KET DL - Latin II - Mores - Roman Culture
@import url(/latin/style/new2004.css);
@import url(/latin/style/defpopups.css);
Roman Culture
Women in Rome
Private Lives and Public Personae
Dr. Susan Martin
University of Tennessee
FULL TEXT
I. Introduction
In the late first century B.C., around the year 5, a Roman man, mourning the death of his wife, had inscribed on stone a
lengthy, detailed, and extremely touching, funerary epitaph commemorating her outstanding life, character, and deeds. I want
to use this epitaph usually referred to as the Laudatio Turiae
- praise of Turia - as my text to explore the enigmatic, complex world of Roman women:
The ideals and cultural expectations placed on them, and, by contrast, the taboos and tensions they
lived with as well as the system of rights and duties that mediated their lives in public and private.
This woman's tombstone is emblematic of our evidence of Roman
women. In its form and state of preservation, this stone
symbolizes the tens of thousands of tombstones we have from Roman
antiquity. And it is an extraordinary example as well: The
longest surviving Latin inscription erected by a private
individual, it consisted of two slabs, measuring 8 ft. 6 in
height by 2 feet 9 in width and 3 1/2 inches thick. Each slab
would have weighed 1 1/2 tons, making it likely that the
inscription was erected as part of the tomb structure. This stone
is impressive in content as well as sheer size, with about 180
lines of text. The challenge of this stone is to use it to
contribute to our understanding of the life of this one woman and
this challenge is dramatically enhanced by three features of this
stone and of inscriptions in general. First, while the actual
inscription on the stone gives us valuable evidence for her life,
it also, as inscriptions usually do, holds much back. The stone
survives in a fragmentary state and was broken up for reuse.
Pieces of it have been found all over Rome, and only about half survives.
(E.G., two were used as loculi lids; one was a duodecim scripta board.)
Much like the story of Roman women, the story
of this inscription has changed as new fragments have been
discovered, fit together, and deciphered, doling out bits of new
information. Also, perhaps eerily, symbolic of our knowledge of
Roman women in general is the fact that we do not know this
woman's name (or her husband's, for that matter). We call her
Turia, because we know of such a woman from about this period who
was credited with saving her husband's life as was this one. But
this identification has been refuted persuasively.
Secondly, like most of the evidence we have for women in Rome,
her life story is told by a man, her husband. I think we will see
how this may have influenced the content of the stone. We
certainly wouldn't accuse her husband of distorting his wife's
life, but we can't interpret this text either as autobiography or
as an objective account.
Finally, Turia's life story is filtered through the flattering
lens of the genre of funerary inscriptions. After all, then as
now, one didn't indulge in casting a blinding light on the
foibles of the defunct. The Romans left that for their wills. Our
tombstone inscriptions are often concise - even terse: here lies
so and so. But the Romans differed from us here, and felt it well
worth the cost to splurge on a tombstone with a nice, wordy
inscription, detailing one's career highlights or other important
items. This practice extended throughout society and some of very
impressive examples come from the tombs of freed slaves who had
prospered financially to the extent that it was possible to
afford such an expensive item. This lengthy inscription was
probably delivered as her funeral oration. He addresses it
directly to her.
Despite the challenges posed by gaps, authorial affection, and
genre, this epitaph paints a clear picture of a woman who faced
many challenges in public and in private, who managed to handle
them effectively, and who presents a fascinating figure against a
backdrop of social change in Rome.
II. Her Life and how it conforms to
Roman realities as we know them
Let me tell you a bit about what we can reconstruct about her
life from her epitaph. Turia left as her chief mourner her
husband of 40 years. We know from other facts in the story that
they were married between 49 and 42 B.C. - she died in the years
8-2. The couple's courtship and marriage took place during a
period of extreme political instability that we - and the Romans
- refer to as the civil wars. This young woman came of age in a
time when civil strife in the Roman world was comparable
to that in Bosnia or Palestine, except that instead of different
religious groups fighting each other, we have factions of the
Roman upper class engaged in armed conflict over who would
control the Roman Republic. In brief, these struggles pitted the
Optimates - the most noble families and members of the senatorial
order led by Pompey the great (and Cicero) against the Populares
- led by Julius Caesar. By the time of her death, Rome had been
ruled for almost 30 years by the Emperor Augustus and had traded
the tumultuous Republican form of government for imperial calm.
Both spouses clearly came from wealthy families - whether they
belonged to the very highest rank in society, is unclear.
The good news about this is that they had lots of money and
property. The bad news is that they were enmeshed in the thick of
the civil wars. Their connections at birth and as they grew would
meant that they had powerful friends and powerful enemies as
well. Unfortunately for them, both Turia's parents and her
husband's family were on the losing side, the side of Pompey who
fled Italy in advance of Julius Caesar's army after he crossed
the Rubicon river in 49, and was finally killed at the end of
this series of civil wars in 48 B.C.
It is realistic to suppose that Turia married at a young age.
Studies of Roman evidence have shown that young women in the
upper classes married young, even as early as 12. But variation
was possible: Cicero's daughter Tullia was betrothed at 12,
married at 16 and widow at 22. If Turia married this young, she
died in her mid 50's, not a bad age for a Roman whether male or
female. Life expectancy was abysmal in this era. From her
behavior, we may wish to suppose that this woman married at a
slightly older age, perhaps at 18 or so. It seems equally clear
that she was educated, probably by tutors at home.
Bridegrooms were typically older, sometimes as old as thirty,
which created a considerable age difference and has several
interesting implications. First of all, women, if they survived
childbirth, would frequently have been widows and therefore
suitable for a second marriage. It also ensured that a
considerable gap in life experience characterized these
marriages. From the inscription we know that Turia was younger,
but not by how much. Her husband bemoans her early passing - he
should have been the first to go.
Their marriage was probably arranged by their parents. While
consent was desirable, it was not necessary for the girl to give
hers, and silence was interpreted as consent, a meaningless
concept for 12-year-olds in any case. It is likely that the
partners would have known each other; we know that in some cases,
they may have even maneuvered to encourage the marriage. Usually,
however, political alliance or financial interest dictated
marriage partners.
The couple was childless - unusual in a society in which
marriage functioned as a vehicle for preserving and further
family name and fortune. They did not attempt to adopt a son into
the family, a fairly common tactic to preserve families. The
husband only mentions that Turia devoted herself and her money to
raising and marrying off female relatives otherwise unspecified -
and that this offered them advantages they would otherwise not
have had.
III. Deeds
Much of the epitaph deals with a recitation of Turia's deeds.
We expect language of praise, much of it extremely conventional.
These conventions are observed here although you can tell that
this isn't the part of the story he is interested in:
"Why should I mention your domestic virtues, your
loyalty, obedience, affability, reasonableness, industry
in working wool, religion without superstition, sobriety
of attire, modesty of appearance?"
To these qualities he adds one other, of special
importance: She is unparalleledin her devotion to and defense of
the family. Few women, he remarks, have been as challenged in
this regard as she. Here we come to the truly exceptional
part of this epitaph.
He relates a series of episodes in which Turia was called upon
to take extraordinary action to defend her own or family
interests. These actions required her to cross the boundary of
her threshold, so to speak, and to act in ways which may have
been unprecedented for women before this age of uncertainty. As
you will have gathered by now, this was not women's appropriate
sphere of activity: they had no political rights. But the women
of Turia's generation were challenged differently, and she, at
least was prepared to meet the challenge.
The first situation happened when she was betrothed
but not yet a bride. As he puts it, "You became an
orphan suddenly before the day of our wedding, when both
your parents were murdered together in the solitude of
the countryside. It was mainly due to your efforts that
the death of your parents was not left unavenged. For I
had left for Macedonia and your sister's husband Cluvius
had gone to the Province of Africa. So strenuously did
you perform your filial duty by your insistent demands
and your pursuit of justice that we could
not have done more if we had been present. But these
merits you have in common with that most virtuous lady
your sister. While you were engaged in these things,
having secured the punishment of the guilty, you
immediately left you own house in order to guard your
modesty and you came to my mother's house, where
you awaited my return."
The murder of her parents, certainly the most shocking event
of this woman's young life, may have been linked to
the political climate. The fact that the murderers appear to
have been easily identified enhances this interpretation as does
the surrounding context of violence. The were probably killed by
political enemies who hoped to profit in some way. This event
must have directly coincided with the flight from Italy of those
allied with Pompey after Caesar's invasion. Both the sister's husband
Cluvius and the fiance take off for the east - as did many of
Pompey's supporters. With the deaths of their parents, the two
sisters are left on their own. Whatever fight they engaged in, it
is vaguely worded - we hear only of the "punishment of the
guilty." Notice that Turia immediately enters the house of
her future inlaws, an act he commends as proper. Her behavior is
characterized by pietas and devoted
to the custodia pudicitiae.
An insight into the murder of her parents might also come from
the next part of the text where he alludes to a legal fight which
ensued in the aftermath of the death of both parents. This is a
complicated business: On the death of her parents, Turia was
named, along with her fiance, as heir to her father's will. This
is not insignificant since wills were the primary means of
transferring wealth in this society. She stood to become a very
wealth woman and her fiance also would benefit, perhaps in an
equal share. The sister was presumably mentioned in the will as a
legatee. The reason for this may be that she had married with
manus and became technically part of her husband's family.
The will was attacked on extremely technical legal grounds.
The attackers claimed that the father's will had become invalid.
Under the rules of intestate succession, only Turia would have
been an heir. But she would have required a guardian. The
attackers claimed to be distant family relations - gentiles
- and as such, were petitioning to be named her
guardians according to the rules on intestate succession. These
people had one purpose: to claim guardianship of Turia and
control her fortune.(2)
Once again, she fights and wins. Her husband describes her
steadfastness and resolution in the face of this challenge and in
asserting the truth of the situation: The will had not been
broken and even if it had, the attackers had no standing as
members of any clan or extended family of hers. Again, the
details are left murky. Whatever means she took to achieve these
ends are suppressed.
Let me pause for a moment to discuss important
institutions revealed by this episode. First of all, this family
is explicitly old-fashioned in its ways.
Marriage with manus was falling out of
favor as far as we know: it created a marriage in which the wife
entered a legal state of dependence on her husband who had legal
control of her property. The preferred form of marriage in
Turia's day was the so-called "free marriage" in
which the woman remained part of her own family and, on her
father's death, achieved control over her property. (This type of
marriage favored keeping family fortunes with the family. Gifts
between husbands and wives were not valid.) (It is possible that
Turia's family had intended for her to marry with
manus, therefore the provision of her
fiance as co-heir. He was being readied for the marriage that
would give him control over her affairs. But this may not have
been the case.)
Secondly, there is the institution of guardianship. A woman
whose male ancestors (males in her father's line of his
generation or before) had died was required to have a guardian
throughout her life if her father wasn't living. The tutor was
required to approve the woman's business dealings, women being
regarded as not having the seriousness of mind necessary to
conduct business. This institution had weakened substantially by
this time, and became weaker so that women could name their own
tutors or under certain circumstances be allowed not to have one.
However, the sort of adverse guardianship that would have been
created by Turia's opponents would surely have been neither
tolerant nor beneficial to her interests.
Concerning her fiance's - or perhaps husband's - absence on
this occasion, more should be said, as this circumstance sets the
stage for her further extraordinary acts. As mentioned earlier,
it seems likely that his alliance was with Pompey. After
Pompey's death in 48, all of his followers were forbidden to
return to Italy without special permission. Turia saves the
situation: She talks him into hiding himself and he follows her
superior judgement. She organized his finances during this exile,
and managed to sneak money, servants and provisions to him. This
saved his life. As if this weren't enough, during his absence, a
gang attempted to break into their house - purchased from T.
Annius Milo, a famous politico and peter-do-well, known to us
principally because of a speech Cicero composed in defense of
Milo on a charge of murder. Her husband describes her as warding
them off and defending the house.
In his absence, his troubles increase. Caesar's successors,
including his great-nephew, the future emperor Augustus, Marcus
Antonius, and the much less accomplished Marcus Lepidus became
the new force to reckon with, as partners in the 2nd Triumvirate.
They immediately set about solidifying their control and getting
rid of their enemies. It seems clear that her husband, as one of
these, was "proscribed." This means that his name
appeared on a list of enemies of the triumvirs -
there were thousands of them, Cicero being the most famous. These
individuals were marked for death and their property was Confi
scated. Her last, and from his point of view, greatest act of
heroism, occurred when he was proscribed. She worked assiduously
to persuade the future emperor to recall her husband. He proved
persuadable, but another of the triumvirs, Lepidus, disagreed,
and he actually had the administration of Italy at this time. She
implored him, an act her husband calls, "The bitterest thing
that happened to me in my life."
"You lay prostrate at his feet, and you were not
only not raised up, but were dragged away and carried off
brutally like a slave. But although your body was full of
bruises, your spirit was unbroken and you kept reminding
him of Caesar's edict... you pronounced the words of the
edict in a loud voice, so that it should be known who was
the cause of my deadly perils. This matter was soon to
prove harmful for him."
Of course, Lepidus was discarded by his two colleagues within
a few years, although we can't attribute it to this episode.
In all of these episodes, we can see Turia's extraordinarily
resolute and effective behavior in confronting violence, legal
trickery, brigandage, political enmity. She must have repeatedly
been called upon to act aggressively outside the home. Her main
weapons are her courage, tenacity, and conviction; these traits,
along with the confidence and education her status gave her, her
apparent persuasiveness, and her family connections brought about
her success in each case. The vague wording of the epitaph
conceals the rest.
IV. The rest of the marriage
The husband's account of the rest of the marriage accords well
with that cardinal virtue of Roman marriage:concordia,
harmony. He makes a point of mentioning that they
share control of finances - he supervising hers and she his.
Similarly, they collaborate with the sister and brother in law in
raising and endowing female relatives in her family whose
prospects would not other wise have been so rosy. These comments
are, of course, to a certain extent self-serving. In law, if they
were married with manus, he had
control over her property in the way a living father would have:
total control. However, the tone of the inscription does lead us
to credit his account somewhat. There were lots of ways to define
concordia, and it seems clear that
in his mind his wife's judgment was as good as his. This could
easily be accommodated within the Roman view of marriage,
particularly since many women at this time managed their own
finances with the guardian serving as a rubber stamp.
One notable fact of their marriage was that they had no
children. He records each of their reactions to this and each is
extraordinary. Acting on the, not surprising, Roman conviction
that infertility was the woman's fault, Turia offered to divorce
him, help find a suitable bride, then live in the household and
help care for the children. There were precedents for infertility
as the basis for divorce so she may have simply been offering
what was commonplace. He records his anger at her suggestion that
he might sacrifice their happiness in this way and devotes a lot
of space to refuting this suggestion in what would appear to be a
sincere affirmation of the success of the marriage. What is
interesting about his reaction is that by 18 B.C., their
behavior was considered anti-social. Acting to promote marriage,
Augustus had erected a system of rewards and punishments to
promote child bearing among the upper classes. This is no where
mentioned in the inscription - Augustus is soundly praised as the
husband's savior. It is likely that by this time, after 27 years
of marriage, Turia would have been regarded as too old to fall
under this legislation, another reason to suppose that she
married later rather than earlier.
V. Sum her up
At this point, it is time to put Turia into context and ask
first of all what image we have of her from her husband's epitaph
and secondly, how well it accords with what we know about women of this period.
In the rhetoric of her funerary inscription, Turia embodies
every attribute of the perfect Roman matron as it was articulated
in this culture. She exemplifies the cardinal virtues:
pietas, pudicitia, concordia. To top it
off, she is a UNIVIRA, the one-man-woman. One critic has
described her as a throwback, more appropriate to the mores of
Rome of 100 years earlier or more. There is much about this view
that is correct, but I am not sure it captures the whole woman or
her reactions to the tensions of her age.
There is no question that Turia exemplifies the potential for
strength in the conventional model of Roman womanhood She was
raised to expect to live an entirely private life, as Roman
matrons were expected to do. Indeed, no public role apart from
participation in religious festivities was appropriate for a
woman of this status group. Yet over and over again that she
finds herself in public roles and she accepts and handles them
with extraordinary success. According to the logic of the
inscription, there is nothing wrong with behaving in a strong
decisive manner: Everything depends upon the motivation. Her
considerable bravery and deeds are consistently cast in terms of
self-sacrifice and devotion to family. No aristocratic man would
have been held to the same standard of selflessness - they were
expected to be able to list a long series of deeds and honors
they had acquired mainly for the glory. The aristocratic creed
that governed Roman men's lives is, if you examine it, remarkably
self-centered and conspicuously based on a constant need for
recognition and honor. Not so for the women.
Turia lived in a time of considerable social ferment when the
conventional attitudes towards women were being seriously
challenged. I think we have to ask whether between the lines
we can see her as a part of this challenge.
Obviously she was no radical. Her age saw plenty of examples of
extreme behavior: we see women such as the notorious Clodia and
Sempronia, depicted as living lives of considerable freedom.
Juvenal, the satirist of the first century A.D. gives us some
insight into this (see Shelton p. 300-301) from his vantage point
of 100 years later:
" Really annoying is the woman who, as soon as
she takes her place on the dining couch, praises Vergil,
excuses Dido's suicide, compares and ranks in critical
order the various poets, and weight vergil and Homer on
pair of scales...Don't marry a woman who speaks like an
orator or knows every history bookThere should be some
things which she doesn't understand...I hate a woman who
reads and rereads Palaemon's treatise on grammar, who
always obeys all the laws and rules of correct
speech...Let her correct the grammar of her stupid
girlfriend! A husband should be allowed an occasional 'I
ain't'.'.
The "bad girls" were challenging the norms by having
love affairs, speaking their minds, and generally breaking away
from the confines of ideal Roman womanhood. And there was real
substantive change in women's rights: the kind of marriage
Turia's sister contracted was out of style, replaced by the 'free
marriage' that left women with more control of their business interests.
Divorce was frequent as the bonds of the arranged marriage began
to chafe a bit. Cultural critics also saw women's attempts
to control their fertility as a sign, perhaps dangerous, of
autonomy, of putting themselves above society and its
needs. We can see in Turia herself as well as other examples that
a certain degree of education and perhaps legal sophistication
had been achieved. One has to ask whether Turia would have
participated in the curious "women's revolt" recorded
by several ancient authors. In this episode, Hortensia, the
daughter of the famous orator, was praised for the speech she
delivered in 42 B.C.. She was one of the 1400 wealthy women whose
male relatives had been proscribed and were themselves being
taxed to pay the expenses of the triumvirs. The women beseeched
Octavian's sister and mother and won them over, but failed to
persuade Marc Antony's wife Fulvia. Repulsed by her, the women
forced their way into the Forum and Hortensia spoke on their
behalf. The speech is praised by Quintilian 100 yrs. later as
"still read and not merely as a compliment to her sex."
(Quint. 1.1.6) Despite their anger, the trimvirs reduced the
number of women to be taxed to 400 and imposed further taxes on men.
We will never know how Turia herself would have characterized
her actions - did she subscribe to the more assertive and
action-oriented female model prevalent during her youth? Did she
take action to protect her own interests as much as her families?
Or was she really was the model house-bound wife thrust into
difficult circumstances? These interpretations are not mutually
exclusive and she may have embodied a bit of each. By the time of
her death, however, there was a backlash, aimed not just at
women, but against an era in which society's bonds seemed to be
fraying. As we have seen, the emperor Augustus intervened with
legislation criminalizing adultery and promoting
procreation among the upper classes. The traditional vocabulary
of praise and blame continued to apply to women as it had since
the earliest days of Rome, masking whatever real gains women had
actually achieved. The epitaph is consistent with this language
and depicts Turia successfully negotiating the treacherous gulf
between praise and blame in a way that casts credit on herself
and on her husband. So she will remain a bit of a mystery.
VI. What about other status groups?
This unique document tell us only of one woman of a very
privileged class. Were women in other status groups and economic
levels subject to the same kind of societal expectation? Did they
have more or less autonomy? These are hard questions because of
the state of our evidence and the complexity of Roman society.
So, for example, even among more modest households, a similar
mind-set prevailed, as we can see in this epitaph of Aurelia
Philematium:
"I was a woman chaste and modest, unsoiled by the
common crowd, faithful to her husband. My husband whom,
alas, I now have left, was a fellow freedman. He was
truly like a father to me. When I was seven years old he
embraced me. Now I am forty and in the power of death.
Through my constant care, my husband flourished."
We also have his epitaph:
Lucius Aurelius Hermia, freedman of Lucius, a butcher
on the Viminal (hill). She who preceded me in death was
my one and only wife, chaste in body, with a loving
spirit, she lived faithful to her faithful husband,
always optimistic, even in bitter times, she never
shirked her duties. "
Their names indicate that they were fellow-slaves in household
from which they were manumitted. Perhaps they appreciated the
opportunity to marry more than free-born people did. They also
would have learned the values of the households into which they
were born. Of those in the lower status groups - the vast
majority of the Roman population - we can say with certainty that
there would have been fewer social restrictions and considerably
more autonomy. Women like Aurelia would have worked along side of
their husbands as did the many women among the free and freed
poor. They couldn't afford the luxury of the private life at
home. They worked as slaves or wage earners in many professions,
including those traditionally assigned to women: nurses,
midwives, dressmakers, beauticians, wetnurses, but also less
commonly as fishmonger, banker and gladiator. Of course, there
were numerous prostitutes. Given the gap between rich and poor
and the general maldistribution of resources in Rome, many of
these women would have paid dearly for their autonomy, and it
would have seemed a burden more than a privilege, more a cause of
worry, constant childbearing, premature old-age. (Aurelia's
epitaph is a clear example.)
VII. How can we assess their lives?
What can we conclude about the condition of Roman women from
this overview? Ifwe ask whether women had opportunities to seek
achievement and fulfillment in whatever ways that their talents
and desires led them, no, of course they didn't. But few of us
do. We are all constrained by the bonds of society and cultural
expectations to some extent and by the resources we have at our
disposal. We have seen the kinds of norms Roman society
established for female behavior and we have also seen that for
women of Turia's group, economic advantage gave them the means to
act in more autonomous, independent ways. If you didn't care what
people thought of you, you could be pretty independent as long as
you didn't actually get into legal trouble. The lack of political
rights clearly led women to frustration and acts of
self-expression in the form of protest. Given the structure of
the Roman economy and the poor standard of medical care, the
farther away you get from the Turias on the social scale, the
more difficult things become. Then as now, one's choices in life
diminish with the amount of resources available.
It is tempting to try to assess the lives of Roman women
against other historical examples. Athenian women were much more
limited in their range of acceptable activities. Our evidence for
the rest of Greece suggests different patterns. Women in England
had to wait until the late 19th century to achieve something like
the legal rights Roman women had. Women in the United States have
only been able to vote since the passage of the 19th amendment in
1920. This puts the situation of Roman women in a not unfavorable
light. What also seems clear is that the kinds of issues Roman
men and women grappled with in the late Republic have had a
remarkable longevity and many still recur in discussion of the
proper role for women in modern society. Women's actions are
still used as measures of society's ills. Women in public life,
and particularly in the highly symbolic role of first lady, have
to walk a thin line between modernity and tradition. Attempts by
women to gain equality are often contrasted in modern debate
against other socially desirable goals, such as strength of
family? As we conclude this overview of the life of one Roman
history, I hope it will be apparent how the study of history can
help us think not only about customs of other people but about
our own society in a way that is reflective and enlightened by
the perspective of our knowledge.
Susan D. Martin
Department of Classics
University of Tennessee, Knoxville
November 22, 1997
Bibliography on the LaudatioTuriae
and Roman Women
Fantham, E. et al., Women in the Classical World (Oxford, 1994)
Gardner, J., Women in Roman Law and Society (Bloomington, 1986)
Gordon, A.E., "A New Fragment of the Laudatio Turiae" AJA 54 (1950) 223-226
Horsfall, N., "Some Problems in the Laudatio Turiae" Bull. Inst. Clas. Stud. 30 85-98
Lefkowitz, M.R. and M.B. Fant, Women's Life in Greece and Rome. A Source Book in
Translation2 (Baltimore, 1992)
Shelton, J., As the Romans Did2 (1998)
Treggiari, S., Roman Marriage (Oxford, 1991)
Wistrand, E., The so-called Laudatio Turiae (Goteborg, 1976)
S. Treggiari, Roman Marriage (Oxford, 1991)
(2) The legal technicalities of this situation are not
absolutely settled since we don't know a lot of the
circumstances. In addition, there are further problems which
could not be detailed in a paper of this sort. The point of the
challenge to the will, as I have summed it up, is quite clear -
these people wanted to control her fortune.
Mores ^
Copyright © 2008, KET
Webmaster
var gaJsHost = (("https:" == document.location.protocol) ? "https://ssl." : "http://www.");
document.write(unescape("%3Cscript src="http://www.dl.ket.org/latin2/mores/women/womenful.htm/" + gaJsHost + "google-analytics.com/ga.js' type='text/javascript'%3E%3C/script%3E"));
var trackerA = _gat._getTracker("UA-2185463-3"); // |
|
