Wealthy aristocratic women who played high politics and presided over litterary solons were nevertheless expected to be able to spin and weave as though they were livin in th edays when Rome was young. These social myths set up a tension betweeen the ideal and the real Roman matron, and were responsible for the praise awarded a woman like Cornelia, who lived in the second century B.C. Through her two sons, Tiberius and Gaius Gracchus, Cornelia exercised a profound influence on Roman politics.

The weakness and light-mindedness of the female sex were the underlying principles of Roman legal theory that mandated all women to be under the custody of males.

Upon the death of the pater familias, the custody over daughters (and prepubertal sons) passed to the nearest male relative, unless the father had designated another guardian in his will.

Guardianship over females was theoretically in force until the time of Diocletianus (A.D. 285-305), but this power was gradually diminished.

If the guardian withheld approval for important transactions, a woman could apply to the magisrate to have his assent forced, or to have a different guardian appointed.

The legislation of Augustus provided the notion that at least those women who had demonstrated responsible behavior by bearing the children Rom needed could be deemed capable of acting without a male guardian.

The law of guardianship indicate that the power of the pater familias surpassed those of the husband.

A vital feature of manus marriage for the bride was the change in domestic religions. A family's religion was transmitted through males, and the pater familias was the chief priest. Whether the husband in a manus marriage held absolute power over the wife is unclear. Cato the Censor claimed that husbands did have an unlimited right to judge their wives and could inflict the death penalty for drinking and adultery. It is uncertain whether the husband had the right to kill the wife, or merely to divorce her, or to kill her only with the agreement of her male relatives.

What does emerge from this investigation is the concept that when "wives had no other refuge", or when they were totally under the authority of their husbands, as envisioned by Cato, marriages were more enduring. This power of husbands over wives - if, in fact, it had ever been prevalent in early Rome - was idealized and became an element in the marriage propaganda of Stoics and Augustan authors, both concerned with promoting marriage among their contemporaries.

A wife who could readily return to her father for refuge was less amenable to the control of her husband.

The marriage without manus gave a woman more freedom.

Plutarch, pondering why Roman - unlike Greek - women did not marry close relatives, suggested that women needed protectors; if their husbands wronged them, then their kinsmen could aid them.

Betrothals, marriages, and divorces among the upper class were usually arranged between men for the political and financial profit of the families involved. The more children a man had, the greater the number of potential connections with other families.

Large numbers of connubial alliances in the late Republic are reported.

Plutarch faithfully reports dynastic marriages, and sometimes describes a great affection developing between wife and husband, possibly because he can scarsely resist the temptation to praise marriage. It is likely that Virgil in the Aeneid comes closer to the truth when he shows Aeneas losing his first wife at Troy, and abandoning Dido to suicide, in order to find a dynastic marriage with Lavinia - the daughter of a king in Italy - who cares nothing for him.

Men's use of their female relatives to procure political allies was nothing new in the ancient world. But among the Romans there is a new phenomenon: women in the late Republic at times initiated marriage alliances and chose lovers carefully, with a view to benefit their own families.

When political situations were more stable, there seem to have been fewer divorces.

The consent of both partners was necessary for the betrothal and marriage, but the bride was allowed to refuse only if she could prove that the proposed husband was morally unfit. It is unlikely that girls of twelve (the minimum age for marriage determined by Augustus) were in fact able to resist a proposed marriage. Some women, as they grew older, and their fathers were distant or dead, actually chose their own husbands.

Divorce was easily accomplished, theoretically at the initiation of either or both parties to the marriage. As we have seen, divorce could be initiated by fathers whose married children were not emancipated from their authority. If the husband were divorcing the wife for immoral conduct, he had the right to retain a portion of her dowry. Most of the divorces we read about were prompted by political och personal considerations. No reason was legally required, but sterility of the marriage was often a cause. Some men divorce their wifes for flagrant adultery.

The law may have been more stringent than the real situation, for the jurist Ulpian later commented: "It is very unjust for a husband to require from a wife a level of morality that ha does not himself achieve."

No man was allowed to have sexual relations with an unmarried or widowed upp-class woman, but he could have relations with prostitutes, whereas upper-class women were not allowed to have any relations outside of marriage. Some upper-class women protested against the curtailment of their freedom by registering as prostitutes. Then the laws of stuprum would not apply to them.

Rape could be prosecuted. Constantine was explicit about the guilt of the victim. If the girl had been willing, her penalty was to be burned to death. If she had been unwilling, she was still punished, although her penalty was lighter, for she should have screamed and brought neighbors to her assistance. Constantine also specified capital punishment for a free woman who had intercourse with a slave, and burning for the slave himself.

There was some tension between the emperor's concern that women bear as many children as possible and the traditional Roman idealization of the woman like Cornelia who remained faithful to her dead husband.

A further refinement of the ideal-wife motif stresses that not only should a women have only one husband, but she ought not to survive him - especially if he has been the victim of political persecution.

In Rome, unlike Ahtens, a woman could lead an interesting life without a husband, in entertaining guests and pursuing her intellectual interests.

Despite the continuous redefinition of the laws, room remained for interpretation.

It is evident that the second century A.D. was a period of change from the identification of a woman as a member of her father's family to recognition of her as belonging to the same family as her husband and children.

During the second century A.D., the provisions for equal inheritance in the XII Tables and the freedom to write wills favoring women, combined with a growing trend toward small families, had allowed a great deal of welth to fall into the hands of women. By the late Republic and thereafter, some women were in actual fact independently controlling large amounts of property, although the laws formally in force said that this was not permissible.