The Complete Idiot's Guide to the Roman Empire (21 page)

Chapter 8
 
Rome, Rome on the Range: Romans at Home

• The Romans' self-image
  
• Roman family structure and the
  pater familias
  
• Education
  
• Women and slaves of the household
  
• Roman household gods
  

We've covered a lot of Roman history, from villagers on the Tibur to masters of the Mediterranean. But who were the Romans, how did they see themselves, and how did others see them? In this chapter, we'll take a general look at the Roman family. We'll examine the internal framework of the Romans' self-image and the structure of the
familia,
upon which Roman social and political organization grew.

In short, the Romans saw themselves as hard-working, hard-fighting, salt-of-the-earth small farmers; a practical, disciplined, and pious people of old-time religion who had little use for the vagaries of philosophy, the fineries of luxury, or the uncertainty of instability. Even as Roman culture evolved, the Romans retained at the core of their identity a heartland picture of themselves, a kind of “American Gothic” with a sword.

Romans, even the patricians (the noble class) of the senate, began as farmers. Consequently, land ownership and the self-reliance it brought were core Roman values. Even as industry and commercial activity grew and flourished, the intrinsic value of land possession remained at the heart of what it meant to be Roman. Senators, for example, were excluded from commerce and restricted to earning a living from their land holdings. This exclusion essentially created the class of equites (men who belonged to the upper property classes but were not senators) although senators did find ways to exploit these other resources.

The Romans were proud of being citizen-soldiers, and they had to do a lot of fighting. Today, when professional militaries are the norm, it's hard to imagine civilians being on call to fight. Imagine receiving a group e-mail to pick up your sword, abandon your cubicle, assemble in the conference room, and march off to meet an invasion of another company who wants to take over the cafeteria! Romans prized the picture of themselves as tough, resolute, and ready warriors. Even as campaigns grew longer and farther from home, the minuteman ideal of Cincinnatus, the dictator who was called from his plow to save the state and who went right back to it after winning the victory, remained an icon.

In keeping with the farmer-soldier ideal, the Romans prized the discipline, practical bent, and devotion to duty necessary to work a constant battle with the land. The self-sufficiency, stern nature, unflagging persistence, and resolute ability to soldier on even after catastrophe were all fundamental elements of Rome's self-image and national ideal.

Romans were generally conservative and suspicious of innovation and new-fangled ideas. When things went bad, they were quick to react against whatever was perceived as “un-Roman.” The pursuit of theory and abstract ideas was hindered by the monumental
mos maiorum
(ancestral custom, traditional values, or “the way we've always done it”) dragging behind as heavily as a sea anchor. The
mos maiorum
had brought them this far; if there were problems, it was probably because too many Romans had taken to soft beds, foreign religions, Greek philosophy, or some other gobbledygook. One thing was certain, however: the
mos maiorum
was never wrong.

Romans worthy of respect within their community had to have both
dignitas
(an honorable reputation) and
auctoritas
(the power to direct others based on prestige). To attain them, they had to possess
virtus. Virtus
was composed of a set of values and traits that a true man (
vir
) ought to possess. He had to have the proper respect and loyalty to divine, communal, and paternal authority, which Romans called
pietas
.

He had to be true to his word and to his pledges, that is, to have
fides
. His bearing had to show
gravitas
, which meant that he was grounded, realistic, and solid, unmoved by emotion, personal desires, or disaster. Finally, his actions had to show
constantia
, which meant that no matter what, you just kept going as long as it was right to go.

The distinction between public and private life was less clear for the ancient Romans than it is for us. Today, we live mostly as individuals who have both a direct relationship to a state as citizens and a sharply demarcated personal realm over which we have discretion and control. Romans were primarily members of extended groups to whom they were expected to give complete loyalty and proper obedience. These groups exercised nearly complete control over an individual's identity, status, and private occupations.

 
Great Caesar's Ghost!
As you can probably tell from the Latin words, many of the traits that the Romans admired are still with us today: dignity, authority, virtue, virility, piety, fidelity, gravity, and constancy.

First and , Romans belonged to a family (
familia
) under the authority of the family head, or
pater familias.
The family included more than blood relations: It included slaves, freedmen, all household members, and property—the entire extended family and household system. In early Rome, several generations might live, work, and eat together on the farm. Later, as Roman society grew larger and more complex, relatives would move into their own households but remain connected under the authority of the
pater familias
as if they were still under one roof.

Traditionally, related families made up a
gens
(clan). In early times, these clans were self-governing within their own clan territory under the authority of a clan leader.
Gentes
cooperated together to form the state (
civitas
), and the clan leaders were probably the ones who elected the first kings. The importance of the
gens
waned by the early Republic.

In none of these groupings did a person exist individually in the same way that we do today. Romans emphasized the submission of the individual to the group and to the recognition of the group head's absolute authority and
potestas
(power), whether it be the
pater familias
of the family, the
patres
(patricians) of the senate, or the magistrates who exercised the power of command (
imperium
) for the
patria,
or homeland.

Have you noticed the repetition of “patr” or “pater” in the terms for authoritarian figures or the state? There's a reason for that: Roman social and political order was based on the ancient paradigm of the
pater familias,
the male patriarch or head of the household in its broad sense.

 
Great Caesar's Ghost!
Some names for Roman members of the household:

• Pater:
  father
  ; mater:
  mother
  
• Parens:
  parent
  
• Adulescens:
  young man
  ; virgo:
  young woman
  
• Infans:
  infant, baby
  
• Senex:
  elderly man;
  matrona:
  mature (and married) woman
  
• Filius:
  son
  ; filia:
  daughter
  
• Puer:
  boy;
  puella:
  girl
  
• Servus:
  male slave
  ; serva:
  female slave
  
• Vir:
  husband
  ; uxor:
  wife
  
• Coccus:
  cook
  ; ancilla:
  maid
  

All members of the
familia,
regardless of age or where they lived, were subject to his
patria potestas,
or paternal power. The
pater
was judge, jury, priest, and autocrat. He could punish, execute, or otherwise dispose of any person or material belonging to his
familia
at his judgment and discretion. Other members or property brought in by marriage, adoption, purchase, or conquest were also under his
potestas.
He was the only individual in the entire extended structure of the
familia
who had what we would call an individual and independent status before law and the state.

 
Veto!
The
pater familias
'
s
power was absolute but within a cultural context. A
pater
was responsible for the welfare of the entire family, including its standing with the gods. He was expected to consult and cooperate with important family members, including the
mater familias
(usually his wife). Nevertheless, final choices and the power to act remained his.

Romans were ingrained with respect and reverence for the
pater,
and Roman parents saw instilling it in their sons as one of their most important tasks. These sensibilities, which had their roots directly in the Roman
familia,
left a visible imprint on Roman society, culture, and history as a whole. As Rome grew, analogous patterns of authority were replicated outward, to relationships between clients (
clientes
) and patrons (
patroni
), populus and magistrates, soldiers and commanders, and Rome and other “client” states. When Cicero and Augustus were given the title
pater patriae
(father of the state) in the late Republic, it was much more than a window-dressing platitude.

Early education took place in the home and depended largely upon class. In general, children were taught whatever their parents thought appropriate until about the age of seven. At that point, girls went with the women and boys accompanied their fathers to learn to work, fight, and live as a Roman citizen. At 15, the boy put on his
toga virilis
(the toga of a man) with great fanfare and was deemed a young adult.

 
When in Rome
A
client
was a person of inferior standing who entered into a relationship with a
patron,
a person of superior standing. Patron and client were bound to support and protect each other's interests and to look out for each other.

Aristocratic families furthered their sons' education for preparation for military and civic service and advancement. They sent their sons to live with and learn the ropes from important friends, who further trained and educated them. Young men began to serve in the military at about age 17. There they worked their way up the ranks under the guidance of commanders. Once they reached an age and suitable character, men, under the training and care of old friends of the family, began their political careers and public life.

As Rome grew, and particularly when it conquered Greece, the aristocratic education expanded upon the Roman model. In addition to the ways in which Roman men learned and apprenticed, noble Romans adopted elements of Greek culture and education. Those who could afford them bought Greek slaves as tutors to educate their children. Other Romans sent their children to schools that had been set up by enterprising Greeks. Most of this education was in Greek language and literature, but by the second century, there were schools in Latin as well. As they progressed, young Romans might study rhetoric and philosophy under a teacher at Rome or even be sent to study with the famous philosophers and rhetoricians in one of the schools at Athens. All this study was intended to give him the means to speak and to conduct himself as an effective Roman man in politics and public affairs.

 
Great Caesar's Ghost!
If you read on a funerary monument or in a traditional story that a woman “tended to her wool,” you are reading that she was the very role model of a proper Roman woman. Spinning wool and weaving were the quintessential woman's work of Roman ideals. “Taking hostages” was the equivalent for men.

It's difficult to know much about the actual lives of Roman women until later in Rome's history—that is, after about the third century
B
.
C
.
E
. The Roman woman was, like all members of the
familia,
under the jurisdiction of her
pater familias
unless he transferred her “into the hand” of her husband in a form of marriage called
conventio in manum.
If he did, her husband had the same kind of
potestas
over her as her
pater familias
did before.

Women were expected to be the nurturing and binding element in the Roman family, as hard working and serious in their roles as the men, and as devoted to the good of the whole. They were, however, always cast in the supportive role compared to men at whatever level they were or in whatever activity they were engaged.

 
Great Caesar's Ghost!
The power, wealth, and personal independence of upper-class Roman women brought on both fascination and condemnation from social critics in the late Republic. There are interesting parallels between the cultural debates of their time and our own regarding the effect of allowing women to have education, personal freedom, and power.