historical question...

[angeliz2k]

I figured this was the best place to put this since there are lots of historical experts around. My question is about marriage in ancient Rome (the 1st century AD).

In my story, a man of Senatorial rank (but not a Senator) marries a slave. My understanding is that this was allowed and not all that unusual. It also seems that he would be forced to renounce his wife if he ever wanted to be a Senator. Otherwise, it would work basically like any other marriage. Am I right here?

Also, the bride has no family and is a slave. A large part of the wedding ceremony involves the bride's family and basically transmitting her to the husband's "care". Any ideas how the wedding would be handled with a freedwoman with no surviving family?

Sorry this is really specific. Maybe someone can help!

[Doogs]

Interesting question!

You are correct in that men of senatorial rank could marry slaves (or, free them and then marry them). Whether doing so would bar them from becoming a senator I don't know, but there were certainly cases of senators marrying slaves. The most well-known example is Cato the Elder's marriage to Salonia in the 2nd century B.C. It was frowned upon in a lot of circles, but Cato was the eccentric and stubborn sort who didn't much care what others thought.

As for the ceremony, you've got me there. Though I do know there were multiple forms of marriage in the Roman world, and one that basically amounted to a common law marriage. Have you consulted "Life and Leisure in Ancient Rome"? There's a pretty thorough section on marriage in there.

[She_wulf]

I figured this was the best place to put this since there are lots of historical experts around. My question is about marriage in ancient Rome (the 1st century AD).

In my story, a man of Senatorial rank (but not a Senator) marries a slave. My understanding is that this was allowed and not all that unusual. It also seems that he would be forced to renounce his wife if he ever wanted to be a Senator. Otherwise, it would work basically like any other marriage. Am I right here?

Also, the bride has no family and is a slave. A large part of the wedding ceremony involves the bride's family and basically transmitting her to the husband's "care". Any ideas how the wedding would be handled with a freedwoman with no surviving family?

Sorry this is really specific. Maybe someone can help!
I can't give you concrete answers but there were excerpts on slave law in "An Eyewitness Guide to Rome" I have it at home but won't be there for another four hours. Will try to look up and post later.

Amy

[angeliz2k]

Thank you both. She Wulf, take our time. I'd love to hear what "An Eyewitness Guide to Rome" says.

I do have information on the ceremonies and so forth. I guess that in this situation, the people involved would improvise a little but, so I'll improvise a little, too.

[Doogs]

I completely understand your situation, angeliz2k. I have a ton of research around the novel I'm gearing up to write, but am encountering a few black holes around essential bits of info I need to even begin mapping out characters.

[robeiae]

I'm late on this and don't have much more to offer, except:

To the best of my knowledge, no law prohibited a Roman citizen from becoming a Senator because he had married a former slave.

But please note, the specifics of this change dramatically, depending on the time period. The early Roman kingdom was not the Republic, and the Republic was not the Empire.

1st century puts you in the age of Augustus. Here, membership in the Senate was tightly controlled and limited. It was hardly still an elected body.

[She_wulf]

There were other considerations/requirements to become a senator. I believe you needed to put a mandatory service in the legions during the post-Claudian Caesars. I'm not certain it was required for Claudian ones though. Families grooming their sons for the senate sent them to token field positions in the armies. Here's some details I gleaned when researching:

Command of the legion was usually given to a legatus legionis picked by the emperor from the senatorial class who generally had some previous military experience through service as a tribunus.

The legionary commander was assisted by six military tribunes. With the exception of the units stationed in Egypt one of these tribuni was usually a young senator at the start of his public career. Known as a tribunus laticlavius from the broad purple stripes on his tunic this senior tribune was second-in-command. His collegues from the equestrian order were known as tribuni angusticlavii and generally had done earlier service as a commander of an auxiliary infantry unit. A former senior centurion usually performed the duties of praefectus castrorum, camp commandant, and was the third in the chain of command.
(above information from a website by Sander van Dorst (http://members.tripod.com/%7ES_van_Dorst/legio.html))

[Deb Kinnard]

In "Marriage and Family in the Middle Ages" Frances and Joseph Gies comment on how concepts and customs of marriage developed through the Roman Empire years. Quoting: "Most forms of interclass marriage were forbidden or hindered by legal obstacle or social disapprobation. Even when sanctioned, such a matrimonium non justum was long handicapped by assignment of the children to the status of the lower-ranking parent...(S)lave marriage was not recognized by law, which did not prevent slaves from marrying and treating their marriages as serious."

Any & all typos are mine. This book also (page 23) describes the exact form of a first-century Roman betrothal and the marriage that followed.

If you need further info from this book, shoot me a PM and I'll look up whatever I can.

[Doogs]

1st century puts you in the age of Augustus. Here, membership in the Senate was tightly controlled and limited. It was hardly still an elected body.

Very good point. The emperors had censorial authority, so they could (and did) grant senatorial rank as a mark of favor. They could also take it away.

[She_wulf]

I could see a situation where marrying a slave would be to an advantage to a senator.

Seneca, a slave, amassed great fortune. So much so that he bailed out the Roman treasuries to the tune of hundreds of millions of sestarses. He called in those loans after a fight with Nero. This caused economic collapse and forced Nero to raise income off the colonae (Briton namely) any way possible. A revolt soon followed (Bodicca).

Marrying a rich slave daughter who was the sole heir to a fortune would be preferable. Especially if the senator in question had already married for power. (as in the case of Pompey marrying Caesar's daughter to forge an alliance)

Amy

[angeliz2k]

Thanks everyone!

Interestingly enough, the fellow in the story was a tribunus laticlavius in Britannia during the Boudiccan rebellion . . . so a combination of a few things mentioned in various posts. He was, therefore, on a track to become a Senator, but plans can change. The girl is not wealthy at all, she's this fellow's brother's slave. So there would be no advantage there. I can see him happily giving up a Senatorial career and remaining quaestor (the job he "currently" holds) in order to be with the girl. He's a bit sentimental.

[pdr]

question. Why would he marry a slave? He could buy her and use her as he wanted. Marrying a slave really meant social ruin didn't it?

[She_wulf]

I suppose it depends on where the slave girl came from.

A native Briton (which probably wouldn't happen in the strictest since of "slave") would actually not marry the Roman. I can think of a few reasons why, but most compelling would be the persecution she would get by doing so. This persecution would be from both sides. Also, Celtic culture put more value on females of their society (in some tribes) where the women inherited as much property as men did. That's what got Boudicca in trouble in the first place. Under Roman law, a female couldn't inherit therefore the entire wealth of the Iceni King went to the state. (Rome)

Normally the rule wasn't enforced because it was considered a trivial matter by Roman authorities, but less than a year prior to this Seneca called in his loans and Nero was pressuring the provincial governments to compensate for the lack of funds. It was an excellent opportunity for Quintus Petillius Cerialis Caesius Rufus to swoop in and offset the cutbacks his office suffered under the mandate from Nero.

Back to the slave issue. Slaves normally were shipped far from their homeland to avoid possibility of escape. Same with auxillaries drafted into the legions. So having the girl be from the Asiatic regions or Germania wouldn't be too far off. Or Hispania or Greece even. I doubt she'd be British though. And Gauls were also Celt in practice so they would not be utilized in Briton. It would be too easy to spy that way.

The slave class had rights under Roman law. Native Brits unless they were rulers who signed treaties with Claudius did not. They were for all intent and purpose the enemy. Romans traded with certain tribes, namely the Canti, Belgae, and Dobuni, but the Iceni(post revolt), Trinovantes, Ordivices, and Jugantes were somewhat enemies. While the Brigantes rode the fence. Inter tribal warring and hostilities fed the Roman takeover as the Canti hated the Trinovantes and the Iceni often quarreled with them as well. Which is why the initial treaty in 43 AD was signed by Pratugus and Venutius. (married to the "horse queen" Cartimandua, who also signed the treaty. This makes me believe they were co-rulers of the Brigantes similar to the political liason of Boudicca and Pratugus.)

As far as I can tell, a native from any tribe would not have a trial if caught breaking Roman law. They would be executed or at least sold and shipped elsewhere. While natives worked for the Romans and received some compensation, they weren't granted status as slaves as far as my research got me. More often they were taxed heavily in order to keep their land. It set a horrible precedent in the region that persisted until modern day. Estate taxes and land taxes were Roman "gifts" to our modern culture.

Suggested reading: The Celts (A History) by Peter Berresford Ellis, The Annals & The Histories by Tacitus, and The Agricola and the Germania by Tacitus. While Tacitus had the most extensive surviving works from the time period also remember he was biased and it isn't an accurate reporting of history, only a Roman one.

It's also quite dry. The lost diaries of Claudius would have been much more informative, but Nero and Domitian(?) had most of them destroyed. Claudius fancied himself a philosopher and a historian so spent hours detailing what he considered "unbiased" and "accurate" reporting of the goings on of Rome. Only censored fragments survived.

Lastly, I'll pull out the mistress argument. Romans were no strangers to the concepts of prostitution and having a woman (or man) on the side. (Neither were the Celts. In that culture a woman who had already given birth was worth more than an untried woman. Mostly because it proved that she was fertile and could withstand the rigors of childbirth) There are many accounts of mistresses and "sleeping around" referenced in many of the Roman histories. Especially when they were trying to discredit a political enemy. They accused Nero of "hair plucking" and Claudius of impotence, the latter being a much more vile curse. Marriages were financial and political based. To cleave to another in marriage for love is most likely a modern concept. While the idea is great for fictional novels, it may not fly historically.

Sorry if I got too technical...I tend to get carried away when I do research.

Amy

[angeliz2k]

question. Why would he marry a slave? He could buy her and use her as he wanted. Marrying a slave really meant social ruin didn't it?

Why does anyone marry, pdr? There's a reason people commit to each other. I believe it's called . . . love? And marrying a slave didn't necessarily mean social ruin, as others above have pointed out.

I suppose it depends on where the slave girl came from.

A native Briton (which probably wouldn't happen in the strictest since of "slave") would actually not marry the Roman. I can think of a few reasons why, but most compelling would be the persecution she would get by doing so. This persecution would be from both sides. Also, Celtic culture put more value on females of their society (in some tribes) where the women inherited as much property as men did. That's what got Boudicca in trouble in the first place. Under Roman law, a female couldn't inherit therefore the entire wealth of the Iceni King went to the state. (Rome)

Indeed. If she were a slave in Britannia, I don't think she'd ever consider marrying him, for reasons you said and reasons specific to her character. But she's in Rome, actually, shipped there by the slaver who caught her. A much different situation to be sure. And I know about the Celt's attitude towards women, and even about the legal wrangling at Prasutagus's death--it even plays a prominent part in this story. :)

Normally the rule wasn't enforced because it was considered a trivial matter by Roman authorities, but less than a year prior to this Seneca called in his loans and Nero was pressuring the provincial governments to compensate for the lack of funds. It was an excellent opportunity for Quintus Petillius Cerialis Caesius Rufus to swoop in and offset the cutbacks his office suffered under the mandate from Nero.

Perhaps you mean Catus Decianus? He was the procurator who darted around causing trouble. Cerialis was a legate of the IXth Hispana. Oddly, both have roled in this story, too . . .

Back to the slave issue. Slaves normally were shipped far from their homeland to avoid possibility of escape. Same with auxillaries drafted into the legions. So having the girl be from the Asiatic regions or Germania wouldn't be too far off. Or Hispania or Greece even. I doubt she'd be British though. And Gauls were also Celt in practice so they would not be utilized in Briton. It would be too easy to spy that way.

Good point, but the story wouldn't exist if she weren't a Briton. However, she is shipped away, to Rome. Why? Well, the slaver says he can get lots of money in Rome for her and the other slaves. Stretching it a little? Perhaps. But it gets her to Rome.

The slave class had rights under Roman law. Native Brits unless they were rulers who signed treaties with Claudius did not. They were for all intent and purpose the enemy. Romans traded with certain tribes, namely the Canti, Belgae, and Dobuni, but the Iceni(post revolt), Trinovantes, Ordivices, and Jugantes were somewhat enemies. While the Brigantes rode the fence. Inter tribal warring and hostilities fed the Roman takeover as the Canti hated the Trinovantes and the Iceni often quarreled with them as well. Which is why the initial treaty in 43 AD was signed by Pratugus and Venutius. (married to the "horse queen" Cartimandua, who also signed the treaty. This makes me believe they were co-rulers of the Brigantes similar to the political liason of Boudicca and Pratugus.)

True, true. But she's taken as a slave, so becomes part of the slave class, who as I understand it were basically given the right to their life and very very little else. I do know some about Cartimandua, but ignored her for the purposes of my story.

Oh, and there's some discrepency I believe about Boudica's origins. She may have actually been queen in her own right, and the Romans just assumed the male was the ruler. Or she might have been a princess from a neighboring tribe. She may have even just been a noble or warrior. As far as I know, there isn't any conclcusive answer.

As far as I can tell, a native from any tribe would not have a trial if caught breaking Roman law. They would be executed or at least sold and shipped elsewhere. While natives worked for the Romans and received some compensation, they weren't granted status as slaves as far as my research got me. More often they were taxed heavily in order to keep their land. It set a horrible precedent in the region that persisted until modern day. Estate taxes and land taxes were Roman "gifts" to our modern culture.

Right. She was captured by a slaver. It was in the chaos after a battle.

Suggested reading: The Celts (A History) by Peter Berresford Ellis, The Annals & The Histories by Tacitus, and The Agricola and the Germania by Tacitus. While Tacitus had the most extensive surviving works from the time period also remember he was biased and it isn't an accurate reporting of history, only a Roman one.

Thanks! I've read all that Tacitus has to say. I didn't find it dry, haha, but I'm nerdy!

It's also quite dry. The lost diaries of Claudius would have been much more informative, but Nero and Domitian(?) had most of them destroyed. Claudius fancied himself a philosopher and a historian so spent hours detailing what he considered "unbiased" and "accurate" reporting of the goings on of Rome. Only censored fragments survived.

Lastly, I'll pull out the mistress argument. Romans were no strangers to the concepts of prostitution and having a woman (or man) on the side. (Neither were the Celts. In that culture a woman who had already given birth was worth more than an untried woman. Mostly because it proved that she was fertile and could withstand the rigors of childbirth) There are many accounts of mistresses and "sleeping around" referenced in many of the Roman histories. Especially when they were trying to discredit a political enemy. They accused Nero of "hair plucking" and Claudius of impotence, the latter being a much more vile curse. Marriages were financial and political based. To cleave to another in marriage for love is most likely a modern concept. While the idea is great for fictional novels, it may not fly historically.

A good possiblity given time and place. But given the characters of both him and her, it wouldn't happen. He is a little bit of sentimental sap and respects her enough to marry her. She would never, ever, ever agree to being his mistress, for a lot of character reasons.

Sorry if I got too technical...I tend to get carried away when I do research.

Amy

THANKS! You put a lot of thought into this. I appreciate it.

In the end, I think the question isn't whether they wish to be married--they do--but how they will go about the ceremonies considering that she has zero living family.

[brianm]

Also, the bride has no family and is a slave. A large part of the wedding ceremony involves the bride's family and basically transmitting her to the husband's "care". Any ideas how the wedding would be handled with a freedwoman with no surviving family?

Sorry this is really specific. Maybe someone can help!

You've received some very good feedback, but the above paragraph confuses me.

If the bride has no family, how is it possible a large part of the wedding ceremony involves the "bride's family basically transmitting her to the husband's care"?

[lkp]

question. Why would he marry a slave? He could buy her and use her as he wanted. Marrying a slave really meant social ruin didn't it?

I'm feeling the same way as pdr about this plot line. Why would he marry her at all? Even if he loved her, the two could have a perfectly acceptable recognized union with some protection for future children without marriage. You're going to need to come up with some compelling reason why he married her and "because he loved her so much" is not going to cut it in a society in which marriage and love were not thought to be coterminous.

[pdr]

Ah me!

This guy is upper middle rank?
They married for many reasons, mostly political and business, often the man had never seen the bride!

I think perhaps you are writing Romance and not an historical novel?

A more realistic Roman would simpy assume that she's a slave and his for the taking!

Love is a 20thC luxory!

[funidream]

Love is a 20thC luxory!


You might call me a hopeless romantic, but I think there is plenty of evidence in the historical records across cultures and time periods to prove romantic love among human beings existed before the 20th century.

[lkp]

funidream is certainly right. It's not the love part that is a problem, it is the idea that marriage is the natural culmination of love that is anachronistic.

[donroc]

Some historians believe romantic love as we know it in the Western World originated relatively late in History, roughly at either the time of the Caliphate of Corboba and/or the troubadors and courts of Aquitaine and Provence.

[lkp]

I know that argument, donroc. The argument is that this is the first time you get widespread personal and romantic love poetry in the west, and so that must mean that before this point, people didn't feel, personal romantic love. I think there is a fallacy in equating writing about love with falling in love. It is interesting, however, in the context of this thread, that the written love that emerged at this time had zero to do with marriage. For instance, much of the caliphal love poetry, as well as a significant portion of that which made it to Christian Europe, was homoerotic.

[robeiae]

The Song of Solomon is about romantic love, and it predates the twentieth century by quite a few years.

The problem with trying to "date" romantic love is that we lack a full understanding of relationships across the spectrum of social classes/levels in most ancient periods. Just because marriage seems to involve considerations outside simple love at aristocratic levels, it does not follow that this was true across the board for all marriages. Even today, very wealthy people marry for purposes other than love--as do less than wealthy people. But imo, romantic love is omnipresent and has always been a potential basis for marriage or the like.

[She_wulf]

Some historians believe romantic love as we know it in the Western World originated relatively late in History, roughly at either the time of the Caliphate of Corboba and/or the troubadors and courts of Aquitaine and Provence.
I'll argue with that concept and cite examples in Solomon and Bathsheba, Tristan and Isolde, varying Greek myths involving Zeus (but he didn't stay in love very long...) and I recall a viking myth where the couple was very much in love.

However, I do agree that romantic love being the base of marriage is a modern concept. During the troubadour times cited above it was much more common for the couple to never act upon their feelings. Situations like arranged marriages, feuding families, even social class discrepancies were more than enough to make it so that the couple never even touched. That was their idea of romance. Which led to the whole tension/give-take you see in modern romance novels. In order to make your couple fall in love, you need to keep them apart.

Staying true to history is difficult, attributing modern concepts to history is much more difficult to pull off. My hat is off to you, angeliz2k, for trying. Weave in as much as you can to appease the geeky historian club, but remember that this is YOUR novel. Don't let anyone tell you you're wrong. Many, many authors twisted their versions of history much more than you're attempting to.

Amy

[donroc]

"The Song of Solomon is about romantic love, and it predates the twentieth century by quite a few years."

I have read (where I have forgotten) that the Songs are metaphoric for the Law of Moses, a theory I do not necessarily agree with.

Of course lust, appreciation of beauty by whatever standard of the time and desire to possess it, passion, and blind infatuation are part of being human in any era.

[robeiae]

I have read (where I have forgotten) that the Songs are metaphoric for the Law of Moses, a theory I do not necessarily agree with.
But even if they are, the metaphor can only be made because romance was already a common thing.

[donroc]

Good point, robilae. In any case as novelists, while we are free to insert romantic love in any era we write about, we must still research attitudes and customs regarding, sex, marriage, and family.

[murmel]

Love is a biochemical reaction. It has occurred and will occur no matter what the social implications may be. Even in times of pre-arranged marriage, happy, love-filled marriages did occur. The history is full of examples... but of course, also, of extra-maritial affairs that were not frowned upon outside the Calvinistic/Puritan realm.

Fairy tales, legends and myths are a valid resource. Folk songs and poems, too. When Homer tells his tale about Helena and Paris, he wrote about love. Greek and Roman mythology and legends are full of love stories. Do you think those are invented by 20thC writers? Shakespeare's romances are fake? Why would anybody want to watch a play or read a book if love and marriage were not desires of the heart? The story of two lovebirds trying to get together is as old as mankind, even if the majority of men took would they could grab.

IMHO, the question is wrong. He would have not married a slave. He would have freed her, put her into the right social rank, and then married her. A piece of cake for a man in power.

[pdr]

love and marriage might go together in the song, but I second She Wolf's comment about marriage. It was not the automatic result of love before the 20thC.

And yes, whilst the ballads and poems all raved on about love it was usually unrequited! The Love impossible to fulfill. How much more precious the imagined relationship than the reality!

And I would interpret some of the so called love songs/poems as lust!

And yes, Amy, angeliz may go her way writing fiction but she had better call it Romantic fantasy. If she wants to call it historical she needs to get her facts straight. Readers of historicals read 'em because they like history!

[robeiae]

Just because marriage was not always, or even usually, based on love in the past, it does not mean it never was. Readers of historical fiction should certainly know that.

And love of ballads and poems was not "usually" unrequited. It depends on the when and the where. Of course, much of the love in current ballads is of the same sort, so that's not really meaningful evidence of anything.

One of the problems in history is how we look at evidence from the past. What do individual pieces of evidence mean, with regard to the bigger picture? For instance, when a concept is often addressed in literature or the like from a given period, is such the case because the concept is so common...or so rare?

Look at laws. If their is a law outlawing a behavior or action, and we lack specifics on actual criminal behavior, what conclusion do we draw? That the behavior or action must less common in that society, because it was outlawed? OR that there was a real problem with that behavior or action in that society, so much so that it was made illegal?

It's not a simple thing, at all.

[murmel]

I cannot concur with pdr.

Although it is a fact that in higher levels of society (and that includes even the rich farmer in some countries) the strategical marriage dominated, there is no absolute conclusive evidence to suggest that since 2 million years of mankind ALL men have ONLY married for strategical reasons.

You cannot - and you did not - dismiss the fact that love stories are recorded in oral and written tradition. That would not be the case if the desire to marry for love did not exist. In the very moment the desire exists, the possibility of execution cannot be excluded. Therefore the idea and concept to marry for love has not been invented by the 20thC.

The wording must be: The data suggests that the majority of marriages were initiated out of strategical reasons in the Western European countries before WWI .

Then we can discuss what the majority represents in what country, what time, and what social level.

With that in mind, let the senator marry his slave. What Shakespeare, Dumas, Homer and other authors could do in their time, you can do now.

[Doogs]

love and marriage might go together in the song, but I second She Wolf's comment about marriage. It was not the automatic result of love before the 20thC.

It was definitely not the automatic result of love - or more correctly love did not automatically result in marriage - but that's not to say it didn't happen.

And yes, whilst the ballads and poems all raved on about love it was usually unrequited! The Love impossible to fulfill. How much more precious the imagined relationship than the reality!

And I would interpret some of the so called love songs/poems as lust!

What about "Much Ado About Nothing", then? The entire play is about love leading to marriage. Or in any case, favorable feelings that have naught to do with money or land or political influence.

And yes, Amy, angeliz may go her way writing fiction but she had better call it Romantic fantasy. If she wants to call it historical she needs to get her facts straight. Readers of historicals read 'em because they like history!

Oh, please! Romantic fantasy? What about Lindsay Davis' Falco novels, then? Her protagonist falls in love...in love...with a senator's daughter, and eventually marries her. Or along the same vein, Steven Saylor, who is a renowned enough player in historical fiction to give a lecture on the topic at the Getty Villa (see c.e.'s write-up from a few months back). The main character in his series frees and marries his slave, not to mention adopts at least one slave (it's been a long time, there may be more) to raise as his own son.

[donroc]

Specifically, my parents, children of immigrants, were of the first generation on either side not to be married through arrangement and instead for love. My forebears may have loved others, but they still had to submit to the arrangements if they did not want to be cut off from their families.

Romantic love was a luxury more for the limited liesure classes throughout most of history. Peasants and slaves had full daylight working days and dark nights, a prison of a life. Exceptions there may have been, which allows our imaignations to create romance in a difficult environment for dramatic tension.

[murmel]

Exceptions there may have been, which allows our imaignations to create romance in a difficult environment for dramatic tension.

Yes... and writers of all centuries and cultures have enticed their audience by taking them into a fairy tale land where they could escape their reality.

And again... there is no proof that romantical marriages did not occur. Let's say 95% of marriages were born out of necessity. A historical research paper would safely conclude that marriages were based on strategical reasons with a probability of 95%. That still leaves 5% of love born marriages. 95% probability is an extremely high predictive number when it goes to human statistics. Medical research and demographics work with much lesser numbers. Your doctor submits you to colonoscopy with a probability of 1.4% for you to develop colon cancer in the next 20 years. Now, how many knots were tied in 15thC or in 18thC?

Queen Victoria and Prince Albert are said to have married for love. Maybe it was a lesser evil thing, but they represent the possibility.

[funidream]

And yes, Amy, angeliz may go her way writing fiction but she had better call it Romantic fantasy. If she wants to call it historical she needs to get her facts straight. Readers of historicals read 'em because they like history!

If angeliz is writing a history text then she needs to get her facts straight.

If she is writing a historical novel, then she needs to become familiar with the facts, and then create a PLAUSIBLE plot with credible characters who act and react in PLAUSIBLE ways within whatever historical context she has chosen to write her story in.

If having a love born marriage occur in a story that takes place prior to the 20th century turns fiction into a romantic fantasy, then there are an awful lot of miscategorized books out there.

[waylander]

Queen Victoria and Prince Albert are said to have married for love. Maybe it was a lesser evil thing, but they represent the possibility.

No quite so. Their meeting was arranged but they fell in love

[lkp]

To say that love was not a reason for people to get married in earlier societies is not the same as saying that people who loved each other did not get married (because certainly people who have loved each other have married in every age), nor is it the same as saying that people who were married did not love each other (because whatever the origin of the marriage, love might well follow in many instances).

To say that love was not a reason for people to get married in earlier societies is simply to say that in those societies the answer to "So, why did they get married?" can't be *simply*, "Well, duh, they loved each other." There's got to be something more there, or the piece will read like a contemporary novel with pretty, old fashioned wallpaper.

To play off of what funidream said above, in this particular case, there is nothing plausible about senatorial dude marrying slave girl just because he loved her. I can think of plausible reasons who senatorial dude might marry slave girl: Perhaps she is from an incredibly wealthy family (as someone posited above. Perhaps she is blackmailing him. Perhaps there is some kinky sex thing he likes that only she will do and marriage is the price. Even these last two would be a tough sell. But there's a reason it's hard to come up with a plausibly marriage ritual for a family-less slave girl and it's because familyless slave girls didn't get married.

[angeliz2k]

And yes, Amy, angeliz may go her way writing fiction but she had better call it Romantic fantasy. If she wants to call it historical she needs to get her facts straight. Readers of historicals read 'em because they like history!

I hate to say it, but this is a ridiculous. You're not talking about FACTS at all, pdr, but social trends. I have my facts pretty well straight. I even have an idea of social trends, with a lot of extra input from this thread (which is really interesting, by the way!). "Fantasy" implies something beyond the realm of reality, which a marriage based on love is NOT. Sorry. It's within the realm of possibility.

Romantic love has ALWAYS existed. Maybe the idea of love=marriage became the norm in the 20th centuiry, but it existed before then. Think Biblical stories, myths and legends. In reality, all marriages weren't necessarily based on love, but that doesn't mean it was somehow impossible for two people to marry based on love. To state otherwise is silly.

You have your history books, but people are unique individuals. There's such a thing as the bell-shaped curve, and people deivate from norms--yes, even from the accepted social norms that historians have identified. Because a character deviates from these normas doesn't make the story "fantasy".

And isn't it far more interesting for a character to BUCK a social trend and go against the grain? Makes for some tension, doeesn't it?

However, to be fair, pdr, it IS ridiculously important to know about attitudes towards love, sex, marraige, and other tihngs when writing a historical piece. If you have a character defy social customs (which I do), then the consequences need to be addresed somehow (which I plan to do). The characters (and reader) must be aware that they're doing something different from everyone else, and maybe they have to suffer as a result. If an author doesn't address their character's deviance, it makes the story weak on historical accuracy . . . . But it sure as all get out doesn't make it "fantasy".

[angeliz2k]

post scipt.

I think this thread is extremely interesting. I understand that some people think it's implausible for a sentor to want to marry a slave girl, but I humbly disagree. It may not be likely, but I still believe it's perfectly possible for it to have hapened.

But this conversation about concepts of love and marriage is interesting, I'd love for it to continue.

[Doogs]

post scipt.

I think this thread is extremely interesting. I understand that some people think it's implausible for a sentor to want to marry a slave girl, but I humbly disagree. It may not be likely, but I still believe it's perfectly possible for it to have hapened.

But this conversation about concepts of love and marriage is interesting, I'd love for it to continue.

FWIW, I agree. Human attachment - especially romantic attachment - is a powerful thing. It has survived and thrived in spite of, beneath, and at the edges of prevailing social mores even in our own time (witness interracial or homosexual relationships in the 20th century). There are exceptions to every rule, and outliers to every statistical model.

Assuming you're aware of the prevailing social mores before breaking them, and are aware of and plotting the consequences, I say break away.

[robeiae]

I think this thread is extremely interesting. I understand that some people think it's implausible for a sentor to want to marry a slave girl, but I humbly disagree. It may not be likely, but I still believe it's perfectly possible for it to have hapened.
I agree. And I have plenty of history books, especially from the period in question.

It's foolish--imo--to create an absolute archetype of any person or institution in history, based on less-than-complete knowledge of history. Hell, it's somewhat foolish even with complete knowledge.

We know some things about the period, but what we know is not, in itself, evidence that specifics were universals. Far from it. But making this very claim is an error than many historians, including very prominent ones, commit.

[IceCreamEmpress]

I think this thread is extremely interesting. I understand that some people think it's implausible for a sentor to want to marry a slave girl, but I humbly disagree. It may not be likely

That's what "implausible" means. "Unlikely."

but I still believe it's perfectly possible for it to have hapened.

Did it happen? Do you have any examples of it happening? Roman society is very thoroughly documented.

During the days of the Senate, there were very rigorous marriage laws in place, which were quite specific about who was covered by the "right of marriage" and who wasn't.

A union between a Roman citizen and a slave was not considered a legal marriage in those days. Full stop. So it's not just "implausible" for your Senator to marry a slave, it's legally impossible.

Okay, then: what if your Senator freed the slave first? Well, it would depend on when your book was set. Under the Augustan legislation, it was forbidden for Senators to marry freedwomen (or any women who were not born Roman citizens). There was a famous law case about this, where the woman who was distinguished by a Senator in his will as his widow was decided by Septimus Severus to have been a concubine, rather than a wife, and as such her inheritance rights were moot.

If your book is set in pre-Augustan Rome, then I"m not sure what the legal state of affairs would be. But you should know it before you write the book. Let me recommend some useful resources for your research:

Women and the Law in the Roman Empire (http://www.amazon.com/Women-Law-Roman-Empire-Sourcebook/dp/0415152410) by Judith Evans Grubbs;
The Roman Household: A Sourcebook
(http://www.amazon.com/Roman-Household-Sourcebook-Jane-Gardner/dp/0415044227/ref=sid_dp_dp) by Jane F. Gardner;
Discovering the Roman Family (http://www.amazon.com/Discovering-Roman-Family-Studies-History/dp/0195058585/ref=sid_dp_dp) by Keith R. Bradley.




And, yes, Steve Saylor's Gordianus the Finder married a slave. But he's not a Senator; he's about as low in the class hierarchy as a citizen can get, and Saylor makes that very clear.

[robeiae]

That's what "implausible" means. "Unlikely."



Did it happen? Do you have any examples of it happening? Roman society is very thoroughly documented.It's not that well documented. We don't have a family background from every Senator that ever served.

During the days of the Senate, there were very rigorous marriage laws in place, which were quite specific about who was covered by the "right of marriage" and who wasn't.That's true.


A union between a Roman citizen and a slave was not considered a legal marriage in those days. Full stop. So it's not just "implausible" for your Senator to marry a slave, it's legally impossible.
Speaking for myself, I assumed the slave would have been freed first, as a matter of course.

Okay, then: what if your Senator freed the slave first? Well, it would depend on when your book was set. Under the Augustan legislation, it was forbidden for Senators to marry freedwomen (or any women who were not born Roman citizens). There was a famous law case about this, where the woman who was distinguished by a Senator in his will as his widow was decided by Septimus Severus to have been a concubine, rather than a wife, and as such her inheritance rights were moot.
Careful. Imperial decree, with regard to the Senate and Severus, is not something to just accept as law. Severus and the Senate were not particularly friendly. How many Senators did he execute? And how many did he just appoint?
If your book is set in pre-Augustan Rome, then I"m not sure what the legal state of affairs would be. But you should know it before you write the book.I think it's in Augustan Rome, according to the OP.

[IceCreamEmpress]

It's not that well documented. We don't have a family background from every Senator that ever served.

This is true, of course. What I should have said was "the laws of Rome are well-documented."

The Augustan legislation on marriage forbade Senators from marrying freedwomen. This was a lex (Lex Julia de Maritandis Ordinibus) not an Imperial decree; Septimus Severus's ruling on the inheritance case was, as far as I remember, not a grudge thing but a straightforward interpretation of the law (possibly motivated by grudge, of course ;) ).

[robeiae]

This is true, of course. What I should have said was "the laws of Rome are well-documented."

The Augustan legislation on marriage forbade Senators from marrying freedwomen. This was a lex (Lex Julia de Maritandis Ordinibus) not an Imperial decree; Septimus Severus's ruling on the inheritance case was, as far as I remember, not a grudge thing but a straightforward interpretation of the law (possibly motivated by grudge, of course ;) ).
That may be correct--I honestly don't remember. But regardless, during this period, the Emperor could pretty much mandate what someone was, no?

Also, note that the OP was positing a person of Senatorial rank, but not a sitting Senator.

[mscelina]

You've received some very good feedback, but the above paragraph confuses me.

If the bride has no family, how is it possible a large part of the wedding ceremony involves the "bride's family basically transmitting her to the husband's care"?

It wasn't a religious ceremony in Rome, so much as it was a property agreement or power brokering when dealing with upper class families. So the girl, who had surrendered her childhood previously (toys, etc) and her husband to be would have a wedding breakfast at the girl's family home, then proceed to the groom's home(where they would reinact the rape of the Sabines). The bride would ceremonially bless her new home (rubbing the door with oilve oil and hang skeins of wool from it--ancient fertility rites) then the groom would carry her over it. That was pretty much it. The slave, however, wouldn't have a family home for the breakfast, wouldn't have any childhood to surrender, and wouldn't have the ceremonial attributes needed to bless the wedding. I suppose that, in that situation, another family would 'adopt' her as a favor to the groom and provide such things and that might make the marriage 'legal' enough to suffice for your needs.

[Doogs]

Did it happen? Do you have any examples of it happening?

As I posted earlier, Cato the Elder freed than married his slave, Salonia. Granted, this was around the second century B.C., not the early Empire. But it certainly did happen.

Roman society is very thoroughly documented.

Yes and no. There's a wealth - almost an overabundance - of knowledge on certain aspects of Roman society, and then vast gaps on others. Granted, depth of knowledge IS much deeper during the imperial period than the Middle Republic.

And, yes, Steve Saylor's Gordianus the Finder married a slave. But he's not a Senator; he's about as low in the class hierarchy as a citizen can get, and Saylor makes that very clear.

The same could be said for Davis' Marcus Didius Falco. Both, I think, bring up another oft-overlooked facet of history, which is that the rigid dictates that applied to the higher classes didn't necessarily apply in kind to the lower classes.

[Memnon624]

Rome's not my period of choice and my understanding of laws and customs is rather limited, but wouldn't the prospective groom's father have an incredible amount of say on whether or not his son married a manumitted slave? Now, I don't know if it's Republican or Imperial, but I recall reading that the father has full power over his children until he dies or until he "frees" them from his direct control (regardless of the child's age). Were I a straight-laced Roman gentleman of Senatorial rank and my son came to me full of notions for freeing and marrying a slave he'd fallen in love with, then my dear son's intended would likely wind up sold or dead and he'd likely be sent off to duty with the Legions or on an extended tour of Greece . . .

Great thread, though! Best of luck with it, Angeliz2k!

Scott

[IceCreamEmpress]

Also, note that the OP was positing a person of Senatorial rank, but not a sitting Senator.

I'm pretty sure the law applied to Senators and their sons. Let me check on this to make sure.

Edited to add: According to this link (http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/secondary/SMIGRA*/Lex_Julia_et_Papia_Poppaea.html), it applies to Senators and their children (daughters as well, interestingly enough!)

As I posted earlier, Cato the Elder freed than married his slave, Salonia. Granted, this was around the second century B.C., not the early Empire. But it certainly did happen.

Yes, once again I was unclear in my word choice--I should have said "Do you know whether it happened in the era in which your story is set?" But your point is well-taken--the OP's character could be motivated to do this by the example of Cato the Elder. However, he'd face very different legal obstacles given the changes in law since those days.

The same could be said for Davis' Marcus Didius Falco. Both, I think, bring up another oft-overlooked facet of history, which is that the rigid dictates that applied to the higher classes didn't necessarily apply in kind to the lower classes.

[Cinzia8]

Hi,

I'm writing about 5th century Rome, but when I have any specific questions for time customs and traditions I go to the Ancient history forum at about.com. A lot of knowledgeable history buffs and teachers are there to offer advice or where to get the answers. We had a particularly lively discussion a few years back when I asked about the Roman equites using stirrups. I hope this helps.
Cinzia

[pdr]

And I only posted to make sure OP knew her stuff and wasn't going to give us a load of Hollywood mush.

Re Lindsey Davis and Falco, Doogs, in the first novel, 'The Silver Pigs', Falco himself talks about the kind of women he was looking for, one like his brother and friends and relatives married, a female with a bit of brain, who can keep house, and children, and not interfere with his life.
Helena is not the norm for him or for many, Helena's tale of her marriage shows this, and he knows that actually loving her is hopeless. Of course it makes a great story and he does, at the end of the first novel have Caesar's blessing to marry her if he earns the 400,000 sesterces to get him into the middle class.

And no, I wasn't denying that love happens or that some people have been able to marry for love. (Queen Victoria fell in love, Albert didn't have much choice, he was picked out and sent across for Vic to inspect! I'm sure he did become fond of her in time.) But it is so easy, with Hollywood around, to get mushy about love conquering all. It damn well didn't feed you and shelter you before the Welfare State mid 1950s and many people, both men and women, put those practicalities before love.

[angeliz2k]

I'm pretty sure the law applied to Senators and their sons. Let me check on this to make sure.

Edited to add: According to this link (http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/secondary/SMIGRA*/Lex_Julia_et_Papia_Poppaea.html), it applies to Senators and their children (daughters as well, interestingly enough!)



Ah, you see, now that's a very interesting fact. Legally, even a Senator's son wasn't able to marry a freed woman. Very interesting, and ironically goes back to part of my question in my original post, and I quote myself:

My understanding is that this was allowed and not all that unusual. It also seems that he would be forced to renounce his wife if he ever wanted to be a Senator. Otherwise, it would work basically like any other marriage. Am I right here?

Would there be a legal way around this? Someone mentioned adoption by another family. If she were adopted by, say, a family of Senatorial rank, would she receive their rank? I'm not sure whether that would work, but if it did, then I could definitely add that in to comply with the lex.

[angeliz2k]

Hi,

I'm writing about 5th century Rome, but when I have any specific questions for time customs and traditions I go to the Ancient history forum at about.com. A lot of knowledgeable history buffs and teachers are there to offer advice or where to get the answers. We had a particularly lively discussion a few years back when I asked about the Roman equites using stirrups. I hope this helps.
Cinzia

Thank you!! That could be an absolutely INVALUABLE resource for me.

[IceCreamEmpress]

Would there be a legal way around this? Someone mentioned adoption by another family. If she were adopted by, say, a family of Senatorial rank, would she receive their rank? I'm not sure whether that would work, but if it did, then I could definitely add that in to comply with the lex.

It would seem not; what might work, though, would be for him to be adopted by a non-citizen family (foreigners, freed slaves, actors/musicians, etc.).

I think that would be a fascinating plot point--he'd really have to make sacrifices in order to marry her.

[jass]

Interesting thread!

I'm not sure about the idea of the man getting himself adopted by non-citizens. Lowering one's rank to evade laws was not unknown. In the early Empire, women of good family did it to register as prostitutes, thus avoiding prosecution for adultery. Likewise men of both the Senatorial and Equestrian classes deliberately lowered their ranks to avoid laws forbidding them to appear on stage and in the arena (Seutonius-The Twelve Caesar's). But Tiberius cracked down hard on the practise. I'm not sure what the social ramifications would be either. Seutonius appears to have considered the above mentioned beyond the pale.

[jass]

angeliz, I had an idea that might help your character ease his way around his problem. Only an idea unfortunately, without much evidence to back it up. It might be easier for him if he had already been married (perhaps married young and divorced or widowed) to a full Roman citizen and has at least three kids.
Although power and wealth might have been a major consideration for leading Roman families arranging matches, the procreation of children was considered a central issue by Augustus' time. It was in fact so important that a man had to swear on oath at the five yearly census that the reason for his marriage was the procreation of children.
Augustus offered rewards to citizens producing offspring; he imposed penalties on those who evaded their duty.
If the nobleman had performed his duty, a less 'illustrious' second marriage might have been considered more tolerable. Even if he could get away with it, I still think he would have had to go for the the form of Roman marriage known as usis. This appears to have been a sort of common law union, but it still had legal implications. The only condition was for the couple to cohabit for a period of twelve months, at which point, control of the woman's affairs would pass to the husband unless she stayed away from him for three nights during that period.
But this was to all intents and purposes a marriage (I wonder if Vespasian and Caenis had this sort of arrangement?). I think it could fly in a romance novel. In truth, even in a more formal arrangement the main obligations were that both the couple were willing and that they show evidence of their intent (holding hands, taking an oath before witnesses.) It would be easy enough to have your couple going through some imformal ceremony to do this with a few friends.
I suspect though that the man might still have to lower his career expectations. But then as someone mentioned, a lot is not known about high class families. Not all sons of noble families could have been interested in pursuing a high powered career in politics. It is known that some men of Equestrian rank were happy to take a demotion to centurion after serving as tribunes and make the army their career.

[angeliz2k]

Alrighty, so I know I'm dredging up this thread, which may or may not be a good idea considering the heated levels it got to, but I thought I would run this possibility by you all for the sake of a second opinion.

My options, it seems, other then a complete overhaul, are:

1.) Cook up a scenario where the young man does a favor for Nero or his wife Poppaea. The emperor would be able to grant my young man the power to marry the young woman. This presents the problem of weaving in an entire subplot and it also begs the question: would the infamous Nero really help our young man even if the young man was "owed" a favor?

2.) The second and, in my opinion, better option, is that the young man, as a Senator's son/brother and a magistrate, can pull some bureaucratic strings and basically make it (officially) as though his young lady was never a slave at all. Problems: People would still know that she was a slave for several years. Also, I'm not entirely sure where they would go and whom they would bribe to erase any recorded trace of her being a slave. I probably won't even mention how it was all done, just that it was done. But I would like to have some idea, just so I know the situation.

I really value everyone's input. Thanks!

[Medievalist]

Love is a 20thC luxory!

Err, no, it's not.

We have love letters from the era, and there are extant legal records regarding the attempts of non-legal because they were slaves spouses attempting to assert their rights or the rights of their offspring to the property left by a "spouse."

Love is not a twentieth century phenomena, at all.

[IceCreamEmpress]

1.) Cook up a scenario where the young man does a favor for Nero or his wife Poppaea. The emperor would be able to grant my young man the power to marry the young woman. This presents the problem of weaving in an entire subplot and it also begs the question: would the infamous Nero really help our young man even if the young man was "owed" a favor?

Poppaea might. Remember, she doesn't have to do it out of the goodness of her heart--she can be doing it because she wants someone she can rely on in future.

2.) The second and, in my opinion, better option, is that the young man, as a Senator's son/brother and a magistrate, can pull some bureaucratic strings and basically make it (officially) as though his young lady was never a slave at all.

I think the first is more likely. Seriously. Also more interesting as a plot point.

[pdr]

Love is not a twentieth century phenomena, at all.

Oh yes, there are tales and songs and documents about love stories, (many ending in the vein of Romeo and Juliet) but they were not the majority.

Marriage contracts, settlements, letters, diaries etc throughout the centuries show that for most people love was an extra. Either marriage was a business deal between merchant families, or land owners, the wealthy in general. Or marriage was a sensible case of a man looking for a woman with skills to keep him and his children alive and even comfortable, and a woman looking for a man to keep her fed and clothed and her children provided for.

From the research I am doing into the 1920s and 1930s in the UK, before the Welfare State, marriage for many ordinary people was still a case of looking for a good provider and parent. Certainly the letters I've been reading from the wealthy upper middle class, whilst showing young girls' romantic sighing over a handsome face, also show them knowing that their marriages are arrangements for the benefit of themselves and the family.

Post WW1 widows and widowers were very clear that they looked for a 'good' man/woman to provide for their children and themselves.


I would think it fair to say that the majority of Romans were the same.

[euclid]

Hi,

At the risk of changing the subject, and having no idea where I should post this question:

I am writing about the preparations for the First Crusade. One character says:

"I hear Raymond of Toulouse is making preparations to go..."

My editor asked: Who is this person, why is he important to your characters?

So I added:

Raymond of Toulouse was the greatest leader in all of the land of the Franks -- perhaps even greater than the King.

My question is this: I have tried to keep myself (the author) out of the story. This is (probably) the only place where I have intruded. I prefer to let the characters tell the story. I mean, it's not meant to be a history lesson. Should I delete the addition or go with the editor's suggestion.

The other way of getting over this would be for the characters to explain who Raymond is in dialogue.

"Who the hell is Raymond of T?" XX asked, scratching his nose.

"Surely you've heard of Raymond." YY chortled, "He's the greatest..."

Not at all convincing, I feel.

[lkp]

Delete the addition. You need to show your readers that your characters care and why, not tell them. And you should avoid doing it in an "As you know, Bob," kind of way.

Whether people cared or not that Raymond of Toulouse was going on crusade would depend on where they lived in what we'd now call France which ("as you know, Bob") at the time was a motley collection of counties and the Ile de France ruled by the king. So if XX comes from the north, it might make sense for YY to need to explain what a big deal Raymond's participation is. But if they're from the same place, probably not.

[Doogs]

That's a tough one. Depending on where your characters are from, their status in society, etc, Raymond of Toulouse would have been a "household" name.

I agree that the "as you know, Bob" approach would be awkward. What's the context of the line? Does Raymond's participation in the crusade act as a catalyst for your characters to sign up with him, etc?

On a somewhat-related note, I wrote a paper back in my college days speculating that the Christian experience in Spain in the 1080s, and the exposure to Islamic jihad vis-a-vis the Almoravids, was one of the factors that inspired the First Crusade. I could never unearth a direct link, but the circumstantial evidence was very strong. The Bishop of Toledo had very close ties to Cluny and to the future Pope Urban II, and Raymond of Toulouse was one of numerous warriors who traveled to Spain to aid King Alfonso VI in the aftermath of the Battle of Sagrajas in 1086.

[euclid]

Thanks for those 2 replies. The extra explanation text has been expunged. It just didn't feel right. As for the catalyst thing: Yes and no, I suppose. There are 3 individuals having this short discussion. A wants to go for the adventure, B wants to go for romantic/religious type reasons, C wants to stay at home. The fact that Ray of T is going lends general weight to the legitimacy of the whole enterprise -- nothing more.

As you say, R of T was a household name to these three.

[Doogs]

The fact that Ray of T is going lends general weight to the legitimacy of the whole enterprise -- nothing more.

Heh. You could say that was true of the First Crusade in general...

[She_wulf]

Thanks for those 2 replies. The extra explanation text has been expunged. It just didn't feel right. As for the catalyst thing: Yes and no, I suppose. There are 3 individuals having this short discussion. A wants to go for the adventure, B wants to go for romantic/religious type reasons, C wants to stay at home. The fact that Ray of T is going lends general weight to the legitimacy of the whole enterprise -- nothing more.

As you say, R of T was a household name to these three.

What about bringing him in this way:

(as the characters prepare or in the section where Mr of T is mentioned)
"Who will be leading us?"

"Raymond of Toulouse." _____ said in hushed awe.

"The leader of the Franks?"

"The one and only. I am proud to serve under his banner."

Just a suggestion.

Amy

[angeliz2k]

Poppaea might. Remember, she doesn't have to do it out of the goodness of her heart--she can be doing it because she wants someone she can rely on in future.



I think the first is more likely. Seriously. Also more interesting as a plot point.

Thanks ICP. I'll see if I can work it in without raising my word count after months of painful trimming. I finally got it to around 115k, I don't want it to jump again.

[IceCreamEmpress]

What about bringing him in this way:

(as the characters prepare or in the section where Mr of T is mentioned)
"Who will be leading us?"

"Raymond of Toulouse." _____ said in hushed awe.

"The leader of the Franks?"

"The one and only. I am proud to serve under his banner."

Just a suggestion.


Yes, I like this idea, or something like it.

Try imagining a similar scene in today's world. If you were going on a military mission that was being led by a famous commander, you'd probably express some kind of excitement about his or her victories and record. Not in the "As you know, Bob" way, but "General So-and-So? I heard she captured a city without losing a single soldier" or whatever.

[Doogs]

Yes, I like this idea, or something like it.

Agreed. Though I think it could be worked into something more compelling...making R of T a catalyst and/or giving the mention a role in the conversation.

Something along the lines of..."if he's leading us, we can't possibly lose! He's the greatest warrior in Christendom..." or you get the drift.