The different kinds of “filles de joye” so far particularized were all of them slave-women, but over and above these there were in Rome a large number of Gay Women who carried on their profession entirely on their own account, either merely as a second string to their bow, like the Mimes, Dancers, Harp-girls, Ambubaiae[211], or else as sole aim and object of their lives, in the character of _Scorta nobilia_ (noble whores) or _bonae meretrices_ (good harlots) to use _Plautus’_ expressions. They were all of them foreigners, and generally freed-women[212], and were distinguished not only for their more elaborate dress[213], but also on account of their education, which far and away surpassed that of the Roman ladies. In this respect however they fell short of the level reached by the Greek hetaerae in the best times of Greece, and for this reason never obtained the influence at Rome on the life of the city and of the State which the former possessed at Athens. They were not so much friends (Amicae) as mistresses (Dominae) of their Roman lover, and their relations with him bodily only and not intellectual. For the rest this class yet awaits a _Friedrich Jacobs_ to be its historian. They were either kept by an individual lover, or else gave themselves only to rich admirers at their own private lodgings,[214] that lay _perdu_ far from the bustle of street and market; but no doubt descended, when the time of youth and beauty was over, to the condition of common courtesans or even of mere street-walkers. Just as happened in Greece, immodesty spread not a little among the daughters and wives of the Roman citizens also, and already in the reign of _Germanicus_, _Tacitus_ could report[215]: “Eodem anno gravibus senatus decretis libido feminarum coercita, cautumque ne quaestum corpore faceret, cui avus aut pater aut maritus Eques Romanus fuisset.” (This same year severe decrees of the Senate were passed to restrain unchastity on the part of women, and it was forbidden for any to give her person for hire, whose grandfather, father, or husband had been a Roman knight). So it cannot cause any great surprise to find _Martial_[216] declaring: “Quaero diu totam, Sophroni Rufe, per urbem: Si qua puella neget; nulla puella negat.”