Produced by Ron Swanson
THE PRIVATE LIFE OF THE ROMANS
BY HAROLD WHETSTONE JOHNSTON
PROFESSOR OF LATIN IN THE INDIANA UNIVERSITY
CHICAGO
SCOTT, FORESMAN AND COMPANY
1909
BY THE SAME AUTHOR (_Scott, Foresman and Company_)
SELECTED ORATIONS AND LETTERS OF CICERO
LATIN MANUSCRIPTS
THE METRICAL LICENSES OF VERGIL
COPYRIGHT, 1903, BY SCOTT, FORESMAN AND COMPANY
ROBT. O. LAW CO., PRINTERS AND BINDERS, CHICAGO.
TYPOGRAPHY BY MARSH, AITKEN & CURTIS COMPANY, CHICAGO.
_CHARLES S. RANNELLS_
_MEMOR_
_ACTAE NON ALIO REGE PUERTIAE_
_AMORIS CAUSA_
_D D D_
PREFACE
In preparing this book I have had in mind the needs of three classes
of students.
It is intended in the first place for seniors in high schools and
freshmen in colleges, and is meant to give such an account of the
Private Life of the Romans in the later Republic and earlier Empire as
will enable them to understand the countless references to it in the
Latin texts which they read in the class-room. It is hoped that the
book contains all that they will need for this purpose and nothing
that is beyond their comprehension.
It is intended in the second place for more advanced college students
who may be taking lectures on the subjects of which it treats. The
work of both teacher and student will be made less irksome and more
effective if the student is aided in the taking of notes by even so
general a knowledge of the subject (previously announced to the class)
as is here given. This I know from actual experience with my own
classes.
In the third place it is intended for readers and students of Roman
history, who are engaged chiefly with important political and
constitutional questions, and often feel the need of a simple and
compact description of domestic life, to give more reality to the
shadowy forms whose public careers they are following. Such students
will find the Index especially useful.
The book is written as far as possible in English: that is, no great
knowledge of Latin is presumed on the part of the reader. I have tried
not to crowd the text with Latin words, even when they are immediately
explained, and those given will usually be found worth remembering.
Quotations from Latin authors are very few, and the references to
their works, fewer still, are made to well-known passages only.
To every chapter are prefixed references to the standard secondary
authorities in English and German. Primary sources are not indicated:
they would be above the heads of the less advanced students, and to
the more advanced the lecturer will prefer to indicate the sources on
which his views are based. It is certain, however, that all these
sources are indicated in the authorities named, and the teacher
himself may occasionally find the references helpful.
The illustrations are numerous and are intended to illustrate. Many
others are referred to in the text, which limited space kept me from
using, and I hope that Schreiber's Atlas, at least, if not
Baumeister's Denkmaeler, may be within the reach of students in
class-room or library.
It goes without saying that there must be many errors in a book like
this, although I have done my best to make it accurate. When these
errors are due to relaxed attention or to ignorance, I shall be
grateful to the person who will point them out. When they are due to
mistaken judgment, the teacher will find in the references, I hope,
sufficient authorities to convince his pupils that he is right and I
am wrong.
H. W. JOHNSTON.
THE INDIANA UNIVERSITY,
February, 1903.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION.--Scope of the Book §1; Public and Private
Antiquities §2; Antiquities and History §4; Antiquities and
Philology §6; Sources §9; Reference Books §13; Systematic
Treatises §14; Encyclopedic Works §15; Other Books §16
I. THE FAMILY.--The Household §17; The Splitting Up of a House
§19; Other Meanings of _Familia_ §21; _Agnātī_ and
_Cognātī_ §23; _Adfīnēs_ §26; The Family Cult §27; Adoption
§30; The _Patria Potestās_ §31; Limitations §32; Extinction
of the _Potestās_ §34; _Manus_ §35; _Dominica Potestās_ §37
II. THE NAME.--The Triple Name §38; The _Praenōmen_ §41; The
_Nōmen_ §46; The _Cognōmen_ §48; Additional Names §51;
Confusion of Names §55; Names of Women §57; Names of Slaves
§58; Names of Freedmen §59; Naturalized Citizens §60
III. MARRIAGE AND THE POSITION OF WOMEN.--Early Forms of Marriage
§61; _Iūs Cōnūbiī_ §64; _Nūptiae Iūstae_ §67; Betrothals
§70; The Dowry §72; Essential Forms §73; The Wedding Day
§75; The Wedding Garments §76; The Ceremony §79; The
Wedding Feast §85; The Bridal Procession §86; The Position
of Women §90
IV. CHILDREN AND EDUCATION.--Legal Status §94; _Susceptiō_ §95;
_Diēs Lūstricus_ §97; The _Bulla_ §99; Nurses §100;
Playthings §102; Pets and Games §103; Home Training §104;
Schools §108; Subjects Taught in Elementary Schools §110;
Grammar Schools §112; Schools of Rhetoric §115; Travel
§116; Apprenticeship §117; Remarks on the Schools §119; The
Teacher §121; Schooldays and Holidays §122; The
_Paedagōgus_ §123; Discipline §124; End of Childhood §125;
The _Līberalia_ §127
V. DEPENDENTS: SLAVES AND CLIENTS. HOSPITES.--Growth of Slavery
§129; Numbers of Slaves §131; Sources of Supply §134; Sales
of Slaves §139; Prices of Slaves §140; Public and Private
Slaves §141; Private Slaves §142; Industrial Employment
§143; The _Familia Rūstica_ §145; Farm Slaves §146; The
_Vīlīcus_ §148; The _Familia Urbāna_ §149; Legal Status of
Slaves §156; The Treatment of Slaves §158; Food and Dress
§160; The _Pecūlium_ §162; Punishments §166; Manumission
§175; The Clients §176; The Old Clients §177; Mutual
Obligations §179; The New Clients §181; Duties and Rewards
§182; The _Hospitēs_ §183; _Hospitium_ §184; Obligations of
_Hospitium_ §185
VI. THE HOUSE AND ITS FURNITURE.--_Domus_ §186; The Development
of the House §188; The _Vestibulum_ §194; The _Ōstium_
§195; The _Ātrium_ §196; The Change in the _Ātrium_ §197;
The _Ālae_ §200; The _Tablīnum_ §201; The Peristyle §202;
Private Rooms §203; The House of Pansa §208; The Walls
§210; _Pariēs Caementīcius_ §211; Wall Facings §212; Floors
and Ceilings §213; Roofs §214; The Doors §215; The Windows
§217; Heating §218; Water Supply §219; Decoration §220;
Furniture §222; Principal Articles §223; The Couches §224;
The Chairs §225; Tables §227; The Lamps §228; Chests and
Cabinets §230; Other Articles §232; The Street §233
VII. DRESS AND PERSONAL ORNAMENTS.--_Indūtus_: The _Subligaculum_
§235; The Tunic §236; _Amictus_: The _Toga_ §240; Form and
Arrangement §241; Kinds of Togas §246; The _Lacerna_ §247;
The _Paenula_ §248; Other Wraps §249; Footgear: The
_Soleae_ §250; The _Calceī_ §251; Coverings for the Head
§252; The Hair and Beard §253; Jewelry §255; Dress of Women
§257; The _Tunica Interior_ §258; The _Stola_ §259; The
_Palla_ §261; Shoes and Slippers §262; Dressing of the Hair
§263; Accessories §266; Jewelry §267; Dress of the Children
and Slaves §268; Materials §269; Colors §270; Manufacture
§271
VIII. FOOD AND MEALS.--Natural Conditions §272; Fruits §274;
Garden Produce §275; Meats §277; Fowl and Game §279; Fish
§280; Cereals §282; Preparation of the Grain §283;
Breadmaking §287; The Olive §289; Olive Oil §291; Grapes
§293; Viticulture §294; Vineyards §295; Wine Making §296;
Beverages §298; Style of Living §299; Hours for Meals §301;
Breakfast and Luncheon §302; The Formal Meal §303; The
Dining Couch §304; Places of Honor §305; Other Furniture
§307; Courses §308; Bills of Fare §309; Serving the Dinner
§310; The _Comissātiō_ §312; The Banquets of the Rich §315
IX. AMUSEMENTS; BATHS.--General §316; Sports of the Campus §317;
Games of Ball §318; Games of Chance §319; Knuckle-bones
§320; Dice §321; Public and Private Games §322; Dramatic
Performances §323; Staging the Play §324; The Early Theater
§325; The Later Theater §326; Roman Circuses §328; Plan of
the Circus §330; The Arena §332; The Barriers §333; The
_Spīna_ and _Mētae_ §335; The Seats §337; Furnishing the
Races §339; The Teams §340; The Drivers §341; Famous
_Aurīgae_ §342; Other Shows of the Circus §343;
Gladiatorial Combats §344; Popularity of the Combats §346;
Sources of Supply §347; Schools for Gladiators §349; Places
of Exhibition §351; Amphitheaters at Rome §352; The
Amphitheater at Pompeii §353; The Coliseum §356; Styles of
Fighting §359; Weapons and Armor §360; Announcement of the
Shows §361; The Fight Itself §362; The Rewards §363; Other
Shows in the Amphitheater §364; The Daily Bath §365;
Essentials for the Bath §366; Heating the Bath §368; The
_Caldārium_ §369; The _Frīgidārium_ and _Ūnctōrium_ §370; A
Private Bathhouse §371; The Public Baths §372; Management
§373; Hours Opened §374; Accommodations for Women §375;
_Thermae_ §376; Baths of Diocletian §378
X. TRAVEL AND CORRESPONDENCE. BOOKS.--In General §379; By Water
§380; By Land §381; The Vehicles §382; Carriages §383; The
_Rēda_ and _Cisium_ §384; The Roads §385; Construction
§387; The Inns §388; Speed §389; Sending Letters §390;
Writing the Letters §391; Sealing and Opening the Letters
§392; Books §393; Manufacture of Paper §394; Pens and Ink
§395; Making the Roll §396; Size of the Rolls §398;
Multiplication of Books §399; Commercial Publication §400;
Rapidity and Cost of Publication §401; Libraries §402
XI. SOURCES OF INCOME AND MEANS OF LIVING. THE ROMAN'S DAY.--In
General §403; Careers of the Nobles §404; Agriculture §405;
Political Office §406; The Law §407; The Army §408; Careers
of the Equites §409; The Soldiers §410; The Proletariate
§411; Professions and Trades §412; Business and Commerce
§413; The Civil Service §414; The Roman's Day §415; Hours
of the Day §417
XII. BURIAL-PLACES AND FUNERAL CEREMONIES.--Importance of Burial
§419; Interment and Cremation §420; Places of Burial §421;
The Tombs §422; The Potter's Field §423; Plan of Tombs and
Grounds §425; Exterior of the Tombs §427; The _Columbāria_
§428; Burial Societies §430; Funeral Ceremonies §432; At
the House §433; The Funeral Procession §434; The Funeral
Oration §435; At the Tomb §436; After Ceremonies §437;
Memorial Festivals §438
THE PRIVATE LIFE OF THE ROMANS
INTRODUCTION
§1. The topics that are discussed in this book have to do with the
everyday life of the Roman people. Such things will be considered as
the family, the Roman name, marriage and the position of women,
children and education, slaves, clients, the house and its furniture,
clothing, food and meals, amusements, travel and correspondence,
funeral ceremonies and burial customs, etc. These things are of
interest to us in the case of any ancient or foreign people; in the
case of the Romans they are of especial importance, because they help
to explain the powerful influence which that nation exerted over the
old world, and make it easier to understand why that influence is
still felt in some degree to-day.
§2. Public and Private Antiquities.--The subjects that have been named
above belong to what is called Classical Antiquities, taking their
place in the subdivision of Roman Antiquities as opposed to Greek
Antiquities. They are grouped loosely together as Private Antiquities
in opposition to what we call Public Antiquities. Under the latter
head we consider the Roman as a citizen, and we examine the several
classes of citizens, their obligations and their privileges; we study
the form of their government, its officers and machinery, its
legislative, judicial, and executive procedure, its revenues and
expenditures, etc. It is evident that no hard and fast line can be
drawn between the two branches of the subject: they cross each other
at every turn. One scarcely knows, for example, under which head to
put the religion of the Romans or their games in the circus.
§3. In the same way, the daily employment of a slave, his keep, his
punishments, his rewards, are properly considered under the head of
Private Antiquities. But the state undertook sometimes to regulate by
law the number of slaves that a master might have, the state regulated
the manumission of the slave and gave him certain rights as a
freedman, and these matters belong to Public Antiquities. So, too, a
man might or might not be eligible to certain state offices according
to the particular ceremony used at the marriage of his parents. It
will be found, therefore, that the study of Private Antiquities can
not be completely separated from its complement, though in this book
the dividing line will be crossed as seldom as possible.[1]
[Footnote 1: Students in secondary schools will find useful for
preliminary reading the outline of the Roman Constitution in the
Introduction to the author's "Selected Orations and Letters of
Cicero." For more advanced students three books have lately appeared
on this subject: Abbott's "Roman Political Institutions," Granrud's
"Roman Constitutional History," and Greenidge's "Roman Public Life."]
§4. Antiquities and History.--It is just as impossible to draw the
boundary line between the subjects of Antiquities and History. The
older history, it is true, concerned itself little with the private
life of the people, almost solely with the rise and fall of dynasties.
It told us of kings and generals, of the wars they waged, the
victories they won, and the conquests they made. Then, in course of
time, institutions took the place of dynasties and parties the place
of heroes, and history traced the growth of great political ideas:
such masterpieces as Thirlwall's and Grote's histories of Greece are
largely constitutional histories. But changes in international
relations affect the private life of a people as surely, if not as
speedily, as they affect the machinery of government. You can not
bring into contact, friendly or unfriendly, two different
civilizations without a change in the peoples concerned, without
altering their occupations, their ways of living, their very ideas of
life and its purposes. These changes react in turn upon the temper and
character of a people, they affect its capacity for self-government
and the government of others, and in the course of time they bring
about the movements of which even the older history took notice. Hence
our recent histories give more and more space to the life of the
common people, to the very matters, that is, that were mentioned in
the first paragraph as belonging to Private Antiquities. This may be
seen in such titles as these: Green's "History of the English People,"
McMaster's "History of the People of the United States."
§5. On the other hand it is equally true that a knowledge of political
history is necessary for the study of Private Antiquities. We shall
find the Romans giving up certain ways of living and habits of
thinking that seemed to have become fixed and characteristic. These
changes we could not explain at all, if political history did not
inform us that just before they took place the Romans had come into
contact with the widely different ideas and opposing civilizations of
other nations. The most important event of this sort was the
introduction of Greek culture after the Punic wars, and to this we
shall have to refer again and again. It follows from all this that
students who have had even the most elementary course in Roman history
have already some knowledge of Private Antiquities, and that those who
have not studied the history of Rome at all will find very helpful the
reading of even the briefest of our school histories.
§6. Antiquities and Philology.--The subject of Classical Antiquities
has always been regarded as a branch--"discipline" is the technical
word--of Classical Philology since Friedrich August Wolf (1759-1824)
made Philology a science. It is quite true that in the common
acceptation of the word Philology is merely the science of language,
but even here Antiquities has an important part to play. It is
impossible to read understandingly an ode of Horace or an oration of
Cicero, if one is ignorant of the social life and the political
institutions of Rome. But Classical Philology is much more than the
science of understanding and interpreting the classical languages. It
claims for itself the investigation of Greek and Roman life in all its
aspects, social, intellectual, and political, so far as it has become
known to us from the surviving literary, epigraphic, and monumental
records. Whitney puts it thus: Philology deals with human speech and
with all that speech discloses as to the nature and history of man. If
it is hard to remember these definitions one can hardly forget the
epigram of Benoist: Philology is the geology of the intellectual
world. Under this, the only scientific conception of Philology, the
study of Antiquities takes at once a higher place. It becomes the end
with linguistics the means, and this is the true relation between
them.
§7. But it happens that the study of the languages in which the
records of classical antiquity are preserved must first occupy the
investigator, and that the study of language as mere language, its
origin, its growth, its decay, is in itself very interesting and
profitable. It happens, moreover, that the languages of Greece and
Rome can not be studied apart from literatures of singular richness,
beauty, and power, and the study of literature has always been one of
the most attractive and absorbing to cultivated men. It is not hard to
understand, therefore, why the study of Antiquities has not been more
prominent in connection with philological training. It was the end to
which only the few pressed on. It was reserved, at least in systematic
form, for the trained scholar in the university. In the congested
condition of the old curricula in our colleges it was crowded out by
the more obvious, but not more essential or interesting, subjects of
linguistics and literary criticism, or it was presented at best in the
form of scrappy notes on the authors read in the classroom or in the
dismembered alphabetical arrangement of a dictionary.
§8. Within the last few years, however, a change has been taking
place, a change due to several causes. In the first place, the
literary criticism which was once taught exclusively in connection
with classical authors and which claimed so large a part of the time
allotted to classical study has found a more appropriate place in the
departments of English that were hardly known a generation ago. In the
second place, the superior preparation in the classics now demanded
for admission to our colleges has relieved their courses of much
elementary linguistic drill that was formerly necessary. In the third
place, the last half century has seen a greater advance in the
knowledge of Antiquities than all the years before, and it is now
possible to present in positive dogmatic form much that was recently
mere guesswork and speculation. Finally, modern theories of education,
which have narrowed the stream of classical instruction only to deepen
its channel and quicken its current, have caused more stress to be
laid upon the points of contact between the ancient and the modern
world. The teacher of the classics has come to realize that the
obligations of the present to the past are not to be so clearly
presented and so vividly appreciated in connection with the formal
study of art and literature as in the investigation of the great
social, political, and religious problems which throughout all the
ages have engaged the thought of cultivated men.
§9. Sources.--It has been already remarked (§6) that Classical
Philology draws its knowledge from three sources, the literary,
epigraphic, and monumental remains of Greece and Rome. It is necessary
that we should understand at the outset precisely what is meant by
each of these. By literary sources we mean the writings of the Greeks
and Romans, that is, the books which they published, that have come
down to us. The form of these books, the way they were published and
have been preserved, will be considered later. For the present it is
sufficient to say that a mere fraction only of these writings has come
down to our day, and that of these poor remnants we possess no
originals but merely more or less imperfect copies. It is true,
nevertheless, that these form as a whole the most important of our
sources of information, largely because they have been most carefully
studied and are best understood.
§10. By epigraphic sources we mean the words that were written,
scratched, cut, or stamped on hard materials, such as metal, stone, or
wood, without thought of literary finish. These vary from single words
to records of very considerable extent, and are briefly called
inscriptions. The student may get a good idea of the most ancient and
curious by merely turning over a few pages of Ritschl's "Priscae
Latinitatis Monumenta Epigraphica" or of Egbert's "Latin
Inscriptions." Of one sort of great importance, the legends on coins
and medals, many have found their way into American museums. With
modern inscriptions on similar materials and for similar purposes
every student is, of course, familiar.
§11. By monumental evidence we mean all the things actually made by
the Greeks and Romans that have come down to us. These things are
collectively very numerous and of very many kinds: coins, medals,
pieces of jewelry, armor, pottery, statues, paintings, bridges,
aqueducts, fortifications, ruins of cities, etc. It is impossible to
enumerate them all. It is upon such remains as these that most of the
inscriptions mentioned above are preserved. Of the most importance for
the study of the private life of the Romans are the ruins of the city
of Pompeii preserved to us by the protection of the ashes that buried
it at the time of the eruption of Vesuvius in the year 79 A.D.
§12. It will be seen at once that the importance of these sources will
vary with the nature of the subject we are studying and the fullness
of their preservation. For example, we may read in a Roman poet a
description of an ornament worn by a bride. A painting of a bride
wearing such an ornament would make the description clearer, but any
doubt that might remain would be removed if there should be found in
the ruins of Pompeii a similar ornament with its character proved by
an inscription upon it. In this case the three sources would have
contributed to our knowledge. For other matters, especially intangible
things, we may have to rely solely upon descriptions, that is, upon
literary sources. But it may well happen that no Roman wrote a set
description of the particular thing that we are studying, or if he did
that his writings have been lost, so that we may be forced to build up
our knowledge bit by bit, by putting together laboriously the scraps
of information, mere hints perhaps, that we find scattered here and
there in the works of different authors, and these perhaps of very
different times. It is not hard to understand, therefore, that our
knowledge of some things pertaining to Roman antiquities may be fairly
complete, while of others we may have no knowledge at all. It may be
worth remarking of literary sources that the more common and familiar
a thing was to the ancients, the less likely is it that we shall find
a description of it in ancient literature.
§13. Reference Books.--The collecting and arranging of the information
gleaned from these sources has been the task of philologists from very
early times, but so much has been added to our knowledge by recent
discoveries that all but the latest books may be neglected by the
student. A very full list of books treating of Roman Antiquities may
be found in Hübner's "Bibliographie der klassischen
Altertumswissenschaft," and a convenient list in Professor Kelsey's
"Fifty Topics in Roman Antiquities with References," but the student
should not fail to notice at the head of each chapter the lists of
authorities to be consulted in the books specifically mentioned below.
These have been arranged in two classes, systematic treatises and
encyclopedic works, and the student who lacks time to consult all the
references should select one at least of the better and larger works
in each class for regular and methodical study.
§14. Systematic Treatises:
Marquardt, Joachim, "Das Privatleben der Römer," 2d edition by A. Mau.
This is the seventh volume of the _Handbuch der römischen Alterthümer_
by Marquardt and Mommsen. It is the fullest and most authoritative of
all the treatises on the subject and has a few illustrations.
Voigt, Moritz, "Die Römischen Privataltertümer," 2d edition. This is a
part of the fourth volume of the _Handbuch der klassischen
Altertumswissenschaft_ by Iwan von Müller. It is the latest work on
the subject, especially rich in the citation of authorities.
Guhl and Koner, "Leben der Griechen und Römer," 6th edition by
Engelmann. A standard and authoritative work enriched by copious
illustrations. There is an English translation of an earlier edition
which may be used by those who read no German.
Becker, W. A., "Gallus oder römische Scenen aus der Zeit Augusts," new
edition by Hermann Göll. This is a standard authority in the form of a
novel. The story is of no particular interest, but the notes and
excursuses are of the first importance. There is an English
translation of the first edition which may be used with caution by
those who read no German.
Friedländer, L., "Darstellungen aus der Sittengeschichte Roms in der
Zeit von August bis zum Ausgang der Antonine," 6th edition. This is
the great authority for the time it covers and will be found to
include practically the history from the earliest times of all the
matters of which it treats.
Blümner, Hugo, "Technologie und Terminologie der Gewerbe und Künste
bei Griechen und Römern." The very best description of the arts and
industries of ancient Greece and Rome.
Ramsay, William, "A Manual of Roman Antiquities," 15th edition,
revised and partly rewritten by Rodolfo Lanciani. This includes public
as well as private antiquities, but the revision seems to have been
but partial and the larger part of the book is hopelessly out of date.
Wilkins, A. S., "Roman Antiquities," and Preston and Dodge, "The
Private Life of the Romans." Two little books, of which the former is
by a good scholar and is worth reading.
§15. Encyclopedic Works:
Pauly-Wissowa, "Real-Encyclopädie der classischen
Altertumswissenschaft." A monumental work, destined to be for many
years the great authority upon the subject. Unfortunately it is
appearing very slowly and has reached only the word _Demodoros_. There
are a few illustrations.
Smith, William, "A Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities," revised
edition by Wayte and Marindin. This is the very best work of the sort
in English, the best possibly of similar size in any language.
Baumeister, "Denkmäler des klassischen Altertums." The most richly
illustrated work on the subject, absolutely indispensable.
"Harper's Dictionary of Classical Literature and Antiquities." Largely
from Smith, but with valuable additions.
Rich, "Dictionary of Roman and Greek Antiquities." A convenient manual
with many illustrations. Very good for ready reference.
Schreiber, "Atlas of Classical Antiquities." A very copious collection
of illustrations bearing on Greek and Roman life. The illustrations
are accompanied by explanatory text.
Seyffert-Nettleship, "Dictionary of Classical Antiquities." The
illustrations are numerous and the book is of some value on the side
of ancient art.
Lübker, "Real-Lexicon des klassischen Altertums," 7th edition by Max
Erler. The best brief handbook for those who read German. It is
compact and accurate.
§16. Other Books.--Besides these, three books may be mentioned
treating of the discoveries at Pompeii, the importance of which has
been mentioned (§11):
Overbeck, J., "Pompeii," 4th edition by August Mau, the standard
popular work upon the subject, richly supplied with illustrations.
Mau, August, "Pompeii, its Life and Art," translated by Kelsey. This
is the best account of the treasures of the buried city that has
appeared in English, at once interesting and scholarly.
Gusman, Pierre, "Pompeii, the City, its Life and Art," translated by
Simmonds and Jourdain. The very best collection of illustrations, but
not so trustworthy in letterpress.
Finally the student should be warned not to neglect a book merely
because it happens to be written in a language that he does not read
fluently: the very part that he wants may happen to be easy to read,
and many of these books contain illustrations that tell their own
story independently of the letterpress that accompanies them.
CHAPTER I
THE FAMILY
REFERENCES: Marquardt, pp. 1-6; Voigt, 307-311, 386-388; Göll, II.
1-4, 61-65, 187; Pauly-Wissowa, under _adfīnitās_, _agnātiō_,
_cognātiō_; Smith, under _cognātī_, _familia_, _patria potestās_;
Seyffert, under _agnātiō_, _cognātiō_, _familia_, _manus_; Lübker,
under _agnātiō_, _cognātiō_, _familia_, _manus_, _patria potestās_.
Look up the word _familia_ in Harper's lexicon and notice carefully
its range of meanings.
See also Muirhead, "Roman Law," pp. 24-33, and the paragraph on the
Quiritian Family in the article on Roman Law by the same writer in the
"Encyclopaedia Britannica," Vol. XX.
§17. The Household.--If by our word family we usually understand a
group of husband, wife, and children, we may acknowledge at once that
it does not correspond exactly to any of the meanings of the Latin
_familia_, varied as the dictionaries show these to be. Husband, wife,
and children did not necessarily constitute an independent family
among the Romans, and were not necessarily members even of the same
family. Those persons made up the Roman _familia_, in the sense
nearest to its English derivative, who were subject to the authority
of the same Head of the House (_pater familiās_). These persons might
make a host in themselves: wife, unmarried daughters, sons real or
adopted, married or unmarried, with their wives, sons, unmarried
daughters, and even remoter descendants (always through males), yet
they made but one _familia_ in the eyes of the Romans. The Head of
such a family--"household" or "house" is the nearest English word--was
always _suī iūris_ ("independent," "one's own master"), while the
others were _aliēnō iūrī subiectī_ ("dependent").
§18. The authority of the _pater familiās_ over his wife was called
_manus_, over his descendants _patria potestās_, over his chattels
_dominica potestās_. So long as he lived and retained his citizenship,
these powers could be terminated only by his own deliberate act. He
could dispose of his property by gift or sale as freely as we do now.
He might "emancipate" his sons, a very formal proceeding
(_ēmancipātiō_) by which they became each the Head of a new family,
though they were childless themselves or unmarried or even mere
children. He might also emancipate an unmarried daughter, who thus in
her own self became an independent family. Or he might give her in
marriage to another Roman citizen, an act by which she passed by early
usage (§61) into the family of which her husband was Head, if he was
_suī iūris_, or of which he was a member, if he was still _aliēnō iūrī
subiectus_. It must be carefully noticed, on the other hand, that the
marriage of a son did not make him a _pater familiās_ or relieve him
in any degree from the _patria potestās_: he and his wife and their
children were subject to the same Head of the House as he had been
before his marriage. On the other hand, the Head of the House could
not number in his _familia_ his daughter's children: legitimate
children always followed the father, while an illegitimate child was
from the moment of birth in himself or herself an independent family.
§19. The Splitting Up of a House.--Emancipation was not very common
and it usually happened that the household was dissolved only by the
death of the Head. When this occurred, as many new households were
formed as there were persons directly subject to his _potestās_ at the
moment of his death: wife, sons, unmarried daughters, widowed
daughters-in-law, and children of a deceased son. The children of a
surviving son, it must be noticed, merely passed from the _potestās_
of their grandfather to that of their father. A son under age or an
unmarried daughter was put under the care of a guardian (_tūtor_),
selected from the same _gēns_, very often an older brother, if there
was one. The following diagram will make this clearer:
1Gaius (_pater familiās_) = (†)2Gaia (_māter familiās_)
|
---------------------------------------------------------------
| | | | |
3Faustus = 4Tullia (†)5Balbus = 6Licinia 7Publius 8Terentia |
| | 9Marcus = 10Terentia Minor
----------- ------------ |
| | | | ------------
11Titus 12Tiberius 13Quintus 14Sextius | |
15Servius 16Decimus
§20. It is assumed that Gaius is a widower who has had five children,
three sons and two daughters. Of the sons, Faustus and Balbus married
and had each two children; Balbus then died. Of the daughters,
Terentia Minor married Marcus and became the mother of two children.
Publius and Terentia were unmarried at the death of Gaius, who had
emancipated none of his children. It will be noticed:
1. The living descendants of Gaius were ten (3, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13,
14, 15, 16), his son Balbus being dead.
2. Subject to his _potestās_ were nine (3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, 13,
14).
3. His daughter Terentia Minor (10) had passed out of his _potestās_
by her marriage with Marcus (9), and her children (15, 16) alone out
of all the descendants of Gaius had not been subject to him.
4. At his death are formed six independent families, one consisting of
four persons (3, 4, 11, 12), the others of one person each (6, 7, 8,
13, 14).
5. Titus and Tiberius (11, 12) have merely passed out of the
_potestās_ of their grandfather Gaius to come under that of their
father Faustus.
§21. Other Meanings of Familia.--The word _familia_ was also very
commonly used in a slightly wider sense to include in addition to the
persons named above (§17) all the slaves and clients and all the
property real and personal belonging to the _pater familiās_, or
acquired and used by the persons under his _potestās_. The word was
also used of the slaves alone, and rarely of the property alone. In a
still wider and more important sense the word was applied to a larger
group of related persons, the _gēns_, consisting of all the
"households" (_familiae_ in the sense of §17) who derived their
descent through males from a common ancestor. This remote ancestor,
could his life have lasted through all the intervening centuries,
would have been the _pater familiās_ of all the persons included in
the _gēns_, and all would have been subject to his _potestās_.
Membership in the _gēns_ was proved by the possession of the _nōmen_,
the second of the three names that every citizen of the Republic
regularly had (§38).
§22. Theoretically this _gēns_ had been in prehistoric times one of
the _familiae_, "households," whose union for political purposes had
formed the state. Theoretically its _pater familiās_ had been one of
the Heads of Houses who in the days of the Kings had formed the
_patrēs_, or assembly of old men (_senātus_). The splitting up of this
prehistoric household in the manner explained in §19, a process
repeated generation after generation, was believed to account for the
numerous _familiae_ who claimed connection with the great _gentēs_ in
later times. The _gēns_ had an organization of which little is known.
It passed resolutions binding upon its members; it furnished guardians
for minor children, and curators for the insane and for spendthrifts.
When a member died without leaving natural heirs, it succeeded to such
property as he did not dispose of by will and administered it for the
common good of all its members. These members were called _gentīlēs_,
were bound to take part in the religious services of the _gēns_
(_sacra gentīlīcia_), had a claim to the common property, and might if
they chose be laid to rest in the common burial ground.
Finally, the word _familia_ was often applied to certain branches of a
_gēns_ whose members had the same _cognōmen_ (§48), the last of the
three names mentioned in §21. For this use of _familia_ a more
accurate word is _stirps_.
§23. Agnati.--It has been remarked (§18) that the children of a
daughter could not be included in the _familia_ of her father, and
(§21) that membership in the larger organization called the _gēns_ was
limited to those who could trace their descent through males. All
persons who could in this way trace their descent through males to a
common ancestor, in whose _potestās_ they would be were he alive, were
called _agnātī_, and this _agnātiō_ was the closest tie of
relationship known to the Romans. In the list of _agnātī_ were
included two classes of persons who would seem by the definition to be
excluded. These were the wife, who passed by _manus_ into the family
of her husband (§18), becoming by law his agnate and the agnate of all
his agnates, and the adopted son. On the other hand a son who had been
emancipated (§18) was excluded from _agnātiō_ with his father and his
father's agnates, and could have no agnates of his own until he
married or was adopted into another _familia_. The following diagram
will make this clearer:
1Gaius (_pater familiās_) = 2Gaia (_māter familiās_)
|
----------------------------------------------------------------
| : | | | |
3Faustus = 4Tullia : 5Balbus = 6Licinia 7Publius 8Terentia |
| : [Emancipated]| [Emancipated] |
----------- : ------------ 9Marcus = 10Terentia Minor
| | : | | |
11Titus 12Tiberius : 13Quintus 14Sextius -------------
: | |
:[Servius adopted by Gaius] 15Servius 16Decimus
:.........................[Emancipated]
§24. It is supposed that Gaius and Gaia have five children (Faustus,
Balbus, Publius, Terentia, and Terentia Minor), and six grandsons
(Titus and Tiberius the sons of Faustus, Quintus and Sextius the sons
of Balbus, and Servius and Decimus the sons of Terentia Minor). Gaius
has emancipated two of his sons, Balbus and Publius, and has adopted
his grandson Servius, who had previously been emancipated by his
father Marcus. There are four sets of _agnātī_:
1. Gaius, his wife, and those whose _pater familiās_ he is, viz.:
Faustus, Tullia the wife of Faustus, Terentia, Titus, Tiberius, and
Servius, a son by adoption (1, 2, 3, 4, 8, 11, 12, 15).
2. Balbus, his wife, and their two sons (5, 6, 13, and 14).
3. Publius, who is himself a _pater familiās_, but has no _agnātī_ at
all.
4. Marcus, his wife Terentia Minor, and their child Decimus (9, 10,
16). Notice that the other child, Servius (15), having been
emancipated by Marcus is no longer agnate to his father, mother, or
brother.
§25. Cognati, on the other hand, were what we call blood relations, no
matter whether they traced their relationship through males or
females, and regardless of what _potestās_ had been over them. The
only barrier in the eyes of the law was loss of citizenship (§18), and
even this was not always regarded. Thus, in the table last given,
Gaius, Faustus, Balbus, Publius, Terentia, Terentia Minor, Titus,
Tiberius, Quintus, Sextius, Servius, and Decimus are all cognates with
one another. So, too, is Gaia with all her descendants mentioned. So
also are Tullia, Titus, and Tiberius; Licinia, Quintus, and Sextius;
Marcus, Servius, and Decimus. But husband and wife (Gaius and Gaia,
Faustus and Tullia, Balbus and Licinia, Marcus and Terentia Minor)
were not cognates by virtue of their marriage, though that made them
agnates. In fact public opinion discountenanced the marriage of
cognates within the sixth (later the fourth) degree, and persons
within this degree were said to have the _iūs ōsculī_. The degree was
calculated by counting from one of the interested parties through the
common ancestor to the other and may be easily understood from the
table given in Smith's "Dictionary of Antiquities" under _cognātī_, or
the one given here (Fig. 1). Cognates did not form an organic body in
the state as did the agnates (§22), but the 22d of February was set
aside to commemorate the tie of blood (_cāra cognātiō_), and on this
day presents were exchanged and family reunions probably held. It must
be understood, however, that _cognātiō_ gave no legal rights or claims
under the Republic.
[Illustration: FIGURE 1. TABLE OF RELATIONSHIP]
§26. Adfines.--Persons connected by marriage only were called
_adfīnēs_, as a wife with her husband's cognates and he with hers.
There were no formal degrees of _adfīnitās_, as there were of
_cognātiō_. Those adfīnēs for whom distinctive names were in common
use were: _gener_, son-in-law; _nurus_, daughter-in-law; _socer_,
father-in-law; _socrus_, mother-in-law; _prīvignus_, _prīvigna_,
step-son, step-daughter; _ritricus_, step-father; _noverca_,
step-mother. If we compare these names with the awkward compounds that
do duty for them in English, we shall have additional proof of the
stress laid by the Romans on family ties: two women who married
brothers were called _iānītrīcēs_, a relationship for which we do not
have even a compound. The names of blood relations tell the same
story: a glance at the table of cognates will show how strong the
Latin is here, how weak the English. We have "uncle," "aunt," and
"cousin," but between _avunculus_ and _patruus_, _mātertera_ and
_amita_, _patruēlis_ and _cōnsōbrīnus_, we can distinguish only by
descriptive phrases. For _atavus_ and _tritavus_ we have merely the
indefinite "forefathers." In the same way the language testifies to
the headship of the father. We speak of the "mother country" and
"mother tongue," but to the Roman these were _patria_ and _sermō
patrius_. As the _pater_ stood to the _fīlius_, so stood the
_patrōnus_ to the _cliēns_, the _patriciī_ to the _plēbēiī_, the
_patrēs_ (=senators) to the rest of the citizens, and _Iūpiter_ (Jove
the Father) to the other gods of Olympus.
§27. The Family Cult.--It has been said (§23) that _agnātiō_ was the
closest tie known to the Romans. The importance they attached to the
agnatic family is largely explained by their ideas of the future life.
They believed that the souls of men had an existence apart from the
body, but not in a separate spirit-land. They conceived of the soul as
hovering around the place of burial and requiring for its peace and
happiness that offerings of food and drink should be made to it
regularly. Should these offerings be discontinued, the soul would
cease to be happy itself, and might become perhaps a spirit of evil.
The maintenance of these rites and ceremonies devolved naturally upon
the descendants from generation to generation, whom the spirits in
turn would guide and guard.
[Illustration: FIGURE 2. LUCIUS JUNIUS BRUTUS]
§28. The Roman was bound, therefore, to perform these acts of
affection and piety so long as he lived himself, and bound no less to
provide for their performance after his death by perpetuating his race
and the family cult. A curse was believed to rest upon the childless
man. Marriage was, therefore, a solemn religious duty, entered into
only with the approval of the gods ascertained by the auspices. In
taking a wife to himself the Roman made her a partaker of his family
mysteries, a service that brooked no divided allegiance. He therefore
separated her entirely from her father's family, and was ready in turn
to surrender his daughter without reserve to the husband with whom she
was to minister at another altar. The _pater familiās_ was the priest
of the household, and those subject to his _potestās_ assisted in the
prayers and offerings, the _sacra familiāria_.
§29. But it might be that a marriage was fruitless, or that the Head
of the House saw his sons die before him. In this case he had to face
the prospect of the extinction of his family, and his own descent to
the grave with no posterity to make him blessed. One of two
alternatives was open to him to avert such a calamity. He might give
himself in adoption and pass into another family in which the
perpetuation of the family cult seemed certain, or he might adopt a
son and thus perpetuate his own. He usually followed the latter
course, because it secured peace for the souls of his ancestors no
less than for his own.
§30. Adoption.--The person adopted might be either a _pater familiās_
himself or, more usually, a _fīlius familiās_. In the case of the
latter the process was called _adoptiō_ and was a somewhat complicated
proceeding by which the natural parent conveyed his son to the other,
the effect being to transfer the adopted person from one family to the
other. The adoption of a _pater familiās_ was a much more serious
matter, for it involved the extinction of one family (§29) in order to
prevent the extinction of another. It was called _adrogātiō_ and was
an affair of state. It had to be sanctioned by the _pontificēs_, the
highest officers of religion, who had probably to make sure that the
_adrogātus_ had brothers enough to attend to the interests of the
ancestors whose cult he was renouncing. If the _pontificēs_ gave their
consent, it had still to be sanctioned by the _comitia curiata_, as
the adrogation might deprive the _gēns_ of its succession to the
property of the childless man (§22). If the _comitia_ gave consent,
the _adrogātus_ sank from the position of Head of a House to that of a
_fīlius familiās_ in the household of his adoptive father. If he had
wife and children, they passed with him into the new family, and so
did all his property. Over him the adoptive father had _potestās_ as
over a son of his own, and looked upon him as flesh of his flesh and
bone of his bone. We can have at best only a feeble and inadequate
notion of what adoption meant to the Romans.
§31. The Patria Potestas.--The authority of the _pater familiās_ over
his descendants was called usually the _patria potestās_, but also the
_patria maiestās_, the _patrium iūs_, and the _imperium paternum_. It
was carried to a greater length by the Romans than by any other
people, a length that seems to us excessive and cruel. As they
understood it, the _pater familiās_ had absolute power over his
children and other agnatic descendants. He decided whether or not the
newborn child should be reared; he punished what he regarded as
misconduct with penalties as severe as banishment, slavery, and death;
he alone could own and exchange property--all that his descendants
earned or acquired in any way was his: according to the letter of the
law they were little better than his chattels. If his right to one of
them was disputed, he vindicated it by the same form of action that he
used to maintain his right to a house or a horse; if one was stolen,
he proceeded against the abductor by the ordinary action for theft; if
for any reason he wished to transfer one of them to a third person, it
was done by the same form of conveyance that he employed to transfer
inanimate things. The jurists boasted that these powers were enjoyed
by Roman citizens only.
§32. Limitations.--But however stern this authority was theoretically,
it was greatly modified in practice, under the Republic by custom,
under the Empire by law. King Romulus was said to have ordained that
all sons should be reared and also all firstborn daughters;
furthermore that no child should be put to death until its third year,
unless it was grievously deformed. This at least secured life for the
child, though the _pater familiās_ still decided whether it should be
admitted to his household, with the implied social and religious
privileges, or be disowned and become an outcast. King Numa was said
to have forbidden the sale into slavery of a son who had married with
the consent of his father. But of much greater importance was the
check put upon arbitrary and cruel punishments by custom. Custom, not
law, obliged the _pater familiās_ to call a council of relatives and
friends (_iūdicium domesticum_) when he contemplated inflicting severe
punishment upon his children, and public opinion obliged him to abide
by their verdict. Even in the comparatively few cases where tradition
tells us that the death penalty was actually inflicted, we usually
find that the father acted in the capacity of a magistrate happening
to be in office when the offense was committed, or that the penalties
of the ordinary law were merely anticipated, perhaps to avoid the
disgrace of a public trial and execution.
§33. So, too, in regard to the ownership of property the conditions
were not really so hard as the strict letter of the law makes them
appear to us. It was customary for the Head of the House to assign to
his children property, _pecūlia_ ("cattle of their own"), for them to
manage for their own benefit. And more than this, although the _pater
familiās_ held legal title to all their acquisitions, yet practically
all property was acquired for and belonged to the household as a
whole, and he was in effect little more than a trustee to hold and
administer it for the common benefit. This is shown by the fact that
there was no graver offense against public morals, no fouler blot on
private character, than to prove untrue to this trust, _patrimōnium
prōfundere_. Besides this, the long continuance of the _potestās_ is
in itself a proof that its rigor was more apparent than real.
[Illustration: FIGURE 3. PUBLIUS CORNELIUS SCIPIO AFRICANUS]
§34. Extinction of the Potestas.--The _patria potestās_ was
extinguished in various ways:
1. By the death of the _pater familiās_, as has been explained in §19.
2. By the emancipation of the son or daughter.
3. By the loss of citizenship by either father or son.
4. If the son became a _flāmen diālis_ or the daughter a _virgō
vestālis_.
5. If either father or child was adopted by a third party.
6. If the daughter passed by formal marriage into the power (_in
manum_) of a husband, though this did not essentially change her
dependent condition (§35).
7. If the son became a public magistrate. In this case the _potestās_
was suspended during the period of office, but after it expired the
father might hold the son accountable for his acts, public and
private, while holding the magistracy.
§35. Manus.--The subject of marriage will be considered later; at this
point it is only necessary to define the power over the wife possessed
by the husband in its most extreme form, called by the Romans _manus_.
By the oldest and most solemn form of marriage the wife was separated
entirely from her father's family (§28) and passed into her husband's
power or "hand" (_conventiō in manum_). This assumes, of course, that
he was _suī iūris_; if he was not, then though nominally in his "hand"
she was really subject as he was to his _pater familiās_. Any property
she had of her own, and to have had any she must have been independent
before her marriage, passed to him as a matter of course. If she had
none, her _pater familiās_ furnished a dowry (_dōs_), which shared the
same fate. Whatever she acquired by her industry or otherwise while
the marriage lasted also became her husband's. So far, therefore, as
property rights were concerned the _manus_ differed in no respect from
the _patria potestās_: the wife was _in locō fīliae_, and on the
husband's death took a daughter's share in his estate.
§36. In other respects _manus_ conferred more limited powers. The
husband was required by law, not merely obliged by custom, to refer
alleged misconduct of his wife to the _iūdicium domesticum_, and this
was composed in part of her cognates (§25). He could put her away for
certain grave offenses only; if he divorced her without good cause he
was punished with the loss of all his property. He could not sell her
at all. In short, public opinion and custom operated even more
strongly for her protection than for that of her children. It must be
noticed, therefore, that the chief distinction between _manus_ and
_patria potestās_ lay in the fact that the former was a legal
relationship based upon the consent of the weaker party, while the
latter was a natural relationship antecedent to all law and choice.
[Illustration: FIGURE 4. LUCIUS CORNELIUS SULLA]
§37. Dominica Potestas.--The right of ownership in his property
(_dominica potestās_) was absolute in the case of a _pater familiās_
and has been sufficiently explained in preceding paragraphs. This
ownership included slaves as well as inanimate things, and slaves as
well as inanimate things were mere chattels in the eyes of the law.
The influence of custom and public opinion, so far as these tended to
mitigating the horrors of their condition, will be discussed later. It
will be sufficient to say here that there was nothing to which the
slave could appeal from the judgment of his master. It was final and
absolute.