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

Brothel
Sarah Levin-Richardson
Helios, Volume 38, Number 1, Spring 2011, pp. 59-78 (Article)
Published by Texas Tech University Press
DOI: 10.1353/hel.2011.0001
For additional information about this article
Access Provided by Universidad de Malaga at 12/12/12 6:10PM GMT
http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/hel/summary/v038/38.1.levin-richardson.html
d
Facilis hic futuit
Grafti and Masculinity in Pompeiis
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-
ti of the purpose-built brothel at Pompeii (VII 12 1820; CIL IV
217396 and 3101a; Add. 2156 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 grafti the
multiple ways in which male clients, individually and collectively, negoti-
ated male sexuality. Specically, I analyze how male clients both created
a hierarchy among themselves and solidied communal, normative mas-
culinity in opposition to nonnormative males and marginalized females.
I. Introduction
In the past fteen years, the grafti 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 grafti
at Pompeii. For example, some of the brothels sexual grafti were treated
by Antonio Varones Erotica pompeiana: Iscrizioni damore sui muri di Pompei
(1994; translated into English in 2002 as Erotica pompeiana: Love Inscrip-
tions on the Walls of Pompeii). Varone surveys a wide range of erotic and love
grafti from all over Pompeii, grouping them into motifs like Preghiere
damore and Larma damore. Through this typology, Varone draws out
common themes in a diverse body of material. Francesco Paolo Maulucci
Vivolos Pompei: I grafti damore (1995) presents samples of erotic grafti
from Pompeii, including some from the brothel, evoking how prolic this
type of grafti was. Taking a more analytic approach, Matthew Pancieras
dissertation, Sexual Practice and Invective in Martial and Pompeian
Inscriptions (2001), compares the different meanings and implications of
sexual practices in the corpus of Martials epigrams and Pompeiis grafti.
HELIOS, vol. 38 no. 1, 2011 Texas Tech University Press 59
These scholars have shed light on various features of erotic grafti at
Pompeii, but do not address how these grafti may have worked in each
specic locale or in concert with nonerotic grafti. Varones article,
Nella Pompei a luci rosse: Castrensis e lorganizzazione della prosti-
tuzione e dei suoi spazi (2005), however, adds a new perspective to the
study of the brothels grafti. Varone analyzes the status and sexual prac-
tices of the individuals in the brothel through close reading of its grafti,
demonstrating the potential gains of a contextual or locus-specic
approach.
2
In this article, I follow Varone in exploring the brothels graf-
ti together as a corpus, but ask different questions of the material.
Specically, I seek to illuminate the underlying structure of the corpuss
rhetoric. The grafti, I argue, are more than just records of sexual liaisons
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
multiple viewings. In addition, even illiterate viewers could be exposed to
the grafti through someone elses recitation.
3
It may not be surprising
that boasts and defamation are constituent elements of this dialogue; 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 Grafti
At the intersection of the north-south Vicolo del Lupanare and the east-
west Vicolo del Balcone Pensile, located to the east of Pompeiis forum,
lies a modest, two-story structure.
4
The bottom oor contains ve 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
grafti, on the other hand, are found mostly (88%) within the small
cubicula. The terminus post quem of both the grafti and frescoes is 72 C.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
grafti list only a name, about one-third are explicitly sexual, and the rest
are of nonsexual content or are indecipherable.
Of the approximately fty male names recorded, only a few present
more than an isolated cognomen (CIL IV 2240, Add. 215; CIL IV 2255;
CIL IV 2297, Add. 216; potentially CIL IV 2250, Add. 215; and CIL IV
60 HELIOS
R
d
d
2286). Many are of Greek origin, such as Phoebus (CIL IV 2182; CIL IV
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 grafti also contain the titles of a perfumer (unguentarius: CIL
IV 2184, Add. 215), one or two soldiers (castrensis: CIL IV 2180; CIL IV
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
reecting that others had the nancial means to satisfy their sexual urges
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;
see also CIL IV 2278) and Panta (CIL IV 2178b). Others have an ironic
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 brothels grafti rely on a vocabulary of sexually explicit
terms.
10
Futuere and binei`n most often describe male-female vaginal inter-
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; the latter often involves an element of force and aggression.
Fellare and cunnum lingere describe oral sex performed respectively on a
male and female. As Amy Richlin (1992, 131, 645) 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
employed in Latin invective, and as is commonly known, their use relied
on the ways in which Romans conceptualized different sexual acts.
11
First, the moral implications of penetration differed for the penetrator
and the penetrated. The act of penetration was seen as (1) normative for
free males, (2) a masculine act, and (3) honorable. Being penetrated was
seen as (1) normative for females and slaves, (2) an effeminate or servile
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,
LEVIN- RICHARDSONFacilis hic futuit 61
performing oral sex was stigmatized as particularly reprehensible for the
pollution it was thought to bring upon the performer (Richlin 1992, 27,
69; Williams 2010, 21824). In fact, accusations of performing oral sex
were more powerful and defamatory than accusations of being the pene-
trated partner in anal sex (Williams 2010, 2212). In the brothels graf-
ti, the concepts of penetration and pollution are essential to how
masculinity was dened and contested. As will be shown in the next sec-
tions, the particular congurations of the brothels rhetoric of masculin-
ity differed in signicant ways from the rhetoric of masculinity seen in
Latin invective.
III. Male Rivalry
One way in which masculinity was negotiated in the brothel was through
boasts. Boasts take a wide range of forms, from laconic, one-word state-
ments to more elaborate variations. In addition, the role of sexual objects
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 grafti
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 grafti is not absolute, and readers
may feel free to disagree with my assessment of one grafto as more or
less elaborate than another. Rather than tracing a straight line from the
simplest to the most ornate grafto, the image I would like to convey is
more like a scatter plot, with a large amount of individual variation that
nevertheless indicates a general spectrum from less to more sophisticated
boasts.
At the most basic end of the spectrum are the numerous solitary male
names inscribed into the brothels walls. These grafti leave the reader to
infer what brought the named person to the brothel. I would suggest that
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 grafto makes the
sexual nature of these names clear: in CIL IV 2181 (Add. 215), the name
Iarinus has been written together with an inscribed phallus, turning the
grafto into a visual representation of Iarinus hic futuit.
12
A sample of
62 HELIOS
R
d
d
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 grafti 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 brothels
discourse.
Some grafti 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 grafto claries one of
Felixs partners: Felix cum / Fortunata (Felix with Fortunata, CIL IV 2224).
A certain Marcus bested Victor and Felix by calling attention to the
wide variety of locations in which he presumably partook in sexual activ-
ities: Marcus Scepsini ubique . . . (Marcus of Scepsus everywhere, CIL IV
2201).
Other grafti state a male name and a sexually derived title. For exam-
ple, one grafto records Epaga/thus fututor / . . . (Epagathus the fucker . . . ,
CIL IV 2242).
13
For some writers, the title alone was insufcient, and an
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-
ing of a face (presumably meant to resemble Phoebus) next to the text.
14
Either this same client, or one of the same name, chose to differentiate
himself with a more specic title, writing: Phoebus pedico (Phoebus the
butt-fucker, CIL IV 2194, Add. 465).
15
Other grafti build from a base of I fucked. One, indeed, laconically
records futui (I fucked, CIL IV 2191). Variations on this formula include
the addition of objects, as in Felicla ego f (I f-ed Felicla, CIL IV 2199); if
there was any doubt about the sexual nature of this grafto, another graf-
to immediately below it states: Felicla ego hic futue (I focked Felicla here,
CIL IV 2200, Add. 215).
16
Of the same type is futui Mula hic (I fucked
Mula here, CIL IV 2203, Add. 215) and possibly Beronice / . . . / futuere
(To fuck Beronice . . . , CIL IV 2198, Add. 215).
17
In my reading, none of
these boasts names the (presumably male) subjects, thus reducing the
power of the grafti as proclamations of masculinity tied to a particular
client. If we remember, however, that reading was often conducted aloud
in antiquity, any reader of these grafti could become the appropriately
masculine subject.
LEVIN- RICHARDSONFacilis hic futuit 63
Another group of grafti plays with the prevalent formula x fucked
here. In its simplest incarnations, the verb is left out. For example, one
grafto states Sollemnes hic (Sollemnes here, CIL IV 2218a), and a simi-
lar one, Asbestus hic (Asbestus here, CIL IV 2222). Others include a
verb, such as Facilis hic futuit (Facilis fucked here, CIL IV 2178), Her-
meros hic futuit (Hermeros fucked here, CIL IV 2195), Mouai`o~ ejnqavde
beinei` (Mouaios fucks here, CIL IV 2216, Add. 215), and Posphorus / hic
futuit (Posphorus fucked here, CIL IV 2241).
18
Another grafto speci-
es 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 grafto differentiates Phoebus
from other clients, allowing him to claim a pinnacle of masculinity.
Adding to this formula, some grafti 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-
ual contact.
19
The same goes for the fragmentary Rusatia . . hic / Coruenius
(Coruenius here [with] Rusatia, CIL IV 2262, Add. 465). Some grafti
include other participants and a verb. So, for example, there is Bellicus hic
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 grafto describes a group of male participants, and
even includes a date: XVII K Jul / Hermeros / cum Phile/tero et Caphi/so hic
futu/erunt (17 days before the Kalends of July, Hermeros with Phileteros
and Caphisus fucked here, CIL IV 2192, Add. 215). The addition of an
adverb in the following grafto, Synethus / Faustillam / futuit / obiquerite
(Synethus fucked Faustilla evirywhereyly, CIL IV 2288) allows Synethus
to stand out in comparison to the others and draws attention to his mas-
culine vigor in having sex in many locales. One grafto refers to the
name of the client and the prostitute, and to the (outrageous) cost of her
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
Other variations allowed patrons to display their masculinity by aunt-
ing the number of their sexual partners. One grafto reads, hic ego puellas
multas / futui (Here I fucked many girls, CIL IV 2175).
22
Placidus goes
one better, including his name and emphasizing his masculinity with the
arbitrariness of the object: Placidus hic futuit quem voluit (Placidus fucked
here whom he wished, CIL IV 2265), but his grafto lacks the humorous
64 HELIOS
R
d
d
punch of the following: Scordopordonicus hic bene / fuit quem voluit
(Garliquefarticus fukt well here whom he wished, CIL IV 2188).
23
Seven grafti 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,
CIL IV 2219); and Sunevrw~ kalo;~ binei`~ (Syneroos, you fuck good, CIL
IV 2253).
24
One grafto bests them all with a variation on a common
love grafto seen around Pompeii, quisquis amat valeat: Victor bene / valeas
qui bene futues (Victoryou 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 grafti lends an
authoritative quality to these statements. A reader might not believe
what a male patron says about himselfof course he says he is a good
fucker!but might nd the same statement more believable if it seemed
to come from a third party, especially if that source were a prostitute who
had rst-hand experience with the patron.
26
Finally, there are a few grafti 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
grafto states, pedicare volo (I want to butt-fuck, CIL IV 2210). Another
unique example begins with a fairly standard rst 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
but not least, one boast, though much of the meaning remains uncertain,
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
formulaeHere I fucked many girls, Phoebus is a good fukr, Placidus
here fucked whom he wishedimply a competitive atmosphere of men
outdoing one another (literally and guratively). These boasts, then, cre-
ated a hierarchy among the male clients. Clients who boasted to have
fucked better or in more places, or with more women or boys than other
clients, laid claim to a more masculine sexuality. Furthermore, the type of
rivalry seen in the boasts did not rely on an oppositional structure of
masculine versus nonmasculine; this was not a zero-sum game. Phoebuss
and Placiduss claims to masculine sexuality were about which client was
LEVIN- RICHARDSONFacilis hic futuit 65
more masculinea friendly competition taking place in degrees rather
than absolutes.
In addition, the grafti demonstrate a wide range of options in (1)
naming the other partner in these sexual acts (12 grafti), (2) mention-
ing a general category of partner (puellas, for example, or quem voluit; 4
grafti), or (3) eliding mention of any other participant (25 grafti plus
3040 names).
28
The variable role of sexual objects ultimately will reveal
the underlying rhetoric of these boasts. Eve Kosofsky Sedgwicks (1985)
analysis of homosocial relationships through the rubric of erotic trian-
gles and David Wrays (2001) examination of gendered dynamics in
Catulluss 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
bonds between men. Wray (2001, 64112), building on Sedgwick, argues
that in the case of Catulluss poems, sexual acts with women were meant
to be proclamations of manhood to other men rather than declarations
of love for, or sexual acts with, a woman. Wray sees this especially in Cat-
ulluss Lesbia poems. Take Catullus 39, for example, where Catulluss
rival, Egnatius, is irting with Catulluss 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. Wrays reading, however, is that
the exchange or message . . . is homosocial: an affair between men,
between Catullus and the contubernales, and ultimately between Catul-
lus and Egnatius. What the Catullus of Poem 37 has lost is chiey exis-
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
narrators 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, 723).
In the brothel, boasts were not addressed to a specic male rival, but
were proclamations meant to be read (aloud) by anyone and everyone.
66 HELIOS
R
d
d
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, grafti without a named subject occur only in the rst per-
son; when read aloud, they would have turned the reader of the grafto
into the subject of the boast. This would have allowed any reader, by iter-
ating a rst-person boast, to take part in the competitive discourse on
masculinity that was carried out through the grafti. 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, it seems not to have mattered for boasts of masculinity that the
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 grafti 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 gure 1a).
The rest of the boasts, howeverthose with a generalized object or no
expressed objectreveal 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 specic, named prostitute was replaced with the cate-
gory or symbol of a prostitute. What had formerly been a triangle with a
prostitute as a coin of exchange between males becomes a triangle with
a weakened or symbolic third pole (see gure 1b). The boasts without
any objects go further, eliminating the sexual object altogether. With this
last category of boasts, the third pole has been weakened to the point of
being superuous; male clients simply engaged directly with each other.
The triangle, then, has become a horizontal line between males of
(roughly) equivalent status (see gure 1c).
The option to frame a masculine discourse without a triangular rela-
tionship, I argue, illuminates and contextualizes the entire corpus of
boasts. That is, even in the grafti that do name the boasts sexual object,
the object is already/nevertheless superuous, the rhetorical line between
the client and the prostitute dotted rather than solid. The ultimate effect
of the symbolic and superuous 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.
LEVIN- RICHARDSONFacilis hic futuit 67
IV. Us versus Them
The grafti discussed above reveal that male clients asserted their mas-
culinity vis--vis other male clients through increasingly elaborate, detailed,
or superlative boasts of penetrative sexual prowess. In the following sec-
tions, I will examine how the rhetoric of masculinity not only used boasts
to ne-tune a hierarchy among male clients, but also solidied commu-
nal masculine identity in opposition to two sets of Others: penetrated or
polluted males, and sexualized female prostitutes.
Penetrated or Polluted Males
While Latin literature abounds with invective slurs against males who
are penetrated and polluted (through oral sex), only a few grafti in the
brothel follow suit. One grafto says, ratio mi cum ponis / Batacare te pidicaro
(When you hand over the money, Batacarus, Ill butt-fock you, CIL IV
68 HELIOS
R
d
Figure 1: Structure of the Boasts
d
2254, Add. 216).
30
Batacarus, as the one handing over the money, must
have been a client at the brothel. The grafto-writer, then, used this graf-
to to portray Batacarus as a penetrated (and therefore emasculated)
male. A sketched phallus at the beginning of the grafto may have added
an element of violence and aggression, turning the grafto into a poten-
tial threat. In addition, prominence is given to the name of the impugned
partyBatacarus is the rst word of the second linerather than to the
name of the writer, who is anonymous. Indeed, the rst-person perspec-
tive of the grafto allowed every reader to become the masculine pene-
trator, and reinforced the superior status of the reader(s) vis--vis the
penetrated Batacarus.
31
The collective quality of this statement is an
important aspect of how masculinity was dened in the brothel.
Another emasculating, potentially violent grafto occurs in the frag-
mentary irrumo . . . (I face-fuck . . . , CIL IV 2277). Unfortunately, only a
few letters can be discerned in the latter part of the grafto, making
interpretation difcult. As irrumare often has an element of force behind
it, this grafto may have been a threat against a male or female prosti-
tute, or perhaps another male client. It is impossible to determine which
of the aforementioned scenarios might be correct, but if the grafto
named a male sexual object, it would effectively render that male both
penetrated and polluted. In addition, as in the previous grafto, the rst-
person verb form would have made any and all readers the subject of the
sentence. By voicing the grafto out loud, a reader would have afrmed
his virile masculinity.
The last instance of defamation, unlike the rst two, lacks an element
of aggression. The grafto claims, Froto plane / lingit cun/num (Froto clearly
licks cunt, CIL IV 2257).
32
This attack against Froto (= Fronto) calls
into question his status as a penetrating male; indeed, cunnum lingere was
often conceptualized as penetration of the mouth (Parker 1997, 512).
Furthermore, this grafto calls attention to Frontos polluted status and
implies that Fronto has no shame, since he has made no secret of his cun-
num lingere.
33
Unlike the boasts seen above, sexuality in these grafti is presented as
a zero-sum game in which the degradation of one male leads to the
responsive elevation in masculine sexuality of another. In these grafti,
however, it is not simply one male client who can benet at the expense
of Batacarus, Fronto, or whoever was the object of irrumare in CIL IV
2277. Rather, the lack of named accusers allows any, and potentially
every, male to rise in status compared to Batacarus and Fronto. Batacarus
and Fronto become the fall guys against whom the rest of the clients
LEVIN- RICHARDSONFacilis hic futuit 69
unite, and in the process, the rest of the clients reafrm their own nor-
mative male sexuality.
These defamatory grafti seem to take the shape of a triangle, with
a male writer communicating with a male reader through a male object
of derision (see gure 2a); however, the alignment of the writers and
readers interests against a mutual ideological Other draws these two
poles of the triangle together (see gure 2b). Moreover, the ways in
which this dialogue invited all male clients to participate through rst-
person boasts resulted in a structure amassing normative male clients at
the top of a now-vertical line, with Fronto, Batacarus, and any other pen-
etrated or polluted males at the bottom (see gure 2c). This structure in
many ways parallels Freuds A-B-C model of humor, which Richlin
(1992) has shown is appropriate to the context of Roman sexual humor.
In Freuds model, A tells a joke about B to C, thus drawing A and C
closer together (Richlin 1992, 601). Indeed, as Richlin explains, All
join together in laughing at B . . . The more pertinent a victim B isthe
greater the number of Cs who are normally vexed by such a Bthe
70 HELIOS
R
d
Figure 2: The Structure of Rhetoric against Penetrated or
Polluted Males
d
greater the audiences solidarity (1992, 61). In both models, the end
result is an increase in group cohesion. In the brothel, moreover, the
structure was reifying, reactive, and zero-sum: the boundaries around
normative and nonnormative male sexuality were strengthened by this
vertical and absolute polarity; to strengthen or solidify one pole was to
do the same, reactively, to the other; and nally, for normative males to
gain, nonnormative males had to lose.
Sexualized Female Prostitutes
Many of the rhetorical strategies employed by grafti concerning pene-
trated or polluted males are also found in grafti about female prosti-
tutes. The role of female prostitutes in the brothels grafti is not
restricted to appearances as the (symbolic) objects of male boasts, as
described above. A number of grafti conceptualize female prostitutes in
the role of sexual subjects as well. These grafti often draw attention to
the sexual acts in which the prostitute engages, or the prowess with
which she does so. These grafti may be seen as boasts written by the
prostitutes themselves, as compliments written by appreciative clients, or
as advertisements meant to drum up service.
34
Ultimately, we cannot
know who wrote the grafti and which, if any, of these possible interpre-
tations the writer intended (a good guess would be a combination of all
three). In this section I focus not on the intentions of the writers, but on
the impact of these grafti as a group for a rhetoric of masculinity.
The overwhelming effect of grafti in which females are the subjects
is to stress their sexuality.
35
As mentioned above, being penetrated was
seen as simultaneously normative for females and shameful. Likewise,
performing sexual acts was normative for prostitutes but could neverthe-
less incur societal shame; indeed, this latter facet of prostitutes sexuality
will be shown to be useful ideologically for solidifying masculinity.
A few of the grafti play with the idea of the female prostitute as pen-
etrated in the act of fututio. One grafto, for example, states, fututa sum
hic (I was fucked here, CIL IV 2217), calling attention to the female
prostitutes state of having been penetrated.
36
Another grafto reads
Movla foutou`tri~ (Mola the fucktress, CIL IV 2204).
37
This rare title
gains a sense of monumentality and (humorously) honorable status by
the large size of the letters and by the interpunct, which often divides
words in stone-cut inscriptions. Not only is Mola (presumably) pene-
trated in the act of fututio, as is the unnamed female of the previous graf-
to, but with the agentive tri~ ending, Mola appears to revel in her
sexualness. Another grafto perhaps serves as commentary, resolving any
LEVIN- RICHARDSONFacilis hic futuit 71
potential doubt that Mola is the penetrated partner in the sexual act, by
having a phallus penetrate her name: Mola (phallus) / . . . (CIL IV 2237,
Add. 215).
38
Like the foutou`tri~ grafto, another grafto suggests a cer-
tain promiscuity or pride that seems to go beyond the normal call of
duty: Ias cum Mag/no ubique (Ias with Magnus everywhere, CIL IV 2174)
stresses the frequency with which, or the multitude of locations in which,
Ias has had sexual relations with Magnus. Indeed, by presenting Iass
name rst, where one would expect the male clients name (see, e.g., CIL
IV 2209 and CIL IV 2224, discussed above), the grafto shifts the focus
away from Magnuss normative and acceptable sexual act towards Iass
excessive sexuality.
Most of the grafti with a female subject, however, tie her to the act
of fellatio. These grafti, then, highlight the prostitutes condition as
both penetrated and polluted. The barest incarnation, x sucks, can be
seen in the following description of Nice: Nice fellat (Nice sucks, CIL IV
2278).
39
The same formula was used in two identical grafti: Fortunata
fellat (Fortunata sucks, CIL IV 2259; CIL IV 2275). Fortunata seems to
reappear, with a shortened or misspelled name, in the grafto Fortuna sic
(Fortuna in this way, CIL IV 2266), which may be a clarication of the
grafto above it in another hand, vere / felas (You truly suk, CIL IV
2266).
40
Other grafti add details that make the portrayal more sexualized.
One grafto, Myrtale / Cassacos / fellas (Myrtale, you suck the Cassaci,
CIL IV 2268), suggests that a prostitute fellated an entire branch of
someones family tree!
41
Whether or not this grafto might also imply
that Myrtale fellated more than one person at a time, or in rapid succes-
sion, is left to the imagination of the (ancient and modern) reader.
Another grafto on the same wall, Murtale / Ccassi (Murtale [you suck?]
the Ccassi, CIL IV 2271) would probably have been read in light of the
rst, thus conveying a similarly sexualized portrayal. Another grafto
enhances the standard formula with an adverb: Murtis bene / felas (Mur-
tis, you suk well, CIL IV 2273, Add. 216); and another turns the prac-
tice of fellatio into a title: Murtis felatris (Murtis is a blow-job babe, CIL
IV 2292).
42
The grafti discussed in this section highlight the sexualness of
female prostitutes, in part by the prominent placement of the prosti-
tutes names and acts, and in part by the elision of sexual partners. In
addition to depicting prostitutes as hypersexual, these grafti present a
model of female sexuality that stands in marked contrast to the pudicitia
and verecundia of respectable femininity.
43
While male patrons could rein-
72 HELIOS
R
d
d
force their claims to proper masculinity in their boasts, this set of grafti
would only call attention to prostitutes non-adherence to societal norms.
In addition to prostitutes being, by denition, practitioners of disre-
spectable sexuality, these nonnormative depictions of femininity repli-
cated, reinforced, and permanently inscribed prostitutes marginalized
social standing.
Furthermore, as with the grafti concerning penetrated or polluted
males, the sexualized portrayal of female prostitutes was ideologically use-
ful in the brothels discourse on masculinity. On the surface, these graf-
ti seem to take the form of a horizontal linea communiqu between
grafto writer and prostitute (see gure 3a). This structure is clearest in
the second-person grafti, such as Murtis bene / felas (Murtis, you suk
well, CIL IV 2273). When employed in the service of a rhetoric of mas-
culinity, however, the structure takes the form of a vertical line with
female prostitutes at the bottom and normative male clients at the top,
regardless of the original intent or structure of the grafti (see gure 3b).
More precisely, it is the shame-inducing, communal hypersexuality of the
prostitutes that forms the bottom pole, rather than any individual pros-
titute. Communal masculine identity was solidied by the polarized dis-
tinction propagated by the grafti between socially respectable (i.e., male
client) and disrespectable (i.e., female prostitute) sexuality.
In sum, even when females were the subjects of the grafti, they nev-
ertheless lled a symbolic role in a male-dominated discourse. In the end,
female prostitutes were exploited not only sexually, but also ideologically.
LEVIN- RICHARDSONFacilis hic futuit 73
Figure 3: The Structure of Rhetoric against Sexualized
Female Prostitutes
V. Final Considerations
These grafti form the backbone of an interactive discourse in which
masculinity was proclaimed and contested. Boasts about male sexuality
functioned in an atmosphere of rivalry to establish a relative hierarchy
among (normative) male clients, while an oppositional attitude towards
nonnormative males and sexualized females consolidated communal
masculinity and elevated the male clients, through their normativity, to
a superior status. Boasts comprise the majority of this discourse (41 graf-
ti, plus 3040 names), contrasting with the preponderance of invective
in the discourse of masculinity seen in Latin literature, and illustrat-
ing the specicity of how masculinity was negotiated in the brothel.
Although the male clients were low-status and consequently had little to
lose in terms of political, economic, or social power, they nevertheless
used the brothel and its grafti as a competitive arena.
44
Works Cited
Adams, J. N. 1982. The Latin Sexual Vocabulary. Baltimore.
Bain, D. 1991. Six Greek Verbs of Sexual Congress (binw`, kinw`, pugivzw, lhkw`, oi[fw,
laikavzw). CQ 41: 5177.
Baird, J., and C. Taylor, eds. 2010. Ancient Grafti in Context. London.
Beard, M., et al. 1991. Literacy in the Roman World. Journal of Roman Archaeology Sup-
plementary Series, 3. Ann Arbor.
Beneel, R. R. 2010a. Dialogues of Ancient Grafti in the House of Maius Castricius
in Pompeii. AJA 114: 59101.
. 2010b. Dialogues of Grafti in the House of the Four Styles at Pompeii (Casa
dei Quattro Stili, I.8.17, 11). In Baird and Taylor 2010, 2048.
Bradley, K. R. 1984. Slaves and Masters in the Roman Empire: A Study in Social Control.
Brussels.
Bragantini, I. 1997. VII 12, 1820: Lupanare. In G. P. Carratelli, ed., Pompei: pitture
e mosaici. Volume 7. Rome. 52039.
Cantarella, E. 1998. Pompei: I volti di amore. Milan.
Clarke, J. R. 1998. Looking at Lovemaking: Constructions of Sexuality in Roman Art
100 B.C.A.D. 250. Berkeley.
. 2003. Roman Sex: 100 B.C. to A.D. 250. New York.
Edwards, C. 1993. The Politics of Immorality in Ancient Rome. Cambridge.
Flemming, R. 1999. Quae Corpore Quaestum Facit: The Sexual Economy of Female
Prostitution in the Roman Empire. JRS 89: 3861.
Franklin, J. L., Jr. 1986. Games and a Lupanar: Prosopography of a Neighborhood in
Ancient Pompeii. CJ 81: 31928.
. 1987. Pantomimists at Pompeii: Actius Anicetus and His Troupe. AJP 108:
95107.
Hallett, J., and M. Skinner, eds. 1997. Roman Sexualities. Princeton.
74 HELIOS
R
d
d
Harris, W. V. 1989. Ancient Literacy. Cambridge, MA.
Henderson, J. 1991. The Maculate Muse: Obscene Language in Attic Comedy. Second edi-
tion. New York.
Johnson, W. A., and H. N. Parker, eds. 2009. Ancient Literacies: The Culture of Reading in
Greece and Rome. New York.
Kamen, D., and S. Levin-Richardson. Forthcoming. Lusty Ladies in the Roman Imag-
inary. In R. Blondell and K. Ormand, eds., New Essays in Ancient Sexuality.
Columbus.
Kaster, R. A. 2005. Emotion, Restraint, and Community in Ancient Rome. New York.
La Rocca, E., et al. 1981. Guida archeologica di Pompei. Milan.
Langlands, R. 1996. Sexual Morality in Ancient Rome. Cambridge.
Levin-Richardson, S. 2009. Roman Provocations: Interactions with Decorated Spaces
in Early Imperial Rome and Pompeii. Ph.D. dissertation, Stanford University.
. Forthcoming. Female Uses of Obscenity in Pompeian Grafti. In D. Dutsch
and A. Suter, eds., Ancient Obscenities.
Maulucci Vivolo, F. P. 1995. Pompei: I grafti damore. Foggia.
McGinn, T. 2002. Pompeian Brothels and Social History. In Pompeian Brothels, Pom-
peiis Ancient History, Mirrors and Mysteries, Art and Nature at Oplontis, & the Hercu-
laneum Basilica. Journal of Roman Archaeology Supplementary Series, 47. Ann
Arbor. 746.
Milnor, K. 2009. Literary Literacy in Roman Pompeii: The Case of Vergils Aeneid. In
Johnson and Parker 2009, 288319.
Myerowitz, M. 1992. The Domestication of Desire: Ovids Parva Tabella and the The-
ater of Love. In A. Richlin, ed., Pornography and Representation in Greece and Rome.
New York. 13157.
Panciera, M. 2001. Sexual Practice and Invective in Martial and Pompeian Inscrip-
tions. Ph.D. dissertation, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
Parker, H. N. 1997. The Teratogenic Grid. In Hallett and Skinner 1997, 4765.
. 2007. Free Women and Male Slaves, or Mandingo Meets the Roman
Empire. In A. Serghidou, ed., Fear of SlavesFear of Enslavement in the Ancient
Mediterranean. Franche-Comt. 28198.
Richlin, A. 1992. The Garden of Priapus: Sexuality and Aggression in Roman Humor.
Revised edition. New York.
Sedgwick, E. 1985. Between Men: English Literature and Male Homosocial Desire. New York.
Solin, H. 2003. Die griechischen Personennamen in Rom: Ein Namenbuch. Second edition.
Berlin.
Vnnen, V. 1959. Le latin vulgaire des incriptions pompiennes. Berlin.
Varone, A. 1994. Erotica pompeiana: Iscrizioni damore sui muri di Pompei. Rome.
. 2001. Eroticism in Pompeii. Los Angeles.
. 2002. Erotica pompeiana: Love Inscriptions on the Walls of Pompeii. English transla-
tion by R. P. Berg. Rome. (Originally published as Erotica Pompeiana: Iscrizioni
damore sui muri di Pompei [Rome 1994])
. 2005. Nella Pompei a luci rosse: Castrensis e lorganizzazione della prosti-
tuzione e dei suoi spazi. Rivista di studi pompeiani 16: 93109.
Wallace-Hadrill, A. 1995. Public Honour and Private Shame: The Urban Texture of
Pompeii. In T. J. Cornell and K. Lomas, eds., Urban Society in Roman Italy. Lon-
don. 3962.
LEVIN- RICHARDSONFacilis hic futuit 75
Walters, J. 1997. Invading the Roman Body: Manliness and Impenetrability in
Roman Thought. In Hallett and Skinner 1997, 2943.
Williams, C. 2010. Roman Homosexuality. Second edition. New York.
Wray, D. 2001. Catullus and the Poetics of Roman Manhood. Cambridge.
Notes
1. For the appellation purpose-built, and other names for this structure, see
McGinn 2002, 13. I count grafti co-listed under the same number (e.g., CIL IV
2178a and 2178b) separately, which may result in a slightly higher total number of
grafti than other scholars counts.
2. For other contextual approaches to grafti, see, e.g., Franklin 1986, Milnor
2009, Baird and Taylor 2010, Beneel 2010a and 2010b.
3. For ancient literacy, see, e.g., Harris 1989, Beard et al. 1991, and Johnson and
Parker 2009; for reading aloud in antiquity, Harris 1989, 226.
4. Since the upper story has none of Wallace-Hadrills (1995) criteria of an ancient
brothel (masonry beds, erotic frescoes, and erotic grafti; see also McGinn 2002), I
will not address it in this article. I would like to thank the Soprintendenza Archeolo-
gica di Pompei for permission to enter and photograph the upper story. For documen-
tation of the upper story, see Bragantini 1997, plates 3243.
5. For scholarship on the brothels frescoes, see Myerowitz 1992, Clarke 1998,
Varone 2001, Clarke 2003, and Levin-Richardson 2009.
6. For the Greek names, see also Solin 2003, 55, 3036, 7346. For analysis of
these identities, see Varone 2005. For other interpretations of castrensis in CIL IV
2180, see Franklin 1987, 99100 and Varone 2005.
7. Ascertaining status from names is not unproblematic; see, e.g., Beneel 2010b, 26.
8. See also Clarke 1998, 199. It is unclear whether some of the males were prosti-
tutes rather than clients (see Cantarella 1998, 1024, 1135). The grafti might not
exactly mirror the workers and patrons of the brothel; certain groups of individuals
(perhaps higher-status males, or females) might not have wanted to record their visit
to the brothel, and others may have been illiterate. For brothel patrons in Latin litera-
ture, see Flemming 1999, 45. For sex between masters and slaves, see Bradley 1984,
1158; Walters 1997, 39; and Varone 2001, 1558. For a literary treatment of sex
between slaves and mistresses, see Edwards 1993, 4953 and Parker 2007.
9. For the overlap of prostitutes names in the brothel and other locales, see
Cantarella 1998, 912 and Varone 2005.
10. For Greek and Latin sexual obscenities, see Adams 1982, Bain 1991, Hender-
son 1991, Richlin 1992, and Panciera 2001.
11. For a summary of Roman sexual mores, see Parker 1997.
12. Zangemeister (at CIL IV 2181, Add. 215), however, voiced uncertainty about
whether the gure is indeed a phallus.
13. The third line of the grafto is unclear.
14. See Zangemeister at CIL IV 2248.
15. The rarity of a name with a rst-person verb leads me to take pedico as a noun
rather than a verb.
76 HELIOS
R
d
d
16. The lack of nal m need not indicate the nominative case: Vnnen
1959, 73.
17. CIL IV 2203 lists a fragmentary second line, but I am not convinced that it is
in the same hand as the rst line of the grafto. The second line of CIL IV 2198 is
indecipherable, being variously transcribed as //abenda by Zangemeister and valentes by
Fiorelli (both at CIL IV 2198).
18. For more on Mou<s>ai`o~, see Franklin 1986, 327.
19. One could categorize these grafti also as elaborations of the names discussed
above. Whether these grafti indicate that the named persons had sexual activities
with each other, or with a third party, remains unclear; see the discussion in Panciera
2001, 21720.
20. CIL IV 2247 contains a second line, but I agree with Zangemeister (at CIL IV
2247) that it has been composed in another hand.
21. This grafto might function as invective, if we take it in light of Martials epi-
grams (see especially 9.4) that associate a high cost for sexual service with marginal
sexual acts (being penetrated or performing oral sex; see Panciera 2001, 468).
22. This grafto could also fall under the formula involving boasts of futui.
23. Scordopordonicus: see Zangemeister at CIL IV 2188. Adams (1982, 121) suggests
that these examples of quem might be symptomatic of the encroachment of the mas-
culine forms of the relative on the feminine. Given that futuere could refer to male-
male sex, and that the penetrative party in homoerotic as well as heteroerotic sex did
not suffer any social disapproval, I do not nd his explanation convincing. It seems
equally plausible, if not more so, that these grafti reected the arbitrariness of the
object of the actthat is, Scordopordonicus and Placidus were properly masculine
whether they had sex with females or males. See also CIL IV 2247.
24. In the latter part of CIL IV 2218, there are a few letters after futuis that are
indecipherable. In CIL IV 2253, kalov~ may agree with the proper name, although
given the fairly consistent structure of name-adverb-verb in the corpus, I would argue
that the author mistakenly wrote omicron in place of the adverbial omega. Bain (1991,
56) likewise emended kalov~ to kalw`~. For more on Syneros, see CIL IV 2252 and
Franklin 1986, 3256.
25. For quisquis amat valeat, see, e.g., CIL IV 4091; Varone 1994, 60 (= Varone
2002, 62); and Milnor 2009, 3012.
26. This may suggest that other parties, including female prostitutes, had an active
role in writing praise for male clients. For potential female authorship of grafti, see,
e.g., Varone 1994, 81 (= Varone 2002, 83) and Levin-Richardson, Forthcoming. How-
ever, male patrons were probably aware of the added credibility gained by second- and
third-person testimonials, and may have written such grafti themselves. The question
of authorship remains unanswerable, but given that male clients had a greater stake in
their reputation than did prostitutes, it seems more likely that the male clients were
the authors.
27. The end of the rst line has been rendered unreadable by damage, while the
last line has not been deciphered satisfactorily.
28. Boasts with named other participants (all in CIL IV): 2192, 2193, 2197, 2198,
2199, 2200, 2203, 2224, 2249, 2258, 2262, 2288. Boasts with a general object (all in
CIL IV): 2175, 2188, 2247, 2265. Boasts with no direct object (not including isolated
LEVIN- RICHARDSONFacilis hic futuit 77
names) (all in CIL IV): 2176, 2178, 2184, 2185, 2186, 2187, 2191, 2194, 2195,
2201, 2209, 2210, 2216, 2218, 2218a, 2219, 2222, 2232, 2241, 2242, 2246, 2248,
2253, 2260, 2274.
29. Grafti stating that Scordopordonicus or Placidus could fuck quem voluit, or
that Bellicus could fuck quendam, suggest that male prostitutes were available and
acceptable sexual objects. However, all of the grafti with a named potential male
object use the formula x with y, as in Hyginus cum Messio hic (CIL IV 2249) rather
than an accusative direct object. Few grafti use this formula to refer to a female (e.g.,
Felix cum Fortunata: CIL IV 2224).
30. I agree with Fiorelli (at CIL IV 2254) that the third line seems to have been
written in a different hand, and thus I have not included it above. I have taken pidicaro
as a misspelling of pedicabo, although it could also be the syncopated future perfect.
31. The hierarchy between the grafto reader and Batacarus is complicated, how-
ever, by the readers seeming status as someone who has accepted money for sex (as
one of the referees has brought to my attention).
32. For other examples, see CIL IV, s.v. cunnum lingere.
33. For the added shame of committing transgressive acts in public, see, e.g., Cic-
ero, Cael. 47 and Martial 1.34.
34. For female uses of obscenity in grafti, see Levin-Richardson, Forthcoming.
35. The two exceptions are CIL IV 2202: Restituta bellis horibus (Restituta with
the pretty face; cf. Add. 465, however) and Victoria invicta hic (Victoria was uncon-
quered here, CIL IV 2226).
36. For fututa, see also CIL IV 2006 and CIL IV 8897.
37. For another fututrix, see CIL IV 4196.
38. The meaning of the latter part of the grafto is unclear. For female sexual
agents in the Roman imaginary, see Kamen and Levin-Richardson, Forthcoming.
39. Zangemeister (at CIL IV 2278) reports that the rst four of ve letters of the
grafto before Nice have been erased.
40. Another possible reading of the grafto Fortuna sic is Fortuna likewise. I fol-
low Fiorellis reading of the rst line of the latter grafto as vere (at CIL IV 2266).
41. Cassacos may refer to several men with the name Cassacus (we unfortunately do
not know who the Cassaci were).
42. The more common form of the name is Myrtis (Solin 2003, 117880). For
other fellatrices, see CIL IV 1388, CIL IV 1389, CIL IV 1510, CIL IV 4192, and CIL
IV 9228.
43. For the role of these virtues in elite femininity, see, e.g., Kaster 2005, 1365
and Langlands 2006.
44. I would like to thank Deborah Kamen and Rebecca Beneel for commenting on
drafts of this article, as well as the two anonymous referees for their feedback. A ver-
sion of this paper was given at the University of Leicesters 2008 conference, Ancient
Grafti in Context. I have chosen not to correct any orthographic or grammatical
mistakes made in the grafti, and translate accordingly. All translations are my own
unless otherwise noted.
78 HELIOS
R
d