| Roman women were strictly limited to the domestic
sphere of life. If a woman were to step outside the bounds set for
her, she was subject to scrutiny and often disgrace. Even if she did
not step outside her bounds, but a man were to step outside those
bounds set for polite society, the woman was often blamed for luring
or seducing him. These were the norms for noble or patrician women,
the poor or plebian women had a great deal more work to do, and so
had a great deal more freedom. Those women who have been written
about by ancient authors are either the women known throughout time
for their virtuous actions or for their ribald activities and
inappropriate interest in politics and power. Women were never
spoken of for following the norm of behavior; they were spoken of
for exceeding or never meeting it. Among the written works about
Roman men, Roman women can be found. In many instances, they are
mentioned for their disgraceful activities. In particular, one of
these women is the mother of the emperor Nero, Agrippina. Agrippina,
the great granddaughter of Augustus, should have been the perfect
Roman woman. Her bloodlines were perfect, she was married young, and
had a son. After her husband died though, she made a second marriage
that would put her son in line for the imperial throne. She wanted
her son to have power and authority, and she actively pursued the
imperial throne for him by encouraging poor, disgraceful behavior in
others who were in line for it. When her son was made emperor after
the suspicious death of Claudius, which she may even have been
involved in, she had a great deal of influence with him. This was
highly inappropriate; males were subject only to their fathers or
male relatives. She held such tight control over her son that she
practically ran the government. According to Dio, she even rode in
the same litter as her son (Dio 61.3.2). Agrippina retained control
over her son during the beginning of his reign, and then she
disappears from Suetonius' biography of Nero. She reappears much
later in a portion Suetonius uses to discuss the various family
members Nero has murdered. Suetonius states that "matrem facta
dictaque sua exquirentem aceribus et corrigentem hactenus primo
gravabatur, ut invidia identidem oneraret quasi cessurus imperio
Rhodumque abiturus, mox et honore omni et potestate privavit
abdustaque militum et Germanorum statione contubernio quoque ac
Palatio expulit; neque in diuexanda quicquam pensi habuit, summissis
qui et Romae morantem litibus et in secessu quiescentem per convicia
et iocos terra marique praetervehentes inquietarent."
(Suetonius, 34:1) For all her efforts on the part of her son, her
early control of his public life, and her total control of his
private life, he had her killed. Perhaps had Agrippina been the true
Roman Matron, instead of the inferring, meddling mother, she would
not have been killed by Nero. A better way to describe this is by
saying that Nero would not have had to kill her had she been a
proper Matron. Women are also mentioned for their lewd behavior and
interest in military affairs and politics. The woman most well known
for these flaws is the ever-popular Cleopatra, pharaoh of Egypt,
seducer of Caesar and Antony, and the destroyer of good Roman men.
Cleopatra was blamed with bringing about the downfall of Antony, and
contributing to the grandiose ideas of Caesar, which got him killed.
Perhaps her beauty is to blame, but Plutarch clearly states that
"[f]or her actual beauty, it is said, was not in itself so
remarkable that none could be compared with her, or that no one
could see her without being struck by it, but the contact of her
presence, if you lived with her, was irresistible; the attraction of
her person, joining with the charm of her conversation, and the
character that attended all she said or did, was something
bewitching" (Plutarch, 497). In fact, according to Plutarch, it
is Cleopatra's mind that seduces the men who meet her, not her
beauty. A woman was not supposed to be more intelligent than a man
is, and if she is more intelligent, she should hide it. Cleopatra
did not hide her intelligence, or her strength. Her strength was
manipulating men into doing what she wanted, and she openly flaunted
her control over Antony. Cleopatra's fame could easily be attributed
to the fact that she was the last pharaoh of Egypt, but her real
fame comes from her interaction with the men of Rome. She was judged
as Roman women would be judged, and as such, she was despised. She
was active in politics, she was open about her affairs, and she
interfered in military planning. Antony was not a man who knew
battle at sea, he was a strong land general, but poor at sea
warfare. Yet, Cleopatra pressed him for the sea battle. Perhaps she
thought that she could escape easier if she was near the sea and on
her boat, or perhaps she was setting Antony up to fall from Roman
grace so that he would have to remain with her. Either explanation
is plausible, though considering the comment made by Plutarch that
"the soul of the lover resides in some one else's body,
[Antony] proved to be a serious truth" (Plutarch, 522), causes
one to believe that Antony was entirely enraptured of Cleopatra and
would have done anything to stay with her. It is also likely that
Cleopatra thought Antony killed in battle, and was making her escape
from the scene. Though this possibility is dismissed by Plutarch's
next statement, "She, perceiving him to follow, gave the signal
to come aboard" (Plutarch, 522). Clearly, Cleopatra was not
only politically motivated by her activities, but also emotionally.
She wanted control, and she played on the emotions of men to get it.
She was everything a Roman woman should not be, and nearly
everything a Roman man was, but they were not public about it. There
were also women who were known for their virtue and near perfection.
One of these women was Lucretia. The wife of Collatinus was a woman
known for her virtue, while the other women were partying and
socializing, she was at home spinning wool. Livy states that "Ibi
Sex. Tarquinium mala libido Lucretiae per vim stuprandae capit"
(Livy, Book 1, Section 57, Line 34). Sextus Tarquinius, the son the
last Roman king, was so taken by Lucretia that he went to visit her,
and forced himself upon her. Lucretia could not tolerate what had
happened to her, and she committed suicide. The desire that seized
Tarquinius was based on the virtue of Lucretia. When he brutally
stole her virtue through rape, she, being a good Roman woman, could
not survive, and her suicide was the one thing that returned her
virtue. While Lucretia is remembered for her virtue, it was the act
of Tarquinius that ended the rule of Roman kings. Perhaps she is
respected as for her towering virtue in a time that was nearly
devoid of honor, or perhaps it is because of her commitment to the
Roman ideals of womanhood. Either way, when she is written about,
she is commended for her actions. While Lucretia was a model of
virtue in her time, there were women who were the models for all of
Rome. These women were the Sabine women. The story about the rape of
the Sabine women is one that is widely told throughout Roman
history. The Sabine women made peace with their husbands, and made
peace between their husbands and families. Their fearlessness to
step onto the battlefield and speak out against their families and
for their husbands was amazing (Plutarch, 39-40). These women were
everything the norms wanted Roman women to be. Without these models
of what women could be, Roman women would have had a great deal less
to live up to. The women throughout Roman history have been regarded
as delicate, susceptible to fits of hysteria, and weak in body and
mind. While women may have been considered that way, many tales show
that women were not always weak, stupid, or hysterical. The women of
Rome were viewed as the daughter, wife, or mother of somebody; they
were never themselves. Their worth was based on whom they were tied
to through blood or marriage. They had to hide their intelligence
from men, they had to produce children, generally sons, and they had
to be virtuous models of the Roman Matron. If a woman made a
mistake, she was derided, and her husband was made the brunt of
jokes for having such a wife. This is not different from the way
modern American society deals with women and men. If a man is the
CEO of a company, his wife is expected to act a certain way in
public. If his wife were to appear dressed inappropriately for an
occasion, or speak foolishly, the whole company would be laughing at
him and his choice of wife. Is modern society any less demanding
about what is appropriate than ancient Roman society was? With all
the "advancements" that have been made concerning women's
rights, modern society still thinks of women in much the same way
the ancient Roman's did. Even with the examples of the Sabine women
and Lucretia, Rome saw far too many women who followed in the wake
of Agrippina and Cleopatra to regard women as people and not
creatures that required constant watching. If one examines the texts
of ancient Greece and Rome, one will find a plethora of women who
were not proper demure women. While this may seem to show that women
were all bad, it is important to note that in modern news, it is
difficult to find stories about people doing the "right"
thing. For Romans who had no television or radio, it must have been
easier to write about the rare occasions when a woman stepped far
out of line than to write about those that lived and died within the
norms of society.
Submitted by Angela (Merrow) Vitale
|
