Shocking customs of ancient Rome. Colors of Rome - traditions, festivals and mentality of local residents

Last modified: September 30, 2018

In modern Italy it is not customary to get married in early age. Italians approach the issue of starting a family very responsibly. The cult of family in Italy is highly valued, and family traditions always come first. I wonder what marriage was like in ancient Rome? What traditions and customs have come down from time immemorial to the present day?

Marriage from ancient Rome: love or calculation

IN ancient times The wedding ceremony was considered sacred, and the family was the support of the entire state, but not all romantic relationship two loving hearts ended with a magnificent wedding.

The fact is that for many centuries, the Romans considered the marriage procedure primarily as a mutually beneficial cooperation. For noble and wealthy families, this meant the possibility of combining capital, lands, spreading their influence, and the like. Often, the parents of the future newlyweds agreed on the wedding, immediately stipulating all possible benefits of the union for both parties. Very often in such cases one could observe the concept of unequal marriages. As a rule, the future groom was much older than his bride, and sometimes even vice versa.

Pope Alexander VI Borgia married his youngest son Gioffre, who at that time was not yet thirteen years old, was matched against the much older daughter of the King of Naples.

Among the common population, there were also often cases of arranged marriages, but there were much fewer of them than among representatives of the upper classes. Despite this attitude towards marriage, in those distant times the very concept of family for the ancient Romans remained closely associated with such moral aspects as mutual respect and honoring each other as spouses.

Laws of ancient Rome on creating a family

In antiquity, there were a sufficient number of rules prescribed by law regarding the creation of a new unit of society. Those who wanted to get married first of all had to ask permission from the head of the family, and it depended only on his decision whether a new family would be born or not. Today, such a rule does not seem too unusual. Nowadays, there is also a tradition of asking for parental blessings. However, some of the laws that existed in ancient Rome may seem quite unusual.

• Age The optimal age for marriage was considered to be 17 years for girls and 20 years for boys, although laws allowed marriage much earlier. Girls could get married at age twelve, and boys at age fourteen. This was explained not only by the fact that in ancient times life expectancy was shorter, but also by the early mortality of women and children.
• Status The right to marry was granted only to free Romans. The Roman state did not give such an opportunity to slaves and foreigners. In addition, the laws prohibited military personnel and magistrates from creating families.
• Family ties During the republican period, marriages among relatives up to the fourth generation were not only prohibited, but also punished death penalty. Starting from the 1st century BC, marriages between cousins ​​were allowed, and in the 3rd century AD, marriages between an uncle and a niece were allowed.

Marriage registration in ancient Rome

As such, from a legal point of view, there was no registration of marriage; no one drew up any special papers or made entries in civil registries, as is customary in modern society. To enter into marriage, it was considered sufficient to fulfill a number of conditions described above, and also required cohabitation, a desire to recognize each other as husband and wife, and adherence to decent behavior.

Types of marriage in ancient Rome

IN modern world There are only two types of marriage - civil, registered in the registry office (in Italy, marriage is registered in the commune), and church. In ancient Rome, during the early Republican period, the main type of marriage was considered CUN MANUM, which literally means “with hand” in Latin.

In antiquity, all members of the family were under the authority of the head of the family. The wife in the full sense of the word belonged to the husband, and the children were the property of the father. When a young girl got married, she officially ceased to belong to her parent and came under the protection of her husband. A woman had limited rights in terms of property ownership; she could not manage her dowry and, subsequently, the family budget. However, unlike Greek women, she was more independent and had some privileges. The Roman matron could freely visit theaters and baths, take part in important dinner parties and pursue your education.

For different classes, the wedding ceremony involved completely different rituals:

Confarreation

A ceremonial event on the occasion of marriage, held by the chief priest for representatives of the patrician family. During the ritual, special prayers and petitions were read pagan gods and sacrifices were made: bread made from special varieties of wheat, fruits and sheep. Required condition such a ceremony required the presence of ten witnesses. The dissolution of a marriage concluded in this way was considered unacceptable.

Historical reference

The main priest in Ancient Rome was the Great Pontiff, being the head of all pontiffs. In the 8th century BC. this position was occupied by kings.

Coempito

For Roman citizens of ordinary descent there was a different rite. In the presence of at least five witnesses, the groom bought his bride for a nominal fee. At the same time, he had to ask the girl whether she wanted to become the mother of his children, and she - whether the young man wanted to be the father of the family.

In addition to such official marriage ceremonies, the so-called marriage of habit was common in ancient Rome. Couples who had lived together and inseparably for one year were recognized as legal wife and husband. However, if during this year one of the cohabitants was absent for more than three days, the countdown began again.

In the late Republican period in Rome, the most common form of marriage was SINE MANU, which differed from CUN MANUM in that the young wife did not become the property of her husband, but remained under the protection of her father. In addition, a woman who had more than three children could refuse all protection from anyone and became more free. This meant that she could fully dispose of the property that rightfully belonged to her and, if necessary, file for divorce.

Ancient Rome, along with Ancient Greece, considered the cradle 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 and even beat them with impunity.

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 the foriki, and those gathered held conversations and shared news. Often one could hear political witticisms and poetry there.

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 related to 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 the sons sought to quickly gain independence, sometimes the father himself “freed” one or more 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-ordered home life of their husbands gave even more shine 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, the Roman woman enjoyed much greater freedom than the woman of 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, 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 in material terms and the opportunity to have their 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 unique 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 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 ceremony 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 getting married seemed to the residents of Italy to be 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 attire was complemented by a special hairstyle, which in normal times was obligatory only for Vestal Virgins. 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 home 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 rituals and the cult of the ancient Italian agricultural gods eventually faded 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 regarding 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: 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 of the ancient custom of “buying” a wife, and sacrificed the third coin to the household gods - the Lares.

All these ceremonies were committed 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 were also evident in the area 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 sometimes very important matters were discussed, even concerning the general situation in the state: for example, the decision of Roman women to give their gold jewelry and other valuables to the treasury during the war of Rome with the inhabitants of the city of Veii (396 BC). BC) was apparently adopted 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 had 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 state affairs - sometimes with the best 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 state 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 and 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 Pompey’s power 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 upon and trampled into the dirt, and since we each could not cope with just 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 on state affairs, to break into the forum, into public assemblies. (...) Give free rein to a 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 the history of Rome 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, achieving a divorce was not difficult, because Octavian Augustus did not fight divorces, but only cared about maintaining family life in general, keeping in mind the steady population growth. 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 a 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 adulthood 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, 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, while 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 the child’s full name, 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 recorded 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 own. The one 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 concubine 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 the responsibility of the child's natural mother, and the evasion of this responsibility by many mothers as a shameful manifestation of 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 already used 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 early mastered the Greek language, the 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.

The ancient culture of Rome, which existed from the 8th century. BC. and until the collapse of the Holy Roman Empire in 476 AD, gave the world its own vision of a system of ideals and values. For this civilization, love for the Motherland, dignity and honor, reverence for the gods and faith in one’s uniqueness were paramount. This article presents main aspects, capable of describing such a unique phenomenon as the culture of Ancient Rome, briefly.

In contact with

Ancient Roman culture

According to chronological data, the cultural history of Ancient Rome can be divided into three main periods:

• royal (8th–6th centuries BC);
• Republican (6th–1st centuries BC);
• imperial (1st century BC – 5th century AD).

The royal period of Ancient Rome is considered the most primitive in terms of Roman culture. However, at that time the Romans already had own alphabet. At the end of the 6th century, the first ancient schools began to appear, in which children studied Latin and Greek, writing and arithmetic for 4–5 years.

Attention! In that short period ancient history, which lasted from 753 to 509. BC, seven kings managed to ascend the Roman throne: Romulus, Numa Pompilius, Tullus Hostilius, Ancus Marcius, Lucius Tarquinius Priscus, Servius Tullius, Lucius Tarquinius the Proud.

The Republican period is characterized by the penetration of ancient Greek culture into the life of Ancient Rome. At this time they begin to develop philosophy and law.

The most prominent Roman philosopher of that time was Lucretius (98–55), who in his work “On the Nature of Things” called on people to stop fearing superstitions and God’s punishment.

He gave a completely logical explanation for the emergence of man and the universe. An innovation in the system of Roman law was the introduction of the concept “ entity", thanks to which the positions of private owners are strengthened.

During the imperial period of development of ancient culture, everything Greek was abandoned. Roman uniqueness develops. This is clearly visible in the culture and architecture of that time: the Colosseum and the Pantheon. For the first time, attempts are being made to study the activity of the brain. The experiments were carried out by the famous physician Galen in ancient times. Are being created schools for training doctors. There have also been changes in religion. The Roman emperor was now recognized as a deity, who after death ascended to heaven.

Ancient Roman heritage

Many achievements of Ancient Rome in the field of civilization and culture, created in the ancient period, are now popular all over the world:

• Water pipes. Aqueducts were used back in Babylon, but in Ancient Rome they began to be used not only for irrigation, but also for domestic needs. Water pipelines were also installed to industrial areas: places where resources were mined and craft districts. Surviving aqueducts built during the period of antiquity in the territory of modern Europe can be found in Germany, France and Italy.
• Sewerage. It became a necessary element of large Roman cities. Drainage systems were used both to drain water during rain and sewage of various nature. Antique sewers are still used today, however, only to remove water after a rainstorm.
• Citizenship. The main heritage of Ancient Rome. It was the Romans who established the procedures for obtaining citizenship. All free people were considered legal residents of the Empire, regardless of where they were born and in what territory of the state they lived.
• Republic. The republican form of government, created in Rome in the ancient period, put the beginning of the creation of a modern type of government. It was the Romans who began to share the reins of government, since, in their opinion, its concentration in the hands of one ruler could be disastrous for all citizens. The Romans managed to maintain harmony between layers of society for a long period of time thanks to delegation. However, ironically, it was the republican form of government that buried the Roman state.
• Cultural monuments of Ancient Rome. This rich heritage includes Roman buildings, sculptures, literary works, and philosophical works.

Art

The artistic culture of Ancient Rome was very similar to the Greek one of the same period. But this also has its advantages. Thanks to the Romans managed to save many works of ancient painting that were copied from Greek artists.

The sculptures of the Romans acquired emotions. Their faces reflected their state of mind, making the sculpture come to life. It was in Ancient Rome that such a literary movement as the novel appeared.

The unified Greco-Roman culture of the ancient period gave rise to many writers, playwrights and poets. A new direction in literature was born - the novel. Among the famous satirists of that time it is worth noting Plautus and Terence.

Their comedies have been preserved to this day. Livy Andronicus became the first tragedian in Rome and translated Homer's Odyssey into Latin. Among the poets, it is worth noting Lucilius, who wrote poems on everyday topics. Most often in his works he ridiculed the obsession with wealth.

During the time of Cicero in Ancient Rome philosophy is gaining popularity. Such trends appeared as Roman Stoicism, the main idea of ​​which was the achievement of a moral and spiritual ideal by man, and Roman Neoplatonism, which preached the ascent of the human soul to unity with a certain ecstasy.

In the field of astronomy, the ancient scientist Ptolemy is famous, who created the geocentric system of the world. He also wrote a number of works on optics, mathematics and geography.

Architecture of Ancient Rome

The ancient Roman era left majestic monuments of ancient architecture that can still be seen today.

Coliseum. A huge amphitheater whose construction began in 72 AD. and ended only after 8 years. Its second name, the Flavian Amphitheater, is associated with the ruling dynasty, whose representatives were the initiators of construction. The total capacity of the Roman Colosseum was more than 50 thousand people.

Note! Most often, prisoners of war took part in gladiatorial battles. Their lives depended on how colorfully they were able to demonstrate their capabilities and to what extent they won over the public. If the gladiator made a strong impression, the spectators of Rome allowed him to live and raised him. thumb up. If the audience wanted death, then the thumb coolly moved down.

Triumphal Arch of Titus. The construction of the monument was initiated by the Roman Emperor Domitian, shortly after the death of his predecessor Titus. This ancient monument was built in 81 AD. in honor of the conquest of Jerusalem in 70 AD. The arch is known for its convex relief within the span. It depicts a procession of Roman soldiers carrying spoils captured in Jerusalem.

Pantheon. A majestic structure built by Emperor Hadrian in 126 AD. The Pantheon is a temple dedicated to all the gods. Perfectly preserved to this day in its original form, this cultural monument of the ancient period is unique for its proportionality and visual lightness. The top of the Roman temple is decorated with a dome with a hole in the center to supply sunlight.

Cultural traditions

The most striking and original traditions of Roman culture of the ancient period are presented in marriage ceremony.

On the eve of the wedding, the girl, as if saying goodbye to childhood, had to donate her toys and clothes. A red shawl was tied around the head, the bride was dressed in a white tunic, which was tied with a sheep's wool belt.

The wedding dress in Ancient Rome was red, which was worn over a tunic. A bright yellow blanket was thrown over the head, which matched the color of the shoes.

The very same the ceremony was accompanied sacrifice of a pig. Her insides determined whether the marriage would be happy. And if so, then the person conducting the fortune-telling ritual gave his permission.

Already during the ancient period, marriage contracts were drawn up, which specified the bride's dowry and the procedure for dividing property in the event of divorce. The contract was read aloud in front of ten witnesses, after which these witnesses signed.

Specifics

Despite the fact that Ancient Rome imitated Greece in many ways, it had characteristic distinctive features in culture. If the Greeks occupied territories by distributing their goods, then Rome led hostilities, completely depriving the conquered territory of independence.

Once every five years, a population survey was conducted - a census. The activity of the population was valued both in wartime and in peacetime.

The toga was considered national clothing in Rome. That is why the Romans were called "togatus". The eternal companion of Ancient Rome was the army, which stood outside the state. The peculiarities of the culture of Ancient Rome allowed it to become the basis for the subsequent flourishing of Europe.

Musical culture

The musical culture of the ancient ancient period was no different from the artistic culture in the sense that it also completely copied the Greek one.

Singers, musicians, and dancers were invited from Greece. The performance of odes by Horace and poems by Ovid, accompanied by the music of the cithara and tibia, was popular.

However, later in Ancient Rome, musical performances lost their original appearance and acquired an exclusively spectacular character. The musicians' performances were accompanied by theatrical performances. Even gladiator fights were accompanied by the sounds of trumpets and horns.

During the ancient period they were very popular music teachers. A letter from the poet Martial to his friend has survived to this day, in which he says that if he becomes a music teacher, his career will be guaranteed.

Pantomime became a new art movement. It was performed by a solo dancer to the sounds of a choir and a large number of musical instruments.

The last emperor of Rome, Domitian, at the end of the 1st century. AD organized a “Capitolian competition” between soloists, poets and musicians. The winners were crowned with laurel wreaths.

The contribution of Ancient Rome to world culture

The contribution of Ancient Rome to the development of modern European civilization undeniable. In the ancient period, the Romans created the Latin alphabet, in which all of medieval Europe wrote. Was created in Rome civil law system, civic values ​​are defined: patriotism, belief in one’s own identity and greatness. Christianity also historically developed there, which greatly influenced the subsequent stages of human development. The Romans introduced concrete into use. They taught the world how to build bridges and water pipelines.

Sculpture and art as part of the culture of Ancient Rome

Culture and history of Ancient Rome briefly

Conclusion

The greatest men of history praised ancient rome and his culture in his quotes. So, Napoleon said: “The history of Rome is the history of the whole world.” It is obvious that if the Roman Empire had been able to withstand the onslaught of the “barbarian” tribes in 476, the Renaissance would have appeared to the world much earlier. Ancient Rome's contribution to world culture so great that it will take a long time to study it.

Moral standards cannot be the same from era to era, from country to country. For example, if you were in Ancient Rome, you would probably be deeply shocked by the attitude of the Romans towards certain things... however, for them it was just an everyday routine.

1. In the event of the death of a patient, the doctor who treated him was deprived of his hands.

2. If a sister disobeyed her brother, then he could punish his relative with sexual intercourse.

3. If several slaves were owned by one person at once, then they were assigned one surname.

4. Among the first 15 emperors, 14 were homosexuals. Claudius was considered a real black sheep. Because he preferred only women, he was constantly ridiculed and criticized.

5. In the Roman army, soldiers were housed in groups of ten in tents. The head of the tent was called only the dean.

6. There weren’t any in those days. For these needs, a special stick with a rag at the end was used. They dipped it into a bucket of water.

7. The elite of Rome lived in mansions. There was a special knocker on their doors. On the threshold, a mosaic sign would usually say “Welcome.” Sometimes slaves guarded such houses like dogs.

8. Curly-haired boys served as napkins at the feasts of Rome. They really did wipe their greasy hands on their hair. However, the boys were not offended, but on the contrary considered it an honor.

9. To make their urine smell like roses, women drank turpentine without fear of poisoning.

10. A kiss at a wedding is a Roman heritage. Then it meant a symbolic seal under the oral agreement to marry.

11. Have you ever thought about what “Penates” are? These are Roman gods whose responsibility was to protect the hearth. Thus, the common phrase should not sound “... to the native Penates,” but “... to the native Penates.”

12. Messalina, the wife of Claudius, was one of the most depraved women of that time. She ran a brothel and worked as a prostitute herself. One day she managed to serve fifty clients at once.

13. The month of August is named after one of the Roman emperors.

14. Prostitution in Ancient Rome was not condemned by anyone. Prostitutes were full-fledged members of society, no one despised them.

15. Spintrias are special coins made of bronze. They were used to pay prostitutes for their work in ancient Rome. They depicted scenes of exclusively erotic content.