I remember hearing many years ago that in Rome it was a common occurence for men to sell their wives and even their pre-pubescent daughters into sex slavery in whore houses and sometimes even to have sex with donkeys in donkey shows.
I am having a hard time verifying this which leads me to believe it may not be true, but I thought the community might be able to point me to a source that may touch on this, or talk about something I may be confusing this assertion with.
Thanks,
The Texas Trigger
"If men are not angels, then who shall run the state?"
In general, it is very difficult to verify "it was common" historical claims. There are certain kinds of hints or clues that can lead you in this direction, such as casual references, particularly if they were slang, that assume "everybody knows" about X, Y or Z, thus implying that it was at least common enough to be common knowledge. What I don't think necessarily counts as reliable evidence is ancient historians saying "this was common", or even in some cases "this is common." It doesn't mean they weren't right, it just means we can't any longer discern if they were right or not, particularly if they themselves didn't give any reasons or clues as to why they made the claim.
One cool trick I learned from a friend of mine (now passed away) who was actually had a Master's in Roman history circa first-century AD (he was atheist, in case you were wondering) is to look at adversarial witness, that is, the favorable testimony of enemies or the unfavorable testimony of the subjects themselves. People generally do not exaggerate negative things about themselves nor do enemies generally exaggerate the positive things about each other. So, when King X says of King Y's army "they are courageous fighters and we failed to defeat them despite our numerical advantage" you can bet that it's at least true as stated, if not more so. Such rare nuggets can then be used to fact-check other sources who wrote about the same events. If the non-adversarial witness disagrees, they probably got it wrong for whatever reason.
I'm also generally skeptical about the claims of commonplace Roman and Greek sexual laxity. Both Greek and Roman culture placed heavy emphasis on the martial virtues which tend to lead to asceticism. While the wealthy merchant and ruling class may very well have had lavish lifestyles (including sexual excesses), this has been the case in every advanced culture I'm aware of and it says nothing about how commonplace such behavior was among the masses. We know that modern humans have been polygynous throughout their time on Earth and there can be no doubt this was the case in Roman and Greek culture, as well. Bestiality and homosexuality have always been minority sexual behaviors and - by virtue of biological arithmetic - they will always remain so.
Clayton -
So, when King X says of King Y's army "they are courageous fighters and we failed to defeat them despite our numerical advantage" you can bet that it's at least true as stated, if not more so.
On the other hand, he's not going to admit that they lost to a bunch of sissies.
In general, it is very difficult to verify "it was common" historical claims. There are certain kinds of hints or clues that can lead you in this direction, such as casual references, particularly if they were slang, that assume "everybody knows" about X, Y or Z, thus implying that it was at least common enough to be common knowledge. What I don't think necessarily counts as reliable evidence is ancient historians saying "this was common", or even in some cases "this is common.
Yes, one should be very careful with this kind of claims, stories, rumors, since you even can't really believe a lot of things you are told about what happened seventy years ago. Now imagine something that is supposed to be common ~2000 years ago. As for the archives and "ancient historians", they also may have had an axe to grind with someone. So I'd be careful with them, too. One may also apply some common sense here. What person would sell his wife and especially it's children? View it also in the light that family connections were pretty important in those times and this may anyway the reason why a Roman freemen did marry in the first place. Guess it won't come well if the relatives were sold to act in a dog and pony show. Anyway. I think you should start with some texts and sources that contain such statements. Then one can have a deeper look into this!
Torsten:Anyway. I think you should start with some texts and sources that contain such statements. Then one can have a deeper look into this!
Torsten: Anyway. I think you should start with some texts and sources that contain such statements. Then one can have a deeper look into this!
Thats actually why I asked the question. I already looked for them, couldn't find them, so I assume it is not true. However, in a last ditch effort, I was asking the community if they had heard of/had sources for this claim before I totally gave up on it.
Donkeys:
http://www.cracked.com/article_18585_the-7-most-wtf-origins-iconic-pop-culture-franchises_p2.html Pinochio.
Family: http://www.mariamilani.com/ancient_rome/ancient_roman_children.htm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pater_familias#Children
http://www.libraryindex.com/pages/1360/Child-Abuse-History-OVERVIEW.html
From the last:
In Roman society the father had complete control over the family, even to the extent that he could kill his children for disobedience. Sexual abuse of children was common in both Greek and Roman societies. Children were also sold as prostitutes. Women often participated in abuse. Petronius (c. 27–c. 66), a Roman writer, recorded the rape of a seven-year-old girl witnessed by a line of clapping women.
My humble blog
It's easy to refute an argument if you first misrepresent it. William Keizer
Petronius (c. 27–c. 66), a Roman writer, recorded the rape of a seven-year-old girl witnessed by a line of clapping women.
Couldn't this be an ancient example of this? I'm seriously supposed to believe that otherwise ordinary Roman women would stand by and clap while anybody was raped, let alone a 7-year old girl?
http://www.libraryindex.com/pages/1360/Child-Abuse-History-OVERVIEW.html From the last: In Roman society the father had complete control over the family, even to the extent that he could kill his children for disobedience. Sexual abuse of children was common in both Greek and Roman societies. Children were also sold as prostitutes. Women often participated in abuse. Petronius (c. 27–c. 66), a Roman writer, recorded the rape of a seven-year-old girl witnessed by a line of clapping women.
This is taken from a comment section. And Petronius was a writer of novels. The "record" sounds like being taken from an especially shocking one. Also, bear in mind that Rome has become quite multicultural during that kind. So it isn't certain that he would have described the behaviour of original Romans anyway.
As someone who has a fairly solid, and even formal, background in classical studies:
I don't think this is true, it doesn't ring a bell. Or at the very least it is a "creative" /"innovative" claim, and there is no reason to assume it to be true, In other words it would function as "unecascary information" / there is no imperative to induct the information to the narratives that can be sprung up with the material at hand.
If you want me to come up with actual sources to support to tr and rule out what you are getting at, to help you induce more to that conclusion I will. I obviously can not provide anything of varification or falsification
Simply put beastiality was illegal and there is no evidence to counter suggest that the vast majority of prostitutes were slaves / freedwomen.
Also there were laws against domestic abuse and rape.
Once again if youwant legit citiations, I'll dig them up. I would prefer it if you would narrow down what type of citiations you want , and I'll do my best to give you at least 8 relevant ones within 3 days time.
Also, If you want me to provide with a couple of things that you may be getting confused with, I could do that as well.
Other than r that, there is no particular reason to or not to be a skeptic about any info you hear. This is histotry, not rocket surgery, all there is to care about is the relevant information you wish to take into consideration.
"As in a kaleidoscope, the constellation of forces operating in the system as a whole is ever changing." - Ludwig Lachmann
"When A Man Dies A World Goes Out of Existence" - GLS Shackle
In Germania, Tacitus describes the marriage and family of the Germanic peoples who caused the Roman Empire so much trouble, and eventually sacked it, setting themselves up as the barbarian lords of its remnants:
Yet the laws of matrimony are severely observed there; nor in the whole of their manners is aught more praiseworthy than this: for they are almost the only Barbarians contented with one wife, excepting a very few amongst them; men of dignity who marry divers wives, from no wantonness or lubricity, but courted for the lustre of their family into many alliances. To the husband, the wife tenders no dowry; but the husband, to the wife. The parents and relations attend and declare their approbation of the presents, not presents adapted to feminine pomp and delicacy, nor such as serve to deck the new married woman; but oxen and horse accoutred, and a shield, with a javelin and sword. By virtue of these gifts, she is espoused. She too on her part brings her husband some arms. This they esteem the highest tie, these the holy mysteries, and matrimonial Gods. That the woman may not suppose herself free from the considerations of fortitude and fighting, or exempt from the casualties of war, the very first solemnities of her wedding serve to warn her, that she comes to her husband as a partner in his hazards and fatigues, that she is to suffer alike with him, to adventure alike, during peace or during war. This the oxen joined in the same yoke plainly indicate, this the horse ready equipped, this the present of arms. 'Tis thus she must be content to live, thus to resign life. The arms which she then receives she must preserve inviolate, and to her sons restore the same, as presents worthy of them, such as their wives may again receive, and still resign to her grandchildren. They therefore live in a state of chastity well secured; corrupted by no seducing shows and public diversions, by no irritations from banqueting. Of learning and of any secret intercourse by letters, they are all equally ignorant, men and women. Amongst a people so numerous, adultery is exceeding rare; a crime instantly punished, and the punishment left to be inflicted by the husband. He, having cut off her hair, expells her from his house naked, in presence of her kindred, and pursues her with stripes throughout the village. For, to a woman who has prostituted her person, no pardon is ever granted. However beautiful she be, however young, however abounding in wealth, a husband she can never find. In truth, nobody turns vices into mirth there, nor is the practice of corrupting and of yielding to corruption, called the custom of the Age. Better still do those communities, in which none but virgins marry, and where to a single marriage all their views and inclinations are at once confined. Thus, as they have but one body and one life, they take but one husband, that beyond him they may have no thought, no further wishes, nor love him only as their husband but as their marriage.6 To restrain generation and the increase of children, is esteemed an abominable sin, as also to kill infants newly born. And more powerful with them are good manners, than with other people are good laws.
Yet the laws of matrimony are severely observed there; nor in the whole of their manners is aught more praiseworthy than this: for they are almost the only Barbarians contented with one wife, excepting a very few amongst them; men of dignity who marry divers wives, from no wantonness or lubricity, but courted for the lustre of their family into many alliances.
To the husband, the wife tenders no dowry; but the husband, to the wife. The parents and relations attend and declare their approbation of the presents, not presents adapted to feminine pomp and delicacy, nor such as serve to deck the new married woman; but oxen and horse accoutred, and a shield, with a javelin and sword. By virtue of these gifts, she is espoused. She too on her part brings her husband some arms. This they esteem the highest tie, these the holy mysteries, and matrimonial Gods. That the woman may not suppose herself free from the considerations of fortitude and fighting, or exempt from the casualties of war, the very first solemnities of her wedding serve to warn her, that she comes to her husband as a partner in his hazards and fatigues, that she is to suffer alike with him, to adventure alike, during peace or during war. This the oxen joined in the same yoke plainly indicate, this the horse ready equipped, this the present of arms. 'Tis thus she must be content to live, thus to resign life. The arms which she then receives she must preserve inviolate, and to her sons restore the same, as presents worthy of them, such as their wives may again receive, and still resign to her grandchildren.
They therefore live in a state of chastity well secured; corrupted by no seducing shows and public diversions, by no irritations from banqueting. Of learning and of any secret intercourse by letters, they are all equally ignorant, men and women. Amongst a people so numerous, adultery is exceeding rare; a crime instantly punished, and the punishment left to be inflicted by the husband. He, having cut off her hair, expells her from his house naked, in presence of her kindred, and pursues her with stripes throughout the village. For, to a woman who has prostituted her person, no pardon is ever granted. However beautiful she be, however young, however abounding in wealth, a husband she can never find. In truth, nobody turns vices into mirth there, nor is the practice of corrupting and of yielding to corruption, called the custom of the Age. Better still do those communities, in which none but virgins marry, and where to a single marriage all their views and inclinations are at once confined. Thus, as they have but one body and one life, they take but one husband, that beyond him they may have no thought, no further wishes, nor love him only as their husband but as their marriage.6 To restrain generation and the increase of children, is esteemed an abominable sin, as also to kill infants newly born. And more powerful with them are good manners, than with other people are good laws.
It’s pretty clear that Tacitus was describing Germanic domestic relations to provide a contrast with Rome’s. One can deduce typical Roman behavior from what the Germans do not do. The Germans took marriage and chastity seriously, and didn’t fool around. They are not promiscuous, adultery is rare, they do not practice abortion, etc. The implication, of course, is that these are all common practices in Rome.
The implication, of course, is that these are all common practices in Rome.
... or that they are things that occur more often than the author would like to see, which is not the same thing. The Germans have no adultery. We do (though how much is left unspecified).
Clayton, in Germania, Tacitus did a contrast between the Germanic domestic relations and Roman. What can deduce typical Roman behavior from what the Germans do not do. It is a clue on Marriage and Sex During Roman Empire.
It sounds to me like the claim as I wrote it probably isn't true so no need to go out hunting for me on that, but I appreciate it.
vive la insurrection:If you want me to provide with a couple of things that you may be getting confused with, I could do that
This offer, however, I will take you up on. I am writing a paper and so that is the reason why I am being careful about claims like these before I show it to somebody. If the claim had been true, it would have supported a point I was making. But, I am not one to say that "you should never let the truth get in the way of a good story." I certainly didn't want to bolster my argument with false assertions.
@JohnC: *shrug - I find the approach unpersuasive beyond showing that Tacitus himself found the German practices notable versus their Roman counterparts. Perhaps there wasn't a lot of adultery in Roman culture but he still felt there should be much less.
And the word "typical" is extremely dangerous. You mean you conclude that adultery was more common than not in Rome?