Aristotle’s Perversion

Mar19

The ladies and gentlemen you see above are practicing the sexual roleplay called pony play, in which one of the two participants takes on the role of the horse and the other of the jockey. This is a quirky niche within the wider field of dom/sub relationships, yet according to the alternative sexuality expert Ayzad

aficionados can reach impressive levels of specialization: there are those who prefer working on posture and those who organize real races on the track, some live it as a sexual variant while others tend to focus on the psychological experience. Ponygirls often report loving this game because it allows them to regress to a primordial perception of the world, in which every feeling is experienced with greater intensity: many describe reverting to their usual “human condition” as harsh and unpleasant. Although there are no precise figures, it is believed that pony play is actively practiced by no more than 2,000 people worldwide, yet this fantasy is appreciated by a far greater number of sympathizers.

Ayzad, XXX. Il dizionario del sesso insolito, Castelvecchi. Edizione Kindle.

But few people know that this erotic mis-en-scene has an illustrious forerunner: the first unwilling ponyboy in history was none other than the greatest philosopher of ancient times1, Aristotle!

(Well, not really. But what is reality, dear Aristotle?)

At the beginning of the 1200s, in fact, a curious legend began to circulate: the story featured Aristotle secretly falling in love with Phyllis, wife of Alexander the Macedonian (who was a pupil of the great philosopher) .
Phyllis, a beautiful and shrewd woman, decided to exploit Aristotle’s infatuation to teach a lesson to her husband, who was neglecting her by spending whole days with his mentor. So she told Aristotle that she would grant him her favors if he agreed to let her ride on his back. Blinded by passion, the philosopher accepted and Phyllis arranged for Alexander the Great to witness, unseen, this comic and humiliating scene.

The story, mentioned for the first time in a sermon by Jacques de Vitry, became immediately widespread in popular iconography, so much so that it was represented in etchings, sculptures, furnishing objects, etc. To understand its fortune we must focus for a moment on its two main protagonists.

First of all, Aristotle: why is he the victim of the satire? Why targeting a philosopher, and not for instance a king or a Pope?
The joke worked on different levels: the most educated could read it as a roast of the Aristotelian doctrine of enkráteia, i.e. temperance, or knowing how to judge the pros and cons of pleasures, knowing how to hold back and dominate, the ability to maintain full control over oneself and one’s own ethical values.
But even the less educated understood that this story was meant to poke fun at the hypocrisy of all philosophers — always preaching about morality, quibbling about virtue, advocating detachment from pleasures and instincts. In short, the story mocked those who love to put theirselves on a pedestal and teach about right and wrong.

On the other hand, there was Phyllis. What was her function within the story?
At first glance the anecdote may seem a classic medieval exemplum designed to warn against the dangerous, treacherous nature of women. A cautionary tale showing how manipulative a woman could be, clever enough to subdue and seduce even the most excellent minds.
But perhaps things are not that simple, as we will see.

And finally there’s the act of riding, which implies a further ambiguity of a sexual nature: did this particular type of humiliation hide an erotic allusion? Was it a domination fantasy, or did it instead symbolize a gallant disposition to serve and submit to the beloved maiden fair?

To better understand the context of the story of Phyllis and Aristotle, we must inscribe it in the broader medieval topos of the “Power of Women” (Weibermacht in German).
For example, a very similar anecdote saw Virgil in love with a woman, sometimes called Lucretia, who one night gave him a rendez-vous and lowered a wicker basket from a window so he coulf be lifted up to her room; but she then hoisted the basket just halfway up the wall, leaving Virgil trapped and exposed to public mockery the following morning.

Judith beheading Holofernes, Jael driving the nail through Sisara’s temple, Salome with the head of the Baptist or Delilah defeating Samson are all instances of very popular female figures who are victorious over their male counterparts, endlessly represented in medieval iconography and literature. Another example of the Power of Women trope are funny scenes of wives bossing their husbands around — a recurring theme called the “battle of the trousers”.
These women, whether lascivious or perfidious, are depicted as having a dangerous power over men, yet at the same time they exercise a strong erotic fascination.

The most amusing scenes — such as Aristotle turned into a horse or Virgil in the basket — were designed to arouse laughter in both men and women, and were probably also staged by comic actors: in fact the role reversal (the “Woman on Top”) has a carnivalesque flavor. In presenting a paradoxical situation, maybe these stories had the ultimate effect of reinforcing the hierarchical structure in a society dominated by males.
And yet Susan L. Smith, a major expert on the issue, is convinced that their message was not so clearcut:

the Woman on Top is best understood not as a straightforward manifestation of medieval antifeminism but as a site of contest through which conflicting ideas about gender roles could be expressed.

Susan L. Smith, Women and Gender in Medieval Europe: An Encyclopedia (2006)

The fact that the story of Phyllis and Aristotle lent itself to a more complex reading is also confirmed by Amelia Soth:

It was an era in which the belief that women were inherently inferior collided with the reality of female rulers, such as Queen Elizabeth, Mary Tudor, Mary, Queen of Scots, Queen Catherine of Portugal, and the archduchesses of the Netherlands, dominating the European scene. […] Yet the image remains ambiguous. Its popularity cannot be explained simply by misogyny and distrust of female power, because in its inclusion on love-tokens and in bawdy songs there is an element of delight in the unexpected reversal, the transformation of sage into beast of burden.

Perhaps even in the Middle Ages, and at the beginning of the modern period, the dynamics between genres were not so monolithic. The story of Phyllis and Aristotle had such a huge success precisely because it was susceptible to diametrically opposed interpretations: from time to time it could be used to warn against lust or, on the contrary, as a spicy and erotic anecdote (so much so that the couple was often represented in the nude).

For all these reasons, the topos never really disappeared but was subjected to many variations in the following centuries, of which historian Darin Hayton reports some tasty examples.

In 1810 the parlor games manual Le Petit Savant de Société described the “Cheval d’Aristote”, a vaguely cuckold penalty: the gentleman who had to endure it was obliged to get down on all fours and carry a lady on his back, as she received a kiss from all the other men in a circle.

The odd “Aristotle ride” also makes its appearance in advertising posters for hypnotists, a perfect example of the extravagances hypnotized spectators were allegedly forced to perform. (Speaking of the inversion of society’s rules, those two men on the left poster, who are compelled to kiss each other, are worth noting.)

In 1882 another great philosopher, Friedrich Nietzsche, brought to the stage his own version of Phyllis and Aristotle, himself taking on the role of the horse. In the photographs, he and his friend Paul Rée are at the mercy of the whip held by Lou von Salomé (the woman Nietzsche was madly in love with).

And finally let’s go back to the present day, and to those pony guys we saw at the beginning.
Today the “perversion of Aristotle”, far from being a warning about the loss of control, has come to mean the exact opposite: it has become a way to allow free rein (pun intended) to erotc imagination.

Ponies on the Delta, a ponly play festival, is held every year in Louisiana where a few hundred enthusiasts get together to engage in trot races, obstacle races and similar activities before a panel of experts. There are online stores that specialize in selling hooves and horse suits, dozens of dedicated social media accounts, and even an underground magazine called Equus Eroticus.

Who knows what the austere Stagirite would have thought, had he known that his name was going to be associated with such follies.
In a certain sense, the figure of Aristotle was really “perverted”: the philosopher had to submit not to the imaginary woman named Phyllis, but to the apocryphal legend of which he became the unwilling protagonist.

Il cranio di Cartesio

Jan4

Réné Descartes è riconosciuto come uno dei massimi filosofi mai esistiti, il cui pensiero si propose come spartiacque, gettando le basi per il razionalismo occidentale e facendo tabula rasa della logica tradizionale precedente; secondo Hegel, tutta la filosofia moderna nasce con lui: “qui possiamo dire d’essere a casa e, come il marinaio dopo un lungo errare, possiamo infine gridare “Terra!”. Cartesius segna un nuovo inizio in tutti i campi. Il pensare, il filosofare, il pensiero e la cultura moderna della ragione cominciano con lui.“

Il filosofo francese pose il dubbio come base di qualsiasi ricerca onesta della verità. Epistemologo scettico nei confronti dei sensi ingannevoli, perfino della matematica, della materialità del corpo o di quelle realtà che ci sembrano più assodate, Cartesio si chiese: di cosa possiamo veramente essere sicuri, in questo mondo? Ecco allora che arrivò al primo, essenziale risultato, il vero e proprio “mattone” per porre le fondamenta del pensiero: se dubito della realtà, l’unica cosa certa è che io esisto, vale a dire che c’è almeno qualcosa che dubita. Il mio corpo potrà anche essere un’illusione, ma l’intuito mi dice che quella “cosa che pensa” (res cogitans) c’è davvero, altrimenti non esisterebbe nemmeno il pensiero. Questo concetto, espresso nella celebre formula cogito ergo sum, dà l’avvio alla sua ricognizione della realtà del mondo.

I ritratti di Cartesio giunti fino a noi mostrano tutti lo stesso volto, fra il solenne e il beffardo, dallo sguardo penetrante e sicuro: dietro quegli occhi, si potrebbe dire, riposa il fondamento stesso del pensiero, della scienza, della cultura moderna. Ma la sorte beffarda volle che il cranio di Cartesio, lo scrigno che aveva contenuto le idee di quest’uomo straordinario, l’involucro di quel cogito che dà certezza all’esistenza, conoscesse un lungo periodo di vicissitudini.

Nel 1649 Cartesio, già celebre, accettò l’invito di Cristina di Svezia e si trasferì a Stoccolma per farle da precettore: la regina, infatti, desiderava studiare la filosofia cartesiana direttamente alla fonte, dall’autore stesso. Ma gli orari delle lezioni, fissate in prima mattinata, costrinsero Cartesio ad esporsi al rigido clima svedese e, a meno di un anno dal suo arrivo a Stoccolma, Cartesio si ammalò di polmonite e morì.

Il suo corpo venne inumato in un cimitero protestante alla periferia della capitale. Nel 1666, la salma fu riesumata per essere riconsegnata alla cattolica Francia, che ne rivendicava il possesso. Le spoglie, arrivate a Parigi, vennero sepolte nella chiesa di Sainte-Geneviève per poi essere ulteriormente traslate nel Museo dei monumenti funebri francesi. Lì rimasero per tutto il tumultuoso periodo della Rivoluzione. Allo smantellamento della collezione, nel 1819, i resti di Cartesio vennero portati nella loro sede definitiva, nella chiesa di Saint-Germain-des-Prés, dove riposano tuttora. Ma c’era un problema.

Durante la terza riesumazione, di fronte ai luminari dell’Accademia delle Scienze, si aprì la bara e le ossa dello scheletro tornarono alla luce: ci si accorse subito, però, che qualcosa non andava. Il teschio di Cartesio mancava all’appello. Da chi e quando era stato sottratto?

Una volta annunciato lo scandalo del furto, cominciarono a spuntare in tutta Europa teschi o frammenti di cranio attribuiti al grande filosofo.

La quantità di reperti scatenò feroci controversie: come potevano esistere più teschi, e così tanti frammenti, di una stessa persona? Ironia del destino: il dubbio, che era stato alla base del Discorso su metodo di Descartes, veniva a intaccare i suoi stessi resti mortali.

(A. Zanchetta, Frenologia della vanitas, 2011)

Si venne a scoprire che già all’epoca della prima esumazione, nel 1666, il teschio era stato probabilmente sostituito con un altro; ma nel 1819 si era volatilizzato perfino il cranio posticcio. Oltre ai due teschi, fu possibile verificare che anche altre ossa erano state sottratte, per essere tramandate per oltre tre secoli in chissà quali ambiti privati.

E il teschio originale? Sarebbe rimasto per sempre ad adornare la sconosciuta scrivania di qualche facoltoso dilettante filosofo?
Dopo essere passato per decenni fra le mani di professori, mercanti, militari, vescovi e funzionari governativi, il cranio di Cartesio riemerse infine in un’asta pubblica in Svezia, dove venne acquistato e rispedito in dono alla Francia.

Era piccolo, liscio, sorprendentemente leggero. Il colore non era uniforme: in alcuni punti era stato sfregato fino a uno splendore perlaceo mentre in altri punti c’era una spessa patina di sporco, ma perlopiù aveva l’aspetto di una vecchia pergamena. E in effetti si trattava di un oggetto che aveva molte storie da raccontare, in senso non solo figurato ma anche letterale. Più di due secoli fa qualcuno gli aveva scritto sulla calotta una pomposa poesia in latino, le cui lettere sbiadite erano ora di un marrone annerito. Un’altra iscrizione, proprio sulla fronte, accennava oscuramente – e in svedese – a un furto. Sui lati si vedevano vagamente i fitti scarabocchi delle firme di tre degli uomini che l’avevano posseduto.

(R. Shorto, Le ossa di Cartesio, 2009)

Il teschio venne dato in consegna al Musée de l’Homme a Parigi, dove è conservato tutt’oggi.
Sulla sua fronte si può leggere l’iscrizione apposta dal responsabile della sottrazione originaria: “Il teschio di Descartes, preso da J. Fr. Planström, nell’anno 1666, all’epoca in cui il corpo stava per essere restituito alla Francia“.

Ancora oggi, paradossalmente, il cranio dell’iniziatore del pensiero razionale conserva tutto l’irrazionale fascino di una sacra reliquia.