Based on the finds of the Cretan-Mycenaean period, it can be assumed that women then enjoyed great freedom and played a more significant role in society and in the family than in the later times of the Greek and Roman policies. This is evidenced by scenes from the life of women presented on the frescoes of palaces in Crete, as well as the peculiarities of the religion of the ancient Cretans. Among the local gods there are many female images, in which scientists tend to see a kind of predecessors of the later Greek goddesses. This is confirmed by literary monuments, sculpture and wall paintings. Despite the fact that there were many differences between different Greek city-states, there were phenomena common to all of Hellas. Patriarchy has taken hold almost everywhere. The father was recognized as having unlimited power over the children. They owed him unquestioning obedience. The Greeks, much earlier than the Romans, began to observe the principle of monogamy, believing that bringing many wives into your home was a barbaric custom and unworthy of a noble person. Consanguinity was not an obstacle to marriage.
Already in ancient times, the family was a strong and united unit of society in Rome, in which the father of the family inseparably ruled. The concept of family was different; it included not father, mother, unmarried daughters, but also married ones who were not formally transferred to the authority of the husband, and finally, sons, their wives and children. The surname included slaves and household property. In early times, the father had the “right of life and death” over his children. He determined the fate of everyone who depended on him; he could kill his child born in a legal marriage, or abandon him without any help. As in Greece, an abandoned child usually died. Over time, morals in Greece softened. When a girl got married, she went from being under the authority of her father to being under the authority of her father-in-law. The mother of the family was in charge of the entire household and was involved in raising the children. Neither in Greece nor in Rome did women have civil rights and were excluded from participation in government affairs. However, in the sphere of private family life, she enjoyed even greater freedom than the woman of classical Greece. The father chose the husband for his daughter. The age barrier for marriage was very low. Like Greek girls, on the eve of their wedding, Romans sacrificed their children's toys to the gods. Roman law allowed two forms of divorce - dissolution of marriage at the insistence of one of the parties or by mutual consent. As in Greece, the husband could simply send his wife to the home of her parents or guardians, returning her personal property: “Take your things and go away.” When spouses separated, many disputes arose about the division of property. However, there was not and could not be a dispute about who had custody of the children - this was always done by the father. Neither in Greece nor in Rome did a woman use the services of a doctor during childbirth, so it is not surprising that cases of miscarriage or death of the newborn and sometimes the mother in labor were very frequent. It was not necessary to register a newborn at birth at the beginning. Registration was first introduced in Rome by Octavian Augustus. Within 30 days from the birth of the baby, the father was obliged to notify the authorities about the appearance of a new Roman. In ancient Rome, there was children's medicine - pediatrics. The Romans willingly gave their children to Greek slaves, since with them the children learned the Greek language early, and knowledge of it was highly valued in Rome.
The Romans attached much more importance to surnames - family symbols passed on from generation to generation. Initially, they made do with two names - personal and generic. During the Republican era, a “family” name was added, and sometimes a person received a nickname. Greeks at birth received only one name; there was no surname in the modern sense of the word, uniting the entire clan and inherited from father to son in Greece. Children were given names arbitrarily, often inventing a new one associated with some circumstance or characteristic feature. Later, growing up, almost every Greek also received a nickname due to some features of his character or appearance. In both Greece and Rome, slaves could keep their birth names. However, more often they were distinguished by origin. Many foreigners sought to pass themselves off as Roman citizens, so they willingly adopted Roman names, especially family names.
Considering the condition of the Appian Way, which is still able to function today, one can imagine the high degree of skill of its builders. Laid out in 312 BC. BC, during the time of the censor Appius Claudius, from Rome south to Capua, and then to Beevento, this road further led to Brindisi, where a column rose to mark its final destination. During the years of the Republic, the first aqueducts were created, bringing water to Rome from nearby mountain lakes. The channel of the oldest water pipeline, built from tuff in 312 under the same censor, went mainly underground. In 272 the Old Apio aqueduct was built, and in 144 the Marcius aqueduct, the channel of which began to be located in the arcades. In the architectural monuments of the Republic, great importance was attached to silhouette-contour and volume-mass; almost no attention was paid to decoration. Constructiveness, appearing in a clear, generalized form, cleared of seemingly unnecessary decorations, was especially clearly expressed in the appearance of the Republican bridges across the Tiber, which were rebuilt later, but retained the original plans. The surviving buildings of Republican Rome amaze with their strength, laconicism, and simplicity of artistic forms. The warehouses along the banks of the Tiber near the slopes of the Aventine, the drainage cistern, and subsequently the Tullianum prison, a powerful one that drained moisture from the forum of the Cloaca Maxima, are made of large squares of stone and embody in their designs devoid of decor the practicality of a prudent and imperious people.
On Capitol Hill, the oldest settlements of which date back to the 14th-13th centuries. BC e., stood especially revered, consecrated in 09 BC. e., the temple of Capitoline Jupiter with three cellae - Jupiter, Juno and Minerva. With its deep portico, three-part cello and almost square plan (53 mx43 m), it resembled Etruscan temples, and its blank back side repeated the religious buildings of Magna Graecia. The Ztrusky sculptor Vulka decorated the ridge of the pediment with a terracotta quadriga. Later, during reconstruction, Sulla may have used some columns here from the Temple of Olympian Zeus from Athens, and the Greek sculptor Apollonius made a cult statue.
The busiest place during the years of the Republic - the Roman Forum - was built up with especially beautiful buildings of a commercial, religious and secular nature. At the Roman Forum, even before the proclamation of the Republic, there was a regia - the house of the king. Temples of Saturn, as well as Castor and Pollux, were erected here, rebuilt during the years of the Empire. On the slopes of the Capitol, after the reconciliation of the patricians and plebeians, the Temple of Concord (Concordia) was built. The Roman Forum was especially intensively built after the Punic Wars. By the 2nd century BC e. include the basilicas of Portia. Emilia, Sempronia, Opimia. On the site of the Basilica of Sempronia, the Basilica Julia subsequently grew, and the Basilica Emilia was expanded. Now you can see the remains of the Republican Basilica Aemilia, built in 179, after the Second Punic War, in imitation of the majestic buildings of the Hellenistic East. Intended for stock exchange operations and courts, these buildings, with their many colonies, repeated the Greek stoas, in particular the Athenian Royal Stoa, and therefore received the name basilica.
Near the southwest corner of the Basilica Aemilia stood the Temple of Janus, depicted on the coins of Nero, and northwest of the later Arch of Septimius Severus were the Comitspi, the political center of Rome. At the Roman Forum they built a round temple of Vesta and next to it a rectangular house of the Vestals. To the north ran the sacred road to the center of the Forum, and in the years before the Republic there was a necropolis with burials dating back to the 9th century. BC e. The Roman Forum was revered during the years of the Empire as an ancient shrine; temples, often destroyed by fires, were later restored, but heavily rebuilt. The ruins of the temples of Concordia, Saturn, Vesta, Castor and Pollux, especially their columns, belong already to the centuries of the Empire; Only the lower parts and foundations have survived from Republican times.
Along with the Roman Forum, there were other areas for trade, inferior to it in size and the nature of the buildings. Two small forums are known - Golitorium (Vegetable) and Boarium (Bull), as well as a sacred square with four temples near the Theater of Pompey, now called Largo Argentina. The basis of the layout of republican churches. Largo Argentina was based on the archaic principle of single-row repetition. These are the temples of the Lars, II century. BC. (“D”), Forae, 2nd century. BC. (“B”), Feropia, early 3rd century. BC. (“C”) and Juno or Juturna, III century. BC. ("A"). They differ from each other in their plans and order (Ionic and Doric for rectangular ones and Corinthian for round ones). Noteworthy is the introduction into the general complex of a round temple, which from that time on would often be built next to a rectangular one - not only in Rome or Tivoli, near the capital, but also in distant provinces.
The Republic's entertainment venues suffered the most. Only the remains of Pompey's huge theater are known. In place of the grandiose, once three-tiered Circus Maximus, which lay between the Palatine and Aventine, there is now a deserted lowland. The earliest (80 BC) amphitheater, a typically Roman entertainment building, has been excavated at Pompeii. The architect used an elliptical shape for the arena here, as if indicating with a bicentric plan the nature of the conflicting action of the struggle for which it was intended.
Several burial complexes of the Republic have also been preserved. The cylindrical tomb of Caecilia Metella, dating back to the types of Etruscan tumuluses, near the Appian Way at the borders of the city, and the unusual in design, external elements reminiscent of the profession of the deceased, the mausoleum of Eurysaces at the entrance to Rome along the Praenestine road are monumental and majestic. In addition to them, funeral structures were also erected in the form of small temples placed on a podium. By the first half of the 1st century. BC. includes the tomb of Poplitius Bibulus, built from large blocks of light travertine, on the slopes of the Capitol. The tombs in Sarsin are of the same type in the form of a temple raised on an elevation with a portico of two columns of the Corinthian order. Family crypts were also created in that era, similar to the tomb of the Scipios, discovered at the beginning of the Appian Way.
Everyday life is a part of a person’s physical and social life, including the satisfaction of spiritual and material needs for: food, clothing for protection from the adverse effects of the environment (clothing, shoes, etc.), housing, maintaining physical health, preserving and continuing the family (clan). Life in the broad sense is the way of stereotypical vision of everyday life.
Here we will look at such aspects of the life of the ancient Romans as family life, daily routine, household utensils, and nutrition.
Family and education in the early period of Roman history were considered the goal and main essence of a citizen’s life - having his own home and children, while family relationships were not subject to the law, but were regulated by tradition. In ancient Rome, the family, as the basis of society, was highly revered. The family was considered the guardian of high moral standards and what was called “fatherly morals.”
The authority of the father of the family, his power over his wife and children were indisputable. He was a harsh judge of all offenses committed by members of the household and was considered the head of the family court. He had the right to take his son's life or sell him into slavery, but in practice this was an exceptional phenomenon. Fathers of families, as a rule, entered into marriages between their children, guided by prevailing moral standards and personal considerations. A father could marry a girl from the age of 12, and marry a boy from the age of 14.
Although the woman was subordinate to the man, “belonged only to the family and did not exist for the community,” in rich families she was given an honorable position, she was involved in managing the household.
Unlike Greek women, Roman women could freely appear in society, go on visits, attend ceremonial receptions, and, despite the fact that the father had the highest power in the family, they were protected from his arbitrariness. A man or husband was allowed to file for divorce in case of infidelity or infertility of his wife. Moreover, infidelity could already be the fact that the wife went out into the street with her head uncovered (usually a married woman used various ribbons and scarves), since thereby (it was believed) she was specifically looking for male gazes.
A woman could be beaten to death or thirsty if she was caught drinking wine, as they were forbidden to drink it (so as not to harm the conception of a child). Adultery was severely punished in ancient Rome, but due to divorce and widowhood, and often a large difference in the age of the spouses, infidelity and extramarital cohabitation occurred. In the event of the capture of his wife's lover, according to the unwritten law, the husband, together with his slaves, had the right to carry out all kinds of violence against him. Often the poor man's nose and ears were cut off, but this was nothing compared to the fate that awaited the guilty wife. She was simply buried alive in the ground.
During the absence of her husband, the wife should not have been locked up. A woman's favorite pastime was walking around the shops and gossiping with sellers and acquaintances they met. The wife was also always present next to her husband at all receptions.
The law prescribed humanity towards relatives and neighbors. Among the many maxims with which the Romans enriched us is this: “Whoever beats his wife or child raises his hand to the highest shrine.” The Romans distinguished between full and incomplete marriage. The first was possible only between Roman citizens and allowed two forms: the wife either passed into the power of her husband and was called “mother of the family,” matron, or she still remained under the power of her father and was called only “uxor” (wife, wife).
Those who are at least a little familiar with the history of Ancient Rome know that the Romans are a highly civilized people, far from being barbaric, they had a high level of culture, and therefore the details of their daily life can be very interesting.
Roman dwellings
Most wealthy citizens of Rome lived in fairly spacious one-story houses, which also included a large plot of land. There was a minimum of furniture in the house - the Romans loved space. Wealthy citizens slept on beds, sat on chairs or benches, and ate at a small table. Personal belongings were kept in special chests.Poorer citizens slept mostly on the floor, their houses were small, with a minimum of furniture. To relieve natural needs, the chamber pot was poured directly onto the city street - you can imagine the stench there.
Rich Romans had their own bathroom and bathhouse.
Public buildings
Every Roman city had public toilets for both women and men. Interestingly, the public baths were shared. Entrance to the thermal bath was most often free or very low. It was in the baths that all Romans put their bodies in order after a hard day of work.Every Roman could also visit a library, a theater, an arena for gladiator fights, and a forum (the place where all the commercial and political life of society took place).
Nutrition
The Romans ate early in the morning, with the first rays of the sun, after which they immediately went to work. Tomorrow, the average citizen was quite poor, but the rich Romans could afford fruit, meat, and wine.By the way, the Romans rarely drank water - their advantage was wine diluted with water.
Dinner could start late at night and last for quite a long time, since the Romans had the custom of visiting often. Over such a meal, very long conversations could begin.
Cloth
Men wore a toga - a kind of men's dress that was tied with a belt. Sandals were on his feet. Women wore a tunic - the same toga, only slightly longer.Slaves
Each Roman family had the right to own its own slaves if their wallet allowed it. Slaves did all the dirty work for their masters - sometimes absolutely all the work. Slaves received no wages and worked for food, protection and a roof over their heads.Slaves could be not only prisoners of war, but also Romans who got into large debts and thus worked off the debt.
Roman customs, life and everyday life
How did they spend their free time? Let us turn to the book by P. Giro “Life and Customs of the Ancient Romans.” Rome, the capital of the vast Empire, was always noisy. Here you can see anyone - merchants, artisans, military men, scientists, slaves, teachers, noble horsemen, senators, etc. Crowds of petitioners flocked to the house of the Roman aristocrats from early morning. There were still more noble and important people here, seeking a new position or honors. But one could see a poor teacher or scientist looking for a place as a mentor, educator in a noble family, wanting to share a meal with a famous person (maybe he will get something too). In a word, whole flocks of people gathered here. Plutarch compared them to annoying flies. This happened to us too. Let us remember Nekrasov: “Here is the front entrance... On special days, possessed by a servile illness, the whole city approaches the cherished doors with some kind of fear.”
Peristyle in the house of Menander. Pompeii
Of course, among these crowds there were also ordinary friends. Rome was no different from other cities in the world. Friendship, true friendship was highly valued here, above the law... Where people know how to maintain and maintain friendly ties, an atmosphere of warmth and affection reigns there. Life here is wonderful, and even grief is not so bitter. The Romans valued such friendship and celebrated a special holiday in honor of harmony and friendship - Charistia. The course of life followed a once and for all established circle: battles, campaigns, politics and constant communication with friends (visits, feasts, conversations, participation in events of families close to them, recommendations, requests, consultations, receiving guests, etc.). At times this was quite onerous, as Cicero admitted. However, it was impossible to abandon this tradition, because it permeated the entire vertical and horizontal of society, holding it together from top to bottom. Of course, friendships were based on ties of kinship, but there were also other kinds of bonds. They sometimes turned out to be many times stronger than their relatives. These are both official and business relationships. Everything came from the very top, from the administration of the princeps, where the institution of “amici Augusti” (friends of the princeps) existed. Moreover, this kind of friendly ties are almost of an official nature. Before us is a kind of conclusion of a pact of peace and friendship or, on the contrary, of hostility and war... Valery Maxim reports how inimicitia (enmity) was announced in the national assembly. Personal enemies Aemilius Lepidus and Fulvius Flaccus, having been elected censors, hastened publicly, in the people's assembly, to conclude a friendly alliance, in order to thereby show everyone their intentions. Scipio Africanus and Tiberius Gracchus, on the contrary, publicly dissolved the bonds of friendship, but then, finding themselves in neighboring places on the Capitol, at the banquet table at the festival in honor of Jupiter, they again entered into a friendly alliance, especially noting the union of the right hands (“dexteras eorum concentibus”), which is a kind of symbol of people reaching agreement.
Peristyle in the house of the Vettii. Pompeii
What was the basis of these types of friendly alliances? Most of all and most often the same as today - the provision of mutual services by the parties participating in the commonwealth to each other. According to Cicero's explanations, friendship is strengthened not only by bonds of camaraderie or heartfelt affection, but also by “the best services on the part of each of us.” He compares them to a “marriage union,” including here both relatives and friends, and comrades “in public affairs.” To maintain friendship, he said, such best qualities as piety, kindness, nobility of soul, benevolence and courtesy are necessary. Democritus considered friendship to be the equivalent of social existence (“he who does not have a true friend is not worthy to live”), and Socrates emphasized that friendship is the most important institution of mutual assistance and mutual assistance (“a friend delivers what a friend lacks”). The ancients paid tribute to the rational or pragmatic principles encountered in friendship. Aristotle emphasized the need for both parties to reciprocate each other in friendship. Only then “virtue is called friendship if there is retribution.” However, the ancients also distinguished between the concepts of ideal friendship for the sake of pleasure and material friendship for the sake of profit. Diogenes Laertius collected statements from people (Cyrenaics) who put utilitarian-pragmatic goals in first place in friendly alliances. Aristippus said: “You have a friend for your own benefit, like a member of the body while he is with you.” Egesius (Hegesius) quite cynically declared: “There is no respect, no friendship, no virtue, since they are sought not for their own sake, but for the benefit that they give us: if there is no benefit, they disappear.” In other words, friendship is always an exchange, although not always an exchange of goods. However, many did not agree with such a down-to-earth interpretation of this lofty, important universal feeling.
Odysseus and Penelope
It is fundamentally wrong to define friendship based solely on socio-economic interests. After all, there are many more aspects of human relationships and connections that are not limited to the area of benefits. Cicero said about friendship: “Just as we are virtuous and generous not in expectation of gratitude (after all, we do not allow virtue to grow, but are driven to generosity by nature), so we consider friendship desirable not in the hope of reward, but because all its benefits lies in love itself." Among other things, in friendship, in high friendship, the best side of a person’s personality is embodied. Such friendship often leads to achievement, to cultural or ethical perfection. Thus, Epicurus believed that it was valuable in itself. Mutual affection cleanses human relationships of all selfish calculations. “Of the things that wisdom brings, making life as a whole happier, the greatest benefit is the possession of friendship.” In friendship we find shelter from all sorts of storms in life.
General view of the square in front of the Pantheon
On the streets and squares of Rome, and other cities, you can meet many people who form a special class called “loiters.” A poet contemporary to Tiberius wrote that they “do nothing and are always busy, exhausted over trifles, are in constant motion and never achieve anything, are always fussing and as a result only bore everyone.” Seneca compared them to ants that, without a plan or purpose, run around a tree here and there (the comparison is unsuccessful, because ants are more hardworking than most people and cannot be classified as loitering). There are people of this kind in Moscow, and in Paris, and in New York, and in Tokyo, and in Beijing, and in present-day Rome or Berlin. “The capital was a real center of bustling idleness, which flourished in it more than in any other city.” Some were in a hurry to pay an unnecessary visit, others were in a hurry to make a stupid meeting, others wanted to take part in a drinking party, others wanted to make another, and most likely completely unnecessary, purchase, others visited the lady without giving either her or themselves much pleasure. Among them there are many who always strived to get to some empty official ceremonies. Show yourself and look at people. Galien described the Roman's day this way: “Early in the morning everyone makes visits; then many go to the forum to listen to court debates; an even larger crowd heads out to watch the chariot races and pantomimes; many spend their time in the baths playing dice, drinking, or among pleasures, until they find themselves in the evening at a feast, where they entertain themselves not with music or serious pleasures, but indulge in orgies and debauchery, often staying up until the next day.” Most of the top officials in Rome (as elsewhere) were not just fussing out of the need to run or move somewhere, no, they wanted to make money, to get benefits. An insatiable thirst for wealth overcame them and was the main reason for the bustle that filled the streets, squares, and palaces of Italy. Giving people position, distinction, honor, wealth, influence, money was considered the highest good. They are the god Jupiter, whom they worship and serve.
Tavern
The common people with constant pleasure attended not receptions (he was not allowed there), but taverns, taverns, and taverns. Indeed, in taverns for two asses you could get a lamb's head, sausages flavored with garlic, onions and seasonings; beans, lentils, raw cabbage, other vegetables, baked nuts, beets and porridge. All these dishes were eaten with coarse rye or barley bread, known as plebeian bread. In these establishments, however, there was unbearable heat and impassable dirt reigned. But the wine brightened up all these inconveniences. Here they drank wine (boiled Cretan) and honey, ate pies with cheese, played dice, passed on the latest news and gossip to each other, and spoke evil of the gentlemen. There were no aristocrats or senators within these walls, although there were plenty of runaway slaves, thieves, murderers, undertakers, sailors, artisans and even priests of Cybele.
Of course, there were some entertainments for intellectuals, those who were interested in literature, poetry, music, etc. Let's say, in the second half of the 1st century. (already under Augustus) public readings, organized by Asinius Pollio, became fashionable. The writer addressed his work to the audience, reading it excerpts or the entire treatise (depending on patience and disposition). These readings took place either in the halls, or even in the dining rooms (apparently, to make it more convenient to move from spiritual food to physical food). True, this occupation did not tempt the Romans for long. Already by the end of the 1st century. public readings began to decline and turned into a heavy duty. The listeners tried to avoid her as much as they could.
Those who preferred the life of a politician or activist (vita activa) - a contemplative-philosophical way of life (vita contemplative) or books, immersed themselves in the quiet of the study in the libraries in their villas and estates... They believed: “A sage should not engage in public affairs except in extreme cases.” necessity." This is how other inhabitants of aristocratic villas understood life, like the house of the Vettii in Pompeii, the house of the Deer, the villa of the house of Telephus and the villa of the Papyri in Herculaneum... Discovered only in the 18th century. The Villa of the Papyri belonged to one of the Roman aristocrats. The first treasure hunters entered its state chambers, library, peristyle, garden, dug shafts and galleries here, then abandoned it all. Perhaps the villa was created during the time of Nero and the Flavians. This villa housed a collection of papyri and a small, well-chosen library. In a small room they discovered rare papyrus scrolls containing the works of famous authors. It is possible that the first owner of the villa was Piso, the father of Julius Caesar's wife. In terms of their wealth, the papyri collected in the villa were not inferior to the libraries of the emperors. From the hot mud (the cities were buried under streams of fiery lava), the books turned black and charred, but were not completely burned. Although we are talking in this case about a Roman villa, so were the libraries of the most famous and wealthy Greeks. In the USA, a copy of the Papyrus Villa was created in California; its owner was the American millionaire Getty, who placed the collection here (1970).
J. Jordaens. Pan and Syringa. Brussels
When did the general decline in morals begin to be observed? Ancient authors have different opinions on this matter. According to Strabo, Fabius Pictor believed that the Romans first tasted luxury (or, as he puts it, “tasted wealth”) back during the 3rd Samnite War. After this, i.e. around 201 BC. e., after the 2nd Punic War and the defeat of Philip of Macedon, they began to show a tendency towards a less strict lifestyle (Valery Maxim). Titus Livy believed that the habit of extravagance was brought to Rome by the army after returning from the depths of Asia, where it occupied rich countries (187 BC). Polybius dates the disappearance of the former modesty and frugality of the Romans to the time of the war with Perseus (168 BC). Posidonius and Sallust date the beginning of the era of decline to the destruction of Carthage by Rome (146 BC). Others attribute the date of the beginning of the era of degradation and decline of Rome to a long period (II century BC - II century AD). They are probably right: this process was long and constant.
Tomb in Kazanlak
This is how Guy Sallust Crispus explained the origins of the beginning of the degradation of Rome in his “War with Jugurtha.” The Roman historian wrote: “Let us note that the habit of division into warring countries, with all its bad consequences, arose in Rome only a few years earlier, and gave rise to its idle life and the abundance of those goods that people value most highly. Indeed, right up to the destruction of Carthage, the Roman people and the Senate conducted the affairs of the state amicably and calmly; there was no struggle between citizens for glory and dominance: fear of the enemy maintained good order in the city. But as soon as the hearts got rid of this fear, their place was taken by unbridledness and arrogance - success willingly brings them with it. And it turned out that the peaceful idleness that was dreamed of in the midst of disasters turned out to be worse and more bitter than the disasters themselves. The nobles little by little turned their high position into arbitrariness, the people - their freedom, everyone tore and pulled in their own direction. Everything split into two camps, and the state, which had previously been a common property, was torn to shreds. The advantage, however, was on the side of the nobility - due to its unity, while the forces of the people, scattered, fragmented among many, did not have this advantage. Peace and war were decided by the arbitrariness of a handful of people, the same hands held the treasury, the provinces, the highest positions, glory, triumphs, and the people were exhausted under the burden of military service and need. And while the commanders and their entourage were plundering the loot, soldiers’ parents and small children were driven from their homes if a strong neighbor happened to be nearby. So, side by side with power, greed appeared, immeasurable and insatiable, it desecrated and destroyed everything, did not worry about anything and did not value anything until it broke its own neck.” While it was necessary to fight a formidable enemy, while fear and the instinct of survival cemented the interests of all Romans stronger than friendship and laws, Rome, like the USSR, was a single cohesive state. When the external threat disappeared, an equally terrible internal war began for the possession of everything that Rome owned. And here there were neither friends nor enemies among the rivals, for each, due to the animal herd nature, tried to snatch a piece from the other, to seize lands, valuables, slaves, estates.
Wives. Murals of a villa in Boscoreale
Endless wars significantly changed the Italian economy, and Hannibal’s armies caused enormous damage. Agriculture was in decline. Cheap imported bread made bread production in Italy unprofitable. Although it is worth recalling Weber’s remark that “Rome never from the time he was a polis, he was not forced and was not able to live on the products of his own agriculture” (the area cultivated for grain production apparently was about 15%). In addition, wars distracted the productive part of citizens from business. The nobility lived in luxury, and a significant part of the population lived in poverty. In Rome alone there were about 150,000 unemployed. The authorities maintained them, so to speak, at the public expense. About the same number of people, if not more, worked only until lunch. They all had to be somehow calmed down, distracted from the most pressing, pressing problems, so that they would not arise and ask questions. Caesar recognized the right of the masses to bread and circuses. The satirist Juvenal (c. 60-140 AD) wrote indignantly about this: “This people has long since, since we do not sell our votes, forgotten all worries, and Rome, that once everything distributed: legions, and power, and a bunch of lictors, is now restrained and restlessly dreams of only two things: bread and circuses! Officials must follow these rules unquestioningly.
The satirist Martial said in one of his epigrams that the wife of one of the praetors was even forced to file for divorce because of the enormous expenses that her husband was forced to bear. The fact is that the husband’s position and the demands placed on it had a catastrophic effect on the family budget: “I know: he became praetor, and his Megalesian purple would cost a hundred thousand, no matter how stingy you were on organizing games; Another twenty thousand would have been spent on the national holiday.” But officials often simply had nowhere to go. After all, their fate and career, and often life itself, were in the hands of the emperor. In addition, sometimes the retribution for an unsuccessful or poorly organized spectacle by an official was extremely severe. Caligula (37–41 AD) ordered one overseer of gladiatorial battles and persecution he did not like to be beaten with chains for several days in a row in front of his eyes. The poor fellow was killed only after everyone felt the “stench of rotting brain” (Suetonius). After the games organized by Augustus with his characteristic scale, all his successors (except Tiberius) began to compete with each other in organizing gladiatorial games. For the sake of advertising and maintaining political face, the official had to go into debt and into his own pocket (especially after the elimination of state surcharges to the organizers of the games under Augustus). Emperor Trajan (98-117 AD) surpassed everyone, whose spectacles were compared by many to the amusements of Jupiter himself. Moreover, these funs were often accompanied by mass slaughter of people and animals.
Wounded lion
The people received free access to the forum, but they thirsted for blood and spectacle. They became more and more bloody and cruel. How things have changed. Once upon a time, during the censorship of Cato the Elder (184 BC), the noble Roman L. Quinctius Flamininus (consul 192 BC) was punished for unjustified cruelty, since he allowed an act discrediting honor Rome. Proconsul Flamininus at dinner (at the request of a harlot who had never seen a man beheaded) killed one of the convicts. He was accused of insulting the greatness of the Roman people. The episode recounted by Livy indicates that in old times the Romans still tried to avoid excessive cruelty. Now they killed in dozens and hundreds openly - in front of the people. Rome ceased to be ashamed of executions and applauded the executioners... It is also worth mentioning that the number of holidays per year increased in the 2nd century. n. e. to 130, effectively doubling since the Republican era. The Romans were carried away by the spectacle. Almost all of Rome gathered in a huge circus with 200,000 seats. The excitement of racing was incomprehensible to smart and enlightened people. “I don’t understand,” the writer Pliny the Younger wondered, “how you can get carried away by such a boring spectacle.”
Gladiators fight with lions in the arena
If they were also attracted by the speed of horses or the art of people, then this would make some sense; but they favor rags, they love rags, and if during the races in the middle of the competition “this color were transferred here, and that color here, then the passionate sympathy of the people would move with it.” And then Pliny continues: when I look at those people who are carried away by such a vulgar and empty matter, I experience great satisfaction from the fact that I am not covered by it. While the mob and those who consider themselves serious spend their time in idleness, I devote all my leisure time to literature with great pleasure. Alas, it turned out that it is much easier to attract wild animals with the sounds of the lyre, as Orpheus once did, than to turn the eyes of other people to high literature, history or philosophy. Hortensius, the creator of a poem about the education of wild animals, would have been well-suited to write a poem about how to re-educate the Romans who behave like wild creatures. We involuntarily recalled the historian Timaeus, who, describing the life of the Roman people, believed (like Varro) that the very name of Italy came from the Greek word meaning “cattle” (of which there are always many). However, another version is also known: the country was named after the bull Italus, who allegedly transported Hercules from Sicily.
Fun is richer
I also recall the sharp words of Charles Montesquieu from his work “On the Spirit of Laws”: “In order to defeat the laziness inspired by the climate, laws would have to deprive people of any opportunity to live without working. But in the south of Europe they act in the opposite direction: they place people who want to be idle in a position favorable to the contemplative life, and associate enormous wealth with this position. These people, living in such abundance, which even burdens them, naturally give their surplus to the common people. The latter lost his property; they reward him for this with the opportunity to enjoy idleness; and he eventually begins to love even his poverty.” In fact, is there a difference? They had Commodiana, we have Comediana! A comedy that turns into a tragedy before the eyes of the whole world.
During the Roman Republic, there was a law that condemned luxury and severely punished those who dared to challenge public opinion. Among the items it was allowed to have only a salt shaker and a sacrificial cup made of silver. One of the noble senators even lost his seat just because he had 10 pounds worth of silverware. But times have changed, and even the people's tribune Marcus Drusus (servant of the people) accumulated more than 10 thousand pounds worth of silverware. It was fabulous money. Under dictators and emperors, the wealth of the nobility became completely provocative, but this was already perceived as in the order of things. Rich people did not take into account costs, wanting to show off their wealth. They paid exorbitant amounts of money for silver and gold items (the cost of the work often exceeded 20 times the cost of the material itself). Unimaginable treasures accumulated in the houses of the Roman nobility. Thus, Titus Petronius had a ladle that was used to scoop wine from a crater, the cost of which was 350,000 gold rubles.
Silverware from the times of Caesarism
True, at one time Cato the Censor tried to stop this process. He even expelled from the Senate many supporters of immoderate luxury, including Lucius Quintius, the former consul, and the brother of the famous “liberator” of Greece, Titus Flamininus. Some famous horsemen also suffered - the equus publicus was taken away from his brother Scipio Africanus. But the greatest (and almost scandalous) in society were Cato’s steps directed against luxury, speculation, and profit. He increased taxes on wealth, insisted on raising prices for women's jewelry, clothing, rich household utensils, raised the price of farm-outs, etc. Plutarch emphasizes that by these actions he earned the special hatred of rich people. However - and we should also remember this - these decisive measures won him the deep gratitude of the people.
Many even praised the censor for such severity. In gratitude for his services to the people, a statue was erected to him. “Thus, there can be no doubt that luxuria in the Cato scale is the luxuria of the rich, ambitus and avaritia are the vices of noble and rich people, superbia, crudelitas are also vices of the nobility, impudentia and duritudo are the result of corrupting foreign influences, and desidia - a typical trait of those who have been corrupted by long leisure (otium) and who have been taught by such conditions to place their personal affairs and their commoda above the interests of the res publica. In conclusion, it is not without interest to note that if Cato’s set of virtutes (that is, virtues) appears extremely implicitly and is most likely meant to be effective for the semi-legendary times of the dominance of mores maiorum (morals of the majority), then all vitia (vices) (nova flagitia - nouveau riche) are quite real and “have a precise address”: they characterize precisely those still relatively narrow (but, of course, the highest!) strata of Roman society that are corrupted by foreign influences, strive to lead or lead a luxurious lifestyle and ultimately neglect the interests and needs of society generally". It was about a certain part of the highest circles.
Among the concubines. Oriental scene
Such luxury, all these countless expensive amusements and pleasures cost the state a huge amount of money. And, as a result, towards the end of the Roman Empire, taxes increased continuously. Theodosius I declared in 383 AD. e. that no one can own tax-exempt property. A huge number of regulatory and control acts have emerged. It turned out to be some kind of vicious circle: the political structure was bursting at the seams, the army began to fall apart. In order to somehow support all this, to preserve at least their foundations and replenish the treasury, taxes had to be increased. At the same time, taxes on the rich were reduced, which worsened the already difficult situation of the common people. A lot of responsibilities were imposed on ordinary citizens, reminiscent of the most outright corvee. They had to supply coal, firewood for arsenals and mints, maintain bridges, roads and buildings in good condition, and generally provide the state with their experience and labor without any remuneration on its part. Service in the country, they said in Rome, turned “into something like forced recruitment.” The upper classes were freed from all this. Corruption among officials also flourished.
T. Chasserio. Dressing a concubine
I can’t believe that a civilization that once admired classical Greek literature, history, and philosophy could descend to such tastes? Although it is hardly worth exaggerating the cultural level of the broad masses. Their culture is like a thin layer that quickly disappears if society suddenly flops into the mud... Part of Roman society still tried to follow the ideals of the ancient Greeks. Sports lovers maintained their physical health in gymnasiums and palaestras. Some citizens, like Cicero, spent time in gymnasiums, engaged in wrestling, practiced chariot and horse riding, swam or were fond of rowing. “The spectators greeted every manifestation of dexterity and strength with applause,” chroniclers wrote. But those were exceptions. When a country that admired history, philosophy, poetry, and literature degrades in this way, then freedom becomes a fiction and an empty phrase. It is clear that no one said a word of protest when 94 AD. e. executed two senators who wrote memoirs about the champions of freedom Trazeus Pete and Helvidius Prisca. Emperor Domitian immediately ordered the memories to be burned. “Those who gave this order, of course, believed that such a fire would silence the Roman people, suppress freedom-loving speeches in the Senate, and strangle the very conscience of the human race. Moreover, teachers of philosophy were expelled and a ban was imposed on all other sublime sciences, so that henceforth nothing honest would be found anywhere else. We have shown a truly great example of patience. And if previous generations saw what unrestricted freedom is, then we (see) what (our) enslavement is, for endless persecution has taken away our opportunity to communicate, express our thoughts and listen to others. And along with our voice, we would also lose our memory itself, if (only the right) to forget were as much in our power as to remain silent.” Of course, others continued to love books, but they were a minority. The crowd loved wine and women. Gordian II had a magnificent library - 62 thousand books. However, he spent more time drinking a glass of wine, in gardens, baths, in groves, everywhere sacrificing himself to 22 concubines, from each of whom he left 3-4 children.
A thrown baby
The Romans (especially the wealthy and prosperous) began to live more and more openly exclusively for themselves, caring only about satisfying their whims and desires. The Roman population itself is aging and declining. Children cease to please his eyes and heart. Children are increasingly perceived as a burden and a burden. In Plautus’s comedy “The Boastful Warrior,” one of the characters, Periplectomenus, receiving his friend, Pleusicles, at a rich table, objects to the words: “It’s a nice thing to have children.” It’s much better, he says, “to be free yourself – that’s even nicer.” And therefore he advises him: “Eat and drink with me, make merry your soul. The house is free, I am free and I want to live freely.” The friend continues to convince: they say, it would be nice to have a wife and children, because “raising children: this is a monument to yourself and your family.” Periplectomenus objects:
I have a large family: what about children?
out of necessity?
I live happily, I feel great now,
as you wish;
Death will come - I will give my goods to
division of one's relatives,
Everyone will come to me, about me
take care
And keep track of how I’m doing and what I need
It’s just dawn and then there’s a question,
How did I sleep that night?
So they will be children. They are for me
gifts are sent;
Do they make a sacrifice: a part for me
they give more than themselves,
They invite you to a feast, to have breakfast,
dine with them;
Who sent fewer gifts?
ready to fall into despair;
They compete in gift giving among themselves.
On my mind: “Open your mouth to mine
property,
That’s why they compete so hard to feed
and give me"...
Yes, and whether it’s children, how many are with them
I would have suffered!
Vicious and criminal Rome increasingly saw children only as a burden. It is better to have some exotic creature, bringing it into your home from distant countries. Increasingly, fish, dogs, wild animals, freaks, crocodiles, and peacocks began to take places in the families of the rich (as is now happening in the families of the nouveau riche in Russia). There are known facts when rich people deliberately mutilated children to satisfy their voluptuousness, when innocent girls or boys were given over to be desecrated.
O. Beardsley. Deflowering
The nobility was mired in idleness and drunkenness. Society under such conditions also degrades genetically. N. Vasilyeva noted in “The Question of the Fall of the Western Roman Empire and Ancient Culture” (1921) that the decline of morals was accompanied by a biological crisis. People grew weaker and emaciated, families became thinner, and the number of children decreased. The city destroyed the village and corrupted its inhabitants. Although until 131 BC. e. none of the Roman statesmen paid attention to the population decline (it seems, except for Metellus). Families and healthy relationships between a man and a woman have become a rarity and have faded into the background. Rome was degenerating, carried away, as they say, by non-traditional gender relations. Debauchery and cynicism were instilled in literature, culture, theater, and life.
Emperor Vitellius
As more and more poor people became poor, child abandonment became common in Roman society. Children were often sold, because abandoned children were in danger of death (especially during the crisis of the 3rd–4th centuries AD). By selling their children, the poor not only ensured their survival, but also received a certain amount of money themselves that could be used in the family, including for the feeding and subsistence of the remaining children. Thus, there are known cases of children being sold as a means of repaying the parents’ debt. A certain wine merchant Pamonfiy, having borrowed a large sum of money, was unable to repay it. To return it to the archons, he sold all his property, including clothes, but this only allowed him to pay off half of the debt. And then the heartless creditors took away all his children, including minors, and took them into slavery... Such a document as “Alienation of a Daughter” is also known. It tells how a recently widowed woman, unable to feed her 10-year-old daughter, gives her up to another couple forever, so that they can support her as a “legitimate daughter.” Justinian's legislation permitted the sale of children by citizens only “due to extreme poverty, for the sake of food.” By the way, it is very interesting that under the “Christian” Constantine the sale of newborn children was allowed, but the “persecutor of Christians” Diocletian strictly prohibited the alienation of children from a parent through sale, gift, mortgage or any other way.
Portrait of Emperor Commodus
We live “in ancient Rome”: cases of child trafficking have become widespread. As if in a slave market, in Russia they sell their children to rich families.
But many came to taste the idle, depraved and cheerful life. “Therefore, the mass of people were forced either to sacrifice pleasures to their children, the temptation of which was now so strong everywhere, or, on the contrary, they had to sacrifice their children for the sake of pleasure, killing in their infancy the offspring that would have continued them in time, and obediently dying forever at the end of his existence in order to more freely enjoy a short moment of life. And most often they chose the second solution.” When does a state doom itself to death and disaster? When the children of the elite, great and worthy parents in the past, became complete nonentities, degenerates. There are many such examples in the history of Rome. Vitellius (69–70), having starved his mother to death, was torn to pieces by the people and thrown into the Tiber. Galba (68–69) killed by Praetorians. The people were deprived of the remnants of their former freedoms, turning into a crowd, plebeians, and mobs.
Roman gladiators greet the emperor
Commodus (180–192 AD), the eldest son of the ruler Marcus Aurelius, a highly moral, decent and intelligent man, becomes emperor. After his death, allegedly from a serious contagious disease (180), his son became sole emperor. What a bitter irony of fate... A fan of philosophy, lofty and beautiful ideas, not only died from an “ugly disease”, but was also forced to transfer all the reins of government in the country into the hands of his son, “whose spiritual horizons were limited to the circus and pleasures on the level of grooms.” and fist fighters." How often do parents protect their sons and daughters in the wrong places and from the wrong things? The emperor did not allow him to go to bed for fear that he might become infected. But Commodus had long been “infected”, being prone to wine and fights. They say he was not the son of Marcus Aurelius. The emperor's wife Faustina was a “very loving” lady, and persistent rumors circulated about her “adventures.” As soon as he ascended the throne, Commodus is forced to immediately deal with a conspiracy in which his sister and nephew participate. Then another conspiracy follows - and again the culprits have to be executed. Executions follow one after another. The heads of co-prefects, consuls, managers, etc., etc. fly off. They are executed along with their families (Prefect Perenne is hacked to death along with his wife, sister and sons). The emperor brings his father's freedman, Cleander, closer to him, who helps him carry out quick, speedy reprisals. Although, what could be more dangerous, it would seem, than entrusting personal security and command of an army to someone who is sold publicly by an announcement from a herald. Commodus granted him the title "Dagger". The era of arbitrariness has arrived. Cleander saved money and bought grain in huge quantities in order to use it as a weapon at the right moment - to distribute supplies of grain to hungry crowds and thereby attract the people to his side, and then, with the help of the crowds, to seize imperial power in Rome.
Having learned about these plans, Commodus dealt with him. It is quite obvious that such sudden and inexplicable changes in the highest echelons of power also threatened the senators. In an effort to replenish the treasury in any way (which he himself was emptying), the emperor subjected them to persecution and began to take away their property. But if Marcus Aurelius did this for the benefit and health of children and the poor, his son calmly lined his own pockets. On top of that, he was overcome by delusions of grandeur. Commodus declared Rome a personal colony, renaming it Commodiana. The same changes were destined for the Roman legions, the new African flotilla, the city of Carthage, even the Senate of Rome. These capital "fun" caused uprisings and guerrilla warfare in the provinces. In Europe, the Romans were treated as invaders (and secret military police agents).
Picture of aristocratic revelry
It was also a tragedy that instead of a republic, an oligarchy was established in Rome. This cynical and vile tribe does not know the word “fatherland”. High officials, military commanders, senators and leaders did not care about Plato. They were not worried about philosophy, but about their own enrichment. Changes in everything - morals, clothing, food, habits. Noble Romans fenced themselves off from their surroundings even when eating. Previously, as you remember, there was nothing like this. Almost until the end of the Punic Wars, masters shared meals with servants: everyone ate simple food at the same table. Mostly it was greens and legumes and jelly made from wheat flour, which often replaced bread. Among the surviving fragments of the scientist and writer Varro (1st century BC) there is a mention of the tastes that reigned in early Rome: “Even though their grandfathers and great-grandfathers’ words breathed garlic and onions, their spirit was high!” However, soon after the conquest of Greece and Asia Minor, wealth and food flowed in a wide stream to Rome and Italy. The life of noble families was filled with pleasures and entertainment. Gluttony, amusements, pleasures, and spectacles are usually accompanied by laziness. Sybaritism has spread in society. However, this is not the sybaritism of the artist.
Who was once born an artist,
He’s always sybaritic about something...
So let it be over the copper
tripod
The fragrant myrrh burns!
V. Mironov
Rome, whose population exceeded a million, was sinking more and more noticeably and more openly into slumber. Idle life became the lot of not only patricians, but to some extent also the plebs. True, there were not so many rich people in Rome. Cicero noted that in Rome, according to the tribune Philip, it is difficult to find even 2,000 well-to-do people (oligarchs). But it was they who, perhaps, determined the weather and ordered the music. The philosophy of selfishness and hedonism won in Roman society. The number of servants grew: captive bakers, cooks, confectioners. She somehow needed to stand out. The future depended on whether their dishes would be liked by the new owners. Competition and envy arose. As a result, in a city that recently did not know what bread was, they suddenly began to sell several varieties of it, differing not only in quality, but also in taste, color and shape. There were a variety of cookies and sweets for those with a sweet tooth and gourmets. Around about 171 BC. e. the art of cooking has been elevated to the level of a science. Sallust wrote that the nobility “were seized by a passion for debauchery, gluttony and other pleasures.”
To diversify the table, they “scoured the land and sea; went to bed before they began to feel sleepy; They did not expect any feeling of hunger or thirst, nor cold, nor fatigue, but in their depravity they prevented their appearance.” Inconceivable feasts began. In the estate of the already mentioned freedman Trimalchio (a character in the comedy Petronius), there is darkness, there is so much land that even a falcon cannot fly around, silver dishes that have fallen on the floor are thrown out along with the garbage, and live blackbirds fly out of the belly of a roasted boar (to the delight of the public). They did not sit at the table, but lay down. To make it more convenient to eat as much food as possible, the rich ate, undressing to the waist... Having decorated themselves with wreaths of myrtle, ivy, violets and roses, they lay down at the table. The slaves took off their shoes and washed their feet and hands. Forks were not recognized then. The Romans, like the Greeks, ate everything with their hands. According to the custom of the Greeks, feasts ended with grandiose drinking bouts. Those present at the table elected the president. Magicians, actors, dancers, and whores were invited to entertain the nobility.
Red-figure vase. V century BC.
The author of the Book of Satires, Petronius, described a picture of the pastime of rich freedmen... When we finally lay down, the young Alexandrian slaves poured snow water on our hands, washed our feet and carefully trimmed the hangnails on our fingers. Without interrupting the unpleasant task, they sang incessantly. When he asked for a drink, the obliging boy fulfilled his request, singing just as shrilly. Pantomime with a choir, not the triclinium of a venerable house! Meanwhile, an exquisite appetizer was served; everyone reclined on the couch, with the exception of the host Trimalchio himself, who, according to the new fashion, was left with the highest place at the table. In the middle of the table stood a Corinthian bronze donkey with packs containing white and black olives. Above the donkey stood two silver dishes, on the edges were engraved the name of Trimalchio and the weight of the silver. The following describes how everyone enjoyed this luxury. Then they brought Trimalchio in to the music and laid him on small pillows. His shaved head peeked out from the bright red robes, and around his muffled neck was a scarf with a wide purple trim and hanging fringe. This made everyone laugh. On her hands was a large gilded ring made of pure gold, with soldered iron stars. In order to display his other jewels, he exposed his right hand, which was adorned with a gold wrist and an ivory bracelet. He picked his teeth with a silver toothpick. The boy who came after him brought crystal bones on a table of turpentine wood, where the author noticed something sophisticated: instead of white and black stones, gold and silver denarii were laid. Then curly-haired Ethiopians came with small wineskins, like those from which they scatter sand in amphitheaters, and washed our hands with wine, but no one gave us water. In the confusion, a large silver dish fell: one of the boys picked it up. Noticing this, Trimalchio ordered the slave to be slapped and the dish thrown back onto the floor. The barman appeared and began to sweep the silver along with other rubbish out the door. At this time, the slave brought a silver skeleton, arranged so that its folds and vertebrae could move freely in all directions. When he was thrown onto the table several times, he, thanks to the movable clutch, assumed a variety of poses. So we all drank and were amazed at such exquisite luxury. It is curious that the owner of the house and feast, Trimalchio, became a merchant and entrepreneur in modern times. He was once a slave and carried logs on his back, but then, thanks to his entrepreneurial spirit, he accumulated large capital. He produced wool, raised bees, and even ordered champignon seeds from India. We see the same in today’s Russia, where similar “freedmen” in the recent past traded flowers, herring, were engaged in blackmail, were currency traders, but now they have become ministers, prime ministers, and deputies.
Amphora depicting a feast
As a result, the rich and jaded public could not adequately lead the state or satisfy a woman... Petronius in Satyricon tells the story of a young man who fell in love with a woman who is “more beautiful than all paintings and statues.” There are no words to describe her beauty: “her eyes are brighter than the stars on a moonless night,” and “her mouth is like the lips of Diana, as Praxiteles invented them.” And the arms, legs, neck - what a swan: with their whiteness “they outshone the Parian marble.” And so, when the “democrat” had to “show his masculine strength,” the curse of Priapus (the sexual deity) was fulfilled; his “demiurge,” instead of a fighting pose, bowed his head in shame. Neither a golden fork from the palace collection nor a villa in Spain will help here. Impotence struck Rome, just as it struck the “transvestite democrats.” Petronius gives advice on how to recover: the patient should stick to a diet, seek help from the deities (and not get involved in politics), and also take a phallus coated with oil with crushed pepper and nettle seed and insert it deep into his anus. During this procedure, those around him should whip him with nettles on the lower part of his naked body. They say it helps... The Epicureans and Stoics intensified the mood of decadence, urging people to waste their lives easily, imperceptibly, thoughtlessly, blindly. The advice is: “You cannot bring too much intelligence into life without killing life.”
However, time will pass, and they themselves will perceive in the philosophy of Epicurus only its hedonic, most animal part, from which the philosopher himself was far from.
Titian. Danaë upon whom golden rain fell
But what can we say, even if the great Cicero, a moralist, a republican, a singer of the old way of life and the “testaments of the ancestors,” speaking in court in defense of a certain Marcus Caelius Rufus (56 BC), a typical young Roman, orator and politician, exclaimed: “Is the love of harlots forbidden for young men? If someone thinks so, then what can we say, he has very strict rules and shuns not only our dissolute age, but also what is permitted by the custom of our ancestors. In fact, when was it different, when was it condemned, when was it prohibited, when was it impossible to do what was possible? I’m ready to determine what exactly it is, but I won’t name any woman, let whoever wants to think about it. If some unmarried person opens her house to everyone who lusts, if she lives openly like a corrupt woman, if she feasts with strange men, and all this in the city, in gardens, in crowded Baiae; if, finally, her gait, her outfit, her retinue, her brilliant glances, her free speeches, her hugs, her kisses, her bathing, her rides on the sea, her feasts make you see in her not just a libertine, but a shameless whore, then say, Lucius Herennius, when a certain young man is with her, will he be a seducer, and not just a lover? Does he infringe on chastity, and not simply satisfy desire? After such a convincing, passionate speech, the court acquitted this Rufus.
Everyday life If the rise of the material culture of China during the period of the first rulers could be caused by borrowing the achievements of the Mediterranean world, then the new empire, in turn, rose to such a high and qualitatively new level of technology that almost
From the book Traditional Japan. Life, religion, culture by Dunn CharlesChapter 8 DAILY LIFE IN EDO Life in the country was regulated by the seasons. In big cities, the clock and calendar changed. The Gregorian calendar, which Japan, along with almost the rest of the civilized world, uses today, was introduced in 1873, immediately after
From the book Everyday Life in Moscow at the Turn of the 19th-20th Centuries author Andreevsky Georgy Vasilievich From the book From Edo to Tokyo and back. Culture, life and customs of Japan during the Tokugawa era author Prasol Alexander Fedorovich From the book Everyday Life in Modern Paris author Semenova Olga YulianovnaSemenova O. Yu. Daily life of modern Paris My
From the book Hellenistic Civilization by Chamoux Francois From the book Aristocracy in Europe, 1815–1914 by Lieven Dominic From the book Myths and Truths about Women author Pervushina Elena Vladimirovna From the book Everyday Life of the Surrealists. 1917-1932 by Dex PierrePierre Decay The daily life of the surrealists. 1917–1932 Surrealism opens the doors of dreams to all those for whom the night is too stingy. Surrealism is a crossroads of enchanting dreams, but it is also a destroyer of chains... Revolution... Revolution... Realism is pruning trees,
Did the concept of fashion exist in pre-Christian times? Was there a fashion for clothes before? Look at the statues of emperors and gods that have been preserved in the Vatican Museums - this is how the ancient Romans looked and dressed. Their clothes were distinguished by the sophistication of draperies and simplicity of silhouette. Who came up with these outfits? Has anyone been involved in clothing from the point of view of class and financial status? Were there any differences between the attire of nobles and commoners? Or maybe the ancients were only concerned with wars and philosophy and wore on their bodies only simple sheets of unprocessed fabric, since both the Romans and the Greeks had a cult of a beautiful body?
Interest in history will never fade
About eighteen centuries have passed since the great ancient civilizations sank into oblivion, and we continue to be interested in what the clothes of the ancient Romans were like, how their life was structured, how they conducted their affairs and what they did in their leisure time. Over the years, a lot has been forgotten and erased from the memory of mankind, but the surviving works of philosophers, poets, mythology, frescoes, some utilitarian and ritual utensils, women's and men's jewelry, weapons, architectural and art monuments allow us to draw certain conclusions and make assumptions about life on the shores of the Mediterranean and Black Seas - in Asia Minor, the Apennines and the Balkans.
Did fashion exist in ancient times?
Of course, there was fashion back then. It did not bypass both Ancient Greece, and the clothing of the Romans and Greeks was by no means just a means to warm their frozen bodies. She answered rather than physically.
The ancients, which were largely borrowed from the Greeks, introduced into it a share of asceticism and practicality. The Romans began to actively decorate their outfits with jewelry only at the end of the empire, when debauchery and other carnal passions took precedence over reason and the patriarchal traditions of their fathers.
What are the Romans and the Greeks? 2nd grade of high school introduced us to her as children. These are tunics and togas that fit the body loosely without restricting movement. Ancient amphorae for wine and olive oil, found at excavations, preserved drawings with scenes on everyday and battle themes. Clay and metal turned out to be more durable than fabric. But, judging by the elegant draperies, the materials from which the clothes of the ancient Romans and Greeks were made were thin and flexible.
What were the fabrics for clothing made from?
What raw materials were used? With a high degree of probability we can say that these are cotton, linen and wool. The Romans did not know silk until the 1st century BC. Then wild silk fabric was brought from China, but it did not take root. At the beginning of the 1st century AD, a new type of fabric appeared in Rome - from mixed fibers of silk and cotton, as well as from silk and linen. Silk yarn began to be brought from the same China, and Roman weavers began to make fabric from it. It is possible that, in addition to those listed, clothing fabrics were also made from other fibers, such as hemp, palm, nettle, etc. Threads from these plants are not very durable and beautiful in the product. Researchers have found beaver hair, camel hair and threads of fibrous asbestos in textiles made by the ancient Romans. Clothes with asbestos fibers woven into their fabric drape in a special way and sparkle very beautifully in the sun.
Peculiarities of attitude to clothing among warriors of ancient victorious armies
The fashion for leather goods came from Egypt. Egyptian leathers were distinguished by their fine workmanship and color fastness. Roman warriors wore leather armor, while the Greeks fought naked. Historians do not fully agree on this point. Frescoes depicting battles show warriors without clothing, but excavations have uncovered bronze armor dating from the same period.
The Romans did not wear trousers, considering them barbaric clothing, however, during campaigns deep into Europe, where weather conditions were harsher than in the Apennines, Roman soldiers were forced to master wearing trousers. A memory of this remains in the form of a drawing on Trajan’s Column - on it are Roman legionnaires in narrow breeches, slightly below the knees.
The name of the clothes of the ancient Romans is written in the works of Virgil, Seneca, Cicero and others. In those days, fashion was not as changeable and fleeting as it is now. Since Rome was greatly influenced by the Etruscan and ancient Greek civilizations, the life and clothing of the ancient Romans and Greeks are in many ways similar.
Toga
The toga is one of the unstitched garments. This is the outerwear of the ancient Romans. It is a canvas that is straight on one side and rounded on the other - it looks like a trimmed oval. They wrapped themselves in a toga during the day, using it as outerwear, and also at night, spreading it on a bed like a sheet, or covered themselves with a toga like a blanket.
Until the 4th century BC, the toga was part of both men's and women's wardrobes. Subsequently - only male. Non-citizens did not have the right to wear a toga. It should be noted that to put on the clothes, an assistant was required, in those days a slave. The men's clothing of the ancient Romans of the aristocratic class was not distinguished by a desire for asceticism. This mentality is closer to Greek civilization. The Romans loved luxury and carnal pleasures. The togas of the Roman patricians were up to two meters wide and up to 6 meters long. A slave who knew how to arrange the folds especially beautifully was expensive. The rules required that the right shoulder and part of the chest remain open, and a stripe of ornament was located on the left side.
The Emperor wore a purple toga. In addition to him, the triumphant commander also had the right to dress in this color. Sometimes the toga was decorated with palm branches embroidered on it. A striped toga with a purple border was part of the wardrobe of augurs and sallies, that is, the clergy or priestly class.
The black toga was considered mourning and was worn as a symbol of grief for a deceased relative.
Tunic
It must be said that the women's clothing of the ancient Romans was not distinguished by the complexity of its cut. She was as laconic as the man's.
Difficult to wear and requiring a large amount of expensive thin fabric, the toga completely went out of fashion in the first centuries of our era, and the tunic outlived the civilizations that created it, firmly entrenched in our wardrobes.
Tunic is a T-line dress worn by women and men of all classes. Women sewed up to their ankles, sometimes with long sleeves. Rich aristocratic women wore several transparent tunics, one on top of the other. One of them could be made of pleated fabric.
Accessories
Belts embroidered with stones, coins or mother-of-pearl were used as accessories. A large necklace was worn around the neck, which lay over the shoulders, back and chest like a yoke. Unlike Greek women, Roman women paid little attention to the decorative finishing of fabric with embroidery. But they wore no less jewelry. In addition to necklaces and belts, they decorated themselves with bracelets, rings and earrings. Gold was a measure of wealth and position in society.
Underwear
Often, before putting on a tunic, the Romans wrapped the cloth around the chest and hips. One of the frescoes at Villa Del Casale depicts women in bikinis. It is assumed that these are prototypes of modern underwear. However, at that time it was sportswear. Despite the warm climate, the change of seasons was still felt. The ancient Romans, whose clothes were made of wool, linen and cotton and did not differ in cut, wore several layers of woolen tunics in the cold season.
Chiton
It is strange that the Romans did not adopt from the Greeks the custom of wearing very comfortable clothing, which was not sewn, but connected at the shoulders with brooch buckles. For a long time it was believed that the Greeks wore only white clothes. This is wrong. White was indeed one of the favorite colors, but bleaching fabrics was labor-intensive and time-consuming. For this reason, white tunics were classified as festive.
On ordinary days, the Greeks wore colorful and very bright outfits. Minerals, plants and sea mollusks were used as dyes. The latter served as a source for obtaining purple pigment. The Greeks began to wear silk before the Romans, although it was very expensive, as it was brought from the East. Only very rich people wore purple silk chitons.
Despite the fact that the clothes were not sewn, but only pinned, the bottom of the tunic should not be shaggy. This was a sign of mourning or material need, which was considered a shame. The bottom edge was folded and carefully secured so that the threads did not stick out. Although this work was performed by slaves, they were trained in all kinds of handicrafts from childhood.
Even the richest and most noble Hellenic women knew how to sew, satin stitch and cross stitch, cook and take care of their households.
Outerwear
It was indecent to walk outside the house in one tunic. A cloak was always worn on top. The men's cloak - himation or chlamis - was not as elegant as the women's and was made from coarser fabric. Women's peplos or hlaina is always a work of art. Since the Hellenic women rarely left the confines of their home, the peplos was decorated with the most beautiful beads and braid, and the drapery and embroidery were carefully thought out. To make them heavier and create stable coattails, weights - coins or pebbles - were sewn into the fabric in certain places and decorated with small tassels.
Hairdressing art of antiquity
Greece was famous for its hairdressing art. Hairstyles were done by professionals. They cut their hair beautifully, intricately braided and styled it. Moreover, the Greeks dyed their hair. Courtesans bleached their hair, while family women, on the contrary, dyed their hair darker shades. The hairstyle was an integral element of the entire image and fit harmoniously into the ensemble. The fashion for wigs originates in Greece. They were made from natural hair, and fashionistas had several different wigs.
Education as the main driving force of society
The Romans attached great importance to education. Upon reaching the age of seven, children were sent to school. Some of them practiced combined education for both sexes. Girls' education was considered no less important than boys' education. It was from the Roman tradition that the system of three-level education came - primary, secondary and higher. At the age of 18, young men were called up for military service.
Wealthy families emphasized additional home schooling; for this purpose, educated slaves, mainly from Greece, were purchased as teachers. Slaves were also sent to receive the education their masters needed. They often became managers of their masters' estates and performed official work in state bureaucratic institutions.
Subsequently, freed slaves took management positions in Rome, displacing titular citizens from their legal positions. The advantages of slaves over the Romans were expressed in the fact that, having a good education, they did not shy away from any work, and they gradually began to understand the management system and legislation much better than native Roman citizens.
This distortion of the democratic structure of society determined the future fate of the Empire.
Loading...
