Roman Concubines in Regards to Roman Law

Women in Rome were subject to certain laws due to caste placement[1] and their place in society through marriage. The only two groups of women who were exempt from most of the basic man-made, man-favoring laws were the Vestal Virgins and the prostitutes/concubines.[2] Women who chose to enter into affairs with men outside their caste often did it out of protection. They also did it when their suitor was in a different social class and marriage was not permitted between the two parties. These women who cohabited with men but were not their wives in a legal sense were deemed concubines. Concubines were accepted because of social laws and the Emperor's creation, like in all roman society, a caste system dictating the social and familial rules.[3] This paper discusses these laws in relation to the concubine's social status as well as the Emperor's potential reason for such a law, and its practical nature in the Roman social environment.

There were three sub-categories[4] of concubines based on the woman's inferred status from birth which entitled her to certain advantages and disadvantages in regards to the law. A concubine was a freedwoman,[5] a freewoman,[6] or a slave. Women were considered concubines based on intentions.[7] This was due to the social laws that governed marriage. It was not legally based like in US society now, but rather based upon hearsay and third party witnesses. There was not often legal documentation, when reporting to the census, the only indication of marriage was a husband's answer to the census as to whether he was married. There was also interaction and intention between both parties as viewed by the public, as well as the pataras familas on whether it was accepted or not by the families of both partners.

Whereas, most cohabitation with a free woman was considered marriage or soon to be marriage, cohabitation with a prostitute was considered a concubine relationship.[8] Roman women in the elite were most often never concubines as their male relatives could better benefit in wealth and politics through the jointure of marriage. Also, freewomen of high status were expected to birth legal sons and heirs to help along the family line and for the benefit of society as a whole. Marriage laws drew the boundaries between male and female sexual relationships and new categories were written in as they were needed by each succeeding Emperor. There was a need for separation between the women who cohabited with men and those who were married to men in order to stick to caste restrictions.

The need for distinction between caste systems was mostly to deviate whether children from the union were legitimate offspring. The Romans main goal was to keep the familial line steady and the prompt for marriage was to create and raise legitimate roman citizens.[9] Emperor Augustus, in 18 BC, encouraged martial relations through his new set of laws which catered to legally wed and breeding members of Roman society. The after effects of marriage could be a possible political alliance and the spreading of wealth and power. However, concubines filled none of the slots of a traditional marriage because they were not legally recognized in society as a marriage partner.[10] Often a concubine's male patron would already be married and have had children with his wife before seeking out the company of another woman.

The acquisition of a concubine was possible through many means, but the most popular method for men was either to take a female slave of his own or he would take his wife's slave. Taking a slave of his wife was preferable because she was assured to be chaste, having been looked after by another women and presumably never been touched by another male.[11] By having a female slave as a concubine it ensured immediate obedience as well as discretion. Though the same rule applied for marriage as did concubines, the girl could not be taken if she was younger then twelve.[12] "...that only those women with whom intercourse is not unlawful can be kept in concubinage without the fear of committing a crime...It is clear that anyone can keep a concubine of any age unless she is less then twelve years old,"[13] This insured that theoretically the girl would have had her first menstruation and would be considered old enough to breed or engage in sexual acts. [14]

If a slave did have sexual relations with her master and he kept her on as his concubine by law her children were also slaves and illegitimate.[15] This was so they were not a threat to the master's inheritance which he would pass on to his legitimate heirs. Only his wife's offspring were liable for his inheritance so both the family name and wealth and status acquired stayed in the family. There are some recorded instances where this law has been breeched such as a man losing his wife and children and claiming his concubine's child as heir. This could be done through a ceremony and documentation of signatures.[16] It was frowned upon however and the loophole was not often used.

Because they were not legally married, concubines were allowed certain rights, but their inferred status also had its drawbacks in the legal persuasion. Most of the legal rights given to men such as testifying in court or making decisions regarding property were not given to women.[17] In Roman law, a woman was only allowed to defend herself in court through male proxy and most of her life choices in regards to property and assets involved the consent of a "tutor".[18] This was a chosen male, either a friend or an immediate family member that was assigned to look after her and her decisions. Freewomen concubines, because they were not under the legal hand of one male, were able to side step these typical feminine roles.[19] They did not have "tutors" nor were they required to adhere to the "manus" or typical male respect because they were not legally married.[20]

Freedwomen were ex-slave women, often of little status, who were unable to gather money for a dowry, but still needed to be taken care of financially. These women either resorted to prostitution or became concubines of a male with higher social status. Many high born males were known to take concubines as a way of off setting the marriage process. This is shown in the case of Emperor Constintine. He was with his concubine for fourteen years and was forced to put her aside for a wife by his advisers. He rewrote the laws for concubines because he felt guilty over displacing his own lover. He gave the children of freeborn concubines in longstanding, monogamous relationships the status of regular freeborn children leaving them eligible to inherent.[21]

Before this law, freedwomen were more restricted by their once slave status. Their children were not only considered illegitimate but they were not allowed to leave their patrons or it was considered adultery.[22] There were many laws separating adultery and concubinage as well as determining what consisted of a cheating, punishable act by a concubine. Though a concubine could not legally be tried for cheating on her partner, a third party could bring the claim to court and she could be put to trial. [23]She is given leniency compared to the laws for wives of legal status who are often punished by the male members of their family without trial or put to death by trial.

Though a freedwoman had more freedom by being a concubine she was more held down by her partner then in regular marriages. The male patron chooses what she does after the relationship ends as she is technically not allowed to commit adultery. Also, if her patron goes insane, a freedwoman is not allowed to leave him without his given consent.[24] In this case, at least in regular Roman marriages, women were able to procure a divorce for themselves. Freedwomen concubines, for all of their legal freedom, were still tied to their partners even without the aid of marriage. If they did break the laws of adultery and took another patron while with their current patron, their matron status was taken away.[25] Her matron status is a sign of both citizenship and her respectability and decency as a female. "A matron...is a decent r respectable free woman, whether married or a mother or widowed or not,"[26] The loss of that status brings her down in the caste system. This act was referred to as sua liberta[27], when a freedwoman belonging to someone else is taken as a concubine. There was also alienia liberta[28], when another man's concubine is taken through manipulation.[29] These two words were interchangeable in Roman law; they both conveyed the same truth with different outcomes. Both lead to the concubine in question being taken from her patron. These words are often seen linked together in the adultery laws involving women.

Laws in Roman society pertaining to marriage and concubines were neither social nor legal laws. They were based on the widely held, uncontroversial norms which dictated society and played a role in many determining factors in the law itself[30]. "To inquire whether concubinage enjoyed full judicial status overlooks the fact that marriage itself was largely an institution of fact, not law"[31] The laws for concubines were needed to establish a set of boundaries for categorizing relationships that went past the normal male/female dichotomy of breeding. The separation between the two relationships allowed for legitimacy of children, passing on of titles and property, and sexual honor in marriage relationships.[32] They also kept the economy going in the right direction because money could not be bequeathed to a concubine's child unless recognized by the father. This ensured that a true wife and family would not be left destitute over the husband's choice to be unfaithful.

The use of concubines was a common and expected outlet for married and unmarried men of Rome because it was considered a higher alternative then prostitution, though some concubines could have been prostitutes.[33] The companionship provided was often close to that of a wife and did not have to be purely sexual in nature. Often, a concubine relationship could be closer to that of a married relationship that the male patron's actual marriage.

The allowance and recognition of these relationships in the law speaks to the respect that they are given and the overall impact towards the culture itself. Not only were all concubine relationships recognized in societal forum regardless of class, it was used in a legal forum as well. The relationships were expected and accepted because of the social forum they were arising into and the Emperors that supported them.[34] This was certainly the case when adultery in concubine relationships was brought to question. Both parties were not married to each other, so a legal way of determining what was considered inappropriate between partners had to be devised.

It was already stated in Roman law that a male partner could not accuse his concubine of adultery,[35] a third party was needed, however, there was absolutely no persecution in cases involving prostitutes, procuresses, slaves or peregrines.[36] This was because through their status and economic place in society, selling sex was not a choice but rather a livelihood. This law deviated to mostly lower class females such as slave concubines and freedwomen.

To those concubines who were subject to the adultery laws it was the status of the sexual versus the female sexual partner which was prosecuted.[37][38] Emperor Marcian in 402 created a law devising that another man's freedwoman or free woman can be a concubine if she's of low birth or was a whore.[39] This allows her to leave her current patron and be with another without repercussions. Although upper class concubines needed documentation or a testino[40] stating their intentions. Having a testino was used as a loophole to the adultery laws in the Lex Julia which allowed upper class concubines to forgo adultery laws altogether.[41]

However, this law changed shortly after Emperor Ulpian granted permission to any male patron of a concubine to persecute her for adultery provided the relationship is a serious and respectable one.[42] Witnesses as a third party to attest to the relationships variability would be brought in to assure that the male had the right to his claims and then a regular trial would begin.[43]

Different Emperor's changed the laws of adultery in regards to concubines because of their own relationships with their own concubines. Vespasian had a concubine named Antonia who was a freedwoman; he took her instead of another wife because he had enough legitimate children from his previous wife. Marcus Aureoles kept a concubine who was a daughter of a procurator, though her name is unknown. Even Antonios Pius had a concubine, Lysistrata, a freedwoman of his wife.[44] All of these Emperor's were politically active and it was either well known, or accepted that they had a concubine. This encouraged them to make laws and other formal acknowledgements of the validity of their relationships which lead to wide spread rules and documentation.

One of the most well known concubines in Roman history was the concubine of Commodus in 180. Her name was Marcia and she not only lived with the Emperor, but his household was instructed to treat her as his wife. Many people were enraged by the public matron/wife-like status given to Marcia because she was a lowborn concubine. They didn't agree with the sway she held over Commodus due to her great intellect and charms. Soon, Commodus came to this conclusion as well, acknowledging complaints of her power hungry demeanor. Feeling used, he signed a prescription or death certificate with her name added to a list of others. Marcia, snooping while he was in a meeting, found the list with her name and the names of two poltical allies of Commodus's father, Eclectus and Laetus.

Soon Marcia had allied with the two men and plotted to kill the Emperor by poisoning his wine. The Emperor tasted the wine and grew very ill but did not die. Marcia did not put in the lethal amount needed to kill him. She launched a second attack by hiring a guard to strangle Commodus in his sleep in 192 and she was eventually killed for treason.[45]

Emperor's who had concubines needed a partner not only for sexual pleasure, but one who could keep up with politics. "..the man obtained a stable sexual and presumably affective relationship with a companion and domestic partner who had no legal claim on his property and was not expected to bare him children."[46] Most Emperors' took concubines as tribute to their dead wives.[47] They refused to remarry and lived in a state of mourning, unable to replace the women they had lost permanently because of their grief. The taking of a concubine over a second wife was deemed an honor for the deceased and showed respect for their memory in that they could never be replaced.[48]

Men also took concubines when held in long engagements. It was not uncommon for a young adult Roman male to be betrothed to a female child.[49] The male would be expected to wait for the child to grow to the legal marrying age and then the marriage would take place. In order to stave off many years of loneliness, a man had the choice to take a female companion or concubine as long as he ended the relationship after the marriage. (Augustus changed these practices in his marriage laws making it so a man could no longer have a long engagement to a young child because men were using it escape marriage).[50] Once the marriage had been consummated the man could continue his relationship with his old concubine if he so chose.

Men who continued their relationships with their concubines shortly after marriage were looked down upon because they chose to waste their fertility on women other then their wives.[51] Though relations outside the martial bed were expected, Roman men should be focused on making legitimate heirs with their wives, not their concubines. Emperor's, especially Augustus, saw this as one of the main parts of being a legal roman citizen.

Emperor Augustus created the laws of the Lex Julia in 18 BC in order to reform and tighten the idea of family and bring back social order.[52] By making his intentions clear about the roles of concubines and what was tolerable and what was not, he hoped to gain more children to increase the number of the upper class. He is quoted in 17 BC by the historian Livy as saying: "If we could survive without a wife, citizens of Rome, all of us would do without the nuisance; but since nature has so decreed that we cannot manage comfortably with them, nor live in any way without them, we must plan for our lasting preservation rather then for our temporary pleasure".[53] This speech had two interpretations, however both lead to same sub context. Augustus was asking the men of Rome to embrace marriage in order to continue the male line, even if the marriage is unhappy. He was making concubines legal in the eyes of the adultery law so men would be allowed to cheat with other women free of penalty, making men happier to make legitimate heirs and stay with their wives.

Augustus enforced this by heaping greater taxes on unmarried men and women who didn't have husbands and rewarded those with good marriages and children.[54] A free woman who had more then three children was free to make her own decisions without the aid of a tutor.[55] Freedwomen were soon given the same rights if they had four or more children and they were also given the right to marry anyone outside their caste, besides senators. [56] "A senator, or his son, or his grandson or great grandson by his son shall not knowingly or in bad faith become betrothed to or marry a freedwoman..."[57] Marrying a senator would jeopardize his political position and by the Lex Julia laws, be grounds for adultery.[58]

In order to avoid the adultery laws and possible penalties that resulted from it concubines were classified into two basic categories based on the feelings of their male patrons. Treggiari tells us that these are concubinatus[59] and contubernium[60]. Because marriage was not given the same legal importance as in society today and was based more on social norms and views, feelings and interaction between partners determined relationships.[61] This can be seen in the distinction between the two above words. Concubinatus speaks of a concubine relationship where the male patron feels nothing towards his concubine in a husband like way, and thus, the relationship isn't likely to be viewed as marriage. However, if he starts to feel coniunx or like a husband, then the relationship switches social spheres and becomes more then a concubine relationship.[62]

On the other hand, Treggiari points out that contubernium can only be used in a relationship where the martial feelings or coniunx existed, but one or more parties was a slave and thus their marriage was de facto.[63] This resulted in many slave concubine relationships.

"Like concubinage, contubernium might develop into marriage. If both partners were slaves and then both were freed and continued to live together, then they might be validly husband and wife. The change in the legal nature of their union depended on the acquisition of legal capacity-they had been freed and became Roman citizens-and also on their attitude (affection maritalis)[64]."[65]

If both parties were slaves then instead of having the patres familias[66] agree to their partnership they would need the acceptance of their respective masters. A women living in contubernium, much like a prostitute or procuress, could not be accused of adultery.

Certain Emperor's changed the laws based on social status as well as what rules the current society called for in relation to the marriage rights at the time. Because marriage rights were so lax in that it was more socially defined then legally, and based on oral evidence rather then writing, the Emperor's felt the need to further define relationships outside of marriage. This was a way to make lines drawn between what was allowed and what wasn't in terms of Roman relationships. By recognizing "unconventional" relationships, Emperors were better able to regulate their citizens and certain situations such as adultery and illegitimate children.

Emperors also could have seen it as a way to keep their own concubines in line. As seen above in this paper, most of the Emperor's who regulated the law did so with the influence of their concubine in mind as well as their social status and how it would be affected. Without these laws, children could be claimed potential heirs without the paternal right because a concubine's word was as trusted as a Roman matron. Also, concubines could be punished by their patron for sleeping with other men or even being taken advantage of by a man who is not their patron. The laws that the Emperors made fully clarify a concubines place in society in the different sections of time in which they were written and bring to light a relationship that was most often more accepted, than explored.

Each law works with the natural given status of the woman, whether it is freed woman, free woman, or slave. Because slave women were the most restricted in their sexual lives[67], they are the most restricted in concubine relationships. They are most often taken advantage of because of their slave status and thus are regulated by the Emperors to a more demeaning and strict rule. "Sexual intercourse with female slaves, unless they are deteriorated in value or an attempt is made against their mistress through them, is not considered an injury,"[68]

Whereas, socially, a freedwoman is a step above a slave, though she can never attain proper matron status, she is granted more rights in a concubine relationship then a slave woman. These social standards protect the working structure of the Roman society by working to define all relationships where possible children can be introduced. This is good for regulating the population and ensuring that the upper class thrives just like Emperor Augustus wanted when he made the laws of the Lex Juila.

The law allows for no sexual leeway when it comes to Roman women and their romantic relationships. They are held fast to a specific set of categories engrained for them based on the already subdivided caste system enforced by the patriarchy. The Emperor's searched to define limits for all female relationships, including concubine, to keep their male dominated Empire running smoothly and in the hands of legitimate male sons. Though the Emperor's themselves had concubines and it was a welcome practice, they did everything they could to ensure that legitimate male sons would inherit from legal wives over the concubine's children. In the end, the laws were of course, used as a form of control. To subject concubine women to laws that ranked the same for married women such as adultery, and to classify how to act when presented with a problem geared towards this subcategory of women.

The Emperor's changed laws on their own personal feelings in relationships, but the end outcome for the concubines involved remained the same. When they were put into a class category in concubinage, they could not rise above it. Economically, the laws served their purpose, socially, they followed the rules of the system and made Roman life as far as the Emperor's thought possible. Psychologically, the laws were just as stifling for Roman concubines as Roman wives because there wasn't much difference between them. Other then word of mouth and communication between the men and the census taken, the two relationships were given the same underhanded, hypocritical rule.

[1] I gathered this idea from two sources: David Cherry, The Roman World: A Sourcebook(Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers, 2001)

Thomas A.J. McGinn, "Concubinage and the Lex Julia on Adultry," Transactions of the American Philological Association 121 (1991): 335-375

As well as various handouts explored in class

[2] David Cherry, The Roman World: A Sourcebook(Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers, 2001)

[3] Like hierarchies of wealth and class, (plebs, senators, etc) concubines are given the same signifying system through their matron status, citizenship or lack there of and this ranks them in the law. This is intresting because concubines are given more attention status wise then matrons and regular roman wives. I wonder if this extra attention needed to distinguish different gender relationships lead women who were once faithful to commit adultery, running away from their prospective husbands. If the laws for adultery were more clear cut in both sides of the spectrum, for a good wife, and a concubine, there wasn't much in the way of mystery, so they may have been lead astray. Susan Treggiari, Roman Marriage: iusti coniuges from the time of Cicero to the time of Ulpian(NY: Oxford University Press, 1991) 37-80

[4] These subcategories were based on the social hierarchy of all women and men in Rome that I gathered from my reading based on their legal citizenship. Susan Treggiari, Roman Marriage: iusti coniuges from the time of Cicero to the time of Ulpian(NY: Oxford University Press, 1991)37-80

[5] A woman who had once been a slave but had been freed and given legal citizenship

[6] A woman with full citizenship in society from birth

[7]. Mary R. Lefkowitz and Maureen B Fant, Womens life in Greece and Rome (London: Duckworth, 1982

Susan Treggiari, Roman Marriage: iusti coniuges from the time of Cicero to the time of Ulpian(NY: Oxford University Press, 1991)

[8] Mary R. Lefkowitz and Maureen B Fant, Womens life in Greece and Rome (London: Duckworth, 1982)

[9] This can be seen in the laws of the Emperor Augustus in the Lex Julia and in his response to the problem of adultery.

[10] Legally, they were only recognized when property was handled or divided between heirs and family members. Thomas A.J. McGinn, "Concubinage and the Lex Julia on Adultry," Transactions of the American Philological Association 121 (1991): 335-375

[11] Thomas A.J. Mcginn, Concubinage and the Lex Julia on Adultery, Transactions of the American Philological Association (1974-), Vol 121, (1991) pg 353

[12] Mary R. Lefkowitz and Maureen B Fant, Womens life in Greece and Rome (London: Duckworth, 1982)

[13] Social Status and Marriage: 25.7.1. Part 1, Class Handout

[14] Mary R. Lefkowitz and Maureen B Fant, Womens life in Greece and Rome (London: Duckworth, 1982)

[15] Susan Treggiari, Roman Marriage: iusti conjuges from the time of Cicero to the time of Ulpian(New York: Oxford University Press, 1991) 53

[16] This process was rarely taken advantage of as having legal heirs was more socially respectable and reaped more rewards for a high class Roman family. Often high class Romans were only able to do this because it wasn't so important for the lower class to pass on their assets and keep everything they owned in the familial line.

[17] J-A Shelton, As the Romans Did: A Sourcebook in Roman Social History(1997)

[18] J-A Shelton, As the Romans Did: A Sourcebook in Roman Social History(1997)

[19] Freewomen concubines could be women who couldn't afford a dowry for marriage and were pawned off to a wealthy man by their father so they could be provided for, but their family was no longer financially responsible. This meant that a women might be on her own in terms of taking care of herself and the male head of her former household has given her over, though not legally, to another man. Power is given up from one man, but is not transferred to another because it is not a marriage relationship. Thus, the freewomen is possibly exempt from most female restrictions

[20] See above: The transfer of power from father to husband does not take place between a concubine and her patron, he is already married so legally she is not bound to follow his rule

[21] Judith Evans Grubbs, Law and Family in Late Antiquity ( New York: Oxford University Press, 1995) 297-298 This was a good law for husbands whose wives had died in childbirth and they had already existing children from their concubines or had no legitimate heirs to succeed them. However, this must have created considerable strife because a man was given the ability to disinherit his legitimate children in favor of his concubine's children. It was also under dispute what constituted a long standing, legitimate concubine relationship as like marriage, the rules and relationship itself was defined by oral communication without paperwork.

[22] Susan Treggiari, Roman Marriage: iusti coniuges from the time of Cicero to the time of Ulpian( New York: Oxford University Press, 1991) Emperor Constintine's law did not take into account the feelings of the concubine in question as he didn't allow her to leave her patron whenever she wished. The patron, like a slave master, ordered the concubine to be with or without him and she had no say. If she left on her own without his consent she could be brought to trial, the first indication that concubines in law could be tried for such a crime. Most other emperors ignored this law and saw no reason to commit these relationships to ordinary social/sexual rules.

[23] This privilege could be abused and taken advantage of depending on the citizens standing and the gossip that circulated. It makes your wonder how many cases of adultery were actually true in a concubine relationship or whether it was just the knowledgeable wife taking revenge for her jealousy. Mary R. Lefkowitz and Maureen B Fant, Womens life in Greece and Rome (London: Duckworth, 1982)

[24] This was seen as only fair to the patron. It was assumed a unwed concubine was better then another wife subject to his insanities. Mary R. Lefkowitz and Maureen B Fant, Womens life in Greece and Rome (London: Duckworth, 1982)

[25] Matron status was very important to free women as it laid out their social standing as a moral and correct woman, excluding their concubine status. Susan Treggiari, Roman Marriage: iusti conjuges from the time of Cicero to the time of Ulpian(New York: Oxford University Press, 1991)

[26] Notes 22 Class Handout

[27] Translated this meant: her liberty-her liberty is essentially being taken away. Thomas A.J. McGinn, "Concubinage and the Lex Julia on Adultery," Transactions of the American Philological Association 121 (1991) 347

[28] Translated this meant: another's liberty-she is being taken on account of another mans sexual need. Thomas A.J. McGinn, "Concubinage and the Lex Julia on Adultery," Transactions of the American Philological Association 121 (1991)

[29] Thomas A.J. McGinn, "Concubinage and the Lex Julia on Adultery," Transactions of the American Philological Association 121 (1991)

[30] Thomas A.J. McGinn, "Concubinage and the Lex Julia on Adultery," Transactions of the American Philological Association 121 (1991) 353

[31] Roman citizens structured relationships through social interactions and word of mouth. Marriage was more for legitimate children then financial necessities such as taxes as it is now. Thomas A.J. McGinn, "Concubinage and the Lex Julia on Adultery," Transactions of the American Philological Association 121 (1991)

[32] I derived this from Thomas A.J. McGinn, "Concubinage and the Lex Julia on Adultery," Transactions of the American Philological Association 121 (1991) 372 : Like the laws of adultery, if different status laws for concubines were not inferred then ways of punishment and the restrictions/distinctions to the relationship as opposed to marriage were not clear cut. Without these laws it could create possible confusion between legitimacy of children.

[33] Often prostitutes would find a man and settle down as a concubine, being faithful to only one patron as a way to keep themselves financially stable and morally happy

[34] The social forum I'm speaking of is one of relaxed sexual relationships with the acceptance of non monogamous relationships. This is understandable in the forum that created the orgy.

[35] This was based on the illegitimacy of his children with his concubine. She isn't wasting her body on other men instead of providing for his future heirs, they aren't legitimate and thus don't matter. She was supposed to be a woman of lose morals, so the law didn't much care if she slept with many people besides her patron at that time. Thomas A.J. McGinn, "Concubinage and the Lex Julia on Adultery," Transactions of the American Philological Association 121 (1991) 342

[36] These women were expected to sell themselves. Thomas A.J. McGinn, "Concubinage and the Lex Julia on Adultery," Transactions of the American Philological Association 121 (1991) 342

[37] By this it's meant the social standing and moral standing of the woman in question versus the act she is being tried for in relation to hearsay. Thomas A.J. McGinn, "Concubinage and the Lex Julia on Adultery," Transactions of the American Philological Association 121 (1991) 372

[38] "...categorized sexual behaviors of identities not by the gender of the participants but by the sexual role each played," Ruth Mazzo Karra, "Active/ Passive, Acts/Passions: Greek and Roman Sexualities" The American Historical Review 105(Oct 2000) 1250

[39] Thomas A.J. McGinn, "Concubinage and the Lex Julia on Adultery," Transactions of the American Philological Association 121 (1991) 359

[40] A testino secured their relationships and ensured they weren't breaking any adultery laws. See above 359

[41] See footnote 38

[42] This is the second time this law as enacted and the marriage relationship and concubine relationship were crossed due to social need or possible men's need for control. The Emperor's changed this law based on their own personal preferences and relationships with their own concubines. Thomas A.J. McGinn, "Concubinage and the Lex Julia on Adultery," Transactions of the American Philological Association 121 (1991) 348

[43] Mary R. Lefkowitz and Maureen B Fant, Womens life in Greece and Rome (London: Duckworth, 1982)

[44] JPVD Balsdon, Roman Women: Their History and Habits(CT: Greenwood Press, 1962) 148-150, 166

[45] I found many texts on this subject, but none were quite clear on exactly how the Emperor died, whether it was natural or at the hands of his mistress. JPVD Balsdon, Roman Women: Their History and Habits(CT: Greenwood Press, 1962) 148-149

[46] Susan Treggiari, Roman Marriage: iusti coniuges from the time of Cicero to the time of Ulpian( New York: Oxford University Press, 1991) 52

[47] There were several other reasons for not taking a second wife but this excuse was the most proper and most popular among the Roman Elite/Emperors

[49] Though the correct marrying age was twelve, Roman men, like in Medieval Europe would betroth themselves to young female babies with large dowries in order to escape marriage or put it off

[50] This is seen through various laws in the Lex Julia where monogamous relationships were expected

[51] This also went against the Emperor Augustus's expectations and hastened away from the respectable upper class he was trying to build.

[52] Thomas A.J. McGinn, , "Concubinage and the Lex Julia on Adultery," Transactions of the American Philological Association 121 (1991)

[53] 6 L. Malcovati-Class Handout

[54] Dio Cassius, History of Rome 54.16.1-1. Class Handout

[55] This was to encourage legitimate children and solid marriages by Augustus. Class Handout

[56] This was a first for this kind of legislation, freedwomen were generally only given the rights to marry within their caste system and not above because of their ex slave status.

[57] Digest 23.2.44, Paul, Lex Julia et Papia, book 1 Class Handout

[58] This could impact both the senator and whomever he chose in negative ways resulting in the loss of his title and the possible death of the woman.

[59] Susan Treggiari, Roman Marriage: iusti coniuges from the time of Cicero to the time of Ulpian( New York: Oxford University Press, 1991) 51 Translated can mean concubinage or companionship.

[60] Susan Treggiari, Roman Marriage: iusti coniuges from the time of Cicero to the time of Ulpian( New York: Oxford University Press, 1991) 52 Translated can mean intimacy, concubinage, or companionship.

[61] Susan Treggiari, Roman Marriage: iusti coniuges from the time of Cicero to the time of Ulpian( New York: Oxford University Press, 1991)

[62] Susan Treggiari, Roman Marriage: iusti coniuges from the time of Cicero to the time of Ulpian( New York: Oxford University Press, 1991) 52

[63] Susan Treggiari, Roman Marriage: iusti coniuges from the time of Cicero to the time of Ulpian( New York: Oxford University Press, 1991) 52

[64] Literally translated as marital attitude

[65] Susan Treggiari, Roman Marriage: iusti coniuges from the time of Cicero to the time of Ulpian( New York: Oxford University Press, 1991) 53

[66] Susan Treggiari, Roman Marriage: iusti coniuges from the time of Cicero to the time of Ulpian( New York: Oxford University Press, 1991) 53

[67] I mean this is the manner that they could not choose their own sexual partners or marry whom they wanted because the guidelines of slavery saw them as chattel. Their masters had a choice to force themselves on them or to take them as a mistress/concubine which resulted in a long lasting relationship. Consequently, "Sexual intercourse with female slaves, unless they are deteriorated in value or an attempt is made against their mistress through them, is not considered an injury," Paul, Opinions 2.26 14-17 Class Handout. Thus, they had the legal martial rights of a slave either within a concubine relationship or out of one.

[68] The consequences of adultery, Paul opinions 16 Class handout