Wet-nursing in the Roman Empire

Wet-nursing in the Roman Empire Indifference, efficiency and affection Anna Sparreboom (1716166) Thesis M-phil. Oudheidstudies VU University, Amsterdam August 2009 Supervisor: Dr. A.M.J. Derks Preface I have worked on this M-phil thesis about wet-nursing in the Roman Empire with great pleasure. My interest in the history of the Roman family arose during a course on the Roman family by prof. dr. Emily Hemelrijk at the University of Amsterdam (UvA). I wish to thank her and my supervisor at the Free University of Amsterdam (VU), dr. Ton Derks, for their useful suggestions both before and during the writing of this thesis. The research of biographical sarcophagi in various museums in Rome was possible thanks to the financial support of the Koninklijk Nederlands Instituut in Rome (KNIR). Finally I thank the staff members of the institute, dr. Gert-Jan Burgers and prof. Bernard Stolte, who gave me some important advice on the use of archaeological and legal sources. 2 Table of contents Preface Table of contents 1 Introduction 2 Why wet-nursing? §2.1 Nature and demography §2.2 Cultural factors §2.3 Wet-nursing as a method to strengthen or weaken loyalty? §2.4 Boys and girls §2.5 Conclusions 2 3 4 9 9 11 17 18 19 3 Wet-nursing in the Roman Empire §3.1 The prevalence of wet-nursing in the Roman provinces §3.2 The wet-nurse in elite families §3.3 Wet-nursing among slaves §3.4 Wet-nursing among liberti §3.5 ‘Rest’ group §3.6 Duration of contact and the relationship between wet-nurse and nursling §3.7 The wet-nurse and her child §3.8 Conclusions 20 21 23 29 32 34 38 40 39 4 Pagans and Christians: mentality and practice §4.1 Appreciation of the wet-nurse §4.2 Proud wet-nurses §4.3 Roman critique on wet-nursing §4.4 Ambivalent feelings §4.5 Christian practice and mentality §4.6 Conclusions 42 44 48 51 57 63 63 5 Conclusion Appendix – The epigraphic material Rome Italy Western provinces 64 67 67 80 90 Bibliography 96 3 1 Introduction The introduction of artificial baby food in the western world in the beginning of the twentieth century was an important factor in the decline of the practice of wetnursing. The absence of suitable artificial baby food when the mother was ill or had died, had for centuries compelled parents to rely on a wet-nurse for the nursing of their child. Literature, epitaphs and art indicate that the nutrix, the Latin term that derives from the verb ‘nutrire’, ‘to feed’ or ‘to nurse’, was a prominent figure in the early live of many children in Roman antiquity. The phenomenon of wet-nursing in the Roman Empire is the subject of this thesis. Wet-nursing has been an important topic in discussions about childhood in history. The prevalence of the practice has led many scholars to conclude that attitudes towards children were predominantly negative in de past. 1 The work of the French historian Philippe Ariès who argued that childhood is a modern invention and that, in pre-modern society, children were viewed as mini-adults, has been the starting point of this debate. 2 According to Ariès, this image of children resulted in an indifference towards the specific needs and capabilities of the child which could lead to ill-treatment, neglect, abandonment of children and even infanticide. The American psycho-historian Lloyd DeMause, one of Ariès’ followers, stated that the practice of wet-nursing was a symptom of this parental indifference and neglect and he even classified it as a form of ‘institutionalized abandonment’. 3 The general point of view of the scholars who presented the indifference-thesis was that there has been a progressive improvement in the status and treatment of children through the centuries. 4 The emergence of education, changes in family structure, the rise of 1 2 Pollock 1983, 25. Ariès 1962. 3 DeMause 1974, 34. 4 I made use of the work of Pollock for a summary of this discussion. Pollock 1983, 32. 4 capitalism, the increasing maturity of parents and the emergence of a spirit of benevolence were thought to have caused the ‘modern’ concept of childhood. 5 Over the last few decades, the indifference-thesis has increasingly been attacked. 6 Objections were directed against the idea that the attitudes towards children evolved over the centuries. Why would parental care evolve in this way? What triggered changes in attitude? Apart from this critique on the progress-thesis, it was doubted whether parents in primitive societies indeed ignored and abused their offspring. The conclusions of Ariès and his followers were based on problematic sources of evidence, such as works of art in which children were depicted as miniature adults and the habit of giving a dead child’s name to later offspring. The use of the word ‘it’ to describe a child was also perceived as evidence for indifference towards children. These theories are methodologically problematic and can easily be turned round; in many ancient works of art such as the boy strangling a goose, of which the prototype in bronze is attributed to Boethus of Chalcedon, particular childish features were of central importance. 7 This could lead to the opposite conclusion; that in antiquity childhood was actually conceived as a separate stage in life. Works of art can be used as a source for historical research, but the intention of the artist, the function of the work and the context in which it was made should always be acknowledged. In this thesis, I will examine not only literary and documentary sources such as legal sources or wet-nursing contracts on papyri, but also epigraphic and archaeological evidence concerning wet-nursing in the Roman Empire, a comprehensive approach that will hopefully result in a more or less complete picture of the practice. The literary sources, such as philosophical writings, fables, theatre and medical handbooks, that shed some light on the scale of the practice, the reasons for 5 6 Pollock 1983, 28-29. Pollock 1983, 33. 7 Vatican Museum, inv. nr. 2655. 5 using a wet-nurse, the appreciation of the practice and the position of wet-nurses in general, have been studied in earlier research which will of course be taken into account. 8 Documentary sources such as epigraphic evidence, legal texts, personal correspondence and the wet-nursing contracts that have been preserved on papyri in Egypt, can offer important information on the social status of wet-nurses, nurslings and their parents, and sometimes mention age, payment and the nature and duration of their relation. My selection of epigraphic evidence contains inscriptions from Rome and several western provinces of the Roman Empire: Gallia Narbonensis, Gallia Lugudunensis, Belgica, Baetica, Lusitania, Hispania Citerior, Germania Superior and Inferior and all the Italian regions. 9 For the sake of convenience only inscriptions containing the word ‘nutrix’ are included, which leaves the possibility that the collection of epigraphic sources about wet-nurses is not complete. The work of Keith Bradley on the inscriptions erected by and for nutrices will be the starting point of this part of my research. 10 The archaeological evidence consists of feeding bottles and breast pumps that most often derive from children’s graves and the reliefs depicting the bath of a newborn and the ‘conclamatio-scene’ of a child on biographical sarcophagi. 11 The depiction of the wet-nurse in art can complement our knowledge on the Roman mentality on wet-nursing. Since the sources of the Roman Empire are usually biased towards the male Roman elite, it will be hard to reconstruct the personal experiences of other persons involved, such as the wet-nurse herself, the mother and the nursling. Anthropological and historical studies to wet-nursing in other historical societies can be helpful in obtaining an idea of the ‘psychology’ of wet-nursing. The most important studies on this subject are Bradley 1991b; Bradley 1992; Dixon 1988; Joshel 1986. The epigraphic sources I have used are included in a catalogue, page 67-95. 10 Bradley 1991a; 1991b; 1992. 11 On the feeding bottles and breast-pumps: Rouquet 2003, 172. The reliefs have previously been examined in studies of the Roman family: Huskinson 1996; Dimas 1998; George 2000. 9 8 6 The aim of this thesis is to reexamine not only the feelings and considerations of Roman parents and the child itself, but also to attempt to reconstruct and understand the experiences of the wet-nurse and possible other involved, despite the one-sided and elite-biased nature of the evidence. The wet-nurses’ situation and personal experience will not necessarily have been bad after all. On the other hand, the question of whether wet-nursing can be interpreted as a symptom of the Roman parent’s indifference towards their offspring will be reflected on. Not nursing one’s own child should not simply be regarded as a sign of indifference or a lack of love, an idea that still exists among modern historians. This assumption is based on our culture bound notion that the intense, one to one maternal-child relationship that is idealised in western consumer society, is the best way of rearing children. The model of the nuclear family that is most common in the western world should, however, not be projected on to the Roman family, which is often characterised as an extended family group with other, sometimes non-kin, caretakers. The study of all these sources and studies will hopefully add to a better understanding of the relationships between wet-nurse, nursling and parents. Distinguishing between groups of several social strata will be one of the focal points in this research. Finally, extra attention will be given to the differences in mentality and practice concerning wet-nursing between Christians and pagan Romans in Late Antiquity. The rest of this thesis will be divided in three chapters. The aim of the second chapter is to examine the possible reasons for using wet-nurses. Since wet-nursing is not solely a Roman phenomenon, but has occurred throughout history, insights from studies on wet-nursing in other historical societies that can complement the Roman sources and help to interpret them, will also be used. The third chapter aims to reconstruct the everyday reality and relationship of parents, wet-nurse and nursling of different social ranks and within groups in society. It will be attempted to 7 understand the emotional impact on the persons involved in wet-nursing. In the final chapter the opinions on wet-nursing that were expressed by pagan Roman and Christian authors will be evaluated, interpreted and compared to the information we have about the reality of wet-nursing. The examination of the mentality on wetnursing versus reality will be one of the specific aims of this chapter. 8 2 Why wet-nursing? The Roman philosopher Favorinus of Arles accused a mother whose child was wetnursed of being idle, selfish and endangering the emotional bond with her child. 12 Nowadays maternal breastfeeding is still often considered the best; bottle-feeding mothers are sometimes accused of withholding the physical and emotional benefits of the most natural way of feeding from their child. Not nursing is sometimes even regarded as failure of a mother. 13 The expression of this kind of value judgements regarding parents’ choices concerning the feeding of their children is explained by the anthropologist Vanessa Maher who emphasizes that breastfeeding, and childrearing in general, is not just a biological or natural phenomenon, but part of cultural, local and social patterns. 14 It is thus not surprising that feeding and rearing customs vary in different cultures and social groups and that commentators, both in antiquity and in the present, judge the decisions of others in these matters. This chapter attempts to examine the reasons why Roman parents would rely on the service of wet-nurses with an open mind, that is, without judging the practice on the basis of the assumption that maternal breastfeeding is necessarily better than wet-nursing. Cultural and social circumstances will also be taken into account. § 2.1 Nature and demography It has been common for mothers to rely on the service of a wet-nurse for the nursing of a baby for centuries. 15 The lack of safe artificial baby food was one of the most important reasons for the use of wet-nurses at the event of death, illness, lack of milk or physical incapability of the mother to nurse. Insufficiency of milk for the nursing Aulus Gellius, Noctes Atticae XII 1. Maher 1992, 10. 14 Maher 1992, 3. 15 Fildes 1988, XIII. 12 13 9 of twins or triplets, which was undoubtedly rare, would also have necessitated the use of a wet-nurse. It goes without saying that the hiring of a ‘surrogate mother’ was only possible for those who could afford it or owned slaves. The alternatives for wetnursing were bottle-feeding of human or animal milk or early weaning but the risks were high, especially for very young nurslings. 16 At least part of the Roman parents must have known this, for instance from the work of the medical writer Soranus of Ephese who explained that a young baby could not digest solid food, because its body had not yet become firm. 17 In many parts of the Empire bottles and breast pumps of terracotta and glass have been found in children’s graves, potteries and domestic contexts. 18 The bottles must have been used in situations in which the mother or wetnurse was away from the baby because of work or other obligations and someone else fed the nursling with expressed breast – or animal milk. The breast pumps may also have been used for the testing of a wet-nurse’s milk and by lactating mothers that did not nurse. 19 Unsuitable food like animal milk and the use of non sterile bottles are likely to have often caused diseases and in the worst case the death of the infant. The prevalence of wet-nursing may indicate that people learnt from bad experiences with the bottle feeding of babies and chose for a surrogate mother, if they could afford it. Roman elite parents may also have acted on the counsel of Soranus who advised that a wet-nurse should be used the first weeks after birth because the ‘colostrum’, the first 16 17 Proceeding to weaning at age of 6 months was less dangerous than weaning at 3 months. Soranus, Gynaeciorum, II 46. ‘Now until the child has become firm, it should only be fed milk. For while the pores are still narrow, it is not safe to proceed to more solid food. The latter moves slowly in the process of distribution because of the narrowness of the passages, yet bruises everything that is supposed to receive it. Therefore those women are too hasty who, after only forty days, try to give cereal food (as do those for the most part who find nursing a burden’; Dixon 1988, 108. 18 19 Roquet 2003, 172. Oribasius, Collectionum Medicarum Reliquiae, provides advise on the testing of a wet-nurse’s milk: ‘You can test it also in this way: pour an eighth part of the milk into a glass vessel; add rennet in proportion, and stir with the fingers, then leave it to set and see whether the curd is less than the whey, for such milk is no good, and the reverse is indigestible: the best is that which contains both in equal proportion.’ 10 breast milk of a mother, was unhealthy and difficult to digest. 20 When the production of milk stopped because the mother did not nurse, this may have been an immediate practical reason to continue wet-nursing. The prevalence of wet-nursing is related to high child mortality in GrecoRoman society. Demographer’s estimates are that circa thirty percent of all newborns did not live until the first birthday and ten percent did not have a living mother at the age of five. 21 There must have been a relation between these facts; part of the babies died due to the death of their mother and the termination of nursing. Another part of the motherless babies depended on a wet-nurse or another way of artificial feeding. 22 It is probable that in lower classes a greater part of these children died than among the elite because the poor could not afford the hiring of a wet-nurse. In big elite households with large numbers of slave mothers it would not have been difficult to find a wet-nurse. In these families the appointment of a slave as a wet-nurse, which at first hand may seem odd or unnatural to modern readers, was the only solution, for the chances that a newborn which was nursed with animal milk or weaned prematurely would survive, were slim. § 2.2 Cultural factors One of the most direct reasons for the use of a wet-nurse is the physical absence of the mother in the case of slavery or exposure. Slave mothers could be sold or sent off to work and thus be separated from their children. Legal evidence shows that some Soranus, Gynaeciorum, II 17. ‘It is absurd to prescribe maternal milk until the body enjoys stable health.’ 21 Parkin and Saller used Model Life Tables in order to make this calculation for the Roman family. Parkin 1992, 147. (Model Life Table Level 3, West Female); Saller 1996, 52. These percentages should not be regarded as absolute and universal for all societies, but they do make clear that the demand of wet-nurses must have been great. 22 Epigraphic evidence offers examples of this; in some inscriptions a nutrix and another family member, the father, aunt or grandmother, commemorate the death of a child. It is very probable that in these cases the mother had predeceased her child, which might have been the reason that a wetnurse was used. CIL VI, 20938; CIL VI, 25301; CIL VI, 35123. 20 11 slave children were wet-nursed in the countryside. 23 Exposure is considered to have been common in the ancient world. 24 Wet-nursing contracts preserved on Egyptian papyri record that some foundlings and slave children were wet-nursed and taken up in a family or reared as slaves. 25 Many others must have been less ‘fortunate’ and died. Another important part of the wet-nursed children were probably babies of wet-nurses. After all, a wet-nurse was necessarily a mother herself and for the family that hired her it would undoubtedly have been most convenient if her own child had died or was already weaned. This reduced the chances of preferential treatment of the wet-nurse on behalf of her own baby. In Victorian England and eighteenth century France, where the use of lower-class mothers to wet-nurse the offspring of upperclass families was very common, in order to avoid the problem of the wet-nurse favoring her own child, infants of wet-nurses were often sent to state regulated ‘babyfarms’ where they were nursed by other wet-nurse. 26 There is no evidence for the existence of ‘baby farms’ in the Roman Empire, but it is not certain either that these did not exist. Again slave owners are likely to have played an important role in the rearing of these children. Part of the wet-nurses’ babies were probably taken care of by friends, family members, fellow slaves or hired wet-nurses.27 The reliance on surrogate mothers in upper classes thus at the same time necessitated the use of wetnurses in lower strata of society: wet-nursing caused wet-nursing. The costs of a wetnurse of low social status were apparently lower than the mother’s salary which indicates that wet-nursing was a profitable business for free working-class women. 23 Digesta, 50.16.210. ‘It has been decided that he who is born of urban slaves and is sent to the country to be brought up shall be classed as an urban slave.’. 24 25 Dixon 1992, 40. Lefkowitz 1982, 164-168. 26 Sussman 1982, 20. 27 CIL III, 10038 may have been erected for an aunt who took over the nursing of her cousin: ‘D(is) M(anibus) / Dianadri / an(norum) LXI Caius / Iulius Cer/tus amit(a)e / di<g=C>nissi/m(a)e et [n]u/trici po/suit / h(ic) s(ita) e(st)’ 12 Financial considerations can thus be added to the list of reasons for using (and becoming) a nutrix. The cultural reasons for the use of wet-nurses that are mentioned thus far only refer to the lower classes. Financial difficulties or relations of dependency often let these women no other choice but to abandon their child or trust it to the care of a ‘surrogate mother’, sometimes to become wet-nurses themselves. The objections against wet-nursing that have been expressed by Roman philosophers were directed at the rich upper classes; elite parents that apparently regularly appointed a wet-nurse even when the mother was physically and mentally able to nurse. 28 It becomes clear from the repeated depiction of a drudging old wet-nurse bathing a newborn under the supervision of a noble sitting mother on the so called biographical sarcophagi that the use of a wet-nurse had become a status symbol (Illustration 1a page 16). The mother is pictured keeping a close eye on the servants that care for her child while the sitting position indicates her superior social status. The care for a newborn, a hard and physically demanding task, was not considered appropriate for a woman of high social standing. 29 It is important to note that the mother is not represented as indifferent to the wellbeing of her child but as an ideal matrona that exercised her auctoritas and severitas. 30 The presence of the wet-nurse and other servants on the relief was intended to show sentiment by emphasizing the child’s position as a loved member of the familia. 31 At the same time the social differences between child, parents and servants are displayed. On the centre of the sarcophagus we see the mother and father grieving at the deathbed of their child, a scene which indicates that The appearance of mothers as co-commemorators on epitaphs for nurslings indicates that wet-nurses were sometimes used when the mother was alive. CIL XII, 4797; AE 1914, 276. I will come back to the philosopher’s critique on wet-nursing in chapter 4. 29 Aulus Gellius, Noctes Atticae, XII 1: ‘But when the young woman’s mother said to him that she must 28 spare her daughter and provide nurses for the child, in order that to the pains which she had suffered in childbirth there might not be added the wearisome and difficult task of nursing’. 30 31 Dimas 1998, 66. Huskinson 1996, 90. 13 these parents did not limit the emotional attachment to their offspring because of high infant mortality, as has been suggested by Bradley (Illustration 1b page 16). In their descriptions of foreign peoples, Tacitus and Varro portray the custom of barbarous women to nurse their children themselves as a pure and laudable, but at the same time barbaric and primitive gesture: ‘In every household the children naked and filthy, grow up with those stout frames and limbs which we so much admire. Every mother suckles her own offspring and never entrusts it to servants and nurses.’ 32 ‘As to feeding the young, I merely remark that in most cases they suckle them as well as bear them… when you were in Liburnia you saw mothers carrying logs and children at the breast at the same time, sometimes one, sometimes two [not necessarily twins] showing that our newly delivered women who lie for days under their mosquito nets, are worthless and contemptible’. 33 The association of breastfeeding with primitivism and barbarians must have been one of the most important reasons for elite women not to nurse their own children, but to rely on the service of one or more wet-nurses, despite the authors’ critique. It was a sign of civilization for a lady to be freed from this embarrassing physical necessity. 34 A passage from Juvenals Satyres again makes clear that the necessity to personally nurse one’s offspring was considered to be related to social class: ‘These poor women, however, endure the perils of childbirth, and all the troubles of nursing to which their lot condemns them.’ 35 A fragment from the work of Plutarch indicates that family planning may also have been reason for the use of a wet-nurse. 36 The temporary sexual abstinence as a Tacitus, Germania, XX 1. Varro, De agricultura, II 10.6-8. 34 Bonfante 1997, 185. 35 Juvenal, Satyres, VI 592-3. 36 Plutarch, Moralia, De liberius educandis, III 5. ‘So, as I have said, mothers must endeavor, if possible, 32 33 to nurse their children themselves; but if they are unable to do this, either because of bodily weakness (for such a thing can happen) or because they are in haste to bear more children, yet foster-mothers 14 consequence of the post-partum taboo - the idea that intercourse during the period of breastfeeding spoiled the mother’s milk - and the natural contraceptive function of breastfeeding would both be handful instruments in family planning and the spacing of births. The use of a wet-nurse would enable the mother to continue her normal conjugal relations and become pregnant soon again, which could be desirable in elite families that wanted to safeguard the family’s property and status by producing natural heirs. The evidence indicates however, that Romans deliberately limited their families to one or two children, a custom that Augustus’ family laws intended to change: the rich because of the partition of property when there were too many heirs and the poor because of the financial incapability to rear many children. 37 The medical risks of childbirth and pregnancy may for both rich and poor have been an important reason to limit the number of children. Poor free wet-nurses may thus not only have had a financial motivation: family planning may also have been an important reason to become a wet-nurse. In an attempt to explain the motivation of parents that relied on the service of a nutrix in the Roman era, Keith Bradley has suggested that wet-nurses were used to limit parental emotional investment in a child, because of high infant mortality. 38 The chances that an infant would not survive were indeed great, but there is no evidence indicating that upper-class parents deliberately restricted contact with their offspring. Wet-nurses in elite families were often slaves who lived in the domus and the child was thus not brought to the wet-nurse, but the wet-nurse to the child. The books full of advice of medical writers such as Soranus, Oribasius and Galen indicate that some parents took the selection of a wet-nurse and the care for the child very serious. and nursemaids are not to be selected at random, but as good ones as possible must be chosen.’ [my emphasis] 37 Dixon 1992, 122. 38 Bradley 1992, 220. 15 Illustration 1a: short side of biographical sarcophagus. A wet-nurse (left) with headkerchief is bathing an infant while the veiled mother (right) is supervising. Ca. 120-130 AD. Agrigento : Museo Regionale (Photo: Amedick 1991). Illustration 1b: long side of the same biographical sarcophagus. The contemplatio at the deathbed of the child is depicted. The veiled parents are sitting on each side of the bed and the paedagogos (with his hand up) and wet-nurse (touching the face of the child) are standing behind the bed. Ca. 120-130 AD. Agrigento : Museo Regionale (Photo: Amedick 1991). 16 § 2.3 Wet-nursing as a method to strengthen or weaken loyalty? Anthropology offers another explanation for the abstention of maternal breastfeeding in intensely hierarchical societies, like that of the Roman elite, in which property and social position were obtained by marriage and inheritance. 39 Maher explains that the conjugal relationship, and not the parental one, is most important in these families. 40 In other words, the mother’s maternal role is subordinate to the conjugal role. The post-partum taboo on sexual intercourse, which results from the idea that sex during the period of breastfeeding is harmful for the baby, enables nursing mothers to dedicate undivided attention to the newborn, but at this time the sexual relationship with her husband would be non-existent, which could endanger the conjugal relationship. This fear to upset the institutional arrangements and paternal loyalty, according to Maher, often caused the ending of maternal breastfeeding. 41 The father’s control over breastfeeding and the availability of the wife is thus interpreted as a way of securing the children’s allegiance to the paternal line and at the same time served to weaken the mother’s maternal role and emphasize her role as a wife instead of a mother. The afore-mentioned theory does not seem applicable to Roman society. Classical authors do express their concerns about the prevalent use of wet-nurses, since it thought to endanger this relationship between mother and child. 42 Although strengthening the child’s loyalty to the paternal line may have been important for Roman parents, the afore-mentioned literary sources and the iconographic evidence from the sarcophagi do not indicate that the contact between children and mother or their mutual loyalty was deliberately disturbed by hiring a wet-nurse. On the 39 40 Maher 1992. Maher 1992, 14. 41 Maher 1992, 23. 42 Aulus Gellius, Noctes Atticae, XII 1: ‘For when the child is given to another and removed from its mother’s sight, the strength of maternal ardour is gradually and little by little extinguished, every call of impatient anxiety is silenced, and a child which has been given over to another to nurse is almost as completely forgotten as if it had been lost by death.’ 17 contrary; ideally, being a mother was an essential part of being a good Roman wife, which means that the conjugal and maternal role of the Roman matrona cannot be regarded separately. 43 The reliefs on the biographical sarcophagi show that elite mothers were simply not expected to take on the physically demanding tasks of childcare. The desire to weaken the bonds of loyalty between mother and child may have been an important reason for slave owners to terminate contact between slave mothers and their children by having them wet-nursed by another woman. Apart from efficiency motives - having one slave woman wet-nurse all the children was of course more profitable than allowing all mothers among the working force to nurse their own children - reducing family loyalty was probably of avail to the slave-owner in case of sale of his merchandise. I will come back to the strategies of slave-owners who assigned certain slave women as wet-nurses in the next chapter. § 2.4 Boys and girls In Victorian England a difference in investment strategies concerning the care of female and male newborns has been found: the evidence shows that boys were usually nursed by their mothers whereas girls were often sent to wet-nurses. 44 This difference in investment, which was aimed at providing optimal care for more desired male offspring, must have resulted from the assumption that maternal breastfeeding was better than wet-nursing. Surprisingly, girls actually benefited from this practice because they were nursed for a longer period than their male counterparts. Although Roman authors did prefer maternal breastfeeding and boys were usually valued over girls, there is no evidence for a similar difference in investment strategies for male and female children in Roman families. Epigraphic evidence and wet-nursing 43 44 Hemelrijk 1999, 64. Hrdy 1992, 426. 18 contracts on papyri do not indicate that more females were wet-nursed, neither is the sex of nurslings specified in fragments from literary or juridical sources. Of course, this does not mean that investment strategies and decisions made in childrearing were never based on the sex of the child. § 2.5 Conclusions Modern historians disapproved of wet-nursing on the basis of a modern western idea that maternal breastfeeding is always the best and that, if mothers were able to nurse but decided to hire a wet-nurse, they were bad mothers that did not act according to the needs of their child. 45 It appears from the Roman evidence that many different motivations lay at the bottom of this decision, both cultural and natural. Slaves, freedwomen and poor free women that were appointed as wet-nurses themselves often had no choice but to send their own child away to be nursed by others. In the Roman upper classes wet-nurses were probably used regularly. The nutrix had become a status symbol, but that mothers did not nurse their children does not mean that they did not care about them. Advice from the works of medical writers indicates that the selection of a wet-nurse and care for a child was taken serious. Wet-nursing is a cultural phenomenon, a way of infant feeding that differs from our own, but that is not necessarily bad. In the words of Suzan Dixon: ‘The biology of infancy is universal, but the human perceptions of it and what it requires are socially conditioned and subject to historical change’. 46 45 46 D’Ambra 1983, 109. Dixon 1988, 129. 19 3 Wet-nursing in the Roman Empire Wet-nursing is often criticised, not only by contemporary authors, but also by modern historians. The twentieth century historian Lawrence Stone for instance stated that the rich of early modern England ‘sent their children away to wet-nurses in the first year, despite the known negligence of nurses which resulted in a death rate double that of maternally fed babies’. 47 The ancient historian Keith Bradley concluded that Roman parents may have used a wet-nurse in order to limit emotional attachment and bonding with their children because of the high infant mortality. 48 The use of wet-nurses in pre-modern Europe was believed to be a disguised, nonprosecutable form of infanticide. 49 These views are not only based on the assumption that maternal nursing was always and by any means better than wet-nursing but also result from the idea that wet-nursed children did not live in the same houses as their parents. 50 In this chapter the phenomenon of wet-nursing in Roman society will be explored using literary and epigraphic sources, reliefs on biographical sarcophagi and wet-nursing contracts preserved on Egyptian papyri. These sources can provide information on how common wet-nursing actually was, the social status of the wetnurse and her nursling and the duration and nature of their relationship. What does the evidence tell us about the lives of Roman nutrices and nurslings? Can wet-nursing be regarded as a form of institutionalized abandonment of children? Or as a way for parents to limit emotional attachment because of the high mortality risk, as has been proposed by Bradley? Differences between social classes, possible regional differences 47 48 Stone 1977, 65. Bradley 1992, 220. 49 Hrdy 1991, 415. 50 Dixon 1988, 125. 20 and changes concerning the practice of wet-nursing within the Roman Empire that might emerge from the sources will also be examined. § 3.1 The prevalence of wet-nursing in Rome and the imperial provinces As we have seen in the previous chapters, death in childbirth or illness of the mother must have compelled a large number of parents in history to leave the nursing of their newborn child to a wet-nurse. Cultural habits and circumstances also played an important role in the use of surrogate parents such as wet-nurses. In elite households wet-nurses were status symbols. Slave women and poor free women worked as wetnurses and were often compelled to send their own children to wet-nurses. It is difficult to estimate exactly how many children were nursed by others than their own mother, but fragments from legal texts, sayings and the works of medical writers show that nutrices must have been well-known in Roman society. 51 Several authors criticise the use of wet-nurses, which again indicates that the custom must have been common; otherwise it would not have been worth complaining about. Tacitus, for instance, describes that mothers from tribes in Germany ‘suckle her own offspring and never entrust it to servants and nurses’, a practice that he and the circle of his audience were apparently not used to. 52 Plutarch mentions that most Roman mothers handed the nursing and caring for their children over to others and then ‘receive the children in their arms like pets’. 53 The medical writer Soranus prefers maternal nursing if possible but recommends to employ a wet-nurse when the mother is physically unable to nurse. 54 In the chapter about the care for newborns he provides extensive advice on the selection of a good wet-nurse, the testing of her milk and the Carroll 2006, 205. Tacitus, Germania, XX.1. 53 Plutarch, Consolatio ad uxorem, V-6. I will come back to the negative connotation in these remarks in the next chapter. 54 Soranus, Gynaeciorum, II, 18. 52 51 21 desired behaviour and care which reveals that he expects his audience, most probably members of the Roman elite, to use nutrices. 55 A saying like ‘the grieve of a wet-nurse is only second to that of a mother’ which probably alludes to distress over the death of a child, is another indication that the nutrix was a common member of the Roman family. 56 At the same time it demonstrates that emotional attachment of some wet-nurses to their nurslings did not go unnoticed, a subject that will be dealt with in the next chapter. Finally the prevalence of wet-nursing is indicated by the motif of the loyal and honest wet-nurse that is anchored deeply in the classical literary tradition. The nutrices of Odysseus and the emperors Nero and Domitian who always remained loyal to their former nurslings are interesting examples of this discourse. 57 Given the high mortality and absence of suitable artificial baby food in antiquity, it seems likely that wet-nursing also occurred in the provinces of the Roman Empire. This assumption is confirmed by documentary, epigraphic and archaeological evidence. Wet-nursing contracts preserved on Egyptian papyri record agreements between wet-nurse and parents, or, more commonly, the owners of both wet-nurse and nursling. 58 A fragment from the Digesta, the late antique collection of Roman juridical writings, dealing with the obligation of provincial governors to hear claims for nutricia, i.e. the costs of child maintenance owed to nursing women, indisputably indicates that wet-nurses were commonly used in the Roman 55 Soranus, Gynaeciorum, II, 19; 37; 38; 40; 46; Bradley 1992, 201. Soranus, Gynaeciorum, II,37: ‘Always indeed when giving the breast, the wet nurse should sit down. With her bent arms she could press the newborn against her bosom, letting it lie on its left side, and she should put the nipple between its lips…’. Galen, another medical writer, explains that nursemaids apply several ways of infant rocking, in cradles, swings or in the arms. This makes clear that Galen also associates the care of infants with slave nurses. De sanitate tuenda, 1.8. ‘Three forms of rocking for babies have been devised by nursemaids, in cradles, in swings, and in their own arms’. 56 Publilius Syrus, Sententiae, 600. 57 Kampen 1981b, 42; Homer, Ilias, IXX; Suetonius, Nero, L. 58 These sources will be examined in this chapter. 22 provinces. 59 Tacitus’s remark about the nursing mothers from German tribes that has been mentioned before seems to have been aimed at defining his own group’s identity by emphasising the differences between Romans and the ‘pure and uncultivated’ in Germania. 60 Inscriptions from the provinces mention nutrices and the third century monument of the nutrix Severina found in Cologne depicts this wet-nurse and her daily activities; the nursing and caring for a child (Illustration 6 page 50) and proves that wet-nursing, in the course of the imperial period, also occurred in Germania Inferior. It is important to keep in mind that the evidence on maternal breastfeeding is slim in comparison to the references to wet-nurses because it might have been a ‘normal’ situation that did not leave concrete proof and end up in our collection of sources. Contracts on papyri, comments of philosophers or illustrations of nursing mothers were not used. § 3.2 The wet-nurse in elite families It has become clear in the previous chapter that wet-nurses were commonly used in elite families. Epigraphic sources also record the wet-nurse’s position as a member of the upper class extended family. Keith Bradley has concluded that nearly half of the funerary inscriptions set up by nutrices in Rome were for nurslings of senatorial or equestrian status. 61 On the basis of their nomenclature the wet-nurses can often be identified as family freedwomen or slaves. 62 A fragment from the Digesta indicates that some elite children had more than one nurse, but these may also have been both For the wet-nursing contracts see: Lefkowitz 1998; Masciadri 1982. The monument of the wet-nurse Severina from Cologne will be examined in the fourth chapter of this thesis. Digesta 50.13.1.14: ‘It is also the duty of a Governor or a Praetor to take cognizance of the claims 59 of nurses for the support of children to which they are entitled, when brought before their magistrates. Such claims, however, should only be considered where infants are nourished by the breast, but when this is not the case, neither the Praetor nor the Governor will have jurisdiction.’ 60 61 N. 32. p. 14. Bradley 1992, 203. 62 Bradley 1992, 203. 23 wet-nurses and dry nurses, i.e. nannies. 63 Soranus advises parents to ‘provide several wet nurses for children who are to be nursed safely and successfully. For it is precarious for the nursling to become accustomed to one nurse who might become ill or die, and then, because of the change of milk, the child sometimes suffers from the strange milk and is distressed, while sometimes it rejects it altogether and succumbs to hunger.’ 64 The use of several wet-nurses was probably only possible in rich families with many slaves. If no lactating slave or freedwoman was available within the familia a free wet-nurse could also be hired. 65 The columna lactaria at the Forum Olitorium in Rome mentioned by Paulus Diaconus may have been the gathering place of professional wet-nurses, but Sussman’s assumption that ‘wet-nursing was an organized, commercial activity in Rome’ cannot be confirmed since there is no other evidence of the regulation of wet-nursing on municipal or imperial level. 66 Wetnursing contracts from Egypt record private agreements between slave-owner, wetnurse and client concerning the nutrix’s salary and working conditions, the duration of the employment and special requirements, such as the wet-nurses’ obligation to abstain from sexual intercourse and alcohol to secure the quality of her milk and care. 67 The possibility to hire a professional wet-nurse thus existed for those who could afford it, but slave and freed wet-nurses were probably preferred since mercenary nutrices were relatively independent and more difficult to control, especially when the nursling was brought to the wet-nurses’ home. Apart from this, the use of a slave or wet-nurse was of course financially more opportune. The chances Digesta, 33.1.34.18 Scaevola: ‘…and charged the curator not to suffer the land to be sold, and to permit his foster-child to enjoy the income of the property with Sempronia and Mævia, his nurses’. 64 Soranus, Gynaeciorum, 2.20. 65 Tatia Baucylis (CIL VI, 8942) was a free woman that was probably hired as a wet-nurse. 66 Paulus Diaconus, Epitoma Festi, 118M. 63 67 Sussman 1982, 3; Masciadri 1982. 24 that a hired wet-nurse stayed in touch with the family after the contracted period were significantly smaller than in case a slave or manumitted woman was used. Soranus provides a long list of criteria for the selection of wet-nurses; she must be between twenty and forty years old, have had experience with nursing and the care for two or three children, and her body and breasts should be neither to large, nor too small. 68 Her character is most important: ‘And the wet nurse should be ‘self- controlled’ so as to abstain from coitus, drinking, lewdness, and any other such pleasure and incontinence.’ 69 Families will not always have managed to find a wetnurse that fulfilled all Soranus’ demands, but the fragment indicates that the choice of a nutrix was taken serious. That some upper class families indeed appreciated a wetnurse might be illustrated by epitaphs that were erected by parents and former nurslings. Servius Cornelius Dolabella Metillianus, for example, erected an inscription for his nutrix and mammula, which derived as it is from the Latin for breast, mamma, can probably best be translated with the modern pet name ‘mummy’. 70 In other inscriptions deceased children are commemorated by parents, nutrix and other caretakers together. 71 The epigraphic evidence thus provides some examples of an intimate and affectionate relationship between the wet-nurse, her nursling and its family. There is no doubt, however, that the epitaphs present a one-sided view, since 68 Soranus, Gynaeciorum, II.19 On the selection of a wet nurse: ‘One should choose a wet nurse not younger than twenty or older than forty years, who has already given birth twice or thrice, who is healthy, of good habitus, of large frame and of a good color. Her breasts should be of medium size, lax, soft and unwrinkled, the nipples neither big or too small and neither too compact nor too porous and discharging milk overabundantly. She should be self-controlled, sympathetic and not ill-tempered, a Greek, and tidy.’ 69 Soranus, Gynaeciorum, II.19. 70 CIL VI, 16450. ‘D(is) M(anibus) / Ser(viae!) Corneliae Ser(vi) l(ibertae) / Sabinae / Ser(vius) Cornelius / Dolabella / Metillianus / nutrici et mammul(ae) / b(ene) m(erenti) f(ecit)’ 71 CIL VI, 35123. ‘Dis Manibus / Cn(aeus) Domitius / Helius Domitiae / Felicitati filiae / suae karissim(a)e / vix(it) an(num) I m(enses) V d(ies) XVI / et Helpidi Domitiae / con(iugi) suae b(ene) m(erenti) f(ecit) item / Iulius Epagatus et / Trophim(a)e nutrix’. Note that the Greek word for ‘nutrix ‘ is ‘τροφη’. Many wet-nurses with a servile and/or Greek background carry the name ‘Trophime’. CIL VI, 12366. ‘D(is) M(anibus) / Cn(aeo) Arrio Agapeto / Arria Agapete mater / et Bostrychus pater / <e=F>t Helpis mamma et / fi<l=E>i(a)e nutrix filio / pientissimo b(ene) m(erenti) f(ecerunt annis) III diebus / XXXXV’. 25 grave monuments would never have been erected if the family was not satisfied with the wet-nurse’s work or behaviour or if they had lost contact after weaning. Another important point rightly emphasised by Joshel, is the subordinate position of a wetnurse of slave or freed status in an elite family. 72 The wet-nurse would often have been forced to nurse her patron’s newborn and abandon her own child, if it had not died already. This might have had a great impact on her feelings towards the nursling and its family - emotions that can never be detected in our sources and can only be guessed at. Among the upper classes in early modern Paris it was common to send newborns to wet-nurses on the countryside, supposedly because of the unhealthy atmosphere in the crowded city.73 The idea to send a newborn away because it was better for its health is almost contradictory to our idea of the preferable way of childrearing in which the child is close to its mother. This is probably why modern historians have interpreted the practice as sign of the parents’ indifference towards their children. Although the Roman elite frequently escaped from the unhealthy atmosphere in the city to enjoy the clean air on their countryside estates, it is not clear whether this was a reason to accommodate upper-class nurslings with wetnurses in the villae rusticae. 74 According to Bradley the evidence for this practice in the Roman Empire is very slim, and he assumes that the use of wet-nurses in the countryside was not widespread. 75 There are a few sources that contradict this conclusion, however. In one of his Controversiae, a collection of rhetorical exercises that were usually based on a theme related to a stated law, Seneca the Elder describes 72 73 Joshel 1983, 3-4. Sussman 1982, 19. 74 Juvenal vividly describes the dirt, dangers and discomforts of the city life in Rome. Juvenal, Satyres, III Saeva Urbs, 4-10: ‘I praise his purpose; to retire from Rome, And give, on Cumae’s solitary coast, The Sibyl—one inhabitant to boast! Full on the road to Baiae, Cumae lies, And many a sweet retreat her shore supplies— Though I prefer even Prochyta’s bare strand, To the Subura:—for, what desert land, What wild, uncultured spot, can more affright, Than fires, wide blazing through the gloom of night, Houses, with ceaseless ruin, thundering down, And all the horrours of this hateful town?’ 75 Bradley 1992, 219. 26 a situation in which a mother dies in childbirth and the father sends the newborn off to the country to be nursed. 76 After a while he marries another woman who bears him a second son that is sent away to be wet-nursed as well. When, after ‘a long while’, the sons return home, they look so much alike that the mother, the man’s second wife, does not recognize her own boy. The husband does not want to tell her which one is hers, fearing that she would treat the other boy as a stepson. The mother’s advocate sues the husband for ill-treatment because the second son was brought up in such a way that his mother could not come to know him. While the passage shows that wet-nursing and the relegation of child care to servants could indeed interfere with the development of relationships between Roman children and their parents, it also indicates that the use of wet-nurses among elite families on the countryside may have been more common than Bradley assumes. This idea can be supported by a relief on a sarcophagus in the Museo Nazionale Romano in Rome which depicts parents arriving in a wagon at the countryside, probably their suburban villa (Illustration 2a+b page 28, 29). 77 The Italian archaeologist Micheli is certain that the journey from town to the countryside is depicted as the city that was left behind is symbolized by a wall and towers and the road that the couple has traveled is represented by a milestone. 78 A woman and a small child are awaiting and greeting them. The woman is on the basis of the stereotypical portrayal identified as a wet-nurse and the presence of the child makes it even more likely that a nutrix is concerned. The child cannot be identified with certainty as the parent’s son or daughter, but is does not seem plausible that another child, for instance a child of a staff member of the villa, is depicted welcoming the couple. The sarcophagus must have been expensive and undoubtedly belonged to a rich family. It seems very likely that the relief represents the practice of ‘nursing out’ Seneca, Controversiae, 4.6. Inv. Nr. 8942. Giuliano 1985, I.8, 128. 78 Micheli in: Giuliano 1985, 128. 76 77 27 which is hardly attested among the elite in the textual sources. 79 The sources that are examined up to this point all refer to the upper strata of Roman society. The textual fragments and sarcophagi reliefs that have been presented are unlikely to provide any information on lower classes in Roman society, such as the free urban working class, freedmen and slaves. 80 To that end epitaphs erected for wet-nurses by nurslings from lower social strata and wet-nursing contracts preserved on Egyptian papyri will be examined. Illustration 2 a + b (next page): Relief of a wagon ride on a sarcophagus. On the left, a woman who is commonly identified as a wet-nurse and a small child are greeting a man. The wagon with the couple, possibly the parents of the child, is believed to come from town to a countryside estate. 270280 AD. Rome : Museo Nazionale Romano Inv. Nr : MNR 8942 (Photo : catalogue) Juridical texts do mention slave children that were wet-nursed on the countryside, probably because more lactating slave women that could act as wet-nurses were available there. Digest, 50.16.210. 80 Bradley 1991b. 79 28 § 3.3 Wet-nursing among slaves Grave-inscriptions were not only erected among the Roman elite. Epigraphic evidence indicates that wet-nurses were also used among freedmen and slaves. Their motivations for using a nutrix probably differed from those of the upper classes. A considerable amount of all epitaphs from Rome erected by and for nutrices concern nurslings of servile status. 81 One of the epitaphs from Rome is erected by the nutrix Oscia Sabina for the alumnus Threptus, whose name derives from the Greek word ‘τρεφω’ which is related to the verb ‘τροφη’, ‘to nurse’ and can be translated as ‘nursling’. 82 The characterization alumnus and the single name indicate his servile status. The duo nomina of the nutrix may record her freed status; she was possibly one of the libertae of the Oscii family that was appointed to nurse this slave child. More likely however, is that the manumission of the wet-nurse occurred only after the nursing was stopped. Since the mother is mentioned as the co-commemorator, one can assume that the slave child was nursed by a slave wet-nurse in the household while its mother was present. Bradley explains this phenomenon: vernae, slaves born Bradley 1992, 203. CIL VI, 23589. ‘D(is) M(anibus) / Oscia Sabina / Threpto alumno / nutrix infelicissima / Lamyra mater fecerunt’. Single names can not always be taken as indicative for servile status, for instance when the epitaphs were used as markers for graves in a family grave. In this case the context (the characterisation alumnus and the name Threptus) permits verification of the deceased child’s servile status. 82 81 29 in the household, were usually wet-nursed by one slave woman for motives of efficiency. 83 The system of wet-nursing could guarantee the care for slave infants whose mothers had died in childbirth. Secondly, by appointing one woman as a wetnurse, the mother could continue to perform their tasks after birth and the chances that she would conceive soon again were bigger than when she was breastfeeding the child herself. 84 Both these steps were aimed at securing the reproduction of the slaves in the household, an efficient and commonly applied way of obtaining new slaves. 85 The German historian Roth contradicts Bradley’s theory on the basis of a fragment from the work of the writer Columella who states that slave women were not only valued for bearing children, but also for rearing them. 86 According to Roth, the prevalence of ‘extra-maternal childcare’ in which wet-nurses and babysitters played an important role was limited to large urban families. Slave mothers on countryside estates worked in and around the house and could easily care for their children.87 Roth’s assumption that Columella ranges nursing under ‘rearing’, cannot be confirmed however. Rearing does not necessarily include maternal nursing. Apart from this, slave women - in order to have the three children that were, according to Columella, required to obtain exemption from work or freedom - would have to bear five or six children because of the high infant mortality. 88 The use of wet-nurses would enable mothers to become pregnant again soon after birth and thus enlarge the Bradley 1992, 212-213. We have seen in chapter 2 that the contraceptive function of breastfeeding was known in Roman society. 85 Some scholars have concluded that slave-breeding was the most common way of slave acquisition in the Roman Empire, while others state that import was the most important source of slaves. For a summary of this discussion: LoCascio 2002. 86 Roth 2007, 13; Columella, De re rustica, I 8.19: ‘To women, too, who are unusually prolific, and who 84 83 ought to be rewarded for the bearing of a certain number of offspring, I have granted exemption from work and sometimes even freedom after they had reared (educare) several children. For to a mother of three sons exemption from work was granted; to a mother of more her freedom as well.’ Roth 2007, 13 n.43. Roth 2007, 13; Demographers have estimated that only 50% of all newborns survived until the age of ten. Parkin 1992, 147. 88 87 30 possibilities that she would give birth to six children. Since the stimulation of slave women to bear three children was part of the owner’s slave breeding strategies, the use of wet-nurse will still have been very convenient. Inscriptions that mention a wet-nursed slave whose mother was a co-commemorator are the proof of this practice. 89 An inscription from the ancient town of Sentinum in modern Umbria explicitly mentions the slave status of nutrix and nursling; they were conservae, slaves of the same family. The former nursling erected this epitaph for his nutrix. 90 If we assume that the nutrix’s conservus Adiectus was an adult when he erected the epitaph, which seems likely, we can conclude that the contact between the two slaves would have lasted for many years after weaning. 91 A long relationship between nutrix and a nursling of high social status was not rare, but the extended contact and possible affectionate relationship between a slave nursling and a nutrix of the same slave group is more surprising since sale and death of one or both slaves would often have made such a situation impossible. Wet-nursing contracts that have been preserved on papyri in Roman Egypt also provide interesting information on the wet-nursing of slave children. 92 When a slave woman was appointed as a wet-nurse by her owner within the household, a contract would not have been necessary. The contracts concern slave women who were hired out as wet-nurses by their owners and free mercenary wet-nurses that offered their services for a salary for a period from six months up to three years. 93 89 90 CIL VI, 23589 P. 29 n. 82. CIL XI, 5793 ‘D(is) M(anibus) / Veneriae / nutrici / b(ene) m(erenti) / conservae / Adiectus / posuit / h(ic) s(ita) e(st)’. There are several other inscriptions that provide us with examples of long-lasting contact between nurslings and wet-nurses of servile status. For example: CIL XI, 4433 ‘] / qui vix(it) a/n(nos) XVI 91 m(ensem) I / d(iem) I Alli / Castus et / Priscilla / filio dul/cissim(o) / et Alli Pri/manus et / Polytimus / fratri et / Hermion/e nutri/x b(ene) m(erenti) f(ecerunt)’. In this case the nursling was 16 when he died and was commemorated by his parents (father libertus, mother slave), brothers and nutrix. 92 93 Masciadri 1984. Bradley 1980, 322. 31 Some of the nurslings were probably foundlings that were ‘saved’ and reared to be slaves. In these cases contact between the hired wet-nurse and the slave nursling probably stopped after weaning. Τhere is an interesting connection between wet-nursing in upper classes and among slaves; slave children must often have been wet-nursed because their own mother served her patron’s child as a nutrix and was thus not available to take care of her own child. The use of surrogates in upper classes thus necessitated wet-nursing in lower classes. The demographic circumstances of the time should not be underestimated since, according to demographer’s estimates, thirty percent of the newborns in antiquity died within the first year. 94 As a result, approximately fifty percent of the slave and manumitted mothers lost their child and were thus available as wet-nurses. § 3.4 Wet-nursing among liberti Nurslings of freed status constitute another large part of the names mentioned on epitaphs erected for and by nutrices. 95 This group can be divided into two categories. The first category consists of former slaves that were nursed within a larger group of slaves; this group of children officially belongs to the category mentioned in the preceding paragraph, but ended up in the liberti-group because they were manumitted after weaning, most probably much later at the point when they had been of use for the owner for a very long time, or only shortly before or at their death. These children sometimes stayed in touch with (one of) their parents and wetnurse until after they were manumitted. An interesting example is CIL VI, 20042 in which we read about an imperial freedman, Caius Iulius Helenus, who erected a funeral monument for himself, his parents, his nutrix and a few other individuals, 94 95 Parkin 1992, 147. Bradley 1992, 203. 32 some of whom were imperial slaves. 96 Among the persons mentioned, the commemorator is the only freedman. His grave monument provides room for his parents, his nutrix, some former fellow imperial slaves, their children and freedmen. It is interesting that the commemorator was still in touch with both of his parents and his nutrix at the time of their death. Maybe the slave family lived together within the imperial household, the nutrix might have stayed with the family after weaning and developed a close and long-lasting relationship with her former nursling, possibly as a nanny. The second category consists of rich freedmen, or their children, who in their turn used slaves to wet-nurse their infants, following the practice of the elite, the class of their former owners. When no lactating slave woman was available, or when the family did not have any slaves at all, these rich liberti probably paid for mercenary wet-nurses, who might be identified in the epitaphs on the basis of a gentilicium that differed from that of the nursling and its family. 97 The long term relationship of mercenary wet-nurses with their former nursling and its family is also recorded on an inscription: Tiberius Claudius Stephanus was commemorated by his nutrix when he died at the age of twenty-four while Pompulla Nemaesis erected an epitaph for her former nursling who died at the age of thirty. 98 Caius Julius Certus 96 ‘C(aius) Iulius Aug(usti) l(ibertus) Helen(us) / sibi et / Eroti patri et / Zmyrnae matri et / Tryphaenae nutrici et / Phoebe et / Eupatoridi et // Caesaris // Secundo et / Aequali et // vernis// Ilairae et / libertis et libertabus et posterisque eorum / in fr(onte) p(edes) XII in agr(o) p(edes)XII’ The transcription of this inscription from a columbarium is a bit odd: the names Phoebus?, Eupatorides, Secundus, Aequalus and Ilaira are inscribed in a column, underneath each other, probably in order to use the space as efficient as possible the characterisation caisaris vernis is added in the next column, next to the names and seems to count for all of the named persons from Phoebus to Ilaira. 97 CIL VI, 4457. ‘M(arcus) Aimilius Paulli l(ibertus) Demetrius / Valeria Zosima nutrix’. 98 CIL VI, 6686. ‘Dis Manibus sacru[m] / Ti(berio) Claudio Neothyrso / qui vix(it) annis XXIIII dies XI[3] / Ti(berius) Claudius Stephanus / patrono bene merito de / se et Cacia Restituta nutrix / eius et sibi et suis po(s)terisq(ue) / eoru(m) ita uti cippi fine / fecit libe(n)s animo / [‘ CIL IX, 3730. ‘L(ucio) Laberio P(ubli) l(iberto) / Lupo v(ixit) an(nos) XXX / Pompulla / Nemaesis nutrix / p(osuit)’. 33 made a grave monument for his sixty-one year old nutrix. 99 Not all nutrices with different gentilicia than the family they worked for were necessarily mercenary nurses however. One can imagine that friends, family members or neighbours might have helped out wet-nursing a baby voluntarily, without financial rewards. § 3.5 The ‘rest’ group Bradley estimates that almost fifty percent of nurslings recorded on epitaphs from Rome belonged to families of senatorial and equestrian rank and that nurslings of freed and servile status constitute another ‘good proportion’ of the volume of epigraphic sources. 100 The rest of the families in which a wet-nurse was used ranges from relatively wealthy free people to the free poor who managed to pay a wet-nurse or find a voluntary nutrix. The schematic representation of the Roman social structure under the Principate that is proposed by Alföldy makes clear that social status and wealth in this group varied considerably (Illustration 3, page 36). 101 It is not only hard to label this group but it is also difficult to identify its members in the epigraphic material. Only a few nurslings from this group can be found in my database that contains all ‘nutrix-inscriptions’ from Rome, Italy and the western provinces. 102 To conclude that the use of wet-nurses was limited among this social group is too rash, since the epitaphs do not in the first place reflect social reality, but result from commemorative practices. The custom of erecting epitaphs for nutrices was more prevalent among upper classes, freedmen and slaves than among poor CIL III, 10038 records an epitaph for Caius Julius Certus’ paternal aunt and nutrix who died at the age of 61. ‘D(is) M(anibus) / Dianadri / an(norum) LXI Caius / Iulius Cer/tus amit(a)e / di<g=C>nissi/m(a)e et [n]u/trici po/suit / h(ic) s(ita) e(st)’. 100 Bradley 1992, 203. 101 Alföldy 1988, figure 1. 102 Bradley 1991b, 17. Bradley mistakenly ranges CIL IX, 3730 in the group of ‘nurslings of intermediate social level’, since the nursling in this inscription is not of freeborn status but a freedman. ‘L(ucio) Laberio P(ubli) l(iberto) / Lupo v(ixit) an(nos) XXX / Pompulla / Nemaesis nutrix / p(osuit)’. 99 34 freeborn families and those of intermediate social level. 103 This is in line with the observation that the free poor are underrepresented in the source material. 104 In addition to this, the identification of intermediate social groups in the epigraphic evidence is complicated by the absence of similar important hallmarks such as the formula ‘clarissimus / -a’ for senatorial families or the nomenclature of freedmen. That it is hard to discern inscriptions for nutrices erected by people of intermediate social standing or that these are rare does not necessarily mean that the use of wetnurses was limited in this stratum of society. An example is provided by the freeborn Lucius Nutrius Gallus who commemorated his former wet-nurse Cominia Secunda, his apparent brother who served as a legionary soldier in Hispania, and his two freedmen and two slaves. 105 Apart from different commemorative practices it is possible that relatively poor free families did not have slaves or freedwomen who could serve as wet-nurses which must in some cases have compelled them to hire a free woman as a nutrix. Although inscriptions have been erected by and for hired wet-nurses, it would not be surprising to find that less epitaphs were erected for them as their relationships with the nursling and its family were professional and often ended immediately after weaning. Several studies have pointed out that the commemorative practices of freedmen differ from those of other social groups. They were usually aimed at presenting the former slaves new social position and status, for instance by emphasizing the legitimacy of their marriage as slaves could officially not marry. George 2005, 37-66: Imitating the elite and presenting the wet-nurse as a member of an extended family with slaves and freedmen might also be interpreted in this perspective. 104 Dixon 2001, 11. 105 AE 1972, 203. ‘L(ucius) Nutrius C(ai) f(ilius) Gallus / sibi et Cominiae / Secundae nutrici / suae et 103 C(aio) Nutrio C(ai) f(ilio) / Gallo mil(iti) leg(ionis) VII Hisp(anae) / et Secundo lib(erto) et / Primigenio lib(erto) et Tertio / et Venustae t(estamento) f(ieri) i(ussit).’ The fact that this man had slaves and freedmen indicates that he was relatively wealthy. 35 3.6 Duration of contact and the relationship between wet-nurse and nursling Illustration 3: Schematic representation of the Roman social structure during the Principate based on Alföldy 1988, figure 1. Wet-nursing contracts preserved on Egyptian papyri often mention the agreed duration of breastfeeding; most of the times this is two years, but periods of six months and three years are also recorded.106 Stable isotope analysis on skeletal remains from the Isola Sacra in Ostia and the catacombs St. Callixtus on the Appian road in Rome confirm that the children buried there were fully weaned at the age of two and a half to three years. 107 Contact between nutrix, nursling and its family is likely to have often ended after weaning. Of course earlier suspension of the wet- 106 107 Masciadri 1984, 23. Prowse 2001, 41; Rutgers et al. 2009, 1131. According to Rutgers et al. 2009, 1131: ‘...pagan medical authorities such as Galen, the people of pagan Isola Sacra, the users of the Kellis 2 cemetery in the Dakhleh Oasis in Egypt, which is possibly a Christian necropolis as well as a Late Roman population at Queensford Farm in England [...] all seem to have gradually weaned their children when these were between two and four years of age.’ 36 nurses’ tasks for financial, practical or personal reasons may also have occurred.108 Inscriptions that mention the age of death of (former) nurslings at thirteen, twentyfour and thirty years old show that the contact between wet-nurse and child lasted for a long period after weaning however. 109 These wet-nurses were probably also involved in the care for the children after weaning. Some of them are called nutrix assa, dry nurse. 110 It is important to acknowledge the differences between social groups that must have existed. Slave nutrices in upper class families were likely to become dry nurses after weaning whereas free mercenary nurses that were hired by families of lower social status will often have ended the contact with the nursling and its family after the agreed period, most probably when the child was fully weaned. The question as to what epitaphs can tell about the nature of a relationship between commemorator and deceased is hotly debated. The German ancient historian Joseph Vogt concluded on the basis of epitaphs erected for and by nurslings and wetnurses that seem to record love, affection and sincere grieve at death, that GrecoRoman slavery was characterised by mutual affection and humanity. 111 This rosy picture of ancient slavery has been readjusted by Sandra Joshel who emphasised that the epitaphs are one-sided testimonials that only attest positive sentiments. Negative experiences with wet-nursing and slavery were obviously not recorded on epitaphs.112 The texts of the epitaphs are partly based on conventions, and the grave monuments for nurslings erected by freedwomen were probably a direct consequence of the wetnurse’s manumission. As Dixon states: ‘the grave inscriptions are not more than a dutiful acknowledgement of service’. 113 Epitaphs erected for manumitted slaves may 108 The contracts contain clausules that make it possible for the parents to end the contract when the wet-nurse became pregnant for which, in some cases, a fine is laid down. For example: P.Berol.Inv 13068; Masciadri 1984, 24. 109 CIL VI, 18073; CIL VI, 6686; CIL VI, 7618. 110 CIL VI, 9245; CIL VI, 29497; AE 1989, 213. 111 Vogt 1953, 104-109. 112 Joshel 1986, 3-4. 113 Dixon 1988, 128. 37 not have been an expression of true affection or appreciation of a servant, but a demonstration of the commemorator’s power, status and philanthropy. Whereas slave nutrices were indeed forced to nurse the child of their masters when necessary, a mercenary nurse took this responsibility voluntarily, but possibly not wholeheartedly as finances may have been an important motivation. The long-term contact between wet-nurse, nursling and its family that is recorded in many inscriptions, can indicate that an affectionate relationship did exist between nursling and nutrix, but sentiments of dependency and patronage will still have been on the background. This conclusion can be confirmed by several literary references to the wet-nurse’s love for her nursling: ‘A foolish nurse was likely to resent the arrival of her nursling’s adolescence, for it was then that she had to relinquish him to the training ground and forum’. 114 The fact that the nutrix is the most commemorated female worker from the city of Rome seems to verify that the wet-nurse had a special social position, which is not surprising given the tasks and responsibility of the wet-nurse that must have required the parent’s appreciation and trust. Another important aspect of the epigraphic evidence is the frequent occurrence of epitaphs for nutrices erected by fellow slaves. Within this social group motivations connected to the demonstration of power relations or dependency, social status or welfare would have been less important. The epitaphs might be interpreted as symbols of sincere affection for a (former) nursling and appreciation of a nutrix indeed. § 3.7 The wet-nurse and her child Grave inscriptions and a part of the textual sources present a very romantic and positive view of the relationship between nutrix and nursling and the phenomenon of wet-nursing in general. This is inherent to the nature of these sources; after all, epitaphs would probably never be erected for a bad wet-nurse or when the nursling’s 114 Fronto, Epistulae, 2.124 38 family and nutrix had lost contact. The emotional difficulties that a wet-nurse probably encountered, are not recorded in the sources, but should not be underestimated. In most cases a slave woman became a nutrix after her own child died, which must have occurred very often as child mortality was high. 115 Another possibility was that the nutrix’s child, if not already weaned, was sent to another woman to be wet-nursed, sometimes by a fellow slave. Other children were probably weaned too early or too fast because their mother became a wet-nurse, which might have resulted in illness or in the worst case, death. Taking care of someone else’s baby when one’s own child was sent away or had died might have caused emotional difficulties for the wet-nurse. It becomes clear from the Egyptian wet-nursing contracts that wet-nurses were also subjected to a set of constraints. Nutrices were not allowed to have sexual intercourse during breastfeeding, a rule that resulted from a post partum taboo on sex; it was believed that coitus, as well as alcohol, would affect the quality of the milk. This measure may at the same time have been intended to prevent the nutrix from becoming pregnant, which would have stopped lactation and endangered the nursling’s health. 116 These restrictions would have had a great impact on the marital relations of free mercenary wet-nurses. Possible emotions over the death of a child combined with new obligations and restrictions must have made wet-nursing an unpleasant experience for some. Wet-nursing was often not a choice, but resulted from a dependent position in a power structure, in other cases financial circumstances might have caused women to become wet-nurses. 117 115 This may have happened in thecase of the nutrix Vatronia Arbuscula who bought a place for the grave of her son Primus: CIL VI, 28381: ' Vatronia Arbuscula / nutrix Cerceniae / Primo filio locum / sumpsit’ 116 The possibility that a wet-nursing agreement had to be terminated because of pregnancy is recorded in the contracts: P. Berol. Inv. 13068; Masciadri 1984, 24. 117 Dio Chrysostom describes wet-nursing as a respectable profession for poor free women. Dio Chrysostom, Discourses, 7.114. 39 As has been shown, the nutrices’ children had often died or were sent to another woman to be wet-nursed. Some of them were weaned early as the mother extended lactation nursing another child. This group of wet-nurses children can be found in the epigraphic evidence as conlactei, children nursed with the same milk as the nursling. On some of the epitaphs a conlacteus, a child that was nursed with the same milk as the nursling, likely to be the wet-nurse’s own child, was commemorated by a fellow nursling such as Lucius Arruntius Dicaeus. 118 Most of the children of wetnurses were probably sent to other wet-nurses, possibly on the countryside. 119 Some of them were nursed by another slave within the household and were close to their mother, at least physically. § 3.8 Conclusions Literary sources, legal texts and epigraphic evidence have made clear that the use of wet-nurses was common among all social strata in different parts of the Roman Empire, but the motivations and practical circumstances evidently varied. In the upper classes the use of slave nutrices had become a cultural custom, whereas slave mothers were often compelled to hand their child over to the care of someone else, sometimes to become a wet-nurse herself. Free mercenary wet-nurses were used when no lactating slave women were at hand and financial means were sufficient. Nursing out may have been more common in elite families than is usually assumed. Slave children were certainly often wet-nursed on an elite family’s estate in the countryside. Up to a certain level, the inscriptions probably reflect social conventions resulting from manumission, but it seems likely that thrust and affection also existed. 118 Juridical evidence demonstrates that it was not unusual to send slave children, possibly the children of wet-nurses, to the family’s villas in the countryside: Digest 32.99.3; 50.16.210. 119 CIL VI, 5939. ‘Arruntia / L(uci) l(iberta) Cleopatra / nutrix / L(ucius) Arruntius L(uci) l(ibertus) / Dicaeus conlacteus’. 40 The inscriptions for and by conlactei and the erection of epitaphs among slave nurslings and nutrices indicates that feelings of connection, possibly even kinship, and affection indeed existed in relations that resulted from wet-nursing. 120 More evidence for respect and affection for nutrices will be examined in the next chapter. Undoubtedly not all wet-nursing relations were without difficulties. 121 Apart from this, wet-nursing must have had a great impact on the everyday life and emotions of all parties involved: not only the wet-nurse and her child, but also the nursling and his mother. A slave mother and her child were sometimes separated whereas an elite mother might have had the feeling that she was replaced by the nutrix. In other cases death, sickness or other physical problems caused parents to rely on a nutrix. The use of nutrices in upper classes thus induced wet-nursing among slaves and freedmen. Even though wet-nursing may have caused emotional distress and the separation of mother and child in some cases, it would not always have been detrimental for the child. Epitaphs have made clear that affectionate relationships existed between wet-nurses, nurslings, parents and conlactei. The decision to use a nutrix did not necessarily entail abandonment of the child, since epitaphs make clear that parents were often alive and in contact with wet-nurse and nursling and grieved over the death of their child. To argue that wet-nursing was a form of ‘institutionalized abandonment’ or served to limit emotional attachment is inconsistent with the information provided by the source material. Moreover these judgments are based on a modern, culturally defined assumption that maternal care is always best for a child. 120 This might be similar to the belief prevalent in Arabic/Muslim countries that children nursed by the same woman cannot marry each other that is derived from the idea of milk kinship. A close bond between slave children and upper class children that were reared together, by the same woman, is often recorded, but in this case the milk kinship seems to be most important given the use of the term ‘conlacteus’. 121 The fines for breaking requirements set down in wet-nursing contracts on Egyptian papyri indicate that agreements were not always acted upon. In the next chapter more problems and bad experiences concerning wet-nursing that are recorded in the sources will be examined. 41 4 Pagans and Christians; mentality and practice It has become clear that wet-nursing was not only common among the Roman elite, but also in the lower strata of society and in the provinces of the Empire. Both medical reasons, such as illness, death or physical incapability of the mother to nurse and cultural reasons for the use of wet-nurses, ranging from obligation in the case of slaves to family planning or aversion to physical work in elite families, have been examined. Epitaphs and some literary sources record long and intimate relations between wet-nurses, nurslings, conlactei and parents, but it is important to remember that most wet-nurses were in a subordinate social position and had to comply with their patron’s demands. The social difference between upper-class nursling and servile or freed wet-nurse on the one hand and the nutrix’ tasks - which required affection or at least interaction with the child and the parent’s trust - on the other hand, is the most interesting characteristic of this unique relation between master and slave. This chapter focuses on the special position of the wet-nurse and the Roman authors’ disapproval of wet-nursing. It attempts to understand the Romans’ mentalities regarding wet-nurses as individuals and the practice of wet-nursing in general. Since opinions are likely to be as varied as the population of the Empire, I will not only take into account the writings of Roman philosophers, but also legal sources and the work of prominent Christian authors, such as Augustine, Chrysostom and Ambrosius. Because of the elite-biased nature of the sources this chapter will predominantly focus on elite practice. Anthropological studies to wet-nurses on plantations in the New World may give some insights in the experiences of the groups that are normally not particularly well represented in the sources: the lower social strata and the wet-nurses themselves. 42 Illustration 5: Hellenistic terracotta statuette of old wet-nurse holding child, from Tanagra, ca. 300 BC. London: British Museum inv. AN355091001 (Photo British Museum) Illustration 4: Hellenistic terracotta statuette of old wet-nurse holding a child, from Tanagra, ca. 325-300 BC. Paris: Musée du Louvre Inv. Nr : MNB 889 (Photo : Louvre). 43 § 4.1 Appreciation of the wet-nurse In his De Amicitia Cicero considers the friendship of elite children with their nurses and pedagogues and explains that these servants, who are close to a child from birth on, will often have a more intense relationship with their master than other slaves.122 That Cicero feels the urge to emphasize that servants are not equal to friends reveals that others apparently did not consider this and actually treated their servants as personal friends. Iconographic and epigraphic evidence also indicates that childminders such as nutrices sometimes had a special place within the group of household slaves and an affectionate bond with the nursling and its family; surrogate parents are the most frequent commemorators of children after parents and the nutrix and paedagogos, easily recognisable due to the stereotypical portrayal, are the only slaves present in the conclamatio scene on children’s biographical sarcophagi.123 (Illustration 1 a+b, page 16) Nutrices were regularly commemorated on epitaphs erected by their owners, patrons and former charges.124 That the wet-nurse and teacher also had an important place in the life of some freedmen is illustrated by an epitaph erected by an imperial freedman for his former caretakers, a male and a female ‘responsible for milk and education’ (a lacte et augendo). 125 The stereotype of the loyal old wet-nurse in classical literature also indicates that nutrices in some cases enjoyed respect, which is hardly surprising given the tasks of the nutrix that demanded trust, interaction and possibly affection. The story of Odysseus’ nurse Cicero, De amicitia, 20.74. ‘In general, decisions about friendships should not be made until we have developed maturity of age and strength of mind… Otherwise our nurses and our pedagogues, on the principle that they were known to us longest, will claim the largest share of our affections. They must not, of course, be neglected, but they must be regarded in a different manner from how we regard the friends we have made as adults.’ 122 123 Of all grave inscriptions for children erected in the city of Rome, 8.8 percent were set up by surrogate caretakers, such as nutrices or foster parents. King 2000, 149. 124 Dixon 2001b, 115. 125 CIL VI 37753: ‘D(is) M(anibus) / M(arcus) Aur(elius) Aug(usti) lib(ertus) Fortunatianus / scriba cursorum fecit se vivo / sibi et Eutycheti filio suo / et Cyrene et Eutycheti / a(!) lacte(!) et augendo / lib(ertis) lib(ertabus)q(ue) p(osterisque) e(orum) / h(uic) m(onumento) d(olus) m(alus) abe[sto] …’. Laes 2006, 67. 44 Eurycleia who was the first to recognize him after his long journey is one of the most famous examples of this literary tradition. The wet-nurses of the bad emperors Nero and Domitianus that arranged their funerals when everybody hated them are part of the same literary discourse. In classical tragedy the old wet-nurse, as a result of her infinite loyalty and honesty, often fulfils a central role in the process that leads to the downfall of the heroine, the nutrix’ former nursling. 126 Hellenistic terracotta statuettes of wet-nurses and nurslings holding hands suggest affection and intimacy. 127 (Illustration 4 + 5 page 43) Respect and care for a wet-nurse may also be attested in a fragment from Pliny the Younger’s Epistulae in which he thanks a friend for attending to the cultivation of a piece of land that the writer gave to his former wet-nurse. 128 His friend’s care may have been important to Pliny because he wanted to guarantee his nutrix’ provision for old age, but possibly also because of an economic interest and would profit from cultivation of the land. A similar arrangement for the old age provision of wet-nurses seems to have been recorded in a legal testamentary case considered in Digesta 33.2.34.18 in which the possibility that the nurses of an heir profit from the usufruct of an inherited property is discussed. 129 It appears that wet-nurses were mentioned in 126 The story of Phaedra, the daughter of Minos and wife of Theseus, provides another example of this discourse. Though married to Theseus, Phaedra fell in love with Hippolytus, Theseus' son. He rejected her. Alternatively, Phaedra's nurse told Hippolytus of her love, whereupon he swore he would not reveal her as a source of information. In revenge, Phaedra wrote Theseus a letter claiming that Hippolytus had raped her. Theseus believed her and cursed Hippolytus. As a result, Hippolytus' horses were frightened by a sea monster and dragged their rider to his death. The old nurse’s intimacy to her former nursling and her good intentions thus caused the bad turn in this story. See also: Mencacci 1995, 227: ‘balia coraggiosa antagonista dei mostri..’; George 2005, 195. 127 Laes 2006, 63. 128 Pliny the Younger, Epistulae, VI.3.1: ‘I Return you thanks for cultivating the ground I gave to my nurse: At that time it was worth 100000 sesterces; afterwards, on a sinking of the rent, the purchase fell, but on you care, it will be retrieved. Only remember, that I do not only recommend to you the trees and the ground, (tho' I consider them too) but my small present; which it is equally her interest, who receiv'd it, as mine, who gave it to her, that it should be made the most serviceable.’ 129 Digesta 33.2.34.18 Scaevola, Concerning use, usufruct, income, lodging, and services left by legacies or trusts: ‘… A certain party who had appointed Sempronia heir to a tenth of his estate, Mævia to another tenth, and a foster-child to the remainder of the same, appointed a curator for the latter, 45 testaments and, more importantly, that they sometimes constituted a separate group of heirs, apart from other freedmen and servants. In another letter, Pliny the Younger praises a girl for honouring her parents and servants in the right way, according to their social position. 130 This again indicates the general acceptance of affection between nurslings, wet-nurses and other servants. The order of the people mentioned by Pliny may be significant; the father comes first as the most important person honoured by the child, his friends are next in line and her nurses, paedagogos, the slaves that accompanied the child to school and supervised it at home, and teachers were last. 131 Cicero also recognizes the fact that nurses and pedagogues, the slaves that were closest to a child, often ‘claim a large share of their affections’, 132 but he, like Pliny, notes that these ‘friends’ should be honoured according to their status as slaves and not as social equals. 133 These servants, who are also depicted in the conclamatio-scenes on biographical sarcophagi, were apparently commonly accepted to be the most important persons in an elite child’s thinking that he had a right to do so by law, and charged the curator not to suffer the land to be sold, and to permit his foster-child to enjoy the income of the property with Sempronia and Mævia, his nurses; and, at the end of his will, he added, "I charge all my heirs with the execution of this, my testament." .. The question arose whether the nurses could claim the third part of the usufruct of the land under the terms of the trust, even though the curator, whom the testator could not legally appoint for his foster-child, had been charged with the execution of the same. The answer was that, in accordance with the facts stated, the testator had properly legally intimated his wishes by the creation of the trust, and therefore the nurses could enjoy the income of the land, along with his foster-child, in accordance to what he had given to each one of them.’ 130 Pliny the Younger, Epistulae, V.16.3: ‘She had not quite reached fourteen, and had already the prudence of age, a decent gravity, a youthful sweetness, with a virgin modesty. How endearing was her love to her father! How agreeably did she entertain us his friends! How did she esteem her nurses, her masters, her instructors, according to their several employments!’ 131 It has often been assumed that Roman girls did not receive education; this passage indicates that the girl did go to school. 132 See above note 122. 133 Cicero, De Amicitia, XX.74: ‘In general, decisions about friendships should not be made until we have developed maturity of age and strength of mind… Otherwise our nurses and our pedagogues, on the principle that they were known to us longest, will claim the largest share of our affections. They must not, of course, be neglected, but they must be regarded in a different manner from how we regard the friends we have made as adults.’ 46 early life. 134 The fragments from the work of these elite authors indicate a certain discomfort with the amicable relations between masters and slaves, an understandable feeling given the power structure on which the slave society was based. Evidence from the sixth century collection of Roman legal sources, the Digesta, confirms the assumption drawn from literary sources that child minders, among whom wet-nurses, had a special status and position in the elite household. One of the advices from Ulpianus is an alteration of Augustus’ Lex Aelia Sententia which stated that for a slave to be legally manumitted, he or she had to be at least thirty years of age, and the manumittor at least twenty. 135 Digesta 40.2.13 provided the possibility for slave-owners of minor age to manumit slaves below the age of thirty for a ‘just cause’ which included the iustae affectiones of the slave-owners’ educatores, paedagogi and nutrices. 136 A slave wet-nurse younger than thirty could thus be manumitted by her master and former nursling before he reached the age of twenty because of the special intimate relations that could exist. 137 Another decree registered by Ulpianus renders the possibility for female family members, such as mothers, sisters and grandmothers, and others who are known to have a sincere affection for the child, such as wet-nurses, to accuse suspected curators and guardians. 138 The possibility that wet-nurses, pedagogues and other personal 134 135 George 2005, 193. Evans Grubbs 2002, 11. 136 Digesta 40.2.13 Ulpianus: ‘Concerning manumissions before a magistrate. 13. The Same, On the Duties of Proconsul. Or if he or she is the foster-brother, instructor, teacher, or nurse of the minor, or the son or daughter of the person above mentioned, or his pupil, or the attendant who carries his books, or if a slave is manumitted in order to become an agent; provided, in this instance, that he is at least eighteen years of age; and it is also required that the minor who manumits him shall have more than one slave.’ [my emphasis] ; Evans Grubbs 2002, 11. 137 138 Rawson 2003, 219-220. Digesta 26.10.1.7 Ulpianus: ‘Concerning suspected guardians and curators. Moreover, even women are permitted to bring such an accusation, but only those can do so who are necessarily induced to proceed through affection, as, for instance, a mother, a nurse, and a grandmother. A sister, also, can denounce a guardian as suspicious (for a Rescript of the Divine Severus with reference to a sister is extant). And, indeed, the Prætor will permit any other woman to bring such an accusation, whose 47 attendants for children developed affection for children due to their involvement in the upbringing are thus not only acknowledged in the works of Cicero and Pliny and portrayed on sarcophagi, but also recorded in Roman law. § 4.2 Proud wet-nurses The respect and gratefulness of nurslings and their families must have evoked feelings of pride in some wet-nurses. In some inscriptions in my database women are honoured as ‘mater et nutrix’. 139 The word ‘nutrix’ may have been used inaccurately to refer to a mother who nursed her own child. 140 If this interpretation were right, the inscription would provide an excellent example of a mother being praised for breastfeeding their own children. Another possibility is that these women were simultaneously commemorated by their husbands and children as ‘mater’ and by nurslings as ‘nutrix’. If the latter is the case, the occupation of these woman, wetnursing, may have been used as an element to confirm status, a practice that was very common among free poor workers and freedmen and women who could not boast on their social position. 141 Dio Chrysostom’ remark that wet-nursing was an honourable occupation for poor (freed)women can confirm the assumption. 142 Günters observation that among the inscriptions which record female workers from the city of sincere affection he knows to exist, who does not transgress the modesty of her sex, and who has such a regard for the ward that she cannot bear to have injury inflicted upon him.’ 139 CIL XIV, 1539: ‘D(is) M(anibus) / Ragoniae / Eutychiae matri / piissimae et / nutrici / [3]us Firmus’; CIL IX, 1154: ‘Cantriae P(ubli) fil(iae) / Paullae sacerd(oti) / Augustae Aeclano / Cn(aeus) Ennius Dexter matri / et nutrici suae fecit / haec argenteam statuam Felicitatis / Aeclani dedit’; CIL IX, 4864: ‘Haliciae S[e]/verae matri / et nutrici / dulcissimae / feminae b(ene) m(erenti)’. 140 CIL IX 1154 probably belongs to this category since the commemorator Cnaeus Ennius Dexter erected the monument for his mother and nutrix (matri et nutrici suae). 141 142 George 2005, 63. Dio Chrysostom, 7.114: ‘Let them pay no heed to those idle objectors who are wont often to sneer obviously not only at a man's occupation when it has nothing at all objectionable in it, but even at that of his parents, when, for instance, his mother was once on occasion someone's hired servant or a harvester of grapes, or was a paid wet-nurse for a motherless child or a rich man's, or when his father was a schoolmaster or a tutor. Let them, I say, feel no shame before such persons but go right ahead.’ [my emphasis]. 48 Rome, the wet-nurses constitute the greatest part, also proves that the profession of wet-nurse provided status. 143 The famous grave monument of the nutrix Severina from Cologne is an excellent example of this custom (Illustration 6 page 50). On the front of the gravestone that is dated in the third century AD, we find the inscription ‘memoriae’ and a depiction of ‘the good shepherd’, a man carrying an animal, mostly a calf or sheep, on his neck, a wellknown iconographical theme in antiquity already before the motif was adopted by Christians, which symbolised the hope for a good afterlife. Both sides of the monument depict a woman, Severina nutrix, while performing her daily tasks as a wet-nursing; the nursing and caring for a nursling. The monument was most probably erected by Severina in remembrance of her former nursling, whose name and age of death are unknown. 144 Other than the name and depiction no information on Severina is provided, but her single name may indicate that she was a slave. Her occupation as a nutrix, possibly of a nursling from a prominent family, is the only status-defining element. The second chapter provided some more evidence of wet-nurses that seem to have derived status and respect from the fact that they were the nutrix of an elite family’s children, Rasinia Pietas who proudly mentioned her function as the wet-nurse of Lucius Burbuleius Optatus Ligarianus’ children is the most prominent example of this. 145 The higher the social position of the slave-owning family, the more status the wet-nurse derived from her tasks. The same ambiguity between servitude and pride has been detected by anthropologists who studied the wet-nurses in the southern states of the United States of America in the nineteenth century. 146 143 144 Günther 2000, 359. Galsterer 1975, 79. 145 CIL VI, 6006. 146 Laes 2006, 67. 49 Illustration 6: Grave stèle with a depiction of ‘the good shepherd’ and the inscription ‘memoriae’ on the front. The wetnurse Severina is depicted performing her daily tasks; the nursing and caring for the nursling on both sides. Ca. 250300 AD. Cologne : RömischGermanisches Museum inv. nr.: 74, 414. (My own photo’s). 50 § 4.3 Roman critique on wet-nursing Although wet-nursing was common and wet-nurses were sometimes respected, the practice was also criticized. The philosopher Favorinus of Arles, a close friend of the emperor Hadrian, fragments of whose work are preserved in Aulus Gellius’ Noctes Atticae, advised a mother of senatorial status who just gave birth not to rely on the service of a wet-nurse for the nursing of her newborn because it is unnatural and impedes the formation of an intimate emotional bond between mother and child.147 He also accused mothers who use wet-nurses of being idle and imperfect or halfmothers: ‘I beg you, madam, let her be wholly and entirely the mother of her child. For what kind of unnatural, imperfect and half-motherhood is it to bear a child and at once send it away from her? … In so doing they show the same madness as those who strive by evil devices to cause abortion of the fetus itself which they have conceived, in order that their beauty may not be spoiled by the weight of the burden they bear and by the labor of parturition.’ 148 Apart from this Favorinus disapproves of wetnursing because the characteristics of the alien, degenerate, barbarous, ugly, unchaste and dishonest slave women that were normally employed as wet-nurses, were likely to affect the noble child’s behaviour, morality and speech through the breast milk.149 Quintillian also advises parents to hire a wet-nurse that speaks proper Latin, because ‘these are the first people the child will hear, theirs are the words he will try to copy and pronounce.’ 150 Favorinus expresses the idea, connected to an assumption that the one who cares for and feeds a child - in this case the wet-nurse -arouses its strongest feelings of affection: ‘…the child’s own feelings of affection, fondness, and intimacy are centered wholly in the one by whom it is nursed, and therefore, just as happens in the case of those who are exposed at birth, it has no feeling for the mother who bore Aulus Gellius, Noctes Atticae, XII.1. Aulus Gellius, Noctes Atticae, XII.1. 149 Aulus Gellius, Noctes Atticae, XII.1. 150 Quintillianus, Institutio Oratoria, I.1.4-5. 147 148 51 it and no regret for her loss.’ 151 This idea is often also the fundament of modern historians’ disapproval of wet-nursing: ‘The images representing the parent’s involvement and participation in the boy’s life may well have been a fiction for most Romans of the upper social orders who were rather distant figures to their children and relied on a staff of slaves to perform the daily tasks of childrearing’. 152 The opinions that Plutarch and Tacitus expressed in their works are largely in keeping with Favorinus’ point of view. Plutarch agrees that maternal breastfeeding is better than wet-nursing because mothers ‘…will feed them with a livelier affection and greater care, as loving them inwardly, and, according to the proverb, to their finger-tips…But the goodwill of foster-mothers and nursemaids is insincere and forced, since they love for pay.’ 153 Plutarch also applies the ‘nature’ argument explaining that ‘mothers should themselves nurse and feed what they have brought into the world, since it is for this purpose that she [nature] has provided for every animal which gives birth to young a source of food in its milk.’ 154 He even refers to human physique to make clear that mothers should nurse their own children: ‘…while other animals have their dugs hanging loose beneath the belly, in women they grow above on the breast where mothers can kiss and embrace and fondle the infant, the inference being that the end and aim of bearing and rearing a child is not utility, but affection.’ 155 In conclusion it can be stated that Plutarch’ main preoccupation seems to have been the quality of the relationship between mother and child which he believed benefited from maternal breastfeeding. Tacitus does not approve the practice of wet-nursing either, but his argument is based on the idea that the traditional virtues of the glorious Romans from the past are replaced by decadence and luxury, of which the use of slave wet-nurses was an Quintillianus, Institutio Oratoria, I.1.4-5. D’Ambra 1983, 109. 153 Plutarch, Moralia, De liberius educandis, III. 154 Plutarch, Moralia. De liberius educandis, III. 155 Plutarch, De amore prolis, On affection for offspring, III-4. 151 152 52 excess. He states that in the past: ‘Every citizen’s son, the child of a chaste mother, was from the beginning reared, not in the chamber of a purchased nurse, but in the mother’s bossom and embrace, and it was her special glory to study her home and devote herself to her children… But in our day we entrust the infant to a little Greek servant-girl who is attended by one or two, commonly the worst of all the slaves, creatures utterly unfit for any important work. Their stories and their prejudices from the very first fill the child’s tender and uninstructed mind.’ 156 Even worse is that ‘Even parents themselves familiarise their little ones, not with virtue and modesty, but with jesting and glib talk, which lead on by degrees to shamelessness and to contempt for themselves as well as for others.’ 157 Tacitus glamorised the past in order to add power to his argument with regards to the alleged demoralisation and decadence of his own society. He seems to be more concerned about the behaviour and character of the childrens’ attendants than about wet-nursing in itself. 158 The critique on wet-nursing is not solely based on distrust of the wet-nurse, but is also clearly aimed at the Roman matronae who were accused of having failed as mothers and wives. The bad characteristics attributed to wet-nurses are the same as the traditionally mentioned shortcomings of the matronae; unchaste behaviour, abstinence of responsibilities, drinking alcohol, sex. The matrona’s faults are projected on the wet-nurse. 159 In Victorian England the wet-nurse’s good morals were often doubted. This suspicion probably resulted from the fact that most wet-nurses were unmarried women who had a child. 160 There is no evidence that the unmarried status of wet-nurses was also reason for Romans to doubt the qualities and intentions of a wet-nurse. Tacitus, Dialogus de oratoribus, 28-29. Tacitus, Dialogus de oratoribus, 28. 158 Dixon 1988, 121. 159 Laes 2006, 62; Joshel 1986, 7. 160 Klimaszewski 2006, 326. 156 157 53 Fear for bad behaviour of a wet-nurse is not only expressed by the philosophers Favorinus and Tacitus, but can also be found in literature and medical writings. 161 Several alarming stories about careless, indifferent and drunk or evil wetnurses smothering newborns in their sleep or letting babies fall on the ground breaking their bones can be found. Soranus warns wet-nurses not to let the nursling sleep in her bed since it could be suffocated when she rolled over.162 He also explains why nurses should not let the baby fall asleep with the nipple still in their mouth for they could also be smothered like this. 163 The drunk wet-nurse was a literary topos in the moralist discourse and Hellenistic art. 164 Although some of the concerns of these writers, such as the bonding between mother and a wet-nursed child and doubts on the wet-nurses’ intentions and care for the child must have been real, in some cases, their arguments should be interpreted as part of the philosophers’ discourse on the demoralisation of Roman society. The use of many slaves for example was presented as a symptom of the decadence that had invaded Rome from the Greek east. 165 The alleged decline of the Roman matronae’s morals that was supposed to be the cause of the refusal to take their motherly responsibilities, such as nursing and rearing children, was another important topic in the moralists’ discourse. 166 Favorinus’ description of women abandoning their children and wicked wet-nurses is dramatised, but was sometimes probably reality. Mencacci 1995, 227: ‘la nutrice donna animata da intenzioni tutt’altro che prottetive, capace di sfruttare l‘intimità con i bambini per far loro del male.’ 162 Soranus, Gynaeciorum, II.37: ‘Besides, the newborn should not sleep with her, especially in the beginning, lest unawares she roll over and cause it to be bruised or suffocated.’ 163 Soranus, Gynaeciorum, II.38: ‘But worst of all is to leave the nipple in the mouth while the infant 161 goes to sleep to prevent it from crying altogether. For when the nose is compressed, the mouth blocked, and the pharynx pressed upon, then the milk flows sometimes without sucking and the infant strangles’. 164 165 Laes 2006, 62. Tacitus, Dialogus de oratoribus, 29: ‘But in our day we entrust the infant to a little Greek servant- girl who is attended by one or two, commonly the worst of all the slaves, creatures utterly unfit for any important work.’ 166 Joshel 1986, 7. 54 The moralists presented maternal nursing as the ideal. Plutarch describes how Cato was involved in the caretaking of his newborn son and that his wife nursed not only her own child, but sometimes also those of her slaves: ‘After the birth of his son, no business could be so urgent, unless it had a public character, as to prevent him from being present when his wife bathed and swaddled the babe. For the mother nursed it herself, and often gave suck also to the infants of her slaves, that so they might come to cherish a brotherly affection for her son.’ 167 These slaves were thus to be conlactei, children nursed with the same milk. In chapter three it has been shown that conlactei sometimes had a strong bond. 168 In his Consolatio ad uxorem he praises a mother that nursed her own child even when it hurt; ‘…and yet you had nursed him at your own breast and had submitted to surgery when your nipple was bruised. For such conduct was noble, and it showed true mother love.’ 169 The famous relief on the ‘Statius sarcophagus’ from Ostia which depicts a mother nursing and a father listening to his child probably illustrates the ideal situation of maternal breastfeeding described by Plutarch, and in general, parental love and involvement in the caretaking of a child. (Illustration 7, page 56) The depiction of a mother while nursing is very rare. 170 The relief from the sarcopaghus from the Villa Doria Pamphilii provides the only other example of a nursing mother. (Illustration 8, page 56) It should be noted that maternal breastfeeding is not particularly well recorded in the sources because it did not leave as many traces as wet-nursing in the form of wet-nursing contracts, remarks from authors or epitaphs. In a large part of the Roman population, the lower classes, maternal breastfeeding was probably normal. Plutarch, Cato, XX.2-3 P. 40 169 Plutarch, Consolatio ad uxorem, 5-6 170 Bonfante 1997, 185. 167 168 55 Illustration 7: Sarcophagus found in Ostia of M. Cornelius Statius depicting stages in a boy's life. The mother nurses an infant while father watches; the father holds the infant; the young boy rides in chariot drawn by a goat; the boy recites his lesson for his tutor / paedagogos. Ca. 150 AD. Paris, Musée du Louvre (Photo: Louvre). Illustration 8: Biographical sarcophagus found in Tivoli depicting first bath of the newborn, the three Fates, the mother nursing the newborn, the child reciting for the paedagogos or father, the apotheosis. Ca. 150-160 AD. Rome Galleria Doria Pamphilia (Photo: Amedick 1991). 56 § 4.4 Ambivalent feelings Anthropological studies to the use of wet-nurses in the New World in the eighteenth century have shown that the Afro-American wet-nurses, the ‘mommies’, also possessed a certain authority and enjoyed respect due to their occupation as childminders. 171 These studies thus offer an interesting parallel for the slave wetnurses of the Roman world; wet-nurses tended to be respected in another way than other slaves, probably as a result of their intimate relationship with the child and the trust of the parents that she must have enjoyed. Mencacci also acknowledges this ambivalence in the ancients’ attitudes towards slave wet-nurses: ‘Ambiguità perche la nutrice è infatti un’estranea a cui si affida un compito delicatissimo, quello di occuparsi dei figli, il bene più prezioso della casa’. 172 The wet-nurses were trusted and respected, but the idea that ‘the goodwill of foster-mothers and nursemaids is insincere and forced, since they love for pay’ was always on the background. 173 People may have feared that wet-nurses were regarded as the elite childrens’ mothers because they fulfilled the maternal tasks. The discomfort with responsibility of the tasks and the servile of wet-nurses can also be traced in the aforementioned fragments from the works of Cicero, Plutarch, Pliny the Younger and Favorinus and is clearly manifested in a saying such as: ‘Of a surety philosophy has done you much service if you can bear courageously the loss of a boy who was as yet better known to his nurse than to his father!’ 174 Joshel proposes the theory that writers often emphasised the servile status of wet-nurses in order to make sure that she was not mistaken for the upper class child’s mother, a strategy opposite to the custom to accuse wet-nurses of making the faults 171 172 Joshel 1986, 12. Mencacci 1995, 232. 173 Plutarch, De liberis educandis, III. 174 Seneca, Epistulae, 99.3. 57 traditionally ascribed to matronae. 175 The fact that upper-class nurslings were dependent of socially inferior wet-nurses was apparently difficult for elite parents and this, combined with the notion of the barbarity of breastfeeding, may explain why the actual nursing of these children was almost never depicted in Roman art. 176 The wetnurse’s inferior social status, symbolized by her clothing, posture and (head)kerchief, illustrated in ‘first bath’ scenes on biographical sarcophagi, emphasises the social difference between wet-nurse and elite mother in order to assure that the woman who carried out part of the maternal tasks, was not mistaken for the mother.177 The veiled mother is presented as a chaste and modest matrona, the slave nutrix is performing the physically demanding tasks. 178 Occasionally her wide tunic reveals a bare shoulder, a costume device that was associated with deities and intimate scenes, but might in this case refer to the woman’s occupation as a wet-nurse. 179 The nutrix’s facial features seem to correspond with those of a middle-aged woman. This stereotypical image is probably connected to the aforementioned literary motif of the nutrix who always remained loyal to her nursling, even when he had reached adulthood. 180 175 Joshel 1986, 7. The feelings of jealousy and worthlessness of mother in an early twentieth century Italian elite family whose child is handed over to the care of a lower class wet-nurse are convincingly thematized in Marco Belocchio’s movie La Balia (1999), after the novel of Luigi Pirandello. 176 Laes 2006, 74: ‘Dat toekomstige Romeinse machthebbers, hoop en verwachting van ambitieuze aristocraten, in hun vroege levensfase sterk afhankelijk waren van sociale outsiders, werd dan ook slechts door subtiele strategieën toegegeven en tegelijk verhuld.’ Scott 1999, 61: The mother’s veil and wet-nurse’s (head)kerchief may be connected to ideas about purity, birth, breastfeeding and menstruating. 178 Schulze 1998, 57. 179 Kampen 1981, 34. ‘This fashion, the exposed shoulder, is particularly common in Roman sarcophagi for mythological figures such as Muses, Fates and nurse-attendants.’ 180 The nutrix is depicted as an elderly woman that, in reality, might not have been able to lactate anymore. This depiction might be explained by the fact that a wet-nurse often stayed with the nursling for a long time after weaning, as we will see later. The character of the elderly, honest and forever loyal wet-nurse was deeply anchored in the literary, dramatic and artistic / iconographic tradition. This stereotype might have been an example for the wet-nurse on the biographical sarcophagi too. Schulze 1998, 57 proposes that the old woman can also be identified as the former nutrix and loyal servant of the mother. 177 58 The difference in social status between mother and nutrix also becomes clear from the attitudes of parents and servants at the contemplatio, the mourning at the deathbed. The parents are sitting on both ends of the deathbed, their covered heads supported by their elbows, mourning in an introvert way whereas the house slaves, among whom the pedagogue and nutrix, are depicted manifestly grieving and touching the dead child (Illustration 1a+b, page 16). This scene reflects a prevalent opinion on grief based on Stoic thinking which prescribed that emotions over the death of a child should be limited. 181 The servants, who are incapable of controlling their emotions, do not act according to this custom. The depiction of the wet-nurse, who is presented as a member of the family and important figure in the life of the child, emphasizes the family’s high social position. Obviously, in this context the use of a nutrix is not presented as an abdication of the parent’s responsibility, on the contrary, it adds to their image as parents. 182 § 4.5 Christian practice and mentality This paragraph will focus on wet-nursing among Christians in the Roman Empire. According to theologians and apologists, Christianity ‘made moral demands on followers; paganism did not’. 183 This remark is contradictory to what we have seen in earlier paragraphs: pagan philosophers not only signalled the decay of Roman morality but also presented wet-nursing as an important symptom of this development. In this paragraph the ‘moral demands’ regarding breastfeeding and wetnursing of Christian authors will be investigated. Did the Christian mentality differ 181 Seneca, Epistulae, 99.3: ‘You are like a woman in the way you take your son's death; what would you do if you had lost an intimate friend? A son, a little child of unknown promise, is dead; a fragment of time has been lost… But I had really thought that you possessed spirit enough to deal with concrete troubles, to say nothing of the shadowy troubles over which men make moan through force of habit.’ 182 183 George 2000, 205. Garnsey, Humfress 2001, 170. 59 from pagan ideas? And did the Christian practice, like pagan customs, differ from the ideals prescribed by religious leaders? The Church Father Augustine, like Roman moralists, believed that the custom of leaving the care for a child to a wet-nurse indicated a mother’s lack of concern for her child’s wellbeing. 184 Ambrosius even explicitly connected love and care to nursing as he urged mothers to wean – which implied that they had nursed them - and love their children. 185 Despite the Church Fathers’ disapproval, literary and epigraphic evidence indicates that the practice of wet-nursing was also prevalent among Christians in the Roman Empire. In his medical writings the fourth century writer Oribasius provides advice on the testing of the milk of a wet-nurse: ‘You can test it also in this way: pour an eighth part of the milk into a glass vessel; add rennet in proportion, and stir with the fingers, then leave it to set and see whether the curd is less than the whey, for such milk is no good, and the reverse is indigestible: the best is that which contains both in equal proportion.’ 186 Augustine refers to a story about a baby girl that was left with the wet-nurse when the parents fled. 187 In the epitaphs of the fourth and fifth century AD, children are commemorated by their parents more frequently than in earlier periods, and more by Christians than by non-Christians. 188 Although surrogate parents, like wet-nurses, constitute a smaller part of the commemorators than in the first three centuries AD, epitaphs show that nutrices of servile and freed status were still used in families of high social status. 189 This change 184 185 Aug Frag. Bede, Commentarium I in Thessalonicensem, II. Nathan 2000, 150. Ambrosius, Epistulae, 63.108: ‘Mothers, wean your children, love them, but pray for them that they may long live above this earth, not on the earth but above it, for there is nothing long-lived on this earth, and that which lasts long is but short and very frail.’ 186 Oribasius, Collectiones Medicae, 15 187 Augustine, Epistulae, 98.4. ‘Senti un fatto narrato nella medesima lettera. Una bambina nella confusione della fuga dei genitori era stata abbandonata in mano alla bàlia: questa la fece partecipare per forza ai sacrifici dei demoni; ma la bambina con movimenti strani rigettò poi nella chiesa l'Eucaristia che le avevano amministrata.’ [my emphasis] 188 189 Shaw 1987, 41. A few examples are provided by the Epigraphic Database Bari that contains Christian inscriptions from Rome and her surroundings from the 3rd to the 8th century AD: 60 in commemorative practice does not necessarily indicate that wet-nurses were used on a smaller scale in the late Roman Empire, however. Commemorative practice does not show reality. It is impossible to estimate the exact prevalence of wet-nursing among Christian Romans, but it is clear that nutrices were not unknown to this group either. The Passion of Perpetua, a description of the martyrdom of the Christian woman Vibia Perpetua, based on her diary, provides an example of maternal breastfeeding in a Christian family. 190 Vibia Perpetua, a woman of the elite of Thuburbo Minus in Africa Proconsularis, was taken prisoner and executed because she was a Christian, possibly in the aftermath of Septimius Severus’ decrees in 202 that forbade conversion to Christianity and Judaism. One of Perpetua’s main concerns during her imprisonment was her baby boy whom she was still nursing. 191 The martyr refused to trust the care of her baby to the care of her family, who, given their social position, must have had the financial means to hire a wet-nurse. Although Perpetua’s wish to stay with her baby even in prison and continue to nurse it should not be interpreted as an abhorrence of the practice of wet-nursing, for this is not explicit, this fragment does indicate that maternal breastfeeding existed in Christian families of high social standing and that the solution of hiring a wet-nurse was not always obvious. The Passion of Perpetua may not only have presented Perpetua’s virtue as a Christian, but possibly also as a mother, although taking a newborn to prison may have evoked disbelief and shock rather than sympathy in some cases. A remark from ICVR, V 13990.ab: ‘sanc[tissimae ---] Agapen[i] que bixi[t ---] nutrici ca[rissimae] Anti[---]a c(larissima) f(emina) dep[---] [--- feci]t’. This epitaph was erected by a clarissima femina, a woman of senatorial rank, to her sweetest nutrix who was probably of servile or freed status. ICVR, IX 24768: ‘Trofimeni C(---) L(---) F(---) mamme nutrici sue fecit b(ene)d(ictae)’ Note the name of the nutrix: Trofime is an adaptation of the Greek word for wet-nurse, ‘τρόφιμος’. ICVR, IX 24892: ‘Aelia R[---] nutrici be[ne]meren[ti]’ 190 191 Shaw 1993. Passio S. Perpetuae, 6.7-8: ‘But because my baby had become used to being breast-fed and staying with me in prison, I immediately sent the Deacon Pomponius to my father to ask him to return my baby to me.’ 61 Church Father Chrysostom who observes that the caring for young children withheld parents from devoting any time to more spiritual matters, may also indicate that some parents were intensively engaged in the care for their children and did not rely on wet-nurses. 192 Perpetua may have been presented as an example of a virtuous and pious woman that was a loving and loyal mother at the same time. The evidence indicates that wet-nursing also occurred in Christian families, but it is very difficult to estimate how common the practice actually was. The sources provide little information on the Christians’ opinions on the wet-nurses as individuals, but a story from the Acts of Thomas in which a wet-nurse is chosen as a confidante by a freeborn woman who desired baptism, indicates that the stereotype of the old faithful nurse survived into the Christian literature. 193 The Church Fathers disapproved of wet-nursing, but whereas pagan moralists often attacked the practice and the wet-nurse as an individual because of her origin, speech, slavery or morality, Augustine, Ambrosius and Chrysostom’ views are milder as their focus is on the mother’s responsibility and love for her child instead of the possible bad characteristics of the nutrix. 194 The Church Fathers’ advice, characterized by concern 192 Chrysostom, Homilies on the gospel according to St. Matthew, 43: ‘And tell me not, ‘I have a wife, and I have children, and I am master of a household, and I am not able to set right these things’ (that 193 an active Christian should). Glancy 2006, 19. Acts of Thomas, 10.120: ‘And Mygdonia said: Give me the seal of Jesus Christ and I shall ( Iet me) receive the gift at thy hands before thou departest out of life. And she took him with her and entered into the court and awaked her nurse, saying unto her: Narcia (Gr. Marcia), my mother and nurse, all thy service and refreshment thou hast done for me from my childhood until my present age are vain, and for them I owe thee thanks which are temporal; do for me now also a ravour, that thou mayest for ever receive a recompense from him that giveth great gifts.’ It is striking that the Christian authors did not express any moral objections to the institute of slavery. This observation is in keeping with modern historian’s assumptions that ‘slaves and slaveholders were more pivotal in early Christian circles than has been generally acknowledged’. (Glancy 2006, 3.) Slavery is not repudiated in the Bible and Augustine did not find the institution disturbing. For more about Augustine and slavery see: Glancy 2006, 71; Flint-Hamilton 2003, 32: ‘In 194 this book Augustine reasons that slavery is the result of sin, and God’s just punishment of humankind. “For justly was the burden of servitude laid upon the back of transgression. And therefore in all scriptures we never read the word servant, until such time as that just man Noah laid it as a curse upon his offending son. So that it was guilt, and not nature, that gave origin unto that name.”’. 62 for the relationship between mother and child, must often not have been acted upon as wet-nursing seems to have also been common in Christian families. The ambiguity between prescription and actual practice not only existed in pagan society, but also in the early Christian world. § 4.6 Conclusion In both pagan and Christian Roman society wet-nurses were used in all social strata. The practice was apparently common, but the absence of evidence for maternal breastfeeding undoubtedly distorts the picture. Christian and pagan authors generally disapprove of the practice of wet-nursing; their most important concern seems to be the impossibility of the forming of an affectionate relation between mother and child when the mother does not nurse it and the parent’s alleged abdication of responsibility. Moralist’s arguments against wet-nursing should be interpreted as part of the discourse on the demoralization of Roman society. The inferior social status of the wet-nurse is often emphasised, possibly in order to make sure that this woman that was responsible for the care of the newborn - physically intensive work that was considered inappropriate for an elite woman - was not confused with the mother. Stories about wet-nurses that neglected or mistreated children may have reflected the sad reality in some cases and must have embodied Roman parents’ greatest fear. That wet-nurses were also often trusted, respected and maybe even loved by their nurslings and their families is indicated by several fragments from ancient literature, pieces of art and legal sources. Several passages from Digesta, confirm the assumption drawn from literary sources that child minders, among whom wet-nurses, had a special status and position within the household. Their ‘iustae affectiones’ for their nurslings were even acknowledged in Roman law. 63 Conclusion The epigraphic, literary, documentary, iconographic and legal evidence indicates that wet-nursing was common in the Roman Empire, both in the elites and in lower strata of society and among pagans as well as Christians. Allthough the ‘normal situation’, in which a mother nursed her child by herself, is less likely to have left any traces in our collection of sources, because, for instance, no contracts were needed, it is clear that the wet-nurse must have been a well known personage in the lifes of a considerable amount of Roman children. High mortality and the absence of artificial baby food, will often have necessitated the use of a surrogate mother. The reasons for the use of wet-nurses differed notably within and between different social groups. Not only biological reasons such as mortality and disease, but also various cultural reasons such as family planning, an aversion of physical work and social standards or efficiency and reproduction strategies in the case of slaves may have played a role. Wet-nurses were often slaves or freedwomen, but free mercenary nutrices also offered their services. This group tends to be underrepresented in the evidence because professional wet-nurses were less likely to stay in contact with their nurslings for a long time after weaning and receive a grave marker in which they were mentioned as nutrices. Force, positions of dependency and inequality as well as financial motivations may have played a role in the decision, or compulsion, to become a wet-nurse. Even though various sources record intimate and affectionate relations between wet-nurse, nursling, conlactei and parents, it is likely that the sudden change in the life of a mother who lost her child or was forced to delegate the care of her baby to someone else to become a wet-nurse, caused emotional difficulties in some cases. 64 Epitaphs seem to indicate that relationships between the wet-nurse, parents, nursling and conlactei were sometimes affectionate and long-lasting, both in elite circles as among slaves and freedmen. This observation is confirmed by remarks of Roman authors, legal evidence which acknowledges the iustae affectiones of a nutrix for a nursling, the existence of the literary stereotype of the loyal old nurse, sayings and reliefs from biographical sarcophagi on which the relationship between child and its most important servants, the wet-nurse and paedagogos, are depicted. These sources may distort our perception however. Undoubtedly not all wet-nursing relations elapsed without any problems, some stories about wet-nurses who neglected or mistreated children are known to us, but due to the nature of our sources, the picture of wet-nursing is largely positive. Despite the prevalence of wet-nursing, Christian and pagan authors generally disapprove of the practice. Their most important concern seem to be the impossibility of the formation of an affectionate relationship between mother and child when the mother does not nurse it, worries about the nutrix’s behaviour and care and the alleged abdication of paternal responsibilities. Moralist’s arguments against wetnursing should be interpreted as part of the discourse on the demoralisation of Roman society. The inferior social status of the wet-nurse is often emphasised, both in literature and art, possibly in order to make sure that this woman who was responsible for the care of the newborn, was not confused with the mother. Even though wet-nursing may have caused emotional distress or the separation of mother and child in some cases, it was not necessarily detrimental for the child. That many mothers did not nurse their children does not mean that they did not care about or love them. Secondly, there is no reason to assume that all wetnursed children were neglected or abused; legal and epigraphic evidence indicates that wet-nurses often were loved and appreciated caretakers whose sincere affections for their nurslings were also acknowledged. The advice on the selection of a wet- 65 nurse provided in the works of medical writers indicates that parents took the matter serious. Bradley’s thesis which entails that wet-nurses may have been used on a large scale to limit emotional attachment to a child because of high infant mortality cannot be confirmed with evidence. Bradley is not the only one who assumes that the use of a wet-nurse implied that parents were not emotionally attached to their child. Modern historians have often disapproved of wet-nursing because they saw it as a form of institutionalised abandonment or even a non-prosecutable form of infanticide. Their conclusions are based on the moralists’ negative remarks on wet-nursing, the assumption that babies were wet-nursed outside of their parents' house and the modern western idea that maternal breastfeeding and care is always best. Hopefully this comprehensive study on wet-nursing in the Roman Empire has made clear that wet-nursing is a cultural phenomenon; a way of infant feeding that differs from the methods we prefer and may not always have been beneficial for the child, but that is not necessarily bad either. 66 Appendix – The epigraphic material This database contains all the inscriptions recorded in the ‘Epigrapfik-Datenbank Clauss-Slaby’ and the ‘Epigrafische Datenbank Heidelberg’ that mention the word ‘nutrix’ from the following provinces: Gallia Narbonensis, Gallia Lugudunensis, Belgica, Baetica, Lusitania, Hispania Citerior, Germania Superior and Inferior and all the Italian regions. Inscriptions from Rome For the sake of convenience only inscriptions containing the word ‘nutrix’ are included, which leaves the possibility that the collection of epigraphic sources about wet-nurses is not complete. If available I have used drawings and photo’s of the objects in order to verify the transcriptions mentioned in the databases. Part of the inscriptions from Rome, Ostia and the western provinces have already been examined and catalogued by Bradley and Kampen. 195 In some cases their work has complemented my database. Rome Er.=erector Nutrix CEA 00470 Nursling ? (er.) Antonius Heraclitus Status nutrix ? Slave? Status nursling ? Slave? Remarks 32 years old. Father and nutrix for nursling who died at 4. Nursling = Celio ? Celio Hygia (er.) Nutrix CEA 00480 CIL VI 1354 CIL VI 1424 Asinia Victoria Aurelia Soteris + Mussius Chrysonicus (ers.) Aurelia Soteris + Mussius Chrysonicus (ers.) ? (er.) Gellia Agrippiana Liberta Ingenui Ingenua Senatorial CIL VI 1623 Merope Hellade Ingenui + Quintus Licinius Florus Octavianus Eques patrona Nutritores lactanei for clarissima puella. Nutritores lactanei for nursling of equestrian 195 Bradley 1991b; Bradley 1992; Kampen 1981b. 67 status. CIL VI 21334 C. CIL VI 1516 CIL VI 4457 CIL VI 5063 CIL VI 5201 CIL VI 5939 Merope Hellade? Licinia Lampetia Basilioflora Lucia Septimia Patavinia Balbilla Tyria Nepotilla Odaenathiana Valeria Marcus Aimilius Zos[i]ma (er.) Demetrius Rubria Eutychia ? (er.) Papia Iulia Caius Papius Iucunda Asclepiades (er.) Arruntia ? Cleopatra Mussius Chrysonicus + Aurelia Soteris (ers.) Aurelia Publiana Elpidia (er.) Ingenui Nutritores lactanei for nursling of high status. Nutrix for patrona, Ingenua? Senatorial clarissima puella. ? ? Libertus ? Liberta Liberta Libertus ? ? Erectors nutrix conlacteus (her child ?) + own CIL VI 6072 CIL VI 6323 CIL VI 6324 Cornelia Quinta Lentulus ? Cethegus ? (er.) Echone Statilia ? Minore ? Sisenna Stace ? ? ? Atticus conlacteus erected it for Stacte, his fellow nursling (daughter of Sisenna ?) who died at 4. Libertus + nutrix for patron. Slave / CIL VI 6686 CIL VI 7290 Cacia Restituta Tiberius Ingenua (er.) Claudius Neothyrsus Spurinnia Nice Primigenius (er.) ? Torquatiana Ingenuus Slave paedagogus for his wife and his nutrix. CIL VI 7355 CIL VI 7393 Volusia Philete Volusia Rufa Liberta (er.) Volusia Lucius Volusius Liberta Stratonice Zosimus (er.) Liberta Libertus Nursling (former slave) for nutrix and fellow nursling. 68 CIL VI 7618 CIL VI 8660 CIL VI 8941 Apollonia (er.) ? … Alce Lucius Silanus Epictetus (er.) Diva Faustina Slave ? ? Ingenuus ? Verna caesaris ? Imperatrice CIL VI 8942 Tatia Baucyla? ? Flavius Clementus + Flavia Domitilla Ingenui CIL VI 8943 Valeria Hilara Octavia Liberta Sister emperor Lucius Silanus died at 30. Nutrix died at 82. Husband (slave) for his ‘wife’, nutrix of Diva Faustina, the wife / daughter of Emperor Antoninus Pius. Nurslings from Flavii, family of imperator Vespasian. of Conliberti of the husband of the nutrix of Octavia, the sister of the emperor Augustus, erected it. CIL VI 9001b Asinia CIL VI 9245 Hostia ? (er.) Rubria Ichmas ? ? ? Liberta Nutrix died at 50. She worked in the household of Titus Rubrius Nepotis. Couple for foster child? Or favorite slave? CIL VI 9625 CIL VI 11265 CIL VI 12023 Octavia Acme Sempronia Metrothea + Aulus Sempronius Laetus (er.) Agrilia Comica? Agrillia Asprenilla (er.) ? Marcus Antonius Florus Liberti ? Liberta Father son ? for nutrix of his Libertus Slave Slave nursling CIL VI 12133 ? CIL VI 12299 Naevia Lucius Apisius Liberta Capitolinus (er.) Argaeus ? 69 CIL VI 12366 Cleopatra (er.) Helpis (er.) Cnaeus Arrius Slave Agapetus Libertus died at 5. Parents (slaves) nutrix CIL VI 12600 Hilara (er.) Athenaide Slave Slave child died at 3. Slave nutrix + father for baby, 1 year. + for who CIL VI 13638 Cacilia Marcia CIL VI 14558 Cassia Zmyrna CIL VI 15377 ? CIL VI 15655 ? ? (er.) ? ? ? Liberta ? ? Nutrix died at 29. Nursling died at 6. CIL VI 15952 CIL VI 16128 CIL VI 16329 CIL VI 16440 CIL VI 16450 Claudia Celerana (er.) Claudia Vitale Tiberius Claudius Sabinianus (er.) Pedania Alce Marcus Coelius (er.) Ampliatus Cornelia Prima Scipio (er. ?) Furia Silvinia Filius Lucii Cornelii Ummidiani Cornelia Tiberius Quetula Claudius Caetegus (er.) Servia Cornelia Servius Sabina Cornelius Dolabella Metillianus Liberta Libertus ? ? ? ? ? Liberta ? Ingenuus ? Ingenuus? Liberta Ingenuus Nursing patron = for nutrix et mammula (‘mommy’) CIL VI 16470 ? (er.) CIL VI 16587 Flavia CIL VI 16592 Cornelia Urbana ? Helena Aulus Crispinus (er.) Caepionianus Crispina ? ? Liberta Nursling died at 10 months. Nutrix died at 30. Husband for his wife. Nursling died at 6 months. Senatorial? CIL VI 17157 Valeria CIL VI 17490 CIL VI 17564 CIL VI 18032 CIL VI 18073 (er.) ? (er.) Zosima Hygia Eminente ? Slave? Fabianus Fabianus ? Silvanus (er.) Flavia Publius Flavius Liberta ? Euprosyne (er.) Crescens Flavia Nais? Flavius Gamus ? (er.) ? Ingenuus ? Nursling died at 7. Nutrix and grandfather for child who died at 13. 70 CIL VI 19155 Hateria Helena CIL VI 20042 Tryphaena ? ? Caius Julius Helenus (er.) ? Libertus Augusti Libertus Augusti his for parents, nutrix and some others, possibly slaves / liberti. CIL VI 20883 Junia Glaphyra CIL VI 20938 Erasena (er.) Junius Julianus Liberta (er.) Libas Juvenalis Nutrix CIL VI 21661 Lucretia Lais ? (er.) Liberta and grandmother for child who died at 2. Nutrix died at 30. ? CIL VI 21710 Lusia Ampele ? (er.) CIL VI 21988 Manlia Iudunda Manlia CIL VI 22638 CIL VI 23078 CIL VI 23128 Severa Liberta (er.) Mun… Ammia Lucius Mu… (er.) Philocalus Novelia Quintus Ingenua Atticilla Novellinus Callinicus Numisia Filius Flaviae ? Fortunata Daphnae Paullina ? Ingenuus ? CIL VI 23458 Fabia Eutyche ? CIL VI 23589 Oscia (er.) Sabina Threptus Slave Nutrix = mother, son for mother. Mother for nutrix of her son. Husband (libertus) for his wife who is a nutrix. Mother + nutrix for a slave child. ‘Threptus’ means ‘nursling’. Husband for his wife, a nutrix who died at 20. Nutrix + tata = foster father? for nursling. Nutrix for CIL VI 24073 Philaenis (er.) CIL VI 24297 …tia Ploce? Lucius Livius Augurina ? Liberta ? ? CIL VI 25301 Quintia Parthenope (er.) Caius Quintus ? ? CIL VI 25728 Sabina (er.) Martina Slave Slave 71 slave nursling who died at 3. CIL VI 26539 Sextia (er.) CIL VI 27262 CIL VI 28120 CIL VI 28381 Thais Titus Sextius Magius Lateranus Terentia Thisbe Terentia Selicia (er.) ? (er.) Lucius Valerius Stachyus Valtronia Cercenia Arbuscula (er.) Liberta ? Ingenuus ? Liberta ? ? ? Nursling died at 8 months. ? Nutrix of Cercenia for her son Primus Son of Libertus Parents + Augusti nutritores for child who died at 4. Ingenua Patrona/ nursling for liberta + ? CIL VI 29191 Capriola (er.) Marcus Ulpius Slave Felicissimus CIL VI 29497 Volumnia Dyname Volumnia Procula (er.) Liberta nutrix assa CIL VI 29550 ? Volussia Felicula ? Torquata Ammonius ? CIL VI 34383 Memmia Ephesia (er.) who died at 55. Long relationship. Nutrix for nursling, son for mother. Nutrix for her nursling who died at 2. CIL VI 35037 Pumidia Attica CIL VI 35123 Trophime Aulus Cornelius Liberta Pumidius Magnus (er.) Domitia Felicita Slave Ingenua and for child who died at 2 and wife. Father nutrix CIL VI 38598 Manlia Modesta Manlia (er.) Nicephore Liberta Nutrix (liberta) + slave tata for foster child who died at 5. CIL VI 38999 Tyche EurRom Iunia Tyranne? 00062 ? (er.) Augustinianus ? Liberta ? Slave Nursling (16) for mother and her nutrix. 72 ICUR 00446 01- Urbana 09- Trophime ? Slave? ? ICUR 24768 Caius L… F… ? Slave (er.) Flavius Pastor for Iuliana? Nursling for nutrix et mammula (‘mommy’) ? ? Christian? ICUR 26866 10- ? ? (er.) ? Benedicta ? ? Maria Antonia Nabara ? ILLRP-S Liberta 00048 / AE (er.) 1991, 00125 Marcus Ulpius ViaImp 00186 ? Macedo (er.) / AE 1988, 00075 ILCV 04882 Libertus augusti CEACelio 00470 ]M[3] nutrici suae / bene merenti / vix(it) an(nos) XXXII CEACelio 00480 D(is) M(nibus) / [3 An]tonio Heraclito / [vix(it) ann(os)] IIII mens(es) XI dies XXI / [3]a Hygia nutrix / [et Fo]rtunatus pater CIL VI, 01354 (p 3141, 4685) Asinia / Crispina / C(ai) f(ilia) Asiniae Victoriae / nutrici merenti CIL VI, 01424 (p 3141, 3805, 4696) = D 08061 Glaucopi Veneri / Gelliae / Agrippian(a)e / c(larissimae) p(uellae) / Aurelia Soteris / et Mussius / Chrysonicus / nutritores / lactanei CIL VI, 01623 (p 3163, 4721, 4789) =CIL VI, 31833 = D 08534 Meropi Helladi / Q(uinto) Licinio / Q(uinti) fil(io) / Floro / Octaviano / eq(uiti) Rom(ano) / Aurelia / Soteris / et Mussius / Chrysonicus / nutritores / lactanei CIL VI, 21334 (p 3526, 3916) = D 08535 Meropi Helladi / Liciniae / Q(uinti) f(iliae) / Lampetiae / Basilioflorae / C(aius) Mussius / Chrysonicus / et Aurelia / Soteris / nutritores / lactanei CIL VI, 01516 (p 3142, 3805, 4708) = D 01202 CIL VI, 01516 (p 3142, 3805, 4708) = D 01202 L(uciae) Septimiae Pata/biniane Balbil/l(a)e Tyriae / Nepotill(a)e Odae/nathianae c(larissimae) p(uellae) / Aur(elia) Publiana / Elpidia nutrix / patronae dulcis/sim(a)e et amantissi/mae feliciter CIL VI, 04457 (p 3416) M(arcus) Aimilius Paulli l(ibertus) Demetrius / Valeria Zosma nutrix CIL VI, 05063 Rubriae / Eutychiae / nutrici Helviae 73 CIL VI, 05201 (p 3417, 3850) = D 01837 C(aius) Papius Asclepiades / Papia Erotis l(iberta) / Iulia Iucunda nutrix / Drusi et Drusillae CIL VI, 05939 (p 3418) Arruntia / L(uci) l(iberta) Cleopatra / nutrix / L(ucius) Arruntius L(uci) l(ibertus) / Dicaeus conlacteus CIL VI, 06072 Cor(n)elia Quinta / Lentuli Cethegi nutrix [ CIL VI, 06323 Echonis Statiliae / Minoris fili(ae) / nutr(i)x CIL VI, 06324 (p 3851) = D 08539 Atticus f(ecit) / Stactes(!) nutricis / Sisennae f(ilius) conlacteus / v(ixit) ann(os) IV CIL VI, 06686 Dis Manibus sacru[m] / Ti(berio) Claudio Neothyrso / qui vix(it) annis XXIIII dies XI[3] / Ti(berius) Claudius Stephanus / patrono bene merito de / se et Cacia Restituta nutrix / eius et sibi et suis po(s)terisq(ue) / eoru(m) ita uti cippi fine / fecit libe(n)s animo / [ CIL VI, 07290 (p 3852, 3918) =CIL VI, 27557 = D 07446 [Dis] / Manibus [sacru]m / Primigenius L(uci) Volusi / Saturnini ser(vus) ab hospitis et / paedagog(us) pueror(um) Charidi cont(ubernali) s(uae) b(ene) m(erenti) / T(itus) Iulius Antigonus gener eius / Spurinniae Niceni Torquatianae / nutrici suae bene merenti / sanctae piae amantissimae / fecerunt sibi et suis posterisq(ue) eor(um) CIL VI, 07355 Volusiae Ru[fae(?)] / Volusia Philete / nutrix bene merenti CIL VI, 07393 (p 3431, 3852) = AE 2001, 00192 Volusiae Stratonice / L(uci) Volusi L(uci) f(ilii) Saturnini / pontif(icis) nutrici L(ucius) Volusius / Zosimus f(ilius) matri suae piissi/mae fecit et L(ucio) Volusio Zosi/mo L(uci) Volusi patryi(!) col/lactio Tampia Priscilla / coniugi suo piissimo et san(c)/tissimo fecit et sibi CIL VI, 07618 (p 3432) Apollonia nutrix / L(uci) Silani M(arci) f(ilii) v(ixit) an(nos) / XXX L(ucio) Iunio / Genicidae CIL VI, 08660 (p 3891) D(is) M(anibus) / Ti(berio) Claudio / Symmacho / Aug(usti) lib(erto) / speclariario / domus Palati/narum fecit / Epictetus nu/trici suo / vixit annis LXXXII CIL VI, 08941 (p 3463) ]e Alce nutri[ci] / [divae F]austinae / [quae vixit] ann(os) XXX[3] / [3 Am]pelo viro eius [3] / [3]onti [ CIL VI, 08942 (p 3891) = D 01839 Tatia Baucyl[3 nu]/trix septem lib[erorum pronepotum] / divi Vespasian[i filiorum Fl(avi) Clementis et] / Flaviae Domitil[lae uxoris eius divi] / Vespasiani neptis a[ccepto loco e]/ius beneficio hoc sep{h}ulc(h)ru[m feci] / meis libertis libertabus po[sterisq(ue) eor(um)] 74 CIL VI, 08943 (p 3891) = D 01838 = AE 1992, +00092 Valeria Hilaria / nutrix / Octaviae Caesaris Augusti / hic requiescit cum / Ti(berio) Claudio Fructo viro / suo carissimo / Ti(berius) Claudius Primus et Ti(berius) Claudius Aster / bene merentibus fecerunt CIL VI, 09001b Asinia Hos[3] / nutri[x 3] / Agrippi[nae CIL VI, 09901b = CIL X, *00358,4 Asinia Hos[3] / nutri[x 3] / Agrippi[nae CIL VI, 09245 Rubria Ichmas / nutrix Quintaes Barbar[i] / f(iliae) decessit annor(um) L fec(it) / Daphnus T(iti) Rubri Nepotis / cellarius CIL VI, 09625 (p 3470) =CIL VI, 26174 A(ulus) Sempronius Laetus mensor / aedificiorum sibi et / Semproniae Metrotheae uxori et / Oresti et Orestillo libertis carissimis et / Octaviae Acme nutritae ab(!) nobis / libertis libertabus posterisq(ue) eorum / huic mon<u=I>mento ex testamento in culturam / legata sunt HS VII / A(ulo) Sempronio Severo CIL VI, 11265 (p 3508) Dis Manib(us) / Agrilia / Asprenilla Agriliae / comic(a)e nutrici bene / merenti lib(ertae) fecit CIL VI, 12023 M(arcus) Antonius Tyran[nus] / sibi et / Antoniae Arete / contubernali suae / nutricii / M(arci) Antoni Flori CIL VI, 12133 (p 3510, 3911) = CIL 10, *00231 (p 76*) = D 08365 CIL VI, 12133 (p 3510, 3911) = CIL X, *00231 (p 76*) = D 08365 L(ucius) Apisius C(ai) f(ilia) Scaptia Capitolinus / ex testamento fieri iussit monumen(tum) / arbitratum heredum meorum sibi et suis / [3]IV[3] nutrici I[3]ae bene meritae / C(aio) Apisio C(ai) l(iberto) / Epaphrae patri / C(aio) Apisio C(ai) f(ilio) / Capitoni frat(ri) / C(aio) Apisio C(ai) l(iberto) / Felici tatae / huius monu(menti) / dolus mal(us) / abesto et / iuris consult(i) // Osciae |(mulieris) l(ibertae) / Primigeniae / matri // Apisiae C(ai) f(iliae) / Restitutae / sorori / et libertis / libertabusq(ue) / meis posterisq(ue) / eorum / in ag(ro) p(edes) XII / in fr(onte) p(edes) XXIV // in hoc monumento itus aditus ambitus libertis libertabusque meis omnib(us) / pateat heres clavem dato ad sacrificia facienda quotiens quomque opus erit CIL VI, 12299 D(is) M(anibus) / Argaeo / v(ixit) a(nnos) V m(enses) IIII / Naevia / Cleopatra / nutrix / fecit / dulcissimo CIL VI, 12366 = CIL XI, *00101,027 D(is) M(anibus) / Cn(aeo) Arrio Agapeto / Arria Agapete mater / et Bostrychus pater / <e=F>t Helpis mamma et / fi<l=E>i(a)e nutrix filio / pientissimo b(ene) m(erenti) f(ecit) / vixit a(nnis) III diebus / XXXXV 75 CIL VI, 12600 D(is) M(anibus) / Athenaidi / b(ene) m(erenti) / vix(it) ann(um) I m(enses) II / d(ies) VIIII / Hilara nutr(ix) / et Thesmus / et Eutychus / pater / fecerunt CIL VI, 13683 Cacilia Marcia / nutrix CIL VI, 14558 Cassia L(uci) l(iberta) Zmyrna / nutrix / v(ixit) a(nnos) XXIX CIL VI, 15377 Dis Manibus / Claudiae / Celeranae / vixit ann(os) VI die(s) XII / nutrix / fecit CIL VI, 15655 Dis Man(ibus) / Claudiae / Vitali Ti(berius) / Claudius / Sabinianus / nutrici pien/tissimae CIL VI, 15952 Dis Man(ibus) / M(arco) Coelio Ampliato / fecit Pedania Alce / nutrix CIL VI, 16128 (p 3519) Cornelia / Prima / nutrix Scipionis CIL VI, 16329 L(ucius) Cornelius / Ummidianus / Furiae Silvinae / nutrici / Ummidiani fili(i) sui / piissimae CIL VI, 16440 D(is) M(anibus) / Corneliae / Quetulae / nutrici / b(ene) m(erenti) / Ti(berius) Cl(audius) Saetida / Cetegus / fecit CIL VI, 16450 (p 3914) = D 08532 D(is) M(anibus) / Ser(viae!) Corneliae Ser(vi) l(ibertae) / Sabinae / Ser(vius) Cornelius / Dolabella / Metillianus / nutrici et mammul(ae) / b(ene) m(erenti) f(ecit) CIL VI, 16470 Cornelia Fausti l(iberta) / Urbana nutrix Faust[ae 3]/dio fecit infelix quem / de subito reliquisti / miserum CIL VI, 16587 (p 3519) Dis Manibus sacrum / A(uli) Crispini Caepioniani / fecit Flavia Helena nutr(ix) / v(ixit) m(enses) X d(ies) II CIL VI, 16592 (p 3914) = D 08531 D(is) M(anibus) s(acrum) / Crispinae co(n)iugi / divinae nutri/ci senatorum / duum Albus / co(n)iunx c(um) q(ua) f(ecit) / an(nos) XVII h(aec) vix(it) / an(nos) XXX m(enses) II / b(ene) m(erenti) f(ecit) CIL VI, 17157 D(is) M(anibus) s(acrum) / Emin[e]n[t]is / vixit mensib(us) / XI / fecit Valeria / Hygia nutrix 76 CIL VI, 17490 Diis(!) / Manibus / Fabiano / nutrix / b(ene) m(erenti) / posuit CIL VI, 17564 D(is) M(anibus) / Fab(ius) Silvanus / Zosimeni / nutrici su/ae fecit CIL VI, 18032 D(is) M(anibus) P(ublio) Flavio / Crescenti / P(ubli) Flavi Amaran/ti filio / vix(it) an(nos) VII d(ies) I hor(as) X / Flavia Euphrosyne / mamma idem nutrix / fecit CIL VI, 18073 (p 3521) Dis Manibus / Flavio Gamo vix(it) / ann(os) XIII fecer(unt) / T(itus) Flavius / Abascantus / a(v)us et / M(arcus) Cocceius / Philetus pater et / Flavia Nais / nutrix CIL VI, 19155 Hateria / Hellas / nutrix CIL VI, 20042 = CIL V, *00429,097 C(aius) Iulius Aug(usti) l(ibertus) Helen() / sibi et / Eroti patri et / Zmyrnae matri et / Tryphaenae nutrici et / Phoebe et / Eupatoridi et // Caesaris // Secundo et / Aequali et // vernis// Ilairae et / libertis et libertabus et posterisque eorum / in fr(onte) p(edes) XII in agr(o) p(edes)XII CIL VI, 20883 = CIL XIV, *00286a3 Iuniae / Glaphyrae / nutrici / karissimae / Iunius Iulianus CIL VI, 20938 (p 3526) Dis Man(ibus) / Iuvenalis / v(ixit) a(nnos) II m(enses) III d(ies) IX h(oram) I / Canuleia Tyche / avia et / Erasena Libas / nutrix fecer(unt) / et sibi et suis CIL VI, 21661 Lucretia C(ai) l(iberta) / Lais nutrix / vix(it) an(nos) XXX CIL VI, 21710 D(is) M(anibus) / Lusiae Ampe/lidi nutrici / ISLORVIARI / [ CIL VI, 21988 (p 3527) = AE 2001, +00169 Manlia Severa / Manlia<e=L> Iucundae / nutrici CIL VI, 22638 L(ucius) Mu[3 Ph]ilocalus / [3]S / [3] Ammia // [3 Ph]iloc[alus] / [3]S / Mun[3 Am]mia nutrix CIL VI, 23078 (p 3528) =CIL VI, 34143b Novell[i]ae Atticillae / Q(uintus) Novellius Clust(umina) Calli/nicus filius / matri et nutrici / fecit // Sepulchrum / Novelliaes(!) Atticillaes(!) CIL VI, 23128 D(is) M(anibus) / Numisiae Fort[u]/natae Fl(avia) Daph[ne] / nutrici fili(i) su[i] / fecit / [ 77 CIL VI, 23458 M(arcus) Onerius / M(arci) l(ibertus) Philargur(us) nutricis / Paullinae / vir / Fabia Eutychis / Paullinae nutrix CIL VI, 23589 D(is) M(anibus) / Oscia Sabina / Threpto alumno / nutrix infelicissima / Lamyra mater fecerunt CIL VI, 24073 Philaenis / L(uci) Livi nutrix CIL VI, 24297 [3]tia |(mulieris) l(iberta) Ploce / [v]ix(it) ann(os) XX / Augurinae nutrix CIL VI, 25301 D(is) M(anibus) / C(aius) Q() Eufemus Aeliae Tyc/heni coniugi bene m/erenti fecit q(uae) vix(it) / an(nis) XIV et C(aio) Q(uintio) Hermiae / q(ui) vixit an(nis) IIII mens(ibus) / IIII dieb(us) VIII bene m(erenti) / fecit Quintia Parthen/ope nutrix et p(ater) Farsu/leius Isidorus tata CIL VI, 25728 = CIL XI, *00101,141 D(is) M(anibus) / Sabina nutrix Mar/tinae alumnae suae / quae vix(it) ann(is) III / mensibus IIII / bene merenti fecit CIL VI, 26539 Sextia Thais nutrix / T(iti) Sexti Magi [L]atera[ni] / fecit sibi et suis liber/tis libertabusque / posterisque eorum CIL VI, 27262 (p 3918) = D 08536 D(is) M(anibus) / Terentiae Thisbe / Terentia Selicia / nutrici lactariae f(ecit) CIL VI, 28120 (p 3535, 3918) = D 08537 D(is) M(anibus) / nutrix melli/tissima fecit / alumno suo / L(ucio) Valerio / Stachyo / qui vixit men(sibus) VIII dieb(us) XXV CIL VI, 28381 Vatronia Arbuscula / nutrix Cerceniae / Primo filio locum / sumpsit CIL VI, 29191 M(arco) Ulpio Felicissimo vixit ann(is) IIII dieb(us) V / M(arcus) Ulpius Aug(usti) lib(ertus) Merops et Flavia Phoebas / infelicissimi et M(arcus) Ulpius Primigenius et / Capriola nutricii alumno piis[s]imo CIL VI, 29497 (p 3919) = D 08538 D(is) M(anibus) / Volumniae / Dynamidi / Volumnia / C(ai) f(ilia) Proc(u)la / nutrici / assae et / lib(ertae) v(ixit) a(nnos) CV CIL VI, 29550 D(is) M(anibus) / Volussiae / Felic(u)lae / Torquataes(!) nutrix / fecit / Verecundus / filius matri / bene merenti / f(ecit) 78 CIL VI, 34383 Ammonius / Ammoni f(ilius) / vix(it) ann(os) II / m(enses) III / posuit / Memmia / Ephesia / nutrix CIL VI, 35037 (p 3920) = IGLFRPal 00179 D(is) M(anibus) s(acrum) / A(ulus) Cornelius Pumidius / Magnus fecit Pumi/diae Atticae nutrici / suae mulieri optimae / et sibi et suis et libert(is) / libertabusq(ue) posterisq(ue) / eorum se <v=B>i<v=B>o fecit CIL VI, 35123 Dis Manibus / Cn(aeus) Domitius / Helius Domitiae / Felicitati filiae / suae karissim(a)e / vix(it) an(num) I m(enses) V d(ies) XVI / et Helpidi Domitiae / con(iugi) suae b(ene) m(erenti) f(ecit) item / Iulius Epagatus et / Trophim(a)e nutrix CIL VI, 38598 Manlia Niceph[oris] / agens annum V rapta (e)st / Helius Tata et Manlia / Modesta mamma eius / et Apollonius / nutricius eius CIL VI, 38999 Tyche / nutrici EURom 00062 D(is) M(anibus) / Sabin(a)e mat(ri) / et Iuni(a)e Ty/rannidi / nutr(ici) ben/e merentib(us) / f(e)c(it) Augustia/nus an(n)o(rum) XVI ICUR-01, 00446 Pro merito Urban(a)e nutrici / Fl(avius) Pastor fecit / Iulian(a)e / in pace ICUR-05, 13990 ] / sanc[tissimae 3] Agapen[i] / qu(a)e <v=B>ixi[t 3] nutrici ca[rissimae] / Anti[3]a c(larissima) f(emina) dep[osita(?)] / [3 feci]t ICUR-09, 24768 Trofimeni C(aius) L() F() / mamm(a)e nutrici / su(a)e fecit / b(ene)d(ictae) ICUR-09, 24892 Aelia R[3] / nutrici be[ne] / meren[ti] ICUR-10, 26866 / m[3] / fecit [3] / nutrici r[ ILCV 04882 = JIWE-02, 00097 Benedict(a)e Mariae / vere benedict(a)e / matri et nutrici // GR ILLRP-S, 00048 = AE 1991, 00125 Antoniae / Antulli l(ibertae) / Nabarae / nutrici eius 79 ViaImp 00186 = AE 1988, 00075 D(is) M(anibus) / Fabiae Nice nutrici bene / merenti M(arcus) U(lpius) Aug(usti) lib(ertus) Macedo / fecit Rest of Italy Er=erector Nursling Status nutrix Status nursling Place Segusio Remark Possible both liberti. Wife and nutrix? Bradley does not mention the nursling. Family grave, also for nutrix. Erected by Nutrix CIL V, 7277 / CIL V, 6827 AE 2000, 583 Cassia Prisca Cassius Karicus (er.) Liberta of Cassii? Livia Benigna C. Praeconius Ventilius Magnus? ? … Antiochus Liberta? Adrianus (er.) Prisca Slave eques Parma AE 1985, 1VIVI Ostia Ingenuus ? Formiae AE 1987, 242 Niobe (er.) liberti Claudia Frequenta Honoratus (er.) AE 1989, 135 Libertus / augustales Ulubrae (parents?). Erected at death of nutrix at 60 years long relationship. CIL IV, 37IX6 CIL X, 2185 CIL X, 2669 CIL X, 3112 CIL VI, 6006 Aeneia Caecilia Eupraesia Lucceia Herophil(a) Servea Marcellina (er.) Rasinia Pietas (er.) ? Sabina (er.) Publius Carpinius Hilarus Victoria ? ? ? Slave? Pompeii Puteoli Puteoli Liberta Libertus slave Puteoli Daughter of L. Burbuleus Optatus Ligarianus Senator Minturnae Nutrix seems to be proud of being the wetnurse of this important man’s daughter. Long relationship. Nursing in the countryside? 80 CIL XI, 1524a CIL XI, 1986 CIL XI, 2609 CIL XIV, 486 Maxuma? Flora Cestiae Tyce (er.) Musa Q. Atticus ? ? Cornelius Praesens (er.) Ingenua ? Slave Ingenuus ? Slave Portus Pisanus Perusia Ilva Ostia Mother of child? Nutrix was 22 when she died. The nursling must also have been young; not older than 12. Did he erect it by himself? Possible liberta of the influencial Egrilii family. Verna caisaris Ingenuus CIL XIV, 952a Egrilia (er.) ? Ostia CIL XIV, 1510 ? Ragiona Eutychia Calpurnia Lupula Casperia Zotice Hypatianus ..us Firmus (er.) Valerius Victorinus (er.) L. Casperius Latinus and possibly his brother … (er.) ? ? Slave ? Ostia Ostia Aricia Mother and nutrix. CIL XIV, 153IX CIL XIV, 2183 Ingenua ? Liberta ? Ingenuus? CIL XIV, 2336 Albanum Liberti of same family. Long relationship. Liberta Libertus CIL XIV, 2716 CIL XIV, 2752 CIL XIV, 3721 InscrIt 0401, 348 Ammia Tyche Aelia Germana Primitiva (er.) Slave Slave Tusculum Tusculum Emperor Tivoli Divus Hadrianus! Liberata Liberta of the emperor Hadrianus Slave Slave Tibur Januarius Tata must have been a male caretaker. What is the relation between nutrix and tata? Slave couple? Slave child attendants / 81 collegues? IscrIt 04-01 Murdia 391 Hyrgia (er.) Publius Birrius Gallus (VI0) Tibur AE 1980, 326 Phiale Birria Cognita (er.) Liberta of the Birrii? Brindisium Ingenuus CIL IX, 226 Aste CIL IX, 347 Clodia Iucunda Silvanus (er.) Slave of the emperor Mucia Macima (er.) Priestess, Slave Uria Canusium Long relationship. Birrius = nursling and owner/ patron. Long relationship. Liberta Aeclanum Aeclanum Mother and CIL IX, 01154 CIL IX, 1278 Cantria Cn. Ennius Paulla Dexter (er.) Adventa (er.) Lucceius Ingenua Client of Lucceius Slave / nutrix. liberta CIL X, 30 Ediste Slave / Locri Domini sui liberta Erected by her husband. Nursling = patron / owner. InscrIt,0301, 99 Octacilia Arubuscula Multasia Felicitas ? Atina Liberta Salvia CIL IX, 5552 Liberta AE 1984, 213 Calpurnia Philia ? ? Valnerina Liberta Alumnus = Anxanum Liberta Long relationship: nursling was 1V years old at death. Assa nutrix = dry nurse / nanny CIL IX, 3009 CIL IX, 3033 CIL IX, 30150 Hyalissius Vici…, Hyacintus Flavius, Procula Vibpsania Vibpsania Capriola (er.) Severa Lucceia Donata (er.) foster child / slave child Slave Teate Nutrix of 3 children Marruncinor slave children. um Liberta CIL IX, 3730 Pompulla Nemaesis L. Laberius Lupus Libertus Erected by Teate Marruncinor nutrix and uncle. Nutrix um as status symbol? Marsi Bradley Marruvium assumes that 82 (er.) CIL IX, 15875 / CIL VI, 12556 / CIL VI, 34043 CIL IX, 6334 / CIL I, 3250 CIL X, 7038 CIL V, 66102 CIL V, 8902 Halicia Severa ? (er.) Trebula Mutuesca the child is free, but he is clearly styled as ‘libertus’. Long relationship. Mother and nutrix. Lasardia ? Slave ? Corfinium Amabile ? Slave ? Catina Nutrix optima extra title. List of slaves. Nutrix extra title. Nutricula? Dirista Barbara ? L. Sentius September (er.) L. Sentius Pietas (er.) Slave? Slave ? ? Comum Ingenuus Son of Cesi The child is wet-nursed while the mother is alive. Long relationship. AE 1914, 276 Sperata Liberta libertus AE 2001, 943 Aria Melpusa Germanus Slave Iguvium Iguvium Carsulae Group of liberti? Or free brothers? Nutrix added as a status symbol. Liberta Hermione (er.) Calvedia Prima .. Alli Slave Slave / CIL XI, 4433 CIL XI, 4604 Liberta Libertus Liberti / Ingenui CIL XI, 4991 CIL XI, 57103 CIL XI, 63155 Chrestis Veneria Maria Marcellina ? (er.) Adiectus (er.) C. Tadius Sabinus (er.), Caedus Rufinus P. Spurilius Ampliatus Slave Slave? ? Slave? Ferentillo Sentinum Pisaurum Relationship with conlacteus. Erected for nutrix and Ingenua Ingenuus AE 2000, 522 Spurilia Hypatena Patrona? Liberta? Libertus of Ameria Spurilii? 83 AE 1996, 657a CIL V, 1990 CIL V, 3710 ? Stactis Postumia Paulina (grandmothe r) (er.) Pereve…sse (er.) Carminia Minai Cavarasia Faustina (grandchild) patrona? ? Slave ? Suasa Opitergium Ingenua Verona Ingenua Ingenua CIL V, 31150 Clodia verna Tertulla Cominia Secunda ? Slave Slave Arusnates Aquileia Brixia InscrAqu01, 719 AE 1972, 203 Grandmother raising her child? Wetnursing unlikely, but possible? Literary use of ‘verna’. ? L. Nutrius Gallus (er.) ? Ingenuus CIL V, 07277 = Pais 00943 Province: Alpes Cottiae Place: Segusio D(is) M(anibus) / Cassiae / Priscae / Cassius / Karicus / nutrici / bene me/renti SupIt-11-P, 00002 = AE 1953, 00098 = AE 1960, 00249 = AE 1962, +00161 = AE 1993, 00713 = AE 2000, 00583 Province: Aemilia / Regio VIII Place: Parma C(aius) Praeconius P(ubli) f(ilius) / Ventilius Magnus / eques Rom(a)nus hortulorum / haec iugera XXXV ita ut / reditus eorum in cenis ibe / consumerentur sodalibus suis quique ab iis / supstituerentur in perpetuom legavit / Livia Benigna cum eo est / seu fuit eadem uxsor(!) et nutrix m[[3]] / [ante]hac foeda palus tardaque lympha fuit / [quas coluit] Magnus litis rixasque perossus / [arvaque laeta parans per]fugiumque sibi / [3]te canorqu[e] AE 1985, 00166 Province: Latium et Campania / Regio I Place: Ostia Antica ]RA[1]A[3] / [3 A]ntiochi [3] / [3] Adriano [3] / [3]o nutrici [3] / [3 e]t suis lib[ertis 3] / [3]te[ AE 1987, 00242 Province: Latium et Campania / Regio I Place: Formiae [3]ius P(ubli) l(ibertus) [Pl]otus Munatia L(uci) et Octaviae l(iberta) / [3]be nutrix / [siste atque hu]nc titulum breviter cognosce viator / [hic est natali] Prisca sepulta die / [dum libare] monent graviter sua tempora festo / [non tempesti]ve est igne cremata suo / [et pia cum dec]uit superis dare thura parentes / [heu miseri na]tae composuere rogum / [3 vi]duata sede [m]a[nen]te[s] AE 1989, 00135 Province: Latium et Campania / Regio I Place: Ulubrae Claudiae / Frequenti feminae / simpliciss(imae) vix(it) an(nos) LX / Honoratus publicus / sod(alium) Aug(ustalium) nutrici suae / b(ene) m(erenti) 84 CIL IV, 03796 = CLE +01785 = CLE +02292 Province: Latium et Campania / Regio I Place: Pompei Aeneia Nutrix CIL X, 02185 Province: Latium et Campania / Regio I Place: Puteoli D(is) M(anibus) CaeCILiae / Eupraesiae Sabi/na nutrici su/ae b(ene) m(erenti) f(ecit) Aan de schimmen van de overledene, voor Caecilia Eupraesia, Sabina heeft dit opgericht voor haar voedster, omdat zij het welverdiende. CIL X, 02669 Province: Latium et Campania / Regio I Place: Puteoli Lucceia Herophil(a) / Balbi l(iberta) nutrixs(!) / P(ublius) Carpinarius / P(ubli) l(ibertus) Hilarus CIL X, 03112 Province: Latium et Campania / Regio I Place: Puteoli D(is) M(anibus) / Victoria qu(a)e / vixit annos / V et menses II d(ies) / XX Servea Mar/cellina nu/trix ben(e merenti) fecit CIL X, 06006 = D 01066 = ILMN-01, 00585 Province: Latium et Campania / Regio I Place: Minturnae L(ucio) Burbuleio L(uci) f(ilio) Quir(ina) / Optato Ligariano / co(n)s(uli) sodal(i) Aug(ustali) leg(ato) Imperat(oris) / Antonini Aug(usti) Pii pro pr(aetore) prov(inciae) / Syriae in quo honor(e) decessit leg(ato) / eiusdem et divi Hadriani pro pr(aetore) prov(inciae) / Cappad(ociae) cur(atori) oper(um) locor(um)q(ue) publ(icorum) praef(ecto) / aerar(ii) Saturn(i) proco(n)s(uli) Sicil(iae) logiste / Syriae legat(o) leg(ionis) XVI Fl(aviae) Firm(ae) cur(atori) rei p(ublicae) / Narbon(ensium) item Anconitanor(um) item / Tarricin(ensium) curat(ori) viar(um) Clodiae Cassiae / Ciminae pr(aetori) aed(ili) pl(ebis) q(uaestori) Ponti et Bithyn(iae) / trib(uno) laticl(avio) leg(ionis) IX Hispan(ae) IIIvir(o) kapit(ali) / patr(ono) col(oniae) / Rasinia Pietas nutr(ix) filiar(um) eius / s(ua) p(ecunia) p(osuit) l(ocus) d(atus) d(ecreto) d(ecurionum) CIL XI, 01524a = InscrIt-07-01, 00115 Province: Etruria / Regio VII Place: Portus Pisanus [Q(uintus) Attius] Q(uinti) f(ilius) Gal(eria) / [3] f(ilio) patri et / [3] f(iliae) Fulvillae / [uxori(?) q(uae) v(ixit)] ann(os) XXIX / [3] L(uci) f(iliae) Maxumae / [nutrici(?)] Q(uinti) Atti CIL XI, 01986 Province: Etruria / Regio VII Flora Cestiae nutrix CIL XI, 02609 (p 1291) Province: Etruria / Regio VII Place: Perusia Place: Ilva D(is) M(anibus) / Cornel[3] / vixit m[enses] / IIII Tyce [nut]/rix pient[issi]/ma mere[nti f]/ecit CIL XIV, 00486 Province: Latium et Campania / Regio I Place: Ostia Antica Musa verna / Caisaris(!) vix(it) an(nos)/ XXII Praesens / Pepli f(ilius) nutrici / suae sanctissimae 85 CIL XIV, 00952a Province: Latium et Campania / Regio I Place: Ostia Antica ] / me(n)si[bus 3] / ab Egr[ilia 3] / nut[rice CIL XIV, 01510 = IPOstie-B, 00128 Province: Latium et Campania / Regio I Place: Ostia Antica [Dis M]anibus / [3] Primigenio / [3]a Callicore / [3] carissimo / [3 fec]it et / [3]que suorum / [3]ebe nutrici Hypatiani CIL XIV, 01539 Province: Latium et Campania / Regio I Place: Ostia Antica D(is) M(anibus) / Ragoniae / Eutychiae matri / piissimae et / nutrici / [3]us Firmus CIL XIV, 02183 Province: Latium et Campania / Regio I Place: Aricia Calpurniae Lupu/lae bene meren/ti Val(erius) Vic<t=I>orinu(s) / nutrici fecit CIL XIV, 02336 Province: Latium et Campania / Regio I Place: Albanum D(is) M(anibus) / L(uci) Casperi L(uci) f(ilii) Pal(atina) Fauni / L(ucius) Casperius Abascantus / et Casperia Aeliane / parentes filio piissimo / item Abascantus / L(uci) Casperi[o] Candidi / Aeliani f(ilio) l(iberto?) Pal(atina) Extricato / et Casperiae Aelin(a)e fil(iae) eius / suae coniugi karissimae et / L(ucio) Casperio L(uci) f(ilio) Pal(atina) Fab(ia) Latino / f(ilio) sanctissimo et pientissimo / vix(it) an(nos) XIIX m(enses) III d(ies) VIIII et / Casp(eria) Zotice l(iberta) et nutrici fil(iae) / et Prosdecte vern(ae) f(ecerunt) CIL XIV, 02716 Province: Latium et Campania / Regio I Place: Tusculum C(aio) Iulio Eroti / Myrsini / Ammiae nutri[ci] / Iuliae Helpine[3] / Arescu[sae CIL XIV, 02752 Province: Latium et Campania / Regio I Tyche / nutrici CIL XIV, 03721 = CIL VI, 10909 (p 3507) = InscrIt-04-01, 00262 Province: Latium et Campania / Regio I Place: Tibur D(is) M(anibus) / [Aeli]ae Germanae divi / [Had]riani nutrici et Aelio / [3]no filio eius inscripserunt / [Aeli]a Hermione Aeli Felicis / [alu]mni eorum coniunx / [et fil(iis)] eorum sibi libertis liberta/[busqu]e posterisque eorum InscrIt-04-01, 00348 Province: Latium et Campania / Regio I Place: Tusculum Place: Tibur D(is) M(anibus) / fecerunt Ianua/rius tata et Primi/tiva nutrix Libera/tae alumnae quae vi/xit anno mensib(us) VIII die/bus XLVII bene meren(ti) InscrIt-04-01, 00391 Province: Latium et Campania / Regio I Hygia / Murdiae Phiale / nutrici suae Place: Tibur 86 AE 1980, 00326 Province: Apulia et Calabria / Regio II Place: Brundisium Birria Cognit[a] / P(ubli) Birri Galli nut(rix) / v(ixit) a(nnos) LX h(ic) s(ita) CIL IX, 00226 Province: Apulia et Calabria / Regio II Place: Uria Aste Caesaris / n(ostri) / ser(va) vix(it) / ann(os) LV / fec(it) Silva/nus nutri/ci b(ene) m(erenti) / h(ic) s(ita) e(st) CIL IX, 00347 = ERCanosa 00056 Province: Apulia et Calabria / Regio II Place: Canusium A(ulo) Dasimio A(uli) l(iberto) Sodalae / Aug(ustali) / Muciae Maximae / Sex(to) Mucio Maximo Aug(ustali) / Albiae C(ai) l(ibertae) Certae matri / Clodiae Iucundae nutrici / ex testamento Muciae Maximae CIL IX, 01154 = D 06486 = AE 2000, +00352 Province: Apulia et Calabria / Regio II Place: Aeclanum Cantriae P(ubli) fil(iae) / Paullae sacerd(oti) / Augustae Aeclano / Cn(aeus) Ennius Dexter matri / et nutrici suae fecit / haec argenteam statuam Felicitatis / Aeclani dedit CIL IX, 01278 Province: Apulia et Calabria / Regio II Place: Aeclanum Memoriae / Lucceio patr/o{i}no Adv[e]nta(?) / nu(trix?) b(ene) m(erenti) f(ecit) CIL X, 00030 (p 1003) Province: Bruttium et Lucania / Regio III Place: Locri Epizephyrii D(is) M(anibus) / Ediste nutrix dominorum su/orum vixit annis XXXV men(sibus) III / Caerellius Felicio maritus / co(n)iugi pientissimae et [3]/ciplinae integrissi[3] / cuius et labori et C[3] / [3] et experienti [ InscrIt-03-01, 00099 Province: Bruttium et Lucania / Regio III Place: Atina Otaciliae L(uci) l(ibertae) / Arbusculae / nutrici CIL IX, 05552 = AE 2003, +00115 Province: Picenum / Regio V Place: Urbs Salvia ] / vixit / ann(is) XV / m(ensibus) II die/bus XXVI / P(ublius) Mult(asius) / Felix / et Mul/tasia / Felici/tas nu/trix b(ene) m(erenti) AE 1989, 00213 = AE 2003, +00560 Province: Samnium / Regio IV Place: Valnerina Calpurniae / Philiae assae nutrici / Torquati fili(i) / [Cal]purnius Thybris / [con]iugi b(ene) m(erenti) CIL IX, 03009 = CLE 01280 Province: Samnium / Regio IV Place: Anxanum ]rta lib(erta) / [3]iae / [3] Felicis cerne viator / [3]s cara superstitibus / [3] dedit uberis anxia lactem / [3]ratus honore dedit / [3 nu]trici fecit alumnus / [3] Manibus hunc (c)inerem 87 CIL IX, 03033 Province: Samnium / Regio IV Place: Teate Marrucinorum ] / o[ssa(?) sita(?)] / Hyalissi Vici[3] / Hyacinti Flaviae s(ervi) / Proculae ser(vae) / Lucceia Donata / nutrix / p(osuit) CIL IX, 03040 CIL IX, 03040 Province: Samnium / Regio IV Place: Teate Marrucinorum i{b}psaniae Severae / Vi{b}psanius Vale(n)s / av(u)nculus et Vi{b}psania / Capriola nutrix / b(ene) m(erenti) f(ecerunt) CIL IX, 03730 Province: Samnium / Regio IV Place: Marruvium L(ucio) Laberio P(ubli) l(iberto) / Lupo v(ixit) an(nos) XXX / Pompulla / Nemaesis nutrix / p(osuit) CIL IX, 04864 (p 686) = CIL VI, 11456 (p 3508) = CIL VI, 34043 = ICUR-09, 23968 Province: Samnium / Regio IV Place: Montopoli in Sabina (it.) Haliciae S[e]/verae matri / et nutrici / dulcissimae / feminae b(ene) m(erenti) CIL IX, 06334 = CIL I, 03250 CIL IX, 06334 = CIL I, 03250 Province: Samnium / Regio IV Place: Corfinium Sunt La/sardia nutr(ix?) CIL X, 07038 = IMCCatania 00054 CIL X, 07038 = IMCCatania 00054 Province: Sicilia Place: Catina ]ndri v(ixit) a(nnos) LX / Amabilis nutrici / o(ptime) d(e) s(e) m(erenti) / [i]tem Crescenti / v(ixit) a(nnos) XXV / [ea]dem Amabilis / [co]niugi o(ptime) d(e) s(e) m(erenti) CIL V, 05492 Province: Transpadana / Regio XI Place: Lentate sul Seveso (it.) Diristae nutriciaes(!) / qui vixit annos XXVII CIL V, 08902 Province: Transpadana / Regio XI Place: Comum V(ivus) f(ecit) / L(ucius) Sentius / September VIvir / sibi et Sentiae Rufinae libert(ae) / et coniugi optimae et piissimae / et Sentio Probo fratri suo / et L(ucio) Sentio Probo lib(erto) e(ius) et propinquo / et M(arco) Celerieno Mercatori / sororio suo et Ver(a)e <m=V>erentiss[i]m(ae) / et Atiliae Saturninae sorori suae / et Barbarae nutriculae senectutis suae / et L(ucio) Sentio Onesimo liberto / et Servandae AE 1914, 00276 Province: Umbria / Regio VI Place: Carsulae L(ucius) Sentius L(uci) |(mulieris) lib(ertus) Lucrio sibi et Pontiae L(uci) f(iliae) Proculae ux(ori) / et L(ucio) Sentio L(uci) f(ilio) Pietati vix(it) ann(os) XVII m(enses) IX die(s) VII / v(ivit) et Speratae libert(ae) nutrici fili(i) / hoc quicumque legis titulo rogo carmen amice / perlege sic vitae commoda multa feras / Sentius hic iaceo Pietas cognomine dictus / praereptusque patri flore vigente meo / artibus ingenuis studio formatus honesto / inter et aequales gratus amore fui / duodeviginti natales ni numerarem / surrupuit(!) menses tres mihi Luna suos / in fro(nte) p(edes) XIIII in agr(o) p(edes) XII 88 AE 2001, 00943 Province: Umbria / Regio VI Place: Iguvium Ariae |(mulieris) lib(ertae) / Melpusae / Germanus / nutrici b(ene) m(erenti) CIL XI, 04433 Province: Umbria / Regio VI Place: Amelia ] / qui vix(it) a/n(nos) XVI m(ensem) I / d(iem) I Alli / Castus et / Priscilla / filio dul/cissim(o) / et Alli Pri/manus et / Polytimus / fratri et / Hermion/e nutri/x b(ene) m(erenti) f(ecerunt) CIL XI, 04604 Province: Umbria / Regio VI Place: Carsulae Calvediae / Q(uinti) l(ibertae) / Primae / nutrici / Q(uintus) Calvedius Tuendus / Q(uintus) Calvedius Commodus CIL XI, 04991 (p 1380) = CLE 01845 Province: Umbria / Regio VI Place: Ferentillo (it) ] / Chreste nutric[i fecimus] / hunc tum[ulum] / occidit haec Liby[ae terrae] / nos grandis a[b ora] / per freta per terr[as sedula] / dum sequ[itur] / corpus habet tellu[s et condita] / membra sed illinc [ CIL XI, 05793 Province: Umbria / Regio VI Place: Sentinum D(is) M(anibus) / Veneriae / nutrici / b(ene) m(erenti) / conservae / Adiectus / posuit / h(ic) s(ita) e(st) CIL XI, 06345 Province: Umbria / Regio VI Place: Pisaurum D(is) M(anibus) / Mariae / Marcellinae / nutrici suae / et Caedi Rufini / conlactanei / C(aius) Tadius Sabi/nus mil(es) coh(ortis) II pr(aetoriae) / bene merentib(us) SupIt-18-A, 00059 = AE 2000, 00522 Province: Umbria / Regio VI Place: Amelia [D(is)] M(anibus) / [S]puriliae / Hypateni / P(ublius) Spurilius / Ampliatus nutri/ci et patronae b(ene) m(erenti) / f(ecit) SupIt-18-S, 00040 = AE 1996, 00657a Province: Umbria / Regio VI Place: Suasa Perve<n=R>sse mi(hi) V[3] / nutrici X[3] / Ioli[3] / SCE[1]I[ CIL V, 01990 (p 1066) Province: Venetia et Histria / Regio X Place: Opitergium Carmin[iai] / C(ai) f(iliae) Minai(!) [3] / et Stact[e] / nutrici [ CIL V, 03710 Province: Venetia et Histria / Regio X Place: Arusnates D(is) M(anibus) / Postumiae / Paulin(a)e M(arcus) Ca/varasius Secun/dus co(n)iug(i) incom/parabil(i) quae vixit me/cum ann(os) XXXVII sine quaer/rella ulla et sibi v(ivus) f(ecit) et / Marcii(!) Cavarsii(!) Maxi/mianus et Aurelianus ma/tri b(ene) m(erenti) et Cavarasia Faus/tina aviae et nutrici su(a)e 89 CIL V, 03950 Province: Venetia et Histria / Regio X Place: Vargataria / Arusnates Clodiae / vernae / nutrici InscrAqu-01, 00719 Province: Venetia et Histria / Regio X Place: Aquileia Galgestiae / |(mulieris) l(ibertae) Aptae / nutrici / Tertullae InscrIt-10-05, 00163 = AE 1972, 00203 Province: Venetia et Histria / Regio X Place: Brixia L(ucius) Nutrius C(ai) f(ilius) Gallus / sibi et Cominiae / Secundae nutrici / suae et C(aio) Nutrio C(ai) f(ilio) / Gallo mil(iti) leg(ionis) VII Hisp(anae) / et Secundo lib(erto) et / Primigenio lib(erto) et Tertio / et Venustae t(estamento) f(ieri) i(ussit) Western provinces (Gallia Narbonensis, Gallia Lugudunensis, Belgica, Baetica, Lusitania, Hispania Citerior, Germania Superior and Inferior) er.=erector Nutrix Rsk, 331 Severina Nursling ? Status nutrix Status nursling Place Slave? Colonia Claudia Ara Agrippinensi um ? ? Forum Julii Remark See illustration 7. Severina erected the stele for a (former) male nursling. CIL XII, 312 ? ? CIL XII, 757 Rubria Acte Titia Epictesis (er.) Cornelia Aquilina Slave? Arelate Nursling died at the age of 1,5. Nursling died at the age of 22. CIL XII, 3899 CIL XII, 4742 CIL XII, 4797 Fabia Rustica Julia Juliane Aufidia Felicula L. Sennius Hermogen es Pompeia Liberta Honorata ? (er.) M. Fabius Liberta? Stabilio Julius Liberta Natalis S. Aufidius Liberta of Marcus ? Aufidii? Nemausus Child of Narbo Libertus? Ingenuus Narbo Mother is alive. Ilgn 125 Libertus? Ingenuus Arelate Lugudunum CIL XIII, 2071 90 CIL XIII, 2104 Marciana C. Rufinus (er.) and Verina … Slave? Lugudunum Fellow nursling, conlacta, possible Marciana’s own child? AE 1936, 130 Nutricioni Vi…rici s (er.) filius Leda (er.) Mercuriali Slave s (1,5 years old) and fellow nursling Crhysopae s (er.) Q. Rutilius Slave Flaccius Cornelianu s Slave Augusta Treverorum Divodurum CIL XIII, 11397 Multiple nutrices? Name means ‘nursling’ Slave nurses two children, conlactei. CIL II- Briseis V, 1125 (er.) La Rabia (sp.) CIL II- ? VII, 389 ? ? ? Corduba IrpCadi Secundilla ? z 436 Lasciva L. Aelius AE 1993, 1051a CIL II, 3190 Celer Ingenuus Domitius ? ? ? ? Gades Alcaraz (sp.) AE 1966, 197 Pontiena Novella ? Fabia Tertulla Amabilis, Valeria Clovatia Irene …illia Enn… Valeria Possible slave ? Barcino AE 1960, 190 CIL II, 545 Filii Proculinui Guarda For the mothers of his children? Liberta ? ? ? ? Emerita Carthago CIL VIII, 13191 91 Ateria CIL Januaria VIII, 27988 CIL III, Justina 2377 Virginia Cerdon[iu] ? s (er.) Julius Vaentinus ? Theveste Salonae Nursling died at the age of 21 long relationship. CIL III, C. 2507 Epicharis Filius Romullae C. Liberta ? Desidienus Proculus Slave Salonae CIL III, Desidiena 12916 Primitiva Salonae Mother Romulla, slave. Nursling died at the age of 5. Nursling became decurion in Salonae CIL III, Iri […] 12997 CIL III, Fl(avia) 8350 Tatta Fl(avia) Prisca Salonae liberta Senator, Pozega Nutrix died at the age of 50. Tatta nick name? Aunt and nutrix ? She was 61 when she died. Intermediate social level?? Nutrix died at the age of 25. Nutrix died at the age of 35. clarissima femina Raetinium CIL III, Dianadre 10038 CIL III, 8196 CIL III, 10948 AE 1972, 434 Par]theno pe Jul(ia) Donata Aurelia Sura CIL VIII, 2889 Julia Pistrix Julia Almyrde …]dore Caius Julius Certus (er.) T. Dindius [… Ti. Jul(ius) Liberta Princeps M. Liberta Aur(elius) Maximian us Julius Liberta ? Bassus C. Julius Quintinus …] Amabilis Legionary soldier Scupi Scarbantia Gorsium Legionary soldier Legionary soldier Slave Lambaesis Nutrix died at the age of 100 +?? CIL VIII, 2917 CIL X, 7038 Liberta ? Lambaesis Nutrix died at the age of 63. Catina Nutrix died at the age of 60. 92 CIL XIII, 2104 Leda (er.) Ignotus Slave Slaves AE Flavia Flavia Cal]lityche Parthenop 1969e 70, 584 Julia Musa Classicus AE et Lucius 1960, 193 Liberta Mediomatric Slave nutrix and i foster brother (conlacteus?) erect grave stèle for nursling of 15 months. Scupi Nutrix died at the age of 60. Erected by the decuriones of an unknown city. Slaves RSK 00331 Province: Germania inferior nutrix // Severina nutrix CIL XII, 00312 = ILN-01, 00029 Province: Gallia Narbonensis ] / nutrici optimae fec(it) CIL XII, 00757 Province: Gallia Narbonensis Place: Colonia Claudia Ara Agrippinensium Memoriae // Severina Place: Forum Iulii Place: Arelate D(is) M(anibus) / Aquilin/ae / Rubria Acte / nutrix pl(us) / sesqui annis CIL XII, 03899 Province: Gallia Narbonensis Place: Nemausus D(is) M(anibus) / L(uci) Senni Her/mogenes(!) / qui vixit ann(os) / XXII m(enses) VII / Titia Epictesis / nutrix posuit CIL XII, 04742 Province: Gallia Narbonensis Place: Narbo Corneliae / P(ubli) l(ibertae) / nu[t]rici / Pompeia / Cn(aei) f(ilia) / Honorata CIL XII, 04797 (p 850) Province: Gallia Narbonensis Place: Narbo Vivit / M(arcus) Fabius / Stabilio / V(ibio) Fabio Filarguro / patruo et / Pompeiae L(uci) f(iliae) Tertul(l)in(ae) / uxsori(!) et Fabiae / Rusticae nutrici / Fabia{e} Salvia mater / in fr(onte) p(edes) X ILGN 00125 Province: Gallia Narbonensis Place: Arelate D(is) M(anibus) / Iulius Nata/lis Hermioneni / lib(ertae) / et Iulia Iuliane / nutrici dulciss(i)m(a)e CIL XIII, 02071 Province: Lugudunensis Place: Lugudunum D(is) M(anibus) / et memoriae / aeternae / Aufidiae Feli/culae / [S]ex(tus) Aufidius / Marcus nu/trici pientis/simae ponen/dum curavit / et sub ascia d(e)d(icavit) 93 CIL XIII, 02104 = CLE 01278 Province: Lugudunensis Place: Lugudunum D(is) M(anibus) / et m(emoriae) aeternae L(uci) Cl(audi) Rufini / Cl(audius) hunc viv(u)s Stygias Rufinus / ad umbras instituit / titulum post animae requ/iem qui testis vitae fati / sit lege futurus cum do/mus accipiet saxea corpus ha/bens quodque meam / retinet vocem data litte/ra saxo vo[ce] tua vivet / quisque lege[s titu]los / Rottio hic sit[us es]t iuve/nili robore quondam / [q]ui sibi moxq(ue) su[ae] nutrici / Marcian(a)e item Verinae / conlactiae haec monu/menta dedit et sub asc(ia) / dedicavit / curante Cl(audio) Sequente patrono AE 1936, 00130 Province: Belgica Place: Augusta Treverorum [Hic quie]scit Vi/[3]rici fi/[lius] qui vixit / [annos] III minus / [die]s XXXVIII nutri/[ci]onis pro ca/ritate titu/lum posuerunt Nesselhauf 00027 = RICG-01, 00067 Province: Belgica Place: Augusta Treverorum [Hic quie]scit Vi/[talis in] pace fi/[delis] qui vixit / [annos] III minus / [die]s XXXVIII nutri/[c]ion<e=I>s pro caritate titu/lum posuerunt CIL XIII, 11397 Province: Belgica Place: Divodurum ]A Mercuri/alis vix(it) an(num) I / m(enses) V d(ies) XXII me/mor titulum / posuerunt / Leda nut(rix) et / Crhysopaes(!) / Collactius CIL II - V, 01125 = CILA-02-03, 00719 = HEp-01, 00525 = HEp-03, 00347 = AE 1989, 00414 = AE 1998, +00725 CIL II - V, 01125 = CILA-02-03, 00719 = HEp-01, 00525 = HEp-03, 00347 = AE 1989, 00414 = AE 1998, +00725 Province: Baetica Place: La Rabia (sp.) Briseis / nutrix Q(uinit) Rutili / Q(uinti) f(ilii) Flacci Corneliani / annorum XXXV pia in suos / hic s(ita) e(st) s(it) t(ibi) t(erra) l(evis) CIL 02-07, 00389 = AE 1972, 00276 = AE 1972, 00277 Province: Baetica Place: Corduba [3 N]overat unum / [3]at et pia nutrix / [3 c]oepit et unus / [3]A fiant / [3] mater habebit // Sum genere Macedon se<d=T> in arvis Baeticae partus / quintus post decimum revolutus fugerat annus / et iam iamque viro toga se sociare parabat / deficiunt fata totus labor excidit hora / hic ego sum positus festus de nomine Festi IRPCadiz 00436 = HEp-06, 00520 Province: Baetica Place: Gades Secundilla / Anni annor(um) / nutrix / XXV cara / suis h(ic) s(ita) e(st) s(it) t(ibi) t(erra) l(evis) AE 1990, 00606 = AE 1993, 01051a = HEp-04, 00021 = HEp-05, 00004 Province: Hispania citerior Place: Alcaraz (sp.) [3 L]asciva / nu[trix ind]ulgentis(s)uma(!) / an(norum) LVII[II pr]o merit[i]s / suis L(ucius) Ae[li]us Celer / Ingenu(u)s praestitit / impensam fu[ne]ris lo/cum sepultur[ae] monu(mentum) / [ordo decrevit?] / hic [sita est 3] 94 CIL II, 03190 Province: Hispania citerior Place: Valeria [3]iiena / [3]ovel[l]a / [D]omiti nutrix IRC-04, 00165 = AE 1966, 00197 Province: Hispania citerior Place: Barcino D(is) M(anibus) / Fabiae / Tertullae / nutrici AE 1960, 00190 Province: Lusitania Place: Valhelhas (sp.) D(is) m(anibus) s(acrum) / Proculinus / Proculi sibi / et uxoribus(!) / piissumis(!) / Valeri(a)e et / Amabili / nutrici / filiorum / meorum(!) / f(aciundum) c(uravit) CIL II, 00545 Province: Lusitania Place: Emerita Clovatia / C(ai) l(iberta) Irena / nutrix / in f(ronte) p(edes) XII in agr(o) / p(edes) VIII CIL VIII, 13191 Province: Africa proconsularis Place: Carthago Ge]llia En[3] / [3] nutrix [3] / [3 v]ixit an(nos) [ CIL VIII, 27988 = ILAlg-01, 03790 Province: Africa proconsularis Place: Theveste D(is) M(anibus) s(acrum) / (H)ateria Ianuari/a v(ixit) a(nnos) XL Cerdoni/us nutrici su(a)e karis[s]/[imae fecit] 95 Bibliography Alföldy, G. (1988) The social history of Rome, translation: Braund D., Pollock F. (London & New York : Routledge). Amedick, R. (1991) Die Sarkophagen mit Darstellungen aus dem Menschenleben. 4 Vita privata auf Sarcophagen (Berlin : Gebr. Mann Verlag). Amedick, R. (1993) ‘Zur Ikonographie der Sarkophage mit Darstellungen aus der Vita Privata und dem Curriculum Vitae eines Kindes’ in: Koch, G. (ed.) Grabeskunst der Römischen Kaiserzeit (Mainz am Rhein: Verlag Philip von Zabern) 143-154. Ariès, P. (1962) Centuries of childhood (London: Cape). Beauchamp, J. (1982) ‘L’allaitement: la mère ou la nourrice?’ in : Jahrbuch der Österreichischen Byzantinistik, 12, 549-58. Berczelly, L. (1978) ‘A sepulchral monument from Via Portuense and the origin of the Roman biographical cycle’, Acta ad Archaeologiam et artium historiam pertinentia, 8, 49-74. Bonfante, L. (1997) ‘Nursing mothers in classical art’ in: Koloski-Ostrow, A., C. Lyons (eds.) Naked Truths: women, sexuality and gender in classical art (London: Routledge), 174-196. Bradley, K. (1980) ‘Sexual regulations in wet-nursing contracts from Roman Egypt’ Klio: Beiträge zur alte Geschichte, 62, 321-325. Bradley, K. (1991a) ‘Tatae and Mammae’ in the Roman family’ in: Bradley, K. (ed.) Discovering the Roman family: studies in Roman social history (New York: Oxford University Press), 125-126. Bradley, K. (1991b) ‘The social role of the nurse in the Roman world’ in: Bradley, K. (ed.) Discovering the Roman family. Studies in Roman social history (New York: Oxford University Press), 13-36. Bradley, K. (1992) ‘Wet-nursing at Rome: a study in social relations’ in: Rawson, B. (ed.) The family in ancient Rome. New perspectives (London: Routledge), 201-229. 96 Bradley, K. (1994) ‘The nurse and the child at Rome. Duty, affect and socialisation’ Thamyris, 1, 137-156. Capomacchia, A.G. (1999) L'eroica nutrice : sui personaggi "minori" della scena tragica greca (Rome: Aracne). Carroll, M. (2006) Spirits of the dead: Roman funerary commemoration in Western Europe, Oxford Studies in ancient documents. (Oxford: Oxford University Press). Clark, G. (1993) Women in Late Antiquity. Pagan and Christian Life-styles (Oxford: Clarendon Press). Corbier, M. (1999) ‘La petite enfance à Rome: lois, normes, pratiques individuelles et collectives’, Annales. Économies, sociétés, civilisations, 54, 1257-1290. Coulon, G. (1994) L’enfant en Gaule romaine (Paris : Editions Errance). Dasen, V. (2001) Naissance et petite enfance dans l'Antiquité : actes du colloque de Fribourg, 28 novembre-1er décembre (Fribourg : Academic Press). DeMause, L. (1974) The history of childhood (New York: the Psychohistory Press). Deyts, S. (2004) ‘La femme et l’enfant au maillot en Gaule: iconographie et épigraphie’, in : Coulon, G. (ed.) L'enfant en Gaule et dans l'Empire romain (Paris : Editions Errance), 227-238. Dimas, S. (1998), Untersuchungen zur Themenwahl und Bildgestaltung auf römischen Kindersarkophagen (Münster : Scriptorium). Dixon, S. (1988) The Roman mother (Norman: The University of Oklahoma Press). Dixon, S. (1992) The Roman family (Baltimore & London: John Hopkins University Press). Dixon, S. (ed.) (2001a) Childhood, Class and Kin in the Roman world (London & New York: Routledge). Dixon, S. (2001b) Reading Roman women: sources, ‘genres’ and real life (London: Duckworth). 97 Eichenauer, M. (1988) Untersuchungen zur Arbeitswelt der Frau in der römischen Antike (Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang). Evans Grubbs, J. (2002), Women and the law in the Roman Empire: a sourcebook of marriage, divorce and widowhood (Londen: Routledge). Fildes, V.A. (1988) Wet nursing: a history from antiquity to the present (Oxford: Basil Blackwell). Fildes, V.A. (1986) Breasts, bottles and babies: a history of infant feeding (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press). Flint-Hamilton, K. (2003), ‘Images of Slavery in the Early Church: Hatred Disguised as Love?’ Journal of Hate Studies 2, 27-45. Galsterer, B., Galsterer H. (1975), Die römischen Steininschriften aus Köln (Cologne : Römisch-Germanisches Museum), 79 Nr. 331 Taf. 73. Gardner, J.F., T. Wiedemann (eds.) (1991) The Roman household, a sourcebook (London: Routledge). Garnsey, P. (1998) ‘Feeding and weaning’ in: Scheidel, W. (ed.), Cities, peasants and food in classical antiquity: essays in social and economic history (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), 261-270. Garnsey, P. (2001) The evolution of the Late antique world (Cambridge: Orchard Academic). George, M. (1997) ‘Repopulating the Roman House’ in: Rawson, B. and P. Weaver (eds.), The Roman family in Italy: Status, Sentiment, Space (Oxford: Clarendon Press), 299-320. George, M. (2000) ‘Family and familia on Roman biographical sarcophagi’, Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archaeologisches Instituts. Römische Abteilung = Römische Mitteilungen, 107, 191-207. George, M. (ed.) (2005) ‘Family imagery and family values in Roman Italy’ in: George, M. Roman family in the Empire. Rome, Italy and beyond (Oxford: Oxford University Press), 37-66. Glancy, J.A. (2006), Slavery in early Christianity (Minneapolis: Fortress Press). 98 Günter, R. (2000) ‘Matrona, vilica und ornatrix. Frauenarbeit in Rom zwischen Topos und Alltagswirklichkeit’ in: Späth, T. and B. Wagner-Hasel, Frauenwelten in der Antike. Geschlechterordnung und weibliche Lepenspraxis. Mit 162 Quellentexten und Bildquellen (Stuttgart, Weimar : Verlag J.B. Metzler), 350-369. Hänninen M. (2005) ‘From womb to family. Rituals and social conventions connected to Roman birth’ in: Mustakallio K. et al. (eds.) Hoping for continuity. Childhood, education and death in antiquity and the Middle Ages, Acta Instituti Romani Finlandiae, 33, 49-60. Hanson, A.E., (2003), ‘Your mother nursed you with bile’ in: Morton Braund, S. and G. W. Most (eds.), Ancient anger : perspectives from Homer to Galen (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), 185-207. Hemelrijk, E.A. (1999), Matrona Docta: Educated women in the Roman elite from Cornelia to Julia Domna (Londen: Routledge). Higgins, R. (1988) Tanagra and the figurines (London: Trefoil books). Himmelmann, Verlag). Hrdy, S. (1992) ‘Fitness tradeoffs in the History and Evolution of Delegated Mothering with special reference to wet-nursing, abandonment and Infanticide" Ethology and Sociobiology 13, 415-427. Huskinson, J. (1996) Roman Children’s sarcophagi, Their decoration and its social significance (Oxford: Clarendon Press). Joshel, S.R. (1986) ‘Nurturing the master’s child: Slavery and the Roman child-nurse’ Signs. Journal of women in culture and society, 12, 3-22. Kampen, N. (1981a) ‘Biographical narration and Roman funerary art’ American Journal of Archaeology, 85, 47-58. Kampen, N. (1981b) Image and status : Roman working women in Ostia (Berlin: Gebr. Mann Verlag). Typologische Untersuchungen an Römischen Sarkophagreliefs des 3. und 4. Jahrhunderts n. Chr. (Mainz am Rhein: von Zabern N. (1973) 99 King, M. (2000) ‘Commemoration of infants on Roman funerary inscriptions’ in: Oliver, G. (ed.) The epigraphy of death: studies in the history and society of ancient Greece and Rome (Liverpool: Liverpool University Press), 117–154. Kleiner, D. (1988) ‘Roman funerary art and architecture: observations on the significance of recent studies’ Journal of Roman Archaeology, 1, 115-119. Koch, H., H. Sichtermann (1982) Römische Sarkophage (Munich: C.H. Beck’sche Verlagsbuchhandlung). Koch, G. (1993) Sarkophagen Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft). der Römischen Kaiserzeit (Darmstadt: Laes, C. (2006) Kinderen bij de Romeinen. Zes eeuwen dagelijks leven (Leuven: Davidsfonds). Laes, C. en J. Strubbe (2006) Kleine Romeinen: jonge kinderen in het antieke Rome (Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press Salomé). Laskaris, J. (2008) ‘Nursing mothers in Greek and Roman Medicine’, American Journal of Archaeology, 112, 459-464. Lefkowitz, M., M. Fant, (1982) Women’s life in Greece & Rome. A source book in translation (London: Duckworth) 164-168. LoCascio, E. (2002) ‘Considerazioni sul numero degli schiavi e sulle lore fonti di approvvigionamento in età imperiale’ in : Suder, W. (ed.) Étude de démographie du monde greco-romain. Acta Universitatis Wratislaviensis, ser. Antiquitas 26, 51-65. Maher, V. (1992) The anthropology of breastfeeding. Natural law or social construct? (Oxford: Berg). Micheli, M.E. in Giuliano, A., Bertinetti, M., de Lachenal L., Palma, B. (eds.) (1985) Museo Nazionale Romano. Le sculture, Parte I.8. (Rome: De Luca editore). Leyerle, B (1997) ‘Appealing to children’ Journal of Early Christian Studies, 5, 243270. Masciadri, M.M., O. Montevecchi (1984) I contratti di Baliatico (Milan : s.n.). 100 Mencacci, F. (1995) ‘La balia cattiva : alcune osservazioni sul ruolo della nutrice nel mondo antico’ in : Raffaelli, R. (ed.) Vicende e figure femminili in Grecia e a Roma (Ancona : Commissione per le pari opportunità tra uomo e donna della regione Marche), 227-237. McWilliam, J. (2000) ‘Children among the dead: the influence of urban life on the commemoration of children on tombstone inscriptions’, in: Dixon, S. (ed.) Childhood, class and kin in the Roman world (London & New York: Routledge) 74-98. Moine, N. (2007) ‘Une femme allaitant sur un bloc inédit de Reims’, in: Vigourt, A., J. Martin (eds.) Pouvoir et religion dans le monde romain (Paris : Presses de l’université Paris-Sorbonne) 449-459. Morris, I. (1994) Death-ritual and social structure in classical antiquity (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press) 31-69. Nathan, G. (2000) The Family in Late Antiquity. The rise of Christianity and the endurance of tradition (London & New York: Routledge) 150-155. Olson, K. (2008) Dress and the Roman woman. Self-representation and society (London and New York: Routledge). O’Roark, D. (1999) ‘Parenthood in Late Antiquity: The Evidence of Chrysostom’ in: Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 40, 53-81. Pollock, L. (1987) A lasting relationship: parents and children over three centuries (Hannover: University Press of New England). T.L. Prowse (2001) ‘Isotopic and dental evidence for diet from the necropolis of Isola Sacra (1st–3rd centuries AD), Italy’ (Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada). http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6WH8-49Y3GFM2&_user=457046&_coverDate=03%2F31%2F2004&_rdoc=1&_fmt=full&_orig=search &_cdi=6844&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_acct=C000021878&_version=1&_urlV ersion=0&_userid=457046&md5=9dc292fc5a50d8a16394765469bd0877#bbib41 Prowse, T.L., H.P. Schwarcz, S. Saunders, R. Macchiarelli, L. Bondioli (2004) ‘Isotopic paleodiet studies of skeletons from the Imperial Roman-age cemetery of Isola Sacra, Rome, Italy’, Journal of archaeological science, 31, 259-272. 101 Rawson, B. (2003) Children and childhood in Roman Italy (Oxford: Oxford University Press). Rawson, B., P. Weaver (eds.) (1997) The Roman family in Italy: status, sentiment, space (Oxford: Clarendon Press). Roth, U. (2007) Thinking tools. Agricultural slavery between evidence and models. Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies Supplement 92. (London: Institute of Classical Studies). Rouquet, N. (2003) ‘Les biberons, les tire-lait ou les tribulations d’une tubulure peu commune..’ in: Gourevitch D., A. Moirin and N. Rouquet (eds.) Maternité et petit enfance dans l’Antiquité romaine. Catalogue de l’exposition Bourges, Muséum d’histoire naturelle 6 novembre 2003 – 28 mars 2004. (Bourges: Service d’archéologie municipal), 171-77. Rutgers, L.V., Strydonck, van M., Boudin, M., Van der Linde, C. (2009) ‘Stable isotope data from the early Christian catacombs of ancient Rome: new insights into the dietary habits of Rome's early Christians’ Journal of archaeological science, 36, 112734. Saller, R.P. (1996) Patriarchy, property and death in the Roman family (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). Schulze, H. (1998) Ammen und Pädagogen. Sklavinnen und Sklaven als Erzieher in der antiken Kunst und Gesellschaft (Mainz am Rhein: Von Zabern Verlag). Scobie, A. (1979) ‘Storytellers, Storytelling and the Novel in Graeco-Roman Antiquity’ Rheinisches Museum 122, 229-59. Scott, E. (1999) The archaeology of infancy and infant death, British Archaeological Reports. International Series, 819. Stone, L. (1977) The family, sex and marriage in England, 1500-1800 (New York: Harper and Row). Shaw, B.D. (1987) ‘The family in Late Antiquity. The experience of Augustine’, Past and Present. Journal of historical studies, 115, 3-51. Shaw, B.D. (1993) ‘The passion of Perpetua’, Past and Present, 139, 3-45. 102 Sinn, Stadtrömische Marmorurnen. Beiträge zur Erschließung hellenistischer und kaiserzeitlicher Skulptur und Architektur, 8 (Mainz am Rhein: F. (1987) Von Zabern Verlag). Sussmann, G.D. (1982) Selling mother’s milk: the wet-nursing business in France, 1715-1914 (Urbana & London: University of Illinois Press). Treggiari, S. (1975) ‘Jobs in the household of Livia’ in: Papers of the British School at Rome, 43. (London: British School at Rome), 48-75. Treggiari, S. (1979) ‘Questions of women domestics in the Roman West’ Schiavitù, manomissione e classi dipendenti nel mondo antico. Università degli studi di Padova, Pubblicazioni dell’istituto di storia antica (Rome: L’erma di Bretschneider). Tyldesley, J. (1994) ‘Marriage and motherhood in ancient Egypt’ History today, 44 (London: Bracken House) 20-26. Valbruzzi, F. (1993) ‘Un sarcofago di bambino rinvenuto ad Agrigento’ in: Koch, G. (ed.) Grabeskunst der Römischen Kaiserzeit (Mainz am Rhein: Verlag Philip von Zabern), 155-158. Vogt, J. (1953) Ancient Slavery and the Ideal of Man (tr. T. Wiedemann) (Oxford: Oxford University Press). Whitehead, J.K. (1984) Biography and formula in Roman sarcophagi. Dissertation Yale University. (Ann Arbor: University Microfilms International). Translations Acts of Thomas, translation: James, M.R. (1924) The Acts of Thomas, in: The Apocryphal New Testament. (Oxford: Clarendon Press). Ambrosius, Epistulae, translation: various authors: Library of Fathers of the Holy Catholic Church (1881) The letters of S. Ambrose, Bishop of Milan, Translated with notes and indices (Oxford: James Parker & Co. and Rivingtons). Augustine of Hippo, Confessiones, translation: Carena, C. (1965) Le Confessioni (Rome: Città Nuova Editrice). 103 Aulus Gellius, Noctes Atticae, translation Rolfe, J.C. (1960) The Attic Nights of Aulus Gellius, Loeb Classical Library (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press). Cicero, De Amicitia translation: Falconer, W.A. (1923) Cicero: De Senectute, De Amicitia, De Divinatione (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press). Corpus Iuris Civilis, translation: Scott, S.P. (1932) The Civil Law (Cincinnati: The Central Trust Company). http://www.constitution.org/sps/sps.htm Dio Chrysostom, Discourses, translation: Cohoon, J.W. (1932) Discourses, Loeb Classical Library (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press). Dio Chrysostom, Homilies on the Gospel according to St. Matthew, translation: Scaff, P. (1851) Homilies on the Gospel according to St. Matthew. (Oxford : Public Domain). Galen, De sanitate tuenda, translation : Montraville Green, R. (1951) A translation of Galen’s hygiene (Springfield : Thomas). Juvenal, Satyres, translation: Gifford W. (1906) The Satires of Juvenal, The Temple Greek and Latin Classics series (New York: G.P. Putnam's Sons and London: J.M. Dent & Co). Lucretius, De rerum natura Baily, C. (1910) On the Nature of Things (Oxford: Clarendon Press). Passio Perpetuae et Felicitatis translation: Armitage Robinson, J. (1967) The Passion of S. Perpetua (Nendeln : Kraus Reprint). Oribasius, Collectionum Medicarum Reliquiae, translation Grant, M. (1997) Oribasius, Dieting for an Emperor: A Translation of Books 1 and 4 of Oribasius’ „Medical Compilations“ (Leiden, New York, Cologne: Brill Academic Publishers). Pliny the Younger, Epistulae, translation: Firth, J.B., Letters of the younger Pliny (London & New York: The Walter Scott Publishing Co). Plutarch, Moralia translation : Cole Babbitt, F. (1960), Plutarch’s Moralia, Loeb Classical Library (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press). Plutarch, Vitae paralellae, translation Perrin, B (1962) Plutarch’s Lives, Loeb Classical Library (London & Cambridge Massachusetts: Harvard University Press). 104 Publilius Syrus, Sententiae http://www.locutio.net/modules.php?name=Encyclopedia&op=list_content&eid=2 Quintillian, Institutio Oratoria, translation : Russel, D.A. (2001) Quintilian. The orator’s education, Loeb Classical Library (London, Cambridge Massachusetts: Harvard University Press). Seneca, Epistulae, translation: Gummere, R.M. (1917) Epistulae, Loeb Classical Library (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press). Seneca, De Beneficiis, translation: Cooper, J., (1995) Seneca. Moral and Political Essays (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). Seneca, Controversiae, Winterbottom, M., (1974) Seneca. Opera. Loeb Classical Library (Cambridge Massachusetts: Harvard University Press). Soranus, Sorani Gynaeciorum, translation: Temkin, O. (1991) Soranus' Gynaecology (Baltimore & London: John Hopkins University Press). http://books.google.com/books?id=YsKWfh31gxwC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs summary_s&cad=0 Suetonius, De caesaribus, translation: Rolfe, J.C. (1998) Suetonius, Loeb Classical Library, (London & Cambridge Massachusetts: Harvard University Press). Tacitus, Dialogus de oratoribus, translation: Volkmer, H. (1967), Dialogus de oratoribus. Das Gespräch über die Redner, (München: Heimeran). Tacitus, Germania, translation: Church, A.J. and W. J. Brodribb (1942) (New York: Random House). Varro, De Agricultura, translation: Hooper and Ash (1936) On agriculture, Loeb Classical Library (Cambridge Massachusetts: Harvard University Press). Film La Balia (1999) directed by M. Belocchio, (Rome: Filmalbatros), cinema version of the novel of L. Pirandello (1903). 105