NOBLE MATRONS OF THE REPUBLIC

After the revolution, of which the tragedy of Lucretia was the

traditional cause and which ended forever monarchical rule in Rome, our

subject begins to emerge from the haziness of legendary narratives into

the clearer light of veritable history. It now becomes possible for us

to catch glimpses of the women of Rome, living and moving amid scenes

that were real and under conditions which undoubtedly prevailed.

Roman society at the beginning of the Republic was most distinctly and

rigidly classified. Not only were the people divided by the

circumstances of birth into separate classes, but the law preordained

for every person his precise station, his duties, his privileges, and

his limitations. The citizen could no more go beyond these than he could

transfer himself into another order of creation; for law, in Rome, was

as absolute as it was rigid. Speaking generally, there were two orders,

the patrician and the plebeian. A common opinion of the old writers was

that out of the influx of adventurers who crowded to Rome at its

founding Romulus chose one hundred Senators, their qualification being

that they could name their fathers. Their children were called

patricians. In the third century before Christ, when the plebeians had

wrested many privileges and offices from the unwilling higher class,

Publius Decius, himself a plebeian, uses this theory of the origin of

the patricians to great advantage. Contending in debate for the right of

his order to serve in the priesthood, he said: "Have ye never heard that

the first-created patricians were not men sent down from heaven, but

such as could cite their fathers; that is, nothing more than freeborn?

Well, I can cite my father; he was a consul; and my son will be able to

cite a grandfather." This excessive pride which Roman citizens took in

the fact that they could trace their paternity through more or less

generations must not be understood as reflecting, in any way, upon the

character of the early matrons; it arose simply from the fact that they

could so surely name their ancestry as to eliminate possibility of

descent from one of the common herd of unenfranchised inhabitants.

These latter were the plebeians. This class was made up of the

descendants of the ancient people who of old had inhabited the country,

ordinary foreigners who were attracted to the city, and the children of

captives who had been given their liberty. At first, the plebeians

enjoyed no rights whatever. They lived, it is true, under the shelter of

the walls of the city, but on the outside. They possessed no right of

suffrage, and were not allowed to interfere in any public affair. But

they were free. They held property and engaged in handicrafts and in

commerce. It soon came to pass that the increase of their number and

their importance rendered their repression by the nobles more and more

difficult. Under King Servius the plebeians became citizens; and, as is

the case in every land, the internal history of Rome contains nothing

more interesting than the indomitable and successful struggle of this

lower class to wrest ever larger privileges from the tenacious rulers.

It was not, however, until B.C. 444 that equality of rights had made

sufficient progress for matrimonial alliances to be countenanced between

patricians and plebeians. By the commencement of the Christian era all

practical distinction between these two classes had vanished.

In addition to the two principal orders, there was that of the clients.

These were in reality vassals, who preferred dependence on the great and

wealthy to living independently in a precarious liberty. They were

called by the names of their patrons and were numbered in the latter's

tribe. By enactments of law, the patron was made responsible for the

support and protection of his clients. In return, the patrician could

depend upon his clients to fight his battles, support his cause, and

prove themselves loyal retainers of his house in both good fortune and

evil. The subservience of these clients, and the conscienceless zeal

with which they furthered the designs, even the most wicked, of their

masters, are well illustrated in the part which Marcus Claudius played

in the persecution of Virginia by the decemvir Appius. Another dependent

class was that of the slaves. At first the number of these was

comparatively small; but as the conquering arms of Rome spread over the

world her avaricious sway, the captives dragged in barbarous triumph to

the city grew out of all proportion to the population. They enjoyed

fewer rights and suffered under a regime more inhuman than in any other

slaveholding nation in history.

That which distinguished one class from another in early Roman society

had nothing whatever to do with the character of the occupation of the

people comprising it. The noblest of the early patricians, as well as

the commonest plebeians, tilled the soil with their own hands; nor did

they disdain to engage in trade, or even in the letting of money on

usury. Wealth was no more a consideration than occupation in

determining to which order a man or a woman belonged. In course of time,

the plebeians, despite the patricians' unneglected privilege of

practising robbery under due process of law, numbered many families of

great wealth; but no man could therewith purchase entrance to the higher

class. It was the blood line that marked these distinctions; it was

ancestry alone that could give the patent of nobility. Nor is it

surprising that a people who believed in the divine origin of some of

their tribes should acknowledge superior rights as attached to a

well-authenticated pedigree.

In most societies, the advantages of class are more markedly displayed

in the life of the women than in that of the men. This does not appear

to have been the case in the early times of the Roman Republic. In fact,

it is difficult to see how difference in class greatly distinguished the

patrician matron from her plebeian sister. Neither had any legal part

whatever in State affairs or in any public functions, excepting those of

a religious nature. The duties of each were confined to the home, and no

woman was relieved from the obligation of personal and diligent

industry. On the epitaphs of many noble women were praises for their

chastity and their proficiency in spinning. Indeed, the evidence seems

to indicate that any other qualities than these two, and that of

fertility, were deprecated rather than admired by the Romans of this

period. The only advantages which a patrician woman could possess were

her natural pride in the privileges of her family and what honor was

reflected upon her from the positions held by her male relatives. The

term "Head of the Family" never had so tyrannical a meaning as in most

ancient Rome. It was a place which a woman could not hold. The husband

was all in all; no one else was recognized by law. Wife, children,

clients, and slaves were alike persons without will of their own. They

were _mancipia_, under the hand of the father. He it was who answered

for them to the State and who judged them. If a wife was accused of

crime, she was committed to her husband for judgment. And this was the

law even down to the time of Nero, when Pomponia Græcina, charged with

embracing a foreign superstition, was "consigned to the adjudication of

her husband." A man could even condemn his wife to death for certain

offences, such as the violation of her marriage vows, or even for

forging false keys in order to steal his wine. At her husband's death,

the wife could not claim any of his property if he had bequeathed it to

another, even though it were willed to an entire stranger. In this

severely disciplined society, the woman never escaped from guardianship.

She was looked upon as belonging to the family rather than to the State.

The latter consisted only of men, to whom the women were merely

necessary accessories. No one thought that a woman possessed any claim

or right to independence of individuality. She was always under a

master: her father, when she was a girl; her husband, when she was

married; and her nearest male relative, if she became a widow. If she

obtained any share in her father's property or in that of her husband,

she could not transfer or bequeath it without the consent of her male

guardian, unless she were a Vestal; nor could she marry without the same

consent.

But, however dependent her position may have been, whether maid or

matron, the Roman woman was always treated with reverence. The _stola_,

the characteristic robe of the matron, corresponding to the toga of the

male citizen, always ensured for its wearer respect, it being not merely

an article of attire, but also an insignia which could only be retained

by strict rectitude of life, market days or assembly days. In the

villa--a miserable cabin made of mud, rafters, and branches--not a day,

not a moment, was lost. Horace does not draw a more agreeable picture of

ancient city manners. He tells us that "at Rome, for a long time a man

knew no other pleasure and no other festival than to open his door at

dawn, to explain the law to his clients, and to lay out his money on

good security. They learned from their elders, and taught beginners, the

art of increasing their savings." But when it is remembered that Cato

was a sour and miserly Puritan, who adopted austerity as his pose, and

that Horace was a poet, not untouched with cynicism, who lived in a

society in which the charm of simple enjoyments was entirely forgotten,

we may consider both pictures, though from differing causes, slightly

overdrawn. Nevertheless they serve to indicate how circumscribed was the

life of the wives of the early Romans.

Those strong-minded, intense, practical people were not, however,

without their entertainments. Music, both vocal and instrumental, was

cultivated. There were religious festivals, in which processions of boys

and maidens sang pious hymns. We also learn from Cicero that it was the

custom for the guests at a feast to sing the praises of their great men

to the sound of the flute. It is easy for us to imagine a home scene in

which Veturia, the mother of the youthful Cnæus Martius, tells over

again to the inquiring boy those inspiring stories which he has heard

chanted by his father's hearth and which are to prepare him to emulate

heroic deeds at Corioli and earn for himself an honorable name.

But, habitually solemn and grave as were those old Romans, they were

also much addicted to amusements of a coarse and grotesque nature. Even

in their religious processions they included monstrous mechanical

shapes, with formidable teeth and huge jaws which, by their opening and

closing, frightened the women and children, to the great enjoyment of

the men. Hideous masks were also worn for the same purpose. In fact, so

little refinement characterized the minds of the people of these times,

that they could find entertainment in only the rudest and coarsest of

jests. Farces, which were nothing more than the absurd antics and

personal witticisms of buffoons, had been introduced from Atella. But

the beginning of Roman drama may be dated from B.C. 364, when, on

account of a pestilence which devastated the city, Etruscan actors were

imported to institute scenic games in honor of the gods. The pestilence

ended; and consequently the games, being regarded as the efficacious

remedy, were retained. These games consisted of combined dances and

songs, which were accompanied by appropriate but not altogether proper

gestures. Later, there was instituted the floral festival, the purpose

of which was to induce the goddess of spring to grant that all the

flowers which decked the fields at the time of blossoming should be

represented by fruit in the harvest. In these games, dancing girls

appeared upon the stage; and we may draw our own conclusions from the

fact that in the time of Cato the scene was regarded as too frivolous

for the eyes of so grave a personage. But the most popular of all the

early festivals was that of Anna Perenna, the goddess of life. In this,

restraint was abandoned. To drink extravagantly, and to listen to a

recitation of the mistakes of Mars in taking a hideous goddess for the

beautiful Minerva, were regarded as works of piety. Young girls were

required to sing this story, which was full of the coarsest allusions.

But the ancients did not consider the requirements of modesty in the

same light as we do. They did not esteem that innocence born of

ignorance, in which modern times deem it sacrificed to honor was the

signal for the expulsion of tyranny.

It was not alone in the incitement of the populace to measures for her

protection that the influence of woman was felt in matters of State.

There were occasions when by her means calamities were averted, as well

as times when civil strife was for her sake produced. The memory of the

good service done for the city by Veturia, the mother, and Volumnia, the

wife of Coriolanus, was never allowed to fade.

In the history of this brave and haughty warrior we have a picture of

Roman political life. Rough politics they were; rock-faced episodes,

befitting the character of the times, in which men knew nothing of

_finesse_, and when appeal was made directly from reason to brute force

and to the natural feelings of men. Perhaps it would be bordering on

literary impiety to think that Shakespeare, in his Coriolanus, has not

given the best interpretation possible of this fragment from the old

Republic; but it is not one of his greatest pieces, because the material

is lacking in those human qualities which are necessary to arouse

profound interest. It is a drama with but one motive--filial respect.

Yet the most is made of this; and the great dramatist has succeeded in

vivifying the principal characters. In the portrayal of the mother of

Coriolanus we see a matron who is worthy of such a son; the wife's part

is that of passive resignation to the will of stronger spirits. Mrs.

Jameson, in her _Characteristics of Women_, says: "In Volumnia,

Shakespeare has given us the portrait of a Roman matron, conceived in

the true antique spirit, and finished in every part. Although Coriolanus

is the hero of the play, yet much of the interest of the action and the

final catastrophe turn upon the character of his mother, and the power

she exercised over his mind, by which, according to the story, 'she

saved Rome and lost her son.' Her lofty patriotism, her patrician

haughtiness, her maternal pride, her eloquence, and her towering spirit,

are exhibited with the utmost power of effect; yet the truth of female

nature is beautifully preserved, and the portrait, with all its vigor,

is without harshness." We may well believe that Veturia--whom, following

Plutarch, Shakespeare calls Volumnia--was a woman who could say: "When

yet he was tender-bodied, and the only son of my womb ... I was pleased

to let him seek danger where he was like to find fame. To a cruel war I

sent him, whence he returned, his brows bound with oak." And when the

wife tremblingly inquires: "But had he died in the business, madam--what

then?" it was in the mother to reply: "Then, his good report should have

been my son." This is in accord with the Greek historian's statement

that Coriolanus fought heroically, not only for glory and the passion of

battle, but to win the meed of praise from his mother.

The action in the story of Veturia and her son is entirely political.

The balance of power between the patricians and the plebeians was very

narrow, especially when hardship aroused the latter to make inquiry into

the claims of the former. A famine was more than sufficient to incite

the lower order to threaten the privileges of the upper class; and Rome

was at that time suffering from a scarcity of corn. The populace was not

entirely convinced by Menenius's parable that the whole duty of the

patrician order consisted in being the belly of the State organism. The

people clamored; their tribunes saw in this an opportunity to gain

increased powers; the Senators were inclined to be subservient. But the

haughty spirit of Coriolanus would yield nothing of the ancient

privileges. For his mother's sake, he sought the consulship;

nevertheless, he angered the commons, though he could not gain the

office without their suffrages. The stress became so great that his

patrician friends could not prevent his exile. He left Rome, only to

return to wreak vengeance at the head of a Volscian army. This enemy

being already a menace to Rome, the defection of the great leader to

their ranks placed the disordered city at their mercy. Then it was that

the Romans remembered that though women were incapacitated for political

action and were unable to fight, yet they were powerful factors in the

appeal to those feelings of the human heart whence flow justice and

pity. The arguments of ambassadors and the behests of the priests had

not availed; the authorities were constrained to adventure what might be

effected by the tears of the women for whom alone, of all that was

Roman, Coriolanus retained any regard. His mother and his wife were

implored to make the last appeal. This plan had come by inspiration into

the mind of Valeria, sister of the great Publicola, as she was praying

with the other matrons in the temple of Jupiter. Veturia and Volumnia,

leading the two sons of Coriolanus, went forth to the Voiscian camp. As

they drew near, Coriolanus, though resolved to remain obdurate, showed

himself not lacking in filial respect; he advanced to meet them,

ordering the fasces to be lowered in the presence of his mother. The

Roman historians clothe Veturia with noble dignity as she makes her

appeal. "Before I receive your embrace, let me know if I have come to an

enemy or to a son; whether I am in your camp a captive or a mother. Has

length of life and a hapless old age reserved me for this--to behold you

an exile and an enemy?... So then, had I not been a mother, Rome would

not be besieged; had I not a son, I might have died free in a free

country." The spirit of this is truly Roman. Even the women were trained

to force the claims of blood and the natural affections into a place

secondary to the duty of loyalty to the State. This appeal; joined with

the embraces of his wife and the lamentations of the other matrons,

prevailed over the anger of Coriolanus; and again Rome was saved by the

Roman women. As a reward, a monumental temple was erected by the men of

the city, and dedicated to Female Fortune.

It was not alone as peacemakers that the Roman matrons served the public

interests of the city. On more than one occasion the treasury was

rendered efficient by means of their generous contributions. More than

once the golden ornaments of the wives became auxiliary to the iron arms

of their husbands, and in one instance they accomplished that which the

latter could not achieve. When the Gauls burned the city, and were only

turned from the citadel by the payment of one thousand pounds of gold,

with the sword of Brennus thrown on the Gallic side of the scale to

insure good weight, the amount could not have been raised but for the

self-sacrifice of the matrons. In gratitude for this, the Conscript

Fathers voted that thenceforth funeral orations might be made for women.

The gold was afterward repaid to the women out of Etrurian plunder.

Again, when, in accordance with the vow of Camillus, a tribute was to be

presented to Apollo, the matrons brought what they possessed of the

precious metal, it was especially honored by being made into a golden

bowl, which was carried to Delphos. On this occasion also they were

rewarded; for the Senate conferred on them the privilege of riding to

public worship and to the games in covered chariots, and on other

errands in open carriages. The historian introduces this latter

information with "they say"; whether or not, previous to this, the Roman

ladies had been obliged to walk is left to be surmised without further

evidence.

Some Idea of what those golden ornaments were may be gathered from the

account of a voluntary contribution which was made in Rome at a later

period. Funds were required to equip a fleet against Philip of Macedon,

the ally of Hannibal. Lævinus the consul, urging upon his fellow

Senators the duty to set an example of public generosity, says: "Let us

bring into the treasury to-morrow all our gold, silver, and coined

brass, each reserving rings for himself, his wife and children, and a

bulla for his son; and he who has a wife or daughters, an ounce weight

of gold for each. Let those who have sat in a curule chair have the

ornaments of a horse, and a pound weight of silver, that they may have a

salt-cellar, and a dish for the service of the gods ..." Notwithstanding

the fact that, in response to this appeal, the needs of the fleet were

abundantly provided for, the indication is that at this period, about

B.C. 280, the decorative tastes of the Roman ladies had in no wise

acquired that luxuriousness with which they afterward became

characterized. There was no ornament so common as the ring, the place of

which, in these early times when only one was worn, was the third finger

of the left hand. It was used for the purpose of sealing letters and

papers, and long before the end of the Republic the custom arose of

setting rings with precious stones. Indeed, the people of the early

Republic were not unacquainted with most exquisite work of the

goldsmiths' art; but there was still prevalent that consciousness of the

surpassing value of personal excellences which could afford to be

independent of outward adornment, and of which Cornelia's reference to

her sons as her jewels was a surviving echo.

But the times were soon to change. Hitherto we have seen the Roman

matrons living the simple, diligent, unsophisticated lives of women who

were fitting mates for men who held to the plow for support, but dared

not let drop the sword. Until then, Rome had been nothing but a city

struggling for existence--sometimes a precarious existence. Instances

there were when her fortunes waned almost to the vanishing point; when

the tide of progress seemed to hang at the ebb. The god of victory,

though honored as the tutelary deity of Rome, was frequently partial to

her Italian neighbors; her walls were entered and her houses razed by

the barbarian Gauls; and once she was at the point of being deserted by

her citizens, the majority of whom could hardly be restrained by the

ideals of religion from removing the State and the Capitol to Veii. Yet

her star of empire persisted and, despite temporary eclipses, remained

in the ascendant.

How did those centuries of varying civic fortune affect the status of

the women? They were, by the necessities of their circumstances, trained

to endure hardship. The temple of Janus was never closed, for warfare

was unceasing; and it was usual for the widow's wailing death dirge to

be embittered by the fact that the husband had been slain in his

strength and prime. Slavery and outrage, the concomitants of barbarous

warfare, were always included within the possibilities of a Roman

matron's fate. Under such circumstances civilization necessarily

advanced slowly; it is only as life and liberty and leisure are secured

that existence can acquire the social graces. Hence the probability is

that, during the first two and a half centuries of the Republic,--that

is, until Rome was fully launched upon her career of conquest,--the

position and the habits and manner of life of the women did not greatly

change. It is true that there was a continuous internal development of

the State; but this manifested itself in an accentuation of those laws

which reveal the hardness of the old Roman character, rather than in any

tendency toward the easement of the individual lives of the citizens.

Never has personal privilege been so completely subjugated to State

prerogative. The laws, which were rigidly--even slavishly--interpreted

according to the letter and never according to the spirit, considered

the individual from the standpoint of his value to the State, and rarely

from that of his own rights. The woman's value to the State was entirely

submerged in that of her husband. Therefore, we find that it was only

with the greatest difficulty that edicts granting privileges to woman

could be passed, unless it were in payment for some special act of

loyalty on her part to the State. Hard and inflexible in their ideas of

life were those old Romans, practical and unsentimental in their

relations with each other, narrow in their conceptions, proud to

arrogance of their State, and reverencing only their institutions.

But in course of time they broke through their insularity with the force

of their own arms. Victorious contact with other States gave them a

larger acquaintance with the fruits of civilization, and the spoils of

conquest afforded them the means to enjoy it. Hence, during the latter

half of the republican period we see life in Rome rapidly undergoing a

change. As typical of this new state of things, as it affected the

character, status, and condition of women, there is only one woman whom

we need to select. In Cornelia, the daughter of Scipio Africanus and the

wife of Sempronius Gracchus, is found the ideal of Roman femininity of

that day. She was in every way worthy of her patrician ancestry, which

had produced a greater number of eminent men than any other family,

twenty-one consulships being held by the Cornelii in eighty-six years.

Cornelia lived in a Rome which we can understand and appreciate; we

begin to recognize social features upon which the imagination can lay

hold and from them piece together some idea of the reality. Hitherto

the data has been too foreign and too meagre for any great success in

this; but when we read of Cornelia providing herself with a country

house, riding to public worship, listening to the gossip of her friends

respecting each other's jewelry, and interesting herself in Greek

literature, we discover that the main features of a Roman matron's life

were not essentially dissimilar from those which characterize polite

feminine society in our own time. Indeed, there is more to evoke our

sympathetic appreciation in the Rome of B.C. 150 than in the Europe of

A.D. 1000 or in the Asiatic civilizations of to-day. We feel more at

home in the patrician villas than in the mediæval castles; just as we

find more that is applicable to modern life in the Roman poets than we

do in the bards of chivalry. In studying the period when the ancient

civilization of Italy was at its best, we discover habits of thought,

bits of life, and social customs, which really startle us with their

similitude to those to which we ourselves are accustomed.

The city, in the time of Cornelia, showed few outward signs of the

magnificence it was to acquire under the emperors. The houses were

mostly of brick, though domestic architecture had become quite ambitious

in its character, Cornelia herself having built, as has been said, a

very expensive villa at Misenum; those of the wealthy were filled with

costly furniture and precious works of art, which the Romans first

learned to admire in the countries which they subdued; and having

acquired a taste for beautiful things, they made no scruple of

appropriating them. Rome had now grown wealthy with the spoils of her

extensive victories, and, as always comes to pass with the advent of

riches, there had been brought about a great differentiation in the

condition of the population. Polybius gives us a picture of the

extravagant style in which Æmilia, the mother of Cornelia, appeared in

public. "When she left home to go to the temple," says he, "she seated

herself in a glittering chariot, herself attired with extreme luxury.

Before her were carried with solemn ceremony the vases of gold and

silver required for the sacrifice, and a numerous train of slaves and

servants accompanied her." And this notwithstanding the Oppian law,

which limited matrons to a half-ounce of gold on their wearing apparel

and prohibited them from riding in carriages in the city, and which had

not yet been repealed. As this modish lady passed through the streets of

Rome with her brilliant retinue, exciting the envy of other matrons, and

bestowing gracious recognition upon white-robed, stately patricians, she

must have beheld as many signs of abject, suffering poverty as are

prevalent in our own great cities. By this time, the plebeian order had

been raised to equal legal privilege with the patrician, and society had

now come to be divided into the enormously rich and the extremely poor.

The former rendered their position secure by means of extortion in the

provinces; the condition of the latter was made hopeless by the fact

that all labor was performed by slaves. A state of things unknown to the

old times was now prevalent in Rome: men and women were idle, willingly

or perforce, according to their circumstances.

The position of women had also changed. They were now beginning to make

a stand for their rights--a thing undreamed of in the old days. The

father of the family was no longer allowed to execute his arbitrary

power entirely unquestioned. Livy narrates an incident which illustrates

this development and bears interestingly upon the character of Æmilia

and the history of Cornelia. He relates that "the Senators, happening to

sup one day in the Capitol, rose up together and requested of Africanus,

before the company departed, to betroth his daughter to Gracchus; the

contract was accordingly executed in due form, in the presence of this

assembly. Scipio, on his return home, told his wife Æmilia that he had

concluded a match for her younger daughter. She, feeling her female

pride hurt, expressed some resentment at not having been consulted in

the disposal of their common child, adding that, even were he giving her

to Tiberius Gracchus, her mother ought not to be kept in ignorance of

his intention; to which Scipio, rejoiced that her judgment concurred so

entirely with his own, replied that she was betrothed to that very man."

It has been well said that the words which Plautus puts into the mouth

of Alcmena may be applied to the character of Cornelia, who was thus

bestowed by her great father upon a no less worthy man: "My dower is

chastity, modesty, and the fear of the gods; it is love to my kindred;

it is to be submissive to my husband, kind toward good people, helpful

to the brave." She also received a _dot_, an accompaniment of marriage

which was beginning to be highly considered among the matrons of Rome as

of more practical value than the above-mentioned moral qualities. It

consisted of fifty talents of gold. But the time had not yet arrived

when the riches of virtue and goodness were entirely unappreciated;

there were still matrons who could enter, with faces neither brazen nor

abashed, the temple erected to chastity; and upon the tombs of many of

them might have been truthfully inscribed, as upon that of Claudia:

_Gentle in words, graceful in manner, she loved her husband devotedly;

she kept her house, she spun wool_. Among these chaste matrons Cornelia

excelled; her fame remains as that of the highest type of the

pure-principled, noble-minded, cultured Roman matron. She lived in

entire sympathy with her husband; and we may well believe that it was

partly owing to her influence that the generous Sempronius Gracchus

found it in himself to command an army enlisted from among the slaves,

and to emancipate them upon the battlefield as a reward for the bravery

which his leadership incited.

Plutarch, in his lives of the sons of Gracchus, repeats a story which,

though characterized by the superstitions of the times, indicates in

what estimation Cornelia was held by her husband and all who knew her.

It relates that Gracchus once found in his bed chamber a couple of

snakes, and that the soothsayers, being consulted concerning the

prodigy, advised that he should neither kill them both nor let them both

escape; adding that if the male serpent were killed, Gracchus would die,

and, if the female, Cornelia would perish. Therefore, as he extremely

loved his wife, he thought that it was much more his part, who was an

old man, to die than it was hers, who as yet was but a young woman; so

he killed the male serpent and let the female escape. Soon after this,

he died, leaving his wife and the twelve children which she had borne to

him. "Cornelia, taking upon herself all the care of the household and

the education of her children, approved herself so discreet a matron, so

affectionate a mother, and so constant and noble-spirited a widow, that

Tiberius seemed to all men to have done nothing unreasonable in choosing

to die for such a woman; who, when King Ptolemy himself proffered her

his crown and would have married her, refused it, and chose rather to

live a widow. In this state she continued, and lost all her children,

except one daughter, who was married to Scipio the Younger, and two

sons, Tiberius and Caius." The daughter, Sempronia, seems to have been

in every respect unlike her mother. Unattractive and childless, she

neither loved nor was loved by her husband; and, indeed, suspicion was

cast upon her of having brought about his death.

Cornelia was well equipped to undertake the education of her children.

What is told of her indicates a woman who was alert to advance with all

that was progressive in her time. The spirit of literature had but

recently attained its reincarnation, and that for the first time upon

Roman soil. It was begotten, as it was again fifteen centuries later, by

the immortal genius of Greek poesy. The Romans conquered Greece

physically; but Hellenic learning subjugated Roman ideas. The Scipios

were the ardent supporters of Greek culture; and in this, as in all

other respects, Cornelia took a foremost position among the

representatives of her gifted family.

She provided for her children the most erudite of Greek masters, and

spared no efforts in training their minds in the love of all that was

graceful and cultured. In the justly renowned eloquence of her sons,

there was recognized a gift which they inherited from their mother, as

was testified by Cicero, who had seen her letters. She possessed the

ability and also the courage to incite them to noble deeds for their

country. It was probably not so much ambition for herself as for them

which caused her to reproach her sons with the fact that she was still

known as the widow of Scipio and not as the Mother of the Gracchi. But

they lost no time in earning for her, both on account of their deeds on

the battlefield and by their devotion to the civil affairs of the State,

the distinction of this latter title.

The Roman Republic had so far degenerated as to submit to be governed by

an oligarchy consisting of a few proud and wealthy families--the worst

of all forms of government. The Senators were flagrantly using their

power to accumulate enormous riches and to monopolize the land by

seizing upon the public domain. Middle-class independence was rapidly

diminishing, and the growing masses of the people were oppressed by a

poverty from which they had no means of freeing themselves. The Gracchi

sought to relieve these evils by passing laws limiting the amount of

land which might be held by one person, and offsetting the power of the

nobility by securing the economic independence of the people. The

Gracchi were reformers; and they each in turn attained to dictatorial

power. But though they secured the enactment of their measures, they

could not put them into effect; and in the end,--as is frequently the

case with reformers,--because they were far-sighted enough to see evil

in that which the majority of the rulers considered good, there was

nothing for them but martyrdom. This they suffered in turn: Caius taking

up the work where Tiberius was compelled, by assassination, to

relinquish it.

The parting of Caius from his wife on the morning of his own death is a

scene from a heroic tragedy. He could not be persuaded to arm himself,

with the exception of a small dagger underneath his toga. As he was

going out, Licinia stopped him at the threshold, holding him by one hand

and their little son by the other. She pleaded that he would not expose

himself to the murderers of his brother. "Had your brother," she urged,

"fallen before Numantia, the enemy would have given back what then had

remained of Tiberius; but such is my hard fate, that I probably must be

a suppliant to the floods or the waves, that they would somewhere

restore to me your relics. For since Tiberius was not spared, what trust

can we place either in the laws or in the gods?" But Caius, gently

withdrawing himself from her embraces, departed; and Licinia, falling in

a faint, was carried as though dead into the house of her brother

Crassus.

Cornelia bore the death of her two sons with her characteristic nobility

of mind. She removed to her seaside home at Cape Misenum; and there she

surrounded herself with learned men, and especially delighted in

entertaining the exponents of Greek literature. She was held in the

highest esteem by all; and her friends desired no greater privilege than

to listen to her reminiscences of her father, Scipio Africanus. She

would proudly add: "The grandsons of that great man were my children.

They perished in the temple and grove sacred to the gods. They have the

tombs that their virtues merited, for they sacrificed their lives to the

noblest of aims,--the desire to promote the welfare of the people." Such

was Cornelia; and she was the noblest of the matrons of the Republic. No

greater thing can be said of her than that she gloried most in the

reflected honor which came upon her as being the mother of the Gracchi;

yet she has been deservedly given a high place among the great and good

women of all time.

Roman Women · 第 10 / 36 题