Socialism; Women -- Social and moral questions; Women and socialism
Apparently the Latin tribes who participated in the foundation of Rome
had already superseded the matriarchal development. As previously
stated, they robbed the women who were wanting among them from the
tribe of the Sabines and called themselves Quirites after these. At a
much later date the Roman citizens in the popular assembly were still
addressed as Quirites. “Populus Romanus” designated the free population
of Rome generally; but “populus Romanus quiritium” designated Roman
citizenship by descent. The Roman gens was patriarchal; the children
inherited from their natural parent. In case there were no children
the property fell to relatives on the man’s side, and if these were
wanting, it fell to the gens. By marriage the woman lost all rights
of inheritance to her father’s property and that of her father’s
brothers. She withdrew from her gens, and thus neither she nor her
children could inherit from her father or his brothers. Otherwise
the hereditary portion would have been lost to the paternal gens.
The division into gentes and phratries for centuries remained the
foundation of military organization and the enactment of civic
rights. But with the decay of the patriarchal gentes and the decline
of their significance, conditions became more favorable to Roman
women. They not only obtained the right of inheritance, they also
obtained the right to control their own fortunes; they accordingly
held a far more favorable position than their Greek sisters. This
freer position gradually won by them, gave the elder Cato--born
234 B. C.--cause for the following complaint: “If the head of each
family, following the example of his ancestors, would seek to
maintain his wife in proper submissiveness, the entire sex would
not give so much trouble publicly.” When a few tribunes in the year
195 B. C., moved to repeal a law enacted previously, for the purpose
of restricting the luxury of women in dress and personal adornment,
he stormed: “If each of us had maintained his manly authority with
his own wife, we would have less bother here with all the women.
Our power that has been shattered in the home, now is being broken
and trampled upon in the forum too by the unruliness of women, and
because we are incapable of resisting them individually, we fear
them all together. Our ancestors decided that women should not even
attend to their private affairs without the control of a guardian,
that they should be subject to their fathers, brothers, husbands.
But we submit to it that they take possession of the republic and
interfere with the popular assembly. If you give free reign to the
imperious natures of these unruly creatures, do not imagine that
they will recognize any limits of their tyranny. The truth is that
they desire freedom, nay, dissoluteness, in all things, and when
they have begun to be our equals, they will soon be our superiors.”
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account