| By Author | [ A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z | Other Symbols ] |
| By Title | [ A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z | Other Symbols ] |
| By Language |
|
Download this book: [ ASCII | HTML | PDF ] Look for this book on Amazon Tweet |
Title: The Private Life of the Romans
Author: Johnston, Harold Whetstone
Language: English
As this book started as an ASCII text book there are no pictures available.
*** Start of this LibraryBlog Digital Book "The Private Life of the Romans" ***
THE PRIVATE LIFE OF THE ROMANS
BY HAROLD WHETSTONE JOHNSTON
PROFESSOR OF LATIN IN THE INDIANA UNIVERSITY
CHICAGO
SCOTT, FORESMAN AND COMPANY
1909
BY THE SAME AUTHOR (_Scott, Foresman and Company_)
SELECTED ORATIONS AND LETTERS OF CICERO
LATIN MANUSCRIPTS
THE METRICAL LICENSES OF VERGIL
COPYRIGHT, 1903, BY SCOTT, FORESMAN AND COMPANY
ROBT. O. LAW CO., PRINTERS AND BINDERS, CHICAGO.
TYPOGRAPHY BY MARSH, AITKEN & CURTIS COMPANY, CHICAGO.
_CHARLES S. RANNELLS_
_MEMOR_
_ACTAE NON ALIO REGE PUERTIAE_
_AMORIS CAUSA_
_D D D_
PREFACE
In preparing this book I have had in mind the needs of three classes
of students.
It is intended in the first place for seniors in high schools and
freshmen in colleges, and is meant to give such an account of the
Private Life of the Romans in the later Republic and earlier Empire as
will enable them to understand the countless references to it in the
Latin texts which they read in the class-room. It is hoped that the
book contains all that they will need for this purpose and nothing
that is beyond their comprehension.
It is intended in the second place for more advanced college students
who may be taking lectures on the subjects of which it treats. The
work of both teacher and student will be made less irksome and more
effective if the student is aided in the taking of notes by even so
general a knowledge of the subject (previously announced to the class)
as is here given. This I know from actual experience with my own
classes.
In the third place it is intended for readers and students of Roman
history, who are engaged chiefly with important political and
constitutional questions, and often feel the need of a simple and
compact description of domestic life, to give more reality to the
shadowy forms whose public careers they are following. Such students
will find the Index especially useful.
The book is written as far as possible in English: that is, no great
knowledge of Latin is presumed on the part of the reader. I have tried
not to crowd the text with Latin words, even when they are immediately
explained, and those given will usually be found worth remembering.
Quotations from Latin authors are very few, and the references to
their works, fewer still, are made to well-known passages only.
To every chapter are prefixed references to the standard secondary
authorities in English and German. Primary sources are not indicated:
they would be above the heads of the less advanced students, and to
the more advanced the lecturer will prefer to indicate the sources on
which his views are based. It is certain, however, that all these
sources are indicated in the authorities named, and the teacher
himself may occasionally find the references helpful.
The illustrations are numerous and are intended to illustrate. Many
others are referred to in the text, which limited space kept me from
using, and I hope that Schreiber's Atlas, at least, if not
Baumeister's Denkmaeler, may be within the reach of students in
class-room or library.
It goes without saying that there must be many errors in a book like
this, although I have done my best to make it accurate. When these
errors are due to relaxed attention or to ignorance, I shall be
grateful to the person who will point them out. When they are due to
mistaken judgment, the teacher will find in the references, I hope,
sufficient authorities to convince his pupils that he is right and I
am wrong.
H. W. JOHNSTON.
THE INDIANA UNIVERSITY,
February, 1903.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION.--Scope of the Book §1; Public and Private
Antiquities §2; Antiquities and History §4; Antiquities and
Philology §6; Sources §9; Reference Books §13; Systematic
Treatises §14; Encyclopedic Works §15; Other Books §16
I. THE FAMILY.--The Household §17; The Splitting Up of a House
§19; Other Meanings of _Familia_ §21; _Agnātī_ and
_Cognātī_ §23; _Adfīnēs_ §26; The Family Cult §27; Adoption
§30; The _Patria Potestās_ §31; Limitations §32; Extinction
of the _Potestās_ §34; _Manus_ §35; _Dominica Potestās_ §37
II. THE NAME.--The Triple Name §38; The _Praenōmen_ §41; The
_Nōmen_ §46; The _Cognōmen_ §48; Additional Names §51;
Confusion of Names §55; Names of Women §57; Names of Slaves
§58; Names of Freedmen §59; Naturalized Citizens §60
III. MARRIAGE AND THE POSITION OF WOMEN.--Early Forms of Marriage
§61; _Iūs Cōnūbiī_ §64; _Nūptiae Iūstae_ §67; Betrothals
§70; The Dowry §72; Essential Forms §73; The Wedding Day
§75; The Wedding Garments §76; The Ceremony §79; The
Wedding Feast §85; The Bridal Procession §86; The Position
of Women §90
IV. CHILDREN AND EDUCATION.--Legal Status §94; _Susceptiō_ §95;
_Diēs Lūstricus_ §97; The _Bulla_ §99; Nurses §100;
Playthings §102; Pets and Games §103; Home Training §104;
Schools §108; Subjects Taught in Elementary Schools §110;
Grammar Schools §112; Schools of Rhetoric §115; Travel
§116; Apprenticeship §117; Remarks on the Schools §119; The
Teacher §121; Schooldays and Holidays §122; The
_Paedagōgus_ §123; Discipline §124; End of Childhood §125;
The _Līberalia_ §127
V. DEPENDENTS: SLAVES AND CLIENTS. HOSPITES.--Growth of Slavery
§129; Numbers of Slaves §131; Sources of Supply §134; Sales
of Slaves §139; Prices of Slaves §140; Public and Private
Slaves §141; Private Slaves §142; Industrial Employment
§143; The _Familia Rūstica_ §145; Farm Slaves §146; The
_Vīlīcus_ §148; The _Familia Urbāna_ §149; Legal Status of
Slaves §156; The Treatment of Slaves §158; Food and Dress
§160; The _Pecūlium_ §162; Punishments §166; Manumission
§175; The Clients §176; The Old Clients §177; Mutual
Obligations §179; The New Clients §181; Duties and Rewards
§182; The _Hospitēs_ §183; _Hospitium_ §184; Obligations of
_Hospitium_ §185
VI. THE HOUSE AND ITS FURNITURE.--_Domus_ §186; The Development
of the House §188; The _Vestibulum_ §194; The _Ōstium_
§195; The _Ātrium_ §196; The Change in the _Ātrium_ §197;
The _Ālae_ §200; The _Tablīnum_ §201; The Peristyle §202;
Private Rooms §203; The House of Pansa §208; The Walls
§210; _Pariēs Caementīcius_ §211; Wall Facings §212; Floors
and Ceilings §213; Roofs §214; The Doors §215; The Windows
§217; Heating §218; Water Supply §219; Decoration §220;
Furniture §222; Principal Articles §223; The Couches §224;
The Chairs §225; Tables §227; The Lamps §228; Chests and
Cabinets §230; Other Articles §232; The Street §233
VII. DRESS AND PERSONAL ORNAMENTS.--_Indūtus_: The _Subligaculum_
§235; The Tunic §236; _Amictus_: The _Toga_ §240; Form and
Arrangement §241; Kinds of Togas §246; The _Lacerna_ §247;
The _Paenula_ §248; Other Wraps §249; Footgear: The
_Soleae_ §250; The _Calceī_ §251; Coverings for the Head
§252; The Hair and Beard §253; Jewelry §255; Dress of Women
§257; The _Tunica Interior_ §258; The _Stola_ §259; The
_Palla_ §261; Shoes and Slippers §262; Dressing of the Hair
§263; Accessories §266; Jewelry §267; Dress of the Children
and Slaves §268; Materials §269; Colors §270; Manufacture
§271
VIII. FOOD AND MEALS.--Natural Conditions §272; Fruits §274;
Garden Produce §275; Meats §277; Fowl and Game §279; Fish
§280; Cereals §282; Preparation of the Grain §283;
Breadmaking §287; The Olive §289; Olive Oil §291; Grapes
§293; Viticulture §294; Vineyards §295; Wine Making §296;
Beverages §298; Style of Living §299; Hours for Meals §301;
Breakfast and Luncheon §302; The Formal Meal §303; The
Dining Couch §304; Places of Honor §305; Other Furniture
§307; Courses §308; Bills of Fare §309; Serving the Dinner
§310; The _Comissātiō_ §312; The Banquets of the Rich §315
IX. AMUSEMENTS; BATHS.--General §316; Sports of the Campus §317;
Games of Ball §318; Games of Chance §319; Knuckle-bones
§320; Dice §321; Public and Private Games §322; Dramatic
Performances §323; Staging the Play §324; The Early Theater
§325; The Later Theater §326; Roman Circuses §328; Plan of
the Circus §330; The Arena §332; The Barriers §333; The
_Spīna_ and _Mētae_ §335; The Seats §337; Furnishing the
Races §339; The Teams §340; The Drivers §341; Famous
_Aurīgae_ §342; Other Shows of the Circus §343;
Gladiatorial Combats §344; Popularity of the Combats §346;
Sources of Supply §347; Schools for Gladiators §349; Places
of Exhibition §351; Amphitheaters at Rome §352; The
Amphitheater at Pompeii §353; The Coliseum §356; Styles of
Fighting §359; Weapons and Armor §360; Announcement of the
Shows §361; The Fight Itself §362; The Rewards §363; Other
Shows in the Amphitheater §364; The Daily Bath §365;
Essentials for the Bath §366; Heating the Bath §368; The
_Caldārium_ §369; The _Frīgidārium_ and _Ūnctōrium_ §370; A
Private Bathhouse §371; The Public Baths §372; Management
§373; Hours Opened §374; Accommodations for Women §375;
_Thermae_ §376; Baths of Diocletian §378
X. TRAVEL AND CORRESPONDENCE. BOOKS.--In General §379; By Water
§380; By Land §381; The Vehicles §382; Carriages §383; The
_Rēda_ and _Cisium_ §384; The Roads §385; Construction
§387; The Inns §388; Speed §389; Sending Letters §390;
Writing the Letters §391; Sealing and Opening the Letters
§392; Books §393; Manufacture of Paper §394; Pens and Ink
§395; Making the Roll §396; Size of the Rolls §398;
Multiplication of Books §399; Commercial Publication §400;
Rapidity and Cost of Publication §401; Libraries §402
XI. SOURCES OF INCOME AND MEANS OF LIVING. THE ROMAN'S DAY.--In
General §403; Careers of the Nobles §404; Agriculture §405;
Political Office §406; The Law §407; The Army §408; Careers
of the Equites §409; The Soldiers §410; The Proletariate
§411; Professions and Trades §412; Business and Commerce
§413; The Civil Service §414; The Roman's Day §415; Hours
of the Day §417
XII. BURIAL-PLACES AND FUNERAL CEREMONIES.--Importance of Burial
§419; Interment and Cremation §420; Places of Burial §421;
The Tombs §422; The Potter's Field §423; Plan of Tombs and
Grounds §425; Exterior of the Tombs §427; The _Columbāria_
§428; Burial Societies §430; Funeral Ceremonies §432; At
the House §433; The Funeral Procession §434; The Funeral
Oration §435; At the Tomb §436; After Ceremonies §437;
Memorial Festivals §438
THE PRIVATE LIFE OF THE ROMANS
INTRODUCTION
§1. The topics that are discussed in this book have to do with the
everyday life of the Roman people. Such things will be considered as
the family, the Roman name, marriage and the position of women,
children and education, slaves, clients, the house and its furniture,
clothing, food and meals, amusements, travel and correspondence,
funeral ceremonies and burial customs, etc. These things are of
interest to us in the case of any ancient or foreign people; in the
case of the Romans they are of especial importance, because they help
to explain the powerful influence which that nation exerted over the
old world, and make it easier to understand why that influence is
still felt in some degree to-day.
§2. Public and Private Antiquities.--The subjects that have been named
above belong to what is called Classical Antiquities, taking their
place in the subdivision of Roman Antiquities as opposed to Greek
Antiquities. They are grouped loosely together as Private Antiquities
in opposition to what we call Public Antiquities. Under the latter
head we consider the Roman as a citizen, and we examine the several
classes of citizens, their obligations and their privileges; we study
the form of their government, its officers and machinery, its
legislative, judicial, and executive procedure, its revenues and
expenditures, etc. It is evident that no hard and fast line can be
drawn between the two branches of the subject: they cross each other
at every turn. One scarcely knows, for example, under which head to
put the religion of the Romans or their games in the circus.
§3. In the same way, the daily employment of a slave, his keep, his
punishments, his rewards, are properly considered under the head of
Private Antiquities. But the state undertook sometimes to regulate by
law the number of slaves that a master might have, the state regulated
the manumission of the slave and gave him certain rights as a
freedman, and these matters belong to Public Antiquities. So, too, a
man might or might not be eligible to certain state offices according
to the particular ceremony used at the marriage of his parents. It
will be found, therefore, that the study of Private Antiquities can
not be completely separated from its complement, though in this book
the dividing line will be crossed as seldom as possible.[1]
[Footnote 1: Students in secondary schools will find useful for
preliminary reading the outline of the Roman Constitution in the
Introduction to the author's "Selected Orations and Letters of
Cicero." For more advanced students three books have lately appeared
on this subject: Abbott's "Roman Political Institutions," Granrud's
"Roman Constitutional History," and Greenidge's "Roman Public Life."]
§4. Antiquities and History.--It is just as impossible to draw the
boundary line between the subjects of Antiquities and History. The
older history, it is true, concerned itself little with the private
life of the people, almost solely with the rise and fall of dynasties.
It told us of kings and generals, of the wars they waged, the
victories they won, and the conquests they made. Then, in course of
time, institutions took the place of dynasties and parties the place
of heroes, and history traced the growth of great political ideas:
such masterpieces as Thirlwall's and Grote's histories of Greece are
largely constitutional histories. But changes in international
relations affect the private life of a people as surely, if not as
speedily, as they affect the machinery of government. You can not
bring into contact, friendly or unfriendly, two different
civilizations without a change in the peoples concerned, without
altering their occupations, their ways of living, their very ideas of
life and its purposes. These changes react in turn upon the temper and
character of a people, they affect its capacity for self-government
and the government of others, and in the course of time they bring
about the movements of which even the older history took notice. Hence
our recent histories give more and more space to the life of the
common people, to the very matters, that is, that were mentioned in
the first paragraph as belonging to Private Antiquities. This may be
seen in such titles as these: Green's "History of the English People,"
McMaster's "History of the People of the United States."
§5. On the other hand it is equally true that a knowledge of political
history is necessary for the study of Private Antiquities. We shall
find the Romans giving up certain ways of living and habits of
thinking that seemed to have become fixed and characteristic. These
changes we could not explain at all, if political history did not
inform us that just before they took place the Romans had come into
contact with the widely different ideas and opposing civilizations of
other nations. The most important event of this sort was the
introduction of Greek culture after the Punic wars, and to this we
shall have to refer again and again. It follows from all this that
students who have had even the most elementary course in Roman history
have already some knowledge of Private Antiquities, and that those who
have not studied the history of Rome at all will find very helpful the
reading of even the briefest of our school histories.
§6. Antiquities and Philology.--The subject of Classical Antiquities
has always been regarded as a branch--"discipline" is the technical
word--of Classical Philology since Friedrich August Wolf (1759-1824)
made Philology a science. It is quite true that in the common
acceptation of the word Philology is merely the science of language,
but even here Antiquities has an important part to play. It is
impossible to read understandingly an ode of Horace or an oration of
Cicero, if one is ignorant of the social life and the political
institutions of Rome. But Classical Philology is much more than the
science of understanding and interpreting the classical languages. It
claims for itself the investigation of Greek and Roman life in all its
aspects, social, intellectual, and political, so far as it has become
known to us from the surviving literary, epigraphic, and monumental
records. Whitney puts it thus: Philology deals with human speech and
with all that speech discloses as to the nature and history of man. If
it is hard to remember these definitions one can hardly forget the
epigram of Benoist: Philology is the geology of the intellectual
world. Under this, the only scientific conception of Philology, the
study of Antiquities takes at once a higher place. It becomes the end
with linguistics the means, and this is the true relation between
them.
§7. But it happens that the study of the languages in which the
records of classical antiquity are preserved must first occupy the
investigator, and that the study of language as mere language, its
origin, its growth, its decay, is in itself very interesting and
profitable. It happens, moreover, that the languages of Greece and
Rome can not be studied apart from literatures of singular richness,
beauty, and power, and the study of literature has always been one of
the most attractive and absorbing to cultivated men. It is not hard to
understand, therefore, why the study of Antiquities has not been more
prominent in connection with philological training. It was the end to
which only the few pressed on. It was reserved, at least in systematic
form, for the trained scholar in the university. In the congested
condition of the old curricula in our colleges it was crowded out by
the more obvious, but not more essential or interesting, subjects of
linguistics and literary criticism, or it was presented at best in the
form of scrappy notes on the authors read in the classroom or in the
dismembered alphabetical arrangement of a dictionary.
§8. Within the last few years, however, a change has been taking
place, a change due to several causes. In the first place, the
literary criticism which was once taught exclusively in connection
with classical authors and which claimed so large a part of the time
allotted to classical study has found a more appropriate place in the
departments of English that were hardly known a generation ago. In the
second place, the superior preparation in the classics now demanded
for admission to our colleges has relieved their courses of much
elementary linguistic drill that was formerly necessary. In the third
place, the last half century has seen a greater advance in the
knowledge of Antiquities than all the years before, and it is now
possible to present in positive dogmatic form much that was recently
mere guesswork and speculation. Finally, modern theories of education,
which have narrowed the stream of classical instruction only to deepen
its channel and quicken its current, have caused more stress to be
laid upon the points of contact between the ancient and the modern
world. The teacher of the classics has come to realize that the
obligations of the present to the past are not to be so clearly
presented and so vividly appreciated in connection with the formal
study of art and literature as in the investigation of the great
social, political, and religious problems which throughout all the
ages have engaged the thought of cultivated men.
§9. Sources.--It has been already remarked (§6) that Classical
Philology draws its knowledge from three sources, the literary,
epigraphic, and monumental remains of Greece and Rome. It is necessary
that we should understand at the outset precisely what is meant by
each of these. By literary sources we mean the writings of the Greeks
and Romans, that is, the books which they published, that have come
down to us. The form of these books, the way they were published and
have been preserved, will be considered later. For the present it is
sufficient to say that a mere fraction only of these writings has come
down to our day, and that of these poor remnants we possess no
originals but merely more or less imperfect copies. It is true,
nevertheless, that these form as a whole the most important of our
sources of information, largely because they have been most carefully
studied and are best understood.
§10. By epigraphic sources we mean the words that were written,
scratched, cut, or stamped on hard materials, such as metal, stone, or
wood, without thought of literary finish. These vary from single words
to records of very considerable extent, and are briefly called
inscriptions. The student may get a good idea of the most ancient and
curious by merely turning over a few pages of Ritschl's "Priscae
Latinitatis Monumenta Epigraphica" or of Egbert's "Latin
Inscriptions." Of one sort of great importance, the legends on coins
and medals, many have found their way into American museums. With
modern inscriptions on similar materials and for similar purposes
every student is, of course, familiar.
§11. By monumental evidence we mean all the things actually made by
the Greeks and Romans that have come down to us. These things are
collectively very numerous and of very many kinds: coins, medals,
pieces of jewelry, armor, pottery, statues, paintings, bridges,
aqueducts, fortifications, ruins of cities, etc. It is impossible to
enumerate them all. It is upon such remains as these that most of the
inscriptions mentioned above are preserved. Of the most importance for
the study of the private life of the Romans are the ruins of the city
of Pompeii preserved to us by the protection of the ashes that buried
it at the time of the eruption of Vesuvius in the year 79 A.D.
§12. It will be seen at once that the importance of these sources will
vary with the nature of the subject we are studying and the fullness
of their preservation. For example, we may read in a Roman poet a
description of an ornament worn by a bride. A painting of a bride
wearing such an ornament would make the description clearer, but any
doubt that might remain would be removed if there should be found in
the ruins of Pompeii a similar ornament with its character proved by
an inscription upon it. In this case the three sources would have
contributed to our knowledge. For other matters, especially intangible
things, we may have to rely solely upon descriptions, that is, upon
literary sources. But it may well happen that no Roman wrote a set
description of the particular thing that we are studying, or if he did
that his writings have been lost, so that we may be forced to build up
our knowledge bit by bit, by putting together laboriously the scraps
of information, mere hints perhaps, that we find scattered here and
there in the works of different authors, and these perhaps of very
different times. It is not hard to understand, therefore, that our
knowledge of some things pertaining to Roman antiquities may be fairly
complete, while of others we may have no knowledge at all. It may be
worth remarking of literary sources that the more common and familiar
a thing was to the ancients, the less likely is it that we shall find
a description of it in ancient literature.
§13. Reference Books.--The collecting and arranging of the information
gleaned from these sources has been the task of philologists from very
early times, but so much has been added to our knowledge by recent
discoveries that all but the latest books may be neglected by the
student. A very full list of books treating of Roman Antiquities may
be found in Hübner's "Bibliographie der klassischen
Altertumswissenschaft," and a convenient list in Professor Kelsey's
"Fifty Topics in Roman Antiquities with References," but the student
should not fail to notice at the head of each chapter the lists of
authorities to be consulted in the books specifically mentioned below.
These have been arranged in two classes, systematic treatises and
encyclopedic works, and the student who lacks time to consult all the
references should select one at least of the better and larger works
in each class for regular and methodical study.
§14. Systematic Treatises:
Marquardt, Joachim, "Das Privatleben der Römer," 2d edition by A. Mau.
This is the seventh volume of the _Handbuch der römischen Alterthümer_
by Marquardt and Mommsen. It is the fullest and most authoritative of
all the treatises on the subject and has a few illustrations.
Voigt, Moritz, "Die Römischen Privataltertümer," 2d edition. This is a
part of the fourth volume of the _Handbuch der klassischen
Altertumswissenschaft_ by Iwan von Müller. It is the latest work on
the subject, especially rich in the citation of authorities.
Guhl and Koner, "Leben der Griechen und Römer," 6th edition by
Engelmann. A standard and authoritative work enriched by copious
illustrations. There is an English translation of an earlier edition
which may be used by those who read no German.
Becker, W. A., "Gallus oder römische Scenen aus der Zeit Augusts," new
edition by Hermann Göll. This is a standard authority in the form of a
novel. The story is of no particular interest, but the notes and
excursuses are of the first importance. There is an English
translation of the first edition which may be used with caution by
those who read no German.
Friedländer, L., "Darstellungen aus der Sittengeschichte Roms in der
Zeit von August bis zum Ausgang der Antonine," 6th edition. This is
the great authority for the time it covers and will be found to
include practically the history from the earliest times of all the
matters of which it treats.
Blümner, Hugo, "Technologie und Terminologie der Gewerbe und Künste
bei Griechen und Römern." The very best description of the arts and
industries of ancient Greece and Rome.
Ramsay, William, "A Manual of Roman Antiquities," 15th edition,
revised and partly rewritten by Rodolfo Lanciani. This includes public
as well as private antiquities, but the revision seems to have been
but partial and the larger part of the book is hopelessly out of date.
Wilkins, A. S., "Roman Antiquities," and Preston and Dodge, "The
Private Life of the Romans." Two little books, of which the former is
by a good scholar and is worth reading.
§15. Encyclopedic Works:
Pauly-Wissowa, "Real-Encyclopädie der classischen
Altertumswissenschaft." A monumental work, destined to be for many
years the great authority upon the subject. Unfortunately it is
appearing very slowly and has reached only the word _Demodoros_. There
are a few illustrations.
Smith, William, "A Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities," revised
edition by Wayte and Marindin. This is the very best work of the sort
in English, the best possibly of similar size in any language.
Baumeister, "Denkmäler des klassischen Altertums." The most richly
illustrated work on the subject, absolutely indispensable.
"Harper's Dictionary of Classical Literature and Antiquities." Largely
from Smith, but with valuable additions.
Rich, "Dictionary of Roman and Greek Antiquities." A convenient manual
with many illustrations. Very good for ready reference.
Schreiber, "Atlas of Classical Antiquities." A very copious collection
of illustrations bearing on Greek and Roman life. The illustrations
are accompanied by explanatory text.
Seyffert-Nettleship, "Dictionary of Classical Antiquities." The
illustrations are numerous and the book is of some value on the side
of ancient art.
Lübker, "Real-Lexicon des klassischen Altertums," 7th edition by Max
Erler. The best brief handbook for those who read German. It is
compact and accurate.
§16. Other Books.--Besides these, three books may be mentioned
treating of the discoveries at Pompeii, the importance of which has
been mentioned (§11):
Overbeck, J., "Pompeii," 4th edition by August Mau, the standard
popular work upon the subject, richly supplied with illustrations.
Mau, August, "Pompeii, its Life and Art," translated by Kelsey. This
is the best account of the treasures of the buried city that has
appeared in English, at once interesting and scholarly.
Gusman, Pierre, "Pompeii, the City, its Life and Art," translated by
Simmonds and Jourdain. The very best collection of illustrations, but
not so trustworthy in letterpress.
Finally the student should be warned not to neglect a book merely
because it happens to be written in a language that he does not read
fluently: the very part that he wants may happen to be easy to read,
and many of these books contain illustrations that tell their own
story independently of the letterpress that accompanies them.
CHAPTER I
THE FAMILY
REFERENCES: Marquardt, pp. 1-6; Voigt, 307-311, 386-388; Göll, II.
1-4, 61-65, 187; Pauly-Wissowa, under _adfīnitās_, _agnātiō_,
_cognātiō_; Smith, under _cognātī_, _familia_, _patria potestās_;
Seyffert, under _agnātiō_, _cognātiō_, _familia_, _manus_; Lübker,
under _agnātiō_, _cognātiō_, _familia_, _manus_, _patria potestās_.
Look up the word _familia_ in Harper's lexicon and notice carefully
its range of meanings.
See also Muirhead, "Roman Law," pp. 24-33, and the paragraph on the
Quiritian Family in the article on Roman Law by the same writer in the
"Encyclopaedia Britannica," Vol. XX.
§17. The Household.--If by our word family we usually understand a
group of husband, wife, and children, we may acknowledge at once that
it does not correspond exactly to any of the meanings of the Latin
_familia_, varied as the dictionaries show these to be. Husband, wife,
and children did not necessarily constitute an independent family
among the Romans, and were not necessarily members even of the same
family. Those persons made up the Roman _familia_, in the sense
nearest to its English derivative, who were subject to the authority
of the same Head of the House (_pater familiās_). These persons might
make a host in themselves: wife, unmarried daughters, sons real or
adopted, married or unmarried, with their wives, sons, unmarried
daughters, and even remoter descendants (always through males), yet
they made but one _familia_ in the eyes of the Romans. The Head of
such a family--"household" or "house" is the nearest English word--was
always _suī iūris_ ("independent," "one's own master"), while the
others were _aliēnō iūrī subiectī_ ("dependent").
§18. The authority of the _pater familiās_ over his wife was called
_manus_, over his descendants _patria potestās_, over his chattels
_dominica potestās_. So long as he lived and retained his citizenship,
these powers could be terminated only by his own deliberate act. He
could dispose of his property by gift or sale as freely as we do now.
He might "emancipate" his sons, a very formal proceeding
(_ēmancipātiō_) by which they became each the Head of a new family,
though they were childless themselves or unmarried or even mere
children. He might also emancipate an unmarried daughter, who thus in
her own self became an independent family. Or he might give her in
marriage to another Roman citizen, an act by which she passed by early
usage (§61) into the family of which her husband was Head, if he was
_suī iūris_, or of which he was a member, if he was still _aliēnō iūrī
subiectus_. It must be carefully noticed, on the other hand, that the
marriage of a son did not make him a _pater familiās_ or relieve him
in any degree from the _patria potestās_: he and his wife and their
children were subject to the same Head of the House as he had been
before his marriage. On the other hand, the Head of the House could
not number in his _familia_ his daughter's children: legitimate
children always followed the father, while an illegitimate child was
from the moment of birth in himself or herself an independent family.
§19. The Splitting Up of a House.--Emancipation was not very common
and it usually happened that the household was dissolved only by the
death of the Head. When this occurred, as many new households were
formed as there were persons directly subject to his _potestās_ at the
moment of his death: wife, sons, unmarried daughters, widowed
daughters-in-law, and children of a deceased son. The children of a
surviving son, it must be noticed, merely passed from the _potestās_
of their grandfather to that of their father. A son under age or an
unmarried daughter was put under the care of a guardian (_tūtor_),
selected from the same _gēns_, very often an older brother, if there
was one. The following diagram will make this clearer:
1Gaius (_pater familiās_) = (†)2Gaia (_māter familiās_)
|
---------------------------------------------------------------
| | | | |
3Faustus = 4Tullia (†)5Balbus = 6Licinia 7Publius 8Terentia |
| | 9Marcus = 10Terentia Minor
----------- ------------ |
| | | | ------------
11Titus 12Tiberius 13Quintus 14Sextius | |
15Servius 16Decimus
§20. It is assumed that Gaius is a widower who has had five children,
three sons and two daughters. Of the sons, Faustus and Balbus married
and had each two children; Balbus then died. Of the daughters,
Terentia Minor married Marcus and became the mother of two children.
Publius and Terentia were unmarried at the death of Gaius, who had
emancipated none of his children. It will be noticed:
1. The living descendants of Gaius were ten (3, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13,
14, 15, 16), his son Balbus being dead.
2. Subject to his _potestās_ were nine (3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, 13,
14).
3. His daughter Terentia Minor (10) had passed out of his _potestās_
by her marriage with Marcus (9), and her children (15, 16) alone out
of all the descendants of Gaius had not been subject to him.
4. At his death are formed six independent families, one consisting of
four persons (3, 4, 11, 12), the others of one person each (6, 7, 8,
13, 14).
5. Titus and Tiberius (11, 12) have merely passed out of the
_potestās_ of their grandfather Gaius to come under that of their
father Faustus.
§21. Other Meanings of Familia.--The word _familia_ was also very
commonly used in a slightly wider sense to include in addition to the
persons named above (§17) all the slaves and clients and all the
property real and personal belonging to the _pater familiās_, or
acquired and used by the persons under his _potestās_. The word was
also used of the slaves alone, and rarely of the property alone. In a
still wider and more important sense the word was applied to a larger
group of related persons, the _gēns_, consisting of all the
"households" (_familiae_ in the sense of §17) who derived their
descent through males from a common ancestor. This remote ancestor,
could his life have lasted through all the intervening centuries,
would have been the _pater familiās_ of all the persons included in
the _gēns_, and all would have been subject to his _potestās_.
Membership in the _gēns_ was proved by the possession of the _nōmen_,
the second of the three names that every citizen of the Republic
regularly had (§38).
§22. Theoretically this _gēns_ had been in prehistoric times one of
the _familiae_, "households," whose union for political purposes had
formed the state. Theoretically its _pater familiās_ had been one of
the Heads of Houses who in the days of the Kings had formed the
_patrēs_, or assembly of old men (_senātus_). The splitting up of this
prehistoric household in the manner explained in §19, a process
repeated generation after generation, was believed to account for the
numerous _familiae_ who claimed connection with the great _gentēs_ in
later times. The _gēns_ had an organization of which little is known.
It passed resolutions binding upon its members; it furnished guardians
for minor children, and curators for the insane and for spendthrifts.
When a member died without leaving natural heirs, it succeeded to such
property as he did not dispose of by will and administered it for the
common good of all its members. These members were called _gentīlēs_,
were bound to take part in the religious services of the _gēns_
(_sacra gentīlīcia_), had a claim to the common property, and might if
they chose be laid to rest in the common burial ground.
Finally, the word _familia_ was often applied to certain branches of a
_gēns_ whose members had the same _cognōmen_ (§48), the last of the
three names mentioned in §21. For this use of _familia_ a more
accurate word is _stirps_.
§23. Agnati.--It has been remarked (§18) that the children of a
daughter could not be included in the _familia_ of her father, and
(§21) that membership in the larger organization called the _gēns_ was
limited to those who could trace their descent through males. All
persons who could in this way trace their descent through males to a
common ancestor, in whose _potestās_ they would be were he alive, were
called _agnātī_, and this _agnātiō_ was the closest tie of
relationship known to the Romans. In the list of _agnātī_ were
included two classes of persons who would seem by the definition to be
excluded. These were the wife, who passed by _manus_ into the family
of her husband (§18), becoming by law his agnate and the agnate of all
his agnates, and the adopted son. On the other hand a son who had been
emancipated (§18) was excluded from _agnātiō_ with his father and his
father's agnates, and could have no agnates of his own until he
married or was adopted into another _familia_. The following diagram
will make this clearer:
1Gaius (_pater familiās_) = 2Gaia (_māter familiās_)
|
----------------------------------------------------------------
| : | | | |
3Faustus = 4Tullia : 5Balbus = 6Licinia 7Publius 8Terentia |
| : [Emancipated]| [Emancipated] |
----------- : ------------ 9Marcus = 10Terentia Minor
| | : | | |
11Titus 12Tiberius : 13Quintus 14Sextius -------------
: | |
:[Servius adopted by Gaius] 15Servius 16Decimus
:.........................[Emancipated]
§24. It is supposed that Gaius and Gaia have five children (Faustus,
Balbus, Publius, Terentia, and Terentia Minor), and six grandsons
(Titus and Tiberius the sons of Faustus, Quintus and Sextius the sons
of Balbus, and Servius and Decimus the sons of Terentia Minor). Gaius
has emancipated two of his sons, Balbus and Publius, and has adopted
his grandson Servius, who had previously been emancipated by his
father Marcus. There are four sets of _agnātī_:
1. Gaius, his wife, and those whose _pater familiās_ he is, viz.:
Faustus, Tullia the wife of Faustus, Terentia, Titus, Tiberius, and
Servius, a son by adoption (1, 2, 3, 4, 8, 11, 12, 15).
2. Balbus, his wife, and their two sons (5, 6, 13, and 14).
3. Publius, who is himself a _pater familiās_, but has no _agnātī_ at
all.
4. Marcus, his wife Terentia Minor, and their child Decimus (9, 10,
16). Notice that the other child, Servius (15), having been
emancipated by Marcus is no longer agnate to his father, mother, or
brother.
§25. Cognati, on the other hand, were what we call blood relations, no
matter whether they traced their relationship through males or
females, and regardless of what _potestās_ had been over them. The
only barrier in the eyes of the law was loss of citizenship (§18), and
even this was not always regarded. Thus, in the table last given,
Gaius, Faustus, Balbus, Publius, Terentia, Terentia Minor, Titus,
Tiberius, Quintus, Sextius, Servius, and Decimus are all cognates with
one another. So, too, is Gaia with all her descendants mentioned. So
also are Tullia, Titus, and Tiberius; Licinia, Quintus, and Sextius;
Marcus, Servius, and Decimus. But husband and wife (Gaius and Gaia,
Faustus and Tullia, Balbus and Licinia, Marcus and Terentia Minor)
were not cognates by virtue of their marriage, though that made them
agnates. In fact public opinion discountenanced the marriage of
cognates within the sixth (later the fourth) degree, and persons
within this degree were said to have the _iūs ōsculī_. The degree was
calculated by counting from one of the interested parties through the
common ancestor to the other and may be easily understood from the
table given in Smith's "Dictionary of Antiquities" under _cognātī_, or
the one given here (Fig. 1). Cognates did not form an organic body in
the state as did the agnates (§22), but the 22d of February was set
aside to commemorate the tie of blood (_cāra cognātiō_), and on this
day presents were exchanged and family reunions probably held. It must
be understood, however, that _cognātiō_ gave no legal rights or claims
under the Republic.
[Illustration: FIGURE 1. TABLE OF RELATIONSHIP]
§26. Adfines.--Persons connected by marriage only were called
_adfīnēs_, as a wife with her husband's cognates and he with hers.
There were no formal degrees of _adfīnitās_, as there were of
_cognātiō_. Those adfīnēs for whom distinctive names were in common
use were: _gener_, son-in-law; _nurus_, daughter-in-law; _socer_,
father-in-law; _socrus_, mother-in-law; _prīvignus_, _prīvigna_,
step-son, step-daughter; _ritricus_, step-father; _noverca_,
step-mother. If we compare these names with the awkward compounds that
do duty for them in English, we shall have additional proof of the
stress laid by the Romans on family ties: two women who married
brothers were called _iānītrīcēs_, a relationship for which we do not
have even a compound. The names of blood relations tell the same
story: a glance at the table of cognates will show how strong the
Latin is here, how weak the English. We have "uncle," "aunt," and
"cousin," but between _avunculus_ and _patruus_, _mātertera_ and
_amita_, _patruēlis_ and _cōnsōbrīnus_, we can distinguish only by
descriptive phrases. For _atavus_ and _tritavus_ we have merely the
indefinite "forefathers." In the same way the language testifies to
the headship of the father. We speak of the "mother country" and
"mother tongue," but to the Roman these were _patria_ and _sermō
patrius_. As the _pater_ stood to the _fīlius_, so stood the
_patrōnus_ to the _cliēns_, the _patriciī_ to the _plēbēiī_, the
_patrēs_ (=senators) to the rest of the citizens, and _Iūpiter_ (Jove
the Father) to the other gods of Olympus.
§27. The Family Cult.--It has been said (§23) that _agnātiō_ was the
closest tie known to the Romans. The importance they attached to the
agnatic family is largely explained by their ideas of the future life.
They believed that the souls of men had an existence apart from the
body, but not in a separate spirit-land. They conceived of the soul as
hovering around the place of burial and requiring for its peace and
happiness that offerings of food and drink should be made to it
regularly. Should these offerings be discontinued, the soul would
cease to be happy itself, and might become perhaps a spirit of evil.
The maintenance of these rites and ceremonies devolved naturally upon
the descendants from generation to generation, whom the spirits in
turn would guide and guard.
[Illustration: FIGURE 2. LUCIUS JUNIUS BRUTUS]
§28. The Roman was bound, therefore, to perform these acts of
affection and piety so long as he lived himself, and bound no less to
provide for their performance after his death by perpetuating his race
and the family cult. A curse was believed to rest upon the childless
man. Marriage was, therefore, a solemn religious duty, entered into
only with the approval of the gods ascertained by the auspices. In
taking a wife to himself the Roman made her a partaker of his family
mysteries, a service that brooked no divided allegiance. He therefore
separated her entirely from her father's family, and was ready in turn
to surrender his daughter without reserve to the husband with whom she
was to minister at another altar. The _pater familiās_ was the priest
of the household, and those subject to his _potestās_ assisted in the
prayers and offerings, the _sacra familiāria_.
§29. But it might be that a marriage was fruitless, or that the Head
of the House saw his sons die before him. In this case he had to face
the prospect of the extinction of his family, and his own descent to
the grave with no posterity to make him blessed. One of two
alternatives was open to him to avert such a calamity. He might give
himself in adoption and pass into another family in which the
perpetuation of the family cult seemed certain, or he might adopt a
son and thus perpetuate his own. He usually followed the latter
course, because it secured peace for the souls of his ancestors no
less than for his own.
§30. Adoption.--The person adopted might be either a _pater familiās_
himself or, more usually, a _fīlius familiās_. In the case of the
latter the process was called _adoptiō_ and was a somewhat complicated
proceeding by which the natural parent conveyed his son to the other,
the effect being to transfer the adopted person from one family to the
other. The adoption of a _pater familiās_ was a much more serious
matter, for it involved the extinction of one family (§29) in order to
prevent the extinction of another. It was called _adrogātiō_ and was
an affair of state. It had to be sanctioned by the _pontificēs_, the
highest officers of religion, who had probably to make sure that the
_adrogātus_ had brothers enough to attend to the interests of the
ancestors whose cult he was renouncing. If the _pontificēs_ gave their
consent, it had still to be sanctioned by the _comitia curiata_, as
the adrogation might deprive the _gēns_ of its succession to the
property of the childless man (§22). If the _comitia_ gave consent,
the _adrogātus_ sank from the position of Head of a House to that of a
_fīlius familiās_ in the household of his adoptive father. If he had
wife and children, they passed with him into the new family, and so
did all his property. Over him the adoptive father had _potestās_ as
over a son of his own, and looked upon him as flesh of his flesh and
bone of his bone. We can have at best only a feeble and inadequate
notion of what adoption meant to the Romans.
§31. The Patria Potestas.--The authority of the _pater familiās_ over
his descendants was called usually the _patria potestās_, but also the
_patria maiestās_, the _patrium iūs_, and the _imperium paternum_. It
was carried to a greater length by the Romans than by any other
people, a length that seems to us excessive and cruel. As they
understood it, the _pater familiās_ had absolute power over his
children and other agnatic descendants. He decided whether or not the
newborn child should be reared; he punished what he regarded as
misconduct with penalties as severe as banishment, slavery, and death;
he alone could own and exchange property--all that his descendants
earned or acquired in any way was his: according to the letter of the
law they were little better than his chattels. If his right to one of
them was disputed, he vindicated it by the same form of action that he
used to maintain his right to a house or a horse; if one was stolen,
he proceeded against the abductor by the ordinary action for theft; if
for any reason he wished to transfer one of them to a third person, it
was done by the same form of conveyance that he employed to transfer
inanimate things. The jurists boasted that these powers were enjoyed
by Roman citizens only.
§32. Limitations.--But however stern this authority was theoretically,
it was greatly modified in practice, under the Republic by custom,
under the Empire by law. King Romulus was said to have ordained that
all sons should be reared and also all firstborn daughters;
furthermore that no child should be put to death until its third year,
unless it was grievously deformed. This at least secured life for the
child, though the _pater familiās_ still decided whether it should be
admitted to his household, with the implied social and religious
privileges, or be disowned and become an outcast. King Numa was said
to have forbidden the sale into slavery of a son who had married with
the consent of his father. But of much greater importance was the
check put upon arbitrary and cruel punishments by custom. Custom, not
law, obliged the _pater familiās_ to call a council of relatives and
friends (_iūdicium domesticum_) when he contemplated inflicting severe
punishment upon his children, and public opinion obliged him to abide
by their verdict. Even in the comparatively few cases where tradition
tells us that the death penalty was actually inflicted, we usually
find that the father acted in the capacity of a magistrate happening
to be in office when the offense was committed, or that the penalties
of the ordinary law were merely anticipated, perhaps to avoid the
disgrace of a public trial and execution.
§33. So, too, in regard to the ownership of property the conditions
were not really so hard as the strict letter of the law makes them
appear to us. It was customary for the Head of the House to assign to
his children property, _pecūlia_ ("cattle of their own"), for them to
manage for their own benefit. And more than this, although the _pater
familiās_ held legal title to all their acquisitions, yet practically
all property was acquired for and belonged to the household as a
whole, and he was in effect little more than a trustee to hold and
administer it for the common benefit. This is shown by the fact that
there was no graver offense against public morals, no fouler blot on
private character, than to prove untrue to this trust, _patrimōnium
prōfundere_. Besides this, the long continuance of the _potestās_ is
in itself a proof that its rigor was more apparent than real.
[Illustration: FIGURE 3. PUBLIUS CORNELIUS SCIPIO AFRICANUS]
§34. Extinction of the Potestas.--The _patria potestās_ was
extinguished in various ways:
1. By the death of the _pater familiās_, as has been explained in §19.
2. By the emancipation of the son or daughter.
3. By the loss of citizenship by either father or son.
4. If the son became a _flāmen diālis_ or the daughter a _virgō
vestālis_.
5. If either father or child was adopted by a third party.
6. If the daughter passed by formal marriage into the power (_in
manum_) of a husband, though this did not essentially change her
dependent condition (§35).
7. If the son became a public magistrate. In this case the _potestās_
was suspended during the period of office, but after it expired the
father might hold the son accountable for his acts, public and
private, while holding the magistracy.
§35. Manus.--The subject of marriage will be considered later; at this
point it is only necessary to define the power over the wife possessed
by the husband in its most extreme form, called by the Romans _manus_.
By the oldest and most solemn form of marriage the wife was separated
entirely from her father's family (§28) and passed into her husband's
power or "hand" (_conventiō in manum_). This assumes, of course, that
he was _suī iūris_; if he was not, then though nominally in his "hand"
she was really subject as he was to his _pater familiās_. Any property
she had of her own, and to have had any she must have been independent
before her marriage, passed to him as a matter of course. If she had
none, her _pater familiās_ furnished a dowry (_dōs_), which shared the
same fate. Whatever she acquired by her industry or otherwise while
the marriage lasted also became her husband's. So far, therefore, as
property rights were concerned the _manus_ differed in no respect from
the _patria potestās_: the wife was _in locō fīliae_, and on the
husband's death took a daughter's share in his estate.
§36. In other respects _manus_ conferred more limited powers. The
husband was required by law, not merely obliged by custom, to refer
alleged misconduct of his wife to the _iūdicium domesticum_, and this
was composed in part of her cognates (§25). He could put her away for
certain grave offenses only; if he divorced her without good cause he
was punished with the loss of all his property. He could not sell her
at all. In short, public opinion and custom operated even more
strongly for her protection than for that of her children. It must be
noticed, therefore, that the chief distinction between _manus_ and
_patria potestās_ lay in the fact that the former was a legal
relationship based upon the consent of the weaker party, while the
latter was a natural relationship antecedent to all law and choice.
[Illustration: FIGURE 4. LUCIUS CORNELIUS SULLA]
§37. Dominica Potestas.--The right of ownership in his property
(_dominica potestās_) was absolute in the case of a _pater familiās_
and has been sufficiently explained in preceding paragraphs. This
ownership included slaves as well as inanimate things, and slaves as
well as inanimate things were mere chattels in the eyes of the law.
The influence of custom and public opinion, so far as these tended to
mitigating the horrors of their condition, will be discussed later. It
will be sufficient to say here that there was nothing to which the
slave could appeal from the judgment of his master. It was final and
absolute.
CHAPTER II
THE NAME
REFERENCES: Marquardt, 7-27; Voigt, 311, 316 f., 454; Pauly-Wissowa,
under _cognōmen_; Smith, Harper, and Lübker, under _nōmen_.
See also: Egbert, "Latin Inscriptions," Chapter IV; Cagnat, "Cours
d'Epigraphie Latine," Chapter I; Hübner, "Römische Epigraphik," pp.
653-680 of Müller's _Handbuch_, Vol. I.
§38. The Triple Name.--Nothing is more familiar to the student of
Latin than the fact that the Romans whose works he reads first have
each a threefold name, Caius Julius Caesar, Marcus Tullius Cicero,
Publius Vergilius Maro. This was the system that prevailed in the best
days of the Republic, but it was itself a development, starting with a
more simple form in earlier times and ending in utter confusion under
the Empire. The earliest legends of Rome show us single names,
Romulus, Remus, Faustulus; but side by side with these we find also
double names, Numa Pompilius, Ancus Marcius, Tullus Hostilius. It is
possible that single names were the earliest fashion, but when we pass
from legends to real history the oldest names that we find are double,
the second being always in the genitive case, representing the father
or the Head of the House: Marcus Marci, Caecilia Metelli. A little
later these genitives were followed by the letter _f_ (for _fīlius_ or
_fīlia_) or _uxor_, to denote the relationship. Later still, but very
anciently nevertheless, we find the freeborn man in possession of the
three names with which we are familiar, the _nōmen_ to mark the clan
(_gēns_), the _cognōmen_ to mark the family, and the _praenōmen_ to
mark the individual. The regular order of the three names is
_praenōmen_, _nōmen_, _cognōmen_, although in poetry the order is
often changed to adapt the name to the meter.
§39. Great formality required even more than the three names. In
official documents and in the state records it was usual to insert
between a man's _nōmen_ and _cognōmen_ the _praenōmina_ of his father,
grandfather, and great-grandfather, and sometimes even the name of the
tribe to which he belonged. So Cicero might write his name: M. Tullius
M. f. M. n. M. pr. Cor. Cicero; that is, Marcus Tullius Cicero, son
(_fīlius_) of Marcus, grandson (_nepōs_) of Marcus, great-grandson
(_pronepōs_) of Marcus, of the tribe Cornelia. See another example in
§427.
[Illustration: FIGURE 5. MARCUS TULLIUS CICERO]
§40. On the other hand even the triple name was too long for ordinary
use. Children, slaves, and intimate friends addressed the citizen,
master, and friend by his _praenōmen_ only. Ordinary acquaintances
used the _cognōmen_ with the _praenōmen_ prefixed for emphatic
address. In earnest appeals we find the _nōmen_ also used, with
sometimes the _praenōmen_ or the possessive _mī_ prefixed. When two
only of the three names are thus used in familiar intercourse the
order varies. If the _praenōmen_ is one of the two, it always stands
first, except in the poets for metrical reasons and in a few places in
prose where the text is uncertain. If the _praenōmen_ is omitted, the
arrangement varies: the older writers and Cicero put the _cognōmen_
first, _Ahāla Servilius_ (Cic. Milo, 3, 8: cf. _C. Servilius Ahāla_,
Cat. I., 1, 3). Caesar puts the nōmen first; Horace, Livy, and Tacitus
have both arrangements, while Pliny adheres to Caesar's usage. It will
be convenient to consider the three names separately, and to discuss
the names of men before considering those of the other members of the
_familia_.
§41. The Praenomen.--The number of names used as _praenōmina_ seems to
us preposterously small as compared with our Christian names, to which
they in some measure correspond. It was never much in excess of
thirty, and in Sulla's time had dwindled to eighteen. The full list is
given by the authorities named above, but the following are all that
are often found in our school and college authors: _Aulus_ (_A_),
_Decimus_ (_D_), _Gāius_ (_C_), _Gnaeus_ (_CN_), _Kaesō_ (_K_),
_Lūcius_ (_L_), _Mānius_ (_M'_), _Mārcus_ (_M_), _Pūblius_ (_P_),
_Quīntus_ (_Q_), _Servius_ (_SER_), _Sextus_ (_SEX_), _Spurius_
(_SP_), _Tiberius_ (_TI_), and _Titus_ (_T_). The forms of these names
were not absolutely fixed, and we find for _Gnaeus_ the forms
_Gnaivos_ (early), _Naevos_, _Naeus_, and _Gnēus_ (rare); so also for
_Servius_ we find _Sergius_, the two forms going back to an ancient
_Serguius_. The abbreviations also vary: for _Aulus_ we find regularly
_A_, but also _AV_ and _AVL_; for _Sextus_ we find _SEXT_ and _S_ as
well as _SEX_, and similar variations are found in the case of other
names.
§42. But small as this list seems to us the natural conservatism of
the Romans found in it a chance to display itself, and the great
families repeated the names of their children from generation to
generation in such a way as to make the identification of the
individual very difficult in modern times. Thus the Aemilii contented
themselves with seven of these _praenōmina_, _Gāius_, _Gnaeus_,
_Lūcius_, _Mānius_, _Mārcus_, _Quīntus_, and _Tiberius_, but used in
addition one that is not found in any other gens, _Māmercus_ (_MAM_).
The Claudii used six, _Gāius_, _Decimus_, _Lūcius_, _Pūblius_,
_Tiberius_, and _Quīntus_, with the additional name _Appius_ (_APP_),
of Sabine origin, which they brought to Rome. The Cornelii used seven,
_Aulus_, _Gnaeus_, _Lūcius_, _Mārcus_, _Pūblius_, _Servius_, and
_Tiberius_. A still smaller number sufficed for the Julian gens,
_Gāius_, _Lūcius_, and _Sextus_, with the name _Vopiscus_, which went
out of use in very early times. And even these selections were subject
to further limitations. Thus, of the _gēns Claudia_ only one branch
(_stirps_), known as the _Claudiī Nerōnēs_, used the names _Decimus_
and _Tiberius_, and out of the seven names used in the _gēns Cornēlia_
the branch of the Scipios (_Cornēliī Scīpiōnēs_) used only _Gnaeus_,
_Lūcius_, and _Pūblius_. Even after a _praenōmen_ had found a place in
a given family, it might be deliberately discarded: thus, the Claudii
gave up the name _Lūcius_ and the Manlii the name _Mārcus_ on account
of the disgrace brought upon their families by men who bore these
names; and the Antonii never used the name _Mārcus_ after the downfall
of the famous triumvir, Marcus Antonius.
[Illustration: FIGURE 6. CAESAR]
§43. From the list of names usual in his family the father gave one to
his son on the ninth day after his birth, the _diēs lūstricus_. It was
a custom then, one that seems natural enough in our own times, for the
father to give his own _praenōmen_ to his firstborn son; Cicero's name
(§39) shows the name _Mārcus_ four times repeated, and it is probable
that he came from a long line of eldest sons. When these names were
first given they must have been chosen with due regard to their
etymological meanings and have had some relation to the circumstances
attending the birth of the child: Livy in speaking of the mythical
Silvius Aeneas gives us to understand that he received his first name
because he was born in a forest (_silva_).
§44. So, _Lūcius_ meant originally "born by day," _Mānius_, "born in
the morning"; _Quīntus_, _Sextus_, _Decimus_, _Postumus_, etc.,
indicated the succession in the family; _Tullus_ was connected with
the verb _tollere_ in the sense of "acknowledge" (§95), _Servius_ with
_servāre_, _Gāius_ with _gaudēre_. Others are associated with the name
of some divinity, as _Mārcus_ and _Māmercus_ with Mars, and _Tiberius_
with the river god Tiberis. But these meanings in the course of time
were forgotten as completely as we have forgotten the meanings of our
Christian names, and even the numerals were employed with no reference
to their proper force: Cicero's only brother was called _Quīntus_.
[Illustration: FIGURE 7. AUGUSTUS]
§45. The abbreviation of the _praenōmen_ was not a matter of mere
caprice, as is the writing of initials with us, but was an established
custom, indicating perhaps Roman citizenship. The _praenōmen_ was
written out in full only when it was used by itself or when it
belonged to a person in one of the lower classes of society. When
Roman names are carried over into English, they should always be
written out in full and pronounced accordingly. In the same way, when
we read a Latin author and find a name abbreviated, the full name
should always be pronounced if we read aloud or translate.
§46. The Nomen.--This, the all-important name, is called for greater
precision the _nōmen gentīle_ and the _nōmen gentīlicium_. The child
inherited it, as one inherits his surname now, and there was,
therefore, no choice or selection about it. The _nōmen_ ended
originally in _-ius_, and this ending was sacredly preserved by the
patrician families: the endings _-eius_, _-aius_, _-aeus_, and _-eus_
are merely variations from it. Other endings point to a non-Latin
origin of the gens. Those in _-ācus_ (_Avidiācus_) are Gallic, those
in _-na_ (_Caecīna_) are Etruscan, those in _-ēnus_ or _-iēnus_
(_Salvidiēnus_) are Umbrian or Picene. Some others are formed from the
name of the town from which the family sprang, either with the regular
terminations _-ānus_ and _-ēnsis_ (_Albānus_, _Norbānus_,
_Aquiliēnsis_), or with the suffix _-ius_ (_Perusius_, _Parmēnsius_)
in imitation of the older and more aristocratic use. Standing entirely
apart is the _nōmen_ of the notorious _Gāius Verrēs_, which looks like
a _cognōmen_ out of place (§55).
§47. The _nōmen_ belonged by custom to all connected with the gens, to
the plebeian as well as the patrician branches, to men, women,
clients, and freedmen without distinction. It was perhaps the natural
desire to separate themselves from the more humble bearers of their
_nōmen_ that led patrician families to use a limited number of
_praenōmina_, avoiding those used by their clansmen of inferior social
standing. At any rate it is noticeable that the plebeian families, as
soon as political nobility and the busts in their halls gave them a
standing above their fellows, showed the same exclusiveness in the
selection of names for their children that the patricians had
displayed before them (§42).
[Illustration: FIGURE 8. NERO]
§48. The Cognomen.--Besides the individual name and the name that
marked his _gēns_, the Roman had often a third name, called the
_cognōmen_, that served to indicate the family or branch of the _gēns_
to which he belonged. Almost all the great _gentēs_ were thus divided,
some of them into numerous branches. The Cornelian gens, for example,
included the plebeian Dolabellae, Lentuli, Cethegi, and Cinnae, in
addition to the patrician Scipiones, Maluginenses, Rufini, etc. The
recognition of a group of clansmen as such a branch, or _stirps_, and
as entitled to transmit a common _cognōmen_ required the formal
consent of the whole _gēns_, and carried with it the loss of certain
privileges as _gentīlēs_ to the members of the _stirps_.
§49. From the fact that in the official name (§39) the _cognōmen_
followed the name of the tribe, it is generally believed that the
oldest of these _cognōmina_ did not go back beyond the time of the
division of the people into tribes. It is also generally believed that
the _cognōmen_ was originally a nickname, bestowed on account of some
personal peculiarity or characteristic, sometimes as a compliment,
sometimes in derision. So, we find many pointing at physical traits,
such as _Albus_, _Barbātus_, _Cincinnātus_, _Claudus_, _Longus_ (all
originally adjectives), and the nouns _Nāsō_ and _Capitō_ ("the man
with a nose," "with a head"); others refer to the temperament, such as
_Benignus_, _Blandus_, _Catō_, _Serēnus_, _Sevērus_; others still
denote origin, such as _Gallus_, _Ligus_, _Sabīnus_, _Siculus_,
_Tuscus_. These names, it must be remembered, descended from father to
son, and would naturally lose their appropriateness as they passed
along, until in the course of time their meanings were entirely lost
sight of, as were those of the _praenōmina_ (§44).
§50. Under the Republic the patricians had almost without exception
this third or family name; we are told of but one man, Caius Marcius,
who lacked the distinction. With the plebeians the _cognōmen_ was not
so common, perhaps its possession was the exception. The great
families of the Marii, Mummii, and Sertorii had none, although the
plebeian branches of the Cornelian gens (§48), the Tullian gens, and
others, did. The _cognōmen_ came, therefore, to be prized as an
indication of ancient lineage, and individuals whose nobility was new
were anxious to acquire it to transmit to their children. Hence many
assumed _cognōmina_ of their own selection. Some of these were
conceded by public opinion as their due, as in the case of Cnaeus
Pompeius, who took _Magnus_ as his _cognōmen_. Others were derided by
their contemporaries, as we deride the made-to-order coat of arms of
some nineteenth century upstart. It is probable, however, that only
nobles ventured to assume _cognōmina_ under the Republic, though under
the Empire their possession was hardly more than the badge of freedom.
§51. Additional Names.--Besides the three names already described, we
find not infrequently, even in Republican times, a fourth or fifth.
These were also called _cognōmina_ by a loose extension of the word,
until in the fourth century of our era the name _agnōmina_ was given
them by the grammarians. They may be conveniently considered under
four heads:
In the first place, the process that divided the gens into branches
might be continued even further. That is, as the _gēns_ became
numerous enough to throw off a _stirps_, so the _stirps_ in process of
time might throw off a branch of itself, for which there is no better
name than the vague _familia_. This actually happened very frequently:
the _gēns Cornēlia_, for example, threw off the _stirps_ of the
_Scīpiōnēs_, and these in turn the family or "house" of the _Nāsīcae_.
So we find the quadruple name _Pūblius Cornēlius Scīpiō Nāsīca_, in
which the last name was probably given very much in the same way as
the third had been given before the division took place.
§52. In the second place, when a man passed from one family to another
by adoption (§30) he regularly took the three names of his adoptive
father and added his own _nōmen gentīle_ with the suffix _-ānus_.
Thus, Lucius Aemilius Paulus, the son of Lucius Aemilius Paulus
Macedonicus (see §53 for the last name), was adopted by Publius
Cornelius Scipio, and took as his new name _Pūblius Cornēlius Scīpiō
Aemiliānus_. In the same way, when Caius Octavius Caepias was adopted
by Caius Julius Caesar, he became _Gāius Iūlius Caesar Octāviānus_,
and is hence variously styled Octavius and Octavianus in the
histories.
§53. In the third place, an additional name, sometimes called
_cognōmen ex virtūte_, was often given by acclamation to a great
statesman or victorious general, and was put after his _cognōmen_. A
well known example is the name of Publius Cornelius Scipio Africanus,
the last name having been given him after his defeat of Hannibal. In
the same way, his grandson by adoption, the Publius Cornelius Scipio
Aemilianus mentioned above, received the same honorable name after he
had destroyed Carthage, and was called _Pūblius Cornēlius Scīpiō
Africānus Aemiliānus_. Such a name is Macedonicus given to Lucius
Aemilius Paulus for his defeat of Persens, and the title Augustus
given by the senate to Octavianus. It is not certainly known whether
or not these names passed by inheritance to the descendants of those
who originally earned them, but it is probable that the eldest son
only was strictly entitled to take his father's title of honor.
§54. In the fourth place, the fact that a man had inherited a nickname
from his ancestors in the form of a _cognōmen_ (§49) did not prevent
his receiving another from some personal characteristic, especially as
the inherited name had often no application, as we have seen, to its
later possessor. To some ancient Publius Cornelius was given the
nickname _Scīpiō_ (§49), and in the course of time this was taken by
all his descendants without thought of its appropriateness and became
a _cognōmen_; then to one of these descendants was given another
nickname for personal reasons, _Nāsīca_, and in course of time it lost
its individuality and became the name of a whole family (§51); then in
precisely the same way a member of this family became prominent enough
to need a separate name and was called _Corculum_, his full name being
_Pūblius Cornēlius Scīpiō Nāsīca Corculum_. It is evident that there
is no reason why the expansion should not have continued indefinitely.
Such names are Publius Cornelius Lentulus Spinther, Quintus Caecilius
Metellus Celer, and Publius Cornelius Scipio Nasica Serapio. It is
also evident that we can not always distinguish between a mere
nickname, one belonging strictly to this paragraph, and the additional
_cognōmen_ that marked the family off from the rest of the _stirps_ to
which it belonged. It is perfectly possible that the name Spinther
mentioned above has as good a right as Nasica to a place in the first
division (§51).
§55. Confusion of Names.--A system so elaborate as that we have
described was almost sure to be misunderstood or misapplied, and in
the later days of the Republic and under the Empire we find all law
and order disregarded. The giving of the _praenōmen_ to the child
seems to have been delayed too long sometimes, and burial inscriptions
are numerous which have in place of a first name the word _pūpus_
(_PVP_) "child," showing that the little one had died unnamed. One
such inscription gives the age of the unnamed child as sixteen years.
Then confusion was caused by the misuse of the _praenōmen_. Sometimes
two are found in one name, e.g., _Pūblius Aelius Aliēnus Archelāus
Mārcus_. Sometimes words ending like the _nōmen_ in _-ius_ were used
as _praenōmina_: Cicero tells us that one _Numerius Quīntius Rūfus_
owed his escape from death in a riot to his ambiguous first name. The
familiar Gāius must have been a _nōmen_ in very ancient times. Like
irregularities occur in the use of the _nōmen_. Two in a name were not
uncommon, one being derived from the family of the mother perhaps;
occasionally three or four are used, and fourteen are found in the
name of one of the consuls of the year 169 A.D. Then by a change, the
converse of that mentioned above, a word might go out of use as a
_praenōmen_ and become a _nōmen_: Cicero's enemy _Lūcius Sergius
Catilīna_ had for his gentile name _Sergius_, which had once been a
first name (§41). The _cognōmen_ was similarly abused. It ceased to
denote the family and came to distinguish members of the same family,
as the _praenōmina_ originally had done: thus the three sons of Marcus
Annaeus Seneca, for example, were called _Mārcus Annaeus Novātus_,
_Lūcius Annaeus Seneca_, and _Lūcius Annaeus Mela_. So, too, a word
used as a _cognōmen_ in one name might be used as a fourth element in
another: for example in the names _Lūcius Cornēlius Sulla_ and _Lūcius
Cornēlius Lentulus Sura_ the third and fourth elements respectively
are really the same, being merely shortened forms of _Surula_. Finally
it may be remarked that the same name might be arranged differently at
different times: in the consular lists we find the same man called
_Lūcius Lūcrētius Tricipitīnus Flāvus_ and _Lūcius Lūcrētius Flāvus
Tricipitīnus_.
§56. There is even greater variation in the names of persons who had
passed from one family into another by adoption. Some took the
additional name (§52) from the _stirps_ instead of from the _gēns_,
that is, from the _cognōmen_ instead of from the _nōmen_. A son of
Marcus Claudius Marcellus was adopted by a certain Publius Cornelius
Lentulus and ought to have been called _Pūblius Cornēlius Lentulus
Claudiānus_; he took instead the name _Pūblius Cornēlius Lentulus
Marcellīnus_, and this name descended to his children. The confusion
in this direction is well illustrated by the name of the famous Marcus
Junius Brutus. A few years before Caesar fell by his hand, Brutus, as
we usually call him, was adopted by his mother's brother, Quintus
Servilius Caepio, and ought to have been called _Quīntus Servīlius
Caepiō Iūniānus_. For some reason unknown to us he retained his own
_cognōmen_, and even his close friend Cicero seems scarcely to know
what to call him. Sometimes he writes of him as _Quīntus Caepiō
Brūtus_, sometimes as _Mārcus Brūtus_, sometimes simply as _Brūtus_.
The great scholar of the first century, Asconius, calls him _Mārcus
Caepiō_. Finally it may be noticed that late in the Empire we find a
man struggling under the load of forty names.
§57. Names of Women.--No very satisfactory account of the names of
women can be given, because it is impossible to discover any system in
the choice and arrangement of those that have come down to us. It may
be said in general that the threefold name was unknown in the best
days of the Republic, and that _praenōmina_ were rare and when used
were not abbreviated. We find such _praenōmina_ as _Paulla_ and
_Vibia_ (the masculine forms of which early disappeared), _Gāia_,
_Lūcia_, and _Pūblia_, and it is probable that the daughter took these
from her father. More common were the adjectives _Maxuma_ and _Minor_,
and the numerals _Secunda_ and _Tertia_, but these unlike the
corresponding names of men seem always to have denoted the place of
the bearer among a group of sisters. It was more usual for the
unmarried woman to be called by her father's _nōmen_ in its feminine
form, _Tullia_, _Cornēlia_, with the addition of her father's
_cognōmen_ in the genitive case, _Caecilia Metellī_, followed later by
the letter _f_ (=_filia_) to mark the relationship. Sometimes she used
her mother's _nōmen_ after her father's. The married woman, if she
passed into her husband's hand (_manus_, §35) by the ancient patrician
ceremony, originally took his _nōmen_, just as an adopted son took the
name of the family into which he passed, but it can not be shown that
the rule was universally or even usually observed. Under the later
forms of marriage she retained her maiden name. In the time of the
Empire we find the threefold name for women in general use, with the
same riotous confusion in selection and arrangement as prevailed in
the case of the names of men at the same time.
§58. Names of Slaves.--Slaves had no more right to names of their own
than they had to other property, but took such as their masters were
pleased to give them, and even these did not descend to their
children. In the simpler life of early times the slave was called
_puer_, just as the word "boy" was once used in this country for
slaves of any age. Until late in the Republic the slave was known only
by this name corrupted to _por_ and affixed to the genitive of his
master's first name: _Mārcipor_ (=_Mārcī puer_), "Marcus's slave."
When slaves became numerous this simple form no longer sufficed to
distinguish them, and they received individual names. These were
usually foreign names, often denoting the nationality of the slave,
sometimes, in mockery perhaps, the high-sounding appellations of
eastern potentates, such names as Afer, Eleutheros, Pharnaces. By this
time, too, the word _servus_ had supplanted _puer_. We find,
therefore, that toward the end of the Republic the full name of a
slave consisted of his individual name followed by the _nōmen_ and
_praenōmen_ (the order is important) of his master and the word
_servus_: _Pharnacēs Egnātiī Pūbliī servus_. When a slave passed from
one master to another he took the _nōmen_ of the new master and added
to it the _cognōmen_ of the old with the suffix _-ānus_: when Anna the
slave of Maecenas became the property of Livia, she was called _Anna
Līviae serva Maecēnātiāna_.
[Illustration: FIGURE 9. TRAJAN]
§59. Names of Freedmen.--The freedman regularly kept the individual
name which he had had as a slave, and was given the _nōmen_ of his
master with any _praenōmen_ the latter assigned him. Thus, Andronicus,
the slave of Marcus Livius Salinator, became when freed _Lūcius Līvius
Andronīcus_, the individual name coming last as a sort of _cognōmen_.
It happened naturally that the master's _praenōmen_ was often given,
especially to a favorite slave. The freedman of a woman took the name
of her father, e.g., _Mārcus Līvius Augustae l Ismarus_; the letter
_l_ stands for _lībertus_, and was inserted in all formal documents.
Of course the master might disregard the regular form and give the
freedman any name he pleased. Thus, when Cicero manumitted his slaves
Tiro and Dionysius he called the former in strict accord with custom
_Mārcus Tullius Tīrō_, but to the latter he gave his own _praenōmen_
and the _nōmen_ of his friend Titus Pomponius Atticus, the new name
being _Mārcus Pomponius Dionysius_. The individual names (Pharnaces,
Dionysius, etc.) were dropped by the descendants of freedmen, who were
anxious with good reason to hide all traces of their mean descent.
§60. Naturalized Citizens.--When a foreigner was given the right of
citizenship, he took a new name, which was arranged on much the same
principles as have been explained in the cases of freedmen. His
original name was retained as a sort of _cognōmen_, and before it were
written the _praenōmen_ that suited his fancy and the _nōmen_ of the
person, always a Roman citizen, to whom he owed his citizenship. The
most familiar example is that of the Greek poet Archias, whom Cicero
defended under the name of _Aulus Licinius Archiās_ in the well-known
oration. He had long been attached to the family of the Luculli and
when he was made a citizen took as his _nōmen_ that of his
distinguished patron Lucius Licinius Lucullus; we do not know why he
selected the first name Aulus. Another example is that of the Gaul
mentioned by Caesar (B. G., I, 47), _Gāius Valerius Cabūrus_. He took
his name from Caius Valerius Flaccus, the governor of Gaul at the time
that he was given his citizenship. It is to this custom of taking the
names of governors and generals that is due the frequent occurrence of
the name Julius in Gaul, Pompeius in Spain, and Cornelius in Sicily.
CHAPTER III
MARRIAGE AND THE POSITION OF WOMEN
REFERENCES: Marquardt, 28-80; Voigt, 318, 449; Göll, II, 5 f.;
Friedländer, I, 451 f.; Ramsay, 293 f., 477; Preston, 8 f.; Smith,
_mātrimōnium_; Baumeister, 696 f.; Harper, _cōnūbium_, _mātrimōnium_;
Lübker, 364; Pauly-Wissowa, _coēmptiō_, _cōnfarreātiō_, _cōnūbium_.
§61. Early Forms of Marriage.--Polygamy was never practiced at Rome,
and we are told that for five centuries after the founding of the city
divorce was entirely unknown. Up to the time of the Servian
constitution (date uncertain) the patricians were the only citizens
and intermarried only with patricians and with members of surrounding
communities having like social standing. The only form of marriage
known to them was the stately religious ceremonial called, as will be
explained hereafter, _cōnfarreātiō_. With the direct consent of the
gods, with the _pontificēs_ celebrating the solemn rites, in the
presence of the accredited representatives of his _gēns_, the
patrician took his wife from her father's family into his own (§28),
to be a _māter familiās_, to rear him children who should conserve the
family mysteries, perpetuate his ancient race, and extend the power of
Rome. By this, the one legal marriage of the time, the wife passed _in
manum virī_, and the husband acquired over her practically the same
rights as he had over his own children (§§35, 36) and other dependent
members of his family. Such a marriage was said to be _cum conventiōne
uxōris in manum virī_ (§35).
§62. During this period, too, the free non-citizens (§§177, 178), the
plebeians, had been busy in marrying and giving in marriage. There is
little doubt that their unions had been as sacred in their eyes, their
family ties as strictly regarded and as pure, as those of the
patricians, but these unions were unhallowed by the national gods and
unrecognized by the civil law, simply because the plebeians were not
yet citizens. Their form of marriage was called _ūsus_, and consisted
essentially in the living together of the man and woman as husband and
wife for a year, though there were, of course, conventional forms and
observances, about which we know absolutely nothing. The plebeian
husband might acquire the same rights over the person and property of
his wife as the patrician, but the form of marriage did not in itself
involve _manus_. The wife might remain a member of her father's family
and retain such property as he allowed her (§33) by merely absenting
herself from her husband for the space of a _trinoctium_ each year. If
she did this the marriage was _sine conventiōne in manum_, and the
husband had no control over her property; if she did not, the marriage
like that of the patricians was _cum conventiōne in manum_.
[Illustration: FIGURE 10. HADRIAN]
§63. At least as far back as the time of Servius goes another Roman
form of marriage, also plebeian, though not so ancient as _ūsus_. It
was called _coēmptiō_ and was a fictitious sale, by which the _pater
familiās_ of the woman, or her guardian (_tūtor_) if she was _suī
iūris_, transferred her to the man _mātrimōniī causā_. This form must
have been a survival of the old custom of purchase and sale of wives,
but we do not know when it was introduced among the Romans. It carried
_manus_ with it as a matter of course and seems to have been regarded
socially as better form than _ūsus_. The two existed for centuries
side by side, but _coēmptiō_ survived _ūsus_ as a form of marriage
_cum conventiōne in manum_.
§64. Ius Conubii.--While the Servian constitution made the plebeians
citizens and thereby legalized their forms of marriage, it did not
give them the right of intermarriage with the patricians. Many of the
plebeian families were hardly less ancient than the patricians, many
were rich and powerful, but it was not until 445 B.C. that marriages
between the two orders were formally sanctioned by the civil law. The
objection on the part of the patricians was largely a religious one:
The gods of the state were patrician gods, the auspices could be taken
by patricians only, the marriages of patricians only were sanctioned
by heaven. Their orators protested that the unions of the plebeians
were no better than promiscuous intercourse, they were not _iūstae
nūptiae_ (§67); the plebeian wife was taken _in mātrimōnium_, she was
at best an _uxor_, not a _māter familiās_; her offspring were
"mother's children," not _patriciī_.
§65. Much of this was class exaggeration, but it is true that at this
early date the _gēns_ was not so highly valued by the plebeians as by
the patricians, and that the plebeians assigned to cognates certain
duties and privileges that devolved upon the patrician _gentīlēs_.
With, the _iūs cōnūbiī_ many of these points of difference
disappeared. New conditions were fixed for _iūstae nūptiae_;
_coēmptiō_ by a sort of compromise became the usual form of marriage
when one of the parties was a plebeian; and the stigma disappeared
from the word _mātrimōnium_. On the other hand patrician women learned
to understand the advantages of a marriage _sine conventiōne_ and
marriage with _manus_ gradually became less frequent, the taking of
the auspices before the ceremony came to be considered a mere form,
and marriage began to lose its sacramental character, and with these
changes came later the laxness in the marital relation and the freedom
of divorce that seemed in the time of Augustus to threaten the very
life of the commonwealth.
§66. It is probable that by the time of Cicero marriage with _manus_
was uncommon, and consequently that _cōnfarreātiō_ and _coēmptiō_ had
gone out of general use. To a limited extent, however, the former was
retained until Christian times, because certain priestly offices
(_flāminēs maiōrēs_ and _rēgēs sacrōrum_) could be filled only by
persons whose parents had been married by the confarreate ceremony,
the one sacramental form, and who had themselves been married by the
same form. But so great became the reluctance of women to submit to
_manus_, that in order to fill even these few priestly offices it was
found necessary under Tiberius to eliminate _manus_ from the
confarreate ceremony.
§67. Nuptiae Iustae.--There were certain conditions that had to be
satisfied before a legal marriage could be contracted even by
citizens. It was required:
1. That the consent of both parties should be given, or of the _pater
familiās_ if one or both were _in potestāte_. Under Augustus it was
provided that the _pater familiās_ should not withhold his consent
unless he could show valid reasons for doing so.
2. That both parties should be _pūberēs_; there could be no marriage
between children. Although no precise age was fixed by law, it is
probable that fourteen and twelve were the lowest limit for the man
and woman respectively.
3. That both man and woman should be unmarried. Polygamy was never
practiced at Rome.
§68. 4. That the parties should not be nearly related. The
restrictions in this direction were fixed rather by public opinion
than by law and varied greatly at different times, becoming gradually
less severe. In general it may be said that marriage was absolutely
forbidden between ascendants and descendants, between other cognates
within the fourth degree (§25), and the nearer _adfīnēs_ (§26). If the
parties could satisfy these conditions they might be legally married,
but distinctions were still made that affected the civil status of the
children, although no doubt was cast upon their legitimacy or upon the
moral character of their parents.
§69. If the husband and wife were both Roman citizens, their marriage
was called _iūstae nūptiae_, which we may translate "regular
marriage," their children were _iūstī līberī_ and were by birth _cīvēs
optimō iūre_, "possessed of all civil rights."
If but one of the parties was a Roman citizen and the other a member
of a community having the _iūs cōnūbiī_ but not the full _cīvitās_,
the marriage was still called _iūstae nūptiae_, but the children took
the civil standing of the father. This means that if the father was a
citizen and the mother a foreigner, the children were citizens; but if
the father was a foreigner and the mother a citizen, the children were
foreigners (_peregrīnī_) with the father.
But if either of the parties was without the _iūs cōnūbiī_, the
marriage, though still legal, was called _nūptiae iniūstae_ or
_mātrimōnium iniūstum_, "an irregular marriage," and the children,
though legitimate, took the civil position of the parent of lower
degree. We seem to have something analogous to this in the loss of
social standing which usually follows the marriage of a person with
one of distinctly inferior position.
§70. Betrothals.--Betrothal (_spōnsālia_) as a preliminary to marriage
was considered good form but was not legally necessary and carried
with it no obligations that could be enforced by law. In the
_spōnsālia_ the maiden was promised to the man as his bride with
"words of style," that is, in solemn form. The promise was made, not
by the maiden herself, but by her _pater familiās_, or by her _tūtor_
if she was not _in potestāte_. In the same way, the promise was made
to the man directly only in case he was _suī iūris_, otherwise to the
Head of his House, who had asked for him the maiden in marriage. The
"words of style" were probably something like this:
"_Spondēsne Gāiam, tuam fīliam_ (or if she was a ward: _Gāiam, Lūciī
fīliam_), _mihi_ (or _fīliō meō_) _uxōrem darī?_"
"_Dī bene vortant! Spondeō._"
"_Dī bene vortant!_"
§71. At any rate the word _spondeō_ was technically used of the
promise, and the maiden was henceforth _spōnsa_. The person who made
the promise had always the right to cancel it. This was usually done
through an intermediary (_nūntius_), and hence the formal expression
for breaking an engagement was _repudium renūntiāre_, or simply
_renūntiāre_. While the contract was entirely one-sided, it should be
noticed that a man was liable to _īnfāmia_ if he formed two
engagements at the same time, and that he could not recover any
presents made with a view to a future marriage if he himself broke the
engagement. Such presents were almost always made, and while we find
that articles for personal use, the toilet, etc., were common, a ring
was usually given. The ring was worn on the third finger of the left
hand, because it was believed that a nerve ran directly from this
finger to the heart. It was also usual for the _spōnsa_ to make a
present to her betrothed.
§72. The Dowry.--It was a point of honor with the Romans, as it is now
with some European nations, for the bride to bring to her husband a
dowry (_dōs_). In the case of a girl _in potestāte_ this would
naturally be furnished by the Head of her House; in the case of one
_suī iūris_ it was furnished from her own property, or if she had none
was contributed by her relatives. It seems that if they were reluctant
she might by process of law compel her ascendants at least to furnish
it. In early times, when marriage _cum conventiōne_ prevailed, all the
property brought by the bride became the property of her husband, or
of his _pater familiās_ (§35), but in later times, when _manus_ was
less common, and especially after divorce had become of frequent
occurrence, a distinction was made. A part of the bride's possessions
was reserved for her own exclusive use, and a part was made over to
the groom under the technical name of _dōs_. The relative proportions
varied, of course, with circumstances.
§73. Essential Forms.--There were really no legal forms necessary for
the solemnization of a marriage; there was no license to be procured
from the civil authorities, the ceremonies simple or elaborate did not
have to be performed by persons authorized by the state. The one thing
necessary was the consent of both parties, if they were _suī iūris_,
or of their _patrēs familiās_, if they were _in potestāte_. It has
been already remarked (§67, 1) that the _pater familiās_ could refuse
his consent for valid reasons only; on the other hand, he could
command the consent of persons subject to him. It is probable that
parental and filial affection (_pietās_) made this hardship less
rigorous than it now seems to us (§§32, 33).
[Illustration: FIGURE 11. ANTONINUS PIUS]
§74. But while this consent was the only condition for a legal
marriage, it had to be shown by some act of personal union between the
parties; that is, the marriage could not be entered into by letter or
by the intervention of a third party. Such an overt act was the
joining of hands (_dextrārum iūnctiō_) in the presence of witnesses,
or the escorting of the bride to her husband's house, never omitted
when the parties had any social standing, or in later times the
signing of the marriage contract. It was never necessary to a valid
marriage that the parties should live together as man and wife,
though, as we have seen (§62), this living together of itself
constituted a legal marriage.
§75. The Wedding Day.--It will be noticed that superstition played an
important part in the arrangements for a wedding two thousand years
ago, as it does now. Especial pains had to be taken to secure a lucky
day. The Kalends, Nones, and Ides of each month, and the day following
each of them, were unlucky. So was all of May and the first half of
June, on account of certain religious ceremonies observed in these
months, the Argean offerings and the _Lemūria_ in May and the _diēs
religiōsī_ connected with Vesta in June. Besides these the _diēs
parentālēs_, February 13-21, and the days when the entrance to the
lower world was supposed to be open, August 24, October 5, and
November 8, were carefully avoided. One-third of the year, therefore,
was absolutely barred. The great holidays, too, and these were legion,
were avoided, not because they were unlucky, but because on these days
friends and relatives were sure to have other engagements. Women
marrying for the second time chose these very holidays to make their
weddings less conspicuous.
§76. The Wedding Garments.--On the eve of her wedding day the bride
dedicated to the _Larēs_ of her father's house her _bulla_ (§99) and
the _toga praetexta_, which married women did not wear, and also if
she was not much over twelve years of age her childish playthings. For
the sake of the omen she put on before going to sleep the _tunica
rēcta_, or _rēgilla_, woven in one piece and falling to the feet. A
very doubtful picture is shown in Rich under the word _rëcta_. It
seems to have derived its name from having been woven in the
old-fashioned way at an upright loom. This same tunic was worn at the
wedding.
[Illustration: FIGURE 12. DRESSING THE BRIDE]
§77. On the morning of the wedding day the bride was dressed for the
ceremony by her mother, and Roman poets show unusual tenderness as
they describe her solicitude. There is a wall painting of such a
scene, found at Pompeii and reproduced in Fig. 12. The chief article
of dress was the _tunica rēgilla_ already mentioned, which was
fastened around the waist with a band of wool tied in the knot of
Hercules (_nodus Herculāneus_), probably because Hercules was the
guardian of wedded life. This knot the husband only was privileged to
untie. Over the tunic was worn the bridal veil, the flame-colored veil
(_flammeum_), shown in Fig. 13. So important was the veil of the bride
that _nūbere_, "to veil one's self," is the regular word for "marry"
when used of a woman.
[Illustration: FIGURE 13. THE FLAMMEUM]
§78. Especial attention was given to the arrangement of the hair, but
unfortunately we have no picture preserved to us to make its
arrangement clear. We only know that it was divided into six locks by
the point of a spear, probably a reminiscence of the ancient marriage
by capture, and that these locks perhaps braided were kept in position
by ribbons (_vittae_). The bride had also a wreath of flowers and
sacred plants gathered by herself. The groom wore of course the toga
and had a similar wreath of flowers on his head. He was accompanied to
the home of the bride at the proper time by relatives, friends, and
clients, who were bound to do him every honor on his wedding day.
§79. The Ceremony.--The house of the bride's father, where the
ceremony was performed, was decked with flowers, boughs of trees,
bands of wool, and tapestries. The guests arrived before the hour of
sunrise, and even then the omens had been already taken. In the
ancient confarreate ceremony these were taken by the public augur, but
in later times, no matter what the ceremony, the haruspices merely
consulted the entrails of a sheep which had been killed in sacrifice.
When the marriage ceremonies are described it must be remembered that
only the consent was necessary (§73) with the act expressing the
consent, and that all other forms and ceremonies were unessential and
variable. Something depended upon the particular form used, but more
upon the wealth and social position of the families interested. It is
probable that most weddings were a good deal simpler than those
described by our chief authorities.
§80. After the omens had been pronounced favorable the bride and groom
appeared in the atrium, the chief room, and the wedding began. This
consisted of two parts:
1. The ceremony proper, varying according to the form used
(_cōnfarreātiō_, _coēmptiō_, or _ūsus_), the essential part being the
consent before witnesses.
2. The festivities, including the feast at the bride's home, the
taking of the bride with a show of force from her mother's arms, the
escort to her new home (the essential part), and her reception there.
[Illustration: FIGURE 14. A MARRIAGE SCENE]
§81. The confarreate ceremony began with the _dextrārum iūnctiō_. The
bride and groom were brought together by the _prōnuba_, a matron
married to her first husband, and joined hands in the presence of ten
witnesses representing the ten _gentēs_ of the _cūria_. These are
shown on an ancient sarcophagus found at Naples (Fig. 14). Then
followed the words of consent spoken by the bride: _Quandō tū Gāius,
ego Gāia_. The formula was unchanged, no matter what the names of the
bride and groom, and goes back to a time when _Gāius_ was a _nōmen_,
not a _praenōmen_ (§55). It implied that the bride was actually
entering the _gēns_ of the groom (§§23, 28, 35), and was probably
chosen for its lucky meaning (§44). Even in marriages _sine
conventiōne_ the old formula came to be used, its import having been
lost in lapse of time. The bride and groom then took their places side
by side at the left of the altar and facing it, sitting on stools
covered with the pelt of the sheep slain for the sacrifice.
[Illustration: FIGURE 15. A CAMILLUS]
§82. A bloodless offering was then made to Jupiter by the _Pontifex
Maximus_ and the _Flāmen Diālis_, consisting of the cake of spelt
(_farreum lībum_) from which the _cōnfarreātiō_ got its name. With the
offering to Jupiter a prayer was recited by the Flamen to Juno as the
goddess of marriage, and to Tellus, Picumnus, and Pilumnus, deities of
the country and its fruits. The utensils necessary for the offering
were carried in a covered basket (_cumerus_) by a boy called
_camillus_ (Fig. 15), whose parents must have both been living at the
time (_patrīmus et mātrīmus_). Then followed the congratulations, the
guests using the word _fēlīciter_.
§83. The _coēmptiō_ began with the fictitious sale, carried out in the
presence of no less than five witnesses. The purchase money
represented by a single coin was laid in the scales held by a
_lībripēns_. The scales, scaleholder, coin, and witnesses were all
necessary for this kind of marriage. Then followed the _dextrārum
iūnctiō_ and the words of consent, borrowed, as has been said, from
the confarreate ceremony. Originally the groom had asked the bride:
_An sibi māter familiās esse vellet._ She assented, and put to him a
similar question: _An sibi pater familiās esse vellet._ To this he too
gave the answer "Yes." A prayer was then recited and sometimes perhaps
a sacrifice offered, after which came the congratulations as in the
other and more elaborate ceremony.
§84. The third form, that is, the ceremonies preliminary to _ūsus_,
probably admitted of more variation than either of the others, but no
description has come down to us. We may be sure that the hands were
clasped, the words of consent spoken, and congratulations offered, but
we know of no special customs or usages. It was almost necessary for
the three forms to get more or less alike in the course of time,
though the cake of spelt could not be borrowed from the confarreate
ceremony by either of the others, or the scales and their holder from
the ceremony of _coēmptiō_.
§85. The Wedding Feast.--After the conclusion of the ceremony came the
wedding feast (_cēna nūptiālis_) lasting until evening. There can be
no doubt that this was regularly given at the house of the bride's
father and that the few cases when we know that it was given at the
groom's house were exceptional and due to special circumstances which
might cause a similar change to-day. The feast seems to have concluded
with the distribution among the guests of pieces of the wedding cake
(_mustāceum_), which was made of meal steeped in must (§296) and
served on bay leaves. There came to be so much extravagance at these
feasts and at the _repōtia_ mentioned below (§89) that under Augustus
it was proposed to limit their cost by law to one thousand sesterces
($50), a piece of sumptuary legislation as vain as such restrictions
have usually proved to be.
§86. The Bridal Procession.--After the wedding feast the bride was
formally taken to her husband's house. This ceremony was called
_dēductiō_, and as it was essential to the validity of the marriage
(§74) it was never omitted. It was a public function, that is, any one
might join the procession and take part in the merriment that
distinguished it, and we are told that persons of rank did not scruple
to wait in the street to see the bride. As evening approached the
procession was formed before the house with torch bearers and flute
players at its head. When all was ready the marriage hymn
(_hymenaeus_) was sung and the groom took the bride with a show of
force from the arms of her mother. The Romans saw in this custom a
reminiscence of the rape of the Sabines, but it probably goes far back
beyond the founding of Rome to the custom of marriage by capture that
prevailed among many peoples. The bride then took her place in the
procession attended by three boys, _patrīmī et mātrīmī_ (§82); two of
these walked by her side, holding each a hand, while the other carried
before her the wedding torch of white thorn (_spīna alba_). Behind the
bride were carried the distaff and spindle, emblems of domestic life.
The _camillus_ with his _cumerus_ also walked in the procession.
§87. During the march were sung the _versūs Fescennīnī_, abounding in
coarse jests and personalities. The crowd also shouted the ancient
marriage cry, the significance of which the Romans themselves did not
understand. We find it in at least five forms, all variations of the
name Talassius or Talassio, who was probably a Sabine divinity, though
his functions are unknown. Livy derives it from the supposed name of a
senator in the time of Romulus. The bride dropped on the way one of
three coins which she carried as an offering to the _Larēs
compitālēs_; of the other two she gave one to the groom as an emblem
of the dowry she brought him, and one to the _Larēs_ of his house. The
groom meanwhile scattered nuts through the crowd. This is explained by
Catullus as a token of his having become a man and having put away
childish things (§103), but the nuts were rather a symbol of
fruitfulness. The custom survives in the throwing of rice in modern
times.
§88. When the procession reached the house, the bride wound the door
posts with bands of wool, probably a symbol of her own work as
mistress of the household, and anointed the door with oil and fat,
emblems of plenty. She was then lifted carefully over the threshold,
in order to avoid the chance of so bad an omen as a slip of the foot
on entering the house for the first time. Others, however, see in the
custom another survival of marriage by capture. She then pronounced
again the words of consent: _Ubi tū Gāius, ego Gāia_, and the doors
were closed against the general crowd; only the invited guests entered
with the pair.
[Illustration: FIGURE 16. THE MARRIAGE COUCH]
§89. The husband met the wife in the atrium and offered her fire and
water in token of the life they were to live together and her part in
the home. Upon the hearth was ready the wood for a fire, and this the
bride kindled with the marriage torch which had been carried before
her. The torch was afterwards thrown among the guests to be scrambled
for as a lucky possession. A prayer was then recited by the bride and
she was placed by the _prōnuba_ on the _lectus geniālis_ (Fig. 16),
which always stood on the wedding night in the atrium. Here it
afterwards remained as a piece of ornamental furniture only. On the
next day was given in the new home the second wedding feast
(_repōtia_) to the friends and relatives, and at this feast the bride
made her first offering to the gods as a _mātrōna_. A series of feasts
followed, given in honor of the newly wedded pair by those in whose
social circles they moved.
§90. The Position of Women.--With her marriage the Roman woman reached
a position unattained by the women of any other nation in the ancient
world. No other people held its women in so high respect; nowhere else
did they exert so strong and beneficent an influence. In her own house
the Roman matron was absolute mistress. She directed its economy and
supervised the tasks of the household slaves but did no menial work
herself. She was her children's nurse, and conducted their early
training and education. Her daughters were fitted under their mother's
eye to be mistresses of similar homes, and remained her closest
companions until she herself had dressed them for the bridal and their
husbands had torn them from her arms. She was her husband's helpmeet
in business as well as in household affairs, and he often consulted
her on affairs of state. She was not confined at home to a set of
so-called women's apartments, as were her sisters in Greece; the whole
house was hers. She received her husband's guests and sat at table
with them. Even when subject to the _manus_ of her husband the
restraint was so tempered by law and custom (§36) that she could
hardly have been chafed by the fetters which had been forged with her
own consent (§73).
§91. Out of the house the matron's dress (_stola mātrōnālis_, §259)
secured for her the most profound respect. Men made way for her in the
street; she had a place at the public games, at the theaters, and at
the great religious ceremonies of state. She could give testimony in
the courts, and until late in the Republic might even appear as an
advocate. Her birthday was sacredly observed and made a joyous
occasion by the members of her household, and the people as a whole
celebrated the _Mātrōnālia_, the great festival on the first of March,
and gave presents to their wives and mothers. Finally, if she came of
a noble family, she might be honored, after she had passed away, with
a public eulogy, delivered from the _rostra_ in the forum.
§92. It must be admitted that the education of women was not carried
far at Rome, and that their accomplishments were few, and rather
useful and homely than elegant. But the Roman women spoke the purest
and best Latin known in the highest and most cultivated circles, and
so far as accomplishments were concerned their husbands fared no
better. Respectable women in Greece were allowed no education at all.
§93. It must be admitted, too, that a great change took place in the
last years of the Republic. With the laxness of the family life, the
freedom of divorce, and the inflow of wealth and extravagance, the
purity and dignity of the Roman matron declined, as had before
declined the manhood and the strength of her father and her husband.
It must be remembered, however, that ancient writers did not dwell
upon certain subjects that are favorites with our own. The simple joys
of childhood and domestic life, home, the praises of sister, wife, and
mother may not have been too sacred for the poet and the essayist of
Rome, but the essayist and the poet did not make them their themes.
The mother of Horace must have been a singularly gifted woman, but she
is never mentioned by her son. The descriptions of domestic life,
therefore, that have come down to us are either from Greek sources, or
are selected from precisely those circles where fashion, profligacy,
and impurity made easy the work of the satirist. It is, therefore,
safe to say that the pictures painted for us in the verse of Catullus
and Juvenal, for example, are not true of Roman women as a class in
the times of which they write. The strong, pure woman of the early day
must have had many to imitate her virtues in the darkest times of the
Empire. There were mothers then, as well as in the times of the
Gracchi; there were wives as noble as the wife of Marcus Brutus.
CHAPTER IV
CHILDREN AND EDUCATION
REFERENCES: Marquardt, 80-134; Voigt, 322 f., 397 f., 455 f.; Göll,
"Gallus," II, 65-113; Friedländer, I, 456 f., III, 376 f.; Ramsay, 475
f.; Smith, _lūdus litterārius_; Harper, _education_; Baumeister, 237,
1588 f.; Schreiber, Pl. 79, 82, 89, 90; Lübker, _Erziehung_.
§94. Legal Status.--The position of the children in the _familia_ has
been already explained (§§31, 32). It has been shown that in the eyes
of the law they were little better than the chattels of the Head of
the House. It rested with him to grant them the right to live; all
that they earned was his; they married at his bidding, and either
remained under his _potestās_ or passed under another no less severe.
It has also been suggested that custom (§32) and _pietās_ (§73) had
made this condition less rigorous than it seems to us.
§95. Susceptio.--The power of the _pater familiās_ was displayed
immediately after the birth of the child. By invariable custom it was
laid upon the ground at his feet. If he raised (_tollere_,
_suscipere_) it in his arms, he acknowledged it as his own by the act
(_susceptiō_) and admitted it to all the rights and privileges that
membership in a Roman family implied. If he refused to do so, the
child became an outcast, without family, without the protection of the
spirits of the dead (§27), utterly friendless and forsaken. The
disposal of the child did not ordinarily call for any act of downright
murder, such as was contemplated in the case of Romulus and Remus and
was afterwards forbidden by Romulus the King (§32). The child was
simply "exposed" (_expōnere_), that is, taken by a slave from the
house and left on the highway to live or to die. When we consider the
slender chance for life that the newborn child has with even the
tenderest care, the result of this exposure will not seem doubtful.
§96. But there was a chance for life, and the mother, powerless to
interpose in her infant's behalf, often sent with it some trinkets or
trifling articles of jewelry that would serve perhaps to identify it,
if it should live. Even if the child was found in time by persons
disposed to save its life, its fate might be worse than death. Slavery
was the least of the evils to which it was exposed. Such foundlings
often fell into the hands of those whose trade was beggary and who
trained children for the same profession. In the time of the Empire,
at least, they cruelly maimed and deformed their victims, in order to
excite more readily the compassion of those to whom they appealed for
alms. Such things are still done in southern Europe.
§97. Dies Lustricus.--The first eight days of the life of the
acknowledged child were called _prīmordia_, and were the occasion of
various religious ceremonies. During this time the child was called
_pūpus_ (§55), although to weak and puny children the individual name
might be given soon after birth. On the ninth day in the case of a
boy, on the eighth in the case of a girl, the _praenōmen_ (§43) was
given with due solemnity. A sacrifice was offered and the ceremony of
purification was performed, which gave the day its name, _diēs
lūstricus_, although it was also called the _diēs nōminum_ and
_nōminālia_. These ceremonies seem to have been private; that is, it
can not be shown that there was any taking of the child to a
_templum_, as there was among the Jews, or any enrollment of the name
upon an official list. In the case of the boy the registering of the
name on the list of citizens may have occurred at the time of putting
on the _toga virīlis_ (§127).
[Illustration: FIGURE 17. CREPUNDIA]
§98. The _diēs lūstricus_ was, however, a time of rejoicing and
congratulation among the relatives and friends, and these together
with the household slaves presented the child with little metal toys
or ornaments in the form of flowers, miniature axes and swords, and
especially figures shaped like a half-moon (_lūnulae_), etc. These,
called collectively _crepundia_, were strung together and worn around
the neck and over the breast (Fig. 17). They served in the first place
as playthings to keep the child amused, hence the name "rattles," from
_crepō_. Besides, they were a protection against witchcraft or the
evil eye (_fascinātiō_), especially the _lūnulae_. More than this,
they were a means of identification in the case of lost or stolen
children, and for this reason Terence calls them _monumenta_. Such
were the trinkets sometimes left with an abandoned child (§96), their
value depending, of course, upon the material of which they were made.
[Illustration: FIGURE 18. THE BULLA]
[Illustration: FIGURE 19. GIRL'S NECKLACE]
§99. The Bulla.--But of more significance than these was the _bulla
aurea_, which the father hung around the child's neck on this day, if
he had not done so at the time of the _susceptiō_. It consisted of two
concave pieces of gold, like a watch case (Fig. 18), fastened together
by a wide spring of the same metal and containing an amulet as a
protection against _fascinātiō_. It was hung around the neck by a
chain or cord and worn upon the breast. The _bulla_ came originally
from Etruria,[1] and for a long time the children of patricians only
were allowed to wear those of gold, the plebeians contenting
themselves with an imitation made of leather, hung on a leathern
thong. In the course of time the distinction ceased to be observed, as
we have seen such distinctions die out in the use of names and in the
marriage ceremonies, and by Cicero's time the _bulla aurea_ might be
worn by the child of any freeborn citizen. The choice of material
depended rather upon the wealth and generosity of the father than upon
his social position. The girl wore her _bulla_ (Fig. 19) until the eve
of her wedding day, laying it aside with other childish things, as we
have seen (§76); the boy wore his until he assumed the _toga virīlis_,
when it was dedicated to the _Larēs_ of the house and carefully
preserved. If the boy became a successful general and won the coveted
honor of a triumph, he always wore his _bulla_ in the triumphal
procession as a protection against envy.
[Footnote 1: The influence of Etruria upon Rome faded before that of
Greece (§5), but from Etruria the Romans got the art of divination,
certain forms of architecture, the insignia of royalty, and the games
of the circus and the amphitheater.]
[Illustration: FIGURE 20. CHILD IN LITTER]
§100. Nurses.--The mother was the child's nurse (§90) not only in the
days of the Republic but even into the Empire, the Romans having
heeded the teachings of nature in this respect longer than any other
civilized nation of the old world. Of course it was not always
possible then, as it is not always possible now, for the mother to
nurse her children, and then her place was taken by a slave
(_nūtrīx_), to whom the name _māter_ seems to have been given out of
affection. In the ordinary care of the children, too, the mother was
assisted, but only assisted, by slaves. Under the eye of the mother,
slaves washed and dressed the child, told it stories, sang it
lullabies, and rocked it to sleep on the arm or in a cradle. None of
these nursery stories have come down to us, but Quintilian tells us
that Aesop's fables resembled them. For a picture of a cradle see
Smith under the words _cūnae_ and _cūnābula_; in Rich under _cūnāria_
is a picture of a nurse giving a baby its bath. The place of the
modern baby carriage was taken by a litter (_lectīca_), and a terra
cotta figure has come down to us (Fig. 20) representing a child
carried in such a litter by two men.
§101. After the Punic wars (§5) it became customary for the well-to-do
to select for the child's nurse a Greek slave, that the child might
acquire the Greek language as naturally as its own. In Latin
literature are many passages that testify to the affection felt for
each other by nurse and child, an affection that lasted on into
manhood and womanhood. It was a common thing for the young wife to
take with her into her new home, as her adviser and confidant, the
nurse who had watched over her in infancy. Faithfulness on the part of
such slaves was also frequently repaid by manumission.
[Illustration: FIGURE 21. JOINTED DOLL]
[Illustration: FIGURE 22. CHILDREN PLAYING BALL]
§102. Playthings.--But little is known of the playthings, pets, and
games of Roman children, because as has been said (§93) domestic life
was not a favorite theme of Roman writers and no books were then
written especially for the young. Still there are scattered references
in literature from which we can learn something, and more is known
from monumental sources (§10). This evidence shows that playthings
were numerous and of very many kinds. The _crepundia_ have been
mentioned already (§98), and these miniature tools and implements seem
to have been very common. Dolls there were, too, and some of these
have come down to us, though we can not always distinguish between
statuettes and genuine playthings. Some were made of clay, others of
wax, and even jointed arms and legs were not unknown (Fig. 21). Little
wagons and carts were also common (Schreiber, LXXXII, 10), and Horace
speaks of hitching mice to toys of this sort. There are numerous
pictures and descriptions of children spinning tops, making them
revolve by blows of a whiplash, as in Europe nowadays. Hoops also were
a favorite plaything, driven with a stick and having pieces of metal
fastened to them to warn people of their approach. Boys walked on
stilts and played with balls (Fig. 22), too, but as men enjoyed this
sport as well, it may be deferred until we reach the subject of
amusements (§318).
[Illustration: FIGURE 23. BOY AND GOOSE]
§103. Pets and Games.--Pets were even more common then than now, and
then as now the dog was easily first in the affections of children
(Schreiber, LXXXII, 6). The cat, on the other hand, was hardly known
until very late in the history of Greece and Rome. Birds were very
commonly made pets, and besides the doves and pigeons which are
familiar to us as well, we are told that ducks, crows, and quail were
pets of children. So also were geese, odd as this seems to us, and the
statue of a child struggling with a goose as large as himself is well
known (Fig. 23). Monkeys were known, but could not have been common.
Mice have been mentioned already. Games of many kinds were played by
children, but we can only guess at the nature of most of them, as we
have hardly any formal descriptions. There were games corresponding to
our Odd or Even, Blindman's Buff, Hide and Seek, Jackstones (§320),
and Seesaw (Schreiber, LXXIX and LXXX). Pebbles and nuts were used in
games something like our marbles, and there were board-games also. To
these may be added for boys riding, swimming, and wrestling, although
these were taken too seriously, perhaps, to be called games and
belonged rather to their training for the duties of citizenship.
§104. Home Training.--The training of the children was conducted by
the father and mother in person. More stress was laid upon the moral
than upon the intellectual development: reverence for the gods,
respect for the law, unquestioning and instant obedience to authority,
truthfulness, and self-reliance were the most important lessons for
the child to learn. Much of this came from the constant association of
the children with their parents, which was the characteristic feature
of the home training of the Romans as compared with that of other
peoples of the time. The children sat at table with their elders or
helped to serve the meals. Until the age of seven both boys and girls
had their mother for their teacher. From her they learned to speak
correctly their native tongue, and Latin rhetoricians tell us that the
best Latin was spoken by the noble women of the great houses of Rome.
The mother taught them the elements of reading and writing and as much
of the simpler operations of arithmetic as children so young could
learn.
§105. From about the age of seven the boy passed under the care of
regular teachers, but the girl remained her mother's constant
companion. Her schooling was necessarily cut short, because the Roman
girl became a wife so young (§67), and there were things to learn in
the meantime that books do not teach. From her mother she learned to
spin and weave and sew: even Augustus wore garments woven by his wife.
By her mother she was initiated into all the mysteries of household
economy and fitted to take her place as the mistress of a household of
her own, to be a Roman _mātrōna_, the most dignified position to which
a woman could aspire in the ancient world (§§90, 91).
§106. The boy, except during the hours of school, was equally his
father's companion. If the father was a farmer, as all Romans were in
earlier times, the boy helped in the fields and learned to plow and
plant and reap. If the father was a man of high position and lived in
the capital, the boy stood by him in his hall as he received his
guests, learned to know their faces, names, and rank, and acquired a
practical knowledge of politics and affairs of state. If the father
was a senator, the boy, in the earlier days only it is true,
accompanied him to the senate house to hear the debates and listen to
the great orators of the time; and the son could always go with him to
the forum when he was an advocate or concerned in a public trial.
§107. Then as every Roman was bred a soldier the father trained the
son in the use of arms and in the various military exercises, as well
as in the manly sports of riding, swimming, wrestling, and boxing. In
these exercises strength and agility were kept in view, rather than
the grace of movement and symmetrical development of form, on which
the Greeks laid so much stress. On great occasions, too, when the
cabinets in the atrium were opened and the wax busts of their
ancestors displayed, the boy and girl of noble family were always
present and learned the history of the family of which they were a
part, and with it the history of Rome.
§108. Schools.--The actual instruction given to the children by the
father would vary with his own education and at best be subject to all
sorts of interruptions due to his private business or his public
duties. We find that this embarrassment was appreciated in very early
times, and that it was customary for a _pater familiās_ who happened
to have among his slaves one competent to give the needed instruction,
to turn over to him the actual teaching of the children. It must be
remembered that slaves taken in war were often much better educated
than their Roman masters. Not all households, however, would include a
competent teacher, and it would seem only natural for the fortunate
owner of such a slave to receive into his house at fixed hours of the
day the children of his friends and neighbors to be taught together
with his own.
§109. For this privilege he might charge a fee for his own benefit, as
we are told that Cato actually did, or he might allow the slave to
retain as his _pecūlium_ (§33) the little presents given him by his
pupils in lieu of direct payment. The next step, one taken in times
too early to be accurately fixed, was to select for the school a more
convenient place than a private house, one that was central and easily
accessible, and to receive as pupils all who could pay the modest fee
that was demanded. To these schools girls as well as boys were
admitted, but for the reason given in §105 the girls had little time
for studying more than their mothers could teach them, and those who
did carry their studies further came usually of families who preferred
to educate their daughters in the privacy of their own homes and could
afford to do so. The exceptions to this rule were so few, that from
this point we may consider the education of boys alone.
[Illustration: FIGURE 24. WAXED TABLETS AND STILUS]
§110. Subjects Taught in Elementary Schools.--In these elementary
schools the only subjects taught were reading, writing, and
arithmetic. In the first, great stress was laid upon the
pronunciation: the sounds were easy enough but quantity was hard to
master. The teacher pronounced first syllable by syllable, then the
separate words, and finally the whole sentence, the pupils pronouncing
after him at the tops of their voices. In the teaching of writing, wax
tablets (Fig. 24) were employed, much as slates were a generation ago.
The teacher first traced with a _stilus_ the letters that served as a
copy, then he guided the pupil's hand with his own until the child had
learned to form the letters independently. When some dexterity had
been acquired, the pupil was taught to use the reed pen and write with
ink upon papyrus. For practice, sheets were used that had had one side
written upon already for more important purposes. If any books at all
were used in these schools, the pupils must have made them for
themselves by writing from the teacher's dictation.
[Illustration: FIGURE 25. ABACUS]
§111. In arithmetic mental calculation was emphasized, but the pupil
was taught to use his fingers in a very elaborate way that is not now
thoroughly understood, and harder sums were worked out with the help
of the reckoning board (_abacus_, Fig. 25). In addition to all this,
attention was paid to the training of the memory, and the pupil was
made to learn by heart all sorts of wise and pithy sayings and
especially the Twelve Tables of the Law. These last became a regular
fetich in the schools, and even when the language in which they were
written had become obsolete pupils continued to learn and recite them.
Cicero had learned them in his boyhood, but within his lifetime they
were dropped from the schools.
§112. Grammar Schools.--Among the results of contact with other
peoples that followed the Punic wars (§5) was the extension of
education at Rome beyond these elementary and strictly utilitarian
subjects. The Greek language came to be generally learned (§101) and
Greek ideas of education were in some degree adopted. Schools were
established in which the central thing was the study of the Greek
poets, and these schools we may call Grammar Schools because the
teacher was called _grammaticus_. Homer was long the universal
text-book, and students were not only taught the language, but were
instructed in the matters of geography, mythology, antiquities,
history, and ethics suggested by the portions of the text which they
read. The range of instruction and its value depended entirely upon
the teacher, as does such instruction to-day, but it was at best
fragmentary and disconnected. There was no systematic study of any of
these subjects, not even of history, despite its interest and
practical value to a world-ranging people like the Romans.
§113. The Latin language was soon made the subject of similar study,
at first in separate schools. The lack of Latin poetry to work upon,
for prose authors were not yet made text-books, led to the translation
by a Greek slave, Livius Andronicus (3d century B.C.), of the Odyssey
of Homer into Latin Saturnian verses. From this translation, rude as
the surviving fragments show it to have been, dates the beginning of
Latin literature, and it was not until this literature had furnished
poets like Terence, Vergil, and Horace, that the rough Saturnians of
Livius Andronicus disappeared from the schools.
§114. In these Grammar Schools, Greek as well as Latin, great stress
seems to have been laid upon elocution, a thing less surprising when
we consider the importance of oratory under the Republic. The teacher
had the pupils pronounce after him first the words, then the clauses,
and finally the complete sentences. The elements of rhetoric were
taught in some of these schools, but technical instruction in the
subject was not given until the establishment at a much later period
of special schools of rhetoric. In the Grammar Schools were also
taught music and geometry, and these made complete the ordinary
education of boyhood.
§115. Schools of Rhetoric.--The Schools of Rhetoric were formed on
Greek lines and conducted by Greek teachers. They were not a part of
the regular system of education, but corresponded more nearly to our
colleges, being frequented by persons beyond the age of boyhood and
with rare exceptions, of the higher classes only. In these schools the
study of prose authors was begun, but the main thing was the practice
of composition. This was begun in its simplest form, the narrative
(_nārrātiō_), and continued step by step until the end in view was
reached, the practice of public speaking (_dēclāmātiō_). One of the
intermediate forms was the _suāsōria_, in which the students took
sides on some disputed point of history and supported their views by
argument. A favorite exercise also was the writing of a speech to be
put in the mouth of some person famous in legend or history. How
effective these could be made is seen in the speeches inserted in
their histories by Sallust, Livy, and Tacitus.
§116. Travel.--In the case of persons of the noblest and most wealthy
families, or those whose talents in early manhood promised a brilliant
future, the training of the schools was sure to be supplemented by a
period of travel and residence abroad. Greece, Rhodes, and Asia Minor
were the most frequently visited, whether the young Roman cared for
the scenes of great historical events and the rich collections of
works of literature and art, or merely enjoyed the natural charms and
social splendors of the gay and luxurious capitals of the east. For
the purposes of serious study Athens offered the greatest attractions
and might almost have been called the university of Rome, in this
respect standing to Italy much as Germany now stands to the United
States. It must be remembered, however, that the Roman who studied in
Athens was as familiar with Greek as with his native Latin and for
this reason was much better prepared to profit by the lectures he
heard than is the average American who now studies on the continent.
§117. Apprenticeship.--There were certain matters, a knowledge of
which was essential to a successful public life, for training in which
no provision was made by the Roman system of education. Such matters
were jurisprudence, administration and diplomacy, and war. It was
customary, therefore, for the young citizen to attach himself for a
time to some older man, eminent in these lines or in some one of them,
in order to gain an opportunity for observation and practical
experience in the performance of duties that would sooner or later
devolve upon him. So Cicero learned the civil law under Quintus Mucius
Scaevola, the most eminent jurist of the time, and in later years the
young Marcus Coelius Rufus in turn served the same voluntary
apprenticeship (_tīrōcinium forī_) under Cicero. This arrangement was
not only very advantageous to the young men but was considered very
honorable for those under whom they studied.
§118. In the same way the governors of provinces and generals in the
field were attended by a voluntary staff (_cohors_) of young men, whom
they had invited to accompany them at state expense for personal or
political reasons. These _tīrōnēs_ became familiar in this way
(_tīrōcinium mīlitiae_) with the practical side of administration and
war, while at the same time they were relieved of many of the
hardships and dangers suffered by those, less fortunate, who had to
rise from the ranks. It was this staff of inexperienced young men who
hid in their tents or went back to Rome when Caesar determined to meet
Ariovistus in battle, although some of them, no doubt, made gallant
soldiers and wise commanders afterward.
§119. Remarks on the Schools.--Having considered the possibilities in
the way of education and training within the reach of the more favored
few, we may now go back to the Elementary and Grammar Schools to get
an idea of the actual school life of the ordinary Roman boy. While
these were not public schools in our sense of the word, that is, while
they were not supported or supervised by the state, and while
attendance was not compulsory, it is nevertheless true that the
elements at least of education, a knowledge of the three R's, were
more generally diffused among the Romans than among any other people
of the ancient world. The schools were distinctly democratic in this,
that they were open to all classes, that the fees were little more
than nominal, that so far as concerned discipline and the treatment of
the pupils no distinction was made between the children of the
humblest and of the most lordly families.
[Illustration: FIGURE 26. A ROMAN SCHOOL]
[Illustration: FIGURE 27: CARICATURE OF A SCHOOL]
§120. The school was usually in a _pergula_, a shedlike attachment to
a public building, roofed against the sun and rain, but open at the
sides and furnished merely with rough benches without backs. The
children were exposed, therefore, to all the distractions of the busy
town life around them, and the people living near were in turn annoyed
by the noisy recitations (§110) and even noisier punishments. A
picture of a schoolroom from a wall painting in Herculaneum is shown
in Fig. 26 and an ancient caricature, by a schoolboy probably, in Fig.
27.
§121. The Teacher.--The teacher was originally a slave, perhaps
usually a freedman. The position was not an honorable one, though this
depended upon the character of the teacher himself, and while the
pupils feared the master they seem to have had little respect for him.
The pay he received was a mere pittance, varying from three dollars a
year for the elementary teacher (_litterātor_, _magister litterārum_)
to five or six times that sum for a _grammaticus_ (§112). In addition
to the fee, the pupils were expected to bring the master from time to
time little presents, a custom persisting probably from the time when
these presents were his only reward (§109). The fees varied, however,
with the qualifications of the master, and some whose reputations were
established and whose schools were "fashionable" charged no fees at
all, but left the amount to be paid (_honōrārium_) to the generosity
of their patrons.
§122. Schooldays and Holidays.--The schoolday began before sunrise, as
did all the work at Rome on account of the heat in the middle of the
day (cf. §79). The students brought candles by which to study until it
became light, and the roof was soon black with the grime and smoke.
The session lasted until time for the noonday luncheon and siesta
(§302), and was resumed in the afternoon. We do not know definitely
that there was any fixed length for the school-year. We know that it
regularly began on the 24th of March and that there were numerous
holidays, notably the Saturnalia in December and the Quinquatria from
the 19th to the 23rd of March. The great religious festivals, too,
especially those celebrated with games, would naturally be observed by
the schools, and apparently the market days (_nūndinae_) were also
holidays. It was until lately supposed that there was no school from
the last of June until the first of November, but this view rested
upon an incorrect interpretation of certain passages of Horace and
Martial which are now otherwise explained. It is certain, however,
that the children of wealthy parents would be absent from Rome during
the hot season, and this would at least cut down the attendance in
some of the schools and might perhaps close them altogether.
[Illustration: FIGURE 28. PAEDAGOGUS]
§123. The Paedagogus.--The boy of good family was always attended by a
trustworthy slave (_paedagōgus_), who accompanied him to school,
remained with him during the sessions, and saw him safely home again
when school was out. If the boy had wealthy parents, he might have,
besides, one or more slaves (_pedisequī_) to carry his satchel and
tablets. The _paedagōgus_ was usually an elderly man, selected for his
good character and expected to keep the boy out of all harm, moral as
well as physical. He was not a teacher, despite the meaning of the
English derivative, except that after the learning of Greek became
general a Greek slave was usually selected for the position in order
that the boy might not forget what he had learned from his nurse
(§101). The scope of his regular duties is clearly shown by the Latin
words used sometimes instead of _paedagōgus_: _comes_, _custōs_,
_monitor_, and _rēctor_. He was addressed by his ward as _dominus_,
and seems to have had the right to compel obedience by mild
punishments (Fig. 28). His duties ceased when the boy assumed the toga
of manhood, but the same warm affection often continued between them
as between the woman and her nurse (§101).
§124. Discipline.--The discipline seems to have been really Roman in
its severity, if we may judge from the picture of a school above
referred to (§120) and by the grim references to the rod and ferule in
Juvenal and Martial. Horace has given to his teacher, Orbilius, a
deathless fame by the adjective _plāgōsus_. From Nepos we learn that
then as now teachers might have appealed to the natural emulation
between well-bred boys, and we know that prizes, too, were offered.
Perhaps we may think the ferule well deserved when we read of the
schoolboy's trick immortalized by Persius. The passage (III, 44 f.) is
worth quoting in full:
_Saepe oculōs, meminī, tangēbam parvus olīvō,_
_Grandia sī nōllem moritūrī verba Cātōnis_
_Discere et īnsānō multum laudanda magistrō!_[2]
[Footnote 2: "Often, I remember, as a small boy I used to give my eyes
a touch with oil, if I did not want to learn Cato's grand dying
speech, sure to be rapturously applauded by my wrong-headed master."]
§125. End of Childhood.--There was no special ceremony to mark the
passing of girlhood into womanhood, but for the boy the attainment of
his majority was marked by the laying aside of the crimson-bordered
_toga praetexta_ and the putting on of the pure white _toga virīlis_.
There was no fixed year, corresponding to the twenty-first with us, in
which the _puer_ became _iuvenis_; something depended upon the
physical and intellectual development of the boy himself, something
upon the will or caprice of his _pater familiās_, more perhaps upon
the time in which he lived. We may say generally, however, that the
_toga virīlis_ was assumed between the fourteenth and seventeenth
years, the later age belonging to the earlier time when citizenship
carried with it more responsibility than under the Empire and demanded
a greater maturity.
§126. For the classical period we may put the age required at sixteen,
and if we add to this the _tīrōcinium_ (§117), which followed the
donning of the garb of manhood, we shall have the seventeen years
after the expiration of which the citizen had been liable in ancient
times to military duty. The day was even less precisely fixed. We
should expect the birthday at the beginning of the seventeenth year,
but it seems to have been the more usual, but by no means invariable,
custom to select for the ceremony the feast of Liber which happened to
come nearest to the seventeenth birthday. This feast was celebrated on
the 17th of March and was called the _līberālia_. No more appropriate
time could have been selected to suggest the freer life of manhood
upon which the boy was now about to enter.
§127. The Liberalia.--The festivities of the great day began in the
early morning, when the boy laid before the Lares of his house the
_bulla_ (§99) and _toga praetexta_, called together the _īnsignia
pueritiae_. A sacrifice was then offered, and the _bulla_ was hung
over the hearth, not to be taken down and worn again except on some
occasion when the man who had worn it as a boy should be in danger of
the envy of men and gods. The boy then dressed himself in the _tunica
rēcta_ (§76), having one or two crimson stripes if he was the son of a
senator or a knight, and over this was carefully draped the _toga
virīlis_. This was also called in contrast to the gayer garb of
boyhood the _toga pūra_, and with reference to the freedom of manhood
the _toga lībera_.
§128. Then began the procession to the forum. The father had gathered
his slaves and freedmen and clients, had been careful to notify his
relatives and friends, and had used all his personal and political
influence to make the escort of his son as numerous and imposing as
possible. If the ceremony took place on the _līberālia_, the forum was
sure to be crowded with similar processions of rejoicing friends. Here
were extended the formal congratulations, and the name of one more
citizen was added to the official list. An offering was then made in
the temple of Liber on the Capitoline Hill, and the day ended with a
feast at the father's house.
CHAPTER V
DEPENDENTS: SLAVES AND CLIENTS. HOSPITES
REFERENCES: Marquardt, 135-212; Göll, II, 114-212; Guhl and Koner,
764-772; Friedländer, I, 404 f.; Ramsay, 124 f.; Pauly-Wissowa,
_clientēs_; Smith, _servus_, _lībertus_, _cliēns_, _clientēla_,
_hospitium_; Harper, _servus_, _lībertī_, _clientēs_; Lübker, _servī_,
_lībertīnus_, _hospitium_, _patrōnus_.
§129. Growth of Slavery.--So far as we may learn from history and
legend, slavery was always known at Rome. In the early days of the
Republic, however, the farm was the only place where slaves were
employed. The fact that most of the Romans were farmers and that they
and their free laborers were constantly called from the fields to
fight the battles of their country led to a gradual increase in the
number of slaves, until they were far more numerous than the free
laborers who worked for hire. We can not tell when the custom became
general of employing slaves in personal service and in industrial
pursuits, but it was one of the grossest evils resulting from Rome's
foreign conquests. In the last century of the Republic all manual
labor, almost all trades, and certain of what we now call professions
were in the hands of slaves. Not only were free laborers unable to
compete with slaves, but every occupation in which slaves engaged was
degraded in the eyes of freemen, until all labor was looked upon as
dishonorable. The small farms were gradually absorbed in the vast
estates of the rich, the sturdy yeomanry of Rome disappeared, and by
the time of Augustus the freeborn citizens of Italy who were not
soldiers were either slaveholders themselves or the idle proletariate
of the cities.
§130. Ruinous as were the economic results of slavery, the moral
effects were no less destructive. It is to slavery more than to
anything else that is due the change in the character of the Romans in
the first century of the Empire. With slaves swarming in their houses,
ministering to their luxury, pandering to their appetites, directing
their amusements, managing their business, and even educating their
children, it is no wonder that the old Roman virtues of simplicity,
frugality, and temperance declined and perished. And with the passing
of Roman manhood into oriental effeminacy began the passing of Roman
sway over the civilized world.
§131. Numbers of Slaves.--We have almost no testimony as to the number
of slaves in Italy, none even as to the ratio of the free to the
servile population. We have indirect evidence enough, however, to make
good the statements in the preceding paragraphs. That slaves were few
in early times is shown by their names (§58): if it had been usual for
a master to have more than one slave, such names as _Mārcipor_, and
Ōlipor would not have sufficed to distinguish them. An idea of the
rapid increase after the Punic wars may be gained from the number of
captives sold into slavery by successful generals. Scipio Aemilianus
is said to have disposed in this way of 60,000 Carthaginians, Marius
of 140,000 Cimbri, Aemilius Paulus of 150,000 Greeks, Pompeius and
Caesar together of more than a million of Asiatics and Gauls.
§132. The very insurrections of the slaves, unsuccessful as they
always were, also testify to their overwhelming numbers. Of the two in
Sicily, the first lasted from 134 to 132 B.C., and the second from 102
to 98; the last in spite of the fact that at the close of the first
the consul Rupilius had crucified 20,000, whom he had taken alive, as
a warning to others to submit in silence to their servitude. Spartacus
defied the armies of Rome for two years, and in the decisive battle
with Crassus (71 B.C.) left 60,000 dead upon the field. Cicero's
orations against Catiline show clearly that it was the calling out of
the hordes of slaves by the conspirators that was most dreaded in the
city.
§133. Of the number under the Empire we may get some idea from more
direct testimony. Horace tells us that ten slaves were as few as a
gentleman in even moderate circumstances could afford to own. He
himself had two in town and eight on his little Sabine farm, and he
was a poor man and his father had been a slave. Tacitus tells us of a
city prefect who had four hundred slaves in his mansion. Pliny says
that one Caius Caecilius Claudius Isodorus left at his death over four
thousand slaves. Athenaeus (170-230 A.D.) gives us to understand that
individuals owned as many as ten thousand and twenty thousand. The
fact that house slaves were commonly divided into "groups of ten"
(_decuriae_) points in the same direction.
§134. Sources of Supply.--Under the Republic the largest number of
slaves brought to Rome and offered there for sale were captives taken
in war, and an idea of the magnitude of this source of supply has
already been given (§131). The captives were sold as soon as possible
after they were taken, in order that the general might be relieved of
the trouble and risk of feeding and guarding such large numbers of men
in a hostile country. The sale was conducted by a quaestor, and the
purchasers were the wholesale slave dealers that always followed an
army along with other traders and peddlers. The spear (_hasta_), which
was always the sign of a sale conducted under public authority, was
set up in the ground to mark the place, and the captives had garlands
on their heads as did the victims offered in sacrifice. Hence the
expression _sub hastā_ and _sub corōnā vēnīre_ came to have
practically the same meaning.
§135. The wholesale dealers (_mangōnēs_) assembled their purchases in
convenient depots, and when sufficient numbers had been collected
marched them to Rome, in chains and under guard, to be sold to local
dealers or to private individuals. The slaves obtained in this way
were usually men and likely to be physically sound and strong for the
simple reason that they had been soldiers. On the other hand they were
likely to prove intractable and ungovernable, and many preferred even
suicide to servitude. It sometimes happened, of course, that the
inhabitants of towns and whole districts were sold into slavery
without distinction of age or sex.
§136. Under the Empire large numbers came to Rome as articles of
ordinary commerce, and Rome became one of the great slave marts of the
world. The slaves were brought from all the provinces of the Empire:
blacks from Egypt; swift runners from Numidia; grammarians from
Alexandria; from Cyrene those who made the best house servants; from
Greece handsome boys and girls, and well-trained scribes, accountants,
amanuenses, and even teachers; from Epirus and Illyria experienced
shepherds; from Cappadocia the most patient and enduring laborers.
§137. Some of these were captives taken in the petty wars that Rome
was always waging in defense of her boundaries, but these were
numerically insignificant. Others had been slaves in the countries
from which they came, and merely exchanged old masters for new when
they were sent to Rome. Others still were the victims of slave
hunters, who preyed on weak and defenseless peoples two thousand years
ago much as they are said to do in Africa in our own time. These
man-hunts were not prevented, though perhaps not openly countenanced,
by the Roman governors.
§138. A less important source of supply was the natural increase in
the slave population as men and women formed permanent connections
with each other, called _contubernia_. This became of general
importance only late in the Empire, because in earlier times,
especially during the period of conquest, it was found cheaper to buy
than to breed slaves. To the individual owner, however, the increase
in his slaves in this way was a matter of as much interest as the
increase of his flocks and herds. Such slaves would be more valuable
at maturity, for they would be acclimated and less liable to disease,
and besides would be trained from childhood in the performance of the
very tasks for which they were destined. They would also have more
love for their home and for their master's family, for his children
were often their playmates. It was only natural, therefore, for slaves
born in the _familia_ to have a claim upon their master's confidence
and consideration that others lacked, and it is not surprising that
they were proverbially pert and forward. They were called _vernae_ as
long as they remained the property of their first master. The
derivation of the word is not certain, but it is probable that it has
the same origin as Vesta and means something like "born in the house."
[Illustration: FIGURE 29. SALE OF A SLAVE]
§139. Sales of Slaves.--Slave dealers usually offered their wares at
public auction sales (Fig. 29). These were under the supervision of
the aediles, who appointed the place and made rules and regulations to
govern them. A tax was imposed on imported slaves and they were
offered for sale with their feet whitened with chalk; those from the
east had also their ears bored, a common sign of slavery among
oriental peoples. As bids were asked for each slave he was made to
mount a stone or platform, corresponding to the "block" familiar to
the readers of our own history. From his neck hung a scroll
(_titulus_), setting forth his character and serving as a warrant for
the purchaser. If the slave had defects not made known in this warrant
the vendor was bound to take him back within six months or make good
the loss to the buyer. The chief items in the _titulus_ were the age
and nationality of the slave, and his freedom from such common defects
as chronic ill-health, especially epilepsy, and tendencies to
thievery, running away, and suicide. In spite of the guarantee the
purchaser took care to examine the slaves as closely as possible. For
this reason they were commonly stripped, made to move around, handled
freely by the purchaser, and even examined by physicians. If no
warrant was given by the dealer, a cap (_pilleus_) was put on the
slave's head at the time of the sale and the purchaser took all risks.
The dealer might also offer the slaves at private sale, and this was
the rule in the case of all of unusual value and especially of marked
personal beauty. These were not exposed to the gaze of the crowd, but
were offered to those only who were likely to purchase. Private sales
and exchanges between citizens without the intervention of a regular
dealer were as common as the sales of other property, and no stigma
was attached to them. The trade of the _mangōnēs_, on the other hand,
was looked upon as utterly disreputable, but it was very lucrative and
great fortunes were often made in it. Vilest of all the dealers were
the _lēnōnēs_, who kept and sold slaves for immoral purposes only.
[Illustration: FIGURE 30. THE GAUL AND HIS WIFE]
§140. Prices of Slaves.--The prices of slaves varied as did the prices
of other commodities. Much depended upon the times, the supply and
demand, the characteristics and accomplishments of the particular
slave, and the requirements of the purchaser. Captives bought upon the
battlefield rarely brought more than nominal prices, because the sale
was in a measure forced (§134), and because the dealer was sure to
lose a large part of his purchase on the long march home through
disease, fatigue, and especially suicide. There is a famous piece of
statuary representing a hopeless Gaul killing his wife and then
himself (Fig. 30). We are told that Lucullus once sold slaves in his
camp at an average price of eighty cents each. In Rome male slaves
varied in value from $100, paid for common laborers in the time of
Horace, to $28,000 paid by Marcus Scaurus for an accomplished
grammarian. Handsome boys, well trained and educated, sold for as much
as $4,000. Very high prices were also paid for handsome and
accomplished girls. The music girls in Plautus and Terence cost their
lovers from $500 to $700, but girls of the lowest class sold for as
little as $25. It seems strange to us that slaves were matched in size
and color as carefully as horses are now, and that a well-matched pair
of boys would bring a much larger sum when sold together than when
sold separately.
§141. Public and Private Slaves.--Slaves were called _servī pūblicī_
and _servī prīvātī_ according as they were owned by the state or by
individuals. The condition of the former was considered the more
desirable: they were not so likely to be sold, were not worked so
hard, and were not exposed to the whims of a capricious master. They
were employed to take care of the public buildings and as servants of
the magistrates and priests. The quaestors and aediles had great
numbers of them in their service, and they were drilled as a corps of
firemen to serve at night under the _triumvirī nocturnī_. Others were
employed as lictors, jailers, executioners, etc. The number of public
slaves while considerable in itself was inconsiderable as compared
with that of those in private service.
§142. Private Slaves.--Private slaves either were employed in the
personal service of their master and his family or were kept for gain.
The former, known as the _familia urbāna_, will be described later.
The latter may be classified according as they were kept for hire or
employed in the business enterprises of their master. Of these last
the most important as well as the oldest (§129) class was that of the
farm laborers (_familia rūstica_). Of the others, engaged in all sorts
of industries, it may be remarked that it was considered more
honorable for a master to employ his slaves in enterprises of his own
than to hire them out to others. At the same time slaves could always
be hired for any desired purpose in Rome or any other city.
§143. Industrial Employment.--It must be remembered that there were
practically no freeborn laborers left in the last century of the
Republic (§129), and that much work was then done by hand that is now
done by machinery. In work of this sort were employed armies of slaves
fit only for unskilled labor: porters for the transportation of
materials and merchandise, stevedores for the lading and discharging
of vessels, men who handled the spade, pickax, and crowbar, men of
great physical strength but of little else to make them worth their
keep. Above these came artisans, mechanics, and skilled workmen of
every kind: smiths, carpenters, bricklayers, masons, seamen, etc. The
merchants and shopkeepers required assistants, and so did the millers
and bakers, the dealers in wool and leather, the keepers of lodging
houses and restaurants, all who helped to supply the countless wants
of a great city. Even the professions, as we should call them, were
largely in the hands of slaves. Books were multiplied by slaves. The
artists who carved wood and stone, designed furniture, laid mosaics,
painted pictures, and decorated the walls and ceilings of public and
private buildings were slaves. So were the musicians and the acrobats,
actors and gladiators who amused the people at the public games. So
too, as we have seen (§121), were many of the teachers in the schools,
and physicians were usually slaves.
§144. And slaves did not merely perform these various functions under
the direction of their master or of the employer to whom he had hired
them for the time. Many of them were themselves captains of industry.
When a slave showed executive ability as well as technical knowledge,
it was common enough for his master to furnish him with the necessary
capital to carry on independently the business or profession which he
understood. In this way slaves were often the managers of estates, of
banks, of commercial enterprises, though these might take them far
beyond the reach of their masters' observation, even into foreign
countries. Sometimes such a slave was expected to pay the master
annually a fixed sum out of the proceeds of the business; sometimes he
was allowed to keep for himself a certain share of the profits;
sometimes he was merely required to repay the sum advanced with
interest from the time he had received it. In all cases, however, his
industry and intelligence were stimulated by the hope of acquiring
sufficient means from the venture to purchase his freedom and
eventually make the business his own.
§145. The Familia Rustica.--Under this name are comprised the slaves
that were employed upon the vast estates that long before the end of
the Republic had supplanted the small farms of the earlier day. The
very name points at this change, for it implies that the estate was no
longer the only home of the master. He had become a landlord, living
in the capital and visiting his lands only occasionally for pleasure
or for business. The estates may, therefore, be divided into two
classes: country seats for pleasure and farms or ranches for profit.
The former were selected with great care, the purchaser having regard
to their proximity to the city or other resorts of fashion, their
healthfulness, and the natural beauty of their scenery. They were
maintained upon the most extravagant scale. There were villas and
pleasure grounds, parks, game preserves, fish ponds and artificial
lakes, everything that ministered to open air luxury. Great numbers of
slaves were required to keep these places in order, and many of them
were slaves of the highest class: landscape gardeners, experts in the
culture of fruits and flowers, experts even in the breeding and
keeping of the birds, game, and fish, of which the Romans were
inordinately fond. These had under them assistants and laborers of
every sort, and all were subject to the authority of a superintendent
or steward (_vīlicus_), who had been put in charge of the estate by
the master.
§146. Farm Slaves.--But the name _familia rūstica_ is more
characteristically used of the drudges upon the farms, because the
slaves employed upon the country seats were more directly in the
personal service of the master and can hardly be said to have been
kept for profit. The raising of grain for the market had long ceased
to be profitable, but various industries had taken its place upon the
farms. Wine and oil had become the most important products of the
soil, and vineyards and olive orchards were found wherever climate and
other conditions were favorable. Cattle and swine were raised in
countless numbers, the former more for draft purposes and the products
of the dairy than for beef. Sheep were kept for the wool, and woolen
garments were worn by the rich and poor alike. Cheese was made in
large quantities, all the larger because butter was unknown. The
keeping of bees was an important industry, because honey served, so
far as it could, the purposes for which sugar is used in modern times.
Besides these things that we are even now accustomed to associate with
farming, there were others that are now looked upon as distinct and
separate businesses. Of these the most important, perhaps, as it was
undoubtedly the most laborious, was the quarrying of stone; another
was the cutting of timber and working it up into rough lumber, and
finally the preparing of sand for the use of the builder. This last
was of much greater importance relatively then than now, on account of
the extensive use of concrete at Rome.
§147. In some of these tasks intelligence and skill were required as
they are to-day, but in many of them the most necessary qualifications
were strength and endurance, as the slaves took the place of much of
the machinery of modern times. This was especially true of the men
employed in the quarries, who were usually of the rudest and most
ungovernable class, and were worked in chains by day and housed in
dungeons by night, as convicts have been housed and worked in much
later times.
§148. The Vilicus.--The management of such an estate was also
intrusted to a _vīlicus_ (§145), who was proverbially a hard
taskmaster, simply because his hopes of freedom depended upon the
amount of profits he could turn into his master's coffers at the end
of the year. His task was no easy one. Besides planning for and
overseeing the gangs of slaves already mentioned, he had under his
charge another body of slaves only less numerous, employed in
providing for the wants of the others. Everything necessary for the
farm was produced or manufactured on the farm. Enough grain was raised
for food, and this grain was ground in the farm mills and baked in the
farm ovens by millers and bakers who were slaves on the farm. The task
of turning the mill was usually given to a horse or mule, but slaves
were often made to do the grinding as a punishment. Wool was carded,
spun, and woven into cloth, and this cloth was made into clothes by
the female slaves under the eye of the steward's consort, the
_vīlica_. Buildings were erected, and the tools and implements
necessary for the work of the farm were made and repaired. These
things required a number of carpenters, smiths, and masons, though
they were not necessarily workmen of the highest class. It was the
touchstone of a good _vīlicus_ to keep his men always busy, and it is
to be understood that the slaves were alternately plowmen and reapers,
vinedressers and treaders of the grapes, perhaps even quarrymen and
lumbermen, according to the season of the year and the place of their
toiling.
§149. The Familia Urbana.--The number of slaves kept by the wealthy
Roman in his city mansion was measured not by his needs, but by the
demands of fashion and his means. In the early days a sort of butler
(_ātriēnsis_), or major domo, had relieved the master of his household
cares, had done the buying, had kept the accounts, had seen that the
house and furniture were in order, and had looked after the few
servants who did the actual work. Even under the Republic all this was
changed. Other slaves, the _prōcūrātor_ and _dispēnsātor_, relieved
the _ātriēnsis_ of the purchasing of the supplies and the keeping of
the accounts, and left to him merely the supervision of the house and
its furniture. The duties of the slaves under him were, in the same
way, distributed among a number many times greater. Every part of the
house had its special staff of servants, often so numerous as to be
distributed into _decuriae_ (§133), with a separate superintendent for
each division: one for the kitchen, another for the dining-rooms,
another for the bedrooms, etc.
§150. The very entrance door had assigned to it its special slave
(_ōstiārius_ or _iānitor_), who was often chained to it like a
watchdog, in order to keep him literally at his post. And the duties
of the several sets were again divided and subdivided, each slave
having some one office to perform, and only one. The names of the
various functionaries of the kitchen, the dining-rooms, and the
bedchambers are too numerous to mention, but an idea of the complexity
of the service may be gained from the number of attendants that
assisted the master and mistress with their toilets. The former had
his _ōrnātor_, _tōnsor_, and _calceātor_ (who cared for the feet); the
latter her hairdressers (_ciniflōnēs_ or _cinerāriī_) and _ōrnātrīx_;
and besides these each had no less than three or four more to assist
with the bath. The children, too, had each his or her own attendants,
beginning with the _nūtrix_, and continuing in the case of the boy
with the _paedagōgus_ and _pedisequī_ (§123).
[Illustration: FIGURE 31. LECTICA]
§151. When the master or mistress left the house a numerous retinue
was deemed necessary. If they walked, slaves went before to clear the
way (_anteambulōnēs_), and pages and lackeys followed carrying wraps
or the sunshade and fan of the mistress, and ready to perform any
little service that might be necessary. The master was always
accompanied out of the house by his _nōmenclātor_, who prompted him in
case he had forgotten the name of any one who greeted him. If they did
not walk, they were carried in litters (_lectīcae_, Fig. 31),
something like sedan chairs. The bearers were strong men, by
preference Syrians or Cappadocians (§136), all carefully matched in
size (§140) and dressed in gorgeous liveries. As each member of the
household had his own litter and bearers, this one class of slaves
made an important item in the family budget. And even when they rode
in this way the same attendants accompanied them as when they walked.
§152. When the master dined at the house of a friend his slaves
attended him as far as the door at least. Some remained with him to
care for his sandals, and others (_adversitōrēs_) returned at the
appointed hour to see him home. A journey out of the city was a more
serious matter and called for more pomp and display. In addition to
the horses and mules that drew the carts of those who rode, there were
mounted outriders and beasts of burden loaded with baggage and
supplies. Numerous slaves followed on foot, and a band of gladiators
not infrequently acted as escort and bodyguard. It is not too much to
say that the ordinary train of a wealthy traveler included scores,
perhaps hundreds, of slaves.
§153. Among the _familia urbāna_ must be numbered also those who
furnished amusement and entertainment for the master and his guests,
especially during and after meals. There were musicians and readers,
and for persons of less refined tastes, dancers, jesters, dwarfs, and
even misshapen freaks. Under the Empire little children were kept for
the same purpose.
§154. Lastly may be mentioned the slaves of the highest class, the
confidential assistants of the master, the amanuenses who wrote his
letters, the secretaries who kept his accounts, and the agents through
whom he collected his income, audited the reports of his stewards and
managers, made his investments, and transacted all sorts of business
matters. The greater the luxury and extravagance of the house, the
more the master would need these trained and experienced men to
relieve him of cares which he detested, and by their fidelity and
skill to make possible the gratification of his tastes and passions.
§155. Such a staff as has been described belonged, of course, to a
wealthy and fashionable man. Persons with more good sense had only
such slaves as could be profitably employed. Atticus, the friend of
Cicero, a man of sufficient wealth and social position to defy the
demands of fashion, kept in his service only _vernae_ (§138), and had
them so carefully trained that the meanest could read and write for
him. Cicero, on the other hand, could not think it good form to have a
slave do more than one kind of work, and Cicero was not to be
considered a rich man.
§156. Legal Status of Slaves.--The power of the master over the slave,
called _dominium_ (§37), was absolute. He could assign him the most
laborious and degrading tasks, punish him even unto death at his sole
discretion, sell him, and kill him (or turn him out in the street to
die) when age or illness had made him incapable of labor. Slaves were
mere chattels in the eyes of the law, like oxen or horses. They could
not hold property, they could not make contracts, they could testify
in the courts only on the rack, they could not marry. The free person
_in potestāte_ was little better off legally (§31), but there were two
important differences between the son, for example, and the slave. The
son was relieved of the _potestās_ on the death of the _pater
familiās_ (§34), but the death of the master did not make the slave
free. Again, the condition of the son was ameliorated by _pietās_
(§73) and public opinion (§§32, 33), but there was no _pietās_ for the
slave and public opinion hardly operated in his behalf. It did enable
him to hold as his own his scanty savings (§162), and it gave a sort
of sanction to the permanent unions of male and female slaves called
_contubernium_, but in other respects it did little for his benefit.
§157. Under the Empire various laws were passed that seemed to
recognize the slave as a person, not a thing: it was forbidden to sell
him for the purpose of fighting with wild beasts in the amphitheater;
it was provided that the slave should not be put to death by the
master simply because he was too old or too ill to work, and that a
slave "exposed" (§95) should become free by the act; at last the
master was forbidden to kill the slave at all without due process of
law. As a matter of fact these laws were very generally disregarded,
much as are our laws for the prevention of cruelty to animals, and it
may be said that it was only the influence of Christianity that at
last changed the condition of the slave for the better.
§158. The Treatment of Slaves.--There is nothing in the stern and
selfish character of the Roman that would lead us to expect from him
gentleness or mercy in the treatment of his slaves. At the same time
he was too shrewd and sharp in all matters of business to forget that
a slave was a piece of valuable property, and to run the risk of the
loss or injury of that property by wanton cruelty. Much depended, of
course, upon the character and temper of the individual owner, and
Juvenal gives us to understand that the mistress was likely to be more
spiteful and unreasonable than the master. But the case of Vedius
Pollio, in the time of Augustus, who ordered a slave to be thrown
alive into a pond as food for the fish because he had broken a goblet,
may be balanced by that of Cicero, whose letters to his slave Tiro
disclose real affection and tenderness of feeling. The passionate man
nowadays may kill or maim the dog or horse, although it has a money
value and he needs its services, and most of us know of worn-out
horses turned out upon the common to die. But these things are
exceptional, and if we consider the age in which the Roman lived and
pass for a moment the matter of punishments, we may say that he was
rather pitiless as a taskmaster than habitually cruel to his slaves.
§159. Of the daily life of the town slave we know but little except
that his work was light and he was the envy of the drudge upon the
farm. Of the treatment of the latter we get some knowledge from the
writings of the elder Cato, who may be taken as a fair specimen of the
rugged farmer of his time (234-149 B.C.). He held that slaves should
always be at work except in the hours, few enough at best, allowed
them for sleep, and he took pains to find plenty for his to do even on
the public holidays. He advised farmers to sell immediately worn-out
draft cattle, diseased sheep, broken implements, aged and feeble
slaves, "and other useless things."
§160. Food and Dress.--Slaves were fed on coarse food, but when Cato
tells us that in addition to the monthly allowance of grain (about a
bushel) they were to have merely the fallen olives, or, failing these,
a little salt fish and vinegar, we must remember that this was no less
and no worse than the common food of the poorer Romans. Every
schoolboy knows that grain was the only ration of the sturdy soldiers
that won Caesar's battles for him. A slave was furnished a tunic every
year, and a cloak and a pair of wooden shoes every two years. Worn-out
clothes were returned to the _vīlicus_ to be made up into patchwork
quilts. We are told that this same _vīlicus_ often cheated the slaves
by stinting their allowance for his own benefit, and we can not doubt
that he, a slave himself, was more likely to be brutal and cruel than
the master would have been.
§161. But entirely apart from the grinding toil and the harshness and
insolence of the master and the overseer, the mere restraint from
liberty was torture enough in itself. There was little chance of
escape by flight. The Greek slave might hope to cross the boundary of
the little principality in which he served, to find freedom and refuge
under the protection of an adjoining power. But Italy was not cut up
into hostile communities, and should the slave by a miracle reach the
Rubicon or the sea, no neighboring state would dare defend him or even
hide him from his Roman master. If he attempted flight, he must live
the life of an outlaw, with organized bands of slave hunters on his
track, with a reward offered for his return, and unspeakable tortures
awaiting him as a warning for others. It is no wonder, then, that vast
numbers of slaves sought rest from their labors by a voluntary death
(§140). It must be remembered that many of them were men of good birth
and high position in the countries from which they came, some of them
even soldiers, taken on the field of battle with weapons in their
hands.
§162. The Peculium.--We have seen that the free man _in potestāte_
could not legally hold property, that all that he acquired belonged
strictly to his _pater familiās_ (§31). We have also seen that he was
allowed to hold, manage and use property assigned to him by the _pater
familiās_, just as if it had been his own (§33). The same thing was
true in the case of a slave, and the property was called by the same
name (_pecūlium_). His claim to it could not be maintained by law, but
was confirmed by public opinion and by inviolable custom. If the
master respected these, there were several ways in which an
industrious and frugal slave could scrape together bit by bit a little
fund of his own, depending in great measure, of course, upon the
generosity of his master and his own position in the _familia_.
§163. If he belonged to the _familia rūstica_, the opportunities were
not so good, but by stinting himself he might save something from his
monthly allowance of food (§160), and he might, perhaps, do a little
work for himself in the hours allowed for sleep and rest, tilling, for
example, a few square yards of garden for his own benefit. If he were
a city slave there were besides these chances the tips from his
master's friends and guests, and perhaps a bribe for some little piece
of knavery or a reward for its success. We have already seen that a
slave teacher received presents from his pupils (§121). It was no
uncommon thing either, as has been said, for a shrewd master to teach
a slave a trade and allow him to keep a portion of the increased
earnings which his deftness and skill would bring. More rarely the
master would furnish the capital and allow the slave to start in
business and retain a portion of the profits (§144).
§164. For the master the custom was undoubtedly profitable in the long
run. It stimulated the slave's energy and made him more contented and
cheerful. It also furnished a means of control more effective than the
severest corporal punishment, and that without physical injury to the
chattel. To the ambitious slave the _pecūlium_ gave at least a chance
of freedom, for he hoped to save enough in time to buy himself from
his master. Many, of course, preferred to use their earnings to
purchase little comforts and luxuries nearer than distant liberty.
Some upon whom a high price was set by their owners used their
_pecūlium_ to buy for themselves cheaper slaves, whom they hired out
to the employers of laborers already mentioned (§143). In this way
they hoped to increase their savings more rapidly. The slave's slave
was called _vicārius_, and legally belonged to the owner of his
master, but public opinion regarded him as a part of the
slave-master's _pecūlium_. The slave had a life interest only in his
savings, that is, they did not pass to his heirs on his death, for a
slave could have no "heirs," and he could not dispose of them by will.
If he died in slavery his property went to his master. Public slaves
(§141) were allowed as one of their greatest privileges to dispose of
one-half of their property by will.
§165. At the best the accumulation of a sum large enough (§140) to buy
his liberty was pitifully slow and painful for the slave, all the more
because the more energetic and industrious he was, the higher the
price that would be set upon him. We can not help feeling a great
respect for the man who at so great a price obtained his freedom. We
can sympathize, too, with the poor fellows who had to take from their
little hoards to make to the members of their masters' families the
presents that were expected on such great occasions as the marriage of
one of them, the naming of a child (§98), or the birthday of the
mistress (§91).
§166. Punishments.--It is not the purpose of the following sections to
catalogue the fiendish tortures sometimes inflicted upon slaves by
their masters. They were not very common for the reason suggested in
§158, and were no more characteristic of the ordinary correction of
slaves than lynching and whitecapping are characteristic of the
administration of justice in Georgia and Indiana. Certain punishments,
however, are so frequently mentioned in Latin literature, that a
description of them is necessary in order that the passages in which
they occur may be understood by the reader.
[Illustration: FIGURE 32. FLAGELLUM]
§167. The most common punishment for neglect of duty or petty
misconduct was a beating with a stick or flogging with a lash. If the
picture of a Roman school already referred to (§119) gives a correct
idea of the punishments inflicted upon a schoolboy with the consent of
his parents, we should expect that of a slave to be as severe as
regard for his usefulness afterwards would permit. Hence we find that
for the single rod or stick was often substituted a bundle of rods,
usually elm (_ulmī_) corresponding to the birch of England and the
hickory of America. For the lash or rawhide (_scutica_ or _lōrum_) was
often used a sort of cat-o'-nine-tails, made of cords or thongs of
leather. When the offense was more serious, bits of bone were attached
to this, and even metal buttons, to tear the flesh, and the instrument
was called a _flagrum_ or _flagellum_ (Fig. 32). It could not have
been less severe than the knout of Russia, and we may well believe
that slaves died beneath its blows. To render the victim incapable of
resistance he was sometimes drawn up to a beam by the arms, and
weights were even attached to his feet, so that he could not so much
as writhe under the torture.
§168. In the comedies are many references to these punishments, and
the slaves make grim jests on the rods and the scourge, taunting each
other with the beatings they have had or deserve to have. Sometimes
the rods are parasites, who shave close the person to whom they attach
themselves; sometimes they are pens, the back of the culprit being the
copybook; sometimes they are catapults, dealing darts and death.
Sometimes the victim is a bottomless abyss of rods; sometimes he has
absorbed so much essence of elm that he is in danger of himself
becoming a tree; sometimes he is an anvil; sometimes he is a solid
melting under the blows; sometimes he is a garden well watered by
blows. Sometimes an entertainment is being prepared scot-free for his
back; and sometimes his back is a beautifully embroidered carpet.
§169. Another punishment for offenses of the same trivial nature
resembled the stocks of old New England days. The offender was exposed
to the derision of his fellows with his limbs so confined that he
could make no motion at all, could not so much as brush a fly from his
face. Variations of this form of punishment are seen in the _furca_
and in the "making a quadruped out of a man." The latter must have
been something like the "bucking and gagging" used as a punishment in
the militia; the former was so common that _furcifer_ became a mere
term of abuse. The culprit carried upon his shoulders a log of wood,
shaped like a V, and had his arms stretched out before him with his
hands fastened to the ends of the fork. This log he had to carry
around in order that the other members of the _familia_ might see him
and take warning. Sometimes to this punishment was added a lashing as
he moved painfully along.
§170. Less painful and degrading for the moment, but far more dreaded
by the slave, was a sentence to harder labor than he had been
accustomed to perform. The final penalty for misconduct on the part of
a city slave, for whom the rod had been spoiled in vain, was
banishment to the farm, and to this might be added at a stroke the
odious task of grinding at the mill (§148), or the crushing toil of
labor in the quarries. The last were the punishments of the better
class of farm slaves, while the desperate and dangerous class of
slaves who regularly worked in the quarries paid for their misdeeds
under the scourge and in heavier shackles by day and fewer hours of
rest by night. These may be compared to the galley slaves of later
times. Those utterly incorrigible might be sold for gladiators.
§171. For actual crimes, not mere faults or offenses, the punishments
were far more severe. Slaves were so numerous (§131) and their various
employments gave them such free access to the person of the master,
that his property and very life were always at their mercy. It was
indeed a just and gentle master that did not sometimes dream of a
slave holding a dagger at his throat. There was nothing within the
confines of Italy so much dreaded as an uprising of the slaves. It was
simply this haunting fear that led to the inhuman tortures inflicted
upon the slave guilty of an attempt upon the life of his master or of
the destruction of his property. The Romans had not learned twenty
centuries ago, as some of our own citizens have not yet learned, that
crimes are not lessened by increasing the sufferings of the criminals.
[Illustration: FIGURE 33. SLAVE'S COLLAR--_Servus sum dom(i)ni mei
Scholastici v(iri) sp(ectabilis). Tene me ne fugiam de domo
Pulverata._]
§172. The runaway slave was a criminal: he had stolen himself. He was
also guilty of setting a bad example to his fellow slaves; and, worst
of all, runaway slaves always became bandits (§161) and they might
find a Spartacus to lead them (§132). There were, therefore, standing
rewards for the capture of _fugitīvī_, and there were men who made it
their business to track them down and return them to their masters.
The _fugitīvus_ was brought back in shackles, and was sure to be
flogged within an inch of his life and sent to the quarries for the
rest of his miserable days. Besides this, he was branded on the
forehead with the letter F, for _fugitīvus_, and sometimes had a metal
collar riveted about his neck. One such, still preserved at Rome, is
shown in Fig. 33, and another has the inscription:
FUGI. TENE ME. CUM REVOCAVERIS ME D. M.
ZONINO, ACCIPIS SOLIDUM.[1]
[Footnote 1: I have run away. Catch me. If you take me back to my
master Zoninus you'll be rewarded.]
§173. For an attempt upon the life of the master the penalty was death
in its most agonizing form, by crucifixion. This was also the penalty
for taking part in an insurrection, witness the twenty thousand
crucified in Sicily (§132) and the six thousand crosses that Pompeius
erected along the road to Rome, each bearing the body of one of the
survivors of the final battle in which Spartacus fell. And the
punishment was inflicted not only upon the slave guilty of his
master's life, but also upon the family of the slave, if he had wife
(§156) and children. If the guilty man could not be found, his
punishment was made certain by the crucifixion of all the slaves of
the murdered man. Tacitus tells us that in the reign of Nero four
hundred slaves were executed for the murder of their master, Pedianus
Secundus, by one of their number undetected.
§174. The cross stood to the slave as the horror of horrors. The very
word (_crux_) was used among them as a curse, especially in the form
_ad (malam) crucem_. The various minor punishments were inflicted at
the order of the master or his representative by some fellow slave
called for the time _carnifex_ or _lōrārius_, though these words by no
means imply that he was regularly or even commonly designated for the
disagreeable duty. Still, the administration of punishment to a fellow
slave was felt to be degrading, and the word _carnifex_ was apt to
attach itself to such a person and finally came to be a standing term
of abuse and taunt. It is applied to each other by quarreling slaves,
apparently with no notion of its literal meaning, as many vulgar
epithets are applied to-day. The actual execution of a death sentence
was carried out by one of the _servī pūblicī_ (§141) at a fixed place
of execution outside of the city walls.
[Illustration: FIGURE 34. COIN, SHOWING THE PILLEUS]
§175. Manumission.--The slave might purchase his freedom from his
master by means of his savings, as we have seen (§164), or he might be
set free as a reward for faithful service or some special act of
devotion. In either case it was only necessary for the master to
pronounce him free in the presence of witnesses, though a formal act
of manumission often took place before a praetor. The new-made
freedman set proudly on his head the cap of liberty (_pilleus_), often
seen on Roman coins (Fig. 34). He was now called _lībertus_ in
reference to his master, _lībertīnus_ in reference to others; his
master was no longer _dominus_, but _patrōnus_. The relation that now
existed between them was one of mutual helpfulness. The patron
assisted the freedman in business, often supplying the means with
which he was to make a start in his new life. It the freedman died
first, the patron paid the expenses of a decent funeral and had the
body buried near the spot where his own ashes would be laid. He became
the guardian of the freedman's children, or if no heirs were left, he
himself inherited the property. The freedman was bound to show his
patron marked deference and respect on all occasions, to attend him
upon public occasions, to assist him in case of reverse of fortune,
and in short to stand to him in the same relation as the client had
stood to the patron in the brave days of old.
§176. The Clients.--The word _cliēns_ (from _clueō_; therefore
"hearer," "one who obeys") is used in Roman history of two very
different classes of dependents, who are separated by a considerable
interval of time and may be roughly distinguished as the Old Clients
and the New. The former played an important part under the Kings, and
especially in the struggles between the patricians and plebeians in
the early days of the Republic, but had practically disappeared by the
time of Cicero. The latter are first heard of after the Empire was
well advanced, and never had any political significance. Between the
two classes there is absolutely no connection, and the student must be
careful to notice that the later is not a development of the earlier
class.
§177. The Old Clients.--Clientage (_clientēla_) goes back beyond the
founding of Rome to the most ancient social institutions of the
Italian communities. The _gentēs_ who settled on the hills along the
Tiber (§22) had brought with them as a part of their _familiae_ (§21)
numerous free retainers, who seem to have farmed their lands, tended
their flocks, and done them certain personal services in return for
protection against cattle thieves, raiders, and open enemies. These
retainers were regarded as inferior members of the _gēns_ to which
they had severally attached themselves, had a share in the increase of
the flocks and herds (§33, _pecūlia_), and were given the clan name
(§47), but they had no right of marriage with persons of the higher
class and no voice in the government. They were the original _plēbs_,
while the _gentīlēs_ (§22) were the _populus_ of Rome.
§178. Rome's policy of expansion soon brought within the city a third
element, distinct from both _gentīlēs_ and _clientēs_. Conquered
communities, especially those dangerously near, were made to destroy
their own strongholds (_oppida_) and move in mass to the city. Those
who possessed already the gentile organization were allowed to become
a part of the _populus_, or governing body, and these, too, brought
their _clientēs_ with them. Those who had no such organization either
attached themselves to the _gentēs_ as clients, or preferring personal
independence settled here and there, in and about the city, to make a
living as best they might. Some were possessed of means as large
perhaps as those of the patricians; others were artisans and laborers,
hewers of wood and drawers of water; but all alike were without
political rights and occupied the lowest position in the new state.
Their numbers increased rapidly with the expansion of Roman territory,
and they soon outnumbered the patricians with their retainers, with
whom, of course, as conquered people they could have no sympathies or
social ties. To them also the name of _plēbs_ was given, and the old
_plēbs_, the _clientēs_, began to occupy an intermediate position in
the state, though politically included with the plebeians. Many of
them, owing perhaps to the dying out of ancient patrician families,
gradually lost their dependent relation and became identified in
interests with the newer element.
§179. Mutual Obligations.--The relation between the patrician patrons
and the plebeian clients is not now thoroughly understood; the
problems connected with it seem beyond solution. We know that it was
hereditary and that the great houses boasted of the number of their
clients and were eager to increase them from generation to generation.
We know that it was regarded as something peculiarly sacred, that the
client stood to the patron as little less than a son. Vergil tells us
that a special punishment in the underworld awaited the patron who
defrauded a client. We read, too, of instances of splendid loyalty to
their patrons on the part of clients, a loyalty to which we can only
compare in modern times that of Highlanders to the chief of their
clan. But when we try to get an idea of the reciprocal duties and
obligations we find little in our authorities that is definite (§12,
end). The patron furnished means of support for the client and his
family (§177), gave him the benefit of his advice and counsel, and
assisted him in his transactions with third parties, representing him
if necessary in the courts. On the other hand the client was bound to
advance the interests of his patron in every possible way. He tilled
his fields, herded his flocks, attended him in war, and assisted him
in special emergencies with money.
§180. It is evident that the mutuality of this relation depended
solely upon the predominant position of the patron in the state. So
long as the patricians were the only full citizens, so long, that is,
as the plebeians had no civil rights, the client might well afford to
sacrifice his personal independence for the sake of the countenance
and protection of one of the mighty. In the case of disputes over
property, for example, the support of his patron would assure him
justice even against a patrician, and might secure more than justice
were his opponent a plebeian without another such advocate. It is
evident, too, that the relation could not long endure after the
equalization of the orders. For a generation or two the patron and the
client might stand together against their old adversaries, but sooner
or later the client would see that he was getting no equivalent for
the service he rendered, and his children or his children's children
would throw off the yoke. The introduction of slavery, on the other
hand, helped to make the patron independent of the client, and while
we can hardly tell whether its rapid growth (§129) was the cause or
the effect of declining clientage, it is nevertheless significant that
the new relation of _patrōnus_ and _lībertus_ (§175) marks the
disappearance of that of _patrōnus_ and _cliēns_ in the old and better
sense of the words.
§181. The New Clients.--The new clients need not detain us long. They
came in with the upstart rich, who counted a long train of dependents
as necessary to their state as a string of high-sounding names (§50),
or a mansion crowded with useless slaves (§155). These dependents were
simply obscure and needy men who toadied to the rich and great for the
sake of the crumbs that fell from their tables. There might be among
them men of perverted talents, philosophers or poets like Martial and
Statius, but they were all at best a swarm of cringing, fawning,
time-serving flatterers and parasites. It is important to understand
that there was no personal tie between the new patron and the new
client, no bond of hereditary association. No sacrifice was involved
on either side. The client did not attach himself for life to one
patron for better or for worse; he frequently paid his court to
several at a time and changed his masters as often as he could hope
for better things. The patron in like manner dismissed a client when
he had tired of him.
§182. Duties and Rewards.--The service, however mean and degrading,
was easy enough. The chief duty was the _salūtātiō_: the clients
arrayed in the toga, the formal dress for all social functions,
assembled early in the morning in the great man's hall to greet him
when he first appeared. This might be all required of them for the
day, and there might be time to hurry through the streets to another
house to pay similar homage to another patron, perhaps to others
still, for the rich slept late. On the other hand the patron might
command their attendance in the house or by his litter (§151), if he
was going out, and keep them at his side the whole day long. Then
there was no chance to wait upon the second patron, but every chance
to be forgotten by him. And the rewards were no greater than the
services. A few coins for a clever witticism or a fulsome compliment;
a cast-off toga occasionally, for a shabby dress disgraced the levee;
or an invitation to the dinner table if the patron was particularly
gracious. One meal a day was always expected, and felt to be the due
of the client. But sometimes the patron did not receive and the
clients were sent empty away. Sometimes, too, after a day's attendance
the hungry and tired train were dismissed with a gift of cold food
distributed in little baskets (_sportulae_), a poor and sorry
substitute for the good cheer they had hoped for. From these baskets
the "dole," as we should call it now, came to be called _sportula_
itself, and in the course of time an equivalent in money, fixed
finally at about thirty cents, took the place of this. But it was
something to be admitted to the familiar presence of the rich and
fashionable, there was always the hope of a little legacy, if the
flattery was adroit, and even the dole would enable one to live more
easily than by work, especially if one could stand well with several
patrons and draw the dole from each of them.
§183. The Hospites.--Finally we come to the _hospitēs_, though these
in strictness ought not to be reckoned among the dependents. It is
true that they were often dependent on others for protection and help,
but it is also true that they were equally ready and able to extend
like help and protection to others who had the right to claim
assistance from them. It is important to observe that _hospitium_
differed from clientship in this respect, that the parties to it were
actually on the footing of absolute equality. Although at some
particular time one might be dependent upon the other for food or
shelter, at another time the relations might be reversed and the
protector and the protected change places.
§184. _Hospitium_, in its technical sense, goes back to a time when
there were no international relations, to the time when stranger and
enemy were not merely synonymous words, but absolutely the same word.
In this early stage of society, when distinct communities were
numerous, every stranger was looked upon with suspicion, and the
traveler in a state not his own found it difficult to get his wants
supplied, even if his life was not actually in danger. Hence the
custom arose for a man engaged in commerce or in any other occupation
that might compel him to visit a foreign country to form previously a
connection with a citizen of that country, who would be ready to
receive him as a friend, to supply his needs, to vouch for his good
intentions, and to act if necessary as his protector. Such a
relationship, called _hospitium_, was always strictly reciprocal: if A
agreed to entertain and protect B, when B visited A's country, then B
was bound to entertain and protect A, if A visited B's country. The
parties to an agreement of this sort were called _hospitēs_, and hence
the word _hospes_ has a double signification, at one time denoting the
entertainer, at another the guest.
§185. Obligations of Hospitium.--The obligations imposed by this
covenant were of the most sacred character, and any failure to regard
its provisions was sacrilege, bringing upon the offender the anger of
_Iuppiter Hospitālis_. Either of the parties might cancel the bond,
but only after a formal and public notice of his intentions. On the
other hand the tie was hereditary, descending from father to son, so
that persons might be _hospitēs_ who had never so much as seen each
other, whose immediate ancestors even might have had no personal
intercourse. As a means of identification the original parties
exchanged tokens _tesserae hospitālēs_, (see Rich and Harper, s. v.),
by which they or their descendants might recognize each other. These
tokens were carefully preserved, and when a stranger claimed
_hospitium_ his _tessera_ had to be produced and submitted for
examination. If it was found to be genuine, he was entitled to all the
privileges that the best-known guest-friend could expect. These seem
to have been entertainment so long as he remained in his host's city,
protection including legal assistance if necessary, nursing and
medical attendance in case of illness, the means necessary for
continuing his journey, and honorable burial if he died among
strangers. It will be noticed that these are almost precisely the
duties devolving upon members of our great benevolent societies at the
present time when appealed to by a brother in distress.
CHAPTER VI
THE HOUSE AND ITS FURNITURE
REFERENCES: Marquardt, 213-250, 607-645; Göll, II, 213-417; Guhl and
Koner, 556-580, 676-688, 705-725; Ramsay, 516-521; Pauly-Wissowa,
_ātrium_, _compluvium_; Smith, Harper, Rich, under _domus_, _mūrus_,
_tegula_, and the other Latin words used in the text; Lübker, 507-509;
Baumeister, 1365 f., 631, 927 f., 1373 f.; Mau-Kelsey, 239-348,
361-373, 446-474; Overbeck, 244-376, 520-537; Gusman, 253-316.
§186. Domus.--The house with which we are concerned is the residence
(_domus_) of the single household, as opposed to lodging houses or
apartment houses (_īnsulae_) intended for the accommodation of several
families, and the residence, moreover, of the well-to-do citizen, as
opposed on the one hand to the mansion of the millionaire and on the
other to the hovels of the very poor. At the same time it must be
understood that the Roman house did not show as many distinct types as
does the American house of the present time. The Roman was naturally
conservative, he was particularly reluctant to introduce foreign
ideas, and his house in all times and of all classes preserved certain
main features essentially unchanged. The proportion of these might
vary with the size and shape of the lot at the builder's disposal, the
number of apartments added would depend upon the means and tastes of
the owner, but the kernel, so to speak, is always the same, and this
makes the general plan much less complex, the description much less
confusing.
§187. Our sources of information are unusually abundant. Vitruvius, an
architect and engineer of the time of Caesar and Augustus, has left a
work on building, giving in detail his own principles of construction;
the works of many of the Roman writers contain either set descriptions
of parts of houses or at least numerous hints and allusions that are
collectively very helpful; and finally the ground plans of many houses
have been uncovered in Rome and elsewhere, and in Pompeii we have even
the walls of some houses left standing. There are still, however,
despite the fullness and authority of our sources, many things in
regard to the arrangement and construction of the house that are
uncertain and disputed (§12, end).
§188. The Development of the House.--The primitive Roman house came
from the Etruscans. It goes back to the simple farm life of early
times, when all members of the household, father, mother, children,
and dependents, lived in one large room together. In this room the
meals were cooked, the table spread, all indoor work performed, the
sacrifices offered to the Lares (§27), and at night a space cleared in
which to spread the hard beds or pallets. The primitive house had no
chimney, the smoke escaping through a hole in the middle of the roof.
Rain could enter where the smoke escaped, and from this fact the hole
was called the _impluvium_; just beneath it in later times a basin
(_compluvium_) was hollowed out in the floor to catch the water for
domestic purposes. There were no windows, all natural light coming
through the _impluvium_ or, in pleasant weather, through the open
door. There was but one door, and the space opposite it seems to have
been reserved as much as possible for the father and mother. Here was
the hearth, where the mother prepared the meals, and near it stood the
implements she used in spinning and weaving; here was the strong box
(_ārca_), in which the master kept his valuables, and here their couch
was spread.
[Illustration: FIGURE 35. CINERARY URN]
[Illustration: FIGURE 36. PLAN OF HOUSE]
§189. The outward appearance of such a house is shown in the Etruscan
cinerary urns (Fig. 35; see also Smith, I, 668; Schreiber, LIII, 5;
Baumeister, Fig. 146) found in various places in Italy. The ground
plan is a simple rectangle, as shown in Figure 36, without partitions.
This may be regarded as historically and architecturally the kernel of
the Roman house; it is found in all of which we have any knowledge.
Its very name (_ātrium_), denoting originally the whole house, was
also preserved, as is shown in the names of certain very ancient
buildings in Rome used for religious purposes, the _ātrium Vestae_,
the _ātrium Lībertātis_, etc., but afterwards applied to the
characteristic single room. The name was once supposed to mean "the
black (_āter_) room," but many scholars recognize in it the original
Etruscan word for house.
[Illustration: FIGURE 37. PLAN OF HOUSE]
§190. The first change in the primitive house came in the form of a
shed or "lean-to" on the side of the _ātrium_ opposite the door. It
was probably intended at first for merely temporary purposes, being
built of wooden boards (_tabulae_), and having an outside door and no
connection with the _ātrium_. It could not have been long, however,
until the wall between was broken through, and this once done and its
convenience demonstrated, the partition wall was entirely removed, and
the second form of the Roman house resulted (Fig. 37). This
improvement also persisted, and the _tablīnum_ is found in all the
houses from the humblest to the costliest of which we have any
knowledge.
[Illustration: FIGURE 38. PLAN OF HOUSE]
§191. The next change was made by widening the _ātrium_, but in order
that the roof might be more easily supported walls were erected along
the lines of the old _ātrium_ for about two-thirds of its depth. These
may have been originally mere pillars, as nowadays in our cellars, not
continuous walls. At any rate, the _ātrium_ at the end next the
_tablīnum_ was given the full width between the outside walls, and the
additional spaces, one on each side, were called _ālae_. The
appearance of such a house as seen from the entrance door must have
been much like that of an Anglican or Roman Catholic church. The open
space between the supporting walls corresponded to the nave, the two
_ālae_ to the transepts, while the bay-like _tablīnum_ resembled the
chancel. The space between the outside walls and those supporting the
roof was cut off into rooms of various sizes, used for various
purposes (Fig. 38). So far as we know they received light only from
the _ātrium_, for no windows are assigned to them by Roman writers,
and none are found in the ruins, but it is hardly probable that in the
country no holes were made for light and air, however considerations
of privacy and security may have influenced builders in the towns.
From this ancient house we find preserved in its successors all
opposite the entrance door: the _ātrium_ with its _ālae_ and
_tablīnum_, the _impluvium_ and _compluvium_. These are the
characteristic features of the Roman house, and must be so regarded in
the description which follows of later developments under foreign
influence.
[Illustration: FIGURE 39. PLAN OF HOUSE]
§192. The Greeks seem to have furnished the idea next adopted by the
Romans, a court at the rear of the _ātrium_, open to the sky,
surrounded by rooms, and set with flowers, trees, and shrubs. The open
space had columns around it, and often a fountain in the middle (Fig.
39). This court was called the _peristylum_ or _peristylium_.
According to Vitruvius its breadth should have exceeded its depth by
one-third, but we do not find these or any other proportions strictly
observed in the houses that are known to us. Access to the
_peristylium_ from the _ātrium_ could be had through the _tablīnum_,
though this might be cut off from it by folding doors, and by a narrow
passage[1] by its side. The latter would be naturally used by servants
and by others who did not wish to pass through the master's room. Both
passage and _tablīnum_ might be closed on the side of the _ātrium_ by
portières. The arrangement of the various rooms around the court seems
to have varied with the notions of the builder, and no one plan for
them can be laid down. According to the means of the owner there were
bedrooms, dining-rooms, libraries, drawing-rooms, kitchen, scullery,
closets, private baths, together with the scanty accommodations
necessary even for a large number of slaves. But no matter whether
these rooms were many or few they all faced the court, receiving from
it light and air, as did the rooms along the sides of the _ātrium_.
There was often a garden behind the court.
[Footnote 1: This passage is called _faucēs_ in the older books. Mau
has shown that the _faucēs_ was on the entrance side of the _ātrium_.
He calls the passage by the _tablīnum_ the _andrōn_.]
[Illustration: FIGURE 40. PLAN OF HOUSE]
§193. The next change took place in the city and town house only,
because it was due to conditions of town life that did not obtain in
the country. In ancient as well as in modern times business was likely
to spread from the center of the town into residence districts, and it
often became desirable for the owner of a dwelling-house to adapt it
to the new conditions. This was easily done in the case of the Roman
house on account of the arrangement of the rooms. Attention has
already been called to the fact that the rooms all opened to the
interior of the house, that no windows were placed in the outer walls,
and that the only door was in front. If the house faced a business
street, it is evident that the owner could, without interfering with
the privacy of his house or decreasing its light, build rooms in front
of the _ātrium_ for commercial purposes. He reserved, of course, a
passageway to his own door, narrower or wider according to the
circumstances. If the house occupied a corner, such rooms might be
added on the side as well as in front (Fig. 40), and as they had no
necessary connection with the interior they might be rented as
living-rooms, as such rooms often are in our own cities. It is
probable that rooms were first added in this way for business purposes
by an owner who expected to carry on some enterprise of his own in
them, but even men of good position and considerable means did not
hesitate to add to their incomes by renting to others these
disconnected parts of their houses. All the larger houses uncovered in
Pompeii are arranged in this manner. One occupying a whole square and
having rented rooms on three sides is described in §208. Such a
detached house was called an _īnsula_.
§194. The Vestibulum.--Having traced the development of the house as a
whole and described briefly its permanent and characteristic parts, we
may now examine these more closely and at the same time call attention
to other parts introduced at a later time. It will be convenient to
begin with the front of the house. The city house was built even more
generally than now on the street line. In the poorer houses the door
opening into the _ātrium_ was in the front wall, and was separated
from the street only by the width of the threshold. In the better sort
of houses, those described in the last section, the separation of the
_ātrium_ from the street by the row of stores gave opportunity for
arranging a more imposing entrance. A part at least of this space was
left as an open court, with a costly pavement running from the street
to the door, adorned with shrubs and flowers, with statuary even, and
trophies of war, if the owner was rich and a successful general. This
courtyard was called the _vestibulum_. The derivation of the word is
disputed, but it probably comes from _ve-_, "apart," "separate," and
_stāre_ (cf. _prōstibulum_ from _prōstāre_), and means "a private
standing place"; other explanations are suggested in the dictionaries.
The important thing to notice is that it does not correspond at all to
the part of a modern house called after it the vestibule. In this
_vestibulum_ the clients gathered, before daybreak perhaps (§182), to
wait for admission to the _ātrium_, and here the _sportula_ was doled
out to them. Here, too, was arranged the wedding procession (§86), and
here was marshaled the train that escorted the boy to the forum the
day that he put away childish things (§128). Even in the poorer houses
the same name was given to the little space between the door and the
edge of the sidewalk.
[Illustration: FIGURE 41. MOSAIC DOG]
§195. The Ostium.--The entrance to the house was called the _ōstium_.
This includes the doorway and the door itself, and the word is applied
to either, though _forēs_ and _iānua_ are the more precise words for
the door. In the poorer houses (§194) the _ōstium_ was directly on the
street, and there can be no doubt that it originally opened directly
into the _ātrium_; in other words, the ancient _ātrium_ was separated
from the street only by its own wall. The refinement of later times
led to the introduction of a hall or passageway between the
_vestibulum_ and the _ātrium_, and the _ōstium_ opened into this hall
and gradually gave its name to it. The threshold (_līmen_) was broad,
the door being placed well back, and often had the word _salvē_ worked
on it in mosaic. Over the door were words of good omen, _Nihil intret
malī_, for example, or a charm against fire. In the great houses where
an _ōstiārius_ or _iānitor_ (§150) was kept on duty, his place was
behind the door, and sometimes he had here a small room. A dog was
often kept chained in the _ōstium_, or in default of one a picture was
painted on the wall or worked in mosaic on the floor (Fig. 41) with
the warning beneath it: _Cavē canem!_ The hallway was closed on the
side of the _ātrium_ with a curtain (_vēlum_). This hallway was not so
long that through it persons in the _ātrium_ could not see passers-by
in the street.
[Illustration: FIGURE 42. IMPLUVIUM IN TUSCAN ATRIUM]
[Illustration: FIGURE 43. SECTION OF TUSCAN ATRIUM]
§196. The Atrium.--The _ātrium_ (§188) was the kernel of the Roman
house, and to it was given the appropriate name _cavum aedium_. It is
possible that this later name belonged strictly to the unroofed
portion only, but the two words came to be used indiscriminately. The
old view that the _cavum aedium_ was a middle court between the
_ātrium_ and the _peristylium_ is still held by a few scholars, but is
not supported by the monumental evidence (§187). The most conspicuous
features of the _ātrium_ were the _impluvium_ and the _compluvium_
(§188). The water collected in the latter was carried into cisterns;
over the former a curtain could be drawn when the light was too
intense, as over a photographer's skylight nowadays. We find that the
two words were carelessly used for each other by Roman writers. So
important was the _impluvium_ to the _ātrium_, that the latter was
named from the manner in which the former was constructed. Vitruvius
tells us that there were four styles. The first was called the _ātrium
Tūscanicum_. In this the roof was formed by two pairs of beams
crossing each other at right angles, the inclosed space being left
uncovered and thus forming the _impluvium_ (Figs. 42, 43). The name
(§188) as well as the simple construction shows that this was the
earliest form of the _ātrium_, and it is evident that it could not be
used for rooms of very large dimensions. The second was called the
_ātrium tetrastylon_. The beams were supported at their intersections
by pillars or columns. The third, _ātrium Corinthium_, differed from
the second only in having more than four supporting pillars. It is
probable that these two similar styles came in with the widening of
the _ātrium_ (§191). The fourth was called the _ātrium displuviātum_.
In this the roof sloped toward the outer walls, as shown in the
cinerary urn mentioned in §189, and the water was carried off by
gutters on the outside, the _compluvium_ collecting only so much as
actually fell into it from the heavens. We are told that there was
another style of _ātrium_, the _testūdinātum_, which was covered all
over and had neither _impluvium_ nor _compluvium_. We do not know how
this was lighted; perhaps by windows in the ālae.
[Illustration: FIGURE 44. SMALL HOUSE AT POMPEII]
§197. The Change in the Atrium.--The _ātrium_ as it was in the early
days of the Republic has been described in §188. The simplicity and
purity of the family life of that period lent a dignity to the
one-room house that the vast palaces of the late Republic and Empire
failed utterly to inherit. By Cicero's time the _ātrium_ had ceased to
be the center of domestic life; it had become a state apartment used
only for display. We do not know the successive steps in the process
of change. Probably the rooms along the sides (§191) were first used
as bedrooms, for the sake of greater privacy. The need of a detached
room for the cooking must have been felt as soon as the _peristylium_
was adopted (it may well be that the court was originally a kitchen
garden), and then of a dining-room convenient to it. Then other rooms
were added about this court and these were made sleeping-apartments
for the sake of still greater privacy. Finally these rooms were needed
for other purposes (§192) and the sleeping-rooms were moved again,
this time to an upper story. When this second story was added we do
not know, but it presupposes the small and costly lots of a city. Even
the most unpretentious houses in Pompeii have in them the remains of
staircases (Fig. 44).
[Illustration: FIGURE 45. ATRIUM IN HOUSE OF SALLUST IN POMPEII]
§198. The _ātrium_ was now fitted up with all the splendor and
magnificence that the owner's means would permit. The opening in the
roof was enlarged to admit more light, and the supporting pillars
(§196) were made of marble or costly woods. Between these pillars and
along the walls statues and other works of art were placed. The
_compluvium_ became a marble basin, with a fountain in the center, and
was often richly carved or adorned with figures in relief. The floors
were mosaic, the walls painted in brilliant colors or paneled with
marbles of many hues, and the ceilings were covered with ivory and
gold. In such a hall (Fig. 45) the host greeted his guests (§185), the
patron received his clients (§182), the husband welcomed his wife
(§89), and here his body lay in state when the pride of life was over.
[Illustration: FIGURE 46. RUINS OF THE HOUSE OF THE POET IN POMPEII]
§199. Still some memorials of the older day were left in even the most
imposing _ātrium_. The altar to the Lares and Penates remained near
the place where the hearth had been, though the regular sacrifices
were made in a special chapel in the _peristylium_. In even the
grandest houses the implements for spinning were kept in the place
where the matron had once sat among her maidservants (§§86, 105), as
Livy tells us in the story of Lucretia. The cabinets retained the
masks of simpler and may be stronger men (§107), and the marriage
couch stood opposite the _ōstium_ (hence its other name, _lectus
adversus_), where it had been placed on the wedding night (§89),
though no one slept in the _ātrium_. In the country much of the
old-time use of the _ātrium_ survived even Augustus, and the poor, of
course, had never changed their style of living. What use was made of
the small rooms along the sides of the _ātrium_, after they had ceased
to be bedchambers, we do not know; they served perhaps as conversation
rooms, private parlors, and drawing-rooms.
§200. The Alae.--The manner in which the _ālae_, or wings, were formed
has been explained (§191); they were simply the rectangular recesses
left on the right and left of the _ātrium_, when the smaller rooms on
the sides were walled off. It must be remembered that they were
entirely open to the _ātrium_, and formed a part of it, perhaps
originally furnishing additional light from windows in their outer
walls. In them were kept the _imāginēs_, as the wax busts of those
ancestors who had held curule offices were called, arranged in
cabinets in such a way that, by the help of cords running from one to
another and of inscriptions under each of them, their relation to each
other could be made clear and their great deeds kept in mind. Even
when Roman writers or those of modern times speak of the _imāginēs_ as
in the _ātrium_, it is the _ālae_ that are intended.
[Illustration: FIGURE 47. VIEW FROM THE ATRIUM]
§201. The Tablinum.--The probable origin of the _tablīnum_, has been
explained above (§190), and its name has been derived from the
material (_tabulae_, "planks") of the "lean-to," perhaps a summer
kitchen, from which it developed. Others think that the room received
its name from the fact that in it the master kept his account books
(_tabulae_) as well as all his business and private papers. He kept
here also the money chest or strong box (_ārca_), which in the olden
time had been chained to the floor of the _ātrium_, and made the room
in fact his office or study. By its position it commanded the whole
house, as the rooms could be entered only from the _ātrium_ or
_peristylium_, and the _tablīnum_ was right between them. The master
could secure entire privacy by closing the folding doors which cut off
the private court, or by pulling the curtains across the opening into
the great hall. On the other hand, if the _tablīnum_ was left open,
the guest entering the _ōstium_ must have had a charming vista,
commanding at a glance all the public and semi-public parts of the
house (Fig. 47). Even when the _tablīnum_ was closed, there was free
passage from the front of the house to the rear through the short
corridor (§192) by the side of the _tablīnum_. It should be noticed
that there was only one such passage, though the older authorities
assert that there were two.
[Illustration: FIGURE 48. THE PERISTYLE FROM HOUSE IN POMPEII]
[Illustration: FIGURE 49. ROOF OF PERISTYLE]
§202. The Peristyle.--The _peristylium_ or _peristylum_ was adopted,
as we have seen (§192), from the Greeks, but despite the way in which
the Roman clung to the customs of his fathers it was not long in
becoming the more important of the two main sections of the house. We
must think of a spacious court (Fig. 48) open to the sky, but
surrounded by a continuous row of buildings, or rather rooms, for the
buildings soon became one, all facing it and having doors and latticed
windows opening upon it. All these buildings had covered porches on
the side next the court (Fig. 49), and these porches forming an
unbroken colonnade on the four sides were strictly the peristyle,
though the name came to be used of the whole section of the house,
including court, colonnade, and surrounding rooms. The court was much
more open to the sun than the _ātrium_, and all sorts of rare and
beautiful plants and flowers bloomed and flourished in it, protected
by the walls from cold winds. Fountains and statuary adorned the
middle part; the colonnade furnished cool or sunny promenades, no
matter what the time of day or the season of the year. Loving the open
air and the charms of nature as the Romans did, it is no wonder that
they soon made the peristyle the center of their domestic life in all
the houses of the better class, and reserved the _ātrium_ for the more
formal functions which their political and public position demanded
(§197). It must be remembered that there was often a garden behind the
peristyle, and there was also very commonly a direct connection with
the street.
[Illustration: FIGURE 50. KITCHEN RANGE]
[Illustration: FIGURE 51. LATRINA]
§203. Private Rooms.--The rooms surrounding the court varied so much
with the means and tastes of the owners of the houses that we can
hardly do more than give a list of those most frequently mentioned in
literature. It is important to remember that in the town house all
these rooms received their light by day from the court (§193), while
in the country there may well have been windows and doors in the
exterior wall (§191). First in importance comes the kitchen
(_culīna_), placed on the side of the court opposite the _tablīnum_.
It was supplied with an open fireplace for roasting and boiling, and
with a stove (Fig. 50) not unlike the charcoal affairs still used in
Europe. Near it was the bakery, if the mansion required one, supplied
with an oven. Near it, too, was the bathhouse (_lātrīna_) with the
necessary closet, in order that all might use the same connection with
the sewer (Fig. 51). If the house had a stable, it was also put near
the kitchen, as nowadays in Latin countries.
[Illustration: FIGURE 52. DINING-ROOM IN COURT]
§204. The dining-room (_trīclīnium_) may be mentioned next. It was not
necessarily in immediate juxtaposition to the kitchen, because the
army of slaves (§149) made its position of little importance so far as
convenience was concerned. It was customary to have several trīclīnia
for use at different seasons of the year, in order that the room might
be warmed by the sun in winter, and in summer escape its rays.
Vitruvius thought that its length should be twice its breadth, but the
ruins show no fixed proportions. The Romans were so fond of the air
and the sky that the court must have often served as a dining-room,
and Horace has left us a charming picture of the master dining under
an arbor attended by a single slave. Such an outdoor dining-room is
found in the so-called House of Sallust at Pompeii (Fig. 52).
[Illustration: FIGURE 53. BEDROOM]
§205. The sleeping-rooms (_cubicula_) were not considered so important
by the Romans as by us, for the reason, probably, that they were used
merely to sleep in and not for living-rooms as well. They were very
small and the furniture was scant (Fig. 53) in even the best houses.
Some of these seem to have had anterooms in connection with the
_cubicula_, which were probably occupied by attendants (§150), and in
even the ordinary houses there was often a recess for the bed. Some of
the bedrooms seem to have been used merely for the midday siesta
(§122), and these were naturally situated in the coolest part of the
court; they were called _cubicula diurna_. The others were called by
way of distinction _cubicula nocturna_ or _dormitōria_, and were
placed so far as possible on the west side of the court in order that
they might receive the morning sun. It should be remembered that in
the best houses the bedrooms were preferably in the second story of
the peristyle.
§206. A library (_bibliothēca_) had a place in the house of every
Roman of education. Collections of books were large as well as
numerous, and were made then as now by persons even who cared nothing
about their contents. The books or rolls, which will be described
later, were kept in cases or cabinets around the walls, and in one
library discovered in Herculaneum an additional rectangular case
occupied the middle of the room. It was customary to decorate the room
with statues of Minerva and the Muses, and also with the busts and
portraits of distinguished men. Vitruvius recommends an eastern aspect
for the _bibliothēca_, probably to guard against dampness.
[Illustration: FIGURE 54. CHAPEL IN HOUSE]
§207. Besides these rooms, which must have been found in all good
houses, there were others of less importance, some of which were so
rare that we scarcely know their uses. The _sacrārium_ was a private
chapel (Fig. 54) in which the images of the gods were kept, acts of
worship performed, and sacrifices offered. The Lar or tutelary
divinity of the house seems, however, to have retained his ancient
place in the _ātrium_. The _oecī_ were halls or saloons, corresponding
perhaps to our parlors and drawing-rooms, used occasionally, it may
be, for banquet halls. The _exedrae_ were rooms supplied with
permanent seats which seem to have been used for lectures and similar
entertainments. The _sōlārium_ was a place to bask in the sun,
sometimes a terrace, often the flat roof of the house, which was then
covered with earth and laid out like a garden and made beautiful with
flowers and shrubs. Besides these there were, of course, sculleries,
pantries, and storerooms. The slaves had to have their quarters
(_cellae servōrum_), in which they were packed as closely as possible.
Cellars under the houses seem to have been rare, though some have been
found at Pompeii.
[Illustration: FIGURE 55. HOUSE OF PANSA]
§208. The House of Pansa.--Finally we may describe a house that
actually existed, taking as an illustration one that must have
belonged to a wealthy and influential man, the so-called House of
Pansa at Pompeii (Fig. 55; and see also Overbeck's _Pompeii_, p. 325;
Harper, p. 549; Becker, II, p. 214; Smith, I, p. 681; Schreiber, LIII,
16; the various plans are slightly different). The house occupied an
entire square, facing a little east of south. Most of the rooms on the
front and sides were rented out for shops or stores; in the rear was a
garden. The rooms that did not belong to the house proper are shaded
in the plan here given. The _vestibulum_, marked 1 in the plan, is the
open space between two of the shops (§193). Behind it is the _ōstium_
(1'), with a figure of a dog (§195) in mosaic, opening into the
_ātrium_ (2, 2) with three rooms on each side, the _ālae_ (2', 2')
being in the regular place, the _compluvium_ (3) in the middle, the
_tablīnum_ (4) opposite the _ōstium_, and the passage on the eastern
side (5). The _ātrium_ is of the _Tūscanicum_ style (§196), and is
paved with concrete; the _tablīnum_ and the passage have mosaic
floors. From these, steps lead down into the court, which is lower
than the _ātrium_, measures 65 by 50 feet, and is surrounded by a
colonnade with sixteen pillars. There are two rooms on the side next
the _ātrium_, one of these (6) has been called the _bibliothēca_
(§206), because a manuscript was found in it, but its purpose is
uncertain; the other (6') was possibly a dining-room. The court has
two projections (7', 7') much like the _ālae_, which have been called
_exedrae_ (§207); it will be noticed that one of these has the
convenience of an exit (§202) to the street. The rooms on the west and
the small room on the east can not be definitely named. The large room
on the east (T) is the main dining-room (§204), the remains of the
dining couches being marked on the plan. The kitchen is at the
northwest corner (13), with the stable (14) next to it (§203, end);
off the kitchen is a paved yard (15) with a gateway into the street by
which a cart could enter. East of the kitchen and yard is a narrow
passage connecting the peristyle with the garden (§202). East of this
are two rooms, the larger of which (9) is one of the most imposing
rooms of the house, 33 by 24 feet in size, with a large window guarded
by a low balustrade, and opening into the garden. This was probably an
_oecus_ (§207). In the center of the court is a basin about two feet
deep, the rim of which was once decorated with figures of water plants
and fish. Along the whole north end of the house ran a long veranda
(16, 16), overlooking the garden (11, 11) in which was a sort of
summer house (12). The house had an upper story, but the stairs
leading to it are in the rented rooms, suggesting that the upper floor
was not occupied by Pansa's family.
[Illustration: FIGURE 56. SECTION OF THE HOUSE OF PANSA IN POMPEII]
§209. Of the rooms facing the street it will be noticed that one,
lightly shaded in the plan, is connected with the _ātrium_; it was
probably used for some business conducted by Pansa himself (§193,
end), possibly with a slave (§144) or a freedman (§175) in immediate
charge of it. Of the others the suites on the east side (A, B) seem to
have been rented out as living apartments. The others were shops and
stores. The four connected rooms on the west, near the front, seem to
have been a large bakery; the room marked C was the salesroom, with a
large room opening off of it containing three stone mills, troughs for
kneading the dough, a water tap with sink, and a recessed oven. The
uses of the others are uncertain. The section plan (Fig. 56)
represents the appearance of the house if all were cut away on one
side of a line drawn from front to rear through the middle of the
house. It is, of course, largely conjectural, but gives a clear idea
of the general way in which the division walls and roof must have been
arranged.
[Illustration: FIGURE 57. WALL OF ROMULUS]
§210. The Walls.--The materials of which the wall (_pariēs_) was
composed varied with the time, the place, and the cost of
transportation. Stone and unburned bricks (_laterēs crūdī_) were the
earliest materials used in Italy, as almost everywhere else, timber
being employed for merely temporary structures, as in the addition
(§190) from which the _tablīnum_ developed. For private houses in very
early times and for public buildings in all times, walls of dressed
stone (_opus quadrātum_) were laid in regular courses, precisely as in
modern times (Fig. 57). Over the wall was spread a coating of fine
marble stucco for decorative purposes, which gave it a finish of
dazzling white. For less pretentious houses, not for public buildings,
the sun-dried bricks were largely used up to about the beginning of
the first century B.C. These, too, were covered with the stucco, for
protection against the weather as well as for decoration, but even the
hard stucco has not preserved walls of this perishable material to our
times. In classical times a new material had come into use, better
than either brick or stone, cheaper, more durable, more easily worked
and transported, which was employed almost exclusively for private
houses, and very generally for public buildings. Walls constructed in
the new way (_opus caementīcium_) are variously called "rubble-work"
or "concrete" in our books of reference, but neither term is quite
descriptive; the _opus caementīcium_ was not laid in courses, as is
our rubble-work, while on the other hand larger stones were used in it
than in the concrete of which walls for buildings are now constructed.
[Illustration: FIGURE 58. METHOD OF CASTING CONCRETE WALLS]
§211. Paries Caementicius.--The materials varied with the place. At
Rome lime and volcanic ashes (_lapis Puteolānus_) were used with
pieces of stone as large or larger than the fist. Brickbats sometimes
took the place of stone, and sand (§146) that of the volcanic ashes;
potsherds crushed fine were better than the sand. The harder the
stones the better the concrete; the very best was made with pieces of
lava, the material with which the roads were generally paved. The
method of forming the concrete walls was the same as that of modern
times, familiar to us all in the construction of sidewalks. It will be
easily understood from the illustration (Fig. 58). Upright posts,
about 5 by 6 inches thick, and from 10 to 15 feet in height, were
fixed about 3 feet apart along the line of both faces of the intended
wall. On the outside of these were nailed horizontally boards, 10 or
12 inches wide, overlapping each other. Into the intermediate space
the semi-fluid concrete was poured, receiving the imprint of posts and
boards. When the concrete had hardened, the frame-work was removed and
placed on top of it and the work continued until the wall had reached
the required height. Walls made in this way varied in thickness from a
seven-inch partition wall in an ordinary house to the eighteen-foot
walls of the Pantheon of Agrippa. They were far more durable than
stone walls, which might be removed stone by stone with little more
labor than was required to put them together; the concrete wall was a
single slab of stone throughout its whole extent, and large parts of
it might be cut away without diminishing the strength of the rest in
the slightest degree.
[Illustration: FIGURE 59. WALL FACINGS]
[Illustration: FIGURE 60. BRICK FOR FACING WALL]
§212. Wall Facings.--Impervious to the weather though these walls
were, they were usually faced with stone or kiln-burned brick
(_laterēs coctī_). The stone employed was usually the soft tufa, not
nearly so well adapted to stand the weather as the concrete itself.
The earliest fashion was to take bits of stone having one smooth face
but of no regular size or shape and arrange them with the smooth faces
against the frame-work as fast as the concrete was poured in; when the
frame-work was removed the wall presented the appearance shown at A in
Fig. 59. Such a wall was called _opus incertum_. In later times the
tufa was used in small blocks having the smooth face square and of a
uniform size. A wall so faced looked as if covered with a net (B in
Fig. 59) and was therefore called _opus rēticulātum_. A section at a
corner is shown at C. In either case the exterior face of the wall was
usually covered with a fine limestone or marble stucco, which gave a
hard finish, smooth and white. The burned bricks were triangular in
shape, but their arrangement and appearance can be more easily
understood from the illustration (Fig. 60) than from any description
that could be given here. It must be noticed that there were no walls
made of _laterēs coctī_ alone, even the thin partition walls having a
core of concrete.
§213. Floors and Ceilings.--In the poorer houses the floor (_sōlum_)
of the first story was made by smoothing the ground between the walls,
covering it thickly with small pieces of stone, bricks, tile, and
potsherds, and pounding all down solidly and smoothly with a heavy
rammer (_fistūca_). Such a floor was called _pavīmentum_, and the name
came gradually to be used of floors of all kinds. In houses of a
better sort the floor was made of stone slabs fitted smoothly
together. The more pretentious houses had concrete floors, made as has
been described. Floors of upper stories were sometimes made of wood,
but concrete was used here, too, poured over a temporary flooring of
wood. Such a floor was very heavy, and required strong walls to
support it; examples are preserved of the thickness of eighteen inches
and a span of twenty feet. A floor of this kind made a perfect ceiling
for the room below, requiring only a finish of stucco. Other ceilings
were made much as they are now, laths being nailed on the stringers or
rafters and covered with mortar and stucco.
[Illustration: FIGURE 61. HUT OF ROMULUS]
[Illustration: FIGURE 62. TILE FOR ROOF]
[Illustration: FIGURE 63. TILE ROOF]
§214. Roofs.--The construction of the roofs (_tēcta_) differed very
little from the modern method, as may be seen in the illustration
shown in §196. They varied as much as ours do in shape, some being
flat, others sloping in two directions, others in four. In the most
ancient times the covering was a thatch of straw, as in the so-called
hut of Romulus (_casa Rōmulī_) on the Palatine Hill preserved even
under the Empire as a relic of the past (Fig. 61). Shingles followed
the straw, only to give place in turn to tiles. These were at first
flat, like our shingles, but were later made with a flange on each
side (Fig. 62) in such a way that the lower part of one would slip
into the upper part of the one below it on the roof. The tiles
(_tēgulae_) were laid side by side and the flanges covered by other
tiles, called _imbricēs_ (Fig. 63) inverted over them. Gutters also of
tile ran along the eaves to conduct the water into cisterns, if it was
needed for domestic purposes. The appearance of the completed roof is
shown in Fig. 49, §202.
[Illustration: FIGURE 64. DOOR OF ROMAN HOUSE]
§215. The Doors.--The Roman doorway, like our own, had four parts: the
threshold (_līmen_), the two jambs (_postēs_), and the lintel (_līmen
superum_). The lintel was always of a single piece of stone and
peculiarly massive. The doors were exactly like those of modern times,
except in the matter of hinges, for while the Romans had hinges like
ours they did not use them on their doors. The door-hinge was really a
cylinder of hard wood, a little longer than the door and of a diameter
a little greater than the thickness of the door, terminating above and
below in pivots. These pivots turned in sockets made to receive them
in the threshold and lintel. To this cylinder the door was mortised,
their combined weight coming upon the lower pivot. The cut (Fig. 64)
makes this clear, and reminds one of an old-fashioned homemade gate.
The comedies are full of references to the creaking of these doors.
§216. The outer door of the house was properly called _iānua_, an
inner door _ōstium_, but the two words came to be used
indiscriminately, and the latter was even applied to the whole
entrance (§195). Double doors were called _forēs_, and the back door,
usually opening into a garden (§208), was called the _postīcum_. The
doors opened inwards and those in the outer wall were supplied with
bolts (_pessulī_) and bars (_serae_). Locks and keys by which the
doors could be fastened from without were not unknown, but were very
heavy and clumsy. Finally it should be noticed that in the interiors
of private houses doors were not nearly so common as now, the Romans
preferring portières (_vēla_, _aulaea_).
[Illustration: FIGURE 65. WINDOW]
§217. The Windows.--In the principal rooms of the house the windows
opened on the court, as has been seen, and it may be set down as a
rule that in rooms situated on the first floor and used for domestic
purposes there were no windows opening on the street. In the upper
floors there must have been windows on the street in such apartments
as had no outlook on the court, as in those for example above the
rented rooms in the House of Pansa (§208). Country houses may also
have had outside windows in the first story (§203). All the windows
(_fenestrae_) were small (Fig. 65), hardly larger than three feet by
two. Some were provided with shutters, which were made to slide
backward and forward in a frame-work on the outside of the wall. These
shutters were sometimes in two parts moving in opposite directions,
and when closed were said to be _iūnctae_. Other windows were
latticed, and others still were covered with a fine network to keep
out mice and other objectionable animals. Glass was known to the
Romans of the Empire but was too expensive for general use. Talc and
other translucent materials were also employed in window frames as a
protection against cold, but only in very rare instances.
[Illustration: FIGURE 66. STOVE FOR HEATING]
§218. Heating.--Even in the mild climate of Italy the houses must
often have been too cold for comfort. On merely chilly days the
occupants probably contented themselves with moving into rooms warmed
by the direct rays of the sun (§204), or with wearing wraps or heavier
clothing. In the more severe weather of actual winter they used
charcoal stoves or braziers of the sort that is still used in the
countries of southern Europe. They were merely metal boxes (Fig. 66)
in which hot coals could be put, with legs to keep the floors from
injury and handles by which they could be carried from room to room.
They were called _foculī_. The wealthy had furnaces resembling ours
under their houses, the heat being carried to the rooms by tile pipes;
in some instances the partitions and floors seem to have been made of
hollow tiles, through which the hot air circulated, warming the rooms
without being admitted to them. These furnaces had chimneys, but
furnaces were seldom used.
§219. Water Supply.--All the important towns of Italy had abundant
supplies of water piped from hills and brought sometimes from a
considerable distance. The Romans' aqueducts were among their most
stupendous and most successful works of engineering. Mains were laid
down the middle of the streets and from these the water was piped into
the houses. There was often a tank in the upper part of the house,
from which the water was distributed as it was needed. It was not
usually carried into many of the rooms, but there was always a jet or
fountain in the court (§202), in the bathhouse, the garden, and the
closet. The bathhouse had a separate heating apparatus of its own,
which kept the room or rooms at the desired temperature and furnished
hot water as required.
§220. Decoration.--The outside of the house was left severely plain,
the walls being merely covered with stucco, as we have seen (§212).
The interior was decorated to suit the tastes and means of the owner,
not even the poorer houses lacking charming effects in this direction.
At first the stucco-finished walls were merely marked off into
rectangular panels (_abacī_), which were painted deep, rich colors,
reds and yellows predominating. Then in the middle of these panels
simple center-pieces were painted and the whole surrounded with the
most brilliant arabesques. Then came elaborate pictures, figures,
interiors, landscapes, etc., of large size and most skillfully
executed, all painted directly upon the wall, as in some of our public
buildings to-day. Illustrations of these decorations may be found in
Baumeister II, L, and LI, and in colors in Gusman IX-XI, Kelsey XI. A
little later the walls began to be covered with panels of thin slabs
of marble with a baseboard and cornice. Beautiful effects were
produced by combining marbles of different tints, and the Romans
ransacked the world for striking colors. Later still came raised
figures of stucco work, enriched with gold and colors, and mosaic
work, chiefly of minute pieces of colored glass which had a jewel-like
effect.
[Illustration: FIGURE 67. MOSAIC THRESHOLD]
[Illustration: FIGURE 68. CARVED DOORWAY]
§221. The doors and doorways gave opportunities for treatment equally
artistic. The doors were richly paneled and carved, or were plated
with bronze, or made of solid bronze. The threshold was often of
mosaic (see the example from Pompeii in Fig. 67). The _postēs_ were
sheathed with marble elaborately carved, as in the example from
Pompeii, shown in Fig. 68. The floors were covered with marble tiles
arranged in geometrical figures with contrasting colors, much as they
are now in public buildings, or with mosaic pictures only less
beautiful than those upon the walls. The most famous of these, "Darius
at the Battle of Issus," is shown in black and white in all our
reference books (best in Baumeister under _Mosaik_, Fig. 1000, and in
colors in Overbeck after p. 612). It measures sixteen feet by eight,
but despite its size has no less than one hundred and fifty separate
pieces to each square inch. The ceilings were often barrel-vaulted and
painted brilliant colors, or were divided into panels (_lacūs_,
_lacūnae_), deeply sunk, by heavy intersecting beams of wood or
marble, and then decorated in the most elaborate manner with raised
stucco work, or gold or ivory, or with bronze plates heavily
gilded.[2]
[Footnote 2: The magnificence of some of the great houses, even in
Republican times, may be inferred from the prices paid for them.
Cicero paid about $140,000 for his; the consul Messala the same price
for his; Clodius $600,000 for his, the most costly known to us. All
these were on the Palatine Hill, where ground was costly, too.]
§222. Furniture.--Our knowledge of Roman furniture is largely
indirect, because only such articles have come down to us as were made
of stone or metal. Fortunately the secondary sources are abundant and
good. Many articles are incidentally described in works of literature,
many are shown in the wall paintings mentioned above (§220), and some
have been restored from casts taken in the hardened ashes of Pompeii
and Herculaneum. In general we may say that the Romans had very few
articles of furniture in their houses, and that they cared less for
comfort, not to say luxurious ease, than they did for costly
materials, fine workmanship, and artistic forms. The mansions on the
Palatine were enriched with all the spoils of Greece and Asia, but it
may be doubted whether there was a comfortable bed within the walls of
Rome.
§223. Principal Articles.--Many of the most common and useful articles
of modern furniture were entirely unknown to the Romans. No mirrors
hung on their walls, they had no desks or writing tables, no dressers
or chiffoniers, no glass-doored cabinets for the display of
bric-a-brac, tableware, or books, no mantels, no hat-racks even. The
principal articles found in even the best houses were couches or beds,
chairs, tables, and lamps. If to these we add chests or cabinets, an
occasional brazier (§218), and still rarer water-clock, we shall have
everything that can be called furniture except tableware and kitchen
utensils. Still it must not be thought that their rooms presented a
desolate or dreary appearance. When one considers the decorations
(§§220, 221), the stately pomp of the _ātrium_ (§198), and the rare
beauty of the peristyle (§202), it is evident that a very few articles
of real artistic excellence were more in keeping with them than would
have been the litter and jumble that we now think necessary in our
rooms.
[Illustration: FIGURE 69. THE LECTUS]
§224. The Couches.--The couch (_lectus_, _lectulus_) was found
everywhere in the Roman house, a sofa by day, a bed by night. In its
simplest form it consisted of a frame of wood with straps across the
top on which was laid a mattress. At one end there was an arm, as in
the case of our sofas; sometimes there was an arm at each end, and a
back besides. It was always provided with pillows and rugs or
coverlets. The mattress was originally stuffed with straw, but this
gave place to wool and even feathers. In some of the bedrooms of
Pompeii the frame seems to have been lacking, the mattress being laid
on a support built up from the floor (§205). The couches used for beds
seem to have been larger than those used as sofas, and they were so
high that stools (Fig. 69) or even steps were necessary
accompaniments. As a sofa the _lectus_ was used in the library for
reading and writing, the student supporting himself on the left arm
and holding the book or writing with the right hand. In the
dining-room it had a permanent place, as will be described later. Its
honorary position in the great hall has been already mentioned (§199).
It will be seen that the _lectus_ could be made highly ornamental. The
legs and arms were carved or made of costly woods, or inlaid or plated
with tortoise-shell or the precious metals. We even read of frames of
solid silver. The coverings were often made of the finest fabrics,
dyed the most brilliant colors and worked with figures of gold.
[Illustration: FIGURE 70. THE SELLA]
[Illustration: FIGURE 71. CURULE CHAIRS]
§225. The Chairs.--The primitive form of seat (_sedīle_) among the
Romans as elsewhere was the stool or bench with four perpendicular
legs and no back. The remarkable thing is that it did not give place
to something better as soon as means permitted. The stool (_sella_)
was the ordinary seat for one person (Fig. 70), used by men and women
resting or working, and by children and slaves at their meals as well.
The bench (_subsellium_) differed from the stool only in accommodating
more than one person. It was used by senators in the _cūria_, by the
jurors in the courts, and by boys in the school (§120), as well as in
private houses. A special form of the _sella_ was the famous curule
chair (_sella curūlis_), having curved legs of ivory (Fig. 71). The
curule chair folded up like our camp-stools for convenience of
carriage and had straps across the top to support the cushion which
formed the seat.
[Illustration: FIGURE 72. THE SOLIUM]
[Illustration: FIGURE 73. CATHEDRA]
§226. The first improvement upon the _sella_ was the _solium_, a
stiff, straight, high-backed chair with solid arms, looking as if cut
from a single block of wood (Fig. 72), and so high that a footstool
was as necessary with it as with a bed (§224). Poets represented gods
and kings as seated in such a chair, and it was kept in the _ātrium_
for the use of the patron when he received his clients (§§182, 198).
Lastly, we find the _cathedra_, a chair without arms, but with a
curved back (Fig. 73) sometimes fixed at an easy angle (_cathedra
supīna_), the only approximation to a comfortable seat that the Romans
knew. It was at first used by women only, being regarded as too
luxurious for men, but finally came into general use. Its employment
by teachers in the schools of rhetoric (§115) gave rise to the
expression _ex cathedrā_, applied to authoritative utterances of every
kind, and its use by bishops explains our word cathedral. Neither the
_solium_ nor the _cathedra_ was upholstered, but with them both were
used cushions and coverings as with the _lectī_, and they afforded
like opportunities for skillful workmanship and lavish decoration.
[Illustration: FIGURE 74. MENSA DELPHICA]
[Illustration: FIGURE 75. ADJUSTABLE TABLE]
§227. Tables.--The table (_mēnsa_) was the most important article of
furniture in the Roman house whether we consider its manifold uses, or
the prices often paid for certain kinds. They varied in form and
construction as much as our own, many of which are copied directly
from Roman models. All sorts of materials were used for their supports
and tops, stone, wood, solid or veneered, the precious metals,
probably in thin plates only. The most costly, so far as we know, were
the round tables made from cross-sections of the citrus-tree, found in
Africa. The wood was beautifully marked and single pieces could be had
from three to four feet in diameter. For one of these Cicero paid
$20,000, Asinius Pollio $44,000, King Juba $52,000, and the family of
the Cethegi possessed one valued at $60,000. Special names were given
to tables of certain forms. The _monopodium_ was a table or stand with
but one support, used especially to hold a lamp or toilet articles.
The _abacus_ was a table with a rectangular top having a raised rim
and used for plate and dishes, in the place of the modern sideboard.
The _delphica_ (sc. _mēnsa_) had three legs, as shown in Fig. 74.
Tables were frequently made with adjustable legs, so that the height
might be altered; the mechanism is clearly shown in the cut (Fig. 75).
On the other hand the permanent tables in the _trīclīnia_ (§204) were
often built up from the floor of solid masonry or concrete, having
tops of polished stone or mosaic. The table gave a better opportunity
than even the couch or chair for artistic workmanship, especially in
the matter of carving and inlaying the legs and top.
[Illustration: FIGURE 76. VARIOUS FORMS OF LAMPS]
§228. The Lamps.--The Roman lamp (_lucerna_) was essentially simple
enough, merely a vessel that would hold oil or melted grease with a
few threads twisted loosely together for a wick and drawn out through
a hole in the cover or top (Fig. 76). The light thus furnished must
have been very uncertain and dim. There was no glass to keep the flame
steady, much less was there a chimney or central draft. As works of
art, however, they were exceedingly beautiful, those of the cheapest
material being often of graceful form and proportions, while to those
of costly material the skill of the artist in many cases must have
given a value far above that of the rare stones or precious metals of
which they were made.
[Illustration: FIGURE 77. BASES FOR LAMPS]
[Illustration: FIGURE 78. CANDELABRA]
§229. Some of these lamps (cf. Fig. 76) were intended to be carried in
the hand, as shown by the handles, others to be suspended from the
ceiling by chains. Others still were kept on tables expressly made for
them, as the _monopodia_ (§227) commonly used in the bedrooms, or the
tripods shown in Fig. 77. For lighting the public rooms there were,
besides these, tall stands, like those of our piano lamps, examples of
which may be seen in the last cut (Fig. 78). On some of these, several
lamps perhaps were placed at a time. The name of these stands
(_candēlābra_) shows that they were originally intended to hold wax or
tallow candles (_candēlae_), and the fact that these candles were
supplanted in the houses of the rich by the smoking and ill-smelling
lamp is good proof that the Romans were not skilled in the art of
making them. Finally it may be noticed that a supply of torches
(_facēs_) of dry, inflammable wood, often soaked in oil or smeared
with pitch, was kept near the outer door for use upon the streets.
[Illustration: FIGURE 79. STRONG BOX]
§230. Chests and Cabinets.--Every house was supplied with chests
(_ārcae_) of various sizes for the purpose of storing clothes and
other articles not always in use, and for the safe keeping of papers,
money, and jewelry. The material was usually wood, often bound with
iron and ornamented with hinges and locks of bronze. The smaller
_ārcae_, used for jewel cases, were often made of silver or even gold.
Of most importance, perhaps, was the strong box kept in the _tablīnum_
(§201), in which the _pater familiās_ stored his ready money. It was
made as strong as possible so that it could not easily be opened by
force, and was so large and heavy that it could not be carried away
entire. As an additional precaution it was sometimes chained to the
floor. This, too, was often richly carved and mounted, as is seen in
the illustration from Pompeii (Fig. 79).
§231. The cabinets (_armāria_) were designed for similar purposes and
made of similar materials. They were often divided into compartments
and were always supplied with hinges and locks. Two of the most
important uses of these cabinets have been mentioned already: in the
library (§206) for the preserving of books against mice and men, and
in the _ālae_ (§200) for the keeping of the _imāginēs_, or death-masks
of wax. It must be noticed that they lacked the convenient glass doors
of the cabinets or cases that we use for books and similar things, but
they were as well adapted to decorative purposes as the other articles
of furniture that have been mentioned.
§232. Other Articles.--The heating stove, or brazier, has been already
described (§218). It was at best a poor substitute for the poorest
modern stove. The place of our clock was taken in the court or garden
by the sun-dial (_sōlārium_), such as is often seen nowadays in our
parks, which measured the hours of the day by the shadow of a stick or
pin. It was introduced into Rome from Greece in 268 B.C. About a
century later the water-clock (_clepsydra_) was also borrowed from the
Greeks, a more useful invention because it marked the hours of the
night as well as of the day and could be used in the house. It
consisted essentially of a vessel filled at a regular time with water,
which was allowed to escape from it at a fixed rate, the changing
level marking the hours on a scale. As the length of the Roman hours
varied with the season of the year and the flow of the water with the
temperature, the apparatus was far from accurate. Shakspere's striking
of the clock in "Julius Caesar" (II, i, 192) is an anachronism. Of the
other articles sometimes reckoned as furniture, the tableware and
kitchen utensils, some account will be given elsewhere.
[Illustration: FIGURE 80. A STREET IN POMPEII]
[Illustration: FIGURE 81. A PUBLIC FOUNTAIN]
[Illustration: FIGURE 82. STEPPING-STONES]
§233. The Street.--It is evident from what has been said that a
residence street in a Roman town must have been severely plain and
monotonous in its appearance. The houses were all of practically the
same style, they were finished alike in stucco (§212), the windows
were few and in the upper stories only, there were no lawns or
gardens, there was nothing in short to lend variety or to please the
eye, except perhaps the decorations of the _vestibula_ (§194), or the
occasional extension of one story over another (_maeniānum_, Fig. 80),
or a public fountain (Fig. 81). The street itself was paved, as will
be explained hereafter, and was supplied with a footway on either side
raised from twelve to eighteen inches above its surface. The
inconvenience of such a height to persons crossing from one footway to
the other was relieved by stepping-stones (_pondera_) of the same
height firmly fixed at suitable distances from each other across the
street. These stepping-stones were placed at convenient points on each
street, not merely at the intersections of two or more streets. They
were usually oval in shape, had flat tops, and measured about three
feet by eighteen inches, the longer axis being parallel with the walk.
The spaces between them were often cut into deep ruts by the wheels of
vehicles, the distance between the ruts showing that the wheels were
about three feet apart. The arrangement of the stepping-stones is
shown clearly in Fig. 82, but it is hard to see how the draft-cattle
managed to work their way between them.
CHAPTER VII
DRESS AND PERSONAL ORNAMENTS
REFERENCES: Marquardt, 475-606; Voigt, 329-335, 404-412; Göll, III,
189-310; Guhl and Koner, 728-747; Ramsay, 504-512; Blümner, I,
189-307; Smith, Harper, Rich, under _toga_, _tunica_, _stola_,
_palla_, and the other Latin words in the text; Lübker, under
_Kleidung_; Baumeister, 574 f., 1822-1846; Pauly-Wissowa, under
_calceī_.
§234. From the earliest to the latest times the clothing of the Romans
was very simple, consisting ordinarily of two or three articles only
besides the covering of the feet. These articles varied in material,
style, and name from age to age, it is true, but were practically
unchanged during the Republic and the early Empire. The mild climate
of Italy (§218) and the hardening effect of the physical exercise of
the young (§107) made unnecessary the closely fitting garments to
which we are accustomed, while contact with the Greeks on the south
and perhaps the Etruscans on the north gave the Romans a taste for the
beautiful that found expression in the graceful arrangement of their
loosely flowing robes. The clothing of men and women differed much
less than in modern times, but it will be convenient to describe their
garments separately. Each article was assigned by Latin writers to one
of two classes and called from the way it was put on _indūtus_ or
_amictus_. To the first class we may give the name of under garments,
to the second outer garments, though these terms very inadequately
represent the Latin words.
§235. The Subligaculum.--Next the person was worn the _subligāculum_,
the loin-cloth familiar to us in pictures of ancient athletes and
gladiators (see Fig. 151, §344, and the culprit in Fig. 26, §119), or
perhaps the short drawers (trunks), worn nowadays by bathers or
college athletes. We are told that in the earliest times this was the
only under garment worn by the Romans, and that the family of the
Cethegi adhered to this ancient practice throughout the Republic,
wearing the toga immediately over it. This, too, was done by
individuals who wished to pose as the champions of old-fashioned
simplicity, as for example the younger Cato, and by candidates for
public office. In the best times, however, the _subligāculum_ was worn
under the tunic or replaced by it.
[Illustration: FIGURE 83. THE TUNIC]
§236. The Tunic.--The tunic was also adopted in very early times and
came to be the chief article of the kind covered by the word
_indūtus_. It was a plain woolen shirt, made in two pieces, back and
front, sewed together at the sides, and resembled somewhat the modern
sweater. It had very short sleeves, covering hardly half of the upper
arm, as shown in Fig. 83. It was long enough to reach from the neck to
the calf, but if the wearer wished for greater freedom for his limbs
he could shorten it by merely pulling it through a girdle or belt worn
around the waist. Tunics with sleeves reaching to the wrists (_tunicae
manicātae_), and tunics falling to the ankles (_tunicae tālārēs_) were
not unknown in the late Republic, but were considered unmanly and
effeminate.
§237. The tunic was worn in the house without any outer garment and
probably without a girdle; in fact it came to be the distinctive
house-dress as opposed to the toga, the dress for formal occasions
only. It was also worn with nothing over it by the citizen while at
work, but he never appeared in public without the toga over it, and
even then, hidden by the toga though it was, good form required the
wearing of the girdle with it. Two tunics were often worn (_tunica
interior_, or _subūcula_, and _tunica exterior_), and persons who
suffered from the cold, as did Augustus for example, might wear a
larger number still when the cold was very severe. The tunics intended
for use in the winter were probably thicker and warmer than those worn
in the summer, though both kinds were of wool.
§238. The tunic of the ordinary citizen was the natural color of the
white wool of which it was made, without trimmings or ornaments of any
kind. Knights and senators, on the other hand, had stripes of purple,
narrow and wide respectively, running from the shoulder to the bottom
of the tunic both behind and in front. These stripes were either woven
in the garment or sewed upon it. From them the tunic of the knight was
called _tunica angustī clāvī_ (or _angusticlāvia_), and that of the
senator _lātī clāvī_ (or _lāticlāvia_). Some authorities think that
the badge of the senatorial tunic was a single broad stripe running
down the middle of the garment in front and behind, but unfortunately
no picture has come down to us that absolutely decides the question.
Under this official tunic the knight or senator wore usually a plain
_tunica interior_. When in the house he left the outer tunic unbelted
in order to display the stripes as conspicuously as possible.
§239. Besides the _subligāculum_ and the _tunica_ the Romans had no
regular underwear. Those who were feeble through age or ill health
sometimes wound strips of woolen cloth (_fasciae_) around the legs for
the sake of additional warmth. These were called _feminālia_ or
_tībiālia_ according as they covered the upper or lower part of the
leg. Such persons might also use similar wrappings for the body
(_ventrālia_) and even for the throat (_fōcālia_), but all these were
looked upon as the badges of senility or decrepitude and formed no
part of the regular costume of sound men. It must be especially
noticed that the Romans had nothing corresponding to our trousers or
even long drawers, the _braccae_ or _brācae_ being a Gallic article
that was not used at Rome until the time of the latest emperors. The
phrase _nātiōnēs brācātae_ in classical times was a contemptuous
expression for the Gauls in particular and barbarians in general.
§240. The Toga.--Of the outer garments or wraps the most ancient and
the most important was the _toga_ (cf. _tegere_). Whence the Romans
got it we do not know, but it goes back to the very earliest time of
which tradition tells, and was the characteristic garment of the
Romans for more than a thousand years. It was a heavy, white, woolen
robe, enveloping the whole figure, falling to the feet, cumbrous but
graceful and dignified in appearance. All its associations suggested
formality. The Roman of old tilled his fields clad only in the
_subligāculum_; in the privacy of his home or at his work the Roman of
every age wore the comfortable, blouse-like _tunica_; but in the
forum, in the _comitia_, in the courts, at the public games,
everywhere that social forms were observed he appeared and had to
appear in the toga. In the toga he assumed the responsibilities of
citizenship (§127), in the toga he took his wife from her father's
house to his (§78), in the toga he received his clients also toga-clad
(§182), in the toga he discharged his duties as a magistrate, governed
his province, celebrated his triumph, and in the toga he was wrapped
when he lay for the last time in his hall (§198). No foreign nation
had a robe of the same material, color, and arrangement; no foreigner
was allowed to wear it, though he lived in Italy or even in Rome
itself; even the banished citizen left the toga with his civil rights
behind him. Vergil merely gave expression to the national feeling when
he wrote the proud verse (Aen. I, 282):
Rōmānōs, rērum dominōs, gentemque togātam.[1]
[Footnote 1: The Romans, lords of deeds, the race that wears the
toga.]
[Illustration: FIGURE 84. TIBERIUS IN THE TOGA]
§241. Form and Arrangement.--The general appearance of the toga is
known to every schoolboy; of few ancient garments are pictures so
common and in general so good (Becker, p. 203; Guhl and Koner, p. 729;
Baumeister, p. 1823; Schreiber, LXXXV, 8-10; Harper, Rich, and Smith,
s.v.). They are derived from numerous statues of men clad in it, which
have come down to us from ancient times, and we have besides full and
careful descriptions of its shape and of the manner of wearing it in
the works of writers who had worn it themselves. As a matter of fact,
however, it has been found impossible to reconcile the descriptions in
literature with the representations in art (Fig. 84) and scholars are
by no means agreed as to the precise cut of the toga or the way it was
put on. It is certain, however, that in its earlier form it was
simpler, less cumbrous, and more closely fitted to the figure than in
later times, and that even as early as the classical period its
arrangement was so complicated that the man of fashion could not array
himself in it without assistance.
[Illustration: FIGURE 85. BACK OF TOGA]
§242. Scholars who lay the greater stress on the literary authorities
describe the cut and arrangement of the toga about as follows: It
consisted of one piece of cloth of semicircular cut, about five yards
long by four wide, a certain portion of which was pressed into long
narrow plaits. This cloth was doubled lengthwise, not down the center
but so that one fold was deeper than the other. It was then thrown
over the left shoulder in such a manner that the end in front reached
to the ground, and the part behind (Fig. 85) was in length about twice
a man's height. This end was then brought around under the right arm
and again thrown over the left shoulder so as to cover the whole of
the right side from the armpit to the calf. The broad folds in which
it hung over were thus gathered together on the left shoulder. The
part which crossed the breast diagonally was known as the _sinus_, or
bosom. It was deep enough to serve as a pocket for the reception of
small articles. According to this description the toga was in one
piece and had no seams.
[Illustration: FIGURE 86. CUT OF TOGA]
§243. Those who attempt the reconstruction of the toga wholly or
chiefly from works of art find it impossible to reproduce on the
living form the drapery seen on the statues, with a toga of one piece
of goods or of a semicircular pattern. An experimental form is shown
in Fig. 86, and resembles that of a lamp shade cut in two and
stretched out to its full extent. The dotted line _GC_ is the straight
edge of the goods; the heavy lines show the shape of the toga after it
had been cut out, and had had sewed upon it the ellipse-like piece
marked _FRAcba_. The dotted line _GE_ is of a length equivalent to the
height of a man at the shoulder, and the other measurements are to be
calculated proportionately. When the toga is placed on the figure the
point _E_ must be on the left shoulder, with the point _G_ touching
the ground in front. The point _F_ comes at the back of the neck, and
as the larger part of the garment is allowed to fall behind the figure
the points _L_ and _M_ will fall on the calves of the legs behind, the
point _a_ under the right elbow, and the point _b_ on the stomach. The
material is carried behind the back and under the right arm and then
thrown over the left shoulder again. The point _c_ will fall on _E_,
and the portion _OPCa_ will hang down the back to the ground, as shown
in Fig. 85, §242. The part _FRA_ is then pulled over the right
shoulder to cover the right side of the chest and form the _sinus_,
and the part running from the left shoulder to the ground in front is
pulled up out of the way of the feet, worked under the diagonal folds
and allowed to fall out a little to the front. The front should then
present an appearance similar to that shown in the figure in §241. It
will be found in practice, however, that much of the grace of the toga
must have been due to the trained _vestiplicus_, who kept it properly
creased when it was not in use and carefully arranged each fold after
his master had put it on. We are not told of any pins or tapes to hold
it in place, but are told that the part falling from the left shoulder
to the ground behind kept all in position by its own weight, and that
this weight was sometimes increased by lead sewed in the hem.
§244. It is evident that in this fashionable toga the limbs were
completely fettered, and that all rapid, not to say violent, motion
was absolutely impossible. In other words the toga of the
ultrafashionable in the time of Cicero was fit only for the formal,
stately, ceremonial life of the city. It is easy to see, therefore,
how it had come to be the emblem of peace, being too cumbrous for use
in war, and how Cicero could sneer at the young dandies of his time
for wearing "sails not togas." We can also understand the eagerness
with which the Roman welcomed a respite from civic and social duties.
Juvenal sighed for the freedom of the country, where only the dead had
to wear the toga. Martial praises the unconventionality of the
provinces for the same reason. Pliny makes it one of the attractions
of his villa that no guest need wear the toga there. Its cost, too,
made it all the more burdensome for the poor, and the working classes
could scarcely have worn it at all.
[Illustration: FIGURE 87. THE EARLIER TOGA]
[Illustration: FIGURE 88. THE CINCTUS GABINUS]
§245. The earlier toga must have been simpler by far, but no certain
representation of it has come down to us. The Dresden statue, often
used to illustrate its arrangement (Smith, Fig. 7, p. 848_b_;
Schreiber LXXXV, 8; Marquardt, Fig. 2, p. 558; Baumeister, Fig. 1921),
is more than doubtful, the garment being probably a Greek mantle of
some sort. An approximate idea of it may be gained perhaps from a
statue in Florence of an Etruscan orator (Fig. 87), which corresponds
very closely with the descriptions of it in literary sources. At any
rate it was possible for men to fight in it by tying the trailing ends
around the body and drawing the back folds over the head. This was
called the _cinctus Gabīnus_, and long after the toga had ceased to be
worn in war this _cinctus_ was used in certain ceremonial observances.
It is shown in Fig. 88, though the toga is one of later times.
§246. Kinds of Togas.--The toga of the ordinary citizen was, like the
tunic (§238), of the natural color of the white wool of which it was
made, and varied in texture, of course, with the quality of the wool.
It was called _toga pūra_ (or _virīlis_, _lībera_ §127). A dazzling
brilliancy could be given to the toga by a preparation of fuller's
chalk, and one so treated was called _toga splendēns_ or _candida_. In
such a toga all persons running for office arrayed themselves, and
from it they were called _candidātī_. The curule magistrates, censors,
and dictators wore the _toga praetexta_, differing from the ordinary
toga only in having a purple border. It was also worn by boys (§127)
and by the chief officers of the free towns and colonies. The _toga
picta_ was wholly of purple covered with embroidery of gold, and was
worn by the victorious general in his triumphal procession and later
by the Emperors. The _toga pulla_ was simply a dingy toga worn by
persons in mourning or threatened with some calamity, usually a
reverse of political fortune. Persons assuming it were called
_sordidātī_ and were said _mūtāre vestem_. This _vestis mūtātiō_ was a
common form of public demonstration of sympathy with a fallen leader.
In this case curule magistrates contented themselves with merely
laying aside the _toga praetexta_ for the _toga pūra_, and only the
lower orders wore the _toga pulla_.
§247. The Lacerna.--In Cicero's time there was just coming into
fashionable use a mantle called _lacerna_, which seems to have been
first used by soldiers and the lower classes and then adopted by their
betters on account of its convenience. These wore it at first over the
toga as a protection against dust and sudden showers. It was a woolen
mantle, short, light, open at the sides, without sleeves, but fastened
with a brooch or buckle on the right shoulder. It was so easy and
comfortable that it began to be worn not over the toga but instead of
it, and so generally that Augustus issued an edict forbidding it to be
used in public assemblages of citizens. Under the later Emperors,
however, it came into fashion again, and was the common outer garment
at the theaters. It was made of various colors, dark naturally for the
lower classes, white for formal occasions, but also of brighter hues.
It was sometimes supplied with a hood (_cucullus_), which the wearer
could pull over the head as a protection or a disguise. No
representation of the _lacerna_ in art has come down to us that can be
positively identified; that in Rich s.v. is very doubtful. The
military cloak, first called the _trabea_, then _palūdāmentum_ and
_sagum_, was much like the _lacerna_, but made of heavier material.
[Illustration: FIGURE 89. THE PAENULA]
§248. The Paenula.--Older than the _lacerna_ and used by all sorts and
conditions of men was the _paenula_ (Fig. 89), a heavy coarse wrap of
wool, leather, or fur, used merely for protection against rain or
cold, and therefore never a substitute for the toga or made of fine
materials or bright colors. It seems to have varied in length and
fullness, but to have been a sleeveless wrap, made in one piece with a
hole in the middle, through which the wearer thrust his head. It was,
therefore, classed with the _vestīmenta clausa_, or closed garments,
and must have been much like the modern poncho. It was drawn on over
the head, like a tunic or sweater, and covered the arms, leaving them
much less freedom than the _lacerna_ did. In those of some length
there was a slit in front running from the waist down, and this
enabled the wearer to hitch the cloak up over one shoulder, leaving
one arm comparatively free, but at the same time exposing it to the
weather. It was worn over either tunic or toga according to
circumstances, and was the ordinary traveling habit of citizens of the
better class. It was also commonly worn by slaves, and seems to have
been furnished regularly to soldiers stationed in places where the
climate was severe. Like the _lacerna_ it was sometimes supplied with
a hood.
[Illustration: FIGURE 90. SOLDIER WEARING THE ABOLLA]
§249. Other Wraps.--Of other articles included under the general term
_amictus_ we know little more than the names. The _synthesis_ was a
dinner dress worn at table over the tunic by the ultrafashionable, and
sometimes dignified by the special name of _vestis cēnātōria_, or
_cēnātōrium_ alone. It was not worn out of the house except on the
Saturnalia, and was usually of some bright color. Its shape is
unknown. The _laena_ and _abolla_ were very heavy woolen cloaks, the
latter (Fig. 90) being a favorite with poor people who had to make one
garment do duty for two or three. It was used especially by
professional philosophers, who were proverbially careless about their
dress. One is thought to be worn by the man on the extreme left, in
the picture of a school shown in §119. The _endormis_ was something
like the modern bath robe, used by men after violent gymnastic
exercise to keep from taking cold, and hardly belongs under the head
of dress.
[Illustration: FIGURE 91. SOLEAE]
§250. Footgear: the Soleae.--It may be set down as a rule that freemen
did not appear in public at Rome with bare feet, except as nowadays
under the compulsion of the direst poverty. Two styles of footwear
were in use, slippers or sandals (_soleae_) and shoes (_calceī_). The
slipper consisted essentially of a sole of leather or matting attached
to the foot in various ways (see the several styles in Fig. 91).
Custom limited its use to the house and it went characteristically
with the tunic (§237), when that was not covered by an outer garment.
Oddly enough, it seems to us, the slippers were not worn at meals.
Host and guests wore them into the dining-room, but as soon as they
had taken their places on the couches (§224) slaves removed the
slippers from their feet and cared for them until the meal was over
(§152). Hence the phrase _soleās poscere_ came to mean "to prepare to
take leave." When a guest went out to dinner in a _lectīca_ (§151) he
wore the _soleae_, but if he walked he wore the regular out-door shoes
(_calceī_) and had his slippers carried by a slave.
[Illustration: FIGURE 92. ROMAN SHOES]
§251. The Calcei.--Out of doors the _calceus_ was always worn,
although it was much heavier and less comfortable than the _solea_.
Good form forbade the toga to be worn without the _calceī_, and they
were worn also with all the other garments included under the word
_amictus_. The _calceus_ was essentially our shoe, made on a last of
leather, covering the upper part of the foot as well as protecting the
sole, fastened with laces or straps. The higher classes had shoes
peculiar to their rank. The shoe for senators is best known to us
(_calceus senātōrius_), and is shown in Fig. 92; but we know only its
shape, not its color. It had a thick sole, was open on the inside at
the ankle, and was fastened by wide straps which ran from the juncture
of the sole and the upper, were wrapped around the leg and tied above
the instep. The _mulleus_ or _calceus patricius_ was worn originally
by patricians only, but later by all curule magistrates. It was shaped
like the senator's shoe, was red in color like the fish from which it
was named, and had an ivory or silver ornament of crescent shape
(_lūnula_) fastened on the outside of the ankle. We know nothing of
the shoe worn by the knights. Ordinary citizens wore shoes that opened
in front and were fastened by a strap of leather running from one side
of the shoe near the top. They did not come up so high on the leg as
those of the senators and were probably of uncolored leather. The
poorer classes naturally wore shoes of coarser material, often of
untanned leather (_pērōnēs_), and laborers and soldiers had half-boots
(_caligae_) of the stoutest possible make, or wore wooden shoes. No
stockings were worn by the Romans, but persons with tender feet might
wrap them with _fasciae_ (§239) to keep the shoes and boots from
chafing them.
[Illustration: FIGURE 93. THE CAUSIA]
[Illustration: FIGURE 94. THE PETASUS]
§252. Coverings for the Head.--Men of the upper classes in Rome had
ordinarily no covering for the head. When they went out in bad weather
they protected themselves, of course, with the _lacerna_ and
_paenula_, and these, as we have seen (§§247, 248), were provided with
hoods (_cucullī_). If they were caught without wraps in a sudden
shower they made shift as best they could by pulling the toga up over
the head, cf. Fig. 88 in §245. Persons of lower standing, especially
workmen who were out of doors all day, wore a conical felt cap called
the _pilleus_, see the illustration in §175. It is probable that this
was a survival of what had been in prehistoric times an essential part
of the Roman dress, for it was preserved among the insignia of the
oldest priesthoods, the Pontifices, Flamines, and Salii, and figured
in the ceremony of manumission. Out of the city, that is, while
traveling or while in the country, the upper classes, too, protected
the head, especially against the sun, with a broad-brimmed felt hat of
foreign origin, the _causia_ or _petasus_. They are shown in Figs. 93
and 94. They were worn in the city also by the old and feeble, and in
later times by all classes in the theaters. In the house, of course,
the head was left uncovered.
§253. The Hair and Beard.--The Romans in early times wore long hair
and full beards, as did all uncivilized peoples. Varro tells us that
professional barbers came first to Rome in the year 300 B.C., but we
know that the razor and shears were used by the Romans long before
history begins. Pliny says that the younger Scipio (†129 B.C.) was the
first of the Romans to shave every day, and the story may be true.
People of wealth and position had the hair and beard kept in order at
home by their own slaves (§150), and these slaves, if skillful
barbers, brought high prices in the market. People of the middle class
went to public barber shops, and made them gradually places of general
resort for the idle and the gossiping. But in all periods the hair and
beard were allowed to grow as a sign of sorrow, and were the regular
accompaniments of the mourning garb already mentioned (§246). The very
poor, too, went usually unshaven and unshorn, simply because this was
the cheap and easy fashion.
§254. Styles varied with the years of the persons concerned. The hair
of children, boys and girls alike, was allowed to grow long and hang
around the neck and shoulders. When the boy assumed the toga of
manhood the long locks were cut off, sometimes with a good deal of
formality, and under the Empire they were often made an offering to
some deity. In the classical period young men seem to have worn close
clipped beards; at least Cicero jeers at those who followed Catiline
for wearing full beards, and on the other hand declares that their
companions who could show no signs of beard on their faces were worse
than effeminate. Men of maturity wore the hair cut short and the face
shaved clean. Most of the portraits that have come down to us show
beardless men until well into the second century of our era, but after
the time of Hadrian (117-138 A.D.) the full beard became fashionable.
Figs. 2 to 11, §§28-74, are arranged chronologically and will serve to
show the changes in styles.
[Illustration: FIGURE 95. SEAL RINGS]
§255. Jewelry.--The ring was the only article of jewelry worn by a
Roman citizen after he reached the age of manhood (§99), and good
taste limited him to a single ring. It was originally of iron, and
though often set with a precious stone and made still more valuable by
the artistic cutting of the stone, it was always worn more for use
than ornament. The ring was in fact in almost all cases a seal ring,
having some device upon it (Fig. 95) which the wearer imprinted in
melted wax when he wished to acknowledge some document as his own, or
to secure cabinets and coffers against prying curiosity. The iron ring
was worn generally until late in the Empire, even after the gold ring
had ceased to be the special privilege of the knights and had become
merely the badge of freedom. Even the engagement ring (§71) was
usually of iron, the setting giving it its material value, although we
are told that this particular ring was often the first article of gold
that the young girl possessed.
§256. Of course there were not wanting men as ready to violate the
canons of taste in the matter of rings as in the choice of their
garments or the style of wearing the hair and beard. We need not be
surprised, then, to read of one having sixteen rings, or of another
having six for each finger. One of Martial's acquaintances had a ring
so large that the poet advised him to wear it on his leg, and Juvenal
tells us of an upstart who wore light rings in the summer and heavy
rings in the winter. It is a more surprising fact that the ring was
worn on the joint, not pressed down as far as possible on the finger,
as we wear them now. If two were worn on the same finger they were
worn on separate joints, not touching each other. This fashion must
have seriously interfered with the movement of the finger.
[Illustration: FIGURE 96. THE MAMILLARE]
§257. Dress of Women.--It has been remarked already (§234) that the
dress of men and women differed less in ancient than in modern times,
and we shall find that in the classical period at least the principal
articles worn were practically the same, however much they differed in
name and probably in the fineness of their materials. At this period
the dress of the matron consisted in general of three articles: the
_tunica interior_, the _tunica exterior_ or _stola_, and the _palla_.
Beneath the _tunica interior_ there was nothing like the modern
corset-waist or corset, intended to modify the figure, but a band of
soft leather (_mamillāre_) was sometimes passed around the body under
the breasts for a support (Fig. 96), and the _subligāculum_ (§235) was
also worn by women.
[Illustration: FIGURE 97. THE STROPHIUM]
§258. The Tunica Interior.--The _tunica interior_ did not differ much
in material or shape from the tunic for men already described (§236).
It fitted the figure more closely perhaps than the man's, was
sometimes supplied with sleeves, and as it reached only to the knee
did not require a belt to keep it from interfering with the free use
of the limbs. A soft sash-like band of leather (_strophium_), however,
was sometimes worn over it, close under the breasts, but merely to
support them, and in this case we may suppose that the _mamillāre_ was
discarded. For this sash (Fig. 97) the more general terms _zōna_ and
_cingulum_ are sometimes used. This tunic was not usually worn alone,
even in the house, except by young girls.
§259. The Stola.--Over the _tunica interior_ was worn the _tunica
exterior_, or _stola_, the distinctive dress of the Roman matron
(§91). It differed in several respects from the tunic worn as a
house-dress by men. It was open at both sides above the waist and
fastened on the shoulders by brooches. It was much longer, reaching to
the feet when ungirded and having in addition a wide border or flounce
(_īnstita_) sewed to the lower hem. There was also a border around the
neck, which seems to have been usually of purple. The _stola_ was
sleeveless if the _tunica interior_ had sleeves, but if the tunic
itself was sleeveless the _stola_ had them, so that the arm was always
protected. These sleeves, however, whether in tunic or _stola_, were
open on the front of the upper arm and only loosely clasped with
brooches or buttons, often of great beauty and value.
[Illustration: FIGURE 98. THE ZONA]
[Illustration: FIGURE 99. STATUE OF THE YOUNGER FAUSTINA]
§260. Owing to its great length the _stola_ was always worn with a
girdle (_zōna_) above the hips (Fig. 98), and through it the _stola_
itself was pulled until the lower edge of the _īnstita_ barely cleared
the floor. This gave the fullness about the waist seen in the statue
of Faustina (Fig. 99), in which the cut of the sleeves can also be
seen. The _zōna_ was usually entirely hidden by the overhanging folds.
The _stola_ was the distinctive dress of the matron, as has been said,
and it is probable that the _īnstita_ was its distinguishing feature;
that is, the _tunica exterior_ of the unmarried woman had no flounce
or border, though it probably reached to the floor.
[Illustration: FIGURE 100. STATUE FROM HERCULANEUM]
[Illustration: FIGURE 101. STATUE OF LIVIA]
§261. The Palla.--The _palla_ was a shawl-like wrap for use out of
doors. It was a rectangular piece of woolen goods, as simple as
possible in its form, but worn in the most diverse fashions in
different times. In the classical period it seems to have been wrapped
around the figure, much as the toga was. One-third was thrown over the
left shoulder from behind and allowed to fall to the feet. The rest
was carried around the back and brought forward either over or under
the right arm at the pleasure of the wearer. The end was then thrown
back over the left shoulder after the style of the toga, as in the
marble statue from Herculaneum shown in Fig. 100, or allowed to hang
loosely over the left arm, as in the statue of Livia (Fig. 101). It
was possible also to pull the _palla_ up over the head, and this
method of using it is supposed by some scholars to be shown in the
statue of Livia, while others see in the covering of the head some
sort of a veil.
§262. Shoes and Slippers.--What has been said of the footgear of men
(§§250, 251) applies also to that of women. Slippers (_soleae_) were
worn in the house, differing from those of men only in being
embellished as much as possible, sometimes even with pearls. An idea
of their appearance may be had from the statue of Faustina (§259).
Shoes (_calceī_) were insisted upon for out-door use, and differed
from those of men, as they chiefly differ from them now, in being made
of finer and softer leather. They were often white, or gilded, or of
bright colors, and those intended for winter wear had sometimes cork
soles.
[Illustration: FIGURE 102. STYLES OF DRESSING THE HAIR]
§263. Dressing of the Hair.--The Roman woman regularly wore no hat,
but covered the head when necessary with the _stola_ or with a veil.
Much attention was given to the arrangement of the hair, the fashions
being as numerous and as inconstant as they are to-day. For young
girls the favorite arrangement, perhaps, was to comb the hair back and
gather it into a knot (_nōdus_) on the back of the neck. For matrons
it will be sufficient to call attention to the figures already given
(§§77, 259, 261), and to show from statues five styles (Fig. 102) worn
at different times under the Empire, all belonging to ladies of the
court.
§264. For keeping the hair in position pins were used of ivory,
silver, and gold, often mounted with jewels. Nets (_rēticula_) and
ribbons (_vittae_, _taeniae_, _fasciolae_) were also worn, but combs
were not made a part of the head-dress. The Roman woman of fashion did
not scruple to color her hair, the golden-red color of the Greek hair
being especially admired, or to use false hair, which had become an
article of commercial importance early in the Empire. Mention should
also be made of the garlands (_corōnae_) of flowers, or of flowers and
foliage, and of the coronets of pearls and other precious stones that
were used to supplement the natural or artificial beauty of the hair.
These are illustrated in Fig. 102 above.
[Illustration: FIGURE 103. TOILET ARTICLES]
§265. The woman's hairdresser was a female slave (§150), and Juvenal
tells us that she suffered cruelly from the impatience of her mistress
(§158), who found the long hairpins shown in the figure a convenient
instrument of punishment, The _ōrnātrīx_ was an adept in all the
tricks of the toilet already mentioned, and besides used all sorts of
unguents, oils, and tonics to make the hair soft and lustrous and to
cause it to grow abundantly. In Fig. 103 are shown a number of common
toilet articles: _a_, _b_, _c_, _h_, _i_, and _k_ are hairpins, _d_
and _g_ are hand mirrors made of highly polished metal, _f_ is a comb,
and _e_ a box for pomatum or powder.
[Illustration: FIGURE 104. THE PARASOL]
[Illustration: FIGURE 105. FANS (See also Figure 73, §226)]
§266. Accessories.--The parasol (_umbrāculum_, _umbella_) was commonly
used by women at Rome at least as early as the close of the Republic,
and was all the more necessary because they wore no hats or bonnets.
The parasols were usually carried for them by attendants (§151). From
vase paintings we learn that they were much like our own in shape
(Fig. 104, see also Smith and Harper, s.v.; Baumeister, p. 1684;
Schreiber XCV, 9), and could be closed when not in use. The fan
(_flābellum_) was used from the earliest times and was made in various
ways (Fig. 105); sometimes of wings of birds, sometimes of thin sheets
of wood attached to a handle, sometimes of peacock's feathers
artistically arranged, sometimes of linen stretched over a frame.
These fans were not used by the woman herself, being always handled by
an attendant who was charged with the task of keeping her cool and
untroubled by flies (see Fig. 73 in §226). Handkerchiefs (_sūdāria_),
the finest made of linen, were used by both sexes, but only for wiping
the perspiration from the face or hands. For keeping the palms cool
and dry ladies seem also to have used glass balls, or balls of amber,
the latter, perhaps, for the fragrance also.
§267. Jewelry.--The Roman woman was passionately fond of jewelry, and
incalculable sums were spent upon the adornment of her person. Rings,
brooches, pins, jeweled buttons, and coronets have been mentioned
already, and besides these bracelets, necklaces, and ear-rings or
pendants were worn from the earliest times by all who could afford
them. Not only were they made of costly materials, but their value was
also enhanced by the artistic workmanship that was lavished upon them.
Almost all the precious stones that are known to us were familiar to
the Romans and were to be found in the jewel-casket (§230) of the
wealthy lady. The pearl, however, seems to have been in all times the
favorite. No adequate description of these articles can be given here;
no illustrations can do them justice. It will have to suffice that
Suetonius says that Caesar paid six million sesterces (nearly
$300,000) for a single pearl, which he gave to Servilia, the mother of
Marcus Brutus, and that Lollia Paulina, the wife of the Emperor
Caligula, possessed a single set of pearls and emeralds which is said
by Pliny the elder to have been valued at forty million sesterces
(nearly $2,000,000).
§268. Dress of Children and Slaves.--The picture from Herculaneum
(§119) shows that schoolboys wore the _subligāculum_ and _tunica_, and
it is probable that no other articles of clothing were worn by either
boys or girls of the poorer classes. Besides these, children of
well-to-do parents wore the _toga praetexta_ (§246), which the girl
laid aside on the eve of her marriage (§76) and the boy when he
reached the age of manhood (§127). Slaves were furnished a tunic,
wooden shoes, and in stormy weather a cloak, probably the _paenula_
(§248). This must have been the ordinary garb of the poorer citizens
of the working classes, for they would have had little use for the
toga, at least in later times, and could hardly have afforded so
expensive a garment.
§269. Materials.--Fabrics of wool, linen, cotton, and silk were used
by the Romans. For clothes woolen goods were the first to be used, and
naturally so, for the early inhabitants of Latium were shepherds, and
woolen garments best suited the climate. Under the Republic wool was
almost exclusively used for the garments of both men and women, as we
have seen, though the _subligāculum_ was frequently, and the woman's
tunic sometimes, made of linen. The best native wools came from
Calabria and Apulia, that from near Tarentum being the best of all.
Native wools did not suffice, however, to meet the great demand, and
large quantities were imported. Linen goods were early manufactured in
Italy, but were used chiefly for other purposes than clothing until in
the Empire, and only in the third century of our era did men begin to
make general use of them. The finest linen came from Egypt, and was as
soft and transparent as silk. Little is positively known about the use
of cotton, because the word _carbasus_, the genuine Indian name for
it, was used by the Romans for linen goods also and when we meet the
word we can not always be sure of the material meant. Silk, imported
from China directly or indirectly, was first used for garments under
Tiberius, and then only in a mixture of linen and silk (_vestēs
sēricae_). These were forbidden for the use of men in his reign, but
the law was powerless against the love of luxury. Garments of pure
silk were first used in the third century.
§270. Colors.--White was the prevailing color of all articles of dress
throughout the Republic, in most cases the natural color of the wool,
as we have seen (§246). The lower classes, however, selected for their
garments shades that required cleansing less frequently, and found
them, too, in the undyed wool. From Canusium came a brown wool with a
tinge of red, from Baetica in Spain a light yellow, from Mutina a gray
or a gray mixed with white, from Pollentia in Liguria the dark gray
(_pulla_) used, as has been said (§246), for public mourning. Other
shades from red to deep black were furnished by foreign wools. Almost
the only artificial color used for garments under the Republic was
purple, which seems to have varied from what we call crimson, made
from the native trumpet-shell (_būcinum_ or _mūrex_), to the true
Tyrian purple. The former was brilliant and cheap, but liable to fade.
Mixed with the dark _purpura_ in different proportions, it furnished a
variety of permanent tints. One of the most popular of these tints,
violet, made the wool cost some $20 a pound, while the genuine Tyrian
cost at least ten times as much. Probably the stripes worn by the
knights and senators on the tunics and togas were much nearer our
crimson than purple. Under the Empire the garments worn by women were
dyed in various colors, and so, too, perhaps, the fancier articles
worn by men, such as the _lacerna_ (§247) and the _synthesis_ (§249).
The _trabea_ of the augurs seems to have been striped with scarlet and
purple, the _palūdāmentum_ of the general to have been at different
times white, scarlet, and purple, and the robe of the _triumphātor_
purple.
§271. Manufacture.--In the old days the wool was spun at home by the
maidservants working under the eye of the mistress (§199), and woven
into cloth on the family loom, and this was kept up throughout the
Republic by some of the proudest families. Augustus wore these
home-made garments. By the end of the Republic, however, this was no
longer general, and while much of the native wool was worked up on the
farms by the slaves directed by the _vīlica_ (§148), cloth of any
desired quality could be bought in the open market. It was formerly
supposed that the garments came from the loom ready to wear, but this
is now known to have been incorrect. We have seen that the tunic was
made of two separate pieces sewed together (§236), that the toga had
probably to be fitted as carefully as a modern coat (§243), and that
even the coarse _paenula_ (§248) could not have been woven or knitted
in one piece. But ready-made garments were on sale in the towns as
early as the time of Cato, though perhaps of the cheaper qualities
only, and in the Empire the trade reached large proportions. It is
remarkable that with the vast numbers of slaves in the _familia
urbāna_ (§149 f.) it never became usual to have soiled garments
cleansed at home. All garments showing traces of use were sent by the
well-to-do to the fullers (_fullōnēs_) to be washed (Fig. 106),
whitened (or re-dyed), and pressed. The fact that almost all were of
woolen materials made skill and care all the more necessary.
[Illustration: FIGURE 106. FULLERS AT WORK]
CHAPTER VIII
FOOD AND MEALS
REFERENCES: Marquardt, 264-268, 300-340, 414-465; Voigt, 327-329,
401-404; Göll, 311-454; Guhl and Koner, 747-759, 702-704; Friedländer,
III, 29-56; Ramsay, 490-501; Pauly-Wissowa, _cēna_, _comissātiō_;
Smith, Harper, Rich, _cēna_, _comissātiō_, _olea_ (_olīva_), _vīnum_;
Baumeister, 845, 2086; Lübker, 724 f.; Mau-Kelsey, 256-260, 267-270.
§272. Natural Conditions.--Italy is blessed above all the other
countries of central Europe with the natural conditions that go to
make an abundant and varied supply of food. The soil is rich and
composed of different elements in different parts of the country. The
rainfall is abundant, and rivers and smaller streams are numerous. The
line of greatest length runs nearly north and south, but the climate
depends little upon latitude, being modified by surrounding bodies of
water, by mountain ranges, and by prevailing winds. These agencies in
connection with the varying elevation of the land itself produce such
widely different conditions that somewhere within the confines of
Italy almost all the grains and fruits of the temperate and subtropic
zones find the soil and climate most favorable to their growth.
§273. The early inhabitants of the peninsula, the Italian peoples,
seem to have left for the Romans the task of developing and improving
these means of subsistence. Wild fruits, nuts, and flesh have always
been the support of uncivilized peoples, and must have been so for the
shepherds who laid the foundations of Rome. The very word _pecūnia_
(from _pecus_; cf. _pecūlium_, §162) shows that herds of domestic
animals were the first source of Roman wealth. But other words show
just as clearly that the cultivation of the soil was understood by the
Romans in very early times: the names Fabius, Cicero, Piso, and Caepio
are no less ancient than Porcius, Asinius, Vitellius, and Ovidius.[1]
Cicero puts into the mouth of the elder Cato the statement that to the
farmer the garden was a second meat supply, but long before Cato's
time meat had ceased to be the chief article of food. Grain and grapes
and olives furnished subsistence for all who did not live to eat.
These gave the wine that maketh glad the heart of man, and oil to make
his face to shine, and bread that strengtheneth man's heart. On these
three abundant products of the soil the mass of the people of Italy
lived of old as they still live to-day. Something will be said of each
below, after less important products have been considered.
[Footnote 1: The words are connected respectively with _faba_, a bean,
_cicer_, a chick-pea, _pīstor_, a miller, _caepe_, an onion, _porcus_,
a pig, _asinus_, an ass, _vitellus_, a calf, and _ovis_, a sheep.]
§274. Fruits.--Besides the olive and the grape, the apple, pear, plum,
and quince were either native to Italy or were introduced in
prehistoric times. Careful attention had long been given to their
cultivation, and by Cicero's time Italy was covered with orchards and
all these fruits were abundant and cheap in their seasons, used by all
sorts and conditions of men. By this time, too, had begun the
introduction of new fruits from foreign lands and the improvement of
native varieties. Great statesmen and generals gave their names to new
and better sorts of apples and pears, and vied with each other in
producing fruits out of season by hothouse culture (§145). Every fresh
extension of Roman territory brought new fruits and nuts into Italy.
Among the last were the walnut, hazelnut, filbert, almond, and
pistachio; the almond after Cato's time and the pistachio not until
that of Tiberius. Among the fruits were the peach (_mālum Persicum_),
the apricot (_mālum Armeniacum_), the pomegranate (_mālum Pūnicum_ or
_grānātum_), the cherry (_cerasus_), brought by Lucullus from the town
Cerasus in Pontus, and the lemon (_citrus_), not grown in Italy until
the third century of our era. And besides the introduction of fruits
for culture large quantities were imported for food, either dried or
otherwise preserved. The orange, however, strange as it seems to us,
was not grown by the Romans.
§275. Garden Produce.--The garden did not yield to the orchard in the
abundance and variety of its contributions to the supply of food. We
read of artichokes, asparagus, beans, beets, cabbages, carrots,
chicory, cucumbers, garlic, lentils, melons, onions, peas, the poppy,
pumpkins, radishes, and turnips, to mention those only whose names are
familiar to us all. It will be noticed, however, that the vegetables
most highly prized by us, perhaps, the potato and tomato, were not
known to the Romans. Of those mentioned the oldest seem to have been
the bean and the onion, as shown by the names Fabius and Caepio
already mentioned (§273), but the latter came gradually to be looked
upon as unrefined and the former to be considered too heavy a food
except for persons engaged in the hardest toil. Cato pronounced the
cabbage the finest vegetable known, and the turnip figures in the
well-known anecdote of Manius Curius (§299).
§276. The Roman gardener gave great attention, too, to the raising of
green stuffs that could be used for salads. Among these the sorts most
often mentioned are the cress and lettuce, with which we are familiar,
and the mallow, no longer used for food. Plants in great variety were
cultivated for seasoning. The poppy was eaten with honey as a dessert,
or was sprinkled over bread in the oven. Anise, cumin, fennel, mint,
and mustard were raised everywhere. And besides these seasonings that
were found in every kitchen garden, spices were imported in large
quantities from the east, and the rich imported vegetables of larger
sizes or finer quality than could be raised at home. Fresh vegetables
like fresh fruits could not be brought in those days from great
distances.
§277. Meats.--Besides the pork, beef, and mutton that we still use the
Roman farmer had goatsflesh at his disposal, and all these meats were
sold in the towns. Goatsflesh was considered the poorest of all, and
was used by the lower classes only. Beef had been eaten by the Romans
from the earliest times, but its use was a mark of luxury until very
late in the Empire. Under the Republic the ordinary citizen ate beef
only on great occasions when he had offered a steer or cow to the gods
in sacrifice. The flesh then furnished a banquet for his family and
friends, the heart, liver, and lungs (called collectively the _exta_)
were the share of the priest, and the rest was consumed on the altar.
Probably the great size of the carcass had something to do with the
rarity of its use at a time when meat could be kept fresh only in the
coldest weather; at any rate we must think of the Romans as using the
cow for dairy purposes and the ox for draft rather than for food.
§278. Pork was widely used by rich and poor alike, and was considered
the choicest of all domestic meats. The very language testifies to the
important place it occupied in the economy of the larder, for no other
animal has so many words to describe it in its different functions.
Besides the general term _sūs_ we find _porcus_, _porca_, _verrēs_,
_aper_, _scrōfa_, _māiālis_, and _nefrēns_. In the religious ceremony
of the _suovetaurīlia_ (_sūs_ + _ovis_ + _taurus_) it will be noticed
that the swine has the first place, coming before the sheep and the
bull. The vocabulary describing the parts used for food is equally
rich; there are words for no less than half a dozen kinds of sausages,
for example, with pork as their basis. We read, too, of fifty
different ways of cooking pork.
§279. Fowl and Game.--All the common domestic fowls, chickens, ducks,
geese, and pigeons, were used by the Romans for food, and besides
these the wealthy raised various sorts of wild fowl for the table, in
the game preserves that have been mentioned (§145). Among these were
cranes, grouse, partridges, snipe, thrushes, and woodcock. In Cicero's
time the peacock was most highly esteemed, having at the feast much
the same place of honor as the turkey has with us, but costing as much
as $10 each. Wild animals were also bred for food in similar
preserves, the hare and the wild boar being the favorites. The latter
was served whole upon the table as in feudal times. As a contrast in
size may be mentioned the dormouse (_glīs_), which was thought a great
delicacy.
§280. Fish.--The rivers of Italy and the surrounding seas must have
furnished always a great variety of fish, but in early times fish was
not much used as food by the Romans. By the end of the Republic,
however, tastes had changed, and no article of food brought higher
prices than the rarer sorts of fresh fish. Salt fish was exceedingly
cheap and was imported in many forms from almost all the Mediterranean
ports. One dish especially, _tyrotarīchus_, made of salt fish, eggs,
and cheese, and therefore something like our codfish balls, is
mentioned by Cicero in about the same way as we speak of hash. Fresh
fish were all the more expensive because they could be transported
only while alive. Hence the rich constructed fish ponds on their
estates, a Marcus Licinius Crassus setting the example in 92 B.C., and
both fresh-water and salt-water fish were raised for the table. The
names of the favorite sorts mean little to us, but we find the mullet
(_mullus_; see §251) and a kind of turbot (_rhombus_) bringing high
prices, and oysters (_ostreae_) were as popular as they are now.
§281. Before passing to the more important matters of bread, wine, and
oil, it may be well to mention a few articles that are still in
general use. The Romans used freely the products of the dairy, milk,
cream, curds, whey, and cheese. They drank the milk of sheep and goats
as well as that of cows, and made cheese of the three kinds of milk.
The cheese from ewes' milk was thought more digestible though less
palatable than that made of cows' milk, while cheese from goats' milk
was more palatable but less digestible. It is remarkable that they had
no knowledge of butter except us a plaster for wounds. Honey took the
place of sugar on the table and in cooking, for the Romans had only a
botanical knowledge of the sugar cane. Salt was at first obtained by
the evaporation of sea-water, but was afterwards mined. Its
manufacture was a monopoly of the government, and care was taken
always to keep the price low. It was used not only for seasoning, but
also as a preservative agent. Vinegar was made from grape juice. In
the list of articles of food unknown to the Romans we must put tea and
coffee along with the orange, tomato, potato, butter, and sugar
already mentioned.
§282. Cereals.--The word _frūmentum_[2] was a general term applied to
any of the many sorts of grain that were grown for food. Of those now
in use barley, oats, rye, and wheat were known to the Romans, though
rye was not cultivated and oats served only as feed for cattle. Barley
was not much used, for it was thought to lack nutriment, and therefore
to be unfit for laborers. In very ancient times another grain, spelt
(_far_), had been grown extensively, but it had gradually gone out of
use except for the sacrificial cake that had given its name to the
confarreate ceremony of marriage (§82). In classical times wheat was
the staple grain grown for food, not differing much from that which we
use to-day. It was usually planted in the fall, though on some soils
it would mature as a spring wheat. After the farming land of Italy was
diverted to other purposes (parks, pleasure grounds, game preserves:
see §§145, 146), wheat had to be imported from the provinces, first
from Sicily, then from Africa and Egypt, the home supply being
inadequate to the needs of the teeming population.
[Footnote 2: The word _frūmentum_ occurs fifty-five times in the
"Gallic War," meaning any kind of grain that happened to be grown for
food in the country in which Caesar was campaigning at the time. The
word "corn" used to translate it in our school editions is the worst
possible, because to the schoolboy the word "corn" means a particular
kind of grain, and a kind at that which was unknown to the Romans. The
general word "grain" is much better for translation purposes.]
[Illustration: FIGURE 107. POUNDING GRAIN]
§283. Preparation of the Grain.--In the earliest times the grain
(_far_) had not been ground, but merely pounded in a mortar (Fig.
107). The meal was then mixed with water and made into a sort of
porridge (_puls_, whence our word "poultice"), which long remained the
national dish, something like the oatmeal of Scotland. Plautus (†184
B.C.) jestingly refers to his countrymen as "pulse-eaters." The
persons who crushed the grain were called _pīnsitōrēs_ or _pīstōrēs_,
whence the cognomen Pīsō (§273) is said to be derived, and in later
times the bakers were also called _pīstōrēs_, because they ground the
grain as well as baked the bread. In the ruins of bakeries we find
mills as regularly as ovens. See the illustration in §285.
[Illustration: FIGURE 108. SECTION OF MILL]
[Illustration: FIGURE 109. A POMPEIAN MILL WITHOUT ITS FRAME-WORK]
§284. The grinding of the grain into regular flour was done in a mill
(_mola_). This consisted of three parts, the lower millstone (_mēta_),
the upper (_catillus_), and the frame-work that surrounded and
supported the latter and furnished the means to turn it upon the
_mēta_. All these parts are shown distinctly in the cut (Fig. 108; see
also Rich, Harper, and Smith under _mola_; Guhl and Koner, p. 774;
Schreiber LXVII; Baumeister, p. 933), and require little explanation.
The _mēta_ was, as the name suggests, a cone-shaped stone (_A_)
resting on a bed of masonry (_B_) with a raised rim, between which and
the lower edge of the _mēta_ the flour was collected. In the upper
part of the _mēta_ a beam (_C_) was mortised, ending above in an iron
pin or pivot (_D_) on which hung and turned the frame-work that
supported the _catillus_. The _catillus_ (_E_) itself was shaped
something like an hourglass, or two funnels joined at the neck. The
upper funnel served as a hopper into which the grain was poured; the
lower funnel fitted closely over the _mēta_, the distance between them
being regulated by the length of the pin, mentioned above, according
to the fineness of the flour desired. The mill without frame-work is
shown in Fig. 109.
[Illustration: FIGURE 110. HORSE AND MILL]
§285. The frame-work was very strong and massive on account of the
heavy weight that was suspended from it. The beams used for turning
the mill were fitted into holes in the narrow part of the _catillus_
as shown in the cut. The power required to do the grinding was
furnished by horses or mules attached to the beams (Fig. 110), or by
slaves pushing against them. This last method was often used as a
punishment, as we have seen (§§170, 148). Of the same form but much
smaller were the hand mills used by soldiers for grinding the
_frūmentum_ furnished them as rations. Under the Empire water mills
were introduced, but they are hardly referred to in literature.
[Illustration: FIGURE 111. BAKERY WITH MILLS]
§286. The transition from the ancient porridge (§283) to bread baked
in the modern fashion must have been through the medium of thin cakes
baked in or over the fire. We do not know when bread baked in ovens
came into use. Bakers (§283) as representatives of a trade do not go
back beyond 171 B.C., but long before this time, of course, the family
bread had been made by the _māter familiās_, or by a slave under her
supervision. After public bakeries were once established it became
less and less usual for bread to be made in private houses in the
towns. Only the most pretentious of the city mansions had ovens
attached, as shown by the ruins. In the country, on the other hand,
the older custom was always retained (§148). Under Trajan (98-118) it
became the custom to distribute bread to the people daily, instead of
grain once a month, and the bakers were organized into a guild
(_corpus_, _collegium_), and as a corporation enjoyed certain
privileges and immunities. In Fig. 111 are shown the ruins of a
Pompeian bakery with several mills in connection with it.
[Illustration: FIGURE 112. OVEN FOR BREAD]
§287. Breadmaking.--After the flour collected about the edge of the
_mēta_ (§284) had been sifted, water and salt were added and the dough
was kneaded in a trough by hand or by a simple machine shown in the
cut in Schreiber LXVII. Yeast was added as nowadays and the bread was
baked in an oven much like those still found in parts of Europe. One
preserved in the ruins of Pompeii is shown in the cut (Fig. 112): at
_a_ is the oven proper, in which a fire was built, the draft being
furnished by the openings at _d_. The surrounding chamber, _b_, is
intended to retain the heat after the fire (usually of charcoal) had
been raked out into the ashpit, _e_, and the vents closed. The letter
_f_ marks a receptacle for water, which seems to have been used for
moistening the bread while baking. After the oven had been heated to
the proper temperature and the fire raked out, the loaves were put in,
the vents closed, and the bread left to bake.
[Illustration: FIGURE 113. SALESROOM OF BAKERY]
§288. There were several qualities of bread, varying with the sort of
grain, the setting of the millstones (§284) and the fineness of the
sieves (§287). The very best, made of pure wheat-flour, was called
_pānis silīgneus_; that made of coarse flour, of flour and bran, or of
bran alone was called _pānis plebēius_, _castrēnsis_, _sordidus_,
_rūsticus_, etc. The loaves were circular and rather flat--some have
been found in the ruins of Pompeii--and had their surface marked off
by lines drawn from the center into four or more parts. The wall
painting (Fig. 113) of a salesroom of a bakery, also found in Pompeii,
gives a good idea of the appearance of the bread. Various kinds of
cakes and confections were also sold at these shops.
§289. The Olive.--Next in importance to the wheat came the olive. It
was introduced into Italy from Greece, and from Italy has spread
through all the Mediterranean countries; but in modern as well as in
ancient times the best olives are those of Italy. The olive was an
important article of food merely as a fruit, being eaten both fresh
and preserved in various ways, but it found its significant place in
the domestic economy of the Romans in the form of the olive oil with
which we are familiar. It is the value of the oil that has caused the
cultivation of the olive to become so general in southern Europe, and
it is claimed that its use is constantly widening, extending
especially northward, where wine and oil are said to be supplanting
the native beer and butter. Many varieties were known to the Romans,
requiring different climates and soils and adapted to different uses.
In general it may be said that the larger berries were better suited
for eating than for oil.
[Illustration: FIGURE 114. PICKING OLIVES]
§290. The olive was eaten fresh as it ripened and was also preserved
in various ways. The ripe olives were sprinkled with salt and left
untouched for five days; the salt was then shaken off, and the olives
dried in the sun. They were also preserved sweet without salt in
boiled must (§296). Half ripe olives were picked (Fig. 114) with their
stems and covered over in jars with the best quality of oil; in this
way they are said to have retained for more than a year the flavor of
the fresh fruit. Green olives were preserved whole in strong brine,
the form in which we know them now, or were beaten into a mass and
preserved with spices and vinegar. The preparation _epityrum_ was made
by taking the fruit in any of the three stages, removing the stones,
chopping up the pulp, seasoning it with vinegar, coriander seeds,
cumin, fennel, and mint, and covering the mixture in jars with oil
enough to exclude the air. The result was a salad that was eaten with
cheese.
§291. Olive Oil.--The oil was used for several purposes. It was
employed most anciently to anoint the body after bathing, especially
by athletes; it was used as a vehicle for perfumes, the Romans knowing
nothing of distillation by means of alcohol; it was burned in lamps
(§228); it was an indispensable article of food. As a food it was
employed as butter is now in cooking or as a relish or dressing in its
natural state. The olive when subjected to pressure yields two fluids.
The first to flow (_amurca_) is dark and bitter, having the
consistency of water. It was largely used as a fertilizer, but not as
a food. The second, which flows after greater pressure, is the oil
(_oleum_, _oleum olīvum_). The best oil was made from olives not fully
ripe, but the largest quantity was yielded by the ripened fruit.
[Illustration: FIGURE 115. OLIVE MILL]
[Illustration: FIGURE 116. VAULT FOR STORING OIL]
§292. The olives were picked from the tree (Fig. 114), those that fell
of their own accord being thought inferior (§160), and were spread
upon sloping platforms in order that a part of the _amurca_ might flow
out by itself. Here the fruit remained until a slight fermentation
took place. It was then subjected to the action of a machine (Fig.
115) that bruised and pressed it. The oil that flowed out was caught
in a jar and from it ladled into a receptacle (_lābrum fictile_),
where it was allowed to settle, the _amurca_ and other impurities
falling to the bottom. The oil was then skimmed off into another like
receptacle and again allowed to settle, the process being repeated (as
often as thirty times if necessary) until all impurities had been left
behind. The best oil was made by subjecting the berries at first to a
gentle pressure only. The bruised pulp was then taken out, separated
from the stones or pits, and pressed a second or even a third time,
the quality becoming poorer each time. The oil was kept in jars which
were glazed on the inside with wax or gum to prevent absorption, the
covers were carefully secured and the jars stored away in vaults (Fig.
116).
§293. Grapes.--Grapes were eaten fresh from the vines and were also
dried in the sun and kept as raisins, but they owed their real
importance in Italy as elsewhere to the wine made from them. The vine
was not native to Italy, as until recently it was supposed to be, but
was introduced, probably from Greece, long before history begins. The
earliest name for Italy known to the Greeks was _Oenōtria_, "the land
of the vine-pole," and very ancient legends ascribe to Numa
restrictions upon the use of wine. It is probable that up to the time
of the Gracchi wine was rare and expensive. The quantity produced
gradually increased as the cultivation of cereals declined (§146), but
the quality long remained inferior, all the choice wines being
imported from Greece and the east. By Cicero's time, however,
attention was being given to viticulture and to the scientific making
of wines, and by the time of Augustus vintages were produced that vied
with the best brought in from abroad. Pliny, writing about the middle
of the first century of our era, says that of the eighty really choice
wines then known to the Romans two-thirds were produced in Italy, and
Arrian of about the same time says that Italian wines were famous as
far away as India.
§294. Viticulture.--Grapes could be grown almost anywhere in Italy,
but the best wines were made south of Rome within the confines of
Latium and Campania. The cities of Praeneste, Velitrae, and Formiae
were famous for the wines grown on the sunny slopes of the Alban
hills. A little farther south, near Terracina, was the _ager
Caecubus_, where was produced the Caecuban wine, pronounced by
Augustus the noblest of all. Then comes Mt. Massicus with the _ager
Falernus_ on its southern side, producing the Falernian wines, even
more famous than the Caecuban. Upon and around Vesuvius, too, fine
wines were grown, especially near Naples, Pompeii, Cumae, and
Surrentum. Good wines but less noted than these were produced in the
extreme south, near Beneventum, Aulon, and Tarentum. Of like quality
were those grown east and north of Rome, near Spoletium, Caesena,
Ravenna, Hadria, and Ancona. Those of the north and west, in Etruria
and Gaul, were not so good.
§295. Vineyards.--The sunny side of a hill was the best place for a
vineyard. The vines were supported by poles or trellises in the modern
fashion, or were planted at the foot of trees up which they were
allowed to climb. For this purpose the elm (_ulmus_) was preferred,
because it flourished everywhere, could be closely trimmed without
endangering its life, and had leaves that made good food for cattle
when they were plucked off to admit the sunshine to the vines. Vergil
speaks of "marrying the vine to the elm," and Horace calls the plane
tree a bachelor (_platanus coelebs_), because its dense foliage made
it unfit for the vineyard. Before the gathering of the grapes the
chief work lay in keeping the ground clear; it was spaded over once
each month through the year. One man could properly care for about
four acres.
[Illustration: FIGURE 117. MAKING WINE]
§296. Wine Making.--The making of the wine took place usually in
September, the season varying with the soil and the climate. It was
anticipated by a festival, the _vīnālia rūstica_, celebrated on the
19th of August. Precisely what the festival meant the Romans
themselves did not fully understand, perhaps, but it was probably
intended to secure a favorable season for the gathering of the grapes.
The general process of making the wine differed little from that
familiar to us in Bible stories and still practiced in modern times.
After the grapes were gathered they were first trodden with the bare
feet (Fig. 117) and then pressed in the _prēlum_ or _lorcular_. The
juice as it came from the press was called _mustum_, "new," and was
often drunk unfermented, as "sweet" cider is now. It could be kept
sweet from vintage to vintage by being sealed in a jar smeared within
and without with pitch and immersed for several weeks in cold water or
buried in moist sand. It was also preserved by evaporation over a
fire; when it was reduced one-half in this way it became a grape-jelly
(_dēfrutum_) and was used as a basis for various beverages and for
other purposes (§290).
[Illustration: FIGURE 118. WINE CELLAR]
§297. Fermented wine (_vīnum_) was made by collecting the _mustum_ in
huge vat-like jars (_dōlia_, shown in Fig. 116), large enough to hide
a man and containing a hundred gallons or more. These were covered
with pitch within and without and partially buried in the ground in
cellars or vaults (_vīnāriae cellae_), in which they remained
permanently. After they were nearly filled with the _mustum_, they
were left uncovered during the process of fermentation, which lasted
under ordinary circumstances about nine days. They were then tightly
sealed and opened only when the wine required attention[3] or was to
be removed. The cheaper wines were used directly from the _dōlia_, but
the choicer kinds were drawn off after a year into smaller jars
(_amphorae_), clarified and sometimes "doctored" in various ways, and
finally stored in depositories often entirely distinct from the
cellars (Fig. 118). A favorite place was a room in the upper story of
the house, where the wine was artificially aged by the heat rising
from the furnace or even by the smoke escaping from the fire. The
_amphorae_ were sometimes marked with the name of the wine, and the
names of the consuls for the year in which they were filled.
[Footnote 3: Spoiled wine was used as vinegar (_acētum_), and vinegar
that became insipid and tasteless was called _vappa_. This last word
was used also as a term of reproach for shiftless and worthless men.]
§298. Beverages.--After water and milk, wine was the ordinary drink of
the Romans of all classes. It must be distinctly understood, however,
that they always mixed it with water and used more water than wine.
Pliny mentions one sort of wine that would stand being mixed with
eight times its own bulk of water. To drink wine unmixed was thought
typical of barbarism, and among the Romans it was so drunk only by the
dissipated at their wildest revels. Under the Empire the ordinary
qualities of wine were cheap enough to be sold at three or four cents
a quart (§388); the choicer kinds were very costly, entirely beyond
the reach, Horace gives us to understand, of a man in his
circumstances. More rarely used than wine were other beverages that
are mentioned in literature. A favorite drink was _mulsum_, made of
four measures of wine and one of honey. A mixture of water and honey
allowed to ferment together was called _mulsa_. Cider also was made by
the Romans, and wines from mulberries and dates. They also made
various cordials from aromatic plants, but it must be remembered
(§281) that they had no knowledge of tea or coffee.
§299. Style of Living.--The table supplies of a given people vary from
age to age with the development of civilization and refinement, and in
the same age with the means and tastes of classes and individuals. Of
the Romans it may be said that during the early Republic, perhaps
almost through the second century B.C., they cared little for the
pleasures of the table. They lived frugally and ate sparingly. They
were almost strictly vegetarians (§273), much of their food was eaten
cold, and the utmost simplicity characterized the cooking and the
service of their meals. Everything was prepared by the _māter
familiās_ or by the maidservants under her supervision (§90). The
table was set in the _ātrium_ (§188), and the father, mother, and
children sat around it on stools or benches (§225), waiting upon each
other and their guests (§104). Dependents ate of the same food, but
apart from the family. The dishes were of the plainest sort, of
earthenware or even of wood, though a silver saltcellar was often the
cherished ornament of the humblest board. Table knives and forks were
unknown, the food being cut into convenient portions before it was
served, and spoons being used to convey to the mouth what the fingers
could not manage. During this period there was little to choose
between the fare of the proudest patrician and the humblest client.
The Samnite envoys found Manius Curius, the conqueror of Pyrrhus (275
B.C.), eating his dinner of vegetables (§275) from an earthen bowl. A
century later the poet Plautus calls his countrymen a race of porridge
eaters (_pultiphagōnidae_, §283), and gives us to understand that in
his time even the wealthiest Romans had in their households no
specially trained cooks. When a dinner out of the ordinary was given,
a professional cook was hired, who brought with him to the house of
the host his utensils and helpers, just as a plumber or surgeon
responds to a call nowadays.
§300. The last two centuries of the Republic saw all this changed. The
conquest of Greece and the wars in Asia Minor gave the Romans a taste
of eastern luxury, and altered their simple table customs, as other
customs had been altered by like contact with the outside world (§§5,
101, 112, 192). From this time the poor and the rich no longer fared
alike. The former constrained by poverty lived frugally as of old:
every schoolboy knows that the soldiers who won Caesar's battles for
him lived on grain (§282 and note), which they ground in their
handmills and baked at their campfires. The very rich, on the other
hand, aping the luxury of the Greeks but lacking their refinement,
became gluttons instead of gourmands. They ransacked the world[4] for
articles of food, preferring the rare and the costly to what was
really palatable and delicate. They measured the feast by the
quantities they could consume, reviving the sated appetite by piquant
sauces and resorting to emetics to prolong the pleasures of the table
and prevent the effects of over-indulgence. The separate dining-room
(_trīclīnium_) was introduced, the great houses having two or more
(§204), and the _oecī_ (§207) were pressed into service for banquet
halls. The dining couch (§224) took the place of the bench or stool,
slaves served the food to the reclining guests, a dinner dress (§249)
was devised, and every _familia urbāna_ (§149) included a high-priced
chef with a staff of trained assistants. Of course there were always
wealthy men, Atticus, the friend of Cicero, for example (§155), who
clung to the simpler customs of the earlier days, but these could make
little headway against the current of senseless dissipation and
extravagance. Over against these must be set the fawning poor, who
preferred the fleshpots of the rich patron (§§181, 182) to the bread
of honest independence. Between the two extremes was a numerous middle
class of the well-to-do, with whose ordinary meals we are more
concerned than with the banquets of the very rich. These meals were
the _ientāculum_, the _prandium_, and the _cēna_.
[Footnote 4: Gellius (2d century A.D.) gives a list from a satirical
poem of Varro: Peacock from Samos, heath-cock from Phrygia, crane from
Media, kid from Ambracia, young tunny-fish from Chalcedon, _mūrēna_
from Tartessus, cod (?) from Pessinus, oysters from Tarentum, scallop
from Chios (?), sturgeon (?) from Rhodes, _scarus_ from Cilicia, nuts
from Thasos, dates from Egypt, chestnuts (?) from Spain.]
§301. Hours for Meals.--Three meals a day was the regular number with
the Romans as with us, though hygienists were found then, as they may
be found nowadays, who believed two meals more healthful than three,
and then as now high livers often indulged in an extra meal taken late
at night. Custom fixed more or less rigorously the hours for meals,
though these varied with the age, and to a less extent with the
occupations and even with the inclinations of individuals. In early
times in the city and in all periods in the country the chief meal
(_cēna_) was eaten in the middle of the day, preceded by a breakfast
(_ientāculum_) in the early morning and followed in the evening by a
supper (_vesperna_). In classical times the hours for meals in Rome
were about as they are now in our large cities: that is, the _cēna_
was postponed until the work of the day was finished, thus crowding
out the _vesperna_, and a luncheon (_prandium_) took the place of the
old-fashioned "noon dinner." The evening dinner came to be more or
less of a social function, guests being present and the food and
service the best the house could afford, while the _ientāculum_ and
_prandium_ were in comparison very simple and informal meals.
§302. Breakfast and Luncheon.--The breakfast (_ientāculum_ or
_iantāculum_) was eaten immediately after rising, the hour varying, of
course, with the occupation and condition of the individual. It
consisted usually merely of bread, eaten dry or dipped in wine or
sprinkled over with salt, though raisins, olives, and cheese were
sometimes added. Workmen pressed for time seem to have taken their
breakfast in their hands to eat as they went to the place of their
labor, and schoolboys often stopped on their way to school (§122) at a
public bakery (§286) to buy a sort of shortcake or pancake, on which
they made a hurried breakfast. More rarely the breakfast became a
regular meal, eggs being served in addition to the things just
mentioned, and _mulsum_ (§298) and milk drunk with them. It is likely
that such a breakfast was taken at a later hour and by persons who
dispensed with the noon meal. The luncheon (_prandium_) came about
eleven o'clock. It, too, consisted usually of cold food: bread, salads
(§276), olives, cheese, fruits, nuts, and cold meats from the dinner
of the day before. Occasionally, however, warm meat and vegetables
were added, but the meal was never an elaborate one. It is sometimes
spoken of as a morning meal, but in this case it must have followed at
about the regular interval an extremely early breakfast, or it must
itself have formed the breakfast, taken later than usual, when the
_ientāculum_ for some reason had been omitted. After the _prandium_
came the midday rest or siesta (_merīdiātiō_), when all work was laid
aside until the eighth hour, except in the law courts and in the
senate. In the summer, at least, everybody went to sleep, and even in
the capital the streets were almost as deserted as at midnight. The
_vesperna_, entirely unknown in city life, closed the day on the farm.
It was an early supper which consisted largely of the leavings of the
noonday dinner with the addition of such uncooked food as a farm would
naturally supply. The word _merenda_ seems to have been applied in
early times to this evening meal, then to refreshments taken at any
time (cf. the English "lunch"), and finally to have gone out of use
altogether.
§303. The Formal Meal.--The busy life of the city had early crowded
the dinner out of its original place in the middle of the day and
fixed it in the afternoon. The fashion soon spread to the towns and
was carried by city people to their country estates (§145), so that in
classical times the late dinner (_cēna_) was the regular thing for all
persons of any social standing throughout the length and breadth of
Italy. It was even more of a function than it is with us, because the
Romans knew no other form of purely social intercourse. They had no
receptions, balls, musicales, or theater parties, no other
opportunities to entertain their friends or be entertained by them. It
is safe to say, therefore, that when the Roman was in town he was
every evening host or guest at a dinner as elaborate as his means or
those of his friends permitted, unless, of course, urgent business
claimed his attention or some unusual circumstances had withdrawn him
temporarily from society. On the country estates the same custom
prevailed, the guests coming from neighboring estates or being friends
who stopped unexpectedly, perhaps, to claim entertainment for a night
as they passed on a journey to or from the city (§388). These dinners,
formal as they were, are to be distinguished carefully from the
extravagant banquets of the ostentatious rich. They were in themselves
thoroughly wholesome, the expression of genuine hospitality. The
guests were friends, the number was limited, the wife and children of
the host were present, and social enjoyment was the end in view.
Before the meal itself is described something must be said of the
dining-room and its furniture.
[Illustration: FIGURE 119. TABLE AND COUCHES]
[Illustration: FIGURE 120. TABLE AND COUCHES]
§304. The Dining Couch.--The position of the dining-room
(_trīclīnium_) in the Roman house has been described already (§204),
and it has been remarked (§300) that in classical times the stool or
bench had given place to the couch. This couch (_lectus trīcliniāris_)
was constructed much as the common _lectī_ were (§224), except that it
was made broader and lower, had an arm at one end only, was without a
back, and sloped from the front to the rear. At the end where the arm
was, a cushion or bolster was placed, and parallel with it two others
were arranged in such a way as to divide the couch into three parts.
Each part was for one person, and a single couch would, therefore,
accommodate three persons. The dining-room received its name
(_trīclīnium_) from the fact that it was planned to hold three of
these couches (_κλίναι_ in Greek), set on three sides of a table, the
fourth side of which was open. The arrangement varied a little with
the size of the room. In a large room the couches were set as in Fig.
119, but if economy of space was necessary they were placed as in Fig.
120, the latter being probably the more common arrangement of the two.
Nine may be taken, therefore, as the ordinary number at a Roman dinner
party. More would be invited only on unusual occasions, and then a
larger room would be used where two or more tables could be arranged
in the same way, each accommodating nine guests. In the case of
members of the same family, especially if one was a child, or when the
guests were very intimate friends, a fourth person might find room on
a couch, but this was certainly unusual; probably when a guest
unexpectedly presented himself some member of the family would
surrender his place to him. Often the host reserved a place or places
for friends that his guests might bring without notice. Such uninvited
persons were called _umbrae_. When guests were present the wife sat on
the edge of the couch (Fig. 121) instead of reclining, and children
were usually accommodated on seats at the open side of the table.
[Illustration: FIGURE 121. WOMAN SITTING ON DINING COUCH]
§305. Places of Honor.--The guest approached the couch from the rear
and took his place upon it, lying on the left side, with his face to
the table, and supported by his left elbow, which rested on the
cushion or bolster mentioned above. The position of his body is
indicated by the arrows in the cut above (Fig. 119). Each couch and
each place on the couch had its own name according to its position
with reference to the others. The couches were called respectively
_lectus summus_, _lectus medius_, and _lectus īmus_, and it will be
noticed that persons reclining on the _lectus medius_ had the _lectus
summus_ on the left and the _lectus īmus_ on the right. Etiquette
assigned the _lectus summus_ and the _lectus medius_ to guests, while
the _lectus īmus_ was reserved for the host, his wife, and one other
member of his family. If the host alone represented the family, the
two places beside him on the _lectus īmus_ were given to the humblest
of the guests.
§306. The places on each couch were named in the same way, (_locus_)
_summus_, _medius_, and _īmus_, denoted respectively by the figures
_1_, _2_, and _3_ in the cut. The person who occupied the place
numbered _1_ was said to be above (_super_, _suprā_) the person to his
right, while the person occupying the middle place (_2_) was above the
person on his right and below (_īnfrā_) the one on the left. The place
of honor on the _lectus summus_ was that numbered _1_, and the
corresponding place on the _lectus īmus_ was taken by the host. The
most distinguished guest, however, was given the place on the _lectus
medius_ marked _3_, and this place was called by the special name
_locus cōnsulāris_, because if a consul was present it was always
assigned to him. It will be noticed that it was next the place of the
host, and besides was especially convenient for a public official; if
he found it necessary to receive or send a message during the dinner
he could communicate with the messenger without so much as turning on
his elbow.
[Illustration: FIGURE 122. SIDEBOARD]
[Illustration: FIGURE 123. SIDEBOARD]
§307. Other Furniture.--In comparison with the _lectī_ the rest of the
furniture of the dining-room played an insignificant part. In fact the
only other absolutely necessary article was the table (_mēnsa_),
placed as shown in the figures above between the three couches in such
a way that all were equally distant from it and free access to it was
left on the fourth side. The space between the table and the couches
might be so little that the guests could help themselves, or on the
other hand so great that slaves could pass between to serve the food.
The guests had no individual plates to be kept upon the table, so that
it was used merely to receive the large dishes in which the food was
served, and certain formal articles, such as the saltcellar (§299) and
the things necessary for the offering to the gods. The table,
therefore, was never very large (one such would be almost lost in a
modern dining-room), but it was often exceedingly beautiful and costly
(§227). Its beauties were not hidden either by any cloth or covering;
the table-cloth, as we know it, did not come into use until about the
end of the first century of our era. The cost and beauty of the
dishes, too, were limited only by the means and taste of the owner.
Besides the couches and the table, sideboards (_abacī_) were the only
articles of furniture usually found in the _trīclīnium_. These varied
from a simple shelf to tables of different forms and sizes and open
cabinets, such as shown in Figs. 122 and 123 and in Schreiber LXVII,
11. They were set out of the way against the walls and served as do
ours to display plate and porcelain when not in use on the table.
§308. Courses.--In classical times even the simplest dinner was
divided into three parts, the _gustus_ ("appetizer"), the _cēna_
("dinner proper"), and the _secunda mēnsa_[5] ("dessert"); the dinner
was made elaborate by serving each of the parts in several courses.
The _gustus_ consisted of those things only that were believed to
excite the appetite or aid the digestion: oysters and other shell-fish
fresh, sea-fish salted or pickled, certain vegetables that could be
eaten uncooked, especially onions, and almost invariably lettuce and
eggs, all with piquant sauces. With these appetizers _mulsum_ (§298)
was drunk, wine being thought too heavy for an empty stomach, and from
the drink the _gustus_ was also called the _prōmulsis_; another and
more significant name for it was _antecēna_. Then followed the real
dinner, the _cēna_, consisting of the more substantial viands, fish,
flesh, fowl, and vegetables. With this part of the meal wine was
drunk, but in moderation, for it was thought to dull the sense of
taste, and the real drinking began only when the _cēna_ was over. The
_cēna_ almost always consisted of several courses (_mēnsa prīma_,
_altera_, _tertia_, etc.), three being thought neither niggardly nor
extravagant; we are told that Augustus often dined on three courses
and never went beyond six. The _secunda mēnsa_ closed the meal with
all sorts of pastry, sweets, nuts, and fruits, fresh and preserved,
with which wine was freely drunk. From the fact that eggs were eaten
at the beginning of the meal and apples at the close came the
proverbial expression, _ab ovō ad māla_.
[Footnote 5: This is the most common form, but the plural also occurs,
and the adjective may follow the noun.]
§309. Bills of Fare.--We have preserved to us in literature the bills
of fare of a few meals, probably actually served, which may be taken
as typical at least of the homely, the generous, and the sumptuous
dinner. The simplest is given by Juvenal (†2d century A.D.): for the
_gustus_, asparagus and eggs; for the _cēna_, young kid and chicken;
for the _secunda mēnsa_, fruits. Two others are given by Martial
(43-101 A.D.): the first has lettuce, onions, tunny-fish, and eggs cut
in slices; sausages with porridge, fresh cauliflower, bacon, and
beans; pears and chestnuts, and with the wine olives, parched peas,
and lupines. The second has mallows, onions, mint, elecampane,
anchovies with sliced eggs, and sow's udder in tunny sauce; the _cēna_
was served in a single course (_ūna mēnsa_), kid, chicken, cold ham,
haricot beans, and young cabbage sprouts; fresh fruits, with wine, of
course. The last we owe to Macrobius (†5th century A.D.), who assigns
it to a feast of the pontifices during the Republic, feasts that were
proverbial for their splendor. The _antecēna_ was served in two
courses: first, sea-urchins, raw oysters, three kinds of sea-mussels,
thrush on asparagus, a fat hen, panned oysters, and mussels; second,
mussels again, shell-fish, sea-nettles, figpeckers, loin of goat, loin
of pork, fricasseed chicken, figpeckers again, two kinds of
sea-snails. The number of courses in which the _cēna_ was served is
not given: sow's udder, head of wild boar, panned fish, panned sow's
udder, domestic ducks, wild ducks, hares, roast chicken, starch
pudding, bread. No vegetables or dessert are mentioned by Macrobius,
but we may take it for granted that they corresponded to the rest of
the feast, and the wine that the pontifices drank was famed as the
best.
§310. Serving the Dinner.--The dinner hour marked the close of the
day's work, as has been said (§301), and varied, therefore, with the
season of the year and the social position of the family. In general
it may be said to have been not before the ninth and rarely after the
tenth hour (§418). It lasted usually until bedtime, that is, for three
or four hours at least, though the Romans went to bed early because
they rose early (§§79, 122). Sometimes even the ordinary dinner lasted
until midnight, but when a banquet was expected to be unusually
protracted, it was the custom to begin earlier in order that there
might be time after it for the needed repose. Such banquets, beginning
before the ninth hour, were called _tempestīva convīvia_, the word
"early" in this connection carrying with it about the same reproach as
our "late" suppers. At the ordinary family dinners the time was spent
in conversation, though in some good houses (notably that of Atticus,
cf. §155) a trained slave read aloud to the guests. At "gentlemen's
dinners" other forms of entertainment were provided, music, dancing,
juggling, etc., by professional performers (§153).
§311. When the guests had been ushered into the dining-room the gods
were solemnly invoked, a custom to which our "grace before meat"
corresponds. Then they took their places on the couches (_accumbere_,
_discumbere_) as these were assigned them (§306), their sandals were
removed (§250), to be cared for by their own attendants (§152), and
water and towels were carried around for washing the hands. The meal
then began, each course being placed upon the table on a waiter or
tray (_ferculum_), from which the dishes were passed in regular order
to the guests. As each course was finished the dishes were replaced on
the _ferculum_ and removed, and water and towels were again passed to
the guests, a custom all the more necessary because the fingers were
used for forks (§299). Between the chief parts of the meal, too, the
table was cleared and carefully wiped with a cloth or soft sponge.
Between the _cēna_ proper and the _secunda mēnsa_ a longer pause was
made and silence was preserved while wine, salt, and meal, perhaps
also regular articles of food, were offered to the Lares. The dessert
was then brought on in the same way as the other parts of the meal.
The signal to leave the couches was given by calling for the sandals
(§250), and the guests immediately took their departure.
§312. The Comissatio.--Cicero tells us of Cato and his Sabine
neighbors lingering over their dessert and wine until late at night,
and makes them find the chief charm of the long evening in the
conversation. For this reason Cato declares the Latin word _convīvium_
"a living together," a better word for such social intercourse than
the one the Greeks used, _symposium_, "a drinking together." The
younger men in the gayer circles of the capital inclined rather to the
Greek view and followed the _cēna_ proper with a drinking bout, or
wine supper, called _comissātiō_ or _compōtātiō_. This differed from
the form that Cato approved not merely in the amount of wine consumed,
in the lower tone, and in the questionable amusements, but also in the
following of certain Greek customs unknown among the Romans until
after the second Punic war and never adopted in the regular dinner
parties that have been described. These were the use of perfumes and
flowers at the feast, the selection of a Master of the Revels, and the
method of drinking.
[Illustration: FIGURE 124. END OF DRINKING BOUT]
§313. The perfumes and flowers were used not so much on account of the
sweetness of their scent, much as the Romans enjoyed it, as because
they believed that the scent prevented or at least retarded
intoxication. This is shown by the fact that they did not use the
unguents and the flowers throughout the whole meal, but waited to
anoint the head with perfumes and crown it with flowers until the
dessert and the wine were brought on. Various leaves and flowers were
used for the garlands (_corōnae convīvālēs_) according to individual
tastes, but the rose was the most popular and came to be generally
associated with the _comissātiō_. After the guests had assumed their
crowns (and sometimes garlands were also worn around the neck), each
threw the dice, usually calling as he did so upon his sweetheart or
some deity to help his throw. The one whose throw was the highest
(§320) was forthwith declared the _rēx_ (_magister_, _arbiter_)
_bibendī_. Just what his duties and privileges were we are nowhere
expressly told, but it can hardly be doubted that it was his province
to determine the proportion of water to be added to the wine (§298),
to lay down the rules for the drinking (_lēgēs īnsānae_, Horace calls
them), to decide what each guest should do for the entertainment of
his fellows, and to impose penalties and forfeits for the breaking of
the rules.
[Illustration: FIGURE 125. MIXING BOWL]
[Illustration: FIGURE 126. DRINKING CUPS]
[Illustration: FIGURE 127. CYATHUS]
§314. The wine was mixed under the direction of the _magister_ in a
large bowl (_crātēr_), the proportions of the wine and water being
apparently constant for the evening, and from the _crātēr_ (Fig. 125),
placed on the table in view of all, the wine was ladled by the
servants into the goblets (_pōcula_, Fig. 126) of the guests. The
ladle (_cyathus_, Fig. 127) held about one-twelfth of a pint, or more
probably was graduated by twelfths. The method of drinking seems to
have differed from that of the regular dinner chiefly in this: at the
ordinary dinner each guest mixed his wine to suit his own taste and
drank as little or as much as he pleased, while at the _comissātiō_
all had to drink alike, regardless of differences in taste and
capacity. The wine seems to have been drunk chiefly in "healths," but
an odd custom regulated the size of the bumpers. Any guest might
propose the health of any person he pleased to name; immediately
slaves ladled into each goblet as many _cyathī_ (twelfths of a pint)
as there were letters in the given name, and the goblets had to be
drained at a draft. The rest of the entertainment was undoubtedly wild
enough (§310); gambling seems to have been common, and Cicero speaks
of more disgraceful practices in his speeches against Catiline.
Sometimes the guests spent the evening roaming from house to house,
playing host in turn, and making night hideous as they staggered
through the streets with their crowns and garlands.
§315. The Banquets of the Rich.--Little need be said of the banquets
of the wealthy nobles in the last century of the Republic and of the
rich parvenus (§181) who thronged the courts of the earlier Emperors.
They were arranged on the same plan as the dinners we have described,
differing from them only in the ostentatious display of furniture,
plate, and food. So far as particulars have reached us, they were
grotesque and revolting, judged by the canons of to-day, rather than
magnificent. Couches made of silver, wine instead of water for the
hands, twenty-two courses to a single cēna, seven thousand birds
served at another, a dish of livers of fish, tongues of flamingos,
brains of peacocks and pheasants mixed up together, strike us as
vulgarity run mad. The sums spent upon these feasts do not seem so
fabulous now as they did then. Every season in our great capitals sees
social functions that surpass the feasts of Lucullus in cost as far as
they do in taste and refinement. As signs of the times, however, as
indications of changed ideals, of degeneracy and decay, they deserved
the notice that the Roman historians and satirists gave them.
CHAPTER IX
AMUSEMENTS; BATHS
REFERENCES: Marquardt, 269-296, 834-861; Staatsverwaltung, III,
504-565; Göll, III, 455-480, 104-157; Guhl and Koner, 643-658,
804-829, 609-618; Friedländer, II, 295-637; Ramsay, 394-409;
Pauly-Wissowa, _amphitheātrum_, _calx_, _circus_, _Bader_; Smith,
Harper, Rich, _amphitheātrum_, _balneae_, _circus_, _gladiātōrēs_,
_theātrum_, and other Latin words in text; Baumeister, 694, 241-244,
2089-2111; Lübker, 1073 f., 1199 f., 477 f., 1048 f., 185, 1213;
Kelsey-Mau, 135-161, 180-220.
§316. After the games of childhood (§§102, 103) were passed the Roman
seemed to lose all instinct for play. Of sport for sport's sake he
knew nothing, he took part in no games for the sake of excelling in
them. He played ball before his dinner for the good of the exercise,
he practiced riding, fencing, wrestling, hurling the discus (Fig.
128), and swimming for the strength and skill they gave him in arms,
he played a few games of chance for the excitement the stakes
afforded, but there was no "national game" for the young men, and
there were no social amusements in which men and women took part
together. The Roman made it hard and expensive, too, for others to
amuse him. He cared nothing for the drama, little for spectacular
shows, more for farces and variety performances, perhaps, but the one
thing that really appealed to him was excitement, and this he found in
gambling or in such amusements only as involved the risk of injury to
life and limb, the sports of the circus and the amphitheater. We may
describe first the games in which the Roman participated himself and
then those at which he was a mere spectator. In the first class are
field sports and games of hazard, in the second the public and private
games (_lūdī pūblicī et prīvātī_).
[Illustration: FIGURE 128. DISCUS THROWER]
§317. Sports of the Campus.--The Campus Martius included all the level
ground lying between the Tiber and the Capitoline and Quirinal hills.
The northwestern portion of this plain, bounded on two sides by the
Tiber, which here sweeps abruptly to the west, kept clear of public
and private buildings and often called simply the _Campus_, was for
centuries the playground of Rome. Here the young men gathered to
practice the athletic games mentioned above, naturally in the cooler
parts of the day. Even men of graver years did not disdain a visit to
the Campus after the _merīdiātiō_ (§302), in preparation for the bath
before dinner, instead of which the younger men preferred to take a
cool plunge in the convenient river. The sports themselves were those
that we are accustomed to group together as track and field athletics.
They ran foot races, jumped, threw the discus (Fig. 128), practiced
archery, and had wrestling and boxing matches. These sports were
carried on then much as they are now, if we may judge by Vergil's
description in the Fifth Aeneid, but an exception must be made of the
games of ball. These seem to have been very dull and stupid as
compared with ours. It must be remembered, however, that they were
played more for the healthful exercise they furnished than for the joy
of the playing, and by men of high position, too--Caesar, Maecenas,
and even the Emperor Augustus.
[Illustration: FIGURE 129. FOLLES]
[Illustration: FIGURE 130. GAME OF BALL]
§318. Games of Ball.--Balls of different sizes are known to have been
used in the different games, variously filled with hair, feathers, and
air (_follēs_, Fig. 129). Throwing and catching formed the basis of
all the games, the bat being practically unknown. In the simplest game
the player threw the ball as high as he could, and tried to catch it
before it struck the ground. Variations of this were what we should
call juggling, the player keeping two or more balls in the air (Fig.
130), and throwing and catching by turns with another player. Another
game must have resembled our handball, requiring a wall and smooth
ground at its foot. The ball was struck with the open hand against the
wall, allowed to fall back upon the ground and bound, and then struck
back against the wall in the same manner. The aim of the player was to
keep the ball going in this way longer than his opponent could.
Private houses and the public baths often had "courts" especially
prepared for this amusement. A third game was called _trigōn_, and was
played by three persons, stationed at the angles of an equilateral
triangle. Two balls were used and the aim of the player was to throw
the ball in his possession at the one of his opponents who would be
the less likely to catch it. As two might throw at the third at the
same moment, or as the thrower of one ball might have to receive the
second ball at the very moment of throwing, both hands had to be used
and a good degree of skill was necessary. Other games, all of throwing
and catching, are mentioned here and there, but none is described with
sufficient detail to be clearly understood.
§319. Games of Chance.--The Romans were passionately fond of games of
chance, and gambling was so universally associated with such games
that they were forbidden by law, even when no stakes were actually
played for. A general indulgence seems to have been granted at the
Saturnalia in December, and public opinion allowed old men to play at
any time. The laws were hard to enforce, however, as such laws usually
are, and large sums were won and lost not merely at general gambling
resorts, but also at private houses. Games of chance, in fact, with
high stakes, were one of the greatest attractions at the men's dinners
that have been mentioned (§314). The commonest form of gambling was
our "heads or tails," coins being used as with us, the value depending
on the means of the players. Another common form was our "odd or
even," each player guessing in turn and in turn holding counters
concealed in his outstretched hand for his opponent to guess. The
stake was usually the contents of the hand though side bets were not
unusual. In a variation of this game the players tried to guess the
actual number of the counters held in the hand. Of more interest,
however, were the games of knuckle-bones and dice.
[Illustration: FIGURE 131. GIRLS PLAYING WITH KNUCKLE-BONES]
§320. Knuckle-bones.--Knuckle-bones (_tālī_) of sheep and goats, and
imitations of them in ivory, bronze, and stone, were used as
playthings by children and for gaming by men. Children played our
"jackstones" with them, throwing five into the air at once and
catching as many as possible on the back of the hand (Fig. 131). The
length of the _tālī_ was greater than their width and they had,
therefore, four long sides and two ends. The ends were rounded off or
pointed, so that the _tālī_ could not stand on them. Of the four long
sides two were broader than the others. Of the two broader sides one
was concave, the other convex; while of the narrower sides one was
flat and the other indented. As all the sides were of different shapes
the _tālī_ did not require marking as do our dice, but for convenience
they were sometimes marked with the numbers 1, 3, 4, and 6, the
numbers 2 and 5 being omitted. Four _tālī_ were used at a time, either
thrown into the air with the hand or thrown from a dice-box
(_fritillus_), and the side on which the bone rested was counted, not
that which came up. Thirty-five different throws were possible, of
which each had a different name. Four aces were the lowest throw,
called the Vulture, while the highest, called the Venus, was when all
the _tālī_ came up differently. It was this throw that designated the
_magister bibendī_ (§313).
[Illustration: FIGURE 132. PLAYING DICE]
§321. Dice.--The Romans had also dice (_tesserae_) precisely like our
own. They were made of ivory, stone, or some close-grained wood, and
had the sides numbered from one to six. Three were used at a time,
thrown from the _fritillus_, as were the knuckle-bones (Fig. 132), but
the sides counted that came up. The highest throw was three sixes, the
lowest three aces. In ordinary gaming the aim of the player seems to
have been to throw a higher number than his opponent, but there were
also games played with dice on boards with counters, that must have
been something like our backgammon, uniting skill with chance. Little
more of these is known than their names, but a board used for some
such game is shown in §336 (Fig. 144). If one considers how much space
is given in our newspapers to the game of baseball, and how impossible
it would be for a person who had never seen a game to get a correct
idea of one from the newspaper descriptions only, it will not seem
strange that we know so little of Roman games.
§322. Public and Private Games.--With the historical development of
the Public Games this book has no concern (§2). It is sufficient to
say that these free exhibitions, given first in honor of some god or
gods at the cost of the state and extended and multiplied for
political purposes until all religious significance was lost, had come
by the end of the Republic to be the chief pleasure in life for the
lower classes in Rome, so that Juvenal declares that the free bread
(§286) and the games of the circus were the people's sole desire. Not
only were these games free, but when they were given all public
business was stopped and all citizens were forced to take a holiday.
These holidays became rapidly more and more numerous; by the end of
the Republic sixty-six days were taken up by the games, and in the
reign of Marcus Aurelius (161-180) no less than one hundred and
thirty-five days out of the year were thus closed to business.[1]
Besides these standing games, others were often given for
extraordinary events, and funeral games were common when great men
died. These last were not made legal holidays. For our purposes the
distinction between public and private games is not important, and all
may be classified according to the nature of the exhibitions as, _lūdī
scēnicī_, dramatic entertainments given in a theater, _lūdī
circēnsēs_, chariot races and other exhibitions given in a circus, and
_mūnera gladiātōria_, shows of gladiators usually given in an
amphitheater.
[Footnote 1: There are sixty holidays annually in Indiana, for
example, and this is about the average for the United States.]
§323. Dramatic Performances.--The history of the development of the
drama at Rome belongs, of course, to the history of Latin literature.
In classical times dramatic performances consisted of comedies
(_cōmoediae_), tragedies (_tragoediae_), farces (_mīmī_), and
pantomimes (_pantomīmī_). The farces and pantomimes were used chiefly
as interludes and afterpieces, though with the common people they were
the most popular of all and outlived the others. Tragedy never had any
real hold at Rome, and only the liveliest comedies gained favor on the
stage. Of the comedies the only ones that have come down to us are
those of Plautus and Terence, all adaptations from Greek originals,
all depicting Greek life, and represented in Greek costumes (_fābulae
palliātae_). They were a good deal more like our comic operas than our
comedies, large parts being recited to the accompaniment of music and
other parts sung while the actor danced. They were always presented in
the daytime, as Roman theaters were provided with no means of
lighting, in the early period after the noon meal (§301), but by
Cicero's time they had come to be given in the morning. The average
comedy must have required about two hours for the acting, with
allowance for the occasional music between the scenes. We read of a
play being acted twice in a day, but this must have been very
exceptional, as time had to be allowed for the other more popular
shows given on the same occasion.
[Illustration: FIGURE 133. SCENE FROM A COMEDY]
§324. Staging the Play.--The play, as well as the other sports, was
under the supervision of the officials in charge of the games at which
it was given. They contracted for the production of the play with some
recognized manager (_dominus gregis_), who was usually an actor of
acknowledged ability and had associated with him a troupe (_grex_) of
others only inferior to himself. The actors were all slaves (§143),
and men took the parts of women. There was no limit fixed to the
number of actors, but motives of economy would lead the _dominus_ to
produce each play with the smallest number possible, and two or even
more parts were often assigned to one actor. The characters in the
comedies wore the ordinary Greek dress of daily life and the costumes
(Fig. 133) were, therefore, not expensive. The only make-up required
was paint for the face, especially for the actors who took women's
parts, and the wigs that were used conventionally to represent
different characters, gray for old men, black for young men, red for
slaves, etc. These and the few properties (_ōrnāmenta_) necessary were
furnished by the _dominus_. It seems to have been customary also for
him to feast the actors at his expense if their efforts to entertain
were unusually successful.
§325. The Early Theater.--The theater itself deserved no such name
until very late in the Republic. During the period when the best plays
were being written (200-160 B.C.) almost nothing was done for the
accommodation of the actors or the audience. The stage was merely a
temporary platform, rather wide than deep, built at the foot of a hill
or a grass-covered slope. There were almost none of the things that we
are accustomed to associate with a stage, no curtains, no flies, no
scenery that could be changed, not even a sounding-board to aid the
actor's voice. There was no way either to represent the interior of a
house, and the dramatist was limited, therefore, to such situations as
might be supposed to take place upon a public street. This street the
stage represented; at the back of it were shown the fronts of two or
three houses with windows and doors that could be opened, and
sometimes there was an alley or passageway between two of the houses.
An altar stood on the stage, we are told, to remind the people of the
religious origin of the games. No better provision was made for the
audience than for the actors. The people took their places on the
slope before the stage, some reclining on the grass, some standing,
some perhaps sitting on stools they had brought from home. There was
always din and confusion to try the actor's voice, pushing and
crowding, disputing and quarreling, wailing of children, and in the
very midst of the play the report of something livelier to be seen
elsewhere might draw the whole audience away.
[Illustration: FIGURE 134. EXTERIOR OF THEATER AT ORANGE]
[Illustration: FIGURE 135. THEATER AT POMPEII]
[Illustration: FIGURE 136. SECTION OF THEATER OF MARCELLUS (Restored)]
§326. The Later Theater.--Beginning about 145 B.C., however, efforts
were made to improve upon this poor apology for a theater, in spite of
the opposition of those who considered the plays ruinous to morals. In
that year a wooden theater on Greek lines provided with seats was
erected, but the senate caused it to be pulled down as soon as the
games were over. It became a fixed custom, however, for such a
temporary theater with special and separate seats for senators, and
much later for the knights, to be erected as often as plays were given
at public games, until in 55 B.C. Pompeius Magnus erected the first
permanent theater at Rome. It was built of stone after the plans of
one he had seen at Mytilene and seated at least seventeen thousand
people; Pliny says forty thousand. This theater showed two noteworthy
divergences from its Greek model. The Greek theaters were excavated
out of the side of the hill, while the Roman theater was erected on
level ground (that of Pompeius in the Campus Martius) and gave,
therefore, a better opportunity for exterior magnificence. The Greek
theater had a large circular space for choral performances immediately
before the stage; in the Roman theater this space, called the
orchestra then as now, was much smaller, and was assigned to the
senators. The first fourteen rows of seats rising immediately behind
them were reserved for the knights. The seats back of these were
occupied indiscriminately by the people, on the principle apparently
of first come first served. No other permanent theaters were erected
at Rome until 13 B.C., when two were constructed. The smaller had room
for eleven thousand spectators, the larger, erected in honor of
Marcellus, the nephew of Augustus, for twenty thousand. These improved
playhouses made possible spectacular elements in the performances that
the rude scaffolding of early days had not permitted, and these
spectacles proved the ruin of the legitimate drama. To make realistic
the scenes representing the pillaging of a city, Pompeius is said to
have furnished troops of cavalry and bodies of infantry, hundreds of
mules laden with real spoils of war, and three thousand mixing bowls
(§314). In comparison with these three thousand mixing bowls, the
avalanches, runaway locomotives, sawmills in full operation, and
cathedral scenes of modern times seem poor indeed.
[Illustration: FIGURE 137. PLAN OF THEATER]
§327. The general appearance of these theaters, the type of hundreds
erected later throughout the Roman world, may be gathered from Fig.
137, the plan of a theater on lines laid down by Vitruvius (§187). GH
is the front line of the stage (_proscaenium_); all behind it is the
_scaena_, devoted to the actors, all before it is the _cavea_, devoted
to the spectators. IKL in the rear mark the position of three doors,
for example, those of the three houses mentioned above (§325). The
semicircular orchestra CMD is the part appropriated to the senators.
The seats behind the orchestra, rising in concentric semicircles, are
divided by five passageways into six portions (_cuneī_), and in a
similar way the seats above the semicircular passage (_praecīnctiō_)
shown in the figure are divided by eleven passageways into twelve
_cuneī_. Access to the seats of the senators was afforded by
passageways under the higher seats at the right and the left of the
stage, one of which may be seen in Fig. 135, which represents a part
of the smaller of the two theaters uncovered at Pompeii, built not far
from 80 B.C. Over the vaulted passage will be noticed what must have
been the best seats in the theater, corresponding in some degree to
the boxes of modern times. These were reserved for the emperor, if he
was present, for the officials who superintended the games and (on the
other side) for the Vestals. Access to the higher seats was
conveniently given by broad stairways constructed under the seats and
running up to the passageways between the _cuneī_. These are shown in
Fig. 136, a theoretical restoration of the Marcellus theater mentioned
above. Behind the highest seats were broad colonnades, affording
shelter in case of rain, and above them were tall masts from which
awnings (_vēla_) were spread to protect the people from the sun. The
appearance of the stage end may be gathered from Fig. 134, showing the
remains of a Roman theater still existing at Orange,[2] in the south
of France. It should be noticed that the stage was connected with the
auditorium by the seats over the vaulted passages to the orchestra,
and that the curtain was raised from the bottom, to hide the stage,
not lowered from the top as ours is now. Vitruvius suggested that
rooms and porticos be built behind the stage, like the colonnades that
have been mentioned, to afford space for the actors and properties and
shelter for the people in case of rain.
[Footnote 2: This theater has been restored and used for reproductions
of the Classical Drama. See the interesting account of it in the
"Century Magazine" for June, 1895. It is supposed to have been erected
in the reign of Marcus Aurelius (161-180) and allowed to fall into
ruins in the fourth century A.D.]
[Illustration: FIGURE 138. VICTORIOUS AURIGA]
§328. Roman Circuses.--The games of the circus were the oldest of the
free exhibitions at Rome and always the most popular. The word
_circus_ means simply a ring and the _lūdī circēnsēs_ were therefore
any shows that might be given in a ring. We shall see below (§343)
that these shows were of several kinds, but the one most
characteristic, the one that is always meant when no other is
specifically named, is that of chariot races. For these races the
first and really the only necessary condition is a large and level
piece of ground. This was furnished by the valley between the Aventine
and Palatine hills, and here in prehistoric times the first Roman race
course was established. This remained _the_ circus, the one always
meant when no descriptive term was added, though when others were
built it was called sometimes by way of distinction the Circus
Maximus. None of the others ever approached it in size, in
magnificence, or in popularity.
§329. The second circus to be built at Rome was the _circus
Flāminius_, founded in 221 B.C. by the same Caius Flaminius, who built
the Flaminian road. It was located in the southern part of the Campus
Martius (§317), and like the Circus Maximus was exposed to the
frequent overflows of the Tiber. Its position is fixed beyond
question, but the actual remains are very scanty, so that little is
known of its size or appearance. The third to be established was that
of Caius (Caligula) and Nero, named from the two emperors who had to
do with its construction, and erected, therefore, in the first century
A.D. It lay at the foot of the Vatican hill, but we know little more
of it than that it was the smallest of the three. These three were the
only circuses within the city. In the immediate neighborhood, however,
were three others. Five miles out on the _via Portuēnsis_ was the
circus of the Arval Brethren. About three miles out on the Appian way
was the Circus of Maxentius, erected in 309 A.D. This is the best
preserved of all, and a plan of it is shown in the next paragraph. On
the same road, some twelve miles from the city, in the old town of
Bovillae, was a third, making six within easy reach of the people of
Rome.
[Illustration: FIGURE 139. PLAN OF THE CIRCUS OF MAXENTIUS]
§330. Plan of the Circus.--All of the Roman circuses known to us had
the same general arrangement, which will be readily understood from
the plan of the Circus of Maxentius shown in Fig. 139. The long and
comparatively narrow stretch of ground which formed the race course
proper (_arēna_) is almost surrounded by the tiers of seats, running
in two long parallel lines uniting in a semicircle at one end. In the
middle of this semicircle is a gate, marked _F_ in the plan, by which
the victor left the circus when the race was over. It was called,
therefore, the _porta triumphālis_. Opposite this gate at the other
end of the arena was the station for the chariots (_AA_ in the plan),
called _carcerēs_, "barriers," flanked by two towers at the corners
(_II_), and divided into two equal sections by another gate (_B_),
called the _porta pompae_, by which processions entered the circus.
There are also gates (_HH_) between the towers and the seats. The
exterior appearance of the towers and barriers, called together the
_oppidum_, is shown in Fig. 140.
[Illustration: FIGURE 140. OPPIDUM OF A CIRCUS]
§331. The arena is divided for about two-thirds its length by a fence
or wall (_MM_), called the _spīna_, "backbone." At the end of this
were fixed pillars (_LL_), called _mētae_, marking the inner line of
the course. Once around the _spīna_ was a lap (_spatium_,
_curriculum_), and the fixed number of laps, usually seven to a race,
was called a _missus_. The last lap, however, had but one turn, that
at the _mēta prīma_, the one nearest the _porta triumphālis_, the
finish being a straightaway dash to the _calx_. This was a chalk line
drawn on the arena far enough away from the second _mēta_ to keep it
from being obliterated by the hoofs of the horses as they made the
turn, and far enough also from the _carcerēs_ to enable the driver to
stop his team before dashing into them. The dotted line (_DN_) is the
supposed location of the _calx_. It will be noticed that the important
things about the developed circus are the _arēna_, _carcerēs_,
_spīna_, _mētae_, and the seats, all of which will be more
particularly described.
§332. The Arena.--The arena is the level space surrounded by the seats
and the barriers. The name was derived from the sand used to cover its
surface to spare as much as possible the unshod feet of the horses. A
glance at the plan will show that speed could not have been the
important thing with the Romans that it is with us. The sand, the
shortness of the stretches, and the sharp turns between them were all
against great speed. The Roman found his excitement in the danger of
the race. In every representation of the race course that has come
down to us may be seen broken chariots, fallen horses, and drivers
under wheels and hoofs. The distance was not a matter of close
measurement either, but varied in the several circuses, the Circus
Maximus being fully 300 feet longer than the Circus of Maxentius. All
seem to have had constant, however, the number of laps, seven to the
race, and this also goes to prove that the danger was the chief
element in the popularity of the contests. The distance actually
traversed in the Circus of Maxentius may be very closely estimated.
The length of the _spīna_ is about 950 feet. If we allow fifty feet
for the turn at each _mēta_, each lap makes a distance of 2,000 feet,
and six laps, 12,000 feet. The seventh lap had but one turn in it, but
the final stretch to the _calx_ made it perhaps 300 feet longer than
one of the others, say 2,300 feet. This gives a total of 14,300 feet
for the whole _missus_, or about 2.7 miles. Jordan calculates the
_missus_ of the Circus Maximus at 8.4 kilometers, which would be about
5.2 miles, but he seems to have taken the whole length of the arena
into account, instead of that merely of the _spīna_.
[Illustration: FIGURE 141. THE CARCERES]
§333. The Barriers.--The _carcerēs_ were the stations of the chariots
and teams when ready for the races to begin. They were a series of
vaulted chambers entirely separated from each other by solid walls,
and closed behind by doors through which the chariots entered. The
front of the chamber was formed by double doors, with the upper part
made of grated bars, admitting the only light which it received. From
this arrangement the name _carcer_ was derived. Each chamber was large
enough to hold a chariot with its team, and as a team was composed
sometimes of as many as seven horses the "prison" must have been
nearly square. There was always a separate chamber for each chariot.
Up to the time of Domitian the highest number of chariots was eight,
but after his time as many as twelve sometimes entered the same race,
and twelve _carcerēs_ had, therefore, to be provided, although four
chariots was the usual number. Half of these chambers lay to the
right, half to the left of the _porta pompae_. The appearance of a
section of the _carcerēs_ is shown in Fig. 141.
[Illustration: FIGURE 142. BOX OF THE DATOR LUDORUM]
§334. It will be noticed from the plan (§330) that the _carcerēs_ were
arranged in a curved line. This is supposed to have been drawn in such
a way that every chariot, no matter which of the _carcerēs_ it
happened to occupy, would have the same distance to travel in order to
reach the beginning of the course proper at the nearer end of the
_spīna_. There was no advantage in position, therefore, at the start,
and places were assigned by lot. In later times a starting line
(_līnea alba_) was drawn with chalk between the second _mēta_ and the
seats to the right, but the line of _carcerēs_ remained curved as of
old. At the ends of the row of chambers, towers were built which seem
to have been the stands for the musicians; over the _porta pompae_ was
the box of the chief official of the games (_dator lūdōrum_), and
between his box and the towers were seats for his friends and persons
connected with the games. In Fig. 142 is shown a victor pausing before
the box of the _dator_ to receive a prize before riding in triumph
around the arena.
[Illustration: FIGURE 143.]
§335. The Spina and Metae.--The _spīna_ divided the race course into
two parts, making a minimum distance to be run. Its length was about
two-thirds that of the arena, but it started only the width of the
track from the _porta triumphālis_, leaving entirely free a much
larger space at the end near the _porta pompae_. It was perfectly
straight, but did not run precisely parallel to the rows of seats; at
the end B in the exaggerated diagram (Fig. 143) the distance BC is
somewhat greater than the distance AB, in order to allow more room at
the starting line (_līnea alba_, §334), where the chariots would be
side by side, than further along the course, where they would be
strung out. The _mētae_, so named from their shape (§284), were
pillars erected at the two ends of the _spīna_ and architecturally a
part of it, though there may have been a space between. In Republican
times the _spīna_ and the _mētae_ must have been made of wood and
movable, in order to give free space for the shows of wild beasts and
the exhibitions of cavalry that were originally given in the circus.
After the amphitheater was devised the circus came to be used for
races exclusively and the _spīna_ became permanent. It was built up,
of most massive proportions, on foundations of indestructible concrete
(§210 f.) and was adorned with magnificent works of art that must have
entirely concealed horses and chariots when they passed to the other
side of the arena.
[Illustration: FIGURE 144. BOARD-GAME SHOWING SPINA]
[Illustration: FIGURE 145. OBELISK ONCE IN CIRCUS MAXIMUS]
[Illustration: FIGURE 146. A CANAL AS SPINA]
§336. A representation of a circus has been preserved to us in a
board-game of some sort found at Bovillae (§329), which gives an
excellent idea of the _spīna_, (Fig. 144). We know from various
reliefs and mosaics that the _spīna_ of the Circus Maximus was covered
with a series of statues and ornamental structures, such as obelisks,
small temples or shrines, columns surmounted by statues, altars,
trophies, and fountains. Augustus was the first to erect an obelisk in
the Circus Maximus; it was restored in 1589 A.D., and now stands in
the Piazza del Popolo, measuring without the base about 78 feet in
height. Constantius erected another (Fig. 145) in the same circus,
which now stands before the Lateran church, measuring 105 feet. The
obelisk of the Circus of Maxentius now stands in the Piazza Navona.
Besides these purely ornamental features, every circus had at each end
of its _spīna_ a pedestal supporting seven large eggs (_ōva_) of
marble, one of which was taken down at the end of each lap, in order
that the people might know just how many remained to be run. Another
and very different idea for the _spīna_ is shown in Fig. 146 from a
mosaic at Lyons. This is a canal filled with water, with an obelisk in
the middle. The _mētae_ in their developed form are shown very clearly
in this mosaic, three conical pillars of stone set on a semicircular
plinth, all of the most massive construction.
§337. The Seats.--The seats around the arena in the Circus Maximus
were originally of wood, but accidents owing to decay and losses by
fire had led by the time of the Empire to reconstruction in marble
except perhaps in the very highest rows. The seats in the other
circuses seem to have been from the first of stone. At the foot of the
tiers of seats was a marble platform (_podium_) which ran along both
sides and the curved end, coextensive therefore with them. On this
_podium_ were erected boxes for the use of the more important
magistrates and officials of Rome, and here Augustus placed the seats
of the senators and others of high rank. He also assigned seats
throughout the whole _cavea_ to various classes and organizations,
separating the women from the men, though up to his time they had sat
together. Between the _podium_ and the track was a screen of open
work, and when Caesar showed wild beasts in the circus he had a canal
ten feet wide and ten feet deep dug next the _podium_ and filled with
water as an additional protection. Access to the seats was given from
the rear, numerous broad stairways running up to the _praecīnctiōnēs_
(§327), of which there were probably three in the Circus Maximus. The
horizontal spaces between the _praecīnctiōnēs_ were called _maeniāna_,
and each of these was in turn divided by stairways into _cuneī_
(§327), and the rows of seats in the _cuneī_ were called _gradūs_. The
sittings in the row do not seem to have been marked off any more than
they are now in the "bleachers" at our baseball grounds. When sittings
were reserved for a number of persons they were described as so many
feet in such a row (_gradus_) of such a section (_cuneus_) of such a
circle (_maeniānum_).
[Illustration: FIGURE 147. RESTORATION OF THE CIRCUS MAXIMUS]
§338. The number of sittings testifies to the popularity of the races.
The little circus at Bovillae had seats for at least 8,000 people,
according to Hülsen, that of Maxentius for about 23,000, while the
Circus Maximus, accommodating 60,000 in the time of Augustus, was
enlarged to a capacity of nearly 200,000 in the time of Constantius.
The seats themselves were supported upon arches of massive masonry; an
idea of their appearance from the outside may be had from the exterior
view of the Coliseum in §356. Every third of these vaulted chambers
under the seats seems to have been used for a staircase, the others
for shops and booths and in the upper parts for rooms for the employés
of the circus, who must have been very numerous. Galleries seem to
have crowned the seats, as in the theaters (§327), and balconies for
the emperors were built in conspicuous places, the ruins not enabling
their positions to be fixed precisely. An idea of the appearance of
the seats from within the arena may be had from an attempted
reconstruction of the Circus Maximus (Fig. 147), the details of which
are quite uncertain.
§339. Furnishing the Races.--There must have been a time, of course,
when the races in the circus were open to all who wished to show their
horses or their skill in driving them, but by the end of the Republic
no persons of repute took part in the games, and the teams and drivers
were furnished by racing syndicates (_factiōnēs_), who practically
controlled the market so far as concerned trained horses and trained
men. With these syndicates the giver of the games contracted for the
number of races that he wanted (ten or twelve a day in Caesar's time,
later twice the number, and even more on special occasions), and they
furnished everything needed. These syndicates were named from the
colors worn by their drivers. We hear at first of two only, the red
(_russāta_) and the white (_albāta_); two more were added, the blue
(_veneta_) in the time of Augustus probably, and the green (_prasina_)
soon after, and finally Domitian added the purple and the gold. The
greatest rivalry existed between these organizations. They spent
immense sums of money on their horses, importing them from Greece,
Spain, and Mauritania, and even larger sums, perhaps, upon the
drivers. They maintained training stables on as large a scale as any
of which modern times can boast; a mosaic found in one of these
establishments in Algeria names among the attendants jockeys, grooms,
stable-boys, saddlers, doctors, trainers, coaches, and messengers, and
shows the horses covered with blankets in their stalls. This rivalry
spread throughout the city; each _factiō_ had its partisans, and vast
sums of money were lost and won as each _missus_ was finished. All the
tricks of the ring were skillfully practiced; horses were hocused,
drivers hired from rival syndicates or bribed, and even poisoned, we
are told, when they were proof against money.
[Illustration: FIGURE 148. RACING CHARIOT AND TEAM]
§340. The Teams.--The chariot used in the races was low and light,
closed in front, open behind, with long axles and low wheels to lessen
the risk of turning over. The driver seems to have stood well forward
in the car, there being no standing place behind the axle, as shown in
the cut (Fig. 148). The teams consisted of two horses (_bīgae_), three
(_trīgae_), four (_quadrīgae_), and in later times six (_sēiugēs_) or
even seven (_septeiugēs_), but the four-horse team was the most common
and may be taken as the type. Two of the horses were yoked together,
one on each side of the tongue, the others were attached to the car
merely by traces. Of the four the horse to the extreme left was the
most important, because the _mēta_ lay always on the left and the
highest skill of the driver was shown in turning it as closely as
possible. The failure of the horse nearest it to respond promptly to
the rein or the word might mean the wreck of the car (by going too
close) or the loss of the inside track (by going too wide), and in
either case the loss of the race. Inscriptions sometimes give the
names of all the horses of the team, sometimes only the horse on the
left is mentioned. Before the races began lists of the horses and
drivers in each were published for the guidance of those who wished to
stake their money, and while no time was kept the records of horses
and men were followed as eagerly as now. From the nature of the course
(§332) it is evident that strength and courage and above all lasting
qualities were as essential as speed. The horses were almost always
stallions (mares are very rarely mentioned), and were never raced
under five years of age. Considering the length of the course and the
great risk of accidents it is surprising how long the horses lasted.
It was not unusual for a horse to win a hundred races (such a horse
was called _centēnārius_), and one Diocles, himself a famous driver,
owned a horse that had won two hundred (_ducēnārius_).
[Illustration: FIGURE 149. DRESS OF AN AURIGA]
§341. The Drivers.--The drivers (_agitātōrēs_, _aurīgae_) were slaves
or freedmen, some of whom had won their freedom by their skill and
daring in the course. Only in the most corrupt days of the Empire did
citizens of any social position take actual part in the races. The
dress of the driver is shown in Fig. 149; especially to be noticed are
the close fitting cap, the short tunic (always of the color of his
_factiō_), laced around the body with leathern thongs, the straps of
leather around the thighs, the shoulder pads, and the heavy leather
protectors for the legs. Our football players wear like defensive
armor. The reins were knotted together and passed around the driver's
body. In his belt he carried a knife to cut the reins in case he
should be thrown from the car, or to cut the traces if a horse should
fall and become entangled in them. The races gave as many
opportunities then as now for skillful driving, and required even more
of strength and daring. What we should call "fouling" was encouraged.
The driver might turn his team against another, might upset the car of
a rival if he could; having gained the inside track he might drive out
of the straight course to keep a swifter team from passing his. The
rewards were proportionately great. The successful _aurīga_, despised
though his station, was the pet and pride of the race-mad crowd, and
under the Empire at least he was courted and fêted by high and low.
The pay of successful drivers was extravagant, the rival syndicates
bidding against each other for the services of the most popular. Rich
presents, too, were given them when they won their races, not only by
their _factiōnēs_, but also by outsiders who had backed them and
profited by their skill.
[Illustration: FIGURE 150. INSCRIPTION IN HONOR OF CRESCENS]
§342. Famous Aurigae.--The names of some of these victors have come
down to us in inscriptions (§10) erected in their honor or to their
memory by their friends. Among these may be mentioned Publius Aelius
Gutta Calpurnianus (§58) of the late Empire (1,127 victories), Caius
Apuleius Diocles, a Spaniard (in twenty-four years 4,257 races, l,462
victories, winning the sum of 35,863,120 sesterces, about $1,800,000),
Flavius Scorpus (2,048 victories at the age of twenty-seven), Marcus
Aurelius Liber (3,000 victories), Pompeius Muscosus (3,559 victories).
To these may be added Crescens, an inscription[3] in honor of whom was
found at Rome in 1878 and is shown in Fig. 150.
[Footnote 3: "Crescens, a driver of the blue syndicate, of the Moorish
nation, twenty-two years of age. He won his first victory as a driver
of a four-horse chariot in the consulship of Lucius Vipstanius
Messalla on the birthday of the deified Nerva in the twenty-fourth
race with these horses: Circius, Acceptor, Delicatus, and Cotynus.
From Messalla's consulship to the birthday of the deified Claudius in
the consulship of Glabrio he was sent from the barriers six hundred
and eighty-six times and was victorious forty-seven times. In races
between chariots with one from each syndicate he won nineteen times,
with two from each twenty-three times, with three from each five
times. He held back purposely once, took first place at the start
eight times, took it from others thirty-eight times. He won second
place one hundred and thirty times, third place one hundred and eleven
times. His winnings amounted to 1,558,346 sesterces (about $78,000)."]
§343. Other Shows of the Circus.--The circus was used less frequently
for other exhibitions than chariot races. Of these may be mentioned
the performances of the _dēsultōrēs_, men who rode two horses and
leaped from one to the other while going at full speed, and of trained
horses who performed various tricks while standing on a sort of
wheeled platform which gave a very unstable footing. There were also
exhibitions of horsemanship by citizens of good standing, riding under
leaders in squadrons, to show the evolutions of the cavalry. The
_lūdus Trōiae_ was also performed by young men of the nobility, a game
that Vergil has described in the Fifth Aeneid. More to the taste of
the crowd were the hunts (_vēnātiōnēs_), when wild beasts were turned
loose in the circus to slaughter each other or be slaughtered by men
trained for the purpose. We read of panthers, bears, bulls, lions,
elephants, hippopotami, and even crocodiles (in artificial lakes made
in the arena) exhibited during the Republic. In the circus, too,
combats of gladiators sometimes took place, but these were more
frequently in the amphitheater. One of the most brilliant spectacles
must have been the procession (_pompa circēnsis_) which formally
opened some of the public games. It started from the capitol and wound
its way down to the Circus Maximus, entering by the _porta pompae_
(named from it, §330), and passed entirely around the arena. At the
head in a car rode the presiding magistrate, wearing the garb of a
triumphant general and attended by a slave who held a wreath of gold
over his head. Next came a crowd of notables on horseback and on foot,
then the chariots and horsemen who were to take part in the games.
Then followed priests, arranged by their colleges, and bearers of
incense and of the instruments used in sacrifices, and statues of
deities on low cars drawn by mules, horses, or elephants, or else
carried on litters (_fercula_) on the shoulders of men. Bands of
musicians headed each division of the procession, a feeble
reminiscence of which is seen in the parade through the streets that
precedes the performance of the modern circus.
§344. Gladiatorial Combats.--Gladiatorial combats seem to have been
known in Italy long before the founding of Rome. We hear of them first
in Campania and Etruria. In Campania the wealthy and dissolute nobles,
we are told, made slaves fight to the death at their banquets and
revels for the entertainment of their guests. In Etruria the combats
go back in all probability to the offering of human sacrifices at the
burial of distinguished men in accordance with the ancient belief that
blood is acceptable to the dead. The victims were captives taken in
war, and it became the custom gradually to give them a chance for
their lives by supplying them with weapons and allowing them to fight
each other at the grave, the victor being spared at least for the
time. The Romans were slow to adopt the custom, the first exhibition
being given in the year 264 B.C., almost five centuries after the
founding of the city. That they derived it from Etruria rather than
Campania is shown by the fact that the exhibitions were at funeral
games, the earliest at those of Brutus Pera in 264 B.C., Marcus
Aemilius Lepidus in 216 B.C., Marcus Valerius Lavinus in 200 B.C., and
Publius Licinius in 183 B.C.
[Illustration: FIGURE 151. A "SAMNITE"]
§345. For the first one hundred years after their introduction the
exhibitions were infrequent as the dates just given show, those
mentioned being all of which we have any knowledge during the period,
but after this time they were given more and more frequently and
always on a larger scale. During the Republic, however, they remained
in theory at least private games (_mūnera_), not public games
(_lūdī_); that is, they were not celebrated on fixed days recurring
annually, and the givers of the exhibitions had to find a pretext for
them in the death of relatives or friends, and to defray the expenses
from their own pockets. In fact we know of but one instance in which
actual magistrates (the consuls Publius and Manlius, 105 B.C.) gave
such exhibitions, and we know too little of the attendant
circumstances to warrant us in assuming that they acted in their
official capacity. Even under the Empire the gladiators did not fight
on the days of the regular public games. Augustus, however, provided
funds for "extraordinary shows" under the direction of the praetors.
Under Domitian the aediles-elect were put in charge of these
exhibitions which were given regularly in December, the only instance
known of fixed dates for the _mūnera gladiātōria_. All others of which
we read are to be considered the freewill offerings to the people of
emperors, magistrates, or private citizens.
[Illustration: FIGURE 152. WEAPONS OF GLADIATORS]
[Illustration: FIGURE 153. WOUNDED GLADIATOR]
§346. Popularity of the Combats.--The Romans' love of excitement
(§316) made the exhibitions immediately and immensely popular. At the
first exhibition mentioned above, that in honor of Brutus Pera, three
pairs of gladiators only were shown, but in the three that followed
the number of pairs rose in order to twenty-two, twenty-five, and
sixty. By the time of Sulla politicians had found in the _mūnera_ the
most effective means to win the favor of the people, and vied with one
another in the frequency of the shows and the number of the
combatants. Besides this, the same politicians made these shows a
pretext for surrounding themselves with bands of bravos and bullies,
all called gladiators whether destined for the arena or not, with
which they started riots in the streets, broke up public meetings,
overawed the courts and even directed or prevented the elections.
Caesar's preparations for an exhibition when he was canvassing for the
aedileship (65 B.C.) caused such general fear that the senate passed a
law limiting the number of gladiators that a private citizen might
employ, and he was allowed to exhibit only 320 pairs. The bands of
Clodius and Milo made the city a slaughterhouse in 53 B.C., and order
was not restored until late in the following year when Pompey as "sole
consul" put an end to the battle of the bludgeons with the swords of
his soldiers. During the Empire the number actually exhibited almost
surpasses belief. Augustus gave eight _mūnera_, in which no less than
ten thousand men fought, but these were distributed through the whole
period of his reign. Trajan exhibited as many in four months only of
the year 107 A.D., in celebration of his conquest of the Dacians. The
first Gordian, emperor in 238 A.D., gave _mūnera_ monthly in the year
of his aedileship, the number of pairs running from 150 to 500. These
exhibitions did not cease until the fifteenth century of our era.
§347. Sources of Supply.--In the early Republic the gladiators were
captives taken in war, naturally men practiced in the use of weapons
(§161), who thought death by the sword a happier fate than the slavery
that awaited them (§140). This always remained the chief source of
supply, though it became inadequate as the demand increased. From the
time of Sulla training-schools were established in which slaves with
or without previous experience in war were fitted for the profession.
These were naturally slaves of the most intractable and desperate
character (§170). From the time of Augustus criminals were sentenced
to the arena (later "to the lions"), but only non-citizens, and these
for the most heinous crimes, treason, murder, arson, and the like.
Finally in the late Empire the arena became the last desperate resort
of the dissipated and prodigal, and these volunteers were numerous
enough to be given as a class the name _auctōrātī_.
[Illustration: FIGURE 154. HELMETS OF GLADIATORS]
§348. As the number of the exhibitions increased it became harder and
harder to supply the gladiators demanded, for it must be remembered
that there were exhibitions in many of the cities of the provinces and
in the smaller towns of Italy as well as at Rome. The lines were,
therefore, constantly crossed, and thousands died miserably in the
arena whom only the most glaring injustice could number in the classes
mentioned above. In Cicero's time provincial governors were accused of
sending unoffending provincials to be slaughtered in Rome and of
forcing Roman citizens, obscure and friendless, of course, to fight in
the provincial shows. Later it was common enough to send to the arena
men sentenced for the pettiest offenses, when the supply of real
criminals had run short, and to trump up charges against the innocent
for the same purpose. The persecution of the Christians was largely
due to the demand for more gladiators. So, too, the distinction was
lost between actual prisoners of war and peaceful non-combatants;
after the fall of Jerusalem all Jews over seventeen years of age were
condemned by Titus to work in the mines or fight in the arena. Wars on
the border were waged for the sole purpose of taking men who could be
made gladiators, and in default of men, children and women were
sometimes made to fight.
[Illustration: FIGURE 155. SCHOOL FOR GLADIATORS AT POMPEII]
§349. Schools for Gladiators.--The training-schools for gladiators
(_lūdī gladiātōriī_) have been mentioned already. Cicero during his
consulship speaks of one at Rome, and there were others before his
time at Capua and Praeneste. Some of these were set up by wealthy
nobles for the purpose of preparing their own gladiators for _mūnera_
which they expected to give; others were the property of regular
dealers in gladiators, who kept and trained them for hire. The
business was almost as disreputable as that of the _lēnōnēs_ (§139).
During the Empire training-schools were maintained at public expense
and under the direction of state officials not only in Rome, where
there were four at least of these schools, but also in other cities of
Italy where exhibitions were frequently given, and even in the
provinces. The purpose of all the schools, public and private alike,
was the same, to make the men trained in them as effective fighting
machines as possible. The gladiators were in charge of competent
training masters (_lanistae_); they were subject to the strictest
discipline; their diet was carefully looked after, a special food
(_sagīna gladiātōria_) being provided for them; regular gymnastic
exercises were prescribed, and lessons given in the use of the various
weapons by recognized experts (_magistrī_, _doctōrēs_). In their
fencing bouts wooden swords (_rudēs_) were used. The gladiators
associated in a school were collectively called a _familia_.
[Illustration: FIGURE 156. PLAN OF SCHOOL FOR GLADIATORS]
§350. These schools had also to serve as barracks for the gladiators
between engagements, that is, practically as houses of detention. It
was from the school of Lentulus at Capua that Spartacus had escaped,
and the Romans needed no second lesson of the sort. The general
arrangement of these barracks may be understood from the ruins of one
uncovered at Pompeii, though in this case the buildings had been
originally planned for another purpose, and the rearrangement may not
be ideal in all respects. A central court, or exercise ground (Figs.
155, 156) is surrounded by a wide colonnade, and this in turn by rows
of buildings two stories in height, the general arrangement being not
unlike that of the peristyle of a house (§202). The dimensions of the
court are nearly 120 by 150 feet. The buildings are cut up into rooms,
nearly all small (about twelve feet square), disconnected and opening
upon the court, those in the first story being reached from the
colonnade, those in the second from a gallery to which ran several
stairways. These small rooms are supposed to be the sleeping-rooms of
the gladiators, each accommodating two persons. There are seventy-one
of them (marked _7_ on the plan), affording room for 142 men. The uses
of the larger rooms are purely conjectural. The entrance is supposed
to have been at _3_, with a room, _15_, for the watchman or sentinel.
At _9_ was an _exedra_, where the gladiators may have waited in full
panoply for their turns in the exercise ground, _1_. The guard-room,
_8_, is identified by the remains of stocks, in which the refractory
were fastened for punishment or safe-keeping. They permitted the
culprits to lie on their backs or sit in a very uncomfortable
position. At _6_ was the armory or property room, if we may judge from
articles found in it. Near it in the corner was a staircase leading to
the gallery before the rooms of the second story. The large room,
_16_, was the mess-room, with the kitchen, _12_, opening into it. The
stairway, _13_, gives access to the rooms above kitchen and mess-room,
possibly the apartments of the trainers and their helpers.
§351. Places of Exhibition.--During the Republic the combats of
gladiators took place sometimes at the grave or in the circus, but
regularly in the forum. None of these places was well adapted to the
purpose, the grave the least of all. The circus had seats enough, but
the _spīna_ was in the way (§335) and the arena too vast to give all
the spectators a satisfactory view of a struggle that was confined
practically to a single spot. In the forum, on the other hand, the
seats could be arranged very conveniently; they would run parallel
with the sides, would be curved around the corners, and would inclose
only sufficient space to afford room for the combatants. The
inconvenience here was due to the fact that the seats had to be
erected before each performance and removed after it, a delay to
business if they were constructed carefully and a menace to life if
they were put up hastily. These considerations finally led the Romans,
as they had led the Campanians half a century before, to provide
permanent seats for the _mūnera_, arranged as they had been in the
forum, but in a place where they would not interfere with public or
private business. To these places for shows of gladiators came in the
course of time to be exclusively applied the word _amphitheātrum_,
which had been previously given in its correct general sense to any
place, the circus for example, in which the seats ran all the way
around, as opposed to the theater in which the rows of seats were
broken by the stage.
§352. Amphitheaters at Rome.--Just when the first amphitheaters, in
the special sense of the word, were erected at Rome can not be
determined with certainty. The elder Pliny (†79 A.D.) tells us that in
the year 55 B.C. Caius Scribonius Curio built two wooden theaters back
to back, the stages being, therefore, at opposite ends, and gave in
them simultaneous theatrical performances in the morning. Then, while
the spectators remained in their seats, the two theaters were turned
by machinery and brought together face to face, the stages were
removed, and in the space they had occupied shows of gladiators were
given in the afternoon before the united crowds. This story is all too
evidently invented to account for the perfected amphitheater of
Pliny's time, which he must have interpreted to mean "a double
theater." We are also told that Caesar erected a wooden amphitheater
in 46 B.C., but we have no detailed description of it, and no reason
to think that it was anything more than a temporary affair. In the
year 29 B.C., however, an amphitheater was built by Statilius Taurus,
partially at least of stone, that lasted until the great conflagration
in the reign of Nero (64 A.D.). Nero himself had previously erected
one of wood in the Campus. Finally, just before the end of the first
century of our era, was completed the _amphitheātrum Flāvium_, later
known as the _colossēum_ or _colisēum_, which was large enough and
durable enough to make forever unnecessary the erection of other
similar structures in the city.
[Illustration: FIGURE 157. EXTERIOR OF AMPHITHEATER AT POMPEII]
[Illustration: FIGURE 158. INTERIOR OF AMPHITHEATER AT POMPEII]
[Illustration: FIGURE 159. SECTION OF AMPHITHEATER AT POMPEII]
§353. The Amphitheater at Pompeii.--The essential features of an
amphitheater may be most easily understood from the ruins of the one
at Pompeii, erected about 75 B.C., almost half a century before the
first permanent structure of the sort at Rome (§352), and the earliest
known to us from either literary or monumental sources. The exterior
is shown in Fig. 157 (see also Overbeck, pp. 176-180; Mau-Kelsey, pp.
206-212) and a section in Fig. 159. It will be seen at once that the
arena and most of the seats lie in a great hollow excavated for the
purpose, thus making sufficient for the exterior a low wall of hardly
more than ten to thirteen feet in height. Even this wall was necessary
on only two sides, as the amphitheater was built in the southeast
corner of the city and its south and east sides were bounded by the
city walls. The shape is elliptical, the major axis being 444 feet,
the minor 342. The arena occupies the middle space. It was encircled
by thirty-five rows of seats arranged in three divisions, the lowest
(_īnfima_ or _īma cavea_) having five rows, the second (_media cavea_)
twelve, and the highest (_summa cavea_) eighteen. A broad terrace ran
around the amphitheater at the height of the topmost row of seats.
Access to this terrace was given from without by the double stairway
on the west, shown in Fig. 157, and by single stairways next the city
walls on the east and south (_10_ in Fig. 160). Between the terrace
and the top seats was a gallery, or row of boxes, each about four feet
square, probably for women. Beneath the boxes persons could pass from
the terrace to the seats. The amphitheater had seating capacity for
about 20,000 people.
[Illustration: FIGURE 160. PLAN OF ARENA IN AMPHITHEATER AT POMPEII]
§354. The arena is shown in Fig. 158, its plan in Fig. 160. It was an
ellipse with axes of 228 and 121 feet. Around it ran a wall a little
more than six feet high, on a level with the top of which were the
lowest seats. For the protection of the spectators when wild animals
were shown, a grating of iron bars was put up on the top of the arena
wall. Access to the arena and to the seats of the _cavea īma_ and the
_cavea media_ was given by the two underground passageways, _1_ and
_2_ in Fig. 160, of which _2_ turns at right angles on account of the
city wall on the south. From the arena ran also a third passage, _5_,
low and narrow, leading to the _porta Libitinēnsis_, through which the
bodies of the dead were dragged with ropes and hooks. Near the mouths
of these passages were small chambers or dens, marked _4_, _4_, _6_,
the purposes of which are not known. The floor of the arena was
covered with sand, as in the circus (§332), but in this case to soak
up the blood as well as to give a firm footing to the gladiators.
[Illustration: FIGURE 161. BISELLIUM]
§355. Of the part of this amphitheater set aside for the spectators
the _cavea īma_ only was supported upon artificial foundations. All
the other seats were constructed in sections as means were obtained
for the purpose, the people in the meantime finding places for
themselves on the sloping banks as in the early theaters (§325). The
_cavea īma_ was strictly not supplied with seats all the way around, a
considerable section on the east and west sides being arranged with
four low, broad ledges of stone, rising one above the other, on which
the members of the city council could place the seats of honor
(_bisellia_, Fig. 161) to which their rank entitled them. In the
middle of the section on the east the lowest ledge is made of double
width for some ten feet; this was the place set apart for the giver of
the games and his friends. In the _cavea media_ and the _cavea summa_
the seats were of stone resting on the bank of earth. It is probable
that all the places in the lowest section were reserved for people of
distinction, that seats in the middle section were sold to the
well-to-do, and that admission was free to the less desirable seats of
the highest section.
[Illustration: FIGURE 162. EXTERIOR OF THE COLISEUM]
§356. The Coliseum.--The Flavian amphitheater (§352) is the best known
of all the buildings of ancient Rome, because to a larger extent than
others it has survived to the present day. For our purpose it is not
necessary to give its history or to describe its architecture; it will
be sufficient to compare its essential parts with those of its modest
prototype in Pompeii. The latter was built in the outskirts of the
city, in a corner in fact of the city walls (§353); the coliseum lay
almost in the center of Rome, the most generally accessible of all the
public buildings. The interior of the Pompeian structure was reached
through two passages and by three stairways only, while eighty
numbered entrances made it easy for the Roman multitudes to find their
appropriate places in the coliseum. Much of the earlier amphitheater
was underground; all of the corresponding parts of the coliseum were
above the level of the street, the walls rising to a height of nearly
160 feet. This gave opportunity for the same architectural
magnificence that had distinguished the Roman theater from that of the
Greeks (§326). The general effect is shown in Fig. 162, an exterior
view of the ruins as they exist to-day.
[Illustration: FIGURE 163. INTERIOR OF COLISEUM]
§357. The interior is shown in Fig. 163. The form is an ellipse with
axes of 620 and 513 feet, the building covering nearly six acres of
ground. The arena is also an ellipse, its axes measuring 287 and 180
feet. The width of the space appropriated for the spectators is,
therefore, 166½ feet all around the arena. It will be noticed, too,
that subterranean chambers were constructed under the whole building,
including the arena. These furnished room for the regiments of
gladiators, the dens of wild beasts, the machinery for the
transformation scenes that Gibbon has described in his twelfth
chapter, and above all for the vast number of water and drainage pipes
that made it possible to turn the arena into a lake at a moment's
notice and as quickly to get rid of the water. The wall that
surrounded the arena was fifteen feet high with the side faced with
rollers and defended like the one at Pompeii with a grating or network
of metal above it. The top of the wall was level with the floor of the
lowest range of seats, called the _podium_ as in the circus (§337),
and this had room for two or at the most three rows of marble thrones.
These were for the use of the emperor and the imperial family, the
giver of the games, the magistrates, senators, Vestal virgins,
ambassadors of foreign states, and other persons of consequence.
[Illustration: FIGURE 164. SECTION OF COLISEUM]
§358. The arrangement of the seats with the method of reaching them is
shown in the sectional plan, Fig. 164. The seats were arranged in
three tiers (_maeniāna_, §337) one above the other, separated by broad
passageways and rising more steeply the farther they were from the
arena, and were crowned by an open gallery. In the plan the _podium_
is marked A. Twelve feet above it begins the first _maeniānum_, B,
with fourteen rows of seats reserved for members of the equestrian
order. Then came a broad _praecīnctiō_ (§327) and after it the second
_maeniānum_, C, intended for ordinary citizens. Back of this was a
wall of considerable height and above it the third _maeniānum_, D,
supplied with rough wooden benches for the lowest classes, foreigners,
slaves, and the like. The row of pillars along the front of this
section made the distant view all the worse. Above this was an open
gallery, E, in which women found an unwelcome place. No other seats
were open to them unless they were of sufficient distinction to claim
a place upon the _podium_. At the very top of the outside wall was a
terrace, F, in which were fixed masts to support the awnings that gave
protection against the sun. The seating capacity of the coliseum is
said to have been 80,000, and it had standing room for 20,000 more.
[Illustration: FIGURE 165. RETIARIUS AND SECUTOR]
§359. Styles of Fighting.--Gladiators fought usually in pairs, man
against man, but sometimes in masses (_gregātim_, _catervātim_). In
early times they were actually soldiers, captives taken in war (§347),
and fought naturally with the weapons and equipment to which they were
accustomed. When the professionally trained gladiators came in, they
were given the old names, and were called Samnites, Thracians, etc.,
according to their arms and tactics. In much later times victories
over distant peoples were celebrated with combats in which the weapons
and methods of war of the conquered were shown to the people of Rome;
thus, after the conquest of Britain _essedāriī_ exhibited in the arena
the tactics of chariot fighting which Caesar had described generations
before in his Commentaries. It was natural enough, too, for the people
to want to see different arms and different tactics tried against each
other, and so the Samnite was matched against the Thracian, the heavy
armed against the light armed. This became under the Empire the
favorite style of combat. Finally when people had tired of the regular
shows, novelties were introduced that seem to us grotesque; men fought
blindfold (_andabatae_), armed with two swords (_dimachaerī_), with
the lasso (_laqueatōrēs_), with a heavy net (_rētiāriī_), and there
were battles of dwarfs and of dwarfs with women. Of these the
_rētiārius_ became immensely popular. He carried a huge net in which
he tried to entangle his opponent, always a _secūtor_ (see below),
despatching him with a dagger if the throw was successful. If
unsuccessful he took to flight while preparing his net for another
throw, of if he had lost his net tried to keep his opponent off with a
heavy three-pronged spear (_fuscina_), his only weapon beside the
dagger (Fig. 165).
[Illustration: FIGURE 166. THRAEX]
[Illustration: FIGURE 167. VOTIVE GALERUS]
§360. Weapons and Armor.--The armor and weapons used in these combats
are known from pieces found in various places, some of which are shown
in Fig. 152, §345, and from paintings and sculpture, but we are not
always able to assign them to definite classes of gladiators. The
oldest class was that of the Samnites (Fig. 151, §344). They had
belts, thick sleeves on the right arm (_manica_), helmets with visors,
shown in Fig. 154, §348, greaves on the left leg, short swords, and
the long shield (_scūtum_). Under the Empire the name Samnite was
gradually lost and gladiators with equivalent equipment were called
_hoplomachī_ (heavy armed), when matched against the lighter armed
Thracians, and _secūtōrēs_, when they fought with the _rētiāriī_. The
Thracians (Fig. 166) had much the same equipment as the Samnites, the
mark of distinction being the small shield (_parma_) in place of the
_scūtum_ and, to make up the difference, greaves on both legs. They
carried a curved sword. The Gauls were heavy armed, but we do not know
how they were distinguished from the Samnites. In later times they
were called _murmillōnēs_, from an ornament on their helmets shaped
like a fish (_mormyr_). The rētiāriī had no defensive armor except a
leather protection for the shoulder, shown in Fig. 165. Of course the
same man might appear by turns as Samnite, Thracian, etc., if he was
skilled in the use of the various weapons; see the inscription in
§363.
§361. Announcement of the Shows.--The games were advertised in advance
by means of notices painted on the walls of public and private houses,
and even on the tombstones that lined the approaches to the towns and
cities. Some are worded in very general terms, announcing merely the
name of the giver of the games with the date:
A • SVETTI • CERTI
AEDILIS • FAMILIA • GLADIATORIA • PUGNAB • POMPEIS
PR • K • JVNIAS • VENATIO • ET • VELA • ERUNT[4]
[Footnote 4: "On the last day of May the gladiators of the Aedile
Aulus Suettius Certus will fight at Pompeii. There will also be a hunt
and the awnings will be used."]
Others promise in addition to the awnings that the dust will be kept
down in the arena by sprinkling. Sometimes when the troop was
particularly good the names of the gladiators were announced in pairs
as they would be matched together, with details as to their equipment,
the school in which each had been trained, the number of his previous
battles, etc. To such a notice on one of the walls in Pompeii some one
added after the show the result of each combat. The following is a
specimen only of this announcement:
MVNUS • N... • IV • III
PRID • IDUS • IDIBUS • MAIS
T M O T
_v._ PUGNAX • NER • III _v._ CYCNVS • IVL • VIII
_p._ MVRRANVS • NER • III _m._ ATTICVS • IVL • XIV[5]
[Footnote 5: "The games of N... from the 12th to the 15th of May. The
Thracian Pugnax, of the gladiatorial school of Nero, who has fought
three times will be matched against the _murmillō_ Murranus, of the
same school and the same number of fights. The _hoplomachus_ Cycnus,
from the school of Julius Caesar, who has fought eight times will be
matched with the Thracian Atticus of the same school and of fourteen
fights."]
The letters in italics before the names of the gladiators were added
after the exhibition by some interested spectator, and stand for
_vīcit_, _periit_, and _missus_ ("beaten, but spared"). Other
announcements added to such particulars as those given above the
statement that other pairs than those mentioned would fight each day,
this being meant to excite the curiosity and interest of the people.
§362. The Fight Itself.--The day before the exhibition a banquet
(_cēna lībera_) was given to the gladiators and they received visits
from their friends and admirers. The games took place in the
afternoon. After the _ēditor mūneris_ had taken his place (§355), the
gladiators marched in procession around the arena, pausing before him
to give the famous greeting: _moritūrī tē salūtant_. All then retired
from the arena to return in pairs according to the published
programme. The show began with a series of sham combats, the
_prōlūsiō_, with blunt weapons. When the people had had enough of this
the trumpets gave the signal for the real exhibition to begin. Those
reluctant to fight were driven into the arena with whips or hot iron
bars. If one of the combatants was clearly overpowered without being
actually killed, he might appeal for mercy by holding up his finger to
the _ēditor_. It was customary to refer the plea to the people, who
waved cloths or napkins to show that they wished it to be granted, or
pointed their thumbs downward as a signal for death. The gladiator who
was refused release (_missiō_) received the death blow from his
opponent without resistance. Combats where all must fight to the death
were said to be _sine missiōne_, but these were forbidden by Augustus.
The body of the dead man was dragged away through the _porta
Libitinēnsis_, sand was sprinkled or raked over the blood, and the
contests were continued until all had fought.
[Illustration: FIGURE 168. TESSERA GLADIATORIA][6]
[Footnote 6: _Lepidus Mummēiānī s(ervus). Spectāvit m(ense) Iuniō, C.
Sentiō Cōnsule._]
D • M • ET • MEMORIAE
AETERNAE • HYLATIS
DYMACHAERO • SIVE
ASSIDARIO • P • VII • RV • I
ERMAIS • CONIVX
CONIVGI • KARISSIMO
P • C • ET • S • AS • D[7]
[Footnote 7: Inscription on tomb of a gladiator. "To the Gods Manes
and the lasting memory of Hylas, a dimachaerus or essedarius of seven
victories and head trainer. His wife Ermais erected this monument to
her beloved husband and dedicated it, reserving the usual rights."]
§363. The Rewards.--Before making his first public appearance the
gladiator was technically called a _tīrō_. After his first victory he
received a token of wood or ivory (Fig. 168), which had upon it his
name and that of his master or trainer, a date, and the letters SP,
SPECT, SPECTAT, or SPECTAVIT, meaning perhaps _populus spectāvit_.
When after many victories he had proved himself to be the best of his
class, or second best, in his _familia_, he received the title of
_prīmus_, or _secundus_, _pālus_. When he had won his freedom he was
given a wooden sword (_rudis_). From this the titles _prīma rudis_ and
_secunda rudis_ seem to have been given to those who were afterwards
employed as training masters (_doctōrēs_, §349) in the schools. The
rewards given to famous gladiators by their masters and backers took
the form of valuable prizes and gifts of money. These may not have
been so generous as those given to the _aurīgae_ (§341), but they were
enough to enable them to live in luxury the rest of their lives. The
class of men, however, who followed this profession probably found
their most acceptable reward in the immediate and lasting notoriety
that their strength and courage brought them. That they did not shrink
from the _īnfamia_ that the profession entailed is shown by the fact
that they did not try to hide their connection with the amphitheater.
On the contrary, their gravestones record their classes and the number
of their victories, and have often cut upon them their likenesses with
the _rudis_ in their hands.
§364. Other Shows in the Amphitheater.--Of other games that were
sometimes given in the amphitheaters something has been said in
connection with the circus (§343). The most important were the
_vēnātiōnēs_, hunts of wild beasts. These were sometimes killed by men
trained to hunt them, sometimes made to kill each other. As the
amphitheater was primarily intended for the butchery of men, the
_vēnātiōnēs_ given in it gradually but surely took the form of
man-hunts. The victims were condemned criminals, some of them guilty
of crimes that deserved death, some of them sentenced on trumped up
charges, some of them (and among these were women and children)
condemned "to the lions" for political or religious convictions.
Sometimes they were supplied with weapons, sometimes they were exposed
unarmed, even fettered or bound to stakes, sometimes the ingenuity of
their executioners found additional torments for them by making them
play the parts of the sufferers in the tragedies of mythology. The
arena was well adapted, too, for the maneuvering of boats, when it had
been flooded with water (§357), and naval battles (_naumachiae_) were
often fought within the coliseum as desperate and as bloody as some of
those that have given a new turn to the history of the world. The
earliest exhibitions of this sort were given in artificial lakes, also
called _naumachiae_. The first of these was dug by Caesar, for a
single exhibition, in 46 B.C. Augustus had a permanent basin
constructed in 2 B.C., measuring 1,800 by 1,200 feet, and four others
at least were built by later emperors.
[Illustration: FIGURE 169. HALL IN THERMAE OF CARACALLA]
§365. The Daily Bath.--To the Roman of early times the bath had stood
for health and decency only. He washed every day his arms and legs,
for the ordinary costume left them exposed (§239), his body once a
week. He bathed at home, using a very primitive sort of wash-room,
situated near the kitchen (§203) in order that the water heated on the
kitchen stove might be carried into it with the least possible
inconvenience. By the last century of the Republic all this had
changed, though the steps in the change can not now be followed. The
bath had become a part of the daily life as momentous as the _cēna_
itself, which it regularly preceded. It was taken, too, by preference
in one of the public bathing establishments which were by this time
operated on a large scale in all parts of Rome and also in the smaller
towns of Italy and even in the provinces. These offered all sorts of
baths, plain, plunge, douche, with massage (Turkish), and besides in
many cases features borrowed from the Greek gymnasia, exercise
grounds, courts for various games, reading and conversation rooms,
libraries, gymnastic apparatus, everything in fact that our athletic
clubs now provide for their members. The accessories had become really
of more importance than the bathing itself and justify the description
of the bath under the head of amusements. In places where there were
no public baths, or where they were at an inconvenient distance, the
wealthy fitted up bathing places in their houses, but no matter how
elaborate they were the private baths were merely a makeshift at best.
[Illustration: FIGURE 170. TEPIDARIUM AT POMPEII]
§366. Essentials for the Bath.--The ruins of the public and private
baths found all over the Roman world, together with a dissertation by
Vitruvius, and countless allusions in literature, make very clear the
general construction and arrangement of the bath, but show that the
widest freedom was allowed in matters of detail. For the luxurious
bath of classical times four things were thought necessary: a warm
ante-room, a hot bath, a cold bath, and the rubbing and anointing with
oil. All these might have been had in a single room, as all but the
last are furnished in every modern bathroom, but as a matter of fact
we find at least three rooms set apart for the bath in very modest
private houses and often five or six, while in the public
establishments this number may be multiplied several times. In the
better equipped houses were provided: (1) A room for undressing and
dressing (_apodytērium_), usually unheated, but furnished with benches
and often with lockers for the clothes; (2) the warm ante-room
(_tepidārium_), in which the bather waited long enough for the
perspiration to start, in order to guard against the danger of passing
too suddenly into the high temperature of the next room; (3) the hot
room (_caldārium_) for the hot bath; (4) the cold room (_frīgidārium_)
for the cold bath; (5) the _ūnctōrium_, the room for the rubbing and
anointing with oil that finished the bath, from which the bather
returned into the _apodytērium_ for his clothes.
[Illustration: FIGURE 171. STRIGILES]
§367. In the more modest houses space was saved by using a room for
several purposes. The separate _apodytērium_ might be dispensed with,
the bather undressing and dressing in either the _frīgidārium_ or
_tepidārium_ according to the weather; or the _ūnctōrium_ might be
saved by using the _tepidārium_ for this purpose as well as for its
own. In this way the suite of five rooms might be reduced to four or
three. On the other hand, private houses had sometimes an additional
hot room without water (_lacōnicum_), used for a sweat bath, and a
public bathhouse would be almost sure to have an exercise ground
(_palaestra_), with a pool at one side (_piscīna_) for a cold plunge
and a room adjacent (_dēstrictārium_) in which the sweat and dirt of
exercise were scraped off with the _strigilis_ (Fig. 171) before and
after the bath. It must not be supposed that all bathers went the
round of all the rooms in the order given above, though that was
common enough. Some would dispense with the hot bath altogether,
taking instead a sweat in the _lacōnicum_, or failing that, in the
_caldārium_, removing the perspiration with the strigil, following
this with a cold bath (perhaps merely a shower or douche) in the
_frīgidārium_ and the rubbing with linen cloths and anointing with
oil. Young men who deserted the campus and the Tiber (§317) for the
_palaestra_ and the bath would content themselves with removing the
effects of their exercise with the scraper, taking a plunge in the
open pool, and then a second scraping and the oil. Much would depend
on the time and the tastes of individuals, and physicians laid down
strict rules for their patients to follow.
[Illustration: FIGURE 172. SUSPENSURA]
§368. Heating the Bath.--The arrangement of the rooms, were they many
or few, depended upon the method of heating. This in early times must
have been by stoves placed in the rooms as needed, but by the end of
the Republic the furnace had come into use, heating the rooms as well
as the water with a single fire. The hot air from the furnace was not
conducted into the rooms directly, as it is with us, but was made to
circulate under the floors and through spaces between the walls, the
temperature of the room depending upon its proximity to the furnace.
The _lacōnicum_, if there was one, was put directly over the furnace,
next to it came the _caldārium_ and then the _tepidārium_, while the
_frīgidārium_ and the _apodytērium_ having no need of heat were at the
greatest distance from the fire and without connection with it. If
there were two sets of baths in the same building, as there sometimes
were for the accommodation of both men and women at the same time, the
two _caldāria_ were put on opposite sides of the furnace (see the plan
in §376) and the other rooms were connected with them in the regular
order, the two entrances being at the greatest distance apart. The
method of conducting the air under the floors is shown in Fig. 172.
There were really two floors, the first being even with the top of the
firepot, the second (_suspēnsūra_) with the top of the furnace.
Between them was a space of about two feet into which the hot air
passed. On the top of the furnace, just above the level, therefore, of
the second floor, were two kettles for heating the water. One was
placed well back, where the fire was not so hot, and contained water
that was kept merely warm; the other was placed directly over the fire
and the water in it, received from the former, was easily kept
intensely hot. Near them was a third kettle containing cold water.
From these three kettles the water was piped as needed to the various
rooms. The arrangement will be easily understood after a study of the
plans in §§376, 378.
[Illustration: FIGURE 173. SECTION OF CALDARIUM]
§369. The Caldarium.--The hot water bath was taken in the _caldārium_
(_cella caldāria_), which served also as a sweat bath when there was
no _lacōnicum_. It was a rectangular room and in the public baths was
longer than wide (Vitruvius says the proportion should be 3:2) with
one end rounded off like an apse or bay window. At the other end stood
the large hot water tank (_alveus_), in which the bath was taken by a
number of persons at a time. The _alveus_ (Fig. 173) was built up two
steps from the floor of the room, its length equal to the width of the
room and its breadth at the top not less than six feet. At the bottom
it was not nearly so wide, the back sloping inward, so that the
bathers could recline against it, and the front having a long broad
step, for convenience of descent into it, upon which, too, the bathers
sat. The water was received hot from the furnace, and was kept hot by
a metal heater (_testūdō_), opening into the _alveus_ and extending
beneath the floor into the hot air chamber. Near the top of the tank
was an overflow pipe, and in the bottom was an escape pipe which
allowed the water to be emptied on the floor of the _caldārium_, to be
used for scrubbing it. In the apse-like end of the room was a tank or
large basin of metal (_lābrum_, _solium_), which seems to have
contained cool water for the douche. In private baths the room was
usually rectangular and then the _lābrum_ was placed in a corner. For
the accommodation of those using the room for the sweat bath only,
there were benches along the wall. The air in the _caldārium_ would,
of course, be very moist, while that of the _lacōnicum_ would be
perfectly dry, so that the effect would not be precisely the same.
§370. The Frigidarium and Unctorium.--The _frīgidārium_ (_cella
frīgidāria_) contained merely the cold plunge bath, unless it was made
to do duty for the _apodytērium_, when there would be lockers on the
wall for the clothes (at least in a public bath) and benches for the
slaves who watched them. Persons who found the bath too cold would
resort instead to the open swimming pool in the _palaestra_, which
would be warmed by the sun. In one of the public baths at Pompeii a
cold bath seems to have been introduced into the _tepidārium_, for the
benefit, probably, of invalids who found even the _palaestra_ too cool
for comfort. The final process, that of scraping, rubbing, and oiling,
was exceedingly important. The bather was often treated twice, before
the warm bath and after the cold bath; the first might be omitted, but
the second never. The special room, _ūnctōrium_, was furnished with
benches and couches. The scrapers and oils were brought by the
bathers, usually carried along with the towels for the bath by a slave
(_capsārius_). The bather might scrape (_dēstringere_) and oil
(_deungere_) himself, or he might receive a regular massage at the
hands of a trained slave. It is probable that in the large baths
expert operators could be hired, but we have no direct testimony on
the subject. When there was no special _ūnctōrium_ the _tepidārium_ or
_apodytērium_ was made to do instead.
[Illustration: FIGURE 174. BATH AT CAERWENT]
§371. A Private Bathhouse.--In Fig. 174 is shown the plan of a private
bath in Caerwent, Monmouthshire, England, the ruins of which were
discovered in the year 1855. It dates from about the time of
Constantine (306-333), and small though it is gives a clear notion of
the arrangement of the rooms. The entrance _A_ leads into the
_frīgidārium B_, 10'6" x 6'6" in size, with a bath _C_, 10'6" x 3'3".
Off this is the _apodytērium D_, 10'6" x 13'3", which has the
apse-like end that the _caldārium_ ought to have. Next is the
_tepidārium E_, 12' x 12', which contrary to all the rules is the
largest instead of the smallest of the four main rooms. Then comes the
_caldārium F_, 12' x 7'6", with its _alveus G_, 6' x 3' x 2', but with
no sign of its _lābrum_ left, perhaps because the basin was too small
to require any special foundation. Finally comes the rare _lacōnicum
H_, 8' x 4', built over one end of the furnace _I_, which was in the
basement room _KK_. The hot air passed as indicated by the arrows,
escaping through openings near the roof in the outside wall of the
_apodytērium_. It should be noticed that there was no direct passage
from the _caldārium_ to the _frīgidārium_, no special entrance to the
_lacōnicum_, and that the _tepidārium_ must have served as the
_ūnctōrium_. The dimensions of the bath as a whole are 31 x 34 feet.
§372. The Public Baths.--To the simpler bathhouse of the earlier times
as well as to the bath itself was given the name _balneum_
(_balineum_), used often in the plural, _balnea_, by the dactylic
poets for metrical convenience. The more complex establishments of
later times were called _balneae_, and to the very largest with
features derived from the Greek gymnasia (§365) the name _thermae_ was
finally given. These words, however, were loosely used and often
interchanged in practice. Public baths are first heard of after the
second Punic war. They increased in number rapidly, 170 at least being
operated in Rome in the year 33 B.C., and later there were more than
800. With equal rapidity they spread through Italy and the provinces,
all the towns and many villages even having at least one. They were
public only in the sense of being open to all citizens who could pay
the modest fee demanded for their use. Free baths there were none,
except when some magistrate or public-spirited citizen or candidate
for office arranged to relieve the people of the fees for a definite
time by meeting the charges himself. So Agrippa in the year 33 B.C.
kept open free of charge 170 establishments at Rome. The rich
sometimes provided free baths for the people in their wills, but
always for a limited time.
§373. Management.--The first public baths were opened by individuals
for speculative purposes. Others were built by wealthy men as gifts to
their native towns, as such men give hospitals and libraries now, the
administration being lodged with the town authorities who kept the
buildings in repair and the baths open with the fees collected. Others
were built by the towns out of public funds, and others still as
monuments by the later emperors. However started, the management was
practically the same for all. They were leased for a definite time and
for a fixed sum to a manager (_conductor_) who paid his expenses and
made his profits out of the fees which he collected. The fee
(_balneāticum_) was hardly more than nominal. The regular price at
Rome for men seems to have been a _quadrāns_, less than a cent, the
bather furnishing his own towels, oil, etc., as we have seen (§370).
Women paid more, perhaps twice as much, while children up to a certain
age, unknown to us, paid nothing. Prices varied, of course, in
different places. It is likely that higher prices were charged in some
baths than in others in the same city, either because they were more
luxuriously equipped or to make them more exclusive and fashionable
than the rest, but we have no positive knowledge that this was done.
§374. Hours Opened.--The bath was regularly taken between the
_merīdiātiō_ and _cēna_, the hour varying, therefore, within narrow
limits in different seasons and for different classes (§310). In
general it may be said to have been taken about the eighth hour, and
at this hour all the _conductōrēs_ were bound by their contracts to
have the baths open and all things in readiness. As a matter of fact
many people preferred to bathe before the _prandium_ (§302), and some
at least of the baths in the larger places must have been open then.
All were regularly kept open until sunset, but in the smaller towns,
where public baths were fewer, it is probable that they were kept open
later; at least the lamps found in large numbers in the Pompeian baths
seem to point at evening hours. It may be taken for granted that the
managers would keep the doors open as long as was profitable for them.
§375. Accommodations for Women.--Women of respectability bathed in the
public baths, as they bathe in public places now, but with women only,
enjoying the opportunity to meet their friends as much as did the men.
In the large cities there were separate baths devoted to their
exclusive use. In the larger towns separate rooms were set apart for
them in the baths intended generally for men. Such a combination is
shown in the next paragraph and the arrangement has been explained in
§368. In the very small places the bath was opened to men and women at
different hours. Late in the Empire we read of men and women bathing
together, but this was true of women only who had no claim to
respectability at all.
[Illustration: FIGURE 175. THERMAE AT POMPEII]
§376. Thermae.--In Fig. 175 is shown a plan of the so-called Stabian
baths at Pompeii, which gives a correct idea of the smaller _thermae_
and serves at the same time to illustrate the combination of baths for
men and women under the same roof. In the plan the unnumbered rooms
opening upon the surrounding streets were used for shops and stores
independent of the baths, those opening within were for the use of the
attendants or for purposes that can not now be determined. The main
entrance (_1_), on the south, opened upon the _palaestra_ (_2_),
surrounded on three sides by colonnades and on the west by a bowling
alley (_3_), where large stone balls were found. Behind the bowling
alley was the _piscīna_ (_6_) open to the sun, with a room on either
side (_5_, _7_) for douche baths and a _dēstrictārium_ (_4_) for the
use of the athletes. There were two side entrances (_8_, _11_) at the
northwest, with the porter's room (_12_) and manager's office (_10_)
within convenient reach. The room (_9_) at the head of the bowling
alley was for the use of the players and may be compared with the
similar room for the use of the gladiators marked _9_ in Fig. 156
(§350). Behind the office was the _latrīna_ (_14_).
§377. On the east are the baths proper, the men's to the south. There
were two _apodytēria_ (_24_, _25_) for the men, each with a separate
waiting-room for the slaves (_26_, _27_) with a door to the street.
Then come in order the _frīgidārium_ (_22_), the _tepidārium_ (_23_),
and the _caldārium_ (_21_). The _tepidārium_, contrary to custom, had
a cold bath as explained in §370. The main entrance to the women's
bath was at the northeast (_17_), but there was also an entrance from
the northwest through the long corridor (_15_), both opening into the
_apodytērium_ (_16_). This contained in one corner a cold bath, there
being no separate _frīgidārium_ in the baths for women. Then come in
the regular position the _tepidārium_ (_18_) and _caldārium_ (_19_).
The furnace (_20_) was between the two _caldāria_, and the position of
the three kettles (§368) which furnished the water is clearly shown.
It should be noticed that there was no _lacōnicum_. It is possible
that one of the waiting-rooms for men (_24_) may have been used as an
_ūnctōrium_. The ruins show that the rooms were most artistically
decorated and there can be no doubt that they were luxuriously
furnished. The colonnades and the large waiting-rooms gave ample space
for the lounge after the bath, which the Roman prized so highly.
[Illustration: FIGURE 176. BATHS OF DIOCLETIAN]
§378. Baths of Diocletian.--The irregularity of plan and the waste of
space in the Pompeian _thermae_ just described are due to the fact
that it was rebuilt at various times with all sorts of alterations and
additions. Nothing can be more symmetrical than the _thermae_ of the
later emperors, as a type of which is shown in Fig. 176 the plan of
the Baths of Diocletian, dedicated in 305 A.D. They lay on the east
side of the city and were the largest and with the exception of those
of Caracalla the most magnificent of the Roman baths. The plan shows
the arrangement of the main rooms, all in the line of the minor axis
of the building; the uncovered _piscīna_ (1), the _apodytērium_ and
_frīgidārium_ (2), combined as in the women's baths at Pompeii, the
_tepidārium_ (3), and the _caldārium_ (4) projecting beyond the other
rooms for the sake of the sunshine. The uses of the surrounding halls
and courts can not now be determined, but it is clear from the plan
that nothing was omitted known to the luxury of the time. An idea of
the magnificence of the central room may be had from Fig. 169 (§365),
showing the corresponding room in the Baths of Caracalla.
CHAPTER X
TRAVEL AND CORRESPONDENCE. BOOKS
REFERENCES: Marquardt, 469-474, 731-738, 799-833; Voigt, 359 f.; Göll,
II, 418-462, III, 1-45; Guhl and Koner, 538-544, 766 f., 783 f.;
Friedländer, II, 36-291; Ramsay, 76-78, 512-516; Pauly-Wissowa,
_carpentum_, _cisium_, _charta_, _Brief_, _Buch_, _Buchhandlung_,
_Bibliotheken_; Smith, Harper, Rich, Lübker, _viae_, _tabulae_,
_liber_, _bibliothēca_, and other Latin words in text; Baumeister,
2079 f., 354, 361-364; Blümner, I, 308-327; Johnston, Latin
Manuscripts, 13-21, 27-34, 36.
§379. For our knowledge of the means of traveling employed by the
Romans we have to rely upon indirect sources (§12), because if any
volumes of travel were ever written they have not come down to us. We
know, however, that while no distance was too great to be traversed,
no hardships too severe to be surmounted, for the sake of fame or
fortune, the Roman cared nothing for traveling in itself, for the mere
pleasure, that is, of sight-seeing. This was partly due to his
blindness to the charms of nature, more perhaps to his feeling that to
be out of Rome was to be forgotten. He made once in his life the grand
tour (§116), he spent a year abroad in the train of some general or
governor (§118), but this done, only the most urgent private affairs
or public duties could draw him from Italy. And Italy was to him only
Rome and his country estates (§145). These he visited when the hot
months had closed the courts and adjourned the senate, roaming
restlessly from one to another, impatient for his real life to begin
again. Even when public or private business called him from Rome, he
kept in touch with affairs by correspondence, expecting his friends to
write him voluminous letters, ready himself to return the favor when
positions should be reversed. So, too, the proconsul kept as near to
Rome as the boundaries of his province would permit; almost all the
uprisings in farther Gaul were due to Caesar's habit of hurrying off
to Italy as soon as winter had put an end to active operations in the
field.
§380. By Water.--The means of travel were the same as our ancestors
used a century ago. By water the Roman used sailing vessels, rarely
canal boats; by land vehicles drawn by horses or mules, for short
distances sedan chairs or litters. There were, however, no
transportation companies, no lines of boats or vehicles, that is,
running between certain places and prepared to carry passengers at a
fixed price on a regular schedule. The traveler by sea whose means did
not permit him to buy or charter a vessel for his exclusive use had
therefore to wait at the port until he found a boat going in the
desired direction and then make such terms as he could for his
passage. And there were other inconveniences. The boats were small,
and this made them uncomfortable in rough weather; the lack of the
compass caused them to follow the coast as much as possible, and this
often increased the distance; in winter navigation was usually
suspended. Traveling by water was, therefore, avoided as much as
possible. Rather than sail to Athens from Ostia or Naples, for
example, the traveler would go by land to Brundisium, by sea across to
Dyrrachium, and continue the journey by land. Between Brundisium and
Dyrrachium boats were constantly passing, and the only delay to be
feared was that caused by bad weather. The short voyage, only 100
miles, was usually made within twenty-four hours.
§381. By Land.--The Roman who traveled by land was distinctly better
off than Americans of the time of the Revolution. His inns were not so
good, it is true, but his vehicles and cattle were fully equal to
theirs, and his roads were the best that have ever been built.
Horseback riding was not a recognized mode of traveling (the Romans
had no saddles), but there were vehicles with two wheels and with
four, for one horse and for two or more, covered and uncovered. These
were kept for hire near the gates of all important towns, but the
price is not known. To save the trouble of loading and unloading the
baggage it is probable that persons going great distances took their
own vehicles and merely hired fresh horses from time to time. There
were, however, no postroutes, and no places where horses were changed
at the end of regular stages for ordinary travelers, though there were
such arrangements for couriers and officers of the government,
especially in the provinces. For short journeys and when haste was not
necessary travelers would naturally use their own horses as well as
their own carriages. Of the pomp that often accompanied such journeys
something has been said in §152.
§382. The Vehicles.--The streets of Rome were so narrow (the widest
not over twenty-five feet, the average about fourteen) that wagons and
carriages were not allowed upon them at hours when they were likely to
be thronged with people. Throughout the Republic and for at least two
centuries afterwards the streets were closed to all vehicles during
the first ten hours of the day, with the exception of four classes
only: market wagons, which brought produce into the city by night and
were allowed to leave empty the next morning, transfer wagons
(_plaustra_) conveying material for public buildings, the carriages
used by the Vestals, _flāminēs_, and _rēx sacrōrum_ in their priestly
functions, and the chariots driven in the _pompa circēnsis_ (§343) and
in the triumphal processions. Similar regulations were in force in
almost all the Italian towns. This made general the use within the
walls of the _lectīca_ and its bearers (§151). Besides the litter in
which the passenger reclined a sedan chair was common in which he sat
erect. Both were covered and curtained. The _lectīca_ was sometimes
used for short journeys, and in place of the six or eight bearers,
mules were sometimes put between the shafts, one before and one
behind, but not until late in the Empire. Such a litter was called a
_basterna_.
[Illustration: FIGURE 177. CARPENTUM]
§383. Carriages.--The monuments show us rude representations of
several kinds of vehicles and the names of at least eight have come
down to us, but we are not able positively to connect the figures and
the names, and have, therefore, very general notions only of the form
and construction of even the most common. Some seem to have been of
ancient design and retained merely for use as state carriages in the
processions that have been mentioned. Such were the _pīlentum_ and the
_carpentum_, the former with four wheels, the latter with two, both
covered, both drawn by two horses, both used by the Vestals and
priests. The _carpentum_ is rarely spoken of as a traveling carriage,
and its use for such a purpose was a mark of luxury. Livy makes the
first Tarquin come from Etruria to Rome in one, and it is generally
supposed that one is shown in an Etruscan painting reproduced here in
Fig. 177. The _petōritum_ was also used in the triumphal processions,
but only for the spoils of war. It was essentially a baggage wagon and
was occupied by the servants in a traveler's train. The _carūca_ was a
luxurious traveling van, of which we hear first in the late Empire. It
was furnished with a bed on which the traveler reclined by day and
slept by night.
[Illustration: FIGURE 178. CISIUM]
§384. The Reda and Cisium.--The usual traveling vehicles, however,
were the _rēda_ and the _cisium_. The former was large and heavy,
covered, had four wheels, and was drawn by two or four horses. It was
regularly used by persons accompanied by their families or having
baggage with them, and was kept for hire for this purpose. For rapid
journeys, when a man had no traveling companions and little baggage,
the two-wheeled and uncovered _cisium_ was the favorite vehicle. It
was drawn by two horses, one between shafts and the other attached by
traces; it is possible that three were sometimes used. The _cisium_
had a single seat, broad enough to accommodate a driver also. It is
very likely that the cart on a monument found near Trieves (Fig. 178)
is a _cisium_, but the identification is not absolutely certain.
Cicero speaks of these carts making fifty-six miles in ten hours,
probably with one or more changes of horses. Other vehicles of the
cart type that came into use during the Empire were the _essedum_ and
the _covīnus_, but we do not know how they differed from the _cisium_.
These carts had no springs, but the traveler took care to have plenty
of cushions. It is worth noticing that none of the vehicles mentioned
has a Latin name, all being Gallic with perhaps one exception
(_pīlentum_). In like manner most of our own carriages have foreign
names.
[Illustration: FIGURE 179. ROAD CUT THROUGH HILL]
[Illustration: FIGURE 180. BRIDGE OVER STREAM]
[Illustration: FIGURE 181. VIADUCT OVER MARSH]
§385. The Roads.--The engineering skill of the Romans and the lavish
outlay of money made their roads the best that the world has ever
known. They were strictly military works, built for strategic
purposes, intended to facilitate the despatching of supplies to the
frontier and the massing of troops in the shortest possible time.
Beginning with the first important acquisition of territory in Italy
(the _via Appia_ was built in 312 B.C.) they kept pace with the
expansion of the Republic and the Empire. In Italy they were built at
the cost of the state, in the provinces the conquered communities bore
the expense of construction and maintenance, but the work was done
under the direction of Roman engineers and often by the legions
between campaigns. They ran in straight lines between the towns they
were to connect, with frequent crossroads and branch roads only less
carefully constructed. No natural obstacles were permitted to change
their course. The grade was always easy, hills being cut through (Fig.
179), gorges and rivers crossed on arches of solid stone (Fig. 180),
and valleys and marshes spanned by viaducts of the same material (Fig.
181).
§386. Their surface was perfectly smooth and carefully rounded off and
there were gutters at the sides to carry off the rain and melted snow.
Regard was had for the comfort of all classes of travelers. Milestones
showed the distance from the starting point of the road and often that
to important places in the opposite direction, as well as the names of
the consuls or emperors under whom the roads were built (Fig. 182).
The roadbed was wide enough to permit the meeting and passing of the
largest wagons without trouble. For the pedestrian there was a
footpath on either side with frequent stepping-stones so he might
cross to the other side above the mud or dust of the wagon way, and
seats for him to rest upon were often built by the milestones. The
horseman found blocks of stone set here and there for his convenience
in mounting and dismounting. Where springs were discovered wayside
fountains for men and watering-troughs for cattle were constructed.
Such roads often went a hundred years without repairs, and some
portions of them have endured the traffic of centuries and are still
in good condition to-day.
[Illustration: FIGURE 182. MILESTONE]
L • CAECILI • Q • F
METEL • COS
CXIX
ROMA[1]
[Footnote 1: Inscription on a milestone of the _via Salaria_. "Erected
by the consul (117 B.C.) Lucius Caecilius Metellus, etc. (§39). One
hundred and nineteen (miles) from Rome."]
[Illustration: FIGURE 183. EMBANKMENT AND CROSS-SECTION]
[Illustration: FIGURE 184. CONSTRUCTION OF ROAD]
§387. Construction.--Our knowledge of the construction of the military
roads is derived from a treatise of Vitruvius on pavements and from
existing remains of the roads themselves. The Latin phrase for
building a road (_mūnīre viam_) epitomizes the process exactly, for
throughout its full length, whether carried above the level of the
surrounding country (Fig. 183) or in a cut below it, the road was a
solid wall averaging fifteen feet in width and perhaps three feet in
height. The method followed will be easily understood from Fig. 184. A
cut (_fossa_) was first made of the width of the intended road and of
a depth sufficient to hold the filling which varied with the nature of
the soil. The earth at the bottom of the cut (E) was leveled and made
solid with heavy rammers (§213). Upon this was spread the _statūmen_
(D), a foundation course of stones not too large to be held in the
hand, the thickness of the layer varying with the porosity of the
soil. Over this came the _rūdus_ (C), a nine-inch layer of coarse
concrete or rubble (§210) made of broken stones and lime. Over this
was laid the _nūcleus_ (B), a six-inch bedding of fine concrete made
of broken potsherds and lime, in which was set the final course (A) of
blocks of lava or of other hard stone furnished by the adjacent
country. This last course (_dorsum_) made the roadway (_agger viae_)
and was laid with the greatest care so as to leave no seams or
fissures to admit water or to jar the wheels of vehicles. In the
diagram the stones are represented with the lower surface flat, but
they were commonly cut to a point or edge, as in Fig. 183, in order to
be held more firmly by the _nūcleus_. The _agger_ was bounded on the
sides by _umbōnēs_ (G,G), curbstones, behind which lay the footpaths
(F,F), _sēmitae_ or _marginēs_. On a subsoil of rocky character the
foundation course or even the first and second courses might be
unnecessary. On the less traveled branch roads the _agger_ seems to
have consisted of a thick course of gravel (_glārea_), well rounded
and compacted, instead of the blocks of stone, and the crossroads may
have been of still cheaper materials.
[Illustration: FIGURE 185. PLAN OF INN]
§388. The Inns.--There were numerous lodging houses and restaurants in
all the cities and towns of Italy, but all of the meanest character.
Respectable travelers avoided them scrupulously, either possessing
stopping places of their own (_dēversōria_) on roads that they used
frequently, or claiming entertainment from friends (§303) and
_hospitēs_ (§184), whom they would be sure to have everywhere. Nothing
but accident, stress of weather, or unusual haste could drive them to
places of public entertainment (_tabernae dēversōriae_, _caupōnae_).
The guests of such places were, therefore, of the lowest class, and
innkeepers (_caupōnēs_) and inns bore the most unsavory reputations.
Food and beds were furnished the travelers, and their cattle were
accommodated under the same roof and in unpleasant proximity. The plan
of an inn at Pompeii (Fig. 185) may be taken as a fair sample of all
such houses. The entrance (_a_) is broad enough to admit wagons into
the wagon-room (_f_), behind which is the stable (_k_). In one corner
is a watering-trough (_l_), in another a _latrīna_ (_i_). On either
side of the entrance is a wineroom (_b_, _d_), with the room of the
proprietor (_c_) opening off one of them. The small rooms (_e_, _g_,
_h_) are bedrooms, and others in the second story over the wagon-room
were reached by the back stairway. The front stairway has an entrance
of its own from the street and the rooms reached by it had probably no
connection with the inn. Behind this stairway on the lower floor was a
fireplace (_m_) with a water heater. An idea of the moderate prices
charged in such places may be had from a bill which has come down to
us in an inscription preserved in the museum at Naples: a pint of wine
with bread, one cent; other food, two cents; hay for a mule, two
cents. The corners of streets were the favorite sites for inns, and
they had signs (the elephant, the eagle, etc.) like those of much
later times.
§389. Speed.--The lack of public conveyances running on regular
schedules (§380) makes it impossible to tell the speed ordinarily made
by travelers. It depended upon the total distance to be covered, the
degree of comfort demanded by the traveler, the urgency of his
business, and the facilities at his command. Cicero speaks of
fifty-six miles in ten hours by cart (§384) as something unusual, but
on such roads it ought to have been possible to go much faster, if
fresh horses were provided at the proper distances, and if the
traveler could stand the fatigue. The sending of letters gives the
best standard of comparison. There was no public postal service, but
every Roman of position had among his slaves special messengers
(_tabellāriī_), whose business it was to deliver important letters for
him. They covered from twenty-six to twenty-seven miles on foot in a
day, and from forty to fifty in carts. We know that letters were sent
from Rome to Brundisium, 370 Roman miles, in six days, and on to
Athens in fifteen more. A letter from Sicily would reach Rome on the
seventh day, from Africa on the twenty-first day, from Britain on the
thirty-third day, and from Syria on the fiftieth day. In the time of
Washington it was no unusual thing for a letter to take a month to go
from the eastern to the southern states in winter.
§390. Sending Letters.--For long distances, especially over seas,
sending letters by special messengers was very expensive, and, except
for the most urgent matters, recourse was had to traders and travelers
going in the desired direction. Persons sending messengers or
intending to travel themselves made it a point of honor to notify
their friends in time for letters to be prepared and also carried
letters for entire strangers, if requested to do so. There was great
danger, of course, that letters sent in this way might fall into the
wrong hands or be lost. It was customary, therefore, to send a copy of
an important letter (_litterae eōdem exemplō_, _ūnō exemplō_), or at
least an abstract of its contents, by another person and if possible
by a different route. It was also customary to disguise the meaning by
the use of fictitious names known to the correspondents only or by the
employment of regular cypher codes. Suetonius tells us that Caesar
simply substituted for each letter the one that stood three places
lower in the alphabet: D for A, E for B, etc., but really elaborate
and intricate systems were in common use.
[Illustration: FIGURE 186. CODICILLI]
[Illustration: FIGURE 187. BRONZE STILUS]
§391. Writing the Letters.--The extensive correspondence carried on by
every Roman of position (§379) made it impossible for him to write any
but the most important of his letters or those to his dearest friends
with his own hand. The place of the stenographer and writing machine
of to-day was taken by slaves or freedmen, often highly educated
(§154), who wrote at his dictation. Such slaves were called in general
terms _librāriī_, more accurately _servī ab epistolīs_, _servī ā
manū_, or _āmanuēnsēs_. Notes and short letters were written on
tablets (_tabellae_, Fig. 24, §110) of firwood or ivory of various
sizes, often fastened together in sets of two or more by wire hinges
(_codicillī_, _pugillārēs_, Fig. 186). The inner faces were slightly
hollowed out and the depression was nearly filled with wax, so as to
leave merely a raised rim about the edges, much like the frame of an
old-fashioned slate. Upon the wax the letters were traced with an
ivory or metal tool (_stilus_, _graphium_) with one end pointed, like
a pencil, for writing, and the other made broad and flat, like a paper
cutter, for smoothing the wax (Fig. 187). With the flat end mistakes
could be corrected or the whole letter erased and the tablets used
again, often for the reply to the letter itself. For longer
communications the Romans used a coarse paper (_papyrus_), the making
of which will be described below. Upon it they wrote with pens made of
split reeds and with a thick ink made of soot (lampblack) mixed with
resinous gums. Paper, pens, and ink were so poor that the bulky and
awkward tablets were used by preference for all but the longest
letters. Parchment did not come into general use until the fourth or
fifth century of our era.
§392. Sealing and Opening the Letters.--For sealing the letter thread
(_līnum_), wax (_cēra_), and a seal (_sīgnum_) were necessary. The
seal (§255) not only secured the letter against improper inspection,
but also attested the genuineness of those written by the _librariī_,
as autograph signatures seem not to have been thought of. The tablets
having been put together face to face with the writing on the inside,
the thread was passed around them and through small holes bored
through them, and was then securely tied. Upon the knot softened wax
was dropped and to this the seal was applied. Letters written on
sheets of paper (_schedae_) were rolled longitudinally and then
secured in the same way. On the outside was written the name of the
person addressed with perhaps the place where he was to be found if
the letter was not sent by a special messenger. When the letter was
opened care was taken not to break the seal, the cutting of the thread
giving access to the contents. If the letter was preserved the seal
was kept attached to it in order to attest its authenticity. Cicero
describes the opening of a letter in the tenth paragraph of the Third
Oration against Catiline.
[Illustration: FIGURE 188. FRAGMENT OF PAPYRUS ROLL FROM HERCULANEUM]
§393. Books.--Almost all the materials used by the ancients to receive
writing were known to the Romans and used by them for one purpose or
another, at one time or another. For the publication of works of
literature, however, during the period when the great classics were
produced, the only material was paper (_papyrus_), the only form the
roll (_volūmen_). The book of modern form (_cōdex_), written on
parchment (_membrānum_), played an important part in the preservation
of the literature of Rome, but did not come into use for the purpose
of publication until long after the canon of the classics had been
completed and the great masters had passed away. The Romans adopted
the papyrus roll from the Greeks; the Greeks had received it from the
Egyptians. When the Egyptians first made use of it we do not know, but
we have preserved to us Egyptian rolls that were written at least
twenty-five hundred years before the Christian era. The oldest Roman
books of this sort that have been preserved were found in Herculaneum,
badly charred and broken. Those that have been deciphered contain no
Latin author of any value. A specimen of the writing on one of these,
a mere fragment by an unknown author, is shown in Fig. 188. At the
time it was buried there were still to be seen rolls in the
handwriting of the Gracchi, and autographs of Cicero, Vergil, and
Horace must have been common enough. All these have since perished so
far as we know.
§394. Manufacture of Paper.--The papyrus reed had a jointed stem,
triangular in shape, and reached a maximum height of perhaps fourteen
feet with a thickness of four or five inches. The stem contained a
pith of which the paper was made by a process substantially as
follows: The stem was cut through at the joints, the hard rind
removed, and the pith cut into thin sections or strips as evenly as
possible. The first cut seems to have been made from one of the angles
to the middle of the opposite side, and the others parallel with it to
the right and left. The strips were then assorted according to width,
and enough of them were arranged side by side as closely as possible
upon a board to make their combined width almost equal to the length
of the single strip. Across these was laid another layer at right
angles, with perhaps a coating of glue or paste between them. The
mat-like sheet that resulted was then soaked in water and pressed or
hammered into a substance not unlike our paper, called by the Romans
_charta_. After the sheets (_schēdae_) had been dried and bleached in
the sun, they were rid by scraping of rough places and trimmed into
uniform sizes, depending upon the length of the strips of pith. The
fewer the strips that composed each sheet, or in other words the
greater the width of each strip, the closer the texture of the
_charta_ and the better its quality. It was possible, therefore, to
grade the paper by its size, and the width of the sheet rather than
its height was taken as the standard. The best quality seems to have
been sold in sheets about ten inches wide, the poorest that could be
used to write upon, about six. The height in each case was perhaps one
inch to two inches greater. It has been calculated that a single
papyrus plant would make about twenty sheets of the size proportioned
to its height, and this number seems to have been made the commercial
unit of measure (_scāpus_), by which the paper was sold in the market,
a unit corresponding roughly to our quire.
[Illustration: FIGURE 189. INSTRUMENTS USED IN WRITING]
§395. Pens and Ink.--Only the upper surface of the sheet was commonly
written upon, the one formed by the horizontal layer of strips, and
these showing even after the process of manufacture served to guide
the pen of the writer. In the case of books where it was important to
keep the number of lines constant to the page, they were ruled with a
circular piece of lead. The pen (_calamus_) was made of a reed brought
to a point and cleft much as our quill pens are. For the black ink
(_ātrāmentum_, §391) was occasionally substituted the liquid of the
cuttlefish. Red ink was much used for headings, ornaments, and the
like, and in pictures the inkstand is generally represented with two
compartments (Fig. 189). The ink was more like paint than modern ink,
and could be wiped off when fresh with a damp sponge and washed off
even when it had become dry and hard. To wash sheets in order to use
them a second time was a mark of poverty or niggardliness, but the
reverse side of _schēdae_ that had served their purpose was often used
for scratch paper, especially in the schools (§110).
§396. Making the Roll.--A single sheet might serve for a letter or
other brief document, but for literary purposes many sheets would be
required. These were not fastened side by side in a back, as are the
separate sheets in our books, or numbered and laid loosely together,
as we arrange them in our letters and manuscripts, but after the
writing was done they were glued together at the sides (not at the
tops) into a long unwieldy strip, with the lines on each sheet running
parallel with the length of the strip, and with the writing on each
sheet forming a column perpendicular to the length of the strip. On
each side of the sheet, therefore, a margin was left as the writing
was done, and these margins overlapping and glued together made a
thick blank space, a double thickness of paper, between every two
sheets in the strip. Very broad margins, too, were left at the top and
bottom, where the paper would suffer from use a great deal more than
in our books. When the sheets had been securely fastened together in
the proper order a thin slip of wood was glued to the left (outer)
margin of the first sheet, and a second slip (_umbilīcus_) to the
right (also outer) margin of the last sheet, much as a wall map is
mounted to-day. When not in use the volume was kept tightly rolled
about the _umbilīcus_, and hence received its name (_volūmen_).
[Illustration: FIGURE 190. CAPSA]
§397. A roll intended for permanent preservation was finished with the
greatest care. The top and bottom (_frontēs_) were trimmed perfectly
smooth, polished with pumice-stone, and often painted black. The back
of the roll was rubbed with cedar oil to defend it from moths and
mice. To the ends of the _umbilīcus_ were added knobs (_cornua_),
sometimes gilded or painted a bright color. The first sheet would be
used for the dedication, if there was one, and on the back of it a few
words were frequently written giving a clue to the contents of the
roll; sometimes a portrait of the author graced this page. In many
books the full title and the name of the author were written only at
the end of the roll on the last sheet, but in any case to the top of
this sheet was glued a strip of parchment (_titulus_) with the title
and author's name upon it, which projected above the edge of the roll.
For every roll a parchment cover was made, cylindrical in form, into
which it was slipped from the top, the _titulus_ alone being visible.
If a work was divided into several volumes (see below), the rolls were
put together in a bundle (_fascis_) and kept in a wooden box (_capsa_,
_scrīnium_) like a modern hat box. When the cover was removed the
_titulī_ were visible and the roll desired could be taken without
disturbing the others (Fig. 190). The rolls were kept sometimes in
cupboards (_armāria_, §231), laid lengthwise on the shelves with the
_titulī_ to the front, as shown in the figure in the next paragraph.
[Illustration: FIGURE 191. READING A ROLL]
§398. Size of the Rolls.--When a volume was consulted the roll was
held in both hands and unrolled column by column with the right hand,
while with the left the reader rolled up the part he was done with on
the slip of wood fastened to the margin of the first sheet (Fig. 191).
When he had finished reading he rolled it back upon the _umbilīcus_,
usually holding it under the chin and turning the _cornua_ with both
hands. In the case of a long roll this turning backward and forward
took much time and patience and must have sadly soiled and damaged the
roll itself. The early rolls were always long and heavy. There was
theoretically no limit to the number of sheets that might be glued
together, and consequently none to the size or length of the roll. It
was made as long as was necessary to contain the given work. In
ancient Egypt rolls were put together of more than fifty yards in
length, and in early times rolls of approximate length were used in
Greece and Rome. From the third century B.C., however, it had become
customary to divide works of great length into two or more volumes,
the division at first being purely arbitrary and made wherever it was
convenient to end the roll, no matter how much the unity of thought
was interrupted. A century later authors had begun to divide their
works into convenient parts, each part having a unity of its own, such
as the five "books" of Cicero's _Dē Fīnibus_, and to each of these
parts or "books" was given a separate roll. An innovation so
convenient and sensible quickly became the universal rule. It even
worked backward, some ancient works being divided into books, which
had not been so divided by their authors, e.g., Herodotus, Thucydides,
and Naevius. About the same time, too, it became the custom to put the
sheets upon the market already glued together, to the amount at least
of the _scāpus_ (§394). It was, of course, much easier to glue two or
three of these together, or to cut off the unused part of one, than to
work with the separate sheets. The ready-made rolls, moreover, were
put together in a most workmanlike manner. Even sheets of the same
quality (§394) would vary slightly in toughness or finish, and the
manufacturers of the roll were careful to put the very best sheets at
the beginning, where the wear was the most severe, and to keep for the
end the less perfect sheets, which might sometimes be cut off
altogether.
§399. Multiplication of Books.--The process of publishing the largest
book at Rome differed in no important respect from that of writing the
shortest letter. Every copy was made by itself, the hundredth or the
thousandth taking just as much time and labor as the first had done.
The author's copy would be distributed among a number of _librāriī_,
his own, if he were a man of wealth, a Caesar or a Sallust, his
patron's, if he were a poor man, a Terence or a Vergil. Each of the
_librāriī_ would write and rewrite the portions assigned to him, until
the required number of copies had been made. The sheets would then be
arranged in the proper order and the rolls mounted as has been
described. Finally the books had to be looked through to correct the
errors that were sure to be made, a process much more tedious than the
modern proofreading, because every copy had to be corrected
separately, as no two copies would show precisely the same errors.
Books made in this way were almost exclusively for gifts, though
friends would exchange books with friends and a few might find their
way into the market. Up to the last century of the Republic, however,
there was no organized book trade, and no such thing as commercial
publication. When a man wanted a book, instead of buying it at a
bookstore he borrowed a copy from a friend and had his _librāriī_ make
him as many more as he desired. In this way Atticus made for himself
and Cicero copies of all the Greek and Latin books on which he could
lay his hands, and distributed Cicero's own writings everywhere.
§400. Commercial Publication.--The publication of books at Rome as a
business began in the time of Cicero. There was no copyright law and
no protection therefore for author or publisher. The author's
pecuniary returns came in the form of gifts or grants from those whose
favor he had won by his genius; the publisher depended, in the case of
new books, upon meeting the demand before his rivals could market
their editions, and, in the case of standard books, upon the accuracy,
elegance, and cheapness of his copies. The process of commercial
publication was essentially the same as that already described, except
that larger numbers of _librāriī_ would be employed and the copy would
be read to all at once to save them the trouble of handling the
awkward roll and keeping the place as they wrote. The publisher would
estimate as closely as possible the demand for any new work that he
had secured, would put as large a number of scribes upon it as
possible, and would take care that no copies should leave his
establishment until his whole edition was ready. After the copies were
once on sale they could be reproduced by anyone. The best houses took
all possible pains to have their books free from errors, having
competent correctors to read them copy by copy, but in spite of their
efforts blunders were legion. Authors sometimes corrected with their
own hands the copies intended for their friends. In the case of
standard works purchasers often hired scholars of reputation to revise
their copies for them, and copies of known excellence were borrowed or
hired at high prices for the purpose of comparison.
§401. Rapidity and Cost of Publication.--Cicero tells us of Roman
senators who wrote fast enough to take evidence _verbātim_, and the
trained scribes must have far surpassed them in speed. Martial tells
us that his second book could be copied in an hour. It contains five
hundred and forty verses, which would make the scribe equal to nine
verses to the minute. It is evident that a small edition, no larger,
for example, than twice or three times the number of the scribes,
could be put upon the market more quickly than it could be furnished
now. The cost of the books varied, of course, with their size and the
style of their mounting. Martial's first book, containing eight
hundred and twenty lines and covering twenty-nine pages in Teubner's
text, sold at thirty cents, fifty cents, and one dollar; his _Xenia_,
containing two hundred and seventy-four verses and covering fourteen
pages in Teubner's text, sold at twenty cents, but cost the publisher
less than ten. Such prices would hardly be considered excessive now.
Much would depend upon the reputation of the author and the consequent
demand, and high prices were put on certain books. Autograph
copies--Gellius († about 180 A.D.) says that one by Vergil cost the
owner $100--and copies whose correctness was vouched for by some
recognized authority commanded extraordinary prices.
§402. Libraries.--The gathering of books in large private collections
began to be general only toward the end of the Republic. Cicero had
considerable libraries not only in his house at Rome, but also at
every one of his half-dozen country seats. Probably the bringing to
Rome of whole libraries from the East and Greece by Lucullus and Sulla
started the fashion of collecting books; at any rate collections were
made by many persons who knew and cared nothing about the contents of
the rolls, and every town house had its library (§206) lined with
volumes. In these libraries were often displayed busts of great
writers and statues of the Muses. Public libraries date from the time
of Augustus. The first to be opened in Rome was founded by Asinius
Pollio (†4 A.D.), and was housed in the _Ātrium Lībertātis_. Augustus
himself founded two others, and the number was brought up to
twenty-eight by his successors. The most magnificent of these was the
_Bibliothēca Ulpia_, founded by Trajan. Smaller cities had their
libraries, too, and even the little town of Comum boasted one founded
by the younger Pliny and supported by an endowment that produced
thirty thousand sesterces annually. The public baths often had
libraries and reading-rooms attached (§365).
CHAPTER XI
SOURCES OF INCOME AND MEANS OF LIVING. THE ROMAN'S DAY
§403. It is evident from what has been said that abundant means were
necessary to support the state in which every Roman of position lived.
It will be of interest to see how the great mass of the people also
earned the scantier living with which they were forced to be content.
For the sake of this inquiry it will be convenient, if not very
accurate, to divide the people of Rome into the three great classes of
nobles, knights, and commons, into which political history has
distributed them. At the same time it must be remembered that there
was no hard and fixed line drawn between any two of these classes; a
noble might if he pleased associate himself with the knights, provided
only that he possessed the required sum of $20,000, and any freeborn
citizen might aspire to the highest offices of the state, however mean
the circumstances of his birth, however poor in pocket or in talent he
might be.
§404. Careers of the Nobles.--The nobles inherited certain of the
aristocratic notions of the old patriciate, which limited their
business activities and had much to do with the corruption of public
life in the last century of the Republic. Men in their position were
held to be above all manner of work, with the hands or with the head,
for the sake of sordid gain. Agriculture alone was free from debasing
associations, as it has been in England within our own time, and
statecraft and war were the only careers fit to engage their energies.
Even as statesmen and generals, too, they served their fellow citizens
without material reward, for no salaries were drawn by the senators,
none were attached to the magistracies or to positions of military
command. This theory had worked well enough in the time before the
Punic wars, when every Roman was a farmer, when the farm produced all
that he needed for his simple wants, when he left it only to serve as
a soldier in his young manhood or as a senator in his old age, and
returned to his fields, like Cincinnatus, when his services were no
longer required by his country. Under the aristocracy that supplanted
the pure democracy of the earlier time, it subverted every aim that it
was intended to secure.
§405. Agriculture.--The farm life that Cicero has described so
eloquently and praised so enthusiastically in his _Catō Māior_ would
have scarcely been recognized by Cato himself and had become a memory
or a dream long before Cicero wrote. The farmer no longer tilled his
fields, even with the help of his slaves. The yeoman class had
practically disappeared from Italy. The small holdings had been
absorbed in the vast estates of the wealthy landowners, and the aims
and methods of farming had wholly changed. Something has been said of
this already (§146 f.), and it will be sufficient here to recall the
fact that grain was no longer raised for the market in Italy, simply
because the market could be supplied more cheaply from over seas. The
grape and the olive had become the chief sources of wealth, and for
them Sallust and Horace complain that less and less space was being
left by the parks and pleasure grounds (§145). Still, the making of
wine and oil under the direction of a careful steward (§148) must have
been very profitable in Italy and many of the nobles had plantations
in the provinces as well, the revenues of which helped to maintain
their state at Rome.
§406. Political Office.--Politics must have been profitable for those
only who played the game to the end. No salaries were attached to the
offices, and the indirect gains from one of the lower would hardly pay
the expenses necessary to secure the next in order. The gain came
always through positions in the provinces. The quaestorship might be
spent in one, the praetorship and the consulship were sure to be
followed by a year abroad. To honest men the places gave the
opportunity to learn of profitable investments, and a good governor
was often selected by a community to look after its interests in the
capital, and this meant an honorarium in the form of valuable presents
from time to time. Cicero's justice and moderation as quaestor in
Sicily earned him a rich reward when he came to prosecute Verres for
plundering that same province, and when he was in charge of the grain
supply during his aedileship. To corrupt officials the provinces were
gold mines. Every sort of robbery and extortion was practiced, and the
governor was expected to enrich not merely himself but also the
_cohors_ (§118) that had accompanied him. Catullus bitterly complains
of the selfishness of Memmius, who had kept for himself all the
plunder of Bithynia. The story of Verres may be read in any history of
Rome; it differs from that of the average governor only in the fate
that overtook the offender.
§407. The Law.--Closely connected with the political career then as
now was that of the law, but Rome knew of no class of professional
advocates practicing for fees and living upon their practice. And
there were no conditions imposed for practicing in the courts, not
even the good moral character which is insisted upon in Indiana.
Anyone could bring suit against anyone else on any charge that he
pleased, and it was no uncommon thing for a young politician to use
this license for the purpose of gaining notoriety, even when he knew
there were no grounds for the charges he brought. On the other hand
the lawyer was forbidden to accept pay for his services. In olden
times the client had of his right gone to his patron for legal advice
(§179), and the lawyer of later times was theoretically at least at
the service of all who applied to him. Men of the highest character
made it a point of honor to put their technical knowledge freely at
the disposal of their fellow citizens. At the same time the statutes
against fees were easily evaded. Grateful clients could not be
prevented from making valuable presents, and it was a very common
thing for generous legacies to be left to successful advocates. Cicero
had no other source of income, so far as we know, but while he was
never a rich man, he owned a house on the Palatine (§221, note) and
half a dozen country seats, lived well, and spent money lavishly on
works of art (§227) that appealed to his tastes, and on books (§402).
Corrupt judges (_praetōrēs_) could find other sources of income then
as now, of course, but we hear more of this in relation to the jurors
(_iudicēs_) than the judges, probably because with a province before
him the _praetor_ did not think it fitting to stoop to petty
bribetaking.
§408. The Army.--The spoils of war went nominally into the treasury of
the state. Practically they passed first through the hands of the
commanding general, who kept what he pleased for himself, his staff
(§118), and his soldiers and sent the rest to Rome. The opportunities
were magnificent, and the Roman general understood how to use them
all. Some of them were legitimate enough according to the usages of
the time, the plunder of the towns and cities that were taken, the
ransom exacted from those that were spared, the sale of captives as
slaves (§134). Entirely illegitimate, of course, were the fortunes
made by furnishing supplies to the army at extravagant prices or
diverting these supplies to private uses. The reconstruction of the
conquered territory brought in returns equally rich; it is safe to say
that the Aedui paid Caesar well for the supremacy in central Gaul that
he assured them after his defeat of the Helvetii. The civil wars that
cost the best blood of Italy made the victors immensely rich. Besides
the looting of the public treasury, the estates of men in the opposing
party were confiscated and sold to the highest bidder. The proceeds
went nominally to the treasury of the new government, but the proceeds
were infinitesimal in comparison with the profits. After Sulla had
established himself in Rome the names of friends and foes alike were
put on the proscription lists, and if powerful influence was not
exerted in their behalf they lost lives and fortunes. For the
influence they had to pay dearly. One example may be cited. The estate
of one Roscius of Ameria, valued at $300,000, was bid in for $100 by
Lucius Chrysogonus, a freedman of Sulla, because no one dared bid
against the creature of the dictator. The settling of the soldiers on
grants of land made good business for the three commissioners who
superintended the distribution of the land. The grants were always of
farms owned and occupied by adherents of the beaten party, and the
bribes came from both sides.
§409. Careers of the Equites.--The name of knight had lost its
original significance long before the time of Cicero. The equites had
become the class of capitalists who found in financial transactions
the excitement and the profit that the nobles found in politics and
war. It was the immense scale of their operations that relieved them
from the stigma that attached to working for gain, just as in modern
times the wholesale dealer may have a social position entirely beyond
the hopes of the small retailer. As a body the equites exerted
considerable political influence, holding in fact the balance of power
between the senatorial and the democratic parties. As a rule they
exerted this influence only so far as was necessary to secure
legislation favorable to them as a class, and to insure as governors
for the provinces men that would not look too closely into their
transactions there. For it was in the provinces that the knights as
well as the nobles found their best opportunities. Their chief
business was the farming of the revenues. For this purpose syndicates
were formed, which paid into the public treasury a lump sum, fixed by
the senate, and reimbursed themselves by collecting what they could
from the province. The profits were beyond all reason, and the word
publican became a synonym for sinner. Besides farming the revenues
they "financed" the provinces and allied states, advancing money to
meet the ordinary or extraordinary expenses. Sulla levied a
contribution of 20,000 talents (about $20,000,000) on Asia. The money
was advanced by a syndicate of Roman capitalists, and they had
collected the amount six times over when Sulla interfered, for fear
that there would be nothing left for him in case of further needs.
More than one pretender was set upon a puppet throne in the East in
order to secure the payment of sums previously loaned him by the
capitalists. Their operations as individuals were only less extensive
and profitable. The grain in the provinces, the wool, the products of
mines and factories could be moved only with the money advanced by
them. They ventured, too, to engage in commercial enterprises abroad
that were barred against them at home, doing the buying and selling
themselves, not merely supplying the means to others. They loaned
money to individuals, too, though at Rome money lending was
discreditable. The usual rate was twelve per cent, but Marcus Brutus
was loaning money at forty-eight per cent in Cilicia, when Cicero went
there as governor in 51 B.C., and expected Cicero to enforce his
contracts for him.
§410. The Soldiers.--The freeborn citizens of Rome below the nobles
and the knights may be roughly divided into two classes, the soldiers
and the proletariate. The civil wars had driven them from their farms
or had unfitted them for the work of farming, and the pride of race or
the competition of slave labor had closed against them the other
avenues of industry, numerous as these must have been in the world's
capital. The best of this class turned to the army. This had long
since ceased to be composed of citizen-soldiers, called out to meet a
special emergency for a single campaign, and disbanded at its close.
It was what we should call a regular army, the soldiers enlisting for
a term of twenty years, receiving stated pay and certain privileges
after an honorable discharge. In time of peace, when there was peace,
they were employed on public works (§385). The pay was small, perhaps
forty or fifty dollars a year with rations in Caesar's time, but this
was as much as a laborer could earn by the hardest kind of toil, and
the soldier had the glory of war to set over against the stigma of
work, and hopes of presents from his commander and the privilege of
occasional pillage and plunder. After he had completed his time he
might if he chose return to Rome, but many had formed connections in
the communities where their posts were fixed and preferred to make
their homes there on free grants of land, an important instrument in
spreading Roman civilization.
§411. The Proletariate.--In addition to the idle and the profligate
attracted to Rome by the free corn and by the other allurements that
bring a like element into our cities now, large numbers of the
industrious and the frugal had been forced into the city by the loss
of their property during the civil wars and the failure to find
employment elsewhere. No exact estimate of the number of these
unemployed people can be given, but it is known that before Caesar's
time it had passed the mark of 300,000. Relief was occasionally given
by the establishing of colonies on the frontiers--in this way Caesar
put as many as 80,000 in the way of earning their living again, short
as was his administration of affairs at Rome--but it was the least
harmful element that was willing to emigrate and the dregs were left
behind. Aside from beggary and petty crimes their only source of
income was the sale of their votes, and this made them a real menace
to the Republic. Under the Empire their political influence was lost
and the state found it necessary to make distributions of money
occasionally to relieve their want. Some of them played client to the
upstart rich (§181), but the most were content to be fed by the state
and amused by the constantly increasing shows and games (§322).
§412. Professions and Trades.--The professions and trades, between
which the Romains made no distinction, in the last years of the
Republic were practically given over to the _lībertīnī_ (§175) and to
foreigners. Of some of these something has been said already. Teachers
were poorly paid (§121), and usually looked upon with contempt.
Physicians were held in no higher esteem, but seem to have been well
paid, if we may judge from those that were attached to the court. Two
of these left a joint estate of $1,000,000, and another received from
the Emperor Claudius a yearly stipend of $25,000. In knowledge and
skill in both surgery and medicine they do not seem to have been much
behind the practitioners of two centuries ago. Bankers united money
changing with money loaning. The former was very necessary in a city
into which came all the coins of the known world; the latter was never
looked upon as entirely respectable for a Roman, but there can be no
doubt that many a Roman of the highest respectability drew large
profits from this business, carried on discreetly in the name of a
freedman. The trades were early organized at Rome in guilds, but their
only purpose seems to have been to hand down and perfect the technique
of the crafts; at least there was no obstacle in the way of workmen
not belonging to the guilds, and there were no such things known as
patents or special privileges in the way of work. Eight of these
guilds are older than history, those of the fullers, cobblers,
carpenters, goldsmiths, coppersmiths, potters, dyers, and (oddly
enough) the fluteblowers. Numerous others were formed as knowledge of
the arts advanced or the division of labor proceeded. Special parts of
the city seem to have been appropriated by special classes of workmen,
as like businesses are apt to be carried on in the same neighborhood
in our cities: Cicero speaks of a street of the Scythemakers.
§413. Business and Commerce.--The commerce of Rome covered all lands
and seas. Pliny tells us that the trade with India and China took from
Rome $5,000,000 yearly. The wholesale trade was to a large extent in
the hands of the capitalist class, the retail business was conducted
by freedmen and foreigners. How large these businesses were we have no
means of telling. The supplying of the food to the city must have
given employment to thousands; the clothing trade has been mentioned
already (§271). Building operations were carried on at an immense cost
and on the largest scale. All the public buildings and many of the
important private buildings were built by contract. There can be
little doubt that the letting of the contracts for the public
buildings was made very profitable for the officers who had it to do,
but it must be admitted on the other hand that the work was well done.
Crassus seems to have done a sort of salvage business. When buildings
seemed certain to be destroyed by fire he would buy them with their
contents at a nominal sum, and then fight the flames with gangs of
slaves that he had trained for the purpose. The slave trade itself was
very considerable and large fortunes were amassed in it (§139). The
heavy work of ordinary laborers was performed almost entirely by
slaves (§148), and it must be remembered that much work was then done
by hand that is now done by machinery. The book business has been
mentioned (§400). Even the place of the modern newspaper was taken by
letters written as a business by persons who collected all the news,
gossip, and scandal of the city, had it copied by slaves, and sent it
to persons away from the city who did not like to trouble their
friends (§379) and were willing to pay for intelligence.
§414. The Civil Service.--The free persons employed in the offices of
the various magistrates were of the lowest class, mostly _lībertīnī_.
They were paid by the state, and while appointed nominally for a year
only, they seem to have practically held their places during good
behavior. This was largely due to the shortness of the term of the
regular magistrates and the rarity of reëlection. Having no experience
themselves in conducting their offices the magistrates would have all
the greater need of thoroughly trained and experienced assistants. The
highest class of these officials formed an _ōrdō_, the _scrībae_,
whose name gives no adequate notion of the extent and importance of
their duties. All that is now done by cabinet officers, secretaries,
department heads, bureau chiefs, auditors, comptrollers, recorders,
and accountants, down to the work of the ordinary clerks and copyists,
was done by these "scribes." Below them came others almost equally
necessary but not equally respected, the lictors, messengers, etc.
These civil servants had special places at the theater and the circus.
The positions seem to have been in great demand, as such places are
now in France, for example. Horace is said to have been a department
clerk.
§415. The Roman's Day.--The way in which a Roman spent his day
depended, of course, upon his position and business, and varied
greatly with individuals and with the particular day. The ordinary
routine of a man of the higher class, the man of whom we read most
frequently in Roman literature, was something like this: The Roman
rose at a very early hour, his day beginning before sunrise, because
it ended so early. After a hurried breakfast (§302) he devoted such
time as was necessary to his private business, looking over accounts,
consulting with his managers, giving directions, etc. Cicero and Pliny
found these early hours the best for their literary work. Horace tells
of lawyers giving free advice at three in the morning. After his
private business was despatched the Roman took his place in the
_ātrium_ (§198) for the _salūtātiō_ (§182), when his clients came to
pay their respects, perhaps to ask for the help or advice that he was
bound to furnish them (§179). All this business of the early morning
might have to be dispensed with, however, if the Roman was asked to a
wedding (§79), or to be present at the naming of a child (§97), or to
witness the coming of age (§128) of the son of a friend, for all these
semi-public functions took place in the early morning. But after them
or after the levee the Roman went to the forum attended by his clients
and carried in his litter (§151) with his _nōmenclātor_ at his elbow.
The business of the courts and of the senate began about the third
hour, and might continue until the ninth or tenth, that of the senate
was bound to stop at sunset. Except on extraordinary occasions all
business was pretty sure to be over before eleven o'clock, and at this
time the lunch was taken (§302).
§416. Then came the midday siesta, so general that the streets were as
deserted as at midnight, and one of the Roman writers fixes upon this
as the proper time for a ghost story. Of course there were no sessions
of the courts or meetings of the senate on the public holidays, and
then the hours generally given to business might be spent at the
theater or the circus or other games. As a matter of fact the Romans
of the better class rather avoided these shows, unless they were
officially connected with them, and many of them devoted the holidays
to visiting their country estates. After the siesta, which lasted for
an hour or more, the Roman was ready for his regular athletic exercise
and bath, either in the Campus and the Tiber (§317) or in one of the
public bathing establishments (§365). The bath proper (§367) was
followed by the lounge (§377), perhaps a promenade in the court, which
gave him a chance for a chat with a friend, or an opportunity to hear
the latest news, to consult business associates, in short to talk over
any of the things that men now discuss at their clubs. After this came
the great event of the day, the dinner (§303), at his own house or at
that of some friend, followed immediately by retirement for the night.
Even on the days spent in the country this programme would not be
materially changed, and the Roman took with him into the provinces the
customs of his home life so far as possible.
[Illustration: FIGURE 192. ANCIENT CALENDAR]
§417. Hours of the Day.--The day itself was divided into twelve hours
(_hōrae_), each being one-twelfth of the time between sunrise and
sunset and varying therefore with the season of the year. The length
of the day and hour at Rome in different times of the year is shown in
the following table:
Month Length Length | Month Length Length
and Day of Day of Hour | and Day of Day of Hour
--------------------------------+--------------------------------
Dec. 23 8° 54' 44' 30" | June 25 15° 6' 1° 15' 30"
Feb. 6 9° 50' 49' 10" | Aug. 10 14° 10' 1° 10' 50"
March 23 12° 00' 1° 00' 00" | Sept. 25 12° 00' 1° 00' 00"
May 9 14° 10' 1° 10' 50" | Nov. 9 9° 50' 49' 10"
§418. Taking the days of June 25 and December 23 as respectively the
longest and shortest of the year, the following table gives the
conclusion of each hour for summer and winter:
Time Summer Winter
-----------------------------------------
Sunrise 4° 27' 00" 7° 33' 00"
1st Hour 5° 42' 30" 8° 17' 30"
2d Hour 6° 58' 00" 9° 02' 00"
3d Hour 8° 13' 30" 9° 46' 30"
4th Hour 9° 29' 00" 10° 31' 00"
5th Hour 10° 44' 30" 11° 15' 30"
6th Hour 12° 00' 00" 12° 00' 00"
7th Hour 1° 15' 30" 12° 44' 30"
8th Hour 2° 31' 00" 1° 29' 00"
9th Hour 3° 46' 30" 2° 13' 30"
10th Hour 5° 02' 00" 2° 58' 00"
11th Hour 6° 17' 30" 3° 42' 30"
12th Hour 7° 33' 00" 4° 27' 00"
In the same way the hours may be calculated for any given day, the
length of the day and the hour of sunrise being known, but for all
practical purposes the old couplet will serve:
The English hour you may fix,
If to the Latin you add six.
When the Latin hour is above six it will be more convenient to
subtract than to add.
CHAPTER XII
BURIAL-PLACES AND FUNERAL CEREMONIES
REFERENCES: Marquardt, 340-388; Voigt, 319-322, 396, 455; Göll,
480-547; Guhl and Koner, 580-595, 857-863; Friedländer, III, 125-137;
Ramsay, 479-482; Pauly-Wissowa, _cenotaphium_, _columbārium_; Smith,
Harper, Rich, _columbārium_, _fūnus_, _sepulcrum_; Lübker,
_Bestattung_, _sepulcrum_; Baumeister, 308-311, 604-609, 1520 f.;
Mau-Kelsey, 399-428; Gusman, 44-54; Egbert, Latin Inscriptions,
230-242; Lanciani, Ancient Rome, 64, 129 f.
§419. Importance of Burial.--The Romans' view of the future life
explains the importance they attached to the ceremonial burial of the
dead. The soul, they thought, could find rest only when the body had
been duly laid in the grave; until this was done it haunted the home,
unhappy itself and bringing unhappiness to others. To perform the
funeral offices (_iūsta facere_) was, therefore, a solemn religious
duty, devolving upon the surviving members of the family (§28), and
the Latin words show that these marks of respect were looked upon as
the right of the dead. In the case of a body lost at sea, or for any
other reason unrecovered, the ceremonies were just as piously
performed, an empty tomb (_cenotaphium_) being erected sometimes in
honor of the dead. And these same rites the Roman was bound to
perform, if he came anywhere upon the unburied corpse of a citizen,
because all were members of the greater family of the commonwealth. In
this case the scattering of three handfuls of dust over the body was
sufficient for ceremonial burial and the happiness of the troubled
spirit, if for any reason the body could not actually be interred.
§420. Interment and Cremation.--Burial was the way of disposing of the
dead practiced most anciently by the Romans, and even after cremation
came into very general use it was ceremonially necessary that some
small part of the remains, usually the bone of a finger, should be
buried in the earth. Burning was practiced before the time of the
Twelve Tables, for it is mentioned together with burial in them, but
we do not know how long before. Hygienic reasons had probably
something to do with its general adoption, and this implies, of
course, cities of considerable size. By the time of Augustus it was
all but universal, but even in Rome the practice of burial was never
entirely discontinued, for cremation was too costly for the very
poorest classes, and some of the wealthiest and most aristocratic
families held fast to the more ancient custom. The Cornelii, for
example, always buried their dead until the dictator required his body
to be burned for fear that his bones might be disinterred and
dishonored by his enemies, as he had dishonored those of Marius.
Children less than forty days old were always buried, and so, too,
slaves whose funeral expenses were paid by their masters. After the
introduction of Christianity burial came again to be the prevailing
use, largely because of the increased expense of burning.
[Illustration: FIGURE 193. TOMB OF PLANCUS]
[Illustration: FIGURE 194. TOMB OF CESTIUS]
[Illustration: FIGURE 195. STREET OF TOMBS AT POMPEII]
§421. Places of Burial.--The most ancient place of burial, at least
for the head of the house, was beneath the hearthstone in the _ātrium_
of his house, later in the garden behind his house, but this had
ceased to be the custom long before history begins, and the Twelve
Tables forbade the burial or even the burning of the dead within the
walls of the city. For the very poor, places of burial were provided
in remote localities outside the walls, corresponding in some degree
to the Potter's Field of modern cities. The well-to-do made their
burial-places as conspicuous as their means would permit, with the
hope that the inscriptions upon the monuments would keep alive the
names and virtues of the dead, and with the idea, perhaps, that they
still had some part in the busy life around them. To this end they
lined the great roads on either side for miles out of the cities with
rows of tombs of the most elaborate and costly architecture. In the
vicinity of Rome the Appian way as the oldest (§385) showed the
monuments of the noblest and most ancient families, but none of the
roads lacked similar memorials. Many of these tombs were standing in
the sixteenth century, a few still remain. The same custom was
followed in the smaller towns, and an idea of the appearance of the
monuments may be had from the so-called "Street of Tombs" in Pompeii
(Fig. 195). There were other burial-places near the cities, of course,
less conspicuous and less expensive, and on the farms and country
estates like provision was made for persons of humbler station.
[Illustration: FIGURE 196. EXTERIOR OF TOMB AT POMPEII]
§422. The Tombs.--The tombs, whether intended to receive the bodies or
merely the ashes, or both, differed widely in size and construction
with the different purposes for which they were erected. Some were for
individuals only, but these in most cases were strictly public
memorials as distinguished from actual tombs intended to receive the
remains of the dead. The larger number of those that lined the roads
were family tombs, ample in size for whole generations of descendants
and retainers of the family, including guest-friends (§185), who had
died away from their own homes, and freedmen (§175). There were also
the burial-places of the _gentēs_ (§21), in which provision was made
for all, even the humblest and poorest, who claimed connection with
the _gēns_ and had had a place in its formal organization (§22).
Others were erected on a large scale by speculators who sold at low
prices space enough for an urn or two to persons too poor to erect
tombs of their own and without any claim on a family or gentile
burying-place. In imitation of these structures others were erected on
the same plan by burial societies formed by persons of the artisan
class, and others still by benevolent men, as we have seen baths
(§373) and libraries (§402) erected and maintained for the public
good. Something will be said of the tombs of all these kinds after the
public burying-places have been described.
[Illustration: FIGURE 197. SECTIONS OF TOMB SHOWN IN FIGURE 196]
§423. The Potter's Field.--During the Republic the Esquiline Hill, or
at least the eastern part of it, was the place to which was carted all
the refuse of the city that the sewers would not carry away. Here,
too, were the gravepits (_puticulī_) for the pauper class. They were
merely holes in the ground, about twelve feet square, without lining
of any kind. Into them were thrown the bodies of the friendless poor,
and along with them and over them the carcasses of dead animals and
the filth and scrapings of the streets. The pits were kept open,
uncovered apparently even when filled, and the stench and the
disease-breeding pollution made the hill absolutely uninhabitable.
Under Augustus the danger to the health of the whole city became so
great that the dumping grounds were moved to a greater distance, and
the Esquiline, covered over pits and all with pure soil to the depth
of twenty-five feet, was made a park, known as the _Hortī Maecēnātis_.
§424. It is not to be understood, however, that the bodies of Roman
citizens were ordinarily disposed of in this revolting way. Faithful
freedmen were cared for by their patrons, the industrious poor made
provision for themselves in coöperative societies mentioned above, and
the proletariate class (§411) was in general saved from such a fate by
gentile relations, by patrons (§181), or by the benevolence of
individuals. Only in times of plague and pestilence, it is safe to
say, were the bodies of known citizens cast into these pits, as under
like circumstances bodies have been burned in heaps in our own cities.
The uncounted thousands that peopled the Potter's Field of Rome were
the riffraff from foreign lands, abandoned slaves (§156), the victims
that perished in the arena (§362), outcasts of the criminal class, and
the "unidentified" that are buried nowadays at public expense.
Criminals put to death by authority were not buried at all; their
carcasses were left to birds and beasts of prey at the place of
execution near the Esquiline gate.
[Illustration: FIGURE 198. INTERIOR OF TOMB AT POMPEII]
§425. Plan of Tombs and Grounds.--The utmost diversity prevails in the
outward form and construction of the tombs, but those of the classical
period seem to have been planned with the thought that the tomb was to
be a home for the dead and that they were not altogether cut off from
the living. The tomb, therefore, whether built for one person or for
many, was ordinarily a building inclosing a room (_sepulcrum_), and
this room was really the important thing. Attention has already been
called (§189) to the fact that even the urns had in ancient times the
shape of the house of one room. The floor of the _sepulcrum_ was quite
commonly below the level of the surrounding grounds and was reached by
a short flight of steps. Around the base of the walls ran a slightly
elevated platform (_podium_, cf. §§337, 357) on which were placed the
coffins of those who were buried, while the urns were placed either on
the platform or in niches in the wall. An altar or shrine is often
found, at which offerings were made to the _mānēs_ of the departed.
Lamps are very common and so are other simple articles of furniture,
and the walls, floors, and ceilings are decorated in the same style as
those of houses (§220 f.). Things that the dead liked to have around
them when living, especially things that they had used in their
ordinary occupations, were placed in the tomb at the time of burial,
or burned with them on the funeral pyre, and in general an effort was
made to give an air of life to the chamber of rest. The interior of a
tomb at Pompeii is shown in Fig. 198, and sections of another in Fig.
197, §423.
[Illustration: FIGURE 199. PLAN OF GROUNDS ABOUT TOMB]
§426. The monument itself was always built upon a plot of ground as
spacious as the means of the builders would permit, sometimes several
acres in extent. In it provision was made for the comfort of surviving
members of the family, who were bound to visit the resting-place of
their dead on certain regularly recurring festivals (§438). If the
grounds were small there would be at least a seat, perhaps a bench. On
more extensive grounds there were places of shelter, arbors, or summer
houses. Dining-rooms, too, in which were celebrated the anniversary
feasts, and private _ūstrīnae_ (places for the burning of bodies) are
frequently mentioned. Often the grounds were laid out as gardens or
parks, with trees and flowers, wells, cisterns or fountains, and even
a house, with other buildings perhaps, for the accommodation of the
slaves or freedmen who were in charge. A plan of such a garden is
shown in Fig. 199. In the middle of the garden is the _ārea_, the
technical word for the plot of ground set aside for the tomb, with
several buildings upon it, one of which is a storehouse or granary
(_horreum_); around the tomb itself are beds of roses and violets,
used in festivals (§438), and around them in turn are grapes trained
on trellises. In the front is a terrace (_sōlārium_, cf. §207), and in
the rear two pools (_piscīnae_) connected with the _ārea_ by a little
canal, while at the back is a thicket of shrubbery (_harundinētum_).
The purpose of the granary is not clear as no grain seems to have been
raised on the lot, but it may have been left where it stood before the
ground was consecrated. A tomb surrounded by grounds of some extent
was called a _cēpotaphium_.
[Illustration: FIGURE 200. RUINS OF COLUMBARIUM OF LIVIA]
§427. Exterior of the Tombs.--An idea of the exterior appearance of
monuments of the better sort may be had from Figs. 193-196. The forms
are very many, those of the altar and temple are the most common,
perhaps, but memorial arches and niches are often found, and at
Pompeii the semicircular bench that was used for conversation out of
doors occurs several times, covered and uncovered. Not all of the
tombs have the sepulchral chamber, the remains being sometimes
deposited in the earth beneath the monument. In such cases a tube or
pipe of lead ran from the receptacle to the surface, through which
offerings of wine and milk could be poured (§§429, 438). In Fig. 193,
§420, is shown the round monument at Caieta of Lucius Munatius
Plancus, one of Caesar's marshals (_lēgātī_) in Gaul, the
inscription[1] on which recounts the positions he had filled and the
work he had done. In Fig. 194, §420, is shown the pyramid erected at
Rome in honor of Caius Cestius by his heirs, one of whom was Marcus
Agrippa. According to the inscription on it the monument was completed
in 330 days. The most imposing of all was the mausoleum of Hadrian
(Fig. 205, §438) at Rome, now the castle of St. Angelo. A less
elaborate exterior is that of the "tomb with the marble door" at
Pompeii, given in Fig. 196, §422.
[Footnote 1: Inscription on the tomb of Plancus: "Lucius Munatius
Plancus, son, etc. (§39), consul, censor, twice imperator, member of
the board of seven in charge of sacrificial feasts. He celebrated a
triumph over the people of Raetia. From the spoils of war he erected a
temple to Saturn. In Italy he assigned lands about Beneventum. In Gaul
he planted colonies at Lugdunum and Raurica."]
[Illustration: FIGURE 201. GROUND PLAN OF COLUMBARIUM OF LIVIA]
[Illustration: FIGURE 202. SARCOPHAGUS OF SCIPIO]
§428. The Columbaria.--From the family tombs were developed the
immense structures mentioned in §422 intended to receive great numbers
of urns. They began to be erected in the time of Augustus and seem to
have been confined to Rome, where the high price of land made the
purchase of private burial-grounds impossible for the poorer classes.
An idea of their interior arrangements may be had from the ruins (Fig.
200) of one erected on the Appian way for the freedmen of Livia, the
wife of Augustus. From their resemblance to a dovecote or pigeon house
they were called _columbāria_. They are usually partly underground,
rectangular in form, with great numbers of the niches (also called
_columbāria_) running in regular rows horizontally (_gradūs_) and
vertically (_ōrdinēs_). In the larger _columbāria_ provision was made
for as many as a thousand urns. Around the walls at the base was a
_podium_, on which were placed the sarcophagi of those whose remains
had not been burned, and sometimes chambers were excavated beneath the
floor for the same purpose. In the _podium_ were also niches that no
space might be lost. If the height of the building was great enough to
warrant it, wooden galleries ran around the walls. Access to the room
was given by a stairway in which were niches, too; light was furnished
by small windows near the ceiling, and walls and floors were
handsomely finished and decorated.
[Illustration: FIGURE 203. AEDICULA IN COLUMBARIUM]
§429. The niches were sometimes rectangular in form, but more commonly
half round, as shown in Figs. 200 and 203. Some of the _columbāria_
have the lower rows rectangular, those above arched. They contained
ordinarily two urns (_ollae_, _ollae ossuāriae_) each, arranged side
by side, that they might be visible from the front. Occasionally the
niches were made deep enough for two sets of urns, those behind being
elevated a little over those in front. Above or below each niche was
fastened to the wall a piece of marble (_titulus_) on which was cut
the name of the owner. If a person required for his family a group of
four or six niches, it was customary to mark them off from the others
by wall decorations to show that they made a unit; a very common way
was to erect pillars at the sides so as to give the appearance of the
front of a temple (Fig. 203). Such groups were called _aediculae_. The
value of the places depended upon their position, those in the higher
rows (_gradūs_) being less expensive than those near the floor, those
under the stairway the least desirable of all. The urns themselves
were of various materials (§437) and usually cemented to the bottom of
the niches. The tops could be removed, but they, too, were sealed
after the ashes had been placed in them, small openings being left
through which offerings of milk and wine could be poured. On the urns
or their tops were painted the names of the dead with sometimes the
day and the month of death. The year is almost never found. Over the
door of such a _columbārium_ on the outside was cut an inscription
giving the names of the owners, the date of erection, and other
particulars.
[Illustration: FIGURE 204. CINERARY URNS]
§430. Burial Societies.--Early in the Empire associations were formed
for the purpose of meeting the funeral expenses of their members,
whether the remains were to be buried or cremated, or for the purpose
of building _columbāria_, or for both. These coöperative associations
(_collegia fūnerāticia_) started originally among members of the same
guild (§412) or among persons of the same occupation. They called
themselves by many names, _cultōrēs_ of this deity or that, _collegia
salūtāria_, _collegia iuvenum_, etc., but their objects and methods
were practically the same. If the members had provided places for the
disposal of their bodies after death they now provided for the
necessary funeral expenses by paying into the common fund weekly a
small fixed sum, easily within the reach of the poorest of them. When
a member died a stated sum was drawn for his funeral from the
treasury, a committee saw that the rites were decently performed, and
at the proper seasons (§438) the society made corporate offerings to
the dead. If the purpose of the society was the building of a
_columbārium_, the cost was first determined and the sum total divided
into what we should call shares (_sortēs virīlēs_), each member taking
as many as he could afford and paying their value into the treasury.
Sometimes a benevolent person would contribute toward the expense of
the undertaking, and then such a person would be made an honorary
member of the society with the title of _patrōnus_ or _patrōna_. The
erection of the building was intrusted to a number of _cūrātōrēs_,
chosen by ballot, naturally the largest shareholders and most
influential men. They let the contracts and superintended the
construction, rendering account for all the money expended. The office
of the curators was considered very honorable, especially as their
names appeared on the inscription without the building, and they often
showed their appreciation of the honor done them by providing at their
own expense for the decoration of the interior, or by furnishing all
or a part of the _titulī_, _ollae_, etc., or by erecting on the
surrounding grounds places of shelter and dining-rooms for the use of
the members, like those mentioned in §426.
§431. After the completion of the building the _cūrātōrēs_ allotted
the niches to the individual members. The niches were either numbered
consecutively throughout or their position was fixed by the number of
the _ōrdō_ and _gradus_ (§428) in which they were situated. Because
they were not all equally desirable, as has been explained, the
curators divided them into sections as fairly as possible and then
assigned the sections (_locī_) by lot to the shareholders. If a man
held several shares of stock he received a corresponding number of
_locī_, though they might be in widely different parts of the
building. The members were allowed freely to dispose of their holdings
by exchange, sale, or gift, and many of the larger stockholders
probably engaged in the enterprise for the sake of the profits to be
made in this way. After the division was made the owners had their
names cut upon the _titulī_, and might put up the columns to mark the
_aediculae_, set up statues, etc., if they pleased. Some of the
_titulī_ give besides the name of the owner the number and position of
his _locī_ or _ollae_. Sometimes they record the purchase of _ollae_,
giving the number bought and the name of the previous owner. Sometimes
the names on the _ollae_ do not correspond with that over the niche,
showing that the owner had sold a part only of his holdings, or that
the purchaser had not taken the trouble to replace the _titulus_. The
expenses of maintenance were probably paid from the weekly dues of the
members, as were the funeral benefits.
L • ABVCIVS • HERMES • IN • HOC
ORDINE • AB • IMO • AD • SVMMVM
COLVMBARIA • IX • OLLAE • XVIII
SIBI • POSTERISQVE • SVIS[2]
[Footnote 2: Titulus in Columbarium: "Lucius Abucius Hermes (has
acquired) in this row, running from the ground to the top, nine niches
with eighteen urns for (the ashes of) himself and his descendants."]
§432. Funeral Ceremonies.--The detailed accounts of funeral ceremonies
that have come down to us relate almost exclusively to those of
persons of high position, and the information gleaned from other
sources (§12) is so scattered that there is great danger of confusing
usages of widely different times. It is quite certain, however, that
very young children were buried at all times simply and quietly
(_fūnus acerbum_), that no ceremonies at all attended the burial of
slaves (§420) when conducted by their masters (nothing is known of the
forms used by the burial societies mentioned above), and that citizens
of the lowest class were laid to rest without public parade (_fūnus
plēbēium_). It is also known that burials took place by night except
during the last century of the Republic and the first two centuries of
the Empire, and it is natural to suppose that, even in the case of
persons of high position, there was ordinarily much less of pomp and
parade than on occasions that the Roman writers thought it worth while
to describe. This has been found true in the matter of wedding
festivities (§79). It will be convenient to take in order the
proceedings at the house, the funeral procession, and the ceremonies
at the place of burial.
§433. At the House.--When the Roman died at home surrounded by his
family, it was the duty of his oldest son to bend over the body and
call him by name, as if with the hope of recalling him to life. The
formal performance of the act (_conclāmātiō_) he announced immediately
with the words: _conclāmātum est_. The eyes of the dead were then
closed, the body was washed with warm water and anointed, the limbs
were straightened, and if the deceased had held a curule office a wax
impression of his features was taken. The body was then dressed in the
toga (§240) with all the insignia of rank that the dead had been
entitled to wear in life, and was placed upon the funeral couch
(_lectus fūnebris_) in the _ātrium_ (§198), with the feet to the door,
to lie in state until the time of the funeral. The couch was
surrounded with flowers, and incense was burned about it. Before the
door of the house were set branches of pine or cypress as a warning
that the house was polluted by death. The simple offices that have
been described were performed in humble life by the relatives and
servants, in other cases by professional undertakers (_libitīnāriī_),
who also embalmed the body and superintended all the rest of the
ceremonies. Reference is made occasionally to the kissing of the dying
person as he breathed his last, as if this last breath was to be
caught in the mouth of the living, and in very early and very late
times it was undoubtedly the custom to put a small coin between the
teeth of the dead with which to pay his passage across the Styx in
Charon's boat. Neither of these formalities seems to have obtained
generally in classical times.
§434. The Funeral Procession.--The funeral procession of the ordinary
citizen was simple enough. Notice was given to neighbors and friends,
and surrounded by them and by the family, carried on the shoulders of
the sons or other near relatives, with perhaps a band of musicians in
the lead, the body was borne to the tomb. The procession of one of the
mighty, on the other hand, was marshaled with all possible display and
ostentation. It occurred as soon after death as the necessary
preparations could be made, there being no fixed intervening time.
Notice was given by a public crier in the ancient words of style:
_Ollus Quiris lētō datus. Exsequiās, quibus est commodum, īre iam
tempus est. Ollus ex aedibus effertur._[3] Questions of order and
precedence were settled by one of the undertakers (_dēsīgnātor_). At
the head went a band of musicians, followed at least occasionally by
persons singing dirges in praise of the dead, and by bands of buffoons
and jesters, who made merry with the bystanders and imitated even the
dead himself. Then came the imposing part of the display. The wax
masks of the dead man's ancestors had been taken from their place in
the _ālae_ (§200) and assumed by actors in the dress appropriate to
the time and station of the worthies they represented. It must have
seemed as if the ancient dead had returned to earth to guide their
descendant to his place among them. Servius tells us that six hundred
_imāginēs_ were displayed at the funeral of the young Marcellus, the
nephew of Augustus. Then followed the memorials of the great deeds of
the deceased, if he had been a general, as in a triumphal procession,
and then the dead himself, carried with face uncovered on a lofty
couch. Then came the family, including freedmen (especially those made
free by the testament of their master) and slaves, and then the
friends, all in mourning garb (§§246, 254), and all freely giving
expression to the emotion that we try to suppress on such occasions.
Torch-bearers attended the train, even by day, as a remembrance of the
older custom of burial by night.
[Footnote 3: "This citizen has been surrendered to death. For those
who find it convenient it is now time to attend the funeral. He is
being brought from his house."]
§435. The Funeral Oration.--The procession passed from the house
directly to the place of interment, unless the deceased was a person
of sufficient consequence to be honored by public authority with a
funeral oration (_laudātiō_) in the forum. In this case the funeral
coach was placed before the _rostra_, the men in the masks took their
places on curule chairs (§225) around it, the general crowd was massed
in a semicircle behind, and a son or other near relative delivered the
address. It recited the virtues and achievements of the dead and
recounted the history of the family to which he belonged. Like such
addresses in more recent times it contained much that was false and
more that was exaggerated. The honor of the _laudātiō_ was freely
given in later times, especially to members of the imperial family,
including women. Under the Republic it was less common and more highly
prized, and so far as we know the only women so honored belonged to
the _gēns Iūlia_. It will be remembered that it was Caesar's address
on the occasion of the funeral of his aunt, the widow of Marius, that
pointed him out to the opponents of Sulla as a future leader. When the
address in the forum was not authorized, one was sometimes given more
privately at the grave or at the house.
§436. At the Tomb.--When the train reached the place of burial the
proceedings varied according to the time, but all provided for the
three things ceremonially necessary: the consecration of the
resting-place, the casting of earth upon the remains, and the
purification of all polluted by the death. In ancient times the body,
if buried, was lowered into the grave either upon the couch on which
it had been brought to the spot, or in a coffin of burnt clay or
stone. If the body was to be burned a shallow grave was dug and filled
with dry wood, upon which the couch and body were placed. The pile was
then fired and when wood and body had been consumed, earth was heaped
over the ashes into a mound (_tumulus_). Such a grave in which the
body was burned was called _būstum_, and was consecrated as a regular
_sepulcrum_ by the ceremonies mentioned below. In later times the
body, if not to be burned, was placed in a sarcophagus (Fig. 203)
already prepared in the tomb (§425). If the remains were to be burned
they were taken to the _ūstrīna_ (§426), which was not regarded as a
part of the _sepulcrum_, and placed upon the pile of wood (_rogus_).
Spices and perfumes were thrown upon it, together with gifts (§425)
and tokens from the persons present. The pyre was then lighted with a
torch by a relative, who kept his face averted during the act. After
the fire had burned out the embers were extinguished with water or
wine and those present called a last farewell to the dead. The water
of purification was then thrice sprinkled over those present, and all
except the immediate family left the place. The ashes were then
collected in a cloth to be dried, and the ceremonial bone (§420),
called _os resectum_, was buried. A sacrifice of a pig was then made,
by which the place of burial was made sacred ground, and food
(_silicernium_) was eaten together by the mourners. They then returned
to the house which was purified by an offering to the _Larēs_, and the
funeral rites were over.
§437. After Ceremonies.--With the day of the burial or burning of the
remains began the Nine Days of Sorrow, solemnly observed by the
immediate family. Some time during this period, when the ashes had had
time to dry thoroughly, members of the family went privately to the
_ūstrīna_, removed them from the cloth, placed them in an _olla_ (Fig.
204) of earthenware, glass, alabaster, bronze, or other material, and
with bare feet and loosened girdles carried them into the _sepulcrum_
(§425). At the end of the nine days the _sacrificium novendiāle_ was
offered to the dead and the _cēna novendiālis_ was celebrated at the
house. On this day, too, the heirs formally entered upon their
inheritance and the funeral games (§344) were originally given. The
period of mourning, however, was not concluded on the ninth day. For
husband or wife, ascendants, and grown descendants mourning was worn
for ten months, the ancient year; for other adult relatives, eight
months; for children between the ages of three and ten years, for as
many months as they were years old.
§438. Memorial Festivals.--The memory of the dead was kept alive by
regularly recurring days of obligation of both public and private
character. To the former belong the _parentālia_, or _diēs parentālēs_
(§75), lasting from the 13th to the 21st of February, the final day
being especially distinguished as the _fērālia_. To the latter belong
the annual celebration of the birthday (or the burial-day) of the
person commemorated, and the festivals of violets and roses
(_violāria_, _rosāria_), about the end of March and May respectively,
when violets and roses were distributed among the relatives and laid
upon the graves or heaped over the urns. On all these occasions
offerings were made in the temples to the gods and at the tombs to the
_mānēs_ of the dead, and the lamps were lighted in the tombs (§425),
and at the tombs the relatives feasted together and offered food to
their dead (§426).
[Illustration: FIGURE 205. HADRIAN'S TOMB]
INDEX
References are to Paragraphs. An asterisk denotes a cut.
A
ā manū, 391.
abacus, reckoning board, 111*;
panels in wall decorations, 220;
sideboard, 227, 307*.
ABBREVIATIONS in names, 41.
ab epistolīs, 391.
abolla, cloak, 249*.
ab ovō ad māla, 308.
ACTORS, slave, men only, 324.
ad (malam) crucem, 174.
ADDITIONAL names, 51.
ADDRESS of letters, 392.
adfīnēs, blood relations, 26.
ADJUSTABLE tables, 227*.
adoptiō, see ADOPTION.
ADOPTION, two kinds, 29;
of a fīlius familiās, 30;
of a pater familiās, 30;
name given adopted person, 52, 56.
adrogātiō, see ADOPTION.
adversitōrēs, 152.
ADVERTISEMENTS of gladiators, 361*.
aediculae, in columbāria, 429*.
AFFECTION for nurses, 101;
for pedagogues, 123.
agger viae, 387.
agitātōrēs, drivers of chariots, 341. See aurīgae.
agnātī, related through males, 23.
AGRICULTURE, honorable occupation, 404.
ālae, in house, 191;
later, 200.
aliēnō iūrī subiectus, 17.
alveus, in bath, 369*.
amictus, outer garments, 240*-249*.
AMPHITHEATER, meaning of word, 351;
early at Rome, 352;
at Pompeii, 353*, 354*, 355*;
the coliseum, 356*, 357*, 358*.
amphitheātrum, see AMPHITHEATER.
amphorae, for wine, 297.
amurca, bitter fluid of olives, 291.
AMUSEMENTS, Chap. IX. See Table of Contents.
andabatae, blindfold gladiators, 359.
andrōn, formerly called faucēs, 192 note.
Andronicus, 113.
anteambulōnēs, outriders, 151.
antecēna, appetizer, 308.
ANTIQUITIES, public and private distinguished, 2;
and history, 4;
private defined, 1;
in philology, 6, 7;
recent interest, 8.
apodytērium, 366;
makeshift for, 367;
usually unheated, 368;
one heated, 378*;
in thermae, 376*, 377*.
APPIAN WAY, as burial-place, 421;
construction, 385 f.
APPRENTICESHIP in education, 117.
arbiter bibendī, toast master, 313.
ārca, strong box, 188, 201, 230*.
Archias, name explained, 60.
ārea, ground for tomb, 426.
arēna, circus, 330*, 332;
amphitheater (Pompeii), 354*, (Rome), 357*.
ARITHMETIC, in the schools, 111*.
armāria, cabinets, 231.
ARMY, as a career, (for nobles), 408, (for commons), 410.
ARRANGEMENT of hair, 263;
of hair of bride, 78;
of couches in dining-room, 304*.
ATHENS, university of Rome, 116.
ATHLETIC sports and games, 316*, 317*, 318*.
ātriēnsis, butler, 149.
ātrium, in primitive house, 188;
meaning, 189;
the developed ātrium, 196, 197, 198*;
burial-place of Head of House, 421.
Atticus, 155, 300, 310, 399.
auctōrātī, volunteer gladiators, 347.
aulaea, portières, 216.
aurīgae, chariot drivers, (Figs. 138, 142), 341*, 342.
B
BAKERIES, 286*.
BAKERS, as a guild, 286.
BALL, played by children, 102*;
by men, 318*.
balneae, meaning, 372. See BATHS.
balneāticum, bath fee, 373.
balneum, meaning, 372. See BATHS.
BANKING, as profession, 412.
BANQUETS, 315.
BARBER shops, 253.
BARRIERS, in circus, 330*, 333*.
basterna, litter drawn by mules, 382.
BATH, in early times, 365;
public and private, 365;
essentials for, 366;
rooms combined, 367;
heating, 368;
caldārium, 369;
frīgidārium, 370;
ūnctōrium, 370;
private bathhouse, 371*;
public baths, 372;
time opened, 374;
fees, 373;
for women, 375;
thermae, 376*, 377*.
BATHHOUSE, in Caerwent, 371*;
in Pompeii, 376*;
in Rome, 377*.
BATHROOMS, in residences, 203, 367, 371*.
BEANS, considered heavy food, 275.
BEARDS, fashions in, 254.
BEEF, rarely used, 277.
Benoist, his definition of Philology, 6.
BETROTHALS, 70.
BEVERAGES, 298.
bibliothēca, 206, 402.
BILLS of fare, 308, 309.
BOOKS, ancient forms, 393;
materials, 394, 395;
making, 396;
finish of, 397;
size, 398;
publishing, 399, 400;
cost, 401;
libraries, 402.
"BOOKS," divisions of literary work, 398.
BOXES, in theater, 327;
in circus, 334;
in amphitheater, 353.
BOY, named, 97;
home training, 104, 106;
athletics, 107;
education, see SCHOOL;
coming of age, 125;
given citizenship, 128.
brācātae, wearing trousers, 239.
BRAZIERS, 218*.
BREAD, 286 f.;
making, 287;
kinds of, 288.
"Bread and the Games of the Circus," 322.
BREAKFAST, 302.
BREAKING promise of marriage, 71.
BRICKS, 212*.
bulla, 99*.
BURIAL-places and ceremonies, Chapter XII. See Table of Contents.
BURIAL SOCIETIES, 430.
BUSINESS rooms added to houses, 193;
interests at Rome, 413.
BUTTER, not a food, 281.
C
CABINETS, 231.
calamus (scriptōrius), 395.
calceātor, 150.
calceī, 251*, 262;
senātōriī, 251;
patriciī, 251.
caldārium, 366;
near furnace, 368;
furniture, 369;
other uses of, 369;
in plans, 371*, 376*, 378*.
caligae, half-boots, 251.
calx, in circus, 331*.
camillus, 82*.
campus Mārtius, 317.
candēlābra, 229.
CANDIDATES' dress, 235, 246.
candidātī, 246.
CANDLES, ill made, 229.
CAP, of liberty, 175*, 252.
CAPITALISTS, their field, 409, 413.
capsa, 397*.
capsārius, 370.
Caracalla, hall in baths of, 365*.
cāra cognātiō, feast of, 25.
carcerēs, in circus, 330*, 333*.
carnifex, term of abuse, 174.
carpentum, traveling carriage, 383*.
CARRIAGES, for travel, 383*.
carūca, sleeping car, 383.
casa Rōmulī, 214*.
cathedra, easy chair, 226*.
catillus, outer part of mill, 284*.
Cato (234-149), treatment of slaves, 159;
opinion of cabbage, 275;
word for dinner, 312.
causia, hat, 252*.
cavea, in theater, 327;
in circus, 337;
in amphitheater (Pompeii), 353*, (Rome), 358*.
cavum aedium, 196.
CEILINGS, construction, 213.
cellae, servōrum, 207;
vīnāriae, 297*;
oleāriae, 292*.
cēna, in early times, 301;
in the city, 303-311;
hours, 303;
importance in social life, 303;
bills of fare, 308, 309;
service, 310, 311;
lībera, 362;
nūptiālis, 85.
cēna, "dinner proper," 308.
cenotaphium, empty tomb, 419.
centēnārius, winner of 100 races, 340.
cēpotaphium, tomb with grounds, 426.
cēra, for sealing letter, 392.
cerasus, cherry, 274.
CEREALS for food, 282.
Cestius, tomb of, (420*), 427.
CHAIRS, 225*, 226*.
CHALKED FEET, 139.
CHARIOT RACES, 330 f.;
number of chariots, 333;
racing syndicates, 339;
teams, 340;
drivers, 341.
charta, paper, see papyrus.
CHEESE, 281.
CHESTS, 230*.
CHILDHOOD, see CHILDREN;
end of, 125.
CHILDLESSNESS, a reproach, 28.
CHILDREN, rights of, see potestās;
property of, see pecūlium;
civil position of, 69, 94;
acknowledgment of, 95;
exposure of, 96;
maiming of, 96;
games, etc., 102, 103;
home training, 104;
punishment of, 120*, 124;
in the dining-room, 304;
burial of young children, 420.
Chrysogonus and Roscius, 408.
CHURCH, like Roman house, 191.
Cicero (106-43), number of his slaves, 155;
names of his freedmen, 59;
goodness to slaves, 158;
his books, 399, 402;
income, 407.
CINERARY urns, 189*, 428, 437.
ciniflōnēs, hairdressers, 150.
CIRCUS at Rome, 328 f.;
plan, 330*;
arēna, 332*;
carcerēs, 333*, 334*;
spīna, mētae, 335*, 336*;
seats, 337*;
capacity, 338;
races in, 339 f.
circus Flāminius, 329.
circus Maxentiī, 329;
plan of, 330*;
arēna, 332;
obelisk in, 336;
seating capacity, 338.
circus Maximus, 328;
missus in, 332;
spīna in, 336;
obelisk in 336*;
seats in, 337, 338*;
reconstruction, 338*.
cisium, two-wheeled cart, 384*.
CIVIL SERVICE, 414.
clepsydra, water-clock, 232.
clientēla, clientage, 177.
CLIENTS, Chap. V. See Table of Contents.
CLIMATE of Italy, 272.
CLOCKS, 232.
CLOTHING, Chap. VII. See Table of Contents;
colors worn, 270;
manufacture of, 271;
cleaning, 271*.
codicillī, set of writing tablets, 391*.
coēmptiō, plebeian form of marriage, 63;
implying manus, 66;
ceremony of, 83.
COFFINS, 425, 436.
COGNATES, defined, 25;
importance among plebeians, 65;
degrees between, 25, 68.
cognātī, see COGNATES.
cognātiō, see COGNATES.
cognōmen, before nōmen, 40;
marking family, 48;
age of, 49;
nickname, 49;
indication of lineage, 50;
ex virtūte, 53;
differing in same family, 55;
as fourth element in name, 55.
COLISEUM, date of, 352;
plan, 356*;
arēna, 357*;
seats, 358*.
collegia, fūnerāticia, iuvenum, salūtāria, 430.
COLONIES, 411.
COLORS, of articles of dress, 270;
of racing syndicates, 339.
columbāria, 428*-431*.
COMIC OPERAS, 323.
COMMERCE, 413.
comissātiō, drinking bout, 312*, 313.
COMMON PEOPLE, employments of, 410 f.
compluvium, 188, 191, 196, 198.
compōtātiō, drinking bout, 312*.
conclāmātiō, cry of farewell, 433.
CONCRETE, extensive use, 146;
method of making, 211*;
in roads, 387.
conductor, manager of baths, 373.
cōnfarreātiō, 61;
religious aspect, 64;
implying manus, 66;
ceremony of, 81.
CONFISCATION of property, 408.
CONFUSION of names, 55.
CONSENT necessary to marriage, 74.
Constantius (Emperor 337-361 A.D.), 338.
CONSTRUCTION of house, 210* f.;
mill, 284*;
roads, 387*.
contubernia, unions of slaves, 138, 156.
conventiō in manum, 35;
cum conventiōne, 61;
sine conventiōne, 62.
convīvia, dinners, 312;
convīvia tempestīva, 310.
COOKS, hired in early times, 299.
Cornelii, buried their dead, 420.
corōnae convīvālēs, 313.
CORRESPONDENCE, 391.
COST, of baths, 373;
books, 401;
meals (inns), 388;
slaves, 140;
tables, 227;
wines, 298.
COTTON goods, 269.
COUCHES, sofas or beds, 224*;
dining, 304*.
COVERINGS for the head, men, 252*;
women, 263.
covīnus, two-wheeled cart, 384.
Crassus, in salvage business, 413.
crātēr, mixing bowl, 314*.
CREMATION, introduced at Rome, 420.
crepundia, child's rattle, 98*.
Crescens, famous driver, 342.
CRIMSON or purple, 270.
CRUCIFIXION of slaves, 173.
cubicula, bedrooms, 205.
cucullus, hood, 247, 248, 252.
culīna, kitchen, 203*.
cumerus, 82*.
cuneī, in theater, 327;
circus, 337.
cūrātōrēs, of burial societies, 430.
Curius and his dinner, 299.
curriculum, lap in race, 331.
CURTAIN in later theater, 327.
CURULE chair, 225*.
cyathus, ladle, 314*.
CYPHER correspondence, 390.
CYPRESS, as emblem of death, 433.
D
DAIRY products, 281.
DANCERS, 153.
dator lūdōrum, giver of games, 334.
DAY, a Roman's, 415.
dēclāmātiō, public speaking, 115.
DECORATION of houses, 220 f.;
walls, 220*;
doors, 221*;
floors, 221*;
of tombs, 425*, 428*, 430*.
decuriae, of slaves, 133.
dēfrutum, grape jelly, 296.
delphica (mēnsa), 227*.
dēsīgnātor, funeral director, 434.
dēstrictārium, in baths, 367, 376*.
dēsultōrēs, circus riders, 343.
DEVELOPMENT of the house, 188*.
dextrārum iūnctiō, in marriage, 81*.
DICE, gaming with, 321*.
diēs, lūstricus, 97;
parentālēs, 75, 438;
religiōsī, 75.
dimachaerī, gladiators with two swords, 359.
DINING-ROOM, 204, 304*.
DINNER, in the city, 303-311;
early times, 301;
hour, 310;
bill of fare, 309;
order of courses, 308;
places of honor, 306.
Diocletian (Emperor 284-305 A.D.) baths of, 378*.
discus, throwing the, 316*.
dispēnsātor, steward, 149.
diurna cubicula, 205.
DIVORCE, 72, 93.
DOG, as pet, 103;
in hallway, 195*.
dōlia, for oil, 292*;
for wine, 297.
dominica potestās, 37.
dominus gregis, head actor, 324.
Domitian (Emperor 81-96 A.D.), 339.
domus, 186;
see HOUSE.
DOORS, construction, 215* f.;
names, 216.
dormitōria, 205.
dorsum, top course in road, 387.
dōs, dowry, 72.
DOWRY, 72.
DRAMATIC performances, 323 f.
DRESS, Chap. VII. See Table of Contents.
DRINKING bouts, 312*.
DRIVERS, chariot races, 341*.
ducēnārius, horse of 200 victories, 340.
DWARFS, kept for amusement, 153.
E
"EARLY DINNERS," 310.
EARLY FORMS, of marriage, 61;
of names, 38, 57, 58;
of table customs, 299;
of toga, 245;
of theater, 325;
of baths, 365;
of gladiatorial shows, 345.
EARLY HOURS at Rome, 79, 415.
EARS of slaves bored, 139.
EDUCATION, Chap. IV. See Table of Contents.
ELM TREE, for grapes, 295;
for switches, 167;
"essence of elm," 168.
ēditor mūnerum, giver of gladiatorial show, 362.
ELOCUTION in schools, 114.
EMANCIPATION, of a son, 18;
of a slave, 175.
endormis, bath robe, 249.
ENGAGEMENTS, marriage, 71.
EPIGRAPHIC sources, 10.
epityrum, olive salad, 290.
equitēs, career of, 409.
ERRORS in manuscript books, 399.
Esquiline Hill, as burial-place, 423.
essedāriī, chariot fighters, 359;
spelled assidāriī, 362.
ESSENTIALS for the bath, 366;
for burial, 436.
EXAGGERATION in satire, 93.
ex cathedrā, official utterance, 226.
exedrae, reception halls, 207.
expōnere, "expose," of children, 95.
EXPOSURE of children, 32, 95;
slaves, 157.
exta, of the sacrifices, 277.
EXTINCTION of the potestās, 34;
of a family, 30.
See ADOPTION.
F
f., abbreviation in names, 39, 57;
for fugitīvus, 172.
fābulae palliātae, 323.
facēs, torches kept in doorways, 229.
factiōnēs, racing syndicates, 339.
familia, meanings, 17, 21;
=stirps, 22;
gladiātōria, 349;
rūstica, 142, 145;
urbāna, 149.
FAMILY, Chap. I. See Table of Contents;
defined, 17;
splitting up of, 19;
cult, 27.
FANS, 266*.
far, early sort of grain, 282.
FARMING of revenues, 409.
FARM slaves, see familia rūstica;
work, 148.
fasciae, wrappings of cloth, 239.
fascinātiō, evil eye, 98, 99.
fascis, a set of books, 397.
FASTENINGS for doors, 216.
FATHER, see pater familiās;
as companion of his sons, 106.
faucēs, in a house, 192, note.
FEES, in schools, 109, 119;
baths, 373.
fēlīciter, in congratulations, 82.
feminālia, wrappings for legs, 239.
fenestrae, windows, 217*.
fērālia, 438.
Fescinnīnī versūs, 87.
FESTIVALS, cāra cognātiō, 25;
fērālia, 438;
mātrōnālia, 91;
līberālia, 127;
rosāria, 438;
Sāturnālia, 319;
vīnālia rūstica, 296;
violāria, 438.
FESTIVITIES, wedding, 80, 85, 86, 89;
coming of age, 127.
FIREMEN, slaves as, 141.
FISH, as food, 280.
fistūca, heavy rammer, 213.
flābellum, fan, 266*.
flagrum, scourge, 167*.
flammeum, bridal veil, 77*.
Flāvium amphitheātrum, see COLISEUM.
FLOORS, construction, 213.
FLOWERS, at feasts, 313;
at tombs, 438.
fōcālia, wrappings for throat, 239.
foculī, heating stoves, 218*.
follēs, balls filled with air, 318*.
FOOD, Chap. VIII. See Table of Contents.
FORBIDDEN DEGREES of kinship, 25, 68.
forēs, double doors, 195, 216.
FORKS, not used, 299.
forum, place of early shows, 351.
FOUNDLINGS, fate of, 96.
FOWLS, domestic, 279.
FREEDMAN, name, 59;
relation to patron, 175.
frīgidārium, 366;
other uses, 367;
position, 368;
furnishings, 370;
shown on plans, 371*, 376*, 377*.
fritillus, dice box, 321.
frontēs, of papyrus rolls, 397.
FRUITS, known to Romans, 274.
frūmentum, grain, 282, and note.
fugitīvī, 172.
fullōnēs, as cleaners, 271*.
FUNERAL games, 344, 345;
ceremonies, Chap. XII. See Table of Contents.
fūnus, acerbum, plēbēium, 432.
furca, as punishment, 169.
FURNACE for houses, 218;
for baths, 368.
FURNITURE, 222 f.;
modern lacking, 223;
couches, 224*;
chairs, 225*;
tables, 227*;
lamps, 228*;
chests and cabinets, 230*;
other articles, 232.
G
Gāius, meaning, 44, 81;
as a nomen, 55, 81;
in the marriage ceremony, 81, 88.
GAME, wild, for table, 279.
GAMES, of children, 103, 320*;
public and private, see AMUSEMENTS. Chap. IX;
of ball for men, 318*;
of chance, 319*, 320*, 321*;
funeral, 344, 345.
GARDEN, behind the peristyle, 202;
produce, 275, 276.
GARLANDS worn by slaves, 134;
by bride and groom, 78;
by women, 264;
at feasts by men, 313.
GEESE as pets, 103*.
gēns, theory of, 22;
marked by nōmen, 38;
burial-places of, 422.
gentīlēs, 22;
at the confarreate ceremony, 81*.
"GENTLEMEN'S DINNERS," 310 f.
GIRL, named, 97;
home training, 104, 105;
married at early age, 67, 105;
admitted to schools, 109.
GLADIATORS, 344 f.;
in Etruria and Campania, 344;
first shows at Rome, 344;
in theory private shows, 345;
numbers exhibited, 346;
whence obtained, 347;
innocent and guilty, 348;
training, 349;
fashions and tactics, 359;
armor, 360;
the fight, 362;
rewards, 363;
bravos and bullies, 346.
GLASS, for windows, 217;
balls for hands, 266.
gradūs, rows of seats, 337;
of urns, 428.
GRAMMAR schools, 112.
grammaticus, of a teacher, 112.
GRAPES, 293;
where grown, 294;
how grown, 295;
jelly, 296.
GREEK, place in schools, 112;
nurses, 101;
teachers, 115;
taught to children, 101, 116, 123.
GROUNDS, about tombs, 426*.
GUARDIANS, of women, 19, 70;
of children, 22.
gustus, first course at dinner, 308.
H
Hadrian (Emperor 117-138 A.D.), tomb, 427, 438*.
HAIR, arrangement, men, 254;
women, 263;
of a bride, 78.
HANDBALL, 318.
HANDKERCHIEFS, 266.
HARD LABOR, as punishment, 170.
hasta, sign of auction, 134.
HATS, 252.
HEAD of the House, see pater familiās.
HEATING houses, 218;
baths, 368*, 369.
HINGES of doors, 215*.
HISTORY, and antiquities, 4;
not taught systematically in schools, 112.
HOLIDAYS, numerous, 322;
school, 122;
avoided as wedding days, 75;
spent in country, 416.
HOME training, 104.
HONEY, used for sugar, 281.
hoplomachī, later name for "Samnites," 360, 344*.
Horace, (65-8 B.C.), his slaves, 133.
HORSES, in chariot races, 339, 340;
in other shows, 343.
Hortī Maecēnātis, 423.
hospitēs, 183 f.
hospitium, 184.
HOURS, of the day, 417, 418;
for meals, 301;
for baths, 374;
all semi-public functions, 415.
HOUSE, dwelling, Chap. VI. See Table of Contents;
=familia, see FAMILY;
Head of House, see pater familiās;
house slaves, 149.
HOUSE of Pansa, 208*;
of Sallust, court, 204*;
of the poet, ruins, 199*.
HOUSEHOLD, translation of familia, 17.
HUMAN sacrifices, 344.
HUT, of Romulus, 214*;
early Romans, 189*.
hymenaeus, marriage hymn, 86.
I
iānitor, chained to post, 150, 195.
iantāculum, breakfast, 302.
iānua, distinguished from ōstium, 216.
ientāculum, breakfast, 302.
imāginēs, kept in ālae, 200;
in funeral processions, 434.
imbricēs, tiles for roof, 214*.
imperium paternum, 31.
impluvium, 188, 191, 196*.
INCOME, sources of, Chap. XI. See Table of Contents.
INDUSTRIAL employment of slaves, 143.
indūtus, clothing, 234.
INK, INKSTANDS, etc., 395*.
INNS, 388*.
INSCRIPTIONS, importance of, 10;
of a fugitīvus, 172;
of Crescens, 342;
gladiatorial show, 361;
of Hylas, 362;
milestone, 386;
in columbāria, 431;
of Plancus, 427, note, 420*.
īnstita, flounce of stola, 260.
INSURRECTIONS of slaves, 132.
INTERMENT, see BURIAL.
iūdicium domesticum, 32.
-ius, original in nōmen, 46;
in other names, 55.
iūs cōnūbiī, 64;
ōsculī, 25;
patrium, 31.
iūstī līberī, rightful children, 69.
J
JACKSTONES, 103, 320*.
JESTERS, 153.
JEWELRY worn by men, 255;
women, 267.
JOINING hands in marriage ceremony, 74.
Juvenal (about 67-127 A.D.), on the toga, 244;
"bread and games," 322.
K
KITCHEN, 203.
KNIGHTS, income of, 409.
KNIVES and forks, 299.
KNUCKLE-BONES, 320*.
L
l., abbreviation for lībertus, 59.
lābrum, basin in bath, 369, 376, 377.
lacerna, cloak, 247.
lacōnicum, dry sweat bath, 367, 371*.
laena, woolen cloak, 249.
LAMPS, 228, 229*.
LAND, travel by, 381.
lanista, trainer of gladiators, 349.
laqueatōrēs, gladiators with lassos, 359.
larēs, compitālēs, gods of crossroads, 87;
of the house, 199.
LATER theater, 326 f.
laterēs coctī, 212*;
crūdī, 210.
LATIN in schools, 113;
best spoken by women, 92.
lātrīna, toilet room, 203*.
laudātiō funebris, funeral address, 435.
LAW, practice of, 407.
lectīca, and bearers, 151*;
on journeys, 382.
lectus, see COUCHES;
adversus, 199.
LEGAL status of children, 94;
slaves, 156;
women, 35, 36, 90.
lēnōnēs, 139.
LETTERS, writing of, 391;
sending, 390;
speed, 389;
sealing and opening, 392;
the address, 392.
lībera cēna, feast for gladiators, 362.
Līberālia, 127.
lībertīnī, in business, 412 f.
lībertus, opposed to lībertīnus, 175;
relation to patron, 175.
LIBERTY, cap of, 175*.
libitīnāriī, undertakers, 433.
LIBRARIES, 206, 402.
librāriī, copyists, 391, 399, 401.
līmen, threshold, 195, 215;
superum, 215.
LIMITATIONS of patria poteatās, 32, 33;
of manus, 36;
of dominica potestās, 156, 157.
LINEN goods, 269.
līnum, 392.
LITERARY sources, 9.
litterae, see LETTERS;
eōdem exemplō, 390.
Livia, columbārium of, 428*.
LOAVES of bread, 288*.
locus, cōnsulāris, 306;
in columbārium, 431.
lōrārius, executioner, 174.
lucerna, lamp, 228*, 229*.
lūdī, circēnsēs, 328 f.;
scēnicī, 323 f.;
gladiātōriī (schools), 349*, 350.
lūdus, see SCHOOLS;
lūdus Trōiae, 343.
LUNCHEON, 302.
lūnula, ornament, 98;
for shoe, 251.
M
M. and M', in names, 41.
m., for missus, of pardoned gladiator, 361.
Maecenas, gardens of, 423.
maeniāna, sections of seats, 337, 358.
maeniānum, projecting second story, 233*.
magister bibendī, master of revels, 313.
maiestās patria, 31.
mālum, Armeniacum, grānātum, Persicum, Pūnicum, 274.
mamillāre, 257*.
mangōnēs, 135.
MANHOOD, when reached, 126.
MANUFACTURE of clothing, 271.
MANUMISSION of slaves, 175.
manus, defined, 35;
limited, 36;
unpopular, 65, 66;
when necessary, 66.
Marcellus, theater of, 327*.
MARRIAGE, Chap. III. See Table Of Contents;
by capture, 78, 86, 88;
hymn, 86;
cry, 87;
torch, 86, 89;
religious duty, 28.
Martial (43-101 A.D.) and the toga, 244;
and cost of books, 401.
MASTER, heir of his slaves, 164.
MATERIALS for clothing, 269.
MATCHED PAIRS of slaves, 140.
mātrimōnium, motherhood, 64;
iniūstum, 69.
mātrīmus, with a living mother, 82.
mātrōnālia, 91.
MEALS, Chap. VIII. See Table of Contents.
MEANINGS of names, 44.
MEAT, early food of Italians, 273;
various kinds, 277.
MEMORIAL festivals, 438.
mēnsa, table in general, 227;
dining, 307.
mēnsa prīma, first course, 308.
mēnsa secunda, dessert, 308, 309, 311.
MENU, of dinner, 309.
merenda, irregular meal, 302.
merīdiātiō, noonday rest, 302.
mēta, of a grain mill, 284*.
mētae, in a circus, 331*, 335.
MILESTONES, 386*.
MILL, for grain, 284*;
for olives, 292*;
as a punishment, 148, 171.
missus, seven laps in a race, 331;
"spared," of a gladiator, 361.
MIXING BOWLS, 314*;
three thousand of Pompeius, 326;
mixing wine, 314.
mola, mill, 284*, 285*.
monopodium, table with one support, 227*.
MONUMENTAL sources, 11.
"Moritūrī tē salūtant," 362.
MOSAICS, 221.
MOTHER, as nurse, 100;
as teacher, 104, 105.
MOURNING, signs of, 246, 253;
periods of, 437.
mulleus, patrician shoe, 251.
mulsa, water and honey, 298.
mulsum, wine and honey, 298.
mūnera, opposed to lūdī, 345;
gladiātōria, Chap. IX. See Table of Contents.
mūnīre viam, of road building, 387.
murmillōnēs, class of gladiators, 360.
mustāceum, wedding cake, 85.
mustum, new wine, 296.
MUTUAL obligations, of patron and freedman, 175;
patrician patron and client, 179;
later patron and client, 182;
of hospitēs, 185.
N
NAME, Chap. II. See Table of Contents.
See also praenōmen, nōmen, cognōmen.
nārrātiō, narration, taught in schools, 115.
NATURALIZED citizens, names of, 60.
naumachiae, naval battles, 364.
NETS, for the hair, 264.
NEW clients, 181.
NEWSPAPER, substitute for, 413.
NICKNAMES, 54;
See also cognōmen.
NIGHT for burial, 432.
NOBLES, debarred from business careers, 404;
funerals of, 433 f.
nodus Herculāneus, 77.
nōmen, before and after cognōmen, 40;
endings of, 46;
sign of gēns, 21, 47;
two or more in one name, 55;
used as praenōmen, 55.
nōmenclātor, 151, 415.
nōminālia, 97.
novendiāle, 437.
nūbere, meaning, 77.
nūcleus, in roads, 387.
NUMERALS as praenōmina, 44;
as names of women, 57.
nūptiae iūstae, 67;
iniūstae, 69.
NURSERY stories, 100.
NURSES, 100;
Greek preferred, 101.
NUTS, in wedding festivities, 87;
for marbles, 103;
grown in Italy, 274.
O
OBELISKS in the circuses, 336*.
OCCUPATIONS of slaves, 143.
oecī, rooms in house, 207.
OLD and new clients, 176 f.
oleum olīvum, olive oil, 291.
OLIVE, uses, 289 f.;
preserved, 290;
oil, uses, 291;
manufacture, 292.
ollae, urns for ashes of dead, 428, 429, 430*, 431, 437.
ollus quiris lētō datus, 434.
ONION, unrefined, 275.
oppidum, in circus, 330*.
opus, caementīcium, 210, 211*;
incertum, 212*;
quadrātum, 210*;
rēticulātum, 212*.
Orange, theater at, 327*.
ORANGE, not grown in Italy, 274.
ōrdō, in columbārium, 428, 431;
scrībārum, 414.
ōrnāmenta, theatrical properties, 324.
ōrnātor, valet, 150.
ōrnātrīx, ladies' maid, 150, 265.
os resectum, bone for burial, 436.
ōstium, door, 195.
ōva, in the circus, 336.
OVEN, for bread, 287*.
P
p., for periit, of gladiators, 361.
paedagōgus, 123*.
paenula, cloak, 248*.
palaestra, exercise ground, 367, 376*.
palla, woman's robe, 261.
palūdāmentum, general's cloak, 247.
pālus, with prīmus or secundus, 363.
papyrus, manufacture, 394;
rolls, 396.
PARASOL, 266*.
parentālia, festival of, 438.
pariēs, house wall, 210.
pater and derivatives, 26.
pater familiās, defined, 17;
powers, see potestās;
adopted into another family, 30.
patria potestās, see potestās.
patriciī, sons of fathers, 64.
patrimōnium prōfundere, 33.
patrīmus, with a living father, 82.
patrōnus, derivation of word, 26;
and lībertus, 175;
patrician and client, 179;
and client of later times, 182.
PAUPERS, burial of, 423.
PAVEMENT, construction, 387.
pavīmentum, floor, 213.
PAY of teachers, 121;
of chariot drivers, 342;
of soldiers, 410.
pecūlium, defined, 33;
of slaves, 162.
pecūnia, meaning, 273.
pedisequī, lackeys, 123, 150.
PENS, 395.
peregrīnus, foreigner, 69.
PERFUMES at feasts, 313.
PERISTYLE, 192, 202*;
perhaps a kitchen garden originally, 197.
pērō, shoe of untanned leather, 251.
Persius (34-62 A.D.) as a schoolboy, 124.
pessulī, bolts for doors, 216.
petasus, hat, 252*.
petōritum, baggage wagon, 383.
PETS for children, 103.
PHILOLOGY, defined, 6.
PHYSICIANS, income and attainments, 412.
pietās, affection, 73.
pīlentum, state carriage, 383.
pilleus, cap of liberty, 175*, 252.
piscīna, plunge bath, 367, 370, 376*, 377*.
pīstōrēs, millers and bakers, 283.
PLACES, of honor at dinner, 305*;
in the theater, 326;
in the circus, 337;
in the amphitheater (Pompeii), 355, (Rome), 358;
where gladiators were shown, 356;
of burial, 421.
PLAN, of theater after Vitruvius, 327;
circus of Maxentius, 330;
of gladiatorial school at Pompeii, 349;
of houses, 189, 190, 191, 192, 193;
of house of Pansa, 208;
of baths, 371, 376, 378;
of inn, 388;
of tombs and grounds, 425, 426.
Plancus, tomb of, 420*, 427.
Plautus (†184 B.C.) on puls, 283.
PLAYTHINGS for children, 102*.
PLEBEIANS, marriages of, 62;
importance of cognates, 65;
gain right of marriage, 64;
old plebeians, 177;
new, 178.
plēbs, see PLEBEIANS.
Pliny, the elder (†79 A.D.), 352.
pōcula, goblets, 314*.
podium, in circus, 337;
in amphitheater, 357;
in tombs, 425.
POLITICS, as a career, 406.
Pollio, Vedius, cruelty of, 158.
POLYGAMY unknown at Rome, 61.
pompa circēnsis, parade in circus, 343.
Pompeii, importance of discoveries at, 11, 12;
house plans, 187 f.;
business rooms in private house, 194;
small house at, 197*;
house of poet, 199*;
of Pansa, 208*;
smaller theater at, 327*;
lūdī gladiātōriī, 350*;
amphitheater, 353*;
thermae, 376*;
street of tombs, 421*;
tomb with marble door, 427*.
pondera, stepping-stones, 233*.
pontifex maximus, in marriage ceremony, 82.
POOR, burial of, 428.
por, for puer in names, 58.
PORK, favorite meat, 278.
PORRIDGE, 283, 286, 299.
porta triumphālis in circus, 330;
pompae, 330;
Libitinēnsis, 354.
POSITION of women, 90.
POSTAL service, 389.
postīcum, garden door, 216.
potestās, patria, 31;
limitations, 32, 73;
extinguished, 34;
suspension of, 34;
dominica, 37.
POTTER's FIELD at Rome, 423.
praecīnctiō, in theater, 327;
in circus, 337;
in coliseum, 358.
praenōmen, first name, 41;
number, 41;
abbreviations, 41, 45;
limited in certain families, 42;
given to firstborn son, 43;
meanings of, 44;
two in one name, 55.
prandium, luncheon, 302.
PRICES, of baths, 373;
books, 401;
houses, 221, note;
meals, 388;
slaves, 140;
tables, 227;
wines, 298.
PRIMITIVE house, 188.
prīmus pālus, title of honor, 363.
PRIVATE, antiquities, 2;
slaves, 142 f.;
bathhouse at Caerwent, 371*;
games, 322;
rooms in house, 203.
PROCESSION, bridal, 86;
in circus, 343;
in the amphitheater, 362.
prōcūrātor, steward, 149.
PROFESSIONS in hands of freedmen and foreigners, 412;
even of slaves, 143.
PROLETARIATE, 411.
prōlūsiō, sham fight, 362.
prōmulsis, appetizer, 308.
prōnuba, matron of honor, 81.
PROVINCES, corruption in, 406, 409.
PUBLIC, antiquities, 2;
baths, 372 f., 376*, 377*;
fountains, 233*;
games, 322;
opinion, in case of children, 32, 33;
in case of slaves, 156.
"PUBLICANS and sinners," 409.
PUBLICATION of books, 400.
puer, for servus, 58;
written por, 58.
pugillārēs, writing tablets in sets, 391*.
puls, ancient national diet, 283.
pultiphagōnidae, 299.
PUNISHMENTS of schoolboys, 120*, 124;
of slaves, 166 f.
pūp(us), of unnamed child, 55.
PURPLE or crimson, 270.
puticulī, gravepits, 423.
Q
quadrāns, regular bath charge, 373.
quadrīgae, in races, 340.
R
RACEHORSES, 339 f.
RACES in circus, 339 f.;
teams, 340;
drivers, 341;
syndicates, 339.
RACING syndicates, 339.
RAPE of the Sabines, 86, 87.
READING, how taught, 110.
rēda, carriage, 384.
REFERENCE books, 13.
RELATIONSHIPS, agnātī, 23;
cognātī, 25;
adfīnēs, 26.
renūntiāre, break an engagement to marry, 71.
repōtia, 85, 89.
repudium renūntiāre, see renūntiāre.
rētiāriī, gladiators with nets, 359, 360*.
rēticula, nets for the hair, 264.
REWARDS of aurīgae, 341;
of gladiators, 363.
rēx bibendī, lord of the feast, 313.
RICE in modern wedding festivities, 87.
RINGS, engagement, 71;
men's, 255;
women's, 267;
worn on joint, 256.
ROADS, 385*-387*.
Romulus, legislation of, 32, 95;
wall of, 210*;
hut of, 214*.
ROOF, of peristyle, 202*;
construction of, 214*.
rosāria, feast of roses, 438.
rudēs, fencing swords, 349;
with prīma or secunda, 363.
rūdus, in roads, 387*.
RUNAWAY slaves, 161, 172*.
S
sacra gentīlīcia, 22.
sacrārium, private chapel, 207*.
SADDLES, not used by Romans, 381.
sagīna gladiātōria, training food, 349.
sagum, military cloak, 247.
SALADS, 276.
SALES of captives, 134;
of slaves, 139.
SALTCELLAR of silver, 299;
always on table, 307.
salūtātiō, morning levee, 182.
"Samnītēs," name for gladiators, 359, 360*;
later called secūtōrēs or hoplomachī, 360.
SANDALS, see SLIPPERS.
sarcophagus 436*, 428.
SAVINGS of slaves, 162-164.
SCALES, in marriage ceremony, 83.
scāpus, fixed quantity of paper, 394, 398.
schēdae, sheets of paper, 395.
SCHOOLS, Chap. IV. See Table of Contents.
SCHOOLS for gladiators, 349*.
scrībae, in civil service, 414;
as copyists, see librāriī.
scrīnium, case for books, 397*.
SEALS, 255*, 392.
SEATS, in theater, of classes, 326;
arrangement, 327;
in circus, 337;
in amphitheater (Pompeii), 355, (Rome), 358.
secunda mēnsa, 308, 309, 311.
secūtōrēs, later name for "Samnītēs," 360.
SEDAN CHAIRS, in travel, 382.
sella curūlis, 225*.
sēmitae, sidewalks, 387.
sepulcrum, 425, 436.
serae, bars, 216.
Servius and Sergius, derivation, 41.
Servius, grammarian (4th cent. A.D.), 434.
SEVENTEEN, time of coming of age, 126.
SHIPS, travel by, 380.
SHOES, 251*, 262*.
SHOWS of gladiators. See mūnera.
SHUTTERS for windows, 217.
SIDEWALKS, 233.
SIGNS of mercy in amphitheater, 362.
silicernium, funeral feast, 436.
SILK goods, 269.
sine missiōne, "to the death," 362.
SIZE of books, 398.
SLAVEHUNTERS, 161.
SLAVERY and clientage, 180.
SLAVES, Chap. V. See Table of Contents.
SLEEPING rooms, 205.
SLIPPERS, 250*, 262*.
SMOKE to ripen wine, 297.
sōlārium, place to take the sun, 207, 426;
sun-dial, 232.
SOLDIERS, career, 410.
soleae, 250*, 262*;
soleās poscere, "to take leave," 250.
solium, chair, 226*;
basin in bath, 369.
sōlum, floor, 213.
sordidātī, in mourning garb, 246.
sortēs virīlis, a shareholder's part, 430.
SOURCES of philological knowledge, literary, 9;
epigraphic, 10;
monumental, 11.
Sp., abbreviation for Spurius, 41.
sp., abbreviation for spectāvit populus, 363.
Spartacus, 132, 172.
spatium, lap in circus, 331.
SPEED, in travel, 389;
in writing, 401.
spīna in circus, 331*, 336*.
spīna alba, of wedding torch, 86.
SPINNING wheel, 199.
SPLITTING up of a house, 19.
spondeō, technical word in contract, 71.
spōnsa, of a girl betrothed, 71.
spōnsālia, ceremony of betrothal, 70.
SPORT, Roman idea of, 316.
SPORTS of the campus, 317;
of children, 102, 103.
sportula, the clients' dole, 182.
STAGE, early, 325;
later, 326 f.;
of Vitruvius, 327*.
STAGING a play, 324.
statūmen in roads, 387.
STEPPING-STONES in streets, 233*.
stilus, for writing, 391.
stola, 259, 260*;
mātrōnālis, 91.
STOOLS, 225*.
STOVE, for cooking, 203*;
for heating, 218*.
STREET, appearance, 233*;
construction, 387;
closed to vehicles, 382;
of tombs at Pompeii, 421*.
strigilēs, flesh scrapers, 367*, 370.
strophium, girdle, 258.
STUCCO, as finish for exterior wall, 212.
STYLE of living, 299;
of bathing, 367.
Styx, passage of, 433.
suāsōria, debates in schools, 115.
sub hastā vēnīre, auction sale, 134.
SUBJECTS taught in schools, Chap. IV.
subligāculum, loin cloth, 235, 257.
subūcula, under-tunic, 237.
sūdāria, handkerchiefs, 266.
Suetonius (about 75-160), 390.
SUICIDE of captives and slaves, 140*, 161.
suī iūris, independent, 17.
Sulla and Sura, derivation, 55.
SUPPLY of gladiators, 347;
of slaves, 134;
of horses for racing, 339.
Sura, derivation, 55.
susceptiō, acknowledgment of children, 95.
SUSPENSION of potestās, 34.
suspēnsūra, elevated floor of bath room, 368*.
SWEAT bath, dry, 367;
moist, 369.
synthesis, dinner dress, 249.
T
tabellae, for writing, 110*, 391*.
tabellāriī, letter carriers, 389.
TABLE knives and forks unknown, 299.
TABLES, cost, kinds, materials, 227*.
tablīnum, in early house, 190;
in later house, 201;
meaning of word, 201.
Tacitus (about 55-117) on the toga, 133.
Talassiō, marriage cry, 87.
tālī, knuckle-bones, 320*.
TEACHERS, 121.
tēcta, roofs, 214.
tēgulae, tiles, 214*.
tepidārium, purpose, 366;
other uses, 367;
position, 368;
unusual size, 371*;
several in one bath, 376*;
in the large thermae, 377;
with cold bath, 370.
tessera gladiātōria, 363*;
hospitālis, 185.
THEATER, early, 325;
later, 326;
of Vitruvius, 327*;
at Pompeii, 327*;
at Orange, 327*;
of Pompeius, 326.
thermae, meaning, 372;
plan of small, 376*;
of large, 378*.
THIRD FINGER for engagement ring, 71.
"Thracians," gladiators, 360*, 361.
"THUMBS down," signal for death, 362.
Tiberius (Emperor, 14-37 A.D.), 274.
tībiālia, wrappings for the legs, 239.
TILES, for roofs, etc., 214*.
tīrōcinium forī, 117;
mīlitiae, 118.
tīrōnēs, of untrained gladiators, 118.
titulus, description of slave, 139;
in columbāria, 429, 431*.
TOAST-MASTER, 313.
TOASTS, 314.
TOGA, material and use, 240;
appearance, 241*;
in literature, 242*;
on the monuments, 243*;
cumbrous and uncomfortable, 244;
earlier toga, 245*;
kinds of, 246;
see also the Latin word below.
toga, see the English word above;
candida, 246;
lībera, 127;
picta, 246;
pulla, 246;
pūra, 246;
praetexta, 76, 125, 246;
splendēns, 246;
virīlis, 125.
TOILET articles, 265*.
tollere, acknowledge a child, 44, 95.
TOMBS, 422 f.
tōnsor, barber and barber-shop, 254.
TORCHES, at funerals, 434;
weddings, 86, 89.
"To the lions," 364.
TOWN-SLAVES, 159.
trabea, cloak for men, 247.
TRADES, 412.
TRAINERS of gladiators, 349, 363.
TRAVEL, Chap. X. See Table of Contents.
TRAVELING cloak, 248.
TREADING grapes for wine, 296*.
TREATMENT of slaves, 158.
trīclīnium, dining-room, 204, 304*;
in court, 204*.
trigōn, three handed ball, 318.
TRIPLE name, 38;
expanded, 39;
shortened, 40.
Tullus, meaning, 44.
TUNIC, 236*.
tunica, 236*;
angustī clāvī, 238;
lātī clāvī, 238;
exterior (men's), 237;
(women's), 259*;
interior, 237, 258;
manicāta, 237;
tālāris, 239;
rēcta, 76;
rēgilla, 76.
Tūscanicum ātrium, 196.
tūtor, guardian, 19, 70.
TWELVE TABLES (450 B.C.), in the schools, 111;
mention both burial and burning of dead, 420.
tyrotarīchus, a dish of cheese and salt fish, 280.
U
umbella, parasol, 266*.
umbilīcus, of a papyrus roll, 397.
umbōnēs, of a road, 387.
umbrāculum, parasol, 266*.
umbrae, unexpected guests, 304.
ūnctōrium, use, 366;
makeshift for, 367.
UNLUCKY days, 75.
URNS, for ashes of dead, see ollae.
ūstrīna, place for private cremation, 426.
ūsus, of marriage, definition, 62;
ceremony of, 84.
V
v., for vīcit, of gladiators, 361.
vappa, term of reproach, 297, note.
Varro (116-28 B.C.), 253.
VEGETABLES grown by Romans, 275.
VEGETARIANS, early Romans, 299.
VEHICLES, used for travel, 382 f.
vēla, portières, 216;
awnings, 358, 361.
vēnātiōnēs, hunts in circus and amphitheater, 343, 364.
ventrālia, wrappings for the body, 239.
Venus, the high throw, 320.
vernae, slaves born in the house, 138;
of Atticus, 155.
Verrēs, as a nōmen, 46;
the governor of Sicily, 406.
vesperna, evening meal in country, 302.
Vestālēs, special seats in theater, 327;
in amphitheater, 357;
allowed carriages in the city, 382.
vestibulum, space before the door, 194.
via Appia, 385*, 387*.
vicārius, a slave's slave, 164.
vīlicus, overseer, 145, 148;
cheats slaves, 160.
VILLAS of the rich, 145, 379, 416.
vīnālia rūstica, festival, 296.
VINEGAR, 281, 297, note.
VINEYARD, 295.
vīnum, fermented wine, 297.
violāria, feast of violets, 438.
VITICULTURE, 293, 294.
Vitruvius, architect of the first century, 187, 327, 366, 387.
volūmen, papyrus roll, 396. See BOOKS.
VULTURE, the lowest throw, 320.
W
WALL, of house, 210 f.;
facing for, 212*;
around arena, 354*, 357*.
WATER, supply for houses, 219;
for baths, 368;
traveling by, 380.
WAX masks, of the dead, 433.
WEDDING, see MARRIAGE;
day, 75;
feast, 85;
garments, 76;
torch, 86, 89;
procession, 86.
Whitney (1827-1894), definition of Philology, 6.
WINDOWS, 217*.
WINE, in Italy, 293;
districts, 294;
making, 296*;
vaults, 297*;
jars, 297 (Fig. 116);
drunk diluted, 298;
cost, 298.
WOMEN, names of, 57;
position of, 90;
education of, 92;
dress of, 257 f.;
at table, 302, 304*;
at amphitheater, 353, 358;
at baths, 375.
WOOL for clothing, 269.
WORDS of style in contracts, 70;
at funerals, 434.
WRITING, how taught, 110;
of books, 398.
Z
zōna, girdle, 260*.
*** End of this LibraryBlog Digital Book "The Private Life of the Romans" ***
Copyright 2023 LibraryBlog. All rights reserved.