S!'IARTHMORE COLLEGE
UNDER THE PRETEXT OF PRAYER
!'IOMEN IN THE COMMUNITY OF THE COUNCIL OF ELVIRA
A THESIS SUBMITTED TO
THE EXTERNAL EXAMINATIONS PROGRAM
IN CANDIDACY FOR THE DEGREE OF
BACHELOR OF ARTS
DEPARTMENT OF RELIGTON
BY
EMILY J. STEVENS
St¡'IARTHM0RE, PENNSYLVANïA
JUNE, 1989 ABSTRACT
Bishops and presbyters representing the Christlan Church in Spain assembled in Elvira at the beginning of the fourth-century' following the termination of persecution in Spain, to addrsss the issues Lonfronting their community. Expanding upon SamueI Laeuchti's interpreIation ofl the counci] Ín Power .-aBd Sexua]ity this paper focuses on canons relating to tntomen. This study 1s' necessitated by the silence of history concerning the lives of r¡omen in the past. Analysis of the canons using the historical- critical method permits a fleminist historical reeonstruction of vvomen's experience in the community lrlhen viewed as a collective, the canons concerning adultery reveal a disparity in lhe treatment of male and ,female adulterers. Close reading of two of these canons unco.vers an assumed notion regarding punishment for adultery demonstrating that this disparity originated wit,h the council. This gendel- based system is concerned with tnlomen's relations withÍn the communiLy and men's retations outside of it. An examination of marriage in the canons provides insights into the marital reJationship and.how thi^s is manipulated'by thg council. The clerics vier¡i the'husband as t,he: wifE':'s moral guardian. He is culpable i f she commlts adultery - wtth- hls knowtedge or if he fails to inform the Chrlstian eornmunlty of huq transgrõssÍon. Guardianshlp in marriage 1s even mqle prûnounced in t,hé case of a plostitute who is required tO marxy, and thus place herself under the supervision Of a manr before she may be admitted to the cOmmunity. Marriage for rnen is a sign of maturity and Iesponsibility, but not of gUardianship or dependence. . The council imposes these restrictive and controlling measures because 'lvomen in the eommunity are acting independently. and ofl their orlrrn initiatlve. They are meeting in cemeterieS êt. night, most likeIy to perform rltualistie practlces without men.' rhey are also in communieation with one another lhrough_ a- network of iorrespondence. These activities suggest the possibility of an emerging vvomen's community. The clerics pelceive the collective anO independent activity of r,rlomen t,o be a threat to their o¡xn authority and act to éfiminate rntomerì's Índependent aetion and to control individual uromen through the institution of marriage. Regardless of the council's sueceás or failure'fn this attempt, knou¡ledge of thes;e unnamed women's story can empotnter yxomen today in their coritinuing struggle against patriarchal. oppression.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1l_ ACKN0t^.lLEDGEMEN T S
Chapter
I. INTRODUCT TON 1 II. GENDER AND ADULTERY 15 TÏI. DYNAMICS OF RELATION 29 IV. SLTPPTNG THROUGH THE CRACKS 47
V. A t^l0MEN'S C0MMUNITY? 69
APPENDIX: THE CANONS 73
BTBLIOGRAPHY 7B
I
l_ ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to extend my heart felt thanks to all o f my friends for slanding by me from beginning to end, especially Laura Augustine, Noë1 Bisson, Julie BJ.ue, and Randi Hansen. My thanks also go to my parents, brother, and aunb who have been a source of constant encouragement and minimal harassment throughout the uuriting process. To Michael GreenwaJ.d, my thesis advisor, I offer my warmest appreciation f or his scholarly direction, un'b,iring good humor, and numerous lrelpf ul suggestions. I would al-so like to thank Elizabeth A. Clark for originally suggesting that I write on the Council of Elvira, Helen North for reading an early draft of Chapter IV, and Laura Cleland for her invaluable assis'bance with revisions. Finally, I would like to express my deepest gratitude to Amy-JilI Levine, P. Linwood Urban, JI., and Donald K. Su¡earer for challenging me and inspiring me to grotnr botlr academically and personally during my t.ime here at Swarthmore College.
l_1 CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
The Council of Etvira vvas an ecclesiasticat council held in the Roman province of Baetica, near the modern city of Granada, at the beginning of the fourth century. 1 Nineteen bishops and twenty-four presbyters lepresenting thirty-seven ch::istian communities located throughout Spain met to discuss discipJ-inary' rather than doctrinal , matters .2 The Council of Elvira, the earliest Christian synod from r,lhich written decisions have been preserved,J produced eighty-one canons recorded in Latin known as the canons of E1vira.4 The canons of EIvira offer scholars a gtimpse into the life
lthe council is named "ELvita" for the town in which the council took P1ace. This spelling evolved from th e Latin durinq the Arab occupation of Spain. Ricard o García "Illiberis" Es ana ( OS a da, od., La Hisioria de la I lesia en Madrid: Biblioteca de Autores r stianos, r Vo aI lesia en Ia Es aña romana vl_sL oda sL ]os I-VIII , by Manue otomayor y uro, 84. 2p l-ist of the bishops Present al the council forms a preamble to the canons which can be found in A. l,ì1. lrrl. DaIe, The Centur A S nod ofl Elvira and Christian Life in the Fourth 1BB2 H S or CA Essav London: MacMillan an o. , ,3 -15. f Samuel Laeuchli, Power and Sexualit The Emer ence of VCIS Canon Law at the S nod of Elv ra Phila e p a: Temp eUn v Press, 1 72 , 114' 4An English translation of the Canons by SamueI Laeuchli is attached as an aPPendix. 2 of a Christian community in fourth-century Spain.5 These canons represent the clergy'S Iesponse to issues and events in the community. Careful analysis of the text belts us not only about these cl-erics'attitudes and agenda, but also about the social
5the exact year ofl tlre council has been ihe subject of much scholarly debate. A. llìJ . t¡J. Dale in The Synod of Elvira and Christian Life in the Four th Centur : A Historical Essa ( London: l'4acM l an and Co. , 1BB2 13, outl nes e maln argum ents and divides them into three basic groups: those that date th e council- CE 2) 1 ) prior to the Dacian Persecutio n which began in 3A 4 , between the end of the Persecution GO5/6) and the SYnod of Arles (314), o t 3) betuleen the SYnod of Arles an d the Council of Nicea (325) . No one suggests that the council could h ave la ken place the during a time of P ersecution, since this is incons istent with interna] evidence of the canons (e.9., canons 16, 17, 21 , 36, and 56) . Victo r De Clercq in 0ssius of Cordova: A Contribu tion to the Histor of the Constanbi n1 an Period (l¡lashi ngton, D.C.: Cathol c Un versity Press, 1954 , BB- 181-Bl, calls into question this third grouP on account of the aPParent dePen dence of the canons of Arles on those of Elvira (cf. Arles 4, 5, 6, 9, 11, 12, 16 to Elvira 62, 39 , 25, 15, 20, 53) an d the departure from Spain o f 0ssius of Cordova, one of the Part icipants of the counci 1 , in the year 313. The yea r 295 can be established as the earLiest con ceivable date, since 0ssius, who is known to have attended the co uncil as a bishop, was consecrated to the episcopate in this year. Joseph M. F. Mariq ue in Leaders o f Iberean Chri stianit 50- 650 A. D. (goston: St Paul Ed ons, 1962 , 128, deduces Ê a Ê o fl 0ssius' cons ecration from a comment of Athanasius in his Ëlistoria Arianorum ad Manachos 42. Thus, âñy date etween 295 a nd 304 or between 3O5/6 and 3 13 is consistent with the ex lernal evidence. Further efforts to isolate the year of the council are based on subjective textu al reading s of the canons. I fol l-ow Ihe tradition of Hefe]e (L Hislor of the Christian Co uncils , vo1. I, trans. lrJilliam R. MS CJ-ark, E nburgh: T . T. Clar 1894; re print, New York: A Press, Dale ( The Synod of Elviqq ) and McKenna ( Paqani SM 1972), ' and Pa an Survivals n al_n u to the Fall of t, he Vis o Lc 1938 K nqdo m, ashing ofl r .C.: Ca o c nlvels yo merica, opt:.ng for the Year 306 as the mo st pr obable date of the counci 1. he Unlike dates prior to the Persecu lion or much later after it, t ,S year 306 readi l-y provides an occ asion prompting the council convocation ( i .e. the necessity to redefine the Christi an community and its relation to the Roman establishment in light of the recent termination of Persecu tion in Spain). For a detail ed summary of this reading of the canons with regar d to t he selectio n of the year 306' see Dale, Synod, 25-31 3 circumstances in uJhich they are urrriting. This study will examine the canons with a particular interest to the situation of tnlomen in the community. The tools of the historical-critical method will be used to arrive at a fleminist historical reconstruction of the position of these women with respect to the courlcil. An understanding of bhe connections between the social reality and the council and between the council and the canons it produced is necessary in order to draw conclusions about the community from the text ofl the canons. The canons reflect decisions made urlith respect to concrete cases lrlhich have arisen in the church.6 Canon 52, for example, is directed towards a group of offlenders who have been caught defacing a church with derogatory uuritings. T The council is examining this particuLar group of offenders and determinÍng a proper disciplinary measure. Although these juclgments are not made in the abstract, they are intended to act as plecedents for future cases. The clerics do not limit themsel-ves necessarily to the specifics of the case at hand, but address other contingencies that they think could arise. The third husband of the widow in canon 72 could not have been both an outsider and one of the faithful,B and it is most
6Laeuchli (Power, 101) Iists the following canons as particularly demonstrating this point: 16, 30, 41, 49, 51, 59, 64, 78. TCanon 52-. Those who have been caught placing derogatory writings in church shall be anathematized. Bthe three husbands ofl the l^,omen in canon 72 are: 1 ) the husband uuho died leaving her a widow, 2) the man she has intercourse with and marries in the first clause of the canon and 3) the additional husband referred to with the phrase "if she' 4 unlikely that there l^lere very many widot¡,ls in the community with this involved a set of circumstances.9 The case-based nature of the canons implies that the bishops and presbyters meeting at EIvira ì,\,ere invoLved in the community and uvere meeting in response to it. Since the canons are not mere hypothetical constructs of the councit's imagination, they can be assumed to reflect the affairs of the community and the cleric's perception of them. Thus if the council is prohibiting a eertain type of behavÍor, most likely that type of behavior is actually occurring in the community. One must remember, however, that the canons show t'he worl-d through the clerics' eyes, so Io speak. In some cases ' the canons may demonstrate the clerics' pelception or interpretation of what is taking place, rather than what is reaJ-1y happening. Cases rdele most likely brought up by individual clerics wi.bhout any overall plan or order, following curial custom of the time.10 pairs and occasionalJ.y clusters of canons dealing with marries anot,her man.,, Ïhe f inal clause paralleLs tlu discussioil of the third husband, offering an alternative punishment l^lere this husband orìe of the f aithf ul. gCanon 722 If a widow has intercourse with a man and later marries him, she shall be Ieconciled to communion after a period of flive y.ur., having completed l.he required penance; if she marries anothei man, häving lef t the f irst, she shaIl not be õi;;Ã-"o*trnion even al the end; however, if the man she marries ís one of the faithful, she shall not receive communion except required penance unless after ten yea¡,S, having completed - the ' illness compels that communion be given more quickly. l0laeuchli, Power, 10-11. 5 related subjects can be found,11 but the canons could not be said to fotlow a topical sequence. 0ccasionally, the arrangement of particular canons provides clues to their interpretation. Since the canons bear no sign of laber editing or Ieordering, their order directly reflects that of the council. Thus the interpretation of canon 35, for instance, can be informed by an examination of its possible ties to canon 34, which aLso relates to cemeteries. The onty recent detailed study of the council and its canons is Samuel Laeuchli's Power and Sexualitv: Ihe Emerqence of Canon
Law at the S nod of Elvi ta.12 The Ímportance of Laeuchli's work is derived from his innovative methodoJ.ogy and theories regarding the council's hidden agenda. Laeuchli took the canons of council which have been studied primarily with respect to the history of Christian councils, and by applying linguistic methods of anaLysis exposed an entirely nevrt set of questions to be examined. Laeuchli aims to uncover the hidden conflict of the Council by anal- yzing its decisions. He views the canons nol as static legal formulations, but as the products of clynamic group clashes . Initially the canons convey surety , i f not dogmatism,
l lLaeuchli (Power , 11) cites the f ololrring examples: 19 and 20, 34 and 35, 49 and 50, 7ff., and 63ff. l2Scholarship on the council previous to Laeuchli is rivell represented by A . t/il. l^1. Dale's The Synod of EIvira and Christian Life in the Four th Century: A Historiqal Essay (London: MacMiIlan @eñafles Josep h Hefele's History of the Christian Councils From the Ori inal Documents to the Close of Nicea A.D. 325, vol. 1 , rans. tlrlill am R. C ar E n UTg & T. C ark, 1894; reprin L, New York: A MS Press, 1972) both of which works are out of date in content and method. 6 yet they rnrere born out of heated debates among the leaders of the Spanish Church. For Laeuchli, "the meaning of a text does not come from the abstract content of that text, but from the human encounter in the event which produced the text."13 His analysis, thus, âspires to probe beyond the words of the canons to uncover the conflict that produced them. Touards this end, Laeuchli first identifies language patterns within the canons and lhe variations of these patterns to isolate issues of parlicular emotional intensity in the conciliar debates themsel-ves. These canons, whieh are dist,iÌlations out of human interactions among the clerical elite present in the synodal session, have an identifiable rhythm, a1ç their decisions have identi fiable patterns. l4 Laeuchli divides the composition ofl the canons into five distinct Iinguistic units, which he labels s 1 through s5: person, cause ' justification, âuthority, and decision. The curt simplicity of this pattern lends the canons an apparent decisiveness, trlhile the rhythm of ptogression (s1 - s5) demonstrates the synod's drive towards pornrer. 1 5
( The most crucial- o f these segments is the decision s5 ) , since this is the critical moment of pronouncement. "The decision is the climax of that rhythmic experience, the final breath of an address in which bishops and presbyters directj.y
1f LaeuchJ.i, Powet, 5 14rbid., 17. 15rbid., 18. 1 confronted their ftocks."16 Laeuchli distinguishes six decision patterns (01 - d6):
¿1 This shall be done. ¿2 They must not do this. ¿3 I f they do this, lve shall throlrt them out . ¿4 If they do this, they must do penance. ¿5 If they do this there shall be no mercy even at the end. d6: Under the pressure of iJ.lness, ![ere shall be mercy on their deathbed.l/ These sentences ofl anathema, discipline, and penaJ.ty when viewed comparatively IeveaL ambiguity tlrrithin each of the decision patterns. MuItiple patterns can be used in conjunction within one canon, and individual- patterns have mole than one meaning. A "decision" is therefore an exceedÍngJ.y complex mixture of formaLized and traditional resolutions and language patterns, ofl explicit and implicit reaetions to threaten- ing patterns, by which the clerics attempted to secure or enhance theil- leadership in vital spheres o f daily 1i fe . 1 8 The decision patterns uncover the anxiety and tentativeness of the cl-erics at the Council as well as their intensity towards the issues diseussed. Laeuchli uses this twofold analysis to go beyond the simplistic understanding of the canons. The syntactical rhythm of the segments make the canons sound certain, but the discrepancies of the decision patterns betray the council's
16rbid., 28. 17rbid., 30. 1Brbid., 29. B uncertainty.l9 The variant meanings of the decision patterns are due to the "fluctuating emotional attitudes of t,he men making them .n2o Laeuchli argues these areas of intensity, contradiction, and ambiguity reveal the clerics' greatest anxieties, and thus their primary concerns. The first four canons of the council hol-d an unusually high number of 65 decisions ( nec in f inem ) which r,vould reflect their seriousness and emotional intensity. The flacb that these canons deal utith issues of idolatry and hierarchy might suggest that these uJere the issues that the bishops and presbyters initially gathered to discuss. The concentration of emotional d5 decisions in canons concerning sexuality in the late¡. canons, hoWeVeI, demonstrates that the "pIime conCeln WaS not apostasy, but se x.u2 1 the council began with the familiar topic of idolatry and their lel-ationship as elites to the pagan flaminate. Discussion then moved to the clergy's main issue of concern, namely sexuaf legislation. Laeuchli states that the central preoccupations of the council are the establishment of cl-ericat identity and sexuaL control.22 ürlithin the Church the clerics soughl to solidify their potnler by asserting control over their f old. l^lith the end of persecut,ion, sexual legislation replaced condemnation of idolatry as the central tool flor
19rbid., Õ.
2orbid. , 12. 21lbid., 89.
22rbid. , 55. 9 securing cl-erical control and position: The clergy no longer controlled its subordinates primarily by means of the external confticts with imperiaJ- ideology but by coq!rolling the sexuaÌ behavior ofl' believer s.'z) The clerics used sexuaL J-egislation to establish control through two means: the elevation of the clergy through sexual abstinence and the restriction ofl the sexual- lives of church members. Canon 33 orders all cJ.ergy having a position of ministry "to abstain completely from their wives and not to have children. " The canons relating to clerical sexuality ( canons 1 8, 27, iO, and 33) outline a much stricter sexual code for clergy than for Iaity. These restrictions on clerical conduct act to gíve the clergy special status within the community setting them above their Christian peers as models of purity. As Laeuchli writes, "The image of clerical purity helped the ancient Christian cJ-ergy to establish itselfl as a special and superior group in the church, and one teading a more perfect 1i¡"."24 Laeuchli is astute in labeling the central crisis ofl the council a struggle for identity. As the council begins, the clerics are particularly concerned with defining the Christian community lrrith respect to the state cult, as is only natural following persecution. As the discussion continues, attention turns to the definition of the coÍìmunity of faith itself. The clerics are anxious to secure their otntn authority as those who
23tbid., 60-61 .
2îtbid. , 96. 10 defline proper Christian behavior. The excess of sexual Iegislation reflects this urge to control Christian private lives on the part of the cIergY. Although Laeuchli's analysis of the decision patterns and interpretation of clerical agenda reaches much farther toulards an understanding of the council than previous scholarship' closer examination reveal-s several difficulties with his interpretation. The first of these is a radical anticipation of the Constantinian age. Laeuchli trlrites, The canons of Elvira are an excellent' document for examining how the chureh redefined itself, how it moved, bY an intricate semi-inbuitive process' toward the Constantine solution, how it tried out playing the role of a major cultural force, and hou¡ in that transition primitive Christian anticultural florces collided with the netnl pro-Roman forces. Above all, the canons demonstrate that it rlvas the Christian cLergy^-that pushed the church into the netnt epoch.¿) Even though Laeuchli selects the yeal 309 as the date of the council, the council could not possibly have anticipated Constantine's conversion (llz CE) in the manner that he describes. Secondly, he argues thal the sexual- Iepression that the clerics felt due to the prohibition of normal sexuaL outlets uras sublimated into a desire to punish h,ome n.26 The decision patterns employed against these vvomen a male aggressiveness Spanish reveal '
25tbid., 56.
26rbid. , 97 . 11 if not hostility, on the part of these clerics: six raOióaf anathemata and three d4 ten-year sentences reveal a need on the part of these clerics to^-single out tlrlomen as objects of PunishmenL.¿ / This theory is nonsensical, because these strictures on clerieal sexuality are self-imposed in the very same canons in which clerics aIe singling tnlomen out foI punishment. Even if the clerics legislated themsel-ves into sexuaL lepression, this repression would not emerge Ín a sublimated form during the same eouncil in which the limitations tlvere pronounced. Laeuchli's interpretations fail to exptain the council's attitude towards rnlomen, and do not venture to reconstruct the situation of the talomen in the community. Laeuchti's efforts provide the groundwork necessary for an examination of the sub-theme of tlrtomen in the canons of Elvira, but are inadequate on theil oì¡Jn to unravel- the history of the r,llomen in the community of the council. This study is necessitated by the silence of history regarding rlrlomen's experience. Alt too often tnlomen's history has been marginalized or ignored. Ihe history of men has masqueraded as the history of humans, J.eaving tlvomen ignorant of theil otntn past. As Lerner writes, 'tllrlomen had no history - so they yxere told; so they believed."28 Male-dominated history denies that tnromen Were present, active, oI influential in past events, and subverts their efforts to be so in the present.
27 tbid. , 98-99 . 2BGerda Letner, Ihe Creation of Patriarch ( trlew York and 0x 1'ord : 0xf ord Universi Y ress , 1986 219 . 12
talomen's history is important to the empowerment of tatomen today, because it gives them an identity independent of the marginal ízed one offered by the patriarchy,29 and because it enables them to act in solidarity with the tnlomen before them. "Illrlomen's] unat¡areness of their ornln hisbory of struggle and achievement has been one of the major means of keeping I them] subordinr¡u.'r30 Knou,lledge of other taromen's experiences of patriarchy and their successes and failures, gives modern tlltomen a sense of fellowship through time in the struggle against patriarchy. lrle stand in the same struggle as our biblical foresisters against the oppression of patriarchy and for survival and freedom from it... Their memory and remembrance. encourage us in historical solidarity with them to commit ourselves bo the continuing struaqle aqainst patriarchy in society and chur;h".I1 ' Remembrance of other Lrromen's resistance to patriarchical oppression inspires and empouJers modern tntomen as they continue the same struggle. Reconstructing the story of tntomen is a matter of reading
291 am adopting Lerner's definition of patriarchy (Creation, 239) as "the manifestation and institutionalization of male dominance over uJomen and children in the famiJ.y and the extension of mal-e dominance over t,rlomen in the society in generaL." folerner, Creation , 218. 3ltlisabeth SchüssLer Fiorenza, "Remembering the Past in Creating the Future: Historical-Critical Scholarship and Feminist Bi b 1i c a I I nt e rp r et a tion, rrin Feminist Perspectives on Biblical Scholarshi ed. AdeIa Yarbro Collins (Chico, CA: Schol-ars Press, 5 , 63. Althouglr Schüssler Fiorenza is referring to biblical his L,orical recons bruction, the same principles appJ-y to the whole spectrum o f talomen's history . 13 between the lines of patriarchally inscribed history to catch a glimpse of Women'S experience. Androcentric language, texts, and models for understanding history have created "silencesrl concerning tntomen's lristorical experience.S2 Rather than understand the texts as arr adequate reflection of the reality about which they speak, rlrle have to search for the rhetorical cl_ues and allusions that indicate the realitv about which the texts are silent.l3 Women's story Ís so incomplete and fragmented that some feminists have referred fo it as "pre-history" comparing it to those periods in men's history that are considered prehisto tic.34 As "pre-history" reconstruction ofl Women's history must view eVen the sJ.ightest fragments of rirlomen's story as the tip of that iceberg of !^Jomen's history thal has been lost. The/ aim of this study is to demonstrate that ulomen in the community of the Spanish Church tlrrele engaging in act,ivity that uJas independent of men, and that the council legislated to gain control over these tlrromen. By anal-yzing the canons of the Council of EIvira, I intend to reconstruct, aS much aS is posSible, the history of the unnamed rirlomen in the community of the Spanish
32r iorenza, "RememberJ.ng, " 60. 33riorenza,'rRemembering," 6a. 34Bernadette J. Brooten borrows the term flrom Mary Daly. Brooten, "Early Christian Ùrlomen and Their Cultural Context,: Issues of l.4ethod in Historical Reconstruction" in Feminist Pers ectives on Bibl-icaI Scholarshi ed. AdeIa Yarbro Collins CO, A: Sc o ars Press, 1 5 ), 66-69. Mary DaJ-y, ( L] n,/Ecolo : The Metaethics of Radical Feminism Boston: Beacon, 197 B , 24. 14 church at this time. I mill begin with an investigation of the legislation concerning adultery in order to show the difference in treatment between r¡omen and men. Further discussion of adultery will lead into an examination of the council's attitudes regarding marriage. An inquiry into lhe activities ofl t^,omen in the community and the cleric's disposition towards these activities will follow. The conclusÍon to this study will raise the possibility thaf the clerics' att,empt 'bo legislate control over t,rtomen wÍth the canons vvas a reaction to suppress an emerging trvomen's community. CHAPTER II
GENDER AND ADULTERY
The canons concerning adultery provide a unique opportunity to compare the treatment of tdomen and men in depth. The large number of canons on adultery and the similarity of the legislalion for men and tnromen permit a degree of comparison beyond that possible with other offenses. 1 The canons dealing with adultery can be combined like jigsaw pieces to reconstruct the council's attitudes about both adultery and malriage. t¡Jhen the canons concerning adultery are vier,ved as a system, rather than simply as individual pronouncements on specific cases, an overall picture ofl the council's adultery legislation emerges. Trends in the treatment of mal-e and flemale adulterers can be distinç¡uished, and juxtaposed in parallel progressions of oflfense.2 lhis arrangement of the canons along gender lines reveals a double standard in the treatment of men and tn,omen. Not only do !ìJomen and men receive different punishments for the same acts, but the crime itself is viewed slightly differently
lTen out of twenty-two canons which directly address tlr,omen relate to issues of adulterY. 2Tn eommon usage the word "adul-terer" describes a person, especially a man, whó commits adultery. Here' however' it is being uied here as a non-genQer-:pecific term requiring a modif-i.er such as "male" or " f emale" to dif f erentiate the gender of the offender.
15 16 depending on the adulterer's gender. The following anal.ysis wiIl outline the councit's responses to adultery comparing their respective treatmen'b of mal-e and female offenders, and interpreting the significance of the distinctions they make. Regardless of gender, a sÍngJ.e ac'b of unchastity is met with a five-yeaI term of penance in canon 69.3 The clerics make no distinction l,vith regard to gender. Such a single act o f unchastity is apparently not considered to be adultery. The 6ording of canon 69 even avoids terms for committing adultery, such as adultero and moechor , in favor of the milder term r,lapsus,,, which carries the more general meaning of "fall-en".4 This avoidance of the standard terms for adultery, which are used elseu¡here in the canons, and the comparatively J.ight penitential- sentence impJ-y that the council does not consider a single fall from marital flaithfulness to be adultery. AduJ-tery, therefore, implies an onqoing rel-ationslrip of unchastity regardless ofl gender. Marked distinctions in Ihe treatment of men and vvomen emerge when the unchastity is protracted. If a rnan commits adultery
fCanon 692 If a married man happens to flaI1 once, he shall do penance I'or a period of five yearS and thus be reconciled, unl-ess the pressure of illness compels that communion be given bef ore t.hat time: this is also binding f or lrlomen. Si quis f orte habens uXorem Semel fuerit lapsus, placuit eum quinqUennium agele debere poenitentiam et sic reconciliari, nisi necessitas infirmi'batis coegerit ante tempus dari communionem: hoc et circa fleminas observanãum. Throughout this papel , Laeuchli 's Engl i sh branslalion (Power and Sexuality, 126-135) and Dale's version of the Latin canons-($y¡p5|, 313-39) ulill be used. 4cf ., Cans. 7 and 13 for other instances in which la sus is used. 17 rnrith a Christian 1iìroman during his life, oñ his deatlrbed he 1S approached by representatives of the church l^lho ask him to renounee his adultery.5 If he agrees he is given communion'6 If he then recovers he is readmitted into the community provided he keeps his promise. Repentance at the hour ofl death is not available flor an adulterous uJoman ulho haS remained with her Iover. T The church elders do not arrive at her door to see if she will renounce her adultery on her deathbed. canon 64 speci f icaJ-1y states that i f an adul-terous l/ljoman remains urith her lover for her whole life she lrrill not be offered communion rrngc
5Canon married man commits adul-tery, no! 47: Ifl a bapLízed If once but often, r,u is to be approached -at the hour of death. he promises to stop, communion shalt be givql to him; if he should recover and cbrñmit adultery again, he shaIl lguelmore make 'peace: quis habens a mockery of the communion of Si - lidelis UXorem non Semel serl Saepe f ueril moeclratus, in f ine mortis est convenienOusi quod si se promiserit cessaturum, detur 9Ì communio: si Iesuscitatus IUTSuS fuerit moechatus, pJ-acuit ulterius non ludere/eclere eum de communione pacis/panis' 6the interpretation of the use of the term communio by the council has been the 1-oPic o f much debate. The council uses the term indescrimatelY to refer to both the eucharisb and the bap Lized communitY. Canon 4l sp ecifies that lhe man is baPtized, therefore, communio her e must refer to readmiss ion to the sym ol ZE by the eucharist rather than by baptism ' community Jean For an in dept. h discussion of this P roblem in the text read, Le s formes anciennes de I 'excommunicaLion, " Revue des Gaudemet, " XVI sciences reli ieuses 83 (1949): 67 -68 , rep rinted as Article in La soci t ecc ésiasti ue dans I 0ccid ent médiévat (London: Var orum Reprints, i 0 TCanon 642 If a t¡loman remains in adultery with another man up to the end of her Iife, she shall not be given communion even at the end. But if she should leave him, she.may receive communion aflter ten yea1,S, having compteted the required penance' Si qua usque in finem mortis suae cum alieno viro fuerit moechata, piuórit nec in finem dandam ei esse communionem: si vero eum reliÁôuerit, post decem annos accipiat communionem acta Iegitima poenitentia. 18 in finem". close examination of cano n 64 reveal-s an underl-ying assumption concerning the treatment of female adulterels ' The two clauses that make up the canon refer to difflerent periods of the adulterous woman's life. The first stalement (64a) considers the question ofl whether oI, not an adulterous l/\,oman should be given communion on her deathbed. The second statement ( 64b ) addresses the possibility of an adulberous t]ì,oman Iepenting earlier in her life ( i. e. , before she flaces death ) ' Neither of these decisions, noI any other eanon' anSWerS the basic qUestion of what happens when a tnroman is discovered in her adultery' Both o1. clauses in canon 64 deal with situations that aIe temporally removed from this first, fundamental st,age of Ieaction and discipline. A comparison of the two sentences of canon 64 demonstrates that both measules assurne that the l^Joman is already estranged from communiorr. canon 64a dictates 'b,hat if the adulterous t/\loman remains uuith her lover, she will not even be given communion in the end. This statement implies that the t^loman has already been thrown out of the community, and the clerics are merely deciding here whether or not to have melcy on her at the end' Similarly, with canon 64b, the clerics aIe deciding that they are willing to readmit a repentant adulterous l^Joman with a ten-year penance ' that lies behind the The assumed canon, or the proto-canon ' statements of cano n 64 must act to expel the female adulterer rrlf from the community. The proto-canon would say essentially, a 1B in finem". CloseeXaminationofcanon64revealsanunderlying assumptionconcerningthetreatmentoffemaleadulterers.The different periods of two clauses that make up the canon refer to (64a) considers the adulLerous ì^Joman's life- The first statement thequestionofwhetherolnotanadu]terouSWomanshouldbe statement ( 64b ) given communion on her deathbed. The second addressesthepossibilÍtyofanadulterousì¡jomanrepenting Neither of earlier in her Iife (i'e', before she faces death) ' ansltlelS 1-he basic question these decisions, noI any othel Canon ' ofwhathappenswhenau.Jori]anisfirstdiseoVeredinheradu]tery. that are Both ofl the clauses in cano n 64 deal rnith situations stage of reaction temporally removed from this first, fundamental and disciPline. Acomparisonofthett¡,losentencesofcanon64demonstrates already estranged that both measules assume that the l^Joman is fromcommunion.Canon64adictatesthatifbheadulterousWoman given communion in remains with her lover, She wil-1 not even be has already been the end. This statement implies that the uJoman aIe merely deciding throu,ln out of the community, and the clerics end. similarly' îrere whether or not to have mercy on her at the they are witring to with canon 64b, the clerics are deciding lhat ten-year penance ' readmit a repentant adulterous l/\,oman with a Theassumedcanon'oltheproto-canon'thatliesbehindthe statementsofcanon6t¡mustacttoeXpelthefema]eadulterer fromthecommunity.Theploto-canonwouldsayessentially,''Ifa 19 married ¡1oman commits adultery with a man, she shall be cut off from communion/communily. " The reality of this proto-canon is supported by canons 65 and 70 whÍch caII f or a lrusband to throw his lq,i f e out o f the house upon learning of her adultery. AJ-though neither ofl these canons specificalJ-y discipJ-ine the adulterous tnloman ' they reinforce the hypothesis that she is removed from the community. The clerics began the council with this assumed notion ofl adultery, which they went on to refine in canons B' 9, and 64. Only by understanding the proto-canon, can vue see that canon 64 determines that not even on her deathbed can she receive communion, âfld that only by leaving her lovel and doing penance can she be readmit'bed. Although the wording of canon 47 betrays a similar proto- canon catling for excornmunication, canon 47 is the only modification of the proto-canon. The clerics began the council with a singJ.e conception of adull-ery; i f you commit it you are lhrown out of the community. The canons thernseJ-ves, however, modif y this assumption a,l-ong gender lines. l¡,lith Iespect to female adul-terets, the council-'s rulings generally refuse communion nec in finem (canons B and 64). Male adulterers on the other hand are offlered communion on their deathbeds. The council begins with a non-gender-specific approach to the punishment of adulterers, but alters this into marl
SCanon 63: If a uvoman while her husband is atnlay, conceives by adult,ery and after that crime commits abortion, she shall nol bô gi ven ôommunion even at the end, since she has doubled her crim"e. Si qua per adulterium absente marito suo conceperit, idque post þacinus occiderit, placuit nec in finem dandam esse communionem eo quod geminaverit scel-us. Canon 6B: A cJtechumen, if she has conceived a child in adultery and then suffocated it, shall be baptized in the end. Cateclrumena si per adutterium conceperit et praecocaverit, placuit eam in fine baPtizari.
9cf. canons 4, 1 O, 1 1 , 38, 45 , 46, 47 , and 72 - 22 (canon r¡lith a Jeutish or a pagan community 47).10 Adultery ',',oman results in being "cut off from the communion", oI in the event that the crime u,r1aS exposed by Someone el-se, five year.s of rrhe penance. Canon 7B uses the Phrase I'a communione arceaturtt or shalL be cut off from communion". The word communio can refer either lo the union of christians or to the Eucharist. since arceo can carry the meaning "to keep at a clistance", this would seem to re f elto a f orm of excommunicat,ion di f flerent f rom deprivation of communion. ïhe diflference in practical lerms is ambiguous since the council does noL specif ically differentiate in its language between the deprivation of sacrament on the one hancl and exclusion from the community on the otlrer.11 The second part of the decision is also enigmalic; a man u¡hose aduLtery u'lith an outsider is exposed by another is punished much less Severely than if it had been reveated by other means. If this is designed to encoulage people to expose the adultery of others in the
1 OCanon 7Bz If one of the faithful who is married commits adul bery r,vith a Jewish oI a pagan l,rloman he shatl be cut of f , but ij. some one else exposes him,- lre can 'share in Sunday cornmunion after five years, having completed the required pen.ance. si quis fidelis habens uxorem cum Iudea vet gentili fuerit moechatus, a communione acreatur: quod si aliuS eum detexerit, poS! quinquennium acta J.egitima poenitentia poterit dominicae sociari communioni. 11¡ean flormes anciennes de Gaudemet "Les (19a9): l 'excommunication , " Revue des sciences reI 1 ieuses 83 6l- Ar XV in La soc eccl-ésiasti ue dans 68, reprinted as ticle . ilc I '0ccident médiéva1 London: Variorum RePr n rtc 0 on ffis ónéralisations dangereuses' on doit donc reconnaltre que le concile d 'Elvire sans prendre parbi le Plus souvent sur la question de sav ior si le coupable re ste dans la communion eccl-ésiastique ou en est excLu se borne a interdire admission a 1a commun ion, soit pour toujours, soit jusqu'au son t' péril de r¡or b , soit même a temps. 23 commUnity'itseemsstrangethatnobenefit,noteVenaVerbal towards the informer ' commendation, l2 is directed Athirdmajoraleainwhichmaleandfemaleadulterersale treatedquitediFferent,lyconcernsmenandWomenwho].eavetheir Spouses(canonsB,9,and1O).l35ince,theclericsdefinedan adu]tererasamalriedmanoruJomanwhorepeatedlyengagedin sexua].intercoUlsewithânindividua]-otherthantheilspouSe' As woutd be considered adulIerers'14 the lìJOmen in canons B and 9 suchthey,Iikecanon64,areeXpansionSormodificationsofthe proto-canon.YetcomparisonofthesecanonSwithcanon64yie}ds
12cr. canon 1o' cauSe who, without any preceding ' 1f Canon B: Again, l,\lomen other men are not to their tiusno'nì,'and"'î'ak; ,'p with'Item quae nulla leave even end' feminae' receive cornmunion leriqut;.ili-at-ihe suos et alteris se praecedente-;;"4 accipianblil:; communionem' copulaverint, À* in finem *tto leaves her adulterous Canon 9" Further' a baptized "o"^nii ioinidden to malrv him; catechumen husband and *oriT;;';;"ïhtt the death of shall not receive- if she does rf," OV "ot*'lni;;-'Átitthe pressure of illness her f orrner l-rusband unle" ' tha¡ce ' demand that it be giYg prohibeatur ne fider"m-ãt aItelYm clucit, quem maritum retiquerit pri'ür'å"ðipia.t communíonem' nisi ducat: si duxerit non nis'--iôtsitan necessitas retiquir d;'-;ãôrrro .ii"u;it; iñri'ilii":t;J"l;r:";å,n::'ffHl'ilå: reen_deserred by her catechumen b;";;;ilied' to the font of husband marries anoth.r r"ä', ,ñ. Tuu But if the man io f"emale coú,"h'*tnt' this baptism; this-ãfro-applie, marries ì]\loman and who r.eaves the innocent uo*áà ^q-ðr'tistiancause' ' communion he had a wir.'ïîr.'o*-Áã l-eflt ìitr'out' relinquit u\,oman knelrr doott-,. Si ea quo* catechumun'= may be given'io"nãr-at favälìi admitti: hoc et circa duxerit rnaritum, potest.,ai-'iontem ^" o'oã-ti patam retinquit' catechumenas erit ìorurvandum. reliquit feminas habere uxorem, qL.ram sine . causa ' et quum .. iärît- *uI - Oari ( placuit huic in ptacuit in ;i;;t- huiur*"oãi "o*t"u"nion"tpi'"t'it huic nec in finem finem non dandam esse "oñt'rnioÀemZ dandam). 1û, since there the man is l4There is no ouestion uuith canon specificallY named as an adulterer ' 24 of readmittance to the inconsistencies' Canon B makes no mention her adulterous retationshiP and communitY if the r{oman breaks off Canon 9 adds bhe further completes the required Penance' and marital ambiguitY, and complications of an unfaithfut sPouse bases readrnittance onthedeathoftheoriginalhusband. independently ofl canon 64 and Canons B and 9 t¡lere conceíved addresstheSpeCificissueofcauseinaWoman,sleavingher who Ieaves her husband husband. Canon B saYS tlrat a noman ,,withoutprecedingcause"rnillnotreceivecommunioneveninthe regulation 'bhan the Proto- end. This statement is a sbricter Assuming a chronological canon, because it adds "nec in finem"' the clerics had not yet decided to progression in the canons ' ttnec in finem" with canon 64a. make a similar statement of in that there is no Although canon 64 is a broader statement husband canon B would stipulation that the ÌIÚoman left her ' applicabions 't,o t,rlomen ulho supercede the ruling of 64 in future leavetheirhusbands;thisisbecausecanonBwouldeliminateany receiving communion on possibilitY of reentering the community or her deathbed. Canongsimilar]ySUpercedescanon64inappticalion' different manner for addressing because is es bablishes a verY this particular tYPe of situation.Mostnotabl-y'thet,.l,omanln until her former husband's canon 9 is excluded from communion tTre exclusion that she suf f ers death, rather than her otirln. Even anathema, she will still be uni-iI his cleath is not a radical givencommunionif,,thepressuleofi]]nessdemandthatitbe 25 given. " Even wi.blr a causa]- reading, one can detect a certain amount of ambiguity in this canon centering alound the lnJofnan's marital bo malry state. The l/\,oman marries anothet, yet she is forbidden him,butshemayany|!ay-tr¡hatisgoingonhere?Laeuch]iuseS this canon to demonstrate the council's understanding of the tenuousness of their por¡er. 15 The problem is more complicated are two than simpJ.e Iack of conf idence. I t¡Lould algue that there bJoman is conceptions of marliage at work here. In canon 9à, the remarrying according to Roman law, yet she is forbidden to marry according to canon law. Her legat marliage is not recognized by the church. The most probable Ieason i4lhy the clerics refuse to recognize this marriage is because according to their definition of adultery she is culpable. They do not Iecognize divorce' so remarriageisinterpretedasadu]tery.Intheeyesol.theRornan and remarried vet legaI syst,em this V,JOman has ot¡tained a divolce ' in the eyes of the Church she is an adulterer' The ìú,lhy then is the uJoman no1- punished as an adulterer? 'to case as an counci I goes to great lengths establish this as plight exception apparenbly out of compassion for this tnromen's married to an aclulterous man. The canon essentially exonerates as her upon his deat,h. The council formally views her Iemarriage Yet two adul-terous, so she must be cut off from the community' important differences set this case apart: 1) she had good cause for leaving her husband, and 2) her offense HJas not covert
l5laeuchli, Powel, 1o1-102' 26 adultery, but remarriage legal under the Roman law system. The elerics demonstrate acknowl-edgement of these circumstances by proscribing a remarkabJ-y lenient ruling. Since canon B appears to diflfer from canon 9 over the issue of jus'b cause, the rlrromen is canon B might also be legally divorcing and remarrying, although without just cLause there not even an ambivalent church recognition of the act. The cause for leniency in canon 9 is the husband's adultery rather than her Ìegal remarriage. Since n0 Specific re ference to marliage is made in canoñ B, tlre canon would be applicable regardless of the tnlomen's lega1 marital status. The likelihood that some of the y\,omen in canon B are divorcing and remarrying is reinforeed by the similarity and conjunction of the two canons. ,The common issue Iinking these two canons could go beyond a simple cause/no cause conjunction to the problem of recognizing Roman divorce and remarriage. Canon 9 suggests that a husband's adultery provides cause
f or J-eaving him. No punishment is determined f or a tlrloman t^lho Ieaves her adulterous husband and does not remarry. This could be because, bhey are operating on an assutTtption that divorce is not acknowledged, the case did not arise, and,/or that the clerics felt she had just cause for leaving and need not be punished. t¡lithout a flurther Iuling, the council is saying that it is acceptable to leave youl lrusband, and perhaps eVen to obtain a legaf divorce, on the grounds that he is adulterous. Examination of bhe canons concerning adultery has revealed 27 not only that the council treated male and female adulterers di ffelently, but that il developed a gender-based penitential system for the treatment of adultery. Prior to the council the cLerics operated on the assumptions of lhe proto-canons which treated tlvomen and men equivalently. The canonS' howevel' demonstrate important di fferences in punishments alloted for adultery depending on the offenders gender. Male adulterers are oflflered mercy on their deathbeds, whereas female adulterers are not. Female adulterers have the additional complication of just cause in canons B an d 9 , and the matter of recognizing Roman divorce and remarriage. The bishops at Elvira are simply not concerned with these issues u¡hen a man ís the offlender. Instead with men the issue pertains to the boundaries of the faith community. Onty with male adulterers does religious conviction enter into the punishment of adultery. The council imposes a gender-based system o1'legislation that is concerned uibh men's relation to outside the community' and ¡yomen's rel-alions r¡lithin it. The council begins r¡¡ith a basic concept of adul- bery which does not dif f erentiate bet.uleen f emaLe and male adulterers. As the council pIogreSSeSr hotruever, a neW gender-based system is developed. LìJith male adulterers, the council is concerned about the violation of communal bounds, stepping outside of the communion of fai bh. The faith of the individuals involved in the adultery is a crucial factor when the adulterer is maLe. In the case of female adulterers, the council's concern shifts to the reason for leaving the husband, 2B the duration of time spent with the .Lover before Iepenting, and the husband's knowledge of the adultery. CHAPTER III
DYNAMICS OF RELATION
This chapter will examine the nature ofl marriage, the relationship the cleric are acting to pleserve u,rith their stringent legislation against adulteIeIS. This chapter wi 1l investigate the council's Iegulations regalding intelmalriage, spousal knowledge of adultery, âñd marriage as a prerequisile for admittance to communion. This analysis will demonstrate that the cl-erics, in their effort to defline the Christian community and their ovvn authority, legislated control ovel rlvomen through the institution of marriage. The council- prohibits marriage between Christian tntomen and out,siders in order to more clearly delineate the boundaries of the faith communÍty. Canon 16 states this intention by forbidding marliage betuteen Christian tlomen and Jews or heretics "since there can be no community for the faithful- with the unfaithful.rrl Christian flamilies shoulrl not associate with
1 Cano n 16: Heretics , i f they are unwilling to change over to the Cathotic church, are not to have Catholic girls given to them in marliage, ñor shall they be given to Jelrs oI heretics, since there can be no community flor the faithful wlth the unfaithful. If parents act against this prohibition, they shall be kept atrvay for five yeaIS. Haeretici si se transferre noluerint ad ecclesiam catholicam, nec ipsis catholicas dandas eSSe pueJ-las; sed neque Iudeaeis neque haereticis dare/dari placuit, eo quod nulla possit esse societas fideli cum infidel-e: si contra interdictum fecerint parentes, abstineri 29 30 or be tied to the families of Jews and heretics. Interchange of this nature r,vould blur bhe boundaries of the community of f aith.
Canon 1 5, which addresses marriage to pagan men, states that such a malriage would result in "adultery of the soul."2 The Christian uroman's soul would be being unfaithfuÌ to God in taking a pagan man flor a lrusband. Both this slatement and the one in canon 16 imply a fear that the community couJ.d be contaminatecl by heretical beliefs bhrough intelmalriage. Four specific groups are identilied as Ínappropriate for women to marry: pagan men (15), heretical men (16), Jewish men (16), and pagan priests (17),f Canon 17 responds to the most objectionable contingency u,ri'bh the strongest penalty (05). Jews and heretics are viet'led as less threatening than pagan priests, since the parents referred to in canon 16 receive only a mild, five-yeaI excommunication.lr Canon 15 is one of thirty-
per quinquennium placet. 2Canon 152 No matler the J-arge number of girls, Christian rnaidens are by no means lo be given in matrimony to pagans lest youth, bursting forth in bloom, end in adultery of the souI. Propter copiam puellarum gentilibus minime in matrimonium dandae sunb virgines christianae, ne aelas in fLore tumens in adullerium animae resolvatur. fCanon 17; If any should perchance join their daughters in malriage to priests of the idols, they shall not be given communion even at the end. Si qui forte sacerdotibus idoLorum filias suas iunxerint, placuit nec in finem eis dandam esse communionem. 4 The mildness of canon 16 compared to canon 17 indicates that t he council's concern for definiti on is a social rather than t heological one. Sociological stud ies indicate (cf. Lewis Coser, The Function of Social Conflict) that ideol-ogicaJ- sel f - 31 one occurrences d2 decision patterns out of one-hundred and thirty-four total decisions' In ¿2 decisions no specific penalty is listed for offenders.5 The general nature of the initial clause may indicate that this canon reflects not a specific incident, but a hypothetical query. The question may have been raised r,rlhether, in light of the surplus of Christian girls, the policy inhibiting intelmerriage coul-d be relaxed. One possible explanation why these canons only prohibit 1¡omen from marrying outside the community comes from the Roman custom dictating that a wifle join her husband's household.6 A rlvoman u,rho married a outsider would leave the community, whereas through intermarriage a Christian man would bring an outsider into his famiJ-y. 0nce within a Christian family the chances tnlere high that the wife wouLd assimilate and join the Christian fold. The size of the community of flaith would increase most i f Christian men , but not Christian r^iomen , intermalried. Another reason flor the absence of a canon forbidding the intermarriage of Christian mal-es is that the surplus of tnlomen (canon 15) could have caused parents lo look outs-ide the
definition is generally accomplished through radical opposition t,o those whose beliefs are most similar. The clerics aIe concerned with Christian morality and pagans aS a social gloup' rather than with defining orthodoxy with respect to heresy. Canon 43, which mandates the celebration of Pentecost, is the only canon which labels a violation as heresy. 5Laeuchli, Power and Sexualitv, 31. 6For more information see: Jane F. Gardner, lrlomen in Roman Law and Society (Stoomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 1986r, 5-65. 32 community for potential husbands, but not for wives. 0utside wives would be assimilated into the Christian community' rruhereas outside husbands would take Christian wives outside of the community. By regulating the emigration of brides, the clerical elite actecl to strengthen the Chrisbian community and protect its boundaries. T One means by r,vhich lhe council manipulated the communit'y through the institution ofl marliage is seen in the canons relating to intermarriage. Christian girJ.s vvere forbidden to marry outside of the community, because this would blur communal boundaries and because it represented an individual act of unfaithfuLness. No such prohibition vvas made against the inteïmarriage of Christian boys and outside rlrromen. This acl of intermarriage tnlas allowed because it served to increase the community of faith. Tlre canons concerning a husbands knowledge of his wife's adultery demonstrate another clerical tool for sexual- control. lnlithin the f aith community, the council establishes the husband as the custoclian of the wif e's sexuaJ-ity. The hus[:and shares a responsibility for his wi fle's adulterous acts, Yet the wife shares no such responsibility 1'or her husband'S actions. The previous chapter dealt with the punishment of adultery and adulterers, this chapter will include a discussion of the punishment of knowledge of adultery, âîd the effect of the
7ruote that bhe party responsible for reguJ-ating rnatrimony is the parents, rather than the rirtoman herselfl. The bride's preference is not at issue. 33 council's legislation concerning adultery on marital roLes. If a man finds out bhat his wife is committing adultery, he is obligated to throw her out of the house immediately.B If he does not he is excluded from commUnion for life, or at least until he compels her to leave and compl-etes the required ten- year penance. If a husband is avvare of the adultery and does nothing, he is acting bo protect his wife flrom the judgement of the communi'by, because forcing her out of the house alerts the Christian community to her infideJ.ity. Canon 7O thus mandates that a husband inform the community of his wife's crime. Canon 78 also encourages exposing the sexual- crimes of individual Christians to the judgemenl- of the Christian community by allowing a reduced sentence for an adulterer accused in this manner.9 The council intended to regulate sexuality and realized that at times inforrners vvere necessary and alLowable for this purpose. If the husband of an adulterous rnloman does not immediately expel his wife from the house, he is prohibited from communion
BCanon 7O z I f a wife, with her husband's knowledge, has committed adultery, he shal-l not be given communion even at the end; but if he gets rid of het, he may receive communion after ten years, if he kept her in his home for any length of time once he knew of the adultery. Si cum conscientia mariti uxol 1'uerit moechata, placuit nec in finem dandam eileis eSSe communionem: si Vero eam reliquerit, post decem annos accipiat communionem, si eam quam sciret adulteram aliquo tempore in domo sua retinuit 9the council holds a different view regarding informers who expose Christians to the civil state. De Clercq argues (0ssius of Cordova , 9O-94) tlrat canons 73-75 oppose any denunciat on e at o of a person to the civil authorities for a real- or f alse crime. 34 even at the end. I f he throws her ou'b at a later date, he may be readmitted after a ten-year penance. This pattern of penalt,ies parallels that of his adulterous wi fe ( canon 64) . For his knowledge of his wife's crime he receives the same punishment that she receives for committing it. Thus, through his knowledge he participates in his wife's adultery, receiving himself the punishment of a female adulterer. The only variation from this pattern occurs if the husband is a cleric (canon 65).10 1n this case there is no chance ofl readmittance to the community with penânce should he Ìater reconsider and throw her out. Ihe clerics' stated leason for this heightened severity towards their otnln is to prevent the appearance that I'instruction in crime is coming from those who should be the model of a good 1Ífe" (canon 65). A cleric in addition to having a marital responsibility for his wife's moral behavior, holds additional responsibility as a moral- exemplar for the faith community. He must not give the appearance that he condones his t¡,li f e 's behavior. He must act as a model husband condemning her action witlrout second thought. For a cleric there is no opportunity to reassess the initial decision, eÍther he acted paradigmaticalJ-y or he did
l0Canon 65: If the r¡ife of a cleric has committed adultery, and her husband knew of it bub did not immediately thror¡¡ her out, he shall not receive communion even at the end, lest it appear as though instruction in crime is coming from those u;ho should be the model of a good life. Si cuius clerici uxor fuerit moechata et scierit eam maritus suus moechari et non eam statim proiecerit, ne in finem accipial communionem, ne ab his qui exemplum bonae conversationis esse deben'b, ab eis videantur scelerum magisteria procedere. 35 nol. This concept tlrat a husband can participate in his wife's adultery by a failure t,o act on his knowledge of it is reinforced by a remarkably similar passag e in The Sheoherd of Hermas.11 During a discussion of the commandments, Hermas asks the shepherd whether or not a man sins if he continues to Iive with his wife after discovering her adultery. The shepherd anstlvers him, As long as he remains ignorant of her sin, the iruãband commits no transgression in living with her. But if the husband know that ñis wife has gone astray, and if the lrroman does not repent, but persists in her fornication, and yet the husband cont,inues to live with het, he is also guilty^of her crime, and a sharer in her adultery. tz Hermas 't,hen inquires what. the husband shoul-ci do i f his wi fle pelsists in her adultery. To this the shepherd responds, rrThe husband should put her arnlay and live by himseLf."lJ The husband may not Iemarry, because to do so is to commit aduJ-tery himself , and because he must remain free to bake back his adulterous wife should she repent'. This passage is helpfuJ- because it reinforces the connection between knowledge of adultery and particÍpation in
'l 1r. crombie in his " Introductory Note to the Pastor of Herrnâs, " in Ante-Nicene Fathers: Translations of the Fatlrers Down to A. D. 325 vol-. II, eds. A lexander Roberts an d James Donal-dson (Grand RaP ids, MI: tnlm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co. , 1971), 3-8, da tes The 5he herd around 160, âñd states that it was quite well known in t e East but little read in tlre l¡lest.
l2{erma s Tlre Shepherd 2.4.1 llrnid. 36 another 's adultery . Although there is no apparent connection betwee n the Sheoherd of Hermas and the canons of Elvira, the similarity is quite striking. The passage from The Shepherd provides a ra'bionale which fits exactly with the practical legislatÍon of the council. The above passage differs from the canons in that if the adulterous r¡loman repents immediately, she need not be exposed to the community. Even more significantly' the passage from The She herd is meant to apply equally to men and hromen, lhereby establishing a mutual responsibility rather than the one-sided guardianslrip of the canons. In cases where the wife has not remained faithful, the husband's duty is to the Christian community rather than to his wife. The counciL rejecbed the possibility that the couple could resolve their marital difficulties without communal intervention. The clerics even deny the husband the right to forgive a repentant wife or'[o give her a second chance bel'ore making her shame public. From the moment that a vvoman's adul-tery is discovered it is a matter that concerns the whole Christian community.l4 By requiring that the husband act as an infotmer, the clerics make the private matter of marital infidelity a public issue concelning the whole ChristÍan community. The clerics take the responsibility for resolving marital problems out of the hands of the individuals involved,
14fne canons provide no indication llrat a man's adultery would be treated in such a public mannel. Canon 10 does refer to a 1¡oman's knowledge of her husband's adultery, but this wom an is the male catechumen's lover not his originaÌ ulife. 37 and pronounce themsel-ves adjudicators of private sexuaL affairs. The fact that the clerics at EIvira hold a man responsible for acts that his wife commits with his knowledge does not rnean that the wife does not suffer the consequences of her actions. Her punishment is the same regardless of her husband's degree of arlrlareness. From the moment the crime is discovered, men determine the flate of a female adulterer. She is at the mercy ofl either her husband who has the option of protecting her al his ot,rtn risk, ot of the clerics who control her punishment. The adulterous tntoman'S only involvemenb in the consequences of her adultery is as an object of punishment. The responsibility of the husband ulith respect to his wife's morality is not limited to times when she is unfaithflul, bul is present throughout the marliage. His posilion as a husband allorrus him to monilor his wif e's moral conduct. The clerics do not assume that 'the husband could have either complete control oI complete knowledge of his truife's activities. They do Iecognize, however, that he is mole tikely to be able lo than theY. The canons on adultery do not indicate that a wi f e has tlris same duty and culpability regarding her husband's moral conduct. Although the Christian trvoman in canon 10 receives a punishment resembling that of an adulterous Christian man' she cannot be understood as sharing in the adultery of her nevv 3B spouse.15 1n addition to the problematic ommision of a specific punishment f or an adulterous ma.l-e catechumen, lhe parallel is flawed because the adulberous catechumen is not breaking his marriage vorlvs to her, but to his original u;i fe . The Christian u,,oman's of f ense is not one ofl failed marital responsibiJ-ity, but the act of marrying a known adulterer. This idea that the clerics vieu¡ed marriage as an opportunity for molal guardianship can also be demonstrated from canon 44 urhich deals with the case of a prostitute who tries to enter the Christian community.l6 The council does not have misgivings regarding the admission of a former prostitute to the Church, since the canon concludes "Ishe] shall be received without delay." The central concern of the canon is to insure that she is indeed a former prostitute. The clerics set forth three conditions that the prostitute must meet before she can be received. She must have: (1) given
l5Canon 1O: If a r¡loman who has been deserted by her catechumen husband marries another man, she may be admitted to the f ont of baptism; this a.Lso appJ.ies to f emale catechumens. But if the man who l-eaves the innocent tlrloman marries a Christian vvoman, âfld this uJoman kneuv he had a wif e whom he had left without cause, communion may be given to her at death. Si ea quam catechumenus relinquit duxerit mariturn, potest ad fontem lavacri admitti: hoc et circa feminas cateclrumenas erit observandum. Quod si fuerit flidelis quae ducitur ab eo qui uxorem inculpatam relinquit, et quum scierÍL illum habere UXorem, quam sine causa Ieliquit, placuit in finem huiusmodi dari communionem/ pJ.acuit huic in finem non dandam esse communionem/ placuit huic nec in finem dandam. '16Canon 44: A prostitute who once lived as such and later married, if afterwards she has come to belief , shall be received without delay. Meretrix quae (eagana) aliquando fuerit et postea habuerit maritum, si postmodum ad credulitatem venerit, incunctanter pJ.acuit esse recipiendam. 39 up prostitution, (2) gotten married, and (3) conìe to be-l-ief. Yet even this is not enough; She must have completed these req uirements in that order. The abundant use of temporal mOdifiers (e.g., rrOncet', "Late1", "afterWaIdS") leaves no dOUbt that this is the required progression of events. In requiring a prostitute to give up her profession, maIly' and find her faith, in this order, they are moving her from impurity (prostitution), to atleged purity, to confirmed purity, to faith. She must be proven pule in conduct before the canon tnrliters will recognize her faith. 0nly through malriage and the word ofl her husband, can her continued purity be trusted. Thus, the council purposefully outlines t'he process by which a plostitute may be admitted to the community in order that her moraL conduct will be monitored by a man. The clerics do not find it sufficient to merely state that prostitutes must renounce theil plofession beflore they may en'ber the community of f aith. They will not even accept a prostit,ute u¡ho gives up her prostit,ution on account of her conversion. The council's stipulation that she marly signiflicantly lengthens the period of time between her retirement from plostitubion and her acceptance into the church. I'teeting all- of these prerequisit.es in ordel, with time between each, could not be accomplished quickly. The council does not de fline a concrete probation period, but guarantees with its choice of lequirements that it will not be a hasty process. The clerics are understandably concerned about the 40 fluture molal conduct ofl an ex-prostitute and are therefore subjecting her to an extensive probation period. The clerics insist that the former prostitute marry so that she will have a mal-e gualdian to insure that any possible return to prostitution will be discovered.lT The clerics are suspicious that the raoman may Ieturn to her old vyays. By requirÍng her to marry, they'transfer her economic dependency from her plevious profession,lB to her husband and compl-icate her return to the operabion of her business affairs, and provide themseLves with an informel should she transgress. By making malriage a plerequisite for her Ieception into the community, the clerics aIe expressing their wil-Iingness to admit her provided that she is in a male-dependent relationship. A former prostitute can not retain her independence and be a member ofl the Christian community. That woul-d be far too threatening to the cl-erical elite. The council cannot get atnray with requiring all- women to maIIy prior to admission into the community, nor did it need to. l'4ost hromen go directty from dependence on their fathers to
1 7In her married state such a return to prostitution could also be constituted as adultery, in which case her husband rr,rould be sub ject to canon 65 or 7O. lBRtthough this urould be a result of bhe council's ruling, it rnras probably not their intent. If the clerics tlltere concerned about this tlrroman'S economic survival without prostitution, they woul-d have made some allolrrance for her dur ing the interim ( which they imposed ) Uetu¡een relinquishing her profession and rnarrYing. 41 dependence on their husbands. 1 9 Prostilutes, howevet, have
,1 lYThe0_. principle in Roman Law of Patria Potestas gives the Roman father ( pater familias ) essentially at¡solute potnler over bhe members of the f amil-Y. The paterfamiliag, or head of the male 1ine, had potestas ("potnlerrr) over his children, lris slaves, his wife if she uJas married in manu , âñd his freebondsmen I J. A. C. Thomas, Textbook of Roman Laul (Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing CompâñY, 1976), 412 l. At the beginning of the fourth century, this laul gave the pater potnter to accept or reject newborn issue as a member of the family, to put to death his child after a family council, to sell issue into slavery although this tnlas restricted, and to surrender his son to the son's accusel Iather than accept responsibiJ-i1-y f or the son's actions I J. A. C. Thomas, Ttre Instilutes of JustinÍan: Text Translation and Comrnentar rlrtere Publishing Company, 1 5 , 26-27 . Persons in potestate not 1ega11y able to otrvn proPer'[Y, although a son, like a slave, could receive the righ L. ( peculium ) to act as the father's agent controJ-1ing some money and busine ss affairs I Jane F. Gardner, llrlomen in Roman Law and Societ (etoomington, IN: Indiana niversity Press, 1986 9 The status of the u;ife is complicated by the exisbence of two types of marriage in Roman Law : manus and liberum matrimonium. A wife in manu sub jects herself to the patria potesbas of her hu sband becoming a member o f his agnatic family as a sister to h er chil-dren. She thus passes out of the potestas of her fathe r and his ater fami I ias and into the potestas of her husband and his pa el am as. matrimonium she gains the right to Unlike the wife of a liberum rrfree intestate succession. T e ETUM matrimonium or marriage", whÍch was dominan t by the late Repu b lic required the consent of both individuals, both paterfamilia S , and the father of the husb and if the father tllas not, the paterfamiLias. Ìnlives of liberum matrimonium remained under the otestas of their flathers. The consent of lhe paterfam ilias tnlas no required if the individual had established independent status ( sui iuris ) as opposed to being in pot es tate ( alieni iuris ) . Both sons and daug hters became su ur SU pon the death of the pa'berfamilias. If a laoman tïas unmarried or married in a liberum matrimoniurn she vvas su f 1uÎt"S u pon the death ofl her natural fa ther. I f, howevet , S e tl{as married w ith manus she hJas not sui iuris until the death of her husband. A man with independent st,atus became a pa ter familias urith potestas over his ot,Tn familia and the capacity for independent legal action. Even if a bioman gained indePend ent status (sui iuris), she could not hold potest,as over anyone but herself . The institution of tutela PerPetua muLieru!! ( guardianshíp of a woman) required that a trrJoman sui iuris have a tutor to supervise her Ìegal affairs. Thus, a Roman t,voman alieni iur is rlvas in the potestas of her father, her husband, or their paterfamilias. tnjhen this 42 broken atlJay f rom societal control and maLe-dependence. They no J-onger operate ulithin the potestas of their fabher, nor ' at least in canon 44, are they married. They ate unltilling to trust this tnroman on her ou',n word, but rather require that it be confirmed by a husband. Even though her husband may not be Christ,ian, he becomes the agent of these clerics. He becomes an instrument by tr,lhich the clerics can minimize the possibility thab this tnloman might become a Chrislian prostitute. The uJoman, who rnras already dependent on the clergy for admission into the community, is notrrt also dependent upon her neud husband. She depends on him, not onJ-y on account ofl their marital relationship, bul also for her continuecl membership in the community. His word has already been shown to be trusted above hers, so if he tntele to claim that she had reglessed, he would most likeIy be believed and she would be expelled (canon 12). AJ.though the husband in this canon has the speciflic duty of inhibiting his wife's return to prostitution, the underlying concept of marliage can be understood mole generalJ-y. The clerics see the institution o1'malriage as a medium by which a husband guards his wife's morality. In the case of a former
individual died she became sui iuris and deperrdent on a tutor f or her legal a 1'f airs . As a t^Joman she has no poteslas over her children, âîd they are related to her only cognaticaJ.ly. The most notable exemption tlvere those rlrlomen sui iuris who could terminate their tutela under the ius trium I iberorum which allowed Freeborn tJomen who had b orne three chiJ-dren, or freedwomen r,vho had borne four to be flree of the tutela perpetua mulierum IIhomas, Textbook, 464; Gar dner, l¡lomen , 5), 43 plostitute, vuhose moraL conduct is tlrus particularly suspect, special measures ( i. e. plobation and marriage) are taken to insure that any lapse will be noticed. There is nothing unusual about the malriage bhat the former prost,itute enters into except its Iequirement for admission into the community. 0n account of her past, the council Iequires the trvoman to enter into this relationship so that her conduct can be monitored. Thus the normal marit.al relationship, as the council vieu'ls it, includes the guardianship of the wife's molality by her husband. Whereas canon 44 concerns a prostitute's admission to the community through marriage, canon 31 provides an example of a case in uhich a young man's admittance to communion is dependent on his marIiage.20 The use of the word "adolescentesil to name the offending group Suggests another interpretation. Derived from the verb adolesco (to groüT uP), "adol-escentes ll are young men who have not yet reached mat,urity. In cano n 31, these young men have committed sexual- offense, most likely fornicaLion, after they had been baptized. The cLerics give them penance and aglee to readmit them to
20Canon 312 Young men who after the faith of saving baptism have committed sexual offense shal-l be admitted to communion when they marly, provided the required penance is done. Adolescentes qui post fidem lavacri salutaris fuerint rnoechati, quum duxerint uxores, acta legitima poenitentia placuit ad communionem eos admitli. 44 communion !vhen blrey marIy.21 Marriage here acts as proof of maturity. The clerics are willing to readmit these young men Irhen they have gained a sense of responsibiJ.ity and are ready to settle down. Performing penance further demonstrates the adolescents' understanding of their offense, and their neh, seriousness of purpose. The lack ofl temporal separation betrneen marliage and admission reinforces this interpretation of marriage as a mark of maturity. The time between the sexual offlense and marriage denotes the period of maturing. 0nce that is accomplished, there need be no further period of probation prior to readmission as in canon 44. The shorter chronology of canon 31 pJ.aces the emphasis on the wedding event as proof of maturity' rather than on the state of wedlock and the marital relationship as a guarantee of continued moral conduct. Cornparing these two canons whereby marriage is established as a prerequisite for admission reveals a disparity in the treatment of men and rlvomen. The clerics manipulate the institution of marriage in both canons, but their purpose in doing so varies along gender lines. l^Jith young impetuous men ' the council establishes marliage as a mark of maturit,y and responsibility. The act of getting married demonstrates to the
21the pros't.itute in canon 44 is a non-Christian utho !Tants to be admitted to the Christian community, most Iikely as a catechumen. I f she tntere a Christian prostitute, she r,rlould be excommunicated under canon 12. The young men in canon 31 , however, aIe already baptized Christians who are hoping to be readmitted to communion after being expelled for sexual offense. 45 clerics that these youths have found a neuJ seriousness of purpose and can be trusted to behave properly within the Christian foId. Thus, the men in canon 31 aIe dependent on marriage, but, not on their wives. In the case o1" the prostitute, the council sets up marriage as a guarantee of correct moral conduct. Here the act of marrying itself does not satisfly the council, instead the relationship established in marriage is the key. The prostiLute herself is not fully tIUSted; her husband is necessary both to con 1"irm her word and to inhibit her from transgressing. The canons concerning knowledge of adultery indicat,e that this gualdianship ofl a husband for a wife is meant to apply not only to prostitutes, but to all married t/vomen.
The Council of Elvira used the institution of marriage as a tool for the sexual control of both men and rnlomen. The clerics savv husbands aS 'the moral guardians of their ulives. There no canons, however, which hold tlvomen responsibl-e for their husbands' actions. In cases of adultery the husband ulas obligated to act as an in folmer and bo punish his wi fe by expelling her from the house. Admission of a prostitute to the community t!as possible only if a husband vuas seculed in the position of moral guardian. The clelics' opposition to marriages in t¡,rlrich the husband uüas not a ChristÍan is obvious
once this desire for control through malriage is understood. A husband who is an ou'bsider is a muclr less effective agent for 46 clerical control, since he would not himself fall under their authority o¡, be affecled by deprÍvation from communion. The clerics use the canons to set up a system of control over vvomen and their sexuality. They want trvomen to be dependent on Christian husbands, so tlrat they can control tlìJomen indireetly through the institution of marriage' CHAPTER IV
SLIPPING THROUGH THE CRACKS
Since the clerics acted in response to the situation of the Christian community, their consistent legislabion of control over llrlomen must have been prompted by some aspect of their cireumstances. The council- must be reacting to some thing that the rruomen are doing. This chapter will attempt to isolate what is happening in the community that caused the clerics to respond in this manner. Some of the 1¡omen in the Spanish church are actively engaging in independent activity whiclr the clerics perceive as a threat to the closed hierarchical system they are trying to solidify. lndependent activity in this context refers to activity which is not inftuenced or controlled by others in either its conception or practice.l The intent of this chapter is to demonstrate that the rnlomen referred to in the canons uüere acting indepbnclently, and in what the clerics perceived as a t h r e a t e n i n g ' m a n n e r . 0ne of the most enigmatie of the canons of EIvira is canon 35, whieh restricts tnromen from spending the night in a
1cf . The Random House Colleqe DictiQnS:y, 197 5 od. , s. v. rrindependdnTT: 'not influenced or controlled by others in matters ofl opinion, conduct, eLc. "
47 4B cemeteîy.2 The syntax of the canon provides some clues as to the nature of the offense it prohibits. The council's selection of the verb perviligo ( "to sta y awake all night" ) indicates that these h,omen are guilty of not merely vÍsiting ceme'beries durin the night, but of remaining in them for the whole night. Additionally, the canon combines the plural form t'feminaett (women) with the sing ular ttcoemeteriot' (cemetery). This juxtaposition implies meetings of several vvomen in a single cemetery at. the same time, âs opposed to multiple instances of individual tlrtomen in various cemeteries on different occasions. In other ulords, the canon indicates that a group ol tntomen often ( "saepe" ) mel in the same cemebery togetherr râther than thab individual Llomen spent the night in various cemeteries. Since no definite article is used with t'coemeteriott , the clerics are probably not referring to a particular cemetery and an isolated phenomena. The use of the word "saeperrconnotes that the offensive action vuas occurring frequently, and perhaps even with regularity.
The canon gives two suggestions as to the nature o 1' the trvomen's activity. AJ-though the clerics claim that the lrromen's prayer is merely pretense, the clerics demonstrate their ordn bias by the vehemence of their opposition, âîd need not be believed. The fact that the clerics stray slightJ-y from their
2Canon 35 z l,iomen are f orbidden to spend the night in a cemetery since often under the pretext of prayer they secretly commit evil deeds. Placuit prohiberi ne feminae in coemeterio pervigilent, eo quod saepe sub obtentu orationis latenter sceLera eommittunt. 49 generally terse styte to say that the prayer is false, indicates that its fallacy is not plain to all but instead needs to be stated. Thus, one interpretation is that the tnlomen are indeed engaging in some varie'by of prayer or similar religious observance. Another, not necessarily exclusive, approach is to consider the activity as one which the council condemns as evil. The list of offenses tlrey denounce as immoral is quite a lengthy one, including paganism, ffiâgic, and sexuaL o ffenSeS. 0nce again, though, the credibility of the clerics must be examined. Their refusal lo specil"y what valiet,y of evil deed rlrras being committed coutd be eonstituted as evidence that their st,atement is mereJ.y an empty accusation. Certainly there is no evidence elseh,here in the canons of a hesitation to name a heinous offense directly. The clerics could be intimating that one of flour lypes of activities is happening in the cemeteries. The f irst tt¡lo rel-ate to idotatry: .pagan funeral rites and the cult of the dead. The clifference between these is that funerary riles are per f ormed on the event of an individual's death; t¡lhereas the cult of tlre dead is part ofl an ongoing liturgical calendar. The other two possibilities are illicit sexual liaisons and neclomancy. A1'though the ulords of the canon provide some clues, they fail to designate to the modern reader, even Iemotely, the nature of these tlrlomen's offense. The council Was evidently 50 confidenl that t,heir meaning would be clear to tlre audience they tnrere addressing. In trying to reconstruct bolh the council's intended significance in canon 35 and the cont,ent of the event which they condemned, an understanding of the cultural- context will Ílluminate the canon's possitrle referents. The canon concerns rntomen's activities in cemeteries, u¡hich brings to mind the natural association of cemeteries and funeral rites. By the second century CEr3 inhumation had replaced cremation as the dominant method for disposing of the dead.4 A funeral procession would escort the corpse to the burial site, where the resting place would be consecrated and earth wouLd be cast on the body.5 0ne of the basic notions of Roman funeraly plactice tlrlas that "to Leave a corpSe unburied had unpleasant repelcussions on the fate ofl the departed soul.tt6 Following the burial, there Were several occasions when mourners gab.hered in the cemetery for funeraly meals. The Manes ( the shades ofl the dead ) tn¡ere widely believed to require
l¡.pt .c. Toynbee, Death and BuriaL in the Roman t¡Jorld (ftnaca: Cornell Uni versi ty Press, 19 71 ) 73-34. 4Toynbee, Death, 40. 5HarolcJ Ìnlhetstone Johnston, The Private Life of bhe Romans, rev. by MarY Johnston ( New York: Cooper Square PuilLishers, 1973) , 392. 6Toynbee, Death, 43. 51
7 eaten food for their conlinuecl existence. FunerarY meals ulere by'bhemournelsatthegraVeandaportionv\lassetasideflor same day as the the deceasecl . Tlre first of ilrese, held the Nine days Iater burial, tnlas the si licerniun ( funerary feast ) ' ' ( the completing the funeral rites, vvas the cena n ovendialis a libation r¡Jas of f ered dinner of the ninth daY) ' At this meal, have to the Manes. B these gr avesite rituals would Provided r' opportunities to gather "under the Pretexl of prayer. TheRomanliturgÍca]catendarinctudesfestivatsofthe dead t,lhich involve further visits to cemeteries. The of the Paternalia or dies Parentales , the annual commemoration 13-21 A ttris time, the dead, uJas celebrated from FebruarY ' o fl f ood or tlreY Manes had to receive their annual offlering descendants.9 might emerge from the tombs to haunt their leflt at Throughout the week, of f erings of f ood and f l-oulers l'dere the graves of family and friends.l0 In the late spring' roses scatteredontheglaVeduringtheRosaliaolRosaria(the pledges of feast. of the roses), because roses vrlere vieuled as the eternal spring beyond the grave'11 'L,he 7R.¡¡. ogilvie, The Romans and Their Gods in A e ofl & Co. 969 75' Auqustus ( Ner,t York: tnl .llrl. Norlon , , Stoynbee, D-gg!h, 5o-5'l ' 90vid Fasti 2 -546 ' of the dead in the Roman l othe second irnPor'[ant festival did religious calendar vrlas the Lemuria. Since this festival not involve a cemeterY visit', -TT-ã-rreos no light on canon 35. 11ct. Toynbee, Death, 63; Johnston' Private Li fe , 394. 52 Although this information is valuable as a background for understanding burial customs in 'Lhe Rornan tnlorId, an investigation of archeological evidence from Spain is necessary to confirm that these customs rlrlere indeed practiced in Spain. For example, Toynbee states, "the great majority of peopJ-e in the Roman world r,lrele laid t,o resb in tombs of very varied types strung along the roads beyond the city gates."12 This statement is born out by the location of cemet,eries excavated in Spain. Burial aleas exist along a.ll of the major roads leading from Córdoba. 1 f The Bal-lesta-Rubert cemetery in Ampurias, oî the far northeastern coast of Spain, runs along either side of the Camino de San Martín de Ampurias.l4 lhe variety of grave types is also well attested by the findings at Carmona and Ampurias. Evidence of f unerary clubs, communal- mausol-ea ( columbaria ) u,rith areas for funerary banquets, and private burial sites for the wealtlry have al-so been discovered. 15 ALl of these discoveries woul-d tend to support the validity ofl Toynbee's generalizations to Roman Spain. 1 6 The archeological findings at Tarraco in northeastern Spain provide evidence of ChrisLians apparently engaging in pagan
l2t oynbee , otr. cit. p. 49"
1 3Knapp, Roman Córdoba p. 65. 'll{Almagro, Las Necrópolis de Ampurias vol. II, pp. 19-2O.
1 5Keay, Roman S afn , pp. 89-9 1 . 161 am not quati l'ied to eval-uate the archeol-ogical findings, and my sources do not date this maL,erial. 53 funerary rites.17 Excavations have unearthed a sprawling Christian cemetery dating from the third to seventh centuries C.E.1B Tables and other remains seem to indicate the practice of funerary banquets. "In two inst,ances tubes Were found leading dou¡n into the tomb where the body reposed. "'19 These are presumably libation tubes to nourish the dead, who tlould have been 'bhought Lo reside in t,he ground. A coin tìras f ound near the head of a corpse, u;hich lrlas probably pJ-aced on the tongue to pay Charon for the clossing of the river Styx into Hades. The f act that only a single coin rlras flound undercuts t,he interpretation o f the f inding as reLating to the Jeu¡ish practice of pJ.acing coins on the eyes of the deceased. Ïn addition, a cenotaph, oI an empt,y sealed tomb, wâs discoVered. McKenna suggests that this reflects "the pagan beliefl that the spirit of a deceased peISon tthose body cou.l-d nob be found required a tomb as a place of abode."2O These alcheologieal findings would seem to plove that some Chrislians in Spain around this time where rebaining pagan burial customs. Ifl'[he burning of cand]es referred to in Canon 34 is an example of the adoption ofl Roman practices, the bishops' forceful objection to such an apparenbly harmless act would be
17The bishop ofl Tarraco is not listed among the supposed participants in the Council of Elvira. Vives, Concilios Visioóticos e l-{ispano-Romanos rP 1
1 BKeay, op. cit., p 189.
1 9McKenna, Paqani sm and Paqan Survivals in SPain p. 36. 2oMcKenna, op. cit, , p. 36. 54 explained by the pagan oligins of the custom. This inte1.pretation, hot"Jever, falls to explain l'uhy the Council l^'louId state a difl'erent reason for the objection. The canon is quite clear in stating the reason as conceln for the tranquility of the departed. The notion that'bhese Christian bishops believed that the dead could be disturbed in this manner is enigmatic. The difflicultJ-y is caused by'bhe fact that christian doetrine generally holds that the soul goes to heaven, and only the body remains in 'bhe grave. I f this is the case, then the dead would probably not be disturbed by goings-on in the cemetery ' Thus the council's intÍmation that candles lighted in the daytime would disturb the dead impJ-ies that the bishops bel ieved the dead r¡{ere in some uvay present in the cemeteries and could therefore be disturbed. According to Rush, the church u!as trying desperatelv' during the latter haIl" of the fourth centurY, to overcome the betief that the dead rlvere tiving under the earth'21 As for christian belief earlier in the fourth centuIY, canon 34 implies lhe bishops' acceptance of this pagan notion. The discovely of Libation tubes in the Christian cemetery at Tarraco wouLd further support tlre conclusion that bhe Council predabes the formuLation ofl a !{e11-defined doctrine of the
2 1 Rush, Death, pp . 245-46. Rush cites Ambrose, De 0bitu Theodosii 30 (CUAPS 9, Mannix 56) and Jerome, Epistula 6O, 14 (c SEL 54, Hilberg 566 ), both of whom lived in the latte r half of the fourth centurY. 55 soul's ascension to heaven. Canon 34, theleflore, would seem to be the reaction of Christian bishops against the adoption of tlre pagan practice either of using t,orches at daytime funerals or offering candles to honor the dead in their tombs. Ironically, the reason against this pagan practice is that it would disturb the dead, an idea which seems to be predicated on the pagan belief llrat the dead Iesided in the ground. 0ne interpretation, lvhich would provide a slightly diflfelent understanding of the bishops' Ieasoning, is that of Baronius.22 Baronius states, Many neophytes brought the custom from paganism, of lighting many tlvax eandles upon tombs. The Synod forbids it, because metaphorically it troubles the souls of the dead; that J--s to saY, this superstition wounds them.z) According to this view, the bishops could sti1l hold the belief that the souls of the dead tnlere in heaven, but that there they coul-d be dislurbed metaphorically by the use of pagan practices among Christians. There is no evidence that supports one of tlrese interpretations above the other. Regardless of the exact reasoning behind tlre pronouncement, the bishops, in Canon 34, seem to have been Ieact.ing against the ret,ention ofl a pagan burial custom. The predominant interpletation of both canons 34 and 35 among scholars such as HefeIe, Dale, âñd their predecessols is
22cited by Hefele (Historv, 150-51 ) and Dale (Synod, 220). 23Baronius quoted by Hefele (History. 150-1); No other re ference given. 56 indeed that the clerics are reacting to condemn the retention of pagan practices. This understanding follows the vieut that the council met post-persecution to define the Christian community against their pagan contemporaries. A reaction against pagan pracl-ices is the most satisfying interpretation of canon 34, but seems insufficient to explain all of the nuanees of canon 35.
The difficulties uith interpreting canon 35 as a denunciation of the retention of either pagan funerary meals or festivals of the dead are that these visits r^iere not held at night and nor tlvere they limited to female participants. This understanding of the canon, hol^lever, flails to explain the vehemence of the second cLause. Although t,he council does differenliate crimes along gender J.ines, an act which trlas considered evil for tntomen to engage in would probably be at leasl discouraged for men. In addition, t,he utord "pretext" implies that, the !!omen !^Jere doing one thing tlvhy claiming to be doing another. This rnould not be tlre case if the tlllomen tnlere merely persisting in traditj-onal pagan rituals. Also, if men rnrere al-so involved, then the tnromen's act would most likely not be considered "secret", nor could it be carried on under a different pretext. Thus, the custom of having flunerary meal-s at the grave explains the "pretext of prayer" as part of the burial ritual (connect this thought to the offlering of libations to the Manes ) and the clerics abhorrence at this vestige of idolatry ( i. e. "evil deeds" ) . Pagan practice also 57 suggests that these tlilomen might have been offering Iibations to the dead, a suggest,ion which finds support in the evidence of Tarraco. I f the bishops are react,i.ng to lrrhat is going on in the cemeteries because it is pagan, it does not make sense for them to accuse the t¡tlomen of secret immoral acts. Canon 35 does not seem to be a simple matter of the rejection of paganism. Funerary meals, festivals of the dead, and other occasions for visiting cemeteries common to lhe Roman cult of tlre dead do nol
f aS to why Canon 35 ref ers only t,o !lomen of er an explanation ' or rllhy these vúomen would spend the night in the cemetery. The reference to immoral acts could be in'berpret,ed as referring 1-o adultery oI some sort of similar secret sexual liaison. The order of the canons themselves would seem to undermine this argument. The canons seem to have been listed in the order that they came up during 'bhe Council, rather than in a topical arrangemen 1.24 Some topical links exist among subseqUent canons, but this is only occasional. Canons 34 and 75 are clearly linl 24LaeuchIi, Power, pÞ. 10-11. 5B cemeteries. Another explanation coul-d be tlrat the bishops are accusing the vvomen of necromancy. This r¡loul-d nol only provide the necessary link 'lo cemeteries and nighttime, but coul-d also connect with the use of candles. The main dif f iculty r,rrith this interpretation is that only t,rtomen are restricted. Even ifl only tl\Jomen are pract,icing necromancy, this is a rather roundabout tlvay ofl trying to prohibit such practice. Could they not carry on the same activities during the day? In addition, Canon 35 is unusual- in that it lists no punishment f or viol-ators. Canon 6, whiclr relates to sorcery, is accompanied by the Council 's strongesL penalty.25 This canon al-so demonstrates that in the bishops' minds sorcery is linked to idolatry and paganism. The interpretation o f Cano n 35 as accusation of necromancy also fails to explain why the vvomen wouLd otheruise be able to spend the night in the cemetery "under the pretext of prayerrt. In short, neither pagan burial customs, sexual- Liaisons, nor necromancy provide satisfying expl-anations for Canon 35. The bishops seem to be searching for a reason to condemn the u,omen's activity. lrJhat the trvomen are doing and what, the b.ishops are accusing bhem ofl seem to be two di f flerent things. These u,Jomen seem to be involved in some sort ofl ritual practice 25Canon 6: If anyone kills another by sorccry, communton is not to be given to him even at 'bhe end, since he could not have accompJ.ished this crime without idolatry. Si quis vero mal-eficio interficiat alterum, eo quod sine idotatrÍa per ficere scelus non potuit, nec in flinem impertiendam esse i11i communionem. 59 is eagel lo which is not pagan in origin, and which the council suppress Theclericscou]dhavebeenimplyingthatlhe|¡,omeninthe examined cemeteries l;Uere involved in any one of the activities above:paganrÍtuals,sexualliaisons'ornecromancy'The difficulties encountered t¡lhen determining the relative likerihood of each of these options are irreLevant if you allot¡'l thepossibility,defendedbyLaeuchli'thattheclerics issues sometimes react,ed irrationally to emotionalty charged ' their If the bislrops aIe disregarcling the feasibility of helpful claims, then their hist,orical fleasibility is no longer to t'lris in determining the clerics' intent' tfllith respect study, however, the cLerics' accusation is ofl l-ess importance doing than what 1-he l/ìlomen in the cemeteries t¡lrere actuatly ' 0fthethesethreeoptions'necromancyistheonlyone Uvhy the which explains ,¡hy the activity was performed ab night, describe canon makes no reference to men, and r,.lhy the crerics prayel' the activity as concealed with the pretext of well refleet Remembering bhat the wording of the canon could re fer may the clerics, biased view, the prayer t,o which they nothaveactuallybeenapletextatall.Thepossibi}ity vigit with remains that these lllomen lú1Jele performing a christian Christianritua].Sandprayels.InvuhichcasethecoUnci],s the act objec.tion Ìilas actualJ-y to the independerrce displayed in together of having a r¡iomen's ritual. christian tlvomen gathering vuithout men vuould have been perceived as threatening and 60 subvelsive to the clerics at Elvira. Tlre may not have been ab1e to trust that vvomen meet.ing in a cemetery at nighb have not performed evil acts, hence their objection' Regardless o f l,thether these l,rlomen 's prayers trrtere born out of christianity or necromancy, some variet,y of ritualist,ic practice is the most convincing of t,he possible intelpletations of the activity in canon 35. These þJomen t4rere meeting without men and of their ot/t n voli bion. Tlrey chose to spend nights together in cemeteries, doing something which resembled prayer enough for tlre clerics to claim that it tlvas merely a pretext ' Thus, ilre womên to u¡hom the clerics are reacting with canon 35, are engaging for some type of ritualistic practice. Further insight into the interaction o fl the ll\,omen in the community of the Council of Elvira can be gained through an examination of canon B'1. This canon provides another example of rnomen's independent activily.26 The Clrristian 1¡oÍnen reprimanded here are writing and receiving letters from other Christians.2T this Ietter writing is the result of tlrese 26Canon B1: hlomen shall not presume on their ornln, witlrout their husbands' signatutes, to u¡rite Lo lay uJomen lrlho aIe baptized, ñor shali t,hey accept qnygne's letters of peace addressed only to themseLves. Ne feminae SUo potius absque maritorum norinibus laicis scribere audeant, quae/qu.i fideles ;;;i, u.1 litteras aticuius pacificas ad suum solum nomen scriptas acciPiant. SPanish 2TCanon B 1 Proves that there uüere !ïomen in the Church at this time u¡ho uvere litera te and ltho urere activelY employing their abilities by wribing letters' Exa mples of other literate tnlomen in the Roman world include PamP hile an Ep idaurian who is lePorted in t he Suda (an ancient encyclop aedia, found in C MuIler, Fra menta Historicorum Graecorum (Paris, 1848-70 ) 3.520f f . to AVE t/lT ten boo S 61 h,omen's o1an initiative, and is being done without the explicit approval, it'l the f orm of a signature, of their husbands. A specialized connotation of t.he refl-exive possessive pronoun suus meaning "independent" or "in one's otntn povuelrt undelscoles the autonomy of this acLion.2B A text variant in the Latin manuscripLs substibuting ttquirl f or "quae" (r,tho ) results in ambiguity surrounding the gender of the recipient oP the uJomen's letters.29 The canon Ís directed to "feminae" (the women) who are writing letters to 'rlaiciS" (taity).10 Assuming that the relative pronoun rrguae'?/'tqui" modifies "f3j!j9", then it also determines the gender of the lay people to u¡hom these Women are t'rlriting. The canon read with the masculins rr'quirtmakes the antecedent a masculine form connot ing either both male and flemale 1ay people oI only lay men, rather than lay uJomen orrly wiLh rrggt'. The manuscript tradition r¡lhich upholds the feminine pronoun is stil-1 Lefl with the question as to whether the phrase "quae fideles sunt," (who are baptized) modifies "feminae" or "laiciS". If it is the tetter wribers who are baptized, then ( t st century CE), and Agrippina the Younger whose autobiograPhY is cited by Tacitus in The Annals 4.53 (ZS CE) . References from Mary R. Lefkovuitz and Maureen B. Fant , t¡Jomen 's Li 1'e in Greece and Rome: A Source Book in Transl ation ( gattimore: Johrr Hopkins Un iversity Press 1982) . ' 2BCasselI 's Latin Dictionarv 5th od. , s. v rrsuus. tt 29nefere, Histor 171-72. l0tne adjective laicus meaning r'layrr (in a religious sense) is being used substantively here- 62 they are writing to an audience of unspeci flied ge rder. I f, however, the pronoun is feminine and ref ers to "l-aici"s", then Laeuchli is correct to translate the canon as tlrlom,3n uJriting l-etters to baptized lay tnlomen. Since the cl-erics are writing an in-house document. regula'bing the behavior of other Christians, it can be assumed that rrfleminaetr is directed towards uJomen within the community. Likewise, by def inition "l-aicis" coufd only refer to someore within the Christian communit,y . Thus appJ.ied to either o f these terms , the cl-ause would differentiate baptized individuals from a gro rp which could otherrrlise include catechumens. The proximity of the relative pronoun to "lgigis" is conducive bo a reading of "f¡¡!c.þ" as the antecedent ratlrer than 'rfeminae". t^Jith resp:ct to the pronoun's gender, the feminine Form is dominant in the manuscripb tradition. Considering that the specification of female lay people is rrore particular than th: generic use of ttquitt, it is unlikely that repeated copyist errot wrl,-rld ¡râuse â shift to "quae". Alth::Lgh variant readings are possible, Laeuchli's translation of the texL is the best supported. In the second cl-ause of canon 81, rltlomen are receiving letters fr¡n other people. These senders could be '¡ale or f enale; married or unlìarrierJ; baptized, câtechumen, or 1'rom outside the D,rr"rìirrnity ofl faith. Another difficulty is that it can not be d,:termined nith cerlainty that the tntomen receivin3 these tetters are the same ¡Jomen ruho are Lltriting letters in the 63 first clause ofl the canon. Two factors suggest that this is indeed the case. Tlre flirst of these is that, iudging from the scarcity of references to literate tnlomen in lhe ancient world, the community of literate Christian Llromen in Spain must be rather limited. SecondIy, the clerics chose to join these statements together in a one canon using a singJ-e subject ("feminae") for both verbs ("audeant't and "accipiant"). Thus, the council is quite likely addressing this group of literate Women in the community aS a whole in both cl-auses of the canon' The clerics' prohibitions in canon B1 act to isolate hJomen or to place them in a position of even greater dependence on their husbands.3l tl'Jomen are not allowed to write Ietters "on their o¡xn, " instead they must obtain their husbands' signatures an d consequently their permission . Their direct relationship to the individuals they uuribe becomes mediated by their husbands. These trìJomen are no J-onger allotrued to carry on private correspondence. Letters they send out must meet their husbands' approval, and letters they receive must be directed to someone else as well. The canon does not indicate clearJ-y u¡hether or not this second addressee is intended to be the woman's husband or not. The text simpJ.y dictates that letters a tlroman Ieceives bearing her name only should not be accepted. This rrrording can be interpreted as broadly as to allotr¡ a tnloman to accept a letter which addressed jointly to her and to lltne canon assumes that these literate u'romen all have husbands who can add their signatures to the rlìJomen 's letters . 64 another l/ìJoman. These restrictions flunction bot.h directly and indireclly as censorship. The requirement bhat l^lomen have their husbands' signatures on their letters puts the husbands in a position to offer or r,rrithhold their signatures for whatever Ieason they pJ-ease. No directives are issued to the husbands outlining conditions under r,ryhich they should aglee or disagree to sign lhe letters; tlre decision is left completely in their hands. Husbands, therefore, have the potnlel of direct censorship over their wives' letters. The second clause of the canon does not set up a situation of direct censorship, because no outside individual is placed in a position to inspect the letter beflore the rrvoman leceives it. Indirect censorship, or self- censorship, would come into play, hotl,ever, if the sender knew that the letter must be addressecl to a larger audÍence t'han an individual tlvoman. The sender r,lould censor the material as she/he wrote it so that any truly private content would be omitted or concealed. Likewise, the l^loman writer of the first clause would self-censor her Ietter so that it would be certain to gain the approval of her husband. If the colrespondence l^,as indeed between 1¡omen in the community, both women would have to gain their husbands' approval for their letters, making the correspondence doubly mediated by men. I f in addition the other name on the letter l/Vas meant to be the husbands', the interchange becomes one of two mal-e-dominated couples' Regardless, the council's strictures act to remove the private 65 contentfromlheseWomen,sletterSandtoplacetheWomen further at their husbands' mercY ' The cterics describe the letters the uJomen are l^lliting as ( peacemaking Ietters). This label could "litteras. . .oaciflicas" characterize the letters as general epistles within the are community of faith.32 This would indicate that the trìromen goodlrtill mere}y engaging in f riendly letter-u,riting, exchanging with others in the church. An understanding of the counciÌ's disapprovaloftheprivacyofsuchletterswouldhavetobe based on their opposition to uJomen's independent action' especiallY when secret. Anotherinterpretation,whichdrawsUponthec].erics, elimination of their private content, impties that the ì/ì'omen WeIleusingtheircolrespondencetodevelopadulterous contacts.fl This view helps to explain the canon's assumption that these literate llomen all have husbands , and elari I'ies trlhy in the husbands' apploval ulhich must be solicited ' An interest preservingconjugalfiderityismanifestthroughoutthecanons concerning issues of adultery. considering, howevel' the firmness of the council's opposition to adultery and the 43' strength of some of their outbursts (e'g" canons 3' 35' S2atexander Soutet, A Glossar oï Laler Latin to 600 A. D. rr e is U aerl (oxford: c Pr ess, 194 s.v. ac f cae larendon Ecc CS ae citing ex ampJ-es of usage fo und in Turner, (0xflord, 1 B 99 193 ); Occidentali s l'40numenta Iuris Anti uissima - c Jerome E p S ulae .4 .1 this 33nefete ( HistorY ,172) cites Mendoza has holding view. 66 and 47), the Word "pacificas" SeemS an unlil. statement rrne feminae... audeant" (lrlomen shal I not presume ) undercuts the interpretation of the canon as an afterthought. The mannel in which this statement is phrased betrays the council- 's emotionaL involvement in the issue . The di fference bettryeen the Iemaining tlto positions is the degree of surety ascribed to the clerics. The text could be read as an example of the council's Iealization of the tenuousness of their authority, oI of the depth to t¡lhich they bel-ieve they can .67 regulate private affairs. The lack of hesitation in the pronouncement of this canon and the general surety of the canons relating to trvomen favors the latter reading. Thus canon B1 should most 1ike1y be read as a confident final statement in line with the council's overall intention of gaining control over uJomen's independent activities. Canon B1 shows that rlromen in the community of the council of Elvira aIe writing letteIS. The dominant manuscript tradition for the canon support the reading that the !!omen in the first clause are writing to other !!omen. Ifl trrlomen aIe writing letters to other vvomen, then it is quite Iikely that at least some of the senders referred to in the second half of the canon are Women. The juxtaposition of these two statements reinflorces the notion that the same tnlomen are involved in both parts. Correspondence betu¡een tntomen implies a network of some sort among the r!omen of the Christian community. These Christian rrrromen l ( L CHAPTER V A ¡'IOMEN,S COMMUNITY? lnlomen in the eommunity ofl the Council of Elvira are acting both collectivety and independently. They are repeatedly gathering together in cemeteries at night, most .likely to perform ritualistic pract,ices apart from men. They aIe also corresponding with each other by letters which are unmediated by men. The tnlomen in these canons are interacting regularly in an organized and public mannel, thus demonstrating all of the characteristics necessary for a community. Like any eommunity, thÍs group has its defining boundaries; the members of this community are alL women and are aIl Christian. The council's designation of the offending group as simply t'y¡omenr' (r'feminaett) shows that they have not identified these Women aS r'0ther.rr This manner of naming includes the rrvomen in the community rather than addressing them as something aparl from it. Furthermore, if the council did not consider these trvomen to be part of the community of faith, they would not have tried to legislate their behavior. Certainly if the council had been arlvare of non-Christian participation in these tlvomen's activities, they would have commented about it since it obstructs their primary concern to define the boundaries of the eommunity of flaith. 69 70 The council does not perceive these tnlomen as a unified group. The separation of canons 35 and B1 indicates that these cases arose independently and l^Jere not associated together by the clerics. If the council had identified the h,omen engaged in these activities as a corporate whole, they lrlould have responded to the lhreat as a single issue, rather than as Separate issues. The Separation of these canons does not indicate that these activities tnrele conducted by disparate groupS of tl\,omen. The f ree-f orm program of the counciL meant that topics tnrere discussed as they lrtere raised, and that an issue might come Up more than once as the council plogressed (e.g. adultery, canons 7ff. and 63ff .). The separation betu¡een canons 35 and B1 thus indicates that the council- h,as not addressing an identified threat, but two threatening activities which stilt may have been conducted by some of the same vvomen. This community of women slrould be viewed as a sub-group to the Christian community at large. Although the clerics perceive these tnlomen as a threat to theil ovvn authority, they do not view them as a subversive eLement in the Church' The activities that these rlvomen are engaging in are not aimed at undermining the Church, merely at acting independently within it. The letters that they aIe writing aIe described as 'rletters ofl peace,rr a description which could even connote letters of faith. These hiomen remain within the boundaries ofl the Christian community, but chose to act independently of men within it. 71 The Council of Elvira Was conVened to respond to changes brought on by the cessation of persecution, not to address the subject of independent tnromen particuLarly. The plimaly agenda of the council 11,as to define the boundaries of the Christian community. This definition included a demarcation of pIopeI Christian behavior and proper clerical behavior. By assuming the ro le o f defliners for the community, the clerics invested themselves with authority over it. Because theil ovvn identity as elite rnras implicÍt in their definition, the clerics felt threatened by any challenge i-o it. By acting of theil otnln initiative and independent of all men, the rnromen in the community threatened the clerics' authority over them. Neither the clerics themselves, nor their agents, the husbands, had granted these tnlomen pelmi ssion to engage in these activities. The men rltere unaware of both the specific content of the tnromen's l-etters and the nature of their vigils in the cemeteries. By acting outside of the cleric's authority the rlr1omen threatened the clergy's definilion. The council responds by prohibiting the tnlomen's independent collective action (canons 35 and B1) and by establishing conlrol over individual rnromen through the inslitution of marriage. The clerics view the marital relationship as one in which the husband monitors his tlife's moral conduct. Through the husband, the council is able to exercise a certain degree of control over individual women. This control is evidenced by their manipulation of marliage with respect to knowledge of 72 adultery and the admission of young male sexuaL offenders and prostitutes to the community. The canons against adultery are simpJ-y attempts to preserve marriages that they can control. Likewise the prohibitions against trrlomen intermarrying are designed lo make sure that the tnlomen will have Christian husbands who will be subject to the council's authority. Since the canons are our only information regarding this Christian community, there is no tnray of knowing whether or not they 1aere obeyed. Regardless of the clerics' success or failure in their attempt to restrict these activities ofl these L{omen, a Small piece of Women'S history has been recovered. l¡lhether this story is viewed negatively as an act of patriarchal oppression or positively as an instance in which tnromen found a mode of independent expression and community' it stitl contributes to our knowledge of rnromen's past experience. Remembering the struggle ofl these unnamed truomen in the community of the Council of Elvira, trvomen today can be empotnrered in their continuing struggle against patriarchal oppression. 'rttË c.4NoNs (7 3) Appcndir Can. 4. Again, flanrines who rrc catccl¡trnrcns ancl rvlro h:rvc rcirainc ðon.5.lf a worn¡n ovcrcon'rc rvith ragc rvhi¡rs hcr nreiclscrvant so lrarlli' CANONS th:rt shc dics u,ithin thrcc days, and it is doubtiul rvl¡cthcr shc killcd hcr rHE on purposc or by accicJcnt: ¡rrovidcd that ¡hc rcc¡uired pcnancc hrs [,ccn From Laeuchli, Samuel. Porryer and Sexualit donc, shc shall be readlnitted aftcr sclcn ¡'cars, if it ç'as donc ¡rrrr¡;osclt'. and aftcr 6r'c ycars if accidcntally; in thc cvcnt th:rt shc lrcco¡rrcs ill .luring The Emer ence o f Canon Laut an he S nod of n thc sct timc, le t hcr rcccilc colr¡nunion. Elvira. Philade P a: Temple Univers v Ptess, 1972. Can.6.lf anyonc kills ¡¡nothcr by sorccry, corlr:runion is not ro bc ¡¡ivcn to hi¡n evcn 3t thc encl, sincc Ìrc coulcl not hevc :rcconr¡rlishctl crinlc The critical cditic¡¡r of the Canons of Elvir:r, er¡¡rounced severll years this rvithout id<-rlarry. ago, has not yet bcen published. My rranslarion, rvhich artcnrprs to kccp thc charactcr of the primirive Larin origirral, is based prinrarily Can.7. If onc of ¡hc f¡irhful, afrcr a scxual offcnsc and aftcr rhc requircd on thc l{cfclc texr in its French, Leclercq fornr, rvhich goes back to pcriod of pcnancc, should again conrmit fornicarion, hc shall nor lr3\'c Gonzalez. Thc nerv Spanish text, J. Vives, 1'. lr,farrin, and G. Mar- conrnrunion evcn ¡tt the end. tincz, Concilios uisígoticos c hisp,tno-rorrttt,ros (iìercelone and À,fa- Can.8. Again, wonrcn rvho, rvithorrt :rny prcccding causc, leave thcir hus- drid, 1963) vol. does nor l, offer ¡ criric¡l arraly,sis of rhe ¡'a¡rtrscri¡:rs l:ands and takc up rvith orher nìen arc not to rcccivc commr¡nion cvcn 3t and does not sufficc as a b¡sis for research. the cnd. Cun, 9. Furthcr, a baptizccl \r,on'ìan rvho lcavcs hcr atJulrcror¡s ll:rptized husband and nrarrics aÁothcr is forbiddcn ro merry hirn; if shc dcrs shc Can- I. It is dccidcd rhar anyonc of a nr¡rure egc, rvho, afrcr fairh thc shall not receilc conr¡nunion unril thc dcath of her fc.¡rnrer husbantl un- of saving baptism, approachcs a remple as an itj.later and cclnr'rirs rhis lcss, by chancc, the ¡rressurc of iilncss dcmand rhet it bc giten. major crimc, bccause it is an cnornrity of rhc highcst orrJcr, is nor to re- ccivc communion even at rhe end- Can. l0.lf a u'oman who has bccn dcscrted by hcr catechurncn husìrantl marrics ¡nothcr man, shc nray bc adnrittcd to thc font of brptisnr: this Can.2. Flanrincs rvho, after ¡hc fairh of font and re¡;cneralion, have src- also a¡rplics to female crtechumcns. ilr¡¡ if ¡hc nrrn s'ho lc¡r'cs thc inno- ri6ccd, sincc thcy have thcreby doublccl rheir crirnes by adcling rnrrrdcr, ccnt wom:ln m¡rrics ¡ Chrisrian rvonr¡n, antl this \\'onìin knerv hc h:r.l or cvcn triplcd thcir cvil dced by including sexual <.¡ffcnse, arc nor ro a rvifc rvho¡¡r hc had lcft u'ithout c¡usc, conìr'rìunion rlay l>c gitcn to hcr ¡cccivc communion cvcn at thc cnd- at dcath. Can. l. At thc samc tirne, fl¡nrines wht¡ havc not :rctuelly slcriGccrl lrut Can. Il.lf that fcnralc caicchumcn should grorv scriorrsly ill rlr¡ri¡rt rhc simply pcrformcd rheir function may, sincc rhcy her.c reirai¡rcd fr<.¡¡rr Êvc-¡'car pcriod, ba¡;tisnr is not to bc dcnicd hcr. thc dcadly sacrificcs, bc offcrcd communion at thc end, ¡rrotidcc.l rhat thc rcquircd pcnancc has bccn clc¡nc. If, hor+.cvcr, ¡frer ¡hc ¡rcnancc thcy Can. ]2. A mothcr or fcmale guarclian or any Chrisri¡n rr'o¡na¡l rlh<: cn- commit ¡ scxual offcnse, ir i¡ Can.36. Thcrc shall bc no picturcs in churchcs, lcst *'hat is rvorshippcd tlirl nr'r Can.45.As f<¡r onc u'ho rv:¡s:r cetcchtt¡llc¡l lrttl fr¡r a lt'trq tirnc ¡¡<¡ and ¡ Can.3E. On thc occasion of a trip or if a church is not ncar, a beptizcd Oitcn. can.47.lf e be¡tizcd ¡D¡rricrl ¡¡l:in clr¡¡ltrlits.r.hrìtcr¡" ,,.-,, a,n.a lrr:t Christian u'ho has kcpt his baptism intact and rvho is not married a sec- (t(¡lr' c(ìlll- hc is rr¡ Ix:r¡l¡t¡¡¡;1ç11¿,1 et rllc ht'ttr t¡f tlt:rth' ll hc ¡trlrllti't's l() ond rinrc can baptizc a catechumcn rvho is critically ill, rs long es hc takcs l'r¡r¡io' rh"il-lr" gilc' lrirtr; ii lrc slr.nrl.l r(c(,\('r;ttl,l c,'lll¡lri( r'lrlltc¡l' him ro rhc bisho¡r if hc survivcs, so th3t it crn bc conr¡rlctcd throtrgh tlrc :lgiin, lìc sh:rll nctcrnrtlrc llrrkc:t ¡l¡ockc¡)'r'l tlrc (()lll¡ìlrllli()lì rrl ¡rr"tr-c' laying on of hands. '130' 'lìl' l.rrrj (-.rÀ'r)I.S (76) , I'I'1.: N I) I X l in a rvorldly feshi<,n,:rntl if rhcy tto so' thcy :rrc t() lìc kcpt can.48.The cusron.¡ of placing coiDs in the ba¡irisnr:rl shcll by thosc lxin¡¡ ¡rroccssion :rrvey fi..,r thrcc ycars. baptizccl must bc corr.irc,J so rh:¡t thc pricst tlocs not scc¡ìì to scll for hc has reccivcd frccly. Nor sh:rll rhcir fcct bc rvashctl 5y rvhcrc tllc n.,ån.y wh¡r c,tn. 58. Wc l¡:rvc rcs()lvc(l th,tt cvcrl,rvlrcrc, ltr.l cs¡rccirlly pricsts <.rr clcrics. cst:rlllisltctl, thosc rvho prcscnt- lcttcrs ¡rrinci¡r:rl c¡risco¡r:rl ch¡ir h¡s bccn rvhcthcr cvcf is o[ ct¡mnruni<.rn sh¡ll lrc intcrrogltcd to dctcrnrinc )tlìinü allow thc crr.r¡rs, which rhcy hr\¡c can.lg.Lanclholdcrs arc warned nor ro vcri6ccl by tlicir tcstimonY. lcst rçccivcd from God u,irh an :rct of rhanksgiving, to bc blcsscd by fcws wcak. If enyonc darcs to do ¡his rh.y -rk. our blcssing incfiecrual and Can.59.ftisf<.¡rbitltlcnf<-'r:rny(lhristient(JSorri)tt'rhcitlc'lofthcc:r¡titOl' church conr¡rlctcly. <-l<''cs' hc is grrilty of ¡frc, rhc prohibition, hi shall l¡c rhrorvn out r¡f rhc *, prg"n clæs in ordcr to,r.,iñte, hc "nti '*'tith''Ii cotì- ,h","ri" cri¡Dc. lf hc rv¡s b:rPtiz-ctl, lrc rtray bc rcccivctl' hevirrg of rhc clcrgy or rhc fairhful eats rvith Jcrvs, lrc shall tx kcpt tcn can.50.lf any ¡rlctccJ his l)cn:r¡'rcc, a[tcr ¡'c:rrs. from communion in ordcr tha¡ hc bc corrccrcd es hc shoultl' w:ts lo Cun. 60.1f sol¡et¡nc h¡s llrokcn itlols entl on th¡t lcc()r¡nt Iìr¡t is in thc (ìos¡rc1 n or tlc:rcon by rcctrsing thclrr Can.67.lt is fo¡bi l¡c rtrtl¡incd tlclcon, llld eitcr\',rrtls Can.68. Â catcchumen, if shc has conccived a chilcl in edultcry and thcn can.76.lf so¡ì.lcc)nc alltlrvs hinrsclf to hc h:i.l co¡nnrittcd:rt onc tirlrc: ii suffoca¡cd it, shall bc baptizcd ar thc cnd. is disc<¡vcrccl in a rnorr¡l crintc, $,lrich hc confcssc Can.71. A falsc witncss sincc hc has committed a crimc sltell bc kcpt away; but if what hc brought about did not lcad to dcath and he has ex- plaincd satisfactorily rvhy hc did nor kecp silent, hc shall bc kcpt away ' 13't ' ' l.i5 SOURCES CONSULTED Almagro, Ma rtín. Las Necró olis de Am UI]AS . Vol. II, Necrópolis Romanas Necr olis In enas. Barce ona: Co nsejo Superior de Inves gaciones entif cas, 1955. Altamita, Rafael . A Histor of S ain: Frorn the Be ].nnln s to the Present DqY . Trans at,ed by Muna Lee. New ork: D. Van Nostrand Co. , 1949 . Arce, Javier. E1 Ultimo Si 1o de la Es aña Romana: 284-4O9 . lnladrid: Alianza E oriaJ-, 19 BaIsdon, J .P.V.D. Life and Leisure in Ancient Rome. New York: McGr a rru-Hill Boo Company, 969. Roman l¡Jom en Their Histor and Habits. London: The Bod ley Hea ,1962. Barnes, TimothY D avid. The New Em lIe of Diocletian and Constantine. Cambridge: Harvard Univers y Press, 19 82. 1976 - Bendala, M Las Necrópolis Romana de Carmona. Sevil-1a , Brooten, Bernadette J. "Early Chris!i9n l^lomen and Th eir CulturaL CoÁtext: Issues of Method in Historical Reconst ruction.rr Ïn Feminist Pers ectives on Biblical Schola rshi ed. Adel-a ar ro Co ñs, 65-91 . Pu licat on o the Socie ty of Biblicat Literature. Chico, CA: Schol-ars Press, 1985 . Carcopino, Jérôme. Dail Life in Ancient Rome: The Cit and the Peo le at the e1 ht o eEm re. Translate by E. 0 Lor mer. evv Haven: a1e Un versi by Press , 1940. Chadwick, Henry. I'Conversion in Constantine the Great. " In Re 1i ious Motivation: Bio IA hical and Sociolo ical Problems for t,he urch HS oIlan 1-13. 0xford, 1 7 "The Sorcerer's Apprentice. " Chap. in Priscillian of Av.ila: The 0ccu lt a nd the Charismatic in the Earl Church, 1-20. xf ord: arendon Press, 1976. Cl ark, ELizabeth A. hlomen in bhe Earl Church. Message of the Fathers of the Churc eries. m ngton, DE: Michael Glazier, Inc. , 1987 . 7B 79 CIarke, G.W. rrProsoPograPhical Notes on the Epistles of CyPrian. I. The SPanish BishoPs of EpistJ-e 67.1' Latomu s 3O/ 4 (197 1) z 1141-44. CowelI, f. R. Ever da Life in Ancient Rome. London: B. T Bats ford Ltd., New York: G. P. u tnam s Sons, 1961 . In Crombie, F. " IntroductorY Note to the Shepherd of Hermas." Ante-Nicene Fathers: Translations ofl the Fathers Down to A. D. 25 vol. II , €d. Al-exan der Roberts and James Donaldson, 3-B Grand Rapids, MI: t¡Jm. B. Eerdmans Publishing CompâñV, 197 1 . 17 (1967)l Crook, John A "Patria Potestas. " Classical Quarlertv 113-122. Dale, Alf red t¡Jiltiam tnjintersl-ow. The S nod ofl Elvira and Christian Life in the Fourth Cen UT AH S OT cal Essa Lon on: acM an and Co., 1B De Clercq, Victor C 0ssius of Cordova: A Contribution to the Histor of the Constantinian Per iod. tlr/ashington, D. C Ca o c Univers v ress , 195 Review of Po rnler and Sexualil , by Samuel Laeuchli. In Vioil iae Christianae 29 197 5 75-17. Fiorenza, Elisabeth Sc hüssler Bread not Stone: The Challen e ofl Feminist Biblical I ntero retat on. oston: Beacon Press, 1984. " Rememb ering th e Past in Creating the Future: Histo rical-C ritical Scholarship an d Feminist Biblical Inler pretati on.tr In Feminist Pers ectives on Biblica l_ Schol arshi ed. Ade a Yar ro Co îs r 43-63. Pu ication o f the S oc e v of Biblical Literature. Chico, CA: Scholars Press , 1985. García de Valdeavetlano y Arcimís, Luis ' Historia de Es ana 4th ed. VoI.1, Pt. 1, De los 0rí enes a la Ba aE ad Med a Madrid: Revista d e 0cc en e, 1968 García Moteno, Luis A. rrLa Cristianización d e ]a Topographía de las Ciudades de 1a Antiguedad Tardía'" Archivo Español de Arqueotoqia 50- 1 (1977 -B) z 311-21 ' c Vol. García V aña. I, Ma rid: Com BO VillosJ-ada, Ricardo, ed. La Historia de la I lesia en García tr.^ Es ana. Vol. I La I lesia en ^d LJ aña Romana Visi oda S oS I-VIII t by Manuel- So omayor y Muro. Madrid: Biblioteca e Autores Cristianos, 1979. Gardner, Jane F Women i n Roman Law and Societ Bloomington, IN: Indiana Un ivers y Press, 1 Gaudemet, Jean. "Les f ormes anci en nes de I 'excommunication. " Revue de Sciences Re 1i ieuses 83 (tg4 9) | 64-77; reprinted as Ar cl-e XVI n La Soci t Ecc 1ésiasti ue dans 1'0ccident Médiéval , London: Var orum RePr n s, 1 980. Gonzalez Rivas, Severino. La Peniten cia en la Primitiva I lesia E sp año.þ. Sal-amanca: Conse o Super OT e Inves gac ones Cienti ficas, Instituto "San Raimundo de Pe ñafort, " 1949. Grigg, Robert. "Aniconic WorshiP and the Apolegetic TradÍtion: A Note on Ca non 36 of the Cou ncil of Elvita." Church HistorY 45 (197 6) z 428-33. l¡lome n Hallett, Judith P Fathers and Dau hters in Roman Societ and the Elit e Fam Prince on: Princeton Un versity Press, Hefele, Charles JoseP h. Histoire des Conciles d'a rés Les Documents 0ri r-naux , Vol. I . Translate v Leclercq. Paris: Le ouze y et Ané, 19O7. Christian Councils From the Ori inal A Histor of the É Documents to e Close o e Counc o Nicea A. D. l , Vol. I. Translated bY liam R. ark. Edinburg ï. & T C1ark, 1894; rePrint, New York: AMS Ptess , 1972, Hess, Hamilt on. The Canons of the Council of Sardica A.D. 343| A Landmark in t e evelo men o Canon Law. 0xflord: C arendon ress , 1958. Hughes, J. J. Review of Power and Sexualit by Samuel LaeuchIi. ( . In Journal of Eccle S astica S ory 25 .lut y 197 4) z 328-29 Johnston, Harold Whetstone. The Private Life of the Romans. Revi sed by MarY Johnston. Neu,l York: Cooper Square Publications , 1973. Keay, s. J. Roman spain. Berkeley: university of california Press, 1 9BB. Knapp, Robert C Roman Córdoba. Berkeley: University of California Plãss;-1eEl. B1 Laeuchli, Samu et. Power and Sexualit The Emer ence of Canon Law and the S no o Elvira. P a elphia: Temp e Un versity Press, 1972. Lerner, Gerda. The Crea tion of Patriarch New York and 0xford: 0xford Univers y Press, 1986. Lewis, Naphtali and l'4eyer Reinhold eds. Roman Civi Iization Sourcebook II: The ,Empire. Netrl' York: Harper an Rotlv, 1966. MacMullen, Ramsey. Christianizin the Roman Em -rre A. D. 1 00- 400. New Haven and Lon oñ, 1984 . 50-650 MariQue r Joseph M.F., ed. Leaders of Iberean Christianit A.D Boston: St. Paul Edit ons, 1 62. McKenna, Stephen. Pa anism and Pa an Survivals in S a1n u to the Fal-1 ofl bhe V S o c Kin dom isserta on. ashington, .C.: Ca o nivers yo merica, 1938. McLaughIin, Eleanor. rrThe Christian Past: Does It Hold a Future flor llrJomen?'r In [lrJoman s irit Risin A Feminist, Reader in Reliqion, eds. Caro Clrrist an u ith Plas owt 3- 146 . San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1979. Menéndez Pidal, Ramón. Historia de EsPaña. Rev. ed. Edited by José MarÍa Jover Zamora. Vol. II. Madrid: Espasa-Calpe, 1982. Mortimer, R. C. "The Council of Elvira." In The 0riqins of Private Penance in the l¡lestern Church , 45-59. 0x flord : Clarendon Press, 1939 Au 0gilvie, R. M . The Romans and Their Gods in the A e of ustus New York : W. . Norton & Company, 1969 . Oppenheimer, He1en. Review of Power and Sexualit by Samuel Laeuchli. In Journal of Theoloq ca u ies 25 ( october 1974): 524-25. PaIol, Pedro de. Ar ueolo ia Cristiana de Ia Es aña Romana Siqlos IV-VI. Madri Consejo Super OT e Investigac ones Científicas Instituto Enrique FI6tez, 1967. ' Pelikan, Jaroslav. The Sha e of Death: Life Death and Immortalit v ].n e Earlv Fa ers. New Yor ngdon Ptess, 1961. and Equestian Govenors in the Third Peterson, l-lans. "senatorial (1955): CenturY A. D . " Journal of Roman Studies 45 47-57. B2 Porneroy, Sarah B. Goddesses l¡rjhores lrlives and Slaves: ll,Jomen in Classical Antioui'tv. Net¡l Yor c ocken Books , 197 6 . rrThe Relationship of the Marr 1e d Ìnloman to Her Blood Re atives in Rome.I' Ancient Societ 7 (1976) z 215-27. Rush , Al fred C . Death and Burial in Christian Anti uit lnlashington, D. athol ic Un VCTS y of America Press, 1941. Schoedel, tnl. R Review of Power and Sexuality, bY Samuel Laeuchli. In Church ¡istorv a¡ (sè þtember 197 4) z IBB-89. Sehroedet, H . J. Ul-sC1 linar Decrees of the General Councils: Text Translation an omme nt ar St. Lou s, : B. Herder Book Company, 3 Shelton, Jo-Ann. As the Romans Did: A Source Book in Roman Social Historv. N etltl York an d 0xford: 0xflord Un iversity Press, 1 988. Thomas, J. A. C, The Institutes of Justinian: Text Translation and Comment a r y. Amster am: or h-Holland Pu S ñ9, 1975. . Textbook of Roman Law. Amsterdam: North-Holland Publi shing Company, 1976. Toynbee , J. M. C Death and Burial in the Roman ürlorId. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 197 1 . Treggiari, S. and S. D orken (0ttawa). "women l^lith Two Living Husbands in CIL 6 . " Liveroool Classical Monthly 6 (1981): 269 -72. Turabi an , Kate L. A Manuel f or lrlriters o f Term Pa els Theses and Dissertations. 5 ô . Revised and expan e v onnle Birtwistle Honigsblum. Chicago: Universi'by of Chicago Press, 1987 . Iurner, C. H. "0ssius ( Hosius ) of Cordova. " Journal of Theoloqical Studies 12 ( lgt t ): 275-77. Van Nostrand, J. J. "Roman SP ain." In An Economic Surve of Ancient Roman, ed. Tenney Frank, vo1. III' 119-224. Baltimore: John Hopkins Press, 1937 . Vega, Ang el Custodio. El Primado Romano la I lesia Es añola en los Siele Primeros Si los. Escor a mprenta del Monas er o, 1942. Vives, José. Concilios Visi óticos e His ano -Romano s . Barcel-ona: Consejo Super OI e Investigac ones en ficas, Instituto Enrique FI6tez, 1963. 83 ( c10 s Cristianas la Es a aR . Inscri a Vis iqoda. Barce ona: Conse o uper or e nves gac l0nes Cientí ficas , Bibliotecario de 1a Biblioteca Balmes, 1942. lrlatson, Alan. The Law of the Ancient Romans. DaIlas: Southern Methodist Univers ity Press, 1970. WelIs, Colin. The Roman Empire. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1984. (ccn ord¡ine