Incontinentia History Paperv2 8p

8/9/2019 Incontinentia History Paperv2 8p

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/incontinentia-history-paperv2-8p 1/4

The Juxtaposition of Morality and Sexuality

during the Roman Republic

Incontinentia,

Licentia et Libido



JAMES MADISON UNDERGRADUATE RESEARCH JOURNAL JAMES MADISON UNDERGRADUATE RESEA2

Sex is an important element o human existence. Fromthe standpoint o pure reproduction and continuanceo the species to the ulfillment o pleasure and

personal satisaction, sex is an essential element o humanexperience. Te sexuality o the ancient Romans hashistorically been perceived as licentious in nature andocused entirely on hedonism, a belie that can be tracedto early Christian polemic.1 Modern perceptions o Romansexuality reflect this stereotype.2 Te juxtaposition o thetime-honored ideals o the Romans with their fixation ontheir own personal sexual gratification creates a seemingdichotomy in both thought and deed. In truth, however,Roman sexuality was complex, nuanced by context, andstrongly affected by the social stratification o the Romans.

It was also indicative o their honor-shame culture, as theirsexuality was governed by mos maiorum (customs o ourancestors), placing it within the purview o traditionalRoman values, as well as the Roman definition o what wasmoral and what was obscene.

Te past three decades have seen a large amount oscholarship centered on the study oRoman sexuality and not only howit applies in their own culture, buthow it compares to modern society.3 Te main ocus o this scholarship,however, has been on sexualityand morality during the period othe Roman Empire, as there is alot more primary source evidence available that explicitly

1 Alastair J. L. Blanshard, “Roman Vice,” Sex: Vice and Love rom Antiquity

to Modernity (Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell, 2010), 1-88. 2 Modern television has dedicated hours to sexualizing ancient history, withtelevision programs such as HBO’s Rome, or the Starz network’s Spartacus:Blood and Sand , depicting ancient sexuality as gratuitous and trashy. Filmssuch as Caligula (1979) add to the portrayals o Roman decadence commonlyassumed to be the reality. 3 See, or instance, Vern L. Bullough, Brenda K. Shelton, and Sarah Slavin,Te Subordinated Sex: A History o Attitudes oward Women , rev. ed. (Athens:University o Georgia Press, 1988); John R. Clarke, Looking at Lovemaking:Constructions o Sexuality in Roman Art, 100 B.C. – A.D. 250 (Berkeley:University o Caliornia Press, 1998); John R. Clarke, Roman Sex: 100 B.C.to A.D. 250 (New York: Harry N. Abrams, 2003); Catharine Edwards, TePolitics o Immorality in Ancient Rome (Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress, 1993); Christopher A. Faraone and Laura McClure, eds., Prostitutes andCourtesans in the Ancient World , Wisconsin Studies in Classics (Madison, WI:University o Wisconsin Press, 2006); Tomas K. Hubbard, ed., Homosexualityin Greece and Rome: A Sourcebook o Basic Documents, Joan Palevsky Imprintin Classical Literature (Berkeley: University o Caliornia Press, 2003);Rebecca Langlands, Sexual Morality in Ancient Rome (Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press, 2006); Tomas A. J. McGinn, Te Economy o Prostitutionin the Roman World: A Study o Social History and the Brothel (Ann Arbor:University o Michigan Press, 2004); Sarah B. Pomeroy, Goddesses, Whores,Wives, and Slaves: Women in Classical Antiquity (New York: Schocken Books,1995); Amy Richlin, Te Garden o Priapus: Sexuality and Aggression in RomanHumor, rev. ed. (New York: Oxord University Press, 1992); Ariadne Staples,From Good Goddess to Vestal Virgins: Sex and Category in Roman Religion(London: Routledge, 1998); Craig A. Williams, Roman Homosexuality:Ideologies o Masculinity in Classical Antiquity (Oxord: Oxord UniversityPress, 1999); and Beert C. Verstraete and Vernon Provencal, Same-Sex Desireand Love in Greco-Roman Antiquity and in the Classical radition o the West(New York: Harrington Park Press, 2005). All o these sources ocus on aspectso Roman sexuality in the context o the historical period, rather than tryingto compare them to modern standards o decency.

details both sex and morality, and the moral position o theauthors. As a consequence, expansive studies o sexualityin the Roman Republic period (509 - 27 B.C.E) are eitherlacking, bundled with the Roman Empire as a study oRoman sexuality in its entirety, or simply absent entirely.

Te oundation or this paper was laid by CatharineEdwards’ Te Politics o Immorality in Ancient Rome,which provides a great deal o research and inormationon the application o morality to politics and how itaffected Roman society. Tis is supplemented by AmyRichlin’s Te Garden o Priapus: Sexuality and Aggressionin Roman Humor, which explicitly outlines Roman ideaso obscenity and immorality during the Roman Republic.

Lastly, the work o John C. Clarke and his study o Romansexual artwork in Looking at Lovemaking: Constructions oSexuality in Roman Art, 100 B.C. – A.D. 250 and RomanSex: 100 B.C. to A.D. 250 provided great insight into theRoman cultural obsession with sexuality and the standardso propriety expected o the Roman upper classes.

Unortunately, all o these workssuffer rom the same issues inregard to the ocus that they placeupon sexuality during the RomanEmpire rather than the RomanRepublic. Te authors, however,provide enough detail and analysisin their interpretations o R epublic-

era sexuality to allow an extrapolation o how the sexualattitudes o the Romans o the L ate Republic/Empire were

related to the societal norms and expectations o the RomanRepublic period, and how they were directly connected tothe system o social stratification that governed all Romanrelationships and interactions.

StratificationRome itsel was a strongly hierarchical and class-conscioussociety, with social class determining one’s economic andpolitical opportunities, as well as legal rights and benefits.Te gul between the upper class and the lower class in theRepublic was large and quite difficult, but not impossible,to surmount. Te main criterion or success was wealth.It took a substantial amount o dives (riches) to enableany orm o social mobility, and even then, there was noguarantee o ascension. For the Romans, it was not enoughto be wealthy; one had to be perceived as wealthy in orderor wealth to have any social meaning or value.

A key component o Roman society, in act the entireoundation o Roman class relations, was the patron-clientsystem. Te system, as employed by the Romans, urtherexacerbated the divide between upper and lower classes.Operating as a system o mutual obligations, it boundtogether the upper and lower social classes into a cohesive

whole that allowed Roman society to unction as it did.

Patrons belonged to a higher class than clients and asa result were strategically placed to take advantage otheir relationship with the lower classes. Te patron wasexpected to provide resources to aid his client, such asemployment, support in legal matters, or even invitationsor meals. In return or general assistance and hospitality,the client was expected to support the patron in all waysthat were required, creating a relationship built upon aoundation o entitlements and obligations. Tis was notalways a mutually beneficial relationship, however, as thesystem o obligation caused strie within Roman society.

Te honor-shame culture practiced by the Romans (ap-pearances being just as important, i not more important,than actual social standing and reputation) was an indica-tion o the prominence that was placed upon maintainingthe appearance o prudence and decorum, more so thanactually being prudent and decorous. Over time, complexand nuanced roles and expectations o the different so-cial classes developed, creating astrict hierarchy that influenced allaspects o Roman society, includ-ing sex and sexuality.

With this deep hierarchy in place,it was quite easy or the upperclass to exploit the lower classesin all ways. It was also extraordinarily easy or someonein another’s debt to be taken advantage o sexually, 4

especially i the client was a ormer slave. It was per ectlylegal or a patron to continue a sexual relationship with areedman who began in ser vitude. While this exploitationeventually led to societal reorm, the entrenchment o thepatron-client system within Roman society continued tomarginalize the lower classes.

Te stratification o Roman society made it quite simple orRomans to gain sexual ulfillment and gratification romthose o lower social standing. For male Romans, sexualdominance was gained through the act o penetration,with the passive partner immediately classified asinerior. It was expected and socially acceptable or areeborn Roman man to want sex with both emale andmale partners, so long as he took the penetrative role. 5 Tere was no stigma at all attached to an elite adult maleinserting his penis into any orifice o another, so long as

that person was o inerior status.6

During the Republic, a Roman citizen’s libertas (politicalliberty) was defined in part by the right to preservehis body rom physical compulsion, including both

4 Liv. VIII.28. 5 Richlin, Te Garden o Priapus, 225. 6 Clarke, Roman Sex , 118.

corporal punishment and sexual abuse.7 Romales, however, who enjoyed or actively sbeing penetrated, were branded as cinaedhomosexuals) and were orbidden to vote, they represent themselves in a court o law. effectively outcasts rom Roman society.8 Wslaves were automatically considered to be thpartner, and it was in poor orm or either to ato their own sexual gratification. Slaves wenothing more than property, and as a result, theused them at will to ulfill whatever desiresentitled to.9 Te Romans viewed this treatmenineriors as perectly acceptable behavior. Twere not only just and within their rights, but

viewed as being completely moral within the their hierarchical social structure.

Morality, Immorality, and Self-IndulgSociologically, morality can be viewed as detethe society and culture in which one lives. oderstand the impact that morality has on a so

needs to examine notiorality entirely within torical and social conteRomans, morality was ent to each individuainstead a product o thinfluences o art, r itualand music.10

Michel Foucault writes in Te Use o Ple

morality is “a set o values and rules o actiorecommended to individuals through the inter

various prescriptive agencies such as the amilyits roles), educational institutions, churches, an. . . .”11 He goes on to write that morality also rereal behaviors o individuals in relation to themanners that are recommended to them.”12

As an honor-shame culture, the Romans maintain the appearance o propriety at allsuch, morality was very important and was theintense scrutiny and debate. Roman mores (mowere derived rom their ancestors. Te morewho lived in Rome were guided, taught, andin a variety o linking ways. 13 As Edwards“Morality and manliness [were considered tdistinguishing eatures o Rome.”14 Discipline,

7 McGinn, Prostitution, Sexuality, and the Law in Ancient 8 Ibid. 9 Elaine Fantham, Roman Readings: Roman Response to Gture rom Plautus to Statius and Quintilian (New York: De Gr128. 10 Langlands, Sexual Morality in Ancient Rome, 17. 11 Michel Foucault,Te Use o Pleasure, vol. 2, Te Histoty , Vintage Books ed. (New York: Random House, 1990), 25. 12 Ibid. 13 Langlands, Sexual Morality , 17. 14 Edwards, Te Politics o Immorality in Ancient Rome, 20

Studies of sexuality

in the Roman Republic

period are either lacking

. . . or absent entirely

Morality can be viewed

as determined by the

society and culture in

which one lives





JAMES MADISON UNDERGRADUATE RESEARCH JOURNAL JAMES MADISON UNDERGRADUATE RESEA6

entered the body; it was how they spoke to one another(which was especially important in regards to a politicalcareer), and how they greeted each other (Romans ofenkissed each other in greeting). Since kissing and publicbathing were common elements o Roman culture, earo contamination o the os was o primary concern.51 Combined with the common perception o genitalia asbeing disgusting, the strongest insult that could be leveledat a Roman was that o the os impurum—the uncleanmouth that is the result o oral intercourse.52

Tis charge allowed or the creation o the Latin equivalento “our-letter words,” and an association o ideas ostaining, wrongdoing, and ugliness with most sexual

concepts.53 Tese words were ofen said to be excitingor seductive.54 Te great oratores o the Republic, suchas Cicero, went out o their way to avoid such language,sidestepping words or conjunctions that would produce adouble meaning where none was intended.55 Te writingso Cicero provide evidence that it is the “context or locationthat can determine whether or not a word or activity isperceived as being obscene.”56 For instance, Cicero says it isa terrible gaffe or a man to flatulate,but in the baths it is more thanacceptable to parade around entirelynaked.57 It was the context thatcontinued to influence Romanbehavior as it directly impacted thesocietal attitudes towards acts andactions relating to s exuality.

Catullus,58 a renowned poet o the late Republic period,made explicit sexuality and crude invective into majorcomponents o his poetry.59 Te opening line o his poem,Carmen 16 , pedicabo ego vos et irrumabo (“I will sodomizeyou and ace-uck you”), is evocative o the provocativeintent toward its subjects, Aurelius60 and Furius,61 two oCatullus’ contemporaries with whom he had a personalrelationship. Te text o the poem is Catullus’ deenseagainst his riends’ charges that his poetr y—and thus he—was effeminate. He reutes these charges by invoking acrude masculinity in support o his argument. Te poemitsel acts as an apologia, emphasizing that only the poethimsel is required to be moral, but it is in no way necessaryor his work to be s o.62

51 Richlin, Te Garden o Priapus, 27. 52 Ibid., 26. 53 Ibid., 2. 54 Ov. Am. III.7. 55 Cic. Fam. IX.22. 56 Richlin, Te Garden o Priapus, 23. 57 Cic. Fam. IX.22. 58 Gaius Valerius Catullus (ca. 84 – 54 B.C.E.). 59 Richlin, Te Garden o Priapus, 1. 60 Tis riend o Catullus cannot be identified with any certainty. Currenthistorical conjecture leans towards Marcus Aurelius Cotta, elected praetor in54 B.C.E.; however, this is unsubstantiated and is purely speculation. 61 Marcus Furius Bibaculus (103 BCE - ?), a first century poet who had anaffair with Juventius, one o Catullus’ lovers. 62 Catul. XVI.5-6.

In deending himsel, however, Catullus advocates or theanal and oral rape o his riends, behaviors that would beconsidered entirely obscene by modern standards. Tiswas done purely in jest, yet still indicated the retaining oone’s virility, i not an increase in his p ortrayed masculinity.Catullus is acting as the aggressor in this poem, in whichthe context o the act is dependent on the traditionalstratification o Roman societal roles. Forcing someone tobe a receptacle or oral sex was evidence o a man’s virility.A man was not compromised by his penetration o anotherman. In actuality, his manhood status was bolstered.63 TeRomans did not view male on male penetration as beingout o the ordinary, nor was it evidence o effeminacy, solong as one was in the dominant position.

What was obscene and what was artistic expressionencompassed a wide scope. Te Roman concept oobscenity was based upon the idea that certain words andactions were restricted rom certain situations and theassociation o ideas with the “staining” effect o sexualintercourse and sexuality.64 Specific elements o humansexuality, such as genitalia, were considered to be dirty and

unpleasant, granting anythingdealing with them theclassification o obscenum . Otheracts, such as pedicare (sodomy)or irrumare (“ace-ucking”),were entirely dependent on thecontext o the behavior and theperpetrators (who was passive

and who was dominant) to gauge the level o obscenity

or inappropriateness. Tese context-specific distinctionssupport the idea o the complex nature o Roman sexualityduring the Republic period, which cannot be easilycategorized as simply decadent or immoral.

ConclusionContrary to popular modern belie, Roman sexuality duringthe Republic was not ocused entirely on hedonism or thesake o hedonism. Instead, Roman sexuality was a variableand complex construct that cannot be easily defined asbelonging simply to one category or another. Althoughthe ancient Romans viewed sex and sexuality as fluid, withpersonal gratification at its core, it was still governed by therules and requirements o the mos maiorum, the guidingprinciples o Roman tradition and morality.

Te permeation in Roman society o the patron-client

system and the strict hierarchy that they participated indirectly influenced Roman sexuality and sexual roles.Specific acts and behaviors were automatically stigmatizeddepending on the status o each participant, and societalstanding was at stake i these behaviors ell outside othe traditional social norms. Sexual acts perormed by

63 Craig A. Williams, Roman Homosexuality: Ideologies o Masculinity inClassical Antiquity, 2nd ed. (New York: Oxord University Press, 2010), 181. 64 Richlin, Te Garden o Priapus, 30.

the Romans were neither inherently moral nor immoral.It was the context that was crucial to the acceptance ospecific sexual behaviors to the Romans, with male virilityand masculinity dependent on pursuing the dominant rolein sexual acts. Freeborn males who willingly assumed thepassive role were considered to be shameul and were labeledand stigmatized accordingly.

Appearances were exceedingly important to the Romans, andit was expected that sexual behaviors and activities complywith the societal standards o the time. Anything that elloutside this range o acceptable behavior was immediatelybranded as being in excess, or was a source o pudor thatcould be wielded against a person, usually or political gain.

Because context was also important, Roman sexuality wasgoverned not only by the mos maiorum, but also by socialstratification. Te social stratification that was employed inadministering what was acceptable and moral in regards tosexuality was rigidly defined and directly influenced Romansexual mores into adhering to this stringency. Anythingoutside o this stern definition was categorized as beingexcessive, and excess led to chastisement, pudor , and thestigma o obscenity.

Although the Romans enjoyed the pursuit o physicalpleasure and viewed sex and sexuality as a “gif rom theGods,”65 there were strict rules and criteria that had to beollowed or it to be considered acceptable and morallyappropriate. Tese rules and criteria, when emphasizedalongside the mos maiorum and Roman societal norms,expose as alse the modern perception o Roman sexuality

as being ocused on hedonism and excess.

Modern standards o propriety and morality simply cannotbe applied to the Romans in regard to sex and sexuality. Teseeming dichotomy is only created when they are directlycompared to modern societal values and attitudes towardssex and sexuality, and the definitions o morality andobscenity that we impose on them. When examined in thecontext o their culture and their adherence to an honor-shame society and its requirements, Roman sexual behaviorsare both logical and appropriately administered.

65 Clarke, Roman Sex , 15.

BibliographyI. Primary Sources

Catullus, PoemsCicero, Against CatilineCicero, For Marcus CaeliusCicero, Letters to FriendsCicero, On the LawsCicero, PhilippicsDionysius o Halicarnassus, Roman AntiquitiesLivy, Te History o RomeMacrobius, SaturnaliaOvid, AmoresPlutarch, Cato Minor

Polybius, HistoriesSallust, Te Conspiracy o Catiline

II. Secondary Sources

Blanshard, Alastair J. L. Sex: Vice and Love roto Modernity . Chichester: Wiley Blackwell, 201

Clarke, John R. Looking at Lovemaking: ConSexuality in Roman Art, 100 B.C. – A.D. 250. BUniversity o Caliornia Press, 1998.

———. Roman Sex: 100 B.C. – A.D. 250 . New N. Abrams, 2003.

Edwards, Catharine. Te Politics o ImmoralityRome. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

Fantham, Elaine. Roman Readings: Roman Greek Literature rom Plautus to Statius andNew York: De Gruyter, 2011.

Foucault, Michel. Te Use o Pleasure. 1st Vined. Vol. 2 o Te History o Sexuality . New YoHouse, 1990.

Langlands, Rebecca. Sexual Morality in AncCambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009.

Mattingly, David J. Imperialism, Power, anExperiencing the Roman Empire. PrincetonUniversity Press, 2011.

McGinn, Tomas A. J. Prostitution, Sexuality, ain Ancient Rome. 2nd ed. New York: OxordPress, 2003.

McKay, L. A. “Sallust’s ‘Catiline’: Date andPhoenix 16, no. 13 (Autumn 1962): 183.

Richlin, Amy. Te Garden o Priapus: Sex Aggression in Roman Humor. New Haven: YalPress, 1983.

Williams, Craig A. Roman Homosexuality: I Masculinity in Classical Antiquity . 2nd ed. Oxord University Press, 2010.

First page image: Ares e Aphrodite, rom PomMuseo archeologico nazionale di Napoli. Indomain.

What was obscene and

what was artistic

expression encompassed

a wide scope