A C TA  I N S T I T U T I   R O M A N I   F I N L A N D I A E ACTA A C TA  I N S T I T U T I   R O M A N I   F I N L A N D I A E   V O L .

  4 6
IRF
1. Sylloge inscriptionum Christianarum veterum Musei Vaticani 22. Female Networks and the Public Sphere in Roman Society 46
Ediderunt commentariisque instruxerunt sodales Instituti Romani edited by Päivi Setälä and Liisa Savunen, 1999.
Finlandiae curante Henrico Zilliacus, 1-2, 1963.
23. The Roman Middle Republic
2. 1. Onomastic Studies in the Early Christian Inscriptions of Rome Politics, religion, and historiography c. 400 - 133 B.C.
and Carthage by Iiro Kajanto, 1963. [Out of print] edited by Christer Bruun, 2000. [Out of print]
2. Biometrical Notes by Henrik Nordberg, 1963. [Out of print]
3. A Study of the Greek Epitaphs of Rome 24. Magistrates and Assemblies. A Study of Legislative Practice in
by Iiro Kajanto, 1963. [Out of print] Republican Rome by Kaj Sandberg, 2001.
3-4. Graffiti del Palatino 25. Women, Wealth and Power in the Roman Empire
raccolti ed editi sotto la direzione di Veikko Väänänen. by Päivi Setälä, Ria Berg et al., 2002.
3. Paedagogium
a cura di Heikki Solin e Marja Itkonen-Kaila, 1966.
4. Domus Tiberiana
a cura di Paavo Castrén e Henrik Lilius, 1970.
26. Vettius Agorius Praetextatus. A senatorial Life in Between
by Maijastina Kahlos, 2002. THE ROMAN COURTESAN
5. Studies in the Romanization of Etruria 27. Ostia e Portus nelle loro relazioni con Roma

archaeological reflections
by Patrick Bruun et al., 1975. [Out of print] a cura di Christer Bruun e Anna Gallina Zevi, 2002.

6. Le iscrizioni della necropoli dell’Autoparco Vaticano 28. The Roman Curia, the Apostolic Penitentiary and the Partes in

of a literary topos
edite sotto la direzione di Veikko Väänänen, 1973. the Later Middle Ages
edited by Kirsi Salonen and Christian Krötzl, 2003.
7. Lateres signati Ostienses
sotto la direzione di Jaakko Suolahti. 29. Le scritture dai monasteri
1. Testo di Margareta Steinby in collaborazione con Tapio Helen, Atti del II° seminario “I Monasteri nell’alto medioevo”
1978. 2. Tavole di Margareta Steinby, 1977. a cura di Flavia De Rubeis e Walter Pohl, 2003.

THE ROMAN COURTESAN

8. Ordo Populusque Pompeianus. 30. Le iscrizioni sepolcrali latine nell’Isola Sacra
Polity and Society in Roman Pompeii by Paavo Castrén, 1975. Sec- edite sotto la direzione di Anne Helttula, 2007 editors
ond edition, 1983.

9. 1. Organization of Roman Brick Production in the First and

31. Technology, Ideology, Water: from Frontinus to the Renaissance
and Beyond
Ria Berg & Richard Neudecker
Second Centuries A.D. An interpretation of Roman Brick Stamps edited by Christer Bruun and Ari Saastamoinen, 2003.
by Tapio Helen, 1975. Indices. 1977.
Offprint from Ann. Sc. Fenn., Diss. Hum. Litt. 5. [Out of print] 32. Interpretare i bolli laterizi di Roma e della Valle del Tevere:
2. Private Domini in Roman Brick Stamps of the Empire produzione, storia economica e topografia
A Historical and Prosopographical Study of Landowners in the a cura di Christer Bruun, 2005.
District of Rome by Päivi Setälä, 1977. Offprint from Ann. Sc.
Fenn., Diss. Hum. Litt. 10.
33. Hoping for Continuity. Childhood, Education and Death in
Antiquity and the Middle Ages
10. Villa Lante al Gianicolo edited by Katariina Mustakallio, Jussi Hanska et al., 2005.
L’architettura e la decorazione pittorica
di Henrik Lilius. 1. Testo. 2. Tavole e figure, 1981.
34. Gunnar Mickwitz nella storiografia europea tra le due guerre
Atti del Colloquio all’Institutum Romanum Finlandiae, 6-7 giugno
11. Indici complementari ai bolli doliari urbani (CIL XV, 1) 2005, a cura di Mika Kajava, 2007.
di Eva Margareta Steinby, 1987.
35. Dediche sacre nel mondo greco-romano. Religious Dedications in
12. Studies in Constantinian Numismatics. Papers from 1954 to 1988 the Greco-Roman World
by Patrick Bruun, 1991. [Out of print] Institutum Romanum Finlandiae, American Academy in Rome, 19-20
aprile 2006, a cura di John Bodel e Mika Kajava, 2009.
13. Senatus populusque Romanus
Studies in Roman Republican Legislation by Unto Paananen et al., 36. De amicitia. Friendship and Social Networks in Antiquity and the
1993. Middle Ages
edited by Katariina Mustakallio and Christian Krötzl, 2010.
14. Roman Female Praenomina
Studies in the Nomenclature of Roman Women by Mika Kajava, 37. Wolfgang Helbig e la scienza dell’antichità del suo tempo
1994. a cura di Simo Örmä e Kaj Sandberg, 2011.

15. Studi storico-epigrafici sul Lazio antico 38. Lacus Iuturnae II - 1. Relazioni di scavo e conclusioni.
a cura di Heikki Solin, Mika Kajava et al., 1996. 2. Materiali, a cura di Eva Margareta Steinby, 2012.

16. Ianiculum - Gianicolo. Storia, topografia, monumenti, leggende 39. Changing Minds. Communication and Influence in the High and
dall’antichità fino al rinascimento a cura di Eva Margareta Steinby, 1996. Later Middle Ages
edited by Christian Krötzl and Miikka Tamminen, 2013.
17. Le iscrizioni urbane ad Anagni
edizione a cura di Heikki Solin e Pekka Tuomisto, schede di Mika 40. Studies in Ancient Oracles and Divination
Kajava et al., 1996. edited by Mika Kajava, 2013.

18. Birds in Mosaics. A Study of Representation of Birds in Hellenistic 41. Religious Participation in Ancient and Medieval Societies. Rituals,
and Romano-Campanian Tesselated Mosaics to the Early Augustan Interaction and Identity
Age, by Antero Tammisto, 1997. edited by Sari Katajala-Peltomaa and Ville Vuolanto, 2013.

19. Epigrafi e studi epigrafici in Finlandia 42. Agents and Objects – Children in Pre-modern Europe
a cura di Heikki Solin, Christer Bruun et al., 1998. edited by Katariina Mustakallio and Jussi Hanska, 2015.

43. The Material Sides of Marriage. Women and Domestic Economies

20. Kult und Kaiser in Antiquity
Studien zu Kaiserkult und Kaiserverehrung in den germanischen edited by Ria Berg, 2016.
Provinzen und in Gallia Belgica zur römischen Kaiserzeit von Uta-
Maria Liertz, 1998. 44. The South Etruscan Cippus Inscriptions (SECI)
edited by Jorma Kaimio, 2017.
21. Heikki Solin. Analecta epigraphica 1970-1997
Iterum edenda indicibusque instruenda curavit Michael Kajava amicis 45. Il Mediterraneo e la storia II
adiuvantibus, 1998. a cura di Laura Chioffi, Mika Kajava, Simo Örmä, 2017 ROMA 2018
 THE ROMAN COURTESAN
Archaeological reflections of a literary topos

editors
Ria Berg & Richard Neudecker
A C T A   I N S T I T U T I   R O M A N I   F I N L A N D I A E   Vo l .   4 6

THE ROMAN COURTESAN

archaeological reflections of a literary topos

editors
Ria Berg & Richard Neudecker

ROMA 2018
 Acta Instituti Romani Finlandiae,
rivista internazionale open-access sottoposta a peer review
Acta Instituti Romani Finlandiae,
an international peer-reviewed open-access series

Direttore / Director

Mika Kajava
Department of Languages
FI - 00014 University of Helsinki

Comitato scientifico / Editorial board

Mika Kajava – Mika Lavento – Arja Karivieri

Comitato editoriale internazionale / International Editorial Advisory Board

John Bodel (Providence, USA), Alfredo Buonopane (Verona), Irene Bragantini (Napoli),
Michel Gras (Paris), Klaus Herbers (Erlangen), Sybille Ebert-Schifferer (Roma)

Redazione / Editing

Simo Örmä, Roma

Redazione del vol. 46 / Editorial work for vol. 46

Ria Berg – Richard Neudecker

In copertina / Cover illustration

Pompei. Casa degli Amorini Dorati. Tondo con testa femminile.

ISBN 978-88-7140-927-6
ISSN 0538-2270

© Institutum Romanum Finlandiae

Roma 2018
www.irfrome.org

Finito di stampare nel mese di dicembre 2018

 Contents

Bibliography 7
Preface 37

Ria Berg, Introduction: Unveiling Roman courtesans 41

Thomas A.J. McGinn, Courtesans in the Roman legal sources 65

Alison Keith, Historical Roman courtesans 73

Antonio Varone, Pupa, puella, domina. Tracce di cortigiane nella documentazione pompeiana? 87

Sharon L. James, The life course of the Roman courtesan 101

Marja-Leena Hänninen, The image of a well-born lady as a prostitute. The cases of Clodia, Julia
and Messalina 111

Pia Mustonen, Influential mistresses in the imperial dynasties of first-century Rome: Claudia Acte
and Antonia Caenis 121

Irene Bragantini, Quadretti con coppie su klinai dalla Villa della Farnesina 131

Richard Neudecker, Beauties from a distant world. On portrait galleries of Hellenistic hetairai in
several houses of Pompeii 143

Luciana Jacobelli, Pitture di banchetto con presenze femminili nelle case di Pompei: alcune con-
siderazioni 157

Ville Hakanen, A perfect scenery for male courtesans? Ganymede in two Pompeian wall paintings 167

Anna Fedele – Donato Labate, Instrumentum con scene erotiche da tombe femminili di età romana 181

Ria Berg, Furnishing the courtesan’s house. Material culture and elite prostitution in Pompeii 193

Siri Sande, Prostitutes and entertainers at Rome. Did they leave memories of themselves? 221

Indices 229
 Bibliography

Abbreviations

For the ancient Latin authors, the abbreviations of the Thesaurus linguae Latinae, Index, Leipzig 1990, are
used; for the Greek authors, see Oxford Classical Dictionary, Oxford 1996, 3. ed. Titles of periodicals are
abbreviated as in l’Année philologique.

AE = L’Année Épigraphique.

BdI = Bullettino dell’Instituto di corrispondenza archeologica.

CIS = Corpus Inscriptionum Semiticarum, Paris: e Reipublicae Typographeo, 1881- .

Collezioni 1986 = V. Sampaolo – M. Lista – C. Ziviello, Le Collezioni del Museo nazionale di Napoli. I
mosaici, le pitture, gli oggetti di uso quotidiano, gli argenti, le terrecotte invetriate, i vetri, i cristalli, gli
avori, Vol. I.1, Roma: De Luca, 1986.

Collezioni 1989 = M.R. Borriello – M. Lista – U. Pappalardo – V. Sampaolo – C. Ziviello, Le collezioni

del Museo nazionale di Napoli. I mosaici, le pitture, gli oggetti di uso quotidiano, gli argenti, le terrecotte
invetriate, i vetri, i cristalli, gli avori, Vol. I.2, Roma: De Luca, 1989.

Der Neue Overbeck = Der Neue Overbeck, vol. 3, Spätklassik, Berlin: de Gruyter, 2014.

EE = Ephemeris epigraphica.

FGrHist = F. Jacoby, Die Fragmente der griechischen Historiker, Vol. 3, B, Kommentar, Leiden: Brill,
1950/55.

IGR = Inscriptiones Graecae ad res Romanas pertinentes, vols. 1-4, R. Cagnat (ed.), Paris: Leroux, 1906-
1927.

ILS = Inscriptiones Latinae Selectae. H. Dessau (ed.), Berlin: Weidmann, 1892-1916.

LIMC = Lexicon iconographicum mythologiae classicae, Zürich – München: Artemis, 1981-1999.

LTURS = Lexicon topographicum urbis Romae, suburbium, vols. 1-5, V. Fiocchi Nicolai et al. (eds.), Roma:
Edizioni Quasar, 2001-2008.

NSc = Notizie degli scavi di Antichità.

OGIS = Orientis Graeci inscriptiones selectae. W. Dittenberger (ed.), Leipzig: Hirzel, 1903-1905.

OLD = Oxford Latin dictionary, P.G.W. Glare et al. (eds.), Oxford: Clarendon, 1996.
8 BIBLIOGRAPHY

PIR² = Prosopographia Imperii Romani, 2. ed., Berlin, 1933-2015.

PPM = Pompei. Pitture e mosaici 1-10, Roma: Istituto della Enciclopedia italiana, 1990-2003.

PPM DISEGNATORI = Pompei. Pitture e mosaici. La documentazione nell’opera di disegnatori e pittori

dei secoli XVII e XIX, Roma: Istituto della Enciclopedia italiana, 1995.

P.Ross.Georg. = O. Krüger (ed.), Papyri Russischer und Georgischer Sammlungen, II, Ptolemäische und
Frührömische Texte, Amsterdam: Hakkert, (1929), repr. 1966.

RE = A. Pauly – G. Wissowa et al., Paulys Realencyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft. Stutt-

gart 1894-1980.

ThLL = Thesaurus Linguae Latinae. Lipsiae: Teubner, 1900-.

General bibliography

Ackerman 2000 = G.M. Ackerman, Jean-Léon Gérome (Monographie revisé, catalogue raisonné mis à
jour), Courbevoie: ACR Éd., 2000.

Adams 1983 = J.N. Adams, ‘Words for “prostitute” in Latin’, RhM 126 (1983), 321-58.

Allen Miller 2013 = P. Allen Miller, ‘The puella. Accept no substitutions!’, in Thorsen 2013, 166-79.

Allison 2004 = P.M. Allison, Pompeian households. An analysis of the material culture, Los Angeles: Uni-
versity of Los Angeles, 2004 (Pompeian Households: An On-line Companion, http://www.stoa.org/projects/
ph/home).

Allroggen-Bedel 1975 = A. Allroggen-Bedel, ‘Herkunft und ursprünglicher Dekorationszusammenhang

einiger in Essen ausgestellter Fragmente von Wandmalerei’, in B. Andreae – H. Kyrieleis (eds.), Neue
Forschungen in Pompeji und den anderen vom Vesuvausbruch 79 n.Chr. verschütteten Städten, Reckling-
hausen: Bongers, 1975, 115-22.

Amarger – Brun 2007 = M.P. Amarger – P. Brun, ‘La forge dell’insula I, 6, 1 de Pompéi’, Quaderni di studi
pompeiani 1 (2007), 147-68.

Anderson 1994 = W.S. Anderson, Barbarian play. Plautus’ Roman comedy, Toronto: University of Toronto
Press, 1994.

Anderson – Parsons – Nisbet 1979 = R.D. Anderson – P.J. Parsons – R.G.M. Nisbet, ‘Elegiacs by Gallus
from Qasr Ibrîm’, JRS 69 (1979), 125-55.

Anguissola 2010 = A. Anguissola, Intimità a Pompei. Riservatezza, condivisione e prestigio negli ambienti
ad alcova di Pompei, Berlin: de Gruyter, 2010.

Arias 1981 = P.E. Arias, ‘Acca Larentia’, in LIMC 1, 1 (1981), 10-11.

Austin 1960 = R.G. Austin (ed.), M. Tulli Ciceronis pro M. Caelio oratio (3rd ed.), Oxford: Oxford Uni-
versity Press, 1960.

Avvisati 2012 = C. Avvisati, Gli ori di Boscoreale, Boscoreale: Aurora Print, 2012.
 Bibliography 9

Bailey 1980 = D.M. Bailey, A catalogue of the lamps in the British Museum, 2. Roman lamps made in Italy,
London: British Museum Publications, 1980.

Baldo 2004 = G.M. Baldo (ed.), M. Tulli Ciceronis in C. Verrem actionis secundae liber quartus (de signis),
Firenze: Le Monnier, 2004.

Balsdon 1962 = J.P.V.D. Balsdon, Roman women, their history and habits, London: The Bodley Head,
1962.

Barrett 2002 = A. Barrett, Livia. First lady of Imperial Rome, New Haven: Yale University Press, 2002.

Barrett 2005 = A.A. Barrett, Agrippina. Sex, power and politics in the early Roman Empire, New Haven:
Yale University Press, 2005.

Bastet – De Vos 1979 = F. Bastet – M. De Vos, Proposta per una classificazione del terzo stile pompeiano
(Archeologische studiën van het Nederlands Instituut te Rome), The Hague: Staatsuitgeverij, 1979.

Beard 2014 = M. Beard, Laughter in ancient Rome. On joking, tickling, and cracking up, Berkeley: Uni-
versity of California Press, 2014.

Beard – Henderson 1998 = M. Beard – J. Henderson, ‘With this body I thee worship. Sacred prostitution
in antiquity’, in M. Wyke (ed.), Gender and body in the ancient Mediterranean, Oxford: Blackwell, 1998,
56-79.

Beard – Henderson 2001 = M. Beard – J. Henderson, Classical art from Greece to Rome, Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 2001.

Benassi – Giordani – Poggi 2003 = F. Benassi – N. Giordani – C. Poggi, ‘Una tessera numerale con scena
erotica da un contesto funerario di Mutina’, NAC 32 (2003), 249-73.

Beretta – Di Pasquale 2004 = M. Beretta – G. Di Pasquale (eds.), Vitrum. Il vetro fra arte e scienza nel
mondo romano, Firenze: Giunti, 2004.

Berg 2002 = R. Berg, ‘Wearing wealth. Ornatus and mundus muliebris as status markers of women in Impe-
rial Rome’, in P. Setälä et al. (eds.), Women, wealth and power in the Roman Empire (Acta Instituti Romani
Finlandiae 25), Roma: Institutum Romanum Finlandiae, 2002, 15-73.

Berg 2010a = R. Berg, Il mundus muliebris nelle fonti letterarie e nei contesti delle case pompeiane, Hel-
sinki: Diss. Università di Helsinki 2010.

Berg 2010b = R. Berg, ‘Lo specchio di Venere. Riflessioni sul mundus muliebris nella pittura pompeiana’,
in I. Bragantini (ed.), Atti del X Congresso internazionale dell’AIPMA (Association Internationale pour la
peinture murale antique, Napoli 17-21 settembre 2007), Napoli: Università degli studi di Napoli “L’Orien-
tale”, 2010, 289-300.

Berg 2015 = R. Berg, ‘Bathing the infirm. Water basins in Roman iconography and Pompeian household
contexts’, in C. Krötzl – K. Mustakallio – J. Kuuliala (eds.), Infirmity in antiquity and the Middle Ages.
Social and cultural approaches to health, weakness and care, Farnham: Ashgate, 2015, 201-12.

Berg 2017 = R. Berg, ‘Toiletries and taverns. Female toiletry sets in small houses, hospitia and lupanaria
at Pompeii’, in Arctos 51 (2017), 13-39.
10 bibliography

Bergmann 1995 = B. Bergmann, ‘Greek masterpieces and Roman recreative fictions’, HSPh 97 (1995),
79-120.

Bergmann 2001 = B. Bergmann, ‘Houses of cards’, JRA 14 (2001), 56-7.

Bernabei 1922 = F. Bernabei, ‘Scoperte archeologiche nella necropoli atestina del nord, riconosciuto nel
fondo Rebado’, NSc (1922), 3-56.

Bernabò Brea – Cavalier 1965 = L. Bernabò-Brea – M. Cavalier, Meligunìs Lipára, 2. La necropoli greca
e romana nella contrada Diana, Palermo: Flaccorio, 1965.

Berry 1997 = J. Berry ‘Household artifacts. Towards a re-interpretation of Roman domestic space’, in R.
Laurence – A. Wallace-Hadrill (eds.), Domestic space in the Roman world. Pompeii and beyond (JRA
Supplementary Series 22), Portsmouth, RI: Journal of Roman Archaeology, 1997, 183-96.

Berry 2007 = J. Berry, ‘Instrumentum domesticum. A case study’, in Dobbins – Foss 2007, 292-301.

Berti – Gasparro 1989 = F. Berti – C. Gasparro (eds.), Dionysos. Mito e mistero (Atti del convegno inter-
nazionale, Comacchio 3-5 novembre 1989), Bologna: Nuova Alfa Editoriale, 1989.

Best 1998 = J. Best, Controlling vice. Regulating brothel prostitution in St. Paul, 1865 – 1883, Columbus,
OH: Ohio State Press, 1998.

Bezzi Martini 1987 = L. Bezzi Martini, Necropoli e tombe romane di Brescia e dintorni, Brescia: Vannini,
1987.

Bieber 1961 = M. Bieber, The history of the Greek and Roman theater, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University
Press, 1961.

Biondani 1996 = F. Biondani, ‘Le tombe di età imperiale dei settori B/D’, in L. Salzani (ed.), La necropoli
gallica e romana di S. Maria di Zevio (VR), Mantova: Editrice S.A.P., 1996, 193-204.

Blanc – Eristov 2017 = N. Blanc, H. Eristov, ‘Textes et contextes. Archéologie et philologie du décor’,
in S.T.A.M. Mols – E.M. Moormann (eds.), Context and meaning (Proceedings of the twelfth international
conference of the Association Internationale pour la Peinture Murale Antique, Athens, September 16-20,
2013), BABESCH Suppl. 31, Leuven: Peeters, 2017, 27-32.

Blanckenhagen 1988 = P.H. von Blanckenhagen, recension of Bragantini – De Vos 1982, Gnomon 60
(1988), 356-59.

Bodel 2001 = J. Bodel (ed.), Epigraphic evidence. Ancient history from inscriptions, London – New York:
Routledge, 2001.

Bolla 1995 = M. Bolla, ‘Una tomba romana a Sant’Ambrogio di Valpolicella’, Annuario Storico della
Valpolicella 11 (1994-1995), 23-30.

Bonfante 1989 = L. Bonfante, ‘Nudity as a costume in Classical art’, AJA 93 (1989), 543-70.

Booth 1991 = A. Booth, ‘The age for reclining and its attendant perils’, in W.J. Slater (ed.), Dining in a
Classical context, Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1991, 105-20.

Borda 1958 = M. Borda, La pittura romana, Milano: Società editrice libraria, 1958.
 Bibliography 11

Boulvert 1970 = G. Boulvert, Esclaves et affranchis imperiaux sous le haut-empire romain: rôle politique
et administratif, Napoli: Jovene, 1970.

Bradley 2000 = K.R. Bradley, ‘Prostitution, the law of Rome, and social policy’, JRA 13 (2000), 468-75.

Bragantini 2013 = I. Bragantini, ‘Il fregio con scena di caccia del triclinio G della villa di Boscoreale’, in
A. Barbet – A. Verbanck-Piérard (eds.), La villa romaine de Boscoreale et ses fresques, vol. II (Colloque
international, Bruxelles et Mariemont, 21-23 avril 2010), Arles: Musée Royal de Mariemont, 2013, 107-16.

Bragantini – De Vos 1982 = I. Bragantini – M. De Vos (eds.), Le decorazioni della villa romana della
Farnesina (Museo Nazionale Romano. Le Pitture II, 1), Roma: De Luca, 1982.

Bravi 2012 = A. Bravi, Ornamenta Urbis. Opere d’arte greche negli spazi romani (Bibliotheca Archaeolo-
gica 28), Bari: Edipuglia, 2012.

Bravi 2014 = A. Bravi, Griechische Kunstwerke im politischen Leben Roms und Konstantinopels (Klio
Beiheft 21), Berlin: de Gruyter, 2014.

Brennan 2012 = T.C. Brennan, ‘Perceptions of women’s power in the Late Republic. Terentia, Fulvia, and
the generation of 63 bce’, in S.L. James – S. Dillon (eds.), A companion to women in the ancient world,
Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell, 2012, 354-66.

Briscoe 2008 = J. Briscoe, A commentary on Livy, books 38-40, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008.

Brown 1990 = P.G.M. Brown, ‘Plots and prostitutes in Greek New Comedy’, in F. Cairns – M. Heath (eds.),
Papers of the Leeds International Latin Seminar 6, 1990, Leeds: Francis Cairns, 1990, 241-66.

Bruun 1997 = C. Bruun, ‘Water for Roman brothels. Cicero, Cael. 34’, Phoenix 51 (1997), 364-73.

Budin 2006 = S. Budin, ‘Sacred prostitution in the first person’, in Faraone – McClure 2006, 77-92.

Budin 2008 = S. Budin, The myth of sacred prostitution in antiquity, New York: Cambridge University
Press, 2008.

Burlot – Eristov 2017 = D. Burlot – H. Eristov, ‘Le fond noir en peinture. Marqueur du luxe et gageure
technique’, in J. Boislève – A. Dardenay – F. Monier (eds.), Peintures et stucs d’époque romaine: Études
toichographologiques (Actes du 28e colloque del l’AFPMA, 20-21 november 2015 Paris), Pictor 6, Bor-
deaux: Ausonius Éditions, 2017, 225-49.

Burns 2007 = J. Burns, Great women of Imperial Rome. Mothers and wives of the Caesars, London: Rout-
ledge, 2007.

Butrica 1999 = J.L. Butrica, ‘Using water “unchastely”. Cicero’s Pro Caelio 34 again’, Phoenix 53 (1999),
136-39.

Cadario 2011 = M. Cadario, ‘Teatro e propaganda, trionfo e mirabilia. Considerazioni sul programma de-
corativo del teatro e della porticus di Pompeo’, Stratagemmi. Prospettive teatrali 19 (2011), 11-68.

Cairns 1971 = F. Cairns, Generic composition in Greek and Roman poetry, Edinburgh: Edinburgh Univer-
sity Press, 1972.
12 bibliography

Campana 2009 = A. Campana, ‘Le spintriae. Tessere romane con raffigurazioni erotiche’, in A. Morello
(ed.), La donna romana. Immagini e vita quotidiana (Atti del convegno, Atina, 7 marzo 2009), Cassino:
Diana, 2009, 43-96.

Cantarella 1987 = E. Cantarella, Pandora’s daughters. The role and status of women in Greek and Ro-
man antiquity, Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1987.

Cantarella 1998 = E. Cantarella, Pompei. I volti dell’amore, Milano: Mondadori, 1998.

Caporossi 2007 = P. Caporossi, ‘La parola di Diotima nel Simposio di Platone’, in E. Piccolo – L. Lanza
(eds.), Senecio, http://www.senecio.it/sag/diotima.pdf, 2007.

Capuis – Leonardi – Panzavento Mattioli – Rosadi 1990 = L. Capuis – G. Leonardi – S. Panzavento Mat-
tioli – G. Rosadi, Carta archeologica del Veneto 2, Modena: Franco Cosimo Panini, 1990.

Carandini 1990 = A. Carandini, ‘Palatino. Campagne di scavo delle pendici settentrionali’, Bollettino di
archeologia 1-2 (1990), 159-65.

Carandini 2010 = A. Carandini, Le case del potere nell’antica Roma, Roma: Laterza, 2010.

Carettoni 1983 = G. Carettoni, ‘La decorazione pittorica della Casa di Augusto sul Palatino’, MDAI(R)
90 (1983), 373-419.

Carini 2013 = A. Carini, ‘Abitavano fuori porta. Gente della Piacenza romana’, L’Urtiga, 2, Quaderni di
cultura piacentina 2 (2013), 21-32.

Carlsen 2015 = J. Carlsen, ‘The personnel of private and imperial baths’, in S. Faust – M. Seifert – L.
Ziemer (eds.), Antike. Kultur. Geschichte. Festschrift für Inge Nielsen zum 65. Geburtstag, Aachen: Shaker
2015, 1-9.

Carrella 2008 = A. Carrella, ‘Regiones V-VI’, in Carrella – D’Acunto – Inserra – Serpe, 2008, 63-108.

Carrella – D’Acunto – Inserra – Serpe 2008 = A. Carrella – L.A. D’Acunto – N. Inserra – C. Serpe,
Marmora pompeiana nel Museo archeologico nazionale di Napoli. Gli arredi scultorei delle case pompeia-
ne (Studi della Soprintendenza archeologica di Pompei 26), Roma, “L’Erma” di Bretschneider, 2008.

Castiglione Morelli – Vitale 1998 = N. Castiglione Morelli – R. Vitale, ‘L’insula 8 della Regio I. Un
campione d’indagine socio-economica’, RSP 3 (1989), 185-221.

Castner 1982 = C.J. Castner, ‘Epicurean hetairai as dedicants to healing deities?’, GRBS 23 (1982), 51-57.

Castrén – Lilius 1970 = P. Castrén – H. Lilius, Graffiti del Palatino, 2. Domus Tiberiana (Acta Instituti
Romani Finlandiae 4), Helsinki: Institutum Romanum Finlandiae, 1970.

Cicu 2003 = L. Cicu, Cynthia Properti, Sassari: Gallizzi, 2003.

Clarke 1991 = J.R. Clarke, ‘The decor of the House of Jupiter and Ganymede at Ostia antica. Private
residence turned gay hotel’, in E.K. Gazda (ed.), Roman art in the private sphere. New perspectives on the
architecture and decor of the domus, villa, and insula, Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1991, 89-
104.

Clarke 1998 = J.R. Clarke, Looking at lovemaking. Constructions of sexuality in Roman art, 100 B.C. -
A.D. 250, Berkeley: University of California Press, 1998.
 Bibliography 13

Clarke 2003a = J.R. Clarke, Art in the lives of ordinary Romans. Visual representation and non-elite
viewers in Italy, 100 B.C. – A.D. 315, Berkeley: University of California Press, 2003.

Clarke 2003b = J.R. Clarke, Roman sex, 100 B.C. to A.D. 250, New York: Harry N. Abrams Inc., 2003.

Clarke 2014 = J.R. Clarke, ‘Greek and Roman sex in the British Museum: Caroline Vout, Sex on show.
Seeing the erotic in Greece and Rome’, JRA 27 (2014) 707-9.

Coarelli 1972 = F. Coarelli, ‘Il complesso pompeiano del Campo Marzio e la sua decorazione scultorea’,
RPAA 44 (1972), 99-122.

Coarelli 2009 = F. Coarelli (ed.), Divus Vespasianus. Il bimillenario dei Flavi (Catalogo mostra, Roma,
Colosseo, Curia e Criptoportico ‘Neroniano’, 27 marzo 2009–10 gennaio 2010), Milano: Electa, 2009.

Cohen 2006 = E.E. Cohen, ‘Free and unfree sexual work. An economic analysis of Athenian prostitution’,
in Faraone – McClure 2006, 95-124.

Colpo 2005 = I. Colpo, ‘La formazione del repertorio. Immagini di Ganimede dall’area vesuviana’, Eidola
2 (2005), 67-93.

Compostella 1992 = C. Compostella, ‘Banchetti pubblici privati nell’iconografia funeraria romana del I
sec. d.C.’, MEFRA 104 (1992), 659-89.

Conticello de Spagnolis – De Carolis 1988 = M. Conticello de Spagnolis – E. De Carolis, Le lucerne di

bronzo di Ercolano e Pompei, Roma: “L’Erma” di Bretschneider, 1988.

Corbeill 1996 = A. Corbeill, Controlling laughter. Political humor in the Late Roman Republic, Princeton,
NJ: Princeton University Press, 1996.

Corbier 1995 = M. Corbier, ‘L’écriture dans l’image’, in H. Solin – O. Salomies – U.-M. Liertz (eds.),
Acta Colloquii Epigraphici Latini, Helsinki 3-6 sept. 1991), Helsinki: Societas Scientiarum Fennica, 1995,
113-61.

Corner 2011 = S. Corner, ‘Bringing the outside in. The andron as brothel and the symposium’s civic sexu-
ality’, in Glazebrook – Henry 2011, 60-85.

Corso 1997a = A. Corso, ‘The monument of Phryne at Delphi’, NAC 26 (1997), 123-50.

Corso 1997b = A. Corso, ‘The Cnidian Aphrodite’, in I. Jenkins – G.B. Waywell (eds.), Sculptors and
sculpture of Caria and the Dodecanese, London: British Museum Press, 1997, 91-98.

Corso 2004 = A. Corso, The art of Praxiteles. The development of Praxiteles’ workshop and its cultural
tradition until the sculptor’s acme (364-1 BC), (Studia Archaeologica 133), Roma: “L’Erma” di Bretschnei-
der, 2004.

Corso 2007 = A. Corso, The art of Praxiteles, 2, Roma: “L’Erma” di Bretschneider, 2007.

Costabile 2005 = F. Costabile, ‘Contra meretricium ancillae domni’, in Scarano Ussani 2005a, 43-50.

Courtney 1980 = E. Courtney, A Commentary on the Satires of Juvenal, London: Athlone Press, 1980.

Crawford 1996 = M.H. Crawford (ed.), Roman statutes (BICS Supplement 64), London: University of
London, 1996.
14 bibliography

Crusius 1905 = O. Crusius, ‘Elephantis’, in RE 5, 2 (1905), 2324-25.

Culham 1990 = P. Culham, ‘Decentering the text. The case of Ovid’, Helios 17 (1990), 161-70.

Dalby 2002 = A. Dalby, ‘Levels of concealment. The dress of hetairai and pornai in Greek texts’, in L.
Llewellyn-Jones, Women’s dress in the ancient Greek world, London: Duckworth, 2002.

d’Ambrosio 2009 = A. d’Ambrosio, ‘La bellezza femminile a Pompei’, in Fontanella 2009, 278-93.

d’Ambrosio – De Carolis 1997 = A. d’Ambrosio – E. De Carolis, I monili dell’area vesuviana. (Cataloghi

della Soprintendenza archeologica di Pompei 6), Roma: “L’Erma” di Bretschneider, 1997.

d’Ambrosio – De Carolis – Guzzo 2008 = A. d’Ambrosio – E. De Carolis – P.G. Guzzo (eds.), I gioielli
nella pittura vesuviana (Quaderni di studi pompeiani 2), Roma: Clavis 2008.

d’Ambrosio – Guzzo – Mastroroberto 2003 = A. d’Ambrosio – P.G. Guzzo – M. Mastroroberto (eds.),

Storie da un’eruzione. Pompei, Ercolano, Oplontis, Milano: Electa, 2003.

Daremberg – Saglio = C.V. Daremberg – E. Saglio, Dictionnaire des antiquités greques et romaines, Paris:
Hachette, 1873-1896.

Davidson 1995 = J.N. Davidson, ‘Don’t try this at home. Pliny’s Salpe, Salpe’s “paignia” and magic’, CQ
45 (1995), 590-92.

Davidson 1997 = J. Davidson, Courtesans and fishcakes. The consuming passions of Classical Athens, Chi-
cago: The University of Chicago Press, 1997.

Davidson 2006 = J. Davidson, ‘Making a spectacle of her(self). The Greek courtesan and the art of the pres-
ent’ in Feldman – Gordon 2006, 29-51.

Dawdy – Weyhing 2008 = S.L. Dawdy – R. Weyhing, ‘Beneath the rising sun. “Frenchness” and the archae-
ology of desire’, International Journal of Historical Archaeology 12 (2008), 370-87.

De Carolis 2007 = E. De Carolis, Il mobile a Pompei ed Ercolano. Letti tavoli sedie e armadi, Roma:
“L’Erma” di Bretschneider, 2007.

DeFelice 2001= J.F. DeFelice, Roman hospitality. The professional women of Pompeii, Warren Center PA:
Shangri-La Publications, 2001.

DeFelice 2007 = J. DeFelice, ‘Inns and taverns’, in Dobbins – Foss 2007, 474-86.

Deichmann 1976 = F.W. Deichmann, Ravenna: Hauptstadt des spätantiken Abendlandes 2, 2, Wiesbaden,
1976.

Delbrück 1929 = R. Delbrück, Die Consulardiptychen und verwandte Denkmäler, Berlin: de Gruyter,
1929.

Della Corte 1958 = M. Della Corte, Amori e amanti di Pompei antica, Cava dei Tirreni: Di Mauro, 1958.

Della Corte 1965³ = M. Della Corte, Case ed abitanti di Pompei (3a ed., ed. P. Soprano), Napoli: Fioren-
tino, 1965.

Delia 1991 = D. Delia, ‘Fulvia reconsidered’, in S.B. Pomeroy (ed.), Women’s history and ancient history,
Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1991, 197-217.
 Bibliography 15

De Maria 1997 = S. De Maria, ‘Pittura decorativa in case private pompeiane d’età imperiale’, in Scaglia-
rini Corlàita 1997, 47-52.

deMelo 2011 = W. de Melo, Plautus. Amphitryon, The Comedy of the Asses, The Pot of Gold, The Two
Bacchises, The Captives (Loeb Classical Library 60), Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2011.

Deodato 2009 = A. Deodato, ‘Amore ed erotismo nel mondo romano imperiale tra leggi, carmi e documenti
materiali’, in Fontanella 2009, 312-19.

Deodato 2011 = A. Deodato, ‘Vercelli, corso Prestinari. Una particolare deposizione femminile: la tomba
70’, in Pantò 2011, 89-98.

De Simone – Merella 1975 = A. De Simone – M.T. Merella, ‘The secret collection’, in M. Grant (ed.),
Eros in Pompei. The secret rooms of the National Museum of Naples, New York: William Morrow, 1975,
85-166.

De Vos 1981 = M. de Vos, ‘La bottega di pittori di Via di Castricio’, in I. Baldassare (ed.), Pompei 1748-
1980. I tempi della documentazione, Roma: Multigrafica, 1981, 119-30.

De Vos 1982 = M. De Vos, ‘Die Casa di Ganimede in Pompeji VII 13, 4. Pavimenti e pitture’, MDAI(R) 89
(1982), 315-52.

De Vos 1983 = M. De Vos, ‘“Egittomania” nelle case di Pompei ed Ercolano’, in Civiltà dell’ antico Egitto
in Campania. Per un riordinamento della collezione egiziana del Museo archeologico nazionale di Napo-
li (Raccolta di studi in occasione della mostra, Napoli, giugno-settembre 1983), Napoli: Tempi Moderni,
1983, 59-71.

De Vos 1991 = A. de Vos, PPM 3 (1991), 547-620.

De Vos – Bragantini 1982 = M. De Vos – I. Bragantini, Museo nazionale romano, 2. Le pitture, Roma:
De Luca, 1982.

Dickinson 1992 = S.K. Dickinson, Cicero’s Verrine oration II 4 with notes and vocabulary, Detroit MI:
Wayne State University Press, 1992.

Dickmann 1999 = J.-A. Dickmann, Domus frequentata. Anspruchsvolles Wohnen im pompejanischen

Stadthaus (Studien zur antiken Stadt, 4), München: Pfeil, 1999.

Dillon 2010 = S. Dillon, The female portrait statue in the Greek world, New York: Cambridge University
Press, 2010.

Di Mino 1988 = M.R. Di Mino (ed.), La Villa della Farnesina in Palazzo Massimo alle Terme, Milano:
Electa, 1988.

Dimundo 2000 = R. Dimundo, L’elegia allo specchio: Studi sul primo libro degli “Amores” di Ovidio, Bari:
Edipuglia, 2000.

Dinuzzi – Fusco 2009 = S. Dinuzzi – U. Fusco (eds.), Il territorio tra il Tevere, l’Aniene e la via Nomentana.
Municipio II, Parte 2 (Quaderni Della Carta dell’agro Romano), Roma: “L’Erma” di Bretschneider, 2009.

Dixon 1992 = S. Dixon, The Roman family, Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1992.

Dixon 2001 = S. Dixon, Reading Roman women. Sources, genres and real life, London: Duckworth, 2001.
16 bibliography

Dixon 2007 = S. Dixon, Cornelia, mother of the Gracchi, London: Routledge, 2007.

Dobbins – Foss 2007 = J.J. Dobbins – P.W. Foss (eds.), The world of Pompeii, London – New York: Rout-
ledge, 2007.

Drinkwater 2012 = M.O. Drinkwater, ‘“His turn to cry”. Tibullus’ Marathus cycle (1.4, 1.8 and 1.9) and
Roman elegy’, CJ 107 (2012), 423-50.

Dunbabin 1989 = K.M.D. Dunbabin, ‘Baiarum grata voluptas. Pleasures and dangers of the baths’, PBSR
57 (1989), 6-46.

Dunbabin 2003= K.M.D. Dunbabin, The Roman banquet. Images of conviviality, Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 2003.

Duncan 2006 = A. Duncan, ‘Infamous performers. Comic actors and female prostitutes in Rome’, in Fara-
one – McClure 2006, 252-73.

Dutsch 2008 = D. Dutsch, Feminine discourse in Roman comedy. On echoes and voices, Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 2008.

Eck 2002 = W. Eck, ‘Die iulisch-claudische Familie. Frauen neben Caligula, Claudius und Nero’, in Tempo-
rini-Gräfin Vitzthum 2002b, 103-63.

Edmonds 2014 = R.G. Edmonds III, ‘Bewitched, bothered, and bewildered. Erotic magic in the Greco-
Roman world’, in Hubbard 2014, 282-96.

Edmondson – Keith 2008 = J. Edmondson – A. Keith (eds.), Roman dress and the fabrics of Roman culture,
Toronto – Buffalo: University of Toronto Press, 2008.

Edwards 1993 = C. Edwards, The politics of immorality in ancient Rome, Cambridge: University Press,
1993.

Edwards 1994 = C. Edwards, ‘Beware of imitations. Theatre and the subversion of imperial identity’, in J.
Elsner – J. Masters (eds.), Reflections of Nero. Culture, history, and representation, London: Duckworth,
1994, 83-97.

Edwards 1997 = C. Edwards, ‘Unspeakable professions. Public performance and prostitution in ancient
Rome’, in Hallet – Skinner 1997, 66-95.

Ehrhardt 1988 = W. Ehrhardt, Casa dell’Orso (VII 2, 44-46) (Häuser in Pompei 2), München: Hirmer,
1988.

Ellis 2005 = S.J.R. Ellis, The Pompeian bar and the city. Defining food and drink outlets and identifying
their place in an urban environment, PhD. Thesis, University of Sydney 2005.

Elsner 2007 = J. Elsner, Roman eyes. Visuality and subjectivity in art and text, Princeton: Princeton Uni-
versity Press, 2007.

Eschebach 1982 = H. Eschebach, ‘Die Casa di Ganimede in Pompeji VII 13, 4. Ausgrabung und Bauge-
schichte’, MDAI(R) 89 (1982), 229-313.

Eschebach – Müller-Trollius 1993 = L. Eschebach – J. Müller-Trollius, Gebäudeverzeichnis und

Stadtplan der antiken Stadt Pompeji, Köln: Böhlau, 1993.
 Bibliography 17

Evans 2009 = J. Evans de Rose, ‘Prostitution in the Portico of Pompey? A reconsideration’, TAPhA 139
(2009), 123-45.

Eyben 1993 = E. Eyben, Restless youth in ancient Rome, London: Routledge, 1993.

Fagan 1999 = G.G. Fagan, Bathing in public in the Roman world, Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan
Press, 1999.

Fantham 1975 = E. Fantham, ‘Sex, status, and survival in Hellenistic Athens. A study of women in New
Comedy’, Phoenix 29 (1975), 44-74.

Fantham 2000 = E. Fantham, ‘Domina-tricks, or How to construct a good whore from a bad one’, in E.
Stärk – G. Vogt-Spira (eds.), Dramatische Wäldchen. Festschrift für Eckard Lefévre zum 65. Geburtstag
(Spudasmata 80), Hildesheim: Olms, 2000, 287-99.

Fantham 2006 = E. Fantham, Julia Augusti. The emperor’s daughter, London: Routledge, 2006.

Fantham 2008 = E. Fantham, ‘Covering one’s head in Rome. Ritual and gender’, in Edmondson – Keith
2008, 158-71.

Fantham 2011 = E. Fantham, ‘Women of the demi-monde and sisterly solidarity in the “Cistellaria”’, in
E. Fantham, Roman readings. Roman response to Greek readings from Plautus to Statius and Quintilian,
Berlin: de Gruyter: Göttingen, 157-75.

Faraone 1999 = C.A. Faraone, Ancient Greek love magic, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press,
1999.

Faraone 2002 = C.A. Faraone, ‘Agents and victims. Constructions of gender and desire in ancient Greek
love magic’, in M.C. Nussbaum – J. Sihvola (eds.), The sleep of reason. Erotic experience and sexual ethics
in ancient Greece and Rome, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2002, 400-26.

Faraone – McClure 2006 = C.A. Faraone – L.K. McClure (eds.), Prostitutes and courtesans in the ancient
World, Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 2006.

Faust – Seifert – Ziemer 2015 = S. Faust – M. Seifert – L. Ziemer (eds.), Antike. Kultur. Geschichte. Fest-
schrift für Inge Nielsen zum 65. Geburtstag, Aachen: Shaker 2015.

Fayer 2002 = C. Fayer, ‘Denominazioni di meretrici nell’antica Roma’, in M.S. Celentano (ed.), Terpsis.
In ricordo di Maria Laetitia Coletti, Alessandria: Edizioni dell’Orso, 2002, 93-112.

Fayer 2005 = C. Fayer, La familia romana. Aspetti giuridici ed antiquari. Vol. 3, Concubinato, divorzio,
adulterio, Roma: “L’Erma” di Bretschneider 2005.

Fayer 2013 = C. Fayer, Meretrix: La prostituzione femminile nell’antica Roma, Roma: “L’Erma” di
Bretschneider, 2013.

Fedele – Labate 2013a = A. Fedele – D. Labate, ‘Una rara lucerna con scena erotica e iscrizione da Forum
Popili’, in Forlimpopoli 24 (2013), 65-78.

Fedele – Labate 2013b = A. Fedele – D. Labate, ‘Due lucerne con rare scene erotiche dalle necropoli di
Modena romana. Tra ritualità della morte e umorismo della vita’, Pagani e Cristiani 12 (2013), 125-36.
18 bibliography

Fedele – Labate 2014 = A. Fedele – D. Labate, ‘Lucerne con scene erotiche dalle necropoli di Modena
romana’, Atti e Memorie. Deputazione di storia patria per le antiche provincie modenesi 36 (2014), 267-85.

Feldman – Gordon 2006 = M. Feldman – B. Gordon (eds.), The courtesan’s arts. Cross-cultural perspecti-
ves, Oxford – New York: Oxford University Press, 2006.

Felletti Maj 1977 = B.M. Felletti Maj, La tradizione italica nell’arte romana, Roma: Giorgio Bretschnei-
der, 1977.

Ferrill 1980 = A. Ferrill, ‘Augustus and his daughter. A modern myth’, in G. Deroux (ed.), Studies in
Latin literature and Roman history, 2 (Collection Latomus 168), Bruxelles: Latomus, 1980, 332–46.

Filippi 2005 = F. Filippi, I colori del fasto. La domus del Gianicolo e i suoi marmi (Catalogo della mostra
Roma, Palazzo Altemps), Milano: Electa, 2005.

Fiorelli 1862 = G. Fiorelli, Giornale degli scavi di Pompei, 14, Napoli: Scuola di archeologia in Pompei,
1862.

Fiorelli 1868 = G. Fiorelli, Giornale degli scavi di Pompei, nuova serie 1, Napoli: Scuola di archeologia
in Pompei, 1868.

Fiorelli 1875 = G. Fiorelli, Descrizione di Pompei, Napoli: Tipografia italiana, 1875.

Flemming 1999 = R. Flemming, ‘Qua corpore quaestum facit. The sexual ecomony of female prostitution in
the Roman empire’, JRA 89 (1999), 38-61.

Fontanella 2009 = E. Fontanella (ed.), Luxus. Il piacere della vita nella Roma Imperiale (Catalogo mostra
Torino), Roma: Istituto poligrafico e Zecca dello Stato, 2009.

Foresta 2004 = S. Foresta, ‘La villa della Farnesina: un punto di vista privato. Ricezione e rielaborazione
di modelli ellenistici a Roma’, in IncidAntico 2 (2004), 113-35.

Forlati 1953 = B. Forlati, ‘Gargagnano di Valpolicella (VR)’, Fasti Archeologici 8 (1953), 268 No. 3646.

Franchi dell’Orto 1994 = L. Franchi dell’Orto, Review of A. Varone, Erotica Pompeiana. Iscrizioni
d’amore sui muri di Pompei, RSP 6 (1993-94), 282-83.

Fraser 2000 = P.M. Fraser, ‘Ethnics as personal names’, in Hornblower – Matthews 2000, 149-57.

Fraser – Matthews 1987 = P.M. Fraser – E. Matthews (eds.), A lexicon of Greek personal names, 1, Ox-
ford: Clarendon Press, 1987.

Fredrick 1995 = D. Fredrick, ‘Beyond the atrium to Ariadne. Erotic painting and visual pleasure in the Ro-
man house’, CQ 14 (1995), 266-87.

Fredrick 1997 = D. Fredrick, ‘Reading broken skin. Violence in Roman elegy’, in Hallett – Skinner 1997,
172-93.

French 1998 = D.R. French, ‘Maintaining boundaries. The status of actresses in Early Christian society’,
VChr 52 (1998), 293-318.

Freund 2015 = S. Freund, ‘Die Hetäre Leaina in Ciceros De gloria’, RhM 158 (2015), 247-59.
 Bibliography 19

Friedl 1996 = R. Friedl, Der Konkubinat im kaiserzeitlichen Rom. Von Augustus bis Septimius Severus,
Stuttgart: Franz Steiner, 1996.

Friggeri 1977-78 = R. Friggeri, ‘La domus di Antonia Caenis e il Balineum Caenidianum’, Rendiconti della
Pontificia Accademia di Archeologia 50 (1977-78), 145-54.

Fröhlich 1991 = T. Fröhlich, Lararien und Fassadenbilder in den Vesuvstädten. Untersuchungen zur
“volkstümlichen” pompeianischen Malerei, Mainz: Ph. von Zabern, 1991.

Fusco 2009 = U. Fusco, ‘Il territorio tra la via Salaria, l’Aniene e la via Nomentana’, in S. Dinuzzi – U.
Fusco (eds.), Il territorio tra il Tevere, l’Aniene e la via Nomentana. Municipio II, Parte 2 (Quaderni Della
Carta dell’agro Romano), Roma: “L’Erma” di Bretschneider, 2009, 99-218.

Galinsky 1998 = K. Galinsky, Augustan culture. An interpretive introduction, Princeton, NJ: Princeton
University Press, 1998.

Gangemi 2013 = G. Gangemi, ‘La situla della tomba I di Pieve d’Alpago’, in M. Gamba – G. Gambacurta –
A. Ruta Serafini – V. Tiné – F. Veronese, Venetkens. Viaggio nella terra dei Veneti antichi (Catalogo della
mostra), Venezia: Marsilio, 2013, 283-85.

García Barraco 2012 = M.E. García Barraco, Il Foro proibito. Luoghi di ospitalità e di erotismo nel Foro
Romano, Roma: Arbor Sapientiae, 2012.

Gardner 2010 = H.H. Gardner, ‘The elegiac domus in the early Principate’, AJP 131 (2010), 453-93.

Gardner 2013 = H.H. Gardner, Gendering time in Augustan love elegy, Oxford: Oxford University Press,
2013.

Gardner 1986 = J. Gardner, Women in Roman law and society, London: Groom Helm, 1986.

Gardner 1993 = J. Gardner, Being a Roman citizen, London: Routledge, 1993.

Geffcken 1973 = K. Geffcken, Comedy in the Pro Caelio, Leiden: Brill, 1973.

Geyer 1924 = F. Geyer, ‘Lais’ in RE 12, 1 (1924), 513-16.

Geyer 1924a = F. Geyer, ‘Lamia 5’ in RE 12, 1 (1924), 546-47.

Ghedini 1990 = F. Ghedini, ‘Raffigurazioni conviviali nei monumenti funerari romani’, RdA 14 (1990), 35-
62.

Gibson 2003 = R. Gibson, Ovid: Ars amatoria book 3, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003.

Gigante 1974 = M. Gigante, ‘Pressa non missa’, PP 158 (1974), 290.

Gigante 1979 = M. Gigante, Civiltà delle forme letterarie nell’antica Pompei, Napoli: Bibliopolis, 1979.

Gilula 1980 = D. Gilula, ‘The concept of the bona meretrix. A study of Terence’s courtesans’, RFIC 108
(1980), 142-65.

Gilula 2004 = D. Gilula, ‘The Cistellaria courtesans. Two ways to make a living’, in R. Hartkamp – F.
Hurka (eds.), Studien zu Plautus’ Cistellaria, Tübingen: Gunter Narr, 2004, 239-46.

Ginzburg 1978 = C. Ginzburg, ‘Tiziano, Ovidio e i codici della figurazione erotica nel Cinquecento’ (first
published in 1978), in Miti, emblemi, spie. Morfologia e storia, Torino: Einaudi, 1986.
20 bibliography

Giordani 2009 = N. Giordani, ‘Via Emilia Est, Via Pelusia, Via Moreali. Gli scavi per la ferrovia Modena –
Sassuolo’, in Malnati – Pellegrini – Pulini 2009, 67-72.

Giordano 1966 = C. Giordano, ‘Le iscrizioni della casa di M. Fabio Rufo’, RAAN 41 (1966), 73-89.

Girard 1961 = R. Girard, Mensonge romantique et vérité romanesque, Paris: Grasset, 1961.

Giuliani 2013 = L. Giuliani, ‘Ein Kelch für Mr. Warren’, Zeitschrift für Ideengeschichte 7.3 (2013), 77-92.

Glazebrook 2006 = A. Glazebrook, ‘The bad girls of Athens. The image and function of hetairai in judicial
oratory’, in Faraone – McClure 2006, 125-38.

Glazebrook 2011 = A. Glazebrook, ‘Porneion. Prostitution in Athenian civic space’, in Glazebrook –

Henry 2011, 34-59.

Glazebrook – Henry 2011 = A. Glazebrook – M.M. Henry (eds.), Greek prostitutes in the ancient Mediter-
ranean, 800 BCE – 200 CE, Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 2011.

Gloyn 2012 = L. Gloyn, ‘She’s only a bird in a gilded cage. Freedwomen at Trimalchio’s dinner party’,
Classical Quarterly 62 (2012), 260-80.

Goette 1990 = H.R. Goette, Studien zu römischen Togadarstellungen, Mainz: von Zabern 1990.

Golden 1986 = M. Golden, ‘Names and naming at Athens’, EMC 30 (1986), 245-69.

Goldman 2013 = R.B. Goldman, Color-terms in social and cultural contexts in ancient Rome, Piscataway,
NJ: Gorgias Press, 2013.

Gow – Page 1965 = A.S.F. Gow – D.L. Page, The Greek Anthology. Hellenistic epigrams, Cambridge: Uni-
versity Press, 1965.

Gow – Page 1968 = A.S.F. Gow – D.L. Page, The Greek Anthology. The Garland of Philip and some con-
temporary epigrams, Cambridge: University Press, 1968.

Grabar 1966 = A. Grabar, L’âge d’or de Justinien. De la mort de Théodose à l’Islam, Paris: Gallimard,
1966.

Grassigli 2007 = G.L. Grassigli, ‘Destrutturando Narciso. L’eco delle immagini’, in I. Colpo – G.L. Gras-
sigli – F. Minotti, Le ragioni di una scelta. Discutendo attorno alle immagini di Narciso a Pompei (Eidola

4), 2007, 73-118.

Griffin 1976 = J. Griffin, ‘Augustan poetry and the life in luxury’, JRS 66 (1976), 87-105.

Griffin 1985 = J. Griffin, Latin poets and Roman life, Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press,
1985.

Gros 1999 = P. Gros, ‘Porticus Pompei’ in LTUR 4 (1999), 148-49.

Gruen 1990 = E. Gruen, Studies in Greek culture and Roman policy, Leiden: Brill, 1990.

Gualandi Genito 1977 = M.C. Gualandi Genito, Lucerne fittili delle collezioni del Museo civico archeolo-
gico di Bologna, Bologna: Istituto per la storia di Bologna, 1977.

Gulino 1987 = R. Gulino, Implications of the spatial arrangements of tabernae at Pompeii, Region one,
Ann Arbor, 1987.
 Bibliography 21

Gundel 1961 = H. Gundel, Volumnia 17, in RE 17 A (1961), 883.

Gutzwiller 1998 = K.J. Gutzwiller, Poetic garlands. Hellenistic epigrams in context, Berkeley: University
of California Press, 1998.

Guzzo 2005 = P.G. Guzzo, ‘Introduzione a Moregine’, in Scarano Ussani 2005a, 11-22.

Guzzo 2006 = P.G. Guzzo (ed.), Argenti a Pompei (Catalogo della mostra), Milano: Electa, 2006.

Guzzo – Scarano Ussani 2000 = P.G. Guzzo – V. Scarano Ussani, Veneris figurae. Immagini di prostituzio-
ne e sfruttamento a Pompei, Napoli: Electa, 2000.

Guzzo – Scarano Ussani 2001 = P.G. Guzzo – V. Scarano Ussani, ‘La schiava di Moregine’, MEFRA 113
(2001), 981-97.

Guzzo – Scarano Ussani 2009 = P.G. Guzzo – V. Scarano Ussani, Ex corpore lucrum facere. La prostitu-
zione nell’antica Pompei, Roma: “L’Erma” di Bretschneider, 2009.

Haake 2007 = M. Haake, Der Philosoph in der Stadt, München: Beck, 2007.

Hallett 1984 = J.P. Hallett, Fathers and daughters in Roman society, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University
Press, 1984.

Hallett 1993 = J.P. Hallett, ‘Feminist theory, historical periods, literary canons, and the study of Greco-
Roman antiquity, in N.S. Rabinowitz – A. Richlin (eds.), Feminist theory and the Classics, New York:
Routledge, 1993, 44-72.

Hallett – Skinner 1997 = J.P. Hallett – M.B. Skinner (eds.), Roman sexualities, Princeton, NJ: Princeton
University Press, 1997.

Hallett 2009 = J.P. Hallett, ‘Absent Roman fathers in the writings of their daughters’, in S. Huebner –
D.M. Ratzan (eds.), Growing up fatherless in antiquity, Cambridge: University Press, 2011, 175-91.

Hallett 2011 = J.P. Hallett, ‘Ballio’s brothel, Phoenicium’s letter, and the literary education of Greco-
Roman prostitutes. The evidence of Plautus’ Pseudolus’, in Glazebrook – Henry 2011, 172-96.

Hallett 2013 = J.P. Hallet, ‘Intersections of gender and genre. Sexualizing the puella in Roman comedy,
lyric and elegy’, Eugesta 3 (2013), 195-208.

Halperin 1990 = D. Halperin, ‘The democratic body. Prostitution and citizenship in Classical Athens’, in
One hundred years of homosexuality and other essays on Greek love. New ancient world, New York: Rout-
ledge, 1990, 88-112.

Halperin 2002 = D.M. Halperin, How to do the history of homosexuality, Chicago: The University of Chi-
cago Press, 2002.

Halperin – Winkler – Zeitlin 1990 = ‘Introduction’, in D. Halperin – J. Winkler – F. Zeitlin (eds.), Before
sexuality. The construction of erotic experience in the ancient Greek world, Princeton, NJ: Princeton Uni-
versity Press, 1990, 3-20.

Hanfmann 1951 = G.M.A. Hanfmann, The Seasons sarcophagus in Dumbarton Oaks 1, Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press, 1951.
22 bibliography

Harders 2008 = A.-C. Harders, Suavissima soror. Untersuchungen zu den Bruder-Schwester-Beziehungen

in der römischen Republik (Vestigia Beiträge zu Alten Geschichte 60), München: Beck, 2008.

Harrison 2013 = S. Harrison, ‘Time, place, and political background’, in Thorsen 2013, 133-50.

Hauschild 1933 = H. Hauschild, Die Gestalt der Hetäre in der griechischen Komödie, Leipzig: Vogel,
1933.

Hejduk 2008 = J.D. Hejduk, Clodia. A sourcebook, Norman OK: University of Oklahoma Press, 2008.

Helbig 1868 = W. Helbig, Die Wandgemälde der vom Vesuv verschütteten Städte Campaniens, Leipzig:
Breitkopf und Härtel, 1868.

Hemelrijk 1999 = E.A. Hemelrijk, Matrona docta. Educated women in the Roman élite from Cornelia to
Julia Domna, London: Routledge, 1999.

Henderson 1987 = J. Henderson, Aristophanes, Lysistrata, Oxford: Clarendeon, 1987.

Henry 1985 = M. Henry, Menander’s courtesans and the Greek comic tradition (Studien zur Klassischen
Philologie 20), Frankfurt am Main: Lang, 1985.

Henry 1992 = M.M. Henry, ‘The edible woman. Athenaeus’ concept of the pornographic’, in Richlin 1992b,
250-68.

Henry 1995 = M. Henry, Prisoner of history. Aspasia of Miletus and her biographical tradition, Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 1995.

Hersch 2010 = K.K. Hersch, The Roman wedding. Ritual and meaning in antiquity, Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 2010.

Herter 1957 = H. Herter, ‘Dirne’, Reallexicon für Antike und Christentum, 3 (1957), 1149-257.

Herter 1960 = H. Herter, ‘Die Soziologie der antiken Prostitution im Licht des heidnischen und christli-
chen Schrifttums’, JbAC 3 (1960), 70-111.

Herter 2003 = H. Herter, ‘The sociology of prostitution in antiquity in the context of pagan and Christian
writers’ (trad. L. DeLong), in M. Golden – P. Toohey (eds.), Sex and difference in ancient Greece and Rome,
Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press 2003, 57-113.

Hillard 1989 = T. Hillard, ‘Republican politics, women and the evidence’, Helios 16 (1989), 165-82.

Hillard 1992 = T. Hillard, ‘On the stage, behind the curtain. Images of politically active women in the late
Roman republic’, in B. Garlick – S. Dixon – P. Allen (eds.), Stereotypes of women in power. Historical
perspectives and revisionist views, Westport CT: Praeger, 1992, 37-64.

Hodske 2007 = J. Hodske, Mythologische Bildthemen in den Häusern Pompejis. Die Bedeutung der zentralen
Mythenbilder für die Bewohner Pompejis, Ruhpolding und Mainz: Verlag Franz Philipp Rutzen, 2007.

Hollis 2007 = A.S. Hollis (ed.), Fragments of Roman poetry c. 60 BC – AD 20, Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 2007.
 Bibliography 23

Holztrattner 1995 = F. Holztrattner, Poppaea Neronis potens. Die Gestalt der Poppaea Sabina in den
Nerobüchern des Tacitus. Mit einem Anhang zu Claudia Acte (Grazer Beiträge, Suppl. 6.), Horn: F. Berger
und Söhne, 1995.

Hornblower – Matthews 2000 = S. Hornblower – E. Matthews (eds.), Greek personal names. Their value
as evidence (Proceedings of the British Academy 104), Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000.

Hornblower – Spawforth 1996 = S. Hornblower – A.J.S. Spawforth, ‘Proposopography’, in S. Horn-

blower – A.J.S. Spawforth (eds.), The Oxford Classical dictionary (Third ed.), Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 1996, 1262-63.

Hraste – Vukovic 2015 = D.N. Hraste – K. Vukovic, ‘Virgins and prostitutes in Roman mythology’, La-
tomus 74 (2015), 313-38.

Hubbard 2014 = T.K. Hubbard, (ed.), A companion to Greek and Roman sexualities, Malden, MA: Wiley
Blackwell, 2014.

Inserra 2008 = N. Inserra, ‘Regiones I-II-III’, in Carrella – D’Acunto – Inserra – Serpe 2008, 15-62.

Irigaray 1977 = L. Irigaray, Ce sexe qui n’en est pas un, Paris: Éditions de Minuit, 1977.

Jacobelli 1995 = L. Jacobelli, Le pitture erotiche delle terme suburbane di Pompei, Roma: “L’Erma” di
Bretschneider, 1995.

Jacobelli 1997 = L. Jacobelli, Tessere numerali bronzee romane nelle Civiche raccolte numismatiche del
Comune di Milano. Tessere con ritrati imperiali, spintriae, tessere con raffigurazioni diverse, 2. Consi-
derazioni storico-artistiche, serie iconografiche (Annotazioni numismatiche 7, supplemento 10), Milano:
Ennerre, 1997.

Jacobelli 2011 = L. Jacobelli, ‘Les sujets érotiques’, in A. Desbat – H. Savay-Guerraz (eds.), Images
d’argile. Les vases gallo-romains à médaillons d’applique de la vallée du Rhône, Gollion: Infolio, 118-47.

Jacobelli 2012 = L. Jacobelli, ‘Ruolo e immagine della donna nei medaglioni a soggetto erotico della Valle
del Rodano’, Index 40 (2012), 407-22.

James 1998 = S. James, ‘Constructions of gender and genre, in Roman comedy and elegy’, Helios 25 (1998),
3-16.

James 2003 = S.L. James, Learned girls and male persuasion. Gender and reading in Roman love elegy,
Berkeley: University of California Press, 2003.

James 2006 = S.L. James, ‘A courtesan’s choreography. Female liberty and male anxiety at the Roman din-
ner party’, in Faraone – McClure 2006, 224-62.

James 2012a = S.L. James, ‘Re-reading Propertius’ Arethusa’, Mnemosyne 65 (2012), 1-20.

James 2012b = S.L. James, ‘Elegy and comedy’, in B.K. Gold (ed.), A companion to Roman love elegy,
Blackwell: Malden, 2012, 253-68.

James 2013 = S.L. James, ‘Gender and sexuality in Terence’, in A. Augoustakis – A. Traill (eds.), A com-
panion to Terence, Malden, MA: Blackwell 2013, 175-94.
24 bibliography

James (forthcoming) = S.L. James, ‘Plautus and the marriage plot’, (forthcoming in D. Dutsch – F.M.
Franko (eds.), A companion to Plautus, Blackwell.

James (forthcoming) = S.L. James, Women in New Comedy.

Johns 1992 = C. Johns, L’Eros nell’arte antica. Sesso o simbolo? (orig. Sex or symbol. Erotic images of
Greece and Rome, 1982), Roma: Gremese Editore, 1992.

Kajanto 1965 = I. Kajanto, The Latin cognomina, Helsinki: Societas Scientiarum Fennica, 1965.

Kajanto 1969 = I. Kajanto, ‘Balnea vina Venus’, in J. Bibauw (ed.), Hommages à Marcel Renard 2 (Lato-
mus 102), Bruxelles: Latomus, 1969, 357-67.

Kamen – Levin-Richardson 2015 = D. Kamen – S. Levin-Richardson, ‘Lusty ladies in the Roman imagi-
nary’, in R. Blondell – K. Ormand (eds.), Ancient sex. New essays, Columbus: Ohio State University, 2015,
231-52.

Kapparis 2006 = K.K. Kapparis, ‘The terminology of prostitution in the ancient Greek world’, in Glaze-
brook – Henry 2006, 222-55.

Karivieri 2014 = A. Karivieri, ‘Mythic, public and private memory. Creation of a Pompeian identity in the
House of Caecilius Iucundus’, in B. Alroth - C. Scheffer (eds.), Attitudes towards the past in Antiquity.
Creating identities, Stockholm: Stockholm University, 2014, 87-111.

Keesling 2006 = C. Keesling, ‘Heavenly bodies. Monuments to prostitutes in Greek sanctuaries’, in Farao-
ne – McClure 2006, 59-76.

Keith 2006 = A.M. Keith, ‘Women’s networks in Vergil’s Aeneid’, Dictynna 3 (2006), 211-33.

Keith 2008 = A.M. Keith, ‘Sartorial Elegance and Poetic Finesse in the Sulpician Corpus’, in Edmondson –
Keith 2008, 192-201.

Keith 2011 = A.M. Keith. ‘Lycoris Galli / Volumnia Cytheris. A Greek courtesan in Rome’, Eugesta 1
(2011), 23-53.

Keith 2012 = A.M. Keith, ‘The domina in Roman elegy’, in B.K. Gold, A companion to Roman love elegy,
Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, 2012, 285-301.

Kepartovà 1983 = J. Kepartovà, ‘Zu dem Begriff “pupa”’, LF 106 (1983), 187-88.

Keuls 1985 = E. Keuls, The reign of the phallus. Sexual politics of ancient Athens, New York: Harper &
Row, 1985.

Keuls 1988 = E. Keuls, Il regno della fallocrazia (orig. The reign of the phallus. Sexual politics in ancient
Athens, 1985), Milano: Il Saggiatore, 1988.

Keuls 1993 = E. Keuls, ‘Hetaera and the housewife. The splitting of female psyche in Greek art’, MNIR
44/45 (1993), 23-40.

Kiefer 1934 = O. Kiefer, Sexual life in ancient Rome, London: Routledge, 1934.

King 1976 = J.K. King, ‘Sophistication vs. chastity in Propertius’ Latin love elegy’, Helios 4 (1976), 67-76.
 Bibliography 25

Kleberg 1957 = T. Kleberg, Hôtels, restaurants et cabarets dans l’antiquité romaine. Études historiques et
philologiques, Uppsala: Almquist & Wiksells, 1957.

Knorr 1995 = O. Knorr, ‘The character of Bacchis in Terence’s Heautontimoroumenos’, AJPh 116 (1995),
221–35.

Krause 2000 = C. Krause, ‘Hemizyklien im frühkaiserzeitlichen Villenbau’, MDAI(R) 107 (2000), 37-78.

Kreilinger 2013 = U. Kreilinger, ‘Hetären-Gelage?’, in Mauritsch 2013, 69-84.

Krieter-Spiro 1997 = M. Krieter-Spiro, Sklaven, Köche und Hetären. Das Dienstpersonal bei Menander.
Stellung, Rolle, Komik und Sprache (Beiträge zur Altertumskunde 93), Stuttgart: Teubner, 1997.

Kurke 1996 = L. Kurke, ‘Pindar and the prostitutes, or reading ancient “pornography”’, Arion 4, 2 (1996),
49-75.

Kurke 1997 = L. Kurke, ‘Inventing the hetaira. Sex, politics and discursive conflict in archaic Greece’, CA
16 (1997), 106-53.

Kurke 1999 = L. Kurke, Coins, bodies, games and gold. The politics of meaning in archaic Greece, Prince-
ton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1999.

Kurke 2002 = L. Kurke, ‘Gender, politics and subversion in the Chreiai of Machon’, Proceedings of the
Cambridge Philological Society 48 (2002), 20-65.

Kuttner 1999 = A. Kuttner, ‘Culture and history at Pompey’s museum’, TAPhA 129 (1999), 343-73.

Labate 2006 = D. Labate, ‘Castelvetro. Archeologia e ricerche topografiche’ (Quaderni di Archeologia

dell’Emilia Romagna 17), Borgo S. Lorenzo: All’Insegna del Giglio, 2006.

Labate – Palazzini 2009 = D. Labate – C. Palazzini, ‘Via Emilia Est 281: Lo scavo dell’ara di Vetilia’, in
Malnati – Pellegrini – Pulini 2009, 59-61.

Langlands 2006 = R. Langlands, Sexual morality in ancient Rome, Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 2006.

Larese – Sgreva 1996 = A. Larese – D. Sgreva, Le lucerne fittili del Museo archeologico di Verona, Roma:
Giorgio Bretschneider, 1996.

La Rocca 2004 = E. La Rocca, ‘La fragile misura del classico. L’arte augustea e la formazione di una nuova
classicità’, in M. Barbanera (ed.), Storie dell’arte antica (Atti del convegno, Storia dell’arte antica nell’ul-
tima generazione. Tendenze e prospettive, Roma, febbraio 2001), Roma (2004), 67-116.

La Rocca 2008 = E. La Rocca, ‘Gli affreschi della casa di Augusto e della Villa della Farnesina. Una revi-
sione cronologica’, in E. La Rocca – P. Leòn – C. Parisi Presicce (eds.), Le due patrie acquisite. Studi di
archeologia dedicati a Walter Trillmich, Roma: L’Erma di Bretschneider, 2008, 223-42.

Laurence 1994 = R. Laurence, Roman Pompeii. Space and society, London: Routledge, 1994.

Le Barillier 1913 = J. Bertheroy (pseud.), Aspasie et Phryné, Paris: Éditions d’art et de littérature, 1913.

Lee 1994 = G. Lee, Propertius. The poems, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1983.

Leigh 2004 = M. Leigh, ‘The “Pro Caelio” and comedy’, CPh 99 (2004), 300-35.
26 bibliography

Levens 1946 = R.G.C. Levens, Cicero, Verrine 5, London: Methuen, 1946.

Levin-Richardson 2013 = S. Levin-Richardson, ‘Fututa sum hic. Female subjectivity and agency in Pom-
peian sexual graffiti’, CJ 108 (2013), 319-45.

Licandro 2005 = O. Licandro, ‘L’armilla di Moregine. Segni di un’affectio domini?’, in Scarano Ussani
2005, 139-42.

Licht 1932 = H. Licht (pseud. for P. Brandt), Sexual life of ancient Greece (orig. Sittengeschichte Grie-
chenlands, 1926), London: Routledge, 1932.

Lilja 1965 = S. Lilja, The Roman elegists’ attitudes to women, Helsinki: Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia, 1965
(reprint. New York: Garland, 1978).

Ling 1991 = R. Ling, Roman painting, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991.

Lloyd-Morgan = G. Lloyd-Morgan, The Mirrors. Description of the Collection in the Rijksmuseum G. M.

Kam at Nijmegen, Nijmegen: Ministry of Culture, 1981.

Loeschcke 1919 = S. Loeschcke, Lampen aus Vindonissa. Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte von Vindonissa und
des antiken Beleuchtungswesens, Zürich: Beer, 1919.

Lombardo 1988 = J. Lombardo, ‘Sontuosa meretrize. A portrait by property’, Renaissance Quarterly 41

(1988), 44-83.

Lorenz 2007 = K. Lorenz, ‘The ear of the beholder. Spectator figures and narrative structures in Pompeian
painting’, Art History 30.5 (2007), 665-82.

Lorenz 2008 = K. Lorenz, Bilder machen Räume. Mythenbilder in pompeianischen Häusern (Image &
Context 8), Berlin – New York: De Gruyter, 2008.

Lourenço – Craco 2013 = M. Lourenço – S. Craco, ‘O conjunto sepulcral romano do Monte da Loja (Ser-
pa, Beja)’, Al Madan Online 18, 1 (2013), 51-65.

Lugli 1947 = G. Lugli, Monumenti minori del Foro Romano, Roma: Bardi, 1947.

Lukinovich 1990 = A. Lukinovich, ‘The play of reflections between literary form and the sympotic theme
in the “Deipnosophistae” of Athenaeus’, in O. Murray (ed.), Sympotica. A symposion on the symposion,
Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1990, 263-71.

Lyne 1980 = R.O.A.M. Lyne, The Latin love poets. From Catullus to Horace, Oxford: Clarendon Press,
1980.

Maiuri 1945 = A. Maiuri, La cena di Trimalchione di Petronio Arbitro. Saggio, testo e commento, Napoli:
R. Pironti, 1945.

Malnati – Pellegrini – Pulini 2009 = L. Malnati – S. Pellegrini – I. Pulini (eds.), Mutina oltre le mura.
Recenti scoperte archeologiche sulla via Emilia (Catalogo della mostra), Modena: Museo civico archeolo-
gico etnologico, 2009.

Manca 2012 = M.L. Manca, La domus del lararium in Assisi, Perugia: Effe, 2012.

Marabini Moevs 2008 = M.T. Marabini Moevs, ‘Per una storia del gusto. Riconsiderazioni sul calice War-
ren’, BdA 146 (2008), 1-14.
 Bibliography 27

Marabini Moevs 2013 = M.T. Marabini Moevs, ‘The Warren Chalice in the imagination of its creator and
as a reflection of his time’, BullCom 94 (2013), 157-83.

Martos Montiel 2011 = J. Martos Montiel, ‘Sexo y signos zodiacales. Algunas notas sobre el espejo eróti-
co del Antiquarium comunale de Roma’, in Studia mystica, magica et mathematica ab amicis, sodalibus et
discipulis Iosepho Ludovico Calvo oblata (Revista internacional de investigación sobre magia y astrología
antiguas 11), Zaragoza: Portico, 2011, 518-36.

Mastino – Ruggeri 1995 = A. Mastino – P. Ruggeri, ‘Claudia Augusti liberta Acte, la liberta amata da Ne-
rone ad Olbia’, Latomus 54, 3 (1995), 513-44.

Mastino – Ruggeri 2004 = A. Mastino – P. Ruggeri (eds.), Da Olbìa ad Olbia. 2500 anni di storia di una
città mediterranea (Atti del Convegno internazionale di studi, 12–14 maggio 1994, Olbia, Italia. Vol. 1),
Sassari: EDES Editrice Democratica Sarda, 2004.

Mau 1876 = A. Mau, ‘Scavi di Pompei’, BdI (1876), 161-68, 223-34.

Mau 1884 = A. Mau, ‘Pitture della casa antica scoperta nella villa Farnesina’, Annali dell’Istituto di corri-
spondenza archeologica 56 (1884), 307-22.

Mau 1885 = A. Mau, ‘Pitture della casa antica scoperta nel giardino della Farnesina’, Annali dell’Istituto di
Corrispondenza Archeologica 57 (1885), 302-18.

Maurois 1958 = S.A. Maurois, Miss Howard and the emperor, New York: Knopf, 1958.

Massa 1997 = S. Massa, Aeterna Domus. Il complesso funerario di età romana del Lugone (Salò), Salò:
Comune di Salò, 1997.

Mauritsch 2013 = P. Mauritsch (ed.), Aspekte antiker Prostitution (Vorträge gehalten im Rahmen des Sym-
posions am 4. Dezember 2009), Graz: Leykam, 2013.

Mazzarino 1981 = S. Mazzarino, ‘Contributo alla lettura del nuovo Gallus (JRS 1979, 157 ss.) e alla storia
della mima “Lycoris”’, Helikon 21-22 (1980-81), 3-26.

Mazzoleni – Pappalardo 2004 = D. Mazzoleni – U. Pappalardo, Domus. Pittura e architettura d’illusione

nella casa romana, San Giovanni Lupatoto: Arsenale 2004.

McCarthy 2000 = K. McCarthy, Slaves, masters, and the art of authority in Plautine comedy, Princeton:
Princeton University Press, 2000.

McClain – Rauh 2011 = T.D. McClain – N.K. Rauh, ‘The brothels at Delos. The evidence for prostitution
in the maritime world’, in Glazebrook – Henry 2011, 147-71.

McClure 2003 = L. McClure, Courtesans at table. Gender and Greek literary culture in Athenaeus, Ox-
ford: Routledge 2003.

McClure 2006 = L.K. McClure, ‘Introduction’, in Faraone – McClure 2006, 3-18.

McCoy 2006 = M. McCoy, ‘The politics of prostitution. Clodia, Cicero, and social order in the late Roman
republic’, in Faraone – McClure 2006, 177-85.

McGinn 1991 = T.A.J. McGinn, ‘Concubinage and the Lex Julia on adultery’, TAPA 121 (1991), 334-75.
28 bibliography

McGinn 1998 = T.A.J. McGinn, Prostitution, sexuality and the law in ancient Rome, Oxford: Oxford Uni-
versity Press, 1998.

McGinn 2002 = T.A.J. McGinn, ‘Pompeian brothels and social history’, in T. McGinn – P. Carafa –
N.  de Grummond – B. Bergmann – T. Najberg, Pompeian brothels, Pompeii’s ancient history, mirrors
and mysteries, art and nature at Oplontis, and the Herculaneum‘basilica’ (JRA Supplementary Series 47),
Portsmouth, RI: Journal of Roman Archaeology, 2002, 7-46.

McGinn 2004 = T.A.J. McGinn, The economy of prostitution in the Roman world, Ann Arbor: University of
Michigan Press, 2004.

McGinn 2011 = ‘Conclusion’, in Glazebrook – Henry 2011, 256-68.

McGinn 2014 = ‘Prostitution. Controversies and new approaches’, in Hubbard 2014, 83-99.

Meneghini – Corsaro – Pinna Caboni 2009 = R. Meneghini – A. Corsaro – B. Pinna Caboni, ‘Il Templum
Pacis alla luce dei recenti scavi’, in F. Coarelli (ed.), Divus Vespasianus. Il bimillenario dei Flavi, Milano:
Electa, 2009, 190-201.

Michel 1982 = D. Michel, ‘Bemerkungen über Zuschauerfiguren in pompejanischen sogenannten Tafel-

bildern’, in La regione sotterrata dal Vesuvio. Studi e prospettive (Atti del convegno internazionale, 11-15
novembre 1979), Napoli: Università degli studi di Napoli, 1982, 537-97.

Mielsch 2001 = H. Mielsch, Römische Wandmalerei, Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 2001.

Mileti 2000 = M.C. Mileti, ‘La casa I, 11, 6-7 a Pompei. Un esempio di edilizia privata minore’, RSP 11
(2000), 101-16.

Miller 1914 = J. Miller, ‘Ῥοδῶπις’ in RE 1A, 1 (1914), 957-58.

Milnor 2005 = K. Milnor, Gender, domesticity and the age of Augustus. Inventing private life, Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 2005.

Miner 2003 = J. Miner, ‘Courtesan, concubine, whore. Apollodorus’ deliberate use of terms for prostitutes’,
AJPh 124 (2003), 19-37.

Mitchell 1986 = T.N. Mitchell, Cicero. Verrines II 1, Warminster: Aris & Phillips, 1986.

Mitchel Havelock 1995 = C. Mitchel Havelock, The Aphrodite of Knidos and her successors. A historical
review of the female nude, Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press, 1995.

Mols – Moorman 2008 = S. Mols – E. Moorman, La villa della Farnesina. Le pitture, Milano: Electa, 2008.

Moormann 1984 = E.M. Moormann, ‘Le pitture della Villa dei papiri ad Ercolano’, in Atti del XVII Con-
gresso internazionale di papirologia, Napoli: Centro internazionale per lo studio dei papiri ercolanesi, 1984,
637-74.

Moormann 1988 = E.M. Moormann, La pittura parietale romana come fonte di conoscenza per la scultura
antica, Assen: van Gorcum, 1988.

Morais 2011 = R. Morais, A colecção de lucernas romanas do Museu de Évora, Coimbra: Universidade de
Coimbra, 2011.
 Bibliography 29

Moretti 1990 = L. Moretti, Inscriptiones Graecae Urbis Romae 4, Romae: Istituto italiano per la storia
antica, 1990.

Mouritsen 2011 = H. Mouritsen, The freedman in the Roman world, Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 2011.

Murgatroyd 1980 = P. Murgatroyd, Tibullus I. A commentary on the first book of the elegies of Albius
Tibullus, Pietermaritzburg: University of Natal Press, 1980.

Murray 1996 = O. Murray, ‘Hellenistic royal symposia’, in P. Bilde – T. Engberg-Pedersen – L.

Hannestad – J. Zahle (eds.), Aspects of Hellenistic kingship (Studies in Hellenistic Civilization 7), Aarhus:
Aarhus University Press, 1996, 15-27.

Myers 1996 = K.S. Myers, ‘The poet and the procuress. The lena in Latin love poetry’, JRS 86 (1996), 1-21.

Myerowitz 1992 = M. Myerowitz, ‘The domestication of desire. Ovid’s parva tabella and the theater of
love’, in Richlin, A. (ed.), Pornography and representation in Greece and Rome, Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 1991, 131-57.

Nappo 2007 = S.C. Nappo, ‘Houses of Regions I and II’, in Dobbins – Foss 2007, 347-72.

Nasrallah 2010 = L. Nasrallah, Christian responses to Roman art and architecture. The second-century
church amid the spaces of empire, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010.

Navarre 1904 = O. Navarre, s.v. ‘Meretrices’, in Daremberg – Saglio 3 (1904), 1823-39.

Nenova-Merdjanova 2002 = R. Nenova-Merdjanova, ‘Bronze vessels and the toilette in Roman times’, in
C.M. Mattusch – A. Brauer – S.E. Knudsen (eds.), From the parts to the whole, 2 (Acta of the 13th Interna-
tional Bronze Congress, held at Cambridge, Massachusetts, May 28 – June 1, 1996), (JRA Supplementary
Series 39), Portsmouth, RI: Journal of Roman Archaeology, 2002, 201-4.

Neudecker 2015 = R. Neudecker, ‘Collecting culture. Statues and fragments in Roman gardens’, in M.W.
Gahtan – D. Pegazzano (eds.), Museum Archetypes and Collecting in the Ancient World (Monumenta Grae-
ca et Romana 21), Leiden: Brill, 2015, 129-36.

Neumer-Pfau 1986 = W. Neumer-Pfau, ‘Die nackte Liebesgöttin. Aphroditestatuen als Verkörperung des
Weiblichkeitsideals in der griechisch-hellenistischen Welt’, in Approaches to iconology (Visible Religion
4-5), Leiden: Brill, 1985-86, 205-34.

Nielsen 1998 = I. Nielsen, ‘Royal banquets. The development of royal banquets and banqueting halls from
Alexander to the Tetrarchs’, in I. Nielsen (ed.), Meals in a social context. Aspects of the communal meal in
the hellenistic and Roman world, Aarhus: Aarhus University Press, 1998, 102-33.

Nikolić – Raičović 2008 = S. Nikolić – A. Raičović, ‘Ceramic balsamaria-bottles. The example of Vimina-
cium’, Starinar 56 (2006), 334-36.

Nonnis 2009 = D. Nonnis, ‘Ara sepolcrale di Antonia Caenis, concubina di Vespasiano’, in F. Coarelli (ed.),
Divus Vespasianus. Il bimillenario dei Flavi, Milano: Electa, 2009, 404-5.

North 1979 = J.A. North, ‘Religious toleration in Republican Rome’, Proceedings of the Cambridge Philo-
logical Society 205 (1979), 85-103.
30 bibliography

Obermeyer 1998 = H.P. Obermayer, Martial und der Diskurs über Männliche ‘Homosexualität’ in der Lite-
ratur der frühen Kaiserzeit, Tübingen: Gunt-er Narr Verlag, 1998.

Ogden 2008 = D. Ogden, ‘Bilistiche and the prominence of courtesans in the Ptolemaic tradition’, in P.
McKechnie – P. Guillaume (eds.), Ptolemy II Philadelphus and his world, Leiden: Brill, 2008.

Olson 2006 = K. Olson, ‘Matrona and whore. Clothing and definition in Roman antiquity’, in Faraone –
McClure 2006, 186-204.

Olson 2008 = K. Olson, Dress and the Roman woman. Self-presentation and society, New York: Routledge,
2008.

Olovsdotter 2005 = C. Olovsdotter, The consular image. An iconological study of the consular diptychs
(British Archaeological Reports International series 1376), Oxford: John and Erica Hedges, 2005.

Osborne – Byrne 1994 = M. Osborne – S. Byrne (eds.), A lexicon of Greek personal names, 2, Oxford:
Clarendon Press, 1994.

Osgood 2011 = J. Osgood, Claudius Caesar. Image and power in the Early Roman Empire, Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 2011.

Packer 1978 = J. Packer, ‘Inns at Pompeii. A short survey’, Cronache Pompeiane 4 (1978), 5-53.

Pailler 1988 = J.-M. Pailler, Bacchanalia. La répression de 186 avant J.-C. à Rome et en Italie (Bi-
bliothèque des Écoles françaises d’Athènes et de Rome 270), Rome: École française de Rome, 1988.

Pailler 1995 = J.-M. Pailler, Bacchus, figures et pouvoirs, Paris: Belles lettres, 1995.

Palmer 1977 = R.B. Palmer, ‘Is there a religion of love in Tibullus?’, CJ 73 (1977), 1-10.

Pantò 2011 = G. Pantò (ed.), I modi dell’eros. Reperti archeologici a tema erotico del Museo di antichità
di Torino, Torino: Nautilus, 2011.

Pappalardo 2001 = U. Pappalardo, ‘Les cycles picturaux de la “Villa Impériale” à Pompéi’, MEFRA 113.2
(2001), 897-912.

Parker 1992 = H.N. Parker, ‘Love’s body anatomized. The ancient erotic handbooks and the rhetoric of
sexuality’, in Richlin 1992b, 90-111.

Parslow 2007 = C. Parslow, ‘Entertainment at Pompeii’, in Dobbins – Foss 2007, 212-23.

Parslow 2013 = C. Parslow, ‘The sacrarium of Isis in the praedia of Julia Felix in Pompeii in its archaeo-
logical and historical contexts, in C.C. Mattusch (ed.), Rediscovering the ancient world on the Bay of
Naples, 1710–1890, New Haven – London: Yale University Press, 2013, 47-72.

Patera 2012 = M. Patera, ‘Ritual dress regulations in Greek inscriptions of the Hellenistic and Roman
periods’, in S. Schrenk (ed.), Kleidung und Identität in religiösen Kontexten der römischen Kaiserzeit, Re-
gensburg: Schnell und Steiner 2012, 35-46.

Pelling 1988 = C.B.R. Pelling, Plutarch. Life of Antony, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1988.

Perrin 1917 = B. Perrin, Plutarch’s Lives, 5. Agesilaus and Pompey. Pelopidas and Marcellus, London:
Heinemann, 1917.
 Bibliography 31

Perry 2014 = M.J. Perry, Gender, manumission and the Roman freedwomen, Cambridge: Cambridge Uni-
versity Press, 2014.

Pervis 2016/2017 = R. Pervis, ‘Fututrix. Female sexual subjectivity for women who fuck in Pompeiian graf-
fiti’, Logos (UBC) 2016/2017, 47-57.

Peschel 1987 = I. Peschel, Die Hetäre bei Symposion und Komos in der attisch-rotfigurischen Vasenmalerei
des 6. – 4. Jahrhunderts vor Christus, Frankfurt am Main: Lang, 1987.

Petitti 2011a = P. Petitti, ‘Amore e seduzione tra Greci e Romani’, in Pantò 2011, 42-53.

Petitti 2011b = P. Petitti, ‘La sessualità che protegge’, in Pantò 2011, 56-61.

Phang 2001 = S.E. Phang, The marriage of Roman soldiers (13 B.C. – A.D. 235). Law and family in the
Imperial army, Leiden: Brill, 2001.

Pizzirani 2009 = C. Pizzirani, Il sepolcreto etrusco della Galassina di Castelvetro (Modena) (Studi e scavi,
nuova serie 24), Bologna: Ante Quem, 2009.

Platt 2002 = V. Platt, ‘Viewing, desiring, believing. Confronting the divine in a Pompeian House’, Art
History 25 (2002), 87-112.

Pollini 2010 = J. Pollini, ‘Lovemaking and voyeurism in Roman art and culture. The House of the Cente-
nary at Pompeii’, MDAI(R) 116 (2010), 289-319.

Pomeroy 1975 = S. Pomeroy, Goddesses, whores, wives, and slaves, New York: Schocken Books, 1975

Porten Palange 2004 = F.P. Porten Palange, Katalog der Punzenmotive in der arretinischen Reliefkeramik,
Mainz: Verlag des Römisch-Germanischen Zentralmuseums Mainz, 2004.

Porten Palange 2009 = F.P. Porten Palange, Die Werkstätten der arretinische Reliefkeramik, Mainz: Ver-
lag des Römisch-Germanischen Zentralmuseums Mainz, 2009.

Poulsen 1913 = F. Poulsen, ‘Un portrait de l’orateur Hypéride’, MMAI 21 (1913), 47-58.

Price 2004 = S. Price, ‘The future of dreams. From Freud to Artemidorus’, in R. Osborne, Studies in ancient
Greek and Roman society, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004, 226-59.

Pucci 1977 = G. Pucci, ‘Le terre sigillate’, in M. Annechino et al. (eds.), L’instrumentum domesticum di
Ercolano e Pompei nella prima età imperiale, Roma: “L’Erma” di Bretschneder, 1977, 9-31.

Radermacher 1931 = L. Radermacher, ‘Menandros 9’, in RE 15, 1 (1931), 707-64.

Ramsey 2003 = J.T. Ramsey (ed.), Cicero, Philippics, 1-2, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003.

Raubitschek 1941 = A. Raubitschek, ‘Phryne’, in RE 20, 1 (1941), 893-907.

Rauh 2011 = N.K. Rauh, ‘Prostitutes, pimps, and political conspiracies during the late Roman republic’, in
Glazebrook – Henry 2011, 197-221.

Rawson 1974 = B. Rawson, ‘Roman concubinage and other de facto marriages’, TAPA 104 (1974), 279-305.

Raymond 2013 = E. Raymond, ‘Caius Cornelius Gallus. The inventor of Latin love elegy’, in Thorsen 2013,
59-67.
32 bibliography

Reinsberg 1989 = C. Reinsberg, Ehe, Hetärentum und Knabenliebe im antiken Griechenland, München:
Beck, 1989.

Reuthner 2009 = R. Reuthner, ‘Philosophia und oikonomia als weibliche Disziplinen in Traktaten und
Lehrbriefen neupythagoreischer Philosophinnen’, Historia 45 (2009), 416-37.

Riccardi 2003 = A. Riccardi – M.R. De Palo (eds.), Gli antichi Peucezi a Bitonto. Documenti ed immagini
dalla necropoli di via Traiana, Bari: Edipuglia, 2003.

Richardson 2000 = L. Richardson, A catalog of identifiable figure painters of ancient Pompeii, Hercula-
neum and Stabiae, Baltimore – London: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 2000.

Richlin 1992a = A. Richlin, The garden of Priapus. Sexuality and aggression in Roman humor (revised edi-
tion), Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1992.

Richlin 1992b = A. Richlin (ed.), Pornography and representation in Greece and Rome, Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 1992.

Richlin 1997 = A. Richlin, ‘Foucault’s “History of Sexuality”, a useful theory for women?’, in D.H.J. Lar-
mour – P.A. Miller – C. Platter (eds.), Rethinking sexuality. Foucault and Classical antiquity, Princeton:
Princeton University Press, 1997, 122-37.

Richlin 2014 = A. Richlin, Arguments with silence: Writing the history of Roman women, Ann Arbor, MI:
University of Michigan Press, 2014.

Richter 1965 = G.M.A. Richter, The portraits of the Greeks, London: Phaidon, 1965.

Richter – Smith 1984 = G.M.A. Richter, The portraits of the Greeks (abridged and revised by R.R.R.
Smith), Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1984.

Riha 1986 = E. Riha, Römisches Toilettengerät und medizinische Instrumente aus Augst und Kaiseraugst
(Forschungen in Augst 6), Augst: Römermuseum Augst, 1986.

Ritter 2005 = S. Ritter, ‘Zur kommunikativen Funktion pompejanischer Gelagebilder. Die Bilder aus der
Casa del Triclinio und ihr Kontext’, JDAI 120 (2005), 301-72.

Ritter 2011 = S. Ritter, ‘Das Wirtshaus als Lebensraum. “Kneipenszenen” aus Pompeji’, JDAI 126 (2011),
155-220.

Ritter 2017 = S. Ritter, ‘Erotische Bilder in der pompejanischen Wandmalerei’, JDAI 132 (2017), 225-
270.

Rizzo 1929 = G.E. Rizzo, La pittura ellenistico-romana, Milano: Treves, 1929.

Robinson – Fluck 1937 = D. Robinson – E. Fluck, A study of the Greek love names, Baltimore: The Johns
Hopkins University Press, 1937.

Rodenwaldt 1925 = G. Rodenwaldt, ‘Mosaik im Wiener Hofmuseum’, MDAI(R) 25 (1925), 257-62.

Roller 2006 = M.B. Roller, Dining posture in ancient Rome. Bodies, values, and status, Princeton, NJ:
Princeton University Press, 2006.
 Bibliography 33

Roller 2012 = M. Roller, ‘Politics and invective in Persius and Juvenal’, in S. Braund – J. Osgood (eds.),
A companion to Persius and Juvenal, Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell 2012, 283-311.

Romizzi 2006 = L. Romizzi, Programmi decorativi di III e IV stile a Pompei. Un’analisi sociologica ed ico-
nologica, Napoli: Loffredo, 2006.

Rosen – Keane 2014 = R.M. Rosen – C.C. Keane, ‘Greco-Roman satirical poetry’, in Hubbard 2014, 381-
97.

Rosenthal 1992 = M. Rosenthal, The honest courtesan. Veronica Franco, citizen and writer in sixteenth-
century Venice, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1992.

Rosenthal 2006 = M. Rosenthal, ‘Cutting a good figure. The fashion of Venetian courtesans in the illus-
trated albums of Early Modern travelers’, in Feldman – Gordon 2006, 52-74.

Rousselle 1988 = A. Rousselle, Porneia. On desire and the body in antiquity (trans. F. Pheasant), Oxford:
Blackwell, 1988.

Ruggeri 2004 = Ruggeri, P., ‘Olbia e la casa imperiale’, in Mastino – Ruggeri 2004, 281-303.

Sabbatucci 1958 = D. Sabbatucci, ‘Il mito di Acca Larentia’, SMSR 29 (1958), 41-76.

Salmeri = G. Salmeri, ‘Il contesto sociale’, in Scarano Ussani 2005a, 143-48.

Saletti 1989 = C. Saletti, ‘La scultura di età romana in Sardegna. Ritratti e statue iconiche’, Rivista di
archeologia 13 (1989), 76-100.

Salomon 1997 = N. Salomon, ‘Making a world of difference. Gender, asymmetry, and the Greek nude’, in
A.O. Koloski-Ostrow – C.L. Lyons (eds.), Naked truths. Women, sexuality, and gender in classical art and
archaeology, London: Routledge, 1997, 197-219.

Sampaolo 1992 = V. Sampaolo, ‘Banchettante ed etera’, in R. Cappelli (ed.), Bellezza e lusso. Immagini e
documenti di piaceri della vita (Roma, Castel Sant’Angelo, 31 marzo – 14 aprile 1992), Roma: De Luca,
1992, 105-6.

Sampaolo 1993 = V. Sampaolo, ‘VI 7, 23 Casa di Apollo’, in PPM 4 (1993), 470-524.

Sande 2005 = S. Sande, ‘Una scena enigmatica su una colonna protobizantina’, Arte Medievale 14 (2005),
9-19.

Sande 2014 = S. Sande, ‘The female portrait gallery in Pompey’s theatre complex in Rome. Appearance and
impact’, AAAH 27 (2014), 41-70.

Sande 2017 = S. Sande, ‘The Ludovisi “throne”, the Boston “throne” and the Warren cup. Retrospective
works or forgeries?’, AAAH 29 (2017), 23-51.

Santirocco 2002 = M. Santirocco, ‘Foreword’, in D. Slavitt (ed.), Propertius in love. The elegies, Berke-
ley: University of California Press, 2002, IX-XXXVI.

Santore 1991 = C. Santore, ‘Danaë. The Renaissance courtesan’s alter ego’, Zeitschrift für Kunstgeschich-
te 54 (1991), 412-27.
34 bibliography

Sanzi Di Mino 1998 = M.R. Sanzi Di Mino (ed.), La Villa della Farnesina in Palazzo Massimo alle Terme,
Milano: Electa, 1998.

Sapelli 1979 = M. Sapelli, ‘Lucerne fittili delle Civiche raccolte archeologiche’ (Notizie dal chiostro del
Monastero Maggiore, supplemento 2), Milano: Comune di Milano, 1979.

Savunen 1997 = L. Savunen, Women in the urban texture of Pompeii, Pukkila: Sumiloffset, 1997.

Scafuro 1989 = A. Scafuro, ‘Livy’s comic narrative of the Bacchanalia’, Helios 16 (1989), 117-42.

Scagliarini Corlàita 1997 = D. Scagliarini Corlàita (ed.), I temi figurativi nella pittura parietale antica
(IV sec. a.C. – IV sec. d.C.). Atti del VI Convegno internazionale sulla pittura parietale antica (Studi e scavi
5), Imola: University Press Bologna, 1997.

Scarano Ussani 2003 = V. Scarano Ussani, ‘Un’ancilla e il suo tesoro’, in d’Ambrosio – Guzzo – Mastro-
roberto 2003, 473-78.

Scarano Ussani 2005a = V. Scarano Ussani (ed.), Moregine. Suburbio portuale di Pompei. Napoli: Lof-
fredo, 2005.

Scarano Ussani 2005b = V. Scarano Ussani, ‘Un nuovo, significativo documento della condizione servile’,
in Scarano Ussani 2005a, 77-105.

Scatozza 1986 = L.A. Scatozza Höricht, I vetri romani di Ercolano (Soprintendenza archeologica di Pom-
pei, 1), Roma: “L’Erma” di Bretschneider, 1986.

Scatozza 2012 = L.A. Scatozza Höricht, L’Instrumentum vitreum di Pompei, Roma: Arachne, 2012.

Schaps 1977 = D. Schaps, ‘The woman least mentioned. Etiquette and women’s names’, CQ 27 (1977),
323-30.

Scheibler 1998 = I. Scheibler, ‘Zu den Bildinhalten der Klapptürbilder römischer Wanddekorationen’,
MDAI(R) 105 (1998), 1-20.

Scheid 1984 = J. Scheid, ‘Contraria facere. Renversements et déplacements dans les rites funeraires’,
AION(archeol) 6 (1984), 117-39.

Schenke 2003 = G. Schenke, Schein und Sein: Schmuckgebrauch in der römischen Kaiserzeit, Leuven 2003.

Schmidt 1902 = E. Schmidt, ‘Die griechischen Personennamen bei Plautus’, Hermes 37 (1902), 173-209,
363-90, 608-26.

Schmitz 2004 = T.A. Schmitz, ‘Alciphron’s letters as a Sophistic text’, in B.E. Borg (ed.), Paideia. The
world of the Second Sophistic (Millennium-Studien 2), Berlin: de Gruyter, 2004, 87-104.

Schnapp 1989 = A. Schnapp, ‘Eros the hunter’, in C. Bérard et al. (eds.), A city of images. Iconography and
society in ancient Greece, (transl. D. Lyons; French original 1984), Princeton: Princeton University Press,
1989, 71-87.

Schneider 1913 = I. Schneider, ‘Hetairai’, RE 8, 2 (1913), 1331-72.

Schneider 1931 = K. Schneider, ‘Meretrix’, RE 15, 1 (1931), 1018-27.

Schuller 2002 = W. Schuller, ‘Hetären in Griechenland und Rom’, Hyperboreus 8 (2002), 267-74.
 Bibliography 35

Schuller 2005 = W. Schuller, ‘Zwischen Verachtung und Hochachtung. Die Hetären’, in M.G. Angeli
Bertinelli (ed.), Il cittadino, lo straniero, il barbaro, fra integrazione ed emarginazione nell’ antichità (Ser-
ta antiqua et mediaevalia 7), Roma: Bretschneider, 2005, 21-29.

Schuller 2008 = W. Schuller, Die Welt der Hetären. Berühmte Frauen zwischen Legende und Wirklichkeit,
Stuttgart: Klett-Cotta, 2008.

Schuller 2014 = W. Schuller, ‘Der Ruhm der Hetären’, in U. Bultrighini – E. Dimauro (eds.), Donne che
contano nella storia greca, Lanciano: Carabba, 2014, 109-24.

Scullard 1981 = H.H. Scullard, Festivals and ceremonies of the Roman republic, London: Thames &
Hudson, 1981.

Seager 1974 = R. Seager, ‘Venustus, lepidus, bellus, salsus. Notes on the language of Catullus’, Latomus
33 (1974), 891-94.

Sedgwick 1992 = E.K. Sedgwick, Between men. English literature and male homosocial desire, New York:
Columbia University Press, 1992.

Seifert – Balicki 2004 = D. Seifert – J. Balicki, ‘Mary Ann Hall’s house’, Historical Archaeology 39, 1
(2004), 59-73.

Seifert – O’Brien – Balicki 2005 = D.J. Seifert – E. Barthold O’Brien – J. Balicki, ‘Mary Ann Hall’s
first-class house. Archaeology of a capital brothel’, in R.A. Schmidt – B.L. Voss (eds.), Archaeologies of
sexuality, New York: Routledge, 2005, 117-28.

Seiler 1992 = F. Seiler, Casa degli Amorini dorati (VI 16, 7.38) (Häuser in Pompeji 5), München: Hirmer,
1992.

Seiler 1994 = F. Seiler, ‘VI 16, 7. 38 Casa degli Amorini dorati’, in PPM 5 (1994), 714-846.

Settis 1984 = S. Settis, ‘Tribuit sua marmora Roma: sul reimpiego di sculture antiche’, in E. Castelnuo-
vo – V. Fumagalli – A. Peroni – S. Settis (eds.), Lanfranco e Wiligelmo: Il Duomo di Modena (Catalogo
della mostra), Modena 1984, 309-17.

Severy 2003 = B. Severy, Augustus and the family at the birth of the Roman empire, New York: Routledge,
2003.

Shackleton Bailey 1977 = D.R. Shackleton Bailey, Cicero: Epistulae ad familiares 1, 62-47 b.c., Cam-
bridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977.

Shreve-Price 2014 = S.S. Shreve-Price, Complicated courtesans. Lucian’s “Dialogues of the courtesans”,
Ph.D. University of Iowa, 2014.

Siegmund 2000 = F. Siegmund, ‘Im Vicus von Oedenburg. Die Basler Grabung 2000’, Collegium Beatus
Rhenanus. EUCOR-Newsletter 3 (2000), 4-5.

Skinner 2005 = M.B. Skinner, Sexuality in Greek and Roman culture, Oxford: Blackwell, 2005.

Skinner 2011 = M.B. Skinner, Clodia Metelli. The tribune’s sister, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011.

Slavazzi 2011 = F. Slavazzi, ‘Ovidio nelle residenze di Augusto e della sua corte’, Eidola 8 (2011), 143-53.
36 bibliography

Sogliano 1884 = A. Sogliano, ‘Pompei. Relazione sopra gli scavi eseguiti in Pompei nel gennaio 1884’, in
NSc (1884), 47-53.

Solin 1996 = H. Solin, Die stadtrömischen Sklavennamen. Ein Namenbuch, Stuttgart: Steiner, 1996.

Solin 2003 = H. Solin, Die griechischen Personennamen in Rom. Ein Namenbuch (2nd ed., rev.), Berlin:
de Gruyter, 2003.

Sommerstein 1980 = A. Sommerstein, ‘The naming of women in Greek and Roman comedy’, QS 11 (1980),
393-418.

Sorabella 2010 = J. Sorabella, ‘Observing sleep in Greco-Roman art’, in E. Scioli – C. Walde, Sub imagi-
ne somni. Nighttime phenomena in Greco-Roman culture (Testi e studi di cultura classica 46), Pisa: Edizioni
ETS, 2010, 1-31.

Sorkin Rabinowich 2011 = N. Sorkin Rabinowich, ‘Sex for sale? Interpreting erotica in the Havana Collec-
tion’, in Glazebrook – Henry 2011, 122-46.

Späth 2013 = T. Späth, ‘Prostitution in einer Gesellschaft ohne “Sexualität”. Ein Diskussionsbeitrag’, in
Mauritsch 2013, 41-51.

Spano 1920 = G. Spano, ‘L‘illuminazione delle vie di Pompei’, Atti della Reale Accademia di archeologia,
lettere e belle arti di Napoli 7 (1920), 3-128.

Stefani 2005 = G. Stefani, ‘Labor. Il cibo come lavoro’, in Cibi e sapori a Pompei e dintorni (Mostra An-
tiquarium di Boscoreale 3 febbraio – 26 giugno 2005), Castellammare di Stabia: Edizioni Flavius, 2005,
96-103.

Stemmer 1992 = K. Stemmer, Casa dell’Ara massima (VI 16, 15-17) (Häuser in Pompeji 6), München:
Hirmer, 1992.

Stemmer 1994 = K. Stemmer, ‘VI 16, 15. 17 Casa dell’Ara massima’, in PPM 5 (1994), 847-86.

Storey 2006 = T. Storey, ‘Oggetti e legami nella casa delle cortigiane. Erotismo e distinzione sociale nella
Roman barocca’, Genesis 5, 1 (2006), 21-40.

Stramaglia 2007 = A. Stramaglia, ‘Il fumetto e le sue potenzialità mediatiche nel mondo greco-latino’,
J.A.F. Delgado – F. Pordomingo – A. Stramaglia (eds.), Escuela y literatura en Grecia antigua (Actas del
simposio Internacional Universidad de Salamanca 17-19 Noviembre 2004), Cassino: Università degli studi
di Cassino, 2007, 577-643.

Strocka 1991 = V.M. Strocka, Casa del Labirinto (VI 11, 8-10) (Häuser in Pompeji, 4), München: Hirmer,
1991.

Stumpp 1998 = B.E. Stumpp, Prostitution in der römischen Antike (2. Auflage), Berlin: Akademie Verlag,
1998.

Takács 2000 = S.A. Takács, ‘Politics and religion in the Bacchanalian affair of 186 B.C.E.’, HSPh 100
(2000), 301-10.

Tamm 2001 = J. Tamm, Argentum potorium in Romano-Campanian wall-painting. Ph.D.Diss., McMaster

University, 2001.
 Bibliography 37

Tassinari 1993 = S. Tassinari, Il vasellame bronzeo di Pompei, Roma: “L’Erma” di Bretschneider, 1993.

Taylor 2008 = R. Taylor, The moral mirror of Roman art, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008.

Temporini-Gräfin Vitzthum 2002a = H. Temporini-Gräfin Vitzthum, ‘Die iulisch-claudische Familie.

Frauen neben Augustus und Tiberius’, in Temporini-Gräfin Vitzthum 2002b, 21–102.

Temporini-Gräfin Vitzthum 2002b = H. Temporini-Gräfin Vitzthum (ed.), Die Kaiserinnen Roms. Von
Livia bis Theodora, München: Beck, 2002.

Thesleff 1965 = H. Thesleff, The Pythagorean texts of the hellenistic period, Ǻbo: Ǻbo Akademie, 1965.

Thilo – Hagen 1884 = G. Thilo – H. Hagen, Servii Grammatici qui feruntur in Vergilii carmina commen-
tarii. Leipzig: Teubner, 1884.

Thorsen 2012 = Th. Thorsen Selliaas, ‘Sappho, Corinna and colleagues in ancient Rome. Tatian’s cata-
logue of statues (Oratio ad Graecos 33-41) reconsidered’, Mnemosyne 65 (2012), 1-22.

Thorsen 2013 = T.S. Thorsen (ed.), The Cambridge companion to Roman love elegy, Cambridge: Cam-
bridge University Press, 2013.

Tomei 1992 = M.A. Tomei, ‘Statue di terracotta dal Palatino,’ MDAI(R) 99 (1992), 171-226.

Tomei 1995 = M.A. Tomei, ‘Domus oppure lupanar? I materiali dallo scavo Boni della “casa repubblicana”
a ovest dell’Arco di Tito’, MEFRA 107 (1995), 549-619.

Tomei – Rea 2011 = M.A. Tomei – R. Rea (eds.), Nerone (Catalogo della mostra, Roma), Milano: Electa,
2011.

Tomassetti 1881 = G. Tomassetti, ‘Via Prenestina’, NSc (1881), 106-9.

Traill 2008 = A. Traill, Women and the comic plot in Menander, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
2008.

Traina 2001 = G. Traina, ‘Lycoris the mime’, in A. Fraschetti (ed.), Roman women (orig. Roma al femmini-
le, 1994), Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2001, 82-99.

Treggiari 1970 = S. Treggiari, ‘Libertine ladies’, CW 64 (1970-71), 196-98.

Treggiari 1981a = S. Treggiari, ‘Concubinae’, PBSR 49 (1981), 59-81.

Treggiari 1981b = S. Treggiari, ‘Contubernales in CIL 6’, Phoenix 35, 1 (1981), 42-69.

Treggiari 1991 = S. Treggiari, Roman marriage. Iusti coniuges from the time of Cicero to the time of Ul-
pian, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1991.

Treggiari 2007 = S. Treggiari, Terentia, Tullia and Publilia. The women of Cicero’s family, London: Rout-
ledge, 2007.

Troso 1991 = C. Troso, Il ceramista aretino Publius Cornelius. La produzione decorata a rilievo, Firenze:
Nuova Italia, 1991.

Uden 2015 = J. Uden, The invisible satirist. Juvenal and second-century Rome, Oxford – New York: Oxford
University Press, 2015.
38 bibliography

van Andringa – Duday – Lepetz – Joly – Lind 2013 = W. van Andriga – H. Duday – S. Lepetz – D. Joly – T.
Lind, Mourir à Pompéi. Fouille d’un quartier funéraire de la nécropole romaine de Porta Nocera (2003-
2007) (Collection de l’École française de Rome 468), Rome: École française de Rome, 2013.

Van Eck – Versluys – ter Keurs 2015 = C. Van Eck – M.J. Versluys – P. ter Keurs, ‘The biography of
cultures. Style, objects and agency. Proposal for an interdisciplinary approach’, Cahiers de l’École du Lou-
vre 7 (2015), 2-22.

Vanoyeke 1990 = V. Vanoyeke, La prostitution en Grèce et à Rome, Paris: Belles lettres, 1990.

Varone 1993 = A. Varone, ‘Scavi recenti a Pompei lungo via dell’Abbondanza (Reg. IX, ins. 12, 6-7)’, in
Ercolano 1739-1988. 250 anni di ricerca archeologica (Atti del convegno, Ravello – Ercolano – Napoli –
Pompei, 30 ottobre–5 novembre 1988), Roma: “L’Erma” di Bretschneider, 1993, 617-40.

Varone 1994 = A. Varone, Erotica pompeiana. Iscrizioni d’amore sui muri di Pompei, Roma: “L’Erma” di
Bretschneider, 1994.

Varone 1997 = A. Varone, ‘Pompei. Il quadro Helbig 1445, “Kasperl im Kindertheater”, una nuova replica
e il problema delle copie e delle varianti’, in Scagliarini Corlàita 1997, 149-52.

Varone 2000 = A. Varone, L’erotismo a Pompei, Roma: “L’Erma” di Bretschneider, 2000.

Varone 2002 = A. Varone, Erotica Pompeiana. Love inscriptions on the walls of Pompeii, Roma: “L’Erma”
di Bretschneider, 2002.

Varone 2003 = A. Varone, ‘Organizzazione e sfruttamento della prostituzione servile. L’esempio del lu-
panare di Pompei’, in A. Buonopane – F. Cenerini (eds.), Donna e lavoro nella documentazione epigrafica
(Atti I seminario sulla condizione femminile nella documentazione epigrafica, Bologna ottobre 2002), Fa-
enza: Lega, 2003, 193-215.

Varone 2005 = A. Varone, ‘Nella Pompei a luci rosse. Castrensis e l’organizzazione della prostituzione e
dei suoi spazi’, RSP 16 (2005), 93-109.

Varone 2012 = A. Varone, Titulorum graphio exaratorum qui in CIL vol. IV collecti sunt: imagines, Roma:
“L’Erma” di Bretschneider, 2012.

Varone 2014 = A. Varone, ‘Le iscrizioni graffite di Stabiae alla luce dei nuovi rinvenimenti’, RPAA 86
(2014), 375-427.

Venditto 2006 = A. Venditto, ‘Cat. III 1 27’, in S. De Caro (ed.), Egittomania. Iside e mistero, Milano:
Electa, 2006.

Veyne 1983 = P. Veyne, L’élégie érotique romaine. L’amour, la poésie et l’Occident, Paris: Editions du
Seuil, 1983.

Virgili – Viola 1990 = P. Virgili – C. Viola (eds.), Bellezza e seduzione nella Roma Imperiale (Catalogo
mostra, Palazzo dei Conservatori, Roma 11 giugno – 31 luglio), Roma: De Luca, 1990.

Volbach 1976 = W.F. Volbach, Elfenbeinarbeiten der Spätantike und des frühen Mittelalters, Mainz: von
Zabern, 1976.
 Bibliography 39

Vout 2002 = C. Vout, ‘Nero and Sporus’, in J.-M. Croisille – Y. Perrin (eds.), Neronia IV. Rome à l’époque
néronienne. Institutions et vie politique, économie et société, vie intellectuelle, artistique et spirituelle (Actes
du VIe colloque international de la SIEN, Rome, 19–23 mai 1999) (Collection Latomus 268), Bruxelles:
Éditions Latomus, 2002, 491-502.

Vout 2013 = C. Vout, Sex on show. Seeing the erotic in Greece and Rome, London: The British Museum
Press, 2013.

Vucetic 2013 = S. Vucetic, ‘Roman sexuality or Roman sexualities? Looking at sexual imagery on Roman
terracotta mould-made lamps’, in H. Platts et al. (ed.), TRAC 2013 (Proceedings of the Twenty-Third An-
nual Theoretical Roman Archaeology Conference, London 4-6 April 2013), Oxford: Oxbow, 2014, 140-58.

Wallace-Hadrill 1994 = A. Wallace-Hadrill, Houses and society in Pompeii and Herculaneum, Prince-
ton: Princeton University Press, 1994.

Wallace-Hadrill 1988 = A. Wallace-Hadrill, ‘The social structure of the Roman house’, PBSR 43
(1988), 43-97.

Wallace-Hadrill 1995 = A. Wallace-Hadrill, ‘Public honour and private shame: The urban texture of
Pompeii’, in T.J. Cornell – K. Lomas (eds.), Urban society in Roman Italy, London: University College,
1995, 39-62.

Wallace-Hadrill 2004 = A. Wallace-Hadrill, ‘Imaginary feasts. Pictures of success on the Bay of Naples’,
in A. Gallina Zevi, J.H. Humphrey (ed.), Ostia, Cicero, Gamala, feasts, & the economy. Papers in memory
of John H. D’Arms (JRA Supplementary Series 57), Portsmouth, RI: Journal of Roman Archaeology, 2004,
109-26.

Ward Perkins – Claridge 1976 = J.B. Ward Perkins – A. Claridge, Pompeii A.D. 79, London; Royal
Academy of arts Piccadilly, 1976.

Wardle 2010 = D. Wardle, ‘Suetonius on Vespasian’s rise to power under the Julio-Claudians’, Acta clas-
sica 53 (2010), 101-15.

Weaver – Wilkins 1993 = P.R.C. Weaver – P.I. Wilkins, ‘A lost alumna’, ZPE 99 (1993), 241-44.

Wells 1982 = J. Wells, A history of prostitution in Western Europe, Berkeley, CA: Shameless Hussy Press,
1982.

Werner 1994 = K. Werner, Mosaiken aus Rom. Polychrome Mosaikpavimente und Emblemata aus Rom
und Umgebung, Würzburg: CompuTeam, 1994.

West 1996 = M.L. West, Die griechische Dichterin. Bild und Rolle, Stuttgart: Teubner, 2005.

Wiles 1991 = D. Wiles, The masks of Menander. Sign and meaning in Greek and Roman performance,
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991.

Williams 1968 = G. Williams, Tradition and originality in Roman poetry, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1968.

Williams 2010 = C.A. Williams, Roman homosexuality (2nd ed.), Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010.

Wiseman 1985 = T.P. Wiseman, Catullus and his world. A reappraisal, Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1985.
40 bibliography

Wyke 1989 = M. Wyke, ‘Mistress and metaphor in Augustan elegy’, Helios 16 (1989), 25-47.

Wyke 2002 = M. Wyke, The Roman mistress. Ancient and modern representations, Oxford: Oxford Univer-
sity Press, 2002.

Wyler 2004 = S. Wyler, ‘”Dionysos domesticus”. Les motifs dionisiaques dans les maisons pompéiennes
et romaines (IIe s.av. - Ier s. ap. J.-C.)’, MEFRA 116 (2004), 933-51.

Zaccaria Ruggiu 2001 = A. Zaccaria Ruggiu, ‘Abbinamento triclinium-cubiculum. Un’ipotesi interpretati-

va’, in M. Verzàr-Bass (ed.), Abitare in Cisalpina. L’edilizia privata nelle città e nel territorio in età tardo
romana (Antichità Altoadriatiche 49.1), Trieste: Editreg, 59-101.

Zanker 1992 = P. Zanker, ‘Nachahmen als kulturelles Schicksal’, in C. Lenz (ed.), Probleme der Kopie von
der Antike bis zum 19. Jahrhundert. Vier Vorträge, München: Bayerische Staatsgemäldesammlung, 1992,
9-24.

Zanker 1998 = P. Zanker, ‘Un’arte per i sensi. Il mondo figurativo di Dioniso e Afrodite’, in S. Settis (ed.),
I Greci. Storia, cultura, arte, società, vol. 2.3, Una storia greca. Trasformazioni (IV secolo a.C. – II secolo
d.C.), Torino: Einaudi, 1998, 545-616.
 Preface

The nucleus of this volume consists of a set of papers delivered on May 30th, 2014, at the Institutum Roma-
num Finlandiae, Rome, at the International Symposium “The Roman courtesan. Archaeological reflections
of a literary topos,” organized in collaboration with the Deutsches Archäologisches Institut Rom. In the
present book, besides the papers by the original participants at the symposium, a number of other colleagues
have been invited to participate with articles that enrich the discourse with further perspectives.

We thank, in particular, the Federation of the Finnish Learned Societies for funding the conference orga-
nized in Rome. Special thanks are due to the directors of the two institutes, Ortwin Dally and Tuomas Heik-
kilä and to the institutions they represent, Deutsches Archäologisches Institut Rom and Institutum Romanum
Finlandiae, for financial support and hosting the original symposium at Villa Lante. We also thank Intendent
Simo Örmä and Amanuensis Linda Jokela for precious collaboration. Among many colleagues who had an
important role in discussing and commenting the papers at the symposium, we would like to express special
thanks to John Clarke and Pier Giovanni Guzzo. Finally, we thank Mika Kajava for accepting the volume
for publication in the series of Acta IRF.

Rome, settembre 2018

Ria Berg and Richard Neudecker

 Introduction: Unveiling Roman courtesans

Ria Berg

‘Courtesan’ – a difficult word

In classical antiquity, to speak of ‘courtesans’ is obviously anachronistic; this was a term and phenome-
non coined for Renaissance and Baroque Rome used in eighteenth-century Venice and still cultivated in
nineteenth-century Paris.1 However, in its place the corpus of Latin literature does not seems to offer any
precise expression that signifies an independent, non-servile prostitute, or even any single word to translate
the Greek hetaira, literally ‘female companion’.2 This is certainly not because of a lack of words, as James
Noel Adams, in his well-known study, identifies over fifty Latin expressions for prostitutes according to
their various conditions and situations.3 By and large, these Latin terms are used both for prostitutes and
for women who in other ages would be called ‘courtesans’ and range from the extremes of the pejorative
scortum, prostibula and the more neutral meretrix (shared with brothel workers) to the adulatory and highly
euphemistic puella, amica, and domina (the latter term shared with Roman matronae and filiae familias).4
Sharon James, in the conclusions to her wider studies of female figures in Roman comedy and elegy,
promoted the use of the word ‘courtesan,’ though she has also coined other expressions like ‘courtesan-
on-contract’ and ‘professional girl-friend’ to describe the specific condition of the independent, non-slave
prostitute, often living in longer, exclusive relationships.5 Likewise, the 2006 publication Prostitutes and
Courtesans in the Ancient World, edited by Christopher Faraone and Laura McClure, promoted the use of
the word courtesan even in the Classical world.6
The contributors to this volume take slightly different stances to the term ‘courtesan’, approaching
the concept in the framework of their specific fields of study. Thomas McGinn discusses the striking ab-
sence of such a term in legal sources, while Sharon James and Alison Keith analyse how in Roman literary
sources the ambivalent term meretrix is used as the nearest equivalent of ‘courtesan’. Antonio Varone dis-

1  For a diachronic discussion, see, for example Feldman – Gordon 2006. Elaine Fantham (2011, 157, n. 3) has stated that she
consciously avoids both ‘courtesan’ and ‘prostitute’, leaving the words hetaira and meretrix untranslated, “because there simply is
no accurate and neutral translation for them”.
2  The Latinized word hetaera appears only in nonclassical sources.
3  Adams 1983.
4  Schneider 1931; Herter 1957; Stumpp 1998, 19-20; Flemming 1999, 47-48; Fayer 2002; 2013, 377-405; McClure 2006, 7;
Guzzo – Scarano Ussani 2009, 9; see also McGinn 1998; 2002; 2004 and the contribution in this volume. Meretrix is the most
common word for prostitute in the Latin corpus. According to the count of McCoy (2006, 178), it is used by Cicero 34 times, by
Plautus 72 times, by Seneca the Elder 85 times, and by Quintilian 114 times. Among the technical terms, scortum (‘hide’) and lupa
(‘she-wolf’) have a rather debased connotation, as does also the more neutral meretrix, meaning a female who earns money (with her
body). Legal language employs less colourful and more precise language: corpora quaestuaria, quaestuaria mancipia, see Guzzo –
Scarano Ussani 2009, 9. For a philological analysis of the use of the word puella, see Hallett 2008.
5  James 2003, 36-52; 2006, 228-32; 2012a, 426.
6  Faraone – McClure 2006.
44 Ria Berg

cusses Pompeian graffiti from the optic that the omnipresent puella might in some cases be understood as a
‘courtesan’. In iconography and material culture, problems of terminology are less prominent, but lie in the
background when we consider whether certain archaeological phenomena may be counted in the sphere of
‘courtesanship’. Confrontations with Hellenistic hetairai are made in Siri Sande’s, Irene Bragantini’s and
Richard Neudecker’s chapters, while Marja-Leena Hänninen and Pia Mustonen examine the limits of the
concept in application to immoral matrons and imperial concubines. In the chapters of Luciana Jacobelli,
Ria Berg and Donato Labate, the question arises whether traces of ‘courtesans’ could be recognized in
domestic wall painting, furnishings and grave contexts; Ville Hakanen further discusses whether our mate-
rial evidence could also point to the existence of male ‘courtesans’. All in all, where the word ‘courtesan’
is used, it is done conscious of a precision and a degree of anachronism, and to avoid using the even more
incorrect term ‘prostitute’.
If it is extremely difficult to define what a Roman prostitute is, defining a Roman courtesan is even more
so. Notoriously, other phenomena of non-marital sexual activity, such as adultery and concubinage overlap and
are not always easy to label either. McGinn, discussing the difficulties of finding a definition for prostitution
has presented one borrowed from social sciences, implying these three criteria: 1) promiscuity; 2) payment;
3) emotional indifference.7 Interestingly, ancient courtesans do not necessarily fit into any of these criteria, as
they 1) may have a restricted number of partners, even only one; 2) do not necessarily receive money, as the
payment can be veiled as a gift; 3) may have an emotional engagement, which may be reciprocated.
James Davidson has observed that “the very term ‘courtesan’ is deliberately vague, used for a group of
determinedly hard-to-define women of shady reputation, who worked outside of a brothel, on the one hand,
and beyond the pale of respectability on the other, neither immediately available for sex nor completely out
of sexual reach”.8 Vagueness and ambiguity seem to be the very traits that best characterize this category of
venal sex. This book is an attempt to elaborate further a grid of definitions and to frame this complex social
phenomenon in the ancient Roman cultural landscape.

The inevitable archetype: Greek hetaira

This caveat concerning the use of word ‘courtesan’ must be followed by similar scepticism about the very
existence of hetairai and courtesans in antiquity, expressed by many modern scholars starting from the
1990s. The question of Roman courtesans necessarily begins with the consideration of the much more abun-
dant scholarly discussion of Greek elite prostitutes; we investigate here the binary opposition between the
upper-class hetaira (‘companion’) and lowly pornē (‘woman-on-sale’).9 Allison Glazebrook and Madeleine
Henry, in their introduction to the volume Greek prostitutes in the ancient Mediterranean, have succinctly
rehearsed the history of hetaira–pornē contraposition starting from Hans Licht’s fundamental volume Sit-
tengeschichte Griechenlands (trans. Sexual life of ancient Athens, 1932) and observed that he dedicated
much more space to hetairai (40 pages) than to pornai (10 pages).10 The earliest research attributed to the

7 On defining prostitution, see Gardner 1986, 132; Edwards 1997, 76; McGinn 1998, 17-18; McGinn 2002; McGinn 2004, 7;
Cohen 2006, 95; McClure 2006, 6; Guzzo – Scarono Ussani 2009, 9-11 et passim.
8  Davidson 2006, 31.
9  On the hetaira–pornē difference, see for example Skinner 2005, 98-99; Davidson 1997, 94-95. On Greek terminology for pros-
titution, see Kapparis 2006.
10  Licht 1932; Glazebrook – Henry 2011, 4-8; McClure 2006, 3-4. In any case, it should be noted that this state of affairs equally
affects classical studies in general, as such percentage of over-attention is surely dedicated also to elite women and men versus
lower-class women and men, in general.
 Introduction: Unveiling Roman courtesans 45

figure of the hetaira not only her empirical historical existence but also a long series of positive definitions:
she was wealthy, rich, powerful, free, learned, privileged – a picture which we now view as simplistic and
false.11 Exemplary is the quotation of Wells (1982), who observes that hetairai “were intelligent, witty,
articulate and educated, the only women in Athenian society allowed to manage their own financial affairs,
stroll through the streets anywhere at any time.”12
By contrast, Sarah Pomeroy, in her study of Goddesses, Whores, Wives, and Slaves (1975), put the
emphasis on lower-class prostitution, pointing out that, while we know of hetairai wishing to resemble citi-
zen wives, the converse was not true. She therefore inferred that, despite the apparent freedom and access
to intellectual spheres, the role of the hetaira was not a desirable status. However, Pomeroy also noted that
the best-known woman of classical Athens was a hetaira, Aspasia.13
The even more decisive reaction of the 1980’s gender-oriented classical studies, represented by Eva
Keuls, was to completely eliminate the ‘legend’ about the independent, wealthy and erudite hetaira as a
mere romanticization and a “fabrication of the male mind.”14 In her fundamental monograph Reign of the
Phallus (1983), Keuls strongly criticized the scholarship that represented Athenian prostitution “through
rosy mist,” noting that there is no reason to believe that Athenian or Corinthian brothels “were any more
commodious than the dark and stinking holes in which Roman whores practiced their trade.”15 Eva Keuls
and Carola Reinsberg, studying images of prostitutes on Greek vases, saw little evidence for any icono-
graphic distinction between pornai and hetairai.16 In a similar vein, Madeleine Henry, in her 1992 article
on ‘edible women’ in Athenaeus, Deipnosophistai, marvels over many scholars’ naïve and “surprisingly
persistent tendency to idealize women’s – particularly prostitutes’ – lives in classical antiquity.”17 This
deconstructive phase has, indeed, been necessary to demolish any traces of such idealization that might
cling to the study of the condition of ancient prostitutes, be they slave or free. However, the denial of the
existence of ancient courtesans, seen only as elite male phantasies, can be considered excessive. David-
son well synthesizes this scholarly overreaction in his essay ‘Making a Spectacle of Her(self). The Greek
Courtesan and the Art of the Present’:
“a large number of scholars treat almost everything said about ancient courtesans as simply made up; their
voices are always the voices of men ventriloquizing; there is nothing of them in their representations. […] To
take them seriously can be seen as a sign of weak-mindedness, or even as the indulging of a seductive, romantic,
but ultimately misogynist fantasy.”
Beyond the negation, much scholarly effort has also been made to distinguish between the categories
of Athenian hetaira and pornē: for example, on the basis of their availability to many or only to few, emo-

11  see Hauschild 1933; Henry 1985; Skinner 2005, 167-68; with further references to the early stages of modern scholarship. In
particular, the Greek hetaira has been studied, from early on, as a dramatic figure.
12  Wells 1982; Glazebrook – Henry 2011, 6.
13  Pomeroy 1975, 89.
14  Keuls 1985, 196-97; 199: “It seems that the Athenian men were at pains to construct an image of witty prosperous hetairai in
order to gloss over the fact that their principal sex outlets were debased and uneducated slaves … certain to end their lives in mis-
ery”; cf. Cohen 2006, 97; McClure 2006, 4-5.
15  Keuls 1985, 153.
16  Keuls 1985; Reinsberg 1989. In vase images, male figures are shown holding a (money) purse in discussion with women.
According to Keuls (1985, 204-28; 258-59), the question of the identity of the women, who are often veiled and sometimes even
spinning wool, is left open: are they courtesans masked as wives or ordinary women negotiating in the market place? See discus-
sion in Skinner 2005, 97, 105-6; Cohen 2006, 106-5. For more recent views, see Kreilinger’s (2013) article on Hetärengelage that
proposes alternative readings for more explicitly depicted hetairai on vases, as impersonal signs of opulence and luxury, and Sorkin
Rabinowitz’s reading of Greek vases, underlining their inherent ambiguity.
17  Henry 1992, 261.
46 Ria Berg

tional dedication to the relationship, or status/class of their clients.18 Glazebrook and Henry have rightly
noted the importance of challenging any binary polarizations that oversimplify complex social categories,19
and suggest that the role of a prostitute was a fluid rather than fixed state – the status could change in differ-
ent situations and in different phases of life: for example, a brothel slave could be ‘promoted’ to a concubine
(pallakē) status.20
In many late-1990’s studies, however, the binary opposition hetaira–pornē has been reclaimed as a
useful tool for the analysis of Athenian society. Leslie Kurke, in Coins, bodies, games, and gold (1999), pro-
posed the idea that this binomy was a creation of the Archaic age, a conscious means of distinction between
the elite and the emerging middle-class; the representations of hetairai in art would not mark their impor-
tance as a social figure, but rather be useful counters in oligarchic political discourse.21 Davidson, discussing
the grand Greek hetairai or megalomisthoi in his book Courtesans and fishcakes (1997), similarly saw the
status of courtesan as a marketing strategy, played out in the framework of a nonmonetary, aristocratic gift-
economy, where lowly monetary operations were not spoken of.22
The confrontation between hetaira and citizen wife, rather than the streetwalking pornē, can also be
significant. Depending on the perspective, the hetaira can be associated with or contraposed to either of
them. Sean Corner has elaborated the idea of the opposition hetaira–pornē as more or less marked depend-
ing on the context. They can be assimilated and set in contrast with the wife, as elements of an ‘outside’
polis brought inside the oikos. At the same time as the sympotic group can also be set in contrast with the
impersonal commercial activities of the marketplace, they similarly mark a clear-cut difference between the
wife and hetaira (interior) in contrast with pornē (exterior).23 This play with double senses is obviously a
fundamental part of the allure of the hetaira, living in a fictive seclusion that assimilates her in some respects
to a citizen wife.
Edward Cohen has observed that many classicists think hetaira and pornē were for the Greeks merely
two words for covering a single form of exploitation.24 Cohen himself underlines their difference, which
we regard as lying crucially in their legal status, working as a slave under other person’s rule and command
(pornē) on the one hand or, with free status, in independent enterprise (hetaira).25 Cohen lists among the
main differences 1) control of one’s physical surroundings and body, 2) ownership of personal property, 3)
freedom to choose clients, 4) cultural and social leisurely activities – the work being not merely an eco-
nomic necessity but also a mechanism of self-definition.26 Laura McClure also points out the polarization

18  Cantarella 1987, 50; Cohen 2006, 97.

19  Ibid. and Glazebrook 2011, 34. For the difference between pornē and hetaira also Davidson 2006, 36-37.
20  Glazebrook – Henry 2006, 5. The difference between being a concubine and a slave pornē was crucial for the experience of
the woman and one that could change in an instant, as is demonstrated by the life course of the famous hetaira Neaira, who changes
her status from a hetaira to a pallakē but is also called pornē. In his speech Against Neaira, Apollodorus argues for the prosecution
by classifying women according to their three functions for men: “We keep companions (hetairas) to give us pleasure, concubines
(pallakai) to tend our person on daily basis, and wives (gynaikai) to produce legitimate children for us and be trustworthy guardians
of our possessions.” See further Sorkin Rabinowitz 2011, 125-26.
21  Kurke 1999, 182. However, see the critique of binary opposition between pornē/commodity/city/middling ideology and he-
taera/gift/symposium/elitist ideology of Corner 2011, 76-77.
22  Davidson 1997, 120-36. A good example of this would be the hetaira Theodote, interrogated by Socrates on the sources of her
income, which allow her a luxurious way of living, thus speaking ambiguously and euphemistically of ‘gifts’ and ‘friendships’, Xen.
Mem. 3, 11. On Theodote, see also Glazebrook 2011, 51.
23  Corner 2011, 77-78. Hor. sat. 1, 2, 47-48. Cf. Ps.-Dem. 59, 122.
24  In fact, Plutarch (Sol. 15) says that hetaira is only an Athenian euphemism for pornē.
25  Cohen 2006, 97; 99 and passim.
26  Cohen 2006, 110.
 Introduction: Unveiling Roman courtesans 47

between the axes on the continuum of slavery–freedom: The term pornē denotes “a slave woman forced to
have sex with whoever desired her and placed under the supervision of pornoboskos (brothelkeeper), while
the hetaira more closely resembled a free citizen wife in her ability to control her male partner’s access to
her body.”27

Roman courtesans: Fictive realities?

While the figure of Greek hetaira has received lengthy discussion in regards to its existence, precise social
meaning, and cultural significance, such questions have rarely been asked in the Roman world, and if they
have the existence of Roman courtesans has often been denied even more decidedly than that of her Greek
counterparts. Rebecca Flemming, in her thorough article on the sexual economy of female prostitution in
1999, took the view that Rome lacked independent prostitutes, or even distinct categories of prostitutes,
seeing the earlier hetaira as “a thing of the past … figures such as Lais do not make it beyond the Helle-
nistic period”, reacting against the 1930’s views of Kiefer and Schneider, seeing that they both “consider
prostitutes who had liaisons with famous poets to be the most blessed of women.”28 Flemming argued that,
in the Roman world, only low status prostitutes and lupanaria existed, catering primarily for the poor, and
she draws the drastic conclusion, that “it is these same locales, not any special, more refined, establishments
that also count the upper classes among their customers.”29
The index to Marilyn Skinner’s comprehensive book on Sexuality in Greek and Roman Culture (2005)
reveals that while Greek hetairai receive ample discussion, Roman imperial-age courtesans appear only as
antiquarian (Greek) figures in Athenaeus’ Deipnosophistae.30 Finally, Carla Fayer, in her comprehensive
2013 volume Meretrix, stated: “In the Rome of Plautus there is nothing that could correspond to the hetai-
rai of Athens; there were prostitutes, but they were of low level, such as one could find in the brothels or
in the streets.”31 Upper-class prostitution has, thus, somehow remained a blind spot in the study of Roman
mercenary sex.
Thomas McGinn, in his volume on Economy of Roman Prostitution (2004), explained the “somewhat
surprising lack of evidence for upper-class brothels” in the Roman world by the sexual availability of slaves
of the household, and the negative attitude of the elite toward slave prostitutes, again stamping Roman
prostitution mostly as a lower-class phenomenon.32 In his chapter here, Thomas McGinn seeks traces of
courtesans in Roman legal sources. While almost no explicit traces of independent prostitutes of free status
can be found, this is itself a highly interesting result, as the existence of non-servile prostitutes can hardly
be doubted.
Why are the Roman legislators so silent about upper-class prostitution, especially when, paradoxi-
cally, well-to-do meretrices and mercenary puellae are stock characters in Latin literature? The independent

27  McClure 2006, 11-12.

28  Flemming 1999, 38, n. 1; 47; 46-47. Schneider 1931; Kiefer 1934, 55-63.
29  She sees a “lack of Roman interest in distinctions of prostitutional practice” and would not classify prostitutes according to the
degree of their independency, but rather as a group entirely lacking in autonomy: Flemming 1999, 45-47.
30  Skinner 2005.
31  Fayer 2013, 42.
32  McGinn 2004, 72. In the conclusion of his 1998 volume on Prostitution, Sexuality, and Law in Roman society, McGinn asks
whether there were no equivalents for Greek hetairai in Roman society – noting that comparative evidence suggests that in most
complex societies prostitution exits in multiple forms – but concludes that the question scarcely interests the jurists, who, beyond
slaves, make few references to other types of prostitutes: McGinn 1998, 347.
48 Ria Berg

meretrix of Plautus’ and Terence’s comedy has been explained away not as a reflection of Roman lived
realities but as the result merely of translation of classical, Greek literary genres.33 Nor have the elegiac
puellae been seen as the literary elaborations of Roman reality but rather as poetic creations reflecting their
authors’ poetics, as Roman male poets revisited Greek literary genres and topoi. For example, Maria Wyke,
in her seminal articles collected in The Roman mistress, offers an acute feminist analysis of the “production,
dissemination, and consumption of women as Roman mistress,” identifying the puella of love elegy as a
courtesan, but seeing scarcely any relation between lived realities and the socio-sexual status of the elegiac
poet’s mistress. Her new social status as docta puella or ‘learned girl’ is deliberately left unclear and blurred
because she is a ‘fictive female,’ and thus only a “means of defining the male.”34
Sharon James has convincingly argued that Plautus’ and Terentius’ comedies, often presenting me-
retrices as central figures, reflect contemporary Roman, not only Greek realities, and the same applies for
female personae in Tibullus’, Propertius’, and Ovid’s poetry.35 In this volume, James interestingly analyses
the extremely rich data that these writers offer about the stages of life, familial relations, and religious and
social activities of Roman courtesans. She also notes, interestingly, many modern scholars’ hostility and
moral judgement in discourses about ancient courtesans, in particular continuing to label them ‘good’ and
‘bad’ according to their behaviour towards the male client. She concludes that, although these courtesans
remain only artistic renderings and reflections, such numerous reflections speak to contemporary social
conditions and concerns.36
In historiography, Roman courtesans make their appearance at the time of Plautus’ and Terentius’
work, in the early second-century BCE, with figures such as Faecenia Hispala who, according to Livy, was
an important social and political agent, disclosing the Bacchanalian scandal in 186 BCE.37 This emblematic
figure is described by Livy as a former prostitute slave, subsequently manumitted, and continuing her trade
independently, helping her young lover and next-door neighbour Aebutius financially and, in the end, mak-
ing a will in his favour, thus showing more economic liberality (meretriculae munificentia) than his own
relatives. Livy defines her as a scortum nobile, perhaps in an effort to render in Latin the concept of the
hetaira as an independent escort.38 In the same time period, after the epochal battle of Pydna in 168 BCE, the
beginning of an explosive diffusion of oriental luxuries in Rome, also including courtesans, often of Eastern
origin, can be traced in the historical narrative of Polybius.39
In this volume, Alison Keith reviews the textual evidence for some ‘historical’ Roman courtesans,
analyzing the rhetoric of their representation in prose genres of Latin literature, in order to study courtesans’
lived experience in Roman antiquity but also Roman attitudes to courtesans. Among her examples, in addi-

33  For an overview of prostitution and comedy, see McClure 2006, 15-17.
34  Skinner 2005, 222-23; Wyke 1994, 125; Wyke (2002, 29-31) elaborates on the interpretations of the elegiac mistress in pre-
vious scholarship as adulterous wife (Williams 1968, 529-35); foreign prostitute (Cairns 1972, 156-57); or of fluid social status
(Griffin 1985, 27-28). See also Allen Miller 2013.
35  James 1998, 4-5; 2003; 2006, 225-26. For the identification of the elegiac puella as a courtesan, see already Lyne 1980, 8-113;
Griffin 1985, 114-21.
36  James, in this volume, Ov. ars 1, 54-56.
37  Liv. 39, 9-19. For discussion, Langlands 2006, 115-22.
38  It also clings familiar with the Renaissance ‘honest courtesan’, as discussed, for example, by Margareth Rosenthal in the case
of the Venetian-century courtesan Veronica Franco: “A courtesan’s appropriation of the courtier’s strategies for self-advancement
is what accounts for the paradoxical term cortigiana onesta, or honest courtesan. The honest courtesan redefines the male humanist
category of virtù as a woman’s intellectual integrity. She calls attention to her acquisition of intellectual, not mercenary capital by
dissociating it from the selling of one’s body for financial gain.” Rosenthal 1992, 6.
39 Polyb. 31, 21, 4.
 Introduction: Unveiling Roman courtesans 49

tion to Hispala Faecenia, are Marc Antony’s mistress, the mime actress and freedwoman Volumnia Cytheris,
Verres’ mistress Chelidon, and Pompey’s mistress Flora. It is notable that the last example, Flora, is called a
hetaira by Plutarkh, writing in Greek and translating the concept of meretrix into his own language. These
influential women acted in the most elite circles of the late republic, and are shared, as lovers, by the lead-
ing politicians of the day. Keith sees their roles as complex, serving as connecting links, sometimes passive
pawns and metaphors of political invective, but often as active independent agents inside these male net-
works of power.
Elite prostitution has been considered a truly marginal upper-class phenomenon that did not in any
way affect a great majority of Romans. Yet its numerous artistic representations, such as banquet scenes,
where the figure of luxurious woman drinking wine in convivium is recurrent, show her to be just as om-
nipresent as the greedy puella is in Latin comedy, elegy, and satire. The straightforward pictorial assimila-
tion of a courtesan as Aphrodite/Venus – several hetairai and courtesans were allegedly models of her cult
images40 – made their images omnipresent in the decoration of Roman houses, streets, and public build-
ings.41 One of the most diffused pictures of the Greco-Roman world, Aphrodite Anadyomene, was said to be
sketched by Apelles while seeing Phryne, the famous hetaira, bathing.42 Each of the innumerable reproduc-
tions of this image – statuettes, paintings, glyptics, and mosaics – could thus be seen as a courtesan portrait.
Praxiteles’ Aphrodite of Cnidus (c. 350 BC), for which Phryne also served as the model, became in antiquity,
as noted by Marilyn Skinner, “a kind of erotic fetish.”43 The gesture of the Cnidia, modestly hiding, while
at the same time revealing all her nudity, is emblematic of the courtesan’s profession, and Skinner further
notes “the extent to which all parties concerned behave as though the Cnidia were not a mere sculpture but
partly a living woman, a courtesan with the magnetism of the famous Phryne, and partly an embodiment of
Aphrodite.”44 The courtesan’s image was an omnipresent cultural icon.45
In this volume, this pictorial presence of the courtesans in the everyday Roman life is discussed
in several contributions. Richard Neudecker discusses the portraits of the most famous and iconic Greek
hetairai in the domestic wall-paintings of Pompeii. He shows that some Pompeian picture galleries, deco-
rated with series of portrait tondi representing beautiful young women, in particular, those in the House of
Caecilius Iucundus and the House of the Amorini Dorati, can be recognized as canons of famous Hellenistic
hetairai. He suggests that their names and the anecdotes narrating their lives would have been quite familiar
to moderately educated Pompeians, and their fictitious portrait would have been an efficient means to refer
to the cultural memory of bygone glamour and luxury of the Hellenistic courts.

40  The overlapping representations of courtesans and Venus in a variety of artworks, directly associated with temples and sanctuar-
ies also conferred a religious aura to the figure of courtesans, manifesting itself also in the form of various cults peculiar to prosti-
tutes present in Rome: Flora, Venus Erycina, and Fortuna Virilis. On courtesan’s cult practices, also very much tied with Isiac cult,
see Lilja 1978, 154-55; Murgatroyd 1980, 108; Gardner 2013, 164 and James in this volume. On the complex question of sacred
prostitution in antiquity, see Beard – Henderson 1998, McClure 2006, 8-10; and Budin 2006, 2008, the latter with the controver-
sial stand to negate its existence. For an overview of the Roman cults of Flora and Venus Erycina, see Fayer 2013, 536-50. Palmer
(1977, 4-7) has also observed how elegiac mistresses, Tibullus’ Delia in particular, could be represented as priestesses in the mystery
cult of Venus, their doors venerated like an altar, with true religious fervour.
41  For example, Socrates visiting hetaira Theodote found her posing for a painter (Xen. Mem. 3, 11, 2), in Rome Plin. nat. 35, 119;
Plut. Pomp. 2, 4. For further references, see the chapter of Berg in this volume, n. 147.
42  For the anadyomene, see Mitchel Havelock 1995, 86-88. The anecdote narrating both Praxiteles and Apelles admiring Phryne,
in Ath. 13, 590f-91a. Cf. Plin. nat. 35, 91.
43  Skinner 2005, 171. For the Cnidia, Corso 1997a; 1997b; Mitchel Havelock 1995; Sande, in this volume.
44  Skinner 2005, 175-76. Ath. 13, 591b-c. For discussion and listing of monuments to prostitutes mentioned by Athenaios, see
Keesling 2006, 66-71. Furthermore, a gilded statue of Phryne was set up in the temple of Apollo at Delphi by the prostitute herself.
45  Skinner 2005, 100. Laura McClure 2003, in her thorough analysis of Athenaeus’ Deipnosophistes, second-century CE dinner
discourse on hetairai, argues that the courtesan’s role was a cultural sign that carried symbolic value.
50 Ria Berg

Siri Sande, in her contribution, discusses monuments and material memorials left of courtesans, in
particular the uses of the iconography of Greek hetairai in Roman public spaces, notably in the Porticus of
the theatre of Pompey, where a gallery of Greek hetairai and female writers, the two categories often coin-
ciding, was set up. As noted by Sande, in the Roman world such a portrait gallery was an exception. In the
Hellenistic East, hetairai were publicly celebrated with great tombs and portraits, but in Rome monuments
to contemporary courtesans, even if they probably existed, seem to have been both anonymous and hidden.
Funerary portraits of freedwomen represented as Venus may conceal Roman courtesans’ anonymous funer-
ary monuments.
Yet another way, in which courtesans could have entered the daily lives of the Roman masses, was
through theatrical representations. Among the activities plied by the historical Roman courtesan was the
profession of mime actress, as exemplified by Volumnia Cytheris. But being a courtesan, in itself, meant
acting a part; even wearing a cosmetic ‘mask’ was not very different from bearing the theatrical ones.46 This
confrontation is at the centre of the seminal article of Catherine Edwards, ‘Unspeakable Professions. Public
Performance and Prostitution in Ancient Rome.’ She examined both actors and prostitutes through the cen-
tral concept of infamia, which legally affected the two categories, people who ‘faked it’ for a living.47 In this
volume, Ville Hakanen extends this analysis further into the role of Roman courtesans (male and female) as
actors, partly bringing their customers into their fictitious world.
In sum, the figure of Roman courtesan was mimetic and hidden behind masks.48 Paradoxically, we
find the medium-upper-class prostitute a figure prominently present in many levels in the Roman social
scene, literature, figurative art, and theatre, yet embedded in the system in such a discreet, seamless, and
euphemistic way – appearing even in art without labels – as to have eluded the eye, not only of the Roman
legislator, aedile, and moralist, but of much of our modern research.

Courtesan and streetwalker

In classical studies, as Rebecca Flemming has noted, little effort has been given to the prostitutes’ perspec-
tives of the themselves.49 Also in this volume, an important fil rouge is the perspective, view-point and self-
definition of Roman prostitutes of different social statuses. Arguably, for the woman herself the question
of status was not mere decorative epithet but a question of vital importance. Indeed, it is clear not only that
there existed the broad binary contrast between lupa and courtesan, but that a great variety of prostitute sta-
tuses were present in the Roman culture: brothel slaves owned by a pimp, confined to a cella in a lupanar
or stationed on the street, under theatre fornices, or behind the tombs; medium- or high-priced courtesans
owned and trained by a leno/lena; freedwomen or even freeborn women working independently in their own
abode or hiring temporarily cellae meretriciae; as well as concubines in long-term exclusive, even marriage-
like relationships positioned in houses owned by their lovers or in their own houses.50

46  The same substances were used for both theatrical masks and cosmetics: McClure 2006, 16-17. One important type of courte-
san portrait is actually the theatrical mask, which represents various types of courtesans, see Wiles 1991, 178-82.
47  In Anne Duncan’s words (Duncan 2005, 252); Edwards 1997, 66-67; 69. For infamia see also McGinn 1998, 65-69; Flemming
1999, 50; McClure 2006, 11.
48  Kurke (1999, 182) has noted that, in the Greek world, even the word hetaira, not only pornē, was a term of derision and there-
fore often avoided: “the presentation of hetaira is so delicate and indirect, indeed so indirect that we need some ingenuity in locating
the hetaira in Greek verse.”
49  Flemming 1999, 38.
50 For lena, see Myers 1996; Flemming 1999, 52-53; Fayer 2013, 245-75.
 Introduction: Unveiling Roman courtesans 51

Again, a good starting point to chart the situation is the variegated world of prostitution presented
in many different degrees on the stage of Plautus. In Poenulus, a pimp called Lycus has bought two Car-
thaginian girls to be trained as meretrices, and they live in his house.51 One of the girls, Adelphasium,
outspokenly comments on the great difference between common prostitutes and themselves, advising her
sister not to go to the altar of Venus at the same time as common streetwalking prostitutes gather there.
The whole sequence is revealing, underlining the perceived sense of difference, expressed by a scenic
courtesan figure herself:

Turba nunc est apud aram. An te ibi vis inter istas versarier
Prosedas, pistorum amicas, reliquias alicarias
Miseras schoeno delibutas servolincolas sordidas,
Quae tibi olant stabulum statumque, sellam et sessibulum merum
Quas adeo hau quisquam umquam liber tetigit neque duxit domum,
servulorum sordidulorum scorta diobolaria? (Plaut. Poen. 265-270)

The altar’s crowded now. You surely don’t want to mingle there with those common prostitutes, mistresses of
millers, spelt-mill leavings, wretched, slatternly, slaveling courters, plastered with poor perfumery, that smell
of pothouse and profession, things of stool and chair, creatures that no free man ever touched or took home
tuppenny sluts of scummy slavelings? (trans. P. Nixon)

The passage contains, as a narrative technique, invective of a high-status prostitute against low-status pros-
titutes. It is important to note that the (fictive) prostitutes are also engaged competitively in rhetorical invec-
tive, as if to distinguish themselves from those lower on the social scale. The prostitutes here primarily rank
and rate their colleagues on the basis of the status of their clients, as well as on their price, and their social
visibility and availability.
Let us first observe the distinction between free/slave. The two sisters of Poenulus are not free them-
selves, but they allegedly are frequented only by freeborn men. On the contrary, the common prostitutes
from whom they distinguish themselves, are visited by no-one of free status ever (quisquam umquam liber).
This category of prostitutes is characterized as consisting of courters of slaves (servolincolas) suited only
for dirty slaves (servuli sordiduli), friends of millers (alicariae). They are consequently stigmatized with all
servile brothel topoi, from filth to smell.
However, courtesans themselves could be of freed or even freeborn status, which could well have
been an important element of their self-definition. As Antonio Varone has shown, and also reviews in this
volume, even among the frequenters of the Pompeian lupanar there were freeborn women; other Pompeian
inscriptions, such as the famous Lucretia, point to freeborn women as prostitutes/courtesans.52 The female
poet Sulpicia, whose poems are included in the Tibullan corpus, has been defined by Alison Keith as “both a
desiring elegiac poet and a desirable elegiac puella.”53 Her status, a liberated filia familias or a learned cour-
tesan, is extremely difficult to pinpoint, but she might possibly be even an authentic female voice. Sulpicia
herself boasts of her noble family, signs her poem with a patronymic, and heralds a neat distinction from or-
dinary prostitutes, called by the denigratory word scortum, characterized by the toga worn by adulteresses,

51  Fayer 2013, 160-67.

52  Varone 2003; 2005.
53  Keith 2008, 192.
52 Ria Berg

and obliged to work wool under the commands of a master.54 Here, again, the primary distinction is one of
rank, a memorial of pride for the poet-courtesan herself.
Freeborn courtesans must have been, however, rarities, and the status of freedwomen was particularly
adapted for the profession. The Horatian Satire 1, 2 presents, as two extreme alternatives for a man search-
ing for sex, on one hand, the stola-dressed matron, and on the other, the cheap meretrix in a smelly fornix.
Horace follows the Epicurean Philodemus in advising his wellborn addressee to avoid both extremes, and he
presents several, preferable intermediary solutions, including, especially, the libertine freedwomen.55 Simi-
lar considerations appear in Martial’s epigram 3, 33, where the poet announces his preference for freeborn
women, second choice for freedwomen, and ‘extreme’ final choice for slaves.56 Among the historical cases
of freedwomen working as courtesans are Faecenia Hispala and Volumnia Cytheris, as discussed by Keith in
this volume. As a case of social ascent, Keith underlines how Hispala seems to be included in the networks
of matrons while working as an independent courtesan and, in the end, even marries her young lover Aebu-
tius. Freedwomen courtesans or concubines may have achieved quite singular positions, as Nymphidia, de-
scribed by Tacitus and discussed in this volume by Siri Sande. The comedies of Plautus and Terentius offer
many examples of men who want to buy the liberty of a meretrix in order to have them as their concubines.57
Claudia Acte and Antonia Caenis discussed in the contribution of Pia Mustonen, were freedwomen who, as
imperial mistresses, were able to exercise great influence on many levels and acquire and manage significant
wealth, including landed properties and business enterprise. Mustonen argues that it was their unofficial role
outside the standards of traditional Roman matrons that gave them much economic liberty and involvement
even in imperial politics and administration. Besides such exceptions, a difficult question to ask is how often
prostitutes or concubines, on lower social starata, were able to gather money and buy themselves free.58
Another line of internal differentiation and an effective invective between prostitutes, in the passage
of Plautus’ Poenulus, is the low price (diobolaria) charged by the targets of the sisters’ scorn. In fact, one po-
tential and quite simple differentiation between a lupa and courtesan would simply be the amount of money
asked or earned. Estimating the wages earned by Roman prostitutes, however, is a difficult task. Thomas
McGinn notes that a prostitute may have earned two or three times the wages of unskilled male urban la-
bourers and cautiously suggests that “many prostitutes, at least independent prostitutes, may have lived far
better than these labourers.” But he also points to the “illusion of profitability”: the income was actually
undermined by various factors lessening the profit, of which a significant part may have gone to a pimp,
subsistence, and even investment in clothing, hairdos, and other beauty products.59 The prices indicated
in the literary sources collected by McGinn vary greatly, mostly between 0,25 and 32 asses; but they also
reach very high sums. McGinn dismisses as fantastic the prices of 100,000 sesterces, or two aurei, reported
by Martial.60 Both the lowest and highest prices could indeed be rhetorical defamations or exaggerations,

54 Sulpicia Tib. 4, 10, 3-4: Sit tibi cura togae potior pressumque quasillo / scortum quam Servi filia Sulpicia. Keith 2008, 197-98.
55 Hor. sat. 1, 2, 47-48: tutior at quanto merx est in classe secunda, libertinarum dico. A similar threefold division of women,
although recommending brothel prostitutes, is made by one of Athenaeus’ ‘sophists’, the cynic Cynulcus in the tables discourse of
Deipnosophistai: see Henry 1992, 260-61.
56  Mart. 3, 33: Ingenuam malo, sed sit tamen illa negetur, libertina mihi proxuma condicio est: extremo est ancilla loco: sed vincet
utramque, si facie haec erit ingenua.
57  For example in Plaut. Poen. a soldier has chosen the other sister and would like to buy her for concubinage, ‘in concubinatum
sibi vult emere’ (102-103).
58 Flemming 1999, 49 sees this as extremely rare or nonexistent, and Juvenal’s (10, 236-39) story about a man who leaves all his
money to a prostitute, as a gross exaggeration. For prostitutes, heredities and fideicommissa, see McGinn 2003, 114.
59  McGinn 2004, 49-54.
60  McGinn 2004, 41-43; Mart. 2, 63, 1-2; 9, 4, 1.
 Introduction: Unveiling Roman courtesans 53

though they do not necessarily undermine the conclusion that different price categories existed. Two asses
are suggested as a plausible base rate advertised at Pompeii, while in Palmyra rates of six, eight asses and
a denarius emerge.61 It should be noted, in my opinion, that the advertised practices might differ markedly
between upper- and lower-class prostitutes: of which the former normally avoided public appearances and
any association with money or payment and were concomitantly less likely to be mentioned in street-side
graffiti.
The Roman elite courtesan, at least in theory, received only gifts, not money.62 Davidson notes that
Greek hetairai “are shown striving hard to avoid anything that reeks of the sexual marketplace, avoiding
cash, avoiding even the smell of bronze on their hands after handling a mirror, clinging fiercely to the lan-
guage of love (philia) and friendship (not customers but ‘intimate friends,’ philoi).”63 Similarly in Plautus’
Mostellaria, the elderly meretrix Scapha suggests to the courtesan Philematium that she not hold up her
silver mirror, so as not to have hands smelling of silver (coins).64 The semantic line between payment and
gift seems often intentionally blurred and played on: Propertius, in his first collection of elegies asks why his
mistress Cynthia “sells herself for foreign gifts” (teque peregrinis vendere muneribus, Prop. 1, 2, 4); Tibul-
lus wishes that girlfriends in Rome would never be “on sale for gifts” (numquam venales essent ad munus
amicae, Tib. 2, 16, 21).65
Policing the boundary between an exclusive puella and a common prostitute is frequently of concern
in love elegy, as in the following Ovidian passage:

stat meretrix certo cuivis mercabilis aere

et miseras iusso corpore quaerit opes;
devovet imperium tamen haec lenonis avari
et, quod vos facitis sponte, coacta facit. (Ov. am. 1, 10, 21-24)

The prostitute stands out, salable to anybody for a fixed price,

And she seeks miserable wealths by obeying orders with her body;
Nevertheless she curses the command of the greedy pimp
And what you do freely, she does by force. (trans. S. James)

Here, the crucial differences between the two categories of free and slave are, again, mirrored in the ability
or inability to choose clients (cuivis mercabilis) and the capacity to command one’s own proper body, in
both cases unavailable to a slave prostitute. The wording of the passage emphasizes the question of control
over the woman’s body with terms meaning overpowering, compulsion, and forcing (iusso corpore, impe-
rium lenonis, coacta) particularly ‘cursed’ by the woman herself.
For the women themselves there would be a crucial difference not only in the quality, but also the
quantity of the clients, the most favourable condition being a single long-term client or lover, in a relation-
ship resembling concubinage. In classical Athens, the term pallakē, concubine, signified an intermediary
status between a legal wife and a prostitute and seems to have been a desirable status for courtesans. On the
contrary, as noted by Davidson, to descend from the status of pallakē to the brothel was a ‘fate worse than

61  McGinn 2004, 44.

62  Legislation concerning gifts to prostitutes, McGinn 1998, 335-37.
63  Davidson 2006, 45.
64 Plaut. Most. 111-12.
65  James 2003, 93. For the complex question of whether elegiac puellae are courtesans, Griffin 1976; Fleming 1999, 47; Wyke
1989; James 2003.
54 Ria Berg

death,’ illustrated by the example of a pallakē who medicated her lover with a poisonous love potion in order
to avoid such destiny.66 Also the more exclusive courtesans were often in long-term relationships regulated
by written contracts.67 Mouritsen notes how the concubinage, or even marriage, of a man with his own freed-
woman, was not only considered respectable but also protected by law.68 This legislation underlines how
the question of status had an impact on the subjectivity and lived experience of the women involved, as she
thought of herself – and was perceived by others – as slave, freedwoman, or freeborn person. McGinn cau-
tiously reminds us we should not exaggerate this distinction; it was not always crucial.69
A debasing obligation of the common prostitute was to be seated or standing on the public street
and thus to be visibly and indiscriminately on sale, available to all comers. In the Poenulus passage, such
a condition is defined by the term proseda (woman sitting in front). Indeed, in Plautus’ Cistellaria, the
courtesan Gymnasium says that she must go inside, away from the street, in order to avoid appearing
as a street prostitute.70 Here, we can take up the much-discussed passage of Ulpian in the Digest (23,
2, 43, pr. 3), defining prostitution, treated in detail by McGinn in this volume, about the meaning of the
word palam, which seemingly does not consider as prostitutes those who do not work openly, in public:
“Likewise, because she has intercourse with one or two, having taken money, it is not understood that
she has openly made a living by her body” (quod cum uno et altero pecunia accepta commiscuit, non
videtur palam corpore quaestum facere).71 Practicing in private may, thus, not even have been defined as
prostitution; to expose one’s body to the public gaze was not only immoral, but made one subject to the
legal definition of prostitute.
All professions that exposed the (half)naked body to public view, including prostitutes, actors, and
gladiators, were legally affected by infamia, which was an important cultural tool for the regulation of good
behaviour.72 Interestingly, infamia is not so much ‘shame’ as the ‘formal loss of good reputation’, and so it
likely had little impact on the lives of most Romans, in particular non-aristocratic/elite women who were al-
ready excluded from public life because of their gender.73 It can also be considered as a paradoxical freedom
from the burden of controlling and guarding one’s reputation.74 Yet, even the puella had to safeguard her
reputation: Propertius laments that Cynthia had too little concern for her fama (Prop. 2,5).75 The expression
famosa, referring to prostitutes and used as synonym of vulgares puellae of Ovid (those visiting the Temple
of Venus Erycina near Porta Collina) is also interesting in this respect, as it evidently refers to prostitutes

66  Davidson 1998, 83. For the prison-like life of women in the lupanar cells, see Flemming 1999, 43; McGinn 2004, 37; for
lupanar and fornix serving primarily the poor and the slaves, Flemming 1999, 45.
67  James 2012a, 431; Fayer 2013, 31-37.
68  Mouritsen 2011, 43; McGinn 1991, 346; 2004, 201, n. 9. For freedwomen as prostitutes, Treggiari 1970, 107; McGinn 2004,
35-36; 59-60.
69  McGinn 2004, 60-61, suggesting even that in some case slaves may have received better treatment than free prostitutes.
70 Plaut. Cist. 330: Intro abeo, nam meretricem astare in via solam prostibuli sanest.
71  Flemming 1999, 52. On the meaning of palam, and an overview of Roman legislation, see Guzzo – Scarano Ussani 2009, 11-
12; Fayer 2013, 567 et passim.
72  Langlands 2006, 18-19 with an elaborate discussion of the feelings of pudor, pudicitia, and verecundia. For infamia, also
Savunen 1997, 102; McClure 2006, 11; Fayer 2013, 551-54, on ignominia and infamia, and their opposite, existimatio, and Guzzo
– Scarano Ussani 2009, 13; 16-17 et passim, on infamia and turpes personae in Roman law.
73  Gardner 1993, 154; Savunen 1997, 102-3.
74  Cf. Catharine Edwards, who notes in her elaborate discourse on infamia that the “half-starved prostitute who sold her body
among the tombs of Via Appia no doubt had little in common with the star gladiator.” However, inversely, I would note that also
a half-starved last-row gladiator probably had little in common with the star courtesan, admitting that both were exceptions to the
rule, Edwards 1997, 76-77.
75  Langlands 2006, 199.
 Introduction: Unveiling Roman courtesans 55

practicing in public, palam.76 Fame, not only, for a street prostitute, but also for a courtesan, was an adver-
tisement, potentially positive or negative; fama and infamia had to be controlled and managed as methods
of conscious image construction. This balancing between virtue and vice has been examined by Rebecca
Langlands, who observes how “the same puella may seem in one light a promiscuous and hard-hearted
courtesan and in the next an innocent who needs to be sheltered both from moral corruption and from the
damaging force of rumour.”77
Indeed, the seemingly contradictory figure of a virtuous courtesan shows that Roman virtue was not
a yes/no proposition, but a much more multidimensional and relative entity.78 Rhetorical questioning of the
limits of virtue and interior morals of a courtesan is represented by the stock figures of New Comedy, where
we find the bona meretrix and mala meretrix – the former ingenuous, naïve, and self-sacrificing, the latter
calculating, business-minded and artful, though in fact only minding her own business.79 Even sexual pro-
miscuity and immorality are not necessary characteristics of courtesans, as shown by another stock figure
of middle comedy, a freeborn girl or pseudokore conserving her virginity or virtue even as a courtesan-in-
training. The limits of conserving one’s pudicitia in a brothel are rhetorically examined in Elder Seneca’s
Controversiae, in the law case of the girl abducted by pirates and then sold to a lupanar, where she has
supposedly maintained her virginity until liberated.80 The advocates discussing the case adduce the various
pros and cons of the question of whether she has, however, maintained her pudicitia: the harder views see
that her pudicitia would have been lost even by a colloquial acquaintance with other prostitutes, after she
has learned from them the courtesans’ arts of dissimulation and persuasion.81
In antiquity, the idea of women deliberately choosing sex work is rare if any others are available.
One such exceptional instance is an astrological passage of Firmicus Maternus about women born under the
sign of Venus who are represented as having an urge to embark on a life of prostitution, either setting them-
selves up independently in business or contracting with a leno (in meritorio se statuat vel lenoni locet).82
The empress Messalina could be thought of as a rare example of voluntary prostitution, allegedly entering
into the most decadent level of prostitution the dark, smelly, and slave-oriented brothel without any material
necessity.83 Her exceptional case is discussed by Marja-Leena Hänninen, in her contribution to this volume,
underlining how the narrative about Messalina was not so much about her personal character or vice, but she
was used as a rhetorical tool to reveal the moral corruption of political power.
Becoming a courtesan, however, was in most cases not the woman’s choice but the decision of
someone else – a slave-owning patron, mother, or foster parents. Courtesan mothers often educated their
daughters as courtesans, and in literature the figure of mother and daughter living together, both meretri-
ces, is a constant.84 Comparative premodern data suggests that women without men, above all unmarried
girls and widows, were especially vulnerable to disruption the of family economy provoked by the death

76 Ov. fast. 4, 865-72. James 2012a, 431: volgus quae ab se segregant, girls who do not give public access to themselves.
77  Langlands 2006, 197. In this volume, see James’s discussion about the courtesan being necessarily known in her neigbourhood.
78  Perry 2014, 9 discussing Roman freedwomen, has stated that only citizen women could be defined as possessing sexual virtue:
slaves (and slave prostitutes) did not, and their only virtue was obedience – they were, in a way, not even included in the category
of ‘Roman women.’
79 For bona and mala meretrix, see James in this volume.
80 Sen. contr. 1.2.
81  Langlands 2006, 254-64.
82  Flemming 1999, 41. Firm. math. 3, 6, 22.
83 Tac. ann. 11, 26, 1; Plin. nat. 10, 83, 172; Dio Cass. 61, 31, 1; Iuv. 6, 132. Langlands 2006, 9-10.
84  Flemming 1999, 41; McGinn 2004, 56-57; Fantham 2011, 165-67.
56 Ria Berg

of a parent or husband.85 Marilyn Skinner has also underlined foreign origins as a potential force expos-
ing ancient women to prostitution.86 Similarly, Elaine Fantham discusses “the half-world of unprotected
women which is often wrongly dismissed as the life of meretrices… women without verifiable citizen-
ship, deprived of the safe environment of comfortable bourgeois families.”87 From the woman’s point of
view, such female networks might have been the only means to survive. In this volume, Sharon James
efficiently analyzes the paths leading Roman women to become independent courtesans and the various
stages and phases of their lives, including life-long relationships with colleagues, friends, mothers, sis-
ters, and daughters.
If we continue to search for perceived differences between Roman common prostitutes and courte-
sans, a distinctive sign, this time more from the point of view of the customer, must have been the woman’s
mores, ‘manners.’ A similar concept of manners, tropous, appears as a qualification of Greek hetaira.88 The
question of mores (manners) is central to the self-definition of independent courtesans and can be seen in
connection with the frequent expression bellis moribus of prostitutes’ advertisements in graffiti. For exam-
ple, in Plautus’ Mostellaria, it is specified that the surplus that the lover buys from the high-priced meretrix,
with gold and purple, is precisely her pleasant manners (mores).89 Besides educated manners, mores can also
signify high morals. Cynthia’s duri mores, when she excludes Propertius from her house, reveal not only
stern morals, but also the rather harsh manners (of the meretrix mala?).90 In Poenulus, the bona meretrix
Adelphasium declares herself to be against immoral manners (turpes mores) in paradoxical competition
with the normative morality of a Roman matron; she would rather be adorned with good character (bono
ingenio) than wear golden jewels and clothe herself in modesty (pudor) rather than purple.

bono me esse ingenio ornatam quam auro multo mavolo

aurum, id fortuna invenitur, natura ingenium bonum.
Meretricem pudore gerere magis decet quam purpuram.
Pulchrum ornatum turpes mores peius caeno conlinunt.

Gold is the gift of fortune; good character is birth-given. Modesty makes a courtesan more beautiful than purple;
brutish manners soil a beautiful outfit worse than mud.91

Manners, then, may clearly distinguish the more exclusive courtesan not only from the streetwalker but also
from the matrona. As we have seen, they comprise proper behaviour, probably cleanness (in contrast with
the proverbial dirt of the lupanar), and even – relatively – chaste moral conduct.
Mores as manners might also refer to literary or artistic education, typical of the elegiac docta puella,
who, besides literary knowledge, should master musical instruments, singing, and dance.92 Emien Eyben de-

85  McGinn 2004, 70.

86  Skinner 2005, 169.
87  Fantham 2011, 158.
88  Davidson 2006, 43 mentions as the best description of hetaira’s good manners (to dress up properly, to be neat, tidy, and
cheerful, not to drink too much at dinner parties, good table manners, controlled in bed) the sixth book of Lucian’s Courtesans’
Dialogues.
89 Plaut. Most. 286: amator meretricis mores sibi emit auro et purpura.
90  Prop. 2, 5, 7.
91 Plaut. Poen. 299-301: bono me esse ingenio ornatam quam auro multo mavolo / aurum, id fortuna invenitur, natura ingenium
bonum. / Meretricem pudore gerere magis decet quam purpuram. / Pulchrum ornatum turpes mores peius caeno conlinunt.
92  In this volume, see the contribution of James on the education of courtesans.
 Introduction: Unveiling Roman courtesans 57

fines courtesans as “women with a degree of culture and education that neither the average prostitute nor the
average wife possessed.”93 Interestingly, Judith Hallett has shown, on basis of the correspondence of mere-
trices as described in Plautus’ comedies, that they were plausibly imagined to master complicated epistolary
and rhetoric tactics.94 Quite probably many prostitutes, even some of those of slave status and working for
a pimp, were literate. Sarah Levin-Richardson has also suggested the possibility that prostitutes themselves
wrote notices and comments as graffiti on the walls, citing also Lukianos’ Dialogues of Courtesans, where
in several instances courtesans discuss graffiti about themselves or their colleagues, sometimes written by
themselves and commenting on each other’s love affairs.95 Naturally, we should also remember the flour-
ishing erotic literature comprising practical manuals, which mostly circulated under the names of famous
hetairai, and which is mostly assumed in modern research to have been written by men, under pseudonyms,
but perhaps without reason.96 This aspect must have been important also for the courtesans themselves, not
only as a decorative attraction for the amator, thus multiplying their survival strategies.
Antonio Varone’s chapter in this book moves in the provincial literary world that saw Pompeian cour-
tesans as protagonists. Many Pompeian graffiti cite half-mercenary love affairs based on exchange of gifts,
versed letters, and amatory favours, with proliferation of elegiac motifs such as rivalry between amatores
and selective entrance and battling outside the door, which characterize also the Pompeian provincial elegiac
puellae, pupae, and dominae. A particularly interesting piece of evidence, previously unedited, is discussed
by Varone in his contribution. A graffito verse from the street front outside the Villa of S. Marco in Stabia,
paraclausithyron addressed to a woman named Sabidia, testifies to both literary exchange and literary play
of citations between the writer and the recipient.
To summarize, from the perspective of the puellae themselves, the differentiation of social status
might have entailed the relative control over one’s life and body, crucial as that between life and death, from
the courtesans’ marriage-like stable relationships, with a proper household, to the total submission of an in-
ability to control one’s body in an ergastulum such as the lupanar. The women’s voices, echoing in comedy,
elegy, and graffiti, demonstrate that they themselves also kept up, underlined, and showed off these differ-
ences of status, referring to price, or gifts received, degree of education, degree of public exposure, and the
status of their clients.

Courtesan and matron

The Roman courtesan thus could be defined as possessing the chastity almost of a matron, just as the Greek
hetaira – remembering Phryne who always appeared veiled in public, discussed by Sande in this volume –
exists in a state between wife and whore, depending on situation and viewer. In particular, courtesans with
exclusive contracts, show clearly matronly morals. James has illustrated well the prominence of such long-
term relations, noting that, in comedy and poetry, both even use the lexicon of marriage, speaking of their

93  Eyben 1993.

94  Hallett 2011.
95  Levin-Richardson 2013, 320-22, Lucian dial. meret. 4, 2-3 and 10, 3-4.
96  Skinner 2005, 172; West 1996, 20-21. For a lengthy discussion on erotic manuals qua pornography, and the question of author-
ship, see Parker 1992. Parker holds that though the manuals may have been ascribed to women, “evidence points that it was male
authored and male consumed,” thus objectifying woman, even more so through elevating her as a seeming narrator/subject (1992,
105). However, we might argue for female authorship in light of the combination with women’s authorship both on gynaecology
and erotic manuals, see Parker 1992, 106.
58 Ria Berg

husband/wife (coniunx), never contubernalis.97 She offers a good picture of how the courtesan herself may
have considered herself as de facto married, and the elegiac lover pleased to see his beloved in a matron-like
domestic situation, weaving at home, alone, at night, underlining her devoted chastity and dedication to a
single contracted lover.98 In Plautus’ Asinaria, the yearly contract proposed by the would-be lover Diabolus
to a courtesan, Philaenium, demands extreme chastity, confinement to her house, not sending or receiving
letters, controlling her speech and facial gestures in the presence of other men.99 Such contracts, iura or syn-
grapha, analysed in detail by Fayer, were stipulated by the owner or mother of the girl, or by herself; they
were probably not legally binding but rather a private pact tied by custom and paid with the merces annua,
annual fee.100
Such matron-like status, described by Latin writers, has easily been confused with other social groups.
Such is the case of love elegy, where puella has been understood to be an adulterous wife, not a courtesan,
and the vir has been understood as the husband, not the contractual official lover.101 Reading these poems as
documents about courtesans lifestyles or as descriptions of citizen wives led an earlier generation of scholars
to the idea that Roman elite matrons lived like courtesans.102 As noted by Maria Wyke, “Augustan elegy
has set an especially seductive trap for historians of women’s lives in antiquity…read uncritically, such love
poetry has been employed to confirm the existence in Augustan Rome of a whole movement of sophisticated
and sexually liberated ladies, as in John Balsdon’s study Roman Women and Sarah Pomeroy’s Goddesses,
Whores, Wives, and Slaves”.103
The literary mechanism of camouflaging courtesans as matrons, and sometimes also elite matrons as
courtesans (e.g. Catull. 79; Cic. Cael. 47-49), confusing for the modern reader, can also be detected in the
popular form of invective used against elite women, accusations of a meretrician lifestyle. The rhetorical
denunciation of well-born women as prostitutes is analyzed in this volume in the chapter by Marja-Leena
Hänninen through the cases of Clodia (Lesbia), Iulia, and Messalina. Hänninen examines how these three
women experienced a ‘shaming’ of their memory, using the overtones of sexual promiscuity and even pros-
titution. While Clodia and Iulia seem to have adopted the image and freedoms of non-servile courtesans,
perhaps based also on their literary education, which assimilated them to the iconic docta puella, Messalina
was associated with lowly brothels as a common lupa, thus making her damnatio memoriae double, by
sexual invective and servile connotation.

97  James 2006, 226-27.

98 See James 2012a for a detailed discussion on the vocabulary and rhetoric used by a courtesan-on-contract, Arethusa, in Proper-
tius’ poem 4,3, often taken to illustrate the relationship between husband and wife. For the wool-working theme, see in part. p. 435
with further reference.
99 Plaut. Asin. 756-805. James 2006, 229; Fayer 2013, 32-37.
100  Rousselle 1988, 97-99; James 2006, 227-28; Herter 1960, 81-82. Plaut. Asin. 234; 747; 908; Prop. 3, 20, 16; Ov. am. 1, 4,
64; 2, 5, 30; ars 2, 545.
101  For a complete treatment of the question of vir/husband, adulterous wife/courtesan, see James 2003, 35-68; 2006, 226. The
status of the puellae is quite explicitly stated by some authors such as Tibullus, thus mentioning that Delia is not entitled to wear
stola and vittae, emblems of married matron (1, 6, 67-68), or Ovid, thus defining similarly the intended audience of the Art of love
(ars 1, 31-34).
102  For an overview of such an interpretation, see Hallett 1993, 62-65; Wyke 2002, 13, 35; and on the relation between elegy
and ‘reality’, in general, Wyke 2002, 13-18. For an idea of a whole ‘movement’ of new freedom and sexually liberated ladies in late
Republican Rome, King 1976, 70.
103  Wyke 2002, 12 discussing the relative impossibility to extract information on social conditions of ‘real’ ancient women from
literary text, provokes: “Could it constitute an advocacy of a better place for women in the ancient world? Could Augustan elegy be
offering its readers realistic representations of women bound up with a feministic message?”. Balsdon 1962, 191-92; 226; Pomeroy
1975, 172; Langlands 2006, 196-67.
 Introduction: Unveiling Roman courtesans 59

This ambivalence, a play of opposition and assimilation between matrons and courtesans, may also
have been visually expressed in their dress. Kelly Olson has thoroughly examined how prostitutes and ma-
trons rendered visible their status in their dress and how their clothing, at times, seems to have been quite
similar: “This blurring of vestimentary (and consequently social) definition is especially evident in an exam-
ination of female dress in Roman antiquity.”104 This probably created the dangerous confusion between the
matrons and prostitutes, or rather courtesans, reported by writers from Seneca the Elder to church fathers.105
It has been taken to mean that matrons often dressed in transparent and sexually provocative clothes – but
could equally imply that courtesans dressed relatively chastely. Olson also notes the strikingly conflicting
descriptions of prostitutes’ outfits, varying from nudity, or male toga, to costly transparent silks.106 In addi-
tion, Roman courtesans likely had some leeway in their use of fashion, picking up styles and statuses, as did
the sixteenth century Venetian courtesans, ‘enterpreneurs of the self,’ analysed by Rosenthal; whereas the
other women, wives in particular, were restricted by legislation (after Augustus) to show their marital status
by wearing the matrona’s stola and vittae.107 The ambivalent status of the courtesan, indefinably between
moral and immoral, made it possible for them to play with and fashion their self-presentation, and even to
assimilate their dress to that of the matrons.
As for the iconography, a similar line of confusion runs between the depiction of elite matronae and
that of courtesans participating in convivial scenes.108 Although we know that Roman matronae participated
in the dinner party, even reclining on couches, their pictorial appearance in scenes of after-dinner convivium
or symposium is doubtful. Katherine Dunbabin comments that at least some female figures in a banquet
are evidently meant to be seen “as higher-class courtesans, hetaerae, who recline on the couches with men,
partially or completely nude, share the wine, and take part in the singing,” and sees them as “a paradigm for
luxurious life,” a life that was beyond the reach of middle-class inhabitants of small town Pompeii, except
in their dreams, and yet “unlikely to be entirely based on fiction,”109 However, Molly Myerowitz and oth-
ers have suggested that, in images of erotic encounters in luxuriously furnished settings, anonymous elite
couples rather than prostitutes were depicted.110 The question, in fact, always remains open: how to distin-
guish a matron from a courtesan?
In her chapter of the Villa of the Farnesina, Irene Bragantini discusses the series of paintings from the
two cubicula flanking the triclinium of Villa della Farnesina, an aristocratic palace, representing couples on
beds in richly decorated surroundings, never explicitly in sexual positions. Bragantini sees in such images
a strong Hellenistic background and adhesion to earlier Greek motifs, underlining luxury and the pleasures
of life in general. It is interesting to consider the possibility that these pictures possibly representing courte-
sans, could have been chosen by an elite Roman matron, Julia, daughter of Augustus and spouse of Agrippa,
to whom it is plausibly conjectured that the Villa belonged. The role of Julia as a matron imitating the life-
style of a docta puella, or an independent courtesan, would make these Hellenistic erotic citations even more

104  Olson 2006, 187.

105  Ad es. Sen. contr. 2, 3, 10; Tert. pall. 4, 9.
106  Olson 2006, 194.
107  Rosenthal 2006, 52. For the exclusive signs of a matron’s outfit, see Fantham 2008.
108  A parallel problem is the one concerning Athenian vase painting, where in many cases it is still unknown whether the images
of conversing men and women should be used as evidence of life of Athenian wives or courtesans.
109  Dunbabin (2003, 22-23; 56) notes that the Roman way of depicting women at banquet is inconsistent, an anomaly that would
reflect the adaptation of different models and a “fundamental ambivalence” in actual practice and ideology behind it. Among such
ambivalent images, the banquet of young man and courtesan found in Herculaneum (MANN inv. 9024). For images of hetairai in
Greek banquet, see Peschel 1987.
110  Myerowitz 1992, 145.
60 Ria Berg

interesting.111 However, the matronly ‘chastity’ and ‘morality’ also applied to elite courtesans could have
made such a choice more acceptable.
Luciana Jacobelli, in her chapter, analyses realistic banquet scenes found in Pompeii. She notes a
clear correspondence with the images of scenes with multiple participants in triclinia (House of the Chaste
Lovers IX 12, 6.7, House of the Triclinium V 2, 4 triclinium r) and banqueting couples, in cubicula (House
of Meleager VI 9, 2.13, cubiculum 12; House of Laocoon VI 14, 28.33, cubiculum d; House of Epidius Sa-
binus IX 1, 22, cubiculum z). Textual and archaeological evidence shows that it was precisely in these two
types of rooms in which banquets and courtesans’ professional activities were principally staged. Jacobelli
proposes an alternative reading to one of the paintings in a triclinium of the House of the Triclinium, where
the woman holding the rhyton seems to be the host of the banquet and might be a courtesan.
The interplay between images and architecture brings us to the final central theme of this volume:
materiality. Further distinctions between matrons and courtesans, on one hand, and courtesans and common
prostitutes, on the other, could be recognized in their material surroundings, composed of architectonic and
decorated space, and objects of use and display. Can a distinction be made, for example, between the in-
tended audiences of erotic images on the walls and on every day utensils?
In this volume, Donato Labate and Anna Fedele present and analyse lamps with erotic images found
in women’s tombs of the Imperial period, with their find contexts. Indeed, even though such lamps are rare
in tombs, by far the majority were given as grave goods to women, and many are accompanied with valuable
toiletry items. Labate and Fedele discuss the possibility of hypothesizing about the status of the deceased
on the basis of these grave goods – a matron or a prostitute/courtesan – though he remains a sceptic about
finding a definitive solution. They therefore document a range of possible interpretations. Nonetheless, the
discovery of erotic lamps in female burials remains an intriguing fact.
The present writer too, in her chapter in this volume, follows the thread of materiality and its mean-
ing in social definition of matrons/courtesans. Can luxury goods such as gold jewelry, valuable toiletries,
banquet and bathing services, as archaeological finds, always be seen as expressions of high social standing,
i.e. belonging to elite matrons? Just as it is difficult to connect burial contexts with prostitutes/courtesans,
so it is difficult to associate objects found in domestic contexts with a particular gender and social class.
While low-status brothel prostitutes were plausibly associated with rather few material finds, I argue that
courtesans, both literary and iconographic, are characterized by a multitude of objects, given to them as
‘gifts’ or used as signs of social distinction from other prostitutes (expensive jewellery, gold), or used by
them to create an appropriate setting for staging the banquets, which were central to their activities (vessels
for ablutions, furniture of their houses, including erotic paintings, and Venus figures). My chapter presents
three Pompeian houses (Caupona di Masculus, House V 3, 10; House of the Beautiful Impluvium), which I
reinterpret in the key of non-servile prostitution.
Roman courtesans and matrons were expected to live according to their proper moral codes, which
also contained many similarities, such as piety towards family members, religious observation, exercise of
self-control, avoiding of promiscuity, ostensible good manners, and favouring of cultured environments. A
courtesan’s appearance in clothing and iconography, her possession of objects, could therefore bring her
close to the elite matron in material status, even if some crucial liberties, scrutinized in the contributions to
this volume, might render them distinguishable.

111  For the figure of Julia, see also Fantham 2006, Richlin 2014, 81-109, and Hänninen in this volume.
 Introduction: Unveiling Roman courtesans 61

Courtesan and adulescens

One of the purposes of this volume is to note the widespread presence and the fundamental and built-in
role of non-servile prostitution in the Roman society. As noted by David Halperin in Before Sexuality, a
comprehensive view of ancient sexualities is not possible without considering the varieties of prostitution
and prostitutes.112 In fact, in a society where women married in their teens and men about 10 years later, a
gap of about 10 years was created for the young men between the assumption of toga virilis and marriage,
during which sexual relations with puellae and amicae were permitted and encouraged for the adulescens
and, indeed, prescribed by the social convention.113
Cato’s famous dictum congratulated a youth seen at the brothel door for not committing a crimen
of adultery, even if he recommended against frequenting the brothel too often (‘living’ in the house of
prostitutes).114 This applies also to courtesans: in comedy, fathers can even appear collaborative in orga-
nizing and financing their sons’ love affairs with them. In Plautus’ Asinaria, for example, the whole plot
revolves around the acquisition of an annual contract with the courtesan, with pater Demaenetus actively
helping his son Argyrippus to attain this goal.115
However, as Laura McClure notes, even if prostitution did not have the same moral inflection as it
does today, it did enter the moral discourse of antiquity: a prodigal lifestyle was a crime against self-control
and patrimony. In other words, courtesans were more crucial in economic discourses about wealth and ob-
jects, rather than in defining sexual morals. The other stance of paternal response is, thus, negative but from
more of an economic than moral standpoint, for it reveals the arcane fear that the family fortunes will be
transferred to the amica, the courtesan friend. Sumptuous parties with courtesans were part of the excessive-
ly prodigious lifestyles of the adulescens luxuriosus, such as Philolaches in Mostellaria, living in ‘Greek
fashion’ while the father is away.116 Such parties were viewed not only as a threat to family patrimony, but
could lead to political and civil unrest, or conspiracy, as is evident from the description of Catiline’s feasting
supporters, “reclining at the banquets, embracing harlots, stupid with wine, stuffed with food, crowned with
wreaths, smothered by unguents, weakened by vice.”117 The choice of the right kind of courtesan, with the
right social status and right price, seems to have been the principal concern of the topic father.
Even more than just a love for luxury, the dangerous trap that transformed a licit affair with a prosti-
tute into a financially hazardous long-term affair with a courtesan was romantic love. In comedy and elegy,
the adulescens figure is described truly as love-struck, and this feeling is utilized by the pimp, lena, and

112  Halperin – Winkler – Zeitlin 1990, 18.

113 Eyben 1993; Fayer 2013, 37-41 et passim. See further Langlands 2006, 115-22; 205-6 for analysis of the limits of sexuality
permitted to a young man.
114  Quoted in Hor. sat. 1, 2, 31-32. Flemming 1999, 44. A different, minority view, is that of stoic Musonius Rufus condemning
sex with prostitutes, Muson. fr. 12 (Lutz), see Flemming 1999, 45. On marital love and courtesans also Deodato 2009, 313-14. Ter.
Ad. 101-2: non est flagitium, mihi crede, adulescentulum scortari necque potare. Valerius Maximus tells the story of a father who
dissuades his son, burning with an insane passion, away from a dangerous, illicit and probably adulterous love affair, by counselling
him “to resort to common Venus,” i.e., to go first to visit a prostitute, vulgari et permissa venere uteretur (Val. Max. 7, 3, 10). For
discussion of this passage and sexual morality, see Langlands 2006, 137. Cf. also Plaut. Curc. 36-38. Even Cicero similarly recom-
mends prostitution: “If there is anyone who thinks that youth should be forbidden affairs even with courtesans (meretricii amores),
he is doubtless eminently austere (I cannot deny it), but his view is contrary not only to the licence of this age, but also to the custom
and concessions of our ancestors. For when was this not a common practice? When was it blamed? When was it forbidden?” Cic.
Cael. 20, 48, trans. R. Gardner.
115  James 2006, 228-32.
116 Plaut. Most. 959-61. Eyben 1993, 103-5. In the second century BC Polybius (31, 21, 4) notes Scipio as a virtuous exception
among the youths of his age, in the habit of paying a talent for beautiful boys, courtesans, musical entertainment, and banquets.
117 Cic. Cael. 28, 67; Att. 1, 16, 11; Catil. 2, 5, 10. For political conspiracy and courtesans, see Rauh 2011.
62 Ria Berg

the girl herself to their advantage – in this state, the youth, made to pine away, will bring in most monetary
gains.118 In fact, it is to be noted that the exciting game of flirting, courting, and winning the object of one’s
love, by the means of proper attraction, could only occur with a girl who was free to choose and free to
move. Therefore, the amorous affair so frequently depicted in Roman comedy and elegy was a phenomenon
that could really only occur in the demimonde of courtesans – not in elite society of citizen women.
Sharon James notes how obsessively Roman males, dating a courtesan whom they cannot control and
observe, deprecated this freedom: “Free woman, whose very freedom, derived from her noncitizen status as
a courtesan, both entices and frightens the man attracted to her.” This was different from all other categories
of women, somehow under direct male control – the wife under the control of a father, a husband, or a tutor;
female slaves under their male owners; and the streetwalking prostitutes under the control of their pimp.119 As
an exception from this rule, the courtesan threw the Roman male temporarily into an identity crisis, even meta-
phorically rendering him her slave according to the poetic motif of servitium amoris. In this respect, the figure
of courtesan assumed a male, dominant role, thus turning the Roman gender system upside down. Davidson,
accordingly, ponders whether the Greek courtesan, who goes to places and does things that other women can-
not, might be considered an example of female agency, or whether she is rather given temporarily a male agen-
cy, the status of an ‘honorary man.’120 This peculiarly male status is also noted by Christopher Faraone, who
assimilates the magical erotic charms used by Greek hetairai to ‘aggressive’ male spells, conferring on them
a ‘maleness’ that is peculiar to the figure of the courtesan in all Mediterranean cultures: wearing items of male
dress, attending male symposia and walking in public out on the street, drinking wine or gesturing boldly.121
The courtesan’s status that brings forth a temporary redefinition of gender roles can be further ana-
lysed in connection to the case of male prostitutes of non-servile condition. Interesting literary cases are
Tibullus’ Marathus as a male ‘elegiac mistress’,122 and Cicero’s invective against Antony, characterized not
only as effeminate, but meretrician, with a career in vice that started young, wearing the toga virilis as if
it were toga muliebris (i.e., a sign of common prostitute), working for a fixed price, and then promoted by
Curio as his fixed lover, as if they were married: “First he was a common prostitute … taking a fixed, and
not small price for the shame; Curio … took you out from the meretrician work, and, as if he gave you the
stola, he placed you, as it were, in a stable and secure marriage.”123 In this volume, Ville Hakanen considers
the ways in which male prostitutes could be designated as courtesans, as also being of free(d) status, ac-
companying their vir in banquet, receiving gifts, and accumulating wealth, One of his examples, Naevolus,
is clearly a male prostitute who is “an elegant dinner guest” known for his witticisms – he is, in fact, both
adulescens and courtesan.

Conclusions

Arguably, courtesans and other similar figures at the margins of prostitution, such as mimae and concubines,
were quite an indispensable and integral part of the Roman social and gender system. They were the indis-

118  Thus, the youth of Plautus’ Poenulus exclaims: “I’m in love, beyond all self-control!” Plaut. Poen. 153: Amo immodeste!
119  James 2006, 224-25.
120  Davidson 2006, 31.
121  Faraone 2002, 409, with further references.
122  Drinkwater 2012.
123 Cic. Phil. 2, 44: Primo volgare scortum…certa flagiti merces nec parva; Curio… te a meretricio quaestu abduxit et, tamquam
stolam dedisset in matrimonio stabili et certo conlocavit. See Langlands 2006, 306-10.
 Introduction: Unveiling Roman courtesans 63

pensable counterpart and ideal pair of the unmarried adulescens but were integrated into male networks of
power as mistresses of leading political men. Similarly, actors and gladiators, famous as persons, infames
as a social category, were essential for the state as an institution. Further citing Duncan, the same qualities
made them both despised low-Others and objects of desire, socially peripheral and symbolically central.124
Sarah Levin-Richardson suggested that female writers and readers to Pompeian erotic graffiti can
extract plausible female agency and also bring forth women as active sexual agents, thus balancing them be-
tween subjective ‘empowerment’ and objectified oppression: “Women simultaneously reinforcing their own
subjugation by the dominant sexual paradigm and becoming subjects and resisting the same paradigm.”125
However, I would underline how they also create their own moral paradigm, almost another gender, combin-
ing traits from ‘elite male,’ ‘matron,’ and ‘prostitute’ morals.
A courtesan’s status typically avoids focus and definition because that status may be fluid and mimet-
ic; in fact, a courtesan often is also an actor, mima, who dresses and masks herself for a show.126 The image
of the courtesan can also be veiled behind images of Venus, and Hellenistic canonic grand hetairai. How-
ever, the striking absence of courtesans from Roman legislation and Latin language may signal a successful
strategy of conscious concealment of the proper status from public eye and, on the other hand, a lack of in-
terest by male authors. For the women themselves, such classification between autonomy or non-autonomy,
between slave and free status, may have been vital and crucial, which is literally a matter of life and death.
In conclusion, it seems to be the very definition of Roman courtesans to avoid definitions. To attempt
to redefine female figures such as Faecenia Hispala, Chelidon, Volumnia Cytheris, Claudia Acte, Antonia
Caenis, Flora, Nymphidia, Sabidia, and Primigenia, means to find new dimensions and variants of female
agency in the grey zones between stereotypical topic extremes; to do this, we need to confront the evidence
from all available sources, law, onomastics, graffiti, paintings, architecture, historiography, literature, and
artefacts, in context.

124  Duncan 2005, 252.

125  Levin-Richardson 2013, 335; 341.
126  Duncan 2005, 258.
 Courtesans in the Roman legal sources

Thomas A.J. McGinn

Introduction

My first task is to attempt a definition of ‘courtesan’1. A broad definition suits my purposes best, so I propose
defining courtesan as an ‘upmarket female prostitute’, that is, any female prostitute who charges signifi-
cantly more for her services than other prostitutes or who distinguishes herself from other prostitutes in any
way that suggests she enjoys a higher status. I recognize that other definitions are possible, but the reason
for my open-ended approach will soon become apparent.
What I propose to do by way of examining the Roman legal evidence for courtesans is first to look
for terminology that supports their presence, distinguishing this, if possible from that which refers to other
prostitutes. Language relevant to male prostitutes is considered where it sheds light on that used for women.
Next are situations of fact or substantive issues in which the presence of courtesans might be detected. Do
legal rules apply differently to them than to other prostitutes? Finally, I suggest what conclusions we might
draw from the presence – and more importantly the absence – of references to courtesans in the legal evi-
dence.

Terminology

Before we come to the terminology used of prostitutes by the legal sources themselves, we do well, I be-
lieve, to consider briefly the results of a magisterial study published in 1983 by James Adams, under the
title, “Words for ‘Prostitute’ in Latin”.2 Adams’ article ranges over all genres and all periods in antiquity,
thus providing a useful context in which to evaluate the usage of the jurists and other legal evidence. He
examines “well over 50 genuine, partial or alleged synonyms of meretrix”.3 Adams is sensitive to the (pos-
sible) presence of courtesans in this material, recognizing it as one of the reasons why the vocabulary is so
rich in the first place, when he writes at the outset: “…whores are not a homogeneous class. They differ in
social class, in their methods of soliciting, and in the services which they offer, and these differences may
be reflected lexically”.4

1  I would like to thank my hosts, the Finnish Institute in Rome and the DAI in Rome, for their invitation to speak and their mar-
velous hospitality, and above all Dr Ria Berg. I am especially grateful for the opportunity to pose new questions to some important
though often neglected evidence. I have attempted to retain as far as possible the original form of oral presentation, inserting refer-
ences only as absolutely necessary.
2  Adams 1983. Fayer 2002, now revised as Fayer 2013, 377-405 has nothing to contribute for our purposes.
3  Adams 1983, 321.
4  Adams 1983, 321.
66 Thomas A.J. McGinn

Unfortunately, when we come to examine the results of Adams’ study this promise does not pan out.
First, and not surprisingly, many words for ‘prostitute’ are disparaging references to sexual activity or body
parts, such as the very common scortum, which originally meant ‘leather, hide’, or the much less common
culiola.5 Other terms derive from the idea of receiving payment. This in itself might disparage a woman
through the implication that there was only one conceivable motive for her to receive payment. An obvious
example is meretrix, in the sense of ‘woman who earns, paid woman’; another, with a similar derivation, is
quaestuaria.6 Numerous words refer to methods of soliciting clients, such as the Plautine proseda, some-
one who presumably sits in front of a brothel, or the more common prostibulum – which could also mean
‘brothel’ – a term that seems to refer to a prostitute in front of such an establishment, whether seated or not.7
There are words for those who stand or who are made to stand in front of a brothel, the most obvious being
the verb prostituere and its cognates, including prostituta.8 Other terms derived from methods of solicitation
are circulatrix, or ‘street-walker’, as well as petulca and lupa, which imply aggressiveness in the pursuit of
clients.9
Amid all of this material, no clear example emerges of a specialized expression for courtesan. Adams
observes that “[i]n most cultures a distinction is made between high class prostitutes, whose services have to
be obtained by devious methods (e.g. Eng. call girl), and low whores who display themselves in public.”10
Promising as this sounds, it only yields results for the second half of the comparison, situated as it is in the
context of a discussion of prostibulum. Nothing in Latin offers the same contrast that is widely – though not
universally – accepted by moderns for hetaira and pornē in Greek between ‘courtesan’ for the former and
‘low prostitute’ for the latter.11 The words amica and paelex, extensively treated by Adams,12 come close
to the meaning we seek, without coming close enough, however. Both terms focus more on the woman’s
relationship to a male lover than on her status as a prostitute. Some of these women might be courtesans, but
these words do not characterize them as such.
When we turn to the legal sources, we find that they employ a far more restricted range of termi-
nology. They contain only a handful of relevant expressions. We begin with statutory or at least ‘official’
terminology and then turn to juristic usage.
This is a convenient place to discuss the urban praetor’s edict even though it technically does not
qualify as legislation. This edict was the source of the vast bulk of the rules of procedure in private law. The
most important part of it for our purposes is a series of three rubrics that placed different levels of restriction
on the right of certain Roman citizens postulare, or to make judicial requests before the praetor.13 The first
imposed a total ban, the second allowed requests on behalf of self but not others, and the third restricted the
right to self and a small group of others.
Under the second rubric fell women and any man “who will have suffered womanly things with his
body” – qui corpore suo muliebria passus erit. The phrase clearly embraces male prostitutes, if only among

5  For the first, see Adams 1983, 322-23; for the second, Adams 1983, 356.
6  Adams 1983, 323.
7 For proseda, see Adams 1983, 329-30. For prostibulum and its variants, see Adams 1983, 330-31. Other words identifying pros-
titutes with a place of prostitution are ganea and popina.
8  Adams 1983, 331-32.
9  Adams 1983, 332-35.
10  Adams 1983, 331.
11  On this problem see recently McGinn 2011, 260, 264, with literature.
12  Adams 1983, 348-50; 355.
13  McGinn 1998, 45-48.
 Courtesans in the Roman legal sources 67

others, while female prostitutes come under the general category of women. So no special phrase emerges
for any type of prostitute at all.
We are better placed with regard to the wording of a late Republican statute preserved epigraphically
and a series of leges Iuliae sponsored by the emperor Augustus whose contents can be reconstructed on this
point. The late Republican enactment, preserved on the Tabula Heracleensis, lists a series of disqualifica-
tions from municipal office and the decurionate. In a section of the law dating to 45 BCE it inflicts these
disabilities on prostitutes and pimps, among a number of other types.

The phrase found in the law regarding prostitutes reads as follows:

TH 123-124: …queive corpore quaestum / fecit fecerit…

…or he who has made or will have made a living with his body…

The gender-specific wording is explained by the fact that only males were eligible for municipal office and
the decurionate. This does not mean that the phrase itself could not in theory concern courtesans if we made
the appropriate change to include reference to females. But, even so, there would be no distinction drawn
between courtesans and other prostitutes.

The Augustan statutes in question are the lex Iulia et Papia, actually two laws of 18 BCE and 9 CE,
the lex Iulia de adulteriis coercendis, of 18/17 BCE, and the lex Iulia de vi, of c. 18–16 BCE. Since their
texts do not survive, their contents must be recovered from other sources, above all, juristic commentaries.
Enough survives to reconstruct the phrasing for ‘prostitute’ for these statutes in a plausible way.14 While
the evidence for the Augustan marriage legislation is the fullest and clearest, we can with some confidence
establish the phrase for the others as well. In fact, to leave aside a quibble or two over possible, but unlikely,
verb tenses, the language emerges as the same for two of these statutes, and virtually so for the third.

So for the Augustan laws on marriage and vis, we have:

qui quaeve palam corpore quaestum facit fecerit
he or she who makes or will have made a living with his or her body ‘openly’

The adultery law separates the genders because the relevant provisions are found in different parts of the
statute, as I shall explain:
qui palam corpore quaestum facit fecerit
he who makes or will have made a living with his body ‘openly’
and
quae palam corpore quaestum facit fecerit
she who makes or will have made a living with her body ‘openly’
We can – fortunately – leave aside here the reasons why the lawmaker seems to have preferred this pon-
derous phrasing and ask whether we have before us evidence of a concern with courtesans. I note that
there are three material differences with the phrase from the Tabula Heracleensis examined above. The
first is the change in verb tense from fecit to facit, which is clearly of no relevance for us. Of the remaining
two, the more obviously pertinent is that which reflects increased gender inclusiveness. In other words,

14 See McGinn 1998, 62, 99-102, 198.

68 Thomas A.J. McGinn

the terminology in these three laws, unlike that in their late Republican predecessor, embraces females as
well as males.
The reasons for this are easy to explain. The lex Iulia de vi prohibited prostitutes of both genders from
giving testimony in the quaestio de vi it established. The lex Iulia et Papia forbade prostitutes of both gen-
ders from marrying freeborn Romans of both genders. The case of the lex Iulia de adulteriis coercendis is a
little more complicated, as I have indicated. The reference to female prostitutes occurs in the part of the law
establishing a very small number of types of women with whom men could have sex without violating the
law, while the phrase referring to male prostitutes occurs in another part of the statute that lists types of men
whom the husband could kill if he caught one of them in his house in the act of adultery with his wife, thus
exercising the so-called ius occidendi.15 But gender-inclusiveness, as we have already seen, is insufficient
by itself for our purposes.
So no information about courtesans so far. Our hopes might be raised by the other change in the word-
ing I mentioned, the inclusion of the adverb palam. Palam could, one might argue, be understood as implic-
itly excluding application of these laws to prostitutes who behaved discreetly, so, courtesans, perhaps? This
is not, however, how the jurists understood the marriage law, at any rate, and there is no reason to think that
the statutory function of palam was other than to serve as a moralizing adverb, meaning here not so much,
as elsewhere, ‘openly’, ‘commonly’, but instead ‘indiscriminately’, and so ‘promiscuously’.16
Another example of legislative language comes to us from the law enabling the Caligulan tax on
prostitutes and pimps passed in 40 CE. This measure, which introduced a series of taxes on various goods
and services, is reported in literary and epigraphical sources. Of great importance is the notice in Suetonius’
Life of Caligula:

Suetonius, Caligula 40: …ex capturis prostitutarum quantum quaeque uno concubitu mereret; additumque
ad caput legis, ut tenerentur publico et quae meretricium quive lenocinium fecissent, nec non et matrimonia
obnoxia essent.
Suetonius in his Life of Caligula: …from the (daily) earnings of prostitutes (was demanded) the amount each
earned for one act of sexual intercourse. And a clause was added to this chapter of the law, providing that even
those who had (in the past) practiced prostitution or pimping were liable to the treasury (for the tax) and that
married persons were subject to it as well.

Suetonius may well be quoting the statute in the very last section of this passage where he refers to the ad-
dition tacked on to the caput legis in question. From his description Caligula seems to have been intent on
taxing even retired pimps and prostitutes, evidently with the aim of discouraging attempts at evasion. The
curious phrase quae meretricium...fecissent is possibly the biographer’s abbreviation of the more ponderous
legislative language, if we can assume this was similar or identical to the phrasing in Augustan statutes we
have just examined, or it may represent an attempt by Caligula himself to have some fun with this language.
In any case there is no obvious reference to courtesans, no more than there is with the word prostitutae.
For the sake of convenience we may take a brief detour from consideration of terminology in order
to engage with a point of substance. Suetonius does not report in full the provision of the law concerning
the tax on prostitutes and pimps, omitting a reference to a ceiling on the rate of this tax. We are in debt to
a second-century inscription from Palmyra for this information, which cites a limit of one denarius, mean-

15 See McGinn 1998, chapter 5.

16 See McGinn 1998, 123-35.
 Courtesans in the Roman legal sources 69

ing that a prostitute was held to pay the equivalent of what she charged for sex only up to that level.17 We
can only guess at the purpose behind this cut-off, which may reflect the fact that relatively few prostitutes
charged this much – most of the recorded prices are far lower – and/or that such prices were more difficult
to discover and so deemed not worth the administrative hassle required to attempt to track them. It would
have benefited, then, higher-priced prostitutes, who were relatively well placed to avoid the incidence of
the tax by passing along the higher cost of doing business to their customers. This is not to say that all such
women can be deemed ‘courtesans’, or that the lawmaker had such a category of women in mind. At best it
is a rather obscure and indirect reference to such prostitutes.
In sum, the language of Roman legislation so far surveyed contains no obvious reference to courte-
sans, and the same holds for juristic commentaries on these statutes. We can therefore begin to look in the
direction of juristic work in other areas of the law. For example, there is the treatment by jurists – and em-
perors – of a restrictive covenant in the sale of slaves that forbade prostitution of a slave.18 There are about
a dozen such passages devoted to this subject, so a fair amount of discussion. Most are juristic texts, with
occasional reference to imperial interventions, and some are legislation in the form of rescripts. With one
exception they refer to the slave not to be prostituted with a variant of the word prostituere, e.g. prostituta.
In fact, the phrase most commonly used to describe the covenant is ne serva prostituatur. The one exception
is a rescript of the emperor Alexander Severus, who uses a version of the Augustan legislative terminology
discussed above in such a way as to suggest this might have been used in an actual covenant: ne corpore
quaestum faceret.19 In this case – like all the rest – the emphasis is placed narrowly on (forbidding) the act
of prostitution or on the state of having been prostituted. To point out the obvious: we are dealing with slaves
here, who might be thought to be poor candidates for courtesan status, whatever the terminology used to
describe them.
A similar conclusion can be drawn from other juristic discussions about slave prostitutes, involving
the offering of a slave as a form of real security, meaning under the rules of fiducia, and the theft or wrongful
appropriation of a slave. Here the language used is for the most part limited to references to prostituere and
meretrix.20 Interestingly, those passages that deal with prostitutes who are not – or not obviously – slaves
do not differ much in terms of the terminology they contain. So we have references to a meretrix and the
adjective meretricius in discussions of inheritance, mandate, condictio, operae, and iniuria, various parts of
Roman private law that I would be happy to discuss in greater detail were it worth the trouble here.21

Substance

An exception to the trend in the terminology referring to prostitutes who were not (obviously) slaves is
the use of the word scortum by a jurist, which offers us a good opportunity to move from the phrasing that
describes prostitutes to situations where the presence of courtesans might be thought to be detectable. The
text in question involves the problem of usucapio (acquisition of ownership through possession for a fixed
period) in sale:

17  This is IGR 3, 1056 = OGIS 2, 629 = CIS 2, 3, 3913, with McGinn 1998, 282-86.
18  McGinn 1998, chapter 8.
19  Cod. Iust. 4, 56, 3 (a. 225).
20  For an important exception regarding the use of the word scortum, see below.
21 See McGinn 1998, chapter 9.
70 Thomas A.J. McGinn

Iul. dig. 41, 4, 8 (ex Minicio): Si quis, cum sciret venditorem pecuniam statim consumpturum, servos ab eo em-
isset, plerique responderunt eum nihilo minus bona fide emptorem esse, idque verius est: quomodo enim mala
fide emisse videtur, qui a domino emit? nisi forte et is, qui a luxurioso et protinus scorto daturo pecuniam servos
emit, non usucapiet.

(Julian in the second book from the writings of Minicius). If someone, although he knew that the seller was im-
mediately going to squander the sale price, bought slaves from him, most jurists have held that he is nonetheless
a buyer in good faith, and this is the better view. For how can someone be considered to have bought (some-
thing) in bad faith if he has purchased (it) from the owner? Unless by chance even he will not usucape who buys
slaves from a dissolute person about to hand over the money right away to a whore.

The legal details need not detain us22 – what matters first is the language and next the context in which this
is used. The second century jurist Julian uses the word scortum, which, as James Adams notes,23 often has
a pejorative sense when compared to meretrix, the more neutral term. Proof of this conclusion is offered by
the use of the same word by Ulpian in another text to refer to a prostitute who is unambiguously a slave.24
So once again the terminology does not itself point to a courtesan.
The situation Julian describes, in which a dissolute client hands over the price he obtained for the sale
of some slaves, is a bit more promising. It does seem like a scenario that might involve a courtesan. The
same can be said for another text in which an adulescens luxuriosus – ‘a dissolute young man’ – gives a
mandate to someone to stand surety for a prostitute.25 Ulpian compares the situation of the person accepting
such a mandate to that of a person knowingly lending money to someone about to squander it and denies
the claim. The same holds for a mandate to lend money to a prostitute. Unfortunately, such an association
of a prostitute with the waste of material resources can operate for any type of prostitute, and there is no
guarantee for any of these situations that we are dealing with a courtesan.

Conclusion

So we have no certain evidence of courtesans in the legal evidence and therefore no sign that the rules were
in any sense different for them. Why do the legal sources, as we have broadly construed them above, seem to
ignore them? Why would other prostitutes, even slave prostitutes, receive attention and not courtesans, who
might be thought to enjoy a higher social profile? Does this mean that there were no courtesans in ancient
Rome?
To answer the last question first: far from it. As we have seen, certain of the legal texts are consistent
with the presence of courtesans, so the absence of explicit reference cannot prove anything like non-exis-
tence. Why then the reticence?
In my view, a decisive clue can be found in an area of the law that we have rather glossed over. I mean
here the works of the jurists, especially that of Ulpian, commenting on the Augustan marriage legislation.26
As we have seen, the law itself, as far as we can reconstruct this, makes no reference to courtesans. But
because the statute forbade prostitutes as marriage partners to all freeborn Romans, this phrase – qui quaeve

22  For a discussion, see McGinn 1998, 323-24.

23  Adams 1983, 325.
24 Ulp. dig. 47, 2, 39 (31 ad Sabinum), on which see McGinn 1998, 325-28.
25 Ulp. dig. 17, 1, 12, 11 (31 ad edictum), with McGinn 1998, 322-23.
26  For a fuller discussion, see McGinn 1998, 123-38.
 Courtesans in the Roman legal sources 71

palam corpore quaestum facit fecerit – must have concerned them, if not exclusively. So what do the jurists
say?
Let us begin with a text of the Antonine jurist Ulpius Marcellus, writing in the mid-160s:

Marcel. dig. 23, 2, 41 pr. (26 digest.): Probrum intellegitur etiam in his mulieribus esse, quae turpiter viverent
vulgoque quaestum facerent, etiamsi non palam.

(Marcellus in the twenty-sixth book of his Digests). Disgrace is understood to be incurred also by those women
who lived shamefully and made a living from promiscuous sexual relations, even if this was not done ‘openly’.

The emphasis is placed – obviously enough – on promiscuous sexual behavior, an emphasis that emerges
even more clearly in the Severan jurist Ulpian’s commentary on the law:

Ulp. dig. 23, 2, 43 pr.-5 (1 ad legem Iuliam et Papiam): pr.: Palam quaestum facere dicemus non tantum eam,
quae in lupanario se prostituit, verum etiam si qua (ut adsolet) in taberna cauponia vel qua alia pudori suo
non parcit. 1: Palam autem sic accipimus passim, hoc est sine dilectu: non si qua adulteris vel stupratoribus se
committit, sed quae vicem prostitutae sustinet. 2: Item quod cum uno et altero pecunia accepta commiscuit, non
videtur palam corpore quaestum facere. 3: Octavenus tamen rectissime ait etiam eam, quae sine quaestu palam
se prostituerit, debuisse his connumerari. 4: Non solum autem ea quae facit, verum ea quoque quae fecit, etsi
facere desiit, lege notatur: neque enim aboletur turpitudo, quae postea intermissa est. 5: Non est ignoscendum
ei, quae obtentu paupertatis turpissimam vitam egit.

(Ulpian in his first book on the lex Iulia et Papia) pr.: We will say that not only does the woman who prostitutes herself
in a brothel make a living ‘openly’, but also any woman in a tavern or inn (a common practice) or any other woman
who does not spare her sense of shame. 1: ‘Openly’ we then take to mean ‘everywhere’, that is, ‘without discrimina-
tion’: not anyone who gives herself to adulterers or partners in stuprum, but one who plays the part of a prostitute. 2:
Likewise, because a woman has had intercourse with one or two men after accepting money from them, she is not
held to have made a living with her body ‘openly’. 3: Octavenus nevertheless says, most correctly, that even she, who
has prostituted herself without payment ought to be included in this category. 4: Not only she, moreover, who prac-
tices prostitution is subject to degradation according to the statute, but also she who has done so in the past, even if she
has ceased to practice this profession. The reason is that sexual disgrace is not effaced by later ceasing the behavior
that led to it. 5: She is not to be excused who, on the plea of poverty, has led a very disgraceful life.

Given that the law’s intention was in part to prevent prostitutes from rising socially through marriage with
freeborn Romans, it is precisely here that one would expect to find a reference to courtesans, since they
would be the prostitutes best placed to do so. I note that of course the prostitutes in question are deemed to
be freed or freeborn themselves, since marriage with slaves was impossible as a matter of law, and on the
same ground they are assumed to be Roman citizens, or at least to enjoy conubium. Instead the jurist holds
that a prostitute’s poverty cannot excuse her from application of the ban, even though poverty itself might
be thought a de facto disqualification for marriage to a social superior. There is an unrelenting emphasis in
this definition on sexual promiscuity, and it is here that I would argue that we can see the key to the – appar-
ent – absence of courtesans in the legal sources.
They are present of course but rendered invisible, and deliberately so, I would argue, through the ef-
forts of legislators and jurists. What mattered above all to these men in their ‘legal’ conception of the female
prostitute was precisely sexual promiscuity. This means that for them courtesans were no different from
other prostitutes, at least as a matter of law. At bottom we see a broad social prejudice, at minimum one
shared by elite males, transformed into a fundamental legal principle. One final text drives the point home:
72 Thomas A.J. McGinn

Maec. dig. 36, 1, 5 (6 fideicomm.): Sed et qui magna praeditus est dignitate vel auctoritate, harenarii vel eius
mulieris, quae corpore quaestum fecerit, hereditatem restituere cogetur.

(Maecian in the sixth book of Trusts) But even a man of high rank or great influence will be compelled to turn
over the inheritance of a gladiator or of a woman who has earned money with her body.

Maecian (mid-second century) is concerned with the rules of the SC Pegasianum of c. A.D. 73, which al-
lowed persons entitled to a fideicommissum (a trust) to approach the praetor fideicommissarius in order to
compel a reluctant heir to comply with its terms.27 The extreme case put by the jurist – that of a socially
prominent or politically influential heir and a socially despised and powerless beneficiary of a trust – is
clearly intended to underline the theoretically unfettered force of the compulsory entry on the inheritance.
As such, it can stand as an entirely hypothetical example. Even so, we might ask ourselves whether, say, a
brothel prostitute is a likelier recipient of such a bequest than someone we might identify as a courtesan.
In any case, from the perspective of the legal authorities it does not matter. Every manner of prostitute is
lumped together under a phrase that is – not coincidentally perhaps – reminiscent of the Augustan marriage
legislation, namely, ‘a woman who has earned money with her body’ – quae corpore quaestum fecerit. It is
not that there were no courtesans in ancient Rome, but only that there were none as a matter of law.

27  McGinn 1998, 113-14.

 Historical Roman courtesans

Alison Keith

In memoriam Kweku A. Garbrah (1937-2014)1

Introduction

The ‘courtesan’ (Latin meretrix)2 was long a figure of literary interest in ancient Rome, having arrived early
and decisively in Latin literature with the adaptation of Greek New Comedy to the Roman stage.3 We meet
her in the Bacchis sisters of Plautus’ Bacchides, Erotium of Menaechmi, Philocomasium of Miles Gloriosus,
and Phronesium of Truculentus, as well as Terence’s Thais in Eunuchus, Chrysis in Andria, and Bacchis in
both Hecyra and Heautontimoroumenos.4 These women bear the distinctive Greek names that identify them
to the Roman audience of New Comedy as operating on a higher level of prostitution than the brothel slave
or streetwalker (usually unnamed in Roman comedy).5
Among their Latin literary heirs were the mistresses celebrated by the Roman elegists: Propertius’
Cynthia, Ovid’s Corinna, and Tibullus’ Nemesis. Propertius compares Cynthia to the three most celebrated
Greek courtesans – Lais, Thais, and Phryne – in his elegy 2, 6, and Ovid echoes Propertius when he com-
pares his mistress Corinna, on her named entry into his Amores, to the courtesan Lais (am. 1, 9-12): ecce,

1  I am grateful to Ria Berg for the invitation to chair the session on ‘The Written Courtesan’ at the Symposium on The Roman
Courtesan: Archaeological Reflections of a Literary Topos,’ organized by the Finnish and German Archaeological Institutes in
Rome, on 30 May 2014; and also for the invitation to contribute a chapter on historical Roman courtesans to the conference volume.
I am also grateful to Sara Forsdyke for the invitation to present an early version of this chapter at ‘Scholarly Offerings: A Sym-
posium in Honor of Kweku Garbrah’ at the University of Michigan on 4 October 2014, and to members of the audience for their
comments and questions on that occasion, especially Bruce Frier and Donald Sells. My thanks also to Sharon James and Thomas
A.J. McGinn for their comments on an earlier draft of the chapter; I alone am responsible for any errors that remain. This paper is
dedicated to the memory of Dr Kweku A. Garbrah, who died two days before the symposium held in his honor in Ann Arbor. His
generous mentorship of undergraduate Classics students at the University of Alberta, where he taught for twenty-two years, inspired
many of us to pursue graduate study in classical philology and ancient history; whether or not we became professional classicists,
his selfless friendship and scholarly example enriched our lives in countless ways.
2  I take the Latin word meretrix to mean ‘a woman who earns money [with her body]’, from mereo, ‘earn money’: see OLD s.vv.,
and especially s.v. ‘mereo’ 1.b (‘earn money by prostitution’). On the difficulties of English nomenclature – ‘courtesan’ for meretrix
vs ‘prostitute’ for scortum – see Adams 1983 and McClure 2006, 6-8, with further bibliography. The Roman meretrix is not to be
confused with the contemporary ‘sex worker’ or the ancient Mediterranean ‘brothel worker’.
3  On Greek courtesans, see Le Barillier 1913; Schneider 1913; Henry 1985, 1992, and 1995; Peschel 1987; Rousselle 1988;
Brown 1990; Vanoeyeke 1990; Kurke 1996, 1997, 1999, and 2002; Davidson 1997; McClure 2003; Miner 2003; Faraone – Mc-
Clure 2006; Glazebrook – Henry 2011. Research on Roman courtesans is less abundant, but see Adams 1983; McGinn 1998,
2004, and 2011; Wyke 2002; James 2003 and 2005; McCoy 2006; Keith 2011; and the papers in this volume. James N.d. is much
anticipated.
4  On courtesans in New Comedy, see Fantham 1975; Gilula 1980 (now very outdated); Adams 1982; Henry 1985 and 1992;
Brown 1990; Knorr 1995; Dutsch 2008; Traill 2008; James 2013, 188-89, and N.d.
5  On women’s names in New Comedy, see Sommerstein 1980; on Greek names in Plautus, see Schmidt 1902; and on Greek love
names, see Robinson – Fluck 1937. On the etiquette of publicly mentioning a woman by name in ancient Greece, see Schaps 1977.
74 Alison Keith

Corinna uenit … qualiter in thalamos … | dicitur et multis Lais amata uiris (‘Look, Corinna comes … just
like … Lais, loved by many men, is said to have entered bed-chambers’). Ovid’s Latin gloss on Lais’ Greek
name (multis … uiris, am. 1, 5, 12) emphasizes the courtesan’s circulation among men,6 at the same time
that it underlines her linguistic and generic translation from Greece to Rome. By comparing their mistresses
to the most celebrated courtesans of classical Greece, both Propertius and Ovid would seem to invite specu-
lation concerning the social standing of their mistresses, even indeed, interpretation of them as courtesans
(as their Greek names also suggest). Tibullus’ Nemesis also looks just like a courtesan, not only in her con-
ventional name (derived from Hellenistic epigram),7 but also in her greed for such luxury gifts as clothing
of Coan silk, dyed in rich reds and purples, and Indian litter-bearers (Tib. 2, 3, 51-62). For the courtesans
of New Comedy expect precisely this kind of expensive and exotic gift from their lovers: we may compare
Plautus’ Erotium in Menaechmi, who receives from her unpleasant lover the gift of his wife’s cloak, and
Bacchis in Terence’s Hecyra, who before the action of the play begins had received from her lover the gift
of a ring taken from a girl he had raped on the way to see her.8 Nemesis’ enjoyment of her lovers’ expensive
gifts shows her to be an apt student of the elegiac lena, like Ovid’s Dipsas or Propertius’ Acanthis, who
counsels the elegiac puella to take lovers according to the gifts they offer (Prop. 4, 5, 21-28; 49-58; Ov. am.
1, 8, 59-64).9
In this study I analyze the rhetoric of the representation of historical Roman courtesans in prose
genres of Latin literature (primarily epistolography, oratory, historiography, and biography), in an effort to
enrich our knowledge not only of Roman attitudes to courtesans but also of courtesans’ lived experience
in Roman antiquity. While feminist historians have occasionally expressed skepticism about using literary
evidence to elucidate the lives of women in antiquity,10 it is crucial in a discipline like Classics, in which
relatively little textual and/or material evidence produced by or dealing with women survives (especially in
comparison with contemporary world literatures and document archives), to scrutinize every scrap of evi-
dence at our disposal.11 To this end, I ask what we can know about four women identified by ancient authors
as historical Roman courtesans – Marc Antony’s mistress Cytheris, Verres’ mistress Chelidon, Aebutius’
mistress Hispala Faecenia, and Pompey’s mistress Flora – by investigating ancient literary and material
evidence for the light they can jointly shed on the historical courtesan in ancient Rome.

Cytheris

The literary history of the Roman courtesan in Roman comedy and Latin elegy is of particular note because
we have independent textual evidence attesting to the inspiration of the elegiac Lycoris – the mistress cel-
ebrated in four books of amatory elegies by Gallus, the founder of the elegiac genre at Rome – in the histori-
cal freedwoman and courtesan ‘Cytheris’ (Serv. ecl. 10, 1, 6):12

6  For the etymology, see Hinds 1988, 10.

7 Anth. Pal. 5, 273 (Agathias); 9, 260 (Secundus of Tarentum), 405; 11, 326 (Automedon); 12, 193; 229 (Strato), 140 (anon.), 141
(Meleager).
8 Cf. Brown 1990.
9  On the elegiac lena, see Myers 1996.
10  Culham 1990; cf. Hillard 1989 and 1992.
11  See, e.g., the exemplary studies of Delia 1991 on Fulvia; Hejduk 2008 and Skinner 2011 on Clodia Metelli, Catullus’ Lesbia;
Dixon 2007 on Cornelia, mother of the Gracchi; Fantham 2006 on Julia Augusti; Treggiari 2007 on Terentia, Tullia, and Publilia;
Hallett 2009 on Sulpicia and 2011 on Greek courtesans in Roman comedy; and cf. Olson 2008, who focuses on material culture.
12  Cf. Gallus fr. 145 Hollis; Verg. ecl. 10; Prop. 2, 34, 91; Ov. am. 1, 15, 30; ars 3, 537; Mart. 8, 73, 6; Vir. ill. 82, 2. On Cytheris/
Lycoris, see RE IX A 883 Nr. 17; Mazzarino (1980-1981); Traina 2001[1994]; and Keith 2011.
 Historical Roman courtesans 75

Gallus, ante omnes primus Aegypti praefectus, fuit poeta eximius; nam et Euphorionem, ut supra <VI 72>
diximus, transtulit in latinum sermonem, et amorum suorum de Cytheride scripsit libros quattuor. … hic autem
Gallus amavit Cytheridem meretricem, libertam Volumnii, quae, eo spreto, Antonium euntem ad Gallias est
secuta… sollicitos sollicitatos, plenos sollicitudinis post Cytheridis abscessum, quam Lycorin vocat.13

Gallus, the first prefect of Egypt, was an outstanding poet; for, as we said above on Buc. 6, 72, he translated
Euphorion into the Latin language, and wrote four books of his Amores about Cytheris. … Moreover this same
Gallus had a sexual relationship with the courtesan Cytheris, the freedwoman of Volumnius, but she spurned
him [Gallus] and followed [Marc] Antony when he went to Gaul… troubled ‘tormented’, full of anxiety after
the departure of Cytheris, whom he calls Lycoris.

It is to the late antique grammarian Servius that we owe this tantalizing notice,14 and another late source
records the information that M. Junius Brutus, “along with Antony and Gallus, loved the mime-actress
Cytheris” (Vir. ill. 82, 2): Cytheridem mimam cum Antonio et Gallo amauit. The phraseology of these late
antique notices concerning the historical Cytheris’ lovers obliquely acknowledge the traffic in Greek cour-
tesans among members of the Roman elite, as Cytheris circulates among Caesar’s intimates – Volumnius,
Gallus, Marc Antony, and even a Junius Brutus.15 The Italian scholar Giusto Traina therefore suggested that
Cytheris’ patron Volumnius, to whom she would have owed sexual services upon her manumission, lent her
to various powerful friends, as it suited his political purposes.16 Certainly her attested lovers, like her patron,
were adherents or protégés of Caesar in the mid-40s BCE.17 Traina’s interpretation implicitly acknowledges
the sexual (and textual) exchange of a woman (here a courtesan), for the consolidation of political (and lit-
erary) bonds between men. Eve Kosofsky Sedgewick coined the adjective ‘homosocial’ to describe social
bonds between members of the same sex in such arenas as “friendship, mentorship, entitlement, rivalry, and
hetero- and homosexuality”,18 and the relationship between Cytheris’ lovers admits precisely such analysis,
as an instance of competitive homosocial bonding. That is, their relationship with Cytheris invites interpre-
tation in the context of the shifting dynamics of friendship, politics, and erotic desire that obtained among
the different men who shared and circulated her person.19
As it happens, we are in the fortunate position of possessing considerable contemporary evidence
of this courtesan’s circulation among Roman magnates, for Cicero mentions both Cytheris and her patron,
P. Volumnius Eutrapelus, not only in his correspondence from the 40s bce but also in his second Philippic, an
oration delivered in the fall of 44 bce as a denunciation of Antony’s political actions after Caesar’s murder.
I have elsewhere analyzed the sharp contrast in tone that distinguishes the references to Cytheris in Cicero’s
correspondence with his friends Atticus (Att. 10, 10; 10, 16) and Paetus (fam. 9, 26) from those in his invec-

13  The text of Servius is cited from Thilo – Hagen 1961; translations are my own.
14  The identification is commonly accepted: see, e.g., Hollis 2007, 242-43.
15 See Anderson – Parsons – Nisbet 1979, 153, n. 145, on the difficulty of identifying which Junius Brutus loved Cytheris: M.
Junius Brutus (reported in Vir. ill.) or D. Junius Brutus.
16  Traina 2001, 91.
17  On the Caesarian commitments of these men, see Keith 2011, 38-39, n. 57.
18  Sedgwick 1992, 1. Sedgwick further argues that the structure of male homosocial bonding lies ‘in an intimate and shifting
relation to class; and that no element of that pattern can be understood outside of its relation to women and the gender system as a
whole’. Her analysis of homosocial desire engages the theoretical paradigm of triangulation elaborated in Girard 1961 and applies
it to non-novelistic texts: see Sedgwick 1992, 21-24. Between Girard 1961 and Sedgwick 1992, Irigaray 1977, 167-93, offers an
important treatment of this triangular dynamic under the term ‘hom(m)osexualité’: see Sedgwick 1992, 26-27.
19  Cf. the sharing of the courtesan Chrysis of Terence’s Andria by three iuuenes, or the arrangement Thais’ two lovers come to at
the end of Eunuchus in order to share her; both are highly homosocial arrangements.
76 Alison Keith

tive Philippics as a result of the distinct generic pressures exerted by the two very different literary forms
of epistolography and political oratory.20 Yet in both his correspondence with Paetus and Atticus, as also in
his invective against Antony, Cicero employs the homosocially inflected rhetoric we can see animating the
reference to Cytheris’ circulation among Caesar’s adherents in Vir. ill. 82, 2.21 For in both his letters and his
invective, Cicero draws attention to the mime-actress Cytheris’ appearance in disgraceful public spectacle
and he thereby characterizes her as a woman who circulates among men. In the letters to Atticus, moreover,
as in the second Philippic, the courtesan’s illegitimate public circulation among men documents Antony’s
(and Caesar’s) illegitimate usurpation of political authority at Rome. Cicero’s references to Cytheris in his
correspondence with Atticus thus anticipate those in his invective Philippics not only in their presentation of
the ‘facts’, but also in their strategic representation of Antony’s relations with Cytheris to figure the perver-
sion of his political and social bonds with other men.
As a freedwoman of Volumnius, Cytheris received the legal Roman name of Volumnia on manumis-
sion, although Cicero expresses outrage that municipal Italian officials were required to greet her by this
formal Roman name when she appeared in public with Antony (Phil. 2, 58):

uehebatur in essedo tribunus plebis; lictores laureati antecedebant, inter quos aperta lectica mima portabatur,
quam ex oppidis municipales homines honesti, obuiam necessario prodeuntes, non noto illo et mimico nomine,
sed Volumniam consalutabant

[Antony, although] a tribune of the people [and therefore not legally entitled to lictors], was riding in a luxuri-
ous chariot; before him walked laurel-bearing lictors, between whom was conveyed in an open litter the mime-
actress – whom local aristocrats and prominent citizens from the towns met, by necessity, as they advanced, and
greeted not by her well known stage-name [Cytheris] but by the name of Volumnia.

It is especially notable that when Cicero names her in his correspondence with his male friends she is Cyth-
eris the mime-actress, a freedwoman of Greek name and dubious morals who is appropriately trafficked
between men. By contrast, when he writes to his wife Terentia in a letter of 47 bce, he calls her Volumnia
(fam. 14, 16): Volumnia debuit in te officiosior esse quam fuit, et id ipsum quod fecit potuit diligentius facere
et cautius (“Volumnia ought to have been more respectful to you than she was, and she could have done
what she did more attentively and carefully”). Scholars have not universally accepted the identification of
Volumnia here with Volumnia Cytheris, on the assumption “that a Roman matron like Terentia would not
have had dealings with such a person”.22 Shackleton Bailey has noted the naivety of this view, however,
and rightly observes that when writing to his wellborn, extremely wealthy and respectable wife, Cicero
appropriately refers to Volumnia Cytheris by her Roman gentilician.23 Indeed, the very different epistolary
context of fam. 14, 16 from that of his letters to his cronies may be taken to illustrate Cicero’s punctilious
observance of generic propriety.

20  On the constraints of genre and other cultural traditions that shape the depiction of women in Greco-Roman art and literature,
see Dixon 2001; cf. Bodel 2001, 34, on ‘epigraphic bias’. See further, e.g., the exemplary studies of Delia 1991 on Fulvia; Hejduk
2008 and Skinner 2011 on Clodia Metelli, Catullus’ Lesbia; Dixon 2007 on Cornelia, mother of the Gracchi; Fantham 2006 on
Julia Augusti; Hallett 2009 on Sulpicia and 2011 on Greek courtesans in Roman comedy; and cf. Olson 2008, which focuses on
material culture.
21  Keith 2011.
22  Gundel 1961 rejects the identification, but see contra Shackleton Bailey 1977, 502; Shackleton Bailey 1991, 48; and Hollis
2007, 242-43. The quotation is from Shackleton Bailey 1977, 502.
23  So also Shackleton Bailey 1977, 502: “in writing to his wife Cicero would naturally use the more decorous name”.
 Historical Roman courtesans 77

Cicero’s letter to his wife, however, may also hint at the observance of gendered propriety on the part
of both Terentia and Volumnia, as Terentia here has apparently had recourse to women’s channels to effect
a transaction (which is, unfortunately, no longer recoverable to us from this brief notice). We have consider-
able textual evidence for the widespread participation of elite women in the social and political life of trium-
viral Rome, a practice that emerged publicly in the Principate;24 and the interaction hinted at here between
Terentia and Volumnia suggests that this practice was continuous with the late Republic, when elite women
could expect to influence social, financial, and/or political matters of the day by working through female
channels and remaining behind the scenes.25 Shackleton Bailey notes, in his commentary on this letter, that

as mistress of Antony, now governing Italy in Caesar’s absence, [Volumnia Cytheris] had great influence…
Terentia as well as her husband was in danger of forfeiting her property [Att. 9, 9, 3], and nothing we know of
her suggests that she would have let scruples of this kind interfere with her financial interests.26

Cicero’s short letter to his wife may thus constitute valuable evidence for the participation not only of an
elite matrona, but also of a subaltern meretrix, in the financial, social, and perhaps even political activities
of late republican Rome – evidence that is not normally visible in our male-authored testimonia.

Chelidon

It is also to Cicero that we owe the earliest portrait of a courtesan in Latin literature, in his descriptions
of Verres’ mistress Chelidon (‘Swallow’)27 in the Verrines. Here too, Cicero’s rhetorical presentation of
the courtesan exerts pressure on our evidence, limiting or distorting the historical ‘facts’ to conform with
generic codes and literary conventions. In the second set of speeches for the prosecution of Verres (never
delivered, but put into circulation as pamphlets in the aftermath of Verres’ flight into exile late in the summer
of 70 bce), Cicero refers repeatedly to Chelidon’s interference in Verres’ administration of justice during his
tenure of the praetorship at Rome in 74 bce, in order to prejudice the audience against Verres’ tenure of the
proconsulship in Sicily (73-71 bce). He describes Verres’ entrance into office in the most prejudicial terms
(Verr. II 1, 103-4):

Verum ad illam iam veniamus praeclaram praeturam, criminaque ea quae notiora sunt his qui adsunt quam
nobis qui meditati ad dicendum paratique venimus… Quapropter ita me de praeturae criminibus auditote ut ex
utroque genere, et iuris dicendi et sartorum tectorum exigendorum, ea postuletis quae maxime digna sint eo reo
cui parvum aut mediocre obici nihil oporteat. [104] Nam ut praetor factus est, qui auspicato a Chelidone sur-
rexisset, sortem nactus est urbanae provinciae magis ex sua Chelidonisque, quam ex populi Romani voluntate.
Qui principio qualis in edicto constituendo fuerit cognoscite.

But now let us come to that illustrious praetorship and to charges that are better known to this audience than
to us who have rehearsed them and have come prepared to speak about them… I ask you therefore to listen to
me as I speak about the crimes of his praetorship, expecting only to hear instances of wrongdoing from two
categories of crime arising from his administration of justice and the maintenance of public buildings, and only

24  Keith 2006; cf. Hallett 1984, Treggiari 1991, and Milnor 2005.
25  The evidence is collected in Keith 2006; cf. Brennan 2012.
26  Shackleton Bailey 1977, 502; Cic. fam. 14, 16, 6.
27  The name likely also played on a slang term for the female genitalia: see LSJ, s.v. 5, citing Ar. Lys. 770; on the Aristophanic
passage, see Henderson 1987, 168, ad loc.
78 Alison Keith

those that are especially worthy of this defendant, who does not deserve to be charged with any small or medium
offence. [104] Well then, when he became praetor, and when he had risen with favourable omens from the arms
of Chelidon, he obtained by lot the office of urban praetor, which pleased him and Chelidon more than it did
the Roman people. Observe the kind of man he showed himself to be at the very beginning, in the formulation
of his edict.28

Rather than proceeding to the temple as praetor-elect, to take the auspices before the lots were drawn, Verres
either compelled the augur to attend him in his bedroom with his mistress, or he may even have taken no
auspices at all, substituting Chelidon’s embraces instead.29 In this way Cicero characterizes Verres’ praetor-
ship as illegitimate from its inception; and he proceeds to frame the legislation Verres enacted that year as
equally tainted by female interference by representing his very first piece of legislation (his praetor’s edict,
edictum perpetuum) as almost wholly composed to suit Chelidon’s tastes (Verr. II, 1, 41, 106).
Cicero repeatedly documents Verres’ derelection of his official duties through Chelidon’s illegitimate
assumption of the office of praetor urbanus (Verr. II, 1, 46, 120; 51, 136):

Nam, quaeso, redite in memoriam, iudices, quae libido istius in iure dicendo fuerit, quae varietas decre-
torum, quae nundinatio, quam inanes domus eorum omnium qui de iure civili consuli solent, quam plena
atque referta Chelidonis; a qua muliere cum erat ad eum ventum et in aurem eius insusurratum, alias revo-
cabat eos inter quos iam decreverat, decretumque mutabat, alias inter aliquos contrarium sine ulla religione
decernebat ac proximis paulo ante decreverat… [136] Cum sibi omnes ad istum allegationes difficiles, omnes
aditus arduos ac potius interclusos viderent, apud quem non ius, non aequitas, non misericordia, non propin-
qui oratio, non amici voluntas, non cuiusquam auctoritas, non gratia valeret, statuunt id sibi esse optimum
factu quod cuivis venisset in mentem, petere auxilium a Chelidone, quae isto praetore non modo in iure
civili privatorumque omnium controversiis populo Romano praefuit, verum etiam in his sartis tectisque
dominata est.

Now I ask you, gentlemen, to recall how arbitrarily Verres administered the law, how inconsistent were his
judgements, how much trafficking took place, how empty were the houses of all those who were usually con-
sulted about matters of civil law, how full to overflowing was the house of Chelidon. Whenever that woman
came to him and whispered in his ear, he would sometimes recall parties to whom he had already given a deci-
sion and change it; at other times he would, without the slightest qualm, give others a decision directly opposite
to the one he had just given in the case immediately preceding… [136] Since it seemed to them that any form
of representation to Verres was difficult, and that all approaches to him were precipitous, or, to be more exact,
closed off (for he was a man on whom neither law, nor equity, nor pity, nor the pleasing of relatives, nor the
wishes of friends, nor the personal authority or influence of anyone had any effect), the men decided that the
best course of action was the one that might have suggested itself to anyone, namely to seek help from Cheli-
don, who, while Verres was praetor, not only presided over the Roman people in matters of civil law and
in all disputes between private citizens, but ruled supreme even in matters relating to the maintenance
of public buildings.

Cicero explicitly dissociates Verres from legitimate masculine networks of patronage and politics in this
passage, by emphasizing the disgraceful female company he keeps and by referring contemptuously to
the libido (‘fancy, craving, passion’), varietas (‘inconsistency’), and nundinatio (‘trading, traficking’) – all
qualities associated with the female, rather than the male, in Roman thought – that characterized his admin-

28  All translations of Verrines II 1 are taken from Mitchell 1986.

29  On the passage, and its difficulties of interpretation, see Greenwood 1928, 1.232, with n. a; and Mitchell 1986, 205.
 Historical Roman courtesans 79

istration of justice as praetor urbanus in Rome.30 As in later passages, moreover, Cicero comments on Cheli-
don’s appearance in public and thus characterizes her (like Cytheris) as a woman who circulates among men.
Cicero’s addresses to the gentlemen of the jury (iudices, 1, 46, 120) and his use of second-person
plural verb forms throughout, remind us that his published pamphlets (like the opening speech he delivered,
and its planned successor) interpellate an audience of fellow Roman senators. Like most of his extant letters,
and all of his political and forensic orations, therefore, the pamphlets of the Second Verrines addressed the
Roman political elite, implicitly documenting their entitlements through the structural congruence between
prosecutor and judges, all members of the Roman Senate. Once again, the homosocial networks underpin-
ning the cultural and political structures of republican Rome emerge clearly, founded (at this point in the
pamphlet) on the sexual and textual exchange of a courtesan with a Greek name for the consolidation of
judicial, social and political bonds between male members of the Roman elite.
Cicero dwells at particular length on the humiliation incurred by the guardians of a youth, whose
inheritance of a contract for temple maintenance Verres had imperiled, on the occasion of their visit to
Chelidon’s house (1, 52, 137):

Venit ad Chelidonem C. Mustius, eques Romanus, publicanus, homo cum primis honestus; venit M. Iunius,
patruus pueri, frugalissimus homo et castissimus: venit homo summo pudore, summo officio, spectatissimus
ordinis sui, P. Titius tutor. O multis acerbam, o miseram atque indignam praeturam tuam! Ut mittam cetera, quo
tandem pudore tales viros, quo dolore, meretricis domum venisse arbitramini? Qui numquam ulla condicione
istam turpitudinem subissent, nisi officii necessitudinisque ratio coegisset. Veniunt, ut dico, ad Chelidonem.
Domus erat plena; nova iura, nova decreta, nova iudicia petebantur: ‘mihi det possessionem, mihi ne adimat, in
me iudicium ne det, mihi bona addicat’. Alii nummos numerabant, ab aliis tabellae obsignabantur: domus erat
non meretricio conventu sed praetoria turba referta. Simul ac potestas primum data est, adeunt hi quos dixi.
Loquitur C. Mustius, rem demonstrat, petit auxilium, pecuniam pollicetur. Respondit illa, ut meretrix, non inhu-
maniter: libenter ait se esse facturam, et se cum isto diligenter sermocinaturam; reverti iubet. Tum discedunt;
postridie revertunt; negat illa posse hominem exorari; permagnam eum dicere ex illa re pecuniam confici posse.

C. Mustius, who was a Roman knight and public contractor and among the most honourable of men, approached
Chelidon. So did M. Junius, the boy’s uncle, a most moderate and blameless individual. So did P. Titius, the
boy’s guardian, a man who had the deepest sense of propriety and duty and was a most distinguished member
of his order. What a wretched, shameful praetorship was yours, and what a source of grief to many! Not to
mention anything else, with what feelings of shame and grief do you think such men approached the house of
a prostitute? They would never have submitted to such a disgrace, if consideration of duty and necessity had
not compelled them. But, as I say, they made their way to Chelidon. The house was full; novel legal principles,
novel judicial decisions, novel grounds for actions were being sought. ‘Ask him to give me the right of posses-
sion; ask him not to take the right of possession from me; ask him not to decide against me; ask him to assign
the property to me.’ Some were paying over money, others were signing agreements; the house was packed,
not with the gathering that associates with prostitutes, but with the throng that attends a praetor. As soon as an
opportunity first presented itself, these men whom I mentioned approached her. C. Mustius spoke, laid out the
matter, sought aid, promised money. She replied, like a courtesan, not without courtesy; she said she would
gladly do it, and would be sure to speak with him; she bade them return. Then they left and returned the next
day. She said the man could not be moved: he said that a great deal of money could be made from the matter.

In this damaging indictment of Verres’ (non-)performance of his administrative duties, Cicero describes
Chelidon appearing in public, in Verres’ absence, to transact Verres’ official business. The setting of Cheli-

30  For the definitions of libido, varietas, and nundinatio, see OLD s.vv.
80 Alison Keith

don’s house for the transaction of the praetor’s business proclaims Verres’ illegitimate abdication of his
political office while her unparalleled retinue of those seeking political favours embeds her in the masculine
political networks of Rome and vividly demonstrates her status as a woman for the display to, and circula-
tion among, men. Her discreditable profession as a courtesan is particularly well suited, Cicero implies, to
her domestic role in Verres’ sexual life, even though she is not only publicly displayed to the members of the
Roman political classes (both senators and equestrians) but also shamelessly transacts their political busi-
ness for them. The courtesan’s illegitimate public appearance among men documents Verres’ abuse of his
political authority at Rome and prefigures his abuse of gubernatorial authority in Sicily.31 Again, it is strik-
ing that Cicero’s sketch of Chelidon appears in a markedly homosocial context, such as also structured the
majority of his references to Cytheris in his epistles and Antonian invective. In both his presentation of the
‘facts’, moreover, as also in his strategic representation of Verres’ relations with Chelidon (and other pros-
tituted women),32 Cicero figures the perversion of Verres’ political and social bonds with the Roman elite.
The transaction of public business in a courtesan’s establishment is obviously a transgression of Ro-
man elite social and political codes and conventions, and in this homosocial context the fulsome compli-
ments to the boy’s guardians are only to be expected. But it strains credulity that none of them had ever
visited the establishment of a meretrix. After all, Roman comedy is full of youths and senes who find it im-
possible to exercise any self-control either in the company of a meretrix or in the vicinity of her household;
we need only compare the riotous conclusion of Plautus’ Bacchides, where the Bacchis sisters fleece their
young lovers’ fathers and the leader of the comic troop asserts that fathers often engage in sexual rivalry
with their sons in the houses of pimps (1207-10). By the conventions of Roman comedy or even, indeed,
Cicero’s ‘boys-will-be-boys’ standards in the Pro Caelio, men’s presence in the courtesan’s house is only
to be expected.33 Elsewhere in the Verrines, moreover, Cicero draws on comic tropes in his characteriza-
tion of another prostituted woman, when he charges that Verres ‘stole’ Tertia, daughter of the mime actor
Isidorus (and thus another subaltern woman presumably subject to infamia), from a Rhodian flute-player
and ‘assigned’ her to Docimus – by implication for his own use (3, 34, 78). Plautus offers a similar instance
of competition over sexual access to a subaltern female in Casina, in which a father and son compete for
sexual possession of the family slave Casina through their slave proxies (the father’s bailiff and the son’s
armiger), who draw lots to ‘marry’ her and make her sexually available to their master. Like Casina’s antici-

31  As Cicero repeatedly observes: Verr. II, 2, 24, Satisne vobis magnam pecuniam Venerius homo, qui e Chelidonis sinu in provin-
ciam profectus esset, Veneris nomine quaesisse videtur? (‘Does the Court feel that this devotee of Venus, who came to his province
fresh from Chelidon’s arms, has used the name of Venus to secure enough for himself?’); Verr. II 2, 39, Quid ego istius in iure di-
cundo libidinem et scelera demonstrem? Quis vestrum non ex urbana iuris dictione cognovit? Quis umquam isto praetore Chelidone
invita lege agere potuit? Non istum, ut non neminem, provincia corrupit: idem fuit qui Romae. (“Need I give you any proof of the
criminal way in which this man administers the law as he chooses? Did you not all see how he administered it in Rome? Was the
proper legal procedure available at any time for anyone during his term of office, if Chelidon willed otherwise? Unlike some others,
Verres was not morally ruined by his province – he was there what he had been in Rome”); Verr. II 5, 34 unum illud, quod ita fuit
illustre notumque omnibus ut nemo tam rusticanus homo L. Lucullo M. Cotta consulibus Romam ex ullo municipio vadimonii causa
venerit, quin sciret iura omnia praetoris urbani nutu atque arbitrio Chelidonis meretriculae gubernari (“One is a fact so notorious,
so well known to everyone, that during the consulship of Lucullus and Cotta not even the simplest rustic from the remotest provin-
cial town came to Rome, in connection with any case heard in the law-courts, without learning that all the decisions pronounced
by the city praetor were controlled by the goodwill and pleasure of that courtesan Chelidon”); 5, 38 Itaque non modo a domo tua
Chelidonem in praeture excludere noluisti, sed in Chelidonis domum praeturam totam detulisti (“No; and so far from forbidding
Chelidon your house during your year of office, you transferred your office bodily to the house of Chelidon”).
32  Cicero’s references to Chelidon early in the Second Verrines anticipate those he makes to a Sicilian woman named Tertia, whom
he also characterizes as a prostitute: see Verr. II 3, 77-79; 3, 83; 5, 31; 5, 40; 5, 81, and my discussion infra. For Verres’ treatment
of another Sicilian woman as a prostitute, cf. Cicero’s references to Pipa (of whose husband he writes Hic Aeschrio, Pipae vir ad-
umbratus, 3, 77).
33  On comic tropes in the Pro Caelio, see Austin 1960, Geffcken 1973, and Leigh 2004.
 Historical Roman courtesans 81

pated sexual circulation among members of the comic household, Tertia’s sexual circulation among Verres’
disreputable cronies may be analyzed as another instance of competitive homosocial bonding, though on a
lower social scale than that of Cytheris or Chelidon.
Cicero’s portrait of these men’s respect for Chelidon’s person and property is thus out of keeping
not only with the conventions of comedy (which include assaults on both courtesans and their property;
e.g., Plaut. Truc. 95-111) but also with his own strategic use of comic conventions in his forensic oratory.34
Yet in his very insistence on the setting of her house as the site of the transaction of Verres’ business, the
passage is of considerable interest for its inclusion of valuable information about Chelidon’s economic
standing, viz. the implication that she owned or rented a Roman townhouse (domus) large enough to ac-
commodate all these men, not in bedrooms but in public rooms.35 Nor is this the only information we can
glean from the Verrines about her financial wherewithal. For while discussing Verres’ dedication to Venus
Erycina of a silver Cupid holding a torch that had belonged to Sthenius of Thermae, Cicero comments that
Verres’ own resources could have financed the offering to Venus, ‘especially as that very year [he] had had
a legacy from Chelidon’ (praesertim cum tibi illo ipso anno a Chelidone venisset hereditas, Verr. II 2, 116;
cf. 4, 7). Moreover, he later insinuates that this legacy included many choice works of art (Verr. II 4, 71):
in istius lenonis turpissimi domo simul cum ceteris Chelidonis hereditariis ornamentis Capitolii ornamenta
ponentur? (‘in the house of that most shameless pimp, will the ornaments of the Capitol be placed with the
rest of the ornaments he inherited from Chelidon?’). The ‘ornaments of the Capitol’ to which Cicero here
contrasts the ornaments Verres inherited from Chelidon was a lamp-stand worked in gold and precious
stones brought to Rome by the sons of the Syrian king Antiochus and intended by them for dedication on
the Capitol.36 Although Chelidon’s ornamenta were unlikely to have been so sumptuous, it is clear that her
moveable property, much of which may have come to her by way of payment for sexual services, was both
rich and extensive.
The very casualness of Cicero’s remarks about Chelidon’s wealth implies that the legal disabilities to
which infames such as meretrices were subject in classical Rome did not include the inability to make a will
or leave moveable property where they pleased.37 Inscriptional and juridical evidence suggests, moreover,
that the legal and financial disabilities to which infames were subject in classical Rome was connected not
with their receipt of payment in gifts (like respectable citizens), but rather with their receipt of payment in
coin (felt to be sordid). The light these passages shed on the legal capacity and testamentary practices of
subaltern women is often overlooked, but opens up fascinating avenues of inquiry. Was Chelidon a freed-
woman, possibly even the freedwoman of Verres? Did she have a legal Roman name as Cytheris did? Could
her bequest to Verres even have been the bequest of a freedwoman to her patron? While all women were
required to obtain their tutor’s consent to make a valid will, freedwomen were further restricted in their ca-
pacity of testamentary disposal by the fact that their patron was their tutor legitimus and had first claim on
the estate if they died intestate.38

34  On Cicero’s use of comic tropes in his speeches, see Corbeill 1996; on Cicero’s wit, see now Beard 2014.
35  Cf. 5, 38, quoted above n. 31.
36  Cicero expatiates on the gift and its provenance at length: see Verr. II 4, 60-71, with Dickinson 1992 and Baldo 2004 ad loc.
37  On prostitutes’ earnings, see Gardner 1986, 250-53; more nuanced discussion in McGinn 2004, 14-77. On the legal position
of prostitutes generally, see McGinn 1998.
38  On women’s rights of inheritance and bequest, see Gardner 1986, 163-203. She does not discuss courtesans’ (or prostitutes’)
rights of inheritance and bequest specifically; but for freedwomen’s rights of inheritance and bequest (relevant to Volumnia Cytheris
and Hispala Faecenia), see ead. 168-69, 191, and 194-96. She notes that the tutor seems not to have had any control over the contents
of a freedwoman’s will, quoting the second-century ce jurist Gaius inst. 3, 43 ‘that if a patron had given his consent and then found
that his freedwoman had not made him her heir, then he had only himself to blame’ (Gardner 1986, 168).
82 Alison Keith

Faecenia Hispala

In the light of these questions, we may consider Livy’s portrait of the courtesan Faecenia Hispala in his
much-discussed account of the Bacchanal affair of 186 bce.39 Although Cicero is our earliest testimony to
the contemporary society of courtesans in Rome, his much younger contemporary Livy credits this courte-
san ‘with a heart of gold’ with saving the state from a serious threat in his report of the Senate’s handling of
the crisis (Livy 39, 9, 5-7):

Scortum nobile libertina Hispala Faecenia, non digna quaestu cui ancillula adsuerat, etiam postquam manu-
missa erat, eodem se genere tuebatur. Huic consuetudo iuxta vicinitatem cum Aebutio fuit, minime adulescentis
aut rei aut famae damnosa: ultro enim amatus appetitusque erat et maligne omnia praebentibus suis meretricu-
lae munificentia sustinebatur. Quin eo processerat consuetudine capta ut post patroni mortem, quia in nullius
manu erat, tutore ab tribunis et praetore petito, cum testamentum faceret, unum Aebutium institueret heredem.
(Livy 39, 9, 5-7)

There was a well-known courtesan, a freedwoman named Hispala Faecenia, not worthy of the occupation to
which, while still a mere slave, she had accustomed herself, and even after she had been manumitted she main-
tained herself in the same way. Between her and Aebutius, since they were neighbours, an intimacy developed,
not at all damaging either to the young man’s fortune or to his reputation; for he had been loved and sought out
without any effort on his part, and, since his own relatives made provision for all his needs on a very small scale,
he was maintained by the generosity of the courtesan. More than that, she had gone so far, under the influence
of their intimacy, that, after the death of her patron, since she was under the legal control of no one, having
petitioned the tribunes and the praetor for a guardian, when she made her will she had instituted Aebutius as her
sole heir. (Transl. Sage 1922).

Livy introduces Faecenia Hispala as a ‘notable prostitute’ (scortum, 39, 9, 5, but meretriculae, 39, 9, 6)
and a freedwoman (as her double-barreled name suggests),40 and he confirms that she supported herself by
sex work. Scafuro has noted the comedic convention that she and her young lover Aebutius are neighbours
(the circumstance that engenders their intimacy).41 But her authorship of a will leaving everything to her
lover takes her out of the genre of comedy and makes her literary heir to Chelidon. Indeed, Livy’s account
of the procedure whereby this subaltern woman comes to make a will answers some of the questions posed
above about Verres’ mistress, though what he reports probably reflects the legal machinery of his own day
(i.e., early principate) rather than hers. Livy later contradicts his initial report of her legal capacity, in his
report of a senatorial decree to reward the informers, Aebutius and Hispala, with age- and sex-appropriate
dispensations (39, 19, 3-7). In Hispala Faecenia’s case, these rewards included the rights “of bestowing and
alienating property, of marriage outside her gens, and choice of a tutor just as if her husband had given it to
her in a will; and that she should be permitted to marry a man of free birth, nor should any fraud or disgrace
on this account attach to a man who should have married her” (utique Faeceniae Hispalae datio, deminutio,
gentis enuptio, tutoris optio item esset, quasi ei uir testamento dedisset; utique ei ingenuo nubere liceret,
neu quid ei qui eam duxisset ob id fraudi ignominiaeue esset, 39, 19, 5-6). In any event, it is clear from the

39  On the Bacchanal affair, and Livy’s treatment of the episode, see North 1979; Gruen 1990; Pailler 1988 and 1995; Scafuro
1989; Takács 2000; and Briscoe 2008, 230-90. On Faecenia Hispala, see also McGinn 1998, 86-90.
40  On the name ‘Hispala’ indicating Spanish origin, see Solin 1996, I.38 s.v. ‘Hispala’; Briscoe 2008, 256 ad loc.
41  On Livy’s adaptation of comic conventions in the narrative, see Scafuro 1989 and Briscoe 2008, 256-57 ad 39, 9,5-7.
 Historical Roman courtesans 83

testimony of both Cicero and Livy that courtesans in Rome had the legal capacity not only to manage their
property but also to dispose of it after death by the first century bce.
Another feature of Livy’s account of Hispala Faecenia that has not received the attention it deserves,
but which is of interest in the light of Cicero’s reference to Terentia’s dealings with Volumnia, is the opera-
tion of ‘women’s networks’ in the affair. For when Aebutius, on his mistress’ advice, refuses to be initiated
into the Bacchic rites and is driven, as a result, from the house of his mother and step-father, Livy represents
him as consulting his aunt Aebutia (3, 11, 3) and it is she who advises him to report the affair to the con-
sul Postumius. Indeed, Livy’s narrative emphasizes both Aebutius’ and the consul Postumius’ reliance on
women’s networks and women’s knowledge in their investigation of the affair. Thus Aebutius heeds his mis-
tress’ advice and, upon his resulting dismissal from his mother’s house, turns to his paternal aunt Aebutia, on
whose advice he also duly acts without delay. In turn the consul Postumius investigates Aebutius’ credibility
by questioning his mother-in-law Sulpicia about Aebutius’ aunt. When Sulpicia confirms Aebutia’s cred-
ibility to him, moreover, Postumius draws his mother-in-law still further into the political investigation by
making use of her standing amongst her peers (Valerius Maximus reports that she was the most prominent
matron of the period, 8, 15, 12),42 and asking her to invite first Aebutia and then Hispala to her house, where
he can question them in person and form his own judgment.
When Postumius is satisfied that he has secured credible testimony from them both, he assigns Aebu-
tius and Hispala, for their safety, to appropriately gendered quarters (Livy 39, 14, 1-3):

peracto indicio aduoluta rursus genibus preces easdem, ut se ablegaret, repetiuit. Consul rogat socrum ut ali-
quam partem aedium uacuam faceret quo Hispala immigraret. Cenaculum super aedes datum est, scalis ferenti-
bus in publicum obseratis, aditu in aedes uerso. Res omnes Faeceniae extemplo translatae et familia arcessita,
et Aebutius migrare ad consulis clientem iussus.

When she finished her testimony, she fell at their feet again and repeated the same prayers that they should ban-
ish her. The consul asked his mother-in-law to vacate some part of the house into which Hispala could move. An
apartment above the house was granted, with the stairs leading to the street closed up and the approach turned
into the house. All Faecenia’s property was immediately brought over and her household slaves summoned, and
Aebutius was ordered to move to the house of one of the consul’s clients.

We should note not only the size and extent of Hispala’s household – both furnishings and slaves – but also
the relocation of her household in its entirety to an apartment in Sulpicia’s domus, which was itself appar-
ently reconfigured to accommodate the courtesan’s establishment. Moreover, Livy goes to quite to extraor-
dinary lengths here both to distance Hispala Faecenia from the company of men, associating her only with
the young Aebutius to whom, he hints at the end his account, she will be legally married (39, 19, 5-6),43
and also to resituate her in the company of respectable women (hence the consul Postumius questions her
in the presence of his mother-in-law Sulpicia, and no other man is present at the interview). This rhetorical
strategy is all the more striking by comparison to Cicero’s representation of Cytheris and Chelidon, on the
one hand, and Livy’s own description of the Roman Senate’s handling of the conspiracy, on the other, with
his extended account of Postumius’ speech and the Senate’s deliberations.

42  On the social prominence of Sulpicia, whom Livy calls grauis femina (11, 4; 12, 2; 13, 3; cf. grauissima, 13, 3) and talis femina
(12, 4), see Briscoe 2008, 236, with further bibliography.
43  McGinn 1998, 89 n. 182, is skeptical of marriage between Faecenia and Aebutius.
84 Alison Keith

As in the case of Terentia’s dealings with Volumnia, we see an expectation of the involvement of
elite women, on behalf of their male kin, in the political matters of the day. Here both Aebutius and Postu-
mius draw not only on networks of patronage and kin but also on women’s channels. Indeed by harnessing
these female channels, and allowing the women to remain behind the scenes, Postumius acquires crucial
information in his investigation of the Bacchanalian affair and protects his witnesses. The participation of
a freedwoman/courtesan in these networks, moreover, is treated as conventional – not only by Postumius
(and Livy), but also, apparently, by his mother-in-law Sulpicia, who is even entrusted with the obligation
of supporting the entire establishment of a freedwoman/courtesan in her own house. Whatever the histori-
cal value of Livy’s report, his narrative testifies to Roman cultural expectations concerning elite Roman
matronal – and apparently even subaltern female – intervention into affairs of state in the republican period.
His representation of the context of elite women’s participation in questions of public moment is, naturally,
informed by the social and political conditions of the late republic and triumviral periods; but the light his
narrative sheds on the lives of subaltern women in Rome cannot be underestimated.44

Flora

Pompey’s biographer Plutarch cites the reminiscences of ‘Flora the courtesan’ (Φλώραν δὲ τὴν ἑταίραν,
Pomp. 2, 2; cf. 53, 2) early in his account of the republican general’s life, as a valuable source of evidence
about the great man’s youth. Her Latin name Flora (‘flower’) indicates Italian servile provenance and may
also have a comedic or theatrical valence.45 We have no other evidence about her social status, but the asso-
ciation with her namesake, an ancient Italian vegetation goddess, emphasizes not only her subaltern origins
but also her provision of sexual services. For the goddess Flora, although she had long had her own priest
(the flamen Floralis) and received annual games at a festival in her honour (the Floralia) from the mid-re-
public on, was associated above all with prostitutes, who claimed the Floralia as their own. Indeed, they are
reported to have danced naked in the games’ spectacular conclusion, to riotous approval from the crowd.46
Plutarch reports Flora’s reminiscences as anecdotes related in old age (Pomp. 2, 2-5; 53, 2), and it
would be interesting to know in what kind of written form he found them. The thirteenth book of Athenaeus’
Deipnosophistae (‘banquet of wits’) gives copious evidence of the fascination ‘the sayings of courtesans’
held for the ancients, and her reminiscences were perhaps preserved in such a context.47 Despite Plutarch’s
quotation of her remarks for the light they shed on Pompey’s habits, and the limits his biographical purpose
places on the information he relates about her, he is seduced into a narrative digression from his strictly
Pompeian focus to elaborate on this famous courtesan’s life. His reflections on Flora offer yet another ex-
ample of the homosocially-inflected rhetoric we have seen in the accounts of courtesans in Cicero and Livy,
as well as the recourse to comic convention typical of those Roman authors.
After reporting Flora’s delight in reminiscing about her intimacy with Pompey in their youth, Plutarch
records Pompey’s generosity in ‘turning her over’ to his friend Geminius who had fallen in love with her and
was persecuting her with his attentions (Pomp. 2, 3-4):

44  Briscoe 2008, 236, notes the ancient parallel of Cicero’s information about the Catilinarian conspiracy coming to light from the
relationship between Fulvia and Curius (Sall. Catil. 24).
45  For the conventional association of prostitution with acting, we may compare the courtesan Cytheris’ profession as a mime-
actress; and see further Edwards 1997.
46  On the Floralia, see Scullard 1981, 110-11; Richlin 1992, 6-10; and Edwards 1993, 119-21, all with further bibliography.
47 On Deipnosophistai 13, see McClure 2003; on ‘genres of courtesans’, see esp. Henry 1995, 61-62, and McClure 2003, 37-58.
 Historical Roman courtesans 85

πρὸς δὲ τούτοις διηγεῖσθαι τὴν Φλώραν ἐπιθυμῆσαί τινα τῶν Πομπηΐου συνήθων αὐτῆς Γεμίνιον, καὶ πράγματα
πολλὰ παρέχειν πειρῶντα· αὐτῆς δὲ φαμένης οὐκ ἂν ἐθελῆσαι διὰ Πομπήϊον, ἐκείνῳ τὸν Γεμίνιον διαλέγεσθαι· τὸν
οὖν Πομπήϊον ἐπιτρέψαι μὲν τῷ Γεμινίῳ, μηκέτι δὲ αὐτὸν ἅψασθαι τὸ παράπαν μηδὲ ἐντυχεῖν αὐτῇ, καίπερ ἐρᾶν
δοκοῦντα· τοῦτο δὲ αὐτὴν οὐχ ἑταιρικῶς ἐνεγκεῖν, ἀλλὰ πολὺν ὑπὸ λύπης καὶ πόθου χρόνον νοσῆσαι. [4] καίτοι
τὴν Φλώραν οὕτω λέγουσιν ἀνθῆσαι καὶ γενέσθαι περιβόητον ὥστε Κεκίλιον Μέτελλον ἀνδριάσι καὶ γραφαῖς
κσσμοῦντα τὸν νεὼν τῶν Διοσκούρων, κἀκείνης εἰκόνα γραψάμενον ἀναθεῖναι διὰ τὸ κάλλος.

Furthermore, Flora would tell how Geminius, one of Pompey’s companions, fell in love with her and annoyed
her greatly by his attentions; and when she declared that she could not consent to his wishes because of Pom-
pey, Geminius laid the matter before Pompey. Pompey, accordingly, turned her over to Geminius, but never
afterwards had anything at all to do with her himself, although he was thought to be enamoured of her; and she
herself did not take this treatment in the fashion of a courtesan, but was sick for a long time with grief and
longing. And yet Flora is said to have flowered into such beauty, and to have been so famous for it, that when
Caecilius Metellus was decorating the temple of the Dioscuri with paintings and statues, he gave her portrait
also a place among his dedications.48

Flora’s circulation between Pompey and his crony can be paralleled by Cytheris’ circulation amongst Cae-
sar’s adherents and invites interpretation in the context of the shifting homosocial dynamics of friendship,
politics, and erotic desire that structured elite male relations in Republican Rome. Plutarch’s handling of the
anecdote, moreover, extends the homosocial dynamic from Pompey and Geminius to Caecilius Metellus,
who handles not the courtesan herself but an(other) artistic representation of her, and even to himself. In-
deed, just as Plutarch puts a representation of Flora on display in his biography of Pompey, and traffics her
to his readers, so Metellus hangs her portrait on display in the temple of the Dioscuri in Rome. The self-
conscious artistry of Plutarch’s account of Flora, confirmed by his Greek gloss on the meaning of her Latin
name (Φλώραν … ἀνθῆσαι, ‘Flora … flowered’), lays bare his own privileged location in the homosocial
relations that structure not only his narrative of Pompey’s life but also the cultural attainments and political
entitlements of elite Greeks under Roman hegemony.

Conclusion

Although the textual and/or material form in which the evidence of Roman courtesans’ lives was couched
always exerts pressure on that evidence, limiting or distorting the historical ‘facts’ to conform with generic
codes and conventions, I hope that my discussion has shown how the analysis of the rhetoric of the repre-
sentation of these subaltern women in literary texts can enrich our knowledge not only of Roman attitudes
to courtesans but also of these women’s lived experience in Roman antiquity. We have seen evidence of
the pressure exerted not only by comic conventions in the representation of the Roman courtesan but also
by the homosocial economy of desire that grounded the social relations of patriarchy in classical antiquity.
Nonetheless, different emphases and particulars in these texts allow us to tease out details of individual
courtesans’ lived experience. The courtesans Flora, Chelidon, Volumnia Cytheris, and Faecenia Hispala are
constructed as historical subjects and agents in the momentous events of their day. If Flora, Chelidon, and
‘Cytheris’ are represented as remaining trapped within the ambit of their servile past and dependent on their
male patrons for social visibility, ‘Volumnia’ and Faecenia Hispala are depicted as having transcended their
servile origins in some measure, acting on their own volition in their own interests. Their bipartite names

48  The translation is that of Perrin 1917, lightly adapted.

86 Alison Keith

testify not only to slave provenance but also to their achievement of manumission and Roman citizenship.
Their new social standing is even represented as entailing successful participation in matronal women’s
networks. Faecenia’s status was still further enhanced, moreover, by the Senate’s recognition of her services
to the state and grant of extraordinary financial and social rights (Livy 39, 19, 5-7). Indeed, her social mobil-
ity may be interpreted as having outstripped that of the other courtesans we have considered: of Flora, who
remains an Italian courtesan in Plutarch’s Life of Pompey; of Chelidon, who remains a Greek courtesan in
Cicero’s Verrines; and even of Volumnia Cytheris, who remained socially disreputable as a mime-actress
and courtesan although she gained her freedom and, with it, limited legal rights. The common themes that
emerge from this study of historical Roman courtesans, however, well illustrate the generic pressures that
shape the ancient textual and material evidence concerning the lives of all women, especially subaltern
women in Antiquity, and still hinder the historian’s unmediated access to ‘real’ Roman women.
 Pupa, puella, domina.
Tracce di cortigiane nella documentazione pompeiana?

Antonio Varone

Gli studi sul mondo della prostituzione a Pompei, quasi del tutto evitati durante l’Ottocento1 ed effettuati
in sordina nella prima parte del Novecento,2 sulla scorta di accenni velati, notazioni incidentali o brevi ri-
ferimenti, hanno avuto invece negli ultimi decenni un impulso notevole, con opere e articoli espressamente
all’argomento dedicati, o comunque con trattazioni organiche all’interno di opere di più ampia portata.3
Quello che tuttavia va rilevato è che ad essere meglio indagato è stato il mondo della prostituzione
servile, grazie soprattutto all’abbondanza di documentazione fornitaci dalle iscrizioni graffite, con nomi,
prezzi e frequentazioni delle officianti, mentre dal canto suo l’archeologia, con mettere allo scoperto lupa-
nari, cellae meretriciae e altri luoghi, diremmo, di ‘socializzazione’, ha permesso di delineare un quadro di
riferimento ancora più concreto, consentendo di operare facili addizioni, senza nemmeno dover incorrere
nel deprecato ‘metodo combinatorio’.
Rilevo, tuttavia, che incrollabili certezze devono invece più cautamente non essere ritenute verità ac-
quisite e che anche in questo ambito c’è ancora molto da valutare o, se vogliamo, da investigare. Mi spiego
subito con un esempio. Mentre prezzi di prostitute si trovano nei luoghi ad alta frequentazione sociale o
in luoghi strategici, come in spazi prossimi a cauponae o all’interno di esse, su panchine vicino alle porte
urbiche, sui monumenti funerari lungo le necropoli, addirittura nelle fauci di ‘case’, una sola indicazione
riportabile a tale tipo è stata trovata proprio nel posto emblematicamente ritenuto, con concordia di tutti, il
luogo deputato della prostituzione, l’unico edificio in tutto il mondo romano unanimemente riconosciuto
senza ombra di dubbio come postribolo, ossia il lupanare VII 12, 18-20.4 Eppure in esso si sono lette ben
136 iscrizioni graffite, molte delle quali di contenuto apertamente osceno. Si legge di tutto in esse, attività,
predilezioni sessuali, nomi e abilità operative e, in un caso, anche la somma di un denario data da Arpochras
a Drauca per un intercorso sessuale.5 Possibile che vi si legga allora una sola tariffa,6 che per posizione e
modo con cui è scritta non appare nemmeno configurarsi pienamente come titulus del prezzo da pagare, os-
sia la proscriptio formale, immancabile nei lupanari, con la quale si offrivano i servizi di meretricio, di cui

1 Cfr. ad es. l’illustrazione data da Fiorelli allo scavo del Lupanare VII 12, 18-20: Fiorelli 1862, 48-59; Fiorelli 1868, 109; Fio-
relli1875, 286. All’analisi della maniera reticente con cui la letteratura ottocentesca ha trattato il tema della prostituzione dedica
molta attenzione McGinn 2004, 182-93.
2  McGinn 2004, 194-97.
3  Per citare solo i più recenti, McGinn 1998; McGinn 2002; McGinn 2004; McGinn 2009; Bradley 2000; Stumpp 1998; Guzzo-
Scarano Ussani 2000; Faraone – McClure 2006; Glazebrook – Henry 2011, con interessanti paralleli anche per il mondo romano.
Da ultimo v. Fayer 2013, dove è citata la massima parte della ricchissima bibliografia precedente.
4  Cfr. ad es. McGinn 2002, 8-11; 13. Wallace Hadrill 1995, 51-54. Una selezione bibliografica del consensus doctorum sul
lupanare come postribolo è data da McGinn 2004, 199 n. 80.
5  CIL IV 2193. Per l’analisi, il commento e la bibliografia su questa come sulle altre iscrizioni qui riportate cfr. Varone 2002, alle
pagine citate sub indice.
6  Victoria a(ssibus) V (CIL IV 2228).
88 Antonio Varone

parlano, tra l’altro, Seneca, Marziale, Giovenale, Petronio?7 E ancora: i nomi dei fanciullini,8 le benedizioni
inviate al talento erotico attivo di uomini,9 l’esplicita menzione dell’essere attiva di una tribade (fig. 1) e
l’identica condizione ricavabile per altre due,10 la citazione di gigolo,11 il disincantato entusiasmo di una
donna che ricorda, serena, fututa sum hic12 (fig. 2), e, infine, i sei nomi gentilizi di donna che si trovano sulle
pareti,13 che costituiscono oltre il 20% dei nomi di donna ivi rinvenuti, devono obbligatoriamente lasciarci
pensosi. Non certo sull’uso del lupanare come luogo di incontri carnali, ma piuttosto sulle nostre radicate
convinzioni circa l’organizzazione della prostituzione all’interno di esso. Quanto detto, la presenza nelle
varie celle di tanti nomi diversi di uomini e donne e la distribuzione stessa delle iscrizioni all’interno delle

Fig. 1: Pompei. Lupanare. L’iscrizione CIL IV 2204: MOΛA ΦOΥΤOΥΤΡΙC.

7 Sen. contr. 1, 2, 1, 10-11: Ducta es in lupanar, accepisti locum, pretium constitutum est, titulus inscriptus est; 1, 2, 5, 3: super-
positus est cellae tuae titulus; Mart. 11, 45, 1: inscriptae limina cellae; Iuv. 6, 123: tunc nuda papillis prostitit auratis titulum mentita
Lyciscae; Petron. 7, 3: cum ego negarem me agnoscere domum, video quosdam inter titulos nudasque meretrices furtim spatiantes.
8  CIL IV 2258a.
9  Felix bene futues (CIL IV 2176), Sollemnes bene futues (CIL IV 2185s.), Vitalio bene futues (CIL IV 2187), December bene
futuis (CIL IV 2219), Συνέρως καλòς βινεῖς (CIL IV 2253), Victor bene futuis, con la più generale approvazione di un novimus a
commento (CIL IV 2218), che trova preciso riscontro nella benedizione di un Victor valea, qui bene futues (CIL IV 2260), ancora
reiterata in Victor bene valeas, qui bene futues (CIL IV 2274).
10  Nel primo caso v. CIL IV 2204: MOΛA ΦOΥΤOΥΤΡΙC. Nel secondo caso v. CIL IV 2198: Beronice | [H]abenda | futuere, dove
per l’integrazione [H]abenda si cfr. Kajanto 1965, 360. Il verbo futuo, si badi, designa esclusivamente l’attività maschile nell’am-
plesso. Cfr. infatti Prisc. gramm. 2, 556, 13: ‘futuo’, ‘nubo’, ‘futuens’, ‘nubens’ … illud ad mares, hoc ad feminas pertinet solum;
2, 487, 1: naturaliter quaedam verba ad solos pertinent mares, ut ‘futuo’ ‘devirgino’, vel ad feminas ut ‘futor’,’nubo’, ‘devirginor’.
La spiegazione circa il significato di tali iscrizioni è allora offerta da Marziale 7, 70: Ipsarum tribadum tribas, Philaeni,| recte quam
futuis, vocas amicam o da 1, 90, 6-8: at tu, pro facinus, Bassa, fututor eras. | Inter se geminos audes committere cunnos | mentiturque
virum prodigiosa Venus, che peraltro, pur osando un’arditissima descrizione, non azzarda da un punto di vista linguistico il fututrix
documentatoci a Pompei, oltre che in questa iscrizione, anche da CIL IV 4196: Miduse fututrix (o piuttosto Meroe fututrix. Cfr.
Varone 2012, 224 anche a riguardo della lettura di CIL IV 4195). Non è pertanto pienamente condivisibile l’analisi fatta a riguardo
di CIL IV 2198 dal ThLL VI 1, 1664, 35-36. In una recente visione, a mio avviso, fortemente condizionata da approcci modernistici,
per Kamen – Levin-Richardson 2015, 244-250, seguite da Pervis 2016/2017, tale innovazione lessicale servirebbe a caratterizzare la
‘women’s agency’ nel rapporto eterosessuale. Senza poter qui entrare nel merito, solo rilevo che l’unirsi a uomini della nostra Mola,
testimoniato da altri graffiti, ben può conciliarsi con queste sue ulteriori capacità. Parallelamente rilevo che anche Euplia, donna ben
nota alle cronache erotiche pompeiane, viene indicata al tempo stesso come laxa e landicosa (CIL IV 10004), con riferimento per
me evidente alla sua ambivalenza. Cfr. Varone 2002, 71. 147.
11  CIL IV 2257: Froto Plane | lingit cun|num. Per la lettura Plane cfr. Varone 2003, 196-97. A riguardo di tale pratica le fonti
antiche sono concordi nel ritenerla dispregiativa per un uomo (si cfr. ad es. già il solo Marziale 4, 43; 6, 26; 7, 24, 8; 9, 92, 11; 11,
25; 12, 85), sì che non meraviglia trovarla a Pompei praticata esplicitamente a pagamento. Cfr. CIL IV 3999: Glyco cunnum lingit
a(ssibus) II; CIL IV 8940: Maritimus cunnu liget a(ssibus) IIII. Virgines ammittit per cui v. Varone 2002, 148 n. 260. Sulla prosti-
tuzione attiva maschile Marziale del resto dà spie sintomatiche, cfr. ad es. 7, 75: Vis futui gratis, cum sis deformis anusque. | Res
perridicula est: vis dare nec dare vis; 11, 87: dives eras quondam, sed tunc pedico fuisti. … Egestas … fututorem te … facit; 11, 62:
Cum futui vult, numerare solet ecc. Brutale addirittura la terza (CIL IV 8483): Mentula V HS. Ma v. anche supra n. 9.
12  CIL IV 2217.
13  Ilia (CIL IV 2173), Aplonia (CIL IV 2197), Fabia (CIL IV 2239), Cadia (CIL IV 2243), Rusatia (CIL IV 2262), Anaedia (CIL
IV 2269), nomi tutti peraltro non ricorrenti in altre iscrizioni relative a prostitute. Per il primo e ultimo nome cfr. Varone 2003,
196-97.
 Pupa, puella, domina. 89

Fig. 2: Pompei. Lupanare. L’iscrizione CIL IV 2217: Fututa sum hic.

celle, che vanno in progressione a scalare sui due lati da quelle più esterne a quelle più interne mi hanno
spinto, anni addietro, a proporre per il lupanare piuttosto la funzione di luogo in cui si fittavano spazi per
consumare rapporti sessuali che non già di luogo dove stazionavano stabilmente nelle varie celle prostitute
in attesa che l’avventore scegliesse, come nei moderni bordelli.14 A riguardo indiziaria, già in un periodo ben
anteriore alla costruzione del Lupanare, appare la formula ad locum duxserunt dell’iscrizione CIL IV 2450,
che ricorda tre allegri compari che il 25 novembre del 3 a.C. appunto ad locum duxserunt mulierem Tychen;
pretium in singulos a(sses) V f(uit).
Va peraltro rilevato, coincidenza o fatalità, che all’interno di nessuna delle numerose cellae meretri-
ciae rinvenute a Pompei, dove è invece effettivamente probabile che stazionassero adescatrici fisse che ave-
vano la disponibilità, temporanea o meno, di quel ristretto spazio aperto sulla strada, sono state per converso
rinvenute iscrizioni di alcun tipo.
Un luogo, il lupanare, come ancora altri a Pompei,
di tenore più o meno elegante, quali ad esempio il vicino
albergo VII 12, 34-3615 o, ancora in zona, la casa dell’Or-
so ferito,16 dove era possibile appartarsi e, in dipendenza
ovvia del prezzo speso, ricevere altri servizi, in primis cibi
e bevande. Era nel sottobosco di questi ambienti che si
proiettava l’ombra lunga di quei pornoboskoí tesi all’of-
ferta organizzata di piaceri, come il malus minister della
Fig. 3: Ercolano. Terme Suburbane. L’iscrizione CIL notissima iscrizione delle terme Suburbane di Ercolano17
IV 10675: Duo sodales hic fuerunt et cum diu malum (fig. 3) o il Castrensis pompeiano su cui ho anni addietro
| ministrum in omnia haberent | nomine Epaphroditum
vix tarde | eum foras exigerunt.| Consumpserunt per- concentrata la mia attenzione.18 Quelle stesse testimonian-
suavissime cum fu`tu’ere HS CV s(emis). ze di sodalitas, che a più riprese e in ambito chiaramente

14 Cfr. McGinn 2004, 37: “Slave prostitutes seem to have been fairly tightly controlled and the sources often suggest an environ-
vent of coercition. It is clear that these prostitutes were expected to live and eat in the brothel and were perhaps permitted to leave
only rarely”. È evidente che ciò non avvenga per il lupanare pompeiano, come le iscrizioni trovate nelle celle senza ombra di dubbio
palesano. Si ricordi d’altra parte anche il verso di Giovenale a riguardo di Messalina quando dice (6, 127): mox lenone suas iam
dimittente puellas tristis abit, et quod potuit tamen ultima cellam clausit, dove è evidente che a differenza delle puellae dipendenti
dal lenone, Licisca-Messalina lavorava ovviamente in proprio, probabilmente noleggiando la cella.
15 Cfr. Varone 2005, 104-5.
16  Varone 2005, 100-1; Ehrhardt 1988, 76-79.
17  CIL IV 10675.
18  Varone 2005, particolarmente 101-4.
90 Antonio Varone

osceno si ritrovano nelle iscrizioni pompeiane,19 vanno inquadrate a mio avviso nella sfera delle attività di
questi mezzani che si preoccupavano di mediare tra ‘fornitori di servizi’ e clienti. Se infatti osserviamo le
cifre che i due compagni d’avventura sborsano ad Ercolano per una cena in lieta compagnia,20 422 assi, ci
accorgiamo che se siamo ben lontani dai 100.000 sesterzi pagati da Milico per togliere Leda dalla strada
come ricordato da Marziale,21 siamo anche tuttavia distanti dalle cifre di pochi spiccioli date alle prostitute
di bassa lega, e questo ci porta di per sé a considerare un circuito parallelo a quello della bassa prostituzione
servile e non per questo meno animato, anche se le tracce vanno raccolte con pazienza, non essendo come
nell’altro caso di lapalissiana evidenza.
Abbiamo intanto visto come proprio nel Lupanare, sintomaticamente e inopinatamente, facciano la
loro comparsa ben sei nomi di donne di status libero, ma sono ancora altre iscrizioni a metterci sull’avviso.
Da un lato troviamo in un graffito l’esplicita asserzione: Lucilia ex corpore lucru faciebat.22 Lucilia è chia-
ramente un nome gentilizio e l’assunto dell’iscrizione è chiaro: una donna libera faceva di sé commercio
carnale. Cestilia, invece, il cui nome si lesse all’ingresso di una probabile cella meretricia (fig. 4) è definita
regina Pompeianorum,23 epiteto che ci deve mettere sull’avviso. Con Novellia Primigenia, la donna di
Nuceria il cui ricordo è ripetutamente comparso non solo a Pompei, ma anche in altre città campane24 e di
cui addirittura ci viene tramandato l’indirizzo e il modo di contattarla con quel ‘passa parola’ dell’epoca,
che poi si traduce nel messaggio scritto sul muro,25 facciamo un ulteriore passo avanti nel filo delle nostre
argomentazioni.

Fig. 4: Napoli. Museo Archeologico Nazionale (inv. 111965). Da Pompei, Reg. IX, ins. 7, nr. 17, verosimilmente una cella meretri-
cia. L’iscrizione CIL IV 2413 h: Cestilia, regina Pompeianoru, | anima dulcis, v̂a(le).

19  Varone 2005, 104 con n. 109.

20  CIL IV 10675: Duo sodales hic fuerunt et cum diu malum | ministrum in omnia haberent | nomine Epaphroditum vix tarde | eum
foras exigerunt. | Consumpserunt persuavissime cum fu`tu’ere HS CV s(emis). Cfr. allora anche due altre iscrizioni, trovate nello
stesso luogo CIL IV 10677: Apelles cubicularius | Caesar(is) cum Dextro | pranderunt hic | iucundissime et | futuere simul e CIL IV
10678: Apelles Mus cum fratre Dextro | amabiliter futuimus bis | bina.
21  Mart. 2, 63, 1-2.
22  CIL IV 1948 con add. p. 213.
23  CIL IV 2413 h con add. p. 222. L’iscrizione fu rinvenuta all’ingresso di IX 7, 17, sito su cui v. McGinn 2004, 202. 294 nr. 13,
con bibliografia precedente.
24 Su Novellia Primigenia e le iscrizioni ad essa dedicate vedi essenzialmente Della Corte 1958, 83-100.
25  CIL IV 8356: Nucerea quaeres ad porta Romana | in vico Venerio Novelliam | Primigeniam.
 Pupa, puella, domina. 91

Fig. 5: Pompei. Depositi (inv.

nr. 15404). Da Pompei, necropo-
li di porta Nocera, tomba 20 EN.
L’iscrizione CIL IV 10241 con
successiva rilettura: Primigeniae |
Nucer(inae) sal(utem). | Vellem
essem gemma ora non amplius
una | ut tibi signanti oscula pressa
darem.

Abbiamo letto per intero due volte26 a Pompei il distico famoso della gemma, Vellessem gemma
hora non amplius una ut tivi signanti oscula pressa darem, in cui, per inciso, credo si debba intendere quel
pressa non già come impressa, bensì come repressa, compressa, dando così compimento logico all’espres-
sione tutta, senza dover immaginare astrusi sottintesi che l’iscrizione di certo non autorizza a ipotizzare.27
Il motivo dell’anello, del resto, quale espediente dell’approccio erotico ricorre già nella Tarentilla di Nevio
(78 Ribbeck3): anulum dat alii spectandum. Il far ammirare il proprio anello è addirittura oggetto di una
delle specifiche proibizioni comportamentali elencate nel syngraphum stipulato da Diabolo con Cleareta per
godere per un anno delle grazie della di lei figlia Filenio nell’Asinaria di Plauto (778): Spectandum ne cui
anulum det neque roget. Tibullo, poi, non fa mistero del come servirsi dell’anello quale tramite per un con-
tatto preliminare a scopo erotico (1, 6, 25-26): Saepe, velut gemmas eius signumque probarem, | per causam
memini me tetigisse manum, mentre Ovidio (am. 2, 15) fa addirittura parlare l’anello donato a una ragazza.
Orbene, nella redazione trovatane nella necropoli di porta Nocera (fig. 5) il distico è preceduto – inscin-
dibilmente – dal saluto a Novellia Primigenia. Il discorso qui si fa allora inequivoco: il distico è il dono che il
poeta, non certo dives amator, fa alla sua amata, è la properziana docta tabella con cui il poeta cerca di con-
vincere l’amata28 e si entra allora appieno nell’atmosfera della poesia elegiaca ben fattaci ancor più chiara da
Sharon Lynn James:29 la donna, cui altri accedono con il denaro, riceve dal poeta versi dedicati come compenso
del suo amore, versi che, celebrandola, ne gratificano il nome presso gli altri contemporanei. E immancabile
è allora qui il parallelo con Ovidio am. 1, 10, 58-62:30 quod quis habet dominae conferat omne suae. Est quo-
que carminibus meritas celebrare puellas dos mea; quam volui nota fit arte mea …. Carmina quam tribuent

26  Nella necropoli di Porta Nocera (CIL IV 10241: vedilo a fig. 5) e nella casa di Fabio Rufo (Giordano 1966, 83-84, nr. 42, sopra
riportato, con minime modifiche.). Un terzo esemplare del distico, non completo e con la variante gemma velim fieri compare in CIL
IV 1698 con add. pp. 463. 704.
27  Traduceva in effetti Gigante (1974, 290; 1979, 88-99), attento lettore della poesia scritta sui muri, “vorrei essere solo per un’ora
l’anello (che ora ti porgo) per poter dare a te che l’inumidisci con la bocca (per apporre il sigillo) quei baci che sopra vi ho impressi”.
Non c’è bisogno di dover regalare l’anello. Il poeta vuol solo essere l’anello indossato dall’amata per poterle dare con erotico furore
quei baci ancora repressi, compressi, che non è riuscito ancora a darle nella realtà.
28  Prop. 3, 23, 1. Cfr. anche Prop. 2, 14, 19: ad dominam faciles aditus per carmina quaero.
29  James 2003, 36-41, pagine dedicate alla definizione della docta puella.
30 Cfr. Dimundo 2000, 207.
92 Antonio Varone

fama perennis erit. Sono infatti i carmi che fanno sì che la famosa porta, che spesso rimane chiusa,31 dischiuda
invece i suoi battenti dopo aver squarciato la spranga di quercia infilata nello stipite,32 facendo sì che la donna
ad vatem, pretium carminis, ipsa venit.33 Ai componimenti d’amore, quindi, magna datur merces.34 Non deve
sorprenderci, allora, date queste così chiare premesse, di trovarne a profusione anche sui muri di Pompei35 e, se
si entra in quell’ambito ben conosciuto ai filologi, ma che è stato finora, credo, trascurato dalla ricerca archeo-
logica su Pompei, si possono trovare indicazioni precipue sulla vita stessa nella città vesuviana.
Sono infatti solo invenzioni letterarie quelle puellae che i poeti, e non solo elegiaci, ripetutamente ce-
lebrano nei loro scritti, quali Licoride, Neera, Cinzia, Sulpicia, Delia, Nemesi, Corinna, Pirra, Lidia, Cloe?36
Sono, come nei personaggi della commedia di Plauto o Terenzio, semplici riflessi delle etere del mondo
greco, se pur ciò sia vero?37 Sono persone reali, che vivono in una dimensione trasfigurata dalla finzione
poetica, ma che può avere una sua giustificazione formale solo all’interno di un milieu aristocratico come
quello dei salotti di Roma, come per la figura di Volumnia Cytheris?
Non credo. La ricerca su Pompei, come ho appena mostrato, dà chiari segni dell’esistenza di una cate-
goria di donne libere in attesa di uomini che ne comprino l’amore, e non la fugace prestazione sessuale, sorta
di geishe o di etere, che si accompagnano formalmente all’uomo nei banchetti e in altre occasioni in una
condizione non ancora ben definibile, ma che sembra essere appannaggio, invero, di un numero di donne
non proprio ristretto, che, a voler essere maligni, sembra siano state istruite nel comportamento dalla Dipsas
stessa di Amores 1, 8 o dall’Acanthis di Properzio 4, 5. Se si accetta e si approfondisce questa ottica, si vedrà
che esempi concreti sono reperibili più di quanto non si possa credere: intanto il richiamo lasciato sui muri
a versi, a riguardo significativi, della poesia erotica elegiaca (fig. 6), quali il properziano38 ianitor ad dantes

Fig. 6: Napoli. Museo Archeologico Nazionale (inv.nr. 4706). Da Pompei, Basilica. In alto, l’iscrizione CIL IV 1893: Surda sit
oranti tua ianua laxa ferenti. | Audiat exclusi verba receptus [a]man[s]. In basso l’iscrizione CIL IV 1894: Ianitor ad dantes vigilet:
si pulsat inanis | surdus in obductam somniet usque seram.

31 Ov. am. 2, 1, 17, 20. Cfr. anche Prop. 1, 16, 17: ianua vel domina crudelior ipsa.
32 Ov. am. 1, 6, 27-28.
33 Ov. am. 34.
34 Ov. am. 35.
35  Ad esempio, CIL IV 1781 con add. p. 464; 1928 con add. p. 465, e 704. 6842. 9171. Giordano 1966, 84 nr. 45.
36  Per un’attenta analisi delle figure delle dominae cantate dai poeti elegiaci v. Keith 2012.
37  Tale è genericamente ritenuto in letteratura, ma numerosi sono i riferimenti che riportano all’ambiente romano. Noto, ad es.,
che nella Cistellaria di Plauto Lena dichiara (38-39): quia nos libertinae sumus, et ego et tua mater, ambae | meretrices fuimus con
un riferimento alla condizione giuridica che sembra attagliarsi appunto al mondo romano certamente meglio che a quello greco.
38  Prop. 4, 5, 47-48.
 Pupa, puella, domina. 93

vigilet; si pulset inanis | surdus in obductam somniet usque sera[m]39 o l’ovidiano40 surda sit oranti tua
ianua, laxa ferenti. | Audiat exclusi verba receptus [a]man[s]41 che sembrano non essere solo esibizione di
conoscenze letterarie, ma piuttosto volerci ricondurre ad una situazione diffusa: una donna che accoglie o re-
spinge, libera nella sua scelta, che deve essere convinta e ricompensata a suon di doni a cui si chiede l’afflato
amoroso, più che il semplice e crudo gesto sessuale. Abbiamo anche notizie del valore e della consistenza di
tali doni: una notte di intensa passione elargita da Fillide a Marziale viene dal poeta valutata, quale dono in
contraccambio, in profumi o lane di pregio, anche dieci aurei, ma la richiesta che la donna, modesta, avanza
è solo quella di ricevere un’anfora di vino.42
Un nuovo tassello, dato da un’iscrizione inedita che qui ora si presenta, recuperata negli scavi effet-
tuati in questi ultimi anni a Stabia, offre un’ulteriore riprova di quanto si afferma.43
Lo scrittore, rivolgendosi ad una Sabidia,44 ritenuta preziosa come l’oro, il cui nome gentilizio la
qualifica di condizione non servile, riporta due distici tratti dal libro III dell’Ars amatoria di Ovidio, qui
presentati in successione diversa. Il primo corrisponde infatti ai versi 71-72, mentre il secondo ai versi 69-
70 (figg. 7-8):
0,22 SABIDIA AVRVM 0,02-0,03

0,29 NEC TVA NOCTVRNA FRANGETVR IANVA RIXA 0,01-0,015

0,335 SPARSA NEQVE INVENIES LIMINA MANE ROSA 0,01-0,018

0,38 TEMPVS ERIT CVM TV QVAE NVNC EXCLVDIS AMANTES 0,01-0,02

0,30 FRIGIDA DESERTA NOCTE IACEBIS ANVS 0,01-0,02

Sabidia aurum: | Nec tua nocturna frangetur ianua rixa | sparsa neque invenies limina mane rosa. |
Tempus erit cum tu, quae nunc excludis amantes, | frigida deserta nocte iacebis anus.45
Così come nel famoso graffito pompeiano della gemma sopra richiamato, lo scrittore, prima di ripor-
tare il distico, si rivolge alla puella cui viene dedicato il componimento: in quel caso la nocerina Novellia
Primigenia, qui la preziosa Sabidia, cui ricorda, in tale paraclausithyron, come la giovinezza non duri in
eterno, esortandola quindi a non respingere gli amanti, come ora di fatto si può permettere di fare.
L’iscrizione chiarisce, ancora una volta, come le puellae della tradizione poetica elegiaca, donne com-
pos sui che dovevano essere pregate oltre che pagate, fossero creature effettivamente esistenti nella realtà
della società romana, e non solo a Roma.

39  CIL IV 1894.

40 Ov. am. 1, 8, 77-78.
41  CIL IV 1893.
42  Mart. 12, 65.
43  Il graffito è stato da me letto a m 4,36 ad occidente della semicolonna decorativa ovest del posticum d’ingresso alla villa San
Marco sulla via che scende al mare separando la stessa dal complesso termale ora in corso di scavo e ad un’altezza di cm 176,5 da
terra. Per i riferimenti a detti scavi cfr. Varone 2014, partic. 377-80.
44  Per tale nome cfr. anche Mart. 1, 32, 1; 3, 17, 3.
45  L’iscrizione è incisa a lettere quasi impercettibili, con punta sottilissima, in corsivo alquanto posato, con resa particolare di
alcune V ed S. La versione di questi versi conosciuta dalla tradizione letteraria è la seguente:
Tempus erit, quo tu, quae nunc excludis amantes, / frigida deserta nocte iacebis anus. / Nec tua frangetur nocturna ianua rixa, /
sparsa nec invenies lumina mane rosa.
Rispetto ad essa la versione tradita da questo graffito mostra le seguenti varianti: al v. 69 compare cum al posto di quo; al v. 71
nocturna è anteposto a frangetur; al v. 72 compare neque al posto di nec. Quando pure tali varianti fossero migliorative (e lascio
eventualmente ai filologi il compito di dare un tale giudizio), non credo tuttavia si tratti di vere varianti letterarie del testo ovidiano,
ma piuttosto l’ennesima riprova che tali testi letterari venivano imparati a memoria, quindi con possibili defaillances nella loro
citazione. Il graffito è l’ennesima riprova della circolazione che le grandi opere poetiche avevano nel mondo antico, da un lato; delle
conoscenze letterarie che molti pompeiani possedevano, dall’altro.
94 Antonio Varone

Fig. 7: Stabia, vico-

lo a nord di villa San
Marco. Parte sinistra
dell’iscrizione qui edita
dedicata a Sabidia con
evidenziazione elettro-
nica dei tratti selezio-
nati: Sabidia aurum: |
Nec tua nocturna fran-
getur ianua rixa | spar-
sa neque invenies limi-
na mane rosa. | Tempus
erit cum tu, quae nunc
excludis amantes, | fri-
gida deserta nocte ia-
cebis anus.

Fig. 8: Stabia, vico-

lo a nord di villa San
Marco. Parte destra
dell’iscrizione qui edita
dedicata a Sabidia con
evidenziazione elettro-
nica dei tratti selezio-
nati: Sabidia aurum: |
Nec tua nocturna fran-
getur ianua rixa | spar-
sa neque invenies limi-
na mane rosa. | Tempus
erit cum tu, quae nunc
excludis amantes, | fri-
gida deserta nocte ia-
cebis anus.

Se si accetta allora questa visione, che vede la ricerca della passione erotica in posti decisamente
diversi dal talamo nuziale – che si viveva in effetti piuttosto come semplice struttura giuridica volta al sod-
disfacimento di altri interessi e bisogni sociali – o dal maleodorante angiporto,46 e che sembra adombrata
anche da un brano sarcastico di Plinio il Vecchio,47 si possono trovare pertinenti e analoghi esempi, che mo-
strano una corrispondenza assolutamente insperata, quanto assai poco investigata, tra l’epigrafia del vissuto,
a Pompei rappresentata mirabilmente dai graffiti, e l’atmosfera rarefatta e incantata nella quale vengono
avvolte le donne della tradizione letteraria della poesia erotica latina, analizzate invece in ogni sfaccettatura
caratteriale.

46  Cfr. anche Prud. c. Symm. 2, 832-34: [Sol] intrat marmoribus Capitolia clara, sed intrat | carceris et rimas et tetra foramina
clausi | stercoris et spurcam redolenti in fornice cellam.
47 Plin. nat. 33, 12, 40: etiamne pedibus induetur atque inter stolam plebemque hunc medium feminarum equestrem ordinem
faciet? Il riferimento è alle dominae, ricoperte dalla testa ai piedi di gioielli che quasi pensano così di crearsi una posizione so-
ciale intermedia tra le matrone e le popolane. Il sarcasmo, a mio avviso, è dato dal rapportare all’ordine equestre, rango sociale
intermedio tra senatori e popolo, la figura di queste donne ingioiellate, che, come numerose raffigurazioni attestano, ci vengono
spesso presentate intente ad amplessi nella posizione erotica della mulier equitans. Pur se in maniera diversa anche Orazio nella
seconda satira del primo libro parla di un genus medium di donne, quando esalta il pregio nel rivolgersi, trascurando le matrone
e le donne dei postriboli, alla ‘seconda classe’, quella delle liberte: tutior at quanto merx est in classe secunda, libertinarum dico
(Hor. sat. 1, 2, 47-48).
 Pupa, puella, domina. 95

Iscrizioni significative, intanto, ci mostrano di non sbagliare nel cercare anche a Pompei donne reali
disposte a vendere non solo semplicemente il corpo. Il biglietto sgrammaticato tracciato sul muro con il
quale un uomo prossimo alla vecchiaia si rivolge alla donna da lui desiderata con offerte precise ne è una
riprova: Victoriae suae salute. | Zosimus Victoriae | salutem. | Rogo te | ut mihi | sucuras | etati | maeae.
| Si putes | me aes | non hab[e]|rae [noli] | am[are] m[e].48 A questo biglietto la nostra Dipsas avrebbe
senz’altro chiosato: dives amator te cupiit; curae, quid tibi desit, habet.49 Non va peraltro sottovalutato che
tale biglietto è stato trovato scritto proprio nella casa dell’Orso ferito, già da tempo da me indicata come
uno dei locali dove ci si intratteneva appartandosi in gaia compagnia, mentre il nome Victoria compare più
volte nel lupanare.50
La nostra differente forma di organizzazione sociale, da cui deriva il nostro mutato senso di conside-
rare l’approccio amoroso, crea un velo alla percezione di un’altra realtà, del tutto diversa. L’elegia latina ben
ce la illustra e credo siano proprio i biglietti d’amore, le epistulae, le cerae a darci interessanti ragguagli.
Dice Ovidio:51 Non male deletae nudant tua facta tabellae, nec data furtive munera crimen habent. Dal
canto suo Marziale (2, 9), con quell’ironia caustica che gli è propria, ci fa anche ben comprendere come
tali bigliettini non sempre contenessero solo deliziosi versi, ma, come nel caso del nostro Zosimo, impegni
a ben sostanziose largizioni: Scripsi; rescripsit nil Naevia: non dabit ergo.| Sed puto quod scripsi legerat:
ergo dabit.
D’altra parte è indicativa della peculiarità di tali biglietti un’altra iscrizione pompeiana, che, secondo
l’interpretazione già da me datane,52 indicherebbe appunto Pompei come luogo in cui era facile trovare
donne disposte ad accompagnarsi a chicchesia: Amplexus teneros hac si quis quaerit in u[rbe] | expect[at
ceras] nulla puella viri.53 Facendo notare en passant l’aggettivo teneros, topico della poesia elegiaca54 che
si accompagna ad amplexus, che sembra appunto voler escludere il crudo rapporto con la prostituta da pochi
assi, l’iscrizione sembra appunto voler sottolineare la disponibilità di tali donne, puellae, che si danno da
fare e non stanno certo ad aspettare che arrivino i biglietti del proprio vir, ossia fedeli e prese dall’amante
ufficiale.55
Quando leggiamo i biglietti d’amore del tipo pupa que bela es tibi me misit qui tuus est, vale,56 oppu-
re, iscrizione vergata proprio all’interno del disegno di una tavoletta cerata, Secundus | Primae suae ubi|que
isse salute.| Rogo, domna, ut me ames57 crediamo forse che un uomo stia cercando di fidanzarsi con una
fanciulla? Che stia facendole la corte per impalmarla? Credo, semmai, si tratti di profferte per diventarne il
vir, o per sostituirsi ad esso,58 secondo le ben chiarite notazioni della poesia elegiaca amorosa, e basti qui
pensare ad Amores 1,4, mentre non si dimentichi anche l’oraziano si exierit vir.59 Ritornando poi al biglietto

48  CIL IV 1684.

49 Ov. am. 1, 8, 31-32.
50  CIL IV 2212. 2221. 2225-28.
51 Ov. am. 2, 5, 5-6.
52  Varone 2004, 20.
53  CIL IV 1796 con add. p. 464.
54 Cfr. James 2003, 34-35. 245 n. 35.
55 Cfr. Franchi dell’Orto 1993/4, 282.
56  CIL IV 1234 con add. p. 205.
57  CIL IV 8364. Cfr. anche 8365-66.
58 Cfr. Giordano 1966, 84 nr. 45 con successiva correzione: Felicem somnum qui tecum nocte quiescet? | Hoc ego si facere multo
felicior esse.
59 Hor. sat. 1, 2, 120. Sulla figura del vir nei componimenti della poesia erotica latina, assolutamente da non identificare con il
marito v. James 2003, 35, 41-52.
96 Antonio Varone

di Secundus a Prima, scritto all’esterno della casa I 10, 7, ci accorgiamo che esso ha un seguito appunto
nella risposta data da Prima a Secundus, trovata nella vicina caupona I 10, 3, anch’essa largamente connessa
con la prostituzione:60 Prima Secudo salute plurima.61 Il lasciare queste testimonianze sul muro sembra anzi
proprio voler dare aspetto pubblico al rapporto instaurato.
La risposta di Prima è, per il solo suo essere, un’asserzione, come ci hanno insegnato gli autori prima
citati, e ha un parallelo preciso in un’altra iscrizione graffita: Accepi epistulam tuam.62 A levarci ogni ulte-
riore dubbio sul significato preciso che riveste l’accettare il biglietto amoroso è ancora un’altra iscrizione
graffita63 (fig. 9): Quoi scripsi semel et legit mea iure puellast. | Quae pretium dixit non mea sed populi est,
dove va appunto notato il termine iure ad indicare, se non altro, un atteggiamento di consolidata comune
accettazione formale di tale comportamento. La distinzione proposta dallo scriptor è sostanziale: chi alla
mia richiesta d’amore risponde chiedendo un prezzo si comporta come una donna pubblica, cui non va dato
ascolto.64 Vuole allora il nostro disincantato scriptor un amore puro, disinteressato, che avrebbe cercato, pe-
raltro, tra donne che possono anche rispondere con precise richieste in denaro? A chiarirci meglio il concetto
è allora un altro graffito che, quando pure rinvenuto a Roma nella domus Tiberiana, sembra voler proprio
essere chiosa in parallelo di questo: omnia formonsis cupio donare puellis | set mihi de populo nulla puella
placet.65 Qui a darci la chiave è il omnia donare. Ancora una volta diviene stringente, nella sua circolarità
concettuale, il ritornare alla poesia elegiaca di Ovidio 1, 10 e al suo nec dare, sed pretium posci dedignor et
odi; quod nego poscenti, desine velle, dabo66 a dimostrazione di una comunanza comportamentale propria
dell’epoca e che ovviamente non dovette interessare solo Roma e Pompei.
Queste puellae vanno pregate, supplicate, ricoperte di doni, assecondate in ogni loro desiderio, anche
perché altrimenti, mutato avviso, possono liberamente concedersi ad altri: … rogo domna; per | [Venere]m

Fig. 9: Napoli. Museo Archeologico Nazionale (inv.nr. 4695). Da Pompei, Basilica. L’iscrizione CIL IV 1860: Quoi scripsi semel et
legit mea iure puellast. | Quae pretium dixit non mea sed populi est.

60  Si veda CIL IV 7339, iscrizione dipinta che sembra appunto essere il titulus di profferta di Felix e di Florus e la schermaglia tra
Successus e Severus per contendersi i favori di Iride di CIL IV 8258-59.
61  CIL IV 8270.
62  CIL IV 5031.
63  CIL IV 1860 con add. p. 464.
64  Il parallelo è strettissimo con il certo aere di Ov. am. 1, 10, 21: Stat meretrix certo cuivis mercabilis aere.
65  Correra 1894, 95 = Castrén – Lilius 1970, 110, nr. 3.
66 Ov. am. 1, 10, 63-64. Analogie tra il graffito appena citato e questa elegia vedrei anche nel formosa del verso 47: parcite, for-
mosae, pretium pro nocte pacisci.
 Pupa, puella, domina. 97

Fisicam te rogo ni me | [reicias | - - -]us. Habeto….67 Il timore è palpabile e si ravvisa non solo nelle opere
letterarie, ma pienamente anche nei graffiti: Ceio et multis pupa venusta;68 o ancora Si quis forte meam
cupiet vio[lare] | puellam illum in desertis | montibus urat Amor,69 che trova un parallelo strettissimo con
un altro graffito, questo ancora della domus Tiberiana di Roma: quisque meam futuit rivalis | amicam il-
lum secret[is] montibus | ursus edat.70 Qui in particolare, in una assolutamente simile identità concettuale
al termine puella si sostituisce amica e val bene allora ricordarsi del recte quam futuis vocas amicam di
Marziale,71 dove quel recte chiarisce appunto questa accezione corrente del termine amica,72 come, d’altro
canto, l’iscrizione funeraria famosa di Aesernia73 o il verso di Giovenale mox lenone suas iam dimittente
puellas74 o il graffito del Lupanare hic ego puellas multas futui75 ugualmente non lasciano equivoci sull’ac-
cezione che il termine puella rivestiva.
Non deve però necessariamente ritenersi che puella nell’accezione erotica stia solo ad indicare la
prostituta trivialmente venale, come visto, e di ciò anche il seguente graffito fornisce riprova: Vasia quae
rapui, quaeris, formosa puella;| Accipe quae rapui non ego solus; ama.| Quisquis amat valeat.76 La formosa
puella, e calco allora l’accento su quel formosa77 qui non è certo la donna che si prostituisce palam, visto che
si rinzela per l’offesa alla sua pudicitia data da quei baci presi di rapina, ma si capisce pure che non è certo la
donna immacolata che come Lucrezia potrà riscattare l’onta solo con la morte, visto che di tali furti le viene
riconosciuta una certa esperienza, sì che la si invita ad una loro più serena accettazione.
Due altri termini bisogna ancora mettere a fuoco quanto a ben precisa accezione in connessione con
l’attività erotica, ed essi sono pupa e domina.
A mio avviso è stato sinora troppo frettolosamente considerata nell’ambito degli studi sull’argomento
l’analisi che Jana Kepartovà effettuò alcuni anni or sono sulla rivista Listy Filologické a riguardo del signi-
ficato del termine pupa.78
La studiosa ceca con una stringente analisi filologica ha potuto infatti mostrare l’assoluta equivalenza
del ricorrente termine pupa delle iscrizioni pompeiane con il puella della letteratura, con tutte le implica-
zioni che per quel termine i poeti elegiaci, e i loro commentatori moderni, oltre che un nutrito gruppo di
iscrizioni, come prima visto, ci hanno ben insegnato a conoscere.79

67  CIL IV 6865.

68  CIL IV 8807a.
69  CIL IV 1645 con add. p. 463.
70  Castrén – Lilius 1970, 236 nr. 286.
71  Mart. 7, 70: Ipsarum tribadum tribas, Philaeni,| recte quam futuis, vocas amicam.
72  Sulla quale cfr. in particolare, per le svariate attestazioni, ThLL, s.v.
73  CIL IX 2689: L(ucius) Calidius Eroticus sibi et Fanniae Voluptati v(ivus) f(ecit): – Copo, computemus. – Habes vini s(extarium)
(unum). Pane(m): a(sse) (uno). Pulmentar(ium): a(ssibus) (duobus). – Convenit. – Puell(am): a(ssibus) (octo). – Et hoc convenit. –
Faenum mulo: a(ssibus) (duobus). – Iste mulus me ad factûm dabit.
74  Iuv. 6, 127.
75  CIL IV 2175.
76  Giordano 1966, 85, nr. 46.
77  Cfr. pure il formosa forma puella, laudata a multis di CIL IV 1516.
78  Kepartovà 1983. Oltre a vari altri siti di Pompei (CIL IV 1234, 1645, 4007, 5296, 6842, 8807) il termine è ricorrente nella
cosiddetta Caserma dei Gladiatori (V 5, 3): CIL IV 4289, 4342, 4353, 4356, 4387.
79 La puella è la donna ‘sessualmente attiva’ (James 2003), ossia quella che ora qualifichiamo come ‘cortigiana’, che ha un
equivalente più moderno nel termine ‘escort’. La sua particolarità, tuttavia, come la stessa James 2006, 226 dice è quella che deve
essere conquistata e anche pagata: “Puella is generically a courtesan who requires both payment and persuasion”. Vedi anche circa
il termine puella Adams 1983, 344-48.
98 Antonio Varone

Quando si vede che con pupula una donna letterata, con versi struggenti, si rivolge ad un’altra donna,
distratta momentaneamente dal suo amore dagli amplessi di un uomo,80 si comprende allora bene come
quella realtà sfuggente prenda pieghe sempre più concrete e lasci aprire una nuova prospettiva d’interpreta-
zione non solo per svariate iscrizioni, ma per la comprensione del modo di vivere stesso l’amore nel mondo
romano.
Su un ulteriore concetto credo infine debba essere fatta una compiuta disamina filologica ed è quello
del termine domina, generalmente a Pompei connesso all’ambito erotico. Domina è un termine impegnativo,
riguardante la padronanza sulla domus, la relazione formale con il dominus, e non è un caso che domina nostra
sia attributo ufficiale delle consorti imperiali. Quale ne è il valore da attribuire ad esso nei graffiti pompeiani?
Esso risuona lusinghiero nei corridoi delle case, sì che una fanciulla, verosimilmente una schiava, nella casa
di Trebio Valente tenti di sottrarsi a tali lusinghe, pur magari speranzosamente, cosa che denota certamente nel
termine uno status superiore, non facilmente conseguibile:81 Valens, domina essem! Certo è, per converso, che
in un’iscrizione di villa dei Misteri la domina si rivela impegnata in gesti di connotato sessuale molto più che
espliciti.82 Il ThLL, del resto, dedica un’intera sezione all’accezione di domina come ‘amica’.83
Quale sarà allora il significato da concedere a tale termine? ‘Padrona del mio cuore, della mia mente,
del mio corpo’, detto da un innamorato gratificante, che per converso si definisce tuus? O non piuttosto
‘donna padrona di sé’, compos sui, che può liberamente disporre del proprio corpo così come della propria
domus84 magari, in quanto libera, incrementando gli averi lasciatigli dal padre con le fatiche del letto, come
dice senza equivoci Ovidio?85
Anche se a Pompei non risultano mai attestati termini come scortum, bustuaria e simili o anche lo
stesso meretrix, che in un caso datato all’età augustea è sostituito invece proprio dal termine mulier, non
sembra tuttavia che con termini quali puella, pupa o domina nel contesto in cui vengono impiegati si voglia
far riferimento a quelle che noi definiremmo prostitute di strada, ma appare improponibile anche andare de-
cisamente a connotare con differenti tra loro identificazioni di status le donne indicate, anche se per domina
sembra ravvisarsi un tono più deferente; più intimo e colloquiale per pupa-puella. Sembra tuttavia, dall’a-
nalisi condotta, che si possa pacificamente affermare che puellae, formosae o meno, pupae e dominae, con
sfaccettature diverse, possano essere comunque viste come donne pronte a vendere il proprio amore, senza
per questo fare in tutti i casi esercizio di prostituzione palam.
Il rapporto esclusivo, insomma, era protetto dalle norme nell’ambito matrimoniale, dove quasi per
definizione l’amore era invece un complemento del tutto accessorio. Il puro sfogo sessuale poteva trovare
invece soddisfazione, per chi non poteva disporre direttamente di schiavi o schiave, nel mondo della prosti-
tuzione di bassa lega. L’amore passionale andava invece conquistato e conteso ed iscrizioni a proposito di
tale contese e della connessa gelosia certo non mancano.86 Dal canto loro le donne che avevano uno status

80  CIL IV 5296 con add. p. 705: o utinam liceat collo complexa tenere braciola et teneris | oscula ferre labellis. I nunc ventis tua
gaudia pupula crede | crede mihi levis est natura virorum. Saepe ego cu(m) media | vigilare perdita nocte haec mecum meditas:
multos | Fortuna quos supstulit alte hos modo proiectos subito | praecipitesque premit. Sic Venus ut subito coiunxit | corpora aman-
tium dividit lux et se|parees qui<d> amant.
81  CIL IV 8824: Valen(s), domin(a). | Valens, domina essem. | Salutem rogam(us). Si confronti per tale ultima espressione CIL IV
1991: Aelius Magnus Plotillae suae. | Rogo domina salutem. Cfr. anche CIL IV 1736. 8364 e la citata 6865.
82  CIL IV 9246b: [Hic] ego cum domina resoluto clune | [p]er[e]gi | [tales se]d versu[s] scribere [turp]e fuit.
83  ThLL s.v. domina V1, 1938 sub A, 1-27 (I. Kapp).
84  Veyne 1983, 1-2; James 2003, 51.
85 Ov. am. 1, 10, 41: turpe tori reditu census augere paternos.
86 Cfr. CIL IV 9848: Hic duo rivales | una puella tenet; CIL IV 8259, con botta e risposta di due contendenti: Successus textor
amat coponiaes ancilla | nomine Hiredem, quae quidem illum | non curat, sed ille rogat, illa comiseretur. | Scribit rivalis, vale.
 Pupa, puella, domina. 99

compatibile erano ben consapevoli di quello che si chiedeva loro e quindi del valore delle loro grazie, e trae-
vano da ciò vantaggio senza per questo doversi direttamente ridurre a rango – anche giuridico – di prostitute.
Ovviamente quelle più ‘attente’ profittavano di tale situazione assumendo una veste che con brutto
termine moderno definiremmo di cortigiane, in una posizione border line notata già dagli antichi87 che non
brutalmente quantifica, ma che concretamente valuta il peso economico delle proprie concessioni, secondo
quanto raccomandato dallo stesso Ovidio,88 e che rappresenta un vera categoria di genere se Ovidio nell’e-
legia am. 1, 10, smesso, inopinatamente, il ‘tu’ con il quale parlava alla sua amata ad esse genericamente si
rivolge con un quod vos facitis sponte che le differenzia dalla meretrix, che “coacta facit”.89
Tra la stola matronale e la toga meretricia c’era quindi una realtà concreta di un medium genus femi-
narum che si concedeva non certo per i pochi assi, ma con sostenute prospettive economiche che potevano
a volte trovar riscontro anche nell’immediato do ut des, ma che spaziavano sovente su tempi più dilatati e
comunque presupponevano una accettazione libera del pretendente.
Certo, se è lecito, credo, ormai ritenere del tutto fondata l’esistenza a Pompei di numerose persone
cui potremmo assegnare almeno concettualmente il nome di cortigiane, in qualche caso conoscendole ad-
dirittura anche per nome, vale la pena di andare alla loro ricerca anche all’interno di quelle loro case aperte
alla cupidigia degli uomini, come avveniva per chi si recava a Nuceria nel vico Venerio presso Porta Roma-
na alla ricerca di Novellia Primigenia. Dobbiamo infatti porci il problema se sia possibile rinvenire tracce
concrete del loro ambito nell’esame dei contesti archeologici, e al riguardo potrà essere particolarmente
interessante la disamina che la dr.ssa Berg90 ha cominciato a compiere dei contesti di rinvenimento di alcune
case pompeiane, che spero possa ulteriormente confortare, in parallelo, quanto le iscrizioni hanno lasciato
decisamente trasparire.

Invidiose, quia rumperes, se[ct]are noli formonsiorem | et qui est homo pravessimus et bellus e ulteriore replica del primo in CIL IV
8258 : Dixi, scripsi. Amas Hiredem, | qua [t]e non curat. SIX Successo | ut su[.]r[.] [- - -]s[- - -] | Severus; CIL IV 4498: Thyas, |
noli amare | Fortunatu; | vale; CIL IV 2013: Niycherate, v|ana succula,| que amas | Felicione | et at porta | deduces, | illuc | tantu
| in mente | abeto.
87 Cic. Cael. 49: Si quae non nupta mulier domum suam patefecerit omnium cupiditati palamque sese in meretricia vita colloca-
rit, virorum alienissimorum conviviis uti instituerit, si hoc in urbe, si in hortis, si in Baiarum illa celebritate faciat, si denique ita
sese gerat non incessu solum, sed ornatu atque comitatu, non flagrantia oculorum, non libertate sermonum, sed etiam complexu,
osculatione, actis, navigatione, conviviis, ut non solum meretrix, sed etiam proterva meretrix procaxque videatur: cum hac si qui
adulescens forte fuerit, utrum hic tibi, L. Herenni, adulter an amator, expugnare pudicitiam an explere libidinem voluisse videatur?
88 Il parcite, formosae, pretium pro nocte pacisci (Ov. am. 1, 10, 47) prima riportato si accompagna qualche verso dopo al Nec
tamen indignum est a divite praemia posci; munera poscenti quod dare possit, habet (53-54).
89 Ov. am. 1, 10, 24.
90 Vedila infra in questo stesso volume.
 The life course of the Roman courtesan

Sharon L. James

This essay briefly sketches out the life course of the Roman courtesan, as seen chiefly in Roman comedy
and elegy, with occasional recourse to other literary sources. The first step is to rule out a host of issues
and subjects that tend to attach themselves to studies of prostitution, particularly literary courtesans, begin-
ning with moral judgment. This judgment is found in the very wording of a concept found as far back as
Plutarch, on the khreste hetaira, and Donatus on the bona meretrix. This concept comes exclusively from
the perspective of the male citizen. A hetaira or meretrix is ‘good’ when she is sweet, naïve, trusting, both
sexually faithful to her citizen lover and sexually generous with him. She is ‘bad’, mala, when she insists on
compensation for her time, when she seeks more support than the lover wants to give or more than he thinks
he has bargained for, when she takes on other clients, or when she simply appears to be looking out for her
own interests rather than catering to the interests, preferences, and conveniences of the citizen class. It is not
surprising to find this view in our ancient sources, as they generally represent citizen values, but it has no
place in scholarship, and it is particularly useless in literary criticism.1
Regardless, hostility toward the meretrices of the Roman literary sources is everywhere evident in
classical scholarship from the 19th to the mid 20th-century, a fact that is not especially surprising: scholars in
that period were overwhelmingly male, and they overwhelmingly take the views toward women that are ar-
ticulated by the male speakers in the literary sources. They are also influenced by an unrecognized combina-
tion of Greco-Roman values on women and sexuality and Judeo-Christian values on women and sexuality.
These value systems are hostile to both women and sexuality, and most especially to women’s sexuality.2
What is surprising, however, is the continued survival, in the 21st century, of scholarly hostility to the Roman
meretrix, and it is a subject that must be addressed. Below are a few examples.

1.  Some of them [the meretrices] have a good character, despite growing up in brothels: they are still virgins
and regularly turn out to be free-born….But others are mercenary, evil characters, for instance Astaphium in
the Truculentus. The noncitizen prostitute of noble character, so typical of Terence, does not exist in Plautus.
De Melo 2011: xxxviii.

2.  I have argued that there is only one type of a courtesan in the palliata, the type of mala meretrix. The cour-
tesan with a heart of gold is a modern invention…. Terence’ Thais in the Eunuch, usually described by scholars
as bona (see most recently Fantham 2000, 287; 299) has all the characteristics of a mala that are prominent and
very clear in her treating of the soldier Thraso.
Gilula 2004, 241 n. 6, citing Gilula 1980, 149-50, 164-65.

1  I have argued elsewhere that Plautus and Terence do not share citizen values, especially on sexuality. See James 2012b. On
Plautus, see James, forthcoming.
2  It would be impossible to disentangle here the complex of ancient and post-ancient attitudes that lead to scholarly disapprobation
of meretrices. The subject is simply too large.
102 Sharon L. James

3.  The blurb on the back cover of Guy Lee’s (1994) translation of Propertius describes the poet’s “helpless
infatuation for the sinister figure of his mistress Cynthia” (no source attributed).

4.  “The aptly named Nemesis,” the “volatile” Cynthia.

Santirocco 2002, xiv n. 9 and xvii).

It is important to note that de Melo does not criticize any other category of characters from Roman
comedy for failure to be ‘noble’. He recognizes male misogyny, particularly in the senex, and he is aware of
the foolishness and selfishness of the adulescens, and the stupid brutality of the soldier. But he passes moral
judgment only on women of the meretrix category. He criticizes only Plautine meretrices for not being ‘noble’,
praising as ‘noble’ the Terentian bona meretrix who helps out citizens. There is no condemnation of the comic
citizen male’s tendency to commit rape; there is no critique of the slave-owner’s propensity to threaten torture.
The criticism of Astaphium is particularly misplaced, for she is not a free meretrix. She is a slave to the meretrix
Phronesium, and she earns no personal profit from any of her activities or relations with men. She acts as a sort
of junior courtesan, and she helps to support the household, but she does not gain anything for herself.
Gilula’s remarks are a footnote to her comment that the male authors of the plays give “somewhat
better press” to the meretrices who “serve their lovers’ interests” rather than look out for themselves. The
good or bad ‘press’ in fact comes from male characters in the plays, and cannot be attributed to either
Plautus or Terence. But it also, as Gilula herself demonstrates, comes from critics in the habit of passing
judgment on dramatic characters. Such critics, as I have noted above, focus their moral disapprobation on
meretrices, but not on the men who seek to exploit women sexually, let alone the men who rape women.
Gilula acknowledges that Melaenis of Cistellaria objects to what she sees as the “cruel, dishonest use of
her daughter” by the young Alcesimarchus, but still criticizes Melaenis as immoral for having temporarily
tricked a lover by pretending to have had his baby.
Santirocco’s charge against Nemesis represents a widely held attitude; I cite his example simply
because it is recent. This common view of Nemesis merits a remark: the only complaints made in Tibullus’
poetry are that she insists on her price and that she sees other men – both standard behaviors for an inde-
pendent meretrix. The poetic speaker later says lena nocet nobis, ipsa puella bona est (2, 6, 44), when he is
trying to console Nemesis for having reminded her of the violent death of her young sister, so even he does
not consistently fault her character. The grief that causes her to begin weeping, at the thought of the little
girl’s fatal fall from an upper window, should serve to remind us that even a woman universally called hard
and cruel actually has a loving heart.
These scholarly remarks, and many others very like them, effectively take the view of male clients in
the plays, the very men who uniformly seek to gain sexual advantage of the meretrices by not compensat-
ing the women for their time. Given that not a single one of these male characters is held up as a paragon of
objectivity, wisdom, or good sense, it is inappropriate to take their perspective.
William S. Anderson offers a way forward:

Plautus does not treat the family as the essential measure of value for his comedy, and so, though he recognizes
the stereotype of the ‘bad prostitute’ (mala meretrix: Captivi, line 57), he tends to change her character from that
of negative menace to one of positive appeal: her ‘badness’ becomes the basis for her superiority to the male
characters who share the stage with her (Anderson 1994, 103).

Anderson’s insight is crucial to understanding all of Plautus (and is especially important for understanding
Plautus’ focus on slavery) but our concern here is the meretrix. In looking at the Roman literary courtesan, it
 The life course of the Roman courtesan 103

is necessary to remember that she is not allowed to participate in citizen society, and most particularly that
she is not allowed to practice its morals, a subject to which I will return.
Everything following here, then, begins from this presumption: the Roman literary courtesan belongs
to a social and professional class of women who have only themselves, their beauty, their wits, and their
self-control, to rely on in a society that considers them at best a necessary evil and at worst an easily dispos-
able function. To understand her, we must look past the male perspectives that present us to her – perspec-
tives that are often absurdly biased – so that we can consider her on her own terms, and in terms of her own
experiences. Those, as it turns out, are both implicitly dramatized and explicitly articulated very well in our
sources. I begin with a basic biography, then turn to other aspects of her life, many of which are illuminated
in the rest of this volume.

How to become an independent courtesan

There are three basic paths to the status of the non-servile meretrix. One may start out as a slave, as the
historical examples of Volumnia Cytheris and Hispala Faecenia show. Roman comedy shows several such
women: Melaenis and Lena of Cistellaria, for example, and the various brothel slaves purchased and liber-
ated by their lovers (Phoenicium of Pseudolus, Philematium of Mostellaria, Acropolistis of Epidicus, Lem-
niselenis of Persa, Ampelisca of Rudens). In the second path, an exposed baby is found or purchased by an
adult meretrix who will bring her up as a daughter, as the Athenian Neaira was brought up by Nicarete, or as
in Plautus’ play Cistellaria, with Selenium. Finally – and this is rarely represented in the literary courtesan’s
life – a baby girl can be born to a practicing meretrix, who then brings her up in the profession, as with Gym-
nasium of Cistellaria and Philaenium of Asinaria. A citizen woman can fall into concubinage or prostitution
if her circumstances are desperate enough, as with the citizen woman Chrysis, in Terence’s play Andria, or
as with Korinna, the daughter of Krobule in Lucian’s 6th Dialogue of Courtesans.
The courtesan’s life develops from her initial entry into her profession, when she may want to cleave
only unto a single man, into a fully engaged, busy social life with numerous suitors. The plot of this life-
course may seem simple enough, but it is fraught with excitement and risk, supplied primarily by the dangers
of male sexual jealousy and violence, as well as the problems of sex and pregnancy. The lover, of course,
prefers to believe that she exists only for himself; he views others – friends, family, household slaves, lenae,
rivals, or live-in boyfriends as unnatural obstacles. Even so, episodes, events, and people from her life turn
up uncontrollably. The overall progress of the courtesan’s career may be charted on a predictable course, as
we shall see.

Steps in the life course of the Roman courtesan

She begins training at music and dance from an early age. Roman comedy and elegy record a wide range of
specialties, passim: fidicina, tibicina, psaltria, auletris, citharistria, crotalistria, and more.3 She also learns
to sing attractively. If she is an elegiac puella, she begins bilingual training in poetry (Ov. ars 3, 329-48).4
At some point she begins learning dinner party etiquette, charming and seductive conversation, clever and

3  Ovid includes the nablia (ars 3, 327-28), about which Gibson 2003, 229 says “a Phoenician harp, about which little is known”.
He notes that it is an exotic instrument.
4  If she is a foreigner, she will probably already know another language. Greek was the native language of many a Roman courte-
san. Diabolus in Asinaria fears that Philaenium will speak a language that he does not know (793).
104 Sharon L. James

witty speech, attractive physical postures, even board games (ars 3, 353-66). Some of these can also be seen
in Lucian’s Dialogues of courtesans 6, where the citizen mother Krobule trains her daughter Korinna in the
ways of the hetaira.
When the courtesan begins practicing her career, she may still be idealistic and naïve, believing that
love and fidelity are possible. It is the job of the lena, the advisory older woman, to destroy this illusion.
Sometimes the courtesan has a single male client or patron, at least for a period. In the prime of her career,
she supports a house populated by slaves and much trafficked by all kinds of visitors. She goes out day and
night – to the theater, baths, races, temples, public games and spectacles, dinner parties, etc., as well as to
visit friends and perform religious rituals – and she occasionally travels abroad. She may intermittently enter
into an contract with a given man, on whom she will certainly cheat as often as possible. In theory, she is
saving money and valuables that can support her for a while, at least, in retirement. When she can no longer
make a living as a professional girlfriend, the courtesan retires. She may be supported by her daughter (as
in Asinaria, Cistellaria, Truculentus; see also Tib. 1, 6, and, evidently, Propertius 2, 6) or offer freelance
advising to a younger courtesan, as in Tib. 1, 5 and 2, 6, Ov. Amores 1, 8, Propertius 4, 5. She may be forced
back into servitude, as with Scapha of Mostellaria and, possibly, Leaena of Curculio.
Every element of this life-course is mentioned in elegy and comedy; many of them are advised in Ars
amatoria book 3. We can now take a closer look at some of these aspects of the life of the courtesan, with
specific textual references.

Incidents and episodes from the life of the courtesan

The meretrix may have a family: Cynthia’s mother and sister visit her (Prop. 2, 6), mother and sister are
mentioned at Ovid Amores 1, 8, 91. Delia’s mother supervises her and brings her to the lover (Tib. 1, 6);
Nemesis is still grieving from the violent premature death of her little sister (Tib. 2, 6). It does not matter if
these are relatives by blood or by adoption. But the meretrix cannot have a male tutor: Prop. 2, 18, 33: cum
tibi nec frater sit nec tibi filius ullus. This condition is an absolutely necessity. If there were a supervisory
father, brother, or son, the lover would stand little chance of persuading her.
The courtesan may have very close ties with her household staff, something on view everywhere in
Roman comedy – Phronesium and Astaphium work very co-operatively in Truculentus, for instance. Cyn-
thia’s posthumous speech in Propertius 4, 7 gives us a view of her affection for, and loyalty to, her slaves.
She resents the way that her successor has taken over her home and her life – and even melted down a gold
statuette of Cynthia – but she particularly resents the way the interloper abuses her former slaves for being
loyal to her (43-46), she worries about her old nurse (73-74), and she wants to protect her youngest slave
from the new mistress (75-76).
She has an active social life, with friends. In Cistellaria, based on Menander’s Synaristosai, the young
Selenium has lunch with her friend Gymnasium and Gymnasium’s mother, called simply Lena in the text.
Philotis of Hecyra spent two years longing for her friends and their conviviality, while she was on contract
with a soldier in Corinth. In Propertius 2, 6, Cynthia’s house is under constant siege by friends both female
and male – and the lover believes that the men are not legitimate relatives with a blood right to kiss Cynthia
(7-8). Even a baby comes to visit (10). Her friends may spend the night with her (12). In the Ars amatoria, a
puella who is living with one man can slip out to meet another man because her girlfriend will lend them a
place to meet and a bed: quotiens opus est, fallax aegrotet amica, | et cedat lecto quamlibet aegra suo (Ov.
ars 3, 641-42: “however often it’s necessary, your tricky girlfriend can get sick, and vacate her bed, however
sick she is”). The same friend, however, may be a rival meretrix: haec quoque, quae praebet lectum studiosa
 The life course of the Roman courtesan 105

locumque |crede mihi, mecum non semel illa fuit (Ov. ars 3, 663-64: “that girl too, who helpfully supplies
a meeting place and bed – believe me, she’s been with me more than once”). This is a complicated social
life: the meretrix must watch out for the jealousy and suspicions of her lovers (staged passim in comedy and
articulated equally throughout elegy).
Finally, a point that is ubiquitous in Roman comedy: the meretrix is well known in her neighborhood.
This fact of her life is not merely a dramatic necessity, but a professional obligation. It is an inevitable func-
tion of her occupation: she must go out and be seen, in order to attract new clients. But it is also a basic real-
ity of life in city neighborhoods: the citizens living next door to meretrices know them. The slaves of citizen
households and meretrix households all know each other, everywhere. Thus Bacchis (Hecyra), Chrysis
(Andria), and Thais (Eunuchus) are known even to the patresfamilias of neighboring houses. In Hecyra, the
slave Parmeno knows not only Bacchis but the recently returned Philotis and the older Syra. In Truculentus,
the household of Phronesium is well-known to the citizen women of Callicles’ family. The meretrices of a
town or region know each other: in Plautus’ Epidicus, the unnamed music girl knows Acropolistis, the play’s
other music girl, “as well as herself” – tam facile quam me (504).
The meretrix goes out and about frequently, both socially and professionally. Dinner parties are con-
stant, too common for useful citation. She goes to the theater: Prop. 4, 8, 77-78; Ov. am. 2, 7, 3-4; ars 3, 394,
and most notoriously in ars 1: spectatum veniunt, veniunt spectentur ut ipsae (ars 1, 99: “the girls go to see,
they go to be seen themselves”). The courtesan goes everywhere: the races (Ov. am. 3, 2; ars 1, 135-162; 3,
396), spectacles such as races, gladiatorial shows and triumphal processions (ars 1, 163-228; 3, 395). She
goes out in a litter (ars 1, 487-90; rem. 663-66) and on foot (ars 2, 209-10; Tib. 1, 5, 63-64). The charm-
ing and clever scortillum of Varus, in Catullus 10, asks to borrow the litter and litter-bearers of the poetic
speaker (24-27). She walks around everywhere: Ovid’s praeceptor amoris lists the Porticus Octaviae (ars
1, 69-70; 3, 391-92) and Livia (ars 1, 71-72), the temple of Palatine Apollo (ars 1, 73-74; 3, 389-90), the
Jewish temple (ars 1, 76), the courts (ars 1, 79-88), the temple of Isis (ars 1, 77-78; 3, 393-94), Pompey’s
colonnade (Catull. 55, 7; Ov. ars 1, 67-68; 3, 385-87; see also Prop. 4, 8, 75-76).5 An unexpected detail:
the courtesan goes to the temple of the Bona Dea to get her hair done (ars 3, 244). The Forum seems to be
a common destination, mentioned passim. The puella is everywhere, says the praeceptor Amoris: tot tibi
tamque dabit formosas Roma puellas | ‘haec habet’ ut dicas ‘quicquid in orbe fuit’ (ars 1, 55-56).
The meretrix participates in religious rituals both public and private, as listed. The annual ritual to
Isis, so hated by the elegiac lovers, requires ten days of celibacy (Tib. 1, 3; Prop. 2, 33; 4, 5; Ov. am. 1, 8),
but the goddess may be consulted on other occasions, particularly for emergencies (Tib. 1, 3; Ov. am. 2, 13).
The scortillum of Catullus 10 wants to borrow the speaker’s litter, as noted above, in order to go to Serapis’
temple (10, 26-27); the meretrix is advised to visit the temple of Palatine Apollo (Ov. ars 3, 89-90). She can
be found performing the Adonia and, apparently, outside the Jewish temple on the Sabbath (ars 1, 75-76).
The courtesan goes to her home town for important local rituals, as at Propertius 4, 8, when Cynthia goes to
Lanuvium, or at Ovid’s Amores 3, 13, when the puella – here called a coniunx, in elegy’s program of misus-
ing marital language, which I have discussed elsewhere – goes home for the rite of Juno Quiritis.6 Meretri-
ces perform specific rituals to Venus, in Plautus’ Poenulus, and general religious rituals are anticipated in
the proposed contract for the courtesan Philaenium in Asinaria (781-83), but specific rituals to Venus and
Cupid are imagined as a ruse for contact with a rival lover (803-805). Meretrices are seen at funerals, and

5  In fact, Pompey’s colonnade is apparently so notorious a pick-up zone that in this passage, Cynthia forbids her poet to go there:
tu neque Pompeia spatiabere cultus in umbra, | nec cum lasciuum sternet harena Forum (Prop. 4, 8, 75-76).
6 See James 2003, 41-49 on elegy’s deliberate misapplication of the lexicon of marriage.
106 Sharon L. James

their grief can be very attractive (ars 3, 431-32). Propertius 2, 29 cites a charming detail: once Cynthia had a
nightmare, and she went in her purple tunic (2, 29, 25-28) to tell Vesta about it, so that the nightmare could
not harm either herself or her lover. This kind of ritual is obviously very personal.
The courtesan travels for both pleasure and business, although the lover suspects that she will be
meeting men, as at Prop. 4, 8, 16, where the lover thinks Cynthia’s trip to the festival of Juno at Lanuvium
is really about an affair with the vulsus nepos who has driven off with her. He naturally thought the same of
her trip to Baiae in poem 1, 11, but is delighted in poem 2, 19 that she can’t be pursued by other men out in
the country; Nemesis in Tibullus 2, 3 has gone to the country with a rival. Corinna’s planned trip in Amores
2, 11 has no stated purpose. Long-term contracts to a soldier, for service abroad, are found in Hecyra and
Plautus’ Bacchides. The specter of this contract comes up in Propertius 1, 8 and 2, 26; see also Verg. Eclogue
10, where Lycoris has gone off on campaign with a rival to Gallus. Propertius 4, 3 presents, as I have argued,
the opposite situation, in which a puella stays home while her soldier-lover goes off on campaign.7
To attract clients, the courtesan must look her best. Hence the Propertian speaker recalls the dress
in which Cynthia first caught his eyes, and wants her to wear it again on her birthday (3, 10, 15; for all we
know, it is the purple dress of 2, 29). Plautus’ titular Epidicus describes (213-35) the dressed-up and adorned
meretrices on the way to the harbor, en masse, to meet the incoming boats as hunters, looking very stylish
and attractive: pleraeque eae sub vestimentis secum habebant retia (216).8 Cosmetics (Ov. ars 3, 199-218,
the Medicamina, Prop. 3, 24, 5-8; Plaut. Most. 157-292) and hair-styles are part of the courtesan’s method
of catching the attention of potential lovers and clients (ars 3, 135-68). In Prop. 2, 18, 1-2, the lover-poet
suspects that Cynthia is trying to dye her hair red-gold in order to catch male attention (cf. also Corinna’s
hair treatments in am. 1, 14). Of the theater, Ovid’s praeceptor Amoris notoriously says ruit ad celebres cul-
tissima femina ludos… spectatum veniunt, veniunt spectentur ut ipsae (ars 1, 97; 99), but in fact the meretri-
ces go out all the time, everywhere, to see and be seen. Indeed, Adelphasium of Poenulus dreads the festival
of Venus that meretrices attend in a parade – she knows that men will be there observing them. Throughout
ars 3, the praeceptor instructs women about how to look good; it is worth noting that his discussion of flat-
tering colors echoes Epidicus’ absurdist list.
Finally, the courtesan’s life contains much in the way of exciting intrigues. There is much play-acting
and manipulation, as cited in ars 3. She tries to trick her primary boyfriend into drinking until he passes out
so she can meet with a secondary boyfriend (Tib. 1, 6; Ov. am. 1, 4; 2, 5; Plaut. Asin. 771-73), though she
risks passing out herself (Plaut. Truc. 854-55, ars 3, 761-68). Cynthia claims to have worn down her win-
dowsill by climbing over it on a rope, to meet her poet for sex in the street (Prop. 4, 7, 15-16). The complex
charades of Phronesium in Truculentus are notorious, but quite a few other plays show the meretrix involved
in role-playing and trickery, as well.
The courtesan faces occupational hazards. Male jealousy, anger, and drunken impulse are found
throughout elegy and comedy.9 In Propertius 4, 5, the lena Acanthis advises the puella to take advantage
of male violence by, effectively, charging her lover for any damage to hair, clothing, or self (4, 5, 39); the
praeceptor Amoris cites the same principle (ars 2, 167-72). In abjuring violence, the Propertian speaker
invokes it, 2, 5, 17-26; 3, 25,29-30; he threatens murder-suicide (2, 8, 25-28). The comic meretrix is at al-
most constant risk of violence: at Plautus’ Poenulus 1288-91, the soldier Antamonides plans to beat up his

7 See James 2012a.

8  To Epidicus’ hilarious catalogue of dress styles may be added the list of colors that suit different complexions, at ars 3, 169-93.
9  See, among other sites, Tib. 1, 1, 73-76; 1, 6, 73-76; 1, 10, 53-64; Ov. am. 1, 7. The number of places where violence is threatened
is considerably larger.
 The life course of the Roman courtesan 107

amica Anterastilis, because he is angry that the leno made him pay for lunch; the soldier Pyrgopolynices
kidnaps the free meretrix Philocomasium (Plaut. Miles); the Bacchis sisters are threatened with violence
throughout: Plaut. Bacch. 501-25, 842-69 (including two death threats, 860, 868-69), and 1118-72, passim.
Thraso the soldier leads an assault on Bacchis’ house in Terence’s Eunuchus. The two senes in his Hecyra
are very menacing with Bacchis. Horace Carmen 3, 26 lists the weapons used for breaking into the house
of the courtesan.
Various illnesses of unstated nature are found in all three elegists (Tib. 1, 5, 9-16, Prop. 2, 9, 25-28
and 2, 28, Ov. ars 2, 315-36). The sex that is constantly sought by the courtesan’s lovers and clients puts
her at risk of pregnancy, which she cannot afford. I have argued elsewhere that some of the illnesses cited
in elegy are oddly associated with the bed (Ov. am. 2, 13-14, most obviously, but also Tib. 1, 5; Prop. 2,
28), and that texts are overtly concealing symptoms of treatment for termination of a pregnancy.10 Finally,
the alcoholism uniformly associated with the old women, the lenae, is absolutely an occupational hazard:
all the drinking that the courtesan is expected, even required, to do will put her at risk of developing an
alcohol dependence.

Two other paths to the life of the courtesan

Roman comedy offers two examples of paths for the courtesan that are worth noting. Typically, they are
found in Terence, whose view on the life of the meretrix is very interesting. One is the road by which a citi-
zen woman finds herself turned into a meretrix, as seen in his play Andria. The citizen Chrysis must leave
her home on Andros because she is poor, and her male kin do not support her. She tries to support herself on
woolwork, but men come wooing and making offers. Thus she becomes a meretrix:

primo haec pudice vitam parce ac duriter

agebat, lana ac tela victum quaeritans;
sed postquam amans accessit pretium pollicens
unus et item alter, ita ut ingeniumst omnium
hominum ab labore proclive ad lubidinem,
accepit condicionem, de(h)inc quaestum occipit (Ter. Andr. 74-79).

At first she lived her life modestly, sparingly, in harsh conditions,

seeking her living by wool and weaving.
But after a lover came promising a price,
one and then another, then as it is in the nature of all
human beings to slide from toil to desire,
she took the offer, and from that point she began her occupation (transl. author).

Thus, in this play, male neglect and male desire combine to convert a citizen woman into a courtesan. Her
particular path is extremely unusual: three young men who are friends provide her with support. There ap-
pears to be no jealousy among them – they see her on a set schedule. Such a life is not sustainable in the
long term; hence Chrysis dies young.
In another play, Terence’s Self-Tormentor, the meretrix Bacchis explains to the young girl Antiphila,
whose lover Clinia has run away, that some non-citizen women are allowed to live as if they were citizens,

10 See James 2003, 173-84.

108 Sharon L. James

in faithful, loving relationships. Others, however, are not, and as we shall see, aggressive male desire again
turns the course of a woman’s life:

edepol te, mea Antiphila, laudo et fortunatam iudico,

id quom studuisti isti formae ut mores consimiles forent (Ter. Haut. 381-82).
…
et quom egomet nunc mecum in animo vitam tuam considero 385
omniumque adeo vostrarum volgus quae ab se segregant,
et vos esse istius modi et nos non esse haud mirabilest.
nam expedit bonas esse vobis; nos, quibuscum est res, non sinunt:
quippe forma inpulsi nostra nos amatores colunt;
haec ubi immutata est, illi suom animum alio conferunt: 390
nisi si prospectum interea aliquid est, desertae vivimus.
vobis cum uno semel ubi aetatem agere decretumst viro,
quoius mos maxumest consimilis vostrum, hi se ad vos adplicant.
hoc beneficio utrique ab utrisque vero devincimini,
ut numquam ulla amori vostro incidere possit calamitas. 395

Goodness, Antiphila dear, I praise you and think you lucky,

because you saw to it that your beauty and habits are like him…

And when I think over your life, and the life

of all you girls who keep away from the common crowd,
it’s no surprise that you’re like that, and that the rest of us aren’t.
It’s in your interest to be good, but the men who have business with us don’t allow us to be good.
Lovers pursue us, driven by our beauty;
once that has changed, they take their hearts somewhere else elsewhere.
If, in the meantime, we haven’t looked out for the future, we live all alone.
With you girls, once you’ve arranged to spend your lives with a single man,
the ones most like you, they stay with you.
By this good arrangement, you are truly bound, one to the other,
so no catastrophe can crash in on your love.

Sometimes that aggressive male desire can be truly faithful, as in this play, for Clinia returns to Antiphila
and they have a sweet reunion on-stage; likewise Pamphilus of Andria is faithful to Glycerium, the lost
citizen daughter whom he has impregnated (see also Aeschinus of Adelphoe and Alcesimarchus of Plautus’
Cistellaria). Naturally, these young women turn out to be citizens, but Alcesimarchus and Clinia do not
know that their beloveds are lost daughters. They resist their fathers’ orders to marry because they truly love
Selenium and Antiphila, and they take up a pro uxore relationship with their beloveds.11 Because none of
the parties involved knows that the girls are lost citizen daughters, about to be restored to their families and
thus made eligible for citizen marriage, iustum coniugium, these pseudo-marital relationships would legally
be iniustum coniugium.12 Such an arrangement must have been the dream of many a young woman growing

11 Other pro uxore arrangements in comedy: Plaut. Truc. 392-93, Ter. Andria 146. In Propertius 4, 3, I have argued, Arethusa and
Lycotas have a marriage-like arrangement, though they do not have citizen marriage (James 2012a). The poem cannot tell us if this
is a lifetime union.
12  The term iniustum coniugium comes from Phang 2001. James 2012a gives a wide discussion of such relationships. Marital-type
arrangements for women of the courtesan class did not require citizenship in men: foreign men living in Rome were just as likely
 The life course of the Roman courtesan 109

up in Rome, or in Roman cities, who did not have the protection of citizenship but hoped not to have to take
up the risky, insecure life of the courtesan.
I give the last words to Selenium, who does not know, as she speaks, that she is a lost citizen daughter.
She believes she is the daughter of a retired meretrix. She fell in love with Alcesimarchus, who pursued her,
and she wanted to live only with him.

nam mea mater, quia ego nolo me meretricem dicier,

obsecutast de ea re, gessit morem morigerae mihi,
ut me, quem ego amarem graviter, sineret cum eo vivere (Plaut. Cist. 83-85).

Because I don’t want to be called a courtesan, my mother

indulged me, and gave in to me, as I give in to her.
She allowed me to live alone with the one I love so terribly.

At ille conceptis iuravit verbis apud matrem meam,

me uxorem ducturum esse (98-99).

But he swore to my mother in holy and legal terms,

that he would marry me.

These two girls have no social support or protection, and they show a longing to live like a citizen, not to
take the risks and the social consequences that are unavoidable in the life of the meretrix. In the fantasy
universe of Roman Comedy, their reward is to be found citizens. What Melaenis and Bacchis show us is that
even fully established courtesans recognize that there are multiple paths for non-citizen women who must
try to make a living from relationships with men.
For the permanent meretrix, that path always ends up, as Bacchis of Ter. Haut. says, in solitude. As we
have noted, the courtesan’s retirement is fraught. If she is very lucky, she has the support of a daughter and
friends; she may have actually saved money and valuables. The literary evidence shows her as often taking
up a mentoring role or even servitude to another courtesan.

Conclusion

I make no argument here about the historicity of the Roman literary courtesan, other than to advert again
to the historical examples of Hispala Faecenia and Volumnia Cytheris, and to refer to the other essays in
this volume. But the courtesan is represented in elegy as populous in Rome: tot tibi tamque dabit formosas
Roma puellas | ‘haec habet’ ut dicas ‘quicquid in orbe fuit’ (Ov. ars 1, 54-56) – as many as there are fish,
birds, stars, crops in Gargara, grapes in Methymna (57-58). Leaving aside the exaggeration factor in both
that claim and in the literary depictions of exotic intrigue by and about the courtesan, we can say that the
independent courtesan exerted a great pull on the Roman literary imagination for more than two hundred
years. What is remarkable is that this literary imagination managed, despite its exaggerations, to depict so
many very realistic aspects of the lives of the many women who made a living by sexual relationships in
the ancient world.13

to be attracted to a courtesan as citizen men were, and they were not hampered by laws and the social practices of citizen families,
which would have frowned upon long-term relationships with meretrices.
13  This essay owes many happy obligations of thanks, most particularly to Ria Berg, Antonio Varone, and Alison Keith.
 The image of a well-born lady as a prostitute.
The cases of Clodia, Julia and Messalina

Marja-Leena Hänninen

In his sixth satire, the merciless Roman satirical poet Juvenal lashes out at Roman women for their innumer-
able vices. One of the most striking sections of the satire deals with Messalina, the third wife of the emperor
Claudius. Juvenal describes how Messalina used to work in a brothel at night while her husband was asleep.1
Juvenal wrote his nasty poem safely after the death of the last Julio-Claudian emperor and did not have to
fear the anger of the ruling family. On the other hand, Juvenal can be seen criticizing his contemporaries,
the members of the elite, in particular. Could one find a more humiliating picture of the most prominent
lady of the empire than the emperor’s wife as a prostitute? Prostitutes were listed among gladiators, actors,
dancers etc. as persons practicing shameful professions that were not suitable to honourable citizens.2 Even
if freeborn women, too, worked as prostitutes, most women in the business were slaves, freedwomen and
foreigners. Is the picture by Juvenal unique and what lies behind this kind of stories about sexual licentious-
ness of women at the top of the Roman society?
The first imperial dynasty of Rome was not treated very respectfully by ancient authors such as Taci-
tus, for example. The monarchy represented moral corruption, fading of old Roman virtues and decay of the
old aristocracy. The members of the dynasty, including their wives and daughters, were mostly described as
somewhat or totally corrupt persons. Only those persons who died young without having reached the highest
power, such as Germanicus, could be idealized as possible saviours of the traditional Roman republic. This
paper deals mainly with two women of the dynasty, Augustus’ daughter Julia and Claudius’ wife Messalina
who both were infamous for their sexual life, even with insinuations to prostitution. The cases of Julia and
Messalina will be compared to a notorious lady of the Late Republican era, Clodia the sister of the tribune
Publius Clodius Pulcher.
Messalina was by no means the only or the first member of the Julio-Claudian family connected with
prostitution. Suetonius accuses the emperor Caligula of keeping a brothel on the Palatine. According to
Suetonius, this was a brothel of high profile and the vicious emperor compelled high-born women and men
to work there.3 Furthermore, Suetonius blames him even for pimping his own sisters with whom he also had
incestuous relationships.4 These stories are hardly credible and are rather meant to colour the portrait of a
bad and insane emperor.5
But let’s go back to the beginning of the Julio-Claudian dynasty, emperor Augustus and his family.
Since the consolidation of his power, Augustus carried out both administrative and legislative reforms. He

1  Iuv. 6, 114-35.
2  Gardner 1993, 135-40. On the marginality of prostitutes and practitioners of other shameful professions, see McGinn 1998,
14-18.
3 Suet. Cal. 41, 2-3.
4 Suet. Cal. 36.
5 See Harders 2008, 309, note 161.
112 Marja-Leena Hänninen

wanted to restore the values and virtues of the republican era. Sexual morals and family were among the
most pivotal themes in this program.6 The family of the imperator was supposed to be the paragon of the
civic virtues.7 Some members of the family succeeded better than others in the art of virtuous life. Augus-
tus’ sister Octavia is so completely idealized in the sources that there is no single malicious word about her,
whereas his only biological child, his daughter Julia was one who failed and proved a disappointment to her
father. The clash between the expectations of the father and the lifestyle of the daughter culminated in mak-
ing Julia’s crimes public and her relegation in 2 BCE.
Considering Augustus’ anger it must be pointed out how Julia’s three marriages served the political
and dynastic plans of her father.8 First she married her cousin Marcellus who died soon after the wedding.
Julia’s second husband was Marcus Agrippa, the closest friend and loyal supporter of Augustus – a man who
could have been Julia’s father by age. Julia gave birth to five children by Agrippa. Julia’s last husband was
Tiberius, son of her stepmother Livia. The rumours about her immoral life supposedly increased after this
last marriage was driven in crisis and Tiberius retreated to the isle of Rhodes. The lonely Julia who could
not divorce and remarry supposedly found comfort in other men. There were actually allegations that Julia
had been unfaithful even when married to Agrippa.9
In 2 BCE, two remarkable events took place before Julia’s fall. First, Augustus got the title of pater
patriae, and, secondly, the magnificent Forum Augusti was inaugurated. This new civic space manifested
the virtues of the ancestors and the family of the Julii as well as the glory of the Roman empire. These cel-
ebrations were followed by an anticlimax.10 Augustus publicly denounced his daughter and informed the
Roman senate of her adulteries and other misbehaviour. Julia was relegated to a complete isolation in the isle
of Pandataria. She was never allowed to return to Rome or even be buried in the mausoleum of the family.11
What were the crimes of Julia? She was accused of both adultery (adulterium) and general misbehav-
ior (licentia, impudicitia, luxuria). Pliny goes even further and suggests that Julia was planning a parricide.12
This has led scholars even talk about a conspiracy against Augustus, but this is hard to prove.13 The list of
Julia’s lovers somewhat dubiously resembles an all-stars team of the old Roman Republic.14 On the other
hand, a woman of Julia’s standing would have socialized with her peers. Furthermore, the role of Livia in
Julia’s fall has widely been speculated, both in scholarship and in popular culture. However, Julia’s disgrace
did not practically work for the end that Livia desired – her son Tiberius succeeding Augustus in power.15 It
is not a place here to discuss the possibility of conspiracy, the focus is on the characterization of Julia and
her crime.
Ancient authors reporting Julia’s disgrace – Seneca, Pliny, Tacitus, Suetonius – mainly refer to adul-
tery, but Seneca provides us with the most shocking description, saying that Julia:

6  For Augustus’ legislation on morals and family, see, e.g., Galinsky 1998, 128-40; Severy 2003, 50-55.
7  Severy 2003, 183-84.
8  Temporini-Gräfin Vitzthum 2002, 48-49; Severy 2003, 63–67; Fantham 2006, 28, 45.
9 Tac. ann. 1, 53.
10  Galinsky 1996, 197-213; Severy 2003, 161.
11  Vell. 2, 100; Suet. Aug. 64-65; Dio Cass. 55, 9, 11-16.
12 Plin. nat. 7, 149: Tot seditiones militum, tot ancipites morbi corporis, suspecta Marcelli vota, pudenda Agrippae ablegatio,
totiens petita insidiis vita, incusatae liberorum mortes, luctusque non tantum orbitate tristis, adulterium filiae et consilia parricidae
palam facta, contumeliosus privigni Neronis secessus, mortes luctusque aliud in nepte adulterium, iuncta deinde tot mala. Sen. dial.
10, 4, 6 may also be interpreted to refer to a conspiracy.
13  For the history of the theory of a conspiracy in scholarship on Julia, see Ferrill 1980.
14  Ferrill 1980, 339-41.
15 See Barrett 2002, 50-51.
 The image of a well-born lady as a prostitute 113

… scoured the city in nightly escapades, and had chosen the Forum itself and the platform from which her father
had carried his laws against adultery for her fornifications; that there had been a daily gathering by the statue
of Marsyas, when she turned from adultery to prostitution and claimed the right to every kind of licence with
unknown partners.16

According to the ancient authors, Augustus did nothing to cover his daughter’s disgrace but made it all
public. The quaestor read his letter to the Senate. Numerous explanations to the fate of Julia and the strict
reaction by her father have been suggested. It may well be that Julia was far from innocent. She certainly
did something that made her father madly angry to punish her so severely. It has been suggested by Beth
Severy that Augustus’ anger is explained by the offence against the dignity of his family caused by Julia.17
It was also essential that Julia had committed her crimes in a public place. According to Tacitus, Augustus
considered her daughter’s lifestyle as a sacrilege and treason. Tacitus points out that adultery was a com-
monplace offence and by defining Julia’s crimes so gravely Augustus exceeded the clemency of ancestors
and even his own legislation.18
Since Julia was accused of adultery and exiled for it, Tiberius was compelled to divorce her.19 This
also meant that she could never again be legitimately married to an honourable man. In this sense, she really
could be likened to a prostitute.20 Augustan legislation had made adultery a public offence that was no longer
dealt with in a family council but in a public court. Conviction of adultery had economic consequences and
the conviction included loss of some civic rights. For the convicted woman it usually meant exile and di-
vorce.21 A woman convicted of adultery faced a kind of a social death.
Julia’s dubious morals may not only be connected with her sexual behaviour. She may also be com-
pared to the new type of women presented in the poetry of the Augustan era. The docta puella figure in the
elegiac poetry does not match the traditional Roman matron but rather a cultured courtesan who controls her
life and sexual partnerships.22 Horace, e.g., criticizes in his Carmen 3, 6 young women who take pleasure
in dancing, drinking and partying. He says that this generation could not have given birth to such sons who
defeated Hannibal.23 An elegiac puella is interested in poetry and pleasure, not woolworking or raising chil-
dren. However, we should also remember that Julia was mother of three sons and two daughters and had,
thus, done her share in raising the next generation.
Julia is a special case as the daughter of the first emperor of Rome. As already said, accusations and
insinuations of sexual misbehaviour were connected with almost all following emperors as well as many of
their family members. As for the imperial ladies, hardly anyone exceeds Messalina in notoriety of this kind.
Valeria Messalina was the third wife of emperor Claudius. Messalina was born in a noble family that was
related to the Julio-Claudian family. She married Claudius in 39 CE and bore two children to her husband
who was 30 years senior to her.24 Messalina is certainly not gently treated in ancient literature. According

16 Sen. benef. 6, 32: admissos gregatim adulteros, pererratam nocturnis commissationibus civitatem, forum ipsum ac rostra, ex
quibus pater legem de adulteriis tulerat, filiae in stupra placuisse, [ad] cotidianum ad Marsyam concursum, cum ex adultera in
quaestuariam versa ius omnis licentiae sub ignoto adultero peteret (translation from Fantham 2006, 140).
17  Severy 2003, 181-83.
18 Tac. ann. 3, 24.
19 Suet. Tib. 11, 4.
20  McGinn 1998, 72.
21  Dixon 1992, 78, 80-81; Gardner 1993, 39, 123-26.
22  Lilja 1965, 135-36, 139, 142; Hemelrijk 1999, 79-81.
23 Hor. carm. 3, 6, 21-44.
24  Eck 2002, 117; Burns 2007, 64.
114 Marja-Leena Hänninen

to ancient authors, Messalina tried to interfere in the politics of her husband and lived in an immoral way.25
Juvenal calls her meretrix augusta, imperial courtesan.26 Thus, if some understanding and pity is offered to
Julia, Messalina is granted hardly any compassion. According to Tacitus, Messalina manipulated Claudius
ruthlessly and completely.27 Political ambition and sexual misbehaviour are combined in her portrait in
ancient sources.
If we are to believe Juvenal and other ancient authors, Messalina was a true nymphomaniac. She
worked in the brothel for pure pleasure and she also took money from her clients. Juvenal underlines that
the empress acted like this because of her endless, unsatisfied lust.28 Cassius Dio, historian of the third cen-
tury, states that Messalina had a brothel in the imperial palace itself and forced respectable women to have
sex with other men while their husbands were present and looking on. Those men who refused to have sex
with her or offer their wives to her business Messalina destroyed, those who were favourable to her were
rewarded.29 Pliny the Elder states that Messalina victoriously competed with ordinary prostitutes about the
number of the partners during one day.30 According to Cassius Dio, Messalina provided Claudius with slave
girls who took care of him while Messalina herself was occupied elsewhere. Thus, Claudius did not notice
what was happening in his palace.31 Allegedly, the famous actor Mnester was among Messalina’s lovers.32
It brought disgrace to a woman to have sex with a man below her rank, especially with one practioning a
shameful profession.33
Finally, in 48 CE, the freedmen of Claudius interfered and informed him about the deeds of his wife.
At the time Messalina was plotting against Claudius with her lover, senator Gaius Silius with the possible
intention to raise him to power. In Tacitus’ narrative, Messalina is celebrating a clandestine wedding while
Claudius is visiting Ostia for performing some religious rituals.34 Juxtaposition of an emperor taking care of
religious rituals and his wife feasting in a drunken party her wedding with another man is rather crude. Ac-
cording to Tacitus, the exposed Messalina was not capable of committing a suicide and the pretorians finally
killed her. Her end was not honourable. Messalina was not given a chance to defend herself in front of her
husband since Claudius’ counselors feared she might turn his head once again. The memory of Messalina
was cursed after her death by the senate of Rome and her name was taken off all public monuments and her
statues were removed from public places.35
The picture of Messalina given by Juvenal and Cassius Dio can hardly be considered reliable. Mes-
salina may have been unfaithful to her husband and she may have tried to gain more influence by dubious

25  See, e.g., Tac. ann. 11, 26; Suet. Claud. 29, 1.
26  Iuv. 6, 116-19.
27  E.g., Tac. ann. 11, 1-2; 28.
28  Iuv. 6, 120-32: sed nigrum flauo crinem abscondente galero/ intrauit calidum ueteri centone lupanar/ et cellam uacuam atque
suam; tunc nuda papillis/prostitit auratis titulum mentita Lyciscae/ ostenditque tuum, generose Britannice, uentrem./ excepit blanda
intrantis atque aera poposcit. /[continueque iacens cunctorum absorbuit ictus.] mox lenone suas iam dimittente puellas /tristis
abit, et quod potuit tamen ultima cellam /clausit, adhuc ardens rigidae tentigine uoluae,/ et lassata uiris necdum satiata recessit,/
obscurisque genis turpis fumoque lucernae/ foeda lupanaris tulit ad puluinar odorem.
29  Dio Cass. 60, 18, 1-2; 61, 31, 1.
30 Plin. nat. 10, 172.
31  Dio Cass. 60, 18, 2-3.
32 Tac. ann. 11, 36; Dio Cass. 60, 28, 3-5.
33  Edwards 1993, 128-29.
34 Tac. ann. 11, 25-29.
35 Tac. ann. 11, 37-38; Dio Cass. 61, 31, 2-5. Cassius Dio’s version of Messalina’s end is slightly different from that of Tacitus,
but main lines in the stories are similar.
 The image of a well-born lady as a prostitute 115

methods. The most raucous stories about her, such as stories of her as a common prostitute, are difficult to
verify and may have been fabricated only after her fall.36 It has been suggested that Messalina may have
been defamed by Agrippina the Younger whom Claudius married after Messalina. It may have been con-
venient for Agrippina to question the morals of Messalina in order to increase the chances of her own son,
the future emperor Nero. If the legitimacy of Claudius’ biological son Britannicus was questioned, Nero’s
star would grow brighter. Furthermore, it is noteworthy that because Messalina was executed without a
public trial and her memory was condemned, various rumours may have been spread on the basis of few
and possibly misleading facts. Slander and gossips may have replaced reliable testimony. Among the con-
temporary writers, Seneca depicts Messalina as an innocent victim of Claudius.37 It is also important to note
that Messalina was conspicuously honoured in public during the early principate of Claudius. The malicious
and even pornographic stories told about her in later sources conceal the fact that as a great-granddaughter
of Augustus’ sister Octavia she was of great value to Claudius by linking him more tightly to the Augustan
family and thus, reinforcing his claim to the membership of the family.38 An emperor’s wife certainly had
symbolic value, both positively and negatively. Her recognized morality supported her husband’s power
while her infidelity undermined him politically. Messalina may simply have committed adultery and the
later stories about her excesses may contain fabricated exaggeration.39
If we compare the pictures of Julia and Messalina as women who act like prostitutes, there are some
significant differences in their cases. Julia is more like a naughty girl of high society who is disgraced by her
immoral habits and multiple adultery. Thus, she ends up in the status resembling that of a prostitute. Mes-
salina, however, is really described as a woman acting as a prostitute and even as a pimp. Juvenal’s picture of
Messalina is part of a satire about the immorality of Roman women and decay of Roman morals in general.
Juvenal criticized Roman women of the day for promiscuity and attraction to low sorts of men, such as ac-
tors and gladiators.40 In Cassius Dio, the portrait of Messalina is a feature in the story about a weak emperor
who lets women and freedmen manipulate him. What is common in both Julia’s and Messalina’s stories as
told in antiquity, they choose their sexual partners themselves. They are also portrayed as too independent
women to some extent. A woman trying to interfere in men’s business, politics so to say, was an abomina-
tion for the moralist writers of the imperial era. We do not really know if Julia or Messalina had any political
ambitions, but even insinuations to this work. And combination of questionable sexual morals and political
ambition worked even better for proving the corruption of the Roman state under monarchy.
Since the Republican era, it was usual in rhetorics to defame one’s opponent by accusing him of all
kinds of sexual and other types of misbehaviour, such as drinking and gambling. A good citizen, a good man
controlled his physical desires, did not excessively desire food, drink and sex.41 Furthermore, he was sup-
posed to control women of his household. Thus, women, too, could be used as tools of defaming one’s po-
litical opponents and personal enemies.42 Women’s castitas and pudicitia brought honour to their families,
and lack of these feminine virtues caused dishonour to their fathers, husbands and brothers. Honour once
lost was impossible to regain. Women’s behaviour could also be seen as a sign of the moral corruption of

36  Osgood 2011, 208-9.

37  Eck 2002, 119-20; Osgood 2011, 210.
38  Barrett 2005, 78-79; Osgood 2011, 206-7.
39  Osgood 2011, 210.
40  Richlin 1992, 205.
41  Edwards 1993, 5; 186-90.
42  Edwards 1993, 46; Severy 2003, 30; 37-38; 40-41.
116 Marja-Leena Hänninen

the state. The collapse of the Roman Republic, in particular, could be partly explained by women’s increas-
ing immorality.43 One must, however, be cautious for taking the criticism of the Late Republican and Early
Imperial authors against women as reliable testimony on women’s ‘emancipation’ in the Late Republican
Rome. Neither can the allegations about the high level of adultery among the Roman elite be accepted as
such. Sexual misbehavior had symbolic significance.44
Julia and Messalina have a prominent Republican predecessor as a feminine symptom of moral de-
cay. Clodia, a woman of high rank most mercilessly and colourfully denigrated by Cicero in his speech Pro
Caelio, is a very illustrative example of the Roman way of using women’s behaviour as a political weapon
in rhetorics. This Clodia was born in an ancient and prestigious Roman noble family of the Claudii Pulchri
and was married to a man of the same rank, Quintus Caecilius Metellus Celer (cos. 60 CE). Clodia’s brother
was the notorious populist politician and tribune of the plebs, Publius Clodius Pulcher.45 Cicero, the only
contemporary source for the life of Clodia, was a bitter enemy of Clodius. The gens Claudia was obviously
as proud of their family traditions as any Roman noble family, but among the enemies of the family, nasty
rumours were spread. The label of the ‘hereditary arrogance’ of the Claudii was later also connected with
the members of the Julio-Claudian dynasty.46
Publius Clodius Pulcher had three sisters, all bearing the name Claudia (Clodia) and identified by the
names of their husbands. All the sisters had husbands who reached the office of consul in their career and
had, therefore, a high social standing. However, the sisters seem to be more tightly connected to their brother
than to their husbands in ancient sources. The habit of using the ‘plebeian’ form Clodia instead of Claudia
may be related to their affinity with their brother.47 Clodius was known to be specifically intimate with the
sister who was married to Metellus Celer. Clodia Metelli is known to have supported her brother’s political
career especially after the death of her husband and gained a prominent role in the circle of Clodius.48 There
are several insinuations to incest between Clodius and all his three sisters in Cicero’s speeches, and these
accusations are later repeated, e.g., in the biography of Cicero by Plutarch.49 The target of the incest accusa-
tions was primarily Publius Clodius, not any of his sisters. Leading Roman politicians frequently accused
one another of various sexual misbehaviour. Repeated hints about incestuous relationships were effective
tools of invective in hands of a skillful orator.50 Charges connected with sexual morality appear in most of
Cicero’s speeches and can, thus be considered typical elements in political rhetoric of the era. Charges of
incest insinuate that the opponent lacked dignitas and virtus and therefore political integrity. This kind of
charges also shook the manhood of the opponent.51 Even very respected persons such as Cicero himself
could be accused of incestuous relationships. Incest charges should, thus, be treated rather as a literary topos
than historical facts. In the case of Publius Clodius, they were generated by a vilification campaign and Clo-
dius was also accused of incest with his brothers. There are actually no neutral contemporary sources about
the life of P. Clodius and his sisters – all our sources are written by their enemies.52

43  Edwards 1993, 42-47.

44  Edwards 1993, 35-36.
45  For basic facts about Clodia’s life, see Skinner 2011, 2-3; 79-95.
46  Skinner 2011, 23-25; 28.
47  Harders 2008, 228.
48  Harders 2008, 231-32.
49 Cic. Cael. 13, 32; 32, 78; Cic. Mil. 27, 73; Cic. off. 2, 3; Plut. Cic. 29, 1-5.
50  Edwards 1993, 10-11; 25-26. See also Richlin 1992a, 85-86.
51  Harders 2008, 238-39.
52  Harders 2008, 234-35; 244.
 The image of a well-born lady as a prostitute 117

Clodia Metelli was personally attacked by Cicero in a trial against M. Caelius Rufus in 56 BCE. Cic-
ero defended Caelius and Clodia Metelli was a witness of the prosecution. The defence is heavily based on
denying Clodia’s decency and reliability as a witness. Cicero tries to argue that Clodia had fabricated her
accusations in order to revenge her former lover Caelius for leaving her.53 The picture of Clodia in Cicero’s
speech on behalf of Caelius is evident already in the opening of the speech where Clodia is not even men-
tioned by name. According to Cicero, it was shameful that a young man of Caelius’ standing was “attacked
by the wealth of a courtesan” (opibus meretriciis).54 Clodia is both nobilis and nota – noble and notorious – a
woman who does not deserve the title of an honourable matron.55
From the beginning on, Clodia is depicted as a morally corrupt character who resembles rather a
courtesan than a respectable matron of the Roman aristocracy. The passus 15, 35 in Cicero’s Pro Caelio is
most illustrative in this respect. Cicero aims to describe Clodia’s relationship with Caelius as morally dubi-
ous. Clodia’s lifestyle is lavish and extravagant. By accusing Caelius Clodia forces Cicero to make all her
life public to the members of the court. She should disprove the allegations about her notorious lifestyle or
her evidence cannot be considered reliable.56 In Roman literature, licentiousness and luxury are typically
linked together. Accusations of immoral behaviour were frequent in the political debates and trials of the
Late Republican era as well as during the civil wars following Caesar’s murder.57 Wealth and pretentious
expenditure were essentially included in the picture of Clodia in Cicero’s speeches. Women’s wealth may
still have been criticized in Clodia’s and Cicero’s days and a rich widow such as Clodia may have faced
prejudices among the jury of the Caelius trial.58
Clodia obviously had a prominent role in the high society of Rome. Marilyn Skinner points out in
her biography of Clodia that Clodia’s lifestyle with banquets and holidays in Baiae was quite normal for a
middle-aged aristocratic widow. Aristocratic widows of the day were not expected to retire from social life.
Cicero, however, associates Clodia’s expenditure with licentious life and sexual immorality.59 Cicero gives
his audience a picture of a fictional noblewoman who is rich and lovelorn, who leads a luxurious life and
has a villa in Baiae, who enjoys the company of young men and even supports them. Cicero assures that
he is not talking about Clodia (ista mulier) but someone quite unlike her. According to Cicero, his fictional
woman is an amorous widow living like a courtesan (meretricio more).60 It is interesting that Cicero depicts
Clodia as a woman both as living like a courtesan and a woman acting like a client of prostitutes, since there
are allegations of her attempts to buy Caelius’s favour by money and gifts.
Cicero repeats the portrait of a fictional immoral widow later in his speech on behalf of Caelius and
refuses, again, to name any particular woman. Baiae, lifestyle of a courtesan, extravagance and licentious-
ness are mentioned once again. The ‘anonymous’ woman without a husband opens her house to any man.61
It is obvious that the anonymous woman is Clodia herself. Cicero tries to assure that his personal enmity
with Clodia does not affect his words against Clodia. He continues by saying that it would not be especially
shameful if a young man like Caelius had a relationship with a courtesan he just described. It was natural

53  Skinner 2011, 3.

54 Cic. Cael. 1, 1.
55 Cic. Cael. 13, 31-32.
56 Cic. Cael. 15, 35. Prostitutes could not appear as witnesses for the prosecution in courts. See Gardner 1993, 128-30.
57  Edwards 1993, 5.
58  Skinner 2011, 32, 43-44.
59  Skinner 2011, 109; 112.
60 Cic. Cael. 16, 38.
61 Cic. Cael. 20, 48-49.
118 Marja-Leena Hänninen

for young men too seek the company of prostitutes. Young men should be allowed some freedom before
they grow up to maturity and learn their responsibilities.62 Cicero aims to label Clodia’s accusations against
Caelius as a revenge of a disgraced woman who was disappointed in her relationship to a younger man who,
according to Cicero, was decent and virtuous.63 Clodia’s alleged immorality is also reflected in the status
of the slaves in her household. Cicero states that Clodia’s slaves had unusual freedom and in a household
whose mistress lived the life of a courtesan, slaves were actually not slaves anymore.64
Cicero does not claim that Clodia would have worked as a prostitute or taken money for her sexual
services. He states that her lifestyle resembled that of a courtesan. She was morally corrupt, not in the same
level as the other Roman elite matrons. Thus, her accusations against Caelius cannot be taken seriously. A
person occupied in a shameful profession such as prostitution or otherwise fallen in disgrace faced various
bans in Roman society. The label of infamia restricted one’s possibilities to appear in court, especially as
a witness.65 Basically, if there was a sexual relationship between Clodia and Caelius, the relationship was
disgraceful because Caelius’ social standing was lower than that of Clodia. Cicero had to protect his client
against the charge of stuprum and claim that Clodia did not have any more a reputation to lose as she be-
haved like a whore. There was nothing illegal in a relationship of a young man with a prostitute.66
When defending Caelius, Cicero aims to discredit the testimony against his client before the wit-
nesses appear in the court. He leads the attention from the alleged crimes of his client elsewhere, to the key
witness of the prosecution, that is Clodia and, more generally, to the immorality of Roman aristocratic wom-
en. As Skinner points out, Cicero’s Pro Caelio is a rhetorical masterpiece, but not a reliable source for the
lifestyle of Roman noble women. Personal attacks on prosecutors and their witnesses were essential tools of
the defender, and moral evaluation of the character and lifestyle of the witnesses was considered perfectly
relevant in an ancient Roman court room.67 It cannot be taken as self-evident that Cicero’s audience would
have accepted his portrait of Clodia. If Clodia would have widely been known for her immoral lifestyle at
the time of the Caelius trial, she would hardly have been called as a witness in a trial.68 Furthermore, it has to
be kept in mind that in his speeches, Cicero does not defame Clodia because she was a woman but primarily
because she was sister of Publius Clodius.69
There is still one feature in Clodia’s portrait that deserves attention. Before the imperial era, erudition
and cultural sophistication were not particularly appreciated as feminine virtues. Noble women of the Late
Republican era were also criticized for being too interested in poetry and other arts. The moralists feared
the cultural activities made women neglect their most important duties as wives and mothers.70 Cultural and
literary interests of women could be associated with the vice of luxury and, thus, with loose sexual habits.
Sempronia’s portrait in Sallust’s Bellum Catilinae is a good example of this kind of prejudices. Sallust
depicts her as a high-ranking lady who is well read and also “able to play lyre and dance more skillfully
than a respectable woman needs”. Sempronia’s education and charms are dubious, she lacks modesty and
chastity, she uses her wealth to wrong purposes and she tries to satisfy her sexual desires even if men were

62 Cic. Cael. 18; 20, 49-50.

63 Cic. Cael. 22, 53-55.
64 Cic. Cael. 23, 57.
65 See Gardner 1993, 110-54.
66  Skinner 2011, 109-10.
67  Skinner 2011, 96-99.
68  Skinner 2011, 73, 147.
69  Skinner 2011, 18.
70  E.g., Hor. carm. 3, 6, 21-32.
 The image of a well-born lady as a prostitute 119

not equally interested in her. Her cultural accomplishments link her rather to lower-class courtesans. An
educated woman seems to have been vulnerable to accusations of wantonness.71
Clodia Metelli was not so unequivocally connected with cultural or intellectual interests, but there are
references to the field of literature in Cicero’s mentions of Clodia. These references are obviously meant to
compromise Clodia and her brother. Cicero tries to connect Clodius and Clodia with mime performers in his
speech on behalf of Sestius, thus associating the siblings with the morally suspicious world of theatre and
the shameful profession of actor.72 It has also been suggested that Clodia actually had connections to theatre
business or even that she herself composed mimes. In the genre of mimes, female slaves and courtesans
played disreputable women such as adulteresses. Cicero also calls Clodia a poetria, poetess, in his Caelius
speech. Cicero probably means that Clodia had fabricated her accusations against Caelius, not that she
would have actually written mimes. It would have been extraordinary if Clodia had written plays of a genre
generally despised by the Roman aristocracy. It is probable that the association of Clodia with the stage was
specifically meant to tarnish her reputation.73
In addition to Cicero, there is another contemporary source linking Clodia or a woman resembling her
public image with the world of poetry, that is Catullus. The poetic mistress of Catullus, Lesbia, was identi-
fied with Clodia already by the ancients. It is however, difficult to conclude definitively if they identified
Lesbia precisely with Clodia Metelli or one of her two sisters. Furthermore, it is very hard to prove if Catul-
lus was writing about real or fictional persons in the first place.74 What we eventually have is the portrait of
a woman that resembles the Clodia of Pro Caelio to some extent. Catullus’ poem 79 is the clearest reference
to Clodia Metelli, since it contains the insinuation to incest between the brother and sister. The picture of
Lesbia in the poems of Catullus is far from coherent – it varies from a sensitive puella to a mature woman
who gives her favours to any man. Aristocratic arrogance and duplicity can be perceived in Lesbia. Catullus
portrays an immoral aristocratic whore in some of his poems, and in some poems he actually depicts Lesbia
as a prostitute.75
Roman love poets connected the term puella docta with charming young women skilled in poetry,
music and dance. These accomplishments are part of their erotic attraction and compensate the lack of tra-
ditional feminine virtues. Sexual freedom and independence are also connected with the puellae. Thus, they
have same kind of charm as educated courtesans.76 The ideal of the puella docta with its erotic implications
contradicted the traditional morality and traditional matronal virtues. The combination of poetry, music and
dance was associated with courtesans. Thus, praising an upper-class woman for skills in these fields might
have ruined her reputation. Puella docta may have been a contrast to the traditional ideal of a chaste matron
but it may also reflect the changing lifestyle of the women of the Roman elite. Augustus’ daughter Julia
may have been a puella docta, too. She was known as a smart and cultured young woman who was accused
of licentious life and finally ruined by accusations of adultery. Her portrait is highly ambiguous in ancient
literature, but the fifth-century author Macrobius gives a positive judgement of her. According to Macrobius
Julia had love of literature and great learning and great humanity. Julia is interestingly contradictory: an

71 Sall. Catil. 25; Hemelrijk 1999, 84-86, 174-75; Skinner 2011, 121-22.
72 Cic. Sest. 116; Skinner 2011, 124.
73 Cic. Cael. 64; Wiseman 1985, 26-38; Hemelrijk 1999, 174-75; Skinner 2011, 125.
74  Hemelrijk 1999, 175; Harders 2008, 236-37; Skinner 2011, 131-33.
75  Skinner 2011, 133-44.
76  Hemelrijk 1999, 79-80. See also Lilja 1965, 133-43.
120 Marja-Leena Hänninen

educated mother of five children who in her liveliness and youthfulness rather resembles a puella docta than
a severe matron.77
The members of the Julio-Claudian dynasty were by no means immune to the kind of defaming that
appears in Cicero’s speeches. Women’s behavior, sexual misbehavior in particular, was often presented as
the symptom of a morally corrupt society. Furthermore, political opponents and personal enemies might be
attacked by defaming the women of the family. Still, Clodia, Julia and Messalina may not have been just
innocent victims of malicious men. Julia may well have really committed adultery and she certainly was ex-
pelled by her father, but the details of the story are coloured by moralistic attitudes and criticism against the
monarchy. The pater patriae failed as a father of his daughter who could not behave like a modest, decent
matron. Whatever the real character of Messalina was, she served as one proof of corrupted power. Accusa-
tions of prostitution were effective rhetorical tools. The fallen women of the imperial family serve as signs
of moral and political corruption in narratives about the Julio-Claudian dynasty.

77 Macr. Sat. 2, 5, 2. Hemelrijk 1999, 80.

 Influential mistresses in the imperial dynasties of first-century Rome:
Claudia Acte and Antonia Caenis

Pia Mustonen

Introduction

This article examines imperial mistresses during the Julio-Claudian and Flavian dynasties, analyzing their
relationship with the emperor and the ways in which they participated in imperial politics and economic life.
In the first section, I will briefly clarify the use of different terms denoting quasi-marital unions and other
sexual relationships in ancient Rome. As regards imperial mistresses, my focus here is on two freedwomen
who had previously served as slaves in the imperial court, Claudia Acte and Antonia Caenis. In the context
of the early principate, they are in a category of their own, as female ex-slaves who were able to obtain influ-
ence and accumulate wealth of their own through their intimacy with the emperor. In historiography they are
often implicitly compared and contraposed to the women who had an official position in the imperial family
and propaganda, such as the emperor’s wife or mother. Roman historians typically give us information about
the women of the imperial household only to the extent that their actions are directly related to the emperor.
However, by combining literary evidence with other sources, such as archaeological findings, we can create
a more complete picture of their life and activities also outside of the court.

Wives, concubines, and other lovers

A legal marriage existed only for Romans and certain non-Romans who had been given the ius conubii with
citizens; it meant that children took their father’s status and were in patria potestate.1 From at least the late
Republic onwards, Roman marriage did not require a formal ceremony to be valid: it consisted essentially of
cohabitation between two eligible partners. Most of the rules that disqualified certain citizens from marrying
were probably general social conventions before they were formalized by Augustus in his marital legisla-
tion.2 When marriage was not possible because of social or legal obstacles, the partners could live together
in a quasi-marital union, either concubinatus or contubernium.
Concubinage (concubinatus) was a form of cohabitation between a man and a woman who lacked
either the legal capacity to enter into matrimony or the intention to do so (affectio maritalis). This union
could take place between individuals of freeborn status and slaves, between freeborn and freedwomen, or

1  Treggiari 1981b, 43; Treggiari 1991, 43.

2  Too close a degree of relationship precluded marriage, as did a young age (the minimum age at the time of marriage was twelve
for girls, fourteen for boys). Soldiers could not marry during their term of service, and governors could not marry women resident in
their provinces during their governorship. Marriage was illegal between freeborn citizens and persons involved in certain infamous
occupations, such as prostitution and acting; Augustan legislation added women convicted of adultery to this category. Augustus
also prohibited marriage between members of the senatorial families and freedpersons. Rawson 1974, 279-82.
122 Pia Mustonen

between freedpersons.3 Freeborn couples and persons who were eligible to contract a legally recognized
marriage were, however, expected to marry to produce legitimate children.4 Usually, the status of the male
was higher than that of the female, and this created a situation where their concubinate relationship was
socially approved. For young men, it was acceptable to have a slave or a freedwoman as a concubine during
the period between puberty and marriage. Taking a concubine was a convenient solution also for widows or
divorced men with legitimate children by a former wife, because a new wife who could bear new offspring
would have complicated the inheritance.5
Concubinage seems to have been relatively common already during the Republic, but its major dif-
fusion in all social classes coincides with the Augustan age.6 Augustus’ legislation on sexual offences made
it important to distinguish concubinage not merely from marriage but from other sexual relationships as
well.7 In the Republican era, marriages between freed and freeborn were valid, though socially despised. In
this sense, Augustus actually introduced a liberalization by prohibiting only marriages between members of
senatorial families and freedpersons in his Lex Iulia de maritandis ordinibus (18 BCE).8
A concubine (concubina) was a free woman who lived together with a man without being his wife, and
their cohabitation sufficed to distinguish the relationship from a casual affair.9 The Roman law code recognized
that a concubine’s position was very similar to that of a legal wife, and marriage and concubinage were supposed
to be mutually exclusive. Roman marriage was monogamous, and the special relationship with a concubine
would be tantamount to bigamy.10 In literature, however, the meaning of the word concubina is often vague. It
may be loosely used of the mistress of a married man or of multiple lovers kept by men of the upper classes.11
The social disparity of concubinage is also reflected in the terminology: the woman is called concu-
bina, but there is no specific word to describe the male partner. Contubernium, by contrast, was a reciprocal
union where affectio maritalis might be present but legal incapacity ruled out marriage.12 In its original
sense, contubernium was used of ‘tent-companion’ for comrades in the army. In juristic, literary, and epi-
graphic sources, the usual meaning of contubernalis was a slave ‘wife’ or ‘husband’, since a valid marriage
was impossible between slaves.13 Contubernium could also take place between a slave and a free person
(whether freed or freeborn), but at least one partner was or had been a slave during the union.14
In addition to long-term concubinae and contubernales, there were other, more casual, girlfriends
and lovers. A particular word, paelex or pel(l)ex, which undoubtedly has archaic origins, occurs in a law at-
tributed to Rome’s second king, Numa Pompilius.15 The exact significance of this term is not entirely clear,

3  Fayer 2005, 12.

4  Rawson 1974, 280-81.
5  Dixon 1992, 93; Fayer 2005, 13.
6  Fayer 2005, 20.
7  Gardner 1986, 57.
8  Cf. Dio Cass. 54, 16, 2; McGinn 1998, 86.
9  Gardner 1986, 56.
10  Treggiari 1981a, 77; Rawson 1974, 288; McGinn 1991, 336.
11  Treggiari 1981a, 60, 77. For a list of imperial concubines, see Friedl 1996, 170-76.
12  Treggiari 1981a, 59; Treggiari 1991, 52.
13  In literature: Colum. 1, 8, 5; 12, 1, 1; Petron. 57, 6; 61, 9; Plin. nat. 36, 82; Roman jurists: Scaev. dig. 32, 41, 2; 40, 4, 59; Ulp.
dig. 33, 7, 12, 33; Paul. dig. 35, 1, 81; Gai. 40, 7, 31, 1.
14  Treggiari 1981b, 42-44.
15  Paul. Fest. p. 248 L: Pelex aram Iunonis ne tangito; si tanget, Iunoni crinibus demissis agnum feminam caedito. Juno was the
tutelary deity of iustae nuptiae, and this law indirectly distinguished the role of paelex from that of uxor, giving the legally married
wife a higher position. Fayer 2005, 18-19.
 Influential mistresses in the imperial dynasties of first-century Rome 123

and its definitions vary in ancient sources; Roman authors agree, however, that the origin of the term paelex
derived from Greek παλλακή. Most often, paelex meant a woman who had a sexual relationship with a mar-
ried man. In the Republican era, this word was less commonly used of a woman who cohabited with a man
uxoris loco; in the Imperial era, she would rather be called amica or, more respectably, concubina.16 Amica,
‘girl friend’, seems to have been a more transitory partner, and this term was perhaps inappropriate for a
long-term spouse.17 Although concubinage was not a legal institution, it was of interest to Roman jurists and
relevant to discussions of marriage or family property, because concubinae could be confused with wives.
Ordinary amicae, on the other hand, were left out of account.18

Claudia Acte

Claudia Acte19 was one of the figures in the larger circles of Emperor Nero’s court. She was a native of Asia
Minor, bought as a slave there and brought to Rome, where she served as an imperial slave.20 She was freed
by either Emperor Claudius or his stepson and successor Nero. According to Tacitus, who is our main source
on Acte, Nero took her as his lover in 55 CE, the year after Claudius’ death and Nero’s accession. Nero’s two
advisers Seneca and Burrus tried to keep his relationship with a freedwoman hidden from the public view as
long as possible, using Annaeus Serenus, Seneca’s protégé, as a cover for the affair. When Nero’s mother,
Agrippina minor, found out about the affair, she scolded him for giving so much importance to a person of
low birth. Agrippina opposed this liaison right from its beginning, fearing it would erode her power in the
court – she had been de facto a co-ruler with Nero, managing many political affairs on his behalf. Nero’s
loveless marriage with Octavia, the daughter of Emperor Claudius and Messalina, had been arranged by
Agrippina as a political move to join further the Julian and Claudian families. Agrippina’s threats and efforts
to separate the two lovers had only the contrary effect on Nero, making him feel even more attachment to
Acte, thus openly insulting his wife and defying his mother.21
Seneca and Burrus had encouraged the affair because Nero was deeply unhappy in his marriage, and
having a mistress was considered a harmless way of letting him satisfy his needs and keeping his cravings in
control. Otherwise, there was a risk that a sexually frustrated Nero would aim his passions at upper-class ma-
tronae. On the other hand, Seneca and Burrus also profited from the situation, gaining more influence when
Nero distanced himself from his mother’s control. Agrippina gradually lost her foothold in the court although
she had allied herself with Nero’s abandoned wife Octavia. She was about thirteen years old at the time they
had married, and is described as noble and virtuous; very soon, Octavia found herself a wife in name alone.22
A turning point in the relationship between Nero, Agrippina, and Octavia came in 55 CE, when Nero
poisoned his stepbrother Britannicus, whom Agrippina had threatened to put on the throne instead of Nero.
Agrippina tried to ally herself with Octavia and gain supporters among the senatorial class, but she was soon
stripped of her privileges and removed from the imperial palace to a separate establishment.23 This, in conse-

16 Paul. dig. 50, 16, 144; cf. Paul. Fest. p. 248 L; Gell. NA 4, 3, 3; Fayer 2005, 14-18.
17  Rawson 1974, 299, n. 67.
18  Treggiari 1981a, 60.
19  PIR² C 1067.
20  Dio Cass. 61, 7, 1.
21 Tac. ann. 13, 12-13; Dio Cass. 61, 7, 1; Holztrattner 1995, 133; Mastino – Ruggeri 1995, 515-17.
22 Tac. ann. 13, 12-13; Suet. Nero 35, 1; Holztrattner 1995, 134.
23 Tac. ann. 13, 16; 13, 18.
124 Pia Mustonen

quence, re-enforced Acte’s position: Nero even planned to marry her and bribed some ex-consuls to lie that
she was of royal birth. In the account by Cassius Dio, this fake descent from King Attalus III of Pergamum
was even made formal by a false adoption.24 At the time, Nero seems to have considered for the first time
seriously divorcing Octavia and marrying Acte. He donated to her vast imperial latifundia in Velitrae,25 in
Puteoli,26 possibly in Egypt,27 and above all in Olbia (Sardinia),28 the last one probably from Nero’s private
patrimony of the gens Domitia.29
Suetonius places Nero’s affair with Acte among a long list of his sexual crimes, which included
debauching the Vestal virgin Rubria as well as castrating and marrying the slave boy Sporus: preferring a
freedwoman over his aristocratic wife and planning an illegal marriage with her demonstrated Nero’s de-
pravity and self-indulgence.30 Suetonius describes Acte as Nero’s concubina,31 but Tacitus calls her more
correctly paelex, which was the word used of the lover of a married man.32 Concubinage between a freeborn
man and a freedwoman was not uncommon in Rome: it was considered a socially acceptable option when a
legal marriage was not possible. Having a concubine and a wife simultaneously, however, was prohibited,
since these were parallel forms of a stable, long-term relationship.33
The planned marriage never happened, and Claudia Acte disappears temporarily from the scene at the
time Nero had found a new woman in his life, Poppaea Sabina, in about 58 CE, while he was still married
to Octavia.34 Although we can assume that Acte retired from the imperial court while Nero focused on Pop-
paea, she must have still stayed on good terms with him. When an open rivalry broke out between Poppaea
and Agrippina in 59 CE, Acte continued to play an important role in the court, once again at the prompting
of Seneca. Worried that Agrippina would tempt her son into an incestuous relationship in order to retain her
influence and to alienate Nero from Poppaea, Seneca sought Acte’s help. Fearing for both her own safety
and for Nero’s honour, she informed Nero that the incest was widely known in the court because his mother
was boasting of it and that the troops would refuse to serve a sacrilegious emperor. Acte’s words struck
Nero, especially on account of the fear of possible reactions by the army: he started to avoid Agrippina and
finally arranged her assassination in March 59.35
The death of Burrus in 62 CE caused a rupture in the equilibrum, provoking as a consequence the de-
cline of Seneca’s influence and indirectly that of Acte.36 During the same year, Nero married Poppaea after
divorcing Octavia, who was first sent into exile and then murdered.37 Between the years 62 and 65 Poppaea
was the sole mistress in the court without rivals; during this time, Acte probably focused on managing her
estates in Sardinia. The conspiracy of Gaius Calpurnius Piso in 65 CE was another dramatic turning point:

24 Suet. Nero 28, 1; Dio Cass. 61, 7, 1.

25  CIL X 6589, a water pipe with the inscription Claudiae Aug(usti) l(ibertae) Actes.
26  CIL X 1903, a water pipe with the inscription Claudiae Aug(usti) l(ibertae) Actes.
27  P.Ross.Georg. 2, 42, a revision of the land register from the Memphite region.
28  CIL X 8046, 9 a-e, bricks with the stamp Actes Aug(usti) l(ibertae), produced in Olbia.
29  Mastino – Ruggeri 1995, 519.
30 Suet. Nero 28-29; Holztrattner 1995, 140.
31 Suet. Nero 50.
32 Tac. ann. 13, 46, Poppaea mocking Nero’s affection for his slave-girl. Elsewhere she is described as liberta, Treggiari 1981,
77, n. 93.
33  Gardner 1986, 56: Rawson 1974, 288.
34 Tac. ann. 13, 45-46.
35 Tac. ann. 14, 2; cf. Dio Cass. 61, 11; Suet. Nero 28; Holztrattner 1995, 134; Mastino – Ruggeri 1995, 525-26.
36 Tac. ann. 14, 52.
37 Tac. ann. 14, 63-64; Suet. Nero 35, 2-3.
 Influential mistresses in the imperial dynasties of first-century Rome 125

the conspirators planned to kill Nero during the ludi Ceriales (19 Apr. 65), at which the emperor would
certainly have been present.38 The plot failed and the conspirators were condemned to death, among them
Nero’s tutor Seneca. To thank the divine powers for saving the emperor, the Senate voted for offerings and
thanks to the Sun, who had an old temple in the Circus Maximus where the crime was to be staged; and the
Circensian Games of Ceres were to be celebrated with an increased number of horse-races.39 According to
Paola Ruggeri’s hypothesis, it was on this occasion that Claudia Acte dedicated a temple to Ceres in Olbia to
express her gratitude for the exposure of the conspiracy that aimed at assassinating Nero during the festival
in honour of the goddess Ceres. Only the right part of the architrave in granite remains of the building, which
was transferred to Pisa during the Middle Ages.40
It is possible that Poppaea’s death in 65 CE enabled Acte to return to Rome, but apparently Nero
did not resume his relationship with her, since he soon took Statilia Messalina as his third (and last) wife.41
Acte is mentioned once again only after Nero’s death in 68 CE: according to Suetonius, Acte gave Nero a
proper burial together with his old nurses Egloge and Alexandria, laying his ashes in the family tomb of
the Domitii, the family of Nero’s biological father. The funeral is said to have cost 200.000 sesterces: since
Nero had suffered damnatio memoriae and died as a hated tyrant, it is unlikely that this was paid from public
expenses; quite possibly it was Acte who arranged and paid for his burial.42 After this, she disappears from
the historical record, although a potential epitaph survives in Velitrae.43 Emperor Galba had many of Nero’s
most prominent freedmen executed soon after his accession,44 but since Claudia Acte is not named among
those executed in the summer of 68 or thereafter, it is possible that she survived into Vespasian’s reign.
Although Claudia Acte was Nero’s mistress for only about four years (between 55 and 58), she
was able to accumulate considerable wealth during this time. There are many proofs of Acte’s presence
in Sardinia, including numerous stamps on instrumentum domesticum, mostly on bricks. The brick stamps
demonstrate the extent of her economic activities on latifundia which were transferred more or less tem-
porarily to Acte and, after her, probably back to imperial control under Vespasian. In addition to brick
production, the imperial enterprises also included agriculture and the utilization of granite caves; some of
these probably originated from the gens Domitia, and the few Domitii known from Olbia may have been
connected to Nero’s local property.45 The existence of a direct relationship between Nero and Olbia is further
attested by a portrait of the young Nero, found at Olbia and currently in the collection of the Archaeologi-
cal Museum of Cagliari. The statue is an example of a portrait created on the occasion of Nero’s accession
to the throne, and it may have been brought to Olbia from the imperial court by Acte during her temporary
retirement in Sardinia while Poppaea was the sole mistress in the court.46
It is significant that more inscriptions survive for the household of Claudia Acte than for any other
imperial freedwoman. Mastino and Ruggeri have compiled a list of Acte’s slaves and freedmen, counting a
total of 58 names, 26 of which are uncertain. These include also three freedmen bearing her agnomen, who

38 Tac. ann. 15, 53.

39 Tac. ann. 15, 74.
40  CIL XI 1414: [C]ereri sacrum / [Claudia] Aug(usti) lib(erta) Acte; Mastino – Ruggeri 1995, 528-30.
41 Suet. Nero 35, 1.
42 Suet. Nero 50.
43  CIL X 6599: D(is) M(anibus) / Claudiae Actes.
44 Plut. Galba 17, 1-3; Dio Cass. 64, 3, 4.
45  Mastino – Ruggeri 1995, 518-19; 530-31; Ruggeri 2004, 281-82. Domitii in Olbia in the 1st century CE: CIL X 7982; EE 8,
736; CIL X 1481.
46  Cagliari, Museo archeologico nazionale, inv. 35533; Saletti 1989, 79; Mastino – Ruggeri 1995, 534-35.
126 Pia Mustonen

were originally Acte’s slaves and later became imperial property. The majority of Acte’s slaves and freed-
men appear in Rome itself, occupied in managing various tasks either in Acte’s villa on Caelian Hill or in
her other properties in the city.47 A similar organisation must have existed in each of the latifundia in her
possession, to take care of their operations. In Sardinia, we find three of Acte’s freedmen and one imperial
freedwoman with the agnomen Acteniana in separate inscriptions; most probably, all of them were origi-
nally located at Olbia.48

Antonia Caenis

A similar case of a freedwoman as an imperial mistress appears under Emperor Vespasian. The important
factor behind the successful life of Antonia Caenis49 was the skills and social networks acquired during her
years as a trusted secretary (a manu) of Antonia Minor, the mother of Emperor Claudius. Nothing is known
about the origins of Caenis, but she was possibly brought to Rome from Istria, modern-day Croatia.50 Her
name, Antonia Caenis, tells us that she was freed by Antonia, more probably during her lifetime, before her
suicide in 37 CE.51
There are very few literary sources on Antonia Caenis’ life: Suetonius mentions her three times and
Cassius Dio once.52 Suetonius tells that after the death of his wife Flavia Domitilla, which occurred before
his accession in 69 CE, Vespasian “resumed his relationship with Caenis, the freedwoman and secretary
of Antonia, and formerly his mistress, and even after he became emperor he treated her almost as a lawful
wife (paene iustae uxoris loco)”.53 Thus, the relationship predated Vespasian’s marriage and ended when he
married Flavia Domitilla, probably sometime around the year 39.54 Vespasian’s choice not to remarry, but
instead to take back his former lover, may have been based on true affection, but it also had practical aspects.
He had already two legitimate sons, Titus and Domitian, from his first marriage, and a new wife with the
potential to produce new heirs would have threatened their status and complicated the inheritance.55 After
Caenis’ death, Vespasian kept several mistresses, but none of them seems to have risen to her position at the
court, since all their names remain unknown to posterity.56

47  Mastino – Ruggeri 1995, 520-21, 532, 542-44. Acte’s household in Rome included a personal secretary (a manu, CIL VI 8890
= ILS 7396), a courier (cursor, CIL VI 8801 = AE 2000, +132), an account manager (procurator summarum, CIL VI 9030 = CIL VI
4865a = ILS 7386 = AE 1969/70, +67), two bedroom attendants (a cubiculo, CIL VI 8760 = ILS 1742; cubicularius, CIL VI 8791),
two scribes (scriba librarius, CIL VI 1867a = CIL VI 32269; scriba cubiculariorum, CIL VI 8767) and a baker (pistor, CIL VI
9002). The rare occupational title of Demetria Act(e)s Aug(usti) l(ibertae), acroamat(ica) Graeca (CIL VI 8693) is interesting; she
was probably a professional entertainer specialised in reciting poetry to the accompaniment of a musical instrument.
48  AE 1892, 137; CIL X 7980; CIL X 7984 at Olbia. The original location of CIL X 7640 is uncertain, since it was transferred to
Genoa in the eighteenth century together with a sarcophagus from Carales. Mastino – Ruggeri 1995, 520; 532-33.
49  PIR² A 888.
50 This suggestion is based on Suet. Dom. 12, 3, who tells an anecdote about Domitian’s disrespectful behaviour towards Caenis,
who had just returned to Rome from Istria.
51  CIL X 6666, an inscription for Eros Caenidianus Augustae libertus, confirms that Caenis was freed during Antonia’s lifetime
rather than in her will, since she could not otherwise have transferred a slave bearing her agnomen to her patron.
52 Suet. Vesp. 3; 21; Suet. Dom. 12, 3; Dio Cass. 65, 14.
53 Suet. Vesp. 3. The year of Flavia Domitilla’s death is not known.
54 Suetonius’ choice of words (revocavit) suggests that Vespasian had discontinued their relationship during his marriage with
Domitilla. Titus, the first child of that union, was born on 30 Dec. 39.
55  Vespasian and Flavia Domitilla had two sons, the future emperors Titus and Domitian, and a daughter, Flavia Domitilla the
Younger, who died before Vespasian’s accession.
56 Suet. Vesp. 21. Vespasian’s lovers are mentioned only in one sentence. Suetonius designates them by means of the rare word
pallaca, from Greek παλλακή; this also implies that none of them was a concubina in the legal sense of the term, as Caenis had been.
 Influential mistresses in the imperial dynasties of first-century Rome 127

Dio has recorded Caenis’ death in c. 74/75 CE, because “she was exceedingly faithful and gifted with
a most excellent memory”. He demonstrates these characteristics with an anecdote from the time when Cae-
nis served as a slave in the imperial court: Antonia Minor charged Caenis to write a secret letter to Emperor
Tiberius, then residing in Capri, to warn him of a suspicious plot by the Praetorian Prefect Sejanus. When
she ordered Caenis to destroy the message so that no trace of it would be left, Caenis replied: “It is useless
for you to give me this order, domina; for not only this, but as whatever you dictate to me I’ll always carry
in my memory, and it can never be erased.”57
Caenis’ position as an imperial secretary was of considerable importance, because it involved drafting
private correspondence and offered her a place in the inner circles of power. One interesting figure behind
Vespasian’s political career was Tiberius Claudius Narcissus, one of the freedmen who formed the core of
the imperial court under Claudius. Narcissus reportedly exercised great influence over the emperor, and this
made him the most powerful freedman of his time.58 It was specifically through his influence that Vespa-
sian was appointed legate of the Legio II Augusta in Germania upon the accession of Claudius in 41 CE.
Narcissus is described as praepositus ab epistulis, in charge of correspondence, which means that Antonia
Caenis and Narcissus were practically colleagues in the imperial court.59 It is an appealing idea that Caenis
may have brought Vespasian to the notice of Narcissus, whose favour and influence over Emperor Claudius
secured him important offices.60 Vespasian’s success as the legate of a legion earned him a consulship in 51
CE, after which he retired from public life, since he had incurred the enmity of Claudius’ wife Agrippina
minor. During the greater part of Nero’s reign, Vespasian was in debt and out of favour: Caenis may have
come to his aid, using her influence in the court to ensure that his name was considered in the matter of the
Judean command.61
Unlike Claudia Acte, Caenis was “almost in the position of a lawful wife”: Suetonius describes her as
concubina and her relationship with Vespasian as contubernium. Both terms suggest a monogamous, stable
union.62 He places the affair with Caenis before and after Vespasian’s marriage to Flavia Domitilla, thus
removing any question about Vespasian’s high morals: only bad emperors kept mistresses during their mar-
riage, as Nero had done with Acte. However, Suetonius’ account of Vespasian’s relationship with Antonia
Caenis poses some problems, when we consider the influence that she had on Vespasian’s early career. It is
difficult to believe that Vespasian broke off his relationship with Caenis when he married, before he even
began his public career, and yet benefited from the connections that Caenis had inside the Julio-Claudian
court.63 It is thus quite probable that Vespasian maintained his relations with Caenis throughout his mar-
riage, although his military command and other offices took him away from Rome for several years.

57  Dio Cass. 65, 14, 1-2 (Loeb Classical Library edition, transl. Earnest Cary). Antonia Caenis may have been freed as a result
of being involved in uncovering Sejanus’ plot. Sejanus was accused of a conspiracy against the emperor and executed in 31 CE.
58  Dio Cass. 60, 14, 13; 60, 30, 6; 60, 34, 4; Suet. Claud. 28. Narcissus was also the richest man in Rome: according to Cassius
Dio (60, 34, 4), he possessed the extraordinary fortune of 400 million sesterces; Pliny the Elder (nat. 33, 134) describes him as even
wealthier than Crassus, the richest man of the Republican era.
59  However, the duties of slaves or freedpersons a manu and ab epistulis differed somewhat: the former was a private secretary,
while the latter was specifically employed in imperial correspondence concerning civil and military administration. See Boulvert
1970, 91-92, 376-78.
60 Suet. Vesp. 4, 1-2: Claudio principe Narcissi gratia legatus legionis in Germaniam missus est.
61 Suet. Vesp. 4, 2-5.
62 Suet. Vesp. 3; Dom. 12, 3. Contubernium in its strict sense was a term that described a quasi-marital relationship where at least
one of the partners was or had been a slave during the union, see Treggiari 1981b, 42-44.
63  Wardle 2010, 110-11.
128 Pia Mustonen

Cassius Dio tells that Antonia Caenis was a remarkable woman not only for her memory, but also be-
cause Vespasian “took such excessive delight in her”. Dio emphasises Caenis’ great influence in the imperial
court and how this granted her the possibility to accumulate considerable wealth. It was thought that Vespa-
sian made money by using Caenis as his intermediary: although Vespasian did not condemn anyone to death
on account of his money, he spared the lives of many who surrendered their property to the emperor. These
donations, and possibly also the bribes from many citizens seeking the emperor’s favour, were arranged to
pass through Caenis’ hands, so that she got her share of the wealth. She also received vast sums of money
from other sources as well, since Vespasian apparently allowed her to sell magistracies and priesthoods, and
even imperial decisions.64 However, it is possible that Caenis was wealthy even before Vespasian’s acces-
sion: she may have been one of the beneficiaries of her former mistress Antonia Minor.
In addition to literary sources, a few archaeological findings attest her wealth. A funerary inscription
on a marble altar found near the Porta Nomentana in Rome is the last piece of evidence about her life. The
monument was erected to the memory of their former mistress by her freedman Aglaeus and his children:
Dis Manib(us) / Antoniae Aug(ustae) / l(ibertae) Caenidis / optumae patron(ae) / Aglaus l(ibertus) cum
Aglao / et Glene et Aglaide / filiis.65 The location of the altar is hardly a coincidence, because the villa of
Caenis is assumed to have been located in the area outside the Porta Nomentana. Originally, the funerary
altar probably stood on the estate of Antonia Caenis in the vicinity of her tomb.66 Besides the freedman who
commemorated her, inscriptions have recorded the names of two of her slaves67 along with three freed impe-
rial slaves68 who bear the agnomen Caenidianus/a.
In the excavations completed in 1905 at the beginning of the Via Nomentana, in the area of the Villa
Patrizi, a few inscribed water pipes (fistulae aquariae) were unearthed: one inscription contained the name
of the plumbarius, the other one the name of the owner of water. The name in the first stamp, Ti. Claudius
Felix, is known also from other water pipes dated to Nero’s reign.69 The second inscription carries the name
of the owner of the water, Antoniae Caenidis, repeated several times on the pipes.70 In Imperial Rome, the
permission to conduct water pipes to a private house was usually the privilege of influential or very wealthy
individuals. Thus, Antonia Caenis, whose Greek cognomen indicates her servile origin, could not have been
just any freedwoman. The estates of Caenis must have been rather vast, extending along the Via Nomentana
to the east from the city, as the excavation map indicates. During the first century CE, a residential quartier
characterized by large villas was built in this area.71
Among the water pipes were also pieces dated to the consular year 164 with the imperial stamp of
Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus, which were later restorations or extensions of the original plumbing.72 It

64  Dio Cass. 65, 14, 3-4. A similar account of Messalina (and imperial freedmen) selling citizenships and magistracies during
Claudius’ reign: Dio Cass. 60, 17, 5-8.
65  CIL VI 12037.
66  Nonnis 2009, 405; LTURS I, s.v. ‘Antonia Caenidis praedium’, 70 (P. Baccini Leotardi).
67  CIL VI 4057; CIL VI 8900.
68  CIL X 6666; CIL VI 15110; CIL VI 18358.
69  Water pipes recording the same name, found on the Caelian Hill, are inscribed on the other side with the name of a freedman
known from the Neronian era, Diadumenu(s) Aug. l. a libellis, CIL XV 7444. One of the pipes found from the same area of the Villa
Patrizi in 1869 bears the name of the owner of the water, Ti. Alieni Caecina(e), who was probably related to Aulus Caecina Alienus,
consul suffect in 69 CE, CIL XV 7382. The activity of Ti. Claudius Felix can be thus dated to the period of Nero and the Flavians.
Friggeri 1977-78, 145-47.
70  AE 1908, 231.
71  Friggeri 1977-78, 145-48, 152; map of the area in LTURS I, 277, fig. 73.
72  AE 1908, 232.
 Influential mistresses in the imperial dynasties of first-century Rome 129

seems that the plumbing originally owned by a private individual later became imperial property: the estate
of Antonia Caenis was most probably transferred after her death to the emperor, while imperial officials
(freedmen or slaves) continued to look after it. This would also explain the repairs to the plumbing under
Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus. In this context, another archaeological finding near the same area is also
significant: a funerary altar dated to the beginning of the second century CE, dedicated to Julia Fortunata
who died as a child, by Julius Florus and the imperial slave Onesimus, who was employed in the balineum
Caenidianum.73 Although the balineum Caenidianum may have been open to the public, they were the em-
peror’s property and were administrated by one of his slaves; the baths probably formed part of the private
imperial complex of villas and gardens in Rome. They certainly got their name, Caenidianum, from their
previous owner, who must have been of some importance, if her name was maintained to designate the
baths. Antonia Caenis was the only important person known to us with such a name. The hypothesis of her
ownership is further confirmed by the fact that the slaves who were previously hers and later passed into
imperial property were likewise designated by means of the appellative Caenidianus.74
It is hardly a coincidence that the inscription mentioning the balineum Caenidianum was found in
the area where the villa of Antonia Caenis was supposedly located: the private baths were almost certainly
connected with the building. In excavations of the area of Villa Patrizi, several remains of baths were found:
in 1888, ruins of a sudatorium behind a convent church, and in 1896, on the right side of the Via dei Villini
a sudatorium built before the year 80.75 In addition to these, the ruins of baths near a villa called Vaccarec-
cia were found in 1888. Although there is evidence of several baths in the same area, the exact location of
the balineum Caenidianum is still uncertain. The aforementioned findings are hardly associated with it,
although the area of the two sudatoria is quite near the plumbing of Antonia Caenis. It is possible that the
baths have not yet been found because of a lack of systematic excavations in the area.76

Conclusions

As Nero’s mistress, Claudia Acte had a position which would have enabled her to exert influence over politi-
cal decision-making. It is unknown whether she was involved in Nero’s politics or not, but literary sources
imply that Acte was the central cause of the beginning of conflicts between Nero and his mother. This is a
narrative repeated by all our main sources: Tacitus, Suetonius, and Cassius Dio. Nero’s advisors Seneca and
Burrus used Acte as their intermediary to exploit Nero’s passion for her and to employ her as the balanc-
ing force against Agrippina minor. As a consequence, Agrippina lost gradually both her political power and
her grip on Nero, who eventually took absolute control of the Empire and ordered the assassination of his
mother. Unlike Seneca and Burrus, Claudia Acte not only survived through Nero’s reign, but also stayed
loyal to him until the end, arranging a proper burial for him. Epigrahic records attest her possessions in Italy

73  AE 1989, 211 = AE 1993, 149: D(is) M(anibus) / Iuliae Fortunatae, / vixit anno uno et / menses X dieb(us) VIII; / Iulius
Florus et / Onesimus Caesar(is) / n(ostri) vilicus balin(ei) / Caenidiani, / alumnae dulcissi / mae fecerunt. Paul Weaver and Peter
Wilkins have argued that the Onesimus who appears in another inscription (CIL VI 8679 = AE 1996, 92) as vilic(us) thermar(um) /
bybliothec(ae) Gra[ec(ae)] should be identified with the Onesimus of balinei Caenidiani, since the same name, occupation and the
two foster children (alumnae) are mentioned in the two inscriptions; Jesper Carlsen, however, refutes this suggestion, since Onesi-
mus was one of the most common slave names in Rome, and thermae implies a larger complex than a private balineum. Weaver –
Wilkins 1993, 244; Carlsen 2015, 5.
74  Weaver – Wilkins 1993, 242; Friggeri 1977-78, 148, 152-53. Three freed imperial slaves with the agnomen Caenidianus, see
n. 68.
75  This dating is based on inscription CIL XV 1097. Sudatorium was a vaulted sweating-room in the Roman baths.
76  Friggeri 1977-78, 153-54. For a catalogue of archaeological findings in the area (with maps), see Fusco 2009, 120-30.
130 Pia Mustonen

and Sardinia, and her household of slaves and freedmen is the largest of its kind known from an imperial
freedwoman. During the years when she was in control of the vast imperial latifundia, Claudia Acte must
have been an important figure in Olbia even after she had been replaced at the court by Poppaea as the impe-
rial mistress.
Antonia Caenis is a rare example of a woman from outside the imperial family who, despite her
humble origins, was able to acquire wealth and an access to political life, even if she operated behind the
scenes. Caenis and her social network may even have been crucial for the early career of the future emperor
Vespasian, providing him with access to the imperial court and contact with the highly influential freed-
man Narcissus. Vespasian, in turn, rewarded her by resuming their relationship after his wife’s death and
by treating her in all respects almost as a lawful wife. Although Caenis is said to have used direct influence
on imperial decisions, using her administrative skills to their mutual profit, ancient historians show her in a
favourable light, noting her remarkable memory and faithful character.
Despite their unofficial status – or even because of it – Claudia Acte and Antonia Caenis were able
to exercise influence on many levels and acquire wealth through their personal intimacy with the emperor.
They often appear in the various sources more as business partners than as traditional Roman matrons, ac-
tively involved in imperial politics and administration. Women of the imperial family who transgressed their
limits by gaining too much influence in the court were often subjects of attack and portrayed as a negative
female stereotype, threateningly powerful and sexually perverted, as can be seen in the case of Agrippina
minor. Because Acte and Caenis were not lawful wives, but unofficial mistresses, they had no role in the
imperial ideology, and this may partly explain their rather benevolent treatment in Roman historiography.
 Quadretti con coppie su klinai dalla Villa della Farnesina*

Irene Bragantini

La villa romana detta della Farnesina (fig. 1) è venuta in luce in occasione della costruzione degli argini
del Tevere, a fine Ottocento; rinvenuta priva di arredi e di suppellettili, la villa conservava la decorazione
‘immobile’ di pavimenti, pareti e soffitti di alcuni ambienti ubicati nella metà orientale del complesso.1 Gli
scarsissimi interventi successivi all’impianto originario suggeriscono che la costruzione sia stata abbando-
nata poco tempo dopo la sua costruzione, rimuovendo quanto in essa contenuto.2
Indizi di diverso tipo suggeriscono che il proprietario sia stato un personaggio vicino alla corte di
Augusto, forse lo stesso Agrippa.3 È comunque sicuro che si debba trattare di un personaggio ‘di spicco’ del-
la Roma protoaugustea, come risulta dall’analisi delle strutture e delle decorazioni. Per quanto riguarda le
strutture, il Krause4 ha potuto dimostrare come l’articolazione planimetrica della villa, caratterizzata dall’ab-
side centrale aperta sul fiume, sia stata ripresa in una serie di edificazioni successive, prima fra tutte la Villa
di Tiberio a Capri, circostanza che dimostra l’alto livello della committenza della Villa della Farnesina. Lo
studioso riconosce l’area centrale della villa, caratterizzata da herrschaftlichem Repräsentationsanspruch,5
nel grande oecus affacciato sul fiume e identificato come coenatio: dal momento che in quest’area della villa
non sono state rinvenute pitture, Krause ipotizza che le pareti fossero rivestite di marmo.6
Il lato orientale della villa, che ha restituito gli ambienti decorati, non fa dunque parte dell’area ‘di
rappresentanza’ del complesso: gli ambienti si trovano invece in un’ala più appartata, aperta su un giardino,
L, anch’esso dipinto. Si ricrea qui la sequenza di un ambiente tricliniare, C, il cui uniforme fondo nero con-
trasta fortemente con i due cubicoli a fondo rosso cinabro, B e D, che si aprono ai lati, formando una suite,
come nei ben noti Dreiraumgruppen.7 Più semplice, per dimensioni e impianto decorativo, è il cubicolo a

*  Ringrazio Ria Berg e Richard Neudecker per avermi invitato a contribuire a questi Atti. Ho apportato solo leggere modifiche al
manoscritto consegnato nel 2014.
1 Cfr. Bragantini – De Vos 1982; Di Mino 1998; Mools – Moormann 2008.
2  La possibilità che la villa sia stata proprietà di Giulia (v. infra) potrebbe aver causato, secondo Mols – Moormann 2008, 80,
l’abbattimento del secondo piano della villa (indiziato dalla scala presente nell’ambiente O), come forma di damnatio memoriae,
nonché – più in generale – l’abbandono della villa stessa, abbandono che viene normalmente spiegato con le frequenti esondazioni
del fiume, delle quali però, come notano i due autori, non vi è traccia nei rapporti di scavo.
3  Gli argomenti di natura topografica e urbanistica a sostegno di questa ipotesi proposti da diversi studiosi sono ripresi da Foresta
2004.
4  Krause 2000. Mols – Moormann 2008, 8 ritengono ‘poco verosimile’ questa ricostruzione a causa della distanza cronologica
rispetto agli altri esempi noti, ma l’obiezione non mi sembra cogente, in considerazione dell’alto livello di questa committenza che
– in questo come in altri casi analoghi – può ben spiegare queste ‘anticipazioni’.
5  È a quest’area del complesso che si applicano in particolare le argomentazioni sviluppate da Foresta (Foresta 2004), che eviden-
zia la visuale sul paesaggio monumentale della città che la villa offriva.
6  Il recente rinvenimento dei materiali immagazzinati nella cd. Domus del Gianicolo, attribuiti all’età di Claudio (Filippi 2005),
che anticipano di qualche decennio – rispetto all’esempio della Domus Aurea – il largo uso di rivestimenti parietali in marmo ben
dimostra quanto conoscenze date per acquisite possano essere smentite dal progresso delle indagini.
7  Dickmann 1999, 395, s.v. Dreiraumgruppe (in particolare 322-31); cfr. anche Zaccaria Ruggiu 2001.
132 Irene Bragantini

Fig. 1: Pianta della Villa della

Farnesina (foto Soprintendenza
Speciale per i Beni Archeologi-
ci di Roma).

fondo bianco, E, nel quale la successione di quadretti con figure femminili, intente ad occupazioni ‘da gine-
ceo’,8 suggerisce che si debba riconoscere un cubicolo ‘femminile’.9
Anche l’analisi delle decorazioni della villa dimostra che siamo in presenza di una committenza di
altissimo livello, per la quale è attiva un’ampia équipe di decoratori, comprendente pittori, stuccatori e
mosaicisti. Per quanto riguarda i pittori, che qui particolarmente interessano, il loro operato si segnala per
l’ampiezza e la novità del repertorio iconografico e per la padronanza delle varie tecniche pittoriche: segno
sicuro di artigiani che hanno una formazione globale, ‘mediterranea’, una conoscenza diretta delle più im-
portanti testimonianze di pittura, da Atene ad Alessandria, e possiedono i modi e le tecniche per riprodurle.
È all’interno di un contesto figurativo così delineato che dobbiamo inserire l’analisi delle scene con
coppie su klinai,10 per capire come una tematica quale quella affrontata in questo incontro sia declinata al
livello di queste committenze, committenze che – per cronologia e qualità – ci riportano a livelli ben più alti
di quelli presentati negli altri interventi. Collocati sull’attico, i quadretti di cui tratteremo si trovano nei due
cubicoli B e D, accomunati da una serie di rimandi interni: dimensioni, rapporti planimetrici, fondo cinabro,

8  Nessuna figura sembra intenta ad operazioni che abbiano a che fare con il tema della paideia femminile: la ricostruzione in Museo
della pittura inv. 1215 tra quelle del cubicolo E non è infatti accertata: Bragantini, De Vos 1982, 293-95; contra Blanckenhagen
1988, 357.
9  Cfr. il cubicolo 45 della Casa del Labirinto a Pompei, identificato come cubicolo femminile per l’emblema con pernice che tiene
nel becco uno specchio: Strocka 1991, 101. Contra Mols, Moormann 2008, 72.
10  Questa è in particolare la posizione di Clarke (Clarke 1998, 93-107), che costruisce in maniera molto convincente e articolata il
significato di queste particolari figurazioni, argomentandolo su una accurata ricostruzione del contesto. Su questi quadri e la poesia
di Ovidio cfr. anche Bergmann 1995, 103; La Rocca 2004, 86; Slavazzi 2011, 145-47.
 Quadretti con coppie su klinai dalla Villa della Farnesina 133

nonché il gioco di assemblare nella decorazione di un unico ambiente colori e caratteri stilistici che citano le
opere e gli ‘objets d’art’ più disparati, conferendo agli ambienti l’aspetto di una pinacoteca.11 In misura assai
minore le stesse caratteristiche ritornano nel più semplice cubicolo E, in cui è pure presente un quadretto
con coppia sulla kline. Conformemente ad una ambientazione di elevata qualità artistica che la decorazione
intende ricreare in queste stanze, i quadretti con coppie su klinai dei cubicoli B e D sono rappresentati come
quadretti di particolare pregio, protetti da sportelli lignei.12

Cubicolo B

Cominciamo la descrizione dei quadretti dal cubicolo B, che per la grande varietà di stili pittorici che esibi-
sce, in particolare nei grandi quadri che ornano il centro delle pareti dell’anticamera e dell’alcova, possiamo
considerare come ‘principale’. Nell’anticamera, al di sopra del quadro ‘arcaizzante’13 con Afrodite in trono,
la zona superiore presenta due quadretti ottagonali, il cui fondo scuro li pone in continuità con la tradizione
della pittura ellenistica, alla quale pure si richiamano i soggetti e lo stile delle rappresentazioni.14 In uno
dei quadretti vediamo un poeta comico coronato in compagnia della musa Talia e di una figura femminile di
minori dimensioni; anche l’altro quadretto presenta un poeta (tragico?) coronato, che regge davanti a sé un
rotolo aperto, presso il quale è una figura femminile declamante (Melpomene?) e una seconda figura femmi-
nile. Tutto qui ci rimanda al mondo della cultura ellenistica,15 e nel mondo di questa cultura figurativa vanno
inseriti anche i quadretti con coppie su klinai,16 che si trovavano a lato dei quadretti con scene teatrali.17
Sulla parete sinistra dell’anticamera (fig. 2) è una affollata scena, al centro della quale è la coppia
seduta sulla kline sulla quale posa una coperta di colore chiaro e un cuscino verde: la donna è vista di spalle,
veste un chitone rosato e un mantello giallo, ha i capelli raccolti in una crocchia. Di fronte a lei è un giovane
uomo a petto nudo. Sulla sinistra, una ancella (qui come negli altri quadretti di cui parleremo servi e ancelle
sono sempre caratterizzati da dimensioni molto ridotte) vestita di una tunica azzurra che le lascia scoperta
la spalla sinistra versa vino da un’anfora – che per l’alto collo cilindrico, impostazione delle anse e corpo
troncoconico terminante in un piccolo puntale riprende la forma delle anfore vinarie ellenistiche – in un bas-

11  Sul significato culturale di questa ‘simulated translation’ cfr. Bergmann 1995, in particolare 102-7.
12  A questo soggetto è dedicata la tesi di dottorato di A. Loiseleur des Longchamps, Les pinacothèques fictives dans la peinture
pariétale romaine au Ier s.av. J.-C. à Rome et en Campanie (Università di Paris Ouest - Nanterre La Défense), che ha potuto di-
mostrare che nell’epoca indicata i pinakes ‘a sportelli’ compaiono sempre in contesti di alto livello decorativo che la loro presenza
contribuisce a connotare, sgombrando anche il campo dall’ipotesi che gli sportelli avessero la funzione di nascondere alla vista
soggetti sconvenienti.
13  Non si può qui insistere sul valore e il significato dei caratteri stilistici di questo quadro, il cui stile per semplicità definiamo
arcaizzante, ma che appartengono alla stessa matrice stilistica e figurativa che ha prodotto opere estremamente raffinate, come le
teste in terracotta del Palatino, sulle quali vedi Tomei 1992; La Rocca 2004, in particolare 106-7.
14  Nella stessa posizione, protetti da sportelli lignei come i quadretti con coppie appresso descritti, sono collocati i sei pinakes con
‘ciclo di poeti’ della Villa Imperiale a Pompei: Pappalardo 2001, 899-904.
15  Sul clima figurativo evocato dalle Nachahmungen o dalle riprese dei modelli ellenistici, e sull’interpretazione di questo fenome-
no culturale, di importanza fondamentale per comprendere il linguaggio figurative della società romana, cfr. Zanker 1992.
16  Sul clima figurativo evocato dalle Nachahmungen o dalle riprese dei modelli ellenistici, e sull’interpretazione di questo fenome-
no culturale, di importanza fondamentale per comprendere il linguaggio figurativo della società romana, cfr. Zanker 1992.
17  Dei quattro quadretti con coppie sulla kline che dovevano decorare l’alcova se ne conservano solo due, dal momento che il
secondo della parete destra è andato perduto nella larga lacuna che interessa la parete, mentre il secondo della parete sinistra è stato
asportato. Non è però scontato che ciò sia avvenuto in età moderna (Bragantini – De Vos 1982, 30; Clarke 1998, 95): un pinax con
una coppia che si bacia è sì presente in questa posizione nella documentazione grafica ottocentesca (per ‘completare’ la rappresenta-
zione?) ma non viene descritto (Mau 1884, 321-22; Id. 1885 b, 312, Monumenti dell’Istituto 12, 1884, tavole 8 e 19). Segni analoghi
compaiono anche sulle pareti della Casa di Augusto, dove indicano evidentemente quadri asportati in antico (Carettoni 1983, 386),
pratica del resto ben nota dai centri vesuviani (Ling 1991, 205-7).
134 Irene Bragantini

Fig. 2: Villa della Farnesina, cubicolo B: pinax con coppia sulla kline (foto Soprintendenza Speciale per i Beni Archeologici di
Roma).

so cratere argenteo posato su una trapeza. A destra, altre due ancelle (una delle quali con lo sguardo rivolto
verso l’osservatore?18) si affaccendano intorno alla coppia.
Come è stato da tempo riconosciuto,19 l’iconografia di questo quadretto ritorna in un emblema rinve-
nuto nel suburbio di Roma, mentre alcuni particolari iconografici, seppur profondamente mutati di segno,
sono attestati a Pompei.20
L’altro quadretto conservato in questo ambiente (fig. 3) si trova sulla parete destra dell’alcova ed è
assai mal conservato: rappresenta una coppia semidistesa su una kline sulla quale posa una coperta bianca
con fascia operata rossa. La donna, avviluppata nelle sue vesti chiare, accosta il volto a quello dell’uomo
coronato apprestandosi a baciarlo.
Anche per questo pinax possiamo riconoscere una scena assai simile nel quadretto che orna la pa-
rete di fondo dell’ambiente a fondo cinabro di una domus di Assisi, le cui decorazioni sono datate ad età
augustea:21 nel quadretto, su una kline coperta da una stoffa gialla con alto bordo viola e fasce di colore

18  Su questo ‘dispositivo figurativo’ cfr. infra, 137.

19  Rodenwaldt 1925; Werner 1994, 162-63 cat. K66, con datazione alla fine del II secolo d.C.: emblema dalla tenuta di Centocelle
ora a Vienna, Kunsthistorisches Museum. Cfr. anche infra, 140.
20  Per gli esempi pompeiani cfr. infra, 140.
21 La domus è nota come Casa sotto Palazzo Giampè o Domus del lararium: Manca 2012 identifica l’ambiente come oecus e la
scena come raffigurante una conversazione intima tra coniugi.
 Quadretti con coppie su klinai dalla Villa della Farnesina 135

Fig. 3: Villa della Farnesina, cubicolo B: pinax con coppia sulla kline (foto Soprintendenza Speciale per i Beni Archeologici di
Roma).

verde, è stesa una figura maschile con il petto nudo, che posa la mano destra attirandola a sé sul capo della
sua compagna, che alza lo sguardo verso di lui. La donna veste una tunica bianca, dalla quale fuoriesce una
veste più lunga di colore viola, ha capelli chiari legati in una crocchia sul collo e lo sguardo rivolto verso
l’uomo. Anche qui, come alla Farnesina, il contrasto tra le carni scure del corpo maschile e quelle chiare
del corpo femminile è particolarmente accentuato. L’ambientazione è in un interno, privo però di arredi o
di altre figure.

Cubicolo D

Più intrigante la situazione che troviamo in questo cubicolo: sulla stessa parete (destra) dell’anticame-
ra, inquadrati e messi in risalto da prospetti ad edicola di colore azzurro, troviamo due scene di segno
completamente diverso. A sinistra (fig. 4) quella che si presenta come un’immagine di ‘persuasione co-
niugale’: su una kline coperta da teli di colori vivaci e ‘saturi’ (viola, giallo, verde) è disteso un uomo,
con il petto nudo e carni di toni molto scuri; la mano destra è poggiata sulle spalle della compagna, la
sinistra le posa in grembo. La figura femminile, con il capo e lo sguardo pudicamente volti verso il bas-
so, indossa una tunica bianca ed è coperta da un mantello giallo che le vela anche il capo; con la sinistra
stringe davanti a sé il braccio del compagno. Sia l’abbigliamento della figura femminile, che la presa
di lei sul braccio di lui, suggeriscono l’immagine della sposa, e quindi di una ‘seduzione ritualmente
136 Irene Bragantini

Fig. 4: Villa della Farnesina, cubicolo D: quadretto con coppia sulla kline (foto Soprintendenza Speciale per i Beni Archeologici di
Roma).

sancita’.22 Due (?) figure completano la rappresentazione, ma solo quella a sinistra è più leggibile: una
giovane ancella che, dietro la kline, regge un basso e largo bacile.23 Dal momento che non riconosco
in queste figurazioni l’intento di creare una sequenza narrativa,24 non credo che il quadretto che si tro-
va all’estremità opposta della stessa parete rappresenti la stessa sposa, finalmente ‘persuasa’ (fig. 5).
Anche in questo caso, come altrove nella villa, la cultura artistica dei pittori affida ai colori saturi e
cangianti il compito di rappresentare stili di vita piacevoli e lussuosi: sulla kline, coperta da drappi
viola e verdi, è una figura femminile, nuda dalla vita in su, col resto del corpo coperto da una tunica
bianca e un mantello giallo. Con la destra la figura abbraccia e attira a sé l’uomo, dal corpo nudo e con
una corona sul capo,25 che a sua volta l’abbraccia posandole la destra sulla spalla, mentre con la sinistra
sembra averne appena denudato il seno (la sinistra della donna si intravvede sotto il suo braccio). Nel

22 Cosí Zanker 1998, 576, a proposito di un gruppo in terracotta da Mirina. Alla difficoltà di distinguere – all’interno di queste
tematiche – tra scene nuziali e ‘Liebesszenen’ (una difficoltà che mi pare spieghi bene il significato di queste figurazioni all’interno
di questi discorsi figurativi) allude Scheibler (Scheibler 1998, nota 20), che mette anche in rilievo il carattere festivo-cerimoniale
delle rappresentazioni.
23  Non è chiaro se lo sguardo di questa figura sia rivolto verso l’esterno del quadro, espediente ‘comunicativo’ per il quale v. infra,
137.
24  Cosí invece Mau 1884, 321-22, Clarke 2003b, 31-32 e Blanc – Eristov 2017, 30.
25  Il volto dell’uomo è dipinto con grande maestria e con intenti quasi ritrattistici.
 Quadretti con coppie su klinai dalla Villa della Farnesina 137

Fig. 5: Villa della Farnesina, cubicolo D: quadretto con coppia sulla kline (foto Soprintendenza Speciale per i Beni Archeologici di
Roma).

contesto della scena erotica, la corona sul capo dell’uomo allude al consumo del vino, al quale pure
alludono arredi e suppellettili: in secondo piano a sinistra si intravvede appena una figura femminile
(che regge nella destra un vaso bronzeo?); sulla destra è un tavolo a zampe animali, sul quale posano
una oinochoe argentea e un alto vaso (una situla?) dello stesso materiale. Infine, un giovane servo, dal
corpo nudo e dai lunghi riccioli, tiene nelle mani un calice il cui colore e la cui trasparenza riprendono
quella del vetro. Il giovane servo è la figura che ha più intrigato gli osservatori, che vi hanno visto un
espediente del pittore per far ‘entrare’ nella scena l’osservatore: è la figura del Betrachter im Bild, della
quale è stata data anche una lettura ‘voyeuristica’.26
Alla tematica ‘teatrale ed ellenistica’ del cubicolo B si sostituisce qui, sempre su fondo scuro – qui
però violetto – quella delle fanciulle che reggono in grembo delle lepri entro ambientazioni dionisiache in-
dicate da erme di Pan. Sulla parete antistante manca il primo quadro, il secondo (fig. 6) rappresenta ancora
una coppia che si bacia. La figura femminile è vestita, attira a sé con la destra alzata sopra il capo la testa

26  È questa in particolare la lettura di Clarke 2003b, 30-33, anche sulla base del confronto con la coppa Warren, dove l’aspetto
‘voyeuristico’ è però accentuato dal fatto che il servo spia dalla porta socchiusa. Il valore di questo confronto è peraltro fortemente
inficiato dalla convincente proposta di Marabini Moevs 2008 e 2013 che la coppa sia un falso, realizzato a Roma tra la fine dell’Ot-
tocento e l’inizio del Novecento (così ora anche Giuliani 2013 e – seppure ancora in via ipotetica, in attesa di una prova conclusiva –
Sande 2017); contra Clarke 2014, 707-9. Per la definizione del ‘Betrachter im Bild’ v. Lorenz 2007; Ead. 2008, 138; Anguissola
2010, 448-49 nota 85. Cfr. inoltre Platt 2002, 90, che parla di ‘anxiety-producing dialectic between observer and observed’.
138 Irene Bragantini

Fig. 6: Villa della Farnesina, cubicolo D: quadretto con coppia sulla kline (foto Soprintendenza Speciale per i Beni Archeologici di
Roma).

dell’uomo,27 nella sinistra regge una pesante ghirlanda. Completano la scena, a sinistra, un’alta figura co-
perta da un manto giallo che le copre anche il capo, con in mano un alto calice vitreo, rivolta verso il piccolo
schiavo vestito di un corto chitone; questi poggia la mano destra su un alto cratere argenteo, di fronte al qua-
le è una coppa vitrea che contiene piccoli frutti gialli, anche questa suppellettile posata su un trapezoforo.
In primo piano, una serva vestita di bianco si piega, volgendo la schiena verso l’osservatore, e si affaccenda
ai piedi della kline, come se stesse togliendo le scarpe della donna distesa, che indossa una veste ornata in
basso da una fascia celeste.

Cubicolo E

Sulla parete di fondo dell’alcova di questo cubicolo a fondo bianco, che nell’anticamera presenta figure
femminili intente in occupazioni ‘di gineceo’,28 è rappresentata a sinistra il bacio di una coppia seduta sulla
kline (fig. 7). La pittura è molto mal conservata, ma si può riconoscere che sia l’uomo che la donna portano
sul capo una corona vegetale, che la figura maschile è vestita, e quella femminile ha la spalla scoperta. Sulla

27  La lettura dei tre quadretti di questo ambiente è resa più incerta dal fatto che i volti maschili sembrano molto caratterizzati. Non
credo però che questa circostanza vada valorizzata, cosí come credo non intenzionale la somiglianza del volto della figura femminile
di fig. 4 con la figura femminile ammantata di questo quadretto.
28 Cfr. supra, 132.
 Quadretti con coppie su klinai dalla Villa della Farnesina 139

Fig. 7: Villa della Farnesina, cubicolo E: pinax con coppia sulla kline (foto Soprintendenza Speciale per i Beni Archeologici di
Roma).

destra anche qui sembra rappresentata una piccola trapeza, l’ambientazione è solo accennata dai panneggi
che occupano il fondo della scena.
Il pinax di destra rappresenta invece tre donne in un interno, delle quali non è possibile stabilire se
possiedano un legame narrativo con la scena rappresentata a sinistra.

Conclusione

Quale senso, quale valore dobbiamo dare a queste immagini? A me sembra che balzi in primo piano il ruolo pit-
torico che – osservate con attenzione al loro contesto figurativo – queste immagini rivestono. L’uso del colore, la
mescolanza di stili, la varietà di temi, formati e tecniche, il ‘gioco’ di immagini che ci viene presentato (le ‘Isidi’!),
dimostrano infatti la funzione che la pittura continua a giocare in queste residenze. In una colta fusione di narra-
zioni ellenistiche e linguaggi contemporanei, e con i materiali e le tecniche della pittura – che a questa funzione
si presta più e meglio di altre tecniche decorative –, i pittori operano mettendo a servizio della ideologia abitativa
dell’élite dell’epoca le loro abilità e dando cosí forma agli spazi in cui questi committenti vivono e ricevono gli
ospiti ‘di alto rango’. Questo ruolo della pittura, ‘capace di dare forma al lusso e al piacere degli stili di vita’ – una
tematica che pervade di sé tanta parte del repertorio figurativo di destinazione privata dell’età ellenistica29 – risulta

29  Su questo tema delle ‘immagini del piacere di vivere dionisiaco ed erotico’, di un’arte ‘della gioia dei sensi’ rivolta agli indivi-
dui e non destinata a rappresentare comportamenti sociali, cfr. in generale Zanker 1998.
140 Irene Bragantini

anche nel confronto con il più appartato cubicolo E, dove più semplice è anche le rappresentazione della
coppia su kline che orna la parete di fondo dell’alcova con un quadretto più piccolo, arricchito da una poli-
cromia più ridotta, e in generale con una minore enfatizzazione del lusso.
Le pitture della Villa della Farnesina si prestano dunque a farci capire quali tematiche – legate al
mondo di Dioniso e di Afrodite30 – potevano essere ritenute ‘adatte’ in contesti di questo livello culturale
e sociale per costruire lo spazio figurativo destinato a questo tipo di rituali, nel momento in cui i pittori
cominciano a ‘ristrutturare’ il loro repertorio per rispondere alle esigenze figurative in via di mutamento
dei loro committenti: il ruolo che le decorazioni della Villa della Farnesina possiedono nello sviluppo
di queste tematiche serve per altra via a dimostrare la qualità di chi ha dato forma a questo ‘programma
decorativo’.31
Il contesto della villa, e nello specifico, il livello delle sue decorazioni, impediscono di confondere
queste scene – che contribuiscono a creare in quest’ala della villa un clima figurativo che mette in scena stili
di vita piacevoli e lussuosi – con le numerose immagini di coppie esplicitamente intente all’atto sessuale
che troviamo sulle pareti di Pompei. Le coppie della villa della Farnesina non sono mai raffigurate durante
l’atto sessuale, né sono mai rappresentate da sole:32 al contrario, viene sempre raffigurata l’ambientazione
entro un interno arricchito da arredi e suppellettili di tradizione ellenistica, che connotano stili di vita ‘alti’,
ai quali alludono esplicitamente gli accesi colori delle vesti femminili nonché i piccoli schiavi e le ancelle
al servizio della coppia.33 Le coppie della Farnesina trovano piuttosto continuazione – seppure in contesti
e in composizioni di segno assai diverso – nei quadri con coppie a banchetto discussi da Antonio Varone,
che con i nostri hanno in comune oltre a qualche particolarità iconografica34 la ricchezza delle vesti, delle
suppellettili e degli arredi: il clima è qui però mutato in senso narrativo, e alla coppia dei nostri quadretti si
sostituiscono più coppie, mentre il ben diverso contesto architettonico affida alla stereotipata allusione agli
stili di vita ellenistici il compito di sublimare le azioni che si svolgono negli ambienti così decorati.35
Che valore dobbiamo infine dare al fatto che gli schemi iconografici presenti in alcuni dei nostri pi-
nakes tornino in altre testimonianze? Dobbiamo pensare che i quadretti della Farnesina ‘copino’ quadri più
antichi o ne derivino?36 Senza voler escludere questa eventualità, credo comunque che il livello dei pittori
qui attivi li renda pienamente in grado di produrre quadretti come quelli sopra descritti attingendo a un con-
solidato repertorio di schemi e immagini di matrice ellenistica: questo è anche il caso del quadretto di Assisi
al quale si è sopra fatto cenno, che può facilmente essere accostato ai quadretti della Villa della Farnesina per
quanto riguarda cronologia e livello decorativo.37 In una ricostruzione di questo tipo, che nello svolgimento

30  Sul valore essenzialmente culturale di queste figurazioni di divinità cfr. Wyler 2004.
31  Con la definizione di programma decorativo intendo qui riferirmi strettamente alla distribuzione delle diverse tecniche e delle
diverse tematiche nei vari ambienti, ricordando in particolare sia gli ambienti che per ragioni di spazio non ho qui descritto (il crip-
toportico A, il triclinio C, i corridoi F e G e il giardino L), nonché la notevole qualità delle volte in stucco.
32  Anche per questa via il cubicolo E si differenzia da quelli B e D, in quanto la coppia di questo cubicolo non è accompagnata
da altre figure.
33  Cfr. anche Mols – Moormann 2008, 76; Anguissola 2010, 51.
34  Si noti in particolare lo schema iconografico dell’ancella che versa il vino dall’anfora in un grande cratere (Varone 1997, fig.
3; Dunbabin 2003, fig. 26), presente anche nel più tardo emblema da Centocelle sopra citato (nota 19), o la coppia che si bacia sulla
kline (Varone 1997, figg. 1 e 3; Dunbabin 2003, fig. 26 e tav. II), che richiama sia quella del cubicolo B che quella di Assisi sopra
citata.
35 Roller (Roller 2006, in part. 61-68) enfatizza invece gli elementi di continuità tra queste immagini e le pratiche della società
romana, affidando quindi loro una diversa funzione nel costruire lo spazio figurativo.
36  Così ad es. Mielsch 2001, 164-67.
37  Le pitture di Assisi (cfr. nota 21) sono inquadrabili qualche decennio dopo quelle della Villa della Farnesina: il loro livello
decorativo è ben attestato dall’uso del cinabro come colore di fondo dell’ambiente e dalla presenza di una predella a fondo nero con
 Quadretti con coppie su klinai dalla Villa della Farnesina 141

della pittura parietale di età romana pone attenzione alla circolazione degli schemi decorativi, valorizzando
la capacità dei pittori di creare per gli spazi abitativi dei loro committenti quadri e composizioni che ‘trave-
stono alla greca’ quegli spazi, è più difficile rendere ragione di un oggetto come l’emblema da Centocelle,
la cui qualità – difficilmente inseribile nel livello generalmente alto degli emblemata delle epoche di cui qui
ci occupiamo – ne suggerisce una cronologia più tarda, costringendo a cercare una motivazione che renda
ragione della persistenza di questa iconografia.38
Per cercare di dare un senso a queste immagini, è anche utile gettare uno sguardo più avanti nel
tempo, e vedere che cosa ci testimonia la pittura dei decenni successivi.39 Particolarmente significative ri-
sultano quelle scene costruite sfruttando alcuni dei segni e degli schemi iconografici di questo repertorio per
rappresentare scene conviviali,40 nelle quali abbondano allusioni erotiche ma non è mai rappresentato l’atto
sessuale.41 Come è stato già sottolineato,42 le coppie dei pinakes della Farnesina, ambientate in scenari ar-
ricchiti da lussuose suppellettili, non sono però mai rappresentate ‘a banchetto’, testimonianze utili anche a
farci comprendere come – nella vita lunga e lunghissima delle tradizioni artigianali – gli schemi iconografici
sopravvivano al mutamento delle tematiche e delle esigenze sociali dei loro committenti.

figure dipinte in colori molto vivi, dispositivo figurativo che compare in contesti di alta qualità: cfr. Bragantini 2013, 113-14. In
generale su pareti con esteso uso del fondo nero cfr. ora inoltre Burlot – Eristov 2017.
38  Cfr. nota 19.
39  Anguissola 2010, 332-39.
40  Cfr. gli studi citati a nota 34.
41  Roller 2006, 145, che sottolinea anche come nelle scene in cui l’atto è rappresentato non vi siano mai elementi che rimandano
a convivi, il che aiuta a distinguere le due tematiche.
42  Cfr. nota precedente: “Dining and sex may exist in close proximity, but they are not conflated”.
 Beauties from a distant world.
On portrait galleries of Hellenistic hetairai in several houses of Pompeii

Richard Neudecker

Not all that frequently – and thus stirring the greatest sensation and interest when it does so – the beholder
of Pompeiian walls’ gaze encounters portraits of beautiful young women. They are always tondi, the pre-
ferred portrait format in Roman painting.1 In order to discover what these portraits conveyed to the viewer
of Antiquity, or, first of all, to determine whether they had any appreciable significance for those using the
rooms – one worth our while exploring – it is necessary to follow, as it were, the intellectual traces leading
from them to their sources.
Methodologically, then, it is a matter of tracing the contexts in which the viewer could place them,
be they immediately vivid or only to be revealed interpretatively. Was the contextual attribution a primarily
Pompeiian one, for instance, so that everyone would read the picture as being of a Pompeian girl? Or did
these images lead, like almost all Pompeiian walls, to an artificial world, one evoked as Greek?
To throw light on how these pictures of beautiful girls in Pompeii were perceived, I will quickly run
through the riches of information on Greek hetairai, as most of what was written on extraordinarily beautiful
women until the painting of the tondi comes under this term.2 It is therefore not a question of compiling writ-
ten information on commercial sexual activities in Roman Pompeii. Neither is it one of judging the reality
of life for unmarried women in Hellenistic Greece based on antique texts3 that, for the most part, seize on a
theme that was consciously seen as a historical one. My intention is, rather, first to note what was known of
such literary portraits of women in the Early Imperial Period and could have had an impact. Second, I would
like to submit a proposal for an answer to the question of the ‘girls’ or ‘hetairai’ depicted on a number of
walls in Pompeii. At the same time, however, with the hesitancy that arises between two definitions, I wish
to suggest that the dichotomy of ‘normal’ women on the one hand and prostitutes of various categories on
the other can be placed in doubt. In the antique mind, oppositions between free and paid-for sexuality, physi-
cal self-determination and coercion, and within the controversial rules covering women’s social presence do
not run along the same faultlines, such as that between the moral and immoral, as they do in modern society.
In the Fragmenta Graecorum Historicorum, compiled by Felix Jacoby from 1923 on, we find the re-
mains of several monographs on hetairai.4 These were drawn on by Athenaeus of Naucratis around 200 CE
as he was devoting the thirteenth book of his Deipnosophistae to hetairai – titled περὶ γαμετῶν καὶ ἑταιρῶν.5

1  De Maria 1997, 48-49.

2  In general, ancient literature concerning this topic is made use of as source for cultural narratives of actual living conditions, see
Reinsberg 1989; Vanoyeke 1990; Davidson 1997; Schuller 2002; Schuller 2005; Schuller 2008; literary aspects with Schuller
2014; questions of context and discourse are treated in Faraone – McClure 2006.
3  Späth 2013 summarizes inherent problems of theory and method; Kurke 1997 for the discourse; in a comparable way the he-
taera of the New Comedy entered Roman imagination, cf. Krieter-Spiro 1997.
4  FGrHist nn. 347-51 and 113-15, most of them philologists like Aristophanes from Byzantion and Apollodoros from Athens;
overview in Schuller 2002, 68, 263.
5  Lukinovich 1990; Kurke 1999; McClure 2003, 171-77 lists the titles cited by Athenaios, those about hetairai included.
144 Richard Neudecker

For us, this thirteenth volume is the most important source of information; interested readers in Pompeii,
however, could read the selfsame Hellenistic sources that Athenaeus later drew on.6
Some one hundred fifty hetairai, historically or otherwise relevant, appear in this work alone. Forty-
two columns in Pauly’s Realencyclopädie come under the lemma ‘Hetairai’,7 they contain a range of liter-
ary, historical, and half-way historical figures, as well as both actual and alleged hetairai, and even several
versions of an individual defined in opposing terms. One glance shows the difficulty of distinguishing be-
tween them all, and that the notes’ authors presumably did not plan for this in any case, the borders between
individual figures and types being porous. We are thus faced with an abundance that stems from the primary
authors’ intentions to divulge and – feeding off of this – lives up to the authors of the lemmata’s knowing
wink.8 This is so even though, for the most part, only names with very few lexicographical addenda have
come down to us. In number, however, there are more proper names than are known to us of Hellenistic
rulers, though these are employed repeatedly. Yet this applies equally for the names of hetairai.9 With all
their links to historical celebrities, one could almost give a lecture on Hellenistic history based simply on
a leitmotif of the era’s courtesans. I would like to extend our present gaze to three vocations: artists, intel-
lectuals, and rulers.
It is notable and revealing that hetairai were associated with the ruling sphere as far back as the pro-
fession’s first reported practitioner, Rhodopis. Herodotus10 treats her to a historical-critical excursus on the
occasion of his visit to the pyramid of the Pharaoh Menkaure at Giza, in the construction of which Rhodopis
is implicated. One also comes across her name in votive offerings in Delphi, doubtless the sanctuary most
befitting her far-flung fame. The base with Rhodopis’s inscription was discovered in Delphi, albeit without
the spits dedicated in her name.11 The most interesting names connected with Rhodopis, and of which the
reader may at least assume a liaison, were those of Aesop and Sappho’s brother, Charaxus,12 thus incorporat-
ing literary and artistic spheres into her life alongside royalty. The manifold reports of Rhodopis flow from
Herodotus via many channels on towards Strabo and Pliny13 – and to Pompeii.
The most divine of all hetairai, nevertheless, was deemed to be Phryne from Thespiae.14 The legend of
her beauty was made official, so to speak, with an anecdote that had done the rounds, with varying details, in the
writings of antiquity, and was still being presented as a historical delicacy in paintings in Parisian salons in the
late nineteenth century (fig. 1).15 The story related Phryne’s appearance before an Athenian court, where her then

6  Ath. 583 d-e for the names; nearly all of it is lost, as well as works allegedly or actually composed by famous hetairai like
Elephantis and her supposed co-author Lais; her books about gynaecology and cosmetics as well as illustrated pornography was well
known to Plin. nat. 28, 81, Mart. 12, 43 and Suet. Tib. 43; Crusius 1905; Parker 1992 and Davidson 1995 for details.
7  Schneider 1913.
8  “Eine Frau, die ihre Reize um Geld verkaufte…”, Schneider 1913; Raubitschek 1941, 895-96 gives enthusiastic descriptions
like from his own experience.
9  McClure 2003, 59-78.
10  Hdt. 2, 134-35; Ath. 13, 596 b-d; Miller 1914.
11  SEG 13, 364; Keesling 2006, 61-63.
12  All passages in Miller 1914, especially Suda s.v. Ροδὸπιδος ἀνάθημα; Plin. nat. 36, 82 and Ov. epist. 15, 65-66 drop remarks
for informed readers.
13  Diod. Sic. 1, 64, 14; Str. 17, 1, 33; Plin. nat. 36, 82, and Ael. VH 13, 33 for later periods.
14 Ath. 13, 591 e, quoting Poseidippos (CAF 3, 339 n. 12); see also Prop. 2, 5; for Phryne Raubitschek 1941; Davidson 2006;
Schuller 2008, 263.
15  The whole story in Quint. inst. 10, 5, 2; Ath. 13, 590 d-f; McClure 2003, 41, 132-36; Glazebrook 2006; paintings like “Phryné
devant l’aréopag” by Jean-Léon Gérome (1861, now Kunsthalle Hamburg, see Ackerman 2000) gave splendour to the ambience
of Parisian maîtresses during the Second Empire whose highlight Harriet Howard, mistress and financial backer of Louis-Napoléon
Bonaparte, later Napoleon III, was rewarded with title and castle (see Maurois 1958).
 Beauties from a distant world 145

Fig. 1: Jean-Léon Gérome, Phryné devant l’aréopag, 1861 (Kunsthalle Hamburg).

lover and counsel for the defence, Hyperides, advised her to bare her breasts in front of the judges. In another ver-
sion, Hyperides is said to have simply revealed them himself. Within moments the Athenian judges, brought to
the intended pitch of emotion, exonerated her of all guilt. A comment from our own time such as “schade, wenn
die Geschichte erfunden wäre – was leider wahrscheinlich ist”16 repeats the voyeurism of the scene in antiquity.
Embedding the anecdote in the narrative indicates how history could be written with pictures of women, wherein
the male interest of an ancient historian giving his commentary and a Pompeiian coincide.
Among the accounts of the effect of Phryne’s beauty was her association with Praxiteles, which be-
stowed renown on them both. She is said to have modelled for him for more than one statue of Aphrodite,
so that the erotically loaded stories soon entwining themselves around the most famous, the Aphrodite of
Knidos, always also spoke of Phryne’s desirability.17 Full-length portraits of Phryne could be seen in several
places, such as the one between portraits of the kings Agesilaus und Philip II in Delphi, which Pausanias
noted for his readers.18 In Thespiae she stood next to a statue of Aphrodite and, since both statues were by
the hand of Praxiteles,19 it was presumable only possible to distinguish them epigraphically. Apelles is said
to have painted her as Aphrodite Anadyomene, naked and appearing from the waves in front of onlookers,
just as he did Alexander’s beloved, Pankaspe, whom the painter promptly fell in love with.20 Alexander
presented her to Apelles, who soon also went on to discover, love, paint and immortalize Lais before she

16  Schuller 2002, 270.

17  Commented by Arnob. nat. 6, 3; for the portrait statue see Richter 1965, 2, 246; Salomon 1997; Corso 2007a, 9-187; Corso
1997b; McClure 2003, 126-32.
18 Paus. 10, 15, 1; also Plut. De Pyth. or. 14 (Mor. 400 F); Ath. 13, 591 b-c; Suda s.v. Ροδὸπιδος ἀνάθημα; Keesling 2006, 66-71;
most detailed Corso 1997a; Dillon 2010, 48, 122, 165.
19  Paus. 9, 27, 65; Der Neue Overbeck n. 1891-92; cf. Alciphr. 4, 1.
20  Ath. 13, 591 a, for Phryne; Plin. nat. 35, 86; 91 for Pankaspe; Neumer-Pfau 1986.
146 Richard Neudecker

attained her full fame. Lais herself, in her role as hetaira, devoted herself to Aristippus and his renown two
months a year.21
In the reports of Phryne, three aspects are noteworthy. First is the interest in portraits. Portrayals of
hetairai are not only hidden in Aphrodite’s statue; a list of such likenesses can be drawn up from the notes,
including self-portraits such as that of Kallo, who additionally supplied her work’s poetic ekphrasis with
her own stylus.22 The second aspect is the connection to elevated intellectual circles, with the linking in the
cultural memory of the hetaira Phryne with the carriers of Greek culture par excellence – its fine artists. Via
these artists’ works came the third facet, the bringing into play of a latent divinity.
In fact, numerous hetairai are interlaced in the history of Greek intellectuals. The name of Epicu-
rus is linked with his courtesan Leontion, who for her part also had dealings with his pupils.23 Alongside
Menander’s name was to be found again and again that of his hetaira Glycera, who deemed an invitation
to him to attend the court of Alexandria to be acceptable only if she were also invited – such was to be read
in Glycera’s correspondence, published by Alciphron in the 2nd century CE.24 That this was, naturally, an
invention tallies perfectly with the wish to weave women into a historical reality.
It was a surprise to nobody that Alcibiades’ biography featured more than one famous hetaira – or that
hers contained more than him. Timandra was more to him than a hetaira in the conventional sense, for she
accompanied him in adversity as far as the Phrygian backwater in which he perished and buried him there.25
Xenophon26 helped another, Theodote, to even greater fame. In a bravura maeotic demonstration, he con-
nected Socrates with her, who, incidentally, had her portrait painted upon meeting Socrates. The result is one
of the most sophisticated discussions between a man and a woman in antiquity, in which – naturally – the
conditions of hetairai are examined but sexuality not even mentioned. Instead, the keywords ‘symposion’
and ‘esprit’ would be associated with Theodote forevermore.
In company with Hellenistic rulers, hetairai became actual courtesans. The personal mistresses of rul-
ers strove for longer-lasting relations that could lead to political power and royal rank. One example of this
was Bilistiche, who rose from hetaira to the position of queen of Ptolemy II. She also went down in history
in her own right as an Olympic champion in chariot racing.27 In the courtly context, the reports acquired
a historical substance that the anecdotes of artists and scholars lack. These hetairai and their princely lov-
ers appeared most clearly as couples in the historical memory. This accent on the ‘princely couple’ can be
traced back to Alexander, who allegedly set fire to Persepolis upon the wish of his hetaira Thais,28 and was

21  Geyer 1924 points at the impossibility to unite all informations on one single person; Ath. 13, 588 c-d for Apelles; Ath. 12, 544
b; 13, 588 c-f and 599 b for Aristipp who according to Diog. Laert. 2, 84 was said to have written a book about mirrors for Lais; cf.
Schuller 2008, 263.
22  Anth. Pal. 9, 605 (Gow – Page 1965, 152); artists were said to have come to Lais in order to portray her bossom, so Ath. 13, 588
e and Ael. VH 10, 2; for spectators during sessions see Plut. Alc. 16, 7 (Aristophon portraying Nemea and Alkibiades) and notes 20,
56 and 57; for criticisms see Freund 2015.
23  Diog. Laert. 10, 4. 6. 27 for Epikuros and Metrodoros with Leontion and other hetairai; likewise Aristippos (Diog. Laert. 2,
8, 69. 74), Xenokrates (4, 2, 7), Arkesilaos (4, 6, 40), Karneades (4, 9, 63) and Zenon (7, 13); Castner 1982; McClure 2003, 56;
Haake 2007, 294-96; Schuller 2008, 264.
24  Alciphr. 4, 18. 19, dating in the 2nd century AD (Schmitz 2004); for the fabrication see Radermacher 1931, 712; for Glykera
see also Mart. 14, 187 and Ath. 13, 594 d; cf. Alciphr. 4, 1. 3. 4. 5 for Phryne.
25  Also called Damasandra, see Plut. Alc. 39, 1; Ath. 12, 535 c and 13, 574 e mistakes Theodote for her; see Plut. Alc. 16, 7 for
Alkibiades’ hetaira Nemea.
26 Xen. Mem. 3, 11.
27 Plut. Amat. 9, 9 (Mor. 753 E); Clem. Al. Protr. 4, 42 P.; Paus. 5, 8, 11; Ath. 13, 576 f. 596 f; Diogenes called hetairai ‘kings’
queens’ according to Diog. Laert. 6, 63; for Bilistiche see Ogden 2008.
28 Plut. Alex. 38; Ath. 13, 576 e.
 Beauties from a distant world 147

very marked in the case of Harpalus. Both of the hetairai associated with him, Pythionike and her successor
Glycera, would have decisively added to the radiance of his position – and this is what was deemed impor-
tant when the two women passed into history.29
Hetairai were of heightened interest when in the society of strong and wild rulers. The feasts of
Demetrios Poliorcetes in the Parthenon on the Acropolis were reported upon due to their scandalous be-
haviour, and because Demetrios had a whole host of hetairai devoted to him30 – Leaina and Myrrhine are
named, the latter of whom also had relations with Hyperides.31 Said to find highest favour was Lamia32
besides Mania,33 who also had liaisons with the most famous Olympic boxers of the time, Leontiskos and
Antenor. These were evidently the sort of heroes with which rulers shared their hetairai and klinai.
It is remarkable that the names of these young women, the hetairai, have been passed on in historiography
down the centuries and that their biographies were enriched with anecdotes that turned, as it were, into myth.34
This was accompanied less and less by authentic history and, instead, increasingly by the construction of a
fascinating world containing powerful rulers and beautiful hetairai. It is just such a court milieu, I suggest,
that is referred to in some of the panel paintings depicting the carousing of strong men and appealing young
courtesans, which were still being copied as paintings with wooden frames onto walls in the Third Style. The
decorative context into which, for example, several such painted symposia have been placed within the feast-
ing rooms of the Villa della Farnesina, very much suggests that actual Hellenistic paintings had been repro-
duced.35 All the interiors depicted are characteristic of Hellenistic luxury, from the colourful upholstery and
baldachins to the drinking vessels and statues in the adjacent garden.36 There are banqueting scenes with two
to four participants of both sexes that, though they address erotic atmospheres and intimate emotions, leave the
inevitable ensuing sexual activities to whatever the viewer may dream or fantasize of.
Replicas in painting and mosaic confirm the former existence of original paintings.37 Among the cop-
ies, alongside a complete one with two couples, a version reduced to a single pair sometimes also appears,
into which is concentrated the full meaning of the joy of feasting. A historical constellation with nameable
actors who may have at one time sparked the picture’s creation was by that point no longer being appealed
to.38 It is in any case questionable whether historical accuracy was of great import in the copies. The pictures

29  Ath. 13, 586 c-d and 595 a-596 a with reference to Hellenistic historians; McClure 2003, 52-53.
30 Plut. Demetr. 24.
31  Ath. 13, 590 c-593 a.
32  Geyer 1924a; Plut. Demetr. 16; 24; 27; Alciphr. 4, 16.
33  Ath. 13, 578 f-579 a.
34  Demetrios was dubbed ‘Mythos’ on account of his relationship with Lamia who got linked to the mythological Lamia, see
Plut. Demetr. 27; apart from Alkiphron it was Lucian who in Dialogues of the courtesans presented them in a world of celebrities;
comparably, the hetairai’s historical esteem covers over moralistic considerations in Friedrich Jacobs’s Historische(r) Galerie der
vornehmsten Hetären Athens, published in C.M. Wieland’s Attisches Museum 2 (1798) 153, and Vermischte Schriften, 4 (Leipzig
1830) 331; for the literary afterlife cf. Schuller 2008, 15-18.
35 See Bragantini and Jacobelli in this volume; material evidence for such pictures does not exist but the idea of the image re-
minds of the mise-en-scène of meta-symposiasts in the royal pavilion of Ptolemy II Philadelphos (Kallixenos in Ath. 5, 196), as well
as the painting of Alkibiades in Nemea’s arms (above note 22).
36  Nielsen 1998 for details concerning the Hellenistic royal backdrop of Roman convivia; Wallace-Hadrill 2004, 115-16 points
out the title of rex and the custom of regnari for the convivium; statues of gods in the background of some pictures refer to sacral
connotations like did a feast of Aphrodite which was arranged for Demetrios by Lamia, see Ath. 13, 101 e-f.
37  Assembled by Varone 1997 and illustrated by Wallace-Hadrill 2004.
38 Historical symposia with hetairai had been recorded in poetry, see Plut. Demetr. 27; in Ath. 4, 146 f-148 f the basilikon sympo-
sion has become a topos that could be animated with different sets of participants; a biclinium for two couples tallies with the idea
of competing courtesans in twos, like in Asklepiades of Samos (or Poseidippos from Pella) in c. 270 BCE, see Anth. Pal. 5, 202,
and Gow – Page 1965, 53 Nr. 35; Wallace-Hadrill 2004, 117 reduces the contents to “common currency of Hellenistic imagery”
148 Richard Neudecker

could be related arbitrarily to any notorious couple from literature, since their primary task was to conjure
up the distant pleasures and indulgences at court. I do not wish to elucidate anything of the phenomenon of
actual Greek courtesans with the few quotes provided above from the extensive antique tradition. My focus
rather concerns the evidence of a wealth of images, names and facts in the cultural memory that reminded
one that the most famous Greek hetairai were central players in a highly enjoyable conviviality. There was
a sufficient amount of this to keep the memory alive up until the time of Pompeii. If the assumption that the
symposia pictures were understood historically, or pseudo-historically, rather than in terms of genre proves
correct, then individual portraits of famous hetairai should also have left their mark. To be precise, all that
had long been embedded pictorially or textually in the discourse of the erotic could be called on, at any time,
to be slipped into contemporary life.
In the Casa degli Amorini dorati (VI 16, 7), there is a small triclinium (letter ‘E’ on plan) next to a
large banqueting hall that, however, was not yet finished in 79 AD (fig. 2).39 It is an intimate room with a
serving hatch from the adjoining kitchen, which was recently declared a small window for voyeurs.40 Eight
tondi with likenesses have been placed within the scheme of the painted wall decorations (fig. 3). They catch
the eye, for the central pictures which they flank are not especially large.
From the klinai one could see, in a painted medaillon A to the right of the opening to the portico, a
half-length portrait of a young girl with light-brown curls reaching down to the shoulders. She is wearing
a diaphanous garment and is holding a myrtle branch – a popular dispenser of fragrance and gift to Aphro-
dite.41 Thus is described a portrait of a girl who, astoundingly enough, is followed by a whole series of com-
panions around all four walls. The viewer is well advised to follow and observe them more closely: Further

Fig. 2: Casa degli Amorini dorati (VI 16, 7), plan and view of room E.

which would be the lowest common denominator indeed; yet, also a narrative explanation following New Comedy is possible –
would not all detailed assessments of womens’ behaviour during symposia exclusively focus on royal hetairai, e.g. in Ath. 13, 583
a-b; cf. Murray 1996.
39  Seiler 1992, 55-59, fig. 362, plan fig. 86; Seiler 1994, 836-43.
40  Pollini 2010, 308-9.
41  Used by hetairai according to Ath. 13, 568 a, and Clem. Al. Paed. 3, 2, 8.
 Beauties from a distant world 149

Fig. 3: Casa degli Amorini dorati, portraits A – H from left to right, top down.
150 Richard Neudecker

to the right is a similar tondo B. The girl’s brown hair is also shoulder-length. She is crowned with ivy, a
white chiton at least covers her left shoulder. She gazes at the beholder whilst playing a lyre. This tondo is
followed by the middle piece on this wall which depicts the myth of Actaeon. The rendering has a clearly
erotic note, which also goes for all the central pictures in the room.42 A picture of a girl C with opulent gold
jewellery follows to the right; we see a red stone on her throat, a diadem in her hair, and gold swinging from
her ears. She is grasping the chiton on her shoulder with her left hand. On the rear wall we see another girl
D, this one with straighter hair, but which still falls on the shoulders in curls. The hairstyle has doubtlessly
been done skilfully and elaborately. This girl is wearing a light-blue piece over what is either a completely
transparent undergarment or simply naked skin. Her smiling gaze is directed sideways. She is pressing a sil-
ver cantharos rather tightly to herself. To the right we again find a brunette E with ringlets, a golden band in
her hair and pearls in her ears. If she is wearing anything at all, it is one of those gowns that make a woman
appear more naked than if they wore nothing at all.43 We see a garland on this chiton, or on her bare skin.
She looks back out at the viewer with large eyes whilst holding the stem of a plant in her hand. A further
medaillon follows on the adjacent wall. This girl F appears to be singing with a lyre. On the right we come
across an out-and-out beauty G with rich golden jewellery in her hair and round her throat. No clothing can
be made out anymore, it can at most have been a see-through veil. She is holding an object in her hand, a
flower presumably. To the left of the entrance we see the final and eighth girl H. She has somewhat shorter
curls, her face with its large eyes is distinctly pretty. A very slight light-blue piece of chiton is falling from
her shoulders.
The question of which eight girls we are dealing with here seems puzzling at first. One interpretation,
that they are contemporary portraits of the family, is contradicted by the sheer number of girls. Designating
them maenads, on the other hand, does not fit with the girls’ well looked-after and in part luxurious ap-
pearance, as well as their individual physiognomies. Faced with this plight, someone named them “damals
bewunderte Schönheiten”, and surely there is no objection to that, since for what other purpose could they
have been applied to the wall?44 The context, the particular flair of the house, may lead to a more distinct
individualisation of these ‘Schönheiten’. The Casa degli Amorini dorati displays several specific features,
beginning with the gable over the central, planned main hall. Most strikingly, there is the collection of
Greek marbles, above all the originals and also fragments of reliefs in the portico.45 The gallery of feminine
beauties could in the same way lead the viewer into an admired Hellenistic world. Since these cannot have
been an uncanonical gathering of goddesses, who would be lacking their identifying attributes, they must be
famous hetairai, and their accessories are indeed prominently visible.46
Tracing these historical hetairai likenesses is difficult because it is hard in stand-alone cases to tell
them apart from contemporary portraits. The proposed interpretation will be more plausible given a gallery
of several portraits.47 The Casa di Caecilius Iucundus (V 1, 26) contains a gallery of similar type, though

42  Seiler 1992, figg. 382, 388, 389.

43  That is how Sen. benef. 7, 9, 5 described it; see note 46.
44 Seiler 1992, 114 quoting Schefold, opts for human actors – possibly in dionysiac costumes in order to stimulate an atmosphere;
De Maria 1997, 48 reduces the message to “bellezza femminile in quanto tale”.
45  Neudecker 2015; noteworthy the sheets of obsidian set into the walls as mirrors (Seiler 1992, 47), cf. Beretta – Di Pasquale
2004, 288.
46  For the clothing Dalby 2002, 111-24; for jewellery Patera 2012, 36; in a letter Melissa (late Hellenistic) describes “clothing
streaked with purple and gold, for that kind of dress is worn by hetairai”: Thesleff 1965, 116.
47  Impossible to decide in the case of young women coupled with intellectual men, e.g. in X 5, 11 (PPM 9, 542), in VII 12, 26
(PPM 7, 574) and the so-called Sappho (Allroggen-Bedel 1975, fig. 95 b); the same applies to beautiful women accompanied by
non-identified persons like in VII 2, 20. 40 (PPM 6, 621); the most frequent subject of tondi are divine and mythological figures, yet
 Beauties from a distant world 151

Fig. 4: Casa di Caecilius Iucundus (V, 1, 26), plan. Fig. 5: Casa di Caecilius Iucundus, peristyle I, couple on bed,
MANN inv. 110569.

smaller.48 When the visitors walked along the portico of the peristyle garden (fig. 4), they came across a small
wall painting between the entrances to a triclinium and a cubiculum which is reminiscent of well-known sex
pictures, but different (fig. 5):49 the couple on the couch are not alone, the woman is giving instructions to a
cubicularia. She is wearing opulent jewellery – an armband and hairnet which, according to August Mau,50
were once coated with gold. Even the robe covering her legs is gold in colour. The man behind this lady is
gazing with obvious delight at her lower back; meanwhile, she moves one hand backwards, to fend him off.
In contrast to genuinely pornographic pictures, an intermezzo is shown here, one which must be classified
in the order of events as coming between the copious drinking – as in the banquetting pictures – and the
subsequent sexual intercourse.51
Should the visitors then step into the triclinium to the left, they would see four medaillons with girls’
portraits. Only three remain, and in bad condition (fig. 6).52 Two are located on the rear wall, two flank
the entrance. The girls’ hair also falls in curls to more or less shoulder length in these portraits, and much
luxuriant jewellery may be seen on the hair, necks and ears of all three. The light garment of one girl is slip-

some alleged maenads are accompanied by small figures more similar to an older nurse than a satyr, e.g. in I 11, 15 (PPM 2, 648);
see also note 56 for series of portraits with Erotes; Vos 1981 and Moormann 1984, 651 for further indefinable portraits in tondi;
even features like fan, jewellery and clothing are never unambiguous, e.g. in VI 7, 20 (PPM 4, 466); hetairai and their portraits are
popular when in groups, not only in the gallery of Pompey (see below) but also in Anth. Pal. 9, 26 (note 65); five women’s portraits
had been discovered in Vedius Pollio’s luggage, tells Cic. Att. 6, 1, 25 placing the ladies on the same level as seven amicae in the
retinue of Marcus Antonius and his courtesan Cytheris near Baiae (Cic. Att. 10, 11, 5); as a reading pleasure could be enjoyed the
group of seven girls brought up by Nikandre for a future as hetairai and called her ‘daughters’ in Ps.-Dem. 59, 18.
48 De Vos 1991, 607-15, “o” and “p” on plan 574. For the house's wallpaintings see Karivieri 2014.
49 De Vos 1991, 605; Clarke 1998, 153-57 plate 6; for the sex pictures see Guzzo – Scarano Ussani 2000.
50  Mau 1876, 228-29.
51  Pollini 2010, 293, describing the activity as ‘lovemaking’ – not very convincingly; Clarke 1998 emphasizes the distance in
quality and performance to the figurae Veneris – which always are found in cubicula and never in open spaces; Ritter 2017, 235-36
with wrong description.
52 Cf. De Vos 1991, 609. 614-15 and the drawings; Mau 1876, 166-68.
152 Richard Neudecker

Fig. 6: Casa di Caecilius Iucundus, portraits A – C.

ping off her shoulder, another girl is fumbling with a coquettish gesture on her right shoulder whilst the left
shoulder already seems to be exposed. The girl to the left of the entrance is holding a silver cantharus. The
lost medaillon would also have presented a girl. We may thus also refer to this as a gallery. The attributes
of the girls – lyre, cantharus, flowers and crown – point to the situation of a symposium. Although appear-
ances and postures are repeated, we see no real repetitions among the girls in both of these series. Instead,
the painter is at pains to give individuality to the faces.
In the Casa dell’Ara Massima (VI 16, 15) we encounter a third gallery. It is a small house, which in
its few rooms offers, however, a remarkable standard of furnishings.53 Triclinium G sparkles in the colour
of the gold on the walls, upon which eight medaillons once flanked eight central pictures (fig. 7); only five
remain.54 Four of them depict young women (fig. 8). One (A) has her hand heading to the chiton on her
shoulder, a motif we have already seen. The second (B) is wearing a bonnet on her head, and one (C) is look-
ing up from her writing tablet, thus indicating intellectual or artistic skills that were appreciated in women at
symposia.55 The fourth medaillon (D) is not easy to interpret. The lady with the diadem in her hair exceeds
her companions in beauty, and the small Eros looking at her over her shoulder is doubtless a nod towards
Aphrodite. On the other hand, many hetaerae were seen as similarly comparable with Aphrodite – not only
Phryne.56 The game of the diva was explored in anecdotes about painters and sculptors from Praxiteles to
Arellius, who depicted their models and lovers as goddesses.57 Whether the goddess herself or one of her
personifications was supposed to have been seen in this fourth medaillon was left open, perhaps deliberately.

53  Stemmer 1992; Stemmer 1994, 871-78 for room G.

54  Stemmer 1992, figg. 154-185; Stemmer 1994, 878.
55  According to Ath. 13, 583 f - 584 a some hetairai distinguished themselves by higher education and maintained to teach men
more than philosophers, i.e. ἐροτικὰ instead of ἐριστικὰ σοφίσματα; in the literary tradition the boundary between hetairai and fe-
male philosophers was vague, cf. Diog. Laert. 10, 5-6 who reports on Themista, Epikuros’ pilosophical penfriend, in the same breath
with his hetaira Leontion; Cic. fin. 2, 21, 68 makes disparaging remarks about her; see also Theano’s letter to Rhodope (Thesleff
1965, 200 n. 6; Reuthner 2009).
56  See note 22 for Lais; according to Clem. Al. Protr. 4, 53, 6 Phryne was painted by all painters of her time as Aphrodite; the
ambiguity of a female head with Amor may have been intended, e.g. in the Casa di Apollo VI 7, 23 (Sampaolo 1993, 483-90)
where four rather different female portraits, each one with Amor on her shoulder, keep company to a representation of Aphrodite
at her dressing table; see Plut. Ant. 26 and 29 for Cleopatra’s disguise as Fishing Aphrodite in company of Marcus Antonius; cf.
Neumer-Pfau 1986.
57 Plin. nat. 35, 119.
 Beauties from a distant world 153

Fig. 7: Casa dell’Ara Massima (VI 16, 15), triclinium G.

In any case, the portrait establishes a link to the superhuman realm, to which the fifth surviving medaillon,58
with its image of Pan or a satyr, also belongs.
The hetairai portraits on at least three of the medaillons sit in an amorous thematic sphere of Greek
origin, flanking as they do erotically understood mythic pictures of Endymion and Ariadne.59 Among them,
the singular portrayal of Herakles stands out all the more, should this actually be an image of him – accord-
ing to the only plausible interpretation to date – at the Ara Maxima in Rome (fig. 7).60 In myth, this is where
the hetairai revelry par excellence took place; the aedituus of the Temple of Hercules challenged the demi-
god to a game of dice, offering an opulent meal with a fantastic woman as a stake. As would be expected,
Herakles won the meal and Acca Larentia, the mythical prostitute.61
All in all, we have three galleries of beautiful girls radiating eroticism but with no addenda to give
us any certainty as to their identity. The immediate and the mental contexts do furnish some hints, however.
The pictures of girls decorate feasting rooms; they have the accessories of symposia with them. In view of

58  Stemmer 1992, fig. 185.

59  Fredrick 1995, 283-84 with illustrations.
60 See Stemmer 1992, 53-55 with discussion and fig. 181.
61  For Acca Larentia as hetaira see Plut. Rom. 5 and Quaest. Rom. 35 (Mor. 272 F - 273 B); thus, the wall-painting would depict
Herakles speaking with his aedituus as starting point for a night of love; see Sabbatucci 1958, 56-69; Arias 1981, 10-11; Hraste –
Vukovic 2015, 325-26.
154 Richard Neudecker

Fig. 8: Casa dell’Ara Massima, portraits A – D. Top down, from left to right.

the level of awareness of Greek hetairai as evidenced in literature and pictures, I suggest we are looking
at portrait galleries of Greek hetairai in these series of pictures, comparable to the galleries of Hellenistic
rulers and intellectuals.
These most beautiful girls of Pompeii are first of all ideal images of beauty from what was already an
almost mythical world. They represented a life of luxury, with a strong element of sex. To this end, though,
they were also supposed to have sprung from a historical reality. In actual fact, there is sufficient talk in the
texts of individual portraits of famous hetairai that they should have been available for pictorial depiction as
historical personalities at any time. Admittedly, there is no indication that the portraits of women discussed
here had already been supplied with historical proper names. But if somebody had wished so, they need
not have remained anonymous. For the existence of such portrait galleries – if not the individual portraits
themselves – may have been reasonably well known.
Besides hetairai, the most famous of this type of portrait gallery also encompassed female poets and
women with unusual experiences of childbirth. It was to be found in the Theatre of Pompey in the Campus
Martius,62 and was still visible to Tatian in his time in Rome from 150-172 CE. The apologist deployed his

62  Coarelli 1972; Gros 1999; Bravi 2012, 69-73; Bravi 2014, 75-81; for the gallery see Kuttner 1999 who describes the cultural
setting – a precursor and example for the furnishing of the Casa degli Amorini dorati; in detail Sande 2014 and in this volume.
 Beauties from a distant world 155

observations of the gallery when criticizing the sharp contrast between the chaste behaviour of Christian
women and the immorality of all the women portrayed – hetairai and poets to him being one and the same.63
What he saw in Campus Martius was an Augustan realignment of an older gallery, as the surviving inscrip-
tion fragments from the bases attest. Under Augustus there was clearly sufficient interest to display this gal-
lery in an appropriate manner. Its creator, however, was Pompey, who, in doing so, assumed the habitus of a
Hellenistic ruler, not only with a portrait gallery, but also in flesh and blood. His public appearances with his
courtesan, Flora, would have caused the greatest of stirs when his tempestuous affection for her was all too
visible. Flora’s portrait in the Temple of Castor and Pollux at the Circus Flaminius also fits in harmoniously
in the tradition of hetairai portraits in Greek temples.64
The inscription on one of the surviving bases of the gallery mentions Mystis. Lined up alongside her
were the most famous hetairai: Phryne, Glycera, Argeia, Neaira, Lais, Pannychis, and also Sappho. The
names of the Greek hetairai of this rank were just as familiar to a moderately educated class in Pompeii as
mythological names, and the same applies to the accompanying anecdotes.65 The gallery’s portrait statues
were chiselled by the hands of renowned sculptors and sought out by Atticus,66 more of a Greek than a Ro-
man. It would not have been too difficult to get hold of authentic or ostensible portraits of these women. It
is worth recalling that Clodius Pulcher obtained a statue from Greece for the sacellum of Libertas at around
the same time; according to Cicero67 it must actually have been a tomb statue of a hetaira. The tomb of Py-
thionike at Eleusis was still well known at the time of Plutarch68 and presumably also furnished with a statue
devoid of identifying features, as in all Hellenistic female portraits.
As with the portraits in the gallery of Pompey, so with those on Pompeii’s walls: nobody expected
authentically physiognomic rendering. Pseudo-historical likenesses fulfilled their purpose. The galleries
of beauty and also the copies of pictures of symposia were intended to evoke the bygone glamour of Hel-
lenistic courts, and lend the golden shine of the highest pleasure to Roman convivia.69 It is not by chance
that the walls are painted in rare gold, which is the colour of hetairai – some of them called Chryse, Goldy,
Gold-fish – and of their diaphanous garments and hand-mirrors.70 Some of them dedicated their full-length
portrait or Aphrodite’s image in gold earned by their own body’s charms.71 Unintentionally, then, the politi-
cal buzzword aurea aetas made it, as it were, into the dining room.

63 Tatianus, Ad Gr. 33-34; Plin. nat. 7, 34; Evans 2009 feels uncomfortable with hetairai and admits only presentable poetesses.
64 Plut. Pomp. 2.
65  Coarelli 1972, 100-1 for the statue-base of Mystis who probably is identical with Demetrios’ and Seleukos’ courtesan Mysta
(Ath. 13, 578 a. 593 e); Bravi 2014, 77 proposes Mystis, Dionysos’ nurse; not to forget Myrtis, obscure poetess amidst a group of
Muses in Antipatros of Thessalonike, see Anth. Pal. 9, 26 (Gow – Page 1968, 1, 25 n. 19 and 2, 36-37); without findplace but from
Rome a lost inscription of Phryne’s statue by Herodotos (Moretti 1990, n. 1496); for the hetairai called Lais see Ath. 13, 570 b-c.
e, 582 c, 586 e, 587 d, 588 c-e, 592 d-e with their lovers’ names and notes 6. 21. 22. 56. 68; for Neaira see Ps. Dem. 59, 18-23 and
Ath. 13, 586 e, 590 a, 593 f; for Glykera see Ath. 13, 584 a, 585 c-d and 594 d, 586 c-d, 595 d - 596 a. 605 d, and notes 24. 28; for
Neaira with Phryne see Ath. 13, 567 e. 583 c. 584 c. 585 e. 590 d - 592 e, and notes 17-19 for Phryne’s portrait statues.
66 Cic. Att. 4, 9, 1; Coarelli 1972, 105.
67 Cic. dom. 109.
68 Plut. Phoc. 22, Ath. 13, 595 a-c and 594 e; for Lais’ tomb near the Peneios see Ath. 13, 589 a-b and Paus. 2, 19, and a spuri-
ous tomb near Corinthos, see Paus. 2, 2, 4 and Ath. 13, 589 c; for tomb-tourism and further details McClure 2003, 145-54; for the
statues see Dillon 2010, 122.
69 Portrait galleries as Greek genre merge well in a multifarious ensemble of aristocratic connotations in Roman living spaces, see
Wallace-Hadrill 1988, 69-77.
70  For the significance of gold see Berg p. 206-12 in this volume; Kurke 1997, 116-18; above note 46 and Patera 2012, 35-36;
Ath. 13, 591 c for ‘Gold-fish’ Phryne.
71  See Nossis about Polyarchis’ dedication in Anth. Pal. 9, 332 (Gow – Page 1965, 1, 152 n. IV; 2, 437).
 Pitture di banchetto con presenze femminili nelle case di Pompei:
alcune considerazioni

Luciana Jacobelli

Gli affreschi con scene di banchetti realistici e con presenze femminili ritrovate nelle case di Pompei non
sono numerosi.1 La loro lettura iconografica è stata compiuta in modo esauriente2 e dunque vorrei soffer-
marmi su alcuni aspetti la cui analisi può risultare utile alle tematiche affrontate in questo convegno.3 In
particolare un primo elemento riguarda la collocazione dei quadri all’interno della casa e l’altro il ruolo e lo
status sociale da attribuire alle donne in essi raffigurate.
Per quanto riguarda il primo punto vediamo che, quando ricostruibile, tutti i quadri realistici di ban-
chetti provengono da due ambienti: triclinia e cubicula. Questo è un primo dato di grande interesse in quan-
to è proprio in questi due ambienti che si tenevano le cene. Infatti, a partire dal II secolo a.C. quando la casa
italica si arricchisce di ambienti di rappresentanza ad imitazione delle dimore ellenistiche, si modifica anche
la funzione di alcuni vani come i cubicula che da semplici stanze da letto divengono all’occorrenza spazio
per meditare, leggere, studiare, dipingere, ricevere e anche cenare. Da questo periodo si afferma anche un
altro fenomeno, quello dell’abbinamento triclinium - cubiculum. Accanto o assieme ai molteplici cubicula
disposti attorno all’atrio, appaiono con sempre maggiore frequenza particolari tipi di cubicoli in collega-
mento diretto o nei pressi dei triclini.4 Questo accostamento è espressione della trasformazione della cultura
abitativa romana che portò all’affermazione della casa come luogo dell’ostentazione del lusso e fattore ri-
levatore dello status sociale del proprietario.5 Il cubiculum collocato al lato del triclinio è nient’altro che la
“materializzazione del piacere in tutte le sue accezioni che adesso trova un luogo appropriato isolato, chiuso
e separato anche se adiacente alla stanza del banchetto”.6 Il cubiculum può servire ai convitati per dormire,
spezzando la lunga durata del banchetto nel momento del cambio delle mense, per riprendersi dopo un pas-
saggio alle terme e il proseguimento della cena, per intraprendere discorsi privati, magari politici, ma anche,
naturalmente per soddisfare una passione amorosa stimolata ancor di più dall’atmosfera conviviale e dal
consumo del vino. Nonostante il clima licenzioso che permeava il banchetto, esistevano infatti norme com-
portamentali che tendevano a frenare atteggiamenti troppo ‘spinti’. La discrezione doveva essere una regola

1  Si contano circa una dozzina di quadri con scene di banchetto tutti appartenenti al tardo III stile e al IV stile cfr. Dunbabin
2003, 52-63 e 70. Ad una tradizione differente rimandano invece le immagini di banchetti raffigurate sui monumenti funerari con
significato commemorativo ed evergetico, tema per il quale si rimanda a Ghedini 1990, 34-62 e Compostella 2, 1992, 659-89 con
ulteriore bibliografia. In questo contributo si prenderanno in considerazione solo i quadretti ‘realistici’, e non quelli ‘storici’ o di
ambiente nilotico.
2  Varone 1993, 617-40; Dunbabin 2003.
3  Desidero esprimere il mio vivo ringraziamento al prof. Mario Liotti, al prof. Enrico Renna, e al dott. Thomas Fröhlich che mi
hanno fornito consigli, suggerimenti e preziosi ed amichevoli aiuti.
4  Il processo è spiegato molto bene da Zaccaria Ruggiu 2001, 59-101. Si veda anche Anguissola 2010, in particolare 173-76.
5  Numerosi sono gli articoli legati a questa tematica, ma ancora fondamentale resta il contributo di Wallace-Hadrill 1994.
6  Zaccaria Ruggiu 2001, 94.
158 Luciana Jacobelli

ben chiara come dimostra sia la letteratura,7

che l’evidenza archeologica. In particolare
proprio da Pompei nel triclinio della casa
del Moralista (III 4, 2-3) sono enunciati tre
distici che esortano al pudore, al linguaggio
onesto, all’evitare liti e contrasti durante le
cene.8
Le pitture di banchetto che adornano
i triclini e le stanze da letto, sottolineano
il rapporto tra struttura, apparato decorati-
vo e funzioni d’uso in modo significativo.
Infatti all’interno di questa tipologia sem-
brano potersi distinguere due tipi di scene.
Quelle che raffigurano più partecipanti al
convivio si svolgono in una sala triclinare
o in un triclinio all’aperto, che può essere
anche un giardino all’interno della domus.
Fig. 1: ‘Banchettante ed etera’, da Ercolano. Museo Nazionale di Napoli,
Al contrario i quadri con le scene a due inv. 9024 (foto da Sampaolo 1992).
personaggi sembrerebbero svolgersi nei
cubicula. Questa stessa differenziazione è riscontrabile anche nella collocazione dei quadri nei due
diversi ambienti: le scene di banchetti a più personaggi si trovano raffigurati nei triclinia, mentre le
scene a due convitati si trovano collocate prevalentemente nelle stanze da letto, spesso come allusione
ai preliminari dell’atto amoroso.9
Tra le scene di banchetto a due spicca la bella pittura proveniente da Ercolano (fig. 1) oggi al Museo
Nazionale di Napoli, che viene interpretata come ‘banchettante ed etera’.10 Vi è raffigurata una fanciulla
che porta sul busto un velo trasparente, mentre un manto giallo foderato di grigio le avvolge le gambe. In-
dossa orecchini a globetti e una retina d’oro sui capelli secondo una moda di età neroniana. L’ostentazione
di questi monili suggerirebbe l’appartenenza ad uno status elevato piuttosto di quello di etera. D’altronde
la coppia è colta nell’intimità della propria stanza nell’atto di bere e conversare. Il compagno beve da un
rhyton, sdraiato su una kline avanti alla quale è un tavolo su cui poggia l’argentum potorium.11 Una giovane
servetta si avvicina alla donna con una cassettina nelle mani, contenente forse dei gioielli. La presenza di
schiavi cubiculariae è comune in questi quadri, anche in scene in cui l’intimità della coppia è più evidente.12

7  Svetonio racconta che Antonio rinfacciò ad Augusto il fatto che durante una cena aveva portato fuori dal triclinio in un cubicolo
(e triclinio in cubiculum) la moglie di un consolare, sotto gli occhi del marito, e di averla riportata in sala con i capelli in disordine
e le orecchie in fiamme (Suet. Aug. 69).
8  CIL IV, 7698.
9  Il tema dei conviti amorosi è tratto da composizioni di ascendenza ellenistica spesso nobilitati da una trasposizione in
ambito divino o mitologico Pucci 1977, 9-31. Ma nelle stanze da letto si trovano anche scene di sesso esplicito Jacobelli
1995, 83-92.
10  MANN inv. 9024; Collezioni 1986, 65, n. 340; Sampaolo 1992, 105-6; Beretta – Di Pasquale 2004, 275; Dunbabin 2003, 56.
11 Sia il tipo di tavolino che i servizi potori in argento sono presenti nelle collezioni pompeiane. Per i tavolini si veda De Carolis
2007, in particolare 100-4; per i servizi da mensa in argento: Tamm 2001, 168-69; Guzzo 2006.
12  Per esempio gli affreschi dei cubicula B e D nella Villa della Farnesina cfr. Sanzi Di Mino 1998, 57-93, in particolare 68, 74-77;
affresco dalla Casa di Caecilius Iucundus a Pompei (MANN inv. 110569). In generale si veda Clarke 1998. Numerose le fonti che
attestano la presenza costante dei servi cubicularii presso le stanze da letto, si veda per esempio Apul. met. 9, 2 e 9, 30; 10, 28; Tac.
ann. 13, 44; Val. Max. 1, 7, 7 e 9, 13 ext. 4; Petron. 53, 10.
 Pitture di banchetto con presenze femminili nelle case di Pompei 159

Una scena piuttosto simile, ora al Mu-

seo Nazionale di Napoli (inv. 9254) prove-
niva dalla parete ovest del cubicolo 12 della
Casa del Meleagro (VI 9, 2-13) a Pompei.13
Una coppia è seduta su una kline, l’uomo
con il torso nudo poggia il braccio sulla spal-
la della compagna che ha il braccio destro
alzato con l’indice sollevato. Avanti al letto
triclinare è il solito tavolino a tre gambe con
il servizio di vasi per le libagioni.
Dalla parete nord del cubicolo d della
Casa del Laocoonte (VI 14, 28-33) provie-
ne un’altra scena di banchetto a due, attual-
mente al Museo archeologico nazionale di
Napoli (fig. 2).14 Quando venne realizzato
l’affresco il cubicolo era aperto sull’atrio;
successivamente la comunicazione venne
Fig. 2: Scena di banchetto tra due convitati, da Pompei, Casa del Laocoonte
VI, 14, 28-33. Museo Nazionale di Napoli, inv. 111209 (foto da PPM 5). chiusa e fu aperta una porta direttamente
sulla strada.15 Il quadro raffigura una coppia
distesa su kline avanti alla quale è posto un tavolino dal piano rettangolare e tre gambe arcuate all’esterno,
piuttosto differente dai tavolini solitamente raffigurati in questo tipo di affreschi. Sul piano sono visibili resti
di cibo non identificabili. La donna, dalle spalle nude, è sdraiata a destra e ha in mano una coppa, l’uomo
steso di fronte indossa una tunica che gli lascia scoperta una spalla; entrambi sono coronati. L’intimità della
coppia è disturbata dall’arrivo di una donna ammantata accompagnata da uno schiavetto che porta una tavo-
letta cerata. Sullo sfondo si intravedono delle colonnine come se l’ambiente si affacciasse su un peristilio.
Un’altra scena di cena ‘a due’ proviene dal triclinio H (parete nord) della casa VI 16, 36.37, purtrop-
po molto mal conservata.16 Un uomo, con capo coronato è seduto sul letto triclinare; al centro è una donna
stesa di tre quarti con il braccio sinistro sollevato come nell’atto di parlare o declamare.17 Da sinistra avanza
un’ancella con manto viola. Interessante è la collocazione di questo ambiente posto tra due cubicoli (I e J).18
Una scena che potremmo definire ‘a due commensali’ si trovava sulla parete est del cubicolo z della
Casa di Epidio Sabino (IX 1, 22). Oggi è completamente sparita ed è conosciuta solo grazie ai disegni di
Nicola La Volpe e Geremia Discanno.19 È raffigurata una coppia sdraiata su kline; in primo piano è il tavolo
con recipienti e vivande che uno schiavetto è in procinto di servire. L’intimità della cena sembra interrotta da
una donna ammantata, visibilmente ubriaca, con in mano un kantharos e sostenuta da un’ancella. Il motivo
dell’ubriaca – o dell’ubriaco – ricorre piuttosto spesso nelle scene di banchetto.20 Una donna simile a quella

13  PPM 4, 1993, 689, fig. 61.

14  MANN inv. 111209, PPM 5, 1994, 341 con bibliografia.
15  Questo ed altri mutamenti ne determinarono forse una nuova destinazione d’uso cfr. Della Corte 1965³, 90-94.
16  PPM 5, 1994, 988, fig. 12.
17  Nello stesso ambiente, sulla parete est è una scena di agone poetico PPM 5, 1994, 989-91, figg. 14-16
18  PPM 5, 1994, 981.
19  Per l’analisi dei disegni, del quadro e la bibliografia relativa si veda Varone 1993, in particolare 624-25.
20  Si veda infra.
160 Luciana Jacobelli

descritta si ritrova nella famosa scena di banchetto sulla parete ovest del triclinio della Casa dei Casti amanti
(IX 12, 6), dove però alla cena partecipano due coppie.21
Il triclinio della Casa dei Casti amanti (IX 12, 6-7), presenta ben tre raffigurazioni di banchetto. Non
sono molti gli ambienti con interi cicli pittorici di contenuto simposiaco se si eccettuano il triclinio r della
Casa del Triclinio (V 2, 4) e quello della Casa I 3, 18. Le pitture della Casa dei Casti amanti, databili all’ul-
timissima fase del III stile, sono molto simili ad altri quadretti con scene di banchetto tanto da potersi ipo-
tizzare un prototipo comune.22 Anche il quadretto sulla parete nord con simposio all’aperto ha una perfetta
replica nel quadro al Museo archeologico nazionale inv. 9015.23 Caratteristiche stilistiche diverse mostra
invece il quadro sulla parete est. La scena, ambientata forse sotto un portico, rappresenta un momento del
banchetto piuttosto avanzato: una donna aiuta a bere il compagno da un rhyton, mentre l’uomo dell’altra
coppia è già bello che addormentato.24 In primo piano è il solito tavolino a tre piedi a zampa ungulata sul
quale poggiano le suppellettili per bere.
Ma vorrei soffermare la mia attenzione su un ultimo ciclo di pitture dal quale si possono ricavare
ipotesi piuttosto interessanti rispetto al tema trattato nel presente convegno. Si tratta delle immagini di ban-
chetto datate al IV stile, oggi al Museo archeologico nazionale di Napoli (inv. 120029-120031) provenienti
dal triclinio r della Casa V 2, 4.25 L’abitazione che ospitava le pitture è di modeste proporzioni (fig. 3). Delle
profonde fauci (a) introducono in un atrio (b) con impluvio,
al centro del quale era un pilastrino sorreggente una statuetta
di Venere al bagno. Intorno all’atrio si dispongono con scarsa
simmetria, vari ambienti identificati come stanze da letto (d, l,
k), un vano scala per il piano superiore (d’), un triclino (n) una
dispensa (m), un piccolo ambiente servile (i) e il tablino (g)
aperto su un peristilio a tre bracci (p) con viridario al centro (o).
Sul fondo della casa è il triclinio (r) adiacente al viridario e di
fronte all’elegante cubicolo (u).26
Rispetto alle scene di simposio sopradescritte, lo stile
dei quadretti del triclinio r appare meno raffinato e più rispon-
dente ai canoni della pittura romana ‘realistica’. Nel quadro
sulla parete ovest il banchetto è in pieno svolgimento (fig. 4).27
La scena è poco leggibile: a destra si vede una statua in bronzo
di fanciullo sopra una bassa base triangolare: si tratta di un lam- Fig. 3: Pianta della Casa del Triclinio V 2, 4 (foto
padoforo, del tipo ritrovato nella Casa dell’Efebo e in quella di da PPM 3).

21  Varone 1993, 617-40, in particolare 624-25.

22  Sul problema della bottega Varone 1993, 623 con bibliografia a nota 34. Ad un prototipo comune pensa la Dunbabin 2003, 54.
23  Varone 1993, 627-28, pl. CLVIII; Dunbabin 2003, 54.
24  Varone 1993, 628-29, tav. CLX, 1.
25  Le pitture dovrebbero datarsi a prima del terremoto del 62. Si veda Fröhlich 1991, 222-29, tav. 20, 2; 21; PPM 3, 1991, 813-18,
figg. 39, 41, 47; Dunbabin 2003, 57, figg. 28, 29.
26  PPM 3, 1991, 797, 823. Sulle varie ipotesi circa la destinazione della casa si veda anche infra. La casa fu ritenuta dal Della Cor-
te (Della Corte 1965, 128-29) una caupona a causa di molti graffiti del fullone L. Quintilius Crescens. Sogliano riteneva piuttosto
che esistesse un rapporto di amicizia tra il proprietario o abitante della casa e i fulloni della vicina officina VI 14, 22 (Sogliano 1884,
47-50). Sulla casa e sulle pitture si veda anche Rizzo 1929, 89, tav. CXCVII b; Borda 1958, 252; Felletti Maj 1977, 329, fig. 159;
Fröhlich 1991, 222-29, tav. 20, 2; 21, 1-2; Clarke 2003a, 239-45; Ritter 2005, 356-59; Ritter 2011, 155-220.
27  MANN inv. 120030; PPM 3, 1991, 818, fig. 47.
 Pitture di banchetto con presenze femminili nelle case di Pompei 161

Giulio Polibio.28 Affianco è un servo che si

avvicina al tavolino, in primo piano (ma di
dimensioni ridotte) vi sono, probabilmente,
una danzatrice vista di spalle e due flauti-
ste. Al centro del triclinio è un personaggio
vestito di rosso, accanto a lui è un commen-
sale ormai ubriaco, la testa reclinata, un
braccio che pende verso il tavolo in primo
piano. La scena si svolge all’interno di un
vasto ambiente che ospita un triclinio a for-
ma di P greco su cui sembrano trattenersi
sei o sette commensali.29
Nel quadro ad est è raffigurato il
momento conclusivo del banchetto quando
alcuni convitati sono pronti ad andar via
(fig. 5).30 Sulla sinistra è un uomo seduto
che discorre con un altro convitato disteso.
L’uomo seduto sembra in procinto di andar
Fig. 4: Scena di banchetto, da Pompei, Casa del Triclinio, parete ovest del via, infatti uno schiavo gli infila il sandalo,
triclinio (r). Museo archeologico nazionale di Napoli, inv. 120030.
mentre un altro gli offre il ‘bicchiere della
staffa’. In alto è il graffito “scio”. Al centro è un altro uomo rivolto verso destra che osserva un personaggio
ammantato e con il capo coperto, accudito da uno schiavo negro. Sulla sua testa è graffito il saluto “valetis”.
Un altro commensale è seduto a destra con in mano una coppa sul cui capo è graffito “bibo” a palesare la
ferma intenzione di non abbandonare ancora il simposio. In primo piano sulla destra è un commensale ubria-
co, che vomita sorretto da uno schiavo. Il quadretto è l’unico ove apparentemente non compaiono donne,
almeno che non consideriamo come femminile il personaggio ammantato, identificato però generalmente
come un uomo.31
Ma la scena più interessante ai fini di questo intervento, è quella che si trova sulla parete nord, proprio
di fronte l’ingresso (fig. 6).32 Sono raffigurati cinque personaggi distesi su letti triclinari ricoperti da drappi
verdi. Il banchetto sembra svolgersi all’aperto perché sui personaggi è steso un velum che ricade ai lati di un
pilastro di sostegno. A sinistra è una coppia reclinata: la donna sembra coperta solo nella parte inferiore con
un drappo, ma il quadro è troppo lacunoso per determinare se e che tipo di indumento indossasse nella parte
superiore. Ella ha il braccio sinistro sollevato nell’atto di bere da un rhyton dal quale fuoriesce uno zampillo
di vino. Una fanciulla con una cassetta procede verso di lei. L’uomo accanto le tiene una mano sulla spalla,
mentre nell’altra tiene un kantharos; ha una ghirlanda sul torso nudo ed è l’unico rivolto verso gli spettatori.
Segue un personaggio maschile isolato la cui centralità è scandita dalla collocazione in asse con la mensa
ed il puntello della tenda. Sembra avere il braccio piegato sulla testa in un gesto replicato in scene di rilas-

28  PPM 3, 1991, 818; Moormann 1988, 166.

29  Sulla forma dei triclini Dunbabin 2003, 58.
30  MANN inv. 120029; PPM 3, 1991, 815, fig. 41.
31  Fröhlich 1991, 224; Dunbabin 2003, 58.
32  MANN inv. 120031; PPM 3, 1991, 813, fig. 38. La posizione di fronte l’ingresso ne fa il quadro più importante del ciclo perché
focalizzava maggiormente l’attenzione dello spettatore.
162 Luciana Jacobelli

samento spesso legate al sesso.33 A destra

è raffigurata una seconda coppia: l’uomo
di spalle rivolto verso destra, è ricoperto
nella parte inferiore da una tunica rossa di
cui un lembo gli ricade sul braccio sinistro;
nella mano corrispondente tiene un kan-
tharos, l’altro braccio è sollevato in alto.
Di fronte è appena visibile la testa corona-
ta della compagna che lo abbraccia, tenen-
dogli una mano alla vita. In primo piano
è un tavolino di legno a tre piedi con in-
strumentum potorium verso cui avanza un
inserviente con due oinochoai. Al di sopra
dei commensali, a mò di fumetto, compare
un testo scritto realizzato contestualmen-
te alle immagini e da considerare, quindi,
componente essenziale del programma
figurativo della scena.34 Sull’attribuzione Fig. 5: Scena di banchetto, da Pompei, Casa del Triclinio, parete Est del
triclinio (r) (da PPM 3, fig. 41). MANN, inv. 120029.
e la lettura stessa del testo ci sono pareri
contrastanti,35 ma recentemente è stata formulata un’ipotesi, a mio avviso molto convincente, basata sulla
stretta simmetria che lega pittura e scrittura.36 Secondo questa ipotesi l’articolazione più verosimile è quel-
la che presuppone una scansione tripartita delle frasi, al pari della disposizione tripartita dei personaggi
(coppia reclinata a sinistra; giovane nel mezzo; coppia a destra). Su questa base, sarebbe la donna a sinistra
che rivolta ai commensali augura “Facitis vobis suaviter” (spassatevela), l’uomo della coppia di destra, la
cui postura è perfettamente speculare a quella della donna della prima coppia le risponde “Est ita; valeas”
(È così, salute a te) mentre l’uomo al centro esprime la sua scelta di cantare “ego canto”. È stato notato da
tempo che l’esortazione a ‘spassarsela’ (facitis vobis suaviter) ha i suoi riscontri più stretti nella cena di
Trimalcione,37 quando ad un certo punto il padrone di casa raccomanda ai suoi ospiti di divertirsi e l’invito
apre la strada ad una autocelebrazione della propria virtus.38 Un carattere ‘letterario’ ha anche l’espressione

33  Si veda per esempio la scena erotica nel cubicolo 43 della Casa del Centenario, o il quadretto dalla Casa del Bell’impluvio
(I 9, 1), e il cammeo con scena erotica MANN inv. 25847/15. Anche se il gesto è prevalentemente maschile si veda l’affresco della
Casa del Ristorante (IX 5, 14) in cui è la donna a poggiare il gomito sulla testa, o anche la scena da Ercolano (MANN inv. 9387)
in contesto non erotico, con conversazione tra donne. Per questo gesto di erotic repose si veda anche Clarke 1998, 68-70; 104-5;
165; 181; 218; 257. Ritter 2005, 313, asserisce che il gesto ricorda le figure dionisiache e attribuisce all’uomo uno stato di mistica
ebrezza che lo porta a cantare.
34  CIL IV 3442 a-b. Sulla scrittura nell’immagine cfr. Corbier 1995, 113-57, ed in particolare 140, fig. 23. Su testo preso in esame
si veda tra gli altri Richardson 2000, 177 il quale ipotizza che il pittore qui operante sarebbe stato specializzato in insegne e mani-
festi elettorali. Un’analisi accurata del quadro, con bibliografia precedente, è in Stramaglia 2007, 596-600.
35  Le battute generalmente vengono ripartite fra due soli personaggi: il giovane al centro che pronuncerebbe tutta la frase e quello
alla sua destra che risponderebbe est ita valeas (così per esempio Fröhlich 1991, 226 e PPM 3, 813, fig. 38). Clarke 2003a, 243,
attribuisce la prima battuta all’uomo stempiato a destra, la seconda o allo stesso o ad un altro convitato. Addirittura Wallace-
Hadrill 2004, 114, divide il testo in cinque articolazioni. Più interessante e convincente è l’ipotesi di Ritter 2005, 313-15, fig. 5,
che ritiene che a formulare la prima frase sia l’uomo a sinistra e che la frase non sia destinata alle persone raffigurate sul dipinto, ma
allo spettatore verso cui il personaggio è rivolto.
36  L’ipotesi accennata da Dunbabin 2003, 58 è accuratamente analizzata in Stramaglia 2007, 597.
37 Già Maiuri 1945, 229-30 e tav. VII.
38 Hor. sat. 9, 25; Petron. sat. 75, 8: vos rogo, amici, ut vobis suaviter sit.
 Pitture di banchetto con presenze femminili nelle case di Pompei 163

Fig. 6: Scena di banchetto, da Pompei, Casa del Triclinio parete nord

del triclinio (r). MANN, inv. 120031.

Fig. 7: Disegno riproducente un frammento del quadro con Diotima e

Socrate (DAIR Neg. 53.597), da Pompei, Casa del Triclinio parete nord
del cubicolo (u).

ego canto, tratta dalla satira IX di Orazio.39 Inoltre, come ricorda opportunamente Roller, sempre durante il
banchetto di Trimalcione, un ospite è invitato a cantare per allietare i convitati.40 Dunque la rappresentazio-
ne del banchetto con citazioni ‘letterarie’ famose sembrerebbe mostrarsi come l’esplicitazione del prestigio
sociale del padrone di casa.
Alcuni degli studiosi che si sono occupati dell’affresco si sono anche cimentati nel riconoscimento ico-
nografico del committente-padrone di casa, riconoscendolo chi nell’uomo reclinato a destra del dipinto della
parete nord,41 chi nell’anziano ammantato dell’affresco sulla parete est.42 Certo è curioso che nessuno abbia
pensato alla donna: se infatti fosse lei a pronunciare la frase, dimostrerebbe di essere la proprietaria, o almeno
la moglie o la concubina del padrone di casa. Quasi a sottolineare l’autorità di questa figura femminile è il fatto
che sia lei a bere dal rhython, laddove in tutte le raffigurazioni questo elemento è sempre usato da uomini.43
Il fatto che stia bevendo non esclude che sia lei a parlare.44 Altre raffigurazioni su medaglioni della Valle
del Rodano propongono personaggi che ‘parlano’ mentre fanno sprizzare vino dal corno potorio.45 Dunque

39  Ringrazio per questa annotazione il prof. Enrico Renna.

40  Roller 2006, 73, n. 115; Petron. sat. 64, 2-5.
41  Fröhlich 1991, 227; Clarke 2003a, 242-45; Roller 2006, 74, 76.
42  Stramaglia 2006, 599.
43 Sul rhyton quale simbolo di lusso e di piacere: Tamm 2001, 168-69. Su scene erotiche in cui uomini bevono dal rhyton, Jaco-
belli 2011, 124, fig. 13.
44  Ritter 2005, 314 ritiene che non possa essere la donna a parlare proprio perché si sta spruzzando il vino in bocca.
45  Varone 2000, 87, fig. 88. Probabilmente questa possibilità di parlare per coloro che bevevano dai corni potori è data dal fatto
che il foro da cui usciva il vino era facilmente ostruibile e dunque il convitato poteva modulare a suo piacere come e quando gustare
164 Luciana Jacobelli

si potrebbe ipotizzare che sia lei la committente delle pitture e la proprietaria di casa. In questo caso do-
vremmo pensare ad una donna indipendente che dispone della sua abitazione e delle sue cose liberamente
e che organizza banchetti, nei quali, come dice Ovidio “c’è qualcosa da cercare oltre il vino….[che] pre-
para i cuori e li rende adatti all’ardore”.46 L’ipotesi che sia la donna a parlare trova una corrispondenza
con alcuni medaglioni erotici della Valle del Rodano, che hanno anch’essi raffigurazioni di donne ‘parlan-
ti’. Le brevi frasi pronunciate dimostrano un approccio giocoso al sesso ed un piacevole coinvolgimento
in quello che fanno, al pari dei loro compagni.47 Anche in questo caso non è sempre chiaro il ruolo di
queste donne (‘etere’, schiave, libere?), ma il loro atteggiamento appare in ogni caso libero, spregiudicato
e comunque mai sottomesso, come invece appare nelle raffigurazioni di scene di sesso o di simposio della
ceramica greca.48
Un’ulteriore suggestione, che ci fa proseguire nell’affascinante ipotesi di aver identificato in una
donna, forse una cortigiana, la padrona della Casa del Triclinio è la particolare decorazione del cubicolo u.49
Come già accennato, proprio di fronte al triclinio si trova questo cubicolo, che conserva una deco-
razione in III stile finale, piuttosto singolare.50 Vi sono tre quadri che riproducono coppie di insegnanti e
discepoli: Diotima e Socrate, Corinna e Pindaro, Saffo e fanciulla.51 La particolarità consiste nel fatto che
ad insegnare sono le donne quasi che si volesse evidenziare una sorta di ‘superiorità’ femminile: Corinna è
una poetessa la cui attività si colloca tradizionalmente verso la fine del VI secolo a.C. che avrebbe istruito
Pindaro nella poesia, battendolo ben cinque volte in gare poetiche (fig. 8).52 Diotima di Mantinea, vissuta nel
V secolo è ricordata nel Simposio come colei che avrebbe edotto Socrate sulla filosofia dell’Eros,53 mentre
Saffo è la famosa poetessa greca che curò l’educazione di giovani fanciulle. Questi temi, poesia ed eros,
sono in qualche modo legati al simposio e ai discorsi che vi si tenevano.
La vicinanza del cubicolo u con il triclinio r ci fa ipotizzare che esso fosse messo a disposizione dei
convitati del banchetto.54 Come abbiamo visto, la presenza di cubicula in prossimità di triclinia adatti ad
ospitare i commensali per il loro riposo, trova un preciso riscontro archeologico a partire dalla tarda età
repubblicana creando all’interno della casa vere e proprie unità spaziali e funzionali.55 Nei testi trova largo
uso l’accostamento di triclini e cubicoli in giochi di parole basati sull’analogia e sulla contrapposizione,
che li qualificano come sedi privilegiate dei piaceri della vita, oppure stigmatizzando gli abusi che vi avve-

il liquido centellinandolo. Alcuni corni potori sono stati trovati anche a Pompei cfr. Beretta – Di Pasquale 2004, 200, 1.3; 232, fig.
2.16; 306, fig. 4.3.
46 Ov. ars 1, 229-51.
47  Jacobelli 2012, 407-22. Vorrei inoltre ricordare una coppa a rilievo ritrovata a Pompei in cui è raffigurato il profilo di una
donna con una frase che invita a bere (bibe amice de meo), Museo Borbonico, 1831, VII, tav. XXIX; Morel 1979, 251-52, fig.
165.
48  Nella vasta bibliografia pertinente a scene di banchetto nell’arte greca si rimanda al volume della Dunbabin, con bibliografia
precedente.
49  Per il cubicolo vedi Ritter 2005, 356-59.
50  Non sembra che ricorra a Pompei un altro ciclo del genere (cfr. Romizzi 2006).
51  PPM 3 (1991), 819-23, figg. 50-52, 56. Il quadro con Diotima e Socrate, mal conservato, fu staccato e conservato nei depositi
di Pompei (disegno riprodotto in DAIR 53.597); gli altri quadri, lasciati sul posto sono oggi quasi completamente sbiaditi (DAIR
53.557). Il quadro con Pindaro e Corinna contribuì ad una delle denominazioni attribuite alla casa, cfr. Bastet – De Vos 1979, 91.
Il soggetto è replicato sette volte in quadri di III stile, quello più simile al quadro della Casa del Triclinio sembra essere quello della
Casa del Citarista (I 4, 5), vedi PPM 1, 1990, 161-62, figg. 71-72.
52 Ael. VH 13, 25; secondo Pausania (9, 22, 3), invece Pindaro fu battuto da lei una sola volta.
53 Pl. Symp. 201d-212 c; Si veda: Capogrossi 2007.
54  Così anche Anguissola 2010, 191.
55  Si veda supra, p. 157.
 Pitture di banchetto con presenze femminili nelle case di Pompei 165

nivano.56 Questa moda si impone anche in

case modeste dove all’insieme di triclinio e
cubicolo viene sacrificata buona parte del-
lo spazio disponibile al pianoterra, con un
impegno finanziario talvolta spropositato
all’effettivo status del dominus. Nel caso
della casa V 2, 4 vediamo che la parte di
rappresentanza è spinta sul fondo dell’abi-
tazione, che prevede un giardino intorno
al quale si dispongono triclinio e cubicolo
(fig. 3). Quello che comunque mi preme
sottolineare è che se, come sembra, que-
sto cubicolo dalle belle pitture di III stile
era riservato agli ospiti, la scelta dei quadri
appare ancor più significativa perché co-
Fig. 8: Disegno riproducente il quadro con gara musicale tra Corinna e munica ad un pubblico più ampio di quello
Pindaro del tutto simile a quello della Casa del Triclinio, oggi evanido. Da dei soli abitanti della casa un’idea di supe-
Pompei, Casa del Citarista, amb. 23. (DAIR, 684810).
riorità femminile in campi ‘alti’, come la
poesia e la filosofia. Ma forse però non si mancava di alludere ironicamente ad altre specialità in cui alcune
donne, o la stessa padrona di casa, potevano considerarsi ‘esperte’ e ‘maestre’.57
Potremmo dunque ipotizzare che la casa fosse abitata da una donna, dotata di una certa istruzione
ed anche di un buon senso d’ironia, che in maniera del tutto libera ed autonoma sceglie di usare la sua casa
per feste ed incontri amorosi. Le scritte realizzate contestualmente al quadro sulla parete nord del triclinio
svolgono un ruolo determinante nella veicolazione del messaggio complessivo che si vuole dare e sottoline-
ano l’intenzione di autorappresentazione del committente. Attraverso di esse si reclamizzano i piaceri delle
feste che il proprietario può offrire ai suoi ospiti. E che la dimora fosse assiduamente frequentata lo si coglie
leggendo i tanti graffiti lasciati sulle colonne del peristilio dal fullone L. Quintilius Crescens, che manifesta
in più modi la sua esaltazione salutando il caupo (CIL IV, 4100), i fullones (CIL IV 4118), i Pompeiani, i
Salinenses, gli Stabiani e i Surrentini (CIL IV 4102, 4103, 4109), fino a dichiarare di essere lì rinato (CIL
IV 4107).58 Questo aveva fatto ipotizzare a Della Corte che nell’ultimo periodo di vita della città questa
abitazione fosse stata destinata a caupona, oppure che il triclinio fosse dato in affitto per le feste.59 Più re-
centemente Wallace-Hadrill ha dimostrato definitivamente che la Casa del Triclinio è una dimora privata.60

56  In un passo dell’Apologia di Apuleio (75) si descrivono un triclinio in subbuglio per l’esuberanza dei commensali e la relativa
stanza da letto ridotta ad un andirivieni di adulteri; Cicerone nella seconda Filippica (2, 69) annovera tra i tratti d’immoralità di
Antonio l’uso perverso che nella sua casa veniva fatta delle sale da pranzo mutate in vere taberne e dei cubicula ridotti al rango di
bordelli.
57  La casa conserva pitture di III e IV stile (Romizzi 2006, 25). In ogni caso tra i due cicli pittorici non intercorrono molti anni,
essendo datato, quello del cubicolo u alla fase finale del III stile e quello del triclinio al IV stile pre 62. È dunque possibile che ad
abitare la casa sia sempre lo stesso proprietario / proprietaria, che abbia voluto ridecorare in modo più autocelebrativo il triclinio;
sugli interventi strutturali nel triclinio r si veda PPM 798, figg. 40-42.
58  Sul fullone grafomane si veda anche Roller 2006.
59  Della Corte 1965, 128-29. Sulla destinazione dell’edificio si veda anche Fröhlich 1991, 227-28; Eschebach – Müller-Trol-
lius 1993, 130-31.
60  Wallace-Hadrill 2004, 114-17.
166 Luciana Jacobelli

Dunque nel variegato tessuto sociale di Pompei in età imperiale potremmo ipotizzare la presenza di donne
imprenditrici di sé stesse, che gestiscono amicizie e incontri amorosi utilizzando le proprie abitazioni.
Infine un’ultima annotazione. Fino a questo momento le scene con banchetti trovate a Pompei non
provengono da case dell’alta borghesia, ma da abitazioni piuttosto modeste. Questo sembrerebbe suggerire
che nelle villae o nelle grandi domus il triclinio come luogo ove le élites si riuniscono, mettendo in mostra il
loro stile di vita collegato al piacere, all’ostentazione del lusso e all’esaltazione dell’io, prevalgono, pittori-
camente, scene di maggiore sobrietà, legate al più a temi mitologici solo allusivi ai piaceri del bere e dell’a-
more.61 Nei grandi triclini va in scena dal vivo lo spettacolo del banchetto, nello sfarzo della presentazione
del cibo, nella sua ridondanza scenografica, nella ricercatezza e nel lusso dell’arredo e della suppellettile.
Al contrario, nelle dimore di minor prestigio sociale, si decorano le pareti dei triclini evocando le
grandi cenae aristocratiche o le loro ascendenze ellenistiche. Talvolta queste ascendenze sono più evidenti,
come nella Casa dei Casti amanti, a volte prevalgono valori più tipicamente romani, come nella Casa del
Triclinio.62 In ogni caso spesso le scene simposiache subiscono ‘contaminazioni’ e attualizzazione in chiave
romana che si esprimono nell’abbigliamento dei personaggi raffigurati63 o nella suppellettile e nel mobilio
rappresentato.64
Forse questa contaminazione di elementi avrà coinvolto anche il modo di percepire le donne raffi-
gurate nei banchetti. Lo scopo di questi quadri era principalmente quella di accogliere i convitati evocando
atmosfere di lusso, di esotismo e di raffinata festività. Forse il ruolo e lo status delle donne nelle pitture
di banchetto saranno stati vissuti in maniera differente dai diversi fruitori, che vi avranno visto ora etere
greche, ora cortigiane romane, ora le disinvolte e ricche dame dell’aristocrazia romana che partecipavano a
sontuosi banchetti, a cui la classe media poteva aspirare e vagheggiare solo nell’immaginario iconografico
del proprio modesto triclinio.

61  Romizzi 2006, 138-45.

62  Non è improbabile che alcune scene in particolare abbiano anche attinto ad elementi della tradizione teatrale, come sembre-
rebbero suggerire alcuni personaggi che vi compaiono costantemente. Inoltre l’attualizzazione in chiave romana di questi quadri è
visibile anche in raffigurazioni raffinate, come quella proveniente da Ercolano (MANN inv. 9024) ove l’acconciatura della fanciulla
era ‘di moda’ all’epoca della realizzazione del dipinto; così come anche elementi dell’arredo tipici della prima età imperiale.
63  Si veda la pittura di Ercolano (MANN inv. 9024) trattata prima p. 158.
64  Si veda infra, nota 11.
 A perfect scenery for male courtesans?
Ganymede in two Pompeian wall paintings

Ville Hakanen

The goal of this collection of articles is to explore the more independent upper strata of prostitutes in the
Roman world, individuals who might be given the epithet ‘courtesan’. To get a complete picture of the sub-
ject, it is necessary to keep this somewhat artificial category open for all candidates, including men. In this
article I look for evidence of ‘male courtesans’ in ancient Rome. Within this larger theme I am interested in
the role of the artistic representation of the myth of Ganymede, a surprisingly frequent metaphor or point
of reference in the context of adult male prostitution. The first part of the article is a short survey of Roman
literary sources. In the second part I take a closer look at two Pompeian houses and their decorations asking
whether they could have been connected to upper class male prostitution.

Male courtesans and their customers

There is ample evidence in Roman literary sources of freeborn men who prostituted themselves. Lex Iulia
municipalis from 45 BCE forbade those “who have made a living with their bodies” from participating in
the governing of councils of small towns.1 Since male citizens were the only legitimate candidates for such
a position, that law must have been targeted at them. In his commentary on the Praetor’s Edict, the jurist
Ulpian notes that pimps were not only trading the services of slaves, but of free persons as well.2 There are
accounts of similar laws having existed already in the third and second centuries BCE, before the alleged
breakthrough of the ‘luxurious Greek ways’.3
These fairly straightforward juridical texts fail to communicate the actual working conditions of the
prostitutes in question. Fortunately other literary genres come to aid. Several stories in historical biographies
and satirical fiction tell about men who are closer to escorts than street prostitutes and might be titled ‘cour-
tesans’. They are guests at banquets and engage with their patrons relatively publicly.4 They receive gifts

1  CIL I2 593 (Tabula Heracleensis) 123: queive corpore quaestum fecit fecerit. Among the other discriminated classes of men
were thieves, debtors, gladiatorial trainers, actors, pimps etc. See Crawford 1996, 1.362 for the interpretation of this part of Tabula
Heracleensis as Lex Iulia municipalis.
2 Ulp. dig. 3, 2, 4, 2: lenocinium facit, qui quaestuaria mancipia habuerit: sed et qui in liberis hunc quaestum exercet, in eadem
causa est.
3  Val. Max. 6, 1, 10; Cato fr. 212. Expensive boy prostitutes are given by Polybius (31, 25, 4-5) as the prime example of the loose
Greek morals adopted by aristocratic Roman men during the Third Macedonian War (171-168 BC). Williams 2010, 42, 46, 70-72.
4  For banquets see Mart. 1, 23; 9, 63; Iuv. 9, 10; Plutarch, Sulla 2, 2-4; 36, 1. According to Williams (2010, 89) Plutarch’s account
of the relationship between Sulla and his lover Metrobios stresses the fact that Sulla did not try to hide it. Livy (39, 42, 8) tells about
an “expensive and well-known prostitute” (carum ac nobile scortum), the Phoenician Philippus, who provoked his lover, the noble-
man and proconsul in Gaul Flamininus to kill a refuge-seeking local nobleman at a banquet. For the incident see Williams 2010,
46-49. Tacitus (ann. 1, 54) tells that the theatrical festivities of Ludi Augustales were originally a favour from Augustus to Maecenas,
who was deeply in love with the actor Bathyllus, which seems to have been common knowledge.
168 Ville Hakanen

and favours from their patrons and some might become wealthy.5 They serve their patrons sexually, but at
least sometimes seem to be able to choose not to.6 In one case the prostitute is explicitly his patron’s client.7
These men fall roughly into three types: aspiring idlers ready to serve generous patrons, freedmen doing
their ‘duty’ for their patrons or professional actors who might blend into either one of the former categories.8
Moreover some slaves engaged in sex work might have had a relatively high status.9 Some sources suggest
that women might also have paid for male prostitutes but in this article I focus on men using the services of
other men.10
Many of the high class escorts we know by name were actors. Prostitution was a side-line of their
careers on stage and the relationship to their patrons was complicated by the possibility that they were freed-
men or even slaves.11 Metrobios, an actor and impersonator of women was Sulla’s lover, even when already
“past his prime” (exôros).12 Maecenas was in love with the pantomime actor Bathyllus.13 Pliny the Elder
tells about another pantomime actor called Mysticus, an outstanding beauty whose skills in lovemaking
wore two equestrian men to death.14
Catharine Edwards has argued that actors, gladiators and prostitutes were “symbols of the shameful”
in ancient Rome. They were classified as infames and hence lacked the full citizenship and could be sub-
jected to corporal violence without punishment. As a result of selling their bodies for the pleasure of others
they had lost their physical and sexual integrity.15 Anne Duncan adds an important factor that separates ac-
tors and prostitutes from gladiators: actors and prostitutes operated under the sign of the fictional, the fake.
They could thus be seen as equivalent: the actor as a prostitute, the prostitute as an actor.16
Not only actors and prostitutes were fake. A similar charge could be thrown upon those who used their
services. Craig A. Williams argues that being the penetrating partner in sex with a socially inferior adult man
was acceptable in the public eye. However, an open interest towards grown up men could always imply an
inclination for being the receptive partner in sexual acts, a habit heavily condemned by Roman authors who
often labelled the man in question as a cinaedus, the scare-figure of gender role-reversal.17 Men who claimed
to be respectable but behind the social mask desired to be sexually penetrated were a common subject of scorn

5 Sen. benef. 2, 21; Mart. 1, 58; 6, 50; 11, 87; Iuv. 2, 17-18.
6  The freedom of choice is of course limited by the economic conditions of the prostitute. However, the men in Martial’s epigrams
and Juvenal’s ninth satire would seem to be able to choose at least between different customers.
7  Iuv. 9, 72. Since the point of Juvenal is to exaggerate the corruption of the patron-client relationship this is probably a strategic
set-up.
8  According to the famous argument used in defence of an Augustan freedman accused of being his patron’s concubine, “a lack
of pudicitia [sexual inviolability] in a freeborn man is matter of reproach, in a slave a matter of necessity, in a freeman a matter of
moral duty” (Sen. contr. 4, praef. 10, trans. Williams). See Williams 2010, 107-8. In Juvenal’s second satire (58-61) the effeminate
men labelled as cinaedi enjoy sexual services of their freedmen.
9  Williams 2010, 32-36; 171, n. 117. Some of Martial’s boys can afford to be arrogant (4, 42; 5, 83; 8, 46; 11, 73; 12, 75), although
this feature is probably indebted to some degree to the poet’s Greek models.
10  Petron. 126, 4; Mart. 7, 75; 11,62. Martial poses himself as a gold digger in 11, 23 and 11, 29. Male legacy hunters eager to
please elder women appear in Juvenal (1, 37-41), and the prostitute Naevolus (see below) serves both men and women (9, 25). It
seems a safe bet to assume that there were male prostitutes specialized in serving wealthy women.
11 It would seem that Bathyllus was Maecenas’ freedman (Sen. contr. 10, praef. 8: Bathyllus Maecenatis, which is translated by
Winterbottom in Loeb to mean “Bathyllus, freedman of Maecenas”).
12 Plutarch, Life of Sulla 2, 2-4; 36, 1. See Williams 2010, 89-92.
13 Sen. contr. 3, praef. 16 and contr. 10, praef. 8; Tac. ann. 1, 54; Dio Cass. 54, 17.
14 Plin. nat. 7, 184.
15  Edwards 1997, 66-76.
16  Duncan 2006, 256-57.
17  Halperin 2002, 33-34; Williams 2010, 84-93, 191-200.
 A perfect scenery for male courtesans? 169

and laughter.18 At the other end of this line of foul social acting was the open staging of oneself in the role of a
female.19 The ultimate example of this is the figure of Nero, who is accused of marrying his slave Pythagoras
in a formal ceremony and playing the role of the virgin bride.20 Seneca’s account of Hostius Quadra, a rich man
and accused sexual pervert also begins by comparing his acts to those performed on stage.21
The voyeuristic fascination of unveiling the setup of male prostitution could be deployed for comic
and satirical purposes. Prostibulum, an Atellan farce composed by Pomponius in the early first century
BCE, was dedicated to an adult male prostitute who serves male citizens by sexually penetrating them.22
The character of the prostitute could be read as a metaphor for the play itself: the infamis actor on stage
pours out words that penetrate the paying customers in the theatre.23 Juvenal’s ninth satire was probably
inspired by Pomponius’ play.24 It presents Naevolus, a freeborn adult male prostitute. In the prime of his
years Naevolus is described as “an elegant dinner guest, with biting humour and forceful witticisms” (10).
A notorious womanizer who also secretly serves the husbands for payment. Now he complains about his
long-time patron’s avarice. Similar types of men, though sometimes economically more fortunate, appear
in Martial’s epigrams.25
In satire the hungry male prostitute and his rich but sexually submissive client might epitomize the
corruption of morals, the perverted relationship between social classes, the fear of an ‘outsider within’,26 or
the poet’s persona as the ‘fucker’ of the world.27 These characters are supposed to shock, but are not to be
completely unthinkable for the public who would have enjoyed the moralizing exaggeration of recognizable
people and social phenomena. Although the comic or satiric ‘courtesans’ are represented by and for their
potential customers and thus give a fantastic and metaphorical version of the trade, I think it is reasonable
to assume that they had their counterparts in Roman reality.28

Adult men in the role of Ganymede in Roman literature

The figure of Ganymede was a common metaphor for beautiful, passive youths in ancient literature – for
freeborn eromenoi in Greece and young slave servants in Rome.29 Statius and Martial liken Domitian’s fa-

18  Mart. 1, 23; 1, 96; 7, 58; 7, 62; 9, 27; Iuv. 2; 7, 58; 9, 47. See Williams 2010, 208-14.
19 See Roller 2012, 302-4 for the discrepancy between the two ways of playing the female role as presented in Juvenal’s second satire.
20 Tac. ann. 15, 37; Dio Cass. 62, 13, 2. Suetonius (Suet. Nero 29) tells the same story but names the bridegroom Doryphorus,
Nero’s freedman. Aurelius Victor (Aurel. Vict. Caes. 5, 5) repeats it without naming the groom. Martial (11, 6, 10) refers to Nero’s
cup-bearer as Pythagoras. Vout (2002, 495) thinks the name Doryphorus (such was his name) might be a joke in the meaning of the
name of the famous statue, ‘spear-carrier’. For Nero as an actor see Edwards 1994.
21 Sen. nat. 1, 16. Williams 2010, 224-25.
22  Williams 2010, 30-31.
23  In one of his lines the prostibulum states: ut nullum civem pedicavi per dolum / nisi ipsus orans ultro qui ocquinisceret (“I
haven’t butt-fucked a single citizen by deceit – only when he himself came up to me begging to bend over”, transl. Williams 2010).
This underlines the theme of deception proudly stating that it is not the prostitute who is fake but his customers. For the idea of
words sexually penetrating the listener see Roller (2012, 306) on Pers. 1, 19-20.
24  Williams 2010, 91.
25  Mart. 1, 23; 6, 50; 11, 87.
26  Uden 2015, 78-84.
27  Rosen – Keane 2014, 382, 393-95.
28  See also Williams 2010, 90-93.
29  For Greece see Anth. Pal. 12, 64; 65; 66; 67; 68; 69; 70; 194; 222; Ibyc. fr. 289 (Loeb Greek Lyric III); Thgn. fr. 1, 1345 (Loeb
Greek Elegiac) and Pl. Phdr. 255c. For Rome see Petron. 92; Mart. 2, 43; 3, 39; 8, 55, 16; 9, 22; 9, 25; 9, 36; 9, 73; 9, 103; 10, 66;
10, 98; 11, 22; 11, 26; 11, 43; Iuv. 5, 59 and Stat. silv. 1, 6, 34; 4, 2, 11. For the relationship between the uses of Ganymede in Greek
and Roman literature see Richlin 1992a, 39-42; Vout 2007, 67-68 and Williams 2010, 63.
170 Ville Hakanen

vourite, the castrated slave-boy Earinos, to Ganymede, apparently without irony.30 Martial and Juvenal take
it for granted that the boy servants they compare to the mythical youth were sexually available at least to
their masters.31 In the context of theatre and satire, this cliché could have been used ironically or inverted
altogether to ridicule adult men who liked to be sexually penetrated by their subordinates. For this purpose
an artistic representation of the myth seems to have been especially useful, since as an imitation of nature,
it was as fake as the role-play it referred to.32
In the Menaechmi of Plautus, a paterfamilias, who is on his way to meet a female courtesan, play-acts
a painting that represents Ganymede or Adonis in front of another man.33 The image of the adult man in
the role of the stereotypically effeminate, subjugated youths reflects his position of being dominated by his
social inferiors.34 It is also a powerful metaphor for the levels of deception present in the scene, a circular
sequence of unfaithful imitations: the actor (who was by profession seen as effeminate) plays a paterfa-
milias, who plays a painting that represents Ganymede. There is a similar use of Ganymede in Juvenal’s
ninth satire: the patron of the prostitute Naevolus, a rich old man, who runs after well-endowed men, fan-
cies himself soft, pretty and boyish, “worthy of the heavenly cup”.35 In Petronius’ Satyrica Encolpius, the
antihero and victim of several sexual assaults, identifies himself with Jupiter in the painting depicting the
rape of Ganymede, even though he has just been deprived of both his beloved and his sword (83). An ironic
allusion to Ganymede can also be read in Martial’s epigram, where the supposedly manly Pythagoras (see
above) is imagined serving strong wine to Nero.36
Another reference to Ganymede in Juvenal’s ninth satire would seem to confirm that at least in Ro-
man literary tradition a picture of Ganymede could be associated with prostitution, deception and effeminate
role-play. Juvenal imagines Naevolus meeting his customers by the shrine of Isis, by the Ganymede of Fo-
rum Pacis and by the temples of Magna Mater and Ceres. After this the poet asks: “for which temple doesn’t
have sex on sale?”37 Of the four cults mentioned, Isis and Ceres would seem to refer to the loose matronae
and Magna Mater and Ganymede to their effeminate husbands.38 The Ganymede is usually understood to

30 Stat. silv. 3, 4, 1221; 3, 4, 5664; Mart. 9, 36.

31  Mart. 2, 43; 8, 55, 16; 9, 22; 9, 73; 11, 22; 11, 26; 11, 43; Iuv. 11, 145-58. For sexually available slave-boys see also Sen. epist.
47, 7 and Philo, De vita contemplativa 48-52.
32  Elsner 2007, 191-92, 197-99.
33 Plaut. Men. 141-51.
34  McCarthy 2000, 45-46.
35  Iuv. 9, 46-47: sed tu sane tenerum et puerum te / et pulchrum et dignum cyatho caeloque putabas. See Courtney 1980, 432.
36  Mart. 11, 6, 10. Probably the same Pythagoras whom the emperor allegedly married (see above). Here he is imagined in the
traditional role of a boy servant, but according to Obermayer 1998, 73 the pun of the poem lies in remembering that Pythagoras was
the penetrating partner in bed. Martial compares Pythagoras to a servant who is mixing a strong potion of wine, which could hint
towards his manliness.
37  Iuv. 9, 22-24: nuper enim, ut repeto, fanum Isidis et Ganymedem / Pacis et advectae secreta Palatia matris / et Cererem (nam
quo non prostat femina templo?). The above translation by Uden (2015, 77) probably conveys the meaning of the final question
better than a more literal “is there, then, any temple where women don’t prostitute themselves?” by Morton Braund (Juvenal and
Persius in the Loeb edition). I think that the word femina should not be taken at face value – in 9, 50-53 Naevolus’ patron is pictured
as a femina fondling in secret his present of Matronalia (Naevolus’ genitals?). Furthermore, Naevolus’ probable model, the prostitute
in Pomponius’ Prostibulum uses the feminine form of the demonstrative pronoun of his male customers (see Williams 2010, 30-31),
and, in the second satire, Juvenal portrays the cinaedi as practically female (54-57, 83-114, 117-42).
38  Isis and Ceres were female goddesses of fertility worshipped through initiatory rites that the poet apparently associates with
licentiousness (cf. Iuv. 6, 314-45). The castrated Galli priests of Magna Mater were “the ultimate scare-figures of Roman mascu-
linity” (Williams 2010, 140-41, 195-96), and Ganymede was a homoerotic euphemism for sexually available youths (see above
and cf. 9, 46-47). Juvenal ends the phrase of 9, 22-26 by calling Naevolus a womanizer who secretly lies with the husbands. This
notion would be balanced by the inclusion of both women and men in the temples, especially since the rest of the satire is focused
on Naevolus’s male customers.
 A perfect scenery for male courtesans? 171

be a statue that stood on Forum Pacis.39 The Christian writer Tatian presumably groups the same statue
together with portraits of famous courtesans and immoral men that were exhibited in Rome at the time of
the Antonines.40
Effeminate adult men identifying themselves with a picture of Ganymede also attest to the incontrol-
lable nature of viewing a picture: the viewer can choose to identify him/herself with the role he desires re-
gardless of the correspondence between himself and the part. All in all, it seems that a picture of Ganymede
would have been at home around male courtesans and their customers. But how much of this is an imagina-
tion of the writers? Even if literarily cultivated viewers would have seen irony or a possibility to role-play
in a picture of Ganymede, could it have been its intended purpose? Could a picture of Ganymede lead us to
places that were used by male courtesans and their customers?

Picture of Ganymede in archaeological contexts with signs of erotic activity

There is one occasion where an existing picture of Ganymede has been associated to male prostitution, in my
opinion quite convincingly. The House of Jupiter and Ganymede at Ostia (I 4, 2, casa 3) has a large hall with
a fine wall painting decoration from the late 2nd century CE. It culminates in a central picture representing
Ganymede in front of the throne of Jupiter. The same house has a remarkable collection of erotic graffiti,
which relate exclusively to sex between males. John Clarke, who has written the most comprehensive study
on the house, has suggested that it served as a hotel for male ‘homosexuals’, but has since withdrawn this
conclusion.41 Thomas McGinn rightly separates the problem of the ‘sexuality’ of the possible customers
from that of brothel-identification. He presents the possibility that the House of Jupiter and Ganymede might
have been both a hotel and a brothel. Although it cannot be proven that it was specialized in male-to-male
sexual encounters, this is not impossible.42 The picture of Ganymede had such an outstanding position in the
decoration, that it is reasonable to argue that it obtained a particular meaning if male prostitutes and their
customers were using the house.
The most famous representation of Ganymede in Pompeii is a stucco relief in the Forum Baths (VII 5,
2). The reliefs of the vault of the tepidarium represent Ganymede abducted by the eagle, a young Eros stand-
ing with a bow and Apollo flying on a griffin. Erotic subjects were a standard feature in Roman baths and
sex was one of the attractions associated with bathing.43 According to several sources, lustful rich men used
the baths to spot well-endowed male prostitutes and opportunistic non-professionals. The sexually available
men would then have been invited to dinner and/or enjoyed elsewhere.44 The fact that the Ganymede in the
Forum Baths was in the part reserved for men and that the decoration included only representations of nude
male characters could point towards a planned homoerotic scheme.45 However, there is no direct evidence
of male prostitution in the Forum Baths.

39  Courtney 1980, 429-30; Meneghini – Corsaro – Pinna Caboni 2009, 193; Williams 2010, 61. According to Pliny (nat. 35, 36;
35, 102; 35, 112) there were also famous paintings in the Forum Pacis and in theory ‘the Ganymede’ could have been one of them.
What makes a statue perhaps more likely is that in antiquity the most famous representation of Ganymede seems to have been a
statue by Leochares (Plin. nat. 34, 79; Mart. 1, 6) and that Tatian also tells about a publicly exhibited statue of Ganymede with a
bad reputation (see below).
40  Cadario 2011, 31-32 on Tatianus Ad Gr. 33-34.
41  Clarke 1991; Clarke 1998, 88.
42  McGinn 2004, 226-31.
43  Dunbabin 1989, 24-25; Fagan 1999, 34-36.
44 Sen. nat. 1, 16; Mart. 1, 23; Petron. 92. For female courtesans in the baths see Amm. 28, 4, 9.
45  This is the subject of a forthcoming article by the author.
172 Ville Hakanen

There are five certain representations of Ganymede in Campanian wall paintings.46 Two of them are
found in contexts that might have been connected to prostitution. Wall paintings in the oecus g of the house
VII 13, 4 (Casa di Ganimede) and in a room f of the house IX 5, 11.13 show sleeping Ganymede observed
by the eagle. The two pictures are compositionally similar and the poses of the youths are linked by a paint-
ing of Endymion that was found in the same oecus g of the Casa di Ganimede. It has been proposed that the
Casa di Ganimede could have been a brothel.47 No similar conclusion has been drawn of the house IX 5,
11.13, but the graffiti found in its peristyle suggest that it hosted some kind of homoerotic activity.

Ganymede in the house of a brothel magnate: Casa di Ganimede

The Casa di Ganimede (VII 13, 4, fig. 1) was a large atrium house to the east of the Forum of Pompeii, in
the middle of a zone with a concentration of places selling sex.48 In the north-western corner of its insula
(VII 13, 19.21) there was a tavern with a separate cella meretricia, or a prostitutes’ crib. According to Mc-
Ginn the tavern was “evidently a property of the owner of the Casa di Ganimede in the final years of the
city’s existence”.49 Two more cellae (VII 13, 15 and VII
13, 16) were cut out of the rear part of the Casa di Gani-
mede after the earthquake of the year 62 CE.50 Hans Esche-
bach suggests it is possible that also the house itself might
have been a lupanar.51 McGinn notes more cautiously that
though the owners clearly exploited their property for the
sale of sex, the business didn’t necessarily occupy the en-
tire house.52 To further complicate matters, there are two
representations of a phallus around the insula. The other
one is carved on the pavement of Via dell’Abbondanza in
front of the Casa di Ganimede and points towards the en-
trance of the house.53
After the earthquake of 62 CE the Casa di Ganimede
went through several changes that, according to Eschebach,
were due to the owner’s acute need of additional sources of
Fig. 1: The house VII 13, 4 (Casa di Ganimede). Source
income. Some of the surrounding stores were split and one PPM.

46  I follow Colpo (2005, 67-68, note 4) in her exclusion of a few uncertain examples, mainly listed by Schefold. I also exclude a
painting from VII 12, 23 (Casa del Camillo) listed by Colpo, but known only from a verbal description by Helbig. The secure cases
of wall paintings representing Ganymede are: the central picture from VI 9, 2.13 (Casa di Meleagro) now in the Museo Nazionale
in Naples (inv. 9547); the central picture from VII 4, 31.51 (Casa dei Capitelli colorati) known from a copy by La Volpe; the central
picture from the triclinium 3 of the Villa Arianna at Stabiae; and the two paintings discussed in detail below.
47  Eschebach 1982, 277.
48  Laurence 1998, 73-75; McGinn 2004, 240-41, 280-81, 293-94.
49  Eschebach 1982, 248-49, 312; McGinn 2004, 281.
50  Eschebach 1982, 247-48, 274-75
51  Eschebach 1982, 277: “Eine Nutzung der Casa di Ganimede als Lupanar kann nicht ausgeschlossen werden.”
52  McGinn 2005, 281.
53  Eschebach (1982, 277) first proposes that the phalli in question were apotropaic but in the next sentence suggests the entire
house was a brothel. Laurence (1998, 75) thinks the phalli were supposed to guide the person looking for a prostitute from Via
dell’Abbondanza to the cellae at Vicolo degli Scheletri. Clarke (2003, 98, fig. 64) argues instead the phallus pointing to the entrance
of the Casa di Ganimede was supposed to bring good fortune. McClain – Rauh (2011, 156-65) have recently interpreted certain
ancient phallus reliefs as non-apotropaic directional indicators and occasionally even markers of male prostitution.
 A perfect scenery for male courtesans? 173

(VII 13, 3) was joined to the house through a door.

The prostitutes’ cribs were built by reducing the
service area in the back of the house. A cubiculum
(5) by the peristyle was given over to the tavern
of VII 13, 19-21 and the end of the southern por-
ticus was transformed into a separate room e. The
entrance VII 13, 18 in the back of the house lead-
ing directly to the stairway upstairs was partly cov-
ered.54 This leads Eschebach to conclude that the
upper floor above the service area was not restored
after the earthquake (and that the prostitutes’ cribs
were built downstairs because of this).55 It seems
to me that the stairway could still have been used
from inside the house and, consequently the fill-
ing of the door could as well have reclaimed the
upper floor to the exclusive use of the visitors of
the house.
At the same phase as these transformations
Fig. 2: Ganymede and the eagle from the oecus g of the Casa di took place, three rooms north of the peristyle were
Ganimede, G. Abbate, ink on cardboard, 1840. Source PPM. united to form a huge triclinium p and the oecus g
and the cubiculum i received wall paintings in the
Fourth Style. A big cupboard was added into the eastern ala h.56 The triclinium, that had not been finished
by the time of the eruption, was used to store a remarkable amount of luxury furniture, including legs for
at least nine bronze beds or couches.57 This scale of grandeur seems to question the owner’s acute need of
funds, but would fit the picture if it served the purpose of making a profit as well. Despite its unfinished state,
the house seems to have been in use at least partially at the time of the eruption, since the lararium in the
peristyle housed three statuettes of gods (Venus, Diana and an unidentified deity).58
The Casa di Ganimede takes its name from one of the two mythological central pictures that were
found in the oecus g and that have survived only in drawings made by Giulio Abbate at the time of the ex-
cavation (1840) and in another pair of drawings done 20 years later by Nicola La Volpe.59 The paintings that
faced each other on the north and south walls of the room represented sleeping Ganymede (fig. 2) and
sleeping Endymion (fig. 3). Ganymede is seen lying in a rocky landscape on his side, supporting his head
with his right hand, the left hand fallen in front of his stomach. A sleeping cupid is placed in almost a mirror

54  Eschebach 1982, 241, 274-77, 311-12.

55  Eschebach 1982, 312. Eschebach, thus, seems to suggest that the prostitutes’ cribs were removed from the upper floor. Liselotte
Eschebach proposes explicitly that the upper floor in the back of the house could have been a lupanar; see Eschebach – Müller-
Trollius 1993, 333.
56  Eschebach 1982, 274-77; De Vos 1982, 317-18, 320-24.
57 Eschebach 1982, 236, 240. Other findings from the house listed in the 19th century excavation reports include toilet equip-
ments, a mirror, 15 locks, and, from the triclinium, the head and pilaster of a ‘bacchic’ herm in giallo antico marble.
58  Eschebach 1982, 277.
59  Abbate’s drawings were made with ink on cardboard, La Volpe’s with pencil and ink on cardboard. The rendering of the paint-
ings in the drawings is practically identical. PPM 7, 624-25; PPM Disegnatori, 251, 686. According to Hodske 2007, 210. 231 the
pictures would have measured 62-70x57-60 cm.
174 Ville Hakanen

image above the youth’s legs. Above the cupid, an

eagle is sitting on the branch of a tree. On the right
side of the picture, a nymph observes the scene from
a rock.
The pose of Endymion is very similar to that
of Ganymede and of the Cupid: He is lying on his
side, the left hand behind his neck, leaning on his
right elbow. Selene is approaching from the left
and there is a dog barking at her. Endymion’s body
is fully exposed, while the genitals of Ganymede
are barely covered by his cape. Both youths have a
muscular physique. The side panels of the oecus g
were decorated with vignettes representing the four
Seasons.60 Hellenistic and Roman poets used the
Seasons habitually as a part of the mythological en-
tourage at the marriages of the gods, or as givers of
Fig. 3: Endymion approached by Selene from the oecus g of the Casa
beauty to nymphs and mortals. They were frequently di Ganimede, G. Abbate, ink on cardboard, 1840. Source PPM.
connected with the loves of the gods in Roman art.61
Isabella Colpo argues that the pictures of Ganymede and Endymion of the Casa di Ganimede ac-
centuate the common characteristics of the two mythical youths: both were mortals who gained eternal life
because of divine love, both were passive in the culminating event of the story, and both of the myths took
place in the East, in Anatolia. Colpo notes that the pose of Ganymede derives from a Hellenistic model
created for Eros and was apparently chosen because the usual pose for a sleeping Ganymede was adopted
from representations of Endymion and was already taken by the other youth in the room.62 Both youths hold
spears identifying them as hunters – an activity that was the symbol of sexual desire in antiquity.63
The similarity of the compositions of the two paintings draws special attention to the additional fig-
ures. The almost phallic shape of the eagle, standing for Jupiter, is underlined by the parallel diagonal of the
two spears held by the Cupid pointing to the bottom of Ganymede. The passivity of Endymion is reinforced
by the activity of the goddess, whose movement is accentuated by her clothes. She holds a sceptre that, like
the spears of the Cupid, points penetratively to the youth’s exposed armpit – the young hunters have them-
selves become the prey.64 The dog is barking at Selene, its head and neck forming a diagonal connecting the
groins of Endymion and the goddess. The nymph that observes Ganymede functions as a mediator between
the viewer of the painting and the scene depicted: the viewer can voyeuristically identify with her and enjoy
the beauty of the boy and the desire of Jupiter from a safe distance.65

60  PPM 7, 627-28.

61 See Hanfmann 1951, 105, 147. According to Hanfmann (140-41) the Seasons in the Pompeian wall paintings could also have
reflected the desire to secure their blessing and to obtain good fortune. Cf. Colpo 2005, 84.
62  Colpo 2005, 70-74, 83.
63  Elsner 2007, 153; Schnapp 1989, 71-87.
64  An open armpit was a conventional way to identify a sleeper, but also to highlight the sleeper’s sexual attractiveness, as specifi-
cally expressed by Philostratus (Imagines 1, 15) and Lucian (Dialogues of the Gods 19). Sorabella 2010, 27-28.
65  Dorothea Michel has analysed the ‘onlooker figures’ (Zuschauerfiguren) in Pompeian mythological wall paintings, but her ap-
proach is formalistic-iconographic and the role of the figures between the viewer and the subject of the painting is all but ignored.
Michel 1982, 537-97.
 A perfect scenery for male courtesans? 175

Jean Sorabella has analysed the relationship between sleeping figures and what he calls ‘sleepwatch-
ers’ in Greco-Roman art. He argues that the viewer of a picture that represented sleeping Endymion with
Selene could have construed the female figure both as the goddess herself and as Endymion’s dream of her.66
The erotic dream of Endymion corresponds in turn to the desire and fantasy felt by the viewer of the image.
Sorabella seems to identify the viewer more with the sleepwatcher than the sleeper. Caroline Vout
who analyses a sex-scene that utilizes the pose of Endymion, suggests instead, that the spectators would
have imagined themselves as Endymion, the seducer of a goddess.67 The viewer’s possibilities of choosing
between the role of the passive sleeper (who might be dreaming of the scene), the sleepwatcher, and an out-
side observer are demonstrated in a passage from Apuleius’ Metamorphoses, which often casts the reader as
a witness (of a witness) of the told events: from a hiding place, a man sees how a female witch approaches
her sleeping male lover, an adult man whom she has charmed, and calls him “my darling Endymion, my
Ganymede”.68
The oecus g of the Casa di Ganimede measuring ca. 4,4x3,6 m had a wide main entrance facing the
peristyle and a narrow side entrance presumably for the waiters. Barely fitting the standard formation of
three dining couches it would have provided a relatively intimate setting for dining. The poses of the youths
in the pictures would have reflected the postures of the persons lying on the couches below blurring the
boundaries between reality and fantasy.
For a Roman male viewer the pictures offered a possibility to play with different erotic roles. The
most obvious one was probably that of the sexual aggressor who desires the attractive and available youths
posing in front of his eyes. A voyeuristic outsider’s perspective that corresponds to the actual position of the
viewer is given in the shape of the nymph in the Ganymede scene. And finally, the viewer could imagine
himself in the role of the youths who were going to get a divine sexual experience with an active male or fe-
male. The possibility, that this experience was only a dream, invited the viewer to further explore his desires,
even those that only came alive in his dreams and were not (yet) fulfilled in real life.69
On the other hand, if dreaming of a sexual encounter with a god was taken at face value and not as a
metaphor for a real-life desire, it could be seen as a favourable omen for the dreamer. According to Artemi-
dorus, this was also the case with dreams of an eagle and that of the Seasons.70

Poetic fantasies of erotic desire: The House IX 5, 11.13

Like the Casa di Ganimede, the house IX 5, 11.13 (fig. 4) was a relatively large atrium house that faced a busy
road (Via Nolana) and shared the same insula with houses that have been connected to prostitution. Its southern

66  Sorabella 2010, 21-22.

67  Vout 2013, 122-23.
68  Hic est […] carus Endymion, hic Catamitus meus. Apul. met. 1, 12.
69  In his Oneirocritica the dream interpreter Artemidorus draws a distinction between the dreams that have a predictive value
(oneiroi) and those that only reflect the present state of affairs of the dreamer (enhypnia) and thus hold no interest. Dreams of desires
and fears fall into the latter category. For example, when a man saw a dream of performing cunnilingus to his wife, Artemidorus
dismissed it as irrelevant, because he had found out that the man was simply seeing what aroused him also during the day (4.59).
See Price 2004, 233-34. However, social concerns might have restrained men from gratifying the cravings released in their dreams.
Plutarch writes that during sleep the “naturally despotic soul” gives “loose rein to the desires which in the daytime the law keeps
confined by means of shame and fear.” Plut. mor. 82 D (trans. Babbit).
70  For Artemidorus dreaming of sex with gods fell into the category of predictive dreams (oneiroi). A healthy person who dreamt
of having sex with a god and enjoyed it was given material aid by a better-off person (1, 80). If the god was Selene and the dreamer
a traveller or a merchant it was particularly beneficial (for a non-travelling person it meant that he got hydropsy). Also dreaming of
an eagle that was sitting high on a tree or approaching was a good omen (2, 20 a), and dreaming of the Seasons likewise (2, 37 c).
176 Ville Hakanen

neighbour (IX 5, 14.16) had a small room f’ decorated with

scenes of explicit lovemaking. Clarke suggests it was “a
house to tavern makeover, with one of the attractions being
a room that could be used – among other things – for the oc-
casional tryst by willing (and sometimes paid) partners.”71 In
the south-western corner of the insula a door (IX 5, 19) led
to a second floor that has been proposed as a lupanar based
on the graffiti found along the southern facade of the insula
mentioning clients, prostitutes and prices.72 The next house
to the east along Via Nolana was the House of the Centenary
(IX 8, 6) with its private bath complex and an ‘entertainment
suite’ decorated with sex-scenes.73
The house IX 5, 11.13 itself has gained little attention
apart from its graffiti that have, however, not been treated Fig. 4: The house IX 5, 11-13. Source PPM.
collectively. In the back of the house there was a small peri-
style that was almost completely occupied by a masonry triclinium. A couple of cubicula and stairs leading
upstairs opened to the peristyle. A selection of romantic and erotic graffiti was inscribed on the columns sur-
rounding the peristyle.74 A verse inscription, one of the most famous inscriptions from Pompeii, urges a mule
driver to hurry to Pompeii “where my sweet love lives”.75 This is a proper piece of poetry, an imaginative
experiment not to be taken at face value.76 It seems to evoke the concept of elegiac poetry and was written by
someone familiar at least with Catullus.77 The lover of the poet is called iuvenis Venustus, but the word iuvenis
(‘young man’) is written above the word puer (‘boy’) that has been crossed out but left clearly legible as if it
was supposed to be seen corrected. Both words seem to have been written by the same hand.
Antonio Varone favours the interpretation that the poem was written by a man and I am inclined to the
same conclusion.78 The correction of puer to iuvenis might be best understood in the context of the anxieties
of Roman men concerning the age and status of a man’s male object of desire. It could underline the fact,
that the iuvenis Venustus is not a slave, or that he is no more a boy – both options making the sexual role
played by the writer’s persona more ambivalent.79 The poem could, in my eyes, be an allusion to a perhaps

71  Clarke 1998, 186-87.

72  For the graffiti (CIL IV 5105-5157) and their interpretation, see Della Corte 1965, 130 and McGinn 2004, 284.
73  Clarke (1998, 169) thinks that the erotic suite by the bath complex was an imitation of similar suites in wealthy villas and
rejects the idea that it hosted sexual entertainment. Pollini (2010, 314) argues instead that the room with the sex scenes was a
‘lovemaking room’ where “the dominus and/or his guests might have engaged actively in sexual behaviour” or “enjoyed such ‘sex-
capades’ voyeuristically through the small window in the wall between the antechamber and this room.”
74  CIL IV 5094-96; IV 5098.
75  CIL IV 5092, trans. Varone – Berg.
76  Williams 2010, 292: “Rather than as a record of someone’s real experience or as a transcript of an actual dialogue with a mule-
driver, this poem invites being read as an inventive composition, an imaginative experiment, a verbal expression of something that
could or might have happened.”
77  Venustus is a typical attribute in Catullus’ love poetry. According to Seager (1974, 891-94), Catullus calls a man venustus “because
he is a person of taste in matters over which the Veneres Cupidinesque preside: conversation, the pleasures of the table and friendship,
as well as love”. Good taste, wit and charm are the connotations of the word, set explicitly against the mere physical attraction.
78  Varone 2002, 19; cfr. Courtney 1995, 300.
79  In Ovid’s account of Narcissus (met. 3, 352, see below) the two words are juxtaposed in the sense that puer is the passive
beloved and iuvenis already capable of being an active lover. The sixteen-year-old Narcissus is both. Puer was extended to refer
also to all male slaves regardless of their age (OLD). For Roman attitudes towards homoerotic objectification of boys and men see
Williams 2010, 20-29, 78-93.
 A perfect scenery for male courtesans? 177

fantastic, but all the more charming young man reclining with his lover/lovers in this garden. The other
graffiti of the peristyle are less refined, but add to the erotic atmosphere of the space.80 One fragmentary
inscription begins by stating that Sophe (a Greek female name) loves Asus, but then turns into a comparison
between the fellation skills of the man (Asus) and a cinaedus, and talks about witnessing this activity.81
The picture of Ganymede is far less prominent in the house IX 5, 11.13 (fig. 5) than in the Casa di
Ganimede. It occupies one of the side walls of a cubiculum (f) by the atrium and is considerably smaller and
of inferior quality than its counterpart.82 What is striking is that it is practically a combination of the pictures
of Ganymede and Endymion of the Casa di Ganimede: the youth’s pose is that of Endymion, while the eagle
and the landscape repeat the painting of Ganymede. This way of representing Ganymede in the pose of
Endymion was not unique and is attested since Augustan times.83 However, these three Pompeian paintings
are by far the most similar and, if not direct copies of each other, certainly derive from the same model. In
the painting of the house IX 5, 11.13 the additional figures have been left out, possibly because the painting
is smaller and more simple. In contrast to the painting in the Casa di Ganimede, the body of Ganymede is
slender and boyish and the eagle is plump and less dynamic.
The main wall of the cubiculum f facing the doorway had a picture representing a naked male figure,
probably Narcissus, together with a Cupid (fig. 6).84 On the right wall the central picture represented a satyr

Fig. 5: Ganymede and the eagle from the cubiculum f of the Fig. 6: Narcissus from the cubiculum f of the house IX 5, 11.13,
house IX 5, 11.13, G. Discanno, pencil on paper, ca 1877. G. Discanno, pencil on paper, ca 1877. Source PPM.
Source PPM.

80  CIL IV 5094-96, IV 5098.

81  CIL IV 5095. I thank Tuomo Nuorluoto for his kind help in deciphering this fragmentary inscription. The author is of course
responsible for the possible errors. For the problematic category of cinaedus see above and Williams 2010, 191-245.
82  The room measures ca. 2,7x2,5 m. The painting is not completely destroyed and the outlines of the main figures are quite clear.
It has also been copied faithfully at the time of the excavation (1877) by G. Discanno (pencil on paper).
83  Colpo 2005, 73-74. There was possibly another painting of Ganymede in the same pose in the house VII 12, 23 (Casa del
Camillo), although with some additional figures. It is known only through a verbal description by Helbig. Colpo 2005, 72; 84-85.
84  The painting is destroyed but has been copied at the time of the excavation by G. Discanno (pencil on paper). In front of the
youth there is an oval shape that looks very much like the outline of a pond. PPM 9, 555. Mau (BdI 1879, 203-4), identifies the figure
as Narcissus, noting that the reflection of the youth is not visible due to the painting’s damaged condition. Likewise also Schefold
178 Ville Hakanen

uncovering a sleeping maenad (fig. 7) that was

clearly a pendant of the Ganymede picture.85 Both
represent a scene of divine or semi-divine passion,
symbolized also by the bestial nature of the attack-
ers.86 The objects of the lust are both asleep, pas-
sive, effeminate. Again sleep is the key element that
invites the viewer to participate in daydreaming.
The figure of Narcissus intensifies the incor-
poration of the viewer to the world of the paintings.
The story of Narcissus, who desires a beautiful
youth who is only a deceptive image, reflects the
viewer’s relationship to the erotic paintings of the
room and forms a parallel to the sleepers’ fanta-
sies represented on the side walls. At the same time
Narcissus questions the subject-object dichotomy
and invites the viewer to see himself (the viewer)
as a potential erotic object. In Ovid’s version of the Fig. 7: A satyr uncovering a sleeping maenad from the cubicu-
myth the sixteen-year-old Narcissus “could be seen lum f of the house IX 5, 11.13, G. Discanno, pencil on paper, ca
1877. Source PPM.
either as a boy (puer) or a young man (iuvenis)”.87
This formulation that is similar to the graffito in the peristyle, underlines the fact that Narcissus does not
know whether he is the active lover or the passive beloved. He becomes a kind of hermaphrodite.88 Narcis-
sus in the cubiculum f is a picture of his inner conflict: his body is feminine and brings him close to the
representations of Hermaphroditus.89
If we read the pictures in the cubiculum f from the point of view of the male characters depicted, they
represent a passive, effeminate adolescent in Ganymede, a youth potentially both active and passive, mas-
culine and feminine in Narcissus, and an aggressive, Priapus-like man in the satyr. However, even the status
of the satyr is complicated by his hand gesture that is probably apotropaic and seems to have been associ-
ated with phalluses, most often in paintings representing Pan with Hermaphroditus. Following this clue, the
viewer could have interpreted the sleeping figure as Hermaphroditus, teasingly concealed from his eyes, but
obviously impressing the satyr.90 Furthermore, the satyr surprised (positively?) by the penis of Hermaphro-

(1957, 258) and Bragantini (PPM 9, 554). Colpo (2005, 83) considers the Narcissus identification uncertain. Fiorelli (NSc 1877,
249) interprets the figure as Adonis.
85  The painting of satyr and maenad is destroyed but has been copied at the time of the excavation by G. Discanno (pencil on
paper). PPM 9, 549.
86  For bestiality see Vout 2013, 72-74, 149-58.
87 Ov. met. 3, 351-52: namque ter ad quinos unum Cephisius annum / addiderat poteratque puer iuvenisque videri. See Taylor
2008, 70.
88  Elsner 2007, 147-48.
89 Cf. Taylor 2008, 73-74, 78-81; Grassigli 2007, 106-10.
90 See Beard – Henderson 2001, 134-39, fig. 95a; Sorabella 2010, 5-6 (esp. n. 16), 28-30, fig. 2. The same gesture is performed
by Pan surprised to see Hermaphroditus’s penis in wall paintings from the Casa dei Dioscuri (VI 9, 6-7; see PPM 4, 889, fig. 57),
the Casa di Meleagro (VI 9, 2; see PPM 4, 692, fig. 65), the Casa dei Vettii (VI 15, 1, triclinium p; see PPM 5, 540-42, figs. 123,
124) and the house VIII 4, 4 (see PPM 8, 499, fig. 89), and by ithyphallic satyrs in the famous bronze tripod found in the Praedia
of Julia Felix (see Parslow 2013, 55-60). The gesture of Silenus looking at Hermaphroditus’s penis in wall paintings from the Casa
di Epidio Sabino (IX 1, 22; see PPM 8, 973, fig. 32) and the Casa dei Vettii (VI 15, 1, oecus q; see PPM 5, fig. 159) is also similar,
though perhaps just surprised. I am grateful to Siri Sande for this notion.
 A perfect scenery for male courtesans? 179

ditus would be an appropriate reading in the context of this decoration that calls first impressions and norma-
tive sex roles into question both encouraging and complicating a male viewer’s potential of identification.
It is interesting that the mythological central pictures of the cubiculum f were inserted into the Fourth
Style decoration after it was completed.91 Pollini interprets similar additions in the House of the Centenary
as evidence of an active involvement of the dominus of the house.92 In the house IX 5, 11.13 the added
panel paintings reflect, at the very least, a will to reinforce the erotic atmosphere of the house. A painted
inscription on the wall of the ala h is a wonderful synthesis of the themes present in the house: the wish that
artistic, poetic and fantastic representations of desired objects and the witnessed desire itself materialized in
the viewer’s world. The inscription states in hexameter “I don’t think a Venus made of marble would be as
favourable to me as...”.93

Conclusions

In the light of Roman literary sources, it seems probable that there were male ‘courtesans’ also in Pompeii.
The figure of Ganymede would have provided a mythological point of identification for them and their cus-
tomers. However, neither the decorations nor the graffiti of the two houses discussed in this article are direct
documents of the presence of male prostitutes. To suggest on their basis that the houses served as brothels
would be even more precarious. It would seem that the paintings were intended to create an atmosphere of
erotic possibilities emphasizing the homoerotic desire and offering different points of identification for the
viewer, but seen the prevalence of erotic subjects in Roman wall decorations, this could have been the case
in most of the houses in Pompeii.
On the other hand, the owners of the Casa di Ganimede were almost certainly involved in the brothel
business that took place in the immediate vicinity of the house, if not in the house itself. Furthermore, the
inscriptions in the peristyle of the house IX 5, 11.13 were of the sort that could perhaps be best imagined as
done by visitors who had had the requisite capability and time on the spot to formulate the lengthy pieces
and who were very interested in homoeroticism. Thus the possibility that the houses were used by upper
class men who used the services of upper class male prostitutes is insecure but nonetheless existent.

To continue with this speculative path, it is possible that both of the houses were (or were intended to
become) inns or restaurants for wealthy travellers, who were probably mostly male. Several inns and res-
taurants in Pompeii had the same features of the upper class domus and some had originally been private
houses.94 A building complex found in Moregine (Murecine) on the outskirts of Pompeii, that included a
peristyle flanked by three handsomely decorated dining rooms, has been identified as a caupona, a hotel or
the seat of a corporation.95 The Praedia of Julia Felix (II 4, 1.12) with shops, dining rooms, apartments and
a bath complex to rent was equally sumptuous.96 This testifies to the fact that the highest level of luxury was

91  New central pictures seem to have been inserted also to the decorations of some other rooms in the house. PPM 9, 548-55,
566-76.
92  Pollini 2010, 312.
93  CIL IV 3691, trans. Varone – Berg. See Varone 2002, 29. On the rear wall of the ala h there was a painting representing a naked
female that could have brought into mind a statue of Venus (PPM 9, 565). The painting seems to belong to the original decoration
of the house, but the inscription painted on a representation of a papyrus scroll might have been added later.
94  Packer 1978, 12, 18, 24-26, 44; DeFelice 2007, 476-77.
95  McGinn 2005, 268; Mazzoleni – Pappalardo 2004, 320-23.
96  Parslow 2007, 218-20; Nappo 2007, 358-61.
180 Ville Hakanen

not unheard of in spaces hosting paying customers. In addition, McGinn notes that the distinction between
hotels and brothels is “impossible to maintain for the Romans” so sex would have probably been for sale in
these locations, though perhaps only as a side business.97 The oecus g of the Casa di Ganimede, a relatively
intimate dining room would have been just the kind of a setting, where a well-off man could have brought
a male companion – perhaps spotted in the Stabian Baths or provided by the house – for a dinner. The cu-
biculum f of the house IX 5, 11.13 would have been the kind of a room where the male couple could have
withdrawn after dinner.
Whether restaurants, hotels, some sort of clubs or simply private homes, the world of erotic choices
offered in the decorations of the oecus g of the Casa di Ganimede and the cubiculum f of the house IX 5,
11.13 could not have been enjoyed in the marriage bed. A stimulated freeborn male viewer would have had
the possibility to abuse a slave serving in the property. He could have also tried to find suitable company
among fellow visitors of the house, though this might have severely compromised his reputation. And fi-
nally he could have turned to a male prostitute, who would not have been out of place in the setting provided
by these two houses.

97  McGinn 2005, 227.

 Instrumentum con scene erotiche da tombe femminili di età romana

Anna Fedele – Donato Labate

Premessa

I recenti rinvenimenti in Emilia di tombe di età alto imperiale contenenti instrumentum figurato con scene
erotiche, riferibili principalmente a corredi sepolcrali femminili,1 ha stimolato l’interesse ad approfondire la
ricerca da un lato per verificare se la stessa circostanza sia documentata in altri contesti funerari, dall’altro
per cercare di dare una possibile risposta a questa associazione alquanto singolare. La domanda che ci si è
posti è stata se si trattasse di oggetti attinenti all’attività praticata in vita dalla defunta, come la prostituzione,
o piuttosto oggetti lasciati dal congiunto per esaltare aspetti gioiosi dell’esistenza o come ricordo dei mo-
menti felici trascorsi in vita con la compagna.2
Scene erotiche su instrumentum sono attestate anche in tombe femminili dell’età del ferro. La scena
di un symplegma tra un uomo nudo e una donna velata è raffigurata sullo specchio della necropoli etrusca
della Galassina di Castelvetro nel Modenese (V sec. a.C.). La scena fa parte di una teoria di raffigurazioni
interpretata come rappresentazione di un contratto nuziale o di una ierogamia.3 Scene di symplegma molto
simili a quella di Castelvetro sono presenti sulle situle venetiche di Sanzeno in Val di Non4 e di Pieve di
Alpago nel Bellunese.5 In quest’ultima il symplegma è preceduto da altre quattro scene erotiche intercalate
da scene di vita domestica, che iniziano con la raffigurazione di un probabile contratto nuziale e trovano
compimento nella rappresentazione di un parto con la partoriente assistita da levatrici. I giochi erotici che
precedono l’accoppiamento nell’alcova hanno inizio in presenza dei possibili genitori della coppia, mentre
questa, in piedi e ammantata, è intenta nel primo approccio sessuale (prima scena) che ha seguito, in altre
tre scene erotiche, con la donna ancora ammantata e l’uomo nudo in piedi contro un muro (seconda scena),
con la donna seduta su un mortaio (terza scena), entrambi in piedi con coito da tergo (quarta scena). Queste
scene rimandano al mundus muliebris: i giochi erotici si alternano ai lavori femminili, in primis tessitura e
preparazione di cibi raffigurati rispettivamente da una donna intenta a tessere al telaio e un’altra a pestare
alimenti in un mortaio, mentre altre due donne impugnano attrezzi verosimilmente domestici come un pro-
babile mattarello e un non meglio specificabile martello ligneo. Si tratta di scene finalizzate a sottolineare
l’identità femminile sia nell’ambito dell’economia domestica6 sia nel soddisfare sessualmente il compagno,
sia infine di assicurare, tramite il parto, la discendenza.

1  Fedele – Labate 2013b; Fedele – Labate 2014.

2  Fedele – Labate 2014, 285.
3  Labate 2006, 50, figg. 29-30; Pizzirani 2009, 135, fig. 55, ivi bibl. prec.
4  Pizzirani 2009, 143, fig. 58.
5  Gangemi 2013, fig. a p. 290, cat. n° 6.9.
6  Un peso da telaio con impresso due bolli con scene erotiche è stato rinvenuto a Bitonto (BA) in una tomba femminile di età
ellenistica (Riccardi 2003, Tomba 12/1981della seconda metà del IV sec. a.C.).
182 Anna Fedele – Donato Labate

Fig. 1: Modena, necropoli di Novi Sad, Tomba 152, lucerna con Fig. 2: Modena, necropoli di Novi Sad, Tomba 52, lucerna con
scena di sesso acrobatico. scena di coitus a tergo.

I giochi erotici che precedono l’amplesso nell’alcova (quinta scena) e si concludono nel parto (sesta
scena) rivelano che la finalità del rapporto sessuale è quella di garantire la continuità dinastica. L’intangi-
bilità dell’unione per garantire la discendenza è pertanto il significato ultimo di queste scene, piuttosto che
una mera raffigurazione erotica come nel caso delle scene riprodotte sull’instrumentum di età romana, in
particolare sulle lucerne, dove le stesse erano tese a stimolare i sensi con un intento puramente erotico.

Le attestazioni di età romana

Per l’età romana la ricerca della presenza di instrumentum con scene erotiche in contesti sepolcrali ha pre-
so avvio dall’Emilia-Romagna dove sono documentate sei sepolture: quattro a Modena, le altre a Reggio
Emilia e Piacenza che hanno restituito una spintria e 5 lucerne. Tutte o quasi tutte appartenevano a tombe
femminili, di una sola, quella di Cittanova, è incerto il sesso dell’inumato per la povertà del corredo. Al-
tre nove attestazioni sono distribuite dal nord al sud d’Italia: cinque nel Veneto, le altre, una ciascuna, in
Piemonte, Lombardia, Lazio e Sicilia. Anche di queste 5 sono da riferire a contesti femminili, due proba-
bilmente femminile e due incerti. Su un totale di 16 attestazioni, 11 (69%) sono riferibili a sepolture fem-
minili, le restanti 5 (31%) potrebbero anche esserlo, ma non vi sono sufficienti elementi probanti, nessuna
è certamente maschile.7 In ogni caso l’alta percentuale di sepolture femminili con instrumentum con scene

7  A queste attestazioni sarebbero d’aggiungere altre quattro da contesti funerari di cui non sono stati distinti i corredi: necropoli di
Via Zima a Brescia, lucerna con scena erotica con coitus a tergo (Bezzi Martini 1987, 70, fig. 2); da Caprino Veronese (VR), lucerna
 Instrumentum con scene erotiche 183

erotiche è indice di una pratica funeraria diffusa

in un ambito territoriale piuttosto ampio che in-
teressa, principalmente in età alto imperiale, tutta
la penisola italica e non solo.8
L’attribuzione a contesti femminili è stata
possibile per la presenza, come elementi di corre-
do, di oggetti riferibili al decoro personale (anel-
li, aghi crinali, collane), alla toilette (unguentari,
pissidi) e a utensili da lavoro tipici della materfa-
milias (fusi e fusaiole).
L’unica tomba sottoposta ad analisi antro-
pologica, e riferita ad una donna adulta, è quella
di Piacenza, il cui corredo, per la presenza di tre
fusi e di un ago crinale, non lasciava dubbi sulla
sua appartenenza (fig. 4).
Ma veniamo all’instrumentum con scene
erotiche rinvenuto nelle tombe, tutte riprodot-
te su lucerne ad esclusione di una raffigurata su
una spintria. La scena erotica più documentata è
quella del coitus a tergo (7 su 15), una delle quali,
di tipo umoristico, con pigmeo e mulier equitans
Fig. 3: Modena, necropoli di Cittanova, Tomba 25, lucerna con sce- che gli offre le spalle. A seguire due sono relative
na di sesso acrobatico con iscrizione a commento.
a scene di donna che cavalca (pendula aversa o
equus aversus), due con accoppiamento sul dorso di un asino (fig. 1), una con coito frontale,9 una con scena
di sesso di gruppo (fig. 3) ed una con fellatio. Di una non è nota la scena.
Tutte le scene, ad esclusione del coito sul dorso di un asino e quella di sesso di gruppo, sono attestate
sia negli affreschi pompeiani sia sull’instrumentum domesticum ed in particolare sulle lucerne,10 quella del
coitus a tergo sembrerebbe la più diffusa almeno sulle lucerne da contesti sepolcrali.11
Le immagini più inconsuete nel repertorio figurativo delle lucerne da contesti sepolcrali sono le scene
di coito sul dorso di un asino o quella di sesso di gruppo entrambe attestate a Modena nel I sec. d.C.12 La
lucerna con coito sul dorso di un asino ammantato (fig. 1), proveniente da una tomba attribuita alla sepoltura

configurata a testa grottesca con tre scene erotiche, due raffigurate sul disco – un coitus a tergo ed uno con Venus pendula – ed uno
sulla presa della lucerna con coito in piedi (Larese – Sgreva 1996, 173-74, fig. 268).
8  Lucerne con scene erotiche son presenti anche in altre regioni dell’impero romano: si segnalano ad esempio il rinvenimento di
Viminacium in Serbia e di Monte da Loja in Portogallo. Nel primo caso si tratta di una sepoltura femminile per la presenza di un ago
crinale (Nikolicć – Raičović 2008, 332; 336: tomba ad incinerazione indicata con la sigla G1– 998) e nel secondo caso di una tomba
ad inumazione, sesso non indicato (Laurenço – Craco 2013).
9  Il repertorio delle raffigurazioni erotiche, chiamate figurae Veneris, più rappresentate nell’arte romana, è vasto (delle posizioni
amorose ci parla Ovidio chiamandole mille modi Veneris nell’Ars amatoria 3, 786-87), dalla posizione della donna detta Venus
pendula o pendula conversa o mulier equitans (donna a cavallo) dove la donna è sopra l’uomo, in posizione frontale alla posizione
della donna detta pendula aversa o equus aversus quando questa volge le spalle all’uomo, alla Venus prona, inginocchiata sul letto
per il coitus a tergo.
10  Jacobelli 1955; Johns 1992; Varone 1994; Cantarella 1998.
11  Un’altra lucerna con scena di coitus a tergo è stata rinvenuta a Brescia, nella necropoli di via Zima. Del rinvenimento, che risale
all’inizio del ’900, non si conosce l’associazione ad una tomba specifica (Bezzi Martini 1987, 70, fig. 2).
12  Per la prima edizione delle lucerne cfr. Fedele – Labate 2013a; Fedele – Labate 2014.
184 Anna Fedele – Donato Labate

Fig. 4: Piacenza, necropoli di via Venturini, Tomba 12, lucerna

con scena di coitus a tergo.

Fig. 5: Sant’Ambrogio di Valpolicella (VR), Tomba da località

Borgo Aleardi, lucerna con scena erotica: mulier equitans (da
Bolla 1995).

di una donna per la presenza di un ago crinale. La scena è composta da un uomo, seduto sul dorso dell’equi-
no, rappresentato nell’atto di un coito frontale con la donna distesa sull’asino. Questa, con gambe sollevate
rette dal compagno, si trattiene con la mano destra ad un albero mentre con la sinistra, sembra masturbare
l’asino itifallico mentre questo è intento a cibarsi. La scena trova un confronto stringente con una lucerna a
volute rinvenuta in una tomba nel Reggiano anche questa riferibile ad una sepoltura femminile per la presen-
za di un anello digitale in bronzo (fig. 8). La scena erotica è del tutto identica a quella modenese tant’è che
sembra prodotta dalla stessa matrice. Risulta alquanto singolare che entrambe le lucerne, con scena erotica
inconsueta, siano al momento attestate in contesti sepolcrali e per di più in tombe femminili.13
L’iconografia del coito sull’asino sembra derivare da una raffigurazione simile presente sulla ce-
ramica aretina ma con due piccole varianti: la donna non masturba l’asino e l’asino si ciba da un grande
bacile-mangiatoia. La scena è stata interpretata come un coito fra satiro e ninfa a causa dell’ambientazione
agreste.14 A questa iconografia fa rimando la scena erotica, più sobria di quella modenese e reggiana, con
satiro e ninfa sulla schiena di un asino raffigurata su una lucerna rivenuta in una tomba portoghese.15

13  Alle lucerne di Modena e Reggio Emilia di I sec. d.C. bisogna aggiungere una terza, più tarda, rinvenuta in Portogallo in una
tomba femminile di fine II - inizi III sec. d.C.: Da Monte da Loja proviene una lucerna con ansa spezzata con raffigurata sul disco
una scena di coito sul dorso di un equino (Laurenço – Craco 2013, 59-61, fig. 16). La lucerna a disco, tipo Dressel 28, è stata
rinvenuta con una patera e bicchieri posti ai piedi di un inumato di sesso non meglio specificato. La lucerna è stata riferita ad una
produzione locale (lusitana); altro esemplare identico con marca MV è presente nella raccolta del museo di Évora in Portogallo
(Morais 2011, 62-63). Anche questa lucerna ha l’ansa spezzata ritualmente come la lucerna di Monte da Loja e non è escluso che
possa provenire da un contesto funerario.
14  Porten Palange 2009, 269. La scena deriva dal punzone dell’officina di Publio Cornelio (Porten Palange 2004, Sy17a, Taf.
22; Troso 1991, n. 62). Ringrazio Massimo Brando per la segnalazione suggerita nell’ambito del confronto nel gruppo ‘Ceramica
in archeologia’ che mette a contatto chiunque sia interessato allo studio della ceramica: https://www.facebook.com/groups/cerami-
cainarcheologia.
15  Cfr. supra nota 13.
 Instrumentum con scene erotiche 185

Fig. 6: Veronese, necropoli di Santa Maria di Zevio, Tomba Fig. 7: Pompei, necropoli di Porta Nocera, Tomba 8 (da
164, lucerna con scena di mulier equitans (da Biondani 1996). Van Andringa – Duday – Lepetz – Joly-Lind 2013).

Nel caso delle lucerne di Modena e Reggio

Emilia le raffigurazioni erotiche rimandano a scene
umoristico/dissacranti connesse forse a spettacoli di
sesso acrobatico.16 La rappresentazione della ninfa
che masturba l’asino nell’atto di accoppiarsi con il
satiro è da ritenere una rielaborazione umoristico/
sarcastica della scena più sobria presente sulla cera-
mica aretina e sulle lucerne della Lusitania.
Altra scena inusuale è quella di sesso di grup-
po e iscrizione a commento presente su una lucerna
rivenuta in una tomba di Cittanova (Modena). La
tomba, del tipo a cremazione diretta con corredo
composto (fig. 3) da lucerna e da una piccola olpe in
ceramica comune, è ascrivibile al I sec. d.C.
Sul disco della lucerna è raffigurata una scena
erotica di gruppo con tre uomini e una donna, a un
livello di esplicitazione sessuale senza uguali nel pa-
Fig. 8: Francia, Provenza, necropoli di Vernègues, Tomba 41,
lucerna con scienza di sesso acrobatico (da Chapon et al 2004). norama figurativo di età romana. La donna, in piedi è
posta al centro della scena nell’atto di un simultaneo
coito frontale, di un coitus a tergo e di una fellatio praticata ad un uomo prono sorretto dagli altri due uomi-
ni in piedi intenti nella copula. Tutti i personaggi sono raffigurati nudi ad esclusione di uno, seduto su uno
sgabello, vestito con tunica a maniche corte sollevata all’altezza del bacino.17
La donna, raffigurata di tre quarti, con seno e pancia pronunciati, sorregge con le mani i falli spropo-
sitati dei due uomini posti davanti e dietro di lei, e con la testa reclinata pratica la fellatio al terzo uomo. A
commento della scena un’iscrizione: (AD)IVVA(T)E SODALES, “aiutate(mi), compagni” (fig. 3). La lucerna

16  Per spettacoli erotici cfr. Varone 2000, 48-53, fig. 46; Johns 1992, 174.
17  Fedele – Labate 2014, 270-80.
186 Anna Fedele – Donato Labate

trova un confronto stringente con un esemplare rinvenuto nel 1930 a Forlimpopoli meglio conservato ri-
spetto a quello modenese, sia per la qualità delle figure sia per l’integrità dell’iscrizione ADIVVATE ROGO
SODALES, “aiutate(mi), (vi) prego, compagni” e deriva da una matrice diversa da quella utilizzata per la
lucerna modenese, pur rifacendosi allo stesso prototipo. Nella lucerna di Forlimpopoli, a differenza di quella
di Cittanova, la donna indossa due cavigliere.18
L’interesse particolare delle lucerne di Cittanova e Forlimpopoli deriva dalla scena raffigurata piut-
tosto rara, che non trova, al momento, nessun confronto nella cultura figurativa romana, ivi compresa quel-
la presente sull’instrumentum domestico. Altra peculiarità delle lucerne di Forlimpopoli e Cittanova è la
presenza dell’iscrizione a commento della scena erotica riprodotta sul disco. L’iscrizione ADIVVATE SO-
DALES compare su altre lucerne associata alla rappresentazione di alcuni Amorini intenti a giocare con la
clava di Ercole e a bere da una coppa. La scena è da mettere in relazione al mito di Ercole ed Onfale, ovvero
Ercole ebbro, vinto dall’amore, che abbandona la clava. In questo caso l’iscrizione ADIVVATE SODALES
dovrebbe fare riferimento al sodalizio degli Amorini finalizzato a far vincere Amore sulla Forza.19
La stessa iscrizione a commento della scena sesso di gruppo raffigurata sulle lucerne di Cittanova e
Forlimpopoli è da ritenere dissacrante per il rimando al mito di Ercole ebbro, ovvero della Forza che si piega
ad Amore, resa, nella lucerna con sesso di gruppo, in senso umoristico. Non è escluso che la scena possa
rappresentare uno spettacolo di sesso acrobatico dove a pronunciare (AD)IVVA(T)E SODALES “aiutate(mi),
compagni” o ADIVVATE ROGO SODALES, “aiutate(mi), (vi) prego, compagni” sia il personaggio sostenu-
to sulle braccia dei compari, che chiede aiuto a questi, presi dall’amplesso, per non cadere rovinosamente a
terra. Una vignetta dissacrante, ironica, sfacciatamente erotica, e, trattandosi verosimilmente di una scena di
spettacolo di sesso acrobatico,20 finalizzata a stupire per le singolari e audaci acrobazie del gruppo.21
Un accenno merita infine la presenza di un altro genere di instrumentum con scena erotica da con-
testi funerari: la spintria o tessera numeraria con scena di fellatio rinvenuta in un’altra tomba modenese
ascrivibile all’età giulio-claudia, che faceva parte di un corredo composto da tessere lusorie e di manufatti
tipicamente femminili: un ago crinale in osso e una bacchetta mesciprofumo in vetro.22 Anche in questo caso
si tratta di una tomba femminile con una rarissima attestazione, in ambito funerario, di tessera con scena
erotica; si tratta con molta probabilità di un unicum.23 Una lucerna con scena di fellatio acrobatico è presente
in una tomba femminile francese.

18  Fedele – Labate 2013b.

19  Loeschcke 1919, n. 347; altre lucerne con stessa iconografia da Oedenburg (Siegmund 2000, 4-5) da Pozzuoli, conservata presso
il British Museum e da Pompei (Amarger – Brun 2007, 165, fig. 27); cfr. da ultimo con confronti con altre scene simili su affreschi,
mosaici e cammei Fedele – Labate 2014, 271-80, figg. 14-15.
20  Da una caupona proviene un affresco con raffigurato un amplesso funambolico, un genere di spettacolo che avveniva in pub-
blico (Varone 2000, 49-53 e fig. 46). Anche Catherine Johns ipotizza l’esistenza di spettacoli pubblici erotici (Johns 1992, 174).
21  Che possa trattarsi della rappresentazione di uno spettacolo erotico è suggerito da un’altra scena dello stesso tipo presente su
un’altra lucerna con raffigurati tre personaggi maschili e uno femminile, sullo sfondo un quinto personaggio che tiene aperto un
drappo come da scena teatrale: la donna è riversa su un uomo supino (coito frontale) che si tiene sui gomiti reggendo nella sinistra
in bella mostra una corona (di alloro?); alle spalle della donna, un secondo uomo in ginocchio nell’atto di un coitus a tergo, un
terzo uomo in piedi si solleva la veste mentre la donna gli pratica una fellatio. La presenza della corona tenuta da uno degli uomini
che partecipano all’ammucchiata potrebbe rimandare ad uno spettacolo di sesso acrobatico con premio rappresentato dalla corona
mostrata in primo piano (cfr. Fedele – Labate 3013a, 68, fig. 3; Fedele – Labate 2014, 271, fig. 13); si tratta di una lucerna che
compare nel Catalogo Christie’s, Ars amatoria. The Haddad family collection of ancient erotic and amuletic art, New York 1998;
una seconda lucerna con stessa scena, appartenuta alla raccolta Berry, è stata venduta in una recente asta (ivi, nota 18).
22  Benassi – Giordani – Poggi 2003; Giordani 2009.
23  Si tratta dell’unico rinvenimento noto di spintria da contesto stratigrafico ben datato (Benassi – Giordani – Poggi 2003; Cam-
pana 2009). Preme sottolineare che un’altra spintria in terracotta con scena erotica (non indicata la scena) è segnalata in una tomba
a Roma (Tomassetti 1881, 108), ma resta dubbia l’attribuzione ad una spintria, che sarebbe l’unica in terracotta nota in letteratura.
Non è escluso che si possa trattare del disco di una lucerna figurata.
 Instrumentum con scene erotiche 187

Discussione

Se si esclude la spintria la presenza di lucerne in contesti funerari di età romana è molto diffusa. Il loro
valore simbolico è confermato dalle attestazioni letterarie, epigrafiche ed archeologiche. La lucerna, come
rappresentazione della luce della vita antitetica all’oscurità della morte, veniva solitamente deposta, all’in-
terno della tomba, capovolta. Il gesto del rovesciamento della lucerna doveva simbolicamente rappresentare
lo spegnimento della luce, la fine della vita.24 Rara è invece la presenza in contesti funerari di instrumentum
con scene erotiche. Se prendiamo come esempio il contesto Modenese, da noi esaminato in maniera più ap-
profondita, sono documentate tre lucerne con scene erotiche: due provenienti dal Novi Sad (2 tombe su 292
indagate) e una da Cittanova (1 tomba su 144 indagate) e una spintria con scena di fellatio nella necropoli
orientale di Mutina (1 tomba su 163 indagate). Nel complesso si tratta di 4 attestazioni su circa 600 tombe,
ovvero poco più dello 0,5% delle tombe: considerato che provengono quasi tutte da sepolture femminili si
può supporre presenti in queste in poco più dell’1% dei casi.
La domanda che ci siamo posti all’inizio cioè se l’instrumentum con scene erotiche si possa mettere in
relazione all’attività praticata in vita dalla defunta non può trovare al momento una risposta adeguata. Non è
possibile stabilire lo status delle defunte con la sola lettura del corredo: in età alto imperiale infatti, periodo
a cui sono da riferire la maggior parte delle sepolture esaminate, lo status veniva esaltato dal monumento
funerario piuttosto che dal corredo.25 Dei corredi presi in esame solo alcuni risultano particolarmente ricchi,
nello specifico quelli di Modena (scheda 3), Piacenza (sc. 6) e San Pietro in Cariano (sc. 10), la presenza di
tessere da gioco rimanda all’attività ludica delle defunte esercitata anche in età avanzata, come nel caso di
Piacenza. Difficile stabilire se si tratti di attività ludiche che si svolgevano in ambito domestico o in ambienti
pubblici o commerciali come le cauponae dove le donne che vi prestavano servizio potevano intrattenere i
clienti anche prostituendosi. Si deve tuttavia rilevare che nel corredo di Piacenza figurano tre fusi e in quello
di Salò (sc. 8) una fusaiola, utensili della materfamilias, che rinviano alla filatura e forse ad un’implicita
esaltazione del modello della donna/matrona romana dedita alla filatura della lana e alla custodia della casa,
attività spesso lodate dai consorti nelle iscrizioni funerarie con gli epiteti lanifica, domiseda a cui è associato
anche quello di pudica.
La tomba di Salò e quella di Valmontone (sc. 14) contenevano manufatti di un certo pregio, come
la pisside in vetro con decori in argento trovata nella prima e un pettorale in cuoio con ricami in oro nella
seconda, che rimandano ad uno status agiato delle defunte di cui non è possibile stabilire la natura se legata
alle condizioni economiche della famiglia o del consorte o piuttosto all’attività svolta dalla donna.
Un’unica tomba, quella di Vercelli (sc. 7), ritenuta ricca per la presenza di una bella collana con perle
in pasta vitrea e pendagli a forma di fallo, è stata riferita ad una probabile sepoltura di una cortigiana.26

24  Scheid 1984, 137-38. La lucerna rovesciata nel contesto funerario assume lo stesso significato della fiaccola rovesciata tenuta
da eroti raffigurata, in funzione funeraria, su diversi sarcofagi. La raffigurazione degli eroti reggifiaccola, intesi come geni della
morte ovvero metafora della vita che finisce e la fiaccola che si spegne, è ripresa, con lo stesso significato, nei monumenti cristiani
(Settis 1984, 316-31, figg. 287-90).
25  Un esempio emblematico è rappresentato dal grandioso monumento funerario di Vetila Egloghe, alto circa 4 m, con ara in
marmo proconnesio e basamento in pietra di Verona, fatto erigere per sé, per il coniuge (?) decurione e il figlio sacerdote apollinare
e augustale. Le quattro tombe rinvenute all’interno del recinto funerario, ampio 54 mq, contenevano corredi molto miseri composto
da alcune lucerne e poco altro. La tomba 2, che, per la presenza di due anelli in bronzo, può essere riferita alla committente del
monumento, conteneva, oltre agli anelli, una lucerna, una moneta di Traiano e un’olla cineraria con coperchio in ceramica d’impasto
(Labate – Palazzini 2009).
26  Deodato 2011.
188 Anna Fedele – Donato Labate

Fig. 8: Reggio Emilia, San Lazzaro, tomba 60.

Non si può escludere che alcune delle tombe prese in esame in questo contributo possano essere
riferite a deposizioni di cortigiane, meretrici, mimae o lupae nonostante sia molto improbabile che queste
possano aver voluto con sé nella tomba manufatti riconducibili alla loro attività. La composizione dei
manufatti che costituiscono il corredo funerario solo in parte può rispettare la volontà della deceduta,
e tra questi possono figurare gli oggetti relativi ad decoro personale e alla toilette, gli altri oggetti sono
deposti dai congiunti nel rispetto del rituale funerario e non è da escludere che parte di questi siano stati
riposti dal coniuge come manifestazione di tipo affettivo. Al pari delle iscrizioni funerarie nelle quali i
coniugi decantano le virtù della scomparsa, le lucerne con scene erotiche possono, al di là della condizio-
ne sociale vissuta dalla defunta, rappresentare un omaggio in reminiscenza dei piaceri e dei giochi erotici
vissuti dalla coppia. Che si possa trattare di un omaggio del coniuge è indiziato non solo dal tipo di scene
rappresentate sull’instrumentum deposto nelle tombe (per lo più scene di sesso acrobatico, coitus a tergo
e fellatio) più vicine all’immaginario erotico dell’uomo, ma anche dalla constatazione che al momento
mancano attestazioni simili in tombe maschili. Assenza che si può spiegare verosimilmente con il pudore
della donna romana, la quale avrebbe forse preferito ricordare il coniuge con scene di tipo diverso e più
vicine all’immaginario erotico femminile.
 Instrumentum con scene erotiche 189

Schede con rinvenimenti di instrumentum con scene erotiche da contesti funerari in Italia

1. Modena, ex Parco Novi Sad, tomba 152 (cremazione con corredo incompleto), I sec. d.C. (fig. 1)
Reperto con scena erotica: lucerna a volute con coito frontale di satiro e ninfa sul dorso di un asino mentre la ninfa
masturba o si aggrappa al fallo dell’equino.
Toilette: –
Decoro: spillone crinale in osso.
Utensili materfamilias: –
Gioco: –
Altri reperti: elemento in ferro di letto funerario.
Bibliografia: Fedele – Labate 2014, 206-7, fig. 7.

2. Modena, ex Parco Novi Sad, Tomba 52 (cremazione), I sec. d.C. (fig. 2)

Reperto con scena erotica: lucerna a volute con coitus a tergo.
Toilette: 8 unguentari.
Decoro: –
Utensili materfamilias: –
Gioco: –
Altri reperti: lucerna a canale chiuso, patera in terra sigillata, moneta.
Bibliografia: Fedele – Labate 2014, 269, fig. 6.

3. Modena, Via Emilia Est, sottopasso ferrovia Modena-Sassuolo, tomba 151 (cremazione), prima metà del I sec. d.C.
Reperto con scena erotica: tessera numeraria (spintria) in bronzo dorato con fellatio.
Toilette: 7 unguentari, mesciprofumo in vetro.
Decoro: spillone crinale in osso.
Utensili materfamilias: –
Gioco: quattro tessere lusorie.
Altri reperti: 4 lucerna a canale chiuso, una lucerna a voluta?, 4 monete, due pocula e tre tazze a pareti sottili, coperchio
e bottiglia in ceramica comune, fr. di patera a vernice nera?, fr. di olletta in ceramica grezza.
Bibliografia: Benassi – Giordani – Poggi 2003; Fedele – Labate 2014, 280.

4. Modena, Cittanova, Via Emilia Ovest-Canale Diversivo, Tomba 25 (cremazione), I sec. d.C. (fig. 3)
Reperto con scena erotica: lucerna a volute con sesso di gruppo (una donna e tre uomini, coitus frontale, a tergo e fel-
latio), iscrizione a commento “adivvate sodales”.
Toilette: –
Decoro: –
Utensili materfamilias: –
Gioco: –
Altri reperti: olpe in ceramica comune.
Bibliografia: Fedele – Labate 2014, 270, fig. 11.

5. Reggio Emilia, San Lazzaro, tomba 60 (cremazione), I sec. d.C.

Reperto con scena erotica: lucerna a volute con coitus frontale sul dorso di un asino itifallico mentre la donna con la
sinistra masturba l’equino e con la destra si aggrappa ad un albero (lucena posta all’esterno della tomba ad incinera-
zione del tipo a cappuccina) (fig. 8).
Toilette: tre balsamari.
Decoro: spillone crinale in osso; anello digitale.
Utensili materfamilias: –
Gioco: –
190 Anna Fedele – Donato Labate

Altri reperti: lucerna a volute, due bottiglie in ceramica comune, olla in ceramica grezza, due coppette in pareti sottili,
elementi in metallo di cassettina per trucco.
Bibliografia: Fedele – Labate 2014, 206-7, fig. 8.

6. Piacenza, Via Venturini, tomba 12, I sec. d.C. (età tiberiana) (fig. 4)
Reperto con scena erotica: lucerna a volute con coitus a tergo con donna prona.
Toilette: circa 12 balsamarii, chiodini di cofanetto.
Decoro: spillone crinale in osso.
Utensili materfamilias: tre fusi in osso.
Gioco: una pedina.
Altri reperti: olla biansata (cinerario) con coperchio in ceramica comune, tre bicchieri e due tazze in pareti sottili, una
coppa, due lucerna a volute, strigile, quattro incensieri e un piattino.
Bibliografia: Carini 2013.

7. Vercelli, Corso Prestinari, tomba 70 (cremazione), I sec. d.C.

Reperto con scena erotica: lucerna a volute con coitus a tergo.
Toilette: due balsamarii.
Decoro: collana con vaghi in pasta vitrea e pendagli a forma di fallo, due anelli digitali uno dei quali con corniola
decorata con due uccellini affrontati.
Utensili materfamilias: –
Gioco: –
Altri reperti: Anfora segata (cinerario) coperta da un ciotola-catino in ceramica comune, piatto in terra sigillata, olpe in
ceramica comune, tazza in ceramica a pareti sottili, chiodi in ferro.
Bibliografia: Deodato 2011.

8. Salò (BS), località Lugone, tomba 33 (cremazione), seconda metà del I sec. d.C.
Reperto con scena erotica: lucerna a volute con coitus a tergo.
Toilette: –
Decoro: –
Utensili materfamilias: fusaiola.
Gioco: –
Altri reperti: piatto in terra sigillata, olpe in ceramica comune, bicchiere in ceramica a pareti sottili, bicchiere in vetro.
Bibliografia: Massa 1997, scheda 5, tav. XXXI, 8.

9. Sant’Ambrogio di Valpolicella (VR), località Borgo Aleardi, tomba a cremazione, I sec. d.C. (fig. 5)
Reperto con scena erotica: lucerna con donna che ‘cavalca un uomo’
Toilette: quattro balsamari.
Decoro: –
Utensili materfamilias: –
Gioco: –
Altri reperti: olpe.
Bibliografia: Bolla 1995.

10. San Pietro in Cariano (VR), Prunea di sotto, podere Serego, tomba a cremazione, prima metà del I sec. d.C.
Reperto con scena erotica: lucerna con scena erotica.
Toilette: sette balsamari.
Decoro: –
Utensili materfamilias: –
Gioco: un ‘dado in pasta bruna’, otto tessere lusorie in piombo e ventisette in vetro colorato (calculi),
Altri reperti: vasi in vetro (brocca e bicchiere), un “vasetto fittile” due denari e undici assi (I sec. a.C. – I sec. d.C.).
 Instrumentum con scene erotiche 191

Bibliografia: Forlati 1953; Capuis – Leonardi – Panzavento Mattioli – Rossadi 1990, 73.

11. Bovolone (VR), tomba a cremazione, prima metà del I sec. d.C.
Reperto con scena erotica: lucerna con coito frontale.
Toilette: –
Decoro: –
Utensili materfamilias: –
Gioco: –
Altri reperti: due assi uno dei quali di Augusto
Bibliografia: Larese – Sgreva 1996, I, 141, fig. 227.

12. S. Maria di Zevio (VR), tomba 164, I sec. d.C. (fig. 6)

Reperto con scena erotica: lucerna a volute con coitus a tergo con donna che cavalca l’uomo.
Toilette: –
Decoro: –
Utensili materfamilias: –
Gioco: –
Altri reperti: Lucerna a volute, coppetta in terra sigillata, patera a vernice nera, vaso in pareti sottili.
Bibliografia: Biondani 1996, 194, 203.

13. Este (PD), fondo Rebado, tomba 102 (cremazione), I sec. d.C.
Reperto con scena erotica: lucerna con donna che cavalca un uomo.
Toilette: balsamario, pisside in vetro ornata con festoni in argento.
Decoro: fibula in ferro, 2 conchiglie, ‘punta-pendaglio’ in corno di cervo (ago crinale?).
Utensili materfamilias: –
Gioco: –
Altri reperti: anfora segata (cinerario) coperta da una ciotola, due bottiglie, bicchiere in ceramica a pareti sottili, moneta
di Tiberio.
Bibliografia: Bernabei 1922, 30-31, fig. 28.

14. Valmontone (ROMA), Colle dei Lepri, tomba 1 (inumazione), II sec. d.C.
Reperto con scena erotica: lucerna a disco con coitus a tergo.
Toilette: –
Decoro: pettorale in cuoio decorato con lamine in oro e rame dorato.
Utensili materfamilias: –
Gioco: –
Altri reperti: pettine in legno e un boccalino monoansato in pareti sottili.
Bibliografia: www.ermes-multimedia.net/em/demo/15/2400.swf.

15. Pompei (NA), Necropoli di Porta Nocera, tomba 8 (incinerazione), I sec. d.C. (fig. 7)
Reperto con scena erotica: lucerna a volute con coppia nuda su kline (donna seduta, alle sue spalle uomo sdraiato)
raffigurata verosimilmente nel momento post coitum (la donna con la mano destra scosta il tendaggio che assicurava
l’intimità della coppia). Lucerna rinvenuta all’interno del recinto funerario in superficie (deposizione post mortem)
vicino alla tomba 8.
Toilette: 1 balsamario.
Decoro: –
Utensili materfamilias: –
Gioco: –
Altri reperti: moneta in bronzo, cinerario con coperchio, reperto in osso decorato ad onde, 1 murex e due denti non
combusti di animale. La tomba 8 era sormontata da una stele antropomorfa che presenta uno chignon nella parte
192 Anna Fedele – Donato Labate

posteriore e pertanto riferita ad una sepoltura femminile che l’analisi antropologica ha confermato appartenere ad un
personaggio adulto.
Bibliografia:van Andringa – Duday – Lepetz – Joly – Lind 2013, I, 260, pl. 1, 3a-b; 6, 40.

16. Lipari, contrada Diana, tomba 211 (inumazione), I sec. d.C.

Reperto con scena erotica: lucerna a volute con coitus a tergo di pigmei con donna prona e uomo sdraiato, iscrizione
incisa sex. ma sa.
Toilette: 3 balsamari, serratura e chiodini di cofanetto.
Decoro: –
Utensili materfamilias: –
Gioco: –
Altri reperti: due tazze e due urnette in pareti sottili, piattino in ceramica grezza, due lucerne, catenelle porta lucerne.
Bibliografia: Bernabò Brea – Cavalier 1965, 70-71.
 Furnishing the courtesan’s house.
Material culture and elite prostitution in Pompeii

Ria Berg

Ita agitur tecum in aedibus lenosis. Priusquam unum dederis, centum quae poscat parat: /
aut periit aurum aut conscissa pallula est / aut empta ancilla aut aliquod vasum argen-
teum / aut vasum ahenum aliquod aut lectus sculptilis / aut armariola Greca aut … aliquid
semper est / quod praestet debeatque amans scorto suo.

This is how it goes in the meretrician houses – before you’ve given her one thing she finds
a hundred things to ask for: a golden jewel is lost, or the mantlet is torn, or a maid or some
silver bowl has been bought, or some bronze vase or a relief inlaid bed or a Greek casket,
or… there is always something, that the lover is obliged to buy to his slut.
Plautus, Truculentus vv. 51-56 (trans. W. de Melo)

In this passage from Plautus’ Truculentus, young Diniarchus speaks against mercenary love, lamenting the
infinite shopping list that a prostitute imposes on her lover: golden jewels, clothes, servants, silver vases,
and exotic furniture.1
At least in the literary and imaginary worlds of Plautine comedy, there was a direct relationship be-
tween meretrices and luxury objects. Most research, however, has seen Roman prostitution as occurring in a
physical context totally devoid of material commodities. For example, Carla Fayer and Rebecca Flemming
have sided with the idea that in the Roman world, only servile, dirty and bare lupanaria existed. They assert
that the hetairai of the New Comedy, who are distinguished by an uncontainable greed for luxury objects,
were only literary topoi belonging to an idealized Greek past.2 If, however, we accept, as suggested by
many contributions in this book, the historical existence of a class of independent, non-servile courtesans
in Rome,3 characterized by a series of activities such as grooming, banqueting, and gift exchange, those ac-
tivities could plausibly have left material traces in the archaeological record. I presume, that the status of a
Roman courtesan is importantly crafted and communicated by the use of objects connected with such activi-
ties. The underlying theoretical framework is that of examining the agency of material artefacts, which are

1  Regardless of the atmosphere of luxury created in the passage, the term scortum used for the prostitute is strongly pejorative, as
is aedibus lenosis for her premises. For the term scortum, see Flemming 1999, 48. Similarly, in Plautus’ Trinummus (243), a meretrix
asks for all the objects she has seen in the house of her lover: da mihi hoc, mel meum, si me amas! For an analysis of this passage
and feminine discourse in Roman comedy, see Dutsch 2008, 76.
2  Fayer 2013, 78; Flemming 1999, 47. We might however presume that if the recurring courtesan figures in Roman comedy and
love elegy were to be amusing or moving, they must have been constructed using elements from contemporary realities, although
they obviously do not directly refer to any ‘historical’ persons.
3  For the definition of the word ‘courtesan’ as an independent, non-servile person gaining a living with sexual relationships that are
not explicitly paid for, and its differentiation from more straightforward ‘prostitute’, see the Introduction and the articles of McGinn,
James and Keith, in this volume.
194 Ria Berg

capable of carrying, conveying and performing cultural meaning and memory.4 In this essay, I will examine
material objects – both those referred to in literature and those found in archaeological contexts – as poten-
tial indications of Roman non-servile prostitution, i.e. ‘courtesans’. In particular, I analyse three Pompeian
houses that might be interpreted as settings for ‘middle-class’ courtesans operating in grey zones between
hospitality business and prostitution.
Before examining the question of material objects of Roman (elite) courtesans, I will start with a short
excursus on material objects as evidence for Roman lower level prostitution.

Roman prostitution and material culture

As Pietro Giovanni Guzzo and Vincenzo Scarano Ussani have observed in their catalogue of the archaeolog-
ical evidence of prostitution in Pompeii (2009), identifying commercial sex using archaeological evidence
is an arduous task: “ben difficilmente si potrà identificare documentazione archeologica materiale sicura ed
univoca dell’attività meretricia”.5 At Pompeii, the so-called Lupanare grande, the sole purpose-built brothel
in the city, is the only building that presents all three indicators that Andrew Wallace-Hadrill already in 1995
defined as indispensable in recognizing a house as a brothel: cells with masonry beds, erotic pictures and
explicit sexual graffiti.6
At the moment of discovery, the ground floor cells of the Lupanare grande, of a bare and essential ar-
chitectonic form, were empty of furniture and finds.7 This has perhaps contributed to the view that objects are
not useful as indicators of Roman prostitution. Many scholars have, in fact, noted the striking contrast between
the despoiled cellae and the luxurious furnishings depicted in their erotic paintings.8 And yet, even in this ar-
chitectonic complex representing the economically and socially lowest stratum of Roman prostitution, material
objects were not completely absent. According to Fiorelli’s Giornale di scavo, the rooms in the upper storey of
the Lupanar, which may have been lodgings of the sex workers, did contain several objects, including coins,
vessels, lamps and a candelabrum.9 Although they are modest, these finds convey some signs of minimal lux-
ury, in particular the lamp-holder. Besides the Lupanare grande, the Pompeian cellae meretriciae, or one-room
cribs with a masonry bed, opening directly onto the street, have also been identified as loci of prostitution.10
Some cribs, like the series of such rooms in the Pompeian insula VII 13, did contain several objects, including
elements of suspended ithyphallic bronze lamps, a silver mirror, and a gold ring.11

4  For the theory of the agency of objects, see in particular Van Eck – Versluys – ter Keurs 2015, 4-6, with further bibliography.
5  Guzzo – Scarano Ussani 2009, 28.
6  Wallace-Hadrill 1995, 51. On the definitions of lupanar, see also Savunen 1997, 105; 111; Cantarella 1998, 87; Clarke 1998,
195; McGinn 2004, 16-22; Guzzo – Scarano Ussani 2009, 21-26. On different kinds of Roman lupanaria, see Fayer 2013, 475-90.
7  Excavated in 1862; Fiorelli 1862, 48; 55; 58-59; Eschebach – Müller-Trollius 1993, 330; Irene Bragantini in PPM 7, 1997,
520-39; Savunen 1997, 111; Clarke 1998, 196-206; McGinn 2004, 280, cat. 26.
8  Clarke 1998, 202; Jacobelli 2012, 420. McGinn 2004, 115 notes that “we can see that the beds in the paintings are richly
furnished and at times accompanied by other elegant pieces of furniture, such as lampstands, that contrast dramatically with the
austere trappings of the brothel itself”. He affirms that the establishments would thus be selling not only sex, but also the “fantasy
of sex”.
9  Fiorelli 1862, 58-59 reports that while the ground floor with the cellae was found empty, several finds – starting from a bronze
bell near the door – actually came from the upper floor, although he suspects they had already been robbed in part by fossores:
“(2 giugno 1862) due monete di bronzo e una piccola caraffina di vetro, più: 5 monete bronzo, un unguentario, due piccole tazze, un
vasetto di vetro, lucerna di terracotta ad un lume, più arnesi trovati 28 maggio 1862, candelabro di bronzo, caccabus di rame pieno
di fagiuoli e cipolle”; “Null’altro si trovò nell’edificio”.
10 For cellae meretriciae, see Savunen 1997, 113; McGinn 2002, 10, 12; 2004, 202; Guzzo – Scarano-Ussani 2009, 25-26; 70-72.
11 The crib VII 13, 15, excavated on 6th and 20th of March 1863, contained phallic amulets in bronze (“oggetti itifallici”), ele-
ments of bronze scales, and remains of a wooden chest, including numerous lock plates and keys; the neighbouring crib VII 13, 16
 Furnishing the courtesan’s house 195

Naturally, such lists of objects are too short to give a statistically valid picture of objects connected
with brothel prostitution. While preparing a more systematic study of objects found in loci of venal sex in
Pompeii, only some preliminary observations about the material culture connected with low-status prostitu-
tion can be made.
Firstly, the presence of a few luxurious objects in precious metals, especially the gold ring and silver
mirror, suggest a possible conflict with the idea that all prostitutes operated in absolute material poverty.
The second observation concerns lighting instruments, candelabra, lamps, and the ithyphallic suspend-
ed bronze lamps, as the most prominent category of objects possibly connected with lower status prostitution.12
Of all kinds of domestic objects, lamps are those most frequently decorated with erotic images.13 Lamps are
well visible in Roman erotic imagery as lucerna cubicularis, the use of which – in more elevated societal con-
texts – has been analysed by Luciana Jacobelli.14 Set outside of the doors on the street front, lamps may have
indicated loci of commercial sex: according to Tertullian, they – at least if burning in the daytime – signalled
brothels.15 However, Giuseppe Spano, discussing Pompeian finds in a 1920 article, dissented from a hypoth-
esis connecting the ithyphallic bronze lamps with lupanaria, seeing them only as generic apotropaic charms.16
Even so, lamps remain a material category with a particularly close relation with the erotic sphere.
In the city of Rome, lamp finds were strikingly numerous in its largest putative lupanar, situated
along the Via Sacra near the Arch of Titus, identified as such because of its c. 50 subterranean cellae with
masonry supports for beds.17 The materials found in original Boni excavations have been published in 1995

contained elements of a hanging bronze lamp, found at ca. 2,10 m height (a bronze dwarf, riding an ithyphallic horse, with hooks
to append bells, other phallic figures with wings, and 18 bronze bells), Fiorelli 1875, 298; Eschebach 1982, 247-48; Eschebach –
Müller Trollius 1993, 335; Wallace-Hadrill 1995, 61, n. 70; Guzzo – Scarano-Ussani 2000, 66; McGinn 2004, 293, n. 7;
Guzzo – Scarano-Ussani 2009, 48-49. The crib VII 13, 19, excavated on 25 February 1863, contained fragments of a silver mirror
and silver spoon, and a gold ring with a gem engraved with an Eros with a wreath in its hand, see Fiorelli 1875, 298; Eschebach
1982, 248-49; Eschebach – Müller Trollius 1993, 336; Guzzo – Scarano-Ussani 2000, 66; McGinn 2002, 41, n. 30; McGinn
2004, 281 n. 30; 293 n. 9; Guzzo – Scarano-Ussani 2009, 50.
12  Petitti 2011a, 46. For considerations about the potential of lamps and other objects as indicators of prostitution, see McGinn
2002, 10-11; McGinn 2004, 203.
13  Although the percentage of erotic imagery, according to a recent study, is actually not very high, ranging from ca. 2 to 6 %:
Sanja Vucetic 2013 has shown that in various early imperial sites the percentage of lamps with erotic images is relatively low (Am-
purias 2,13%, Vindonissa 4,14%, Carthage 4,5%, Salamis 6,10%).
14  Focussing in particular on Rhône Valley pottery reliefs, Jacobelli 2012, 414. Cf. Fayer 2013, 479, n. 78. Among literary pas-
sages connecting lamps with sexual intercourse: a lamp lighting up amorous encounters with a puella in Mart. 11, 104; 14, 39:
lucerna cubicularis; Prop. 2, 15; Anth. Pal. 4, 4; 5, 5; 6, 162. For references to lamps in brothels, Hor. sat. 2, 7, 48: sub clara nuda
lucerna; Sen. contr. 1, 2, 21: fuliginem fornicis; Mart. 4, 4, 9: spurcae moriens lucernae Ledae; 12, 61, 8: nigri fornicis (blackened
by smoke).
15 Tert. apol. 35, 4; uxor. 2, 6, 1. Spano (1920, 34-36) suggests that all shops and private doors would have been provided with
lamps, but those of the brothels were illuminated day and night, recording the continuity of such a habit in ‘old Naples’. Cf. McGinn
2002, 11; 2004, 203.
16  Spano 1920, 25-26; Petitti 2011b, 56-59. For the apotropaic character of the phallus, see for example Clarke 2014, 524-25.
In my opinion, these objects and their meaning remains to be re-examined more thoroughly. In several cases, including the above-
mentioned crib VII 13, 16, suspended phallic lamps do come from tabernae connected with venal sex, and none of them comes from
an elite domus. Other potential cases of phallic lamps in front of cauponae or lupanaria include: the Caupona of Felix and Dorus VI
16, 39.40 (Spano 1920, 10-11); Thermopolium of Asellina IX 11, 2, where the suspended lamp (inv. 1098) was found in 11/12/1911
near the thermopolium counter (Conticello de Spagnolis – De Carolis 1988, 72, cat. 60); and the shop I 6, 3.4 (Spano 1920, 11-12;
Conticello de Spagnolis – De Carolis 1988, 73, cat. 61). In the thermopolium lupanar of Aurunculeius Secundio VI 16, 33 two
suspended bronze lamps (though not ithyphallic) were found (Spano 1920, 19). Nor should we overlook the combination of lamps
with bells, which have also been linked to prostitution. A very late source, Paulus Diaconus in 8th century CE (hist. miscel. 13, 2),
refers that earlier prostitutes used door-bells to signal availability: includebant in angusto prostibula et admittentes tintinnabula
percutiebant ut eo sono illarum iniuria fierent manifesta. For tintinnabula, also Petitti 2011b, 59.
17  Naturally, the interpretations as a hospitium or deversorium or slave quarters are also possible. The complex remained sealed by
the Neronian fire, which has also determined their good conservation. The original excavator, Giacomo Boni, interpreted the house
as a Republican domus (of L. Aemilius Scaurus) with subterranean accommodation for slaves. The premises contain also a caupona
196 Ria Berg

by Maria Antonietta Tomei, and include, besides numerous fragments, 148 whole lamps, several of which
are richly decorated, and plurilychne (with up to 12 beaks).18 The anomalously high number of lamps proves
at least the intensive use of these subterranean rooms, each complete with masonry supports for a wooden
bed and a sewer outlet, but might also strengthen (even if not confirm), by their quantity, the interpretation
of the space as a locus of commercial sex.19
As the above evidence indicates, the lowest social level of Roman prostitution, while recognizable by
some clear architectonic features, would have been characterized only by a small number of modest mobile
finds.
The dividing line between a slave prostitute and a non-servile courtesan would, to a significant de-
gree, have been marked precisely by material objects. The more euphemistic prostitution in higher social
contexts, involving free or freed persons both as clients and as operators, would not have left recognizable
architectonic remains, because it was presumably conducted in buildings designed for other purposes (ban-
queting, bathing, entertaining guests, or, simply, housing), but it would plausibly have been characterized
by specific groupings of artefacts.
But how can we identify such artefact assemblies? Suggestive parallels to the study of the material
organization of pre-modern elite prostitution which naturally are not directly comparable, but share some
similar methodological problems, can be found in Renaissance and Baroque Italy and the nineteenth-centu-
ry United States, epochs that benefit from abundant contemporary written documentation.
The most relevant parallels to the archaeological evidence of the models of social stratification of
prostitution are the excavations of several red light districts in the United States, in particular in the exca-
vation of a house owned by Mary Ann Hill, a prostitute and madam, in 19th century Washington D.C.20 Its
excavators write:
Until recently, few studies of the archaeology of the urban brothel have appeared in the literature. It is likely
that brothels in cities have been excavated, but not recognized or reported as such, probably because researchers
have not known how to recognize them in historical documents or in archaeological assemblages. Brothels are
unusual households, but are unusual in a variety of ways, depending on the status of the residents and clients.
The archaeological record provides physical evidence of the material culture of brothel life, reflecting the eco-
nomic status of both residence and place of business … Like other institutions serving a city with a wide range
of social and economic circumstances, brothels reflected the disparities within the population. However, the
environs, amenities, and providers varied according to the class of the clientele.21

and baths. Giuseppe Lugli, after a re-examination of the evidence, interpreted the complex as a lupanar (Lugli 1947). Boni’s inter-
pretation has been taken up again by Andrea Carandini, who has excavated the area since 1985. See further Tomei 1995, 553-56,
plan, fig. 4; Carandini 1990, 159; Carandini 2010, 98-106, fig. 45. For numerous literary passages that connect Via Sacra with
mercenary sex, see García Barraco 2012, 27-32, for the domus/lupanar, 78-82. Similarly, the so-called carcer near the Temple of
Romulus was reinterpreted by Lugli as a lupanar, noting, similarly, the presence of masonry structures to sustain beds (Lugli 1947).
18  Tomei 1995, 558; 582; 594-95. The lamp with twelve beaks, inv. 8944, Tomei 1995, 587-88, cat. 74, tav. III, 74. Tomei stresses
that all the lamps present signs of use, so this cannot be a shop or store. Besides the whole lamps catalogued by Boni, stored in the
Antiquarium Forense, were 442 lamp handles, 60 stamped bases, 338 decorated and 4456 non-decorated disc fragments, and one
iron lamp, Tomei 1995, 613.
19  For the other kinds of finds, pottery, metal and bone, see Tomei 1995, 614. Numerous shells from edible marine species are
evidence drinking and eating, and there is also a conspicuous quantity of terra sigillata ware, Tomei 1995, 616-18. Cf. similarly also
García Barraco 2012, 15. Some rooms present simple painted decoration, but no erotic scenes, Tomei 1995, 615.
20  For the excavations, see Seifert – Balicki 2004; Seifert – O’Brien – Balicki 2005, in part 117. Mary Ann Hall, proprietor of
a successful brothel active between 1840-1883, and known from census records, city directories, tax assesments and legal records,
built the three-storey house at the age of 23, and died at age of 71, leaving an estate of $80,000. Her two sisters also worked in and
owned brothels.
21  Seifert – O’Brien – Balicki 2005, 119.
 Furnishing the courtesan’s house 197

In these excavations, a clear differentiation was observed between domestic items found on sites of
elite brothels, poorer brothels and ‘normal’ houses in the neighbourhood. Elite brothels were characterized
by anomalously high percentages of luxury products connected with the activities of eating, drinking and
body-care (costly table-services in porcelain, champagne bottles and remains of expensive furniture).22
Another interesting methodological exercise consists of reading an article on the ‘archaeology of
desire’, which analyzes the excavation of a possible 1820’s brothel site in New Orleans, putatively the Ris-
ing Sun of the famous song.23 The authors ask (in this case sceptically) whether we as scholars are basically
guided by our own desire to interpret the exceptionally high number of faiance rouge pot fragments found
on the site as evidence linking sexuality, the ‘Frenchness’ of New Orleans, and, ultimately, the brothel of the
popular song. This also remains a good question and caveat in the case of Pompeii, haunted for centuries by
a touristic desire to find erotic narratives.24
Tessa Storey’s study of the objects in the houses of courtesans in Baroque Rome, based on invento-
ries and account books of their households, is also very illuminating.25 She points out how the courtesans’
often splendid and luxurious objects, including furniture, paintings, musical instruments, and books, were
described and moralized by contemporary writers as dangerous instruments of seduction, alluring and cap-
turing men in their houses.26 According to Storey’s analysis, the Baroque courtesan herself can simultane-
ously be considered an object, a collector’s piece that demonstrates the tastes and wealth of her sponsor, or
an agent creating in an eclectic way a collection of objects that mirrors, like a collection of lovers, her status
and professional success.27
Thomas McGinn too, in his book about the organization of Roman prostitution, presents parallels
from modern literary descriptions of brothels, which combine faux-élite and seemingly luxurious mobilia
with mercenary sex – silk, red velvet and other such ‘seductive’ materials that ‘invite to touch’.28 This brings
up important questions about materiality, understood as the agency and power of the very materials used to
craft the objects, also in the context of Roman courtesans.
My hypothesis is that in Classical Antiquity too, the presence of artefact assemblies of luxury products
relative to grooming, body-care and banqueting, which are in contrast with the modest, non-elite status of
the house (modest paintings, non-canonical form, presence of other commercial activities, in particular
bars), may be interpreted as archaeological indicators of professional hospitality business and non-servile
prostitution.29 To test this hypothesis, and to start sketching an artefact pattern indicative of non-servile

22  For the results of the comparison with contemporaneous ‘normal’ households and lower-class brothels, see Seifert – O’Brien –
Balicki 2005, 119-24. In particular, the Mary Ann Hall brothel had a higher percentage of vessels for preparing and serving food,
and high value porcelain: “Mary Ann Hall’s house, with its elegant furnishings, expensive table service, exotic foods, exorbitant
champagne … was one of the best in Washington’s demi-monde, offering satisfaction for all appetites and pleasing all senses.”
23  Dawdy – Weyhing 2008.
24  For a good account of early reactions to Pompeian erotica, sometimes distorting their reception for a long time, see McGinn
2004.
25  Storey 2006.
26  Storey 2006, 24-25, citing the English traveller Thomas Coryat (beginning of the 17th century).
27  Storey 2006, 27. In Baroque Rome, the upper-class courtesans received their guests in their own homes, organizing convivial
evenings including eating, drinking, playing cards, music, and, eventually, sex; this complex of activities was called ‘pratticare in
casa’, Storey 2006, 30-31.
28  McGinn 2004, 227-28; Best 1998: The inventories of nineteenth-century Victorian establishments likewise included pianos
and other luxuries.
29  This is based on my doctoral dissertation on the distribution of female toiletry objects in Pompeian houses (Berg 2010a). In this
research, the most complete and elaborate cosmetic assemblies were identified, not in large domus-type houses, but in several small
and relatively modestly decorated houses that were evidently active in the hospitality business. See also Berg 2018.
198 Ria Berg

mercenary sex, I will examine in this essay some material artefacts that have a specific connection with a
courtesan’s activities: vessels for ablutions, gold jewellery, and, finally, evidence for locations, types, and
furnishings of courtesan’s houses.

Water basins and cosmetics

Silver and bronze vases figure prominently in Diniarchus’ ‘shopping list’ for a courtesan, which I quoted
at the beginning of this essay. Basins, dippers and jugs designed to hold and pour water were functional in
beauty care, ablutions during the banquet, and in the bedroom. These were also the most central activities
of courtesans, and, indeed, such vessels were instruments and symbols of pleasure and luxury in the Roman
culture, closely connected with the erotic sphere. The connection between water and sex was so close that
even water and bathing, per se, could be considered simply immoral.30
Vessels for ablutions appear frequently and prominently in erotic art, among other bourgeois comforts
of life, from Hellenistic times onward.31 They evoke, as does the depiction of the bed with finely worked legs
and cushions, the exquisite luxuriousness of the situation and the material comfort that surrounds the protago-
nists. Water basin and water jug, positioned mostly under the bed, are the most commonly represented objects
in Roman Veneris figurae, in wall-painting, and in small-scale images in reliefs on lamps, spintriae, gems
and terra sigillata vases.32 One of the best exam-
ples is the mirror cover found on the Esquiline,
presenting in bronze relief a richly adorned couple
intent on lovemaking, and the abundant furnish-
ings include, under the bed, a water basin and a
jug decorated with reliefs (fig. 1).33 The series of
erotic images on Rhône Valley pottery decorated
with reliefs (ca. 70-250 CE) has been collected
and analysed by Luciana Jacobelli, who interprets
the vases as references to pre- and post-coital ab-
lutions, and also to the function of ablutions as
a contraceptive.34 The fact that the basin and jug
even appear in the smaller iconographic formats,
like lamps and spintriae, reduced to the essential,
indicates that they are indispensable for the under-
standing of the scene (fig. 2).
The best-known literary description of Ro-
Fig. 1: The Esquiline mirror, second half of the 1st century AD.
man female ablutions belongs to the meretrician Antiquarium Comunale, Roma, inv. 13694.

30  For eating and drinking in brothels, see McGinn 2004, 38.
31  For Hellenistic predecessors, see Clarke 2014, 511-13; Myerowitz 1992, 138. On objects depicted in Roman iconography, see
Fayer 2013, 478-79 and n. 78 (candelabra, basins, jugs).
32  On basins and jugs in erotic scenes and a discussion on their meaning, Jacobelli 2012, 416-18.
33  Antiquarium Comunale, Rome, inv. 13694. For the finding, see NSc 1877, 267: “Sulla piazza di S. M. Maggiore, a mezzo metro
sotto il piano stradale, è stato scoperto un pavimento di mosaico ordinario, sul quale giaceva una teca di specchio in bronzo, con
rilievi osceni di arte perfetta. Il disco superiore misura nel diametro met. 0,165”. Clarke 1998, 166-68, fig. 60; Clarke 2003a, 44-
46; Anguissola 2010, 56; Clarke 2014, 518-19, fig. 31.8.
34  Jacobelli 2012, 416-18, fig. 4-6. In the images, the basins represented are characterized with a distinct foot, offset lip and two
handles, often decorated with ribbing, indicative of silver or bronze vessels. See also Clarke 2014, 526-30.
 Furnishing the courtesan’s house 199

Fig. 2: Erotic scenes presenting a water-basin and a jug under the elaborately decorated bed: a) terra sigillata bowl fragment in
Boston, Museum of Fine Arts, inv. Res. 08.33h (30 BCE – 30 CE), b) fragment of a terracotta vessel, Berlin, Antikensammlung, inv.
V.I.4991 (II-I cent BC), c) spintria, Civiche Raccolte Numismatiche del Castello Sforzesco, Milan, d) wall-painting in the House of
the Painted Vaults (III, 5, 1), Ostia Antica, room 5 (ca. AD 250).

sphere. In Plautus’ Poenulus, two Carthaginian girls sold to a leno, and thus meretrices-in-training, talk be-
tween themselves about the ‘excessive’ ablutions of women. The passage has often been cited as evidence of
the grooming habits of Roman women in general, but considering its context, it quite specifically describes
courtesans’ bathing habits:35
et una / binae singulis quae datae nobis ancillae
eae nos lavando eluendo operam dederunt
aggerundaque aqua sunt viri duo defessi. (Plaut. Poen. 218-31)
“Yes, and we both had two maids that helped with bathing and scouring, and we tired out two men with water
carrying.” (transl. P. Nixon).36

Cicero, in a rhetorical attack on Clodia, asked whether her illustrious ancestor had constructed an
aqueduct so that she could “use water immorally” (aqua inceste uti). This creative invective has kindled an

35  Besides this, women (courtesans) are compared to salted fish that has to be kept in water to soften. For further references to
women (prostitutes) as fish, or fish as women, see the article of Henry 1992, 256 on ‘edible’ women in Athenaeus’ Sophists at
Dinner; Ath. 3, 106a1.3; 4, 135a7-8; 4, 135c1-3.
36  Water-carriers were in fact listed among the habitual employees of brothels by Festus 20 L: aquarioli dicebantur mulierum
impudicarum sordidi adseculae. Apuleius (apol. 75) accuses his adversary Herennius Rufinus of prostituting his own wife (uxor
lupa) and adds, as a further dirty detail, that he even worked as her water-carrier, aquariolus, see also McGinn 2004, 37, n. 163.
200 Ria Berg

interesting debate between Christer Bruun and James Butrica about the exact significance of the phrase.37
Bruun, in his 1997 paper ‘Water for Roman brothels’, affirmed that the allusion was made specifically to the
illegal conduits by which bars and brothels, in late Republican Rome, were in habit of stealing water from
public aqueducts. Cicero would thus have indirectly been calling Clodia a brothel prostitute.38 Butrica, in
his paper ‘Using water unchastely’, underlines, more in general, the connotation of water with washing after
sexual intercourse, and further notes numerous passages where sumere aquam, ‘to take water’, is used in the
specific meaning of a douche.39
The connection between water basins and prostitution is present in many further literary passages. In
book 5 of Phaedrus’ Fabulae, a father gives each of his three daughters a legacy she merits; to the immoral
daughter (filia moecha) goes the silver washing basin.40 Water basins are also, significantly, among the kinds
of instrumentum domesticum on which erotic imagery can be found.41
Water was thus an important feature in the architecture of sex, and water installations and water ba-
sins were present even in servile lupanaria.42 A high number of water basins could thus hypothetically be a
relevant material pattern.
We now turn to examine a small Pompeian house, V 3, 11,
a modest habitation without a conventional name, distinguished
by its rich finds, that included an exceptionally high number of
water basins, amulets, female toiletries, and also a water jug with
an erotic image.43 It has a central court rather than an atrium (A),
provided with a small makeshift impluvium, and opening into it a
tablinum, a triclinium (C), a kitchen, three cubicula and a small
viridarium (G) (fig. 3). It was excavated in 1902, with final touch-
es in 1903, and immediately described in Notizie degli scavi us-
ing multiple diminutives, referring to ‘mediocre’ paintings pre-
sent only in tablinum and triclinium, and hasty redecoration of the Fig. 3: Plan of the house V 3, 11, Pompeii
(from PPM 3, 1991).
atrium and viridarium walls.44
Despite the generally modest appearance of the house, the garden triclinium with two masonry beds
and a painted nymphaeum aedicula is rather sumptuous (fig. 4).45

37 Cic. Cael. 34: “Was it for this that I [i.e. Appius Claudius Caecus, an ancestor of Clodia] brought water into the city, that you
should use it for your impious purposes?”, see Bruun 1997; Butrica 1999.
38  Bruun 1997 bases his discussion on a passage in Frontin. aq. 76, 1-2, where a speech delivered in 50 BCE by the aedile Caelius
Rufus is cited: quae nunc nos omnia simili licentia usurpata utinam non res offensas probaremus: inrigos agros, tabernas, cenacula
etiam, corruptelas denique omnes perpetuis salientibus instructos invenimus.
39  Butrica 1999. Ov. ars 3, 96: quid, nisi quam sumes, dic mihi, perdis aquam (in promiscuous sex, nothing is lost but the spilled
douche water); Ov. am. 3, 7, 84: dedecus hoc sumpta dissimulavit aqua (an amorous défaillance is covered up by feigned douching);
also Ov. am. 3, 620; Mart. 2, 50 (washing the mouth after fellatio).
40  Phaedr. 5: seponit moechae vestem, mundum muliebrem, lavationem argenteam, eunuchos glabros.
41  These include central medallions on some basins, for example, MANN inv. 27671; De Simone – Merella 1975, 98-99.
42  And as I have mentioned earlier, each cell in what may have been the Roman lupanar near the Arch of Titus was provided with
a proper outlet to drain, in the form of a perforated concave stone slab. The building Z3 of the Athenian Kerameikos, identified as a
brothel, consisting of twenty-two small rooms and several andrones for banquets, was provided with a lavish water supply, includ-
ing three cisterns, three drains and a well. Glazebrook 2011, 39.
43  For the contexts of mundus muliebris, Berg 2010, 250-55 and for the glassware Scatozza 2012, 200-2. NSc 1902, 274-76; 369-
72 and 515; PPM 3, 1991, 944-60; Eschebach – Müller-Trollius 1993, 139-40; Tassinari 1993, I, 168; II, 468.
44  NSc 1902, 276.
45  Masonry couches with three or two wings are present in several Pompeian cauponae; they are not present in most large elite
houses, where the triclinia and oeci, presumably, were furnished with mobile wooden and bronze couches. Masonry triclinium-beds
 Furnishing the courtesan’s house 201

Fig. 4: The garden-nymphaeum and dining area (room G) in the House V 3, 11 (Photo: NSc 1902, 276).

The finds were numerous (table 1), even though the excavators suspected that a part of the objects
was missing, because of robbing by fossores at an early date. The number of large decorated bronze basins
was particularly high: three round S category basins with horizontal handles, and one so called ‘bread-
basket’ basin, category P, with high handles (fig. 5).46 By comparison with the number of bronze basins in
average Pompeian contexts, among the houses published by Suzanne Tassinari, fifty produced only one
bronze basin S. As I have argued elsewhere, one basin was the norm even in larger Pompeian households.47
Besides V 3, 11, only in three other houses were as many as three basins S found (a small domus, a caupona
and a hospitium); four basins S were present only in the extremely wealthy house of Menander, and two
houses had five of them.48
Another possible material indicator of Roman courtesan’s activities, besides the water basins, are
the objects relative to cosmetic practices. Alison Glazebook has argued that in Greece, only prostitutes
wore significant amounts of make-up, and I have earlier argued the same for Roman women, on the basis
of Pompeian evidence with a list and analysis of modest houses containing high numbers of toiletries and

may well have shared with the lupanar masonry beds a slight connotation of commercial mass-use, and were therefore not very
attractive as fixed structures in elite houses. In a study of the tabernae of the Region I Gulino 1987, 115-18 includes in the type I
(large restaurants with more than four rooms) several establishments with masonry beds in a garden area (I 2, 18.19; I 2, 20.21; I 2,
24.25; I 6, 8.9; I 11, 10; I 11, 16; I 14, 5). Probable hospitia with outdoor dining facilities: II 8, 6; II 1, 8.9; II 5,5; a bar connected
with praedia of Julia Felix II 4, 7.
46  Tassinari 1997. For the specific uses of vessel forms in bathing, see Nenova-Merdjanova 2002.
47  Berg 2015.
48  Tassinari 1993, 1, 375-78. Berg 2015. Among the vessels published by Tassinari (comprising the finds kept in the archaeologi-
cal deposits of Pompeii) three basins S in the caupona of Vetutius Placidus (I 8, 8.9), the hospitium I 14, 9 and in the House of the
Prince of Naples (VI 15, 8.9), four basins S in the House of Menander (I 4, 10) and five basins S in the House of Epidius Primus
(I 8, 14) and I 9, 2, a tavern directly connected with the House of the Beautiful Impluvium (I 9, 1).
202 Ria Berg

Room A Room B Room C Room D Room F Room I

atrium cubiculum triclinium kitchen tablinum
Vessels for bronze jug 2 bronze amphorae bronze bronze handle
ablutions cauldron of jug
3 bronze jugs
bronze oval dish O
bronze patera H
3 bronze basins S
Other vessels tc cup bronze cup 3 tc plates bronze cup glass bottle
tc jug other bronze vase 2 tc mugs tc vase
bronze vase handle 2 tc cups
glass cup
glass plate
Cosmetic, glass bottle 19 glass unguentaria 4 glass unguen- 2 glass
adorment taria unguentaria
2 bronze coins
amulets in different ma-
terials
bronze pyxis
3 bronze mirrors
gold textile band
gilded silver ring
2 bronze tweezers
bone hair pin
bone needle
bone spatula
3 bone spoons
Lamps tc lamp 2 tc lamps 2 tc lamps
iron candela- 2 bronze lamps
brum
glass cup
Fixtures bone elements from iron door fixtu- bronze stud
cascet res
iron hinge bone hinges
from cascet
iron key
2 bronze lock plates
3 bronze studs
bronze nails
bronze rings
6 bronze hinges
Entertainment 3 tc fritilli
bronze statuette (dog)
amber statuette (animal)
40 game counters
Utilitarian/ object in bron- 2 utensils for nets 2 iron hoes iron scythe
tools ze/lead?
iron hoe iron pick-axe
Other marble fountain mask

Table 1: The distribution and functional classification of objects found in the House V 3, 11. Based on GdS and NSc 1902. Tc = terracotta.

cosmetics.49 In most Pompeian houses, toiletries found together form only modest arrays, of less than ten
items. This was evinced in the data collected in an earlier study on female-associated toiletries in Pompeian

49  For a list of modest houses containing high numbers of toiletries and cosmetics, see Berg 2017. Perfumes as a form of payment
to a prostitute: Mart. 12, 55, 6-9: Hoc vendit quoque nec levi rapina: / aut libram petit illa Cosmiani, / aut binos quater a nova
 Furnishing the courtesan’s house 203

Fig. 5: Bronze vessels found in the House V 3, 11. 1) Jugs of type B1252; 2) amphora of type A3220; 3) oval dish of type O2000;
4-6) three washing basins of type S (S4111 and S4322); 7) basin with high handles of type P2210 (from Tassinari 1993, 1, 168; 2,
468).

house-floor context, on which this chapter is based.50 In only fifteen houses was a mirror found together
with more than ten toiletry items. The houses are mostly small or medium sized, in quartiles 2 and 3, except
those with larger vineyards. Two of them have conventionally received the label of hospitium or inn, one
has been defined a lupanar and includes a thermopolium, one is a large thermopolium with back rooms, one
is a one-room shop.

moneta. And for the connection between Greek prostitutes and make-up, see Glazebrook 2009, 236-38, in particular the negative
and mercenary associations of eye make-up.
50  Berg 2010.
204 Ria Berg

Fig. 6: 1) Bronze mirror, type Lloyd-Morgan G, d. 10.3 h. 14.3 (inv. 55039); 2) Bronze mirror, type Lloyd-Morgan B, d. 16.5 (inv.
55040); 3) Bronze pyxis, d. 7.0. h. 5.7 (inv. 55038); 4) Pear-shaped glass unguentarium, h. 17.0, type Scatozza 49 (inv. 55017); 5-17)
Thirteen glass unguentaria of type Scatozza 46, h. 5.3-9.8 (inv. 55018-28; 55030-31); 18) Glass unguentarium of type Scatozza 26,
h. 6.7 (inv. 55029); 19) Tubular glass unguentarium, type Scatozza 47, h. 11.5 (inv. 55038); 20) Miniaturistic glass unguentarium, h.
4.2 (inv. 55033); 21) Bronze tweezer, l. 10.4, type Riha F (inv. 55010); 22) Bronze tweezer, type Riha l. 10.1 (inv. 55011); 23) Bone
spoon, l. 9.0 (inv. 55014); 24) Fragments of silver spoons (55015); 25) Bronze needle (for sewing coiffures, acus crinalis?), l. 14.0
(inv. 55012). Further two glass unguentaria, one of h. 13, and the other still containing organic material, were destroyed in the World
War II (old inv. 2673-4). A bone hair-pin, with a hand-shaped finial (old inv. 2665), has been transferred to MANN (drawings: author).

Also in House V 3, 11, room B, an above-average amount of mundus muliebris, i.e. female cosmet-
ics and toiletries, was found – two bronze mirrors, a collection of 19 glass unguentaria, two tweezers, a
cosmetic spoon and a pyxis (table 2).51 An average number of unguentaria in Pompeian houses, counting
from the finds published by Penelope Allison as a database, is five (table 2).52 Thus the collection of glass
unguentaria, here, is much above the average number found in Pompeian houses.
Not only the quantity, but also the decoration of some of the finds can suggest a venereal connotation
for the activities of the house. No erotic paintings have been found in the house, and it has therefore never
been labelled as a lupanar. However, it contained several mobile finds with erotic imagery: one handle for
a water jug, and several amulets. The handle of a bronze jug, found in the kitchen, is an unicum, depicting
a ‘symplegma oscena’ (as defined in the Giornale di Scavo) between a man and a woman, or rather a satyr
and a nymph (fig. 7).53 The figure is in low relief on a rectangular plate, the lower part of the handle of a
(water) jug. The object has been published in the volume Eros in Pompeii, but without reference to its find

51  For the average numbers of mirrors in Pompeian houses, mostly only one, see Berg 2010a.
52  Allison, Pompeian Households: An On-line Companion, http://www.stoa.org/projects/ph/home, consulted on 8.3.2016.
53  MANN, inv. 2533. According to the Pompeii inventory, sent to MANN in 1910 (spedito a Napoli n. 253, fol. 2, ottobre 1910)
fra lo strato medio delle terre un’ansa terminante a scudetto rettangolare su cui è rappresentato un symplegma. NSc 1902, 274.
 Furnishing the courtesan’s house 205

Table 2: Numbers of unguentaria and bronze water basins found in nine large Pompeian atrium houses (based on Allison, Pom-
peian Households: An On-line Companion).

context.54 In this publication, De Simone and Merella comment

that the objects prove that sexual imagery was “quite accepted
as a normal part of life, since it was used to decorate objects in
everyday use.” I would nevertheless underline that the object
is in fact unique in Pompeii, not a common household utensil.
Another exceptional find from this house is a collection
of more than 40 amulets. The small figures sculpted in vari-
ous materials, possibly, but not necessarily originally tied to-
gether as a necklace, include a number of scarabs and figures
of Isis, Bastet and Harpocrates. Many of the amulets have a
sexual reference, such as three phalloi and two ‘mani impu-
diche’ (hands with a gesture referring to the female genitals)55
in faiance, an ithyphallic herm, and one so-called concubine
(a female figure with divaricated legs), carved in bone.56 A ge-
neric apotropaic reading of the figures is, again, possible, but
we must remember that most Pompeian houses did not contain
such concentrations of amulets. Christopher Faraone states that
prostitutes and courtesans appear regularly as users of erotic
Fig. 7: Handle plate of a bronze jug from House V spells, magical charms (such as rhombos or iunx) and amulets,
3, 11, inv. MANN 129477 (Photo: Author). to enhance their sexual allure, to bring back old lovers or ac-

54  Inv. MANN 129477; De Simone – Merella 1975, 90. See also Tassinari 1993, 1, 168 (with old inv. 2533). According to
Tassinari, another handle (also representing nude male and female figures) would have been found in the house, too. However, this
may rather be the same object, erroneously duplicated.
55 Or mano fica, a fist with a thumb set between the middle and the index fingers (Ov. fast. 5, 433), see Petitti 2011b, 59.
56  Inv. MANN 29488/512. Venditto 2006, 215; De Vos 1983, 66-67.
206 Ria Berg

quire new ones.57 Equipment for sorcery and love magic are often mentioned in connection with the elderly,
retired courtesan figure, lena, discussed for example by Marilyn Skinner.58 The Isiac symbols could also be
understood as strengthening such a connection, since the cult of Isis was typically practiced by the elegiac
puellae.59 A possible parallel may be a woman’s grave found in Vercelli (tomb 70), where, besides an es-
sential ceramic set, two iron rings, an erotic lamp and a collection of amulets, two of which phallic, were
deposited as funerary gifts. Angela Deodato, who has published the materials, poses the question whether
the woman may identified as a domina, lupa or saga, and underlines the exceptionality of many of the grave-
goods, pointing to the relative sexual liberty, and superstitious and magical practices – and proposing, with
all due caution, that the deceased might be interpreted as a courtesan.60
To conclude, the artefact collection found in House V 3, 11, combining an exceptionally high number
of bronze vessels for ablutions (one with an erotic image) with an exceptionally large amount of toiletries
(mirrors, unguentaria, pyxides) and amulets with sexual imagery, could be recognized, on the analogy of
methods in modern era archaeology used by Seifert and Balicki, as a possible locus of venal sex, or at least
as active in the hospitality business on the borderline of prostitution.

Courtesans and gold

In general, there was a close semantic relationship between gold and courtesans in the Greek and Hellenistic
cultures.61 Golden statues erected in honour of hetairai rendered the assimilation corporeal, alluding to the
‘golden Aphrodite’, not to mention the common hetaira name Chrysis, ‘Goldie’.62 In Hellenistic comedy,
the outfit of courtesans was of saffron colour and their hair mostly golden blond – and Pollux’ list of masks
includes the ‘golden’ hetaira.63 A fragment of Donatus’ On comedy (6, 6) says that also in Roman comedy,
meretrices regularly wore golden yellow, “because of their greed”: leno pallio colore vario utitur, meretrici
ob avaritiam luteum datur. It is noteworthy that in many mosaic representations of Menander’s comedies,
a yellow mantle is the distinctive sign of actors who play hetairai on the stage.64 In Roman wall-painting,
female protagonists in banquets regularly wear saffron coloured robes, as in two banquet scenes in the tri-
clinium of the House of the Chaste Lovers in Pompeii (IX 12, 6), as well as in many allusive love-making

57  Faraone 2002, 407-11. These were used by hetairai to draw the man to their house; see for example a charm used by Simaetha
to attract back her lover Delphis, Theoc. Id. 2, 32 (trans. Gow): “Iunx, draw to my house the man I love”. On rhombos/iunx, see
Faraone 1999, 150-51. More recently on love magic, Edmonds 2014.
58  Skinner 2005, 181. For a Pompeian find context combining mundus muliebris, medical and magical elements, in House I 13,
2, see Berg 2004.
59  For example, Iuv. 6, 489 speaks of Isis as a lena. For the connection between Isis and courtesans, an example is the elegiac
puella Delia: see Tib. 1, 3, 11-12; Lilja 1965, 154-55; Murgatroyd 1980, 108; James 2003, 180-81; Gardner 2013, 164.
60  “…la tentazione di ipotizzare una figura femminile probabilmente dotata di una considerevole libertà nel campo delle pratiche
sessuali e che verosimilmente ci piacerebbe anche identificare, non in una semplice lupa, bensì in una di quelle donne che nell’elegia
d’amore sono oggetto di ardente passione da parte di poeti, colte bellezze del demi-monde”. Deodato 2009, 318-19, fig. 316-17; see
also Deodato 2011.
61  Gold can be used metaphorically to characterize the good-hearted and moral prostitute, in contrast to the evil and greedy one,
see Kurke 1997, 116-17. Kurke (1999, 182) suggests that the idea of Middle Comedy or the hetaira with a ‘golden nature’ or, rather,
a ‘golden heart’ is a stereotype that goes back to archaic culture.
62 Plut. mor. 753 e-f. The golden statue of the hetaira Phryne, set up by herself, is a notable act of economic agency, Dillon 2010,
50-51, with further references. We may also compare the golden hetaira statues described by the Locrian female poet Nossis, pos-
sibly a hetaira herself, on which see Gutzwiller 1998, 74-84.
63  The lexicon of Julius Pollux, founded probably on a third-century BCE stage manual, numbers in the catalogue of masks (Poll.
Onom. 4, 153) the ‘golden hetaira’. For the blonde prostitute, Menander apud Clem. Al. Paed. 3, 2, 6; Iuv. 6, 365, 16: flava lupa; 6,
120. See further Fayer 2013, 450-51; Dalby 2002, 119-21,
64  Slater 2014, 371.
 Furnishing the courtesan’s house 207

scenes, like those from the House of the Beautiful Impluvium (I 9, 1.2) (fig. 12) and the House of Caecilius
Iucundus (V 1, 26, peristyle l), where some details were originally accentuated with gold leaf.65 A series
of paintings with ‘couples on bed’, women dressed in saffron, come from cubiculum D of the Villa of the
Farnesina, discussed by Irene Bragantini in the present volume.66 Golden yellow was thus the distinctive,
although not exclusive, colour of Greek and Roman courtesans, and their characteristic saffron veil could
possibly be identified as the crocota, epicrocum, or crocotula mentioned in literary sources.67
This symbolic connection with gold makes it natural that courtesans in both Hellenistic and Roman
worlds are described wearing gold jewellery.68 Of course, prostitutes did not necessarily own the jewel-
lery they wore; it may have been assigned for their use as an instrumentum meretricii.69 Such is, in fact,
the case in the story told by Xenophon of Ephesus, where the eponymous protagonist Anthia is sold to
a brothel in Tarentum, and has to stand in front of the door in rich clothes, wearing gold ornaments that
obviously do not belong to her.70 However, many literary sources make it clear that in some cases the jew-
els worn were the propriety of the courtesan herself.71 In Lucian’s Dialogues of courtesans,72 discourses
about acquiring, displaying and maintaining golden jewellery are of central importance, and in several
instances jewels are used as competitive signs that denote the success of a courtesan compared with her
colleagues. For example, a hetaira called Myrtale sneers at her old lover, stating that the new lover has
given her a heavier necklace with stones: “The one you saw on me before was much thinner and had no
emeralds.”73

65  Varone 1993, 637, fig. CLVII and 638, fig. CLIX; Clarke 2014, 516-17, fig. 31.6. Neudecker in this volume, 151, Fig. 8.
66 See Bragantini in this volume, 134, Fig. 32; 137, Fig. 5. A yellow mantle is worn by the woman sitting on a bed with a man,
in the painting on the left wall of cubiculum B, and by two women in the two paintings on the right wall of cubiculum D, the ‘mat-
rimonial’ scene, and the composition with an embracing couple and two servants. Mols – Moormann (2008, 75-76) interpret them
as generic love scenes alluding to leisure and pleasure, not explicitly to marriage, nor as hetairai. Clarke (1998, 104; 106-7; 147-
48), too, connects the scenes rather with marriage, but also as a generic reference to love and its pleasures. Also, MANN 9024, see
Jacobelli in this volume, 158, Fig. 1. For the use of yellow clothes in ancient Rome, see Goldman 2013, 57-62.
67  Yellow diaphanous female clothes comprise epicrocum (Varro ling. 7, 53; Non. p. 498 L), crocota, defined as a thin female
undergarment (Ciris 251-52: frigidulam iniecta circumdat ueste puellam quae prius in tenui steterat succincta crocota, worn by an
effeminate man in Cic. har. resp. 21, 44) and crocotula, mentioned in Plaut. Epid. 231 and Varro ling. 5, 131, 7. For the use of yel-
low clothes in ancient Rome, see Goldman 2013, 57-62. According to Olson (2008, 13, with further references), the yellow colour,
in general, “strongly denoted clothing as female”, and the use of yellow was reprehensible for males. We should also remember the
nuptial, and thus erotic, symbolism of the saffron-yellow (luteum and flammeum), see Hersch 2010, 97.
68  There is a legal reference in Syracuse, where Diodorus of Sicily reports a law forbidding women to wear gold ornaments, or
coloured dresses, unless they admit to be common hetairai – although the law was supposed to be provocative and cunning, by
hallmarking items of luxury with a negative connotation, Diod. Sic. 12, 21; this is referred to also by Athenaeus 12, 521b.
69  For this term, coined by Costabile 2005, 48, see Scarano Ussani 2005b, 103 and n. 28.
70  Ephesiaca 5, 7 (mid-second century CE).
71  Neaira (Ps.-Dem. 59, 35) adorns herself with fine clothes and gold jewellery. Olympiodorus lives with a hetaira who boasts of
her luxurious goods, gold jewellery and a train of servants (Demosthenes 48, 55).
72  Dialogi meretrici was written by the Syrian Lucian of Samosata in the second century CE. It contains thirteen discussions be-
tween courtesans and clients, set in classical Athens, and focuses innovatively on the view-point of the women themselves, and the
difficulties of their lives. The roughly contemporary Deipnosophists of Athenaeus has a very different view-point: this text presents
courtesans much more like ‘consumer goods’ themselves, see Shreve-Price 2014.
73 Lucian Dial. meret., Corinna: “I knew Daphnis when she was in rags … that was before she got sense enough to make use of
her body. Look at her now! She struts like a queen, all bespangled with gold, wearing flowery dresses, and no less than four slaves
behind her.” ibid., Mousarion: “Aren’t you ashamed of yourself? You are the only one among courtesans without a pair of earrings,
without a necklace, or one Tarentine tunic?” In Menander’s Paidion, a hetaira scorns a soldier’s gift, complaining that the gold
necklace is not set with gems (314-315). In late Republican Rome, similar topoi surface: Lucretius lists among the damages of love
the fact that entire patrimonies are transformed into a gift to the beloved (probably a courtesan), including emeralds set in gold. Lucr.
4, 1126: unguenta et pulchra in pedibus Sicyonia rident, scilicet et grandes viridi cum luce zmaragdi /auro includuntur teriturque
thalassina vestis /adsidue et Veneris sudorem exercita potat.
208 Ria Berg

Notably, in the Pompeian portrait galleries of famous Hellenistic hetairai, identified by Richard Neu-
decker in his chapter in this volume, many women display jewellery and two wear heavy golden necklaces
(see Neudecker figg. 3c, 6c).
In the works of Plautus, we find the connection aurum – meretrix particularly often, in a variety of
practical situations of a courtesan’s life. The meretrix Erotium in Plautus’ Menaechmi exemplifies the fre-
quent and close professional collaboration of courtesans with the goldsmiths: Erotium asks Menaechmus to
take the golden bracelet, spinter, that he has stolen from his wife to the goldsmith to be remodelled; more
gold, to the weight of an uncia (ca. 27 g), is to be added.74 The golden jewel is thus not only a means of at-
traction and adornment, but also a closely controlled possession of the courtesan, an object to be negotiated
with the amator, an advertisement to colleagues, on-lookers, and clients, evaluated according to its weight
and price. Jewels also function as tools of flirtation, especially the finger ring, which is to be touched and
admired (together with the hand).75
Gold was a necessary professional investment and a tool for the courtesan to remain attractive, but it
was also a form of durable and portable investment.76 It was also a straightforward payment in exchange for
a night, as we read in Poenulus: dat aurum, ducit noctem.77 In Mostellaria, instead, it is specified that the
surplus that the lover buys with gold and purple from the high-priced meretrix are her educated and pleasant
manners, mores.78 The theme of puella and gold is lovingly cultivated further by Roman elegists: as Alison
Keith underlines, rich adornment, love of luxury and greed for gifts are the conventional hallmarks of the
elegiac mistress; they also regularly wear gilded clothing.79 Interestingly, a paraclausithyron graffito written
in elegiac style on the outer wall of the Villa San Marco, published by Antonio Varone in his chapter in this
volume (nn. 44-45), addresses the puella as ‘golden’, Sabidia aurum.
Another topos linking meretrices with gold, is the courtesan who is robbed of her jewels, or claims to
have lost them.80 This must be seen in connection, on the one hand, with the dangerous companies frequent-
ed by courtesans, or, on the other hand, with topic ideas of ‘greed’ and ‘falsity’: faking a loss as a pretext for
new acquisitions. In fact, the starting point of this paper, the passage of Truculentus, enumerates among the

74 Plaut. Men. 524-27: Menaechme, amare ait te multum Erotium, / ut hoc una opera <sibi> ad aurificem deferas, / atque huc ut
addas auri pondo unciam / iubeasque spinter novom reconcinnarier. Even Erotium’s servant girl requires for her services earrings
weighing two nummi. In verses 803-4, Menaechmus’ wife complains that her gold has been stolen and given to meretrices: at ille
suppilat mihi aurum et pallas ex arcis domo, me despoliat, mea ornamenta clam ad meretrices degerit.
75  Fayer 2013, 34-35; 454. Plaut. Asin. 778: spectandum ne cui anulum det neque roget; Tib. 1, 6, 25-26: saepe velut gemmas eius
signumque probarem, / per causam memini me tetigisse manum. In the Hecyra of Terence, the whole story is concentrated on a ring,
probably golden, stolen from a girl and donated to Bacchis, a courtesan.
76  James 2003, 38; McGinn 2004, 53. For the Roman discourse about jewels as ‘portable patrimonies’, see Berg 2002.
77 Plaut. Poen. 108; similarly also 705.
78 Plaut. Most. 286: amator meretricis mores sibi emit auro et purpura. In Epidicus Plautus also describes the appearance of cour-
tesans as heavily bejewelled: Tum meretricum numerus tantus, quantum in urbe omni fuit, obviam ornatae occurrebant suis quaeque
amatoribus, eos captabant (213-15); sed vestita, aurata, ornata ut lepide, ut concinne, ut nove (222). In Terence’s Self-Tormentor,
Bacchis has large amounts of gold and clothes carried by her servants: ancillas secum adduxit plus decem / oneratas veste atque
auro (449-53).
79  Propertius (4, 8, 39-40) describes the successor of Cynthia, previously a streetwalker, now brushing the ground with a golden
hem on her cloak. I thank Sharon James for pointing me out this citation. See also Keith 2008, 194, and Olson’s (2008, 84-85)
discussion about the ‘perils of jewellery’, which functions as a metonymy for the concepts of greed and sexual incontinence. For
the motif of greed, see also Davidson 1997, 209-10; on ‘greedy’ puella in Roman love elegy, see James 2003, 84-98. James notes
how the poets tendentiously and systematically ignore the financial pressures of survival that the courtesan faces, versifying this as
‘greed’, “depicting the gifts she requests as luxuries rather than necessities”. Among poets’ gifts to the elegiac puellae, just to take
one example of the rhetoric of gold, we have the verse of Propertius (1, 8, 39-40): “I did not persuade this girl with gold, nor Indian
pearls, but only with my sweet verses” (hanc ego non auro, non Indis flectere conchis); a good example of the elegiac discourse of
giving only poems as gifts instead of such material things, James 2003, 35 and passim.
80  Auri custos appears among the servants of a wealthy courtesan, guarding against theft. Plautus, Trinummus, 251-252.
 Furnishing the courtesan’s house 209

things to buy for a meretrix, a lost golden jewel that must be replaced (periit aurum).81 A passage in the first
epistle of Horace speaks of the habitual lament of a meretrix who weeps over her stolen jewels.
…nota refert meretricis acumina, saepe catellam, saepe periscelidem raptam sibi flentis.82
The two types of jewels that Horace mentions in this passage are those, in general, most closely as-
sociated with meretrices, the catella and the anklets, periscelides.83
The second type of jewel mentioned by Horace, the catella, is the long golden body chain that seems
to have a specific connection with (venal) sex.84 As Vincenzo Scarano Ussani has noted, golden body chains,
always worn crossed on the nude body, are present in a significant number of erotic images.85 A crossed
chain is visible also in the erotic scene on a bronze mirror lid found on the Esquiline (fig. 1). The interpreta-
tions of this female figure having varied from a courtesan to a sexually liberated ‘normal’ Roman matron,86
but as I have suggested above, the argument about gold and luxury objects does not, however, necessarily
apply only to matrons, and thus a courtesan might quite probably have been intended here.
The golden chains running around the flanks, and gold worn on the feet by the dominae are mentioned
in the often cited and enigmatic passage of Pliny (nat. 33, 40), which states that such jewels have become
the distinctive signs of a ‘middle class’ of women between matrons and the plebs.

discurrant catenae circa latera et in secreto margaritarum sacculi e collo dominarum auro pendeant, ut in
somno quoque unionum conscientia adsit: etiamne pedibus induetur atque inter stolam plebemque hunc me-
dium feminarum equestrem ordinem faciet?

Let women have … gold chains run at random round their waists; and let little bags of pearls hang invisible
suspended by gold from their lady owners’ neck, so that even in their sleep they may retain the consciousness
of possessing gems: but are even their feet to be shod with gold, and shall gold create this Order of Knighthood,
intermediate between the matron’s robe and the common people? (trans. H. Rackham)

Thus, according to Pliny, these bejewelled ‘middle class’ dominae did not have the right to wear the stola,
and consequently were not matrons, but were too well-off to belong to the plebs, either. The two types of

81 Plaut. Truc. 51-56.

82 Hor. epist. 1, 17, 55-56.
83  Fayer 2013, 438 and Vanoyeke 1990, 37 connect both bracelets and anklets with prostitution. Pietro Giovanni Guzzo has dis-
cussed amply the connections between anklets and prostitution, but presumes that, since they are extremely rare among archaeologi-
cal finds, common prostitutes would normally have worn perishable, perhaps leather anklets: Guzzo – Scarano Ussani 2000, 56-57.
84  In numerous iconographic sources, such chains are worn crossing on the breast, and on the back, hanging down to the waist,
always on a nude body, and never on top of clothing. We find this on several images of Venus and Cupids, and thus the visual allu-
sion of such jewellery, when worn on the body, would have been directly to the bejewelled nudity of Venus herself. For the catella
chain (necklace type A1) in Vesuvian wall painting, see d’Ambrosio – De Carolis – Guzzo 2007, 21; Guzzo – Scarano Ussani
2001, 993; Scarano Ussani 2005b, 88-100, fig. 24-39. For the ‘bejewelled nudity,’ see the seminal article of Bonfante 1989. Sex
without clothes, or in particular without the strophium, could be seen typical of meretrices, Deodato 2009, 314-15, Val. Max. 2, 1,
7; Plut. mor. 279 E. Also Trimalchio’s Fortunata, designed as an “ex-courtesan” by many signs in the text (contra Gloyn 2012, with
bibliography), wears a yellow cingillum chain/belt (Petron. 67, 4), that might refer to this ornament, and even golden anklets (67, 7).
85  In the apodyterium of Pompeian Suburban Baths (VII 16, B), such gold chains are visible in the cunnilingus scene, where the
elevated status of the woman is underlined both by her jewellery and her position. For the Suburban Baths, see Jacobelli 1995;
Guzzo – Scarano Ussani 2001, 59, cat. 59; tav. XXXVIII; Guzzo – Scarano Ussani 2009, 39, n. 22; Guzzo – Scarano Ussani 2000,
fig. p. 25; 27, and from the House of the Vettii VI 15, 1, cubiculum x’, west wall, d’Ambrosio – De Carolis – Guzzo 2007, cat. 493,
from VI 15, 1. The catella is visible also in one symplegma scene.
86  See above and n. 33. For a discussion of the mirror, see also the contribution of Sande in this volume. Jacobelli 2012, 420-
21, tends towards an interpretation in terms of ‘anonymous couples’ and standardized actions, not of prostitutes or hetairai. Molly
Myerowitz suggested seeing it as a “stereotypical scene of an aristocratic Roman couple”, because of the elaborate coiffeur and rich
jewels of the woman, Myerowitz 1992, 145.
210 Ria Berg

jewels Pliny refers to are exactly those with a meretrician connotation, catenae on the flanks and gold on the
feet, i.e. anklets. The third jewel mentioned – pearls kept in a bag around her neck in the night – recalls of
the prostitute’s worries about having her jewellery stolen. Perhaps the reference here, rather than to a class
of nouveau riche freedwomen, should be read as a reference to libertine dominae (in the sense of puellae).
The expression noster ordo, in contrast with matrons, is used also by lena in Plautus’ Cistellaria.87 Golden
jewels would thus be emblematic even of a certain amount of ‘class consciousness’ on the part of the ordo
of independent courtesans.
The most complete long golden catella in the Vesuvian area come from the villa of Boscoreale, and
from the so-called villa B of Oplontis (a commercial magazine complex) among the belongings of skeleton
n. 27, presumably a female.88 A more relevant case in this context is, however, the long and complete golden
catella found in a caupona, the river port hospitium complex of Murecine/Moregine near Pompeii (room
8).89 It was discovered among the belongings of the skeleton of a c. 30-year-old woman, who was found with
three younger and one older female individuals. Her belongings included golden semispherical bracelets, a
snake bracelet, and another with the inscription domnus ancillae suae on the inside.90 The bracelet with the
inscription has been the subject of lengthy discussions about the status of the ancilla, and the question of
who owned the gold.91 Vincenzo Scarano Ussani finds most likely that the gold is the peculium of a slave,
quite possibly a prostitute. I follow the interpretation of Scarano Ussani when he proposes a connection
between the place of the finding, a caupona, and the women searching shelter therein, perhaps those who
conducted of the establishment in the role of copa or lena.92 In any case, such a context is a caveat against
assuming that gold jewellery, as an archaeological find, would always be a straightforward indicator of elite
status.93
After this literary and iconographic digression, I will consider in this light one Pompeian find context:
a golden chain (fig. 8)94 found in the caupona/lupanar of Masculus (I 7, 13.14), near its entrance.95 The
building complex includes a thermopolium with a sales counter, flanked by two contiguous rooms (b-c),
a central court from which larger rooms and a kitchen are accessible (fig. 9). The bar counter was painted
with images, of which only photographs remain (fig. 10): At the centre of the outer surface of the desk, there
was an image of Priapus, flanked by phalli in the form of lions.96 This has brought the establishment onto
the lists of possible lupanaria compiled by Guzzo and McGinn, although both scholars conclude that there

87 Plaut. Cist. 33, cf. 23. Fantham 2011, 158; James 2012a, 431.
88  D’Ambrosio – De Carolis 1997, 24, 65-66; Avvisati 2012, 18-19.
89  Guzzo 2005, 20-21, plan of the complex of four cauponae, fig. 4.
90  Scarano Ussani 2005b, 78-85, figg. 1-18.
91  In short, the main positions are the following: the bracelet and the whole set of jewellery is 1) a love gift of a master to his
female slave (a peculium technically remaining in the possession of the dominus), 2) a love gift of a former master to her liberta
(oddly still addressing her as ancilla, slave), or 3) an instrumentum meretricii, a parure in professional use of the slave prostitute and
owned by the master. For the discussion, see Guzzo – Scarano Ussani 2001; Scarano Ussani 2003; Costabile 2005 and Scarano
Ussani 2005b. The latter also notes (103-4) that inscriptions on bracelets, in general, are rare. An exception would be the inscription
mentioning Corilia Nymphe, probably a freedwoman (CIL X 8071, 1).
92  Scarano Ussani 2005b, 103-4.
93  For example, in the analysis of the typology of Vesuvian jewelry by Antonio d’Ambrosio, it is assumed a priori that wearing
precious jewelry is limited to upper social classes, “riferibile… a classi sociali elevati”, see d’Ambrosio 2009, 293. Fayer (2013,
454) repeats this idea of jewels as a privilege of the élite: “profumi e gioielli costituivano un lusso riservato ad una ricca élite.”
94  D’Ambrosio – De Carolis 1997, 36, cat. 33, 70, 85.
95 Kleberg 1957, 40; Della Corte 1965³, 319-20; PPM 1, 728-29; Wallace-Hadrill 1995, 61, n. 72; Eschebach – Müller-
Trollius 1993, 41; Tassinari 1993, I, 131; II, 367; Stefani 2005, 101; Ellis 2005, 251-54.
96  We cannot take up here the much-debated question whether explicit sexual images should always be read as indications of
mercenary sex, risking “overeagerness to identify locations as a brothel on the basis of erotic art”, see McGinn 2004, 182. Guzzo –
 Furnishing the courtesan’s house 211

is no compelling evidence for identifying it as

such.97
The fragmented chain found in the es-
tablishment is made in simple loop-in-loop
technique, and consists of two parts united
with a lock, with the total length of 121 cm.
The chain is not of refined workmanship,
but its length suggests that we should group
it with catellae.98 This was not the only gold
item found in the establishment. In the small
Fig. 8: Gold chain from the caupona/lupanar of Masculus (I 7, 13.14), ‘retrobottega’ b, a modest room with signs of
Pompeii, inv. P7471 (source d’Ambrosio – De Carolis 1997, 33, cat. shelving on the walls, recognized either as a
33, tav. IV).
cella meretricia or a storeroom,99 were found
a bronze mirror, a glass unguentarium, a lead pyxis and two gold rings.100
The presence of a woman with such a gold body chain and simple female cosmetic implements in this
caupona raises, again, questions. In this case, I think, it could be read as an indication, besides the phallic
paintings and graffiti, that the Caupona of Masculus was functional in some form of prostitution, possibly
of slightly more elevated status than the servile lupanar. The exact status of the persons who owned, ran and
frequented it is, of course, impossible to define. This is one example of a contradiction between a modest,
mercantile architectonic complex that has produced a golden luxury object, normally considered a matronly
status symbol. It seems certain that the woman wearing the chain in this inn was not an elite matron; whether
she was involved in venal sex (as the copa or an ancilla) remains hypothetical.
I have already discussed elsewhere another case of a Pompeian caupona-lupanar in which a sig-
nificant quantity of female toiletries, including silver bracelets decorated with phalli, were found: the
house of Aurunculeius Secundio (VI 16, 32.33).101 Here too, the phallic paintings on the thermopolium
counter have suggested that the establishment may have been a lupanar.102 The findings of the house
include a relatively high number of female toiletries, a decorated bronze pyxis, jewels, and bronze ves-
sels for ablutions. Here, gold was present only in the form of a woven gold band, possibly belonging
to a headdress.
In conclusion, golden jewels, as archaeological finds do not mark exclusively aristocratic status. To
interpret their meaning, also the type, the quality of workmanship, and the find context must be carefully

Scarano Ussani 2000 demonstrate the tendency to explicit sexual representations in the context of a brothel; for the question, more
broadly, see McGinn 2004, 15-19, 112-19.
97 Vedi Stefani 2005, fig. p. 101. Guzzo – Scarano Ussani 2009, 29-30, Cat. 4; McGinn 2002, 37-38, Cat. 3. For the difficulties of
distinguishing between caupona and lupanar, in general, see McGinn 2002, 12; 2004, 8; Guzzo – Scarano Ussani 2009, 21, Fayer
2013, 464; for cauponae as loci for commercial sex, Fayer 2013, 491-516. The name Masculus appeared three times on the façade
of this caupona. This name was once associated with a group of codati, which is also a phallic epithet in Latin sexual vocabulary.
The connection of the establishment with sexual activities is thus strongly underlined.
98  d’Ambrosio – De Carolis 1997, 33, contra, suggest it would have been worn as a necklace in various coils.
99  Ellis 2005, 253.
100  Giornale di scavo: 27 February 1936 (Manuscript in the Archaeological deposit rooms of Pompeii, Casa Bacco).
101  Berg (forthcoming); Berg 2010a, 277-81. Silver jewellery has been found also in Athens Kerameikos building Z, identified as
a brothel, in rooms Aa, F and K, see Glazebrook 2011, 43; Davidson 1998, 85-86.
102  McGinn 2002, 39, n. 15; McGinn 2004 276, n. 15; Guzzo – Scarano Ussani 2009, 39.
212 Ria Berg

Fig. 9: Plan of the caupona/lupanar of Fig. 10: Selling counter of the caupona/lupanar of Masculus I, 7, 13.14, (from Stefani
Masculus (from PPM). 2005, 101).

considered. In particular, the golden body chains have a strong connotation with the ordo of well-to-do
courtesans.

Real estate and interior design

The house of Corinthian Lais, at whose door all Greece lay, was not so full of men; the house of Menander’s
Thais, with whom Erichthonius’s people entertained themselves, long ago, was not so crowded, nor was Phryne
enriched by so many men, and she could rebuild Thebes after it was thrown down.103

Finally, I discuss the spatial container of courtesan’s belongings, the house. As defined by Stephen Harrison,
the ‘default location’ of Roman love elegy is “a private residence of some kind… the key events in the life
of love are enacted in a Roman house.”104 Sharon James has stated that the docta puella “seems most of
the time to run her own household: she owns various slaves and has the power to lock out her versifying
suitors.”105 In the above passage, Propertius directly compares Cynthia’s house (aedes) to the impressive
houses of the most famous and rich Hellenistic hetairai, Lais, Thais and Phryne.106
The Roman courtesan could evidently be imagined to own a house, to be the domina not only as the
mistress of her amator, but also of a household comprising a domus and servants.107 The word domus is
used frequently of the habitations of the most successful courtesans, as exemplified by Propertius, who uses

103  Prop. 2, 6, 1-4. Non ita complebant Ephyraeae Laidos aedis / ad cuius iacuit Graecia tota fores; / turba Menandreae fuerat
nec Thaidos olim / tanta, in qua populus lusit Erichthonius; / nec quae deletas potuit componere Thebas, / Phryne tam multis facta
beata viris.
104  Harrison 2013, 144.
105  James 2003, 37.
106  The houses of famous Hellenistic courtesans were clearly imitated by Roman courtesans. Another notable example of a real-
estate owning hetaira was Myrtion, the mistress of Ptolemy II, who, according to Polybius, lived in one of Alexandria’s most beau-
tiful houses, as did two of her colleagues: “And are not the most splendid houses there those which go by the names of Murtium,
Mnesis, and Pothine? And yet Mnesis was a flute-girl, as was Pothine, and Murtium was a public prostitute”, Polyb. 14, 11, 2-3,
quoted in Athenaeus 13, 576e. Among the most celebrated houses is that of Theodote, where she lives with her mother, impressing
Socrates with its luxurious spaces and furnishings (Xen. Mem. 3, 11, 4-5), and numerous maidservants.
107  Prop. 4, 8: Cynthia is described as having numerous servants, old and young, Lalage and Petale, Partenie her old nutrix, Latris,
an ornatrix, who holds up the mirror. In a long list of desiderata in Plautus’ Trinummus (250-51), a courtesan’s servants are men-
tioned: the guardian of gold, the carrier of chests and sandals, holders of fans, messengers (nox datur, ducitur familia tota: vestiplica,
unctor, auri custos, flabelliferae, sandaligerulae, cantrices, cistellatrices, nuntii, renuntii).
 Furnishing the courtesan’s house 213

persuasion to urge a woman to choose him as his boyfriend: “Your house (domus) would be fortunate, if you
would have a faithful friend”.108 Of course, a domus inhabited by a courtesan would not necessarily be in her
ownership, it could also belong to a leno or a vir,109 but according to literary sources, a gift of the dives ama-
tor to the puella might even consist of real estate, houses, fundi and villae.110 These were exactly the kind of
gifts that the fathers of prodigal sons feared most, since they were capable of ruining family economies.111
Horace, for example, mentions an actress named Origo, to whom her vir donates the house of his father and
a fundus in the countryside:

ut quondam Marsaeus, amator Originis ille

qui patrium mimae donat fundumque laremque.112

Like Marsaeus, lover of Origo,

who to that mime actress donated his paternal estate and homestead.

A central emblem of the elegiac puella courtesan is in fact the house-door that she herself controls, deciding to
whom to open it, and before whom to keep it closed – the famous door that must be knocked on with a well-
filled hand.113 In fact, the house itself is described rather rarely, the door standing as its pars pro toto.114 So it is
also with the elegiac figure of Cynthia, whose housing is referred to in Propertius’ verses. Although Cynthia has
earlier been living modestly in Subura, later in her life she seems to be stationed in a domus, with an imposing
door, situated in a more aristocratic zone; her door is the narrator of elegy 1, 16.115 In the first verses, the door,
currently offended by the drunken nightly quarreling of its mistress’ suitors and lovers, recalls its former glory:

Quae fueram magnis olim patefacta triumphis,

ianua Patriciae vota Pudicitiae,
cuius inaurati celebrarunt limina currus,
captorum lacrimis umida supplicibus (Prop. 1, 16).116

108  Prop. 3, 20: fortunata domus, modo sit tibi fidus amicus. Cf. James 2006, 226. On the elegiac domus, see Gardner 2010.
109  A house owned by a pimp could evidently have differently furnished rooms for clients of different status: In Plautus’ Pseudo-
lus, the pimp Ballio threatens his elegant high-earners with being demoted to the pergula, evidently a low-status cell (214; 229). I
thank Sharon James for this citation.
110  In fact, the first land-owning courtesan of Latin legend is Acca Larentia, who, according to Cato, left her landed properties
(agros) in inheritance to the people of Rome, after having become rich by prostitution: meretricio questu locupletata, Aulus Gellius
NA 7, 7; Cato apud Macr. Sat. 1, 10, 16. See also the account of Plut. Sulla 2, 4: “He began by loving a common, but wealthy woman,
Nicopolis by name … and was left her heir when she died.”
111  For legal problems of inheritance, prostitutes and the prodigal son, see McGinn 1998, 322-24; more in general for meretrix as
a threat to the patrimony of an adulescens luxuriosus, Herter 1957, 1164-65.
112 Hor. sat. 1, 2, 55-59.
113  Tib. 1, 5, 68: ianua sed plena est percutienda manu. An early case is related by Aulus Gellius NA 4, 14, documenting a law-
suit against the meretrix Manilia, who had refused to open the door to Hostilius Mancinus, a drunken aedile, who had come to her
house (ad aedes suas).
114  It is unimaginable that the nightly brawling, singing and knocking on doors, and the hanging of garlands could have possibly
taken place in front of an elite house, addressed to a daughter or a wife, and lupanaria scarcely closed their doors in front of potential
customers. For the passages of Ovid describing the hardness of the door, the threshold, the door’s guard, see James 2003, 127; on
paraclausithyron in general, James 2003, 136-41; on the topos of an assault of a courtesan’s house and the breaking down of its
door, James 2003, 196.
115  Cynthia lived earlier on in Subura vigilax, Suburra ‘that-never-sleeps’ (Prop. 4, 7, 15-16), and in the elegy in which Cynthia
speaks from beyond the grave, she recalls their clandestine encounters there. One of their later encounters takes place in a suburban
villa in Tivoli, where she summons him at midnight (Prop. 3, 16, 1-2). Whose is the villa? The question remains open. Propertius
also gives some information on the living quarters of Cynthia’s lower-status rivals, like Phyllis who lives near the temple of Diana
on the Aventine (4, 8, 30-32).
116  The translations are by the author, if not otherwise specified.
214 Ria Berg

I, door, that once was opened for grand triumphs,

and was dedicated to Pudicitia Patricia,
the threshold of which was frequented by golden carriages,
and moistened by the tears of supplicant captives.

The door and house thus formerly belonged to an elite dominus who had won military triumphs, and
a chaste patrician materfamilias.117 In short, the house would be situated in elite surroundings: Cynthia, or
any courtesan, could plausibly occupy an elite domus that had changed proprietor, visitors and function, but
not its appearance and form.
Many Plautine comedies are set in front of a domus meretricia, where meretrices live either in-
dependently, with their mother, contractual vir or the pimp, as next-door neighbours to other protago-
nists. In appearance, their houses do not seem to differ from the others.118 Elaine Fantham has defined
the door as the most central element of the play on stage in Truculentus, where its principal occupant,
the courtesan Phronesium, triumphs in the course of the plot.119 In Menaechmi, the courtesan Erotium,
when leaving her house, gives instructions to her slave to “Leave the doors open… I don’t want them
shut”, in an evident gesture of open invitation.120 The courtesan’s door was also a sort of sign board:
Cynthia’s door, as narrated by Propertius, displays garlands left by lovers and torches left as memen-
toes by exclusi amatores. An interesting detail in Asinaria describes how a courtesan-on-contract is
obliged to write a sign at her door noting that she is occupied; her door must be closed for everyone
but the contractual vir.121
The door, thus, becomes a means of communication of professional success, of the available or non-
available status of its proprietor, and finally a strong metaphor for the courtesan’s body, and its relative
independence.
In historical narrative, a prime example of a courtesan with independent housing in late Republican
Rome is the imposing figure of Chelidon, the beloved of Verres, the ill-famed proconsul of Sicily. Cicero, in
his speech against Verres, makes strong accusations about his private life-style and morality, exemplified by
his publicly visible relationship with a free courtesan while he held the office of praetor. Cicero insists on the
character of his amours as ‘domestic prostitution’, domesticum lenocinium, and that he not only frequented,
but permanently lived with prostitutes and pimps, cum meretricibus lenonibusque vixisset.122 The meretri-
cian house in question would not be his, but that of Chelidon, who lived and operated in her own premises,

117  Opting for the correction Patricia Pudicitia instead of the problematic Tarpeian pudicitia, which is to be understood as ironic,
since Tarpeia was the Vestal who opened the doors to Sabine soldiers in exchange for golden bracelets. The cult of Pudicitia Patricia
was open only to patrician univirae.
118  For example, in Plaut. Eunuchus 382. Fayer 2013, 36 also presents the possibility of cohabitation in his or her house, or the
case of a girl in Plautus’ Asinaria, who, with an annual contract, continues to live in her mother’s house. Livy’s Hispala Faecenia,
the heroine of the Bacchanal scandal, is the next-door neighbour of her lover, Aebutius, Liv. 39, 9, 6.
119  Fantham 2000, 147: “In fact Astaphium is the mistress of ceremonies, the doorkeeper who controls the comings and goings of
the play. Like those odd little weather houses, Phronesium’s house is one into which one figure is expelled as another is admitted:
the stage street is more of an antechamber for her clients than a public thoroughfare, and virtually everyone who comes on stage is
hoping to enter her house or reluctantly leaving”. At the beginning of the play Phronesium’s servant girl, going out from their house
(aedes), leaves instructions to the doorkeeper to ensure that visitors do not enter with empty hands and leave with hands full (of
objects stolen from the house). Plaut. Truc. 51-56.
120 Plaut. Men. 351.
121 Plaut. Asin. 759-60: fores occlusae omnibus sint nisi tibi / in foribus scribat occupatam esse se. Discussed in James 2006, 229.
122 Cic. Verr. II, 1, 101; 3, 6. For the figure of Chelidon and the use made of her figure in the political rhetoric of Cicero, see par-
ticularly McCoy 2006, 178-80, and Keith, in the present volume.
 Furnishing the courtesan’s house 215

which are repeatedly referred to by Cicero with the word domus.123 In this courtesan’s house, domus mer-
etricis, according to Cicero’s accusations, even the clients of Verres were introduced, to pay homage and to
conduct official business and legal transactions:

Itaque non modo a domo tua Chelidonem in praetura excludere noluisti, sed in Chelidonis domum praeturam
totam detulisti. Cic. Verr. II, 5, 38.

So far from forbidding Chelidon your house during your year of office, you transferred your office to the house
of Chelidon.124

He also elaborates on the shame forced on respectable citizens who were obliged to enter the house of a
prostitute, meretricis domus:

Ut omittam cetera, quo tandem pudore talis viros, quo dolore meretricis domum venisse arbitramini? … Ve-
niunt, ut dico, ad Chelidonem. Domus erat plena; nova iura, nova decreta, nova iudicia petebantur. … Alii
nummos numerabant, ab aliis tabellae obsignabantur; domus erat non meretricio conventu sed praetoria turba
referta. Cic. Verr. II, 1, 137.

Leaving out the rest, with what shame, with what indignation do you think that such men as these went to the
house of a prostitute? … They went, as I have said, to meet Chelidon. Her house was full: decisions, judge-
ments, methods of procedure – none ever heard before – were being applied for … Some were paying her cash,
others were signing promissory notes: the house was filled, not with a prostitute’s visitors, but with the crowd
that attends a praetor’s court.

Here, the insistently repetitive use of the word domus seems to indicate that the house had a canoni-
cal layout designed for the representative receiving of guests, and that it could have been an ordinary elite
townhouse. As McGinn notes, even the Roman lower class brothels tended to blend quite indiscriminately
into the urban housing stock, and many primarily pursued some other business, such as the sale of food
and drink.125 The more we approach the top of the iceberg, the more mimetic would both the architectonic
framework and the neighbourhood of mercenary sex be.
After her death, Chelidon left the domus, complete with its luxurious furniture (including a gilded
candelabrum) to Verres, who transported at least a part of the objects to his own house.126 In fact, a courte-
san’s house would be distinguished not so much by its layout as by its mobile furniture. Here we return to
the topic of the previous chapter, the convivial equipment. In Plautus’ Menaechmi, the meretrix Erotium
is shown as consciously creating in her house a perfect setting for a convivium: in order to attract spend-
thrift lovers, the house must be distinguished by its cleanness (munditia) and all comforts (amoenitas).127
The servant Lydus harshly criticizes this house, which is furnished in the most luxurious and opulent way
(instructa opime atque opipare) in order to lead the visitors to ruin, comparing its door to that of Orcus –

123 Cic. Verr. II 1, 104; 1, 136-137; 4, 7; 4, 83. For further discussion of the passages, McCoy 2006, 179-81, and Keith in this
volume.
124  The translations of the Verrine orations are by L.G.H. Greenwood, with some modifications.
125  McGinn 2004, 234; 2006.
126 Cic. Verr. II, 2, 116: tibi illo ipso anno a Chelidone venisset hereditas; Cic. Verr. II, 4, 71: Verresne habebit domi suae candela-
brum Iovis e gemmis auroque perfectum? cuius fulgore conlucere atque inlustrari Iovis Optimi Maximi templum oportebat, id apud
istum in eius modi conviviis constituetur, quae domesticis stupris flagitiisque flagrabunt? in istius lenonis turpissimi domo simul cum
ceteris Chelidonis hereditariis ornamentis Capitoli ornamenta ponentur?
127 Plaut. Men. 354-56.
216 Ria Berg

all that enter must abandon all hope to ‘remain

gentlemen’.128 Yet Erotium’s words emphasize
that the furnishings have been arranged accord-
ing to the specific wishes of the vir: “this house
is more home to you than your own, everything
is ready, just as you ordered, just as you wanted
it”.129 When we speak of rich mobile furnish-
ings, we must also remember the courtesans’
fear of theft: in the play Truculentus, instruc-
tions are given to guard the door well, because
of bands of young men who are in the habit of
looting the houses of meretrices.130
To try a mapping of Pompeian houses
with such characteristics remains impossible,
both because of the ambivalence of the evidence
and, above all, because of the incomplete state Fig. 11: Plan of the House of the Beautiful Impluvium (I 9, 1.2),
Pompeii (from PPM).
of documentation of the finds from the houses.
In the last part of this chapter, I will propose three Pompeian houses as candidates for ‘courtesan’s houses’.
The first is the House of the Beautiful Impluvium I 9, 1.2 (fig. 11).131 This small atrium house was mentioned
above because of an annexed taberna, in which elements of five water basins were found, a record among
Pompeian houses.132 It has earlier been included in the catalogues of possible brothels,133 because it has
one central cubiculum (11), decorated with an erotic painting showing a couple half-reclined on a bed, the
woman wearing a yellow mantle; a prelude to an amorous encounter (fig. 12).134 The cubiculum, opening on
the left side of the atrium, is the most central and lavishly decorated of the house. The current interpretations
have suggested that this was the bedroom of the patronus, who simply delighted in having such a painting,
or prostituted a slave there.135 The latter hypothesis is not truly compatible with the central position of the
room, which is the most visible cubiculum of the house. Therefore, McGinn has proposed that some kind of
sodalitas or a private ‘sex club’ met in the house.136
There are no concrete elements that entitle us to prefer any one of these explanations. I therefore sug-
gest that also a fourth possible reading should be considered, even if it remains just as hypothetical as the
others that have been proposed. Instead of a dominus ordering the painting of the erotic image, this may have
been done by a domina of the house.137

128 Plaut. Men. 373. The house was excavated first in 1916 and then in 1954.
129 Plaut. Men. 363-65. On similar arrangements in Baroque Rome, with the patron choosing and paying furniture for the courte-
san’s house, see Storey 2006, 34-35.
130 Plaut. Truc. 95-111.
131  Eschebach – Müller-Trollius 1993, 48; NSc 1912, 401; 405; 443; 1913, 28; 34-35; 56.
132  The excavation history of the house unfortunately leaves the exact amount and location of finds unclear, as the excavations in
1951 and 1952 were speedy and have remained unpublished. See Berry.
133  Guzzo – Scarano Ussani 2000, 27; Guzzo – Scarano Ussani 2009. 31, cat. 6; McGinn 2004, 163.
134  PPM 1, 1990, 919-41. Clarke 1998, 150, fig. 49. The image shows an elaborate bed: a man is reclining with the gesture of the
raised hand behind the neck, a woman, letting her shoes drop, is embracing the man.
135  Anguissola 2010, 103-4.
136  McGinn 2004, 163-65 and map 5 of possible ‘sex clubs’ in Pompeii.
137  We must, however, bear in mind that the pictures refer to some decades earlier, to the III style decoration phase of the house.
 Furnishing the courtesan’s house 217

Literary sources mentioning erotic painting in

courtesans’ houses are relatively numerous. An ek-
phrasis of an erotic painting in a courtesan’s house
(representing the encounter between Jupiter and Da-
naë), appears in Terentius’ Eunuchus.138 In Plautus’
Asinaria, a contract is proposed to a courtesan, de-
manding her exclusivity up to matronly chastity, and
among the details of the contract is the requirement
to get rid of all the erotic paintings in her house.139
In Propertius’ poem 2, 6 the poet compares the house
of Cynthia to those of famous Hellenistic courtesans
and lists among things that cause jealousy in him the
erotic paintings that corrupt the girl’s eyes.140
Also the finds of the house, even if only par-
tially conserved, included some important items of
Fig. 12: Wall-painting from the house of the Beautiful Implu- female toiletry and adornment.141 Among these were
vium, room 11 (From Guzzo – Scarano-Ussani 2000, 43).
a relief decorated silver mirror (inv. 8359) and a cou-
ple of heavy golden bracelets composed of half-spherical elements (inv. 8348-49). Such bracelets have
convincingly been reinterpreted by Gesa Schenke as anklets, because of their length, weight, and the locking
mechanism, and would thus not be typical matronly jewels.142 The silver mirror is of the type decorated with
a handle in form of clava and leonté of Hercules, possibly alluding to the figure of Omphale enslaving the
hero with her beauty.
Joan Berry, analysing the whole complex of finds of the House of the Beautiful Impluvium as a case
study, concludes that the house was quite probably inhabited at the moment of eruption, and “the uncovered
artefacts represent a range of domestic activities, including dining and dicing, toilet activities and personal
adornment”.143 It is to be noted that the underlined occupations are quite central to the courtesan’s arts,
which, together with the presence of the erotic painting, affirm the house on the list of possible ‘courtesans’
houses’.
Besides erotic paintings, another category of possible decoration in houses active in venal sex are the
sculpted or painted Venus-figures.144 Statues of Venus, both as patron deities and portraits of the domina,

138 Ter. Eun. 583-85: The youth Chaerea is in love with the servant girl of the courtesan Thais, Pamphila, and visits her while she
is being prepared for a bath in her room (conclave). They both admire the wall-painting; the picture moves Chaerea to rape the girl.
The passage is famously analysed by Ginzburg 1978. Cf. Anguissola 2010, 55. On Danaë as a veritable emblem of Renaissance
courtesans, often present in their houses in form of a painting, see Santore 1991, 412.
139 Plaut. Asin. 763-766. James 2006, 229. The contract stipulates that if she has not sold them in four days, counting from the
payment, he can destroy them.
140  v. 9. In the following passage, Propertius develops a more articulate attack against erotic painting in general. The reader may
presume that this springs from something seen in Cynthia’s house (vv. 27-34). He curses the one who corrupted the girl’s eyes,
puellarum ingenuos corrumpit ocellos, and has depicted foul faces in a ‘chaste house’, posuit casta turpia visa domo.
141  Giornale degli scavi, 22 dicembre 1951 (manuscript, Casa Bacco). The most important concentration of finds in the house,
including the most valuable items, was found in a cupboard in the atrium. Castiglione Morelli – Vitale 1989; Berry 2007, Berg
2010, 185-87.
142  Schenke 2003, 48.
143  Berry 2007, 297-99.
144  Courtesans themselves often posed as models for statues of Aphrodite. According to Pliny (nat. 35, 119), the Roman painter
Arellius often depicted his mistresses: for reference, see Myerowitz 1992, 137-38; McGinn 2004, 131. A portrait of Flora, mistress
218 Ria Berg

can be seen as probable objects contained in courtesan’s houses. A significant Roman literary parallel is
Cynthia’s golden statue in her house, presumably in the guise of Venus.145 Images of Priapus seem to be
more directly connected with servile lupanaria: In the story of Apollonius king of Tyre, the girl Tarsi is sold
into a brothel, and the text describes a room there, decorated with a golden Priapus set with gems. McGinn
comments that Priapus is thus the ‘icon’ of brothels; there is also an example from the Pompeian purpose-
built lupanar.146
Finally, two small Pompeian houses, modest in size, but distinguished by numerous cosmetic utensils,
are also connotated by well visible Venus statuettes: the House of Venus in Bikini and the House of the Fla-
men. The House of Venus in Bikini (I 11, 6) presented a gilded Venus statue exceptionally set in the atrium
on a pedestal, and flanked by a Priapus, Eros, and a Hermaphrodite. The entrance fauces of the house was
decorated with two female portrait tondi, of the type discussed by Richard Neudecker in this volume. The
house also contained a pair of golden bracelets or anklets composed of half-spherical elements (inv. 10759
A-B), and an exceptionally numerous collection of toiletry items.147 The House of the Flamen (V 4, 3) like-
wise stands out for the quantity of cosmetic utensils preserved in the house, and contained a marble Venus
Anadyomene statue.148 In Pompeii, Venus statuettes have been found in a prominent position in a number
of small houses more clearly connected with lower class prostitution. One of the largest domestic Venus
statues comes from a garden niche in the caupona/lupanar of Demetrius and Helpis Afra (I 2, 17.19);149 a
Venus statuette was also found in the caupona of Euxinus and Iustus, identified as a possible lupanar (I, 11,
10.12);150 the caupona/lupanar of IX 7, 26 had a mosaic Venus in the garden,151 and the caupona/lupanar
VII 9, 29.34 had a painting of Venus and Mars in the garden.152
In sum, houses owned by courtesans are a commonplace in Greek and Latin literature. Among their
furnishings, luxurious banquet equipment, erotic paintings and images of Venus seem to be the most distinc-
tive elements.

Conclusion

The fact that prostitution is always fundamentally a phenomenon of violence and oppression is not in con-
flict with the idea that the world of venal sex can, however, also be strongly stratified in different statuses
and material living conditions. Considering the wealth of information that points to the existence of also
independent female (and male) prostitutes of various statuses in the Roman world, archaeological domestic

of Pompey, could be seen at the temple of the Dioscuri (Plut. Pomp. 2, 4). On the courtesan sculptures in Roman public space, an
overview is provided in Siri Sande’s contribution in the present volume. For Greek hetairai in art, see McClure 2003, 153. Pausias
painted Glycera, Aristeides painted Leontion, who was the mistress of Metrodorus and a pupil of Epicurus. For Phryne, as a crafted
work of art, see Rosenmeyer. Many of the Magna Graecian poetess Nossis’ epigrams depict statue-portraits of hetairai, in part.
Anth. Pal. 6, 275 on a statue of Aphrodite dedicated by a courtesan: “Let us go to Aphrodite’s temple to see her statue, / how finely
it is embellished with gold. / Polyarchis dedicated it, having made a great fortune / out of the splendor of her own body.” See further
Gutzwiller 1998, 74-84.
145  Prop. 4, 7, 47-48.
146  Hist. Apoll. 33. McGinn 2004, 288.
147  Mileti, 2000, in part. 109-10; 115-16; Inserra 2008, 52-54; Berg 2010, 203-6. For the bronzes, Tassinari 1993, I, 146-47.
148 Berg 2010, 255-60; Berg (forthcoming). NSc 1899, 144-45, 340-43; NSc 1901, 258-59; RM 16, 1901, 317-25. For the statue,
Carrella 2008, 79-80. For the bronzes, Tassinari 1993, I, 169-70; II, 471-72.
149  Guzzo – Scarano Ussani 2009, 28-29, cat. 1; McGinn 2004, 270, cat. 1.
150  Guzzo – Scarano Ussani 2009, 32, cat. 10; McGinn 2004, 285, cat. 39.
151  Guzzo – Scarano Ussani 2009, 56, cat. 55; McGinn 2004, 271-72, cat. 7.
152  Guzzo – Scarano Ussani 2009, 43-44, cat. 34; McGinn 2004, 279, cat. 24.
 Furnishing the courtesan’s house 219

contexts should undergo a specific analysis in order to find material traits pertinent to such a phenomenon.
This essay constitutes a preliminary approach to such an analysis.
The lowest social strata of prostitution are clearly defined by some architectonic features, but the
few known purpose-built brothels are sparsely furnished, leaving as the best candidate for a ‘fossile guida’
anomalously high quantities of lamps or suspended lamps with phallic imagery, and possibly also simple
cosmetic implements and phallic amulets.
Prostitution with a higher social standing is less evident in structural features, but is culturally more
intimately entwined with mobile objects; this may result in more complex artefact patterns. Independent
meretrices, both narrated and depicted, were archetypes of uninhibited consumerism, and associated with
greed, vanity and luxury. The Esquiline mirror-cover depicting a couple on a luxurious bed, which we have
mentioned several times, is emblematic in its depiction in minute detail, with a voyeuristic, almost ‘porno-
graphic’ curiosity of the objects surrounding the scene: the relief-decorated water basin and the jug, the bed
with turned bronze feet, veneered with miniature images, the draperies of the bed-linen, the erotic painting
on the wall, the foot-stool for the slippers, and the decorated basket suspended above (or a pyxis, often pro-
vided with bronze chains for hanging). It is obvious that the figure of the courtesan is meticulously created
and defined through her juxtaposition with these objects. It is here that the theory of the ‘objects’ agency’
enters into action, with the multiple semantic levels on which objects communicate, signify and define elite
prostitution.
First, objects as gifts are comparable with aristocratic gift exchange, and they can be read as em-
blems of distinction of the class of free courtesans who received euphemistic presents in exchange for their
favours instead of money.153 Second, there is the discourse of objectifying the woman herself, making her
just another entry on the list of luxury commodities, or piece in the collection of beautiful objects of the
amator, showing his wealth, taste and class. As Leslie Kurke has noted: “As such, the women functioned
as so much sympotic furniture, like the couches and the pillows – objects to serve the needs of the male
symposiasts and create a certain atmosphere.”154 A third reading sees the luxury objects as expressions of
the courtesan’s agency, representing a collection of her lovers, expressing the success, career, and ability of
the woman, as a courtesan.155 The courtesan herself could be creating her performances of the phantasy of
sex, also by creating material contexts and environments of real or fake luxury, where the final commercial
product is the whole convivium, with all its personae, recitals and trappings.156 The constructive elements
and instruments of such a performance would be constructed spaces, manners, gestures, and above all, sets
of material objects.
The association between upper-class prostitution, luxury objects and furnishings is a literary topos,
but it is far from evident as an archaeological interpretation. In this paper, some types of objects have been
proposed as possible indicators of elite prostitution. First, the case of bronze basins and jugs was examined,
since sets of bathing vessels are strongly connected with ‘immoral’ uses of water in literature and iconogra-
phy. Similarly, in literature, the connotation of courtesans with gold is constant. Besides these, glass unguen-

153  Kurke 1997, 113.

154  Kurke 1999, 186.
155  Storey 2006, 26. “I mobili e gli arredi contribuivano non solo alla “mise en scène” complessiva, ma attraverso gli oggetti
esposti in casa – fossero questi regalati dai client, o acquistati o affittati dalla cortigiana stessa – si poteva leggere lo status dei suoi
visitatori e capire quanto la donna fosse ricercata e alla moda.” The scholar asks whether the atmosphere created by furniture mir-
rored the courtesan or the patron, noting that the relation between the objects of the courtesan is so close that it is difficult to know
whether they are telling us about him or about her.
156  Dunbabin 2003, 22.
220 Ria Berg

taria, magical/erotic amulets, erotic paintings and statues of Venus were considered as possible indicators of
non-servile prostitution connected with the hospitality business.
Courtesans are known to have lived in houses furnished for banqueting and decorated with erotic
paintings, yet they have not been considered among the putative owners of such houses in Pompeii. In con-
clusion, six houses have been proposed in this chapter as possible courtesans’ houses – combining quanti-
tatively and qualitatively above-average sets for convivial dining and cosmetic uses, with relatively modest
architectonic settings: the House/caupona of Masculus (I 7, 13.14), the House of the Beautiful Impluvium (I
9, 1.2), the House of Venus in Bikini (I 11, 6), the House V 3, 11, the House of the Flamen (V 4, 3) and the
House with caupona of Aurunculeius Secundio (VI 16, 32.33).157

157  I am grateful to Sharon L. James, Katariina Mustakallio, Richard Neudecker and Antonio Varone, who have read, commented
and discussed earlier versions of the text, and to anonymous readers for important comments; all remaining mistakes are my own.
 Prostitutes and entertainers at Rome.
Did they leave memories of themselves?

Siri Sande

The question as to whether Roman prostitutes and entertainers left memories of themselves, cannot be an-
swered without references to the great Greek hetairai, who did leave such memories.1 Athenaeus’ Deipnoso-
phistes gives an account of monuments commemorating prostitutes. The monuments fall into two types:
dedications in sanctuaries and funerary monuments. Of the first, Phryne’s statue in Delphi was the most
famous. It was in gilt bronze and was said to have been made by the sculptor Praxiteles, allegedly one of
Phryne’s lovers.2 She was reported to have served as a model for the famous Knidian Aphrodite, and it has
been suggested that the statue in Delphi, which stood on a pillar, represented Phryne nude like a second
Aphrodite. This is unlikely, however. The statue was furnished with a plaque saying: “Phryne, daughter of
Epicles of Thespiae”. This shows that the statue was an ordinary portrait statue, the base of which generally
gives the woman’s family connections (daughter, wife etc.), and place of origin. The only revealing feature
would have been her name (her real name was said to have been Mnesarete), since names relating to the
animal world were often chosen by prostitutes as their nom de guerre.
Judging from other female portrait statues of the fourth century, Phryne’s statue will have presented a
conventional beauty without individual features, and a fully clothed body. Indeed, Phryne’s body may have
been more covered than most, since one of the marks of the great hetairai was their inaccessibility to all but
the chosen few. When they went out, they could even be veiled.3
Phryne’s ‘invisibility’ probably lies at the root of some of the anecdotes told about her. When she
undressed and went into the sea on the occasion of the festival of the Eleusinia, she reportedly inspired
the painter Apelles for his Aphrodite Anadyomene. More famous is the story of how the orator Hypereides
bared her breasts during a trial when she was persecuted for a capital charge. According to another account,
Phryne clasped the hands of the judges one by one, looking at them with tears in her eyes. This last method
is likely to have been more efficient. To most of the judges, physical contact with that fabled creature, even
if it was only a handshake, must have been like meeting a famous film star or a charismatic member of a
Royal House nowadays.
While Phryne apparently financed her dedication in Delphi,4 funerary monuments to hetairai were
more commonly paid for by their lovers. Athenaeus mentions three funerary monuments to Pythionike, two
in Babylon, and one on the Sacred Way to Eleusis. At least one of these is likely to have been a cenotaph, or

1 Athenaeus, Deipnosophistes 13, 572f-605d (collected in Keesling 2006, 71-72).

2  For the statue see Keesling 2006, 66-71.
3  Davidson 1997, 127-36.
4  According to Pausanias, who saw the statue, Phryne dedicated the statue herself. According to Athenaeus, or rather his source
Alcetas, the statue was dedicated by ‘the neighbours’ (Deipnosophistes 13, 591b-c). Aelian (VH 9, 32) claimed that the statue was
dedicated by ‘the Greeks’.
222 Siri Sande

perhaps the monuments referred to by Athenaeus were made for more than one Pythionike, since the same
name could be used by several prostitutes.
Cicero speaks about a funerary statue of a prostitute which entered his own house after his exile in 58
BCE. His enemy Publius Clodius Pulcher turned a portico in Cicero’s domus into a dedicatio by placing
5

an altar and a statue of Libertas there. That statue, which Clodius’ brother Appius Clodius had got hold of
outside Tanagra, was according to Cicero taken from a prostitute’s grave.
This claim may of course be a lie, but even as a lie it had to be plausible. The story indicates that
funerary statues of prostitutes did exist. The statue in question was probably a typical Greek female portrait
statue with a nondescript, idealized face. Torn from its base and brought to Rome, it could serve as a statue
of one of the many Roman divinities (in this case Liberty) which were no more than concepts, and which
were defined only by the names on their bases. When Cicero returned to Rome in 57 BCE, he took steps to
have the portico demolished, and succeeded in this in the autumn of the same year. One must assume that
the offensive statue disappeared at the same time.
Not long after Cicero’s eviction of the prostitute’s statue, several statues of such women were set up
in a public space in Rome. In 55 BCE Pompey inaugurated his theatre, the first in Rome to be built in stone.
Adjacent to this structure was the Porticus Pompei, a colonnaded area which had the character of a park,
containing trees, fountains and works of art. Conspicuous among the latter was a group of statues represent-
ing famous Greek women, among them a number of hetairai.6
The most complete account of this group, which according to Pliny was commissioned by Pompey
himself, is given by the Christian apologetic writer Tatian in his Oratio ad Graecos (33-35).7 The work
was probably written in the period 150-170 CE. Tatian was not interested in the statues as works of art, but
used them to vindicate the intellect and morals of Christian women. They had evidently been ridiculed, but
Tatian retorted that the women venerated by then pagans were stupid, lewd and downright ridiculous, using
Pompey’s statue gallery as an example.
The statues mentioned by Tatian fall into two groups, one comprising women who were famous for
their intellect (mainly authors), and the other women who were famous for their bodies. The second group
can be divided in two sub-groups: hetairai and women who had undergone remarkable pregnancies and
deliveries, the latter sometimes resulting in the birth of a ‘monster’. The names of the women and the reason
for their fame were evidently written on the base of the statues or on a plaque beside them, in the manner of
the eulogiae accompanying the statues of the summi viri on Augustus’ forum. Tatian also mentions statues
of Melanippe, ‘a wise woman’, and of Pasiphae. They may have been included in the gallery as emblematic
figures: one symbolizing the female intellect and the other one symbolizing the female body’s ability to bear
portents (in this case the Minotaur).
Tatian gives the names of two more women without saying that they were statues. They are Philaenis
and Elephantis, both of whom were famous for their sex manuals. Judging from Pliny, Elephantis also wrote
about more general gynaecological matters.8 Like Philaenis she must have been a hetaira, since her name,
taken from the animal world, is typical of that category of women. Philaenis and Elephantis would have
made a perfect link between the female authors and the hetairai, so I think they probably formed part of the
statue gallery.

5 Cic. dom. 108, 110-12.

6  Kuttner 1999; Evans 2009; Nasrallah 2010, 241-46; Thorsen 2012; Sande 2014 with further bibliography.
7  For Tatian see especially Nasrallah 2010, 65-70, 236-48.
8 Plin. nat. 28, 23, 81.
 Prostitutes and entertainers at Rome 223

Tatian mentions five secure instances of statues representing hetairai or entertainers: Phryne, made
by Herodotus from Olynthus and Praxiteles, Glycera and the lyre-player Argeia both works by Herodotus
from Olynthus, Neaira by Calliades and Lais by a sculptor who may have been called Turnus. Apart from
Praxiteles these artists are otherwise unknown. They are therefore unlikely to have been ‘old masters’. More
probably they were contemporaries of Pompey, and engaged by him to make statues for his gallery.
Praxiteles poses a problem, however. It is not clear if Tatian thought of Phryne as Praxiteles’ model
(one of the reasons for her fame), or if a 1st century namesake of the famous artist made the sculpture in
collaboration with Herodotus from Olynthus. A third possibility is that Herodotus’ work was a copy of
Praxiteles’ statue of Phryne at Delphi.9 In that case it must have been a rather free copy, since the statue stood
on a pillar and would have been difficult to copy by mechanical means.
Pompey’s gallery of famous Greek women was definitely a novelty in Rome. Different interpretations
of its meaning have been given, and with regard to the hetairai, Jane de Rose Evans has even denied that
these statues represented prostitutes, whom she thinks would have been alien to the moral climate in Rome.
According to her, they are more likely to have represented heroines of Attic comedies in the shape of actors
wearing masks.10
There are several objections to this hypothesis. Statues of masked actors (traditionally male) would
have disrupted the unity of the female gallery. Furthermore, the figures of the Greco-Roman theatre were not
individuals, but stock types (old slave, young hero etc.), which acquired individuality only with interaction
with other personae. Tatian’s agenda should also be taken into account. A man with his background would
hardly be interested in theatrical figures, so he would probably have passed them by without mention.
The female authors in Pompey’s portrait gallery may have been picked out with the aid of literary
canons. Also the choice of courtesans seems to have been influenced by the women’s connections with men
of letters. Neaira was not in the class of the great and famous hetairai, she is known through Demosthenes’
oration. Phryne was associated with another famous orator: Hypereides. Why has Lais been chosen, and not
Thais, and why Glycera and not the equally famous Pythionike? The answer may be that Glycera was said
to have been the mistress of Menander, while Lais was loved by the philosopher Aristippus. It should also be
noted that Pliny, in a passage where he mentions the above-mentioned Elephantis and her opinions of men-
struation blood and its ability to cause abortions, names a certain Lais who wrote about the same subjects.11
Menstruation and abortion are likely to interest prostitutes, and it is therefore possible that the writings of
Lais were attributed to the famous courtesan of the same name.
The lyre-player Argeia remains without associations. She appears to be completely anonymous. Ar-
geia means only ‘a woman from Argos’. When Tatian in his list of female authors mentions an otherwise
unknown Thaliarchis, he uses ‘argeia’ as an epithet. It is therefore likely that Argeia was only the epithet
of the lyre-player, her real name having been lost during the various transcriptions of the manuscripts. This
woman could also have had literary connections: she may for instance have accompanied a poet with her
lyre-playing.
Before the erection of the Porticus Pompei, very few female statues had been set up in public. The
female statue gallery would therefore certainly have had an impact on contemporary female portrait sculp-
ture, but we do not know if any of the portraits in the gallery were actually copied. Portraits of famous Greek

9  Antonio Corso’s suggestion that the statue of Phryne in the Porticus Pompei is identical with the so-called Laughing Courtesan
allegedly made by Praxiteles (Plin. nat. 34, 70), is without fundament (Corso 2004, 310-12).
10  Evans 2009, especially 131-38.
11 Plin. nat. 28, 23,81. An author named Lais is also mentioned in 28, 23, 82.
224 Siri Sande

women were made in the Roman period, but apart from Hel-
lenistic queens, they cannot be named since they lack inscrip-
tions.
There is only one possible exception, a double herm
in the Musée Vivenel at Compiègne in the south of France
(fig. 1).12 It shows a mature man and a woman who appears
to be young, since her coiffure with a topknot is typical of
representations of young women, especially mythological
figures. The Danish archaeologist Frederik Poulsen identi-
fied the two as Hypereides and Phryne, and though other sug-
gestions have been made, this hypothesis remains the most
attractive one.13 The man is known in several replicas and
must have been a famous Greek, but unfortunately none of
the replicas is inscribed.
The face of his partner has been obliterated, but a similar
Fig. 1: Double herm, Musée Vivenel at Compiègne.
hairdo is often seen in representations of Aphrodite, the Graces Photo credit: Photo Hutin, Musée Antoine Vivenel,
and nymphs. It would therefore suit a woman like Phryne, who Compiègne.
could be seen as a handmaiden of the goddess of love. It is inter-
esting to note that her face has been completely smashed, seemingly with an axe, while her partner is untouched.
Could it be that some late antique or early medieval moralist has vented his displeasure on this sinful woman?
Was the head of the putative Phryne a copy of one of her portraits at Delphi or Rome? It is of course
possible, but it is equally possible that the workshop did not have Phryne in stock, and that it therefore cop-
ied a head of Aphrodite or a nymph. In a case like this it would have been easy to ‘cheat’, since Phryne’s
portrait would in any case have showed her as a beautiful woman with idealized features.
The features of the Greek hetairai must remain elusive, and that is even more the case with their pos-
sible counterparts in Rome. Cicero uses the word meretrix quite often, but the women he tries to blacken
with this epithet do not seem to have been meretrices (registered prostitutes) in the strict sense of the word.
One of his favourite targets was Clodia, the sister of his enemy Publius Clodius Pulcher.14 Like the great
Greek hetairai she chose her lovers freely, but she does not appear to have received gifts for her favours.
Quite the contrary, Cicero claimed that she gave economic support to the young men who surrounded her at
Baiae, so she looks more like a modern socialite with toy boys.
Another meretrix mentioned by Cicero is Chelidon, mistress of the notorious Verres.15 When Verres
was praetor urbanus in Rome in 74 BCE, every contact with him had to go through Chelidon, whose house
was filled with applicants and supplicants. As Cicero writes: “the house was filled, not with a prostitute’s
visitors, but with the crowd that attends a praetor’s court”.
Chelidon comes closer to our notions of a courtesan, but was she therefore ‘a kept woman’? Not
necessarily, for when she died, she made Verres her heir. This suggests that she had means of her own – and
indeed, according to Cicero she took bribes from all the persons who wanted to approach Verres. In that case

12  Richter 1965, 2, 211, no. 3, figs. 1355-57; Richter – Smith 1984, 150, no. 2, fig. 110.
13  Poulsen 1913.
14  For Clodia see Skinner 2011 and Hänninen, in this volume.
15  Verr. II 1, 136-37; 2, 116; 5, 34. For a comparison between Chelidon and Clodia in the light of Cicero’s orations, see McCoy
2006.
 Prostitutes and entertainers at Rome 225

she would have made a tidy sum. The clients of Chelidon did not come to her for sex, but because of her
influence on Verres. In addition to money Chelidon wanted social and political influence, which she could
get only through Verres, since she herself did not belong to the elite.
Tacitus introduces us to real meretrices. At the extravagant banquet which Tigellinus, prefect of the
imperial bodyguard under Nero, arranged on the pool of Agrippa in Rome, prostitutes were present in con-
siderable numbers:16

Crepidinibus stagni lupanaria adstant, inlustribus feminis completa, et contra scorta visebantur nudis corpo-
ribus.

In the translation by John Jackson in the Loeb edition this passage runs:

On the quays of the lake stood brothels, filled with women of high rank; and, opposite, naked harlots met the
view.

As a general rule, inlustribus feminis are rendered as women of high rank in the translations of this
passage. The translators may have been influenced by Suetonius’ story about Caligula setting up a brothel
filled with married women and freeborn boys, but it seems unlikely that Tigellinus should have been able
to persuade or force high-ranking women to act as prostitutes. I believe that inlustris (read illustris) in this
case do not refer to social rank, but rather to class, that is, that Tacitus contrasts high class prostitutes with
nude harlots. The former were inside a building hidden from view, while the latter were exposed to all. That
is typical for the lowest class of prostitute, the scortum. Juvenal describes a harlot as one who stands naked
in a foul-smelling alley.17 This interpretation would mean that in Rome as in Greece, prostitutes fell into dif-
ferent categories, and that prostitution was not always a sordid affair involving scorta and men of no social
standing.
When introducing the notorious Nymphidius Sabinus, who became prefect of the imperial bodyguard
together with Tigellinus, Tacitus describes him as “The son, then, of a freedwoman who had prostituted her
handsome person among the slaves and freedmen of emperors…”.18 This woman, Nymphidia, seems to
have been a free agent who chose her clients with care. Even if they were of low social extraction, they may
have been rich and influential on account of their positions at the court. Nymphidius himself claimed to be
the son of Caligula, while Plutarch says that his father was a gladiator. More probably he was the son of one
of his mother’s clients at the court, which would account for his rise to power.
A decorated mirror cover in bronze might have shown Nymphidia in a working situation (see Berg,
Fig. 1, p. 198, in this volume).19 Its date does not coincide with that of Nymphidia’s career, since it is Fla-
vian, not Julio-Claudian. Still, the circumstances probably had not changed. The prostitute is seen inside a
cubiculum with a painting showing an erotic scene on the wall. She wears body jewellery and a fashionable
coiffure, and is reclining on a sumptuous bed. The picture on the wall has shutters, a sign that it is valuable
(made in tempera or encaustic technique) and has to be protected from light. Also the metal basin and jug at
the feet of the bed are signs of wealth. The woman is certainly a high-class prostitute.

16 Tac. ann. 15, 37.

17  Iuv. 1, 2, 30.
18 Tac. ann. 15, 72. Translation by John Jackson in the Loeb edition.
19  Virgili – Viola 1990, 99, cat. no. 145, fig. 35; Clarke 1998, 166-68, Fig. 60. For an illustration of the mirror, see Fig. 1 in Ria
Berg’s article in this volume.
226 Siri Sande

Moving still higher up on the social scale, one arrives at Poppaea Sabina, who comes very close to
the famous Greek hetairai. Like them, she went out veiled, and she was shared by two men, which also
approaches her to luxury hetairai, who were sometimes shared by two or more men to sustain the outlays.
In Poppaea’s case, she was shared by Nero and his friend Otho, the later emperor.20 Otho was mar-
ried to Poppaea, but that did not improve matters. According to the laws promulgated under Augustus, a
man who did not divorce his unfaithful wife automatically became her pimp, and she a prostitute. Of course
Otho was never registered as a pimp, nor did Poppaea ever wear the dark toga, the badge of the unfaithful
woman. On the contrary, she eventually married Nero and became an empress. After the birth of a daughter
she was made Augusta, and her portrait appeared on coins, but no three-dimensional portrait of her can be
ascertained.
With regard to women like Nymphidia and her colleagues, it is quite possible that we have portraits of
some of them in the many funerary groups of freedmen and freedwomen from the early Empire. In such por-
traits the profession of the deceased, if she had been a prostitute, would never have been hinted at, nor would
a woman have represented herself wearing a toga, which prostitutes wore according to written sources. In
fact, the only representations of togatae in Roman art feature girls, whose virginal state contrasted strongly
with the lascivious adulteresses and meretrices. The toga of these girls (if it ever was worn in real life) must
have been white in order to distinguish it from that of the prostitute, which was supposedly characterized
by garish colours.21
There was another group of women who were considered on par with prostitutes, but who were more
present in public life. They were the actresses of the mime.22 This category did not exist in the Greek world,
where the mimi appear to have been exclusively men. When they were introduced into the Roman world, the
mimae became immensely popular. The mime was in Roman times something of a slapstick comedy, and it
may also be compared to the modern burlesque, since it contained both humour and sex (the latter generally
provided by actresses with few or no clothes on).
One of Verres’ mistresses was a mima by the name of Tertia, the daughter of the mimus Isidorus.23
More famous was Cytheris. She was a freedwoman who had been owned by the wealthy Volumnius. After
an affair with Gaius Cornelius Gallus, the inventor of Latin love elegy,24 she became the mistress of Mark
Antony. According to Cicero, she went with her lover to Brundisium riding in an open litter, as if she were
his second wife. People greeted her not with her stage name, but as Volumnia. This angered Cicero, though
it was normal for an enfranchised slave to take the family name of his or her former owner.25
The mimae were subject to many of the same restrictions as prostitutes, being infames like actors,
gladiators and charioteers. Like those groups, they were not adverse to leave memories of themselves with
their professions indicated. We have inscriptions naming mimae and archimimae.26

20 Tac. ann. 13, 45-46; Dio Cass. 61, 11, 2-3.

21  For representations of girls wearing toga, see Goette 1990, 80-82, Pl. 70; Tomei – Rea 2011, 234, no. 11. For the toga sup-
posedly worn by prostitutes and adulteresses, see Duncan 2006, 269-70; Olson 2006, 192-201. As Olson has pointed out, the
expressions togata and stolata (a matron) indicate a woman’s position in society rather that the clothes she actually wore. Although
prostitutes wore brightly coloured togas according to literary sources, none of the many ‘party girls’ in Pompeian paintings is seen
wearing this garment.
22  Daremberg – Saglio 3 (1904) s.v. mimus 1899-1907, especially 1906 (G. Boissier); RE 15 (1932) 1743-61 s.v. mimos (E. Wüst);
Bieber 1961, 248-52; Edwards 1997; French 1998; Duncan 2006.
23 Cic. Verr. II 3, 78; 3, 83; 5, 31; 5, 81.
24  For Gallus see Raymond 2013.
25 Cic. Att. 10, 10; Phil. 2, 24, 58; 2, 25, 61-62.
26  CIL VI, 10096, 10106-10111.
 Prostitutes and entertainers at Rome 227

Fig. 2: Diptych made for the consul Anasta-

sius in the year 517 showing a mima.

The most famous mima from antiquity is Theodora, the later empress (479-548 CE). A diptych made
for the consul Anastasius in the year 517 shows a mima who places her hand on the head of a supplicating,
bald figure (fig. 2). Her boyish haircut, lack of a mask and her insolent stance with one hand on the hip
are characteristic of this group of entertainers.27 Theodora may have looked like that in her heyday, but of
course, no portrait from this period of her life exists. The famous mosaic in San Vitale in Ravenna shows her
as the spouse of Justinian I, far removed from her lowly origins.28
To conclude: While no prostitute would identify herself as a hetaira or a meretrix on a commemora-
tive monument, actresses did give their profession. The only exception are the statues in the Porticus Pom-
pei, which were evidently labelled as hetairai, but these statues had been put up long after the women had
died, and were not personal monuments.

27  Delbrück 1929, 131-34, no. 21, Pl. 21; Bieber 1961, 251, fig. 834, a; Volbach 1976, 36-37, no. 21, pl. 9; Olovsdotter 2005,
47-50, no. 11 A, pl. 11, 1; Sande 2005, 13-15, fig. 8.
28  Deichmann 1976, 180-87, pl. IX, figs. 358, 360, 365. Good illustrations in Grabar 1966, figs. 172-73.
 Indices

source locus page note figure/ source locus page note figure/
plate plate

Ael. VH 9, 32 221 n. 4 10, 28 158 n. 12

10, 2 146 n. 22
Ar. Lys. 770 77 n. 27
13, 25 164 n. 52
13, 33 144 n. 13 Arnob. nat. 6, 3 145 n. 17

Alciphr. 4, 1 145 n. 19; 146 Artem. 1, 80 175 n. 70

n. 24 2, 20 a 175 n. 70
4, 3-5 146 n. 24 2, 37 c 175 n. 70
4, 16 147 n. 32 4, 59 175 n. 69
4, 18-19 146 n. 24
Ath. 3, 106 a-b 199 n. 35
Amm. 28, 4, 9 171 n. 44 4, 135 a. c 199 n. 35
4, 146 f-148 f 147 n. 38
Anth. Pal. 4, 4 195 n. 14
5, 196 147 n. 35
5, 5 195 n. 14
12, 521 b 207 n. 68
5, 202 147 n. 38
12, 535 c 146 n. 25
5, 273 74 n. 7
12, 544 b 146 n. 21
6, 162 195 n. 14
13, 101 e-f 147 n. 36
6, 275 218 n. 144
13, 567 e 155 n. 65
9, 26 151 n. 47; 155
13, 568 a 148 n. 41
n. 65
13, 570 b-c. e 155 n. 65
9, 260 74 n. 7
13, 572 f-605 d 221 n. 1
9, 332 155 n. 71
13, 574 e 146 n. 25
9, 405 74 n. 7
13, 576 e 146 n. 28; 212 n.
9, 605 146 n. 22
106
11, 326 74 n. 7
13, 576 f 146 n. 27
12, 64-70 169 n. 29
13, 578 a 155 n. 65
12, 140-141 74 n. 7
13, 578 f-579 a 147 n. 33
12, 193 74 n. 7
13, 582 c 155 n. 65
12, 194 169 n. 29
13, 583 a-b 148 n. 38
12, 222 169 n. 29
13, 583 c 155 n. 65
12, 229 74 n. 7
13, 583 d-e 144 n. 6
Apul. apol. 75 165 n. 56; 199 13, 583 f-584 a 152 n. 55
n. 36 13, 584 a 155 n. 65
met. 1, 12 175 n. 68 13, 584 c 155 n. 65
9, 2 158 n. 12 13, 585 c-d 155 n. 65
9, 30 158 n. 12 13, 585 e 155 n. 65
230 INDICES

source locus page note figure/ source locus page note figure/
plate plate

13, 586 c-d 147 n. 29; 155 13, 32 116 n. 49

n. 65 15, 35 117 n. 56
13, 586 e 155 n. 65 16, 38 117 n. 60
13, 587 d 155 n. 65 18 118 n. 62
13, 588 c-f 146 n. 21; 155 20, 48 61 n. 114
n. 65 20, 48-49 117 n. 61
13, 588 e 146 n. 22 20, 49-50 118 n. 62
13, 589 a-b 155 n. 68 22, 53-55 118 n. 63
13, 589 c 155 n. 68 23, 57 118 n. 64
13, 590 a 155 n. 65 28, 67 61 n. 117
13, 590 c-593 a 147 n. 31 32, 78 116 n. 49
13, 590 d-f 144 n. 15 34 200 n. 37
13, 590 d-592 e 155 n. 65 47-49 58
13, 590 f-591a 49 n. 42 49 99 n. 87
13, 591 a 145 n. 20 64 119 n. 73
13, 591 b-c 49 n. 44; 145 n. Catil. 2, 5 61 n. 117
18; 221 n. 4 dom. 108, 110-112 222 n. 5
13, 591 c 155 n. 70 109 155 n. 67
13, 591 e 144 n. 14 fam. 9, 26 75
13, 592 d-e 155 n. 65 14, 16 76; 77 n. 26
13, 593 e-f 155 n. 65 fin. 2, 21, 68 152 n. 55
13, 594 d 146 n. 24; 155 har. resp. 21, 44 207 n. 67
n. 65 Mil. 27, 73 116 n. 49
13, 594 e 155 n. 68
off. 2, 3 116 n. 49
13, 595 a-c 155 n. 68
Phil. 2, 24, 58 226 n. 25
13, 595 a-596 a 147 n. 29
2, 25, 61-62 226 n. 25
13, 595 d-596 a 155 n. 65
2, 44 62 n. 123
13, 596 b-d 144 n. 10
2, 58 76
13, 596 f 146 n. 27
2, 69 165 n. 56
13, 599 b 146 n. 21
Sest. 116 119 n. 72
13, 605 d 155 n. 65
Verr. II 1, 101 214 n. 122
Aurel. Vict. Caes. 5, 5 169 n. 20 1, 103-104 77-78
1, 104 215 n. 123
Cato fr. 212 167 n. 3 1, 106 78
Catull. 10, 24-27 105 1, 120 78
55, 7 105 1, 136 78
79 58; 119 1, 136-137 215 n. 123; 224
n. 15
Cic. Att. 1, 16, 11 61 n. 117 1, 137 79; 215
4, 9, 1 155 n. 66 2, 24 80 n. 31
6, 1, 25 151 n. 47 2, 39 80 n. 31
9, 9, 3 77 2, 116 81; 215 n. 126;
10, 10 75; 226 n. 25 224 n. 15
10, 11, 5 151 n. 47 3, 6 214 n. 122
10, 16 75 3, 77-79 80 n. 32
Cael. 1 117 n. 54 3, 78 226 n. 23
13, 31-32 117 n. 55 3, 83 80 n. 32; 226 n. 23
 INDICES 231

source locus page note figure/ source locus page note figure/
plate plate

4, 7 81; 215 n. 123 60, 14, 13 127 n. 58

4, 60-71 81 n. 36 60, 17, 5-8 128 n. 64
4, 71 81; 215 n. 126 60, 18, 1-2 114 n. 29
4, 83 215 n. 123 60, 18, 2-3 114 n. 31
5, 31 80 n. 32; 226 n. 60, 28, 3-5 114 n. 32
23 60, 30, 6 127 n. 58
5, 34 80 n. 31; 224 n. 60, 34, 4 127 n. 58
15 61, 7, 1 123 n. 20; 123 n.
5, 38 80 n. 31; 81 n. 35; 21; 124 n. 24
215 61, 11 124 n. 35
5, 40 80 n. 32 61, 11, 2-3 226 n. 20
5, 81 80 n. 32; 226 n. 23 61, 31, 1 55 n. 83; 114 n. 29
61, 31, 2-5 114 n. 35
Ciris 251-252 207 n. 67
62, 13, 2 169 n. 20
Clem. Al. Paed. 3, 2, 6 206 n. 63 64, 3, 4 125 n. 44
3, 2, 8 148 n. 41 65, 14 126 n. 52
Protr. 4, 42 P. 146 n. 27 65, 14, 1-2 127 n. 57
4, 53 P. 152 n. 56 65, 14, 3-4 128 n. 64

Cod. Iust. 4, 56, 3 (a. 225) 69 n. 19 Diod. Sic. 1, 64, 14 144 n. 13

12, 21 207 n. 68
Colum. 1, 8, 5 122 n. 13
12, 1, 1 122 n. 13
Diog. Laert. 10, 4. 6. 27 146 n. 23
Dem. 48, 55 207 n. 71 10, 5-6 152 n. 55
Ps.-Dem. 59, 18 151 n. 47 2, 8, 69. 74 146 n. 23
59, 18-23 155 n. 65 2, 84 146 n. 21
59, 35 207 n. 71 4, 2, 7 146 n. 23
59, 122 46 n. 23 4, 6, 40 146 n. 23
4, 9, 63 146 n. 23
Dig. = 6, 63 146 n. 27
Gai. dig. 40, 7, 31, 1 122 n. 13 7, 13 146 n. 23
Iul. dig. 41, 4, 8 70
Maec. dig. 36, 1, 5 72 Don. de com. fr. 6, 6 206
Marcel. dig.23, 2, 41, pr. 71 Fest. 20 L 199 n. 36
Paul. dig. 35, 1, 81 122 n. 13 248 L 122 n. 15; 123
50, 16, 144 123 n. 16 n. 16
Scaev. dig. 32, 41, 2 122 n. 13
40, 4, 59 122 n. 13 Firm. math. 3, 6, 22 55 n. 82
Ulp. dig. 3, 2, 4, 2 167 n. 2 Frontin. aq. 76, 1-2 200 n. 38
17, 1, 12, 11 71 n. 25
23, 2, 43, pr. 3 54 Gaius inst. 3, 43 81 n. 38
23, 2, 43, pr. 5 71 Gall. fr. 145 74 n. 12
33, 7, 12, 33 122 n. 13
47, 2, 39 70 n. 24 Gell. NA 4, 3, 3 123 n. 16
4, 14 213 n. 113
Dio Cass. 54, 16, 2 122 n. 8 7, 7 213 n. 110
54, 17 168 n. 13
55, 9, 11-16 112 n. 11 Hdt. 2, 134-135 144 n. 10
232 INDICES

source locus page note figure/ source locus page note figure/
plate plate

Hist. Apoll. 33 218 n. 146

11, 4 83 n. 42
12, 2 83 n. 42
Hor. carm. 3, 6 113
12, 4 83 n. 42
3, 6, 21-44 113 n. 23; 118
13, 3 83 n. 42
n. 70
39, 9, 5-7 82; 214 n. 118
3, 26 107
39, 9-19 48 n. 37
epist. 1, 17, 55-56 209 n. 82
39, 14, 1-3 83
sat. 1, 2, 31-32 61 n. 114
39, 19, 3-7 82
1, 2, 47-48 46 n. 23; 52 n. 55;
39, 19, 5-7 86
94 n. 47
1, 2, 55-59 213 n. 112 39, 42, 8 167 n. 4
1, 2, 120 95 n. 59 Lucian Dial. D. 19 174 n. 64
2, 7, 48 195 n. 14 Dial. meret. 4, 2-3 57 n. 95
9, 25 162 n. 38 6 56 n. 88; 207 n.
73
Ibyc. fr. 289 169 n. 29
7 207 n. 73
Iuv. 1, 2, 30 225 n. 17 10, 3-4 57 n. 95
1, 37-41 168 n. 10
2 169 n. 18 Lucr. 4, 1126 207 n. 73
2, 17-18 168 n. 5 Macr. Sat. 1, 10, 16 213 n. 110
5, 59 169 n. 29 2, 5, 2 120 n. 77
6, 114-135 111 n. 1
6, 116-119 114 n. 26 Mart. 1, 6 171 n. 39
1, 23 167 n. 4; 169 n.
6, 120 206 n. 63
18; 169 n. 25; 171
6, 120-132 114 n. 28
n. 44
6, 123 88 n. 7
1, 32, 1 93 n. 44
6, 127 89 n. 14; 97 n. 74
1, 58 168 n. 5
6, 132 55 n. 83
1, 90, 6-8 88 n. 10
6, 314-345 170 n. 38
1, 96 169 n. 18
6, 365, 16 206 n. 63
2, 9 95
6, 489 206 n. 59
2, 43 169 n. 29; 170
7, 58 169 n. 18
n. 31
9, 10 167 n. 4
2, 50 200 n. 39
9, 22-24 170 n. 37
2, 63, 1-2 52 n. 60; 90 n. 21
9, 22-26 170 n. 38
3, 17, 3 93 n. 44
9, 25 168 n. 10
3, 33 52 n. 56
9, 46-47 170 n. 35; 170
3, 39 169 n. 29
n. 38
4, 4, 9 195 n. 14
9, 47 169 n. 18
4, 42 168 n. 9
9, 50-57 170 n. 37
4, 43 88 n. 11
9, 72 168 n. 7
5, 83 168 n. 9
9, 83-114 170 n. 37
6, 26 88 n. 11
9, 117-142 170 n. 37
6, 50 168 n. 5; 169 n.
10, 236-239 52 n. 58
25
11, 145-158 170 n. 31
7, 24, 8 88 n. 11
Liv. 3, 11, 3 83 7, 58 169 n. 18
8, 15, 12 83 7, 62 169 n. 18
 INDICES 233

source locus page note figure/ source locus page note figure/
plate plate

7, 70 88 n. 10; 97 n. 71 Men. Paidion 314-315 207 n. 73

7, 75 88 n. 11; 168 n.
Muson. fr. 12 (Lutz) 61 n. 114
10
8, 46 168 n. 9 Naev. com. 78 91
8, 55, 16 169 n. 29; 170
n. 31 Non. p. 498 L 207 n. 67
8, 73, 6 74 n. 12 Ov. am. 1, 4 106
9, 4, 1 52 n. 60 1, 4, 64 58 n. 100
9, 22 169 n. 29; 170 1, 5, 12 74
n. 31 1, 6, 27-28 92 n. 32
9, 25 169 n. 29 1, 7 106 n. 9
9, 27 169 n. 18 1, 8 92; 104; 105
9, 36 169 n. 29; 170 1, 8, 31-32 95 n. 49
n. 30 1, 8, 59-64 74
9, 63 167 n. 4
1, 8, 77-78 93 n. 40
9, 73 169 n. 29; 170
1, 8, 91 104
n. 31
1, 9-12 73-74
9, 92, 11 88 n. 11
1, 10, 21 96 n. 64
9, 103 169 n. 29
1, 10, 21-24 53
10, 66 169 n. 29
1, 10, 24 99 n. 89
10, 98 169 n. 29
1, 10, 41 98 n. 85
11, 6, 10 170 n. 36
1, 10, 47-54 99 n. 88
11, 22 169 n. 29; 170
1, 10, 58-62 91-92
n. 31
1, 10, 63-64 96 n. 66
11, 23 168 n. 10
1, 14 106; 107
11, 25 88 n. 11
1, 15, 30 74 n. 12
11, 26 169 n. 29; 170
2, 1, 17, 20 92 n. 31
n. 31
11, 29 168 n. 10 2, 5 106
11, 43 169 n. 29; 170 2, 5, 5-6 95 n. 51
n. 31 2, 5, 30 58 n. 100
11, 45, 1 88 n. 7 2, 7, 3-4 105
11, 62 88 n. 11; 168 n. 2, 11 106
10 2, 13 105; 107
11, 73 168 n. 9 2, 15 91
11, 87 88 n. 11; 168 n. 5; 3, 2 105
169 n. 25 3, 7, 84 200 n. 39
11, 104 195 n. 14 3, 13 105
12, 43 144 n. 6 3, 620 200 n. 39
12, 55, 6-9 202 n. 49 34 92 n. 33
12, 61, 8 195 n. 14 35 92 n. 34
12, 65 93 n. 42 ars 1 105
12, 75 168 n. 9 1, 31-34 58 n. 101
12, 85 88 n. 11 1, 54-55 105
14, 39 195 n. 14 1, 54-56 48 n. 36; 109
14, 187 146 n. 24 1, 67-88 105
1, 97 106
Melissa Ep. 116 150 n. 46
1, 99 105; 106
234 INDICES

source locus page note figure/ source locus page note figure/
plate plate

1, 135-228 105 67, 7 209 n. 84

1, 229-251 164 n. 46 75, 8 162 n. 38
1, 487-490 105 92 169 n. 29; 171
2, 167-172 106 n. 44
2, 209-210 105 126, 4 168 n. 10
2, 315-336 107
Phaedr. 5 200 n. 40
2, 545 58 n. 100
3, 69-72 93 Philo
3, 89-90 105 De vita contem-
3, 96 200 n. 39 plativa 48-52 170 n. 31
3, 135-168 106
Philostr. Imag. 1, 15 174 n. 64
3, 169-193 106 n. 8
3, 199-218 106 Pl. Phdr. 255 c 169 n. 29
3, 244 105 Symp. 201 d-212 c 164 n. 53
3, 327-328 103 n. 3
Plaut. Asin. 234 58 n. 100
3, 329-348 103; 106
747 58 n. 100
3, 353-363 104
756-805 58 n. 99
3, 385-387 105
759-760 214 n. 121
3, 389-396 105
763-766 217 n. 139
3, 431-432 106
771-773 106
3, 537 74 n. 12
778 91; 208 n. 75
3, 641-642 104
781-83 105
3, 663-664 105
803-805 105
3, 761-768 106
908 58 n. 100
3, 787 183 n. 9
Bacch. 501-525 107
epist. 15, 65-66 144 n. 12
842-869 107
fast. 4, 865-872 55 n. 76
1118-1172 107
5, 433 205 n. 55
1207-1210 80
rem. 663-666 105
Capt. 57 102
medic. 106
Cist. 23 210 n. 87
met. 3, 351-352 178 n. 87
33 210 n. 87
3, 352 176 n. 79
38-39 92 n. 37
Paus. 2, 2, 4 155 n. 68 83-85 109
2, 19 155 n. 68 98-99 109
5, 8, 11 146 n. 27 330 54 n. 70
9, 22, 3 164 n. 52 Curc. 36-38 61 n. 114
9, 27, 65 145 n. 19 Epid. 213-215 208 n. 78
10, 15, 1 145 n. 18 213-235 106
222 208 n. 78
Pers. 1, 19-20 169 n. 23 231 207 n. 67
Petron. 7, 3 88 n. 7 504 105
53, 10 158 n. 12 Men. 141-151 170 n. 33
57, 6 122 n. 13 351 214 n. 120
61, 9 122 n. 13 354-356 215 n. 127
64, 2-5 163 n. 40 363-365 216 n. 129
67, 4 209 n. 84 373 216 n. 128
 INDICES 235

source locus page note figure/ source locus page note figure/
plate plate

524-527 208 n. 74 Plut. Alc. 16, 7 146 n. 22; 146

803-804 208 n. 74 n. 25
Most. 111-112 53 n. 64 39, 1 146 n. 25
157-292 106 Alex. 38 146 n. 28
286 56 n. 89; 208 n. Cic. 29, 1-5 116 n. 49
78 Demetr. 16 147 n. 32
959-961 61 n. 116 24 147 n. 30; 147 n.
Poen. 102-103 52 n. 57 32; 147 n. 34
108 208 n. 77 27 147 n. 32; 147
153 62 n. 118 n. 38
218-231 199 Galba 17, 1-3 125 n. 44
265-270 51 Mor. 82 D 175 n. 69
299-301 56 n. 91 272 F-273 B 153 n. 61
705 208 n. 77 279 E 209 n. 84
1288-1291 106 400 F 145 n. 18
Pseud. 214 213 n. 109 753 E 146 n. 27
229 213 n. 109 753 E-F 206 n. 62
Trin. 243 193 n. 1 Phoc. 22 155 n. 68
250-251 212 n. 107 Pomp. 2 155 n. 64
251-252 208 n. 80 2, 2 84
Truc. 51-56 193; 209 n. 81; 2, 3-4 84-85
214 n. 119 2, 4 49 n. 41; 218 n.
95-111 81; 216 n. 130 144
392-393 108 53, 2 84
854-855 106 Rom. 5 153 n. 61
Sol. 15 46 n. 24
Plin. nat. 7, 34 155 n. 63 Sull. 2, 2-4 167 n. 4; 168 n.
7, 149 112 n. 12 12; 213 n. 110
7, 184 168 n. 14 36, 1 167 n. 4; 168 n. 12
10, 172 55 n. 83; 114 n.
30 Poll. Onom. 4, 153 206 n. 63
28, 81 144 n. 6; 222 n. 8;
Polyb. 14, 11, 2-3 212 n. 106
223 n. 11 31, 21, 4 48 n. 39; 61 n.
28, 82 223 n. 11
116
33, 40 94 n. 47; 209 31, 25, 4-5 167 n. 3
33, 134 127 n. 58
34, 70 223 n. 9 Prisc. gramm. 2, 487, 1 88 n. 10
34, 79 171 n. 39 2, 556, 13 88 n. 10
35, 36 171 n. 39
Prop. 1, 2, 4 53
35, 86 145 n. 20 1, 8 106
35, 91 49 n. 42; 145 n. 1, 8, 39-40 208 n. 79
20 1, 11 106
35, 102 171 n. 39
1, 16 213-214
35, 112 171 n. 39
1, 16, 17 92 n. 31
35, 119 49 n. 41; 152 n.
2, 5 54; 144 n. 14
57; 217 n. 145
2, 5, 7 56 n. 90
36, 82 122 n. 13; 144 n.
2, 5, 17-26 106
12; 144 n. 13
236 INDICES

source locus page note figure/ source locus page note figure/
plate plate

2, 6 73-74; 104; 217 10, praef. 8 168 n. 11; 168 n. 13

Sen. benef. 2, 21 168 n. 5
2, 6, 1-4 212 n. 103
2, 8, 25-28 106 6, 32 113 n. 16
2, 9, 25-28 107 7, 9, 5 150 n. 43
2, 14, 19 91 n. 28 dial. 10, 4, 6 112 n. 12
2, 15 195 n. 14 epist. 47, 7 170 n. 31
2, 18, 1-2 106 nat. 1, 16 169 n. 21; 171
2, 18, 33 104 n. 44
2, 19 106
Serv. ecl. 10, 1, 6 74-75
2, 26 106
2, 28 107 Stat. silv. 1, 6, 34 169 n. 29
2, 29 106 3, 4, 1221 170 n. 30
2, 33 105 3, 4, 5664 170 n. 30
2, 34, 91 74 n. 12 4, 2, 11 169 n. 29
3, 10, 15 106
Str. 17, 1, 33 144 n. 13
3, 16, 1-2 213 n. 115
3, 20 213 n. 108 Suda Ροδὸπιδος 144 n. 12; 145
3, 20, 16 58 n. 100 ἀνάθημα n. 18
3, 23, 1 91 n. 28
Suet. Aug. 64-65 112 n. 11
3, 24, 5-8 106
69 158 n. 7
3, 25, 29-30 106
Cal. 36 111 n. 4
4, 3 106; 108 n. 11
40 68
4, 5 92; 104; 105; 106
41, 2-3 111 n. 3
4, 5, 21-28 74
Claud. 28 127 n. 28
4, 5, 47-48 92 n. 38
29, 1 114 n. 25
4, 5, 49-58 74
Dom. 12, 3 126 n. 50; 126 n.
4, 7 104
52; 127 n. 62
4, 7, 15-16 106; 213 n. 115 Nero 28 124 n. 35
4, 7, 47-48 218 n. 145 28, 1 124 n. 24
4, 8 105; 212 n. 107 28-29 124 n. 30
4, 8, 16 106 29 169 n. 20
4, 8, 30-32 213 n. 115 35, 1 123 n. 22; 125
4, 8, 39-40 208 n. 79 n. 41
4, 8, 75-78 105 35, 2-3 124 n. 37
50 124 n. 31; 125
Prud. c. Symm. 2, 832-834 94 n. 46
n. 42
Quint. inst. 10, 5, 2 144 n. 15 Tib. 11, 4 113 n. 19
43 144 n. 6
Sall. Catil. 24 84 n. 44
Vesp. 3 126 n. 52; 126 n.
25 119 n. 71
53; 127 n. 62
Sen. contr. 1, 2 55 n. 80 4, 1-2 127 n. 60
1, 2, 1, 10-11 88 n. 7 4, 2-5 127 n. 61
1, 2, 5, 3 88 n. 7 21 126 n. 52; 126
1, 2, 21 195 n. 14 n. 56
2, 3, 10 59 n. 105
Sulpicia Tib. 4, 10, 3-4 52 n. 54
3, praef. 16 168 n. 13
4, praef. 10 168 n. 8 Tac. ann. 1, 53 112 n. 9
 INDICES 237

source locus page note figure/ source locus page note figure/
plate plate

1, 54 167 n. 4; 168 n. 13 1, 3 105

3, 24 113 n. 18 1, 3, 11-12 206 n. 59
11, 1-2 114 n. 27 1, 5 104; 107
11, 25-29 114 n. 34 1, 5, 9-16 107
11, 26 114 n. 25 1, 5, 63-64 105
11, 26, 1 55 n. 83 1, 5, 68 213 n. 113
11, 28 114 n. 27 1, 6 104; 106
11, 36 114 n. 32 1, 6, 25-26 91; 208 n. 75
11, 37-38 114 n. 35 1, 6, 67-68 58 n. 101
13, 12-13 123 n. 21; 123 1, 6, 73-76 106 n. 9
n. 22 1, 10, 53-64 106 n. 9
13, 16 123 n. 23 2, 3 106
13, 18 123 n. 23 2, 3, 51-62 74
13, 44 158 n. 12 2, 6 104
13, 45-46 124 n. 34; 226 2, 6, 44 102
n. 20 2, 16, 21 53
13, 46 124 n. 32
14, 2 124 n. 35 Val. Max. 1, 7, 7 158 n. 12
14, 52 124 n. 36 2, 1, 7 209 n. 84
14, 63-64 124 n. 37 6, 1, 10 167 n. 3
15, 37 169 n. 20; 225 7, 3, 10 61 n. 114
n. 16 9, 13, ext. 4 158 n. 12
15, 53 125 n. 38
Varro ling. 5, 131, 7 207 n. 67
15, 72 225 n. 18 7, 53 207 n. 67
15, 74 125 n. 39
Vell. 2, 100 112 n. 11
Tatianus Ad Gr. 33-34 155 n. 63; 171
n. 40 Verg. ecl. 10 74 n. 12
33-35 222
Vir. ill. 82, 2 74 n. 12; 75

Ter. Ad. 101-102 61 n. 114 Xen. Mem. 3, 11 46 n. 22; 49 n. 41;

Andr. 74-79 107 146 n. 26
146 108 n. 11 3, 11, 4-5 212 n. 106
Eun. 382 214 n. 118
X.Eph. 5, 7 207 n. 70
583-585 217 n. 138
Haut. 381-382 108
449-453 208 n. 78

Tert. apol. 35, 4 195 n. 15 Epigraphic sources

pall. 4, 9 59 n. 105 CIL I2 593, 123-24 67; 167 n. 1
uxor. 2, 6, 1 195 n. 15 IV 704 92 n. 35
IV 1234 95 n. 56; 97 n. 78
Theano ep. 6 152 n. 55
IV 1516 97 n. 77
(Thesleff 1965)
IV 1645 97 n. 69; 97 n. 78
Theoc. Id. 2, 32 206 n. 57 IV 1684 95 n. 48
IV 1698 91 n. 26
Thgn. fr. 1, 1345 169 n. 29
IV 1781 92 n. 35
Tib. 1, 1, 73-76 106 n. 9 IV 1796 95 n. 53
238 INDICES

IV 1860 96 n. 63 fig. 9 IV 5031 96 n. 62

IV 1893 92 fig. 6; 93 n. 41 IV 5092 176 n. 75
IV 1894 92 fig. 6; 93 n. 39 IV 5094-5096 176 n. 74; 177 n. 80
IV 1928 92 n. 35 IV 5095 177 n. 81
IV 1948 90 n. 22 IV 5098 176 n. 74; 177 n. 80
IV 1991 98 n. 81 IV 5105-5157 176 n. 72
IV 2013 99 n. 86 IV 5296 97 n. 78; 98 n. 80
IV 2173 88 n.13 IV 6842 92 n. 35; 97 n. 78
IV 2175 97 n. 75 IV 6865 97 n. 67
IV 2176 88 n. 9 IV 7339 96 n. 60
IV 2185-2187 88 n. 9 IV 7698 158 n. 8
IV 2193 87 n. 5 IV 8258-8259 96 n. 60; 98 n. 86
IV 2197 88 n. 13 IV 8270 96 n. 61
IV 2198 88 n. 10 IV 8356 90 n. 25
IV 2204 88 n. 10 fig.1 IV 8364-8366 95 n. 57
IV 2212 95 n. 50 IV 8483 88 n. 11
IV 2217 88 n. 12; 89 fig. 2 IV 8807 97 n. 78
IV 2218-2219 88 n. 9 IV 8807 a 97 n. 68
IV 2221 95 n. 50 IV 8824 98 n. 81
IV 2225-2228 95 n. 50 IV 8940 88 n. 11
IV 2228 87 n. 6 IV 9171 92 n. 38
IV 2239 88 n. 13 IV 9246 b 98 n. 82
IV 2243 88 n. 13 IV 9848 98 n. 86
IV 2253 88 n. 9 IV 10004 88 n. 10
IV 2257 88 n. 11 IV 10241 91 n. 26 fig. 5
IV 2258 a 88 n. 8 IV 10675 89 n. 17 fig. 3; 90 n. 20
IV 2260 88 n. 9 IV 10677 90 n. 20
IV 2262 88 n. 13 IV 10678 90 n. 20
IV 2269 88 n. 13 VI 1867 a =
IV 2274 88 n. 9 32269 126 n. 47
IV 2413 h 89 n. 23 fig. 4 VI 4057 128 n. 67
IV 2450 89 VI 8679 129 n. 73
IV 3442 a-b 162 n. 34 VI 8693 126 n. 47
IV 3691 179 n. 93 VI 8760 126 n. 47
IV 3999 88 n. 11 VI 8767 126 n. 47
IV 4007 97 n. 78 VI 8791 126 n. 47
IV 4100 165 VI 8801 126 n. 47
IV 4102 165 VI 8890 126 n. 47
IV 4103 165 VI 8900 128 n. 67
IV 4107 165 VI 9002 126 n. 47
IV 4109 165 VI 9030 =
IV 4118 165 4865 a 126 n. 47
IV 4195-4196 88 n. 10 VI 10096 226 n. 26
IV 4289 97 n. 78 VI 10106-
IV 4342 97 n. 78 10111 226 n. 26
IV 4353 97 n. 78 VI 12037 128 n. 65
IV 4356 97 n. 78 VI 15110 128 n. 68
IV 4387 97 n. 78 VI 18358 128 n. 68
IV 4498 99 n. 86 IX 2689 97 n. 73
 INDICES 239

Anaedia: 88 n. 13
X 1481 125 n. 45
Anastasius: 227
X 1903 124 n. 26
Annaeus Seneca: 123-124; 129
X 6589 124 n. 25
Annaeus Serenus: 123
X 6599 125 n. 43
Antamonides: 106
X 6666 126 n. 51; 128 n. 68
Antenor: 147
X 7640 126 n. 48
Anterastalis: 106-107
X 7980 126 n. 48
Antiphila: 107-108
X 7982 125 n. 45
Antonia Caenis: 52; 126-130
X 7984 126 n. 48
Antonia Minor: 126-128
X 8046, 9 124 n. 28
Antonius, M.: see Mark Antony
X 8071, 1 210 n. 91
Apelles: 49; 145; 221
XI 1414 125 n. 40
Aplonia: 88 n. 13
XV 1097 129 n. 75
Apollodorus: 46 n. 20
XV 7382 128 n. 69
Arellius: 152; 217 n. 144
XV 7444 128 n. 69
Arethusa: 58 n. 98; 108 n. 11
AE 1892, 137 126 n. 48 Argeia: 155; 223
1908, 231 128 n. 70 Argyrippus: 61
1908, 232 128 n. 72 Aristeides: 218 n. 144
1989, 211 = 1993, Aristippus: 146
149 129 n. 73 Arpochras: 87
EE 8, 736 125 n. 45 Aspasia: 45
IGR 3, 1056 = Astaphium: 101; 214 n. 119
OGIS 2, 629 = Asus: 177
CIS 2, 3, 3913 69 n. 17 Attalos III: 124
P.Ross.Georg. Atticus: see Pomponius Atticus
2, 42 124 n. 27 Augustus: 111-113; 121-122; 155; 158 n. 7
SEG 13, 364 144 n. 11
Bacchis: 73-74; 80; 105; 107; 109; 208 n. 75; 208 n. 78
Ballio: 213 n. 109
Bathyllus: 167 n. 4; 168
Persons Bilistiche: 146
Britannicus: 115
Names in fiction and poetry are in italics.
Burrus: 123; 129
Cadia: 88 n. 13
Acanthis: 74; 92; 106 Caecilius Metellus Celer, Q.: 116
Acca Larentia: 213 n. 100; see also analytical index Caecilius Metellus Pius, Q.: 85
Acropolistis: 103; 105 Caecina Alienus: 128 n. 69
Adelphasium: 51; 56; 106 Caelius Rufus, M.: 117-118
Aebutius: 48; 82-84 Caesar: see Iulius Caesar, C.
Aeschinus: 108 Calidius Eroticus: 97 n. 73
Aesop: 144 Caligula: 68; 111; 225
Aglaus: 128 Calliades: 223
Agrippa: 112; 131 Calpurnius Piso, C.: 124
Agrippina the Younger: 115; 123-124; 127; 129-130 Casina: 80
Alcesimarchus: 108-109 Castrensis: 89
Alcibiades: 146; 147 n. 35 Catullus: 119
Alexander: 145; 146 Cestilia: 90
Alexandria: 125 Chaerea: 217 n. 138
Ampelisca: 103 Charaxus: 144
Amplexus: 95 Chelidon: 77-81; 86; 214-215; 224-225
240 INDICES

Chloe: 92 Flora: 49; 84-86; 155; 217 n. 144

Chrysis: 73; 75 n. 19; 103; 105; 107 Fortunata: 209 n. 84
Cicero: see Tullius Cicero, M. Franco, Veronica: 48 n. 38
Cilnius Maecenas, C.: 167 n. 4; 168 Fulvia: 74 n. 11; 84 n. 44
Claudia Acte: 52; 123-126; 129-130 Galba: 125
Claudius: 113-115; 127 Gallus: 74
Claudius Felix, Ti.: 128 Geminius: 84-85
Cleareta: 91 Gérome, Jean-Léon: 144 n.15; 145 fig. 1
Cleopatra VII: 152 n. 56 Glycera: 146; 147; 155; 218 n. 144; 223
Clinia: 107-108 Glycerium: 108
Clodia Metelli: 58; 116-119; 200; 224 Gymnasium: 54; 103
Clodius Pulcher, A.: 222 Harpalus: 147
Clodius Pulcher, P.: 116; 118-119; 155; 222 Herennius Rufinus: 199 n. 36
Corilia Nymphe: 210 n. 91 Herodotos (sculptor): 155 n. 65; 223
Corinna: 73-74; 103; 106; 207 n. 73 Hill, Mary Ann: 196; 197 n. 22
Cornelia: 74 n. 11 Hiredis: 98 n. 86
Coryat, Thomas: 197 n. 26 Hispala: see Faecenia Hispala
Curio: 62 Hostilius Mancinus: 213 n. 113
Curius, Q.: 84 n. 44 Hostius Quadra: 169
Cynthia: 53-54; 56; 73; 105; 106, 212-214; 217 Howard, Harriet: 144 n.15
Cynulcus: 52 n. 55 Hypereides: 145; 147; 221; 223-224
Cytheris: 50; 74-77; 80; 83; 84 n. 45; 86; 103; 109; 151 Ilia: 88 n. 13
n. 47; 226 Iris: 96 n. 60; 98 n. 86
Daphnis: 207 n. 73 Isidorus: 80
Delia: 49 n. 40; 206 n. 59 Iulia: 58-59; 111-115; 119-120; 131
Delphis: 206 n. 57 Iulia Fortunata: 129
Demaenetus: 61 Iulius Caesar, C.: 75-72
Demetria Acte: 126 n. 47 Iulius Florus: 129
Demetrios Poliorcetes: 147; 155 n. 65 Iunius, M.: 79
Diabolus: 58; 91; 103 n. 4 Iunius Brutus, M.: 75
Diadumenus: 128 n. 69 Jacobs, Friedrich: 147 n. 34
Diniarchus: 193; 198 Justinian I: 227
Diotima: 163 fig. 7; 164 Juvenal: 111
Dipsas: 74; 92; 95 Kallo: 146
Docimus: 80 Korinna: 164
Domitian: 126 n. 50; 169-170 Lais: 73-74; 144 n. 6; 145-146; 152 n. 56; 155; 212; 223
Doryphorus: 169 n. 20 Lamia: 147
Drauca: 87 Leaina: 147
Earinos: 170 Leda: 90
Egloge: 125 Lemniselenis: 103
Elephantis: 144 n. 6; 222-223 Lena: 92 n. 37; 103
Encolpius: 170 Leontion: 146; 152 n. 55; 218 n. 144
Epicurus: 146; 152 n. 55; 218 n. 144 Leontiskos: 147
Epidicus: 106 Lesbia: 74 n. 11; 119
Eros Caenidianus: 126 n. 51 Lucilia of Pompeii: 90
Erotium: 73-74; 208 n. 74; 214-216 Lucretia: 51
Fabia: 88 n. 13 Lycoris: see Cytheris
Faecenia Hispala: 48; 81 n. 38; 82-86; 103; 214 n. 118 Lycotas: 108 n. 11
Fannia Voluptas: 97 n. 73 Lycus: 51
Flavia Domitilla: 126-127 Maecenas: see Cilnius Maecenas, C.
 INDICES 241

Mania: 147 Philematium: 53; 103

Manilia: 213 n. 113 Philippus: 167 n. 4
Marathus: 62 Philocomasium: 73; 107
Mark Antony: 62; 74-76; 151 n. 47; 152 n. 56; 165 n. 56 Philodemus: 52
Melaenis: 102-103; 109 Philolaches: 61
Melanippe: 222 Philotis: 104-105
Menaechmus: 208 Phoenicium: 103
Menander: 146 Phronesium: 73; 104-106; 214
Menkaure: 144 Phryne: 49; 57; 144-146; 152; 155; 206 n. 62; 212; 218
Messalina: 55; 58; 89 n. 14; 111; 113-115; 120; 128 n. n. 144; 221; 223-224
64 Phyllis: 93; 213 n. 115
Metrobios: 167 n. 4; 168 Pindar: 164
Metrodorus: 218 n. 144 Polyarchis: 155 n. 71; 218 n. 144
Milichus: 90 Pompey: 84-85; 155; 222
Mnesis: 212 n. 106 Pomponius Atticus: 155
Mnester: 114 Poppaea Sabina: 124-125; 226
Mola: 88 n. 10 fig. 1 Postumius: 83-84
Mustius, C.: 79 Pothine: 212 n. 106
Myrrhine: 147 Praxiteles: 145; 152; 223
Myrtale: 207 Prima: 95-96
Myrtion: 212 n. 106 Ptolemy II: 146; 147; 212 n. 106
Mysticus: 168 Publilia: 74 n. 11
Mystis / Mysta: 155 Pyrgopolynices: 107
Naevolus: 62; 168-170 Pythagoras: 169; 170 n. 36
Napoleon III: 144 n. 15 Pythionike: 147; 155; 221-223
Narcissus: see Tiberius Claudius Narcissus Quintilius Crescens, L.: 160 n. 26; 165
Neaira: 46 n. 20; 103; 155; 207 n. 71; 223 Rhodope: 152 n. 55
Nemea: 146 n. 22; 146 n. 25; 147 n. 35 Rhodopis: 144
Nemesis: 73-74; 102; 104; 106 Rubria: 124
Nero: 115; 123-125; 129; 169 Rusatia: 88 n. 13
Nicarete: 103 Sabidia: 57; 93; 94 fig. 7-8; 208
Nicopolis: 213 n. 110 Sappho: 155; 164
Nossis: 155 n. 71; 206 n. 62 Scapha: 53
Novellia Primigenia: 90; 91 fig. 5; 99 Secundus: 95-96
Numa Pompilius: 122 Seianus: 127
Nymphidia: 225 Selenium: 103-104; 108; 109
Nymphidius Sabinus: 225 Seleukos I: 155 n. 65
Octavia: 123-124 Sempronia: 118-119
Olympiodoros: 207 n. 71 Seneca: see Annaeus Seneca
Onesimus: 129 Sestius: 119
Origo: 213 Severus Alexander: 69
Otho: 226 Silius, C.: 114
Pamphila: 217 n. 138 Simaetha: 206 n. 57
Pamphilus: 108 Socrates: 46 n. 22; 49 n. 41; 146; 164; 212 n. 106
Pankaspe: 145 Sophe: 177
Pannychis: 155 Sporus: 124
Pausias: 218 n. 144 Statilia Messalina: 125
Philaenis: 222 Sulla: 167 n. 4; 168
Philaenis: 97 n. 71 Sulpicia: 51; 74 n. 11
Philaenium: 58; 91; 103; 105 Sulpicia (story of Faecennia): 83-84
242 INDICES

Syra: 105 Brindisi: 226

Tarsi: 218 Cagliari, Museo archeologico nazionale, inv. 35533: 125
Terentia: 74 n. 11; 76-77; 83 Capri: 127; 131
Tertia: 80-81; 226 Caprino Veronese: 182 n. 7
Thais: 142 Carthage: 195 n. 13
Thais: 73; 101; 105; 146; 212; 217 n. 138 Castelvetro di Modena: 181
Thaliarchis: 223 Cittanova: see Modena
Themista: 152 n. 55 Compiègne, Musée Vivenel: 224 fig. 1
Theodora: 227 Corinth: 104; 155 n. 68
Theodote: 46 n. 22; 49 n. 41; 146; 212 n. 106 Delphi: 49 n. 44; 144-145; 221; 223-224
Thraso: 101; 107 Eleusis: 155; 221
Tiberius: 112-113 Este: 191
Tiberius Claudius Narcissus: 127; 130 Évora (Portugal): 184 n. 13
Tigellinus: 225 Forlimpopoli: 186
Timandra: 146 Galassina di Castelvetro: see Castelvetro di Modena
Titius, P.: 79 Giza (Egypt): 144
Trimalchio: 162 Herculaneum: 90; 158; 162 n. 33; 166 n. 63
Tullia: 74 n. 11 Suburban Baths: 89 fig. 3
Tullius Cicero, M.: 75-82; 84 n. 44; 116-120; 200; 214; Istria: 126
222 Lanuvium: 105-106
Tyche: 89 Lipari: 192
Varus: 105 Milan, Civiche raccolte numismatiche del Castello
Vedius Pollio: 151 n. 47 Sforzesco: 199 fig. 2
Verres: 77-82; 214-215; 224-226 Modena: 182-183 fig. 1-3; 185-187; 189
Vespasian: 125-128; 130 Monte da Loja (Portugal): 183 n. 8; 184 n. 13
Victoria: 95 Naples, MANN inv. 2533: 204 n. 53
Volumnia Cytheris: see Cytheris inv. 9015: 160
Volumnius Eutrapelus, P.: 75 inv. 9024: 59 n. 109; 158 n. 10 fig. 1; 162 n. 63;
Zosimus: 95 166 n. 62
inv. 9254: 159
inv. 9387: 162 n. 33
Places inv. 9547: 172 n. 46
inv. 27671: 200 n. 41
Aesernia: 97 inv. 29488/512: 205 n. 56
Alexandria: 146; 212 n. 106 inv. 110569: 151 fig. 4; 158 n. 12
Ampurias: 195 n. 13 inv. 111209: 159 n. 14 fig. 2
Andros: 107 inv. 120029-120031: 160-163 fig. 4-6
Assisi: 134; 140 n. 34; 140 n. 37 inv. 129477: 205 n. 54 fig. 7
Athens: 45; 53 New Orleans: 197
Kerameikos: 200 n. 42; 211 n. 101 Nuceria: 90; 99
Parthenon: 147 Olbia: 124; 125-126
Babylon: 221 Oplontis: 210
Baiae: 106; 117; 151 n. 47 Ostia, House of Jupiter and Ganymede (I 4, 2): 171
Berlin, Antikensammlung, inv. V.I.4991: 199 fig. 2 House of the Painted Vaults (III 5, 1): 199 fig. 2
Bitonto: 181 n. 6 Palmyra: 53; 68
Boscoreale: 210 Pandataria: 112
Boston, Museum of Fine Arts, inv. Res. 08.33h: 199 fig. Peneios: 155 n. 68
2 Persepolis: 146
Bovolone: 191 Piacenza: 182; 183-184 fig. 4; 187; 190
Brescia: 182 n. 7; 183 n. 11 Pieve d’Alpago: 181
 INDICES 243

Pompeii: 53; 57; 59; 87-99; 143-155; 157-166; 172- casa I 11, 16: 201 n. 45
180; 194-220 casa I 14, 15: 201 n. 45
Basilica: 96 fig. 9 casa II 5, 5: 201 n. 45
Casa degli Amorini dorati (VI 16, 7): 49; 148-150 casa II 8, 6: 201 n. 45
Casa di Apollo (VI 7, 23): 152 n. 56 casa V 3, 11: 200-206 fig. 3-7 pl. 1; 220
Casa dell’Ara Massima (VI 16, 15): 152-154 casa VI 7, 20: 151 n. 47
Casa del Bell’impluvio (I 9, 1.2): 162 n. 33; 201; casa VI 16, 36.37: 159
207; 216-217 fig. 11-12; 220 casa VII 2, 20.40: 150 n. 47
Casa di Caecilius Iucundus (V 1, 26): 49; 150- casa VII 12, 26: 150 n. 47
152; 158 n. 12; 207 casa IX 5, 11.13: 172; 175-180 fig. 4-7
Casa del Camillo (VII 12, 23): 172 n. 46 casa IX 5, 19 (upper floor): 176
Casa dei Capitelli colorati (VII 4, 31.51): 172 n. casa IX 7, 17: 90 fig. 4
46 casa X 5, 11: 150 n. 47
Casa dei Casti amanti (IX 12, 6.7): 160; 166; 207 Caserma dei gladiatori: 97 n. 78
Casa del Centenario (IX 8, 6): 162 n. 33; 176; 179 Caupona di Asellina (IX 11, 2): 195 n. 16
Casa del Citarista (I 4, 5): 164 n. 51; 165 fig. 8 Caupona di Aurunculeius Secundio (VI 16,
Casa dell’Efebo (I 7, 11): 160; 205 pl. 2 32.33): 195 n. 16; 211; 220
Casa di Epidius Primus (I 8, 14): 201 n. 48 Caupona di Demetrius e Helpis Afra (I 2, 17.19):
Casa di Epidius Sabinus (IX 1, 22): 159 218
Casa di Helvidius Severus (I 13, 2): 206 n. 58 Caupona di Euxinus e Iustus (I 11, 10.12): 201 n.
Casa del Flamen (V 4, 3): 218; 220 45; 218
Casa di Ganimede (VII 13, 3.4.18): 172-175; 177; Caupona di Felix and Dorus: (VI 16, 39.40): 195
179-180 n. 16
Casa di Giuseppe II (VIII 2, 39): 205 pl. 2 Caupona di Masculus (I 7, 13.14): 210-212 fig.
Casa di Iulius Polybius (IX 13, 1-3): 161; 206 pl. 8-10; 220
2 Caupona di Vetutius Placidus (II 8, 8.9): 201 n. 48
Casa del Labirinto (VI 11, 10): 132 n. 9 caupona I 10, 3: 96
Casa del Laocoonte (VI 14, 28-33): 159 fig. 2 caupona VII 9, 29.34: 218
Casa di Lucretius Fronto (V 4, 11): 205 pl. 2 caupona VII 13, 19-21: 172
Casa del Meleagro (VI 9, 2.13): 159; 172 n. 46; caupona IX 7, 26: 218
178 n. 90 cellae meretriciae (VII 13): 172 n. 53; 194; 195
Casa del Menandro (I 4, 10): 201; 205 pl. 2 n. 16
Casa del Moralista (III 4, 2.3): 158 Forum Baths: 171
Casa delle Nozze d’argento (V 2, 1): 205 pl. 2 hospitium I 14, 8.9: 201 n. 48
Casa del Principe di Napoli (VI 15, 8.9): 201 n. 48 hospitium II 1, 8.9: 201 n. 45
Casa dei Quadretti teatrali (I 6, 11): 205 pl. 2 hospitium VII 12, 34-36: 89
Casa del Sacello Iliaco (I 6, 4): 205 pl. 2 Lupanare (VII 12, 18-20): 87-90; 194
Casa di Trebius Valens (III 2, 1): 98 Murecine: 179; 210
Casa del Triclinio (V 2, 4): 160; 164-166 Necropoli di Porta Nocera: 91 fig. 5; 185 fig. 7;
Casa dell’Orso ferito (VII 2, 45): 89; 95 191
Casa del Ristorante (IX 5, 14.16): 162 n. 33; 176 Praedia di Iulia Felix (II 4, 1.12): 179; 201 n. 45
Casa di Venere in bikini (I 11, 6): 218; 220 Suburban Baths: 209 n. 85
Casa dei Vettii (VI 15, 1): 178 n. 90; 205 pl. 2; taberna I 6, 3.4: 195 n. 16
209 n. 85 Villa Imperiale: 133 n. 14
casa I 2, 18.19: 201 n. 45 Villa dei Misteri: 98
casa I 2, 20.21: 201 n. 45 Deposito inv. P7471: 211
casa I 2, 24.25: 201 n. 45 Pozzuoli: 124; 186 n. 19
casa I 3, 18: 160 Ravenna: 227
casa I 6, 8.9: 201 n. 45 Reggio Emilia: 182; 184; 188 fig. 8; 189
casa I 10, 7: 96 Rome
244 INDICES

Antiquarium comunale inv. 13694: 198 fig. 1 Sanzeno: 181

Ara Maxima: 153 Siracusae: 207 n. 68
Balineum Caenidianum: 129 Stabiae
baroque period: 196 Villa Arianna: 172 n. 46
Caelian Hill: see Villa of Claudia Acte Villa of S. Marco: 57; 93-95 fig. 7-8; 208
Capitolium: 81 Tanagra: 222
Casa di Augusto: 133 n. 17 Tarentum: 207
Centocelle: 134 n. 19; 140 n. 34; 141 Thespiae: 145
Circus Maximus: 125 Tivoli: 213 n. 115
Domus Aurea: 131 n. 6 Valmontone: 187; 191
Domus del Gianicolo: 131 n. 6 Velitrae: 124; 125
Domus republicana in Via Sacra: 195 Venice: 59
Domus Tiberiana: 96-97 Vercelli: 187; 190; 206
Esquiline: 209 Vernègue (France): 185 fig. 8
Forum of Augustus: 112 Verona: 187 n. 25
Forum Romanum: 105; 113 Viminacium: 183 n. 8
House of Chelidon: 78-81; 214-215 Vindonissa: 195 n. 13
House of Cicero: 222 Washington D.C.: 196
Jewish temple: 105 Zevio: 185 fig. 6; 191
Palatine: 111; 114
Porta Nomentana: see Villa of Antonia Caenis
Porticus of Octavia: 105 Analytical Index
Porticus of Livia: 105
Porticus of Pompey: 50; 105; 151 n. 47; 154-155; ablutions: 198-201
222-224; 227 abortion: 107; 223
Sacellum of Libertas: 155 Acca Larentia: 153; 213 n. 110
Stagnum Agrippae: 225 accusations of prostitution: 112-113; 115; 120
Subura: 213 Actaeon: 150
Temple of Bona Dea: 105 actress: see theatre world
Temple of Ceres: 170 Adonis: 170
Temple of Diana: 213 n. 115 adulescens: see sex partners
Temple of Dioscuri, Circus Flaminius: 155; 218 adultery: 44; 61; 67-68; 112-113; 115-116; 119-120;
n. 144 121 n. 2
Temple of Dioscuri, Forum Romanum: 85 agency: 62-63; 193; 194 n. 4; 197; 206 n. 62; 217-219
Temple of Isis: 105; 170 aging: 68; 93; 104; 108-109; 117; 196 n. 20; 206
Temple of Mater Magna: 170 amatores: see sex partners
Temple of Palatine Apollo: 105 amica: 43; 51; 53; 61; 66; 88 n. 10; 97-99; 106-107;
Temple of “Romulus”: 196 n. 17 123; 151 n. 47
Temple of Serapis: 105 Amor: see Eros
Temple of Venus Erycina: 54 amulets: 205-206
Templum Pacis: 170; 171 anecdotes: 49; 144-147; 221
Villa of Antonia Caenis: 128-129 Aphrodite: see Venus
Villa of Claudia Acte: 125-126 Aphrodite Anadyomene: 145; 218; 221
Villa della Farnesina: 59; 131-141; 147; 158 n. 12 Aphrodite of Cnidos: 145
Villa Patrizi: see Villa of Antonia Caenis aquarioli: 199 n. 36
Salamis: 195 n. 13 Ara Maxima: 153
Salò: 187; 190 Ariadne: 153
San Pietro in Cariano: 187; 190-191 artists’ models: 49; 145-152; 217 n. 144; 221; 223; see
Santa Maria di Zevio: see Zevio also sex partners
Sant’Ambrogio di Valpolicella: 184 fig. 5; 190 Bacchanalian affair: 82
 INDICES 245

banquetting images: 59; 133-141; 147-148; 151; 157- dressing, compehensively: 106; 133-138; 147; 150-
164 152; 155; 158; 159; 221
baroque period: 196 crocota, crocotula, crotula: 207
baths: 129; 171 stola: 52; 58 n. 101; 59; 62; 94 n. 47; 99; 209;
bawds: 61; 74; 92; 102; 104; 107 226 n. 21
beds: 173; 194; 200 n. 45 toga: 51-52; 59; 62; 99; 226
biclinium: 147 n. 38 veil: 45 n. 16; 57; 59; 150; 158; 207; 221; 226
biographies: 75-84; 103-109; 123-129; 147; 213 drinking: 49; 62; 106-107; 113; 115; 133; 137; 151;
body concepts: 214 157-164; 170; 197
brick stamps: 124 n. 28; 125 drinking vessels: 134; 136-138; 147; 150; 158-164
brothels: 87-88; 90; 111; 114; 171-172; 173 n. 55; 194- eagle: 171; 173-175; 177
195; 197; 200 n. 42; 211 n. 97; 212; 218-219; 225 economic standing: 46; 81; 117; 125; 128; 213 n. 110
candelabrum: 81; 194 education: 55; 56-58; 103-104; see also skills
catella: see jewellery effeminates: 170-171
caupona: see inns and hotels emancipation: 116
cellae meretriciae: 87; 89-90; 172-173; 194 emotions, love: 61-62; 75; 84; 91-92; 93-96; 98; 104;
Ceres: 125 108; 117-118; 123
chastity: see mores erotic passion: 78; 94; 98; 114
childhood: 103; 151 n. 47 jealousy: 98; 103; 106
cinaedus: 168-170; 177 n. 81 Endymion: 153; 172-175; 177
clients: see sex partners eromenoi: see sex partners
collections of sculpture: 150; 151 n. 47; 155; 222 Eros: 152; 171; 174; 195 n. 11
comedy: 48; 51; 55-58; 61; 73-74; 76 n. 20; 80; 101- erotic poetry: 73-74; 91-93
109; 143 n. 3; 148 n. 38; 170; 193; 206; 214-217; exclusi: see sex partners
226 familia: see household
communicating: 57; 88-90; 95; 162; 179; see also letters family values: 112
concubinate, contubernium: 121-124; 127; 163; 168 n. 8 fathers: 80; 112; 170
coniunx: see marriage feminism: 48; 58 n. 103; 74
contraceptives: 198 figurae Veneris: 94 n. 47; 151 n. 51; 182-186; 188-192;
contracts: 54-55; 58; 61; 104-106; 122; 214-215; 217; 199; 209 n. 85; see also sexual images
see also usucapio fingerrings: see jewelery
contubernium: see concubinate flammeum: see dressing
convivium: 49; 59; 147 n. 36; 155; 215; 219 Flora, Floralia: 84
cosmetics: 106; 197 n. 29; 201-204; 218 funerary contexts: 181-183
crocota, crocotula, crotula: see dressing funerary monuments: 125; 128; 155; 221-222; 226
cubiculum: 59-60; 90 n. 20; 126 n. 47; 131-140; 151; funerary portraits: 155; 222; 226
157-160; 162; 164-165; 173; 176-180; 200; 202; Galli: 170 n. 38
207; 216; 225 Ganymede: 167-179
cultural memory: 146; 148; 194 “Ganymede” by Leochares: 171 n. 39
cunnilingus: 88 n. 11; 175 n. 69; 209 n. 85 gender: 45; 62; 63; 67-68; 75 n. 18; 77; 168
Danaë: 217 gifts, donations: 46 n. 22; 53; 57; 60; 74; 81; 91; 93;
death: 102; 107; 113; 168; 215 117; 124; 202 n. 49; 207-209; 210 n. 91; 213; 219
“Deipnosophistae”: 45; 47; 49 n. 45; 52 n. 55; 84; 144; gold: 104; 106; 150-152; 155; 158; 206-212
207 n. 72 graffiti: 88-99; 165; 171; 176; see also communica-
deversorium: see inns and hotels ting
diobolaris: 51-52 hair: 105-106; 150-151; 206; 224-225; 22
domina: 97 hairpins: 183; 202; 204
donations: see gifts Hellenistic rulers: see sex partners
doors: 92-93; 214 Heracles: 153
dreaming of sex: 175 herm (with portrait): 224
246 INDICES

hermaphrodite: 178 ludi Augustales: 167 n. 4

hetaira: 66; 143-144; 146 lupa: 43 n. 4; 50; 52; 59; 66; 199 n. 36
homosexual relations, male: 167-168; 171; 176-177; lupanar: see brothels
see also male prostitutes maenads: 150; 151 n. 47; 178
female: 88 n. 10-11; 98 magics: see iunx; see rhombos
homosociality: 75; 79-81; 84-85 male prostitutes: 66-68; 88 n. 11; 167-170; see also ho-
hospitium: see inns and hotels mosexual relations, male
hotels: see inns and hotels manuals: 57; 144 n. 6; 222
household and staff: 83; 104; 125; 128-129; 137-138; manumission: 75-76; 86
158-159; 161-162; 212; see also servants marriage: 70-71; 82-83; 108; 114; 121-122; 124
houses, living quarters: 80; 83; 126; 164-165; 196; 212- marriage between men: 169 n. 20
218 masks: 50; 63; 206; 223; 227
hunter: 174 Mater Magna: 170
illness: 107 matronae: 56; 59; 77; 99; 119; 170
imperial mistresses: see sex partners medium genus feminarum: 94 n. 47; 99; 209
incest: 111; 116; 119 meeting-places: see locations
infamia, sexual misbehaviour: 50; 54; 80-82; 112-113; megalomisthoi: 46
115-116; 118; 168-169 men’s networks: 49; 63; 78-80; 92; see also homoso-
inns and hotels: 89; 95; 97; 165; 171; 176; 179; 210- ciality
212; 217; 218 menstruation: 223
intellectual activities: 146; 223-224; see also sex part- meretrix: 48-62; 65; 69-70; 73; 77; 87-88; 92 n. 37; 96
ners n. 64; 99; 114; 117; 193; 206; 208; 209; 210 n. 91;
Isis: 105; 170 n. 38 213 n. 110; 213 n. 113; 214; 224
Iuno Quiritis: 105 meretrix bona – meretrix mala: 101-102
iunx, iynx: 205; 206 n. 57 mime: see theatre world
iuvenis: see sex partners mirrors: 146 n. 21; 155; 173 n. 57; 181; 194-195; 197-
jewellery, comprehensivly: 60; 150-152; 158; 207-211; 198; 202-204; 217; 219; 225
225 misbehaviour: see infamia
anklets: 209-210; 217-218 mores, manners: 54-61; 97; 99 n. 87; 115; 118; 135-
bracelets: 208; 209 n. 83; 210; 211; 214 n. 117; 136; 155; 168 n. 8; 198; 200; 208; 214 n. 117; 217;
217 217 n. 140; 219; 222
catellae: 209-211 mothers: 55-56; 58; 104
earrings: 207 n. 73; 208 n. 74 music: 150; 161; 165; see also skills in music
fingerrings: 91; 183; 194 myrtle: 148
necklaces: 207-208 Narcissus: 176 n. 79; 177-178
Jupiter: 170-171; 217 neighbours (in literature): 82; 105; 214; 221 n. 4
kissing: 91; 97; 134; 137 nudity: 54; 59; 84; 145; 150; 159; 171; 177; 179; 209;
klinai: 132-140 221; 225
Lamia (myth): 147 n. 34 nymphaeum: 200-201
lampadophoros: 160 nymphs: 174-175; 204; 224
lamps: 183-191; 195-196 Olympic champions: see sex partners
legacies: 52 n. 58; 72; 81-82; 168 n. 10 paelex, pallakē: 66; 122-124; 126 n. 56
legislation: 66-68; 122; 167 palam: 54-55; 67-68; 97-98
lena: see bawds Pan: 137; 153
leno: see pimps paraclausithyron: 93; 213 n. 114
letters: 58; 95-96; 127; 152 n. 55 parturition: 181
libraries: 129 n. 73 Pasiphae: 222
living quarters: see houses; see villa property payment for sex: 52; 69; 87; 88 n. 7; 90; 93; 96; see
locations, meeting-places: 52; 59; 95-96; 105; 170 also gifts
lucerna cubicularis: 195 peculium: 210
 INDICES 247

perfume: 202 n. 49; see also myrtle Senate, senators: 79-80; 82; 86; 112-114; 121 n. 2;
phallus: 172; 210-212 122
pimps: 51-62; 68; 80-81; 89; 97; 107; 167; 212-214; servants: 137; 140; 161; 169-170; 193; 207 n. 66; 207 n.
226; see: also pornoboskos 71; 208 n. 74; 208 n. 78; 208 n. 80; 212; 214 n. 119;
pinakes: 133-135; 138-139; 147; 225 215; 217 n. 138; see also slaves
poets (in painting): 133; 146; 164 servi, servuli: see sex partners
political and public activities: 75; 77-78; 79-80; 84; sex partners, clients: 53-54
115; 127-128; 225 adulescentes: 61-62; 70; 80; 82; 99; 102; 107;
pornē: 44-47; 66 118; 213 n. 112
pornoboskos: 47; 89 amatores: 56 n. 89; 57; 82; 91; 98 n. 86; 99 n.
portraits (painting): 85; 143; 146; 148-155; 164; 218 87; 117; 122-123; 126; 145; 167-168; 176-177;
portraits (sculpture): 104; 125; 144-146; 154-155; 222- 206; 208 n. 78; 212; 214; 217 n. 138; 219
224; 226-227 artists: 144-146
pregnancy: 107 eromenoi: 169
Priapus: 210 exclusi: 92; 214
prices: see payment Hellenistic rulers: 144; 145-147
proseda: 51; 54; 66 iuvenes: 176; 178
prostibula, prostibulum: 43; 54 n. 70; 66; 169; 170 n. men of letters: 73; 92; 105-106; 119; 146; 152 n.
37; 195 55; 223-224
prostituta: 66-71 Olympic champions: 146
pseudokore: 55 Roman emperors: 123-129
pudicitia, pudor: see mores Roman politicians: 74-81; 84-85
Pudicitia Patricia: 214 n. 117 servi, servuli: 51; 59; 225
puella: 43; 47-49; 53-55; 57-59; 61; 74; 89 n. 14; 91-93; sexual images: 151; 181-192; 194; 198-199; 204-205;
95-98; 103-106; 109; 113; 114 n. 28; 119; 206; 207 210 n. 96; 217; 221
n. 67; 208; 213; 217 n. 140 sexual misbehaviour: see infamia
puella docta: 48; 56-59; 91 n. 29; 113; 119-120; 212 situlae: 181
pupa: 57; 95; 97-98 skills, artistic and literary: 56-57; 103-104; 118-119;
pyramid: 144 150; 152; 162-163; 169; 197
pyxis: 183; 202; 204; 211; 219 slave prostitution: 45-47; 54-55; 69-71; 80; 82; 89 n.
rape (in comedy): 74; 217 n. 138 14; 98; 102-103; 111; 114; 121-124; 127; 168-170;
reception in historical painting: 144 196; 199; 210; 216
religious activities: 49 n. 40; 54; 84; 105-106; 125; 170 slaves in women’s households: 83; 102; 104-105; 118;
n. 38; 201-202; see: also votives 125-126; 128-130; 207 n. 73; 212; 214
rhombos: 205-206 sleeping: 111; 172-175; 178; 209-210
Rhône Valley pottery: 163; 198 social status, in general: 47; 66; 99; 160
satyrs: 151 n. 47; 177-178; 204 of freeborn: 66-67; 86; 99; 110
scholarship (modern): 43-48; 74; 101-102; 143-144; of freedwomen: 81-82; 86; 103; 121-124
147 n. 34; 193 sodales: 89-90; 185-186; 216
scortum: 43; 48; 51; 66; 69-70; 73 n. 2; 82; 98; 193 n. spintria: 182-183; 186
1; 225 statues: 49; 81; 104; 145; 155; 160; 171; 173; 206; 217-
Seasons: 174-175 218; 221-223
secretary, a manu: 126 statues (in painting): 147 n. 36; 160
seductive quality of materials: 197 statuettes: 202; 218
Selene: 174-175 stola, stolata: 52; 62; 94 n. 47; 99; 209; 226 n. 21
self-perception, self-determination: 46; 48; 50-54; 56; Tabula Heracleensis: 67; 167 n. 1
57-60; 62-63; 65; 74; 85; 93; 98; 103; 107; 143; 163- Tarpeia: 214 n. 117
164; 166; 169-171; 175; 178; 181; 206-213; 218- taverns: see inns and hotels
220; 225-227 taxation: 68-69
248 INDICES

terminology and definitions: 43-45; 51; 63; 65-66; 73 n. Venus Fisica: 95-97
2; 88; 99; 143-144 Vesta: 106
Thalia: 133 viewer: 137; 143; 147; 150; 171; 174-175; 178-180
theatre world: 50-51; 75-76; 105; 119; 133; 150 n. 44; villa property: 128; 131
154; 167-170; 206; 214; 226 violence (in literature): 103; 106-107; 168
tintinnabula: 195 n. 16 votive offerings: 81; 125; 144
toiletry: 201-204; 218 voyeurs, onlookers: 137; 175
trapeza: 134; 139; 159-160 Warren Cup: 137 n. 26
triclinia: 59-60; 131; 148; 151-153; 157-166; 173; 176; water basins: 136-137; 198; 201-202; 205
200; 206-207 water carriers: see aquarioli
tutor: 62; 79; 81-82; 104 water pipes: 128; 200
unguentaria: 183; 189; 194; 202; 204-207; 211; 220 women’s domestic work: 58 n. 98; 107; 181; 183
usucapio: 69-70 women’s networks: 52; 56; 77; 83-84; 86
Venus: 49-51; 55; 60; 61 n. 114; 63; 80 n. 31; 88 n. 10; women’s words (in painting): 162; 163-164
105-106;133; 145; 147 n. 36; 148; 152; 173; 179; wreaths: 133; 136-137; 138; 150; 152; 159; 162; 186
209 n. 84; 217-220 n. 21
Venus Erycina: 54-55; 81