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 associated with the deprivation of the “freed” son of all rights to what his family owned. And yet, the custom of emancipation, quite widespread in Rome, was a clear expression of the weakening and even disintegration of the primordial family ties, so revered and unshakable in the first centuries of the history of the Eternal City. A variety of circumstances prompted emancipation: sometimes sons sought to quickly gain independence, sometimes the father himself “freed” one or several sons, so that the family property remained in the hands of only one heir. Often this could also be a form of punishment in relation to a disobedient or for some reason objectionable son, for “liberation” was to some extent tantamount to disinheritance.
When girls got married, they went from being under the authority of their father to being under the authority of their father-in-law, unless, of course, the marriage was accompanied by the appropriate legal act “convention in manum.” As for the slaves, the father of the family had complete and unlimited power over them: he could treat them like any property, he could kill the slave, sell or cede, but he could also grant him freedom through a formal act of “manummissio”.
The mother of the family was in charge of the entire household and raised the children while they were small. In the 1st century n. e. in his work on agriculture, Lucius Junius Columella wrote that in Rome, as in Greece, a custom had been preserved since ancient times: managing the entire house and conducting household affairs was the sphere of activity of the mother, so that the fathers, leaving behind them the troubles associated with state affairs , could relax at home. 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, 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 peculiar rite was furnished with all the attributes of an ordinary trade transaction: the presence of five witnesses was required - adults and full citizens - and an official who, as when concluding other contracts and trade agreements, had to hold scales in his hands ( Guy. Institutions, I, 108). The girl, however, had to express her consent to be “sold”, otherwise the agreement was not valid. Over time, this form of marriage was used less and less; the last information about it dates back to the era of Tiberius.
2. “Uzus” (literally: use): the customary legal basis for a marriage concluded in this form and with the woman’s transition under the authority of her husband was her living together with her husband in his house for a whole year, and it was important that she I have never spent three nights in a row outside my husband’s house. If the condition was met, the husband acquired full marital power over her on the basis of the right to “use” what had long been at his disposal. If the wife did not want to come under the authority of her husband, she deliberately looked for an opportunity to spend three nights in a row somewhere outside her husband’s house - in this case, the claims of her husband were deprived of legal force. This form of marriage was practiced mainly in that distant era when families of patricians and plebeians could not yet legally enter into family ties with each other and it was necessary to find a customary legal form that would allow such unequal marriages. After 445 BC e., when the law of Canuleus made marriages between patricians and plebeians legally competent, usus as a form of establishing marital relations was already a relic. The Roman lawyer Gaius (2nd century AD) says that this custom fell out of use partly because people themselves became unaccustomed to it, and partly because this was facilitated by the adoption of new laws ( Guy. Institutions, I, 108).
3. “Confarreatio” (literally: performing a ceremony with spelled bread): the most solemn and official form of marriage, practiced most often by the Romans and increasingly replacing the other two. In addition to the legal basis, marriage in the form of confarretion also had a religious, sacred character. This is evidenced by the name itself, associated with the ritual of sacrificing to Jupiter - the patron saint of bread and grains in general - a spelled flatbread or pie, which was also served to the newlyweds and guests. Two high priests or ten other witnesses had to be present at the celebrations, and the confarretion consisted of performing various rituals and pronouncing certain verbal formulas. Since the other two forms of marriage did not have a sacred character, in the future the highest priestly positions were available only to children born of spouses who were married in the form of confarreation.
Regardless of what form of marriage was preferred by families who wanted to become related to each other, in Rome, as in Greece, the wedding was preceded by betrothal. But there was also a significant difference between the orders in Rome and Hellas, which confirms that women enjoyed much greater freedom in Rome. If in Greece 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", i.e. covered, obscured, wrapped in a veil; the veil was red-gold or saffron in color. The bride's wedding dress was complemented by a special hairstyle, which usual time was obligatory only for the Vestals. It was called “six strands”: with a special sharp spear-shaped comb, the hair was divided into six strands, then woolen threads were woven into each of them and the strands were placed under a wedding wreath of flowers collected by the bride herself and her friends ( Plutarch. Roman Questions, 87).
The groom's outfit did not differ from his everyday clothes - for a Roman, the toga was quite an honorable and ceremonial attire. Over time, the custom of decorating a man’s head with a myrtle or laurel wreath became established.
No celebration, whether public or private, could take place in Rome without fortune telling and sacrifices to the gods related to the nature of this or that celebration. Therefore, wedding celebrations began with fortune telling - auspices, after which sacrifices were made, but not to household and family deities, as in Greece, but to the gods of the earth and fertility - the goddesses Tellus and Ceres, who bestow generous harvests. Later, undoubtedly under the influence of Greek customs and the identification of the Roman Juno with Hera, the goddess Juno was among the divine patrons of the family and hearth. The connection between wedding ceremonies and the cult of the ancient Italian agricultural gods was eventually erased from the memory of the Romans.
The role that the mother of the bride played at wedding celebrations in Greece, Roman customs assigned to the pronuba - a kind of manager at the wedding. Not every woman could be entrusted with these honorary duties: a woman elected as a steward had to enjoy universal respect, a good reputation and be “monogamous,” that is, remain faithful to one spouse all her life. It was she who led the dressed bride into the guest room, 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 began - initially in the house of the bride's parents, later in the house of the newlyweds themselves.
After the feast in the parents' house, the second solemn part of the holiday began - "deductio", seeing off the newlywed to her husband's house. Tradition and customs required the bride to resist, to break free, to cry. Only the pronuba, the wedding manager, put an end to the girl’s “persistence,” taking her away from her mother’s arms and handing her over to her husband. The magnificent procession was opened by a boy who carried a torch made of thorns. And here, as in the performance of other sacred functions, it had to be a “happy” boy, that is, one whose father and mother were alive. Behind him was the newlywed, led by two other boys, also not orphans; behind them were symbols of domestic labor: a tow and a spindle with a warp. Next came close relatives, friends, acquaintances and strangers. The cortege was accompanied by flutists and singers, wedding songs and all sorts of sarcastic and simply humorous couplets were played, which greatly amused the guests. Along the way, the procession participants were showered with nuts, which was reminiscent of the Greek custom of catachism. At the threshold of the house, the newlywed was waiting for her husband, who greeted her with a ritual greeting. To this she responded with the accepted formula: “Where you are Gai, there I am Gaia.” According to the ideas of the ancients, this formula expressed the idea of the inseparability of spouses, father and mother of the family ( Plutarch. Roman Questions, 30). The name “Gaia” was included in the ritual formula in memory of the wife of the Roman king Tarquinius the Ancient, Gaia Cecilia, who was considered an example of a virtuous wife.
Having exchanged the required greetings with her young husband, the newlywed smeared the doors of the house, where she entered as the future mother of the family, with the fat of a boar, an animal sacred to Ceres, or a wolf, which was considered the sacrificial animal of Mars, and decorated the doorway with colored ribbons. These actions were supposed to ensure the young family and its home the favor of the patron gods; it is also possible that thereby the wife assumed the responsibilities of the mistress of the house. Both in Greece and in Rome, the bride herself did not cross the threshold of the house: she was carried in the arms of the boys accompanying her, and the pronuba made sure that she did not even touch the threshold with her foot. The most likely explanation for this custom is that when crossing the threshold, the young girl could trip, which was considered a very bad omen by the Romans. Therefore, accidentally touching the threshold with your foot now meant for the newlywed to bring danger upon herself. To further emphasize the inextricable connection of both spouses, the husband met his wife at the entrance to the house with “water and fire.” What this ceremony consisted of, what it looked like, we, unfortunately, do not know, but these symbols themselves are not difficult to interpret: fire signified the hearth, the keeper of which was the mother of the family, and water was a symbol of purification.
Finally, the pronuba led the young wife into the atrium of her future home, where there was a marital bed, under the tutelage of the divine genius - the patron of the family; It was to him that the newlywed turned her prayers to grant her protection and help, healthy and prosperous offspring.
The next day, the guests gathered again, already in the newlyweds' house, for another small feast after the big feast. In the presence of those gathered, the wife made a sacrifice at the home altar, received guests and even sat down at the spinning wheel in order to show that she had already begun the duties of the mistress of the house. Undoubtedly, there were other local customs, which, however, were not always observed. It is known, for example, that when going to her husband’s house, the newlywed was supposed to have three copper coins with her: by ringing one of them she could enlist the help of the gods of those places on the way, she gave the other to her husband - probably as a symbol of the ancient custom of “buying” a wife, and she sacrificed the third coin to the household gods - the Lares.
All these ceremonies were committed when the girl got married for the first time. If a widow or divorced woman entered into a second marriage, the matter was limited to making a mutual marriage vow. Often this act took place even without witnesses and without guests invited to the wedding.
The religious and legal customs described above were preserved in Rome for many centuries. During the imperial era, morals became less strict, and many ancient customs were gradually forgotten. Fathers no longer imposed their will on their daughter-brides, and married women could manage their property themselves and even make wills without the participation of a legal guardian.
The differences in the status of women in Greece and Rome were also evident in the area of public life. If in Aristophanes’ comedy Lysistrata calls women to a meeting to 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 stretcher, as we remember, was strictly regulated by law, but under the emperors this important privilege became widely available married women over forty years old. 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 state affairs of women associated with influential people, and even often resort to the help of these energetic and decisive Roman matrons. “Having learned that your brother,” he writes to Caecilius Metellus Celer, “has planned and is preparing to turn all his power as a tribune to my destruction, I entered into negotiations with your wife Claudia and your sister Muzia, whose affection for me... I have long seen in many ways, so that they keep him from inflicting this insult on me” (Letters of Marcus Tullius Cicero, XIV, 6).
Often, violations of marriage promises, divorces and remarriages were associated with political activity and the hopes of Roman citizens for a successful public career. The great Caesar also used these “family” funds. Plutarch does not hide what the future dictator of Rome owed for his rapid advancement to supreme power. “In order to use 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.), who declared that there is no strength to tolerate these people who earn their living through marriage higher authority in the state and with the help of women they transfer troops, provinces and positions to each other" ( Plutarch. Caesar, XIV).
And in the era of the empire there were many examples when people who were patronized gained a high position in the state influential women. Thus, a certain Greek from Nero’s entourage, Gessius Florus, was appointed procurator of Judea thanks to his wife’s friendship with the Empress Poppaea Sabina. Another resident of Rome, unknown to us by name, gained access to the senatorial class, since the influential Vestal Campia Severina worked hard for him: this is evidenced by the statue that was erected to the priestess of Vesta by her grateful ward.
Responsive, ready to work for others and even sacrifice themselves for the sake of those dear to them, Roman women during the Republic were able to vigorously defend their rights and privileges. Easily communicating with each other and making friendly connections, Roman women could, if necessary, act as a cohesive social force. We know most about the performance of the Roman matrons after the 2nd Punic War - this event is described in detail in the “Roman History from the Foundation of the City” by Titus Livius. In 215 BC. e., when the war was still going on and the situation in Rome was very difficult, a law was passed according to which, in the name of concentrating all the forces and resources in the state on waging war, the rights of women in the sphere of their personal lives were limited. They were not allowed to have more than half an ounce of gold for jewelry, they were forbidden to wear clothes made of dyed fabrics, use carts within the city territory, etc. Well aware of the difficulties their homeland was facing at that time, the Roman women obeyed a strict law. When the war ended with the victory of Rome, and the law of 215 BC. e. continued to remain in force, women rose up to fight the authorities, seeking the restoration of the previous state of affairs. Livy describes in detail the various vicissitudes of this struggle in 195 BC. e., even citing extensive speeches both by those who advocated the preservation of the law against waste, and by those who resolutely demanded its abolition:
“None of the matrons could be kept at home by anyone’s authority, a sense of decency, or the power of a husband; they occupied all the streets of the city and the entrances to the forum and begged the husbands who went there... to allow the women to return their former decorations. The crowd of women grew every day; they even came from other cities and trading places. Women already dared to approach consuls, praetors and other officials and beg them. But the consul Marcus Porcius Cato turned out to be completely inexorable, speaking in favor of the disputed law:
“If each of us, fellow citizens, made it a rule to maintain our right and the high importance of the husband in relation to the mother of the family, then we would have less trouble with all women; and now our freedom, having suffered defeat at home from women’s willfulness, and here, on the forum, is trampled and trampled into the dirt, and since we each could not cope with only one wife, now we tremble before all women together (...)
Not without a blush of shame on my face, I recently made my way to the forum among a crowd of women. If a feeling of respect for high position and the chastity of some of the matrons rather than all of them did not restrain me, so that it would not seem as if they had received a reprimand from the consul, then I would say: “What is this custom of running out into a public place, crowding the streets and addressing other people’s husbands? Couldn't each of you ask the same thing from your husband at home? Or are you nicer on the street than at home, and moreover with strangers than with your husbands? However, even at home it would be indecent for you to care about what laws are proposed or repealed here, if a sense of shame restrained the matrons within the boundaries of their right.
Our ancestors decreed that women should not conduct a single business, even a private one, without the approval of their guardian, that they should be in the power of their parents, brothers, and husbands; ...we allow them to take up state affairs, to break into the forum, into public assemblies. (...) Give free rein 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 so that the rich strive to acquire what no other woman can acquire, and the poor 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 noble birth, for the first time dissolved a marriage because his wife could not have children. In the city they said that this Spurius Carvilius dearly loved his wife and valued her for her good disposition and other virtues, but he put fidelity to the oath above love, and he swore that he would provide for offspring. In any case, this is how Aulus Gellius talks about it (Attic Nights, IV, 3, 1-2).
What Aulus Gellius calls the first divorce in Roman history was, apparently, the first dissolution of a marriage due to the “fault” of the wife, with all legal formalities being observed. There is no doubt that families in Rome were breaking up much earlier, and if the “Laws of the XII Tables” (mid-5th century BC) provides a special formula by which a husband could demand that his wife give him the keys, then this can see, probably, traces of customary legal practice that took place in early times in cases where spouses separated.
Roman law distinguished between two forms of divorce: “repudium” - dissolution of marriage on the initiative of one of the parties, and “divortium” - divorce by mutual consent of both spouses. Marriages concluded in the forms of "koemptio" or "uzus" were dissolved without much difficulty: as in Greece, the husband could simply send his wife to the home of her parents or guardians, returning her personal property. The expression of this act was the formula: “Take your things and go away.” If the marriage took place in the form of conflict, then divorce was much more difficult. Both the conclusion of such a marriage and its dissolution were accompanied by numerous legal formalities. Initially, only the wife's infidelity or disobedience to her husband were considered legal reasons for divorce. In the 3rd century. BC e. In addition to the wife's adultery, some other circumstances were recognized as reasons for divorce, but the husband had to convincingly prove his wife's guilt and his accusations were carefully considered at the family council. A citizen who, without giving serious and justified motives and without convening a family council, sent away his wife was subject to general condemnation, and could even be deleted from the list of senators.
However, already in the 2nd century. BC e. These principles were abandoned, and any little things began to be considered legitimate reasons for divorce. For example, a husband had the right to blame his wife and abandon her just because she went out into the street with her face uncovered. Legal documents do not say whether “dissimilarity of character” or psychological incompatibility of spouses could be a reason for the dissolution of a marriage, but this certainly happened in life. Let us at least recall the anecdote conveyed by Plutarch about a certain Roman who was reproached for having separated from his wife, full of all sorts of merits, beautiful and rich. Showered with reproaches, he stretched out his foot, on which was an elegant shoe, and replied: “After all, these shoes are new and look good, but no one knows where they are too tight for me” ( Plutarch. Instructions for spouses, 22).
IN last period Since the existence of the republic, divorces have become a widespread and very frequent phenomenon in Rome, and the women themselves did not resist this, having achieved some legal protection for their property interests in the event of dissolution of marriage. Obviously, quarreling spouses went to the temple of the goddess Juno the Husband-Pacifying on the Palatine Hill less and less often. Juno, who was considered the guardian of peace and tranquility in the family, could indeed help resolve the conflict between the spouses: having arrived at the temple, the husband and wife took turns expressing to the goddess their claims against each other and, thereby giving vent to their anger and irritation, returned home reconciled.
However, Juno the Husband-Pacifying turned out to be powerless when much more important interests and passions came into play. The Romans were increasingly willing to change wives and husbands for the sake of enrichment or a political career. Marriage allowed more than one of them to improve their financial situation or gain strong and influential supporters in the political struggle. An example of this is the biography of Cicero, who, after 37 years of marriage with Terence, divorced her in order to marry twenty-year-old Publilia and thus protect herself from ruin: as the legal guardian of his young bride, he was well versed in her property affairs and could count on great benefit.
The break with tradition, new customs and laws led to the fact that women received greater opportunities to decide their own destiny. If a wife wanted to leave her husband, then all she had to do was find support from her parents or guardians, and if the wife did not have close relatives and was legally independent, then she could carry out the necessary legal formalities herself. Divorces on the initiative of the wife occurred more and more often in Rome - it is not without reason that Seneca notes that there are women who measure their years not by the number of consuls they have replaced, but by the number of their husbands.
It happened that a woman, well aware of her husband’s property affairs, foreseeing his possible ruin, was in a hurry to divorce him in order to save her personal property. This situation was not uncommon, especially in those families where the husband participated in political life, held any senior positions, which required large expenses and over time could undermine the well-being of the family. Thus, Martial ridicules a certain Roman matron who decided to leave her husband as soon as he became praetor: after all, this would entail enormous costs:
This January, Proculeia, you want to leave your old husband, taking your fortune for yourself. What happened, tell me? What is the cause of sudden grief? Are you not answering me? I know that he became a praetor, And his Megalesian purple would have cost a hundred thousand, No matter how stingy you were to organize games; Another twenty thousand would have been spent on the national holiday. This is not a scam, I will say, this, Prokuleya, is self-interest. Martial. Epigrams, X, 41
Already in the era of the Principate of Augustus, achieving a divorce was not difficult, because Octavian Augustus did not fight divorces, but only cared about maintaining family life in general, keeping in mind the steady population growth. This explains the adoption of laws requiring women to remain married from 20 to 50 years, and men from 25 to 60. The laws also provided for the possibility of divorce, obliging divorced spouses to enter into new legal marriages. At the same time, a period was even assigned during which the woman had to remarry, namely: from six months to two years, counting from the date of divorce.
It was much easier for old women to find new husbands, since candidates for husbands often dreamed of a future will and the inheritance that awaited them after the death of their old wife. This side of Roman morals was also not ignored by satirists:
Pavle really wants to marry me, but I don’t want Pavla: I’m old. I wish I was older. Ibid., X, 8
As a legislator, Augustus also sought to regulate issues related to divorces themselves. In order to dissolve a marriage, a decision of one of the spouses was required, expressed by him in the presence of seven witnesses. A certain achievement of the legislation of the Principate was to ensure the financial situation of women after divorce, since previously they were virtually powerless in this regard. It has become possible for the wife to seek the return of her personal property based on procedures in the field civil law, even if the marriage contract did not stipulate the return of property in the event of divorce. This explains the actions of that Proculeia, the praetor’s wife, whom the caustic Martial subjected to merciless ridicule.
At the same time, apparently, the custom arose of sending the interested person a formal notice of the decision to dissolve the marriage bond - a kind of divorce letter. However, the long-standing custom of sending a wife away for any, even completely far-fetched, reason also persisted, if only the husband decided to re-enter into a marriage that was more beneficial for him. Juvenal speaks directly about this practice:
To tell the truth, he doesn’t love his wife, but only her appearance:
As soon as wrinkles appear and dry skin withers,
Teeth become darker and eyes become smaller,
The free man will tell her: “Take your belongings and get out!”
Juvenal. Satires. VI, 143-146
When spouses separated, many disputes arose about the division of property. However, there was and could not be a dispute about who should have custody of the children, since in Rome children were always subject only to the authority of the father. Back in the 2nd century. n. e. the lawyer Guy quotes the words of Emperor Hadrian that there is no nation that has greater power over its sons than the Romans ( Guy. Institutions, I, 53). We are undoubtedly talking about the “right of life and death” over his children that belonged to the Roman citizen.
During childbirth, the woman did not receive help from a doctor: in Rome, as in Greece, the services of a midwife or a slave experienced in obstetrics were considered sufficient. It is not surprising that cases of miscarriage or death of the newborn, and sometimes of the mother in labor, were very common. In one of his letters, Pliny the Younger mourns the two daughters of Helvidius Priscus, who died in childbirth after giving birth to girls: “It is so sad to see that the most worthy women at the dawn of youth were carried away by motherhood! I am worried about the fate of the little ones who were orphaned at their very birth...” (Letters of Pliny the Younger, IV, 21, 1-2). Pliny himself experienced a different misfortune: his wife Calpurnia, not knowing in her youth how to behave during pregnancy, “did not observe what pregnant women should observe, but did what was forbidden to them,” and she had a miscarriage (Ibid. , VIII, 10, 1).
If the birth ended successfully, then the celebrations associated with the birth of a new family member began in Rome on the eighth day after the birth and lasted three days. This was the so-called day of purification. The father, lifting the child from the ground, thereby expressed his decision to accept him into the family, after which cleansing sacrifices were brought to the gods and the baby was given a name. In addition to the closest relatives, invited guests also took part in these celebrations, bringing the baby the first memorable gifts - toys or amulets that were supposed to be hung around the newborn’s neck to protect him from evil spirits. On the third day of the holiday, a great feast was held.
For a long time, it was not necessary to register a newborn and publicly announce his birth. Only when the Roman reached the age of majority and put on a white male toga, that is, when the young citizen had to begin fulfilling his duties to the state, did he appear before officials and they included him in the lists of citizens. For the first time, 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 very Eternal City registration of children took place in the Temple of Saturn, where the state treasury and archives were located, and in the provinces - in the office of the governor in the main city of the province. At the same time, a written act was drawn up confirming full name the child, his date of birth, as well as his free descent and citizenship rights. Introduced by Sulla in 81 BC. e. Cornelius’s “Law on Forgeries” 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 - and during imprisonment marriage contracts, and when ensuring the wife’s property rights.
We have no evidence of how the father behaved if twins were born into his family - twins or triplets. Apparently, in the absence of medical assistance, the twins rarely managed to survive. As we remember, Aulus Gellius reports about a woman in Egypt who gave birth to five children at once, citing Aristotle’s opinion that this 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 to be written down on it for the information of posterity. Of course, this happened extremely rarely and even then it seemed like an exceptional event, worthy of mention in historical monuments.
The situation of children not accepted into the family by their father and left to die was the same in Rome as in Greece. Already the “Laws of the XII Tables” prescribed the killing of infants born weak or crippled, as was the case in Sparta. At the same time, the father had the right to reject and not accept into the family a completely healthy child - both a boy and a girl. It is worth noting that over the centuries, this right began to be used more and more often: during the period of the Principate of Augustus, mainly girls or illegitimate children were abandoned, and already in the 3rd and 4th centuries. n. e. many Romans freely disposed of their children at will. The law did not interfere in this matter; only the voices of moral philosophers were heard condemning infanticide: Musonius Rufus in the 1st century, Epictetus in the 1st-2nd centuries. n. e. The legislation regulated only the complex legal relationships that arose between the father of an abandoned child and the one who found and saved him. Only Christianity began to truly fight the killing of newborns.
In Roman law, the found child remained in the unlimited power of the one who took him into his 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 from having concubines in addition to their legal wives. Some scholars interpret this law in such a way that with the transformation of concubinage into a formal marriage union, children born from concubine should have been recognized as full heirs. Under Justinian, concubine was regarded as a special, lower form of marriage, especially with regard to the rights of the concubine and her children to inheritance. This attitude towards extramarital affairs persisted in the eastern part of the former Roman Empire until the end of the 9th century, and in the West until the 12th century.
Now let us return to the Roman family, in which the father formally recognized the child and accepted him into the family. The mother and nanny took care of the baby, but 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 the responsibility of the child's natural mother, and the evasion of this responsibility by many mothers as a shameful manifestation of selfishness. The philosopher Favorinus spoke in particular detail on this topic, whose words are quoted in his book by Aulus Gellius (Attic Nights, XII, 1). Favorin was indignant at the behavior of those mothers who do not even think of feeding their children themselves. The philosopher sees something amazing in this: a mother feeds a child in her body, whom she does not yet see, and refuses to feed with her milk the one whom she sees already alive, already a person, already demanding to be taken care of. Are breasts given to women to decorate their bodies, and not to feed babies? - asks Favorin. A mother who does not want to feed her child herself, but gives him to the mother, weakens the connecting thread that connects parents with their children. A baby given to a nurse is forgotten to almost the same extent as a dead one. And the newborn himself forgets his own mother, transferring the innate feeling of love to the one who feeds him, and then, as happens with children who are abandoned and rejected, he no longer feels any attraction to the mother who gave birth to him. And if in the future children raised under such conditions show their love for their father and mother, then this is not a natural feeling arising from nature, but only a desire to preserve the reputation of a good citizen who respects his parents, the philosopher concludes.
Already in Ancient Rome, pediatric medicine had its representatives. The most famous among them can be considered Soranus, who lived in Rome during the reign of Trajan and then Hadrian. In his extensive work On Women's Diseases, he discusses in 23 chapters how to care for a child; Seven of these chapters are devoted to the problem of feeding newborns. Soran also gives instructions on how to swaddle a baby, how to determine the quality of breast milk, how to bring a newborn to the breast, how many hours he should sleep, what regime should the nursing mother herself or her replacement nurse follow, etc. Some recommendations of the ancient pediatrician do not differ and with today’s views on these problems: for example, Soran considered it wrong to soothe a crying child by constantly giving him the breast, demanded that the baby be fed regularly and only during the day, and objected to artificial feeding. And the fact that artificial feeding was used even then is evidenced by all kinds of bottles and devices like our nipples discovered in children's sarcophagi in Pompeii.
According to the traditional beliefs of the ancient inhabitants of Italy, local Italian deities played a significant role in caring for the newborn. Each of them provided assistance to the mother or nanny in a certain situation: Levana (from “left” - I lift) made sure that the father, having raised the baby lying in front of him, recognized him as a member of the family; Kubina (from “kubo” - I lie) looked after the child in his cradle; Statilina (from “one” - I stand) taught him to take his first steps; Potina (from "poto" - I drink) and Edulia ("edo" - I eat) taught to drink and eat; Fabulina (“fabulor” - I’m talking) took care that the child began to speak. Of course, all these deities would have achieved little if 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 land 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.
10 Customs of Ancient Rome
Ancient Rome, along with Ancient Greece, is considered the cradle European culture. However, some traditions of that time seem strange even to us, who have seen everything or almost everything.
10th place: The streets of Rome were often named after the artisans or merchants who settled there. For example, there was a “Sandal” street in the city - a street of sandal-making specialists (vicus Sandalarius). On this street, Augustus erected the famous statue of Apollo, which became known as Apollo Sandalarius.
9th place: No flowers or trees were planted on the Roman streets: there was simply no room for this. The Romans knew about traffic jams long before the birth of Christ. If a mounted military detachment was passing along the street, it could push back pedestrians with impunity and even beat them.
8th place: The walls of many houses were decorated with explicit images of sexual scenes. It was not considered pornography, but an object of worship and admiration. Artists were especially valued for their ability to convey to the audience the full intensity of such scenes.
7th place: Rome is generally famous for its free morals. Pedophilia, same-sex relationships and group sex were the order of the day. But wealthy noble Romans were advised to avoid having sex with women from high society, since if the result was an illegitimate child, then big problems with the division of inheritance.
6th place: Roman feasts were not a very beautiful sight. Regardless of the size of the room and the number of people dining, the table was very small. One dining companion was separated from another by pillows and cloths. The crowded people, warmed by wine and food, sweated incessantly and, in order not to catch a cold, covered themselves with special capes.
5th place: The Romans adopted gladiator fights from the Greeks. Not only a prisoner of war, but also any free citizen who wanted to earn money could become a gladiator. In order to become a gladiator, it was necessary to take an oath and declare oneself “legally dead.”
4th place: Civil criminals could also be sentenced to the arena. Like, for example, one jeweler who deceived customers.
3rd place: The Romans also had something like a movie. During naumakhiyas, historical battles were played out in great detail. To stage one battle, a huge artificial lake was dug. 16 galleys with 4 thousand oarsmen and 2 thousand gladiator soldiers took part in the performance.
2nd place: Prostitution flourished in Rome. Prostitutes worked almost everywhere and varied not only in cost, but also in the nature of the services provided. For example, bustuaries ("Bustuariae") were prostitutes who wandered around graves (busta) and bonfires in cemeteries at night. Often they played the role of mourners during funeral rites.
1st place: Roman toilets (in Latin they were called “latrina” or “forica”) were quite spacious - the largest could accommodate about 50 people at the same time. The floors of the toilets were paved with mosaics, usually depicting dolphins, and there was a fountain in the center. Musicians often played in foriki, and those gathered held conversations and shared news. Often one could hear political witticisms and poetry there.
Roman customs, life and everyday life
How did they spend their free time? Let us turn to the book by P. Giro “Life and Customs of the Ancient Romans.” Rome, the capital of the vast Empire, was always noisy. Here you can see anyone - merchants, artisans, military men, scientists, slaves, teachers, noble horsemen, senators, etc. Crowds of petitioners flocked to the house of the Roman aristocrats from early morning. There were still more noble and important people here, seeking a new position or honors. But one could see a poor teacher or scientist looking for a place a mentor, a teacher in a noble family, who wants to share a meal with a famous person (maybe he will get something too). In a word, whole flocks of people gathered here. Plutarch compared them to annoying flies. This happened to us too. Let us remember Nekrasov: “Here is the front entrance... On special days, possessed by a servile illness, the whole city approaches the cherished doors with some kind of fear.”
Peristyle in the house of Menander. Pompeii
Of course, among these crowds there were also ordinary friends. Rome was no different from other cities in the world. Friendship, true friendship was highly valued here, above the law... Where people know how to maintain and maintain friendly ties, an atmosphere of warmth and affection reigns there. Life here is wonderful, and even grief is not so bitter. The Romans valued such friendship and celebrated a special holiday in honor of harmony and friendship - Charistia. The course of life followed a once and for all established circle: battles, campaigns, politics and constant communication with friends (visits, feasts, conversations, participation in events of families close to them, recommendations, requests, consultations, receiving guests, etc.). At times this was quite onerous, as Cicero admitted. However, it was impossible to abandon this tradition, because it permeated the entire vertical and horizontal of society, holding it together from top to bottom. Of course, friendships were also based on ties of kinship, but there were also other kinds of bonds. They sometimes turned out to be many times stronger than their relatives. These are both official and business relationships. Everything came from the very top, from the administration of the princeps, where the institution of “amici Augusti” (friends of the princeps) existed. Moreover, this kind of friendly ties are almost of an official nature. Before us is a kind of conclusion of a pact of peace and friendship or, on the contrary, of hostility and war... Valery Maxim reports how inimicitia (enmity) was announced in the national assembly. Personal enemies Aemilius Lepidus and Fulvius Flaccus, having been elected censors, hastened publicly, in the people's assembly, to conclude a friendly alliance, in order to thereby show everyone their intentions. Scipio Africanus and Tiberius Gracchus, on the contrary, publicly dissolved the bonds of friendship, but then, finding themselves in neighboring places on the Capitol, at the banquet table at a festival in honor of Jupiter, they again entered into a friendly alliance, especially noting the union of the right hands (“dexteras eorum concentibus”), which is a kind of symbol of people reaching agreement.
Peristyle in the house of the Vettii. Pompeii
What was the basis of these types of friendly alliances? Most of all and most often the same as today - the provision of mutual services by the parties participating in the commonwealth to each other. According to Cicero's explanations, friendship is strengthened not only by bonds of camaraderie or heartfelt affection, but also by “the best services on the part of each of us.” He compares them to a “marriage union,” including here both relatives and friends, and comrades “in public affairs.” To maintain friendship, he said, such best qualities as piety, kindness, nobility of soul, benevolence and courtesy are necessary. Democritus considered friendship to be the equivalent of social existence (“he who does not have a true friend is not worthy to live”), and Socrates emphasized that friendship is the most important institution of mutual assistance and mutual assistance (“a friend delivers what a friend lacks”). The ancients paid tribute to the rational or pragmatic principles encountered in friendship. Aristotle emphasized the need for both parties to reciprocate each other in friendship. Only then “virtue is called friendship if there is retribution.” However, the ancients also distinguished between the concepts of ideal friendship for the sake of pleasure and material friendship for the sake of profit. Diogenes Laertius collected statements from people (Cyrenaics) who put utilitarian-pragmatic goals in first place in friendly alliances. Aristippus said: “You have a friend for your own benefit, like a member of the body while he is with you.” Egesius (Hegesius) quite cynically declared: “There is no respect, no friendship, no virtue, since they are sought not for their own sake, but for the benefit that they give us: if there is no benefit, they disappear.” In other words, friendship is always an exchange, although not always an exchange of goods. However, many did not agree with such a down-to-earth interpretation of this lofty, important universal feeling.
Odysseus and Penelope
It is fundamentally wrong to define friendship based solely on socio-economic interests. After all, there are many more aspects of human relations and connections that are not limited to the area of benefits. Cicero said about friendship: “Just as we are virtuous and generous not in expectation of gratitude (after all, we do not allow virtue to grow, but are driven to generosity by nature), so we consider friendship desirable not in the hope of reward, but because all its benefits lies in love itself." Among other things, in friendship, in high friendship, it is embodied best side person's personality. Such friendship often leads to achievement, to cultural or ethical perfection. Thus, Epicurus believed that it was valuable in itself. Mutual affection cleanses human relationships of all selfish calculations. "From what wisdom provides, doing happiest life on the whole, the greatest good is the possession of friendship.” In friendship we find shelter from all sorts of storms in life.
General view of the square in front of the Pantheon
On the streets and squares of Rome, and other cities, you can meet many people who form a special class called “loiters.” A poet contemporary to Tiberius wrote that they “do nothing and are always busy, exhausted over trifles, are in constant movement and they never achieve anything, they are always fussing and as a result they only bore everyone.” Seneca compared them to ants that, without a plan or purpose, run around a tree here and there (the comparison is unsuccessful, because ants are more industrious than most people and cannot be classified as loitering). There are people of this kind in Moscow, and in Paris, and in New York, and in Tokyo, and in Beijing, and in present-day Rome or Berlin. “The capital was a real center of bustling idleness, which flourished in it more than in any other city.” Some were in a hurry to pay an unnecessary visit, others were in a hurry to make a stupid meeting, others wanted to take part in a drinking party, others wanted to make another, and most likely completely unnecessary, purchase, others visited the lady without giving either her or themselves much pleasure. Among them there are many who always strived to get to some empty official ceremonies. Show yourself and look at people. Galien described the Roman's day this way: “Early in the morning everyone makes visits; then many go to the forum to listen to court debates; an even larger crowd heads out to watch the chariot races and pantomimes; many spend their time in the baths playing dice, drinking, or among pleasures, until they find themselves in the evening at a feast, where they entertain themselves not with music or serious pleasures, but indulge in orgies and debauchery, often staying until the next day.” Most of the top officials in Rome (as elsewhere) were not just fussing out of the need to run or move somewhere, no, they wanted to make money, to get benefits. An insatiable thirst for wealth overcame them and was the main reason for the bustle that filled the streets, squares, and palaces of Italy. Giving people position, distinction, honor, wealth, influence, money was considered the highest good. They are the god Jupiter, whom they worship and serve.
Tavern
The common people with constant pleasure attended not receptions (he was not allowed there), but taverns, taverns, and taverns. After all, in taverns for two asses you could get a lamb's head, sausages flavored with garlic, onions and seasonings; beans, lentils, raw cabbage, other vegetables, baked nuts, beets and porridge. All these dishes were eaten with coarse rye or barley bread, known as plebeian bread. In these establishments, however, there was unbearable heat and impassable dirt reigned. But the wine brightened up all these inconveniences. Here they drank wine (boiled Cretan) and honey, ate pies with cheese, played dice, passed each other latest news and gossip, slandering the masters. There were no aristocrats or senators within these walls, although there were plenty of runaway slaves, thieves, murderers, undertakers, sailors, artisans and even priests of Cybele.
Of course, there were some entertainments for intellectuals, those who were interested in literature, poetry, music, etc. Let's say, in the second half of the 1st century. (already under Augustus) public readings, organized by Asinius Pollio, became fashionable. The writer addressed his work to the audience, reading it excerpts or the entire treatise (depending on patience and disposition). These readings took place either in the halls, or even in the dining rooms (apparently, to make it more convenient to move from spiritual food to physical food). True, this occupation did not tempt the Romans for long. Already by the end of the 1st century. public readings began to decline and turned into a heavy duty. The listeners tried to avoid her as much as they could.
Those who preferred the life of a politician or activist (vita activa) - a contemplative-philosophical way of life (vita contemplative) or books, immersed themselves in the quiet of the study in the libraries in their villas and estates... They believed: “A sage should not engage in public affairs except in extreme cases.” necessity." This is how other inhabitants of aristocratic villas understood life, like the house of the Vettii in Pompeii, the house of the Deer, the villa of the house of Telephus and the villa of the Papyri in Herculaneum... Discovered only in the 18th century. The Villa of the Papyri belonged to one of the Roman aristocrats. The first treasure hunters entered its state chambers, library, peristyle, garden, dug shafts and galleries here, then abandoned it all. Perhaps the villa was created during the time of Nero and the Flavians. This villa housed a collection of papyri and a small, well-chosen library. In a small room they discovered rare papyrus scrolls containing the works of famous authors. It is possible that the first owner of the villa was Piso, the father of Julius Caesar's wife. In terms of their wealth, the papyri collected in the villa were not inferior to the libraries of the emperors. From the hot mud (the cities were buried under streams of fiery lava), the books turned black and charred, but were not completely burned. Although we are talking in this case about a Roman villa, so were the libraries of the most famous and wealthy Greeks. In the USA, a copy of the Papyrus Villa was created in California; its owner was the American millionaire Getty, who placed the collection here (1970).
J. Jordaens. Pan and Syringa. Brussels
When did the general decline in morals begin to be observed? Ancient authors have different opinions on this matter. According to Strabo, Fabius Pictor believed that the Romans first tasted luxury (or, as he puts it, “tasted wealth”) back during the 3rd Samnite War. After this, i.e. around 201 BC. e., after the 2nd Punic War and the defeat of Philip of Macedon, they began to show a tendency towards a less strict lifestyle (Valery Maxim). Titus Livy believed that the habit of extravagance was brought to Rome by the army after returning from the depths of Asia, where it occupied rich countries (187 BC). Polybius dates the disappearance of the former modesty and frugality of the Romans to the time of the war with Perseus (168 BC). Posidonius and Sallust date the beginning of the era of decline to the destruction of Carthage by Rome (146 BC). Others attribute the date of the beginning of the era of degradation and decline of Rome to a long period (II century BC - II century AD). They are probably right: this process was long and constant.
Tomb in Kazanlak
This is how Guy Sallust Crispus explained the origins of the beginning of the degradation of Rome in his “War with Jugurtha.” The Roman historian wrote: “Let us note that the habit of division into warring countries, with all its bad consequences, arose in Rome only a few years earlier, and gave rise to its idle life and the abundance of those goods that people value most highly. Indeed, right up to the destruction of Carthage, the Roman people and the Senate conducted the affairs of the state amicably and calmly; there was no struggle between citizens for glory and dominance: fear of the enemy maintained good order in the city. But as soon as the hearts got rid of this fear, their place was taken by unbridledness and arrogance - success willingly brings them with it. And it turned out that the peaceful idleness that was dreamed of in the midst of disasters turned out to be worse and more bitter than the disasters themselves. The nobles little by little turned their high position into arbitrariness, the people - their freedom, everyone tore and pulled in their own direction. Everything split into two camps, and the state, which had previously been a common property, was torn to shreds. The advantage, however, was on the side of the nobility - due to its unity, while the forces of the people, scattered, fragmented among many, did not have this advantage. Peace and war were decided by the arbitrariness of a handful of people, the same hands held the treasury, the provinces, the highest positions, glory, triumphs, and the people were exhausted under the burden military service and needs. And while the commanders and their entourage were plundering the loot, soldiers’ parents and small children were driven from their homes if a strong neighbor happened to be nearby. So, side by side with power, greed appeared, immeasurable and insatiable, it desecrated and destroyed everything, did not worry about anything and did not value anything until it broke its own neck.” While it was necessary to fight a formidable enemy, while fear and the instinct of survival cemented the interests of all Romans stronger than friendship and laws, Rome, like the USSR, was a single cohesive state. When the external threat disappeared, an equally terrible internal war began for the possession of everything that Rome owned. And here there were neither friends nor enemies among the rivals, for each, due to the animal herd nature, tried to snatch a piece from the other, to seize lands, valuables, slaves, estates.
Wives. Murals of a villa in Boscoreale
Endless wars significantly changed the Italian economy, and Hannibal’s armies caused enormous damage. Agriculture was in decline. Cheap imported bread made bread production in Italy unprofitable. Although it is worth recalling Weber’s remark that “Rome never from the time he was a polis, he was not forced and was not able to live on the products of his own agriculture” (the area cultivated for grain production apparently was about 15%). In addition, wars distracted the productive part of citizens from business. The nobility lived in luxury, and a significant part of the population lived in poverty. In Rome alone there were about 150,000 unemployed. The authorities maintained them, so to speak, at the public expense. About the same number of people, if not more, worked only until lunch. They all had to be somehow calmed down, distracted from the most pressing, acute problems so that they don’t arise and ask questions. Caesar recognized the right of the masses to bread and circuses. The satirist Juvenal (c. 60-140 AD) wrote indignantly about this: “This people has long since, since we do not sell our votes, forgotten all worries, and Rome, that once everything distributed: legions, and power, and a bunch of lictors, is now restrained and restlessly dreams of only two things: bread and circuses! Officials must follow these rules unquestioningly.
The satirist Martial said in one of his epigrams that the wife of one of the praetors was even forced to file for divorce because of the enormous expenses that her husband was forced to bear. The fact is that the husband’s position and the demands placed on it had a catastrophic effect on the family budget: “I know: he became praetor, and his Megalesian purple would cost a hundred thousand, no matter how stingy you were on organizing games; Another twenty thousand would have been spent on the national holiday.” But officials often simply had nowhere to go. After all, their fate and career, and often life itself, were in the hands of the emperor. In addition, sometimes the retribution for an unsuccessful or poorly organized spectacle by an official was extremely severe. Caligula (37–41 AD) ordered one overseer of gladiatorial battles and persecution he did not like to be beaten with chains for several days in a row in front of his eyes. The poor fellow was killed only after everyone felt the “stench of rotting brain” (Suetonius). After the games organized by Augustus with his characteristic scale, all his successors (except Tiberius) began to compete with each other in organizing gladiatorial games. For the sake of advertising and maintaining political face, the official had to go into debt and into his own pocket (especially after the elimination of state surcharges to the organizers of the games under Augustus). Emperor Trajan (98-117 AD) surpassed everyone, whose spectacles were compared by many to the amusements of Jupiter himself. Moreover, these funs were often accompanied by mass slaughter of people and animals.
Wounded lion
The people received free access to the forum, but they thirsted for blood and spectacle. They became more and more bloody and cruel. How things have changed. Once upon a time, during the censorship of Cato the Elder (184 BC), the noble Roman L. Quinctius Flamininus (consul 192 BC) was punished for unjustified cruelty, since he allowed an act discrediting honor Rome. Proconsul Flamininus at dinner (at the request of a harlot who had never seen a man beheaded) killed one of the convicts. He was accused of insulting the greatness of the Roman people. The episode recounted by Livy indicates that in old times the Romans still tried to avoid excessive cruelty. Now they killed in dozens and hundreds openly - in front of the people. Rome ceased to be ashamed of executioners and applauded the executioners... It is worth mentioning that the number holidays per year increased in the 2nd century. n. e. to 130, effectively doubling since the Republican era. The Romans were carried away by the spectacle. Almost all of Rome gathered in a huge circus with 200,000 seats. The excitement of racing was incomprehensible to smart and enlightened people. “I don’t understand,” the writer Pliny the Younger wondered, “how you can get carried away by such a boring spectacle.”
Gladiators fight with lions in the arena
If they were also attracted by the speed of horses or the art of people, then this would make some sense; but they favor rags, they love rags, and if during the races in the middle of the competition “this color were transferred here, and that color here, then the passionate sympathy of the people would move with it.” And then Pliny continues: when I look at those people who are carried away by such a vulgar and empty matter, I experience great satisfaction from the fact that I am not covered by it. While the mob and those who consider themselves serious spend their time in idleness, I devote all my leisure time to literature with great pleasure. Alas, it turned out that it is much easier to attract wild animals with the sounds of the lyre, as Orpheus once did, than to turn the eyes of other people to high literature, history or philosophy. Hortensius, the creator of a poem about the education of wild animals, would have been well-suited to write a poem about how to re-educate the Romans who behave like wild creatures. We involuntarily recalled the historian Timaeus, who, describing the life of the Roman people, believed (like Varro) that the very name of Italy came from the Greek word meaning “cattle” (of which there are always many). However, another version is also known: the country was named after the bull Italus, who allegedly transported Hercules from Sicily.
Fun is richer
I also recall the sharp words of Charles Montesquieu from his work “On the Spirit of Laws”: “In order to defeat the laziness inspired by the climate, laws would have to deprive people of any opportunity to live without working. But in the south of Europe they act in the opposite direction: they place people who want to be idle in a position favorable to the contemplative life, and associate enormous wealth with this position. These people, living in such abundance, which even burdens them, naturally give their surplus to the common people. The latter lost his property; they reward him for this with the opportunity to enjoy idleness; and he eventually begins to love even his poverty.” In fact, is there a difference? They had Commodiana, we have Comediana! A comedy that turns into a tragedy before the eyes of the whole world.
During the Roman Republic, there was a law that condemned luxury and severely punished those who dared to challenge public opinion. Among the items it was allowed to have only a salt shaker and a sacrificial cup made of silver. One of the noble senators even lost his seat just because he had silverware by 10 pounds. But times have changed, and even the people's tribune Marcus Drusus (servant of the people) accumulated more than 10 thousand pounds worth of silverware. It was fabulous money. Under dictators and emperors, the wealth of the nobility became completely provocative, but this was already perceived as in the order of things. Rich people did not take into account costs, wanting to show off their wealth. They paid exorbitant amounts of money for silver and gold items (the cost of the work often exceeded 20 times the cost of the material itself). Unimaginable treasures accumulated in the houses of the Roman nobility. Thus, Titus Petronius had a ladle that was used to scoop wine from a crater, the cost of which was 350,000 gold rubles.
Silverware from the times of Caesarism
True, at one time Cato the Censor tried to stop this process. He even expelled from the Senate many supporters of immoderate luxury, including Lucius Quintius, the former consul, and the brother of the famous “liberator” of Greece, Titus Flamininus. Some famous horsemen also suffered - the equus publicus was taken away from his brother Scipio Africanus. But the greatest (and almost scandalous) in society were Cato’s steps directed against luxury, speculation, and profit. He increased taxes on wealth, insisted on raising prices for women's jewelry, clothing, rich household utensils, raised the price of farm-outs, etc. Plutarch emphasizes that by these actions he earned the special hatred of rich people. However, and we should also remember this, these decisive measures won him the deep gratitude of the people.
Many even praised the censor for such severity. In gratitude for his services to the people, a statue was erected to him. “Thus, there can be no doubt that luxuria in the Cato scale is the luxuria of the rich, ambitus and avaritia are the vices of noble and rich people, superbia, crudelitas are also vices of the nobility, impudentia and duritudo are the result of corrupting foreign influences, and desidia – typical trait those who have been corrupted by long leisure (otium) and who have been taught by such conditions to place their private affairs and their commoda above the interests of the res publica. In conclusion, it is not without interest to note that if Cato’s set of virtutes (that is, virtues) appears extremely implicitly and is most likely meant to be effective for the semi-legendary times of the dominance of mores maiorum (morals of the majority), then all vitia (vices) (nova flagitia - nouveau riche) are quite real and “have a precise address”: they characterize precisely those still relatively narrow (but, of course, the highest!) strata of Roman society that are corrupted by foreign influences, strive to lead or lead a luxurious lifestyle and ultimately neglect the interests and needs of society generally". It was about a certain part of the highest circles.
Among the concubines. Oriental scene
Such luxury, all these countless expensive amusements and pleasures cost the state huge money. And, as a result, by the end of the existence of the Roman Empire, taxes increased continuously. Theodosius I declared in 383 AD. e. that no one can own tax-exempt property. A huge number of regulatory and control acts have emerged. It turned out to be some kind of vicious circle: the political structure was bursting at the seams, the army began to fall apart. In order to somehow support all this, to preserve at least their foundations and replenish the treasury, taxes had to be increased. At the same time, taxes on the rich were reduced, which worsened the already difficult situation of the common people. A lot of responsibilities were imposed on ordinary citizens, reminiscent of the most outright corvee. They had to supply coal, firewood for arsenals and mints, maintain bridges, roads and buildings in good condition, and generally provide the state with their experience and labor without any remuneration on its part. Service in the country, they said in Rome, turned “into something like forced recruitment.” The upper classes were freed from all this. Corruption among officials also flourished.
T. Chasserio. Dressing a concubine
I can’t believe that a civilization that once admired classical Greek literature, history, and philosophy could descend to such tastes? Although it’s hardly worth exaggerating cultural level the broad masses. Their culture is like a thin layer that quickly disappears if society suddenly flops into the mud... Part of Roman society still tried to follow the ideals of the ancient Greeks. Sports lovers maintained their physical health in gymnasiums and palaestras. Some citizens, like Cicero, spent time in gymnasiums, engaged in wrestling, practiced chariot and horse riding, swam or were fond of rowing. “The spectators greeted every manifestation of dexterity and strength with applause,” chroniclers wrote. But those were exceptions. When a country that admired history, philosophy, poetry, and literature degrades in this way, then freedom becomes a fiction and an empty phrase. It is clear that no one said a word of protest when 94 AD. e. executed two senators who wrote memoirs about the champions of freedom Trazeus Pete and Helvidius Prisca. Emperor Domitian immediately ordered the memories to be burned. “Those who gave this order, of course, believed that such a fire would silence the Roman people, suppress freedom-loving speeches in the Senate, and strangle the very conscience of the human race. Moreover, teachers of philosophy were expelled and a ban was imposed on all other sublime sciences, so that henceforth nothing honest would be found anywhere else. We have truly shown great example patience. And if previous generations saw what unrestricted freedom is, then we (see) what (our) enslavement is, for endless persecution has taken away our opportunity to communicate, express our thoughts and listen to others. And along with our voice, we would also lose our memory itself, if (only the right) to forget were as much in our power as to remain silent.” Of course, others continued to love books, but they were a minority. The crowd loved wine and women. Gordian II had a magnificent library - 62 thousand books. However, he spent more time drinking a glass of wine, in gardens, baths, in groves, everywhere sacrificing himself to 22 concubines, from each of whom he left 3-4 children.
A thrown baby
The Romans (especially the wealthy and prosperous) began to live more and more openly exclusively for themselves, caring only about satisfying their whims and desires. The Roman population itself is aging and declining. Children cease to please his eyes and heart. Children are increasingly perceived as a burden and a burden. In Plautus’s comedy “The Boastful Warrior,” one of the characters, Periplectomenus, receiving his friend, Pleusicles, at a rich table, objects to the words: “It’s a nice thing to have children.” It’s much better, he says, “to be free yourself - that’s even nicer.” And therefore he advises him: “Eat and drink with me, make merry your soul. The house is free, I am free and I want to live freely.” The friend continues to convince: they say, it would be nice to have a wife and children, because “raising children: this is a monument to yourself and your family.” Periplectomenus objects:
I have a large family: what about children?
out of necessity?
I live happily, I feel great now,
as you wish;
Death will come - I will give my goods to
division of one's relatives,
Everyone will come to me, about me
take care
And keep track of how I’m doing and what I need
It’s just dawn and then there’s a question,
How did I sleep that night?
So they will be children. They are for me
gifts are sent;
Do they make a sacrifice: a part for me
they give more than themselves,
They invite you to a feast, to have breakfast,
dine with them;
Who sent fewer gifts?
ready to fall into despair;
They compete in gift giving among themselves.
On my mind: “Open your mouth to mine
property,
That’s why they compete so hard to feed
and give me"...
Yes, and whether it’s children, how many are with them
I would have suffered!
Vicious and criminal Rome increasingly saw children only as a burden. It is better to have some exotic creature, bringing it into your home from distant countries. Increasingly, fish, dogs, wild animals, freaks, crocodiles, and peacocks began to take places in the families of the rich (as is now happening in the families of the nouveau riche in Russia). There are known facts when rich people deliberately mutilated children to satisfy their voluptuousness, when innocent girls or boys were given over to be desecrated.
O. Beardsley. Deflowering
The nobility was mired in idleness and drunkenness. Society under such conditions also degrades genetically. N. Vasilyeva noted in “The Question of the Fall of the Western Roman Empire and ancient culture"(1921) that the decline of morals was accompanied by a biological crisis. People grew weaker and emaciated, families became thinner, and the number of children decreased. The city destroyed the village and corrupted its inhabitants. Although until 131 BC. e. none of the Roman statesmen paid attention to the population decline (it seems, except for Metellus). Families and healthy relationships between a man and a woman have become a rarity and have faded into the background. Rome was degenerating, carried away, as they say, by non-traditional gender relations. Debauchery and cynicism were instilled in literature, culture, theater, and life.
Emperor Vitellius
As more and more poor people became poor, child abandonment became common in Roman society. Children were often sold, because abandoned children were in danger of death (especially during the crisis of the 3rd–4th centuries AD). By selling their children, the poor not only ensured their survival, but also received a certain amount of money themselves that could be used in the family, including for the feeding and subsistence of the remaining children. Thus, there are known cases of children being sold as a means of repaying the parents’ debt. A certain wine merchant Pamonfius, having taken a large amount money, I couldn’t pay it. To return it to the archons, he sold all his property, including clothes, but this only allowed him to pay off half of the debt. And then the heartless creditors took away all his children, including minors, and took them into slavery... Such a document as “Alienation of a Daughter” is also known. It tells how a recently widowed woman, unable to feed her 10-year-old daughter, gives her up to another couple forever, so that they can support her as a “legitimate daughter.” Justinian's legislation permitted the sale of children by citizens only “due to extreme poverty, for the sake of food.” By the way, it is very interesting that under the “Christian” Constantine the sale of newborn children was allowed, but the “persecutor of Christians” Diocletian strictly prohibited the alienation of children from a parent through sale, gift, mortgage or any other way.
Portrait of Emperor Commodus
We live “in ancient Rome”: cases of child trafficking have become widespread. As if in a slave market, in Russia they sell their children to rich families.
But many came to taste the idle, depraved and cheerful life. “Therefore, the mass of people were forced either to sacrifice pleasures to their children, the temptation of which was now so strong everywhere, or, on the contrary, they had to sacrifice their children for the sake of pleasure, killing in their infancy the offspring that would have continued them in time, and obediently dying forever at the end of his existence in order to more freely enjoy a short moment of life. And most often they chose the second solution.” When does a state doom itself to death and disaster? When the children of the elite, great and worthy parents in the past, became complete nonentities, degenerates. There are many such examples in the history of Rome. Vitellius (69–70), having starved his mother to death, was torn to pieces by the people and thrown into the Tiber. Galba (68–69) killed by Praetorians. The people were deprived of the remnants of their former freedoms, turning into a crowd, plebeians, and mobs.
Roman gladiators greet the emperor
Commodus (180–192 AD), the eldest son of the ruler Marcus Aurelius, a highly moral, decent and intelligent man, becomes emperor. After his death, allegedly from a serious contagious disease (180), his son became sole emperor. What a bitter irony of fate... A fan of philosophy, lofty and beautiful ideas, not only died from an “ugly disease”, but was also forced to transfer all the reins of government in the country into the hands of his son, “whose spiritual horizon was limited to the circus and pleasures in the taste of grooms.” and fist fighters." How often do parents protect their sons and daughters in the wrong places and from the wrong things? The emperor did not allow him to go to bed for fear that he might become infected. But Commodus had long been “infected”, being prone to wine and fights. They say he was not the son of Marcus Aurelius. The emperor's wife Faustina was a “very loving” lady, and persistent rumors circulated about her “adventures.” Having barely ascended the throne, Commodus is forced to immediately deal with the conspiracy in which his sister with my nephew. Then another conspiracy follows - and again the culprits have to be executed. Executions follow one after another. The heads of co-prefects, consuls, managers, etc., etc. fly off. They are executed along with their families (Prefect Perenne is hacked to death along with his wife, sister and sons). The emperor brings his father's freedman, Cleander, closer to him, who helps him carry out quick, speedy reprisals. Although, what could be more dangerous, it would seem, than entrusting personal security and command of an army to someone who is sold publicly by an announcement from a herald. Commodus granted him the title "Dagger". The era of arbitrariness has arrived. Cleander saved money and bought grain in huge quantities in order to use it as a weapon at the right moment - to distribute supplies of grain to hungry crowds and thereby attract the people to his side, and then, with the help of the crowds, to seize imperial power in Rome.
Having learned about these plans, Commodus dealt with him. It is quite obvious that such sudden and inexplicable changes in the highest echelons of power also threatened the senators. In an effort to replenish the treasury in any way (which he himself was emptying), the emperor subjected them to persecution and began to take away their property. But if Marcus Aurelius did this for the benefit and health of children and the poor, his son calmly lined his own pockets. On top of that, he was overcome by delusions of grandeur. Commodus declared Rome a personal colony, renaming it Commodiana. The same changes were destined for the Roman legions, the new African flotilla, the city of Carthage, even the Senate of Rome. These capital "fun" caused uprisings and guerrilla warfare in the provinces. In Europe, the Romans were treated as invaders (and agents of the secret military police).
Picture of aristocratic revelry
It was also a tragedy that instead of a republic, an oligarchy was established in Rome. This cynical and vile tribe does not know the word “fatherland”. High officials, military commanders, senators and leaders did not care about Plato. They were not worried about philosophy, but about their own enrichment. Changes in everything - morals, clothing, food, habits. Noble Romans fenced themselves off from their surroundings even when eating. Previously, as you remember, there was nothing like this. Almost until the end of the Punic Wars, masters shared meals with servants: everyone ate simple food at the same table. Mostly it was greens and legumes and jelly made from wheat flour, which often replaced bread. Among the surviving fragments of the scientist and writer Varro (1st century BC) there is a mention of the tastes that reigned in early Rome: “Even though their grandfathers and great-grandfathers’ words breathed garlic and onions, their spirit was high!” However, soon after the conquest of Greece and Asia Minor, wealth and food flowed in a wide stream to Rome and Italy. The life of noble families was filled with pleasures and entertainment. Gluttony, amusements, pleasures, and spectacles are usually accompanied by laziness. Sybaritism has spread in society. However, this is not the sybaritism of the artist.
Who was once born an artist,
He’s always sybaritic about something...
So let it be over the copper
tripod
The fragrant myrrh burns!
V. Mironov
Rome, whose population exceeded a million, was sinking more and more noticeably and more openly into slumber. Idle life became the lot of not only patricians, but to some extent also the plebs. True, there were not so many rich people in Rome. Cicero noted that in Rome, according to the tribune Philip, it was difficult to find even 2,000 well-to-do people (oligarchs). But it was they who, perhaps, determined the weather and ordered the music. The philosophy of selfishness and hedonism won in Roman society. The number of servants grew: captive bakers, cooks, confectioners. She somehow needed to stand out. The future depended on whether their dishes would be liked by the new owners. Competition and envy arose. As a result, in a city that recently did not know what bread was, they suddenly began to sell several varieties of it, differing not only in quality, but also in taste, color and shape. There were a variety of cookies and sweets for those with a sweet tooth and gourmets. Around about 171 BC. e. the art of cooking has been elevated to the level of a science. Sallust wrote that the nobility “were seized by a passion for debauchery, gluttony and other pleasures.”
To diversify the table, they “scoured the land and sea; went to bed before they began to feel sleepy; They did not expect any feeling of hunger or thirst, nor cold, nor fatigue, but in their depravity they prevented their appearance.” Inconceivable feasts began. In the estate of the already mentioned freedman Trimalchio (a character in Petronius’s comedy), there is darkness, there is so much land that even a falcon cannot fly around, silver dishes that have fallen on the floor are thrown out along with the garbage, and live blackbirds fly out of the belly of a roasted boar (to the delight of the public). They did not sit at the table, but lay down. To make it more convenient to eat as much food as possible, the rich ate, undressing to the waist... Decorating themselves with wreaths of myrtle, ivy, violets and roses, they lay down at the table. The slaves took off their shoes and washed their feet and hands. Forks were not recognized then. The Romans, like the Greeks, ate everything with their hands. According to the custom of the Greeks, feasts ended with grandiose drinking bouts. Those present at the table elected the president. Magicians, actors, dancers, and whores were invited to entertain the nobility.
Red-figure vase. V century BC
The author of the Book of Satires, Petronius, described a picture of the pastime of rich freedmen... When we finally lay down, the young Alexandrian slaves poured snow water on our hands, washed our feet and carefully trimmed the hangnails on our fingers. Without interrupting the unpleasant task, they sang incessantly. When he asked for a drink, the obliging boy fulfilled his request, singing just as shrilly. Pantomime with a choir, not the triclinium of a venerable house! Meanwhile, an exquisite appetizer was served; everyone reclined on the couch, with the exception of the host Trimalchio himself, who, according to the new fashion, was left with the highest place at the table. In the middle of the table stood a Corinthian bronze donkey with packs containing white and black olives. Above the donkey stood two silver dishes, on the edges were engraved the name of Trimalchio and the weight of the silver. The following describes how everyone enjoyed this luxury. Then they brought Trimalchio in to the music and laid him on small pillows. His shaved head peeked out from the bright red robes, and around his muffled neck was wrapped a scarf with a wide purple trim and hanging fringe. This made everyone laugh. On her hands was a large gilded ring made of pure gold, with soldered iron stars. In order to display his other jewels, he exposed his right hand, which was adorned with a gold wrist and an ivory bracelet. He picked his teeth with a silver toothpick. The boy who came after him brought crystal bones on a table of turpentine wood, where the author noticed something sophisticated: instead of white and black stones, gold and silver denarii were laid. Then curly-haired Ethiopians came with small wineskins, like those from which they scatter sand in amphitheaters, and washed our hands with wine, but no one gave us water. In the confusion, a large silver dish fell: one of the boys picked it up. Noticing this, Trimalchio ordered the slave to be slapped and the dish thrown back onto the floor. The barman appeared and began to sweep the silver along with other rubbish out the door. At this time, the slave brought a silver skeleton, arranged so that its folds and vertebrae could move freely in all directions. When he was thrown onto the table several times, he, thanks to the movable clutch, assumed a variety of poses. So we all drank and were amazed at such exquisite luxury. It is curious that the owner of the house and feast, Trimalchio, became a merchant and entrepreneur in modern times. He was once a slave and carried logs on his back, but then, thanks to his enterprise, he accumulated large capital. He produced wool, raised bees, and even ordered champignon seeds from India. We see the same in today’s Russia, where similar “freedmen” in the recent past traded flowers, herring, were engaged in blackmail, were currency traders, but now they have become ministers, prime ministers, and deputies.
Amphora depicting a feast
As a result, the rich and jaded public could neither adequately lead the state nor satisfy a woman... Petronius in Satyricon tells the story of a young man who fell in love with a woman who is “more beautiful than all paintings and statues.” There are no words to describe her beauty: “eyes - brighter than the stars on a moonless night,” and “the mouth is like the lips of Diana, as Praxiteles invented them.” And the arms, legs, neck - what a swan: with their whiteness “they outshone the Parian marble.” And so, when the “democrat” had to “show his masculine strength,” the curse of Priapus (the sexual deity) was fulfilled; his “demiurge,” instead of a fighting pose, bowed his head in shame. Neither a golden fork from the palace collection nor a villa in Spain will help here. Impotence struck Rome, just as it struck the “transvestite democrats.” Petronius gives advice on how to recover: the patient should stick to a diet, seek help from the deities (and not get involved in politics), and also take a phallus coated with oil with crushed pepper and nettle seed and insert it deep into his anus. During this procedure, those around him should whip him with nettles on the lower part of his naked body. They say it helps... The Epicureans and Stoics intensified the mood of decadence, urging people to waste their lives easily, imperceptibly, thoughtlessly, blindly. The advice is: “You cannot bring too much intelligence into life without killing life.”
However time will pass, and they themselves will perceive in the philosophy of Epicurus only its hedonic, most animal part, from which the philosopher himself was far from.
Titian. Danaë upon whom golden rain fell
But what can we say, even if the great Cicero, a moralist, a republican, a singer of the old way of life and the “testaments of the ancestors,” speaking in court in defense of a certain Marcus Caelius Rufus (56 BC), a typical young Roman, orator and politician, exclaimed: “Is the love of harlots forbidden for young men? If someone thinks so, then what can we say, he has very strict rules and shuns not only our dissolute age, but also what is permitted by the custom of our ancestors. In fact, when was it different, when was it condemned, when was it prohibited, when was it impossible to do what was possible? I’m ready to determine what exactly it is, but I won’t name any woman, let whoever wants to think about it. If some unmarried person opens her house to everyone who lusts, if she lives openly like a corrupt woman, if she feasts with strange men, and all this in the city, in gardens, in crowded Baiae; if, finally, her gait, her outfit, her retinue, her brilliant glances, her free speeches, her hugs, her kisses, her bathing, her rides on the sea, her feasts make you see in her not just a libertine, but a shameless whore, then say, Lucius Herennius, when a certain young man is with her, will he be a seducer, and not just a lover? Does he infringe on chastity, and not simply satisfy desire? After such a convincing, passionate speech, the court acquitted this Rufus.
Daily life If the rise material culture China during the period of the first rulers could have been caused by borrowing the achievements of the Mediterranean world, then the new empire, in turn, rose to such a high and qualitative new level technology, which is practically
From the book Traditional Japan. Life, religion, culture by Dunn CharlesChapter 8 DAILY LIFE IN EDO Life in the country was regulated by the seasons. In big cities, the clock and calendar changed. The Gregorian calendar, which Japan, along with almost the rest of the civilized world, uses today, was introduced in 1873, immediately after
From the book Everyday Life in Moscow on turn of XIX-XX centuries author Andreevsky Georgy Vasilievich From the book From Edo to Tokyo and back. Culture, life and customs of Japan during the Tokugawa era author Prasol Alexander Fedorovich From the book Everyday Life in Modern Paris author Semenova Olga YulianovnaSemenova O. Yu. Daily life of modern Paris My
From the book Hellenistic Civilization by Chamoux Francois From the book Aristocracy in Europe, 1815–1914 by Lieven Dominic From the book Myths and Truths about Women author Pervushina Elena Vladimirovna From the book Everyday Life of the Surrealists. 1917-1932 by Dex PierrePierre Decay The daily life of the surrealists. 1917–1932 Surrealism opens the doors of dreams to all those for whom the night is too stingy. Surrealism is a crossroads of enchanting dreams, but it is also a destroyer of chains... Revolution... Revolution... Realism is pruning trees,
Today there is a lot of shouting about the total decline of morals and the trampling of family values. And indeed, the stars of the porn industry are no longer persona non grata, but head car rallies; pedophile scandals have already eclipsed financial scandals in frequency. But those who exclaim “what is the world coming to!” do not even suspect what a chaste society we actually live in.
In the days of antiquity, the world did fall into tartarar. What was normal for the ancient Greeks and Romans would shock us. So, an excursion into the times of ancient customs.
I came, I saw, I fucked
To understand the psychology of the people of that time, you need to familiarize yourself with their myths.
For the Greeks and Romans wrote their gods from themselves, so the behavior of the celestials is the embodiment of the innermost desires of mere mortals. Greek myths are something that children under sixteen are not recommended to read. There is so much sex, blood and cruelty that XXX-level porn films seem like an innocent broadcast " Good night, kids! Let's take Zeus (for the Romans - Jupiter), the lord of the sky, thunder, lightning, who is in charge of the whole world. This sexual terrorist cheats left and right on his wife Hera and is guided by one thing: to fertilize everything that moves. For this, he is ready to become either a carcass or a stuffed animal. He loves women and men equally: in the guise of a snake he seduces Demeter and Persephone, in the skin of a bull - Europa, in the guise of a swan - Leda, pretending to be an eagle - the beautiful young man Ganymede, in the guise of an ant - Eurymedus, in the guise of a dove - Phthia, in a fiery guise - Aegina, as a satyr - Antiope, under the guise of a cloud - Io, in the guise of a hedgehog... no, it seems there was no hedgehog. But even the underground bunker where Danaya was hidden from this maniac is no barrier for him. Zeus turns into a golden shower, seeps through the ceiling and penetrates her womb. Well, what do you want? The guy has bad heredity: his dad is a god-eater. His father Kronos swallowed his children so as not to be overthrown, and Zeus was not digested only because a wise mother slipped her husband a stone wrapped in swaddling clothes instead of a newborn. However, Zeus' dad did worse things. Because his own father Uranus mistreated his mother Earth, Kronos one day sat in ambush at his parents’ bedchamber and, at the very moment of his father’s orgasm, swung his sickle at the balls, revealing to his father what was most precious to him. He threw his father’s reproductive organ into the sea, thanks to which the beautiful Aphrodite was born.
Yes, I will disappoint the beautiful ladies who are sure that the goddess of love appeared from sea foam, tender and fragrant, like the German remedy “Badusan”. Everything is much more brutal. Here is what the researcher of ancient culture Hans Licht writes on this subject: “In the most ancient source (Hesiod, “Theogony”) the following is unequivocally stated: “For a long time the member rushed across the sea, and white foam whipped up around it, emanating from the immortal member, and in it Aphrodite is born." That is, the reproductive organ, cut off at the moment of sexual intercourse, was full of seed, which is now erupting outward, giving birth to Aphrodite, in the sea and with the sea. There is no hint of sea foam" Now imagine for a moment that for the people of the ancient world, all this is by no means fairy tales. This is a story as real as the Tatar-Mongol yoke is for us. The ancient Greeks did not doubt the exploits of Hercules and looked up to the gods in everything - from actions to sex.
No sexual minorities
The first thing that would strike us in ancient society is the lack of a strong sexual orientation. The Greeks and Romans were not divided into heterosexuals, homosexuals or bisexuals - they were omnisexual. They even treated bestiality (from ritual to everyday) quite tolerantly, because their sexually preoccupied gods did not shy away from it. This can be confirmed by the myths about Leda and the swan, the Minotaur, Triton, insatiable goat-footed satyrs, centaurs and ugly cynocephali - people with dog heads. All this is an echo of the sexual contacts of the ancients with representatives of other biological species. For ancient pagans, sex was not a sin under any circumstances. On the contrary, it is a priceless gift from the gods. It was they who made man sexually omnivorous, and in the famous dialogue “Symposium” Plato says how this happened. When creating man, Zeus immediately relied on three sexes: man, woman and male-female (androgyne). He divided each sex in half - that's why those who descended from the original man are looking for their soulmate in the form of men, who are descended from the original woman - prefer women. And only from androgynes did men who love women, and women who loving men. So love for the same sex is natural and godly in Hellas and Ancient Rome. They didn’t even have special words corresponding to our “gay” or “lesbian”. But the personal name was Pedophile. And the ancient Greeks did not see anything reprehensible in it (as in the phenomenon itself).
Platonic love
The ancient Greeks would hardly have appreciated the common modern joke that “a pedophile differs from a teacher in that the former truly loves children.” Pedophilia and pederasty were the most important part of the intellectual, spiritual and physical development of a young man. A state-sanctioned method of education. Upon reaching the age of twelve, every Greek teenager was required to acquire an older mentor who would show him all kinds of attentions, give him gifts, admire his beauty and mentor him in all masculine virtues, acting as guardian, adviser, friend, coach and sexual partner. The younger one in such pairs was called “ait” - the listener, and the older one was called “eyspnel”, the inspirer. And for a man it was considered a violation of duty not to attract a young man to himself, and for a young man it was a disgrace not to be worthy of such friendship.
By the way, those who consider the expression “Platonic love” to be synonymous with love without physical contact will be curious to know that according to Plato, the highest manifestation of love is the harmonious fusion of the spiritual principle and the physical bodies of the mentor and student. “Platonic love” is homosexual love. The Greeks considered homosexual love to be more sublime and deeper than the relaxing and pampering love of men for women. World ancient Hellas- This is a man's world. The woman in him is a lower being, unable to satisfy the intellectual demands of men. It is suitable only for childbirth and carnal pleasures. While young men have high thoughts, that is why high relationships are possible only with them. A handsome young man is always preferable to a Greek beautiful woman. No wonder Plato writes in the Protagoras: “The youthful color of a twelve-year-old boy brings me joy, but a boy of thirteen is preferable. The one who is fourteen is an even sweeter flower of the Eros, and the one who has just turned fifteen is even more charming.
The sixteenth year is the age of the gods, and to desire a seventeen-year-old is not my destiny, but Zeus’s...” He is echoed by Stratoy: “I am not seduced by either the luxury of hair or curly curls, if they are produced not by nature, but by the diligence of art. No, I love the thick dirt on a boy who has just come from the palaestra, and the delicate shine of his body, moistened with fresh olive oil. Love without embellishment is sweet to me, and artificial beauty is the work of the female Cyprus.” No one would have been able to convince the ancient Greeks of the educational benefits of pederasty, for it was from pederasts, in their opinion, that the best defenders of the fatherland grew up. After all, someone in love with his partner did not flee from the enemy, but fought fiercely for his beloved until the very end. And this is the honest truth. The elite Sacred Squad, formed in Thebes, consisting of 150 love couples, showed itself heroically on the battlefields and was completely killed in the Battle of Chaeronea. Finally, everyone in Hellas knew that homosexuality was good for health. The famous Hippocrates was both in favor of homosexual relations, because “they bring youth and health to adult men, and masculinity and others.” positive qualities an adult male through his seed is transmitted to adolescents.” True, there were also restrictions. Homosexuality was the lot of free citizens; slaves had no right to have relations with free-born boys. Male prostitution was also not welcomed - it was believed that those who sell their own bodies for money would easily renounce the general interests of the state. Rome, which adopted sexual customs from the Hellenes, was also very loyal to homosexuality. Edward Gibbon, an 18th century English historian, speaking of the first fifteen emperors, states that “Claudius was the only one whose taste in love relationships was completely natural." Everyone else cohabited with boys. Moreover, Emperor Hadrian, passionately in love with the Greek teenager Antinous, after he drowned, officially deified him and erected statues of him throughout the empire.
The law is harsh
And yet, neither the ancient Greeks nor the ancient Romans can be called adherents of free love. They had strict rules of sexual behavior.
A Roman citizen could indulge in any sexual fun with women, men and teenagers. But - subject to two conditions. First: in intimate relationships with a partner, he should always dominate. Be active, not passive. The passive role in anal sex was considered a disgrace, since the citizen becomes “effeminate” and, having lost his virtus (courage, valor), turns out to be useless in civil and military terms. In the army, passive homosexuality was considered a crime; a soldier found guilty of it was simply beaten to death with sticks. In civilian life, those who liked to perform passive role, were contemptuously called “kineds” or “paticus”, lowering their legal status below the plinth. Like prostitutes, gladiators and actors, passive homosexuals did not have the right to vote in elections, nor could they represent themselves in court. The second rule: the object of a citizen’s sexual desire must be at a lower social level than him. This was dictated by purely economic reasons: so that the appearance of an illegitimate son of the same rank would not jeopardize the inheritance rights of legitimate offspring. If both rules were followed, no one would ever reproach a Roman for his sexual preferences.
Kamasutra for slaves
The sex life of married couples was quite bland in Ancient Rome. Although in a Roman home they talk openly about sex, hiding nothing from the younger generation. Often, the wife and husband, having retired to the bedroom, do not even close the curtains over the bed. Everyone can see the act of intercourse between the master and the mistress - right down to the domestic servant, who continues to calmly clean up the house. However, a number of restrictions were imposed on the relationship between husband and wife in bed. It would never occur to a wife to ask her husband to give her oral sex. Just as her husband would not have asked her to do this. There was a taboo against oral sex between equals in Ancient Rome. I will say more - for this they were deprived of citizenship. A free Roman could receive pleasure, but not give it. This was considered shameful and indecent. But this taboo did not apply to slaves, freedmen and non-citizens. Therefore, an ancient Roman citizen, like an ancient Roman citizen, could get what they deserve by resorting to the services of those of lower rank. They could call a slave or a slave, go for unavailable caresses to the nearest brothel, but never receive them from their legal spouse.
As archaeologist and historian Alberto Angela writes in his wonderful book One Day in Ancient Rome, “The Romans were simply fixated on the mouth. For them, the mouth is something noble, almost sacred. It is a social instrument because people talk, address each other, exchange information, make speeches and therefore it must be pure and undefiled. In the Senate, the mouth generally becomes a political instrument. Therefore (...) to accuse a senator of having performed oral sex, to call him a Fellator, is to inflict a grave insult on him. It was tantamount to a charge of treason for desecrating a mouth that had such an important function in the service of society.” In this vein, the Clinton-Lewinsky scandal, which almost cost the US President his seat, looks interesting. Endowed with serious power, the man allowed himself to be orally satisfied by his subordinate. He was within his rights. If Clinton had lived in ancient times, he would not have had to apologize to his wife or pay lawyers. But Lewinsky would not have turned into a celebrity and millionaire, but would have found herself on the same level as slaves and prostitutes. The doors of decent houses would be closed in front of her forever...
Handmade
For centuries, Christian theologians and priests have been frightening masturbators with a madhouse and a cemetery, claiming that masturbation leads to dementia, blindness, stomach cramps, diarrhea, consumption and epilepsy. And the Greeks saw masturbation as an outlet. Masturbation, in their opinion, reduced the number of rapes, the number of illegitimate births and suicides due to unrequited love, so it is a useful thing. They loved to depict such scenes on vases, and their language had a surprising number of words to reflect this concept, including the poetic “sing a wedding song with the hand” and “fight with Aphrodite with the hand.” By the way, the Greeks preferred to use their left hand for this purpose (closer to heart). And they weren’t shy about doing it in public. In particular, a prominent representative of the Cynic philosophical school is Diogenes of Sinope (the one who lived in a barrel, or rather, in a pithos - a hefty clay vessel for grain). Calling on his fellow citizens in the square to be content with little and to renounce passions in order to taste the serene joy of being, he often lifted up his tunic and began to masturbate, accompanying the action with a wise maxim: “Oh, if only I could just as easily, by rubbing my stomach, get rid of hunger and want.” . Women in this area did not lag behind men. In the bedroom of every Greek woman there were devices called baubons or olisbs. These dildos were made everywhere, but the self-satisfactors from the city of Miletus were considered the best, from where they were exported throughout the Oecumene. Women were proud of them and often exchanged them among themselves. Thus, in the sixth mimiyamba of Geronda, entitled “Two Friends, or Confidential Conversation,” the girl Metro complains that her friend Corrito had a wonderful olisb, but without having time to use it, she passed it on to her friend Eubula, and she gave it to someone else , which is a pity - because Metro would really like to get this instrument, since it was made by a skilled craftsman.
Loyalty is a relative concept
According to Euripides, the Greeks were the first of the ancient peoples to begin to observe the principle of monogamy, believing that bringing many wives into a house was a barbaric custom and unworthy of a noble Hellenic. But at the same time adultery in ancient times it applied only to women. Cheating on a wife was severely condemned, and the husband had every right to kill her lover, and sometimes herself. Society turned a blind eye to her husband’s infidelity and the presence of many concubines.
As Hans Licht writes, “Greek public opinion was unfamiliar with arguments that could be used to condemn a man who is tired of the eternal monotony of married life and seeks relaxation in the arms of an intelligent and charming courtesan or who knows how to brighten up the daily routine with a conversation with a pretty young man.” And one cannot help but admit that the Greeks were more moral in this than we are, since they recognized that a man had a tendency towards polygamy and acted not secretly, but openly.
Therefore, poets praised the ideal of an understanding woman who did not interfere with her husband’s love affairs. For example, a Greek had every right to even crash with friends in the company of girls at his home - the wife in this case was supposed to show modesty, retire to the women's part of the house and patiently wait for the end of the feast. In Sparta, treason was actually welcomed. This small and warlike state was vitally interested in increasing the number of warriors strong in body and spirit. Moreover, older Spartan husbands could entrust their marital responsibilities to younger men of their choice, since each of them equally disposed of their own children and those of others.
In Rome, the laws of Augustus provided for strict punishment for violation of marital fidelity, for adultery with another man's wife, but men were not punished for concubinage or relations with a concubine. And, of course, every man of the ancient world had every right to visit brothels. After all, a relationship with a prostitute was not considered treason at all.
Moths
Neither Ancient Greece nor Ancient Rome knew a shortage of brothels and prostitutes. The ancient world looked at corrupt love without prejudice. The business is necessary, useful, profitable. Moreover, it is very beneficial for the state budget.
Brothels in Greece were under the supervision of city officials, and brothel owners were required to pay an annual tax to the state. The Romans treated visiting brothels much the same way we treat visiting public restrooms. Walked, pressed, came in, came out. At the same time, the wife could easily wait for her husband in the tavern across the street and even ask him not to rush too much. It seems wild to us. For the Romans - completely normal. After all, they did not see adultery in this. A husband became an adulterer only when he had sex with his equal. And the rest is how to relieve yourself, how to brush your teeth. Therefore, a Roman matron could easily, bored, gnaw a peach in her room, while in the next room her husband, with wild screams, was frolicking with all his might with a slave. And she was not at all shocked that in the evening he went with his friends to let off steam at the nearest brothel. Brothels (they were called lupanariums) in the Eternal City were like dirt, and they all worked on the principle of a conveyor belt that Henry Ford himself would envy. To speed up customer service and automate the process of providing sex services, the owners of lupanaria even introduced special tokens - spintrii. They were made of bronze, less often - of bone, and resembled coins. On one side there was a depiction of sexual intercourse, on the other there was a number. The pose depicted on the spintriya corresponded to the service provided by the prostitute for this token, and the number corresponded to either the price or the booth number. Historians do not have a consensus on this matter. Moreover, the price was ridiculous. On average - 2 asses, like a glass of cheap wine. Child prostitution was also widespread. In Rome, entire farms of male and female sex workers flourished, whose owners bought child slaves and raised orphans for prostitution. Their sexual use was permitted by law, for which taxes were regularly paid to the treasury. Moreover, the rape of a slave by a pimp was not punishable.
In Rome, the laws of August provided for strict penalties for violation of marital fidelity, but every man of the ancient world had every right to visit brothels. after all, a relationship with a prostitute was not considered treason at all.
Size matters...
The image of a phallus on the streets of ancient cities was almost more common than a three-letter word on a fence these days. The phallus was idolized. He was worshiped. The Greeks placed square columns with a male head and an erect penis in front of temples and houses, which, in their opinion, guarded roads, borders and gates. The Romans preferred huge stone members, which were installed in squares, streets, in front of the entrance to houses and taverns. They were cut out on the walls of porticos, on pavements, hung over children's cradles, bakers' ovens, and were an integral part of the landscape of gardens, fields and vegetable gardens. Bronze phalluses (and often entire bundles of them) with bells inside were hung from the ceiling of the home or at the entrance. They were called "tintinnabuls" and rang when touched. And everyone who passed by touched them, because otherwise he risked losing his luck and health. And all because the people of antiquity believed that an erect penis was a terrible force. He was for them a symbol of prosperity, wealth, abundance, fertility and fertility. A symbol of victory, wealth and success in business. In addition, the phallus, as the source of seed and life, was credited with the magical ability to ward off troubles, misfortunes and scare away evil spirits. And if a Christian today, faced with something terrible and unknown, exclaims “the power of the cross is with us!”, then the ancient Roman would have called upon phallic power for the same purpose. Therefore, the first thing that an ancient Roman boy received as a gift from his parents was a rattle in the shape of a penis and a fascinum - a stone, bronze or bone image of a phallus, which he wore around his neck as an amulet, sometimes adding to it an image of a fig for reliability. fig - ancient symbol sexual intercourse. And in life, the ancient Romans, like the Greeks, preferred a penis of modest size. Large male dignity was considered impractical, unaesthetic and even comical. This is easy to see by looking at antique statues. What dangles between their legs is not an XXL-sized miracle, but a device that requires tweezers and a magnifying glass to study. Almost child size. The ancients believed that size is not the main thing. The main thing is the heat of love and the ability to fertilize. And they believed that for this purpose, the shorter the device, the better. Aristotle wrote that a short penis has many advantages: it looks more beautiful, the seed has to travel less distance, and therefore it reaches its goal more accurately. Logics! The exception was the theater. In the Eternal City, performances of acrobatic sex began to be in demand - a kind of analogue of modern film porn. The actors on stage tried to amaze the audience with their incredible poses that put the Kama Sutra to shame, and the audience tried to see everything in detail. Therefore, these shows (shown between classic comedies and tragedies) prized actors with huge penises. After all, they could be seen even from the distant rows. Ancient people were sensitive to penis hygiene. Wash regularly, anoint with oil, and before performing physical exercise they subjected it to infibulation, namely: they pulled the foreskin over the head and tied it with tape so that, God forbid, it would not be damaged. So the ancient fitness room looked much funnier than the modern ones: a crowd of naked men - and everyone had a penis with a bow.
Beautiful ass goddess
If we talk about the canon of female beauty, then the tastes of the ancient Greeks and Romans were close to the tastes of today's Caucasians. They appreciated curvy blondes. And to be competitive with the fair-haired German slaves, women invented many ingenious recipes. Wigs, citric acid, onion peels, milk and even lime were used. And since light shiny skin, in the opinion of men, testified not only to aristocracy, but also to passion, women tried not to sunbathe and washed themselves with goat and donkey milk.
However, to be known as a sex bomb, more was required. What was needed was a low forehead, a straight nose and large bulging eyes, and the distance between the eyes should be at least the size of one eye, and the mouth should be one and a half times the size of the eye. In addition, wide hips, powerful thighs, a chest that fit into a man’s palm or a little more, and a slightly overhanging convex belly were needed. These forms were considered perfect, as they served as a guarantee of fertility. Great attention was paid to the buttocks. The Greeks generally had a clear point about this. They idolized Aphrodite Callipyges - Aphrodite the Beautiful-Ass, built a special temple for her and regularly held competitions in her honor to identify the best callipyges of Hellas. These beauty contests of female butts were incredibly popular in all Greek cities; the sirloin part excited Greek men clearly more. female breasts. By the way, the familiar symbol of a heart pierced by an arrow comes from Ancient Greece. But it has nothing to do with the anatomical heart. It is a stylized part of a woman's butt, and the arrow piercing it is one of the oldest phallic symbols. Draw your own conclusions... The second Greco-Roman point in the field of sexual and aesthetic preferences was hair growth. They couldn't stand it and considered it a terribly unaesthetic sign of barbarism. And everywhere - on the legs, under the arms, and in the genital area. Their ideal was a woman with a clean-shaven bosom, and men did not care at all about the pains with which this was achieved. And here we can only sympathize with women. Thus, the comedian Plato speaks of “myrtle bushes plucked by hand,” and according to Aristophanes, women often used a lit lamp or hot ash for this purpose. Beauty requires sacrifice. At least in this we are united with the ancient world.
Dmitry Lychkovsky
Last modified: September 30, 2018
IN modern Italy It is not customary to get married at an early age. Italians approach the issue of starting a family very responsibly. The cult of family in Italy is highly valued, and family traditions always come first. I wonder what marriage was like in ancient Rome? What traditions and customs have come down from time immemorial to the present day?
Marriage from ancient Rome: love or calculation
IN ancient times The wedding ceremony was considered sacred, and the family was the support of the entire state, but not all romantic relationships between two loving hearts ended with a magnificent wedding.
The fact is that for many centuries, the Romans considered the marriage procedure primarily as a mutually beneficial cooperation. For noble and wealthy families, this meant the possibility of combining capital, lands, spreading their influence, and the like. Often, the parents of the future newlyweds agreed on the wedding, immediately stipulating all possible benefits of the union for both parties. Very often in such cases one could observe the concept of unequal marriages. As a rule, the future groom was much older than his bride, and sometimes even vice versa.
Pope Alexander VI Borgia married his youngest son Gioffre, who at that time was not yet thirteen years old, was matched against the much older daughter of the King of Naples.
Among the common population, there were also often cases of arranged marriages, but there were much fewer of them than among representatives of the upper classes. Despite this attitude towards marriage, in those distant times the very concept of family for the ancient Romans remained closely associated with such moral aspects as mutual respect and honoring each other as spouses.
Laws of ancient Rome on creating a family
In antiquity, there were a sufficient number of rules prescribed by law regarding the creation of a new unit of society. Those who wanted to get married first of all had to ask permission from the head of the family, and it depended only on his decision whether a new family would be born or not. Today, such a rule does not seem too unusual. Nowadays, there is also a tradition of asking for parental blessings. However, some of the laws that existed in ancient Rome may seem quite unusual.
- Age The optimal age for marriage was considered to be 17 years for girls and 20 years for boys, although laws allowed marriage much earlier. Girls could get married at age twelve, and boys at age fourteen. This was explained not only by the fact that in ancient times life expectancy was shorter, but also by the early mortality of women and children.
- Status The right to marry was granted only to free Romans. The Roman state did not give such an opportunity to slaves and foreigners. In addition, the laws prohibited military personnel and magistrates from creating families.
- Family ties During the republican period, marriages among relatives up to the fourth generation were not only prohibited, but also punished death penalty. Starting from the 1st century BC, marriages between cousins were allowed, and in the 3rd century AD, marriages between an uncle and a niece were allowed.
Marriage registration in ancient Rome
As such, from a legal point of view, there was no registration of marriage; no one drew up any special papers or made entries in civil registries, as is customary in modern society. To enter into marriage, it was considered sufficient to fulfill a number of conditions described above, and also required cohabitation, a desire to recognize each other as husband and wife, and adherence to decent behavior.
Types of marriage in ancient Rome
IN modern world There are only two types of marriage - civil, registered in the registry office (in Italy, marriage is registered in the commune), and church. In ancient Rome, during the early Republican period, the main type of marriage was considered CUN MANUM, which literally means “with hand” in Latin.
In antiquity, all members of the family were under the authority of the head of the family. The wife in the full sense of the word belonged to the husband, and the children were the property of the father. When a young girl got married, she officially ceased to belong to her parent and came under the protection of her husband. A woman had limited rights in terms of property ownership; she could not manage her dowry and, subsequently, the family budget. However, unlike Greek women, she was more independent and had some privileges. The Roman matron was free to visit theaters and baths, take part in important dinner parties and pursue her education.
For different classes, the wedding ceremony involved completely different rituals:
Confarreation
A ceremonial event on the occasion of marriage, held by the chief priest for representatives of the patrician family. During the ritual, special prayers and petitions were read pagan gods and sacrifices were made: bread made from special varieties of wheat, fruits and sheep. A prerequisite for such a ceremony was the presence of ten witnesses. The dissolution of a marriage concluded in this way was considered unacceptable.
Historical background
The main priest in Ancient Rome was the Great Pontiff, being the head of all pontiffs. In the 8th century BC. this position was occupied by kings.
Coempito
For Roman citizens of ordinary descent there was a different rite. In the presence of at least five witnesses, the groom bought his bride for a nominal fee. At the same time, he had to ask the girl whether she wanted to become the mother of his children, and she - whether the young man wanted to be the father of the family.
In addition to such official marriage ceremonies, the so-called marriage of habit was common in ancient Rome. Legal wife and husbands were recognized as couples who had lived together and inseparably for one year. However, if during this year one of the cohabitants was absent for more than three days, the countdown began again.
In the late Republican period in Rome, the most common form of marriage was SINE MANU, which differed from CUN MANUM in that the young wife did not become the property of her husband, but remained under the protection of her father. In addition, a woman who had more than three children could refuse all protection from anyone and became more free. This meant that she could fully dispose of the property that rightfully belonged to her and, if necessary, file for divorce.