From Good Goddess to Vestal Virgins: Sex and Category in Roman Religion (13 page)

guishing status among men. The
toga virilis,
for example, the plain white
toga,
was worn by all males after they had officially attained adult status.
35
The
toga praetexta,
with the broad purple border along the bottom edge, was worn by magistrates (Wilson 1938:37). While the
toga
thus was a marker of political status, the tunic dis- played social status as well. A purple stripe ran down each shoulder of the tunic. By its width the wearer
’
s
ordo
could be determined. A broad stripe, the
latus clavus,
proclaimed a man of senatorial rank, while a narrower stripe was worn by members of the
equites
.
36
Can- didates for public office wore a brilliant white
toga
—
the
togacandida

—
without the tunic underneath.
37
But a Roman male
’
s dress was not restricted to the
toga
. A man
’
s dress was almost as varied as his duties and obligations as a citizen. As a soldier he would adopt a distinct form of attire which varied according to his military rank (Wilson 1938:100
et seq.
). On assumption of priestly duties he sometimes had to dress, or, as in the case of the
Luperci,
undress appropriately.
38
In fact the
Luperci
are an excellent example of the varied duties and responsibilities that went with being a male mem- ber of the Roman elite, and how easily and unselfconsciously a man could move between them. In 44 BC for instance, Mark Antony was consul as well as
Lupercus
. Surely there could not have been more startling a contrast between the dignified
toga
-draped consul and the naked
Lupercus,
running the length of the
via sacra,
lashing the outstretched hands of women with a goatskin thong. Yet the incon- gruity of the contrast is a modern perception. The ancient writers appear to see nothing remarkable about it. It is never commented upon. It was natural and necessary that men adopt different social roles each marked by a different form of dress.

A man
’
s status was established in various ways, political, social and religious, and this fact was reflected in the variety of his dress. A woman
’
s status was established only by the nature of her sexual rela- tionship to a man, and this also was displayed by her dress. A mar- ried woman
’
s only acceptable dress was the
stola,
a longer, fuller version of the tunic she wore before her marriage, and the
palla,
a cloak, which covered her head and upper body and was worn over the
stola
in public. The
stola
defined the
matrona: Matronas appellabant eas fere, quibus stolas habendi ius erat
—‘
Those who wear the
stola
are called
matronae
’
.
39
In public all that was visible of a
matrona
were her face and her hands. The
palla
covered her head and arms and the
stola
reached down to her instep.
40
The bottom edge of the
stola
consisted of a wide band called the
instita
. It

appears that this was an indispensable feature of the
stola,
and served to distinguish it from other variations of the tunic, and hence its wearer as a
matrona
.
41
Although by the time of Augustus, matrons could appear in public with head uncovered, in the early Republic it seems to have been regarded as a sign of great impropri- ety.
42
Valerius Maximus tells the story of a Sulpicius Gallus who, as late as the second century BC, divorced his wife for just such an offence, claiming that a woman
’
s beauty was meant for her husband
’
s eyes alone.
43
The idea that a woman
’
s body should be covered up is also contained in a passage by Gellius, which says that it was effeminate for the sleeves of a man
’
s tunic to reach to his wrists. Long and full-flowing garments should be worn only by women because they needed to hide their arms and legs from sight.
44
It is an interesting observation that although in the course of seven centuries the man made radical changes to the shape of tunic and
toga,
the woman
’
s
palla
retained its original shape, and there was little change in her
stola
. Her desire for variety had to be satisfied by differences in texture, colour and decoration (Wilson 1938:15). Dif- ferences in wealth and social status could be displayed by the orna- mentation and elegance of the basic
stola
and
palla
. Cato, according to Livy, regarded such a desire in a woman to show off her wealth and standing as a dangerous form of vanity, which should be put down by law.
45

Roman dress, therefore, was used to display status between men, as well as the ideological gulf between the male and female domains. This gulf was widened by a negative restriction: a
matrona
could not under any circumstances wear a
toga
. Conversely the
stola
was the
matrona
’
s dress exclusively. Neither virgins nor prostitutes wore the
stola
. Prostitutes were explicitly forbidden it.
46
But a prostitute could wear the
toga
. In fact if the masculine form of the adjective,
togatus,
denoted a male Roman citizen, the feminine form,
togata,
denoted a prostitute.
47
By historical times, the
stola
had visually iso- lated the
matrona
from all other sexual categories. Of the two ritu- ally important female categories,
matrona
and
meretrix,
it was the
matrona
that was held at a strict ritual distance. She was the
‘
other
’
, the outsider that needed to be confined and contained within a domain that must never overlap the male
’
s. The domain of the
mere- trix
was not held at a ritual distance. The boundary between male and female was not quite so stark when the female belonged to the category of prostitute.

The contrasted relationship to men of
matrona
and prostitute,

respectively, that the vestimentary code reveals, is a dominant theme in Rome
’
s foundation myths as well as in some of her rituals. The
matrona
played a pivotal role in the myths concerned with the beginnings of the new state and the later political shift from monar- chy to republic. The story of the abduction of the Sabine women and the story of the rape of Lucretia are of particular interest here. It is important that this whole nexus of tales about the beginnings of Rome, the birth of Romulus and Remus, the founding of the city, the aetiological tales of ancient cults, the story of the Sabine women, the exploits of Romulus, Numa and the other kings, the stories of Lucretia and Virginia and so forth, should be regarded as a body of meaningfully related discourse, rather than as separate and idiosyn- cratic stories. They are most usefully approached as motifs in a constantly shifting pattern of perception, as part of the raw material from which Rome created and recreated her self image.

This is my approach to the myth of the Sabine women. I treat it not as an isolated story, but as belonging to the same mythological continuum that contained the myths that I have been discussing thus far. The
matrona
that was so conspicuously absent from the story of Romulus
’
birth is here made the basis for the continued existence of his newly founded state. Romulus and his men might have built the city, but the Sabine women were indispensable for its prosperous continuation.
48

Livy puts the problem succinctly:

Rome was now strong enough to hold her own in war with any of the adjacent states; but owing to the want of women a single generation was likely to see the end of her greatness, since she had neither prospect of posterity at home nor the right of intermarriage
(conubium)
with her neighbours.

(Livy, 1.9.14)

Romulus, who had tried and failed to obtain this vital right of inter- marriage, finally tricked his neighbours into parting with their daughters. He invited them to a celebration of the feast of the
Con- sualia
and when their attention was diverted by the festivities, his men snatched the young unmarried girls away from their families.
49
The next morning, the story continues, Romulus explained to the frightened women that it was their parents
’
arrogant refusal to grant the Romans the right of intermarriage that had caused them to resort to such tactics, and he promised them that his men intended

honourable marriage. The women would, he said,
‘
become partners in all the possessions of the Romans, in their citizenship and, dearest privilege of all to the human race, in their children
’
.
50

While the women were adapting to their roles as Roman wives and mothers, their outraged families were preparing war against Rome. Of these the biggest threat were the Sabines, the richest and most powerful of the neighbouring peoples. Neither side could gain the upper hand in the war that followed, and the casualties were mounting, when the Sabine women with great courage threw them- selves between the battle lines, pleading with their husbands and fathers to desist.

If you regret the relationship that unites you, if you regret the marriage tie, turn your anger against us; we are the cause of war, the cause of wounds and even death to both our hus- bands and our parents. It will be better for us to perish than to live, lacking either of you, as widows or as orphans.

(Livy, 1.13.3)
51

The men were moved by the plea.
‘
A stillness fell on them, and a sud- den hush. Then the leaders came forward to make a truce, and not only did they agree on peace, but they made one people out of the two.
’
52

The
matrona
and the legal marriage
—
iustae nuptiae
or
iustum matrimonium
—
which gave her that special status were both acknowledged Roman creations. The story of the abduction of the Sabine women has as its basis this belief. It was the abduction of the Sabine women that created
iustum matrimonium,
which in turn resulted in two fundamental Roman institutions: the female cate- gory of
matrona,
and the form of legal paternity,
patria potestas
.
Iustum matrimonium
was by no means the only form of marriage in Rome. Roman marriage was a complex institution.
53
From a mod- ern perspective it appears to have been remarkably unstructured. There was no civil marriage in Rome as we know it, nor did there exist any notion of sanctity associated with the marital bond. Legally all that was necessary for a marriage to be valid was the intention of the man and the woman
—
maritalis affectio
. As John Crook puts it,
‘
if you lived together
“
as
”
man and wife, man and wife you were
’
.
54
Marriages were often entered into with great cer- emony and much celebration, but none of this was legally necessary for the marriage to be valid.
55
Nevertheless the consequences of

marriage varied, depending on which form of marriage the couple had entered into. And which form a man and a woman could enter into depended largely on whether or not they possessed
conubium,
the legal capacity to contract
iustum matrimonium
.
56

Conubium
was the cornerstone of Roman marriage. It was a pre- requisite of
iustum matrimonium
.
57
Theoretically in
iustum matri- monium
children acquired the legal and social status of their father; in every other form of marriage they acquired the status of their mother. The father had legal authority
—
patria potestas
—
over his children only if they were born in
iustum matrimonium
. In other words, unless the child was born in
iustum matrimonium
he or she did not technically belong to the father
’
s agnatic family.
58
Although all forms of marriage were valid and the notion of illegitimacy as we understand it did not exist, different forms of marriage conferred different rights and obligations on the child. From a purely religious perspective, a child not born of
iustum matrimonium,
and therefore not subject to
patria potestas,
would have no place in the family cult of his father
’
s family and no right to intestate succession. Therefore for a man to possess offspring that legally
‘
belonged
’
to him, he had to have
conubium
with the woman he married.
59

Conubium, iustum matrimonium
and
patria potestas
were inter- related concepts. The wife in
iustum matrimonium
was a
matrona
. Thus only by a
matrona
could a male Roman citizen acquire a child over whom he could exercise
patria potestas
. Children born of a mother who was not a
matrona
were not subject to the
patria potes- tas
of their father, and were not members of his agnatic family, regardless of whether or not that father was a Roman citizen. They derived their status from their mother. Several conclusions might be drawn from this. Roman ideology recognized and legitimated the
‘
natural
’
or biological bond between mother and child. While I would hesitate to go so far as to say that it denied the biological bond between father and child, the natural maternal bond clearly superseded in importance the natural paternal bond.
60
Without
ius- tum matrimonium
all children would derive their status from their mother. Legally, however, they were
sui iuris
and had no agnatic kin; their relationships were all traced through their mother. This was in fact the situation which logically obtained before the abduc- tion of the Sabine women and the invention of
iustum matrimo- nium
. The effect of
iustum matrimonium
was the creation of a factitious paternity, a legal bond between father and child, which not only superseded the biological bond between them but more