Honour Killing

[Aryan Steels]

Hi,

Is there any reference for honour killing in Roman era? I have read somewhere that during Roman period male members were permitted to punish an adulterous/or a woman in love without any trial or say. Is this true?

Any reference or say would be appreciated.

Regards,
Suhel

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

I think it was in the power of a man to put to death any member of his subordinate family,
but it was not a right which many if any took. Mostly divorces or disownment in the most extreme cases.
I'm sure there is more accurate info available out there.

[Nathan Ross]

Apparently the earliest Roman laws (from the time of Romulus!) allowed the husband and male family members to punish both wife and adulterous lover with death:

Other offences, however, were judged by her relations together with her husband; among them was adultery, or where it was found she had drunk wine — a thing which the Greeks would look upon as the least of all faults. For Romulus permitted them to punish both these acts with death, as being the gravest offences women could be guilty of, since he looked upon adultery as the source of reckless folly, and drunkenness as the source of adultery. And both these offences continued for a long time to be punished by the Romans with merciless severity.
(Dionysius, Roman Antiquities, II.25)

How often this law (or custom, more properly) was applied is unknown. Augustus introduced legislation around 17BC (Lex Julia de Adulteriis coërcendis) that, while appearing to support the ancient provisions, actually seems to have made the death penalty for adultery more of an imperial judgement, so taking it out of the realm of personal or family relations. Augustus himself ordered the deaths of several women of his family caught in adultery, together with their lovers - but he was the emperor, of course... Adultery in this case was viewed as treason against the state, or sacrilege against the figure of the emperor ('father of the country'). For private persons, the normal punishment appears to have been divorce, loss of dowry and banishment of the offending parties.

Constantine allegedly reinstated the death penalty for adultery, while Justinian confirmed it as flogging followed by banishment to a nunnery (! - what happened to the man is not recorded...)

Interestingly, the Julian law also stated that a husband who failed to punish his adulterous wife was liable to be accused of pimping! There were, it seems, various levels of culpability, depending on the social class of the accused. For more details, see Smith's Dictionary on 'Adulterium'.

[Vindex]

Have you got access to BBC iplayer???

The third episode of Mary Beard's BBC 2 tv programme "Meet the Romans" had epigraohic evidence for the disposal of a wife; no reason given why it was done but her parents put up the tombstone!

[M. Caecilius]

There is the story of Verginia, killed by her father when Ap. Claudius Caecus plotted to have her declared a slave and a possession of one of his own clients. Ap. Claudius himself allegedly lusted after the girl, and as the presiding magistrate came down on the side of his client; Verginia's father killed her in the street with a butcher's knife (Livy III.44-48, Valerius Maximus VI.1.2).

Aulus Gellius NA.X.23 mentions a speech of Cato (the Censor, probably), which he quotes as follows: "When a husband puts away his wife, he judges the woman as a censor would, and has full powers if she has been guilty of any wrong or shameful act; she is severely punished if she has drunk wine; if she has done wrong with another man, she is condemned to death." and "If you should take your wife in adultery, you may with impunity put her to death without a trial; but if you should commit adultery or indecency, she must not presume to lay a finger on you, nor does the law allow it." This is the same passage which explains how the paterfamilias would kiss women on the mouth to check if they'd been drinking.

A number of honour killings are mentioned in Valerius Maximus. After Verginia (VI.1.2, cf. above), he speaks of Pontius Aufidianus, who, at an uncertain date, killed his daughter and her lover. Valerius says he gave her a funeral instead of a disgraceful marriage, and describes said funeral as"acerbus" - either untimely, or cruel: hence he may actually think the reaction exaggerated (ibid, 1.3). P. Atilius Philiscus (ibid. 1.6) did likewise. He also mentions the private punishment of male adulterers, and bothers to add (perhaps indicating surprise) that this private justice went unpunished by the state (ibid 1.13.)

The attitude of Valerius Maximus and Aulus Gellius, and the fact that they include these examples in their collections of stories and their musings, suggests that this was considered exceptional. Things which happen too often are not memorable. So these honour killings may have been rare enough to be noticed, though not illegal in their day; Aulus Gellius clearly argues that such killings were allowed in the time of Cato the Elder, which might suggest that they were no longer considered legal (or at least, socially acceptable) in his own day.

As regards the power over life and death of the paterfamilias, there was also the possibility that the father might convoke a tribunal made up of members of the family, and did not always decide on his own.

[M. Caecilius]

Have you got access to BBC iplayer???

The third episode of Mary Beard's BBC 2 tv programme "Meet the Romans" had epigraohic evidence for the disposal of a wife; no reason given why it was done but her parents put up the tombstone!

That's IPOstie-A, 00210, I assume?

Restutus Piscinesis / et Prima Restuta Primae / Florentiae filiae carissimae / fecerunt qui(!) ab Orfeu maritu in / Tiberi decepta est December cocnatu//s // posuit q(uae) vix(it) ann(os) XVI

Restutus Piscinsis and Prima Restutae for their dearest daughter Prima Florentia who [wrongly uses the male relative pronoun] was cheated in the Tiber by her husband Orfeus. December, her relative [misspelled] put this up; she lived 16 years.

Deceptus seems to mean cheated, mislead, foiled, frustrated (also in the sense of having one's hopes destroyed by death), according to the Oxford Latin Dictionary. Whether she was drowned in the Tiber, left to drown (and thus had her trust to be helped by her husband betrayed/cheated), or disposed of in the river seems unclear to me. There's also many reasons why she would be killed, as cases of domestic violence still are unfortunately frequent. For Roman times, compare the tombstone of Iulia Maiana from Lugdunum (Lyon), killed "by the hand of her most cruel husband" (manu mariti crudelissimi interfecta, CIL 13, 02182)

[M. Caecilius]

There is the story of Verginia, killed by her father when Ap. Claudius Caecus plotted to have her declared a slave and a possession of one of his own clients. Ap. Claudius himself allegedly lusted after the girl, and as the presiding magistrate came down on the side of his client; Verginia's father killed her in the street with a butcher's knife (Livy III.44-48, Valerius Maximus VI.1.2).

Aulus Gellius NA.X.23 mentions a speech of Cato (the Censor, probably), which he quotes as follows: "When a husband puts away his wife, he judges the woman as a censor would, and has full powers if she has been guilty of any wrong or shameful act; she is severely punished if she has drunk wine; if she has done wrong with another man, she is condemned to death." and "If you should take your wife in adultery, you may with impunity put her to death without a trial; but if you should commit adultery or indecency, she must not presume to lay a finger on you, nor does the law allow it." This is the same passage which explains how the paterfamilias would kiss women on the mouth to check if they'd been drinking.

A number of honour killings are mentioned in Valerius Maximus. After Verginia (VI.1.2, cf. above), he speaks of Pontius Aufidianus, who, at an uncertain date, killed his daughter and her lover. Valerius says he gave her a funeral instead of a disgraceful marriage, and describes said funeral as"acerbus" - either untimely, or cruel: hence he may actually think the reaction exaggerated (ibid, 1.3). P. Atilius Philiscus (ibid. 1.6) did likewise. He also mentions the private punishment of male adulterers, private justice with went unpunished by the State, at 1.13.

The attitude of Valerius Maximus and Aulus Gellius, and the fact that they include these examples in their collections of stories and their musings, suggests that this was considered exceptional. Things which happen too often are not memorable. So these honour killings may have been rare enough to be noticed, though not illegal in their day; Aulus Gellius clearly argues that such killings were allowed in the time of Cato the Elder, which might suggest that they were no longer considered legal (or at least, socially acceptable) in his own day.

As regards the power over life and death of the paterfamilias, there was also the possibility that the father might convoke a tribunal made up of members of the family, and did not always decide on his own.

[Nathan Ross]

Gellius clearly argues that such killings were allowed in the time of Cato the Elder, which might suggest that they were no longer considered legal (or at least, socially acceptable) in his own day.

That sounds right. Wasn't there also a difference in the form of the marriage? The traditional Roman marriage cum manu meant that the wife was effectively the property of the husband, but this became very rare by the later Republic - the new style sine manu marriage left the wife still in the power of her own family. Therefore the husband no longer had the right to kill her. He could still kill a man caught in adultery with her, but only if the lover was a slave, freedman, gladiator or similar infame...

Restutus Piscinesis / et Prima Restuta Primae / Florentiae filiae carissimae / fecerunt qui(!) ab Orfeu maritu in / Tiberi decepta est December cocnatu//s // posuit q(uae) vix(it) ann(os) XVI

Thanks for posting the text - I'd been wondering what the actual wording might have been. It does rather sound as if poor Florentia was murdered, or left to die, by the wicked Orfeus, rather than this being an 'honour' killing per se - naming the man on the tombstone seems an attempt to defame him; presumably he evaded the direct sanction of the law. The other inscription also seems, as you say, to relate to domestic violence rather than 'honour' (although sadly I'm sure the two are the same in some muddled minds...)

Most of the wife-killings actually recorded in Roman history were the work of the emperors themselves - who could kill whoever they liked, of course. One of the most interesting (in a grisly way) is Constantine's apparent execution of his wife Fausta, supposedly for adultery with his son (her stepson) Crispus, who was also killed. David Woods wrote a very perceptive piece about this event ('On the Death of the Empress Fausta', Greece & Rome 1998) in which he argues that Crispus' mode of death (by 'cold poison' at Pola) actually suggests suicide in a place of exile rather than execution, whereas Fausta's (scalded to death in an overheated bath) might have been the result of an attempted abortion gone tragically wrong. Whether the two were having an affair or not (they were about the same age), the resulting damnatio memoriae on them both might, Woods suggests, have been a posthumous imperial cover-up of a very unChristian bit of scandal, rather than evidence of a death sentence carried out... hock:

[M. Caecilius]

That sounds right. Wasn't there also a difference in the form of the marriage? The traditional Roman marriage cum manu meant that the wife was effectively the property of the husband, but this became very rare by the later Republic - the new style sine manu marriage left the wife still in the power of her own family. Therefore the husband no longer had the right to kill her. He could still kill a man caught in adultery with her, but only if the lover was a slave, freedman, gladiator or similar infame...

To draw a parallel between "honour" killings of a wife and the ancient marriage cum manu is a very interesting idea.

It might also be worth to look at the Lex Pompeia de parricidiis (50s B.C.), discussed in the Digest at 48.9 by Macrinus. "Lege Pompeia de parricidiis cavetur, ut, si quis (...) uxorem virum (...) occiderit cuiusve dolo malo id factum erit, ut poena ea teneatur quae est legis Corneliae de sicariis." seems to indicate that murder of a wife or a husband was considered parricide and led to an accusation under the Cornelian murder law. Macrinus goes on to report that Hadrian had a father deported to an island for killing his son (who had slept with the stepmother), "quod latronis magis quam patris iure eum interfecit: nam patria potestas in pietate debet, non atrocitate consistere.", "for having killed him like a robber rather than according to a father's law: for there must be piety in the patria potestas, not atrocity."

I've seen it argued that the law would require a council of the family convening in some kind of tribunal (e.g. E. Cantarella, 'Fathers and Sons in Ancient Rome', CW.96(3), 2003:298). But this could also showt that, at the latest at the time of Hadrian, patria potestas (over sons or a wife passing into it through marriage cum manu) had been limited to some extent.

Thanks for posting the text - I'd been wondering what the actual wording might have been. It does rather sound as if poor Florentia was murdered, or left to die, by the wicked Orfeus, rather than this being an 'honour' killing per se - naming the man on the tombstone seems an attempt to defame him; presumably he evaded the direct sanction of the law. The other inscription also seems, as you say, to relate to domestic violence rather than 'honour' (although sadly I'm sure the two are the same in some muddled minds...)

That's probably what happened. There are a handful cases I know of where the murderer (or at any rate, the person believed to be responsible for the death of the commemorated) is named, for instance CIL 06,12649: (...) Atimeto lib(erto) | cuius dolo filiam amisi restem et clavom(!) | unde sibi collum alliget. What exactly Atimetus did seems unclear (to us, and probably to the judges), except that the father blamed him for the death of his daughter and hoped perhaps that a curse or defamation could work where other means had failed. I do wonder, however, whether the named 'offender' could resort to the law against defamation and libel. If the cause is not strong enough to ensure condemnation or even to consider bringing it before the tribunal, the defense against libel (namely, that it's the truth) will also be weak. So it might be that in some cases (Orfeus, possibly, Atimetus less likely) that naming the culprit could be an added penalty, much like the Greeks put up the names of those who cheated at the Olympic Games to ensure everlasting shame.

Incidentally, there is another example of honour killing I just found, namely the murder of Horatia by her brother (Livy 1.26, Val. Max. 6.3.6). After the fight between the Horatii and Curiatii triplets, leaving only one of the Horatii alive, this man's sister was found weeping for a Curiatius to whom she had been engaged. Horatius ran her through on the spot, was brought to trial, but was defended by his father who approved of the punishment (even if after the fact, so it may have been damage control not to lose his sole remaining child to execution). The story is probably apocryphal, but may yet illustrate the set of mind of the ancient Romans (at the time the story was recorded, long before either Livy or Valerius Maximus).

[Vindex]

Hmm...should I be worried about the amount of knowledge about wife killing members seem to have? hock: :wink:

[M. Demetrius]

Ahem. ;-) Only if you are an errant wife. :roll: :lol:

[john m roberts]

In his oration pro Milone didn't Cicero say that true Romans despised a man who, upon catching his wife in bed with a lover, failed to kill them both? Of course, this would now be described as a "crime of passion" rather than an "honor killing," but it is an example of a person being disgraced or dishonored for not killing someone.

[M. Caecilius]

Hmm...should I be worried about the amount of knowledge about wife killing members seem to have? hock: :wink:

Depends on how far people are willing to go with re-enactment. Incidentally, what did Roman criminals do about people who got too suspicious for comfort? :mrgreen: :evil: :wink:

In his oration pro Milone didn't Cicero say that true Romans despised a man who, upon catching his wife in bed with a lover, failed to kill them both? Of course, this would now be described as a "crime of passion" rather than an "honor killing," but it is an example of a person being disgraced or dishonored for not killing someone.

John, can you provide the exact reference, please? I found a few instances where Cicero justifies homicide when dealing with robbers and enemies of the Republic, as well as the cases of Horatia and Orestes (the matricide) (3.7-4.4), and again towards the end Cicero portrays Milo as a hero for slaying Claudius - amongst other things for his lechery and in particular the Bona Dea incident - but I am missing this reference. Thanks!

[Vindex]

Hmm...should I be worried about the amount of knowledge about wife killing members seem to have? hock: :wink:

Incidentally, what did Roman criminals do about people who got too suspicious for comfort? :mrgreen: :evil: :wink:

That would be a straight forward murder :mrgreen:

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

Hmm...should I be worried about the amount of knowledge about wife killing members seem to have? hock: :wink:

Incidentally, what did Roman criminals do about people who got too suspicious for comfort? :mrgreen: :evil: :wink:

That would be a straight forward murder :mrgreen:

Only if the body was found.... :wink: