Transcript quinta claudia (204 bc)

QUINTA CLAUDIA (204 BC) AND BEYOND
1. Before commenting on what the stories involving prominent legendary women
may tell us, we should finish our survey by returning to QUINTA CLAUDIA
in 204 BC (well within the ‘historical period’ which can certainly be said to have begun by
300 BC).
2. a) The main event in which she was involved was most definitely authentic
historically.
b) Whether Quinta Claudia was ‘real’ remains a little in doubt.
3. Let us explore.
QUINTA CLAUDIA
• During the crisis of Roman defeats during the Second War with Carthage (against
Hannibal), because of various prodigies such as a shower of meteors, a failed harvest,
and increasing famine, the oracular declarations in the ‘Sibylline Books’ were consulted.
• They recommended that, as the best solution, the cult of Cybele (“the Great Mother”)
should be imported from Asia and included in the religion of the Roman state.
• This involved the black meteoric stone (which was a manifestation of the goddess) being
brought to Rome all the way from Asia Minor [modern Turkey].
• But when the cult object was almost there and was being conveyed up the River Tiber,
the barge carrying it went aground on a sandbank.
• This is when QUINTA CLAUDIA, a “castissima femina” (“a most virtuous woman”)
who had been chosen (along with the most distinguished man in the state) - perhaps
because she was one of the two senior a Vestal Virgins - to greet the goddess, prayed to
the goddess and received her help to drag the barge single-handed to its planned
destination using her long hair as a rope.
• This miracle demonstrated not only Quinta Claudia’s purity [gossips had said she was
unchaste] but also the goddess’ willingness to become Rome’s protector.
• In addition to this mid-16th
century depiction by Lambert
Lombard, QUINTA CLAUDIA
also appeared on a coin of 41 BC
minted by the moneyer
Gaius Clodius Vestalis who
(presumably) claimed her as an
ancestor – the first historical
woman to appear on a coin of
the Roman state (assuming she was real)
CLAUDIA QUINTA
and the grounded barge
in 204 BC
Lambert Lombard
(ca 1505 – 1566)
A DENARIUS OF THE
MONEYER GAIUS
CLODIUS VESTALIS
41 BC
WITH THE HEAD
OF FLORA AND THE
VESTAL VIRGIN
CLAUDIA QUINTA
OF 204 BC
(SEATED)
THE FIRST HISTORICAL WOMAN
TO APPEAR [but much later] ON A ROMAN COIN
THE MONEYER
SEEMS TO CLAIM
CLAUDIA
AS AN ANCESTOR.
[“CLODIUS” WAS AN
ALTERNATIVE SPELLING
FOR “CLAUDIUS”]
THE LEGENDARY WOMEN: WHAT DO THEIR STORIES SHOW?
[Nothing has been said about the six VESTAL VIRGINS whose role will command attention when touching on
the “modesty” [pudicitia] (including chastity on the part of the unmarried) expected of female Roman citizens]
And so we have (with the legendary women)
1. Daring Intervention leading to Peace for the Roman State
Hersilia (Romulus’ wife); the Sabine Women; Cloelia; Veturia and Volumnia
2. Death for the Sake of Honour (bringing Political Change in the State)
Lucretia (suicide); Verginia (death at her father’s hand)
3. Treachery to the State
Tarpeia
4. King-Making by a “Foreign” Woman
Tanaquil
5. Voluntary Aid to the State in Difficulty Situations
The Women of Rome (during the Gallic Occupation of 390 BC)
Quinta Claudia (at a moment of Religious Embarrassment in 204 BC)
WHAT THE LEGENDS REVEAL
The main issues which the legends raise are:
a) how Roman men expected their women-folk to conduct themselves in public;
b) what the relationship should be between a woman and her father on the one hand
and a woman and her husband on the other; and
c) what ‘honour’ required.
While there are very occasional incidents under the late “Republic” and beyond
(let’s say after 100 BC) when individual women
i) intervene in the public arena and bring about some sort of political change, ….
ii) there is little that equates to the role attributed to a legendary Hersilia, to the
legendary Sabine Women, to a legendary Cloelia, or the legendary Veturia
and Volumnia.
NOW the Romans attributed the success of the state’s growth and Rome’s acquisition of an
empire
a) to the favour of the gods, yes, but as much
b) to the moral excellence not only of its citizens generally but of its leaders in particular.
And so the legendary women, when they intervene and display uncharacteristic ‘masculine’
courage, are, in essence, doing little more than reminding their menfolk in the historical
period of the male citizen’s duty to his country.
YET the stories of Hersilia, the Sabine Women, Cloelia, and Veturia and Volumnia do
express a vote of confidence in Rome’s women too.
TARPEIA
a) The story of Tarpeia, on the other hand (although an isolated case) represents the other
side of the coin – the woman who can be untrustworthy and fickle if the accepted
standards are set aside or allowed to slip.
b) Tarpeia brazenly and of her own volition negotiated with the enemy and
betrayed not only her country but also her father, who was in command of the
citadel.
c) Had she not been killed by the Sabine troops, one wonders what ‘family honour’
would have required of her father. …………
d) She in no sense (even if her acts were motivated [in the alternative version] by her
passion for the Sabine king Titus Tatius) reflects
i) the modesty,
ii) the obedience to father and husband, and
iii) the quiet domesticity expected of wives and daughters (at least among the
upper classes).
These expectations must have trickled down the social hierarchy, for we find them
very clearly enunciated on the tombstone of an otherwise unknown Claudia (date
unclear) [who seems to come from a lower social stratum]:
“Stranger I have but little to say.
Stand and read.
This is the ugly tomb of a fair woman.
Her parents gave her the name ‘Claudia’.
She loved her husband.
She bore two sons: one she has left on earth, the other she
has placed beneath it.
Her talk was charming and her walk was graceful.
She kept the house, and she worked the wool.
That is all.”
LUCRETIA and VERGINIA
This brings us to Lucretia and Verginia.
a) LUCRETIA is the model for the ideal wife.
b) She is found, sitting with her maids, at her loom, and immediately offers dinner
to her husband and his guests when they arrive from their military duties.
c) The threat of death later at the hands of Sextus Tarquinius does not move her, but
his threat that, if she does not yield, he will kill both her and a male slave and put
the slave beside her body does.
d) It will mean dishonour - but dishonour purely for herself or principally
dishonour for her father and husband?
I suspect that the ‘moral’ of the story reflects more of the latter than of the former.
a) VERGINIA’s story is more disturbing (at least for the modern reader).
b) Must such a price, the murder of an innocent girl by her father, be paid to
preserve chastity and honour?
[Where do modern ‘honour killings’ fit in here?]
c) Verginia’s story allows her no say in her future.
d) The purpose the story serves would seem to be twofold:
i) It stresses the right of freeborn citizens to be protected from
sexual abuse – even if it means death;
and
ii) it reminds all and sundry of the power (including the power of life and death)
of the pater familias (family head) over the other members of the family.
•
•
•
.
This power of the family head (the pater familias) over the members of his
household (familia) - over sons as well as daughters (unless, upon marriage, the
daughters had been transferred to the manus [authority] of their husbands by the form of
marriage which seems to have been the prevalent one until about 200 BC) was in
theory absolute.
But before turning to our first TRULY historical woman - CORNELIA, mother
of the Gracchi - we should look
a) at the different forms of marriage,
b) at where “authority” lay in family structures, and
c) at the positon of women within the Roman state.
FORMS OF MARRIAGE AND POWER RELATIONSHIPS WITHIN THE FAMILY
In the “Middle Republic” (ca 264 – 146 BC) and the “Late Republic” (ca 146 – 30 BC),
there were FOUR different forms of marriage:
a) confarreatio
b) coemptio
c) usus
and
d) “free marriage”.
2. The position of women within the family was greatly affected by patria
potestas and by the type of marriage they experienced.
3. The position of women within the Roman state depended heavily on their status –
principally whether or not they were citizens.
1.
[In all instances, we know very little about the “ordinary” citizens; the principal evidence almost
always tells us about the relationships that prevailed within the elite strata of society (the
“senatorial order” and the “equestrian order” [the lower stratum of the elite below the
“senatorial”])].
FORMS OF MARRIAGE
A. CONFARREATIO
1. A rare form of marriage limited to “patricians”.
[Within the 300-strong “senatorial order” perhaps 50 families at the most were
“patrician” – 15 % or so]
2.
It involved a complex wedding ceremony which had to be presided over by
the Flamen Dialis [“Priest of Jupiter”] or the Pontifex Maximus [“Chief
Priest of the State Religion”] with 10 witnesses present.
3. Clearly only a few families would, in practice, use this form.
[A bit like the Archbishop of Canterbury or the Pope having to be present!]
4.
5.
The woman left the manus (“legal guardianship”) of her father and passed
immediately into the manus of her husband.
Divorce was difficult under this form of marriage and involved very
complicated procedures.
B. COEMPTIO
1. A more common form of marriage.
2. The word implies “purchase” but the husband paid only a token price
(equivalent to a ‘peppercorn’?) for the bride.
3. It involved a non-religious wedding ceremony with 5 official witnesses present.
4. As with confarreatio [above], the woman passed from the manus of her father to
the manus (“guardianship”) of her husband.
5. Divorce (which could be initiated by either party) was straightforward - a
simple announcement by the parties concerned; the only complication was the
status of the dowry [see below].
Depiction of a Roman marriage
The man seems to be holding the
marriage contract but it isn’t clear which
form of Roman marriage is being shown.
C. USUS
1. A rarer form of marriage which seems to have died out by the end of the first
century BC.
2. It did not require any sort of ceremony - only the agreement of the two
families that the man and woman should live together, which they must do for
one year for the marriage to be legally valid.
3. The woman could pass from the manus (“guardianship”) of her father to that of
her husband.
4. BUT there was a loophole: the woman could escape passing into the manus
(“guardianship”) of her husband if she was absent from her husband’s home for
three consecutive nights each year.
If she did this, she remained in the manus of her father.
5. Divorce was straightforward but (again) the dowry would be affected.
D. “FREE MARRIAGE”
1. This type of ‘marriage’ was just an agreement to live together, but was not
legally recognized.
2. By it the woman remained in the manus of her father.
3. Provided both parties had the right of “intermarriage” [conubium], enjoyed
by all citizens, the children of the “marriage” were recognized as legitimate.
The type of marriage, often not known, will become of interest in our course when
we consider the lives of named women (almost all from the upper classes).
How they were married would affect the form of manus (guardianship) to which
they were subject.