 |
| Aeneas, the mythological founder of Rome, carrying his father and leading his son to their new homeland. |
The Roman concept of familia is not the same as the modern Western notion of family. Legally, the familia was defined as “a number of people who are by birth or by law subjected to the potestas of a paterfamilias.”[2] The familia refers to all the members of a Roman household, including the nuclear family of husband, wife, and their offspring, as well as non-biologically related dependents, such as slaves, adopted children, and nurses. More distant relatives could also be included in the household, however this was not the norm.[3] Families served as the core social and economic units of which the greater Roman society was comprised, and preservation of the institution on social and moral grounds was a “paramount concern” in Roman discourse.[4] Members of a family worked together, usually out of their own home, in agriculture and the production of goods to sustain themselves and contribute to the family’s prosperity. So great was the importance of the estate to a family’s existence that the term familia encompassed not only the people in the household, but property as well.[5]
The public sphere of politics and governance belonged to the men. When Pliny described the exemplary Roman man in his Natural History, four fifths of the listed ideals were related to public life.[6] Males were expected to be active in the public service either in politics, the military, law courts, or as city magistrates. They were educated for these roles early in their youth and trained in the ability to persuade, inform, and please listeners with their speech—essential skills for a public career.[7]
Men carried this leadership role with them into the private sphere of the home. The man was the head of the household and served as the link between the private home and the public world, dealing with the family’s legal matters and the administrative running of the estate.[8] The ideal of male power was epitomized in the position of the paterfamilias, which belonged to a kin group’s eldest capable male.[9] The power vested in the paterfamilias was known as patria potestas. This can be defined as the patriarch’s power, including that of life and death, over all his lawful children and their households. In contrast to some patriarchal cultures, the father’s power did not end when his children came of age and began households of their own. This far-reaching extent of paternal control over children was unique to Roman culture, which Romans interpreted as a sign of their superiority over others, saying, “no other peoples...have such power over our children as we have.”[10] [11]
The ideal male household leader, the bonus paterfamilias, was one of sound moral and economic principles.[12] A properly run household would not spend to excess, but would produce what it needed and sell what it didn’t. Along with economic responsibility, it was also the paterfamilias’ duty to bring the wrongdoings of his sons in his potestas to justice, even executing them, if need be, and to arrange for satisfactory marriages for his daughters. Despite his power, the paterfamilias was also subject to social criticism. Critics condemned patriarchs as malus paterfamilias who mistreated their dependents or who abused the institution of marriage by divorcing many times.[13]
In contrast to the publicly active ideal for Roman men, women’s place in society was the private domestic sphere.[14] Women were barred from all civil and public offices “in the same way children ought not to hold public office.”[15] Women could be acknowledged as Roman citizens in their own right with limited independence and property rights, but they were restricted in their society’s patriarchal belief in feminine physical, moral, and intellectual inferiority. As a result, women’s welfare was dependent on their relationships with men, effectively keeping husbands and fathers in power over those who birthed their heirs.[16] The overall weakness and sexual depravity supposedly inherent in women kept them under constant supervision at home until their marriage, at which time they gained a kind of dignity and public voice.[17]
A woman’s primary role in society was that of a married wife and bearer of legitimate children. Marriage to a lawful wife was the means through which a man safeguarded his family’s livelihood and social position, as ownership of productive land provided the basis of wealth and, consequently, the extent of leisure and resources with which a Roman could engage in public life. The institution of marriage provided households with the regulation of family membership and the legitimate heirs they required to maintain and protect their estates.[18] The essential nature of stable inheritance to society, economy, and even politics in the upper classes, made procreation the singular purpose of marriage and defined a woman’s fundamental duty. [19]
A couple was recognized as legally married when they desired to be man and wife and lived together in such a union with the paterfamilias’ consent. Wives either remained under the potestas of their father upon marriage or, less commonly, were transferred into the manus, or subordination, of their husband. Both patterns preserved the Roman patriarchal system. Divorce and remarriage were common and carried no stigma, yet society still held an ideal that marriage would be life-long.[20]
Any child born of a married woman could lay claim to a familias’ inheritance under the guise of legitimate offspring. Thus, indiscrete sexual behaviour on the part of wives could potentially jeopardize the future stability of the entire family. To eliminate this threat, husbands had absolute ownership over their wives’ reproductive capacity. Adultery brought shame and dishonour upon a woman’s family, making it one of the gravest of offenses, and was the primary justification for divorce.[21] There existed a sexual double standard, however, as adultery was not considered a crime for married men, who were free to seek extramarital sexual pleasure with infamis women—disreputable women “beneath the attention of the law.”[22]
It is difficult to form an accurate picture of the reality of Roman women’s lives, as so few records have been left in their own voices. However, one can gain an understanding of Roman feminine ideals by the sentiments expressed on epitaphs in their memories. Chastity, fidelity, and the bearing of children were clearly valued in Roman women. Other virtues that feature prominently on these memorials include fidelity, and patience, particularly among slave-women.[23] One epitaph’s description of a wife “happy to stay at home” suggests that not all women were content with confinement to the private sphere, but that wives had greater value and approval when they were.[24]
In addition to her reproductive duties, a wife was expected to fulfill a supportive role for her husband and his career.[25] While marriage carried an undeniably pragmatic association with progeny and inheritance, husbands and wives were expected to share a relationship of compatibility, affection, and regard extending beyond their reproductive partnership.[26] Epitaphs reference this concept in their praise of wives as “devoted,”“affectionate,” and, in the case of a woman named Claudia, having “loved her husband with her whole heart.”[27]
Despite their relegation to the home, women had important domestic roles to fulfill that contributed to the economic sustainability of the familias. Writing on the theme of matrimonial virtue, Columella suggests that while women’s domestic work was separate from men’s, it was not less valuable than men’s public business. The ideal he presents is one in which men work in public, women work in private, and their cooperation results in a life-partnership jointly owned and jointly successful.[28]
The time-consuming domestic task of preparing clothes filled much of women’s married lives. Wool-working, exercised by a women in the home, passively industrious and contributing to the productive output of the household, was perceived as the embodiment of feminine virtue in Roman society and is emphasized in many women’s memorial inscriptions. Brides carried spindles at formal marriage ceremonies as a symbol of their impending lives as wives.[29] Columella goes on to write that a lack of concern in women for the working of wool is indicative of a moral decline, and that such women are likely also given to luxury and idleness.[30]
Children in Roman society had a very important social function to fill. Religion served as the focus for the majority of public life, and one of the most important rituals for a Roman citizen was the performance of proper burial rites upon their death. Couples relied on children to outlive them, support and care for them in old age, and perform their burial rites.[31] As important as children were with regards to their role in property inheritance and religious obligations, high infant and child mortality rates added to their value. To be predeceased by one’s children of any age was a tragedy. There was intense grief and a sense of violation of the natural order when parents buried their children, as burial was the service children were meant to perform for them.[32]
As neither men able to coordinate the household’s private affairs, nor as women able to manage the domestic running of the home, the value of Roman children appeared to rest in their potential to fulfill roles later in life. If a child was commemorated upon their death, it was always with reference to its untimely nature and to the dashed hopes of its parents with regards to its future. The most consistently and sentimentally documented deaths of young girls were of brides-to-be who died before their weddings. Two portraits are displayed on the sepulchral altar of Julia Victorina; one side of depicts her as she died, a young girl with short hair and round cheeks. The reverse side depicts her as a full grown woman with pronounced bone structure and an elegant hairstyle—a monument to the wife Julia Victorina should have been, but would never become.[33] Roman discourse presented death before one was able to fulfill one’s societal role was truly tragic.
There is some debate surrounding the nature of the relationship between parent and child in Rome. The height of infant mortality has fueled an argument that parents could not afford to emotionally invest in their offspring until they had passed their vulnerable childhood years, even into their early teens.[34] As much as families desired children for social and economic reasons, many could ill-afford the added drain on resources they imposed, and many unwanted children were abandoned, killed, or exposed.[35] Evidence to this effect has led to a scholarly belief that Romans saw their young children as expendable commodities, and that too many complications prevented parents’ ability to form close, personal attachments with them.
Many factors have since been considered to refute this argument, the most obvious being children’s funerary memorials. Letters of consolation to recently bereaved parents indicate it was in poor taste to mourn young children “to excess.”[36] However, this is indicative of external social pressure and does reveal the inner sentiments of the parents to their loss. Dixon notes diminutives and affectionate phrases on the sepulchral inscriptions of small children as evidence in favour of a Roman value in children as individual persons, including one example that highlights an infant boy’s endearing prattle and warns potential tomb desecrators to show some feeling for “a child’s sweet voice.”[37] Other evidence of parental sentiment towards children can be found in letters written to friends and relatives expressing anxiety over the child’s health and development.[38]
Despite these illustrations of existing parent-child emotional bonds, it is clear that ancient Rome did not share the modern world’s stress on the protection of children’s rights. Young children were apprenticed at early ages and routinely subjected to hard labour, sexual exploitation, and beatings, which suggests a greater emphasis was placed on children’s value in terms of family property. This treatment is one of the factors that has lead scholars to wonder whether Romans viewed childhood as a distinct stage of life or whether they say their children as similar to adults, only smaller.[39]
Terminology found in Roman custody laws attests to an understanding of differentiation among children of different ages. Children under seven years old were referred to as infantes and deemed legally unable to conduct their own affairs at this age.[40] Cicero characterizes children as infirmitas, when they are learning to stand upright, can use their hands, and recognize their caregivers. He describes these children as enjoying playing games and hearing stories and being curious about what goes on around the home.[41] Horace refers to a specific phase of early childhood as those who “can repeat words and stand firmly on the ground,” and describes them as anxious to play and quick to change moods and become upset.[42]
Age seven appears to be considered the end of infancy, at which point the Romans ascribed rationality and a degree of competence to children. Children between seven years and puberty were called impuberes and were legally able to manage some acts on their own, provided they were under the protection of a tutor or guardian.[43] It was between five and seven years that young slaves were considered able to work productively. At this age, children were deemed teachable and responsible for their actions. Parents would separate them into distinct gender roles, give them household responsibilities, and punish them for social misbehaviour.[44]
Puberty and public coming of age ceremonies marked a child’s transition into adulthood and a consequent change between them and their relation to the state. Sons of citizens underwent a public ritual around the age of fifteen at which they donned the toga uirulis, the white toga worn by adult males, and had their hair cut short. The young man would be accompanied by his father and his father’s colleagues to the Forum where his name was recorded as a citizen in the office of Public Records.[45] Entrance into womanhood was associated with a girl’s marriage and the loss of her virginity. Young women commemorated this transition into a new stage of life by offering up her toys and childish clothing to Venus before the marriage ceremony.[46]
The hierarchy and rigid social roles within the Roman family that were intended to maintain a beneficial order and structure in the unit also gave rise to a number of publicly acknowledged tensions and conflicts. For example, a common conflict in families was that of youthful rebellion, highlighted in the strong cultural emphasis on father-son dynamics. Popular tales of paternal brutality towards sons and a literary paranoia of patricide paint gruesome portraits of Roman family life. However, actual limits on paternal power and documentation of father-son relationships suggest that these tales stemmed more out of fear and moralization with regards to power and property than of reality. [47]
It is true that children in patria potestate had few rights, and the wide range as well as the long duration of the father’s power was likely to be daunting and the cause of some resentment among many young people. However, the burden of living under potestas might seem lighter to bear when one considers the lifespan of husbands typically married to much younger wives; many fathers died while their children were still quite young, and fewer than one third of Romans had living fathers by the time they reached their twenties.[48] Also, while the extent of patria potestas was theoretically unlimited, a father’s exercise of this power was tempered in practice, first, by popular opinion, and explicitly restricted by law under the Empire.[49] Even use of ius vitae necesque, the father’s right to execute those in his potestas, was popularly viewed as disturbing and extreme.[50]
While conflict within households and greater kinship groups were inevitable considering the focus on power and property within their relationships, evidence of familial cooperation suggests a family life more bent on assistance and unity than on conflict and struggle. Households linked by kinship provided necessary networks of support for each other, as families tended to turn explicitly to each other for aid in times of crisis. Families with politically ambitious members depended on their extended networks to pool their assets and provide the candidate with the support and resources he needed to obtain political office.[51]
The institution of consilium, for example, allays the concept the dominating paterfamilias to some degree. The consilium was a sort of family council that was called in times of importance, such as legal or social crisis. If the familia was the core unit of the greater Roman society, then the consilium can be seen as the core unit of the famillia. In keeping with traditional social and gender roles, the consilium was headed by the paterfamilias, but family members of varying ages and of both sexes had important membership within it. The selection of a marriage partner for a daughter was traditionally the responsibility of the paterfamillias, but evidence reveals that decisions of that magnitude affecting the entire family were usually jointly made by the consilium. It was also rare for a father to enact serious disciplinary measures against his children without the consilium’s advice.[52]
The context for most of public life was decidedly religion. Romans gathered in the city’s public spaces for festivals, all of which were religious in nature. Roman culture placed a strong emphasis on the inescapable presence on the gods in their lives through the statues, priests, temples, shrines, sacrifices, and processions that pervaded the city. This strong use of religion in uniting Roman citizens had the same effect on families. Each household practiced specific rites associated with the family’s domestic deities. Family members got together in the communal household space, such as the atrium, to celebrate members’ rites of passage as well as family-related festivals and celebrations.[53]
The Lemuria was a festival for commemoration of the dead. This was a time for remember family members who had gone before, not merely as intangible representations of the family’s legacy, but as individuals as they were remembered by the living. Another celebration called the Cara Cognatio is described by Dixon as a sort of family party and means “beloved kindred.” At this time, Romans celebrated the value of familial harmony. The ideal of concordia exemplifies the Roman ideal regarding the family and society in general, suggesting that harmony among its imperial elite would ensure stable government and succession. Concordia was also embedded in the ideal common marriage, with both parties supporting each other in a long-lasting union that provided individual happiness as well as continuing citizenship via offspring as a service to the state.[54]
Both Roman family and public life can be explained by the concept of pietas. Pietas, possibly the highest of all Roman virtues, was a sense of duty and devotion to family, to the gods, and to fellow human beings.[55] It suggested a cyclical relationship of continuous obligation between parents and children as parents took great care in rearing their offspring so that their children could then, in turn, care for and bury their parents in old age.[56] Pietas encompassed not only obligation in duty and the performance of roles, but also an expectation of love and affection for deities, family members, and citizens in general.
Cicero described communities as having their basis in the extension and spreading of relationships involved in marriage and family. He commended the “common blood” among family members for the manner in which it caused people to care for one another and praised the familial sharing of monuments to ancestors, religious rituals, and tombs as “a great thing.”[57] The way in which the family unit prescribed roles and made use of religion, legal institution, and hierarchy to achieve economic sustainability, political status, and social networks of support and affection is directly reflective of the way greater Roman society functioned as a whole. As a society that integrated every aspect of its existence and every one of its members into a structure of strength and mutual support, it is of no surprise that ancient Rome was able to develop into one of the greatest and most noteworthy of civilizations in all of history.
[1] Jane F. Gardner and Thomas Wiedemann, The Roman Household: A Sourcebook (New York: Routledge, 1991), 68.
[2] Ulpian, Digest 50, 16.195, in The Roman Household: A Sourcebook (New York: Routledge, 1991), 4.
[3] Cicero, On Duties 1, 53-55, in The Roman Household: A Sourcebook (New York: Routledge, 1991), 2.
[4] Gardner and Wiedemann, 43
[5] Suzanne Dixon, The Roman Family (Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press, 1992), 5.
[6] Pliny, Natural History 7, 443/139-140, in The Roman Household: A Sourcebook (New York: Routledge, 1991), 47.
[7] Beryl Rawson, Children and Childhood in Roman Italy (New York: Oxford University Press, 2003), 147.
[8] Dixon, 138.
[9] Ibid, 150.
[10] Gaius, Institutes 1.48, in The Roman Household: A Sourcebook (New York: Routledge, 1991), 5.
[11] Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Ancient History of Rome 2, 26, in The Roman Household: A Sourcebook (New York: Routledge, 1991), 13.
[12] Gardner and Wiedemann, 10.
[13] Seneca, On Benefits 4, 27.5, in The Roman Household: A Sourcebook (New York: Routledge, 1991), 62.
[14] Eve D’Ambra, Roman Women (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2007), 12
[15] Ulpian, Digest 50, 7.
[16] D’Ambra, 3.
[17] Ibid, 10.
[18] Ibid, 46.
[19] Rawson, 95.
[20] Dixon, 67.
[21] Ibid, 68.
[22] D’Ambra, 49.
[23] Gardner and Wiedermann, 65.
[24][24] ILS 8402 = CIL VI 11602 (Rome), in The Roman Household: A Sourcebook (New York: Routledge, 1991), 52.
[25] Columella 12, Preface, in The Roman Household: A Sourcebook (New York: Routledge, 1991), 73.
[26] Rawson, 95.
[27] ILS 8403 = CIL I (Rome; second century BCE), in The Roman Household: A Sourcebook (New York: Routledge, 1991), 53.
[28] Columella 12, 73.
[29] Gardner and Wiedemann, 72.
[30] Columella 12, 73.
[31] Dixon, 108.
[32] Ibid, 111.
[33] Altar of Julia Victorina, ca. 60-70 CE, in Roman Women (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2007), 67.
[34] Rawson, 220.
[35] Dixon, 99.
[36] Ibid.
[37] Ibid, 102.
[38] Ibid, 139.
[39] Ibid, 130.
[40] Ibid, 102
[41] Cicero, De finibus 5. 15.42, in Children and Childhood in Roman Italy (New York: Oxford University Press, 2003), 137.
[42] Horace, Ars poetica, 156-178, in Children and Childhood in Roman Italy (New York: Oxford University Press, 2003), 137.
[43] Dixon, 102.
[44] Rawson, 137.
[45] Ibid, 144.
[46] Dixon, 101.
[47] Ibid, 145.
[48] Ibid, 145.
[49] Ibid, 138.
[50] Gardner and Wiedemann, 13.
[51] Ibid, 70.
[52] Dixon, 138.
[53] Rawson, 269-271.
[54] Dixon, 70.
[55] Ibid, 151.
[56] Rawson, 223.
[57] Cicero, On Duties 1, 53-55, in The Roman Household: A Sourcebook (New York: Routledge, 1991), 2.
No comments:
Post a Comment