Roman orgies

[M. Porcius Cato]

The most recent episode of Rome, "Heroes of the Republic," portrayed the early stages of a Roman orgy. I'm wondering: What do the ancient sources really tell us about orgies? When was the earliest recorded orgy in Rome? What (if any) religious significance was attached to the orgy? Who participated in them? Did they change over time? Were they merely a passing fad in the Imperial courts of degenerate emperors?

 

References highly appreciated. Baseless speculation totally unwelcome.

[WotWotius]

According to Livy, the first Bacchanalia (effectively the earliest orgy) that included both genders to partisipate, was held in 188 BC

[Publius Nonius Severus]

Those are exactly the passages I was about to reference WotWotius, laudes to you!

[M. Porcius Cato]

If this isn't a witch hunt, I don't know what is. Is there any further evidence of orgies in the republican period? I'm starting to have serious doubts that they ever existed, except as part of the same feverish fantasies that today would have us believe in Satanic ritual abuse.

[FLavius Valerius Constantinus]

I have such a hard time imagining plebeians conducting orgies, just doesn't seem right for them. I can only think of noble women and prostitutes.

[Julia C]

I've never read anything that had direct evidence of any orgies occuring in the Republican period. There's some speculation about the doings of this mystery cult or that, but nothing solid. I think the idea that they may be over-inflated fantasies is probably the closest to the truth.

[WotWotius]

I think Livy's account is in keeping with his view of Rome being corrupted after military contact with licentious East. Keep in mind that public morality was a big issue when Livy wrote his history; the above passage probably mirrors Livy

[caldrail]

I've never read anything that had direct evidence of any orgies occuring in the Republican period. There's some speculation about the doings of this mystery cult or that, but nothing solid. I think the idea that they may be over-inflated fantasies is probably the closest to the truth.

 

Public morality was beginning to decay toward the end of the period with the increasing affluence of the wealthy classes. Orgies as such are a feature of the imperial period as far as I'm aware, partly because of the wealth available, the emulation of imperial partying, keeping up with the jonesii, and also because of the increasing amount of spare time available to bored individuals.

 

I have such a hard time imagining plebeians conducting orgies, just doesn't seem right for them. I can only think of noble women and prostitutes.

 

I agree. The plebs could not afford in any way to stage such excesses. Nor would they receive invites!

[M. Porcius Cato]

Public morality was beginning to decay toward the end of the period with the increasing affluence of the wealthy classes.

 

But what is the evidence for this "decay"? The only evidence that's typically offered is Cato's crabby complaint that young men began to question their elders (which I would call moral progress, not decay) and that women spent more on luxuries than they had before (hardly a moral vice, imho).

 

EDIT: By "the end of the period", I assume you're talking about the second century; if not, can you clarify what period you're talking about?

Edited February 17, 2007 by M. Porcius Cato

[caldrail]

Public morality was beginning to decay toward the end of the period with the increasing affluence of the wealthy classes.

 

But what is the evidence for this "decay"? The only evidence that's typically offered is Cato's crabby complaint that young men began to question their elders (which I would call moral progress, not decay) and that women spent more on luxuries than they had before (hardly a moral vice, imho).

 

EDIT: By "the end of the period", I assume you're talking about the second century; if not, can you clarify what period you're talking about?

 

Roman commentators moan about this during the principate. Juvenal mentions the 'awfulness of roman women', and Tacitus notes his disapproval of 'modern' morality regarding sex (I still need to find that quote - bear with me). We read of one roman who, having reduced himself to something considerably less wealthy by putting on lavish banquets, commits suicide. I therefore conclude that these displays of partying were fashionable, and in order to remain part of the 'in' crowd one needed to stage these parties. Not all were orgies of course, some were perfectly well-behaved social gatherings despite the extravagance on offer. However, I do see these events in parallel to modern day partying and therefore the orgy is equivalent to a wild cocaine party for celebrities and guests. At first these things are shocking and a well kept secret, then others begin to emulate them in order to appear at the forefront of the social calendar. Later it becomes ordinary, a mundane event where such behaviour is a regrettable but tolerable norm. This seems to happen in all societies at some point (its happened to ours). This behaviour is linked to personal affluence and boredom. Todays youth have more money than previous generations and seek diversions in a way that previous generations wouldn't.

 

The quote from Cato is interesting because I've never seen it before, but it does seem to back my contention that morality was beginning to ebb in the face of roman success and wealth. This was after all the period in which the senate failed to retain control and wealthy men accumulated power by the use of private armies to all intents and purposes.

 

The other intersting aspect of Cato's complaint is that we see this repeated in other historical periods. A tudor period writer moans that the youth of his time did nothing else than get drunk and dance all night for the purposes of getting laid instead of leading moral lives and working hard. Sounds familiar? I think all societies go through these ebbs and flows.

[M. Porcius Cato]

The other intersting aspect of Cato's complaint is that we see this repeated in other historical periods. A tudor period writer moans that the youth of his time did nothing else than get drunk and dance all night for the purposes of getting laid instead of leading moral lives and working hard. Sounds familiar? I think all societies go through these ebbs and flows.

 

Another interpretation is that young people have always engaged in risky pleasure-seeking, and old people have always groused about it. If there's an historical period where the opposite pattern dominates (i.e., when most of the old folks are up at all hours partying whereas most of the young people are scolding them for their licentiousness), I'd be very surprised (and please, don't cite [Ab Fab as your sociological evidence!). Yet, if we take the idea seriously that risky pleasure-seeking ebbs and flows, then there must be some period where the younger generation is overall less likely to engage in debauchery than is the older generation.

Edited February 18, 2007 by M. Porcius Cato

[caldrail]

There is.

 

Do you wonder where these women come from? In the good old days, poverty made our latin women chaste. Small huts didn't provide opportunities for immoral behaviour. hard work, lack of sleep, hands rough and calloused from working wool, Hannibal near the city, their husbands performing militia duty - these things just don't allow vices to develop. Now however, we are suffering the effects of a long peace. Luxury, more destructive than war, threatens the city, and takes revenge for the lands we have conquered. No crime or lustful act is missing, now that tradtional roman poverty is dead.

Juvenal, "Satires", 6.286-295

 

Obscene wealth brought with it foreign customs, and unmanly luxuries and ugly affluence weakened each generation.

Juvenal, "Satires", 6.298-300

 

This was the view of someone who lived around AD100. Although the accepted ideal roman woman was a proud supportive matron, the women Juvenal discusses are airheads and ladettes. His contention (and mine) is that the stabilty of the principate allowed orgiastic behaviour to develop. Earlier, when rome was under threat from others or itself there was a much more robust attitude, although I notice a reference to a woman called Sempronia involved in the cataline conspiracy whose moral standing is called into question despite her obvious sophistication. She would perhaps be one of the vanguard of those prone to excessive lifestyles as the inhibitions of republican life were wearing off. This orgiastic behavior is present in human societies but supressed by the need to work or defend. Once the free time and wealth are available, then the brakes come off. After an extended conflict, there's always a tendency for the young generation to adopt a party lifestyle much to the disapproval of their elders. For example the roaring twenty's at the end of WWI, or the swinging sixties after the ending of rationing following WW2. Something similar happened in Rome but on a longer lasting timescale. After the various wars and civil unrest at the end of the republic we have the peace and stability of Augustus. I think its no coincidence that Augustus made laws to promote marriage and moral behaviour, and again no coincidence that he womanised as soon as the door closed.

[M. Porcius Cato]

But views such as Juvenal's have been expressed since Hesiod. How likely is it that public morals have been in a continuous free fall since the 8th century BCE? I think the more realistic interpretation of the satires is that Juvenal--having lived through the oppression of Domitian and having suffered torment from his own wife--is understandably nostalgic for a previous point in his life and is embittered by his personal trials. (BTW, I also think the notion that the poor are more virtuous than the rich is simple bigotry.)

[The Augusta]

(BTW, I also think the notion that the poor are more virtuous than the rich is simple bigotry.)

 

Quite. The 'Plebs' (and lets not forget, there were rich Plebs too) may have been cavorting all over the place, but their activities would not necessarily have been written about by historians who only wished to document the doings of the influential.

 

Also - does an 'orgy' have to involve sex? My definition of the word is that it constitutes excess - not necessarily or exclusively sexual. Would Octavian's famous 'Banquet of the Twelve' as cited by Suetonius count as an orgy?

[caldrail]

Poor working class people often evolve sub-cultures that are very virtuous. Because they're poor and have to work hard to survive they don't take kindly to wastrels amongst them. But of course, with poverty comes crime, so on the other hand you might see more theft or petty violence.

 

As I mentioned earlier, the youth of any generation invites criticism. Parents always view their kids behaviour with disdain or horror. Its the extent of the departure from the norm that we have to look at. Sempronia is named and shamed because she stands out during the republic. During the principate she would be the source of scandal still but most people would gossip and not be particularly suprised. But what about the late empire? The wealth is evaporating, taxes are higher, and people once again must toil for their keep, and increasingly they must send their menfolk away to defend the borders. At least more than some of their ancestors anyway. Also, the addition of christian teaching means that licentious behaviour is frowned upon. So, the people of the late empire seem to lack that orgiastic edge because... well... they did lack it. In fact, it didn't matter which dynasty had ruled the early empire because the behaviour of the roman public was being influenced by circumstance.

 

I take your point about Juvenal, but then, do you know of any texts of his time praising roman women for their virtue and respectable demeanour? I doubt it...

 

Apart from an individual tomb or two, which in itself is a message from the deceased's loved ones and therefore a little biased perhaps?

 

There is an inverse relationship between peoples social habits and the affluence of their culture. Thats true of any age in history. If you think about it, tonights tv news probably shows young people behaving badly in exactly the same way and for exactly the same reasons that Juvenal and Tacitus so disapproved of.