Servilia And Her Family First Edition Edition Servilia full chapter pdf docx

Servilia and her family First Edition.
Edition Servilia.
Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://ebookmass.com/product/servilia-and-her-family-first-edition-edition-servilia/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...
Her Impossible Husband (Rakes & Rebels: The Raveneau

Family Book 7) Cynthia Wright
https://ebookmass.com/product/her-impossible-husband-rakes-
rebels-the-raveneau-family-book-7-cynthia-wright/
First Aid for the Family Medicine Boards, Third Edition

(1st the
https://ebookmass.com/product/first-aid-for-the-family-medicine-
boards-third-edition-1st-the/
Her Secret Rogue (Rakes & Rebels: The St. Briac Family
Book 3) Cynthia Wright
https://ebookmass.com/product/her-secret-rogue-rakes-rebels-the-
st-briac-family-book-3-cynthia-wright/
Self-Made Men: Widening Participation, Selfhood and

First-in-Family Males Garth Stahl
https://ebookmass.com/product/self-made-men-widening-
participation-selfhood-and-first-in-family-males-garth-stahl/
The Expanding Family Life Cycle: Individual, Family,
and Social Perspectives 5th Edition, (Ebook PDF)
https://ebookmass.com/product/the-expanding-family-life-cycle-
individual-family-and-social-perspectives-5th-edition-ebook-pdf/
Child, Family, and Community: Family-Centered Early

Care and Education 5th ed. Edition – Ebook PDF Version
https://ebookmass.com/product/child-family-and-community-family-
centered-early-care-and-education-5th-ed-edition-ebook-pdf-
version/
Ethnicity and Family Therapy, Third Edition 3rd

Edition, (Ebook PDF)
https://ebookmass.com/product/ethnicity-and-family-therapy-third-
edition-3rd-edition-ebook-pdf/
Family Therapy: Concepts and Methods 11th Edition,

(Ebook PDF)
https://ebookmass.com/product/family-therapy-concepts-and-
methods-11th-edition-ebook-pdf/
Philosophical Foundations of Children’s and Family Law

Elizabeth Brake
https://ebookmass.com/product/philosophical-foundations-of-
childrens-and-family-law-elizabeth-brake/
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 14/12/2018, SPi
SERVILIA AND HER FAMILY

Servilia and her

Family
SUSAN TREGGIARI
1
3
Great Clarendon Street, Oxford, OX2 6DP,
United Kingdom
Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford.
It furthers the University’s objective of excellence in research, scholarship,
and education by publishing worldwide. Oxford is a registered trade mark of
Oxford University Press in the UK and in certain other countries
© Susan Treggiari 2019
The moral rights of the author have been asserted
First Edition published in 2019
Impression: 1
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in
a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without the
prior permission in writing of Oxford University Press, or as expressly permitted
by law, by licence or under terms agreed with the appropriate reprographics
rights organization. Enquiries concerning reproduction outside the scope of the
above should be sent to the Rights Department, Oxford University Press, at the
address above
You must not circulate this work in any other form
and you must impose this same condition on any acquirer
Published in the United States of America by Oxford University Press
198 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016, United States of America
British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data
Data available
Library of Congress Control Number: 2018950890
ISBN 978–0–19–882934–8
Printed and bound by
CPI Group (UK) Ltd, Croydon, CR0 4YY
Links to third party websites are provided by Oxford in good faith and
for information only. Oxford disclaims any responsibility for the materials
contained in any third party website referenced in this work.
For my daughters and granddaughters

Jo Treggiari, Silvia Rajagopalan, Jasmine Rajagopalan, Lucy Parris
Preface
I did not mean to write this book. Its protagonist is a woman whose male kin
belonged to the senatorial order, a patrician of the established nobility, who
played a leading role in the politics and society of the last years of the Roman
Republic. Her name was Servilia. Because that name only tells us the clan to
which she belonged, a Roman would often have identified her as Servilia, the
daughter of Caepio, which would give his hearers her father’s surname, or
Servilia, the wife of M. Brutus or (later) of D. Silanus, which would narrow the
field a little more. Cornelius Nepos, a near contemporary, identifies her as the
mother of Brutus.¹ Suetonius, in describing her long love affair with Iulius
Caesar, finds it convenient to identify her as the mother of M. Brutus, meaning
the famous Brutus.² But for Cicero in his letters she is the only important
contemporary Servilia and needs no identification as the apanage of a male.³
Like her approximate contemporaries Clodia (the wife of a Metellus) and
Fulvia (whose first husband was that Clodia’s brother, P. Clodius) she had an
independent personality which emerges from our limited and partial sources.
This book had its beginnings in an invitation from Professor Dame
Hermione Lee, President of Wolfson College, Oxford, to give the college’s
2009 lecture in honour of Sir Ronald Syme. I chose to search for a topic related
to Syme’s own work and to my own interest in Roman women. I ruled out the
various women of the imperial family on whom Syme and subsequently others
had written so perceptively. Servilia, Fulvia (wife in succession to Clodius,
Curio, and Mark Antony), and Sempronia (who supposedly played some part
in a conspiracy) were the chief republican women whom Syme mentioned
repeatedly. So I spoke on ‘Syme and Servilia’, in the hope that the topic might
have entertained him. In the event, the paper was made memorable by the
Dragon School’s fireworks, celebrating Guy Fawkes Day, which punctuated
my remarks.
¹ Att. 11.4.
² DJ 50.2. The bronze statue allegedly erected by the ‘common people’ to Cornelia (a daughter
of Scipio Africanus) named her as mother of the Gracchi (Pliny NH 34.31, Plut. CGr. 4.3, cf.
statue base found in 1878 in the porticus of Octavia: CIL 1². p. 201 = 6.10043b = 6.31610 = ILS
68 = ILLRP 336: Corneliae Africani f. Gracchorum [sc. matri], a method also adopted for
identification by VM 4.4. pr., Sen. Cons. Marc. 16.3, Pliny NH 7.57, 7.69 (Gracchorum mater),
Juv. 6.167–8 (mater Gracchorum). Cf. Pliny NH 7.71 (Agrippina, wife of Domitius and mother of
Nero), Tac. Dial. 28.6 (Atia, mother of Augustus). On the statue see Filippo Coarelli, ‘La statue de
Cornélie mère des Gracques et la crise politique à Rome au temps de Saturninus’ in Hubert
Zehnacker ed., Le dernier siècle de la République romaine et l’époque augustéenne (Strasbourg,
1978) 13–28.
³ E.g. A 97/5.4.3, Beneventum 12 May 51, 115/6.1.10, Laodicea 20 Feb. 50.
viii Preface
I have personal debts to Syme, not only for his writings and lectures, but
because, as Camden Professor, he suggested my research topic in 1962 (not
one in which he would have been interested himself, since it concerned the
lower classes) and subsequently supported publication of the thesis as Roman
freedmen during the late Republic. Later still I understand he was one of a
triumvirate (along with my former tutor and my supervisor) who recom-
mended me for a Visiting Fellowship at Brasenose, the college where he had
held the Camden Chair. We used to meet on various occasions in the United
States and in Oxford.
I only intended to produce a lecture. It did not occur to me then that the
evidence on Servilia would support a book. It is notoriously impossible to
write a full-scale biography of any Roman of the classical period, except
perhaps Cicero. Even for great men like Caesar or Pompey the sources are
inadequate. We usually lack diaries, personal or business letters, memoirs
(written by the subject or others), documents such as wills, marriage contracts
and estate records, portraits, all the detailed written and visual evidence that
makes biographies of modern men and women so comprehensive and illumin-
ating. The problem is much worse for Roman women. What evidence we have is
not written by them but by men. Their memoirs and letters failed to survive.⁴
Biography is in any case difficult.
Biography attempts the simulation, in words, of a man’s [sic] life, from what is
known about that life, from the paper trail, the enigmatic footprint. Thus it differs
from other literary arts. They seek to evoke reality from illusion; biography hopes
to fasten illusion upon reality, to elicit, from the coldness of paper, the warmth of
a life being lived.⁵
Even if the subject left diaries, letters, or an autobiography, how many people
can give a truthful, accurate, and full account?⁶ How many understand
themselves? How many contemporaries can assess them fairly and objectively
or understand the workings of their mind and feelings? Is any true under-
standing possible of an inconsistent, fallible, emotional being who may change
according to circumstances and over a lifetime? On reading a good biography,
we may think we understand much better than before a personality and a life,
⁴ Almost all that women wrote in the classical period (from Caerellia’s correspondence with
Cicero to the memoirs of the younger Agrippina) was lost. As we build up a picture of Atticus
(whose correspondence similarly does not survive) from Cicero’s replies to his letters, so we get
some sense of Terentia from Cicero’s letters to her. (There are no surviving letters to his daughter
alone, though it is sometimes implied that she would read his letters to Terentia.) On the
problems of scholars who write on Roman women see e.g. Suzanne Dixon, Reading Roman
women (London, 2001) 7–25, Cornelia (London, 2007) xi–xii.
⁵ Paul Murray Kendall, The Art of biography (New York, 1985) 28.
⁶ Kenneth Dover, Marginal comment (London: 1994) 1–4 gives an illuminating discussion of
some of the problems in writing autobiography.
Preface ix
but we cannot possibly understand all. Only a novelist can be omniscient,
creating the inner life of his or her characters.
A historian cannot in any case hope to recreate the past in all its complexity.
We see it from between blinkers made by our own background, experiences,
sympathies, prejudices, and imagination or the lack of it. In what follows the
reader will repeatedly see expressions such as ‘must have’, ‘would have’,
‘probably’, ‘presumably’, and ‘possibly’ as I attempt to fill in details of Servilia’s
life from what we know of other Roman women of her class or guess at what
she might have thought or felt. It is important that the reader should know
how limited and patchy our firm knowledge is. As Keith Bradley has said
about attempts to write the biography of Hadrian—and some emperors, of
course, are much better documented than most Roman men and any Roman
woman—we have to realize how shaky is the ground on which we stand:
My initial question of how the past can be recovered is both banal and profound.
It has no satisfactory answer, other than to affirm Syme’s pronouncement that
historians come in ‘many types and many tribes’. The main points I have wanted
to illustrate are that conventional history, by nature a fictive enterprise, is often
more fictional than it seems and is always provisional in its findings; that fictional
history in the form of the historical novel or the imaginative reconstruction may
sometimes succeed as well as or even surpass conventional history—texture and
emotion are as important to history as chronography and geography—and that
the past might sometimes be successfully evoked through methods that push facts
to the limit.⁷
Syme disapproved to some extent of biography: ‘ . . . biographies of emperors
are a menace and an impediment to the understanding of history in its
structure and processes’.⁸ But he could give this view more nuance:
Biography is of plain service for conveying historical instruction painlessly.
It is not to be despised, for it furnishes a framework and a chronological sequence.
But biography is also the enemy of history. It is prone to fable and legend, it exalts
the individual unduly, at the expense of social history, the long trends, and the
facts of power in the world.⁹
But he could not have worked on the themes he chose without studying the
lives and careers of hundreds of individuals, the method we call prosopo-
graphy. He studied the nature and workings of a class, the Roman oligarchy,
by building up a composite picture from individuals. In focusing on an
individual, one reverses the process, looking at him or her against the back-
ground of the class to which he or she belongs.
⁷ Keith Bradley, ‘Recovering Hadrian’, Klio 94 (2012) 130–55 at 153.

⁸ The Augustan aristocracy (Oxford, 1986) 14. Further references in Christopher Pelling, ‘The
rhetoric of The Roman revolution’, Syllecta Classica 26 (2015) 207–47 at 236.
⁹ Roman papers (Oxford, 1979–91) 6.122.
x Preface
I came to think that it was worth undertaking a detailed examination of
Servilia’s family and background, the determinable events of her life, and the
limited evidence on her personality and desires. My debt to Syme consequently
increased as I struggled with late republican prosopography.
‘Women have their uses for historians.’¹⁰ In The Augustan aristocracy Syme
deliberately chose words that by 1986 were politically incorrect. He made this
pithy and magisterial and, to my mind, humorous remark (one I can imagine
accompanied by a mischievous sideways glance at any woman who heard it) at
the beginning of a chapter called ‘Princesses and court ladies’. It was typical of
his work from The Roman revolution onwards to pay attention to upper-class
women. I wonder if he is here echoing Lord Chesterfield’s advice to his son,
the future diplomat, ‘Here women may be put to some use. A king’s mistress,
or a minister’s wife or mistress, may give great and useful informations. . . .’¹¹
Although Syme, unlike ancient writers, could not listen to what Roman
women had to say or read what they had written, he could study them for
the light they cast on society and politics. He goes on:
They offer relief from warfare, legislation, and the history of ideas; and they
enrich the central theme of social history, if and when enough evidence is
available. Ladies of rank under the first imperial dynasty are a seductive topic.
In the first place, betrothal and marriage, adultery and divorce. Next, licence and
luxury, kinship and discord. Finally, the enormous wealth accruing to a widow or
a daughter in families ancient or recent that had benefited from civil war and the
bounty of the victor: the palaces at Rome, the villas in the Italian countryside, the
wide estates, the hordes of slaves.
Irony and humour are again evident. But so is a genuine interest in the lives of
upper-class women. When he speaks of ‘the historian’, Syme thinks especially
of Tacitus—and of himself. Much of this paragraph can be applied to the
preceding period, the late Republic.
In all his work from the late 1930s on, Syme was alert to the importance of
women in history and life. His own mother, Florence, and his sister, Geraldine,
must have influenced him. Although he never married, he was at one time
engaged and throughout his life had close women friends and women
¹⁰ Syme, AA 168. I cited this in Roman marriage (Oxford, 1991) 397 as an epigraph and in
‘Conventions and conduct among upper-class Romans in the choice of a marriage-partner’,
International Journal of Moral and Social Studies 6.3 (1991) 187–215 at 188. Pelling, ‘Rhetoric’
215 aptly calls it ‘a remark that has not aged well’. Judith P. Hallett, ‘Heeding our native
informants: the uses of Latin literary texts in recovering elite Roman attitudes towards age,
gender and social status’, EMC/CV ns 11 (1992) 332–55 at 351 rebuked me, if I interpret her
correctly, for being amused by the irony. Women undergraduates of the 1950s who might have
heard Syme lecture tended to be inured to mild humour of this sort.
¹¹ Letters to his son on the fine art of becoming a man of the world and a gentleman (London:
1774) 66, Letter 52 ad fin.
Preface xi
colleagues with whom he was on dining terms.¹² Perhaps some of the great
ladies of academic society in Oxford, the wives of dons when he was young,
some of whom were successful matchmakers, helped form his picture of
Roman mothers and wives.¹³ He was also an expert on the eighteenth-century
French princesses, noblewomen, and royal mistresses.
In his examination of the workings of Roman politics and the structures of
the governing classes Syme deployed the evidence on a host of major and
minor figures. In The Roman revolution and after, the names of Sempronia,¹⁴
Servilia,¹⁵ and Fulvia¹⁶ often recur. Sempronia is known only for her alleged
participation in the Catilinarian conspiracy and for a vivid pen portrait left us
by Sallust. Fulvia, who married in succession three men of political import-
ance, took a prominent part in politics, and ended up as the wife of Mark
Antony, got a bad press in antiquity for usurping a male role, for profiteering,
and for fomenting civil war. Servilia stands as a paradigm for skilful and
successful use of her position in a male-dominated world, a precursor of
Augustus’s wife Livia.¹⁷
The early twenty-first-century HBO/BBC/RAI television series Rome
featured monstrous female protagonists. Most of the doings of Servilia repre-
sented in it are completely fictitious—and incredible. Like Robert Graves’s
Livia, she is memorable, but false to history.¹⁸ The real Servilia deserves
attention, though much of what we would want to find out is hidden by the
¹² His mother, née Florence Mabel Sellers, ‘acquired a reputation as a keen horsewoman, and
she was the first woman in the town to drive a car’ (Glen W. Bowersock, ‘Ronald Syme
1903–1989’, Proceedings of the British Academy. Lectures and memoirs 84 (1993) 539–63 at
540). On 25 June 1926 Syme’s engagement to Dr Vera Reader was announced in New Zealand.
Bowersock comments (544–5): ‘Dr Reader seems to have been the first in a series of remarkably
intelligent and sophisticated women with whom Syme formed attachments.’ Cf. Miriam Griffin,
‘Sir Ronald Syme’ xiii: ‘He had a natural sympathy and liking for women, treating them socially
with old-fashioned courtesy, and finding no difficulty in taking them seriously as scholars
according to their merits.’
¹³ E.g. Lady Lindsay, wife of the Master of Balliol, Mrs Munro, wife of the Rector of Lincoln,
Mrs A. L. Smith, whose daughters made excellent marriages (private communication from
Professor D. A. Russell). See Noel Annan, The Dons (London, 1999) 319, Carola Oman, An
Oxford childhood (London, 1976) 93.
¹⁴ E.g. Ronald Syme, The Roman revolution (Oxford, 1939) 384–5, Sallust (Berkeley, 1964)
25–6, 133–5 (perhaps Fulvia’s aunt), AA 26, 1981–99, RP 3.1371–2. ‘The gay Sempronia’, which
was probably written when Syme was preparing Sallust, has now been published in Ronald Syme,
Approaching the Roman revolution, edited by Federico Santangelo (Oxford, 2016) 173–81. See
also the editor’s addenda, 363–6.
¹⁵ E.g. RR 12, 23–4, 69, 384–5, 414, 491, Sallust 25, AA 189, 198, RP 3.1371.
¹⁶ E.g. RR 191, 208, 210, Sallust 134–5, AA 26, 198, Roman papers (Oxford, 1979–91) 3.1371,
Approaching the Roman revolution 182–5. Cf. Suzanne Dixon, ‘A family business: women’s role
in patronage and politics at Rome 80–44 B.C.’, Classica et Mediaevalia 34 (1983) 91–112.
¹⁷ E.g. Syme, AA 40 n. 45: ‘To adduce a resemblance in active ambition to Servilia, the niece of
Livius Drusus, one does not need the family affinity’, 55: ‘a worthy successor’. Barbara Levick,
Tiberius the politician (London, 1976) 153 also draws a parallel between Servilia and Scribonia,
Livia, the Iuliae.
¹⁸ A great deal of information about the series is available on the Web.
xii Preface
fragmentary state of our evidence. The success—within the limitations of what
we can know—of several recent biographies of Roman women of the late
Republic and early Principate suggests it is worth the attempt.¹⁹
Since Syme’s retirement to Wolfson in 1970, advances have been made in
our understanding of the socio-legal context, in the collection and analysis of
data on individuals, and in an even more critical approach to the literary
sources. How much of what we are told about women’s characters and
influence is rhetorical, invented, or embroidered by orators and historians
who wanted to diminish other men? We must certainly be sceptical about the
portrayal of Clodia or Fulvia or, later, Tacitus’s portrait of Livia.²⁰
Happily, the sources on Servilia are different.²¹ She is not the victim of a
contemporary defence counsel nor adduced by a later moralist or historian.
Instead, she is mentioned by Cicero in his letters, where facts are likely to be
accurate, though his interpretation may be questionable. His perspective will
differ when he writes to his close friend Atticus from what it is when he writes
to her son Brutus. Servilia occurs also in later biographies of her male
contemporaries by Plutarch and Suetonius. In Plutarch the main deformation
is caused by the pre-existing tradition of idealization of her son Brutus and her
brother Cato.
My aim in this book is to see what we may know about Servilia, in the
context of her family and times. In my previous attempt to portray late
republican women, Terentia, Tullia and Publilia, published in a series aimed
at a broad audience, including students, I was working under restrictions of
space.²² Here I have footnoted more heavily. While the text is, I hope, easily
intelligible to the general reader, in the notes I have quoted a good deal of Latin
to aid the scholar and have indicated modern writing which I hope will help
the reader to understand the fuller context or to find out about other points of
view. I have tried to avoid multiplying bibliography. But because so many
areas of study affect the life of one woman, I have tried to point the curious
reader towards scholarship which might interest him or her, especially what
I have found helpful.
¹⁹ See e.g. Nikos Kokkinos, Antonia Augusta. Portrait of a great Roman lady (London, 1992),
Anthony A. Barrett: Agrippina (London, 1996), Livia (New Haven, 2002), Elaine Fantham, Julia
Augusti (London, 2006), Suzanne Dixon, Cornelia (London, 2007), Marilyn B. Skinner, Clodia
Metelli (Oxford and New York, 2011). There are also biographies of women of a later period.
²⁰ T. W. Hillard, ‘Republican politics: women and the evidence’, Helios 16 (1989) 165–82,
Dixon, ‘Family business’. Cf. Nicholas Purcell, ‘Livia and the womanhood of Rome’, PCPS 212
(1986) 78–105, Barrett, Livia ix–x.
²¹ For a general overview of evidence for Roman social history and of ancient authors who
treat this period cf. Treggiari, Roman social history (London, 2002) 14–41.
²² London, 2007.
Preface xiii
Inevitably, because he is the main and most trustworthy source, Cicero’s
letters and his preoccupations obtrude more than I would wish.²³ His works
are cited without the author’s name. As everyone who works on Cicero must
be, I am particularly indebted to D. R. Shackleton Bailey for his magisterial
commentaries,²⁴ translations,²⁵ and onomastica,²⁶ as well as his essays. In
citing a letter I give Shackleton Bailey’s number first, followed by the trad-
itional book and number. I believe this is more convenient for readers, at least
in the English-speaking world, especially as they will often wish to consult his
commentary. I normally add date and place (when reasonably certain, some-
times modified according to Shackleton Bailey’s later revisions), unless it
seems unnecessary. I have kept the numbering of the correspondence with
Brutus which Shackleton Bailey gives in the Cambridge edition, not that which
he gives in his translation.
Translations are my own, except where indicated. I have tried to make clear
what the texts say for the Latinless reader. I have occasionally transliterated
Greek words. Greek authors are normally cited from the Loeb editions, with
Loeb numbering.
The identifying numbers given to individuals documented in RE are inserted
only if the reader might have difficulty finding them. MRR consistently gives RE
numbers for senators.
All dates are BC, unless otherwise indicated.
The Web has revolutionized word searches. I am especially grateful to the
Packard Humanities Institute for the website on classical Latin authors (http://
latin.packhum.org).
Research support in past years has meant a lifelong debt to the Social
Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada, the American Council
of Learned Societies, the National Endowment for the Humanities, and the
John Simon Guggenheim Memorial Foundation, as well as to the University of
Ottawa and Stanford University. The Sackler and Bodleian Libraries have
provided the books I needed, help when I asked, and an atmosphere conducive
to work. The Faculty of Classics at Oxford has provided technical support.
I am also grateful for the unstinting hospitality of Brasenose College and All
Souls College, Oxford, where I have been privileged to hold visiting
²³ On the letters see e.g. G. O. Hutchinson, Cicero’s correspondence (Oxford, 1998), Peter
White, Cicero in letters (New York, 2010), Jon Hall, Politeness and politics in Cicero’s letters
(Oxford, 2009).
²⁴ Cicero’s Letters to Atticus (Cambridge, 1965–70), Cicero: Epistulae ad familiares (Cambridge,
1977), Cicero: Epistulae ad Quintum fratrem et M. Brutum (Cambridge, 1980).
²⁵ Cicero’s Letters to Atticus, Cicero’s letters to his friends (Atlanta, 1978), Cicero Letters to
Atticus (Cambridge, MA, 1999), Cicero Letters to friends (Cambridge, MA, 2001), Cicero Letters
to Quintus and Brutus. Letter fragments. Letter to Octavian. Invectives. Handbook of electioneering
(Cambridge, MA, 2002).
²⁶ Onomasticon to Cicero’s speeches (Stuttgart and Leipzig, 1992), Onomasticon to Cicero’s letters
(Stuttgart and Leipzig, 1995), Onomasticon to Cicero’s treatises (Stuttgart and Leipzig, 1996).
xiv Preface
fellowships, and of Lady Margaret Hall, my original college, where I am now
an honorary fellow. By keeping me on as a member of Common Room,
Brasenose has helped me stay in touch with scholars of all ages and disciplines.
Thanks are due to the audiences who have asked interesting questions when
I have lectured on Servilia. I have warm memories of Wolfson College, of the
University of Vienna, and of the Ancient World Breakfast Club at Godolphin
and Latymer School.
I am grateful to all the scholars whose meticulous work on republican
prosopography and social and political history makes this type of study
possible. In particular I am indebted to those who taught me and those
whom I would like to claim as friends. I will name here only those whose
kindness, encouragement, and help I can no longer enjoy: David Stockton (my
tutor), Peter Brunt (my supervisor), Dacre Balsdon, my Ottawa colleague Colin
Wells, David Daube, ‘Tom Brown’ (C. E.) Stevens (an Ottawa colleague for a
term), my Stanford colleagues Michael Jameson and Toni Raubitschek, Bob
Broughton, Elaine Fantham, Miriam Griffin, Beryl Rawson, Elizabeth Rawson,
and Syme himself.
I had the good fortune in 2016 to be asked to examine the thesis of Patrick
Tansey, ‘A selective prosopographical study of marriage in the Roman élite
in the second and first centuries B.C.: revisiting the evidence’ (PhD thesis,
Macquarie University, 2016), which enabled me to correct my conclusion on a
notorious crux. He subsequently was generous in sharing with me the results
of his full and meticulous collection of attested marriages, which marks a
major advance, not only for prosopography but for our understanding of
marriage and politics in the late Republic.
I thank Ramsay MacMullen for his kind encouragement of this and other
projects over many years and for his keen critical eye. I am grateful for
permission to quote Peter Green’s incomparable translation of Juvenal on
page 76.²⁷
Keith Bradley of the University of Notre Dame and the University of
Victoria read the entire typescript at a late stage and sent me detailed and
critical suggestions. There could be no more acute, sympathetic, and percep-
tive reader. Both by precept and example, he has always encouraged me to aim
higher. He has helped me to improve almost every page of this book. He is not
to blame for the imperfections, errors, and failures of insight which remain.
I am heavily indebted to the anonymous readers for the Oxford University
Press, who wrote erudite and perceptive reports which helped me with
revisions which have, I hope, made the book more accessible, convincing,
and comprehensive.
²⁷ Ten lines from Juvenal: The Sixteen Satires, tr. Peter Green (Penguin Classics 1967, rev. edn
1974), copyright © Peter Green 1967, 1974.
Preface xv
Charlotte Loveridge, the Classics Editor at the Press, has been an unfailing
source of encouragement and good advice. Georgina Leighton, the Assistant
Commissioning Editor, has answered all queries with promptitude and
aplomb. Céline Louasli, the Editorial Assistant, Megan Betts, the Production
Editor, and Gayathri Manoharan of SPi Global have all been considerate and
efficient. Neil Morris, the copy editor, and Timothy Beck, the proofreader,
were meticulous and sympathetic in preparing the book for the press.
Finally, as always, I thank my family, for making the selfish pleasure
of research and writing possible, and particularly my husband, Arnaldo
Treggiari, for the organizational and practical support and especially skills in
driving and cookery which are an essential and pleasurable part of our life. As
Servilia, who experienced public and personal upheavals far more dramatic
than mine, would, I think, have recognized, the love and support of family and
friends are among the greatest happinesses which make a life worth living.
S. M. T.
Headington
August 2018
Contents
Abbreviations xix
Stemmata xxiii
1. Servilia’s World 1
2. Family 23
3. Childhood (c.100–c.88) 47
4. Adolescence and Marriage to Brutus (c.88–78) 70
5. The Wife of Silanus (77–60) 88
6. Home and Forum (59–50) 120
7. The Iuniae (?c.75–49) 131
8. Brutus (85–49) 145
9. Under the Domination of Caesar (49–44) 161
10. The Ides and the Aftermath (44–) 183
11. Servilia’s Place in Society 217
12. Interactions 251
Appendices
1. Laelia 283
2. Servilia, Wife of L. Lucullus cos. 74 287
3. The Cassii 289
4. Mid-First-Century Servilii and Caepiones 291
5. Women in the British Political Class 292
6. Servilia in Some Modern English Novels 298
Glossary 313
Chronology of Servilia’s Lifetime 317
Bibliography 321
Index of Persons 345
Index of Subjects 363
Index of Principal Textual Sources 374
Abbreviations
Common Latin abbreviations

C. Gaius
Cn. Gnaeus
cos. consul
cos. II consul for the second time
cos. III consul for the third time
cos. suff. consul suffectus
coss. consuls
f. filia/filius, daughter/son, with the father’s praenomen in the genitive
L. Lucius
leg. legate/lieutenant
M. Marcus
M’. Manius
Mam. Mamercus
n. grandson, with the grandfather’s praenomen in the genitive
P. Publius
pr. praetor
pr. des. praetor designatus
Q. Quintus
Sex. Sextus
Sp. Spurius
T. Titus
tr. tribune of the plebs
tr. mil. tribune of the soldiers
Texts
Abbreviations for authors and works are in general standard ones. (cf. e.g.
Oxford Latin Dictionary.)
Works of Cicero are cited by abbreviated title alone. Note especially:
A Cicero ad Atticum
Ad Brut. Cicero ad M. Brutum
C after a (page) number (in citations of Asconius) refers to A. C. Clark,
Q. Asconii Pediani orationum Ciceronis quinque enarratio (Oxford, 1907)
xx Abbreviations
F Cicero Ad familiares
frr. ep. Cicero Fragmenta epistularum (see Shackleton Bailey, M. Tulli Ciceronis
Epistulae ad Q. fratrem . . . [1988] or TP 6.346–73)
QF Cicero Ad Quintum fratrem
SBA D. R. Shackleton Bailey ed., Cicero’s letters to Atticus (Cambridge, 1965–70)
7 vols.
SBF D. R. Shackleton Bailey ed., Cicero: Epistulae ad familiares (Cambridge,
1977) 2 vols.
SBQF D. R. Shackleton Bailey ed., Cicero: Epistulae ad Quintum fratrem et
M. Brutum (Cambridge, 1980)
SCPP Senatus consultum de Cn. Pisone patre
St after a page number refers to Thomas Stangl, Ciceronis orationum
scholiastae (Hildesheim, 1964; first pub. 1912)
TP Louis Claude Purser and Robert Yelverton Tyrrell eds., The correspondence
of M. Tullius Cicero arranged according to its chronological order (Dublin &
London, 1904–33)
Standard Reference Works and Sources

CAH² Cambridge Ancient History ²
CIL Corpus inscriptionum latinarum
Courtney, Musa E. Courtney, Musa Lapidaria. A selection of Latin verse inscriptions
Lapidaria (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1995)
D-G W. Drumann and P. Groebe, Geschichte Roms in seinem Übergang
von der republikanischen zur monarchischen Verfassung oder
Pompejus, Caesar, Cicero und ihren Zeitgenossen (Leipzig,
1899–1929)
FGrH F. Jacoby ed., Die Fragmente der griechischen Historiker (Leiden,
1923–)
FRH T. J. Cornell ed., The fragments of the Roman historians (Oxford,
2013)
GC A. H. J. Greenidge and A. M. Clay, Sources for Roman history
133–70 B.C., 2nd edn rev. E. W. Gray (Oxford: Clarendon Press,
1960)
GL H. Kiel ed., Grammatici latini (Leipzig, 1857)
ILLRP A. Degrassi ed., Inscriptiones Latinae Liberae Rei Publicae
ILS H. Dessau ed., Inscriptiones Latinae selectae
LTUR E. M. Steinby ed., Lexicon topographicum urbis Romae (Rome,
1993–9)
Neue Pauly Der neue Pauly: Enzyklopädie der Antike (Stuttgart: J. B. Metzler,
1996–)
Abbreviations xxi
New Pauly Brill’s New Pauly. Encyclopedia of the Ancient World (Leiden: Brill,
2011–)
OCD⁴ S. Hornblower and A. Spawforth eds., Oxford Classical Dictionary⁴
(Oxford, 2012)
ODNB Oxford Dictionary of National Biography³
OLD Oxford Latin Dictionary
ORF³ H. Malcovati ed., Oratorum Romanorum fragmenta³ (Turin, 1953)
RE A. Fr. von Pauly and G. Wissowa eds., Real-Encyclopädie der
classichen Altertumswissenschaft (Stuttgart, 1894–)
RRC M. H. Crawford, Roman republican coinage (Cambridge, 1974)
Abbreviations for journals will be found in OCD⁴ and abbreviations for

monographs will be found in the bibliography.
Stemmata
Servilia’s family of birth

----denotes adoption
M. Livius Drusus m. Cornelia ?Caecilia Metella m. Q. Servilius Caepio
tr. 122 cos.106
M. Livius Drusus Livia m. 1. Q. Caepio m. 2. M. Porcius Cato

tr. 91 pr. 91 d. 90 d. c.94
M. Drusus
Claudianus
Q. Caepio Servilia M. Cato m. 1. Atilia Porcia
d. 67 c.100– 95–46 2. Marcia
Servilia
Servilia’s marriages and children

Servilia m. 1. M. Iunius Brutus m. 2. D. Iunius Silanus
M. Iunius
Brutus Iunia Iunia Iunia
85–42 pr. 44 m. 1. Claudia m. Isauricus m. Lepidus m. Cassius
2. Porcia
Servilia m. Lepidus
Servilia’s World
It may be helpful to some readers if I give a sketch of the world into which
Servilia was born in about 100 BC.¹ Being only a sketch, this will oversimplify
and leave many questions unanswered. It will be full of generalizations which
ought to be documented in a full-scale essay. The focus is on the first century BC.
We will concentrate on what affected the upper classes, looking from the top
down. Servilia’s family on both sides belonged to the Roman ruling class.
Although expectation of life at birth in the Roman world may only have been
25–30 years (which means that about half the children born would be dead
before reaching the age of 10) and disease was always a threat, the upper
classes could achieve a reasonable level of nutrition, health, and length of life.²
SETTING
Rome had grown from a city set in an advantageous position on a navigable

river (which gave access to the sea and to an Italian hinterland) to an
unchallenged status as the dominant power in Italy and then in the other
lands which border the Mediterranean. Language and culture linked Rome
with the rest of the Latin cities. In the patchwork of linguistic groups which
lived alongside them in the peninsula, Romans were in early centuries par-
ticularly exposed to interaction with the Sabines of the hills and the advanced
civilization of the Etruscan cities on the other side of the Tiber. Rome was
generous in admitting others to citizenship, both foreigners and freed slaves,
so the population grew. She was also energetically militaristic. When the City
was at peace, the doors of the Temple of Janus were shut. This allegedly
happened once under the kings who ruled Rome from its misty beginnings
until the end of the sixth century BC (according to tradition, 509 was the first
¹ Cf. Treggiari, Roman social history 42–8, Terentia 13–21.

² Richard P. Saller, Patriarchy, property and death in the Roman family (Cambridge, 1994) 9–69.
2 Servilia and her Family

year of the new Republic) and again in the third century BC. Rome was almost
permanently at war. All male citizens who could afford to equip themselves
with weapons and armour (except those with severe disabilities) could expect
to serve in campaigns during their young manhood. Wars in Italy in early
times happened between the sowing and the harvest. From the third century
on, wars involved long periods of service overseas. In the first century a high
proportion of the male population had experience of soldiering, but we cannot
say exactly how high.³
By successful wars and by making alliances with the defeated, the Romans
increased their territory and their armies. By the early third century they
controlled peninsular Italy. Their expansion into southern Italy brought
them into conflict with Carthage, a great Phoenician power in the western
Mediterranean. After three wars with Carthage, Rome had overseas areas
under her sway: Sicily (from 241), Sardinia and Corsica (221), parts of Spain
(c.200) and north Africa (146). Wars with the cities of Greece and the
Hellenistic kings of Macedon and Syria meant that in the second century
Roman governors and generals operated in spheres of command in Achaea
(Greece, 146), Macedonia (146), and part of Asia Minor (129). Meanwhile,
Rome took over northern Italy between the Apennines and the Alps (170) and
established a foothold in southern France (121).
The area under Rome’s direct military control, together with the lands
belonging to allied cities or kings, could be regarded as her dominion or
empire, imperium.⁴ This ‘empire of the Roman People’ was a source of pride
to the citizen body and to the upper classes in particular.⁵ The speed with
which Rome took over much of the eastern Mediterranean in not quite fifty-
three years from 219 to 167 was admired even by Greeks.⁶ The Romans too
were struck by the contrast between their small beginnings and the size of the
empire they now commanded.⁷ They equated it with the whole world.⁸
Empire, they said, was gained and preserved by the will of the gods.⁹ A man
(or a people) who extended the limits of empire could look for riches, power,
resources, offices, commands, kingdoms.¹⁰ Victories and annexations were
firmly linked with the great men who had brought them about.¹¹ Empire
³ P. A. Brunt, Social conflicts in the Roman Republic (London, 1971) 13–17, Italian man-
power 225 B.C.—A.D. 14 (Oxford, 1971) esp. ch. 22, William V. Harris, War and imperialism in
republican Rome 327–70 B.C. (Oxford, 1979) esp. ch. 1, Keith Hopkins, Conquerors and slaves
(Cambridge, 1978) 29–35, Ramsay MacMullen, ‘Roman elite motivation: three questions’, Past &
Present 88 (1980) 3–16 at 8–9.
⁴ John S. Richardson, ‘Imperium Romanum between Republic and Empire’ in Lukas de Blois
et al. eds., The representation and perception of Roman imperial power (Amsterdam, 2003)
137–47, The language of empire (Cambridge, 2008).
⁵ Brunt, Roman imperial themes (Oxford, 1990) 288–323. ⁶ Polyb. 1.1.5.
⁷ Rep. 3.24, Sall. BC 51.42, Livy pr. 4. ⁸ Imp. 53, 56, Sest. 67, Rep. 3.35, De or. 1.14.
⁹ Sest. 53, Har. resp. 19, Prov. cons. 34, Mil. 83, Phil. 6.19. ¹⁰ Rep. 3.24.
¹¹ Imp. 60, Leg. ag. 1.5, Cat. 4.21, Mur. 58.
Servilia’s World 3
expanded the opportunities for competition between members of the élite. It
gave them confidence in what, to some at least, appeared a divine mission.
Although idealists saw working for the happiness of the empire’s subjects as
their duty, unscrupulous public servants and businessmen took empire as a
splendid opportunity for financial gain and self-aggrandizement.
The frontiers of that empire were always changing. A Roman governor was
given a sphere of operations, provincia, rather than a geographically defined
unit to rule. Most governors would aspire to increase the territory under their
control and earn a triumph, a public thanksgiving for their success. This would
entitle them to wear triumphal dress on certain occasions ever after.¹²
CURSUS HONORUM : RACE FOR H ONOURS
For the upper classes in particular, honour, which meant the honour conferred
by the outside world, not the individual’s conscience, was of vital import-
ance.¹³ Reputation had constantly to be earned, conceded by superiors, peers,
and inferiors. Anyone who put himself forward for the honour of a public
office (honos) was originally expected to have completed ten years of military
service.¹⁴ This rule had lapsed by the first century. A man who embarked on a
public career had normally served as a military tribune, a cavalry officer who,
with one colleague, would be joint commander of a legion for two months at a
time. There were only six tribunes in each legion. The tribunes of the first four
legions had to undergo election.
The man who aimed at becoming a senator might also hold minor
civilian posts. There were a significant number of these, filled by election.¹⁵
Then he would seek election to more important offices. The three main stages
were the quaestorship, praetorship, and consulship. As quaestor, a financial
specialist, he might be working for a general. The next office, the aedileship,
was concerned with civil affairs in Rome. There were two pairs of aediles,
plebeian (in origin assistants to the tribunes) and curule. Patricians could only
stand for the curule aedileship; plebeians could hold either office in our period.
¹² See on this and other types of distinctive dress Jonathan Edmondson, ‘Public dress and
social control in late republican and early imperial Rome’ in Edmondson and A. Keith, Roman
dress and the fabrics of Roman culture (Toronto, 2008) 21–46.
¹³ This is not to deny that Romans had a concept of the individual conscience. On the
competition for honour see e.g. MacMullen, ‘Roman elite motivation’, T. P. Wiseman,
‘Competition and co-operation’ in Wiseman ed., Roman political life 90 B.C.—A.D. 69 (Exeter,
1985) 3–19 at 3–7, J. E. Lendon, Empire of honour (Oxford, 1997) 30–51.
¹⁴ On constitutional matters see Andrew Lintott, The constitution of the Roman Republic
(Oxford, 1999).
¹⁵ Lintott, Constitution 137–44.

The tribunate of the plebs was also a civil post: a tribune could not usually
leave the City. It was open only to plebeians. Both of these jobs were optional.
It was a big step up to the praetorship. If he reached that post, a man could
hold military command, imperium, often exercised in his year of office if there
was a war and subsequently if he was sent out to govern a province. The
culmination of a senatorial career, the consulship, gave a superior imperium,
to be used if necessary in wars in Italy and abroad, and later often the task of
foreign service in a major theatre of operations. The career was largely
military, at least down to the beginning of the last century of the Republic. It
required physical skills in horsemanship, marching on foot, and fighting,
especially swordplay. Ideally a grasp of strategy, tactical expertise, organiza-
tional talent, and the ability to inspire and lead men would be among a man’s
qualifications.¹⁶ The reward of success was military glory, which even in the
first century could trump fame as an orator and advocate.¹⁷ But by the second
century education and skill in oratory had also become almost essential.¹⁸
The offices already mentioned were collegial and annual. There was intense
competition. The aedileship offered four posts; the tribunate of the plebs (not
open to patricians) ten. The number of quaestors and praetors increased over
time. After Sulla there were twenty quaestors. But there were only two consuls
and only one of them could be a patrician. So out of twenty quaestors who set
out on a senatorial career only two could hope to get to the very top.
Patricians, patricii, were of ancient but obscure origin. Syme neatly called
them ‘the primeval aristocracy’.¹⁹ Plebeians, members of the common people
(plebs), were all the rest. Patricians originally monopolized all priesthoods.
They may have chosen the kings. The Senate was formally addressed as patres
conscripti, ‘fathers (and) enrolled men’. Patres were the patrician members.
Patrician families claimed to go back to the time of the kings, or even earlier:
some paraded Trojan or divine ancestors. They were marked out on public
occasions by a distinctive dress. The number of patrician gentes (clans) had
shrunk and was continuing to shrink in the late Republic. Wealthy plebeians
had been eligible for elected offices for centuries. The tribunate of the plebs,
a fifth-century creation, was open only to them.
¹⁶ Caesar is a good exemplar. On his skill in arms, riding, and swimming, his toughness and
endurance, his courage, daring, swift decision-making, handling and discipline of his men, and
the devotion of his troops see Suet. DJ 57–70. At Munda he risked his life rallying his men (Plut.
Caes. 56.2–3).
¹⁷ Mur. 19–24, esp. 22: qui potest dubitari quin ad consulatum adipiscendum multo plus
adferat dignitatis rei militaris quam iuris civilis gloria? . . . rei militaris virtus praestat ceteris
omnibus (How can it be doubted that for achieving the consulship glory in the military sphere
brings much more prestige than glory in civil law? Virtue in the military sphere surpasses all
others). Cf. Harris, War and imperialism 17–34.
¹⁸ Planc. 61–2.
¹⁹ AA 4. See T. J. Cornell, The beginnings of Rome (London, 1995) 245–6, 251–2. Bibliography
in OCD⁴ (Momigliano, Cornell).
Those who were elected to the highest offices (in our period the consulate),
whether patrician or plebeian, became nobiles (noun or adjective: notables,
known men, known) and conferred that adjective on their descendants.²⁰ In
practice, the most effective qualification in a man seeking office was this
‘nobility’. ‘New men’, novi homines, those without ancestors known to the
People, were at a disadvantage when they sought office. So Rome had an
aristocracy of office, not a hereditary aristocracy. Distinction was conferred by
the electorate, in theory all adult male citizens. A man had to live up to his
noble ancestors. If he failed in his political career or lost his fortune, his
descendants would have a hard job getting back up. Being patrician had
snob value. A patrician would find it easier to get elected. But many patrician
families (as we shall see for the Servilii Caepiones) were finding it difficult to
produce, bring up, and finance the right number of sons to maintain their
position.²¹ Some families died out in the male line; some dropped out of sight.
Those who remained faced fierce competition for status, dignitas. The com-
petition for the consulate was particularly intense, because only two men could
win this annual office, and only one of those could be a patrician.
It should be noted that patricians and plebeians intermarried freely in the
historic period. The children of a patrician father were patrician. It did not
matter if the mother was plebeian. The children of a plebeian father were
plebeian. It did not affect their legal status if the mother was patrician, though
it enhanced their social position. In the first century, descent on both sides of
the family counted.²² A number of plebeian families, for instance the Caecilii
Metelli, were almost as distinguished as patricians. A candidate would be
helped by having a father or ancestors who had risen high and done famous
deeds. Cicero concedes that election might come more easily to his son,
because his father had won the consulship, than to himself, who had started
out from equestrian rank.²³
The career structure, the cursus honorum (‘course of honours’), after Sulla’s
reforms of the late 80s featured these offices: quaestorship (for which a man
could stand at 30), praetorship (minimum age 39), consulship (minimum age 42).
(The structure had not changed much since the similar law of L. Villius of
180.) Holding an aedileship (and giving impressive games) and/or a tribunate
(and perhaps sponsoring popular legislation) might boost one’s chances. The
three essential offices gave access to jobs in the provinces, sometimes in the year
of office, but also in subsequent years, when a man would act as proquaestor,
propraetor, or proconsul (deputizing for quaestor, praetor, or consul), with
²⁰ OCD⁴ s.v. nobilitas (Badian).

²¹ Keith Hopkins and Graham Burton, ‘Political succession in the late Republic (249–50 BC)’
in Keith Hopkins, Death and renewal (Cambridge, 1983) 31–119. Cf. Brunt, Italian Manpower
142, Lintott, Constitution 164–9.
²² Planc. 18. ²³ Planc. 59.

prospects of enrichment. This was all the more desirable, as standing for
election could be costly. Magistrates and senators were not paid.
The Epicurean Lucretius described the happy detachment of the man who
stood on land to watch others struggling in a stormy sea or fighting a battle.
Just in this way he himself looked down from the temples of the wise on those
who wandered below, those who would ‘strive with their natural talent, contend
through their status as nobles, night and day struggle with surpassing toil to rise
to the highest resources and to gain control of the world’.²⁴ Horace too, while
recognizing that some men’s ambition is fixed on a political career, underlines
the perils of dependence on the fickle crowd of fellow citizens.²⁵
MAGISTRATUS : E LECTED OFFICIALS
Elected officials were called magistratus.²⁶ What did they do?

Consuls inherited the powers of the kings in war, religion, and judicial
decisions. Consuls in the second century were usually on campaign for much
of their year of office. In the first century, by contrast, they usually stayed in
Rome, taking it in turns to preside in the Senate. Consuls could initiate legisla-
tion, but, apart from Iulius Caesar in 59, rarely did so. They presided at elections
of curule aediles, praetors, and consuls.
Praetors had both judicial and military functions. After Sulla all eight
praetors were normally in Rome presiding in civil and criminal courts. They
deputized in the absence of consuls. Like consuls, they might command an
army during their year of office.
From 457 onwards, there were always ten tribunes of the plebs, not strictly
magistrates of the whole Roman People, but treated as equivalent. They had to
be plebeians and they were sacrosanct. They could block the Senate and
magistrates by interposing a veto. They could convene, and preside, and present
legislation in the Council of the Plebs. They could summon the plebs to listen to
speeches. They had the right to render assistance. Individual citizens could
appeal to the People through the tribunes against the actions of magistrates.
The four aediles were responsible for holding games at major festivals, for
supervision of markets, and the sale of slaves, and they were involved with public
order and the protection of the urban plebs. The curule aedileship or higher office
gave a man the right to display his ancestral portraits (imagines) in his house.
The quaestors’ major work was in finance. They were in charge of the
treasury or assisted a consul or a provincial governor or had specific jobs in
Italy. Sulla made the quaestorship the qualification for entry to the Senate.
²⁴ Lucr. 2.11–13: . . . certare ingenio, contendere nobilitate,/noctes atque dies niti praestante
labore/ad summas emergere opes rerumque potiri.
²⁵ Odes 1.1.7–8: . . . hunc, si mobilium turba Quiritium/certat tergeminis tollere honoribus. . . .
²⁶ The same noun is used for their office.
The censorship was open to former consuls and might crown a career.
Two censors (at least one of them a plebeian) worked together for up to
eighteen months. They held a census, controlling lists of citizens, equites,
and senators. When the task was finished, one of them performed a ritual of
purification. They ratified manumissions and allotted contracts for public
works. They were theoretically elected every five years, but there were
serious gaps in the late Republic. The census was held only in Rome.
Citizens from anywhere in the empire had to present themselves in person
in order to be listed. Fathers of families would appear and declare their
children and whether they were married. Widows and divorced women
would also have to attend. It was necessary for the state to know about
men of military age and those who would exercise a vote and what their
property qualification was. It also needed to know about property in the
hands of unattached women and orphans. After 168, Romans no longer paid
tribute regularly, but viduae (widows and divorcees) and fatherless children
in guardianship (pupilli/pupillae) were liable to a special tax, so they needed
to be entered on a separate list.²⁷
In emergencies a dictator would be chosen (usually nominated by
a consul) for a limited term, supported by a Master of the Horse. His
function was military. After the second Punic War, there were no dictators
until Sulla, having won a civil war, got himself made dictator to set the state
in order.
Consuls and praetors went out to the provinces as governors. Their power
was extended when their year of office ended. This was called prorogation and
meant they now had the title of proconsul or propraetor.²⁸ They had troops at
their command and sole responsibility for good government within their
province and for the conduct of war. Their power was not limited to a year
and there was no colleague to check them.
Public cults were also in the hands of this élite, as magistrates and as
priests. In the historic period, both patricians and plebeians served as priests.
Originally they were co-opted or chosen by the Pontifex Maximus (High
Priest), but in the late Republic some were elected by seventeen of the thirty-
five tribes. It was a great honour to be chosen to join a board of priests.
Nobles sometimes achieved it at a young age.²⁹ Priesthoods were held
for life.³⁰
²⁷ Brunt, Italian Manpower 21–2. ²⁸ Lintott, Constitution 113–14.

²⁹ E.g. the augurs Ti. Sempronius Gracchus cos. 177 (Livy 29.38.7), Q. Fabius Maximus (Livy
30.26.10, 33.42.6); the pontifices Cn. Domitius Ahenobarbus cos. suff. 162 (Livy 42.28.13),
Q. Caecilius Metellus Pius cos 80 (Vir. ill. 63.3). See George Szemler, The priests of the Roman
Republic (Brussels, 1972) 191, John North, ‘Family strategy and priesthood in the late Republic’
in J. Andreau and H. Bruhns eds., Parenté et stratégies familiales dans l’Antiquité romaine
(Rome, 1990) 527–43 at 533.
³⁰ Mary Beard, John North, and Simon Price, Religions of Rome (Cambridge, 1998) 1.102–4,
Lintott, Constitution, 182–90.
THE S ENATE
The consuls were backed by a council (consilium), the Senate, which they
consulted, just as heads of households, patresfamilias, consulted friends and
relations.³¹ The Senate was enrolled by the censors, who would normally (before
Sulla) recruit from those who had held elected office. The censors could also
remove members for disgraceful behaviour. Tribunes did not obtain the right of
sitting in the Senate until the late second century. From Sulla onwards, quaestors
automatically became members. In the second century the Senate numbered
around 300, after Sulla around 500. Within the Senate, the senior men, the
consulars (ex-consuls), naturally wielded most influence. The Senate supervised
Italy, the provinces, and finance. Normally, once he was a member, a man would
remain for life. So the Senate was the repository of experience in running
the affairs of Rome and its empire. It was recruited from equites, including the
sons of senators, the men who could afford to stand for election. Along with
the Roman People itself, the Senate comprised the state: Senatus Populusque
Romanus, SPQR, the emblem carried by the legions’ standard-bearers. The
senators enjoyed distinctions which set them apart: ‘position, authority, splen-
dour at home, name and influence among foreign nations, the toga praetexta,
the curule chair, insignia, the fasces, armies, commands, provinces’.³² They also
wore special shoes, a gold ring, and a broad purple stripe on their tunics.
POPULU S R OMANUS
The Roman People included all Roman citizens, men and women. Although
women did not have the franchise, they were subject to Roman law and had
the private rights of citizens. They took an important part in religion and
public events. Within the empire, the citizen had a privileged position. He was
protected (in theory) from arbitrary punishment, having a right to a fair trial.
He was not subject to demeaning capital punishment, such as crucifixion. He
could go anywhere in the empire and expect help from Roman officials.
Citizenship was marked by nomenclature.³³ Men had a personal first name,
for instance Quintus. Upper-class male citizens at this time typically had
³¹ See John Crook, Consilium principis (Cambridge, 1955) 4–7, Harriet Flower, ‘Servilia’s
consilium, rhetoric and politics in a family setting’ in H. van der Blom et al. eds., Institutions and
ideology in republican Rome (Cambridge, 2018) 252–64.
³² Clu. 154: locus, auctoritas, domi splendor, apud exteras nationes nomen et gratia, toga
praetexta, sella curulis, insignia, fasces, exercitus, imperia, provinciae. Curule aediles, consuls,
praetors, and censors had an ivory, ‘curule’ stool.
³³ Benet Salway ‘What’s in a name? A survey of Roman onomastic practice from c.700 B.C. to
A.D. 700’, JRS 84 (1994) 124–45 at 124–8.
three names. (Lower-class men at this date usually had only a first and
second name.³⁴ Some senators also lacked a cognomen, e.g. Q. Sertorius.) The
clan-name, descending in the male line, is indicated by the name (nomen),
the family by a surname (cognomen). Freeborn citizen women usually used
only a nomen, such as Servilia or Livia.³⁵ Men of aristocratic families usually
had a cognomen, for instance Caepio or Drusus. In the formal nomenclature of
men, their father and grandfather may be identified, e.g. M(arcus) Aemilius
M(arci) f(ilius) M(arci) n(epos) Lepidus = Marcus Aemilius, son of Marcus,
grandson of Marcus, Lepidus. Freed slaves took the nomen of the male or
female citizen who had freed them and used their slave name as cognomen.
If male, they took the praenomen of their male manumitter. Because they had
no legal father, they indicated the manumitter: M. Tullius M(arci) l(ibertus)
Tiro = Marcus Tullius, freedman of Marcus, Tiro. A female manumitter, since
she did not normally bear a praenomen, was identified by a reversed C, standing
for Gaiae (as a generic name in the genitive case to indicate a woman). A woman
may be identified by mentioning her husband in the genitive case, e.g. Iunia
Lepidi = Iunia of Lepidus. As married citizen women were distinguishable by
their special dress, the stola, so citizen men and children were recognizable
because they wore the toga as an outdoor garment on formal occasions.
Senators were at the summit of the social pyramid. Next came the equites,
originally a restricted group of cavalrymen, but in our period a large class of
propertied men who provided a pool from which army officers and, from 123,
panels of judges were recruited. In socio-economic terms they were similar to
senators.³⁶ Friendship and marriage crossed the status boundary. Some equites
were richer than some senators. They were marked out from the plebs by
wearing a narrow purple stripe on their tunics and a gold ring. Below that,
there were the plebs in general, running the gamut from prosperous farmers,
tradesmen, and artisans to labourers and the very poor.
The Roman class system was based on rank and also on wealth. The
economy rested on natural resources.³⁷ The élite owned extensive tracts of
land, which could be cultivated for grapes, olives, grain, fruit, and vegetables.
Poultry and pigs could be fattened in woods of oak, chestnuts, and beech.
Meadows could be grazed and cut for hay for livestock. Land might also
include mines, clay-pits, quarries, timber (for metals, tiles, bricks, pottery,
and building), copses to produce charcoal, osier beds to produce withies.
³⁴ Freedmen and enfranchised aliens had one, their previous name.

³⁵ Freedwomen and enfranchised foreigners would use their original name as a cognomen.
Some top aristocrats also found it useful to take a cognomen, e.g. the Caeciliae Metellae.
³⁶ A complex matter. See OCD⁴ s.v. equites (Badian).
³⁷ Good brief account in Brunt, Social conflicts 20–41. For an empire-wide perspective see
William V. Harris, ‘The late Republic’ in W. Scheidel et al. eds., Cambridge economic history of
the Greco-Roman world (Cambridge, 2007) 511–39.

Some produce was consumed on the estate, some sold. The Elder Cato, in
considering what land a man should acquire to raise cash crops, lists, in order
of preference, a good vineyard, an irrigated garden, an osier bed, an oliveyard,
a meadow, grain-land, an orchard (or trees up which vines were trained), an
acorn wood.³⁸ Sheep, goats, and cattle were kept on marginal land, which was
usually publicly owned. As well as meat, they produced milk (mostly for
cheese), wool, or leather (both needed in quantity by the army as well as by
ordinary people). Senators and equites would have a variety of holdings, to
spread risk. As Rome’s power grew, large numbers of slaves were available to
work the land and raise livestock. There would also be tenant farmers. Free
peasants were employed, particularly at harvest-time.
Urban property might be used to bring in an income. The rich owned
apartment blocks and shops, which they rented out. Trade was despised by the
upper classes, but senators, through middlemen such as their ex-slaves, could
engage in all sorts of ventures. They could set up their freedmen and freed-
women in retail trade or crafts and take some of the profits. Transmarine
shipping was risky and the slave trade sordid, but senators could be involved
with both. Surplus capital could be lent at interest. Some equites were bankers
and tax-contractors. Land was the most secure investment and most import-
ant to both senators and equites.
In the ancient Centuriate Assembly (Comitia Centuriata, ?sixth-century),
voters were grouped in property classes as they had originally been organized
for war. In the system as it existed in the late Republic, the division into ‘tribes’
also operated. These were geographical ‘tribes’, based on districts. A man
belonged to the tribe where his ancestor had resided. Since 241 there were a
total of thirty-five: thirty-one country tribes and four city tribes. The Assembly
was convened by a consul or praetor, who could propose bills to it. A consul
presided at annual elections of consuls and praetors and quinquennial elec-
tions of censors. Decisions of war or peace were made by this assembly. In the
late Republic it did not often legislate. It was so organized that the vote of
wealthier citizens counted for more than that of the rest. The members of 193
groups called centuries (not consisting of 100 members) voted individually
and each century submitted one vote, representing the will of the majority.
A similar voting procedure applied in the other two assemblies.
In the Council of the Plebs (Concilium Plebis, fifth-century), for plebeians
only, citizens were grouped in their tribes. This assembly was convened by
tribunes and plebeian aediles and elected these officials. Tribunes proposed
legislation called plebiscita. After 287 these decrees of the plebs were equiva-
lent to laws of the Roman People. Most of the radical laws of the late Republic
were passed by this assembly.
³⁸ Ag. 1.7.
In the Tribal Assembly (Comitia Tributa), formed in the fourth century on
the model of the Council of the Plebs, the citizens were again grouped according
to tribes. This assembly was convened by consuls, praetors, and curule aediles
and elected curule aediles and quaestors. Like the Centuriate Assembly, the
Tribal Assembly passed laws of the Roman People, leges populi Romani.
The People was sovereign. The state belonged to it. It was res publica, the
commonwealth, or res populi, ‘the thing of the People’. Adult male citizens met
in three different assemblies. They met in various outdoor locations at Rome,
where they stood to hear speeches by the presiding magistrate or those
politicians he chose to call. Then a proposal was put to them and, from the
late second century on, they voted by secret ballot. They voted similarly at
elections. Only a limited number of the electorate could actually represent the
People in legislation or elections in the period at which we are looking. The
Roman People was theoretically sovereign, but the size of the citizen body
and its procedures meant that the man in the street did not participate as
fully in decision-making and post-holding as the Athenians had done. The
time when all Roman citizens lived in the City or within a morning’s walk
of the City was long gone. It was impossible for more than a fraction of
the whole citizen body to squeeze into the Forum to vote on laws.³⁹ Those
with money and time at their disposal might come from distant regions of
Italy, though not often. Propertied men might come for consular elections
(held in the Campus Martius, which was relatively spacious) or legislation
which concerned them closely. The inhabitants of the City and its environs
would be disproportionately represented most of the time, especially in the
Council of the Plebs and Tribal Assembly. This would include poor citizens.
Indeed, day labourers who had not found a job might be more inclined to
come than self-employed shopkeepers. The make-up of an assembly would
vary from day to day. Despite the antiquated machinery of the constitution,
the titular ‘People’ who voted at elections and in legislative assemblies had
real power.⁴⁰
The tribes were important: a boy when he reached his majority was pre-
sented to his father’s tribe; a citizen in giving his name formally might list his
tribe; politicians would entertain their fellow tribesmen; there were organizers
in the tribe.⁴¹
³⁹ Ramsay MacMullen, ‘How many Romans voted?’, Ath. 68 (1980) 454–7. Other voting
spaces were also restricted.
⁴⁰ See especially Fergus Millar, The crowd in Rome in the late Republic (Ann Arbor, 1998).
Debate on his thesis continues unabated (T. P. Wiseman, ‘Politics and the People: what counts as
evidence?’, BICS 60.1 [2017] 16–33, esp. 16–17 for bibliography).
⁴¹ E.g. CIL 1².1263 = 6.2247 = ILLRP 159 (Rome): . . . T. Porcius T. f. Col(lina).
Maxsimus . . . Q. Lolius Q. [f. H]or(atia) Rufus; Comm. Pet. 44, Mur. 72–3; Comm. Pet. 57, A
16/1.16.12, Rome early July 61, Planc. 38, Suet. DA 3.1, cf. Lily Ross Taylor, The voting districts of
the Roman Republic (Rome, 1960) 15, 122, 264.

A candidate for office needed to maximize his support in the tribes and, for
the higher posts, the centuries. It was essential to have friends. A handbook
to electioneering (possibly written by Q. Cicero) stresses the importance of
relatives by blood and marriage, real personal friends, fellow club members,
those who show goodwill, pay one attention, or visit one’s house, members of
the household, fellow tribesmen, neighbours, clients, freedmen, even one’s
slaves (who did not have the vote, but initiated reports which spread in the
wider society). Then there were distinguished men, who held offices or came
from important families, and had influence in the centuries. Those whom
the candidate had helped to secure votes from a particular tribe or century,
those whom he had defended, and their friends, anyone to whom he had
rendered service or who trusted him to do so in future—all these should be
canvassed. People who had real clout in their neighbourhoods or country
towns were to be carefully cultivated and turned into friends. Obviously this
meant senators and equites, but attention had also to be paid to the many
lower-class men in the city of Rome, including ex-slaves, who were energet-
ically involved in politics and who could be got at through the organizations to
which they belonged. Bearing in mind the geographical distribution of tribes,
the ideal candidate would think about every town in Italy. In the Centuriate
Assembly, the centuries of equites had to be a target.⁴² Although this advice is
aimed at a new man (novus homo, without senatorial ancestors), even a noble
with an established network of support needed to work at getting elected in a
roughly similar way. Cicero, in defending Cn. Plancius on a charge of corrupt
electioneering when he won the aedileship, can list several nobiles who were
rejected by the electorate.⁴³ Elections were a chancy business: the Roman
People had the last word.⁴⁴
The Roman constitution was unwritten, like the British, and changed and
developed over time. The Senate may have dated to the period of the kings;
the magistrates, particularly consuls, carried out the functions of the kings; the
consent of the fighting men was necessary in early times to major decisions
such as war or peace. Changes were often enshrined in laws. But the custom of
the ancestors, mos maiorum, trumped statute. Many legal institutions, such as
marriage, were grounded in custom, not statute law. The problem was that
both protagonists in a dispute would claim to have ancestral custom on their
side. There was room for debate.
Those who championed the status quo claimed to be ‘the best people’,
optimates, or the good men, boni. (Both words connote wealth and social
standing.) They tended to be the majority in the Senate and to want to
maximize the Senate’s authority and power. Those who advertised the
⁴² Comm. Pet. 16–33.

⁴³ Planc. 51–2. Nobilitas could be turned against a man (e.g. Rhet. Her. 1.8).
⁴⁴ Planc. 9–11.
sovereignty of the Roman People and worked for the welfare of the poorer
classes were called populares. These were not anything like political parties in
the (comparatively recent) modern sense. There would normally be many
optimates in the Senate, but they had no policy except conserving what they
regarded as the status quo.⁴⁵ Populares emerged from time to time to put
through a programme. They were invariably men with the wealth and status
which enabled them to stand for office. Some held a tribunate and proceeded
no further with a public career. Others, like P. Clodius Pulcher, established a
network of supporters which gave them continuing influence. Many, like
Servilia’s uncle, Drusus, were checkmated by murder.
WO MEN
Citizens were affected by a legal institution peculiar to Rome, paternal power

(patria potestas), held by a head or father of the household, paterfamilias.⁴⁶ All
descendants of a man married according to Roman law were in his power until
he died or freed them. A grandfather might have power over both his son and
the son’s children. Although there are traces of a right not to rear the newborn
or even to execute an adult child after due process, the most important feature
of this in the historic period is that any property acquired by a child in power
belonged to the paterfamilias. (He might allow the child to administer some
property as if it were his own. But if the child earned or inherited a fortune,
that would belong to the father.) The consent of the father was needed for the
engagement, marriage, or divorce of a son or daughter in power. If a pater-
familias had a married son with two children and an unmarried daughter, he
would have four descendants in his power. On his death the daughter and son
would be free and independent (sui iuris, ‘of his/her own right’) and the
grandchildren would be in their own father’s power. It is important to note
that the daughter would not be under her brother’s power or, for that matter,
the control of her mother or uncle or any other kinsman. The property would
all go to the son and daughter, unless the terms of the will varied this
distribution (or if his wife had been ‘in his hand’). So children benefited in
the long run. Given Roman life expectancy, many children in power would be
⁴⁵ The locus classicus (tendentious), Sest. 96–8, claims that optimate views were widespread in
all classes: senators, their followers, equites, men from the country and towns, businessmen,
freedmen. Such people, Cicero says, supported the practice of religion, the auspices, the powers
of magistrates, the authority of the Senate, the laws, the custom of the ancestors, the courts,
jurisdiction, good faith, the provinces, the allies, the glory of the empire, the military set-up, and
the treasury.
⁴⁶ OCD⁴ (Nicholas and Treggiari).

freed by the father’s early death. It was also possible for the father to free them
by a legal act.
A second ancient custom was less important in the historic period. When
his daughter married, her paterfamilias might transfer her to the control of her
husband (manus, literally ‘hand’).⁴⁷ This was separate from the marriage itself.
It meant she was in a similar position to a daughter in power: her property
belonged to her husband and she had a claim on his estate equal to that of each
of his children. This custom seems to have become comparatively rare by the
first century. So we generally assume that a married woman in the late
Republic will be a daughter in power if her father is still alive (and if we are
not specifically informed he has freed her), but not a wife in her husband’s
control. If she has no living father, we take her to be independent (sui iuris).
Orphans up to puberty and independent (sui iuris) women all their lives
would have a guardian. But for an upper-class woman he acted chiefly as a
rubber stamp in specific legal actions. He did not control her marriage.⁴⁸
Marriage, according to a late definition, was ‘a joining together of a man and
a woman, and a partnership (for life) in all areas of life, a sharing in divine and
human law’.⁴⁹ The purpose of marriage was the procreation of children. In our
period a Roman citizen could make a Roman marriage with another citizen
(or with certain non-Romans to whom the right of intermarriage had been
granted), as long as they were both of age and not closely related. Such a
marriage meant any children were in the father’s power and took his status.
Engagement and marriage took place by the consent of both parties and of any
paterfamilias.⁵⁰ No public authority ratified the marriage, though celebrations
of various sorts could be held. Divorce took place if one of the partners
withdrew consent, by ceasing to regard the other as husband or wife. Or
both partners might agree to separate. Again, there was no ratification from
outside. Arrangements would be made for return of the dowry and to safeguard
the interests of children, and here the praetor might be involved.⁵¹
⁴⁷ OCD⁴ s.v. ‘manus’ (Nicholas and Treggiari) with further bibliography.

⁴⁸ OCD⁴ s.v. ‘Guardianship, Rome’ (Nicholas and Treggiari) with further bibliography.
⁴⁹ Dig. 23.2.1, Modestinus. The last phrase may be later still. For a general account see OCD⁴
(s.v. ‘Marriage law, Roman’, Berger, Nicholas, and Treggiari). More detail in Treggiari, RM. For
the history of scholarship, recent trends, sources, and facts Suzanne Dixon, ‘From ceremonial to
sexualities: a survey of scholarship on Roman marriage’ in B. Rawson ed., A companion to
families in the Greek and Roman worlds (Chichester, 2011) 245–61 provides an interesting
overview. See also Luigi Capogrossi Colognesi, ‘La famiglia romana, la sua storia e la sua
storiografia’, MÉFRA 122.1 (2010) 147–74.
⁵⁰ OCD⁴ s.v. ‘Marriage law, Roman’ (Nicholas and Treggiari).
⁵¹ Treggiari, RM 435–82. Gilda Mastrorosa, ‘Matronae e repudium nell’ultimo secolo di Roma
repubblicana’ in F. Cenerini and F. Rohr Vio eds., Matronae in domo et in re publica agentes
(Trieste, 2016) 65–87 surveys late republican divorces and remarriages and stresses the motiv-
ation of husbands and fathers (even supposing that Pompey [dead since 48] offered his daughter
to Cicero in 46), but neglects the possibility of consensual divorce or unilateral action by wives.
Financial agreements accompanied the wedding. It was usual for a woman
or her family to give her husband a dowry. In the Augustan era when senators
had to possess a fortune of at least a million sesterces, the same amount was
regarded as a suitable dowry for their daughters. The dowry belonged to the
husband for the duration of the marriage and was intended to be used for joint
expenses and for the eventual benefit of children. A married woman could also
hold a considerable private property of her own, and use it and bequeath it
as she wished. It was expected that she would pass it on to her children.
Daughters’ share of their parents’ estates could be equal to that of sons, as
it would have been on the intestacy of a paterfamilias. If the father made a
will, he might take into account what he had already given to his daughter
in dowry (or to his son in election expenses and so on) in arriving at ‘fair
shares’ in what he would leave on his death. Testators in the top property
class were forbidden, in the Voconian Law of 169, to make a woman their
heir. But they could leave her a substantial legacy. It was also possible to get
round the law by leaving property in trust. In the late Republic, because the
census was held irregularly, people could not always be identified as being in
the top class.⁵²
A woman who had only one husband in her lifetime, sometimes described
in epitaphs as univira or univiria, was fortunate and admired.⁵³ The availability
of divorce initiated by husband, wife, or both and the strong possibility that
the husband would die before his wife meant that many women would marry
more than once. Remarriage was socially acceptable. Women were to marry as
soon as possible after puberty in order to maximize their childbearing. Upper-
class men wanted children to perpetuate their family name. Upper-class women
passed on the prestige of their families to their sons and daughters.
By about 100, it was unusual for a woman to enter manus. It became
possible for her to divorce her husband by withdrawing her consent to be
married to him or, if she were in her father’s power, he might bring about the
divorce. She could hold substantial property in her own right. Developments
in the law, though they were not created as a means of improving the
legal status of women, often had a favourable effect. Women had a degree of
independence, especially when they had fortunes of their own.
⁵² Jane F. Gardner, Women in Roman law and society (London, 1986) 170–8.
⁵³ E.g. VM 2.1.3, SHA 24.32.5, CIL 6.2318, 3604, 25392, 31711, 14.418, Treggiari, RM 233–5.
The adjective and its synonyms are practically confined to inscriptions. Literary sources use
periphrases such as uni nuptam ad quem virgo deducta sit (married to one man to whom she had
been led as a virgin, Livy 10.23.5, cf. Prop. 4.11.36) or quae semel nupserunt (who have married
once, Fest. 242, cf. 245). Being only once married qualified a woman for certain ritual roles as an
individual (e.g. acting as pronuba [a married woman who escorted the bride to bed] at a
wedding). The status was provisional until the woman died without marrying again. Even on
epitaphs to young brides the adjective is not common (Jory’s computer indices to the inscriptions
of Rome in CIL 6 give eight examples).

Women whose fathers, brothers, husbands, and sons were senators had
more in common with those men than with the women of the lower classes.
The comparative comfort of their lives, their education and leisured pursuits,
their acknowledged leadership of their humbler sisters on public occasions
marked them as separate.
MATRONAE
Respectable married women, matronae, formed a category in society and even

in the state.⁵⁴ Those who belonged to the upper class were said in a comedy
to form a coherent group which worked together for each other’s good.⁵⁵
Livy imagines them holding meetings and passing decrees.⁵⁶ (I generally take
Livy to be better evidence for his own time, the late republican and Augustan
period, than for the legendary and early historic period which he describes in
the extant books.) When a group of women stopped a Volscian invasion,
the grateful Senate, in Valerius Maximus’s version, passed decrees granting
honours to ‘the order of matrons’, admitting that their dress, the stola, did
more for the salvation of the City than weapons had done.⁵⁷ The honours
were directed at the wealthy. Valerius uses the same phrase again, when he
describes the tax levied by the triumvirs on rich women: ‘when the order of
matrons was burdened by a heavy tax’.⁵⁸ There is one other relevant text, from
⁵⁴ The word is derived from mater, mother, since it was assumed they were or would become
mothers. Especially in the plural it usually in our period denotes married women in relation to
the state, while coniuges or uxores would be used for women in relation to husbands, just as
libertini/ae denotes freed slaves in relation to society, while liberti/ae is used for them in relation
to their manumitter. Their proper dress was the long, concealing stola (Paul. Fest. 125M/112L,
cf. Hor. Sat. 1.2.94–5). Their sacred character demanded respect (Afran. com. 326, Cael. 32, VM
2.1.5). Their special virtue was chastity (Publ. Sent. C9), so that they are commonly contrasted
with prostitutes (e.g. Plaut. Cas. 585–6, Most. 190, Ter. Eun. 37, Fin. 2.12, Laber. 48, Hor. Epp.
1.18.3–4). Citizen women of good repute in any state, including Rome, are matronae or virgines
(e.g. Sulla 19, Hor. Odes 3.2.7–8; texts fail to mention viduae [widows and divorcees] in this
context). See especially Purcell, ‘Livia’ 81–5, also Treggiari, RM 7, 35, Celia Schulz, Women’s
religious activity in the Roman Republic (Chapel Hill, 2006) 158 n. 7, Emily A. Hemelrijk,
Matrona docta (London, 1999) 14–16, Kathryn Welch, ‘Velleius and Livia: making a portrait’
in E. Cowan ed., Velleius Paterculus (Swansea, 2011) 309–34 at 313–14.
⁵⁵ A procuress in comedy tells a girl that their order in society (the prostitutes) ought to
emulate well-born, upper-class matrons who cultivate friendship among themselves (Plaut. Cist.
21–8). See, esp. on the third and second centuries, Alessandra Valentini, Matronae tra novitas e
mos maiorum (Venice, 2012).
⁵⁶ 5.25.8: . . . matronae coetibus ad eam rem consultandam habitis communi decreto pollicitae
tribunis militum aurum et omnia ornamenta sua, in aerarium detulerunt (The matrons held
meetings to discuss this matter and passed a common decree, promising gold and all their
ornaments to the military tribunes: these they took to the treasury).
⁵⁷ 5.2.1. ⁵⁸ 8.3.3.
the younger Seneca’s De remediis fortuitorum, where he refers to matronalis
ordo (‘the order of matrons’).⁵⁹ Here the discussion is about wives in general,
not just an upper-class group. The idea that married women formed an order
in society is also implied by texts comparing them with other orders.⁶⁰ Orders
or ranks among male citizens had defined membership and/or functions.
Members of the Senate could be said to form an order, as did the equites,
the scribae (high-ranking civil servants), or freedmen. In principle, there
would be official lists of members.⁶¹ In practice, there could be problems in
establishing claims to, for instance, equestrian status. Although manumissions
were ratified by the state, freedmen did not operate as a group. So it is not
surprising that it is difficult to pin down ‘the order of matrons’. Did it have any
ongoing formal existence? Did it include the married women of the upper
class only?⁶²
Whether or not there was any formal organization or register, married
women of the upper classes acted together to perform religious duties, sub-
scribe to the foundation of temples, make offerings, subsidize the state in a
crisis, go into public mourning, and so on.⁶³ They certainly had gatherings.⁶⁴
On particular occasions, they had accepted leaders, women of high rank and
authority. Purcell has commented on ‘the way in which the women were used
to behaving in ways analogous to the male political world’.⁶⁵
MO RA LS AN D MORES
Legal structures and economic circumstances do not give us the full context
of women’s lives. Male nobles and the new men who sought election were
competing to establish their reputation for virtus, the special manly quality
which originally meant manliness, courage, and prowess as a soldier, but later
⁵⁹ 16.3: Quam multae inter probra matronalis ordinis esse coeperunt inter exempla nomina-
tarum! (How many began to be among the scandals of the order of matrons after being named as
role models!).
⁶⁰ Livy 34.7.1: ‘omnes alii ordines, omnes homines mutationem in meliorem statum rei
publicae sentient: ad coniuges tantum nostra pacis et tranquillitatis publicae fructus non perve-
niet?’ (‘All the other orders, all human beings will perceive the commonwealth’s change to a
better state. Shall the fruit of our peace and tranquillity fail to reach our wives alone?’),
Hemelrijk, Matrona docta 225 n. 21.
⁶¹ We cannot here go into the complexities. Brief account in CAH² 10.875–7 (Treggiari).
⁶² This concept is supported by Livy 10.23.10: nec matronis solum sed omnis ordinis feminis,
if this means ‘not only (sc. upper-class) matronae but women of all ranks in society’ rather than
‘but women who were not matronae (being either divorced or not yet married)’ (Oakley).
Cf. Livy 22.1.18 (distinguishing matronae from libertinae).
⁶³ E.g. Livy 2.7.4, 2.16.7, 5.31.3, 21.62.8, 22.1.18, VM 1.1.15, 1.8.4, 5.6.8, Schulz, Women’s
religious activity 30–44.
⁶⁴ Fin. 2.12: matronarum coetum (a meeting of matrons). ⁶⁵ ‘Livia’ 81.

covered other moral virtues. Virtus was demonstrated by meritorious services
to the commonwealth.⁶⁶ Practical wisdom, sapientia, was also important. The
epitaph of Scipio Barbatus cos. 298 called him brave and wise.⁶⁷ The inscrip-
tions from the tomb of the Scipiones address the citizen body and highlight
services to the People, offices held, and successful campaigns. These earned
them gloria (glory), honos or honor (honour, respect accorded to superior
worth), and honores (offices).⁶⁸ Their status, dignitas, was earned by showing
themselves worthy (digni) of election to each office and by their successful
conduct in the tasks assigned to them. Competition was built in. The young
were to aim at gloria and dignitas.⁶⁹ A man wanted to show himself the best
among the good.⁷⁰ The aim was to excel others.⁷¹ It was best to be first,
princeps, a front runner.⁷² Nobiles advertised similar virtues in their ances-
tors. New men had to work hard to achieve a reputation for themselves. It
was a tough environment, in which an individual politician fought to
vanquish and often discredit his rivals. Self-sacrifice, with rare exceptions,
was not an aristocratic virtue. Once a man had enough power, he expected
to achieve a degree of independence of thought and action. Clodius owed a
debt to Caesar and Pompey, who had facilitated his transfer to the plebs
which enabled him to stand for the tribunate. It did not mean he gave them
his loyal support. On the contrary, he carved out an independent position.
The Senate, despite networks of family relationship, friendship, and obliga-
tion, was a collection of individuals. After Cicero’s exile had a catastrophic
effect on his dignitas, he was at pains to reassert it at every opportunity.⁷³
Caesar made civil war in defence of tribunes’ rights and his own dignitas
and repute.⁷⁴
⁶⁶ E.g. F 377/10.12.5 to Plancus, Rome 11 Apr. 43: virtute . . . quae maxime illustratur magnis
in rem publicam meritis (virtue . . . which is chiefly demonstrated by great services to the
commonwealth).
⁶⁷ CIL 1² 6–7 = ILS 1 = ILLRP 309 = Courtney, Musa Lapidaria 10. Cf. CIL 1² 11 = ILS 7 =
ILLRP 312 = Courtney, Musa Lapidaria 12.
⁶⁸ See e.g. Donald Earl, The moral and political tradition of Rome (London, 1967) 20–43,
T. P. Wiseman, New Men in the Roman Senate 139 B.C.—A.D. 14 (Oxford, 1971) 107–16,
Treggiari, ‘Ancestral virtues and vices: Cicero on nature, nurture and presentation’ in D. Braund
and C. Gill eds., Myth, history and culture in republican Rome (Exeter, 2003) 139–64, Myles
McDonnell, Roman manliness (Cambridge, 2006).
⁶⁹ Sest. 51.
⁷⁰ CIL 1² 8–9 = ILS 2–3 = ILLRP 310 = Courtney, Musa Lapidaria 9: honc oino(m) ploirume(i)
cosentiont R[omai]/duonoro(m) optumo(m) fuise uiro(m) . . . (Many agree that this one man was
the best of good men at Rome . . . ), with Courtney’s parallels.
⁷¹ E.g. praestare (to be superior, excel), vincere (to beat), excellere (to excel), superare (to
overcome) (e.g. Imp. 39, Mur. 30, Sest. 12, Cael. 34, Planc. 60, Deiot. 12). Superlative adjectives
are commonly used.
⁷² E.g. Red. Sen. 5, Phil. 13.30.
⁷³ E.g. Red. Sen. 1.5, Red. Pop. 25, Dom. 4–7, 57, Sest. 48, 129.
⁷⁴ Caes. BC 1.7, Pollio ap. Suet. DJ 30.4.
A man’s prestige was under continuous assessment. It might reflect credit
on his ancestors, maiores.⁷⁵ Or it might disgrace them.⁷⁶ Conversely, corrupt
ancestors could pass on their tainted blood to descendants. Piso allegedly
inherited avarice from his maternal grandfather and his father.⁷⁷ A man’s
descendants were affected by his reputation. If a man died bravely in battle, it
consoled his family for their loss: his children had a family model of virtus.⁷⁸
Disgrace incurred by condemnation on a capital charge was severely felt by
a family.⁷⁹
As Elizabeth Rawson wrote, ‘ . . . where aristocratic families are concerned,
one must always bear in mind the pressure to emulate one’s maiores, often in
quite specific ways’.⁸⁰ Children were brought up in the traditions of their
family.⁸¹ They were to imitate and emulate the virtues of their forebears.
Nature and nurture might operate. The young child would unconsciously
absorb the assumptions of his or her class. The world of the great families
was shaped by masculine values.⁸²
Women too could seek a reputation for virtus. According to Seneca, writing
in the mid-first century AD and using members of Servilia’s family as examples,
they could equal the triumphs of men in public service:
Men are made illustrious by consulships, eloquence raises them to immortal fame,
military glory and triumph over a new tribe hallow them; there are many things
which ennoble outstanding abilities. The peculiar virtue of women is pudicitia. This
made Lucretia the equal of Brutus or perhaps put her above him, since it was from a
woman that Brutus learnt to be incapable of being a slave. This made Cornelia the
equal of Gracchus and Porcia of the second Brutus.⁸³
Pudicitia is conventionally translated as ‘chastity’ or ‘sexual purity’.⁸⁴ Like the
use of ‘virtue’ in English with reference to women, it includes chastity. But
its scope is larger than that of continence and it does not imply abstinence
from sexual intercourse within marriage. It is the conscience which keeps a
person (usually a woman) from shameful actions.⁸⁵ It connotes loyalty and
⁷⁵ CIL 1² 10, 15 = ILS 4, 6 = ILLRP 311, 316 = Courtney, Musa Lapidaria 11, 13.
⁷⁶ Rhet. Her. 3.13, Pis. 1, 62. ⁷⁷ Pis. fr. 11, 86–90. ⁷⁸ Font. 48, Phil. 14.34.
⁷⁹ Sulla 88, Font. 48.
⁸⁰ Intellectual life in the late Roman Republic (London, 1985) 89–90.
⁸¹ Treggiari, ‘Ancestral virtues’ 152–62.
⁸² Elizabeth Rawson, Roman culture and society (Oxford, 1991) 17: ‘It is likely that a number
of the activities of the younger Cato, and of the patrician Claudii of Cicero’s time, can be partly
explained by consideration of their family traditions.’ MacMullen, ‘Roman elite motivation’ 3 is
alert to the impact on women.
⁸³ Quoted by Jerome adversus Iovinianum 1.49 = 319C–320.
⁸⁴ The adjective, pudicus/a, connotes sexual virtue, but could often be translated as ‘moral’.
⁸⁵ It derives ultimately from a verb used impersonally: pudet, ‘it makes (a person) ashamed’.
In reference to a man it is likely to mean refraining from the passive role in homosexual
intercourse and not seducing social equals (Cael. 42, Mil. 9).

love towards a husband.⁸⁶ It implies good faith, a virtue shared with men,
and also the physical courage which might be needed to defend one’s body.
Wives might achieve a reputation for pudicitia.⁸⁷ It implied other old-
fashioned virtues. Caecilia Metella, daughter of Balearicus, was regarded as
a model of antique devotion to duty. Cicero praises her virtus, faithfulness,
and diligence.⁸⁸ Quinta Claudia was thought to have been the purest, castissima,
of upper-class women in her day. (This word covers moral integrity and
ritual purity as well as sexual chastity.) Cicero praises her strict morality,
severitas.⁸⁹ Pudicitia was viewed as the chief, essential virtue of women,
parallel to male virtus. We are told that patrician married women set up a
shrine to the deity Pudicitia in the Cattle Market and Verginia founded a
rival altar to plebeian Pudicitia in her own house because she was excluded
from the first shrine (some said as the patrician wife of a plebeian). In the speech
which Livy gives her she urges that there be a competition in pudicitia for
women parallel to the men’s competition for virtus. The plebeian matronae
should try to see to it that their altar is holier than the patrician and that it should
be said that chaster women worship at it. It is clear from the whole passage that
what was at stake was gloria. Verginia boasted of her husband’s offices and deeds
and had earned prestige for herself by having been married only to him, to
whom she had gone as a virgin.⁹⁰
The wife’s sphere of responsibility was the house, to which she acted as a
guard.⁹¹ Staying at home was a conventional virtue, a guarantee of chastity.
Gadding about and having contact with non-family members was improper
according to old-fashioned morality. Epitaphs and literature praise the woman
who sat at home, span wool, knew nothing of strangers.⁹² Such moralizing had
little relevance to upper-class women by the first century BC.
Transgressions against pudicitia, for married women adultery, shamed her,
her ancestors, and her descendants. From the beginning a husband could
divorce his wife for adultery.⁹³ For the Romans adulterium means the sexual
act between a married woman and a man other than her husband. The man’s
⁸⁶ E.g. Plaut. Amph. 711–6. ⁸⁷ VM 7.1.1, Treggiari, RM 232–7.

⁸⁸ SRosc. 27, 147.
⁸⁹ Har. Resp. 27. For the legend see T. P. Wiseman, Clio’s cosmetics (Leicester, 1979) 94–9.
⁹⁰ Livy 10.23, Robert E. A. Palmer, ‘Roman shrines of female chastity from the caste struggle
to the papacy of Innocent I’, Riv. Stor. Ant. 4 (1974) 113–59 esp. 121–33.
⁹¹ E.g. Laud. Tur. 1.37–9. Cf. T. E. V. Pearce, ‘The role of the wife as custos in ancient Rome’,
Eranos 72 (1974) 16–33. The division of responsibility was made clear in fourth-century Greece
by Xen. Oec., which Cicero translated around 85 (Off. 2.87). On this see Sarah B. Pomeroy ed.,
Xenophon Oeconomicus (Oxford, 1994).
⁹² E.g. CIL 1².1211 = CIL 6.15346 = ILLRP 973 = Courtney, Musa Lapidaria 17, CIL 6.9499 =
ILLRP 793, Livy 34.1.5, 2.1–2, 2.9–12, 3.6–7, 4.18, Treggiari, RM 243; cf. 185–99 passim, 203, 215
for common Greek ideas on how a wife should avoid going out. This was impossible for
working women.
⁹³ Treggiari, RM 262–77.
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
This homage is, however, only paid to matron queens. Whilst they
continue princesses, they receive no distinctive marks of respect. Dr.
Dunbar, the noted Scotch apiarian, observed a very striking instance
of this whilst experimenting on the combative qualities of the queen-
bee. "So long," says he, "as the queen which survived the rencontre
with her rival, remained a virgin, not the slightest degree of respect
or attention was paid her—not a single bee gave her food; she was
obliged, as often as she required it, to help herself; and in crossing
the honey cells for that purpose, she had to scramble, often with
difficulty, over the crowd, not an individual of which got out of her
way, or seemed to care whether she fed or starved; but no sooner
did she become a mother, than the scene was changed, and all
testified towards her that most affectionate attention, which is
uniformly exhibited to fertile queens."
The queen-bee, though provided with a sting, never uses it on
any account, except in combat with her sister queens. But she
admits of no rival to her throne; almost her first act on coming forth
from the cell, is an attempt to tear open and destroy the cells
containing the pupæ of princesses likely to become competitors.
Should it so happen that another queen of similar age does exist in
the hive at the same time, the two are speedily brought into contact
with each other in order to fight it out and decide by a struggle,
mortal to one of them, which is to be the ruler;—the stronger of
course is victorious, and remains supreme. This, it must be admitted,
is a wiser method of settling the affair than it would be to range the
whole band under two distinct banners, and so create a civil war,
killing and destroying each other for matters with which they
individually have little or no concern: for the bees care not which
queen it is, as long as they are certain of having one to rule over
them and perpetuate the community.
After perusing the description given above of the attachment of
bees to their queen, it may be easy to imagine the consternation a
hive is thrown into when deprived of her presence. The bees first
make a diligent search for their monarch in the hive, and then
afterwards rush forth in immense numbers to seek her. When such a
commotion is observed in an apiary, the experienced bee-master will
repair the loss by giving a queen: the bees have generally their own
remedy for such a calamity, in their power of raising a new queen
from amongst their larvæ; but if neither of these means be available,
the whole colony dwindles and dies. The following is the method by
which working bees provide a successor to the throne when
deprived of their queen by accident, or in anticipation of the first
swarm, which is always led by the old queen:—
They select, when not more than three days old, an egg or grub
previously intended for a worker-bee, and then enlarge the cell so
selected by destroying the surrounding partitions; they thus form a
royal cradle, in shape very much like an acorn cup inverted. The
chosen embryo is then fed liberally with a peculiar description of
nurture, called by naturalists "royal jelly"—a pungent food, prepared
by the working bees exclusively for those of the larvæ that are
destined to become candidates for the honour of royalty. Should a
queen be forcibly separated from her subjects, she resents the
interference, refuses food, pines, and dies.
The whole natural history of the queen-bee is in itself a subject
that will well repay for continuous study. Those who desire to follow
it, we would refer to the complete works of Huber—the greatest of
apiarians,—Swammerdam, Bevan, Langstroth, &c. The
observations upon the queen-bee needful to verify the above
mentioned facts can only be made in hives constructed for the
purpose, of which our "Unicomb Observatory Hive" is one of the
best. In ordinary hives the queen is scarcely ever to be seen; where
there are several rows of comb, she invariably keeps between them,
both for warmth and to be more secure from danger. The writer has
frequently observed in stocks which have unfortunately died, that the
queen was one of the last to expire; and she is always more difficult
to gain possession of than other bees, being by instinct taught that
she is indispensable to the welfare of her subjects.
The queen enjoys a far longer life than any of her subjects, her
age generally extending to four or even five years. The drones,
which are mostly hatched in the early spring, seldom live more than
three or four months, even if they should escape the sting of the
executioner, to which they generally fall victims. The worker-bee, it is
now a well-ascertained fact, lives from six to eight months, in no
case exceeding the latter; so that we may reckon that the bees
hatched in April and May expire about the end of the year, and it is
those of the autumn who carry on the duties of the hive until the
spring and summer, that being the time when the greatest number of
eggs are laid. The population of a hive is very small during the
winter, in comparison with the vast numbers gathering produce in the
summer,—produce which they themselves live to enjoy but for a
short period. So that not only, as of old, may lessons of industry be
learned from bees, but they also teach self-denial to mankind, since
they labour for the community rather than for themselves. Evans, in
describing the age of bees, thus paraphrases the well known couplet
of Homer in allusion to the fleeting generations of men:—
Like leaves on trees, the race of bees is found,

Now green in youth, now withering on the ground;
Another race the spring or fall supplies.
They droop successive, and successive rise.
The Drone.—The drones are male bees; they possess no sting,

are more hairy and larger than the common bee, and may be easily
distinguished by their heavy motion, thick-set form, and louder
humming. Evans thus describes the drones:—
Their short proboscis sips.

No luscious nectar from the wild thyme's lips;
From the lime leaf no amber drops they steal.
Not bear their grooveless thighs the foodful meal:
On others' toils in pampered leisure thrive,
The lazy fathers of the industrious hive;
Yet oft, we're told, these seeming idlers share
The pleasing duties of parental care;
With fond attention guard each genial cell,
And watch the embryo bursting from the shell.
But Dr. Evans had been "told" what was not correct when he
sought to dignify drones with the office of "nursing fathers,"—that
task is undertaken by the younger of the working-bees. No
occupation falls to the lot of the drones in gathering honey, nor have
they the means provided them by nature for assisting in the labours
of the hive. The drones are the progenitors of working bees, and
nothing more; so far as is known, that is the only purpose of their
short existence.
In a well-populated hive the number of drones is computed at
from one to two thousand. "Naturalists," says Huber, "have been
extremely embarrassed to account for the number of males in most
hives, and which seem only a burden to the community, since they
appear to fulfil no function. But we now begin to discern the object of
nature in multiplying them to such an extent. As fecundation cannot
be accomplished within the hive, and as the queen is obliged to
traverse the expanse of the atmosphere, it is requisite that the males
should be numerous, that she may have the chance of meeting
some one of them in her flight. Were only two or three in each hive,
there would be little probability of their departure at the same instant
with the queen, or that they would meet her in their excursions; and
most of the females might thus remain sterile." It is important for the
safety of the queen-bee that her stay in the air should be as brief as
possible: her large size, and the slowness of her flight, render her an
easy prey to birds. It is not now thought that the queen always pairs
with a drone of the same hive, as Huber seems to have supposed.
Once impregnated,—as is the case with most insects,—the queen-
bee continues productive during the remainder of her existence. It
has, however, been found that though old queens cease to lay
worker eggs, they may continue to lay those of drones. The
swarming season being over, that is about the end of July, a general
massacre of the "lazy fathers" takes place. Dr. Bevan, in the "Honey
Bee," observes on this point, "the work of the drones being now
completed, they are regarded as useless consumers of the fruits of
others' labour, love is at once converted into hate, and a general
proscription takes place. The unfortunate victims evidently perceive
their danger, for they are never, at this time, seen resting in one
place, but darting in and out of the hive with the utmost precipitation,
as if in fear of being seized."
Their destruction is thought, by some, to be caused by their being
harassed until they quit the hive; but Huber says he ascertained that
the death of the drones was caused by the stings of the workers.
Supposing the drones come forth in May, which is the average
period of their being hatched, their destruction takes place
somewhere about the commencement of August, so that three
months is the usual extent of their existence; but should it so happen
that the usual development of the queen has been retarded, or that
the hive has in any case been deprived of her, the massacre of the
drones is deferred. But in any case, the natural term of the life of
drone bees does not exceed four months, so that they are all dead
before the winter, and are not allowed to be useless consumers of
the general store.
The Worker Bee.—The working bees form, by far, the most
numerous class of the three kinds contained in the hive, and least of
all require description. They are the smallest of the bees, are dark
brown in colour or nearly black, and much more active on the wing
than are either drones or queens. The usual number in a healthy
hive varies from twelve to thirty thousand; and, previous to
swarming, exceeds the larger number. The worker-bee is of the
same sex as the queen, but is only partially developed. Any egg of a
worker-bee,—by the cell being enlarged, as already described, and
the "royal jelly" being supplied to the larva,—may be hatched into a
mature and perfect queen. This, one of the most curious facts
connected with the natural history of bees, may be verified in any
apiary by most interesting experiments, which may be turned to
important use. With regard to the supposed distinctions between
"nursing" and working bees, it is now agreed that it only consists in a
division of labour,—the young workers staying at home to feed the
larvæ until they are themselves vigorous enough to range the fields
in quest of supplies. But, for many details of unfailing interest, we
must again refer our readers to the standard works on bees that
have already been named.
The Eggs of Bees.—It is necessary that some explanation
should be given as to the existence of the bee before it emerges
from the cell.
The eggs of all the three kinds of bees when first deposited are of
an oval shape, and of a bluish-white colour. In four or five days the
egg changes to a worm, and in this stage is known by the names of
larva or grub, in which state it remains four to six days more; during
this period it is fed by the nurse-bees with a mixture of farina and
honey, a constant supply of which is given to it: the next
transformation is to the nymph or pupa form; the nurse-bees now
seal up the cell with a preparation similar to wax; and then the pupa
spins round itself a film or cocoon, just as a silkworm does in its
chrysalis state. The microscope shows that this cradle-curtain is
perforated with very minute holes, through which the baby-bee is
duly supplied with air. No further attention on the part of the bees is
now requisite except a proper degree of heat, which they take care
to keep up, a position for the breeding cells being selected in the
centre of the hive where the temperature is likely to be most
congenial.
Twenty-one days after the egg is first laid (unless cold weather
should have retarded it) the bee quits the pupa state, and nibbling its
way through the waxen covering that has enclosed it, comes forth a
winged insect. In the Unicomb Observatory Hive, the young bees
may distinctly be seen as they literally fight their way into the world,
for the other bees do not take the slightest notice, nor afford them
any assistance. We have frequently been amused in watching the
eager little new-comer, now obtruding its head, and anon compelled
to withdraw into the cell, to escape being trampled on by the
apparently unfeeling throng, until at last it has succeeded in making
its exit. The little grey creature, after brushing and shaking itself,
enters upon its duties in the hive, and in a day or two may be seen
gathering honey in the fields—some say on the day of its birth,—thus
early illustrating that character for industry, which has been
proverbial, at least, since the days of Aristotle, and which has in our
day been rendered familiar even to infant minds through the nursery
rhymes of Dr. Watts.
Increase of Bees.—Every one is familiar with the natural
process of "swarming," by which bees provide themselves with fresh
space and seek to plant colonies to absorb their increase of
population. But the object of the bee-master is to train and educate
his bees, and in so doing he avoids much of the risk and trouble
which is incurred by allowing the busy folk to follow their own
devices. The various methods for this end adopted by apiarians all
come under the term of the "depriving" system; and they form part of
the great object of humane and economical bee-keeping, which is to
save the bees alive instead of slaughtering them as under the old
clumsy system. A very natural question is often asked,—how it is
that upon the depriving system, where our object is to prevent
swarming, the increase of numbers is not so great as upon the old
plan? It will be seen that the laying of eggs is performed by the
queen only, and that there is but one queen to each hive; so that
where swarming is prevented, there remains only one hive or stock,
as the superfluous princesses are not allowed to come to maturity.
Our plan of giving additional store-room will, generally speaking,
prevent swarming; this stay-at-home policy, we contend, is an
advantage, for instead of the loss of time consequent upon a swarm
hanging out preparatory to flight, all the bees are engaged in
collecting honey, and that at a time when the weather is most
favourable and the food most abundant. Upon the old system, the
swarm leaves the hive simply because the dwelling has not been
enlarged at the time when the bees are increasing. The emigrants
are always led off by the old queen, leaving either young or embryo
queens to lead off after swarms, and to furnish a mistress for the old
stock, and carry on the multiplication of the species. Upon the
antiquated and inhuman plan where so great a destruction takes
place by the brimstone match, breeding must, of course, be allowed
to go on to its full extent to make up for such sacrifices. Our chief
object under the new system is to obtain honey free from all
extraneous matter. Pure honey cannot be gathered from combs
where storing and breeding are performed in the same compartment.
For fuller explanations on this point, we refer to the various
descriptions of our improved hives in a subsequent section of this
work.
There can now be scarcely two opinions as to the uselessness of
the rustic plan of immolating the poor bees after they have striven
through the summer so to "improve each shining hour." The ancients
in Greece and Italy took the surplus honey and spared the bees, and
now for every intelligent bee-keeper there are ample appliances
wherewith to attain the same results. Mr. Langstroth quotes from the
German the following epitaph which, he says, "might be properly
placed over every pit of brimstoned bees:"—
Here Rests,
CUT OFF FROM USEFUL LABOUR,
A COLONY OF
INDUSTRIOUS BEES,
BASELY MURDERED
BY ITS
UNGRATEFUL AND IGNORANT
OWNER.
And Thomson, the poet of "The Seasons," has recorded an
eloquent poetic protest against the barbarous practice, for which,
however, in his day there was no alternative:—
All, see, where robbed and murdered in that pit,

Lies the still heaving hive! at evening snatched,
Beneath the cloud of guilt-concealing night,
And fix'd o'er sulphur! while, not dreaming ill,
The happy people, in their waxen cells,
Sat tending public cares.
Sudden, the dark, oppressive steam ascends.
And, used to milder scents, the tender race.
By thousands, tumble from their honied dome
Into a gulf of blue sulphureous flame!
It will be our pleasing task in subsequent chapters to show "a

more excellent way."
SWARMING.
The spring is the best period at which to open an apiary, and
swarming-time is a good starting point for the new bee-keeper. The
period known as the swarming season is during the months of May
and June. With a very forward stock, and in exceedingly fine
weather, bees do occasionally swarm in April. The earlier the swarm
the greater is its value. If bees swarm in July, they seldom gather
sufficient to sustain themselves through the winter; though, by
careful feeding, they may easily be kept alive, if hived early in the
month.
The cause of a swarm leaving the stock-hive is, that the
population has grown too large for it. Swarming is a provision of
nature for remedying the inconvenience of overcrowding, and is the
method whereby the bees seek for space in which to increase their
stores. By putting on "super hives," the required relief may, in many
cases, be given to them; but should the multiplication of stocks be
desired, the bee-keeper will defer increasing the space until the
swarm has issued forth. In May, when the spring has been fine, the
queen-bee is very active in laying eggs, and the increase in a strong
healthy hive is so prodigious that emigration is necessary, or the
bees would cease to work.
It is now a well established fact that the old queen goes forth with
the first swarm, preparation having been made to supply her place
as soon as the bees determine upon the necessity of a division of
their commonwealth. Thus the sovereignty of the old hive, after the
first swarm has issued, devolves upon a young queen.
As soon as the swarm builds combs in its new abode, the
emigrant-queen, being impregnated and her ovaries full, begins
laying eggs in the cells, and thereby speedily multiplies the labourers
of the new colony. Although there is now amongst apiarians no doubt
that the old queen quits her home, there is no rule as to the
composition of the swarm—old and young alike depart. Some show
unmistakable signs of age by their ragged wings, others their
extreme youth by their lighter colour; how they determine which shall
stay and which shall go has not yet been ascertained. In preparation
for flight, bees commence filling their honey bags, taking sufficient, it
is said, for three days' sustenance. This store is needful, not only for
food, but to enable the bees to commence the secretion of wax and
the building of combs in their new domicile.
On the day of emigration the weather must be fine, warm, and
clear, with but little wind stirring; for the old queen, like a prudent
matron, will not venture out unless the day is in every way favorable.
Whilst her majesty hesitates, either for the reasons we have
mentioned, or because the internal arrangements are not sufficiently
matured, the bees will often fly about or hang in clusters at the
entrance of the hive for two or three days and nights together, all
labour meanwhile being suspended. The agitation of the little folk is
well described by Evans:—
See where, with hurried step, the impassioned throng

Pace o'er the hive, and seem, with plaintive song,
T' invite the loitering queen; now range the floor,
And hang in cluster'd columns from the door;
Or now in restless rings around they fly,
Nor spoil thy sip, nor load the hollowed thigh;
E'en the dull drone his wonted ease gives o'er,
Haps his unwieldly wings, and longs to soar.
But when all is ready, a scene of the most violent agitation takes
place; the bees rush out in vast numbers, forming quite a dark cloud
as they traverse the air.
The time selected for the departure of the emigrants is generally
between 10 a.m. and 3 p.m.; most swarms come off within an hour
of noon. It is a very general remark that bees choose a Sunday for
swarming, and probably this is because then greater stillness reigns
around. It will not be difficult to imagine that the careful bee-keeper is
anxious to keep a strict watch, lest he should lose such a treasure
when once it takes wing. The exciting scene at a bee-swarming has
been well described by the apiarian laureate:—
Up mounts the chief, and, to the cheated eye,

Ten thousand shuttles dart along the sky;
As swift through æther rise the rushing swarms,
Gay dancing to the beam their sunbright forms;
And each thin form, still lingering on the sight.
Trails as it shoots, a line of silver light.
High poised on buoyant wing, the thoughtful queen,
In gaze attentive, views the varied scene,
And soon her far-fetched ken discerns below;
The light laburuam lift her polished brow.
Wave her green leafy ringlets o'er the glade.
Swift as the falcon's sweep, the monarch bends
Her flight abrupt; the following host descends
Round the fine twig, like clustered grapes they close
In thickening wreaths, and court a short repose.
In many country districts it is a time-honoured custom for the

good folks of the village to commence on such occasions a terrible
noise of tanging and ringing with frying pan and key. This is done
with the absurd notion that the bees are charmed with the
clangorous din, and may by it be induced to settle as near as
possible to the source of such sweet sounds. This is, however, quite
a mistake; there are other and better means for the purpose. The
practice of ringing was originally adopted for a different and far more
sensible object, viz., for the purpose of giving notice that a swarm
had issued forth, and that the owner was anxious to claim the right of
following, even though it should alight on a neighbour's premises. It
would DC curious to trace how this ancient ceremony has thus got
corrupted from the original design.
In case the bees do not speedily after swarming manifest signs of
settling, a few handfuls of sand or loose mould may be thrown up in
the air so as to fall among the winged throng; they mistake this for
rain, and then very quickly determine upon settling. Some persons
squirt a little water from a garden engine in order to produce the
same effect.
There are, indeed, many ingenious devices used by apiarians for
decoying the swarms. Mr. Langstroth mentions a plan of stringing
dead bees together, and tying a bunch of them on any shrub or low
tree upon which it is desirable that they should alight; another plan
is, to hang some black woven material near the hives, so that the
swarming bees may be led to suppose they see another colony, to
which they will hasten to attach themselves. Swarms have a great
affinity for each other when they are adrift in the air; but, of course,
when the union has been effected, the rival queens have to do battle
for supremacy. A more ingenious device than any of the above, is by
means of a mirror to flash a reflection of the sun's rays amongst a
swarm, which bewilders the bees, and checks their flight. It is
manifestly often desirable to use some of these endeavours to
induce early settlement, and to prevent, if possible, the bees from
clustering in high trees or under the eaves of houses, where it may
be difficult to hive them.
Should prompt measures not be taken to hive the bees as soon
as the cluster is well formed, there is danger of their starting on a
second flight; and this is what the apiarian has so much to dread. If
the bees set off a second time, it is generally for a long flight, often
for miles, so that in such a case it is usually impossible to follow
them, and consequently a valuable colony may be irretrievably lost.
Too much care cannot be exercised to prevent the sun's rays
falling on a swarm when it has once settled. If exposed to heat in this
way, bees are very likely to decamp. We have frequently stretched
matting or sheeting on poles so as to intercept the glare, and thus
render their temporary position cool and comfortable.
Two swarms sometimes depart at the same time and join
together; in such a case, we recommend that they be treated as one
by putting them into a hive as before described, taking care to give
abundant room, and not to delay affording access to the super hive
or glasses. They will settle their own notions of sovereignty by one
queen destroying the other. There are means of separating two
swarms if done at the time; but the operation is a formidable one,
and does not always repay even those most accustomed to such
manipulation.
With regard to preparations for taking a swarm, our advice to the
bee-keeper must be the reverse of Mrs. Glass's notable injunction as
to the cooking of a hare. Some time before you expect to take a
swarm, be sure to have a proper hive in which to take it, and also
every other requisite properly ready. Here we will explain what was
said in the introduction as to the safety of moving and handling bees.
A bee-veil or dress will preserve the most sensitive from the
possibility of being stung. This article, which may be bought with the
hives, is made of net close enough to exclude bees, but open
enough for the operator's vision. It is made to go over the hat of a
lady or cap of a gentleman; it can be tied round the waist, and has
sleeves fastening at the wrist. A pair of photographer's india rubber
gloves completes the full dress of the apiarian, who is then
invulnerable even to enraged bees. But bees when swarming are in
an eminently peaceful frame of mind; having dined sumptuously,
they require to be positively provoked before they will sting. Yet there
may be one or two foolish bees who, having neglected to fill their
honey bags, are inclined to vent their ill-humour on the kind apiarian.
When all is ready, the new hive is held or placed in an inverted
position under the cluster of bees, which the operator detaches from
their perch with one or two quick shakes; the floorboard is then
placed on the hive, which is then slowly turned up on to its base, and
it is well to leave it a short time in the same place, in order to allow of
stragglers joining their companions.
If the new swarm is intended for transportation to a distance, it is
as well for it to be left at the same spot until evening, provided the
sun is shaded from it: but if the hive is meant to stand in or near the
same garden, it is better to remove it within half an hour to its
permanent position, because so eager are newly-swarmed bees for
pushing forward the work of furnishing their empty house, that they
sally forth at once in search of materials.
A swarm of bees in their natural state contains from 10,000 to
20,000 insects, whilst in an established hive they number 40,000 and
upwards. 5,000 bees are said to weigh one pound; a good swarm
will weigh from three to five pounds. We have known swarms not
heavier than 2½ pounds, that were in very excellent condition in
August as regards store for the winter.
Hitherto, all our remarks have had reference to first or "prime"
swarms; these are the best, and when a swarm is purchased such
should be bargained for.
Second swarms, known amongst cottage bee-keepers as "casts,"
usually issue from the hive nine or ten days after the first has
departed. It is not always that a second swarm issues, so much
depends on the strength of the stock, the weather, and other causes;
but should the bees determine to throw out another, the first hatched
queen in the stock-hive is prevented by her subjects from destroying
the other royal princesses, as she would do if left to her own devices.
The consequence is that, like some people who cannot have their
own way, she is highly indignant; and when thwarted in her purpose,
utters, in quick succession, shrill, angry sounds, much resembling
"peep, peep," commonly called "piping," but which more courtly
apiarians have styled the vox regalis.
This royal wailing continues during the evening, and is
sometimes so loud as to be distinctly audible many yards from the
hive. When this is the case, a swarm may be expected either on the
next day, or at latest within three days. The second swarm is not
quite so chary of weather as the first; it was the old lady who
exercised so much caution, disliking to leave home except in the
best of summer weather.
In some instances, owing to favourable breeding seasons and
prolific queens, a third swarm issues from the hive, this is termed a
"colt;" and in remarkable instances, even a fourth, which in rustic
phrase is designated a "filly." A swarm from a swarm is called a
"maiden" swarm, and according to bee theory, will again have the old
queen for its leader.
The bee-master should endeavour to prevent his labourers from
swarming more than once; his policy is rather to encourage the
industrious gathering of honey by keeping a good supply of "supers"
on the hives. Sometimes, however, he may err in putting on the
supers too early or unduly late, and the bees will then swarm a
second time, instead of making use of the store-rooms thus
provided. In such a case, the clever apiarian, having spread the
swarm on the ground, will select the queen, and cause the bees to
go back to the hive from whence they came. This operation requires
an amount of apiarian skill which, though it may easily be attained, is
greater than is usually possessed.
II. MODERN BEE HIVES.
NUTT'S COLLATERAL HIVE. No. 1.

The late Mr. Nutt, author of "Humanity to Honey Bees," may be
regarded as a pioneer of modern apiarians; we therefore select his
hive wherewith to begin a description of those we have confidence in
recommending. Besides, an account of Mr. Nutt's hive will
necessarily include references to the various principles which
subsequent inventors have kept in view.
Nutt's Collateral Hive consists of three boxes placed side by side

(C. A. C), with an octagonal box B on the top which covers a bell-
glass. Each of the three boxes is 9 inches high, 9 inches wide, and
11 inches from back to front; thin wooden partitions,—in which six or
seven openings corresponding with each other are made—divide
these compartments, so that free access from one box to the other is
afforded to the bees; this communication is stopped when necessary
by a zinc slide passing down between each box. The octagonal
cover B is about 10 inches in diameter and 20 high, including the
sloping octagonal roof, surmounted with an acorn as a finish. There
are two large windows in each of the end boxes, and one smaller
one in the centre box; across the latter is a thermometer scaled and
marked, so as to be an easy guide to the bee-master, showing him
by the rise in temperature the increased accommodation required.
This thermometer is a fixture, the indicating part being protected by
two pieces of glass, to prevent the bees from coming between it and
the window, and thereby obstructing the view.
D D are ventilators. In the centre of each of the end boxes is a
double zinc tube reaching down a little below the middle, the outer
tube is a casing of plain zinc, with holes about a quarter of an inch
wide dispersed over it; the inside one is of perforated zinc, with
openings so small as to prevent the escape of the bees, a flange or
rim keeps the tubes suspended through a hole made to receive it.
The object in having double tubing, is to allow the inner one to be
drawn up and the perforations to be opened by pricking out the wax,
or rather the propolis, with which bees close all openings in their
hives. These tubes admit a thermometer enclosed in a cylindrical
glass, to be occasionally inserted during the gathering season; it
requires to be left in the tube for about a quarter of an hour; and on
its withdrawal, if found indicating 90 degrees or more, ventilation
must be adopted to lower the temperature—the ornamental zinc top
D must be left raised, and is easily kept in that position by putting the
perforated part a little on one side.
The boxes before described are placed on a raised double floor-
board, extending the whole length, viz., about 36 inches. The floor-
board projects a few inches in front. In the centre is the entrance;—
as our engraving only shows the back of the hive, we must imagine it
on the other side,—it is made by cutting a sunken way of about half-
an-inch deep and 3 inches wide, in the floor-board communicating
only with the middle box; it is through this entrance alone that the
bees find their way into the hive,—access to the end boxes and the
super being obtained from the inside. An alighting board is fitted
close under the entrance for the bees to settle upon when returning
laden with honey; this alighting board is removable for the
convenience of packing. The centre, or stock-box, A, called by Mr.
Nutt the Pavilion of Nature, is the receptacle for the swarm; for
stocking this, it will be necessary to tack the side tins so as to close
the side openings in the partition, and to tack some perforated zinc
over the holes at top; the swarm may then be hived into it just the
same as with a common hive. A temporary bottom-board may be
used if the box has to be sent any distance; or a cloth may be tied
round to close the bottom (the latter plan is best, because allowing
plenty of air), and when brought home at night, the bees being
clustered at the top, the cloth or temporary bottom must be removed,
and the box gently placed on its own floor-board, and the hive set in
the place it is permanently to occupy. E E are two block fronts which
open with a hinge, a semicircular hole 3 inches long, 2 wide in the
middle, is cut in the upper bottom-board immediately under the
window of each box; these apertures are closed by separate
perforated zinc slides; these blocks, when opened, afford a ready
means of reducing the temperature of the side boxes, a current of air
being quickly obtained, and are also useful for allowing the bees to
throw out any refuse.
The centre F is a drawer in which is a feeding trough, so
constructed that the bees can descend through the opening before
mentioned on to a false bottom of perforated zinc; liquid food is
readily poured in by pulling out the drawer a little way, the bees
come down on to the perforated zinc and take the food by inserting
their proboscis through the perforations, with no danger of being
drowned. Care must be exercised that the food is not given in such
quantity as to come above the holes; by this means, each hive has a
supply of food accessible only to the inmates, with no possibility,
when closely shut in, of attracting robber bees from other hives.
The exterior of these hives is well painted with two coats of lead
colour, covered with two coats of green, and varnished.
Notwithstanding this preservation, it is absolutely essential to place
such a hive under a shed or cover of some sort, as the action of the
sun and rain is likely to cause the wood to decay, whilst the extreme
heat of a summer sun might cause the combs to fall from their
foundations.
Neat and tasteful sheds may be erected, either of zinc supported
by iron or wooden rods, or a thatched roof may be supported in the
same manner, and will form a pretty addition to the flower garden.
When erecting a covering, it will be well to make it a foot or two
longer, so as to allow of a cottage hive on either side, as the
appearance of the whole is much improved by such an arrangement.
The following directions, with some adaptation, are from "Nutt on
Honey Bees:"—
In the middle box the bees are to be first placed;—in it they
should first construct their beautiful combs, and under the
government of one sovereign—the mother of the hive—carry on their
curious work, and display their astonishing architectural ingenuity. In
this box, the regina of the colony, surrounded by her industrious,
happy, humming subjects, carries on the propagation of her species,
deposits in the cells prepared for the purpose by the other bees,
thousands of eggs, though she seldom deposits more than one egg
in a cell at a time: these eggs are nursed up into a numerous
progeny by the other inhabitants of the hive. It is at this time, when
hundreds of young bees are daily coming into existence, that the
collateral boxes are of the utmost importance—both to the bees
domiciled in them, and to their proprietors; for when the brood
become perfect bees in a common cottager's hive, a swarm is the
necessary consequence. The queen, accompanied by a vast
number of her subjects, leaves the colony, and seeks some other
place in which to carry on the work nature has assigned her. But as
swarming may by proper precaution and attention to this mode of
management generally be prevented, it is good practice to do so;
because the time necessarily required to establish a new colony,
even supposing the cottager succeeds in saving the swarm, would
otherwise be employed in collecting honey, and in enriching the old
hive. Here, then, is one of the features of this plan—viz., the
prevention of swarming. When symptoms of swarming begin to
present themselves, which may be known by an unusual noise, the
appearance of more than common activity among the bees in the
middle box, and, above all, by a sudden rise of temperature, which
will be indicated by the quicksilver in the thermometer rising to 75
degrees as scaled on the thermometer in the box; when these
symptoms are apparent, the bee master may conclude that
additional space is required. The top sliding tin should now be
withdrawn from under the bell glass, which will open to the bees a
new store-room; this they will soon occupy, and fill with combs and
honey of pure whiteness, if the weather be fine to allow of their
uninterrupted labour. It may be well here to mention, that if the glass
have a small piece of clean worker comb attached to the perforated
ventilating tube, the bees will more speedily commence their
operations in it. When the glass is nearly filled, which in a good
season will be in a very short space of time, the bees will again
require increased accommodation; this will also be indicated by the
thermometer further rising to 85; the end box, as thereon marked,
must now be given them. Previously to drawing up a slide to enlarge
their crowded house, the manager should take off the empty end box
he intends to open to them, carefully and thoroughly cleanse it, and
then smear or dress the inside of it with a little liquid honey. Thus
prepared, he must return the box to its proper situation, and then
withdraw the sliding tin that hitherto has cut it off from the middle
box; by so doing the store-room is again enlarged. The bees will
commence operations in this new apartment. This simple operation,
done at the proper time, generally prevents swarming; by it, the
queen gains a vast addition to her dominions, and, consequently,
increasing space for the multiplying population of her domicile.
Provided the weather continue fine, and the thermometer has risen
to 95 degrees, as marked on the scale, the remaining tin may be
also withdrawn, thereby giving the bees, admittance to another box;
there is now no lack of store-rooms nor of employment for our
indefatigable labourers. The cylinder thermometer is required to be
occasionally dropped into the ventilating tube of the side boxes to
ascertain their temperature; for if exceeding or approaching that of
the middle box, it must be reduced by ventilating; this is done by
raising the zinc tops, to allow the air to pass through the perforations.
The grand object of this system is to keep the end boxes and the bell
glass cooler than the pavilion or middle box, so as to induce the
queen to propagate her species there and there only, and not in the
depriving part of the hive; by this means the side and upper combs
are in no way discoloured by brood. The queen requires a
considerable degree of warmth; the middle box does not require
more ventilation than the additional openings afford. The bees enjoy
coolness in the side boxes, and thereby the whiteness and purity of
the luscious store are increased.
After having given directions for the working of the hive, it
remains to be told how to obtain possession of the store, and to get
rid of our industrious tenants from the super and end boxes, of which
the super glass will be almost sure to be filled first, having been first
given to them. The operation of taking honey is best performed in the
middle of a fine sunny day. The best mode that we know of is to pass
an ordinary table-knife all round underneath the rim of the glass to
loosen the cement, properly called propolis; then take a piece of fine
wire, or a piece of string will do, and, having hold of the two ends,
draw it under the glass very slowly, so as to allow the bees to get out
of the way. Having brought the string through, the glass is now
separated from the hive; but it is well to leave the glass in its place
for an hour or so, the commotion of the bees will then have
subsided; and another advantage we find is, that the bees suck up
the liquid and seal up the cells broken by the cutting off. You can
then pass underneath the glass two pieces of tin or zinc; the one
may be the proper slide to prevent the inmates of the hive coming
out at the apertures, the other tin keeps all the bees in the glass
close prisoners. After having been so kept a short time, the apiarian
must see whether the bees in the glass manifest symptoms of
uneasiness, because if they do not, it may be concluded that the
queen is among them. In such a case, replace the glass, and
recommence the operation on a future day. It is not often that her
majesty is in the depriving hive or glass; but this circumstance does
sometimes happen, and the removal at such a time must be
avoided. When the bees that are prisoners run about in great
confusion and restlessness, the operator may then conclude that the
queen is absent, and that all is right. The glass may be taken away a
little distance off, and placed in a flower-pot or other receptacle
where it will be safe when inverted and the tin taken away, then the
bees will be glad to make their escape back to their hive. A little
tapping at the sides of the glass will render their tarriance

Servilia And Her Family First Edition Edition Servilia full chapter pdf docx

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Servilia And Her Family First Edition Edition Servilia full chapter pdf docx

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Servilia and her family First Edition.

Her Impossible Husband (Rakes & Rebels: The Raveneau

First Aid for the Family Medicine Boards, Third Edition

Self-Made Men: Widening Participation, Selfhood and

Child, Family, and Community: Family-Centered Early

Ethnicity and Family Therapy, Third Edition 3rd

Family Therapy: Concepts and Methods 11th Edition,

Philosophical Foundations of Children’s and Family Law

SERVILIA AND HER FAMILY

Servilia and her

For my daughters and granddaughters

⁷ Keith Bradley, ‘Recovering Hadrian’, Klio 94 (2012) 130–55 at 153.

Common Latin abbreviations

Standard Reference Works and Sources

Abbreviations for journals will be found in OCD⁴ and abbreviations for

Servilia’s family of birth

M. Livius Drusus Livia m. 1. Q. Caepio m. 2. M. Porcius Cato

Servilia’s marriages and children

Rome had grown from a city set in an advantageous position on a navigable

¹ Cf. Treggiari, Roman social history 42–8, Terentia 13–21.

2 Servilia and her Family

CURSUS HONORUM : RACE FOR H ONOURS

4 Servilia and her Family

²⁰ OCD⁴ s.v. nobilitas (Badian).

6 Servilia and her Family

MAGISTRATUS : E LECTED OFFICIALS

Elected ofﬁcials were called magistratus.²⁶ What did they do?

²⁷ Brunt, Italian Manpower 21–2. ²⁸ Lintott, Constitution 113–14.

8 Servilia and her Family

³⁴ Freedmen and enfranchised aliens had one, their previous name.

10 Servilia and her Family

12 Servilia and her Family

⁴² Comm. Pet. 16–33.

Citizens were affected by a legal institution peculiar to Rome, paternal power

14 Servilia and her Family

⁴⁷ OCD⁴ s.v. ‘manus’ (Nicholas and Treggiari) with further bibliography.

16 Servilia and her Family

Respectable married women, matronae, formed a category in society and even

18 Servilia and her Family

20 Servilia and her Family

⁸⁶ E.g. Plaut. Amph. 711–6. ⁸⁷ VM 7.1.1, Treggiari, RM 232–7.

Like leaves on trees, the race of bees is found,

The Drone.—The drones are male bees; they possess no sting,

Their short proboscis sips.

All, see, where robbed and murdered in that pit,

It will be our pleasing task in subsequent chapters to show "a

See where, with hurried step, the impassioned throng

Up mounts the chief, and, to the cheated eye,

In many country districts it is a time-honoured custom for the

NUTT'S COLLATERAL HIVE. No. 1.

Nutt's Collateral Hive consists of three boxes placed side by side

You might also like