Mark Antony

[caldrail]

Given the consistency of the depiction across time, contexts, artists, and possible models, I don't see how the counter-evidence of virile Hercules' small member can be dismissed as reflecting decadent Imperial tastes, generally poor artistic merit, jokes at sponsors, and so on. In contrast, there is an easy way to explain this consistency--the ancients, unlike moderns, didn't associate large penises with strength and masculinity.

 

In that case your original question is a reflection of your own modern mindset. Now thats not so is it? MPC - wake up. If a man wants to have a joke or wants to insult someone, he draws an image. Thats human psychology and the romans were no different in that respect. Hercules was supposed to be a demigod. A divine being. Given the roman distaste for greek nudity perhaps the small willy is simply public decency. Or is it a statement that Hercules is physically powerful and thus his presence overwhelms the physical nature of his genitalia, and I have to say I don't recollect any mention of Hercules being a womaniser. With statues, perhaps a careless sculptor turns his head at his fellow workmates conversation and accidentially lops the member off. His mates role about laughing, he goes white, and very very carefully reconstructs a smaller version from the stump. As for mosaics or their marble counterpart, there's no guarantee the artist got it right. After all, these were artists impressions and very rarely are such depictions visually correct to the last detail.

 

The association you draw with large willies and strength/masculinity is your idea - I never said that, but lets be honest, even without that connection there are plenty of modern day people who are fascinated with large genitalia. I'll send you some of the unsolicited emails I get perhaps, that might educate you to how peoples minds work. Or if thats too risque for you, could I suggest a visit to a workplace latrine, where you will no doubt encounter expressions of this nature scratched on the wall. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't there some existing roman grafitti of this nature? Its how people are.

 

The problem with your approach to this is that you're extrapolating from a small sample (no pun intended) without any regard to human psychology. We're not fundamentally different to the romans. Ok, they had a few customs that no longer exist, they had a tolerance of violence that we don't. They also varied in nature as we do. Some people are prudes, others completely fecund. And I'm quite sure there were romans who linked the penis with such ideas as you dismiss. After all, why else would people like Tiberius and Caligula have men with large willies rounded up and displayed before them? There is no difference. Even today people see genitalia in the light of their own personality and expectation.

[G-Manicus]

Anyone reading Suetonius will be in doubt what roman thought about penis size. It wasn't much different from what people think of it today.

Maybe it was cold outside. Shrinkage?

[The Augusta]

The association you draw with large willies and strength/masculinity is your idea - I never said that, but lets be honest, even without that connection there are plenty of modern day people who are fascinated with large genitalia. I'll send you some of the unsolicited emails I get perhaps, that might educate you to how peoples minds work. Or if thats too risque for you, could I suggest a visit to a workplace latrine, where you will no doubt encounter expressions of this nature scratched on the wall. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't there some existing roman grafitti of this nature? Its how people are.

 

I expect that Romans with very small equipment drove very large chariots!

 

But to be serious, I always thought that the 'penis envy' thing came in with Freud. It has always been my understanding that the Romans did not regard large members as aesthetically desirable. However, it's a shame we don't have any Roman women's views on this. We do have Livia's reaction to the naked men in the street, whom she likened to 'so many statues'. (Dio, 58 2.5) Perhaps she was disappointed....

[Gaius Paulinus Maximus]

What about the slave in HBO's Rome that Atia gave as a present to Servilia?

 

He certainly wasn't lacking in the trouser department!!

[Klingan]

What about the slave in HBO's Rome that Atia gave as a present to Servilia?

 

He certainly wasn't lacking in the trouser department!!

 

 

Well I somehow I doubt that you can use HBO as a source

 

However I have heard that (some?) ladies sometimes prefer large or at least not very small members? Wouldn't this be the case back then too? I cannot confirm this myself though.

 

Besides that there are art where people have huge penises too.

 

Edited March 8, 2008 by Klingan

[Gaius Octavius]

They were certainly on the minds of Pompeians. All shapes and sizes:

 

http://www.unrv.com/forum/index.php?automo...si&img=1149

 

http://www.unrv.com/forum/index.php?automo...si&img=1147

Edited March 8, 2008 by Gaius Octavius

[caldrail]

I expect that Romans with very small equipment drove very large chariots!

Poor old Nero...

 

But to be serious, I always thought that the 'penis envy' thing came in with Freud. It has always been my understanding that the Romans did not regard large members as aesthetically desirable. However, it's a shame we don't have any Roman women's views on this. We do have Livia's reaction to the naked men in the street, whom she likened to 'so many statues'. (Dio, 58 2.5) Perhaps she was disappointed....

The preoccupation with the penis is something buried deep in thehuman psyche. It may well be our modern expression of it is more pronounced, but then, perhaps not. There's a country in the middle east/asia minor (for the life of me I cannot remember which) whose rural population paint massive phaluses (strangely reminiscent of those in workplace latrines funny enough) on the walls of their houses. Apparently its a good luck charm. Now you may decide that thats different from our western preoccupation with strength/masculinity, but its not so alien if you think about it. I think we need to draw a distinction between art for decoration and art for pornography.

 

As for the ladies, I suspect they did what women usually do today and burst into fits of giggles between each other. Given Juvenals scathing description of the airheaded mindset of roman women, how could it be anything else? Livia, I suspect, was less impressed with mens dangly bits and more with their presence, confidence, and political clout. But then she was an exceptional woman, much closer to the roman ideal of sturdy resilience and family matronhood.