[2]) The translation of this first sentence is itself somewhat problematic. Here I follow the "ethical" interpretation discussed by McGinn, Prostitution and Julio-Claudian Legislation: the Formation of Social Policy in Early Imperial Rome (diss. Ann Arbor, 1986), 464n28 (henceforth McGinn, Prostitution) and followed in the edition cited below (n. 3). There is also much to be said for McGinn's prefered translation "to pimp is noting less than to earn money through the sale of (someone else's) sexual services" (420), but I find the ellipsis of "someone else's" a little too difficult, especially as queive corpore quaestum fecit fecerit at FIRA 1.13.122-3 seems to refer to prostitutes (and perhaps gladiators?) in contrast to lanistae and pimps (line 123). In what follows I offer very literal translations, in particular retaining the jurists' euphemistic use of corpus to refer to sexual activity.

[3]) McLeod in Mommsen and Krueger edd., Watson trans. ed., The Digest of Justinian (Philadelphia, 1985).

[4]) Ulp. D. 3.2.6.2, 3.2.13.1, 3.3.39.1, 39.1.1.3, 39.2.13.13, 43.24.5.10, 49.4.1.13, 50.17.123.pr; Paul. D. 4.8.32.2, 19.5.5.4, 41.10.2.pr, 43.4.2.pr (bis); Pomp. D. 39.2.39.3; Cels. D. 41.2.18.pr (bis); Mod. D. 49.1.20.pr; Macer D. 49.4.2.1; Gaius I. 4.82, 86, D. 29.3.1.pr, 44.7.1.8 (bis).

[5]) Ulp. D. 17.1.6.7, 43.16.1.13, 47.2.36.3; Call. D. 41.1.25.pr (where the Mommsen/Kreuger/ Watson edition similarly renders "in another's name"), Paul. D. 45.1.128.pr; Iul. D. 47.2.57.5.

[6]) This interpretation is followed by Gardner, Women in Roman Law and Society (Bloomington, 1986), 250 (henceforth Gardner, Women). Cf. also n. 14.

[7]) Ulp. D. 27.9.9.pr, 47.10.5.9.

[8]) See TLL s.v. exerceo 1374-5.

[9]) For alterius nomine of a common, not a proper, noun cf. Gaius D. 50.16.236.pr.

[10]) On the reputation of food-service establishments in this regard, see Gardner, Women, 248-50 and McGinn, Prostitution, 14-16. D. 23.2.43.pr makes the same point about inns in the case of the actual prostitutes, rather than their employers.

[11]) Mommsen and Kreuger print accesione based on F's cessione; the B scholia read [[section]]n prosyÆk[[dotaccent]] êllhw tinÚw [[section]]pithdeÊsevw. If we instead read occasione on the basis of the following clause, the parallel to alterius nomine becomes even closer.

[12]) The phrasing of the two passages would allow for differentiation by gender, but I see no reason to suspect that such a distinction is actually being made. In any case 3.2.4.2 seems more inclusive.

[13]) Kaser, Infamia und Ignominia in den römischen Rechtsquellen, SZ 73 (1956) 220-78 (239, 241) points out that the provision of the Edict glossed here is almost precisely the same as one found in the so-called lex Iulia municipalis (FIRA 1.13.123). Hence this is an area in which we may suspect (though it is not guaranteed) that this is an area of some stability in the law from the late republic to the high empire.

[14]) Greenidge, Infamia: Its Place in Roman Public and Private Law (Oxford, 1894 [Darmstadt, 1977]), 125 claims "immediate infamia also attached to one qui lenocinium fecerit, whether this trade was exercised directly or indirectly," with a footnote citing 3.2.4.2.

[15]) For this use see OLD, s.v. habeo 26. For the emphatic positioning of the adjective in this construction see Murgia, review of Gotoff, Cicero's Elegant Style, CP 76 (1981) 301-13 (304) and several of the examples in OLD. I would give a similar reading to corpora quaestuaria habeat and prostitutas mulieres habere (23.2.43.9) and mancipia prostituta habuit (3.2.4.3). In the last case Pomponius feels it necessary to spell out (peculiaria) the fact that the women are in the peculium, and not just the use or immediate control, of the slave-pimp.

[16]) None of this, of course, reduces the possibility of lenocinium in the extended sense introduced by the lex Iulia de adulteriis coercendis (Ulp. D. 48.5.2.2).

[17]) McGinn, Prostitution, 18.

[18]) McGinn, Prostitution, 490-2. Much of this discussion (based on CIL 3.13750) is more accessible in McGinn, The Taxation of Roman Prostitutes, Helios 16 (1989) 79-110 (88-90), henceforth McGinn, Taxation.

[19]) McGinn, Prostitution, 18-19.

²⁰) And note the lack of pagan complaints about Caligula's tax on prostitutes (at least on grounds of immorality); see McGinn, Prostitution, 474-512 and McGinn, Taxation. Contrast, perhaps, Titus' negative reaction to his father's tax on public urinals (Suet. Vesp. 23.4).

[21]) Here I merely sketch part of the social context of this juristic activity; I hope to make this argument much more fully in a forthcoming paper on economics and morality.

[22]) In the praetor's edict, all these professions are subject to the same restrictions of prosecution commented on above (Iul. D 3.2.1; cf. FIRA 1.13.122-3). Additionally, all were prohibited from marrying "up" in society, but not all in the same ways; see Treggiari, Roman Marriage (Oxford, 1991) 61-2 (with lit.)

[23]) Wallace-Hadrill, The Social Spread of Roman Luxury: Sampling Pompeii and Herculaneum, PBSR 58 (1990) 145-92 (164-6), and idem, Elites and Trade in the Roman Town, 241-72 (249-62) in City and Country in the Ancient World, Rich and Wallace-Hadrill, edd.

[24]) McGinn, Prostitution 13-14.