Female Benefactors in Imperial Rome

 

1. Intro

 

The idea that women played a minor role in how Rome was run has long dominated the views of the empire. However, women frequently funded public projects through the entirety of the Roman Empire. In this paper I will be examining the motivations of female patronesses in Rome. I will pay particular attention to Livia, Eumachia, and Ummidia Quadratilla. Because women were not allowed to participate in politics, they found their public voice in funding buildings and other such donations. Most of the women who had the funds to complete donations were members of wealthy elite families. Therefore, it is likely that donations were a part of a feeling of competition between members of the elite. It may also be likely that these women were modeling the behavior of imperial women. The women of the imperial family were powerful and independent in their own right and set the standard for all other women in Rome. Augustus changed property laws to favor women. Consequently, women had independent funds to donate to their local cities. Women would have had a better understanding than their male relatives about their cities needs and would have had the funds to provide this support. This paper will attempt to explain why Roman women would want to help.

Most of the female benefactresses were from the top families in Rome. These would have included members of the senatorial rank and the equestrians. Therefore, only a handful of Roman families were donating a majority of the public buildings. Women would have been trying to set an example of piety and virtue for their fellow females. The highest honor that could be bestowed on a woman was the title of mater and, by donating buildings, a woman could effectively become a "mother" of the people who used the building. Donations were also a way of publicly proclaiming and promoting a woman's social status. By becoming a patroness, she shows that she posses the wealth. However, by including her highest ranked male relative in the inscription on the building, she shows that she is also a member of the highest classes in Rome.
Female members of the imperial Roman family were considered the highest members of the social system. They represented the best of their gender in fashion, virtue, and wealth. These women, such as Livia and Julia Domna, chose to donate public buildings in Rome and set the example for other wealthy women. This can be seen in the architecture and art of these public buildings. Many times, the buildings that women donated were heavily influenced by the buildings built by the Roman royalty. The city of Rome was the model for all other cities in the empire and, while their husbands spent most of their time participating in politics in Rome, the women were left to build the local cities in the image of their capital city.
Although women could not participate in politics or build buildings that had a political function, benefaction was a way for females to have a voice in their male dominated world. Therefore, it is not impossible that the motivations for women to donate buildings was simply to help out their community. There were changes to property law that Augustus made that allowed women to keep more of their property before and after marriage. Women could keep whatever property they accumulated after their husband died, the property of her dowry if they divorced, and whatever inheritance she received if she was unmarried. Therefore, many wealthy women would have had new extra funds to do with as they pleased. They saw what their city needed while their male relatives were away in Rome and they had the means to help their city. It is fitting that they step into the role of benefactress when their cities needed help.

 

 

2. Augustus’ Reforms

 

Augustus was the heir of Caesar and the first emperor of Rome. It is his legal changes to Rome and the way that he treated the women in his family that opened opportunities for Roman women to donate public buildings. The first women Augustus gave power to were his wife, Liva, and his half-sister, Octavia. He gave them the ability to make decisions on legal matters without assistance from a guardian which was previously only allowed by Vestal Virgins. Augustus then protected them under the sacrosantae decree that previously only protected tribunes from physical harm in the street. (Fraschetti 105) It is clear that Augustus wanted the women in his imperial family to enjoy an elevated status in Rome, one not previously granted to women. The men around Rome took cues from how Augustus lived so it is likely that they followed his example.

Suetonius mentions that Livia never bore children to Augustus saying, “...from Livia no children, despite his dearest wish. Though a child was conceived, it was born prematurely.” (Suetonius Aug. 63) In a time when heirs were imperative to keeping the lineage of the imperial family in power, this was a heavy blow to the couple. Scandal already surrounded the Emperor and his wife since he forced Livia to divorce her first husband and Augustus’ political enemy, Tiberius Claudius Nero. As Suetonius mentions, “Not even his friends deny that he committed adultery, suggesting by way of excuse that his motive was not lust but policy, as he sought to find out the plans of his opponents.” (Suetonius Aug. 69) Therefore, the promotion of Livia and her relationship as mother of the imperial family might have been a way for Augustus to smooth over any controversy surrounding his marriage. An effective way to inforce Livia’s piety and virtue would have been to donate public buildings in her name, include her in public art alongside him, and for her to also fund public projects with her own money.

The third and arguably the most important contribution Augustus made to the freedoms of women came in the form of inheritance laws. If a woman married sine manu or if her paterfamilias died, she was allowed to keep her property under the guidance of a guardian. However, if she had three children, she no longer needed permission from a guardian on how to handle her finances. (Cooley 24) Suddenly, women had much more wealth and much more freedom to choose what to do with this than before. This surely encouraged women to become independent benefactresses to their local cities.

 

3. Livia

 

Livia was the wife of Augustus and served as the model for all Roman women. She had two children from her previous marriage and her eldest, Tiberius, would go one to be the future emperor of Rome. Due to her status as wife and later mother to the emperor, Livia enjoyed particular freedoms and independence not allowed to every woman in Rome. She and all the other imperial women were examples of how a Roman woman should dress and behave. (Cooley 29) Augustus encouraged the women in his family to donate public buildings in order to promote the family’s claim to the leadership of Rome. Augustus was trying to make examples out of the women in his family, particularly Livia and his sister, Octavia. Due to her status as the priest of Augustus’ cult, Livia also opened opportunities up for women to donate buildings to their city as the role of priestesses. (Cooley 24)

The imperial family used their female members to promote their claim to the leadership of Rome. Julia Domna was one such woman. Her public image was one of loyalty and virtuosity in order to represent a harmonious family. As the wife of Severus, who considered himself the new Augustus, Julia Domna tried to connect herself to Livia through the renovation of the Temple of Fortuna Muliebris. (Gorrie 70) Therefore, Julia Domna’s restoration of the same Temple of Fortuna Muliebris that Livia renovated further solidified her husband’s relationship with Augustus. The buildings that Livia funded reflects this same need to represent harmony within the family, especially since there seemed to be tension between Livia and her son Tiberius. Livia tried to remedy this by donating a shrine for Concordia in the poritcus Liviae. (Flory 311)

Livia and Octavia also had their own porticos. It is thought that it was undignified for a woman to donate public buildings with political functions. However, porticoes had a more general function and were associated with culture and art, spheres considered appropriate for women. (Cooley 31 ) Livia promoted religion to women throughout Rome as the head priest of Augustus’ cult and the widow to a god. (Dixon 110) She was celebrated throughout the Roman provinces as a goddess and received many public statues in those cities in her honor. (Dixon 110) It is unsurprising then that she would feel a certain obligation to give back to Rome and to encourage other wealthy women to do the same. Because women were not allowed to participate directly in politics, they tried to influence their world in other ways,  like public donation. Livia had the most political influence of any woman in Rome. This was such a known fact that the authors Tacitus, Dio and Suetonius agree that her political meddling caused strife between her and her son, although they admit that she never actually crosses the barrier into the male spheres of war and politics. (Dixon 111) Livia is the ultimate example of a woman having her own motivations beyond that of her family.

However, even an empress must draw inspiration from somewhere. It seems that Livia was influenced by another woman in the neighboring town of Paestum, Mineia. There is evidence to suggest that Mineia built an aedas Concordiae in her basilica in Paestum before Livia built hers in her portico. (Hemelrijk 170) This situation of women being inspired and copying other women is not uncommon throughout Rome and, since the women of Rome knew this, it may have served as a source of friendly competition. Livia, even as an empress, was also susceptible to this. Who better to receive inspiration from than that of a fellow imperial member. It seems that Octavia also influenced Livia with her decoration of the Temple of Bona Dea in Ostia. (Hemelrijk 170) Imperial women encouraged women of lower classes to contribute to their cities while these imperial women were motivated by each other and women of the same class. These women set examples for their peers who were obviously receptive to the invitation to reshape their local cities.

 

4. Eumachia

 

Eumachia was a priestess in Rome who donated a building to the fullers in the center of the city. The building is the largest public building in the city. It included a chalcidium, a crypta, and a porticus. (Hemelrijk 123).

Eumachia references the imperial family both in the inscriptions on the building as well as in the art included in the building. (women of the roman city) The full inscription states: “Eumachia, daughter of Lucius, public priestess, in her own name and that of her son, Marcus Numistrius Fronto, built with her own funds the porch, covered passage, and colonnade and dedicated them to Concordia Augusta and to Pietas” (Lefkowitz 159) The references to Concordia Augusta relates to the Concordia aedes in Livia’s portico. Additionally, Eumachia’s statue within her building is decorated parallel to the Augustan Ara Pacis. (Dixon 64) Eumachia is just one of many women who sought to mirror their lives and public donations with Livia’s life.

It is also likely that Eumachia donated the building to support her son’s future career in Pompeii. In her inscription, Eumachia mentions that she donated the building for the sake of herself and that of her son. (Lefkowitz 159) However, there is no evidence that she sought any personal influence in the city of Rome. (Dixon 60) Therefore, the inclusion of the name of her son seems to be the only political motivation of her donation. Alternatively, there were women like Julia Antonia Euriydice whose inscription did not include the names of any of their family members. Julia Antonia Eurydice donated the gerontikon building from her will. The gerontikon was the meeting place of a respected and important association. (Meyers 146) Because this building was donated after her death, it is unlikely that she donated it for increased status while she was alive. Additionally, because no other names of family members are mentioned in her honorary inscription, it seems that it was not built to support the status of any of her offspring or family members, unlike Eumachia. This donation seems to be simply a kindness. A generous gift given by a woman who wanted to leave her mark on her city outside of her family’s already notable list of donations.

This is not to imply that Eumachia’s donation was not made out of generosity. There is no evidence of Eumachia’s relationship with the fullers, whether personal or economic. It is known that the fullers were important to Pompeii’s economy which relied on the wool industry. (Lefkowitz 159) This may indicate that Eumachia was simply showing her appreciation for the fullers. Eumachia’s father was a brick manufacturer, but he left her enough of an inherited fortune that she was able to marry into a prominent family in Pompeii. (Lefkowitz 159) Eumachia, more than any other woman of means in the city, understood the life of trades people. This would also explain why she took the effort to make sure that it was the largest and one of the most expensive buildings in Pompeii.

Eumachia was not the only benefactress in Rome. Mamia, another priestess, donated the Temple of the Genius Augusti or Coloniae “on her own land and at her own expense.” (Hemelrijk 41) It is therefore possible that the two women were trying to compete for favor within the same city. By donating a building with a connection to the Augustan family, Mamia may have also been trying to draw parallels between herself and Livia, just like Eumachia.

 

5. Ummidia Quadratilla

 

Ummidia Quadratilla was a member of a prominent senatorial family in Casinum. Most of the information known about her comes from a letter Pliny wrote to his protege Ummidius, Ummidia’s grandson whom she provided for, along with his sister, generously in her will. Pliny notes that she enjoyed pantomime almost to what he considered an inappropriate amount for her sex. However, she donated a temple and an amphitheatre and repaired a theatre in Casinum and is therefore, considered an exceptional woman by Pliny. She died at the age of 79, but her donations have lasted to the present. (Hemelrijk 109)

Her most notable contribution to Casinum seems to be the amphitheatre she built. In her book, Hidden Lives and Public Personae, Emily Hemelrijk notes that the most expensive amphitheatre she found in her research cost 400,000 sesterces and was donated by Aelia Restituta to her home city Calama. It is thought that Ummidia’s amphitheatre would have cost a similar amount. This amount is significantly more than the most expensive temple Hemelrijk found which cost 200,000 sesterces. (Hemelrijk 118) Therefore, it can be assumed that Ummidia had substantial personal wealth that allowed her to fund not only an amphitheatre but also a temple, the reparations of a theatre, and to provide for her two grandchildren. Due to Augustus’ reforms mentioned earlier, it would have been entirely possible that a woman belonging to such a wealthy family would have had the funds to undertake such an expensive project.

While it is certain that she had the means to build an amphitheatre, it is her love of pantomime that Pliny mentions that gives her the motivation. In his de Officiis, Cicero labels what he considers to be useful public buildings and non-useful buildings with the implication being that useful buildings were more worthy of donation. Ummidia herself seems to admit that pantomime is not suitable for young people since Pliny notes that she did not allow him to stay when the pantomimes performed. (Pliny Ep. 7.24.7) However, Ummidia pays no mind to Cicero and notions of useful buildings. It seems that Ummidia donated the amphitheatre simply because she enjoyed pantomime and wanted to share it with others. She frequently attended pantomimes at her amphitheatre and funded some of her own pantomimes. This is one example of women being motivated by personal preference and generosity.

Another explanation for how she funded the public project and why she wanted to donate an amphitheatre comes in the form of an economic reason. Ummidia owned her own pantomimes and rented them out for events. An amphitheatre would have been a good way to promote the skill of her slaves as well as the entertainment of pantomime. Pantomime was a popular form of entertainment throughout Rome. (Sick 332) In this way, Ummidia would have ran her own business exchanging performances by her pantomimes for political and economic favors. Her choice of training pantomimes as her business is interesting, particularly because it was seen as a scandalous past time for women due to the often raunchy topics included in pantomimes. (Sick 332) Therefore, once again, her love of the art and entertainment of pantomime provides an explanation for her motivations in choosing to build an amphitheatre, even if she did profit.

Despite her more eccentric habits, such as “playing draughts and watching pantomime” as Pliny notes, she made sure to provide for her grandchildren. In her will, she left two thirds of her property to her grandson, Ummidius Quadratus, and the rest was given to her granddaughter. (Pliny Ep. 7.24.5) It is notable that she includes her granddaughter in her will. Nor is this the only time that she shows generosity towards her fellow females. In the inscription honoring her for the restoration of a theatre her father built, it says, “To celebrate the dedication she gave a banquet to the decurions,  the people, and the women” (Hemelrijk 110) She invited women particularly to her banquet, not just powerful men in Casinum. This may have been her way of showing off her status and wealth to her elite friends as well as encouraging other wealthy elite females to provide funds for public donations themselves. Her donations seem to have made her popular among the people of Casinum as Pliny states that people in her theatre “jumped up and clapped to show their admiration, and then mirrored every gesture of the grand lady with chants.” (Pliny Ep. 7.24.7)

Ummidia is also joined by other benefactresses who were celebrated for their generosity towards other females. Caelia Macrina left money in her will to construct a building as well as 1,000,000 sesterces “so that the income from the money might be given to 100 boys (and to 100 girls) under the title of alimenta; 5 denarii each month to each citizen boy up to the age of 16 and 4 denarii each month to each citizen girl up to the age of 14.” (Lefkowitz 159)

6. Conclusion

 

In historical portrayals, Roman women tend to be depicted as passive participators in their world. However, donating was a way for women to influence their cities and gain notoriety outside of their families and the men in their lives. Funding public buildings was a way for them to insert feminine values in a male-dominated patriarchy. By studying Livia, Eumachia, Ummidia Quadratilla, and other patronae like them, we are allowed a glimpse into the lives of these women and their motivations for using their own money to donate buildings. These women were exceptional examples of females to their cities. In a time when young boys had Julius Caesar and Augustus to look up to, young girls had Livia and Eumachia to admire. I imagine that for Roman girls to be able to look up and see the grandeur of the building to the fullers in Pompeii or the Temple of Fortuna Muliebris in Rome was a powerful source of inspiration.

The motivations of Roman women to fund public projects can be compared to the motivations of Roman men funding public projects. However, caution must be used in order to avoid simply copying and pasting the male experience onto the female experience and expecting it to work. For example, men may have donated public buildings in order to promote their political campaigns, however, for a woman whose inscription does not include the name of a male member, her motivation for donating the building clearly had no political interest behind it. Women in the time of imperial Rome had their own lives outside of their husbands’ lives in Rome. Therefore, their motivations for their actions deserve to be studied somewhat separately from their male peers.