to express this; they use in fact _leno_ in this signification, though
the word properly means the Procurer who merely offers his house for
the purpose, but does not keep women, giving them board and wage.
Perhaps this arose from the fact that in earlier times no regular
brothels existed in Rome; the women merely hired a lodging, and the
owner of the house had nothing at all to do with their business, whilst
the match-maker or pandar confined _his_ efforts to procuring girls for
his patrons and letting out his “chambers” for a fixed charge _merces
cellae_ (hire of the chamber)[185], paid by each visitor. Only when
the business became more profitable, did Lenones or Lenae (Procurers,
Procuresses), for women also carried on Lenocinium (procuration),
actually keep girls, whom they bought, as slaves[186]. The Leno had
his _Villicus puellarum_ (Superintendent of the Maids), who assigned
name and price, provided the girls with clothes[187], and kept a
list of them and what they earned[188]. In fact such of the women as
were bond-servants were obliged,—and this applied equally to those
that were not slaves,—to deliver up not merely the As for the hire of
the chamber, but the whole fee as well, according to the amount fixed
by the brothel-keeper (Leno)[189], though much underhand trickery of
various sorts occurred in connection with this regulation[190].
The brothels were not allowed to be opened before the ninth hour (four
o’clock in the afternoon), so as not to draw young men away from
their duties[191]. The girls either stood (Prostibula—women who stand
in front)[192] or sat (Proseda—women who sit in front)[193] before
the “chambers” or Lupanaria (brothels), to call the passers-by to
them. Did a lover make his appearance, then the door of the “chamber”
was carefully fastened[194], and “_occupata_” (engaged) written
over the door[195], an unoccupied “chamber” being called _nuda_
(naked)[196]. Towards morning the “chambers” were opened, and the
Leno (brothel-keeper) let the girls go[197]. It would seem to follow
from this that these either did not live in the brothel-keeper’s
house at all, or that the “chambers” were situated somewhere else,
away from head-quarters. From a passage in _Juvenal_[198] it has,
perhaps wrongly, been concluded that these “chambers” were at the
Circus Maximus. Such places are at any rate mentioned by _Dionysius
of Halicarnassus_ as existing at the Portico above the shops[199];
and without doubt several passages are to be found in Latin authors
to prove that the women plied their trade even after the close of
the Representations[200], and we know that besides the regular Ludi
Circenses (Games of the Circus) other performances of a similar kind
were held in the Circus.
Besides the brothels, we find, particularly in the Taverns (cauponae,
tabernae—inns, taverns) and Cookshops (popinae, ganea—cookshops,
eating-houses)[201], women kept by the hosts for the gratification of
their patrons. As a rule these also were bought slave-women, who served
the guests, entertained them with dance and music, and surrendered
their persons on desire. The hostesses themselves devoted their
attention to both trades, as e.g. is shown by the “Copa” (Mine Hostess)
ascribed to _Virgil_; and hence they, and their husbands with them,
stood in the eye of the Magistrate on the same footing with Lenones
and Meretrices (Brothel-keepers and Prostitutes)[202].
Now who frequented these places? Down to the time of the Empire only
the lowest class of the people, particularly Sailors[203], Freedmen
and Slaves[204], though indeed later, when _Claudius_ and _Nero_[205]
set so eminent an example, high and low equally might be found both
in brothels and in Taverns and Cookshops. The bakers, envious of the
profits made by the inn-keepers, organized their tabernae (bread-stalls
or shops) in the mills in such a way that they too could provide
their customers with what they wanted[206]. This appears to have been
done first in Campania[207]. But not solely in regular Houses and
“Chambers” were “filles de joie” to be met with. They carried on their
trade also as _Scorta erratica_ (wandering whores, street-walkers) the
commonest sort, in all public places, at the corners of streets[208],
round the tombs and monuments[209], in out-of-the-way nooks of the
town and the surrounding plantations in its neighbourhood[210]. In
these places they carried on their trade, some no doubt on their
own account, other perhaps as slaves working for their masters and
mistresses and bound to deliver in a fixed sum daily.
The different kinds of “filles de joye” so far particularized were
all of them slave-women, but over and above these there were in Rome
a large number of Gay Women who carried on their profession entirely
on their own account, either merely as a second string to their
bow, like the Mimes, Dancers, Harp-girls, Ambubaiae[211], or else
as sole aim and object of their lives, in the character of _Scorta
nobilia_ (noble whores) or _bonae meretrices_ (good harlots) to
use _Plautus’_ expressions. They were all of them foreigners, and
generally freed-women[212], and were distinguished not only for their
more elaborate dress[213], but also on account of their education,
which far and away surpassed that of the Roman ladies. In this respect
however they fell short of the level reached by the Greek hetaerae
in the best times of Greece, and for this reason never obtained the
influence at Rome on the life of the city and of the State which the
former possessed at Athens. They were not so much friends (Amicae) as
mistresses (Dominae) of their Roman lover, and their relations with him
bodily only and not intellectual. For the rest this class yet awaits
a _Friedrich Jacobs_ to be its historian. They were either kept by an
individual lover, or else gave themselves only to rich admirers at
their own private lodgings,[214] that lay _perdu_ far from the bustle
of street and market; but no doubt descended, when the time of youth
and beauty was over, to the condition of common courtesans or even of
mere street-walkers.
Just as happened in Greece, immodesty spread not a little among the
daughters and wives of the Roman citizens also, and already in the
reign of _Germanicus_, _Tacitus_ could report[215]: “Eodem anno
gravibus senatus decretis libido feminarum coercita, cautumque ne
quaestum corpore faceret, cui avus aut pater aut maritus Eques Romanus
fuisset.” (This same year severe decrees of the Senate were passed to
restrain unchastity on the part of women, and it was forbidden for any
to give her person for hire, whose grandfather, father, or husband had
been a Roman knight). So it cannot cause any great surprise to find
_Martial_[216] declaring:
“Quaero diu totam, Sophroni Rufe, per urbem:
Si qua puella neget; nulla puella negat.”
(I have long been searching the city through, Sophronius Rufus, if
there is e’er a maid to say no; there is not one!) To this result
the introduction at Rome of the worship of Isis had contributed not
a little[217]. Under pretence of serving Isis, the matrons found an
opportunity of wantoning unhindered in the arms of paramours[218], for
the husbands dared not ent10217
er the temple precincts while their wives
offered were performing their ten days’ devotion there. Probably in
cases of disease of the genitals Roman women offered their prayers to
Isis, as the men did to Priapus, for the temples of the goddess were
full of images of parts of the body that had been healed and of maimed
organs[219], and contained numerous establishments for the care of
sick persons of this particular character.
But of more influence than all the rest was the example which
the Emperors _Tiberius_, _Nero_, _Caligula_ and the infamous
_Messalina_[220] gave. Not contented with the possession of a
_Harem_, they set up actual brothels in their palaces,—a practice the
aristocracy soon copied, organizing similar establishments on their
estates, to be able to wallow indisturbed in the mire of bestial
lusts[221].
Of vice as practised in the Baths and of male whores in the brothels we
shall speak later.
Now how were Brothels and Courtesans affected in connection with the
police of the State in Rome? It has been shown already that no penalty
whatever attached either to illicit intercourse or to prostitution in
general, because the disgrace to individuals involved in the commission
of such offences in the eyes of their fellows was thought sufficient to
ensure at any rate the daughters of citizens against unchastity. But
the case was different with married women who were guilty of a breach
of marriage honour. Of the manifold punishments we will mention only
one here: the offender was imprisoned and obliged to surrender her
person to all comers, whilst each time this took place a notification
was given by the ringing of a bell;—a procedure that continued till
finally abolished by the Emperor Theodosius[222].
They sought indeed to avoid the punishment by declaring themselves
engaged in Lenocinium (Procuration) as a calling, or by joining the
ranks of the the actresses; but the Lex Papia included provisions to
put a stop to this irregularity[223].
_Lenocinium_ (Procuration) in fact as well as the _licentia stupri_
(fornication permit) had to be notified before the Aediles[224], whose
especial duty it was to see that no Matron became a prostitute[225].
With this object they were bound to frequently search all such
places as have been specified above (_loca aedilem metuentia_—places
that fear the aedile)[226]; but dared not themselves indulge in any
immorality there[227]. When that pure-minded prince _Caligula_ became
Emperor, he introduced the Whore-duty (_vectigal ex capturis_—tax on
prostitution-fees) as a State impost[228]. This, _Alexander Severus_
retained, it is true, but assigned the revenue from it to the
maintenance of the public buildings, that it might not contaminate the
State Treasure.[229]
The information here collected, imperfect as it may be in many
respects, is yet sufficient to throw some light on the external
relations of brothels and courtesans. It shows convincingly that in
the entire absence of police supervision on the sanitary side, such
diseases as arose generally in Antiquity consequent upon coition must
have had their especial home and chief focus in the brothels and their
denizens. But of what nature these diseases were, and what parts of the
body they attacked, we shall only then be able to determine, when we
come to consider more precisely the actual excesses that led to them,
whether within or without the walls of the brothels.
Paederastia.
§ 12.
In the preceding investigations we have shown how the natural aim and
object of coition, viz. procreation of children, fell more and more
into the background, in order to make way for sensual gratification;
and we have made acquaintance with the establishments that grew up in
course of time for its indulgence. The facility with which the bestial
instinct could be satisfied and the titillation of carnal pleasure
procured, was bound to rob the customary manner of sexual indulgence
of the charm of novelty, and to set the depraved imagination of the
voluptuary at work to solve the problem of how to import manifold
variations into the simple act of copulation. This stage reached, it
inevitably followed that the natural ways of union of the sexes began
to appear insufficient, and the methods of so-called _unnatural_ Love
(Venus illegitima) grew up, wherein at last almost every trace of the
specific purpose of the genital organs was lost sight of.
The “figurae Veneris legitimae” (modes of natural Love) are not
altogether without interest for the physician[230], but their study
is less necessary for our particular purpose. The modes of “Venus
illegitima” (unnatural Love) are what concern us here. The major part
of these have unfortunately never been included by writers on the
history of Venereal disease within the range of their enquiries. Hence
it has come about that while on the one hand they have given quite
false interpretations of various morbid affections, they have on the
other mistaken for the names of diseases expressions signifying nothing
more than forms of the unnatural sensual indulgence alluded to. The
historical enquirer into these subjects must indeed tread very slippery
ground. Supposing him to rise superior to the possible reproaches of
morality, fortified by the words of St. Paul[231], still he can find
absolutely nowhere in his investigations any secure stopping-place,
he must make up his mind to dispense with all external help and to
be thrown utterly on his own resources. Not only do the best and
fullest Dictionaries of the Greek and Latin languages leave him almost
completely in the lurch, but above and beyond this he has very often to
struggle with positive errors both in the Dictionaries and on the part
of the professional Philologists in their annotations to the writings
of the Ancients. These mistakes he must first of all discover, and
afterwards correct. What such an undertaking involves, what powers it
demands, will be obvious to anyone who is in any degree conversant
with the systematic study of Antiquity. Nevertheless the task should
not remain unattempted, if that is, we wish ever to come to a clear
understanding of the relations of words and things in this connection;
and on this ground the following researches no less than others find a
legitimate place here. These we offer as the best that the limitation
of our powers allowed,—at the same time gladly acknowledging the no
small assistance we have received from the Treatises of Forberg[232]
and Meier[232].
Paederastia appears, as is the case with all sexual perversions, to
owe its origin to the stimulation of the Asiatic climate, the mother
of exuberance and voluptuousness. The primary condition of its genesis
may be easily traced, if side by side with the dictum of Forberg (loco
citato, p. 235): “Et voluptas quidem paediconis facile intelligitur,
cum omnis voluptas mentulae pendeat ex frictione” (And the pleasure
indeed of the sodomite is readily intelligible, since all voluptuous
pleasure depends on friction of the penis), we take into consideration
the fact that the genital organs of Asiatic women,—a fact true also of
Italian and Spanish women[233]—like their whole bodies, exhibit great
looseness, and further note that the “Sphincter ani”[234] muscle far
and away surpasses the “Constrictor cunni” in strength. So it is by no
means improbable that the Apostle Paul is accurate when he says[235]:
“Wherefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts unto
uncleanness, that their bodies should be dishonoured among themselves;
_for their women changed the natural use into that which is against
nature_: and likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the
woman, burned in their lust one toward another, men with men working
unseemliness.”
In Asia _natural_ copulation formed a part of the Temple service of
Venus, and in course of time Paederastia as well was joined with it,
as is seen from the following passage of St. Athanasius[236]: “Sane
olim Phoeniciae mulieres in idolorum templis prius prostabant, suique
meretricii quaestus primordia diis, qui illic colebantur, consecrabant,
suam deam stupris propitiam reddi, benevolamque hoc pacto effici ratae.
_Viri quoque propriam ementiti naturam, nec amplius mares se esse
patientes, in feminas se converterunt, pergratum et honorificum matri
deorum se ita facturas arbitrati._ Omnes denique una cum perditissimis
vivunt, et secum ipsi pugnant ut peiores quotidie evadant, atque ut
dixit sanctus Christi minister Paulus:—(Here follows the passage just
quoted from the Epistle to the Romans.)—Haec autem et similia agendo,
fatentur certe et arguunt deos, quos ipsi colunt, huiusmodi vitam
duxisse, scilicet ex Jove puerorum corruptiones atque adulteria, ex
Venere meretriciam vitam ... ex aliis alia didicere, quae quidem cum
leges puniunt, tum probi homines abhorrent.”
(Indeed the Phoenician women used in former times to prostitute
themselves for hire in the temples of their idols and to offer up the
gains of their fornication as first-fruits to the deities that were
worshipped therein, deeming that in this way they won the favour and
goodwill of their goddess. Moreover men, perverting their own proper
nature, and no more enduring to be males, turned themselves into the
likeness of women, supposing that by so doing they rendered a service
most grateful and honourable to the Mother of the Gods. In one word
they all consort with the most abandoned of mankind, and strive one
with the other how they may grow worse and worse day by day; and as St.
Paul the Apostle of Christ says:—(Here follows the passage just quoted
from the Epistle to the Romans.)—By such and such-like acts they verily
confess and show forth that those gods that themselves worship led
lives of a like kind. Thus from Jupiter they learned to seduce boys and
to commit adultery, from Venus harlotry, and so on from the other gods
other vile practices,—practices which are at once punished by the laws
and abominated by every honourable man). The same passage explains also
how the Old Testament comes to designate Cinaedi (on pathic Sodomites)
by the expression קָדֵשׁ (kadêsh, sanctus,—holy, consecrated). This
originally implied nothing more than a person who devoted himself for
the glory of a God as a servant in his Temple; and we have good reason
for believing we can establish the conjecture that the whole cult of
the Priests of Cybelé, etc., who had to practice emasculation and
who were known by the name of _Galli_, rests originally on a simple
misunderstanding of the expressions εὐνοῦχοι and ἀνδρόγυνοι (eunuchs,
men-women),—expressions which will be discussed later on,—these words
having meant at first nothing more than _Cinaedi_ (sodomites). It was
only in later times that Paederastia became a motive for Castration,
as by this means the body of the male could be made to preserve for
a longer period the youthful boyishness that approximated it to the
female form. This is shown in the following passage of Lucian[237], a
passage of special interest for the history of Paederastia:
“So at first when men still lived the old heroic life and reverenced
virtue that brought them nearer the gods, they obeyed the laws that
nature had laid down and marrying in due proportion of age became the
fathers of noble children. But little by little the age degenerated
from that high level to the pit of sensual indulgence, and struck out
new and abnormal modes of gratification. Soon a reckless licentiousness
broke the very laws of nature; and for the first time a lover looked
on a _man_ as on a woman to lust after him, and worked his wicked
will either by superior force or by dint of artful persuasions. So in
one bed came together one and the same sex. And each seeing himself
in the other, took no shame in anything they did or in anything they
suffered to be done. Wasting their seed on barren[238] rocks, as the
saying goes, they bought a brief pleasure at the cost of deepest
infamy. Indeed with some to such a height of overmastering force did
their reckless passion rise that they actually violated nature with the
knife; and only when they had emptied men of their manliness did they
attain the summit and acmé of their gratification.
“But the wretched and unhappy creatures, that they may remain longer
boys, suffer themselves to be no more men,—an ambiguous riddle midway
between the sexes, neither preserving the sex they were born to, nor
yet having any other to belong to. The bloom that was kept a while in
youth withers in old age and makes them wither with it in premature
decay. At one moment they are counted as boys, then lo! they are old
men; there is no middle time of manhood between the two. Thus wanton
luxury, the foul mother of every evil thing, contriving shameful
pleasures one to cap the other, fell into the slough of that _disease_
that cannot even be named with decency, (μέχρι τῆς οὐ ῥηθῆναι δυναμένης
εὐπρεπῶς νόσου) that no province of impurity might remain unexplored.”
In later times indeed castration was resorted to after the attainment
of man’s estate, in order that the Eunuchs might be able to appease the
titillation of sensual desire in the women without fear of impregnating
them[239].
In Syria, where this vicious practice of paederastia was especially in
vogue, the Jews also appear to have been acquainted with it[240]. From
Asia, whether through the instrumentality of the Phoenicians, or as
_Welcker_[241] maintains, through that of the Lydians, Paederastia came
in the first instance to Crete, and spread from thence over the whole
of Greece[242].
Just as was the case with the cult of Venus in that country, so
the “love of boys” assumed quite a different form in Greece. As
_Paedophilia_ (Affection for boys) it took rank as one of the means of
education, being consecrate to the heavenly Eros, while Paederastia
(Carnal love of boys) fell to the province of the common Eros. Down to
quite modern times Paedophilia has been confounded with Paederastia,
and in this way a shameful stigma attached to the Greek _nation_,—a
stigma that _Meier_, following the initiative of _Jacobs_ and _K. O.
Müller_ (loco citato), was the first to free the Greeks from. Granted,
the two things approached very near each other; still _Paederastia
was never approved by the Greeks_[243]. At Sparta the violation of
boys was punished by loss of civil rights, exile or death[244], and
it was the same at Athens, as _Meier_ (loco citato) pp. 167 sqq. has
sufficiently proved. The fact that the laws relating to this offence
were promulgated at Athens only after the time of _Solon_ shows that
paederastia, as well as brothels, did not come into use there till
about that time. True Athens in later times was quite as notorious
for the prevalence there of paederastia as Corinth was for its Gay
Women[245]; and Aristophanes’ Comedies show only too abundantly how
much occasion he could find for scourging the “Pathics”, and how the
Gymnasia and Palaestrae (Wrestling-grounds) also were responsible for a
great deal of the harm done.
For, as Aristophanes[246] says:
ἐν παιδοτρίβου δὲ καθίζοντας, τὸν μηρὸν ἔδει προβαλέσθαι
τοὺς παῖδας, ὅπως τοῖς ἔξωθεν μηδὲν δείξειαν ἀπηνές.
εἶτ’ αὖ πάλιν αὖθις ἀνισταμένους ξυμψῆσαι, καὶ προνοῆσαι
εἴδωλον τοῖσιν ἐρασταῖσιν τῆς ἥβης μὴ καταλείπειν.
(Of old when boys sat at the trainer’s, they were bound to throw
out the thigh, so as not to expose to the spectators’ gaze anything
unbecoming; then again when they got up again, they had to scrape out
the mark in the sand, and take care not to leave behind a model of
their youthful shape,—an incitement to lovers).
Besides the Gymnasia and Palaestrae, the barber’s shops
(κουρεῖα)[247], perfumers’ shops (μυροπωλεῖα)[248], Surgeries
(ἰατρεῖα)[249], Money-changers’ counters (τράπεζαι)[250],
bath-houses[251], and to a greater or less extent all kinds of
workshops (ἐργαστήρια)[252], particularly when in situations handy
to the Market, served as trysting-places of the paederasts and
pathics. Here the former sought victims for their vicious desires,
and the latter opportunities to sell their persons; while many of
the proprietors of such places may well have acted as Procurers
(προαγωγοί, μαστροποί,—Procurers, Pandars) for this purpose. The vice
itself was chiefly practised in lonely, obscure parts of the town, and
particularly on the Pnyx hill[253].
The Eleans and Bœotians are not only reproached with paederastia, but
the violation of boys is alleged to have been _allowed_ among these
peoples[254]. Megara it is true is charged with ὕβρις (shameful
violence), a common designation for paederastia[255], but we may
certainly doubt whether the temple of Ἀφροδίτη πρᾶξις there, which
_Pausanias_[256], mentions, had anything to do with this vice. The
author in question says: “After the sanctuary of Dionysus is shown
a temple of Venus. The image of Venus is of ivory, and is called
Aphrodité _Praxis_. It is the most ancient image in the temple.” No
other author however mentions any such cult as existing in Megara, and
even though the word πρᾶξις (intercourse), as _Meier_ (loco citato p.
153, note 49) has shown by examples, is used specially of paederastia,
yet at the same time the passage of _Euripides_, Ion 894.
θεὸς ὀμευνέτας ἆγες ἀναιδείᾳ
Κύπριδι χάριν πράσσων.