The Great Mirror of Same-Sex Love - Prose - 107. Aurelius Polion letter to his partner Heron, circa 215 AD

One can see the frustration in this letter.

Here are some notes I jotted for this letter.

Notes:

- The papyrus was recovered in December of 1899, or January of 1900, from around the vicinity of Tutun in modern Egypt (Tebtynis in Ancient Greek, and the name referenced in Adamson’s 2012 paper). This village is a satellite community of Faiyum, which is about 40 miles south of Cairo. It’s unclear if this town was the letter’s destination, or wound up here in a trash heap many years – possibly generations – later.

- The missive’s passionate tone is directed at one person: Heron. There is “a history” with these two which is easy to discern. For we who are outsiders to the relationship, there is mystery in the mentioning of Aurelius joining the Roman army in a way that suggests having to do it to get away, followed by regret on Polion’s part for this rash act, coupled with a longing forgiving reconciliation. He states plaintively “Look, I am your partner . . . ”

- The tenor of this message alone suggests it’s penned from one spouse to another, as no blood-relation would write with such loving openness; such caring and hope for saving this selfsame relationship from the rocks. The “brother” title used here is clearly employed as the ubiquitous synonym for “partner,” or “husband,” or “spouse.” And such usage is attested to by literally thousands of documents from the ancient world where same-sex couples are continually referred to as brothers or sisters, both by the people in the marriages themselves and by outside observers of the unions.

- The opening salutation of the letter mentions names, but all specifically relatives of Heron’s, like his partner’s mother and sister. At the conclusion of the letter, Aurelius then asks his partner to extends further greetings to Polion’s side of the family, mentioning the letter-writer’s father, uncle and cousins. This too points out the obvious, that two sets of families are to be informed of the letter’s receipt. Or what can be understood simply as an “in-laws” situation. 

Therefore, speaking contextually, all the evidence one needs to understand this message as being from one partner to another is in the letter itself. Aurelius tells Heron to “greet my father . . . ” Surely, if they were blood-brothers, the phrasing would be “greet our father,” or simply “greet Father.” Modern Gay-erasures, with their all-too-manic drive to insist Gay people did not exist in the past – no matter the mountain of concrete material surviving to attest we most certainly did – cannot convolute their way into “explaining away” this detail. 

Grant Adamson. Letter from a Soldier in Pannonia. Bulletin of the American Society of Papyrologists 49 (2012), 79-94

https://quod.lib.umich.edu/b/basp/0599796.0049.001/79:10?rgn=full+text;view=image

Thanks for the notes above.  They explain much.

Gay and bi erasure has been going on for many, many years and centuries, I agree.  I could say more but it would take away from this translated letter.

One has to wonder why Heron remained silent through six letters. Was he dreadfully sick? Was he pressured to produce offspring? There’s no knowing, of course, and Aurelius alluded to no such possibilities. But the story tantalizes the reader millennia after that letter was written. 

An utterly fascinating piece by our v erudite author. However, as a (fellow?) medievalist I balk at the use of the construct “gay” when writing about radically different societies. I totally agree with @ReaderPaul and @AC Benus about erasure if we speak of homosexual relationships being ignored but to describe them as “gay” can lead us into many historical errors. M to M, or F to F relationships have surely existed since time immemorial, but I do feel care is needed lest we impose our 21st-century interpretation of any such historical relationship as “gay”.  
To say all this does nothing to take away the fact that this entry has intrigued me. Totally.  Thank you @AC Benus so much. 

14 minutes ago, Gary L said:

An utterly fascinating piece by our v erudite author. However, as a (fellow?) medievalist I balk at the use of the construct “gay” when writing about radically different societies. I totally agree with @ReaderPaul and @AC Benus about erasure if we speak of homosexual relationships being ignored but to describe them as “gay” can lead us into many historical errors. M to M, or F to F relationships have surely existed since time immemorial, but I do feel care is needed lest we impose our 21st-century interpretation of any such historical relationship as “gay”.  
To say all this does nothing to take away the fact that this entry has intrigued me. Totally.  Thank you @AC Benus so much. 

Same-sex love is the theme of this anthology. Applying the Victorian notion of the h-word as disease to people of the past is just as cruel as using it preference to the self-chosen identity of Gay, to advocate such would be akin to insisting Black people - past, present and future - be labeled "n*gro." But that is obvious. 

Just as obvious as people who formed relationships of love with people of their own gender in the past were, in every case Gay. You, no doubt, would not refer to Asians in Europe, just because they were there 200 years ago, as "orientals." 

In my opinion, only our enemies, those who wish to see us jailed, hanged, castrated, lobotomized, burned at the stake - again - still use the h-word label. 

I fear we will not be able to agree but that does not take away the respect I had for your piece of writing and which I believed I expressed correctly.  Good luck for your future endeavours.