THE OUTRAGE BY PAPIRIUS IN 326/5 BC
The outrage provoked by the cruel mistreatment of a free-born boy by the usurer Lucius Papirius in 326/5 BC is the earliest incident involving pederasty to be recorded in surviving Roman literature. Presented here are four writings about it, three from the early imperial era and one much later.
Livy, From the Founding of the City, VIII 28 i-viii
Titus Livius (59 BC – AD 17) was the author of by far the most substantial history of early Rome, the Ab Urbe Condita (From the Founding of the City), which he began writing around 33 BC and publishing in 27 BC. The outrage by Papirius is the only Greek love episode to be found in Books I-X or the epitomes of the lost Books XI-XX, covering from before the foundation of Rome to 219 BC.
The translation is by B. O. Foster in the Loeb Classical Library volume 191 (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1926).
On events in the consular year 326-5 BC:
| In that year the liberty of the Roman plebs had as it were a new beginning; for men ceased to be imprisoned for debt.[1] The change in the law was occasioned by the notable lust and cruelty of a single usurer, Lucius Papirius, to whom Gaius Publilius had given himself up for a debt owed by his father. The debtor’s youth and beauty, which might well have stirred the creditor’s compassion, did but inflame his heart to lust and contumely. Regarding the lad’s youthful prime as additional compensation for the loan, he sought at first to seduce him with lewd conversation; later, finding he turned a deaf ear to the base proposal, he began to threaten him and now and again to remind him of his condition; at last, when he saw that the youth had more regard to his honourable birth than to his present plight, he had him stripped and scourged. The boy, all mangled with the stripes, broke forth into the street, crying out upon the money-lender’s lust and cruelty; and a great throng of people, burning with pity for his tender years, and with rage for the shameful wrong he had undergone, and considering, too, their own condition and their children’s, rushed down into the Forum, and from there in a solid throng to the Curia. The consuls were forced by the sudden tumult to convene the senate; and as the Fathers entered the Curia, the people threw themselves at the feet of each, and pointed to the young lad’s mutilated back. On that day, owing to one man’s outrageous injury, was broken a strong bond of credit, and the consuls were ordered to carry a proposal to the people that none should be confined in shackles or in the stocks, save those who, having been guilty of some crime, were waiting to pay the penalty; and that for money lent, the debtor’s goods, but not his person, should be distrainable.[2] So those in confinement were released, and it was forbidden that any should be confined thereafter. | [i] Eo anno plebei Romanae velut aliud initium libertatis factum est, quod necti desierunt; mutatum autem ius ob unius feneratoris simul libidinem simul crudelitatem insignem. [ii] L. Papirius is fuit, cui cum se C. Publilius ob aes alienum paternum nexum dedisset, quae aetas formaque misericordiam elicere poterant, ad libidinem et contumeliam animum accenderunt. [iii] Florem aetatis eius fructum adventicium crediti ratus, primo perlicere adulescentem sermone incesto est conatus; dein, postquam aspernabantur flagitium aures, minis territare atque identidem admonere fortunae; [iv] postremo, cum ingenuitatis magis quam praesentis condicionis memorem videret, nudari iubet verberaque adferri. [v] Quibus laceratus iuvenis cum se in publicum proripuisset, libidinem crudelitatemque conquerens feneratoris, [vi] ingens vis hominum cum aetatis miseratione atque indignitate iniuriae accensa, tum suae condicionis liberumque suorum respectu, in forum atque inde agmine facto ad curiam concurrit; [vii] et cum consules tumultu repentino coacti senatum vocarent, introeuntibus in curiam patribus laceratum iuvenis tergum, procumbentes ad singulorum pedes, ostentabant. [viii] Victum eo die ob impotentem iniuriam unius ingens vinculum fidei; iussique consules ferre ad populum ne quis, nisi qui noxam meruisset, donec poenam lueret, in compedibus aut in nervo teneretur; pecuniae creditae bona debitoris, non corpus obnoxium esset. Ita nexi soluti, cautumque in posterum ne necterentur. |
Dionysios of Halikarnassos, Roman Antiquities XVI 5
The Ῥωμαϊκὴ Ἀρχαιολογία Roman Antiquities by Dionysios of Halikarnassos in Caria, a history of Rome down to 264 BC, was written to inform Greeks and is the most important surviving source for early Roman history apart from Livy. Publication began in 7 BC. The translation is by by Earnest Cary for the Loeb Classical Library volume 388, published by the Harvard University Press in 1950.
| A thing still more remarkable than this [the just-related pederastic scandal involving the military tribune Laetorius] was done by them a few years earlier, though the mistreatment involved the person of a slave. The son, namely, of Publius, one of the military tribunes who had surrendered the army to the Samnites and passed under the yoke,[3] inasmuch as he had been left in dire poverty, was compelled to borrow money for the burial of his father, expecting to repay it out of contributions to be made by his relations. But being disappointed in his expectation, he was seized in lieu of the debt when the time for payment came, as he was very youthful and comely to look upon. He submitted to all the regular tasks which it was usual for slaves to perform for their masters, but was indignant when ordered to put the charms of his body at the disposal of his creditor, and resisted to the utmost. Then, having received many lashes with whips because of this, he rushed out into the Forum, and taking his stand upon a lofty spot where he would have many witnesses to his mistreatment, he related the wanton attempts of the money-lender and displayed the weals raised by the whips. When the people became indignant at this and felt that the matter was deserving of public wrath, the tribunes brought an indictment against the man and he was found guilty of a capital crime. Because of this incident all the Romans who had been enslaved for debt recovered their former freedom by a law ratified at this time. | [5 i] Ἔτι δὲ τούτου θαυμασιώτερον ἔπραξαν οὐ πολλοῖς πρότερον χρόνοις, καίτοι περὶ δοῦλον σῶμα γενομένης τῆς ὕβρεως. ἑνὸς γὰρ τῶν παραδόντων Σαυνίταις τὸ στρατόπεδον χιλιάρχων καὶ ὑπὸ ζυγὸν ὑπελθόντων Ποπλίου υἱὸς ὡς ἐν πολλῇ καταλειφθεὶς πενίᾳ δάνειον ἠναγκάσθη λαβεῖν εἰς τὴν ταφὴν τοῦ πατρός, ὡς ἐρανισθησόμενος ὑπὸ τῶν συγγενῶν. διαψευσθεὶς δὲ τῆς ἐλπίδος ἀπήχθη πρὸς τὸ χρέος τῆς προθεσμίας διελθούσης, κομιδῇ νέος ὢν καὶ τῇ ὄψει ὡραῖος. [ii] οὗτος τὰ μὲν ἄλλα ὑπηρετῶν ὅσα δούλους δεσπόταις νόμος ἦν ἠνείχετο, τὴν δὲ τοῦ σώματος ὥραν χαρίσασθαι κελευόμενος ἠγανάκτει καὶ μέχρι παντὸς ἀπεμάχετο. πολλὰς δὲ διὰ τοῦτο μαστίγων λαβὼν πληγὰς ἐξέδραμεν εἰς τὴν ἀγορὰν καὶ στὰς ἐπὶ μετεώρου τινός, ἔνθα πολλοὺς ἔμελλε τῆς ὕβρεως λήψεσθαι μάρτυρας, τήν τε ἀκολασίαν τοῦ δανειστοῦ διηγήσατο καὶ τῶν μαστίγων τοὺς μώλωπας ὑπέδειξεν. [iii] ἀγανακτήσαντος δὲ τοῦ δήμου καὶ δημοσίας ὀργῆς ἄξιον ἡγησαμένου τὸ πρᾶγμα †καὶ τὴν κρίσιν1 κατηγορούντων τὴν εἰσαγγελίαν τῶν δημάρχων ὦφλε θανάτου δίκην. καὶ δι᾿ ἐκεῖνο τὸ πάθος ἅπαντες οἱ δουλωθέντες πρὸς τὰ χρέα Ῥωμαῖοι νόμῳ κυρωθέντι τὴν ἀρχαίαν ἐλευθερίαν ἐκομίσαντο. |
Valerius Maximus, Memorable Doings and Saying VI 1 ix
The following reference to the story comes in a list of stupra, attempted or successful seductions or rapes of freeborn Roman boys, maidens or wives that make up a section entitled “Of Chastity”. Valerius compiled his books of anecdotes during the reign of Tiberius (AD 14-37).
The translation is by D. R. Shackleton Bailey in the Loeb Classical Library volume CCCCXCIII (Cambridge, Massachusetts, 2000), with one amendment explained in a footnote.
| That was severity in the popular assembly, this in the senate house. T. Veturius, son of the Veturius who in his Consulship had been surrendered to the Samnites because of a treaty dishonourably concluded,[4] as an adolescent[5] was forced by domestic ruin and a load of debt to give himself as bondman to P. Plotius. Plotius flogged him like a slave because he refused to submit to sexual advances and he made complaint to the Consuls. Informed of the matter by them, the senate ordered Plotius to be put in gaol. For it wished that chastity be secure to Roman blood in whatever condition that might be placed.[6] | Contionis haec, illa curiae gravitas. T. Veturius, filius eius Veturii qui in consulatu suo Samnitibus ob turpiter ictum foedus deditus fuerat, cum propter domesticam ruinam et grave aes alienum P. Plotio nexum se dare adulescentulus admodum coactus esset, servilibus ab eo verberibus, quia stuprum pati noluerat, adfectus, querellam ad consules detulit. a quibus hac de re certior factus senatus Plotium in carcerem duci iussit: in qualicumque enim statu positam Romano sanguini pudicitiam tutam esse voluit. |
The Souda γ 13
The Souda was a 10th-century Byzantine encyclopaedia of the ancient world based on ancient sources, but with some later interpolations. The translation is by Jennifer Benedict in the online edition at http://www.stoa.org/sol/ The passage presented here follows immediately one describing the condemnation of Laetorius a military tribune who tried to rape a youth under his command:
|
Gaius Laetorius [...] Another thing which was the most remarkable [happened a few years earlier], although the outrage concerned the body of a slave. For [a person] who was the son of Publius, one of the tribuni militum who had surrendered the army to the Samnites and had passed under the yoke, had been left in great poverty and was compelled to take out a loan, in hopes that he would would get contributions [sc. for repayment] from his relatives. But he was cheated of this hope and was seized for the debt when the appointed time came, while he was still quite young and beautiful in appearance. This man undertook and endured the rest of the things which it was customary for slaves [to do] for their masters; but when he was ordered to let [the creditor] enjoy the beauty of his body, he got angry and fought it to the utmost. And after he had taken many lashes of the whip on account of this he ran out into the Forum and stood on a certain high point and described the licentiousness of the money-lender and showed them the stripes of the lashes. When the people became incensed and considered the matter worthy of public rage, and when the tribunes [of the plebs] brought an indictment against [the creditor], he was condemned with a sentence of death. And because of this incident all the Romans who were enslaved for debt had their original freedom restored by a ratified law.[7] |
Γάϊος Λαυτώριος [...] ἄλλο θαυμασιώτατον, καίτοι περὶ δου̂λον σω̂μα γενομένης τη̂ς ὕβρεως. ἑνὸς γὰρ τω̂ν παραδόντων Σαυνίταις τὸ στρατόπεδον χιλιάρχων καὶ ὑπὸ ζυγὸν ὑπελθόντων Ποπλίου υἱὸς ὢν, ἐν πολλῃ̂ καταλειφθεὶς πενίᾳ, δάνειον ἠναγκάσθη λαβει̂ν, ὡς ἐρανισθησόμενος ὑπὸ τω̂ν συγγενω̂ν. διαψευσθεὶς δὲ τη̂ς ἐλπίδος ἀπήχθη πρὸς τὸ χρέος τη̂ς προθεσμίας διελθούσης, κομιδῃ̂ νέος ὢν καὶ τῃ̂ ὄψει ὡραι̂ος. οὑ̂τος τὰ μὲν ἄλλα ὑπηρετω̂ν, ὅσα δούλους δεσπόταις νόμος ἠ̂ν, ἠνείχετο: τὴν δὲ του̂ σώματος ὥραν χαρίσασθαι κελευόμενος ἠγανάκτει καὶ μέχρι παντὸς ἀπεμάχετο. πολλὰς δὲ διὰ του̂το μαστίγων λαβὼν πληγὰς ἐξέδραμεν ἐς τὴν ἀγορὰν καὶ στὰς ἐπὶ μετεώρου τινὸς τήν τε ἀκολασίαν του̂ δανειστου̂ διηγήσατο καὶ τω̂ν μαστίγων τοὺς μώλωπας ὑπέδειξεν. ἀγανακτήσαντος δὲ του̂ δήμου καὶ δημοσίας ὀργη̂ς ἄξιον ἡγησαμένου τὸ πρα̂γμα, κατηγορούντων τὴν εἰσαγγελίαν τω̂ν δημάρχων, ὠ̂φλε θανάτου δίκην. καὶ δι' ἐκει̂νο τὸ πάθος ἅπαντες οἱ δουλωθέντες πρὸς τὰ χρέα ̔Ρωμαι̂οι νόμῳ κυρωθέντι ἀρχαίαν ἐλευθερίαν ἐκομίσαντο. |
[1] The plebs had gained political liberty on the expulsion of the kings and the adoption of the republican government. Now they were assured of personal liberty as well. [Translator’s note]
[2] Ironically the new law was called the lex Poetelia Papiria because one of the two consuls at the time was also called Papirius. Cicero, On the Republic II 59 also mentions this law, which he says came about through "one man's lust", but he does not reveal that the lust was for a boy or give any names.
"Livy’s narrative consistently directs the reader’s focus away from the sexual dynamics of the incident. While condemning Papirius’ lustfulness (libido), the narrative dwells not on the intended result of that desire (namely, the sexual violation of a young man) but rather on Papirius’ beating of a Roman citizen. In Livy’s terms, what kept the young Publilius from acceding to his creditor’s wishes was not a horror of homosexuality, nor even the fact that his masculine integrity was being threatened, but a consideration of his status as freeborn. Likewise what so greatly inflamed the crowd was not horror at an attempted homosexual seduction but pity for a freeborn youth who had been beaten: when the consuls convened an emergency meeting of the Senate, the people brought Publilius to the entrance of the Curia and there displayed the youth’s lacerated back to the senators as they went in. They did not point fingers at Papirius as a pervert. The principal issue for Livy is not Papirius’ sexual desire for the youth but rather his arrogant disregard for the physical inviolability of the freeborn Roman citizen." (Craig A. Williams, Roman Homosexuality, 2nd edition, OUP, 2010, p. 110)
[3] The disaster referred to here, whereby a trapped Roman army at the Caudine Forks was humiliated by the Samnites by being made to pass under a yoke, took place in 321 BC, so Dionysios (like Valerius Maximus and the Souda, as will be seen) is placing this incident later than Livy, besides changing the boy's name to Publius from Livy's Publilius. Livy's account is generally considered more reliable in both respects.
[4] Like Dionysios, Valerius thus says the boy was the son of an officer who had been humiliated by the Sabines at the Caudine Forks, an event which took place in 321 BC, implying a later date than that given by Livy. Adding to the confusion, instead of having an otherwise unknown military tribune called Publius as the boy's father, he names him as Veturius, who really was one of the consuls at the Caudine Forks. In any case, Livy's account is generally considered the most reliable here.
[5] The translator’s inaccurate “very young man” has been replaced by “adolescent” for adulescentulus, which is actually a diminutive of adulescens (adolescent). Livy also calls him an adulescens. The only indication Dionysios gives of his age is that “he was very youthful and comely to look upon.”
[6] “It is worth noting that [Valerius] writes of a concern for pudicitia ‘in whatever status’ it might be found; these words could just as well have capped a narrative of the attempted violation of an impoverished freeborn girl.” (Craig A. Williams, Roman Homosexuality, 2nd edition, OUP, 2010, p. 110)
Though Valerius, in contrast to Livy, laid stress on Papirius’s sexual misbehaviour, it cannot have been this for which he was punished: besides the fact that both authors make it clear that what the boy complained about was his general mistreatment as a freeborn Roman citizen, and that it was this that provoked the new law, this case predates by about a century the Lex Scantinia, which made pedication of a freeborn Roman male a crime.
[7] Clearly the Souda has simply copied the preceding account of the incident given by Dionysios of Halikarnassos, and the same observations apply as have been made to that.
Comments powered by CComment