Hey there, did you know that back in ancient Rome, being a concubine wasn't considered a
bad thing? In fact, they were often honored enough to have their title inscribed on their tombstones.
But don't get it twisted, not all concubines were women.
Concubinus, the latin term for the masculine form of concubine, was a relatively lesser
known concept in ancient Rome; however, it was still used to refer to men who
were in a romantic and sexual relationship with a woman of higher social standing.
These relationships were not considered marriage
but were still considered to be a form of domestic partnership.
In contrast, if the man held a higher social status,
the woman would have been considered a good old fashion concubine.
Some scholars believe that in ancient rome, it was not as socially accepted
for unmarried men to have relationships with women of lower social standing as
it was in the case of the female concubin who was normally of lower social status.
Then there is also the situation where male
concubines were strictly the lovers of other males.
Again, the all important element of status, i.e. who was who on the social ladder, came into play.
A sexual or love relationship between two males would be also be characterized
based upon power dynamics, where one person had more power than
the other thereby attributing the label concubinus, to the male of lower status.
It was not a fair relationship and the relationship would often
contain an element of exploitation, but more on that in just a bit.
As for who could and couldn't be in these types of relationships, the ancient romans had their laws.
Because both male and female concubines were not considered to be social equals to their partners,
they did not have the same legal rights or protections as someone in a marriage.
They largely relied upon their patrons to provide for them and
often did not have a say in the relationship dynamics as a whole.
Early Roman law sought to differentiate between the status of a concubine relationship and legal
marriage, as demonstrated in a law attributed to the second king of Rome, circa 716 to 673
BCE , that banned their involvement in the worship of Juno, the goddess of marriage.
The law also said that "anyone can keep a concubine of any age
unless she or he is less than twelve years old".
This means that the man, as a concubine, would have little to no agency or control
in the relationship. He would be subject to the whims and desires of the person holding
the higher status, and would not be able to make decisions for himself.
This type of relationship was often exploitative,
as the person holding the higher status would use the concubine for their own
sexual gratification, without any regard for the concubine's well-being or consent.
In the case of male slaves being used as concubines, it is an even more clear
case of exploitation, as they were property and had no agency or choice in the matter.
They were forced into sexual relationships with their owners, and had no legal or social recourse.
It's important to remember that these types of relationships were not based on love or mutual
respect, but rather on power and control. It was clearly a form of sexual exploitation and abuse.
One example of a man in ancient Rome who had male concubines is the emperor Nero. He was known for
his controversial and scandalous behavior, and it is reported that he had several male concubines.
He was said to have been particularly fond of a slave named Sporus,
who he castrated and married in a ceremony, even going so far as to call him his wife.
Nero had Sporus appear in public as his wife wearing the regalia that was customary for
Roman empresses. He then paraded Sporus from Rome to Greece and back to Rome,
making the imperial courtier serve as "mistress of the wardrobe" to Sporus.
Among other forms of address, Sporus was often termed "Lady", "Empress", and "Mistress".
In another situation, Nero deemed it humorous to perform a wedding ceremony with a man named,
Pythagoras, in which Nero took the position of bride, wearing a bridal veil.
An historical account says that the bridal vale was put over the emperor
and the whole of the ceremony, the wedding dower, the couch and the nuptial torches;
everything in a word was plainly visible. (Have fun imaging that scene in your head).
And there was another Roman emperor named Hadrian who preferred the company of men
and homosexual relations.His concubine Antinus, was the great love of his life.
Despite the problematic dynamics—the great inequality in age and status—their
relationship remains perhaps the most well-known homosexual relationship from the ancient world.
Antinous traveled with the emperor and imperial court. That was,
until he died on Hadrian’s tour through Egypt;
as the imperial entourage traveled down the Nile, Antinous drowned.Hadrian mourned the loss of his
great love, founding the city of Antinoöpolis on the site where his concubine lover had died.
But wait, we're not done yet with the Roman nobility that had a hankering for men. Elagabalus
was only emperor for 4 short years but he made a name for himself as the transgender ruler of Rome.
Elagabalus dominates the historical narratives,
which include sexual depravities and effeminacy. His sexual appetite was seemingly vast,
despite coming to power aged just 14, he was married 5 times, including to a Vestal Virgin.
He also had a slew of male lovers, most notoriously a former slave and
chariot driver, and an athlete from Smyrna who is said to have
been picked by Elagabalus because of the enormous size of his genitals.
Elagabalus is also seen by some historians as an early figure in transgender history,
motivated by his request for a physician who could perform a surgery that gave him a vagina.
He may not be as notorious as Caligula or Nero, but the accounts of Elagabalus’ life,
his sexual promiscuity, and his alleged effeminacy, certainly
recall the rumors that circulated around his imperial predecessors.
And let us not forget that there was a lot of
male on male stuff happening in the ranks of the Roman legion.
In ancient Rome, it was not uncommon for soldiers to take male lovers. This
was not limited to a specific type of soldier,
and it was not unusual for men of all ranks and positions to engage in homoerotic relationships.
The Roman army was a highly masculine environment,
and many soldiers formed close bonds with their comrades. These
bonds often extended beyond just friendship and into romantic and sexual relationships.
There is evidence that such relationships were not only accepted but also encouraged in the Roman
army. Roman historian Livy wrote that soldiers of the Roman Republic would take male lovers,
and that these relationships were seen as a sign of courage and bravery. The Roman poet Catullus
wrote about the love between soldiers, and Roman art depicts soldiers engaged in homoerotic acts.
It is worth noting that these relationships were not considered to be marriages or
equal partnerships, but rather a form of camaraderie and bonding between soldiers.
They were not socially accepted and recognized as a form of love
or union.Also, these relationships were not considered to be equal partnerships.
These relationships were often based on the power dynamics of the Roman army,
where the higher-ranking soldier would hold more power and control over the relationship.
In this instance, the soldier in the higher rank would often be the
one who initiated the relationship and would expect obedience and compliance
from their lover. These relationships were not based on mutual respect, love,
or consent but rather on the power dynamics of the military hierarchy.
These military relationships were not recognized or accepted by Roman society
and were not protected by any laws or social norms. They were not considered
to be marriages or romantic partnerships, but rather a form of homoerotic behavior.
It's also worth noting that such relationships could also lead to a
soldier's punishment or even death if discovered.
The Roman military did not out right condone same-sex relationships, and soldiers who engaged
in such activities could face severe consequences such as flogging, exile or even execution.
All in all, it's important to remember that the life of a male concubine was
not a great one no matter how it might seem on the surface.
Their relationships were not based on love or mutual respect, but rather on power and control.
Thanks for watching but don't go. Why not catch another history video right here.