第3章

书签收藏评论目录封面

Credere quis possit？Falcem subripuere：An Alternative Reading of the Carmina Priapea

Tyler Travillian[1]

中文摘要此篇论文展现一个文本如何在字面上支持统治阶层的意识形态，却同时在字里行间提供空间让被统治的阶层也获取某种程度的社会控制。文章首先简要回顾罗马性文化研究的各个主要话题，讨论性文化中“穿刺模式”（Penetration Model）及其政治意义和其他相关问题。文章通过分析《卡米那·普里阿匹亚》来展现如何从统治阶层的角度（即，以“穿刺模式”的方式）来阅读一个文本，但与此同时，文章也表现这一文本如何增强被统治阶层的力量，帮助他们对抗社会上层。

关键词普里阿普斯（Priapus）；普里阿匹亚（Priapea）；普里阿匹克式姿势（Priapic Pose）；罗马性文化；穿刺（penetration）

This paper explores two ways of reading Roman sexual attitudes in the Carmina Priapea，a group of anonymous poems from the first century CE.The first reading briefly summarizes the dominant understanding of Roman sexuality，one in which the “real man” uses his sexual standing to dominate the men and women who are his social inferiors.The second reading complicates this understanding by exploring more fully the ways in which apparently dominant sexual behavior may be implicated with subordinate qualities and，just as importantly，how the reverse may also be true：the sexually subordinate—women and men—may use their sexuality to dominate or unman their social superiors.Before proceeding with these two readings，however，the paper will offer a quick overview of some of the major issues surrounding the study of Roman sexuality.This section cannot be comprehensive；instead it offers a basic outline as background to the subsequent discussion and as an introduction to the field.Suggestions for further reading may be found in the bibliography.

SOME MAJOR ISSUES IN THE STUDY OF ROMAN SEXUALITY

（A）Sexuality and Culture：Emic vs. Etic

By the early 1960s，anthropology had already recognized that we experience the world through multiple lenses，some of which may be determined by human nature and thought of as universal to all societies，others of which are shaped by our local cultures.K. Pike in 1967 formalized the distinction and coined the terms emic and the etic.[2]These terms，adopted from linguistics，derive from phonemic and phonetic. Two sounds that are actually different（produced with different place or manner of articulation or different voicing）are termed phonetically distinct.They are only phonemically distinct，however，if the difference between them is significant to a native speaker，i.e.，if the sounds make the difference between words.So while the phonetic distinctions are universal to human speech，phonemic distinctions—which sounds matter—differ among languages and even among dialects.For example，the Classical Greek minimal pair φ （phōs “light”）and π （pōs “how？”）show that the consonants φ（ph，an aspirated “p”）and π（an unaspirated “p”）are both phonemically and phonetically distinct.The same consonants in English are phonetically but not phonemically distinct.That is，an English speaker does not hear the difference between the two “p”s in the word “pop”（phop）unless that difference is pointed out，and even then，the distinction is insignificant.

When extended to culture，an emic distinction is one that matters to a particular society：a culture arranges its own social categories based on emic distinctions.Etic distinctions，on the other hand，are those fundamental to human nature：they exist across societies but may or may not be given weight in any particular society.It is unclear，however，whether there can be truly “etic” distinctions in this sense since the scientist or anthropologist studying cultures does so through her own cultural lenses，so the two terms may also be understood as “culture-near”（emic）and “culture-far”（etic）in which the first refers to distinctions important to the local culture and the latter refers to distinctions important to the anthropologist studying that culture.[3]

We can profitably apply the emic-etic distinction to sexuality.From an etic standpoint，there are a limited number of possible sexual interactions，for example，man-man，man-woman，and woman-man.[4]The number of possible interactions increases if one adds in alternative genders，but they remain finite.The ways in which we group and classify these interactions，however，are highly culturally determined，that is，emic.In the modern West，for example，sexual interactions tend to be categorized based on the physical sex of the participants.There are only two categories：“heterosexual，” in which the two participants are of different physical sexes，and “homosexual” in which the two participants are of the same physical sex.While the recent proliferation of terms for sexual orientation in the West has begun to unmask the culturally determined aspect of sexuality，those terms still tend to conceive of sexuality in relation to the physical sex of the participants and the West's cultural belief in an underlying sexual binary.[5]

In contrast，the emic divide for sexuality in Greco-Roman societies was not based primarily on the physical sex of the participants，but rather on the nature of the sexual acts，specifically，whether the participant was engaged in a dominant/active or a subordinate/passive act.In the idealized version of this system，full-citizen males are active/dominant while all other members of society-non-citizen males，women，and sometimes also children—are passive/subordinate.What matters to an individual's sexuality is not the physical sex of the partner but how the individual's sexual acts correlate with his or her own sex and social status.This is termed the “penetration model” of sexuality，in which sexuality follows very specific social hierarchies：the adult male citizen has the same relationship to others sexually as he does politically：he is superior to men and boys of lower classes，to non-citizens and slaves，and to women.It will be important to keep in mind throughout this paper that Roman sexuality-at least in its idealized form-occurs at the intersection of power and masculinity，so the axis of our interpretation will be literary structures that support or undermine power（sexual，political，etc.）in the masculine.

（B）Sexuality and Control：Internal and External

（B1）The Penetration Model of Roman Sexuality：A Hierarchy of Genders[6]

Roman culture makes this dominance/submission system very explicit.Latin has different words for “to penetrate the vagina，mouth，anus” and different words for a person who is penetrated in each of those orifices.The adult male must always be active（or，rather，present the appearance of being active），or he is considered sexually deviant and therefore socially and morally deviant as well，since a deviant male，in the Roman mindset，will naturally want to participate in all kinds of deviant behavior.Most interesting for our purposes here are the implications about what counts as active and what counts as passive.In the penetration model strictly understood，vaginal and anal intercourse are always active for the penetrator，but oral intercourse is problematic.It stands in between for obvious reasons as an act which may be either active or passive for either partner，and the Romans as a result have two words for a man receiving oral intercourse，depending on whether he is active or passive：irrumatio in the first instance，fellatio in the second.[7]Even more interestingly，performing cunnilingus is always a passive act：the female recipient is conceived of as actively penetrating her companion's mouth.The implications for the Roman sexual model are far-reaching：according to the penetration model，a man who enjoys performing cunnilingus on a woman will also enjoy being on the receiving end of anal sex from a man.We see here the unfolding of an emic/etic distinction in sexuality largely unfamiliar to the West：the enjoyment comes from his pleasure at being treated as the passive member and is entirely unrelated to the physical sex of his partner.

The locus classicus in literature is Catullus 16 in which the poet asserts his masculinity to Furius and Aurelius：

Pedicabo ego vos et irrumabo，

Aureli pathice et cinaede Furi，

qui me ex versiculis meis putastis，

quod sunt molliculi，parum pudicum. 4

［...］

vos，quod milia multa basiorum

legistis，male me marem putatis？

pedicabo ego vos et irrumabo. 14

I will anally-rape and orally-rape you，

Aurelius，you pathic，and Furius，you cinaedus，

you who，because of my little verses，thought that，

because they are effete，I was somewhat deviant.

［...］

Just because you read about many thousands of kisses，

Do you think that I am insufficiently masculine？

I will anally-rape you and orally-rape you.

According to the narrative of the poem，Furius and Aurelius，after reading poems 5 and 7 with their “many kisses，” accused Catullus of playing the part of a woman，expressing an overly feminized or “soft”（mollis）demeanor. Whether the poem responds to a historical event or is merely the poet's method of forestalling such an accusation，the accusation itself is not ungrounded. Catullus does in fact have a tendency to invert the expected gender associations.We see this nowhere more clearly than in the final stanza of poem 11 in which he compares himself to a flower at the edge of a meadow，nicked by the passing plow that is Lesbia.This inversion，however，is not calling into question Catullus's actual status as vir（see below），but rather serves as a metaphor for the complicated politics of the late Republic in which growth of super-powers like Caesar is gradually stripping the upper class of their political autonomy and as a result making them feel less masculine.[8]Poems like 16 have no sense of irony，only an aggressive need to（re）assert masculinity.We see similar attacks using sexuality to assert political dominance in poems 29，57，94，105，114，and 115.

Parker，in a revealing examination of the structure of Roman thought which he bases on literary depictions of sexuality，offers a grid，categorizing sexuality by organ，act，and gender（49）. The following is a simplified version.

Active Passive

Male vir homo

homo cinaedus/pathicus

Female tribas femina

The Roman male can be subdivided into two distinct classes：the vir and the homo. The vir is an adult，sexually active，citizen male in full control of himself and others.[9]In the Penetration Model of Roman thought，sexual pleasure accrues to the penetrator，not the penetrated.The ideal male is impermeable and impenetrable.To be penetrated is to muliebria pati（to suffer what a woman suffers）.All other males are merely homo，human beings of the male sex who do not rise to the social or political level（the “gender，” we might say）of the vir. The ideal of masculine impenetrability extends to the vir's immediate social context：a freeborn puer（boy）cannot be penetrated because of the vir he is to become；a freeborn and respectable Roman woman cannot be penetrated except by her legitimate husband（her vir）out of respect for him as vir；the first is quite distinct from the Greek context in which pederasty among the elites was，in some cities at least，institutionalized in the educational system.This sexual impenetrability is paralleled legally：a Roman citizen cannot be beaten，while a slave can be.The status of vir can be lost but not regained：those who have submitted to sexual penetration or who have violated sexual norms，such as adulterers and male prostitutes，have likewise surrendered their physical impenetrability and can be beaten regardless of their original status.Ovid's rendering of the transformation of Caenis/Caeneus beautifully illuminates the identity of sexual penetration with corporal penetration in Roman thought.After the god Neptune rapes the maiden Caenis，he offers to fulfill any wish she might make.Caenis responds：“magnum ...facit haec iniuria votum，/tale pati iam posse nihil；da，femina ne sim”（“This injustice creates a great wish，that I no longer be able to suffer any such thing；grant that I cease to be a woman”Met. 12.201-2.）As a result，Neptune turns her into a man，Caeneus，who literally is not a woman and cannot suffer such a thing（rape）again，but he does not stop there：“ ...dederatque super，nec saucius ullis/vulneribus fieri ferrove occumpere posset”（“and he ［Neptune］ had additionally granted that he ［Caeneus］ would not be able to be harmed by any wounds nor fall by the sword”，Met. 12.206-7）.For Ovid's Neptune，being raped is equivalent to suffering bodily wounds.

Martial and Juvenal，Roman poets writing at the end of the first century CE，show the same concept of active penetration and impenetrability as the defining characteristics of the vir that we see in Catullus and Ovid.They differ，however，in that their focus is more on chastising non-normative sexual behaviors than directly asserting their own masculinity through aggressive threat.We will consider why this might be in a moment.Juvenal's second Satire attacks aristocratic men for willingly and hypocritically abandoning normative masculinity in favor of being penetrated and taking on passive roles.That the men chastised are aristocratic is significant because their social status makes them the moral arbiters of the city：they are the ones who are supposed to enforce and embody the ideal，not undermine it.[10]Martial，likewise，marshals an array of attacks on a wide variety of non-normative sexual acts，i.e.，any act other than that of a vir engaging in fututio with his wife.His most engaging example may be epigram 2.28，which takes the form of a riddle：

Rideto multum qui te，Sextille，cinaedum

dixerit et digitum porrigito medium.

Sed nec pedico es nec tu，Sextille，fututor，

calda Vetustinae nec tibi bucca placet.

Ex istis nihil es fateor，Sextille：quid ergo es？5

Nescio，sed tu scis res superesse duas.

Laugh hard，Sextillus，at the one who called you a “cinaedus”

and show your middle finger.

But you are not an “anus fucker，” nor are you a “vagina fucker，”

and Vetustina's warm mouth does not please you.

You aren’t one of these，I admit，Sexillus.So what are you？5

I don’t know，but you know that there are only two possibilities left.

Here Martial gives us the list of possible sexual acts：pedico（anal penetrator），futuor（vaginal penetrator），“calda ...tibi bucca placet”（oral penetrator），and cinaedus（anally passive），leaving to our imagination the two “worst” possibilities，and those are “fellator” and “cunnilingus.”[11]Note that both Martial and Juvenal live in a time when political power has already migrated into the hands of the emperor.This perhaps explains why neither Martial nor Juvenal imputes feminine qualities on himself as poet nor aggressively asserts himself in the way that Catullus does：they live in a time in which the average aristocrat has already come to terms with the loss of political authority.Likewise，both use pseudonyms or anonymous “types” rather than the names of real individuals.This practice creates a “plausible deniability，” which reflects their need to insulate themselves from a higher political power—a need Catullus did not have.Avoiding the names of specific individuals limits their influence from the political to the purely social.

The non-ideal male，the homo，may be so classed because he belongs to a lower social order than the vir and so lacks the capital necessary to protect himself from the vir. In this case，his ideals still align with the dominant mode of sexuality—he is still a penetrator by preference，not sexually deviant in the Roman system.On the other side is the cinaedus or pathicus，who prefers penetration.He violates the Roman sexual schema by actively seeking the passive role，whether that involves being anally or orally penetrated，and this active pursuit of sexual passivity marks him as deviant.It also opens a space in which the very notions of activity and passivity may be questioned.

The ideal female，the femina，is a desired object and never a desiring subject.She accepts the female role of being penetrated by her vir，but she does not seek out or actively engage in sexual intercourse.The prostitute is the female equivalent of the cinaedus：a woman who actively seeks out the passive sexual role.While she performs a role appropriate to her gender，her active role in pursuing it marks her as outside the norm，and it is for this reason that the prostitute wore a toga，the man's garb.The woman who actively seeks the active role in sex—the tribas—is，in the Roman schema，a monstrosity.Since sexual intercourse is only possible with penetration，the tribas is imagined to have an abnormally large clitoris with which she can penetrate her partner，whether that partner is a woman（vaginal penetration）or a man（oral penetration）.It is in this context that cunnilingus becomes the mirror image of fellatio：in each instance a partner is being orally penetrated by the other's sexual organ.

（B2）The Politics of Sexuality

The gaze，[12] so much a part of Roman life，is sexually ambivalent.Whether it is the gaze of the general surveying his troops，the senator watching a fellow senator，or the mass of citizens looking upon an orator，it is inherently gendered：the Roman gaze is judging，normative，and penetrative.We see the power of the gaze and its close connection to sexuality embedded in the very language：to put the evil eye on someone is to invidere，literally，“to look upon，” while the amulet that protects against the evil eye，the fascinum，is literally a phallus，a penetrative counter-attack designed to strip the gaze of its power.The penetrative power of the gaze and the idealized impermeability of the male citizen's body lead to a curious set of contradictions in the political arena.To step onto the speaker's platform invites the emulatory gaze，a gaze of approval through which the speaker reaches backward into the audience（his “spectators”）and extends his control.The orator is the object of the gaze，but he also directs the gaze，establishing himself as an ideal or paradigm.He uses his role as object to become a guiding subject.To step onto the stage，in contrast，invites the evil eye，a demeaning gaze that emasculates the actor.The actor，as object of the gaze，is exposing his body for the play and amusement of his audience：the actor inhabits the role of object，and as object，he is subject to corporal punishment.He has abandoned his claim to physical impermeability，and as such is seen also to have abandoned his claim to true manhood，that is，to being a vir. Since the actor is no vir，he must as a result be open to all kinds of sexual vice：he is effeminate，pathetic，of the same class as prostitutes and gladiators；he is deviant.[13]The gaze therefore works as a method of social and political control，identifying and heroizing ideals（the normative or constructive gaze）while also degrading those defined as deviant（the shaming or destructive gaze）.

（B3）A Problem with the Penetration Model

It is clear enough that the act of penetration is the basis of Roman sexuality，at least the basis of idealized sexuality as understood from a male point of view.But is this idealized penetration model of Roman sexuality really so rigid as it appears in the scholarship？It would seem from an initial reflection on our own everyday lives that we know better than to accept dogmatically that penetration always equates to domination.It would seem so，but our thinking may be an emic construct of our own social relations.Did the Romans themselves see penetration as only a dominant act，or do we see any indication in their literature that they recognize the possibility that there is a reciprocity and power exchange that occurs in the penetrative act？If the latter，that would suggest that Roman sexuality can not be reduced to a single system or even to a dominant system，but that it exists within a discourse in which the subordinate members can coopt the very means of their op/suppression to reclaim some agency for themselves at the expense of the elite/dominant class.Let us take as our case study the Carmina Priapea，the penetrative text par excellence，and see whether these poems are restricted to the penetrative model or if they offer multiple discourses of sexuality.

THE CARMINA PRIAPEA AND TWO MODES OF PENETRATION

（A）The Priapic Pose

The primary reading of the Carmina Priapea follows the so-called “Priapic Pose” in which the elite Roman male uses aggression，whether physical，sexual，rhetorical，or other，to create and enforce social and hierarchical norms：the afflicted “other” learns his or her place in the hierarchy，and sexual threat is one of the most vivid means of asserting this control.[14]

The poems of the Carmina Priapea（CP）quickly establish Priapus as a guardian god who uses sexual threat to protect gardens against thieves and to maintain the proper social order.In three “programmatic” poems，CP 13，22，and 74，the god outlines his primary threats：

Percidere，puer，moneo！futuere，puella！

barbatum furem tertia poena manet！[15]CP 13

You will be rammed through，boy，I warn！you will be fucked，girl！

a third penalty awaits a bearded thief！

Variations on these threats-often vividly detailed-maintain the social order，offering punishment for thieves（men or women who violate the legal order），cinaedi（men who violate the social-sexual order），and lustful older women（women who violate the social-sexual order）.Each “class” has its own appropriate and shameful penalty：anal rape for boys（pedicatio），vaginal rape for girls and young women（fututio），oral rape for adult men（irrumatio），and verbal abuse for lustful older women.The male categories may overlap，especially when multiple penalties are necessary.

Pedicabere，fur，semel；sed idem

si prensus fueris bis，irrumabo.

Et si tertia furta molieris，

ut poenam patiare et hanc et illam，

pedicaberis irrumaberisque！CP 35

You will be anally raped，thief，the first time；but if—the same man！—

you will have been caught a second time，I will orally rape you.

And if you will attempt a third theft，

so that you may suffer both the first and the second penalty，

you will be anally raped and orally raped！

These threats may include extreme violence，as at CP 52 where the poem threatens to bring a donkey to rape a thief and CP 6 in which Priapus threatens：

Totamque hanc sine fraude，quantacumque est，

tormento citharaque tensiorem

ad costam tibi septimam recondam！6.4-6

I will plant this whole thing，no lie，as big as it is，

tauter than a catapult and a guitar-string，

all the way up to your seventh rib！

Cinaedi，the sexually transgressive male，receive explicit treatment in three places：poems 25，45，and 46.The cinaedus is presumed to enjoy Priapus's normal penalties，so the god must take a different approach to reinforce social norms.The most striking example is CP 45.

Cum quendam rigidus deus videret

ferventi caput ustulare ferro，

ut Maurae similis foret puellae，

“Heus”，inquit，“tibi dicimus，cinaede，

uras te licet usque torqueasque，

num tandem prior es puella，quaeso，

quam sunt mentula quos habet capilli？”

When the rigid god saw a certain man

Scorching his head with a hot iron，

So that he would be like a Moorish girl，

He said，“Hey，we’re talking to you，cinaedus！

Although you burn yourself and curl yourself，

You still surely aren’t better than a girl，

When you’ve got the same hairstyle that your dick has？

Elderly women，on the other hand，violate the social order by seeking out sexual contact，figuring themselves as active sexual subjects when，in the Roman schema，they should remain objects.As a result，their penalty is reversed：verbal abuse reverts them to objects while they are denied the sexual fulfillment they sought. For example，CP 12 where the Priapus statue insults the anatomy of a sexually active old woman：[16]

Quaedam iunior Hectoris parente，

Cumaeae soror，ut puto，Sibyllae，

aequalis tibi，quam domum revertens

Theseus repperit in rogo iacentem，

infirmo solet huc gradu venire

rugosasque manus ad astra tollens，

ne disit sibi mentula rogare.

Hesterna quoque luce dum precatur，

dentem de tribus exreavit unum.

“Tolle” inquam “procul ac iube latere

scissa sub tunica stolaque russa，

ut semper solet，et timere lucem，

qui tanto patet indecens hiatu，

barbato macer eminente naso，

ut credas Epicuron oscitari.”

A certain woman，“younger” than Hector's mother，

A sister，I think，to the Cumaean Sibyl，

Equal in age to you，whom，when he was coming home，

Theseus found lying on a funeral pyre，

Is accustomed to come with her sickly step

And，lifting up her wrinkled hands to the stars，

To ask that a dick not fail her.

Yesterday too，while she was praying，

She spat out one of her three teeth.

“Take it far away，” I say，“and tell it to hide

under your torn dress and red jacket，

as it is always accustomed to do，and to fear the light，

that indecent tooth，which lies exposed in so great a gape，

slender，with its bearded nose projecting

so that you would believe it was Epicuros yawning.”

Riddles comprise the final class of poems.These riddles challenge the reader to decode a message from Priapus which，once decoded，implicates the reader in an act of self-penetration or self-shaming.In this way，the god（not to mention the author）establishes his primacy over the reader，using the reader's own gaze against him.

ED si scribas temonemque insuper addas，

aui medium vult te scindere pictus erit.CP 54

If you write an “E” and a “D” and add a bar on top，

What wants to cleave you down the middle will be drawn.

This，in brief，is the so-called Priapic pose：the use of sexual humor，sexual threat，invective，mockery，and verbal abuse to create normative versions of masculinity—the active，penetrative，abusivevir—by providing an example of that masculinity（with which the reader is assumed to identify）while also degrading all deviance from the ideal.

（B）Reading An Alternate Mode

Niklas Holzberg offered an alternative reading in 2005[17] in which he read through the poems of the Carmina Priapea as if they were an erotic novel.In this reading，the main figure of Priapus transforms gradually from a potent god of sexuality to an impotent joke.When the poet seemingly identifies himself with the figure of Priapus in the final poem，Holzberg reads a metapoetic statement about the ultimate potency of seemingly small verse.Holzberg's reading is ingenious，and it opens up the possibility that the poet（or poet-redactor）of the CP has arranged the poems with an eye toward undermining the initial “Priapic Pose” in favor of alternate readings.Certainly it calls for further readings of the CP that consider the text's commentary on Roman modes of sexuality.

It is just such a further reading that I offer here.While the CP draws in the elite male reader，the vir，by offering him the soothingly simple Priapic pose with which he can identify and in which he can take comfort，at the same time it allows the subordinate classes，male and female，to reclaim being penetrated，to turn it from a passive experience to an aggressive act and in so doing subvert the elite ideal of Roman masculinity.Indeed，beneath its hypermasculine pose，the CP unmasks the inherently reciprocal nature of penetration and reveals a deep-seated masculine fear of debilitation，of weakening，or even castration by the vagina vorax，an organ which maps not just onto the vagina itself but onto any orifice，be it a man's，boy's，or even an animal's.[18]In the following，I follow Holzberg by offering a basically linear reading of the CP，[19]but in contrast to his metapoetic reading，I show how the CP exploits the deep undercurrent of sexual anxiety that plagues the vir in order to provide a space for the non-vir to subvert the sexual threats and achieve a kind of dominance.

The collection begins with a double introduction：both CP 1 and CP 2 serve as proems to the book as a whole.In these two poems we see the central concern of the poet：the collision of the female sex with the male member.

Non soror hoc habitat Phoebi，non Vesta sacello

nec quae de patrio vertice nata dea est，

sed ruber hortorum custos，membrosior aequo，

qui tectum nullis vestibus inguen habet.

Aut igitur tunicam parti praetende tegendae

aut quibus hanc oculis aspicis ista lege. CP 1.3-8

Phoebus's sister does not dwell in this shrine，nor does Vesta

nor the goddess who was born from her father's head，

but the ruddy guardian of gardens，who has a larger-than-average

member，

and does not keep his crotch covered by any clothing.

So either pull a tunic over the part that ought to be covered

or read on these with the same eyes with which you look at this ［part］.

Nec Musas tamen，ut solent poetae，

ad non virgineum locum vocavi.

Nam sensus mihi corque defuisset

castas，Pierium chorum，Sorores

auso ducere mentulam ad Priapi. CP 2.4-8

I have not called the Muses，as poets normally do，

to this place unfit for maidens.

For the idea of it ［sensus］ and courage failed me

that I should dare to draw the chorus of the Pierides，the chaste Sisters

to Priapus's dick.

On the one hand，these introductions on the part of the poet set the stage for the Priapic pose：the following poems are not appropriate for women who are castae，that is，non-deviant，acting within prescribed social bounds.And yet，they also leave open a second possibility，that the poet fears the power of the female to censure the male.What does it mean for the poet not to dare to bring the Muses to Priapus and specifically to his phallus？Is it really the Muses who lose out in this scenario？In fact，the poems show a constant fear of inadequacy and an awareness of the danger of being swallowed by the other.Note the move from CP 3 to CP 5.After eight lines of circumlocution，Priapus finally states：“Simplicius multo est：‘da pedicare’ Latine/dicere”（CP 3.9-10）.“It is much simpler to say in plain Latin，‘Let me anally rape you’！”That the plain speech follows the lengthy periphrasis is，of course，the joke，but CP 5，which again deals with a boy on the receiving end of Priapus's attention，quite literally “beats around the bush”：

“quod meus hortus habet sumas impune licebit，

si dederis nobis quod tuus hortus habet.”CP 5.3-4

What my garden has I will let you take with impunity，

if you will first give me what your garden has.

This seems to reveal an anxiety about the penetrative act and a reticence on Priapus's part to name it directly—an upwelling，perhaps，of the Freudian fear of the receiving orifice.Indeed，CP 8 directly addresses this fear in its own way.

Matronae procul hinc abite castae：

turpe est vos legere impudica verba！

Non assis faciunt euntque recta！

Nimirum sapiunt videntque magnam

matronae quoque mentulam libenter. CP 8

Matrons，go far away from here，if you are chaste：

It is deeply inappropriate for you to read immodest words！

They don’t care a bit and they go right on！

No wonder—they have good taste and matrons too

gladly look at a big dick.

On its surface，this poem warns matrons off because they will be debased by Priapus's phallus—a clear use of the “Priapic pose”—but there is an undercurrent.Matrons are matrons because they have taken a phallus，have mastered the social relationship of “upright wife and（perhaps）mother，” and have gained in social status from it.That is，they have derived social power from absorbing the phallus，as opposed to the prostitute，who is socially debased by penetration.So the warning Priapus gives them is ambivalent：his phallus may be able to debase them，but they also stand outside his penetrative system（i.e.，those who are sexually deviant）and so they may in fact absorb and depower him. One notes that Roman brides，before their wedding，ritually sat upon the phallus of statues of Mutunus Tutunus，a god strongly associated with Priapus.[20]The matron，therefore，is characterized by absorbing the phallus and reworking it into her own identity.This anxiety resurfaces in CP 10 in which a girl，observing a crudely hacked wooden statue of Priapus，laughs.Priapus admits that he was not made by any of the great artists of antiquity，no Praxitiles，Scopas，or Phidias，but by a simple farm foreman，concluding：

Spectas me tamen et subinde rides：

nimirum tibi salsa videtur

adstans inguinibus columna nostris！CP 10.6-8

You glance at me still and immediately laugh：

of course it seems funny to you，

the column standing on my loins！

The girl，like the matron，stands outside the Priapic power structure：she is not deviant，and so she deflates the statue's threat，rendering it merely a piece of poorly carved wood.We might imagine that the “statue” is a segment of a log in which the end of a branch has been repurposed for a phallus.The girl's laughter unmasks the fiction and unmans the wood.

CP 11 follows immediately after with the rather loud assertion that Priapus's phallus is larger than any possible orifice—much larger，in fact.

traiectus conto sic extendere pedali

ut culum rugam non habuisse putes. CP 11.3-4

When you have been pierced by this foot-long beam，you will be so stretched out

that you will think your asshole didn’t have a wrinkle.

Poems 17，18，and 31 follow in similar fashion.Where CP 11，17，and 31 mark the orifice as an anus，CP 18 employs a vagina.

Commoditas haec est in nostro maxima pene

laxa quod esse mihi femina nulla potest！CP 18

This is the greatest comfort in my penis

that for me no woman is able to be loose！

In each of these，the protest-seemingly unmotivated in CP 17 and 18-shows an anxiety on Priapus's part that his phallus might be swallowed，“made less” in Paglia's terms，by the orifice.It is especially interesting that the first of these assertions of size（CP 11）follows immediately after the girl symbolically unmans Priapus in CP 10.The poems that follow immediately after the first and last of Priapus's size-related assertions，CP 12 and 32，drive home the truth of Priapus's anxiety.The Priapic pose reading takes CP 12，quoted in full above，as a clear instance of misogyny directed at older women by an idealized，hypermasculine narrator.It reveals a male disgust at intercourse with a woman whose age renders her unattractive to him.If，however，we look at the context of the poem，we notice that it is Priapus who is on the defensive：he cannot claim that he is not erect（cf. CP 10），as that would unman him；he cannot claim to be aroused or to intend to rape her，because that would play into her hands，making him the subordinate member and inverting the social order；he cannot run away because he is a statue.So Priapus must resort to verbal abuse and hope that he is able to drive the woman away.（It is worth noting that the poem stops short of telling us whether he was successful.）This reveals Priapus's ultimate powerlessness in the face of mature female sexuality.It also suggests a re-reading of CP 8 and the warning to matrons not to approach：matrons may be mature women of any age，and so the warning may in fact reflect Priapus's fear of women and of Woman.The elderly woman here，then，represents（or simply is）a matron using her sexual powers in a way that inverts Priapus's penetration：the vagina vorax turning penetration passive.

Continuing with that theme，the next cycle of poems，CP 13，22，74，to which we might add 35 and 46，are the programmatic poems，those that specify the threats Priapus offers to men，boys，and girls/women.CP 13 is quoted above，but we might also consider CP 22：

Femina si furtum faciet mihi virve puerve，

haec cunnum，caput hic praebeat，ille nates！

If a woman will make a theft from me or a man or a boy，

she will give me her cunt，he his head，and the last his

buttocks！

In these programmatic poems women are referred to either as “femina”（unmarked “woman”）or “puella”（either “girl” or the usual term in Latin love poetry for a young，sexually attractive woman in an affair）.The matron and the old woman are noticeable omitted，by their absence revealing an anxiety with penetration in which the elite male is not in immediate control.To this we might compare the CP's treatment of the prostitute.

Nota Suburanas inter Telethusa puellas，

quae，puto，de quaestu libera facta suo est，

cingit inaurata penem tibi，sancte，corona.

Hunc pathicae summi numinis instar habent.CP 40

Telethusa，well-known among the girls of the Subura，

who，I think，was made free by her own earnings，

encircles your penis，holy one，with a golden crown.

Receptive women have this as their highest divinity.

The prostitute Telethusa actively worships Priapus.She is so skilled at her job that she was able to buy her freedom from her own earnings，and in response “encircles” Priapus's penis with a golden crown.This is again symbolic of thevagina vorax，which devours the phallus for its own purposes，to its own end（buying her freedom），not for the sake of the phallus.Again in CP 50 the crown stands for the devouring orifice.

Quaedam si placet hoc tibi，Priape，

fucosissima me puella ludit

et nec dat mihi nec negat daturam：

causas invenit usque differendi！

Quae si contigerit fruenda nobis，

totam comparibus，Priape，nostris

cingemus tibi mentulam cornis！

If it please you，Priapus，a certain

very deceitful girl is mocking me

and she neither gives nor says that she will not give：

she continually finds reasons for putting it off！

But if it should happen that I enjoy her，

we will encircle your whole dick，Priapus，

with our own equal crowns！

Here the woman is clearly in control of the situation sexually，taking the active role and reducing the speaker of the poem to the effeminate，passive position.If the speaker can enjoy his girlfriend，he promises to encircle Priapus's whole phallus with a crown. The word placement emphasizes the “whole”（totam），the complete swallowing of Priapus's phallus by crowns placed by a man and woman who would then be of equal（comparibus）status.That is，the speaker is praying to Priapus not to achieve dominance over his girlfriend，but rather equality in sexual intercourse-a distinctly unPriapic sentiment-which he will then celebrate by symbolically swallowing Priapus's phallus，an act which，as in the case of the elderly women，Priapus cannot avoid as he is eternally erect.

The impotence of his erection does not altogether escape Priapus.At CP 23，Priapus himself prays that male thieves will impale themselves on his phallus and “usque mentulaque/nequiquam sibi pulset umbilicum”（His dick will in vain beat continuously against his navel）（CP 23.5-6）.The navel represents another kind of vagina vorax，the fulfillment of which the man lacks，and so is cursed forever to be erect but unable to satisfy his own urges.The poem reveals that an erect phallus relies on another's orifice to relieve it：by itself it is impotent.The curse quickly reminds one of Priapus himself，as will become increasingly clear over the course of the poems.

At CP 25 the narrative turns to the cinaedi，the sexually transgressive males，who are problematic in a way similar to the old women：cinaedi desire the phallus and so threaten to absorb it.They are not deterred by its threat.Priapus uses the figure of the cinaedus as its own deterrent.He threatens thieves with anal rape but notes in passing that some men enjoy the threat.His reference to cinaedi is an attempt to add a second layer to his threat：any thief who is brave enough to enter Priapus's garden would，according to this formulation，be showing not that he is manly enough to penetrate the garden despite all dangers but rather that he is so deviant as to seek out pathic penetration.At the same time，the brief reference hides a growing concern that undermines CP 11，17，and 31：that Priapus's aggressive penetration is not an act he perpetrates on others but one that others take from him.We see the hidden concern take shape immediately in CP 26.

Porro—nam quis erit modus？—Quirites，

aut praecidite seminale membrum

quod totis mihi noctibus fatigant

vicinae sine fine prurientes，

vernis passeribus salaciores，

aut rumpar nec habebitis Priapum！

Ipsi cernitis ecfututus ut sim

confectusque macerque pallidusque，

qui，quondam ruber et valens，solebam

fures caedere quamlibet valentes.

Defecit latus et periculosam

cum tussi，miser，expuo salivam！CP 26

Right away—for what moderation will be there be？—citizens，

either cut off my seminal member

which all night long the neighborhood women

（endlessly aroused）wear out，

or I will be broken and you will not have a Priapus！

You yourselves see that I am fucked out，

and worn out and emaciated and pale，

I who，once red and healthy，was accustomed

to rodger thieves，however healthy they might be.

My strength has failed and with a cough

I wretchedly spit out dangerous phlegm.

Priapus has been unmanned by excessive penetration and the only cure he can see is，paradoxically，to remove his phallus，that is，castration is less unmanning than continued penetration.Both have the same result，the weakening and absence of the penis，but the preference for castration shows that Priapus's real anxiety is a loss of his phallic power to the vagina vorax：being rendered submissive through the very penetrative act.That this penetration occurs at night suggests a further reading：the neighborhood women who are wearing him out may in fact be the elderly women of CP 12 and 31（Priapus's self-description is remarkably similar to the description he will give of the woman at CP 31）.Night is also the time for thieves，who also make another appearance here：no longer can he penetrate them，but as we learned in the previous poem，they may still come，as cinaedi，to devour his phallus.

Moving for the moment from thieves to prostitutes，we see how another subordinate class might retake and remake the power of penetration.CP 40，described above，offers the least overt reading.Clearer are CP 27 and 34.

Deliciae pouli，Magno notissima Circo，

Quinita，vibratas docta movere nates，

cymbala cum crotalis，pruriginis arma，Priapo

ponit et adducta tympana pulsa manu.

Pro quibus，ut semper placeat spectantibus orat

tentaque ad exemplum sit sua turba dei.

The delight of the people，most well known in the Great Circus，

Quintia，skilled at shaking her quivering buttocks，

dedicates her cymbals with her castanets，the arms of lust，to Priapus

and also the drums which she once beat with the rapping of her hand.

In exchange for which，she prays that she will always please her spectators

and that her crowd will be taut just like the god.

The Priapic pose would read this poem as an example of the scopophilic phallocentric male gaze determining Quintia's role as a sexual dancer，and yet Quintia is controlling an entire circus of specators，drawing the gaze through the “pruriginis arma，” the “arms of lust.”She is figured as a soldier，having coopted the penetrative power of sword through the vagina vorax（here evident in her “nates”）.Similarly CP 34 goes：

Cum sacrum fieret deo salaci

conducta est pretio puella parvo

communis satis omnibus futura.

Quae quot nocte viros peregit una

tot verpas tibi dedicat salignas. CP 34

When a sacred rite was being held for the salacious god

a girl was brought in at a small price，

who was to be shared，enough for everyone.

And，as many men as she finished off in one night，

so many willow-wood dicks she dedicates to you.

In terms of CP 27 and 40 it is easier now，to see that this，too，has a double reading.While the Priapic pose would see a prostitute used by a group of men for a ritual，a closer look notes that the men are absent from the poem except obliquely（omnibus）and as objects（grammatical and literal）.The only agent and actor in the poem is the prostitute，who both “finished off” the men and now has metaphorically taken their phalluses-one for each man，to dedicate to “you，” a god whom we presume to be Priapus（but who，like the men，is unnamed）.The rites of Priapus have been reversed，rendering the woman the agent and the men symbolically castrated.

Poems 51-58 form a clear cycle.The first six，CP 51-56，center around thieves and cinaedi stealing from Priapus.CP 51 refigures the thieves as cinaedi：they knowingly pass by richer gardens to steal from Priapus's garden specifically because they enjoy the penalty（anal rape）Priapus threatens：

Nimirum apertam convolatis ad poenam

hoc vos et ipsum quod minamur invitat！CP 51.27-28

No wonder you fly toward open penalty：

This very thing which we threaten calls you in！

The intent is to shame the thieves，claiming that they，presumably real viri，are by their very thefts expressing sexual deviance.Looking a little more closely，we see that Priapus is in fact expressing his impotence：despite all his blustering threats he is unable to prevent the thieves from their thefts.Likewise，if his claims are true，he has equally refigured the cinaedus into a thief：the cinaedus steals not because he is naturally a thief but because he wishes to steal the penalty from Priapus as well.So what，in truth，is the cinaedus stealing？CP 55 makes the point quite clearly.The cinaedus is stealing Priapus's sickle（falx），the metaphorical phallus with which he impales interlopers.

Credere quis possit？Falcem quoque-turpe fateri！—

de digitis fures subripuere meis！

Nec movet amissi tam me iactura pudorque

quam praebent iustos altera tela metus：

quae si perdidero，patria mutabor et olim

ille tuus civis，Lampsace，Gallus ero！CP 55

Who would be able to believe it？My sickle，too，—shameful to admit！—

right out of my fingers thieves have stolen away！

The loss and shame of what is gone does not move me so much

as my other weapons give ［me］ real fears：

for if I should lose them，I will change my nationality，and I who

was once your citizen，Lampsacus，will become a Gallus！

The wordplay here depends on the homonyms “Gallus，” a citizen of Gaul，and “gallus，” a eunuch priest who castrates himself to honor Cybele，the Great Mother.[21]The sickle stands in quite explicitly for the phallus：just as the cinaedi/thieves have taken one by theft，they may，by their active orifices，take the other as well.We are reminded of Priapus's anxiety at CP 26 and begin to wonder how many of the vicinae who came at night were not merely neighborhood women but also vicini cinaedi. And indeed we meet another of those vicinae in CP 57，the elderly woman who appeals to Priapus in the night seeking out sexual gratification.The poem is reminiscent of CP 12 beginning with a misogynistic description of the woman's appearance like a corpse（“a crow and decay and an old grave，made noisome with the crowd of centuries” ll. 1-2），a reference to her age in mythological terms（“could have been the wet nurse to Tithonus and Priam and Nestor if she hadn’t already been too old” ll. 3-5）and then reprises the earlier prayer：“asks me that a fucker not be missing for her”（l. 6）.Priapus，fresh off his symbolic castration，must make good his virility in any way he can，so in this instance he responds differently：

Quid，si nunc roget ut puella fiat？

Si nummos tamen haec habet，puella est！CP 57.7-8

So what if now she should ask that she be a girl/mistress？

Indeed，if she has money，then sheis a girl/mistress！

Priapus shows that he is ready to perform，but he has also become a male prostitute trading sexual intercourse for money.This puts the old woman in the position of social determiner and Priapus in the role of the used object：his penetration has become passive in the face of the Mother figure.Poem 58 then brings Priapus's symbolic castration to completion.

Quicumque nostram fur fefellerit curam

effeminato verminet procul culo

quaeque hic proterva carpserit manu poma

puella，nullum reperiat fututorem. CP 58

Whatever thief should deceive my watch，

may he itch in an anus that longs for a woman's part but from a distance，

and any over-bold woman who should pluck with her hand the apples here，

though she be a puella，let her find no fucker.

He curses a male thief to desire anal penetration and a girl to desire vaginal penetration but for neither to find it.This is a far cry from his programmatic pieces in which he threatens just such penetration on both，revealing now that the penetration in CP 57 has made him fully impotent.The punishment he imagines is an inability for those orifices to steal any further virility.

Poem 63 further explores the idea of the woman-as-agent and male-as-object.

Ad hanc puella—paene nomen adieci—

solet venire cum suo futurore；

quae tot figuris quot Philaenis enarrat

novisque iunctis puriosa discedit. CP 63.15-18

To this ［phallus］ a girl—I almost said her name-

is accustomed to come with her fucker；

and she，having tried out as many positions as Philaenis describes

and with new ones added in，departs still itching for more.

The puella is clearly the agent here，bringing her lover to Priapus，presumably to restore the virility that her voracious love-making has sapped.They try out the positions in Philaenis's love manual，a kind of ancient Kama Sutra，and she departs pruriosa（itching for more），which indicates that she has greater sexual powers than either of the males in the scene：lover or god.

Of course，these are not the only visitors Priapus has in the night.CP 70 reveals that the neighborhood dogs（vicini canes in Callebat's edition，though many manuscripts read vicinae，making the dogs feminine）come in the night to lick the offerings from Priapus's phallus.The god is non-plussed and attempts to assert control by joking that if the local people do not stop the dogs from licking his phallus，then the dogs will，technically，all be irrumati，i.e.，they will have suffered oral rape from him.The poem gives the lie to Priapus's agency.He is unable to prevent the dogs from using him as an object，and in his attempt to refigure their voracious appetite as a kind of penetration（recall the vagina vorax），he fails utterly.The epithet given the dogs，vicini or vicinae，again recalls the neighborhood women of CP 26 and the thieves/cinaedi of CP 51-58.In a rather clear way，the poem challenges the Priapic pose，the idea that penetration is active and empowering，providing us with an alternative，passive version.

CP 73 brings this alternate，passive penetration out of metaphor into the literal.

Obliquis quid me，pathicae，spectatis ocellis？

Non stat in inguinibus mentula tenta meis.

Quae tamen exanimis nunc est et inutile lignum，

utilis haec，aram si dederitis，erit！CP 73

Why do you look at me from the corner of your eyes，pathic

women？

A dick does not stand at attention on my loins.

Yet what is at this moment lifeless and useless wood，

will be useful，if you will give it an/your altar！

The Priapus statue admits openly that his phallus is，by itself，useless and he invites the women who look upon it to donate their “altar”（read：vagina）to make it useful.The women concerned are occupying their proper social place according to the penetration model of sexuality：they are pathicae，receiving，so they are not deviant.This poem，then，may be taken via the Priapic pose as an attempt to conjure penetration in the women's minds and therefore to rape them verbally，but it also reveals that Priapus cannot be useful，i.e.，active，without direct action by the pathic women.The women must actively receive Priapus，and he must passively be made to penetrate them：his utility is at their discretion.Priapus is now in the same position as the thief in CP 23.

If it is correct to read the possibility of passive penetration in theCarmina Priapea，then we must wonder what happens when the positions are reversed and a woman penetrates a man？Who is active and who is passive？CP 78 offers a perspective：

At di deaeque dentibus tuis escam

negent，amicae cunnilinge vicinae，

per quem puella fortis ante nec mendax，

et quae solebat impigro celer passu

ad nos venire，nunc misella landicae，

vix posse iurat ambulare prae fossis！CP 78

Well，may the gods and goddesses deny your teeth

their food，you cunnilinctor of the neighborhood girl，

on account of whom a girl once bonnie and not at all deceitful

and who with a spring in her step used to

come quick to me，now，poor little thing，

swears that she is barely able to walk due to the rut in her clit！

According to Parker's teratogenic grid，cunnilingus in Roman thought is precisely the equivalent of fellatio，with the sexes reversed：the woman is conceived of as penetrating the mouth of her partner with her clitoris.She is the active partner，while the one providing cunnilingus is the passive.If we follow our current reading of the CP，however，we should expect to see the possibility that the situation too may be reversed：that the “passive” member is the one truly taking action and，through a voracious orifice，sapping the powers of the “active” member.That is precisely the image CP 78 offers：the speaker asks the gods to curse the cunnilinctor，here a man，for the active role he has taken toward the amica. And she，though properly penetrating the man's mouth，has in fact been rendered passive.

The collection ends with a double closing，much like its double opening.CP 79 and 80 reveal an impotent phallus incapable of active penetration.In CP 79 the narrator，in the guise of the poet，comforts Priapus by claiming that the poet's phallus is just as large as Priapus's and so Priapus should feel no shame at his ever-erect member.Poem 80，however，has the poet praying to Priapus because of the insufficient size of his phallus.

At non longa satis，non stat bene mentula crassa，

et quam，si tractes，crescere posse putes？

Me miserum，cupidas fallit mensura puellas.

non habet haec aliud mentula maius eo.

Utilior Tydeus qui，si quid credis Homero，

ingenio pugnax，corpore parvus erat！CP 80.1-3，5-6

Well，the dick is not long enough and is not very thick

and，if you tugged on it，how would you think that it could

grow？

Woe is me，its size cheats lustful girls.

This dick has nothing more than that.

Tydeus was fairly useful，who，if you believe Homer at all，

was pugnacious in character，but small in body！

We see here a same preoccupation with pleasing puellae that is not a part of the traditional penetration of model of sexuality or of the Priapic pose.In those models，sexual activity is a one-way street：the penetrator takes pleasure out of the sex，the penetrated is an object for that purpose.Here，however，the fundamental ambiguity of penetration，as it has been worked out over the course of the CP，is fully on display：just as the penetrator takes pleasure from the act，so too the penetrated receives，absorbs，and takes the phallus as well.Hence the poet is concerned with his utility to the puella，a word that arose explicitly in CP 73 and which is just as strongly implied in CP 78.

It seems clear from this reading that the Priapic pose is just that，a pose.It includes within it the anxiety of the vagina vorax and is a reaction to the fear that an orifice—any orifice—will swallow the phallus.The Carmina Priapea plays on these dual drives，on the one hand paying lip service to the Priapic pose，the ideal of penetrative，normalizing masculinity，while simultaneously drawing out the inconsistencies and anxieties that undermine that same pose.This allows the poems to draw in readers of all types：the dominant elite male，the subordinate female，and the types considered deviant：cinaedus，prostitute，mistress，pathics of all kinds.It also makes quite explicit the fundamental ambiguity and reciprocity of the sexual act.Idealized Roman masculinity as expressed in masculine，literary texts may choose to drown out that reciprocity to reinforce the pose of dominance that must be the public face of the Roman elite，but in the private bedroom，behind the doors of the domus，we must expect a more fluid construct to obtain.The Carmina Priapea，for all its rough edges，reveals more attitudes toward sexuality than do all the poems of Juvenal or all the epigrams of Martial.

Works Cited：

1. Pike，K. L.Language in Relation to a Unified Theory of the Structure of Human Behavior. 2nded. The Hague and Paris：De Gruyter，1967.

2. Levi-Strauss，C. The Savage Mind（The Nature of Human Societies）. Chicago：The University Of Chicago Press，1985 ［1962］.

3. Lett，James.“Emics and Etics：Notes on the Epistemology of Anthropology.”Emics and Etics：The Insider/Outsider Debate. Frontiers of Anthropology，Volume 7. Ed. by T.N. Headland，K.L. Pike，and M. Harris.Newbury Park，California：Sage Publications，1990.127-142.

4. Parker，Holt. “The Teratogenic Grid.” Roman Sexualities. Ed. by Judith P. Hallett.Princeton：Princeton University Press，1997. 47-65.

5. Tatum，W. Jeffrey.“Social Commentary and Political Invective.”A Companion to Catullus. Ed. by Marilyn B. Skinner. Hoboken：Wiley-Blackwell，2010. 333-353.

6. Walters，Jonathan. “Invading the Roman Body：Manliness and Impenetrability in Roman Thought.” Roman Sexualities. Ed. by Judith P. Hallett.Princeton：Princeton University Press，1997. 29-46.

7. Braund，Susanna Morton.Juvenal：Satires Book I. Cambridge：Cambridge University Press，2002 ［1996］.

8. Mulvey，Laura. “Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema.” Screen 16.3（1975）：6-18.

9. Fredrick，David. “Mapping Penetrability in Late Republic and Early Imperial Rome.”The Roman Gaze：Vision，Power and the Body. Ed. by David Frederick. Baltimore：The Johns Hopkins University Press，2002. 236-264.

10. Bartsch，Shadi.The Mirror of the Self：Sexuality，Self-Knowledge，and the Gaze in the Early Roman Empire. Chicago：University of Chicago Press，2006.

11. Richlin，Amy. The Garden Priapus：Sexuality and Aggression in Roman Humor，revised edition. New York：Oxford University Press，1992.

12. Callebat，Louis and Jean Soubiran.Priap ées. Paris：Les Belles Lettres，2012.

13. Holzberg，Niklas.“Impotence？It Happened to the Best of Them！A Linear Reading of the Corpus Priapeorum. ” Hermes. 133.3（2005）：368-381.

14. H?schele，Regina. “Priape mis en abyme，ou comment clore le recueil.” Le vers du plus nul de po ètes. ..Nouvelle recherches sur les Priap ées. Ed. by F. Biville，E. Plantade，and D. Vallat.Lyons，2008. 53-66.

15. Paglia，Camille. Sexual Personae. New Haven：Yale University Press，1990.

16.“Mutunus Tutunus.”Brill's New Pauly：Encyclopedia of the Ancient World. Leiden and Boston：Brill，2006.

第3章

活着，一件如此幸福的事

中国经典名作鉴赏系列：当代散文鉴赏

中原客的诗等

怎样活最快乐

真情与梦想

白云守端禅师语录

荒域至尊

猜猜我的手指

错惹腹黑上司

荀子的人定胜天

极刑（卫斯理珍藏版）

江阴城守后纪

爱你是我最美的遇见

绾君心：宫女子之昌德宫

漫威世界的主播