Caitlin Coomes
Gender and Sexuality in Antiquity — Response
2/28/02
The Relationship between Menstruation and Impotence
A well-written article not only clearly articulates its own point, but it also leads into related discussions and ideas. This is precisely what Molly Forrest has done in Menstruation in Virgins: Absolute Hysterics. Her argument brings to mind the interesting comparison to be made between "hysteria" in young Greek women and male impotence in Rome. Granted these biological phenomena are not exact parallels; however, the similarities and differences between Greece and Rome as well as men and women that are brought out by this comparison are worth noting. I strongly agree with Molly’s argument, and the comparison it leads to, between male impotence in Rome and this "hysteria" in Greek women, allows us to analyze the explanations and significance of these two biological phenomena in relation to one another.
There are definite similarities in the divine and magical explanations for male impotence and female hysteria. In the same way that Molly mentioned the women praying to the goddesses about marriage or menstruation, a poem written by Rome’s Catullus depicts a man wondering if his inability to hold an erection is because of witchcraft or sorcery (Bing and Cohen, Catullus, 27). The man worries, "Who says magic spells aren’t causing this slump in my powers?" (Bing and Cohen, Catullus, 35) Both cultures turn to some immortal force as a source of these abnormalities.
Impotence and hysteria were also partially explained by an emotional aspect. As Molly mentioned, the emotional stress of the new responsibilities on adolescent girls must have played a role in their hysteria. Similarly, Catullus’ poem states, "Add to this the shame…Shame itself got in the way, that was the second cause of my weakness" (Bing and Cohen, Catullus, 38). Impotence was such an unmasculine thing in Rome that if the man could not achieve an erection from then on the shameful emotions involved in that contributed to his continued impotence. Both impotence and hysteria were further agitated by the cultural stress placed on them by Rome and Greece.
Neither culture suggested that these were common events that could happen to any normal citizen, but the reasoning behind this differed between the events. Just as "hysteria" was viewed by the Greeks as a bizarre malfunction, it appears that the Romans thought of male impotence in a similar negative, abnormal light. A women’s stressful transition to the full responsibilities of womanhood was called hysteria, and a man’s inability to have an erection in Rome made his lover blame it on "a poisoner from Aeaea" bewitching him or else the man having another lover (Bing and Cohen, Catullus, 79). Neither event was looked upon as natural or favorable by their society. However, the Greeks attributed the hysteria largely to physiological defects; whereas Catullus’ poem does not dwell on the physiological short fall, but on the outside influences. This could be because the writings on hysteria were written by men about women, and the Catullus poem is the voice of a man speaking about himself. The inability to hold an erection and therefore the inability to penetrate was such an unmanly defect that it would make sense for the man to turn to divine or emotional causes rather than admit that he had a physical abnormality. The striking contrast between this and the detailed medical texts regarding hysteria is a comparison between the gender roles rather than Greece and Rome. Hysteria was about having a scientific base from which to explain and deal with female actions so as to keep them in the subordinate position. The magical explanations and shameful connotations surrounding impotence were about preserving the men’s dominant position and pushing away men who did not strengthen that position. Although impotence and hysteria had similar negative abnormal connotations, the significance of that connotation was different based on the sex of the affected individual.
Clearly the comparison between a male’s inability to hold an erection and the hysteria in Greek women can be analyzed from many angles. From the evidence provided by Molly as well as one of Catullus’ Roman poems, we can see the similar divine and emotional explanations for the two events. The comparable abnormal connotations are also apparent, but the physiological focus of hysteria and the lack of any physiological focus for impotence point to the superior and inferior gender positions in Greece and Rome. This comparison between male impotence in Rome and the female "hysteria" in Greece came out of the strong argument presented in Molly’s paper, which paves the way for many further discussions.
Literature Cited
Peter Bing and Rip Cohen, eds. Games of Venus. New York: Routledge, 1991.