Sexual Invective in the
Fourth Century

by Kathleen Fowler

Sexual rhetoric, the use of words and phrases related to sexual acts, mores, and character traits, had a variety of purposes in the writings of ancient Rome. One author might refer to sexuality and sexual practices to engender feelings of romantic affection, while a different author could take these same ideas and, through vocabulary and context, present a damaging invective against a person's moral and civic character. Ideas of sexuality, gender, behavior, and morality are reflected in the variety of uses for sexual rhetoric. These ideas, presented across time and space, give modern readers a way to understand how the Romans viewed sexuality and sexual behaviors, and help inform modern ideas of sexuality and sexual mores.

This paper will focus on two pieces of literature from the late fourth century Roman Empire, the anonymous Scriptores Historiae Augustae, herein referred to as the Historia Augusta, and Claudian's invective poems In Eutropium. Both of these works stem from the western half of the Empire, during the dynasty of Theodosius the Great. The circumstances and subject matter of each work are different, but together, they can provide ideas as to how upper class Western society viewed the sexual behaviors and ethics of their ruling elite.

The Empire at the Time of Theodosius the Great
The Roman Empire in the late fourth century was vastly different from the empire that Augustus founded some three hundred years earlier. The main seat of power in the Empire no longer lay in Rome; it was moved east to Constantinople by the emperor Constantine in 330 AD. Barbarian invasions along the borders were increasing in frequency. Tensions were brewing between the two halves of the empire. Then, in 378 AD, the Roman army, under command of the emperor Valens, was soundly defeated at Hadrianople by the Visigoths, barbarians from the north (Matthews 88). This battle saw the loss of the emperor, and the Empire aghast that their army could have been defeated. Rome began to panic. The western emperor Gratian struggled to come up with a solution to the invasions, and to find a suitable replacement for their fallen comrade in the east.

In late autumn of 378, Gratian called for a retired officer named Theodosius to be recalled from his home in Spain, and appointed him the magister militum. Theodosius fought against the Sarmatians, another invading group, and his victory in the campaign convinced Gratian that he was the best candidate for control of the eastern half of the Empire. Theodosius became emperor in January of 379 (Matthews 91).

Theodosius ruled for sixteen years. During this time, he was baptized into the Christian religion, which greatly influenced his political policies. Theodosius had two sons, Arcadius and Honorius, whom he made co-emperors with himself when they reached puberty. After the death of Theodosius, Arcadius became ruler of the East, while Honorius was made ruler of the West. Theodosius's rule also saw the rise of two usurpers in the West, the Gaul Magnus Maximus, and Eugenius, within a few years of each other (Platnauer viii-ix). After the defeat of Eugenius in 394, Theodosius was left sole emperor of Rome (Long 4). He ruled from Constantinople and Milan, now the Western Capital, and seldom journeyed into Rome.

Theodosius died in January of 395, leaving the empire in the hands of his two sons, Arcadius, then eighteen, and Honorius, then ten (Long 7). Upon his death, his chief advisor Stilicho became guardian and "informal regent" for Honorius (Cameron 134). Arcadius had two advisors before the close of the century, Rufinus and Eutropius, both of whom were killed because of their less-than-favorable uses of their power.

The Scriptores Historiae Augustae
In the 1600s, the editor Isaac Casaubon gave a series of Roman imperial biographies the designation, Scriptores Historiae Augustae, which translates as the writings of the Augustan history (Birley 114). For a long time, scholars thought that this series, which covers a period of Roman history from the early second century through the late third century AD, was written by six different authors at the beginning of the fourth century, under the reigns of Diocletian and Constantine. The six men, Aelius Spartianus, Julius Capitolinus, Vulcacius Gallicanus, Aelius Lampridius, Trebellius Pollio, and Flavius Vopsicus of Syracuse, are not mentioned anywhere else in the ancient sources except each other's imperial biographies (Birley 116). Through the various authors' works, the lives of thirty emperors, heirs to the empire and claimants, or usurpers, are recorded.

However, in 1889 a scholar by the name of Hermann Dessau decided, after examining the Historia Augusta carefully, that it was not written by six separate authors. Rather, Dessau claimed that it was the work of one man, a forger writing not in the early fourth century under Constantine, but in the late fourth century under the emperor Theodosius (Birley 122). According to A. R. Birley, when asked why an author would place his work nearly one hundred years further back in time than it was actually written, and would claim it to be the work of multiple authors, Dessau's reasoning was as follows: "The thing was done to give the work the appearance of greater antiquity, and hence greater authority" (Birley 124).

Current scholarly opinion concurs with Dessau's reasoning. Most scholars believe the Historia Augusta to have been written some time between 392 and 396 AD, with late 394 to early 395 as the most likely period (Syme, preface; Honoré 156). The author of the work, whose identity is unknown, is thought to have lived in Rome, or at least to have been there while writing, and is thought to have composed the work in a hurry (Syme 26).

As evidence for his date of 392-396, Ronald Syme cites the author's treatment of the Christian religion ("negative but casual"), his attitude toward the court presence of eunuchs, and the attitude of the work toward youthful princes (Syme 73-4). In Rome, during these years, the Senate was still primarily pagan and sympathetic to the pagan religion. Eunuchs were very influential during these years and the years shortly thereafter, particularly in the Eastern court, as will be shown later.

Tony Honoré, in an article from 1987, argues that the author of the Historia Augusta set his work a century or so in the past to disguise a commentary on his own times. According to Honoré, the references to Diocletian and Constantine, among others, are a type of code for contemporary political figures (159). According to this code, Diocletian is substituted in the text for the pagan-sympathizer Eugenius, who ruled the Western half of the empire from 392-394 AD, and Constantine is substituted for the emperor Theodosius, the Christian emperor: "'Diocletian' is in this context an apt code name for Eugenius, about to go to war [394] under the aegis of Jupiter and Hercules. 'Constantine' fits Theodosius, protagonist of Christianity and dynasticism" (Honoré 159).

If the author was indeed aligned with the Senate and was a pagan sympathizer, as Syme infers and based on the author's treatment of the Senate the text of the work implies, then this code would have enabled him to show his current allegiance with Eugenius without betraying the emperor. The years 394-395 were filled with uncertainty, as Eugenius struggled for recognition to his claim by the Eastern emperor, recognition that was ultimately denied. "'Scriptor' [as Honoré calls the author] therefore set his biographies a century earlier than the actual time of writing and dedicates his work to Eugenius under the flattering label 'Diocletian.' This will not deceive the knowing, but it means that support for Eugenius can be disclaimed if fortune deserts him" (Honoré 159). If any of his readers or listeners did pick up on his support for Eugenius through his work, the author could dismiss his sympathies as a literary device.

Beginning with the life of Clodius Albinus, however, the main lives in the Historia Augusta are dedicated to 'Constantine,' or Theodosius, if the code holds true. To explain this sudden shift in loyalty, Honoré hypothesizes that the current political atmosphere shifted, and that support of Eugenius was no longer possible (Honoré 160). The reason for this is the battle of Frigidus, fought in 394, where Eugenius died, and Theodosius became sole ruler of the empire. Constantine continued to be the dedicand of the lives through the biography of the three Gordians. Then, the dedicand shifts again, this time to Constantine's father, Constantius, whom Honoré believes was the substitute for Stilicho, Theodosius' chief advisor and guardian of his son Honorius (Honoré 160-1). Theodosius died in January of 395, most likely prompting the author to change his dedicand. Upon Theodosius' death, 'Constantine' was no longer a viable audience for his commentary. Stilicho, the son-in-law of Theodosius by marriage, and the father-in-law of Honorius, through the latter's marriage to Stilicho's daughter, was the "son and father of Augusti." He occupied a position of power, since Honorius had not yet come of age and depended heavily on Stilicho for advice on ruling his half of the empire (Honoré 161).

Another clue to the work's date of origin occurs following the lives of the Gordians. There is a sixteen-year gap in the text, from the death of Gordian III through the reign of Valerian. This gap is thought by many scholars to be a corruption of the text, a genuine missing piece that may one day be recovered. A. R. Birley, however, believes the gap is deliberate. He speculates that the missing biographies were in fact never written, because of the Christian persecutions carried out during the years and under the emperors for which the biographies are missing. At a time when Christianity was the official religion of the state and its emperor, and paganism was the persecuted faction, writing of Christian persecutions would have been awkward, to say the least (Birley 125-126). A deliberate gap might also have added to the credibility of the work and the believability of its date and multiple authorships: "It must certainly be admitted that plenty of texts have been handed down damaged in this way, but nothing would have been easier for an unscrupulous person who claimed to have 'discovered' a collection of biographies written several generations earlier than to give such a discovery a still greater semblance of genuine age by demonstrating regretfully that the manuscript was damaged" (Birley 125). While this is an interesting theory, it seems far more likely that the biographies are, indeed, missing. The life of Valerian begins in the middle of a story, and it seems doubtful that the author would have chosen to take up his work halfway through the book. Also, there were earlier Christian persecutions under emperors about whom the author had written, which he decided to omit from his records. He could just as easily have omitted offending passages in these missing lives as well.

In regard to sexuality and the Historia Augusta, it seems that there are patterns to the types of behaviors associated with certain emperors. Any emperor considered to be a "good" emperor by the author was one he portrayed as being respected by the Roman people, who contributed to the general welfare of the Empire, and who embodied the moral code of the Senatorial class. Any accusations of immoral sexual conduct were leveled at those around the emperor, not the emperor himself, and the author makes a point of stating that the actions of an emperor's associates did not reflect negatively upon the emperor. Conversely, the author portrays "bad" emperors as lowering themselves to the basest level of Roman morals and doing little to further state interests. Various accusations of moral crimes are hurled at them, including incest, pedophilia, rape, associations with actors, prostitutes and pimps, and unacceptable male-male relations. These "bad" emperors were accused of more than just sexual vices; excesses of food, money, fashion, and cruelty were also common attributes. One "bad" vice automatically led to another, in the Roman way of thinking.

Incest in the Historia Augusta
Incest was, perhaps, the most damning of all the vices emperors were accused of in the Historia Augusta. Rome had a strong taboo against incest. The emperors, in many cases, ignored the illegality of a close-kin marriage. Among the Senatorial classes, such imperial pairings created resentment. By marrying or having sexual relations only with their relatives, the imperial family seemed to say, "Your families are not good enough to be joined with our family." Even the Roman elite were not acceptable partners for the rulers, only fellow imperial family members were. Three of the emperors mentioned in the Historia Augusta, Lucius Verus, Commodus, and Caracalla, are accused of carrying out incestuous relationships with members of their own families.

Lucius Verus, the adoptive brother of Marcus Aurelius and co-emperor with Marcus for a short time, is, according to the author of the Historia Augusta, "not to be classed with either the good or the bad emperors; "neque inter bonos neque inter malos principes ponitur" (Verus I.3). However, he is accused of some of the worst sexual crimes, and he is said to rival earlier "bad" emperors, such as Nero and Caligula, about whom Suetonius wrote in the early second century, in their vices (Verus IV.6) Verus is accused in his biography of having sex with his mother-in-law, Faustina: "Fuit sermo quod et socrum Faustinam incestasset. et dicitur Faustinae socrus dolo aspersis ostreis veneno exstinctus esse, idcirco quod consuetudinem quam cum matre habuerat filiae prodidisset." (Verus X.1). The author claims that the story about Lucius Verus is gossip, implying he has no other proof to back up the claim. Nevertheless, he inserts the anecdote. The validity of the claim means nothing at this point. The accusation would be read or heard by his audience, and the reaction of revulsion would prove the moral turpitude of the action was still in force. In this passage, the author uses the verb incestare, meaning "to pollute or defile." The author's vocabulary changes in other passages.

Commodus, the son of Marcus Aurelius, and therefore nephew of Lucius Verus, was also accused of incest. Here, the story names his sisters as the target of his affections: "Sororibus dien suis ceteris, ut dicitur, constupratis, consobrina patris complexibus suis iniuncta uni etiam ex concubinis matris nomen imposuit" (Comm.V.8). Thus, Commodus is accused of sexual relations with his sisters. These relatives, unlike Verus' Faustina, are directly related by blood. While incest taboo in Roman culture did extend to stepfamilies and adoptive families, a transgression with a full blood relative might have carried more weight. The biographer Suetonius, writing in the early second century, accused the emperor Caligula of this same offense. As further proof of Commodus' lack of respect for his family, he gives the name of his mother to one of his concubines, creating a pseudo-incestuous relationship.

The alleged incestuous marriage of the emperor Caracalla to his mother, Julia Domna, is referred to in three lives, those of his father, Septimius Severus, his own, and that of Opellinus Macrinus, one of the usurpers living at the time. Caracalla's incest is first mentioned in the life of his father, during a rhetorical address to the emperor, bemoaning the birth of his son: "quid Severo Septimio, si Bassianum nec genuisset? qui statim insimulatum fratrem insidiarum contra se cogitarum parricidali etiam figmento interemit; qui novercam suam - et quid novercam? matrem quin immo, in cuius sinu Getam filium eius occiderat, uxorim duxit…" (Sev. XXI.6-7). The author claims that after the death of Severus, Caracalla, here called Bassianus, "led his mother to wife." Caracalla not only committed incest with his mother, but he married her. This incident is not meant to reflect negatively on Severus, who was dead when the affair occurred, but is included in a lament of the author on an emperor's natural children, rather than carefully chosen successors, taking the throne after an emperor's death. Based on the speculations of Tony Honoré and others, the author appears to be making a subtle plea to the emperor, Theodosius, warning him that despite his best intentions, natural sons do not always make the best emperors. The charges of incest against Caracalla continue in the narrative of his own "Life":

Interest scire quemadmodum novercam suam Iuliam uxorem duxisse dicatur. quae cum esset pulcherrima et quasi per neglegentiam se maxima corporis parte nudasset, dixissetque Antoninus, "Vellem, si liceret," respondisse fertur, "Si libet, licet. an nescis te imperatorem esse et leges dare, non accipere?" quo audito furor inconditus ad effectum criminis roboratus est nuptiasque eas celebravit quas, si sciret se leges dare vere, solus prohibere debuisset. matrem enim (non alio dicenda erat nomine)duxit uxorem et ad parricidum iunxit incestum, si quidem eam matrimonio sociavit cuius filium nuper occiderat (Car.X.1-4).

It is interesting to note the changes in vocabulary in this passage. When first referring to Julia Domna, the author uses the word noverca, meaning, "step-mother." Yet, later in the passage, he refers to her as to as mater, "mother," and the author says that we must not call her by any other name. Again, this emphasis on the actual relationship between the two could mean that while incest was severely frowned upon regardless of the degree of relation, participating in sexual activities with one's direct blood relatives would carry a stronger stigma.

Among the imperial family, there had been other cases of close-kin marriage, and other charges of incestuous relations between an emperor and his family. According to the biographer Suetonius, the emperor Caligula committed incest with his sisters at a young age, Domitian and Claudius married their nieces, and Nero supposedly committed incest with his mother. The author of the Historia Augusta is clearly following literary tradition in slandering "bad" emperors with accusations of incest. Incest is one of many charges a person can hurl at another if the target is considered morally corrupt. The validity of the charges do not matter, only that the target, because of known vices in other arenas, can easily be thought to commit other immoral acts, such as incest, as well.

Negative Associations with Male-Male Relationships
It is impossible to discuss sexual vice without touching on the topic of same sex relations. To begin with, according to current scholarship, the ideology of sex in ancient Rome was vastly different from the modern ideology of sex. The Romans did not classify sexuality as part of a gender identity, but as a series of behaviors, which, depending on who was participating and how, were determined to be moral or immoral. The modern categories of homosexuality, bisexuality, and heterosexuality, do not apply to Rome. A Roman male could, without anyone raising an eyebrow, have sex with both his wife and his male slaves on the same day, provided that he was the partner in control of the encounters. Essentially, he must be the penetrative partner. As Williams elaborates: "A self respecting Roman man must always give the appearance of playing the insertive role in penetrative acts, and not the receptive role" (Williams 18).

When a self-respecting Roman man did not give the impression that he was the dominant, penetrative partner, the field was open for slander. To be a receptive partner in male-male relations was considered weak, because one citizen was relinquishing his power and control to another. By this logic, if a citizen could be controlled in one area of his life, such as in his sexual practices, it stood to Roman reason that the same man was weak and could be controlled in other areas such as in the political sphere. "No Roman portrays himself as willingly playing a 'passive' role" (Edwards 70). For a Roman emperor, such a view would have been detrimental to his effectiveness as a leader. This is why many authors, when they wish to portray a current or former emperor as depraved and weak, will hurl accusations at him of passivity in male-male sexual relations.

In the case of the emperor Elagabalus, who claimed to be the bastard son of Caracalla, the author of the Historia Augusta claims he not only enjoyed being the passive partner, but he married one of his freedmen as a bride:

Zoticus sub eo tantum valuit ut ab omnibus officiorum principibus sic haberetur quasi domini maritus. … ut sunt homines huiusmodi, qui, si admissi fuerint ad nimiam familiaritatem principum, famam non solum malorum sed et bonorum principium vendunt et qui stultitia vel innocentia imperatorum, qui hoc non perspiciunt, infame rumigeratione pascantur. nupsit et coit, ita ut et pronubam haberet clamaretque "Concidere Magire," et eo quidem tempore quo Zoticus aegrotabat (Elag.X.2-5).

Elagabalus' union with Zoticus is not the only reference to male-male marriage in imperial biographies. Suetonius writes that Nero married two separate men, one as a husband, and one as a bride. Based on these passages, Craig Williams believes that marriages between men were a practice not unheard of during the empire:

…the evidence certainly suggests that some Roman men participated in wedding ceremonies with other men and considered themselves to be married to those men…the ancient sources speak of Nero's weddings, at least, as being publicly celebrated: this was not a case of malicious speculation regarding what went on behind the closed doors of the palace (Williams 246).

Regardless of whether or not the practice was known or common during the empire, the author adds this anecdote about Elagabalus as a reference of immoral behavior. A marriage such as this for a person of high class in Rome would have been most improper. A closer examination of the Latin explains why this is so.

The first reference to the marriage describes Zoticus as quasi domini maritus, which means, "as if he were husband to the master." Zoticus takes on the masculine role, that of the husband, and Elagabalus takes on the role of femina, meaning "woman" or "wife." By saying that Zoticus was considered and treated as the husband in the relationship, implies that he was the more powerful of the two men in the relationship, despite being of lower social status. Elagabalus is seen as having turned his power over to Zoticus.

This idea of relinquishing power is further explained in the passage. The author of the Historia Augusta writes "Nupsit et coit." Elagabalus is the subject of both of these verbs, and Zoticus is the direct object. Nupsit comes from the verb nubo, and is typically used for females, meaning "to cover, veil herself for the bridegroom, i.e. to be married to him; to marry, wed" (Lewis and Short 1222). The emperor here acts as the bride in the ceremony, making Zoticus the groom or the masculine figure. This dynamic is what readers of the biography would have frowned upon. While it might not have been common for marriages between men to take place, it would have been perceived as degrading for the emperor to assume the feminine role. This would have been seen as a loss of power, and would have lessened his reputation among readers, which seems to have been the goal of the author for this particular biography.

Another reason such a relationship would have been frowned upon is the social status of Zoticus. He was a former slave of Elagabalus who was granted his freedom. As the husband in the relationship, the partner who should have the power, Zoticus would have an unusual amount of influence on Elagabalus. At the time of the writing of the Historia Augusta, slaves and freedmen, especially eunuchs, having influence over the emperor was a growing concern for the upper classes. The idea of Zoticus and his marriage may have been a way of addressing that concern.

There is also another anecdote, which the author describes in great detail, showing this supposed preference:

Agebat praeterea domi fabulam Paridis ipse Veneris personam subiens, ita ut subito vestes ad pedes defluerent, nudusque una manu ad mammam altera pudendis adhibita ingenicularet, posterioribus eminentibus in subactorem reictis et oppositis. Vultum praeterea eodem quo Venus pingitur schemate figurabat…. (Elag.V.4-5).

The key term here is subactor, which J. N. Adams equates in the context of the Historia Augusta to pedicator (Adams 155-6). Pedicator comes from the verb pedico, which roughly translates to "bugger" and is used in literature as a sexual threat against another person (Adams 123-4). More technically, it means "one who penetrates another anally." A subactor would be an active partner, since he would be committing the pollution or defilement against another person. In this case, the person he is committing the defilement against is the emperor.

The emperor, Commodus, also had relations with men that were frowned upon. The author reprimands him for open displays of affection to Saoterus after abandoning his late father's campaign against the Quadi, Marcomanni, and Buri: "Romam ut rediit, subactore suo Saotero post se in curro locato ita triumphavit ut eum saepius cervice reflexa publica oscularetur. etiam in orchestra hoc idem fecit" (Comm.III.6). Again, the companion of the emperor is called subactor. Commodus, like Elagabalus, is the receptive partner in the relationship, the one being debauched or polluted. The author broadcasts this weakness to the crowds in the procession, and to his literary audience, by portraying Commodus as openly kissing Saoterus.

The author portrays this weakness of Commodus as having been a lifelong problem: "Etiam puer et gulosus et impudicus fuit. adulescens omne genus hominum infamavit quod erat secum, ab omnibus est infamatus" (Comm.X.1) Commodus was, while a youth, penetrated by men sexually. He also penetrated others sexually, but that sort of behavior would not have been necessarily disapproved. The fact that he was penetrated, and therefore was in the power of others as a youth, and continued to hold this position into adulthood, even while emperor, is what would not have met with disapproval.

Prostitution
Another clue that Elagabalus was not averse to being the receptive partner in sex is the frequent use of the term exoletus in the section of the Historia Augusta titled "Life." The term appears no less than five times in this section of the Historia Augusta. An exoletus, according to Craig Williams, was a male prostitute, who would either penetrate or be penetrated by another man, depending on the customer's wishes (Williams 83). The term literally means "grown-up" or "outgrown," but could sometimes be used in reference to males who had not yet passed adolescence. "In these instances, the term's euphemistic character is being stretched: as 'adult' materials today may include images of adolescents and may be used by adolescents, or as 'marital' aids are not always employed in the pursuit of conjugal bliss, so exoleti need not always be fully mature men" (Williams 84).

Exoleti are mentioned as being around the emperor with some frequency: "in conviviis exsoletos maxime iuxta se ponebat eorumque adtrectatione et tactu praecipue gaudebat…" (Elag.XII.4). Here, the author conveys the shamelessness of his behavior by placing it in a public setting, a banquet, where other upper class citizens would have also dined, and had a full view of the emperor's activities. Indeed, the reason the author can claim this with any degree of authority is because he placed it in a public setting, allowing for witnesses, who may have passed the story down. No one would have necessarily known about Elagabalus' fondness for exoleti if he had kept it private, nor would anyone have cared. By placing his activities in the open, the author invites negative commentary on Elagabalus, which seems to have been his intent.

Elagabalus is not the only emperor who was accused of associations with male prostitutes. The usurper Opellius Macrinus was himself accused of having been a male prostitute under a previous emperor:

Verba denique Aurelii Victoris, cui Pinio cognomen erat, haec fuerunt: Macrinum libertinum, hominem prostibulum servilibus officiis occupatum in domo imperatoria, venali fide, vita sordida sub Commodo, a Severo remotum etiam a miserrimis officiis relegatumque in Africam, ubi, ut infamiam damnationis tegeret, lectioni operam dedisse, egisse causulas, declamasse, ius postremo dixise…. (Macr.IV.2-3)

Macrinus is called a homo prostibulus, roughly translated as a male prostitute. As a freedman and prostitute, he was required to yield to other men, to let them have physical and emotional power, over him. Because he was weak in this situation, the author also says that he was weak in other arenas. According to Roman logic, because he was a prostitute and by definition had to allow men to have sexual power over him, those same men had power over him politically. Thus, the author can say that Macrinus's faith could be bought. He was sent away by Severus, but came back and tried to take power from his son, Caracalla. Perceived as weak because of his former status, Macrinus did not reign for long and was quickly put to death.

The Taboo of Oral Sex
Several of the emperors written about in the Historia Augusta are attacked with claims that they performed oral sex on their partners. Oral sex was another taboo activity in ancient Rome, because it was believed to leave a "stain" on the person who performed it. According to Amy Richlin, "the strongest Latin invective is against the os impurum, the unclean mouth that supposedly results from oral intercourse" (Richlin 26). Indeed, the stain from oral sex appears not only in the Historia Augusta, but also in many works of Latin literature, ranging from poetry to oratory to biography. Part of the reason the accusation was so widespread was the fear among Romans of being contaminated, even by association, by a person who had given oral sex. One who gave oral sex submitted to the power and desire of another, and therefore was seen as weak in the eyes of his peers (Richilin 27).

Two emperors in the Historia Augusta are spoken of as taking part in oral sex, Commodus and Elagabalus. Commodus is described as having given oral sex from an early age: "nam a prima statim pueritia turpis, improbus, crudelis, libidinosus, ore quoque pollutus et constupratus fuit" (Comm.I.7). Later in the life, the author makes a more indirect reference to the emperor's tastes: "habuit in deliciis homines appellatos nominibus verendorum utriusque sexus, quos libentius suis osculis applicabat" (Comm.X.8). The reference of having an os pollutus would have been interpreted as having given oral sex, to either men or women. Both activities carried equal taboo. By saying that Commodus named his attendants after genitalia, and then kissed them, the author subtly reinforces the idea of Commodus' shameful behavior.

Elagabalus too, seemed to enjoy oral sex: "Heiroclem vero sic amavit ut eidem inguina oscularetur, quod dictum etiam inverecundum est, Floralia sacra se adserens celebrare" (Elag.VI.5). Here, the author portrays Elagabalus as not only enjoying the act, but also attempting to justify it to the audience, claiming that he is partaking in a religious rite, and celebrating a holiday sacred to prostitutes. Such an excuse would not prevent public outrage at the emperor, who is supposed to be powerful and upright, actually being powerless and under the sway of another.

Eunuchs in the Historia Augusta
The author of the Historia Augusta was not fond of eunuchs at court. He mentions their associations with various emperors in a negative context, and praises emperors like Alexander Severus, who supposedly cast eunuchs from court after inheriting the empire. The negative attitude toward eunuchs could be a commentary on the author's own time, when the eunuch Eutropius was just beginning to rise in power at Theodosius' court in the East.

Stereotypes of eunuchs are referred to in the life of Clodius Albinus. The usurper is described thus: "voce muliebre et prope ad eunuchorum sonum…" (Clod.XIII.1). A higher, shriller voice was one of the traits associated with eunuchs. Other traits included smooth skin, a sallow complexion, and a heavier build (Hopkins 193-4). By comparing a physical trait of the usurper to that of a eunuch, the author is attempting to place the two on a similar level. The comparison can be extended from physical traits to behavioral stereotypes. Eunuchs cannot be trusted, therefore, neither could Albinus be trusted.

Elagabalus kept eunuchs in his court, and even gave some to his close friends as gifts (Elag.XXI.7). After his murder, however, the new emperor, Alexander Severus, decided that eunuchs at court were unacceptable: "eunuchos de ministerio suo abiecit et uxori ut servos servire iussit. et cum Heliogabalus mancipium eunuchorum fuisset, ad certum numerum eos redegit nec quicquam in Palatio curare fecit nisi balneas feminarum" (Alex.XXIII.4-5). Alexander is portrayed as disdaining the palace eunuchs and the amount of free rein given to them by his predecessor. He relegated them to menial tasks, and cut their numbers within the palace. Those he cut from the palace, he gave as slaves to friends: "eunuchos, quos Heliogabalus et in consiliis turpibus habebat et promovebat, donavit amicis addito elogio, ut, si non redissent ad bonos mores, eosdem liceret occidi sine auctoritate iudicii" (Alex.XXXIV.3). Alexander's ideas about eunuchs, and by extension, the author's own ideas, are clearly drawn here. Alexander believes them to be immoral, and he threatens them with death if they do not improve their moral habits. They must be removed from the palace and treated like slaves, not the trusted confidants Elagabalus considered them to be. Perhaps, this is a subtle hint directed toward the current regime of the time?

In the life of the emperor Aurelian, the author again makes his feelings about court eunuchs known: "Et quaeritur quidem quae res malos principes faciat; iam primum, mi amice, licentia, deinde rerum copia, amici praeterea improbi, satellites detestandi, eunuchi avarissimi, aulici vel stulti vel detestabiles et, quod negari non potest, rerum publicarum ignorantia" (Aur.XLIII.1). According to the ideas of "Flavius Vopsicus," greedy eunuchs contribute to the evil character of some emperors. It is interesting that the author addresses the question of "evil" emperors in the life of an emperor he portrays as being of very high morals. But, consider the time frame in which the author was writing. The "Life" of Aurelian comes after that of the three Gordians. This means that if the Honoré's theories on the author's "code" are correct, then Aurelian's "Life" was written after the death of Theodosius. The empire is ruled at this time by the teenaged Arcadius in the East, and by the preteen Honorius in the West. Both are too young to be fully in control of their courts, and must rely on older, wiser attendants to help them. By speculating about the factors contributing to immoral emperors in the middle of the life of a seemingly exemplary one, the author can serve subtle warnings to the young emperors about what to avoid in their own courts. If questioned, the author could claim rhetorical exercise and speculation based on the earlier works, thus covering his own safety as he does in the dating and dedication tricks. The author's observations, it turns out, could not have been more timely. Within a few years of the writing, a most greedy eunuch held considerable sway over Arcadius, and used his influence to gain more power than any eunuch before or since has had.

Claudius Claudianus
Claudius Claudianus, better known to modern audiences as the poet Claudian, was born in Egypt, most likely in Alexandria, around the year 370 AD (Long 3; Platnauer vii, xii). He lived in Egypt for most of his youth, and came to Italy in 394, where it is assumed that he first learned Latin. As Cameron states, "in all probability, he never spoke or read contemporary Latin before his arrival in Italy in 394" (Cameron 1974 148). Prior to his arrival in Rome, he composed many poems in his native Greek (Platnauer xiii). His first poem in Latin, a panegyric addressing the consulship of the Anicii, was written in 395, and drew the attention of the court at Milan. He was invited to Milan to become the court poet for the Western emperor, Honorius, and remained in this position for about five years (Long 395; Platnauer xiii). He wrote many poems during his tenure at court, mostly panegyrics and epics, and in many of them he found a way to portray the emperor's guardian and chief advisor, Stilicho, positively. Alan Cameron even calls Claudian "Stilicho's propagandist" because of the tone the poems take toward him (Cameron 1974 136). Claudian is presumed to have died in 404, while on his honeymoon (Platnauer xvi).

In 399 AD, only four years after the Historia Augusta was thought to have been written, Claudian wrote two invective poems against the eunuch Eutropius, the first and only eunuch to become a Roman consul. These two poems are considered "the cruelest (and most entertaining) invective that has come down to us from the ancient world" (Cameron 1974 144). To Claudian, and to many of his listeners, a eunuch as consul was the worst possible thing that could have happened to the empire: "Omnia cesserunt eunucho consule monstra" (Eutr.I.8). Why was such an event considered so terrible that any other disastrous portent seemed light in comparison?

The Power and Weaknesses of Eunuchs
In order to understand why Eutropius' consulship was met with such derision from the West, it is necessary to have a basic understanding of eunuchs and their place in court. Eunuchs, while being known in imperial households during the earlier part of the empire, did not rise to prominence as imperial slaves until the time of Diocletian (Tougher 169). Depending on the emperor, eunuchs either the favored slaves and advisors or the objects of hatred. Tougher explains the dynamic in this way:

As to why most emperors were so keen to employ eunuchs at court, it is most often asserted that there were two main reasons for this: first that eunuchs could never aspire to be emperors themselves, and second that they were safe to have around females. These, in essence, boil down to the same fact: you can trust them. (Tougher 170)

The position of a eunuch as a slave was never in doubt. Eunuchs were unlikely to rise in station, and so there was no competition between the eunuch and other freeborn advisors. As there was no chance of a scandal resulting from pregnancy when employing a eunuch as a bath attendant or personal attendant, they were ideal slaves for imperial women.

Keith Hopkins states that another reason for their frequent employment in the imperial court was their unpopularity among the elite and their ability to take the fall in place of the emperor. They were good scapegoats, and so they were liked (Hopkins 173). During the Byzantine period, of which the late fourth century can be considered the beginning, "[a]nything strange or wrong was attributed to the court eunuchs; above all, anything unpopular. This may be valuable in showing the common attitude to eunuchs or for the analysis of their usefulness in soaking up criticisms which might otherwise have fallen upon the emperor" (Hopkins 174). A eunuch advisor was the imperial whipping boy. He served as a buffer between the emperor and imperial decisions, and the ruling elite at large: "They acted as a lubricant preventing too much friction between the emperor and the other forces of the state which threatened his superiority" (Hopkins 180).

But as much as they were trusted by the emperors, eunuchs were reviled for their abnormalities and for their ability to curb access to the emperors whom they served. Physical abnormalities made it relatively easy for someone to distinguish a eunuch from a non-eunuch. Eunuchs had less melanin in their bodies, which made their skin more pale and sallow than an ordinary man's skin. They also had lower levels of androgen, which resulted in longer arms and legs. Eunuchs tended to distribute fat across their body more like women than men, with the fat tending to spread across their hips, abdomen, buttocks, and breasts (Long 108). Their skin was smoother than the average male, and tended to have fine wrinkles. They also tended to be more heavy-set (Hopkins 194-4). As Jacqueline Long states, "Much more than their genitals marked eunuchs as 'mutilated men'."

Because of their more youthful appearance, eunuchs were commonly employed as receptive partners for men. "Eunuchs preserved their freshness longer than boys passing through puberty," as Keith Hopkins writes (194). This sexual role would also have made eunuchs a target for criticism. They take on a woman's role sexually because they cannot be penetrators, and therefore are considered weak: "Pathic homosexuality so obviously puts a man in a feminine position and so obviously degrades him, to ancient ways of thinking…" (Long 122). For a weak person to have such influence over the emperor would have been seen as incongruous, and looked upon with scorn.

The highest office for a eunuch was that of the Grand Chamberlain. The Grand Chamberlain was the closest advisor to the emperor, and anyone who wished to speak to the emperor would have to go through him (Hopkins 188). "In the established order of precedence of the Eastern Empire, the Grand Chamberlain, eunuch and ex-slave, held the fourth rank in the realm, coming after the Praetorian Prefects, the Prefect of the City, and the Masters of the Soldiers" (Hopkins 175). The reason for this rank goes back to the idea of safety. If someone who was able to aspire to the purple held such an important rank, he could use the title and influence to sway others to his authority, and stage a coup from the emperor's very side. A eunuch, because he was not a full man and he was a freedman, could never hold the supreme office, and therefore was not seen as a threat. However, a eunuch Grand Chamberlain could hold a large amount of sway over the emperor's court. Because he was closest to the emperor and privy to the dealings of the realm, if a eunuch let a word slip to the right official, he could accomplish certain personal goals (Long 105). This is why the author of the Historia Augusta warns about the dangers of greedy eunuchs in his speech on what makes an emperor "bad," and why he portrays Alexander Severus as ridding the palace of evil in getting rid of the eunuchs.

The Rise and Fall of Eutropius
Eutropius was an old man when he was bought and put into the service of the emperor Theodosius. Most likely due to his advanced years and his identity as a eunuch, Theodosius entrusted him with special duties, including a trip to Egypt during the war with Eugenius to seek the wisdom of a holy hermit (Hopkins 179). After the death of Theodosius, Eutropius continued to work in the imperial palace in the East, under the young Arcadius. He rose to the rank of Grand Chamberlain in after the death of Arcadius' first chief advisor, Rufinus (Long 10).

Eutropius rose to greater personal glory when Arcadius allowed him to lead a campaign against the Huns in Armenia in 398 (Long 184, 222). His victory on this campaign led to his nomination and appointment to the consulship for the following year. It marked the first and only time a eunuch was named consul. But Honorius and his court in the West did not recognize the eunuch consul (Platnauer xv), and even in the East there were those who did not agree with the appointment. Once he was stripped of his power, Eutropius was exiled to Cyprus, but brought back after only a short time and killed (Long 12, 266).

In Eutropium
Although Eutropius's consulship was a brief one, many Roman citizens, including Claudian, felt outrage that such an event had even been allowed to occur. During the consulship, Claudian made his feelings known in the form of two poems entitled In Eutropium, or "Against Eutropius," which he composed in the court at Milan. In these poems, he roundly chastised Eutropius for having undertaken such a responsibility when it was not his place, and proceeded to use every slander technique he could create to poison the minds of the West against the eunuch: "Claudian is fully in step with the classical traditions of political revilement when he emphasizes Eutropius' base origins, sexual ambivalence, avarice, cruelty, effrontery, and incompetence" (Long 77). Claudian's sexual invective includes accusations very similar to those written about earlier emperors not four years earlier in the Historia Augusta.

Incest in In Eutropium
Although a eunuch, Eutropius was not safe from allegations that he is involved in an incestuous relationship. Claudian accuses him of having an incestuous relationship with his sister, and of being her husband:

At soror et, si quid portentis creditur, uxor
Mulcebat matres epulis et more pudicae
Coniugis eunuchi celebrabat vota mariti.
Hanc amat, hanc summa de re vel pace vel armis
Consultit, huic curas et clausa palatial mandat
Ceu stabulum vacuamque domum. Sic magna tueri
Regna nihil, patiensque iugi deluditur orbis? (Eutr.II.88-94)

Here, Claudian is presenting a paradox. Eutropius is a eunuch, yet seems to be married to his sister. As a eunuch, Eutropius cannot be conceived of as a husband and or even a man, because he lacks sexual power to perform masculine roles. He almost acts as a wife to his sister, who takes care of matters that might arise. Eutropius looks to her for advice concerning everything. By showing her in a position of power over him, Claudian serves to further insult the emasculated Eutropius (Long 134). There is further loss of power on the part of Eutropius shown in the description of his sister as a "chaste wife." Even if Eutropius decided to assert masculine power over her, and try and reestablish the proper gender roles, his sister is chaste, and will not submit to amorous designs. Eutropius' attempts for power are thus foiled again.

His sister is mentioned in one other passage, in the preface to In Eutropium II. This passage anticipates the latter one, and, when read carefully, casts doubts as to the loyalty of the sister to her brother:

Quid soror? Audebit tecum conscendere puppim
Et veniet longum per mare fida comes?
An fortasse toros eunuchi pauperis odit
Et te nunc inopem dives amare negat? (Eutr.II.Pref.41-44)

Here, it is implied that Eutropius' sister will cast him aside when he is no longer useful. The first passage discussed appears later in the work, although it refers to an earlier point in time. In that instance, the sister defends Eutropius to the Roman matrons and attempts to gain him acceptance. However, now that he has been forced into exile Claudian believes she will not lend him her aid. She, like the rest of society, reviles Eutropius for simply being a eunuch, and only tolerated him while he was socially and politically useful to her. When he has fallen, she no longer needs to pretend affection. It would be more advantageous for her to distance herself from Eutropius at this point. Because it is no longer advantageous for her to associate with him, Eutropius is denied the protection his sister once gave him, and is left more vulnerable as a result of the failed relationship.

Negative Associations with Male-Male Relations
Eutropius, since he had been a eunuch slave, would most likely have been forced by at least one of his masters to take the receptive role in a male-male sexual encounter. Indeed, Claudian portrays Eutropius as enjoying his role on the receiving end of sexual encounters, rather than enduring them only because of his position in the social hierarchy:

Nil timet a tergo; vigilantibus undique curis
Nocte dieque patet; lenis facilisque moveri
Supplicibus mediaque tamen mollissimus ira
Nil negat et sese vel non poscentibus offert. (Eutr.I.362-5)

Claudian asserts that Eutropius is always ready and willing to take the receptive role in a sexual encounter with another man, even with those who do not desire his company. This assertion further removes Eutropius from the realm of men. He would still be considered weak if he were not a eunuch, because he actively seeks to remain receptive. He searches for men who will prove his weakness, and enjoys the fact that he is weak. The irony here is that Eutropius craves power of all kinds, but does not realize that his sexual actions make him appear weak to the public.

Eutropius also displays sexual, and by association, socio-political weakness when he laments being sold by one of his masters:

…cum fastidious abiret,
quam gemuit, quanto planxit divortia luctu!
"haec erat, heu, Ptolomaee, fides? Hoc profuit aetas
in gremio consumpta tuo lectusque iugalis
et ducti totiens inter praesaepia somni?
Libertas promissa perit? Viduumne relinquis
Eutropium tantasque premunt oblivia noctes,
Crudelis? Generis pro sors durissima nostri!
Femina, cum senuit, retinet conubia partu,
Uxoris decus matris reverentia pensat.
Nos Lucina fugit, nec pignore nitimur ullo.
Cum forma dilapsus amor; defloruit oris
Gratia: qua miseri scapulas tutabimur arte?
Qua placeam ratione senex?" (Eutr.I.64-77)

Here, Claudian depicts Eutropius as appalled that his beloved master would sell him. Eutropius appeals to Ptolemy as a scorned lover or a divorced wife. He begs Ptolemy to be mindful of the time they spent together, showing his status as the receptive and powerless partner in the relationship.

Eutropius then begins a lament on his own status as a eunuch, not quite male, not quite female. Were he a woman, he would be able to remain with Ptolemy because there would be children to cement a marriage together. Were he a man, he would have had the power to keep his lover, and penetrate him. As a eunuch, denied the ability to bear children or the power to penetrate his partner, he is unable to keep the man with whom he is enamored. Such begging and lamenting serve to emphasize his role as a powerless slave. Even women, who are equally powerless in the political arena, have a higher social status than he, because of their ability to bear children.

Conclusion
Both the Historia Augusta and In Eutropium employ a variety of literary devices in order to make their points. Sexual invective, a subcategory of sexual rhetoric, is one of many literary devices thus employed. Both works are steeped firmly in this literary tradition. Both also comment on the current events of the empire, but in different ways. The Historia Augusta prefers to couch its social commentary within the safety of the not-too-recent past, while Claudian who in In Eutropium comments on events that had happened very recently. Both felt aghast at similar sexual practices, such as incest and males being willingly receptive to male sexual partners, and felt equal hatred of the eunuch. The uncertain nature of politics of the last decade of the fourth century influenced each of these works, and the authors' ideas that the imperial command was heading downhill. The accusations hurled about in each work are aimed at people in positions of power, and refer to the weakness of these particular individuals. The sexual behaviors, in which these powerful men partake, such as committing incest and being receptive to male sexual partners, place them outside of the dominant position. In Roman thought, if a person indulged in one sort of vice, he was considered prone to every sort of vice, and weak in all areas of life especially the political arena. These ideas were as relevant to the second and third centuries, the time about which the Historia Augusta speaks, as they are to the time in which it and In Eutropium were written

Appendix: Translations of Passages Cited
Verus X.1 "There was gossip to the effect that he had violated his mother-in-law, Faustina. And it is said that his mother-in-law killed him treacherously by having poison sprinkled on his oysters, because he had betrayed to the daughter the amour he had had with the mother." --translation by David Magie
Comm.V.8 "After debauching his other sisters, as it is said, he formed an amour with a cousin of his father, and even gave the name of his mother to one of his concubines." - translation by David Magie
Sev. XXI.6-7 "What more fortunate for Septimius Severus than not to have begotten Bassianus [Caracalla]? - a man who speedily charged his brother with contriving plots against him - who took his own stepmother to wife - stepmother did I say? --nay, rather the mother on whose bosom he had slain Geta, her son…." -translation by David Magie
Car.X.1-4 "It is of interest to know in what manner it is said that he had led his step-mother Julia as a wife. She was most beautiful, and when she had exposed a great part of her body as if through carelessness, and Antoninus said, "I would like, if it is permitted." It is said that she replied, "If it is pleasing, it is permitted. Do you not know that you are the emperor and you give the laws, not receive them?" When he heard this, confused madness was strengthened toward the effect of a crime, and he celebrated those nuptials which, if truly he knew that he gave the laws, he ought only to prohibit. For he led his mother (she must not be called by another name) to wife and joined incest to fratricide, if indeed he joined in marriage she whose son he had recently killed." -translation my own
Elag.X.2-5 "Under him Zoticus was so strong that he was thus held by all the chiefs of offices as if he were husband to the master. …that there are men of this kind, who, if they will have been allowed too much familiarity of the emperor, they sell report not only of the bad but also of the good emperors and who folly or innocence of the emperor, they do who do not examine this, suffer from notorious rumor-mongering. He [Elagabalus] married and joined him [Zoticus], so that he even had a bridal matron and cried out, "Lie with me, Cook!" indeed even at this time in which Zoticus was ill." -translation my own
Elag.V.4-5 "Moreover, he acted out the story of Paris at home, himself undergoing the role of Venus, so that of a sudden his garments would slide down to his feet, and, naked, he would sink to his knees with one hand near his breast, the other held to his privates, his projecting buttocks having been thrown back and set against his debaucher. Moreover, he formed his face in that same style in which Venus is painted." -translation my own
Elag.XII.4 "At banquets, he placed the male prostitutes very near himself and found it especially pleasing to touch and handle them." -translation my own
Macr.IV.2-3 "Finally, these are the words of Aurelius Victor, whose cognomen was Pinius: that Macrinus, under Commodus, was a freedman and a male prostitute, that he was occupied in servile duties in the imperial household, that his trust could be bought, that his life was vile, that he was even removed from his most wretched duties by Severus and dispatched to Africa, where, so that he might hide the infamy of his condemnation, he gave himself to the task of reading, he conducted minor cases, he gave speeches, and finally he delivered the law…." --translation my own
Comm.III.6 "After he had come back to Rome he led the triumphal procession with Saoterus, his partner in depravity, seated in his chariot, and from time to time he would turn around and kiss him openly, repeating the same performance even in the orchestra." -translation by David Magie
Comm.X.1 "Even as a child he was gluttonous and lewd. While a youth, he disgraced every class of men and was disgraced by them in turn." -translation by David Magie
Comm.I.7 "For even from his earliest years he was base and dishonourable, and cruel and lewd, defiled of mouth, moreover, and debauched." -translation by David Magie
Comm.X.8 "He kept among his minions certain men named after private parts of both sexes, and on these he liked to bestow kisses." -translation by David Magie
Elag.VI.5 "But he so loved Heirocles that he would kiss his very groin, which is even shameless to have said, claiming that he was celebrating the Floralian rites." -translation my own
Clod.XIII.1 "He had a womanish voice, almost as shrill as a eunuch's…." -translation by David Magie
Alex.XXIII.4-5 "He cast away the eunuchs from his administration and ordered that they serve his wife as slaves. And although Elagabalus had been the worker for his eunuchs, he [Alexander] reduced them to a certain number, and he made it so that they did not care for anything in the palace except the women's baths." -translation my own
Alex.XXXIV.3 "He gave the eunuchs, whom Elagabalus held and even promoted in his foul plans, to friends, having added this saying: that, if they did not return to good habits, it would be permitted to kill those very men without the authority of judges." -translation my own
Aur.XLIII.1 "The question, indeed, is often asked what is it that makes emperors evil; first of all, my friend, it is freedom from restraint, next, abundance of wealth, furthermore, unscrupulous friends, pernicious attendants, the greediest eunuchs, courtiers who are fools or knaves, and - it cannot be denied - ignorance of public affairs." -translation by David Magie
Eutr.I.8 "All portents pale before our eunuch consul." -translation by Maurice Platnauer
Eutr.II.88-94 "But his sister and spouse (if such a prodigy can be conceived) wins the favour of Rome's matrons by entertainments, and, like a chaste wife, sings the praises of her eunuch husband. 'Tis her he loves, her he consults on all matters of importance, be it of peace or war, to her care he entrusts the keys of the palace, as one would of a stable or empty house. Is this guardianship of a mighty empire thus naught? Is it thus he makes a mockery of a world's obedience?" -translation by Maurice Platnauer
Eutr.II.Pref.41-44 "What doth thy sister? Will she dare to embark with thee and bear thee faithful company over the distant seas? Mayhap she scorns the couch of an impoverished eunuch now that she herself is rich and will not love the who now art poor." -translation by Maurice Platnauer
Eutr.I.362-5 "He fears no assault from the rear; night and day he is ready with watchful care; soft, easily moved by entreaty, and, even in the midst of his passion, tenderest of men, he never says 'no,' and is ever at the disposal even of those that solicit him not." -translation by Maurice Platnauer
Eutr.I.64-77 "How the scorned minion wept at his departure, with what grief did he lament that divorce! Was this thy fidelity, Ptolemy? Is this my reward for a youth lived in thine arms, for the bed of marriage and those many nights spent together in the inn? Must I lose my promised liberty? Leav'st thou Eutropius a widow, cruel wretch, forgetful of such wonderful nights of love? How hard is the lot of my kind! When a woman grows old her children cement the marriage tie and a mother's dignity compensates for the lost charms of a wife. Me Lucina, goddess of childbirth, will not come near; I have no children on whom to rely. Love perishes with my beauty; the roses of my cheeks are faded. What wits can save my wretched back from blows? How can I, an old man, please?" -translation by Maurice Platnauer