FORMS OF MARRIAGE AND POWER RELATIONSHIPS WITHIN THE FAMILY 1. In the “Middle Republic” (ca 264 – 146 BC ) and the “Late Republic” (ca 146 – 30 BC ), there were FOUR different forms of marriage - as noted before: a) confarreatio b) coemptio c) usus and d) “free marriage”. 2. The position of women within the family was greatly affected by patria potestas and by the type of marriage they experienced. 3. The position of women within the Roman state depended heavily on their status – principally whether or not they were citizens. [In all instances, we know very little about the “ordinary” citizens; the principal evidence almost always tells us about the relationships that prevailed within the elite strata of society (the “senatorial order” and the “equestrian order” [the lower stratum of the elite below the “senatorial”])]. It is important in all of this to note too that female citizens were USUALLY under the life-long ‘legal guardianship’ (manus) of a male citizen (normally their father or husband) and that the form of marriage could affect the details of this manus (guardianship).

THE STATUS OF FEMALE ROMAN CITIZENS, SOME WOMEN UNDER THE LATER REPUBLIC – including CORNELIA, MOTHER OF THE GRACCHI 1.We glanced at three of the four forms of Roman marriage, namely confarreatio, coemptio, and usus, last time, noting in particular how manus (“guardianship”) was affected by the type employed. 2. Let us revisit briefly usus, with its “loophole”. Depiction of a Roman marriage The man seems to be holding the marriage contract but it isn’t clear which form of Roman marriage is being shown.

USUS 1. A rarer form of marriage which seems to have died out by the end of the first century BC. 2. It did not require any sort of ceremony - only the agreement of the two families that the man and woman should live together, which they must do for one year for the marriage to be legally valid. 3. The woman could pass from the manus (“guardianship”) of her father to that of her husband. 4. BUT there was a loophole: the woman could escape passing into the manus (“guardianship”) of her husband if she was absent from her husband’s home for three consecutive nights each year. If she did this, she remained in the manus of her father. 5. Divorce was straightforward but the dowry [as with the two previous types of marriage] would be affected.

“FREE MARRIAGE” 1. This type of ‘marriage’ was just an agreement to live together, but was not legally recognized. 2. By it the woman remained in the manus of her father. 3. Provided both parties had the right of “intermarriage” [conubium], enjoyed by all citizens [and by those with ‘Latin Rights’], the children of the “marriage” were recognized as legitimate. The type of marriage, often not known, will become of interest in our course when we consider the lives of named women (almost all from the upper classes). How they were married would affect the form of manus (“guardianship”) to which they were subject.

WOMEN’S STATUS WITHIN THE FAMILY A word about the paterfamilias (“family head”) and the status of his children (of either sex): 1.Both male and female children, however old, were in the manus of their father (paterfamilias) as long as he lived (unless he chose to ‘liberate’ them). a) When he died, his sons were freed from guardianship and became sui iuris (“legally independent”), but b) his daughters (if they hadn’t married and passed [depending on the form of marriage] into the manus of their husband), even if they became sui iuris (“legally independent”) were still restricted because they still had to gain the permission (often no more than a formality) of whoever was now their guardian (their tutor) [initially their father or their husband’s closest male relative, sometimes just a pliant male whom they themselves chose] for any transaction they made to be legal. [Women, by law, had to have a ‘guardian’ (a tutor). Cicero said this was because of their “natural weakness in intelligence” (but he may have been joking) ]

Those who were sui iuris [“legally independent”] (both male and female) could manage their own property, make a will, and initiate a divorce – but a woman had to get her guardian’s go-ahead - as indicated already, usually a straightforward matter, but an inconvenience nevertheless. In Roman society, unlike in many others over the ages, unless the father stated otherwise in his will, daughters inherited an equal share of the family’s property with their brothers. [There was no system of ‘primogeniture’ either in the Roman system of inheritance]

DOWRY (dos) 1.All legally recognized marriages involved the transfer of a dowry from the bride’s family to the family of her husband (unless he was legally independent, in which case the dowry passed to him). 2. Its purpose was to contribute to the setting up of the new household. 3. If the couple divorced [and no reason had to be given in law for a divorce] and a) it was the husband who had initiated the divorce, the dowry had to be returned to the woman’s family [or, if she was sui iuris (“legally independent”), to her]. b) If the wife or her father initiated the divorce, the husband could keep one-sixth of the dowry for each of three children. c) If adultery by the woman was involved, the husband could keep another sixth of the dowry. [It was made clear after 18 BC that only married women could commit “adultery”, which became, for the first time, a crime. Until this date, divorce was a family matter and of no concern to the state]

THE STATUS OF WOMEN IN THE ROMAN STATE Female citizens had the same rights and freedoms as male citizens (subject, of course, to manus [“legal guardianship”] in both cases) except in the area of political rights. Women could NOT a) vote for candidates in elections or for the passage of laws, b) stand for political office, or c) serve the state in a military capacity.

Another Example of Collective Action by Roman Women 1.We noted before how the women of the state supposedly came forward at the time when the Gauls occupied the city in 390 BC and offered their possessions when the state needed to find a large sum of gold as ransom. 2. A second example is worthy of comment. a) At about the lowest point, for Rome, in the Second Punic War (against Hannibal) and during the economic problems caused by Rome’s defeats, the state, in 215 BC, [before the importation of the cult of “the Great Mother” in 204 BC] passed “the Oppian Law” (the lex Oppia). b) It restricted not only women’s wealth but also their display of wealth: they were to own no more than one ounce of gold, were not to wear coloured clothing, and were not to ride in vehicles pulled by animals (except for religious purposes). c) In the decades following Rome’s victory against Hannibal in 201 BC, unprecedented wealth began to pour into the Italian peninsula.

d) As early as 195 BC it was proposed to repeal “the Oppian Law” – not least because Roman women were aware that the restrictions on them did not apply to women in the other states in Italy which were allied with Rome. e) BUT when Roman male political conservatives opposed the repeal, Roman matrons poured out of their homes in demonstration on two consecutive days and, we are told, could not be prevented from doing this “by the elected officials, by their husbands, or by any sense of propriety”. f) Marcus Porcius Cato [Cato “the Censor”] one of the most conservative statesman of the day, was appalled. g) He is reported as saying directly to the women [Livy 34. 2] "what kind of behaviour is this, running around in public and blocking streets and talking to other women's husbands?... it is not right, even in your own homes for you to concern yourselves about which laws are passed or repealed here.“ Despite Cato’s objections, the law was repealed !

CATO THE ELDER BC

SOME NOTEWORTHY WOMEN OF THE MIDDLE AND LATE REPUBLIC 1.We should now turn to some individual women, although it will become immediately clear how little we can often say - compared with what we can say about their menfolk. 2.We’ll begin with CORNELIA (“Mother of the Gracchi [Tiberius and Gaius] ”). CORNELIA WITH HER ELDER SON as envisioned by Jules Cavelier ( )

CORNELIA, MOTHER OF THE GRACCHI 1.Cornelia (“Africana”) (ca 190 – ca 100 BC) [the first truly historical female citizen we should look at] had enormous advantages compared with many other women even of her own class - because of her ancestry on both sides of her family. Both her parents were distinguished, as were her grandparents and their ancestors. a)i) Her father was Publius Cornelius Scipio “Africanus” (236 – 184 or 183 BC ), the victor over Hannibal and a very skilled military commander and political leader. ii) The Cornelii Scipiones - the Scipio branch of the gens (clan) Cornelia to which her father belonged - held one of the two annual consulships frequently from the early 300s BC onwards and were one of the leading patrician families in the state.

i) Her mother, Aemilia Paulla (ca 230 – 163 or 162 BC) was the daughter of Lucius Aemilius Paullus (consul in 216 BC and killed at the Battle of Cannae). He [Cornelia’s maternal grandfather] had been [like her paternal grandfather] one of the state’s foremost leaders. ii) The gens Aemilia (like the gens Cornelia) was another of perhaps the five most important patrician families in the state - even though, of course, the “nobility” had long ago come to comprise mainly “plebeian” families [“nobles” by merit rather than “nobles” by birth]. In every sense, then, Cornelia was from the very heart of the society’s elite.