'Doing good' paid off in Roman antiquity. Those who were prepared to finance a theatre, bathhouse or banquet from their own resources could count on prestige and respect, which were essential for acquiring a political position. Since only men were eligible for such positions, it seems obvious that benefactors were always men. But that is not the case:in some Roman cities 10 to 20 percent of the benefactors were women. Did they have other motives than men?
'Junia Rustica, daughter of Decimus, permanent and first priestess of Cartima, restored the city's public colonnades, which had fallen with age, donated land for a bathhouse, paid the public taxes [the city owed to Rome], placed a bronze statue of Mars on the forum, built colonnades at the bathhouse on private land together with a swimming pool and a statue of Cupid, gave a banquet and public games, all of its own money, and donated and dedicated the statues, for which the city council of Cartima had decreed for herself and her son Gaius Fabius Junianus, having taken over the cost, and added, also at her own expense, a statue of her husband, Gaius Fabius Fabianus. She donated these images [to the city] after they were made.”
This inscription on the base of a statue in the Roman city of Cartima, present-day Cártama near Málaga in southern Spain, describes the donations of the local benefactor Junia Rustica. The statue itself is lost, but the inscription tells us that Junia Rustica was a very wealthy woman. She spent part of her money on beautifying her city. This brought her into contact with the city council, which was responsible for public space. In the inscription, the negotiations are presented as a polite exchange of gifts and honors.
Grateful for her many mercies, the council decided to erect statues to Junia Rustica and her son. She had the statues made at her own expense and donated them to the city. By adding a statue of her husband, she turned it into a family group, in keeping with the ideal image of the Roman matrona. However, the mention of her name in large letters at the beginning of the inscription makes it clear who claimed the greatest honour.
In scientific discussions about benevolence in the ancient world, the male benefactor is central. His motives were honor and power. The prestige he acquired through his benevolence furthered his political-administrative career. On the other hand, he embellished the city and made the life of the city population more pleasant. The generosity of the urban upper class thus helped to alleviate social tensions with the population. Although the latter statement includes women, benefactors are usually seen as exceptions. In doing so, they would not seek honor for themselves, but for their male relatives. Moreover, they would mainly finance relatively cheap benefits, such as banquets and distributions of money or foodstuffs. These partly contradictory explanations are based on the traditional ideal of the Roman woman. That dictated a chaste, modest and withdrawn life focused on home and family. However, if you read the many inscriptions on stone, you will get a completely different picture of the Roman benefactress.
Roman marriage form
Inscriptions for Roman benefactors in the western part of the Roman Empire are mainly found in the richest and most urbanized areas. In Italy from the end of 1 ste century BC and in southern Spain, northern Africa and southern France, where urbanization set in later, from the 1 st until the early 3 e century after Christ. Women made up 10 to 20 percent of urban benefactors here. We hardly find them in poorer and less urbanized parts of the Roman Empire. This limitation is related to the basic condition for benevolence:the disposal of own funds.
In the Roman form of marriage, after the death of their father, women were sui iuris (own right). So they were not under the authority of their husbands; the assets of spouses were strictly segregated. The legislation of Emperor Augustus (27 BC-14 AD) allowed women to sui iuris and had borne three or more children, moreover free of guardianship. This, together with Roman inheritance law, meant that a significant part of the private wealth of the elite came into the hands of women, who could dispose of it independently. The rise of benefactors in the provincial towns is thus closely related to the spread of Roman civil law.
In the cost and form of their benefits, benefactors did not differ substantially from their male counterparts. Their donations were often of the most precious kind:public buildings. They did put their own emphasis on this:women donated bathhouses, theaters and amphitheaters, aqueducts, market halls and especially temples, but no senate houses or city walls. And in their distributions, banquets and foundations to support children (alimenta), they more often than male benefactors also involved women and girls as beneficiaries. Thus Fabia Agrippina, a woman of senatorial rank, bequeathed a million sesterces to Ostia, the interest of which was to be spent, among other things, on monthly allowances for a hundred girls from the city.
Not only modern, but also ancient authors had little regard for the 'benefits' of rich women. In a letter to a friend, Pliny the Younger describes the life and character of Ummidia Quadratilla who had just passed away at the age of 79. He praises her strong constitution and strict upbringing of her grandson a friend of Pliny , but is critical of her mundane way of life. For example, she spent "the many free hours of her sex" playing checkers and she showed a preference for pantomime players which "did not fit for a prominent woman", but which made her extremely popular with the people. Pliny does not mention that there were other reasons for her popularity. In her hometown of Casinum (Cassino) she showed herself to be a very generous benefactor. Building inscriptions show that she had a temple and amphitheater built at her own expense; in addition, she rebuilt the local theatre. At the inauguration of this theater she gave a large banquet "for the senate, the people and the women" of Casinum. Pliny rightly referred to her as princeps femina (‘first lady’) of her city, a title that evokes associations with the imperial titulary (princeps).
Altruism or self-interest?
The disposal of equity does not explain why some women used their money for the benefit of the city. Did they do it, as modern researchers claim, just to advance the careers of their male relatives? The inscriptions suggest the opposite:benefactors seem to be mainly after personal honor and immortality.
Honor played a role at various stages. First of all, the benefactor made a promise (pollicitatio) to perform a benevolence. This was done in public and was legally binding. This immediately put the benefactor at the center of public attention. It often also resulted in concrete tributes. For example, Annia Aelia Restituta promised to build a theater on which the city council of Calama in North Africa erected five statues for her.
During construction, a building was often given the name of the donor. At the dedication, the benefactor increased the festivity with a banquet or by distributing money or food. An inscription on the building kept the memory of the benefit alive. The award of a statue further increased the donor's prestige. By offering to bear the costs themselves, benefactors encouraged the creation of their statues. Some even made a statue a condition of their gift. Contrary to their supposed modesty, women therefore prized the public prestige that their gift brought them.
This does not mean that benefactors only served their own interests. Their mercies also enhanced the prestige of their relatives and thus furthered their political careers. Women regularly exercised the right to erect statues of their families in the buildings they financed. However, they never forgot themselves. For example, Mineia, a benefactor in Paestum placed in the 1 st century BC, six statues in the basilica she donated to the city. She had herself portrayed in the midst of her husband, son, grandson and two brothers. Thus, the modern distinction between personal honor and family prestige is misleading. Both male and female benefactors increased the prestige of themselves and their families.
Their motives, however, were more complex and varied with position, wealth, family and personality. For women of senatorial rank who spent much of their lives in Rome, honor in a provincial town was not so important. What did play a role were religious feelings, as in the building of a temple, or the desire or moral obligation to favor their hometown, a kind of noblesse oblige. Also, a family tradition of generosity could "compel" high-ranking women to be generous. This sense of obligation could be compelling. Aemilia Pudentilla, a wealthy widow in Oea in North Africa (today's Tripolis), celebrated her wedding to Apuleius on one of her estates to avoid the town folk who expected her to pay out a money distribution.
Self-promotion
Benefactors from the urban elite did have an interest in local prestige. There was a rivalry between them for honor and statues. Finally, an interesting group of wealthy benefactors can be mentioned who were outside the elite. For them, generosity provided one of the few opportunities for social recognition. Because public statues were reserved for the elite, they had to take other paths to immortalize themselves.
Cassia Victoria was a priestess of the Augustales, a college of mainly wealthy freedmen who, among other things, were involved in the imperial cult. She financed the construction of the precious marble vestibule of their temple in Misenum and had colossal portraits of herself and her husband placed in the facade. These imitated the emperor portraits that usually adorn the facades of temples of the emperor cult, implicitly equating them with the deified imperial family. This extreme form of self-promotion, almost self-deification, can perhaps be understood as an expression of loyalty through a symbolic association with the imperial family. By adding the portrait of her late husband, Cassia Victoria proved herself a good wife. Her public honor thus remained within the traditional ideal of the Roman matrona.
With ten to twenty percent of the inscriptions, Roman benefactors had a structural share in the urban life of the Imperial era. Far from limiting themselves to small gifts, most benefactors donated precious structures that changed the face of their city. Their benefits earned them public honor and recognition, often involving their families. For example, benefactors gave a new interpretation to the traditional ideal:a Roman matrona who combined her domestic virtue with her public responsibility as a citizen of her city.
Emily Hemelrijk is professor of Ancient History at the University of Amsterdam.
Her book Hidden Lives-Public Personae will be published in early November 2015. Women and Civic Life in Italy and the Latin West during the Roman Principate (Oxford University Press) in the Netherlands.
The book is about the public role of women in the Roman Empire, including priestesses and patronesses of cities and associations.