From Good Goddess to Vestal Virgins: Sex and Category in Roman Religion (31 page)

1. For various accounts of Rhea Silvia
   ’
   s punishment, see Livy, 1.4.3; Dion. Hal.,
   Ant. Rom.,
   79.1
   –
   3.
   

2. For example, the moment of Romulus
   ’
   conception and the moment of his apotheosis were both marked by a total eclipse of the sun, Dion. Hal.,
   Ant. Rom.,
   2.56.6.
   

3. The others, Numitor, the grandfather, Amulius, the wicked uncle, Faustulus the shepherd, all feature in the episode where the twins, now grown up, come to claim their birthright. Their mother is conspicuously absent.
   

17 Ov.,
Fast.,
2.413
et seq.;
Prop., 4.1.55
–
56; Dion. Hal.,
Ant.

Rom.,
1.79.6.

18 A complementary tradition has it that the twins were nourished by both a woodpecker and a wolf. The woodpecker was also believed to be sacred to Mars. See Ov.,
Fast.,
3.37
–
38; Plut.,
Quaest. Rom.,
22. For the value placed on breast feeding see Gell.,
N.A.,
12.1; Tac.,
Dial.,
28.

19 Livy, 1.4.7; Dion. Hal.,
Ant. Rom.,
1.84.

20 See Ov.,
Fast.,
3.55
–
58; Plut.,
Quaest. Rom.,
34; Aug.,
de Civ. D.,
6.7; Macrob.,
Sat.,
1.10. 11
–
17; Gell.,
N.A.,
7.7.5
et seq.

21 Cic.,
ad Brut.
1.15.8.

22 Gell.,
N.A.,
7.7.5.

23
Ibid.

24 Macr.,
Sat.,
1.10.11
–
17.

1. Plut.,
   Rom.,
   4
   –
   5; see also
   ibid., Quaest. Rom.,
   35.
   

2. Gell.,
   N.A.,
   7.7.5
   et seq.
   See also Dion. Hal.,
   Ant. Rom.,
   1.87.3.; Pliny,
   H.N.
   18.2.6. Note however that Acca Larentia receives no mention in the Acta of the
   fratri Arvales
   . Also the
   fratri
   do not appear to have participated in the Larentalia. See Scheid 1990:590
   et seq.
   

3. Varro,
   Ling.,
   6.23
   –
   24. See also Plut.,
   Quaest. Rom.,
   34.
   

4. Actually it may not even have been as formal as this implies. Cornelia, mother of the Gracchi (
   ap.
   Nepos, frg. 1) uses the term in a way that could just as well suggest an informal prayer offered up to the
   manes
   of an ancestor.
   

5. See Scullard 1981:74
   –
   76.
   

6. Ov.,
   Fast.,
   2.533
   et seq.
   

31 Gell.,
N.A.,
7.7.1.

32 She does not fit, for example, into any of the categories that, according to Cicero, were eligible to be offered cult. See Cic.,
Leg.,
2.8.19.

33 Cic.,
Phil.,
5.14; Pliny,
H.N.
9.80.170; Suet.,
Iul.,
47
–
48; Val.

Max., 2.2.2; for an invaluable description of all aspects of Roman clothing, see Wilson 1938.

1. Cic.,
   Rab. Post.,
   9; Livy, 29.19.12; Suet.,
   Tib.,
   13. Exiles for- feited the right to wear the toga. See Pliny,
   Ep.,
   4.11.
   

2. See pp. 88
   et seq.
   

3. Wilson 1938:60
   –
   65; see also Garnsey and Saller 1987:116
   –
   117.
   

4. Plut.,
   Quaest. Rom.,
   49.
   

5. The Salii, for example, wore the
   tunica picta
   with a bronze breast plate over it. See Livy, 1.20.4. For the Luperci, see Ov.,
   Fast.,
   2.267
   et seq.
   

6. Festus, p. 125 L.
   

7. Hor.,
   Sat.,
   1.2.94
   –
   95;
   ibid.,
   99. The evidence for the dress of the
   matrona
   has recently been examined in Scholz 1992. See
   ibid.,
   140
   –
   146 for a convenient compilation of the literary references.
   

41 Hor.,
Sat.,
1.2.29; Ov.,
Ars Am.,
1.31
–
32.

42 Wilson 1938:150
–
153. Wilson points out that on the
ara pacis
some matrons have their heads veiled while others are bare headed.

43 Val. Max., 6.3.10.

44 Gell.,
N.A.,
6.12.

45 Livy, 34.4.14
et seq.

46 See Ov.,
Fast.,
4.134.

1. See Hor.,
   Sat.,
   1.2.63. For the fact that the
   toga
   was the recog- nized badge of the courtesan see Juv., 2.68; Cic.,
   Phil.,
   2.18.44.
   

2. Narrative details can be found in Livy, 1.9
   –
   13; Dion. Hal.,
   Ant. Rom.,
   2.30
   –
   46; Plut.,
   Rom.,
   14
   –
   19.
   

3. Plutarch makes the point that the women were all unmarried, except for one who was kidnapped by mistake; proof, he says, that the women were not kidnapped wantonly but for the pur- pose of lawful marriage, Plut.,
   Rom.,
   14.6; see also Dion. Hal.,
   Ant. Rom.,
   2.30.5
   –
   6.
   

50 Livy, 1.9.14.

51 See also Ov.,
Fast.,
3.215
et seq.

52 Livy, 1.13.3.

1. See Treggiari 1991b for a comprehensive analysis of the legal and social implications of marriage. My discussion will merely serve to support my analysis of the myth.
   

2. Crook 1967a:101. See also Treggiari 1991a:31
   –
   33; Corbett 1930:92.
   

3. See Corbett 1930:68
   et seq.
   

4. See Treggiari 1991b: ch. 2,
   passim
   .
   

5. Corbett 1930:24
   et seq.;
   Watson 1967:27; Treggiari 1991b:43
   

   et seq.
   

6. Watson 1967:77
   et seq.;
   Gardner 1986a:137
   et seq.
   The agnatic relationship was created by statute (legitima cognatio) and was traced through the male line. See G. III. 9.
   

7. ‘
   The most important effect of a valid marriage was that any chil- dren would be in the
   potestas
   of the husband or of his
   paterfamil- ias
   if he had one, and be members of his father
   ’
   s gens
   ’
   , Watson 1975:31.
   ‘
   A man must marry in order to have legitimate off- spring
   —
   sui heredes
   —
   to continue his estate and his cult, and to provide the worship necessary to the peace of the spirit that sur- vived his death
   ’
   , Corbett 1930:107.
   

8. See Dixon 1988: esp. 45.
   

9. It is worth noting also, that in the event of a divorce the children of the marriage belonged to their father. Their mother had no legal rights over them. See Treggiari 1991b:467. See generally Thomas 1992.
   

10. Thomas 1992:90. My parentheses. 63 Livy, 1.13.5.
    

1. The relative frequency of
   cum manu
   and
   sine manu
   marriages is still a matter for debate. Corbett argues that
   sine manu
   marriage was recognized at Rome as early as the XII Tables and was
   

   common practice in the third and second centuries BC; Corbett 1930:90
   et seq.
   Watson believes that the
   cum manu
   form was very common until just before the time of Cicero. Watson 1967:19
   et seq.
   See also
   ibid.,
   1975:9
   et seq.; ibid.,
   1992:52; Crook 1967:103; Treggiari 1991b:32. Marriage according to the ancient ceremony of
   confarreatio
   was marriage
   cum manu,
   and the rules for appointing the
   flamen Dialis,
   for example, which required that he be married by
   confarreatio
   is further evi- dence for marriage
   cum manu
   at a late date, though it was prob- ably extremely rare.
   

2. Gardner 1986a:83. For a brief overview of the legal conse- quences to a woman of a
   cum manu
   marriage, see Treggiari 1991b:28
   et seq.
   

3. Treggiari 1991b:443; see also Saller 1984.
   

4. Plut.,
   Cat. Min.,
   25.
   

5. This power of the
   paterfamilias
   extended to sons as well. Gard- ner 1986a:11; Treggiari 1991a:34.
   

6. In Dionysius of Halicarnassus
   ’
   version of the story, the interven- tion of the Sabine women in the conflict of their father and husbands is much less dramatic than in Livy. Here the wives are sent
   —
   at their own request
   —
   as ambassadors to their fathers
   ’
   camp. The result, of course, was the mingling of the two nations into one. Dion. Hal.,
   Ant. Rom.,
   2.45. What this incident in the story of the Sabine women
   —
   the prototype for Roman marriage
   

   —
   illustrates is the perceived mediatory function of the wife. She was seen as constituting a bridge between two families or even of two powerful men. This is demonstrable in the marriages of, for example, Julia to Pompey, or Octavia to Mark Antony.
   

7. Treggiari 1991a:33.
   

8. See Treggiari 1991a:41
   et seq.
   

9. Treggiari 1991b:473
   et seq.
   

10. See Hopkins 1983:86
    et seq.
    

11. Treggiari 1991b:33
    et seq.
    

12. Corbier argues, quite rightly, that the Roman ideal of marriage was of a lasting, continuous union. Corbier 1991:49
    –
    50. See also Treggiari 1991b:40
    et seq.
    The nostalgia for a time in which divorce did not take place is inherent in the story of Sp. Carvilius Ruga, who was the first, according to tradition, to divorce his wife. It is interesting that the ancient writers give a date for the event. The dates vary widely. Dionysius of Halicarnassus and Gellius give 231 BC, while Valerius Maximus sets it as early as
    

    640 BC. Dion. Hal.,
    Ant. Rom.,
    2.25.7; Gell.,
    N.A.,
    17.21.44;
    

    Val. Max., 2.1.4. But the establishment of a date serves to mark off
    ‘
    the good old days
    ’
    before divorce.
    

13. Watson 1965, reprinted in Watson 1991.
    

14. Plut.,
    Rom.,
    22.3. See Treggiari 1991b:441 and 459.
    

15. Val. Max., 2.9.2. See Treggiari 1991b:442.
    

16. See M.Humbert 1972. John Crook argues in an unpublished paper,
    ‘
    Ancient Doublethink
    ’
    , that the Roman attitude towards divorce was paradoxical and that it would be misleading to try to resolve the paradox. Divorce did not bring dishonour to either partner in a marriage; yet women who had been married just once were particularly highly regarded, and life-long mar- riages idealized. Both of these were features of Roman attitudes towards marriage and divorce. My thanks to Professor Crook for allowing me to use the paper.
    

17. Festus, p. 82 L. Similarly a woman married more than once could not act as
    pronuba
    at a wedding. Festus, p. 283 L.
    

18. For the qualifications of potential Vestals, see pp. 138
    et seq.
    

82 Tac.,
Ann.,
2.86.

1. See Treggiari 1991b:498
   –
   499 for legendary and historical examples and the approval with which
   univirae
   are represented.
   

2. See Humbert,
   op. cit.,
   pp. 42
   et seq.
   

3. See Corbier 1991.
   

4. See Hopkins 1983:237.
   

5. Treggiari 1991b:381 and 391; cf. Corbier 1991:53
   –
   54. Women who had become
   sui iuris
   either through the death of their
   pater- familias,
   or through emancipation, could dispose of their prop- erty as they wished, although technically they were subject to the supervision of a
   tutor,
   whose permission was required for any financial transaction. The tutor was usually appointed in the will of the
   paterfamilias
   . It has been pointed out that one rea- son for the
   tutor,
   who was most commonly a male member of the woman
   ’
   s agnatic family, was to protect her family
   ’
   s interest in her property. However, it appears that as early as 186 BC, women were given the right to choose their own
   tutor,
   or even subsequently to change him, thus giving a woman almost com- plete freedom in the management of her financial affairs. See Hopkins 1983:91.
   

6. Watson believes that Livy
   ’
   s account of Lucretia
   ’
   s death accu- rately mirrored the legal realities of her situation. Watson 1975:35 and 167. Dionysius of Halicarnassus
   ’
   account differs in
   

   detail but leads to the same conclusion. Dion. Hal.,
   Ant. Rom.,
   

   4.66
   et seq.
   My analysis relies on Livy
   ’
   s account. Livy, 1.57
   et seq.
   See also Ov.,
   Fast.,
   2.784
   et seq.
   

7. Livy, 1.57.10. My emphasis.
   

8. Livy, 1.58.5. My emphasis.
   

9. Treggiari 1991b:265
   et seq.
   

10. See Treggiari 1991b:279; cf. Donaldson 1982:23.
    

11. See the discussion in Donaldson 1982:21
    et seq.
    See also Bryson 1986.
    

94 Livy, 1.58.10.

95 Ov.,
Fast.,
1.617
et seq.

96 Livy, 2.40.11
–
12.

97 For a comprehensive account, see Le Bonniec 1958. 98 Verg.,
Aen.,
7.387
–
388.

99 Ov.,
Fast.,
2.557
–
560.

100 Prop., 4.11.33.

1. Festus, p. 77 L.
   

2. Treggiari 1991b:54.
   

3. Gardner 1986a:47. Note that co-habitation by itself was not enough to constitute a valid marriage.
   

4. Humbert 1972:5
   et seq.
   

105 Catull., 61.76
–
78;
ibid.,
91
–
95;
ibid.,
117
–
119.