The legal status of women in ancient Rome. Life of ancient Rome

People who are interested in history know a lot about the Roman Empire - and about its rulers, and about laws, and about wars, and about intrigues. But much less is known about Roman women, and after all, not only the family, but also the foundations of society, rested on a woman at all times. And Ancient Rome is no exception.

1. Roman women and breastfeeding

Wealthy Roman women did not usually breastfeed their children. Instead, they handed them over to nurses (usually slaves or hired women) with whom they entered into a contract for feeding. Soranus, author of a well-known 2nd-century work on gynecology, wrote that the milk of a nurse may be preferable in the first days after birth. He justified this by the fact that the mother may be too emaciated to fully breastfeed. He also disapproved of feeding too often because the baby was hungry, and recommended that at six months of age, the baby should already be switched to "solid" food, such as bread dipped in wine.

But this did not find support among the majority of Roman doctors and philosophers. They suggested that mother's milk is better for the health of the child, on the basis that "the nurse may pass on the slavish defects of her character to the child." These same people expressed the opinion that women who do not breastfeed their child are lazy, vain and unnatural mothers who only care about their figures.

2. Barbie Doll for Girls of Ancient Rome

Childhood ended very quickly for Roman girls. According to the law, they could marry at the age of 12. The reason for this was that girls were expected to start giving birth as early as possible (after all, at that time the infant mortality rate was very high). On the eve of the wedding, the girl threw away her childhood things, including her toys.

The same toys could have been buried with her if she died before marriageable age. At the end of the 19th century, a sarcophagus was discovered that belonged to a girl named Kreperea Tryphena, who lived in Rome in the 2nd century. An ivory doll with articulated arms and legs was buried with her. There was even a small box of clothes and jewelry made especially for her next to the doll. But unlike the modern Barbie, the Creperei doll had wide "child-bearing" hips and a rounded belly. Obviously, from early childhood, a girl was trained for the role of a future mother - for an "achievement" that was most valuable for Roman women.

Wooden doll from the sarcophagus of Kreperei Tryphena

3. After the divorce, the child was left with his father

Divorce was a quick, simple and common process in ancient Rome. Marriage was commonly used to facilitate political and personal ties between families. However, marriage bonds could be severed at short notice when they were no longer beneficial to one side or the other.

Unlike today, there was no legal procedure for obtaining a divorce. The marriage was effectively considered over when the husband (or, much less frequently, the wife) announced it. Fathers could also initiate divorce on behalf of their daughters, due to the fact that the father retained legal custody of his daughter even after her marriage. This allowed the bride's family to return the dowry in the event of a divorce. However, some husbands have tried to exploit the legal loophole by claiming they can keep the dowry if their wives are found to be unfaithful.

Women were reluctant to divorce because the Roman legal system favored the father over the mother in the event of a divorce. In fact, Roman women had no legal rights over her own children. However, if it was more convenient for the father, then the children stayed with their mother after the divorce.

A well-known example of this is the case with the daughter of Emperor Octavian Augustus Julia and her mother Scribonia, whom the emperor abandoned after meeting his third wife Livia.

4. Strange cosmetics

Roman women strove to look good. It was believed that the appearance of a woman testifies to the capabilities of her husband. But on the other hand, fashionistas who tried to live up to the ideal of beauty were often ridiculed for it. The Roman poet Ovid (43-17 BC) gleefully sneered at a woman for trying to make her homemade hair dye: “I told you to just leave the dye on, now look at yourself. There is nothing left to paint." In another satirical pamphlet, the writer Juvenal (AD 55-127) tells how a woman tried to make her hair full until it looked like a haystack.

Ancient Rome had a thriving cosmetics industry. While some recipes were quite "intelligent", such as masks made from crushed rose petals and honey, others can be very surprising. For example, spots on the skin were recommended to be treated with chicken fat and onions. Oyster shells were used as an exfoliant, and a mixture of crushed earthworms and oil was used to camouflage gray hair. Other authors have mentioned crocodile dung being used as a rouge. During an archaeological excavation in London in 2003, a small box was found containing the remains of a 2,000-year-old Roman face cream. Upon analysis, it was determined that it was made from a mixture of animal fat, starch and tin.

5. Women's education

The education of women was a contentious issue during the Roman period. Basic reading and writing skills were taught to most girls in Roman schools, and some families used home teachers to teach their daughters more advanced grammar or Greek.

All this was intended to facilitate the girl's future role in managing the household, and also served to make her a more literate, and therefore more interesting, companion of her husband. Although there are very few examples of women writing from ancient times, this does not mean that women did not write. For example, during the excavations of the Roman fort of Vindolanda, letters from soldiers' wives were found.

However, many Romans believed that over-education could turn a woman into a pretentious creature. Worse yet, intellectual independence could be seen as synonymous with sexual promiscuity. However, some elite families encouraged their daughters to study as much as possible.

6. First Ladies

Roman women could not hold any political positions, but they could influence, for example, the results of elections. The frescoes preserved on the walls of Pompeii testify to the fact that women supported certain candidates.

The wives of politicians, meanwhile, played a role that was practically no different from the role of the spouses of modern presidents and prime ministers, building up the image of a “family man” for them. Most Roman emperors built idealized images of themselves with their wives, sisters, daughters, and mothers. Even coins and sculptural portraits were designed to present the "first family of Rome" as a harmonious and cohesive unit, regardless of what was in reality.

When Augustus became the first emperor of Rome, he tried to maintain the illusion that he was "of the people." Instead of expensive clothes, he preferred to wear simple handmade woolen clothes that his relatives knitted for him. Since mating was considered an ideal pastime for a dutiful Roman matron, it contributed to the image of the imperial house as a model of moral propriety.

7. Roman empresses - poisoners and intriguers?

The Empresses of Rome are portrayed in literature and cinema as poisoners and nymphomaniacs who stop at nothing in their path. Augustus' wife Livia was said to have killed him after 52 years of marriage by poisoning the green figs that the emperor liked to pick from the trees around their house. Agrippina is also said to have poisoned her elderly husband Claudius by adding a deadly toxin to his mushroom meal. The predecessor of Agrippina Messalina - the third wife of Claudius - was remembered primarily for the fact that she systematically killed her enemies, and also had a reputation for being insatiable in bed.

It is possible that all these stories were speculations that were dismissed by people who were worried about the proximity of women to power.

Today it is very interesting to see. Silver treasures of that era were found not so long ago.

Last modified: August 24, 2018

When the conversation turns to the history of Rome, its power and greatness, outstanding personalities and their achievements, the names of Roman emperors, famous generals, pontiffs, artists, etc. involuntarily pop up in memory. However, few people know that the most famous women of Rome played a rather significant role in the development and history of the Eternal City. It is about them that will be discussed in this article.

Rhea Silvia - the first woman whose name is associated with Rome

Mars and Rhea Sylvia. Rubens 1617-1620

One of the most important women in the history of Rome is Rhea Silvia, a Vestal Virgin from a noble family, who can rightly be called the progenitor of the Eternal City. According to legend, it was this woman who brought into the world, one of whom founded Rome and became it.

Lucrezia

Tarquinius and Lucretia. Rubens (1609-1611)

Another legendary woman who, by the will of fate, to a large extent influenced the course of history, was Lucretia, who lived in the 6th century BC. The daughter of the Roman consul and wife of the famous military leader Tarquinius Collatinus was distinguished by violent beauty and generosity. Once the son of the Roman king Sextus, threatening with a weapon, dishonored Lucretia. Having told about everything that happened to her husband and unable to bear the shame, she stabbed herself to death. This incident provoked a popular uprising, the result of which was the overthrow of the tsarist government and the birth of the republic.

Livia Drusilla - the most powerful woman in Rome

Among the most famous women of Rome is Livia, the first lady of the Roman Empire. Wife, mother, grandmother, great-grandmother and great-great-grandmother of emperors. Her personality is highly ambiguous, however her influence is clear.

Livia Drusilla. ancient roman statue

At the age of 16, Livia was married to her cousin, Tiberius Claudius Nero, a politician and military leader, from whom she gave birth to two sons. Livia's husband, like her father, was a supporter of the Republicans, after the assassination of Gaius Julius Caesar fought against Octavian. Shortly after the latter's victory at the Battle of Philippi, Livia and her husband were forced to leave Rome to avoid persecution, but returned after some time. It is said that Octavian fell in love with Livia the very moment he saw her. Following this, he took her as his wife. Throughout the career of Emperor Augustus, Livia remained his chief adviser, taking an interest in state affairs, managing finances and bringing the right people to the highest political circles. So the first lady of the empire brought her son Tiberius to power and ensured his unshakable position. By a strange coincidence, in a fairly short period of time, everyone who could inherit power passed into the better worlds: the nephew of Augustus and his own grandchildren. They say it was Livia who helped them, clearing the way for her sons.

Mary the Prophetess - the famous female alchemist

A woman who lived either in the first or third century AD is famous for her inventions, some of which are still used today. Mary the Prophetess, also known as Mary of Coptic and Mary Prophetissa, was the first female alchemist. She found a way to separate liquids into separate substances, invented an apparatus resembling the design of a water bath, etc.

Elena Augusta - a woman of Rome, whose name became a saint

Dream of Saint Helena. Paolo Veronese (c. 1580)

No less outstanding person in history was Flavia Julia Elena Augusta, who lived at the turn of the 3rd and 4th centuries. As the mother of Constantine I, the first Roman emperor to convert to Christianity, this woman became famous for spreading the Christian religion throughout the empire at the end of her life. She led the excavations in Jerusalem, which resulted in the discovery of the Life-Giving Cross and other important relics. In addition, thanks to Elena, numerous Christian churches were erected, including the Church of the Holy Sepulcher, the Basilica of the Nativity in Bethlehem, Rome, etc.

Popess Joanna - a female pope

Popess Joanna gives birth to a child during a church procession. Miniature (1450)

The only woman in the history of Rome to hold the papacy. Her existence still has no evidence, as well as reasonable denials that this is a fictional person. According to legend, Joanna was an Englishwoman born into a missionary family in the German city of Mainz. Being very young, she, dressed in men's clothes, fled with a monk from the Fulda abbey to Athos. After a long pilgrimage, she ended up in Rome, where, by coincidence, she received a position in the papal curia. She later became a cardinal and later head of the Holy See. The revelation happened during one of the processions, when the Popess suddenly gave birth to a son. Until the 15th century, no one denied the fact of the existence of the Popess, but later the reliability of information about this person began to be questioned.

Beatrice Cenci

Beatrice was very young when she was put to death. The life story of this girl, like the plot of a bloody drama, did not leave indifferent either contemporaries or subsequent generations. Exhausted by the hatred of her own father, which was expressed, among other things, in incestuous violence, Beatrice Cenci, having entered into a conspiracy with her brother and stepmother, ventured into a terrible sin - parricide. She was sentenced to death as well as her accomplices, but this caused a wave of indignation and protests in society.

Guido Reni, paints a portrait of Beatrice Cenci in the casemate. Achille Leonardi. 19th century

Despite the fact that modern historians suggest that the murder of Francesco Cenci was committed by Beatrice's beloved Olympio, wanting not only to take revenge on the monster, but also to protect his woman, this tragic story served as the foundation for many literary and artistic works.

Vannozza Cattanei - the most famous mistress of Rome

Not much is known about the origin of this woman, but her love affair with Pope Alexander VI Borgia, which revealed four children to the world, glorified Vanozza and made her one of the most influential representatives of the weaker sex of the second half of the 15th - early 16th century.

Vannozza Cattanei. Innocenzo Francusi, 16th century. Rome, Galleria Borghese

Vanozza Cattanei most likely met between 1465 and 1469, at the age of 23-27. Their relationship lasted a decade and a half and was almost official. This woman was formally considered the mistress of Cardinal Borgia, who later became the Roman pontiff, who ascended the throne of the Holy See under the name of Alexander VI. Their joint children - Giovanni, Cesare, Lucrezia and Gioffre - were officially recognized by the Pope and contributed to their proper position in society.

Julia Farnese

A beautiful, wise and prudent woman who went down in history as another mistress of Pope Alexander VI Borgia, who overshadowed Vannozza Cattanei with her charm.

Lady with a unicorn. Raphael Santi (c.1506)

Giulia Farnese became famous for her frantic desire to exalt the family and increase possessions through her love affair with the pontiff. In particular, she contributed to the career of her brother Alessandro, who, at the age of 25, became a cardinal and bishop of three (subsequently five) dioceses at the suggestion of the Pope. As a result, this brought Alessandro Franese to the papal throne. More about the Farnese dynasty:

Felice della Rovere

One of the most famous and influential women of the Renaissance. Felice was the illegitimate daughter of Pope Julius II, in the world of Giuliano della Rovere, born as a result of his love affair with Lucrezia Normanni. They say that this woman had an influence not only on Julius II, but also on his followers - Leo X and Clement VII, representatives of the Medici family.

"Mass in Bolsena" by Felice della Rovere, depicted by Raphael on one of the frescoes of the Apostolic Palace in the Vatican (1540)

Fornarina - the legendary beloved of the roller maestro

The legendary woman, known as Fornarina (translated from the Italian “Baker”), became famous as the beloved and model of the famous. Margherita Luti - that was her real name - received a nickname from the profession of her father, who worked as a baker.

Fornarina. Rafael Santi. (1518-1519) Palazzo Barberini. Rome

The reliability of her existence is still a matter of controversy and requires research, but legend says that her house was located in the Trastevere area, or rather on Via Santa Dorotea 20. Raphaei's love for Fornarina flared up instantly and died out only with the last beat of the great genius's heart. It is generally accepted that she is depicted by the master on such canvases as "Fornarina", located today in the Palazzo Barberini, and "Donna Velata", stored in the Pitti Palace in Florence. In addition, Fornarina served as a prototype for many other works by Raphael relating to the Roman period of creativity.

Margaret of Savoy - The Queen Mother

Mommsen, in his book on Roman criminal law, writes: “In examining the beginnings of human development, we find that no people has given us so little information about their traditions as the Italians. Rome is the only representative of the Italic race that has gone through historical development; by the time true traditions arose in it, it was already a highly developed nation, strongly influenced by the higher Greek civilization, and at the head of a great national union of city-states. There are absolutely no non-Roman traditions in the early history of Rome. Even for the Romans themselves, these remote ages are shrouded in darkness. We shall search in vain for any recollection of the rise and rise of Rome, both among her impersonal and mythological deities, and in those legal tales placed in chronicles, which are deeply national, despite their narrative form. Rome is a courageous nation that has never looked back on its childhood."

Perhaps Mommsen's remark is more applicable to the sexual life of Rome than to any other aspect of its history - by sexual life we ​​mean the relationship of the sexes. In historical times, we see among the Romans both monogamous marriage and various extramarital relationships (which vary from the most, as we would put it, base to the most refined); but we know practically nothing about how these relationships developed.

Due to limited space, our work on the history of Roman civilization cannot present or critically examine all views on Roman marriage and extramarital affairs. Nevertheless, let us try to reproduce some of the most important views on this problem, views that are now again at the forefront of the discussions of the enlightened world.

In the era of the early republic, the basis of Roman social life was monogamous marriage, in which the husband completely dominated. Father power (patria potestas) ruled the entire life of the Roman family in historical times; we will encounter this again when we talk about education. But it would be wrong to conclude that sexual relations were limited only to marriage based on paternal dominance. On the contrary, as we shall see, free sexual relations, whether we call them “free love” or “prostitution,” coexisted with marriage even in the earliest eras known to us. But how to explain the coexistence of monogamous marriage and such relationships?

Freierr F. von Reitzenstein writes in his book Love and Marriage in Ancient Europe: “Firstly, it is clear that people did not know the full connubium, i.e. legal marriage; secondly, marriage through abduction was common in ancient times. But for the further development of marriage, evidence from Roman law and history is especially valuable. Thanks to the juridical genius of the Romans, we can look at every stage of their development, although this same genius has obliterated the traces of the most ancient epochs to such an extent that we cannot get any idea of ​​​​them. We cannot doubt the existence of matriarchy, which was promoted by the influence of the Etruscans ... Marriage as a binding union, of course, was unknown to the plebeians; accordingly, their children belonged to the mother's family. Such agamic or extramarital relationships still existed in Rome in later epochs and formed the basis of a widely developed system of free love, which soon turned into prostitution of various kinds.

Such opinions, largely based on assumptions, actually go back to the in-depth studies of the Swiss scientist Bachofen. As long as the Mommsenian school of thought prevailed, Bachofen long remained in almost complete oblivion, but now he is once again enjoying universal recognition. In his important work, The Legend of Tanakil - A Study of the Influence of the East on Rome and Italy, he attempts to prove that in ancient Italy the dominion of strong paternal power was preceded by a state of complete matriarchy, represented mainly by the Etruscans. He believes that the exceptional development of patriarchy, which is the predominant type of legal relationship in the historical period, has occurred everywhere, being a tremendous and incomparable achievement of civilization. Us. 22 of his main work "Mother's Right" Bachofen distinguishes three stages in the development of marriage: a primitive stage - indiscriminate sexual relations; middle stage - wife-dominated marriage; the last and highest stage is marriage with the dominance of the husband. He writes: “The principle of marriage and the principle of authority in the family, which underpins marriage, is part of the spiritual ius civile(civil law). This is a transitional stage. Finally, this stage is followed by the highest stage - the purely spiritual authority of the father, through which the wife is subordinated to the husband, and all the significance of the mother passes to the father. This is the highest type of legislation, which was developed by the Romans in its purest form. Nowhere else ideal potestas(power) over his wife and children has not reached such complete perfection; and also nowhere else is the corresponding ideal of a unified political imperium(of the supreme power) was not persecuted so consciously and persistently. Bachofen adds: " ius naturale(natural law) of ancient times is not a speculative philosophical construction, which ius naturale became in a later period. This historical event, a real stage of civilization, older than a purely political status law, is an expression of the most ancient religious ideals, evidence of a stage in the development of mankind ... But the destiny of a person is to throw new and new challenges to the laws of reality, to overcome the material side of his nature, which connects him with the animal world, and in the ascent to a higher and purer life. The Romans banished from their laws the physical and materialistic views of human relationships more consistently than other peoples; Rome from the very beginning was built on the political aspect imperium; in a conscious commitment to this aspect, Rome saw its destiny ... "

We will neither refute Bachofen's opinion nor support it. However, he can refer to such authors as Cicero, who, in his treatise "On the Finding" (i, 2), says this about the primitive state of mankind: "No one has known lawful marriage, no one has seen his lawful children."

Moreover, even modern scholars such as Hans Mühlestein (in his famous books The Birth of the Western World and On the Origin of the Etruscans) follow Bachofen, finding a very strong Etruscan influence throughout the prehistoric development of Rome. And recent excavations have provided strong evidence to support this view. We can probably agree with her, concluding that matriarchy in some form prevailed for centuries before the true development of the Roman family and the Roman state began, based on Patria Potestas, and that the remnants of matriarchy survived in various forms of free sexual relations that coexisted with monogamous marriage recognized by the state. Of course, at the present level of knowledge of history, these are more or less unreliable hypotheses; perhaps in the future, especially when we decipher the Etruscan language, they will turn into historical fact.

After these introductory remarks, let us describe marriage as it was in Rome in historical times.

Until 445 BC. e. official marriage (iustae nuptiae) could only be concluded between patricians - members of the ruling class. Between patricians and plebeians did not exist connubium, that is, there was no such marital relationship that could be recognized in a civil court. Later historians will write that the evil decemvirs were the first to impose a ban on marriages between patricians and plebeians. (Cicero. On the State, ii, 37). But in fact, this prohibition was one of the old laws, which until then were observed only according to custom, and in 445 BC. e. were recorded on the so-called Twelve Tables. Subsequently, after a long and difficult class struggle, the ban was canceled by the tribune Canulei.

In this connection it would be interesting to mention the history of Virginia. Probably, there are no historical facts behind this legend, but it is curious from the point of view of its influence on literature (for example, Lessing's "Emilia Galotti"). Let us cite the legend as Dionysius of Halicarnassus tells it - this version is less known than others. (Dionysius of Halicarnassus. Roman Antiquities, xi, 28):

There lived a plebeian named Lucius Virginius. He was one of the best warriors in Rome and commanded a centuria in one of the five legions that participated in the Aquinas campaign. He had a daughter, Virginia, the most beautiful girl in Rome, betrothed to the former tribune Lucius. (Lucius was the son of Icilius, who introduced the office of tribune and was the first to hold it.) Appius Claudius, head of the Council of Ten, saw the girl when she was in school - at that time schools for children were located around the forum - and was struck by her beauty, for she was already quite mature. Already enslaved by passion, he inflamed it even more, again and again passing by the school. He could not marry a girl, because she was betrothed to another and he himself was married; besides, he despised the plebeians and considered it a disgrace to take a plebeian as his wife; and such a marriage was forbidden by the very law that he personally introduced into the Twelve Tables. So he tried first to seduce her with money. She had no mother, and Appius continually sent people to the woman who had brought her up. He gave this woman a lot of money and promised to give more. He forbade his servants to tell a woman the name of a lover in a girl, ordered only to convey that he is one of those who can destroy or save anyone. However, he did not succeed and only learned that the girl was guarded even more carefully than before.

Completely burning with love, he decided to act bolder. Sending for one of his relatives named Marcus Claudius, a brave man who could help in any matter, he confessed his passion to him. Then, after explaining to Mark what he should say and do, he sent him off to school with a few scoundrels. Mark grabbed the girl and tried to take her away through the forum in front of the citizens. Indignation arose, a large crowd immediately gathered, and he failed to deliver the girl to the appointed place. Then he went to the magistrate. At that time, Appius sat alone on the judges' bench, giving advice and administering justice to those who needed it. When Mark began to speak, the audience began to shout indignantly, demanding to wait until the girl's relatives arrived.

Soon her uncle, Publius Numitorius, who enjoyed great respect among the plebeians, appeared. He brought with him many friends and relatives. A little later, Lucius came, with whom Virginia was betrothed by her father. He was accompanied by a strong detachment of plebeian youths. Barely approaching the judge's bench and not having time to catch his breath, he demanded to be told who dared to seize the daughter of a free citizen and for what purpose. There was silence in response. Then Mark Claudius, the man who seized the girl, made this speech: “Appius Claudius, I did not commit any hasty or violent actions towards this girl. I am her rightful owner, and I am taking her away in accordance with the laws. I'll tell you how it came to be that she belongs to me. From my father I inherited a woman who was a slave for many years. When she became pregnant, his wife Virginia - who was her friend - convinced her to give her the child if he was born alive. The slave girl kept her word, because she gave birth to this girl Virginia, told us that the child was born dead, and she herself gave him to Numitoria. The childless Numitoria adopted the girl and raised her as her own daughter. I didn't know about it for a long time; but now they told me everything. I have many reliable witnesses and I interrogated the slave. And now I appeal to the law, according to which children belong to their true, and not adoptive parents, and according to which the children of free parents are free, and the children of slaves are slaves belonging to their parents' owners. By this law, I claim my right to take the daughter of my slave. I am ready to take this case to court if someone gives me a reliable guarantee that the girl will also be brought to court. But if anyone wants to decide the matter now, I am ready for immediate consideration of the case, without delay and without any guarantees regarding the girl. Let my opponents decide what they prefer."

After Marcus Claudius had presented his case, the girl's uncle made a long speech against him. He said that only when the girl had reached marriageable age and her beauty became obvious, did the plaintiff appear with his shamelessly impudent claim, which, moreover, does not care about its own benefit, but about another person who is ready to satisfy any of his desires, regardless of with nothing. As for the lawsuit, he said that the girl's father would answer it when he returned home from a military campaign; the girl's uncle himself will file a formal counterclaim for possession of the girl and take the necessary legal steps.

This speech aroused sympathy in the public. But Appius Claudius cunningly replied: “I am well aware of the law on pledges for people who are declared slaves - it forbids applicants for possession of these people to keep them until the case is considered. And I will not cancel the law that I have introduced. Here is my solution. In this case, a counterclaim was filed by two people, an uncle and a father. If they were both present, the girl would have to be placed in the care of her father before the case was considered. However, since he is absent, I decide to give the girl to her owner, and to set up reliable guarantees for him that he will bring her to court when her father returns. As for sureties and honest and careful consideration of the case, Numitorius, I will pay great attention to all these issues. In the meantime, give the girl back."

The women and the whole assembly began to wail and complain loudly. Icilius, the bridegroom of the girl, swore that while he was alive, no one would dare to take her away. “Appius, cut off my head, and then take the girl wherever you want, and all other girls and women, so that all the Romans understand that they are no longer free people, but slaves ... But remember - with my death, Rome will suffer either great misfortune or great happiness!

Virginia was captured by her supposed owner; but the crowd behaved so menacingly that Appius was forced to yield for the time being. The girl's father was called from the camp. As soon as he arrived, the case was dealt with. He gave the most convincing evidence of the legitimacy of her birth, but Appius announced that he had long suspected the dubiousness of her origin, but because of his many duties, he had not yet been able to investigate the case in detail. Threatening to disperse the crowd by force, he ordered Marcus Claudius to take the girl away, giving him an escort of twelve lictors with axes.

When he said this, the crowd dispersed. People groaned, hit their foreheads and could not hold back their tears. Claudius wanted to take the girl away, but she clung to her father, kissing him, hugging him and calling him affectionate names. The exhausted Virginius decided on an act unbearably difficult for his father, but appropriate and worthy of a brave free man. He asked permission to hug his daughter one last time and say goodbye to her in private before she was escorted off the forum. The Consul gave him permission to do so, and his enemies stepped aside a little. Her father hugged her, weakened, almost lifeless and clinging to him, called her by name, kissed her and wiped away her abundant tears, and in the meantime slowly took her aside. Approaching the butcher's shop, he grabbed a knife from the counter and pierced his daughter's heart with the words: “My child, I send you free and blameless to the land of the dead; for as long as you live, the tyrant will leave you neither freedom nor integrity!”

The story ends with the overthrow of the decemvir tyrants, but this is no longer interesting to us. It is not known whether this story is based on fact or is a fiction illustrating the overthrow of tyrants, the main thing is that it reflects the growing self-esteem of the inhabitants and their hatred of the noble caste, behaving tyrannically, in this case especially in connection with marriage. Appius considers it below his dignity to enter into a legal marriage with a girl from the lower class, and for this reason he decides on the crime described above; Virginius, on the other hand, is a philistine, proud of belonging to his class and refusing to tolerate iniquity, preferring to kill his daughter than to allow her to enter into a shameful, in his opinion, alliance with a member of another class - also a class whose privileges he can no longer recognize.

If we want to understand the essence of legal marriage in Rome (iustum matrimonium), then first you need to make a difference between marriages in which a woman passes "under the arm" ( in manum) spouse, and those in which this does not occur. What does this phrase mean? Here's what: in girlhood, a woman, like all children, is under the authority of the father. Her father has over her patria potestas. If she marries a man “under whose hand” she passes, this means that she leaves the power of her father and finds herself under power ( manus) husband. If she marries sine in manum conuentione(without falling under the authority of the husband), she remains under the authority of the father or his legal representative - in practice, the husband does not receive rights to her property. In later epochs, in connection with the gradual emancipation of Roman women, independence from husbands in the sense of property rights was an advantage for them; accordingly, they tried to avoid marriages in which they would go into manus their husbands.

marital power ( manus) acquired only through three forms of marriage recognized by a civil court - confarreatio, coemptio And usus. We must consider them in detail insofar as they are relevant to our topic; the finer details - some of them highly controversial - are the legitimate domain of the history of Roman justice.

The oldest and most solemn form of marriage, corresponding to our church wedding, is confarreatio. This word comes from the name of the pie (farreum libum), which was an obligatory part of the ceremony. Dionysius says this about confarreatio("Roman Antiquities", ii, 25): "The Romans in ancient times called marriage, performed through spiritual and temporal ceremonies, confarreatio, expressing all its essence in one word, derived from the name of the spelled used during the ceremony ( far), which we call zea… Just as we in Greece consider barley to be the most ancient grain and under the name oulai we use it when starting sacrifices, so the Romans believe that spelled is the most valuable and oldest of all grains, and without it they do not kindle a sacrificial fire. This custom is still alive; some more costly sacrifices have not changed either. And the ceremony got its name from the fact that wives share with their husbands the most ancient and most holy food, agreeing to share life and fate with them in the same way; in this way, close ties of inseparable kinship are formed between the spouses, and such a marriage is indissoluble. The law requires wives to live only for the pleasure of their husbands, since they have nowhere else to go, and husbands to command their wives as things necessary and inalienable from them.

There is no need to describe the rituals in detail: the main among them was the sacrifice performed by the high priest (pontifex maximus) and the priest of Jupiter (Flame Dialis) in the presence of ten witnesses. The content of some rituals is now almost impossible to decipher. Bachofen interprets the ceremony of such a marriage in The Legend of Tanakil. In later times this form of marriage remained obligatory for the parents of some priests, but became increasingly burdensome. (Tacitus. Annals, iv, 16). Of course, this was the oldest and most aristocratic form of marriage; originally it was a compulsory form of marriage for patricians and existed for a long time along with simpler and less ceremonial forms.

The ratio of other types of marriage to the oldest confarreatio remains a topic of discussion. Nowadays it is generally accepted that the second form ( coemptio) was originally used for marriages among the common people, since the plebeians aristocratic confarreatio was unavailable. A recognized authority on law, Karlova, in her book on the history of Roman law, suggests that coemptio dates back to the time of Servius and was introduced as a legal form of marriage for the plebeians. First marriage through coemptio did not require the wife (if she was a plebeian) to enter the family (gens) husband. This aroused discontent among the common people, as a result of which the law of the tribune of Canulei legally equated coemptio To confarreatio. But the latter continued to exist as a privilege of the patrician class.

The third form of marriage is customary marriage, or usus. The laws of the Twelve Tables stated that continuous cohabitation for a year was to be considered a legal marriage. The main feature of this marriage is in the exceptions, not the rules: if the cohabitation was interrupted for three nights in a row (trinoctium), That manus did not take place, that is, the marriage was completely legal, but the wife did not leave the power of her father under the power of her husband. This was established by the laws of the Twelve Tables. (Gai. Institutions, i, III). Marriage according to custom, according to Karlova, was intended to streamline permanent alliances between foreigners and Romans. And only later it began to be used to free the wife from the power of her husband. As Karlova writes, the widespread use of a form in which a wife could remain outside the power of her husband through trinoctium, dates back to "the times when, after the conquest of Italy, Rome began to think about overseas conquests, about how to free itself from the religious worldview and destroy the old morality." Later we will discuss in more detail what may be called the struggle of Roman women for emancipation; Therefore, the opinion of Karlova will now be left without consideration. It is not known whether this type of marriage appeared "without manus" as a result of a legislative act or simply became legalized over time. However, it is clear that he was known to the poet Ennius during the years of the 1st Punic War.

The three forms of marriage we have considered differ in this respect. At confarreatio the ceremony was attended by the high priest, and the marriage took place simultaneously with manus. At coemptio husband received manus in a special legal ceremony, which in itself was not needed for the wedding ceremony. At usus a year of cohabitation was tantamount to marriage, but manus did not take place, unless during that year there was a break called trinoctium.

legal ceremony coemptio was a joke purchase: the husband bought his wife for a symbolic sum. Console co emphasizes that the husband received power over his wife as a relative, equal to him in position (Karlova). But if the wife submits herself under the authority of her husband, she is not a passive figure in the ceremony, but an active participant in it.

marriage through coemptio was the most common form in the later era. We know that confarreatio was an archaic custom and fell into disuse due to its excessive complexity. Lawyer Guy says that in his day marriage through usus was abolished, partly by law and partly by custom ("Institutions", i, III).

It is beyond the scope of our work to examine in greater detail the relationship between these three forms of marriage. However, it is clear that the rituals performed under all three forms were almost identical. The decision on which rituals to perform was taken by the married parties. Modern scholars (see for example: Reitzenstein. Decree. op. etc.) believe that ceremonies at coemptio And usus descended from the ceremony used in marriage confarreatio, and are just variations of it. Let's try to give a brief summary of the most common rituals, as they are preserved in the descriptions of witnesses.

At a wedding by type confarreatio the high priest and the priest of Jupiter were present; from this we can conclude that the sacred rite took place in a sacred place, probably in the curia or the building of the Senate. But other types of wedding ceremony did not require a special place, and they were performed in the bride's house. Marriage was usually preceded by betrothal, but if it was annulled, this (at least in later times) could not be the basis for legal action (Juvenal, vi, 200; Justinian's Code, v, I, I). At the betrothal ceremony, the groom gave the future bride a payment or an iron ring, which she wore on the ring finger of her left hand. Later, during the betrothal, a marriage contract was usually concluded. The whole betrothal ceremony, as a rule, took place in the presence of guests and ended with a banquet.

The wedding could not be held on some days of the year. For religious reasons, the whole of May, the first half of March and June, the Kalends, Nones and Ides of each month, and numerous Roman holidays fell under this ban. The rituals usually began the day before the ceremony: on that day, the bride took off the dress she wore as a girl and dedicated it to the gods along with her children's toys. Now she was wearing her wedding attire: a specially woven tunic, a woolen sash, and - most importantly - flammeum(large red head covering). Particular attention was paid to her hairstyle. Usually, the bride's hair was braided into six braids with the help of an iron tip of a spear with a curved end. An authoritative source reports that this was later done with a spear taken from the corpse of a gladiator, perhaps because such a weapon was considered endowed with its own mystical power. (Becker. Roman Private Antiquities, v, i, 44). Under a red veil, the bride wore a wreath of flowers picked with her own hands. The rest of those present at the ceremony also wore garlands of flowers.

According to Cicero ("On divination", i, 16, 28), marriage began with divination, held early in the morning; in ancient times, divination was based on the flight of birds, and later on the insides of a sacred sacrifice. In the meantime, the guests were gathering, and the result of fortune-telling was officially announced to them. Then the wedding contract was concluded in the presence of ten witnesses - although this was not necessary. (Cicero. Cit. according to Quintilian, v, 11, 32). After that, the bride and groom solemnly declared that they agreed to marry. When marrying by type confarreatio or coemptio the bride would say: "Quando ti, Caius, ego, Caia" - a formula whose meaning has been the subject of much controversy and which, according to Reitzenstein, means: "If you are the father of the family, then I will be her mother." These words obviously implied that the wife was ready and willing to enter under manus husband and thus join his family (gens). After this statement, the newlyweds were brought to each other, and pronuba joined their hands (pronuba was usually a married woman, symbolizing the goddess Juno. In Claudian (ix, 284), Venus herself appears as pronuba, joining the hands of the bride and groom). After this most important moment of the ceremony, the newlyweds went to the altar to personally offer the main sacrifice. This sacrifice should not be confused with the one offered early in the morning. In ancient times, it consisted of fruit and the cake mentioned above - in accordance with the rules confarreatio; later the victim was an animal, usually a pig or bull. During the sacrifice, the bride and groom sat on two chairs tied together with sheepskin. Auspex nuptiarum, or, when confarreatio, the priest present read the words of the prayer, and the newlyweds repeated them, going around the altar. Then followed congratulations and wishes to the newlyweds, and then a feast (eg, Juvenal, ii, 119).

At last night came. The last stage of the ceremony began - deductio, the procession that accompanied the bride to the groom's house. An ancient custom demanded that the husband snatch the bride from the arms of her mother, to whom she fled for protection. (Festus (“On the Meaning of Words”, 288) is quite clear: “They pretended that the girl was pulled out from under the protection of her mother, and if her mother was not present, from under the protection of the next closest relative, and she was dragged (trahitur) husband.") This custom obviously goes back to primitive marriage through abduction. Then the bride was led to her husband's house in a merry procession - in front were flutists and a boy with torches, then (according to many murals on vases) the newlyweds in a carriage, and around and behind them were guests and any spectators who happened to be nearby. The procession sang "festival" songs - originally of a phallic nature, since the word fescennius derived from facsinum(male sexual organ). It is likely that in ancient times a phallic dance was also performed - this custom we see among primitive peoples. (Reitzenstein. Cit. op.). The songs are known to contain very obscene jokes (see one such song in Acharnians by Aristophanes; cf. Reitzenstein. S. 46). We see an interesting image of such a procession in the famous wedding song of Catullus. It consists of a choir of young men who dined with the groom, and girls - bridesmaids. Here is its beginning:

Youths! Vesper is up. Get up! Vesper from Olympus
Long awaited by us, finally raises its torch.
Therefore, it is time to get up, move away from the abundant tables.
Soon the bride will come, and they will begin to praise Hymen.

The choir of girls replies:

Do you see young men, girlfriends? Stand up!
True, the fire appeared to the evening star because of Eta.
So, the time has come - the young men hastily got up,
They stood up boldly, now they will sing: they need a victory!
To us, O Hymen, Hymen! Praise Hymen, Hymen!

When the procession reached the husband's house, custom required that the wife smear the doorposts with grease or oil and tie them with woolen threads. Then the husband carried his wife over the threshold, because touching the threshold was considered a bad omen for the newlywed. Once inside, the wife performed the rite of taking possession of fire and water: together with her husband, she lit a new hearth, and then she was sprinkled with water. This gave her permission to share her domestic and religious life with her husband.

The finale of the wedding was accompanied by several sacred rites. Pronuba prepared the marriage bed and gave the bride all the necessary instructions. The bride herself prayed to Juno Virginensis and Cincia, the goddess to whom the untying of the belt was dedicated. The husband took off his belt from his wife, and she sat down (probably naked) on the phallus of the god of fertility named Mutun-Tutun. In ancient times, the first sexual intercourse probably took place in the presence of witnesses. It is possible that initially the husband's friends copulated with the bride. According to Bachofen, this was a relic of the free prostitution that preceded the wedding in the primitive era: “Natural and physical laws are alien and even opposed to the marriage bond. Therefore, a woman entering into marriage must atone for her guilt before Mother Nature and go through the stage of free prostitution, during which she achieves marital chastity through preliminary debauchery. In more recent times, the husband's friends threw nuts into the newlyweds' bedroom. Finally, it should be noted that the sexual intercourse of the newlyweds was patronized by a number of deities, whose names indicate that they represented various moments of the sexual intercourse.

The next day, the bride received her relatives and made the first sacrifice to the gods of her new home.

(It should be noted that one of the most important sources for the above description is Becker-Marquardt's Private Antiquities of Rome (1864).)

Now you can ask the next question. What were these marriages really like? What do we know about the married and family life of the Romans at various periods of their history? In old and new writings on Roman morality, one can often read that Roman marriage began to break down already in the early Roman era, at the latest - at the beginning of the empire. This degeneration is supposed to be largely responsible for the collapse of an empire that seemed unshakable. For example, here is a quote from a major authority on Roman married life, A. Rossbach. It is taken from his Roman Wedding and Marriage Monuments (1871): “If we consider these monuments according to the eras in which they were created, they appear to be reminders of a glorious past, of the disciplined family life of the Romans with their domestic rituals. , harsh paternal authority, morality and sacrifice for the good of society, which have made such a strong contribution to the development of the state.

We may be able to find a reliable description of Roman married life from which we can get a reasonably accurate idea of ​​it. Such a description should be sought from Dionysius of Halicarnassus: “Romulus did not allow either the husband to bring his wife to court for treason or infidelity, nor the wife-husband for ill-treatment or unfair divorce. He did not specify in any way the size of the dowry that the wife should bring or that should be returned to her. He did not issue any such laws, except for one - which proved to be suitable in all cases. The law says: "The wife, united with her husband by sacred rites, must share with him all property and all rituals." Although Dionysius speaks of a law introduced by Romulus, his remark does not contradict the assumption that Roman marriage (in the earliest times of any significance for history) was simple and regulated only by an inflexible patria potestas. But it is difficult for the modern mind to see anything outstanding or noble in the life of an ancient Roman woman, who lived in the narrow confines of immutable customs and rigid submission, and her ideal was austeritas(noble severity). The life of a Roman woman, although morally impeccable, “was devoid of the grace that Greek women possessed, and did not have that cheerful charm that brings happiness to a husband” (Becker-Marquardt). Seneca rightly writes that during the 1st Punic War, "immodesty was considered not a vice, but a nightmare."

In addition, a Roman woman who came from a wealthy or noble family had a reputation for being arrogant, haughty, and overbearing, which was a common topic of jokes in Roman comedy. The Roman matron lived quite freely: she did not have to cook and do menial work. She only spun and weaved with the maids, ran the household and raised small children. The Romans (unlike the Greeks) did not have special rooms where a woman led the life of a recluse, hidden from the eyes of all but other women and a few male relatives. She ate with her husband, sitting next to him at the table. However, she was forbidden to drink wine - ancient Roman morality considered this an offense worthy of death. Household members, including her husband, called her domina("hostess"). Her presence was a guarantee of special courtesy in manner and conversation. In that early era, she was not expected to somehow join the culture, and only her husband could stimulate her intellectual development. Women's education was mainly directed to practical purposes. When leaving the house (which she could not do without notifying her husband and without taking a companion), she put on a long stola matronalis(matron's dress). However, she could appear in the theatre, court or at a religious ceremony, and on the street everyone had to make way for her. Touching or somehow pestering her was absolutely forbidden.

In general, the depiction of Roman family life that Plutarch gives in the life of Cato the Elder can hardly be called particularly idealistic. He writes (“Mark Cato”, 20): “He took a wife rather of a good family than a rich one, believing, however, that dignity and some pride are equally characteristic of generosity and wealth, but hoping that a woman of noble birth, fearing everything low and shameful, will be especially sensitive to the good rules that her husband inspires her. He who beats a wife or a child, he said, raises his hand to the greatest shrine. He considered more honorable the glory of a good husband than a great senator, and in Socrates, the famous sage of antiquity, he admired only how invariably condescending and affectionate he was with his quarrelsome wife and stupid children.

Cato had a son, and there was no business so important (not counting only state ones) that he would not put aside to stand next to his wife when she washed or swaddled the newborn. She nursed the baby herself, and often brought the children of slaves to her breast, wishing that such a general upbringing would inspire them with devotion and love for her son. The behavior of Cato after the death of his first wife is very significant. Plutarch says (24): “He himself, distinguished by iron health and unshakable strength of body, lasted the longest, so that even in extreme old age he continued to sleep with a woman and - by no means due to his age - married under these circumstances. Having lost his wife, he married his son to the daughter of Paul, who was the sister of Scipio, and he himself, being a widow, lived with a young maid who went to them on the sly. But in a small house where his daughter-in-law lived side by side with him, this connection did not remain a secret. And then one day, when this wench walked past the bedroom, apparently acting too casually, the old man noticed that his son, without saying a word, really, looked at her with sharp hostility and turned away. Cato realized that his loved ones were unhappy with this connection. Without reproaching or blaming anyone, he, as usual, went to the forum surrounded by friends, and on the way, turning to a certain Salonius, who had previously served as his junior scribe, loudly asked if he had already betrothed his daughter. Salonius said that he would never have dared to do this without first asking his advice. “Well,” Cato remarked, “I found a suitable son-in-law for you, but I swear by Zeus, no matter how old he confuses you: in fact, he is a bridegroom anywhere, but very old.” In response, Salonius asked him to take this care upon himself and give his daughter to whomever he chooses: after all, she is his client and needs his protection; then Cato, without delay, announced that he asked the girl for himself. At first, as was to be expected, Salonius was stunned by this speech, rightly believing that Cato was too old for marriage, and he himself was too insignificant to be related to the house of the consul and victor, but, seeing that he was not joking, he gladly accepted the offer. , and, having come to the forum, they immediately announced their engagement ... Cato had a son from his second wife, named Salonius in honor of his mother.

Another image of family life in the good old days appears in Tacitus in the Dialogue on Speakers: praised for exemplary order in the house and tireless care of children. Some elderly relative was also sought out, whose morals were checked and found to be impeccable, and she was entrusted with the supervision of all the offspring of the same family; in her presence it was not allowed to say or do anything that was considered obscene or dishonorable. And the mother watched not only how the children learn and how they perform their other duties, but also their entertainment and amusements, bringing piety and decency into them. We know that this is how the mother of the Gracchi Cornelia, and the mother of Caesar Aurelius, and the mother of Augustus Atia, who raised their children as the first citizens of the Roman state, led the upbringing of their sons.

These descriptions, especially Plutarch's, show us that what we call love hardly had anything to do with these marriages. Moreover, husband and wife were very often betrothed to each other by parents in early childhood for one reason or another, usually of an economic nature. The earliest age at which one could marry was 15–16; A woman could get married at 12. Tacitus married a 13-year-old girl when he himself was about 25 years old. If, under these conditions, love really arose between husband and wife, then it was more a happy accident than a general rule. Cato the Elder is credited with the following phrase: "All nations rule their women, we rule all nations, but our women rule us." Tacitus also remarked: "A true Roman married not for love and loved without grace or reverence." First of all, the Romans married in order to give birth to heirs - such was their free and natural attitude towards questions of sex.

However, the position of the wife in the family was not subordinate. Vice versa. She was not attached to her husband by any tender feelings; Roman character knew nothing of the kind, especially in the "better" times, that is, in the period of the old republic. But the wife, together with her husband, managed a large household, for good or for evil. In this way, she filled her life, which could seem very mundane to us. Columella vividly depicts it with the following words (“On agriculture”, xii, praef.): “Among the Greeks, and then among the Romans, up to the generation of our fathers, the care of the house lay with the wife, while the father came to his house as a place of rest from the worries of the forum. The house was kept with dignity and respect, with harmony and diligence; the wife was full of the noblest zeal to equal her husband in her diligence. There were no disagreements in the house, and neither husband nor wife demanded any special rights: both worked hand in hand.

In this regard, we must also discuss the issue of motherhood in the life of a Roman woman. We already know of Coriolanus' mother, Veturia, a woman from a legendary past, before whose pride even her son's prowess vanished. Livy (ii, 40) writes: “Then the Roman mothers of the families converge in a crowd to Veturia, the mother of Coriolanus, and to Volumnia, his wife. Whether a common decision prompted them to do this, or just a woman's fear, I could not find out. In any case, they made sure that both Veturia, already advanced in years, and Volumnia, with two sons of Marcius in their arms, went to the enemy camp and that the city, which men could not defend with weapons, would be defended by women with prayers and tears. When they approached the camp and Coriolanus was informed that a large crowd of women had come, then he, who was not touched by either the greatness of the people, embodied in the ambassadors, or the personified fear of God, presented by the priests to his eyes and hearts, was all the more hostile at first against the weeping women. But then one of his close associates noticed Veturia between his daughter-in-law and grandchildren, the most mournful of all. “If my eyes do not deceive me,” he said, “your mother, wife and children are here.” Coriolanus jumped up like a madman and when he was ready to embrace his mother, but the woman, changing her prayers to anger, spoke: “Before I accept your embrace, let me know whether I came to the enemy or to my son, a prisoner or a mother. in your camp? Did my long life and unhappy old age lead me to see you first as an exile, then as an enemy? And you dared to destroy the land that gave you life and nourished you? Is it possible that even though you came here in anger and came with threats, your anger did not subside when you entered these limits? And in the sight of Rome did it not occur to you: “Beyond these walls is my house and penates, my mother, wife and children?” Therefore, if I had not given birth to you, the enemy would not be standing near Rome now, and if I had not had a son, I would have died free in a free fatherland! I have already experienced everything, neither for you there will be more shame, nor for me - more misfortune, and this misfortune will not be long for me to endure; but think of them, of those who, if you move on, will face either an early death or a long slavery. The hugs of his wife and children, the groans of women, who were mourning their fate and the fate of their homeland in a crowd, broke the mighty husband. Embracing his own, he releases them and leads the army away from the city.

Veturia is a legendary person, but Cornelia, the famous mother of the ill-fated Gracchi, appears to us in the bright light of history. As Birt put it, she is the "Roman Niobe": her other sons died early, and the two remaining sons, reformers, died in fierce battles in the streets of Rome.

A tragic fate also befell Agrippina, the mother of Nero, which will be discussed below.

But besides these great historical figures, the simple perfection of the Roman wife and mother appears to us in a multitude of touching and eloquent tomb inscriptions. It is very important that most of them are dedicated to the memory of women not of high birth, but from the middle and lower strata of society. A large number of them are contained in Friedländer's History of Roman Morals. Of course, we cannot quote all of them, but we will give a few characteristic examples. The tombstone of the Republican period reads: “My words are short, traveler: stop and read them. Beneath this poor stone lies a beautiful woman. Her parents named her Claudia. She unfailingly loved her husband and gave birth to two sons. She left one on the ground, buried the other on the breast of the earth. Her words were kind, and her walk was proud. She took care of her house and her yarn. I finished; You can go". Here is another, from the imperial time: “... She was the guardian spirit of my house, my hope and my only love. What I wanted, she wanted, what I avoided, she also avoided. None of her innermost thoughts was a secret to me. She did not know negligence in spinning, she was economical, but also noble in her love for her husband. Without me, she did not taste food or drink. Wise was her advice, lively was her mind, noble was her reputation. The following words are inscribed on the sarcophagus:

“Here lies Amimone, the wife of Mark;
She was kind, pretty and diligent,
A diligent hostess, economical and tidy,
Chaste, venerable, pious and tactful."

These few examples can hardly give an idea of ​​the mass of such inscriptions.

But the most majestic of all the monuments to Roman women is the "Queen of Elegies", written by Propertius for Cornelia, the wife of Aemilius Paulus Lepidus (the last elegy in book IV). After the untimely death of Cornelia, the poet paints her mental image, turning an elegy to those who mourn Cornelia to console their grief. None of the known examples of extensive Roman literature gives us a more delightful and simple picture of the heights to which Roman marriage could rise. Let us end our discussion of marriage in the early Roman era with a quotation from this noble and profound work of the human mind.

Pavel, stop burdening my grave with tears,
It is not given to open the black doors by any prayer.
Once, as soon as the buried one entered the underworld,
Relentless steel blocks the way.
May God hear your prayers in the gloomy chamber,
Still, that deaf shore will drink your tears.
The prayers from above touch; but only the ferryman will accept money,
Shadows from the fires behind a pale door will conclude.
So sad trumpets sounded like a head from below
Setting fire to me, I pulled off the hostile torch from the bed.
How did my marriage with Paul help me here, than my ancestors
Chariots? Or pledges of my glory?
Were the parks less vicious towards me, Cornelia?
Here I am what you can lift with five fingers.
Cursed nights, and you, lakes with lazy currents,
All and the wave that surrounds my legs around,
Although prematurely I entered here innocent,
May a benevolent father judge my shadow.
If, near the urn, the judge Eak is sitting here,
First I received the lot, let my bones judge.
Let the brother sit closer to the Minos chair,
And with great attention the choir will be Eumenides.
Leave your burden, Sisyphus; calm down, wheel of Ixion;
Deceptive moisture let Tantalus have time to grab.
Let Cerberus not cast a shadow on anyone today,
And with the lock not rattling, the chain lies open.
I will speak for myself: if I lie, in punishment
Let the mournful urn of the sisters weigh on my shoulders.
If the glory of whom adorned with the trophies of ancestors,
Africa will name the Numantine grandfathers.
They are also a crowd of maternal Dibons,
And the house is supported by its every difference.
Here, as a pretext, has already given way to marriage torches,
And already a bandage of another hair was wet entwined:
Pavel, I combined with your bed in order to part only like that.
Let this stone say: I had one husband.
I swear by the ashes of my ancestors, before which you, Rome, bow down,
Africa, falling at their feet, with a shaved head lies;
Those who are Perseus, who seemed to imitate their ancestor Achilles,
And with his swaggering Achilles crushed their house,
That I did not soften in any way for myself the law of censorship,
And the lar did not shame us with a single spot.
Cornelia did not harm such magnificent trophies,
No, and in a great family I was exemplary.
My life has not changed: it is all flawless to the end,
We lived in the glory of good between two torches.
Nature gave me direct laws by blood:
So that because of the fear of the judge, I could not be the best.
No matter how severely I was judged by the tablets from the urn,
It is worse not to become one that sat with me.
Not to you, who was able to remove Cibebu from the place with a rope,
Claudia, you are a rare priestess of the goddess in battlements;
Not for you, for whom, as Vesta asked her fire,
The white canvas suddenly revived the hearth again.
Dear your head, I, mother Scribonia, did not shame.
What would you like to change in me, except fate?
Maternally, I and fellow citizens are praised with tears,
Caesar's sighs are my best defense to the bones.
He cries out that his daughter was worthy of blood
life sister; and with all the tears from God flowed.
Nevertheless, I deserved an honorable dress for myself,
Not from a barren house I was seized by fate.
You, my Lepidus, and you, Paul, my joy even after death,
Even my eyes closed on your chest.
Twice I saw my brother in the curule chair;
As soon as he became a consul, then his sister sped away.
Daughter, you were born a model of paternal censorship,
Imitating me, hold on to your husband forever alone.
Support your kind with offspring; untie glad
I am a shuttle, so that fate does not multiply evil.
The female highest is the reward of triumph,
If freely the rumor praises the extinct fire.
Now, as a common pledge, I entrust the children to you.
This concern for them breathes in my ashes.
Do your mother's duty, father; all my dear
This crowd will have to endure your neck.
If you kiss those who cry, kiss them for your mother.
From now on, the whole house has become your burden now.
If you feel sad when they are not there,
Just come in, deceive, wipe your cheeks, kiss.
It will be from you and nights, so that, Paul, lament about me,
So that in dreams you often recognize my face.
And when you start talking to my ghost secretly,
How would you expect my answers to every word.
If, however, the door changes the bed opposite,
And my stepmother will timidly come to my bed,
Children, then demolish and praise your father's marriage,
Captivated by your kindness, she will give you a hand,
And do not praise your mother excessively; compared with the first
She will take offense at her free word.
If he remains, only remembering my shadow,
And he will still appreciate my ashes,
Then learn now to ease the coming old age,
So that the widower had no worries at all.
What is taken away from me, let it be added to your years,
Because of my children, let Paul be happy in his old age.
Let him live well; as a mother, I did not know the loss.
The whole gang followed my funeral.
I protected myself! In tears, you witnesses, stand up,
How grateful the earth pays for life!
Morals will also be introduced into heaven: let me be worthy of merit,
So that my spirit ascends to my ancestors in triumph.

2. Divorce, adultery, celibacy, concubinage

Marriage type confarreatio in early Rome could not be dissolved. But in those days confarreatio was the only legal form of marriage. Consequently, divorce was unknown at that time. Dionysius writes (Antiquities of Rome, ii, 25): “Informed people unanimously believe that in Rome for five hundred and twenty years not a single marriage was annulled. But in the 137th Olympiad, in the consulate of Pomponius and Papirius, a certain Spurius Carvilius (a rather famous person) is said to have separated from his wife, becoming the first to do so. The censors made him swear that he could not live with his wife, because he wanted to have children, and she was barren - but the plebeians have hated him ever since for this divorce (albeit a forced one).

Dionysius also reports that if a wife committed adultery or drank wine, the family council would sentence her to death in the presence of her husband. According to Plutarch (Romulus 22), “Romulus also issued some laws. The most severe of these is that a woman has no right to leave her husband; but a husband can drive his wife away if she has been found guilty of poisoning or replacing children, or has been caught in adultery. It is quite clear that wives (since Rome in those ancient times was a state of men for men) could not divorce their husbands, but husbands could divorce their wives, mainly because of infidelity.

According to the laws of the Twelve Tables, the dissolution of a marriage takes the form of the expulsion of the wife by the husband; according to Valery Maximus (“Memorabilia”, ii, 9, 2), such a divorce occurred in 306 BC. e. The following offenses gave a husband the right to give his wife a divorce: adultery, drinking wine, and peruerse taetreque factum(capricious and disgusting behavior), about which it is difficult to say anything more definite. Much depended on the will of the husband; but, as the above-mentioned passage from Valery Maximus shows, before giving his wife a divorce, the husband was obliged to take a family or friendly council. Here is how Gellius describes the first divorce (“Attic Nights”, iv, 3): “A tradition has been preserved in human memory that for almost five hundred years from the founding of Rome, neither in the City itself nor in Latium there were any lawsuits , no legal rules for marital affairs, because, probably, they did not yet see the reasons for divorce. Yes, and Servius Sulpicius, in a book entitled “On Dowry,” wrote that for the first time legal norms regarding marital affairs became necessary when ... a noble husband Spurius Carvilius, nicknamed Ruga, divorced his wife, who, due to a bodily defect, was barren " . This passage shows that the first dissolution of a marriage in Rome was caused by the barrenness of the wife. According to Becker-Marquardt, this was not the first divorce, but the first, not associated with the shame and condemnation of his wife. In this case, the dowry was kept for the wife, although if the wife was convicted of infidelity, it remained with the husband after the divorce. (The legal formula for divorce without adultery was tuas res tibi habeto - " keep your property to yourself.")

All these descriptions agree that divorce was rare in early Rome. But can we, on this basis, draw a conclusion about high morality in family life? This is a different issue. It should not be forgotten that the law was unknown to acts that would be considered an attack on the foundations of marriage on the part of the husband: the latter's hands were untied. And the freedom of wives was so limited that they rarely had the opportunity to commit an offense, especially in the face of horrific punishment. A wife could not only be expelled with disgrace and dishonor from the house in which she lived, but also put to death by the decision of the family council, which acted in concert with her husband.

In this early era, no penalties were established for infidelity, probably because the husband took matters into his own hands or went to the family council for punishment. For example, Valery Maxim ("Memorabilia", vi, 1, 13) mentions several cases when adultery was punished by flogging, castration or family stuprandus- the last punishment was that the servants and subordinates of the injured husband inflicted sexual dishonor on the unfaithful wife. Similarly, a husband who committed adultery with a married woman, but not with a slave or a prostitute, was subject to severe punishment, although we would also consider this treason. For example, Valery Maxim cites the following story about Scipio Africanus the Elder (“Memorabilia”, vi, 7, 1): “Tercia Emilia, his wife ... was so kind and patient that, having learned about his fun with one of the maids, she pretended that he does not notice anything, so as not to cast a shadow of guilt on Scipio, the conqueror of the world. And in Plautus (“Two Menechmas”, 787 et seq.), the father responds to his daughter’s complaints in the following way:

I often repeated: listen to your husband,
Don't follow him where he goes, what he does.

When she complains about his infidelities, he says:

He is right.
If you push, you will achieve it, you will get in touch with her more strongly.

Then he adds:

Does he give you gold and a dress? edible stock,
Does he provide servants? So be prudent.

Cato, in laconic and prosaic language, describes the whole contrast between the betrayal of a husband and wife (cited in: Gellia. Attic nights, x, 23): “Having convicted your wife of treason, you can safely kill her without trial. But if you commit treason or commit treason with you, she has no right to lift a finger. And yet, if a husband cheated on his wife with a slave, a determined woman knew what to do. This is mentioned in Plautus ("Two Menechmas", 559 ff; "Donkeys", v, 2), and Juvenal (ii, 57). Juvenal speaks of a "dirty mistress" who "sits on a miserable block of wood" and works under the supervision of his wife.

Early Christianity was severely idealistic about sexual relations. The following statement was at least theoretically correct: "In our environment, what is forbidden to women is equally forbidden to men." (Jerome. messages). On the other hand, Augustine is forced to admit: “If prostitutes are expelled from society, it will turn into chaos due to unsatisfied lust” (“On Order”, ii, 12).

So, we have seen that in early Rome there was no legal punishment for adultery committed by both husband and wife. This is confirmed by Cato's statement (quoted from Quintilian, v, 11, 39) that she who is convicted of fornication is simultaneously convicted of poisoning. In the absence of a law directly against treason, this crime was fought in such a strange indirect way. The first legal penalties for treason appear during the moral reforms of Augustus, which will be discussed below. Punishments included exile and forfeiture of certain property rights; corporal punishment was used against those from the lower classes. In more recent times there has been a tendency to tighten these punishments. Constantius decreed that adultery should be punished by being burned alive or drowned in a sack, and Justinian ordered that adulterous wives be imprisoned in monasteries. These later measures can be called, in the words of Mommsen, "pious atrocities."

During the late Republic, in connection with the general improvement in the position of women, divorce became easier and more common. The important point was that marriage without manus could simply be declared as an agreement between two parties. This, of course, led to many frivolous results. Valery Maxim ("Memorabilia", vi, 3, 12) speaks of a marriage that was dissolved because the wife went to the games without the knowledge of her husband. And Cicero, in one of his letters, mentions a wife who got a quick divorce even before her husband returned home from the provinces, simply because she met another man and wanted to become his wife. And we cannot be surprised when we learn that Sulla married five times, Pompey five, Ovid three times. Therefore, it cannot be said that simplified divorce appeared only during the empire - when, nevertheless, marriage and divorce began to be treated even more easily. Seneca writes (“On Good Deeds”, iii, 16, 2): “Does any woman blush from divorce, after some noble and noble women count their years not by the number of consuls, but by the number of husbands and get divorced so that get married and get married to get a divorce? Of course, such a practice did not escape the scourge of Juvenal's stingingly grotesque satire. He writes (vi, 142ff, 224ff):

Why does Sertorius burn with such lust for Bibula?
He loves, to tell the truth, not his wife, but only his appearance.
It is worth the wrinkles to go and dry skin wither,
To become darker teeth, and eyes to decrease in size,
The freeman will say to her: “Take your belongings and get out!
We are tired of you: you blow your nose often; quicker,
Leave alive! Out with a dry nose comes another.

But about a wife who is just as easy to get rid of her husband:

So she tells her husband; but soon she leaves
The kingdom of the wife and changes the family, trampling the veil,
Disappears again - and again comes to the hateful bed;
Entrance a recent dressing, she leaves the curtains,
The house is hanging there, and there are green branches at the door.
So the number increases, and in only five autumn seasons
There will be eight husbands - a feat worthy of a tombstone!

Since there is no doubt that the increased number of divorces had a deeper cause than the "decline of the era", we will leave this topic for the time being and return to it later, in the section on the emancipation of Roman women.

But it would be unfair to blame only women for the so-called decline of marriage. We know that even in early times, men were not too keen on the responsibility of fatherhood. If this were not so, we could not understand why a man who stubbornly refused to marry was subject to punishment by the censors with the imposition of some monetary penalty. Cicero writes ("On the Laws", iii): "Yes, the censors ... forbid remaining celibate." According to Valerius Maximus (Memorabilia, ii, 9, 1), the censorship decree against celibacy was already issued in 403 BC. e. Livy (lix., epit.) and Gellius ("Attic nights", i, 6) tell that in 131 BC. e. the censor Metellus made a famous speech on the subject; it contains significant provisions that vividly illuminate the Roman concept of marriage: “If we could live without wives, all these worries would not be. Nature has arranged it so that we cannot live in peace with them, but we cannot live without them at all, and therefore we must strive for eternal benefit, and not for temporary pleasure. The most interesting thing is that the speaker was happily married, had four sons, two daughters and eleven grandchildren; he spoke from his own experience. From Gellius ("Attic Nights", i, 6, 6) we learn the official point of view: "A state in which marriages are infrequent cannot be safe."

After the war with Hannibal, the lower classes increased in numbers. Now the authors were frankly writing about avoiding marriages. Plutarch writes (On the Love of Offspring, 497e): "The poor do not have children, fearing that if they are malnourished and not educated, they will grow up ignorant, devoid of any virtues." In addition, there were also considerations that Propertius speaks of (ii, 7, 13):

Where can I deliver children for domestic triumphs?
None of my blood should be a soldier.

Seneca gives another reason ("Fragments", xiii, 58): "The most senseless thing in the world is to marry in order to have children so that our family does not stop, or to have support in old age, or to get heirs." Even the state lost its strongest incentive to encourage marriage: it no longer needed a continuous influx of young soldiers for its endless wars. During the long period of peace in the first centuries of the new era, Rome did not need so many warriors to maintain its status or expand its possessions. At that time, it was much easier to lead the lifestyle of one of the characters in Pliny's letters (Letters, iii, 14) - a former praetor, who lived in his villa with several concubines. (Naturally, he was not married.) And finally, for a person familiar with philosophy, the family was nothing but an unnecessary burden. Here is what Cicero said (cited in Seneca, Fragments, xiii, 61): “Hirtius asked Cicero if he would now marry Hirtius’ sister, having parted with Terentia. Cicero replied that he would never marry again, because he could not cope with philosophy and with his wife at the same time. He expresses himself in the following way in “The Paradoxes of the Stoics”: “Or, in our view, the one who commands the woman, establishing her own laws, prescribing, forbidding everything that she pleases, will remain free?”

So, we see that with the gradual liberation of the individual from the shackles of traditional morality and the requirements of society, the number of reasons not to marry increased. This process has been repeated many times in history.

Naturally, the state sometimes tried to curb this process by law, because its very existence was under threat. August was the first to make such an attempt. His decrees on morality were decisive and radical, but they did not have much effect, since state legislation in such cases is always of little help. Mommsen describes them in wonderful terms; they were, in his words, "one of the most impressive and long-lasting innovations in criminal law known to history." They are known as Juliae rogationes and include lex sumptuaria, lex Julia de adulteriis et de pudicitia, lex Julia de maritandis ordinibus And Lex Papia Poppaea- taken between 18 B.C. e. and 9 a.d. e. Their purpose can be described in the words of Becker-Marquardt: “To punish with deprivation of property rights for celibacy of men aged 20 to 60 years and women from 20 to 50 years of age and for childlessness of men over 25 years of age and women over 20 years of age; to give, as an encouragement, various rights and privileges to the parents of three or more children; promote suitable marriages between offspring of senatorial families; and limit divorces by certain rules and regulations.”

Augustus rigidly enforced these laws. What result did he achieve? Let's hear the testimonies of several contemporaries. Suetonius (August 34), describing the law on the order of marriage for all classes, says: “He wanted to make this last law even stricter than others, but violent resistance forced him to abolish or mitigate punishments, allow three years of widowhood or increase rewards. But even after that, one day at the national games, the riders began to insistently demand that he repeal the law; then he, having called the sons of Germanicus, in full view of everyone, put them on his knees to himself and to his father, urging the people with signs and glances not to grumble and take an example from the young father. Cassius Dio (Roman History, 54, 16) reads: “In the Senate there were loud complaints about the promiscuity of women and youth; this licentiousness explained the constant decrease in the number of marriages, and the senators tried to force Augustus to correct the situation by personal example, alluding to his many love affairs. He first replied that the necessary measures had already been taken and that it was impossible to pass a law for all occasions. But then, as the senators continued to pester him, he said: “You yourself would order your wives whatever you see fit. Personally, that's what I do." But after these words, they began to pester him even more, wanting to know what exactly he was ordering Livia. And he was forced to say a few remarks about women's dress and jewelry, the appearance of women in public places and modest behavior - not caring that his words were at odds with his deeds. In another passage, Cassius Dio relates that the emperor made a long and detailed speech in defense of his laws. Although the speech cited by Dion is hardly authentic to the last word, it nevertheless gives an idea of ​​​​the general ideas and tasks of Julian legislation; so here are some quotes from it. (Cassius Dio.

Roman History, 56, 1 et seq.): “During the triumphal games, the horsemen vehemently insisted on the abolition of the law on celibacy and childlessness. Then Augustus gathered in different parts of the forum those horsemen who were unmarried, and those who were married, including those who had children. Seeing that there were much fewer married people than the rest, he was saddened and turned to them approximately with the following speech:

“... Rome was originally only a handful of men; but, having decided to marry and have children, we surpassed the whole world, not only in strength, but also in numbers. We must remember this and overcome our mortality, passing our breed, like a torch, through an endless line of heirs - and thus, by joint efforts, turn our mortality (this is a property of our nature that does not allow us to equal happiness with the gods) into eternal life. It is for this purpose that our Creator, the first and greatest of the gods, divided people into two sexes, male and female, and put love and sexual desires into both, making sure that their union would bear fruit - that new generations would turn even mortal life into immortal ... And of course, there is no greater blessing than a good wife who takes care of your home, looks after your condition, brings up your children, fills your healthy days with happiness and takes care of you when you are sick, shares your joy and comforts you in trouble, curbs your youthful passions and softens the harsh old age ... These are just a few of the benefits that are enjoyed by those who are married and have children. As for the state - for the sake of which we are forced to give up a lot - no doubt, it is honorable and necessary (if we want cities and people to exist, if we want to rule others and that the whole world obeys us) that an abundant population plows in peacetime land, sailed the seas, engaged in arts and crafts, and in war with great zeal would protect not only his belongings, but also his family, and would raise new people to replace the dead ... "Then he turned to unmarried men like this:" What should I call you? Men? You have not yet proven the right to such a name. Citizens? It's your fault that the city is dying. Romans? You are doing everything possible to make the very name disappear... The city is men and women, not buildings, colonnades and deserted forums. Imagine the justified anger that would have seized the great Romulus, our founder, if he compared the time and circumstances of his birth with your refusal to have children even in a lawful marriage ... Those old Romans gave birth to children even from foreigners, and you deny the Romans the right become mothers of your children... You are not so reclusive as to live without women - none of you eat or sleep alone. All you desire is freedom for sensual pleasures and excesses…”

Such was the anti-Malthusian ideal that underlay Augustan legislation. But it did not find decisive supporters; all classes have long fought for the expansion of personal freedoms. The measures taken were doomed to failure - especially since everyone knew that the princeps himself had not cared about the observance of strict moral standards until then. The result was the creation of a hitherto unheard of system of police espionage over the most intimate details of private life and a lot of marriages concluded for purely selfish motives. Seneca says: "What can I say about men, of whom many have married, taking their husband's name only to mock the laws against celibacy?" According to the Digests (xlviii, 5, 8), husbands often profited from the infidelity of their wives and were in fact their pimps. Tacitus writes (Annals, iii, 25): “But on the other hand, the number of those who were in danger grew, because every family, on the slander of scammers, could be ruined, and if before it suffered from corruption of morals, now it is from laws.”

In addition, a law was passed, which we will discuss later, that a woman whose grandfather, father, or husband was horsemen should not be sold for money. So small was the true effect of the Augustan legislation.

One of the most important circumstances that did not allow the law to be of practical use was that it applied only to free-born citizens.

Therefore, slaves and various categories of corrupt women did not fall under it. This allowed men to enjoy sexual gratification outside of marriage just as freely as before. In addition, the freedom of prostitutes must have been very attractive to so-called decent women, who were now subject to legal restrictions, and therefore many of them dressed in the clothes of prostitutes so as not to be interfered with by the law (cf. Digests, xlvii, 10 , 15, 15).

We can end our discussion of the Augustan legislation by noting that for the first time it legally recognizes concubinage, that is, cohabitation outside of marriage. The code placed among its main tasks the encouragement of suitable marriages between senatorial families. At the same time, the law inevitably took into account the presence of "inappropriate" marital relations - for example, if a senator had a desire to marry a freedwoman or a former prostitute or lived with her as husband and wife. All such cases were legally recognized as concubinage. A man could take a woman of his choice as a concubine, instead of marrying her; but he was obliged to report it to the authorities. Such cohabitation outwardly did not differ from marriage, and its consequences were purely legal: children were considered illegal and could not make any claims against their father. Therefore, high-ranking men often took concubines for themselves after the death of their first wife, so as not to damage the rights of children born from her. For example, the emperors Vespasian, Antoninus Pius and Marcus Aurelius lived this way. Concubinage did not contradict the principle of monogamy, since (Paul. Maxims, ii, 29, 1) it was impossible to have a wife and a concubine at the same time. Accordingly, the title of concubine was not humiliating, and it appears on tombstones.

3. Emancipation of Roman women

As we have often mentioned, the early Roman Republic, as far as history allows us to judge, was a state of men for men. We can refer to the important points put forward by M. Werting in his book The Character of Women in a Male State and the Character of Men in a Female State (Karlsruhe, 1921). When he says (p. 35) that "the standards of social behavior in the male state are reversed in the female state," his remark can be applied without reservation to early Rome. The ruling sex - men - had all property rights; during marriage, the wife brought her husband's dowry; men had a "tendency to entrust to the subordinate sex - women - the house and household as their sphere of activity." But Werting singles out many other characteristic features of the male state in connection with family life; and all of them are quite applicable to early Rome, especially the provisions on female chastity, representing a "double moral standard."

Werting further argues that if in a state dominated by one sex, the other sex is liberated, "simultaneously with the loss of power by the ruling sex, the specific functions and nature of the sexes also change." That is, a man, until then acting only as a stern ruler and master, a rude soldier, a powerful and energetic politician, becomes softer, more humane - although these qualities have hitherto been considered unmanly. A woman until then was nothing more than a chaste and modest housewife and mother, but now she emerges as an independent person: she casts off the ties that previously bound her, proclaims her right to happiness and strives for it with all diligence. And at the same time, those who recognized only the male state and its ideology, proclaim its actions as degeneration.

It is this change that occurred in the history of Rome, and it prompts us to ask how the former republic, ruled by men, could become the state that we see developing in the imperial period.

Werting believes the answer is: “As a general rule, the pressure of the dominant sex initially leads to its complete power and complete subordination of the other sex. This power and submission induces the rulers to increase the pressure - to the point when it becomes so strong that it generates opposition instead of submission. Thus, he argues, the course of history is one of oscillation between male and female dominance.

This idea is no doubt attractive. But in ancient Rome the situation was different. The old republican institution of the family gradually changed its nature; but, in our opinion, the reason for this change was purely economic, and now we will justify this.

It was hardly a coincidence that all ancient authors refer to the end of the 2nd Punic War as a turning point in the morality and social tradition of Rome, as well as the beginning of the emancipation of Roman women. At that time, Rome ceased to be a state of farmers. The beginning of these ominous changes is described in the famous passage of Appian ("Civil Wars", i, 7): to send colonists to them from their midst. They considered these colonies as fortified points. In the conquered land, the Romans each time allocated part of it immediately either divided between the settlers, or sold or rented out; the uncultivated part of the land due to wars, the amount of which increased greatly, the authorities did not have time to distribute into plots, and on behalf of the state offered to cultivate it to everyone on the terms of the delivery of the annual harvest in such a size: one tenth of the sowing, one fifth - plantings. The payment for pastures for large and small livestock was also determined. The Romans did all this in order to increase the number of the Italic tribe, which they looked upon as a highly industrious tribe, and also to have allies in their country. But the result was the opposite. The rich, having seized for themselves most of the undivided land, in the course of time came to believe that no one would ever take it from them. The rich, partly bought by the rich, partly with their consent, partly taken by force, located near the lands belonging to them, small plots of the poor. Thus, the rich began to cultivate vast expanses of land on the plains instead of the plots that were part of their estates. At the same time, the rich used purchased slaves as labor force as farmers and shepherds so as not to distract the freeborn with agricultural work from military service. In addition, the possession of slaves brought great benefits to the rich: the offspring of slaves free from military service increased freely. All this led to the excessive enrichment of the rich, and at the same time an increase in the number of slaves in the country. On the contrary, the number of Italians decreased, they lost energy, as they were oppressed by poverty, taxes, military service. Even if they were free from it, they still continued to remain inactive: after all, the rich owned the land, but for agricultural work they used slaves, and not free-born.

Whatever the source of this passage, it shows the inevitable result of Rome's military expansion. The true representatives and continuers of this policy - the old Roman families - gradually died out, and they were replaced by slaves; and the small landowners, who survived numerous wars, turned into an unemployed urban proletariat.

The great conquests in the West and East had other results, described by many authors. It became unprofitable to grow grain in Italy, since the Roman market was flooded with imported grain, which caused a collapse in prices (Livy, xxx, 26). The victorious armies returned home (especially from the East) with great wealth. Livy writes (xxxix, 6): “It was this Asiatic army that first [in 186 B.C. e.] introduced Rome to foreign luxury, bringing with them banquet beds with bronze overlays, expensive capes and bedspreads, carpets and napkins, chased silverware, tables made of precious woods. It was then that it was customary to invite dancers and citharists, jesters and pantomimes to dinners, and the dinners themselves began to be prepared at great expense and diligence.

Polybius confirms ("History", xxxi, 25, as quoted by Athenaeus, "Feasting Sophists", 6, 274 ff): "Cato publicly expressed his displeasure at the fact that many people bring foreign luxury to Rome: they buy a barrel for three hundred drachmas salted fish from the Black Sea and are ready to pay more for a beautiful slave than for an estate. In Velleius Paterculus (“Roman History”, ii, 1) we read about a somewhat later period: “The elder Scipio opened the way for the power of the Romans, the younger for their effeminacy: after all, having got rid of the fear of Carthage, having eliminated the rival in dominion over the world, they crossed over from virtues to vices, not gradually, but swiftly and irresistibly; the old order was abandoned, a new one was introduced; citizens turned from wakefulness to slumber, from military exercises to pleasures, from business to idleness. Then, after all, Scipio Nazika erected a portico on the Capitol, then Metellus built what we have already talked about, then the most beautiful portico of Octavia was built in the circus, private luxury followed public splendor.

If we examine all this evidence with an open mind, we inevitably come to the following conclusion: there has been an economic transformation of a small state of small farmers into a powerful oligarchy of prosperous but uneducated landowners, merchants and financiers, who were opposed by the proletarian class. It is easy to understand that in the course of this economic change there must be civil unrest and characteristic class struggle, as the new wealth and luxury overwhelmed the old morality, opening up unimaginable opportunities for those who could seize and hold on to power. Civil wars between Marius and Sulla, Pompey and Caesar were inevitable. The Gracchi brothers made a last futile attempt to put small farmers on their feet in old Rome, but the era of Sulla was already only a struggle for power and wealth of Rome. Velleius writes (“Roman History”, ii, 22): “The whole state fell into disarray ... greed began to give rise to cruelty, and guilt began to be determined by the amount of property, and whoever was rich was already guilty, everyone himself paid for the threat his life, and nothing seemed dishonorable if it promised profit.

The old organization of the family, with all its restrictions on individual freedom through the dominant patria potestas was doomed to death - although it guaranteed a certain minimum of morality and decency.

And one should not be surprised at this disintegration, if one recalls the similar circumstances of the boom in Germany after the Franco-Prussian War, or even in the period after the First World War. When an entire economic era collapses, it is impossible that the nature and appearance of women remain unchanged, especially when new wealth and new opportunities have a stronger effect on the spirit of women than men.

The average Roman woman of that era saw new and unprecedented opportunities in satisfying her innate vanity, ambition, and sensuality. But deeper natures welcomed the opportunity to receive and improve education, develop their dancing, musical, singing and poetic talents. Ancient literature has preserved for us several examples. Sallust left an excellent depiction of this type of emancipated woman (Catiline, 25). He's writing:

“Among them [supporters of Catiline] was Sempronia, who had already committed more than one crime with masculine determination. In view of her origin and appearance, as well as thanks to her husband and children, this woman was sufficiently exalted by fate; she knew Greek and Latin literature, played the cithara, and danced more gracefully than befits a decent woman; she knew much more about promiscuity. Anything was always dear to her, but not decency and modesty; it was difficult to decide whether she was less careful about money or her good name. She was burned with such lust that she looked for meetings with men more often than they did with her. She had broken her word more than once in the past, swornly denied her duty, was an accomplice in murder; luxury and lack of funds hastened its downfall. However, she had a subtle mind: she knew how to compose poetry, joke, speak modestly, sometimes obscurely, sometimes slyly - in a word, she had a lot of wit and a lot of attractiveness.

Sallust speaks of this lady with a certain passion; but we see that Sempronia was an exceptionally cultured woman who rose high above the level of the average Roman matron. It was women like her who were sung by the German romantics. In essence, she was aware of her rights as a woman and did not pay attention to the prejudices of her honest, but narrow-minded sisters. Naturally, even today such women sometimes get the reputation of an immoral, extravagant, depraved person. To judge Sempronia correctly, we must remember that she came from a distinguished family, being the wife of the consul Decimus Junius Brutus and the mother of Decimus Junius Brutus Albinus, one of Caesar's assassins.

Of course, it is wrong to attribute to education and culture the responsibility for the transformation of a serious matron of ancient times into a lustful and dissolute hetaera. This is proved, for example, by a delightful passage from Pliny. He praises his wife for her quickness of mind (Letters, iv, 19): “She has a very sharp mind, great restraint. She loves me: evidence of chastity. Add to this a love of literature; she was born out of affection for me. She keeps my works, rereads them, even memorizes them. How she worries before my performances and how happy after them! She arranges people who would tell her what exclamations of consent and approval accompanied my speech, what was the outcome of the trial. When I recite, she sits right there behind the curtain and catches my praises with an avid ear. She sings my poems and even accompanies herself on the cithara: she did not have a music teacher; she was taught by love, the best teacher.

But accusing Roman women of immorality has a long history. It is no coincidence that one of the first such complaints appeared almost simultaneously with the beginning of emancipation. Pliny the Elder ("Natural History", xvii, 25) says that the consul Piso Frug around the middle of the 2nd century BC. e. lamented the disappearance of chastity in Rome. And the oldest Roman satirist Lucilius (who lived at the same time), as they say, “stigmatized the excesses and vices of the rich” (“Scholia to Persia”, 3, 1). Similar appearances have appeared over the centuries. They will be enough for more than one book, so a few typical examples will be enough.

Sallust (Catiline, 13) notes that after the era of Sulla, "men began to behave like women, women began to openly trade their chastity." Horace's sixth "Roman Ode" ("Odes", iii, 6) contains the famous accusation:

In sin the rich age is defiled
First marriages, families, births.
Coming out of here, troubles pour
In our homeland, in all the people.
Barely mature, the girl learns
Depraved dances, cunning caresses,
From small years in the depths of the heart
The thought of impure love is cherishing.
And when married, young fans
Looking for a bowl - even without a choice,
Whom with forbidden love,
Having extinguished the light, bestow furtively, -
Oh no, openly, with her husband's knowledge
Runs at the call - will the shopkeeper call
Or a Spanish shipbuilder,
Paying generously for an hour of shame.

Ovid declares with shocking frankness (“Love Elegies”, i, 8, 43): “Only that which is not sought is pure.” Propertius writes in the same vein (ii, 32, 41 et seq.):

Who, with an excess of such debauchery, will ask,
How is she so rich? Who gave? Where did he give?
Oh, what a great happiness for Rome in our age,
If at least one maiden went contrary to morals!
Did after all before her with impunity Lesbia, too.
The one who lives later will deserve blasphemy less.
Ancient Latin women who are here, but strict looking for sabino,
That one, right, recently entered our city with his foot.
You could rather dry the waves of the sea,
And pluck the constellation with a mortal hand from heaven,
How to get our virgins to refuse to sin.
There were, as Saturn rules, such mores,
And how the waters of Deucalion flowed around the world,
And then, like glass of Deucalion's water.
Tell me, how could you keep a bed of chastity?

Interestingly, Propertius does not believe in the high morality of old Rome. He frankly says (ii, 6, 19):

You introduced a crime
Romulus, dashing she-wolf fed himself with milk.
You wholeheartedly inspired the kidnapping of innocent Sabines;
In Rome, now Cupid is impudent from you in every possible way.

Under the emperors, complaints about the promiscuity of women multiplied many times over. Seneca says ("To Helvia", 16, 3): "You did not join the majority of women and escaped the greatest evil of our age, depravity." However, Seneca was too well educated not to know that “our ancestors complained, and we complain, and our descendants will complain that morals are corrupted, that evil reigns, that people are becoming worse and more lawless. But all these vices will remain the same and will remain, undergoing only a slight change, just as the sea overflows far at high tide, and at low tide returns to the shores. At times adultery will be more indulged than other vices, and the bonds of chastity will be broken; At times, excessive care of the body and care for appearance will be widespread, covering up spiritual disgrace. There will be a time when ill-managed freedom will turn into impudence and insolence. From time to time, cruelty in private and public relations and violent internecine wars will spread, during which everything great and holy will be profaned. There will be a time when drunkenness will enter into honor and it will be considered a virtue to drink wine in the largest amount. Vices do not wait in one place: mobile and diverse, they are in turmoil, incite and drive each other away. However, we must always declare the same thing about ourselves: we are evil, we were evil and, I will add with reluctance, we will be evil” (“On Good Deeds”, i, 10). He sums up his thoughts in Letter 97: “You are mistaken, Lucilius, if you think that only our century is guilty of such vices as the passion for luxury, the neglect of good morals, and everything else that everyone reproaches his century. These are the properties of people, not of times: not a single century is free from guilt.

We must remember the words of this calm and impassive thinker in order to consider the complaints of Juvenal and the ridicule of Martial in the right light. Unfortunately, we are too accustomed to listening to their angry exaggerations, and not to the calm reflections of Seneca.

Tacitus in "Germany" contrasts the pure and uncorrupted morality of the Germans with the so-called vicious mores of his contemporaries ("On the origin of the Germans and the location of Germany", 17-19). Elsewhere he says (Annals, iii, 55): “But after the executions began to rage and loud glory inevitably led to death, the rest prudently quieted down and hid. At the same time, new people from municipalities, colonies, and even provinces, who were more and more often admitted to the Senate, brought with them their habitual frugality, and although many among them, through luck or diligence, acquired wealth in old age, they nevertheless retained their former inclinations. But most of all, Vespasian, who kept the old way of life, contributed to the return to the simplicity of morals. Obsequiousness towards the princeps and the desire to surpass him in unpretentiousness turned out to be stronger than the punishments and intimidations established by the laws. However, perhaps everything that exists is characterized by a certain circular motion, and as the same seasons return, so it is with morals; not everything was better with our predecessors, something commendable and worthy of imitation of descendants was brought by our century. So let this noble competition with our ancestors be continuous with us!”

In support of these claims, many examples of the true heroism of women in the so-called era of decline can be cited; we will mention only a few.

Velleius Paterculus (“Roman History”, ii, 26) talks about female fidelity in the era of Mary: “Let not be forgotten the noble deed of Calpurnia, daughter of Bestia, wife of Antistia: when her husband was stabbed, as was said above, she pierced herself with a sword” . Further, speaking of the time when Antony fought with the assassins of Caesar and entered many of his personal enemies on the proscription lists, he says (ii, 67): , some for slaves, none for sons. This fact is confirmed by many examples from Appian ("Civil Wars", iv, 36 et seq.). He begins with a general remark: "And striking examples of the love of wives for their husbands ... took place here" - and gives numerous examples, of which we will mention only a few of chapters 39 and 40.

“Lentulus, who secretly fled to Sicily, his wife asked to take her with him and for this purpose did not take her eyes off him. He did not want her to be in danger along with him. Having been appointed praetor by Pompey, he informed his wife that he had escaped and was praetor. She, having learned where her husband was, fled from the supervision of her mother with two slaves, with whom she safely made the difficult journey under the guise of a slave, and in the evening crossed from Rhegium to Messina. Easily finding the praetor's tent, she found Lentulus, not in the praetor's pompous surroundings, but with uncombed hair, lying on the ground, in unsightly conditions, all this because of longing for his wife. Apuleius' wife threatened to betray him if he ran alone. And against his will, he took her with him. What helped him in his flight, which no one suspected, was the fact that he set off on a journey with his wife, slaves and slaves, in front of everyone. Antius's wife wrapped him in a bed bag and instructed porters to deliver him from home to the sea for a fee, from where he fled to Sicily.

In later times, we learn about no less devoted wives - so the condemnation of this entire era is, to put it mildly, an exaggeration. Tacitus writes (Annals, xv, 71): “Priscus and Gallus were followed by their wives Argoria Flaccilla and Egnatia Maximilla; the great wealth of Maximilla was at first reserved for her, later taken away; both contributed to her glory.” The famous translator of Tacitus A. Shtar, one of the few scholars of the older generation who did not understand every word of Tacitus literally, remarks on this subject: “A society that fully appreciates such qualities cannot be completely corrupted.” (This case refers to the end of the reign of Nero.) And finally, the most famous of such examples of female virtue is the heroic fortitude of the elder and younger Arria. Here is how Pliny tells about the eldest (“Letters”, iii, 16): “Cinna Pet, her husband, was sick, her son was also sick - both, apparently, mortally. The son is dead; he was a young man of rare beauty and the same nobility. He was dear to his parents both for these qualities and as a son. She prepared the funeral in such a way, arranged the farewell in such a way that her husband did not find out anything; moreover, entering his room, she said that her son was alive and feeling better; to her father’s constant questions, like a boy, she answered: “I slept well, I ate with pleasure.” When long-held back tears broke through, she left the room and then gave herself over to grief; having cried enough, she returned with dry eyes and a calm face, as if leaving her orphanhood behind the doors. To bare a knife, pierce the chest, pull out a dagger and hand it to her husband with the immortal word inspired from above: “No, it doesn’t hurt” is, of course, an act of great glory. But when she did and said it, an undying glory rose before her eyes. Isn't it a greater feat to hide tears, to conceal grief; having lost a son, to play the role of a mother, not expecting immortal glory as a reward. Tacitus tells the following about her daughter (“Annals”, xvi, 34): “He [her husband] turned with admonition to Arria, who expressed her desire to die with her husband, following the example of her mother Arria, and persuaded her not to part with life and not deprive their only support of their common daughter.

As can be seen from these examples of "high" and "low" female morality, the emancipation of Roman women led to the development of a wide variety of character types. This allows us to conclude that emancipation cannot be criticized solely from a moral point of view. Of course, one can view the entire development of society only as a process of progressive sexual liberation of women; but the new freedom found expression not only in the sexual life. First of all, women have economic freedom.

We explained above that under the early Republic, women were economically dependent on men. Initially, marriages were always accompanied hand, which, as we have seen, meant the complete subordination of the wife to her husband. As the old type of marriage, dominated by the husband, gradually began to be replaced by free marriage, women began to enjoy economic freedom. In a free marriage, a woman retained all her property, with the exception of the dowry, which went to her husband. If her father died, she became sui iuris- until then she was completely in his power, but now she either turned out to be the complete mistress of her property, or took a guardian to help her cope with the household. The guardian often entered into a closer relationship with her and in many cases eventually became her lover. Over time, apparently, women began to own a very significant property. If this were not so, there would be no attempts to reduce its size - in 169 BC. e. Lex Voconia prohibited women from receiving inheritance. Gellius (Attic Nights, xvii, 6) reports that Cato recommended the adoption of this law in the following words: “First, your wife brings you a large dowry. Then she receives a lot of money, which she does not give to her husband, but only gives him as a loan. And finally, angry, he orders his debt collector to follow his husband everywhere and demand payment from him. This law is still the subject of debate among scientists. Of course, it could not bring much results, since the laws of inheritance became more and more favorable to women over time, and in the end, under Justinian, both sexes received almost equal rights. The woman was eventually recognized as capable both legally and economically. But these last stages of development took place in an era of the predominance of Christianity, and therefore are beyond the scope of our book.

In addition to the sexual and economic freedom gained by women in early Rome, there was also their political emancipation. It is of much lesser importance than emancipation in sexual and economic life, but it deserves to devote a little discussion to it, since without it the picture of the life of a Roman woman would be incomplete.

Women in Rome had absolutely no political rights. We read in Gellius (Attic Nights, v, 19) that "women are forbidden to participate in popular assemblies." But on the other hand, the Roman matron enjoyed much more personal freedom than the Greek woman. As we have already said, she took part in men's meals, lived in the front of the house and could appear in public, as Cornelius Nepos writes in his preface. According to Livy (v, 25), during the Gallic invasion, women freely donated their gold and jewels to the state, and subsequently received the right to ride on religious holidays and games in four-wheeled carriages, and on ordinary holidays and on weekdays in two-wheeled carriages. In addition, some religious rites were performed exclusively by women - we will talk about this in more detail below. Readers may be reminded of the behavior of women during Coriolanus' attack on Rome. Gradually freeing themselves from the shackles of the old patriarchal family, women created various alliances to protect their common interests. We do not have exact information about this stage, but the authors of the era of Tiberius speak of a pre-existing ordo matronarum- class, almost a community of married women (Valery Maxim. Memorabilia, v, 2, 1). In Seneca ("Fragments", xiii, 49) we find the following words: "One woman appears on the streets in a rich outfit, everyone glorifies the other, and only me, poor fellow, the women's assembly despises and rejects." Suetonius (Galba, 5) also knows about the meetings of matrons - an apparently permanent institution representing women's interests. Under the emperor Heliogabal (Aelius Lampridius. Heliogabalus, 4) for the "senate of women" (mulierum senatus, as Lampridius calls it) a hall was built on the Quirinal, where meetings usually took place conuentus matronalis(collection of married women). However, Lampridius calls the decrees of this "senate" "absurd" and says that they mainly dealt with matters of etiquette. Therefore, they had no political significance. Friedländer's guess (History of Roman Morals, v, 423) may be correct: he believes that these meetings date back to some kind of religious union of women.

There is no political significance in the event that Livy so vividly describes (xxxiv, 1); however, it is essential to understanding the character of the Roman woman, and for this reason we will consider it in more detail. In 215 BC. e., in the terrible tension of the war with Hannibal, the Romans passed a law lex Oppia, which restricted the use of jewelry and carriages by women. However, after the victory of Rome, these harsh measures seemed to be no longer necessary, and women demanded the abolition of this law. It was annulled in 195 BC. e., during the consulship of Marcus Porcius Cato, although this conservative of the conservatives supported him with all his influence and power. Here is what Livy writes:

“Among the concerns that the great wars brought to the Romans, both those that had recently ended and those that were about to begin, an affair arose that would not have been worth mentioning if it had not caused heated debate. The people's tribunes Mark Fundanius and Lucius Valery proposed to repeal the Oppian law. This law led the tribune of the people, Gaius Oppius, to the consulship of Quintus Fabius and Tiberius Sempronius, in the midst of the Punic War; the law forbade Roman women to have more than half an ounce of gold, to wear clothes dyed in different colors, to ride in wagons in Rome and in other cities or around them at a distance of a mile, except for state sacraments. The tribunes of the people Marcus and Publius Junius Brutus defended the Oppian Law and said that they would never allow it to be repealed. Many prominent citizens were in favor of the Oppy Law, and many were against it. A crowd gathered on the Capitol almost every day; all the Romans were also divided into supporters and opponents of the Oppian law, but women could not be kept at home either by admonitions of elders, or thoughts of decency, or the power of a husband: they filled all the streets and all approaches to the forum, begged the citizens who went down to the forum to agree, so that now, when the republic is flourishing and people are getting richer day by day, women should be given back the ornaments that they used to wear. The crowds of women grew every day, as women from the surrounding towns and villages came. Already they had the audacity to annoy their consuls, praetors and other officials with their requests; the most inexorable was one of the consuls - Mark Porcius Cato.

Livy goes on to describe the great oratorical contest between the main opponents, the stubborn Cato and the liberal Valerius; he enumerates all the reasons they gave for the law and for its repeal. The most interesting fragments of their speeches are those in which they express completely opposite views on the character and desired position of women in law and in public life. Cato declared: “Our ancestors did not allow women to decide any business, even private ones, without special permission; they established that a woman is in the power of her father, brothers, husband. We, by the permission of the gods, tolerate that women lead the state, come to the forum, appear at gatherings and in people's assemblies. After all, what are they doing now in the streets and squares, if they do not convince everyone to support the proposal of the tribunes, how do they not insist on the repeal of the Oppian law. And do not hope that they themselves will put a limit to their licentiousness; curb their reckless nature, their indomitable passions. Do this, and bear in mind that the requirements of the Oppian Law are the least of the burdens that our manners place on women, the establishment of our right, which they will somehow bear with their impatient souls. In any business they strive for freedom, and to tell the truth - for licentiousness. Further in his speech, Cato especially condemns the fact that women desire freedom for the sake of greater luxury: “What pretext, more or less euphonious, is this rebellion of women hiding behind? They will answer me: “We want to shine with gold and purple, we want to drive around the city in wagons during the days of festivities and be transported as victors who have triumphed over the law, rejected it, corrected your decisions. Let there be no more limit to our spending and our depraved luxury.

The tribune Valery objects to Cato with the following statement: “Women have taken to the streets before - remember the Sabine women, the women who went out to meet Coriolanus, and other cases. In addition, it is quite legitimate, without risking anything, to repeal the laws as soon as the circumstances that called them to life change, as has happened more than once ... Now all the estates in the state, he says (and here we again quote his words in the version of Livy ), - everyone feels how happily the fate of the state has changed, and only our wives cannot enjoy the fruits of peace and tranquility. We men, when exercising public and priestly offices, put on togas with a purple border, our children wear togas bordered with purple, we allow the officials of the colonies and municipalities to wear bordered togas, and even here in the City, the smallest of the ruling people, foremen of city districts; not only the living are dressed up, but even the dead at the stake are covered with purple. So shall we forbid only women to wear purple? It turns out that you, husband, can cover your horse with a purple saddlecloth, but you will not allow the mother of your children to have a purple cape! Well, even your horse will be smarter than your wife? He points out that, even if this concession is made, women will still remain under the rule of their husbands and fathers: “As long as you live, not one will escape from under your hand, and do not they themselves hate freedom, which gives them widowhood or orphanhood; and as far as their dress is concerned, they prefer to obey you rather than the law. Your duty is not to keep them in slavery, but at hand and guardianship; and it’s more kind to you when they call you fathers and spouses, and not masters ... Women are weak, they will have to obey your decision, whatever it may be; but the more power we have over them, the more moderate it should be.

(See Teifer's excellent book On the History of Women's Emancipation in Ancient Rome.)

It is not known how accurately Livy quotes these speeches. Nevertheless, they convey the atmosphere and attitudes of the opposition; even in the time of Livy, the men of the ruling classes were similarly opposed to the emancipation of women. Readers may be reminded that after this historic meeting of the Senate, women did not rest until what they considered to be outmoded legislation was repealed. But it must not be imagined that after this success the women gained any significant influence in the Roman government. In principle, women both then and later were excluded from politics. But despite this, intelligent and strong-willed Roman women still had a strong political influence through their husbands. Let's not talk about the legendary figures of Tanakil or Egeria; but let us remember Cornelia, mother of the Gracchi, Portia, the famous wife of Brutus, or intelligent and cautious Livia, wife of the emperor Augustus. In the history of late Rome, we see many women with fierce and immoderate ambition: for example, Fulvia bossed Mark Antony to such an extent that he minted her image on silver coins and allowed her (Plutarch. Anthony, 10) "to rule over the ruler and rule over the boss." In the history of the imperial period, we meet such ambitious and powerful women as Agrippina the Younger, mother of Nero, Julia Domna, mother of Caracalla, and Julia Meza, grandmother of Heliogabalus.

4. Free love

We have already said that in early Rome there were various sexual relationships besides marriage. Scientists are still at a loss as to their origin. Since there is no reliable information about the period before the Gallic invasion, it is impossible to determine with any certainty how these sexual relationships arose and developed in the first centuries of Roman history. The testimonies of such biased authors as Livy are consciously or unconsciously aimed at showing the decadent, as they considered, present a better and purer past. Therefore, we cannot say how true the story of the death of the chaste Lucretia is from a historical point of view, nor can we conclude that the early republic was morally superior to the early empire when Livy lived and worked.

In Cicero's speech in defense of Caelius, there is an extremely important fragment that is not read or studied in schools (20): “But if anyone thinks that the love caresses of corrupt women are also forbidden to youth, then he, of course, is a person of very strict morals. - I cannot deny this - and at the same time, he is far from not only the liberties of the present century, but even from the customs of our ancestors and from what was allowed in their time. And really, when did it not happen? When was this condemned, when was it not allowed, when, finally, was there a provision that what was allowed was not allowed?

In the same vein, Seneca the Elder writes (Controversions, ii, 4, 10): “He has done nothing wrong, he loves a prostitute - a common thing for youth; wait, he will improve and get a wife.” And below: "I enjoy the pleasures available to my age and live by the rules set for young people." And according to Horace, even the stern moralist Cato was quite liberal in these matters. Horace says in the Satires (i, 2, 31 et seq.):

Having met a friend once, from the girls going, "Glorious!" -
The wise exclaimed Cato, uttering a great word:
“Indeed: when veins swell from lust,
It is best for young men to come down here and not touch
Married women".

From such passages we can get an idea of ​​the true state of affairs in the early era, especially from Cicero's confident statement that the morality of the ancestors was not so severe as to forbid young people from dealing with prostitutes. So, in this respect, Rome could not have changed or degraded much by the time of Cicero. Another interesting fact is Livy (who claims that for the first time luxury were brought by the army from Asia) writes in his first book that, according to some sources, the shepherds called Larentia, the nurse of Romulus and Remus, lupa. But lupa means both a she-wolf and a woman who is given to anyone. In addition, Livy quite calmly cites the following story from the era shortly after the reign of Porsena (ii, 18): “This year in Rome, during the games, the Sabine youths, out of mischief, took away several girls, and the fleeing people started a fight and almost a battle. It seemed that this petty incident would be a cause for indignation.” Thus, even in those days there were similar figures in Rome.

Paldamus in Roman Sexual Life (1833) on p. 19 draws attention to the fact that “no written language is so rich in words for the crudest of physical sexual relations as early Latin. This is clearly seen in the old dictionaries, namely the dictionaries of Nonius and Festus. All these words are completely devoid of cheerful and playful charm; they are expressions of dull sensuality. One can also quote Plautus' translator, L. Gurlitt (Gurlitt was an honest and unbiased student of the history of civilization; nevertheless, the reviewer scorned his work, calling it "semi-knowledge" for no reason. We quote p. 15 of his "Erotica Plautina"). Gurlitt writes: “In an era famous for its obvious moral degradation, the Romans invented for themselves an ideal past. Until now, schoolchildren are forced to read passages from Roman poets and prose writers that depict a noble, simple people. We can allow educators to use these passages, if we do not forget that reality had a completely different aspect.

It is certainly true that prostitution and the frequent visits of young men to prostitutes were an old and generally recognized custom in Rome; the Romans did not have to wait for the custom to be introduced from Greece. As we have already said, the purity of marriage and the protection of virginity are quite another matter; but for the vulgar and sensual Romans to demand premarital abstinence from young people would be absurd and unnatural.

Let us now turn to a detailed discussion of the phenomena that in Rome were designated as "prostitution" - however one-sided this term may seem from a modern point of view. But first we must draw attention to the fundamental difference between modern prostitution and free sexual intercourse among the Romans. Today, a prostitute is usually called a truly “fallen” woman, that is, a woman who has fallen out of the class of respected citizens. But in Rome, a woman who had sexual intercourse with a man outside of marriage was either a slave (who was not afraid of losing her social status) or a freedwoman (a similar situation), or a free-living member of the upper classes who did not lose respect for her person and her position. It may well have been called immoral in particularly high-moral circles, but one thing is clear: everything to do with sex was considered completely natural and innocent and was much more accessible than it is today. All these ladies of easy virtue - from the mistress and muse of the famous poet to her thousands of nameless sisters - were the servants of Venus and Cupid; their hearts did not break with remorse, and therefore they were not so lowly fallen as modern prostitutes.

Among these priestesses of love, we can distinguish, following Paldamus, several classes. But it is obvious that a woman who was honored to be the beloved of a famous poet, thereby achieved a higher social position than many of her less fortunate sisters, who disappeared without a trace in the abyss of centuries. Is it really possible to distinguish among them the upper and lower classes? Doubtful. But always and everywhere refined men and women remain in the minority: there are very few really sensitive people. Therefore, there is nothing to be surprised when we are told a lot about women who served only the transient sensual pleasures of the average Roman, and little about those who were more valued and more honored. Catullus Lesbia - whoever she really was - was of course a person, and (unless the poet invented it all) she was certainly not Ypsyphylla. Therefore, it would probably be more fair to say that among the many women known to us - the sexual companions of Roman men - there were really memorable personalities, educated and refined, and many others of whom we know only that they satisfied the sensual desires of men.

In another section of the book, we will talk in more detail about the women who inspired famous poets. Paldamus is no doubt right when he says: “And who were those women who were fortunate enough to become famous in the poems (eloquent or not) of their lovers? Of course, they were not matrons, not married women from any social class; and of course they were not prostitutes. They constituted a special class of women, in some respects analogous to freedwomen. With their high education and versatility, they compensated for their lack of citizenship rights and privileges. Sometimes they even dismissed these rights as an unnecessary burden and formed a layer between the aristocracy and the women of the lower classes - between matrona or materfamilias And meretrix>>. It is doubtful whether it is fair to classify such women as Sallustieva Sempronia among this stratum; she belonged to a noble family and was the wife of the consul and the mother of Decimus Junius Brutus Albinus, one of the assassins of Caesar. Therefore, she was not a woman who can only be judged by her sex life. I am much more inclined to see her as one of those emancipated women who were not understood by the neighbors, but not a prostitute. We meet women of this type both in history and at the present time; perhaps they belong to a special type, which Blucher (in his famous book The Role of Sexual Life, ii, 26) calls "free women." “Free women,” he writes, “belong to the intermediate world. Their spirit is under the control of a certain courage; their external manners speak of a lively and exciting character, just as the manners of male artists speak of Hamlet's tenderness and sensitivity. A free woman finds her feminine sex a problem, either by the conscious skill and sophistication with which she pursues her love affairs, or by her struggle for equality with the men who have hitherto oppressed her with their rules and laws. In her final and purest incarnation, a free woman is a researcher and a prophet of what informs the female sex of its highest value - eros ... But it is absolutely certain that in all epochs among all peoples these two types of women have always been very clearly and decisively separated, and they were persecuted or glorified according to how much they were feared. But although these feminine types are subject to social judgment, we must not consider them social types. They are natural phenomena. One woman is born a wife, another a prostitute; and no woman born to free love will become a wife through marriage.”

Blucher's ideas are confirmed by the fact that among the most prominent Roman hetairas (to use the word in the Blucherian sense) were actresses and dancers, and if you go down a level, then harpists and other musicians (such women fall under Blucher's definition of "hetaera" along with emancipated women who freed themselves from the old morality and received the nickname "perverted" from the old Romans). A great lover of such women was Sulla (as already mentioned above); Cicero dined with a certain Kiferis ("Letters to relatives", ix, 26); and judging from one remark by Macrobius, the philosophers especially liked the company of such "educated hetaerae" - which is not difficult to understand.

But the boundary between a prostitute and a woman of a free lifestyle who did not love for money was very shaky. This can be seen from the decree of the beginning of the 1st century AD. e., the time of Tiberius: a decree forbade women whose grandfathers, fathers or husbands were Roman horsemen, to be sold to lovers for money (Tacitus. Annals, ii, 85). In the early days, of course, such cases were much less common, since a woman had fewer opportunities to part with her social position as a matron, which had been strengthened over the centuries.

Now consider true prostitution in early Rome, that is, those cases in which a woman consciously desired to receive money by providing her body for sexual services. First we must point out that for centuries the state did not notice this problem. Mommsen writes in "Roman Criminal Law": "The condescending attitude of the Roman Republic towards intemperance is closely related to the general decline in morality and the appearance of licentiousness, shamelessness and frankness." We give this statement only as evidence of the attitude to this issue in early Rome, disagreeing with the implied implication that the law in this case was generous. The Augustan moral laws contained absolutely nothing new; in Mommsen's sense, the situation has not "improved." But the fact remains that initially the Romans did not know the legal prohibition on other than marriage, sexual relations, although, according to Tacitus (Annals, ii, 85), the aediles kept an official list of prostitutes, "in accordance with the custom of our ancestors."

However, actresses, flutists and dancers who indulged in free love were not included in this list and were not considered prostitutes. If high-ranking women (that is, from aristocratic circles) were engaged in prostitution, they were already subject to a fine during the Samnite War (Livy, x, 31). Later, during the war with Hannibal, they were indeed punished with exile (Livy, xxv, 2). Accordingly, any woman who did not belong to the old aristocracy enjoyed such freedom in her sexual life as she herself desired, with the only exception - professional prostitutes had to be included in the edile list. When the stern Tacitus says that this listing of prostitutes was considered a punishment (“Our ancestors thought that confession of guilt was sufficient punishment for depraved women”), he forgets that very few women who gave their favor for free or for money, attached any -or the value of one's reputation in the eyes of the ruling class. Otherwise, it would be pointless to forbid women of noble birth to enroll on these lists, as they did in order to live freely.

Real professional prostitutes from these lists were exclusively slaves. Women of a free way of life were, as a rule, former slaves, freedwomen; at least they certainly were not Romans by birth.

It is not known when the first brothel opened in Rome. Plautus, no doubt, knew about such establishments. Their detailed description can be omitted, since it is given by Licht in Sexual Life in Greece. Here we can only add that they were located in the second district of Rome, in the Subura quarter, between the Caelian and Esquiline hills. But according to Juvenal and other authors, the houses that served as brothels were located in Vic Patricia, next to the circus of Maximus, and outside the city walls. Juvenal, Catullus and Petronius usually call them lupanaria; Livy, Horace and Martial use the word fornices. By lupanar, preserved in Pompeii, we can judge that there were brothels in every major provincial city. Small dark rooms with obscene paintings leave the impression of a dirty, unhealthy place; however, even at that time, limited measures were taken against infectious diseases through washing and washing. (For more on this see: Bloch. Origin of syphilis, ii, p. 652 et seq.)

The brothel owner was called leno, landlady - lena, their profession was lenocinium. The girls in the brothels were slaves. The trade in these servants of lust must have flourished. Plautus (Persus, 665) pays 100 min. for a girl kidnapped from Arabia. Seneca the Elder (“Controversions”, i, 2, 3) describes the sale of the kidnapped girl: “She stood naked on the shore, and the buyer criticized her, examining and feeling all parts of her body. Do you want to know how the auction ended? Pirate sold, pimp bought. One of the epigrams of Martial (vi, 66) contains interesting details:

Since the girl is not of too good fame,
Like those who sit among the Subura,
Sold under the hammer by Gellian,
But in price it was all low.
Here, to prove her innocence to everyone,
He, forcibly grabbing the girl with his hand,
He started kissing her right on the lips.
Well, what did he achieve with this, you ask?
And six for her did not give hundreds!

I attach great importance to the information that Rosenbaum gives in The History of Syphilis. He says that many prostitutes settled near Maxim's circus and molested men who were sexually aroused by the sadistic pleasure of playing.

In addition to the prostitutes who lived in brothels, there were many girls in Rome, and no doubt in the provincial cities, who were kept for sexual purposes. The owners of hotels, taverns and bakeries often got slaves of this kind to please their customers. (Horace. Epistles, i, 14, 21). There were also street prostitutes scorta erratica. There were many names for them in Latin: noctilucae(night butterflies); ambulatory(in a vagrant way); bustuariae(caretakers of the graves), who practiced their craft in cemeteries, and at the same time were professional mourners; And diobolariae(twopenny), located at the very bottom. This list goes on. The places of work of these women were street corners, baths, backwoods of the city, and - according to Martial (i, 34, 8) - even graves and tombstones.

The large number of these women of easy virtue, no doubt, testifies to the demand for their services. Who were their clients? First and foremost, young people. We have already talked about the liberal views of the Romans on the premarital sexual behavior of men. Therefore, it is not surprising that young bachelors satisfied their instincts with prostitutes. But we must not forget about something else. According to Cassius Dio (Roman History, 54, 16), at the beginning of the empire in Rome there were far fewer free-born women than men. According to Friedländer, the male population exceeded the female population by 17 percent. The inevitable consequence was that many men could not marry even if they wanted to, and therefore had to turn to prostitutes.

In addition to young people, the main clients of prostitutes were soldiers, sailors, many freedmen, slaves and small traders; from Plautus we learn that representatives of the criminal world sometimes met in brothels (Plavt. Punian, 831 ff; "Pseudolus", 187 et seq.; Horace. Epodes, 17, 20; Juvenal, viii, 173ff; PETRONIUS. Satyricon, 7).

Later writers such as Suetonius and Tacitus say that the brothels were frequented and dealt with by prostitutes by particularly depraved members of the imperial household. But that doesn't mean anything. Such sensational news cannot be considered historical truth, although Muller cites it in his Sexual Life of Ancient Civilization (1902), a book useful only as a collection of evidence.

Pohlmann's interesting work "Overpopulation in ancient cities in connection with the collective development of urban civilization" (1884) can be cited. He points out that “the unimaginable accumulation of people who literally lived on top of each other was impossible without various complications of family life, without mixing the sexes and multiplying temptations to such an extent that inevitably undermined the morality of the nation, especially since it had almost no counterbalance in form of moral and intellectual enlightenment of the masses. We can assume - although we do not have exact figures - that prostitution increased dramatically when the population of Rome reached a million. (During the imperial era, the population of the city was 1-2.5 million.) At least significantly, a tax on prostitutes was introduced during the reign of Caligula (Suetonius. Caligula, 40), and the owners of brothels later also had to pay tax (Lampridius. Alexander Sever, xxiv, 3).

Finally, the corresponding recognition or contempt accorded to women of this type is an important testament to the views of the Romans on sexual life. As in the case of male homosexuality, people who had fun with prostitutes did not undermine their reputation, but women who accepted money in exchange for their services lost respect. According to Roman law, a freeborn man could not marry lena or lenone lenaue manumissa(a brothel keeper or a freedwoman of a brothel keeper or keeper); and a senator and his heirs could not marry quaestum corpore faciens(to a woman who lived by selling her body). (

Many people know a lot about the Roman Empire - and about its rulers, and about laws, and about wars, and about intrigues. But much less information about Roman women.

After all, not only the family, but also the foundations of society were kept on a woman at all times. And no exception.

7. Roman empresses - poisoners and intriguers?

The Empresses of Rome are portrayed in literature and cinema as poisoners and nymphomaniacs who stop at nothing in their path. Augustus' wife Livia was said to have killed him after 52 years of marriage by poisoning the green figs that the emperor liked to pick from the trees around their house. Agrippina is also said to have poisoned her elderly husband Claudius by adding a deadly toxin to his mushroom meal. The predecessor of Agrippina Messalina - the third wife of Claudius - was remembered primarily for the fact that she systematically killed her enemies, and also had a reputation for being insatiable in bed.

It is possible that all these stories were speculations that were dismissed by people who were worried about the proximity of women to power.

Women gladiators have been considered legend for many years. However, decades of research have finally made it possible to confirm their existence and role in the ancient Roman culture of gladiator fights. /website/

Female gladiators were often called Amazons. The Romans loved the fights of female gladiators in the arena of the Colosseum, they were considered the likeness of the legendary Amazons from the east. Ancient reliefs depict female gladiators dressed and equipped like male gladiators, but there are still some significant differences between them.

First of all, female gladiators did not wear helmets and tunics; instead of a tunic, they wore a loincloth. They also used a sword called the Gladius, a shield, and wore protective gear on their arms and legs. Some male gladiators didn't use a helmet either, but the women had another reason not to use one - they wanted to show off their hairstyles, i.e. their gender.

Roman gladiator barracks built by the emperor Domitian (81-96 AD), with the Colosseum in the back. Photo: Public Domain

Symbol of Roman vanity

Women gladiators appeared in Rome during a period of decline and luxury. According to the records of Dio Cassius, Petronius and Juvenal, women's fights were very popular, but rare, since there were few female gladiators. They were also used as sex objects for the Roman elite. The fights of female gladiators were part of the life of the top of society, sometimes they were invited to private houses to entertain guests.

Gladiators. Photo: trooper111/CC BY-NC-SA 3.0

The main difference between male and female gladiators is that the women were not slaves. It is possible that in later periods female slaves fought in the arenas, but the first female gladiators were free women, usually wealthy Romans, who loved to fight and saw combat as a form of entertainment, a sport, or wanted to play a special role in society.

According to Tacitus (56-117), noble men did not go to the fights of female gladiators, who were extremely popular. However, he did mention that once the senators disgraced themselves by watching a women's fight in the amphitheatre.

The women did not fight to earn money, because they were already rich. They were looking for attention, excitement and fame. To participate in the competition, they had to obtain special permission from the person who organized the fights.

Mentions of female gladiators in historical records

Female gladiators probably first appeared during the reign of Emperor Nero. The Roman historian Dio Cassius described women's fights organized as a sign of respect for Nero's mother: “In honor of his mother, he (Nero) held the most magnificent and expensive festival for several days in five or six theaters at once ... There was another performance, the most shameful and shocking when men and women, not only of the low, but also of the upper class, became performers in the orchestra, in the circus, in the hunting theater, having lost their dignity ...; they rode horses, slew wild beasts, and fought like gladiators, some of their own accord and some of them under duress.”

Other emperors of Rome also liked to invite women gladiators into their homes, parties and other celebrations in large arenas. There are records of the reign of Emperor Domitian (81-96). “Often Domitian fought at night, and sometimes he released dwarfs and women into the arena to fight against each other,” wrote Dio Cassius.

Dwarfs in the Roman arena. Photo: CC BY-NC-SA 2.0

Septimius Severus also staged women's fights until about 200 AD, and then banned them, not wanting to turn them into a show where noble women behaved obscenely. This view was also supported by Emperor Honorius, who put an end to gladiator fights in 399. The last battle took place in Rome on January 1, 202.

Archeology reveals the mystery

Archaeological evidence has confirmed the existence of the female fighters that were described in ancient Roman texts. One of the most important archaeological evidence is a marble slab in Halicarnassus (Bodrum, Turkey) of the 1st - 2nd centuries, which proves that female gladiators were considered as sexual objects. The plate is currently in the British Museum. It depicts two Amazons, as they were called at that time. The image corresponds to the description of female gladiators by famous ancient writers.

In 2001, the skeleton of a Roman woman, identified as a female gladiator, was found in Southwark, London. She was buried as an outcast outside the main cemetery. The grave contained a pottery lamp depicting a fallen gladiator and a bowl of burnt pine cones planted around the London Amphitheater. However, some researchers are still not sure whether this woman was a gladiator or a gladiator's wife.

Relief depicting two female gladiators at Halicarnassus. Photo: Public Domain

On July 2, 2010, in Credenhill, Herefordshire, England, archaeologists discovered the remains of other women who may have been gladiators. The burial contained a wooden chest bound with three iron bands and hammered with iron nails. The bones of the pelvis and skull were of the usual size, but the bones of the legs and arms were large, that is, these women had strong developed muscles.

Over time, archaeologists may discover more evidence of the existence of female gladiators, then they will go beyond the realm of legend and become a real part of Roman history.