Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
"Marriage more shameful than adultery"
#1
"Marriage more shameful than adultery": slave-mistress relationships, "mixed marriages," and late roman law
by JUDITH EVANS-GRUBBS

Quote:Roman law had never recognized monogamous sexual relationships between slaves, or between free people and slaves. Rather, such unions were termed contubernia and had none of the legal consequences of iustum matrimonium (legitimate marriage).
Confusedhock:
TARBICvS/Jim Bowers
A A A DESEDO DESEDO!
Reply
#2
Well, almost IIRC. Under Roman law, a proper marriage (conubium) with its attendant connection between families and consequences for property and inheritance could only be concluded between Roman citzens. This is, of course, the heritage of city-state days. Also, conubium itself recognised several 'grades' in which a woman might either fully pass into the 'manus' (authority) of her husband or remain under that of her father. The law also recognised the unions between Romans and non-cizizens with a degree of protection, but never the full measure accorded to citizen-citizen marriages. Concubinage relationships could also be concluded if a citizen couple decided not to marry, and seems to have been common under circumstances where social barriers made marriage inappropriate. They, too, had some standing under the law. Slaves, of course, were legally regarded as things and could no more marry than a plough or a horse.

Interestingly enough, the epigraphic evidence doesn't seem to recognise these gradations, calling the wives of Roman citizens, the concubines of soldiers and the companions of slaves 'coniunx'
Der Kessel ist voll Bärks!

Volker Bach
Reply
#3
I seem to remember a lecturer back at university, who said that 'Usus' was probably the most common form of marriage for ordinary Roman citizens by the first century AD. This was simply a public recognition that a couple had been living as man and wife for a year and must therefore count as married.
I do not recall the source of this information.

Crispvs
Who is called \'\'Paul\'\' by no-one other than his wife, parents and brothers. :!: <img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_exclaim.gif" alt=":!:" title="Exclamation" />:!:

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.romanarmy.net">www.romanarmy.net
Reply
#4
Greetings,
the term 'born to respectable parents' caught my eye. If the Romans have enslaved 'respectable' people in their own societies, who then give birth to someone who is considered a slave...why does it then make them less respectable? Some of the Roman senatorial class were not respectable except in birth, they were absolute .... well you think of a word. Some slaves, for all their supposed unworthyness were probably much nicer and kinder people..maybe why some women found them more attractive than the 'superior' Roman full of his own importance...
Some slaves were more than likely of better ancestry than their 'masters'.
Grrrrrr...and I have only read the first few paragraphs as yet.
regards
Arthes
Cristina
The Hoplite Association
[url:n2diviuq]http://www.hoplites.org[/url]
The enemy is less likely to get wind of an advance of cavalry, if the orders for march were passed from mouth to mouth rather than announced by voice of herald, or public notice. Xenophon
-
Reply
#5
If you take the meaning of the word 'respectable' in its literal sense: able to be respected, it makes sense. One would naturally accord respect to someone on a higher stratum of society but not someone on a lower stratum, even if one treated them politely. Being polite and being respectful are not necessarily the same thing. Polititians and other high status members of society were worthy of respect, but slaves, by their very definition, were not (except perhaps by lower grade slaves).

Crispvs
Who is called \'\'Paul\'\' by no-one other than his wife, parents and brothers. :!: <img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_exclaim.gif" alt=":!:" title="Exclamation" />:!:

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.romanarmy.net">www.romanarmy.net
Reply
#6
Quote:Greetings,
Some slaves, for all their supposed unworthyness were probably much nicer and kinder people..maybe why some women found them more attractive than the 'superior' Roman full of his own importance...
Some slaves were more than likely of better ancestry than their 'masters'.
Arthes

Khaire Arthes,

IMHO, there is no such thing as good or bad ancestry, but I agree with your statement that slaves were often better people than their owners, especially since many of them were educated. Epictetus himself was a slave in his youth.

Khaire,

-Aedon
Felix Lucini

It will not be long before you have forgotten all the world, and in a little time all the world will have forgotten you.
Reply
#7
To the Romans there was definitely such a thing as good or bad ancestry. Who you were in society was largely determined by who your father was, who his father was etc and where they came from.

Crispvs
Who is called \'\'Paul\'\' by no-one other than his wife, parents and brothers. :!: <img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_exclaim.gif" alt=":!:" title="Exclamation" />:!:

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.romanarmy.net">www.romanarmy.net
Reply
#8
Quote:To the Romans there was definitely such a thing as good or bad ancestry.

Khaire Crispvs,

Yes, this is also the case in countless other times and places. The first statement was IMHO (In My Own Humble Opinion). I was just agreeing with what Arthes posted.

Khaire,

-Aedon
Felix Lucini

It will not be long before you have forgotten all the world, and in a little time all the world will have forgotten you.
Reply


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  UK tonight on TV:- "Revealed: Boudicca\'s Treasures&quot Tarbicus 9 1,988 11-30-2005, 01:11 PM
Last Post: Tarbicus

Forum Jump: