> Petronius was writing comedy, but there is no reason to dispute the incidental details, which can bring the Lupanar to life. His description suggests brothels would be located in more out-of-the-way parts of town and were not necessarily identifiable from the outside; the prostitutes and punters were screened from the outside world by a curtain. It also reveals that people could be enticed or tricked into visiting – presumably chaperones who drummed up trade got a fee.
“No reason to dispute”? Surely the most obvious explanation for a scene about recognizing someone in a brothel and both claiming to have been “tricked” is that at least one of them is lying, and poorly at that?
It seems just as plausible to me that the brothel was very obviously marked and so the idea that anyone could be tricked into going there unaware would be a hilarious joke.
I obviously don’t know either, but I just wish historical articles wouldn’t act so certain about things they offer no proof of!
I didn't even think about that. You're right, it's really a joke about two dudes who bumped into each other in a brothel and each invented a story how they totally by some strange accident got there )))
I don’t know how much you actually disagree with the conclusions: even if the stories are made up by the characters in the comedy, I think the choice of made-up story could give clues about what was plausible, eg in more modern times a story of ‘I ran out of gas and asked to use their phone’ might suggest something about the location.
I think if you want something more rigorous, you can probably find it, but you won’t be so likely to find it in general-interest articles like this one. It may be that there is more context in the play that isn’t mentioned, and the description is meant to be illustrative rather than like a mathematics paper quoting a theorem that is to be relied on later. Or perhaps the conclusion is synthesised from many sources but only one is illustrated because the purpose of the article is trying to describe what is thought about the past rather than trying to prove those things. The article has lots of links to sources, which is commendable, and I think you could look there first if you want stronger evidence.
> I obviously don’t know either, but I just wish historical articles wouldn’t act so certain about things they offer no proof of!
I watched a documentary one or two years ago about the coliseum in Rome, and it made me realize that what we claim to know about those ancient times must be 80% bullshit.
It was all assumptions built on top of assumptions, themselves built on top of suppositions without any proof.
When I was a kid I wanted to become an archeologist, but this one documentary that basically put in evidence that everything is just bullshit where we have picked the most convenient explanation completely disinterested me from archeology forever.
I wouldn't be so harsh. they are trying to find an explanation for things with little to go on. Besides, they probably don't even fare that much worse than other social sciences in that regard, at least there isn't a ton of motivation for bias for things from 2000 years ago.
“No reason to dispute”? Surely the most obvious explanation for a scene about recognizing someone in a brothel and both claiming to have been “tricked” is that at least one of them is lying, and poorly at that?
It seems just as plausible to me that the brothel was very obviously marked and so the idea that anyone could be tricked into going there unaware would be a hilarious joke.
I obviously don’t know either, but I just wish historical articles wouldn’t act so certain about things they offer no proof of!