I ought, as it seems to me, not to omit some remark on the subject of
boy attachments,[21] it being a topic in close connection with that of
boyhood and the training of boys.

[21] See Plut. "Lycurg." 17 (Clough, i. 109).

We know that the rest of the Hellenes deal with this relationship in
different ways, either after the manner of the Boeotians,[22] where
man and boy are intimately united by a bond like that of wedlock, or
after the manner of the Eleians, where the fruition of beauty is an
act of grace; whilst there are others who would absolutely debar the
lover from all conversation[23] and discourse with the beloved.

[22] See Xen. "Symp." viii. 34; Plato, "Symp." 182 B (Jowett, II. p.
33).

[23] {dialegesthai} came to mean philosophic discussion and debate. Is
the author thinking of Socrates? See "Mem." I. ii. 35; IV. v. 12.

Lycurgus adopted a system opposed to all of these alike. Given that
some one, himself being all that a man ought to be, should in
admiration of a boy's soul[24] endeavour to discover in him a true
friend without reproach, and to consort with him--this was a
relationship which Lycurgus commended, and indeed regarded as the
noblest type of bringing up. But if, as was evident, it was not an
attachment to the soul, but a yearning merely towards the body, he
stamped this thing as foul and horrible; and with this result, to the
credit of Lycurgus be it said, that in Lacedaemon the relationship of
lover and beloved is like that of parent and child or brother and