To visitors, many of the habits of local residents may seem unusual. Thus, gallant and polite Italians in a crowd can create a real “crush.” However, such behavior is not considered rude at all. Local residents are accustomed to huge crowds of people in public transport and in shopping centers, so they just try with everyone possible ways make your way. Many local residents During a conversation, they actively use sign language, but among members of the elite, gesticulation is considered a sign of bad manners.
Italians are not used to having a big breakfast, so most local cafes and restaurants will offer guests only coffee and fresh rolls for breakfast. The main meal is considered to be lunch, which consists of at least three courses. Italians can replace the dessert familiar to Europeans with a cheese platter and a glass of wine, which is not forbidden to drink even in the midst of a working day. Despite the love of the indigenous people for wine, in general, the attitude towards alcoholic beverages is more than restrained. They are most often consumed only during meals. Regarding appearance and clothes, local residents prefer to dress very strictly. No provocative or revealing outfits in everyday life not used.
The most interesting national holiday is the Founding Day of Rome, which is celebrated annually on April 21. Sometimes the celebration lasts for several days; during the holiday, a lot of interesting cultural events and rituals take place. So, every year they choose the Goddess of Rome, who becomes the winner of the beauty contest. One of the main roles during the holiday is given to the vestals - girls in the form of messengers of the Roman goddess Vesta, who monitor the observance of all ancient rituals. During the holiday, they must watch over the sacred fire, which, according to an ancient legend, is the incarnation of the goddess Vesta. During the celebration, travelers can watch theatrical performances dedicated to important historical events. The main events take place near the Temple of Hercules. Copyright www.site
By visiting the city on the Tiber in February, you can plunge into the atmosphere of the Mardi Gras celebration. Traditions, as in the case of the Founding Day of Rome, go back to pagan times. In honor of the festival, starting from Piazza del Popolo next to the Fountain of Neptune, ancient carriages accompanied by horse guards ride - people seeing such a spectacle seem to be in the 16th century, and one of the representatives of the Borgia family is sitting in the carriage. But the fact that this is the 21st century can only be discovered by looking at the outfits of the spectators. The procession is accompanied by music, the carriages are surrounded by characters from the Comedia del arte. The action ends at the very end of via Corso in Piazza Venezia.
However, the most “Roman” festival is called Noantri. It is traditionally held in the Travester region in the second half of July. During the celebration, the Madonna del Carmine (a holy relic found at the mouth of the Tiber) “circulates” Rome, accompanied by people in white robes. At the same time, folk dances, songs and games do not let you get bored during the strict ceremony. Here you can taste both wine and meat dishes. And if you visit Rome on August 10, then on this night, when you see a falling star, you need to ask for a wish to be granted. At this time, falling stars symbolize the tears of the martyr St. Lorenzo, who will ask in heaven for the believers. Maybe that's why Italians always succeed?
Another festival that takes place in the summer is Ferragosto. It is a bizarre combination of the traditions of Christianity and paganism - however, in this one can see the very “zest” of the Eternal City, which, in fact, has absorbed both those and other customs. It is celebrated on August 15th. However, having arrived in Rome at this time, you can find the city half empty, and cafes and restaurants closed - this is due to the fact that Italians prefer to celebrate the occasion in the mountains or at sea. Despite this, on the day of the celebration, while remaining in Rome, you can visit performances, exhibitions, museums, and water attractions.
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 as regards 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 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-ordered household 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, 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 was freed from the guardianship of her husband and gained independence as far as her legal status was concerned, could 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 towards women than towards men, and this was also expressed 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 a family later, since they still had studies and military service awaiting them. 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 fetters in highest degree despotic 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 once entered into marriage 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 jurist 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 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 intended groom handed his 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 - the patrons of the earth and its fruits, the choice of the timing in which weddings should be celebrated was of great importance. 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", that is, 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, helped her with fortune-telling concerning the future of the new family, and it was she, and not the bride’s father, as in Greece, who solemnly handed her 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- 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 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 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 was well known and legally recognized - the “conventus matronarum”, whose residence was located on the Quirinal, and in the last centuries of the Roman Empire - on 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 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 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 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 then facing, the Roman women obeyed the 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 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 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 "koempcio" 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 or 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, here, Prokuleya, it 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 a wife to seek the return of her personal property through civil law procedures, even if the marriage contract did not provide for 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 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” demonstrates how widespread the practice of falsifying birth documents was: people often ascribed Roman citizenship to themselves, for which the new law mercilessly punished them 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 - both when concluding marriage contracts and when ensuring the property rights of the wife.
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 is the highest number of 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 relations 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 an 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 this 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 to have anything other than legal wife concubines 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 often it was 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 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 not for the daily efforts and diligence of the mother and nanny who looked after the little boy or girl until the age of seven.
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.
CULTURE OF ANCIENT ROME
The culture of Rome is associated with the completion of the history of ancient society. It continued the Hellenistic tradition and at the same time acted as an independent phenomenon, determined by the course of historical events, the uniqueness of living conditions, religion, the character traits of the Romans and other factors.
Initially, the territory of the Apennine Peninsula was inhabited by various tribes, among which the most developed were the Veneti in the north, the Etruscans in the center, and the Greeks in the south. It was the Etruscans and Greeks who had a decisive influence on the formation of ancient Roman culture.
The Etruscans inhabited these lands from the 1st millennium BC. e. and created an advanced civilization that preceded the Roman one. Etruria was a strong maritime power. Skilled metallurgists, shipbuilders, traders, builders and pirates, the Etruscans sailed throughout the Mediterranean Sea, assimilating the cultural traditions of many peoples inhabiting its coast, creating a high and unique culture. It was from the Etruscans that the Romans would subsequently borrow the experience of urban planning, craft techniques, technology for making iron, glass, concrete, the secret sciences of the priests and some customs, for example, celebrating a victory with a triumph. The Etruscans also created the emblem of Rome - a she-wolf who, according to legend, suckled the twins Romulus and Remus - descendants of the Trojan hero Aeneas. It was these brothers who, according to legend, founded the city of Rome in 753 BC. e. (April 21).
The Latins living in the west gradually reached a high level of development, conquered neighboring territories and peoples and later formed one of the largest empires of antiquity, which included European countries, the northern coast of Africa and part of Asia.
Chronology
In cultural history Ancient Rome Three major periods can be distinguished:
monarchy - 753 - 509 BC e.;
republic - 509 - 29 BC e.;
empire - 29 BC e. - 476 AD e.
Peculiarities of worldview
The ancient population of Italy lived in territorial communities - pagah, as a result of the unification of which the city arose. At the head of archaic Rome was an elected king, combining the duties of high priest, military leader, legislator and judge, and with him was a senate. The most important matters were decided by the people's assembly.
In 510-509 BC e. a republic is formed. Republican rule lasted until 30 - 29 BC. e., after which the period of the empire begins. During these years, Rome waged almost continuous victorious wars and transformed from a small city into the capital of a huge Mediterranean power, spreading its influence over numerous provinces: Macedonia, Achaia (Greece), Near and Far Spain, regions of Africa and Asia, the Middle East. This leads to intensive cultural exchange, an intensive process of interpenetration of cultures.
The luxurious loot of the triumphants, the stories of soldiers, the penetration of wealthy people into the newly acquired provinces led to a revolution at the level of everyday culture: ideas about wealth changed, new material and spiritual needs arose, and new morals were born. The mass passion for oriental luxury began after the Asian triumphs of L. Cornelius Scipio and Gn. Volson's Mandya. The fashion for Attalian (Pergamon) robes, chased silver, Corinthian bronze, and inlaid stocks similar to those of ancient Egypt quickly spread.
The conquest of the Hellenistic states, and by the 1st century. BC e. and Hellenistic Greece revolutionized the culture of Rome. The Romans were confronted with a culture that surpassed their own in depth and variety. “Captured Greece captured its victors,” Horace, the ancient Roman poet, would later say. The Romans began to study the Greek language, literature, philosophy, and bought Greek slaves to teach their children. Wealthy families sent their sons to Athens, Ephesus and other cities in Greece and Asia Minor to listen to lectures by famous orators and philosophers. This influenced the growth of the Roman intelligentsia. Two new comic types appeared in society and in literature: the absurd Greekmaniacs and the harsh persecutors of Greek science. In many families, foreign education was combined with ancient Roman traditions and patriotic ambition.
Thus, the Etruscan and ancient Greek origins are clearly visible in the culture of Ancient Rome.
The entire history of cultural relations between Rome and Greece from that time on reveals the secret admiration of the Romans for Greek culture, the desire to achieve its perfection, sometimes reaching the point of imitation. However, by assimilating ancient Greek culture, the Romans put their own content into it. The rapprochement of Greek and Roman cultures became especially noticeable during the empire. Nevertheless, the majestic harmony of Greek art and the poetic spirituality of its images remained forever unattainable for the Romans. Pragmatism of thinking and engineering solutions determined the functional nature of Roman culture. The Roman was too sober and too practical to, while admiring the skill of the Greeks, achieve their plastic balance and amazing generality of design.
The ideology of the Roman was primarily determined by patriotism - the idea of Rome as the highest value, the duty of a citizen to serve it without sparing strength and life. In Rome, courage, loyalty, dignity, moderation in personal life, and the ability to obey iron discipline and law were revered. Lies, dishonesty, and flattery were considered vices characteristic of slaves. If the Greek admired art and philosophy, the Roman despised writing plays, the work of a sculptor, painter, and performing on stage as slave occupations. In his mind, the only deeds worthy of a Roman citizen were wars, politics, law, historiography and agriculture.
Social structure and economy.
Roman society was slave-owning. The Romans included:
patricians, nobility descended from the founders of Rome. It was the urban population that concentrated all power in its hands;
clients, poor Latins who lived in the countryside and worked the lands of the patricians;
plebeians, descendants of conquered peoples, the most numerous class, and therefore remained powerless for a long time;
slaves, completely without rights, their ranks were replenished with prisoners of war.
Rome was an economically very powerful state; its economy developed through several industries:
agriculture;
industrial production (weapons, glass, ceramics);
trade;
spoils of war and tribute paid by conquered peoples.
Religion and mythology.
Religion was originally based on a mixture of rituals and beliefs. The mythology and religious beliefs of the ancient Romans are simple and artless. The two-faced god Janus was revered as the creator of the world from chaos, the creator of the firmament. The king himself was the priest of Janus. The main deities: Mana - the spirits of ancestors and Penates - the patrons of the family. The Laras, the deities of the hearth, were considered the patrons of communities and their lands. They worshiped water, fire, and among the most ancient gods - Jupiter, Juno, Minerva, Mars, Quirinus, Diana, Venus. As they got closer to the Greek world, the Roman gods were identified with the Greek ones: Jupiter - Zeus, Juno - Hera, Diana - Artemis, Venus - Aphrodite, Victoria - Nike, Mars - Ares, Mercury - Hermesi, etc. Greek myths were adapted, of which he became especially popular myth about the exploits of Hercules, whom the Romans called Hercules. The pantheon began to include greek gods, which had no analogues in Roman mythology: Aesculapius, Apollonai, etc. A little later, eastern cults began to penetrate into Rome, mainly Egyptian - the cult of Isis, Osiris, Cybele. At the beginning of the new era, Christianity became increasingly widespread.
Christianity has come a long way before it became a world religion and the spiritual basis of European culture. It originated in the 1st century. n. e., which we count from the Nativity of Christ, and were initially formed in the bosom of Judaism, as one of its sects. But the content of the sermon of Jesus of Nazareth went far beyond the national religion of the ancient Jews. It was this universal meaning of Christianity that made Jesus the Christ (Savior, Messiah) in the eyes of millions of people who find the semantic basis of their lives in the Christian faith.
The Roman authorities long persecuted the early Christians, but almost four centuries later, thanks to the Emperor Constantine, it became the state religion of the Roman Empire, bringing with it not only a new worldview, but also a new art to its culture.
Spectacles and holidays.
The spirit of struggle, competition, and testing is inherent in all ancient culture. The Romans, like the Greeks, loved all kinds of competitions. There was nothing more honorable than becoming a winner in some competition and receiving a wreath as a reward. Theatrical performances in Rome were held during the holidays. Grandiose spectacles were especially successful when detachments of cavalry and infantry appeared on the stage, processions of prisoners, and performances of rare animals were included in the action. Solo pantomimes (usually on a mythological plot) with music and choir singing were very popular: comedies, performances in circuses, gladiator fights in amphitheaters.
Scientific and technicalachievements
Disdain for the arts and sciences did not mean that the Roman remained a dropout. In enlightened houses they taught not only Greek language, but also correct, elegant Latin.
Already in the Republican period, original, original art, philosophy, and science were taking shape in Rome, and their own method of creativity was being formed. Their main feature is psychological realism and truly Roman individualism.
The ancient Roman model of the world was fundamentally different from the Greek one. There was no personal event in it, organically inscribed in the event of the polis and the cosmos, like the Greeks. The event model of the Roman was simplified to two events: the event of the individual fit into the event of the state, or the Roman Empire. That is why the Romans turned their attention to the individual.
The Greek saw the world through a comprehensive harmonious model of the world, through a majestic and heroic mythological system, which gave completeness to the model of the world. For the Roman, the world became extremely simplified, myth ceased to be a worldview and turned into a fairy tale. As a result of this, phenomena were perceived more clearly, it became much easier to cognize them, but something irreplaceable was lost - the feeling of the integrity of being disappeared. That is why the Romans could not get closer to the Greek ideal: the natural model of the world was lost - the basis and secret of ancient Greek greatness.
Roman science did not reach the scale of Greek science, because it was dependent on the specific needs of the growing Roman Empire. Mathematics, geography, natural science and other sciences among the Romans were of a narrowly applied nature. A noticeable mark in science was left by the works of Menelaus of Alexandria on spherical geometry and trigonometry, the geocentric model of the world by Ptolemy (both were Greek by origin). Works on optics and astronomy were written (a catalog of more than 1,600 stars was compiled), experiments were carried out on animals in physiology. Doctor Galen famous for his skill and complex operations, laid the foundations of sanitation, and came close to discovering the importance of nerves for motor reflexes and blood circulation.
The Romans were excellent builders. Their construction equipment, which made it possible to create the Flavian Colosseum in Rome and other amphitheatres, a 1.5 km long bridge across the Danube under Trajan, etc. Mechanics were improved, lifting mechanisms were used. According to Seneca, “despicable slaves” (for the citizens of Rome they were mainly conquered scientists and inventors) each time invented something new: pipes through which steam flowed to heat the premises (in conquered England, Roman houses had steam heating) , special polishing of marble, mirror tiles to reflect the sun's rays.
Astrology, which was studied by major astronomers, was very popular. Mostly Roman scholars studied and commented on the Greeks. Philosophy and jurisprudence occupied a special place in the culture of the ancient Romans. Ancient Roman philosophy eclectically (eclecticism - mixing) combines the principles of various teachings of Greek thinkers, especially the Hellenistic era. Philosophers adopted their scientific apparatus, terminology, and most important directions. The ideas of moral improvement of man and the mystical moods characteristic of the time acquired important significance for Roman philosophy. Among philosophical trends, the most widespread in republican, and later in imperial Rome, were stoicism And epicureanism.
Representative of Stoicism Seneca saw the meaning of life in achieving absolute peace of mind, overcoming the fear of death. Seneca believes that a person should devote a huge part of his efforts to his own improvement.
Epicureanism is the only materialistic philosophy in ancient Rome. Its most prominent representative is Titus Lucretius Carus- known for his philosophical poem “On the Nature of Things.”
Characteristic of the Roman mentality was a passion for skepticism. The founder of skepticism, Sextus the empiricist, based his teaching on a critical reassessment of modern knowledge. The edge of skepticism was directed against the concepts of philosophy, mathematics, rhetoric, astronomy and grammar. Skepticism became a specific expression of the progressive crisis of Roman society.
Close to Stoic ideals of renunciation of material wealth and life in harmony with nature were also proclaimed at that time cynics, addressing the urban lower classes in a language they understood. Philosophical moralistic treatises were popular Plutarch from Chaeronea. His works were distinguished by excellent living language, common sense, love of life, and tolerance.
The golden age of Roman science was characterized not so much by the increase in knowledge as by encyclopedism, the desire to master and systematically present the already accumulated achievements. The natural science theories of the Greeks in an eclectic, seemingly averaged form were accepted as once and for all given, without discussion. Along with this, a keen interest in scientific, rational knowledge of nature remained, and a whole galaxy of outstanding creative minds and wonderful scientists appeared. Pliny the Elder based on two thousand works of Greek and Roman authors, he compiled the encyclopedic “Natural History”, which included all areas of the then science - from the structure of the cosmos to fauna and flora, from the description of countries and peoples to mineralogy.
The most important cultural innovations of Roman antiquity are associated with the development politicians And rights. Ancient Rome - homeland jurisprudence.
If in small Greek city-states with their diverse and often changing forms of government, many issues could be resolved on the basis of the direct expression of the will of the ruling elite or a general meeting of citizens, then the management of the huge Roman power required the creation of a detailed system of government bodies, a clearly organized administrative structure, legal laws regulating civil relations, legal proceedings, etc. The first legal document is the Law of 12 books, regulating criminal, financial, and trade relations. The constant expansion of territory leads to the emergence of other documents - private law for the Latins and public law regulating the relations between the Latins and the conquered peoples living in the provinces.
Roman historian Polybius already in the 2nd century. BC e. He also saw the perfection of the political and legal structure of Rome as a guarantee of its power. Ancient Roman jurists truly laid the foundation for legal culture. Roman law is still the basis on which modern legal systems are based. But the relationships clearly defined by law , the powers and responsibilities of numerous bureaucratic institutions and officials - the Senate, consuls, prefects, procurators, censors, etc. did not eliminate the tension of political struggle. The nobility (nobility) involves broad sections of the population in its struggle for a place in the system of power, seeking to receive support from them. Slogans and appeals of various parties and groups against the general background of patriotic speeches praising the Roman Empire and the emperor form the public consciousness of citizens and fill their spiritual world. Literature, art, even urban development and architecture are put in the service of political and ideological goals. And although artistic creativity and reality are far from completely subordinate to these goals, they still very significantly influence the nature of art and the entire cultural life of Roman society. This leads to one of the main features of Roman culture - politicization.
Passion for politics and jurisprudence led to a high level of development oratory(Gaius Gracchus, Cicero, Julius Caesar) and logic. Speeches, letters, philosophical writings, treatises on oratory Cicero had a great influence on their contemporaries. But the deepest impression was made by his speeches at trials, in the Senate, and in the people's assembly. Eloquence was the main means of social struggle. Rhetoric has had a great influence on philosophy, literature, and historiography. The art of eloquence was taught in public schools, where teachers received salaries from the state. Quintilian, who wrote a large treatise “Education of the Orator” in 12 books.
Great Roman historian Tacitus, one of the best historians of Rome, in his works “History” and “Annals” shows the tragedy of society, consisting in the incompatibility of imperial power and the freedom of citizens. Another famous historian is Titus Livius.
Literature
From the middle of the 2nd century. BC e. the Latin beginning was gaining strength: prose writers switched to their native language (previously, Roman writers wrote in Greek). Latin was experiencing the emergence of a literary national language, and literature began to play an important role in ancient Roman culture.
Emperor Augustus attracted the best writers of his time. His time is called the “golden age of Roman culture.” The most famous poets were Virgil, Horace, who were part of the circle of Maecenas - close to Augustus - patron of talents, as well as Ovid. Well-known, famous creation Virgil became the poem “Aeneid”, dedicated to the wanderings of Aeneas, which united the author’s love for ancient legends, Greek philosophical views on the structure of the Cosmos, Greek ideas about the world soul and posthumous fate; thoughts about reward for those who faithfully serve the fatherland, and about punishment for those who betrayed it. The Aeneid is the most popular monument of Roman literature.
Horace wrote love poems and satire, ridiculed the vices of Roman society. It was his pen that wrote the famous poem “Monument,” which was so skillfully translated by Lomonosov, Derzhavin, and Pushkin.
Ovid famous for its love elegies, but especially the poem “Metamorphoses” - a mythological epic that tells about the transformation of people into plants and animals. The poem ends with the legend of how Julius Caesar turns into a star.
Artistic culture
The spirit of struggle and the desire to overcome difficulties played an important role in the political life of society and in its military successes, which allowed Julius Caesar and other Roman commanders to create a huge Roman Empire. Its geographical unity and integrity were ensured by numerous settlements and cities. The city (“polis”, “civitas” in Latin) was in antiquity a form of organization of society, on the basis of which there was a move beyond the narrow boundaries of tribal consciousness. The Greeks and Romans believed that the absence of city policies was a sign of barbarism, and, conquering new lands, they built cities everywhere.
Numerous cities across the vast expanses of the Roman Empire were created according to the same plan: two cross-shaped intersecting highways - one from north to south, the other from east to west. At their intersection there is a square with a basilica, a market, the Capitoline Temple and the Temple of the Emperor, and near it there is a place for shows (an amphitheater or circus). Around the city there was an area where citizens' land plots were located. It was believed that people could not live otherwise, because to live like a human being, not like a barbarian, means living in the city, participating in public life. That is why Roman architecture is replete with public buildings. Rome was rightfully the center of Roman art.
The artistic culture of Rome was distinguished by great diversity and variegation of forms; it reflected features characteristic of the art of the peoples conquered by Rome, sometimes at a higher level of cultural development. Roman art developed on the basis of the complex interpenetration of the original art of local Italian tribes and peoples, primarily the powerful Etruscans, who introduced the Romans to the art of urban planning (various versions of vaults, engineering structures, tombs, residential buildings, roads, etc.), monumental wall painting, sculptural and pictorial portraits, distinguished by a keen perception of nature and character. Associated with the Etruscan tradition is a specific Italian type of residential building, the compositional center of which was the atrium - a vast hall-type room with a rectangular opening in the center of the ceiling. But the main influence was still Greek art.
The basic principles of the artistic culture of the two peoples were different in their origins. Greece, even during its period of greatest prosperity, did not represent a single state and a single geographical space, but only a conglomerate of city-states. Rome in its heyday was a single state, an empire stretching over thousands of kilometers. Hence the completely different tasks of architecture and the scale of construction. The Greeks recognized the power of harmony, proportionality and beauty, the Romans did not recognize any other power than the power of force. They created a great and powerful state, and the entire structure of Roman life was determined by this great power. Personal talents were not promoted or cultivated - the social attitude was completely different. The strength of the state was expressed primarily in construction, and therefore in architecture, which played a leading role in Roman art.
Architecture and construction. The basic principles of ancient Roman architecture, as well as ancient Roman art, were formed by the time of the republic (IV-I centuries BC).
Architectural monuments now, even in ruins, captivate with their power. The Romans marked the beginning of a new era of world architecture, in which the main place belonged to public buildings designed for huge numbers of people: basilicas, baths, theaters, amphitheaters, circuses, libraries, markets. The list of building structures in Rome should also include religious ones: temples, altars, tombs. Throughout the ancient world, Roman architecture has no equal in the height of engineering art, the variety of types of structures, the richness of compositional forms, and the scale of construction. The Romans introduced engineering structures (aqueducts, bridges, roads, harbors, fortresses, canals) as architectural objects into the urban, rural ensemble and landscape, and used new building materials (concrete) and structures (arches, domes, etc.). They reworked the principles of Greek architecture, and above all the order system: they combined the order with an arched structure.
Of no less importance in the development of Roman culture was the art of Hellenism with its architecture, which gravitated toward grandiose scales and urban centers. But the humanistic principle, noble greatness and harmony that form the basis Greek art, in Rome gave way to trends to exalt the power of the emperors and the military power of the empire. Hence the large-scale exaggerations, external effects, and false pathos of huge structures.
Roman roads became world famous and have not lost their importance to this day. They were divided into three types (according to cost and degree of importance): military or state, under the authority of the central government, small, owned by community magistrates, private and field.
The variety of structures and the scale of construction in Ancient Rome changes significantly compared to Greece: a colossal number of huge buildings are erected. All this required a change in the technical foundations of construction. Performing the most complex tasks with the help of old technology has become impossible: in Rome, fundamentally new structures are being developed and are becoming widespread - brick-concrete ones, which make it possible to solve the problems of covering large spans, speed up construction many times over, and - what is especially important - limit the use of qualified craftsmen by moving construction processes are carried out by low-skilled and unskilled slave laborers.
Around the 4th century. BC e. mortar began to be used as a binding material (first in rubble masonry), and by the 2nd century. BC e. A new technology has emerged for the construction of monolithic walls and vaults based on mortars and small aggregate stones. An artificial monolith was obtained by mixing mortar and sand with crushed stone called “Roman concrete”. Hydraulic additives of volcanic sand - pozzolana (named after the area from which it was exported) made it waterproof and very durable. This caused a revolution in construction. This type of masonry was done quickly and made it possible to experiment with shape. The Romans knew all the advantages of baked clay, made bricks of various shapes, used metal instead of wood to ensure fire safety of buildings, and rationally used stone when laying foundations. Some secrets of Roman builders have not yet been solved.
Ancient Roman architects were familiar with the subtleties of numerical patterns; they knew various types of drawings using compasses and rulers.
In terms of importance, the most important type of building was the temple. The pinnacle of temple construction was Pantheon- temple of all gods, built in 118-125. The Patheon has no analogues in ancient Roman architecture either in composition or in design. This is a grandiose round temple, covered with a dome bowl with a diameter of almost 43 m. The entrance is made in the form of a deep multi-columned portico, topped with a pediment. Constructed using brick and concrete structures, the interior of the temple was decorated with polychrome marbles. Daylight enters the temple through a round light opening at the zenith of the dome (diameter 9 m).
The culture of 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 the early period of the Empire, constituted 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 follow a series of marriage ceremonies. Now the newlyweds were about to get engaged. The god of marriage, Hymen, became the main character here. 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 the future union with 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 swore to each other a simple oath “Ubi Gaius, ego Gaia” (Latin: “Where you are Gai, I am Gaia”) and sealed their union... 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 wheat bread to the sacrificial altar, 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 fat" (4). After this simple ritual, the bride was carried into the new house in her arms, because it was considered a bad sign, if the 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 the life together of two Romans entering family life began.
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.
Ancient Rome is one of the first and at the same time the most striking example of globalization in the history of mankind. The legacy of the Roman state is truly colossal. It is so great and palpable in our Western world that we can all consider ourselves a little Roman. And now we will talk about several of the most significant things, which, even if they were not invented in Rome, came into “fashion” precisely thanks to him.
1. Latin alphabet 
Where is the Latin alphabet used?
The most obvious piece of Roman heritage. Today, half the world speaks and writes languages based on the Latin alphabet. The Latin alphabet itself, according to the most popular (and plausible) theory of scientists, appeared as a result of the adaptation of the Etruscan alphabet and the addition of Greek elements to it.
2. Concrete 
Only the Romans appreciated this material.
Concrete was invented by people long before the Romans. However, it was the Romans who fully appreciated all the advantages of this material. In the central and western part of the empire, literally everything was built from concrete, from workshop buildings and residential buildings, to temples, aqueducts, government and cultural buildings.
Moreover, the Romans made special concrete, incredibly strong and durable! Scientists have only recently discovered its secret. The whole point was that the Romans used sea water and volcanic soot to strengthen the material.
3. Paved roads and stone bridges 
The Romans were the first to widely build stone bridges.
As with concrete, people have been building roads and bridges all over the world since before the Romans. However, in the “western” part of our planet, it was they who decided that it would be nice to make roads durable and bridges more durable. As a result of the construction of these infrastructure facilities, stone and concrete began to be actively used. The need for good roads was obvious, during the "pax romana" (the era of Roman prosperity), the Roman Empire occupied almost all known world and was the largest state on our planet. Roman paved roads remain to this day.
4. Road web
Roman roads have survived to this day.
Roman roads are of course no longer in use today where they remain. However, the Romans left us another gift. The transport web of Europe and Asia Minor is still determined by the places where Roman roads passed. Many modern highways and highways today coincide with ancient Roman ones.
5. Plumbing 
The Romans also popularized aqueducts.
It will be difficult to patent the authorship of the water supply system to the Romans. They tried to build aqueducts back in ancient Babylon. However, it was the Romans who began to use aqueducts wherever they could. Unlike all predecessor civilizations, the Romans used aqueducts not only for irrigation, but also to supply water to cities, as well as industrial sites: craft districts and resource extraction sites. The city of Rome alone was supplied by 11 aqueducts! Today, more or less preserved aqueducts can be found throughout Europe: in Italy, France, Germany and other places.
6. Sewerage 
The largest cities and the largest sewers for them were among the Romans.
It was the Romans who made sewage not just “fashionable”, but vital for large cities. Roman sewers were used both to drain sewage and to drain storm water. At first these were rather trivial cesspools and ditches, but later the Romans began to pave them with stone and even make underground tunnels! The first Roman sewer was the Cloaca Maxima, which is located in Rome itself. By the way, it has survived to this day. They even use it! True, today it is exclusively for draining rainwater.
7. Regular, professional army 
The militia is good, but the army is even better.
Before the Romans, there were no regular armies as such. In ancient Greece, Egypt and the East, armies, as a rule, gathered in the form of militias when they were needed for protection or, on the contrary, for a military campaign against their neighbors. The number of “professional” warriors in all early states was negligible and most often ended up as the personal protection of the ruler and the temple guard.
The history of Rome is the history of wars, external and internal. And throughout the history of this state, its army has also developed, which has come a long way from the police and militia described above, to a regular and, moreover, a professional army. It was the Romans who changed the concept of a warrior to a soldier, realizing that a large state constantly needs those who will defend its interests with arms in hand.
It is noteworthy that the final transition to regular army occurred due to the economic crisis in the state. The unemployment rate in the country is growing at a terrible rate due to the ruin of peasant farms. The solution was found by Guy Mari, who began to recruit all free residents of the country (not just citizens), promising a salary and land upon retirement for military service.
8. Patronage 
The Romans made it fashionable to patronize the arts and sciences.
This very phenomenon in society was named after Gaius Cilnius Maecenas, the best friend of the ruler of Rome, Octavian Augustus. To put it simply modern language, one could call Maecenas the first minister of culture in the history of mankind. In fact, Guy Tsilniy did not hold any official position, but actively sponsored cultural figures so that they would glorify state values and Octavian Augustus himself.
9. Republic 
The Republic is a common cause.
When modern people talk about democracy, republic and freedom, you might think that all these three words are synonyms. In fact, this is not at all true. The democracy of Athens had nothing to do with the Republic of Rome, and the latter is precisely the grandfather of all republican forms of government.
It was the Romans who were the first to appreciate the benefits of the division of power, realizing that its concentration in the hands of one person could be dangerous for the entire society. Ironically, it was the concentration of power in one hand already in the imperial period that would become one of the gravediggers ancient state.
Nevertheless, for a long time the Romans actually managed to successfully share power in society and achieve public consensus among all free inhabitants of the country. Even if at times, for this, the poorest representatives of society had to blackmail the richest with mass migration to other lands, or even take up arms.
10. Citizenship 
Anyone who lives and is free can be a citizen.
Perhaps the most important heritage of Rome, which today, one way or another, people use. The concept of “citizen” existed in many ancient states. However, only the Romans eventually came to the conclusion that all free people should be citizens of the empire, regardless of where they were born and in what part of the state they live.
11. Christianity 
Sim you will win.
For a long time in the Roman Empire, Christians were considered a dangerous Jewish sect. However, everything changed under Constantine the Great, who, after the Battle of Rome, equalized all religions in rights. He will transfer that same cross from Jerusalem to new capital state - Constantinople. Already Theodosius I the Great will make Christianity the state religion. Thus, thanks to Rome, the Christian faith will begin to spread throughout the world.
12. Social mobility 
The Roman Empire almost surpassed the modern United States in social mobility.
Finally, I would like to talk about one more “gift”. Like all ancient states, Rome was a slave-owning state. It was in ancient Rome that the concept of “classical slavery” was formed, that terrible phenomenon that today seems like absolute savagery. But with all this, terrible Rome was strikingly different from any other state in the matter of social mobility.
Before Rome, in some ancient Greece, Egypt, Babylon, people died as they were born. For many centuries after Rome, people died as they were born. And only in Rome, for the first time, people began to actively use social mobility. Here slaves became free, freedmen rose to the aristocracy, and ordinary soldiers made their way to the emperor.
Post scriptum 
Mausoleum of a simple baker.
The hero himself.
Today, in modern Rome, in the city center, near the Colosseum and the ruins of the Forum, you can find a small mausoleum. The owner of this mausoleum was not an emperor, not a senator, or even a respectable citizen. Its owner is a simple baker - Mark Virgil Eurysak. He was born a slave into a family of Greek migrants, was able to gain freedom, entered into an agreement with the country's capital for the supply of bread and became so rich that he was eventually able to afford this very monument for himself and his wife.