Lex Scantinia
It would be a mistake to compare Roman attitudes towards sex against our own modern standards. For a start, Romans were more "relaxed" in their attitudes to sex and weren't afraid to openly display their interest in it as evidenced by the lewd frescos and wall paintings found in the excavated homes of Pompeii and Herculaneum; many of which we would describe as "pornographic", nowadays.
As far as I am aware - although I could be wrong in saying this - there weren't any equivalent words in the Roman vocabulary that compare with our usage of heterosexual or homosexual to categorise the sex act. Rather. the Romans saw sex in terms of being dominant/submissive or active/passive in both gay and straight relationships.
Rome was a patriarchal society and free men could have penetrative intercourse with their slaves, prostitutes or captured prisoners of either sex with impunity providing they were the penetrators and not the penetrated. Roman society placed much importance on the masculinity of her male citizens and the notion of a Roman free man submitting to another was a cause of great shame (infamia) resulting in the possible loss of legal or social status and carried great stigma.
There was a occasionally used law known as "Lex Scantinia" which forbade homosexual sex between Roman free men and the raping of a Roman citizen was a capital offence carrying the death penalty sometimes by burning. However, no shame attached to the victim as he was the unwilling participant.
Conversely, a slave couldn't be raped! Because of their status as objects, slaves were never considered to be "men" - more commonly they were referred to as "boys" - therefore, their masters had every right to use them sexually as they desired. If ever a slave was used for sex without his master's permission, then the owner had the right to seek compensation for "damage to property".
A slave had no legal standing as a man and possessed no rights. All rights belonged to the master. Therefore, he had no other option than to submit to his master's sexual demands no matter how debauched or degrading they were.
Artwork entitled "Defeated Carthage" by Theo Blaze: text is mine
Excellent post that once again shows your uncommon historical knowledge. Admirable.
ReplyDeleteYou are perfectly right: the Latin vocabulary and the Roman mentality had no words and no “categories” corresponding to the modern concepts of “homosexuality” and “heterosexuality”.
However, being the Roman Society, essentially a “masculinist” Society, the Lex Scantinia was aimed to repress and punish certain kinds ……. but just certain kinds ! ……. of male-to-male sexual intercourses.
The Lex Scantinia was one of the most ancient and most severe Laws in Rome being dated to 226 or 227 BC (even if according to some sources, today generally rejected, its date should have been 149 BC).
It was aimed to punish the “stuprum” i.e. the violent raping of a free male Roman citizen, against his will, by another male Roman citizen.
In particular, even if it applied to all Roman male citizens of whatever age, originally the Lex Scantinia was aimed to protect especially the underage free Roman boys and lads from the danger of being raped by older men, a fact that –reading Latin authors and poets- seems to have been not at all rare in ancient Rome (let’s remember that in ancient Rome a boy became “adult” when he turned his 17th years of age and he was recruited for his military service. So “underage” boys and lads for Romans meant all boys up to 16 years of age included).
Just to clarify possible misunderstandings, I think that it’s opportune to clarify that the phrase:
“Conversely, a slave couldn't be raped ! ” means that actually a slave COULD be raped all the times that his Master desired …….. but that simply the rape of a slave had no “juridical relevance” at all ! and that the sexual violence on a slave was not considered a “rape”.
Therefore the raping of a slave was not a crime in any case; and neither the Lex Scantinia nor any other Law in Rome punished the sexual violence committed on a male slave.
This sounds even more shocking to our modern mind if we consider that, while the Lex Scantinia had been originally approved for protecting the free underage Roman boys and lads from the danger of being raped by older men ……… actually neither this Law nor any other Roman Law protected even underage slave-boys and slave-lads from the daily raping committed by their lewd Roman Masters !
On the contrary, in Rome itself and in all the cities of the Roman Empire, there were “specialized” slave-stores and even whole Slave Markets (like the famous SAEPTA, close to the Roman Forum) where merchants of “human merchandise” were displaying and selling teenage and even underage boys and lads of “outstanding beauty” (as the poet Martial specifies) who were openly sold as “sexual objects” to rich Roman lords for their sexual pleasures.
Even if the Lex Scantinia was a very severe Law ……. and even if Romans had hundreds and often even thousands of young and cute slaves of all ages, for venting their sexual lust …….. it doesn’t seem however that the attempts of violently raping even free Roman lads and youths ever ceased in Rome.
The chronicles of all the following centuries continue to be filled with many and many cases of rapes or attempts of rape against young and noble free Roman boys and youths by older Roman men. …….. of course the authors talk only of cases concerning noble boys and youths; nobody cared of the much more numerous slave-boys and young male slaves !
Therefore, in spite of the existence of the Lex Scantinia, in 130 BC, under Emperor Hadrian (who, by the way, was notoriously using his slave-boys as lovers, starting from the famous Greek slave-lad Antinous) it was necessary to enact a new Law, called De Adtemptata Pudicitia (i.e. “About the acts against Modesty” of course of just free Roman males) in which the concepts of the Lex Scantinia were reaffirmed and the penalties made even more severe.
K.
Among all the cases of infringement of the Lex Scantinia, one was especially famous and it is reported by many Roman authors like Cicero, Valerius Maximus, Quintilian Plutarch and Dionysius of Halicarnassus.
ReplyDeleteThis episode was so famous.because, besides infringing the Lex Scantinia, it infringed also what was probably the most important rule at the base of Roman society, i.e. the military discipline of the Roman Army !
As well known, the military discipline in the Roman Army was simply ABSOLUTE.
An officer, a commander had on his soldiers, on his men the same boundless power of life and death …….. that a Roman Master had on his slaves !
A commander could punish a soldier with whatever corporal punishment and could sentence him to death, even without precise reasons …… like it happened for a Master versus his slaves.
Well in spite of this, in 102 BC, the following episode happened.
The General Caius Lutius fell in crazy love with one of his young recruits, a soldier named Trebonius who had just been enlisted in the Army (therefore Trebonius had just turned 17 years of age).
The much older officer courted in all ways the teenage soldier, trying to convince the lad to have sex with him. But the boy courageously and stubbornly refused.
One evening the General ordered that the soldier Trebonius was one of the sentries at his tent.
During the night, the old Officer called Trebonius inside the tent; and when the teenage soldier was inside and they were alone, Caius Lutius jumped on the young legionary and tried to rape him with violence.
The lad, who was stronger than his much older Commander, without any hesitation, took up his sword and killed his General !
For such a crime …… not just insubordination, but the murder of his General ! …… the soldier Trebonius risked to be demoted …… to lose his Roman citizenship …… and eventually to be crucified like if he were a rebellious slave !
However Trebonius appealed to the Roman Senate …… and the Senate not only acquitted him from every accusation ……. but even awarded him with a military decoration for “having defended the virile honour of a Roman soldier and man ” !
So important was to avoid the passive raping of a free Roman man …. so much to surpass even military discipline !!!!
On the contrary, nobody of course cared of the daily passive raping of millions of helpless male slaves !
K.
A very enlightening and accurate historical discussion of facts.
ReplyDeleteIt does bethink me of a court case in Mississippi in 1859. A slave named Henry had raped another 10 year old slave and was brought to court. The judge declared that there was no law against such an assault and threw the case out. During the next session the legislature enacted a law making it a crime for a slave to rape another slave younger than 12. But of course there was still no restriction whatsoever on an owner (or other white man) for raping a slave property of any age.
Massa Warren, very interesting historical note that expands the subject from slavey in ancient Rome to slavery in the 19th century in America. Thanks
ReplyDeleteKarel