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].

Of Prostitution among the Anglo-Saxons.

We leave the countries of classical antiquity and arrive at the Anglo-Saxons of our own history, in whom the reader will feel a peculiar interest. Unfortunately, our usual observations with reference to ancient times, apply to them also. Extremely imperfect records exist of their manners, laws, and institutions. The learned and industrious Sharon Turner has collected most of the facts known, yet neither the word prostitution, nor any term analogous to it, is to be found in his work. In the Leges Anglo-Saxonicæ, we find laws and regulations in reference to the chastity of the women, but nothing which indicates the existence of a class professionally addicted to prostitution. Nevertheless, it is improbable that such a class was utterly unknown, for the modern historians, as well as the old chroniclers, who have described the era, allude repeatedly to the licentious manners of the period. Gluttoning and deep drinking may, however, have excused the epithet, without supposing any prevalence of immorality.

Sharon Turner refers us to the Maories of New Zealand, for a parallel to the manners and condition of Great Britain, when first invaded by the Romans. As far as profligacy goes, the comparison appears correct.

Among the Britons, however, prevailed the extraordinary and pernicious institution of small societies of ten or twelve men, with a community of women among them. Ceremonies of marriage, indeed, took place, but for no other purpose than to provide that each woman’s husband should maintain all her children, whoever their fathers might be. In some of their religious ceremonies women officiated naked, and in all their modes of life a coarse licentiousness obtained.

The Romans introduced a more refined luxury, and manners became less coarse, though no less profligate. The Saxons, however, then transported themselves to these islands from the Cymbric Peninsula, and the civilization of the country passed through a complete revolution. In their original country they had displayed a system of manners peculiar to themselves, and the other wild races inhabiting the mighty woods of Germany. Their laws against adultery were of the most savage character. When a woman was guilty of it, she was compelled to hang herself, her body was burned, and the execution of the adulterer took place over the pile of her ashes. Among some communities the punishment was still more severe, and infinitely more barbarous. The guilty creature was whipped from village to village by a number of women, who tore off her garments to the waist, and pierced her with their knives. Company after company of them pursued her until she sank under the shame, torture, and loss of blood. Chastity, indeed, was very generally regarded among these rude people, but their ideas were very foreign from ours. The degrees of consanguinity within which marriage was prohibited were extremely narrow, a son being permitted to marry his father’s widow, provided she was not his own mother.

In their marriage customs the Anglo-Saxons displayed considerable regard for the female sex, although the wife was taken rather as the property than as the companion of the husband. The original laws of Ethelbert, indeed, as we have said, made the transaction wholly one of purchase; but in the reign of Edmund a more refined code was established. The betrothal usually took place some time before the actual ceremony. This was held as a sacred tie, the high-priest being at the marriage to consecrate it, and pray for a blessing on the wedded pair[40].

The manners of the Anglo-Saxons, after their settlement in England, underwent considerable improvement. They became, indeed, to a degree civilized. Their women were no longer the savages of Germany. They occupied a position wholly different from that of their sex among the more polished and luxurious nations of the East. It was, we may say, similar to that which they at present fill among us. They were recognised as members of the body politic, could bequeath and inherit property, could appeal to the law against any man; they possessed, in a word, the rights, the duties, and the public relations of citizens. Of course, in all these particulars, their position was modified by the natural restraints imposed on their sex. This refers to the more improved period of their civilization. In the laws of Ethelbert a man was permitted to buy a wife, provided he did it openly. By Edmund’s time, however, the practice was changed, and the woman’s consent, as well as that of her friends, was necessary. The man was also pledged before the law to support and respect her. She carried public protection into her new home. Considerable honour, consequence, and independence were there pre-enjoyed by the female sex. Nevertheless there continued long to be in the transaction much of a business character, and the consent of the woman was frequently no more than submission to the terms of a bargain struck between her lover and her parents. By some husbands, indeed, a wife seems to have been considered as little more than a property. We find adultery, for instance, allowed to be compounded. “If a freeman cohabit with the wife of a freeman he must pay the fine, and obtain another woman with his own money, and lead her to the other.” In other words, when he has destroyed the value of one wife, he must buy a fresh one for the injured husband.

This would seem to indicate that women were to be had for money. Adultery, indeed, was at all times an affair of payments. It was punished only by various fines, varying according to the rank of the woman. The chastity of the high noble’s wife was valued at six pounds, that of a churl’s attendant at six shillings.

In the Leges Anglo-Saxonicæ we find many regulations laid down respecting rape and fornication, which imply the occasional practice of those crimes. From the tone of the enactments on the subject, it seems impossible reasonably to doubt that a class of women existed who prostituted themselves for gain or pleasure to the other sex. None such, it is true, is directly indicated. We find, however, a rule of the venerable Bede, that any “slave woman” or “servile” turning her eyes immodestly on men, is to be severely chided. Blount also, quoted in Brand’s “Popular Antiquities,” with the historian Henry, describes the punishment of the cucking stool, as inflicted by the Anglo-Saxons, both in Germany and in England, upon scolds, disorderly women, and strumpets, who in the more barbarous society on the Continent were suffocated in marshes. In Cornwall harlots were long punished in the ludicrous and degrading manner described by Brand.

In the absence of any ground upon which to stand, we cannot describe a particular class among the Anglo-Saxons as addicted to prostitution, but from the whole colour of their civilization, from the rudest to the most refined period, it is evident the practice was followed, in a greater or less degree[41].