The Private Life of the Romans
by Harold Whetstone Johnston · English · Gutenberg #40549 · 602,801 chars · public domain (US)
The Project Gutenberg eBook of The Private Life of the Romans
This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and
most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions
whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms
of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online
at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States,
you will have to check the laws of the country where you are located
before using this eBook.
Title: The Private Life of the Romans
Author: Harold Whetstone Johnston
Release date: August 20, 2012 [eBook #40549]
Language: English
Other information and formats: www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/40549
Credits: Produced by Ron Swanson
*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE PRIVATE LIFE OF THE ROMANS ***
Produced by Ron Swanson
THE PRIVATE LIFE OF THE ROMANS
BY HAROLD WHETSTONE JOHNSTON
PROFESSOR OF LATIN IN THE INDIANA UNIVERSITY
CHICAGO
SCOTT, FORESMAN AND COMPANY
1909
BY THE SAME AUTHOR (_Scott, Foresman and Company_)
SELECTED ORATIONS AND LETTERS OF CICERO
LATIN MANUSCRIPTS
THE METRICAL LICENSES OF VERGIL
COPYRIGHT, 1903, BY SCOTT, FORESMAN AND COMPANY
ROBT. O. LAW CO., PRINTERS AND BINDERS, CHICAGO.
TYPOGRAPHY BY MARSH, AITKEN & CURTIS COMPANY, CHICAGO.
_CHARLES S. RANNELLS_
_MEMOR_
_ACTAE NON ALIO REGE PUERTIAE_
_AMORIS CAUSA_
_D D D_
PREFACE
In preparing this book I have had in mind the needs of three classes
of students.
It is intended in the first place for seniors in high schools and
freshmen in colleges, and is meant to give such an account of the
Private Life of the Romans in the later Republic and earlier Empire as
will enable them to understand the countless references to it in the
Latin texts which they read in the class-room. It is hoped that the
book contains all that they will need for this purpose and nothing
that is beyond their comprehension.
It is intended in the second place for more advanced college students
who may be taking lectures on the subjects of which it treats. The
work of both teacher and student will be made less irksome and more
effective if the student is aided in the taking of notes by even so
general a knowledge of the subject (previously announced to the class)
as is here given. This I know from actual experience with my own
classes.
In the third place it is intended for readers and students of Roman
history, who are engaged chiefly with important political and
constitutional questions, and often feel the need of a simple and
compact description of domestic life, to give more reality to the
shadowy forms whose public careers they are following. Such students
will find the Index especially useful.
The book is written as far as possible in English: that is, no great
knowledge of Latin is presumed on the part of the reader. I have tried
not to crowd the text with Latin words, even when they are immediately
explained, and those given will usually be found worth remembering.
Quotations from Latin authors are very few, and the references to
their works, fewer still, are made to well-known passages only.
To every chapter are prefixed references to the standard secondary
authorities in English and German. Primary sources are not indicated:
they would be above the heads of the less advanced students, and to
the more advanced the lecturer will prefer to indicate the sources on
which his views are based. It is certain, however, that all these
sources are indicated in the authorities named, and the teacher
himself may occasionally find the references helpful.
The illustrations are numerous and are intended to illustrate. Many
others are referred to in the text, which limited space kept me from
using, and I hope that Schreiber's Atlas, at least, if not
Baumeister's Denkmaeler, may be within the reach of students in
class-room or library.
It goes without saying that there must be many errors in a book like
this, although I have done my best to make it accurate. When these
errors are due to relaxed attention or to ignorance, I shall be
grateful to the person who will point them out. When they are due to
mistaken judgment, the teacher will find in the references, I hope,
sufficient authorities to convince his pupils that he is right and I
am wrong.
H. W. JOHNSTON.
THE INDIANA UNIVERSITY,
February, 1903.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION.--Scope of the Book §1; Public and Private
Antiquities §2; Antiquities and History §4; Antiquities and
Philology §6; Sources §9; Reference Books §13; Systematic
Treatises §14; Encyclopedic Works §15; Other Books §16
I. THE FAMILY.--The Household §17; The Splitting Up of a House
§19; Other Meanings of _Familia_ §21; _Agnātī_ and
_Cognātī_ §23; _Adfīnēs_ §26; The Family Cult §27; Adoption
§30; The _Patria Potestās_ §31; Limitations §32; Extinction
of the _Potestās_ §34; _Manus_ §35; _Dominica Potestās_ §37
II. THE NAME.--The Triple Name §38; The _Praenōmen_ §41; The
_Nōmen_ §46; The _Cognōmen_ §48; Additional Names §51;
Confusion of Names §55; Names of Women §57; Names of Slaves
§58; Names of Freedmen §59; Naturalized Citizens §60
III. MARRIAGE AND THE POSITION OF WOMEN.--Early Forms of Marriage
§61; _Iūs Cōnūbiī_ §64; _Nūptiae Iūstae_ §67; Betrothals
§70; The Dowry §72; Essential Forms §73; The Wedding Day
§75; The Wedding Garments §76; The Ceremony §79; The
Wedding Feast §85; The Bridal Procession §86; The Position
of Women §90
IV. CHILDREN AND EDUCATION.--Legal Status §94; _Susceptiō_ §95;
_Diēs Lūstricus_ §97; The _Bulla_ §99; Nurses §100;
Playthings §102; Pets and Games §103; Home Training §104;
Schools §108; Subjects Taught in Elementary Schools §110;
Grammar Schools §112; Schools of Rhetoric §115; Travel
§116; Apprenticeship §117; Remarks on the Schools §119; The
Teacher §121; Schooldays and Holidays §122; The
_Paedagōgus_ §123; Discipline §124; End of Childhood §125;
The _Līberalia_ §127
V. DEPENDENTS: SLAVES AND CLIENTS. HOSPITES.--Growth of Slavery
§129; Numbers of Slaves §131; Sources of Supply §134; Sales
of Slaves §139; Prices of Slaves §140; Public and Private
Slaves §141; Private Slaves §142; Industrial Employment
§143; The _Familia Rūstica_ §145; Farm Slaves §146; The
_Vīlīcus_ §148; The _Familia Urbāna_ §149; Legal Status of
Slaves §156; The Treatment of Slaves §158; Food and Dress
§160; The _Pecūlium_ §162; Punishments §166; Manumission
§175; The Clients §176; The Old Clients §177; Mutual
Obligations §179; The New Clients §181; Duties and Rewards
§182; The _Hospitēs_ §183; _Hospitium_ §184; Obligations of
_Hospitium_ §185
VI. THE HOUSE AND ITS FURNITURE.--_Domus_ §186; The Development
of the House §188; The _Vestibulum_ §194; The _Ōstium_
§195; The _Ātrium_ §196; The Change in the _Ātrium_ §197;
The _Ālae_ §200; The _Tablīnum_ §201; The Peristyle §202;
Private Rooms §203; The House of Pansa §208; The Walls
§210; _Pariēs Caementīcius_ §211; Wall Facings §212; Floors
and Ceilings §213; Roofs §214; The Doors §215; The Windows
§217; Heating §218; Water Supply §219; Decoration §220;
Furniture §222; Principal Articles §223; The Couches §224;
The Chairs §225; Tables §227; The Lamps §228; Chests and
Cabinets §230; Other Articles §232; The Street §233
VII. DRESS AND PERSONAL ORNAMENTS.--_Indūtus_: The _Subligaculum_
§235; The Tunic §236; _Amictus_: The _Toga_ §240; Form and
Arrangement §241; Kinds of Togas §246; The _Lacerna_ §247;
The _Paenula_ §248; Other Wraps §249; Footgear: The
_Soleae_ §250; The _Calceī_ §251; Coverings for the Head
§252; The Hair and Beard §253; Jewelry §255; Dress of Women
§257; The _Tunica Interior_ §258; The _Stola_ §259; The
_Palla_ §261; Shoes and Slippers §262; Dressing of the Hair
§263; Accessories §266; Jewelry §267; Dress of the Children
and Slaves §268; Materials §269; Colors §270; Manufacture
§271
VIII. FOOD AND MEALS.--Natural Conditions §272; Fruits §274;
Garden Produce §275; Meats §277; Fowl and Game §279; Fish
§280; Cereals §282; Preparation of the Grain §283;
Breadmaking §287; The Olive §289; Olive Oil §291; Grapes
§293; Viticulture §294; Vineyards §295; Wine Making §296;
Beverages §298; Style of Living §299; Hours for Meals §301;
Breakfast and Luncheon §302; The Formal Meal §303; The
Dining Couch §304; Places of Honor §305; Other Furniture
§307; Courses §308; Bills of Fare §309; Serving the Dinner
§310; The _Comissātiō_ §312; The Banquets of the Rich §315
IX. AMUSEMENTS; BATHS.--General §316; Sports of the Campus §317;
Games of Ball §318; Games of Chance §319; Knuckle-bones
§320; Dice §321; Public and Private Games §322; Dramatic
Performances §323; Staging the Play §324; The Early Theater
§325; The Later Theater §326; Roman Circuses §328; Plan of
the Circus §330; The Arena §332; The Barriers §333; The
_Spīna_ and _Mētae_ §335; The Seats §337; Furnishing the
Races §339; The Teams §340; The Drivers §341; Famous
_Aurīgae_ §342; Other Shows of the Circus §343;
Gladiatorial Combats §344; Popularity of the Combats §346;
Sources of Supply §347; Schools for Gladiators §349; Places
of Exhibition §351; Amphitheaters at Rome §352; The
Amphitheater at Pompeii §353; The Coliseum §356; Styles of
Fighting §359; Weapons and Armor §360; Announcement of the
Shows §361; The Fight Itself §362; The Rewards §363; Other
Shows in the Amphitheater §364; The Daily Bath §365;
Essentials for the Bath §366; Heating the Bath §368; The
_Caldārium_ §369; The _Frīgidārium_ and _Ūnctōrium_ §370; A
Private Bathhouse §371; The Public Baths §372; Management
§373; Hours Opened §374; Accommodations for Women §375;
_Thermae_ §376; Baths of Diocletian §378
X. TRAVEL AND CORRESPONDENCE. BOOKS.--In General §379; By Water
§380; By Land §381; The Vehicles §382; Carriages §383; The
_Rēda_ and _Cisium_ §384; The Roads §385; Construction
§387; The Inns §388; Speed §389; Sending Letters §390;
Writing the Letters §391; Sealing and Opening the Letters
§392; Books §393; Manufacture of Paper §394; Pens and Ink
§395; Making the Roll §396; Size of the Rolls §398;
Multiplication of Books §399; Commercial Publication §400;
Rapidity and Cost of Publication §401; Libraries §402
XI. SOURCES OF INCOME AND MEANS OF LIVING. THE ROMAN'S DAY.--In
General §403; Careers of the Nobles §404; Agriculture §405;
Political Office §406; The Law §407; The Army §408; Careers
of the Equites §409; The Soldiers §410; The Proletariate
§411; Professions and Trades §412; Business and Commerce
§413; The Civil Service §414; The Roman's Day §415; Hours
of the Day §417
XII. BURIAL-PLACES AND FUNERAL CEREMONIES.--Importance of Burial
§419; Interment and Cremation §420; Places of Burial §421;
The Tombs §422; The Potter's Field §423; Plan of Tombs and
Grounds §425; Exterior of the Tombs §427; The _Columbāria_
§428; Burial Societies §430; Funeral Ceremonies §432; At
the House §433; The Funeral Procession §434; The Funeral
Oration §435; At the Tomb §436; After Ceremonies §437;
Memorial Festivals §438
THE PRIVATE LIFE OF THE ROMANS
INTRODUCTION
§1. The topics that are discussed in this book have to do with the
everyday life of the Roman people. Such things will be considered as
the family, the Roman name, marriage and the position of women,
children and education, slaves, clients, the house and its furniture,
clothing, food and meals, amusements, travel and correspondence,
funeral ceremonies and burial customs, etc. These things are of
interest to us in the case of any ancient or foreign people; in the
case of the Romans they are of especial importance, because they help
to explain the powerful influence which that nation exerted over the
old world, and make it easier to understand why that influence is
still felt in some degree to-day.
§2. Public and Private Antiquities.--The subjects that have been named
above belong to what is called Classical Antiquities, taking their
place in the subdivision of Roman Antiquities as opposed to Greek
Antiquities. They are grouped loosely together as Private Antiquities
in opposition to what we call Public Antiquities. Under the latter
head we consider the Roman as a citizen, and we examine the several
classes of citizens, their obligations and their privileges; we study
the form of their government, its officers and machinery, its
legislative, judicial, and executive procedure, its revenues and
expenditures, etc. It is evident that no hard and fast line can be
drawn between the two branches of the subject: they cross each other
at every turn. One scarcely knows, for example, under which head to
put the religion of the Romans or their games in the circus.
§3. In the same way, the daily employment of a slave, his keep, his
punishments, his rewards, are properly considered under the head of
Private Antiquities. But the state undertook sometimes to regulate by
law the number of slaves that a master might have, the state regulated
the manumission of the slave and gave him certain rights as a
freedman, and these matters belong to Public Antiquities. So, too, a
man might or might not be eligible to certain state offices according
to the particular ceremony used at the marriage of his parents. It
will be found, therefore, that the study of Private Antiquities can
not be completely separated from its complement, though in this book
the dividing line will be crossed as seldom as possible.[1]
[Footnote 1: Students in secondary schools will find useful for
preliminary reading the outline of the Roman Constitution in the
Introduction to the author's "Selected Orations and Letters of
Cicero." For more advanced students three books have lately appeared
on this subject: Abbott's "Roman Political Institutions," Granrud's
"Roman Constitutional History," and Greenidge's "Roman Public Life."]
§4. Antiquities and History.--It is just as impossible to draw the
boundary line between the subjects of Antiquities and History. The
older history, it is true, concerned itself little with the private
life of the people, almost solely with the rise and fall of dynasties.
It told us of kings and generals, of the wars they waged, the
victories they won, and the conquests they made. Then, in course of
time, institutions took the place of dynasties and parties the place
of heroes, and history traced the growth of great political ideas:
such masterpieces as Thirlwall's and Grote's histories of Greece are
largely constitutional histories. But changes in international
relations affect the private life of a people as surely, if not as
speedily, as they affect the machinery of government. You can not
bring into contact, friendly or unfriendly, two different
civilizations without a change in the peoples concerned, without
altering their occupations, their ways of living, their very ideas of
life and its purposes. These changes react in turn upon the temper and
character of a people, they affect its capacity for self-government
and the government of others, and in the course of time they bring
about the movements of which even the older history took notice. Hence
our recent histories give more and more space to the life of the
common people, to the very matters, that is, that were mentioned in
the first paragraph as belonging to Private Antiquities. This may be
seen in such titles as these: Green's "History of the English People,"
McMaster's "History of the People of the United States."
§5. On the other hand it is equally true that a knowledge of political
history is necessary for the study of Private Antiquities. We shall
find the Romans giving up certain ways of living and habits of
thinking that seemed to have become fixed and characteristic. These
changes we could not explain at all, if political history did not
inform us that just before they took place the Romans had come into
contact with the widely different ideas and opposing civilizations of
other nations. The most important event of this sort was the
introduction of Greek culture after the Punic wars, and to this we
shall have to refer again and again. It follows from all this that
students who have had even the most elementary course in Roman history
have already some knowledge of Private Antiquities, and that those who
have not studied the history of Rome at all will find very helpful the
reading of even the briefest of our school histories.
§6. Antiquities and Philology.--The subject of Classical Antiquities
has always been regarded as a branch--"discipline" is the technical
word--of Classical Philology since Friedrich August Wolf (1759-1824)
made Philology a science. It is quite true that in the common
acceptation of the word Philology is merely the science of language,
but even here Antiquities has an important part to play. It is
impossible to read understandingly an ode of Horace or an oration of
Cicero, if one is ignorant of the social life and the political
institutions of Rome. But Classical Philology is much more than the
science of understanding and interpreting the classical languages. It
claims for itself the investigation of Greek and Roman life in all its
aspects, social, intellectual, and political, so far as it has become
known to us from the surviving literary, epigraphic, and monumental
records. Whitney puts it thus: Philology deals with human speech and
with all that speech discloses as to the nature and history of man. If
it is hard to remember these definitions one can hardly forget the
epigram of Benoist: Philology is the geology of the intellectual
world. Under this, the only scientific conception of Philology, the
study of Antiquities takes at once a higher place. It becomes the end
with linguistics the means, and this is the true relation between
them.
§7. But it happens that the study of the languages in which the
records of classical antiquity are preserved must first occupy the
investigator, and that the study of language as mere language, its
origin, its growth, its decay, is in itself very interesting and
profitable. It happens, moreover, that the languages of Greece and
Rome can not be studied apart from literatures of singular richness,
beauty, and power, and the study of literature has always been one of
the most attractive and absorbing to cultivated men. It is not hard to
understand, therefore, why the study of Antiquities has not been more
prominent in connection with philological training. It was the end to
which only the few pressed on. It was reserved, at least in systematic
form, for the trained scholar in the university. In the congested
condition of the old curricula in our colleges it was crowded out by
the more obvious, but not more essential or interesting, subjects of
linguistics and literary criticism, or it was presented at best in the
form of scrappy notes on the authors read in the classroom or in the
dismembered alphabetical arrangement of a dictionary.
§8. Within the last few years, however, a change has been taking
place, a change due to several causes. In the first place, the
literary criticism which was once taught exclusively in connection
with classical authors and which claimed so large a part of the time
allotted to classical study has found a more appropriate place in the
departments of English that were hardly known a generation ago. In the
second place, the superior preparation in the classics now demanded
for admission to our colleges has relieved their courses of much
elementary linguistic drill that was formerly necessary. In the third
place, the last half century has seen a greater advance in the
knowledge of Antiquities than all the years before, and it is now
possible to present in positive dogmatic form much that was recently
mere guesswork and speculation. Finally, modern theories of education,
which have narrowed the stream of classical instruction only to deepen
its channel and quicken its current, have caused more stress to be
laid upon the points of contact between the ancient and the modern
world. The teacher of the classics has come to realize that the
obligations of the present to the past are not to be so clearly
presented and so vividly appreciated in connection with the formal
study of art and literature as in the investigation of the great
social, political, and religious problems which throughout all the
ages have engaged the thought of cultivated men.
§9. Sources.--It has been already remarked (§6) that Classical
Philology draws its knowledge from three sources, the literary,
epigraphic, and monumental remains of Greece and Rome. It is necessary
that we should understand at the outset precisely what is meant by
each of these. By literary sources we mean the writings of the Greeks
and Romans, that is, the books which they published, that have come
down to us. The form of these books, the way they were published and
have been preserved, will be considered later. For the present it is
sufficient to say that a mere fraction only of these writings has come
down to our day, and that of these poor remnants we possess no
originals but merely more or less imperfect copies. It is true,
nevertheless, that these form as a whole the most important of our
sources of information, largely because they have been most carefully
studied and are best understood.
§10. By epigraphic sources we mean the words that were written,
scratched, cut, or stamped on hard materials, such as metal, stone, or
wood, without thought of literary finish. These vary from single words
to records of very considerable extent, and are briefly called
inscriptions. The student may get a good idea of the most ancient and
curious by merely turning over a few pages of Ritschl's "Priscae
Latinitatis Monumenta Epigraphica" or of Egbert's "Latin
Inscriptions." Of one sort of great importance, the legends on coins
and medals, many have found their way into American museums. With
modern inscriptions on similar materials and for similar purposes
every student is, of course, familiar.
§11. By monumental evidence we mean all the things actually made by
the Greeks and Romans that have come down to us. These things are
collectively very numerous and of very many kinds: coins, medals,
pieces of jewelry, armor, pottery, statues, paintings, bridges,
aqueducts, fortifications, ruins of cities, etc. It is impossible to
enumerate them all. It is upon such remains as these that most of the
inscriptions mentioned above are preserved. Of the most importance for
the study of the private life of the Romans are the ruins of the city
of Pompeii preserved to us by the protection of the ashes that buried
it at the time of the eruption of Vesuvius in the year 79 A.D.
§12. It will be seen at once that the importance of these sources will
vary with the nature of the subject we are studying and the fullness
of their preservation. For example, we may read in a Roman poet a
description of an ornament worn by a bride. A painting of a bride
wearing such an ornament would make the description clearer, but any
doubt that might remain would be removed if there should be found in
the ruins of Pompeii a similar ornament with its character proved by
an inscription upon it. In this case the three sources would have
contributed to our knowledge. For other matters, especially intangible
things, we may have to rely solely upon descriptions, that is, upon
literary sources. But it may well happen that no Roman wrote a set
description of the particular thing that we are studying, or if he did
that his writings have been lost, so that we may be forced to build up
our knowledge bit by bit, by putting together laboriously the scraps
of information, mere hints perhaps, that we find scattered here and
there in the works of different authors, and these perhaps of very
different times. It is not hard to understand, therefore, that our
knowledge of some things pertaining to Roman antiquities may be fairly
complete, while of others we may have no knowledge at all. It may be
worth remarking of literary sources that the more common and familiar
a thing was to the ancients, the less likely is it that we shall find
a description of it in ancient literature.
§13. Reference Books.--The collecting and arranging of the information
gleaned from these sources has been the task of philologists from very
early times, but so much has been added to our knowledge by recent
discoveries that all but the latest books may be neglected by the
student. A very full list of books treating of Roman Antiquities may
be found in Hübner's "Bibliographie der klassischen
Altertumswissenschaft," and a convenient list in Professor Kelsey's
"Fifty Topics in Roman Antiquities with References," but the student
should not fail to notice at the head of each chapter the lists of
authorities to be consulted in the books specifically mentioned below.
These have been arranged in two classes, systematic treatises and
encyclopedic works, and the student who lacks time to consult all the
references should select one at least of the better and larger works
in each class for regular and methodical study.
§14. Systematic Treatises:
Marquardt, Joachim, "Das Privatleben der Römer," 2d edition by A. Mau.
This is the seventh volume of the _Handbuch der römischen Alterthümer_
by Marquardt and Mommsen. It is the fullest and most authoritative of
all the treatises on the subject and has a few illustrations.
Voigt, Moritz, "Die Römischen Privataltertümer," 2d edition. This is a
part of the fourth volume of the _Handbuch der klassischen
Altertumswissenschaft_ by Iwan von Müller. It is the latest work on
the subject, especially rich in the citation of authorities.
Guhl and Koner, "Leben der Griechen und Römer," 6th edition by
Engelmann. A standard and authoritative work enriched by copious
illustrations. There is an English translation of an earlier edition
which may be used by those who read no German.
Becker, W. A., "Gallus oder römische Scenen aus der Zeit Augusts," new
edition by Hermann Göll. This is a standard authority in the form of a
novel. The story is of no particular interest, but the notes and
excursuses are of the first importance. There is an English
translation of the first edition which may be used with caution by
those who read no German.
Friedländer, L., "Darstellungen aus der Sittengeschichte Roms in der
Zeit von August bis zum Ausgang der Antonine," 6th edition. This is
the great authority for the time it covers and will be found to
include practically the history from the earliest times of all the
matters of which it treats.
Blümner, Hugo, "Technologie und Terminologie der Gewerbe und Künste
bei Griechen und Römern." The very best description of the arts and
industries of ancient Greece and Rome.
Ramsay, William, "A Manual of Roman Antiquities," 15th edition,
revised and partly rewritten by Rodolfo Lanciani. This includes public
as well as private antiquities, but the revision seems to have been
but partial and the larger part of the book is hopelessly out of date.
Wilkins, A. S., "Roman Antiquities," and Preston and Dodge, "The
Private Life of the Romans." Two little books, of which the former is
by a good scholar and is worth reading.
§15. Encyclopedic Works:
Pauly-Wissowa, "Real-Encyclopädie der classischen
Altertumswissenschaft." A monumental work, destined to be for many
years the great authority upon the subject. Unfortunately it is
appearing very slowly and has reached only the word _Demodoros_. There
are a few illustrations.
Smith, William, "A Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities," revised
edition by Wayte and Marindin. This is the very best work of the sort
in English, the best possibly of similar size in any language.
Baumeister, "Denkmäler des klassischen Altertums." The most richly
illustrated work on the subject, absolutely indispensable.
"Harper's Dictionary of Classical Literature and Antiquities." Largely
from Smith, but with valuable additions.
Rich, "Dictionary of Roman and Greek Antiquities." A convenient manual
with many illustrations. Very good for ready reference.
Schreiber, "Atlas of Classical Antiquities." A very copious collection
of illustrations bearing on Greek and Roman life. The illustrations
are accompanied by explanatory text.
Seyffert-Nettleship, "Dictionary of Classical Antiquities." The
illustrations are numerous and the book is of some value on the side
of ancient art.
Lübker, "Real-Lexicon des klassischen Altertums," 7th edition by Max
Erler. The best brief handbook for those who read German. It is
compact and accurate.
§16. Other Books.--Besides these, three books may be mentioned
treating of the discoveries at Pompeii, the importance of which has
been mentioned (§11):
Overbeck, J., "Pompeii," 4th edition by August Mau, the standard
popular work upon the subject, richly supplied with illustrations.
Mau, August, "Pompeii, its Life and Art," translated by Kelsey. This
is the best account of the treasures of the buried city that has
appeared in English, at once interesting and scholarly.
Gusman, Pierre, "Pompeii, the City, its Life and Art," translated by
Simmonds and Jourdain. The very best collection of illustrations, but
not so trustworthy in letterpress.
Finally the student should be warned not to neglect a book merely
because it happens to be written in a language that he does not read
fluently: the very part that he wants may happen to be easy to read,
and many of these books contain illustrations that tell their own
story independently of the letterpress that accompanies them.
CHAPTER I
THE FAMILY
REFERENCES: Marquardt, pp. 1-6; Voigt, 307-311, 386-388; Göll, II.
1-4, 61-65, 187; Pauly-Wissowa, under _adfīnitās_, _agnātiō_,
_cognātiō_; Smith, under _cognātī_, _familia_, _patria potestās_;
Seyffert, under _agnātiō_, _cognātiō_, _familia_, _manus_; Lübker,
under _agnātiō_, _cognātiō_, _familia_, _manus_, _patria potestās_.
Look up the word _familia_ in Harper's lexicon and notice carefully
its range of meanings.
See also Muirhead, "Roman Law," pp. 24-33, and the paragraph on the
Quiritian Family in the article on Roman Law by the same writer in the
"Encyclopaedia Britannica," Vol. XX.
§17. The Household.--If by our word family we usually understand a
group of husband, wife, and children, we may acknowledge at once that
it does not correspond exactly to any of the meanings of the Latin
_familia_, varied as the dictionaries show these to be. Husband, wife,
and children did not necessarily constitute an independent family
among the Romans, and were not necessarily members even of the same
family. Those persons made up the Roman _familia_, in the sense
nearest to its English derivative, who were subject to the authority
of the same Head of the House (_pater familiās_). These persons might
make a host in themselves: wife, unmarried daughters, sons real or
adopted, married or unmarried, with their wives, sons, unmarried
daughters, and even remoter descendants (always through males), yet
they made but one _familia_ in the eyes of the Romans. The Head of
such a family--"household" or "house" is the nearest English word--was
always _suī iūris_ ("independent," "one's own master"), while the
others were _aliēnō iūrī subiectī_ ("dependent").
§18. The authority of the _pater familiās_ over his wife was called
_manus_, over his descendants _patria potestās_, over his chattels
_dominica potestās_. So long as he lived and retained his citizenship,
these powers could be terminated only by his own deliberate act. He
could dispose of his property by gift or sale as freely as we do now.
He might "emancipate" his sons, a very formal proceeding
(_ēmancipātiō_) by which they became each the Head of a new family,
though they were childless themselves or unmarried or even mere
children. He might also emancipate an unmarried daughter, who thus in
her own self became an independent family. Or he might give her in
marriage to another Roman citizen, an act by which she passed by early
usage (§61) into the family of which her husband was Head, if he was
_suī iūris_, or of which he was a member, if he was still _aliēnō iūrī
subiectus_. It must be carefully noticed, on the other hand, that the
marriage of a son did not make him a _pater familiās_ or relieve him
in any degree from the _patria potestās_: he and his wife and their
children were subject to the same Head of the House as he had been
before his marriage. On the other hand, the Head of the House could
not number in his _familia_ his daughter's children: legitimate
children always followed the father, while an illegitimate child was
from the moment of birth in himself or herself an independent family.
§19. The Splitting Up of a House.--Emancipation was not very common
and it usually happened that the household was dissolved only by the
death of the Head. When this occurred, as many new households were
formed as there were persons directly subject to his _potestās_ at the
moment of his death: wife, sons, unmarried daughters, widowed
daughters-in-law, and children of a deceased son. The children of a
surviving son, it must be noticed, merely passed from the _potestās_
of their grandfather to that of their father. A son under age or an
unmarried daughter was put under the care of a guardian (_tūtor_),
selected from the same _gēns_, very often an older brother, if there
was one. The following diagram will make this clearer:
1Gaius (_pater familiās_) = (†)2Gaia (_māter familiās_)
|
---------------------------------------------------------------
| | | | |
3Faustus = 4Tullia (†)5Balbus = 6Licinia 7Publius 8Terentia |
| | 9Marcus = 10Terentia Minor
----------- ------------ |
| | | | ------------
11Titus 12Tiberius 13Quintus 14Sextius | |
15Servius 16Decimus
§20. It is assumed that Gaius is a widower who has had five children,
three sons and two daughters. Of the sons, Faustus and Balbus married
and had each two children; Balbus then died. Of the daughters,
Terentia Minor married Marcus and became the mother of two children.
Publius and Terentia were unmarried at the death of Gaius, who had
emancipated none of his children. It will be noticed:
1. The living descendants of Gaius were ten (3, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13,
14, 15, 16), his son Balbus being dead.
2. Subject to his _potestās_ were nine (3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, 13,
14).
3. His daughter Terentia Minor (10) had passed out of his _potestās_
by her marriage with Marcus (9), and her children (15, 16) alone out
of all the descendants of Gaius had not been subject to him.
4. At his death are formed six independent families, one consisting of
four persons (3, 4, 11, 12), the others of one person each (6, 7, 8,
13, 14).
5. Titus and Tiberius (11, 12) have merely passed out of the
_potestās_ of their grandfather Gaius to come under that of their
father Faustus.
§21. Other Meanings of Familia.--The word _familia_ was also very
commonly used in a slightly wider sense to include in addition to the
persons named above (§17) all the slaves and clients and all the
property real and personal belonging to the _pater familiās_, or
acquired and used by the persons under his _potestās_. The word was
also used of the slaves alone, and rarely of the property alone. In a
still wider and more important sense the word was applied to a larger
group of related persons, the _gēns_, consisting of all the
"households" (_familiae_ in the sense of §17) who derived their
descent through males from a common ancestor. This remote ancestor,
could his life have lasted through all the intervening centuries,
would have been the _pater familiās_ of all the persons included in
the _gēns_, and all would have been subject to his _potestās_.
Membership in the _gēns_ was proved by the possession of the _nōmen_,
the second of the three names that every citizen of the Republic
regularly had (§38).
§22. Theoretically this _gēns_ had been in prehistoric times one of
the _familiae_, "households," whose union for political purposes had
formed the state. Theoretically its _pater familiās_ had been one of
the Heads of Houses who in the days of the Kings had formed the
_patrēs_, or assembly of old men (_senātus_). The splitting up of this
prehistoric household in the manner explained in §19, a process
repeated generation after generation, was believed to account for the
numerous _familiae_ who claimed connection with the great _gentēs_ in
later times. The _gēns_ had an organization of which little is known.
It passed resolutions binding upon its members; it furnished guardians
for minor children, and curators for the insane and for spendthrifts.
When a member died without leaving natural heirs, it succeeded to such
property as he did not dispose of by will and administered it for the
common good of all its members. These members were called _gentīlēs_,
were bound to take part in the religious services of the _gēns_
(_sacra gentīlīcia_), had a claim to the common property, and might if
they chose be laid to rest in the common burial ground.
Finally, the word _familia_ was often applied to certain branches of a
_gēns_ whose members had the same _cognōmen_ (§48), the last of the
three names mentioned in §21. For this use of _familia_ a more
accurate word is _stirps_.
§23. Agnati.--It has been remarked (§18) that the children of a
daughter could not be included in the _familia_ of her father, and
(§21) that membership in the larger organization called the _gēns_ was
limited to those who could trace their descent through males. All
persons who could in this way trace their descent through males to a
common ancestor, in whose _potestās_ they would be were he alive, were
called _agnātī_, and this _agnātiō_ was the closest tie of
relationship known to the Romans. In the list of _agnātī_ were
included two classes of persons who would seem by the definition to be
excluded. These were the wife, who passed by _manus_ into the family
of her husband (§18), becoming by law his agnate and the agnate of all
his agnates, and the adopted son. On the other hand a son who had been
emancipated (§18) was excluded from _agnātiō_ with his father and his
father's agnates, and could have no agnates of his own until he
married or was adopted into another _familia_. The following diagram
will make this clearer:
1Gaius (_pater familiās_) = 2Gaia (_māter familiās_)
|
----------------------------------------------------------------
| : | | | |
3Faustus = 4Tullia : 5Balbus = 6Licinia 7Publius 8Terentia |
| : [Emancipated]| [Emancipated] |
----------- : ------------ 9Marcus = 10Terentia Minor
| | : | | |
11Titus 12Tiberius : 13Quintus 14Sextius -------------
: | |
:[Servius adopted by Gaius] 15Servius 16Decimus
:.........................[Emancipated]
§24. It is supposed that Gaius and Gaia have five children (Faustus,
Balbus, Publius, Terentia, and Terentia Minor), and six grandsons
(Titus and Tiberius the sons of Faustus, Quintus and Sextius the sons
of Balbus, and Servius and Decimus the sons of Terentia Minor). Gaius
has emancipated two of his sons, Balbus and Publius, and has adopted
his grandson Servius, who had previously been emancipated by his
father Marcus. There are four sets of _agnātī_:
1. Gaius, his wife, and those whose _pater familiās_ he is, viz.:
Faustus, Tullia the wife of Faustus, Terentia, Titus, Tiberius, and
Servius, a son by adoption (1, 2, 3, 4, 8, 11, 12, 15).
2. Balbus, his wife, and their two sons (5, 6, 13, and 14).
3. Publius, who is himself a _pater familiās_, but has no _agnātī_ at
all.
4. Marcus, his wife Terentia Minor, and their child Decimus (9, 10,
16). Notice that the other child, Servius (15), having been
emancipated by Marcus is no longer agnate to his father, mother, or
brother.
§25. Cognati, on the other hand, were what we call blood relations, no
matter whether they traced their relationship through males or
females, and regardless of what _potestās_ had been over them. The
only barrier in the eyes of the law was loss of citizenship (§18), and
even this was not always regarded. Thus, in the table last given,
Gaius, Faustus, Balbus, Publius, Terentia, Terentia Minor, Titus,
Tiberius, Quintus, Sextius, Servius, and Decimus are all cognates with
one another. So, too, is Gaia with all her descendants mentioned. So
also are Tullia, Titus, and Tiberius; Licinia, Quintus, and Sextius;
Marcus, Servius, and Decimus. But husband and wife (Gaius and Gaia,
Faustus and Tullia, Balbus and Licinia, Marcus and Terentia Minor)
were not cognates by virtue of their marriage, though that made them
agnates. In fact public opinion discountenanced the marriage of
cognates within the sixth (later the fourth) degree, and persons
within this degree were said to have the _iūs ōsculī_. The degree was
calculated by counting from one of the interested parties through the
common ancestor to the other and may be easily understood from the
table given in Smith's "Dictionary of Antiquities" under _cognātī_, or
the one given here (Fig. 1). Cognates did not form an organic body in
the state as did the agnates (§22), but the 22d of February was set
aside to commemorate the tie of blood (_cāra cognātiō_), and on this
day presents were exchanged and family reunions probably held. It must
be understood, however, that _cognātiō_ gave no legal rights or claims
under the Republic.
[Illustration: FIGURE 1. TABLE OF RELATIONSHIP]
§26. Adfines.--Persons connected by marriage only were called
_adfīnēs_, as a wife with her husband's cognates and he with hers.
There were no formal degrees of _adfīnitās_, as there were of
_cognātiō_. Those adfīnēs for whom distinctive names were in common
use were: _gener_, son-in-law; _nurus_, daughter-in-law; _socer_,
father-in-law; _socrus_, mother-in-law; _prīvignus_, _prīvigna_,
step-son, step-daughter; _ritricus_, step-father; _noverca_,
step-mother. If we compare these names with the awkward compounds that
do duty for them in English, we shall have additional proof of the
stress laid by the Romans on family ties: two women who married
brothers were called _iānītrīcēs_, a relationship for which we do not
have even a compound. The names of blood relations tell the same
story: a glance at the table of cognates will show how strong the
Latin is here, how weak the English. We have "uncle," "aunt," and
"cousin," but between _avunculus_ and _patruus_, _mātertera_ and
_amita_, _patruēlis_ and _cōnsōbrīnus_, we can distinguish only by
descriptive phrases. For _atavus_ and _tritavus_ we have merely the
indefinite "forefathers." In the same way the language testifies to
the headship of the father. We speak of the "mother country" and
"mother tongue," but to the Roman these were _patria_ and _sermō
patrius_. As the _pater_ stood to the _fīlius_, so stood the
_patrōnus_ to the _cliēns_, the _patriciī_ to the _plēbēiī_, the
_patrēs_ (=senators) to the rest of the citizens, and _Iūpiter_ (Jove
the Father) to the other gods of Olympus.
§27. The Family Cult.--It has been said (§23) that _agnātiō_ was the
closest tie known to the Romans. The importance they attached to the
agnatic family is largely explained by their ideas of the future life.
They believed that the souls of men had an existence apart from the
body, but not in a separate spirit-land. They conceived of the soul as
hovering around the place of burial and requiring for its peace and
happiness that offerings of food and drink should be made to it
regularly. Should these offerings be discontinued, the soul would
cease to be happy itself, and might become perhaps a spirit of evil.
The maintenance of these rites and ceremonies devolved naturally upon
the descendants from generation to generation, whom the spirits in
turn would guide and guard.
[Illustration: FIGURE 2. LUCIUS JUNIUS BRUTUS]
§28. The Roman was bound, therefore, to perform these acts of
affection and piety so long as he lived himself, and bound no less to
provide for their performance after his death by perpetuating his race
and the family cult. A curse was believed to rest upon the childless
man. Marriage was, therefore, a solemn religious duty, entered into
only with the approval of the gods ascertained by the auspices. In
taking a wife to himself the Roman made her a partaker of his family
mysteries, a service that brooked no divided allegiance. He therefore
separated her entirely from her father's family, and was ready in turn
to surrender his daughter without reserve to the husband with whom she
was to minister at another altar. The _pater familiās_ was the priest
of the household, and those subject to his _potestās_ assisted in the
prayers and offerings, the _sacra familiāria_.
§29. But it might be that a marriage was fruitless, or that the Head
of the House saw his sons die before him. In this case he had to face
the prospect of the extinction of his family, and his own descent to
the grave with no posterity to make him blessed. One of two
alternatives was open to him to avert such a calamity. He might give
himself in adoption and pass into another family in which the
perpetuation of the family cult seemed certain, or he might adopt a
son and thus perpetuate his own. He usually followed the latter
course, because it secured peace for the souls of his ancestors no
less than for his own.
§30. Adoption.--The person adopted might be either a _pater familiās_
himself or, more usually, a _fīlius familiās_. In the case of the
latter the process was called _adoptiō_ and was a somewhat complicated
proceeding by which the natural parent conveyed his son to the other,
the effect being to transfer the adopted person from one family to the
other. The adoption of a _pater familiās_ was a much more serious
matter, for it involved the extinction of one family (§29) in order to
prevent the extinction of another. It was called _adrogātiō_ and was
an affair of state. It had to be sanctioned by the _pontificēs_, the
highest officers of religion, who had probably to make sure that the
_adrogātus_ had brothers enough to attend to the interests of the
ancestors whose cult he was renouncing. If the _pontificēs_ gave their
consent, it had still to be sanctioned by the _comitia curiata_, as
the adrogation might deprive the _gēns_ of its succession to the
property of the childless man (§22). If the _comitia_ gave consent,
the _adrogātus_ sank from the position of Head of a House to that of a
_fīlius familiās_ in the household of his adoptive father. If he had
wife and children, they passed with him into the new family, and so
did all his property. Over him the adoptive father had _potestās_ as
over a son of his own, and looked upon him as flesh of his flesh and
bone of his bone. We can have at best only a feeble and inadequate
notion of what adoption meant to the Romans.
§31. The Patria Potestas.--The authority of the _pater familiās_ over
his descendants was called usually the _patria potestās_, but also the
_patria maiestās_, the _patrium iūs_, and the _imperium paternum_. It
was carried to a greater length by the Romans than by any other
people, a length that seems to us excessive and cruel. As they
understood it, the _pater familiās_ had absolute power over his
children and other agnatic descendants. He decided whether or not the
newborn child should be reared; he punished what he regarded as
misconduct with penalties as severe as banishment, slavery, and death;
he alone could own and exchange property--all that his descendants
earned or acquired in any way was his: according to the letter of the
law they were little better than his chattels. If his right to one of
them was disputed, he vindicated it by the same form of action that he
used to maintain his right to a house or a horse; if one was stolen,
he proceeded against the abductor by the ordinary action for theft; if
for any reason he wished to transfer one of them to a third person, it
was done by the same form of conveyance that he employed to transfer
inanimate things. The jurists boasted that these powers were enjoyed
by Roman citizens only.
§32. Limitations.--But however stern this authority was theoretically,
it was greatly modified in practice, under the Republic by custom,
under the Empire by law. King Romulus was said to have ordained that
all sons should be reared and also all firstborn daughters;
furthermore that no child should be put to death until its third year,
unless it was grievously deformed. This at least secured life for the
child, though the _pater familiās_ still decided whether it should be
admitted to his household, with the implied social and religious
privileges, or be disowned and become an outcast. King Numa was said
to have forbidden the sale into slavery of a son who had married with
the consent of his father. But of much greater importance was the
check put upon arbitrary and cruel punishments by custom. Custom, not
law, obliged the _pater familiās_ to call a council of relatives and
friends (_iūdicium domesticum_) when he contemplated inflicting severe
punishment upon his children, and public opinion obliged him to abide
by their verdict. Even in the comparatively few cases where tradition
tells us that the death penalty was actually inflicted, we usually
find that the father acted in the capacity of a magistrate happening
to be in office when the offense was committed, or that the penalties
of the ordinary law were merely anticipated, perhaps to avoid the
disgrace of a public trial and execution.
§33. So, too, in regard to the ownership of property the conditions
were not really so hard as the strict letter of the law makes them
appear to us. It was customary for the Head of the House to assign to
his children property, _pecūlia_ ("cattle of their own"), for them to
manage for their own benefit. And more than this, although the _pater
familiās_ held legal title to all their acquisitions, yet practically
all property was acquired for and belonged to the household as a
whole, and he was in effect little more than a trustee to hold and
administer it for the common benefit. This is shown by the fact that
there was no graver offense against public morals, no fouler blot on
private character, than to prove untrue to this trust, _patrimōnium
prōfundere_. Besides this, the long continuance of the _potestās_ is
in itself a proof that its rigor was more apparent than real.
[Illustration: FIGURE 3. PUBLIUS CORNELIUS SCIPIO AFRICANUS]
§34. Extinction of the Potestas.--The _patria potestās_ was
extinguished in various ways:
1. By the death of the _pater familiās_, as has been explained in §19.
2. By the emancipation of the son or daughter.
3. By the loss of citizenship by either father or son.
4. If the son became a _flāmen diālis_ or the daughter a _virgō
vestālis_.
5. If either father or child was adopted by a third party.
6. If the daughter passed by formal marriage into the power (_in
manum_) of a husband, though this did not essentially change her
dependent condition (§35).
7. If the son became a public magistrate. In this case the _potestās_
was suspended during the period of office, but after it expired the
father might hold the son accountable for his acts, public and
private, while holding the magistracy.
§35. Manus.--The subject of marriage will be considered later; at this
point it is only necessary to define the power over the wife possessed
by the husband in its most extreme form, called by the Romans _manus_.
By the oldest and most solemn form of marriage the wife was separated
entirely from her father's family (§28) and passed into her husband's
power or "hand" (_conventiō in manum_). This assumes, of course, that
he was _suī iūris_; if he was not, then though nominally in his "hand"
she was really subject as he was to his _pater familiās_. Any property
she had of her own, and to have had any she must have been independent
before her marriage, passed to him as a matter of course. If she had
none, her _pater familiās_ furnished a dowry (_dōs_), which shared the
same fate. Whatever she acquired by her industry or otherwise while
the marriage lasted also became her husband's. So far, therefore, as
property rights were concerned the _manus_ differed in no respect from
the _patria potestās_: the wife was _in locō fīliae_, and on the
husband's death took a daughter's share in his estate.
§36. In other respects _manus_ conferred more limited powers. The
husband was required by law, not merely obliged by custom, to refer
alleged misconduct of his wife to the _iūdicium domesticum_, and this
was composed in part of her cognates (§25). He could put her away for
certain grave offenses only; if he divorced her without good cause he
was punished with the loss of all his property. He could not sell her
at all. In short, public opinion and custom operated even more
strongly for her protection than for that of her children. It must be
noticed, therefore, that the chief distinction between _manus_ and
_patria potestās_ lay in the fact that the former was a legal
relationship based upon the consent of the weaker party, while the
latter was a natural relationship antecedent to all law and choice.
[Illustration: FIGURE 4. LUCIUS CORNELIUS SULLA]
§37. Dominica Potestas.--The right of ownership in his property
(_dominica potestās_) was absolute in the case of a _pater familiās_
and has been sufficiently explained in preceding paragraphs. This
ownership included slaves as well as inanimate things, and slaves as
well as inanimate things were mere chattels in the eyes of the law.
The influence of custom and public opinion, so far as these tended to
mitigating the horrors of their condition, will be discussed later. It
will be sufficient to say here that there was nothing to which the
slave could appeal from the judgment of his master. It was final and
absolute.
CHAPTER II
THE NAME
REFERENCES: Marquardt, 7-27; Voigt, 311, 316 f., 454; Pauly-Wissowa,
under _cognōmen_; Smith, Harper, and Lübker, under _nōmen_.
See also: Egbert, "Latin Inscriptions," Chapter IV; Cagnat, "Cours
d'Epigraphie Latine," Chapter I; Hübner, "Römische Epigraphik," pp.
653-680 of Müller's _Handbuch_, Vol. I.
§38. The Triple Name.--Nothing is more familiar to the student of
Latin than the fact that the Romans whose works he reads first have
each a threefold name, Caius Julius Caesar, Marcus Tullius Cicero,
Publius Vergilius Maro. This was the system that prevailed in the best
days of the Republic, but it was itself a development, starting with a
more simple form in earlier times and ending in utter confusion under
the Empire. The earliest legends of Rome show us single names,
Romulus, Remus, Faustulus; but side by side with these we find also
double names, Numa Pompilius, Ancus Marcius, Tullus Hostilius. It is
possible that single names were the earliest fashion, but when we pass
from legends to real history the oldest names that we find are double,
the second being always in the genitive case, representing the father
or the Head of the House: Marcus Marci, Caecilia Metelli. A little
later these genitives were followed by the letter _f_ (for _fīlius_ or
_fīlia_) or _uxor_, to denote the relationship. Later still, but very
anciently nevertheless, we find the freeborn man in possession of the
three names with which we are familiar, the _nōmen_ to mark the clan
(_gēns_), the _cognōmen_ to mark the family, and the _praenōmen_ to
mark the individual. The regular order of the three names is
_praenōmen_, _nōmen_, _cognōmen_, although in poetry the order is
often changed to adapt the name to the meter.
§39. Great formality required even more than the three names. In
official documents and in the state records it was usual to insert
between a man's _nōmen_ and _cognōmen_ the _praenōmina_ of his father,
grandfather, and great-grandfather, and sometimes even the name of the
tribe to which he belonged. So Cicero might write his name: M. Tullius
M. f. M. n. M. pr. Cor. Cicero; that is, Marcus Tullius Cicero, son
(_fīlius_) of Marcus, grandson (_nepōs_) of Marcus, great-grandson
(_pronepōs_) of Marcus, of the tribe Cornelia. See another example in
§427.
[Illustration: FIGURE 5. MARCUS TULLIUS CICERO]
§40. On the other hand even the triple name was too long for ordinary
use. Children, slaves, and intimate friends addressed the citizen,
master, and friend by his _praenōmen_ only. Ordinary acquaintances
used the _cognōmen_ with the _praenōmen_ prefixed for emphatic
address. In earnest appeals we find the _nōmen_ also used, with
sometimes the _praenōmen_ or the possessive _mī_ prefixed. When two
only of the three names are thus used in familiar intercourse the
order varies. If the _praenōmen_ is one of the two, it always stands
first, except in the poets for metrical reasons and in a few places in
prose where the text is uncertain. If the _praenōmen_ is omitted, the
arrangement varies: the older writers and Cicero put the _cognōmen_
first, _Ahāla Servilius_ (Cic. Milo, 3, 8: cf. _C. Servilius Ahāla_,
Cat. I., 1, 3). Caesar puts the nōmen first; Horace, Livy, and Tacitus
have both arrangements, while Pliny adheres to Caesar's usage. It will
be convenient to consider the three names separately, and to discuss
the names of men before considering those of the other members of the
_familia_.
§41. The Praenomen.--The number of names used as _praenōmina_ seems to
us preposterously small as compared with our Christian names, to which
they in some measure correspond. It was never much in excess of
thirty, and in Sulla's time had dwindled to eighteen. The full list is
given by the authorities named above, but the following are all that
are often found in our school and college authors: _Aulus_ (_A_),
_Decimus_ (_D_), _Gāius_ (_C_), _Gnaeus_ (_CN_), _Kaesō_ (_K_),
_Lūcius_ (_L_), _Mānius_ (_M'_), _Mārcus_ (_M_), _Pūblius_ (_P_),
_Quīntus_ (_Q_), _Servius_ (_SER_), _Sextus_ (_SEX_), _Spurius_
(_SP_), _Tiberius_ (_TI_), and _Titus_ (_T_). The forms of these names
were not absolutely fixed, and we find for _Gnaeus_ the forms
_Gnaivos_ (early), _Naevos_, _Naeus_, and _Gnēus_ (rare); so also for
_Servius_ we find _Sergius_, the two forms going back to an ancient
_Serguius_. The abbreviations also vary: for _Aulus_ we find regularly
_A_, but also _AV_ and _AVL_; for _Sextus_ we find _SEXT_ and _S_ as
well as _SEX_, and similar variations are found in the case of other
names.
§42. But small as this list seems to us the natural conservatism of
the Romans found in it a chance to display itself, and the great
families repeated the names of their children from generation to
generation in such a way as to make the identification of the
individual very difficult in modern times. Thus the Aemilii contented
themselves with seven of these _praenōmina_, _Gāius_, _Gnaeus_,
_Lūcius_, _Mānius_, _Mārcus_, _Quīntus_, and _Tiberius_, but used in
addition one that is not found in any other gens, _Māmercus_ (_MAM_).
The Claudii used six, _Gāius_, _Decimus_, _Lūcius_, _Pūblius_,
_Tiberius_, and _Quīntus_, with the additional name _Appius_ (_APP_),
of Sabine origin, which they brought to Rome. The Cornelii used seven,
_Aulus_, _Gnaeus_, _Lūcius_, _Mārcus_, _Pūblius_, _Servius_, and
_Tiberius_. A still smaller number sufficed for the Julian gens,
_Gāius_, _Lūcius_, and _Sextus_, with the name _Vopiscus_, which went
out of use in very early times. And even these selections were subject
to further limitations. Thus, of the _gēns Claudia_ only one branch
(_stirps_), known as the _Claudiī Nerōnēs_, used the names _Decimus_
and _Tiberius_, and out of the seven names used in the _gēns Cornēlia_
the branch of the Scipios (_Cornēliī Scīpiōnēs_) used only _Gnaeus_,
_Lūcius_, and _Pūblius_. Even after a _praenōmen_ had found a place in
a given family, it might be deliberately discarded: thus, the Claudii
gave up the name _Lūcius_ and the Manlii the name _Mārcus_ on account
of the disgrace brought upon their families by men who bore these
names; and the Antonii never used the name _Mārcus_ after the downfall
of the famous triumvir, Marcus Antonius.
[Illustration: FIGURE 6. CAESAR]
§43. From the list of names usual in his family the father gave one to
his son on the ninth day after his birth, the _diēs lūstricus_. It was
a custom then, one that seems natural enough in our own times, for the
father to give his own _praenōmen_ to his firstborn son; Cicero's name
(§39) shows the name _Mārcus_ four times repeated, and it is probable
that he came from a long line of eldest sons. When these names were
first given they must have been chosen with due regard to their
etymological meanings and have had some relation to the circumstances
attending the birth of the child: Livy in speaking of the mythical
Silvius Aeneas gives us to understand that he received his first name
because he was born in a forest (_silva_).
§44. So, _Lūcius_ meant originally "born by day," _Mānius_, "born in
the morning"; _Quīntus_, _Sextus_, _Decimus_, _Postumus_, etc.,
indicated the succession in the family; _Tullus_ was connected with
the verb _tollere_ in the sense of "acknowledge" (§95), _Servius_ with
_servāre_, _Gāius_ with _gaudēre_. Others are associated with the name
of some divinity, as _Mārcus_ and _Māmercus_ with Mars, and _Tiberius_
with the river god Tiberis. But these meanings in the course of time
were forgotten as completely as we have forgotten the meanings of our
Christian names, and even the numerals were employed with no reference
to their proper force: Cicero's only brother was called _Quīntus_.
[Illustration: FIGURE 7. AUGUSTUS]
§45. The abbreviation of the _praenōmen_ was not a matter of mere
caprice, as is the writing of initials with us, but was an established
custom, indicating perhaps Roman citizenship. The _praenōmen_ was
written out in full only when it was used by itself or when it
belonged to a person in one of the lower classes of society. When
Roman names are carried over into English, they should always be
written out in full and pronounced accordingly. In the same way, when
we read a Latin author and find a name abbreviated, the full name
should always be pronounced if we read aloud or translate.
§46. The Nomen.--This, the all-important name, is called for greater
precision the _nōmen gentīle_ and the _nōmen gentīlicium_. The child
inherited it, as one inherits his surname now, and there was,
therefore, no choice or selection about it. The _nōmen_ ended
originally in _-ius_, and this ending was sacredly preserved by the
patrician families: the endings _-eius_, _-aius_, _-aeus_, and _-eus_
are merely variations from it. Other endings point to a non-Latin
origin of the gens. Those in _-ācus_ (_Avidiācus_) are Gallic, those
in _-na_ (_Caecīna_) are Etruscan, those in _-ēnus_ or _-iēnus_
(_Salvidiēnus_) are Umbrian or Picene. Some others are formed from the
name of the town from which the family sprang, either with the regular
terminations _-ānus_ and _-ēnsis_ (_Albānus_, _Norbānus_,
_Aquiliēnsis_), or with the suffix _-ius_ (_Perusius_, _Parmēnsius_)
in imitation of the older and more aristocratic use. Standing entirely
apart is the _nōmen_ of the notorious _Gāius Verrēs_, which looks like
a _cognōmen_ out of place (§55).
§47. The _nōmen_ belonged by custom to all connected with the gens, to
the plebeian as well as the patrician branches, to men, women,
clients, and freedmen without distinction. It was perhaps the natural
desire to separate themselves from the more humble bearers of their
_nōmen_ that led patrician families to use a limited number of
_praenōmina_, avoiding those used by their clansmen of inferior social
standing. At any rate it is noticeable that the plebeian families, as
soon as political nobility and the busts in their halls gave them a
standing above their fellows, showed the same exclusiveness in the
selection of names for their children that the patricians had
displayed before them (§42).
[Illustration: FIGURE 8. NERO]
§48. The Cognomen.--Besides the individual name and the name that
marked his _gēns_, the Roman had often a third name, called the
_cognōmen_, that served to indicate the family or branch of the _gēns_
to which he belonged. Almost all the great _gentēs_ were thus divided,
some of them into numerous branches. The Cornelian gens, for example,
included the plebeian Dolabellae, Lentuli, Cethegi, and Cinnae, in
addition to the patrician Scipiones, Maluginenses, Rufini, etc. The
recognition of a group of clansmen as such a branch, or _stirps_, and
as entitled to transmit a common _cognōmen_ required the formal
consent of the whole _gēns_, and carried with it the loss of certain
privileges as _gentīlēs_ to the members of the _stirps_.
§49. From the fact that in the official name (§39) the _cognōmen_
followed the name of the tribe, it is generally believed that the
oldest of these _cognōmina_ did not go back beyond the time of the
division of the people into tribes. It is also generally believed that
the _cognōmen_ was originally a nickname, bestowed on account of some
personal peculiarity or characteristic, sometimes as a compliment,
sometimes in derision. So, we find many pointing at physical traits,
such as _Albus_, _Barbātus_, _Cincinnātus_, _Claudus_, _Longus_ (all
originally adjectives), and the nouns _Nāsō_ and _Capitō_ ("the man
with a nose," "with a head"); others refer to the temperament, such as
_Benignus_, _Blandus_, _Catō_, _Serēnus_, _Sevērus_; others still
denote origin, such as _Gallus_, _Ligus_, _Sabīnus_, _Siculus_,
_Tuscus_. These names, it must be remembered, descended from father to
son, and would naturally lose their appropriateness as they passed
along, until in the course of time their meanings were entirely lost
sight of, as were those of the _praenōmina_ (§44).
§50. Under the Republic the patricians had almost without exception
this third or family name; we are told of but one man, Caius Marcius,
who lacked the distinction. With the plebeians the _cognōmen_ was not
so common, perhaps its possession was the exception. The great
families of the Marii, Mummii, and Sertorii had none, although the
plebeian branches of the Cornelian gens (§48), the Tullian gens, and
others, did. The _cognōmen_ came, therefore, to be prized as an
indication of ancient lineage, and individuals whose nobility was new
were anxious to acquire it to transmit to their children. Hence many
assumed _cognōmina_ of their own selection. Some of these were
conceded by public opinion as their due, as in the case of Cnaeus
Pompeius, who took _Magnus_ as his _cognōmen_. Others were derided by
their contemporaries, as we deride the made-to-order coat of arms of
some nineteenth century upstart. It is probable, however, that only
nobles ventured to assume _cognōmina_ under the Republic, though under
the Empire their possession was hardly more than the badge of freedom.
§51. Additional Names.--Besides the three names already described, we
find not infrequently, even in Republican times, a fourth or fifth.
These were also called _cognōmina_ by a loose extension of the word,
until in the fourth century of our era the name _agnōmina_ was given
them by the grammarians. They may be conveniently considered under
four heads:
In the first place, the process that divided the gens into branches
might be continued even further. That is, as the _gēns_ became
numerous enough to throw off a _stirps_, so the _stirps_ in process of
time might throw off a branch of itself, for which there is no better
name than the vague _familia_. This actually happened very frequently:
the _gēns Cornēlia_, for example, threw off the _stirps_ of the
_Scīpiōnēs_, and these in turn the family or "house" of the _Nāsīcae_.
So we find the quadruple name _Pūblius Cornēlius Scīpiō Nāsīca_, in
which the last name was probably given very much in the same way as
the third had been given before the division took place.
§52. In the second place, when a man passed from one family to another
by adoption (§30) he regularly took the three names of his adoptive
father and added his own _nōmen gentīle_ with the suffix _-ānus_.
Thus, Lucius Aemilius Paulus, the son of Lucius Aemilius Paulus
Macedonicus (see §53 for the last name), was adopted by Publius
Cornelius Scipio, and took as his new name _Pūblius Cornēlius Scīpiō
Aemiliānus_. In the same way, when Caius Octavius Caepias was adopted
by Caius Julius Caesar, he became _Gāius Iūlius Caesar Octāviānus_,
and is hence variously styled Octavius and Octavianus in the
histories.
§53. In the third place, an additional name, sometimes called
_cognōmen ex virtūte_, was often given by acclamation to a great
statesman or victorious general, and was put after his _cognōmen_. A
well known example is the name of Publius Cornelius Scipio Africanus,
the last name having been given him after his defeat of Hannibal. In
the same way, his grandson by adoption, the Publius Cornelius Scipio
Aemilianus mentioned above, received the same honorable name after he
had destroyed Carthage, and was called _Pūblius Cornēlius Scīpiō
Africānus Aemiliānus_. Such a name is Macedonicus given to Lucius
Aemilius Paulus for his defeat of Persens, and the title Augustus
given by the senate to Octavianus. It is not certainly known whether
or not these names passed by inheritance to the descendants of those
who originally earned them, but it is probable that the eldest son
only was strictly entitled to take his father's title of honor.
§54. In the fourth place, the fact that a man had inherited a nickname
from his ancestors in the form of a _cognōmen_ (§49) did not prevent
his receiving another from some personal characteristic, especially as
the inherited name had often no application, as we have seen, to its
later possessor. To some ancient Publius Cornelius was given the
nickname _Scīpiō_ (§49), and in the course of time this was taken by
all his descendants without thought of its appropriateness and became
a _cognōmen_; then to one of these descendants was given another
nickname for personal reasons, _Nāsīca_, and in course of time it lost
its individuality and became the name of a whole family (§51); then in
precisely the same way a member of this family became prominent enough
to need a separate name and was called _Corculum_, his full name being
_Pūblius Cornēlius Scīpiō Nāsīca Corculum_. It is evident that there
is no reason why the expansion should not have continued indefinitely.
Such names are Publius Cornelius Lentulus Spinther, Quintus Caecilius
Metellus Celer, and Publius Cornelius Scipio Nasica Serapio. It is
also evident that we can not always distinguish between a mere
nickname, one belonging strictly to this paragraph, and the additional
_cognōmen_ that marked the family off from the rest of the _stirps_ to
which it belonged. It is perfectly possible that the name Spinther
mentioned above has as good a right as Nasica to a place in the first
division (§51).
§55. Confusion of Names.--A system so elaborate as that we have
described was almost sure to be misunderstood or misapplied, and in
the later days of the Republic and under the Empire we find all law
and order disregarded. The giving of the _praenōmen_ to the child
seems to have been delayed too long sometimes, and burial inscriptions
are numerous which have in place of a first name the word _pūpus_
(_PVP_) "child," showing that the little one had died unnamed. One
such inscription gives the age of the unnamed child as sixteen years.
Then confusion was caused by the misuse of the _praenōmen_. Sometimes
two are found in one name, e.g., _Pūblius Aelius Aliēnus Archelāus
Mārcus_. Sometimes words ending like the _nōmen_ in _-ius_ were used
as _praenōmina_: Cicero tells us that one _Numerius Quīntius Rūfus_
owed his escape from death in a riot to his ambiguous first name. The
familiar Gāius must have been a _nōmen_ in very ancient times. Like
irregularities occur in the use of the _nōmen_. Two in a name were not
uncommon, one being derived from the family of the mother perhaps;
occasionally three or four are used, and fourteen are found in the
name of one of the consuls of the year 169 A.D. Then by a change, the
converse of that mentioned above, a word might go out of use as a
_praenōmen_ and become a _nōmen_: Cicero's enemy _Lūcius Sergius
Catilīna_ had for his gentile name _Sergius_, which had once been a
first name (§41). The _cognōmen_ was similarly abused. It ceased to
denote the family and came to distinguish members of the same family,
as the _praenōmina_ originally had done: thus the three sons of Marcus
Annaeus Seneca, for example, were called _Mārcus Annaeus Novātus_,
_Lūcius Annaeus Seneca_, and _Lūcius Annaeus Mela_. So, too, a word
used as a _cognōmen_ in one name might be used as a fourth element in
another: for example in the names _Lūcius Cornēlius Sulla_ and _Lūcius
Cornēlius Lentulus Sura_ the third and fourth elements respectively
are really the same, being merely shortened forms of _Surula_. Finally
it may be remarked that the same name might be arranged differently at
different times: in the consular lists we find the same man called
_Lūcius Lūcrētius Tricipitīnus Flāvus_ and _Lūcius Lūcrētius Flāvus
Tricipitīnus_.
§56. There is even greater variation in the names of persons who had
passed from one family into another by adoption. Some took the
additional name (§52) from the _stirps_ instead of from the _gēns_,
that is, from the _cognōmen_ instead of from the _nōmen_. A son of
Marcus Claudius Marcellus was adopted by a certain Publius Cornelius
Lentulus and ought to have been called _Pūblius Cornēlius Lentulus
Claudiānus_; he took instead the name _Pūblius Cornēlius Lentulus
Marcellīnus_, and this name descended to his children. The confusion
in this direction is well illustrated by the name of the famous Marcus
Junius Brutus. A few years before Caesar fell by his hand, Brutus, as
we usually call him, was adopted by his mother's brother, Quintus
Servilius Caepio, and ought to have been called _Quīntus Servīlius
Caepiō Iūniānus_. For some reason unknown to us he retained his own
_cognōmen_, and even his close friend Cicero seems scarcely to know
what to call him. Sometimes he writes of him as _Quīntus Caepiō
Brūtus_, sometimes as _Mārcus Brūtus_, sometimes simply as _Brūtus_.
The great scholar of the first century, Asconius, calls him _Mārcus
Caepiō_. Finally it may be noticed that late in the Empire we find a
man struggling under the load of forty names.
§57. Names of Women.--No very satisfactory account of the names of
women can be given, because it is impossible to discover any system in
the choice and arrangement of those that have come down to us. It may
be said in general that the threefold name was unknown in the best
days of the Republic, and that _praenōmina_ were rare and when used
were not abbreviated. We find such _praenōmina_ as _Paulla_ and
_Vibia_ (the masculine forms of which early disappeared), _Gāia_,
_Lūcia_, and _Pūblia_, and it is probable that the daughter took these
from her father. More common were the adjectives _Maxuma_ and _Minor_,
and the numerals _Secunda_ and _Tertia_, but these unlike the
corresponding names of men seem always to have denoted the place of
the bearer among a group of sisters. It was more usual for the
unmarried woman to be called by her father's _nōmen_ in its feminine
form, _Tullia_, _Cornēlia_, with the addition of her father's
_cognōmen_ in the genitive case, _Caecilia Metellī_, followed later by
the letter _f_ (=_filia_) to mark the relationship. Sometimes she used
her mother's _nōmen_ after her father's. The married woman, if she
passed into her husband's hand (_manus_, §35) by the ancient patrician
ceremony, originally took his _nōmen_, just as an adopted son took the
name of the family into which he passed, but it can not be shown that
the rule was universally or even usually observed. Under the later
forms of marriage she retained her maiden name. In the time of the
Empire we find the threefold name for women in general use, with the
same riotous confusion in selection and arrangement as prevailed in
the case of the names of men at the same time.
§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: _Mārcipor_ (=_Mārcī 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 _nōmen_ and
_praenōmen_ (the order is important) of his master and the word
_servus_: _Pharnacēs Egnātiī Pūbliī servus_. When a slave passed from
one master to another he took the _nōmen_ of the new master and added
to it the _cognōmen_ of the old with the suffix _-ānus_: when Anna the
slave of Maecenas became the property of Livia, she was called _Anna
Līviae serva Maecēnātiāna_.
[Illustration: 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 _nōmen_ of his
master with any _praenōmen_ the latter assigned him. Thus, Andronicus,
the slave of Marcus Livius Salinator, became when freed _Lūcius Līvius
Andronīcus_, the individual name coming last as a sort of _cognōmen_.
It happened naturally that the master's _praenōmen_ was often given,
especially to a favorite slave. The freedman of a woman took the name
of her father, e.g., _Mārcus Līvius Augustae l Ismarus_; the letter
_l_ stands for _lībertus_, and was inserted in all formal documents.
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
_Mārcus Tullius Tīrō_, but to the latter he gave his own _praenōmen_
and the _nōmen_ of his friend Titus Pomponius Atticus, the new name
being _Mārcus 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 _cognōmen_, and before it were
written the _praenōmen_ that suited his fancy and the _nōmen_ 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 Archiās_ 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 _nōmen_ 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), _Gāius Valerius Cabūrus_. 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; 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_.
[Illustration: 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 _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).
[Illustration: 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 (_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.
[Illustration: 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 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.
[Illustration: 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 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.
[Illustration: FIGURE 14. A MARRIAGE SCENE]
§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.
[Illustration: FIGURE 15. A CAMILLUS]
§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.
[Illustration: FIGURE 16. THE MARRIAGE COUCH]
§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.
CHAPTER IV
CHILDREN AND EDUCATION
REFERENCES: Marquardt, 80-134; Voigt, 322 f., 397 f., 455 f.; Göll,
"Gallus," II, 65-113; Friedländer, I, 456 f., III, 376 f.; Ramsay, 475
f.; Smith, _lūdus litterārius_; Harper, _education_; Baumeister, 237,
1588 f.; Schreiber, Pl. 79, 82, 89, 90; Lübker, _Erziehung_.
§94. Legal Status.--The position of the children in the _familia_ has
been already explained (§§31, 32). It has been shown that in the eyes
of the law they were little better than the chattels of the Head of
the House. It rested with him to grant them the right to live; all
that they earned was his; they married at his bidding, and either
remained under his _potestās_ or passed under another no less severe.
It has also been suggested that custom (§32) and _pietās_ (§73) had
made this condition less rigorous than it seems to us.
§95. Susceptio.--The power of the _pater familiās_ was displayed
immediately after the birth of the child. By invariable custom it was
laid upon the ground at his feet. If he raised (_tollere_,
_suscipere_) it in his arms, he acknowledged it as his own by the act
(_susceptiō_) and admitted it to all the rights and privileges that
membership in a Roman family implied. If he refused to do so, the
child became an outcast, without family, without the protection of the
spirits of the dead (§27), utterly friendless and forsaken. The
disposal of the child did not ordinarily call for any act of downright
murder, such as was contemplated in the case of Romulus and Remus and
was afterwards forbidden by Romulus the King (§32). The child was
simply "exposed" (_expōnere_), that is, taken by a slave from the
house and left on the highway to live or to die. When we consider the
slender chance for life that the newborn child has with even the
tenderest care, the result of this exposure will not seem doubtful.
§96. But there was a chance for life, and the mother, powerless to
interpose in her infant's behalf, often sent with it some trinkets or
trifling articles of jewelry that would serve perhaps to identify it,
if it should live. Even if the child was found in time by persons
disposed to save its life, its fate might be worse than death. Slavery
was the least of the evils to which it was exposed. Such foundlings
often fell into the hands of those whose trade was beggary and who
trained children for the same profession. In the time of the Empire,
at least, they cruelly maimed and deformed their victims, in order to
excite more readily the compassion of those to whom they appealed for
alms. Such things are still done in southern Europe.
§97. Dies Lustricus.--The first eight days of the life of the
acknowledged child were called _prīmordia_, and were the occasion of
various religious ceremonies. During this time the child was called
_pūpus_ (§55), although to weak and puny children the individual name
might be given soon after birth. On the ninth day in the case of a
boy, on the eighth in the case of a girl, the _praenōmen_ (§43) was
given with due solemnity. A sacrifice was offered and the ceremony of
purification was performed, which gave the day its name, _diēs
lūstricus_, although it was also called the _diēs nōminum_ and
_nōminālia_. These ceremonies seem to have been private; that is, it
can not be shown that there was any taking of the child to a
_templum_, as there was among the Jews, or any enrollment of the name
upon an official list. In the case of the boy the registering of the
name on the list of citizens may have occurred at the time of putting
on the _toga virīlis_ (§127).
[Illustration: FIGURE 17. CREPUNDIA]
§98. The _diēs lūstricus_ was, however, a time of rejoicing and
congratulation among the relatives and friends, and these together
with the household slaves presented the child with little metal toys
or ornaments in the form of flowers, miniature axes and swords, and
especially figures shaped like a half-moon (_lūnulae_), etc. These,
called collectively _crepundia_, were strung together and worn around
the neck and over the breast (Fig. 17). They served in the first place
as playthings to keep the child amused, hence the name "rattles," from
_crepō_. Besides, they were a protection against witchcraft or the
evil eye (_fascinātiō_), especially the _lūnulae_. More than this,
they were a means of identification in the case of lost or stolen
children, and for this reason Terence calls them _monumenta_. Such
were the trinkets sometimes left with an abandoned child (§96), their
value depending, of course, upon the material of which they were made.
[Illustration: FIGURE 18. THE BULLA]
[Illustration: FIGURE 19. GIRL'S NECKLACE]
§99. The Bulla.--But of more significance than these was the _bulla
aurea_, which the father hung around the child's neck on this day, if
he had not done so at the time of the _susceptiō_. It consisted of two
concave pieces of gold, like a watch case (Fig. 18), fastened together
by a wide spring of the same metal and containing an amulet as a
protection against _fascinātiō_. It was hung around the neck by a
chain or cord and worn upon the breast. The _bulla_ came originally
from Etruria,[1] and for a long time the children of patricians only
were allowed to wear those of gold, the plebeians contenting
themselves with an imitation made of leather, hung on a leathern
thong. In the course of time the distinction ceased to be observed, as
we have seen such distinctions die out in the use of names and in the
marriage ceremonies, and by Cicero's time the _bulla aurea_ might be
worn by the child of any freeborn citizen. The choice of material
depended rather upon the wealth and generosity of the father than upon
his social position. The girl wore her _bulla_ (Fig. 19) until the eve
of her wedding day, laying it aside with other childish things, as we
have seen (§76); the boy wore his until he assumed the _toga virīlis_,
when it was dedicated to the _Larēs_ of the house and carefully
preserved. If the boy became a successful general and won the coveted
honor of a triumph, he always wore his _bulla_ in the triumphal
procession as a protection against envy.
[Footnote 1: The influence of Etruria upon Rome faded before that of
Greece (§5), but from Etruria the Romans got the art of divination,
certain forms of architecture, the insignia of royalty, and the games
of the circus and the amphitheater.]
[Illustration: FIGURE 20. CHILD IN LITTER]
§100. Nurses.--The mother was the child's nurse (§90) not only in the
days of the Republic but even into the Empire, the Romans having
heeded the teachings of nature in this respect longer than any other
civilized nation of the old world. Of course it was not always
possible then, as it is not always possible now, for the mother to
nurse her children, and then her place was taken by a slave
(_nūtrīx_), to whom the name _māter_ seems to have been given out of
affection. In the ordinary care of the children, too, the mother was
assisted, but only assisted, by slaves. Under the eye of the mother,
slaves washed and dressed the child, told it stories, sang it
lullabies, and rocked it to sleep on the arm or in a cradle. None of
these nursery stories have come down to us, but Quintilian tells us
that Aesop's fables resembled them. For a picture of a cradle see
Smith under the words _cūnae_ and _cūnābula_; in Rich under _cūnāria_
is a picture of a nurse giving a baby its bath. The place of the
modern baby carriage was taken by a litter (_lectīca_), and a terra
cotta figure has come down to us (Fig. 20) representing a child
carried in such a litter by two men.
§101. After the Punic wars (§5) it became customary for the well-to-do
to select for the child's nurse a Greek slave, that the child might
acquire the Greek language as naturally as its own. In Latin
literature are many passages that testify to the affection felt for
each other by nurse and child, an affection that lasted on into
manhood and womanhood. It was a common thing for the young wife to
take with her into her new home, as her adviser and confidant, the
nurse who had watched over her in infancy. Faithfulness on the part of
such slaves was also frequently repaid by manumission.
[Illustration: FIGURE 21. JOINTED DOLL]
[Illustration: FIGURE 22. CHILDREN PLAYING BALL]
§102. Playthings.--But little is known of the playthings, pets, and
games of Roman children, because as has been said (§93) domestic life
was not a favorite theme of Roman writers and no books were then
written especially for the young. Still there are scattered references
in literature from which we can learn something, and more is known
from monumental sources (§10). This evidence shows that playthings
were numerous and of very many kinds. The _crepundia_ have been
mentioned already (§98), and these miniature tools and implements seem
to have been very common. Dolls there were, too, and some of these
have come down to us, though we can not always distinguish between
statuettes and genuine playthings. Some were made of clay, others of
wax, and even jointed arms and legs were not unknown (Fig. 21). Little
wagons and carts were also common (Schreiber, LXXXII, 10), and Horace
speaks of hitching mice to toys of this sort. There are numerous
pictures and descriptions of children spinning tops, making them
revolve by blows of a whiplash, as in Europe nowadays. Hoops also were
a favorite plaything, driven with a stick and having pieces of metal
fastened to them to warn people of their approach. Boys walked on
stilts and played with balls (Fig. 22), too, but as men enjoyed this
sport as well, it may be deferred until we reach the subject of
amusements (§318).
[Illustration: FIGURE 23. BOY AND GOOSE]
§103. Pets and Games.--Pets were even more common then than now, and
then as now the dog was easily first in the affections of children
(Schreiber, LXXXII, 6). The cat, on the other hand, was hardly known
until very late in the history of Greece and Rome. Birds were very
commonly made pets, and besides the doves and pigeons which are
familiar to us as well, we are told that ducks, crows, and quail were
pets of children. So also were geese, odd as this seems to us, and the
statue of a child struggling with a goose as large as himself is well
known (Fig. 23). Monkeys were known, but could not have been common.
Mice have been mentioned already. Games of many kinds were played by
children, but we can only guess at the nature of most of them, as we
have hardly any formal descriptions. There were games corresponding to
our Odd or Even, Blindman's Buff, Hide and Seek, Jackstones (§320),
and Seesaw (Schreiber, LXXIX and LXXX). Pebbles and nuts were used in
games something like our marbles, and there were board-games also. To
these may be added for boys riding, swimming, and wrestling, although
these were taken too seriously, perhaps, to be called games and
belonged rather to their training for the duties of citizenship.
§104. Home Training.--The training of the children was conducted by
the father and mother in person. More stress was laid upon the moral
than upon the intellectual development: reverence for the gods,
respect for the law, unquestioning and instant obedience to authority,
truthfulness, and self-reliance were the most important lessons for
the child to learn. Much of this came from the constant association of
the children with their parents, which was the characteristic feature
of the home training of the Romans as compared with that of other
peoples of the time. The children sat at table with their elders or
helped to serve the meals. Until the age of seven both boys and girls
had their mother for their teacher. From her they learned to speak
correctly their native tongue, and Latin rhetoricians tell us that the
best Latin was spoken by the noble women of the great houses of Rome.
The mother taught them the elements of reading and writing and as much
of the simpler operations of arithmetic as children so young could
learn.
§105. From about the age of seven the boy passed under the care of
regular teachers, but the girl remained her mother's constant
companion. Her schooling was necessarily cut short, because the Roman
girl became a wife so young (§67), and there were things to learn in
the meantime that books do not teach. From her mother she learned to
spin and weave and sew: even Augustus wore garments woven by his wife.
By her mother she was initiated into all the mysteries of household
economy and fitted to take her place as the mistress of a household of
her own, to be a Roman _mātrōna_, the most dignified position to which
a woman could aspire in the ancient world (§§90, 91).
§106. The boy, except during the hours of school, was equally his
father's companion. If the father was a farmer, as all Romans were in
earlier times, the boy helped in the fields and learned to plow and
plant and reap. If the father was a man of high position and lived in
the capital, the boy stood by him in his hall as he received his
guests, learned to know their faces, names, and rank, and acquired a
practical knowledge of politics and affairs of state. If the father
was a senator, the boy, in the earlier days only it is true,
accompanied him to the senate house to hear the debates and listen to
the great orators of the time; and the son could always go with him to
the forum when he was an advocate or concerned in a public trial.
§107. Then as every Roman was bred a soldier the father trained the
son in the use of arms and in the various military exercises, as well
as in the manly sports of riding, swimming, wrestling, and boxing. In
these exercises strength and agility were kept in view, rather than
the grace of movement and symmetrical development of form, on which
the Greeks laid so much stress. On great occasions, too, when the
cabinets in the atrium were opened and the wax busts of their
ancestors displayed, the boy and girl of noble family were always
present and learned the history of the family of which they were a
part, and with it the history of Rome.
§108. Schools.--The actual instruction given to the children by the
father would vary with his own education and at best be subject to all
sorts of interruptions due to his private business or his public
duties. We find that this embarrassment was appreciated in very early
times, and that it was customary for a _pater familiās_ who happened
to have among his slaves one competent to give the needed instruction,
to turn over to him the actual teaching of the children. It must be
remembered that slaves taken in war were often much better educated
than their Roman masters. Not all households, however, would include a
competent teacher, and it would seem only natural for the fortunate
owner of such a slave to receive into his house at fixed hours of the
day the children of his friends and neighbors to be taught together
with his own.
§109. For this privilege he might charge a fee for his own benefit, as
we are told that Cato actually did, or he might allow the slave to
retain as his _pecūlium_ (§33) the little presents given him by his
pupils in lieu of direct payment. The next step, one taken in times
too early to be accurately fixed, was to select for the school a more
convenient place than a private house, one that was central and easily
accessible, and to receive as pupils all who could pay the modest fee
that was demanded. To these schools girls as well as boys were
admitted, but for the reason given in §105 the girls had little time
for studying more than their mothers could teach them, and those who
did carry their studies further came usually of families who preferred
to educate their daughters in the privacy of their own homes and could
afford to do so. The exceptions to this rule were so few, that from
this point we may consider the education of boys alone.
[Illustration: FIGURE 24. WAXED TABLETS AND STILUS]
§110. Subjects Taught in Elementary Schools.--In these elementary
schools the only subjects taught were reading, writing, and
arithmetic. In the first, great stress was laid upon the
pronunciation: the sounds were easy enough but quantity was hard to
master. The teacher pronounced first syllable by syllable, then the
separate words, and finally the whole sentence, the pupils pronouncing
after him at the tops of their voices. In the teaching of writing, wax
tablets (Fig. 24) were employed, much as slates were a generation ago.
The teacher first traced with a _stilus_ the letters that served as a
copy, then he guided the pupil's hand with his own until the child had
learned to form the letters independently. When some dexterity had
been acquired, the pupil was taught to use the reed pen and write with
ink upon papyrus. For practice, sheets were used that had had one side
written upon already for more important purposes. If any books at all
were used in these schools, the pupils must have made them for
themselves by writing from the teacher's dictation.
[Illustration: FIGURE 25. ABACUS]
§111. In arithmetic mental calculation was emphasized, but the pupil
was taught to use his fingers in a very elaborate way that is not now
thoroughly understood, and harder sums were worked out with the help
of the reckoning board (_abacus_, Fig. 25). In addition to all this,
attention was paid to the training of the memory, and the pupil was
made to learn by heart all sorts of wise and pithy sayings and
especially the Twelve Tables of the Law. These last became a regular
fetich in the schools, and even when the language in which they were
written had become obsolete pupils continued to learn and recite them.
Cicero had learned them in his boyhood, but within his lifetime they
were dropped from the schools.
§112. Grammar Schools.--Among the results of contact with other
peoples that followed the Punic wars (§5) was the extension of
education at Rome beyond these elementary and strictly utilitarian
subjects. The Greek language came to be generally learned (§101) and
Greek ideas of education were in some degree adopted. Schools were
established in which the central thing was the study of the Greek
poets, and these schools we may call Grammar Schools because the
teacher was called _grammaticus_. Homer was long the universal
text-book, and students were not only taught the language, but were
instructed in the matters of geography, mythology, antiquities,
history, and ethics suggested by the portions of the text which they
read. The range of instruction and its value depended entirely upon
the teacher, as does such instruction to-day, but it was at best
fragmentary and disconnected. There was no systematic study of any of
these subjects, not even of history, despite its interest and
practical value to a world-ranging people like the Romans.
§113. The Latin language was soon made the subject of similar study,
at first in separate schools. The lack of Latin poetry to work upon,
for prose authors were not yet made text-books, led to the translation
by a Greek slave, Livius Andronicus (3d century B.C.), of the Odyssey
of Homer into Latin Saturnian verses. From this translation, rude as
the surviving fragments show it to have been, dates the beginning of
Latin literature, and it was not until this literature had furnished
poets like Terence, Vergil, and Horace, that the rough Saturnians of
Livius Andronicus disappeared from the schools.
§114. In these Grammar Schools, Greek as well as Latin, great stress
seems to have been laid upon elocution, a thing less surprising when
we consider the importance of oratory under the Republic. The teacher
had the pupils pronounce after him first the words, then the clauses,
and finally the complete sentences. The elements of rhetoric were
taught in some of these schools, but technical instruction in the
subject was not given until the establishment at a much later period
of special schools of rhetoric. In the Grammar Schools were also
taught music and geometry, and these made complete the ordinary
education of boyhood.
§115. Schools of Rhetoric.--The Schools of Rhetoric were formed on
Greek lines and conducted by Greek teachers. They were not a part of
the regular system of education, but corresponded more nearly to our
colleges, being frequented by persons beyond the age of boyhood and
with rare exceptions, of the higher classes only. In these schools the
study of prose authors was begun, but the main thing was the practice
of composition. This was begun in its simplest form, the narrative
(_nārrātiō_), and continued step by step until the end in view was
reached, the practice of public speaking (_dēclāmātiō_). One of the
intermediate forms was the _suāsōria_, in which the students took
sides on some disputed point of history and supported their views by
argument. A favorite exercise also was the writing of a speech to be
put in the mouth of some person famous in legend or history. How
effective these could be made is seen in the speeches inserted in
their histories by Sallust, Livy, and Tacitus.
§116. Travel.--In the case of persons of the noblest and most wealthy
families, or those whose talents in early manhood promised a brilliant
future, the training of the schools was sure to be supplemented by a
period of travel and residence abroad. Greece, Rhodes, and Asia Minor
were the most frequently visited, whether the young Roman cared for
the scenes of great historical events and the rich collections of
works of literature and art, or merely enjoyed the natural charms and
social splendors of the gay and luxurious capitals of the east. For
the purposes of serious study Athens offered the greatest attractions
and might almost have been called the university of Rome, in this
respect standing to Italy much as Germany now stands to the United
States. It must be remembered, however, that the Roman who studied in
Athens was as familiar with Greek as with his native Latin and for
this reason was much better prepared to profit by the lectures he
heard than is the average American who now studies on the continent.
§117. Apprenticeship.--There were certain matters, a knowledge of
which was essential to a successful public life, for training in which
no provision was made by the Roman system of education. Such matters
were jurisprudence, administration and diplomacy, and war. It was
customary, therefore, for the young citizen to attach himself for a
time to some older man, eminent in these lines or in some one of them,
in order to gain an opportunity for observation and practical
experience in the performance of duties that would sooner or later
devolve upon him. So Cicero learned the civil law under Quintus Mucius
Scaevola, the most eminent jurist of the time, and in later years the
young Marcus Coelius Rufus in turn served the same voluntary
apprenticeship (_tīrōcinium forī_) under Cicero. This arrangement was
not only very advantageous to the young men but was considered very
honorable for those under whom they studied.
§118. In the same way the governors of provinces and generals in the
field were attended by a voluntary staff (_cohors_) of young men, whom
they had invited to accompany them at state expense for personal or
political reasons. These _tīrōnēs_ became familiar in this way
(_tīrōcinium mīlitiae_) with the practical side of administration and
war, while at the same time they were relieved of many of the
hardships and dangers suffered by those, less fortunate, who had to
rise from the ranks. It was this staff of inexperienced young men who
hid in their tents or went back to Rome when Caesar determined to meet
Ariovistus in battle, although some of them, no doubt, made gallant
soldiers and wise commanders afterward.
§119. Remarks on the Schools.--Having considered the possibilities in
the way of education and training within the reach of the more favored
few, we may now go back to the Elementary and Grammar Schools to get
an idea of the actual school life of the ordinary Roman boy. While
these were not public schools in our sense of the word, that is, while
they were not supported or supervised by the state, and while
attendance was not compulsory, it is nevertheless true that the
elements at least of education, a knowledge of the three R's, were
more generally diffused among the Romans than among any other people
of the ancient world. The schools were distinctly democratic in this,
that they were open to all classes, that the fees were little more
than nominal, that so far as concerned discipline and the treatment of
the pupils no distinction was made between the children of the
humblest and of the most lordly families.
[Illustration: FIGURE 26. A ROMAN SCHOOL]
[Illustration: FIGURE 27: CARICATURE OF A SCHOOL]
§120. The school was usually in a _pergula_, a shedlike attachment to
a public building, roofed against the sun and rain, but open at the
sides and furnished merely with rough benches without backs. The
children were exposed, therefore, to all the distractions of the busy
town life around them, and the people living near were in turn annoyed
by the noisy recitations (§110) and even noisier punishments. A
picture of a schoolroom from a wall painting in Herculaneum is shown
in Fig. 26 and an ancient caricature, by a schoolboy probably, in Fig.
27.
§121. The Teacher.--The teacher was originally a slave, perhaps
usually a freedman. The position was not an honorable one, though this
depended upon the character of the teacher himself, and while the
pupils feared the master they seem to have had little respect for him.
The pay he received was a mere pittance, varying from three dollars a
year for the elementary teacher (_litterātor_, _magister litterārum_)
to five or six times that sum for a _grammaticus_ (§112). In addition
to the fee, the pupils were expected to bring the master from time to
time little presents, a custom persisting probably from the time when
these presents were his only reward (§109). The fees varied, however,
with the qualifications of the master, and some whose reputations were
established and whose schools were "fashionable" charged no fees at
all, but left the amount to be paid (_honōrārium_) to the generosity
of their patrons.
§122. Schooldays and Holidays.--The schoolday began before sunrise, as
did all the work at Rome on account of the heat in the middle of the
day (cf. §79). The students brought candles by which to study until it
became light, and the roof was soon black with the grime and smoke.
The session lasted until time for the noonday luncheon and siesta
(§302), and was resumed in the afternoon. We do not know definitely
that there was any fixed length for the school-year. We know that it
regularly began on the 24th of March and that there were numerous
holidays, notably the Saturnalia in December and the Quinquatria from
the 19th to the 23rd of March. The great religious festivals, too,
especially those celebrated with games, would naturally be observed by
the schools, and apparently the market days (_nūndinae_) were also
holidays. It was until lately supposed that there was no school from
the last of June until the first of November, but this view rested
upon an incorrect interpretation of certain passages of Horace and
Martial which are now otherwise explained. It is certain, however,
that the children of wealthy parents would be absent from Rome during
the hot season, and this would at least cut down the attendance in
some of the schools and might perhaps close them altogether.
[Illustration: FIGURE 28. PAEDAGOGUS]
§123. The Paedagogus.--The boy of good family was always attended by a
trustworthy slave (_paedagōgus_), who accompanied him to school,
remained with him during the sessions, and saw him safely home again
when school was out. If the boy had wealthy parents, he might have,
besides, one or more slaves (_pedisequī_) to carry his satchel and
tablets. The _paedagōgus_ was usually an elderly man, selected for his
good character and expected to keep the boy out of all harm, moral as
well as physical. He was not a teacher, despite the meaning of the
English derivative, except that after the learning of Greek became
general a Greek slave was usually selected for the position in order
that the boy might not forget what he had learned from his nurse
(§101). The scope of his regular duties is clearly shown by the Latin
words used sometimes instead of _paedagōgus_: _comes_, _custōs_,
_monitor_, and _rēctor_. He was addressed by his ward as _dominus_,
and seems to have had the right to compel obedience by mild
punishments (Fig. 28). His duties ceased when the boy assumed the toga
of manhood, but the same warm affection often continued between them
as between the woman and her nurse (§101).
§124. Discipline.--The discipline seems to have been really Roman in
its severity, if we may judge from the picture of a school above
referred to (§120) and by the grim references to the rod and ferule in
Juvenal and Martial. Horace has given to his teacher, Orbilius, a
deathless fame by the adjective _plāgōsus_. From Nepos we learn that
then as now teachers might have appealed to the natural emulation
between well-bred boys, and we know that prizes, too, were offered.
Perhaps we may think the ferule well deserved when we read of the
schoolboy's trick immortalized by Persius. The passage (III, 44 f.) is
worth quoting in full:
_Saepe oculōs, meminī, tangēbam parvus olīvō,_
_Grandia sī nōllem moritūrī verba Cātōnis_
_Discere et īnsānō multum laudanda magistrō!_[2]
[Footnote 2: "Often, I remember, as a small boy I used to give my eyes
a touch with oil, if I did not want to learn Cato's grand dying
speech, sure to be rapturously applauded by my wrong-headed master."]
§125. End of Childhood.--There was no special ceremony to mark the
passing of girlhood into womanhood, but for the boy the attainment of
his majority was marked by the laying aside of the crimson-bordered
_toga praetexta_ and the putting on of the pure white _toga virīlis_.
There was no fixed year, corresponding to the twenty-first with us, in
which the _puer_ became _iuvenis_; something depended upon the
physical and intellectual development of the boy himself, something
upon the will or caprice of his _pater familiās_, more perhaps upon
the time in which he lived. We may say generally, however, that the
_toga virīlis_ was assumed between the fourteenth and seventeenth
years, the later age belonging to the earlier time when citizenship
carried with it more responsibility than under the Empire and demanded
a greater maturity.
§126. For the classical period we may put the age required at sixteen,
and if we add to this the _tīrōcinium_ (§117), which followed the
donning of the garb of manhood, we shall have the seventeen years
after the expiration of which the citizen had been liable in ancient
times to military duty. The day was even less precisely fixed. We
should expect the birthday at the beginning of the seventeenth year,
but it seems to have been the more usual, but by no means invariable,
custom to select for the ceremony the feast of Liber which happened to
come nearest to the seventeenth birthday. This feast was celebrated on
the 17th of March and was called the _līberālia_. No more appropriate
time could have been selected to suggest the freer life of manhood
upon which the boy was now about to enter.
§127. The Liberalia.--The festivities of the great day began in the
early morning, when the boy laid before the Lares of his house the
_bulla_ (§99) and _toga praetexta_, called together the _īnsignia
pueritiae_. A sacrifice was then offered, and the _bulla_ was hung
over the hearth, not to be taken down and worn again except on some
occasion when the man who had worn it as a boy should be in danger of
the envy of men and gods. The boy then dressed himself in the _tunica
rēcta_ (§76), having one or two crimson stripes if he was the son of a
senator or a knight, and over this was carefully draped the _toga
virīlis_. This was also called in contrast to the gayer garb of
boyhood the _toga pūra_, and with reference to the freedom of manhood
the _toga lībera_.
§128. Then began the procession to the forum. The father had gathered
his slaves and freedmen and clients, had been careful to notify his
relatives and friends, and had used all his personal and political
influence to make the escort of his son as numerous and imposing as
possible. If the ceremony took place on the _līberālia_, the forum was
sure to be crowded with similar processions of rejoicing friends. Here
were extended the formal congratulations, and the name of one more
citizen was added to the official list. An offering was then made in
the temple of Liber on the Capitoline Hill, and the day ended with a
feast at the father's house.
CHAPTER V
DEPENDENTS: SLAVES AND CLIENTS. HOSPITES
REFERENCES: Marquardt, 135-212; Göll, II, 114-212; Guhl and Koner,
764-772; Friedländer, I, 404 f.; Ramsay, 124 f.; Pauly-Wissowa,
_clientēs_; Smith, _servus_, _lībertus_, _cliēns_, _clientēla_,
_hospitium_; Harper, _servus_, _lībertī_, _clientēs_; Lübker, _servī_,
_lībertīnus_, _hospitium_, _patrōnus_.
§129. Growth of Slavery.--So far as we may learn from history and
legend, slavery was always known at Rome. In the early days of the
Republic, however, the farm was the only place where slaves were
employed. The fact that most of the Romans were farmers and that they
and their free laborers were constantly called from the fields to
fight the battles of their country led to a gradual increase in the
number of slaves, until they were far more numerous than the free
laborers who worked for hire. We can not tell when the custom became
general of employing slaves in personal service and in industrial
pursuits, but it was one of the grossest evils resulting from Rome's
foreign conquests. In the last century of the Republic all manual
labor, almost all trades, and certain of what we now call professions
were in the hands of slaves. Not only were free laborers unable to
compete with slaves, but every occupation in which slaves engaged was
degraded in the eyes of freemen, until all labor was looked upon as
dishonorable. The small farms were gradually absorbed in the vast
estates of the rich, the sturdy yeomanry of Rome disappeared, and by
the time of Augustus the freeborn citizens of Italy who were not
soldiers were either slaveholders themselves or the idle proletariate
of the cities.
§130. Ruinous as were the economic results of slavery, the moral
effects were no less destructive. It is to slavery more than to
anything else that is due the change in the character of the Romans in
the first century of the Empire. With slaves swarming in their houses,
ministering to their luxury, pandering to their appetites, directing
their amusements, managing their business, and even educating their
children, it is no wonder that the old Roman virtues of simplicity,
frugality, and temperance declined and perished. And with the passing
of Roman manhood into oriental effeminacy began the passing of Roman
sway over the civilized world.
§131. Numbers of Slaves.--We have almost no testimony as to the number
of slaves in Italy, none even as to the ratio of the free to the
servile population. We have indirect evidence enough, however, to make
good the statements in the preceding paragraphs. That slaves were few
in early times is shown by their names (§58): if it had been usual for
a master to have more than one slave, such names as _Mārcipor_, and
Ōlipor would not have sufficed to distinguish them. An idea of the
rapid increase after the Punic wars may be gained from the number of
captives sold into slavery by successful generals. Scipio Aemilianus
is said to have disposed in this way of 60,000 Carthaginians, Marius
of 140,000 Cimbri, Aemilius Paulus of 150,000 Greeks, Pompeius and
Caesar together of more than a million of Asiatics and Gauls.
§132. The very insurrections of the slaves, unsuccessful as they
always were, also testify to their overwhelming numbers. Of the two in
Sicily, the first lasted from 134 to 132 B.C., and the second from 102
to 98; the last in spite of the fact that at the close of the first
the consul Rupilius had crucified 20,000, whom he had taken alive, as
a warning to others to submit in silence to their servitude. Spartacus
defied the armies of Rome for two years, and in the decisive battle
with Crassus (71 B.C.) left 60,000 dead upon the field. Cicero's
orations against Catiline show clearly that it was the calling out of
the hordes of slaves by the conspirators that was most dreaded in the
city.
§133. Of the number under the Empire we may get some idea from more
direct testimony. Horace tells us that ten slaves were as few as a
gentleman in even moderate circumstances could afford to own. He
himself had two in town and eight on his little Sabine farm, and he
was a poor man and his father had been a slave. Tacitus tells us of a
city prefect who had four hundred slaves in his mansion. Pliny says
that one Caius Caecilius Claudius Isodorus left at his death over four
thousand slaves. Athenaeus (170-230 A.D.) gives us to understand that
individuals owned as many as ten thousand and twenty thousand. The
fact that house slaves were commonly divided into "groups of ten"
(_decuriae_) points in the same direction.
§134. Sources of Supply.--Under the Republic the largest number of
slaves brought to Rome and offered there for sale were captives taken
in war, and an idea of the magnitude of this source of supply has
already been given (§131). The captives were sold as soon as possible
after they were taken, in order that the general might be relieved of
the trouble and risk of feeding and guarding such large numbers of men
in a hostile country. The sale was conducted by a quaestor, and the
purchasers were the wholesale slave dealers that always followed an
army along with other traders and peddlers. The spear (_hasta_), which
was always the sign of a sale conducted under public authority, was
set up in the ground to mark the place, and the captives had garlands
on their heads as did the victims offered in sacrifice. Hence the
expression _sub hastā_ and _sub corōnā vēnīre_ came to have
practically the same meaning.
§135. The wholesale dealers (_mangōnēs_) assembled their purchases in
convenient depots, and when sufficient numbers had been collected
marched them to Rome, in chains and under guard, to be sold to local
dealers or to private individuals. The slaves obtained in this way
were usually men and likely to be physically sound and strong for the
simple reason that they had been soldiers. On the other hand they were
likely to prove intractable and ungovernable, and many preferred even
suicide to servitude. It sometimes happened, of course, that the
inhabitants of towns and whole districts were sold into slavery
without distinction of age or sex.
§136. Under the Empire large numbers came to Rome as articles of
ordinary commerce, and Rome became one of the great slave marts of the
world. The slaves were brought from all the provinces of the Empire:
blacks from Egypt; swift runners from Numidia; grammarians from
Alexandria; from Cyrene those who made the best house servants; from
Greece handsome boys and girls, and well-trained scribes, accountants,
amanuenses, and even teachers; from Epirus and Illyria experienced
shepherds; from Cappadocia the most patient and enduring laborers.
§137. Some of these were captives taken in the petty wars that Rome
was always waging in defense of her boundaries, but these were
numerically insignificant. Others had been slaves in the countries
from which they came, and merely exchanged old masters for new when
they were sent to Rome. Others still were the victims of slave
hunters, who preyed on weak and defenseless peoples two thousand years
ago much as they are said to do in Africa in our own time. These
man-hunts were not prevented, though perhaps not openly countenanced,
by the Roman governors.
§138. A less important source of supply was the natural increase in
the slave population as men and women formed permanent connections
with each other, called _contubernia_. This became of general
importance only late in the Empire, because in earlier times,
especially during the period of conquest, it was found cheaper to buy
than to breed slaves. To the individual owner, however, the increase
in his slaves in this way was a matter of as much interest as the
increase of his flocks and herds. Such slaves would be more valuable
at maturity, for they would be acclimated and less liable to disease,
and besides would be trained from childhood in the performance of the
very tasks for which they were destined. They would also have more
love for their home and for their master's family, for his children
were often their playmates. It was only natural, therefore, for slaves
born in the _familia_ to have a claim upon their master's confidence
and consideration that others lacked, and it is not surprising that
they were proverbially pert and forward. They were called _vernae_ as
long as they remained the property of their first master. The
derivation of the word is not certain, but it is probable that it has
the same origin as Vesta and means something like "born in the house."
[Illustration: FIGURE 29. SALE OF A SLAVE]
§139. Sales of Slaves.--Slave dealers usually offered their wares at
public auction sales (Fig. 29). These were under the supervision of
the aediles, who appointed the place and made rules and regulations to
govern them. A tax was imposed on imported slaves and they were
offered for sale with their feet whitened with chalk; those from the
east had also their ears bored, a common sign of slavery among
oriental peoples. As bids were asked for each slave he was made to
mount a stone or platform, corresponding to the "block" familiar to
the readers of our own history. From his neck hung a scroll
(_titulus_), setting forth his character and serving as a warrant for
the purchaser. If the slave had defects not made known in this warrant
the vendor was bound to take him back within six months or make good
the loss to the buyer. The chief items in the _titulus_ were the age
and nationality of the slave, and his freedom from such common defects
as chronic ill-health, especially epilepsy, and tendencies to
thievery, running away, and suicide. In spite of the guarantee the
purchaser took care to examine the slaves as closely as possible. For
this reason they were commonly stripped, made to move around, handled
freely by the purchaser, and even examined by physicians. If no
warrant was given by the dealer, a cap (_pilleus_) was put on the
slave's head at the time of the sale and the purchaser took all risks.
The dealer might also offer the slaves at private sale, and this was
the rule in the case of all of unusual value and especially of marked
personal beauty. These were not exposed to the gaze of the crowd, but
were offered to those only who were likely to purchase. Private sales
and exchanges between citizens without the intervention of a regular
dealer were as common as the sales of other property, and no stigma
was attached to them. The trade of the _mangōnēs_, on the other hand,
was looked upon as utterly disreputable, but it was very lucrative and
great fortunes were often made in it. Vilest of all the dealers were
the _lēnōnēs_, who kept and sold slaves for immoral purposes only.
[Illustration: FIGURE 30. THE GAUL AND HIS WIFE]
§140. Prices of Slaves.--The prices of slaves varied as did the prices
of other commodities. Much depended upon the times, the supply and
demand, the characteristics and accomplishments of the particular
slave, and the requirements of the purchaser. Captives bought upon the
battlefield rarely brought more than nominal prices, because the sale
was in a measure forced (§134), and because the dealer was sure to
lose a large part of his purchase on the long march home through
disease, fatigue, and especially suicide. There is a famous piece of
statuary representing a hopeless Gaul killing his wife and then
himself (Fig. 30). We are told that Lucullus once sold slaves in his
camp at an average price of eighty cents each. In Rome male slaves
varied in value from $100, paid for common laborers in the time of
Horace, to $28,000 paid by Marcus Scaurus for an accomplished
grammarian. Handsome boys, well trained and educated, sold for as much
as $4,000. Very high prices were also paid for handsome and
accomplished girls. The music girls in Plautus and Terence cost their
lovers from $500 to $700, but girls of the lowest class sold for as
little as $25. It seems strange to us that slaves were matched in size
and color as carefully as horses are now, and that a well-matched pair
of boys would bring a much larger sum when sold together than when
sold separately.
§141. Public and Private Slaves.--Slaves were called _servī pūblicī_
and _servī prīvātī_ according as they were owned by the state or by
individuals. The condition of the former was considered the more
desirable: they were not so likely to be sold, were not worked so
hard, and were not exposed to the whims of a capricious master. They
were employed to take care of the public buildings and as servants of
the magistrates and priests. The quaestors and aediles had great
numbers of them in their service, and they were drilled as a corps of
firemen to serve at night under the _triumvirī nocturnī_. Others were
employed as lictors, jailers, executioners, etc. The number of public
slaves while considerable in itself was inconsiderable as compared
with that of those in private service.
§142. Private Slaves.--Private slaves either were employed in the
personal service of their master and his family or were kept for gain.
The former, known as the _familia urbāna_, will be described later.
The latter may be classified according as they were kept for hire or
employed in the business enterprises of their master. Of these last
the most important as well as the oldest (§129) class was that of the
farm laborers (_familia rūstica_). Of the others, engaged in all sorts
of industries, it may be remarked that it was considered more
honorable for a master to employ his slaves in enterprises of his own
than to hire them out to others. At the same time slaves could always
be hired for any desired purpose in Rome or any other city.
§143. Industrial Employment.--It must be remembered that there were
practically no freeborn laborers left in the last century of the
Republic (§129), and that much work was then done by hand that is now
done by machinery. In work of this sort were employed armies of slaves
fit only for unskilled labor: porters for the transportation of
materials and merchandise, stevedores for the lading and discharging
of vessels, men who handled the spade, pickax, and crowbar, men of
great physical strength but of little else to make them worth their
keep. Above these came artisans, mechanics, and skilled workmen of
every kind: smiths, carpenters, bricklayers, masons, seamen, etc. The
merchants and shopkeepers required assistants, and so did the millers
and bakers, the dealers in wool and leather, the keepers of lodging
houses and restaurants, all who helped to supply the countless wants
of a great city. Even the professions, as we should call them, were
largely in the hands of slaves. Books were multiplied by slaves. The
artists who carved wood and stone, designed furniture, laid mosaics,
painted pictures, and decorated the walls and ceilings of public and
private buildings were slaves. So were the musicians and the acrobats,
actors and gladiators who amused the people at the public games. So
too, as we have seen (§121), were many of the teachers in the schools,
and physicians were usually slaves.
§144. And slaves did not merely perform these various functions under
the direction of their master or of the employer to whom he had hired
them for the time. Many of them were themselves captains of industry.
When a slave showed executive ability as well as technical knowledge,
it was common enough for his master to furnish him with the necessary
capital to carry on independently the business or profession which he
understood. In this way slaves were often the managers of estates, of
banks, of commercial enterprises, though these might take them far
beyond the reach of their masters' observation, even into foreign
countries. Sometimes such a slave was expected to pay the master
annually a fixed sum out of the proceeds of the business; sometimes he
was allowed to keep for himself a certain share of the profits;
sometimes he was merely required to repay the sum advanced with
interest from the time he had received it. In all cases, however, his
industry and intelligence were stimulated by the hope of acquiring
sufficient means from the venture to purchase his freedom and
eventually make the business his own.
§145. The Familia Rustica.--Under this name are comprised the slaves
that were employed upon the vast estates that long before the end of
the Republic had supplanted the small farms of the earlier day. The
very name points at this change, for it implies that the estate was no
longer the only home of the master. He had become a landlord, living
in the capital and visiting his lands only occasionally for pleasure
or for business. The estates may, therefore, be divided into two
classes: country seats for pleasure and farms or ranches for profit.
The former were selected with great care, the purchaser having regard
to their proximity to the city or other resorts of fashion, their
healthfulness, and the natural beauty of their scenery. They were
maintained upon the most extravagant scale. There were villas and
pleasure grounds, parks, game preserves, fish ponds and artificial
lakes, everything that ministered to open air luxury. Great numbers of
slaves were required to keep these places in order, and many of them
were slaves of the highest class: landscape gardeners, experts in the
culture of fruits and flowers, experts even in the breeding and
keeping of the birds, game, and fish, of which the Romans were
inordinately fond. These had under them assistants and laborers of
every sort, and all were subject to the authority of a superintendent
or steward (_vīlicus_), who had been put in charge of the estate by
the master.
§146. Farm Slaves.--But the name _familia rūstica_ is more
characteristically used of the drudges upon the farms, because the
slaves employed upon the country seats were more directly in the
personal service of the master and can hardly be said to have been
kept for profit. The raising of grain for the market had long ceased
to be profitable, but various industries had taken its place upon the
farms. Wine and oil had become the most important products of the
soil, and vineyards and olive orchards were found wherever climate and
other conditions were favorable. Cattle and swine were raised in
countless numbers, the former more for draft purposes and the products
of the dairy than for beef. Sheep were kept for the wool, and woolen
garments were worn by the rich and poor alike. Cheese was made in
large quantities, all the larger because butter was unknown. The
keeping of bees was an important industry, because honey served, so
far as it could, the purposes for which sugar is used in modern times.
Besides these things that we are even now accustomed to associate with
farming, there were others that are now looked upon as distinct and
separate businesses. Of these the most important, perhaps, as it was
undoubtedly the most laborious, was the quarrying of stone; another
was the cutting of timber and working it up into rough lumber, and
finally the preparing of sand for the use of the builder. This last
was of much greater importance relatively then than now, on account of
the extensive use of concrete at Rome.
§147. In some of these tasks intelligence and skill were required as
they are to-day, but in many of them the most necessary qualifications
were strength and endurance, as the slaves took the place of much of
the machinery of modern times. This was especially true of the men
employed in the quarries, who were usually of the rudest and most
ungovernable class, and were worked in chains by day and housed in
dungeons by night, as convicts have been housed and worked in much
later times.
§148. The Vilicus.--The management of such an estate was also
intrusted to a _vīlicus_ (§145), who was proverbially a hard
taskmaster, simply because his hopes of freedom depended upon the
amount of profits he could turn into his master's coffers at the end
of the year. His task was no easy one. Besides planning for and
overseeing the gangs of slaves already mentioned, he had under his
charge another body of slaves only less numerous, employed in
providing for the wants of the others. Everything necessary for the
farm was produced or manufactured on the farm. Enough grain was raised
for food, and this grain was ground in the farm mills and baked in the
farm ovens by millers and bakers who were slaves on the farm. The task
of turning the mill was usually given to a horse or mule, but slaves
were often made to do the grinding as a punishment. Wool was carded,
spun, and woven into cloth, and this cloth was made into clothes by
the female slaves under the eye of the steward's consort, the
_vīlica_. Buildings were erected, and the tools and implements
necessary for the work of the farm were made and repaired. These
things required a number of carpenters, smiths, and masons, though
they were not necessarily workmen of the highest class. It was the
touchstone of a good _vīlicus_ to keep his men always busy, and it is
to be understood that the slaves were alternately plowmen and reapers,
vinedressers and treaders of the grapes, perhaps even quarrymen and
lumbermen, according to the season of the year and the place of their
toiling.
§149. The Familia Urbana.--The number of slaves kept by the wealthy
Roman in his city mansion was measured not by his needs, but by the
demands of fashion and his means. In the early days a sort of butler
(_ātriēnsis_), or major domo, had relieved the master of his household
cares, had done the buying, had kept the accounts, had seen that the
house and furniture were in order, and had looked after the few
servants who did the actual work. Even under the Republic all this was
changed. Other slaves, the _prōcūrātor_ and _dispēnsātor_, relieved
the _ātriēnsis_ of the purchasing of the supplies and the keeping of
the accounts, and left to him merely the supervision of the house and
its furniture. The duties of the slaves under him were, in the same
way, distributed among a number many times greater. Every part of the
house had its special staff of servants, often so numerous as to be
distributed into _decuriae_ (§133), with a separate superintendent for
each division: one for the kitchen, another for the dining-rooms,
another for the bedrooms, etc.
§150. The very entrance door had assigned to it its special slave
(_ōstiārius_ or _iānitor_), who was often chained to it like a
watchdog, in order to keep him literally at his post. And the duties
of the several sets were again divided and subdivided, each slave
having some one office to perform, and only one. The names of the
various functionaries of the kitchen, the dining-rooms, and the
bedchambers are too numerous to mention, but an idea of the complexity
of the service may be gained from the number of attendants that
assisted the master and mistress with their toilets. The former had
his _ōrnātor_, _tōnsor_, and _calceātor_ (who cared for the feet); the
latter her hairdressers (_ciniflōnēs_ or _cinerāriī_) and _ōrnātrīx_;
and besides these each had no less than three or four more to assist
with the bath. The children, too, had each his or her own attendants,
beginning with the _nūtrix_, and continuing in the case of the boy
with the _paedagōgus_ and _pedisequī_ (§123).
[Illustration: FIGURE 31. LECTICA]
§151. When the master or mistress left the house a numerous retinue
was deemed necessary. If they walked, slaves went before to clear the
way (_anteambulōnēs_), and pages and lackeys followed carrying wraps
or the sunshade and fan of the mistress, and ready to perform any
little service that might be necessary. The master was always
accompanied out of the house by his _nōmenclātor_, who prompted him in
case he had forgotten the name of any one who greeted him. If they did
not walk, they were carried in litters (_lectīcae_, Fig. 31),
something like sedan chairs. The bearers were strong men, by
preference Syrians or Cappadocians (§136), all carefully matched in
size (§140) and dressed in gorgeous liveries. As each member of the
household had his own litter and bearers, this one class of slaves
made an important item in the family budget. And even when they rode
in this way the same attendants accompanied them as when they walked.
§152. When the master dined at the house of a friend his slaves
attended him as far as the door at least. Some remained with him to
care for his sandals, and others (_adversitōrēs_) returned at the
appointed hour to see him home. A journey out of the city was a more
serious matter and called for more pomp and display. In addition to
the horses and mules that drew the carts of those who rode, there were
mounted outriders and beasts of burden loaded with baggage and
supplies. Numerous slaves followed on foot, and a band of gladiators
not infrequently acted as escort and bodyguard. It is not too much to
say that the ordinary train of a wealthy traveler included scores,
perhaps hundreds, of slaves.
§153. Among the _familia urbāna_ must be numbered also those who
furnished amusement and entertainment for the master and his guests,
especially during and after meals. There were musicians and readers,
and for persons of less refined tastes, dancers, jesters, dwarfs, and
even misshapen freaks. Under the Empire little children were kept for
the same purpose.
§154. Lastly may be mentioned the slaves of the highest class, the
confidential assistants of the master, the amanuenses who wrote his
letters, the secretaries who kept his accounts, and the agents through
whom he collected his income, audited the reports of his stewards and
managers, made his investments, and transacted all sorts of business
matters. The greater the luxury and extravagance of the house, the
more the master would need these trained and experienced men to
relieve him of cares which he detested, and by their fidelity and
skill to make possible the gratification of his tastes and passions.
§155. Such a staff as has been described belonged, of course, to a
wealthy and fashionable man. Persons with more good sense had only
such slaves as could be profitably employed. Atticus, the friend of
Cicero, a man of sufficient wealth and social position to defy the
demands of fashion, kept in his service only _vernae_ (§138), and had
them so carefully trained that the meanest could read and write for
him. Cicero, on the other hand, could not think it good form to have a
slave do more than one kind of work, and Cicero was not to be
considered a rich man.
§156. Legal Status of Slaves.--The power of the master over the slave,
called _dominium_ (§37), was absolute. He could assign him the most
laborious and degrading tasks, punish him even unto death at his sole
discretion, sell him, and kill him (or turn him out in the street to
die) when age or illness had made him incapable of labor. Slaves were
mere chattels in the eyes of the law, like oxen or horses. They could
not hold property, they could not make contracts, they could testify
in the courts only on the rack, they could not marry. The free person
_in potestāte_ was little better off legally (§31), but there were two
important differences between the son, for example, and the slave. The
son was relieved of the _potestās_ on the death of the _pater
familiās_ (§34), but the death of the master did not make the slave
free. Again, the condition of the son was ameliorated by _pietās_
(§73) and public opinion (§§32, 33), but there was no _pietās_ for the
slave and public opinion hardly operated in his behalf. It did enable
him to hold as his own his scanty savings (§162), and it gave a sort
of sanction to the permanent unions of male and female slaves called
_contubernium_, but in other respects it did little for his benefit.
§157. Under the Empire various laws were passed that seemed to
recognize the slave as a person, not a thing: it was forbidden to sell
him for the purpose of fighting with wild beasts in the amphitheater;
it was provided that the slave should not be put to death by the
master simply because he was too old or too ill to work, and that a
slave "exposed" (§95) should become free by the act; at last the
master was forbidden to kill the slave at all without due process of
law. As a matter of fact these laws were very generally disregarded,
much as are our laws for the prevention of cruelty to animals, and it
may be said that it was only the influence of Christianity that at
last changed the condition of the slave for the better.
§158. The Treatment of Slaves.--There is nothing in the stern and
selfish character of the Roman that would lead us to expect from him
gentleness or mercy in the treatment of his slaves. At the same time
he was too shrewd and sharp in all matters of business to forget that
a slave was a piece of valuable property, and to run the risk of the
loss or injury of that property by wanton cruelty. Much depended, of
course, upon the character and temper of the individual owner, and
Juvenal gives us to understand that the mistress was likely to be more
spiteful and unreasonable than the master. But the case of Vedius
Pollio, in the time of Augustus, who ordered a slave to be thrown
alive into a pond as food for the fish because he had broken a goblet,
may be balanced by that of Cicero, whose letters to his slave Tiro
disclose real affection and tenderness of feeling. The passionate man
nowadays may kill or maim the dog or horse, although it has a money
value and he needs its services, and most of us know of worn-out
horses turned out upon the common to die. But these things are
exceptional, and if we consider the age in which the Roman lived and
pass for a moment the matter of punishments, we may say that he was
rather pitiless as a taskmaster than habitually cruel to his slaves.
§159. Of the daily life of the town slave we know but little except
that his work was light and he was the envy of the drudge upon the
farm. Of the treatment of the latter we get some knowledge from the
writings of the elder Cato, who may be taken as a fair specimen of the
rugged farmer of his time (234-149 B.C.). He held that slaves should
always be at work except in the hours, few enough at best, allowed
them for sleep, and he took pains to find plenty for his to do even on
the public holidays. He advised farmers to sell immediately worn-out
draft cattle, diseased sheep, broken implements, aged and feeble
slaves, "and other useless things."
§160. Food and Dress.--Slaves were fed on coarse food, but when Cato
tells us that in addition to the monthly allowance of grain (about a
bushel) they were to have merely the fallen olives, or, failing these,
a little salt fish and vinegar, we must remember that this was no less
and no worse than the common food of the poorer Romans. Every
schoolboy knows that grain was the only ration of the sturdy soldiers
that won Caesar's battles for him. A slave was furnished a tunic every
year, and a cloak and a pair of wooden shoes every two years. Worn-out
clothes were returned to the _vīlicus_ to be made up into patchwork
quilts. We are told that this same _vīlicus_ often cheated the slaves
by stinting their allowance for his own benefit, and we can not doubt
that he, a slave himself, was more likely to be brutal and cruel than
the master would have been.
§161. But entirely apart from the grinding toil and the harshness and
insolence of the master and the overseer, the mere restraint from
liberty was torture enough in itself. There was little chance of
escape by flight. The Greek slave might hope to cross the boundary of
the little principality in which he served, to find freedom and refuge
under the protection of an adjoining power. But Italy was not cut up
into hostile communities, and should the slave by a miracle reach the
Rubicon or the sea, no neighboring state would dare defend him or even
hide him from his Roman master. If he attempted flight, he must live
the life of an outlaw, with organized bands of slave hunters on his
track, with a reward offered for his return, and unspeakable tortures
awaiting him as a warning for others. It is no wonder, then, that vast
numbers of slaves sought rest from their labors by a voluntary death
(§140). It must be remembered that many of them were men of good birth
and high position in the countries from which they came, some of them
even soldiers, taken on the field of battle with weapons in their
hands.
§162. The Peculium.--We have seen that the free man _in potestāte_
could not legally hold property, that all that he acquired belonged
strictly to his _pater familiās_ (§31). We have also seen that he was
allowed to hold, manage and use property assigned to him by the _pater
familiās_, just as if it had been his own (§33). The same thing was
true in the case of a slave, and the property was called by the same
name (_pecūlium_). His claim to it could not be maintained by law, but
was confirmed by public opinion and by inviolable custom. If the
master respected these, there were several ways in which an
industrious and frugal slave could scrape together bit by bit a little
fund of his own, depending in great measure, of course, upon the
generosity of his master and his own position in the _familia_.
§163. If he belonged to the _familia rūstica_, the opportunities were
not so good, but by stinting himself he might save something from his
monthly allowance of food (§160), and he might, perhaps, do a little
work for himself in the hours allowed for sleep and rest, tilling, for
example, a few square yards of garden for his own benefit. If he were
a city slave there were besides these chances the tips from his
master's friends and guests, and perhaps a bribe for some little piece
of knavery or a reward for its success. We have already seen that a
slave teacher received presents from his pupils (§121). It was no
uncommon thing either, as has been said, for a shrewd master to teach
a slave a trade and allow him to keep a portion of the increased
earnings which his deftness and skill would bring. More rarely the
master would furnish the capital and allow the slave to start in
business and retain a portion of the profits (§144).
§164. For the master the custom was undoubtedly profitable in the long
run. It stimulated the slave's energy and made him more contented and
cheerful. It also furnished a means of control more effective than the
severest corporal punishment, and that without physical injury to the
chattel. To the ambitious slave the _pecūlium_ gave at least a chance
of freedom, for he hoped to save enough in time to buy himself from
his master. Many, of course, preferred to use their earnings to
purchase little comforts and luxuries nearer than distant liberty.
Some upon whom a high price was set by their owners used their
_pecūlium_ to buy for themselves cheaper slaves, whom they hired out
to the employers of laborers already mentioned (§143). In this way
they hoped to increase their savings more rapidly. The slave's slave
was called _vicārius_, and legally belonged to the owner of his
master, but public opinion regarded him as a part of the
slave-master's _pecūlium_. The slave had a life interest only in his
savings, that is, they did not pass to his heirs on his death, for a
slave could have no "heirs," and he could not dispose of them by will.
If he died in slavery his property went to his master. Public slaves
(§141) were allowed as one of their greatest privileges to dispose of
one-half of their property by will.
§165. At the best the accumulation of a sum large enough (§140) to buy
his liberty was pitifully slow and painful for the slave, all the more
because the more energetic and industrious he was, the higher the
price that would be set upon him. We can not help feeling a great
respect for the man who at so great a price obtained his freedom. We
can sympathize, too, with the poor fellows who had to take from their
little hoards to make to the members of their masters' families the
presents that were expected on such great occasions as the marriage of
one of them, the naming of a child (§98), or the birthday of the
mistress (§91).
§166. Punishments.--It is not the purpose of the following sections to
catalogue the fiendish tortures sometimes inflicted upon slaves by
their masters. They were not very common for the reason suggested in
§158, and were no more characteristic of the ordinary correction of
slaves than lynching and whitecapping are characteristic of the
administration of justice in Georgia and Indiana. Certain punishments,
however, are so frequently mentioned in Latin literature, that a
description of them is necessary in order that the passages in which
they occur may be understood by the reader.
[Illustration: FIGURE 32. FLAGELLUM]
§167. The most common punishment for neglect of duty or petty
misconduct was a beating with a stick or flogging with a lash. If the
picture of a Roman school already referred to (§119) gives a correct
idea of the punishments inflicted upon a schoolboy with the consent of
his parents, we should expect that of a slave to be as severe as
regard for his usefulness afterwards would permit. Hence we find that
for the single rod or stick was often substituted a bundle of rods,
usually elm (_ulmī_) corresponding to the birch of England and the
hickory of America. For the lash or rawhide (_scutica_ or _lōrum_) was
often used a sort of cat-o'-nine-tails, made of cords or thongs of
leather. When the offense was more serious, bits of bone were attached
to this, and even metal buttons, to tear the flesh, and the instrument
was called a _flagrum_ or _flagellum_ (Fig. 32). It could not have
been less severe than the knout of Russia, and we may well believe
that slaves died beneath its blows. To render the victim incapable of
resistance he was sometimes drawn up to a beam by the arms, and
weights were even attached to his feet, so that he could not so much
as writhe under the torture.
§168. In the comedies are many references to these punishments, and
the slaves make grim jests on the rods and the scourge, taunting each
other with the beatings they have had or deserve to have. Sometimes
the rods are parasites, who shave close the person to whom they attach
themselves; sometimes they are pens, the back of the culprit being the
copybook; sometimes they are catapults, dealing darts and death.
Sometimes the victim is a bottomless abyss of rods; sometimes he has
absorbed so much essence of elm that he is in danger of himself
becoming a tree; sometimes he is an anvil; sometimes he is a solid
melting under the blows; sometimes he is a garden well watered by
blows. Sometimes an entertainment is being prepared scot-free for his
back; and sometimes his back is a beautifully embroidered carpet.
§169. Another punishment for offenses of the same trivial nature
resembled the stocks of old New England days. The offender was exposed
to the derision of his fellows with his limbs so confined that he
could make no motion at all, could not so much as brush a fly from his
face. Variations of this form of punishment are seen in the _furca_
and in the "making a quadruped out of a man." The latter must have
been something like the "bucking and gagging" used as a punishment in
the militia; the former was so common that _furcifer_ became a mere
term of abuse. The culprit carried upon his shoulders a log of wood,
shaped like a V, and had his arms stretched out before him with his
hands fastened to the ends of the fork. This log he had to carry
around in order that the other members of the _familia_ might see him
and take warning. Sometimes to this punishment was added a lashing as
he moved painfully along.
§170. Less painful and degrading for the moment, but far more dreaded
by the slave, was a sentence to harder labor than he had been
accustomed to perform. The final penalty for misconduct on the part of
a city slave, for whom the rod had been spoiled in vain, was
banishment to the farm, and to this might be added at a stroke the
odious task of grinding at the mill (§148), or the crushing toil of
labor in the quarries. The last were the punishments of the better
class of farm slaves, while the desperate and dangerous class of
slaves who regularly worked in the quarries paid for their misdeeds
under the scourge and in heavier shackles by day and fewer hours of
rest by night. These may be compared to the galley slaves of later
times. Those utterly incorrigible might be sold for gladiators.
§171. For actual crimes, not mere faults or offenses, the punishments
were far more severe. Slaves were so numerous (§131) and their various
employments gave them such free access to the person of the master,
that his property and very life were always at their mercy. It was
indeed a just and gentle master that did not sometimes dream of a
slave holding a dagger at his throat. There was nothing within the
confines of Italy so much dreaded as an uprising of the slaves. It was
simply this haunting fear that led to the inhuman tortures inflicted
upon the slave guilty of an attempt upon the life of his master or of
the destruction of his property. The Romans had not learned twenty
centuries ago, as some of our own citizens have not yet learned, that
crimes are not lessened by increasing the sufferings of the criminals.
[Illustration: FIGURE 33. SLAVE'S COLLAR--_Servus sum dom(i)ni mei
Scholastici v(iri) sp(ectabilis). Tene me ne fugiam de domo
Pulverata._]
§172. The runaway slave was a criminal: he had stolen himself. He was
also guilty of setting a bad example to his fellow slaves; and, worst
of all, runaway slaves always became bandits (§161) and they might
find a Spartacus to lead them (§132). There were, therefore, standing
rewards for the capture of _fugitīvī_, and there were men who made it
their business to track them down and return them to their masters.
The _fugitīvus_ was brought back in shackles, and was sure to be
flogged within an inch of his life and sent to the quarries for the
rest of his miserable days. Besides this, he was branded on the
forehead with the letter F, for _fugitīvus_, and sometimes had a metal
collar riveted about his neck. One such, still preserved at Rome, is
shown in Fig. 33, and another has the inscription:
FUGI. TENE ME. CUM REVOCAVERIS ME D. M.
ZONINO, ACCIPIS SOLIDUM.[1]
[Footnote 1: I have run away. Catch me. If you take me back to my
master Zoninus you'll be rewarded.]
§173. For an attempt upon the life of the master the penalty was death
in its most agonizing form, by crucifixion. This was also the penalty
for taking part in an insurrection, witness the twenty thousand
crucified in Sicily (§132) and the six thousand crosses that Pompeius
erected along the road to Rome, each bearing the body of one of the
survivors of the final battle in which Spartacus fell. And the
punishment was inflicted not only upon the slave guilty of his
master's life, but also upon the family of the slave, if he had wife
(§156) and children. If the guilty man could not be found, his
punishment was made certain by the crucifixion of all the slaves of
the murdered man. Tacitus tells us that in the reign of Nero four
hundred slaves were executed for the murder of their master, Pedianus
Secundus, by one of their number undetected.
§174. The cross stood to the slave as the horror of horrors. The very
word (_crux_) was used among them as a curse, especially in the form
_ad (malam) crucem_. The various minor punishments were inflicted at
the order of the master or his representative by some fellow slave
called for the time _carnifex_ or _lōrārius_, though these words by no
means imply that he was regularly or even commonly designated for the
disagreeable duty. Still, the administration of punishment to a fellow
slave was felt to be degrading, and the word _carnifex_ was apt to
attach itself to such a person and finally came to be a standing term
of abuse and taunt. It is applied to each other by quarreling slaves,
apparently with no notion of its literal meaning, as many vulgar
epithets are applied to-day. The actual execution of a death sentence
was carried out by one of the _servī pūblicī_ (§141) at a fixed place
of execution outside of the city walls.
[Illustration: FIGURE 34. COIN, SHOWING THE PILLEUS]
§175. Manumission.--The slave might purchase his freedom from his
master by means of his savings, as we have seen (§164), or he might be
set free as a reward for faithful service or some special act of
devotion. In either case it was only necessary for the master to
pronounce him free in the presence of witnesses, though a formal act
of manumission often took place before a praetor. The new-made
freedman set proudly on his head the cap of liberty (_pilleus_), often
seen on Roman coins (Fig. 34). He was now called _lībertus_ in
reference to his master, _lībertīnus_ in reference to others; his
master was no longer _dominus_, but _patrōnus_. The relation that now
existed between them was one of mutual helpfulness. The patron
assisted the freedman in business, often supplying the means with
which he was to make a start in his new life. It the freedman died
first, the patron paid the expenses of a decent funeral and had the
body buried near the spot where his own ashes would be laid. He became
the guardian of the freedman's children, or if no heirs were left, he
himself inherited the property. The freedman was bound to show his
patron marked deference and respect on all occasions, to attend him
upon public occasions, to assist him in case of reverse of fortune,
and in short to stand to him in the same relation as the client had
stood to the patron in the brave days of old.
§176. The Clients.--The word _cliēns_ (from _clueō_; therefore
"hearer," "one who obeys") is used in Roman history of two very
different classes of dependents, who are separated by a considerable
interval of time and may be roughly distinguished as the Old Clients
and the New. The former played an important part under the Kings, and
especially in the struggles between the patricians and plebeians in
the early days of the Republic, but had practically disappeared by the
time of Cicero. The latter are first heard of after the Empire was
well advanced, and never had any political significance. Between the
two classes there is absolutely no connection, and the student must be
careful to notice that the later is not a development of the earlier
class.
§177. The Old Clients.--Clientage (_clientēla_) goes back beyond the
founding of Rome to the most ancient social institutions of the
Italian communities. The _gentēs_ who settled on the hills along the
Tiber (§22) had brought with them as a part of their _familiae_ (§21)
numerous free retainers, who seem to have farmed their lands, tended
their flocks, and done them certain personal services in return for
protection against cattle thieves, raiders, and open enemies. These
retainers were regarded as inferior members of the _gēns_ to which
they had severally attached themselves, had a share in the increase of
the flocks and herds (§33, _pecūlia_), and were given the clan name
(§47), but they had no right of marriage with persons of the higher
class and no voice in the government. They were the original _plēbs_,
while the _gentīlēs_ (§22) were the _populus_ of Rome.
§178. Rome's policy of expansion soon brought within the city a third
element, distinct from both _gentīlēs_ and _clientēs_. Conquered
communities, especially those dangerously near, were made to destroy
their own strongholds (_oppida_) and move in mass to the city. Those
who possessed already the gentile organization were allowed to become
a part of the _populus_, or governing body, and these, too, brought
their _clientēs_ with them. Those who had no such organization either
attached themselves to the _gentēs_ as clients, or preferring personal
independence settled here and there, in and about the city, to make a
living as best they might. Some were possessed of means as large
perhaps as those of the patricians; others were artisans and laborers,
hewers of wood and drawers of water; but all alike were without
political rights and occupied the lowest position in the new state.
Their numbers increased rapidly with the expansion of Roman territory,
and they soon outnumbered the patricians with their retainers, with
whom, of course, as conquered people they could have no sympathies or
social ties. To them also the name of _plēbs_ was given, and the old
_plēbs_, the _clientēs_, began to occupy an intermediate position in
the state, though politically included with the plebeians. Many of
them, owing perhaps to the dying out of ancient patrician families,
gradually lost their dependent relation and became identified in
interests with the newer element.
§179. Mutual Obligations.--The relation between the patrician patrons
and the plebeian clients is not now thoroughly understood; the
problems connected with it seem beyond solution. We know that it was
hereditary and that the great houses boasted of the number of their
clients and were eager to increase them from generation to generation.
We know that it was regarded as something peculiarly sacred, that the
client stood to the patron as little less than a son. Vergil tells us
that a special punishment in the underworld awaited the patron who
defrauded a client. We read, too, of instances of splendid loyalty to
their patrons on the part of clients, a loyalty to which we can only
compare in modern times that of Highlanders to the chief of their
clan. But when we try to get an idea of the reciprocal duties and
obligations we find little in our authorities that is definite (§12,
end). The patron furnished means of support for the client and his
family (§177), gave him the benefit of his advice and counsel, and
assisted him in his transactions with third parties, representing him
if necessary in the courts. On the other hand the client was bound to
advance the interests of his patron in every possible way. He tilled
his fields, herded his flocks, attended him in war, and assisted him
in special emergencies with money.
§180. It is evident that the mutuality of this relation depended
solely upon the predominant position of the patron in the state. So
long as the patricians were the only full citizens, so long, that is,
as the plebeians had no civil rights, the client might well afford to
sacrifice his personal independence for the sake of the countenance
and protection of one of the mighty. In the case of disputes over
property, for example, the support of his patron would assure him
justice even against a patrician, and might secure more than justice
were his opponent a plebeian without another such advocate. It is
evident, too, that the relation could not long endure after the
equalization of the orders. For a generation or two the patron and the
client might stand together against their old adversaries, but sooner
or later the client would see that he was getting no equivalent for
the service he rendered, and his children or his children's children
would throw off the yoke. The introduction of slavery, on the other
hand, helped to make the patron independent of the client, and while
we can hardly tell whether its rapid growth (§129) was the cause or
the effect of declining clientage, it is nevertheless significant that
the new relation of _patrōnus_ and _lībertus_ (§175) marks the
disappearance of that of _patrōnus_ and _cliēns_ in the old and better
sense of the words.
§181. The New Clients.--The new clients need not detain us long. They
came in with the upstart rich, who counted a long train of dependents
as necessary to their state as a string of high-sounding names (§50),
or a mansion crowded with useless slaves (§155). These dependents were
simply obscure and needy men who toadied to the rich and great for the
sake of the crumbs that fell from their tables. There might be among
them men of perverted talents, philosophers or poets like Martial and
Statius, but they were all at best a swarm of cringing, fawning,
time-serving flatterers and parasites. It is important to understand
that there was no personal tie between the new patron and the new
client, no bond of hereditary association. No sacrifice was involved
on either side. The client did not attach himself for life to one
patron for better or for worse; he frequently paid his court to
several at a time and changed his masters as often as he could hope
for better things. The patron in like manner dismissed a client when
he had tired of him.
§182. Duties and Rewards.--The service, however mean and degrading,
was easy enough. The chief duty was the _salūtātiō_: the clients
arrayed in the toga, the formal dress for all social functions,
assembled early in the morning in the great man's hall to greet him
when he first appeared. This might be all required of them for the
day, and there might be time to hurry through the streets to another
house to pay similar homage to another patron, perhaps to others
still, for the rich slept late. On the other hand the patron might
command their attendance in the house or by his litter (§151), if he
was going out, and keep them at his side the whole day long. Then
there was no chance to wait upon the second patron, but every chance
to be forgotten by him. And the rewards were no greater than the
services. A few coins for a clever witticism or a fulsome compliment;
a cast-off toga occasionally, for a shabby dress disgraced the levee;
or an invitation to the dinner table if the patron was particularly
gracious. One meal a day was always expected, and felt to be the due
of the client. But sometimes the patron did not receive and the
clients were sent empty away. Sometimes, too, after a day's attendance
the hungry and tired train were dismissed with a gift of cold food
distributed in little baskets (_sportulae_), a poor and sorry
substitute for the good cheer they had hoped for. From these baskets
the "dole," as we should call it now, came to be called _sportula_
itself, and in the course of time an equivalent in money, fixed
finally at about thirty cents, took the place of this. But it was
something to be admitted to the familiar presence of the rich and
fashionable, there was always the hope of a little legacy, if the
flattery was adroit, and even the dole would enable one to live more
easily than by work, especially if one could stand well with several
patrons and draw the dole from each of them.
§183. The Hospites.--Finally we come to the _hospitēs_, though these
in strictness ought not to be reckoned among the dependents. It is
true that they were often dependent on others for protection and help,
but it is also true that they were equally ready and able to extend
like help and protection to others who had the right to claim
assistance from them. It is important to observe that _hospitium_
differed from clientship in this respect, that the parties to it were
actually on the footing of absolute equality. Although at some
particular time one might be dependent upon the other for food or
shelter, at another time the relations might be reversed and the
protector and the protected change places.
§184. _Hospitium_, in its technical sense, goes back to a time when
there were no international relations, to the time when stranger and
enemy were not merely synonymous words, but absolutely the same word.
In this early stage of society, when distinct communities were
numerous, every stranger was looked upon with suspicion, and the
traveler in a state not his own found it difficult to get his wants
supplied, even if his life was not actually in danger. Hence the
custom arose for a man engaged in commerce or in any other occupation
that might compel him to visit a foreign country to form previously a
connection with a citizen of that country, who would be ready to
receive him as a friend, to supply his needs, to vouch for his good
intentions, and to act if necessary as his protector. Such a
relationship, called _hospitium_, was always strictly reciprocal: if A
agreed to entertain and protect B, when B visited A's country, then B
was bound to entertain and protect A, if A visited B's country. The
parties to an agreement of this sort were called _hospitēs_, and hence
the word _hospes_ has a double signification, at one time denoting the
entertainer, at another the guest.
§185. Obligations of Hospitium.--The obligations imposed by this
covenant were of the most sacred character, and any failure to regard
its provisions was sacrilege, bringing upon the offender the anger of
_Iuppiter Hospitālis_. Either of the parties might cancel the bond,
but only after a formal and public notice of his intentions. On the
other hand the tie was hereditary, descending from father to son, so
that persons might be _hospitēs_ who had never so much as seen each
other, whose immediate ancestors even might have had no personal
intercourse. As a means of identification the original parties
exchanged tokens _tesserae hospitālēs_, (see Rich and Harper, s. v.),
by which they or their descendants might recognize each other. These
tokens were carefully preserved, and when a stranger claimed
_hospitium_ his _tessera_ had to be produced and submitted for
examination. If it was found to be genuine, he was entitled to all the
privileges that the best-known guest-
Showing first 200,000 characters. Full text: gutenberg.org/ebooks/40549