DOLANSKY - 2011 - Reconsidering The Matronalia and Women's Rites PDF

Reconsidering the Matronalia and Women's Rites
Author(s): FANNY DOLANSKY

Source: The Classical World, Vol. 104, No. 2 (WINTER 2011), pp. 191-209
Published by: The Johns Hopkins University Press on behalf of the Classical Association of
the Atlantic States
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/25799995
Accessed: 01-03-2017 09:54 UTC
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted
digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about
JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://about.jstor.org/terms
The Johns Hopkins University Press, Classical Association of the Atlantic States are
collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Classical World
This content downloaded from 67.66.218.73 on Wed, 01 Mar 2017 09:54:30 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Special Section on Gendered Approaches to
Roman Religion: Recent Work*
Reconsidering the Matronalia and Women's rites
ABSTRACT: Scholars have long contended that the Matronalia was a
"women's festival," dominated by matrons' rites to Juno Lucina at her temple
on the Esquiline hill. This paper challenges standard interpretations and
argues that the Matronalia was much more comprehensive. A reexamination
of evidence for the festival's participants and distinct components reveals
its significance as a family observance that contributed to the welfare of
the domus as a whole. The Matronalia brought together the household's
diverse members in a ritual that had the potential to promote unity and
collective identity, while reaffirming core social values regarding gender
and juridical status in particular.
I. Introduction
The Matronalia, celebrated on March 1, enjoyed a long history
from the middle Republic to the end of the fourth century CE. and
possibly beyond.1 Though its composition surely varied over both
time and space, during the central period of Roman history (c. 200
B.CE. to 200 CE.) the festival seems to have consisted of four distinct
rites: matronae (married women) made offerings to Juno Lucina at
her temple on the Esquiline in Rome and presumably at cult sites to
the goddess in other locales as well; husbands prayed for the welfare
of their wives or marriages; household slaves were served a special
holiday feast by their mistresses; and an exchange of gifts took place
between spouses and among friends and lovers.2 The performance of
sacra (rituals) to Juno Lucina was the most conspicuous part of this
EDITOR'S NOTE?The following three articles originated from papers pre

sented at the 2008 APA panel "Gendered Approaches to Roman Religion: Where Do
We Go Now?" organized by Carin M. C. Green (University of Iowa) and Lora L.
Holland (University of North Carolina at Asheville). A response to suggestions that
the study of women in religion had reached a cul-de-sac, the panel's innovative and
interdisciplinary approach to issues of gendered participation signaled a new direc
tion of study, prompted by Celia Schultz's recent book, Women's Religious Activity
in the Roman Republic (Chapel Hill 2006). Rather than considering women in isola
tion, these contributions focus on a gender-integrated approach to Roman religion.
1 A reference by Plautus (Mil. 690-691) to gift giving on March 1, one component
of the festival, suggests that observing the Matronalia was already conventional by
the late third or early second century B.C.E., while Ausonius (Eel. 16.7-8) includes
it among traditional Roman rites still celebrated late in the fourth century C.E. Its
survival beyond this date, however, is not secure. Macrobius (Sat. 1.12,7), writing
early in the fifth century, and Johannes Lydus, whose De mensibus (3.22, 4.22) dates
to the sixth century, both discuss aspects of the rites in a past tense which may mean
these elements were no longer being practiced or perhaps the festival in its entirety.
2 The central period is the one best-documented by literary sources, and the
only direct evidence for the festival comes from literary texts. For emphases on the
dynamic nature of Roman festivals and the need to allow for change over time in
composition and meaning, see M. Beard, "A Complex of Times: No More Sheep on
Romulus' Birthday," PCPhS 33 (1987) 1-15, and T. P. Wiseman, "The God of the
Lupercal," JRS 85 (1995) 1-22.
191
192 FANNY DOLANSKY
complex of rites that ancient sources simply refer to as the Kalends

of March or occasionally the "women's Kalends" or "women's Satur
nalia" instead.3 It seems to be from these latter designations and the
attention paid to Juno's rites in one significant ancient account that
scholars have come to classify the Matronalia as a public "women's
festival" whose participation was restricted to matronae.4 Yet the
Matronalia appears to have been far more comprehensive than these
labels allow, for it involved the domus (urban, upper-class household)
in its entirety?matronae, their husbands, most likely their children,
and certainly their slaves, all of whom observed important components
of the celebration within the physical setting of the home.5 Moreover,
the festival addressed issues of immediate consequence to the success
of the domus first and foremost: the production of legitimate children,
relations between spouses, and interactions between mistresses and their
slaves. Thus, rather than regard the Matronalia as a public women's
3 The designation "Matronalia" is used only by Plutarch (f\ [eoQxrj] xe xd)v

MaxQcovaAicov, Rom. 21.1) and a scholiast on Juv. 9.53. For Kalendae Martiae ("Kalends
of March"), see, e.g., Suet. Vesp. 19.1, Mart. 5.84.10-11, Dig. 24.1.31.8, and Serv.
A. 8.638, while Juv. 9.53 refers to femineae kalendae ("women's kalends"). To his
female addressee, Martial (5.84.10-11) calls the Kalends of March vestra Saturnalia
("your Saturnalia"), and several sources draw a comparison between feasting on the
Matronalia and the Saturnalia and emphasize gender differences in these celebrations
which suggests that they too regarded the March festival as in some ways "women's
Saturnalia" even though they do not explicitly label the rites as such.
4 G. Wissowa (Religion und Kultus der Romer [Munich 1912] 185) included
it among feriae publicae and called it ein grofies Frauenfest, and H. H. Scullard
(Festivals and Ceremonies of the Roman Republic [London 1981] 87) has labeled
it "a women's festival." More recently, J. Scheid ("Les roles religieux des femmes
a Rome. Un complement," in R. Frei-Stolba et al., eds., Les femmes antiques entre
sphere privee et sphere publique [Frankfurt am Main 2003] 138) has listed the
Matronalia among public rites that matrons celebrated exclusively. The entry of L.
Adkins and R. A. Adkins (Dictionary of Roman Religion [New York 1996] 150)
similarly conveys the impression that this is a public women's festival, specifying
that matronae feasted only female slaves, thus a celebration by and for women. For
participation limited to matronae, see G. Dumezil, Archaic Roman Religion, tr. P.
Krapp (Baltimore 1970) 294; and C. E. Schultz, Women's Religious Activity in the
Roman Republic (Chapel Hill 2006) 147 and "Sanctissima Femina: Social Categori
zation and Women's Religious Experience in the Roman Republic," in M. Parca and
A. Tzanetou, eds., Finding Persephone (Bloomington and Indianapolis, 2007) 93.
In a pioneering study of women's religious roles that focused on the cult practices
of matronae, J. Gage (Matronalia [Brussels 1963] 66-80) treated the Matronalia
and, not surprisingly, concentrated on matronae without consideration of the ritual
contributions of slaves or husbands; his interest, however, lay in the aitia for the
festival and its status as a celebration for Juno Lucina rather than in its composition.
5 There is no direct evidence for the inclusion of children in the Matronalia,
but if one regards the festival as a component of an upper-class family's religious
program, its sacra familiae, which consisted of practices held to be of great im
portance, then it seems highly probable that children would have been expected to
attend and perhaps participate in some capacity as well. For the valuation of sacra
familiae, Cicero is our best advocate: e.g., Leg. 2.19, 2.22, 2.47 and Dom. 109. On
the incorporation of children into domestic cult as attested by literary evidence,
see F. Dolansky, "Ritual, Gender, and Status in the Roman Family" (Ph.D. diss.,
University of Chicago, 2006) 27-38; I. C Mantle ("The Roles of Children in Roman
Religion," G&R 49 [2002] 100-102) examines artistic representations of children as
camillilae in Roman lararia (shrines for the household gods).
RECONSIDERING THE MATRONALIA AND WOMEN'S RITES 193
festival or a "matronal liturgy," categorizations that are both limiting

and potentially misleading, I suggest that a fuller appreciation of this
celebration can be gained by placing it within a domestic context. I
aim to demonstrate that by its participants, distinct rites, and especially
its concerns, the Matronalia was above all a domestic observance that
focused on the members of the domus and their well-being.
I begin by presenting an overview of the key elements of the
Matronalia as they can be reconstructed for the central period. Build
ing upon this foundation, I focus on the first three components of the
festival (sacra to Juno Lucina, husbands' prayers, and the matrons'
feast for their slaves) to determine their functional significance for
individual members and the domus as a whole. In the process, I at
tempt to account for the continued relevance of the Matronalia over
more than half a millennium of recorded history. My approach differs
in several ways from previous studies of the festival not only in the
conclusions reached, but also in the methodology employed. Unlike
earlier examinations, which have concentrated predominantly on ma
tronae nearly to the exclusion of male participants such as husbands
and male slaves, I adopt a broader conception of gender as a produc
tive category of analysis and assess the ritual contributions of all
celebrants. To achieve a more comprehensive picture, I also pay more
careful attention to juridical status and its bearing on the composition
and relevance of the rites. Despite the fact that gender and familial
relations would seem to be considerations in evaluating most, if not
all, facets of the rites, and issues concerning juridical status clearly
underlie the ritual feast in particular, recent scholarship on gender,
the Roman family, and Roman slavery has generally not informed
discussions of the Matronalia.6 To elucidate the significance of the
rites more fully, I draw upon each of these fields, and in the case
of the feast specifically, I incorporate insights from sociological and
anthropological studies of feasting and from the comparative history
of slavery in an attempt to understand better what might have shaped
the structure of this element and responses to it from freeborn and
slave celebrants alike. Through this more holistic approach, I believe
a better understanding of this festival, which remained a fundamental
part of domestic practice for nearly six hundred years, can emerge.
II. Recreating the Rites

Many of the rituals and ceremonies Romans performed are only
preserved in fragmentary form, a situation that is more acute for
domestic rites not traditionally the concern of elite male authors,
6 While some studies of the festival predate the flourishing of interest in
women's history, gender, and the Roman family, several more recent examinations
do not. Similarly, the Matronalia has not been included in discussions by Roman
family historians on the role of religion in shaping domestic life (e.g., S. Dixon, The
Roman Family [Baltimore 1992] 133-38; R. P. Sailer, "The hierarchical household
in Roman society: a study of domestic slavery," in M. L. Bush, ed., Serfdom and
Slavery: studies in legal bondage [New York 1996] 112-29, and "Symbols of gender
and status hierarchies in the Roman household," in S. Joshel and S. Murnaghan, eds.,
Women and Slaves in Greco-Roman Culture [London and New York, 1998] 85-91).
194 Fanny dolansky
who were instead intent on recording political and military affairs of

state. Reconstructing the Matronalia, therefore, necessitates drawing
together diverse and often fragmentary pieces of evidence primarily
from poets, scholiasts, and late antiquarian sources. What I present
here is a composite picture of an idealized celebration as we can
plausibly imagine it occurring in Italy in the domus of Cicero or
the younger Pliny.7
The rites on the Kalends of March, a day sacred to Juno as
all kalends were, most likely began with sacra to the goddess in
her guise as Lucina, protector of women in childbirth. In Rome, a
temple of Juno Lucina on the Esquiline was dedicated in 375 b.ce.
(Plin. HN 16.235), perhaps by a group of matronae in connection
with a vow for the birth of a son as the Fasti Praenestini suggest.8
Ovid (Fast. 3.247-248) was familiar with the matrons' dedication
though some scholars find its historicity problematic.9 Nonetheless,
at least in popular thought, the temple had particular associations
with matronae and ritual acts concerning childbirth.10 The temple
stood in a grove (lucus) from which some believed Lucina took her
name, while others derived it from light (lux) because she presided
over childbirth and brought children into the light.11 It was here
7 Evidence for the Matronalia in provincial milieux is slight and too limited to
determine possible differences when observed outside Italy, while the biases of our
sources require the focus to remain on urban, upper-class celebrations.
8 Iun[o]ni Lucinae Esquiliis, quod eo die aedis ei d[edica]ta est per matro
naslquam voverat Albin[i filia] vel uxor, si puerum I' [parientemjque ipsa[m fovisset], in
the edition of A. Degrassi, Inscriptiones Italiae, vol. 13: Fasti et elogia (Rome 1963)
121. The inscription is also treated in Giannelli's entry in LTUR on Juno's temple.
9 R. E. A. Palmer (Roman Religion and Roman Empire [Philadelphia 1974]
20) doubts that the women were empowered to dedicate the temple since it was a
public building, though A. Ziolkowski (The Temples of Mid-Republican Rome and
Their Historical and Topographical Context [Rome 1992] 67-69) and J. Muccigrosso
("Religion and politics: did the Romans scruple about the placement of their temples?"
in C. E. Schultz and P. B. Harvey Jr., eds., Religion in Republican Italy [New Haven
2006] 190) are more optimistic. Concurring with Palmer, E. Fantham ("The Fasti
as a Source for Women's Participation in Roman Cult," in G. Herbert-Brown, ed.,
Ovid's Fasti: Historical Readings at Its Bimillennium [Oxford 2002] 31) also points
out a significant inconsistency in Ovid's account of the Matronalia's origins since
he portrays women deliberating in Juno's temple during the Sabine War though the
temple has yet to be founded.
10 The temple and environs were certainly linked to rituals for the sake of
childbirth. Ovid's aition for rites on the Lupercalia (Fast. 2.429-452), for instance,
connects Juno's grove on the Esquiline with sacra both for the sake of fertility (i.e.,
conception) and childbirth. It is noteworthy that in his narrative men also pray to
Juno for their wives' fertility (2.437-438), and Ovid himself asks Juno in her guise
as Lucina to ease delivery (2.451-452).
11 See Palmer (above, n.9) 19-21 for the grove and Juno Lucina in general. Ovid
(Fast. 2.449-450) introduces both etymologies though the association with lux was more
popular. According to Varro (Ling. 5.50, 74), there had also been an archaic temple of
Juno Lucina on the Cispian spur, dedicated by Titius Tatius, but it is not clear that the
Matronalia was ever celebrated there (see C. J. Smith, Early Rome and Latium [Oxford
1996] 163). Since Varro (Ling. 5.50) maintains, however, that the Oppian and Cispian
hills formed part of the Esquiline, one wonders if the temple he refers to on the Cis
pian and on the Esquiline were actually one and the same. From the locations where
that women gathered to perform sacra in her honor, perhaps in the
morning given her associations with light, but also to leave the rest
of the day open for other ritual activities.
Since the grove and temple were public spaces and not the
sole preserve of women, Ovid (Fast. 3.253-258) may have actually
witnessed the sacra he bids women to perform in the following set
of directives:
ferte deae flores: gaudet florentibus herbis
haec dea; de tenero cingite flore caput:
dicite "tu nobis lucem, Lucina, dedisti":
dicite "tu voto parturientis ades."
siqua tamen gravida est, resoluto crine precetur
ut solvat partus molliter ilia suos.12
Bring flowers to the goddess: in flowering plants this

goddess delights. Garland your heads with delicate
flowers. Say, "Lucina, you have brought us all to light."
Say, "Come answer the prayers of a woman in labor."
But if any of you is pregnant, let her loosen her hair
and pray that the goddess gently ease her delivery.
In his narrative, he identifies the women as current mothers,
calling them matres and parentes (Fast. 3.230, 234, 243), but from
other sources it seems that marriage rather than motherhood was the
prerequisite for performing the rites.13 The responsibility of matro
nae to perform the sacra does not, however, preclude the possibility
that other women were also present at the temple such as unmarried
freeborn and freed women, female slaves, as well as young girls, all
of whom may have observed the rites even if they did not actively
participate by offering prayers and sacrifice.14
inscriptions to Lucina were found, L. Richardson Jr. (A New Topographical Dictionary

of Ancient Rome [Baltimore 1992] 215) proposes that the temple on the Esquiline was
likely located near the end of the Cispian spur, above the Clivus Suburbanus.
12 Tr. B. Nagle, Ovid's Fasti: Roman Holidays (Bloomington and Indianapolis,
1995). Servius (A. 4.518) insists that women had to loosen all ties and knots in
their hair and clothing before performing Juno's rites. He does not specify which
women so perhaps one should imagine all female celebrants at the temple with hair
unbound, praying to Juno in a gesture of communal support for those women who
were already expecting.
13 Ausonius (Eel. 16.7-8), for instance, designates the Kalends of March as a
day when matronae perform sacra, while a scholiast on Juv. 9.53 is explicit that
rites for Juno are celebrated by matronae on this occasion. Other sources connect
matronae with the festal day but not with Juno's rites specifically: e.g., Festus 131L,
Porphyrio and [Aero] ad Hor. Carm. 3.8.1. At the beginning of his entry on the
Matronalia, Ovid actually refers to the festival of matronae (Fast. 3.170) but soon
shifts his focus to matres which I argue below is deliberate.
14 A poem in the Corpus Tibullianum (4.2) describes a young woman named
Sulpicia who celebrates the Matronalia. There is no indication that she performs sacra
to Juno, but she does dress up for the occasion, participate in the gift exchange,
and vow to continue to observe this sollemne sacrum for many years to come. The
Sulpicia of this poem is most likely not the Sulpicia who was a poet and niece of
Messalla (on whose identity see A. Keith, "Tandem venit amor: A Roman Woman
196 Fanny Dolansky
In her discussion of rites for Mater Matuta, another goddess vener

ated particularly by married women who was honored in June on the
Matralia, Richlin proposes that women might have had special local
places of worship, such as groves or rural shrines, in addition to well
known cult centers.15 For Italy, there is no evidence for the celebration
of the Matronalia other than at Rome, yet this suggestion should urge
us to consider alternative locales besides those that literary sources
detail. In the town of Norba, southeast of Rome, the remains of an
early Republican temple of Juno Lucina testify to worship of the god
dess there.16 The contents of a votive deposit that includes anatomical
votives, terracotta statuettes, and female figures thought to represent
the goddess are reflective of the sorts of offerings people made when
propitiating Lucina.17 There is nothing to link these conclusively with
the sacra performed on the Matronalia, yet it is plausible, even prob
able, that women performed rites other than those Ovid describes and
at temples outside Rome, so the possibility exists that some of the
Norban offerings were connected with the festival.18
Matronae, however, were not the only ones to make offerings on
this occasion: husbands are said to have prayed for the preservation
of their wives or marriages (pro conservatione coniugii supplicabant,
[Aero] ad Hor. Carm. 3.8.1). It is not known to whom they directed
their prayers, whether to Juno Lucina to protect their wives in
childbirth or another tutelary deity for the health of their wives or
Speaks of Love," in J. Hallett and M. Skinner, eds., Roman Sexualities [Princeton

1997] 295-96). Nevertheless, the Sulpicia of [Tib.] 4.2 is presented as an unmarried
woman as the designation puella reflects. H. Trankle (Appendix Tibulliana [Berlin
1990] 2) dates the group of poems to which [Tib.] 4.2 belongs (the so-called Garland
of Sulpicia, [Tib] 4.2-6) to a period immediately after Ovid's late works with which
F. Navarro Antolin (Lygdamus. Corpus Tibullianum 3.1-6 Lygdami Elegiarum Liber,
tr. J. J. Zoltowski [Leiden 1996] 28) concurs. Sulpicia, Messalla's niece, most likely
wrote between 25 and 20 B.C.E. The Garland forms a kind of commentary on Sulpicia's
poems as H. Currie ("The Poems of Sulpicia," ANRW 2.30.3 [1983] 1754) suggests.
15 A. Richlin, "Carrying Water in a Sieve: Class and the Body in Roman Women's
Religion," in K. L. King, ed., Women and Goddess Traditions (Minneapolis 1997) 344.
16 The earliest phase of the sanctuary complex dates to the fifth century B.C.E.;
new construction or renovations occurred between the fourth and second centuries,
but it is not clear how long the temple was used and whether it continued to be fre
quented after Sulla largely destroyed the town early in the first century B.C.E. For
a topographical survey of the sanctuary and discussion of its various phases, see C.
Rescingo, "Norba: santuario di Giunone Lucina. Appunti topografici," in L. Quilici and
S. Quilici Gigli, eds., Santuari e luoghi di culto nell'Italia antica (Rome 2003) 329-52.
17 M. L. Peronne, "II deposito votivo del tempio di Giunone Lucina a Norba," in
L. Quilici and S. Quilici Gigli, eds. (above, n.16) 355, table 2.
18 Because the Matronalia was an annual observance of considerable import in
the lives of Roman matrons, some more substantial dedications may have been con
secrated on this particular occasion either by individual matronae or by small groups
of women, as we know from epigraphic sources sometimes occurred. Richlin (above,
n.15) 340-41 collects and discusses examples of familial groups from Italy, either
women alone or mixed-sex groups collaborating in their ritual efforts, and Schultz
(Women's Religious Activity [above, n.4] 54-55) cites examples of group dedications
set up by the matronae of Pisaurum and Eretrum as well as a group dedication by
consuplicatrices ("fellow worshipers") from the town of Cora.
Reconsidering the Matronalia and Women's Rites 197
marital relationships.19 Their prayers may have been accompanied by
offerings of flowers and incense as the evidence of Horace (Carm.
3.8.3-5) suggests when he depicts himself as mistakenly thought to
be performing Matronalia rites by Maecenas, surely a rather astute
observer.20 What is significant from these brief notices is the active
participation of married men in a festival that has traditionally been
categorized as a women's celebration. The involvement of husbands
clearly shows that it was more inclusive and also implies that some
men considered their marital relationships important enough to engage
in rituals intent on affecting them positively. This too is significant
since such acts by men are less common than those by women who
are known to have prayed to several goddesses in this regard includ
ing Dea Viriplaca ("Husband-Pleasing Goddess") and Fortuna Virilis
("Manly Fortune").21
Presumably it was after women's visit to the temple and hus
bands' prayers that matronae feasted their slaves at home.22 The
custom was similar to what occurred on the Saturnalia in December
when masters served their slaves in a reversal of roles. The Satur
nalia feast was renowned for licentia (license), which often took
the form of excessive drinking, gambling, and general merrymaking
and included an exchange of gifts. These gifts, called apophoreta,
were specifically associated with dinners since they tended to be
distributed at the end of convivia23 Ancient sources do not indicate
19 Schultz (Women's Religious Activity [above, n.4] 55-57) claims that [Aero]
and Ovid (Fast. 2.437-438) indicate that husbands "worshipped Juno Lucina on her
festival day," yet the former does not mention Juno at all, and the latter is describing
the participation of husbands in rites intended to represent the original observance
of the Lupercalia. Although men did pray to Juno Lucina, as Schultz demonstrates
from epigraphic material, within a domestic context the Lares might be a more logical
choice for their veneration. These gods looked after the entire household on a regular
basis, as well as on important ritualized transitions, and had special connections
to marriage since some girls dedicated their dolls to them before marriage ([Aero]
ad Hor. Sat. 1.6.65-66) and a new bride was supposed to deposit a coin with her
husband's Lares toward the conclusion of the marriage ceremonies (Varro, de vita
populi Romani 1.25 ap. Non. 531L).
20 Instead he is commemorating the anniversary of his escape from death by
a falling tree (see Carm. 2.13 and 2.17). As a bachelor, Horace has neither matrona
nor matrimonium to honor on the Matronalia, but according to J. Griffin ("Cult and
Personality in Horace," JRS 87 [1997] 58), this is no cause for lament. He suggests
that the poet has brilliantly exploited the traditional associations of the day to high
light both his own avoidance of marriage and his friendship with Maecenas, which
"it is delicately hinted, is to him what marriage might have been."
21 Viriplaca: Val. Max. 2.1.6. Fortuna Virilis: Ov. Fast. 4.145-150 (prayers and
incense can secure the goddess's help in hiding blemishes, thus making a woman
more attractive to her lover). Fortuna Virilis had a shrine near an altar of Venus
(Scullard [above, n.4] 97), and was worshipped along with Venus Verticordia on the
Veneralia (Ov. Fast. 4.153-160), thereby establishing further a connection between
Fortuna Virilis and ritual acts to foster romantic relationships.
22 Solin. 1.35, Macrob. Sat. 1.12.7, Lydus, Mens. 3.22, 4.22.
23 For the Saturnalia in general see H. S. Versnel, Transition and Reversal in
Myth and Ritual: Inconsistencies in Greek and Roman Religion (Leiden 1993), and
Dolansky (above, n.5) 161-214 on its significance as a domestic rite. Both S. L. Mohler
198 FANNY DOLANSKY
whether the Matronalia resembled the Saturnalia with respect to

the complete range of activities associated with the feast, but both
festivals shared the common features of a feast and gift exchange,
although gift-giving on the Matronalia apparently was not always tied
to the feast.24 Husbands presented gifts to their wives, perhaps as
gestures toward the conservation of their marriages, and some must
have been substantial since the second-century CE. jurist Pomponius
(Dig. 24.1.31.8) addresses the grant of a lavish Matronalia gift (mu
nus immodicum) and its status as a spousal gift (donatio) to which
certain legal conditions applied.25 Women outside the domus?either
girlfriends or simply platonic friends?could also be recipients of
Matronalia gifts which parallels the Saturnalia to some extent when
friends, patrons, and clients participated in the gift exchange in ad
dition to family members. Lygdamus ([Tib.] 3.1.3-4), for instance, an
elegiac poet of the late Republic or early Principate, reports that on
the Matronalia "numerous traveling gifts run this way and that . . .
in a parade through the city's streets and houses" (et vaga nunc
crebra discurrunt undique pompa Iperque vias urbis munera perque
domos).26 He refers to giving gifts to female friends who were most
likely lovers, as does Martial, while Suetonius's comment about
Vespasian's generosity suggests that some men gave gifts to women
who were platonic rather than romantic friends.27
("Apophoreta," CJ 23 [1927/28] 248-57) and T. J. Leary (Martial Book XIV. The

Apophoreta [London 1996]) discuss apophoreta.
24 The evidence for gift-giving is both rather limited and spans a considerable
period of time, so one needs to be cautious in taking the surviving sources as represen
tative. The nature of the evidence also makes it difficult to assess how long particular
customs surrounding the gift exchange endured and how widely they were practiced.
25 In Martial's catalogue of apophoreta (dinnertime and holiday gifts) in book
14, those specified for the Saturnalia range in size and value from wax candles and
dinner napkins to exotic pets, slaves, even pieces of furniture. It is easy to see how
the latter items could constitute munera immodica. Concerning the law prohibiting
spousal gifts, S. Treggiari (Roman Marriage [Oxford 1991] 371) stresses that it "was
never intended to be applied to modest gifts," but obviously there were enough
Romans bestowing immodest gifts on these occasions?or at least capable of doing
so?that it necessitated a legal response. The comments of J. A. Crook (" 'His and
Hers': what degree of financial responsibility did husband and wife have for the
matrimonial home and their life in common, in a Roman marriage?" in J. Andreau
and H. Bruhns, eds., Parente et strategies familiales dans I'antiquite Romaine [Rome
1990] 157) on this passage may also be helpful in distinguishing types of spousal
gifts: "Any over-lavish present is a prohibited gift; but a gift to enable the wife to
"keep up with the Joneses" will not be reclaimable because what she has actually
spent on opsonia, etc., has not enriched her permanently."
26 The identity and dates of Lygdamus are matters of considerable debate as
Navarro Antolin (above, n.14) 3-30 outlines. M. Parca ("The Position of Lygdamus in
Augustan Poetry," in C. Deroux, ed., Studies in Latin Literature and Roman History
4 [Brussels 1986] 463-65) considers Lygdamus a poet in the Circle of Messalla who
wrote between 20 and 10 B.C.E., but others date his work considerably later, at least
to the second quarter of the first century C.E. if not towards the end of that century
such as Trankle (above, n.14) 1-2 and Navarro Antolin 20. The text of Lygdamus
is from the edition of G. Luck, Albii Tibulli Aliorumque Carmina (Stutgard 1998).
27 [Tib.] 3.1.1, 3-4, Mart. 5.84 and 10.24, Suet. Vesp. 19.1.
III. Socio-functional Significances of the Rites

In Rome, sacra at Juno's Esquiline temple were the most con
spicuous part of the celebration and the facet that has most readily
contributed to its classification as a women's festival. In his entry
in the Fasti, Ovid draws attention to the visibility of the rites by
referring to a crowd (turba, 3.251) of women filling Juno's temple
and by Mars's declaration that "Roman matrons have no slight obli
gation to pack the festival on my Kalends" (inde "\diem quae primal
meas celebrare Kalendas I Oebaliae matres non leve munus habent,
3.229-230).28 Throughout his narrative, Ovid insists on styling the
women as current rather than prospective mothers, calling them matres
and parentes (3.230, 234, 243), though Festus (113L) and a scholiast
on Juvenal (9.53), the only other authors to mention Juno's rites,
identify the celebrants as matronae. Ovid reinforces his categoriza
tion by linking the women with spring as a season of renaissance
and natural fecundity, stating that "Latin mothers rightly observe
the fertile times; childbirth embraces soldiery and prayer" (tempora
rite colunt Latiae fecunda parentes ,1quarum militiam votaque partus
habet, 3.243-244).
Childbirth was also militia, the vital service married women
provided for the family, which ultimately benefited the state.29 Roman
marriage was above all for the production of legitimate children, and
it was the combination of matrimony and progeny that was thought
to bring the domus together and to supply the foundations for society
at large.30 The procreative purpose behind marriage, emphasized in
Augustus's legislation and celebrated in the art and coinage of his
age, may be informing Ovid's Matronalia narrative with its stress
on maternity and conflation of matronae with matres?1 Indeed an
28 I am indebted to Nagle's translation for the insight into the dual sense of cel
ebrare which encapsulates the complementary meanings of "to throng, pack" and "to
celebrate, observe." This is similarly true for frequentare (OLD frequento 7a) and helps
resolve a problem with line 251. F. Bomer (Die Fasten [Heidelberg 1957/58]), adopting
a variant reading of the manuscript (matrum me turba frequentat for matris me turba
frequentat), takes frequentat as "celebrate." His rendering makes the line "a crowd of
mothers celebrates me (i.e., Mars)", which is more plausible than "my mother's crowd
packs my shrine" (A. J. Boyle and R. D. Woodard, Ovid Fasti [London 2000]) since
Ovid has just reminded readers (245-249) that the temple in question is Juno's temple on
the Esquiline. A "crowd of mothers" is also consistent with Ovid's emphasis on matres
as the particular celebrants of the rites and does not shift the location to a temple of
Mars. The text of the Fasti cited here and below is that of E. H. Alton, D. E. Wormell,
and E. Courtney, eds., P. Ovidi Nasonis Fastorum Libri Sex, 2nd ed. (Leipzig 1985).
29 See Eur. Med. 249-252 for a much earlier connection between childbirth
and militia.
30 On the reproductive purpose of marriage, see Treggiari (above, n.25) 5-13
and 205-28, and Dixon (above, n.6) 67-68. Treggiari notes that procreation is embed
ded in the term matrimonium: "The idea implicit in the word is that a man takes a
woman in marriage, in matrimonium ducere, so that he may have children by her."
Cicero (Off. 1.54, Fin. 5.65), for instance, insists upon the importance of marriage
and children for the domus and the res publica.
31 R. Syme (History in Ovid [Oxford 1978] 24) places the latest datable reference
in the Fasti to 17 C.E., nearly a decade after the institution of the second set of laws to
encourage procreation. Although books 1 through 6 of the Fasti were completed prior
200 Fanny Dolansky
explicit expectation of being a matrona was being a mater as well as

Augustus himself is supposed to have stated in a speech that high
lighted raising children as a key accomplishment of a good wife (Dio
Cass. 56.3.3). The fact that bearing children was one of a matron's
most valuable contributions to the domus and the res publica helps to
explain the importance of women's sacra on the Matronalia and why
these rites are afforded such a prominent place in Ovid's account. With
their prayers and offerings to Juno for the promise of uncomplicated
deliveries, married women took an active role in attempting to ensure
successful births and thus successful family futures.32
Husbands presumably also recognized the need to enlist divine
aid concerning childbirth, what Garnsey has called "that most danger
ous operation."33 There may have been a very literal focus, therefore,
of their prayers pro conservatione coniugii ("for the preservation of
their wives/marriage") that a scholiast on Horace's Odes 3.8 records.
In this way, men's prayers can be regarded as paralleling women's
vows to Juno at her temple and reflect a concerted effort by conjugal
couples to fulfill the chief aim of marriage without sacrificing the
lives of wives and mothers in the process.
Yet another possibility exists if coniugium refers not to a wife
but to marriage instead. One of the ideals of iustum matrimonium
(legitimate marriage) was that it be distinguished by concordia, a
harmonious state between husband and wife that Romans celebrated
in life and especially in death, proclaiming in their epitaphs that they
had enjoyed long unions free of dissension. The reality, however, was
that couples did not always achieve marital concord even if they tried.
Among the upper orders at least, marriages were often arranged by
others and motivated by a host of factors other than compatibility and
romantic love. Bradley proposes that given "the likely absence of any
strong affective tie characteristic of modern marriage, the potential
for discord was always as great as that for concord."34 Thus, men may
to Ovid's exile in 8 C.E. and thus the initial version preceded the lex Papia Poppaea
of 9 C.E., there are indications that he spent some time revising it while in exile. S.
Dixon (The Roman Mother [Norman, Okla. and London, 1988] 71-103) discusses Au
gustus's official encouragement of maternity and focuses particularly on numismatic
evidence, while B. Severy (Augustus and the Family at the Birth of the Roman Empire
[New York and London, 2003] 44-61 and 104-107) treats art historical evidence.
32 Ausonius may have this connection between women's ritual activities and the
welfare of the domus in mind when he describes the Matronalia late in the fourth
century C.E. as the day when matrons perform rites "to bring their husbands credit"
(matronae et quae sacra colant pro laude virorum, Eel. 16.7). I cite the text of
Ausonius from the edition of R. P. H. Green, The Works of Ausonius (Oxford 1991)
and follow his numbering system, but borrow the translation of pro laude virorum
from E. White's Loeb edition in which the poem appears as Eclogue 23. Green (430)
suggests this phrase means "for their husbands' valor," but an emphasis on courage
and bravery seems out of place with what is known of the Matronalia rites.
33 P. Garnsey, "Child Rearing in Ancient Italy," in D. I. Kertzer and R. P.
Sailer, eds., The Family in Italy from Antiquity to the Present (New Haven 1991) 51.
34 K. R. Bradley, Discovering the Roman Family (Oxford and New York, 1991)
8. For concordia as a marital ideal, see also Treggiari (above, n.25) 251-53 and
Dixon (above, n.6) 70-71 and 83-90.
Reconsidering the Matronalia and women's Rites 201
have prayed not for the health and welfare of their wives, but rather
for their marriages, and used the Matronalia as an opportunity to
invoke the help of the gods to preserve their relationships in the face
of quarrels and complaints and to grace their unions with Concordia's
presence for the coming year.
Husbands' prayers and wives' rites reflect the importance of
the conjugal unit as the foundation of the domus. These distinct yet
related ritual acts honored the marriage bond and aimed at protect
ing it and the future of the domestic community, for it was through
marriage and the production of legitimate children that the household
prospered. Men's and women's prayers acknowledged two roles and
attendant responsibilities associated with the title matrona: those of
wife and mother. The feast, presented for the household's slaves, ac
knowledged another important role that was frequently a significant
part of her identity even if it was not as readily associated?that of
being domina or slave mistress.35
When ancient authors discuss the feast, the only component in
which both matrona and household slaves definitely participated
together, they draw attention to her role as domina through a com
parison with her husband's actions on the Saturnalia in his capacity
as dominus36 The comparison suggests that Romans recognized that
gender might be an important factor influencing the shape of both
festivals and perhaps perceptions of their underlying motivations as
well. In assessing the functionality of the Matronalia feast, ancient
authorities propose that it served simultaneously to reward slaves
and provide incentive for continued good behavior. Solinus (1.35),
writing around 200 c.e., indicates that on the Matronalia matrons
feasted their own slaves (servis suis) "so that by this honor, they could
elicit more ready obedience from them" (illae ut honore promptius
obsequium provocarent), whereas on the Saturnalia, masters feasted
slaves to demonstrate their gratitude for work completed (hi quasi
gratiam repensarent perfecti laboris).31 Some two centuries later,
35 R. P. Sailer ("Pater Familias, Mater Familias, and the Gendered Semantics

of the Roman Household," CPh 94 [1999] 187, 199) argues that from the middle
Republic onwards, Roman males were well aware of the fact that a wealthy matrona
was very likely a domina, though modern scholars sometimes focus only on her
roles as wife and mother.
36 Solin. 1.35, Macrob. 1.12.7, Lydus, Mens. 3.22, 4.22. For Martial (5.84) and
Suetonius (Vesp. 19.1), it is the common feature of a gift exchange rather than the
slaves' feast that prompts them to link the two festivals.
37 Servis suis implies that the matrona provided a meal for the slaves she owned
herself rather than for all the slaves in the household. In a sine manu marriage, a wife
could have brought into the union her own slaves as well as dotal slaves. Jurists (Dig.
24.1.29.1) advised couples to maintain a careful distinction between slaves belonging
to the husband, his wife, and the dotal slaves, and it seems from both legal (e.g., Dig.
24.1.31.9) and literary sources (e.g., Plaut. Asin. 85-87) that these different groups could
be readily distinguished. With respect to the matron's actions at the holiday feast, it is
possible that the only slaves she feasted were her own, but such a gesture seems likely
to have been divisive and counterproductive if one of the aims of the feast, as I argue
below, was to mitigate tensions between freeborn and slave and stave off potential
problems that could arise as a matter of course because of the institution of slavery.
202 FANNY DOLANSKY
Macrobius largely echoes Solinus, but there is a subtle difference.

Where Solinus describes the matrons eliciting (provocarent) obedience,
Macrobius portrays them encouraging it (invitarent), which lends an
impression of almost amicable interactions between the two.38 The
feast appears to have offered an arrangement that would have been
mutually advantageous, as matronae gained obedience in return for
issuing a dinner invitation and slaves responded favorably because
they considered it a gesture of their mistresses' generosity. But the
exchange yielded unequal benefits: matronae could hope to enjoy
the gains long after the feast was over, ideally for the entire year,
while the slaves' reward was ephemeral, an afternoon of indulgence
for an indefinite period of continued compliance.
Solinus and Macrobius both focus on the end result or the prod
uct of the feast in the increased or more easily attainable obedience
they hoped would ensue, something tangible mistresses might witness
coming to fruition in the days following the feast. Their remarks
suggest that tensions between freeborn and slave were constant and
that obtaining obsequium was a persistent concern. Indeed masters
considered the master-slave relationship as one regularly defined by
struggle, hence the proverb that one's enemies equaled the number of
one's slaves.39 Slavery was an institution based on violence?actual
violence that was physical or sexual in nature, or the threat of violence
that masters used to cultivate a "climate of fear" they hoped would
effect compliance (obsequium) in their slaves.40 Compliance was an
ideal that masters had to work continually to achieve; rewards and
incentives like the Matronalia feast were one means of achieving it
on a practical level.41
Yet the feast can also be viewed as part of a process by explor
ing the relationship of commensality to socialization. Here modern
theoretical insights on feasting may prove helpful for considering
the feast's achievements in terms other than those ancient authors
38 Macrob. Sat. 1.12.7: et servis cenas adponebant matronae, ut domini Satur

nalibus: Mae, ut principio anni ad promptum obsequium honore servos invitarent,
hi, quasi gratiam perfecti operis exsolverent. The similarities between these two
passages suggest that either Macrobius used Solinus as a source or that both authors
relied upon a common source. Obsequium means both obedience/compliance and
deference. Treggiari (above, n.25) 238 suggests that it is "less an attitude of mind
than a manner of behaving obligingly."
39 Festus 314L, Sen. Ep. 47.5, Macrob. Sat. 1.11.13.
40 On violence against slaves, see K. Hopkins, Conquerors and Slaves (Cam
bridge 1978) 118-23; K. R. Bradley, Slaves and Masters in the Roman Empire (Oxford
1987) 113-37; and R. R Sailer, Patriarchy, Property, and Death in the Roman Family
(Cambridge 1994) 133-53. The other side of the "climate of fear" is the tremendous
anxiety freeborn Romans appear to have had for their personal safety and the safety
of their kin when living among slaves. This is reflected not only in the proverb
noted above, but in the circulation of stories of masters who were murdered by their
domestic slaves reported by Pliny (Ep. 3.14, 6.25, 8.14) and Tacitus (Ann. 14.42.3),
among others. For additional examples, see K. R. Bradley, Slavery and Society at
Rome (Cambridge 1994) 113 with n.8.
41 Bradley, Slaves and Masters (above, n.40) 33-45 examines obsequium as an
aristocratic ideal and the use of holidays as mechanisms to attain it.
express, that is not only for maintaining social control through promp
tius obsequium, but also for promoting unity and norms within the
household. Claude Grignon, a French sociologist who has developed
a typology of feasting from his research on modern dining habits
in France, offers some remarks about commensality that are useful
for thinking about ancient contexts as well. One type, which seems
particularly apt for the Matronalia feast, he calls "transgressing
commensality" which refers to a communal meal in which a social
superior invites inferiors to dine with him or her.42 Grignon contends
that this type is characterized by ambivalence and, in some cases,
exceptionality. Such feasts belong to the same family as carnival
rituals which, through symbolic compensation and inversion, "allow
the ordinary order of things to be accepted anew and to resume."43
Other scholars who study dining customs similarly highlight the
potential for a feast to serve as a locus for negotiating norms and
relationships, particularly with respect to hierarchy, since feasts have
the capacity both to integrate and differentiate participants.44 This
is one facet of the ambivalence that Grignon isolates as a defining
feature of "transgressing commensality" of which the Matronalia feast
seems to consist. The reversal of roles in which mistresses served
their slaves entailed a temporary abandonment of norms that, by its
distinctiveness and artificiality, reaffirmed the established structure
of the household with its hierarchies based primarily on juridical
status, as well as gender and age. Yet even as the inversion drew
attention to the vast differences between matronae and slaves, each
household's diverse membership was brought together in a shared
42 C. Grignon's ("Commensality and Social Morphology: An Essay of Typol

ogy," in P. Scholliers, ed., Food, Drink, and Identity [Oxford and New York, 2001]
23-33) categories are derived from observing and participating in communal dining
in France so cannot be applied seamlessly to a Roman context. For example, his
category of "domestic commensality," while it does not presuppose a nuclear family
structure, nevertheless cannot accommodate the unique composition of the Roman
domus with its members of different juridical statuses and large size, at least in
comparison with modern Western families and households. He outlines six types of
commensality: domestic; institutional (e.g., nursing homes, jails); everyday (which is
"reduced to the nuclear family or to the close and usual circle of colleagues," 27);
exceptional (includes the extended family, friends, and social acquaintances, and
often coincides with "high or stressed times of the annual calendar or life cycle,"
27); segregative (exclusive/closed group, e.g., the Indian caste-system); transgressive.
He employs the somewhat awkward term "transgressing commensality" regularly but
also uses "transgressive" on occasion.
43 Grignon (above, n.42) 31.
44 I have found the following particularly helpful: M. Aurell et al., eds., La
sociabilite a table: commensalite et convivialite a travers les ages (Rouen 1992); J.
H. D'Arms, "The Roman Convivium and the Idea of Equality," in O. Murray, ed.,
Sympotica (Oxford 1990) 308-20, and "Performing Culture: Roman Spectacle and
the Banquets of the Powerful," in B. Bergmann and C. Kondoleon, eds., The Art of
Ancient Spectacle (New Haven and London, 1999) 301-19; M. Dietler, "Feast and
Commensal Politics in the Political Economy: Food, Power, and Status in Prehistoric
Europe," in P. Wiessner and W. Schiefenhovel, eds., Food and the Status Quest:
An Interdisciplinary Perspective (Oxford 1996) 87-126; J. F. Donahue, "Toward a
Typology of Roman Public Feasting," in B. K. Gold and J. F. Donahue, eds., Roman
Dining. A Special Issue of American Journal of Philology (Baltimore 2005) 95-114.
204 fanny dolansky
ritual experience. Seneca (Ep. 47.14) suggested of the Saturnalia feast

that freeborn and slave dining together had the potential to contribute
positively to freeborn and slave living together as well. Presumably
this outcome was similarly desired of the Matronalia feast.
Yet despite evidence that points toward the Matronalia feast aid
ing group cohesion, some scholars have nevertheless concluded that
it was peculiarly gendered and thus a restrictive component of the
rites. Gage, for instance, claimed that matronae only feasted their
female slaves though I am not aware of ancient sources that record
this custom.45 Boels-Janssen insists there is scholarly consensus that
the Matronalia was an exclusively female affair, a counterpart to
an exclusively male Saturnalia, though she does not subscribe to
this position herself.46 Instead, she argues for the inclusion of both
sexes at both holiday feasts on the basis of Macrobius and the sixth
century antiquarian Johannes Lydus.47 Johannes, however, is explicit
that matronae served male slaves alone, explaining that "as an honor
to Ares, they wait upon the males because of their stronger nature"
(al \iev Si' Aq?0<; Ti|af)v SouAeuouai toIc, clqq?gi tcov olkctcov Sia xf]v
KQELTxova ({)ucjiv, De mens. 3.22).48 It seems to be from this remark
that Scheid, in contrast to both Gage and Boels-Janssen, has deter
mined that only male slaves enjoyed the Matronalia feast.49 However,
while feasting female or male slaves alone would not have been
impossible, this kind of selectivity seems likely to have engendered
feelings of jealousy and created tensions that the feast, as part of a
larger celebration, actually appears to have sought to avoid.
Johannes's insistence on male slaves might be due to an overly nar
row philological interpretation of earlier Latin sources.50 Both Solinus's
45 Gage (above, n.4) 67.

46 For the probable participation of respectable, freeborn women in domestic
Saturnalia feasts and gift exchanges, as well as the presence of children of both
sexes and all juridical statuses, see Dolansky (above, n.5) 182-93.
47 N. Boels-Janssen (La vie religieuse des matrones dans la Rome archai'que [Rome
1993] 311 n.12) frustratingly does not provide either modern or ancient sources that
support what she perceives to be a common view. This position may depend in part on
J.-A. Hild's entry on the Saturnalia in C. Daremberg and M. E. Saglio's Dictionnaire
des Antiquites Grecques et Romaines (Paris 1877-1919) 1081, Col. 2, which presents
strict gender divisions, but I am not aware of any conclusive ancient evidence that
gender was a factor in determining dining arrangements on the Saturnalia.
48 The phrase bid xrjv KQeixxova cj)uaiv is ambiguous and it is not clear to whom
it refers. I have translated it "because of their stronger nature" where the nature
in question is that of male slaves. However, it could also be rendered "because of
their nobler nature" in which case surely it would have to refer to matronae. My
arguments below suggest why the first translation is preferable.
49 J. Scheid, "The Religious Roles of Roman Women," in P. Schmitt Pantel,
ed., A History of Women in the West, vol. 1: From Ancient Goddesses to Christian
Saints (Cambridge, Mass., 1992) 385.
50 It is not clear that Johannes knew Solinus's work, but he was familiar with
Macrobius's Saturnalia (a passage of which he cites in his de Magistratibus) and
certainly knew Latin well enough to compose legal briefs for cases referred to the
Senate and deliver a panegyric in Latin on Justinian's invitation. For his linguistic
capabilities, see M. Maas, John Lydus and the Roman Past (London and New York,
1991) 30-33; and for a list of direct citations from earlier Latin and Greek authors
ambiguous servis and Macrobius's servos could easily have been

understood to be grammatically masculine to represent exclusively
male participants in the feast while in practice the slaves might well
have been both males and females, their identities obscured by our
Latin authors' use of the masculine as the default gender to represent
mixed-sex groups. Johannes may have also presumed that a feast on
a day sacred to Ares more likely pertained to males than females
given the god's primary association with warfare, which would have
strengthened a philological rationale as well.51 But rather than con
centrate on the gender of the slaves and attempt to resolve questions
about their identity on the basis of limited evidence, perhaps a more
productive approach would be to shift the focus to the matronae who
provided the feast and consider the issues that stemmed from their
position as figures of authority in the household.
All three ancient sources connect the slaves' disposition with the
matrons' subsequent ritual response, and each contrasts the matrons'
actions with their husbands'. What this reflects is a complicated rela
tionship between power, gender, and juridical status that routinely had
to be negotiated in the Roman world?and the domestic milieu was no
exception. More specifically, it seems to call into question the authority
of freeborn women and how effective they were in exercising control
over their household slaves. Efforts to obtain more ready obedience,
undertaken "because of [slaves'] stronger nature," implies that slaves
were expected to be reluctant sometimes, and perhaps even to refuse,
to behave appropriately toward their mistresses and show them the def
erence (obsequium) they deserved. Obsequium, which was at the core
of Roman social relations and domestic relations in particular, was a
quality owed to individuals who, by virtue of their status (juridical or
socioeconomic), age, or a combination, were socially superior. Within
the domus, children and slaves were obliged to obey their social supe
riors who included both the pater(familias) and mater(familias), for as
Sailer asserts, "Romans did not discriminate by gender as to the object
of obsequium?that is, mothers were owed it as much as fathers, whose
potestas was irrelevant in this regard."52 But if a matrona was owed
obsequium just as her husband was, why did some sources believe she
had to take special steps in the form of a holiday feast to secure what
she rightfully deserved, while her husband could offer a similar feast
simply as a gesture of gratitude? The answer may lie in the particular
dynamics between an upper-class mistress and her domestic slaves and
the trials that could ensue in the course of negotiating daily life.
The saeva domina or cruel slave mistress, prone to irrational
ity and irascibility, was a common type in Roman literature, from
in Johannes's corpus, see M. Maas, A Broken Heirloom: John Lydus and the Roman
Past in the Age of Justinian (Washington, D.C., 1989) appendix 1.
51 See Ov. Fast. 3.167-178, where he questions what the god of war has to do
with a festival celebrated by matrons.
52 Sailer (above, n.40) 114, in contrast to J. P. V. D. Balsdon {Romans and
Aliens [Chapel Hill 1979] 18) and others who view obsequium as gender-specific
and associate it with filial obedience to fathers alone.
206 FANNY DOLANSKY
the infamous characters of Ovid and Juvenal who stab hairdressers
during toilette and attack ancillae (handmaids) before having them
flogged, to lesser-known historical figures like Galen's mother who
sometimes bit her handmaids in a fit of rage. These figures may
represent extreme types whose interactions with slaves have been ex
aggerated for comedic effect. Yet the case of Galen's mother suggests
that a spectrum of behavior did exist, and what was outrageous for
one mistress might be routine for another.53 Moreover, although the
scenarios presented concern intimate moments that apparently were
particularly fraught with tension, presumably the potential always
lurked for any occasion to give rise to discontent that, depending
on a mistress' temperament, could escalate into angry outbursts.54
The gross power differential evident in these vignettes is one
of the characteristic features of Roman slavery, but it is not unique
to the Roman institution. A power relationship comprised of total
power on the part of the master/mistress and total powerlessness on
the part of the slave is a universal feature of slavery as a cross
cultural institution. The use of force, whether actual or implied, to
realize and sustain the master-slave relationship, is an aspect com
mon to all slave societies; indeed, it defines slavery. The violent
domination of slaves amounted to what might be called a "reign
of terror" in which slaves stood powerless before their masters' or
mistresses' whims and presumably remained in a perpetual state of
unease, not necessarily able to anticipate when the next act of cru
elty or degradation would come yet certain that it would.55 Despite
the differences between slave-owning societies of different historical
periods (for example, the racist element in the American as opposed
to Roman experience), the existence of these universal features of
slavery permit us to engage in cross-cultural comparisons that can
be useful for gaining insights into the Roman institution and hearing
the voices of slaves and slave mistresses that are otherwise unavail
able to Roman historians.56
53 Ov. Ars am. 3.235-244, Am. 1.14, 12-18; Juv. 6.487-495; Gal. Anim. Pass. 8
(=Kuhn 5.40-41). For additional references to abusive mistresses, see P. A. Clark,
"Women, slaves and the hierarchies of domestic violence: The family of St Augus
tine," in Joshel and Murnaghan (above, n.6) 122-26.
54 On the use of fear and force to control slaves, see Bradley, Slaves (above,
n.40) 113-37 who concludes that "much of the physical violence in slave life seems
to have been capriciously inflicted, erratic and lacking in justification" (141). See
Hopkins (above, n.40) 118-19 for examples of "incidental cruelty" suffered by do
mestic slaves.
55 For violence as a defining feature of slavery, see the remarks of O. Patterson,
Slavery and Social Death (Cambridge, Mass., 1982) 13.
56 The comparative history of slavery is a vast field of study and determining
appropriate comparisons is not without difficulty. I have chosen to draw on the rich
history of American slavery and to focus on two individuals whose lives are well
documented and thus easily accessible: Frederick Douglass, a former slave in Mary
land, and Sarah Gayle, an Alabama slave owner of the 1820s and 1830s. Although
the racial basis for American slavery distinguishes it from the Roman institution and
this is not an insignificant difference, the power dynamics and centrality of violence
common to both slave systems are much more important factors in assessing and
Reconsidering the matronalia and women's rites 207
In his memoir My Bondage and My Freedom, Frederick Douglass,

a former slave and leader of the abolitionist movement, recounted
interactions with slave mistresses over many years as a farmhand
on Maryland plantations and as a house slave in Baltimore. Some he
recalled fondly such as Sophia, the wife of Thomas Auld of Balti
more. She was unique, for "[t]he supercilious contempt for the rights
and feelings of the slave, and the petulance and bad humor which
generally characterize slaveholding ladies, were all quite absent from
kind 'Miss' Sophia's manner." More typical, in his estimation, was a
mistress like Mrs. Hamilton, the Aulds' neighbor, whom he regarded
as cruel and duplicitous for her treatment of two female slaves that
included routine verbal abuse and lashings to get them to work faster.
While Mrs. Hamilton illustrates the capacity of some mistresses to
engage in degrading practices on a daily basis, a story from Dou
glass's plantation days reveals the potential for extreme behavior
to erupt with tragic results. He relates the details of a young slave
girl's death on a nearby plantation. The girl had reputedly failed to
respond immediately to the cries of her mistress's baby in the night
and was beaten to death with a piece of firewood.57
These vignettes can help us imagine what Roman slaves might
have experienced at the hands of their mistresses and how they might
have felt about them in turn. The perspective of a slave mistress may
bring us even closer to understanding some of the issues surrounding
obsequium that prompted the Matronalia feast. The circumstances
of Sarah Gayle's life as an Alabama slave owner in the 1820s and
1830s offer some ready parallels with the lives of upper-class Ro
man matronae.58 Sarah Gayle was married at sixteen to John Gayle,
a future governor of Alabama who later earned a seat in the House
of Representatives. It was during her husband's frequent absences,
when she was left to manage the household on her own, that many
incidents occurred involving slaves whose behavior she sometimes
perceived as deliberately provocative. In her journal entries, she
reports that she found an older slave named Hampton particularly
troublesome for he had been insolent and contrary towards her for
years and even laughed in her face. When she finally threatened
to sell him because of his insubordination, he merely responded
with contempt, an upsetting but not unexpected reaction.59 We only
ultimately contributing to the viability of this comparison. The records of Douglass's

and Gayle's experiences have considerable potential for yielding insights into the
attitudes of Roman slaves and slave mistresses, though both sources naturally have
their biases and present some interpretative challenges.
57 See F. Douglass, My Bondage and My Freedom (New York 1855) 143 on
"Miss" Sophia, 148-50 on Mrs. Hamilton's actions, and 125-26 on the death of the
young slave girl.
58 My discussion is indebted to E. Fox-Genovese's research, and in particular
her monograph Within the Plantation Household (Chapel Hill 1988) upon which I
have relied for both historical detail and excerpts from the writings of Southern
slave mistresses.
59 Fox-Genovese (above, n.58) 23.
208 Fanny Dolansky
have Gayle's account of Hampton's behavior and must recognize its

limitations as a result, yet it offers an insider's view of the tensions
between a mistress and a seemingly disobedient slave who may have
been using both age and gender to his advantage in challenging his
mistress's authority.60
Gayle's problems with her slaves concerned what a Roman mistress
surely would have called obsequium or, rather, a lack thereof. Her
testimonies and those of Douglass, combined with Roman depictions
of cruel dominae, are helpful for trying to establish some of what
informed the Matronalia feast. Daily interactions between mistress
and slave were marked by struggles of various kinds. These needed
to be diffused and forestalled which the annual feast sought to ac
complish. Yet because some mistresses behaved so outrageously that
promptius obsequium likely was not forthcoming, the feast may have
also aimed to break a perpetual cycle of noncompliant behavior in
which matronae behaved badly and their slaves misbehaved in turn
by withholding obsequium or worse. Freeborn Romans acknowledged
that when slaves misbehaved, they sometimes did so because their
owners had maltreated them. Thus, although slaves bore ultimate
responsibility for their own actions, the feast may have also served
as a compensatory gesture to offset the angry outbursts and violent
behavior that even more moderate mistresses no doubt sometimes
displayed.61
IV. Conclusions
Though long categorized as a public women's festival or a
celebration by and for matronae, I have aimed to demonstrate how
these classifications of the Matronalia limit our appreciation of this
important and enduring observance, and have argued instead that
the Matronalia is better understood as a household rite. Each facet
performed by members of the domus addressed issues of immediate
consequence to the success of the domestic community as a whole:
the production of legitimate children, harmonious conjugal relations,
and appropriate interactions of matronae with their slaves. All of these
constituted familial rather than exclusively feminine concerns and in
turn were met with ritual actions by both women and men. Wives'
vows to Juno Lucina for safe childbirth and husbands' prayers for
the preservation of their wives or marriages focused on the conjugal
couple and gave expression to present and future anxieties. The feast
presented by matronae to their slaves, offered both reward and incen
tive for obedience and helped ensure domestic security, while the act
60 Fox-Genovese (above, n.58) 23-24 ponders issues of age and gender in the
case of Hampton's behavior toward Sarah.
61 For the recognition by "practical" slave owners that unjust treatment caused
resentment, see Bradley, Slavery (above, n.40) 124. Recall too the circulation of
tales of masters murdered by their slaves noted above that most likely instilled fear
in mistresses as well as masters regarding the potential for discontented slaves to
commit bodily harm.
of gift-giving strengthened bonds between spouses. Collectively, the

rites of the Matronalia confirmed the importance of marriage and
reproduction to the welfare of the domus, and fostered cohesion as
members of the household united in a community of celebrants.62
Brock University FANNY DOLANSKY

Classical World 104.2 (2011) fdolansky@bro
62 My thanks to Carin Green and Lora Holland for the invitation to pa

in the American Philological Association panel in Chicago (2008) for w
paper originated and to my fellow panelists and members of the audience
helpful comments at that session. I am also grateful to the anonymous r
CW for suggestions on improving aspects of my argument.
THE CLASSICAL ASSOCIATION

OF THE ATLANTIC STATES
RESOURCE AND PROGRAM GRANTS
Each year CAAS offers grant money to strengthen the teaching
foster public support for the languages, civilizations, and cultures of
Greece and Rome. Resource grants of up to $300 are awarded to me
to use to enhance or promote their local programs. Such grants can
for supplies, purchasing publications, field trips, or speakers. Larger
underwrite programs which encourage the study and understanding of
and classical civilization among a wider audience within the CAAS r
e.g., performances, publications, special gatherings, or educational
Deadlines for grant applications are September 1st, January 1st, an
1st. For information on how to apply for either of these grants, co
Mary Brown
Valley Forge Military Academy & College
1001 Eagle Rd.
Wayne PA 19087-3695
MBrown@vfmac.edu
JERRY CLACK LECTURESHIP FUND

The Classical Association of the Atlantic States, Inc. (CAAS) in 2002 established
a Lectureship Fund named in honor of Jerry Clack. Professor Clack was one of the
foremost leaders of the Association, editing Classical World from 1978 to 1993 and
serving as the first Executive Director of CAAS from 1993 to 2000. Contributions
to this fund are designed to build up principal, the income of which is used to
bring a distinguished lecturer each year from outside the CAAS region?the rest of
North America, Europe, or beyond?to speak to the membership about work on the
worlds of ancient Greece and Rome. Checks made out to CAAS, with "Jerry Clack
Lectureship Fund" written in the memo line, may be sent to our Treasurer: Dr. John
Jacobs, 319 Smith Manor Blvd., West Orange, NJ, 07052-4217.

DOLANSKY - 2011 - Reconsidering The Matronalia and Women's Rites PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

DOLANSKY - 2011 - Reconsidering The Matronalia and Women's Rites PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Reconsidering the Matronalia and Women's Rites

Author(s): FANNY DOLANSKY

EDITOR'S NOTE?The following three articles originated from papers pre

complex of rites that ancient sources simply refer to as the Kalends

3 The designation "Matronalia" is used only by Plutarch (f\ [eoQxrj] xe xd)v

festival or a "matronal liturgy," categorizations that are both limiting

II. Recreating the Rites

who were instead intent on recording political and military affairs of

Bring flowers to the goddess: in flowering plants this

inscriptions to Lucina were found, L. Richardson Jr. (A New Topographical Dictionary

In her discussion of rites for Mater Matuta, another goddess vener

Speaks of Love," in J. Hallett and M. Skinner, eds., Roman Sexualities [Princeton

whether the Matronalia resembled the Saturnalia with respect to

("Apophoreta," CJ 23 [1927/28] 248-57) and T. J. Leary (Martial Book XIV. The

III. Socio-functional Significances of the Rites

explicit expectation of being a matrona was being a mater as well as

35 R. P. Sailer ("Pater Familias, Mater Familias, and the Gendered Semantics

Macrobius largely echoes Solinus, but there is a subtle difference.

38 Macrob. Sat. 1.12.7: et servis cenas adponebant matronae, ut domini Satur

42 C. Grignon's ("Commensality and Social Morphology: An Essay of Typol

ritual experience. Seneca (Ep. 47.14) suggested of the Saturnalia feast

45 Gage (above, n.4) 67.

ambiguous servis and Macrobius's servos could easily have been

In his memoir My Bondage and My Freedom, Frederick Douglass,

ultimately contributing to the viability of this comparison. The records of Douglass's

have Gayle's account of Hampton's behavior and must recognize its

of gift-giving strengthened bonds between spouses. Collectively, the

Brock University FANNY DOLANSKY

62 My thanks to Carin Green and Lora Holland for the invitation to pa

THE CLASSICAL ASSOCIATION

JERRY CLACK LECTURESHIP FUND

You might also like