London Labour and the London Poor, Vol. 4

by Henry Mayhew

The city of Rhodes appears to have been another city of Europe where a chartered brothel existed, for the bishop, in 1307, forbade the inhabitants to receive any of the public prostitutes into their houses, which supposes that some particular retreat was open to them. There was one also at Lisbon; but it was not until 1394 that the magistrates deliberated on the propriety of erecting a building at the public expense, expressly as a brothel. Ten years later we find the inhabitants lamenting that their wives and daughters were endangered by the want of such a place, and in 1424 it was established. A tax was levied on the women to assist in defraying the cost, and fines were imposed for misconduct.

In Italy licensed brothels were very numerous. There was one at Mantua, and Venice was the very sink of prostitution. In 1421 the government enlisted women to this service to guard the virtue of the other classes. A matron was placed over them, who governed them, received their gains, and made a monthly division of profits. The names of several women, the most notorious and beautiful of the Venetian courtezans, are preserved by Nicolo Daglioni. A very small sum was paid to them by their patrons.

In Valencia a public brothel, on a colossal scale, existed towards the end of the fifteenth century. It resembled a little town surrounded with walls, and had a single gate; in front of this stood a gibbet for criminals. Near this was an office, where a man stood who addressed all who entered, and said, that if they would deposit what valuables they had with him, he would return them safely as they came out; but if they refused and were robbed within, he was not responsible. The wall inclosed four or five streets of little houses, inhabited by girls dressed in brilliant habiliments of velvet and silk. Three or four hundred of them were usually in attendance. They received only a small sum for their favours. Whether this system was then general in Spain we know not, but it is certain that common prostitutes abounded. Servants appear to have been hired for this purpose, for Philippe II., in 1575, in order to check the ravages of immorality, ordered that no female domestics under forty years of age should be hired by men. A decree of 1623 required that in all cities throughout the kingdom public brothels should be abolished.

In Geneva there was a “Queen of the Prostitutes,” elected by the civic magistrates, who took an oath of office, and undertook to govern all the women engaged in her occupation. At Schelstadt a man was commissioned to a similar duty, and very strict rules were imposed on the population.

We have seen that in many places prostitution became a source of revenue, and might enlarge our details and multiply our examples; but it would be tedious to cite the laws of France, Spain, Italy, and Germany on the subject. They varied much in different times, but offer little interest.

The legislator, however, has not contented himself at all times with dividing the prostitute class from other classes of females, with shutting them up in separate quarters, or even confining them in houses of which he kept the key. In some cases he obliged them to assume a peculiar costume, or at least a conspicuous badge of infamy. They always endeavoured to resist or elude the restrictions laid upon them, and, feeling deeply the humiliation of such compulsion, sought by all means to evade it. The first regulation of this kind for the city of Paris is mentioned by the chronicler Geoffrey. He says, that the Queen of Louis VII. going one day to church, met a woman gorgeously attired, and, deceived by her appearance, gave her, “according to custom,” the kiss of peace. She was a court prostitute; and when the royal lady heard this, she complained to her husband, who ordered that no mantles should in future be worn by prostitutes. From time to time new edicts on this subject appeared. One of 1360 forbade them to wear any embroidery, any gold or silver buttons, any pearls, or any trimmings of gray fur. In 1415 and 1419 golden and gilded zones were prohibited to them, as well as silver buckles to their shoes. The very fashion of their dress was afterwards regulated. These devices to distinguish prostitutes from respectable females were speedily imitated. An aiguillette of a certain colour, hung from the shoulder, was most generally adopted in France. In some towns silk was prohibited to them.

The Bishop of Rhodes, in 1307, forbade them to wear mantles, veils, amber necklaces, or rings of gold, while the popes of Rome followed the example. The laws of Mantua obliged prostitutes when they appeared in the streets to cover the rest of their clothes with a short white cloak, and wear a badge on their breasts. At Bergamo the cloak was yellow; in Parma, white; in Milan, at first, black woollen, and then black silk. If disobedient, they might be fined, and, in case of a second offence, publicly exposed, and whipped. Any one might strip the garments off any girl he met in the streets illegally attired. In London a similar distinction was imposed on them, and at Strasburgh a sugar-loaf bonnet was invented for their use. In Spain, besides prohibitions concerning dress, they were forbidden the use of coaches and litters, as well as prayer-carpets or cushions in the churches; even a hackney-carriage was not allowed to be hired by them.

The acts of legislation in France were almost exclusively police regulations. Forced to tolerate the prostitute class, the law endeavoured, by watching, restraining, shaming, and insulting it, to render its occupation so infamous as to terrify persons from seeking it as a means of livelihood. It does not seem that in France, during the middle ages, legislation ever passed this limit or went beyond the action of police. In Italy, however, and in Spain, this was not the case. The Roman law had left many vestiges, which have never, in reality, disappeared; the ecclesiastical prerogative was powerful, and disposed to be active. Local statutes existed in great abundance, and the combination of these authorities gave rise to a jurisdiction full of details: profuse, sometimes strange, always subtle, in parts inconsistent, and laboriously commented upon by a numerous school of jurists—a jurisprudence which elevated itself above simple measures of security and municipal rules, and instituted for prostitutes a civil and social statute of their own.

Ulpian says that a woman is a prostitute not only when she frequents regular brothels, but when she visits cabarets, or any other places, where she is careless of her honour. She is a prostitute who yields herself for base purposes to all men; but she who has connection only with one or two is not. Octavenus, however, thinks, more justly, that she is a prostitute who gives up her person in common, whether she receive money or not.

The lawgivers of the middle ages were not accustomed to insist on perfect or precise definitions. They liked to subtilize over terms. Some held Ulpian’s limited view to be correct; others, with Octavenus, declared that any woman yielding to the solicitations of several men, even without being paid, was a prostitute. The Roman law defined prostitution to be the reception of numerous libertines. But how many? inquired St. Jerome. This threw divisions among the theorists. Some declared 40 men to be enough, some insisted on 60, others on 70; while a few, carrying extravagance to its utmost limits, asserted that no woman was a prostitute who had not delivered up her person to at least 3000 persons. While these ridiculous disputes engaged attention, the corruption of manners went on.