Polygamy And Roman Laws

[DukeOfMarshall]

Can anyone point me to resources that display the Roman laws regarding plural marriage/polygamy?

 

I'm specifically looking for the actual laws, when the laws were put into place, and the punishment for violation of these laws. Word of mouth is alright, but directly linking or referring to these resources is preferrred.

 

Semper Fidelis,

Todd

[Nephele]

The following is taken from The Institutes of Justinian, which I believe are Roman laws compiled by the Emperor Justinian which dated back over hundreds of years.

 

From Title X. "Of Marriage", section 7:

 

"Again, it is forbidden for a man to marry his wife's mother or his father's wife, because to him they are in the position of a mother, though in this case too our statement applies only after the relationship has finally terminated; otherwise, if a woman is still your stepmother, that is, is married to your father, the common rule of law prevents her from marrying you,

because a woman cannot have two husbands at the same time:

and if she is still your wife's mother, that is, if her daughter is still married to you, you cannot marry her

because you cannot have two wives at the same time.

"

 

-- Nephele

[sullafelix]

Hi

 

Interesting subject and a good response from Nephele. Actually the same wording appears in the much earlier Gaius (jurist & contemporary of Hadrian's) as well. I suspect that the law would go right back to the time of the XII tables but there can be no proof as it is not contained in the fragments that have come down to us. The other injunctions contained within the clause regarding incest do seem to have survived but all of the XII tables are so fragmentary that no conclusion could be drawn from that.

 

Cheers

SF

[Nephele]

Thank you, sullafelix -- especially for that explanation as to why we probably can't draw definite conclusions as to whether this law goes back to the time of the 12 tables, due to the existing tables being so fragmentary. Perhaps also, injunction against polygamy might have been something that had been universally understood by the ancient Romans to be "wrong", and therefore the Romans of the Republic might not have seen a need to write it down in stone?

 

Here are some more excerpts from the Code of Justinian, that I found referenced in a useful book titled Women and the Law in the Roman Empire, by Judith Evans Grubbs (Professor of Classical Studies at Sweet Briar College):

 

5.5.2: "It is allowed to no one who is under Roman authority to be able to have two wives openly, since even in the Praetor's Edict men of this sort have been branded with legal infamy (

infamia

). The appropriate judge will not allow this matter to go unpunished."

 

9.9.18: "Without a doubt legal infamy attends the man who had two wives at the same time, for in this matter it is not the effect of the law -- since our citizens are forbidden to contract mulitple marriages -- but the intention that is considered. Moreover, the accusation of

stuprum

also will be formally brought by a legally authorized accuser against the man who asked for your hand in marriage, pretending that he was unmarried, when he had left another

materfamilias

in the province."

 

As to the punishment for polygamy, which had also been asked by DukeofMarshall... The above codes state that the transgressor was labeled with infamia, which would result in a loss of political and public rights. Here is a link to an article from Smith's Dictionary that describes in greater detail the consequences of legal infamy or infamia.

 

-- Nephele