As to Macedonia there is a passage in Athenaeus, quoted from Hermesianax to this effect: ἀλλὰ Μακεδονίης πάσας κατενίσατο λαύρας (But he went through all the alleys of Macedonia), where Dalechamp translates the word λαύρα by brothel, but Casaubon even in his time threw doubt on this rendering.[116] Possibly however this judgement is connected with similar licentious practises among the Macedonians to what we find among the Persians[117], who indulged in sexual intercourse with their own mothers, daughters, etc., and begat children upon them,—a practice which Euripides[118] makes the Barbarians generally guilty of.
But if there were actually brothels existing in Macedonia, this would be the less surprising, as its inhabitants may well be reckoned amongst Greeks in many respects.
The Greek knew perfectly the boundary between the physical and the ethical, and sought ever to subordinate the former to the latter. His whole life belonged in the first instance to the State, of it he was bound to be a citizen, and for it to endeavour to produce good citizens. Consequently polygamy early disappeared in Greece, and so too community of wives, a custom which prevailed down to historical times at Sparta only. Monogamy was the first law of marriage, and marriage was the bounden duty of every true citizen[119], to save his family from dying out. But while the Asiatic prided himself on the number of his children, the Greek’s boast was of their excellence. Only with the object of procreating offspring was the Greek husband to rest in the arms of his spouse (ἐπ’ ἀρότῳ παίδων γνησίων—for the sowing, procreation of lawful children), and not to desecrate the holy Torus (marriage-couch) by mere lustfulness. Where this was stirred in him, he ceased to be free; a slave of lust, he must consort only with slave-women, and not with free citizenesses[120]. Nay! even this was permitted solely to avoid greater evils; and illicit coition never ceased to be held as something οὐ καλόν—unseemly[121], particularly when it was indulged in by married men.
It has been shown how under the clearer skies of Greece the Asiatic worship of Venus took on a form more worthy of mankind, how the Greek distinguished his Venus Urania (Heavenly Venus) from the Venus of the rest of the world, the Pandemian (Venus common to all), and so set up a barrier to the flood of dissoluteness,—a barrier however that was little by little broken down in later times. Foreigners, especially the voluptuous inhabitants of Asia, when they saw that the Greek cult did not like their native worship abet their carnal appetites, imported slave-women. These were purchased by the Greeks, and handed over as offerings to the temple of Aphrodité under the title of Temple-servants or “Hieroduli”[122]; and acquainted as they were with the needs of their fellow-countrymen, sought in every way to supply them,—as was in particular the case at Corinth.
This example could not well remain without influence on private life. The Greek indeed took no part in the Asiatic form of the Venus-worship; all the same illicit connection grew more and more universally prevalent, and as it could not be gratified in any other way, wives[123] and daughters of fellow-citizens were imperilled. To avert this danger Solon (B. C. 594) according to the statements of Philemon and Nicander[124] introduced actual brothels, οἴκημα, πορνεῖον, (house, brothel) and public women, πόρναι (prostitutes), who were accessible at a trifling charge. The houses of ill-fame were situated, as Pollux informs us, at Athens in the neighbourhood of the Harbour[125], and in the Ceramicus according to Hesychius[126], in later times also in the city itself[127]. They were presided over by a Whoremaster (πορνοβοσκός, πορνοτρόφος—harlot-maintainer, harlot-keeper). As to the internal arrangements of brothels among the Greeks we have been unable so far to discover anything more precise, but in all probability the same conditions held good as among the Romans.
Besides the regular brothels, women were also kept at the taverns[128] (καπηλεία, καπηλεῖον, καπήλιον, πανδοκεῖα,—tavern, inn), which likewise were situated chiefly near the Port. The women were bought slaves, as the passages quoted above (p. 70. note 2.) show; and even such free Greek women[129] as at a later period undertook the calling, were then looked upon as slaves[130]. All women of this class, as well as the whore-masters, were professionally under the supervision of the Ἀγορανόμοι (Market Commissioners[131], who fixed how much each was allowed to receive for her services. This fee was called μίσθωμα, διάγραμμα or ἐμπολή,—fee, scale, purchase). It varied in amount;—8 Chalci— = 1 obol, a little less than twopence (τριαντοπόρνη,—an obol, two-penny, girl)[132], 2 obols— = about three-pence halfpenny (διωβολιμαῖα, χαλκιδῖτις,—a two obol, three-pence halfpenny, girl)[133], a drachma—a franc, say ten-pence[134], a Stater—= 4 drachmae, say three and three-pence (στατηριαία,—a stater, three and three-penny, girl).[135]
The Hetaera (Lady-Companion) seems in this respect to have enjoyed a greater liberty of choice, and a knowledge of their prices to have been regarded as something out of the common[136]. The well-known Gnathaena at Athens asked 1000 Drachmae for a night from a foreign Satrap[137]; Phryné a mina (= 100 drachmae, something over four pounds sterling). But the most notorious of all was Lais at Corinth for the high price at which she sold the marks of her favour, from which arose the proverb: Non cuivis homini contingit adire Corinthum, (It is not every man that can go to Corinth)[138].
Licences to follow the calling were granted to the whore-masters, and also the women, on payment of a fixed duty, called “prostitute tax” (τέλος πορνικόν)[139], which was leased out yearly by the Magistracy, and collected by professional farmers of the prostitution-tax or Collectors, known as πορνοτελώναι, who kept a complete list, in which were included even the “Pathici” (pathic sodomites), of all liable to the impost. From the proceeds of this prostitution-tax Solon would seem to have built a temple at Athens to Aphrodité Pandemos[140]. From this an idea may be formed, even if nothing more than a sort of brothel is to be understood by the term, of the large number of women of this character and of the considerable revenue of the city.
The public women were either such as lived in the brothels (πόρναι, αἱ προστᾶσαι τῶν οἰκημάτων,—harlots, prostitutes of the “houses”), where they used to stand at the doors, and that in rows (ἐπὶ κέρως τεταγμένας,—drawn up in column) more or less stripped, in almost transparent dresses (γυμναὶ, ἐν λεπτοπήνοις ὑμέσιν,—stripped, in fine-woven robes)[141], or else they were kept partly as ἑταῖραι μουσικαί—“musical” hetaerae, like the harp-girls in German beer-halls, or with procurers (μαστροπός, προαγωγός,—bawds, procurers) in their taverns (προαγωγεῖα, μαστρόπιον, ματρύλλεια,—procurer’s house, bawdy-house, brothel). Or again they followed their trade in the Port-Market (the δεῖγμα) as δεικτηριάδες (Market-girls)[142], in the στοὰ μακρὰ, (Long Portico), and generally in the Lanes of that neighbourhood (χαμαιτύπαι[143], χαμαιευνάδες, χαμαιεύνης, χαμαιτηρίς, χαμεύνης,—all nick-names for common strumpets, “ground-thumpers,” “sleepers on the ground”), where they either surrendered themselves on the spot or hied to recognised harlots’ dens (χαμαιτυπεῖον) or houses of accommodation (τέγος)[144].
The place of their abode shows at once what class of men frequented “filles de joye” of the sort. It was foreign sailors[145] in particular who here indemnified themselves for their compulsory continence at sea. Of Greeks only the dregs of the people and debauchees who had lost all self-respect came here; and even these used by preference the taverns[146], where procuration was carried on as well[147],—for which reason they had fallen into general disrepute. For as late as Aristophanes’[148] time the lower class of citizens felt no hesitation about taking their pleasure along with their wives in inns. On the other hand persons of repute, prominent by office and dignities, were actually forbidden by law to visit such places. “Were an Areopagite to have been seen but once in an Inn,” says Hyperides[149], “his colleagues would no longer have tolerated him as a member of the Areopagus.” Later, matters changed, for the moralizing Isocrates[150] says, “Nay! no well-conducted slave dares even eat or drink anything in an Inn”; and Theophrastus, portraying the character of a madman quite devoid of shame gives this as a trait,—he would be quite capable of keeping an Inn!