Subject: 48 BC: Afrania Shuts Up Date: 24 Feb 2001 08:07:31 -0800 From: Jonathan I. Edelstein Organization: Newsguy News Service [http://newsguy.com] Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if I was doing some research into Roman law the other day (it's actually relevant to a case I have, would you believe) when I came across the following interesting quote in Christine Alice Corcos, _Portia Goes to Parliament: Women and their Admission to Membership in the Legal Profession_, 75 Denv. U. L. Rev. 307, 345 & n.195 (1998) [FN1]: "There were women lawyers in ancient Rome, and there was quite a chain of women lecturers and teachers of law in this country throughout the Middle Ages." Ms. Corcos attributes this quotation to an article entitled _Admission of Women to the Profession_, 146 Law Times 428 (1919), by an unknown author. She also cites at n. 195 to Paul Fuller, The French Bar II, 23 Yale L.J. 248, 262 (1914), which has the following to say about Roman women lawyers: "I find in an old volume, which I presume reliable, that long before the Theodosian Code (in the fourteenth century) women were accepted as lawyers in Rome, and that two of these, Amasia and Hortensia, acquitted themselves with great credit, while a third, Afrasia, was usually herself the litigant and so scandalized the judges by her loquacity, her effrontery and her outbursts of passion, that she was forbidden to speak in public, a prohibition later extended to all women, and only modified by Theodosius to the extent of permitting them to speak in their own defense. Whether Afrasia is an argument against the new proposition or whether Amasia and Hortensia are a preponderating argument in its favor, I leave to your own judgment." At this point, I decided that business could wait until I satisfied my curiosity about female lawyers in ancient Rome. Further inquiry turned up an article by Amy Richlin entitled _Roman Oratory, Pornography and the Silencing of Anita Hill_, 65 S. Cal. L. Rev. 1321 (1992), which quoted an ancient source entitled Valerius Maximus 5.3.1-3, _On Women Who Have Pled Cases before the Magistrates_ [A.D. 31]. According to Valerius Maximus, Amaesia Sentia was a civil defendant who pled her own case in 77 BC and won in front of a "huge throng" of curious onlookers, while Hortensia successfully represented the "order of matrons" before the triumvirs in 42 BC. He also identifies Gaia Afrania, in less than complimentary terms, as an unusually litigious woman who defended herself with "barkings unheard-of in the forum" and was ultimately expelled from the courts. Another 6th-century source cited by Ms. Richlin, however, identifies the offending woman as Carfania rather than Afrania. She speculates that Carfania and Afrania might be the same person, which is also the conclusion reached in Nikolaus Benke, _Women in the Courts: An Old Thorn in Men's Sides_, 3 Mich. J. Gender & L. 195 (1995). Mr. Benke devotes much of his article to Carfania's case as a metaphor of patriarchy, but he provides considerable factual detail and cites a number of ancient sources including Valerius Maximus and Justinian's Digest. This doesn't quite answer the question of whether there were female lawyers in ancient Rome, though. The three women identified above seem to have argued either on their own behalf or on behalf of groups of which they were a member, so there's room for speculation as to whether Roman women acted as advocates for others. One indication might be provided by Christine M. Wiseman in _The Legal Education of Women: From Treason Against Nature to Sounding a Different Voice_, 74 Marq. L. Rev. 325, 329 n.26 (1991), which quotes William Forsyth, _Hortensius the Advocate_ 179-80 (1882) as saying that Roman law expressly forbade women to plead on behalf of others. In general, laws don't prohibit things that aren't done, so a Roman law forbidding women from acting as advocates is evidence that women previously did exactly that. Ms. Richlin speculates that, given the considerable property rights enjoyed by Roman women, wealthy women may have been called upon to advocate on behalf of other women who could not otherwise obtain counsel. She also quotes a passage from Cicero's _Brutus_ listing a number of prominent women orators other than the three above named. At any rate, Afrania/Carfania screwed it all up, because she was either the epitome of an obnoxious lawyer (the ancient point of view) or because she acted too independent and threatened the patriarchal order (the feminist point of view advocated by Mr. Benke and Ms. Richlin). But what if she didn't? Suppose that, instead of being banned from the courts, a few wealthy and educated women continued to plead cases on their own behalf and on behalf of others throughout the late Republic and early Principate. The legal rights of women generally expanded during this period, so it is likely that more propertied women might find themselves as litigants or advocates in the forum. Might this eventually lead to women holding political office? Politicians in Rome frequently gained their fame as advocates; politics and the legal profession were as symbiotic in Rome as they are in modern-day America. If women become increasingly common as litigators over a period of centuries - in other words, enough time for men to get used to the concept - then the idea of their sitting as judges or holding office might not seem so outrageous. Could the involvement of women in the law lead, ultimately, to something resembling modern feminism? [FN1: The law review articles cited herein are available on Westlaw. Anyone who is interested in reading them and doesn't have access to Westlaw or Lexis, please let me know and I'll e-mail copies to you. Unfortunately, I don't have copies of any of the ancient sources cited in the articles.] Jonathan I. Edelstein in Forest Hills, NY "Who is wise? He who learns from all." - Ben Zoma, Pirkei Avot 4:1 Subject: Re: 48 BC: Afrania Shuts Up Date: 24 Feb 2001 14:08:57 -0600 From: Organization: Newsfeeds.com http://www.newsfeeds.com 85,000+ UNCENSORED Newsgroups. Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 Jonathan I. Edelstein wrote: > ----delete interesting background--> >At any rate, Afrania/Carfania screwed it all up [snip ]But what if she didn't? Suppose that, >instead of being banned from the courts, a few wealthy and >educated women continued to plead cases on their own behalf and >on behalf of others throughout the late Republic and early >Principate. The legal rights of women generally expanded during >this period, so it is likely that more propertied women might >find themselves as litigants or advocates in the forum. > >Might this eventually lead to women holding political office? >Politicians in Rome frequently gained their fame as advocates; >politics and the legal profession were as symbiotic in Rome as >they are in modern-day America. If women become increasingly >common as litigators over a period of centuries - in other words, >enough time for men to get used to the concept - then the idea of >their sitting as judges or holding office might not seem so >outrageous. Could the involvement of women in the law lead, >ultimately, to something resembling modern feminism? ---Interesting idea. I think that women would have been hampered in official careers by their ineligibility for military service; IIRC everyone had to do some time with the legions. And then there is the obdurate sexism of the Roman citizenry to deal with. Women arguing cases is one thing, but women aediles?! > > -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =----- Subject: Re: 48 BC: Afrania Shuts Up Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2001 15:09:54 +0000 From: Pete Barrett Organization: A Beeb User Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 , 3 On 24 Feb 2001 16:03:55 -0800, Jonathan I. Edelstein wrote: >... >At any rate, though, I doubt it would start with women aediles. What I >had in mind for the first step was a magistracy specifically for women. >The Romans liked to create new magistracies to deal with new problems, >and they might see the increasing number of women in public life as >something in need of regulation. Thus, the office of "tribune of the >women," with primary responsibility for policing the morals of women in >public life and secondary responsibility for other matters relating to >women and the state (settling disputes between women, supervising the >Good Goddess cult and the Vestal Virgins, etc.). Possibly this office >might be created by Augustus toward the latter end of his reign as yet >another honor for Livia (and with the thought that by giving her a power >playground of her own, she might not be so eager to infringe on _his_). >With the passage of time, it becomes traditional for the Emperor's wife >to hold this office. Or how about a censorix? The original censors dealt with men's morals, leaving heads of families to deal with those of their wives and daughters (and mothers, I suppose, though it's hard to imagine a dutiful Roman son taking one of the more strong-willed Roman matrons to task over the laxness of her morals ). As women become more free in the late Republic and into the Principate, there'd be a clear need for something along those lines. >... Pete Barrett Subject: Re: 48 BC: Afrania Shuts Up Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2001 15:13:53 GMT From: Gorg Huff Organization: GorgianKnot Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 On Sun, 25 Feb 2001 15:09:54 +0000, Pete Barrett wrote: >Or how about a censorix? The original censors dealt with men's morals, >leaving heads of families to deal with those of their wives and >daughters (and mothers, I suppose, though it's hard to imagine a >dutiful Roman son taking one of the more strong-willed Roman matrons >to task over the laxness of her morals ). As women become >more free in the late Republic and into the Principate, there'd be a >clear need for something along those lines. Perhaps Julia could get the job. ;-) Gorg Subject: Re: 48 BC: Afrania Shuts Up Date: 25 Feb 2001 10:43:42 -0800 From: Jonathan I. Edelstein Organization: Newsguy News Service [http://newsguy.com] Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 On 25 February 2001, Pete Barrett wrote: [deletia] >> At any rate, though, I doubt it would start with women aediles. What I >> had in mind for the first step was a magistracy specifically for women. >> The Romans liked to create new magistracies to deal with new problems, >> and they might see the increasing number of women in public life as >> something in need of regulation. Thus, the office of "tribune of the >> women," with primary responsibility for policing the morals of women in >> public life and secondary responsibility for other matters relating to >> women and the state (settling disputes between women, supervising the >> Good Goddess cult and the Vestal Virgins, etc.) [...] > Or how about a censorix? The original censors dealt with men's morals, > leaving heads of families to deal with those of their wives and > daughters (and mothers, I suppose, though it's hard to imagine a > dutiful Roman son taking one of the more strong-willed Roman matrons > to task over the laxness of her morals ). I believe the censors did have power over the morals of women; at least, I seem to recall legislation dealing with the types of clothing and jewelry that women could wear. But the office of "tribune of the women" (or whatever Augustus chooses to call it) probably would include some powers analogous to those of the censors. Some censorial duties, such as the census itself, couldn't be separated between men and women, and others such as the qualification of senators would have no analogue (although the TOW might be charged with licensing only educated and moral women to plead in the courts, thus becoming the first professional bar examiner). The moral-policing aspects of the censorial duties, though, would translate easily - think of the TOW as part censor and part urban praetor. Jonathan I. Edelstein in Forest Hills, NY "Who is wise? He who learns from all." - Ben Zoma, Pirkei Avot 4:1 Subject: Re: 48 BC: Afrania Shuts Up Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2001 17:38:19 GMT From: lyn@cibwr.freeserve.co.uk (Lyn David Thomas) Organization: Customer of Energis Squared Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 , 3 On 24 Feb 2001 16:03:55 -0800, Jonathan I. Edelstein wrote: >By the time Christianity takes over Rome, women would have >a subordinate but recognized place in public life. Plausible? Yes, the vestals had public status iirc. -- \/ Lyn David Thomas Webpages start at: http://www.cibwr.freeserve.co.uk Subject: Re: 48 BC: Afrania Shuts Up Date: 25 Feb 2001 10:27:54 -0800 From: Jonathan I. Edelstein Organization: Newsguy News Service [http://newsguy.com] Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 On 25 February 2001, Lyn David Thomas wrote: [deletia] >> By the time Christianity takes over Rome, women would have >> a subordinate but recognized place in public life. Plausible? > Yes, the vestals had public status iirc. The Vestals had status but not, AFAIK, authority. I'm envisioning a situation in which the involvement of women in Roman law leads to their being admitted to positions of minor, but real, public authority by the middle C2nd. Jonathan I. Edelstein in Forest Hills, NY "Who is wise? He who learns from all." - Ben Zoma, Pirkei Avot 4:1 Subject: Re: 48 BC: Afrania Shuts Up Date: 25 Feb 2001 12:11:56 -0600 From: Organization: Newsfeeds.com http://www.newsfeeds.com 85,000+ UNCENSORED Newsgroups. Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 , 3 Jonathan I. Edelstein wrote: >On 24 February 2001, James Bodi wrote: > >[deletia] > >>> Might this eventually lead to women holding political office? >>> Politicians in Rome frequently gained their fame as advocates; >>> politics and the legal profession were as symbiotic in Rome as >>> they are in modern-day America. If women become increasingly >>> common as litigators over a period of centuries - in other words, >>> enough time for men to get used to the concept - then the idea of >>> their sitting as judges or holding office might not seem so >>> outrageous. Could the involvement of women in the law lead, >>> ultimately, to something resembling modern feminism? > >> ---Interesting idea. I think that women would have been hampered >> in official careers by their ineligibility for military service; IIRC >> everyone had to do some time with the legions. > >I'm not sure this was such a requirement during the Principate - but >yes, it would certainly be a problem, and women as military officers >would be something completely beyond the Roman social code. ---I think it did remain obligatory even during the early empire, all though it could be pro forma. > >> And then there is the obdurate sexism of the Roman citizenry to deal >> with. Women arguing cases is one thing, but women aediles?! > >Well, we _are_ talking about a society where women could go into >business, where most married women (i.e., those married in the _usus_ >form) could make contracts and own property, where it was the norm for >wealthy women to be educated, and where prominent women held a >considerable amount of back-door influence. The Romans may have been >sexist by modern standards, and their rhetoric was certainly so, but >by the standards of most ancient societies, women had extraordinary >access to the public sphere. > >At any rate, though, I doubt it would start with women aediles. What I >had in mind for the first step was a magistracy specifically for women. >The Romans liked to create new magistracies to deal with new problems, >and they might see the increasing number of women in public life as >something in need of regulation. Thus, the office of "tribune of the >women," with primary responsibility for policing the morals of women in >public life and secondary responsibility for other matters relating to >women and the state (settling disputes between women, supervising the >Good Goddess cult and the Vestal Virgins, etc.). Possibly this office >might be created by Augustus toward the latter end of his reign as yet >another honor for Livia (and with the thought that by giving her a power >playground of her own, she might not be so eager to infringe on _his_). >With the passage of time, it becomes traditional for the Emperor's wife >to hold this office. > >In the meantime, respected women advocates are increasingly being asked >to settle disputes informally (as male advocates have done from time >immemorial) - and some of the people who bring disputes to them are men. >As women become more common in the law, those meeting the ordinary >property qualifications are made eligible for jury service, which would >represent a grant of power on an occasional ad hoc basis rather than >formal appointment to office. Eventually - no earlier than the Antonine >era, but eventually - women might also become eligible for certain minor >magistracies. By the time Christianity takes over Rome, women would have >a subordinate but recognized place in public life. Plausible? ----I think that it is the way that you described it. But I think that women would have been restricted to magistracies where they would not have had power to decide the affairs of nobliles. The average Roman aristocrat would think that he put up with quite enough from women at home without having to deal with them in the Forum too. > >Jonathan I. Edelstein in Forest Hills, NY > >"Who is wise? He who learns from all." > - Ben Zoma, Pirkei Avot 4:1 > -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =----- Subject: Re: 48 BC: Afrania Shuts Up Date: 25 Feb 2001 12:09:37 -0800 From: Jonathan I. Edelstein Organization: Newsguy News Service [http://newsguy.com] Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 On 25 February 2001, James Bodi wrote: [deletia] >>> ---Interesting idea. I think that women would have been hampered >>> in official careers by their ineligibility for military service; IIRC >>> everyone had to do some time with the legions. >> I'm not sure this was such a requirement during the Principate - but >> yes, it would certainly be a problem, and women as military officers >> would be something completely beyond the Roman social code. > ---I think it did remain obligatory even during the early empire, although > it could be pro forma. Well, if it could be pro forma, then there may be a way for the inventive Roman mind to get around the ineligibility of women. After all, one of the Roman war deities was female - and, more to the point, Romans were frequently willing to break the rules when they needed cash. So maybe a cash-strapped Emperor could create the Order of Minerva for propertied women, who could join by contributing a substantial amount of money to the legions. In this way, women could serve the military without violating the principle that fighting and making speeches to the troops are strictly male affairs. As a reward for forking over their hard-earned sesterces, members of the Order would have honorary military rank, would become _sui juris_ (emancipated) if they weren't already, could inherit on the same terms as men, and would be entitled to vote and serve on juries. Eventually they might gain other rights as well. Jonathan I. Edelstein in Forest Hills, NY "Who is wise? He who learns from all." - Ben Zoma, Pirkei Avot 4:1 Subject: Re: 48 BC: Afrania Shuts Up Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2001 06:22:24 GMT From: Gorg Huff Organization: GorgianKnot Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 On 24 Feb 2001 08:07:31 -0800, Jonathan I. Edelstein wrote: >She speculates that Carfania and Afrania might be the same >person, On a some what side note. The Romans had the habit of sometimes writing names with an initial preceding it. As M. Crassus. Since they didn't have periods and were at best iffy about including spaces what we would write as M. Crassus for Markus Crassus they Would tend to write as MCRASSUS but they didn't all ways do it that way. This would seem to explain the names. Carfania and Afrania. We would probably write her name C. Afrania sometimes and Afrania others. For the Romans that translates as CARFANIA AFRANIA. As to what the C stood for your guess is as good as mine. Gorg Subject: Re: 48 BC: Afrania Shuts Up Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2001 15:09:53 +0000 From: Pete Barrett Organization: A Beeb User Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 On Sun, 25 Feb 2001 06:22:24 GMT, Gorg Huff wrote: > >As to what the C stood for your guess is as good as mine. > The male name was abbreviated to . Jonathan says her name was given as , so , with metathesis to , and mistakenly to seems likely. Or may have been the original name, and the mistakes have taken it the other way (though is a known Roman gens name, while is not, as far as I know). Pete Barrett Subject: Re: 48 BC: Afrania Shuts Up Date: 25 Feb 2001 10:33:34 -0800 From: Jonathan I. Edelstein Organization: Newsguy News Service [http://newsguy.com] Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 , 3 On 25 February 2001, Pete Barrett wrote: [deletia] > The male name was abbreviated to . Jonathan says her name > was given as , so , with metathesis to > , and mistakenly to seems likely. Or > may have been the original name, and the mistakes have taken it the > other way (though is a known Roman gens name, while > is not, as far as I know). The sources giving her name as Afrania are older than those giving it as Carfania, so I think your progression is the right one. The 1914 Yale Law Review article, BTW, gave her name as Afrasia, but my guess is that this was just a typo. Jonathan I. Edelstein in Forest Hills, NY "Who is wise? He who learns from all." - Ben Zoma, Pirkei Avot 4:1