CHAPTER III

MARRIAGE AND THE POSITION OF WOMEN

REFERENCES: Marquardt, 28-80; Voigt, 318, 449; Göll, II, 5 f.; Friedländer, I, 451 f.; Ramsay, 293 f., 477; Preston, 8 f.; Smith, _mātrimōnium_; Baumeister, 696 f.; Harper, _cōnūbium_, _mātrimōnium_; Lübker, 364; Pauly-Wissowa, _coēmptiō_, _cōnfarreātiō_, _cōnūbium_.

§61. Early Forms of Marriage.--Polygamy was never practiced at Rome, and we are told that for five centuries after the founding of the city divorce was entirely unknown. Up to the time of the Servian constitution (date uncertain) the patricians were the only citizens and intermarried only with patricians and with members of surrounding communities having like social standing. The only form of marriage known to them was the stately religious ceremonial called, as will be explained hereafter, _cōnfarreātiō_. With the direct consent of the gods, with the _pontificēs_ celebrating the solemn rites, in the presence of the accredited representatives of his _gēns_, the patrician took his wife from her father's family into his own (§28), to be a _māter familiās_, to rear him children who should conserve the family mysteries, perpetuate his ancient race, and extend the power of Rome. By this, the one legal marriage of the time, the wife passed _in manum virī_, and the husband acquired over her practically the same rights as he had over his own children (§§35, 36) and other dependent members of his family. Such a marriage was said to be _cum conventiōne uxōris in manum virī_ (§35).

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

§63. At least as far back as the time of Servius goes another Roman form of marriage, also plebeian, though not so ancient as _ūsus_. It was called _coēmptiō_ and was a fictitious sale, by which the _pater familiās_ of the woman, or her guardian (_tūtor_) if she was _suī iūris_, transferred her to the man _mātrimōniī causā_. This form must have been a survival of the old custom of purchase and sale of wives, but we do not know when it was introduced among the Romans. It carried _manus_ with it as a matter of course and seems to have been regarded socially as better form than _ūsus_. The two existed for centuries side by side, but _coēmptiō_ survived _ūsus_ as a form of marriage _cum conventiōne in manum_.

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

§65. Much of this was class exaggeration, but it is true that at this early date the _gēns_ was not so highly valued by the plebeians as by the patricians, and that the plebeians assigned to cognates certain duties and privileges that devolved upon the patrician _gentīlēs_. With, the _iūs cōnūbiī_ many of these points of difference disappeared. New conditions were fixed for _iūstae nūptiae_; _coēmptiō_ by a sort of compromise became the usual form of marriage when one of the parties was a plebeian; and the stigma disappeared from the word _mātrimōnium_. On the other hand patrician women learned to understand the advantages of a marriage _sine conventiōne_ and marriage with _manus_ gradually became less frequent, the taking of the auspices before the ceremony came to be considered a mere form, and marriage began to lose its sacramental character, and with these changes came later the laxness in the marital relation and the freedom of divorce that seemed in the time of Augustus to threaten the very life of the commonwealth.

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

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

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

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

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

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

§69. If the husband and wife were both Roman citizens, their marriage was called _iūstae nūptiae_, which we may translate "regular marriage," their children were _iūstī līberī_ and were by birth _cīvēs optimō iūre_, "possessed of all civil rights."

If but one of the parties was a Roman citizen and the other a member of a community having the _iūs cōnūbiī_ but not the full _cīvitās_, the marriage was still called _iūstae nūptiae_, but the children took the civil standing of the father. This means that if the father was a citizen and the mother a foreigner, the children were citizens; but if the father was a foreigner and the mother a citizen, the children were foreigners (_peregrīnī_) with the father.

But if either of the parties was without the _iūs cōnūbiī_, the marriage, though still legal, was called _nūptiae iniūstae_ or _mātrimōnium iniūstum_, "an irregular marriage," and the children, though legitimate, took the civil position of the parent of lower degree. We seem to have something analogous to this in the loss of social standing which usually follows the marriage of a person with one of distinctly inferior position.

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

"_Spondēsne Gāiam, tuam fīliam_ (or if she was a ward: _Gāiam, Lūciī fīliam_), _mihi_ (or _fīliō meō_) _uxōrem darī?_"

"_Dī bene vortant! Spondeō._"

"_Dī bene vortant!_"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

§79. The Ceremony.--The house of the bride's father, where the ceremony was performed, was decked with flowers, boughs of trees, bands of wool, and tapestries. The guests arrived before the hour of sunrise, and even then the omens had been already taken. In the ancient confarreate ceremony these were taken by the public augur, but in later times, no matter what the ceremony, the haruspices merely consulted the entrails of a sheep which had been killed in sacrifice. When the marriage ceremonies are described it must be remembered that only the consent was necessary (§73) with the act expressing the consent, and that all other forms and ceremonies were unessential and variable. Something depended upon the particular form used, but more upon the wealth and social position of the families interested. It is probable that most weddings were a good deal simpler than those described by our chief authorities.

§80. After the omens had been pronounced favorable the bride and groom appeared in the atrium, the chief room, and the wedding began. This consisted of two parts:

1. The ceremony proper, varying according to the form used (_cōnfarreātiō_, _coēmptiō_, or _ūsus_), the essential part being the consent before witnesses.

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

§81. The confarreate ceremony began with the _dextrārum iūnctiō_. The bride and groom were brought together by the _prōnuba_, a matron married to her first husband, and joined hands in the presence of ten witnesses representing the ten _gentēs_ of the _cūria_. These are shown on an ancient sarcophagus found at Naples (Fig. 14). Then followed the words of consent spoken by the bride: _Quandō tū Gāius, ego Gāia_. The formula was unchanged, no matter what the names of the bride and groom, and goes back to a time when _Gāius_ was a _nōmen_, not a _praenōmen_ (§55). It implied that the bride was actually entering the _gēns_ of the groom (§§23, 28, 35), and was probably chosen for its lucky meaning (§44). Even in marriages _sine conventiōne_ the old formula came to be used, its import having been lost in lapse of time. The bride and groom then took their places side by side at the left of the altar and facing it, sitting on stools covered with the pelt of the sheep slain for the sacrifice.

§82. A bloodless offering was then made to Jupiter by the _Pontifex Maximus_ and the _Flāmen Diālis_, consisting of the cake of spelt (_farreum lībum_) from which the _cōnfarreātiō_ got its name. With the offering to Jupiter a prayer was recited by the Flamen to Juno as the goddess of marriage, and to Tellus, Picumnus, and Pilumnus, deities of the country and its fruits. The utensils necessary for the offering were carried in a covered basket (_cumerus_) by a boy called _camillus_ (Fig. 15), whose parents must have both been living at the time (_patrīmus et mātrīmus_). Then followed the congratulations, the guests using the word _fēlīciter_.

§83. The _coēmptiō_ began with the fictitious sale, carried out in the presence of no less than five witnesses. The purchase money represented by a single coin was laid in the scales held by a _lībripēns_. The scales, scaleholder, coin, and witnesses were all necessary for this kind of marriage. Then followed the _dextrārum iūnctiō_ and the words of consent, borrowed, as has been said, from the confarreate ceremony. Originally the groom had asked the bride: _An sibi māter familiās esse vellet._ She assented, and put to him a similar question: _An sibi pater familiās esse vellet._ To this he too gave the answer "Yes." A prayer was then recited and sometimes perhaps a sacrifice offered, after which came the congratulations as in the other and more elaborate ceremony.

§84. The third form, that is, the ceremonies preliminary to _ūsus_, probably admitted of more variation than either of the others, but no description has come down to us. We may be sure that the hands were clasped, the words of consent spoken, and congratulations offered, but we know of no special customs or usages. It was almost necessary for the three forms to get more or less alike in the course of time, though the cake of spelt could not be borrowed from the confarreate ceremony by either of the others, or the scales and their holder from the ceremony of _coēmptiō_.

§85. The Wedding Feast.--After the conclusion of the ceremony came the wedding feast (_cēna nūptiālis_) lasting until evening. There can be no doubt that this was regularly given at the house of the bride's father and that the few cases when we know that it was given at the groom's house were exceptional and due to special circumstances which might cause a similar change to-day. The feast seems to have concluded with the distribution among the guests of pieces of the wedding cake (_mustāceum_), which was made of meal steeped in must (§296) and served on bay leaves. There came to be so much extravagance at these feasts and at the _repōtia_ mentioned below (§89) that under Augustus it was proposed to limit their cost by law to one thousand sesterces ($50), a piece of sumptuary legislation as vain as such restrictions have usually proved to be.

§86. The Bridal Procession.--After the wedding feast the bride was formally taken to her husband's house. This ceremony was called _dēductiō_, and as it was essential to the validity of the marriage (§74) it was never omitted. It was a public function, that is, any one might join the procession and take part in the merriment that distinguished it, and we are told that persons of rank did not scruple to wait in the street to see the bride. As evening approached the procession was formed before the house with torch bearers and flute players at its head. When all was ready the marriage hymn (_hymenaeus_) was sung and the groom took the bride with a show of force from the arms of her mother. The Romans saw in this custom a reminiscence of the rape of the Sabines, but it probably goes far back beyond the founding of Rome to the custom of marriage by capture that prevailed among many peoples. The bride then took her place in the procession attended by three boys, _patrīmī et mātrīmī_ (§82); two of these walked by her side, holding each a hand, while the other carried before her the wedding torch of white thorn (_spīna alba_). Behind the bride were carried the distaff and spindle, emblems of domestic life. The _camillus_ with his _cumerus_ also walked in the procession.

§87. During the march were sung the _versūs Fescennīnī_, abounding in coarse jests and personalities. The crowd also shouted the ancient marriage cry, the significance of which the Romans themselves did not understand. We find it in at least five forms, all variations of the name Talassius or Talassio, who was probably a Sabine divinity, though his functions are unknown. Livy derives it from the supposed name of a senator in the time of Romulus. The bride dropped on the way one of three coins which she carried as an offering to the _Larēs compitālēs_; of the other two she gave one to the groom as an emblem of the dowry she brought him, and one to the _Larēs_ of his house. The groom meanwhile scattered nuts through the crowd. This is explained by Catullus as a token of his having become a man and having put away childish things (§103), but the nuts were rather a symbol of fruitfulness. The custom survives in the throwing of rice in modern times.

§88. When the procession reached the house, the bride wound the door posts with bands of wool, probably a symbol of her own work as mistress of the household, and anointed the door with oil and fat, emblems of plenty. She was then lifted carefully over the threshold, in order to avoid the chance of so bad an omen as a slip of the foot on entering the house for the first time. Others, however, see in the custom another survival of marriage by capture. She then pronounced again the words of consent: _Ubi tū Gāius, ego Gāia_, and the doors were closed against the general crowd; only the invited guests entered with the pair.

§89. The husband met the wife in the atrium and offered her fire and water in token of the life they were to live together and her part in the home. Upon the hearth was ready the wood for a fire, and this the bride kindled with the marriage torch which had been carried before her. The torch was afterwards thrown among the guests to be scrambled for as a lucky possession. A prayer was then recited by the bride and she was placed by the _prōnuba_ on the _lectus geniālis_ (Fig. 16), which always stood on the wedding night in the atrium. Here it afterwards remained as a piece of ornamental furniture only. On the next day was given in the new home the second wedding feast (_repōtia_) to the friends and relatives, and at this feast the bride made her first offering to the gods as a _mātrōna_. A series of feasts followed, given in honor of the newly wedded pair by those in whose social circles they moved.

§90. The Position of Women.--With her marriage the Roman woman reached a position unattained by the women of any other nation in the ancient world. No other people held its women in so high respect; nowhere else did they exert so strong and beneficent an influence. In her own house the Roman matron was absolute mistress. She directed its economy and supervised the tasks of the household slaves but did no menial work herself. She was her children's nurse, and conducted their early training and education. Her daughters were fitted under their mother's eye to be mistresses of similar homes, and remained her closest companions until she herself had dressed them for the bridal and their husbands had torn them from her arms. She was her husband's helpmeet in business as well as in household affairs, and he often consulted her on affairs of state. She was not confined at home to a set of so-called women's apartments, as were her sisters in Greece; the whole house was hers. She received her husband's guests and sat at table with them. Even when subject to the _manus_ of her husband the restraint was so tempered by law and custom (§36) that she could hardly have been chafed by the fetters which had been forged with her own consent (§73).

§91. Out of the house the matron's dress (_stola mātrōnālis_, §259) secured for her the most profound respect. Men made way for her in the street; she had a place at the public games, at the theaters, and at the great religious ceremonies of state. She could give testimony in the courts, and until late in the Republic might even appear as an advocate. Her birthday was sacredly observed and made a joyous occasion by the members of her household, and the people as a whole celebrated the _Mātrōnālia_, the great festival on the first of March, and gave presents to their wives and mothers. Finally, if she came of a noble family, she might be honored, after she had passed away, with a public eulogy, delivered from the _rostra_ in the forum.

§92. It must be admitted that the education of women was not carried far at Rome, and that their accomplishments were few, and rather useful and homely than elegant. But the Roman women spoke the purest and best Latin known in the highest and most cultivated circles, and so far as accomplishments were concerned their husbands fared no better. Respectable women in Greece were allowed no education at all.

§93. It must be admitted, too, that a great change took place in the last years of the Republic. With the laxness of the family life, the freedom of divorce, and the inflow of wealth and extravagance, the purity and dignity of the Roman matron declined, as had before declined the manhood and the strength of her father and her husband. It must be remembered, however, that ancient writers did not dwell upon certain subjects that are favorites with our own. The simple joys of childhood and domestic life, home, the praises of sister, wife, and mother may not have been too sacred for the poet and the essayist of Rome, but the essayist and the poet did not make them their themes. The mother of Horace must have been a singularly gifted woman, but she is never mentioned by her son. The descriptions of domestic life, therefore, that have come down to us are either from Greek sources, or are selected from precisely those circles where fashion, profligacy, and impurity made easy the work of the satirist. It is, therefore, safe to say that the pictures painted for us in the verse of Catullus and Juvenal, for example, are not true of Roman women as a class in the times of which they write. The strong, pure woman of the early day must have had many to imitate her virtues in the darkest times of the Empire. There were mothers then, as well as in the times of the Gracchi; there were wives as noble as the wife of Marcus Brutus.