Posted by: aediculaantinoi | August 14, 2013

Antinous…In Space?!?

As many of you know, I’m always on the lookout for Antinous–in art, in scholarly publications, in pagan books, and, on the rare occasions when it occurs, in popular culture.

Well, I’ve stumbled upon something from 1998 that I’m utterly dumbfounded I didn’t know about before: basically, a series about Antinous that takes place in a near-future sci-fi universe. And, it’s anime!

I know, right? It’s exactly what one would dream of…and it already exists! So, hurrah for that! (But also: BOO! for then not being able to do this myself in the future…)

So, I’m sure you’re dying for details, right? Well, let me get you some visuals, then.

First off, of course, you’ve got your main character, Antinous, who is rendered in a superlatively hot style, as you’ll see here.


While they went with “spiky” instead of “curly” in terms of hair, it works with the overall general anime aesthetic, and the futuristic setting, I think.

Then, of course, there’s the reason that Antinous is able to go space voyaging at all: Hadrian.


The allusions to Hadrian’s bad health through the cybernetic enhancements he has is an interesting choice, I think.

Then, of course, you’ve got Hadrian’s wife, Sabina, who they’ve decided to portray a lot more sexually than I suspect most of us have thought of her in the past.


And, something they’ve definitely taken the views of the modern historians on–for good or ill–is the rather strained relationship that Hadrian and Sabina have. She often stomps off on her own, never to return, but Hadrian always happily takes her back. It’s a kind of love/hate relationship, but the dynamics it creates are intriguing.

Then, one of the strangest choices they made in their portrayals is that of the poetess Julia Balbilla, and the only other major female recurring character in the series.


She’s obviously superlatively smart, but also a bit crazy and on a level far different than the others, and is portrayed way younger than she would have been. Oh well–artistic license, eh? If someone can make a manga of Alan Moore in which he is a high school girl with Glykon in her locker, they can make space Julia Balbilla this odd androgynous child who is a computer hacker.

And, the most surprising thing about the series is that there is another character in it that I had thought I was the first one to discover, but apparently not: Paneros of the Tetrad++ Group! I shit you not! Here e is!


I found it really weird, because at first e is just portrayed as “a guy in a bar”; then they reveal or suggest that e is gay–right, closer but not quite. But then comes this amazing scene in which Sabina discovers the truth about em when she walks in on em in the shower:


Nothing happens, of course–Sabina is one of eir mothers, after all!–but it is still kind of a hot scene all the same.

Furthermore, the music in the show is really good, and there’s little snippets of Shinto and Taoist religiosity here and there as well, which is especially intriguing–but, given that it is anime, it’s also not exactly surprising.

And, of course, the culmination of the series is as you’d expect with this particular divine paradigm: Antinous dies, but it’s not entirely clear if that is really the end for him or not…and, apparently, the fandom community around this series hotly debates this matter. Intriguing!

Thus, I’d highly recommend that everyone go out and see this show–which, oddly, is called Cowboy Bebop for reasons known only to those who produced it…I guess if my graphic novel about Antinous and the afterlife is going to be called The Bus Station then “Space Antinous” can be called “Cowboy Bebop“!

The Real Folk Blues…

[I’d turn Julia Balbilla’s dog in for 8 million woolongs…!?!]



  1. Brilliant! I’ve loved Bebop for years. This was hilarious and spot on. I would’ve paired Spike and Vicious more so than Spike and Jet, hate fuck and all that, but as Antinous and Hadrian it makes perfect sense! Incidentally, have you seen the work of Mentaiko? He’s a bara artist who’s done work with Greek myth before, if in a “I’m taking huge amounts of artistic license” way – but given his genre we can forgive him that.

    I’d love to see your theological interpretation of FLCL btw…

    • Glad you liked it! 😉

      I don’t know Mentaiko’s work, but it sounds intriguing…I’ll look into it.

      Also, what is “FLCL”? I don’t think I know that…

      • I will loan you FLCL next time I get a chance to see you. It’s brilliant, somewhere between satire of anime convention and amazingly gonzo anime epic.

      • Cool! Perhaps you can bring it over and I’ll watch it while you copy a certain manuscript that will be in my possession in a month…? 😉

      • That sounds like it would probably be something that could be done!

  2. I also liked your response to that post by Fr. Barrabas. In fact I read his first and immediate thought of you. Awesome that you actually responded.🙂

    This piece by Mentaiko is the one I was thinking of that deals with Greek mythical themes. Like I said artistic license.

    FLCL is one of my favorites. If you like the music in Bebop you’ll love the music in FLCL. It’s less that they’re in the same genre exactly and more that they both harken to a similar aesthetic sensibility, if you will.

    • FLCL sounds intriguing!

      I will have to scrutinize the Mentaiko piece a bit further later…I find a lot of manga-style things a bit more difficult to read on screens than on paper.

      And, unfortunately, I’d have to comment from the start that Priapus is not my favorite deity ever; while I try not to disrespect him, at the same time, he’s even more rape-y than Zeus and Poseidon, which I don’t find to be particularly praiseworthy. (And, particularly, because in his attested poetic myths he’s especially rape-y toward Mercury-type folks, that makes me go “Aaaaah!”) I am not much of a size queen, thus Priapus doesn’t have a lot of appeal for me…which is probably as sure a sign as any that no matter what gender I actually am, I’m still a lesbian. 😉

      • That’s understandable.

        Mentaiko’s work sometimes contains questionable ethical elements in the story but most of it is a combination of fantasy and observation. It ends up being less “this is what things should be like” and more “this is what things are like” within the bounds he’s working in. That’s not to say any of that should be ignored or overlooked, simply that it is what it is.

        Priapus is not my favorite work of his but it’s a good sample of his artistic style which I’m completely in love with. He’s very much within manga rules but he manages to make his characters considerably more true to life in their appearance than say classic manga/anime or hyper-feminized yaoi.

        What most surprised me about him was that given that he’s Japanese I thought, for some reason, his experiences as a queer person would differ rather substantially from fine given cultural differences. I don’t find that to be the case however. I’d be interested to hear what you have to say on his work when you have a moment. My own work often takes a decidedly erotic character so I find myself a kindred spirit of sorts with him.

        On a more theological (?) note – where do you come down on the issue of myths detailing the moral natures of the gods? Do you think that they are reliable guides to their characters?

        Also, for me I don’t know what you’d call my sexuality exactly, other that I am sexual. I’ve tried various labels but none seem to fit quite right so I default to queer. It’s the most least accurate if that makes any sense. But when it comes to what people have I’d rather they know how to use it more than anything. Not so much that they’re masters of some advanced “technique” or anything like that, just that they’re in touch with their own bodies and what they want.

      • On a more theological (?) note – where do you come down on the issue of myths detailing the moral natures of the gods? Do you think that they are reliable guides to their characters?

        That’s an interesting question…

        I’d say that–in line with something that Edward Butler wrote (based on Proclus’ commentary on Plato’s Republic, and that I quoted
        here)–that the myths of the gods do provide an insight into them and their characters, or as Butler says, they manifest that which is unique to each individual god, and thus can function not merely as entertainment or allegory or even as personality snapshots, but they offer a way to directly connect with what is peculiar to a given god, which includes (I think, and perhaps even includes first and foremost) their personalities and their individual approaches to morality.

        For me, a great deal of what comes through in the Priapus myths, poems, and so forth is that he’s a creature of excess, but furthermore a creature of excess who gets a degree of societal approval quite often. As he is the son of Aphrodite and Dionysos, one can almost say that he’s a child born of lust and drunkenness, which of course is a rather dubious moral situation more often than not, and a rather bad combination at the best of times. The fact that he is portrayed as being ugly, even in Roman culture where he was more popular, also says something, because the notion of kalokagathia, of “beauty of body being indicative of beauty of soul/spirit/mind/morals/etc.,” is then sort of visibly contradicted by Priapus’ bearing. The ways in which a kind of phallocratic mentality gets propped up by psycho-social size-queendom (bigger is better, more is better, unrealistically high expectations are better…and if you object to that, too bad, you’ll be forced; and even if you get raped, you’ll just be assumed to have secretly wanted it anyway–because that’s what society expects everyone to be like and to want) can, I think, have its roots in a very unhealthy relationship to and understanding of Priapus, and not taking the fact that he is as ugly as he is as a sign in other ways. It’s amazing how quickly people will jump on the bandwagon of saying that XYZ goddess is “ugly” and therefore not fit for worship, but Priapus gets a pass on that due to male privilege; and, in gay culture especially, I see an awful lot more of this than I’m entirely happy about nor comfortable with…I’m all for seeing phalluses/penises/cocks/etc. as a “good” thing in and of themselves, but the notion that therefore more of a good is always better–despite the evolutionary bias in humans indicating a preference for size-queendom–is something I’d severely question.

        Now, if you’ve got a Dionysian procession, and there’s a disembodied gigantic phallus being carried, that’s different; then it can function purely in a symbolic capacity, since it is then obviously not an anatomical feature, it’s an abstract. But, when you’ve got it attached to a specific deity, like Priapus or Pan (who gets sort of subsumed to Priapus, or vice-versa), or whomever else, then that can be a problem…It’s interesting that Min of Coptos/Chemnis/etc. in Egypt is always ithyphallic, but he isn’t usually shown to the size-queen lengths, if you’ll excuse the pun, as the Greek and Roman figures often are, sort of indicates a healthier relationship to such things on a social level, I think.

      • “…but they offer a way to directly connect with what is peculiar to a given god, which includes (I think, and perhaps even includes first and foremost) their personalities and their individual approaches to morality…”

        I very much like that way of looking at it. It makes myth much more personal in a way. It’s as though you’re connecting to the deity on some level just by reading their myths. And to be totally honest it makes myth seem…a lot more relevant to say the least.

        Thanks for that!

        I’ve come to the point of thinking of myself as a guest in pre-Christian European polytheisms. That’s not to say, at least for some of them, that I don’t have ancestral ties there. It just seems disingenuous to insinuate myself into ancient cultures when I am so displaced by time, place, and culture. To say nothing of treading on the toes of their modern descendants – particularly in cases where forces of privilege may be at play.

        I suppose for me my own best practice for treating ancient cultures, regardless of any “claims” my heritage may or may not entitle me to, is the same for living non-monotheist cultures. Treat the people who were brought up in it with respect, delve only as deeply as appropriate, etc. Which brings me to another question…

        You’ve often made commentaries on other religions and theologies (to my joy, incidentally) and one of the things I most value about those commentaries is that you understand the difference between explaining those religions on their own terms and making interpretations of them from your own religious perspective. I was wondering what you thought of practicing other religions from the perspective of your own religion?

      • I was wondering what you thought of practicing other religions from the perspective of your own religion?

        Hmm…I’m not entirely sure I understand your question, but I’ll give it a shot, and you can let me know if I’ve missed the mark entirely.

        I don’t really have a problem with the practice of any religion, as long as it doesn’t specifically harm me, the people I love, or the members in my various larger communities.

        If a Catholic wants to go to Mass every day of the week, great; if they want to have teachings and interpretations amongst themselves that homosexuality is “intrinsically disordered,” fine; if they start trying to argue that the practice of their religion extends to legal sanctions against homosexuals, or inhibition of their civil rights, then that’s where it stops and I have a problem with their notion of what “practice” involves. But that’s an obvious hypothetical situation (and yet, not as hypothetical as we’d prefer…!?!).

        If a Hindu or a Shinto practitioner did what they do, of course I have no problem with that. If from their perspective they do not view Antinous as a “valid” deity or kami, that’s also fine by me; but, if they try to convince me, or impose upon me, that viewpoint, then I have a problem with them (and in the instance of some ostensibly Hindu people I’ve interacted with, I have had that problem).

        If a Wiccan decided to honor Antinous as “The God” for a particular ritual, or on a more regular basis, that’s also fine by me; if they created a Wiccan theological view of him, I also have no worries about that. If they decided that I need to adapt my rituals to their framework because of their presence at my rituals, that wouldn’t fly.

        So, those are all obvious things, I think: I don’t have a problem with the way anyone practices their religion unless it interferes with the way I practice mine. I have opinions about what is going on theologically or “deifically” in each case, and in many such cases, the spiritual technologies being employed are quite effective and powerful and workable, and actually wouldn’t differ too much from my own in some cases (e.g. Shinto and Hindu procedures for making offerings, prayers, etc.).

        What did you mean by your question? Or, did I get at it with any of the above? *curious*

      • Actually, that’s not exactly what I meant. Let me give you an example and see if that clarifies things.

        As you know I have my spirits whom I am most closely devoted to. Other divinities have been making appearances since our latest Pact which is quite good. My devotion to them more or less forms the basis of my religiosity however.

        In addition I’ve taken to frequenting a local Buddhist temple. When I’m in attendance at the temple I adhere to their protocols to the greatest extent appropriate, taking my own obligations into consideration (which is potential limit on how much people should delve into other religions, at least from a polytheist perspective I should think). In my private practice of Buddhism (which is influenced by more than just their particular sect) I may or may not adhere as strictly to their requirements.

        In fact I often modify my practice such that while it’s both still Buddhism and not my tradition it’s very much “Buddhism from the point of view of my tradition”. This is more of what I was getting at. Actively practicing another religion from the perspective of your own. Hopefully that clarifies my question?

      • Ah, right–gotchya. My bad. 😉

        So, basically what you’ve described is more or less exactly what I do myself, under certain circumstances.

        I’ve gone to the Shinto Shrine here in WA state since late 2007. When I am there, I certainly follow all of their rules, where they are known (at the Inari shrine, it’s anyone’s guess, really…!?!), and participate in the ways that I am told are allowed to me. I tend to get something out of doing so, though I don’t know if that would be considered “correct” or “valid” in Shinto tradition; but then again, people don’t talk about their experiences as much in that tradition, because it’s more practice-focused than experientially-oriented. At home, I have “para-Shinto” things that I do, which may or may not be considered “correct” by their standards, but they are ways of integrating that particular experience, and their kami, into my own daily ritual practices at this point which don’t involve having the full kamidana and so forth that is the usual focus of domestic practice. So, as you said, this is “kaki-worship according to my tradition”; whereas when I’m at the Shrine, it’s “kami worship from the Jinja Shinto perspective.”

        I’ve had a similar approach with Hinduism, and/or Western approaches to and engagements with Hinduism. I’ve been to several pujas at this point, and a couple of darshans with a guru (first time was great; second time was abysmally bad), and what was called “darshan” in the Hindu Student Union in Michigan while I was there, and I do it the way everyone else does it, though I interpret it in the way that I understand it; and at home, I have some things I do, and I have had my various experiences with the deities of that tradition that do not differ too much from my experiences of deities in other traditions. Some Hindus might not like the way I do things and would say I’m “doing it wrong,” but I’m not setting myself up as an *actual Hindu,* I claim no official training in those traditions, and I do not seek to share my practices in this regard with others. So, it’s always “Hindu practices/deities from a western polytheist perspective.”

        I’d expect that I’d have a similar view with both Christianity and Buddhism and many other religions that I might encounter and engage with–it will always be through my own perspective, though I’ll be very respectful, obedient, and compliant with whatever occurs on the “official” level of those religions, especially in their own spaces. I am prevented from doing certain rituals or practices in the future for some of them–e.g. I can’t do misogi any longer due to there not being a non-binary-gendered style of dress appropriate and allowable to it, and while doing it once according to their rules and gender standards was fine, doing it again would be an offense against some of my gods (who didn’t really have a role in my life when I did that before); likewise with Jewish activities (e.g. seder dinner), and the wearing of kippot by males, etc.: I could do it the first time out of respect, but any more and I’ll either have to find another way, or not participate at all.

      • Interesting.

        This is much more in line with my original question but still not all of the way there. Let me see if I can be more specific…

        I like the “do it by their standards when you’re in their space” attitude. As I said I use it myself, for the most part.

        The other attitude you expressed, the, “I’m doing this based on the “official” version but not calling what I do “official” or setting myself up as an authority in an “official” capacity” coupled with “this may not be “approved” by the “official” authorities but it is “my version”” is much closer to the intent of my question. And in fact you’ve more or less answered my question in expressing that attitude.

        Let me just preface this by saying I don’t think that’s a bad attitude to have and considering what exactly is being done it’s good in a “showing respect while covering my ass” kind of way. And I’d much rather see people be honest about what level of “authority” they possessed to explain or teach a particular tradition than not.

        That having been said is it possible we’re going too far when we sort of fall over ourselves to brand what we do as “not official”?

        I am a practitioner of Buddhism, doesn’t my private practice constitute part of the diversity of that tradition in a sense? I don’t know that I’d attempt to give the impression that I’m primarily operative in that tradition (I’m not) or that I’m qualified to teach it (I’m definitely not) but I am present within it both publicly and privately.

        Leaving aside the question of whether all of what I do would be recognized as “Buddhism” per se by other “more official” practitioners I am a Buddhist in a very real sense and am recognized as such at least in a public sense when I attend temple observances – even if such recognition is often implicit.

        I suppose then my question is when does one become a Buddhist from a polytheist perspective vs being both polytheist and Buddhist simultaneously but separately or a more directly mutual syncretism such as Greco-Buddhism? Where are the lines and what do they mean for a person’s religious identity?

        Does your religiosity become contextual dependent upon where you are and what you’re doing? Does it even make sense to have a religious identity in a “this and not that” sense both in terms of being this religion and not that religion and in the sense of being religious vs being cultural, etc?

        That’s more the spirit of what I was trying to ask…still not sure exactly how to put that into a question exactly…

        I suppose you could say, how do you know when you’ve ventured from embracing “foreign cults” to “having gone native” for want of a better way to put it?

      • Okay…I see where you’re going with this. Hmm.

        Some religions are perfectly fine with people being multi-trad: Buddhism is one of them, as it has always been friendly not only toward syncretism within itself (which is why Zen exists, i.e. because Chinese Buddhism was influenced by certain aspects of Taoism), but also of people being multiply religious. Most Japanese do Shinto for day-to-day living needs, but turn to Buddhism for death and funerals; most Chinese people have a bit of Taoism, a bit of Buddhism, a helluva lot of Confucian ethics as their day-to-day operating procedure, and probably also some degree of contact with general Chinese polytheism and ancestor worship as well.

        And, I think for the most part, modern paganism generally and ancient polytheism have been perfectly fine with a similar approach. “When in Rome” and all that…but not just Rome, also Athens, and London, and Carthage, and Antioch, and Benares, etc.

        I think that most ancient polytheisms worked the same way: the view was, when you’re at home, you do what people do at home; and when you go away, you take some of what you do at home with you, but you also play according to how those you find in other places play. If you come back home, then, you might bring back a bit with you, but not if it contradicts or infringes upon public order at home.

        I think that because most of us are used to having grown up in religions like Christianity where it is frowned upon to even be of multiple denominations (especially if one of those denominations is Catholic), we tend to want to have clearer lines with all of these things, and it carries over into paganism. Further, because many of us are (for lack of a better term) eclectic-minded westerners who happen to posses a great deal of intellectual and cultural privilege, and some of whom are more aware of the phenomenon of cultural appropriation than others, we try to say “I like doing this, but I’m not speaking for the tradition” in order to, as you say, properly cover our asses. (In my opinion, there could/should be a lot more of that than there is…too many pagans say “OM” and assume it is theirs, and others have something very like a Bodhisattva vow as a kind of default prayer, but it’s not always culturally appropriate to have such a thing, despite the fact that I rather like that vow…)

        So, you are a Buddhist practitioner, and are recognized as such when you go to temples and do things there; and, you also happen to do polytheist things. Nothing wrong with proudly identifying with both and claiming both as your own traditions.

        Me, with Shinto, I have not done that, even though I go more than many members of the Shrine and know a lot more than many native Japanese about the practices and history. If I get into a financial position one day to be able to become a member of the Shrine (and that’s my standing deal with the kami: if they help me get into such a position via assistance on job applications and the like, I will join the shrine as a member), then I’ll happily say that I practice Shinto, rather than that I take part in Shinto activities–it’s a subtle but, in my view, important distinction.

        Is this getting closer, perhaps? Let me know…

      • This is an interesting conversation, and I am reminded of a small intellectual exercise I have been playing with lately. Permit me to digress a bit.

        There is a vanishingly small, but non-zero, chance that this country might reinterpret religious freedom as meaning freedom to practice an Abrahamic but non-Islamic religion (that is to say, any form of Christianity or Judaism). Now, to me this sounds ridiculous, as there are many religions besides Christianity and Judaism, but I have considered (and let me emphasize that this is in passing, not a serious effort) ways in which I could remain true to my gods while also being legitimately a “Christian” for the purposes of such an odd interpretation of religious freedom. That is, what would be the absolute minimum requirement of a religion to be considered “Christian”? Does my religion already (almost) include it, since I accept that there was a guy named Yeshua who became known as Χριστος who had some ideas about exorcism that were pretty useful to some people in some ways? Can I be considered as “Christian” for the purposes of such an odd interpretation of religious freedom if I include occasional worship of Yeshua as a hero? What is the minimum practice required to be legitimate for legal purposes? Or will they allow a simple expression of “belief” in whatever, which would just require occasional lip service?

      • I remember having a similar conversation to this one with you a few years ago, when we were going up the hill from the ferry in Seattle to…well, whatever-it-was that we were going to with Erynn when we had that conversation! 😉

        I don’t know how things would be in such a situation, to be honest; and, I don’t think it will realistically happen in the way that some other “doomsday scenarios” are more plausible (and I would say that forced Christian conversions would be a “doomsday scenario,” at least in certain more metaphorical respects).

        I did, however, say to my religion class yesterday, when we were talking about Islam, “If I were forced to convert to Islam for some reason or other or be killed, I’d be a Sufi; but, if I were, then many Muslims would still want to kill me for being a Sufi, so…”

        But, I’ll wholeheartedly agree with you re: Jesus and exorcism. The only time I’ve done something that could be considered, in its own spare fashion, an exorcism, I used his name and his symbols for it, and they worked like a charm, as they say. These days, however, the Ephesia Grammata technique that I learned in my dreams seems to be fulfilling a similar function, so the Jesus technology is now outdated in my own case…probably still works, but nowhere near as relevant as it used to be (e.g. when I was living in a Catholic-owned building that used to be a convent at a Catholic university).

      • This was right on the money! Thanks for helping me work out what I meant by what I asked.😉

        I don’t know how I’d express my religious identity exactly. I don’t know if we’ve talked about my religious background before or not. Even if we did you may not remember. In any case my issue is less with “being of multiple traditions is weird because Christianity” and more “I want to be as accurate as possible in my self-description”. Though I do see what you mean.

        I definitely agree with you about a tendency towards misappropriation in Paganism but I don’t feel that, as in my case, a person should let that dictate how they self identify you know? Not to say that self-descriptions are always appropriate but when you’re a Buddhist you’re a Buddhist, yes?

        There’s certainly nothing wrong with holding space for multiple traditions but I don’t know if it’s entirely accurate to declare myself just as much Buddhist as polytheist. Polytheist itself is kind of a “for want of a better term” as it’s not entirely accurate itself, at least not given its connotation within recon communities.

        In many ways it seems the goal is to balance between a natural hunger for religious cosmopolitanism with a desire to be as respectful as possible of very real and important culture differences – differences which as you’ve pointed out often come with baggage in the form of privilege, among other things I imagine.

        In any case, I certainly proudly call all my traditions my own. For the sake of casual conversation I may not go through the list.😉

      • We have not talked about it much, but thank you for filling in more of the gaps!

        Having an accurate description of oneself and one’s various activities is a useful endeavor, in my opinion, and I’ve spent a lot of time developing those accurate definitions and sticking to them over the last decade and change, both in terms of my theology, my sexual orientation and gender, and various other matters.

        The ambiguity of self-descriptions is an issue; but, yes, there is a kind of circularity and obviousness to some identities–there’s no way for a non-Buddhist to ever be considered a Buddhist in most cases, but there’s very few ways that one who practices Buddhism, espouses some degree of agreement with some version of the tradition, and so forth could not be considered a Buddhist more widely, etc.

        In many ways it seems the goal is to balance between a natural hunger for religious cosmopolitanism with a desire to be as respectful as possible of very real and important culture differences – differences which as you’ve pointed out often come with baggage in the form of privilege, among other things I imagine.

        To all of that, all I can say is: yes. 😉

  3. Now I need to rewatch “Bebop”. I’ve always liked it but haven’t seen it in years.

    Ed screams “Pancrates” rather than Julia Balbilla to me, but I think that’s because I envision Pancrates as a child of uncertain gender. Also, Ed’s “power” is from computers and engineering as well as being cute and a kid.

    See you, space cowboy!

    • Indeed, that would make a lot more sense…but then, I’d have sprung the whole “and the Tetrad++ were in it, too!” thing earlier than I would have preferred, since Gren is pretty damned…well, where do we begin with Gren? Seriously, even before the gender ambiguity matter emerged, I was drooling for the character. 😉

  4. Wow – just, wow. So cool. Thank you for the heads-up on this one!

    • It’s a great series…but, you do realize it isn’t really about Antinous, right? Just making sure…

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s