Pudicitia: The Construction and Application of Female Morality in the Roman and Early Empire

Master’s Thesis

Presented to

The Faculty of the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences Brandeis University Graduate Program in and Roman Studies Professor Cheryl Walker, Advisor

In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree

Master of Arts in Ancient Greek and Roman Studies

by Kathryn Joseph

May 2018

Copyright by

Kathryn Elizabeth Spillman Joseph

© 2018

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to thank my advisors for their patience and advice well as my cohort in the Graduate Program in Ancient Greek and Roman Studies. Y’all know what you did.

iii

ABSTRACT

Pudicitia: The Construction and Application of Female Morality in the and Early Empire

A thesis presented to the Graduate Program in Ancient Greek and Roman Studies

Graduate School of Arts and Sciences Brandeis University Waltham, Massachusetts

By Kathryn Joseph

In the Roman Republic and early Empire, pudicitia, a woman’s sexual modesty, was an important part of the traditional concept of female morality. This thesis strives to explain how traditional Roman morals, derived from the foundational in ’s History of , were applied to women and how women functioned within these moral constructs. The traditional constructs could be manipulated under the right circumstances and for the right reasons, allowing women to act outside of traditional gender roles. By examining literary examples of women who were able to step outside of traditional gender roles, it becomes possible to understand the difference between projected male ideas on ideal female morality, primarily pudicitia, and actuality.

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Acknowledgements…iii

Introduction…1

Chapter One: The Structural Framework for Female Morality within Livy…6

Chapter Two: Pudicitia in Practice…30

Chapter Three: Pudicitia and Crossing Gender Spheres through Religious Organization

and Political Involvement…52

Conclusion…70

Bibliography…73

v

Introduction

Within the Roman world, the only individuals who can be said to have had true agency, true control over their lives, were educated male citizens who could afford to participate in politics.

This select segment of the population also had the loudest voice and the one best represented in most of the ancient literature that survives today. Through such ancient sources come ideas and philosophies on the marginalized figures who often did not have a public voice of their own.

Because social hierarchies and moral guidelines limited interactions between different groups, the literature often reflects stigmas and stereotypes surrounding liminal figures. Thus, understanding marginalized groups requires sifting through the ancient sources to discern how they actually functioned in Roman culture versus how they are presented to modern audiences. The combination of traditional and private ideas on morality within ancient texts can yield further insight into the surviving evidence for marginalized figures who were able to gain some types of partial agency.

This thesis strives to explain how traditional Roman morals, derived from the foundational myths in Livy’s , were applied to women and how women functioned within these moral constructs. The traditional constructs could be manipulated under the right circumstances and for the right reasons allowing women to act outside of traditional gender roles. By examining literary examples of women who were able to step outside of traditional gender roles, it becomes possible to understand the difference between projected male ideas on ideal female morality, primarily pudicitia, and actuality.

1

Moral constructs allow individuals to know how to properly interact in public and private spheres, which are further segmented into gendered spaces. Any cultural system has not just gendered space but gendered activities. Gendered spaces are fluid and evolve over , and, in the Roman world, there were some boundaries that individuals could cross without losing status and regressing in the social hierarchy. The ability to cross these boundaries depends on the individuals’ original standing, how far they venture outside their traditional role, and whether they gain power through changing roles. Partial agency is a temporary increase in power that usually comes from crossing social boundaries, but for such temporary power to be effective and not detrimental, individuals acting outside of their normal sphere must be relatively high within the moral spectrum of their usual sphere. This paper seeks to understand how women as marginalized figures functioned within and without the moral limits placed on them by Roman culture and the male figures they interacted with.

Women are usually presented on either extreme of the moral spectrum in literature. They are portrayed as primarily moral or immoral and represent good or bad behavior within the narrative. One explanation as to why women are represented with such duality is the effect that reputation had on individuals. If a woman was called a whore, even if it was a false accusation, it would be forever a part of her character. The elder Seneca writes about a hypothetical case in

Controversiae 1.2. A girl, who had been kidnapped and forced into prostitution, manages to stay a virgin while working in a brothel and eventually escapes by killing her a soldier who visits her as a client. She returns to her family and later wishes to become a priestess which sparks debate about whether it would be appropriate since she had been sold as a prostitute. The arguments presented against the girl “suggest that the girl is unfit for priesthood because of the possibility of sexual pollution of some kind or another; pollution on the grounds of her murder of the soldier is

2 also referred to but receives considerably less attention.”1 The only thing that matters about this girl is that she worked as a prostitute even though no part of her experience was her choice. Her sexual purity was tainted, and, as a consequence, she faced limitations on what she was allowed to do.

Not all women in ancient literature are hypothetical, and neither were the basic limitations placed on them. The primary way women were restricted was based on morals. To be a moral woman, one had to have pudicitia. The root of pudicitia comes from pudor which is a used to describe a feeling of shame, or the demonstration of shame, and is usually linked to shame that resulted from a lack of proper sexual behavior.2 Manifestations of impudicitia could include anything from blushing to wearing overly lavish clothing because of the Roman ideas on modesty and female . The male equivalent to pudicitia, , requires a public display but, because of the close relationship between pudicitia and ideas of modesty, moral Roman women were discouraged from adorning themselves excessively because they would appear to lack proper self- restraint. Depending on the exact circumstances, a woman deemed to be immoral could be ostracized by her peers or be reprimanded within the legal system. Having pudicitia required women to navigate a morality-based social hierarchy that, as seen in Seneca the Elder, had the potential restrict a woman’s already limited opportunities.

The Romans inherently connected a woman’s morality to how aware of her own shame she was. Understanding pudicitia and what exactly it meant for a woman to have it can help scholars better understand the lives of women in the Roman world. Pudicitia actively guided what correct

1 Rebecca Langlands, Sexual Morality in (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2006), 255. 2 P. G.W. Glare, ed., Oxford Dictionary (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 1982), s.v. "Pudor," definition 1514.

3 behavior was for Roman women even if a woman was not specifically described as having it.

Because aspects of pudicitia could fall under the domain of other terms to describe female morality, sometimes more specific terminology was used to describe a woman. As an applied concept of female morality, Pudicitia’s reach is broad and to understand such moral constraints, a structural framework that provides examples of moral and immoral women is needed. Livy’s

History of Rome creates such a framework because Livy states in the prologue that he wrote this work to examine the moral history of Rome. The first five books of Livy are particularly relevant because they combine both mythological and more historical aspects of the foundation of Rome.

The women emphasized in Livy are of Rome and the moral climate at the time.

Even when the women discussed were not actual historical figures, the way Livy uses these women in his narrative provides insights into how female morality was construed. Using only the first five books to construct a guideline for female morality is selective, but Livy’s purpose in highlighting these women is to represent how Rome’s cultural ideals on morality originated. There are aspects of most all of the characters in the first five books that cross over from traditionally good to traditionally bad which demonstrates the development of morality in early Roman history and mythology.

Livy’s structural framework provides a traditional viewpoint on women’s roles but can be contrasted with the examples of women in other historical works, particularly women who are contemporaneous with the time the author is writing. Because women were a marginalized group, it is problematic to rely solely on texts written by privileged men to explore how the constraints of concepts of female morality affected women within Roman culture. As in the Controversiae, a woman’s morality could be judged by external voices who saw their actions as directly connected to the moral environment in Rome. Philosophical works on pudicitia and female morality generally

4 discuss only the very virtuous or the very immoral using traditional viewpoints such as those in

Livy. Other written sources, such as funerary inscriptions which can represent how the deceased wished to be remembered, offer more individualized views on the role of women that can provide a counterpoint to the traditional narratives. Under certain circumstances a woman could be viewed as moral even if she did not conform to the strictest of moral codes. In addition, evidence indicates that some women found ways of working together to solve a common goal such as the repeal of the Lex Oppia and addressing the to ask that a tax on women be lessened. Religious activity offered an avenue for women to function as a group with a unified voice that eventually led to opportunities to act in the political system, gaining limited agency.

The chapters of this work use Livy’s portrayal of women in his History of Rome to create a structural framework for traditional female roles, how women are described in literary work by those who knew them personally, and finally, provide examples of how women organized and participated outside of their traditional roles. Combined, the evidence elucidates the ideal versus realized versions of how women functioned in the Roman world and were able to gain limited agency despite the boundaries pudicitia and constructions of morality placed on women.

5

Chapter One: The Structural Framework for Female Morality within Livy

Livy’s History of Rome contains a wealth of information documenting the foundational myths of Rome. It provides an outline and background of the social and moral structure Livy would have been familiar with, writing at the very beginning of imperial Rome. The first five books of the History of Rome go back nearly a thousand years, telling the story of Rome’s earliest days, from when arrives in after escaping the carnage at to the ’ invasion of

Italy. Livy opens his History with a preface in which he states his purpose and what he believes his readers should pay special attention to: the life and morals of the men who began such a great empire through domestic and military arts.3 Livy’s particular interest is how the morals and customs of the early Romans relate to their interactions with their neighbors. He uses this focus as an underlying theme for each historical event he examines. Livy also stresses that the morality of the early Romans has slipped away, leading to a period where “…nuper divitiae avaritiam et abundantes voluptates desiderium per luxum atque libidinem pereundi perdendique omnia invexere

(Recently, riches have introduced greed and overflowing delights, introduced ardent desire, destroying and squandering all things through luxury and wantonness).”4 The respect and admiration Livy has for Rome is colored by the immoral cultural scene he perceives to be around him. The stories and characters Livy chose to focus on give a modern audience insight into how morality shifted during the early history and how immoral episodes were resolved. Each woman

3 Livy, History of Rome, preface, 9. “ad illa mihi pro se quisque acriter intendat animum, quae vita, qui mores fuerint, per quos viros quibusque artibus domi militiaeque et partum et auctum sit;” All Latin and Greek texts are from the unless otherwise indicated. 4 Livy, History of Rome, preface. 12-16. All translations by author unless otherwise indicated.

6

or group of women Livy introduces acts as an indicator of the moral environment during the time of the story.

Livy defines his purpose as trying to understand the moral history of Rome and his work highlights the ethical dilemmas within the foundational stories. Because Livy states he is using a moral lens for his History, the work can be used to illustrate these moral ideals that he fears are lost or have been de-valued during his own time. Other ancient writers, such as historians like

Herodotus or biographers like , state that they are trying to re-tell events for posterity.5 In the History, however, any story, or version of a story, was chosen by Livy to represent the moral elements of the story, making it sometimes difficult to know where a story originated from. R.M. Ogilvie, who wrote an extensive commentary on Livy, notes that “Livy claimed to have read all Greek and Latin annals. The claim may even be true…but... it tells us nothing about his method of work… [And furthermore] he shows no signs of having consulted the directly.”6 While Livy does mention several of the authors he uses by name,7 most often found in his narrative are impersonal constructions such as “…Romularem vocatam ferunt… (…they say it had been called Romularis…)”8 used to relate an unnamed and perhaps unknowable source.

5 Herodotus states his purpose as: “Ἡροδότου Ἁλικαρνησσέος ἱστορίης ἀπόδεξις ἥδε, ὡς μήτε τὰ γενόμενα ἐξ ἀνθρώπων τῷ χρόνῳ ἐξίτηλα γένηται, μήτε ἔργα μεγάλα τε καὶ θωμαστά, τὰ μὲν Ἕλλησι τὰ δὲ βαρβάροισι ἀποδεχθέντα, ἀκλεᾶ γένηται, τά τε ἄλλα καὶ δι᾿ ἣν αἰτίην ἐπολέμησαν ἀλλήλοισι (‘This is the publication of history by Herodotus of Halicarnassus, so that neither the deeds of men be forgotten by time, nor the great and wonderful deeds, those done by the Greeks and those done by foreigners, go unsung, and the others fought with one another, and who was responsible).” Greek text from Loeb LCL 117: 2. In Cornelius Nepos’ longer preface to his book On the Great Generals of Foreign Nations, he states: “Sed hi erunt fere qui expertes litterarum Graecarum nihil rectum, nisi quod ipsorum moribus conveniat, putabunt. Hi si didicerint non eadem omnibus esse honesta atque turpia, sed omnia maiorum institutis iudicari, non admirabuntur nos in Graiorum virtutibus exponendis mores eorum secutos (But these men who generally will be unfamiliar with Greek letters, will think nothing correct, unless it suits their own customs. If these men could learn that the same things are not honorable and unseemly to everyone, but that all should be judged on the institutions of their elders, they would not be surprised that we are exhibiting the valor of Greeks having followed the customs of them).” Latin text from LCL 467: 1. 6 R. M. Ogilvie, A Commentary on Livy: Books 1-5 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1965), 5-6. Ogilvie provides further evidence in a footnote on page six. 7 Ibid, 7. Fabius Pictor (1.44.2, 55.8,2.40.10) and L. Calpurnius Piso (1.55.8, 2.32.3, 58.1) for example. 8 Livy, 1.4.5.

7

Even when Livy does name a speaker and credits them with a speech, it is completely logical to assume the exact words were altered. The result is a compelling speech that fits well within Livy’s prescribed narrative but is not necessarily what was originally said or the way it was said. It is most likely that Livy used the stories from Roman history to illustrate the morality he saw being forgotten in Rome. When a speech is tailored to illustrate a moral environment Livy wanted emulated, the author’s ideological voice becomes even more prevalent than it can be in other texts. The female characters in Livy are limited more than male characters because even if

Livy provides details for them exactly as they were presented to him in his sources, women’s voices in ancient literature had already been filtered through a male’s perspective before Livy writes about them. Any time Livy presents any figure, male or female, he has molded them to fit his story, but the women in his sources were already shaped to fit the original source narrative.

Ancient historical characters in literature are malleable to begin with, but Livy is writing to demonstrate the moral beginnings of the Rome which requires him to emphasize the moral or immoral characters as a comparison to its opposite. The History of Rome can therefore be used to create a structural framework of what female morality was supposed to be during late republic/early imperial Rome based on idealized conceptions of what a moral or immoral woman was during early Roman history and how they fit into the earlier version of Roman male-dominated society.

The first five books are essential to learning about how women functioned within Roman culture because they represent both foundation mythology about Rome and events that have a firmer foundation in reality. Ultimately, it does not matter how historically accurate the accounts are because Livy’s presentation of his female characters is meant to symbolize extreme behavior, good or bad. Livy’s depictions of women often diminish what control they had over their own

8 environments by shifting any semblance of agency to the nearest male actor. Analysis of the different types of women present in Livy, and how they are used within the narrative, serves to show how traditional gender roles were perceived of through the emphasized character traits. Livy singles out women in his narrative because they represent either the moral or the immoral woman and otherwise the female population is presented as a collective group of women. Contrarily, men who are not necessarily moral or immoral are presented among their moral and immoral counterparts to provide a historical connection to another character or as a non-pivotal participant in an event. This chapter strives to glean from the wealth of cultural information in The History of

Rome the idealized version of female morality from a period Livy held in high esteem.

The female characters selected from Livy’s first five books represent two main types of figures that demonstrate different aspects of pudicitia and impudicitia. Within each of these two groups are two sub-categories; the pudica group has speaking and non-speaking characters while the impudica group has one character with bad intentions and two who act outside their gender roles. The moral group represents what Livy believes should be present in moral women and create character type: the historical heroine. The historical heroine, a phrase used by in a letter to his mother further discussed in chapter two of this work, represents women who, while limited in their personal agency within the narrative, are seen as moral exempla and used in literature because of how they helped Rome’s development.9

The first female character in Livy’s narrative, , encapsulates the ideal Roman woman’s role and what the ideal marriage entailed. After Aeneas landed in Italy, Livy presents two versions of what happened, with both leading to the same result. The first account is similar

9 Examples can be seen in the later evidence presented in this work.

9 to ’s. The leader of the native , , fought Aeneas and his men and gave his daughter Lavinia to Aeneas in marriage after losing the battle.10 Livy gives a more detailed account of the second version, in which Latinus steps in front of the battle lines and asks for the story of

Aeneas’ people.11 After realizing the of these foreigners, Latinus initiates a treaty between the two groups: “ibi Latinum apud penates deos domesticum publico adiunxisse foedus filia

Aeneae in matrimonium data (There Latinus, near his household , added a domestic treaty to the public one by giving his daughter to Aeneas in marriage).”12 Until this point, Lavinia has not actually been named. Her name appears in the next line where Livy says that Aeneas built a town and named it after his wife,13 in a subtle and almost parenthetical foreshadowing of the respect and devotion good husbands show their wives, as presented in the literary and epigraphical material in the next chapter of this paper.

Lavinia was aware of her role as a political pawn to solidify her father’s alliances, since even before Aeneas arrived, she had been betrothed to , an Italian leader.14 Latinus’ preferential treatment of Aeneas creates a conflict with Turnus that ultimately leads to Aeneas’ death.15 At this point, Aeneas’ son is too young to rule, but, seemingly to Livy’s surprise, the new kingdom does not suffer (1.3.1):

Nondum maturus imperio Aeneae filius erat; tamen id imperium ei ad puberem aetatem incolume mansit; tantisper muliebri—tanta indoles in Lavinia erat—res Latina et regnum avitum paternumque puero stetit.

10 Livy, 1.1.7, “Alii proelio victum Latinum pacem cum Aenea, deinde affinitatem iunxisse tradunt:” 11 Ibid. 1.1.7-9. 12 Ibid. 1.1.9-10.; The Penates were household gods that specifically connected with the where the were honored by the entire household. From: Linderski, Jerzy (Chapel Hill, NC), “Penates (Di Penates)”, in: Brill’s New Pauly, Antiquity volumes edited by: Hubert Cancik and, Helmuth Schneider, English Edition by: Christine F. Salazar, Classical Tradition volumes edited by: Manfred Landfester, English Edition by: Francis G. Gentry. Consulted online on 19 February 2018 13 Livy. 1.1.11. “Oppidum condunt; Aeneas ab nomine uxoris Lavinium appellat.” 14 Ibid. 1.2.1. 15 Ibid. 1.2.6.

10

Ascanius, the son of Aeneas, was not yet mature enough for rule; nevertheless, that command was preserved for him until the time of adulthood; for so long a time by means of a woman as a regent the Latin state and the kingdom of his father and grandfather was held for the boy – so great was the nature of Lavinia. Lavinia’s abilities as a regent or her right to become regent for her son are not questioned, nor is her right to become regent. Livy’s language implies that having a woman safeguard the throne is not unheard of and, while not the preferred situation, is a testimonial to Lavinia’s character. Lavinia is not a crucial character in Livy’s narrative, despite her crucial role as the protector of the very new state. Livy describes how quickly the marriage, birth of Ascanius, and war with Turnus occur,16 implying that Aeneas barely has time to set up his state before the war which leads to his death. The narrative implies that Lavinia was not just a figurehead because no one dared to attack them, even when a woman became their leader.17 If Livy does not always adhere to sources on the better documented and more recent history, as Ogilvie suggests,18 why would he not be willing to embellish these earliest accounts as he later does with speeches he never heard or unverifiable details?

In the more mythological sections of Livy, characters have specific functions they perform within the narrative that make them appear to have less agency than they would have if they were actual historical figures. Both Lavinia and Aeneas would have had to have agency in order to have completed the events in the story. Within the narrative, however, Lavinia is a passive character whose presence is all that is necessary for her role in the narrative. While not a passive character, compared to other male mythological characters Livy includes in his narrative, Aeneas is not a completely active character either. As the earliest foundational within a large-scale history,

16 Ibid. 1.1.11-1.2.1. 17 Ibid. 1.3.4-5. “Tantum tamen opes creverant, maxime fusis Etruscis, ut ne morte quidem Aeneae nec deinde inter muliebrem tutelam rudimentumque primum puerilis regni movere arma aut Etruscique aut ulli alii accolae ausi sint.” 18 Ogilvie, 5-6, 1965.

11 the story of Aeneas and his characterization only needs to introduce the Trojans’ arrival in Italy and the first interactions they had with the local populations. Therefore, the lack of details on

Lavinia can be explained because her literary and historical function as the wife of Aeneas and a connection between native and Trojan populations is complete.

The next main characters in book one are and Remus but, despite a larger section of the book dedicated to them than Aeneas, the women associated with the twins receive even less time than Lavinia. Several generations after Lavinia and Ascanius, a man named stole the throne from his older brother and then proceeded to kill his nephews so they could not usurp him later and “…through the semblance of honor… (…per speciem honoris…)” Amulius chose

Rhea Silvia, his niece, to be a so that she would not have children and carry on her father’s line.19 Despite Amulius’ wishes, Silvia was raped by and gave birth to twins.

Livy states that after she gave birth, was imprisoned,20 and that is the only time she is mentioned. Similarly, the role of Larentia, the adoptive mother of , in Livy’s narrative is brief, with no description of any relationship between mother and sons. The purpose of omitting such pedestrian details about the twins’ upbringing, with the exception of how they grew up strong in a pastoral setting,21 is to separate them even further from the ordinary. The home- grown hero raised in unremarkable circumstances who then rises to greatness is a foreign concept in . The mythological figures who accomplish great deeds are born with the innate ability to do so, and mentor/nurturing relationships are superfluous.

19 Ibid. 1.3.11. “Addit sceleri scelus: stirpem fratris virilem interemit: fratris filiae Reae Silviae per speciem honoris, cum Vestalem eam legisset, perpetua virginitate spem partus adimit.” 20 Ibid. 1.4.4. “…sacerdos vincta in custodiam datur…” 21 Ibid. 1.4.8-9. “Ita geniti itaque educati, cum primum adolevit aetas, nec in stabulis nec ad pecora segnes, venando peragrare saltus.”

12

If a character in Livy has a voice, it does not automatically mean that they have agency, only that the narrative requires it of them. That Lavinia, Rhea Silvia, and Larentia do not speak is an indication that their roles in the narrative, any narrative, do not require them to have a voice.

Lavinia does not speak in Virgil’s nor does she, or Rhea Silvia or Larentia, in Dionysius of Halicarnassus’ The Roman Antiquities. The lack of direct speech is not limited to these characters because they are women, as Livy also does not have Aeneas speak; however, the lack of specific details on any independent actions they might have done implies that their importance is primarily derived from the sons they contributed to Roman history. Lavinia protected the throne so that Aeneas’ son could eventually rule. Because she is the daughter of the rightful king, Rhea

Silvia provides Romulus and Remus their royal bloodline, enabling their potential to rule.

Larentia’s role has less to do with being Romulus and Remus’ adoptive mother and more to do with providing an alternative explanation for why Romulus and Remus are associated with a she- (and the festival attributed to her memory).22 These women’s roles in Livy are symbolic and they function as bridges between the different generations of active characters. Aeneas and

Romulus’ actions gave birth to the eventual rise of an entire state. Lavinia, Rhea Silvia, and

Larentia’s actions allowed their husband/sons to perform their heroic deeds.

The seizure of the women and their reactions indicate many of the key aspects of idealized and traditional Roman gender roles. The later female characters serve a much greater literary function and are examples the different aspects of morality and pudicitia which Livy feels need to be highlighted. The rape of the Sabine women is a prime example of how Romulus secures the future of Rome using strength and force, as well as logic and rhetoric. The surrounding Italic

22 Ibid., 1.4.8. “Sunt qui Larentiam vulgato corpore lupam inter pastores vocatam putent: inde locum fabulae ac miraculo datum (There are those who think that Larentia, making her body common among the shepherds was called a she-wolf: from this place was delivered the marvelous story).” Lupa is also used as a term for a prostitute.

13 peoples were wary of their powerful neighbors. Because they felt that the women they sent would not be safe married to Roman men, they turned away the diplomatic messengers Romulus sent asking to be allowed to intermarry.23

Livy categorizes the women in groups, which takes away independent characterization.

The women were taken indiscriminately, except for some of the most beautiful women whom seized for patricians, associating physical appearance with the upper echelons of the city.24 Livy credits the Roman wedding cry “Talassio” as having originated during the Rape of the

Sabine Women, because when a group of plebeians taking an especially beautiful woman were asked who she was for, they replied that she was for Thalassius.25 The woman is not named and does not speak in response to anything her captors say. Though the true origin of the Roman wedding cry is unknown,26 Livy is not the only author to attribute this non-consensual attack to a contemporary custom. In fact, Ogilvie notes that from , who lived in the third and second centuries BCE, to Dionysius of Halicarnassus, who lived in the first century BCE, this story on the

Roman wedding tradition was only significantly varied by, “… who questioned the conventional accounts and advanced heterodox explanations.”27 While it seems from other types of ancient sources that most marriage relationships were amicable at the least, Livy’s account

23 Ibid: 1.9.5-6. “Nusquam benigne legatio audita est; adeo simul spernebant, simul tantam in medio crescentem molem sibi ac posteris suis metuebant. Aplerisque rogitantibus dimissi, ecquod feminis quoque asylum aperuissent; id enim demum conpar conubium fore (Nowhere did the legation hear anything favorable; so far at the same time they hated, they feared such a power growing in their territory for themselves and their descendants. But the envoys were asked often if they had opened sanctuary for women; for only then would it be suitable for marriage).” 24 Ibid., 1.9. 11. “…Magna pars forte, in quem quaeque inciderat, raptae: quasdam forma excellentes primoribus patrum destinatas ex plebe homines, quibus datum negotium erat, domos deferebant… (…For the most part the women were seized, in the order in which they were happened upon: certain women who excelled in beauty were destined for the first senators were carried to houses by plebeians to whom the job was given…).” 25 Ibid., 1.9.12. “unam longe ante alias specie ac pulchritudine insignem a globo Thalassii cuiusdam raptam ferunt, multisque sciscitantibus cuinam eam ferrent, identidem, ne quis violaret, Thalassio ferri clamitatum; inde nuptialem hanc vocem factam (They carried one, who was by far before others in appearance and beauty and prominence, was seized by the crowd for a certain Thalassius, and when asked by many for whom they carried her, repeatedly shouting, lest someone violate her, that she was carried for Thalassius; from these things were made the wedding call).” 26 Ogilvie. P 69. Note 9.12. 27 Ibid., 67.

14 reaffirms the idea that within the social hierarchy, women are beneath their male guardians, whether a husband or other male relative.28 By emphasizing the power dynamic of the original

Roman marriages, Livy indicates that the later iterations of marriage should maintain this same power dynamic.

The Sabine women also respond to their capture as a group. Livy first describes them as,

“Nec raptis aut de se melior aut indignatio est minor (The seized women have no more hope about themselves [their situation] nor less displeasure.).”29 Then as soon as Romulus and then in turn their new husbands speak to them about what they can expect in their new Roman lives, “Iam admodum mitigati animi raptis erant… (Now the minds of seized women were completely alleviated…).”30 In Livy’s narrative, Romulus’ explanation to the women concerning their future in Rome is less dire than what could have happened to a woman violently taken from her family and reflects what Roman marriages would become in Livy’s time. But the power dynamic that resulted in these forced relationships is so unbalanced that it detracts from what could be seen as the Sabine Women as a group, let alone as individual women, having some choice in these marriages as Livy implies when he tells his readers that the women’s concerns were alleviated.

Had they been given in marriage by their fathers to a husband they would have at least been in a familiar place with familiar social customs and perhaps have even known their betrothed before

28 There were different kinds of guardianship for women in the Roman world. One kind was when a woman was under the control of the paterfamilias until either the paterfamilias died or she was married. In a case where the paterfamilias died before the woman was married, she would be under the control of a male guardian who had been named in her father’s will no matter how old she was. When a woman married, she could either be placed into the power of her new husband (called being married in manus) or she could remain under the control of her paterfamilias. Towards the later Republic, most women were married without manus because of the benefits for her birth family. Whoever was the guardian of the woman had over any property and inheritance she had so any wealth would stay in her original family. There is also the potential for women married without manus might have been able to gain more independence because they were not living with the man who had control over any wealth she had. For more discussion see. Josiah Osgood, Turia: A Roman Woman's Civil War (New York: Oxford University Press, 2014), 18-19. 29 Ibid., 1.9.14. 30 Ibid., 1.10.1

15 the engagement. The Roman men, however, chose their new wives based on appearance and presumably just coincidence that a woman happened to be in their vicinity when Romulus gave the signal. Even though Livy does not have the Sabine Women directly say that they have been convinced by the Roman men, what would be the point? If one assumes that the Rape of the Sabine

Women occurred exactly as Livy presents it, or at all, these women were young, had been forcibly removed from their families, and were faced with the strongest military force in their region. The choices they had were severely limited.

Romulus’ indirect speech outlines what the women could expect from their situations and further indicates how little impact these women have on their environment and how little that will change. The first point Romulus makes is that the pride of the women’s parents caused the Romans to act as they did.31 The blame is shifted from the women to their parents, who denied the chance to marry their daughters to the Romans because they feared their fast-growing military power.

Despite the faults of the parents, Romulus promises that in their marriages they would benefit from all the fortune of Roman society and their children would also see these benefits.32 Of course, the women, because they were to become wives, not slaves, will gain these benefits (1.9.15-16):

mollirent modo iras et, quibus fors corpora dedisset, darent animos. Saepe ex iniuria postmodum gratiam ortam, eoque melioribus usuras viris, quod adnisurus pro se quisque sit ut, cum suam vicem functus officio sit, parentium etiam patriaeque expleat desiderium. Accedebant blanditiae virorum factum purgantium cupiditate atque amore, quae maxime ad muliebre ingenium efficaces preces sunt. Only if they would soften their anger and give their minds to whom fortune had given their bodies. Often, after a while, from injury rises warm regard, and their husbands might be of better use to them, because each one will be striving for himself with the result that he might fill their longing for parents and fatherland since he had brought about the change in

31 Ibid., 1.9.14. “Sed ipse Romulus circumibat docebatque patrum id superbia factum, qui conubium finitimis negassent; (but Romulus himself went around and informed them that the cause was in the pride of their fathers, as they refused marriage with their neighbors).” 32 Ibid., 1.9.14-15 “…illas tamen in matrimonio, in societate fortunarum omnium civitatisque, et quo nihil carius humano generi sit, liberum fore;”

16

her life. With the deed made clean by the endearments of their husbands they approached with desire and love, which are the most effective appeals to the natures of women. Livy credits that the women were appeased because women are naturally susceptible to flowery language about passion, desire, and love, certainly not that they had no other options.

Livy’s historical narrative requires that the Sabine women not only marry the Roman men but do so willingly. By first asking permission to intermarry and then seizing the women, the

Roman men demonstrate both the willingness to let their requests be settled without violence and the aggressive power that Rome is and continued to be known for. Despite the lack of actual choice and that the physical power of the Roman men has been clearly shown, if the Sabine women do not acquiesce to the Romans, the second generation of Romans would have been created in violence. That Rome is known as an aggressive state is not an issue, however. This is the generation from which future glory arises, and Livy is trying to illustrate this period as what he sees as a moral high point of Roman society. Ogilvie notes that in Livy’s account of the Rape of the Sabine women there is no mention of Roman lust or incited passions which are a crucial theme in his later rape stories which act to associate this anecdote with necessity rather than immoral violent behavior.33

The Roman only express their desire for their new wives after they seize them; it is not the reason for the seizure. The Sabine women are used as moral agents because they are portrayed as accepting their situation easily and whole-heartedly, according to Livy. His evidence is that they ran into the battle between the Romans and the and take the blame on themselves for causing the war.34 Livy has the Sabine women take the blame to cement in his reader’s minds that

33 Ogilvie, 67. 1965. 34 Livy. 1.13.1-4. “Tum Sabinae mulieres, quarum ex iniuria bellum ortum erat, crinibus passis scissaque veste victo malis muliebri pavore, ausae se inter tela volantia inferre, ex transverso impetu facto dirimere infestas acies, dirimere iras, hinc patres hinc viros orantes ne se sanguine nefando soceri generique respergerent, ne parricidio macularent partus suos, nepotum illi, hi liberum progeniem. ‘Si adfinitatis inter vos, si conubii piget, in nos vertite iras; nos causa belli, nos volnerum ac caedium viris ac parentibus sumus; melius peribimus quam sine alteris vestrum viduae aut orbae vivemus’ (Then the Sabine women, from whose injustice rose the war, having endured hair and cut clothes were conquered by the fear of women, dared to carry themselves amongst the thrown missiles, to separate the battle line from

17 these women represent an idealized and romanticized sentiment of female loyalty (melius peribimus quam sine alteris vestrum viduae aut orbae vivemus (We will be better dying than if we live without some of you as widows or as orphans)) and goodness without which Roman society could not have succeeded.

Like Lavinia, the Sabine women act as emissaries linking the Romans to native peacefully, ensuring future generations. In ancient Greek myths, women who were harmed by men would sometimes raise their children to seek revenge, perpetuating the violence they had experienced. The Sabine women, however, are presented as fully accepting the actions of the

Roman men after the men explain their intentions because they are to be wives not slaves. Livy presents the women as understanding their own female morality similarly to the ideas of pudicitia; however, he does not use the word, or any variation of it, until the very end of book one (1.58). At the end of book one, right before the traditional founding of the Roman Republic, Livy links pudicitia to the Roman state. The accounts from the early history of Rome show not only the growth and development of the Roman state, but the cultural interactions they had with their neighbors. The Rape of the Sabine Women demonstrates cultural assimilation between the Romans and the Sabines because not only are the women brought into Rome, but their families frequently visit their daughters and grandchildren after the conflict is resolved by the women, further cementing the connection.

The Rape of the Sabine Women is therefore presented as a necessary part of early Roman history that ultimately led to further benefits for all involved. The Sabine women maintain and

turning to making an attack, to separate the anger, begging from this side their fathers and that side their fathers lest fathers-in-law and sons-in-law spill blood heinously, lest they pollute themselves with patricide, those of grandsons, these the descendants of children. ‘If there is intermarriage between you all, if marriages trouble you, turn your anger to us; we are the cause of the war, we are the cause of wounds and the deaths of both our husbands and parents; we would rather perish than live without either of you as widows or orphans’).”

18 gain more virtue because they embraced their new husbands while still respecting their fathers, but other rape stories in Livy do not end so well. The stories of Lucretia35 and Verginia36 are more direct examples of having pudicitia taken away, and again how Livy uses female characters as moral agents to correct immoral behavior at large. Both women were violated, through rape and through being falsely claimed as a slave which would result in her rape. In both accounts, the women’s chastity and virtue arouse passions in the male aggressors, and both women subsequently die. Lucretia kills herself, and Verginia is killed by her father. Both women are assaulted by men who have been corrupted towards inexcusable lust because of their positions of power, and their male defenders—Lucretia’s father and husband and Verginia’s father and intended husband – were political figures powerful enough to overthrow the corruption in the government. In Livy’s narrative, had Lucretia and Verginia not been attacked and then killed, political change might not have occurred, and the moral equilibrium of the state could not have been re-calibrated. The need to protect female virtue is so critical and so engrained in ideas of civilized society that destroying pudicitia is the final insufferable act that catalyzes revolution.

Lucretia and Verginia represent Rome herself, not just individual moral women, signifying that their violation is an affront to the Roman system.

There are many components to pudicitia, one of which is that a woman cannot claim it for herself. Rather others assign it to her. After Lucretia is raped, Livy uses impersonal constructions which elevates Lucretia’s character traits above her safety: “Quo terrore cum vicisset obstinatam pudicitiam velut vi victrix libido, profectusque inde Tarquinius ferox expugnato decore muliebri esset (With such terror he had conquered her inflexible pudicitia just as if by force with victorious

35 Ibid., 1.57 –60. 36 Ibid., 3.44 – 58.

19 lust, and then Tarquinius having succeeded was wild, because of having taken by assault a woman’s honor).”37 Similarly, when Verginia’s fiancé confronts , who has claimed

Verginia as a slave, he says: “Virginem ego hanc sum ducturus nuptamque pudicam habiturus (I am going to wed this maiden; and I intend that my bride shall be chaste).”38 Once it has been established that Verginia’s virtue would be corrupted by Appius, the debate turns to how this ordeal indicates a central cultural issue; that being in power can corrupt a person to act on immoral desires

(3.45.8-9):

Non, si tribunicium auxilium et provocationem plebi Romanae, duas arces libertatis tuendae, ademistis, ideo in liberos quoque nostros coniugesque regnum vestrae libidini datum est. Saevite in tergum et in cervices nostras: pudicitia saltem in tuto sit. If you have deprived the Roman Plebeians of tribunal help and appeal, two strongholds for safegaurding , therefore it has not been given to your desires for ruling over our children and also our wives. Rage on our back and necks: at least let pudcitia be safe. Similarly, at the end of the trial Verginia’s father asks Appius if he may question his daughter’s nurse with Verginia present to ascertain if Appius’ claims of Verginia being Appius’ slave are true

(3.48.5-6):

Data venia seducit filiam ac nutricem prope Cloacinae ad tabernas quibus nunc no vis est nomen atque ibi ab lanio cultro arrepto, “Hoc te uno quo possum” ait “modo, filia, in libertatem vindico.” Pectus deinde puellae transfigit respectansque ad tribunal “Te” inquit, “Appi, tuumque caput sanguine hoc consecro.” The favor being granted, he led his daughter and the nurse away to the shops near the of Cloacinae … and there having quietly grabbed a knife from a butcher, he says “In this, which is the only way I am able, daughter, I claim/vindicate/protect your freedom.” Then he stabs the girl’s chest and looking back to the tribunal he says, “I dedicate with this blood you Appius and your life.

37 Ibid., 1.58.5. 38 Ibid. 3.45.6-7..

20

Because of the political corruption, what should be a logical and simple way of validating

Verginia’s parentage does not matter, and her father resorts to the only way he believes can protect his daughter’s virtue: killing her.

Despite being presented in nearly the same way and with the same outcome, Lucretia and

Verginia differ in voice because of their marital status. Even as she is pursued and threatened in the , Verginia’s nurse is the one who calls for help as she was too stunned by her fear (Pavida puella stupente…).39 As she is still a maiden, Verginia is severely limited in what she can control in her life, which is represented by her lack of voice and that her father kills her instead of Verginia killing herself. Alternatively, because Lucretia is a married woman, she has an incredible speech.

As a matrona, Lucretia has a significant amount of control over her household.40 After being attacked, she sends for her husband and father and when they ask if she is all right, she says (1.58.7-

12):

“Minime… quid enim salvi est mulieri amissa pudicitia? Vestigia viri alieni, Collatine, in lecto sunt tuo; ceterum corpus est tantum violatum, animus insons; testis erit. Sed date dexteras fidemque haud inpune adultero fore. Sex. est Tarquinius, qui hostis pro hospite priore nocte vi armatus mihi sibique, si vos viri estis, pestiferum hinc abstulit gaudium.” Dant ordine omnes fidem; consolantur aegram animi avertendo noxam ab coacta in auctorem delicti: mentem peccare, non corpus, et unde consilium afuerit, culpam abesse. “Vos,” inquit,” videritis, quid illi debeatur: ego me etsi peccato absolvo, supplicio non libero; nec ulla deinde inpudica Lucretiae exemplo vivet.” Cultrum, quem sub veste abditum habebat, eum in corde defigit prolapsaque in vulnus moribunda cecidit. “No… for what is well for a woman after her pudicitia has been lost? The traces of a foreign man, Collatinus, are in your bed; Certainly, the body is the only thing violated, the mind is innocent; death will be witness. But give me your right hand and assurance that by no means will the adulterer be unpunished. It is , who, the night before last, as an enemy instead of a guest, armed with force took from me, and from you, if you all are men, destructive pleasure from this place.” All the men gave their vow in turn; they consoled the suffering in her mind by averting the offence by joining the injury to the one

39 Ibid., 3.44.7. 40 Ibid., 1.57.9-10: “…sed nocte sera deditam lanae inter lucubrantes ancillas in medio aedium sedentem inveniunt. Muliebris certaminis laus penes Lucretiam fuit (…but late at night they came upon [Lucretia] devoted to her wool sitting amongst her maids working in lamp-light in the middle of the house. The prize of womanly was Lucretia and her house).”

21

who caused the offence: the mind sins, not the body, and where the plan is absent, is where the fault is absent. ‘You all may discern,’ she says, ‘what that man is owed: although I absolve myself from fault, I am not free from punishment; neither then will any woman without pudicitia live by the example of Lucretia.’, She drove the knife, which she had hidden under her clothes, into her heart and having fallen forward onto the wound, dying, she fell. Livy presents Lucretia, as well as her husband and father, as recognizing that she is not at fault, that because she did not willingly commit adultery, she is free of guilt; however, Lucretia still feels that she should be punished and kills herself because of it. The most virtuous of women would sacrifice herself even knowing she was technically innocent. Not only does she punish herself despite her father and husband absolving her, she tells them that their own virtue depends on whether they successfully avenge her. Male virtue is not strictly dependent on protecting female virtue, but virtuous men are made even more virtuous if they are defenders of pudicitia, and both

Lucretia and Verginia’s male champions benefit by presenting themselves in such a way.

With Lucretia and Verginia is an even clearer view of how Livy manipulates his female characters to add and idealism. Ogilvie notes other ancient authors who discuss Lucretia and argues that the textual evidence is sufficient enough to conclude that leading to the fall of the Tarquins was a strong tradition.41 Verginia, on the other hand, “…is entirely devoid of historical foundation,” and Ogilvie discusses how Livy emphasized the parallels of the two women.42 Both violations cause changes in the government and re-establish liberty from tyranny.43 In doing so, Livy creates an association between liberty and morality, tyranny and men who give into their base lusts, which adds to the moral background he sought to provide his readers.

Verginia, as a repetition of Lucretia’s story, fulfills the purpose Livy requires, to where the moral woman’s rape represents the injustice being done to Rome herself by despotic leaders who only

41 Ogilvie, 218-219. 42 Ibid., 477. 43 Ibid.,

22 seek power over others. Livy can better illustrate his version of early Roman history with tragedy and drama than he could without, especially as he presents moral issues.

Male characters make up most of the immoral characters in Livy’s writings because there are far more of them than female characters, and males are the primary players in Roman history, but Livy does not fail to show that not all women in Rome’s history are feminae bonae. Within the first five books, the first book has the three best examples of women who are not entirely virtuous, but it must be noted that, with the exception of Tullia, none of these women are clearly lacking in virtue. The significant female characters in Livy are secondary characters to their male relatives who spark political change either because of their disgraced virtue, which if not properly avenged could hurt their family’s reputation, or because they are immoral. Even when significant time is spent on a female character within these early chapters, it is to display their demise because of someone’s immoral behavior. For the most part, there is no clear separation between the good and bad women, rather specific actions are good or bad. Horatia, for example, was killed by her own brother because she grieved for her betrothed instead of her two other brothers who were killed in the same battle against her betrothed.44 As he kills her, Horatius says, “‘Abi hinc cum immaturo amore ad sponsum…oblita fratrum mortuorum vivique, oblita patriae. Sic eat quaecumque

Romana lugebit hostem.’ (‘Go from here with your immature love to your betrothed… having forgotten your brothers dead and alive and having forgotten your country. So, may every Roman woman die if she will mourn for an enemy.’)”45 Horatius is brought up on charges for the murder,

44Livy. 1.26: To settle a battle, two sets of triplets from each side engaged in a smaller battle; Horatia’s brothers, the Horatii (only one named Horatius survives), defeated the Curiatii triplets (one of which was Horatia’s fiancé) from Alba. 45 Ibid. 1.26.4-5.

23 and while no one denies that Horatius killed his sister, he is not punished for the crime he committed46 and Livy says that Horatia’s father testifies on his behalf (1.26.4-5):

Moti homines sunt in eo iudicio maxime P. Horatio patre proclamante se filiam iure caesam iudicare: ni ita esset, patrio iure in filium animadversurum fuisse. Orabat deinde, ne se, quem paulo ante cum egregia stirpe conspexissent, orbum liberis facerent. Men were influenced in the highest degree in the case by the father, Publius Horatius, proclaims that the death of his daughter was judged with : Since if it had not been, fatherly justice would have been directed against his son. Then he argued, that they should not make him, whom they had observed a little before with a distinguished offspring, devoid of children. By mourning for her betrothed, and not her blood relations, Horatia betrays them and Rome, and even her own father feels that she got what she deserved. Roman marriages were meant to combine two families without sacrificing the original identity of the groups, while still keeping the Roman side dominant, and Horatia lost sight of this.

The way that Livy tells Horatia’s story emphasizes that the people who witnessed the case are not accepting Horatius’ actions; rather, they accept that the glory Horatius brought to Rome on the battle field is more important.47 By all appearances, Horatia was killed because of one mistake that made her family doubt her loyalty and ultimately her worth. On the other hand, the daughter of Roman king , Tullia, is an example of a woman who is immoral in almost every way. Servius had two daughters, both named Tullia, and because they had very different personalities, he married them to brothers with the opposite character traits as them; (ferox Tullia) married to a man with neither eagerness nor (neque ad cupiditatem neque ad audaciam

46 Horatius’ father is required to make sacrifices and he builds a beam above a street which Horatius then has to walk under every day in penance. Ibid. 1.26.13: Is quibusdam piacularibus sacrificiis factis, quae deinde genti Horatiae tradita sunt, transmisso per viam tigillo capite adoperto velut sub iugum misit iuvenem. 47 Ibid., 1.26.12. “Non tulit populus nec patris lacrimas nec ipsius parem in omni periculo animum, absolveruntque admiratione magis virtutis quam iure causae.”

24 esse).48 Fierce Tullia hated her meek sister because she was married to an ambitious man49 and soon was secretly meeting with her sister’s husband, Tarquinius Superbus (1.46.7-9):

Contrahit celeriter similitudo , ut fere fit: malum malo aptissimum; sed initium turbandi omnia a femina ortum est. Ea secretis viri alieni adsuefacta sermonibus nullis verborum contumeliis parcere de viro ad fratrem, de sorore ad virum; et se rectius viduam et illum caelibem futurum fuisse contendere, quam cum inpari iungi, ut elanguescendum aliena ignavia esset. Si sibi eum, quo digna esset, di dedissent virum, domi se propediem visuram regnum fuisse, quod apud patrem videat. Celeriter adulescentem suae temeritatis implet. Prope continuatis funeribus cum domos vacuas novo matrimonio fecissent, iunguntur nuptiis magis non prohibente Servio quam adprobante. Soon, the likeness brought them together, as is common: evil is most strongly bound to evil; but all the disorder rose first from the woman. The woman having become accustomed to secret conversations with another’s husband, never refrained from invective words about her own husband to his brother, or about her sister to her sister’s husband; and it would have been more correct that she herself to be a widow and that man to be single than to be joined to an unequal spouse resulting in the idleness of another making them grow weak. If the gods had given the man, whom she deemed was worthy, to her, she would have seen quickly the kingship in her house, which he now sees in her father’s house. Soon she filled the young man with her own temerity. Soon, when they had made the house empty for the new marriage by two successive funerals, they were joined in marriage which Servius, rather than approving, more did not prohibit. Livy is very clear that Tullia’s new husband has been imbued with her female madness (His muliebribus instinctus furiis…)50 and that she was the catalyst behind the evil deeds they did together, including eventually killing Servius.51

Tullia represents everything that the male population of Rome feared from an ambitious woman, but Livy’s narrative does allow for more neutral female ambition. was an

Etruscan woman who was the wife and advisor to both her husband and her adoptive son, Servius,

Tullia’s father, when they were kings. Livy even states that Tullia compared herself to Tanaquil

(1.47.6-7):

48 Ibid., 1.46.6. 49 Ibid., 1.46.7. “spernere sororem, quod virum nacta muliebri cessaret audacia.” 50 Ibid., 1.47.7. 51 Ibid., 1.48.

25

…nec conquiescere ipsa potest, si, cum Tanaquil peregrina mulier tantum moliri potuisset animo ut duo continua regna viro ac deinceps genero dedisset, ipsa regio semine orta nullum momentum in dando adimendoque regno faceret. … nor was she herself able to rest, if, when Tanaquil, a foreign woman, had been able to exert her mind so that she gave rise to two continuous rules, with her husband and then her son-in-law, she herself with royal lineage, had made no forward movement in delivering and take away the kingdom. Where Tullia pushes and controls her husband, Tanaquil encourages and assists her husband.

Because she is a foreigner, Livy seems to excuse some of her own personal ambition. She wants to amplify her husband’s ambition: “Lucumoni contra omnium heredi bonorum cum divitiae iam animos facerent, auxit ducta in matrimonium Tanaquil (For contrarily, being heir to all the fortunes excited his mind with wealth now, Tanaquil augmented this in their marriage).”52

Furthermore, her story serves as a tribute to the growing power of Rome because: “ est ad id potissima visa: in novo populo, ubi omnis repentina atque ex virtute nobilitas sit, futurum locum forti ac strenuo viro; (Rome seemed for this the most prominent: In a new population, where all nobility was recent and originated from virtue, would be a place for a strong and energetic man).”53

Once the couple arrives in Rome, Lucumo changes his name to Lucius Tarquinius and

(1.34.11-12):

Romanis conspicuum eum novitas divitiaeque faciebant; et ipse fortunam benigno adloquio, comitate invitandi beneficiisque quos poterat sibi conciliando adiuvabat, donec in regiam quoque de eo fama perlata est. Newness and wealth made him noteworthy to the Romans; and he helped that fortune with favorable conversation which he was able to win over for himself with kind words and with courteous invitations, during the time which rumor about him was even brought to the palace. Tanaquil fades behind her husband as he takes the spotlight of Roman society and gains his own reputation.

52 Ibid. 1.34.3. 53 Ibid. 1.34.6.

26

Lucius Tarquinius Priscus eventually is appointed as guardian to the king’s children because of his good character: “…per omnia expertus postremo tutor etiam liberis regis testamento institueretur (Finally after being tested in every way, he was established as guardian of the king’s children by the king’s will).”54 When the king died, Tarquinius sent his wards on a hunting trip so that he could claim the throne by appealing to the voting population, reminding them he would not be the first foreigner to rule in Rome, and that he spent his adult life in Rome spending his wealth and learning the customs from the former king.55 Tarquinius’ rule is ended by an assassination plot by the sons of the former king, at which point Tanaquil returns to the narrative. In the of the attack on Tarquinius, only Tanaquil maintains her composure,56 immediately closing off the palace and calling for Servius. Tanaquil tells Servius that he must follow her plan if he wants to be king and that he is in fact worthy of ruling.57

Although Tarquinius is not yet dead, he will not recover, so Tanaquil sets in motion a plan that will secure Servius the throne. She tells the people that Tarquinius is not dead, but recovering and, while he is, Servius will perform the deeds of the king, meeting with Tarquinius as needed.58

Even after Tarquinius eventually , they keep up the ruse so that Servius’ position is more secure when they finally announce the king’s death and that he wished Servius to succeed him.59 After

Livy explains Tanaquil’s last part of the plan, to assure the population of Rome that Tarquinius has entrusted the throne to Servius, she once again disappears from the narrative until Tullia mentions that she is jealous of Tanaquil’s former power (1.47). Within the narrative, Tullia remains a much more constant figure than Tanaquil, specifically because of her corrupt power. The two

54 Ibid. 1.34.12 55 Ibid. 1. 35. 56 Ibid., 1.41.1. Tanaquil inter tumultum claudi regiam iubet 57 Ibid., 1.41.3-4. 58 Ibid., 1.41.4-6. 59 Ibid., 1.41.6-7.

27 women are juxtaposed chronologically and in their characterizations. Tullia seeks too much power for herself, while Tanaquil mainly wants her husband to have power because she believes him worthy of it.

Livy’s more neutral portrayal of Tanaquil could indicate that her ambition is acceptable in the moment, but because it ultimately leads to Tullia’s sinister aspirations, Livy cannot consider her outwardly virtuous, evident in that he does not describe her as such. Livy notes that because

(1.34.4-6):

…Tanaquil summo loco nata, et quae haud facile iis in quibus nata erat humiliora sineret ea quo innupsisset. Spernentibus Etruscis Lucumonem exsule advena ortum, ferre indignitatem non potuit oblitaque ingenitae erga patriam caritatis, dummodo virum honoratum videret, consilium migrandi ab Tarquiniis cepit.

Tanaquil, born in a most high station, and who would not easily allow a lower station for herself than the one in which she was born, into which she had married. Since the Etruscans scorned Lucumo because he descended from an exiled foreigner, she was not able to bear such shamefulness and forgetting the natural dearness for her homeland, as long as she saw her husband honored, she took up plans for moving from Tarquinii.

A woman with pudicitia cannot have selfish ambitions and since only part of her goal is honor for her husband, Tanaquil’s virtue is incomplete. If she, because of her motivations, led the way to the immorality that Livy saw in his daily life, Tanaquil would only be marginally better than Tullia.

Within the immediate narrative, Tanaquil represents the crucial part foreign elements played in early Roman history as Rome’s influence continued to spread. The Romans were not only a powerful military force but also had a reputation through Italy, at least according to Livy, as a city and culture that could accept foreign peoples. Romans not only could accept foreign peoples but needed to in order to prosper, as seen with the Sabine women.

The female characters in the first five books of exhibit traits that make up the idealized concept of pudicitia and female morality - sense of duty, hierarchical loyalty, a willingness to

28 sacrifice oneself, ability to rationalize, and a knowledge of how to fit into the social structure – but the function of Livy’s female characters does not allow for fully developed characters. The women’s roles are brief snapshots of their lives that highlight aspects of their morality. Tullia, the least moral female character, receives the most attention in Livy’s narrative over a large portion of her life, but it is not because as an individual she represents a lack of female morality, but rather as part of a larger cultural trend. Tullia and Tarquinius Superbus’ tyrannical regime corresponds with the end of the Roman monarchy and specifically the reign of the Servius Tullius.

The immorality in the monarchy spreads until Lucretia, a shining representation of pudicitia, is raped inciting the political changes made by her father and husband. The relationship between a moral state and a moral culture is paramount to Livy, and pudicitia, or the violation of it, epitomizes the moral standing of Roman society. While the idealized female morality in Livy creates a traditional narrative of what makes a woman good, one that is not only found in The

History of Rome, what actually made a woman moral or immoral was far less rigid. The structural framework found in Livy was not always as limiting for real women in their daily lives during the late Republic and early Empire, even though they were still restricted by it. Other types of sources written about women known to the author help to further illustrate what characteristics were valued in a moral woman.

29

Chapter Two: Pudicitia in Practice

As briefly mentioned in chapter one, women were in the legal and financial guardianship of either their husbands or a male family member, usually their father.60 Because women were under the control of their closest male relatives and therefore a representation of that man’s own virtuous qualities, women were often seen as moral agents in Roman culture, “…whose moral disposition must be shaped (separately from men) by the formal structures of society.”61 The primary way that a woman was able to represent her high level of morality was through pudicitia, a term primarily used to mean sexual modesty or virtue.62 Pudicitia is also often translated as chastity or modesty, but neither of these two terms are quite correct because that is only part what made a woman moral in ancient Rome. The easiest way to consider pudicitia is in contrast with the masculine concept, virtus, which is translated simply as manliness or male strength and represented the same principle for men as pudicitia did for women.63 Both needed to be displayed

60 Osgood, 18-19. 61 Langlands 59. 62 According to the Oxford Latin dictionary (1514): pudicitia, pudicitiae, f. Sexual purity, chastity, virtue. B. (worshipped as a goddess). Liv. 10.23.3; Juv. 6.308; Prop.2.6.25; Paul. Fest. P.237M. Pudor, pudoris, m.: 1. A feeling of shame (arising from a particular action or circumstance). B ~or est mihi (+inf., acc. And inf.), I feel ashamed (to, that). C (w. gen of person, etc.) a feeling of shame (towards), regard (for). D. Shame in its outward manifestation, i.e. blushing. 2. Consciousness of what is seemly, sense of propriety or restraint, decency, scrupulousness, etc. b regard for the decencies in sexual behavior, dress, language, demeanour, etc., modesty; (spec.) chastity. C shyness, reserve, or sim. 3. One’s honour or self-respect. 4. A source of shame, dishonor, humiliation. B (applied to a person, etc., that brings shame on others). [for 4 definition: Liv. 6.38.11; 40.27.10;45.39.8; Ov. Am. 3.11.16; Ep. 11.79; Fast. 5.587. 63 According to the Oxford Latin Dictionary (2073-4): virtus virtutis: 1. The qualities typical of a true man, manly spirit, resolution, valour, steadfastness… b.(esp. as displayed in war and other contests). C. (transf.) mature vigour (of vegetation). 2. Excellence of character or mind, worth, merit, ability, etc. b a particular excellence of character, ability, etc., a virtue or merit. 3. Moral excellence, virtue, goodness. 4. (personified or as a goddess). 5. (in general) any attractive or valuable quality, excellence (natural or acquired). B. (of a speaker or writer, his words, , or sim.). c. potency, efficacy, or sim. 6. That in which something excels, special property.

30 publicly so that others would immediately be able to associate the individual with their social standing, however, the very nature of virtus demands that it be displayed ostensibly, while pudicitia must be subtle. Standards of pudicitia required a woman to walk a fine line between display and over-display which would indicate she did not have pudicitia. By analyzing historical sources from both the Roman Republic and early Empire, this chapter outlines exactly what having pudicitia required and, through the women who had it, how it affected their lives.

In his , written in 52 BCE, states that virtue must be sought only for the sake of being virtuous and not for any other outside benefits an individual might gain from good behavior.64 Pudicitia as a sign of female virtue clearly falls under Cicero’s logic. A woman displaying true pudicitia could not be trying to display her virtue; rather it had to be evident in her persona naturally. About ten years prior to De Legibus, Cicero wrote orations against Lucius

Sergius Catilina for his role as leader of a revolt in 63 BCE. , despite being a member of a family, took up the plight of several groups from different social classes who saw Catiline as a leader who could solve the financial crisis in Rome left over from the wars fought during the eighties and seventies BCE.65 Cicero defines these groups as wealthy men in debt who could sell their land to pay their debts, but do not want to; men in debt who saw revolt as a way to acquire power; veterans in colonies who had spent their money and wanted more; men who wanted to evade their financial problems by joining with Catiline; criminals; and rebellious and immoral

64 CICERO, De Legibus. Section XVIII https://www-loebclassics- com.resources.library.brandeis.edu/view/marcus_tullius_cicero- de_legibus/1928/pb_LCL213.351.xml?mainRsKey=6GuvX0&result=1&rskey=3eGq5E Atque etiam si emolumentis, non suapte vi1 virtus expetitur, una erit virtus, quae malitia rectissime dicetur 65 Cicero. In Catilinam 1-4.. Translated by C. Macdonald. Loeb Classical Library 324. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1976. 10-11.

31 youth.66 In one way or another, all of these groups sought personal power for personal gain. In the

In Catilinam 2, Cicero describes both the sides of the conflict:

Ex hac enim parte pudor pugnat, illinc petulantia; hinc pudicitia, illinc stuprum; hinc , illinc fraudatio; hinc , illinc scelus; hinc constantia, illinc furor; hinc honestas, illinc turpitudo; hinc continentia, illinc libido; hinc denique , temperantia, fortitudo, prudentia, virtutes omnes certant cum iniquitate, luxuria, ignavia, temeritate, cum vitiis omnibus; On this side fights for Pudor [decency or modesty], on that side petulance; on this side pudicitia, on that side lust; on this side loyalty, from there deceit; from this side , from that side wickedness; from this side perseverance, from that side raving madness; from this side honor, from that side baseness; from this side , from that side a desire for pleasure; on this side at last equality, self-control, fortitude, , all things virtuous vie with inequality, with luxury, with laziness, with rashness, with all the vices;67 There can be no doubt how Cicero feels towards Catiline’s rebellion, but, more than just a scathing review of his rival, this section with its contrasting grammatical structure clearly defines the characteristics of pudicitia even though he is describing a group of males. Defining pudicitia and other characteristics which are subsets of it by an opposing idea solves the problem of specifically defining it.

Another author, the stoic philosopher Seneca the Younger, also wrote about the characteristics of pudicitia. Seneca the Younger’s description of his mother, Helvia, and her pudicitia, as he wrote to her from exile in Corsica during 41 – 49 CE, on a charge of adultery,68 suggests that the ideas of pudicitia did not change much during the hundred or so years between

Cicero and Seneca. The main and crucial difference between the two texts is the gender of the subject whose virtue is being judged. Where male virtue must be openly displayed and is gained

66 Ibid. 67 Ibid; 94-95. Latin text from the Loeb, all translations done by author. 68 “L. Annaeus S. Politician and Stoic philosopher, 1st cent.” Dingel, Joachim (Hamburg) in: Brill’s New Pauly, Antiquity volumes edited by: Hubert Cancik and , Helmuth Schneider, English Edition by: Christine F. Salazar, Classical Tradition volumes edited by: Manfred Landfester, English Edition by: Francis G. Gentry. Consulted online on 03 February 2018

32 publicly, through political or military careers, for example, female virtue comes from being openly subdued. At the heart of pudicitia is a need for external control over women by those in power, and the expectation that women would exercise control over their own feminine weaknesses

(…non potest muliebris excusatio contingere ei, a qua omnia muliebria vitia afuerunt. (The excuse of womanhood is not able to touch [Seneca’s mother], from whom all the defects of women were absent)).69 Seneca alludes to the perceived female defects in his letter to his mother as he tells her not to use the excuse of being a woman to grieve for too long over his exile and that Roman ancestors limited female mourning with a decree that they could only grieve the death of their husband for ten months:

nam et infinito dolore, cum aliquem ex carissimis amiseris, adfici stulta indulgentia est, et nullo inhumana duritia. Optimum inter pietatem et rationem temperamentum est et sentire desiderium et opprimere. For even, when you have lost someone from those most dear, to have been affected by infinite sadness is a foolish indulgence,and being affected by nothing is inhuman harshness. The best way among moderation is piety and reason and to both feel grief and smother it.70 Such a limitation on mourning is reminiscent of when the cost of funerals in Athens was limited to stop people from spending money they did not have on elaborate mourning ceremonies, but the limitations Seneca introduces are specifically for women and how they should display themselves morally, not economically.

Seneca continues by declaring impudicitia as a great evil, but something his mother has never suffered from. To Seneca, to have impudicitia means to have vanity. He tells his mother that she has never desired jewelry, make-up, or revealing clothes that so many other unvirtuous women did, that she never hid her pregnancies or been upset at how many children she had because it

69 Seneca. Moral Essays, Volume II: De Consolatione ad Marciam. De Vita Beata. De Otio. De Tranquillitate Animi. De Brevitate Vitae. De Consolatione ad Polybium. De Consolatione ad Helviam. Loeb Classical Library 254. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1932. Section 16, pg 470. 70 Ibid.

33 could be an indicator of age.71 Seneca clearly values her virtuous nature and believes it to be the key for her to overcome her sadness over his exile. Through analysis of Seneca’s letter, it becomes clear that he is presenting his mother as incapable of knowing how to be virtuous in her grief without his instruction. Despite acknowledging in chapter sixteen how seemingly strong his mother is at resisting impudicitia for as long as he can remember, he still feels the need to tell her that this strength of character is what will keep her from succumbing to her grief for him. Whether this was actually a letter Seneca sent to Helvia or a letter intended as a philosophical exercise, the fact that Seneca presents them at all is significant. The sentiments in this letter must represent feelings and opinions that resonated with others as well.

In chapters two through four, Seneca explains his mother’s grief to her and that because she has suffered so many things in her life,72 she should stop her womanly crying because, by not learning from them, she is wasting all the misfortunes in her life.73 Seneca states that he wants to remind her of all her misfortunes because of his magnanimity. He states, “Magno id animo feci; constitui enim vincere dolorem tuum, non circumscribere. (I did this with a great mind; for I have determined to conquer your sadness, not to circumvent it).”74 Despite the several deaths in her family, all of which he has just brought freshly to her mind, he says, “…deinde si ad te transiero et probavero ne tuam quidem gravem esse fortunam, quae tota ex mea pendet (Next, if I could have surpassed and made right and then I certainly would have judged that your fortune is painful, all of which depends on mine).”75 Within these chapters, Seneca has taken away all of his mother’s

71 Ibid, 470 and 472. 72 Seneca lists these sad events in chapter two and they range from being raised by a step-mother to losing children and grandchildren. Ibid. 2.4. 73 Ibid, . 3.2. Lamentationes quidem et heiulatus et alia, per quae fere muliebris dolor tumultuatur, amove; perdidisti enim tot mala, si nondum misera esse didicisti. 74 Ibid. 4.1. 75 Ibid.,

34 agency by declaring that he knows both knows that the main source of her grief is himself, and how to fix it. Such arrogant statements seem out of place, especially when Seneca reveals in chapter fourteen that his mother has always done a good job managing the wealth of her sons without taking advantage of it or using it to seek her own power, another example of her pudicitia.

It seems highly unlikely that a woman who was managing the wealth of all of her children on her own would require her son to explain her own feelings to her. Seneca’s letter is a clear demonstration of the control he fundamentally sought to have over Helvia, even as he affirms her competence and value in the same breath.

While this evidence marks a phenomenon in Roman culture in which men felt the need to control the women in their lives, it in no way means that Seneca and Helvia did not love each other and have a caring relationship. What it points to is a cultural norm in Roman society of regulating the female population by requiring moral ideals to be upheld, denying women agency. Two chapters in particular demonstrate the familial relationship between Seneca and Helvia and the moral traditions they are both subject to. In chapter fifteen, Seneca relates what Helvia said in a recent letter about how much she misses him and even how she misses studying with him: “Ubi conloquia, quorum inexplebilis eram? Ubi studia, quibus libentius quam femina, familiarius quam mater intereram (Where are the conversations for which I was insatiable? Where are the studies, in which I took part in with more excitement than a woman, and with more familiarity than a mother)?”76 Here, Helvia, as told by Seneca, recognizes the strangeness of her gender seeking to take part in philosophical studies. The words used here to describe Helvia’s interest in philosophy, libentius and familiarius, could have easily been used to describe the actions of a woman without pudicitia, further emphasizing the removal of her feelings from those of a moral female. Helvia’s

76 Ibid., 15.1-2.

35 observation indicates that despite her acknowledgement that intellectual inquiry is not typical of her gender nor something important for women to include in their daily lives, she still feels comfortable enough in her position to ignore societal constraints that limit her studies.

In chapter seventeen, Seneca laments that his father did not allow Helvia to learn more philosophy because of his traditional views and because of women who only want to learn to show off, not for the pursuit of .77 Seneca uses the derogatory pronoun, istas, for such women, and the sentiment is reminiscent of Cicero’s ideas on how to be virtuous in De Legibus. At least from Seneca’s perspective, his mother does not seek knowledge so that she can make a spectacle of herself, but to expand her mind. Furthermore, Seneca believes that the way for his mother to move past her grief is through philosophy. Helvia’s many accomplishments and capabilities cited in Seneca’s account indicate a certain level of power over her environment, even though they are scattered among arguments undercutting female agency. As an aristocratic woman, Helvia, needed to be capable of certain tasks such as the responsible treatment and management of her children’s wealth, especially since her husband was dead at the time of this letter.

Helvia is a unique woman in a unique situation. The majority of women in Roman culture were of course not aristocratic and would not have had the time or opportunity that Helvia had to learn philosophy. The ability to pursue non-essential knowledge depends on the availability of free time. The average women in antiquity would have been busy satisfying the basic hierarchy of needs required to live and likely making choices based on prevailing notions of morality, but probably would not have been exposed to philosophical thought on virtue and how to become a more moral individual. A woman who epitomized pudicitia did not have to understand why it was

77 Ibid., 17.3-4.

36 socially valued in order to epitomize it. Helvia was surrounded by two philosophers for most of her adult life, and, after the death of her husband, she had more freedom to pursue philosophical thought with her son. Not only could she pursue her studies with him, but he encouraged her to continue her studies while he was away so that she could understand her grief and overcome it.

Seneca establishes his mother as epitomizing pudicitia, that she has the mental capacity for learning how to rationalize her grief and has faith that she can eventually reach the point of such rationalization. Helvia has reached a level that few Roman women could, in that she has a large amount of personal agency, but her agency still hinges on Seneca, who spends a great deal of his correspondence with her telling her the cause of her grief and how to overcome it. There is no part of the letter in which Seneca implies the personal nature of Helvia’s grief and that perhaps his suggestions are not the only way to deal with it. Still, Helvia represents a woman with some control over her environment, even though it has been pre-approved by her son, and this control stems from being a noble woman and having pudicitia.

Seneca’s letter to his mother illustrates that he sees a hierarchy among women who have pudicitia. Seneca has already established that his mother is more virtuous than other women who succumb to the weaknesses of womanhood, and he separates her from the lesser women who succumb to the weaknesses of their sex by saying, “…tantum debes a feminarum lacrimis abesse, quantum vitiis (you ought to be as far removed from the tears of women, just as much as you are from their faults).”78 Women with pudicitia therefore are raised to a higher level and held to higher standards. Chapter sixteen continues with the following (16.5):

Ne feminae quidem te sinent intabescere volneri tuo, sed leviorem necessario maerore cito defunctam iubebunt exsurgere, si modo illas intueri voles feminas, quas conspecta virtus inter magnos viros posuit.

78 Ibid. 16.5.

37

Not even women would allow you to waste away because of your wound, but they will bid that you quickly finish with necessary sorrow to recover more levity, if only you wish to look at those women, the women whose perceived virtus was able to be among great men. With this sentence, Seneca elevates the women he is about to exemplify to Helvia to something more than just moral women. These women are so virtuous they need to be described with masculine terminology creating a third type of woman, the historic heroine.

The two women Seneca chooses for Helvia to emulate are Cornelia, the mother of the

Gracchi, and Rutilia, whose son was exiled but then returned with his reputation restored, only to die soon after. All three women had to deal with losing sons -the epitome of grief in Greco-Roman culture- and Seneca emphasizes that the way Cornelia and Rutilia handled their situations sets them apart from the standard representation of pudicitia. Cornelia told the women who were crying and cursing Fortune around her because of the deaths of her sons that they could not act in such a way because, if not for Fortune, she would never even have had such great sons.79 In Seneca’s account, Cornelia’s personal agency is shifted from her and whatever she might have contributed to making her sons as virtuous as they were to Fortune. Her pudicitia depends both on the fact that she had virtuous sons and that she can control her grief.

Seneca describes Cornelia in a way reminiscent of and Croesus. He says of Cornelia,

“filius magno aestimavit Gracchorum natales, mater et funera (the son had valued the births of the greatly, the mother also valued the funerals).”80 Cornelia values both the manner in which they died and the fact that they had lived well, just as Solon tells Croesus when he asks

Solon to judge the value of his life.81 According to Seneca, Cornelia’s morality and wisdom separates her within the account and without from those women who would look for other

79 Ibid. 16.6 80 Ibid. 81 Herodotus 1.32.

38 individuals or even to blame for their emotional responses. Cornelia belongs in this special category of moral women because she does not give in to the weaknesses of women when her sons die. Her pudicitia is clearly tied to the virtue of her sons, but it is also her own. It seems perfectly acceptable for someone to give in to their passions during an emotional time, but as a Stoic philosopher, Seneca believes that truth only comes from their suppression. In this way, pudicitia is a fitting concept for a Stoic as it requires women to control what according to ancient authors was inherently immoral: recklessly displayed .

The account of Rutilia is closer to what Seneca and Helvia experienced because Rutilia’s son, C. Aurelius Cotta, was also exiled. Unlike Helvia, however, Rutilia went with her son into exile, “…ut mallet exilium pati quam desiderium… (as she preferred to suffer exile more than the grief of his absence).”82 When they came back from exile, Cotta rose to political power and honor but died soon thereafter. Seneca states that after he died:

…tam fortiter amisit quam secuta est, nec quisquam lacrimas eius post elatum filium notavit. In expulso virtutem ostendit, in amisso prudentiam; nam et nihil illam a pietate deterruit et nihil in tristitia supervacua stultaque detinuit. She had lost [her son] with as much strength as when she had followed him, nor did anyone note tears from her after her son had been buried away. She displayed virtus in his expulsion, and wisdom in his loss; for both, nothing prevented her from her devotion and nothing detained her in unnecessary and foolish sadness.83 Seneca continues by saying that, because Helvia has always followed the examples of these women and their ilk in the other aspects of her life, she must continue in how she handles her grief.

The main point which Seneca relates to Helvia through the stories of Cornelia and Rutilia is that moral women do not show their emotions but are serene and rational despite what occurs in their lives. With the way Seneca describes them, Cornelia and Rutilia seem to be naturally adept

82 Seneca, , 16.7. 83 Ibid.

39 at this emotional control, where for Helvia it needs to be explained, or at least she needs to be reminded of it. It is difficult to believe that any mother would be able to be so composed at her child’s death, but, of course, as with the female characters in Livy, Cornelia and Rutilia are archetypes of female virtue being used to help Helvia through her grief. Had they visibly shown their grief it would have detracted from the pedestal Seneca has placed them on. Pudicitia is a passive moral agent, unlike its male counterpart virtus. Virtue for Roman men was earned in displays, like the public support garnered by the Gracchi and ultimately dying for their cause, or

Cotta’s exile and then still managing to gain political honors after his return. Pudor, the root word/concept of pudicitia, is defined as not only an awareness of what is moral or a sense of restraint and decency, but as “shame in its outward manifestation, i.e. blushing.”84 Blushing is perhaps a more traditional visible representation of shame, but for Romans, female crying is at the same level because it demonstrates to others that a woman not in control of herself and is giving in to emotions in a nonproductive way.

Pudicitia was primarily a public aspect of Roman lives, although it could easily affect personal life if a woman’s actions were severe enough, bringing shame to themselves and their family. Even with the strict moral guidelines women had to adhere to or risk penalty, as with

Helvia and Seneca, there is no reason to doubt that there were loving relationships between women and their male relations. Funerary inscriptions provide evidence for such devotion distinct from

Roman literature. Texts such as Seneca’s letters can have a clear internal purpose, comforting his

84 Pudor, pudoris, m.: 1. A feeling of shame (arising from a particular action or circumstance). B ~or est mihi (+inf., acc. And inf.), I feel ashamed (to, that). C (w. gen of person, etc.) a feeling of shame (towards), regard (for). D. Shame in its outward manifestation, i.e. blushing. 2. Consciousness of what is seemly, sense of propriety or restraint, decency, scrupulousness, etc. b regard for the decencies in sexual behavior, dress, language, demeanour, etc., modesty; (spec.) chastity. C shyness, reserve, or sim. 3. One’s honour or self-respect. 4. A source of shame, dishonor, humiliation. B (applied to a person, etc., that brings shame on others). [for 4 definition: Liv. 6.38.11; 40.27.10;45.39.8; Ov. Am. 3.11.16; Ep. 11.79; Fast. 5.587.

40 mother, but can also create questions about who the intended audience was. Was De Consolatione ad Helviam a true copy of a letter Seneca wrote, or was it purely a philosophical exercise? Perhaps it was based on a real letter that was then edited for public view. Attempting to discern the motives behind such epistolary texts, while important, is rarely clear. Seneca includes what purports to be direct speech from his mother’s previous letter and may have been based on the real sentiments

Seneca sent to his mother. Funerary inscriptions have a much simpler purpose than philosophical musings, as they are meant to be the final and permanent description of the deceased. Even if the subject of the inscription was not exactly as illustrated, the inscription still represents what was considered culturally important about the deceased.

Most funerary inscriptions for women are short and ideologically similar, when they are descriptive at all.85 The funerary inscriptions can be grouped into unmarried and married subjects because pudicitia primarily concerned married women. Young unmarried women could not have complete pudicitia because they were not sexually active. They could, of course, be considered impudica (impudens?), as Lucretia was after her rape. Such “immoral behavior” would not be recorded on a funerary monument. Instead, monuments have inscriptions like, “Carfinia M . . . freedwoman of Marcus, lived twenty years. She was a joy and a dear pleasure to her friends. She was obliging to all.”86 Another monument to a young girl named Salvia, reads that she, “…brought dignity to attend on my duty, my wool-making. Plaint fills me at Fortune's lot so hard and unfair.”87

85Consider CIL_12.1057: Curiatia obi(i)t a(nte) d(iem) Eid(us) Ap(riles)/ Curiatia met her death on April twelfth and CIL_12.1062: Mai(os) Fabricia / a(nte) d(iem) IIX Eidu(s) / Sept(embres)/ Fabricia, elder daughter. Sixth . Latin text and translations of epigraphical evidence obtained from www.attalus.org/docs/cil/epitaph.html. Inscriptions from the time of the Roman Republic, translated by E.H.Warmington (1940). The numbers in refer to the Latin text in the Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum. 86CIL_12.1270: Carfinia M(arci) l(iberta) M[3] / vixit an(nos) XX / iucunda su{e}is / gratissima amiceis / omnibus officiosa / fuit. 87CIL_12.2161: C(ai) Paguri C(ai) l(iberti) Gelot[i]s / hospes resiste et tumulum hunc excelsum aspic[e] / quo continentur ossa parvae aetatulae / sepulta haec sita sum verna quoius aetatulae / gravitatem officio et lanificio praestit{e}i(t) / queror fortunae cassum tam iniquom et grave / nomen ei quaeras exoraturi salviae / valebis hospes opto ut sis felicior

41

Unlike Cornelia, Salvia’s grave and the person who wrote the inscription find fault with the lot dealt to her by Fortune.88 The funerary inscription of another girl, Herennia Crocine, suggest she accepted her premature death. Her states, “My life is over; other girls too have lived their lives and died before me. Enough now.”89 Both Salvia and Herennia’s inscriptions are written in the first person as though the young women could speak these last words to anyone who saw their tomb.

There are few examples of funerary inscriptions unmarried women who were older or whose age is not stated. Cupiennia Tertulla was only described as the daughter of Lucius and that she was the last remaining member of her family, but nothing is written about how her family perished or any of her personal qualities (Cupiennia Tertulla, daughter of Lucius, whose remains here await the very end of time, was the last of her family).90 Such a simple yet sad declaration of her life makes it seem that this monument was erected by perhaps a family friend who wished to allow for some sort of remembrance. It does not seem likely that a patron/patroness placed this monument because a patron/patroness typically would include a line mentioning that they dedicated the monument. Albia Hargula is an example of a woman who was not defined by what she did during her life or her male family members.91 Albia Hargula was fifty-six when she died

88In another example, CIL_12.1219, an unmarried woman named Pompeia’s inscription takes a more neutral stance towards fortune, stating that, “ Primae / Pompeiae / ossua h{e}ic / spondet multa / multis praestat nemini vive in dies / et horas nam proprium est nihil / Salvius et Heros dant (Fortune pledges things to many, Guarantees them not to any.)” 89CIL_2.1821: “Ave / Herennia Crocine / cara su{e}is inclusa hoc tumulo / Crocine cara su{e}is vixi ego / et ante aliae vixere puellae / iam satis est lector discedens / dicat Crocine sit tibi / levis valete Superi (Hail! Herennia Crocine, dear to her own, is shut up in this tomb, Crocine dear to her own. My life is over; other girls too have lived their lives and died before me. Enough now. May the reader say as he departs, "Crocine, lightly rest the earth on you." Farewell to all you above ground).” 90 CIL_12.1297: “Ultma / suorum / Cupiennia / L(uci) f(ilia) Tertulla / fu{ue}it uius / h{e}ic / rel[[l]]iquiae / suprema / manent.” 91 CIL_6.11357: “Albia |(mulieris) l(iberta) Hargula vixit ann(os) / LVI casta fide magna sei / quicquam sapiunt inferi / ut ossa eius quae hic sita / sunt bene quiescent (Albia Hargula, freedwoman of Albia: lived fifty-six years. Chaste she was and the soul of honour. If the dead below have any sense at all, may her bones which lie here rest in perfect peace).”

42 and described as casta which is similar to pudicitia in that it means that a person is chaste, the difference between the two being that chastity is only part of what it means to have pudicitia.92

Albia Hargula’s monument does not specifically say what she did during her life, but mentions she was a freedwoman of someone named Albia.

On average, the funerary inscriptions of married women are much more descriptive than those of single women. Sometimes the reason for the increased detail is that the grave marker is not only for the dead woman, but also her husband, as with the case of Lucius Aurelius Hermia and his wife, Aurelia Philematium.93 The dual epitaph allows for a very vivid description of both of their lives, including that Philematium was seven when she married her husband who was forty at the time. Philematium is also described both as being casta and having pudicitia and of course, loving her husband and general virtuousness. Of the ten funerary inscriptions of married women, nine discuss aspects of pudicitia such as her dutiful and generally good/moral disposition.

The concept of how a woman was memorialized and how a man was memorialized demonstrates the differences between how gender roles functioned in Roman society and how they

92According to the Oxford Latin Dictionary castus -a -um is defined as: 1 (w. ab) Free from, untouched by (things specified in subsequent senses). 2 Free from vice, upright, moral. B (of places, things etc.) free from crime or vice. 3 Unstained (in a religious sense), holy, pure. B (of religious observances, etc., also, things associated with ). C (of poetry). D (of pledges) not violated, unbroken; also, that keeps faith, loyal. 4 Sexually pure, chaste, not promiscuous. 5 That is in a state of chastity, virgin. B (spec. of a goddess). 6 (of language or style) Pure, faultless. P 283. 93 CIL_12.1221: “[L(ucius) Au]relius L(uci) l(ibertus) / [H]ermia / [la]nius de colle / Viminale [h]aec quae me faato / praecessit corpore / casto / [c]oniunx{s} una meo / praedita amans / animo / [f]ido fida viro v{e}ix{s}it / studio parili um / nulla in avaritie / cessit ab officio / [A]urelia L(uci) l(iberta) / [ // Aurelia L(uci) l(iberta) / Philematio(n) / viva Philematium sum / Aurelia nominitata / casta pudens volgei / nescia feida viro / vir conleibertus fuit / eidem quo careo / eheu / ree fuit eevero plus / superaque parens / septem me naatam / annorum gremio / ipse recepit XXXX / annos nata necis potior / ille meo officio / asiduo florebat ad omnis /” ([a] Lucius Aurelius Hermia, freedman of Lucius, a butcher of the . She who went before me in death, my one and only wife, chaste in body, a loving woman of my heart possessed, lived faithful to her faithful man; in fondness equal to her other virtues, never during bitter did she shrink from loving duties. Aurelia, freedwoman of Lucius. [b] Aurelia Philematium, freedwoman of Lucius. In life I was named Aurelia Philematium, a woman chaste and modest, knowing not the crowd, faithful to her man. My man was a fellow-freedman; he was also in very truth over and above a father to me; and alas, I have lost him. Seven years old was I when he, even he, took me in his bosom; forty years old - and I am in the power of violent death. He through my constant loving duties flourished at all seasons . . .).”

43 were meant to be remembered. Many funerary inscriptions for men were just the deceased’s name and when they died. Where applicable, dedicated to a man had his virtues and public honors listed. Often these lists were nothing more than impersonal statements of the man’s undeniable virtus.94 The examples of inscriptions for the men who held public office were meant to continue their reputation after death and to show what they accomplished. Gnaeus Cornelius

Scipio Hispanus’ epitaph lists the public offices he held plainly, but his elogium states, “By my good conduct I heaped virtues on the virtues of my clan; I begat a family and sought to equal the exploits of my father. I upheld the praise of my ancestors, so that they are glad that I was created of their line. My honours have ennobled my stock.”95 In using a first-person account in addition to the simply stating his honors, Hispanus’ himself tells the viewer the results of his deeds. With only a few exceptions, the funerary inscriptions of Roman women that laud the deceased’s character focus on the how well she performed household tasks while those of Roman men praised their public acts.

94CIL_12.834: “C(aio) Poplicio L(uci) f(ilio) Bibulo aed(ili) pl(ebis) honoris / virtutisque caus{s}a senatus / consulto populique iussu locus / monumento quo ipse poster{e}ique / eius inferrentur publice datus est (To Gaius Publicius Bibulus, of the plebs, son of Lucius, was granted, at the cost of the State by decree of the and ordinance of the People, to honour him because of his worthiness, a site for a memorial into which himself and his posterity might be conveyed).” CIL_12.12: “L(ucius) Cornelius L(uci) f(ilius) P(ubli) n(epos) / Scipio quaist(or) / tr(ibunus) mil(itum) annos / gnatus XXXIII / mortuos pater / regem Antioco(m) / subegit. (Lucius Cornelius Scipio, son of Lucius, grandson of Publius, , of soldiers. Died at the age of thirty-three years. His father vanquished King Antiochus.)” CIL_12.2634: “A(ulus) Salvius A(uli) f(ilius) // A(uli) n(epos) Crispinus / an(n)orum LI hi(c) / conditus est / gessit Ferentei / IIIIvir(atum) quater / sum(m)o supremo / die et viscera / municipibus (Aulus Salvius Crispinus, son of Aulus, grandson of Aulus, was buried here when 51 years of age. He four times held office on the Board of Four at Ferentum. On the day that was his very last, at luncheon . . . he was killed by a wall).” 95 CIL_12.15: “Cn(aeus) Cornelius Cn(aei) f(ilius) Scipio Hispanus / pr(aetor) ad(ilis) cur(ulis) q(uaestor) tr(ibunus) mil(itum) II Xvir stl(itibus) iudi(andis) / Xvir sacr(is) fac(iundis) / virtutes generis mieis moribus accumulavi / progeniem genui facta patris petiei / maiorum otnui laudem ut sib{e}i me esse creatum / laetentur stirpem nobilitavit honor. (Gnaeus Cornelius Scipio Hispanus, son of Gnaeus, , curule aedile, quaestor, tribune of soldiers (twice); member of the Board of Ten for Judging Law-suits; member of the Board of Ten for Making Sacrifices. The elogium, in elegiacs: By my good conduct I heaped virtues on the virtues of my clan; I begat a family and sought to equal the exploits of my father. I upheld the praise of my ancestors, so that they are glad that I was created of their line. My honours have ennobled my stock.)”

44

Hispanus seems to have led the life that any Roman man would have strived for, but not all Roman men had the opportunity. Lucius Cornelius Scipio’s elogium explains to the viewer that he would have had honors had he lived longer than twenty years.96 There is a sense that the dedicator wanted to ensure that no one who saw the inscription doubted the merit of the young man adding, “…lest you ask why honours none to him/ were ever entrusted.” Compared to the funeral inscriptions of young women, which tell the viewer about how they lived or give a sense of who they were, primarily because the honors which women could earn were within the household, Lucius Corneilius Scipio’s inscription implies that he could only have been judged had he been older and earned public honors. Although he was even younger than Scipio, Optatus’ epitaph also emphasizes that he was too young to properly gain honors befitting a Roman man saying that, “So long as was allowed me I lived more acceptable than any other…”97 Perhaps because he is closer to childhood than Scipio, Optatus speaks to his mother and tells her to stop

96 CIL_12.11: “L(ucius) Cornelius Cn(aei) f(ilius) Cn(aei) n(epos) Scipio / magna sapientia / multasque virtutes aetate quom parva / posidet hoc saxsum quoiei vita defecit non / hono honore is hic situs quei nunquam / victus est virtutei annos gnatus XX is / l[oc]eis mandatus ne quairatis honore / quei minus sit mandatus (Lucius Cornelius Scipio, son of Gnaeus, grandson of Gnaeus. [The elogium in Saturnians]: Great virtues and great wisdom holds this stone With tender age. Whose life but not his honour Fell short of honours, he that lies here Was never outdone in virtue; twenty years Of age to burial-places was he entrusted. This, lest you ask why honours none to him Were ever entrusted).” 97 CIL_12.1223: “[3]lius P(ubli) et Clodia[e] l(ibertus) Optatus / vixit annos VI m(enses) VIII / [hic me] florentem mei combussere parentes / [nemo d]um licuit superis acceptior unus / [cui nemo po]tuit verbo maledicere acerbo / [3] ad superos quos pietas cogi[3] / [3] modeste nunc vos quon[3] / [3]tis dicite Optate sit [tibi terra levis] / [3]o annorum nondum [3] / [c]um ad mortem matris [de gremio rapior] / Manibus carus fui vivs cari [3] / adverseis quae me sustulit [ominibus] / desine iam frustra mea mater [desine quaeso] / te miseram totos exagitare die[s] / namque dolor talis non nunc tibi [contigit ] / haec eadem et magn{e}is regibus [acciderant] / Clara Amaranto[3] (. . . Optatus, freedman of Publius and Clodia, lived six years and eight months. Here my parents burnt my dead body in the flower of my age. So long as was allowed me I lived more acceptable than any other to the gods above, of whom none could speak ill in bitter word . . . to the gods above whom loyalty compels . . . now modestly you . . . say you: "Optatus, lightly rest the earth on you." . . . a child who had not yet your share of years . . . when I am torn away from my mother's bosom to death . . . in life I was dear to departed souls, and very dear to the goddess who made away with me under unlucky omens. Cease now, mother mine, cease to torment yourself in vain sobs of wretchedness each livelong day, for grief such as this has not now befallen you alone; sorrows the same as these have fallen to the lot of mighty kings too. Bright with never-fade).”

45 grieving for him. The audience hears Optatus’ own voice and the sentiment he shares is very similar to the one Seneca tells to his mother about restraining her grief.

A small selection of funerary inscriptions for either boys or young men were written in the voice of the deceased’s mother and further show the difference between how men and women grieved. Where the inscriptions for Roman men written in their own or an impersonal voice tell of their accomplishments or their potential honors, these two dedications really only address a mother’s loss of her son. The inscription of Publius Critonius Pollio tells the viewer in his own voice that he died young and that his mother grieves for him before saying goodbye to the viewer and wishing them to be well.98 The dedication to Gnaeus Taracius is written in his mother’s lamenting voice.99 In both dedications, the mothers share the focus with their sons but the emphasis is on the loss the women felt. Seneca’s letter indicates that moral women should not show their grief outwardly but by placing their grief onto a memorial both of these women are able to express their grief and pay tribute to their sons.

Detailed funerary inscriptions are effective resources for learning about how the different genders were represented, especially when the epitaph was clearly sponsored by someone of the opposite gender of the deceased. When a woman died and was honored by her husband, the focus was typically on her virtues as a wife and her role within their relationship. From the late Republic there is one woman whose virtue and merits far surpass those described above, and her husband,

98 CIL_12.1295: “P(ublius) Critonius P(ubli) f(ilius) Polio / mater mea mihi / monumentum / coeravit quae / me desiderat / vehementer me / heice situm in / mature vale sal/ve (Publius Critonius Pollio, son of Publius. This memorial to me was superintended by my mother, who deeply longs for me, placed here before my time. Farewell and good health to you!)” 99 CIL_12.1603: “Cn(aeus) Taracius Cn(aei) f(ilius) / vixit a(nnos) XX ossa eius hic sita sunt / eheu heu Taracei ut acerbo es deditus fato non aevo / ex{s}acto vita es traditus morti / sed cum et decuit florere aetate / iu(v)enta interi{e}isti et loquisti in maeroribus matrem (Gnaeus Taracius, son of Gnaeus, lived twenty years. Here are laid his bones. Alas alas Taracius, how bitter the fate to which you were delivered! The years of your life were not all spent when you were given up to death; but at the time when it behoved you to be living in the flower of the age of youth, you passed away and left your mother in grief and sorrow).”

46

Quintus Vespillo, certainly thought so when he had the eulogy he gave for her inscribed in marble. The Laudatio Turiae was a large, finely crafted memorial to Turia, a woman who lived during the 49 BCE civil war between and . The physical description of the monument is enough to tell the viewer that the subject of the inscription was important. The monument was originally in two columns each on a marble block that was 8.75 feet tall and 2.75 feet wide and weighed approximately 1.5 tons.100

The text equally illustrates how unique Turia’s life was. Told from the voice of her husband, the eulogy begins with a fragmentary line remarking that through her good and worthy manner ([mo]rum probit[ate]), Turia would always remain good and worthy.101 While the word pudicitia is not explicitly used in this line, sections three through twelve, where Vespillo tells his audience how his wife’s parents were killed before they were married and while both he and

Turia’s brother-in-law, Cluvius, were out of Italy, it is very clear that he thought all of her actions, though could be considered in the masculine sphere, were morally correct. Turia did not abandon her father’s estate, and Vespillo even credits Turia with getting revenge for the murder of her parents and for protecting the property. Vespillo says of himself and Cluvius that, “Tanta cum industria m[unere es p]ietatis perfuncta ef[flagitando et] vindicando ut, si praes[to fu]issemus, non ampliu[s praestitisemus.(You instantly demanded punishment and you got it, so strenuously performing your familial duty that even if we had been present, we could not have done anything more.)”102 Not only did Turia defend and avenge, but she fought against those who contested her father’s will. Had Turia lost the legal battle, she and her father’s property would be under the

100 Osgood, 7. 101 (line 1) “… [mo]rum probit[ate]… (2) rum… permanisti prob[a]…(…through your virtuous character… you remained a virtuous woman…” Because the text is fragmented the author is using the text and translation provided by Osgood in his book, Turia: A Roman Woman’s Civil War, Appendix 2. 102 Osgood, 156 and 157.

47 guardianship of those contesting the will, completely cutting out Turia’s sister from any inheritance. Turia was successful, however, and after she proved that those contesting the will were not members of her clan, the matter was dropped; Vespillo further writes that Turia was adamant that her sister would still be given her share of the inheritance once Turia and Vespillo were married, regardless of the outcome of the case.103

The admiration that Vespillo shows his wife for her heroism, her loyalty, her intelligence is unusual. Other memorials to women discuss only how good they were at being wives because of their traits that demonstrated their pudicitia, but Turia is praised for being so much more than how she performed domestically. In fact, the only time pudicitia is mentioned is in lines thirty to thirty-six which state:

Domestica bona pudici[t]iae, opsequi, comitatis, facilitates, lanificii studi[I, religionis] sine superstition, o[r]natus non conspiciendi, cultus modici cur [memorem? Cur dicem de cari]tate, familia pietati, [c]um aeque matrem meam ac tuos parentes col[ueris eandemque quietem] illi quam tuis curaveris, cetera innumerabilia habueris commun[ia cum omnibus] matronis dignam f[a]mam colentibus? Propria sunt tua quae vindico ac [perpaucae in tempora] similia inciderunt, ut talia paterentur et praestarent, quae rara ut essent [mulierum] fortuna cavit. Why should I mention the virtues of your private life: your pudicitia, your obedience, your considerateness, your reasonableness; your attentive weaving, your religious devotion free of superstition, your unassuming appearance and sober attire? Why should I talk about your love and devotion to family? You took care of my mother as well you did your own parents and saw to her security as you did for own people, and you have countless other things in common with all married women who keep up a good reputation. The qualities that I assert you have belong to you alone; very few other women have lived in times similar enough so as to endure such things and perform such deeds as Fortune has taken care to make for rare women.104 Vespillo values what made Turia a dutiful housewife, but what he finds more important is how far she surpasses that role. The value of her accomplishments to him is reflected in the detailed account and anecdotal evidence he provides in an inscription covering nearly fifty square feet of

103 Ibid., lines 13-26. 104 Ibid.

48 surface area. Furthermore, Vespillo says, their marriage worked as a partnership: “We shared duties in such a way that I stood as protector of your fortune, while you kept a watch over mine.

On this point there are many things I will leave out so as not to associate with myself what is uniquely your own.”105

Certainly, Turia’s specific circumstances provided an unusual opportunity to act in the manner in which she did, but Turia clearly also felt comfortable advocating for herself and her family, even without her closest male relatives present. Turia was even physically harmed as she advocated for Vespillo’s reinstatement as a Roman citizen. had granted Vespillo’s return to Rome, but Marcus Lepidus, who was in charge while Augustus was out of the city, had Turia

“…dragged and carried off like a slave… [her] body covered with bruises…” as she continued to remind Lepidus that Augustus had indeed reinstated Vespillo.106 Even after this assault, Turia continued working with her sister and brother-in-law so that Vespillo could eventually come home.

The Laudatio Turiae demonstrates that Turia had agency and a level of control over her own environment that was not typical and that her husband celebrated her for it, not only with a speech that could have been forgotten or ignored, but on a massive monument for anyone to see. He was proud of her accomplishments and the sacrifices and risks she took for their life together.

Just as her husband described, Turia’s marriage was a partnership recognized and celebrated by her husband. Such partnership was not how the ideal noble marriages typically worked, as seen when Seneca tells his mother how he wished his father, whom he considered the best of men, had not strictly controlled Helvia’s education for fear that she would only use philosophy for her own personal benefit. Seneca believed that his mother had the raw intellectual

105 Ibid., lines 38-40: Officia [ita par-] titi sumus ut ego tu[t]elam tuae fortunae gererem, tu mea custodiam sust[ineres. Multa] de hac parte omittam ne tua propria mecum communicem. 106 Ibid., lines 11-18, column two, 162 and 163.

49 ability to learn philosophy after many years of interaction, so it is possible that he did not always believe so but that he was convinced over time. Vespillo does not appear to have needed time to recognize his wife’s independent capabilities, and most of the anecdotes he shares are from before they were married. He apparently did not believe avenging her parents’ murder or fighting for the rights of herself and her sister were too bold or masculine. Vespillo’s devotion to his wife and his appreciation of all of her actions motivated him to record and memorialize them. Based on the sections of the text that did survive, Vespillo wanted to pay tribute to his wife because he loved and respected her, not to receive personal benefit.

The relationship between Turia and Vespillo questions how much of the surviving literary text on female morality was relevant on a day to day basis. On the one hand, although Turia’s deeds were far more active than Cornelia or Rutilia’s, and technically were in part for her own benefit, they still fall under Cicero’s idea in De Legibus, that truly virtuous acts must be done selflessly. After she avenged her father and mother and defended their estate, she was able to gain her inheritance, but she acted so that her father’s wishes and memory would be upheld. Turia wanted Vespillo back from his exile so that their lives as husband and wife could continue, and she stopped at nothing to help him.107

How many other stories of Roman women who took their fate in their own hands while still maintaining the societal standards of pudicitia and ideal womanhood have been lost, or were

107 In ’, Memorable Doings and Sayings, section on, “Of the Fidelity of Wives towards their Husbands,”, 6.7, Maximus includes the following story: “Q. Lucretium, proscriptum a triumviris, uxor Turia inter cameram et tectum cubiculi abditum una conscia ancillula ab imminente exitio non sine magno periculo suo tutum praestitit, singularique fide id egit ut cum ceteri proscripti in alienis et hostilibus regionibus per summos corporis et animi cruciatus vix evaderent, ille in cubiculo et in coniugis sinu salutem retineret (Having been proscribed by the Triumviris, the wife Turia slave as an accessory, she protected of Q. Lucretium from imminent exile not without great danger to herself, and with a singular loyalty she acted so that when the rest of those proscribed barely went forth into strange and hostile regions through the greatest torment of their body and mind, that man was kept in good health in the bedroom and in the protection of his wife had established Q. Lucretium hidden between the ceiling vaults and the roof of their bedroom, with one female).”

50 never even recorded because of monetary constraints or because those around them did not value their actions in the same way that Vespillo did Turia’s? Turia clearly had enough mobility to change aspects of her life that were against her father’s wishes and harm her family. During the

Roman Republic there is evidence for how groups of women organized to affect change that would benefit them. In religious activity, women would come together and often form a hierarchy based on their conceptions of each other’s morality. Once women began to organize within moral hierarchical groups, there was the possibility for them to have a unified voice. A unified voice, while not a guarantee, could help free marginalized figures begin to have sway within a political system that sought to control a group. One way of understanding how women were able to actively participate and influence their own environments despite moral constraints was in how they participated within the Roman legal system and their reactions to the laws which affected them.

51

Chapter Three: Pudicitia and Crossing Gender Spheres through Religious Organization

and Political Involvement

The previous chapters focused on traditional and private views on female morality and demonstrate how the stricter traditional ideals on morality were not always strictly enforced.

Women could gain influence over their environments, and in the case of Turia, do so completely without a male relative present.108 Even though Turia is the exception and not the rule, she represents the type of women who could hope to gain such influence. In the literary sources, noble women are the main examples of those who were able to gain any kind of influence in public spheres. The life of noble women, whether they were patrician or plebian, afforded them that their less wealthy counterparts did not have. Such liberties, like more free time, control over a larger household and servants, more exposure to male examples of public power, in addition to money, made a shift from private influence to public influence possible. The main theater women could have influence was in religious activity, specifically the cults which were centered on women, but this was still limited and the influence a woman could gain was very localized to a particular cult and only over her fellow female practitioners. Proper religious participation had the added benefit of furthering a woman’s perceived morality which in turn could allow her more types of power, as seen in the case of Sulpicia and the dedication of a cult statue.

108 A male relative was still necessary as a legal guardian but it could be a man the woman did not have daily contact with which would give her more individual freedom.

52

The dichotomy between public and personal conceptions of what makes a woman moral is also evident in the political sphere, specifically in the example of noble women gaining temporary public power when they influenced senate members to repeal the Lex Oppia. Created in 215 BCE, the Oppian Law, in part, limited how much jewelry women could wear. Despite having no permanent and direct public power, women in the Roman Republic did have private power or influence, especially through state-mandated religion. Republican times were fraught with wars which required large numbers of the male population to be away from Rome, and not all returned from the conflicts. Several aspects of Roman culture then had to adapt informally and formally to the change in demographics. Religion was one area in which women saw an increase in their public roles. One reason for this increase was simply to keep women busy, as Livy mentions occasions where women’s mourning and fear for their male relatives fighting inspired them to take to the streets.109 Religious activity was one of the ways women could express their social and moral standing almost independently from their husbands. Religious activity demonstrates how women were able to organize themselves and work together, opening the door to be able to show a unified opinion on public matters despite not having a permanent voice in the government. There is not a direct line of cause and effect between religious activity and an increase in women appearing more often in the political sphere but there is a connection between the two. Individuals who have more exposure to any type of power, be it their position in a religious hierarchy or having to fill in some duties of male family members who are at war, feel more comfortable seeking it if the proper situation arises. The most significant examples of women affecting government policies are the events surrounding the Lex Oppia and Hortensia who argued to the senate against taxation on

109 Phyllis Culham, "The Lex Oppia," Latomus, 4th ser., 41, no. Fasc (1982): 789. Culham refers to Livy 27.50.5 and 22.55.4.

53 women. The examples of women who participated in government are limited and represent temporary power gains, but they demonstrate the types of causes women were willing to risk their status for. This chapter will focus on first establishing examples of women acting within cults to be able to better understand how they were able to organize to influence the legal change they desired.

There were two cults that were specific to women and sexual morality which grew in popularity during the third century and leading up to the enactment of the Lex Oppia. The older cult is the cult to Pudicitia, the divine representation of pudicitia, and is significant because the account in Livy states that there originally was a single patrician cult until the year 296 BCE, when

Verginia, the daughter of Aulus, began a plebeian cult to Pudicitia.110 Due to omens during that year, the senate mandated religious festivals, which they paid for, and participation of men and women.111 Verginia was a patrician who married a plebian consul (“…L. Volumnio consuli…”112) and when she was excluded from the patrician cult because of her marriage, she told the patrician women that she had every right to be a part of the cult to Pudicitia. She had only been married once, had been a virgin when she was married, and she both supported and was proud of her husband’s accomplishments.113 Verginia decided to section off part of her house and dedicate a new alter to Pudicitia so that plebeian matrons could also worship her.114 Livy notes that the new

110 Livy 10.23.1-10. 111 Ibid., 10. 23.1-3. Eo anno prodigia multa fuerunt, quorum averruncandorum causa supplicationes in biduum senatus decrevit; publice vinum ac tus praebitum; supplicatum iere frequentes viri feminaeque. 112 Ibid.,10.23.4. 113 Ibid., 10.23.5-6. “…cum se Verginia et patriciam et pudicam in Patriciae Pudicitiae templum ingressam et uni nuptam ad quem virgo deducta sit, nec se viri honorumve eius ac rerum gestarum paenitere, ex vero gloriaretur.” 114 Ibid., 10. 23. 6-9. “in vico Longo, ubi habitabat, ex parte aedium quod satis esset loci modico sacello exclusit, aramque ibi posuit et convocatis plebeiis matronis conquesta iniuriam patriciarum ‘Hanc ego aram’ inquit ‘Pudicitiae Plebeiae dedico vosque hortor, ut quod certamen virtutis viros in hac civitate tenet, hoc pudicitiae inter matronas sit detisque operam ut haec ara quam illa, si quid potest, sanctius et a castioribus coli dicatur.’”

54 version of the cult followed all the same and rules as the patrician cult, but later the cults of

Pudicitia were polluted by unworthy women of all social standing and fell out of popularity.115

Verginia’s experiences within the cult of Pudicitia demonstrates that among Roman matrons there was control over how they defined their members as worthy for the religious activity.

As Verginia told the patrician matrons, she had not broken any of the traditional requirements necessary to participate in the cult to Pudicitia, she had just married someone of a lower social class. Verginia was able to overcome this exclusion and continue worshiping despite the patrician matrons, bringing other women to her new manifestation of the cult. Verginia clearly has power over aspects of her environment because she is able to dedicate space in her house for religious worship and include others that most likely could relate to the way Verginia was treated by the noble matrons. Roman matrons of different socioeconomic backgrounds felt the need to be a part of the cult to Pudicitia but there was still a divide between women of different backgrounds connecting ideas of pudicitia to different aspects of women’s lives that did not strictly fall under the purview of pudicitia. Somewhere during the history of the cult there was a shift from pure ideology to morality based on social standing and ideology which created a power dynamic between moral matrons and moral and noble matrons.

The cult to Verticordia (220 BCE) is discussed in Pliny’s Natural Histories and

Valerius Maximus’ Memorable Doings and Sayings. Both cults demonstrate how women were organizing themselves in groups and making decisions about their own religious environments based on their own set of guidelines similarly to the cult to Pudicitia. Venus Verticordia was a cult

115 Livy 10.23.9-10. “Eodem ferme ritu et haec ara quo illa antiquior culta est, ut nulla nisi spectatae pudicitiae matrona et quae uni viro nupta fuisset sacrificandi haberet. Volgata dein religio a pollutis, nec matronis solum sed omnis ordinis feminis, postremo in oblivionem venit.”

55 intended to turn women away from indulgence and toward chastity and morality. When it was time to dedicate the cult statue, the senate put together a committee of women to choose the most moral among them to dedicate the statue. The woman they chose was Sulpicia and she was judged by her peers to be the best representation of sexual virtue in Rome.116 Both the cult to Pudicitia and the committee to vote on the most moral woman were instigated by the senate, but the female participants ultimately made the choices that affected them. In the case of Venus Verticordia, women are defining and choosing who represents moral women, thus defining their own morality.

The introduction of these cults for female morality and their increased popularity indicate the more prominent role of women in the cultural environment. These women were the active participants in cults that not only benefited the wellbeing of Rome, but the moral integrity of the women themselves. Participating in even state-mandated religious activity was not the same as having political power, but Livy does include an example of noble women who did impact legislation that applied to them. In book thirty-four, Livy tells his audience about the repeal of the

Lex Oppia which limited the amount of finery a woman could wear. The Oppian Law was enacted in 215 BCE after M. Oppius, a plebian tribune, suggested it during the .117 Livy’s discussion of the Oppian Law implies that it was meant to reinvigorate public coffers, especially when the Oppian Law was passed along with other austerity measures.118 Culham states:

This theory of Livy has been tacitly accepted by some modern scholars who deal with the Oppia, although there is no evidence for it other than Valerius' (Livy s) implication. It is striking that there is no provision for the transfer of excess holdings in gold over the licit semuncia to the treasury instead of to male relatives. In fact, the law as given in Livy only forbids women to have more than a semuncia of gold {haberet Livy, 34.1.3). This restriction may not even refer primarily to gold owned by women but to gold belonging to a man and worn or used by a woman. In this case, the law would simply mean that a woman

116 See Valerius Maximus 8.15.12. Pliny Natural Histories 7.120. 117 Livy. 34.3. “…in medio ardore Punici belli…” 118 Culham 787. Mentions the other laws and where they fall in Livy.

56

could not wear more than a half ounce of gold on her person or carry more about with her.119

Perhaps Livy simply did not feel that it was necessary to explicitly say that excess gold would be seized from violators, but it is odd that he would not, especially if this law was intended as a purely economically motivated law. The nature of the Oppian Law was meant to limit the amount of gold and finery a woman could publicly display, not the amount she could own.

There was a direct correlation between adornment and female morality. If a woman was over-adorned she was seen as too concerned with vanity which “paradoxically entailed a rejection of the traditional feminine role, first because an obsession with the dressed self meant a lack of interest in husband, household, and children, and second because the adorned woman who put herself on display was likened by some authors to a prostitute.”120 The comparison to prostitutes creates even more problems because prostitutes were augmenting their visage specifically to sell their bodies and trick men into spending money by false depictions of beauty. Prostitutes were, of course, not considered sexually moral and there was a very close relationship among morality, sexuality and presentation. For a moral woman to display herself in such a way was a further sign of moral degradation because it made her appear to spend too much time on herself instead of on her role within her family.

The Oppian Law was a restriction placed on a woman’s ability to express herself through jewelry, not only an economic regulation. Women’s use of finery was not limited if they were participating in a religious event, which would benefit the general public. Therefore, a display of too much wealth outside of religious activity would raise questions as to why the general public

119 Ibid. 120 Kelly Olson, Dress and the Roman Woman: Self-Presentation and Society (NY: Routledge, 2008), 80.

57 was heavily taxed while rich noble women were still ostentatiously displaying their wealth leading to a lack of social unity during wartime. As a contemporary of the Oppian Law, addresses the negative aspects of women with wealth, specifically in the Epidicus lines 223-235, “…where

Epidicus the slave remarks on the irony that women who go through the streets adorned with an estate’s value in clothing deny that they can pay their taxes.”121 By censuring displays of overt wealth, M. Oppius was stemming potential outrage of those who were being taxed more to cover public expenses.

The Oppian Law was in effect for twenty years until 195 BCE when M. Junius and T.

Junius, also plebian , declared that they would not allow the law to be repealed.122 In response, many noble men came to argue both for and against the Law’s repeal.123 Livy’s introduction to discussion indicates that the underlying problem surrounding the repeal is a class issue as well as a gender issue. The women primarily affected by the Oppian Law were of the noble class, and there was no reason for plebian leaders not to keep a restriction on nobility in place, at least until matrons began to take to the streets in protest. Livy describes these women completely breaking with traditional female roles, “Matronae nulla nec auctoritate nec verecundia nec imperio virorum contineri limine poterant, omnes vias urbis aditusque in forum obsidebant (The matrons were not able to be kept inside their homes by any authority or modesty or the commands of their husbands, they blockaded every road of the city and approach to the forum).”124 The matrons apparently did not trust that their opinions on the Oppian Law would be properly represented, even by their own husbands to whom, Livy tells us, they also told their concerns to.125 After the senators

121 Culham, 791. 122 Livy 34.1.3-4. “M. et P. Iunii Bruti tribuni plebi legem Oppiam tuebantur, nec eam se abrogari passuros aiebant;” 123 Ibid.,34.1.4. “ad suadendum dissuadendumque multi nobiles prodibant.” 124 Ibid., 34.1.5. 125 Ibid., 34.1.5.

58 made their arguments, the matrons, in even greater numbers than before, went to the two plebian tribunes who had stated they would not allow the repeal and again blocked the doors until the was withdrawn and the Oppian Law was repealed.126

Livy presents two speeches given in the senate about the Oppian Law, one for and one against the repeal. The first speech was given by who identifies these women as seeking freedom and asks his audience to consider what women might ask for next if they are awarded this victory.127 Cato’s speech clearly demonstrates that he prefers a more traditional time where women were under the constant and all-encompassing control of their guardian and sees the current problem as a symptom of this lapse in masculine control. He states:

Si in sua quisque nostrum matre familiae, , ius et maiestatem viri retinere instituisset, minus cum universis feminis negotii haberemus: 2nunc domi victa nostra impotentia muliebri hic quoque in foro obteritur et calcatur, et quia singulas sustinere non potuimus universas horremus.

If, Citizens, each of us had resolved to maintain the right and dignity as husbands to our wives, we would now have less of an issue with all of the women: Now our freedom, defeated at home by our womanish weakness, and because we have not been able to control them individually, we are now dreading them as a group.128

Cato specifically says that not only should the women not have come out to the forum, but that even discussing legal matters with their husbands in their own homes was outside the correct boundaries of pudor.129

126 Ibid., 34.8.1-3. “Haec cum contra legem proque lege dicta essent, aliquanto maior frequentia mulierum postero die sese in publicum effudit, 2unoque agmine omnes Brutorum ianuas obsederunt, qui collegarum rogationi intercedebant, nec ante abstiterunt quam remissa intercessio ab tribunis est. 3nulla deinde dubitatio fuit quin omnes tribus legem abrogarent. viginti annis post abrogata est quam lata.” 127 Ibid., 34.2.14. “nisi vos facietis, minimum hoc eorum est quae iniquo animo feminae sibi aut moribus aut legibus iniuncta patiuntur. omnium rerum libertatem, immo licentiam, si vere dicere volumus, desiderant. quid enim, si hoc expugnaverint, non temptabunt?” 128 Ibid., 34.2.1-2. 129 Ibid., 34.2.9-10. Cato presents his views as if he were speaking directly to the women he saw on his way throught the forum: qui hic mos est in publicum procurrendi et obsidendi vias et viros alienos appellandi? istud ipsum suos quaeque domi rogare non potuistis? 10an blandiores in publico quam in privato et alienis quam vestris estis?

59

Cato’s arguments are almost entirely about his belief that greed and a desire for material goods are causing the matrons to act as they do, which he sees as a sign of their corruption. Cato does state that extravagance is not only a fault in women but that it often plagues men as well.130

Nevertheless, his arguments are primarily against the matrons themselves, and in the second speech, L. Valerius directly states this, “qui tamen plura verba in castigandis matronis quam in rogatione nostra dissuadenda consumpsit… (The man, however, spent more words on the chastisement on women than on opposing our argument).”131 Valerius then takes it upon himself to defend the matrons and the repeal of the Oppian Law by reminding the senate that because the law was enacted with other austerity laws, the primary purpose of the law was not to limit female extravagance. Valerius admits that, had the law been enacted specifically to curb female excess,

Cato’s argument would have been valid, but since the times that required this austerity measure were over, there is nothing wrong with the matrons wanting its repeal.132

As Livy presents them, Cato and Valerius are different characters representing the two sides of what determines female morality. Cato- who Valerius even says has “…severissimis moribus.... (the strictest of morals…)”133- has a much more traditional idea of what a woman’s role is and, in the case the Lex Oppia repeal, the behavior of the matrons was deplorable. The good woman would never, should never, voice her opinion on government matters, even those that affect her. Cato’s position depicts women as needing to be controlled and corralled because the reasoning behind anything they say they want is misguided by their weak feminine minds. Valerius

quamquam ne domi quidem vos, si sui iuris finibus matronas contineret pudor, quae leges hic rogarentur abrogarenturve curare decuit.” 130 Ibid., 34.4.1. 131 Ibid., 34.5.3. 132 Ibid., 34.6.10. “nam si ista lex ideo lata esset ut finiret libidinem muliebrem, verendum foret ne abrogata incitaret: cur sit autem lata, ipsum indicabit tempus.” 133 Ibid., 34.6.2.

60 alternatively has a less conservative viewpoint. The women asking for this repeal are not seditious or mutinous, they just want a wartime measure to be repealed during peace time and asked for it in a public setting.134 It is not as if women did not or could not gather in large groups. Religious activity required such types of gatherings and the way that Livy presents the split of the plebian cult of

Pudicitia from the patrician cult is even reminiscent of a public debate where sides of two arguments were heard and a decision was made.

A major crux of Valerius’ argument against Cato is his use of Cato’s own which is a non-surviving work that chronicled the origins of Rome. Like Livy, Cato includes stories of how during conflicts the matrons were the group who gathered and took action to stop the current struggle.135 Valerius’ examples that range from the time of the Sabine Women to the Second Punic

War (218 – 201 BCE) establishing that women had been gathering since the beginning of Roman

134 Ibid., 34.5.5 “Coetum et seditionem et interdum secessionem muliebrem appellavit, quod matronae in publico vos rogassent ut legem in se latam per bellum temporibus duris in pace et florenti ac beata re publica abrogaretis.” 135 Ibid., 34.5.8-13. “Iam a principio, regnante Romulo, cum Capitolio ab Sabinis capto medio in foro signis conlatis dimicaretur, nonne intercursu matronarum inter acies duas proelium sedatum est? quid? regibus exactis cum Coriolano Marcio duce legiones Volscorum ad quintum lapidem posuissem, nonne id agmen quo obruta haec urbs essetmatronae averterunt? iam capta a Gallis quo redempta urbs est? nempe aurum matronae consensu omnium in publicum contulerunt. 10proximo bello, ne antiqua repetam, nonne et, cum pecunia fuit, viduarum pecuniae adiuverunt aerarium, et cum di quoque novi ad opem ferendam dubiis rebus accerserentur, matronae universae ad mare profectae sunt ad matrem Idaeam accipiendam? dissimiles, inquis, causae sunt. 11nec mihi causas aequare propositum est: nihil novi factum purgare satis est. 12ceterum quod in rebus ad omnes pariter viros feminas pertinentibus fecisse eas nemo miratus est, in causa proprie ad ipsas pertinente miramur fecisse? 13quid autem fecerunt? superbas, me dius fidius, aures habemus, si cum domini servorum non fastidiant preces, nos rogari ab honestis feminis indignamur! (Right in the beginning, in the reign of Romulus, when the Capitol had been captured by the Sabines and a pitched battle was being fought in the middle of the Forum, was not the fighting stopped by married women running between the two lines? Why, after the expulsion of the kings, when the legions of the Volsci, led by Marcius Coriolanus, had encamped at a point five miles from Rome, was it not the women who turned back the army by which this city would have been overwhelmed? When the city had been taken by the Gauls, by whom was it ransomed? The women, as we all know, with everybody’s consent, gathered together their gold for public use.19 In the most recent war—not to go back to ancient history—was it not the widows’ money that assisted the treasury when money was needed? And when new gods were also brought in to help us at a critical moment, did not all the married women go the sea to welcome the Idaean mother? Ah, you say, these cases are different. But it is not my intention to put the cases in the same category—showing that this is nothing new is a sufficient defense. Nobody was surprised at actions they took in matters pertinent to the whole population, to men and women alike, so are we surprised that they took action in an affair specifically pertaining to them? But what have they actually done? Considering that masters do not spurn the entreaties of slaves, then (my !) we have proud ears if we are indignant over requests made of us by respectable ladies!).” This translation is by J. C. Yardley from the Loeb edition.

61 history, not even for themselves, but for the sake of Rome herself. Valerius notes that Cato says the motive of the current matrons is different from the historical examples but counters with, “nec mihi causas aequare propositum est: nihil novi factum purgare satis est (it is not for me to set out the causes to be the same: It is enough for me to justify that nothing new has been done).”136 Cato is trying to convince his audience that the actions of the matrons portents a fundamental change in the traditional social order.

Valerius concludes his speech by directly addressing Cato’s main concern: that if the

Oppian law is repealed men will ultimately lose control over women. He states:

Scilicet, si legem Oppiam abrogaritis, non vestri arbitrii erit si quid eius vetare volueritis quod nunc lex vetat: minus filiae uxores sorores etiam quibusdam in manu erunt. nunquam salvis suis exuitur servitus muliebris, et ipsae libertatem quam viduitas et orbitas facit detestantur. in vestro arbitrio suum ornatum quam in legis malunt esse; et vos in manu et tutela, non in servitio debetis habere eas, et malle patres vos aut viros quam dominos dici. invidiosis nominibus utebatur modo consul, seditionem muliebrem et secessionem appellando. id enim periculum est ne Sacrum montem, sicut quondam irata plebs, aut Aventinum capiant! patiendum huic infirmitati est, quodcumque vos censueritis. quo plus potestis, eo moderatius imperio uti debetis.

Certainly, if you all repeal the Oppian law, then it will not be of your authority, if you suppose to prohibit anything of the law what the law now prohibits: therefore, for some of you, fewer daughters, wives and sisters will be in your control. Never can the servitude of women be stripped when their relatives are alive, and they themselves hate the freedom which is made by being a widow or an orphan. They prefer to be under your judgment rather than under the judgement of the laws; and you ought to have them in your control and protection, not in servitude, and you ought to choose to be called fathers or husbands more than masters. The consul used names in an invidious way, calling them seditious women and a succession. It is not a danger that they will seize the Sacred Mount, as the plebs made angry once did, or the Aventine! Whatever you decide, it must be endured here by the weaker women. By how much you are more powerful, you ought to use more moderation in your commands.137

136 Ibid., 34.5. 11-12. 137 Ibid., 34.7.11-15.

62

Valerius’ speech caters directly to the male anxiety about a loss of control as he reassures his peers that the women gathered in the forum only wish to have their voices heard and will honor any legal decision made. Clearly, Valerius does not have the same opinion on a woman’s potential as Turia’s husband did, and he certainly does not seek complete freedom for women or believe that they want it. Both Cato and Valerius state that there is some inherent weakness in a woman’s nature, but Cato professes that any freedom or, in this case, a return to the status quo of only twenty years prior, given to a woman would lead to a further immorality across all of Rome.

As discussed in chapter one, it is difficult to say Livy is a reliable author, especially as he provides direct speech for events he could not have attended and it is believed that Cato’s speech is mostly just Livy’s creation, colored with Cato’s historically attested views on avarice.138 But

Livy provides a third voice to this section as the narrator who continues his larger argument of tracing the moral history of Rome. Livy introduces book thirty-four by saying that during a serious political time where great wars were either just concluded or an imminent threat, a small affair (res parva) was made into a large issue.139 Even though the narrator states that the matters concerning the Oppian Law should have been a trivial event, Livy still devotes eight chapters to it. According to Livy, before the women dared (audebant) to approach and ask consuls and magistrates in public to repeal the Oppian Law, this case was simple and going to be vetoed by the two plebeian tribunes,

Marcus and Publius Brutus.140 After the speeches by Cato and Valerius, the narrator returns

138 Ibid., 34.1. LCL 295: 425. The second footnote on this page states that Cato’s speech is mostly agreed to be made up by Livy. For evidence of Cato’s views on avarice see, Cornelius Nepos’ Excerpt from the Book of Latin Historians. Cato. 24.2.3-4: At Cato, censor cum eodem Flacco factus, severe praefuit ei potestati; nam et in complures nobiles animadvertit et multas res novas in edictum addidit qua re luxuria reprimeretur, quae 4iam tum incipiebat pullulare (But Cato was chosen censor, once more with Flaccus184 b.c. as his colleague, and administered the office with severity; for he inflicted punishment upon several nobles, and added to his edict1 many new provisions for checking luxury, which even then was beginning to grow rank).” This translation is by J. C. Rolfe from the Loeb edition. 139 Livy 34.1.1-2. “Inter bellorum magnorum aut vixdum finitorum aut imminentium curas intercessit res parva dictu sed quae studiis in magnum certamen excesserit.” 140 Ibid., 34.1.4. “M. et P. Iunii Bruti tribuni plebi legem Oppiam tuebantur, nec eam se abrogari passuros aiebant;”

63 to tell his audience how the women gathered in great numbers to block Marcus and Publius Iunius

Brutus from leaving their house until they had allowed the Oppian Law to be repealed.141

The Oppian Law is a perfect case study for Livy to address feminine morality, especially as it intersects with the legal system and male ideas on what are acceptable methods for women who wish to express political opinions. For the most part, it is acceptable for a woman to discuss her opinions on legislation with her husband in private (even if Cato does feel that this is outside of the purview of moral women). According to the account, women felt strongly enough to stage a protest, to physically barricade politicians and not merely rely on their husbands to express their feelings. The Lex Oppia pertained specifically to women, which meant that men in the Roman world, even if their wives and daughters were continuously asking them about it, would ultimately only have a limited interest in it. For a noble woman, however, who had accepted the law during war times when it was necessary and even in the following years after the war, the plebian tribunes who were automatically not going to allow the repeal were continuing unnecessary restrictions when other austerity measures had been lifted.

The ability to adorn oneself was a crucial part of displaying identity and status in the ancient world, especially for a marginalized group such as women. The women who wanted the repeal were, admittedly, wealthy women and therefore potentially had more freedom than those in the lower classes, but their status also meant that they were more likely to have the ability to voice their opinions, increasing their personal power. In fact, it is perhaps because of their nobility that the women were not forced to leave the forum. Cato admits that had he not respected the

141 Ibid., 34.8.1-3. “Haec cum contra legem proque lege dicta essent, aliquanto maior frequentia mulierum postero die sese in publicum effudit, 2unoque agmine omnes Brutorum ianuas obsederunt, qui collegarum rogationi intercedebant, nec ante abstiterunt quam remissa intercessio ab tribunis est.”

64

“…maiestatis et pudoris… /…dignity and pudor…” of some of the women in the crowd and did not want to see them punished, he would have reprimanded them for their behavior.142 With their resistance to the Lex Oppia, these noble women gained temporary public power, but if they had been of a lower status or class, there would have been consequences for their actions. Valerius mentions ancient anecdotes, such as the Sabine Women running onto the battlefield to stop their husbands and fathers from fighting,143 where women acted for the benefit of the whole population and asks why anyone is surprised that they are lobbying for their own interests now.144 Clearly

Cato and Valerius represent two conflicting views on the boundaries that need to be placed on women so that they remain moral ideals, but it is necessary to distinguish from the masculine concept of female morality and the feminine concept. The women, many of whom Cato states are normally considered as moral ideals, still went to the forum to protest even though they had no official political voice. Not only did women have no official political voice, but they were in the forum, a traditionally masculine location.145

Almost two hundred years later there is another example of women fighting against laws that they do not agree with. In 42 BCE, , Octavian and Lepidus put forth a law that would have taxed fourteen hundred wealthy women to pay for a war and if any woman was found to have lied about the extent of her wealth, she would be fined. Not only would the woman be fined but the person who reported the truth would be rewarded whether they were a free or enslaved

142 Ibid., 34.2.8. “quod nisi me verecundia singularum magis maiestatis et pudoris quam universarum tenuisset, ne compellatae a consule viderentur…” 143Ibid., 34.5.5-13. 144 Ibid., 34.5.12-13. “ceterum quod in rebus ad omnes pariter viros feminas pertinentibus fecisse eas nemo miratus est, in causa proprie ad ipsas pertinente miramur fecisse?” The full section is 34.5.12-13. 145 For more information on women in the forum see Mary T. Boatwright, "Women and Gender in the Forum Romanum," Transactions of the American Philological Association (1974-) 141, no. 1 (Spring 2011).

65 person.146 Not only did this law target women who did not even have a say in the war, but it corrupted the hierarchy within a woman’s own household as well as in public spaces. Slaves would have had power over their mistresses as well as anyone with any knowledge of the woman in question’s holdings. Any power these women had most likely originated from their wealth and the triumvirate’s law would take their money and cast doubt on the loyalty of those who interacted with her.

The women who opposed this law organized themselves, even seeking out the female relatives of the triumvirs, two of whom joined the cause, and they chose from among their ranks someone who would address the triumvirate. Hortensia, the daughter of orator Quintus Hortentius, was selected and is the only woman known to have addressed lawmakers in such a way. Turia’s appeal to Marcus Lepidus, while significant as an example of a woman emboldened enough to even think herself capable of an appeal, was neither public nor a personal request. Valerius

Maximus writes about Hortensia and her success in convincing the triumvirs to change the law but he also states that had Hortensius’ sons become orators the eloquence of Hortensius would not have ended after the single action of a woman.147 Even though she can be praised for her speech,

Hortensia cannot continue the rhetorical tradition of her father because she is a woman.

Nevertheless, “speaking in the Forum at all was an amazing feat; turning the rhetorical strategies taught by Cicero and solely for male use into weapons for women’s rights makes

146 , The Civil Wars, 4. 32. “Καὶ τοῦτο ἐς τὸν δῆμον εἰπόντες προύγραφον χιλίας καὶ τετρακοσίας γυναῖκας, αἳ μάλιστα πλούτῳ διέφερον· καὶ αὐτὰς ἔδει, τὰ ὄντα τιμωμένας, ἐσφέρειν ἐς τὰς τοῦ πολέμου χρείας, ὅσον ἑκάστην οἱ τρεῖς δοκιμάσειαν. ἐπέκειτό τε ταῖς ἀποκρυψαμέναις τι τῶν ὄντων, ἢ τιμησαμέναις κακῶς ἐπιτίμια καὶ τοῖς ταῦτα μηνύουσιν ἐλευθέροις τε καὶ δούλοις μήνυτρα.” 147 Valerius Maximus 8.3.3: “si virilis sexus posteri vim sequi voluissent, Hortensianae eloquentiae tanta hereditas una feminae actione abscissa non esset.”

66

Hortensia one of the first recorded adapters of the available means of persuasion, even though those means were not supposed to be at her disposal.”148

Hortensia’s speech is retold by Appian in his work on Roman history.149 One tactic she uses is to remind the triumvirs that if noble women are stripped of their property they are stripped of everything that defines their station150 but that is only her opening remark intended to remind the triumvirs who will be affected by the tax. Her main argument is that because women had nothing to do with starting the war, nor did they receive honors or spoils from the war, they should not have anything to do with paying for it. Hortensia anticipates that the response would be that the tax is necessary because it is wartime and notes that wartime is a near-constant state for

Rome.151 The difference in this conflict is that it is a civil war, not a foreign one. Hortensia reminds the triumvirs that Roman women are not unwilling to contribute to war efforts as they did with the

Lex Oppia during the Second Punic War, but that they were not taxed on all of their property, rather private possessions that they felt they could part with.152 Hortensia continues by telling the triumvirs that, “ἐς δὲ ἐμφυλίους πολέμους μήτε ἐσενέγκαιμέν ποτε μήτε συμπράξαιμεν ὑμῖν κατ᾿

ἀλλήλων. οὐδὲ γὰρ ἐπὶ Καίσαρος ἢ Πομπηίου συνεφέρομεν, οὐδὲ Μάριος ἡμᾶς οὐδὲ Κίννας

ἠνάγκασεν οὐδὲ Σύλλας, ὁ τυραννήσας τῆς πατρίδος· ὑμεῖς δέ φατε καὶ καθίστασθαι τὴν πολιτείαν

(We won’t help you or join with you against one another. We didn’t help either Caesar or Pompey, nor did Marius or Cinna force us nor did who was a of the senate. You say that you

148 "Speech to the Triumvirs (42 B.C.E.)," in Available Means: An Anthology of Women's Rhetoric(s), ed. Joy Ritchie and Kate Ronald (University of Pittsburg Press, 2001), 16. 149 Appian, 4.32-33. 150Ibid., 4.32: “εἰ δὲ καὶ τὰ χρήματα προσαφέλοισθε, περιστήσετε ἐς ἀπρέπειαν ἀναξίαν γένους καὶ τρόπων καὶ φύσεως γυναικείας.” 151Appian 3.33. 152 Ibid. “…αἱ δὲ μητέρες ἡμῶν ὑπὲρ τὴν φύσιν ἐσήνεγκάν ποτε ἅπαξ, ὅτε ἐκινδυνεύετε περὶ τῇ ἀρχῇ πάσῃ καὶ περὶ αὐτῇ τῇ πόλει, Καρχηδονίων ἐνοχλούντων. καὶ τότε δὲ ἐσήνεγκαν ἑκοῦσαι, καὶ οὐκ ἀπὸ γῆς ἢ χωρίων ἢ προικὸς ἢ οἰκιῶν, ὧν χωρὶς ἀβίωτόν ἐστιν ἐλευθέραις, ἀλλὰ ἀπὸ μόνων τῶν οἴκοι κόσμων, οὐδὲ τούτων τιμωμένων οὐδὲ ὑπὸ μηνυταῖς ἢ κατηγόροις οὐδὲ πρὸς ἀνάγκην ἢ βίαν, ἀλλ᾿ ὅσον ἐβούλοντο αὐταί.”

67 are establishing citizenship.)”153 Hortensia presents a moral conflict because while giving such a speech is not the typical behavior for a woman, the triumvirs are not acting morally with this tax and are asking only women to contribute to injuring Rome. A loyal Roman matron would not ever act against Rome in such a way, nor did anyone ever ask them to. The only way to rectify this situation is to act outside the feminine sphere and address the triumvirs directly. Additionally,

Hortensia says in 4.32 that the war has taken away male relatives from many of the women so for many of them there was no man to ask to appeal on their behalf, leaving themselves as the only option if they sought justice. It also seems likely that the triumvirs felt more comfortable imposing this task because of fewer male guardians who might have held a share of their wife/daughter’s property.

Appian tells his readers that the men were not happy that they were being addressed by a woman or that she would make demands of them, but, when they tried to have the women sent away by , shouting from outside made the lictors stop. The triumvirs, wary of public opinion, then decided to deliberate on the tax until the next day. While they did not completely cancel the tax, the triumvirs did reduced the number of women required to submit their total holdings to four hundred and mandated that all men who had over a certain amount had to lend a fiftieth of their total holdings and donate what they made in a year to the war effort also with the same threat that anyone could inform on them should they misrepresent themselves.154 Four hundred women were not exempt from the tax, but Hortensia was able to convince the triumvirs, whether it was directly or through others who agreed with her and let their opinions be known, that the tax was unjust. In the traditional Roman gender roles, Hortensia would not have been allowed to speak in public as

153 Ibid. 154 Ibid., 4.34.

68 she did but with the support of her fellow women she was able to speak on behalf of her peers and make change.

The women in this chapter all were able to gain temporary power so that they could change some aspect of their environment in a way that benefitted them. That their power was not permanent is essential to their ability to maintain their status as moral examples of ideal women.

Valerius Maximus or Appian do not report that Hortensia tried to become an orator. When the

Sabine women stopped the fighting between their husbands and fathers, they did not let their temporary power build up their confidence and make further demands of their male guardians; everyone returned to their former social standing/gender roles. Valerius’ speech about the women opposing the Lex Oppia serves to illustrate what he sees as Cato’s excessive moral strictness, but ultimately, he still believes that the true nature of a woman is inferior to the nature of a man and that placating the women and repealing the law will have no negative impact on the male population. Through gaining temporary power, women were able to exert their influence onto their cause/religious activity but remain part of the moral ideal.

69

Conclusion:

Pudicitia both assisted and restricted women as they moved through Roman culture as marginalized figures. How traditional their male relatives were was severely limiting although that was not a permanent restriction. Once Seneca the Elder died, Helvia began studying philosophy more because he believed that women could not be trusted to use formal education wisely and justly. Seneca the Younger believed that his mother would benefit from learning more and encouraged her to. Helvia, however, was not publicly expressing her education and using it as

Hortensia did allowing her to keep her morality. Turia also was moral because Vespillo did not have strict ideas on what made a woman moral even though some of her actions were not fully within the female sphere.

Hortensia acted outside of the female sphere and while she, as well as her fellow dissenters, certainly saw her actions as right and just, neither of the Latin authors label her as having pudicitia because of it. There is the additional problem that Hortensia is not connected to a man besides her father, and that is mainly to remind the audience that her father was an orator as if to explain to readers why she was able to speak eloquently. A major part of why Hortensia succeeded was unfortunately not because of her speech, but because of the close female relatives of two of the triumvirs agreed with Hortensia. The triumvirs were sending the women away and only stopped the forceful removal to avoid a riot which allowed for them to go home to female relatives who did not agree with the tax. Hortensia’s speech is more impressive to a modern audience than it would have been to her audience because she was acting so far out of the female sphere. The organization of the women presented a united front of public opinion and allowed other women to

70 feel capable of speaking to their male relatives about the tax but there was a male automatic response against a woman speaking out in public as Hortensia did. Valerius Maximus wrote about

Hortensia with three other women who addressed government officials, and prefaced the section with, “Ne de iis quidem feminis tacendum est quas condicio naturae et verecundia stolae ut in foro et iudiciis tacerent cohibere non valuit (Rough translation: Certainly it (I?) shouldn’t be silent about those women for whom natural condition and virtue of the stola was not able to contain them so that they were silent in the forum and courts).”155 Hortensia’s speech is the result of un-womanly behavior according to Valerius Maximus even though she is successful.

The best example of the clash between female morality and immorality is best represented in Cato and Valerius because the two speeches are already in a debate format and the women involved are not named by Livy. Hortensia’s actions are her own but despite the images of women flooding the forum and barricading houses that the Lex Oppia chapters conjure, no one woman is accountable for organizing the protest. Even Cato with his traditionalist ideas notes that he saw virtuous women in the forum that day despite that he felt their actions were immoral. The women protesting the Lex Oppia were acting in a unified group but without a named leader the power of the group was diversified and therefore less threatening than a speaker with a crowd behind her that could be provoked into more mob-like behavior. Livy presents a collective opposing the Lex

Oppia just as he did with women from the first five books of his Histories which does not allow for a single individual control the movement.

Female power and ambition are worrisome to the Roman patriarchy which is demonstrated within the surviving literature. Moral restrictions could control women, but when a woman worked

155 Valerius Maximus 8.3. praef.

71 within the confines of pudicitia they had more freedom not only because they were trusted as already moral individuals, but because through that morality they were loyal to their family and their male relatives. As long as women functioned properly within the female sphere they could be considered moral members of Roman society.

72

Bibliography Appian. Roman History, Volume IV: The Civil Wars, Books 3.27-5. Translated by White. Loeb Classical Library 5. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1913. Boatwright, Mary T. "Women and Gender in the Forum Romanum." Transactions of the American Philological Association (1974-) 141, no. 1 (Spring 2011): 105-41. doi:http://www.jstor.org/stable/41289737. Cicero. In Catilinam 1-4. Pro Murena. Pro Sulla. Pro Flacco. Translated by C. Macdonald. Loeb Classical Library 324. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1976. On the Republic. On the Laws. Translated by Clinton W. Keyes. Loeb Classical Library 213. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1928. Cornelius Nepos. On Great Generals. On Historians. Translated by J. C. Rolfe. Loeb Classical Library 467. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1929. Culham, Phyllis. "The Lex Oppia." Latomus, 4th ser., 41, no. Fasc (1982): 786-93. http://www.jstor.org/stable/41532685. Dingel, Joachim. "L. Annaeus S. Politician and Stoic Philosopher, 1st Cent." Brill's New Pauly.http://dx.doi.org.resources.library.brandeis.edu/10.1163/1574-9347_bnp_e1108480. Glare, P. G.W., ed. Oxford Latin Dictionary. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 1982. Herodotus. The Persian Wars, Volume I: Books 1-2. Translated by A. D. Godley. Loeb Classical Library 117. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1920. Langlands, Rebecca. Sexual Morality in Ancient Rome. New York: Cambridge Univ. Press, 2006. Latin Inscriptions: Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum (E. H. Warmington, Trans.). (1940). Retrieved from http://www.attalus.org/docs/cil/epitaph.html. Linderski, Jerzy, and Helmuth Schneider. "Penates (Di Penates)." Brill's New Pauly.Edited by Hubert Cancik. Livy. History of Rome, Volume I: Books 1-2. Translated by B. O. Foster. Loeb Classical Library 114. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1919. History of Rome, Volume III: Books 5-7. Translated by B. O. Foster. Loeb Classical Library 172. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1924.

73

History of Rome, Volume II: Books 3-4. Translated by B. O. Foster. Loeb Classical Library 133. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1922. History of Rome, Volume IV: Books 8-10. Translated by B. O. Foster. Loeb Classical Library 191. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1926. History of Rome, Volume IX: Books 31–34. Edited and translated by J. C. Yardley. Introduction by Dexter Hoyos. Loeb Classical Library 295. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2017. Ogilvie, R. M. A Commentary on Livy: Books 1-5. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1965. Olson, Kelly. Dress and the Roman Woman: Self-Presentation and Society. NY: Routledge, 2008. Osgood, Josiah. Turia: A Roman Woman's Civil War. New York: Oxford University Press, 2014. Pliny. Natural History, Volume II: Books 3-7. Translated by H. Rackham. Loeb Classical Library 352. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1942. Seneca. Moral Essays, Volume II: De Consolatione ad Marciam. De Vita Beata. De Otio. De Tranquillitate Animi. De Brevitate Vitae. De Consolatione ad Polybium. De Consolatione ad Helviam. Translated by John W. Basore. Loeb Classical Library 254. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1932. "Speech to the Triumvirs (42 B.C.E.)." In Available Means: An Anthology of Women's Rhetoric(s), edited by Joy Ritchie and Kate Ronald, 16-19. University of Pittsburg Press, 2001. Valerius Maximus. Memorable Doings and Sayings, Volume II: Books 6-9. Edited and translated by D. R. Shackleton Bailey. Loeb Classical Library 493. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2000.

74