MARRIAGE AND THE POSITION OF WOMEN
REFERENCES: Marquardt, 28-80; Voigt, 318, 449; Göll, II, 5 f.;
Friedländer, I, 451 f.; Ramsay, 293 f., 477; Preston, 8 f.; Smith,
_mātrimōnium_; Baumeister, 696 f.; Harper, _cōnūbium_, _mātrimōnium_;
Lübker, 364; Pauly-Wissowa, _coēmptiō_, _cōnfarreātiō_, _cōnūbium_.
§61. Early Forms of Marriage.--Polygamy was never practiced at Rome,
and we are told that for five centuries after the founding of the city
divorce was entirely unknown. Up to the time of the Servian
constitution (date uncertain) the patricians were the only citizens
and intermarried only with patricians and with members of surrounding
communities having like social standing. The only form of marriage
known to them was the stately religious ceremonial called, as will be
explained hereafter, _cōnfarreātiō_. With the direct consent of the
gods, with the _pontificēs_ celebrating the solemn rites, in the
presence of the accredited representatives of his _gēns_, the
patrician took his wife from her father's family into his own (§28),
to be a _māter familiās_, to rear him children who should conserve the
family mysteries, perpetuate his ancient race, and extend the power of
Rome. By this, the one legal marriage of the time, the wife passed _in
manum virī_, and the husband acquired over her practically the same
rights as he had over his own children (§§35, 36) and other dependent
members of his family. Such a marriage was said to be _cum conventiōne
uxōris in manum virī_ (§35).
§62. During this period, too, the free non-citizens (§§177, 178), the
plebeians, had been busy in marrying and giving in marriage. There is
little doubt that their unions had been as sacred in their eyes, their
family ties as strictly regarded and as pure, as those of the
patricians, but these unions were unhallowed by the national gods and
unrecognized by the civil law, simply because the plebeians were not
yet citizens. Their form of marriage was called _ūsus_, and consisted
essentially in the living together of the man and woman as husband and
wife for a year, though there were, of course, conventional forms and
observances, about which we know absolutely nothing. The plebeian
husband might acquire the same rights over the person and property of
his wife as the patrician, but the form of marriage did not in itself
involve _manus_. The wife might remain a member of her father's family
and retain such property as he allowed her (§33) by merely absenting
herself from her husband for the space of a _trinoctium_ each year. If
she did this the marriage was _sine conventiōne in manum_, and the
husband had no control over her property; if she did not, the marriage
like that of the patricians was _cum conventiōne in manum_.
[Illustration: FIGURE 10. HADRIAN]
§63. At least as far back as the time of Servius goes another Roman
form of marriage, also plebeian, though not so ancient as _ūsus_. It
was called _coēmptiō_ and was a fictitious sale, by which the _pater
familiās_ of the woman, or her guardian (_tūtor_) if she was _suī
iūris_, transferred her to the man _mātrimōniī causā_. This form must
have been a survival of the old custom of purchase and sale of wives,
but we do not know when it was introduced among the Romans. It carried
_manus_ with it as a matter of course and seems to have been regarded
socially as better form than _ūsus_. The two existed for centuries
side by side, but _coēmptiō_ survived _ūsus_ as a form of marriage
_cum conventiōne in manum_.
§64. Ius Conubii.--While the Servian constitution made the plebeians
citizens and thereby legalized their forms of marriage, it did not
give them the right of intermarriage with the patricians. Many of the
plebeian families were hardly less ancient than the patricians, many
were rich and powerful, but it was not until 445 B.C. that marriages
between the two orders were formally sanctioned by the civil law. The
objection on the part of the patricians was largely a religious one:
The gods of the state were patrician gods, the auspices could be taken
by patricians only, the marriages of patricians only were sanctioned
by heaven. Their orators protested that the unions of the plebeians
were no better than promiscuous intercourse, they were not _iūstae
nūptiae_ (§67); the plebeian wife was taken _in mātrimōnium_, she was
at best an _uxor_, not a _māter familiās_; her offspring were
"mother's children," not _patriciī_.
§65. Much of this was class exaggeration, but it is true that at this
early date the _gēns_ was not so highly valued by the plebeians as by
the patricians, and that the plebeians assigned to cognates certain
duties and privileges that devolved upon the patrician _gentīlēs_.
With, the _iūs cōnūbiī_ many of these points of difference
disappeared. New conditions were fixed for _iūstae nūptiae_;
_coēmptiō_ by a sort of compromise became the usual form of marriage
when one of the parties was a plebeian; and the stigma disappeared
from the word _mātrimōnium_. On the other hand patrician women learned
to understand the advantages of a marriage _sine conventiōne_ and
marriage with _manus_ gradually became less frequent, the taking of
the auspices before the ceremony came to be considered a mere form,
and marriage began to lose its sacramental character, and with these
changes came later the laxness in the marital relation and the freedom
of divorce that seemed in the time of Augustus to threaten the very
life of the commonwealth.
§66. It is probable that by the time of Cicero marriage with _manus_
was uncommon, and consequently that _cōnfarreātiō_ and _coēmptiō_ had
gone out of general use. To a limited extent, however, the former was
retained until Christian times, because certain priestly offices
(_flāminēs maiōrēs_ and _rēgēs sacrōrum_) could be filled only by
persons whose parents had been married by the confarreate ceremony,
the one sacramental form, and who had themselves been married by the
same form. But so great became the reluctance of women to submit to
_manus_, that in order to fill even these few priestly offices it was
found necessary under Tiberius to eliminate _manus_ from the
confarreate ceremony.
§67. Nuptiae Iustae.--There were certain conditions that had to be
satisfied before a legal marriage could be contracted even by
citizens. It was required:
1. That the consent of both parties should be given, or of the _pater
familiās_ if one or both were _in potestāte_. Under Augustus it was
provided that the _pater familiās_ should not withhold his consent
unless he could show valid reasons for doing so.
2. That both parties should be _pūberēs_; there could be no marriage
between children. Although no precise age was fixed by law, it is
probable that fourteen and twelve were the lowest limit for the man
and woman respectively.
3. That both man and woman should be unmarried. Polygamy was never
practiced at Rome.
§68. 4. That the parties should not be nearly related. The
restrictions in this direction were fixed rather by public opinion
than by law and varied greatly at different times, becoming gradually
less severe. In general it may be said that marriage was absolutely
forbidden between ascendants and descendants, between other cognates
within the fourth degree (§25), and the nearer _adfīnēs_ (§26). If the
parties could satisfy these conditions they might be legally married,
but distinctions were still made that affected the civil status of the
children, although no doubt was cast upon their legitimacy or upon the
moral character of their parents.
§69. If the husband and wife were both Roman citizens, their marriage
was called _iūstae nūptiae_, which we may translate "regular
marriage," their children were _iūstī līberī_ and were by birth _cīvēs
optimō iūre_, "possessed of all civil rights."
If but one of the parties was a Roman citizen and the other a member
of a community having the _iūs cōnūbiī_ but not the full _cīvitās_,
the marriage was still called _iūstae nūptiae_, but the children took
the civil standing of the father. This means that if the father was a
citizen and the mother a foreigner, the children were citizens; but if
the father was a foreigner and the mother a citizen, the children were
foreigners (_peregrīnī_) with the father.
But if either of the parties was without the _iūs cōnūbiī_, the
marriage, though still legal, was called _nūptiae iniūstae_ or
_mātrimōnium iniūstum_, "an irregular marriage," and the children,
though legitimate, took the civil position of the parent of lower
degree. We seem to have something analogous to this in the loss of
social standing which usually follows the marriage of a person with
one of distinctly inferior position.
§70. Betrothals.--Betrothal (_spōnsālia_) as a preliminary to marriage
was considered good form but was not legally necessary and carried
with it no obligations that could be enforced by law. In the
_spōnsālia_ the maiden was promised to the man as his bride with
"words of style," that is, in solemn form. The promise was made, not
by the maiden herself, but by her _pater familiās_, or by her _tūtor_
if she was not _in potestāte_. In the same way, the promise was made
to the man directly only in case he was _suī iūris_, otherwise to the
Head of his House, who had asked for him the maiden in marriage. The
"words of style" were probably something like this:
"_Spondēsne Gāiam, tuam fīliam_ (or if she was a ward: _Gāiam, Lūciī
fīliam_), _mihi_ (or _fīliō meō_) _uxōrem darī?_"
"_Dī bene vortant! Spondeō._"
"_Dī bene vortant!_"
§71. At any rate the word _spondeō_ was technically used of the
promise, and the maiden was henceforth _spōnsa_. The person who made
the promise had always the right to cancel it. This was usually done
through an intermediary (_nūntius_), and hence the formal expression
for breaking an engagement was _repudium renūntiāre_, or simply
_renūntiāre_. While the contract was entirely one-sided, it should be
noticed that a man was liable to _īnfāmia_ if he formed two
engagements at the same time, and that he could not recover any
presents made with a view to a future marriage if he himself broke the
engagement. Such presents were almost always made, and while we find
that articles for personal use, the toilet, etc., were common, a ring
was usually given. The ring was worn on the third finger of the left
hand, because it was believed that a nerve ran directly from this
finger to the heart. It was also usual for the _spōnsa_ to make a
present to her betrothed.
§72. The Dowry.--It was a point of honor with the Romans, as it is now
with some European nations, for the bride to bring to her husband a
dowry (_dōs_). In the case of a girl _in potestāte_ this would
naturally be furnished by the Head of her House; in the case of one
_suī iūris_ it was furnished from her own property, or if she had none
was contributed by her relatives. It seems that if they were reluctant
she might by process of law compel her ascendants at least to furnish
it. In early times, when marriage _cum conventiōne_ prevailed, all the
property brought by the bride became the property of her husband, or
of his _pater familiās_ (§35), but in later times, when _manus_ was
less common, and especially after divorce had become of frequent
occurrence, a distinction was made. A part of the bride's possessions
was reserved for her own exclusive use, and a part was made over to
the groom under the technical name of _dōs_. The relative proportions
varied, of course, with circumstances.
§73. Essential Forms.--There were really no legal forms necessary for
the solemnization of a marriage; there was no license to be procured
from the civil authorities, the ceremonies simple or elaborate did not
have to be performed by persons authorized by the state. The one thing
necessary was the consent of both parties, if they were _suī iūris_,
or of their _patrēs familiās_, if they were _in potestāte_. It has
been already remarked (§67, 1) that the _pater familiās_ could refuse
his consent for valid reasons only; on the other hand, he could
command the consent of persons subject to him. It is probable that
parental and filial affection (_pietās_) made this hardship less
rigorous than it now seems to us (§§32, 33).
[Illustration: FIGURE 11. ANTONINUS PIUS]
§74. But while this consent was the only condition for a legal
marriage, it had to be shown by some act of personal union between the
parties; that is, the marriage could not be entered into by letter or
by the intervention of a third party. Such an overt act was the
joining of hands (_dextrārum iūnctiō_) in the presence of witnesses,
or the escorting of the bride to her husband's house, never omitted
when the parties had any social standing, or in later times the
signing of the marriage contract. It was never necessary to a valid
marriage that the parties should live together as man and wife,
though, as we have seen (§62), this living together of itself
constituted a legal marriage.
§75. The Wedding Day.--It will be noticed that superstition played an
important part in the arrangements for a wedding two thousand years
ago, as it does now. Especial pains had to be taken to secure a lucky
day. The Kalends, Nones, and Ides of each month, and the day following
each of them, were unlucky. So was all of May and the first half of
June, on account of certain religious ceremonies observed in these
months, the Argean offerings and the _Lemūria_ in May and the _diēs
religiōsī_ connected with Vesta in June. Besides these the _diēs
parentālēs_, February 13-21, and the days when the entrance to the
lower world was supposed to be open, August 24, October 5, and
November 8, were carefully avoided. One-third of the year, therefore,
was absolutely barred. The great holidays, too, and these were legion,
were avoided, not because they were unlucky, but because on these days
friends and relatives were sure to have other engagements. Women
marrying for the second time chose these very holidays to make their
weddings less conspicuous.
§76. The Wedding Garments.--On the eve of her wedding day the bride
dedicated to the _Larēs_ of her father's house her _bulla_ (§99) and
the _toga praetexta_, which married women did not wear, and also if
she was not much over twelve years of age her childish playthings. For
the sake of the omen she put on before going to sleep the _tunica
rēcta_, or _rēgilla_, woven in one piece and falling to the feet. A
very doubtful picture is shown in Rich under the word _rëcta_. It
seems to have derived its name from having been woven in the
old-fashioned way at an upright loom. This same tunic was worn at the
wedding.
[Illustration: FIGURE 12. DRESSING THE BRIDE]
§77. On the morning of the wedding day the bride was dressed for the
ceremony by her mother, and Roman poets show unusual tenderness as
they describe her solicitude. There is a wall painting of such a
scene, found at Pompeii and reproduced in Fig. 12. The chief article
of dress was the _tunica rēgilla_ already mentioned, which was
fastened around the waist with a band of wool tied in the knot of
Hercules (_nodus Herculāneus_), probably because Hercules was the
guardian of wedded life. This knot the husband only was privileged to
untie. Over the tunic was worn the bridal veil, the flame-colored veil
(_flammeum_), shown in Fig. 13. So important was the veil of the bride
that _nūbere_, "to veil one's self," is the regular word for "marry"
when used of a woman.
[Illustration: FIGURE 13. THE FLAMMEUM]
§78. Especial attention was given to the arrangement of the hair, but
unfortunately we have no picture preserved to us to make its
arrangement clear. We only know that it was divided into six locks by
the point of a spear, probably a reminiscence of the ancient marriage
by capture, and that these locks perhaps braided were kept in position
by ribbons (_vittae_). The bride had also a wreath of flowers and
sacred plants gathered by herself. The groom wore of course the toga
and had a similar wreath of flowers on his head. He was accompanied to
the home of the bride at the proper time by relatives, friends, and
clients, who were bound to do him every honor on his wedding day.
§79. The Ceremony.--The house of the bride's father, where the
ceremony was performed, was decked with flowers, boughs of trees,
bands of wool, and tapestries. The guests arrived before the hour of
sunrise, and even then the omens had been already taken. In the
ancient confarreate ceremony these were taken by the public augur, but
in later times, no matter what the ceremony, the haruspices merely
consulted the entrails of a sheep which had been killed in sacrifice.
When the marriage ceremonies are described it must be remembered that
only the consent was necessary (§73) with the act expressing the
consent, and that all other forms and ceremonies were unessential and
variable. Something depended upon the particular form used, but more
upon the wealth and social position of the families interested. It is
probable that most weddings were a good deal simpler than those
described by our chief authorities.
§80. After the omens had been pronounced favorable the bride and groom
appeared in the atrium, the chief room, and the wedding began. This
consisted of two parts:
1. The ceremony proper, varying according to the form used
(_cōnfarreātiō_, _coēmptiō_, or _ūsus_), the essential part being the
consent before witnesses.
2. The festivities, including the feast at the bride's home, the
taking of the bride with a show of force from her mother's arms, the
escort to her new home (the essential part), and her reception there.
[Illustration: FIGURE 14. A MARRIAGE SCENE]
§81. The confarreate ceremony began with the _dextrārum iūnctiō_. The
bride and groom were brought together by the _prōnuba_, a matron
married to her first husband, and joined hands in the presence of ten
witnesses representing the ten _gentēs_ of the _cūria_. These are
shown on an ancient sarcophagus found at Naples (Fig. 14). Then
followed the words of consent spoken by the bride: _Quandō tū Gāius,
ego Gāia_. The formula was unchanged, no matter what the names of the
bride and groom, and goes back to a time when _Gāius_ was a _nōmen_,
not a _praenōmen_ (§55). It implied that the bride was actually
entering the _gēns_ of the groom (§§23, 28, 35), and was probably
chosen for its lucky meaning (§44). Even in marriages _sine
conventiōne_ the old formula came to be used, its import having been
lost in lapse of time. The bride and groom then took their places side
by side at the left of the altar and facing it, sitting on stools
covered with the pelt of the sheep slain for the sacrifice.
[Illustration: FIGURE 15. A CAMILLUS]
§82. A bloodless offering was then made to Jupiter by the _Pontifex
Maximus_ and the _Flāmen Diālis_, consisting of the cake of spelt
(_farreum lībum_) from which the _cōnfarreātiō_ got its name. With the
offering to Jupiter a prayer was recited by the Flamen to Juno as the
goddess of marriage, and to Tellus, Picumnus, and Pilumnus, deities of
the country and its fruits. The utensils necessary for the offering
were carried in a covered basket (_cumerus_) by a boy called
_camillus_ (Fig. 15), whose parents must have both been living at the
time (_patrīmus et mātrīmus_). Then followed the congratulations, the
guests using the word _fēlīciter_.
§83. The _coēmptiō_ began with the fictitious sale, carried out in the
presence of no less than five witnesses. The purchase money
represented by a single coin was laid in the scales held by a
_lībripēns_. The scales, scaleholder, coin, and witnesses were all
necessary for this kind of marriage. Then followed the _dextrārum
iūnctiō_ and the words of consent, borrowed, as has been said, from
the confarreate ceremony. Originally the groom had asked the bride:
_An sibi māter familiās esse vellet._ She assented, and put to him a
similar question: _An sibi pater familiās esse vellet._ To this he too
gave the answer "Yes." A prayer was then recited and sometimes perhaps
a sacrifice offered, after which came the congratulations as in the
other and more elaborate ceremony.
§84. The third form, that is, the ceremonies preliminary to _ūsus_,
probably admitted of more variation than either of the others, but no
description has come down to us. We may be sure that the hands were
clasped, the words of consent spoken, and congratulations offered, but
we know of no special customs or usages. It was almost necessary for
the three forms to get more or less alike in the course of time,
though the cake of spelt could not be borrowed from the confarreate
ceremony by either of the others, or the scales and their holder from
the ceremony of _coēmptiō_.
§85. The Wedding Feast.--After the conclusion of the ceremony came the
wedding feast (_cēna nūptiālis_) lasting until evening. There can be
no doubt that this was regularly given at the house of the bride's
father and that the few cases when we know that it was given at the
groom's house were exceptional and due to special circumstances which
might cause a similar change to-day. The feast seems to have concluded
with the distribution among the guests of pieces of the wedding cake
(_mustāceum_), which was made of meal steeped in must (§296) and
served on bay leaves. There came to be so much extravagance at these
feasts and at the _repōtia_ mentioned below (§89) that under Augustus
it was proposed to limit their cost by law to one thousand sesterces
($50), a piece of sumptuary legislation as vain as such restrictions
have usually proved to be.
§86. The Bridal Procession.--After the wedding feast the bride was
formally taken to her husband's house. This ceremony was called
_dēductiō_, and as it was essential to the validity of the marriage
(§74) it was never omitted. It was a public function, that is, any one
might join the procession and take part in the merriment that
distinguished it, and we are told that persons of rank did not scruple
to wait in the street to see the bride. As evening approached the
procession was formed before the house with torch bearers and flute
players at its head. When all was ready the marriage hymn
(_hymenaeus_) was sung and the groom took the bride with a show of
force from the arms of her mother. The Romans saw in this custom a
reminiscence of the rape of the Sabines, but it probably goes far back
beyond the founding of Rome to the custom of marriage by capture that
prevailed among many peoples. The bride then took her place in the
procession attended by three boys, _patrīmī et mātrīmī_ (§82); two of
these walked by her side, holding each a hand, while the other carried
before her the wedding torch of white thorn (_spīna alba_). Behind the
bride were carried the distaff and spindle, emblems of domestic life.
The _camillus_ with his _cumerus_ also walked in the procession.
§87. During the march were sung the _versūs Fescennīnī_, abounding in
coarse jests and personalities. The crowd also shouted the ancient
marriage cry, the significance of which the Romans themselves did not
understand. We find it in at least five forms, all variations of the
name Talassius or Talassio, who was probably a Sabine divinity, though
his functions are unknown. Livy derives it from the supposed name of a
senator in the time of Romulus. The bride dropped on the way one of
three coins which she carried as an offering to the _Larēs
compitālēs_; of the other two she gave one to the groom as an emblem
of the dowry she brought him, and one to the _Larēs_ of his house. The
groom meanwhile scattered nuts through the crowd. This is explained by
Catullus as a token of his having become a man and having put away
childish things (§103), but the nuts were rather a symbol of
fruitfulness. The custom survives in the throwing of rice in modern
times.
§88. When the procession reached the house, the bride wound the door
posts with bands of wool, probably a symbol of her own work as
mistress of the household, and anointed the door with oil and fat,
emblems of plenty. She was then lifted carefully over the threshold,
in order to avoid the chance of so bad an omen as a slip of the foot
on entering the house for the first time. Others, however, see in the
custom another survival of marriage by capture. She then pronounced
again the words of consent: _Ubi tū Gāius, ego Gāia_, and the doors
were closed against the general crowd; only the invited guests entered
with the pair.
[Illustration: FIGURE 16. THE MARRIAGE COUCH]
§89. The husband met the wife in the atrium and offered her fire and
water in token of the life they were to live together and her part in
the home. Upon the hearth was ready the wood for a fire, and this the
bride kindled with the marriage torch which had been carried before
her. The torch was afterwards thrown among the guests to be scrambled
for as a lucky possession. A prayer was then recited by the bride and
she was placed by the _prōnuba_ on the _lectus geniālis_ (Fig. 16),
which always stood on the wedding night in the atrium. Here it
afterwards remained as a piece of ornamental furniture only. On the
next day was given in the new home the second wedding feast
(_repōtia_) to the friends and relatives, and at this feast the bride
made her first offering to the gods as a _mātrōna_. A series of feasts
followed, given in honor of the newly wedded pair by those in whose
social circles they moved.
§90. The Position of Women.--With her marriage the Roman woman reached
a position unattained by the women of any other nation in the ancient
world. No other people held its women in so high respect; nowhere else
did they exert so strong and beneficent an influence. In her own house
the Roman matron was absolute mistress. She directed its economy and
supervised the tasks of the household slaves but did no menial work
herself. She was her children's nurse, and conducted their early
training and education. Her daughters were fitted under their mother's
eye to be mistresses of similar homes, and remained her closest
companions until she herself had dressed them for the bridal and their
husbands had torn them from her arms. She was her husband's helpmeet
in business as well as in household affairs, and he often consulted
her on affairs of state. She was not confined at home to a set of
so-called women's apartments, as were her sisters in Greece; the whole
house was hers. She received her husband's guests and sat at table
with them. Even when subject to the _manus_ of her husband the
restraint was so tempered by law and custom (§36) that she could
hardly have been chafed by the fetters which had been forged with her
own consent (§73).
§91. Out of the house the matron's dress (_stola mātrōnālis_, §259)
secured for her the most profound respect. Men made way for her in the
street; she had a place at the public games, at the theaters, and at
the great religious ceremonies of state. She could give testimony in
the courts, and until late in the Republic might even appear as an
advocate. Her birthday was sacredly observed and made a joyous
occasion by the members of her household, and the people as a whole
celebrated the _Mātrōnālia_, the great festival on the first of March,
and gave presents to their wives and mothers. Finally, if she came of
a noble family, she might be honored, after she had passed away, with
a public eulogy, delivered from the _rostra_ in the forum.
§92. It must be admitted that the education of women was not carried
far at Rome, and that their accomplishments were few, and rather
useful and homely than elegant. But the Roman women spoke the purest
and best Latin known in the highest and most cultivated circles, and
so far as accomplishments were concerned their husbands fared no
better. Respectable women in Greece were allowed no education at all.
§93. It must be admitted, too, that a great change took place in the
last years of the Republic. With the laxness of the family life, the
freedom of divorce, and the inflow of wealth and extravagance, the
purity and dignity of the Roman matron declined, as had before
declined the manhood and the strength of her father and her husband.
It must be remembered, however, that ancient writers did not dwell
upon certain subjects that are favorites with our own. The simple joys
of childhood and domestic life, home, the praises of sister, wife, and
mother may not have been too sacred for the poet and the essayist of
Rome, but the essayist and the poet did not make them their themes.
The mother of Horace must have been a singularly gifted woman, but she
is never mentioned by her son. The descriptions of domestic life,
therefore, that have come down to us are either from Greek sources, or
are selected from precisely those circles where fashion, profligacy,
and impurity made easy the work of the satirist. It is, therefore,
safe to say that the pictures painted for us in the verse of Catullus
and Juvenal, for example, are not true of Roman women as a class in
the times of which they write. The strong, pure woman of the early day
must have had many to imitate her virtues in the darkest times of the
Empire. There were mothers then, as well as in the times of the
Gracchi; there were wives as noble as the wife of Marcus Brutus.