Roman Attitudes

[dale1257]

Greetings

 

I am an avid lover of History, and Roman History is a subject that has only recently entered my radar. I have always been fascinated by Roman History, but have never tried to actually study it much. (History is a hobby for me, btw. It is only my own curiosity that drives my interest)

 

I have recently finished a book called "Cleopatra A Life" by Stacey Schiff. Cleopatra obviously had a huge impact on Rome, but in this forum, I am more interested in the Roman attitudes toward her. I get from Schiff's book that a large part of the problem was not just that she ruled over a vast, profitable and prosperous empire, but equally as important was that she was indeed a 'she'. Apparently, the Roman mind just could not comprehend the concept of a powerful woman. This cost them greatly in terms of blood and treasure. Nor was she the last. Bodecia in Brittain gave them fits as well. Apparently, both were consistently underestimated because of their sex. While not the first book I have read about Rome, nor will it be the last, when I take it in conjunction with snippets I have read of Tactus, Plutarch, Dio etc, I get the impression that ancient Roman from the emperor down to the vendors on the street, Romans were very arrogant, to say the least.

 

But far more than just being what we today would call 'sexist', it seems the Romans grew to be very arrogant and condescending toward, well, everybody who was not Roman. This attitude led to complacency within the halls of government, and opened the door for greed and corruption of all stripes. This led to the ability of one person generally being able to assume total control. Julius Cesar did it, Agustus did it, and the rest, as they say, is history.

 

As one who is comparatively new to the study of ancient Rome, I am wondering if I am on the right track here. Your thoughts and insight would be greatly appreciated.

[Kosmo]

Romans were sexist, but so were and are most (if not all) societies. On a scale of sexism Romans would not do so bad in comparison with other societies because they had monogamy, divorce, citizenship and property rights for women, etc. But like most historic republics Rome did not give political rights to women while in monarchies the inheritance of thrones sometimes brought a female to power.

Cleopatra was disturbing for Romans not only by being a powerful woman but for her use of sex and seduction to establish relations with two leading romans. Probably in the Middle Ages her tactic would have been seen as more legitimate with vast empires like the one of Charles V being created through marriage and female inheritance.

Among queens who troubled Rome we should not forget about the remarkable Zenobia.

[caldrail]

Sexist is a modern phrase that distorts the concept, but I agree they were very chauvanistic and responsible (or at least some of them were) for the purge of female clerics in christian times.

[Metella]

sexist in our terms maybe. But they respected their wives and daughters (for the most part) and women were often looked at as life-partners. Now, the areas they were responsible for were often more traditional home roles - but compared to many societies where women were treated like property - the Romans were at the forefront in respecting women.

 

So I can't see them encouraging women to go out and do any type of job; but it was a decent time to be a woman ...

 

As to the female leaders; I'm not sure it was because they were women - I think you hit on it more directly when you say Roman vs non-Roman as being the reason that some armies were under-estimated. Just an opinion, from my century looking back.

[Melvadius]

... I can't see them encouraging women to go out and do any type of job ...

 

 

To pick up on the point regarding women having 'jobs'; the Roman's having three different forms of marriage complicates the following but basically:

 

From memory the main issue in the most usual form of marriage was the fact that under Roman law women were under the control of their 'Pater Familia' (father or possibly grandfather depending on the household composition) until they were married after which they came into the control of their husband.

 

It was generally only if she had three children AND became a widow that a woman could do away with having a male relative as her guardian. Although IIRC in one the remaining two forms of marriage a woman actually remained under her father's control irrspective of how many children she had. NB This website seems to include some good basic information on the various forms of Roman marriage although Bill Thayer's site includes here a much fuller and more legally bounded discussion of the various forms.

 

There are a few scattered records of women who having attained freedom from male control were able to establish themselves in their own businesses or in other ways attain semi-independent powers like Euamchia and Julia Felix in Pompeii.

 

You may find this article of interest as it provides some basic background on both women.

[Metella]

I'm loving it - thanks for the extra info !!!

[barca]

Apparently, the Roman mind just could not comprehend the concept of a powerful woman. This cost them greatly in terms of blood and treasure. Nor was she the last. Bodecia in Brittain gave them fits as well. Apparently, both were consistently underestimated because of their sex.

 

The Romans were no more sexist than any other people of their age. Take the Sassanids, for example:

 

In Procopius' Persian Wars there was a letter from Theodora to the beleaguered Persians where she was offering a treaty, with strict assurances stating that her husband would never do anything without her consent. The Persian leader used this letter as a means of rallying his troops, stating "what kind of empire is this that is run by a woman?"

[caldrail]

There's a different quality to Roman chauvanism than the usual gender subjugation. Granted the social relationships are not really much different, but the average attitude toward women seems more respectful and open, even in earlier austere times. There were plenty of female gods in their pantheon I notice. That doesn't mean some women weren't badly treated, rather that there seems to be more of a cultural role attached to them and despite the apparent ownership of the female sex by fathers, guardians, or husbands, I can't see much in the way of stress or constrictment.

 

Of course once the social order is relaxed toward the beginning of the imperial period the bad girls start to make their presence felt to the tuts and groans of menfolk (in the widest possible sense of course). One or two got made examples of. Augustus had his daughter exiled after being embarrased by her immoral behaviour, and in one case, I seem to remember a husband threw his wife out of a window in rage at her behaviour. There;'s a story of how a woman from a wealthy family threw away her luxurious lifestyle to elope with a gladiator. Yet these are isolated cases. I doubt the majority of women felt all that hard done by and nor was their behaviour quite as bad as Suetonius describes those of the 'party' set. But then Juvenal tells us about the awfulness of Roman women.

[barca]

There's a different quality to Roman chauvanism than the usual gender subjugation.

 

In Goldworthy's book about Julius Caesar, he descirbes a scene where Caesar found out that his wife was having an affair. DId he take out out on the street and have her stoned to death? No, he simply divorced her. That may have just been Caesar who was remarkably conciliatory in many situations where others would let their passions get the better of them.

[Belisarius]

I'd say you can make the argument that Roman women (of the patrician class anyway) were the high water mark of freedom for women until the 20th century.

 

Women could own property. They could, by and large, refuse marriage to a particular man. They could take some role in the religion.

 

Contrast women of rome to women of the middle ages and the renaissance, and I'd say the sisters of rome had it comparatively good.

[stevefrank]

Great dele. I also avid lover of history about roman empire. I must read your book..

[Maty]

"Caesar found out that his wife was having an affair."

 

Caesar didn't find out that his wife was having an affair, because she probably wasn't. However, Caesar was then Pontifex Maximus and moving up in the world, and he wanted a wife who would reflect this and give him some political clout.

 

So he used rumours that Clodius had infiltrated the (women only) Bona Dea festival to visit his wife as an excuse to divorce her and marry up. He famously claimed that though the rumours about her were untrue 'Caesar's wife should be above suspicion.'

 

Pretty rich really, considering Caesar's own record with everyone from Nicomedes of Bithynia to Servilia, but apart from being sexist (in modern eyes) Roman men certainly had no trouble with double standards.

[sonic]

I'd say you can make the argument that Roman women (of the patrician class anyway) were the high water mark of freedom for women until the 20th century.

 

Women could own property. They could, by and large, refuse marriage to a particular man. They could take some role in the religion.

 

Contrast women of rome to women of the middle ages and the renaissance, and I'd say the sisters of rome had it comparatively good.

 

A bit of a generalization there. Welsh women up to the English conquest were given legal rights unheard of by the Anglo-Normans.

[caldrail]

There's a different quality to Roman chauvanism than the usual gender subjugation.

 

In Goldworthy's book about Julius Caesar, he descirbes a scene where Caesar found out that his wife was having an affair. DId he take out out on the street and have her stoned to death? No, he simply divorced her. That may have just been Caesar who was remarkably conciliatory in many situations where others would let their passions get the better of them.

 

An interesting point, because irrespective of whether she was guilty of indiscretions, women in high places were desirable not so much for charm or comliness, but as means of social and career advancement. That was the norm for wealthy imperial Romans and none thought it unusual for a couple to split when things weren't working to their advantage. Dropping one partner for a better one is readily noticeable too.

 

In any case, it would be wrong for us to assume that Romans married for love. Typically a young male Roman would regard being in love as something akin to emotional slavery, a very undesrable state of affairs, and the expectations of young men were even more macho and lustful than our present day. Most marriages were, as often occurs in historical periods, for practiical reasons as much as social ones. Women as young as twelve were routinely married off to someone in poorer families (I've seen evidence of a girl of seven being married, though that was likely a rare circumstance and even the Romans themselves frowned upon big differences in age even when it occurred on a regular basis).

 

So it isn't the male prerogative that dominates marriage either, since sex with slaves and prostitutes was readily available, leaving childbirth as a primary consequence of union - and notice how the Romans treat newly born infants - the male responsible chose to acknowledge the child as his - there was no obligation although obviously in a happy union the issue wasn't likely to arise. Nonetheless, for all the hardships of the female gender, they were given a primary role in the household, and a respected one at that, The old saying that there is always a woman behind a successful man is one of those human realities that the ROmans encapsulated in their society.

Edited September 3, 2012 by caldrail

[Fulvia]

There's a different quality to Roman chauvanism than the usual gender subjugation.

 

In Goldworthy's book about Julius Caesar, he descirbes a scene where Caesar found out that his wife was having an affair. DId he take out out on the street and have her stoned to death? No, he simply divorced her. That may have just been Caesar who was remarkably conciliatory in many situations where others would let their passions get the better of them.

 

 

Typically a young male Roman would regard being in love as something akin to emotional slavery, a very undesrable state of affairs, and the expectations of young men were even more macho and lustful than our present day.

 

I would be interested in knowing for what era this observation pertains to knowing how much attitudes changed from era to era. Was this as much true in the middle empire as it was, say for example, in the late Republic? Would it be fair to categorize the "sexual revolution" of the early principate as a break in this attitude of not wanting to be chained down? Or would this be another example of the Romans' famous double standards with attitudes vs. actions?