Apart, again, from all these was the large class of persons who traded in prostitutes. The proper name for these wretches was _Leno_ (bawd), which was of both sexes, though usually represented on the stage as a beardless man with shaven head. Under this name quite a number of varieties were included, such as the _Lupanarii_, or keepers of regular houses of ill fame; the _Adductores_ and _Perductores_, pimps; _Conciliatrices_ and _Ancillulæ_, women who negotiated immoral transactions, and others. Then, as almost every baker, tavern-keeper, bath-house-keeper, barber, and perfumer combined the _lenocinium_, or trade in prostitutes, with his other calling, their various names, _tonsor_, _unguentarius_, _balnearius_, &c., became synonymous with _leno_. This miserable class was regarded with the greatest loathing at Rome.[96] This hasty classification of the Roman prostitutes would be incomplete without some notice, however brief, of male prostitutes. Fortunately, the progress of good morals has divested this repulsive theme of its importance; the object of this work can be obtained without entering into details on a branch of the subject which in this country is not likely to require fresh legislative notice. But the reader would form an imperfect idea of the state of morals at Rome were he left in ignorance of the fact that the number of male prostitutes was probably full as large as that of females; that, as in Greece, the degrading phenomenon involved very little disgrace; that all the Roman authors allude to it as a matter of course; that the leading men of the empire were known to be addicted to such habits; that the ædile abstained from interference, save where a Roman youth suffered violence; and that, to judge from the language of the writers of the first, second, and third centuries of the Christian era, the Romans, like some Asiatic races, appeared to give the preference to unnatural lusts.[97] HOUSES OF PROSTITUTION. Having examined the laws which governed prostitution at Rome, and the classes into which prostitutes were divided, it is now requisite to glance at the establishments in which prostitution was carried on. M. Dufour and others have followed Publius Victor and Sextus Rufus in supposing that during the Augustine age there were forty-six first-class houses of ill fame at Rome, and a much larger number of establishments where prostitution was carried on without the supervision of the ædile. As it is now generally admitted that the works bearing the name of Publius Victor and Sextus Rufus are forgeries of comparatively recent date, the statement loses all claim to credit, and we are left without statistical information as to the number of houses of prostitution at Rome.[98]