The Private Life of the Romans Part 3

--58. Names of Slaves.--Slaves had no more right to names of their own than they had to other property, but took such as their masters were pleased to give them, and even these did not descend to their children. In the simpler life of early times the slave was called _puer_, just as the word "boy" was once used in this country for slaves of any age. Until late in the Republic the slave was known only by this name corrupted to _por_ and affixed to the genitive of his master's first name: _Marcipor_ (=_Marci puer_), "Marcus's slave."

When slaves became numerous this simple form no longer sufficed to distinguish them, and they received individual names. These were usually foreign names, often denoting the nationality of the slave, sometimes, in mockery perhaps, the high-sounding appellations of eastern potentates, such names as Afer, Eleutheros, Pharnaces. By this time, too, the word _servus_ had supplanted _puer_. We find, therefore, that toward the end of the Republic the full name of a slave consisted of his individual name followed by the _nomen_ and _praenomen_ (the order is important) of his master and the word _servus_: _Pharnaces Egnatii Publii servus_. When a slave pa.s.sed from one master to another he took the _nomen_ of the new master and added to it the _cognomen_ of the old with the suffix _-a.n.u.s_: when Anna the slave of Maecenas became the property of Livia, she was called _Anna Liviae serva Maecenatiana_.

[Ill.u.s.tration: FIGURE 9. TRAJAN]

--59. Names of Freedmen.--The freedman regularly kept the individual name which he had had as a slave, and was given the _nomen_ of his master with any _praenomen_ the latter a.s.signed him. Thus, Andronicus, the slave of Marcus Livius Salinator, became when freed _Lucius Livius Andronicus_, the individual name coming last as a sort of _cognomen_.

It happened naturally that the master's _praenomen_ was often given, especially to a favorite slave. The freedman of a woman took the name of her father, e.g., _Marcus Livius Augustae l Ismarus_; the letter _l_ stands for _libertus_, and was inserted in all formal doc.u.ments.

Of course the master might disregard the regular form and give the freedman any name he pleased. Thus, when Cicero manumitted his slaves Tiro and Dionysius he called the former in strict accord with custom _Marcus Tullius Tiro_, but to the latter he gave his own _praenomen_ and the _nomen_ of his friend t.i.tus Pomponius Atticus, the new name being _Marcus Pomponius Dionysius_. The individual names (Pharnaces, Dionysius, etc.) were dropped by the descendants of freedmen, who were anxious with good reason to hide all traces of their mean descent.

--60. Naturalized Citizens.--When a foreigner was given the right of citizenship, he took a new name, which was arranged on much the same principles as have been explained in the cases of freedmen. His original name was retained as a sort of _cognomen_, and before it were written the _praenomen_ that suited his fancy and the _nomen_ of the person, always a Roman citizen, to whom he owed his citizenship. The most familiar example is that of the Greek poet Archias, whom Cicero defended under the name of _Aulus Licinius Archias_ in the well-known oration. He had long been attached to the family of the Luculli and when he was made a citizen took as his _nomen_ that of his distinguished patron Lucius Licinius Lucullus; we do not know why he selected the first name Aulus. Another example is that of the Gaul mentioned by Caesar (B. G., I, 47), _Gaius Valerius Caburus_. He took his name from Caius Valerius Flaccus, the governor of Gaul at the time that he was given his citizenship. It is to this custom of taking the names of governors and generals that is due the frequent occurrence of the name Julius in Gaul, Pompeius in Spain, and Cornelius in Sicily.

CHAPTER III

MARRIAGE AND THE POSITION OF WOMEN

REFERENCES: Marquardt, 28-80; Voigt, 318, 449; Goll, II, 5 f.; Friedlander, I, 451 f.; Ramsay, 293 f., 477; Preston, 8 f.; Smith, _matrimonium_; Baumeister, 696 f.; Harper, _conubium_, _matrimonium_; Lubker, 364; Pauly-Wissowa, _coemptio_, _confarreatio_, _conubium_.

--61. Early Forms of Marriage.--Polygamy was never practiced at Rome, and we are told that for five centuries after the founding of the city divorce was entirely unknown. Up to the time of the Servian const.i.tution (date uncertain) the patricians were the only citizens and intermarried only with patricians and with members of surrounding communities having like social standing. The only form of marriage known to them was the stately religious ceremonial called, as will be explained hereafter, _confarreatio_. With the direct consent of the G.o.ds, with the _pontifices_ celebrating the solemn rites, in the presence of the accredited representatives of his _gens_, the patrician took his wife from her father's family into his own (--28), to be a _mater familias_, to rear him children who should conserve the family mysteries, perpetuate his ancient race, and extend the power of Rome. By this, the one legal marriage of the time, the wife pa.s.sed _in manum viri_, and the husband acquired over her practically the same rights as he had over his own children (----35, 36) and other dependent members of his family. Such a marriage was said to be _c.u.m conventione uxoris in manum viri_ (--35).

--62. During this period, too, the free non-citizens (----177, 178), the plebeians, had been busy in marrying and giving in marriage. There is little doubt that their unions had been as sacred in their eyes, their family ties as strictly regarded and as pure, as those of the patricians, but these unions were unhallowed by the national G.o.ds and unrecognized by the civil law, simply because the plebeians were not yet citizens. Their form of marriage was called _usus_, and consisted essentially in the living together of the man and woman as husband and wife for a year, though there were, of course, conventional forms and observances, about which we know absolutely nothing. The plebeian husband might acquire the same rights over the person and property of his wife as the patrician, but the form of marriage did not in itself involve _ma.n.u.s_. The wife might remain a member of her father's family and retain such property as he allowed her (--33) by merely absenting herself from her husband for the s.p.a.ce of a _trinoctium_ each year. If she did this the marriage was _sine conventione in manum_, and the husband had no control over her property; if she did not, the marriage like that of the patricians was _c.u.m conventione in manum_.

[Ill.u.s.tration: FIGURE 10. HADRIAN]

--63. At least as far back as the time of Servius goes another Roman form of marriage, also plebeian, though not so ancient as _usus_. It was called _coemptio_ and was a fict.i.tious sale, by which the _pater familias_ of the woman, or her guardian (_tutor_) if she was _sui iuris_, transferred her to the man _matrimonii causa_. This form must have been a survival of the old custom of purchase and sale of wives, but we do not know when it was introduced among the Romans. It carried _ma.n.u.s_ with it as a matter of course and seems to have been regarded socially as better form than _usus_. The two existed for centuries side by side, but _coemptio_ survived _usus_ as a form of marriage _c.u.m conventione in manum_.

--64. Ius Conubii.--While the Servian const.i.tution made the plebeians citizens and thereby legalized their forms of marriage, it did not give them the right of intermarriage with the patricians. Many of the plebeian families were hardly less ancient than the patricians, many were rich and powerful, but it was not until 445 B.C. that marriages between the two orders were formally sanctioned by the civil law. The objection on the part of the patricians was largely a religious one: The G.o.ds of the state were patrician G.o.ds, the auspices could be taken by patricians only, the marriages of patricians only were sanctioned by heaven. Their orators protested that the unions of the plebeians were no better than promiscuous intercourse, they were not _iustae nuptiae_ (--67); the plebeian wife was taken _in matrimonium_, she was at best an _uxor_, not a _mater familias_; her offspring were "mother's children," not _patricii_.

--65. Much of this was cla.s.s exaggeration, but it is true that at this early date the _gens_ was not so highly valued by the plebeians as by the patricians, and that the plebeians a.s.signed to cognates certain duties and privileges that devolved upon the patrician _gentiles_.

With, the _ius conubii_ many of these points of difference disappeared. New conditions were fixed for _iustae nuptiae_; _coemptio_ by a sort of compromise became the usual form of marriage when one of the parties was a plebeian; and the stigma disappeared from the word _matrimonium_. On the other hand patrician women learned to understand the advantages of a marriage _sine conventione_ and marriage with _ma.n.u.s_ gradually became less frequent, the taking of the auspices before the ceremony came to be considered a mere form, and marriage began to lose its sacramental character, and with these changes came later the laxness in the marital relation and the freedom of divorce that seemed in the time of Augustus to threaten the very life of the commonwealth.

--66. It is probable that by the time of Cicero marriage with _ma.n.u.s_ was uncommon, and consequently that _confarreatio_ and _coemptio_ had gone out of general use. To a limited extent, however, the former was retained until Christian times, because certain priestly offices (_flamines maiores_ and _reges sacrorum_) could be filled only by persons whose parents had been married by the confarreate ceremony, the one sacramental form, and who had themselves been married by the same form. But so great became the reluctance of women to submit to _ma.n.u.s_, that in order to fill even these few priestly offices it was found necessary under Tiberius to eliminate _ma.n.u.s_ from the confarreate ceremony.

--67. Nuptiae Iustae.--There were certain conditions that had to be satisfied before a legal marriage could be contracted even by citizens. It was required:

1. That the consent of both parties should be given, or of the _pater familias_ if one or both were _in potestate_. Under Augustus it was provided that the _pater familias_ should not withhold his consent unless he could show valid reasons for doing so.

2. That both parties should be _p.u.b.eres_; there could be no marriage between children. Although no precise age was fixed by law, it is probable that fourteen and twelve were the lowest limit for the man and woman respectively.

3. That both man and woman should be unmarried. Polygamy was never practiced at Rome.

--68. 4. That the parties should not be nearly related. The restrictions in this direction were fixed rather by public opinion than by law and varied greatly at different times, becoming gradually less severe. In general it may be said that marriage was absolutely forbidden between ascendants and descendants, between other cognates within the fourth degree (--25), and the nearer _adfines_ (--26). If the parties could satisfy these conditions they might be legally married, but distinctions were still made that affected the civil status of the children, although no doubt was cast upon their legitimacy or upon the moral character of their parents.

--69. If the husband and wife were both Roman citizens, their marriage was called _iustae nuptiae_, which we may translate "regular marriage," their children were _iusti liberi_ and were by birth _cives optimo iure_, "possessed of all civil rights."

If but one of the parties was a Roman citizen and the other a member of a community having the _ius conubii_ but not the full _civitas_, the marriage was still called _iustae nuptiae_, but the children took the civil standing of the father. This means that if the father was a citizen and the mother a foreigner, the children were citizens; but if the father was a foreigner and the mother a citizen, the children were foreigners (_peregrini_) with the father.

But if either of the parties was without the _ius conubii_, the marriage, though still legal, was called _nuptiae iniustae_ or _matrimonium iniustum_, "an irregular marriage," and the children, though legitimate, took the civil position of the parent of lower degree. We seem to have something a.n.a.logous to this in the loss of social standing which usually follows the marriage of a person with one of distinctly inferior position.

--70. Betrothals.--Betrothal (_sponsalia_) as a preliminary to marriage was considered good form but was not legally necessary and carried with it no obligations that could be enforced by law. In the _sponsalia_ the maiden was promised to the man as his bride with "words of style," that is, in solemn form. The promise was made, not by the maiden herself, but by her _pater familias_, or by her _tutor_ if she was not _in potestate_. In the same way, the promise was made to the man directly only in case he was _sui iuris_, otherwise to the Head of his House, who had asked for him the maiden in marriage. The "words of style" were probably something like this:

"_Spondesne Gaiam, tuam filiam_ (or if she was a ward: _Gaiam, Lucii filiam_), _mihi_ (or _filio meo_) _uxorem dari?_"

"_Di bene vortant! Spondeo._"

"_Di bene vortant!_"

--71. At any rate the word _spondeo_ was technically used of the promise, and the maiden was henceforth _sponsa_. The person who made the promise had always the right to cancel it. This was usually done through an intermediary (_nuntius_), and hence the formal expression for breaking an engagement was _repudium renuntiare_, or simply _renuntiare_. While the contract was entirely one-sided, it should be noticed that a man was liable to _infamia_ if he formed two engagements at the same time, and that he could not recover any presents made with a view to a future marriage if he himself broke the engagement. Such presents were almost always made, and while we find that articles for personal use, the toilet, etc., were common, a ring was usually given. The ring was worn on the third finger of the left hand, because it was believed that a nerve ran directly from this finger to the heart. It was also usual for the _sponsa_ to make a present to her betrothed.

--72. The Dowry.--It was a point of honor with the Romans, as it is now with some European nations, for the bride to bring to her husband a dowry (_dos_). In the case of a girl _in potestate_ this would naturally be furnished by the Head of her House; in the case of one _sui iuris_ it was furnished from her own property, or if she had none was contributed by her relatives. It seems that if they were reluctant she might by process of law compel her ascendants at least to furnish it. In early times, when marriage _c.u.m conventione_ prevailed, all the property brought by the bride became the property of her husband, or of his _pater familias_ (--35), but in later times, when _ma.n.u.s_ was less common, and especially after divorce had become of frequent occurrence, a distinction was made. A part of the bride's possessions was reserved for her own exclusive use, and a part was made over to the groom under the technical name of _dos_. The relative proportions varied, of course, with circ.u.mstances.

--73. Essential Forms.--There were really no legal forms necessary for the solemnization of a marriage; there was no license to be procured from the civil authorities, the ceremonies simple or elaborate did not have to be performed by persons authorized by the state. The one thing necessary was the consent of both parties, if they were _sui iuris_, or of their _patres familias_, if they were _in potestate_. It has been already remarked (--67, 1) that the _pater familias_ could refuse his consent for valid reasons only; on the other hand, he could command the consent of persons subject to him. It is probable that parental and filial affection (_pietas_) made this hardship less rigorous than it now seems to us (----32, 33).

[Ill.u.s.tration: FIGURE 11. ANTONINUS PIUS]

--74. But while this consent was the only condition for a legal marriage, it had to be shown by some act of personal union between the parties; that is, the marriage could not be entered into by letter or by the intervention of a third party. Such an overt act was the joining of hands (_dextrarum iunctio_) in the presence of witnesses, or the escorting of the bride to her husband's house, never omitted when the parties had any social standing, or in later times the signing of the marriage contract. It was never necessary to a valid marriage that the parties should live together as man and wife, though, as we have seen (--62), this living together of itself const.i.tuted a legal marriage.

--75. The Wedding Day.--It will be noticed that superst.i.tion played an important part in the arrangements for a wedding two thousand years ago, as it does now. Especial pains had to be taken to secure a lucky day. The Kalends, Nones, and Ides of each month, and the day following each of them, were unlucky. So was all of May and the first half of June, on account of certain religious ceremonies observed in these months, the Argean offerings and the _Lemuria_ in May and the _dies religiosi_ connected with Vesta in June. Besides these the _dies parentales_, February 13-21, and the days when the entrance to the lower world was supposed to be open, August 24, October 5, and November 8, were carefully avoided. One-third of the year, therefore, was absolutely barred. The great holidays, too, and these were legion, were avoided, not because they were unlucky, but because on these days friends and relatives were sure to have other engagements. Women marrying for the second time chose these very holidays to make their weddings less conspicuous.

--76. The Wedding Garments.--On the eve of her wedding day the bride dedicated to the _Lares_ of her father's house her _bulla_ (--99) and the _toga praetexta_, which married women did not wear, and also if she was not much over twelve years of age her childish playthings. For the sake of the omen she put on before going to sleep the _tunica recta_, or _regilla_, woven in one piece and falling to the feet. A very doubtful picture is shown in Rich under the word _recta_. It seems to have derived its name from having been woven in the old-fashioned way at an upright loom. This same tunic was worn at the wedding.

[Ill.u.s.tration: FIGURE 12. DRESSING THE BRIDE]

--77. On the morning of the wedding day the bride was dressed for the ceremony by her mother, and Roman poets show unusual tenderness as they describe her solicitude. There is a wall painting of such a scene, found at Pompeii and reproduced in Fig. 12. The chief article of dress was the _tunica regilla_ already mentioned, which was fastened around the waist with a band of wool tied in the knot of Hercules (_nodus Herculaneus_), probably because Hercules was the guardian of wedded life. This knot the husband only was privileged to untie. Over the tunic was worn the bridal veil, the flame-colored veil (_flammeum_), shown in Fig. 13. So important was the veil of the bride that _nubere_, "to veil one's self," is the regular word for "marry"

when used of a woman.

[Ill.u.s.tration: FIGURE 13. THE FLAMMEUM]

--78. Especial attention was given to the arrangement of the hair, but unfortunately we have no picture preserved to us to make its arrangement clear. We only know that it was divided into six locks by the point of a spear, probably a reminiscence of the ancient marriage by capture, and that these locks perhaps braided were kept in position by ribbons (_vittae_). The bride had also a wreath of flowers and sacred plants gathered by herself. The groom wore of course the toga and had a similar wreath of flowers on his head. He was accompanied to the home of the bride at the proper time by relatives, friends, and clients, who were bound to do him every honor on his wedding day.

--79. The Ceremony.--The house of the bride's father, where the ceremony was performed, was decked with flowers, boughs of trees, bands of wool, and tapestries. The guests arrived before the hour of sunrise, and even then the omens had been already taken. In the ancient confarreate ceremony these were taken by the public augur, but in later times, no matter what the ceremony, the haruspices merely consulted the entrails of a sheep which had been killed in sacrifice.

When the marriage ceremonies are described it must be remembered that only the consent was necessary (--73) with the act expressing the consent, and that all other forms and ceremonies were unessential and variable. Something depended upon the particular form used, but more upon the wealth and social position of the families interested. It is probable that most weddings were a good deal simpler than those described by our chief authorities.

--80. After the omens had been p.r.o.nounced favorable the bride and groom appeared in the atrium, the chief room, and the wedding began. This consisted of two parts:

1. The ceremony proper, varying according to the form used (_confarreatio_, _coemptio_, or _usus_), the essential part being the consent before witnesses.

2. The festivities, including the feast at the bride's home, the taking of the bride with a show of force from her mother's arms, the escort to her new home (the essential part), and her reception there.

[Ill.u.s.tration: FIGURE 14. A MARRIAGE SCENE]

--81. The confarreate ceremony began with the _dextrarum iunctio_. The bride and groom were brought together by the _p.r.o.nuba_, a matron married to her first husband, and joined hands in the presence of ten witnesses representing the ten _gentes_ of the _curia_. These are shown on an ancient sarcophagus found at Naples (Fig. 14). Then followed the words of consent spoken by the bride: _Quando tu Gaius, ego Gaia_. The formula was unchanged, no matter what the names of the bride and groom, and goes back to a time when _Gaius_ was a _nomen_, not a _praenomen_ (--55). It implied that the bride was actually entering the _gens_ of the groom (----23, 28, 35), and was probably chosen for its lucky meaning (--44). Even in marriages _sine conventione_ the old formula came to be used, its import having been lost in lapse of time. The bride and groom then took their places side by side at the left of the altar and facing it, sitting on stools covered with the pelt of the sheep slain for the sacrifice.

[Ill.u.s.tration: FIGURE 15. A CAMILLUS]

--82. A bloodless offering was then made to Jupiter by the _Pontifex Maximus_ and the _Flamen Dialis_, consisting of the cake of spelt (_farreum lib.u.m_) from which the _confarreatio_ got its name. With the offering to Jupiter a prayer was recited by the Flamen to Juno as the G.o.ddess of marriage, and to Tellus, Pic.u.mnus, and Pilumnus, deities of the country and its fruits. The utensils necessary for the offering were carried in a covered basket (_c.u.merus_) by a boy called _camillus_ (Fig. 15), whose parents must have both been living at the time (_patrimus et matrimus_). Then followed the congratulations, the guests using the word _feliciter_.