happens in all countries. Men took as wives the prostitutes with
whom they had associated. Even the wise Plato became enamoured of
Archæanassa, an Hetaira of Ctesiphon. For many of these women were no
less renowned for the brilliancy of their intellectual qualities than
for their personal charms. Of Phryne, whose bosom was bared before
the judges by her advocate, and who sat as a model to the greatest of
ancient sculptors, all the world has heard. Her statue, of pure gold,
was placed on a pillar of white marble at Delphi. Aspasia exercised
at Athens influence equal to that of a queen, attracting round her
all the characters of the day, as Madame Roland was wont to do in
Paris. Socrates confessed to have learned from her much in the art
of rhetoric. Yet these women, harsh as the judgment may appear, were
common whores, though outwardly refined, and mentally cultivated.
Instances, indeed, of high public virtue displayed by members of that
sisterhood, distinguished among the Hetairæ of ancient Greece, are on
record, and sufficient accounts of them have been transmitted to us to
show that they were among the male society a recognised and respected
class, while by the women they were neither abhorred nor considered
as a pollution to the community. Still, prostitutes they were, to all
intents and purposes.
The mean, the poor, and faded, were chiefly despised for their ugliness
and indigence, not for their incontinence. It was, in the Homeric ages,
as we learn from the Odyssey, held disgraceful for “a noble maiden”
to lose her chastity. But in Athens, at a later time, chastity in an
unmarried woman was not held a virtue, the loss of which degraded her
utterly below the consideration of all other classes, or debarred her
for ever from any intercourse with the honourable of her own sex. The
Hetaira was not, it is true, admitted to mingle freely in the society
of young women; but she was not shut out from all communication with
them; while among men, if her natural attractions or accomplishments
were great, she exercised peculiar influence. Consequently, it appears
that in Athens the superior public prostitute had a _status_ higher
than that of any woman of similar character in our own day. If we look
for a comparison to illustrate our meaning, we may find it in many of
the ladies who at various periods have frequented our court--known but
not acknowledged prostitutes[26].
In the public judgments of Athens we find, it is true, a penalty or
fine imposed on “whoredom,”[27] from which, however, the people escaped
by a variation of terms, calling a whore a mistress, as Plutarch tells
us. Solon, however, recognised prostitution as a necessary, or at least
an inevitable evil, for he first built a temple to Aphrodite Pandemos,
which, truly rendered, means Venus the Prostitute; and his view was
justified by the declaration that the existence of a prostitute class
was necessary, in order, as Cato also thought, that the wives and
daughters of citizens might be safe from the passion which young men
would, in one way or the other, satiate upon the other sex. Though
procurers, therefore, were punishable by law, and the Hetairæ were
obliged to wear coloured or flowered garments, it was enacted in
the civil code of Athens, that “persons keeping company with common
strumpets shall not be deemed adulterers, for such shall be common for
the satiating of lust.”
Brothels, consequently, existed in moderate numbers at Athens, and
the young men were not discouraged from attending them occasionally.
There were also particular places in the city where the prostitutes
congregated, and a Temple of Venus, which was their peculiar resort.
We find in the poets passages, indeed, advocating the support of
whores[28].
Still, respected and beloved as the Hetairæ were among their friends
and lovers, recognised by the law, and protected by it, general public
respect was denied them, for the Athenians estimated above their
brilliant charms the modest virtues of inferior women[29].
One of the most remarkable features in the public economy of Athens was
the tax upon prostitutes, introduced also in Rome by Caligula. It was
annually farmed out by the Senate to individuals who knew accurately
the names of all who followed this calling. It is to be regretted
that their statistics have not been furnished to us. Every woman, it
appears, had a fixed price, which she might charge to the men to whom
she prostituted her person, and the amount of the tax varied according
to their profits. Apparently, they were principally “strangers” who
filled the ranks of the Hetairæ, for we find that if persons enjoying
the rank and privilege of citizens took to the occupation, a tax was
imposed on them as on the ordinary prostitutes, and they were punished
by exclusion from the public sacrifices, and from the honourable
offices of state. The same writer informs us, on the authority of
Demosthenes, that a citizen who cohabited with an alien paid a penalty,
in case he was convicted, of a thousand drachmas, but the penalty
could not often have been enforced, as the laws of Solon recognised
prostitution; it was a feature in the manners of the city, and brothels
were fearlessly kept, and entered without shame. Numerous evidences of
this have been supplied us[30]. To preserve a respect for chastity,
however, and to inculcate a horror for the prostitute’s occupation, the
same code allowed men to sell their sisters or daughters when convicted
of an act of fornication, which, in Athens, as elsewhere, frequently
was the first step in the regular career of these women[31].
The dishonour thus accruing to the general body of prostitutes, though
a small class of them enjoyed many superior advantages from their
wealth, and the polish of their manners, served at Athens, in some
degree, to preserve public morality. The system never seems to have
reached the height which it has gained in many of our modern cities,
where married women often follow the occupation, and live upon its
gains[32].
In Corinth, however, prostitutes abounded, and the Temple of Venus
in that city was sometimes thronged by a thousand of them. They were
usually the most beautiful women of the state, presented or sold
to the temple, who prostituted themselves for hire. They were of a
superior kind, admitting to their embraces none but men who would
pay munificently, and in this manner many of them are said to have
accumulated large fortunes[33].
Tabular statements, and numerical estimates, have been wanting to
complete this glance at the system in ancient Greece; but it may,
nevertheless, afford a just idea of the extent and character of the
prostitute class there.
OF PROSTITUTION IN ANCIENT ROME.
If our knowledge of ancient Greece, with reference to its moral
economy, is slight, ancient Rome is still less understood. Nothing,
indeed, like a detailed account of its social institutions has been
preserved; its scheme of manners is incompletely comprehended; and only
an outline picture of its private life can be formed from passages
supplied by hundreds of authors, from allusions in the poets and in the
satirical writers. German scholars have laboured industriously in the
field of classical politics; but the social economy of Rome has been
neglected, or, which is worse, obscured by them. We are, therefore,
enabled only to afford a general sketch of the subject in connection
with the great Republic, and the imperial system which grew out of its
decay.
Examining the condition of the female sex, especially with reference to
prostitutes, we must in Rome, as in all other states, distribute our
observations over several distinct periods--for such there were in the
social history of the nation.
In the more honourable days of the Republic, women occupied a high
status. While the state was extremely young we find them, indeed, in
perpetual tutelage; but gradually, as institutions were improved and
manners refined, they rose to independence, and formed an influential
element in society. The matron, in particular, stood in her due
position. Respected, accomplished, allowed to converse with men, she
was, in the most flourishing era of Roman history, a model for her sex.
She presided over the whole household, superintended the education
of the children, while they remained in tender years, and shared the
honours of her husband. Instead of confined apartments being allotted
to her as a domestic prison, the best chambers in the house were
assigned, while the whole of it was free to her. Other circumstances in
her condition combined to invest her with dignity; and the consequence
was, that the Roman matron seldom or never transgressed against the
moral or social law. No divorce is recorded before the year 234 B.C.;
and that instance was on account of the woman’s barrenness--a plea
allowed by the law, but universally reprobated by the people. Yet the
obstacles to this dissolution of the marriage compact were by no means
formidable. Under the imperial régime, when there was less facility,
divorces were more frequent.
The Roman law of marriage was strict. Degrees of consanguinity were
marked, though within narrower limits than among us, within which
marriage was not only illegal, but wholly void, and any intercourse, by
virtue of it, denounced as incest by the law. Public infamy attached to
it--not only the odium of opinion, but a formal decree by the prætor.
Adultery was held as a base, inexpiable crime. It was interdicted
under every penalty short of death, and even this was allowed under
certain circumstances to be inflicted by the husband. Wedded life,
indeed, was held sacred by every class from the knights to the slaves,
though among these social aliens actual marriage could not take place.
Celibacy was not only disreputable, but, in a particular degree,
criminal; while barrenness brought shame upon the woman who was cursed
with it. In an equal, or a greater ratio, was parentage honourable.
Polygamy was illegal; but the social code allowed one wife and several
concubines, occupying a medium position, finely described by Gibbon,
as below the honours of a wife, and above the infamy of a prostitute.
Such institutions were licensed that common whoredom might be checked;
though the children born of such intercourse were refused the rank of
citizens. Often, indeed, they were a burden to the guilty as well as
to the poor; and infanticide, which was declared in 374 B.C. a capital
crime, was resorted to as a means of relief.
If we examine our question in connection with marriage among the
ancient Romans we find a curious system. First, there were certain
conditions to constitute _connubium_, without which no legal union
could be formed. There was only connubium between Roman citizens[34];
there was none where either of the parties possessed it already with
another; none between parent and child, natural or by adoption; none
between grandparents and grandchildren; none between brothers and
sisters, of whole or half blood; none between uncle and niece, or
aunt and nephew: though Claudius legalized it by his marriage with
Agrippina, the practice never went beyond the example. Unions of this
kind taking place were void, and the father could claim no authority
over his children. Mutual consent was essential--of the persons
themselves, and of their friends. One wife only was allowed, though
marriage after full divorce was permitted.
There were two kinds of marriage,--that _cum_, and that _sine
conventione_. In the former the wife passed into her husband’s family,
and became subject to him; in the latter she abdicated none of her
old relations, and was equal to her husband. There was no ceremony
absolutely essential to constitute a marriage. Cohabitation during a
whole year made a legal and lasting union; but the woman’s absence
during three nights annually released her from the submission entailed
by the marriage _cum conventione_. Certain words, also, with religious
rites, performed in presence of ten witnesses, completed a marriage;
but certain priestly offices, such as those of the _flamen dialis_,
could only be performed for those whose parents had been wedded in a
similar way[35]. The sponsalia, or contracts between the man and his
wife’s friends, were usual, but not essential, and could be dissolved
by mutual consent. The Roman idea of marriage was, in a word, the
union of male and female for life, bringing a community of fortune, by
a civil, not a sacred contract. Yet from the ceremonies _generally_
observed, it is evident that an idea, though unrecognised, of a
religious union, existed among the Romans in their more pious age.
With respect to property, its arrangement depended on settlements made
before hand. Divorce was at one time procured by mutual consent, though
afterwards it became more difficult, but never impossible.
There was in Rome a legal concubinage between unmarried persons,
resembling the morganatic or “left-handed” marriage, giving neither the
woman nor her children any rights acquired from the husband. Widowers
often took a concubine, without infamy[36].
The law of Romulus, enacting that no male child should be exposed, and
that the first daughter should always be preserved, while every other
should be brought up, or live on trial, as it were, for three years,
has misled some writers into giving the Romans credit for a loftier
humanity. No parent, it is argued, would destroy a three years’ old
child. Nevertheless, it is certain that, in the imperial age, at least,
infanticide and child-dropping were frequent occurrences. Deformed
or mutilated infants, having been shown to five witnesses, might be
destroyed at once. The Milky Column, in the Herb-market, was a place
where public nurses sat to suckle or otherwise tend the foundlings
picked up in various parts of the city. In the early Christian age
it was a reproach to the Romans that they cast forth their sons,
as Tertullian expresses it, to be picked up and nourished by the
fisherwomen who passed. Mothers would deny their children when brought
home to their houses. Some strangled them at once. Various devices were
adopted among them, as among other nations of antiquity, to check the
overflow of population, as well as to hide the crimes of the guilty.
Thus the Phœnicians passed children through fire, as a sacrifice; the
Carthaginians offered them up at the altar; the Syrians flung them
from the lofty propylæa of a temple[37]. One observation, however,
applies to the Romans, and, we believe, to every other nation, savage
or civilized, in every age of the world--exceptions being invariably
allowed. Cruel as may have been the laws sanctioning infanticide,
when once the child was received into the bosom of the family it was
cared for with tenderness, and, generally, with discretion. It is not
sentiment, but justice, which induces us to say that the mother, having
once accepted her charge, has seldom been guilty of wilful neglect.
The abandoned and dissolute, especially in those societies where
fashion has made the performance of maternal duty ridiculous, if not
disreputable, have consigned their offspring to others; but women in
their natural state usually fulfil this obligation.
In Rome, from various causes, public decency was, at least during
the republican period, more rigidly observed, and licentiousness
less common and less tolerated than in Sparta or even the later age
of Athens. None of its institutions rivalled the dissolute manners
of Crete or Corinth. One cause of prostitution being less common was
the licence of concubinage, which was to the rich a preferable and
a safer plan of self-indulgence. It existed, however, in the State,
and employed a considerable class of women, though we are told the
accomplished prostitute was known as a Grecian import. Nevertheless,
the frequent allusions of the laws to these women prove that they
formed no insignificant element in the society of the capital.
[Illustration: ROMAN BROTHEL.--IMPERIAL ERA. (DUFOUR.)]
Lenocinium, or the keeping of female slaves to hire them out as
prostitutes for profit, was an offence rather against the moral than
the written law of Rome. The lenones, in many instances, kept brothels
or houses open for the trade of prostitution. They purchased in the
market handsome girls, for each of whom a sum equal to about 250_l._ of
English currency was given--from which we infer that the rates charged
in the superior establishments of this kind were somewhat high. Free
women were also kept for the same purpose, upon a mutual agreement. The
practice was not actually interdicted, but branded as infamous by the
prætor’s declaration. No woman, however, whose father, grandfather,
or husband had been a Roman knight was allowed to prostitute herself
for gain. The independent prostitutes, or those who occupied houses
of their own, were compelled to affix on the door a notice of their
calling, and the price they demanded. They were also required, when
they signified to the prætor, as they were bound to do, their intention
of following this disgraceful occupation, to drop their real names,
which they resumed whenever they abandoned that mode of life. Cato,
the censor, recognised prostitution as Solon did, and Cicero declared
no State ever existed without it. Notwithstanding this, the occupation
of the prostitute was, in the republican age, so infamous that a
comparatively small class practised it; but under the emperors it
grew so prevalent, that during the reign of the few of them who even
pretended to morality, the severest edicts appeared called for against
it. Caligula, however, made a profit from the system. The lenones
were subject to a tax, which fell, of course, as in Athens, upon the
prostitutes themselves. No check, therefore, was offered by him to
prostitution. But Theodosius and Valentinian sought, by formidable
penalties, to prevent parents from prostituting their children, and
masters their slaves, for gain. Lenocinium was interdicted under pain
of the scourge, banishment, and other punishments. In one age public
opinion, in the other the whip, held guardianship over the morals of
the State.
The owners of houses who allowed lenocinium to be carried on on their
premises were liable to forfeit the property, besides paying a price of
ten pounds weight of gold. Such edicts, however, only drove immorality
into the dark. When the prostitutes could not find enough brothels to
harbour them--and, indeed, at all times the poorer sort were excluded
from these large establishments--places of refuge were still open. The
_fornices_ of Rome were long galleries, divided into a double row of
cells--some broad and airy, others only small dark arches, situated on
a level with the street, and forming the substructure of the houses
above. Some of them, as those of the Formian villa of Cicero, were
tastefully stuccoed, and painted in streaks of pink, yellow, and blue.
In these long lines of cells the prostitutes of the poorer class were
accustomed to assemble, and thence was derived the ecclesiastical term
fornication, with its ordinary English meaning. Allusions to this
practice occur in the works of Horace and Juvenal, as well as other
writers. Some of the arches appear to have been below the surface of
the ground, as we find a decree of Theodosius against the subterranean
brothels of Rome.
The great satirist who has left us his vivid, though exaggerated
picture of manners in the imperial age, supplies some allusions in
elucidation of our subject. He speaks of the “transparent garments”
worn by prostitutes, as by the dancers of ancient Egypt; of the
“foreign women” who swarmed in its “foul brothels;” of the “gay
harlots’ chariots” dashing through the streets; and of the porticos
and covered walks forming for these women places of promenade. We
learn that some of them were forced, as a punishment for disorderly
behaviour, to wear the male toga, while most were distinguished by
a yellow headdress. The fornices were publicly opened and closed
at certain hours. The women stood at the doors of their cells, in
loose, light attire, their bosoms exposed, and the nipples gilt. Thus
Messelana stood at the door of the lupanaria, with her breast adorned
with this singular ornament[38].
At various periods efforts were made to suppress the prostitutes’
calling, but never with success. The lawmakers of the imperial age gave
no example of the morality which their edicts pretended to uphold.
Thus, the bawds who inveigled or ravished girls from their homes, to
obtain a livelihood by their prostitution, became liable to “extreme
penalties,” though what these were we know not. The law of lenocinium
was more widely interpreted, as manners became more corrupt. If a
husband permitted his wife to prostitute herself that he might share
the gains, it was lenocinium. Justinian allowed a woman the privilege
of divorce, if her husband endeavoured to tempt her into such adultery:
he was forced also to restore her dowry. On the other hand, if a woman
committed the crime, it was lenocinium for the husband to receive her
again, to spare the adulterer if caught in the act, or to refrain
from prosecuting him if otherwise detected. If a man married a woman
convicted of adultery, discovered a crime of this kind and was bribed
to hold his peace, commenced a prosecution for adultery and withdrew
it, or lent his house for rape or prostitution, the Julian law made him
guilty of lenocinium, and penalties of various kinds were attached to
the offence in its different modifications.
Lupanaria, or common brothels, were at all times considered infamous.
Young men seem to have been more careful to visit them in secret than
at Athens, where they visited and left them in the light of open day,
and were encouraged to do so by the poets. There was, however, another
class of disreputable places of assembly, to which a similar exists in
most modern cities. These were the lower order of _popinæ_, or houses
of entertainment, not absolutely recognised as “stews,” but generally
known to be the resorts of prostitutes and their companions. In Pompeii
there appears to have existed a class of the same description, for in
one of the wine-houses discovered there, an inner room is situated
behind the shop, the walls of which are covered with lewd and filthy
pictures. Pornography, or obscene painting, was much practised at
Rome, and doubtless afforded much pleasure to the company who nightly
assembled in the Ganeæ, or regular brothels.
As among the Greeks, instances of men willing to marry prostitutes
occurred among the Romans. It was found necessary to check the
practice by rendering it disreputable. The penalty of public infamy
was denounced against all freemen contracting such an union; while a
senator, and the son of a senator, were especially forbidden.
The prostitutes of Rome, like those of many other countries, varied
their principal calling by others which rendered them more attractive
to the dissolute youth of the city. They cultivated the arts of
dancing, singing, and playing on musical instruments. They performed
lascivious dances at their places of assembly, playing on the flute,
and practising all those tricks of seduction employed so successfully
by the Almé of Egypt.
Difficulties have arisen before many inquirers into the social
condition of the ancient Romans, as to whence the prostitutes came,
seeing that they were chiefly strangers. Some light, we think, is
thrown on the subject by the fact that the Ambubaiæ were Syrian
musicians, who performed dances in Rome, and, like the Bayaderes of
India, the Almé of Egypt, and the dancers of Java, led a life of
prostitution. They continued long to be imported; for, in the History
of Gibbon, we find particular notice of the lascivious dances performed
by the Syrian damsels round the altars on the Palatine Hill, to please
the bestial senses of Elagabalus. During the public pantomimes, the
prostitutes danced naked before the people; and, at the Floralian
festival, the actresses at the theatre, who are known to have been
common prostitutes, were compelled to strip, and perform indecent
evolutions for the delight of the audience. This refers, however,
to the imperial age. It was at no time a task of much inconvenience
to divest themselves of clothing, for the harlots never encumbered
themselves with much. In this they resembled the Hetairæ of Greece,
whose thin slight garment was so insufficient for the purposes of
decency, that it was designated as “naked.” This was not, however,
from hardiness or simplicity, but merely to promote the profit of
their calling. In other respects the luxury of the wealthy prostitutes
was boundless, and they were borne through the streets on the rich
and elegant lactræ or portable couches, softly pillowed on which they
reposed their limbs in voluptuous indolence. In the reign of Domitian
a decree was passed that no whore should in future make use of these
couches, which were reserved as an especial luxury to the privileged
classes of Rome.