Alison
JEPPESEN Discrepancies
in Wifely Virtues: Pudicitia, Castitas, and Univira
among Different Spousal Categories
Hanne Sigismund Nielsen has, in a number of articles,
demonstrated that the ideals of pudicitia, castitas, and
univiratus are not particularly visible in the funerary
commemoration of wives in Rome.
She reveals that spouses actually commemorate each other as
carissimus/a, dulcissimus/a or bene merens.
Despite her findings, the view that husbands commemorate wives
as chaste and virtuous is still prevalent in modern scholarship.
Building on the work of Dr. Nielsen, I wish to present some
preliminary results of my research into the use of epithets in
Roman spousal commemoration. More specifically, I will demonstrate how that
usage varied depending on the term used to describe the spousal
relationship (coniunx, uxor, maritus, concubina, and
contubernalis), and what those differences may indicate about
spousal relationships in Rome.
Beryl Rawson has looked extensively at de facto
marriages. Her
work has been central in the classification of marital
relationships; however, she does not go into detail on the use of
epithets to describe the partners in these de facto
relationships. Susan
Treggiariís book Roman Marriage, in which she
discusses the emotional relationship between spouses, has been
highly influential in the works of subsequent scholars on marital
relations in Rome. In
her discussion of epithets used to describe spouses, she has
overlooked evidence for marital relationships outside of those
referred to by the terms coniuges (for husbands or wives)
and uxores (for wives).
Dr. Nielsen has studied the use of epithets on all epitaphs.
Her work has discussed the frequency of epithet usage on
epitaphs, the meaning of those epithets, and has delineated
epithet usage between various categories of relationship (e.g.
parent-child, patron-client, and husband-wife). In her discussion of spousal commemoration, she
has not delineated between spouses based on the specific marital
term of reference.
My intention is to present my findings on the usage of
epithets on spousal epitaphs.
I then relate these epithets and their meanings, as discussed
in Dr. Nielsenís work, to the terminology used in order to
see if there were differences in spousal relationships and the
conduct considered worthy of commemoration. What actions did a Roman husband think were
particularly attractive in his wife?
What was important enough that he would place it for eternity
on her tombstone? Is
that ideal different depending on the terminology he used to
define his wife? The
same questions can be asked about the commemoration of husbands.
Is a concubina commemorated with the same terms as an
uxor? Is a
coniunx commemorated with the same terms as a
maritus? When
one looks at the epitaphs, one finds that husbands commemorate
wives referred to as coniunges with different epithets, or
at different usage rates, than uxores.
Variations are also seen in the commemoration of husbands.
Clearly, the usage of epithets is more complicated than it
first appears and many factors need to be taken into account when
discussing the usage of epithets in epitaphs.
E-mail: adjeppes@ucalgary.ca
Webpage:
http://www.fp.ucalgary.ca/adjeppes/
Abstracts Index