|
|
Roman Law
9/10/2007
Outline
|
|
A QUICK DIP INTO ROMAN LAW: TEXTS ON
PIMPS AND PROSTITUTES
|
|
A man who had served as a pimp (qui
lenocinium fecerit) suffered various restrictions on his ability to
seek legal remedies. Several passages discuss the definition and extent of lenocinium. The texts all come from
the Digest, of which more later
in the course; the translations are
by Andew M. Riggsby of the University of Texas from “Lenocinium:
Scope and Consequences,” Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftung für
Rechtsgeschichte, romanistische Abteilung, 112 (1995) 423–7,1 and are, as he says, “very
literal.” Compare those in Thomas McGinn,
Prostitution, Sexuality, and the Law in Ancient Rome
(Oxford
1998).
|
|
1.
|
D.3.2.4.2
(A. W. Riggsby trans. 1995) p. ??
4. Ulpian,
On the edict,
book 32: […] 2. Says the
praetor: “who has practiced lenocinium.”
He practices lenocinium who has
slaves for profit, although a person who earns
this same profit from free persons is in the same position. A person will
be liable to the penalty of lenocinium,
whether he operates this business primarily or as a side-line to another
(as, suppose, if he were a tavern- or stable-keeper and had such slaves
producing profit in the course of serving customers or on that petext: or
suppose he were a bath-operator, as is the practice in some provinces, who
has slaves hired in his baths to guard [the customers’] clothing, and they
offer this type of service in their work-place).
Ait praetor: “qui lenocinium fecerit”. Lenocinium facit qui quaestuaria
mancipia habuerit: sed et qui in liberis hunc quaestum exercet, in eadem
causa est. Sive autem principaliter hoc negotium gerat sive alterius
negotiationis accessione utatur (ut puta si caupo fuit vel stabularius et
mancipia talia habuit ministrantia et occasione ministerii quaestum
facientia: siue balneator fuerit, uelut in quibusdam prouinciis fit, in
balineis ad custodienda uestimenta conducta haben<s> mancipia hoc
genus obseruant<i>a in officina), lenocinii poena tenebitur. (Ulp.
D.3.2.4.2)
|
|
2.
|
D.3.2.4.3
(A. W. Riggsby trans. 1995) p. ??
4. Ulpian,
On the edict,
book 32: […] 3. Pomponius adds
also that the man who, while a slave, had prostituted slaves in his peculium,2
can be stigmatized after he is freed.
Pomponius et eum, qui in servitute peculiaria mancipia prostituta habuit,
notari post libertatem ait. (Ulp. D. 3.2.4.3)
|
|
3.
|
D.3.2.24
(A. W. Riggsby trans. 1995) p. ??
24. Ulpian,
On the edict,
book 6: Emperor Severus said in a rescript that a woman’s standing was not
compromised by the profession she practiced as a slave.
Imperator Severus rescripsit non offuisse mulieris famae quaestum eius
in servitute factum. (Ulp. D.3.2.24)
|
|
1.
|
D.23.2.43.6–9
(A. W. Riggsby trans. 1995) p. ??
24. Ulpian, On the lex
Julia et Papia, book 1: 6. Practicing
lenocinium (“pimping”) is not a
lesser wrong than deriving profit from [one’s own] body. 7. We call lenae (“pimps”) those who prostitute women for money. 8. We also understand her to be a lena who lives this kind of life alterius nomine. 9. If anyone operating an inn
derives profit from the bodies there (just as many customarily prostitute
women there under the guise of the staff on the inn), it must be said that
she, too, is in the category of lena.
(6) Lenocinium facere non minus est quam corpore quaestum exercere. (7)
Lenas autem eas dicimus, quae mulieres quaestuarias prostituunt. (8) Lenam
accipiemus et eam, quae alterius nomine hoc vitae genus exercet. (9) Si qua
cauponam exercens in ea corpora quaestuaria habeat (ut multae adsolent sub
praetextu instrumenti cauponii prostitutas mulieres habere), dicendum hanc
quoque lenae appellatione contineri. (Ulp. D. 23.2.43.6-9)
|
|
2.
|
D.5.3.27.1
(A. W. Riggsby trans. 1995) p. ??
27. Ulpian,
On the edict,
book 15: […] 1. Again, rents
received from the letting of urban property will come under the claim [of
inheritance—sc. the petitio
hereditatis] even if they have derived from a brothel. For brothels are
operated on the property of many respectable and socially prominent men.
Sed et pensiones, quae ex locationibus praediorum urbanorum perceptae
sunt, venient, licet a lupanario perceptae sint: nam et in multorum
honestorum virorum praediis lupanaria exercentur. (Ulp. D.5.3.27.1)
|
|
3.
|
D.37.14.7
(A. W. Riggsby trans. 1995) p. ??
7. Modestinus, On
those who are manumitted, sole book: The deified
Vespasian laid down in a judicial decision that if a slave woman was sold
under the condition that she not be prostituted and that, if she were
prostituted, she would be free, and if she has subsequently been sold by
the buyer to a third party without the condition (and was in fact
prostituted) she should be free in accordance with the condition of sale
and should be the freedwoman of the vendor.
7. Divus
Vespasianus decrevit, ut, si qua hac lege venierit, ne prostitueretur et,
si prostituta esset, ut esset libera, si postea ab emptore alii sine
condicione veniit, ex lege venditionis liberam esse et libertam prioris
venditoris. (Mod. D.37.14.7)
|
|
4.
|
D.40.8.7
(A. W. Riggsby trans. 1995) p. ??
7. Paul, On liberty to be granted, sole book: Our emperor, together
with his father, laid down that the woman be free,
in the case of a man who, when he could have seized a slave woman who had
been prostituted, sold his right of seizure for cash. “For it makes no
difference whether you yourself seize and prostitute her or you allow her,
against payment, to be prostituted when you could come to her rescue.”
Imperator noster cum patre suo constituit in eo, qui, com possit
abducere prostitutam ancillam, pecunia accepta manus iniectionem vendidit,
ut libera esset: nihil enim interesse, ipse abducas et prostituas, an patiaris prostitutam esse pretio accepto, cum possis
eximere. (Paul D.40.8.7)
|
|