Julio-Claudian Matron
1st half of first century C.E.
Lynn Kenealy, Bryan Schmitt
The sculpture that we have observed has been dated to the first half of the first century C.E. This places the portrait during the Julio-Claudian period in Roman history. From the information we have gathered about the time period, the woman's style of dress and of the types of sculpture prevelant during the period, we have formed a possible profile of the daily life of the subject.
It was determined that the women in the portrait was most likely a freeborn, upper-middle class citizen of Rome. The portrait seems to have been a part of a funerary monument, a conclusion which was drawn due to the pattern of cleavage observed at the back of her head and the sides of her face. It was also observed that there was a piece of metal in the back of the head which could have been used to clasp the head to the monument. Comparisons with other known funerary monuments corroberate with this explanation. Since this is the likely case, several determinations can be made. Not many funerary monuments were made for the lower class, but for the upper class, parents often prepared funerary monuments for their daughters after having married them off (Pomeroy 149-189). Using this rationale, it can be concluded that she remained in the upper class after marriage, as upper class women were often married to upper class men (Pomeroy 149-189). The veristic form of sculpturing used led us to believe that she was not a part of the elite court class, for during the Julio-Claudian period, most portraits of upper class women were of the idealistic, eternal youth imagery, exhibiting smooth, beautiful features (Kleiner 139). The portrait of our Julio-Claudian matron, however, exhibited many realistic features that would not exemplify beauty, but a more rough and realistic approach. Another object of interest on the portrait is the missing piece of the hairline just above the forehead. This region most likely was a nodus coiffiture, or a knot of hair worn directly above the center of the forehead. The nodus style was popularized by Livia, wife of Nero. It was often worn by women of the imperial court or those of higher status (Cormack 167). We are led to believe that she was a freeborn woman because her natal family would have been the ones to commission her monument and using these conclusions they could have afforded to do so. Because this sculpture is very simular in style to many others found in Rome, we can conclude that she was Roman in ethnicity (Johansen 246-7).
It has been speculated that the woman that the portrait depicts was in fact a vestal virgin, however one particular feature seems to dispute this theory. Vestal virgins were typically shown with an infula, a frontlet or headband, around the hairline just above the forehead. While from the frontal angle the portrait appears to have a similar band, closer observation shows that the woman's hair has been braided and wrapped around the forehead in similar style, and that the veil she wears appears merely to be of the style generally shown in funerary monuments. All other representations of vestal virgins we have studied generally have a very apparent infula, so in this case it seems that while the features may appear similar, the fuller veil and knotted hairstyle of the portrait, lean more toward matron than vestal virgin (Johansen 246-7). Though the veil which is on the matron's head was also a symbol for vestal virgins, it was most likely a funerary veil used for the sake of the portrait only and not necessarily something worn in day to day life.
It was determined that the woman was of an elder matron age. Features of the portrait, such as the wrinkles on both sides of the mouth led us to this conclusion. The woman was probably of average if not good health to have survived probable childbirth and the other stresses of living in Roman times.
The life of the woman probably consisted of an education in her childhood, up until marriage, probably at about 12-15 years of age. Since she was of the upper class she probably had a home tutor (Pomeroy 149-189). After being married, the education was ended as she began her new life as a wife and mother. It is in this setting that she most likely lived out her life. She likely would have had children as this was expected of Roman women, after which she would have spent her days watching after the children, and taking care of household duties such as weaving and cooking. The supervision of the slaves was also probably an integral part of the wifes job in the family (Pomeroy 149-189). It is expected that the family owned slaves because the family was part of the upper class.
The woman's relationship with both her natal and marital family was probably good. At the time sine manus marriages were more popular. This meant that the wife was still somewhat under the father's control and was not "given" to the husband. This would also mean that she would have to have visited her father's house at least three times a year. Under these circumstances she probably had at least a speaking relationship with her natal family, but in most cases it was probably a closer relationship. After all, she would have spent more than ten years with her natal family before moving to her new home.
The woman's relationships probably involved a high amount of contact with her children as she was the primary caretaker. The husband was most likely distant as was common in Roman times, while keeping the woman submissive (Peradotto 241). She probably did a fair amount of socializing with the women of the neighborhood as their husbands were away for business or for war, but women to men relationships were probably very restricted, as most men were very watchful of other men associating with their wives, for fear of extramarital affairs. Along these lines, her typical day was probably spent in the house ordering the slaves to go out to get water and food in the mornings while the afternoons were spent weaving and keeping up the house along with preparing food for the family.
Upper class Roman women had far more freedom than did the classical Athenian woman (Pomeroy 149-189). Her public life consisted mainly of religious festivals, some of which allowed only women and some at which both men and women were present. She had leadership over her household, including her children and slaves, though she was subservient to her husband.
Works Cited
Cormack, S. (1996). The Domestic Realm. In D. E. Kleiner and S. B. Matheson (Eds.) I Claudia: Women in Ancient Rome (pp. 167). University of Texas Press. Austin, TX.
Johansen, F. (1994). Catalogue. In A. M Neilson (Ed). Roman Portraits I. (pp. 246-7). Bianco Luno Copenhagen.
Kleiner, Diana E. (1992). Art under the Julio-Claudians. Roman Sculpture. (pp. 139). New Haven, Bt: Yale University Press.
Peradotto, J. (1984). Women in the Ancient World. (pp. 241) New York, NY: State University of New York Press.
Pomeroy, S. (1976). The Roman matron of the late republic and early empire. Goddesses, Whores, Wives and Slaves. (pp. 149-189). New York, NY: Schocken Books.
Return to CLA 4-264-97