New to forum. question about roman marriage.

[magnificentbeast]

Hello. I have a particular question but I'm not sure where to post it. It involves the various ways a Roman woman could become emancipated from male control, be able to sign her own contracts and things like that.

[caldrail]

The Romana Humanitas forum would have been a better place but no worries. So, female emancipation? 

It depends on what form the marriage took There were three.

Confarreatio was a formal style of marriage symbolised by breaking bread (a forerunner of cutting the cake). As you might expect, this was usually an upper class ceremony.

Coemptio was marriage by purchase. This was not about slavery, but a financial deal between families (you could not marry a slave - that would be the same as marrying an animal, though there were plenty of male owners who gave their beloved female slaves freedom so they could marry). This form did not have the same religious aspect and was usually a lower class affair.

Usus, which was basically cohabitation, without formality or religious significance, and again usually limited to the lower classes.

The place of Women with regard to Roman law is an odd one. By tradition, a woman passed from father to husband or guardian as required by circumstance, but this might only be true if the man was head of his family. This constrained kind of relationship was out of fashion by the late republic in favour of a more open style, where the father retained legal control but did not interfere without due cause - the basis of female independence in society.

Now, in the Principate, things change. A woman who was absent from her husband/home for three nights in succession (only allowed once in a year) had legal independence. Not divorced, just seperated. A woman who had three children (or four for plebian ladies) could appeal for legal independence, but these laws were set aside in the late empire having proven unpopular with men from the beginning.

Also, a woman kept her property in marriage. This was a change from archaic tradition which meant that a woman would have her dowry returned after divorce and thus able to remarry properly. But if her husband died and left his property to her in her will, she might find herself in charge of more than just a house and a cashbox. She might be the owner of a business by default, a farm, an estate. The pressure on her to remarry would mount, especially under Augustan law which made marriage a social responsibility, and of course once the marriage was made the husband would be expected to take charge.

 

[magnificentbeast]

Thanks so much for the response. Should I move this to that other forum? This is great information.  I'm trying to work out how a specific situation could play out. Under say, Claudius, if an upper class woman desired to be emancipated, and be able to sign contracts and be in charge of her own financial affairs (granted that is probably not a usual roman mindset), and divorce seems like it was easily granted, why wouldn't she just divorce? Would control of her financial affairs just pass back to her father or brothers? What is stopping this theoretical woman from divorcing? If she didn't have three children would all the males in her birth family have to be dead before she could control an estate?  How common do you think "emancipated" women were during this time period? 

And this might seem unrelated, but is it possible a married woman could inherit property from her deceased mother, even if her father were still alive? Did wealthy romans set their children up with homes or property while they were still living, like wealthy parents often do today? And if so, would a female who was set up like that have had any control of that property?

Sorry these are a lot of specific questions. That's actually my problem, is that they are too specific for me to figure out.

Thanks again!

Edited October 25, 2021 by magnificentbeast

[caldrail]

A woman desiring to be 'emancipated' would be unusual. Does that sound odd? The Roman world was different to ours and she would have been born into a strong social order with consequent expectations. Usually, a woman saw her freedom in terms of who she married rather than actually controlling her own fate, though most avenues for feminine self determination were considered infama (infamous or bad), such as acting or the sex industry. Also, betrothals would have happened at quite a young age normally because the woman might expect to be married by the age of fifteen, and younger girls are recorded.

She could of course bear three children and apply for legal seperation, a divorce might be possible but Romans were very keen on preserving a public image, and her father would have to allow it.

I think it was Juvenal who wrote a satire about a rich daughter who forsook her life of unbridled luxury to run away with the Gladiator of her dreams. Daddy wasn't going to like that.

You ask whether a woman could inherit her mother's property. Actually that was not a foregone conclusion, the ability of women to inherit was legally restricted. If she was married, her mother's property as an inheritance would be under the nominal control of her husband and since it was not part of a recorded dowry, I doubt she would be able to reclaim it after divorce.

You also ask about setting up homes for the younger generation. I have no doubt that parents usually wished to assist, this is common behaviour for human beings, but bear in mind that the young man is expected to be adult and in charge of his own affairs (actually he wasn't. As long as his father remained alive, he would always be subject to his rulings, and this is why parricide was considered such a crime in Roman society. By and large the Romans remain very quiet about this quirk in society).

[reese734]

It involves the various ways a Roman woman could become emancipate from male control, be able to sign her own contracts and things like that.