 Text
only
|
 |
  |
 |
|
|
Introduction
| New research | Status
The household
A Roman household could encompass a vastly extended family. Within it, the senior male – the paterfamilias – had greater authority over his dependants than a patron had over his clients. This could include guardianship of women bequeathed to him, as well as (in theory) absolute authority over even a middle-aged son. But the laws and traditions on which the paterfamilias's control over his world was based were rapidly changing. Patricians, slaves and freedmen Age had been venerated during the republic, but Augustus had encouraged a cult of youth. As a result, fathers now could expect less respect from their children and had to make specific arrangements to ensure that they would be cared for in old age, rather than presume that their offspring would look after them. Slaves were legally no more than property. But the relationship between masters and their slaves or former slaves – freedmen – was often one of affection, mutual care and responsibility. However, patricians in post-earthquake Pompeii were becoming anxious about freedmen's ambitions. This was expressed in the archetypal satirical figure of the 'legacy hunter', who became notorious during this period of wealth and social mobility. A freedman, he insinuated his way into the affections of the wealthy in the hope of being favoured in their wills over even their own children. Marriage and divorce During Rome's early history, a wife passed from the manus (power) of her father to that of her husband, so becoming a virtual blood relative; this was known as a cum manu marriage. However, this was phased out in favour of the sine manu marriage, in which the wife remained a member of her birth family and subject to the authority of her father. Exactly why there was this change is not known, but one explanation may have been the need to keep the dowry within the ownership of the bride's family, especially if it was property. For much of the republic, only husbands could initiate a divorce, and then only in certain circumstances, such as the wife's adultery or barrenness. (Roman law did not recognise adultery by husbands.) By the time of Cicero (106-43 BC), however, divorce was easily accomplished by either wife or husband, generally without financial penalties and for almost any reason. All that was required under Augustan law was a declaration before seven witnesses of the desire to divorce. On divorce, the wife (if she had had a sine manu marriage) was entitled to a full refund of her dowry, and she returned to the patria potestas – family protection – of her father. If she had been independent of her father prior to marriage, she would regain her independence when she divorced. Among the upper classes, divorces became relatively common, at least those initiated by men. But though wives now possessed the right to end their marriages, few actually seem to have done so. This may be because women had very few opportunities to make an independent living, and because custody of children was normally awarded to the father. Children There were incentives for men, too: according to a decree of Augustus, priority would be given, not to a consul who was older, but to the one with the most children. Despite this, however, childlessness had become a valid 'lifestyle choice' in Pompeii, even though contraception was very hit and miss. Childbirth, when it did happen, had many rituals associated with it to cover its many risks. The most important was the paterfamilias's acceptance of the child into the household, signalled by him picking up the baby from the floor. A child not so formally accepted ran the risk of being abandoned – that is, left to take its chances in the open in a public place. It has been suggested that it was mainly the poorer classes that – in the Roman term – 'exposed' newborn children, either because their parents were unable to care for them or simply because they were unwanted. It was expected (or hoped) that the children left in public places would be found and raised as slaves. But many undoubtedly died. Daughters were abandoned more often than sons, perhaps because they would eventually need a dowry and were therefore seen as a potential drain on the family's financial resources. It is ironic that the very institution of dowry, which served as the means by which some women acquired a measure of independence within marriage, may have condemned others to slavery. Lower-class women A number of poor women worked as waitresses in taverns, where they were probably expected, or obliged, to engage in prostitution on the side. In fact, for a lot of unskilled working-class women, prostitution was the only way to make a living, however inadequate.
|
 |
