The concubina Fufia Chila is included in this family gravestone set up by Marcus Vennius Rufus to commemorate himself, his father and mother, and his wife (Museo Archeologico Nazionale di Napoli )[1]

A concubinatus (Latin for "concubinage" – see also concubina, "concubine", considered less pejorative than paelex, and concubinus, "man who lives with another with no legal marriage") was an institution of quasi-marriage between Roman citizens who for various reasons did not want to enter into a full marriage or faced legal obstacles to doing so. The institution was often found in couples when one partner belonged to a higher social class or where one of the two was freed and the other one was freeborn.[2] However, it differed from a contubernium, where at least one of the partners was a slave.[3][4]

In Roman law

What legally differentiated a concubinage from a marriage was a lack of affectio maritalis ("marital affection"), which was the desire of having a legal spouse, raise their rank, make them their equal, or the corresponding intent from the other party involved.[5][6] A person registered in a concubinatus was not allowed to have a spouse at the same time.[3]

Emperor Augustus' Leges Juliae gave the first legal recognition of concubinage, defining it as cohabitation without marital status. Concubinatus came to define many relationships and marriages considered unsuitable under Roman customs, such a senator's desire to marry a freedwoman, or his cohabitation with a former prostitute.[7] A quasi-marital relationship involving a Roman citizen and a foreigner was not considered a concubinage but was rather equated to a marriage between non-Romans (matrimonium juris gentium),[8] without legal consequences except those deriving from the Jus gentium.

While any couple could live in a concubinage instead of entering into a marriage, they were compelled to give notice to the authorities.[9] This type of cohabitation varied little from actual marriage, except that heirs from this union were not considered legitimate. Often this was the reason that men of high rank would live with a woman in concubinage after the death of their first wife; the claims of their children from the first marriage would not be challenged by their children from the later union.[9]

Concubina

The title of concubine was not considered derogatory (as it may be considered today) in ancient Rome, and was often inscribed on tombstones.[9] Concerning the difference between a concubine and a wife, the jurist Julius Paulus wrote in his Opinions that "a concubine differs from a wife only in the regard in which she is held", meaning that a concubine was not considered a social equal to her patron, as his wife was.[10]

Concubines did receive some protection under the law, even though they could not legally share their patron's social stature. They largely relied upon their patrons to provide for them. Early Roman law sought to differentiate between the status of concubinage and legal marriage, as demonstrated in a law attributed to Numa Pompilius, the second king of Rome, circa 716–673 BCE: "A concubine shall not touch the altar of Juno. If she touches it, she shall sacrifice, with her hair unbound, a ewe lamb to Juno";[11] this fragment gives evidence that concubines existed early in the Roman monarchy, but also notes the banning of their involvement in the worship of Juno, the goddess of marriage. Later the jurist Ulpian wrote on the Lex Julia et Papia, "Only those women with whom intercourse is not unlawful can be kept in concubinage without the fear of committing a crime".[12] He also said that "anyone can keep a concubine of any age unless she is less than twelve years old".[12]

A concubina was most often a freedwoman or slave,[13] but even an enslaved concubine was privileged under the law. If her owner went bankrupt, all his assets, even his personal belongings such as clothing, could be seized by ceditors and sold; among his slaves, however, a concubina and any biological children he had fathered with a female slave were excluded from the sale.[14]

Concubinus

A masculine of concubine, concubinus, "man in a concubinage", "male-lover",[15] was also regularly used in Latin, although it is attested less often than concubina. See, for instance, Tac. A. 13, 21: "Nunc per concubinum Atimetum et histrionem Paridem quasi scaenae fabulas componit." ("Now through her paramour, Atimetus, and the actor, Paris, she is, so to say, concocting a drama for the stage").[16]

Polygamy

Despite traditional Roman aversion against polygamy and the fact that according to the Roman law a man could not have a concubine while he had a wife,[17] there are various notable occurrences of this, including the famous cases of the emperors Augustus, Marcus Aurelius, and Vespasian. Suetonius wrote that Augustus "put Scribonia [his second wife] away because she was too free in complaining about the influence of his concubine".[18] Often, in return for payment, concubines would relay appeals to their emperor. This de facto polygamy – for Roman citizens could not legally marry or cohabit with a concubine while also having a legal wife – was "tolerated to the degree that it did not threaten the religious and legal integrity of the family".[19]

See also

References

  1. ↑ Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum IX 2265.
  2. ↑ Rawson 1974, p. 288: "Concubinage seems to have been most frequent amongst freed persons."
  3. 1 2 Stocquart 1907, p. 305: "From matrimonium, we should distinguish; First, concubinatus, a union authorized under Augustus from the leges Julia et Papia, between persons of unequal condition, provided the man had no uxor. The concubina was neither uxor nor pellex, but uxoris loco. The children, issue of such a union, are neither legitimi nor spurii, but naturales. (Cod. 5, 27.) Second, contubernium is the perfectly regular and valid relation between a free man and a slave, or between two slaves. Through the civil law, it produced all the effects arising from the natural law.
  4. ↑ Treggiari 1981, p. 53.
  5. ↑ Stocquart 1907, p. 304.
  6. ↑ Treggiari 1981, p. 58, note 42: "Marriage existed if there was affectio maritalis on the part of both parties. For the difficulty of determining whether a relationship was marriage, see for example Cic. de Or. 1.183, Quint. Decl. 247 (Ritter 11.15), Dig. 23.2.24, Mod. 24.1.32.13, Ulp.; 39.5.31 pr., Pap."
  7. ↑ Kiefer 2012, p. 49.
  8. ↑ Stocquart 1907, p. 316: "A legal marriage could not be contracted except between Roman citizens enjoying the rights of connubium. However, the inevitable and necessary intercourse with the peregrini compelled the Romans to regulate unions with some other persons. Such a marriage was not a justum matrimonium, but neither was it a concubinage. They called it matrimonium injustum, non legitimum, or matrimonium juris gentium."
  9. 1 2 3 Kiefer 2012, p. 50.
  10. ↑ Lefkowitz 2005, p. 115.
  11. ↑ Lefkowitz 2005, p. 95.
  12. 1 2 Lefkowitz 2005, p. 110.
  13. ↑ Rawson 1974, pp. 288–289.
  14. ↑ Finkenauer 2023, pp. 36–37.
  15. ↑ See Concŭbīnus. Charlton T. Lewis and Charles Short. A Latin Dictionary on Perseus Project.
  16. ↑ See Perseus Project Ann.13.21
  17. ↑ Stocquart 1907, p. 320: "It was forbidden to have several concubines at once; this would have been polygamy, contrary to Roman civilization. Likewise a man having a lawful wife, could not take a concubine; this would have been adultery and bigamy. If any audacious debauchee violated this law, public morality protested against such turpitude.
  18. ↑ Kiefer 2012, p. 313.
  19. ↑ Grimal 1986, p. 111.

Bibliography

  • Stocquart, Emile (March 1907). Sherman, Charles Phineas (ed.). Translated by Bierkan, Andrew T. "Marriage in Roman law". Yale Law Journal. 16 (5): 303–327. doi:10.2307/785389. JSTOR 785389. Retrieved 2020-09-15.
  • Treggiari, Susan (1981). "Contubernales". Phoenix. CAC. 35 (1): 42–69. doi:10.2307/1087137. JSTOR 1087137.
  • Rawson, Beryl (1974). "Roman Concubinage and Other De Facto Marriages". Transactions of the American Philological Association. JHUP. 104: 279–305. doi:10.2307/2936094. JSTOR 2936094.
  • Kiefer, O. (12 November 2012). Sexual Life In Ancient Rome. Routledge. ISBN 978-1-136-18198-6.
  • Lefkowitz, Mary R.; Fant, Maureen B. (2005). Women's Life in Greece and Rome. Baltimore: JHUP. ISBN 0-8018-4474-6.
  • Grimal, Pierre (1986) [1967]. Love in Ancient Rome. OU Press. ISBN 9780806120140.
  • Finkenauer, Thomas (2023). "Filii Naturales: : Social Fate or Legal Privilege?". The Position of Roman Slaves. De Gruyter: 25–66.

Further reading

  • Betzig, Laura (November 1992). "Roman Monogamy". Ethology and Sociobiology. 13 (5–6): 351–383. doi:10.1016/0162-3095(92)90009-S. hdl:2027.42/29876.
  • Edwards, Catharine (1993). The Politics of Immorality in Ancient Rome. Cambridge University Press.
  • Gardner, Jane F. (1991). Women in Roman Law and Society. Indiana University Press. ISBN 0-253-20635-9.
  • Grubbs, Judith Evans (2002). Women and the Law in the Roman Empire: A Sourcebook on Marriage, Divorce and Widowhood. Routledge Sourcebooks for the Ancient World. Abingdon: Routledge. ISBN 9781134743926.
  • McGinn, Thomas A. J. (1991). "Concubinage and the Lex Iulia on Adultery". Transactions of the American Philological Association. 121: 335–375. doi:10.2307/284457. JSTOR 284457.
  • Nussbaum, Martha C. (2002). "The Incomplete Feminism of Musonius Rufus, Platonist, Stoic, and Roman". The Sleep of Reason: Erotic Experience and Sexual Ethics in Ancient Greece and Rome. University of Chicago Press.
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.