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.
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 250l. 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.
The edicts against prostitution increased in severity under various emperors. The severity of Constantine enacted that a man guilty of rape should die, whether he accomplished his purpose by violence, or by gentle and gradual seduction. The virgin who confessed her consent, instead of procuring a mitigation of this sentence, exposed herself to share the penalty. Slaves who were accomplices in the crime of procuring young women for prostitution, were punished by being burnt, or having boiling metal poured down their throats. The consequence of such a savage law was, that it could not be generally applied; nor was it enforced by the example of the emperor, who, once rigidly strict, turned dissolute and luxurious towards the close of his reign.
It will be seen, from the information here collected, that no actual knowledge exists of the precise extent of the prostitute system in Rome. Facts, and some of these extremely curious, have been preserved in connection with it; but the statistics of the question are wholly lost, if, indeed, they ever existed. On this account, it appeared possible to do no more than bring those facts together, and, throwing them into a general sketch of the morality prevailing at different periods in the social history of that state, to draw thence an idea of the truth. Under the comparatively virtuous Republic, a line could certainly be drawn between the profligate and the moral classes of the community. Under some of the emperors such a distinction was wholly impossible. The vulgar prostitute was commonly met at the tables of the rich, and the palace itself was no more than an imperial brothel. A few notes on the history of the empire will justify these remarks.
In the early period of the decline, the licentious amours of Faustina were excused, even encouraged, by her husband, and the nobles paid homage in the temples before the image of an adultress. In the eyes of Commodus virtue was criminal, since it implied a reflection upon his profligacy. Dissolving his frame in lust amid 300 concubines and boys, he violated by force the few modest women remaining near his court. Julia, the wife of Severus, though flattered in life and death by public writers, was no better than a harlot. We have already noticed the pleasures of Elagabalus, who committed rape upon a vestal virgin, and condescended to the most bestial vice. The nobles readily followed his example, and the people were easily led into the fashion. Maximin drowned every coy maiden who refused his embraces. In process of time, the most degrading features of Asiatic profligacy were introduced into Rome, and eunuchs crowded the palaces of the emperor and his nobles. History alludes to no more vulgar prostitute than the Empress Theodora, who played comedies before the people of Constantinople, and prostituted her person—of unparalleled beauty as it was—night after night to a promiscuous crowd of citizens and strangers, of every rank and description. She exhibited herself naked in the theatre. Her sympathy for the prostitute class may be indicated by almost the only virtuous action recorded of her;—inducing her husband Justinian to found a monastery on the shores of the Bosphorus, where 500 miserable women, collected from the streets and brothels, were offered a refuge. When we remember the usual relative proportion of objects relieved by charity, to the numbers from which they are selected, this indicates a considerable trade in prostitution then carried on in Constantinople. When, however, such a social system prevailed, no inquiry could fix the professional class of harlots, since moral women, if any existed, were certainly exceptions.
It is always necessary, while inquiring into the morality of any people, to inquire into the extent to which the practice of procuring abortion was carried, and how it was viewed. Montesquieu justly observes, that it is by no means unnatural, though it may be criminal, for a prostitute, should she by chance conceive a child, to seek to be relieved from the burden. She has no means of support except one which she cannot possibly follow and at the same time fulfil the duties of a mother. These considerations, perhaps, had some weight with the legislators of Rome, as well as those reasons of political prudence which in various ancient states recognised infanticide. That it was practised to some extent there, is shown by frequent allusions in various works. It has been asserted, indeed, that the custom of procuring abortion prevailed to such an extent, that, combined with celibacy, it materially affected the population of the state, but this appears a false view. There are no accounts to support such an idea. It is not known at what particular time a law was introduced against it. Certainly it was held in a different light than it is by our religion, and our civilization. Plato’s republic permits it. Aristotle also allows it to be practised under certain circumstances, but only before the child is quick in the womb. So, also, among the Romans, it seems long to have been unrestrained by law, though it is impossible to believe that the natural instincts of women would not deter them, except in desperate situations, from such unnatural offences.
Such is the view of the prostitute system, with a sketch of general morality, which the facts preserved by history enable us to offer. It appears from these facts, that, during the more flourishing period of the Roman state, the prostitutes formed a class, to which the principal immorality of the female society was confined, while in the later or imperial age profligacy ran loose among the people, so that the distinction between the regular harlot and the unrecognised prostitute was all but lost. Chastity, under the Republic, was a peculiar Roman virtue, and the prostitutes were usually foreigners, while we do not find that they ever mixed with reputable women who had characters to lose[39].