Which brings us back to poor Timarkhos, the Athenian assemblyman with a sordid past. Aiskhines argued that, in Timarkhos’ youth,
if Timarkhos had remained with Misgolas and had not gone to anyone else, his conduct would have been less improper … But if I remind you and prove … that he has earned money by the use of his body not only in Misgolas’s keeping but in someone else’s, and then in another’s, and that he has gone from that to a new one … I don’t see how he can go on beating about the bush all day—actually
peporneumenos
[having behaved like a prostitute].
8
Aiskhines anticipated that Timarkhos’s defense would hinge on the difference between porneia and paederastia. He presupposed the arguments of Timarkhos’s character witness, the estranged envoy Demosthenes. Aiskhines predicted that Demosthenes would, in order to defend his friend, employ a syllogism based on a standing Athenian prostitution tax; as all prostitutes were taxed and there was no record of Timarkhos within the city’s “prostitute logbook,” then Timarkhos must not have been a prostitute.
9
Aiskhines preempted any appeal to the social education inherent in pederasty, which might have suggested to the assembly that, since Timarkhos was “thoroughly conversant with wrest-ling-schools and educated society,”
10
he was more eromenos, a kept youth, than pornos, a hired youth. Moreover, Aiskhines admitted to his own participation in
erotikos
, loosely translated as “honest love,”
11
in contrast to his allegations of Timarkhos’s commercial bent.
Focusing on alleged liaisons between Timarkhos and his numerous and unsavory partners, Aiskhines intended to portray the assemblyman’s slide into the world of porne. Dover translates one of Aiskhines’s rumors:
They [Misgalos and Phaidros] found him [Timarkhos] having lunch with some visiting foreigners. They threatened the foreigners and told them to come along to the prison, because they had corrupted a youth of free status; the foreigners were frightened and disappeared, leaving the party that had been prepared.
12
Innuendo seems to have slanted this case in Aiskhines’s favor, for he wound up winning the suit and avoiding prosecution for his role in the broken peace treaty that precipitated this. According to Aiskhines,
Timarkhos alone has brought this whole case on himself. The laws laid down that
because of his shameful life he should not address the assembly
.
13
In fact, it mattered more to Aiskhines and to the jury that Timarkhos refused to recuse himself from the assembly because of his potential sex work history; it was less important that he had been a prostitute (or had behaved like one), as prostitution was legal and even taxed in classical Athens. Although a free citizen was free to be a male prostitute, he relinquished future freedoms. In this way, ancient Grecian male prostitution was to become an activity that was, for the most part, limited to foreigners, other noncitizens, and slaves.
Young noncitizen males within Grecian boundaries were poorer than their citizen counterparts, and thus more likely to have endured relationships with patrician men who offered meager, survival-based rewards. David Halperin suggests that, in this case, traditional pederasty served to further distinguish class boundaries: “Sex between social superordinate and subordinate served, at least in part, to articulate the social distance between them.”
14
Aiskhines in essence won the trial because he was able to remove Timarkhos from his class. Still, in much of Greece, male prostitutes were legally protected if they registered and paid taxes,
15
although they were simultaneously caricatured and ridiculed as sluts—in fact, as emblematic of everything oversexed. Dover cites the historian Polybius reciting gossip about Agathokles:
Agathokles, in his first youth, was a common prostitute (
pornos
) available to the most dissolute. A jackdaw, a buzzard, putting his rear parts in front of anyone who wanted.
16
Dover’s interpretation is that the jackdaw “symbolises impudence and shamelessness; the buzzard … presumably symbolises insatiable lust, which is assumed to characterize the true
pornos
.”
17
The case of Timarkhos illustrates how class structure and citizenship rights were related in ancient Athens to the expression of masculinity, and how prostitution was in turn related to sociosexual submission—an economic, sexual, social, and physical subjugation that reduced the seller’s status and rights (assuming that the seller had any status and rights to begin with).
Catamites:
Byzantine and Roman Male Sex Work
By the end of the first century BCE, when Greek strongholds began to fall and Greek socioeconomic influence began to wane in the Mediterranean, the conquering Romans imprinted their own notions of male sex work. In the Roman Empire, slaves and former slaves (freedmen) often were forced to engage in survival sex and were sold from buyer to buyer for the price of chickpeas.
18
Freed imperial Roman males could legally engage in sex with other men for a combination of rewards, including love, tutelage, money, gifts, shelter, and food, as long as they did it voluntarily and not as sexual servants.
For the next few hundred years, it remained respectable for younger men of all classes to be partners—usually passive—in intercourse with older men.
19
However, by creating and maintaining a slave class, the bipartite patriarchy of the later Roman Republic (senate and consuls) kept for its successful males an easy alternative to tutorial pederasty. Moreover, after the demise of ancient Greece and the ascension of Roman culture, the price for sexual services decreased drastically, which left young male members of the slave class in a situation similar to that of urban street-based sex workers in contemporary America, from whom fellatio is available for the price of a California roll. How did this shift occur?
In the fourth century BCE, the historian Polybius, whom John Boswell deems reliable, recorded that “many men … spent a talent [about $2,000] for a male lover or 300 drachmas for a jar of caviar from the Black Sea.”
20
Citing another volume of Polybius, Boswell traces one of Cato’s speeches in the second century BCE. Cato was reported to have complained that “the value of male prostitutes exceeded that of farm lands.”
21
In the later days of the Roman Republic, however, a growing patriarchal prejudice against the passive partner in malemale sexual intercourse in traditional pederast relationships affected the legality of certain behaviors:
Noncitizen adults (e.g., foreigners, slaves) could engage in such behavior without a loss of status, as could Roman youths,
provided the relationship was voluntary and nonmercenary
. Such persons might in fact considerably improve their position in life through liaisons of this type … Those who commonly played the passive role in intercourse were boys, women, and slaves—all persons excluded from the power structure. Often they did so under duress, economic or physical.
22
However strong this stigma against men being passive sexual partners for other men, it did not stop freeborn men from being passive when having sex with other males and even hiring active partners for themselves. There is fascinating evidence that a variety of emperors, including Caesar and Nero, enjoyed receiving
exoleti
into their
sphintria
. Not only was it culturally acceptable to make sexual use of servants, it was actually institutionalized: “Roman men of a certain status had a male slave called a
concubinus
whose specific function was to meet their sexual needs before marriage.”
23
As it was legal, and perfectly acceptable, for males to have sex with each other in fourth-century BCE Rome, the value of male sex workers could only be driven down by enlarging the slave class, as freeborn men did not comprise the sex worker excrescence in the Roman Republic. Boswell avers that “very large numbers of prostitutes were recruited from the lower classes and among foreigners and slaves.”
24
Of course they were, for according to new laws, foreigners and slaves were the only adult males available for homosexual sex. This legal distinction served to increase economic disparity and create conditions for sex workers consistent with modern times. Roman republican patriarchy, which thrived on fixed gender roles, began to refine its biases regarding male sex workers, reflecting a double standard in social tolerance:
In addition to taboos regarding passivity, very strong opprobrium attached to male citizens who became prostitutes, due to the facts that (1) prostitution represented the bottom level of a profession already viewed with disdain by well-born Romans, i.e., commerce; and (2) anyone—citizen or slave—could avail himself of the services of a prostitute. The prospect of a Roman citizen servicing a slave sexually and for money was certain to invite contempt and disgust. No stigma whatever resulted from the use of such prostitutes, however.
25
“Banish prostitutes,” suggested St. Augustine, “and you reduce society to chaos through unsatisfied lust.”
26
Since before the common era, local taxes often had been collected from Roman prostitutes. Gary Devore suggests that when Emperor Caligula instituted a tax on prostitutes and pimps, compelling formal registration for sex workers, their legitimacy was temporarily strengthened.
27
But enforced registration surely created new difficulties: How would one disguise his employment in such a highly visible field whose reputation was now steadily worsening?
But ancient Roman taxation of prostitutes was not so much a measure of social legitimacy as it was a strategy to gouge the wages of a predominantly enslaved population. This tax lasted through early Christian rule, until 498 CE, because, as Claudine Dauphin suggests,
prostitution could occasionally be very lucrative and thus beneficial through taxation, [so] the Christian Byzantine State turned a blind eye. Since the Roman Republic, according to Tacitus, male and female prostitutes had been recorded nominally in registers which were kept under the guardianship of the
aediles
.
28
Obviously aware that their teachings did not conform to existing behavioral practice, new Christian leaders were ill advised to enforce any changes. Devore seconds that the tax in question “proved to be extremely profitable,” adding that “it caused some embarrassment to some of the early Christian emperors.”
29
Excavations have unearthed ancient male brothels within the former Roman Empire, but these were not the only sanctioned spots for sex work. Pueri plied their trade on thoroughfares, in alleyways and gymnasiums, at the pools and the public baths, in earmarked taverns—and in, as Devore has put it, “other spaces specifically set aside for mercenary sex or utilized for the selling of sex only at certain times, such as under the arches of an amphitheater, in cemeteries, along city walls, and inside deserted buildings.”
30
In these ways, ancient Roman sex work was probably not so different from our own—more open, perhaps, but practiced amid similar monuments and public spaces—and gay society throughout history has passed down a tradition of public sex.
Contemporary society’s public planning derives from archaic ideas about constructing urban spaces, and sex workers in ancient Rome used public urban spaces for transactional sex rendezvous, just as we do today, because these locales promoted a choice of clients, as well as more consistent business. This method was all too visible and often frustrating in times of social intolerance for sex work, but Mediterranean male sex workers also could use semiprivate settings, such as temples, brothels, and amphitheaters. In an example of life imitating art, it has been discovered that an excavated Roman brothel had been called the House of Ganymede. According to Devore, it had “a representation of the same-sex rape of Ganymede, and a large stone phallus carved on a paving stone before the house, pointing directly at the front door.”
31
Older and younger Roman male prostitutes were linguistically differentiated. Older sex workers were termed
exoleti
(grown up, or active); younger males, especially slaves, were called
pueri delicati
or
catamati
.
Concubinus, meritori, scortum
, and
sphintria
were more general professional descriptors.
32
Oddly, although pederasty was socially tolerated and well practiced in ancient Rome, as it was in Greece, it was tolerated only under purely economic tenets. Romans could not, as did their Grecian forebears, mix sexual relations with tutorials—at least not with freeborn males. And herein lies the distinction, a caveat to Roman permissiveness that limited the adult male’s interactions to younger males of subordinate class: