Roman Sexuality

Primary Sources

Ovid, Art of Love (Ars Amatoria) esp. 2. 663-746 and 3.769-812 (xeroxes from Classics Dept.).

Juvenal, Satire II.

Suetonius, Tiberius 42-45; Caligula 24-25, 36; Nero, 27-29.

Petronius, Satyricon 16-25 (pp. 44-50), 126-140 (pp. 141-159).

Secondary Sources

J. R. Clarke, "The Decor of the House of Jupiter and Ganymede at Ostia Antica: Private Residence Turned Gay Hotel?" in E. K. Gazda, ed. Roman Art in the Private Sphere (U. Michigan Press, 1991), pp. 89-104. On open reserve in the first floor Reading Room.

M. Myerowitz, "The Domestication of Desire," in A. Richlin, ed. Pornography and Representation in Greece and Rome (Oxford University Press, 1992), pp. 131-157.

H. Parker, "Love's Body Anatomized," in A. Richlin, ed. Pornography and Representation in Greece and Rome (Oxford University Press, 1992), pp. 90-111.

*P. Veyne, "Desire and Passion," in A History of Private Life, vol. I (Harvard U. Press, 1987), pp. 202-205.

Main Questions

What does the evidence about the Roman predilection for erotic paintings tell us about Roman sexuality? Evidence here includes not only the preserved paintings themselves, but also their locations and intended viewers, as well as what contemporary writers had to say about them. Where were these paintings? Were they only for men to see, or only for men and female prostitutes, or for married women as well? Was the purpose of the paintings to kindle sexual desire? To function as erotodidaxis, instructional media? Or something else? For the Romans, what made the distinction between the erotic and the obscene?

What are the Roman attitudes toward homoeroticism? Were certain kinds of sexual acts between men more acceptable than others, and if so why? How can social status be supposed to have influenced the extent to which people were tolerant or intolerant of homoerotic behavior?

*This very brief treatment of the subject by Veyne is flawed, but has the virtue of concision.