Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
Brothel
Sarah Levin-Richardson
SARAH L E V I N - RI CH ARDSON
Phoebus / bonus futor (Phoebus is a good fukr, CIL IV 2248, Add. 215);
Froto plane / lingit cun/num (Froto openly licks cunt, CIL IV 2257); Mur-
tis • felatris (Murtis is a blow-job babe, CIL IV 2292). Long overlooked
by scholarship as obscene recordings of sexual encounters, the 135 graf-
fiti of the ‘purpose-built’ brothel at Pompeii (VII 12 18–20; CIL IV
2173–96 and 3101a; Add. 215–6 and Add. 465) form a rich corpus
that illuminates daily interactions among clients and prostitutes in the
Roman world.1 In this paper, I demonstrate through these graffiti the
multiple ways in which male clients, individually and collectively, negoti-
ated male sexuality. Specifically, I analyze how male clients both created
a hierarchy among themselves and solidified communal, normative mas-
culinity in opposition to nonnormative males and marginalized females.
I. Introduction
In the past fifteen years, the graffiti of the ‘purpose-built’ brothel (here-
after referred to simply as the brothel) have entered the scholarly arena,
usually as part of works devoted to surveying or analyzing erotic graffiti
at Pompeii. For example, some of the brothel’s sexual graffiti were treated
by Antonio Varone’s Erotica pompeiana: Iscrizioni d’amore sui muri di Pompei
(1994; translated into English in 2002 as Erotica pompeiana: Love Inscrip-
tions on the Walls of Pompeii). Varone surveys a wide range of erotic and love
graffiti from all over Pompeii, grouping them into motifs like “Preghiere
d’amore” and “L’arma d’amore.” Through this typology, Varone draws out
common themes in a diverse body of material. Francesco Paolo Maulucci
Vivolo’s Pompei: I graffiti d’amore (1995) presents samples of erotic graffiti
from Pompeii, including some from the brothel, evoking how prolific this
type of graffiti was. Taking a more analytic approach, Matthew Panciera’s
dissertation, “Sexual Practice and Invective in Martial and Pompeian
Inscriptions” (2001), compares the different meanings and implications of
sexual practices in the corpus of Martial’s epigrams and Pompeii’s graffiti.
2286). Many are of Greek origin, such as Phoebus (CIL IV 2182; CIL IV
2184, Add. 215; CIL IV 2194; CIL IV 2207; CIL IV 2248, Add. 215),
Hyginus (CIL IV 2249, Add. 215), and Hermeros (CIL IV 2249, Add.
215). The graffiti also contain the titles of a perfumer (unguentarius: CIL
IV 2184, Add. 215), one or two soldiers (castrensis: CIL IV 2180; CIL IV
2290), and a guild-member (sodalis: CIL IV 2230).6 Based on the types
of names and professions, many of the males at the brothel were most
likely of lower status (slaves, freedmen, and the free poor),7 perhaps
reflecting that others had the financial means to satisfy their sexual urges
with their male and female slaves at home.8
Many of the female names likewise suggest lower status. Some are of
Greek origin, such as Nica Creteissiane (Nica from Crete, CIL IV 2178a;
see also CIL IV 2278) and Panta (CIL IV 2178b). Others have an ironic
or descriptive character typical of slaves, such as Fortunata (CIL IV
2224; CIL IV 2259; CIL IV 2266; CIL IV 2275) and Victoria (CIL IV
2225; CIL IV 2226; CIL IV 2257).9
Many of the brothel’s graffiti rely on a vocabulary of sexually explicit
terms.10 Futuere and binei`n most often describe male-female vaginal inter-
course, although they could encompass male-male anal sex as well. Pedi-
care and irrumare refer to the penetration of the anus and mouth,
respectively; the latter often involves an element of force and aggression.
Fellare and cunnum lingere describe oral sex performed respectively on a
male and female. As Amy Richlin (1992, 1–31, 64–5) explains, these
terms were considered primary obscenities by the standards of Roman
culture and can be found only in particular authors and genres.
In Latin literature, sexual obscenities were deployed most often in
invective that diminished the standing of the impugned party and sec-
ondarily in boasts that increased the standing of the subject. Indeed,
Richlin (1992) and David Wray (2001) have argued that violence and
aggression were often key elements in how sexual obscenities were
employed in Latin invective, and as is commonly known, their use relied
on the ways in which Romans conceptualized different sexual acts.11
First, the moral implications of penetration differed for the penetrator
and the penetrated. The act of penetration was seen as (1) normative for
free males, (2) a masculine act, and (3) honorable. Being penetrated was
seen as (1) normative for females and slaves, (2) an effeminate or servile
act, and (3) shameful. That being penetrated was simultaneously nor-
mative and shameful for females is an important component of the
analysis in the latter half of this article. Sexual acts were also judged
according to the potential for them to pollute the participants. As such,
62 HELIOS
Thus, even poems of Catullus that appear on the surface to discuss the
narrator’s relationship with women (especially Lesbia) were overwhelm-
ingly about the performative display of manhood for other men. In these
poems, the woman “serves as a coin of exchange passed between the
sender and receiver of the poem, both adult males . . .” (2001, 72–3).
In the brothel, boasts were not addressed to a specific male rival, but
R were proclamations meant to be read (aloud) by anyone and everyone.
L E V I N - RI CH ARDS ON—Facilis hic futuit 67
2254, Add. 216).30 Batacarus, as the one handing over the money, must
have been a client at the brothel. The graffito-writer, then, used this graf-
fito to portray Batacarus as a penetrated (and therefore emasculated)
male. A sketched phallus at the beginning of the graffito may have added
an element of violence and aggression, turning the graffito into a poten-
tial threat. In addition, prominence is given to the name of the impugned
party—Batacarus is the first word of the second line—rather than to the
name of the writer, who is anonymous. Indeed, the first-person perspec-
tive of the graffito allowed every reader to become the masculine pene-
trator, and reinforced the superior status of the reader(s) vis-à-vis the
penetrated Batacarus.31 The collective quality of this statement is an
important aspect of how masculinity was defined in the brothel.
Another emasculating, potentially violent graffito occurs in the frag-
mentary irrumo . . . (I face-fuck . . . , CIL IV 2277). Unfortunately, only a
few letters can be discerned in the latter part of the graffito, making
interpretation difficult. As irrumare often has an element of force behind
it, this graffito may have been a threat against a male or female prosti-
tute, or perhaps another male client. It is impossible to determine which
of the aforementioned scenarios might be correct, but if the graffito
named a male sexual object, it would effectively render that male both
penetrated and polluted. In addition, as in the previous graffito, the first-
person verb form would have made any and all readers the subject of the
sentence. By voicing the graffito out loud, a reader would have affirmed
his virile masculinity.
The last instance of defamation, unlike the first two, lacks an element
of aggression. The graffito claims, Froto plane / lingit cun/num (Froto clearly
licks cunt, CIL IV 2257).32 This attack against “Froto” (= Fronto) calls
into question his status as a penetrating male; indeed, cunnum lingere was
often conceptualized as penetration of the mouth (Parker 1997, 51–2).
Furthermore, this graffito calls attention to Fronto’s polluted status and
implies that Fronto has no shame, since he has made no secret of his cun-
num lingere.33
Unlike the boasts seen above, sexuality in these graffiti is presented as
a zero-sum game in which the degradation of one male leads to the
responsive elevation in masculine sexuality of another. In these graffiti,
however, it is not simply one male client who can benefit at the expense
of Batacarus, Fronto, or whoever was the object of irrumare in CIL IV
2277. Rather, the lack of named accusers allows any, and potentially
every, male to rise in status compared to Batacarus and Fronto. Batacarus
and Fronto become the ‘fall guys’ against whom the rest of the clients
70 HELIOS
unite, and in the process, the rest of the clients reaffirm their own nor-
mative male sexuality.
These defamatory graffiti seem to take the shape of a triangle, with
a male writer communicating with a male reader through a male object
of derision (see figure 2a); however, the alignment of the writer’s and
reader’s interests against a mutual ideological Other draws these two
poles of the triangle together (see figure 2b). Moreover, the ways in
which this dialogue invited all male clients to participate through first-
person boasts resulted in a structure amassing normative male clients at
the top of a now-vertical line, with Fronto, Batacarus, and any other pen-
etrated or polluted males at the bottom (see figure 2c). This structure in
many ways parallels Freud’s A-B-C model of humor, which Richlin
(1992) has shown is appropriate to the context of Roman sexual humor.
In Freud’s model, A tells a joke about B to C, thus drawing A and C
closer together (Richlin 1992, 60–1). Indeed, as Richlin explains, “All
join together in laughing at B . . . The more pertinent a victim B is—the
greater the number of Cs who are normally vexed by such a B—the
R
L E V I N - RI CH ARDS ON—Facilis hic futuit 71
greater the audience’s solidarity” (1992, 61). In both models, the end
result is an increase in group cohesion. In the brothel, moreover, the
structure was reifying, reactive, and zero-sum: the boundaries around
normative and nonnormative male sexuality were strengthened by this
vertical and absolute polarity; to strengthen or solidify one pole was to
do the same, reactively, to the other; and finally, for normative males to
gain, nonnormative males had to lose.
potential doubt that Mola is the penetrated partner in the sexual act, by
having a phallus penetrate her name: Mola (phallus) / . . . (CIL IV 2237,
Add. 215).38 Like the foutou`tri~ graffito, another graffito suggests a cer-
tain promiscuity or pride that seems to go beyond the normal call of
duty: Ias cum Mag/no ubique (Ias with Magnus everywhere, CIL IV 2174)
stresses the frequency with which, or the multitude of locations in which,
Ias has had sexual relations with Magnus. Indeed, by presenting Ias’s
name first, where one would expect the male client’s name (see, e.g., CIL
IV 2209 and CIL IV 2224, discussed above), the graffito shifts the focus
away from Magnus’s normative and acceptable sexual act towards Ias’s
excessive sexuality.
Most of the graffiti with a female subject, however, tie her to the act
of fellatio. These graffiti, then, highlight the prostitute’s condition as
both penetrated and polluted. The barest incarnation, ‘x sucks,’ can be
seen in the following description of Nice: Nice fellat (Nice sucks, CIL IV
2278).39 The same formula was used in two identical graffiti: Fortunata
fellat (Fortunata sucks, CIL IV 2259; CIL IV 2275). Fortunata seems to
reappear, with a shortened or misspelled name, in the graffito Fortuna sic
(Fortuna in this way, CIL IV 2266), which may be a clarification of the
graffito above it in another hand, vere / felas (You truly suk, CIL IV
2266).40
Other graffiti add details that make the portrayal more sexualized.
One graffito, Myrtale / Cassacos / fellas (Myrtale, you suck the Cassaci,
CIL IV 2268), suggests that a prostitute fellated an entire branch of
someone’s family tree!41 Whether or not this graffito might also imply
that Myrtale fellated more than one person at a time, or in rapid succes-
sion, is left to the imagination of the (ancient and modern) reader.
Another graffito on the same wall, Murtale / Ccassi (Murtale [you suck?]
the Ccassi, CIL IV 2271) would probably have been read in light of the
first, thus conveying a similarly sexualized portrayal. Another graffito
enhances the standard formula with an adverb: Murtis • bene / felas (Mur-
tis, you suk well, CIL IV 2273, Add. 216); and another turns the prac-
tice of fellatio into a title: Murtis • felatris (Murtis is a blow-job babe, CIL
IV 2292).42
The graffiti discussed in this section highlight the ‘sexualness’ of
female prostitutes, in part by the prominent placement of the prosti-
tutes’ names and acts, and in part by the elision of sexual partners. In
addition to depicting prostitutes as hypersexual, these graffiti present a
model of female sexuality that stands in marked contrast to the pudicitia
R and verecundia of respectable femininity.43 While male patrons could rein-
L E V I N - RI CH ARDS ON—Facilis hic futuit 73
force their claims to proper masculinity in their boasts, this set of graffiti
would only call attention to prostitutes’ non-adherence to societal norms.
In addition to prostitutes being, by definition, practitioners of disre-
spectable sexuality, these nonnormative depictions of femininity repli-
cated, reinforced, and permanently inscribed prostitutes’ marginalized
social standing.
Furthermore, as with the graffiti concerning penetrated or polluted
males, the sexualized portrayal of female prostitutes was ideologically use-
ful in the brothel’s discourse on masculinity. On the surface, these graf-
fiti seem to take the form of a horizontal line—a communiqué between
graffito writer and prostitute (see figure 3a). This structure is clearest in
the second-person graffiti, such as Murtis • bene / felas (Murtis, you suk
well, CIL IV 2273). When employed in the service of a rhetoric of mas-
culinity, however, the structure takes the form of a vertical line with
female prostitutes at the bottom and normative male clients at the top,
regardless of the original intent or structure of the graffiti (see figure 3b).
More precisely, it is the shame-inducing, communal hypersexuality of the
prostitutes that forms the bottom pole, rather than any individual pros-
titute. Communal masculine identity was solidified by the polarized dis-
tinction propagated by the graffiti between socially respectable (i.e., male
client) and disrespectable (i.e., female prostitute) sexuality.
In sum, even when females were the subjects of the graffiti, they nev-
ertheless filled a symbolic role in a male-dominated discourse. In the end,
female prostitutes were exploited not only sexually, but also ideologically.
V. Final Considerations
These graffiti form the backbone of an interactive discourse in which
masculinity was proclaimed and contested. Boasts about male sexuality
functioned in an atmosphere of rivalry to establish a relative hierarchy
among (normative) male clients, while an oppositional attitude towards
nonnormative males and sexualized females consolidated communal
masculinity and elevated the male clients, through their normativity, to
a superior status. Boasts comprise the majority of this discourse (41 graf-
fiti, plus 30–40 names), contrasting with the preponderance of invective
in the discourse of masculinity seen in Latin literature, and illustrat-
ing the specificity of how masculinity was negotiated in the brothel.
Although the male clients were low-status and consequently had little to
lose in terms of political, economic, or social power, they nevertheless
used the brothel and its graffiti as a competitive arena.44
Works Cited
Adams, J. N. 1982. The Latin Sexual Vocabulary. Baltimore.
Bain, D. 1991. “Six Greek Verbs of Sexual Congress (binw`, kinw`, pugivzw, lhkw`, oi[fw,
laikavzw).” CQ 41: 51–77.
Baird, J., and C. Taylor, eds. 2010. Ancient Graffiti in Context. London.
Beard, M., et al. 1991. Literacy in the Roman World. Journal of Roman Archaeology Sup-
plementary Series, 3. Ann Arbor.
Benefiel, R. R. 2010a. “Dialogues of Ancient Graffiti in the House of Maius Castricius
in Pompeii.” AJA 114: 59–101.
———. 2010b. “Dialogues of Graffiti in the House of the Four Styles at Pompeii (Casa
dei Quattro Stili, I.8.17, 11).” In Baird and Taylor 2010, 20–48.
Bradley, K. R. 1984. Slaves and Masters in the Roman Empire: A Study in Social Control.
Brussels.
Bragantini, I. 1997. “VII 12, 18–20: Lupanare.” In G. P. Carratelli, ed., Pompei: pitture
e mosaici. Volume 7. Rome. 520–39.
Cantarella, E. 1998. Pompei: I volti di amore. Milan.
Clarke, J. R. 1998. Looking at Lovemaking: Constructions of Sexuality in Roman Art
100 B.C.–A.D. 250. Berkeley.
———. 2003. Roman Sex: 100 B.C. to A.D. 250. New York.
Edwards, C. 1993. The Politics of Immorality in Ancient Rome. Cambridge.
Flemming, R. 1999. “Quae Corpore Quaestum Facit: The Sexual Economy of Female
Prostitution in the Roman Empire.” JRS 89: 38–61.
Franklin, J. L., Jr. 1986. “Games and a Lupanar: Prosopography of a Neighborhood in
Ancient Pompeii.” CJ 81: 319–28.
———. 1987. “Pantomimists at Pompeii: Actius Anicetus and His Troupe.” AJP 108:
95–107.
R Hallett, J., and M. Skinner, eds. 1997. Roman Sexualities. Princeton.
L E V I N - RI CH ARDS ON—Facilis hic futuit 75
Notes
1. For the appellation ‘purpose-built,’ and other names for this structure, see
McGinn 2002, 13. I count graffiti co-listed under the same number (e.g., CIL IV
2178a and 2178b) separately, which may result in a slightly higher total number of
graffiti than other scholars’ counts.
2. For other contextual approaches to graffiti, see, e.g., Franklin 1986, Milnor
2009, Baird and Taylor 2010, Benefiel 2010a and 2010b.
3. For ancient literacy, see, e.g., Harris 1989, Beard et al. 1991, and Johnson and
Parker 2009; for reading aloud in antiquity, Harris 1989, 226.
4. Since the upper story has none of Wallace-Hadrill’s (1995) criteria of an ancient
brothel (masonry beds, erotic frescoes, and erotic graffiti; see also McGinn 2002), I
will not address it in this article. I would like to thank the Soprintendenza Archeolo-
gica di Pompei for permission to enter and photograph the upper story. For documen-
tation of the upper story, see Bragantini 1997, plates 32–43.
5. For scholarship on the brothel’s frescoes, see Myerowitz 1992, Clarke 1998,
Varone 2001, Clarke 2003, and Levin-Richardson 2009.
6. For the Greek names, see also Solin 2003, 55, 303–6, 734–6. For analysis of
these identities, see Varone 2005. For other interpretations of castrensis in CIL IV
2180, see Franklin 1987, 99–100 and Varone 2005.
7. Ascertaining status from names is not unproblematic; see, e.g., Benefiel 2010b, 26.
8. See also Clarke 1998, 199. It is unclear whether some of the males were prosti-
tutes rather than clients (see Cantarella 1998, 102–4, 113–5). The graffiti might not
exactly mirror the workers and patrons of the brothel; certain groups of individuals
(perhaps higher-status males, or females) might not have wanted to record their visit
to the brothel, and others may have been illiterate. For brothel patrons in Latin litera-
ture, see Flemming 1999, 45. For sex between masters and slaves, see Bradley 1984,
115–8; Walters 1997, 39; and Varone 2001, 155–8. For a literary treatment of sex
between slaves and mistresses, see Edwards 1993, 49–53 and Parker 2007.
9. For the overlap of prostitutes’ names in the brothel and other locales, see
Cantarella 1998, 91–2 and Varone 2005.
10. For Greek and Latin sexual obscenities, see Adams 1982, Bain 1991, Hender-
son 1991, Richlin 1992, and Panciera 2001.
11. For a summary of Roman sexual mores, see Parker 1997.
12. Zangemeister (at CIL IV 2181, Add. 215), however, voiced uncertainty about
whether the figure is indeed a phallus.
13. The third line of the graffito is unclear.
14. See Zangemeister at CIL IV 2248.
15. The rarity of a name with a first-person verb leads me to take pedico as a noun
rather than a verb.
R
L E V I N - RI CH ARDS ON—Facilis hic futuit 77
16. The lack of final –m need not indicate the nominative case: Väänänen
1959, 73.
17. CIL IV 2203 lists a fragmentary second line, but I am not convinced that it is
in the same hand as the first line of the graffito. The second line of CIL IV 2198 is
indecipherable, being variously transcribed as //abenda by Zangemeister and valentes by
Fiorelli (both at CIL IV 2198).
18. For more on Mou<s>ai`o~, see Franklin 1986, 327.
19. One could categorize these graffiti also as elaborations of the names discussed
above. Whether these graffiti indicate that the named persons had sexual activities
with each other, or with a third party, remains unclear; see the discussion in Panciera
2001, 217–20.
20. CIL IV 2247 contains a second line, but I agree with Zangemeister (at CIL IV
2247) that it has been composed in another hand.
21. This graffito might function as invective, if we take it in light of Martial’s epi-
grams (see especially 9.4) that associate a high cost for sexual service with marginal
sexual acts (being penetrated or performing oral sex; see Panciera 2001, 46–8).
22. This graffito could also fall under the formula involving boasts of futui.
23. Scordopordonicus: see Zangemeister at CIL IV 2188. Adams (1982, 121) suggests
that these examples of quem might be symptomatic of “the encroachment of the mas-
culine forms of the relative on the feminine.” Given that futuere could refer to male-
male sex, and that the penetrative party in homoerotic as well as heteroerotic sex did
not suffer any social disapproval, I do not find his explanation convincing. It seems
equally plausible, if not more so, that these graffiti reflected the arbitrariness of the
object of the act—that is, Scordopordonicus and Placidus were properly masculine
whether they had sex with females or males. See also CIL IV 2247.
24. In the latter part of CIL IV 2218, there are a few letters after futuis that are
indecipherable. In CIL IV 2253, kalov~ may agree with the proper name, although
given the fairly consistent structure of name-adverb-verb in the corpus, I would argue
that the author mistakenly wrote omicron in place of the adverbial omega. Bain (1991,
56) likewise emended kalov~ to kalw`~. For more on Syneros, see CIL IV 2252 and
Franklin 1986, 325–6.
25. For quisquis amat valeat, see, e.g., CIL IV 4091; Varone 1994, 60 (= Varone
2002, 62); and Milnor 2009, 301–2.
26. This may suggest that other parties, including female prostitutes, had an active
role in writing praise for male clients. For potential female authorship of graffiti, see,
e.g., Varone 1994, 81 (= Varone 2002, 83) and Levin-Richardson, Forthcoming. How-
ever, male patrons were probably aware of the added credibility gained by second- and
third-person testimonials, and may have written such graffiti themselves. The question
of authorship remains unanswerable, but given that male clients had a greater stake in
their reputation than did prostitutes, it seems more likely that the male clients were
the authors.
27. The end of the first line has been rendered unreadable by damage, while the
last line has not been deciphered satisfactorily.
28. Boasts with named other participants (all in CIL IV): 2192, 2193, 2197, 2198,
2199, 2200, 2203, 2224, 2249, 2258, 2262, 2288. Boasts with a general object (all in
CIL IV): 2175, 2188, 2247, 2265. Boasts with no direct object (not including isolated
78 HELIOS
names) (all in CIL IV): 2176, 2178, 2184, 2185, 2186, 2187, 2191, 2194, 2195,
2201, 2209, 2210, 2216, 2218, 2218a, 2219, 2222, 2232, 2241, 2242, 2246, 2248,
2253, 2260, 2274.
29. Graffiti stating that Scordopordonicus or Placidus could fuck quem voluit, or
that Bellicus could fuck quendam, suggest that male prostitutes were available and
acceptable sexual objects. However, all of the graffiti with a named potential male
object use the formula ‘x with y,’ as in Hyginus cum Messio hic (CIL IV 2249) rather
than an accusative direct object. Few graffiti use this formula to refer to a female (e.g.,
Felix cum Fortunata: CIL IV 2224).
30. I agree with Fiorelli (at CIL IV 2254) that the third line seems to have been
written in a different hand, and thus I have not included it above. I have taken pidicaro
as a misspelling of pedicabo, although it could also be the syncopated future perfect.
31. The hierarchy between the graffito reader and Batacarus is complicated, how-
ever, by the reader’s seeming status as someone who has accepted money for sex (as
one of the referees has brought to my attention).
32. For other examples, see CIL IV, s.v. cunnum lingere.
33. For the added shame of committing transgressive acts in public, see, e.g., Cic-
ero, Cael. 47 and Martial 1.34.
34. For female uses of obscenity in graffiti, see Levin-Richardson, Forthcoming.
35. The two exceptions are CIL IV 2202: Restituta • bellis • horibus (Restituta with
the pretty face; cf. Add. 465, however) and Victoria invicta hic (Victoria was uncon-
quered here, CIL IV 2226).
36. For fututa, see also CIL IV 2006 and CIL IV 8897.
37. For another fututrix, see CIL IV 4196.
38. The meaning of the latter part of the graffito is unclear. For female sexual
agents in the Roman imaginary, see Kamen and Levin-Richardson, Forthcoming.
39. Zangemeister (at CIL IV 2278) reports that the first four of five letters of the
graffito before Nice have been erased.
40. Another possible reading of the graffito Fortuna sic is “Fortuna likewise.” I fol-
low Fiorelli’s reading of the first line of the latter graffito as vere (at CIL IV 2266).
41. Cassacos may refer to several men with the name Cassacus (we unfortunately do
not know who the Cassaci were).
42. The more common form of the name is Myrtis (Solin 2003, 1178–80). For
other fellatrices, see CIL IV 1388, CIL IV 1389, CIL IV 1510, CIL IV 4192, and CIL
IV 9228.
43. For the role of these virtues in elite femininity, see, e.g., Kaster 2005, 13–65
and Langlands 2006.
44. I would like to thank Deborah Kamen and Rebecca Benefiel for commenting on
drafts of this article, as well as the two anonymous referees for their feedback. A ver-
sion of this paper was given at the University of Leicester’s 2008 conference, “Ancient
Graffiti in Context.” I have chosen not to correct any orthographic or grammatical
mistakes made in the graffiti, and translate accordingly. All translations are my own
unless otherwise noted.