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

http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/hel/summary/v038/38.1.levin-richardson.html

Access Provided by Universidad de Malaga at 12/12/12 6:10PM GMT

 Facilis hic futuit
Graffiti and Masculinity in Pompeii’s
‘Purpose-Built’ Brothel

SARAH L E V I N - RI CH ARDSON

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
multiple ways in which male clients, individually and collectively, 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
at Pompeii. For example, some of the brothel’s sexual graffiti were treated
by Antonio Varone’s Erotica pompeiana: Iscrizioni d’amore 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
graffiti from all over Pompeii, grouping them into motifs like “Preghiere
d’amore” and “L’arma d’amore.” Through this typology, Varone draws out
common themes in a diverse body of material. Francesco Paolo Maulucci
Vivolo’s Pompei: I graffiti d’amore (1995) presents samples of erotic graffiti
from Pompeii, including some from the brothel, evoking how prolific this
type of graffiti was. Taking a more analytic approach, Matthew Panciera’s
dissertation, “Sexual Practice and Invective in Martial and Pompeian
Inscriptions” (2001), compares the different meanings and implications of
sexual practices in the corpus of Martial’s epigrams and Pompeii’s graffiti.

H E L I OS , vol. 38 no. 1, 2011 © Texas Tech University Press 59

 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-
tuzione e dei suoi spazi” (2005), however, adds a new perspective to the
study of the brothel’s graffiti. Varone analyzes the status and sexual prac-
tices of the individuals in the brothel through close reading of its graffiti,
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. The graffiti, 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 graffiti through someone else’s 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 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. The terminus post quem of both the graffiti 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
graffiti list only a name, about one-third are explicitly sexual, and the rest
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 CIL IV 2297, Add. 216; potentially CIL IV 2250, Add. 215; and CIL IV
L E V I N - RI CH ARDS ON—Facilis hic futuit 61

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 graffiti 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
reflecting that others had the financial 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 brothel’s graffiti 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, 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
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,
 62 HELIOS

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, 218–24). 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, 221–2). In the brothel’s graf-
fiti, the concepts of penetration and pollution are essential to how
masculinity was defined and contested. As will be shown in the next sec-
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

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 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
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 brothel’s walls. These graffiti 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 graffito 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
R graffito into a visual representation of Iarinus hic futuit.12 A sample of
L E V I N - RI CH ARDS ON—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’s 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 graffiti state a male name and a sexually derived title. For exam-
ple, one graffito records Epaga/thus fututor / . . . (Epagathus the fucker . . . ,
CIL IV 2242).13 For some writers, the title alone was insufficient, 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 specific title, writing: Phoebus pedico (Phoebus the
butt-fucker, CIL IV 2194, Add. 465).15
Other graffiti 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 graffito, another graf-
fito 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 graffiti 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 graffiti could become the appropriately
masculine subject.
 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, such as Facilis • hic • futuit (Facilis fucked here, CIL IV 2178), Her-
meros hic futuit (Hermeros fucked here, CIL IV 2195), Mouai`o~ É ejnqavde É
beinei` (Mouaios fucks here, CIL IV 2216, Add. 215), and Posphorus / 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-
ual contact.19 The same goes for the fragmentary Rusatia . . hic / Coruenius
(Coruenius here [with] Rusatia, CIL IV 2262, Add. 465). Some graffiti
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 graffito 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 graffito, 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 graffito 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 flaunt-
ing the number of their sexual partners. One graffito 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
R here whom he wished, CIL IV 2265), but his graffito lacks the humorous
L E V I N - RI CH ARDS ON—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,
CIL IV 2219); and Sunevrw~ É kalo;~ É binei`~ (Syneroos, you fuck good, 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!—but might find the same statement more believable if it seemed
to come from a third party, especially if that source were a prostitute who
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
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
formulae—‘Here I fucked many girls,’ ‘Phoebus is a good fukr,’ ‘Placidus
here fucked whom he wished’—imply a competitive atmosphere of men
outdoing one another (literally and figuratively). 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. Phoebus’s
and Placidus’s claims to masculine sexuality were about which client was
 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
30–40 names).28 The variable role of sexual objects ultimately will reveal
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
bonds between men. Wray (2001, 64–112), building on Sedgwick, argues
that in the case of Catullus’s 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-
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,

between Catullus and the contubernales, and ultimately between Catul-
lus and Egnatius. What the Catullus of Poem 37 has lost is chiefly 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
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.
L E V I N - RI CH ARDS ON—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, graffiti without a named subject occur only in the first per-
son; when read aloud, they would have turned the reader of the graffito
into the subject of the boast. This would have allowed any reader, by iter-
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, 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 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).
The rest of the boasts, however—those with a generalized object or no
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
prostitute as a “coin of exchange” between males becomes a triangle with
a weakened or symbolic third pole (see figure 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 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. That is, even in the graffiti that do name the boast’s sexual object,
the object is already/nevertheless superfluous, the rhetorical line between
the client and the prostitute dotted rather than solid. The ultimate effect
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.
 68 HELIOS

Figure 1: Structure of the Boasts

IV. “Us versus Them”

The graffiti discussed above reveal that male clients asserted their mas-
culinity vis-à-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 fine-tune a hierarchy among male clients, but also solidified 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 graffiti in the
brothel follow suit. One graffito says, ratio mi cum ponis / Batacare te pidicaro
R (When you hand over the money, Batacarus, I’ll butt-fock you, CIL IV
L E V I N - RI CH ARDS ON—Facilis hic futuit 69

2254, Add. 216).30 Batacarus, as the one handing over the money, must
have been a client at the brothel. The graffito-writer, then, used this graf-
fito to portray Batacarus as a penetrated (and therefore emasculated)
male. A sketched phallus at the beginning of the graffito may have added
an element of violence and aggression, turning the graffito into a poten-
tial threat. In addition, prominence is given to the name of the impugned
party—Batacarus is the first word of the second line—rather than to the
name of the writer, who is anonymous. Indeed, the first-person perspec-
tive of the graffito allowed every reader to become the masculine pene-
trator, and reinforced the superior status of the reader(s) vis-à-vis the
penetrated Batacarus.31 The collective quality of this statement is an
important aspect of how masculinity was defined in the brothel.
Another emasculating, potentially violent graffito 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 graffito, making
interpretation difficult. As irrumare often has an element of force behind
it, this graffito 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 graffito
named a male sexual object, it would effectively render that male both
penetrated and polluted. In addition, as in the previous graffito, the first-
person verb form would have made any and all readers the subject of the
sentence. By voicing the graffito out loud, a reader would have affirmed
his virile masculinity.
The last instance of defamation, unlike the first two, lacks an element
of aggression. The graffito 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, 51–2).
Furthermore, this graffito calls attention to Fronto’s 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 graffiti 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 graffiti,
however, it is not simply one male client who can benefit 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
 70 HELIOS

unite, and in the process, the rest of the clients reaffirm their own nor-
mative male sexuality.
These defamatory graffiti seem to take the shape of a triangle, with
a male writer communicating with a male reader through a male object
of derision (see figure 2a); however, the alignment of the writer’s and
reader’s interests against a mutual ideological Other draws these two
poles of the triangle together (see figure 2b). Moreover, the ways in
which this dialogue invited all male clients to participate through first-
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 figure 2c). This structure in
many ways parallels Freud’s A-B-C model of humor, which Richlin
(1992) has shown is appropriate to the context of Roman sexual humor.
In Freud’s model, A tells a joke about B to C, thus drawing A and C
closer together (Richlin 1992, 60–1). Indeed, as Richlin explains, “All
join together in laughing at B . . . The more pertinent a victim B is—the
greater the number of Cs who are normally vexed by such a B—the

Figure 2: The Structure of Rhetoric against Penetrated or

Polluted Males

R
L E V I N - RI CH ARDS ON—Facilis hic futuit 71

greater the audience’s 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 finally, for normative males to
gain, nonnormative males had to lose.

Sexualized Female Prostitutes

Many of the rhetorical strategies employed by graffiti concerning pene-
trated or polluted males are also found in graffiti about female prosti-
tutes. The role of female prostitutes in the brothel’s graffiti is not
restricted to appearances as the (symbolic) objects of male boasts, as
described above. A number of graffiti conceptualize female prostitutes in
the role of sexual subjects as well. These graffiti often draw attention to
the sexual acts in which the prostitute engages, or the prowess with
which she does so. These graffiti 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 graffiti 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 graffiti as a group for a rhetoric of masculinity.
The overwhelming effect of graffiti 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 graffiti play with the idea of the female prostitute as pen-
etrated in the act of fututio. One graffito, for example, states, fututa sum
hic (I was fucked here, CIL IV 2217), calling attention to the female
prostitute’s state of having been penetrated.36 Another graffito 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-
fito, but with the agentive –tri~ ending, Mola appears to revel in her
sexualness. Another graffito perhaps serves as commentary, resolving any
 72 HELIOS

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~ graffito, another graffito 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 Ias’s
name first, where one would expect the male client’s name (see, e.g., CIL
IV 2209 and CIL IV 2224, discussed above), the graffito shifts the focus
away from Magnus’s normative and acceptable sexual act towards Ias’s
excessive sexuality.
Most of the graffiti with a female subject, however, tie her to the act
of fellatio. These graffiti, then, highlight the prostitute’s 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 graffiti: Fortunata
fellat (Fortunata sucks, CIL IV 2259; CIL IV 2275). Fortunata seems to
reappear, with a shortened or misspelled name, in the graffito Fortuna sic
(Fortuna in this way, CIL IV 2266), which may be a clarification of the
graffito above it in another hand, vere / felas (You truly suk, CIL IV
2266).40
Other graffiti add details that make the portrayal more sexualized.
One graffito, Myrtale / Cassacos / fellas (Myrtale, you suck the Cassaci,
CIL IV 2268), suggests that a prostitute fellated an entire branch of
someone’s family tree!41 Whether or not this graffito 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 graffito on the same wall, Murtale / Ccassi (Murtale [you suck?]
the Ccassi, CIL IV 2271) would probably have been read in light of the
first, thus conveying a similarly sexualized portrayal. Another graffito
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 graffiti 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 graffiti present a
model of female sexuality that stands in marked contrast to the pudicitia
R and verecundia of respectable femininity.43 While male patrons could rein-
L E V I N - RI CH ARDS ON—Facilis hic futuit 73

force their claims to proper masculinity in their boasts, this set of graffiti
would only call attention to prostitutes’ non-adherence to societal norms.
In addition to prostitutes being, by definition, practitioners of disre-
spectable sexuality, these nonnormative depictions of femininity repli-
cated, reinforced, and permanently inscribed prostitutes’ marginalized
social standing.
Furthermore, as with the graffiti concerning penetrated or polluted
males, the sexualized portrayal of female prostitutes was ideologically use-
ful in the brothel’s discourse on masculinity. On the surface, these graf-
fiti seem to take the form of a horizontal line—a communiqué between
graffito writer and prostitute (see figure 3a). This structure is clearest in
the second-person graffiti, 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 graffiti (see figure 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 solidified by the polarized dis-
tinction propagated by the graffiti between socially respectable (i.e., male
client) and disrespectable (i.e., female prostitute) sexuality.
In sum, even when females were the subjects of the graffiti, they nev-
ertheless filled a symbolic role in a male-dominated discourse. In the end,
female prostitutes were exploited not only sexually, but also ideologically.

Figure 3: The Structure of Rhetoric against Sexualized

Female Prostitutes
 74 HELIOS

V. Final Considerations
These graffiti 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-
fiti, plus 30–40 names), contrasting with the preponderance of invective
in the discourse of masculinity seen in Latin literature, and illustrat-
ing the specificity 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 graffiti 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: 51–77.
Baird, J., and C. Taylor, eds. 2010. Ancient Graffiti in Context. London.
Beard, M., et al. 1991. Literacy in the Roman World. Journal of Roman Archaeology Sup-
plementary Series, 3. Ann Arbor.
Benefiel, R. R. 2010a. “Dialogues of Ancient Graffiti in the House of Maius Castricius
in Pompeii.” AJA 114: 59–101.
———. 2010b. “Dialogues of Graffiti in the House of the Four Styles at Pompeii (Casa
dei Quattro Stili, I.8.17, 11).” In Baird and Taylor 2010, 20–48.
Bradley, K. R. 1984. Slaves and Masters in the Roman Empire: A Study in Social Control.
Brussels.
Bragantini, I. 1997. “VII 12, 18–20: Lupanare.” In G. P. Carratelli, ed., Pompei: pitture
e mosaici. Volume 7. Rome. 520–39.
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: 38–61.
Franklin, J. L., Jr. 1986. “Games and a Lupanar: Prosopography of a Neighborhood in
Ancient Pompeii.” CJ 81: 319–28.
———. 1987. “Pantomimists at Pompeii: Actius Anicetus and His Troupe.” AJP 108:
95–107.
R Hallett, J., and M. Skinner, eds. 1997. Roman Sexualities. Princeton.
L E V I N - RI CH ARDS ON—Facilis hic futuit 75

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 Graffiti.” In D. Dutsch
and A. Suter, eds., Ancient Obscenities.
Maulucci Vivolo, F. P. 1995. Pompei: I graffiti d’amore. Foggia.
McGinn, T. 2002. “Pompeian Brothels and Social History.” In Pompeian Brothels, Pom-
peii’s Ancient History, Mirrors and Mysteries, Art and Nature at Oplontis, & the Hercu-
laneum “Basilica.” Journal of Roman Archaeology Supplementary Series, 47. Ann
Arbor. 7–46.
Milnor, K. 2009. “Literary Literacy in Roman Pompeii: The Case of Vergil’s Aeneid.” In
Johnson and Parker 2009, 288–319.
Myerowitz, M. 1992. “The Domestication of Desire: Ovid’s Parva Tabella and the The-
ater of Love.” In A. Richlin, ed., Pornography and Representation in Greece and Rome.
New York. 131–57.
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, 47–65.
———. 2007. “Free Women and Male Slaves, or Mandingo Meets the Roman
Empire.” In A. Serghidou, ed., Fear of Slaves—Fear of Enslavement in the Ancient
Mediterranean. Franche-Comté. 281–98.
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.
Väänänen, V. 1959. Le latin vulgaire des incriptions pompéiennes. Berlin.
Varone, A. 1994. Erotica pompeiana: Iscrizioni d’amore 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
d’amore sui muri di Pompei [Rome 1994])
———. 2005. “Nella Pompei a luci rosse: Castrensis e l’organizzazione della prosti-
tuzione e dei suoi spazi.” Rivista di studi pompeiani 16: 93–109.
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. 39–62.
 76 HELIOS

Walters, J. 1997. “Invading the Roman Body: Manliness and Impenetrability in

Roman Thought.” In Hallett and Skinner 1997, 29–43.
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 graffiti co-listed under the same number (e.g., CIL IV
2178a and 2178b) separately, which may result in a slightly higher total number of
graffiti than other scholars’ counts.
2. For other contextual approaches to graffiti, see, e.g., Franklin 1986, Milnor
2009, Baird and Taylor 2010, Benefiel 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-Hadrill’s (1995) criteria of an ancient
brothel (masonry beds, erotic frescoes, and erotic graffiti; 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 32–43.
5. For scholarship on the brothel’s frescoes, see Myerowitz 1992, Clarke 1998,
Varone 2001, Clarke 2003, and Levin-Richardson 2009.
6. For the Greek names, see also Solin 2003, 55, 303–6, 734–6. For analysis of
these identities, see Varone 2005. For other interpretations of castrensis in CIL IV
2180, see Franklin 1987, 99–100 and Varone 2005.
7. Ascertaining status from names is not unproblematic; see, e.g., Benefiel 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, 102–4, 113–5). The graffiti 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,
115–8; Walters 1997, 39; and Varone 2001, 155–8. For a literary treatment of sex
between slaves and mistresses, see Edwards 1993, 49–53 and Parker 2007.
9. For the overlap of prostitutes’ names in the brothel and other locales, see
Cantarella 1998, 91–2 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 figure is indeed a phallus.
13. The third line of the graffito is unclear.
14. See Zangemeister at CIL IV 2248.
15. The rarity of a name with a first-person verb leads me to take pedico as a noun
rather than a verb.
R
L E V I N - RI CH ARDS ON—Facilis hic futuit 77

16. The lack of final –m need not indicate the nominative case: Väänänen
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 first line of the graffito. 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 graffiti also as elaborations of the names discussed
above. Whether these graffiti indicate that the named persons had sexual activities
with each other, or with a third party, remains unclear; see the discussion in Panciera
2001, 217–20.
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 graffito might function as invective, if we take it in light of Martial’s 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, 46–8).
22. This graffito 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 find his explanation convincing. It seems
equally plausible, if not more so, that these graffiti reflected the arbitrariness of the
object of the act—that 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, 325–6.
25. For quisquis amat valeat, see, e.g., CIL IV 4091; Varone 1994, 60 (= Varone
2002, 62); and Milnor 2009, 301–2.
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 graffiti, 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 graffiti 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 first 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
 78 HELIOS

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. Graffiti 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 graffiti 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 graffiti 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 graffito reader and Batacarus is complicated, how-
ever, by the reader’s 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 graffiti, 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 graffito 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 first four of five letters of the
graffito before Nice have been erased.
40. Another possible reading of the graffito Fortuna sic is “Fortuna likewise.” I fol-
low Fiorelli’s reading of the first line of the latter graffito 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, 1178–80). 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, 13–65
and Langlands 2006.
44. I would like to thank Deborah Kamen and Rebecca Benefiel 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 Leicester’s 2008 conference, “Ancient
Graffiti in Context.” I have chosen not to correct any orthographic or grammatical
mistakes made in the graffiti, and translate accordingly. All translations are my own
unless otherwise noted.