The two sides of the Warren Cup are referred to as sides Aand B in the article by John R. Clarke, so that I don't confusethe two I will also refer to them in these terms. Side B is theside which contains the more accepted, by Roman culture, interpretationof male to male lovemaking. One male on this side is obviouslya youth. The youth, the penetratee, is smaller and has long hair.The long hair itself indicates that this is a person of lowerclass. Young male Romans of the day were to keep their hair croppedshort. The older male is represented without a beard and as wearinga wreath of laurels in his hair. The laurels could indicate thatthis older man was a winner at the games. The older male is shownpenetrating the youth from behind while supporting himself onthe bed(CAPCO 111).
Side A contains the more complex representation. The two malesseem to be of equal age. They both have short hair and appearto be about the same size. The only obvious visible differencesare that the penetrator wears a wreath of laurels and has a closelycropped beard, while the pentetratee wears no laurels and is cleanshaven (CAPCO 128). Here one of the males, while supporting himselfwith a strap, is represented lowering himself onto the penis ofthe other.
Besides the obvious age difference the two sides also differin that in side B the older male has his head turned away, asdoes the youth. This shows a feeling of disengagement. The twoappear to have no interest in the actions of the other. The penetratee-probablythere against his will-just lies there allowing himself to bepenetrated, because he has no other choice (Walters 19). In sideA, however ,this disengagement is not evident; the contrary seemsto be visible. The hands touching gently on the penetratees thighseems to indicate that the two lovers are engaged in a tenderact of mutual pleasure.
The Roman culture had some very defined ways of thinking ofa "man." A man was not as we think of a man in modernterms. He was referred to as a Vir, an "impenetrablepenetrator" (Walters 1). A Vir was an adult, freebornmale citizen of the Roman empire who was in good social standing(Walters 6). This made him above all others and in a positionof power. The Vir was the top of the social hierarchy.
The Roman's view of the sexual act was not a view in whichboth partners were equal. They seemed to see it as something thatone does to another. It is an act of power,"of one way penetration",in which the penetrator is exercising his right to dominate overthe penetratee. There is no word referring to male to male lovemakingin Roman literature instead is referred to as having the experienceof a woman. If a Vir is sexually penetrated then they losethat status and are after that open to sexual penetration by others.They are also open to other forms of penetration (Walter 6-7).The Vir is protected in that they are not allowed to bestruck. Walters states that"if we bear in mind the Romanprotocol which conceptualized sexual activity as being about thepenetration of the less powerful partner by the more powerfulone, the act of beating and being beaten comes into focus as beingvery similar" (Walter 20). It was not at all uncommon fora lower class person to be beaten in Roman times, but if an upperclass person was beaten then they were diminished in the eyesof the society. Unless of course they were a soldier, then thesewounds were marks that verified manhood made the soldier all themore inviolable. (Walters 30)
There were others that were also impenetrable. Freeborn youngmales, or praetextatus, were considered very attractiveby the vir, because they were in a liminal state. Theywere not yet vir themselves, but they would be somedayand so were not to be touched. They wore an amulet that announcedto everyone that they were not to be approached for sexual orviolent reasons. This was not the only thing that was used toprotect the developing manhood. The preatextatus were constantlywatched over by there tutors, who were slaves trained for thispurpose (Walters 11).
Other than the pretextatus, were the freeborn upperclass woman and unmarried girls. They were also off limits. Althoughthis was more because of their association with the virthan with their own impenetrability. If someone assaults a memberof a household then it is a direct assault on that household.
The documentation of the times regards Roman sexuality as involvingtwo extremes, which are not to be switched. Even in most of theirart it remains constant that it is used to show power and domination.The art of the household depicts scenes of battle and of rape.These rapes are representations of scenes in which mythologicalgods and creatures are the characters as well as humans who aremore often than not the prey. The actual arrangement of the houseis setup so that the more powerful you are the more interestingthings you are allowed to view within the household. If you arean upperclass, close friend of the master of the household, thenyou have seating at the dinner table which allows you an excellentview of the garden and any of the art that has been placed therefor display. These objects are put there for the soul purposeof impressing the guests of the household with how powerful themaster of the house is (CAPCO 139).
The rape scenes show power by illustrating the defenselessnessof the victim and the pleasure of the rapist. However even inthis form of expression there is a deviation in this show of power.There were a few reversals of these roles. The murder of Pentheusby the Maenads was a situation in which Pentheus spied on theMaenads while dressed as a woman. When he is discovered they riphim limp from limb. (CAPCO 145) This scene first places Pentheusin a feminine role because of his clothing and then again by thefact that his body is lay open by these woman.
The opening up of a body was very intriguing to the Romans,probably because of the fact that a vir was not allowedto be hit, much less cut open. There desire to lay people openis also made obvious by the popularity of the Roman Coliseum.Those who were part of the games were the lowest of the low inthe Roman hierarchy and therefore the most penetratable. The peoplewho fought were either trained gladiators, prisoners of war, orcondemned criminals (CAPCO 155).
It is possible, however, that at any point a person of highclass and good social standing could be diminished enough as tobecome part of the games. In Caligula's madness, for instance,he ordered one section of the crowd at random to be put in thepit of the Coliseum for his entertainment.
These games were also shows of power. They were part of thecomplex politics of Rome. When the aristocrats showed contestantsfor the gladiatorial games and wild beast hunts they were putin a position of judgement (CAPCO 157). If there contestant didwell then they were thought highly of. On the other hand, if theircontestant was a coward then this reflected badly upon them.
Given this information about the "official" beliefsof the Romans regarding sexuality, it is hard to explain why theWarren Cup would exist. It depicts a scene that they would haveregarded as appalling. Or would they?
No matter what the official records list as the norm, we mustunderstand that not everyone follows it. The Warren Cup is a wonderfulexample of rebellion against this standard of normality. Otherexamples are fairly common. The cups of the house of the Meananderwere discovered along with man other silver items. The fact thatthese were found together seems to indicate that they were usedon a everyday basis (CAPCO 116). These erotic images, that breakthe rules, were probably provocative because they were forbidden.It might even be that they were not actual acts being presentedbut the erotic fantasies behind them. Roman culture is the epitomeof "do as I say not as I do." While they say one thingit is quite evident that they are doing something that contradictsit completely.
Clarke, John R. "The Warren Cup and the Contexts for Representationsof Male-to-Male Lovemaking in Augustan and Early Julio-ClaudianArt." The Art Bulletin. 75.2 (1993)
Fredrick, David. "Beyond the Atrium to Ariadne: EroticRepresentation and Visual Pleasure in the Roman House." ClassicalAntiquity. 14.2 (1995): 266-97.
Hopkins, Keith. "Murderous Games." Death and Renewal.(1983) 1-30
Walters, Jonathan. "Invading the Roman Body: Manlinessand Impenetrability in Roman Thought." forthcoming in RomanSexualities. (1998)