Facilis hic futuit. Graffiti and Masculinity in Pompeii's 'Purpose-Built' Brothel

20 Pages·0.165 MB·Latin-English

by  Levin-Richardson S.

Facilis hic futuit
Graffiti and Masculinity in Pompeii’s
‘Purpose-Built’ Brothel
SARAH LEVIN-RICHARDSON
Phoebus / bonus futor (Phoebus is a good fukr, CIL IV 2248, Add. 215);
Froto plane / lingit cun/num (Froto openly licks cunt, CIL IV 2257); Mur-
tis • felatris (Murtis is a blow-job babe, CIL IV 2292). Long overlooked
by scholarship as obscene recordings of sexual encounters, the 135 graf-
fiti of the ‘purpose-built’ brothel at Pompeii (VII 12 18–20; CIL IV
2173–96 and 3101a; Add. 215–6 and Add. 465) form a rich corpus
that illuminates daily interactions among clients and prostitutes in the
Roman world.1 In this paper, I demonstrate through these graffiti the
multiplewaysinwhichmaleclients,individuallyandcollectively,negoti-
ated male sexuality. Specifically, I analyze how male clients both created
a hierarchy among themselves and solidified communal, normative mas-
culinity in opposition to nonnormative males and marginalized females.
I. Introduction
In the past fifteen years, the graffiti of the ‘purpose-built’ brothel (here-
after referred to simply as the brothel) have entered the scholarly arena,
usually as part of works devoted to surveying or analyzing erotic graffiti
atPompeii.Forexample,someofthebrothel’ssexualgraffitiweretreated
byAntonioVarone’sEroticapompeiana:Iscrizionid’amoresuimuridiPompei
(1994; translated into English in 2002 as Erotica pompeiana: Love Inscrip-
tionsontheWallsofPompeii).Varonesurveysawiderangeoferoticandlove
graffiti from all over Pompeii, grouping them into motifs like “Preghiere
d’amore”and“L’armad’amore.”Throughthistypology,Varonedrawsout
commonthemesinadiversebodyofmaterial.FrancescoPaoloMaulucci
Vivolo’sPompei:Igraffitid’amore(1995)presentssamplesoferoticgraffiti
fromPompeii,includingsomefromthebrothel,evokinghowprolificthis
typeofgraffitiwas.Takingamoreanalyticapproach,MatthewPanciera’s
dissertation, “Sexual Practice and Invective in Martial and Pompeian
Inscriptions”(2001),comparesthedifferentmeaningsandimplicationsof
sexualpracticesinthecorpusofMartial’sepigramsandPompeii’sgraffiti.
HELIOS,vol.38no.1,2011©TexasTechUniversityPress 59
d
60 HELIOS
These scholars have shed light on various features of erotic graffiti at
Pompeii, but do not address how these graffiti may have worked in each
specific locale or in concert with nonerotic graffiti. Varone’s article,
“Nella Pompei a luci rosse: Castrensis e l’organizzazione della prosti-
tuzioneedeisuoispazi”(2005),however,addsanewperspectivetothe
studyofthebrothel’sgraffiti.Varoneanalyzesthestatusandsexualprac-
ticesoftheindividualsinthebrothelthroughclosereadingofitsgraffiti,
demonstrating the potential gains of a contextual or locus-specific
approach.2 In this article, I follow Varone in exploring the brothel’s graf-
fiti together as a corpus, but ask different questions of the material.
Specifically, I seek to illuminate the underlying structure of the corpus’s
rhetoric.Thegraffiti,Iargue,aremorethanjustrecordsofsexualliaisons
or advertisements of the services of prostitutes; they represent an inter-
active discourse concerning masculinity. Clients and prostitutes could
and did add their thoughts to the corpus over time, which encouraged
multipleviewings.Inaddition,evenilliterateviewerscouldbeexposedto
the graffiti through someone else’s recitation.3 It may not be surprising
thatboastsanddefamationareconstituentelementsofthisdialogue;but
as I will show, the ways in which boasts and defamation are deployed
and against whom, and the implications this has for a rhetoric of mas-
culinity, reveal a discourse far different from the intra-elite masculine
invective seen in the poetry of Catullus and Martial.
II. Contextualizing the Brothel and its Graffiti
At the intersection of the north-south Vicolo del Lupanare and the east-
west Vicolo del Balcone Pensile, located to the east of Pompeii’s forum,
lies a modest, two-story structure.4 The bottom floor contains five small
rooms, each with a masonry bed, opening off a central hallway. Erotic
frescoes, most showing a male-female pair engaged in penile-vaginal
intercourse, line the register above the doorways in the hallway.5 The
graffiti, on the other hand, are found mostly (88%) within the small
cubicula.Theterminuspostquemofboththegraffitiandfrescoesis72C.E.,
when the brothel was remodeled and a coin was pressed into the fresh
plaster of one of the rooms (La Rocca et al. 1981, 303). Nearly half the
graffitilistonlyaname,aboutone-thirdareexplicitlysexual,andtherest
are of nonsexual content or are indecipherable.
Of the approximately fifty male names recorded, only a few present
more than an isolated cognomen (CIL IV 2240, Add. 215; CIL IV 2255;
R CILIV2297,Add.216;potentiallyCILIV2250,Add.215;andCILIV
d
LEVIN-RICHARDSON—Facilis hic futuit 61
2286).ManyareofGreekorigin,suchasPhoebus(CILIV2182;CILIV
2184, Add. 215; CIL IV 2194; CIL IV 2207; CIL IV 2248, Add. 215),
Hyginus (CIL IV 2249, Add. 215), and Hermeros (CIL IV 2249, Add.
215). The graffiti also contain the titles of a perfumer (unguentarius: CIL
IV2184,Add.215),oneortwosoldiers(castrensis:CILIV2180;CILIV
2290), and a guild-member (sodalis: CIL IV 2230).6 Based on the types
of names and professions, many of the males at the brothel were most
likely of lower status (slaves, freedmen, and the free poor),7 perhaps
reflectingthatothershadthefinancialmeanstosatisfytheirsexualurges
with their male and female slaves at home.8
Many of the female names likewise suggest lower status. Some are of
Greek origin, such as Nica Creteissiane (Nica from Crete, CIL IV 2178a;
seealsoCILIV2278)andPanta(CILIV2178b).Othershaveanironic
or descriptive character typical of slaves, such as Fortunata (CIL IV
2224; CIL IV 2259; CIL IV 2266; CIL IV 2275) and Victoria (CIL IV
2225; CIL IV 2226; CIL IV 2257).9
Many of the brothel’s graffiti rely on a vocabulary of sexually explicit
terms.10Futuereandbinei`nmostoftendescribemale-femalevaginalinter-
course, although they could encompass male-male anal sex as well. Pedi-
care and irrumare refer to the penetration of the anus and mouth,
respectively;thelatterofteninvolvesanelementofforceandaggression.
Fellare and cunnum lingere describe oral sex performed respectively on a
male and female. As Amy Richlin (1992, 1–31, 64–5) explains, these
terms were considered primary obscenities by the standards of Roman
culture and can be found only in particular authors and genres.
In Latin literature, sexual obscenities were deployed most often in
invective that diminished the standing of the impugned party and sec-
ondarily in boasts that increased the standing of the subject. Indeed,
Richlin (1992) and David Wray (2001) have argued that violence and
aggression were often key elements in how sexual obscenities were
employedinLatininvective,andasiscommonlyknown,theiruserelied
on the ways in which Romans conceptualized different sexual acts.11
First, the moral implications of penetration differed for the penetrator
andthepenetrated.Theactofpenetrationwasseenas(1)normativefor
freemales,(2)amasculineact,and(3)honorable.Beingpenetratedwas
seenas(1)normativeforfemalesandslaves,(2)aneffeminateorservile
act, and (3) shameful. That being penetrated was simultaneously nor-
mative and shameful for females is an important component of the
analysis in the latter half of this article. Sexual acts were also judged
according to the potential for them to pollute the participants. As such,
d
62 HELIOS
performing oral sex was stigmatized as particularly reprehensible for the
pollutionitwasthoughttobringupontheperformer(Richlin1992,27,
69; Williams 2010, 218–24). In fact, accusations of performing oral sex
weremorepowerfulanddefamatorythanaccusationsofbeingthepene-
trated partner in anal sex (Williams 2010, 221–2). In the brothel’s graf-
fiti, the concepts of penetration and pollution are essential to how
masculinitywasdefinedandcontested.Aswillbeshowninthenextsec-
tions, the particular configurations of the brothel’s rhetoric of masculin-
ity differed in significant ways from the rhetoric of masculinity seen in
Latin invective.
III. Male Rivalry
Onewayinwhichmasculinitywasnegotiatedinthebrothelwasthrough
boasts. Boasts take a wide range of forms, from laconic, one-word state-
mentstomoreelaboratevariations.Inaddition,theroleofsexualobjects
in these boasts is minimal; rather, attention is often placed on the male
subjects and their penetrative masculinity. As I will show, these two
trends have interesting implications for how males engaged in rivalry
with other male patrons.
In what follows, I group boasts by formula (many of the graffiti
adhere to patterns), beginning with basic formulas and continuing
through more complex ones. Within each formula, I present variations
starting with less inventive and moving to more inventive prose. The
hierarchy that I establish for these graffiti is not absolute, and readers
may feel free to disagree with my assessment of one graffito as more or
less elaborate than another. Rather than tracing a straight line from the
simplest to the most ornate graffito, the image I would like to convey is
more like a scatter plot, with a large amount of individual variation that
neverthelessindicatesageneralspectrumfromlesstomoresophisticated
boasts.
Atthemostbasicendofthespectrumarethenumeroussolitarymale
namesinscribedintothebrothel’swalls.Thesegraffitileavethereaderto
inferwhatbroughtthenamedpersontothebrothel.Iwouldsuggestthat
these are, in an abbreviated form, a type of boast. Inscribing a name, in
essence, stands in for ‘x was here,’ and in the context of the brothel,
gains the added implication of ‘x fucked here.’ One graffito makes the
sexualnatureofthesenamesclear:inCILIV2181(Add.215),thename
Iarinus has been written together with an inscribed phallus, turning the
R graffito into a visual representation of Iarinus hic futuit.12 A sample of
d
LEVIN-RICHARDSON—Facilis hic futuit 63
these solitary male names includes: Neptunalis (CIL IV 2214), Swvvsas
(CIL IV 2234), Fructus (CIL IV 2244, CIL IV 2245a), L. Annius (CIL
IV 2255), Liberavli~ (CIL IV 2270), Ampliatus (CIL IV 2271), and
Romanus (CIL IV 2281). In total, between thirty and forty graffiti pres-
ent a male name in isolation. Indeed, the inscription of just a name
may have been a way for less literate clients to take part in the brothel’s
discourse.
Some graffiti include both a male name and a conjunction or adverb
that further implies sexual activity of some sort. So, for example, Victor /
cum (Victor with, CIL IV 2209) and the fragmentary Felix.../ cum
(Felix...with, CIL IV 2232) imply that Victor and Felix were engaged
in sexual activities with another party. Another graffito clarifies one of
Felix’spartners:Felixcum/Fortunata(FelixwithFortunata,CILIV2224).
A certain Marcus bested Victor and Felix by calling attention to the
widevarietyoflocationsinwhichhepresumablypartookinsexualactiv-
ities:Marcus•Scepsiniubique... (MarcusofScepsuseverywhere,CILIV
2201).
Othergraffitistateamalenameandasexuallyderivedtitle.Forexam-
ple,onegraffitorecords Epaga/thusfututor/... (Epagathusthefucker...,
CILIV2242).13Forsomewriters,thetitlealonewasinsufficient,andan
adverb was added to differentiate good fututores from just regular futu-
tores: Phoebus / bonus futor (Phoebus is a good fukr, CIL IV 2248, Add.
215). In this particular case, the male subject is emphasized by a draw-
ingofaface(presumablymeanttoresemblePhoebus)nexttothetext.14
Either this same client, or one of the same name, chose to differentiate
himself with a more specific title, writing: Phoebus pedico (Phoebus the
butt-fucker, CIL IV 2194, Add. 465).15
Other graffitibuildfrom a baseof ‘I fucked.’One,indeed,laconically
recordsfutui(Ifucked,CILIV2191).Variationsonthisformulainclude
the addition of objects, as in Felicla ego f (I f-ed Felicla, CIL IV 2199); if
therewasanydoubtaboutthesexualnatureofthisgraffito,anothergraf-
fito immediately below it states: Felicla ego hic futue (I focked Felicla here,
CILIV2200,Add.215).16OfthesametypeisfutuiMula•hic(Ifucked
Mula here, CIL IV 2203, Add. 215) and possibly Beronice /.../ futuere
(TofuckBeronice..., CILIV2198,Add.215).17Inmyreading,noneof
these boasts names the (presumably male) subjects, thus reducing the
power of the graffiti as proclamations of masculinity tied to a particular
client.Ifweremember,however,thatreadingwasoftenconductedaloud
in antiquity, any reader of these graffiti could become the appropriately
masculine subject.
d
64 HELIOS
Another group of graffiti plays with the prevalent formula ‘x fucked
here.’ In its simplest incarnations, the verb is left out. For example, one
graffito states Sollemnes hic (Sollemnes here, CIL IV 2218a), and a simi-
lar one, Asbestus • hic (Asbestus here, CIL IV 2222). Others include a
verb,suchasFacilis•hic•futuit(Facilisfuckedhere,CILIV2178),Her-
meros hic futuit (Hermeros fucked here, CIL IV 2195), Mouai`o~ÉejnqavdeÉ
beinei`(Mouaiosfuckshere,CILIV2216,Add.215),andPosphorus/hic•
futuit (Posphorus fucked here, CIL IV 2241).18 Another graffito speci-
fies the profession of the client and uses a superlative adverb: Phoebus •
unguentarius / optume futuit (Phoebus the perfumer fucks best, CIL IV
2184, Add. 215). The superlative in this graffito differentiates Phoebus
from other clients, allowing him to claim a pinnacle of masculinity.
Adding to this formula, some graffiti mention other participants. If
the names of the clients and their sexual partners are stated, a verb of
sexual congress is not always needed. So, for example, Hyginus cum Mes-
sio hic (Hyginus with Messius here, CIL IV 2249, Add. 215) implies sex-
ualcontact.19ThesamegoesforthefragmentaryRusatia..hic/Coruenius
(Coruenius here [with] Rusatia, CIL IV 2262, Add. 465). Some graffiti
includeotherparticipantsandaverb.So,forexample,thereisBellicushic
• futuit quendam (Bellicus fucked here a certain one, CIL IV 2247, Add.
215) and Victor cum Attine / hic fuit (Victor fukt here with Attine, CIL IV
2258).20 Another graffito describes a group of male participants, and
evenincludesadate:XVIIKJul/Hermeros/cumPhile/tero•etCaphi/sohic
•futu/erunt(17daysbeforetheKalendsofJuly,HermeroswithPhileteros
and Caphisus fucked here, CIL IV 2192, Add. 215). The addition of an
adverb in the following graffito, Synethus / Faustillam / futuit / obiquerite
(SynethusfuckedFaustillaevirywhereyly,CILIV2288)allowsSynethus
tostandoutincomparisontotheothersanddrawsattentiontohismas-
culine vigor in having sex in many locales. One graffito refers to the
nameoftheclientandtheprostitute,andtothe(outrageous)costofher
services: Arphocras hic cum Drauca / bene futuit denario (Arphocras fucked
well here with Drauca for a denarius, CIL IV 2193). The high cost might
even imply that “Arphocras” (= Harpocras) engaged in a sexual activity
other than relatively inexpensive penile-vaginal sex.21
Othervariationsallowedpatronstodisplaytheirmasculinitybyflaunt-
ingthenumber of their sexual partners.Onegraffitoreads,hicego puellas
multas / futui (Here I fucked many girls, CIL IV 2175).22 Placidus goes
onebetter,includinghisnameandemphasizinghismasculinitywiththe
arbitrariness of the object: Placidus hic futuit quem voluit (Placidus fucked
R herewhomhewished,CILIV2265),buthisgraffitolacksthehumorous
d
LEVIN-RICHARDSON—Facilis hic futuit 65
punch of the following: Scordopordonicus hic • bene / fuit • quem • voluit
(Garliquefarticus fukt well here whom he wished, CIL IV 2188).23
Seven graffiti follow the format ‘x, you fuck well’: Felix / bene futuis
(Felix, you fuck well, CIL IV 2176); Sollemnes / bene futues (Sollemnes,
you fock well, CIL IV 2185 and 2186); Vitalio / bene • futues • (Vitalio,
you fock well, CIL IV 2187); Victor • bene futuis...(Victor, you fuck
well..., CIL IV 2218); December • bene futuis (December, you fuck well,
CILIV2219);andSunevrw~Ékalo;~Ébinei`~(Syneroos,youfuckgood,CIL
IV 2253).24 One graffito bests them all with a variation on a common
love graffito seen around Pompeii, quisquis amat valeat: Victor bene / valeas
qui bene futues (Victor—you who fock well, may you fare well!, CIL IV
2274, Add. 216; CIL IV 2260, Add. 216 has a slightly different word
order).25 The use of the second and third person in the graffiti lends an
authoritative quality to these statements. A reader might not believe
what a male patron says about himself—of course he says he is a good
fucker!—butmightfindthesamestatementmorebelievableifitseemed
tocomefromathirdparty,especiallyifthatsourcewereaprostitutewho
had first-hand experience with the patron.26
Finally,there are a few graffiti that defy type, and these, too, range in
both inventiveness and degree of masculinity. Standing out both for its
unique formula and for the relatively rare reference to pedicare, one brief
graffito states, pedicare volo (I want to butt-fuck, CIL IV 2210). Another
unique example begins with a fairly standard first line, but then adds a
humorous coda: hic ego cum veni futui / deinde redei domi (When I came
here, I fucked and then returned home, CIL IV 2246, Add. 465). Last
butnotleast,oneboast,thoughmuchofthemeaningremainsuncertain,
mentions both the client and prostitute, uses an adverb, and seems to
refer to two sexual practices: Pdic • Aplonia.../ bene • dat • Nonius /
futere... (He butt-fucks Aplonia...gives it good, Nonius, fucking ...,
CIL IV 2197, Add. 215).27
Male sexual boasts come in many forms. The variations on standard
formulae—‘Here I fucked many girls,’ ‘Phoebus is a good fukr,’ ‘Placidus
here fucked whom he wished’—imply a competitive atmosphere of men
outdoingoneanother(literallyandfiguratively).Theseboasts,then,cre-
ated a hierarchy among the male clients. Clients who boasted to have
fuckedbetterorinmoreplaces,orwithmorewomenorboysthanother
clients,laidclaimtoamoremasculinesexuality.Furthermore,thetypeof
rivalry seen in the boasts did not rely on an oppositional structure of
masculineversusnonmasculine;thiswasnotazero-sumgame.Phoebus’s
andPlacidus’sclaimstomasculinesexualitywereaboutwhichclientwas
d
66 HELIOS
more masculine—a friendly competition taking place in degrees rather
than absolutes.
In addition, the graffiti demonstrate a wide range of options in (1)
naming the other partner in these sexual acts (12 graffiti), (2) mention-
ing a general category of partner (puellas, for example, or quem voluit; 4
graffiti), or (3) eliding mention of any other participant (25 graffiti plus
30–40names).28Thevariableroleofsexualobjectsultimatelywillreveal
the underlying rhetoric of these boasts. Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick’s (1985)
analysis of homosocial relationships through the rubric of “erotic trian-
gles” and David Wray’s (2001) examination of gendered dynamics in
Catullus’s love poetry can help illuminate the boasts’ structure.
Sedgwick argues that Victorian literature often used women symboli-
cally, with communication routed through them from one male partici-
pant to the other. In the Victorian context, the effect was that men
expressed homosocial desire for each other through heterosexual desire
directed towards a woman, ultimately using women to strengthen the
bondsbetweenmen.Wray(2001,64–112),buildingonSedgwick,argues
thatinthecaseofCatullus’spoems,sexualactswithwomenweremeant
to be proclamations of manhood to other men rather than declarations
oflovefor,orsexualactswith,awoman.WrayseesthisespeciallyinCat-
ullus’s Lesbia poems. Take Catullus 39, for example, where Catullus’s
rival, Egnatius, is flirting with Catullus’s puella. Traditionally, as Wray
(2001, 83) puts it, this poem “has been conscripted into service as a
(minor) moment in the tale of impassioned anguish that is the Lesbia
novel.” Wray’s reading, however, is that
the exchange or message...is ‘homosocial’: an affair between men,
betweenCatullusandthecontubernales,andultimatelybetweenCatul-
lusandEgnatius.WhattheCatullusofPoem37haslostischieflyexis-
timatio (‘face’) and only secondarily the puella; his manhood has been
impugned, and it is for that reason that the loss of the puella smarts.
(2001,87)
Thus, even poems of Catullus that appear on the surface to discuss the
narrator’s relationship with women (especially Lesbia) were overwhelm-
ingly about the performative display of manhood for other men. In these
poems, the woman “serves as a coin of exchange passed between the
sender and receiver of the poem, both adult males...” (2001, 72–3).
In the brothel, boasts were not addressed to a specific male rival, but
R were proclamations meant to be read (aloud) by anyone and everyone.
d
LEVIN-RICHARDSON—Facilis hic futuit 67
In addition, this male rivalry was publicized and the audience/reader
invited to judge the competing claims to masculinity and even to partic-
ipate.Indeed,graffitiwithoutanamedsubjectoccuronlyinthefirstper-
son; when read aloud, they would have turned the reader of the graffito
intothesubjectoftheboast.Thiswouldhaveallowedanyreader,byiter-
ating a first-person boast, to take part in the competitive discourse on
masculinity that was carried out through the graffiti. The “coins of
exchange” were the named prostitutes: Fortunata, “Felicla,” Beronice,
Rusatia, Faustilla, Drauca, and Aplonia. They need not necessarily be
female, either; male prostitutes were equally useful in this matter.29 In
addition,itseemsnottohavematteredforboastsofmasculinitythatthe
clients were paying prostitutes to have sex with them, that the “coins of
exchange” used in their boasts were bought with their own coin. The
underlying structure of graffiti with named objects was a triangle in
which the male clients communicated their masculinity to other clients
through boasts of sexual acts with prostitutes (see figure 1a).
Therestoftheboasts,however—thosewithageneralizedobjectorno
expressed object—reveal the true nature of the structure to and rhetoric
behind these boasts. In boasts with a generalized direct object, the posi-
tion occupied by a specific, named prostitute was replaced with the cate-
gory or symbol of a prostitute. What had formerly been a triangle with a
prostituteasa“coinofexchange”betweenmalesbecomesatrianglewith
a weakened or symbolic third pole (see figure 1b). The boasts without
anyobjectsgofurther,eliminatingthesexualobjectaltogether.Withthis
lastcategoryofboasts,thethirdpolehasbeenweakenedtothepointof
being superfluous; male clients simply engaged directly with each other.
The triangle, then, has become a horizontal line between males of
(roughly) equivalent status (see figure 1c).
The option to frame a masculine discourse without a triangular rela-
tionship, I argue, illuminates and contextualizes the entire corpus of
boasts.Thatis,eveninthegraffitithatdonametheboast’ssexualobject,
theobjectisalready/neverthelesssuperfluous,therhetoricallinebetween
theclientandtheprostitutedottedratherthansolid.Theultimateeffect
of the symbolic and superfluous nature of the third pole of the triangle
was to reinforce the ideological primacy of the active male subjects and
their (competitive) connections with other male clients.
d
68 HELIOS
Figure 1: Structure of the Boasts
IV. “Us versus Them”
The graffiti discussed above reveal that male clients asserted their mas-
culinityvis-à-visothermaleclientsthroughincreasinglyelaborate,detailed,
or superlative boasts of penetrative sexual prowess. In the following sec-
tions,Iwillexaminehowtherhetoricofmasculinitynotonlyusedboasts
to fine-tune a hierarchy among male clients, but also solidified commu-
nalmasculineidentityinoppositiontotwosetsofOthers:penetratedor
polluted males, and sexualized female prostitutes.
PenetratedorPollutedMales
While Latin literature abounds with invective slurs against males who
are penetrated and polluted (through oral sex), only a few graffiti in the
brothelfollowsuit.Onegraffitosays,ratiomicumponis/Batacaretepidicaro
R (When you hand over the money, Batacarus, I’ll butt-fock you, CIL IV
d