Paying a Vow.
(Why, you ask, is portrayed on the tablet the member whereby we are begotten? When, as it befell, my penis was damaged, and like a wretched coward I dreaded the Surgeon’s hand, I was afraid to entrust myself and the cure of my organ to the great official gods, that were too high for me, such I mean as Phoebus and Phoebus’ son. “To the member, I said, do thou, Priapus, give aid,—the member that thou art fashioned in the likeness of88. Then when it has been healed without the knife, a painted image of the part thou has relieved shall be dedicated to thee,—a match, a perfect match in form and in hue.” Thus he made his vow; the god nodded his penis in token of assent, and answered his prayers.)
This poem, whoever its author may have been89, testifies most explicitly that the Poet’s genital organs were seriously affected (by Phimosis and Ulcers?), that he from fear (timerem) of the Surgeon’s knife, from shame (verebar) before the regular physician in view of the part affected and of the way in which he had got the disease, had recourse to prayer and vow before the image of Priapus, and thereupon happily recovered without medical assistance!
The veneration of Priapus was pretty well universal in Italy, as the Roman poets teach us, and equally so the Phallic worship, of which the frequent representations of the Phallus that we find at Pompeii bear witness; in fact the latter, as Knight shows, maintained itself in connection with the veneration of Saints Cosmus and Damian down to the last Century at Isernia. The just quoted Poem from the Priapeia might perhaps serve to afford us an indication as to how the Phallus ritual has come to be connected with these Christian Saints; for probably patients attacked by the Venereal disease prayed to them, just as the Romans did to Priapus. Possibly examples of such cures by the saints in question are found in the “Acta Sanctorum Bollandi”. (Bollandist Lives of the Saints),—under Sept. 27.; but we are not able to consult the book. These Saints however were not the only ones that were venerated in the Middle Ages in the same way as the Priapus of the Ancients. In France unfruitful wives used to pray to St. Guerlichon, in Normandy to St. Giles, in Anjou to St. René, in connection with whom they practised rites which Stephanus declares himself ashamed to specify90.
Although the period at which the worship of Priapus was introduced among the different Peoples cannot be always definitely fixed, and although Classical Mythology invariably counts him as belonging to the newer91 gods, yet he appears in quite early times to have played a not unimportant part in Syria92,—if that is to say the conclusion93, pretty generally believed on other grounds, is well founded, that the god Baal Peor was a sort of Priapus, in whose temple, situated on Mount Peor94, young Maidens were offered up. The Rabbis95 derive the name from פְּעוֹר aperire sc. hymenem virgineum, (to open sc. the hymen of a virgin), as if it had sprung from the Phallus ritual, as still found in Italy. At Goa indeed a man’s member made of iron or ivory is fastened in the Pagoda, which in the case of every bride is pushed by the parents and relations into her vagina, until it brings away with it visibly the bloody traces of the rupture of the hymen96; a proceeding that is connected, as shown in § 4., with the belief in the malignity of the menstrual blood, and in that of blood coming from the ruptured hymen. On the Coromandel Coast likewise a wooden Priapus is to the present day most ardently venerated by the inhabitants97.
Here again we encounter a legend, which is not without importance for the history of the affections consequent upon the misuse of the genital organs, to wit the story of the Plague that broke out amongst the Jews at Shittim in consequence of their having taken part in the worship of Baal-Peor. Sickler98 was the first who, as a champion of the antiquity of the Venereal disease, made this the subject of a more precise examination. However, in order to obtain as clear an insight into the matter as possible, it will be needful to quote at length the passages of the Old Testament connected with the subject, according to the English Revised Version99:
Besides these passages in the Books of Moses we find the plague of Baal-Peor further mentioned in the following places in the Old Testament:
We find the Jews on their march towards Canaan already arrived at the Jordan, from which river Shittim lay at a distance of 60 Stades or 2-1/2 leagues according to Josephus101, and the neighbouring Peoples in a state of terror at their near approach and at their victories. The King of the Moabites, Balak, had sent to the soothsayer Balaam, that the latter by his arts (his curse) might annihilate the threatening foe. Balaam however, inspired by the spirit of the Lord, blessed the sons of Israel instead of cursing them, but gave Balak counsel how he could in another way bring about the ruin of the Jews. This counsel is indicated in the passage quoted, Numbers Ch. 31, v. 16, without being explicitly stated; but what it was can indeed be partially gathered from the context of the whole passage, and was apparently so understood by the author of the Apocalypse, when he says:102 “But I have a few things against thee, because thou hast there some that hold the teaching of Balaam, who taught Balak to cast a stumblingblock before the children of Israel, to eat things sacrificed to idols, and to commit fornication.” Both Philo and Josephus, who perhaps lived only a little later, picture the course of events in full detail, though, it is true, from unknown authorities.
Philo103 writes as follows:
“Quae prius, inquit (Bileam), dixi oracula sunt omnia et vaticinationes: de reliquo quae loquar, animi mei coniecturae erunt.—Age vero praeclara eius monita videamus, quibus artibus instructa fuerint ad certissimam offensionem eorum, qui semper vincere poterant. Cum enim intelligeret Hebraeos una tantum ratione capi posse, violata facinore aliquo lege, per stupri libidinem et intemperantiam, magna mala, ad maius impietatis scelus inducere studebat voluptatis esca. Huius enim, aiebat, regionis, o rex, mulieres specie reliquis longe praestant: viri autem nulla re facilius quam mulieris forma expugnari possunt. Proinde si formosissimas quaestum facere prostareque permiseris, iuventutem adversariorum velut hamis capient. Ita autem doceri eas oportet, ne statim floris sui volentibus copiam faciant. Nam molestus ille aculeus simulatae recusationis libidinem acrius excitabit, et amorem accendet, actique libidine tanquam obtorto collo trahuntur, quidvis et facere et pati in animum inducent. Amatorem igitur ut quaeque sic affectum nacta erit, quae ad venationem illam subornantur, ferociter dicat: tibi consuetudine mea frui nefas est, nisi a patriis institutis desciveris, mutataque sententia eadem iuxta mecum colere coeperis. Huius defectionis fides ea demum mihi perspecta fuerit, si libamentorum eorundem et sacrorum particeps esse volueris, quae simulacris et statuis reliquisque signis ex ritu facere solemus.—Sic igitur ille tum consulebat: rex ista non abs re dici ratus, sublata de adulteris lege et abrogatis omnibus de stupro corruptelaque sanctionibus, proinde quasi nunquam rogatae essent, liberam facit mulieribus quibuscum vellent consuescendi potestatem. Illae vero licentia et impunitate data adolescentulorum multitudinem illiciebant, multo ante eorum animis circumventis et illecebrarum praestigiis ad impietatem impulsis: usque dum postremo pontificis filius Phinees, facta ista supra modum indignatus (teterrimum enim ei videbatur eodem tempore corpora et animos pro deditiis, illa voluptatibus, hos sceleri et impiae fraudi tradi iuvenilis audaciae memorabile facinus viroque dignum forti edidit. Nam quendam sui generis sacris operatum ad scortum ingredi conspicatus, neque submittentem in terram vultum, neque latere cupientem, neque, ut assolet, clanculum aditum suffurantem, sed inverecundam fiduciae intemperantiam prae se ferentem et in flagitio ridiculo velut in re praeclara magnifice se efferentem, exacerbatus indignitate rei et iusta repletus ira, cursu irrumpens adhuc in lecto iacentes amatorem et meretriculam confodit, genitaliaque eis praeterea desecat, quibus incestum satum patrarant. Istud exemplum aliqui continentiae et religionis studiosi iussu Mosis imitati, omnibus qui initiati fuerant simulacris manu factis, propinquis iuxta necessariisque occidione occisis, scelus gentis expiarunt inexorabili sceleratorum supplicio,—unoque die viginti quatuor millia hominum caesa sunt, et una statim sublata est communis labes, qua totus exercitus maculosus polluebatur.”
(All my words, said he (Balaam), thus far are dark sayings and prophecies; what I shall speak henceforth will be the counsels of my own mind.—But come let us look into his excellent advice, in what artful ways it has been framed for the sure and certain destruction of our ever-victorious foes. For perceiving that the Hebrews could be overcome in one fashion only, viz. through their violating the law by some terrible wrongdoing, he set himself, employing the bait of lust, to lead them on by way of fornication and incontinence, great offences in themselves, to the still greater crime of impiety. For this land, he said, oh! King, far excels all others in the beauty of its women; and by no other thing may men’s minds be so readily mastered as by a woman’s fairness. So if thou suffer the fairest amongst them to play the harlot and offer their beauty for a price, they will catch the young men of our enemies, so to speak, on their hooks. But they must be instructed not to surrender the enjoyment of their persons straightway at the first offer. For the sharp sting of a feigned refusal will, as thou knowest, excite their longing more keenly than ever, and inflame their passion, till driven on by lustfulness they are dragged along, as it were, by a halter round their necks, and there is nothing they will not consent to do or suffer. Accordingly the lover that each of the fair women who are set on to this task has won for herself and brought to this condition, must be bluntly told: It is impossible for thee to enjoy my love unless thou break with the customs of thy fathers, and change thy heart, and undertake the observance of the same rites as we. And this desertion of thy people’s faith will I then only hold as manifested, when I shall see thee willing to partake in those same libations and sacrifices that we are wont duly to pay to our idols and statues and other images.—Now such was the advice Balaam then offered; and the King deeming that he spake much to the purpose, repealed the law as to unlawful intercourse, and removed all punishments for fornication and licentious conduct, and made them as though they had never been, giving free licence to the women to lie with any man they pleased. And the latter, permission being granted and impunity guaranteed, soon ensnared a great number of the young Jewish warriors, whose minds indeed had long beforehand been entangled and by every trick and allurement impelled towards impiety.
At the last the high-priest’s son, Phinehas, above measure indignant at such deeds of shame, and convinced that both souls and bodies were at one and the same time being enslaved, the one by sensual pleasures, the other by wickedness and craft and impiety104, did a deed at once memorable for youthful daring, and worthy of a hero. For when he saw a kinsman of his own and one of the priestly order go in to a harlot, and this without any look of shame fixed on the ground, without any attempt at concealment, without any stealing up privily and making, as men are wont in such a case, a surreptitious entrance, but instead carrying it off with an air of shameless self-confidence and bearing himself proudly as though his act were one to merit renown and not ridicule, he was fired by the indignity, and filled with righteous anger rushes up and bursts in on the lover and his wanton actually lying on the bed. He pierces them through, and furthermore cuts away those organs wherewith they were satisfying their unholy passion. This example was followed, by command of Moses, by other zealous partisans of purity and religion; and those who had been initiated into the service of idols died the death at the hands of their family and kinsfolk, and so the wickedness of the nation was expiated by a merciless punishment of the wrongdoers;—and in one day four and twenty thousand men were slain, and thereby was straightway removed the common stain wherewith the whole host was spotted and polluted).
In much the same way, only still more fully, Josephus105 relates the circumstance. Licentiousness had laid hold of almost the entire host, and ancestral institutions were in danger of being abandoned altogether. Consequently, Josephus says, Moses appointed an assemblage of the People and in a speech drew attention to the perils that threatened. Sambrias (Simri) however made a defence, maintaining that they had long enough obeyed tyrannous laws and would fain live free henceforth. Hereupon he quitted the assembly, and was assassinated in his tent by the enraged Phinehas. Josephus (§ 12.) proceeds:
“Iuvenes autem omnes, qui virtutis aliquid sibi vindicarent et honestatis studio tenerentur, Phineesis fortitudinis exemplo accensi, eiusdem cum Zambria criminis reos interfecerunt. Multi itaque illorum, qui leges patrias violarant, horum egregia virtute perempti sunt. Peste autem reliqui omnes perierunt, deo hunc illis morbum immittente. Et quotquot e cognatis, qui cum prohibere debuerint, eos ad haec impulerant, a deo pro sceleris sociis habiti, pariter sublati erant.”106
(But all the younger men who laid any claim to manly virtue and tried to live honorably, fired by the example of Phinehas’ bold deed, slew all that were guilty of the same crime as Sambrias. And so by their singular courage and patriotism numbers of the men who had broken their ancestral laws were destroyed. But all that survived perished by a plague, that God sent upon them. Moreover such of their kinsfolk as ought to have hindered them, but instead had urged them to these courses, these God deemed accomplices in the wickedness, and they also were cut off.) Philo and Josephus are not indeed to be regarded as authentic eye-witnesses of what they record; still the passages quoted from them prove this much, that in their time the opinions they express were generally held.
The Jews were thus led astray by the daughters of the Moabites, and both practised fornication with them and made sacrifice in their temples to the god of the country, whose priestesses, as Balaam declared, were conspicuous above other women for their beauty. The consequence of these excesses was an infectious disease, (according to Josephus it communicated itself, but, he says, only to kinsmen!), which cost many107 their lives. The number however fell far short of 24000, for these perished mainly by the sword of their brethren, as Philo and Josephus expressly remark, and the author of the Pentateuch intimates, when he says (Numbers Ch. 26. v. 5.), “And Moses said unto the judges of Israel, Slay ye every one his men that have joined themselves unto Baal-Peor.” The narrator declares that by this slaughter the plague was stayed for the sons of Israel; but it certainly cannot have ceased altogether, as is manifest from the passages quoted from Joshua, where Phinehas asserts: that to that day the people was not yet cleansed from the misdoing of Peor.
The disease therefore cannot have been merely some passing disorder. It must evidently have been somewhat widely disseminated by the Moabitish women, and have been of very common occurrence among them; and that it was readily infectious follows from the whole course of Moses’ proceedings. The latter was angry because the woman had been suffered to live, and commanded to put to death all of them that had known men in carnal intercourse, but to keep alive the young virgins,—and their number was, according to Ch. 31. v. 35., thirty-two thousand!—who were brought into the camp as prisoners and there divided amongst their captors. So we see the executions took place not in order that opportunity for intercourse with the heathen women,—a thing which might very well on its own account have been an abomination to the Lord,—might be altogether removed, (for how in that case account for the maidens being saved alive, brought into camp, and divided as booty?)108 but that by this means the risk of the further dissemination of the disease might be for ever prevented.
The imminence of this risk in Moses’ opinion is shown finally by the purification of the host which he had despatched for the massacre of the Moabites and their women. He made it, prisoners and all the spoil included, halt for a period of seven days outside the camp, and twice over submit to a thorough purification. The Jews had slain many thousands of men in their previous wars, nay! just before they marched against the Moabites, they had actually slaughtered 24000 of their own youth; yet they had never been ordered to leave the camp for seven days, and twice over during this time to purify themselves and all their possessions. Only after the annihilation of the Moabitish women (not of the Moabite men), from the accomplishment of which they had just returned, had this happened. All this points to some most cogent reason. Here comes into operation the same law which was enforced on occasion of purification after Leprosy and after foul discharge: and indeed also after contact with a dead person,—even where they had first caused the death of the said person! Thus no one can very well dispute the view taken by Philo,109 when he says with regard to the purification after the annihilation of the Moabites:—
“Nam ut legitima hostium caedes sit, attamen qui hominem interfecit quamquam iure, quamquam vim propulsans, quamquam coactus, non insons esse videtur nec extra noxiam, propter summam illam et communem hominum inter ipsos cognationem. Quo nomine piacula suscipienda fuerunt interfectoribus ad luendum scelus, quod conceptum censebatur.”
(For whereas the slaying of enemies is lawful, nevertheless whosoever has killed a man, whether lawfully, or whether initiating the violent act, or whether on compulsion, seems not to be innocent or free from responsibility; and this is owing to that supreme and general relationship of all mankind with one other. Wherefore certain expiations had to be undertaken by any man who had killed another, to wipe out the guilt that was deemed to have been incurred).
What was the precise nature of the disease that the Jews had brought on themselves by their intercourse with the Moabitish women cannot indeed be determined; but that it affected the genital organs can hardly admit of a doubt. The fact, if it is a fact, that not a few lost their lives owing to it, need be no objection, since the ulceration of the genitals that prevailed at the end of the XVth. Century caused similar fatalities, and as we shall presently see, the uncircumcised Apion met his death in some such way. Now the Jews were almost without exception still uncircumcised at that time, for it was Joshua110 who first on his arrival in Canaan, at the bidding of Jehovah, circumcised the children of Israel with stone knives on the hill Araloth. When the people adopted the worship of Baal Peor, we may be sure they ceased at the same time to observe the ancestral laws of purification,—if indeed these latter even as regards foul discharge and leprosy as well as intercourse with women during menstruation were not perhaps, as might almost be believed, first enacted in all their severity only in consequence of the plague of Baal Peor. Again it may well have been this experience that first taught the inhabitants of Palestine the necessity of circumcision, which was then laid down as an ordinance by command of Jehovah!
There is no doubt that it was in the Asiatic cult of Venus that the first elements were given for sexual excesses. It is hardly a matter of surprise therefore if these same elements came constantly, as has been shown above, into greater and greater prominence, and in this way pushed the original form of the Worship into the background. By degrees as enlightenment increased and the respect felt towards the gods diminished, Venus also soon lost her old character as goddess of procreation and sank into the patroness of sensual gratification. Her temples as well as her holy groves lost their exclusive title to bestow the blessing of fruitfulness on the embraces of the sexes, and came merely to serve as appointed trysting-places of carnal pleasures. The offerings made at her shrines were no longer to win an assurance of posterity; they became bribes paid to buy a free opportunity for the indulgence of sensuality. They degenerated into fornication-fees, as her temples did into brothels. The priestesses of Astarté or Mylitta stood at the beck and call alike of strangers and natives, and the opportunity was ever open for sexual enjoyment. Hence too it is that a special designation for the brothel will be looked for in vain in Asia. The thing existed there without the name being required; and the State found no need to establish an institution, which had long ago, without any intervention on its part, taken form under the cloak of religion.
Even amongst the Jews, who frequently enough, but always as a temporary aberration merely, adhered to the foreign cult, brothels in the strict sense seem never to have existed112. Although courtesans are frequently mentioned in the Old Testament, and even the dwelling of a Wanton as well as her behaviour pictured with considerable fullness of detail113, yet all this would seem to have had more of a private than of a public character,—due heed being given to the fact that not a few passages are to be taken only in a figurative sense. Prostitution as a regular calling was strictly prohibited114 to the daughters of Israel; and such women as practised it openly seem to have been mainly foreigners, perhaps natives of Phoenicia and Syria, who at the same time entertained with dancing and the music of stringed instruments115. But the attempt to draw a conclusion from this as to the pre-eminent chastity of the Jewish women, as e.g. Beer (on p. 25 loco citato) wishes to do, would be justifiable neither for earlier nor yet for later times. The passages of the Old Testament dealing with Sodom and with the dissoluteness under Mannasseh even in the very Temple at Jerusalem are sufficient by themselves to prove the contrary.
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 Persians117, who indulged in sexual intercourse with their own mothers, daughters, etc., and begat children upon them,—a practice which Euripides118 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 citizen119, 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 citizenesses120. Nay! even this was permitted solely to avoid greater evils; and illicit coition never ceased to be held as something οὐ καλόν—unseemly121, 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, wives123 and daughters of fellow-citizens were imperilled. To avert this danger Solon (B. C. 594) according to the statements of Philemon and Nicander124 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 Harbour125, and in the Ceramicus according to Hesychius126, in later times also in the city itself127. 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 taverns128 (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 women129 as at a later period undertook the calling, were then looked upon as slaves130. All women of this class, as well as the whore-masters, were professionally under the supervision of the Ἀγορανόμοι (Market Commissioners131, 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-pence134, 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 common136. The well-known Gnathaena at Athens asked 1000 Drachmae for a night from a foreign Satrap137; 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 Pandemos140. 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 (χαμαιτύπαι143, 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 sailors145 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 taverns146, where procuration was carried on as well147,—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 Hyperides149, “his colleagues would no longer have tolerated him as a member of the Areopagus.” Later, matters changed, for the moralizing Isocrates150 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!
The hetaera (female-companion) must be distinguished from the πόρνη (harlot), though both were under similar conditions as to police surveillance. The hetaera was also strictly speaking a slave-woman, usually stolen as a child or otherwise obtained by procuresses, or bought by older hetaerae. They were educated151 in all that was understood by the Ancients under the name “Music”, that over and above their charms of person, they might especially captivate their lovers by their intellectual cultivation, who bought them to give them their freedom,—and then more often than not were presently abandoned by them. The great nursery of hetaerae was above all places Corinth, from which centre they travelled through all parts of Greece, as e.g. did Neaera, and frequently acquired enormous riches. The better class of them were everywhere held in high esteem; and many a hetaera, grown weary of her condition, gave her hand to a husband, in order to close her life as an honest wife152, or else retired so as at any rate to lead a blameless existence153. Frequently indeed they were also “Dames de Maison”, and often kept a considerable number of girls under the title of hand-maids. This was the case with Nicareta, just mentioned, at Corinth, as well as with the famous Aspasia at Athens, the latter of whom flooded all Hellas with her protegées154. Such as were held in less respect often put themselves under the protection of their more renowned sisters, or else carried on the calling on their own account, and this especially when they were not so well educated, not “musical” (πεζαι ἑταιραι—prose lady-companions)155, at Athens going to settle at the Peiraeus to entice the merchants who arrived in the port, whilst the more choice merely showed themselves there156. They often followed the troops on service in crowds, accompanying for instance the general Chares157 and Pericles to Samos, where they made so large an income that they even built a temple of Ἀφροδίτη ἐν Καλάμοις (Aphrodité at Calami,—the Reeds)158. For the remaining details as to the life of the hetaerae the classical Treatise of Friedrich Jacobs159 should be consulted.
Even these regular “filles de joie” at first existed almost exclusively for foreigners, who often squandered prodigious sums in their arms; the Athenians at any rate up to the time of Themistocles did not go with them160. But the example proved too strong to resist. Little by little the younger men acquired a taste for the freer society of the highly educated and luxuriously bedecked161 courtesans, who on their side were possessed of tact enough to subordinate the purely sensual to the intellectual, in order to captivate the Greek sense of beauty. Even older men might easily be seen at their feet, for the Greek ladies had but too little aptitude for stepping beyond the household sphere162. And so it was no longer matter for surprise when Chares took with him on his expedition, as stated above, a large number of hetaerae. The Athenian youth was already in the habit of killing time in their society163; and the important rôle they played in the time of Pericles needs to be no further insisted on. The Greek however never descended to the lowest level of shameless, brutal, coarseness. Before he threw himself into the arms of the foreign Wanton, he first raised her to some equality with himself; and of the handmaid and slave made a friendly companion or hetaera!
The account here given applies particularly only to Athens, for our efforts to discover anything more precise as to brothels and courtesans in the remaining States and Cities of Greece have not so far been crowned with success.
With the Roman, who could spare hardly a thought to any other feeling than his pride, love played but an insignificant rôle in his existence. Even the deference he showed towards marriage and the married woman was not really so much the outcome of a pure morality as of the interest that the State must of necessity feel in the nursing-mothers of each succeeding generation; in fact it can scarcely be regarded as much more than a mere measure of policy. When a Censor like Metellus in a public Speech intended to encourage matrimony could say164: Si sine uxore possemus, Quirites, esse, omnes ea molestia careremus: sed quoniam ita natura tradidit, ut nec cum illis satis commode, nec sine illis ullo modo vivi possit, saluti perpetuae potius quam brevi voluptati consulendum. (If we could live without a wife, Quirites, we should all be free from such inconvenience; but since nature has arranged it in this wise that neither with women in any real comfort, nor without them at all, can existence be carried on, we ought to think of our life-long well-being rather than of a momentary gratification),—and when even the strict Cato declared165: In adulterio uxorem tuam si deprehendisses, sine iudicio impune necares: illa te, si adulterares, digito non auderet contingere, neque ius est. (If you should have detected your wife in adultery, you might kill her without trial and be scatheless; but she, if you were the adulterer, would not dare to lay a finger upon you, nor is it lawful she should),—it can hardly surprise us to find a complete lack of the ideal or intellectual element in the relations of the sexes. These never really rose among the Romans much above the level of the bestial; and harlots are found already in evidence at the very threshold of Roman history166, whilst association with them far from ever being a subject of blame, is rather represented as being a custom sanctified by immemorial usage that had never been forbidden167.
In spite of this however, and of the fact that the Etruscans168, at a time when Rome was hardly more than coming into existence, already led a life that was worse than licentious, while Messapians, Samnites and Locrians, as has been shown, habitually gave up their daughters to prostitution,—in spite of all this I say, the sexual excesses of the Romans were for the first 500 years on the whole insignificant. Their way of life as warriors and husbandmen hardly suffered them to sink into indolent sloth, the beginning of all vicious living, whilst the law of the XII Tables, “coelibes prohibeto” (be it forbidden to remain bachelors)169 forced men in the vigour of their powers to satisfy the impulse of nature in the arms of the lawful wife. But more and more did the Romans come into contact with foreign Peoples, and began to adopt more and more their customs and vices. In the year 513 A.U.C. (B.C. 240) the Floralia were introduced, which even granting they cannot have had the origin that Lactantius170 assigns them, yet by the very nature of the celebrations were an outrage on all good morals. Yet so universally popular were they that Cato could win no greater concession to his indignant zeal against them than that their closing scenes should be delayed until he had retired171.
The enormous wealth the Romans had won as booty in their continual Wars of spoliation, could not be hoarded unused, it must be enjoyed; and how enjoyed, the warriors knew already. The younger members of the Equestrian and Patrician orders went on travels, and learned in the arms of Greek and Asiatic wantons how to lavish their money secundum artem. Then on their return to Rome finding the native Scorta (common harlots) no longer to their taste, they brought home with them their freed-woman “Amica” (Mistress), who was a fair match for the Greek hetaera in greed, if not in refinement. It was not long before the old-fashioned Roman matron succumbed in the struggle with her for supremacy, and by dint of her only too successful endeavours to outdo the foreign courtesan in recherché vice and effrontery, became but the more despicable in the eyes of the proud Roman. She had indeed learned to be a mother, but not to love. At the same time the Roman himself, surrounded as he thus was by no softening influences, ceased not only to be a citizen of the state, but even to be a man at all; and the Ruler of the World sank at last to such a depth of exaggerated viciousness that it became his glory and boast to be without a rival in its enormity.
The conclusion then is indisputable that only subsequently to the Wars in Asia was Roman morality undermined172. At the same time it is impossible from the information given above to assign any definite point of time at which brothels and public women came into vogue at Rome, or at any rate when their existence as such was officially recognized by those in charge of the police supervision of the city. With the regulations and arrangements however we are more precisely acquainted. The brothels, lupanaria173, fornicas174, were situated chiefly in the Second District (Secunda Regio) of the city175, the Coelimontana, particularly in the Subura (Suburbana) that bordered the town-walls, lying in the Carinae,—the valley between the Coelian and Esquiline Hills. In the same district was the Macellum magnum, or Great Market, for all sorts of provisions176 along the banks of the Tiber, as well as the Cookshops, Stalls or Shops (Tabernae)—of the Barbers, even of the Public Executioner177, and the Castra peregrina, (Foreign Camp), barracks for foreign troops quartered in Rome under the Emperors as a garrison,—all circumstances that occasioned a great concourse of men178. To the North the Subura marched with the “Isis and Serapis”,—the Third District (Tertia Regio), where was situated the temple of Isis with its gardens and groves. The regular brothels are pictured to us as being in the highest degree uncleanly and dirty179, so that their frequenters carried away the smell with them. They possessed a definite number of “chambers”, Cellae180, and above the door of each of these was inscribed the name of the girl, that which she had adopted on her first admission181, and the price of her embraces182. In each “chamber” was to be found a bed (pavimentum, cubiculum, pulvinar,—pavement, sleeping-place, couch), which was spread with a particular kind of coverlet, lodix, lodicula, (blanket, little blanket)183, and a lamp, lucerna184.
As for the brothel-keeper, the Romans seem to have had no special word 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 slaves186. The Leno had his Villicus puellarum (Superintendent of the Maids), who assigned name and price, provided the girls with clothes187, and kept a list of them and what they earned188. 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 regulation190.
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 duties191. 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 fastened194, and “occupata” (engaged) written over the door195, an unoccupied “chamber” being called nuda (naked)196. Towards morning the “chambers” were opened, and the Leno (brothel-keeper) let the girls go197. 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 Juvenal198 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 shops199; 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 Representations200, 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, eatinghouses201, 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 Sailors203, Freedmen and Slaves204, though indeed later, when Claudius and Nero205 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 wanted206. This appears to have been done first in Campania207. 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 streets208, round the tombs and monuments209, in out-of-the-way nooks of the town and the surrounding plantations in its neighbourhood210. 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, Ambubaiae211, 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-women212, and were distinguished not only for their more elaborate dress213, 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.