, Excellence, or Virtue, without the Manhood bestowed by Lord Ares --

    But that with that Manhood, that Fighting Manhood -- Goodness, Excellence, and Virtue are always present.

    And that fact is for Xenophon, as it is for me, a source of constant awe and wonder and joy.

    For Manhood is, as Plato says, Θειας Ανδρειας : God-like Manhood, Sacred Manliness.


    Now :

    In the Chaldean Oracles, a 2nd-century AD mystic text much consulted by Neo-Platonists and Theurgists, the Paternal Father creates Eros -- in order to draw the soul back to the Gods.

    Prof Shaw :

    Iamblichus argued that the effective agent in theurgy was philia, or, speaking Platonically, that eros drew the soul back to the Gods (Cf. De Mysteriis 239, 7-13). Although the heavenly cycles described in [Plato's dialogues] the Phaedrus and the Timaeus were the goal to which a Platonist aspired, it was erotic madness that brought him there. According to the Chaldean Oracles, Eros was the first God born of the Paternal Father ; Eros coordinated the Ideas in the intelligible world, and, proceeding with them, knitted the cosmos together in a unified bond. In a word, the will of the Demiurge [the Demiourgos -- the Craftsman or Artisan] was revealed as Eros :
    For after He conceived his works, the self-generated Paternal Mind sowed the bond of Love, heavy with fire, into all things . . . in order that the All might continue to love for an infinite time, and the things woven by the intellectual light of the Father might not collapse . . . [It is] with this Love (eros) that the elements of the world remain on course.

    According to the Oracles, the Demiurge filled each soul with a deep Love (eros bathys) to draw it back to the Gods.

    So --

    And to put this in terms of Warrior Theourgia and the Communion of Ares Is Lord --

    First off, and to us, the Paternal Father is the Manly Principle, which is Manhood, Fighting Manhood, hypostatized as and personified by Lord Ares, Lord of Fight, Lord of Manhood, Lord of Fighting Manhood.

    And Eros of course is His Son.

    In the Chaldean Oracles, that Son is conceived parthenogenically -- the scenario presented by the Oracles is another Myth of Male Parthenogenesis -- in which a Son is Conceived and Born of a Father without the aid of any female being -- see the Lexicon entries on Autochthon, Male Parthenogenesis, and Spartoi, for more discussion and examples of Myths of Male Parthenogenesis.

    So -- the Paternal Father -- which is Fighting Manhood which is the Warrior God -- creates Love, and "sows the bond of Love, heavy with Fire, into all things."

    And the Paternal Father, the Lord of Fight and Fighting Manhood, fills each male soul with a deep Love to draw it back to the Gods -- that Love being Agapenor, the Love of Manliness and Fighting Manhood.

    So that it's the Love of Manliness and Fighting Manhood which draws Men back to the Gods, the Warrior Gods, the Gods of Manliness and Fighting Manhood.

    Put differently, it's through the Love of Fight that Men find their Gods, which are actually just one God -- the Manliness, the Willingness and Ability to Fight, of Fighting Manhood.

    For Fight is the Father of all Fighting Manhood, and Fighting Manhood is the Father of all Fight.

    Prof Shaw :

    After asserting a primordial and ineffable God, Iamblichus describes the "first God and King" (De Mysteriis 261, 10), "God and principle of God" (DM 262, 4), who derived self-begotten as a "monad from the One" (DM 262, 4-5) ; and it is from this God, "the Father of Essence" (DM 262, 6), and Principle of Intelligibles (DM 262, 7-1), that matter is created. He says :

    God produced matter out of the scission [cutting] of materiality from substantiality [ie, all Formal qualities], which the Demiurge, receiving as a living substance, fashioned into simple and impassable spheres, and organized the last of this into generated and immortal bodies (DM 265, 6-10).

    . . .

    Iamblichus's metaphysical position was monistic, as can be seen in his summary of the Egyptian hierarchy :

    And thus, from on high to the lowest things, the Egyptian doctrine concerning principles (archai) begins from the One and proceeds into multiplicity, and the multitude in turn is governed by the One ; and everywhere the indefinite nature is ruled by a certain defined measure, and by the highest uniform cause of all things (DM, 264, 14-265, 6).

    Not only was matter divinely created ; even its furthest sensible expression was dominated by the supreme principle.

    . . .

    Bill Weintraub:

    Iamblichos asserts a primordial and ineffable God, the "first God and King," "God and principle of God," who derives self-begotten as a "monad from the One" ;

    This God is functionally identical to Herakleitos' Fight / Fighting Manhood Who is the Father of All and the King of All :










    This primordial and ineffable God, first God and King, God and Principle of God, is self-begotten -- which is yet another Myth of Male Parthenogenesis -- Male giving Rise to Male, Man giving Rise to Man --





    and this God is "the Father of Essence" and Principle of Intelligibles -- which means He's the Idea of Good -- as we have long asserted.

Fighting Manhood is the Idea of Good.










    So -- and firstly -- the self-generated Paternal Father -- who's identical with Lord Ares -- Lord of Fight and Fighting Manhood -- conceives and gives birth to his Son Eros -- who "knits the cosmos together in a unified bond" -- while Lord Ares himself fills each male soul "with a deep love (eros bathys) to draw it back to the Gods."

    And of course another name for the deep love, that eros bathys, is Agapenor, which means both Loving Manliness and Manly.

    So -- to truly Love Manliness -- the Willingness and Ability to Fight -- you yourself must be Willing and Able to Fight.

    For only the Man who is Willing and Able to Fight -- can know the True and Deep Love of Manliness, of the Ardent Willingness and Requisite Ability -- to Fight.

    Secondly, we need to understand that in the Warrior World of Becoming, which we call the Combatant Cosmos, and in its constituent Warriordoms, as well as in the Warrior World of Being, which we call the Warrior Kosmos, Fighting Manhood is the Supreme Good, the Summum Bonum, as well as the Idea of Good, the Primal Love, the First Cause, and the Sanction.

    And which emanates from the World of Being, the Warrior World of Being, where it's the Idea of Good, the Sanction, the Primal Love, and the First Cause.

    And that in any culture which views Fighting Manhood as the Supreme Good, the Primal Love, the First Cause, and the Sanction -- it's inevitable -- that Fighting Men will fall in Love with other Fighting Men.

    Inevitable.

    Because :

    You get what the culture says you'll get.

    And if Fighting Manhood is the Supreme Good, the Primal Love, the First Cause, etc. -- it's inevitable that Men will fall in love with the possessors of that most admired and desired trait.

    Doesn't mean they'll forget their responsibility, if such there be, to procreate.

    But they will Fall in Love with other Fighting Men.

    Classicist Werner Jaeger :

    It is, after all, easy to understand how a passionate admiration of noble bodies and balanced souls could spring up in a race which for countless years had prized physical prowess and spiritual harmony as the highest good attainable by man, and which had striven by grave and ceaseless rivalry, by exertion involving the utmost energies of mind and body alike, to bring those qualities to the greatest possible perfection.

    Men who loved the possessors of those enviable qualities were moved by an ideal, the love for areté. Lovers who were bound by the male Eros were guarded by a deeper sense of honour from committing any base action, and were driven by a nobler impulse in attempting any honourable deed.

    The Spartan state deliberately made Eros [Male-Male Love] a factor, and an important factor, in its agogé.

    "The Spartan state deliberately made Eros a factor, and an important factor, in its agogé."

    "noble bodies and balanced souls -- physical prowess and spiritual harmony" --

    "Men who loved the possessors of those enviable qualities were moved by an ideal, the love for areté" -- the Love for Manhood.

    Among the Greeks, there's always an Ideal -- the Ideal.

    And that's why we see and see repeatedly a premium put on Manliness and Manhood -- the Ability and Willingness to Fight.

    It's what the Paternal Mind, the Paternal Monad, the Paternal Father, the Father and King of All -- both Wants -- and Is.









Μαχιμος και Γενικος Ανδρεια






  • Filiation : the manner in which a thing is related to another from which it is derived or descended in some respect -- Google





  • Theodicy : a vindication of the divine attributes, particularly holiness and justice, in establishing or allowing the existence of physical and moral evil -- Google





  • Warrior Asketes : In the Warrior Theourgia of the Holy Communion of Ares Is Lord, a "Warrior Asketes" aka "Athletes Asketes" is a Practitioner of the Arts of Fighting and War, an Athletes, a Combatant, who is also a Warrior Theourgos -- a Warrior engaged in God-Work -- and who :

    • Assisted by his Warrior Daimon, Trains Constantly and Competes Regularly in Fight, having been endowed by Lord Ares with Ardent Willingness, and through the Discipline of Fight acquiring Requisite Ability ;

    • Assisted by his Warrior Hero, Realizes in both Psyche and Soma, body and soul, all the Attributes of Fighting Manhood, cultivating most importantly that Selfless Self-Love which leads the Warrior to Heroic Self-Sacrifice ; and,

    • Assisted by his fellow Warrior Asketai, Participates in the Creation of a Warrior State, a Warriordom, which is part of the Visible and Tangible Combatant Cosmos, and thus contributes to the Creation and Salvation of the Entire Generated Cosmos :

    All of which is done to ensure the Deification of his Manly Soul -- its Theogenesis -- through its Assimilation to the Perfect Orders of the Warrior Kosmos.


  • Warrior Demiourgia : At its most basic, Demiourgia or Demiurgy is the Ordering of Matter. Warrior Demiourgia, therefore, can be defined as the Ordering of Matter into the Combatant Cosmos, and is thus Warrior Cosmogenesis -- the Creation of the Combatant Cosmos through acts of Cosmic Ordering.

    Warrior Demiourgia, then, is the ongoing creation and generation, by Warrior Acolytes of Lord Ares and through the rites and disciplines of Warrior Theourgia, of the Combatant Cosmos ; in addition, and within the Holy Communion of Ares Is Lord, Warrior Demiourgia refers to the creation of a Warrior State, a Warriordom, in-Formed by the Principles of the Warrior Kosmos, and located within the Combatant Cosmos.










ΑxΡxΗxΣ
Σ Ω Τ Η Ρ


Manhood: A Lexicon

is presented by

The Man2Man Alliance

an Alliance of Men into Frot ;

and by

Ares is Lord

a Holy Communion of Men
Who Celebrate, Exalt, and Worship
Fighting Manhood
In the Divine and Sacred Person of
L o r dxA r e s,
The Warrior God
God of Fight, God of Manhood, God of Fighting Manhood

© All material Copyright 2021 by Bill Weintraub. All rights reserved.


Theodorus
It is not easy, Socrates, for anyone to sit beside you and not be forced to give an account of himself and it was foolish of me just now to say you would excuse me and would not oblige me, as the Lacedaemonians do, to strip [apoduo]; you seem to me to take rather after Sciron. For the Lacedaemonians tell people to go away or else strip, but you seem to me to play rather the role of Antaeus; for you do not let anyone go who approaches you until you have forced him to strip and wrestle [prospalaio] with you in argument.

Socrates
Your comparison with Sciron and Antaeus pictures my complaint admirably; only I am a more stubborn combatant than they; for many a Heracles and many a Theseus, strong men of words, have fallen in with me and belabored me mightily, but still I do not desist, such a terrible love of this kind of exercise [gymnastika -- nude exercise] has taken hold on me. So, now that it is your turn, do not refuse to try a bout with me; it will be good for both of us.

Translator's note:
Sciron was a mighty man who attacked all who came near him and threw them from a cliff. He was overcome by Theseus. Antaeus, a terrible giant, forced all passersby to wrestle with him. He was invincible until Heracles crushed him in his arms.

~Plat. Theaet. 169a, translated by Fowler.











Here did the Hellenes, flushed with a victory granted by Ares
Over the routed Persians, together, for Hellas delivered,
Build them an altar of Zeus, Zeus as Deliverer known.

Plut. Arist. 19.6

Warrior Kosmos, Warrior Sanction
Ares is Lord: Manhood is God


Plato was strongly opposed to the prevailing a-moralism and hedonism of his age.

He searched, says Shorey, for

arguments that would convince, or at least confute, the ethical nihilism of a war-weary, cynical and over-enlightened generation -- for proof, in short, that virtue and happiness coincide.

~Introduction to Book II of Plato's Republic

In seeking to confute that nihilism, and to demonstrate the Virtue -- which, as we've seen, is rooted in Fighting Manhood -- and Happiness coincide, there was no way Plato could escape the fundamental postulates of his own culture -- which was a Warriordom ; or of that culture's World of Being, a Warrior World of Being.

Suffused -- with Fighting Manhood.

Nor did he have any reason to wish to escape those postulates.

For they were not -- and are not -- dysfunctional.

To the contrary, it's the absence of manliness -- the want of Manhood -- which results in dysfunction, disorder, dis-harmony and dissonance.

For it is Manhood -- Fighting Manhood -- which gifts us with Order, Harmony, Discipline, and Restraint.

The main drift of the speculations of the pre-Socratic philosophers had been in the direction of materialism if not exactly atheism. The popularization of these ideas by the so-called sophists and their application to education, morals, politics and criticism of life had further tended to do away with all traditional moral and religious checks upon instinct and individualism. And the embittered class conflicts and the long demoralization of the thirty years' [Peloponessian] war had completed the work of moral and spiritual disintegration. The Greeks had lost their old standards and had acquired no new, more philosophic, principles to take their place. Plato's ears were dinned, he said, by the negations of materialists, atheists, relativists, and immoralists. How to answer them was the chief problem of his ethical philosophy. To satirize these immoralists or to depict their defeat in argument was one of the main motives of his dramatic art.

~Shorey, Introduction to Book II of Plato's Republic

Our society too has lost "all traditional moral and religious checks upon instinct and individualism."

Our society too is in a state of "of moral and spiritual disintegration."

Greed and hedonism reign.

Virtue is forgotten.

It is only the restoration -- the religious restoration -- of the Ethical Attributes and Moral Code of Fighting Manhood -- which will be able to re-awaken and re-call us to Virtue.

Manly Virtue -- which is -- Fighting Manhood.

Bill Weintraub

December 10, 2015

March 23, 2016





Χenophon, after relating the dramatic love story of Agesilaus' son Archidamus and a youth in the agogé named Kleonymus -- and it is a love story -- the translator, Brownson, writing in 1921, says that Archidamus was "extremely fond" of Kleonymus, but the Greek says Archidamus was "in love" -- erao εραω -- from Eros Ερως -- Romantic, Passionate Love -- with him --

Xenophon, after relating that dramatic story of romantic love between Warriors, tells us that when, seven years later, having promised Archidamus that he would never cause him shame, Kleonymus was killed at the Battle of Leuctra, his death caused Archidamus terrible pain -- but also brought him honour:

And Kleonymus, filled with joy, went at once to Archidamus and said: "We know now that you have a care for us ; and be well assured, Archidamus, that we in our turn shall strive to take care that you may never have cause to be ashamed on account of our friendship." And he did not prove false to his words, for not only did he act in all ways as it is deemed honourable [kala] for a citizen of Sparta to act while he lived, but at Leuctra, fighting in defence of his king with Deinon the polemarch, he fell three times and was the first of the citizens to lose his life in the midst of the enemy. And while his death caused extreme grief to Archidamus, still, as he promised, he did not bring shame upon him, but rather honour.

~Xen. Hell. 5.4.33, translated by Brownson.

So:

Archidamus was a real person, and a real Spartan Warrior, the son of King Agesilaus and, from 360 to 338 BC, king in his own right, who himself died in battle.

He was raised under Ta Kala, The Noble Way, The Noble Warrior Way, The Noble Warrior Way of Manly Moral Beauty -- The Spartan Warrior Code -- and he had a male lover, as was mandated under that code, a youth named Kleonymus who "of all the boys in the agogé, showed the greatest promise."

And remember that Xenophon, who relates the story, knew *everyone* involved -- indeed, his own sons, who were also killed in battle, were themselves brought up in the agogé as part, in Xenophon's own words, of "the so-called foster-children of Sparta," and at about the same time, possibly, as Kleonymus.

So Xenophon knew them all -- the adults, that is the adult Warriors, including the King, and the kids -- the Warriors-to-be.

And what happened is that Kleonymus' father -- a Spartan Warrior, a Spartiates, named Sphodrias, did something really bad, something for which he should have been executed.

So -- there were two fathers and two sons :

  • Agesilaus -- father, and one of the two Spartan kings ; and his son Archidamus -- the lover of Kleonymus

  • Sphodrias -- father, and a Spartan Warrior who had broken Spartan law ; and his son Kleonymus -- the beloved of Archidamus

And after his father had been indicted by the ephors on a capital offense, Kleonymus asked Archidamus to intervene with his father Agesilaus, the king :

The ephors recalled Sphodrias and brought capital charges against him. He, however, out of fear did not obey the summons ; but nevertheless, although he did not obey and present himself for the trial, he was acquitted. And it seemed to many that the decision in this case was the most unjust ever known in Lakedaimon. The reason for it is as follows :

Sphodrias had a son Kleonymus, who was at the age just following boyhood and was, besides, the handsomest and most highly regarded of all the youths of his years. And Archidamus, the son of Agesilaus, chanced to be in love with him. Now the friends of Kleombrotos [the other Spartan king -- there were always two Spartan kings] were political associates of Sphodrias, and were therefore inclined to acquit him, but they feared Agesilaus and his friends, and likewise those who stood between the two parties ; for it seemed that he had done a dreadful deed [invading Athenian territory and thereby starting a war -- without permission from the Spartan government].

Therefore Sphodrias said to Kleonymus : "It is within your power, my son, to save your father by begging Archidamus to make Agesilaus favourable to me at my trial." Upon hearing this Kleonymus gathered courage to go to Archidamus and begged him for his sake to become the saviour of his father.

Now when Archidamus saw Kleonymus weeping, he wept with him as he stood by his side ; and when he heard his request, he replied : "Kleonymus, be assured that I cannot even look my father in the face, but if I wish to accomplish some object in the state, I petition everyone else rather than my father ; yet nevertheless, since you so bid me, believe that I will use every effort to accomplish this for you."

At that time, accordingly, he went from the public mess-room [philition] to his home and retired to rest ; then he arose at dawn and kept watch, so that his father should not leave the house without his notice. But when he saw him going out, in the first place, if anyone among the citizens [Spartan Warriors] was present, he gave way to allow them to converse with Agesilaus, and again, if it was a stranger, he did the same, and again he even made way for any one of his attendants who wished to address him. Finally, when Agesilaus came back from the Eurotas [River, on whose banks the Spartans conducted their public business] and entered his house, Archidamus went away without even having approached him. On the next day also he acted in the very same way.

And Agesilaus, while he suspected for what reason he kept going to and fro with him, nevertheless asked no question, but let him alone. But Archidamus, on the other hand, was eager, naturally enough, to see Kleonymus ; still, he did not know how he could go to him without first having talked with his father about the request that Kleonymus had made. And the partisans of Sphodrias, since they did not see Archidamus coming to visit Kleonymus, whereas formerly he had come often, were in the utmost anxiety, fearing that he had been rebuked by Agesilaus.

Finally, however, Archidamus gathered courage to approach Agesilaus and say : "Father, Kleonymus bids me request you to save his father ; and I make the same request of you, if it is possible." And Agesilaus answered: "For yourself, I grant you pardon ; but how could I obtain my own pardon from the state if I failed to pronounce guilty of wrong-doing a man who made traffic for himself to the hurt of the state, I do not see."

Now at the time Archidamus said nothing in reply to these words, but yielding to the justice [dikaios -- moral order] of them, went away. Afterwards, however, whether because he had conceived the idea himself or because it had been suggested to him by some one else, he went to Agesilaus and said : "Father, I know that if Sphodrias had done no wrong, you would have acquitted him ; but as it is, if he has done something wrong, let him for our sakes obtain pardon at your hands." And Agesilaus said: "Well, if this should be honourable [kala -- if this should be morally beautiful, if it should be Worthy of the Noble Spartan Warrior Way, if it's congruent with our Fighting Manhood, if it's kala] for us, it shall be so." Upon hearing these words Archidamus went away in great despondency.

Now one of the friends of Sphodrias in conversation with Etymocles, said to him : "I suppose," said he, "that you, the friends of Agesilaus, are all for putting Sphodrias to death." And Etymocles replied : "By Zeus, then we shall not be following the same course as Agesilaus, for he says to all with whom he has conversed the same thing, -- that it is impossible that Sphodrias is not guilty of wrong-doing ; but that when, as child, boy, and young man, one has continually performed all the duties of a Spartan [ta kala],

[when, as child, boy, and young man, one has continually followed the Noble Warrior Way of Manly Moral Beauty,]

it is a hard thing to put such a man to death ; for Sparta has need of such soldiers."

The man, then, upon hearing this, reported it to Kleonymus. And he, filled with joy, went at once to Archidamus and said : "We know now that you have a care for us ; and be well assured, Archidamus, that we in our turn shall strive to take care that you may never have cause to be ashamed on account of our friendship." And he did not prove false to his words, for not only did he act in all ways as it is deemed honourable [kala] for a citizen of Sparta to act while he lived,

[And he [Kleonymus] did not prove false to his words, for not only did he act in all ways as it is deemed honourable [kala -- morally beautiful, characterized by Noble Deeds and Noble Achievements, following the Noble Spartan Warrior Way of Manly Moral Beauty, congruent with Fighting Manhood] -- for a citizen of Sparta to act while he lived,]

but at Leuktra,[371 BC] fighting in defence of his king [Kleombrotos] with Deinon the polemarch, he fell three times and was the first of the citizens to lose his life in the midst of the enemy. And while his death caused extreme grief to Archidamus, still, as he promised, he did not bring shame upon him, but rather honour [kosmeo]. It was in this way, then, that Sphodrias was acquitted.

~Xen. Hell. 5.4.24 - 33, translated by Brownson.

And so Xenophon tells us that the death of Kleonymus caused Archidamus "extreme grief" -- "terrible pain," says another translator -- though Archidamus was consoled by the fact that "as Kleonymus promised, he did not bring shame upon Archidamus, but rather honour."

And the word used for "bring honour" -- kosmeo κοσμεω -- is, and particularly in a Spartan context, a really interesting one.

Because, clearly, it's derived from Kosmos, Order.

κοσμεω Κοσμος

And it means to order, arrange, as well as, to honour, pay honour to.

And that's interesting in a Spartan context because Sparta was all about, as Shorey says, order, harmony, discipline, and restraint.

So Kleonymus' brave death in battle brought Archidamus order -- in the Spartan sense of discipline and harmony -- as well as honour.

Order is honourable.

Honour -- is orderly.

If so, then, did Archidamus lament -- aloud?

Well, he must have said something to somebody, because Xenophon knew about and didn't hesitate to describe -- Archidamus' "extreme grief."

Nevertheless, and as for a prolonged and literary lament -- the Warrior Code that Plato describes and prescribes -- wouldn't have allowed it :

What we affirm is that a good man will not think that for a good man, whose hetairos he also is, death is a terrible thing.

For a good man, an hetairos, death is not a terrible thing.

Nor will his hetairos -- think it so.

Indeed Plato insists on what to many of you will seem an almost extreme self-sufficiency.

Lose a son, a brother, your wealth?

The good man "makes the least lament and bears it most moderately," says Plato.

That's the ideal.

The Warrior should be self-sufficient in all things ; and, says Platonist Paul Shorey in a footnote, such "Self-sufficiency is the mark of a good man, of God, of the universe (Timaeus 33 D), of happiness in Aristotle, and of the Stoic sage."

But, Shorey adds, the Platonic ideal is restraint over misfortune ; the Stoic is apathy and insensibility.

So the Stoic ideal -- and Arrian, whom you also met in the Prolegomena, and who chronicled The Campaigns of Alexander, was a Stoic -- the Stoic ideal is even more extreme.

Nevertheless, it's clear that what Agis said

When asked how one should remain a Free Man [Eleutheros], he said: 'By despising death.'

was a cherished and fundamental Warrior norm, inculcated into Warrior Youth throughout not just Greece, but Warriordoms world-wide.

And it was a norm which Plato, himself a Warrior, and seeking to create ideal Warriors, fully and fervently endorsed.


© All material Copyright 2021 by Bill Weintraub. All rights reserved.








© All material Copyright 2021 by Bill Weintraub. All rights reserved.








Posts
from










Bill Weintraub

Bill Weintraub

THE POWER OF THE MASCULINE

7-14-2006

I've recently been in correspondence with a man who lives in another country, a "third-world" country in which much of the traditional culture is still in place.

He's an interesting and provocative thinker.

First of all, he believes, as we do, that Masculinity is biological -- not cultural.

But he then divides men into two groups.

Not "gay" and "straight," for these are labels, which like us, he understands to be false.

But into masculine-identified men and feminine-identified men.

He says that in his culture, and that throughout history, it's been the norm for masculine-identified men to have sex with other masculine-identified men.

Let's repeat that :

It's the NORM for MASCULINE MEN to have sex with other MASCULINE MEN.

Indeed, it's the norm and has been the norm not just for these men to have sex, but for these men to spend most of their time together.

For example, I said to my foreign friend that in the Alliance we believe that traditionally, cross-culturally, and historically, it has been normal and natural for masculine men to love other masculine men.

His response :

I'd say, it's rather been the norm. Even today in societies where same-sex relationships are tolerated as long as men get married and produce children (e.g. parts of Afghanistan) men tend to prefer other men for sexual bonding, while sex with women is treated more for procreation. In Afghanistan there is an old proverb among the macho pathans that "men are for pleasure and women are for procreation". This is exactly what the ancient Greeks believed.

So it seems men become heterosexuals only because of social pressures and conditioning. That would explain the intense pressures in the western societies to be heterosexual.

What does he mean by that ?

"Men become heterosexuals"

Does he mean that men are born with no innate sexual desire for women ?

No.

What he means is that masculine-identified men become EXCLUSIVELY heterosexual only because "of social pressures and conditioning."

So, he argues, human beings have undergone a process of forced "heterosexualization."

Which is not normal :

If you look at mammals as a species in the wild, you will find that there is only sex for procreation --- which by itself does not characterise heterosexuality. Most mammalian males if they mate, do it only a few times in their lives. And a big segment does not mate at all.

And there is no bonding with females at all --- well barring a few exceptions (1%).

Male-female mating is extremely short --- sometimes as short as a few seconds. After which the male and female depart abruptly without as much as a 'goodbye' or a parting kiss --- which are characteristic of masculine behaviour in the west. The male and female usually never see each other again. I wouldn't call that heterosexuality.

And then, there is no evidence of a presence of sexual repulsion towards other males --- even in the few males who do develop what can be remotely termed as a bond with females.

On the contrary, latest research (by the likes of Bruce Bagemihl) reveal that male-male sex is a near universal concept amongst mammalian males (from 90% in some species to 100%).


Stallions Nuzzling

In other words there is no heterosexuality in nature. At least not in mammals. There is some heterosexuality in some other species --- like in birds and insects (where it seems to be the norm if we are to believe the fruitfly study!), but humans are mammals not insects.

Again, when he says "there is no heterosexuality in nature," he doesn't mean that there's no "heterosexual" -- that is, male-female -- sex.

Or "heterosexual" desire.

He means that among mammals, the sort of exclusive heterosexuality which is the ideal in present-day Western culture is an anomaly.

AS IT HAS BEEN THROUGHOUT HUMAN HISTORY AND CULTURE.

What my correspondent maintains is that over the last 300 years, there has been a progressive heterosexualization, which is unprecedented in human history :

If there is no heterosexual society there would be no homosexuals. And no heterosexuals either. Male-male sex is isolated only because in the western society, its spaces and its customs are completely heterosexualised (i.e. made mixed gender with pressures to be heterosexual). But heterosexual spaces are themselves unnatural --- and it was only through financial and technological power brought by industrialisation that the western society could create such an artificial unnatural heterosexual environment.

"An artificial unnatural heterosexual environment."

Is he right?

I think he is.

In the message thread titled THE FALLACY OF THE FEMININE I gave this example of a warrior culture facing the challenges of AIDS in northeast Uganda :

The Karamajong cattle herders traditionally interacted little with communities outside their region. Sexual promiscuity was unheard of: girls remained virgins until marriage; warriors, though polygamous, stayed within the bounds of marriage; HIV/AIDS was kept at bay.

Drought and hunger are recurring features of life on the semi-arid grassland of Karamoja. Competition for water and pasture to feed the herds, regarded as a source of wealth and status, have produced a culture of raiding and warfare in which men are noted for their bravery and social standing.

That's a typical warrior society.

And we need to understand that the people we think of as the Greeks and the Romans -- people like Socrates and Plato and Cicero and Julius Caesar -- were no more than three or four centuries removed from living the way the Karamajong do.

For example, I've talked about the mythic Greek and Roman culture heroes Castor and Pollux -- Spartan fraternal twins whose mutual devotion was legendary.

Castor was killed by two other heroes, Idas and Lynceus, during a cattle raid.

And then Pollux -- Polydeukes in Greek -- and his father Zeus -- took revenge on Idas and Lynceus for the death of Castor.

Heroes rustling cattle?

Yes.

Here's a picture of the Athenian culture hero Theseus capturing a bull.


Theseus and the Bull of Marathon.
Notice how prominent the genitals are on both Theseus and the Bull.

The Karamajong, according to allafrica dot com, "have produced a culture of raiding and warfare in which men are noted for their bravery and social standing."

Men gain status by stealing cattle.

And of course by warding off thieves.

And that sort of cattle raid is apparently still common among the Karamajong.

Notice that the Karamajong are not promiscuous, and that they have a warrior society in which men and boys spend most of their time together.

How do I know that ?

Because the girls are virgins at marriage -- which means they're being kept separate from the adolescent boys.

Who of course are overflowing with testosterone and are spending all their time together learning how to be warriors and sometimes going on raids.

Under such circumstances, these masculine-identified males will naturally form sexual bonds.

Clearly such patterns persisted among the Greeks and the Romans, even as they ceased being pastoralists and became farmers and city-dwellers.

Their societies became, arguably, more sophisticated and more complex than that of people like the Karamajong.

But men still spent most of their time with men.

What's striking about both the Greeks and the Romans is the identification of the homosocial with masculine and the heterosocial with feminine.

That is, both the Greek and the Romans viewed men who spent most of their time with men as masculine and "hard" -- which they meant in a good sense.

Whereas, men who spent too much time with women became "soft."

The Roman word is "mollis," and by that they meant soft and specifically *effeminate* : unmanly, unwarlike, and unfit to rule.

So we can think of Greek and Roman society as having been only very partially "heterosexualized" -- if at all.

That ancient and magnificent world collapsed under the strain of two events :

Repeated invasions of barbarians from what is now eastern Europe and Russia ; and

The explosion of Islam out of Arabia.

The northern barbarians conquered Romanized Western Europe.

And then the Arabs cut the Mediterranean world in two.

That was 15 centuries ago.

What happened in the interval?

Sts. Serge and Bacchus, same-sex lovers
Click the book cover to learn more about them and these unions.

Well, John Boswell, who was chair of the history department at Yale until his death from AIDS in 1995, argued that for the first thousand years or so of Christianity in Europe, the church still honored and celebrated, as the Greeks and Romans had, "same-sex unions."

He wrote a very erudite book, titled Same-Sex Unions in Premodern Europe, full of citations from Greek and Latin and medieval languages, to back up his claim.

And then he died.

His book was attacked by the "gay" left, which at the time didn't support "gay" marriage and which was suspicious of anything connected to Christianity or the church.

But I suspect he was right.

Because significant segments of society would not yet have been "heteroseuxalized."

And the old patterns found among the Greeks, the Romans, the Celts, the Teutons, etc., and the Arabs, whose society was very homosocial, would have persisted.

Heteroseuxalization came much later.

Because heterosexualization was dependent upon changes wrought by the industrial revolution.

If my correspondent is correct, I and every other Western man born in the 20th century have lived our lives under an enormous lie.

Let me repeat that :

If my correspondent is correct, I and every other Western man born in the 20th century -- not just every "gay" man but every "straight" man too -- have lived our lives under an enormous lie.

The fact of the matter is that 'straight' actually means 'masculine'. It is only that the west has for long propagated 'heterosexuality' as masculine, so that today it is seen as being synonymous with 'straight'.

Again, the real meaning of 'queer' is feminine, although it is used interchangeably for 'gay'.

You should also know that the word 'homosexual' and later 'gay' was originally used for feminine-identified males who were believed to be feminine on account of their desire for men.

That's correct.

What does that mean for me -- and a lot of other Masculine-identified Men who Love Men ?

Throughout my life I've identified as Masculine.

And as a Warrior.

And throughout my life I've been told that I couldn't be Masculine -- or a Warrior -- because I'm "gay."

Suppose that's a lie.

Not just in the sense that "gay males can't be masculine."

But in the much larger sense which my correspondent has suggested.

That "straight" actually means not heterosexual -- but MASCULINE.

In which case I'm straight.

Not "gay."

Because EVERY masculine-identified man is -- straight.

Regardless of his sexual desires.

The divider is not exclusive desire for women or for men -- which does not exist -- but masculinity or effeminacy.

And masculine men in general have been cut off from their same-sex needs and desires by an enforced heterosexualization of society, which pressures many of them to say "yes" to a girl when they'd rather say "no" ; and "no" to a boy when they'd rather say "yes."

Throughout adolescence, young adulthood, and even as I got older, I had intense friendships with straight-identified guys where I was sure I could feel a sexual longing from them.

I put that down to wishful thinking.

After I met Patrick I knew that wasn't true.

Because he validated for me what virtually no other straight-identified guy would do.

He admitted that all the time he'd been fucking women, he'd also wanted to rub cocks with another guy.

THE WHOLE TIME.

30 years.

And then we put our hard cocks together and rubbed.

And I knew he'd told me the truth.

Patrick's unusual for a "straight-identified" guy, not because he likes to rub cocks, but because he's HONEST about it.

And in so being, he's defied "heterosexualization."

My correspondent tells an interesting story about horses -- specifically stallions.

He says that stallions bond -- naturally.

And that once they're bonded, they become extremely difficult to control.


Wild Stallions

So that the people who use horses in his country as working animals prevent such bonds from forming.

Instead, they pair male and female horses, and in effect force them to become a couple.

I have already mentioned that male-male bonds are considered a menace and the trainers prevent male horses from developing intimacy by not putting them together. Sex between males in horses is a well known fact (a horse breeding site also talks about this). But it is the way they are forced to bond with female horses which is more telling.

When they put the male horses for the first time with a female -- the horses react extremely negatively, even in an hostile manner. In the case I'm describing, the male horse had not eaten for a week when forced with the female. He must have been still young. I don't know if he had a male buddy before that. Then slowly he learned to adjust with the female. He had no other option, plus they trained him through rewards and punishments. And finally, he developed an intimacy with the female so much so that today he is inseparable with the female.

Isn't it how they treat humans? Does it tell us anything about human [exclusive] heterosexuality and how is it made possible? Doesn't the society use various mechanisms to psychologically keep men away from men sexually so as to keep them from forming intimacy?

Doesn't the society punish and reward men in order to train them to bond with women? And then claim that heterosexuality is natural / normal?

Is that what society does ?

Remember, my correspondent is not saying that men don't desire women.

He's saying that EXCLUSIVE heterosexuality among masculine-identified males must be culturally constructed.

That left to their own devices, men will form strong sexual and social bonds with other men.

And that such bonds will not interfere with their ability to marry women and have children.

Which we know to be true both historically and from our own experience.

What about the status of men in a heterosexualized society?

And what about the status of "gay men" in such a society?

The heterosexual society cares only for women. It sees men only as a problematic group that comes in the way of what is called women's rights.

Gay men are one of the most ardent supporters of heterosexualisation. They represent the dust bin created by the heterosexualised society to contain the mutilated/ negativised remnants of male-male sex that survives after the intense oppression of them in the mainstream...

Gay men (when I say gay men I mean effeminized and anally-receptive males and those who penetrate them) derive immense power from the heterosexual society. In fact they owe the heterosexual society their existence.

Again, my correspondent's analysis makes sense to me.

Women and feminine-identified gay males form a natural alliance -- whose purpose is to contain and indeed injure masculine-identified men and their masculinity.

I originally titled this post "saying no when you want to say yes."

What can we do to help straight-identified men in this heterosexualized culture to stop saying NO to other men when they want to say YES?

And what can we do to stop gay-identified masculine men saying yes to anal when they want to say no?

This is what I told my correspondent :

We can tell our fellow masculine-identified men that they can relate sexually to their fellows without any surrender of their masculinity or manhood.

And we can use these sorts of slogans and arguments :

"What MAN doesn't want his Masculinity heightened and his Manhood honored?

ALL MEN seek an increase in Masculinity.

ALL MEN desire an honoring of Manhood.

These are UNIVERSALS among MEN."

How is Masculinity heightened and Manhood honored?

Through Man2Man sex, specifically through Phallus to Phallus sex.

Man + Man = MORE Manliness

Phallus + Phallus = MORE Manhood

In our experience, that explanation is EXTREMELY powerful for men.

They respond to it.

And we emphasize that Man2Man sex honors Man2Man aggression.

We emphasize the combative, though affiliative, aspect of phallus to phallus, expressed through what we call natural male sex aggression.

My correspondent said to me:

"I admire your fighting spirit which is the hallmark of masculinity."

Exactly.

Fighting and Masculinity are intertwined.

Moreover, Men enjoy Fighting.

And they don't have to fight to the death.

There are playful forms of fighting and wrestling among men, as well as the more formal training in combat sports like wrestling, boxing, and martial arts, which satisfy their need for aggression and raise their testosterone and adrenaline levels.

Fighting gives them a rush.

And it excites them erotically as well.

Men like to fight.

Men who've not learned to fight may be fearful of fighting.

But once they've learned -- that fear vanishes.

It's what Naked Wrestler has said:











Finally, and understanding that connection, we work to return to men this word :






And what we have learned, is that Men respond to that one word like nothing else on earth.

In certain respects, Warrior is more important to men than husband or father.

We all know that men bond during war.

We know that very often men who've been through battle will say that they loved their fellow soldiers more than their family.

This is such a universal of male experience that it has to be rooted in biology.

Human males, like chimpanzee males, BOND to ward off and defeat groups of other males.

To kill them if need be and gain resources and reproductive advantage.

That's why that word "Warrior" has such power.

Men want to be WARRIORS because biologically it speaks to their genetic success.

And because sociobiologically it fulfills their NEED to BOND with their fellow MEN.

Their fellow WARRIORS.

12345678910
Spartan Hoplites

And the ULTIMATE expression of that NATURAL MASCULINE WARRIOR BOND is PHALLIC.

PHALLUS TO PHALLUS.

I know what our guys care about.

And it's not complicated.

They hate effeminacy.

They love Masculinity.

They want to be WARRIORS.

For there can no question of the power of the Warrior archetype.

Men respond to it.

As one of our true Warriors said to me:

"Right now m2m is the 'other' to both the straight and gay cultures. Masculine men, however, can defeat effeminacy. Getting men to remember and to reconnect with the value of the warrior will be their salvation."

He's right.

I've said that The Way of the WARRIOR is the Way of SALVATION.

That's the Truth.




I thank my correspondent and all the guys who over the years, have helped me see and stay true -- to that TRUTH.

Bill Weintraub

July 14, 2006

Updated :

December 30, 2017





In this Dialogue, written in the first century AD by Lucian but presenting an imagined conversation between the *sixth century BC* Athenian lawgiver Solon and a Scythian visitor to Athens named Anacharsis, we get some idea of what training in Fight Sport was like in ancient Greece -- starting with Athenian kids, and then progressing to Spartan youth:

Anacharsis: And another thing, my dear Solon, why are those young men acting in this way? Look, some of them are grappling and tripping each other, others are choking their friends and twisting their limbs, rolling about in the mud and wallowing like pigs. But before they began to do this, I noticed they first took off their clothes, then put oil on themselves, and in a peaceful fashion took turns in rubbing each other. But now, experiencing some emotion I do not understand, they have lowered their heads and are crashing into each other, and butting their heads together like rams! And look! There is one who has just seized the other by the legs and thrown him down; then he flopped on him and did not allow him to get up, but shoved him down into the mud. And now he is finally twisting his legs around the other person's waist and choking him with his arm under his throat. The other is slapping him on the shoulder, trying to ask him, I suppose, not to choke him to death. They do not avoid getting covered with dirt even to save the oil, but on the contrary wipe it off, and smearing themselves with mud and rivers of perspiration they make themselves ridiculous, in my opinion, by sliding in and out of each other's hands like eels.

Others are acting in the same way in the open part of the courtyard. However, these are not in the mud, but they have this deep sand in the pit which they sprinkle on themselves and each other, just like roosters, so that they cannot break out of their grasp, I imagine, since the sand decreases the slipperiness and offers a surer grip on a dry skin.

Others also covered with dust are standing up straight and striking and kicking each other. See that one there! Poor fellow, he seems to be ready to spit out a mouthful of teeth considering how full of blood and sand his mouth is; he has got a blow to the jaw, as you can see for yourself. But the official there does not separate them and stop the fight -- at least I assume he is an official from his scarlet cloak. On the contrary he encourages them and cheers the one who struck that blow.

All around different people are all exercising: some raise their knees as if running, although they remain in the same place, and as they jump up they kick the air.

What I want to know is, what reason do they have for doing this? It seems to me these actions are almost insane, and there is no one who can easily persuade me that people who act like this have not lost all their senses.

[Solon explains that customs differ from one land to another. He then explains to Anacharsis what is happening.]

Solon: This place, dear Anacharsis, is what we call a gymnasion and it and is sacred to Lykeian Apollo. You can see his statue, leaning against a stele, holding his bow in his left hand. His right arm is bent above his head as if the artist were showing the God resting, as if he had completed some laborious task. As for those exercises in the nude, the one done in the mud is called wrestling. Those in the dust are also wrestling. Those who strike each other standing upright we call pankratiasts. We have other athletic events: we have contests in boxing, diskos, and the long jump, and the winner is considered superior to his fellows and takes the prize.

Anacharsis: These prizes of yours now; what are they?

Solon: At Olympia there is a crown of wild olive; at Isthmia, one of pine; at Nemea, one woven of celery; at the Pythian Games, laurel berries sacred to the God, and here at home at the Panathenaic Games, oil from olive trees which grow in the sacred precincts. What are you laughing at, Anacharsis? Do these prizes seem valueless to you?

[Solon explains the symbolic value of the prizes, justifies the pursuit of athletics, the education of the citizens. Then Anacharsis asks Solon to explain the government of Athens.]

Solon: It is not easy, my friend, to explain everything at once in concise form, but if you will take one thing at a time you will learn everything about our belief in the Gods, as well as our attitude toward parents, marriage, or anything else.

I will now explain our theory about young men and how we treat them from the time when they begin to know the difference between right and wrong and are entering manhood and sustaining hardships, so that you may learn why we require them to undergo these exercises and force them to subject their bodies to toil, not just because of the athletic games and the prizes they may win there, for few of them have the ability to do that, but so that they may try to gain a greater good for the entire city and for themselves. For there is another contest set up for all good citizens and the crown is not made of pine nor of wild olive nor of celery, but is one which includes all of man's happiness, that is to say, freedom for each person individually and for the state in general: wealth, glory, pleasure in our traditional feast days, having the entire family safe from harm, and in a word, to have the best of all the blessings one could have from the Gods.

All this happiness is woven into the crown to which I referred and is acquired in the contest to which these exhausting exercises lead.

[Solon goes into more detail about the training of young men and about the responsibility of the citizens.]

Solon: As for physical training, which you particularly wanted to hear about, we proceed as follows. When the boys reach an age when they are no longer soft and uncoordinated, we strip them naked. We do this because first, we think they should get used to the weather, learning to live with different seasons, so they are not bothered by the heat nor do they yield to the cold. Then we massage them with olive oil and condition the skin. For since we see that leather which is softened by olive oil does not easily crack and is much stronger, even though it is not alive, why should we not think that live bodies would benefit from oil? Next we have thought up different kinds of athletics and have appointed coaches for each type. We teach one how to box, another how to compete in the pankration, so that they can become used to hard work, to stand up to blows face to face, and not to yield through fear of injury.

This creates two valuable traits in our young men: it makes them brave in the face of danger and unsparing of their bodies, and it also makes them strong and vigorous. Those who wrestle and push against each other learn how to fall safely and spring up nimbly, to endure pushing, grappling, twisting, and choking, and to be able to lift their opponent off the ground. They are not learning useless skills but they get the one thing which is the first and most important thing in life: through this training their bodies become stronger and capable of enduring pain. There is another thing too which is not unimportant. From this training they acquire skills which they may need some day in war. For it is clear that if a man so trained grapples with an enemy, he will trip and throw him more quickly and if he is thrown he will know how to regain his feet as easily as possible. For we prepare our men, Anacharsis, for the supreme contest, war, and we expect to have much better soldiers out of young men who have had this training, that is, the previous conditioning and training of naked bodies, which makes them not only stronger and healthier, more agile and fit, but also causes them to outweigh their opponents.

You can see, I should think, the results of this, what they are like when armed, or even without weapons how they would strike terror in their enemies. Our troops are not fat, pale, and useless nor are they white and scrawny ... enervated by lying in the shade, simultaneously shivering and streaming with rivers of sweat, gasping beneath their helmets, particularly if the sun, as now, is burning with noontime heat. What use could people be who get thirsty and cannot endure dust; soldiers who panic if they see blood, who die of terror before they come close enough to throw their spears or to close with the enemy? But our troops have skin of high color, darkened by the sun, and faces like real men; they display great vigor, fire, and virility. They glow with good health, and are neither shriveled skeletons nor excessively heavy, but they have been carved to perfect symmetry; they have used up and sweated off useless and excess flesh, and that which is left is strong, supple, and free, and they vigorously keep this healthy condition. For just as the winnowers do with wheat, so our athletes do with their bodies, removing the chaff and the husks and leaving the grain in a clean pile.

Through training like this a man can't avoid being healthy and can stand up indefinitely under stress. Such a man would sweat only after some time, and he would seldom be seen to be ill. Suppose someone were to take two torches and throw one into the grain and the other into the straw and chaff -- you see, I am returning to the figure of the winnower. The straw, I think, would burst into flames much more quickly, but the grain would burn slowly with no large flames blazing up nor would it burn all at once, but it would smoulder slowly and eventually it too would be burned.

Neither disease nor fatigue could easily attack and overcome such a body or easily defeat it. For it has good inner resources which defend it against attacks from outside, so as not to let them in, neither does it admit the sun or the cold to its hurt. To avoid yielding to hardships, great vigor springs up within, something prepared long in advance and held in reserve for time of need. This vigor fills up at once and waters the body in a crisis and makes it strong for a long time. For the previous training in bearing strain and hardship does not weaken their strength but increases it, and when you fan it the fire burns stronger.

We train them to run, getting them to endure long distances as well as speeding them up for swiftness in the sprints. This running is not done on a firm springy surface but in deep sand, where it is not easy to place one's foot forcefully and not to push off from it, since the foot slips against the yielding sand. We train them to jump over ditches, if they have to, or any other obstacles, and in addition we train them to do this even when they carry lead weights as large as they can hold. They also compete in the javelin throw for distance. In the gymnasium you also saw another athletic implement, bronze, circular, like a tiny shield with no bar or straps. You handled it as it lay there and expressed the view that it was heavy and hard to hold on to because it was so smooth. Well, they throw this up in the air both high and out, competing to see who can throw the longest and pass beyond the others. This exercise strengthens the shoulders and builds up the arms and legs.

As for this mud and dust, which originally seemed so amusing to you, my friend, listen while I tell you why it is used. First, their fall will not be on unyielding dirt but they will fall safely on soft ground. Next, their slipperiness has to be greater when they sweat in the mud. You likened them to eels, but the facts are neither useless nor humorous: it adds not a little to strength of the sinews when they are forced to hold firmly to people in this condition when they are trying to slip away. Do not think it is easy to pick up a sweaty man in the mud, covered with oil and trying to get out of your arms. All these skills, as I said earlier, are useful in combat, if it were necessary to pick up a wounded friend and carry him easily to safety or to seize an enemy and bring him back in your arms. And for this reason we train them beyond what is necessary, so that when they have practiced hard tasks they may do smaller ones with much greater facility.

We believe the dust is used for the opposite reason than the oil is, that is, so that a competitor may not slip out of his opponent's grasp. For after they have been trained in the mud to hold fast to something which is escaping from them because of its slipperiness, they then practice escaping out of the arms of their opponent, no matter how impossibly firm they may be held. Furthermore when this dust is used liberally it checks the perspiration and makes their strength last longer and furnishes protection against harm from drafts which otherwise attack the body when the pores are open. Besides, the dust rubs off the accumulation of dirt and makes the skin gleam.

I should dearly like to stand one of those white-skinned fellows who live in the shade beside one of our boys who work out in the Lykeion, and after I had washed off the dust and the mud, ask you which one you would like to resemble. For I know that you would choose at first glance, without hesitation, even without putting either through any tests, the one which is solid and hard rather than soft, weak, and pale, because what little blood he has has been withdrawn into the interior of his body.

[Anacharsis then ridicules the idea that athletic training could be useful in war. Why not save your strength, he asks. Solon explains that strength cannot be saved like a bottle of wine; it must be constantly used.]

Anacharsis: I just don't understand what you said, Solon. It is too intellectual for me and requires a sharp mind and keen insight. But above all, tell me this, why, in the Olympic Games and at Isthmia and Delphi and elsewhere, where so many competitors, you say, assemble to see these young men compete, you never have a contest with weapons but you bring them before the spectators all naked and exhibit them getting kicked and punched, and then, if they have won, give them berries and wild olives? It would be worth knowing why you do this.

Solon: My dear Anacharsis, we do this because we think that their enthusiasm for athletics will increase if they see that those who excel at them are honored and are presented to crowds of Greeks by heralds. Because they are to appear stripped before so many people, they try to get into good condition, so that when they are naked they will not be ashamed, and each one works to make himself capable of winning. As for the prizes, as I said earlier, they are not insignificant: to be praised by the spectators, to be a recognized celebrity, and to be pointed out as the best of one's group. As a result of these prizes, many of the spectators who are of the right age for competition go away completely in love with courage and struggle. If someone should remove love of glory from our lives, what good would we ever achieve, Anacharsis, or who would strive to accomplish some shining deed? But now it is possible for you to imagine from these games what sort of men these would be under arms, fighting for fatherland and children and wives and temples, when they show so much desire for victory in competing for laurel berries and wild olives.

Furthermore, how would you feel if you should observe fights between quails and between roosters here among us, and see the great interest which is shown in them? Wouldn't you laugh, particularly if you should learn that we do this in accordance with our laws and all men of military age are instructed to be present and to see these birds fight until they are exhausted? But it is no laughing matter, for eagerness for danger creeps insensibly into their souls so that they try not to seem less courageous and bold than the roosters nor to give in too soon because of injury or fatigue or any other distress.

As for trying them in armed combat and seeing them receive wounds -- never! It is brutal and dreadfully wrong, and in addition it is economically unfeasible to destroy the bravest, whom we could better use against our enemies.

Since you tell me, Anacharsis, that you expect to travel to the rest of Greece, if you get to Sparta, remember not to laugh at them nor think that they have no purpose when they compete in a theater, rushing together and striking each other, fighting over a ball, or when they go into a place surrounded by water [known as Plantanistas, or Plane-Tree Grove], choose up sides, and fight as if in actual war, although as naked as we Athenians are, until one team drives the other out of the enclosure into the water, the Sons of Herakles beating the Sons of Lykourgos or vice versa; after this contest there is peace and no one would strike another.

~ translated by Sweet.






At Sparta, the boys and youths in the agogé were regularly involved in gang fights, some, it would appear, improvised, but others institutionalized.

The two institutionalized gang fights that we know about are the Plantanistas, the Battle at Plane-Tree Grove, described by writers as varied as Cicero, Lucian, and Pausanias ; and the Struggle of, for, and about Manhood, described by Xenophon.

In the Plantanistas, the boys or youths are described by Pausanias as epheboi, an ambiguous and non-Spartan term which might mean they were eighteen, and thus "youths of fighting age" -- or younger -- lads, of some sort.

Those boys are organized into teams, the Sons of Lykourgos against the Sons of Herakles, and though Pausanias doesn't say how many were on a team, the numbers probably weren't great -- perhaps ten or twenty boys to a side -- though it might have been as high as fifty.

Because :

In the Struggle of, for, and about Manhood, the guys are somewhat older -- they're young Men.

And, according to Xenophon, the two teams consist of three hundred young Men each -- who get into fist fights whenever they meet.

Potentially, that's 600 guys in a gang Fight.

More than that we don't know.

Other than that Xenophon tells us that any bystander -- by which he means any Citizen-Warrior -- could stop the Fight at any time -- just by saying -- Stop.

And that any combatants who didn't stop would be fined by the ephoroi -- so that the young Men might learn to NEVER disobey a command.

Aggression and Obedience were the twin Spartan Virtues.

Regarding the Plantanistas, Pausanias, a Greek writer who lived in the second century AD, gives a relatively detailed account, starting with a description of other athletic and educational facilities extant at Sparta ca 170 AD :



ΠΑΥΣΑΝΙΑΣ


The Lakedaimonians [Spartans] give the name Dromos (Running Course) to the place where it is the custom even down to the present day to practice running. ... In the course are two Gymnasia, one being a votive gift of Eurykles, a Spartan. Outside the Course, over against the image of Herakles, there is a house now belonging to a private individual, but in olden times to Menelaus. Farther away from the course are sanctuaries of the Dioskouroi, of the Graces, of Eileithyia, of Apollo Karneios, and of Artemis Leader. ... At the beginning of the Dromos are the Dioskouroi Starters, and a little further on a hero-shrine of Alkon, who they say was a son of Hippokoon.

Beside the shrine of Alkon there is a sanctuary of Poseidon, whom they surname "of the House." And there is a place called Plantanistas (Plane-tree Grove) from the unbroken ring of tall plane-trees growing around it. The place itself, where it is customary for the youths to fight, is surrounded by a moat just like an island in the sea ; you enter it by bridges. On each of the two bridges stand images ; on one side an image of Herakles, on the other a likeness of Lykourgos. Among the laws [nomoi] Lykourgos laid down for the constitution [politeia] are those regulating the fighting of the youths [ten machen ton ephebon -- Pausanias uses the Athenian term ephebos -- the corresponding Spartan term may have been paidiskos -- in both cases, a Youth of Fighting Age].

There are other acts performed by the youths which I will now describe. Before fighting they sacrifice in the Phoibaion, which is outside the city, not far distant from Therapne. Here each company of youths sacrifices a puppy to Enyalios [Ares], holding that the most valiant of tame animals is an acceptable victim for the most valiant of the Gods. I know of no other Greeks who are accumstomed to sacrifice puppies other than the people of Colophon ; these too sacrifice a puppy, a black bitch, to the Wayside Goddess. Both the sacrifice of the Colophonians and the youth of Sparta are appointed to take place at night. At the sacrifice the youths set trained boars to fight ; the company whose boar happens to win generally gains the victory in Plane-tree Grove. Such are the performances in the Phoibaion. A little before the middle of the next day they enter by the bridges into the place I have mentioned. They cast lots during the night to decide by which entrance each band is to go in. In fighting they use their hands, kick with their feet, bite, and gouge out the eyes of their opponents. Man to man [aner pros andra] they fight in the way I have described, but in the mellay they charge violently and push one another into the water.

~Paus. 3.14.8-10, translated by Jones and Ormerod.

In addition to the sacrifice in the Phoibaion, Pausanias notes further along in his description of Sparta and Lakonika that the youths sacrifice to Achilles in his sanctuary :

Not far from Therapne is what is called Phoibaion, in which is a temple [naos] of the Dioskouroi. Here the [Spartan] youths sacrifice to Enyalios.

~Paus. 3.20.2

[There's also a] sanctuary [hieron] of Achilles. This is not customary to open [to the public], but all the youths who are going to take part in the contest [agon] in Plane-tree Grove [Plantanistas] are wont to sacrifice to Achilles before the fight [pros tes maches]. The Spartans say that the sanctuary was made for them by Prax, a grandson of Pergamus, the son of Neoptolemus [who was Achilles' son].

~Paus. 3.20.8.

That's Pausanias' account.

Sometime around 60 BC, Cicero witnessed that same Fighting.

This is his description as it appears in The Tusculan Disputations.

Cicero :

Pain seems to be the most active antagonist of virtue ; it points its fiery darts, it threatens to undermine Fortitude [Manliness], Greatness of Soul and Patience. Will Virtue [Virtus] then have to give way to pain, will the happy life of the wise and steadfast Man yield to it?

What degradation, Great Gods of Heaven!

Spartan boys utter no cry when their bodies are mangled with painful blows ; I have seen with my own eyes troops of youngsters in Lakedaimon Fighting with inconceivable obstinacy, using fists and feet and nails and even teeth to the point of losing their lives rather than admit defeat.


And here's Xenophon's account of the Spartan Struggle of, for, and about, Manhood :

    Λακεδαιμονιων Πολιτεια

    Constitution of the Lakedaimonians




[4.1] For those who had reached the prime of life [hebao] Lykourgos showed by far the deepest solicitude. For he believed that if these were of the right stamp they must exercise a powerful influence for good [agathos -- Manly Excellence] on the state [polis].

[2] He saw that where the spirit of rivalry [philoneikia -- love of strife, love of eager rivalry] is strongest among the people, there the choruses [choros] are most worth hearing and the athletic contests [gymnikos agon -- naked contests] afford the finest spectacle. He believed, therefore, that if he could match [symballo] the young men [hoi hebontes] together in a strife of valour [Eris peri Areté -- a Struggle of, for, and about Manhood -- not just valour, but all the attributes of Manhood] , they too would reach a high level of manly excellence [andragathia -- Manly Excellence]. I will proceed to explain, therefore, how he instituted matches [symballo] between the young men.

[3] The Ephors [ephoroi], then, pick out three of the very best [akmazo] among them. These three are called Commanders of the Guard [hippegretai]. Each of them enrols a hundred others, stating his reasons for preferring one and rejecting another.

[4] The result is that those who fail to win the honour [ta kala] are at war [polemeo] both with those who sent them away and with their successful rivals ; and they are on the watch for any lapse from the code of honour [ta kala].

[5] Here then you find that kind of struggle and strife that is Dearest to, Most Beloved of, the Gods [Theophilestatos], and in the highest sense political -- the strife that sets the standard of a Manly Man's [agathos] conduct ; and in which either party exerts itself [askeo -- either party practices, exercises, trains itself] to the end that it may never fall below its strongest, its mightiest, its most powerful [kratistos], and that, when the time comes, every member of it may support the state with all his strength, might and power [sthenos].

~Xen. Const. Lac. 4.5

[6] And they are bound, too, to keep themselves fit [euexia], for one effect of the strife is that they fight [pukteuo -- strike with the fist] whenever they meet [symballo -- to bring men together in hostile sense, to set them together, match them : to join in fight, come to blows] ; but anyone present has a right to part the combatants.

~Xen. Const. Lac. 4.6

The Struggle of, for, and about Manhood is the Struggle which is Most Beloved of the Gods, because it creates the Ethical Standard for a Manly Man's conduct.

And that Ethical Standard of course is Fighting Manhood, which Xenophon characterizes as being the Strongest, Mightiest, and Most Powerful.

Which of course it is -- it's the Strongest, Mightiest, Most Powerful, and Most Important Principle in the Warrior Kosmos.

And Xenophon says that those who take part in the Struggle here in the Combatant Cosmos must keep themselves in Good Fighting Trim, because they FIGHT -- with their FISTS [pukteuo] -- whenever they meet ; and Xenophon emphasizes that Fighting by using the verb symballo, which means that when the Men are Brought Together they Join in Fight and Come to Blows.

What Xenophon is here both describing and asserting is the ETHICAL SUPREMACY OF MEN WHO FIGHT, THE MORAL SUPREMACY OF FIGHTING MEN --

Saying that this Strenuous Physical Struggle of One Man Against Another -- this Struggle to Perfect Manhood, Fighting Manhood -- is Most Beloved of the Gods.

And in saying that, he's merely affirming, as any ancient Man would, the Supremacy of the Manhood-based Ethical System -- which is also the operating system of the ancient world.


Now :

Note the similarities in what Xenophon says -- ca 370 BC -- to this post by nakedwrestler in 2005 AD :

Last week I did submission grappling buck naked with a "straight" dude. We tapped each other out, over and over for 2 hours. When it was over and we were both totally drenched in sweat and exhausted, we jacked each other off. We both got hard-ons while grappling but never turned the grappling into a sex thing.

Getting an erection while grappling is a totally natural male response to one on one combat--especially if you're naked. It is quite the awesome experience to feel the sexual energy from naked aggression with another aggressive male. It's what males did for most of our evolution and history. Yes the other guy's scent can turn me on, along with his cool body and genitals. But I'm also attracted to the aggression. Aggression is a male turn-on BECAUSE it is very male to be aggressive. Males are attracted to aggression and therefore they are attracted to aggressive males. Like dissolves in like.

I think this has played a role in our success as a species. If aggressive males did not hang out together and train together over time then they would not have been able to conquer their neighbors and become the dominant group that we are today. It does NOT mean that you cannot have children and procreate just because you shoot our load with another dude once in a while or fight naked and get a hard-on from it. On the contrary it means that this IS the best way to procreate. Both dudes about to fight, having raging hard-ons is not a sign of femininity or weakness; it's a sign of having a lot of male testosterone which is why males fight in the first place. That kind of turn-on should be channeled into the fight to dominate your male opponent. Time to think outside the gay box.

Pre-industrialized, pre-screwed-up Judeo-Christian society did NOT recognize, or even have a concept of, gay or straight. Just try to find a reference to it in any literature before the industrial revolution. I think that a lot of "research" is some stupid attempt to pigeonhole males into one group or another, like some marketing tool.

Fight sports are bringing men together (and will continue to) in real male bonding better and faster than the gay movement ever can hope to do. I've come to that conclusion after going to fight school for the last 6 months.

The standard ordinary man is able to admit that fight sports can actually make his dick hard by watching or participating in it, and actually enjoys fighting in the first place.

I don't think I fit into that "10%" that researchers are always talking about. I think that in reality only 10% of males are NOT turned on by guys in an an all-male setting.

nakedwrestler



EXCERPTS FROM H RACKHAM'S INTRODUCTION TO ARISTOTLE'S NIKOMACHEAN ETHICS :

The whole structure [of Aristotle's Nikomachean Ethics] is coloured by the philosopher's teleological [purposeful] view of nature and of life. It is this that prompts him to base his theory of human conduct on the conception of the Τελος or End ; and the various implications of that conception, related but distinguishable yet not distinguished, do much to guide him to his conclusions.

Τελος -- Telos -- means not only nor primarily aim or purpose, but completion or perfection : the aim of a living organism, the final cause of its being, is to realize the potentiality of its nature, to grow into a perfect specimen of its species.

[So -- in my work I often quote classicist Werner Jaeger, who speaks of "Fighting Men Struggling to Perfect Their Manhood" -- and that's what Rackham is saying : "the aim of a living organism, final cause of its being, is to realize the potentiality of its nature, to grow into a perfect specimen of its species" :

the aim of the living organism Homo Sapiens is to develop, through struggle, into the perfect specimen of its species -- the Fighter]

Hence comes the assumption that not only can conduct or purposive action be centred on a single aim, from which the entire ethical system can be deduced, but also that this aim consists in the full development and exercise in action of man's natural faculties.

[ie, the full development and exercise in action of the Man's natural faculties as a Fighter, as a Fighting Being]

But again Telos also connotes End in the sense of ultimate point, the last term of a series, the summit and crown of a process. Hence the tendency to think of the End not as a sum of Goods, but as one Good which is the Best. Man's welfare thus is ultimately found to consist, not in the employment of all his faculties in due proportion, but only in the activity of the highest faculty, the 'theoretic' intellect. Not that the lower activities can be dispensed with ; for the philosopher is a man, and must live in the world of men, exercising the Moral Virtues, and the intellectual excellence of Prudence or Practical Wisdom which the Moral Virtues involve. But in strictness the Life of Action has no absolute value ; it is not a part of, but only a means to, the End, which is the Life of Thought.

Yet in the section of the Ethics devoted to the Moral Virtues they are described with an enthusiasm that seems to invest them with a substantive value of their own ; and this especially where the formula of the mean is felt to be inadequate, and is supplemented by the proviso that virtuous actions, to spring from a true habit of virtue, must be done του καλου ενεκα -- for the sake of the moral beauty and rightness of the act itself ; as if moral conduct were not merely a means or an indispensable pre-requisite, but a constituent part, of the Good Life. And the same is true of some places in the essay on Friendship, which is clearly felt not only to facilitate, but to augment and to enhance, the attainment of the End by the individual.

There is here an ambiguity in Aristotle's ethical doctrine which is nowhere cleared up.

Among all the relics of Greek antiquity, Aristotle's Ethics is one of those that retain their interest most freshly. To many readers, new to this kind of study, its application of rigorous logical analysis to the problem of conduct comes as a revelation. [a]

Footnote: [a] Prof Rackham : {Aristotelian} Henry Jackson wrote (Memoir, p 158) : It is an aperient book, if I may use the phrase. I have never forgotten the effect it produced upon me when I was an undergraduate.

[aperient is from the Latin aperio -- to reveal -- Aristotle's Ethics is a revelatory book]

It is true that a moral system which so exalts the life of the intellect is alien in many ways to modern thought and practice ; but in so far as Aristotle's End [Τελος : Completion, Fulfillment, Perfection] can be interpreted less exclusively, and taken to include complete self-development, the full realization in healthy activity of all the potentialities of Man's natural faculties as a Fighter, his teaching has not lost its appeal.

Aristotle's review of the virtues and graces of character that the Greeks admired stands in such striking contrast with Christian Ethics that this section of the work is a document of primary importance for the student of the Pagan world. But it has more than a historic value. Both in its likeness and in its difference it is a touchstone for that modern idea of the gentleman, which supplies or used to supply an important part of the English race with its working religion.

~H. Rackham, Christ's College, Cambridge, 1926


Bill Weintraub is the creator and webmaster of The Man2Man Alliance, an Alliance of Men who practice Phallus-Against-Phallus Sex ; and of Ares Is Lord, a Holy Communion of Men who worship Manliness and Fighting Manhood in the Divine Person of Lord Ares, God of Fight, God of Manhood, God of Fighting Manhood. 


The Man2Man Alliance

Manhood : A Lexicon

Ares Is Lord

Heroes

Personal Stories

| Manhood : A Lexicon | Hyacinthine Love | Certainties | THE FIGHT | Kevin! | Cockrub Warriors of Mars | The Avenger | Antagony | TUFF GUYZ |
| What's Hot about Frot | Warriors Speak | Warrior Fiction | Frot: The Next Sexual Revolution | Sex Between Men: An Activity, Not A Condition |
| What Sex Is | an anus is not a vagina | Combative and Aggressive | The Power of the Masculine | Natural Masculinity and Phallic Bonding |
| Heroes Site Guide | Toward a New Concept of M2M | Gilgamesh | The Greeks | Hoplites! | The Warrior Bond | Nude Combat |
| and now a few words from Publius Papinius Statius | The Comradeship of Wounds | Achilles on Scyros | The Mingling of Their Bones |
| Sweat the Sacrament of Naked Valour | His Valour Plain to See | The Right to Fight | The Eros of Aggression | Natural Masculinity and the Weight of the Lies |
| Agoge I : The Spear-points of Young Men Blossom There | | Agoge II : Flesh and Spirit | Agoge III : The Longing for Masculinity |
| Agoge IV : Excellence, Honour, and the Molding of Men | | Agoge V : A Nation of Heroes : State-Education in Sparta |
| Agoge VI : The Strife of Valour : Austerity and Equality at Sparta | Agoge VII : Two Spearmen |
| Cockrub Warriors Home | Heroes Home | Story of Bill and Brett Home | Frot Club Home |
| Reading | Definitions | FAQs | Join Us | Contact Us | Tell Your Story |

© All material on this page and this site Copyright 1997 - 2021 by Bill Weintraub. All rights reserved.

Society everywhere is in conspiracy against the manhood of every one of its members...The base doctrine of the majority of voices usurps the place of the doctrine of the soul.

Emerson

© All material herein Copyright 1997 - 2021 by Bill Weintraub. All rights reserved.


As for physical training, we proceed as follows. When the boys reach an age when they are no longer soft and uncoordinated, we strip them naked. We do this because first, we think they should get used to the weather, learning to live with different seasons, so they are not bothered by the heat nor do they yield to the cold. Then we massage them with olive oil and condition the skin. For since we see that leather which is softened by olive oil does not easily crack and is much stronger, even though it is not alive, why should we not think that live bodies would benefit from oil? Next we have thought up different kinds of athletics and have appointed coaches for each type. We teach one how to box, another how to compete in the pankration, so that they can become used to hard work, to stand up to blows face to face, and not to yield through fear of injury. . . .

And I encourage you to read the entire excerpt, which is not long, and highly informative, and which ends thus :

[At Sparta,] they go into a place surrounded by water [known as Plantanistas, or Plane-Tree Grove], choose up sides, and fight as if in actual war, although as naked as we Athenians are, until one team drives the other out of the enclosure into the water, the Sons of Herakles beating the Sons of Lykourgos or vice versa ; after this contest there is peace and no one would strike another.

~ Lucian, translated by Sweet.

This is from NW in 2005 :

Last week I did submission grappling buck naked with a "straight" dude. We tapped each other out, over and over for 2 hours. When it was over and we were both totally drenched in sweat and exhausted, we jacked each other off. We both got hard-ons while grappling but never turned the grappling into a sex thing.

Getting an erection while grappling is a totally natural male response to one on one combat--especially if you're naked. It is quite the awesome experience to feel the sexual energy from naked aggression with another aggressive male. It's what males did for most of our evolution and history. Yes the other guy's scent can turn me on, along with his cool body and genitals. But I'm also attracted to the aggression. Aggression is a male turn-on BECAUSE it is very male to be aggressive. Males are attracted to aggression and therefore they are attracted to aggressive males. Like dissolves in like.

I think this has played a role in our success as a species. If aggressive males did not hang out together and train together over time then they would not have been able to conquer their neighbors and become the dominant group that we are today. It does NOT mean that you cannot have children and procreate just because you shoot our load with another dude once in a while or fight naked and get a hard-on from it. On the contrary it means that this IS the best way to procreate. Both dudes about to fight, having raging hard-ons is not a sign of femininity or weakness; it's a sign of having a lot of male testosterone which is why males fight in the first place. That kind of turn-on should be channeled into the fight to dominate your male opponent. Time to think outside the gay box.

Pre-industrialized, pre-screwed-up Judeo-Christian society did NOT recognize, or even have a concept of, gay or straight. Just try to find a reference to it in any literature before the industrial revolution. I think that a lot of "research" is some stupid attempt to pigeonhole males into one group or another, like some marketing tool.

Fight sports are bringing men together (and will continue to) in real male bonding better and faster than the gay movement ever can hope to do. I've come to that conclusion after going to fight school for the last 6 months.

The standard ordinary man is able to admit that fight sports can actually make his dick hard by watching or participating in it, and actually enjoys fighting in the first place.

I don't think I fit into that "10%" that researchers are always talking about. I think that in reality only 10% of males are NOT turned on by guys in an an all-male setting.

nakedwrestler

Plato, in the Kratylos :

Ares, then, if you like, would be named for his Virility [arren] and Manliness [andreion], and for his hard and unbending nature, which is called arratos ; so Ares would be in every way a fitting name for the God of Battle-Fight-War [Theos Polemou].

~Plato. Krat. 407d

Section List

Book I :

Book II :



Me and the other boy would Fight, and at the same time
our cocks -- our hard cocks -- would Fight each other



© All material herein Copyright 1997 - 2021 by Bill Weintraub. All rights reserved.