A History of the Wife (6 page)

At the same time, the law offered few recourses for injured wives. Even the most horrendous marriages could not be terminated at the behest of the wife, especially after the birth of a child. Her only recourse to an abusive husband was to abandon the conjugal roof—a process requiring authorization from the archon (one of the nine chief magis- trates)—and to return to the custody of her father or another appointed
kyrios
. A special law looked out for the interests of the woman who had been married only for her money and then ignored by her husband after she had produced an heir; she could compel him by law to have sexual relations with her at least three times a month. (Try to imagine how the wife was able to enforce such a decree!)

In ancient Greece, wives were generally younger than their hus- bands—by ten to twenty years. Since they were strictly excluded from almost all activities outside the house, they could hardly be full compan- ions to their husbands, who spent most of their waking hours away from home in the agora (forum), marketplace, gymnasium, and brothel. Mar- riage was respected as an institution that provided progeny and good housekeeping; it was not expected to fulfill one’s longing for a soul mate. Instead, the ideal union, at least among the cultured elite, was homosexual. In direct contrast to the Judeo-Christian mentality, the homosexual union between a man and a boy was presented as both natural and laudable. Plato (427–348
B
.
C
.
E
.) extolled boys who enjoyed physical

contact with men and believed that when these boys become adults, “they’re sexually attracted to boys and would have nothing to do with marriage and procreation if convention didn’t override their natural inclinations.” Like heterosexual couples, homosexuals joined by “affection, warmth, and love” were deemed to be suited for “lifelong relationships.”
21

In addition to Plato, such diverse Greek writers as Xenophon, Aris- totle, Aristophanes, and Plutarch, covering a span of five centuries, did not consider homosexual relations unusual. When we consider the large body of textual evidence, it is hard to disagree with the view that homosexuality in ancient Greece, at least among the upper classes, “was not only a widespread practice but perhaps a universal one and one that was certainly considered to have high cultural value.”
22
But it would be wrong to assume that it was unproblematic. As several classi- cists keep reminding us, even the most enthusiastic proponents of homosexuality limited it to the man-boy relationship.
23
Pederasty was a sanctioned social institution designed to initiate young men into a vir- ile fraternity, with a prescribed set of conventions for the adult male, who was usually under forty, and his boy lover, aged twelve to eighteen. It was not viewed as a replacement for marriage.

Since women in Athens were generally restricted to female company in their homes, and since affection between husbands and wives was not particularly stressed, some married women may have found solace with other women, though we know virtually nothing about lesbian practices in classical Greek society. What little we know comes from an earlier source, from the poetry of Sappho, who was born on the island of Lesbos around 612
B
.
C
.
E
. and who is believed to have headed an association (
thiasos
) of young women. In these female communities, women learned music, singing, poetry, and dance. The belief that Sap- pho loved several women is based on the fragments of her poems that have come down to us, and the references to her found in the works of subsequent Greek writers.

The one extant song that still exists in its entirety is Sappho’s “Hymn to Aphrodite.” In it, Sappho petitions the Goddess of Love to transform her unrequited passion for a young woman into reciprocal love. Aphrodite gives an encouraging response:

Who,

O Sappho, does you injustice?

For if indeed she flees, soon will she pursue, and though she receives not your gifts, she will give them,

and if she loves not now, soon she will love,

even against her will.
24

Sappho’s poetry would have been unknown to almost all Greek wives, since most could not read, and all but courtesans were excluded from the male banquets where her poetry might have been recited. Some women, like Sappho, undoubtedly found pleasure in the arms of other women, as they do today, but then it would have been a very dan- gerous liaison indeed. The Greek wife was not her own property. Given by her father to her husband “for the purpose of producing legitimate offspring,” she spent the greater part of her adult life being pregnant, nursing and tending children, preparing food, and producing cloth. She did not record for posterity the pleasures she might have derived from a lover.

ROMAN WIVES

During the next few centuries, when the center of the Mediterranean world shifted from Athens to Rome, there was a corresponding shift in ideas about the nature of marriage. Under the early Roman republic, from the fifth to the second century
B
.
C
.
E
., marriage resembled the Greek model: control over women passed “naturally” from fathers to husbands. Married women were expected to behave according to the dictates of
pudicitia
—a code word for strict morality, including its literal meaning “chastity.” The mythical heroines of this early period were cel- ebrated for their uncompromising fidelity to their one and only hus- band, even after they had become widows. The legendary Lucretia went so far as to commit suicide after she had been raped by Sextus Tarquinius; in Livy’s account from his
History of Rome
, written around 25
B
.
C
.
E
., she summoned her father, husband, and friends, and dramat- ically stabbed herself before them.
25
Married couples assumed the duty of perpetuating the husband’s family name and of providing sons for the young republic, which depended on soldiers for its very existence. Men who reigned on the battlefield and in the Senate were expected to

be the rulers of their homes. But in time, during the late republic and the empire, a more egalitarian ideal took root—one that emphasized the partnership of husband and wife.

These two different ideals were spelled out in Roman law as marriage
cum manu
and marriage
sine manu
(literally “with hand” and “without hand”). The gradual shift from marriage “with hand” to marriage “with- out hand” meant that a woman, even after her marriage, remained under the nominal tutelage of her father instead of becoming the “ward” of her husband.

Roman fathers were responsible for finding suitable matches for their daughters, while mothers, aunts, married older sisters, and matronly friends could also become involved in the search. The young girl herself was not encouraged to take the initiative in any way and was expected to accept her parents’ choice. The father negotiated the
spon- salia
(betrothal), often when his daughter was quite young, in early Rome as young as six or seven. This was something of a preliminary business arrangement that might or might not result in a marriage.

After the austere years of the early republic, when such basic con- cerns as physical health and family name determined the choice of a spouse, more venal considerations such as money and political connec- tions came to the fore. Pliny the Younger, writing around 100
C
.
E
. to a friend who had asked him to find a husband for his brother’s daughter, described a suitable candidate in terms of his public service, his appear- ance, and his family’s fortune: “He has held the offices of quaestor, trib- une and praetor with great distinction.... He has a frank expression, and his complexion is fresh and high-coloured; his general good looks have a natural nobility and the dignified bearing of a senator. (I person- ally think these points should be mentioned, as a sort of just return for a bride’s virginity.)” Then with a show of reluctance, he wrote, “I am wondering whether to add that his father has ample means.... In view of the prevailing habits of the day and the laws of the country which judge a man’s income to be of primary importance.”
26
For all Pliny’s high-minded manner, money was the conclusive remark.

But if money was primary, personal qualities such as good looks and character added weight to the suit. Women were expected to be virgins, and in return, men were expected to be well mannered, dependable, and energetic, especially in the gentry class to which Pliny belonged. No one expected the bridegroom to be a virgin.

The marriage betrothal itself was sometimes negotiated by profes- sional intermediaries, such as marriage brokers, who ran a thriving business in Rome. Two fathers might agree on the marriage of their children or a prospective bridegroom could negotiate on his own behalf. Once the men had settled matters between them, the groom would give the bride (
sponsa
) a ring to wear on the third finger of her left hand—a custom we have preserved in the form of the traditional engagement ring. The young woman’s father was expected to throw an engagement party. Along with weddings and coming-of-age celebra- tions, betrothals helped fill up the busy social calendars of upper-class Romans.

We know very little about the relationship of the engaged couple.
27
Did fiancés spend time together, with or without a chaperone? Was it unusual for a well-bred maiden to speak to her future husband before the wedding day? Ovid (43
B
.
C
.
E
.–18
C
.
E
.) claims that his erotic poems, the
Amores,
should be read by “the maid not cold at the sight of her promised lover’s face,” which suggests that
sponsi
(fiancés) during the early empire at least knew what the other person looked like.
28
But given the licentious nature of Ovid’s writing, I do not think parents would have put it in their daughters’ hands.

Roman marriage laws required the father’s consent (but not the mother’s), and also that of the bride and groom. Provided they were above the official age of puberty—twelve for a girl, fourteen for a boy— a male and female could enter into marriage by a declaration of what the lawyers called
maritalis affectio
(marital affection and intent) and by bringing the bride to the bridegroom’s house. Such marriage was legally binding even without further ceremony. Emphasizing consent as the primary determinant of a valid union, Roman authorities spread this notion throughout the empire, and eventually throughout the whole Western world. It is the requirement of mutual consent that, during the course of many centuries, helped to change a wife’s position. She could no longer be given by her father to her husband like a piece of property. Weddings were generally planned for the second half of June. It was considered unlucky to marry in May or before June 15, when the tem- ple of Vesta, goddess of the hearth, had its annual cleaning. On the day before the wedding, the bride dedicated her toys to the household gods of her childhood and put away the clothing she had worn as a child. For the wedding, her hair was parted into six locks held together by

ribbons, producing a cone-shaped effect, and then covered by a red- orange veil known as a
flammeum.
She wore a full-length white tunic woven from a single piece of cloth, and tied with a belt with a compli- cated knot that only the husband was supposed to untie.

The wedding took place in the bride’s house in the presence of friends and relatives. In fact, it was a duty (
officium
) to accept a wed- ding invitation, since the guests were considered part of the official for- malities. A priest or friend of the family who bore the title of
auspex
presided over the ceremony, during which the matron of honor (
pronuba
) joined the spouses’ right hands, and they kissed. Then the marriage contract, if there was one, was signed and witnessed.

Presents were given to the new couple by family members, friends, and even slaves. After a wedding banquet as luxurious as the bride’s parents could afford, a peculiar mini-drama would take place. The bride pretended to cling to her mother, while the groom’s friends dragged her away amid cries, songs, and obscene jokes. This ritual reminder of rape is still practiced by certain cultures today, including the Gypsies. The bride was then taken in a public procession to her husband’s home, fol- lowed on the road by two servants carrying a distaff and a spindle—tra- ditional symbols of wifely duties. At the entrance of her new residence, she was offered fire and water by the bridegroom—the elements essen- tial to the running of a household. As in Greece, the members of the procession sang an epithalamium outside the bridal chamber while the newlyweds were expected to consummate their union.

The famous epithalamium written by the Latin poet Catullus (84?–54
B
.
C
.
E
.) describes a wedding procession that does not seem to have changed significantly from the time of Homer. Catullus first addresses the bride and then the boys who light the way to her new home.

Come forth, fair bride! Delay no more! Come forth and hear the hymn we pour To Hymen, mighty god, for thee!

. . . .

Raise, boys, your torches! Raise them high! I see the scarf of crimson nigh.

On! To her home the bride to bring, And, as ye move, in measure sing Hail, Hymen! Hymenaeus . . .
29

At the end of this high-spirited poem, Catullus urges the bridegroom to receive his wife amorously in the hope of producing progeny.

Progeny was always a major reason for a man to take a wife. Like the Hebrews and Greeks before them, the Romans thought of marriage as an institution designed to give a man legitimate children. Moreover, Roman citizens were encouraged to procreate as part of their civic duty. During the last century of the republic and the beginning of the empire, when it seemed that the old patrician families were dying out because of the many wars, legislation was introduced to stimulate marriage and offspring. Augustus (emperor from 27
B
.
C
.
E
. to 14
C
.
E
.) decreed that men between the ages of twenty-five and sixty and women between twenty-five and fifty were obliged to marry or remarry. Rewards were given to those who produced many children, and especially to the par- ents of three children, which constituted the Augustan ideal of a suc- cessful family. But the upper classes did not necessarily heed or need these benefits, and found ways to limit the size of their families. Chil- dren entailed expense and attention, which sophisticated Roman men and women were not always willing to provide.