At first, newlyweds should especially beware
disagreements and clashes, looking at how even glued
the pots at first easily crumble at the slightest shock,
but over time, when the fastening points become strong,
neither fire nor iron will take them. (...) The word “mine” and
“not mine” must be excluded from family life.
How bruises on the left side, according to doctors, reverberate
pain on the right, so a wife should be rooted for her husband’s affairs, and
to the husband - for the affairs of his wife... (...) The wife should rely on
something that can truly tie your husband to you...
Plutarch. Instructions to Spouses, 3; 20; 22
Already in ancient times The family was a strong and close-knit unit of society in Rome, in which the father of the family, the “pater familias,” reigned supreme. The concept of family (“surname”) in Roman legal monuments was different from what it is today: it included not only father, mother, unmarried daughters, but also married ones who were not formally transferred to the authority of the husband, and finally, sons, their wives and children. The surname included slaves and all household property. They fell into the family under the authority of the father either through birth from a legal marriage and the ritual “acceptance” of the child into the family, or through a special legal act called “adoption” (adoption), and the adopted person retained independence with regard to his legal status, or, finally, through the act of “arrogatio” - a special form of adoption in which a new family member completely passed under the authority of the father of the family. The father's authority extended to all members of the family.
In early times, the father had the “right of life and death” in relation to his children: he determined the fate of all who depended on him; he could either recognize his own child, born to him in a legal marriage, as his own and accept him into the family, or, as in Athens, order him to be killed or abandoned without any help. As in Greece, an abandoned child usually died if no one found him or took him in. Over time, morals in Rome softened, but the “right of life and death” continued to exist until the 4th century. n. e. But even after this, the father’s power remained completely unlimited where property relations were concerned. Even after reaching adulthood and marrying, the son had no right to own any real property during his father's lifetime. Only after his death the son, by virtue of the will, received all his property by inheritance. True, Roman laws provided for one opportunity to free oneself from the power of the father during his lifetime - through a special act called “emancipation”. At the same time, the commission of such an act entailed important legal consequences associated with the deprivation of the “freed” son of all rights to what his family owned. And yet, the custom of emancipation, quite widespread in Rome, was a clear expression of the weakening and even disintegration of the primordial family ties, so revered and unshakable in the first centuries of the history of the Eternal City. A variety of circumstances prompted emancipation: sometimes sons sought to quickly gain independence, sometimes the father himself “freed” one or several sons, so that the family property remained in the hands of only one heir. Often this could also be a form of punishment in relation to a disobedient or for some reason objectionable son, for “liberation” was to some extent tantamount to disinheritance.
When girls got married, they went from being under the authority of their father to being under the authority of their father-in-law, unless, of course, the marriage was accompanied by the appropriate legal act “convention in manum.” As for the slaves, the father of the family had complete and unlimited power over them: he could treat them like any property, he could kill the slave, sell or cede, but he could also grant him freedom through a formal act of “manummissio”.
The mother of the family was in charge of the entire household and raised the children while they were small. In the 1st century n. e. in his work about agriculture Lucius Junius Columella wrote that in Rome, as in Greece, a custom has been preserved since ancient times: the management of the entire house and the conduct of household affairs constituted the sphere of activity of the mother, so that the fathers, leaving behind them the troubles associated with state affairs, could relax at the hearth. . Columella adds that women made considerable efforts to ensure that the well-established home life of their husbands added even more brilliance to their government activities. He also emphasizes that it was property interests that were then considered the basis of the marital community.
At the same time, it should be remembered that neither in Greece nor in Rome a woman had civil rights and was formally excluded from participation in state affairs: she was not supposed to attend meetings of the people - comitia. The Romans believed that the very natural qualities of women, such as modesty, weakness, instability and ignorance of matters discussed in public, did not allow their wives, sisters and mothers to engage in politics. However, in the sphere of private, family life, a Roman woman enjoyed much more freedom than a woman classical Greece. She was not doomed to seclusion in the half of the house reserved exclusively for her, but spent time in the common rooms. When people entered the front part of the house - the atrium, she met them there as the sovereign mistress and mother of the family. In addition, she freely appeared in society, went on visits, and attended ceremonial receptions, which Greek women did not even dare to think about. A woman’s dependence on her father or husband was essentially limited to the sphere of property relations: a woman could neither own real estate nor manage it.
However, over time, customs here too became less severe. Women received the right to choose their guardian in matters related to property, and even independently manage their dowry with the help of an experienced and faithful slave. And yet no woman in Rome, even if she were freed from the guardianship of her husband and gained independence in what concerned her legal status, could not have anyone “under her authority” - this remained the privilege of men. The increasing independence of women and materially, the opportunity to have your own attorney in property matters noticeably strengthened the position of the wife in the family, while the authority of the father and husband weakened accordingly. These changes did not go unnoticed by ancient comedy, where from now on the complaints of the husband, who “sold his power for a dowry,” become a frequently repeated motif (for example, in Plautus). But with regard to freedom of personal life, law and morality in Rome were still much stricter for women than for men, and this also found expression in comedy. Thus, in Plautus, a slave, sympathizing with her mistress, whom her husband is cheating on, says:
Women live under a painful law,
And he is more unfair to them than to men.
Did the husband bring his mistress, without knowledge?
Wives, the wife found out - everything will do for him!
The wife will leave the house secretly from her husband -
For the husband, this is a reason to divorce.
For a good wife, one husband is enough -
And the husband should be happy with one wife.
And if husbands had the same punishment
For bringing his mistress into the house,
(How guilty women are kicked out)
There would be more men, not women, widows!
Plautus. Merchant, 817—829
And this was not just the invention of a mocking comedian. Some Romans actually did not want their wives to leave the house without their knowledge. Publius Sempronius Sophus, consul in 304 BC. e., even separated from his wife after learning that she went to the theater without his permission.
The father chose the husband for his daughter, usually by agreement with the father of the future son-in-law. Theoretically, the age barrier for marriage was very low: the groom had to be fourteen years old, the bride - twelve. In practice, the lower limit of marriageable age was usually pushed back somewhat and young people started families later, since they still had studies and military service. But the girls got married very early, as evidenced by one of the letters of Pliny the Younger, in which, mourning the deceased daughter of his friend Fundan, he notes: “She was not yet 14 years old... She was betrothed to a rare young man who was already The wedding day was set, we were invited.” The inconsolable father was forced to spend all the money he had allocated for clothes, pearls and jewelry for the bride on incense, ointments and perfumes for the deceased (Letters of Pliny the Younger, V, 16, 2, 6-7).
Before 445 BC e. Legal marriage could, according to the ideas of that time, only be concluded between children from patrician families. In 445 BC. e. Tribune Canuleius proposed that from now on it would be possible to enter into marriages according to the law also between the children of patricians and plebeians. Canuleius emphasized that the existing restrictions were unfair and offensive to the Roman people:
“Or could there be some other greater or more sensitive humiliation,” said the tribune of the people, “than to consider a part of the community of citizens unworthy of marriage, as if it carries with it an infection? Doesn't this mean enduring exile, remaining to live behind the same walls, doesn't this mean enduring exile? They (patricians. - Note lane) are afraid of kinship with us, afraid of rapprochement, afraid of mixing blood! (...) Couldn't you keep your nobility pure through private measures, that is, by not marrying the daughters of plebeians and not allowing your daughters and sisters to marry non-patricians? Not a single plebeian would inflict violence on a patrician girl: this shameful whim is characteristic of the patricians themselves. No one would be forced to enter into a marriage contract against his will. But to prohibit by law and make marriage ties between patricians and plebeians impossible is what actually offends the plebeians. After all, why don’t you agree that marriages should not take place between rich and poor? What has always and everywhere been a matter of personal considerations - the marriage of this or that woman into a family suitable for her and the marriage of a man to a girl from the family with whom he entered into an agreement - you bind this freedom of choice with the shackles of a highly despotic the law with which you want to divide the community of citizens, to make two states out of one. (...) There is nothing in the fact that we are looking for marriage with you other than the desire to be considered human, to be considered citizens...” ( Livy. From the foundation of the city, IV, 4, 6).
Roman law recognized two forms of marriage. In accordance with one of them, a young woman passed from the authority of her father or a guardian replacing him to the authority of her husband, and, according to the custom of “convention in manum,” she was accepted into the family of her husband. Otherwise, the marriage was concluded without the wife passing under the authority of her husband - “sine conventione in manum”: having already become a married woman, she still remained under the authority of her father, retained ties with her family and the right to inheritance. The basis of such a marital union was simply mutual consent to live together as husband and wife. The dissolution of such a union did not require special legal procedures, which were necessary in the case when spouses who had entered into marriage at one time on the basis of the transfer of the wife under the authority of her husband were divorced.
There were, in addition, three different legal, or rather religious-legal, forms in which the marriage ceremony could be performed with the transition of the wife “in manum” to the husband:
1. “Coempcio” (literally: purchase): the girl passed from the power of her father to the power of her husband through a kind of symbolic “sale” of the bride to her future husband. This peculiar rite was furnished with all the attributes of an ordinary trade transaction: the presence of five witnesses was required - adults and full citizens - and an official who, as when concluding other contracts and trade agreements, had to hold scales in his hands ( Guy. Institutions, I, 108). The girl, however, had to express her consent to be “sold”, otherwise the agreement was not valid. Over time, this form of marriage was used less and less; the last information about it dates back to the era of Tiberius.
2. “Uzus” (literally: use): the customary legal basis for a marriage concluded in this form and with the woman’s transition under the authority of her husband was her living together with her husband in his house for a whole year, and it was important that she I have never spent three nights in a row outside my husband’s house. If the condition was met, the husband acquired full marital power over her on the basis of the right to “use” what had long been at his disposal. If the wife did not want to come under the authority of her husband, she deliberately looked for an opportunity to spend three nights in a row somewhere outside her husband’s house - in this case, the claims of her husband were deprived of legal force. This form of marriage was practiced mainly in that distant era, when families of patricians and plebeians could not yet legally enter into family ties with each other and it was necessary to find a customary legal form that would allow entering into such unequal marriages. After 445 BC e., when the law of Canuleus made marriages between patricians and plebeians legally competent, usus as a form of establishing marital relations was already a relic. The Roman lawyer Gaius (2nd century AD) says that this custom fell out of use partly because people themselves became unaccustomed to it, and partly because this was facilitated by the adoption of new laws ( Guy. Institutions, I, 108).
3. “Confarreatio” (literally: performing a ritual with spelled bread): the most solemn and official form of marriage, practiced most often by the Romans and increasingly replacing the other two. In addition to the legal basis, marriage in the form of confarretion also had a religious, sacred character. This is evidenced by the name itself, associated with the ritual of sacrificing to Jupiter - the patron saint of bread and grains in general - a spelled flatbread or pie, which was also served to the newlyweds and guests. Two high priests or ten other witnesses had to be present at the celebrations, and the confarretion consisted of performing various rituals and pronouncing certain verbal formulas. Since the other two forms of marriage did not have a sacred character, in the future the highest priestly positions were available only to children born of spouses who were married in the form of confarreation.
Regardless of what form of marriage was preferred by families who wanted to become related to each other, in Rome, as in Greece, the wedding was preceded by betrothal. But there was also a significant difference between the orders in Rome and Hellas, which confirms that women enjoyed much greater freedom in Rome. If in Greece the consent to marriage and the marriage promise were given on behalf of the girl by her father or guardian, then in Rome the young people themselves, consciously making a decision, publicly made mutual marriage vows. Each of them, when asked whether he (or she) promised to marry, answered: “I promise.” After completing all the necessary formalities, the bride and groom were considered “betrothed” or engaged. The bridegroom presented future wife a coin as a symbol of the wedding contract concluded between their parents or an iron ring that the bride wore on the ring finger of her left hand.
The formalities associated with the betrothal were completed in the first half of the day, and in the evening a feast was held for friends of both families, and the guests presented the newlyweds with sponsalia - betrothal gifts. Termination of the contract concluded upon betrothal by the parents of the bride and groom entailed the payment of a special penalty by the guilty party who decided to renounce its obligations.
Since wedding ceremonies in Rome were closely connected with the cult of the gods - patrons of the earth and its fruits, then great importance had a choice of dates in which the weddings should be celebrated. The Romans tried to choose days that were considered, according to local beliefs, to be especially favorable and happy. The most successful time for marriage seemed to the residents of Italy in the second half of June, as well as the harvest period, when the deities who care for farmers are especially benevolent and kind to people, giving them generous fruits of the earth.
On the eve of the wedding, the bride sacrificed her children's toys and the clothes she had worn until then to the gods - exactly the same as we remember, Greek girls did. On a special day, a young Roman woman was supposed to wear a strictly defined outfit: a simple long, straight-cut tunic and a smooth white toga, not trimmed with a purple border and devoid of any other decorations. The toga had to be tied with a belt, tied with a special knot called the “Hercules knot.” The bride's face was covered with a short veil, so the newlywed in Rome was called "nupta", i.e. covered, obscured, wrapped in a veil; the veil was red-gold or saffron in color. The bride's wedding dress was complemented by a special hairstyle, which usual time was obligatory only for the Vestals. It was called “six strands”: with a special sharp spear-shaped comb, the hair was divided into six strands, then woolen threads were woven into each of them and the strands were placed under a wedding wreath of flowers collected by the bride herself and her friends ( Plutarch. Roman Questions, 87).
The groom's outfit did not differ from his everyday clothes - for a Roman, the toga was quite an honorable and ceremonial attire. Over time, the custom of decorating a man’s head with a myrtle or laurel wreath became established.
No celebration, whether public or private, could take place in Rome without fortune telling and sacrifices to the gods related to the nature of this or that celebration. Therefore, wedding celebrations began with fortune telling - auspices, after which sacrifices were made, but not to household and family deities, as in Greece, but to the gods of the earth and fertility - the goddesses Tellus and Ceres, who bestow generous harvests. Later, undoubtedly under the influence of Greek customs and the identification of the Roman Juno with Hera, the goddess Juno was among the divine patrons of the family and hearth. The connection between wedding ceremonies and the cult of the ancient Italian agricultural gods was eventually erased from the memory of the Romans.
The role that the mother of the bride played at wedding celebrations in Greece, Roman customs assigned to the pronuba - a kind of manager at the wedding. Not every woman could be entrusted with these honorary duties: a woman elected as a steward had to enjoy universal respect, a good reputation and be “monogamous,” that is, remain faithful to one spouse all her life. It was she who led the dressed bride into the guest room and helped her with fortune-telling concerning the future new family, and it was she, and not the bride’s father, as in Greece, who solemnly handed it over to the intended groom, joining their right hands as a sign of mutual fidelity. If the fortune-telling turned out to be favorable, the newlywed herself performed the sacrifices, thereby taking on the role of a priestess of the hearth in her husband's house. Sometimes the young people sat in special chairs placed nearby and covered with the skin of a sacrificial animal, and then walked around the home altar; in front they carried a basket with religious objects. When all the necessary religious rituals came to an end, the wedding feast began - initially in the house of the bride's parents, later in the house of the newlyweds themselves.
After the feast in the parents' house, the second solemn part of the holiday began - "deductio", seeing off the newlywed to her husband's house. Tradition and customs required the bride to resist, to break free, to cry. Only the pronuba, the wedding manager, put an end to the girl’s “persistence,” taking her away from her mother’s arms and handing her over to her husband. The magnificent procession was opened by a boy who carried a torch made of thorns. And here, as in the performance of other sacred functions, it had to be a “happy” boy, that is, one whose father and mother were alive. Behind him was the newlywed, led by two other boys, also not orphans; behind them were symbols of domestic labor: a tow and a spindle with a warp. Next came close relatives, friends, acquaintances and strangers. The cortege was accompanied by flutists and singers, wedding songs and all sorts of sarcastic and simply humorous couplets were played, which greatly amused the guests. Along the way, the procession participants were showered with nuts, which was reminiscent of the Greek custom of catachism. At the threshold of the house, the newlywed was waiting for her husband, who greeted her with a ritual greeting. To this she responded with the accepted formula: “Where you are Gai, there I am Gaia.” According to the ideas of the ancients, this formula expressed the idea of the inseparability of spouses, father and mother of the family ( Plutarch. Roman Questions, 30). The name “Gaia” was included in the ritual formula in memory of the wife of the Roman king Tarquinius the Ancient, Gaia Cecilia, who was considered an example of a virtuous wife.
Having exchanged the required greetings with her young husband, the newlywed smeared the doors of the house, where she entered as the future mother of the family, with the fat of a boar, an animal sacred to Ceres, or a wolf, which was considered the sacrificial animal of Mars, and decorated the doorway with colored ribbons. These actions were supposed to ensure the young family and its home the favor of the patron gods; it is also possible that thereby the wife assumed the responsibilities of the mistress of the house. Both in Greece and in Rome, the bride herself did not cross the threshold of the house: she was carried in the arms of the boys accompanying her, and the pronuba made sure that she did not even touch the threshold with her foot. The most likely explanation for this custom is that when crossing the threshold, the young girl could trip, which was considered a very bad omen by the Romans. Therefore, accidentally touching the threshold with your foot now meant for the newlywed to bring danger upon herself. To further emphasize the inextricable connection of both spouses, the husband met his wife at the entrance to the house with “water and fire.” What this ceremony consisted of, what it looked like, we, unfortunately, do not know, but these symbols themselves are not difficult to interpret: fire signified the hearth, the keeper of which was the mother of the family, and water was a symbol of purification.
Finally, the pronuba led the young wife into the atrium of her future home, where there was a marital bed, under the tutelage of the divine genius - the patron of the family; It was to him that the newlywed turned her prayers to grant her protection and help, healthy and prosperous offspring.
The next day, the guests gathered again, already in the newlyweds' house, for another small feast after the big feast. In the presence of those gathered, the wife made a sacrifice at the home altar, received guests and even sat down at the spinning wheel in order to show that she had already begun the duties of the mistress of the house. Undoubtedly, there were other local customs, which, however, were not always observed. It is known, for example, that when going to her husband’s house, the newlywed was supposed to have three copper coins with her: by ringing one of them, she could enlist the help of the gods of those places on the way; she gave the other to her husband - probably as a symbol ancient custom“purchase” of the wife, and sacrificed the third coin to the household gods - the Lares.
All these solemn rituals were performed when the girl got married for the first time. If a widow or divorced woman entered into a second marriage, the matter was limited to making a mutual marriage vow. Often this act took place even without witnesses and without guests invited to the wedding.
The religious and legal customs described above were preserved in Rome for many centuries. During the imperial era, morals became less strict, and many ancient customs were gradually forgotten. Fathers no longer imposed their will on their daughter-brides, and married women could manage their property themselves and even make wills without the participation of a legal guardian.
The differences in the status of women in Greece and Rome also manifested themselves in the sphere of public life. If in the comedy of Aristophanes Lysistrata calls women to a meeting so that they express their protest against the war, then this scene is, of course, a figment of the comedian’s imagination, and not a reflection of the real order in greek cities. On the contrary, in Rome, as elsewhere in Italy, women could have their own associations, a kind of clubs, as evidenced, in particular, by surviving inscriptions. Thus, in Tusculum there was a special society, which included local women and girls, and in Mediolana (now Milan) young girls celebrated memorial celebrations - parentalia - in honor of their late friend, who belonged to their association. In Rome itself, the society of married women, the Conventus Matronarum, was well known and legally recognized, whose residence was located on the Quirinal, and in last centuries The Roman Empire - in the Forum of Trajan. Members of this society attended meetings at which very important matters were sometimes discussed, even concerning general position in the state: for example, the decision of Roman women to give their gold jewelry and other valuables to the treasury during the war between Rome and the inhabitants of the city of Veii (396 BC) was apparently made at one of these meetings.
During the era of the empire, when male Roman citizens essentially ceased to participate in government, the nature of the activities of the women's organization also changed. Emperor Heliogabalus at the beginning of the 3rd century. n. e. renamed it the “small senate”; the problems that women now had to deal with were very far from those that attracted the attention of women during the Roman Republic. These were exclusively personal or property matters or matters concerning various social privileges of women depending on their social status. The Roman matrons decided who was obliged to bow and greet whom first, who should give way to whom when meeting, who had the right to use what types of carts, and who had the privilege of moving around the city on a stretcher. During the period of the republic, the right to a litter, as we remember, was strictly regulated by law, but under the emperors this important privilege became widely available to married women over forty years of age. At their meetings, women also considered what clothes they should wear when going out, or how to gain recognition of their privilege to wear shoes trimmed with gold and precious stones.
Although even during the times of the Republic, laws excluded women from participating in the affairs of the state, the mothers, wives and sisters of Roman citizens were still well versed in politics, learned a lot from their husbands or fathers, and there are cases when they even helped their relatives or friends, interfering in government affairs - sometimes with the most good intentions, and sometimes acting to the detriment of the Roman Republic. In fact, we know how actively Catiline involved women in his political plans, hoping to use them in the implementation of his conspiratorial plans. The letters of Cicero contain a great many references to how Roman politicians had to reckon with the interference in public affairs of women associated with influential people, and even often resort to the help of these energetic and decisive Roman matrons. “Having learned that your brother,” he writes to Caecilius Metellus Celer, “has planned and is preparing to turn all his power as a tribune to my destruction, I entered into negotiations with your wife Claudia and your sister Muzia, whose affection for me... I have long seen in many ways, so that they keep him from inflicting this insult on me” (Letters of Marcus Tullius Cicero, XIV, 6).
Often violations of marriage promises, divorces and remarriages were associated with political activity, the hopes of Roman citizens for a successful public career. The great Caesar also used these “family” funds. Plutarch does not hide what the future dictator of Rome owed for his rapid advancement to supreme power. “In order to use the power of Pompey even more freely for his own purposes, Caesar gave him his daughter Julia in marriage, although she was already engaged to Servilius Caepio, and he promised the latter the daughter of Pompey, who was also not free, for she was betrothed to Faustus, the son of Sulla . A little later, Caesar himself married Calpurnia, daughter of Piso, whom he promoted to consulship the following year. This caused great indignation from Cato (the Younger. - Note lane.), declaring that there is no strength to tolerate these people who, through marriage alliances, obtain for themselves the highest power in the state and, with the help of women, transfer troops, provinces and positions to each other" ( Plutarch. Caesar, XIV).
And during the era of the empire, there were many examples when people who were patronized by influential women acquired a high position in the state. Thus, a certain Greek from Nero’s entourage, Gessius Florus, was appointed procurator of Judea thanks to his wife’s friendship with the Empress Poppaea Sabina. Another resident of Rome, unknown to us by name, gained access to the senatorial class, since the influential Vestal Campia Severina worked hard for him: this is evidenced by the statue that was erected to the priestess of Vesta by her grateful ward.
Responsive, ready to work for others and even sacrifice themselves for the sake of those dear to them, Roman women during the Republic were able to vigorously defend their rights and privileges. Easily communicating with each other and making friendly connections, Roman women could, if necessary, act as a cohesive social force. We know most about the performance of the Roman matrons after the 2nd Punic War - this event is described in detail in the “Roman History from the Foundation of the City” by Titus Livius. In 215 BC. e., when the war was still going on and the situation in Rome was very difficult, a law was passed according to which, in the name of concentrating all the forces and resources in the state on waging war, the rights of women in the sphere of their personal lives were limited. They were not allowed to have more than half an ounce of gold for jewelry, they were forbidden to wear clothes made of dyed fabrics, use carts within the city territory, etc. Well aware of the difficulties their homeland was facing at that time, the Roman women obeyed a strict law. When the war ended with the victory of Rome, and the law of 215 BC. e. continued to remain in force, women rose up to fight the authorities, seeking the restoration of the previous state of affairs. Livy describes in detail the various vicissitudes of this struggle in 195 BC. e., even citing extensive speeches both by those who advocated the preservation of the law against waste, and by those who resolutely demanded its abolition:
“None of the matrons could be kept at home by anyone’s authority, a sense of decency, or the power of a husband; they occupied all the streets of the city and the entrances to the forum and begged the husbands who went there... to allow the women to return their former decorations. The crowd of women grew every day; they even came from other cities and trading places. Women already dared to approach consuls, praetors and other officials and beg them. But the consul Marcus Porcius Cato turned out to be completely inexorable, speaking in favor of the disputed law:
“If each of us, fellow citizens, made it a rule to maintain our right and the high importance of the husband in relation to the mother of the family, then we would have less trouble with all women; and now our freedom, having suffered defeat at home from women’s willfulness, and here, on the forum, is trampled and trampled into the dirt, and since we each could not cope with only one wife, now we tremble before all women together (...)
Not without a blush of shame on my face, I recently made my way to the forum among a crowd of women. If a feeling of respect for high position and the chastity of some of the matrons rather than all of them did not restrain me, so that it would not seem as if they had received a reprimand from the consul, then I would say: “What is this custom of running out into a public place, crowding the streets and addressing other people’s husbands? Couldn't each of you ask the same thing from your husband at home? Or are you nicer on the street than at home, and moreover with strangers than with your husbands? However, even at home it would be indecent for you to care about what laws are proposed or repealed here, if a sense of shame restrained the matrons within the boundaries of their right.
Our ancestors decreed that women should not conduct a single business, even a private one, without the approval of their guardian, that they should be in the power of their parents, brothers, and husbands; ...we allow them to take up state affairs, to break into the forum, into public assemblies. (...) Give free rein weak creature or an indomitable animal and hope that they themselves will set the limit to their freedom. (...) Women want freedom in everything, or, better said, self-will, if we want to tell the truth. (...)
Review all the laws concerning women, by which our ancestors limited their freedom and subjected them to their husbands; however, although they are bound by all these laws, you can hardly restrain them. And now do you really think that it will be easier to deal with women if you allow them to attack individual regulations, achieve rights by force and, finally, be equal to their husbands? As soon as they become equal, they will immediately become superior to us. (...)
With all this, I am ready to listen to the reason why the matrons ran in confusion to a public place and almost burst into the forum... “So that we can shine with gold and purple,” they say, “so that we can ride around the city in chariots on holidays and on weekdays.” , as if as a sign of triumph over the defeated and repealed law...; so that there is no limit to wastefulness and luxury.” ...Do you, citizens, really want to create such competition between your wives that the rich would strive to acquire what no other woman could acquire, and the poor would exhaust themselves so as not to incur contempt for their poverty? Truly, they will begin to be ashamed of what is not necessary, and will cease to be ashamed of what they should be ashamed of. What she can, the wife will purchase with her own funds, and what she is not able to buy, she will ask her husband for it. An unhappy husband is both the one who gives in to his wife's requests and the one who does not give in, and then sees how the other gives what he himself did not give. Now they are asking other people's husbands... and from some they are getting what they ask for. It’s easy to beg you in everything that concerns you, your affairs and your children, and therefore, as soon as the law ceases to set a limit on your wife’s extravagance, you yourself will never set one” ( Livy. From the foundation of the city, XXXIV, 1-4).
This is what the stern Cato said. But women also had their defenders and speakers. The people's tribune Lucius Valerius spoke out against the law, which was offensive to the Roman matrons, noting the enormous sacrifices women made during the war and how willingly they helped the state by abandoning expensive clothes and jewelry. Now the women had to be rewarded. “We, men, will dress in purple... when occupying government positions and priestly places; our children will dress in togas bordered with purple; ...shall we only ban women from wearing purple?” Valerius's speech inspired the Roman women even more, and they, surrounding the houses of the officials, finally achieved victory (Ibid., XXXIV, 7-8).
During the imperial era, marked by greater freedom of morals and the decay of ancient customs, the rights and opportunities of women in Rome expanded significantly. The life of women became a favorite topic for satirists, and many other writers watched with concern as frivolity, debauchery, and debauchery spread in Roman society, and the court and family of the emperor himself were the focus of many evils in the eyes of the Romans. A sharply outlined, impressive picture of morals, not inferior in power of expressiveness to the best satires of Juvenal, is painted by Seneca in one of his letters to Lucilius: “The greatest physician (Hippocrates. - Note lane.) ...said that women don’t lose hair and their legs don’t hurt. But now they are losing their hair, and their legs are sore. It was not the nature of women that changed, but life: having become equal to men in promiscuity, they became equal to them in illness. Women live at night and drink the same amount, competing with men in the amount of... wine, they also vomit from the womb what they have swallowed forcibly... and they also gnaw snow to calm their raging stomachs. And in lust they are not inferior to the other sex: ...they have come up with such a perverted kind of debauchery that they themselves sleep with men, like men.
Is it surprising if the greatest doctor, the best expert on nature, turned out to be a liar and there are so many bald and gouty women? Because of such vices, they lost the advantages of their sex and, ceasing to be women, condemned themselves to male diseases" ( Seneca. Moral Letters to Lucilius, XCV, 20-21).
It is not surprising that with the growth of psychological, moral and property independence of women, divorces became more and more common. The situation was completely different in the first centuries of Roman history, when it came to the dissolution of marital ties only in exceptional situations. According to legend, the first divorce in Rome took place in 231 BC. e. For five hundred years after the founding of the Eternal City, there was no need for any legal measures to ensure the property status of the spouses in the event of divorce, since there were no divorces at all. Then, however, a certain Spurius Carvilius, nicknamed Ruga, a man of noble birth, for the first time dissolved the marriage because his wife could not have children. In the city they said that this Spurius Carvilius dearly loved his wife and valued her for her good disposition and other virtues, but he put fidelity to the oath above love, and he swore that he would provide for offspring. In any case, this is how Aulus Gellius talks about it (Attic Nights, IV, 3, 1-2).
What Aulus Gellius calls the first divorce in Roman history was, apparently, the first dissolution of a marriage due to the “fault” of the wife, with all legal formalities being observed. There is no doubt that families in Rome were breaking up much earlier, and if the “Laws of the XII Tables” (mid-5th century BC) provides a special formula by which a husband could demand that his wife give him the keys, then this can see, probably, traces of customary legal practice that took place in early times in cases where spouses separated.
Roman law distinguished between two forms of divorce: “repudium” - dissolution of marriage on the initiative of one of the parties, and “divortium” - divorce by mutual consent of both spouses. Marriages concluded in the forms of "koemptio" or "uzus" were dissolved without much difficulty: as in Greece, the husband could simply send his wife to the home of her parents or guardians, returning her personal property. The expression of this act was the formula: “Take your things and go away.” If the marriage took place in the form of conflict, then divorce was much more difficult. Both the conclusion of such a marriage and its dissolution were accompanied by numerous legal formalities. Initially, only the wife's infidelity or disobedience to her husband were considered legal reasons for divorce. In the 3rd century. BC e. In addition to the wife's adultery, some other circumstances were recognized as reasons for divorce, but the husband had to convincingly prove his wife's guilt and his accusations were carefully considered at the family council. A citizen who, without giving serious and justified motives and without convening a family council, sent away his wife was subject to general condemnation, and could even be deleted from the list of senators.
However, already in the 2nd century. BC e. These principles were abandoned, and any little things began to be considered legitimate reasons for divorce. For example, a husband had the right to blame his wife and abandon her just because she went out into the street with her face uncovered. Legal documents do not say whether “dissimilarity of character” or psychological incompatibility of spouses could be a reason for the dissolution of a marriage, but this certainly happened in life. Let us at least recall the anecdote conveyed by Plutarch about a certain Roman who was reproached for having separated from his wife, full of all sorts of merits, beautiful and rich. Showered with reproaches, he stretched out his foot, on which was an elegant shoe, and replied: “After all, these shoes are new and look good, but no one knows where they are too tight for me” ( Plutarch. Instructions for spouses, 22).
IN last period Since the existence of the republic, divorces have become a widespread and very frequent phenomenon in Rome, and the women themselves did not resist this, having achieved some legal protection for their property interests in the event of dissolution of marriage. Obviously, quarreling spouses went to the temple of the goddess Juno the Husband-Pacifying on the Palatine Hill less and less often. Juno, who was considered the guardian of peace and tranquility in the family, could indeed help resolve the conflict between the spouses: having arrived at the temple, the husband and wife took turns expressing to the goddess their claims against each other and, thereby giving vent to their anger and irritation, returned home reconciled.
However, Juno the Husband-Pacifying turned out to be powerless when much more important interests and passions came into play. The Romans were increasingly willing to change wives and husbands for the sake of enrichment or a political career. Marriage allowed more than one of them to improve their financial situation or gain strong and influential supporters in political struggle. An example of this is the biography of Cicero, who, after 37 years of marriage with Terence, divorced her in order to marry twenty-year-old Publilia and thus protect herself from ruin: as the legal guardian of his young bride, he was well versed in her property affairs and could count on great benefit.
The break with tradition, new customs and laws led to the fact that women received greater opportunities to decide their own destiny. If a wife wanted to leave her husband, then all she had to do was find support from her parents or guardians, and if the wife did not have close relatives and was legally independent, then she could carry out the necessary legal formalities herself. Divorces on the initiative of the wife occurred more and more often in Rome - it is not without reason that Seneca notes that there are women who measure their years not by the number of consuls they have replaced, but by the number of their husbands.
It happened that a woman, well aware of her husband’s property affairs, foreseeing his possible ruin, was in a hurry to divorce him in order to save her personal property. This situation was not uncommon, especially in those families where the husband participated in political life, held any senior positions, which required large expenses and over time could undermine the well-being of the family. Thus, Martial ridicules a certain Roman matron who decided to leave her husband as soon as he became praetor: after all, this would entail enormous costs:
This January, Proculeia, you want to leave your old husband, taking your fortune for yourself. What happened, tell me? What is the cause of sudden grief? Are you not answering me? I know that he became a praetor, And his Megalesian purple would have cost a hundred thousand, No matter how stingy you were to organize games; Another twenty thousand would have been spent on the national holiday. This is not a scam, I will say, this, Prokuleya, is self-interest. Martial. Epigrams, X, 41
Already in the era of the Principate of Augustus, it was not difficult to achieve a divorce, because Octavian Augustus did not fight divorce, but only cared about maintaining the family structure as a whole, bearing in mind the steady growth of the population. This explains the adoption of laws requiring women to remain married from 20 to 50 years, and men from 25 to 60. The laws also provided for the possibility of divorce, obliging divorced spouses to enter into new legal marriages. At the same time, a period was even assigned during which the woman had to remarry, namely: from six months to two years, counting from the date of divorce.
It was much easier for old women to find new husbands, since candidates for husbands often dreamed of a future will and the inheritance that awaited them after the death of their old wife. This side of Roman morals was also not ignored by satirists:
Pavle really wants to marry me, but I don’t want Pavla: I’m old. I wish I was older. Ibid., X, 8
As a legislator, Augustus also sought to regulate issues related to divorces themselves. In order to dissolve a marriage, a decision of one of the spouses was required, expressed by him in the presence of seven witnesses. A certain achievement of the legislation of the Principate was to ensure the financial situation of women after divorce, since previously they were virtually powerless in this regard. It has become possible for the wife to seek the return of her personal property based on procedures in the field civil law, even if the marriage contract did not stipulate the return of property in the event of divorce. This explains the actions of that Proculeia, the praetor’s wife, whom the caustic Martial subjected to merciless ridicule.
At the same time, apparently, the custom arose of sending the interested person a formal notice of the decision to dissolve the marriage bond - a kind of divorce letter. However, the long-standing custom of sending a wife away for any, even completely far-fetched, reason also persisted, if only the husband decided to re-enter into a marriage that was more beneficial for him. Juvenal speaks directly about this practice:
To tell the truth, he doesn’t love his wife, but only her appearance:
As soon as wrinkles appear and dry skin withers,
Teeth become darker and eyes become smaller,
The free man will tell her: “Take your belongings and get out!”
Juvenal. Satires. VI, 143-146
When spouses separated, many disputes arose about the division of property. However, there was and could not be any dispute about who should have custody of the children, since in Rome children were always subject only to the authority of the father. Back in the 2nd century. n. e. the lawyer Guy quotes the words of Emperor Hadrian that there is no nation that has greater power over its sons than the Romans ( Guy. Institutions, I, 53). We are undoubtedly talking about the “right of life and death” over his children that belonged to the Roman citizen.
During childbirth, the woman did not receive help from a doctor: in Rome, as in Greece, the services of a midwife or a slave experienced in obstetrics were considered sufficient. It is not surprising that cases of miscarriage or death of the newborn, and sometimes of the mother in labor, were very frequent. In one of his letters, Pliny the Younger mourns the two daughters of Helvidius Priscus, who died in childbirth after giving birth to girls: “It is so sad to see that the most worthy women at the dawn of youth were carried away by motherhood! I am worried about the fate of the little ones who were orphaned at their very birth...” (Letters of Pliny the Younger, IV, 21, 1-2). Pliny himself experienced a different misfortune: his wife Calpurnia, not knowing in her youth how to behave during pregnancy, “did not observe what pregnant women should observe, but did what was forbidden to them,” and she had a miscarriage (Ibid. , VIII, 10, 1).
If the birth ended successfully, then the celebrations associated with the birth of a new family member began in Rome on the eighth day after the birth and lasted three days. This was the so-called day of purification. The father, lifting the child from the ground, thereby expressed his decision to accept him into the family, after which cleansing sacrifices were brought to the gods and the baby was given a name. In addition to the closest relatives, invited guests also took part in these celebrations, bringing the baby the first memorable gifts - toys or amulets that were supposed to be hung around the newborn’s neck to protect him from evil spirits. On the third day of the holiday, a great feast was held.
For a long time, it was not necessary to register a newborn and publicly announce his birth. Only when the Roman reached the age of majority and put on a white male toga, that is, when the young citizen had to begin fulfilling his duties to the state, did he appear before officials and they included him in the lists of citizens. For the first time, the registration of newborns was introduced in Rome by Octavian Augustus: within the first 30 days from the birth of the baby, the father was obliged to notify the authorities about the birth of a new Roman. In the Eternal City itself, registration of children took place in the Temple of Saturn, where the state treasury and archives were located, and in the provinces - in the office of the governor in the main city of the province. At the same time, a written act was drawn up confirming full name the child, his date of birth, as well as his free descent and citizenship rights. Introduced by Sulla in 81 BC. e. Cornelius’s “Law on Forgeries” testifies to how widespread the practice of falsifying birth documents was: people often ascribed Roman citizenship to themselves, for which new law mercilessly punished with exile. It was precisely on the basis of such an accusation, which turned out to be false, that a lawsuit was brought against the Greek poet Archias, who in 62 BC. e. defended by Cicero himself.
In order to prevent the spread of such falsifications to some extent, all data on the origin and citizenship rights of a newborn was entered into a book of metrics - calendars, and lists of registered children were made available to the public. When and how often, we really don’t know. A very interesting document has been preserved - a copy of the girl’s birth certificate, written on a wax tablet, apparently at the request of the parents. The text is placed on both sides of the tablet and dates back to 127 AD. e., i.e. during the reign of Emperor Hadrian. The document was compiled in Alexandria of Egypt, so the dates in it are given according to both the Roman and Egyptian calendars. The text says that on March 27, at the consulate of Lucius Nonius Asprenate and Marcus Annius Libo, a certain Gaius Herennius Geminianus, paying 375 sesterces of taxes, announced the birth of his daughter Herennius Gemella on March 11 of the same year. The girl was included in a long list of newborns, compiled by order of the governor of Egypt and posted in the Forum of Augustus for everyone to know.
This is a very valuable document, since it confirms that girls were also included in the lists of citizens, which was of great importance for women from a formal legal point of view - and during imprisonment marriage contracts, and when ensuring the wife’s property rights.
We have no evidence of how the father behaved if twins were born into his family - twins or triplets. Apparently, in the absence of medical assistance, the twins rarely managed to survive. As we remember, Aulus Gellius reports about a woman in Egypt who gave birth to five children at once, citing Aristotle’s opinion that this highest number children that can be born at the same time (Attic Nights, X, 2). We do not know, however, how many of those five babies survived. The same author says that the same number of children was born by a certain slave in Rome during the era of the Principate. However, they lived only a few days, and soon their mother died. Octavian Augustus, having learned about this, ordered a tomb to be erected for them and the whole story to be written down on it for the information of posterity. Of course, this happened extremely rarely and even then it seemed like an exceptional event, worthy of mention in historical monuments.
The situation of children not accepted into the family by their father and left to die was the same in Rome as in Greece. Already the “Laws of the XII Tables” prescribed the killing of infants born weak or crippled, as was the case in Sparta. At the same time, the father had the right to reject and not accept into the family a completely healthy child - both a boy and a girl. It is worth noting that over the centuries, this right began to be used more and more often: during the period of the Principate of Augustus, mainly girls or illegitimate children were abandoned, and already in the 3rd and 4th centuries. n. e. many Romans freely disposed of their children at will. The law did not interfere in this matter, only the voices of moral philosophers were heard condemning infanticide: Musonius Rufus in the 1st century, Epictetus in the 1st-2nd centuries. n. e. The legislation regulated only the complex legal relationships that arose between the father of an abandoned child and the one who found and saved him. Only Christianity began to truly fight the killing of newborns.
In Roman law, the found child remained in the unlimited power of the one who took him into his possession. The person who found the child himself determined whether he would raise him as a free citizen, or - which happened much more often - as a slave. At the same time, if the parents of the abandoned baby were freeborn, then he himself could eventually gain freedom. A father who had once abandoned his child retained the fullness of his paternal power over him and, if he met him again, could demand his return. At the same time, he was not even obliged to return to the voluntary guardian - the “educator” - his expenses for the maintenance of the child he found and saved. It is clear that such a practice began to raise objections early on; the very right of fathers to demand the return of their abandoned children was disputed, without reimbursing the expenses incurred by the “educator.” But it was only in 331 that Emperor Constantine decreed that a father who abandoned his child lost all paternal authority over him.
In the event that a child born from an extramarital affair with a slave was abandoned, he could be returned only after compensation for the costs of his maintenance and upbringing. In the second half of the 4th century. Emperors Valentinian, Valens and Gratian forbade leaving freeborn children without care; As for the child from the slave, the master no longer had the right to demand his return, after he himself had once doomed him to death. Finally, already in the 6th century. Emperor Justinian generally forbade abandoning a child from a slave: if the abandoned child was found again, he could no longer be considered a slave. Thanks to these measures, every foundling, no matter what its origin, grew up and became free.
Illegitimate children were treated differently in Rome. Strong, long-term extramarital affairs already took place during the period of the famously harsh customs of the Roman Republic, but they really became widespread and frequent during the reign of Augustus, partly as one of the consequences of his own legislation. The laws of Augustus provided for strict punishments for violation of marital fidelity, for adultery with another man's wife, but they did not punish for concubinage or relations with a concubine. Thanks to this, the Romans continued to maintain extramarital relationships with women whom they could not marry for social or moral reasons.
But neither the concubine herself nor the children born from a union based on concubinage enjoyed any rights: the woman had no protection in the person of her husband, and the children, as illegitimate ones, could not make any claims to their father’s inheritance. After the victory of Christianity in the Roman Empire, the situation of the concubine and her children was even more complicated in order to encourage people who supported extramarital affairs to quickly turn them into a legal marriage. In 326, Constantine generally forbade men from having concubines in addition to their legal wives. Some scholars interpret this law in such a way that with the transformation of concubinage into a formal marriage union, children born from concubinage should have been recognized as full heirs. Under Justinian, concubine was regarded as a special, lower form of marriage, especially with regard to the rights of the concubine and her children to inheritance. This attitude towards extramarital affairs persisted in the eastern part of the former Roman Empire until the end of the 9th century, and in the West until the 12th century.
Now let us return to the Roman family, in which the father formally recognized the child and accepted him into the family. The mother and nanny took care of the baby, but it was often not the mother who fed him, but the nurse, the nurse. Whether this custom is good, whether it is acceptable for a mother to refuse to feed her infant child herself, was judged differently in Rome: some believed that it is not so important whose milk the newborn drinks, as long as it is nutritious and beneficial for the baby; others considered breastfeeding to be the responsibility of the child’s natural mother, and the evasion of this responsibility by many mothers was shameful manifestation selfishness. The philosopher Favorinus spoke in particular detail on this topic, whose words are quoted in his book by Aulus Gellius (Attic Nights, XII, 1). Favorin was indignant at the behavior of those mothers who do not even think of feeding their children themselves. The philosopher sees something amazing in this: a mother feeds a child in her body, whom she does not yet see, and refuses to feed with her milk the one whom she sees already alive, already a person, already demanding to be taken care of. Are breasts given to women to decorate their bodies, and not to feed babies? - asks Favorin. A mother who does not want to feed her child herself, but gives him to the mother, weakens the connecting thread that connects parents with their children. A baby given to a nurse is forgotten to almost the same extent as a dead one. And the newborn himself forgets his own mother, transferring the innate feeling of love to the one who feeds him, and then, as happens with children who are abandoned and rejected, he no longer feels any attraction to the mother who gave birth to him. And if in the future children raised under such conditions show their love for their father and mother, then this is not a natural feeling arising from nature, but only a desire to preserve the reputation of a good citizen who respects his parents, the philosopher concludes.
Already in Ancient Rome, pediatric medicine had its representatives. The most famous among them can be considered Soranus, who lived in Rome during the reign of Trajan and then Hadrian. In his extensive work On Women's Diseases, he discusses in 23 chapters how to care for a child; Seven of these chapters are devoted to the problem of feeding newborns. Soran also gives instructions on how to swaddle a baby, how to determine the quality of breast milk, how to bring a newborn to the breast, how many hours he should sleep, what regime should the nursing mother herself or her replacement nurse follow, etc. Some recommendations of the ancient pediatrician do not differ and with today’s views on these problems: for example, Soran considered it wrong to soothe a crying child by constantly giving him the breast, demanded that the baby be fed regularly and only during the day, and objected to artificial feeding. And the fact that artificial feeding was used even then is evidenced by all kinds of bottles and devices like our nipples discovered in children's sarcophagi in Pompeii.
According to the traditional beliefs of the ancient inhabitants of Italy, local Italian deities played a significant role in caring for the newborn. Each of them provided assistance to the mother or nanny in a certain situation: Levana (from “left” - I lift) made sure that the father, having raised the baby lying in front of him, recognized him as a member of the family; Kubina (from “kubo” - I lie) looked after the child in his cradle; Statilina (from “one” - I stand) taught him to take his first steps; Potina (from "poto" - I drink) and Edulia ("edo" - I eat) taught to drink and eat; Fabulina (“fabulor” - I’m talking) took care that the child began to speak. Of course, all these deities would have achieved little if it were not for the everyday troubles and diligence of the mother and nanny who looked after little boy or a girl under seven years old.
The help of a nanny was especially necessary for the mother in the first months and years of the child’s life, when she had to constantly monitor him, swaddle him and put him to bed, and then teach him discipline and educate him. At the same time, Roman nannies used the same pedagogical techniques as the Greek ones, frightening naughty mischief-makers with monsters generated by rich human imagination. In Rome, children were frightened by the Lamia, a terrible, bloodthirsty creature, borrowed, however, from Greek mythology; Lamia attacked children and carried them away.
The Romans generally willingly entrusted the care of their children to Greek slaves, since with them the children learned early Greek, knowledge of which was highly valued in Rome. At the same time, Quintilian attached great importance to the fact that nannies spoke Latin well and correctly, because it was from them that the child heard the first words in his native language, trying to repeat and assimilate them. If children get used to speaking incorrectly, it will be very difficult to retrain them later, the famous Roman orator believed ( Quintilian. Education of the speaker, I, 1, 3-5).
The childhood years of Roman boys and girls were spent in games and entertainment similar to the Greek ones. Children played dice, nuts, tossed a coin in the air and watched which side it would fall on. A favorite pastime was all kinds of ball games, one of which was akin to the Greek “basilinda”. The one who won received the honorary title of “king,” as Horace recalls in his message to Maecenas: “...The boys repeat while playing:
“You will be a king if you hit correctly”...
Horace. Epistles, I, 1, 59-60
Evil, sometimes cruel games were also not an invention of children only in later centuries: already in Ancient Rome they loved to attach or glue a coin on the road, joyfully watching how a passerby, bent over, unsuccessfully tries to pick it up. However, the years of carelessness and carefree fun passed quickly, and beyond these years the children faced their first test - school.
Culture ancient Rome, which we inherited, is interesting not only for its majestic stone ruins, bearing the imprint of the former power of the Empire, but also for its living traditions, partly modified, and in many ways strikingly recognizable. It is sometimes useful to look back into the centuries to evaluate: were the representatives of humanity who lived at the dawn of a new era so different from us?
Two thousand years ago, as today, the family was not only a unit, but also the basis of society. Marriage ceremonies and all the holidays associated with this event formed an integral part of Roman life. It is worth, for example, trying to draw a parallel between the marriage customs of our ancestors and modern celebrations in honor of the god Hymen in order to discover strong ancient roots in our own wedding rituals. So let us give glory to the god Hymen!
Unlike newlyweds of the XX-XXI centuries, young Romans practically did not have the opportunity to choose a life partner at their own discretion; their parents enjoyed this privilege. Marriages of convenience, especially in early period Empires made up almost one hundred percent majority. The only difference was what goal the heads of families pursued: political, economic or social.
A Roman, whether patrician or plebeian, could have only one wife, but divorce and remarriage were not prohibited by law. Considering that life expectancy in ancient society was half as long as ours, young people did not stay long in their father’s house. So, officially, a girl could be married off at the age of 12, but, as a rule, parents kept the future bride by their side until she was 14 years old. By this time, they were trying to finally decide on the candidacy of the future husband and owner.
So, the bride is ripe, the groom has been determined, the parents agree - now it’s time to conclude a marriage contract. Simpler people did this in words, but the most practical fathers of families preferred to fix the terms of the union on paper and, preferably, in the presence of a lawyer, so as not to complain in vain about the obstinacy of the bride or groom who decided to go against the will of the parents.
There were several types of marriage contracts, but their essence boiled down mainly to whether the marriage was “full” or “not full.” The first version of the union was possible only between citizens of the Roman state, and the second was the lot of the poorest plebeians and powerless slaves. In the case of representatives of the “lower classes” of society, the young man bought his wife as property, even if the ransom was only one asses (1). The wedding ceremony among the plebs was simplified to a minimum, although the main rituals were preserved.
In a “full” marriage, two forms were allowed: “cum manu”, when the wife passed into the power of her husband and received the right to be called “matron” (2) and “sine manu”, then she still remained under the authority of her father and was called only “uxor” "(3). A Roman woman who decided to become the “mother of the family” became the property of her husband or father-in-law, if the betrothed’s father was still alive, but at the same time had the right to inherit from her husband and share any property with the children. Over time, women from noble families began to prefer the second option, maintaining their own independence, and at the same time losing all rights to their husband's inheritance. "The Twelve Tables" - the first written law of Rome stated that "a wife automatically falls under the authority of her husband if she lives in his house constantly for at least a year." But was it really so difficult to circumvent this regulation? It was only necessary to spend a few nights at her parents' house or with a friend, and the woman remained virtually free.
Let us assume that the conclusion of the contract has taken place one way or another, and we will continue to monitor the series of marriage ceremonies. Now the newlyweds were about to get engaged. The god of marriage Hymen became the main one here actor. He had to be appeased in every possible way, so that later, at the wedding, other spirits needed in the family business would gather. The day of the engagement, and even more so the wedding, was chosen especially carefully. There were times when the bride, accompanied by her mother, went to the oracle to determine a date pleasing to the gods. Then the custom became indecent, but in preparation for this joyful event they continued to turn to the religious calendar, so as not to tempt the celestials. Most often, weddings took place in May or in the second half of June - a period considered especially happy and favorable.
The night before the engagement, the bride sacrificed her children's toys to the gods, i.e., burned them on the home altar. In those distant times, the presence of a clergyman at the betrothal ceremony was not required, although it was not prohibited. The Romans, like modern newlyweds, sealed future union rings. The groom gave his betrothed a simple iron ring without stones as a pledge of the marriage contract. The bride accepted the gift and, as a sign of gratitude, put it on the penultimate finger of her left hand, because it was believed that there was a special nerve connecting the hand to the heart. Then the young people gave each other a simple oath “Ubi Gaius, ego Gaia” (Latin: “Where you are Gai, I am Gaia”) and sealed their union... but not with a kiss, but with a handshake.
On the wedding day, the house of the bride's father was decorated with flower garlands and covered festive table. The young woman was dressed in a white tunic. When the groom, adorned with a wreath, arrived at the newlywed's house, one of the married women (matchmaker) brought the girl out to meet him and joined their hands. After which the newlyweds, in the presence of the guests, signed a pre-drafted wedding contract, sealing it with verbal promises. After this, it was the turn of the gods again. The priest walked around the altar three times clockwise, saying a prayer, the bride and groom followed him hand in hand. The newlyweds were then seated in a double-seated chair covered with the skin of the animal being sacrificed, and its liver was thrown at the foot of the altar. Retributions were performed in honor of various gods who patronized the hearth, fertility, and health, but more than others they tried to honor the goddess Juno, the patroness of marriage - she was appeased with wine with honey and milk. A self-respecting bride brought to the sacrificial altar wheat bread, which meant her willingness to obey her husband unquestioningly. However, if the young woman chose to remain under the supervision of her father, then she did not have to do this. When the sacred ritual ended, the guests of the holiday congratulated the spouses, expressing their wishes, and from time to time shouted “Feliciter” - “Happy!” Following this, the wedding feast began, lasting until the night.
At the end of the festive dinner, all participants and guests headed to the groom's house to the sounds of the flute. Six torchbearers walked ahead of everyone, followed by the newlyweds, accompanied by the girl’s mother. During the procession, according to tradition, the young husband's friends imitated an attempt to kidnap the bride. Naturally, they failed to do this, then they began to fumigate the newlywed with hawthorn torches in order to protect her from the evil eye and damage. There were also servants here, bringing a symbolic dowry to the newlyweds’ house: a spinning wheel with yarn, a spindle and a willow basket with women’s handicrafts. Street boys, skipping along with the procession, sang obscene songs, the meaning of which basically boiled down to the fact that the heroine of the holiday would soon have to learn all aspects of family life - this was considered a kind of sexual education for the girl.
Before entering the family nest, the groom threw a handful of nuts on the ground, as a sign that he would not be petty and greedy with his wife. The bride was given water and a lit pine torch. The newlywed attached woolen headbands to the doors - thus affirming that she would be a good spinner - and smeared the doorframe with pork and wolf lard" (4). After this simple ritual, the bride was carried into the house in her arms. new house, because It was considered a bad sign if a young wife's feet touched the threshold.
The new hostess was invited to the atrium (5), she was given a key, and the groom presented several gold coins - as a sign that he completely trusted his newly made lifelong friend. Then they lit a fire together in the hearth - this is how it began living together two Romans entering married life.
The next day, the young hostess arranged a small feast, at which she acted as a hostess for the first time.
1 Ass - Copper Roman small change.
2 Matrona (lat. Matrona) - venerable married woman, mother of the family.
3 Uxor (lat. Uxor) - spouse, wife.
4 Desobri. "Rome in the Time of Augustus".
5 Atrium - the courtyard of a Roman residential building.
Anyone who has watched the film “Caligula” has an idea of what kind of morals reigned in Ancient Rome. But maybe this is just a creative invention of screenwriters and directors? Historians claim that the orgies and debauchery shown in the film are the pure truth.
As you know, fish spoils from the head and the people, who were ruled by insatiable carnal pleasures emperors, such as Caligula, who deflowered his own sister, or Neuron, who even cohabited with his mother, followed their example and sexual permissiveness became one of distinctive features era.
Sex and art. Freedom of morals can be judged primarily by objects of art Ancient Rome. If in our time pornography is condemned by society, then in those days paintings that depicted sexual scenes with all frankness were considered the norm and were an obligatory part of the art collection of wealthy people.
It was the paintings found on the ruins of Pompeii and Herculaneum that became a source of knowledge for historians (of course, except literary heritage) about the sexual life of Ancient Rome. They testify to how liberated and “savvy” people of that era were in matters of sex. With all the variety of techniques and poses, quite often there are paintings where a woman is depicted from above. But in cultural heritage No such images have been found in Ancient Greece.
Sex and religion.The official religion had a positive attitude towards sex and considered it an important component of a prosperous society. For example, the symbol of the fertility god Priapus among the Romans was an exaggerated erect male genital organ. Many Romans turned to him with requests and made sacrifices not only to ensure a good harvest, but also to improve their sexual capabilities.
Sex and holidays. The spirit of eroticism hovered at many ancient Roman holidays. For example, the annual fertility festival Lupercalia was held on February 15, which appears to have been the precursor to modern St. Valentine's Day. True, back then it was not customary to give each other plush hearts and pink toy bunnies. Instead, the participants of the holiday sacrificed goats, stripped naked, ran around the city and whipped passers-by with pieces of goat skins. Those, however, did not mind, especially women, because then they could count on divine help in conceiving and giving birth to a healthy baby.
Another sensual holiday was held at the end of April and was called Floralia. Its traditions included naked dances, in which priestesses of love, among other women, took part.
The oldest profession. In ancient Rome, prostitution was completely legal. To practice this ancient profession, one only had to obtain a “license” from the aedile, that is, register in the state register. Moreover, if a woman decided to do this, she remained a prostitute until the end of her days, even if she stopped providing sexual services. In addition, she had some restrictions on her rights, for example, she could not speak in court.
Typically, prostitutes were poor women or freed slaves. But there were exceptions. Especially often registered as priestesses of love were women from high society after the decree of Emperor Augustus, which attracted women for adultery to criminal liability. But this law did not apply to prostitutes.
Same-sex relationships. The ancient Romans did not see much of a difference between same-sex and opposite-sex relationships. The Latin language does not even have terms for homo- and heterosexuality. Of decisive importance in this era was social status. A freeborn man, even if he was married, could afford to have sex with anyone and as much as he wanted, and attraction, including to other men of lower status, was not considered immoral. But at the same time he could only borrow active position, since society condemned any manifestation of weakness on the part of a man, including passivity in sex.
By the way, any addiction, including sex, was considered a weakness. Therefore, if a man could not control his impulses in this sense and was, as they say now, a “sexaholic,” this was extremely condemned and was considered a disease. Have a fun night!
And be sure to find out
1 . In ancient Rome, if a patient died during an operation, the doctor's hands were cut off.
2. In Rome during the Republic, a brother had legal right punish your sister for disobedience by having sex with her.
3 . In ancient Rome, a group of slaves belonging to one person was called... a surname
4. Among the first fifteen Roman emperors, Claudius was the only one who did not have affairs with men. This was considered unusual behavior and was ridiculed by poets and writers, who said: by loving only women, Claudius himself became effeminate.
5. In the Roman army, soldiers lived in tents of 10 people. At the head of each tent was a senior person, who was called... the dean.
6. IN Ancient world, as in the Middle Ages, there was no toilet paper. The Romans used a stick with a cloth at the end, which was dipped in a bucket of water.
7. In Rome, rich citizens lived in houses - mansions. The guests knocked on the door of the house with a knocker and a door ring. On the threshold of the house there was a mosaic inscription “salve” (“welcome”). Some houses were guarded by slaves tied to a ring in the wall instead of dogs.
8. In ancient Rome, noble gentlemen used curly-haired boys as napkins at feasts. Or rather, of course, they only used their hair, which they wiped their hands on. For boys, it was considered incredible luck to get into the service of a high-ranking Roman as such a “table boy.”
9. Some women in Rome drank turpentine (despite the risk of fatal poisoning) because it made their urine smell like roses.
10. The tradition of the wedding kiss came to us from the Roman Empire, where the newlyweds kissed at the end of the wedding, only then the kiss had a different meaning - it meant a kind of seal under the oral marriage agreement. So the marriage deal was valid
11. The popular expression “return to one’s native Penates,” meaning a return to one’s home, to the hearth, is more correctly pronounced differently: “return to one’s native Penates.” The fact is that the Penates are the Roman guardian gods of the hearth, and each family usually had images of two Penates next to the hearth.
12. The wife of the Roman Emperor Claudius, Messalina, was so lustful and depraved that she amazed her contemporaries who were accustomed to many things. According to historians Tacitus and Suetonius, she not only ran a brothel in Rome, but also worked there as a prostitute, personally serving clients. She even set up a competition with another famous prostitute and won it, servicing 50 clients versus 25.
13 . The month of August, previously called Sextillis (sixth), was renamed in honor of the Roman Emperor Augustus. January was named after the Roman god Janus, who had two faces: one looking back to the past year, and the second looking forward to the future. The name of the month of April comes from the Latin word "aperire", which means to open, possibly due to the fact that flower buds open during this month.
14 . In ancient Rome, prostitution was not only not illegal, but was also considered a common profession. Priestesses of love were not covered with shame and contempt, so they did not need to hide their status. They walked freely around the city, offering their services, and to make it easier to distinguish them from the crowd, prostitutes wore high-heeled shoes. No one else wore heels, so as not to mislead those who wanted to buy sex.
15. In Ancient Rome, there were special bronze coins to pay for the services of prostitutes - spintrii. They depicted erotic scenes - as a rule, people in various positions during sexual intercourse.
Ancient Rome, along with Ancient Greece, is considered the cradle of European culture. However, some traditions of that time seem strange even to us, who have seen everything or almost everything.
10th place: The streets of Rome were often named after the artisans or merchants who settled there. For example, there was a “Sandal” street in the city - a street of sandal-making specialists (vicus Sandalarius). On this street, Augustus erected the famous statue of Apollo, which became known as Apollo Sandalarius.
9th place: No flowers or trees were planted on the Roman streets: there was simply no room for this. The Romans knew about traffic jams long before the birth of Christ. If a mounted military detachment was passing along the street, it could push back pedestrians with impunity and even beat them.
8th place: The walls of many houses were decorated with explicit images of sexual scenes. It was not considered pornography, but an object of worship and admiration. Artists were especially valued for their ability to convey to the audience the full intensity of such scenes.
7th place: Rome is generally famous for its free morals. Pedophilia, same-sex relationships and group sex were the order of the day. But wealthy noble Romans were advised to avoid having sex with women from high society, since if the result was an illegitimate child, then big problems with the division of inheritance.
6th place: Roman feasts were not a very beautiful sight. Regardless of the size of the room and the number of people dining, the table was very small. One dining companion was separated from another by pillows and cloths. The crowded people, warmed by wine and food, sweated incessantly and, in order not to catch a cold, covered themselves with special capes.
5th place: The Romans adopted gladiator fights from the Greeks. Not only a prisoner of war, but also any free citizen who wanted to earn money could become a gladiator. In order to become a gladiator, it was necessary to take an oath and declare oneself “legally dead.”
4th place: Civil criminals could also be sentenced to the arena. Like, for example, one jeweler who deceived customers.
3rd place: The Romans also had something like a movie. During naumakhiyas, historical battles were played out in great detail. To stage one battle, a huge artificial lake was dug. 16 galleys with 4 thousand oarsmen and 2 thousand gladiator soldiers took part in the performance.
2nd place: Prostitution flourished in Rome. Prostitutes worked almost everywhere and varied not only in cost, but also in the nature of the services provided. For example, bustuaries ("Bustuariae") were prostitutes who wandered around graves (busta) and bonfires in cemeteries at night. Often they played the role of mourners during funeral rites.
1st place: Roman toilets (in Latin they were called “latrina” or “forica”) were quite spacious - the largest could accommodate about 50 people at the same time. The floors of the toilets were paved with mosaics, usually depicting dolphins, and there was a fountain in the center. Musicians often played in foriki, and those gathered held conversations and shared news. Often one could hear political witticisms and poetry there.
P.S. My name is Alexander. This is my personal, independent project. I am very glad if you liked the article. Want to help the site? Just look at the advertisement below for what you were recently looking for.