WOMEN IN ANCIENT ROME

[Brooke]

WOMEN IN ANCIENT ROME


In theory Roman women were little better off than their sisters in Athens.  Under Roman law women went from the authority of their fathers to the authority of their husbands, and even a wealthy, old widow needed a male to supervise her finances, but by the beginning of the First Century BCE women began to achieve greater freedom in practice if not in theory. 

Generalizations on the status of women in the ancient world are always difficult, and never more so than in the case of Rome where theory and practice were often so far apart.  Athenian men regarded their wives as at best essential inconveniences, but Roman men placed a very high value on marriage, home and the family and this made quite a difference to society's treatment of women. 

At no time in Rome's history were women allowed to hold office.  In the early days of the Republic women were not even allowed to make suggestions.  By the beginning of the Empire many men were seeking and following the advice of their wives.  It was all right to do so, provided the advice was given in private and the husband did not make a big deal of it.  Respectable women were not supposed to be wandering around alone outside, but somehow they managed to have a life beyond the home.

Outside of the lower classes women could not work but they did not want to do so either.  In fact "work" was seen as something to be done by slaves and low class people who did not know any better.  Nevertheless women were demanding and getting greater freedom.  Some men objected, of course, but their cries of protest were in vain.  Emperor Augustus introduced a series of laws to promote traditional values but even he was unable to stem the tide of progress.  It is interesting to see the same issues being argued about two thousand years later.

 

[Brooke]

THE AUGUSTAN REFORMATION

 

Augustus became the ruler of Rome and its empire at the end of a long and bitter civil war.  A competent general (he was the only one standing at the end of the war), he transformed himself into a brilliant statesman and created political institutions that would rule Rome for centuries.

His political and economic reforms were very successful and earned him the gratitude of the Roman people;  however, as Will Durant in The Story of Civilization said, "He destroyed his own happiness by trying to make people good as well as happy; it was an imposition that Rome never forgave..."

The extension of citizenship as a means of gaining support for political reforms; the increasing tendency to emancipate slaves whose children automatically acquired Roman citizenship; the low marriage and birth rates among native Romans---all of these things were causing a major shift in the racial balance.  Augustus was convinced that Rome's success depended on the self discipline, morality , and dedication that could be found only in the native born, aristocratic Roman:  this class had declined considerably in number, scorned marriage, and allowed its women far too much freedom.

 

AUGUSTAN FAMILY VALUES REFORMS

Restrictions were placed on the attendance of women at public spectacles.

A father could kill his daughter and her lover if he caught them in the act of adultery.

In his own home, a husband could kill his wife and her lover if he caught them in the act of adultery.

A husband must divorce his wife within 60 days if it is proven she has committed adultery.

A woman who has committed adultery is subject to the following additional penalties:

banishment

loss of half her dowry

loss of one third of any additional wealth she possessed.

Men under 60 and women under 50 must marry. Failure to do so would mean they could not inherit.

Women with three or more children could wear a special garment and were freed from the authority of their husbands.

These laws were certainly unpopular and were probably failures as well.  Tacitus, writing a century later, certainly thought so, and even Augustus in the end bemoaned the inability of his generation to come up to the ancient standards.  An interesting victim of the anti-adultery law was the Emperor's own daughter, Julia, who was banished as an example to all.

After decades of civil war Rome was ready for whatever political and economic reforms could guarantee peace, stability and the opportunity to enjoy the benefits that came from ownership of the ancient world's greatest empire.  The Augustan moral reforms were resented by all but the most conservative elements of society for seeming to fly in the face of a new world.  Rising prosperity had contributed to a steady increase in the standing of women, especially women in the upper classes, and the Augustan social reforms threatened to end all of that.  Many married just to meet the legal requirement and then divorced immediately after.

 

[Brooke]

INTRIGUE AND THE EMPEROR'S WOMEN

 

Women were not allowed to hold office in Ancient Rome.  With human nature being what it is, there is little doubt that many women exercised considerable influence through their husbands on the political life of the country.

As the empire grew so did the wealth of Rome.  The upper classes acquired the time and the money to pursue a variety of interests, both cultural and otherwise, and women could see no reason why they should not participate freely.  They had no success in gaining access to public office but they did manage to acquire other rights.

By the end of the Civil War most women married under the new system that allowed them to remain under their family's authority rather than fall under the power of their husbands.  Their fathers, brothers and uncles were often more benevolent and always more remote, and this gave women considerably more freedom to manage their own affairs.

Adultery (defined in Rome, as in the rest of the ancient world, as a sexual relationship between a married woman and a man not her husband) was still a crime but it was becoming less and less a sin.  Presumably women had always influenced their husbands in one way or another, but it became socially acceptable for a man to admit publicly that he took advice from his wife.  Divorce was easy to get for both sexes; as it became more and more common it presented less of an obstacle to a woman's remarriage.

We do not have as much evidence for the life style of those with less money, but it would be natural for the behavior of the upper classes to gradually work its way down the social ladder.

There were many in the aristocracy who fought against what they perceived as the modern trend to looser morals.  Augustus introduced a series of laws designed to restore the old morality but they met with limited success.

The Emperor was not immune to these forces of social change.  The wives, mothers, daughters, and mistresses eagerly embraced the new ways to pursue their own personal agendas that often had little to do with the needs of their husbands or of the Empire.

It is surprising, and a great tribute to the political reforms introduced by Augustus, that Rome lasted as long as it did considering the rather serious mental handicap of several of its emperors. The surprise must be even greater when we consider the machinations of the women who surrounded even those Emperors who were relatively normal.

The following list is by no means complete, but it will serve to illustrate the influence some women were able to wield at the highest level.  Unfortunately much of that influence was destructive and came at a time when the Emperor already had more to cope with than he could manage.

 
LIVIA: wife of Augustus and mother of Tiberius

Augustus fell in love with Livia when they were both already married to others and when she was pregnant by first husband. Augustus forced divorces all around, married Livia and adopted her two sons.

By all accounts it was a successful marriage. Like a traditional Roman wife, she remained very much in the background, but Augustus regularly consulted her and valued the advice she gave and he died with her name on his lips. Unfortunately the marriage produced no children leaving the succession up in the air.

Without an unambiguous heir to take control there was always the danger that the Emperor's death would lead to chaos, and of course there was much scheming before. Livia's son, Tiberius, was Augustus last choice, but the eventual deaths of the other possibilities left Augustus with no alternative. There were those who believed Livia helped at least one of the potential heirs into the hereafter. Agrippina (the elder), widow of one of the heirs, Germanicus, certainly believed Tiberius to have had a hand in the death of her husband.

Since Livia and Augustus had no offspring as a couple, it was probably natural that each hoped to advance one of their own descendents. We do not know how much pressure she put on her husband to chose Tiberius as his successor, but there is no doubt that she believed that when he eventually did become Emperor it was because of her and that she was therefore entitled to a share in the glory. After nine years, her son refused to have anything more to do with her.

 
MESSALINA: wife of Claudius

Messalina was only 16 years old when she married Claudius. He was 22 years older. She was delighted when he became Emperor and loved to act the role of Queen. The position's chief benefit as far as she was concerned seems to have been the access it gave her to more boy friends. She even got her husband to insist the men she chose be more attentive to her. She sold offices to support her lifestyle and was accused by at least one enemy of raising money by working in disguise in a brothel.

One day when her husband was out of town she went through a marriage ceremony with her current boy friend, leaving future historians with lots to puzzle over. Women had the right to initiate divorce, but there is no evidence that she did so. Did she plan to commit bigamy? Was the wedding just a mock ceremony that was taken for more than the participants intended? Did she plan, as many believed, to rule Rome herself by installing her new husband as puppet emperor? Was she simply the unwitting dupe of others?

At any rate Claudius had had enough and soldiers were sent to her room with orders to kill her.

 

AGRIPPINA (THE YOUNGER): wife of Claudius and mother of Nero

Shortly after Messalina's death, Claudius is reputed to have told members of his Praetorian Guard that they should kill him if he ever got married again.  Nevertheless he had a new wife within the year.

It was not a love match, nor was there a need for an heir as Claudius already had a healthy son. The Emperor did not lack for bed mates to keep him warm at night, and, while a reasonably competent administrator, he had difficulty with more intimate relationships.

There was no constitutional need for a queen (as there was in Ancient Egypt), but women were certainly becoming more important socially, and it is possible there was a desire to start a new tradition.  Agrippina was the great-granddaughter of Augustus and a wealthy, outspoken, strong willed woman.  It is quite possible that the advisors of Claudius simply thought they would be better off with her on the inside where they could watch what she was doing.

Agrippina eagerly campaigned for the marriage to further her own agenda: she wanted her son Nero to be the next Emperor.  First, however, she needed to establish her own position.  She sat on a throne beside her husband at public functions.  Her image appeared on coins in the eastern part of the empire.  Claudius was much older and in failing strength while she in her early thirties was at the height of her physical power.  Some of her husband's advisers knew a winner when they saw one and were eager to do her bidding.

She persuaded Claudius to adopt Nero as his son.  Since Nero was actually a little bit older he always took precedence whenever his image appeared in public alongside his stepbrother. Agrippina even managed to arrange for Nero and Octavia, the Emperor's daughter, to become engaged.  Since Agrippina was the niece of Claudius, it had been necessary to get the Senate to change the law before they could marry; the legal impediment to Nero's engagement to his new step-sister was easier to get around---she was simply adopted by another family.

Fearing that Claudius was getting ready to name his son Britannicus as heir, Agrippina decided she had nothing to lose; on a day when the Emperor's most loyal supporter was out of town she fed her husband poison mushrooms.

Poor Claudius had rather bad luck when it came to women.  Two wives schemed to overthrow him.  Messalina lacked the skill or drive to follow through, but Agrippina lacked nothing.  Nero was the new Emperor and Agrippina was the power behind the throne.

Nero was only 17 when he ascended the throne, so perhaps it was not surprising that he looked to her for advice.  Coins from the eastern part of the Empire showed mother and son but in a manner clearly giving precedence to Agrippina.  She was able to have some of her enemies killed but it only took a year or so for others to persuade the Emperor that he should be ruling without the advice of a woman.

First he banished her to her private villa then he had her murdered.  The first attempt, a fake accident in which her ship was sunk, failed, but a second more direct attack by armed sailors in her villa was more successful.

http://www.womenintheancientworld.com/intrigue%20and%20the%20emperor's%20women.htm

 

[Brooke]

JULIA, DAUGHTER OF AUGUSTUS

 

Although they could not hold public office there were many women who were able from a position behind the scene to influence the course of Roman history.  Julia was not one of them.  She attracts the attention of the historian only because she was the daughter of Augustus.  Nevertheless, her story is fascinating because of the light it shines on the lives of upper class women at the beginning of the Empire.

Augustus was married three times but those marriages produced only one child, a daughter, Julia.  The Emperor had divorced Julia's mother before the birth in about 39 BCE.

Julia's first husband died after only two years when she was just 16 years old. Hoping for a grandson to groom to take over the reigns of government, Augustus arranged for her to marry Agrippa, a rich man more than double her age. Rumor had it that she enjoyed many affairs during the marriage.

Agrippa died after 9 years, leaving Julia wealthy enough to live as she pleased until her father stepped in and arranged yet another marriage, this time with Tiberius, son by another husband of the Emperor's wife.  Julia's third husband, like the others before him, had been forced by Augustus to divorce an earlier wife in order to be free to marry the Emperor's daughter.  Julia had not wished to marry again and simply resumed her many affairs; Tiberius retired to Rhodes to live a quiet life as a private citizen.

Augustus had shamelessly arranged three marriages for his daughter in order to suit his own political ends.  Though he had simply taken it for granted that that was the Roman way, he really did love her, but Julia's behavior was putting him in a very difficult position.  The moral reforms that Augustus had insisted on making law required a father to act if a husband was unwilling or unable to curb a wife's adultery.  With each new affair public pressure on Augustus increased.  He had to make an example of her or rescind the entire family values program.

Julia was banished to a barren island.  Her daughter, also called Julia, took up her mother's ways and was sent into exile by her grandfather to an island in the Adriatic.

Tiberius eventually became Emperor and allowed his ex-wife to move to a somewhat less inhospitable island where she remained until her death.

 

[Brooke]

JUSTINIAN'S LAW AS IT APPLIED TO WOMEN AND FAMILIES

 

Following the death of Emperor Theodosius in 395 his two sons were declared joint emperors.  One was nominally responsible for the east and one for the west.  While the two men were theoretically supposed to be joint rulers over a single empire, in reality the two halves were never again to be united.  When Justinian came to power in 527 CE as ruler of the eastern half, one of his aims was to update and codify all of the laws.  As time passes society changes and laws that served one generation well might not work for the next.  New laws were passed and new interpretations were made, but this had all been done on an ad hoc basis and by the time Justinian came to power the law was in a bit of a mess.

The new Emperor was determined to fix this by gathering all of the laws into one place.  The intent was not to create anything new, but to gather together all of the laws that still applied, delete the ones that did not and eliminate contradictions.  The result was a document two or three times the length of the Bible.
 
ELEMENTS IN JUSTINIAN LAW

All of these elements had the force of law.

CODE:  An updating of the ninety year old Code of Theodosius.  Justinian’s Code was intended to be temporary and was soon superseded by the following: 

INSTITUTES OF JUSTINIAN: An updating of the second century Institutes of Gaius

DIGEST: The views of some 39 jurists living in the years between Augustus and Justinian.  Some were rewritten to accord with modern law and contradictions and opinions that no longer applied were eliminated.  The end result supposedly represented the law as it existed under Justinian

CODEX:  All of the edicts issued by previous Emperors that were still in force.

NOVELS:  New laws.  The intent was to keep this up in perpetuity, but the dream did not last much longer than Justinian.

 
 

[Brooke]

POTESTAS

Unique in the ancient world, a free Roman citizen retained full control over any children born to his wife, any children born to a married son, and any children born to a married son of one of his sons.  This control remained in effect for life unless ended by one of the following:
1.   A daughter married "with manus" passed into the power of her husband.  Such a marriage was quite rare, however, and daughters usually remained in the power of their birth family.  (Note: this meant that any property the wife owned outside of her dowry and prenuptial donation remained in her family.  Her husband administered the dowry and prenuptial donation and was certainly the "head of the house" on a day to day basis.
2.   Emancipation was a legal act by which a man could free a slave, child or grandchild.
Note: Illegitimate children, including those born of a concubine, belonged to the mother and had no right to a share of their father's estate. 
 
BETROTHAL

1.    Agreement in principle is sufficient.  The parties need not all be present or involved as “the conditions in the marriage contract are nearly always settled by intermediaries.”
2.    Betrothal can take place as early as seven years of age.
3.   The father is presumed to consent unless he objects.
4.   The girl is presumed to consent unless she objects.
5.   She can refuse her assent only if her father has chosen someone whose bad behavior or character makes him unfit.  A son appears to have the complete right of refusal.
6.   A tutor cannot cancel a betrothal without her consent although a father could.
NOTE:  Betrothal was a sign of intent rather than a legal commitment to marriage.  Any of the parties to it were free to withdraw their consent without penalty at any time prior to the actual marriage.   The situation was complicated if gifts had been exchanged, for the party backing out of the marriage was often expected to return them.  If, as was usual, the betrothal gifts were small tokens, this presented no problem.  On occasion, however, considerable wealth had changed hands at betrothal and it was not always easy to decide how much was a fair penalty for canceling an engagement.
 
WHO MAY MARRY WHOM

1.   People in an ascendant-descendant relationship---father-daughter; aunt-nephew, etc. may not marry.  Brothers and sisters may not marry, but first cousins could.
2.   A Senator cannot marry a freedwoman except with imperial permission.  The daughter, grand-daughter, great-granddaughter of a Senator cannot marry a freedman or an actor.  Justinian relaxed this rule briefly but then changed his mind and reinstated it.
3.   A patron cannot marry a freedwoman against her will, unless he manumitted her for the purpose of marriage.
4.   A Christian cannot marry a Jew.
5.   A widow may not remarry less than a year after her husband’s death.  Severe financial penalties followed violation of this rule.
 
MARRIAGE

1.   Consent is a requirement
2.   A girl who was less than 12 years old when she married is not really a lawful wife until she reaches that age although she can continue to live with her “husband” until then. 
3.   While marriage can take place in the absence of the groom, the bride must be led in person to her husband’s house.
4.   A lack of prenuptial gift, dowry, procession or wedding ceremony shall not invalidate an otherwise legal marriage.  (Note that not all contradictions had been removed, as this clause conflicts with the one above.)
5.   If a wife absents herself for three days every year she will remain in the power of her father (or other male kinsman) rather than fall under the authority of her husband.   Normally a father or brother could be counted on to be more benevolent and were certainly more remote.  This marriage “without manus” was the norm throughout the time of the Empire.
6.   Prostitutes, procuresses, actresses, women working in a tavern and women convicted of adultery were permanently barred from marriage to a freeborn man, but they could become concubines.
NOTE: Girls continued to marry in their mid teens men who were in their mid twenties.  It is unlikely that very many of such young women had any real say in the choice of their first husband.
 
 
PUNISHMENT BY THE FAMILY FOR ADULTERY

1.   A man who catches his daughter in the act of adultery may kill his daughter and her lover provided all of the following conditions are met:
o   the daughter is in his potestas (or power)
o   the adultery occurred in the father's own home or in the home of the daughter's husband.
o   the killing is immediate
NOTE: that a man in the power of someone else is not free to kill an adulterous daughter or her lover. 
2.   A husband may kill his wife and her lover if he catches them in the middle of the act of adultery inside his own home and does so immediately.  If he kills only the lover, he must divorce his wife.
NOTE: In both of the above the man must have caught the adulterers in his own primary residence (not in a summer cottage) and the killing must be immediate.  There is very little documentation for this kind of killing, which may or may not mean it was a relatively rare event.  In any case, the law as written seems designed not to encourage such things but to place serious limits on who is able to claim they killed in a moment of passion.
 
DIVORCE

Throughout the time of the Empire divorce had been easy to get.  Either side was free to end the marriage for any or no reason at all, and "fault" entered the picture only in determining what happened to the dowry and prenuptial gift.  Constantine tried imposing financial penalties as did other emperors after him but these experiments were all short lived.  From the time of Constantine on divorce laws are subject to considerable variation depending on time and place.  The Justinian decrees were the most restrictive of all but these too were repealed within a few years and are included here as an historical curiosity.  It is tempting to see in Christianity the impetus for anti-divorce laws but there are problems with this interpretation and historians are divided. 
 
 
THE ONLY REASONS WHY A MAN COULD DIVORCE HIS WIFE

1.   She learned of a plot against the government but did not tell him about it (this would be treason)
2.   She has plotted against him.
3.   Adultery.  If there are no children from the marriage he will keep the pre-nuptial gift, the dowry and 1/3 of any other property she possessed.   He gets everything if there are children but he must preserve it all for them.
4.   She has bathed with strangers or she attends banquets, circuses, theatres, etc against his wishes
5.   Without his knowledge or permission she remains away from his home unless visiting her parents.
 
THE ONLY REASONS WHY A WIFE COULD DIVORCE HER HUSBAND

1.   He was implicated in a plot against the government or he knew of one and did nothing about it.  (Treason)
2.   He has attempted to kill her or did not warn her of an attempt by others.
3.   He seeks to deliver her to another man for the purpose of committing adultery.
4.   He accuses her of adultery but fails to prove his case.
5.   He entertained another woman in his wife’s home or he is frequently with another woman and refuses to stop after having been warned by his wife’s kinsman or “other person worthy of confidence.”
6.   The wife of a man convicted of adultery is entitled to possession of her dowry and the prenuptial donation.  If they have children she will get the use of the donation but must preserve the ownership for her children.  Any other property the husband possessed went to his children, or to the government if there were none.
 
DIVORCE BY COMMON CONSENT

1.   Divorce by common consent was illegal unless the parties were “impelled by the desire of living in chastity”.  Severe financial penalties would follow the breaking of such a vow.
2.   A woman may not repudiate her husband for any reason other than those listed above.  If she persists in doing so she shall be confined in a monastery.  Her dowry and prenuptialdonation shall go to her children if she had any or to her husband.  2/3 of her remaining property goes to her children and 1/3 to the monastery.  If there were no children 2/3 goes to the monastery and 1/3 to her parents.
3.   If a man should beat his wife with a whip or rod without legitimate cause the marriage will not be dissolved but she would get a sum of money from his other property equal to the prenuptial donation. 
 
CONCUBINES

Concubinage was a substitute used when marriage was either illegal or undesirable from the point of view of inheritance.  A man could not have a concubine and a wife at the same time.
Adultresses, prostitutes, procuresses and actresses were permanently barred from marriage, but they could become concubines.  The status freed the participants from any trouble with the law against improper sexual relations, but it otherwise conferred no legal benefit to the woman.  The children of such a relationship would be illegitimate and unable to inherit from their father.  Since the relationship had no legal standing, there was no protection for the discarded woman and concubines could never inherit from their partner’s estate, although he could give her anything he wanted while alive.  (Interesting, the law was the reverse for wives: their husbands could bequeath them property to them in death, but could make no gift to them in life.)
Other than senators and their descendents, a man could free his slave and take her as a concubine.  A widower might take a concubine to avoid creating a new family that would dilute his estate.  A young man might take a concubine until he felt old enough to marry a high class woman. 
It was a very serious crime for a woman to have a sexual relationship with a slave, even if he was her own.  While it was technically legal for her to manumit (i.e., free) him and then marry him, doing so would have been regarded as socially inappropriate.
It was not always easy to tell who was a wife and who was a concubine.  A dowry or a marriage contract was proof positive but these were not necessary in law.  In the absence of a clear statement to the contrary a woman living with a man was assumed to be a wife if there was no great difference in social rank.  The distinction was an important one as concubines had no protection in law and could be discarded freely.
Illegitimate children had no automatic right to inherit from their fathers.  Laws regarding bequests varied from time to time, usually limiting them to less than ¼ or even 1/12 of the father’s estate.
   
ECONOMICS OF MARRIAGE

1.   While a dowry and a marriage contract were not necessary to make a marriage legal, both were very common.  Actually, there were several gifts that could pass between the bride and groom and their respective families at the time of the marriage and the laws regarding the disposition of these in the event of death or divorce varied somewhat by time and place; the dowry and the prenuptial donation were the most important of these.  The dowry was a gift from the girl's family to the bride and served the following purposes:
o   part of the capital required to start a new household
o   a fund from which she could support herself if the marriage ended due to divorce or the husband's death
o   a part of a daughter's inheritance
o   a bequest for her children
The prenuptial donation was in theory a gift from the groom or his family to the bride, but it along with the dowry was administered by the husband as part of the capital of the new household.  Since the prenuptial donation went in a single instant from the groom to the bride and back to the groom it was often little more than an IOU.  Its ultimate disposition depended on what happened to the marriage: if the husband died or the marriage broke up through no fault of the wife the gift went to support her.  The husband administered the dowry in more or less complete freedom.  Out of it, of course, he had to support his wife in a reasonable style and he had to be able to return it to her in the event of a divorce or his death.
The law had nothing to say on the size of the dowry or donation, but by Justinian's day it was likely that both were the same size.
A driving theme in Roman law was the need to keep wealth in the family that created it.  In the old style marriage "with manus" a wife became a part of her husband's family.  Marriage "without manus" gave the wife more freedom but created a new problem in that it would be possible for wealth to go to another family to the detriment of the heirs of the first family. 
Although still in the potestas of her father, a wealthy wife usually had a peculium, property that theoretically belonged to her father but was for all practical purposes hers to use as she wished.  The law stated that husbands and wives could not transfer wealth between them.  Token gifts on birthdays and other such special occasions, seem to have been acceptable but major gifts were not.  Married people living together in the same house regularly used one another's things---even the house belonged to only one of them---but it was important in the event of death or divorce to be able separate out what belonged to the wife from what belonged to the husband.  The Romans were well aware of the problems such a division created and there was some minor tinkering with the rules but the fundamental principle banning the exchange of wealth between a husband and a wife remained constant up to and including Justinian's reign.  Of course, if a couple had children the holdings of the two families are ultimately going to be joined.
From the Third Century on children could inherit from their mothers, but if the children were "in potestas" the bequest actually went to their father who could legally do anything he wished with it.  Many Romans included in their will a clause requiring emancipation before a bequest took effect.  The law was amended under Constantine to require the father to preserve the bequest for the children although he retained the right to use it for as long as he lived.
In 542 Justinian allowed a clause to be inserted in a will could go directly to a named person even though that person was in potestas.  The father could no longer even claim the use of a bequest.

 http://www.womenintheancientworld.com/justinian's%20law.htm

[Brooke]

LEGAL STATUS OF WOMEN IN ANCIENT ROME
 

Equality was a foreign concept in the Roman mind.  Citizen and non-citizen, freeborn, freed and slave, father and children, male and female---each had a different standing in law.  Adultery by a low class women was not considered a problem, while it was a serious crime by all other women. Children by parents of differing classes acquired the legal standing of the lower class parent.  A slave might be given her freedom, but she would then become a freed woman, not a freeborn woman.

The traditional idea was to center control of all of the assets of a family in the hands of one person. We have noted elsewhere that throughout the ancient world the group was more important than the individual.  Family members were expected to work for the entire family, not for themselves.  The best way to achieve this unity of effort, it was believed, was to give authority over every aspect of life, not just economic, to one person in the family.  That one person was called pater familias.  The control of the paterfamilias was absolute in law, but in practice was much more benevolent than it sounds and was usually confined to economic matters.  (Choice of a spouse for a daughter was one such economic matter.)

A paterfamilias was any man, married or unmarried, with or without children, who did not owe obedience to a paterfamilias of his own (ie., a father, grandfather, etc.). A mater familias was any married or widowed woman (with or without children).   At marriage, a woman in the Republic went from the authority of her father, or his paterfamilias, to the authority of her husband, or his paterfamilias.

Adultery in Rome, as elsewhere in the Ancient World, was defined as sexual activity between a married woman and a man not her husband.  If a married man strayed it might have created a problem with his wife, but it was not a matter for the state unless his extracurricular partner was married to someone else.   In the Republic a husband might kill his wife if he caught her committing adultery; he was certainly required to divorce her.

The invasion of Italy by the Carthaginians under Hannibal and many years of foreign wars led to a number of social changes in the final century or two of the Republic, particularly in the attitudes toward women.   Many women were forced to manage the family estate or business while their husbands were away at war.   Battles kept many husbands away, but victories brought new wealth to Rome and some of that wealth ended up in dowries that passed to widows.  The result was to give women greater prominence and more authority in practice if not in theory.   Many leading citizens spoke against the new status of women, but the forces of change were too great.

One very important change was the growing popularity in the last century of the Republic and throughout the Empire of a form of marriage which did not place a wife under the authority of her husband. She remained under the authority of her family, but that was often more benevolent, and certainly more distant.  Upper class women were often able to achieve release from family control and then hire an agent to manage their finances: of course, the hired agent simply did as he was instructed.  Women had more money and more freedom and so had the opportunity to meet other men. One critic claimed that the only chaste women in Rome were the ones who had not been chased.  Another said that husbands were just being silly if they got upset about a little adultery.

Once Augustus has established the Empire he became concerned about what he saw as the bad example being set by the upper classes for the rest of the country.  Lower moral standards, a reduced birth rate and weakened family values were leading people to be more interested in personal pleasure and less interested in their duty to the community.  Augustus' reforms were not popular and it is doubtful they had much impact.   It is ironic that his own daughter, Julia, was caught in adultery and exiled.  (See The Augustan Reformation)

 

[Brooke]

VESTAL VIRGINS IN ANCIENT ROME
 

Women were allowed to play little role in the public religious life of Rome.  The most notable of several exceptions to this rule was the Vestal Virgin.

The Temple of Vesta was located in the southwest corner of the Roman Forum.  The most important job of the six Vestal Virgins was to maintain the fire in a the public hearth of the temple.  It was said that disaster would strike Rome if the fire ever went out.   In addition, the Vestals made a special kind of flour called mola which was sprinkled on all public offerings to a god.  Thus they had a role, albeit a rather limited one, in all public religious events.

The Vestals were chosen between the ages of six and ten and served for thirty years, ten as students, ten in service, and ten as teachers.  A violation of their vow of chastity led to execution by being buried alive.

They appeared often in public and had special, reserved seats at banquets and games.

 

[Brooke]

WOMEN AND MARRIAGE IN ANCIENT ROME

                                                   

Roman weddings were the source for many of our own marriage traditions. A ring on the third finger of a girl's left hand symbolized engagement. At the wedding ceremony the bride was dressed in white, wore a veil and was accompanied by a bridesmaid.

A Roman girl was considered ready for marriage at the age of 14. Her father would choose a husband and conduct the required arrangements, including the size of the dowry, with the groom's family. Economic considerations and inter-family relations were far more important than love.

Care was taken in choosing a lucky day that would avoid any ill omens; June was an especially favored month. A ceremony involving religious elements and the signing of the marriage contract was followed by a feast for all of the friends, relatives and business associates of the two families.

Throughout most of the history of the Roman Republic marriage transferred a woman from the authority of her father to the authority of her husband or her husband's father or grandfather, if he were alive.  The senior father was the pater familias who had total control over all members of his family.  In theory that control extended even to life and death, but in reality it was limited to economic matters.  The pater familias owned and controlled all of the family's wealth.  Any money or property a woman possessed at the time of her marriage passed to the control of the pater familias of her new husband's family.

Towards the end of the Republic and throughout the history of the Empire a new style of marriage became popular in which the woman retained control of her own money.  Such a system made divorce a more viable option for women.

Raising the children and managing the home were the most important jobs of a woman.  In the poor families she would have to do the work herself, but in middle and upper classes she could expect to have servants and slaves to help.

While romance was seldom a factor in choosing a spouse, love and affection often grew between husband and wife.  The legal status of a woman in Rome did not appear to be much better than that of a woman in Athens, but in practice there was an enormous difference.  A Roman wife expected to be the hostess if her husband had friends in to visit, and a Roman mother exercised genuine influence in making family decisions.  Her epitaph might praise her spinning and her modesty, but beneath the surface there was a real woman.

  http://www.womenintheancientworld.com/women%20and%20marriage%20in%20ancient%20rome.htm

[Brooke]

WOMEN AND SLAVERY IN ANCIENT ROME

 

At first slaves were the men and women taken prisoner as Rome conquered more and more territory.  Their children helped ensure a continuing supply.  Citizens at the bottom of the socio-economic ladder who got so far into debt they could not get out lost their freedom and became slaves along with all members of their families.  Unwanted children in Rome, especially girls, were abandoned at birth:  many were picked up by passers-by and sold as slaves.

The word conjures up images of men and women chained to their post and worked to death under the threat of a beating.  One need only look at the silver mines of Athens to know that this did indeed happen, and many slaves in Rome were trained for the one glorious moment they fought and died as gladiators.  Life was harsh in the early days of the Republic but gradually improved as Romans realized how much more work they could get from a healthy, well treated slave.  In cities during the Empire slaves often went out on their own and citizens complained that they were unable to tell the difference.  Proposals to have them dress differently were always rejected for fear that they would realize how numerous they were and plot rebellion.

Unfortunately most of our evidence for the daily life of slaves, especially that of women, comes to us through the eyes of the owners.  Conditions varied considerably according to the humanity of the master and there can be no doubt that talented slaves were better treated than their unskilled brothers and sisters, and slaves in the homes of the upper class may well have had a very pleasant life.

Female slaves were at the mercy of predatory masters.  Wives protested and society expressed disapproval (albeit in a very minor way), but the law was on the side of the errant husband. Monogamy was the stated ideal in Rome, but its achievement was another thing entirely.  A child born of a slave by her master was a slave.  The master could free his child, but he could not acknowledge or adopt it: law and society was adamant on this point.

An Upper class Roman family had dozens, or even hundreds, of slaves; a middle-class family would have had one to three, and even a prosperous member of the working class might have had one. Female slaves usually worked as servants, perhaps as personal maids to the Mistress or as housekeepers, etc.

Slaves could not legally marry, but in the Empire many masters with large holdings permitted some to pair up.  Any offspring of such unions were slaves and this became a recognized way of increasing the number.  Slave families could be split up if the master decided to sell one member and not another.

As an incentive some slaves received a wage and could accumulate it to buy their freedom.  Some masters granted freedom in their will.  Slaves who were manumitted (freed) became freedmen or freedwomen, not citizens, but they could marry and their children would be citizens.  Freed people made up about five percent of the population of Rome, but since the status lasted only a single generation there were no dynasties of freed families.

Slaves were never granted their freedom without also having the means to support themselves.  Some were given a small plot of land, while others were set up as shop keepers and artisans. Undoubtedly a woman slave needed a male partner in order to meet the requirement of being able to support herself.  The freedman or freedwoman was expected to remain loyal to the former master and he in his turn was expected to provide ongoing support in time of need.  Freedom was not a way of getting rid of a slave that was too old or sick to work.  Much to the disgust of lower class citizens, freed people sometimes achieved considerable wealth.

http://www.womenintheancientworld.com/women%20and%20slavery%20in%20ancient%20rome.htm