INFORMATION TO USERS

This manuscript has been reproduced from the microrilm master. UMI films the text directly from the original or copy submitted. Thus, some thesis and dissertation copies are in typewriter face, while others may be from any type of computer printer.

The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and photographs, print bleedthrough, substandard margins, and improper alignment can adversely afreet reproduction.

In the unlikely event that the author did not send UMI a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion.

Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are reproduced by sectioning the original, beginning at the upper left-hand comer and continuing from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. Each original is also photographed in one exposure and is included in reduced form at the back of the book.

Photographs included in the original manuscript have been reproduced xerographically in this copy. Higher quality 6" x 9" black and white photographic prints are available for any photographs or illustrations appearing in this copy for an additional charge. Contact UMI directly to order.

UMI University Microfilms International A Bell & Howell Information Company 300 North Zeeb Road. Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346 USA 313/761-4700 800/521-0600

Order Number 9427765

Urban family structure in late antiquity as evidenced by John Chrysostom

O'Roark, Douglaa Alan, Ph.D.

The Ohio State University, 1994

Copyright ©1994 by O'Roark, Douglas Alan. All ri^ ts reserved.

UMI 300 N. Zeeb Rd. Ann Arbor, MI 48106

URBAN FAMILY STRUCTURE IN LATE ANTIQUITY AS EVIDENCED BY JOHN CHRYSOSTOM

DISSERTATION

Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University

by

Douglas Alan O'Roark, B.A., M.A.

*****

The Ohio State University 1994

Dissertation Committee: Approved by T. E. Gregory ^ ^ / O J.Baker Advise^/' J. Lynch Department of Histc Copyright by Douglas Alan O'Roark 1994 To My Mother and Father Separately, My Sons Maxwell and Grayson Equdly, and My Wife Kelly Especially. Vita

April 2, 1963 ...... Bom - Winston-Salem, N.C.

1986 ...... B.A., The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio

1989...... M.A., The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio

1994...... Assistant Professor of History, Mesa State College, Grand Junction, Colorado

FIELDS OF STUDY

Major Field: History

111 TABLE OF CONTENTS

DEDICATION...... ii

VITA...... iii

ABBREVIATIONS...... vi

CHAPTER PAGE

I. INTRODUCTION...... 1

Family Studies ...... 2 Roman Family ...... 4 Late Antiquity ...... 6 The Evidence of Chrysostom...... 8 Methodology...... 13 n. ROMAN MARRIAGE ...... 17

Marital Purpose and Form ...... 18 Legal Requirements...... 19 The Augustan Legislation on M arriage...... 22 Marriage Arrangements...... 24 D owry...... 25 Ceremony ...... 27 Roman Husbands and W ives ...... 27 Divorce and Remarriage...... 30 m . MARITAL ARRANGEMENTS DELATE ANTIQUITY...... 33

Purpose...... 34 Legal Requirements...... 37 Creating a M arriage...... 39 Age at First Marriage...... 48 iv Engagement...... 52 Dowry...... 59 Ceremony ...... 75

IV. HUSBANDS AND WIVES ...... 82

Roles...... 83 Marital Relationships ...... 98 Household...... I l l Divorce and Remarriage...... 120

V. FAMILY PLANNING...... 126

Family Planning and Infant Mortality in Classical Antiquity 127 Family Planning and Infant Mortality in Late Antiquity ...... 132 The Evidence of Chrysostom...... 136 Abortion and Abandonment ...... 146

VI. PARENTHOOD...... 152

Fatherhood in Classical Rom e...... 152 Fatherhood in Late Antiquity ...... 157 Motherhood in Classical R om...... e 168 Motherhood in Late Antiquity...... 170

Vn. CHILDHOOD: SONS AND DAUGHTERS...... 180

Children at P lay ...... 180 Education...... 182 Sons ...... 189 Coming of A g e...... 190 Young M en...... 194 Daughters...... 197

CONCLUSION ...... 199

BIBLIOGRAPHY...... 205 ABBREVIATIONS

Cod. Th ...... Codex Theodosianus

Dig...... Digest of Justinian

P.G...... J. P. Migne, Patrologia Graeca

VI Chapter I: Introduction

This dissertation examines family structure in the Eastern Roman Empire during the period of late antiquity. One of the principal objects of the dissertation is to determine the fundamental structure of the family unit (whether it was nuclear or extended), and to describe the relationships that existed between individual members of the family unit. In addition, this dissertation will examine the family in relation to the larger societal context of the fourth and fifth century.

A central issue of late antiquity is the concept of continuity/discontinuity, that is to say, to what extent the institutions of late antiquity can be seen as similar or dissimilar to the institutions of the classical world. The institution of marriage can be seen fundamentally as the creation of a new family. Therefore the first section of this dissertation is devoted to examining the arrangement and celebration of marriage, as well as the relationship between husbands and wives. In this section the second chapter presents a synthesis of the evidence for Roman marriage, and this is followed by two chapters on marriage and marital relationships in late antiquity.

In the second section, the roles of parents and children are examined and again a considerable amount of continuity is revealed within these individual roles and in the relationship between parents and children. In both sections the relationship between family and city is discussed and it is concluded that families continued to

maintain an open and participatory relationship with cities. The family unit is the

most essential unit of any society, and it is perhaps only through an examination of

family structure that one can establish at the most fundamental level, the social

context of any given culture. This dissertation establishes continuity in many of the

most essential familial institutions that comprised both late antique and classical

family structure. The significance of this continuity is relative to urban social

structure, sexuality, private life, and the influence of Christianity in the formative

period of the early church. The importance of achieving a greater understanding of

family structure and therefore social structure in late aniquity is also relevant to later

Byzantine social history, and the affects of urban transformation following the

seventh century.

Family Studies The field of family studies is a relatively new one and only since the

breakthrough scholarship of Philippe Aries have historians attempted to study the

family as a unit, in its societal context.’ General histories of the family are numerous but some of the most important ones include: T.K. Hareven, "The History of the Family as an Interdisciplinary Field," Journal o f Interdisciplinary History 2

(1971) 399-414; P. Laslett (ed.). Household and Family in Past Time (Cambridge

1972); L. Stone, The Family, Sex and Marriage in England, 1500-1800

‘ P. Aries, L'Enfant et la vie Familiale sous I'Anciene Régime (Paris, 1960); transi, by R. Baldick, Centuries of Childhood: A Social history of Family Life (N.Y. 1962). (Harmondsworth 1979). For the purposes of this dissertation I will follow P. Laslett and define the family unit as man, wife and children and the household as the coresiding group - kin, slaves, boarders, etc. all attached persons sharing the same domicile with the family.^ This is the prefered method for defining the domestic group in family studies as set forth in a methodological article published by Hammel and Laslett in 1974.^ The article offers other suggestions for the analysis and presentation of data in comparing household structures. Most of this methodology, however, is not applicable to an analysis of family structure in late antiquity due to the scarcity and limitations of the primary sources. An awareness of the family cycle as first discussed by G. Elder and expanded upon by T. Harevan is important to any study of family structure.'*

^ P. Laslett, "The Comparative History of Household and Family,"Journal of Social History 4(1970-71)75-87.

^ E.A. Hammel and P. Laslett, "Comparing Household Structure Over Time and Between Cultures," Comparative Studies in Society and History 16 (1974) 73-109. See also, T.K. Harevan, "The History of the Family as an Interdisciplinary Field,"Journal of Interdisciplinary History 2 (1971-72) 399-414; "The Family in Historical Perspective: the Developement of a New Field...," Geschicte und Gesellsche^ 1 (1975) 370-386; N.J. Smelser and S. Halpem, "The Historical Triangulation of Family, Economy, and Education," and; G.H. Elder, "Approaches to Social Change and the Family," in J. Demos and S. Boocock (eds.),Turning Points (Chicago, 1978).

■* G. Elder, "Family History and the Life Course," in T. Harevan (ed.) Transitions: The Family and the Life Course in Historical Perspective (N.Y. 1978); T. Harevan, "Cycles, Courses and Cohorts: Reflections on Theoretical and Methodological Approaches to the Historical Study of Family Developement," Journal of Social History 12 (1978-79) 97; "Hence, family and individual decisions affecting the timing of such tranitions as leaving home, entry into the labor force, marriage, setting up an independent household, childbearing, launching children from the home and widowhood are in turn affected by changing historical conditions. A major concern for historians, therefore is to investigate the synchronization of individual timing with the collective timing of the family unit as each changes within different societal and historical settings." Roman Family In the past, scholarship on the ancient family was either indirect or part of more general books on ancient society/ In 1968 W. K. Lacey published The Family in Classical Greece and this remains the standard work on the ancient Greek family.

A comparative study of Greek and Roman morality that touched upon some aspects of the family was written by W. den Boer, Private Morality in Greece and Rome,

(1979). Much of what has been written on the Roman family, however, has been based on Roman law. These are valuable studies but they tend to be one- dimensional in that they shed light on, for instance, Roman marriage laws but not necessarily Roman marriage.® There is often a difference between formal law and practical reality as Suzanne Dixon illustrated in her article on family finances in The

Family in Ancient Rome: New Perspectives, (1986). The prosopographical studies of Gelzer and Syme, among others, could be considered a type of Roman family scholarship though they are less concerned with social aspects than with political.^

Most of the scholarship on the Roman family, from necessity imposed by the

® For example, J.P.V.D. Balsdon,Romen Women, Their History and Habits (London, 1962); Life and Leisure in Ancient Rome (London, 1966); F.R. Cowell, Everyday life in Ancient Rome (Putnam, N.Y. 1961); O.A.W. Dilke, The Ancient Romans: How They Lived and Worked (Newton Abbott, 1975).

® P.E. Corbett, The Roman Law o f Marriage (Oxford, 1930); A. Watson, The Law of Persons in the Later Roman Republic (Oxford, 1967); Law of Succession in the Later Roman Republic (Oxford, 1971); J.A. Crook,Law and Life o f Rome (London, 1967).

’ M. Gelzer, Die Nobilitat der rdmischen Republik (Berlin, 1912); R. Syme, The Roman Revolution (Oxford, 1939). evidence, has focused on the aristocratic family. All of the contemporary literary

evidence was written by aristocrats and reflect their circumstances. Roman law

primarily concerned itself with the affairs of the upper class and it would be

impossible to guess to what extent Roman law affected the common Roman family.

Richard Sailer and Brent Shaw, however, have contributed to our knowledge of the

common Roman family by examining funerary inscriptions.® Another source of

evidence is domestic architecture and Yvon Thébert has examined urban house forms in Roman Africa for evidence of private life and the relationship between private and public space.®

Specific studies of the Roman family have recently been published. Beryl

Rawson edited a book of essays on the Roman family, in addition, Suzanne Dixon and Keith Bradley have published books on the Roman family.'® These books have focused on the abundant literary evidence (Cicero, etc.) for the period, and Bradley has made efficient use of funerary inscriptions as evidence. This scholarship has tended to be largely descriptive — describing the roles of different household members — but has also attempted to determine whether the concept of the "nuclear family" is a valid concept in the Roman period. In addition to these works, Susan

® R. Sailer and B. Shaw, "Tombstones and Roman Family Relations in the Principate: Civilians, Soldiers and Slaves," Journal of Roman Studies 74 (1984) 124-56.

® Yvon Thébert, "Private Life and Domestic Architecture in Roman Africa," in P. Veyne (ed.), A History of Private Life: From Pagan Rome to Byzantium Vol. 1 (Cambridge, Mass. 1987) 313-409.

B. Rawson (ed.). The Family in Ancient Rome: New Perspectives (Ithaca, N.Y. 1986); S. Dixon, The Roman Family (Baltimore and London, 1992); K. Bradley,Discovering the Roman Family (Oxford, 1991). Treggiari has published an exhaustive survey on Roman Marriage, and Beryl

Rawson has again served as editor for a collection of essays on marriage, divorce and children in ancient Rome." This scholarship has focused on the West (Rome) and the classical period of the Roman Republic and Empire, and is certainly important as a foundation for understanding the Roman family.

Late Antiquity

Brent Shaw wrote an article in 1987 examining the family in late antiquity based largely on the evidence of Augustine.'^ Shaw took the first step in examining family structure in this period but he confined his work to the West and primarily a description of the different roles of family members. He did not make a sustained attempt to place the family in an historical context. Peter Brown primarily utilizing hagiographical evidence and Evelyn Patlagean supplementing hagiography with epigraphical evidence have both written extensively on late antique society." Both have concluded that begining in the fourth century the literary evidence characterizes this period as one of sexual renunciation and a withdrawal from marriage. Patlagean has conjectured that urban families turned away from civic

" S. Treggiari, Roman Marriage (Oxford, 1991); B. Rawson (ed.). Marriage, Divorce, and Children in Ancient Rome (Oxford, 1991).

" B. Shaw, "The Family in Late Antiquity: the Experience of Augustine,"Past and Present 115(1987)3-51.

" Some of their scholarship includes: P. Brown, The Body and Society (N.Y. 1988); Religion and Society in the Age of Augustine (N.Y. 1972); E. Patlagean, Structure sociale, famille, chrétienté à Byzance (London, 1981); Pauvreté économique et pauvreté sociale à Byzance 4e-7e siècles (Paris, 1977). participation, and family structure in late antiquity became increasingly closed and isolationist.''* This theory is considered in the following pages and the evidence of

Chrysostom is evaluated relative to the scholarship of Patlagean.

Late antiquity was a period of change and this had an important impact on the family unit. In fact, as reflected in Judeo-Christian values, the core unit of Western society at this time developed some of its most fundamental characteristics.

Scholars agree that an important aspect of the changes in late antiquity was the transformation of cities.'® Classical cities were dominated by a landowning aristocracy; in form they were generally rectilinear, city blocks were divided by broad avenues and an open forum or marketplace was centrally located. Medieval cities (post 10th c.) by contrast, were controlled by mercantile interests and were characterized by narrow labyrinthine streets and crowded living conditions.

In Western Europe the ancient city virtually disappeared by the seventh century. In the Eastern Mediterranean, however, this transition was less cataclysmic, but no less significant. Roman imperial government continued at

Constantinople, the capital of the Eastern Roman Empire. The presence of this

'“Patlagean,Pauvreté, 126.

'®The scholarship on cities and continuity/discontinuity in late antiquity is abundant. See, for example: C. Foss, "Archaeology and the 'Twenty Cities' of Byzantine Asia,"American Journal of Archaeology 81 (1977) 469-486; G. Weiss, "Antike and Byzanz. Die Kontinuitat der Gessellschaftsstruker," Historische Zeitschrift 224 (1977) 529-560; A. Kazhdan and A. Cutler, "Continuity and Discontinuity in Byzantine History,"Byzantion 52 (1982) 429-478; J. Russell, "Transformations in Early Byzantine Urban Life: the Contributions and Limitations of Archaeological Evidence," in Seventeenth International Byzantine Congress: Major Papers, (La Rochelle, N.Y., 1986) 117-36; M. Angold, "The Shaping of the Byzantine City,"Byzantinische Forschungen 10 (1985) 1-37; H. Kennedy, "From Polis to Medina: Urban Change in Late Antique and Early Islamic Syria,"Past and Present 106 (1985) 3-27 and, "The Last Century of Byzantine Syria: A Reinterpretation,"Byzantinische Forschungen 10 (1985) 141-183. imperial administration meant greater stability in the short run but was also a

primary force in the transformation of the ancient world. The central government

and its bureaucracy placed an ever-increasing financial burden on the civic structure,

resulting in a societal disturbance that was as profound as it was gradual.'* Due to

the increasing financial demands of the imperial government, cities entered a

process of gradual deterioration, sometimes culminating in their near abandonment

in the seventh century. Contemporaries report that the wealthier upper classes in

order to escape burdensome tax obligations deserted the cities in large number. The

loss of this tax revenue resulted in severe cuts to municipal services. Civic

institutions such as baths, theaters, and fountains could no longer be maintained.

Public spaces such as streets and marketplaces were gradually encroached upon by

private housing. These and other factors resulted in the transformation of the

ancient city and provide the context for the present study.

The Evidence of Chrysostom This dissertation primarily examines the abundant writings of Saint John

Chrysostom as evidence for family structure in the Eastern Roman Empire during the period of late antiquity (4th-5th c.). Chrysostom spent his formative years in

Antioch where he studied under Libanius and gained a reputation as a skilled rhetorician. He was later promoted to the position of Patriarch of Constantinople

(398) where he became embroiled in political and theological controversy, lost favor

'* A.H.M. Jones, The Greek City from Alexander to Justinian (Oxford, 1940); The Cities of the Eastern Roman Provinces (Oxford, 1970); The Later Roman Empire (Oxford, 1964). and died in exile ca. 407. A Greek edition of his writings is compiled in sixteen

volumes of thePatrologia Graeca. There are several modem biographies of

Chiysostom, the standard work being the two volume biography of Johannes

Chrysostom Baur.*’ Chrysostom wrote many sermons discussing the social

problems of his time and some directly concerning the family (On The Education Of

Children). The sermons of Chrysostom were enormously popular'® and it is their

mass appeal that make them especially relevant to a study of late Roman society.

Chrysostom was the foremost spokesman for Christianity in this period and copies

of his treatises and sermons were circulated not only throughout the East but also in the West. Chrysostom enjoyed a reputation as being the greatest Christian orator of his time and this reputation was gained, in part, by his unique ability to conjure up vivid images of daily life and connect them with his larger themes. The writings of

Chrysostom can therefore be used as a unique source for examining the issues that affected a significant portion of late antique society. The dissertation will use the evidence of Chrysostom to establish the individual roles of members within the family and to characterize the relationship between household and city in late antique Antioch.

There are certain issues and limitations that must be considered in using the homilies and essays of Saint John Chrysostom as historical evidence for social structure. Antioch was a diverse city in the fourth century and Chrysostom wrote

Johannes Baur, Johannes Chrysostomos und Seine Zeit LAntiochen; IlrKonstantinople, 1930. Transi, by Gonzaga,John Chrysostom and His Time (Westminister, Md. 1959).

'®T. Gregory, Vox Populi (Columbus, 1979), p.47. 10

that the total population of Antioch was about two hundred thousand.'® In another

homily Chrysostom said that the number of poor in need of assistance within the city

of Antioch was one tenth of the total population, and that the Church provided

support for three thousand of these, which amounted to only a fifth of the total

indigent population.^® Therefore in a city of around two hundred thousand people

we must keep in mind that Chrysostom's audience comprised only a portion of the

total population, and would not have included other religous groups such as Jews

and pagans.

Obviously the people most familiar with the works of Chiysostom would have

been Christians, and he stated that the Christian population of Antioch numbered

one hundred thousand.^' If we accept this number, which we are almost forced to do

given the paucity of evidence, then we must further restrict it by class qualifications.

The congregation that Chrysostom regularly addressed was predominantly composed of the wealthier, educated classes.^ Chrysostom, in fact, sometimes refered to his audience as the "rich" and in comparison to the "poor" who were not present.^ Therefore the evidence of Chrysostom is especially relevant to a class of

^^Homilia in S. Ignatium Martyrem (PG 50, 593).

^^Homilia 66 in Matthaeum (PG 58, 630). This would calculate to a total population of 250,000. In the same place Chrysostom stated that the wealthy class also comprised ten percent of the total population.

Homilia 85 in Matthaeum (PG 58, 762).

MacMullen, "The Preacher's Audience (AD 350-400)," Journal of Theological Studies 40(1989) 503-511.

In epistulam ad Romanum homilia 24 (PG 60, 626); In epistulam ad Ephesians homilia 13 (PG 62, 96); Homilia 22 in Joannem (PG 59,138). 11

wealthy, Greek speaking, Christians. This class certainly would have comprised

most of the fourth century urban aristocracy in Antioch and much of the scholarship

on continuity/discontinuity and urban structure in late antiquity is relative to this

same class. There is another issue in regard to the writings of Chrysostom, that issue being

the transmission of the homilies themselves. It is not known for certain how often

Chrysostom preached. There are only about nine or ten of Chrysostom's works that

can be securely identified as the written version of a sermon as he delivered it. The

bulk of his works, including all the homilies on the New Testament as well as the

ones on Genesis, were probably sermons that he delivered and then were revised and

edited for publication.^ There is no reason to believe that either Chrysostom or his

stenographers would have radically and purposefully altered the content of the

originally spoken sermons.

The most important issue in using Chrysostom will be to recognize and

separate the theological and rhetorical elements in his writings from the elements

that reflect the social realities of fourth century Antioch. This dissertation concentrates on the reality of the events and issues that Chrysostom discussed more than his perception of them. For instance, Chrysostom inveighs against women wearing cosmetics and jeweliy in public. This could be used as evidence for a variety of issues but most essentially it is evidence that some late Roman women

^Johannes Baur, Johannes Chrysostomos und Seine Zeit LAntiochen. Transi, by M. Gonzaga, John Chrysostom and His Time Vol. 1: Antioch (Westminister, Md. 1959). 222-223. While this was probably the case Baur emphasises that there is no absolutely certain evidence that proves spoken sermons formed the basis for these homiletic commentaries. 12 wore jewelry and were seen in public.^ It is important to establish these fundamental characteristics if the larger picture of the family and society is to emerge. In establishing these fundamentals it does not matter why Chrysostom is against women wearing jewelry and so the problem of source bias is minimized.^

By first focusing on the actual events and issues that Chrysostom addressed and not how or why he addressed them, a fundamental pool of evidence can be established.

Only after this is done can the more theoretical issues be examined, such as the role of the wife in the family and in society. The most thorough modem biographer of

Saint John Chrysostom wrote the following.

His (Chysostom) eloquence was striking, above all, because of the wonderful symmetry and harmony of language, splendid richness of color, and intuitive art of building up images and comparisons, dazzling efficiency in the balancing of arguments, and magnificent climaxes; but above all an often overpowering and involved fulness of thought, of images and tones, rich, keen and bold fantasies, an outstanding memory and brilliant facility of expression. But above all he never floated in the clouds, but stood always on the firm ground of actuality, and spoke out of the fulness ofpractical experience of life

It is in the anecdotes that Chrysostom relates and in his use of examples from everyday life that the best evidence for family life can be found.

^ Contrary to Greek women in classical Athens but similar to Roman women in the Republic and Empire.

^®The context makes it clear he was talking about about respectable, married women and not prostitutes. It is possible that Chrysostom exagerrated the problem but even so it is clear that Late Roman women were seen in public, both with and without ornamentation.

J. Baur, transi, by Gonzaga, Vol 1, 223. My emphasis. 13

Methodology In researching this dissertation I have read hundreds of Chrysostom's homilies

and I have recorded the many instances in which he relayed some anecdote about

family life — fatherhood, motherhood, childhood. I then compiled all these

anecdotes and sorted them using a computer database program. This database was

surprising large, and by using the evidence of anecdotes and some of Chrysostom's

treatises on specific topics like education and how to choose a wife, I have been able

to describe the roles of family members and how they related to each other and the

city. In accepting these anecdotes as an accurate reflection of reality I have assumed

that the skill and effectiveness of Chrysostom as an orator — the fact that

Chrysostom was an effective orator even eontemporaries like Libanius admitted —

was in part due to his ability to communicate effectively. If we can assume that

Chrysostom was an effective communicator, then we can also assume that the

anecdotes he chose to illustrate his points were anecdotes that his audience could

understand and identify with. It would not make sense for Chrysostom ("Golden

mouth") to have gained a reputation as a brilliant orator if he were forever peppering

his sermons with anecdotes that were anaehronistic, and that nobody understood.

Therefore, I have accepted that the anecdotes of Chrysostom can be used as

historical evidence for family life in the fourth and fifth century.

In order to make the most effective use of this evidence, one must be widely read in the works of Chrysostom and one must not place too much significance on a solitary comment or an individual treatise. As stated earlier, I have read literally 14 hundreds of Chrysostom's homilies specifically searching through them for evidence of family and social structure. It has been my intention to describe family structure in late antique Antioch, primarily on the basis of this evidence. This is the first time, to my knowledge, that anyone has read such a large selection of Chrysostom's writings for the purpose of examining family structure in this period. More often scholars have chosen a selected few of Chrysostom's more famous works and used them as evidence for a particular point.

One of Chrysostom' s best known works is his treatiseOn Virginity and

Against Remarriage. It is in this treatise that Chrysostom makes his strongest case for women to remain virgins and to reject marriage. This treatise, taken alone, would seem to portray Chrysostom as staunchly opposed to marriage and a strong advocate for virginity. However when these ideas are placed in the broader context of the mass of his works, in which he expressed a far greater understanding of the value of marriage, then a different message from simple asceticism can be understood.

In another case, Peter Brown has stated that Chrysostom's ideal was the replacement of the ancient city by a community of Christian households, but that this did not take place until the sixth century.^® However in the homilies on the statues Chiysostom speaks repeatedly of a civic community that embraces all

Antiochenes, including Christians. Chrysostom even exhorts his congregation to be

Brown, T/ie Body and Society (N.Y., 1988), 320-21. "John's ideal of the Christian household as a lay monastery, closed against the profane world, excluded too much of the life of the city outside its walls. It had little impact at the time. Only with the decline of the cities in the course of the sixth century and the subsequent arrival of the muslim armies did John's ideal of the city come true: impoverishment and invasion, and not Christian preaching, silenced the ancient city." 15

better citizens of Antioch.^® Only by examining the broad spectrum of Chrysostom's

writings and not just those directly relevant to the family will an accurate picture of

late antique society emerge. Evelyn Patlagean has written extensively on the social structure of late

antiquity. Her contribution to the scholarship on social structure in late antiquity

and in the Byzantine world is profound. One of the important issues in regard to this

scholarship is that of sexual renunciation. Patlagean is convinced that there was a

significant decline in population during late antiquity, and that this decline

culminated in the seventh century. She therefore looks to sources such as

Chrysostom to find evidence for sexual renunciation which would help to explain

why there was a decline in population at this time. The specific approach of

Patlagean has been to examine some of the various works of the early Church

Fathers (among other sources of evidence) in order to find evidence that the

Christian Church actively preached sexual renunciation. This approach is very

different from the one that I have taken in examining the works of Chrysostom. I

have approached the evidence of Chrysostom for the purpose of describing family

structure, and the individual roles of family members, in the fourth century.

I am aware of the potential problem of placing too much historical emphasis

on the comments of one Christian orator. I am not proposing in this dissertation that my conclusions based on the evidence of Chrysostom should be accepted as the

reality of fourth century family structure. It is my intention only to present the

Ad populum Antiochenum homilia 2 (PG 49, 33-45). 16 evidence that Chrysostom seems to offer, and in some cases to discuss how that evidence relates to the current scholarship on social structure in late antiquity.

Scholarship on the Roman family has focused on the period of the Republic and early Empire. It has also tended to focus on the West (Rome), and has utilized primarily non-Christian sources. This dissertation will extend our knowledge of the

Roman family into late antiquity, focusing on the East and the writings of Saint John

Chrysostom. By examining the core unit of late antique society I also hope to reveal a new perspective on the historical issues of late antiquity. Chapter II: Roman Marriage

The Roman family has become a topic of great interest to Roman social historians and recently there has been considerable scholarship on the subject.' One of the central issues debated is whether the Roman family was "nuclear," comprised of the conjugal couple and their children, or "extended" and included grandparents, married brothers, and other kin. An important element in this debate is the nature of

Roman marriage, since marriage is, most essentially, the creation of a new family, and so it is necessary to examine briefly Roman marriage. The most recent and comprehensive book on Roman marriage was written by Susan Treggiari and published in 1991. The following description of Roman marriage relies heavily on

Treggiari's scholarship and is not meant to be a detailed study of Roman marriage; rather it is presented for comparative purposes and to establish a foundation for the following discussion of late Roman marriage.

' Some of the more important works are: The Family in Ancient Rome, B. Rawson (ed.), (Ithaca, N.Y. 1986); K. Bradley, Discovering the Roman Family (Oxford, 1991); Marriage, Divorce, and Children in Ancient Rome, B. Rawson (ed.), (Oxford, 1991); S. Dixon,The Roman Family (Baltimore and London, 1992).

17 18 Marital Purpose and Form Roman law reflected the belief of Roman society that the primary purpose of

marriage was for procreation of children.^ Roman society was also nearly

unanimous in its expectation that everyone should marry and produce children/ It

was the duty of Roman women to produce children for the state and it was the duty

of Roman men to maintain the family line and name/

In the early period of the Roman Republic there were two forms of marriage.

The more ancient of these two seems to bemanus marriage, in which the woman passed into the control of her new husband. The bride left her family of birth and was transferred from the authority of her father(patria potestas) and placed under the authority of her husband, just as if she had been adopted by him as a daughter.^

Her life and whatever property she brought to the marriage were completely at the disposal of her husband. A woman came into the manus of her husband if she lived with him for one uninterrupted year. She could avoid entering into hismanus by remaining absent from his household for three consecutive nights, and she would remain under the authority of her originalpater familias.^ There were two other methods by which a woman entered the manus of her husband; one was by an elaborate religious ritual (confarreatio), and the other was via coemptio, which was tantamount to a formal purchase. Coemptio may have been a legacy of an earlier

^S. Tteggiaii, Roman Marriage (Oxford, 1991), 11-13.

^ Treggiari, Roman Marriage, 83.

Treggiari, Roman Marriage, 84.

® J. A. Crook, Law and Life of Rome, 90 B.C. - A..D. 212, (Ithaca, N.Y. 1967), 103; A. Watson, Rome of the XII Tables: Persons and Propery, (Princeton, 1975), 17-18.

6rTieggiaii, Roman Marriage, 18-19. 19

Roman practice of purchasing brides but by the time of the Republic it was an

arcane legal formality, rarely practiced and purely symbolic/

The second form of marriage was marriagesine manu, in which the woman

did not enter the authority of her husband but rather remained under the authority of

her ownpaterfamilias or remained independent if she was sui iuris.^ This second

form of marriage,sine manu, became the dominant form of Roman marriage in the

Republic and Empire, though in the period of the Republic, marriage cum manu still

existed but became increasingly rare/ Scholars have been tempted to interpret this

early evolution of Roman marriage frommanus marriage to sine manus as a step

toward the "emancipation" of women. However, due to the problematic nature of legal sources and the fact that it was probably the families of the bride and groom rather than the bride herself who determined the marriage form, it is unlikely that the developement of sine manu marriage heralded a more independent status for women.'*’

Legal Requirements There were three legal requirements for a valid marriage (iustum matrimonium): capacity, age, and consent. Legal capacity (conubium) was a matter of social status and was different in various periods of Roman histoiy. The basic

’ Treggiari, Roman Marriage, 25-28; S. Dixon, The Roman Family, 73.

® Crook, Law and Life, 103.

’ Dixon, Roman Family, 73; Crook, Law and Life, 103.

"’Treggiari, Roman Marriage, 32-36; Crook, Law and Life, 104; see also, A.S. Gratwick, "Free or not so Free, Wives and Daughters in the Late Roman Republic," in Marriage and Property, E.M. Clark (ed.), (Aberdeen, 1984), 30-53. 20

requirement for legal capacity was that a person had to be a free citizen; slaves could

not enter into a legal marriage.”

In the period of the early Republic, until 445 B.C., plebians could not legally

marry patricians}^ Begining in 18 B.C. Augustan legislation imposed a series of

restrictions on Roman senators and their children, legally preventing them from

marrying certain types of Roman citizens. The Augustan legislation was complex

and marked for the first time an attempt on the part of Roman government to interfere seriously in Roman marital practices. This legislation — the Julian-Pappian laws — are important and will be considered in greater detail below.

Another aspect of legal capacity included rules of kindred and affinity.

Marriage was not permitted between brothers and sisters and only gradually was marriage allowed between second and eventually first cousins.”

The minimum legal age necessary to enter a valid marriage was generally held to be 12 years for girls and 14 years for boys.” Physical maturity was actually the determining factor; whether a girl or boy was physically mature enough to consummate the marriage.” Richard Sailer has conducted an epigraphic survey in

” J. Gardner,Women in Roman Law and Society (Bloomington and Indianapolis, 1986), 31.

'^Gardner, Roman Law, 32.

” Treggiari,Roman Marriage, 38 and 38 n. 4, "In AD 384 or 385 Theodosius prohibited marriage o f first cousins, but the ban was lifted in 405." Rules regarding marriage between kin were complex and variable, the reader is advised to consult P.E. Corbett, The Roman Law of Marriage (Oxford, 1930), 47ff.; for the Byzantine period, E. Patlagean,Pauvreté économique et pauvreté sociale à Byzance (Paris, 1977), 118ff.; see also J. Goody,The Development o f the Family and Marriage in Europe (Cambridge, 1983), 42-47, who argues that church policy on this issue reflected the financial interests of the church.

” Gardner,Roman Law, 38.

” Treggiari,Roman Marriage, 39-42; though consummation itself was not necessary to make a marriage valid. 21 order to determine more precisely at what age Roman men first married.'® Sailer concluded that the epigraphic evidence indicates Roman males normally married no younger than 25, in contrast to Roman women who generally married in their teens or early twenties.'’

The final requirement for a legally valid marriage was consent or intent

{ajfectio maritalis). Both prospective partners must enter the marriage with the understanding and acceptance that they are to be husband and wife, as opposed to man and concubine.'® If either member of the engaged couple was sui iuris, their personal consent was necessary but more normally the consent of their fathers, or whoever heldpotestas over them, was necessary. Marriage, generally speaking, was arranged by the families of the bride and groom and could be done with little regard to the wishes of the participants, though there is evidence that parents did regard, to a certain extent, the sentiments of their daughters and sons in arranging marriages.'®

In sum, there were three legal requirements that had to be fulfilled to enter a valid marriage: legal capacity (conubium) must exist between the prospective partners, meaning they must each be of free-citizen status, and not closely related or of immoral character. Each participant must be of minimum legal age, 12 for girls and 14 for boys, though in reality this was rarely an issue since there is evidence that

Roman men normally married after the age of 25 and Roman women normally married in their teens. Finally, consent must be given normally by the respective

'® R. Sailer, "Men's Age at Marriage and Its Consequences in the Roman Family,"Classical Philology 82 (1987) 21-34.

'’ Sailer, "Men's Age," Classical Philology (1987) 33-34.

‘® Treggiari, Roman Marriage, 51-52.

'® Dixon, Roman Family, 62-63; Treggiari, Roman Marriage, 125-138. 22

paterfamilias of the bride and groom, or in such cases that the bride or groom was

independent of external authority, they must personally consent to the marriage.

It is also important to note what was not necessary for a valid marriage.

Consummation was not necessary for a valid marriage, nor was any formal

ceremony or procedure. In fact, elaborate ceremonies did take place but they were

not necessary for a legally valid marriage to be concluded. Simply living together,

however, was not enough to create a valid marriage; the couple must consider each

other as husband and wife — there must be ajfectus maritalis — in order to

distinguish marriage from concubinage

The Augustan Legislation on Marriage The Augustan legislation on marriage is comprised of two separate laws —

the Lex Julia de maritandis ordinibus and the Lex Papia Poppaea. Most scholars do

not distinguish between the two but rather refer to the set as the Julian-Papian laws,

or the Augustan legislation on marriage.^' The legislation prohibited intermarriage

of senators and their children with freedpersons, prostitutes, actors and actresses, procurers, convicted adulterers and adulteresses, and any other person considered morally reprehensible (barmaids, waitresses). Freedpersons were prohibited from marrying anyone from these same categories of immoral people. There were also

20 Gardner, Roman Law, 47.

There is no shortage of scholarship on this particular topic; see, P.A. Brunt, Italian Manpower 225BC - AD 14 (Oxford, 1971), appendix 9; P. Csillag,The Augustan Laws on Family Relations (Budapest, 1976); R.I. Frank, "Augustus' legislation on Marriage and Children," California Studies in Classical Antiquity 8 (1975) 41-52; D.A. Cherry, "Studies in the Marriage Legislation of Augustus," (Diss. University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, 1981); D. Ndrr, "The Matrimonial legislation of Augustus: an Early Instance of Social Engineering,"Irish Jurist 16 (1981) 350-64; A. Wallace-Hadrill, "Family and inheritance in the Augustan Marriage Laws,"FCPS 27 (1981) 58-80; Treggiari, Roman Marriage, 60ff. 23

restrictions on certain offices in regard to marriage; the most notable being the prevention of soldiers from entering any valid marriage. In order to encourage marriage among respectable Roman citizens, political and economic benefits were given to married men and even greater benefits to married men with children.

Women also received special privileges if they had children, and in certain contexts more children meant more benefits — such as special inheritance rights or freedom from being under a tutor. There were various penalties invoked upon men aged 25-

60 and women aged 20-50 who had not had children. This legislation also attempted to suppress adultery by forcing husbands to divorce adulterous wives and imposing severe penalties on adulterous husbands. There was a double-standard concerning adultery since husbands could have sex with their female slaves or with prostitutes (but not with another married woman), but wives could only have sex with their legal husbands. The Julian-Papian laws were many-faceted and it is not especially clear what the greater motivation for the legislation was, other than to increase the rate of marriage and fertility among the upper classes. The most plausible explanation would seem to be a concern for increasing Roman manpower, though there would also seem to be a very real concern for proper morals and values. It is impossible to say how effective this legislation was, but it is clear that there were attempts using various legal connivances to evade the legislation, while at the same time, it is not clear how diligently enforcement of the legislation was carried out.“

22 Treggiari, Roman Marriage, 79-80. 24

Marriage Arrrangements It has already been mentioned that arranging a marriage was a family affair

though the necessary authority was invested solely in thepater familias. There were

several important factors that were considered in the process of choosing a suitable

partner for a son or daughter. Roman society ranked a suitable match primarily on

the basis of birth, wealth, and physical attiibutes.^^ It was generally held that an

engaged couple should be relatively close in terms of the status of their respective

families — nobility should marry within their own circles.^ A Roman wife received the same social status as her husband, which could be a significant consideration

since Roman law differentiated the social classes.^ A certain amount of wealth could make up for whatever was lacking in familial prestige, and in fact, Roman moralists lamented that all too often Romans married for money rather than virtue.^

Physical beauty and robust health — more so in women than men — were considered important factors in choosing a marital mate, especially since marriage was for the procreation of children and women had to be able to endure the rigors of childbirth.^’ Among both Greek and Roman moralists, the character of a potential bride was the most important factor — she must be virtuous, chaste, level-headed.

^ Treggiari, Roman Marriage, 85.

^ Treggiari, Roman Marriage, 89.

25 Gardner, Roman Law, 67.

Treggiari, Roman Marriage, 96-97; Treggiari also relates that the rich and domineering wife was a topos of Roman theater and satire.

’’ Treggiari, Roman Marriage, 100-102. 25 hardworking, and modest in her tastes and temperment.^® Most young women, before marriage, lived sheltered lives in their family homes, and their personal qualities would have been relatively unknown to potential suitors, except through the testimony of family friends and relatives Divorced women and widows, since it was no longer necessary to guard their virginity, had greater freedom to circulate in society and could exert greater influence in the arrangement of a second marriage.^®

The consent of the participants and their patresfamilias was all that was necessary to contract a legal engagement.®" It was a social responsibility, among the upper-classes, for the bride's father to give a party in recognition of the engagement, and the fiancé might be expected to give a ring as a betrothal present.®* Since classical betrothal lacked any legal form, an engagement could easily be broken by either party, and gifts exchanged between the couple would normally be returned.®®

Dowry A dowry, while not legally necessary to conclude a valid Roman marriage, was provided by the bride's family for the purpose of either partially or fully offsetting the costs of maintaining the bride in her new household.®® The payment

®® Treggiari, Roman Marriage, 103; "Ocellus Lucanus (c. 150 BC) also argued that to choose a wife for her birth or wealth instead of her compatibility and 'sympathy' led to the unnatural domination of the wife over her husband and to disharmony and conflicting aims. "

Treggiari, Roman Marriage, 134-35.

®" Treggiari, Æoman Marriage, 146.

■’* Treggiari, Roman Marriage, 148-49.

®® Treggiari,/îo/nan Marnage, 152.

®® Gardner, Roman Law, 68-69; R. Sailer, "Roman Dowry and the Devolution of Property in the Principate," Classical Quarterly 34 (1984) 195-205; Sailer arguess that in the period of the principate Roman dowries were relatively small and meant for the maintaince of the wife and did not 26 of the dowiy was normally initiated by a transfer of property, followed by annual installments of cash/'* In marriages sine manu the dowry — which might include property, slaves, animals, etc. — could be managed by the husband but remained in the ownership of the wife (if independent) or her father.^^ In the case of divorce the husband was liable by law for the return of the dowry or some portion of it depending on the cause of divorce.^® In practice, arrangements for the return of the dowry seem to have been mostly informal, and with little regard for the cause of divorce or the legal stipulations.^’ The dotal contract listed the contents of the dowry, sometimes estimating the value of individual objects, and stipulated how the dowry was to be disposed at the end of the marriage.’® Brideprice was not a part of classical Roman marriage, though it was not unknown for a groom to give his bride- to-be an expensive gift before the wedding night.”

represent her inheritable share of the family estate. See also, D. Hughes, "From Brideprice to Dowry in Mediterranean Europe," Journal of Family History 3 (1978) 262-96; H. Sanders, "A Latin Marriage Contract," Transactions of the American Philological Association 69 (1938) 104-117; J. Goody and S. Tambiah,Bridewealth and Dowry (Cambridge, 1973).

Dixon, Roman Family, 65.

” R. Sailer, "Roman Dowry and the Devolution of Property in the Principate,"Classical Quarterly 34 (1984) 196-97.

Sailer, Roman Dowry, 197-98; the husband could receive l/6th of the dos per child up to three, and an additional l/6th for punitive reasons if the divorce was due to crimes of immorality, ie. adultery, on the part of the wife.

” Dixon,Roman Family, 66; "The arrangements were determined by the social assumption that children were entitled to part of the mother's dowry for their maintaince (or a daughter's dowry, which perhaps amounted to the same thing) and that a divorced mother (like a widow) needed a dowry to remarry."

” Treggiari,Roman Marriage, 165; Sanders, "A Latin Marriage Contract," 115-116.

” Treggiari,Roman Marriage, 165-66; Hughes, "Brideprice to Dowry," 263. 27 Ceremony Before the marriage ceremony took place, the first-time bride gave up her childhood toys, dedicating them to the household gods/® The bride was dressed in white, a transparent veil was worn covering her head but not her face, and a wreath of marjoram was placed on her head."' The marriage ceremony was normally a festive occasion involving a torchlit procession through the city streets by which the bride, accompanied by three young boys, was conducted to her new residence."^

The bride and groom were serenaded by their noisy well-wishers with obscene songs and the music of flutes."^ There were numerous pagan rituals that were part of the ceremony — such as the bride's annoiting the doorposts of her new home with oil and fat."" The house, and especially the marriage chamber, were elaborately decorated, and a symbolic marriage bed was placed in the hall outside the nuptial bedroom."^

Roman Husbands and Wives In Roman society, as in any society, there was no doubt a very real difference between the conception of the ideal marriage and the reality of marriage. It will be useful nonetheless, to understand what qualities the ideal Roman husband and wife

"® J.P.V.D. Balsdon, Roman Women (N.Y., 1962), 182.

"' Balsdon, Roman Women, 183.

"^G. Williams, "Some Aspects of Roman Marriage Ceremonies and Ideals,"Journal of Roman Studies 48 (1958) 16-29; Dixon, Roman Family, 64.

Treggiari, Roman Marriage, 166.

""Balsdon, Roman Women, 185.

Treggiari, Roman Marriage, 168; Balsdon, Roman Women, 185. 28

possessed, and how the ideal marriage was characterized. While not always an

accurate reflection of reality, these ideals are indicative of certain values that Roman

society held. By identifying these values, a greater understanding of Roman society

itself can be gained.

The Roman conception of the ideal marriage was one in which the wife was

obedient and faithful, and the marriage bond was considered eternal."^ Most Romans

entered marriage with the hope that it would be their first and only marriage; that it

would endure a lifetime.'*’ Roman women who had known only one husband were

idealized by society."® There is ample evidence that Romans highly valued a

harmonius relationship between husband and wife, and that marital concord was an

important and necessary component of marriage and family life.'*® Husbands and

wives were equal partners in marriage, and marital concord was achieved through

self-sacrifice and mutual love and affection.^ This points up a contradiction in

ideals; on the one hand, wives were to be equal partners, on the other hand, wives

were to be subordinate (obedient) to their husbands. Both sentiments are attested in

the sources and while this contradiction may not represent perfect logic to the modem scholar, these seemingly conflicting ideals were compatible in Roman

society.^' Funerary epitaphs testify to the love, respect, and devotion that was

Williams, "Roman Conceptions," 23.

'*’ Treggiari, Roman Marriage, 260.

‘*® Gardner, Roman Law, 50-51; Williams, "Roman Conception," 23.

‘*® Dixon, Roman Family, 70-71.

Treggiari, Roman Marriage, 249ff. Gabriel Le Bras is mistaken in his attributing marital intimacy and mutual concern to the developement of Christian morality; G. Le Bras, "Observations sur le mariage dans le corpus Justinien et dans le droit classique de l'église,"Études offertes à Jean Macqueron (Aix-en-Provence, ), 428. 29

ideally shared between husbands and wives/^ Wives were expected to be sexually

faithful, to be obedient and respectful toward their husbands, and to organize and

manage the household economy efficiently. A virtuous husband was a good

provider, was kind and considerate to his family, and demonstrated love, respect,

and affection to his wife.^^ Sexual fidelity on the part of the husband was not

considered necessary even in the ideal marriage.

It is difficult, if not impossible, to determine to what extent these ideals translated into reality. Some scholars believe, given the arranged nature of Roman marriage and the frequent instance of divorce and remarriage (at least among the political elite in the late republic) that marriage was a relatively cold-blooded affair.^'* There is, however, literary evidence — such as the letters of Cicero — that demonstrate a very real affection between husband and wife.^^ It is moreover, difficult to understand how the Roman ideal of marriage could have been in such complete opposition to the reality.

The role of the husband was that of provider, while the wife was responsible for managing the household. Roman men might transact business in the marketplace, call on friends or patrons at their homes, or receive visitors in their

Treggiari discusses the existance of both these sentiments and seems to conclude that the ideal of marriage as an equal partnership was the predominant ideal; see, Treggiari,Roman Marriage, 248ff..

Lattimore, Themes in Greek and Latin Epitaphs, (Urbana, 1942), 177-80,

Treggiari, Roman Marriage, 241-245.

P. Veyne, "La Famille et l'amour sous le haut-empire romain,"Annales: économie, sociétés, civilisations 33 (1978) 35-63; K. Bradley, "Dislocation in the Roman Family,"Historical Reflections/Réflexions historiques 14 (1987) 33-62.

S. Dixon, "The Marriage Alliance in the Roman Elite,"Journal of Family History 10 (1985) 9-24.; Treggiari, Roman Marriage, 30

own home. The Roman wife supervised the household slaves in their chores, such

as wool weaving and meal preparations.^® Roman matrons wore make-up and jewelry, visited friends and attended the baths, theater, circus, games, and

triumphs.®’ Women could attend dinner parties with their husbands and drink wine,

though Roman society was harsh in its condemnation of women who drank to

excess, since it believed that women who drank were more likely to be sexually permissive.®® There is no solid evidence for wife-beating in classical Rome, but

obviously this does not mean that it did not exist. Treggiari suggests that the ease of

divorce may have limited the occurance of domestic violence.®’

Divorce and Remarriage It was relatively easy to divorce one's spouse in classical Rome. Either a husband or a wife could unilaterally divorce the other without any formal cause or complaint.® There was no formal procedure legally necessary for securing a divorce.®' It was not necessary to serve documents or even notify the spouse who was being divorced.®’

®® Balsdon, Roman Women, 270-72.

®’ Treggiari, Roman Marriage, 423-24.

®® Balsdon, Roman Women, 213.

®’Treggiari, Roman Marriage, 431.

®° Crook, Law and Life, 105.

®' Gardner, Roman Law, 84.

®’Treggiari, "Divorce Roman Syle: Ease and Frequency," inMarriage, Divorce, and Children in Ancient Rome, Beryl Rawson (ed.), (Oxford, 1991), 37. 31

As we have seen, marriage was based on consent, and all that was legally

necessary for divorce was the revocation of consent by either spouse.” At some

point in the classical period divorce became more formalized. It may have been as a

result of the Augustan legislation on marriage — which forced husbands to repudiate

an adulterous wife publicly — that it became legally incumbent to have seven

witnesses to a declared divorce.” At any rate, classical law was less concerned

about regulating divorce than it was about subsequent proof of divorce — especially

in questions of property and inheritance. The frequency of divorce in Roman society is an important issue since

divorce obviously had an impact on family structure. A number of scholars have

concluded that divorce and remarriage were common, at least among the political

elites in the late Republic.” Treggiari writes that the modem perception that

divorce was common in classical Rome, is largely to be attributed to a few

"aggresive" politicians, and that the average Roman senator or equestrian might expect only a one in six chance of divorce within the first ten years of an initial marriage.”

Fathers normally kept the children after a divorce since the law considered children part of the father’s family as distinguished from the mother's.” Divorced

” Treggiari, "Divorce," 33-34.

” Treggiari,Roman Marriage, 454.

” M. Humbert, Le remariage à Rome. Etude d'histoire juridique et sociale (Milan, 1972), 76-112; K. Bradley, Discovering the Roman Family, 125-130; J. Hallett, Fathers and Daughters in Roman Society (Princeton, 1984), 236-37.

66 Treggiari, "Divorce," 45-46.

” B. Rawson, "The Roman Family," inThe Family in Ancient Rome, B. Rawson (éd.), (Ithaca, N.Y., 1986), 35-36. 32

mothers, however, were generally expected to help financially in the raising of their

children.*®

In conclusion, divorce in classical Rome, was considered more of a private

family matter than it was a state matter. The law was primarily concerned with issues of property, such as the retention or return of the dowry. Susan Dixon tentatively concluded that in practice, divorce was normally a matter of private negotiation and that despite the legal implications, cause and effect was not strictly applied.®’

68 Treggiari, Roman Marriage, 467.

®’ S. Dixon, "Family Finances: Terentia and Tullia," inThe Family in Ancient Rome, 115; "There is, none the less, just enough information in the letters (of Cicero) we have examined to cast doubt on any presumption of strict cause and effect in the matter of divorce and the consequent return of dowry, and to suggest that private negotiation was the preferred mode of settlement." Chapter III: Marital Arrangements in Late Antiquity

This chapter discusses the issues that were relevant to the creation of a

marriage in late antiquity. The purpose and legal requirements of marriage in this

period of early Christianity are examined, as are issues regarding the practical

arrangement of marriage - suitable partnerships, age at first marriage, engagement,

dowry, and the wedding ceremony itself. The following chapter will examine the marital roles and relationships of husbands and wives.

The institution of marriage is most essentially the creation of a new family, and it is therefore important to understand how society perceived marriage and what the necessary arrangements were for establishing a new marriage. Since marital practice is such a fundamental aspect of any society, changes in marital custom can be indicative of significant changes in social structure. Evelyn Patlagean and David

Herlihy have published separate theories on possible changes in marital practice during late antiquity. In this chapter each of these theories will be examined in light of the evidence from John Chrysostom, as well as evidence from the late Roman law codes, and it will be argued that neither of these theories is valid and that marital custom in late antiquity had not significantly changed from its classical predecessor.

33 34 Purpose Early Christianity was divided on the purpose and necessity of marriage.

Orthodox Christianity generally held that marriage served the useful purpose of allowing unchaste members to engage in lawful sexual intercourse. Mainstream

Christianity believed that some (if not many) people were too weak in spirit to live celibate lives, and that marriage allowed these people to satiate their sexual desires without committing the sin of fornication.'

Chrysostom states on numerous occasions that marriage is good and not to be forbidden, and he repeatedly upholds the honor of marriage.^ This is of course a reiteration of Paul's position on the usefulness of marriage, which since at least the second century was under attack by various Gnostic sects, most notably, the

Manicheans.^ The Manicheans completely rejected the institution of marriage, as well as many other worldly institutions.'* On the one hand, Chrysostom could not be perceived as promoting the casual indulgence of marriage; on the other hand, he could not risk being identified with Gnostic heresy and its total rejection of marriage.^ It is, perhaps, for this reason that Chrysostom is contradictory on the

' For a genera! discussian of early Christian attitudes toward sex and marriage see, J. Brundage, Law, Sex, and Christian Society in Medieval Europe (Chicago, 1987) 57-76.

^In illud: Propterfornicationes uxorem (PG 51, 21 Off.); Ad Theodorum lapsum 113 (PG 47, 312); De virginitate (PG 48,540); Homilia 43 in Matthaeum (PG 57, 464); In epistulam i ad Corinthos homilia 12 (PG 61,103-104).

^For example, Clement of Alexandria,Excerpta Theodoti 67.2 and Stromata 3; Jerome, Aduersus Jovinianus 1.3; Lactantius, Divinae institutiones 6.23.

■* J. Brundage, Law, Sex, and Christian Society in Medieval Europe (Chicago, 1987), 83-84.

^Elizabeth Clark, "Introduction," to Sally Shore,John Chrysostom: On Virginity; Against Remarriage, (New York 1983), xvi-xvii. 35 purpose of marriage. In some places he states that one of the purposes of marriage was to have children.

0ÛK euKopov ôei ^Titétv, c û J J mate koivcûvov pion ArxPœpEv elç Kaxaataaiv Ttaiôojtouaç.

Therefore one should not seek wealth (from a wife), but we should take a partner in life, ordained for the procreation of children.®

The idea that marriage was for the pupose of producing children is not only part of the Judeo-Christian tradition, but as we have seen is also part of a long tradition of

Greek and Roman thought.’ More often, however, Chrysostom held that the purpose of marriage was to control lust and licentious behavior on the part of both men and women.® Chrysostom, in company with Jerome and other church fathers, believed that in Old Testament times the purpose of marriage and sex was "to go forth and multiply," but this was no longer necessary and, in any event, the New

Testament superceded the Old Testament.® Chrysostom stated that marriage came about only after original sin and for the sole purpose of suppressing lust.

Éôôôri pèv ouv Kcà TtaiSojtoilaç 'évekev o ydtpoç* xoTJup ôë TtlÉov UTtÈp Toû opéaai xf)v 1% (j)ua£toç Tcuptooiv. Kai pdpTUÇ ô IlabÀoç, ÀÉywv A i à ôè wcç Ttopvsîcxç EKaowç tfjv èaimv yvvaiKaè x é w r où Ôià xàç TtaiÔOTcoilaç* K ai 7iocA,iv etii t6 aùxb ow É p xeoG ai KEÀEÙEi, où% iv a TcaxÉpEç yâvcûvxai Tta'iScov TtoAÀrôv* àÂ,X,à xi; ' i v a

6 In Acta apostolorum homilia 49 (PG 60,344); see also, Homily 18 in Genesim (PG 53, 154).

’ Xen. Mem. 2.2.4; Dem. 59.122; Lysias 1.6; Apul. Apol. 88; Suet. DJ 52.3; Quint. Decl. 247.6; Plaut. Aul. 148 ff.; Gellius. Noctes Atticae 4.3.2.

^Homilia 59 in Matthaeum (PG 58,583); De virginitate (PG 48,546-47); Homilia 59 in Genesim (PG 54,517-520); In illud: Propter fornicationes uxorem (PG 51, 213).

® J. Brundage, Law, Sex and Christian Society, 66. 36 /zj) JteipàÇj] vjiâç ô Z a m vâ ç, ^rjcn. K ai îipoeÀGœv ôè oùk eIttev, eI ôè Ê7ii9d^ioÎ)01 Tcaiôcov* àkXà ù; Ei ôè jurj èypa'tEVOvtai yajj.Tj(rdcmxTav. riopà )ièv yàp xriv ôp^Tlv, OTiEp E(|)T|v, ôtjo TaîVcaç EiXE locç DKO0ÉÇEIÇ* ŸOTEpov Ôè, 7iX,Tp(o0El ta m a ÀéyovxEÇ xpwv ox>y xjxxov laxE x^ v xr)ç 7iap0E viaç -üTiEpoxTiv, K a i Tiàvxa, aitEp à p iv Eipiycai, OKr)\)/Eiç K a i npcxIxioEiç E id i k o i â K p a a la ç TcpoKCcA-iapaxa.

1. So marriage was granted for the sake of procreation, but an even greater reason was to quench the fiery passion of our nature. Paul attests to this when he says: "But to avoid immorality, every man should have his own wife (1 Cor. 7:2)." He does not say: for the sake of procreation. Again, he asks us to engage in marriage not to father many children, but why? so "that Satan may not tempt you (1 Cor. 7:5)," he says. Later he does not say: if they desire children but "if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry." At the beginning, as I said, marriage had these two purposes but now, after the earth and sea and all the world has been inhabited, only one reason remains for it: the suppression of licentiousness and debauchery. 2. Marriage is of much use to those who are still now caught up in their passions, who desire to live the life of swine and be ruined in brothels. It rescues them from that impure compulsion and keeps them holy and chaste. But when will I stop this useless arguing? You who object know as well as we do the superiority of virginity. All your words are excuses, pretexts, and ruses for your incontinence.’”

As we have just seen, in some places Chrysostom states that procreation of children is a purpose of marriage, while in other places he rejects this notion." A possible

‘”De virginitate (PG 48, 541-45), trans. Sally Shore (N.Y.: Edwin Mellen Press, 1983); see also. In propter fornicationes 3 (PG 51, 213).

" Procreation is a purpose of marriage, see: In Acta apostolorum homilia 49 (PG 60, 344); Homilia 18 in Genesim (PG 53, 154). Procreation is not a purpose of marriage see: De virginitate (PG 48,541-45); In propter fornicationes 3 (PG 51, 213). 37

explanation for this contradiction is that his position evolved, from one side to the

other, over a course of time. It has not been possible to assign exact dates to most of

Chrysostom's works, the majority of which can, at best, be tentatively assigned

either to his tenure in Antioch or Constantinople, and it is therefore not possible to

trace a clear-cut evolution of thought. It is also possible that the contradiction

reflects the struggle between two different ideals, the early Christian ideal of devout

chastity as opposed to the Graeco-Roman ideal of marriage for the procreation of

children. Chrysostom, a Christian rhetorician, but steeped in the ubiquitous Graeco-

Roman culture of his time, professed the Christian ideal but could not ignore the

more traditional notion for the purpose of marriage.

Legal Requirements

The legal requirements to conclude a valid marriage in the fourth and fifth

centuries were essentially the same as they had been in the classical period.'^

Christian emperors modified some of the requirements, especially in regard to legal

capacity: for example, allowing slaves for the first time to contract a legal

marriage." The rules of affinity were also subject to legislation in the fourth

century, and in 342 the emperor Constantins passed a law prohibiting marriage

between uncles and nieces, declaring such a marriage to be an incestuous union.'"

Constantine enacted legislation in 336 that reinforced the previous Augustan laws

"Cod. Th. 3.7.3.

"Cod. Th. 5.5.7.

Cod. Th. 3.12.1. In 355 the emperor Constantins also prohibited marriage between a man and his sister-in-law {Cod. Th. 3.12.2.). It is not clear whether this legislation was inspired by Christian ideals since it cannot be absolutely determined if, at this early date, Christian doctrine had been formulated in regard to the issue. 38 that prohibited marriage betweeen social inequals such as senators and slaves.'^ In this period it was still not legally necessary to initiate any formal ceremony, or obtain written license, to conclude a legitimate marriage. The church fathers, in agreement with Roman law, believed that consent made marriage, and that consumation was not necessary.’®

Legal requirements remained basically the same but begining in the fourth century and due to Christian influence, legislation was enacted that changed the context of marriage.” In 320 Constantine enacted a law that abrogated the penalties for celibacy that the Augustan legislation had imposed.'® This legal act reflected the ideals of the early church which believed that virginity was superior to marriage and that celibate widowhood was superior to remarriage.” The effect of this legislation and especially the Christian attitudes that inspired it, was to define two separate states clearly opposed in their disposition toward marriage and fecundity.^ There were those in the church who preached the spiritual and practical benefits of celibacy, and there were those in society who continued to get married and have children.

"C od Th. 4. 6. 3.

'® Brundage, Law, Sex, and Christian Society, 92-93.

17 For, an interesting article on the influence of Christianity on post-classical law in the fourth century, see; J. Gaudemet, "Tendances nouvelles de la legislation familiale au IVe siecle,"Antiquitas Reihe 1, 29 (1978) 187-207.

"C od Th. 8.16.1.

” j. Gaudemet, "Tendances," 194.

“ E. Patlagean,Pauvreté économique et pauvreté sociale à Byzance 4e-7e siècles (Mouton- Paris-La Haye, 1977), 116. 39

There was also legislation in the fourth century that formalized engagements and betrothal gifts/' This legislation imposed penalties on anyone who unjustly broke off an engagement and Gaudemet argues that this legislation again reflects

Christian influence and was a notable innovation of the fourth century.^

Creating a Marriage In late antiquity, just as in earlier periods, first marriages continued to be a family concern and not a matter of individual decision by the participants.^

Chrysostom normally refers to fathers as arranging first marriages for both sons and daughters.^ Marriage brokers were available, as they had been in earlier periods, to help those seeking a partner.^

Patlagean has argued that a significant change in marital pattern began to emerge in the third century, and was due in part to the deterioration of urban

Cod. Th. 3.5.2.

Gaudemet, "Tendances," 196-197; "Le conci’e d'Elvire, dans les premières années du siècle avait interdit la rupture de fiançailles sans juste cause (c. 54). Plus tard, saint Jérôme assimilera l'infidélité de la fiancée à un adultère, et la décrétale de Sinice à Himère de Tarragone (384) interdit d'épouser une jeune fille fiancée à une autre personne. La tendance de la législation à punir les ruptures de fiançailles injustifiées s'inscrit donc bien dans la ligne de la doctrine chrétienne.'

E. Patlagean, "L'enfant et son avenir dans la famille byzantine (IVe-XIIe siècles)," Annales de démographie historique (Paris-La Haye, 1973), 89-90.

^ Quales ducendae sint uxores (PG 51,240); In epistulam i ad Thessalonicenses homilia 5 (PG 62,426); In epistulam ad Colossenses homilia 12 (PG 62, 390). In 422, at the discretion of the emperor Honorius, a law was enacted that upheld the validity of a marriage pact negotiated by the father of the bride; even if the father died before the marriage could take place, and the daughter and/or her mother, tutor, or any other relative opposed the marriage.

“In epistulam i ad Thessalonicenses homilia 5(PG 62,426); In epistulam ii ad Corinthios homilia 9 (PG 61,463); Quales ducendae sint uxores (PG 51, 233). For earlier periods, Ar. Clouds 11.4 Iff.; Lucil. 271. See also Treggiari,/îoman Marriage, 137. 40

stucture.^ She says that begining in the fourth century the practice of cross-cousin

maniage became increasingly common and that this was indicative of a closed and

isolationist attitude among late antique families/^ Patlagean, citing the work of

Levi-Straus, believes that the manifestation of cross-cousin marriage is a result of a

marriage strategy to preserve familial property, and is usually associated with more

primative, non-urban, social systems. Patlagean contends that in the classical period

of the Roman empire, which was characterised by a vigorous urban structure, cross­

cousin marriage was not necessary and therefore not practiced. In societies that

practiced cross-cousin marriage, it was important to distinguish between cross- and parallel-cousins, since parallel-cousin marrriage was prohibited.^® She believes that there was also a special emphasis placed on the relationship between uncles and nephews. Patlagean cites as evidence law codes from the fourth and sixth centuries that prohibited first cousin marriages, as well as some patristic sources that discuss its occurance, and she notes some incidences of close uncle-nephew relationships that can be found in the letters and orations of Libanius.

Brent Shaw, by way of introducing his 1984 article on family life in the late antique west, succinctly demonstrated the weaknesses of Patlagean's thesis.^® Shaw points out that in the few instances that Patlagean cited positive evidence for cross­ cousin marriage, they were in relation to isolated and distantly provincial

^^Fatlagean, Pauvreté, 118ff.

Patlagean, Pauvreté, 126.

Cross-cousins are children of opposite sex siblings (the son of a brother and the daughter of a sister), parallel cousins are children of same sex siblings (the son and the daughter of two brothers).

^®B. Shaw, "Latin Funerary Epigraphy and Family Life in the Later Roman Empire," Historia 33 (1984) 458-460. 41 communities (Armenian villages, Mesopotamian settlements). These communities can hardly be discussed as typical of late antiquity and are certainly a precarious foundation on which to generalize about society in the later Roman Empire. It is equally tenuous to argue, as Patlagean does, that since laws were drafted to prevent an action, that action was therefore generally practiced. The fact that in 396 the emperor Honorius passed legislation that prevented cousin marriage (among other types of unions) does not necessarily imply that society in general was practicing first cousin marriage. In regard to a seemingly new trend in late antiquity toward closer uncle-nephew relationships, Patlagean herself admits that in most cases of a close uncle-nephew relationship, it is only after the death of the nephew's natural father that the uncle intervenes.

In sum, there are strong arguments for doubting Patlagean's thesis that families in late antiquity, due to a deterioration of urban structure, became more closed, and resorted to first cousin marriage in order to preserve familial wealth.

Chrysostom never discussed the practice of close-kin marriage and there is no evidence that he was familiar with its general practice. Chrysostom, in fact, provides ample evidence that arranged marriage in late antiquity was practiced in much the same way as in the earlier, classical period. For example, Chrysostom recognized the practice of marriage for joining separate families together in alliance, and in the following passage he gives a description of contemporary marital practice.

The context from which this passage is taken is one in which Chrysostom explains how and why God created the world as it is; more specificly, he is explaining why marriage was generally practiced as it was in Chrysostom's time..

ÊTOvôriae 5é koci érépav ôiaGéoetoç nttoGeotv. azcayopEnoag yàp Tohç TMV axrpfEV&v ydponq, Ett' ctX.A.oxp'io'uç qpôç É^fjyayE, 42 KaKeivoDç naXiv Trpoç fniôg eikKvaev. ÈTieiSri yàp àîib 1% (j)\KTiKf|ç TavTTjç a’üjyeveiaç ovk V £K£'ivodç Tpiv ouva

And He devised also another pretext of arrangement. For having forbidden the marriage of natural kin, he led us out among strangers and in that place drew them again to us. For since on account of this natural order of kinship, it was not possible that they should be united with us. He bound us newly by marriage, uniting together entire households through the single person of the bride, and mingling entire peoples. . . . by taking a wife from outside the family, and through her a chain of kinsmen, both mother, and father, and brothers, and their connections.^"

This is a clear indication that the classical tradition of arranged marriage and the resultant network of alliances still existed. There is no indication here that the late antique societal attitude toward marriage was any different from earlier classical attitudes. Chrysostom indirectly allows a glimpse of some societal attitudes concerning marriage. He complained frequently that some people were marrying for money.

T ig p£À,A.(ov Ya|4Éiv, xpoitov E^rixao£ K a i avaxpo(t)qv KÔpr|ç; O uô£iç, ôAÎà %pf|paxa £Ù0£COç Kai Kxrpata, KaipÉxpa o ù o ia ç rtoïKiÀTig Kai ôiacl^pon, KaGarmp x i 7 cp iao 0a i pÈÀX,o)v, f| on vdÀ À aY p d n KOIVOV £7IIT£À£IV.

Who, when about to marry, examines closely the disposition and character of the woman? No one; but straightaway about money, and

epistulam i ad Corinthos homilia 34 (PG 61, 290-91). 43 possessions and measures of various and different property; as if about to purchase something, or to settle some comon contract/'

In the context of marriage Chrysostom devoted considerable space to chastising those who concerned themselves more about the property and wealth of a potential wife than her character and disposition/^ This was not necessarily a new issue in antiquity, but it was not always perceived in the same manner as that of Chrysostom.

In Classical Sparta marriage for wealth was similarly discouraged, but in Athens, citizenship and wealth were given the highest priority and it was this concern that led to a certain degree of endogamy among the elite.^^ Classical Athens would seem to be a significant exception to Patlagean's thesis that endogamy typifies a rural, non-urban, marital pattern. The case of Classical Athens is unique in several ways since it was not just wealth that was being protected but also citizenship; nonetheless, this again, must cast doubt on the validity of Patlagean's thesis. As seen above, Susan Treggiari has published ample evidence that at least among

Roman aristocrats, birth, rank, and wealth were legitimate and important factors in arranging a marriage.^'* Certain Classical Roman moralists, however, just like

Homilia 73 in Matthaeum (PG 58,677-78); see also, De virginitate (PG 48,576-77); Ad Theodorum lapsum (PG, 47, 314); Homilia 90 in Matthaeum (PG 58, 789-792); In epistulam i ad Corinthos homilia 29 (PG 61,248); In Acta apostolorum homilia 49 (PG 60,344).

Homilia 73 in Matthaeum (PG 58, 677-78).

^^Plu. Lys. 30.5; R. Garland, The Greek Way of Life, (Ithaca, N.Y. 1990), 214-15, "Among the well-to-do (in Classical Athens) one of the principal criteria in choosing a suitable marital partner appears to have been wealth. As a result endogamy between an heiress orepiklêros and a close relative was common, to the extent that we hear of marriages between half-siblings bom of a common father (though not of a common mother), marriages between fnst cousins, and even marriages between uncles and nieces." See also, W.K. Lacey,The Family in Classical Greece, (Ithaca, N.Y. 1968) 106.

34 S. Treggiari, Roman Marriage, (Oxford 1991), 83 ff. 44

Chrysostom, condemned marriage for moneyThe fact that both Cicero and

Chrysostom similarly condemned certain issues of marital arrangement indicates that the societal context in which a marriage was arranged must also have been similar.

Most marriages were confined to relative equals in wealth and rank but it was not unheard of for disparate partners to be matched. This might lead to problems such as a rich wife dominating a poor husband.^® The fact that this possibility existed at all indicates that wealth and rank could be more influential in determining marital roles than gender. A woman, normally the lesser partner in marriage, could use her wealth to dominate the marriage, usurping the authority normally invested in the husband. In Roman comedy the rich and domineering wife was a common character, and the potential problems of marriage between disparate partners were frequently discussed by Roman writers.^^ It is possible that

Chrysostom's use of this theme is merely as a rhetorical device. It is still significant, however, even if Chrysostom was being more rhetorical than real in his discussion of this theme, since by continuing this earlier tradition he demonstrates that late antique Antioch could still identify with some of the earlier Roman societal anxieties of arranging a harmonious marriage. In the following passage Chrysostom criticizes men who attempt to get rich through marriage.

35 Plut. Praec. conj. 141; Cic. Off. 2.71; Plaut. Stick. J35.

Quales ducendae sint uxores (PG 51, 231); De virginitate (PG 48,576); In Acta apostlorum homilia 49 (PG 60, 344). The rich wife dominating her husband is a topes of Roman comedy and it is possible that Chrysostom's use of this theme is merely as a rhetorical device.

Treggiari, Roman Marriage, 87-89. 45 06% iv a 2g ) f p a t a eio(|)ép%i y'uvfi, 5 ià xoî»to a w r iv eSojkev 6 0 8 o ç, a k X ’ 'iv a Pot|0ôç. A 8È x p iy ia m ela(t)ép o\xîa, K ai eji'iPodA-ck; [koci SÉOTioiva àvù YDvaiKoç y^vexai* f| xa%a Grpiov àvù yüvaiKOÇ], (% io î)o a iieydc^a 5 ià to v tiA-oîVcov (j)poveiv. O i)ôèv aloxpoxepp ov âv5poç oikû) poD^iEDOiiévoD kàodxéIv. El yocp a x m x6 tiàodxeIv Tieipaojiôv yépei, xb olixco Ttîtomelv tccÆ» Gi^opev; Mt| yocp, ei xiç aTtaviccKiç Kai Tcocpà xo ai)|4|3aivov Kat Tcocpà Àôyov èTcéxuxe, xoôxo lôjiç* oî)ô£ yocp èv xoiç oÀÀoig Tipccypaoiv oiç àiio^iavoDol uveç, K ai ÊK Tiocpaôô^OD ÉK ixuyxàvoixji, îipoaéxEiv SÉl* o X X abxb xb K axà Àôyov lôcopEV, eI px] piplocç à iis la ç yépEi xb Tipccypa. Ot)K abxbç pôvoç èv àôo^lçc yiv^i, dcXÀà koci nalSaç Kaxaio%i)VEiq, 7iÉvT|xocç àclÆiç, El OD^PalT) 7cpoa7iEX,0Élv, K ai a b -^ xioAAàq ôiôcoç à())oppàç xob ÔEDX^3

Not so that a wife should bring money did God give woman, but in order that she might be a helpmate. While she that brings money brings also treachery [she might be a mistress instead of a wife, even perhaps a savage beast instead of a wife], thinking herself highly worthy on account of the wealth. Nothing is more shameful than a man considering to get rich in this way. For if wealth itself is full of trials, what about wealth held in this way? If something rare and contrary to chance and reason occurs, you should not look to this; nor in those other matters which have benefited some, though occuring by chance and contrary to expectation, as being necessary to devote oneself to. But let us look to reason itself, to see if the matter is not full of countless unpleasantries. You disgrace not only yourself, but also your children, handing over misery, if it chance that you die before your wife, and you give to her many reasons for attaching again to a second bridegroom. Or do you not see that many women make this the pretext for a second marriage; not to be one disdained, seeking those to attend to her property.^®

This passage demonstrates that the woman continued to own the wealth that she brought to a marriage and while the husband could manage her wealth he did not take possession of it, nor was it necessarily inherited by his children if his death

In acta apostolorum homilia 49 (PG 60, 344). 46 preceeded hers.^’ This passage offers more evidence that marriages were not perceived as normally being contracted within the family, since evidently there were suitors who gained wealth through marrying into wealthy families. This passage would seem to provide an appropriate context for Chrysostom to discuss how some families might inter-marry in order to protect family fortune from treasure-seeking bachelors. However Chrysostom is mute on this theoretical issue. In fact the only marital strategy that this passage and the earlier passages can testify for is a strategy to gain - not protect — wealth. This strategy could only be practiced in a society that fostered free marriage and in which endogamy was not generally practiced; a society that is the complete opposite of what Patlagean has conjectured. Finally, this passage offers evidence for the continuing theme of the rich and tyrannical wife who rules her husband by virtue of her wealth.

Obviously, circumstances that allowed a wife to dominate her husband were not normal and Chrysostom cites this sort of marriage as the exception. The reverse was also possible for marriages between unequal partners; a wealthy husband and a poor wife. A union of this sort might result in the total subservience of the wife.

She might be forced to put up with the worst sort of behavior such as excessive drunkenness and repeated affairs. She might also lose her authority to manage the household staff effectively because of the husbands demeaning treatment of her, in

^’This is in exact accordance with Roman law; see, Gardner,Roman Law, 71-72. This passage also offers interesting evidence on second marriages. Chrysostom cites the need for a husband to manage property, as merely a pretext (TtpôlKXOiç) for women to seek a second marriage. Chrysostom, as well as Augustine, believed that second marriages were entered for the sole purpose of sexual fulfilment, and that they were indicative of an excessive sexual appetite. This was a position based on Paul (1 Tim 3:2; Tit. 1:6; Eph. 5:33). For the attitude of Augustine toward remarriage see, Brundage,Law, Sex, and Christian Society, 95; for Chrysostom, De non iterando coniugio (PG 48, 609-620). This issue will be discussed in greater detail below. 47 this way living like a servant rather than a wife/° It is interesting what sort of characteristics Chrysostom has given the domineering husband in his example — excessive drunkenness and licentiousness/' Just as in the previous example of the domineering wife, this sort of behavior would seem exceptional since Chrysostom assigns it to the specific circumstance of a rich husband dominating a poor wife.

Unless we are prepared to believe that most marriages in this period involved partners of disparate socio-economic backgrounds, then it is safe to conclude that these marriages, and the behavior that might be associated with them, were the exception. For the husband's part, in marrying a poor wife, he has lost an opportunity to strengthen his estate and may end up reducing his means.“^

In sum, Chrysostom, in keeping with a long tradition of Roman moralists, advised those who were arranging a marriage to consider closely the character and disposition, rather than the wealth, of a potential partner. He is silent in regard to the issue of endogamy, an issue that he would surely have vehemently condemned if it had been significantly present, since the motivation for an endogamous marriage strategy was financial — the protection of familial wealth. He instead offers evidence for a marital practice that in late antiquity had much in common with earlier classical custom.

““Devirginitate 54 (PG 48,576-77).

We should remember tliat marriage did not legally forbid the husband from taking any number of extra-marital sex partners; as long as he restricted his choice to prostitutes and slaves.

Theodorum lapsum I (PG 47,314). 48 Age at First Marriage The rite of marriage marked an important transition in the life cycle of the individual. For the man it normally meant an end to youthful indulgence and the beginning of social responsibility."^ Marriage was no less meaningful to the woman, as again it meant a transition from childhood to maturity. This was symbolized by the girl formally giving up her childhood toys and the woman taking on the household responsibilities."" This was very much in keeping with both classical Greek and Roman custom in which girls exchange their dolls, etc. for marriage."® In some cases fathers used marriage as a tool to rein in the youthful indiscretion of sons who otherwise would indulge themselves in gambling and illicit sex."® It was Chrysostom's concern that these young men be married before they began visiting prostitutes, or worse, adultresses."’ In fact, these young bachelors, left unrestrained, were seen as the primary source of adulteries."® This put

Chrysostom in the awkward religous position, which he recognized, of encouraging young people to get married as opposed to remaining celibate."®

It is possible to get an idea of the age range that Chrysostom has in mind when he refers to young men. Chrysostom is consistent in his use of the term f)

43 De uirginitate (PG 48,586-87).

""De uirginitate (PG 48,586).

"® Robert Garland, The Greek Way o f Life, p. 218; J.P.V.D. Balsdon, Roman Women, 182.

Homilia 59 in Matthaeum (PG 58, 582-83).

"^/«epistulam i ad Thessalonicenses homilia 5(PG 62,425-26); In epistulam i ad Timotheum homilia 9 (PG 62, 546-47).

Homilia 59 in Matthaeum (PG 58,583).

"®/m epistulam i ad Thessalonicenses homilia 5(PG 62,426). 49 veorfiç to designate youth or a young man. From the following passage it is possible to determine an approximate age range that the termti v£Ôrr|ç might correspond in

Chrysostom's use.

Kai 'iva pdtGcopev ÀoiTtov o'lav aytov Tpv T]?iiK'iav 6 Gaupàaïoç outoç Toaauxriç fi^ioûto tFiç âpoiPf|ç m i tooouroug ÊTteSel^ato toùç aGA-ouç, (j)rialv* îœ a ^ 5è rjv TpiccKovra èxâv, ore ëavf] èvavtiov ^Hxpiiâ. Mti cotXmg vopiotopev Ttov Êtwv xbv xpôvov èyKÉio0ai, àXk' iva pàGwpev, b u oûk eo u v oûSevi âpeÀoûvu xfiç ôpEÛ|g àtroÀoyla, oû5è e^eou uvi trpopalÉoGat veorrfra, £v0a àpEÙ|v Êîii5£l^aa0ai ôéi. ïôoù yàp ouxoç où pôvov véoç t^v, ôXXà Kcà Kolbg 8Î5ei, Kai topaïoç xfi ôv|/ei. Èou yàp Koi véov ôvra pf| KEKUToGai tnv TOÛ otopaxog eupop^lav. Outoç Ôe pExà 1% VEÔrrjxoç Kai ko?i6ç fjv ei5ei, Kai àpalog xf) bi/Ei, Ka'i o%E6bv Èv aûx^ xr|ç fjÀiKlaç XQ) àv0£i xuy%dvtov, SoûÀoçK oi aî%pàX(oxog ÈyÉVEXo. AEKOETCxà Exœv y à p f|v , (j)T|aiv, f)viK a Kaxr|x0T| d ç Âiyujixov. Ê xa èv a ù ^ xp Kaplvcp xpg veôxrixoç yEyEvryiévtp È7üixl0Exai f] àKÔA,aaxoç A’iyoTixia, p SéoTioiva aûxoû yEyEvryxévr), Ktt'i 0Û5È ouxto iiEpiEyÉVExo xpg àvSpEioç xoû ÔiKaioi)* d x a xb ôEO)o,(ûTrpiov, Kai p èù xoooûxov %p6vov ê k e i xaÀaimopia" Kai ÈpEVE KaGajiEp àôapaç, où pôvov où yivôpEvoç àaGEvéoxEpoç, ôXÀà KOI TTÀEiova lo% i)v TcpooÀ apPàvwv.

In order that we learn how old the wonderous man was when he was deemed worthy of such a return and exhibited such a struggle, he says: "Joseph was thirty years old when he came before the Pharoah." Not simply that we should consider the span of years, but in order that we learn that there is no defense for anyone neglecting virtue, no one should come forward to proclaim youth as a defense when it is necessary for virtue to be demonstrated. For you see this man was not only young, but also handsome in appearance, and beautiful to the eyes. For it is also possible to be young and not possess a beautiful body. But he was young and handsome in appearance, and beautiful to the eyes, and happening to be nearly in the bloom of youth when he was taken prisoner and made a slave. He was seventeen, it says, when he was carried off to Egypt. Then being in the very heat of youth and set upon by the licentious Egyptian, his mistress, though not overcoming his manly virtue. Then prison, and for such time he had suffering. And he remained just as 50 unconquerable, not only not becoming weaker, but even gaining more strength/"

Chrysostom refers to Joseph as someone1% ( veoxrixôç) of seventeen, and in the bloom of youth when he was sold into slavery by his brothers. However, he also refers to him as being in the heat of youth (Tqç veôxrixoç) when Joseph, probably in his mid-twenties, was set upon by the wife of his Egyptian master.^’ Therefore it is possible to conjecture that between the ages of seventeen and, perhaps twenty-eight, men were refered to as someone t] veôxqç. One might also conclude that since

Chrysostom referred to Joseph, who was in his mid-twenties, as being in the "heat of youth," that he is refering to men of similar age when he chastises fathers for not marrying off these young men before they fall into depravity. It is therefore possible to conclude that Chrysostom was referring to men roughly between the ages of seventeen and twenty-eight when he complained that these young men should be married so that they migh more easily avoid the sin of fornication.

The classical Greek philosophers thought that a man should get married when he was about thirty, and the marriagable range for men seems to have been between seventeen and thirty-five years of age.^^ As we have seen, in the early

Roman empire, Augustan legislation penalized men who were unmarried by the age of twenty-five.” The minimum legal age for girls to marry was twelve and among

^Homilia 63 in Genesim (PG 54,546).

Joseph’s age at the time of his seduction is difficult to determine precisely. Joseph was thirty years old when he came before the Pharoah (Gen. 41) and this was at least two years, but probably not much more, after he was falsely accussed by his Egyptian mistress and thrown in prison.

Laws, 4.271b and 6.785b; Republic, 5.460e; Aristotle. Politics. 7.14.16. See also, Hesiod, Works and Days 695-9; Garland, The Greek Way o f Life, 211.

53 Ulpian,, Liber singularis regularum, 16.1. 51 the Roman aristocracy, mid-teens was probably the normal age for a girl's first marriage/"

The minimum age requirement to conclude a marriage was essentially the same in the classical and Byzantine periods, and both secular and church law considered the physical maturity to consumate a marriage the most important factor in determining this minimum age requirement/^ Patlagean states that in the fourth and fifth century actual age at first marriage was generally higher than the legal minimum age/® She cites several instances of girls being engaged at a very young age (6-7 yrs.) but these occured in the later Byzantine period and she states that in the fourth and fifth century hagiographical evidence does not suggest that engagement before adolescence was normal.” She also cites epigraphic evidence from Italy published by Vogel in 1966 that indicates in the fourth and fifth century a high frequency of marriage for boys between the ages of 18 and 25, and girls 12 to 16.®® A more recent and more comprehensive study of Christian funerary

®"B. Rawson, "Adult - Child Relationships in Roman Society," in B. Rawson (ed.), Marriage, Divorce, and Children in Ancient Rome, (Oxford 1991), 27. See also, R.P. Sailer, "Men's Age at Marriage and its Consequences in the Roman Family,"Classical Philology 82 (1987) 21-34; B. Shaw, "The age of Roman Girls at Marriage; Some Reconsiderations,"Journal o f Roman Studiesll (1987) 30-46.

®® G. Le Bras, "Observations sur le mariage dans le corpus Justinien et dans le droit classique de l'église," Études offertes à Jean Macqueron (D'Aix-en-Provence, ), 427. In Roman law the minimum age for boys was fourteen years, and for girls, twelve years.

®®E. Patlagean, Pauvreté économique et pauvreté sociale à Byzance 4e-7e siècles (Mouton- Paris-La Haye, 1977), 146.

E. Patlagean, "L'enfant et son avenir dans la famille byzantine (IVe-XIIe siècles), " Annales de démographie historique (Paris-La Haye, 1973), 86-89.

®® C. Vogel, "L'âge des époux chrétiens au moment de contracter mariage d'après les inscriptions paléo-chrétiennes," Rev. Droit Canon. 16 (1966) 355-66; Patlagean, "L'enfant," 90. 52

inscriptions from Rome and its environs, cited by Shaw yields a mean age of 17 for

Christian girls at the time of their first marriage/^

The writings of Chrysostom do not offer any specific evidence for the

normal age of men and women at first marriage. The only evidence that Chrysostom

provides is the fact that he scolded fathers for not marrying off their sons at an

earlier age than some evidently did. Chrysostom allows that part of the motivation

for delaying the marriage of sons was so that they might, either through the military

or some other venture, have time to acquire a large fortune.®” This can be taken — as

Patlagean has taken it — as evidence that men were not normally getting married at a

relatively young age. It is interesting to note that, young or old, the son was still

dependent on the father to contract the marriage.®'

Engagement There were two different forms of engagement in late antiquity: engagement

with ôppojîtov (earnest money), and the classical form of engagement which was

actually formless and did not involve any surety.®^ According to the Syro-Roman

Lawbook, (xppap(6v could be presented in the form of a ring, a graven work in gold,

or dinars.®^ The (xppaPtov served as a guarantee that there would be no unilateral

Shaw, "The Age of Roman Girls at Marriage: Some Reconsiderations,"Journal o f Roman Studies 77 (1987) 41. Shaw calculated the mean age based on evidence from; C. Carletta, "Aspetti biometrici del matrimonio nelle iscrzioni cristiane di Roma," Augustinianum 17 (1977) 39- 51.

®”/nepistulam i ad Thessalonicenses homilia 5(PG 62,426).

®' In epistulam i ad Thessalonicenses homilia 5 (PG 62, 426).

®^K. Ritzer, Le Marriage dans les Églises chrétiennes du 1er au Xle siècle (Paris, 1970), 128.

®^ The Syro-Roman Lawbook, trans. by Arthur Vôôbus (Etse; Stockholm 1983), 26. 53

rupture of the engagement by the giving party, on the condition that if such a rupture

did occur, the àppocPœv was forfeited. If the party receiving the appocPtov unilateraly

broke off the engagement, they were subject to repayment of the cxppaPcov, plus

damages.^ The church favored the form of engagement with dcppoptov since it was

more formal and not as easily broken as the more casual classical form.“ In the

second homily on the fallen Eutropius, Chrysostom mentions that a man intending to marry a wife would make arrangements about the dowry and then give an earnest

(à(paJ3wv).“ This is evidence that engagement with otppoPtov certainly existed in the East by 399 — the date of Eutropius' disgrace — though Ritzer believes this form of engagement was not predominant in the East until after the reign of Justininian.®^

There is, however, also the evidence from theSyro-Roman Lawbook (dated 468 AD) that earnest was given as part of the engagement process. It is, of course, impossible to assign a specific date at which engagement with txppoptov became the common practice, but considering the evidence of Chrysostom and the Syro-Roman Lawbook it is probable that this practice became widespread at an earlier date than Ritzer suggests.

^ This earnest money was given under the title of betrothal gifts and was subject to the laws regarding betrothal and antenuptial gifts;Cod. Th. 3.5.1-14.

Ritzer, Le Marriage, 128-129. This was in keeping with Church policy that closely associated engagement with marriage and increasing sought to strictly limit the availability of divorce.

^Homilia de capta Eutropio et de divitiarium vanitate (PG 52,407). The text of this passage is problematic in its details, but there is no question that it refers to engagement with (xppa Prnv. The pasage is quoted and discussed in the section concerning dowry, below.

Ritzer, Le Marriage, 129; "Ces fiançailles arrhales, avec leurs formalités, comme l'ont montré les recherches d'histoire du droit, furent prédominantes dans l'Empire romain d'Orient après le règne de Justinien, sinon dans le droit écrit, du moins dans les usages populaires." 54

Before a marriage took place there was a period of "courting." This was an anxious time for the young woman, who worriedly pondered what sort of husband would be chosen for her.®* It was entirely possible, however, that bride and groom might never meet before their wedding.

riœç péya eaxiv; eÎTté poi. ô n tov anavm GoXapeuopévri f| Koprj Xpovov, |it |587iote tov vuii(t)iov eopaKuia, ànb ttîç Ttpâxriç Tpépccç OÜTO) 7to0£i Kai OTépyei toç arôpao Ik eio v jwiXiv b àvrp, f|v ovdénoxe éiôev, f)ç o^éTtoxs T% èv Aoy

'iÇoixyi. K aï %atpouGi toûto tîoioîivteç, Kcà où% fyyoûvTai ÇTjpiav Eivai to yivôpEvov àXX’ ôpâvTEÇ TT|v GuyaTÉpa âîtayopÉvriv, où o u i^ E ia ç pÉpvrivTai, ovx ccXyomiv, ov ôocKvovTai, àXXà Kcà Evxapiazovai, KOCI £Ù%f|g ’épyov E iv a i vop lÇ oixji t6 Koci Tqv GuyaTÉpa i6 e“i v Tf|ç olKiaç £^ayopÉVT|v, Kat noXXà pet’ ekeIvttç %pT|paTa.

How great is it (mystery), tell me. Because the girl, being kept at home all the time, and has never seen the bridegroom, from the first day she desires and loves him as her own body. The husband again, who has never seen her, and never shared conversation with her, from the first day prefers her before everyone, before even loved ones and relations, even before his parents. The parents again, if for some other cause they are separated from their money, they are vexed and distressed, dragging to court those doing the taking. They entrust their daughter and a dowry of much money, to a man, often whom they have never seen or are even acquainted with. And they rejoice doing this, and do not consider it to have been a loss. But seeing their daughter led away, they do not consider the intimacy, nor are they grieved or vexed, but they are even grateful. They consider it to be an action of prayer, to see their daughter being led out from home, and with her a large sum of money.®®

®®£)e uirinitate (PG 48,578).

Quales ducendae sint uxores (PG 51, 230). 55

This passage provides further evidence for the nature of arranged marriage in this period. It was possible for a bride and groom to be complete strangers, to have never met or even spoken with each other until the actual time of their wedding or possibly engagement. It was even possible that the bride's parents might arrange the engagement never having met the prospective groom. It is not clear from this passage whether Chrysostom considered the engagement or the wedding to be the

"first day." One might wonder whether it was possible for a betrothed couple to spend time with each other and to become acquainted with each other, during a period of engagement. An arrangement of this sort would allow the opportunity for couples to determine their compatability and an ill-suited match could be prevented before an actual wedding took place.

As discussed above, more and more the church began to see the period of engagement as being closely akin to marriage itself; and civil law, possibly influenced by the church, imposed penalties on those who unilaterally and unjustly broke off an engagement. It is possible to understand this as evidence that the relationship between engaged couples was more like that of married couples than complete strangers, and therefore there was possibly extensive contact between the betrothed.™ The following passage from the Syro-Roman Lawbook offers some important evidence on this very issue.

If a girl promises a man to become his wife and her parents or she herself receives a ring or any graven work in gold or gifts or other objects, and he who made the proposal of marriage to her dies — if now the parents of the one who made the proposal of marriage to her

™In modem Greece, in all practical sense, engagement is perceived in the same manner as marriage. Engaged couples commonly enjoy conjugal relations and live together in the same manner as married couples. 56 or one from his family or of those who are related to him demand a return (of the gift) from the girl or her parents, the laws order: If there has been a bridal bed for the girl and her bridegroom has seen and kissed her, she gives half of what she has received - gold or ornaments or something else from her bridegroom or his parents — and shall return it to his parents. If the bridegroom has no parents, (then) to the relatives who are close(st) to him in generation. If he has no parents or others who are closely (related) to him, his betrothed is the closest and everything she has from her bridegroom and from his parents, the law gives her. If a young man betrothes a girl only through others, since he is far away and there is no bridal bed for the girl and the bridegroom has not seen her or kissed her, if the girl dies, everything that he or his parents gave to her, shall be returned to him or his parents by her parents or relatives — everything that is his except that which is to be deducted for eating and drinking.^'

In the second and fifth (last) paragraph of this passage the same expression ("If there has been a bridal bed for the girl and her bridegroom has seen her and kissed her") is used as a determination of the nature of a betrothal. This expression almost certainly implies conjugal relations, and it is significant that in the fifth paragraph the possibility that conjugal relations had not taken place between a betrothed couple is qualified by the condition of physical separation ("...since he is far away").

This implies that had "he" been present at the time of betrothal, conjugal relations would have normally taken place. It is also significant that in the final paragraph of this passage the determination is made that in circumstances in which conjugal relations did not take place ("...since he is far away”), the bridegroom was liable for the cost of maintaince ("...eating and drinking") of the bride — just as a husband is responsible for the maintaince of a wife — during the period of engagement. This, again, implies that betrothed couples normally lived together and the the cost of

The Syro-Roman Lawbook, 25-26. 57 maintaince would normally have been a de facto expense of the bridegroom. This is further demonstrated in the second paragraph of the passage which states that in the condition that "...there has been a bridal bed for the girl and her bridegroom has seen her and kissed her, she gives half of what she has received — gold or ornaments or something else from her bridegroom or his parents — and shall return it to his parents." In this circumstance there is no mention of a deduction for the cost of maintaince since that cost had already been assumed by the bridegroom through the condition of their living together. On the basis of the above passage there would seem to be significant evidence demonstrating that, at least in the East, betrothed couples normally lived together and had sexual relations prior to being formally recognized as husband and wife.

However the idea of such an arrangement is possibly inspired by a more modem sense of marriage than is evident in the fourth century. It is probable that

Chrysostom did not have this sort of arrangement in mind, since in some of his other writings he said that women who had been hitherto kept at home, were exposed on their wedding day, for the first time, to social interaction.^^ Chrysostom, in his pamphlet On Virginity, where he discusses in some detail how a marriage comes about, never mentions engagement as a period of cohabitation or even familiarization. In the context of the previous passage from Chrysostom's essay on

"How to Choose a Wife," marriage would seem less of a "mystery" if there was a recognized period of familiarization before marriage, than if on the wedding day itself, a couple met for the first time and fell in love. Chrysostom also states in his twelth homily on Paul's letter to the Colossians, that at wedding celebrations two

illud: Propter fornicationes uxorem (PG 51, 211); In epistulam i ad Corinthos homilia 12 (PG 61, 103-04). 58

groups of women were present, virgins and matrons; virgins to release the bride

from their ranks and matrons to receive her/^ This would seem to indicate that the

bride was still a virgin at the time of her wedding and that cohabitation was not

normally a part of engagement.

As mentioned above, engagement was recognized in the Classical Roman

period as a distinct phase of the marriage process, although in the Augustan

legislation on marriage, engaged people were considered as if legally married.’"*

Therefore, in the Augustan period there was a close association, at least in legal

terms, between marriage and engagement. However, it became necessary in the

second part of the Augustan legislation (Lex Papia) to limit the length of the engagement period to no more than two years, since some men were evading the marriage laws by entering very lengthy engagements that might or might not conclude in marriage.’^ This evasive strategy only makes sense if engagement was understood to be completely different from marriage, since its object was to avoid the burdens of marriage. This suggests that classical engagement did not necessarily entail cohabitation or, in fact, any extensive contact between the betrothed couple.

Neither Garland nor Lacey give any indication that engagement custom in Classical

Athens allowed the betrothed couple to live together.’®

The evidence is mixed on whether there was a clear difference in betrothal custom between Classical Rome and late antique Syria. In the late antique period,

In epistulam ad Colossenses homilia 12 (PG 62, 386).

S. Treggiari, Roman Marriage, 65.

75 S. Treggiari, Roman Marriage, 65.

’® R. Garland, The Greek Way of Life', W.K. Lacey, The Family in Classical Greece. 59

the evidence of Chrysostom implies that betrothal did not involve cohabitation,

while that of the Syro-Roman Lawbook indicates that cohabitation was a part of

engagement. It is possible that both forms of engagement were practiced in late

antiquity and that this corresponded to the two legal forms of engagement —

engagement with àppoPœv and engagement without it — that have already been

discussed. If the betrothed couple were planning on living together during the

period of engagement then it may have been necessary to secure an earnest from the

bridegroom to make certain that his intentions were honorable. If, however, the

betrothed couple did not expect to live together or have extensive contact during the

period of engagement, then it was less important to secure an earnest since the

bride's virginity and her reputation would presumably remain intact, and there was

little at risk in the case of a broken engagement.

Dowry In regard to the earlier passage in which Chrysostom described how marriage was a great "mystery," obviously not all marriages were necessarily arranged without any contact between bride and groom, or even between the groom and the bride's parents; his future father and mother-in-law. However, Chrysostom discussed the anxiety felt by women especially, but also men, concerning the arrangement of a marriage. It could be a difficult period for the suitor but since he was a man, he could freely get about town and make inquiries, though he might never see his potential bride.” The bride's family might receive a number of suitors and the betrothal process could resemble a contest.^® Once the contest had been

77 De uirginitate (PG 48,578); In epistulam ad Ephesios homilia 20 (PG 62,140).

” De uirginitate (PG 48,578-79). 60 won, the victorious suitor was later summoned to the house of the bride's father and he delivered her over.’® In many cases a contract would be drawn up that stipulated what should happen if certain circumstances arose. As we have seen, these pre­ nuptial contracts were particularly concerned with the disposition of dowry and the various conditions that might affect inheritance.*® One of the issues was that of inheritance, and this indicates that the division of wealth — among children and spouse — was settled even before marriage.*' Further evidence that the disposition of the dowry was an important concern for men about to marry can be found in the following passage:

ZÙ ÔE oxav liÉXlpg ayeoGai ywdiKa, Tcpbç p'ev toùç vopiKoùç perà TioAIfjç xpèxEiq T% aTtouSùç, Ka'i 7rapaKa0TTjLi£voç aùrdiç, peTa nàoriç «Kpipelaç è^eToÇeiç ri pèv eaxai, èàv dîtaiç TeXsuTnafi T] YUVT], ri 5'e èàv E%ouoa TcàiSa, ri ôè èàv 5ùo Kai ipéiç, Kai îtrôç pèv E%ouoa Tiarépa, tccûç 8è oÙk E%ouoa xdiç èauxf|ç %pf|OExai, Ka'i ri pèv eIç xoùç àSE?i(|)OÙç %Ei xoû Klfpou, ri ôe eiç xbv ouvoiKOÙvxa, Kai tcôxeKÙpioç èoxai xoû mvxbç, pTjôéva priôèv àctÆivai xwv èKEivrjç TiapaoTcdaaoGai pépoç, Kai ttoxe xoù Tcavxbç èKTlEOElXai*

And when you are about to take a wife, you run out with much haste to the lawyers, and sitting beside them, you draw out with great accuracy what will be if your wife dies childless; or if she has a child, or two or three. And while her father is living or not living, how can her money be used. And what part of the estate goes to her brothers, and what to her husband, and when will he control all, no one being able to detach from him his portion. And when can he be deprived of all.*’

’®//i epistulam i ad Corinthos homilia 26 (PG 26, 222-23).

*®See above, also; Homilia 48 in Genesim (PG 54,442); Homilia 56 in Genesim (PG 54, 489-90).

*' Quales ducendae sint uxores (PG 51,225).

*’ Quales ducendae sint uxores (PG 51, 226-227). 61

There is certainly some rhetorical exaggeration in this passage, since it is difficult to believe that every man who was about to marry sought out a lawyer first. This passage, nonetheless, is evidence that at least some people consulted lawyers concerning the disposition of dowries, and Chrysostom clearly expected his audience to be familiar with this sort of attitude.

According to Balsdon, Roman marriage contracts typically contained an agreement about the dowry, listing the items and their value, including any jewelry and clothing that the bride brought to the marriage.®^ This is shown to be true by a surviving marriage contract from Roman Egypt, in which the dowry list includes jewelry and clothing among other things.*"* Such a practice was perhaps contrary to

Classical Greek custom which Lacey states as not including household or personal items as part of the dowry.®^ Chrysostom is more concerned with the numerous conditional clauses of marriage contracts, and I am unaware of his ever discussing tlie enumeration of assets in marriage contracts.*® This could perhaps indicate that the marriage contracts that Chrysostom was familiar with were more in the Greek custom than the Roman. However in theSyro-Roman Lawbook, it was recognized that dowries could be composed of gold, properties, garments, money, slaves, cattle, horses, camels, and flocks of sheep.®^

** J.P.V.D. Balsdon, Roman Women (New York, N.Y., 1962), 183-84.

Henry A. Sanders, "A Latin Marriage Contract,"Transactions of the American Philological Association 69 (1938) 104-119.

W.K. Lacey, The Family in Classical Greece, 109-10.

*®For example, Quales ducendae sint uxores (PG 51,215).

The Syro-Roman Lawbook, trans. by Arthur Vôôbus (Etse; Stockholm 1983), 21. 62

The issue of dowry in the later Roman Empire is an important one. In the

earlier period of classical Rome, a dowry was given by the wife or her family, for

the purpose of offsetting the cost of her maintaince in her new household.®* The

wife gave the dowry and her husband received it. David Herlihy has maintained that

the "flow” of wealth significantly reversed direction in the fourth and fifth centuries

A.D. and it was increasingly the groom who was responsible for providing a large

marriage gift or "reverse dowry" (donatio ante nuptias)}^ Herlihy cites some

literary evidence to support his ideas but as he himself admits this evidence is rather

"oblique," and he relies primarily on evidence from the law codes: a novel of the emperor Majorian, and part of Justinian's legislation on marriage.® He cites

Majorian's novel as providing evidence for the increasing practice of daughters and their parents to exploit young grooms eager for marriage, by coercing a large

"donatio" from them.®’ He also cites a novel in theCorpus luris Civilis that states each partner in a marriage must contribute equal shares (dowry and donatio must be equal in value) toward the establishment of a new household. Herlihy maintains that both of these measures were designed to check the increasingly common practice of brides receiving large reverse dowries, which was proving overly burdensome to prospective grooms.®^

*® See above, "Dowry," in chapter two.

*® D. Herlihy, Medieval Households (Cambridge, Mass., 1985), 14-16.

® Herlihy, Medieval Households, 16.

®’ Herlihy, Medieval Households, 16.

®^ Herlihy, Medieval Households, 16. "He (Justinian) abrogated the old restriction on gifts between the spouses, and changed the name of the reverse dowry fromdonatio ante nuptias to donatio propter nuptias, 'donation for reason of marriage.' Like the dowry itself, thedonatio could be paid at anytime. And he stipulated that the value of both conveyances had to be equal; any special 63

Herlihy associates this remarkable change in marriage custom with a shift in the marital ages of men and women in this period. On the basis of inscriptions and some literary evidence, he detects a trend — between 300 and 600 A.D.— for men to marry increasingly younger and for women to wait longer or not marry at all.®^ In his view, these dramatic changes in marital practice marked significant changes in society as a whole. Possibly due to demographic factors, it would seem that women had gained greater economic independence and were choosing to put off marriage; which meant men were having to enter the marriage market sooner and pay a higher price.®'* Another possible factor in this important development was the late antique attitude concerning sexual renunciation and the high prestige accorded virgins.®^

These factors may have combined to limit the number of available women interested in marriage, and therefore created the higher "prices" associated with a market shortage. In sum, Herlihy maintains that begining in the second century, and becoming more common by the fourth and fifth century, there was a significant change in marital custom that was indicative of an equally significant change in late antique society. This change in marital custom was then marked by a reverse in dowry. The classical custom of the bride offering a dowry to her groom is reversed in late antiquity and it became custom for the groom to bring a substantial "mariage-gift" to

pacts made in regard to one applied also to the other. Both bride and groom and their respective families were obligated to contribute equal shares to the costs of setting up the new household."

®^ Herlihy, Medieval Households, 19.

®‘* Herlihy, Medieval Households, 21.

®^ Herlihy, Medieval Households, 22; See also P. Brown, The Body and Society: Men, Women and Sexual Renunciation in Early Christianity (N.Y., 1988). 64 his bride. The costs associated with marriage and the establishment of a new household were effectively borne entirely by the groom. The reason for this change can be found in the significant social and cultural changes that were taking place in this period. The traditional role of women as wives and mothers was being superceded by a new acceptance of women who were more independent. These women given viable alternatives to marriage no longer rushed to the altar at tender ages, but rather they waited longer to many or chose not to many at all. This had the effect of creating a shortage of marriageable women, therefore driving up the value of nubile women, and thus establishing the context for the new reverse- dowry.

The significance of just such a cultural and societal change, founded on a new elevation in the status of women, should be obvious. The Herlihy thesis is primarily concerned with the West, but it forces an examination of the East to determine if the same development can be detected, and if not, why not.

Chrysostom offers no evidence to support the conclusions of Herlihy. In fact, the evidence that Chrysostom provides concerning dowry supports an opposite conclusion. Chrysostom predominately discusses marital fortune hunters as bride- seeking bachelors and, as seen above, condemns men for caring more about the wealth of a bride than her character. He explicitly denounces men who try to gain wealth by marrying a rich wife.®^ He describes the sometimes awkward process of the father-in-law giving over the dowry in installments and the bridegroom being anxious for full payment.®’ Even though it could be very expensive to marry off a

^Quales ducendae sint uxorem (PG 51, 230).

®’ De uirginitate (PG 48,544). 65 daughter, most fathers took joy in the occasion and would never think indifferently of the alternative.’* Chrysostom does not devote a lot of his attention to marriage dowries, but when he does mention them it is always in the context of their being the responsibility of the bride and her family. He states one of the "mysteries" of marriage is how parents rejoice at handing over their daughter and a large dowry to a man (the groom) they hardly know.” In chastising certain wives who complained that their husbands had not been adequately successful in their careers and had not made them rich, Chrysostom wrote:

ÉKÀeyéoGo) 7uap’èa0if| -ràç îcevEoxépaç, àvocÀoyiÇéaGo)nàaai 7tdA.iv EÔyevœv KÔpai où pôvov dvôprâv oûôev KpooéAoPov, ôAAd Kcti TtpooÉStùKav, m i rà cxûrœv djtavta âvdAwav.

Let her choose and place beside herself, those even poorer. Let her consider again how many well-bred and noble brides, not only have received nothing from their husbands, but even handing over dowries to them, have spent everything on them.'”

This passage would seem to contradict any notion that women were commanding high "bride-prices" since it plainly states that even noble women — who would have been in the best position to bargain — were spending their dowries (legally the wife's property) on their husbands. The context of the passage makes it clear that these women were not expecting to get rich by means of a largedonatio, rather they had expected their husbands to be more successful in business.

In epistulam ad Colossenses homiliae 12 (PG 62, 388).

”Quales ducendae sint itxores (PG 51, 230).

100 In epistulam ad Ephesios argumentum et homilia 20 (PG 62,144). 66

I am not aware of Chrysostom's mentioning the burden of "bride-price" in

relation to prospective grooms. In his twelfth homily on Paul's letter to the

Colossians, he writes that fathers should seek husbands of good character for their

daughters, and not be concerned about wealth or nobility. It is in this homily that

Chrysostom again states that fathers happily bore all the expense of a daughter's

marriage, and the following passage from this homily is the only passage that might

be taken as evidence for reverse dowry, but again the context argues against such an

idea.

Ilpwtov pev avSpa ÇrpEi tfj TtcxpGev© ôvxcoç àvôpa kcci Tupoaxocxriv, (0Ç acopau èm8f|oetv KEcjxxÀ'nv. WÇ oùtc àvôpdcxcoôov,àXkà Guyaxépa aôx^ péXlmv irapaStoasiv* pi] xpfpaxa Çfjxei, pii yévouç Xotpjxpôxîixa, pii TtaxpiSoç péyeGog, îidcvxa xanxa TcepixxààXkà \|ru%T|g e'üX.oPeiav, ETiiEiKeiav, xiiv àlr|8f| oweoiv, xoû 0eoû xov (})ô|îov, El PoûXei pE0’ Tj6ovf|g x6 Guyaxpiov Çt)v. nXouaicoxEpovyoup Çrixoûaa, où pôvov aûxîiv oôk «xjÆXfiaEiç, dü\ià Koà PÀàv|/Eiç, SouXtiv àvx’ èA£u6Épaç Tcoioûaa. Où xooauxriv yàpànb xwv Xpwltûv KopjiojoExai xriviiSoviiv, ooT|vàtio xon Ôouàeueiv xiiv

So first seek a husband for the virgin, to be husband and protector, as if intending to place a head upon a body; not as if intending to give to him a slave, but a daughter. Do not seek wealth, nor family distinction, nor great lineage, all these things are superfluous; but seek piety of soul, reasonableness, a quick comprehension of truth, the fear of God; if you wish your beloved daughter to live with pleasure. For in seeking a wealthier husband, not only do you not help her, but even hinder her, making her a slave instead of free. For this sort of woman will not enjoy the pleasure of golden things, so much as the odiousness of slavery.'®*

Nowhere in this passage is a reverse dowry even mentioned, and the sense of the passage indicates that Chrysostom is discussing the possible drawback of a wife

'®' In epistulam ad Colossenses homilia 12 (PG 62, 390). 67 living with a wealthy man, rather than a wife or her family collecting a large donatio.

Chrysostom, in his pamphlet on divorce, plainly states that men should not marry divorced women because a woman in her second marriage is an adulteress and there is no shortage of legitimately eligible women.'®^ When he does criticize marriage from the groom's perspective, it is in the context of limiting his freedom and the burdens of familial responsiblities. Chrysostom, while not wishing to condemn marriage entirely, often took occasion to point up the drawbacks of married life in order to discourage its wide use. It is strange that he would not take advantage of the new circumstances that Herlihy projects, if they were, in fact, present in the East.

There is no doubt that the demographic structure of the East and West differed in this period and that may explain the apparent cultural differences in regard to this issue. The laws that Herlihy cites (which are his primary evidence), however, would seem binding on the entire empire and not just a portion of it.

Therefore, we must examine these laws to determine if they are truly evidential of a change in marital custom and indicative of significant social and cultural change.

As mentioned, Herlihy cites a novel of Majorian (NMaj. 6.10) issued in 458 as evidence that daughters and their parents were extorting large donationes from grooms.‘“ It will be useful to quote this novel:

'“ Delibella repudii (PG 51,221).

Herlihy, Medieval Households, 16; "In 458, Emperor Majorian denounced the avarice of parents with marriageable daughters, and of the daughters themselves. Alledgedly, they were exploiting 'naive youths,' who were 'excited by the desire of future marriage.' They extracted from the young men a largedonatio, out of which they took the bride's dowry and returned it to the groom. The bride and her family were contributing effectively nothing to support the burdens of matrimony.' Majorian branded with infamy those who entered into such deceitful contracts, declared the marriages illicit, and all ensuing offspring illegitimate." 68

Sane quoniam quorundam cupiditatibus obviandum est, qui generorum exhauriunt facultates ac sibi vel filiabus suis vel suboraatis quibuscumque personis, priusquam aliquid de nuptiarum pactione constituant, ab incautis iuvenibus et futuri concitatis multa faciunt occulta fraude conferri, quae secuta sollemnitate votorum filiabus refundant aut forte maiore amore perfidiae sibi existimant adquisita, unde huius callidi frivolique conunenti ita nullum esse iubemus effectum, ut infirmato tails colore contractus sui iurls postea gener vindicet vel actione proposita securus reposcat, quidquid per inliciti posthac contractus imaginem alienare conpulsus est.

The avarice of certain persons must be prevented, since they exhaust the resources of their sons-in-law and by hidden fraud they cause the young men who are incautious and aroused by their desire for the future marriage to confer many things upon themselves or upon their daughters or upon some suborned persons, before they establish anything in regard to the agreement for the marriage. After the due solemnization of the vows has followed, they refund such property to their daughters, or perhaps with a greater desire for perfidy, they consider that the property has been acquired for themselves. Whence we so order that there shall be no effect of such shrewd and deceitful falsehood, that the pretext of such a contract shall be invalidated, and after the son-in-law becomes legally independent, he shall vindicate, or safely demand by the lodging of an action, whatever he has been compelled to alienate through the semblance of a contract which shall hereafter be illicit."^

The most striking aspect of this law is that nowhere does it contain the termdonatio, though Herlihy seems to imply that it does.'“ There is no direct reference to donatio in this novel because it was not donatio at issue but rather the earnest money (

The Theodosian Code, transi, by Clyde Pharr (Princeton, 1952), 556. I have used the Pharr translation because it was cited by Herlihy and was apparently the text on which he based his conclusions.

‘°^See note 91 above. 69 things upon themselves (that is the father of the bride) or upon their daughters, or upon some suborned persons, before they establish anything in regard to the agreement for the marriage (priusquam aliquid de nuptiarum pactione constituant)."

A donatio would have been part of the marriage agreement negotiated prior to marriage, as is evidenced by the laws on betrothal and antenuptial gifts.'”®

Furthermore, a donatio, by its very nature, became the property of the wife and there could be no question as to its ownership. It therefore would not make sense, if the issue is donatio, for the passage to concern itself with the transfer of such property following marriage: "After the due solemnization of the vows has followed, they refund such property to their daughters, or perhaps with a greater desire for perfidy, they consider that the property has been acquired for themselves." The implication is that the property should neither be refunded to the daughter nor kept by the father- in-law, but is in fact the property of the groom. This can only refer to an earnest, a guarantee that the groom would go through with the wedding, and this earnest would have been recoverable "after the due solemnization of the vows."

This is not to say thatdonatio, a gift given to the betrothed woman by her prospective husband, did not occur. The law codes make it clear that sometimes gifts were given to brides before marriage.'”^ It was possible for the earnest to be given under the title of betrothal gifts (arris sponsaliorum nomine datis).^°^

However, the law codes are explicit in their treatment of earnest and betrothal gifts

106 Cod. Th. 3.5.1-4.

Gifts given between husband and wife were not legally valid and therefore any exchange of property between a husband and wife had to take place before they were married; see,Digest 24.1.1.

m 3.5.10. 70 as separate and distinct actions. The earnest, while sometimes given under the title of betrothal gifts, was still considered a distinct action and was subject to separate and specific laws governing its recoveiy or forfeiture.'*” This separation of earnest and gifts is also explicitly demonstrated in the Syro-Roman Lawbook as is shown in the following excerpt.

If a man betrothes a wife from her parents or from her relatives or a person closely (related) to the woman and gives as an earnest a ring or a graven work in gold or dinars furnished with the imprint of the king, but when the man who betrothed her does not wish to take her as for his wife, he loses his earnest and everything he brought to her as to his bride. But if the parents of the girl wish to annull the betrothal, and do not deliver over the girl to her bridegroom, then they give what they received on the first day as the earnest double (in amount). The rest, that which they received as gifts after that day, gifts which were given to the girl by her bridegroom (are returned) as they are (and not more). In any case — only what they received on the first day is returned double.""

In paragraphs three and four of the above passage the separation of earnest and dowry is defined as that which is given on the first day (earnest) and that which is given after the first day (gifts). In the case of an engagement that is terminated by the bride or her family, the value of the earnest is doubled and returned to the groom, however gifts that were received after the first day are returned at their original value. Therefore, earnest and gifts were understood to be two separate actions and liable to separate settlements.

'*”Cod. Th. 3.5.10-11; 3.6.1; 3.10.1.

Syro-Roman Lawbook, 26. 71

Herlihy states: "Majorian branded with infamy those who entered into such

deceitful contracts, declared the marriages illicit, and all ensuing offspring

illegitimate.""* This is again, I think, a misinterpretation of the law. The law does

not declare that the marriage is illicit but rather the "semblance of a contract"

(meaning the earnest contract) that was entered into before "they established

anything in regard to the agreement for the marriage." It is the earnest contract that

is invalidated and the son-in-law has legal recourse to recover whatever property

was alienated under the terms of the contract. There is absolutely no indication that the marriage itself is dissolved or that any offspring of the marriage are considered illegitimate. This should be considered further evidence that the issue is earnest and not donatio ante nuptium, and therefore this novel of Majorian can not be taken as evidence for a change in marital custom as Herlihy has suggested.

The other legislation that Herlihy cites as evidence that marital custom had dramically changed is a novel of Justinian. This novel specified that the dowry given by the wife, and the donatio given by the husband, must be of equal value;"^ this in effect obligated both partners in a marriage to contribute equally in the creation of a new household. Herlihy interprets this as legislation to prevent a woman, or her family, from coercing a largedonatio from her fiancé. One could just as easily interpret this legislation as finally forcing the groom and his family to make an equal contribution toward the initial establishment of the new household.

In light of the evidence from Chrysostom, this might make more sense in regard to the apparent problem — at least in the East — of husbands seeking to get rich through

111Herlihy, Medieval Households, 16.

"^C/,Nov. 97. 72

marriage. The Syro-Roman Lawbook provides compeling evidence that husbands in

the eastern portion of the empire were not, prior to marriage, being extorted for large

donatio.

Again King Leo, the blessed — may his memory be forever blessed! - - set the laws that the phemita [(j)8pvf|] settlements which are from the date of his law into perpetuity shall be regulated by contracts, and he has determined these contracts in the following way; Anything which the wife brings to the husband shall be written up in the phemita (document). The husband brings to the wife the marriage settlement (Sojpedt) as agreed between both of them, whether gold, properties, garments, whether money or slaves, or cattle or horses or camels or flocks of sheep, and shall make a contract. In every place according to the (local) law, what the wives bring as phemita and the men as marriage settlement, this (is regulated) according to what their wives bring to them, as it is in the capital of the kingdom and in all the country in the west. What the wife brings, (namely), as much as she brings of whatever nature (yévoç) or kind of object, just so does the husband bring (as much) to his wife as a marriage settlement and gives it to her in writing. If [lacuna]... her husband writes a hundred dinars in an object as a marriage settlement; if the wife brings two hundred dinars the husband brings two hundred dinars. They bring to one another equally, the wife and the husband, in the phemita and in the marriage settlement. However, there is another custom in the country of the administration of the east. It is this: if a wife brings a phemita of a hundred dinars in object, the husband brings a half, namely (fifty) dinars."^

The subject of this passage, as is indicated in the first paragraph, is marriage

contracts and how they are to be determined. In paragraphs four and five of this passage it is stated that "in the capital of the kingdom and in all the country of the

The Syro-Roman Lawbook, edited and translated by Arthur Voobus (Etse; Stockholm, 1982), 21-22. 73

West," wives and husbands bring equal shares to the marriage. In the final paragraph of the above passage it is stated that, "there is another custom in the administration of the east," and that is the husband only brings half of what the wife brings to a new marriage. This law clearly states that the custom in the East was such that the husband only contributed half as much as the wife toward the formation of a marriage. This is important evidence not only in regard to the specific issue of marriage, but also in regard to the use of Roman law codes as evidence for societal practice. There is no indication in theCorpus luris that regional variations existed in the application of civil law, and if it were not for the

Syro-Roman Lawbook we would be left ignorant of an important distinction between marital contracts in the East and West. The evidence of Chrysostom and that of the law codes, including the Syro-

Roman Lawbook, indicates conclusively that in the eastern portion of the later

Roman Empire, there was no significant change in marital custom. Herlihy was especially concerned with the West, and if in actuality he is correct in his thesis, then there was a marked and significant difference between the East and West in this period. However, considering his perhaps mistaken interpretation of the laws on which he primarily based his argument, it is possible that the change in marital custom that he hypothesized was not present in the West either.

Herlihy connected the supposed reverse-dowry with epigraphic evidence that women were waiting longer to enter their first marriage, while at the same time, men were contracting their first marriages at a relatively younger age. This epigraphic evidence is rather tenuous since it is based, for men, on only eleven inscriptions dated 300-399; two inscriptions dated 400-499; and two inscriptions dated after 500.

The sample size for the age of women at first marriage is not much larger: twenty- 74 nine inscriptions dated 300-399; eight inscriptions dated 400-499; and six inscriptions dated after 500."“ A much larger sample base than the one Herlihy provides is needed to make any assertions about age at first mariage. As I discussed in a previous section on this question, Brent Shaw has researched a much larger sample of Christian inscriptions and concluded girl's age at first marriage was 17.

Shaw also rebuts the notion that Christian girls relative to classical Roman (pagan) girls were being married at a later age due to the Christian appreciation of virginity.

Shaw, noting the significant difference in the quality of the inscriptions themselves -

- the Christian inscriptions, in the quality of stone and workmanship were much inferior to the earlier pagan inscriptions — states: "The Christian sample, far from being peculiarly 'Christian', is simply evidence of a broader lower-class pattern of marriage that typified most of Roman society, even in the earlier 'non-Christian' centuries.""^

It has been demonstrated that neither the legal evidence nor the inscriptional evidence is capable of supporting the theory that a significant change occured in marital custom during the fourth and fifth century. The evidence of Chrysostom and that of the Syro-Roman Lawbook offer a compelling argument that, in the East, there was no signficant inflation ofdonatio ante nuptium, and that just as in the classical period, the bride continued to make a significant financial contribution to the marriage by means of her dowry.

"“Herlihy,Medieval Households, table 1.1,19. The numbers are further reduced if adjustment is made to eliminate inscriptions attesting to probable second marriages.

"®Shaw, "The Age of Roman Girls at Marriage," 41-42. 75 Ceremony The marriage of a son or daughter brought great happiness to the parents."*

The father of a bride took joy in the occasion despite the great expense that he might incur.'" The mother of the bride directed the wedding arrangements such as the decorating of the house. This might necessitate borrowing furniture, mirrors, and clothes from friends and neighbors and, of course, the mother and bride worried lest these items be damaged in the uproar and confusion of the celebration."® The bridal chamber was elaborately decorated for the great occasion. Gilded tapestry was hung, gold and silver ornaments might be borrowed and placed about the room..'"

The marriage ceremony itself was very much a product of Roman custom, which Chrysostom himself recognized and lamented.

Ô yàp yd|ioç Ttpâypa rtpiov eivai ôokeI x a i tdTiv k o i tdiç ^(O0ev Kai Eou Tipiov àXXà yàpcov TEÀoupévwv, roaaûxa KarayéTiaara ylvExai Tcpaypaxa, baa anxiKa aKonaeoGe. ŸTto yàptt |ç anvr|0£laç oi ttoXlot KaxExôpevoi xa'i 7tapaX,oyiÇôpevoi, oûôÈ ôiayivcôoKotxyiv anxcàv xb àxoTiov, ÔÀÀ' èxéptov 5éovxai xwv ôiSaaKÔvxœv. Kai yàp xopéiai xai KupPaAoc koi an loi Kai pTTjiaxa Koà yapaxa aloxpà xai péGai xai Kwpoi Koti ttoXùg 6 xon ôiaPoXon xôxe èjtEiaàyexai (jxjpnxôç. K ai oISa pèv bxi Ôo^o) Kaxayé?^aaxoç eivai xouxwv ÈTtiÀapPavôpevoç, Kaitcoà A.'tiv Tcapà xolç xolÀdtg àvoiav, xoùç TtaXaioùç vôponç pexaKivwvbrop yàp e(t>0riv elîutôv, 7ioX,ùç xrjç ouvriGeiocç ô 7tapaX,oyiapôç*

Marriage is considered to be an honorable thing, both by us and by foreigners; and it is honorable. But when marriages are

"*/n epistulam i ad Corinthos homilia 26 (PG 61,222); In epistulam ad Colossenses homilia 12 (PG 62, 388). In epistulam ad Ephesios homilia 20 (PG 62,140).

"’ /n epistulam ad Colssenses homilia 12 (PG 62, 388).

"®/«epistulam ad Colossenses homilia 12 (PG 62, 390).

"®/n epistulam ad Ephesios homilia 20 (PG 62, 145). 76 accomplished, such ridiculous things occur as you shall straightaway hear. For the masses possessed and misled by custom, do not discern their strangeness, but they need others as teachers. For both dances, and cymbals, and pipes, and shameful words and songs, and drunkeness, and revellings, and all the devil's garbage is then introduced. I know that I shall seem to be ridiculous, attacking these things, and shall be liable, according to the many, for great folly, changing the ancient customs. For just as I said before, the deception of custom is great.

Part of the ceremony involved a raucous parade through the city to the marketplace.

The bride was conveyed in a carriage or perhaps on a decorated wagon.The bride

might be veiled, though she might wear make-up and eyeliner, and was displayed

before the city. The parade took place at night and was lit by numerous torches and

accompanied by loud singing and the playing of flutes, pipes, drums, and cymbals.'^^ The songs were bawdy tunes sung by the mostly intoxicated young

friends of the bridegroom. It was not just young men who participated in the bridal

parade, but young women were also present.'^

By custom, two different groups of women were present at these

celebrations; virgins and matrons.’^'* The virgins were present in order to give the

bride (presumably a virgin herself) away, and the matrons were present to receive

the bride into their ranks.Thus was physically symbolized a significant event in

’^ /n epistulam i ad Corinthos homiliae 12 (PG 61,103); see also, In illud: Propter fomicationes uxorem (PG 51, 210-11).

Quales ducendae sint uxorem (PG 51,239).

Quales ducendae sint uxorem (PG 51,239).

epistulam i ad Corinthos homilia 12 (PG 61,104-105).

'^Chrysostom says this is a custom that he can agree with. However, I have found no evidence of it in either Roman or Greek ceremonies.

125 In epistulam ad Colossenses homiliae 12 (PG 62, 386). 77 the life course of the female; the passing from virginal adolescence to matronly marriage. A third group could also be present; women from the theater, dancing girls, or as Chrysostom describes them "harlots."'^ Their function was as part of the festivities, as entertainment. Obviously Chrysostom did not approve of inviting women such as these to wedding celebrations since their inclusion mocked the very purpose of marriage, that being the preservation of chastity.'^’ There may also be present mimes and other "effete" actors from the theater.'^ There was much banqueting, and sumptuous meals were served to the guests.'^® Throughout the festivities the bride and bridegroom were subjected to the risqué comments and railing of the celebrants."" The bridegroom wore a garland on his head as a symbol of victory."' Crowning was, of course, an important and visible aspect of classical wedding ceremonies.Early Christianity did not approve of the ritual of crowning, but its widespread acceptance meant that crowning was closely associated with marriage despite the opposition of the church.'" Chrysostom was, in fact.

'^®/n epistulam ad Colossenses homilia 12 (PG 62,385-86); Homilia 56 in Genesim (PG 54,486).

In epistulam ad Colossenses Homilia 12 (PG 62, 386).

'" /«Illud: Propter fomicationes uxorem (PG 51,211).

epistulam ad Colossenses homilia 12 (PG 62, 390).

'" /n epistulam i ad Corinthos homilia 12 (PG 61,103); Homilia 56 in Genesim (PG 54, 487).

In epistulam i ad Timotheum homilia 9 (PG 62,546); In illud: Propter fomicationes uxorem (PG 51, 212).

Balsdon, i^oman Women, lS3;Tieggiari, Roman Marriage, 163.

P. L'Huillier, "Novella 89 of Leo the Wise on Marriage: An Insight into its Theoretical and Practical Impact," Greek Orthodox Theological Review 32 (1987) 153-162. 78 instrumental in transforming this pagan ritual into a Christian one. In the Christian perspective, as expounded by Chrysostom and demonstrated in the following passage, the ritual of crowning was symbolic of the bridegroom's victory over sexual temptation and moral laxity.

Ô Ttpb T0Ô yapot) aoxjjpovcov, jroAA^ pôÀXov pexà tbv yapov* 6 ôè pa0(bv TtopveuEiv Ttpb too ydcpou, Kai pexà xbv yapov îoôto Ttoifioei. AvSpi yàp, (prpi, nôpv

Ke being chaste before marriage, much more will he be chaste after marriage; and he knowing fornication before marriage, also will do this after marriage. To the man who fornicates, they say, all bread is sweet (Eccli. 23. 24). Because of this crowns are placed on their heads, as a symbol of victory, that they are unconquered; in this way they come to the marriage-bed unconquered by pleasure. But if being conquered by pleasure, he gives himself over to prostitutes, why does he have a crown on his head, having been captured?"'*

Ritzer believes that Chrysostom's ingenious interpretation of this ritual had a significant role in its ultimate acceptance by the Greek Church."^

The bride's hair was specially braided and she wore lavish robes ornamented with gold."® In many cases the celebration marked the first occasion that the bride participated in public life."’ Ideally she had been hitherto cloistered in her father's

134 In epistulam i ad Timotheum homilia 9 (PG 62, 546).

Ritzer, Le Marriage, 136; "II est cependant très probable que l'interprétation ingénieuse donnée par Jean Chrysostome de cette antique coutume a contribué de façon décisive à la faire admettre ensuite dans la liturgie de l'Église grecque."

"®/n epistulam ad Colossenses homilia 12 (PG 62,390).

"’ //i epistulam i ad Corinthos homilia 12 (PG 61, 103). 79 home but now she was abruptly exposed to public scrutiny.'^® It is clear that the production of these celebrations must have required a certain degree of wealth.

Chrysostom even comments that one hazard of being in the crowd and commotion was that sometimes valuable golden jewelry could be jostled and lost. It was not, however, only the wealthy classes that partook in these celebrations since

Chrysostom says that female servants also risked their salvation through their participation."^

Obviously this event was a very public one, and offers a clear example of the relationship between the family and the city. There is a significant amount of scholarship on the Roman wedding ceremony and it is clear that the ceremony in this later period has much in common with earlier Roman custom. The most essential features of the Roman cermony were the torchlit procession and feasts.''"

Marriage was a significant event in the life course of both men and women. The institution of marriage is most essentially the creation of a new family and it is significant that a public ceremony heralded this genesis. A relationship between the city and the family was established from the begining. Chrysostom vehemently condemned the public spectacle of this ceremony and called for its substitution by a more solemn and private affair in which the church played a central role."" Instead of the public-at-large taking part, only friends and family should be invited.

™In illud: Propter fomicationes uxorem (PG 51, 211); In epistulam i ad Corinthos homilia 12 (PG 61.103-04).

'®®/n epistulam I ad Corinthians homilia 12 (PG 61, 105).

See, S. Treggiari, Roman Marriage, 161-70.

"" Homilia 48 in Genesim (PG 54, 443); In illud: Propter fomicationes uxorem (PG 51, 211); In epistulam ad Colossenses homilia 12 (PG 62, 386-90).

epistulam ad Colossenses homilia 12 (PG 62, 390). 80

Ritzer observed that Chrysostom never said a word about the presence of a priest or

a benediction when he railed against the pagan wedding ceremonies in one of his

homilies on Colossians.A pparently, though, some families did invite the clergy

to part of the ceremony, but Chrysostom complained that these same families on the

very next day celebrated in the customary fashion.''^ Chrysostom understood that

by criticising the current practice and putting forth his proposal that he would, no

doubt, incur the insults and condemnation of many people."^ However he was

hopeful that if the first steps were taken toward a more Christian celebration of

marriage, in time it would become the custom.''*® Chrysostom was proven right, but

not until 692 at the Council of Trullo, did the church officially call for a wedding

benediction, though by this time it had already become more the custom.''"'

In sum, the evidence of Chrysostom indicates that marriage in late antiquity

continued to be arranged and celebrated in much the same fashion as earlier classical

marriage. Weddings were celebrated in a very public manner and this is indicative

of the continuing active and open realationship that existed between the family and the city. This evidence would seem to deny Patlagean's thesis that beginning in the

Ritzer, he Manage, 139-40.

In illud: Propter fomicationes uxorem (PG51,211).

In epistulam ad Ephesios homilia 20 (PG 62,145); In epistulam i ad Corinthos homilia 12 (PG 61,103); In epistulam ad Colossenses homilia 12 (PG 62, 389); In illud: Propter fomicationes uxorem (PG 51,210).

Homilia 56 in Genesim (PG 54,488); In illud: Propter fomicationes uxorem (PG, 211).

Ritzer, he Mariage, 140. Ritzer says that the earlier work of Chrysostom was recognized as playing a significant role in this Christian transformation of the wedding rites. See also, E. Herman, "De benedictione nuptiali quid statuent jus byzantinum sive ecclesiasticum sive civile," Orientalia Christiana periodica 4 (1938) 189-234. 81 fourth century, and as a result of urban decline and the deterioration of urban social structure, family structure became closed and isolationist. Chapter IV: Husbands and Wives

In this chapter the roles and relationships of husband and wives are examined. There was a considerable amount of continuity between the Classical and late antique periods in both the ideals and reality of spousal roles. In both periods the wife was considered to be subservient to the husband who was understood to be the highest authority in a marriage. It was, however, also understood that marital harmony and marriage as a partnership were important sentiments that all spouses should strive to achieve. The role of the husband was that of provider and the role of the wife was that of household manager.

These roles often meant that the husband participated more fully in public life, but it did not necessarily mean married women were secluded in the household.

Chrysostom provides abundant evidence that married women were commonly seen in public, and he himself, although a strident moralist, declared that it was not shameful for women to be seen in public. Chrysostom disapproved of the societal double standard that allowed men to have adulterous affairs but punished severely women who did likewise. He called for the same punishment to be given to husbands as well as wives caught in such circumstances.

82 83

The issue of domestic violence is examined in this chapter and there is evidence in the writings of Chrysostom for husbands beating their wives, as well as wives beating their servants. This issue is especially intriguing since there is no direct evidence from Classical antiquity for wife beating. The relationship between spouses and household is also examined in this chapter. Servants were an important part of the household but they were not considered a part of the family. Chrysostom provides evidence for what was considered to be the size of large, moderate, and smaller sized households.

Finally the issue of divorce is examined and although Chrysostom mostly confined his comments to a condemnation of divorce for any reason other than adultery, it is possible to speculate in regard to the frequency and common causes of divorce. There does not seem to be any evidence in Chrysostom that divorce and remarriage were common, and this is in contrast to serial marriages among the late

Roman Republican aristocracy.

Roles The newly married couple would set up a household separate from their parents.’ The payment of the dowry was a potentially embarrassing matter since the bride's father was naturally reluctant to give it up and might do so only in installments and not in a lump sum.^ However, there is some indication from

Chrysostom that the bridegroom's parents eagerly anticipated the departure of their

' In epistulam i ad Corinthos homilia 26 (PG 61,222).

^De uirginitate (PG 48,578). 84 son for a new household.^ In this new household the roles of husband and wife were separately defined.

The separate roles of husband and wife in the late antique period had much in common with earlier custom. In its attempt to gain converts, early Christianity could not afford to alienate society by radically altering the traditional roles of men and women in society. Chrysostom echoed the sentiments of the apostle Paul, that the wife is subservient to the husband.

’ Ap%q ôetnépa eaxiv f) yu vq . Mf|te oûv aüxr| xqv laoxi|ilav aTtaixEiTCo, x>nb ycup xqv KectxxXqv saxi: pf|TE ÉKàvoç toç ÙJtoTETayjLiévriç Kaxoc(l)povel'tto; awjiia yap eoti, kccv Kata(|)povr| xob acopatoçq K£(j)aA,q, m i am q TtpoaaTtoXEixai.

The wife is a second authority. Neither then let her demand equality, for she is under the head; nor should he look down on her as being under subjection, for she is the body, and if the head is contemptuous of the body, it will itself perish."*

The analogy that Chrysostom used to describe the authoritative relationship between husband and wife is that of the husband as the "head" and the wife as the

"body". Authority is invested in the "head" but marriage is a union of the two as partners and no marriage will succeed if the two parts do not act as one.^ The analogy of the "head" and the "body" is a very Christian one, dating back to Paul,

In epistulam i ad Corinthos homilia 26 (PG 61, 122).

* In epistlulam ad Ephesios homilia 20 (PG 62, 140); see also, Homilia 30 in Matthaeum (PG 57, 368); In epistulam i ad Corinthos homilia 26 (PG 61, 214).

^ In epistulam i ad Corinthos homilia 26 (PG 61, 214 & 222); In epistulam ad Titum homilia 4 (PG 62,683); In epistulam i ad Timotheum homilia 10 (PG 62,549); In epistulam ad Colossenses homilia 10 (PG 62, 365-66); In epistulam ad Ephesios homilia 20 (PG 62,140-41); In epistulam i ad Corinthos homilia 34 (PG 61,291-92); In epistulam i ad Corinthos homilia 37 (PG 61,316). 85

and is used elsewhere to describe the relationship between God and the church as

well as bishop and congregation. Chrysostom also used the secular analogy of the husband as monarch and the wife as lieutenant general.

É t o iv a TO p ev \)K0TOTrrp:ai, x6 Se op%p to y à p opoxipov diSe ttoAàcckiç pd/Tiv d o a y eiv ovk d(j)fiK£ StipoKpaxiav eivai, à X k à P a o i^ ia v , K ai Ka0d7U£p ev otpaxoTceSip, t a w | v d v tig i5 o i ttiv Sidxo^iv Ka0' 8KaoTr|v olKiav. Ë ou yoûv èv xd^ei pev PaoiÀécoç ô àvrp, èv TO^ei 5e mocpxou Tj yuvri Kcà oxpaTriyoû.

Therefore, in order that the one might be subject and the other might rule, for equality often brings strife, he did not permit it to be a democracy, but monarchy; and just as in an army, one may see the same order in every household. There is, at least, the husband in the rank of king, and in the next rank, the wife as prefect and general.®

This passage demonstrates again, the conception of the husband as the highest authority in a maniage and clearly dismisses any notion of equal partnership between husband and wife. In other passages however, Chrysostom did refer to the wife as a partner, an equal in honor and capable of teaching and counseling her husband.’ In a more negative sense the husband and wife are equal because they are like slaves to each other; authority is divided between them.® This contradiction, as in the one regarding the purpose of marriage, is perhaps indicative of the seperation between reality and ideals. The ideal of the man as head of household was certainly ingrained in the Graeco-Roman mentality, and was also dominant in the Judeo-

Chiistian tradition. It is possible that the rhetoric of Chrysostom reflects this traditional ideal while at the same time recognizing that a variety of marital

®/n epistulam i ad Corinthos homilia 34 (PG 61, 289).

’ /« lohannem homilia 61 (PG 59, 340-41); In epistulam i ad Corinthos homilia 26 (PG 61, 214).

^De uirginitate (PG 48,563-64). 86 relationships existed. This is rather in keeping with earlier Roman moralists who professed the idea of the husband as sole authority, while praising the harmony and concord of a marriage between equal partners.® In this context there was nothing uniquely Christian about Chrysostom's message, but it can instead be seen as continuous with Roman tradition, although the rhetoric is certainly Pauline.'® The wife would share, for better or worse, in the accomplishments of her husband, and if he had a successful career in government she would share in the glory, but if he fell into court intrigue she could be widowed and enslaved. Chrysostom describes just such an event in the following passage.

© eo S to p o v lacoç àKOueiç xov ànb ZiKeX,ltxç... àXk’ eKipou^ieuoaq |3aaiÀ â kcù ôàoùç, aûxbç |xev àttexpf|8r| G<|)ôôpa èXeeivwg, q ôè TOUTOU yuvq, koci àvaxpo(j)Tiç Kcà yévouç Ka'i tw v oAAtov àîtàvTWV oùôèv EÀaTTOV E%ouoa xqç EuyEveiaç Tqg oqç, Ttavxtov â(j)vo) 7upv(ù0Éiaa tw v aÛTqg x a i 1% E?ÆU0£p'iaç aÛTnjç EKJteaoûoa xaiç T ttuiaK aiç ÈplGoiç EYKaTEXéyETO, k o i 7tàor|ç 0Epa7iamôoç OÎKTpÔTEpOV Çf|V flVayKOÇETO (3iov...

You have heard, surely, about Theodore of Sicily (a prominent member of the imperial court)... but having plotted against the king and being captured, he was violently and pitiably beheaded, and his wife, having nothing less in education and family and all other things than your noble self (a young widow), all of a sudden was stripped of her possessions and her freedom, being thrown out and enlisted among the household servants, and being forced to live a life more pitiful than a slavemaiden..."

See above, Roman Marriage.

*®In fact, the same can be said of Paul who was just as much a product of his Graeco-Roman culture as was Chrysostom.

"At/ uiduam iuniorem (PG 48,604, see also, 608-09); see also. De virginitate (PG 48,577). According to Ammianus Marcellinus (B. 34), Theodore of Sicily was actually from Gaul, however, he tried to become tyrant of Sicily but was defeated and executed. 87

Obviously this sort of scenario was not a common occurance but the threat of it was certainly present. Ancient society was patriarchal, and this fact had not dramatically changed in the 4-5th c. In classical Athens women were expected to remain at home and run the household, and there is some evidence that wives were not expected to accompany their husbands on social occasions or even eat dinner with them.'^

Roman marital relationship was not as harsh as its Greek predecessor, though

Roman moralists perpetuated some of the same ideals — the wife as household manager secluded from public activity." Despite the contracted nature of Roman marriage, evidence from Cicero and funerary inscriptions indicate that love and affection were a normal expectation of marriage." Roman wives maintained the household, could attend dinner parties with their husbands, and appear in public attending the theater, circus, baths, betrothals, triumphs, etc." In late antiquity the practical ideals behind the roles of husband and wife had much in common with those of classical antiquity. The role of the husband was that of provider; he conducted all business outside the home and the wife managed the household and the loom." As can be seen in the following passages, Chrysostom

"W.K. Lacey, The Family in Classical Athens, (Ithaca N.Y., 1968), 151-53 & 159; R. Garland, The Greek Way of Life, (Ithaca N.Y., 1990), 233-36.

" S. Treggiari, Roman Marriage, (Oxford, 1991), 211-227.

" S. Dixon, The Roman Family, (Baltimore, 1992), 84. Gardner, among others, cites the contractual nature of Roman marriage as a possible factor in a conjectured high divorce rate; Gardner, Roman Law, 261.

" s . Treggiari, Roman Marriage, (Oxford, 1991), 414ff.

" D c non iterando coniugio (PG 48,611); In epistulam i ad Corinthos homilia 34 (PG 61, 291); De uirginitate (PG 48, 614-15); In epistulam ad Titum homilia 4 (PG 62, 683); In epistulam ad Ephesios homilia 20 (PG 62, 145); Quales ducendae sint uxores (PG 51,230-231). 88 was explicit in communicating the division of spousal roles, though he is far less expicit in defining the duties of the husband.

Tlva ouv èoti xam a, kcci ev xioi ouvE(|)àttTerou %ûv elç xr|v xoû piou oûoxaoiv aw p; Étieiôti yoep où% ^nov xwv STpocncov xà lÔuoxiKà ouyKpoxEi XT|V TiGcpoûaav Kaxccoxaoiv, Siaveliiaoç aûxà, xà p'ev etc’ (xyopccç Tcavxoc èvExelpiOE xoiç âvôpacTi, xà ÔÈ xaxà xt^v o’iK iav xàiç yw ai^l* xàv àXXd^mvxat xriv xà^iv, Tcavxa ôiE(t)0àpT | Km àîcôXtoÀEV oûxtoç ÈKaoxoç èv x^ lô'up TcoÀù Gaxépou XpriaipcoxEpoç. Oûkoûv e’i xà Kaxà x^v o’iK iàv xr|ç yuvaiKEiaç £7ciaxfip,T|ç è^fpxr|xm , k ol xoaoûxov èv xoûxç) KpEixxtov àvôpoç fi yuvT], ooov xrâv àxèxvtov oi xExvixai èv oiç e’icti XEXVtxoct, xi TCEpixxœç xb ôéoç xoûxo ÔEÔoïKapEv; Tb pÈv yàp TtpoaoôEÛEiv ’É^(û0Ev KCÙ ouvayEiv, àvôpwv pôvov èoiù, yuvaiKCcç ÔÈ KEpôaivEiv où BÉpiç* xb & xà ouvax0évxa ôiaxrpElv k ol (|)\)X,aTtEiv, xaûxriç pôvTjg èoxiv. ùoxE, e’i Kcù ôokei îcAèov Eivm xb Kxr|aaa0a i x o û cûO i opcûç àvEU xoûxou kokeIvo «xpriaxov yivExm Kcù TCEpiXXÔV

What, then, are these matters and in which of them does she join with us for the support of life? Since private duties no less than public ones contribute to the present order of life, in apportioning them God has entrusted to men all that has to do with things outside the household and to women things at home. If they alter this order, all is ruinously undone. In this way each is much more useful in his own sphere than the other. If, then, household matters depend upon womanly skills and in this area a woman is much better suited than a man (just as craftsmen are better in their crafts than unskilled workers), why have we been so terribly alarmed? For accruing and collecting wealth away from home is solely the duty of men. It is not right for women to make profits; but protecting and keeping a close watch on accumulated wealth is her duty alone. Thus, if acquisition seems to be more important than protecting one's goods, nevertheless, without it acquisition is useless and superfluous.

Also:

" De uirginitate (PG 48, 615), trans. Sally Shore (N.Y.: Edwin Mellen Press, 1983). 89 rDvaiKOç ëv èaxi |iôvov, tà CTt)A,A£yôneva 5ia(|)DAdcTtEiv, tocç TcpoGoSo-ug ôiaxrpéiv, %% oIkIoç è7a|j,8^io0ai* Kai yàp 5ià toîVco a\)Tnv ëSiûKev 6 0e6ç, 'iva èv xomoiç fjpîv Pot|9tî pem xœv oXX xùv àîràvTïûv. ÈîreiôT] yàp tov Tjxéxepov Svo m àia auyKporeiv eicoGe, xà iroÀixiKà KOL l5i(oxiKà îcpaypaxa, ôiekèv âp(j)ôx£pa xaôca ô ©ebç, xaw n pèv xrjv xf|g oIkiocç Tcpcxyxaaiav àjtéveipe, xdiç 5è àvSpaoi xà xr|ç to^ûoç àîtavxa Tcpdypaxa, xà xe èîti xr|ç àyopôç, ôiKaCTxrpia, poDÀEDxrpia, 0xpaxr|i)'iaç, xàaXka Tcdvxa. Oo ô w axai àKovxiaai 66pi), oû5è à(j)Élvai péXoç fi yi)viy àXk’ T|ÀaKàxTiv ôw axai A,aipéiv, k oi laxbv ix()âvai, koi xà a X k x mxvxa xà Kaxà XTiv oiK iav 5ia0elvai koc?ic5ç. Oh Sw axai yv(opr|v eicrnynaaoGai èv poDXEwpifp* oAÀà ôw axai yv(opr|v eîçT|yr|aao8ai èv om çt, koi îioAÀaKiç ànep ODmôev ô àvrp xrâv Kaxà xTiv olKiav, pèXxiov aw r| ODvâôev. Ox) ôw axai xà ôrgiooia ôiaG élvai KaXxiàç* àXXà ôw axai Tiaiôia Ô ia0pè\|/ai kccX-wç, xb K£(j)àÀaiov xwv Kxrpàxcûv ôw axai Gepam iviôtov KaKODpyiaç ODviôélv, KOI oroxtjpcxyuinTg èm peÀ x|8f|vai xmv ôiaKOVODpèvtov, xr|v àX,X,T|v àrcaaav xç owoikcÆ vxi 7capè%Eiv àôEiav,Koà 7iàor|ç aw bv xoiaw riç àm xÀ là^ai lÀOVElKfl.

A wife has only one duty, to guard the things we gather, to faithfully maintain our income, to take care of the household. And in fact God gave her for this reason, in order that she helps us in this and in all other things. Since life by custom is fixed in two spheres; public affairs and private matters; dividing these two, God assigned to her the management of the household, and to men all the affairs of the city; matters of the marketplace, courts, council-chambers, armies, and everything else. A woman is not able to hurl a spear, nor let loose an arrow; but she is able to take up the distaff, ply the loom, and arrange well all the other things regarding the household. She is not able to introduce an opinion in the council-chamber, but she can give an opinion in the household. Often as the husband understands household matters, she understands them better. She cannot manage public affairs well, but she can oversee the children well, the crown of all wealth. She can see at a glance the misbehavior of the handmaids, and to manage the moderation of the sevants, and to afford a freedom from care in everythingelse in the marriage, and set her husband free from worry and everything of this sort in regard to the house, store-rooms, woolworking, preperation of the meal. 90 graceful clothes. She has charge of everythingelse that as men it is not befitting or easy to manage, even if he is infinitely contentious.'®

Thus there was a sharp distinction between the public role of the husband and the private role of the wife. The husband's place was in the market or fields, and the wife's place was at home managing the household. It is interesting that in these two passages — which are indicative of Chrysostom's attitude elsewhere — the role of the husband is only vaguely defined while that of the wife is described in much more detail. The husband is the provider and the one member of the household who participates in "public life." The wife has very specific duties such as overseeing the servants, raising the children, protecting the household assets, woolworking, and meal preparations. All of these tasks were directly related to the maintaince of the family and therefore the wife's role was clearly defined in familial terms. On the other hand, it would be difficult to distinguish the difference between the duties of a husband and those of a bachelor. As men, both the husband and bachelor, were expected to participate in public life and work for a living. There do not seem to be any intrinsic duties that are uniquely those of the husband. Therefore, in ideal terms the husband lacked any specific duties toward a marriage, but the wife's entire function was defined by marital and familial duties.

Chrysostom kept up the rhetoric of this ideal, although evidence for the changing nature of these roles can also be found in his writings. He condemns what he considers the breakdown of these God-given roles since some men have taken up the loom and weaving.

Ouxe yoip Ttavm e7C£TpE\|/£ à v ^ i, ouxe Ttdcvixx xf) y w a ik i, àXÀà Kcci xotûxa ôiÉiÀEV ÉKaoxtp, xf| pÈv xqv oiKiav, xç) ÔÈ xqv àyopàv

18 Quales ducendae sint uxores (PG 51,230-231). 91 EY%eipmog, Kai laev to ipéctÆiv, yEmpyÉl yap; xf) SÈ t o TTEpiPoAAEiv, lOTOç yop Kai ^aKotrn tfjç ywaiicôç; am oç yàp e8cûke xfi yw aiK i \x|xx(yiiaTOç0 Ov kcci tovç iotoix;éneiarfyayE, Kcà kepkiSoç aordiç èvEXEipioE Kai KpÔKT|v Kai aTrpovaç.

For (God) neither entrusted everything to the husband, nor all to the wife; but also dividing these things to each; on the one hand entrusting to her the house, on the other hand entrusting to him the market; and to him the task of support, for he tills the ground; and to her that of clothing, for loom and distaff are the wife's, for He Himself gave to the woman skill in woven work. But beware the covetousnous, which does not remit this apparent difference! For the foolishness of the many has introduced our men to the looms, and put shuttles in their hands, and the woof, and threads."

The sense of this passage indicates that Chrysostom was complaining about husbands who shared in the household chore of weaving. Chrysostom begins the passage by once again delineating the "God-given" duties and roles of both husband and wife, and then goes on to chastise men who took up wool working since this was properly women's work. This is certainly a significant change, on the part of at least some men, in the contributing role of husbands in the household. It should, however, remain doubtful whether husbands in general began redefining their marital role since this passage is the only evidence for such a change.

It is also possible, however, that Chrysostom was talking about professional weavers. Liebeschuetz has written that Antioch was an exporter of textiles and that clothes made in Antioch were highly prized.^ If the textile industry' was sufficiently large it may have employed some men as weavers, even though this was traditionally the work of women.

" /n epistulam i ad Corinthos argumentum et homilia 34 (PG 61,291).

^ J.H.W.G. Liebeschuetz, Antioch: City and Imperial Administration in the Later Roman Empire, (Oxford, 1972) 79. Liebeschuetz also says that the wide demand of silk garments among the aristcracy meant that the silk industry must have employed large numbers{Antioch, 78). 92

There is also strong evidence that wives did not strictly stay at home within

the private confines of the household, but instead were integrated into many of the

public institutions of the city, and were perhaps, on occasion, even known to attend

the public assembly.

ZÙ 5e, dv |i£v e’iç ÈKKliioiav aovexwç éppdXXp f] yuvn, papùç KaxTÎYopoç ytvp' aûxbç ôè d ç Géatpa Sirpepeixov, oû% fyyp KaxriYoplaç d^ioç dvm

But you, if your wife is continually bursting into the assembly, are a severe accuser; but yourself spending all day at the theater is not a worthy charge of blame.^'

This is admittedly a problematic passage. The Greek word, EKKXiToiav, could be

translated as either "public assembly," or "church." in this passage I think the word

EKKlrplav certainly means "assembly," since it was by no means unusual for

women to be seen in church.^ It is not clear if Chrysostom used the adverb auvEXWç as a modifier to distinguish between the woman who occasionally attended

the public assembly — and was by implication tolerable — from the woman who

"continually" attended the assembly, and was not tolerable. Another possible

interpretation is that it was not tolerable for women to attend the assembly, yet they

continually did so; just as it was not tolerable for men to spend whole days at the theater and yet they did so. It is also possible that Chrysostom was merely heightening the absurdity of the very idea that any woman would dare attend the public assembly. In an earlier passage cited for the roles of husbands and wives,

Chrysostom stated it was not proper for a woman to offer an opinion in the public

Homilia 7 in Matthaeum (PG 57, 82).

Chrysostom complains about women wearing jewelry in church, see;In epistulam ad Hebraeos homilia 28 (PG 63,197). 93

assembly, he did not say it was not proper for her to attend the public assembly. In

any event, the evidence for female attendence at public assemblies remains problematic, though evidence for women at other public institutions is quite strong.

Married women attended the baths, markets, theaters, and there is no evidence that this was extrordinary.

To yap op^v àvôpa ct)'ÔGEa)ç %% àvepoTilvriç pElÇova, Kcà oûôÈv Exovm àvèptÔTtivov, cûX àyyeXov etn yf|g, GaupaoicotEpov toû ôp^v ynvaiKa KEKoAAroTnapét^v. Tatkoc pÈv yàp k oi èv Gsdtpoiç, KOI èv 7 to |im iç , KOI p aX avE ioiç, Kcà 7toXÀa%oô eo iv Iôeiv .

For one sees a man of a nature greater than human, and having nothing of humankind, but an angel on earth; one sees more wonderous than this an embellished woman. For these women indeed are to be seen in theaters, and in processions, and in baths, and everywhere.^

Also, Ti yàp àloycàtepov xoû xpw la eIç toûto KaxaoKEua^Eiv, iva TCEpiKÉtûVTai èv paA,av£ioç kcci èv àyopaiç; À X k’ èv PocÀavEioç Koct èv àyopoiç oûSev lacoç Qaviiaaxôv m 5e koi èv èKlrpiçc oütco GXT|paTi^opÉvT|v TcpoiEvai, 7toX,\)ç 6 yéXroç.

For what is more unreasonable than to furnish golden jewelry to be worn in baths and in marketplaces? But in baths and marketplaces it is perhaps no wonder, but to enter church fashioned in such a way, is extremely laughable.^ In fact, Chrysostom plainly stated that for women to appear in public was not a cause for shame, but he bitterly complained about the wearing of make-up and jewelry and the numerous slave attendants who accompanied these women.

epistulam ad Colossenses homilia 10 (PG 62, 371).

^In epistulam ad Hebraeos homilia 28 (PG 63,197); see also, Homilia 7 in Matthaeum (P G 57,79). 94 ÀXXà TO 7îepi(t)£pe9 a i h à i% àyopôç etù fpiôvcûv fi5t) Ttxj)oç xomo TcepiTTOÇ iiôvov, fiSovTjç 5è aTceaTÉpTpxxi Ttàariç; Kai waiiep oîke OKÔTOç TOV (jxoTOq aixeivov, oûôè tb aDYKeKX^iaixxi xob XeXwGai, oircE TO îioAàÆv xpfiÇeiv toO jirjSevbç, oîkmg ouSè a w q xdiç oiKsioiç Tcoa'i |iT| KexpTi|j,évri d|iBivov ôiaKEiaexai. Tàç yàp àr|6 iaç ooaç èk TOVCwv 'üTTOiiÉvEiv âvàyKTi Tcapltiixi. Kcà yàp oî)% 6 xe pobÀExai E^Eoxiv atm^v 1% oikIoç TcpoEX,0Élv, àXXà ko! Tto^aKiç xpt|olpou Tivbç KaTOîiEiyo'ôaTTç ê^ôÔod oikoi pévEiv àvayKccÇETai, KaBajiEp Twv ÊTianrâv 01 toùç 7tô5aç aTroxExpTpEvoi Kcà 0 6 % exovteç bixp (jÆpoivTO. K àv pÈv ô àvrp xuxyi xàç TipiovoDg ànaa'XpX'rpaq, piKpoxj/Dx'ia Kcà pà%T| Kai îtoÂÀTi 7tapaaiwiT|oiç; d v 5e a W ] priSÈv xwv peXIôvtwv îipoopcopÉVT) TO abro xcmto ÊpydoT|xai, tov dvSpa àvTi Koà f] alScûç. A ià xaôxa Kai xwv âTxriÂÀaypÉvcûv xt|ç ElpKXîiç èkeIvtiç TtoÀÀa'i Kcà Sià péooD xoî) tcàti0odç ètù xr|g àyopôç PaôlÇauoai ox> pôvov oÔk ÈTtEOTidoavxo Kaxxjyôpooç, dXXà Koà TtoÀÀobç Êoxov x% ooxjjpooàvTiç xobg d a v j x a a m ç , koi Ôià xoô oxryxaxoç, Kaî Ôià xoi) Paôlopaxoç, Kcà 5ià xoô xrâv ipaxltov âvETHxrjôEoxoD xriç Ëvôov KOO|ii6xr|xog d(|)iEioai xqv aKxlva ÀapTcpdv; oôk ôXlyai ôÈ xwv Ëvôov Ka0ripÉv(ûv Ttovrpÿ ôb%x| TTEpiÉpaÀov èaoxdç. È v e o x i y à p k o i ooyKEKÀEiopÉvnv pdÀÀov xrôv (jxxivopÉvwv xdiç PooXojiévoiç Ê7nôElKVDO0ai pExà 7ioÀÀf|g xrjç TcpoTiEXEiaç KOI XT|ç IxapôxTjxoç.

But it is pleasant to be carried about the market place on mules. This is only an extravagant conceit devoid of all pleasure. Just as darkness is not better than light, nor confinement better than freedom, nor many needs better than none, so a woman who has not made use of her own feet is not better off. I pass over the numerous unpleasant 95 results arising from this that must be endured. For in fact, she cannot leave her house whenever she wishes but must stay at home oftentimes, although some business is pressing. She resembles beggers who have had their feet cut off and have no means of conveyance. If her husband happens to keep the mules completely occupied, there ensue petty arguments and lengthy silences; but if she without foresight does the same thing, she is angry with herself for disregarding her husband and lets her ill treatment of him constantly gnaw at her heart. How much better it would have been if she had used her own feet — after all, God made them for us for this purpose - - and suffered none of these dire consequences than in her desire to give herself airs to inevitably suffer from a painful misunderstanding. These are not the only reasons that keep women home. This happens when one or both the mules have sore feet. Also when they go to pasture (and this occurs each year for a few days), a woman must again remain at home as if tied down, and she cannot go out in spite of urgent business. If your response is that such a woman has been saved from numerous chance encounters since she is not forced to be seen all ablush by each of her acquaintances, you seem to me to be quite ignorant of both what keeps womanly nature from shame and what covers it with it. For appearing in public or retiring from it does not cause shame, but rashness does since it does not check the soul within; discretion and modesty, however produce no shame. Therefore, many women who have been liberated from their apartments walk through the crowded market and are not censured. In fact, they are much admired for their modesty. Through their demeanor, their walk, the simplicity of their dress, they emit a brilliant ray from their inner decorum. In contrast, not a few of the women who lead a sequestered life have surrounded themselves with an evil reputation. After all, it is possible for a woman who has been shut off from society, even more than those who go out, to make a display of herself before those who wish it with greater recklessness and impudence.^

Clearly in this period, as in the classical period, the ideal of wives confined to the house and shielded from public scrutiny was not a practical realityThe above

^ De virginitate (PG 48,583); see also. In epistulam ad Hebraeos homilia 28 (PG 63, 197- 200); Homilia 7 in Matthaeum (PG 57,79).

^®This serves as an instructive example, when using the evidence of Chrysostom, in the danger of interpreting an ideal as reality. 96

passages attest to women participating in many different aspects of public life.

Women could be seen at any of the public festivities, including the theater. Some

women chose to be carried on mules throughout the marketplace and this was

potentially a contentious issue between husband and wife. A husband might need

the mules for work in the fields or elsewhere, but the wife might desire the pomp of

riding the mules to market. This is an interesting example of a wife participating in

a public institution (the marketplace) while the husband was occupied in more

domestic affairs. In fact it raises the possibility that at certain times of the year, such

as planting or harvest time, when men might generally be found in the field

supervising the seasonal tasks, wives might effectively have a larger public presence

than husbands. In the above passsage, Chrysostom anticipated the seemingly stock reply that

it was better for women not to be seen at all in public as this could be cause for

shame. Chrysostom, in a remarkably progressive frankness, replied that it was not

the mere fact of appearing in public that caused shame but was rather the demeanor

and character of the individual woman that determined culpability. Unlike some

earlier Roman moralists, Chrysostom did not condenm all of womankind to the

confinement of their homes, but instead recognised that women were individuals

and were capable of interacting in society without creating a scandal.

Finally this passage attests to the plurality of lifestyles that were available to women. A woman of means, and perhaps baroque character, might ride through the marketplace on mules, attracting a certain amount of public attention. A more modest woman, walking through the market, might simply attend to her duties without causing the slightest ripple of public scrutiny. Another woman might choose never to visit the market or make any sort of public appearance at all, though 97

this did not guarantee that she would be absent of a public reputation. In any event,

it is significant that a range of lifestyles, from the flamboyant to the reclusive, was

available to the late antique matron.

In sum, marriage was a partnership between husband and wife, each having

distinct responsibilities. The v/ife's primary responsibility was still the management

of the household, including the supervision of the servants.^’ This did not

necessarily mean, however, that she was not permitted outside the home, and often

her duties as household manager meant she normally came and went as she pleased.^ It was not considered shameful nor was it at all unusual for married women to be seen in the marketplace.^® She might either walk to and through the crowded markets, or as some women preferred, ride on mules.^° At the same time there were some women who did not participate in public life but instead remained sequestered at home.^’ Wives probably did not normally conduct "business" in the marketplace, as that was considered the responsibility of the husband.^^ Women who could afford it sometimes wore gold jewelry, pearls, brightly colored dresses and were active not just in the markets but were also present at other public

De uirginitate (PG 48, 586 & 589); De non iterando coniugio (PG 48,614-15).

De uirginitate (PG 48, 574-75 & 582-83).

^ D e uirginitate (PG 48, 582-83).

De uirginitate (PG 48, 58283).

De uirginitate (PG 48, 583).

De non iterando coniugio (PG 48,614-15). 98

institutions such as the baths and church.^^ Apparently, pregnancy, even in its latest

stages, did not impede women from going about their daily business in the city/'*

Marital Relationships It was common for wives to wear various jewelry and perfume but this

sometimes created problems at home. Some husbands grew impatient waiting for

their wives to finish getting preened and primped for going out.^’ In some cases,

however, it was due to the vanity of the husband that a wife wore expensive jewelry

and cosmetics; in this way the wife served as the husband's ornament.^® Jewelry

could be a source of friction between a husband and wife. Husbands complained

about their wives being spendthrifts, wasting money on gold chains that was better

spent on the maintenance of the household.^’ Just as a husband might be proud of

his wife and jewelry and show them off as a symbol of his status, he might also be

suspicious of her and her motives for going about in fine array.^® A husband's jealousy could poison a marriage and make life very difficult for his wife.^*

^ D e uirginitate (PG 48,581).

In lohannem homilia 34 (PG 59, 197).

In epistulam ad Hebraeos homilia 28 (PG 63,200).

^®/n epistulam ad Ephesios homilia 13 (PG 62,100); In epistulam i ad Thessalonicenses homilia 5 (PG 62,426).

In lohannem homilia 61 (PG 59, 341); De uirginitate (PG 48,569-70); Homilia 89 in Matthaeum (PG 59,786).

Catechesis ad Illuminados II (PG 49, 237).

39 De uirginitate (PG 48, 574-76). 99

It was not generally considered adultery for a husband to sleep with a servant or prostitute, and he was not punished by secular law but would instead, according to Chrysostom, receive punishment in heaven. This societal double standard — it was adultery for a married woman to have sex with anyone other than her husband — is of course a continuation from classical culture.'” One of Christianity's most significant contributions to social attitudes regarding marital relationships was the challenge it posed to this double standard. Chrysostom voiced, in no uncertain terms, the Christian disapproval of the traditional attitude.

Ei 6e jiÉ?i?ioiç KKt pexà yàpov KexpT)o0ai Tcopvelaiç, TiepiTxœç f|X.0EÇ ê m xbv yd|tov, Kai eIk t) k c ù p.àxr|v iiôXXov Seo û k eIk t] Kai jidxriv pôvov,àXkà Koù érti pxdpji- Où yàp èaxiv laovo ù k ê%ovta yuvaiKa Ttopveùeiv, Kai pexà yàpov rtdXivxo a ù tb xovro Ttoiéiv. OùSè yàp Ttopveia to toioûto Aoirtov èativ, oÀÀà poi%Eia. Ei yàp KOI TEOpaooçôv Êoti tb eiprpÉvov,àXTC ôÂTjôÉç. OÙK âyvooù|iEv yàp bti tioàTloi poi%elav vo|iiÇouoiv, btav tiç ünavSpov (|)8elpT| yw aiK a pôvov êyœ 5ë Kav Sthioo'içc Tiôpvp, Kav GepaTtaiviSi, Kav ccAlp tiv i yuvaiKi àvSpa oùk ê%oùoîi Tipôoxîi KaKwç KCÙ âKoXàotmg, E%tùv yuvàÎKa, poi%eiav tb to io ù to v E iv a l (j)TlM.i. OÙ yàp Sti pôvov âttb tôv ùppiÇopévtov, àXkà KOÙ ârtb trôv ùppiÇôvtiov tb tf|ç poi%Eiag ou vlotatai ëyKÀT||ia. Mt^ yàp ]ioi toùç e^coGev vôpouç eirtjig vùv, di tàç pèv yuvoÙ K aç |ioi%ei)op.évaç eiç SiK aatfpiov 'éX,K0\x5i Kai eù0ùvaç àTtaitoùoiv, àvSpocç KOÙ yuvoÙKaç Ê%ovtaç koù G epaîtaivioi TtpobGEipopévouç OÙK àjcaitoûaiv eùGùvoç* cüO C èy® aoi tbv toû Ôeoù vôpov àvayvtûoopai, ôpoltoç Kai èni t% yuvaiKbç koù etii toû àvSpbç âyavaK toûvta, KOÙ poi%eiav eivai tb rtpâypa Àéyovta.

If you intend to make use of fornication even after marriage, you have come to marriage in a peculiar way, fruitlessly and without purpose; or rather not merely without purpose or object but to do damage. For it is not the same for an unmarried man to fornicate, and to do again the same thing after marriage. For the same thing is no longer fornication, but adultery. Even if this statement is remarkable, it is true.

40 Gaudemet, "Tendances nouvelles," 201. 100 I am not unaware that many consider it adultery only when someone corrupts a married woman. But I say, if a man having a wife treats badly and licentiously even a public prostitute, even a handmaid, even an unmarried woman, this act is adultery. For not only on account of the ones being maltreated, but also on account of the ones waxing wanton, is the charge of adultery established. For do not now tell me about the laws of the heathens, which drag the adulterous wife into the courts and demand justice, but do not demand justice from married men who seduce servant girls. But I will read to you the law of God, which is equally vexing toward both the wife and husband, saying the matter is adultery.'*’

In this instance, Chrysostom was a forceful advocate for women and the shared

marital responsibility of fidelity. It is especially important to note that Chrysosotom could have condemned these extra-marital relationships simply on the grounds of fornication — sex between unmarried partners. However, he chose to frame the

argument in the context of marriage and the status of the wife. This demonstrates an awareness, not only on the part of Chrysostom, but also among society, that a wife could expect a certain degree of respect that went beyond what secular law might dictate. If we can assume, and I think we can, that Chrysostom chose to make the strongest argument that was available to him, then it is significant that he appeals to the wife's perspective on this issue. It is significant not only in the fact that it can be seen as reflecting the otherwise silent opinion of late antique women and wives, but also in that it surely reflects a larger, societal, acknowledgment of the respect that a wife is due.

A similar concern for the status of women can be found in Chrysostom's criticism of men attending the theater. He criticises men on the grounds that their

'** In lllud: propter fomicationes uxorem (PG 51, 213-14); see also. In epistulam i ad Thessalonicenses homilia 5 (PG 62, 424-25); Homilia 17 in Matthaeum (PG 57, 256-57); In epistulam ad Corinthos homilia 12 (PG 61, 102). 101 undue attention to actresses degrades their own wives and daughters. In fact it is the theater, a civic institution, that Chrysostom perceived as the greatest threat to marriage, morals, and family life.

Ka'i yàp Kai poi%élai, Kai yaptovekei kXojkxi, kcci yw àiK E Ç e k e I TtopvEwpEvai, àvSpEÇ 'nraipTiKorEç, véoi paÀaKiÇôpEvoi, Ttàvra Ttapavpiaç pEoià, ttdvxa TEpaxioSiaç Jtàvra aio%àvr|g. Oùk à p a jékçiv kni TOUTOiç TOÙÇ KaOrpÉvouç É%pf|v, àXkà ôaKpÙEiv Kai OTEVEIV TtlKpÔV. T l oÙv; â7C0K?LElCT0pEV TqV Ôp%f|GTpaV, <|)Tl(fL, K ai T^ Àôyq) T^ oÿ Ttàvra avarpairnaErai; N w pÈv oùv Ttàvra àvarÉapaTtrai. nô0EV yàp 61 rdiç yàpoiç ÈTtiPouÀEÙovrEç; EÎTtÉ poi* OÙK àTto rr|ç OKT|vf|ç raùrnç; IIôGev oi roùç GaXàpouç ôiopÙTtovrEç; oùk àTto rriç 6p%f|orpaç eke'imtç; OÔk evteuGev oi àvSpEÇ raiç yuvaiÇi ^opriKOi; oùk evteuGev rdiç àvSpàoiv a i yuvaiKEç EÙKara(j)pôvr|TDi; oùk evteuGev oi TtÀEiouç poi%ol; CïaxE. 6 rà Ttàvra àvarpÉTtwv 6 Ttpdç rb Géarpov paôiÇtov eoù v, 6 rupawiSa XaAfTtùv ÈTtEiaàytûv. Où;à, d'H^iv, à X là tf! rwv vôutov EÙra£la roùro SoKÉl. Td yàp yuvaiKaç ôiaoK^v, Kcti Ttaiôaç ùjSpl^Eiv vÉouç, Kai oiKiaç àvarpéîtEiv, rœv rôç aKpOTtdXEiç KarEiÀiyjjôrcov Eori. K ai riç poi%6ç, dipiv, àTto rwv GEapàrcov roùrcov yéyovs; Tiç yàp où poi%6ç; K ai El yE t]v ôvopaaù vùv eItieiv , EÔEi^a àv oaouç àvSpaç àTtÉo%ioav ywaiKÔv baouç EAopov ài%paX.(6rouç a i Ttôpvai EKEivai, roùç pÈv àn aùrfjç avaorfpacai r% eùvt )ç, roù ç 5È 0Ù5È rriv àp^V à(j)Êlaai ôpàcfiaai yapq>.

For indeed both adulteries and stolen marriages are there (at the theater), and women being prostitutes, and men visiting prostitutes, and youths being weakened, everything in transgression to decency, everything portentious and shameful. Then those sitting and eager should not laugh at this, but cry and moan bitterly. "What then? Are we to shut off the stage," they say, "and everything upset at my words to you?" So now as it is everything is upset. From what source are those who plot against marriages? Tell me, is it not from this theater? From what source are those who dig through to inner chambers? Is it not from that stage? Is it not there that men with wives are vulgar? Is it not there that wives are despised by their husbands? Are there not many adulterers there? So that he entering the theater is the upsetter of all things, he introducing harsh tyranny. "No," they say, "but the order of the laws gives this." For to tear away wives, and to shamefully treat young children, and to overthrow households, is the 102 work of those who seize citadels. "And what adulterer," they say, "was made from these spectacles?" For who is not an aduterer? And if I was to now say by name, I could show how many husbands have been split apart from their wives, how many prisoners prostitutes have taken there, removing some from the bed itself, preventing others to join with marriage.'’^

On the other hand, Chrysostom did not have sympathy for all women, but

rebuked severely those women whom he perceived to be temptresses. Chrysostom

did not sweepingly blame all women and their powers of seduction for leading men

astray. He blamed those women who wore jewelry and powders and therefore

invited lustful glances.'*^ He also blamed wives who withheld sex from their husbands.

Hyop cÜKOVTOç ÊYKpaxetxiiiévTi toû âvôpbç où% oti twv èyKpatelocç pioGÆv owtoot£pÉitai pôvov, à X k à k o i tf|g eKEivou poiXEiaç aôxn tov Aôyov txjÆ^Ei, k o ù t à ç e ô Gûvccç p&ÜAov ek e I v c o . Ti ôfptotE; ô ti a w | ttpbç to pdpaGpov aôtbv tf|ç àoEÀyEiaç m8r|OE tTjç Katà vopov âîtootEpfiaaoa pi^Ewç.

The wife practicing self-restraint against her husband's wishes is deprived of the rewards of continence. She also has to give account of his adultery and is more responsible than he. Why? Because she pushed him to the abyss of licentiousness by depriving him of lawful intercourse.'”

Chrysostom addressed these remarks to Christian women who were married and who were attempting to become more virtuous and demonstrate their dedication to

God by abstaining from sex. This passage again testifies to a certain amount of

In Matthaeum homilia 37 (PG 57,426-27); see also, In Matthaeum homilia 7(PG 57, 82- 83); In Matthaeum homilia 6(PG 57,71-72); In Matthaeum homilia 68 (PG 57, 643).

Homilia 20 in Matthaeum, (PG 57,287).

De uirginitate (PG 48,570) trans. Sally Shore (N.Y: Edwin Mellen Press, 1983). 103

independence on the part of wives, since evidently some wives asserted full control

over their own bodies and were capable of refusing their husbands what Chrysostom

terms "lawful intercourse." This perhaps does not seem very significant relative to

our modem conceptions of basic human rights, but in the evolution of marital

relationships it is important not to take for granted even the most fundamental rights and attitudes. This passage further demonstrates a fundamental respect on the part

of at least some husbands for the expressed feelings of a wife and the declared

sanctitiy of her body. It should be noted that a husband's deference was probably

made all the easier by the fact that he could legally and, judging from Chrysostom's

words, with some justification, enter an alternative sexual relationship with a prostitute or slave.

The evidence provided by Chrysostom allows a glimpse of the darker side of marriage. Intimidation, humiliation, and domestic violence could be a part of married life in late antiquity. Some husbands treated their wives as slaves, insulting and threatening them.

To yàp avayxp m i SeSoiKuiav m i petà piaç UTtoxeixxxGai iq) àv5p'i TOÛ pexà 7tàoT|ç è^oixnaç ÊTataTtEiv aû t^ potpûrepov eoxai m 'i àr|5£OXEpov. Tl ôfjjtoxE: jtâaav èxPoÀÀEi c^iÀlav m 'i ti5ovt|v aüxri f] pla* (|)iA,laç ôè oùk oûoriç oûôè tcôGou, oûX à v ù xoûxcûv (j)ôpoi) m 'i àvàyKTjç, xivoç ô xoioûxoç à^ioç èaxai yàpoç À o itto v ;

...for when a wife has been subordinated to a husband through constraint, fear and force, it will be more burdensome and distasteful than when she commands with complete authority. Why is that? Because this force destroys all love and pleasure. When there is neither love nor desire but in their place fear and a compulsion, what value will such a marriage have henceforth?'*^

45 De uirginitate (PG 48, 576), trans. Sally Shore (N.Y.: Edwin Mellen Press, 1983). 104

Also, ...xr|v Se xot) pioo Koivcovbv, ttiv nalScov nT|tépa, ttiv Ttacrriç EÎxjjpoaiJVTiç ÔTraGEOiv, o ù

...but the partner of your life, the mother of your children, the foundation of all joy, should not be bound by fear and threats, but by charitable love and good disposition. For what sort of marriage is that where the wife trembles before her husband? And what sort of pleasure will the husband himself enjoy, since he lives with his wife as with a slave, and not as with a freewoman?‘“’

Because marriages were essentially contracted, it is reasonable to suspect that in some cases disparate partners were thrust together. In such circumstances it is not surprising to find husbands berating their wives on the most unreasonable grounds, such as a wife not being attractive enough. In the following passage Chrysostom implores husbands to have greater understanding concerning this issue.

E w oiav ÇTtTÔpEv Tiapà yuvaiK oç, |XETpiO(j)poa'6vr|v, ETtiEiKeiav Taûra toû KoàAonç x à yvtoplapaTa* ompaTog pévroi wpav pii ÇrjTtiopev, pT|ôè eyKoXmpev aÛTfi Ttepi toûtcov, wv oùk eo u Kup'ia, pâXÂov ôè pr|Ôè oAxoç êyKoXwpev (ToXprpcov yàp), pT|ôè àTTOôixjîiETrôpEV, pT|Ôè ôixJXEpalvcopEV.

Let us seek in a wife good-will, temperate-mindedness, reasonableness; these things are the characteristics of beauty. But let us not seek a beautiful body, nor let us bring a charge against her concerning these things, being that she has no power over them, better still, let us not ever bring a charge against her (for it is callous), and let us not be impatient, nor vexed.'^’

‘‘®/n epistulam ad Ephesios homilia 20 (PG 62, 137).

In epistulam ad Ephesios homilia 20 (PG 62, 138). 105

In the above passage Chrysostom is calling upon husbands to be more tolerant and understanding of their wives; not to criticize their wives for things, like beauty, which they can not naturally control.

In marriages that went a number of years without producing children, it was common for men to scorn their wives as being to blame for the childlessness."'*

Although husbands commonly blamed their wives for childlessness, late antique society was aware that sterility could affect both women and men. In the following passage from a homily on the book of Genesis, Chrysostom is discussing the story of

Sarah and Abraham, and the plight of their childlessness.

di5a bu Èyw dpi t] alxia Try; âtcaidlaç* 5ià totV co où poûXopal cte â7COOX£pT|Oai TTIÇ EVXEÛ0EV TtOpapuGlOCÇ. ÎOtûÇ 5 è Kttl bjKnJtXEUEV fl Sdpa pq Ttop’ aùxqv povqv Eivai xà xqg âm ibiaç, à X k à Kcà Tcccpà xbv Tcaxpidtpx'nv ôia xoûxo PouXopévT) ôi’ aûxrâv xwv Êpyœv 7tA,Tpo(|)opT|8f|vai, Ttopaxcopsi xfi îiaiôioxn, m i elç xqv eûvf|v aûxqv ayei, iva paGji 5i’ aùxrôv xœv îtpaypdxtûv, (oç Èauxfi xb Jtâv cxîÆtXfi Àoyi^EO0ai....ôpa irâç pavGavEi t] Sapa, bu où Tiapà xbv ôiKaïov EV aTtaiôiçt Èxuy%avEV, à X k à n ou pà xqv oxEipoxnv xqv èauxf)ç* EÙ0£(oç yàp q ouvoum a xqv ouXÀT|i|/iv EÎpyàoaxo.

I (Sarah) know that I am the cause of our childlessness; therefore, on account of this, I do not wish to despoil you of consolation. Perhaps Sarah even suspected that the cause of their childlessness was not her alone, but also the patriarch. Because of this, Sarah wishing to be fully assured through events themselves, she gives place to her maidservant, and leads her to the very marriage bed, in order to learn through circumstances themselves and to reckon as to whether everything is owed to herself....See how Sarah learns that not on account of the good man (Abraham) does it happen that tliey are childless, but on account of her own sterility; for straightaway sex (between Abraham and Hagar) led to conception."*®

Homilia 38 in Genesim (PG 53, 352).

Homilia 38 in Genesim (PG 53, 352 and 355). 106

In this passage Chrysostom takes it for granted that his audience would understand the possibility of male sterility. He does not attempt to explain the concept of sterility but rather he endeavors to explain the motivation of Sarah for allowing

Abraham to have marital relations with a maidservant. His explanation, that Sarah wanted to determine precisely who was responsible for their state of childlessness, assumes that his audience could identify with the problem and understand Sarah’s solution.

The treatment of the house slaves could be a source of disagreement between the husband and wife and another factor in marital tension.^" Some wives mocked and reviled their husbands as being lazy and/or stupid and for generally not being a more successful provider for the family.^’ Wives were sometimes violently abused.

It is a fact that wives were sometimes beaten; unfortunately it is impossible to conjecture how common this was. Chrysostom says that great shame was attached to the husband who was known to batter his wife and this is an indication that, at the very least, wife beating was not accepted as a common necessity.

K ai où roùro Aùyco, more runreoBai yuvalKa, diraye* eo%drr| yàp roùro ùppiç, où rfi rujiropevri, à X k à r^ rùîirovu* ôÂ là Kav à m îiepiordoecoç rivoç KX.Tpo)@pg, ÿ yùvai, owoiKtp roioùnp, pf| 8uo%epaivpg, rbv dTiOKEijxevov ùtièp roùnov èvvooùoa p,to8bv Ka'i rbv èv r0 Tiapôvn piip etcaivov. Kdi îipbç ùpôç ôè roùç dvôpaç EKEivô pT|ôèv Ëorm roioùrov dpdprrjpa, coç e î ç dvdyKTjv ùpdç dyeiv roù yuvdlKa xÙKrEiv. Kai ri Xèym ywaiKa; oùôè G epaT tam ôa p èv où v d v ô p i rÙTtrEiv èXeuGÉpip k o i %èipaç èîidyEiv dvEKrov dv e i t |. El ô è ôoùàtiv xuTirrioai dvôp'i tio/lù ro ôveiÔoç, TvoXkxp pôÀÀov Kard rf|ç èA£D0Épaç dvaréivai rnv ôe^idv. Kai roù ro KCCI ê k rtôv e^oGev dv nç lôoi vo)io0Ermv, di rriv rd roiaùra

^Ad populum Antiochenum homilia 14 (PG 49, 145); De uirginitate (PG 48,583); In epistulam ad Ephesios homilia 15 (PG 62,109).

In epistulam i ad Corinthos homilia 26 (PG 61,221); De uirginitate (PG 48,562); In epistulam ad Ephesios homilia 15 (PG 62,109). 107 TiaGoûaav o'ükéxi àvayKàÇavxji awoiKeiv xuTcxriaavxi, axe âûxx^lco ôvxi xfiç îipoç avxTiv ô|iiX,laç. K ai yàp éG%dxr|g 7capavo)iiaç xriv xoô ploo koivcovov , xr|v èv xdiç àvayKaioiç Kai àvcDxàxco ooi awe())a7i:xo|iévT|v, xa6xr|v (oç àvSpaTtoôov âxi|iàÇeiv. Aid Kai xdv xoioôxov âvSpa, él ye avSpa aôxdv ôei KaXeiv, à X k ’ od%i ôrpiov, Kcà TcaxpoXoioD Koi pxixpaXoioo loov a v a i

And I say this not so that a wife be beaten; hands off! For this is extreme insolence, not to her that is beaten, but to him who strikes. But even if by some circumstance you are allotted, oh wife, such a sort as husband, do not dispair, considering the reward laid up in store for this and the praise in this present life. And to you husbands I say this: there can be no such fault as to force you to beat your wife. And why do I say a wife? Since not even a handmaid should a freeman strike and bring upon violent hands. And if the shame is great for a man to beat a handmaid, much more to lift up the right hand against a freewoman. And this one might see even from the public laws, that no longer force those being ill treated in such a way to live with the one who beats her, as being unworthy of her companionship. For indeed it is extreme lawlessness when your partner for life, she who shares with you in the topmost and necessary things, is dishonored as a slave. Wherefore also such a man, if indeed it is necessary to call him a man, rather than a savage beast, and I should say to be the equal of a father-killer and mother-killer. For if on account of her we are ordered to leave both father and mother, not wronging them, but fulflling divine law, and in this way they themselves bring it about, this being much desired, as they who are being left behind are thankful and accomplish it with much haste. How is it not extreme madness to insult her, on whose account God bids us to leave our parents? But is it only madness? And the shame, I say, who can bear it? What sort of tale can be presented, whenever cries and screams are carried along the alleys, and both 108 neighbors and passers by run to the house of the one who is disgracing himself, just as if some savage beast was rampaging inside? Better the earth to split apart at the things done by him in a drunken rage, than he be seen in the market afterwards/^

Chrysostom, true to his name, has conjured up a very vivid image of this most distressful event. This is obviously a very important issue in regard to spousal relations and it is especially significant in light of the fact that in the classical period there is no evidence that husbands beat their wives. The only evidence that could speak to this issue is written testimony and it is entirely possible that our classical sources (for the most part written by men) chose not to discuss this particular issue.

Treggiari conjects that the the relative difficulty of divorce in early Christian society, as opposed to the ease of divorce in classical society, increased the possibility of violent spousal abuse.” This would seem a legitimate prospect, though Chrysostom stated that it was possible for a beaten wife to leave her husband.

The above passage offers more concrete evidence for a possible reason or cause of wife-battery. In the final sentence of the excerpt, Chrysostom describes the shame that was attached to the man, who in a "drunken rage" comitted this deed.

Chrysostom connects wife-battery with drunkeness, and intoxication was certainly not a vice invented by late antique society. It is difficult to believe that, on account of discrepancies in divorce laws, drunk husbands in the classical period showed more restraint than drunk husbands in this later period. I would therefore contend that wife beating was just as much a part of classical culture as it was of early

” /«epistulam i ad Corinthos homilia 26 (PG 61,222).

” Treggiari,Roman Marriage, 431. In the fourth century and under Christian influence, legislation was passed that dramatically changed divorce proceedures, making it more difficult to receive a divorce. This issue will be discussed more fully below. 109

Christian culture, but that it was the church fathers who finally raised the issue in a public forum/"

Another important aspect of the above passage is the close association that is revealed between the public and the private. In any society, domestic violence could be considered a fundamentally private issue; an issue to be setled within the family.

Chrysostom reveals that the shrieks and wails of a wife being beaten brought the attention of not only neighbors, but even strangers who might be passing by. These

"outsiders" rushed to the house in which the wife was being abused, and great shame was visited upon the abusive husband at his next appearance in public. This demonstrates, at the very least, a public curiosity in regard to certain forms of spousal relationships. A public response to the screams of a woman in a house may not seem all that extraordinary, but I would submit that it would not shock our modem sensibilities if we were to learn that instead of rushing to the house of the endangered wife, neighbors closed their shutters and passers-by scurried away. The point is that either response, if not equally valid, is at least equally possible, and the fact that late antique society responded in a participatory manner rather than in a isolational manner is an important indication of a societal attitude. Even the most embarassing or shameful events that took place inside a home could become a matter of public censure, and this indicates the intimate relationship that existed between the family and the city. Even so, it is probable that shame and embarassment were not that great of a deterrent from wife beating. Chrysostom said

Augustine also discussed husbands beating their wives; Shaw, "The family in Late Antiquity: the Experience of Augustine," 31-2. 110 that Roman law allowed for a beaten wife to leave her husband but in reality some women had nowhere to tum/^

Considering that many marriages were essentially contracted and some without regard to the wishes of the potential bride or any romantic sense of love or attraction, it is interesting to find evidence that couples normally developed a loving and compassionate relationship. Love and desire became the primary value of marriage.^® Chrysostom even lamented that husbands and wives loved each other more than God.

N w 5 e ETÎSIÔT] K(Xmx})EpÉtg E c p s v , Ka'l 0

But now since we are in decline, and have exceedingly fallen off, and we men love our wives more than God, and we women honor our husbands more than God, He drags us against our will to his grace and love. Love not your husband more than God, and you will never suffer widowhood; rather even if it should occur, you will not perceive it.®’

Couples shared love and tenderness and aspired to achieve the joy of a harmonius marriage.®* Chrysostom acknowledged the great pleasure that a wife and children brought to a man.®* The wife counted on the husband for consolation and support in

55 In epistulam i ad Corinthos homilia 26 (PG 61, 222); De uirginitate (PG 48,562-63 & 574).

®®De uirginitate (PG 48, 576 and 577).

®’/«epistulam i ad Thesalonicenses homilia 6(PG 62, 431-32).

5 8In, epistulam ad Colossenses homilia 10 (PG 62, 365); In epistulam ad Titum homilia 4 (PG 62,683); Homilia 38 in Genesim (PG, 350-51).

Homilia 37 in Matthaeum (PG 57, ) 70. I l l

difficult times and the tragedy of an unstable marriage, especially a jealous husband

is made clear.®® The loss of a spouse was something to be dreaded by those couples

who had over the years built a life together and grown intimate, as well as by

marriages that were just starting out and had not yet fulfilled the expectation of

love.®' Even temporary separation from her husband was sometimes difficult for the

wife to bear.®^

Household

The household (oikoç, olKia) in the ancient Greek world was comprised of

the nuclear family — husband, wife, children — as well as domestic slaves and all property associated with the oikoç.®^ Interestingly, neither the Greek nor Latin language possessed a word that strictly meant kindred family or just the nuclear family. The Greek term oikoç (olKia) is basicly the equivalent of the Latin term familia or domus which, again, meant the household — including all family slaves and family property.®^

Chrysostom used the term oiKia to designate the household, and in his use of this term it is clear that he is refering to not just the nuclear unit but also the domestic servants.®® However, Chrysostom also gives an indication that domestic

®®Dc uirginitate (PG 48, 574-76).

®' De uirginitate (PG 48, 578-79); In epistulam i ad Thesalonicenses homilia 6(PG 62, 432ff).

®^De uirginitate (PG 48, 579).

®® W.K. Lacey, The Family in Classical Greece, (Ithaca N.Y., 1968), 15-16.

®^For a discu,ssion of the latin terms see, S. Dixon, The Roman Famly, (Baltimore, 1992), 2- 3.

65 Quales ducendae sint uxores (PG 51,240). 112 servants, while a part of the household, were not normally a part of the emotional ties that bound the nuclear family together.® A husband/father might worry about the well-being of his wife and children, and he might take care that his children receive a large inheritance and that his wife had golden jewelry; but his concern in regard to his servants was only that he have a large number of them.®^ Obviously not every household had exactly the same attitude regarding servants and family but there is no indication from the writings of Chrysostom that masters/mistresses had any significant emotional investment in their slaves.® On the other hand, it is quite clear that genuine love and concern were normally shared between members of the nuclear family.® This emotional attachment among the family core served to distinguish the nuclear family from the rest of the household, even though family and servants all shared the same domestic space.

Chrysostom considered servants an integral part of the household. Servants might be called upon, in consultation with the husband, wife and children, when considering how best to resolve some financial matter.™ The organization, protection, and harmony of the household was dependent, in part, on the servants; even one bad servant could break apart the entire household.^'

^Homilia 21 in Genesim (PG 53, 182-83); Homilia 2 in Genesim (PG 53, 31).

Homilia 59 in Matthaeum (PG 58,581-82); In epistulam ad Hebraeos homilia 34 (PG 63, 233).

The position of nurse (nBrivôç) may be an exception to this (134).

® Other parts of this dissertation will prove this.

™ Ad populum Antiochenum homilia 3 (PG 49,220).

In epistulam ad Ephesios homilia 20 (PG 62,143); In epistulam ad Ephesios homilia 22 (PG 62, 155). 113

There were various degrees of authority within the household and servants

held the fourth rank; behind the husband, wife, and their children.

É t a iv a TO |ie v \)JiOTaTTVTai, to 5e op xn to yàp ô^ôti|iov, oiSe ttoXXoKtg n(x%r|v EioavEiv, ouk dcjifiKE ôrpoicpaTiav eIvoi, àXkà PaoiXEiav, Koa KaGcttiEp èv OTpaT07i£ô<}), TaoTrjv d v Tig lô o i ttiv 5idTo^iv koG’ EKdoTTiv oiK iav. ËOTI y o w EV TO^Ei |iEV PaoiAicog 6 dvrp, EV Toc^Ei 5È Ù7tdp%oo ii yuvri Koi aTpaTrfyoû, Kot'i oi TtdiSeg SÈ dp%f|V KEK^fptOVTtXl TplxriV, ^Ttt ^lETtt T ttlka d pxf| TETOpTTl T] Twv oIketwv, Koà yàp k oi o& oi KraxTOÛoi twv ÈÀaTtôvwv, k oi e’îç TIÇ TCOAÀaKlO TOIÇ Tcâoiv £<|)£OTTlKE, TqV TOÔ ÔEO7K)T0O TO^IV ôiaTrpiœv, 7tX,Tiv œç oIkèttiç. Koà pEtà T aw |ç ÉTÉpa TtaXiv ôpxT] KOI èv aÛToiç t] ttov yuvaiKœv, f] tô v Ttaiôtûv, Kcà èv aw olg Toiç Tcatoi mxkiv ÉTÉpa KaTà rnv f)A,iKiav Kai KaTà tt]v ^ w iv , oû5e yàp EV TÔiç TtaiSloiç ôpoltoç to Gfpio KpaTÉl.

Then, in order liiaî the one might be subject, and the other rule, for equality is often known to introduce strife. He did not discharge it (marriage) to be a democracy, but kingship. And just as in an army, this same order one may see in each household. For there happens to be in the rank of king, the husband; and in the rank of lieutenant and general, the wife; and the children also have been appointed third command. Then after these a fourth office, that of the servants. For these also rule over their lessers, and often one of them is placed over the rest, maintaining the rank of master, though still as servant. And with this again another command, rule over their women and children, and among the children themselves again another command acording to age and sex. For neither among the children does the female hold equal rule.’^

This, again indicates that Chrysostom did not consider slaves as part of the core family, since he ranks authority within the household on the basis of sex and age, but adult slaves are ranked below the free children. There is a separate ranking among the servants themselves and this made for two separate organizations - rank within the family and rank within the household. This is evidence that the

In epistulam i ad Corinthos homilia 34 (PG 61,289). 114 household servants were considered a distinct group within the household and separate from the nuclear family. The family was part of the household but the household slaves were not necessarily part of the family.

Nurses and tutors might have a special relationship with the family children but this is an issue discussed in the section on children. Further evidence for the separate character of household servants is

Chrysostom's highly negative attitude toward them. Chrysostom characterizes servants as being lazy, deceitful, troublesome, impudent, ungrateful, rascals.

ÂÀXà ixxÛTa p è v locoç (jxDprftà, k o i t à ix m œ v e u xocX^TKOtEpa, oiov TO K a0 ’ EKOcoTnv S ia xE iv eoG a i ù |v TpEpav pçcGuplav ÊTno'cpécjjO'üaav,KaKOupylav ÈYKÔTtTOUoav, àxopioûoçm u o t x y a v , TTIV ôtX,\riv Tiâoav ammv KOKiav TtaiôaycoYOÛaav

But possibly this is tolerable, and so is what is more troublesome still, namely, the daily effort required to correct their laziness, to root out their villany, to put an end to their ingrattitude, and to correct all their other bad behavior.’^

He attempted to dissuade men from visiting prostitutes by reminding them that their own "filthy and disgusting" slaves visit these same prostitutes.’" Chrysostom sometimes referred to the common "class" (yévoç) of slaves when he assigned some of these negative qualities.

Tote koi oiKÉTai kcci Gepdcjtaivai TÔvôpoç 'uppiouKtoTspov avcfi KExttTiVTai. ÜTtoTtTOv pÈv yàp Ka'l oÀlwgkcci axopioTov TOÛro To YÉvoç, ÔTOcv ÔE Kcà ïiapptioiaç pEiÇovooÉTCiXàprpiai...

uirginitate (PG 48, 583-584) trans. Sally Shore (N.Y.: Edwin Mellen Press, 1983); see also, Homilia 38 in Genesim (PG 53, 355 & 357); De non iterando coniugio (PG 48,615-616); Ad populum Antiochenum homilia 13 (PG 49, 141); In epistulam ad Ephesios homilia 22 (PG 62, 156).

’"/n epistulam i ad Thessalonicenses homilia 5(PG 62,427). It is tempting to take this for evidence that Chrysostom understood sexually transmitted disease but I don't think it is enough by itself, and there is no other evidence that I am aware of. 115

Then both servants and handmaids attack her more outrageously than her husband. For indeed, suspected and otherwise ungrateful is this class, especially when it attains greater outspokenness...”

I think Chrysostom must mean "class" rather than "race" when he uses the term

yévoç in reference to slaves, since he would seem to discount race or nature as being

to blame for the generally bad character of slaves.

Koti youp KOI Tcop’ aoidlç, m i îcavraxoô mmo ôiœpoXbyrfrai, ou TO Twv ôouAxûv yévoç Ixapov ticûç èou, SixjSiairoTKOTOV, Ô'uotpaTieA.ov, oô

And even among themselves, and everywhere, this is agreed, that the class of slaves is reckless, hard to mold, stubborn, not very adaptable to instruction in vitue, not because of their nature, not so, but through nurture and the neglect of masters.”

Domestic servants therefore, were counted as a separate class of humanity, and as members of the household but not necessarily as members of the family.

The wife, in her capacity as manager of the household, had authority over the

servants and directed them in their daily tasks.” In practical terms the wife would have only directed the daily tasks of her handmaids, while the husband directed the male servants in their various jobs.” Handmaids were sometimes part of the dotal

”De uirginitate (PG 48,575).

” /nepistulam ad Titum homilia 4 (PG 62, 685).

”Quales ducendae sint uxores (PG 51,231); epistulam ad Ephesios homilia 22 (PG 62, 158).

non iterando coniugio (PG 48, 614-15); Homilia 38 in Genesim (PG 53, 356-57). In the writings of Chrysostom when the mistress disciplines a servant, the servant is always a female (handmaid). I know of no instance that Chrysostom related a mistress disciplining a male servant, except in the case of widows. For the classical precedent of this division of authority see, W.K. Lacey, The Family in Classical Greece, (Ithaca N.Y., 1968), 137-38. 116

property that the wife brought to the marriage and were, therefore, her separate

property.’® These women would sit in attendance of their mistress, possibly

weaving or doing other household chores like cleaning or preparing dinner.®® While

either spouse could claim the service of any household servant, it might be a cause

for suspicion if a husband claimed too much service from a slave-maiden, or a wife made excessive claim on a male servant.®*

The wife who was suspected of adultery might receive maltreatment not only

from her husband, but also from the household slaves who on occasion took

advantage of a troubled marriage.®’ A husband might order the servants to serve as

guards over his wife, surveying her every move and demanding explanations for her

every action.®® This demonstrates that even though the wife was manager of the

household, and had charge of the slaves, her authority was still dependent on the

goodwill of her husband.

Domestic violence in the late antique household was not limited to husbands

abusing their wives. Wives were subjected to their husbands, but the household

slaves were subjected to both husbands and wives. However, it was the wife who normally had specific charge over the handmaids, and some wives, given this authority, abused their handmaids in the same manner that husbands abused wives — intimidation, humiliation, and violence.

’®S. Treggiari, Roman Marriage, (Oxford 1991), 33, 348-49.

®®/n epistulam i ad Corinthos homilia 36 (PG 61, 313); In episulam ad Ephesios homilia 3 (PG 62, 30).

®* In epistulam ad Ephesios homilia 20 (PG 62,144).

®’De uirginitate (PG 48,574-76).

®® De uirginitate (PG 48,575). 117 rt 5e Kpavyri Kcà tov oÎ)k ôvw è^aipst. Kai )xàA,ota Évxeî»0£v Taxétoç (xA,'iOK£Tai to Ttàv ywaiKcàv yévoç, a l, orav ôpYiÇcovrai xalç 0£pa7caivioi, xrjv oiKiav àm aav1 % Kpavyfiç 7tX,Tpot)oi 1% ÉaoTwv; Tio^XaKiç Se Ka'i eI raxpà otovcotov w yxavoi (pK0Ô0|iT||iÉvr| f) olKia, Kai 01 TiopiôvxEç; ocTtavTEç àicow ociv aîm îç Pocôorriç, Kai 1% 0EpaTcaivl5oç ôÀoX.'üÇauariç. Ti toütoi) Yévoii:’ dv dcXTUIOVÉOTEpOV ÎTOXE TOÔ KWKOTOÙÇ aKOOElV; n d o a i ydp E'Ü0ÉÛ)Ç 5iaKi>\j/aaai, d Ôti yéyovev, èpcoxwaiv, ekéI; Ë SÉiva, T)di, T^v Ôo6ÀT|v TÉTCXEi TT|v aôxTiç. Ti TOOTOO ysvoiT dv àvaiG%ovTOTOpov; . . . Kdi TO 5t] TïdvTCûv alaxpoxEpov, eIolv olÎTraç dypiai Kai dTirivÉlç wç ETt'i Toaoûüov iiaodÇeiv, ebç |iT|& ai)0rpEf»v toiiç iimlmuaç o^w \)o0ai. rvpvcôaaoai ydp toiç KÔpaç, Ka'i tov dvôpa etii TOÔTO Kcdicraoai, ôEapoixîi îroA,AdKiç iipbç xdlç okIpttooiv. Oipoi, oÔK èîiEiaépxexal aoi èv ekeIv(p Kaipÿ xf|ç yEÉwriç, eItiè poi, pvripri; à k ià yo^vdiç Tf|v TKxiSlaKTjv, Kai ôeikvoeiç âvSpl; Kcà oÔK alaxdvji pf| aoi) Kaxayv^; koci Èm^ilÉov ambv napo^dvEiç, Kai àîiEiiÉlç SfpEiv, iiopla TtpôxEpov XoiSoprpapÉvT) xfi â0A,lçc Kcà xaA,ai7i(op

But shouting discharges it (wrath), even when not existing. And hence it is especially the race of women that are so swiftly seized by it. Women, whenever they are angry with their maid-servants, fill the whole house with their own clamor. And often too, if the house chances to be built along a narrow street, then all those going past hear her shouts, and the maid screaming. What can be more shameful than the sound of those wailings? For all straightaway peep in and ask what has happened there? "The witch", they say, "she beats her own maid." What can be more shameless than this? . .. And more disgraceful than anything, there are some so savage and harsh as to lash them, so as the bruises will not disappear by day's end. For having stripped the damsels, and having called their husbands to the purpose, they often tie them to the low couch. Alas, in that moment, tell me, does no recollection of hell occur to you? Do you strip your handmaid and show her to your husband? And are you not ashamed, lest he should condemn you? But you provoke him yet more, and threaten to put her in chains, having first reviled the wretch with countless insults, having called her "Thessalian witch, runaway, and prostitute."^

84 In epistulam ad Ephesios homilia 15 (PG 62.109). 118

It would be interesting to know how common this was and if it was primarily wives

abused by their husbands who in turn abused the slaves. Once again, Chrysostom

demonstates the interaction between public and private, and cites the public outcry

that is created by a domestic incident. A husband also might beat the servants, but

Chrysostom stated it was greatly shameful for a man to beat a handmaid,®^ and he

urged both masters and mistresses to endure nobly the impudence of slaves.*®

Nonetheless, it was not extraordinary for a slave to be beaten merely for returning

home tardy,*’ or uttering a foul word.**

Chrysostom provides evidence that domestic violence could also include not just husbands and wives beating the slaves but also sons. Chrysostom advised fathers not to let their sons beat the servants or in any way be abusive to them.*® At the same time Chrysostom realized that fathers sometimes beat their children and while he urged fathers not to rely on this form of discipline alone, he also recognized that it was a common aspect of discipline, both in the home and at school.®”

Chrysostom often spoke against the habit among the wealthy of owning large numbers of slaves, and specifically against women who went about town with a

** In epistulam i ad Corinthos homilia 26 (PG 61,221).

*®/« epistlulam ad Ephesios homilia 15 (PG 62,109-10); Homilia II in Matthaeum (PG 57, 201).

*’/n epistulam ad Romanos homilia 4 (PG 60,421).

** Homilia 37 in Matthaeum (PG 57,425).

*®Dg inani gloria et de educandis liberis (page 23, paragraph 69) in, F. Schulte (ed.), (Muenster, 1914).

^ De inani gloria et de educandis liberis (Schulte 12. 30); In epistulam i ad Timotheum homlia 6 (PG 62, 532); Homilia II in Genesim (PG 53,94); Homilia 23 in Matthaeum (PG 57, 318- 19); Adpopulum Antiochenum homilia 16 (PG 49, 168); Adpopulum Antiochenum homilia 6 (PG 49, 81). 119

large retinue in their wake.’' It was not through any sense of moral outrage over the

institution of slavery itself that bothered Chrysostom; rather he felt large stables of

house slaves were yet another indulgence of vanity and luxury.’^ He also criticized

the poor man, who though he could ill afford it, bought a slave for the sake of

appearance.’^ There was no need for anyone to have more than one or two slaves,

and there were some who did not have any.’'*

Tivoç ouv aveu où SuvôcpeGa iSopev, et ôoKél. Kav ôùo pôvoç ë%(0|iev oiKéxaç, ôuvàpeGa Çfiv,ôtcou yop eloi xiveç xcopiç o’iKexcôv Çrôvxeç, Ttolav f|pélg e%opev àitoXoytav, xdlç ôùooùk àpKOÙpevoi; AuvàiieGa Ka'i èk 7tX,lv0a)v e%eiv oiKiav xpiôv olicrpàxüov kki xoùxo ôpKei fpiv. EÎTcè ydp pot, oùk elot xtveo pexà rialôtov Kott yuvatKOç ëva otKov ë%ovxeç; Êoxtooav ôè, et PoùÀet, Kai jidlôeç ôùo.

Let us see, if it seems proper, what then we are not able to live without. If we have only two servants we are able to live, as much as there are some living without servants, what sort of defense might we have, two servants not being enough? We can also have a three room house built of brick, and this is enough for us. For tell me, are there not some, with children and wife, having one room? And let there be, if you will, two slaves.’^

”De uirginitate (PG 48,583-584).

’^/M epistulam ad Hebraeos homilia 28 (PG 63,197); In epistulam i ad Corinthos homilia 40 (PG 61, 353-354). Chrysostom felt that slavery was not introduced because of need but because of sin; slavery is punishment for sin.

De inani gloria et de educandis liberis (Schulte 5-6. 13).

94 In epistulam i ad Corinthos homilia 40 (PG 61, 353-354).

’^/n epistulam ad Hebraeos homilia 28 (PG 63,197) 277. In The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, vol. 14, p. 495, Frederic Gardiner translates the last line of this excert as, "Let there be also, if you will, two serving boys." He translates 5É as an adverb (also) when in fact it should not be given this force, but rather as a copulative conjunction marking continuation (and). 8é was originally an adverb with a contrary force(on the other hand, etc.), but became a simple conjunction used to distinguish something from what precedes it. Therefore the line should not be translated as "two serving boys" in addition to the two household servants, which in reality makes four servants. This 120

It is implied in the above, that a three-room house was a relatively modest one, and

that there were some among the poor who lived in one-room dwellings. Obviously

the reverse is also implied, that many among the upper-classes lived in large houses

with many servants.

The homes of the wealthy might include a special chamber for the wife, but

there is some evidence that this was simply the bed chamber.®® Chrysostom's

mother calls him into her "special room," and sits him down on her bed.®’ A

husband complains about his wife taking too long getting dressed in her "little

room" (KOittoviaKO)).®* A husband and wife normally shared the same bedroom and

bed,®® but the wife perhaps spent more time in the room and it therefore came to be

considered "her room." An especially pampered daughter might spend the greater

part of her time in an inner room with handmaids, couches and perfumes.'®® In some

homes separate rooms were available to house soldiers if they should come.'®' The

living quarters for the family were on the second floor and the servants (and mules)

slept on the ground floor.

makes no sense in the context of the passage, especially considering that elsewhere Chrysostom limits household slaves to two, total; In epistulam i ad Corinthos homilia 40 (PG 61, 353-54).

®®/m epistulam ad Hebraeos homilia 28 (PG 63,200); De sacerdotio libro I (PG 48, 624); De uirginitate (PG 48, 575 & 583).

®^ De sacerdotio libro 1 (PG 48,624).

®® In epistulam ad Hebraeos homilia 28 (PG 63,200). The term KOttcav means bed chamber.

®® De non iterando coniugio (PG 48,611, 612).

'®®/n epistulam ad Ephesios homilia 13 (PG 62,98).

101 In acta apostolorum homilia 45 (PG 60, 319).

*®^/n acta apostolorum homilia 45 (PG 60, 319). 121

The household in late antiquity was very similar to the household of classical antiquity. Servants were an important part of the household; the wife usually directed the daily affairs of her handmaids and the husband oversaw the work of the other house slaves. House slaves were not usually considered part of the family though they might participate in some family councils. A modest home in late antiquity consisted of three rooms but larger homes might have a special women's room as well as guest rooms that were sometimes used to house soldiers. A house normally was two stories; the servants slept below with the animals and the family slept above, the husband and wife sharing a bed.

Divorce and Remarriage Chrysostom, relative to the mass of his works, did not devote a great amount of attention to the topic of divorce. He wrote a small pamphlet against divorce.De libello repudii, but outside of this he makes relatively few references to divorce.

This may indicate that divorce was not an overly common occurance in this period since we would expect him to strongly condemn this fundamental break with

Christian doctrine if it was commonplace.'”^

In keeping with church policy he proclaimed that the only valid grounds for divorce were adultery and that any man who divorced his wife for any other reason, caused her to commit adultery. It is clear that Chrysostom assumed a divorced

De libello repudii (PG 51,217-226).

Christian doctrine, as formulated by Augustine, Jerome, and others was stridently opposed to divorce. Their opposition was based on Paul and the New Testament references (Matt. 5:32 and 1 Cor. 7:10-11) to divorce. The scholarship on this issue is extensive; see especially, J.T. Noonan, "Novel 22," in The bond of Marriage, edited by W. W. Bassett, (Notre Dame, 1968); Giuseppe D’Ercole, "II consenso degli sposi e la perpetuità del matrimonio nel diritto romano e nei Padri della Chiesa," Studia et documenta histoiriae et iuris 5 (1939) 35.

105 Homilia 17 in Matthaeum (PG 57, 259-60). 122

woman would get remarried and this is an indication that, despite the efforts of

Chrysostom, there was no overwhelming social stigma attached to divorced women

or remarriage.'®® Chrysostom condemned three different groups; women who

remarried after divorce; men who divorced their wives; and men who married divorced women. The group that is conspicuously absent is men who remarried

after divorce. Society certainly had a double standard in regard to men and women

and the issue of adultery; this is made especially clear from the law codes discussed

below. Chrysostom, however, does not seem to have shared this double standard.

He felt that if a married man had sex with any woman — including servant girls —

other than his lawful wife, he had committed adultery and should be liable to the

same prosecution as adulterous women."” It is strange then that he should not

equally condemn men who remarry. Perhaps the men who married divorced women

were normally divorced men and Chrysostom was, in fact, condemning them. This

sets up the possibility, considering that first marriages were usually arranged by

parents and possibly without regard to the compatibiliy of the participants, that a

certain amount of marital readjustment (divorce and remarriage) was necessary. He

rarely discussed divorce outside the context of remarriage and it would seem that, at

least in Chrysostom's mind, divorce and remarriage were inextricably linked.'®* It is

interesting that he seems far more concerned with the issue of remarriage than with

the institution of divorce itself.'®® This might be taken as evidence that the primary

'®®De libello repudii (PG 51,218ff); 62/63,151,219.

"” /n illud: Propter fornicationes uxorem, (PG 51, 213-14); In epistulam i ad Thessalonicenses homilia 5 (PG 62,425).

'®* I don't know a single reference in which Chrysostom discussed divorce outside the context of remarriage.

Homilia 17 in Matthaeum (PG 57, 259-60); In epistulam i ad Corinthos homilia 19 (PG 61, 154-55); De libello repudii (PG 51,217-226). 123 cause of divorce was adultery, since even Chrysostom had to grant that divorce on this basis was legitimate. This might also account for his making a close association between divorce and remarriage. It is possible, in the context of contracted marriages, that some wives felt emotionally (sexually?) unfullfilled and used the greater freedom that marriage brought, in order to find a partner they were more compatible with. Of course it need not be as intentional as unhappy wives actively seeking a new partner, but rather, unhappy wives being easily susceptible to extramarital affairs. An adulterous affair did not necessarily result in divorce and remarriage, but the circumstance dictates that at the very least, the partners shared a sexual attraction that may not have existed in the cuckold marriage. In this context it makes sense that Chrysostom should understand divorce and remarriage as almost a single action. Chrysostom was not alone in perceiving that remarriage commonly followed divorce; Roman law indicates this same understanding.

A law of Constantine in 331 provided limited grounds for divorce: a husband could be divorced only on grounds that he was either a murderer, a sorcerer, or a grave robber. A wife could be divorced if she were an adulteress, sorceress, or procuress.'" The law clearly was weighted in the man's favor since adultery on the part of the husband was not legal grounds for divorce."^ Legal penalties, involving the confiscation of the dowry as well as restrictions on remarriage, were imposed on spouses who were shown guilty of committing any of these marriage crimes."^

J. Noonan, "Novel 22," 46.

'"Cod. Th. 3.16.1.

"^In J. Noonan "Novel 22," he comments; "Treating man and woman unequally was probably of more help to a woman than a man, simply because without any law a woman could have been more easily cast off."

"^Cod. Th. 3.16.2 124

Obviously this would have been an obstacle for anyone seeking divorce in order to

many a new lover. However, Susan Dixon has shown that in classical Rome there

existed an attitude that divorce and its affects on the dowry, though subject to public

law, were "matters for private settlement." She concluded that the law on divorce

and dowry provided a background for settlement, but that customarily private

negotiation resolved the matter, and even in some cases where adultery was known

to be the cause of divorce, it was not cited. It is not clear to what extent the law

concerned itself with divorce by mutual consent."^

The frequency of divorce and remarriage and their relevance to family

structure in the classical Roman period has become an important but debated

issue."® Keith Bradley has concluded that divorce and remarriage were relatively common among Roman aristocrats and that this phenomenon has to be taken into

account before any generalizations can be made concerning upper-class Roman

family structure.'" Bradley is correct to point out that frequent divorce and remarriage would have a significant impact on family structure and would result in a

myriad of extended familial relations such as step-parents and step-siblings. This

apparently contradicts the generally held belief that Roman family structure was

S. Dixon, "Family Finances: Tarentia and Tullia," inThe Family in Ancient Rome, ed. by B. Rawson, (Ithaca N.Y., 1986), 114-15.

J. Noonan, "Novel 22," 44.

"® See, M.T. Raepsaet-Charlier, "Ordre sénatoriale et divorce sous le haut-empire: un chapitre de l'histoire des mentalités," Acta classica Debrecen. 17-18 (1981-2) 161-73; M. Humbert, Le remariage à Rome. Etude d'histoire juridique et sociale (Milan, 1972); K. Bradley, "Remarriage and the Structure of the Upper-class Family at Rome," inDiscovering the Roman Family (Oxford, 1991); S. Treggiari, "Divorce," in Roman Marriage (Oxford, 1992).

K. Bradley, Discovering the Roman Family, (Oxford, 1991), 156-173. Bradley concentrated his research on the late republic and especially Roman consuls from 80-50 B.C. 125 nuclear, though Treggiari attempts to reconcile both possibilities."® It must be pointed out that the conclusions Bradley has drawn are quiet possibly the result of his narrow focus on a highly political group in a highly political time frame.

Bradley has demonstrated only that divorce and remarriage were part of the political maneuverings of certain families in the late Republic. Treggiari believes that the evidence for divorce in the late Republic and early Empire is too scant for basing any firm conclusions, but she generally follows Raepsaet-Charlier in cautiously concluding that divorce and remarriage were not as common as has previously been thought."® If, in the fourth centuiy, divorce and remarriage were being commonly used for political purposes, Chrysostom surely would have inveighed against it.

The evidence ofChrysostom seems to indicate that divorce was not an overly frequent occurance, but when it did occur, the primary reason may have been husbands and wives seeking more compatible partners. This would seem to indicate that society placed a premium on marital harmony. Unlike in earlier periods of

Roman history, political machinations do not seem to be a factor in divorce and there is no evidence of serial marriage among the aristocracy.

"®K. Bradley,Discovering the Roman Family, (Oxford, 1991), 125ff; S. Treggiari, Roman Marriage, 410-412. For the nuclear structure of the Roman family, see, B. Rawson, "The Roman Family," in The Family in Ancient Rome, ed. by, B. Rawson (Ithaca N.Y., 1986), 1-57; R. Sailer, "Familia, Domus, and the Roman Conception of the Family,"Phoenix 38 (1984) 336-85; R. Sailer and B. Shaw, "Tombstones and Family Relations in the Principate: Civilians, soldiers, and Slaves," Journal of Roman Studies 74 (1984) 124-56; J.A. Crook, Law and Life of Rome, (London, 1967), 98.

119 Treggiari, Roman Marriage, 481-82. Chapter V: Family Planning

This chapter examines the various methods of family limitation that were

practiced in the classical and late antique periods. There is evidence for the practice

of abortion and contraception, and the most common form of family limitation

seems to have been abandonment. These methods of family limitation in

combination with other factors led to a high infant mortality rate that characterized

all of antiquity. Some scholars have postulated that as a result of this high infant

mortality rate, parents did not make a significant emotional investment in their

children during infancy. The evidence from Chrysostom, however, indicates that

parents did love their children even during their very earlest stages of life.

This chapter also investigates Evelyn Patlagean's theory that in the late

antique period, sexual abstinence, especially among the wealthier classes, became the most common form of family limitation. The evidence from Chrysostom and

the late antique law codes seem to imply that in the fourth century sexual abstinence

was not as common as Patlagean has suggested.

126 127

Family Planning and Infant Mortality in Classical Antiquity There is no shortage of scholarship on the issue of family plaiming in antiquity/ It has generally been held that families in antiquity were relatively small^ and that several means were available to parents who wished to limit family size. There is evidence that contraception, abortion, infanticide and exposure were all practiced in antiquity to limit the number of children produced.^ There are a number of ancient authors who attest to these various practices but the best source in regard to contraception and abortion is the Gynaecia of Soranus of Ephesus, a second centuiy A.D. physician, whose work was the basis for most Arab and medieval contraceptive knowledge.'* According to the ancient authors the most widely recommended means of contraception was through an assortment of potions; other means were by blocking the cervix, spermicides applied to the male genitalia.

’ A useful survey of this issue and the relevant bibliography is; E. Eyben, "Family Planning in Graeco-Roman Antiquity,"Ancient Society 11/12 (1980/81) 5-82, an expanded and revised version of the earlier article, "Geboortenbeperldng in de Grieks-Romeinse Oudheid," Kleio 1 (1977) 97-127. See also, H. Bennet, "The Exposure of Infants in Ancient Rome," Classical Journal 18 (1923) 341- 51; M. Radin, "The Exposure of Infants in Roman Law and Practice," Classical Journal 20 (1925) 337-43; C. Patterson, '"Not Worth the Rearing': The Causes of Infant Exposure in Ancient Greece," Transactions of the American Philological Association 115 (1985) 103-23; J. Noonan, Contraception, (Cambridge, Mass. and London, England), 1986; K. Hopkins, "Contraception in the Roman Empire," Comparative Studies in Society and History 8 (1965-66) 124-151; W.A. Krenkel, "Familienplanung und Familienpolitik in der Antike," W/A 4 (1978) 197-203; P.A. Brunt,Italian Manpower, 225 B.C. - A.D. 14, (Oxford, 1971); J. Boswell,"Expositio and Oblatio: The Abandonment of Children and the Ancient and Medieval Family,"American Historical Review 89,1 (February 1984) 10-33; For the period of late antiquity in the East; E. Patlagean, "Sur la limitation de la fécondité dans la haute époque byzantine,"Annales, Economies, Sociétiés, Civilisations 6 (1969) 1353-1369;

^ Eyben, "Famly Planning," 5; W.K. Lacey,The Family in Classical Greece, (London 1968), 164ff.

^ Eyben, "Family Planning, " 7-10. There were, of course, other methods of birth control such as the rhythm method, and possibly coitus interruptus but the following discussion will focus on the methods mentioned in the above text since they are, by far, more commonly attested.

J.T. Noonan, Contraception, (Cambridge, Mass. and London 1986), 12-13. 128

and magic/ A surprising portion of these methods could have been effective but it

is difficult to know to what extent society practiced them. Certainly it would have

been the wealthier classes that would have had greater access to legitimate medical

treatment and knowledge/ as well as the motivation to limit their families, but

Hopkins cautiously concludes that contraception, though practiced, did not have a

major role in Roman family planning, even among the upper classes.^

Abortion was another means of limiting family size and Eyben reports that

the classical sources mention abortion more often than contraception.® This does

not necessarily mean that abortion was more widely practiced than contraception,

and the issue is especially clouded by the fact that Romans did not always

distinguish abortion from contraception.® Classical Romans and Greeks relied on

many different methods of abortion including various physical contortions, loud

sneezing, potions, surgery, and magic. As in the case of contraceptives some of the methods could have been effective, but many would have endangered the life of

the mother in addition to the fetus. There is some evidence that Romans practiced abortion without any real sense of shame or guilt. Some of the ancient medical texts, including the Hippocratic Oath and the treatise of the stoic Soranus, indicate a

Noonan, Contraception, 14-15.

® Prostitutes were also prime candidates for the use of contraceptives and abortion. See Noonan, Contraception, 10-11, 168.

’ K. Hopkins, "Contraception," 142.

* Eyben, "Family Planning," 10-11. The most thorough study of abortion as found in the ancient soures is, E. Nardi, Procurato aborto nel mondo greco-romano. Milan, 1971.

® Hopkins, "Contraception," 136-143.

'“Eyben, "Family Planning," 10-12.

" Hopkins, "Contraception," 127; see also, R. Hahnel, "Der kiinstliche Abortus im Altertum," Sudhoffs Archiv Gesch. Med. 29 (1936) 224-55. 129

sensitivity to the ethical considerations of abortion and recommend that abortions

only be performed in instances in which the mother was at risk/^

The practice of exposure or abandonment is well represented in Graeco-

Roman literature and mythology, and of all the methods of limiting family size,

exposure received the greatest amount of attention from the ancient sources.*^

Obviously this does not necessarily mean that exposure was the most common form

of family planning but only that it was, perhaps, the most dramatic. Eyben writes that the practice of exposure, beginning in the Hellenistic period, was relatively widespread in the Roman world, and that it was mostly the poor that resorted to its use.^'* In a more tiiorough study of abandonment, however, J. Boswell does not find any certain evidence that the poor or girls were more likely to be abandoned. As in the case of abortion, there does not seem to be any stigma attached to parents who chose to abandon infants, and Boswell confirms that abandonment was a common practice in the Roman world. The poor might also resort to selling their children into slavery, as is attested by several laws relating to this practice.*’

Eyben, "Family Planning," 43ff.

Eyben, "Family Planning," 13. See also, H. Bennett, "The Exposure of Infants in Ancient Rome," Classical Journal 18 (1923) 341-351; M. Radin, "The exposure of Infants in Roman Law and Practice," Classical Journal 20 (1925) 337-343; J. Boswell, "Expositio and Oblatio-. The Abandonment of Children and the Ancient and Medieval Family,"American Historical Review 89,1 (February 1984) 10-33.

Eyben, "Family Planning," 14.

J. Boswell, The Kindness of Strangers, (New York, N.Y., 1988), 100.

Boswell, Kindness, 75ff. In fact, Boswell states that abandonment was the most common means of family limitation; 133ff. He also concludes that abandoned children did not normally die, but were often taken in and raised as slaves; 11 Iff.

^'’Cod. Th. 3.3.1; 4.8.6; 5.10.1; 11.27.2; NVal. 33.1. 130

Graeco-Roman law did not overly concern itself with the protection of

children's rights. In terms of Roman law, the foetus was not a person but rather was

part of the mother.*® There were never any laws against contraception, and the

practice of abortion and exposure remained legal until the third and fourth century

respectively. The emperor Severus passed legislation against the use of

abortifacients, but the primary purpose of the legislation seems to have been the

protection of a father's right to have children.*® Infanticide and exposure were legal

in the Roman empire until the fourth century legislation (374 A.D.) of Valentinian,

Valens and Gratian.^®

In sum, it can be stated that various forms of family planning were practiced in classical antiquity. The practice of abortion and contraception may have been

mostly a provenience of the wealthier classes, while abandonment seems to have been used by both the rich and poor, and was the most common form of family limitation. Secular law, despite extensive legislation to encourage fecundity, did not legislate against the various forms of family limitation until relatively late.

In addition to the voluntary forms of family limitation that have been discussed above, there were a host of other factors that contributed to a high infant mortality rate in the ancient world.^* A number of scholars, most notably among them Phillipe Aries, have questioned the emotional investment that pre-industrial

1.5.7; and, Dig. 25.4.1.1.

Noonan, Contraception, 26-27. This legislation also seems concerned with protecting women from the sickness and death that might result from taking certain abortifacients.

“Cod. Th. 9.14.1. See also, Eyben, "Family Planning," 31; J. Gardner,Women in Roman Law and Society, (Bloomington and Indianapolis, 1986), 158-159.

Some of these factors will be discussed below. 131 societies made in their children?^ These scholars believe, given the volatile nature of childhood in ancient society, and specifically the high infant mortality rate, that parents did not make a substantial emotional investment in their children because early death was relatively conunon. Infant mortality seems to have ranged from 25 to 35 % in the first year of life^^ and Mark Golden has shown that epitaphs for children under two rarely describe their death as "untimely. Both of these facts lend support to the theory that the death of small children was frequent and unsurprising. Some scholars believe a contributing factor to high infant mortality was the practice of infanticide — the exposure of unwanted new-boms — which, as discussed above, was a reality in both classical Greece and Rome.^^ This again, has been taken as harsh evidence against the notion that ancient society dearly loved, and when necessary grieved for its children.^® In addition, the common use of wet- nurses, at least among the wealthier classes, could mean that parents were removed from the daily care and maintaince of their infants. The use of wet-nurses who v/ere

Phillip Ariès, L'Enfant et la vie familiale sous l'ancien régime, second éd., (Paris 1973), 28-29; see also, L. Stone, TTie Family, Sex, and Marriage in England, 1500-1800, (London 1977); E. Shorter, The Making of the Modem Family, (New York 1976); A. Cameron, "The Exposure of Children and Greek Ethics," Classical Review 46 (1932) 105-14. M l. Finley, "The Elderly in Classical Antiquity," Greece and Rome 28 (1981) 159.

^ B. Frier, "Roman Life Expectancy: The Pannonian Evidence,"Phoenix 37 (1983) 328-44; "Roman Life Expectancy: Ulpian's Evidence,"Harvard Studies in Classical Philology 86 (1982) 213-251.

^ .M. Golden, Children and Childhood in Classical Greece, (Baltimore & London 1990), 83.

“ As noted above, however, Boswell has made a convincing argument against the notion that abandoned children normally died; see note 16 above.

“ R. Garland,The Greek Way of Death, (London 1985), 80; for a fuller discussion see also The Greek Way o f Life (Ithaca, N. Y. 1990), 84-93; D. Kurtz and J. Boardman, Greek Burial Customs, (London 1971), 331. A. Cameron, "The Exposure of Children and Greek Ethics," Classical Review 46 (1932) 107. It should be noted that the frequency of child exposure in the ancient world is a debated issue and therefore not altogether clear. See, D. Engels, "The Problem of Female Infanticide in the Greco-Roman World," Classical Philology 75 (1980) 112-20; M. Golden, "Demography and the Exposure of Girls at Athens,"Phoenix 35.4 (1981) 316-31. 132 normally household slaves and often described as being unreliable, has been considered again as evidence for parental indifference as well as contributing to early childhood death.^’ Literary evidence can be found equally to support and deny the idea that parents were indifferent to childhood death.

Mark Golden has written in response to what would seem very credible evidence that parents, given the fragile nature of early childhood, remained aloof and uncaring toward their children.^* Golden has made an argument against the above, by marshalling anthropological evidence for comparative purposes and by questioning some of the "logical" conclusions of otherscholars.Golden concludes that despite high infant mortality and the acknowledged practice of exposure and the use of wet-nurses, ancient Athenians, at any rate, loved their children and grieved deeply their death.^°

Family Planning and Infant Mortality in Late Antiquity All of the voluntary and involuntary forms of birth control discussed above continued to be practiced in the fourth century. Evelyn Patlagean has conjectured that in addition to these forms and begining in the fourth century, a newly important

^ K. Bradley, "Wet-nursing at Rome: A Study in Social Relations," in B. Rawson (ed),The Famly in Ancient Rome: New Perspectives, (Ithaca, N.Y. 1986), 216-20.

^M . Golden, "Did the Ancients Care when Their Children Died?" Greece and Rome 35 (1988) 152-163; and Children and Childhood in Classical Athens, 82-89.

M. Golden, Children and Childhood in Classical Athens, 87; Golden points out that the practice of infanticide does not necessarily mean that ancients did not care about the death of their children, especially the ones that were not exposed: "One implication of her argument (though Johansson does not bring it out) is that in societies that permit infanticide, children who are accepted into the family are less likely to be neglected or mistreated (at least to this extent) and are more likely to be mourned deeply when they die."

^“M. Golden, Children and Childhhod in Classical Athens, 89; Boswell reaches the same conclusion in regard to Roman parents. Kindness, 92-94. 133

factor significantly contributed to limiting the birth rate — abstinence.^* Patlagean

has argued that there was a considerable movement in late antique society to avoid marriage and the procreation of children. She believes that this movement toward

sexual renunciation is partly in response to, and certainly reflected by, the rhetoric of early Christianity. In regard to the wealthier classes Patlagean believes that

Christianity neatly allowed the rich to fulfill their traditional function of redistributing their wealth — bequeathing their estate to the church — without having children.^^ She sets forth the well known examples of Melania the Younger,

Athanasia and Andronikas, and the Syriac widow Sosiana, to demonstrate the negative ideas concerning procreation.^^ What cannot be ignored, however, is that among this elite group of model ascetics, in each case the woman had already given birth to two children before she vowed sexual abstinence.

The case of Melania the Younger serves as a dramatic example of the powerful social forces that even the most ascetic-minded Christian could not resist.

In the first place, Melania, prior to engagement, had expressly declared her wish not to marry but this desire was ignored by her family and she was ebetrothed to

Pinianus. She subsequently pleaded with her husband that she be allowed to remain chaste and not have any children, but this desire was also refused and she was eventually only able to reach a compromise with Pinianus that after bearing two children, she could then remain celibate in marriage. Pinianus would not accept

For this and what follows, see; E, Patlagean, "Sur la limitation de la fécondité dans la haute époque byzantine,"Annales. Economies, Sociétés, Civilisations 6 (1969) 1353-1369; Pauvreté économique et pauvreté sociale, 113ff. See also, P. Brown, The Body and Society: Men, Women, and Sexual Renunciation in Eary Christianity, (New York, 1988); Society and the Holy in Late Antiquity, (Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1982).

Patlagean, "Limitation," 1365-66.

33 Patlagean, "Limitation," 1366. 134 shared chastity until after they had produced two children that would be heirs to their estate.^'* It is only after both their children died that their enormous estate was given to the church, and it is important to understand that the original intent of

Melania and Pinianus was to bequeath the estate to their children. Chrysostom stated matter-of-factly that fathers take care of the paternal estate in order to bequeth it to their sons.^^ Obviously there is little that can be generalized on the basis of one Saint's life (Melania), but it is useful to realize that some of the same lives - the theory of sexual renunciation is heavily dependent on the hagiographie evidence — that have been put forth as examples of sexual renunciation can be interpreted in different ways.

Patlagean, drawing upon the examples of lepers, vagabonds, and migrant workers, concluded that the poor family was an unstable one and was characterized by broken marriages and limited fertility.^^ It cannot be denied that the above groups generally belonged to the lower classes, but I would certainly question the assertion that they characterized the lower classes. In an earlier chapter I criticized Patlagean for using law codes as evidence for social patterns. The evidence of law

^ E. Clark, The Life o f Melania the Younger (New York, 1984).

In epistulam i ad Timotheum homilia 9 (PG 62,546).

Patlagean, "Sur la limitation de la fécondité dans la haute époque byzantine,"Annales. Economies, Sociétés, Civilisations 6 (1969) 1361; "Pour apprécier entièrement les limitations particulières à la fécondité des pauvres, il faut se rappeler, en effet, ce qui a été dit plus haut de leurs situations conjugales. La famile pauvre est instable, parce qu'elle est totalement liée à la stabilité laborieuse d’une activité économique. Il en résulte des ruptures caractéristiques, des séparations, des Alites aussi. Dès le IVe siècle, Libanios définit le mauvais pauvre d’Antioche comme un homme qui n'a ni femme ni enfant, et qui n'est pas de la ville. Bandes pitoyables de lépreux sur lesquelles Grégoire de Nysse appelle la compassion des fidèles, vagabonds sans feu ni lieu dont le magistrat spécialement créé par Justinien doit purger Constantinople, ouvriers isauriens qui descendent seuls ou en groupes s'employer sur les chantiers monastiques de Syrie du Nord, paysans thraces qui s'enfuient parce que les créanciers saisissent leurs terres après deux mauvauses récoltes, ce sont là des multitudes d'isolés errants, dont il faut au moins tenir compte." 135

codes can be problematic and do not necessarily reflect general patterns and

tendencies in society, and so it is with this understanding that one may examine the

following legal evidence.

The fourth century witnessed a flurry of legislation concerning the selling of

children. In 322 the emperor Constantine issued a law that provided economic

support to provincial families that were too poor to raise their own children and

were instead selling them.^^ This law was followed by another law in 329 that

made the same provision for families throughout the towns of Italy.^* A law was

issued in 323 regarding the status (free or servile) of children who were sold.^^ The

emperors Valentinian, Theodosius, and Arcadius issued a law in 391 again affecting

the status of children who had been sold by their fathers.'*^ These laws cannot be

taken as evidence that in the fourth century poor families generally sold their

children. However, considering the nature and amount of the legislation, it can be

asserted that some poor families continued to have children.

In addition to this legislation on the sale of children, there was a significant amount of litigation concerning the abandonment of children. Constantine issued a

law in 331 that allowed the party taking in an abandoned child full power in

determining the status (free or servile) of the foundling.'** The law issued in 374 by

Valentinian was specifically in regard to infanticide but is generally held to be inclusive of abandonment as well.'*^ This law was probably not effective since there

” Co4. Th. 11.27.2.

^ Cod. Th. 11.27.1; see also, Cod. Th. 5.10.1.

^^Cod. Th. 4.8.6.

^Cod. Th. 3.3.1.

Cod. Th. 5.9.1.

Cod. Th. 9.14.1; see also, Eyben, Family Planning," 74. 136 was later legislation in 412 that prevented parents from recovering children that they had abandoned, demonstrating that abandonment continued throughout the fourth centuiyThere is also a significant amount of evidence from Christian rhetoric that indicates abandonment was not an unusual occurance in this period.'*^ In fact,

Boswell has concluded that the abandonment and sale of children possibly increased in the fourth century

One must be cautious in the use of law codes as evidence for social patterns but it is difficult to understand the amount of litigation and Christian rhetoric in regard to the abandonment of children, if the fourth century is to be characterized primarily as a period of sexual renunciation. It is important to remember that just as in the classical period, the abandonment and the selling of children in the fourth century may not necessarily mean that parents did not love their children.'*® As both

Golden and Boswell have pointed out, it is equally possible to understand even the most drastic forms of family limitation as a demonstration of love and a concern for the long-term welfare of existing family members.”*’

The Evidence of Chrysostom Patlagean, in arguing her case for widespread sexual renunciation in the fourth century, has stated that nowhere in Christian sermonizing can a positive

Cod. Th. 5.9.2.

**Boswe\\, Kindness, 138-179.

Boswell, Kindness, 163; "All of the available evidence suggests that very widespread abandonment and sale of children persisted, and perhaps increased, throughout the fourth century."

46 See the discussion of this issue above.

“*’For Golden, see above; Boswell, Kindness, 92. This, of course, would not apply to adults who refuse to have any children but again there is an abundance of literary evidence in all periods that tetihes to a societal appreciaion of children. 137

attitude be found in regard to having a large family.'** This, however, is

contradicted by the works of Chrysostom, where several passages can be found that

refer to the common desire for many children and the joy that they bring.

B ouX ei KCti labxa Tiavra eKpoclovxeg 0(O|xev Xoyip xà ccôwaxa, KOI Gvy%(opf|Gwpev yeréaGai ydpovndvxa opoû ë%ovxa xà àyocGà, TtoXuTiaiôlav, eÛTtaib'iav, TtXoûxov, yuvaiKoç ooxjjpoo-ôvriv, KÔXXoq, oûveoiv, opovoiav, ynpoç paKpôv;

Do you want us to set aside all of these troubles, and assume the impossible in our discussion by conceding that marriage embraces at one and the same time all that is good: many fine children, wealth, a wife with discretion, beauty and intelligence, that it embraces unanimity and a long old age?'*^

Also: El yàp Kai peyàTiT) i] (j)povxiç àjtb xob 7iA,fi0ooç ylvexai, opcoç où TtaDopeGa ei)%6pevoi a^Tiôrivai xr^v

For although there is great concern from having many children, nevertheless we do not stop praying to increase this concern to us, and to increase the number to us, and to beget many times as many and without limit/"

In the first passage Chrysostom, though his argument is against marriage, described

what might be considered the perfect marriage as one that, in part, produced many children. This description of the good life also included a smart and beautiful wife, wealth, and longevity. All of these aspirations are very basic and since the desire for

'** Patlagean, "Limitation," 1366; "Mais l'éloge de la famille nombreuse en tant que telle ne se rencontre ni dans la prédication, bien sûr, ni dans les éloges des inscriptions funéraires." See also, Eyben, "Family Planning," 64; "... it should be pointed out that early Christianity nowhere advocates a wealth of children."

uirginitate (PG 48. 579-80); translated by S. Shore,John Chrysostom: On Virginity; Against Remarriage (Lewiston, N.Y. 1983).

^ In epistulam ii ad Thessalonicenses homilia 4(PG 62.492). 138

many children is included among them, it is implied that a large family was

generally wished for. In the second passage Chrysostom acknowledged the great

effort that is required to raise a large family but also stated that this did not prevent

people from desiring many children. These passages clearly contradict Patlagean's

argument that early Christianity did not acknowledge the desire for large families.

This is not to say that large families were universally desired since there was some

debate over the pros and cons of having many children versus just one. The

following passage is an example of this debate.

dtov, 6 TtaiSctç 0ÛK £%cov, OÛÔEV oikto ôeivbv vop.'iÇei, cb âT toâSiav Ô îtoXXoÙÇ E%(OV TCOCÀIV pETO TtEvioÇ, OÛÔÈV OWCÛÇ (ÛÇ TO )X ,\)7taiSiav aluâT ai* 6 Ëva Ë%o)v, oû& v %Etpov xoû Ëva Ë%Eiv vopl^Ei. ÊVTEÛ0EV yàp,

In this way, the one not having children, thinks nothing is so terrible as being childless. To the contrary, the one having many children and being poor, alleges nothing is worse than having many children. He that has one child thinks nothing is worse than to have one. For then, he says, he becomes lazy, and brings distress to his father, always being held much beloved, and paying attention to no one.^^

Many children brought great expense and trouble, but the risk of an only child was

that he was easily spoiled and because of this might gain a bad character. The condition of childlessness was considered a malady, and something that was

especially lamented by those reaching old age without children.

la r E yap otooç oi èv yrpçt (J)8aoavxEç, p o X io r a Kai èv âTiaiSlçt tov ôtTtavTOC ôiàyovTEÇ xpovov, èTciGupoûoi ttalStov.

In epistulam it ad Timotheum homilia I (PG 62.605). 139 For you all know how those arriving in old age, and especially those passing all their time in childlessness, long for children.^^

Interestingly, one of the main laments about reaching old age in a state of childlessness, was that there was no one to pass on whatever property and wealth one had accumulated over a lifetime/^ There does not seem to be any great anxiety on the part of the aged and childless that they will have no one to take care of them in their old age. A trusted household slave who had been promised or already given his freedom probably fulfilled this role. There was, however, some notion that children were to support their parents in their old age.^'^

Throughout the recorded works of Chrysostom there is testimony for parental involvement in the care and maintaince of children. Chrysostom stated that one of the drawbacks of parenthood was that the many cares that accompanied it often prevents parents from devoting any time to more spiritual matteis.^^ This was one of his arguments for women to maintain their virginity; spouse and children take up too much time and are a constant distraction. This is evidence that mothers were extensively involved in the lives of their children. If parents routinely handed over their children for nurses to raise, Chrysostom's argument would be pointless and would not carry any weight with his audience. Chrysostom did not earn his reputation as a great rhetorician and sermonizer by making pointless arguments.

Homilia 32 in Genesim (PG 53. 295); see also, Peccatafratrum non evulganda (PG 51. 358-59); De virginitate (PG 48. 578).

Homilia 32 in Genesim (PG 53.295).

In epistulam i ad Thessalonicenses homilia 10 (PG 62.459).

De uirginitate (PG 48. 566). 140

When Chrysostom exhorted his congregation to be more active, some

Christians replied that the responsibilities of being a husband and a parent took up

too much time and energy and they could not do all that he asked.

Kai |if| pot leye, ou yovaiKa exco,koci Tcaiô'ia KeKxrpai, k o i oiKiaç Jtpoiouxpai, k o i où ôw apat xama KaiopGoôv.

And tell me not, "I have a wife, and I have children, and I am master of a household, and I am not able to accomplish these things (that an active Christian should do.)^^

This, again, is evidence that parents were involved in raising their children, even to

such a degree that family life might interfere with Christian life. The fact that

family obligations could even be offered as an excuse implies that it was commonly understood that a husband/father was expected to be involved in the lives of his children, perhaps to the extent that he sacrifice other aspects of community involvement.

Parents might also plead the expense of raising children as a valid excuse for not being generous in charity, or conversly, as an excuse for amassing large fortunes, since fathers wished to pass on a substantial inheritance to their sons, and provide dowries to their daughters.^’ The poor man might complain of the extreme hardship of raising a large family,^® but some fathers though burdened with many children nevertheless could not suffer to lose any one.

^^Homlia 43 in Matthaeum (PG 57.464).

Ad populum Antiochenum homilia 20 (PG 49. 202); In lohannem homilia 79 (PG 59. 432); In epistulam ii ad Timotheum homilia 1 (PG 62.605); In epistulam i ad Thessalonicenses homilia 10 (PG 62.459); In epistulam ad Romanos homilia 18 (PG 60.582).

In epistulam ii ad Timotheum homilia I (PG 62. 605). 141 Koà yàp îuatépEç, K a l- t o i v>nb 1% 7ioX,D7cai5laç tcoAàockiç KOTiTÔnevoi, bucoç oûSéva pcmAx)VTai â7io|3a?iÉlv.

For fathers, even those that are often wearied by many children, nevertheless they do not wish to reject any one/^

This passage provides further proof that children were desired and loved by their parents

The evidence of Chrysostom reflects great parental concern for children and also reveals a rather extensive parental involvement in the play, education, and emotional support of children. In hisDe sacerdotio libro 1 Chrysostom recalls the words of his mother, when she told him that even as an infant, he was a great comfort to her.

Aid TOI TOÛTO KOI £7t i vrpnoç rav,k o i pT|5e (jjBeyyeoGal t o o paGcbv, ore pocX-iata Tépîtouoitoùç tokôvtoç 01 Tccciôeç, t t o X à t iv not Ttopeixeç TTiv 7tapdKA,Tioiv.

Due to this, and being still an infant, and not yet having learned how to speak, when children especially delight parents, you provided to me much comfort.^ ^

Chrysostom clearly expected others to identify with the sentiment that the period of infancy was a treasured time of joy for parents. This not only implies that parents were involved with their infants but that they did, in fact, have an emotional investment in them. This early emotional investment is made all the more clear in a passage from De uirginitate. Chrysostom, throughout this pamphlet, argued against marriage, and part of his argument is an enumeration of the many cares, pains and

In epistulam ii ad Thessalonicenses homilia 4(PG 62.492).

®°This passage could also be taken as evidence against abandonment.

61 De sacerdotio libro I (PG 48. 625). 142

woes that marriage entails. One of these is childbirth and the consequent emotional

vulnerablity that comes with parenthood:

ri yotp àeX'ia kol xaA,aijrtopoç KOpr), Kauoi ooixo0 ^DW|O(j) ôno xtov 0A,yti^v(ov EKelvtov KataxEivoiiévr), 5é6oiKe towcov oô% riruov, |j,f|7ioT£ ÀeA,(o|3Tpévov Kai àvàjnpov âprlou Kai byiong 7tpoEX,0p... T oû 5è Ttm Sioo jiectôvtoç e iç xr|v y f|v K ai tipwrriv â

The poor miserable girl, although so tormented in this way by pain (labor pain), fears no less than it that a damaged and crippled baby be bom instead of one perfect and healthy... When the child is bom and gives its first ciy, concem for its safety and upbringing succeeds in tum her earlier cares.^^

These excerpts reveal the powerful emotions that were a part of not just infancy, but labor and birth itself, and even with the first cry of a newbom mothers had already invested their emotions.

The role of the nurse and the possible lack of early parental involvement in the lives of children was discussed earlier in regard to the classical world. It is difficult to find evidence for the role of the nurse in the writings of Chrysostom. He advised parents that they should consider carefully the appointment of a good nurse so that right from the start the child has a worthy begining.^^ In several other places he mentions nurses among those, including parents, who look after the well-being of children.^ In his 34th homily on Paul's first letter to the Corinthians, Chrysostom lists the affection that a child has for a nurse (tiôqvôv) among a number of familial

De uirginitate (PG 48. 579), transi, by S. Shore,John Chrysostom: On Virginity; Against Remarriage, (Lewistown, N.Y. 1983), 93.

“De inani gloria et de educandis liberis (Schulte, 13. 37).

^ De sacerdotio libro 3 (PG 48. 657); In epistulam i ad Thessalonicenses homilia 9(PG 62. 445). 143

affections that arise, including: love of father; grandfather; mother; son; daughter;

grandson; nephew; sister; neice.^^ However, this is the sum of the direct evidence

concerning wet-nurses that my research has revealed. The conclusions that can be

drawn from this evidence are limited by the relative scarcity of the evidence. In late

antiquity wet-nurses certainly were used, and Chrysostom's unqualified advice —

unqualified in that he did not say if you use a wet-nurse - that care be given to the

choice of a good wet-nurse seems to imply that it was common practice among those

who could afford to employ a wet-nurse. Chiysostom also indicated that affection

could arise between a child and his/her nurse, just as one might have affection for

some other family member. How often this affection arose and to what degree, the

evidence of Chrysostom does not allow us to say. It is perhaps significant that

Chrysostom did not spend a relatively large amount of writing and advising on this

issue. If nurses, who were normally slaves, were commonly understood to have a

great influence on young people's lives we might expect Chrysostom to specifically

condemn this, since we have already seen the negative attitude Chrysostom had in

regard to the character of slaves.

Chrysostom had a real concem for the role of parents and the proper

education of children and this is apparent in the broad range of his writings and not just De inani gloria et de educandis liberis. He mentions that in great houses young

sons are often afraid of the servants, especially when the young boy has done

something wrong.*^*^ This suggests that servants had some role in the raising and

disciplining of children. However, Chrysostom's exhortations and advice are almost

always in the manner of refinement of parental roles, and not at all in the manner of

slaves usurping parental roles.

65 In epistulam i ad Corinthos homilia 34 (PG 61. 290-91).

^Adpopulum Antiochenum homilia 11 (PG 49.125). 144

In Homilia 17 in Matthaeum, Chrysostom used an anecdote about breast­ feeding and discussed how parents, in trying to ween their child, hurl many mockeries at the child and that failing will sometimes apply bitter salves to the nipple in order to repulse the child's longing.

Clomp ouv 6 paoxbç, brav to aw oû rcÀTpmo]! Ttâv, koci itpbç xnv t£?i8iOTOpav TfxxTceÇav to m iôlov rcopattépTtp, Auiîibv a%pTpTog (txxivexai, Kai 61 TtpôxEpov àvayKoiov ambv mvai vopiÇoviEç Tcaiô'up yovéiç, pupioiç aûxbv ôioPoXÀouoi OKcoppaoi* itoÀÀoi 5è oûÔÈ pfniacnv aûxbv pôvov SiapdJiAowiv, (ûOm kcci laKpdiç èTtixpioixîi (|)appdKOig, iv’ bxav pû laxûop xà ^ a x a x^v ocKaipov Ttep'i aûxbv ôiaGsoiv dveÀéîv xoû toxiô'iou, xà Ttpdypaxa opéop xbv 7EÔ0OV.

So therefore the breast, whenever it has fulfilled its purpose and passes the child on to a more complete meal, hereafter seems useless; and the parents who before thinking it (the breast) to be necessary for the child, hurl limitless jests at it. And many do not stop at mockeries alone, but also smear it with bitter potions, in order that whenever words are not strong enough to abolish the child's unseasonable disposition toward it, practical things may quell the desire.^^

This does not necessarily demonstrate that it was the mother who breast fed her child but it is evidence for the continued involvement of parents in the caretaking decisions of early childhood.

Parental concem for small children extended to the daily task of preventing accidents, as is demonsteated in the following passages.

Ka'i KaGaJcep xà Ttaiô'ia xà piKpà, ÈTteiôàv pa% aipog èjcûiâfiTycai f| ^i

Homilia 17 in Matthaeum (PG 57. 261-62). 145 And just as small children, whenever they might pick up daggers or swords, through not knowing how to use them properly, often are put into manifest danger, wherefore mothers never allow them to lay hold of these sorts of things freely.*^*

Also:

AoTTEp o w fjpeig, èàv iScopev 7cai5lov paxaipav Kaxéxov, kccv p t] TiÀiTyèv lôœ pev, paoxiyoôpEV Ka'i aTtayopEUopev aùup pr|5É7ioxE avCTiv KaxaaxEiv.

Just as we then, if ever we see a child holding a knife, and even if we do not see him struck, we whip him and forbid to him ever to hold it.''

These two passages are important because they demonstrate the practical involvement of parents in the lives of their children. It is especially relevant to note that Chrysostom says mothers, not nurses or attendants, take care not to let their children hazard an accident with bladed danger. A child picking up a knife is not an especially extraordinary event, but rather belongs to the more mundane, everyday life, context. This implies that mothers were with their children in the daily context that an incident such as the above might take place. The passage also gives evidence for corporal punishment as a means of discipline, but this is a topic that will be discussed below.

Another potential risk that worried parents was that of kidnappers enticing children with candy.

AvSpaTioSioToci ttoXlocKiç Ttaiôia piKpà ouàwvxeç koci kàétitovxeç, on îiX,r|Yàç koù pdtauYoç, où5’ olX o u xôv TOionxcov ÔTiioxvoûvxai, à û Û M îtXaKonvxoç Ka'i xpayfipaxa kcci 'éxEpa xoiaina, oiç fi TtaibiKT] x^tpEiv eicoGev f|A,iK'ia, jcporclvoixjiv, iva

Homilia 66 in Genesim (PG 54. 570-71).

^Homilia 17 in Matthaeum (PG 57. 256). 146 TO-üTOiç ÈKélva ÔEÀeaoGévTa, Kai tnv ÈÀeDGeplav avtrâv à7io5ô^ieva eiç KivSwov èjaîiéoîi xbv Eoxatov,

Kidnappers often stealing and carrying off small children, do not promise blows and whippings, nor anything else of this sort, but (promising) cakes and sweetmeats and others of this sort, by which things are accustomed to delight the childhood age, in order that enticed by these things, they may give up their freedom and fall into extreme danger/^

Thus, parents in late antiquity warned their children not to play with knives and to beware of strangers offering candy. Constantine passed legislation that inflicted capital punishment on anyone convicted of kidnapping — slaves and freedpersons would be thrown to the wild beasts, freebom persons would be killed in gladitorial combat.’* The gravity of the penalty reflects how heinous a crime kidnapping was considered to be, and this also reflects a significant societal appreciation for children and the bond between parents and their children that was considered inviolable. It is clear that parents were involved in the everyday play and supervision of their children, and there is considerable evidence that late antique society demonstrated appreciation and affection for its children

Abortion and Abandonment There is only slight evidence from Chrysostom concerning the practice of abortion. As seen in the following passage, the expense of raising children was used as an excuse for abortion and in some cases for men to surgically alter their reproductive capability.

populum Antiochenum homilia 16 (PG 49. 168).

Cod. Th. 9.18.1. 147

K ai yàp Tiàvxeç la a o iv (bç oii Towxp Katexôpevoi voarpaTi, Kai y r p a ç p ap w ovtai Tiaipbç, tô te yXDKi) koci îtccoiv EJcépaoTov, t6 K o iS a ç êxeiv, pccpù Kcà ènaxOèç eiv a i vopiÇoixTi. noXXoi y o w Kai axoKiav S ià to w o (hvrpavxo, kcci tt|v (|)6aiv ÉTiiipmGav, ov)k àveA.ôvT£ç TEX0évTaç xo\)ç TccfiSaç, àX kà |4T|6È

Indeed everyone knows that those bound by this disease (greed), are wearied even of their father's old age, and what is both sweet and desired by all, the possession of children, they consider to be burdensome and grievous. Many at any rate, never having had a child through this (mentality) have paid money and maimed the natural condition, not killing the children having been bom, but not even conceding the birth.^^

In this passage Chrysostom reveals that children were commonly desired, but that some men not wishing to be burdened with the expense of children might pay for some means of permanent sterility, perhaps even castration. It is interesting that a man might alter his own reproductive ability in order to prevent conception since men were under no legal obligation to raise or even acknowledge their children.

This suggests that there was some other societal pressure for men to take responsibility for any children they might sire. It also suggests that men could not simply force a woman to have an abortion since it is more likely that a man would rather force the mother to have an abortion than castrate himself. Castration was probably a rare choice for men and despite the preceding passage, men, no doubt, did exert considerable pressure for a woman to terminate an unwanted pregnancy

Another reason for abortion was simply an unwanted pregnancy of illegitimate means. Chrysostom says that illegitimate children were held to be

Homilia 28 in Matthaeum (PG 57. 357).

In the case of a prostitue or slave, or any unmarried woman, the prospect of single motherhood in late antiquity was probably sufficient cause for abortion or abandonment. 148 disreputable by all of society, and men who had impregnated prostitutes or maid­ servants might not wish to have the illegitimate child and might therefore cause the mother to abort.

Alb, naçaKoXâ), (jÆuyexE Tpv Tcopmav Kai Tr]v mvrrigiirfiÉKa xnv p.éôr|v. Tl OTteijieiç cntau Geploai ouk evi, ixôÂÀov Se, Kav Geplcrriç, îtoAÀf|V ooi (|)Épei TTiv aloxbt^v ô Kopîtôç; KCtvy àp tE%Gp Ttaiôiov, Kai oè fiaxove, kcci aùxb f|SiKT)tai Sià oe vôGov KOci SixryEvÈç yEvôpEvov. Kâv ixnp'iaaxn^ KaraXiicif; %pf||iaxa, àtipoç Èv oIkIçc, àxipog EV TtoÀEi, âxipoç èv SiKaaxrplcp, kcci 6 ék Ttôpvriç Kcci ô ÉK SooÀTiç* àxipoç 5È KCCI oô îtaXiv, Kai Çôv koi XEXEAEurnKCûç* Kav yàp àiiÉÀGpg, |iévei xà ■UTtopvfyiaxa xîjç aa^rpoauvriç. Ti xolvuv àitavxa Kaxaio%ùvEig; ô'. Tl ajiEiTtEiç ÊvGa t] àponpa attouSàÇEi SiabGÉipai xbv Kocpnôv; svGa TCoXlà xà àxÔKia; ÊvGa iipb xûç yEvÈOEtoç c|)bvoç; Kai y à p KCCI xn v Ttôprjv oùk à

Wherefore, I exhort you, flee from fornication and the mother of it, drunkenness. Why sow where it is not possible to reap, or rather, whatever you would reap, the fruit brings great shame to you? For even if a child should be bom, it disgraces you, and is done an injustice to itself, being low-born and illegitimate owing to you. Even if you leave to him countless money, both the son of a 149 prostitute and the son of a slave are dishonored in the home, in the city, and in the courts. And again there is dishonor to you also, both living and after you are dead. For even if you should depart, the memorials of your indecorum remain. So now why put everything to shame? 4. Why sow where the land is anxious to destroy the fruit? Where there are many abortions? Where there is murder before the birth? Moreover you do not let the prostitute to remain a prostitute only, but you also make her a murderer. Do you see how you go from drunkenness to fornication, from fornication to adultery, from adultery to murder? But also something more severe than murder. For I have nothing by which to call it, since it does not destroy the thing bom, but even prevents it being bom. Therefore why do this? Why do you maltreat the gift of God, and oppose his laws, and pursue what is a curse as if this were a blessing, and make the treasury of birth, a treasury of slaughter, and prepare the woman, given for childbearing, for murder? For in order that she might always be useful and much desired by lovers and might draw more money, not even this does she decline, great is the fire then heaped upon your head. For even if the deed is hers, the reason it occurs is you. There too are idolatries. For many, so that to become agreeable, devise spells, and libations, and charms, and countless other contrivances. But still after this sort of indecorum, after murder, after idolatries, many consider the matter to be indifferent, even many who have wives. There the chaff is even more evil. For indeed poisons remain to be applied, not to the prostitutes womb, but the wronged wife, and countless schemes, and summonings of evil, and oracles of the dead, and daily wars, and tmceless battles, and domestic strife.^'^

This passage gives an indication that late antique society held illegimate children in low esteem, and that abortions were sometimes performed in order to spare the father any shame that might be attached to him through the siring of an illegitimate child.’^ Chrysostom also indicates the detrimental affect that an episode of this sort might have on a marriage. Clearly some wives were very troubled by an extra-

In epistulam ad Romanos homilia 24 (PG 60.626-27).

Libanius had an illegimate son who was not allowed certain governmental posts because of his illegitimacy and also had trouble inheriting from his father. I will probably move this into the text later on. marital affair of their husband, especially one that resulted in pregnancy, and we might conjecture as even more disturbing, the pregnancy of a houseslave.

Chrysostom does not mention it, but perhaps there were some wives who forced handmaids and prostitutes to have abortions. This does not seem an unreasonable hypothesis considering the domestic strife that he describes in the above excerpt. A prostitute could be coerced into having an abortion since she readily desired to remain attractive and maintain her figure and means of livlihood. The passage, also indicates that there were many men who did not consider abortion to be any major concem. There is also mentioned one method of abortion, that being the use of poisons, as well as some seemingly pagan incantations or rituals that might also be involved. The abandonment of children was traditionally another option available to parents who did not wish or were unable to nurture a child. This, again, was an action with a long history; certainly practiced in the classical world as well as the biblical.^® I have no evidence from Chrysostom concerning the abandonment of children. The writings of other church fathers indicate that the practice of abandonment continued throughout late antiquity, and abandonment for selfish reasons — to avoid the expense and trouble of raising children — was condemned, though abandonment by the poor on the grounds of necessity met with increasing sym pathyInterestingly, many of the church fathers, including Clement and

Justyn Martyr, indicate that abandoned children were normally saved.’® The only argument to be made on the basis of Chrysostom is the argument based on silence.

’®The best account of child abandonment is that of J. Boswell, The Kindness of Strangers, (N. Y. 1988).

J. Boswell, The Kindness of Strangers, (N.Y. 1988), 160-66.

Boswell, Kindness, 157-60. 151

The abandonment of infants does not seem to have been an overwhelming problem

in fourth century Antioch, so far as Chrysostom was concerned. This does not mean

that the practice of abandonment was non-existant in Antioch, but only that it was not practiced to an extent that offended the relatively strict moral standards of Saint

John Chrysostom. His criticism of luxury and vainglory was firery and frequent and if parents who could afford children were abandoning them for selfish reasons, it is very difficult to imagine Chrysostom remaining silent on this issue.^^

Chrysostom does offer evidence for another, if only slightly less desperate, survival strategy of the urban poor. Some poverty-stricken parents were compelled to blind their own children in an effort to gain greater sympathy and receive greater charity.*® In the same passage he related other means — piercing the head with sharp nails, lying naked on frozen puddles — by which the wretched poor begged for sustenance. Even in this context however, he does not speak of the poor selling or abandoning their children.

Considering the above discussion of contraception and abortion it is possible these were the preferred methods for dealing with unwanted children.

^ In epistulam i ad Corinthos homilia 21 (PG 61. 177). Chapter VI: Parenthood

In this chapter the familial role of fathers and mothers is examined, as is the relationship between parents and their children. In the Classical Roman family the institution of patria potestas meant that the father legally posessed comlplete authority over his children, although it is not certain to what extent this authority was actually applied. By the fourth century the idea of patria potestas had certainly been tempered. There was a considerable amount of continuity between the Classical and fourth century roles for both fathers and mothers. Fathers were to serve as teachers and to be models of good character that there children — especially sons — could emulate. Mothers trained their daughters to be proper wives and household managers.

There is clear evidence that parents were involved in the lives of even their youngest progeny, and that parents bestowed no small amount of care and attention upon their children.

Fatherhood in Classical Rome It is well known that in Classical Rome a father's authority was legally unlimited. The Roman classical concept of Patria Potestas included the legal

152 153

authority of life and death over his children/ It has been argued, and I think

correctly, that the unlimited legal authority of the father {paterfamilias) was in reality

tempered by social and political forces, and that the authority of patria potestas

steadily declined throughout the imperial period/ The father's power of life and

death over his progeny was manifested primarily in his authority to retain or expose a

new-born infant. The other conspicuous manifestations of paternal authority were in

regard to arranging marriages for sons and daughters and in the transference of property and inheritance.^ A son or daughter was in the potestas of his father until the father's death or until he or she was emancipated (emancipatio).‘‘ A son in potestate could not legally own anything nor could he make gifts or borrow money; a fact that must have limited the social and political ambitions of menin potestate. The seemingly extreme nature of this parental authority has been taken as evidence for a tyrannical family structure; families ruled by authority rather than affection.^ There is, however, ample evidence of fatherly affection for children and it would seem that

' Much has been written on this, see especially; J.A. Crook,"Patria Potestas," Classical Quarterly 17 (1967) 113-22; S. Bertman, The Conflict of Generations in Ancient Greece and Rome, (Amsterdam 1976).

^R.A. Nisbet, "Kinship and Political Power in First Century Rome," inSociology and History: Theory and Research, ed. by, W.J. Cahnman, and A. Boskoff, (New York 1964), 257-71; E. Volterra, "Quelques observations sur le marriage des filiifamilias," Revue International des Droits de l'Antiquité 1 (1948) 213-42; G. Matringe, "La puissance paternelle et la mariage des fils et filles de famille en droit romain," Studi in onore di Eduardo Volterra, vol. 5 (Milan, 1971), 191-237; R. Sailer, "Patria Potestas and the Stereotype of the Roman Family, Continuity' and Change 1 (1986) 7-22; "Pietas, Obligation and Authority in the Roman Family," inFestschrift fur Karl Christ zum 65. Geburtstag, (Darmstadt, 1988), 393-410; E. Eyben, "Fathers and Sons," inMarriage, Divorce and Children in Ancient Rome, ed. by B. Rawson, (Oxford, 1991), 114-143.

^ LA. Crook, Law and Life of Rome, 90B.C.-A.D. 212, (Ithaca, N.Y., 1967), 107-09.

'' Crook, Law and Life, 108-09.

^P. Veyne, "The Roman Empire," in,A History o f Private Life. From Pagan Rome to Byzantium, ed. by P. Ariès and G. Duby, transi, by A. Goldhammer, (Cambridge, Mass., and London, England, 1987), 25ff. 154 paternal love was common in the classical period.® Sailer has demonstrated that loyalty, devotion, and affection (pietas) were demanded equally of children and parents, and that a father was bound by pietas to his wife and children.’ The primary role of the Roman father was to maintain order and discipline within the family and to supervise the education of his children, especially sons. There are examples of very severe fathers who dispensed harsh discipline, but these examples are mostly from the days of the early Republic and seem to be used by later classical authors as a measure of how things had changed by their time.® A father was expected to be strict but fair and to look out for the best interests of his children.® It was expected that a father would use corporal punishment in disciplining his young children, but excessive and unjustified beatings were severely condemned by Roman society.'”

Fathers were most especially seen as teachers of their children — sons more so than daughters — and as their guiding example of proper and moral behavior." In his book on education in antiquity, Marrou pointed out the early emphasis that Roman society placed on children receiving an education within the family, and the primary role of the father in this education.'’ In the period of the Empire it became the custom to educate children in schools but the benefits of a family education were never

® Eyben, "Fathers," 118-19.

’ Sailer, "Pieray," 150-51.

®For example; Cicero, Pro Caelio 33.

®Eyben, "Fathers," 123.

'"Eyben, "Fathers," 122-32.

" H.I. Marrou, A History of Education in Antiquity, transi, by G. Lamb, (Madison, 1982), 232-33.

'’ For this and the following see, Marrou, Education, 232-33. Education will be discussed more fully in a section below. 155

forgotten and Roman moralists debated the advantages of the two systems. The paterfamilias was considered the true teacher and even when children attended school the teacher was ideally a father figure.

Adult children, especially sons, were not disciplined with beatings but rather were subject to disinheritance and expulsion." There is evidence for some degree of tension between adult sons and their fathers, a tension that was deeply rooted in the legal specifics of patria potestas and in the impatience of youth,''* and Veyne has argued that adult sons bitterly resented the authority of their fathers.'^ Nevertheless, the relationship between a father and son was considered to be close and was used as a paradigm for Roman public life.'®

Fathers had a different but seemingly special relationship with their daughters as well.'^ In fact, Plutarch wrote that fathers felt greater love for their daughters because daughters have greater need of their help.'® In practical matters however, fathers would have spent more time and care supervising the education of their sons rather than their daughters, who would typically join their mother and handmaids and learn the "womanly" art of weaving.'®

Sailer, "Corporal Punishment, Authority, and Obedience in the Roman Household," in Marriage, Divorce, and Children in Ancient Rome, ed. by B. Rawson (Oxford, 1991), 144-165.

'“'s.Dixon, The Roman Family, (Baltimore and London, 1992) 145-47.

'® P. Veyne, "La famille et l'amour sous le haut-empire romain,"Annales: économies, sociétés, civilisations 35 (1978) 36-7. See also, B. Baldwin, "Young and Old in Imperial Rome," in. The Conflict of Generations in Ancient Greece and Rome, ed. by S. Bertram, (Amsterdam, 1976), 221-233.

'®T. Wiedemann, Adults and Children in the Roman Empire, (London, 1989), 156; see also, W.K. Lacey, "Patria Potestas," in The Family in Ancient Rome, ed. by B. Rawson, (Ithaca, N.Y., 1986), 121-44.

J. Hallett, Fathers and Daughters in Roman Society, (Princeton, 1984), 76ff.

'® Plu. Moralia 36.143a.

'®S. Dixon, The Roman Mother, (Norman, Oklahoma, 1988), 227. 156

An important feature of the Roman family was a procedure known as the

consilium domesticum. A consilium was a family council that included primarily the

husband, wife, and children, but could also include household slaves, extended

family, and/or close family friends.^ A consilium might be convened to discuss any

important issue that affected the family, such as the marriage arrangements of a son or

daughter. Only the paterfamilias could call a consilium and while he was under no obligation to carry out the advice of theconsilium, it was expected that he would

strongly consider the opinions of this council.^* Theconsilium therefore served as a means by which the entire family participated in the important decisions that affected their lives and fortunes.

In sum, in strict legal terms the classical Roman father had absolute authority, but in practical terms this authority was tempered by social realities. There is considerable evidence for paternal affection, though Roman fathers in their commonly understood role of teacher and disciplinarian would not shrink from using corporal punishment. The relationship between fathers and sons is typically portrayed as close and loyal, but there was also a notion that sons, upon reaching adulthood, might resent the continuing authority of their fathers. Fathers and daughters might also have close relationships, and the familial institution of theconsilium, or family council, was an important familial institution through which all members of the family might contribute their opinions and advice.

20 W.K. Lacey, "Patria Fotestas," 137ff.; J.A. Crook, Law and Life, 107-08.

W.K. Lacey, "Patria Potestas," 137. 157 Fatherhood in Late Antiquity The central role of the father in classical family structure is also present in late

antique family structure. This is perhaps unsurprising, but in consideration of

Patlagean's theory that society was increasingly rejecting marriage and the procreation of children, it is perhaps surprising to find such rich and abundant testimony of paternal affection and traditional family values, especially as espoused by a Christian rhetor. The authority of thepaterfamilias was still extensive but in reality society dictated restraint. The continued existence of the consilium also served to mitigate a father's authority and to allow family members participation in domestic decisions.

The evidence of Clirysostom testifies to the demonstration of paternal affection toward even very young children, as can be seen in the following passage.

KaGdcTiep y à p ejii tmv Ttaiôtov trâv vrpt'uov, kccv paoxaÇô|i,evov xb TCCciSiov xuTTxri XOÔ Ttaxpbç xnv byiv, obS'ev bTtoxepvexai xijg biXoaxopyiaç*

For just as a small child, whenever being carried slaps his father's face, the father does not cut off his affection for him.^^

Also:

Ot)% opwpev xà naiSla, bxav brcb xtov Tiaxéptov paaxaÇôpeva evxElvp Tt^nyètÇ e ig x à ç yvaG ouç xo ô (jÆpovxoç, Tttôç 6 Tcaxrp nSécoç KopÉ%ei x^ naiSi xf)ç ôpyîjç èp(|«pri0nvai, Kai bxavi St) KEvtooavxa xbv Gdixov (])a iS p w e x a i;

Do we not see children, when being carried by their fathers, stretch blows to the jaw of the one carrying, how the father sweetly holds the

populum Antiochenum homilia 3 (PG 49,58).

23 In epistulam i ad Timotheum homilia 6 (PG 62,530). 158 child and bears the frenzy, and when the father sees his passion drained, he brightens up.^

These passages are evidence not only for the involvement of fathers in the lives of their young children, but also the affectionate and tender relationship that could develop between fathers and children at this very early stage. This is further demonstrated by the following passages that provide a glimpse of how fathers might play and interact with their infant children.

A ià XOÛXO Kai Tiaxépeç, kocv attdvxtov & ri (jjiTiooocjKoxepoi Kai pirropiKCOxepoi, oûk a ’ioxûvovxai xdiç ttaioi oup\|/e?iA,l^ovxeg* Kai oûôeiç èyKaÀei xtov ôptovxtov, àXX 'oûxta KaÀôv eivai xo t i p â y p a SoKÉi, tûç Ktti EÛ%T|g d^iov elvai. Kdv jiovrpoi -yévtovxai ttdcÀiv, oûxoi pévoixji ôiopéoûvxEç, ÊTcipeXôpevoi, oixrxÉÀXovxEç aûxœv xà ôvelSri, K ai oûk aio% ûvovxai.

Because of this (love) fathers, even though they be better philosophers and speakers than all the rest, they are not ashamed to lisp with their children, and none of those observing find fault in this, but in this way the thing is determined to be good, and to be worthy of praise. And again, if they should become worthless, the parents continue setting right, taking care of them, reducing the reproaches to them, and not being ashamed.^^

Also:

El yàp Tiaxrp oû% opy xr^v d^lav xnv éauxoû, à X kà ouiiiij/eÀXlÇei xdlç naiôloiç, koci xpo^riv K ai È5éopaxa koci îtôpaxa oû% ËÀlTjviKoiç ôvôp aoi KocX.(ûv, à i x à TtaibiKp xivi SioXé^ei Koci PopPopcp, ko XK(^ p â À À o v ô 0 e ô ç .

If a father does not consider his own dignity, but lisps with his children and calls food and meats and drinks not by their greek names, but by some childish and barbarous words, much more does God.“

^ In epistulam i ad Corinthos homilia 4 (PG 61, 38).

^ /h epistulam i ad Corinthos homilia 33 (PG 61,278).

In epistulam ad Titum homilia 3 (PG 62, 678). 159

It is clear from these passages that Chrysostom was describing behavior that he expected his audience to be easily familiar with. Fathers carrying their young children about and engaging with them in "baby-talk" are poitrayed in the manner of everyday life. Chrysostom takes it for granted that a father is interested in his children and cares for them, even at this early stage of developement when they are especially fragile. The following passage confirms that Chrysostom considered paternal love to be wholly natural and perhaps even unavoidable.

Kaï 01 naxépeç, fir] Ttapopyi^e'CE rà Û Kva vfiœv, àÀÀà ÉKipé^tE a v r à è v naiôeiçc koci vovOecnçt Kvpiov. Oùk e l t i e v , A y a n a r e . amd* xoùxo yàp Kai aKÔvxcov aùxwv f] dùoiç èKtOTiâxai, Ka'i Ttepixxbv t)v 7t£pi xwv xoioùxoov vôpov xiGÉvai*

"And fathers, do not provoke your children to anger, but raise them in the knowledge and admonition of the lord." He (Paul) does not say, "show them affection." For this, nature causes even in those being unwilling, and it was superfluous to place a law concerning such things.^’

It is probably not surprising to discover that Chrysostom considered paternal love to be natural, but in attempting to understand familial relationships in past cultures - especially considering the seemingly harsh attitude toward abandonment that ancient society possessed — even the most "natural" sentiments should not be assumed.

The care and attention that fathers showed toward their infants is also displayed in regard to young children. In the following passage Chrysostom uses the example of how a father protects and guides his star-crossed child.

27 In epistulam ad Ephesios homilia 21 (PG 62, 150). 160 ...Ka0dc7i£p Ttaxrp (jjilôaTopyoç7iaiSl(p Ô'üotdxwç exovn Ttpbç ânavza, navxaxov aviinepidyav m i o'i))i7iepiaKoA.OD0wv.

... just as an affectionate father with a child having ill luck in all things go everywhere together and follow about closely.^®

Chrysostom was also familiar with indulgent fathers who spared nothing so that their

sons might not suffer a greivous disposition.

...TtoÀXà m i Ttépcj T0Û ôéovxoç oi Jîaxépeç xap'iÇovxai xdiç m io i, xrâv aîtXàyxvcov axixdiç SiaGeppccivopÉvtov [èKélvoi] xrôv TtaxpiKWV m v lôtûoixb TcaiS'iov m xribiàcav, xriKopevov, aûxoi pôXXov èKeivoD ôdcKvovxai, m i oû muovxai, ëœç dv xijg d8i)pmg xriv ûnoGsoiv dv£?iüxn.

Fathers freely give many things beyond what is needful to their children, when their fatherly affections toward them are warmed, whenever they see their child being downcast, being grieved, they themselves more than he are afflicted, and do not stop, until they have vanquished the reason for his disenchantment.^®

The following passage shows how a loving father might retain the leftovers from the dinner table so that absent children might have some portion of the meal once they return home.

ÉTtëi m 'l m xrp

When an affectionate father keeps the left overs from the table for his absent children, in order that when they arrive they might find the keeping of them an abatement for their absence.®®

®®//i epistulam ad Romanos homilia 14 (PG 60,534).

epistulam ad Philippenses homilia 9 (PG 62, 253-54).

3 0 , Homilia 9 in Genesim (PG 53, 77). 161

This passage again illustrates the interaction and concem that fathers had for their children in the context of everyday life.

Paternal affection is especially evident in times of crisis and the following passages give vivid testamony to the depth of paternal sentiment that misfortune and illness might allow.

ïaxe yocp, iote kmç TroXXducig rp^avro natépEÇ "UTxep ToxlStov xiptoplav OTiooxélv, KOI OTttûç papmepov am dlç èaxiv elç KoX,àaecoç Xôyov, to TOÙç TiaiScxç opÿv Tipwpoupévooç, f | éa\)TOÙç ■u t c 'üGw o 'üç y ey o v ô r a ç.

For you know, of course, how many times fathers have begged to suffer punishment in place of their children, and how it is said to be a more harsh punishment to them seeing their children being punished than being accountable themselves.^'

Also: ...tdlç yàp TtaTpaoiv e0 oç pÉlÇov âXyélv, orav prjS'E itopâvat ôwcovxai KttKOupÈvoiç Tolç Éamcov iia ïo iv .

... for with fathers it is usual to suffer much more when they are not able to be present with with their afflicted children.^^

In the following passage a father is called upon to enforce the prescribed diet of his sick child who does not wish to eat the foods that will return his strength.

Kai KaOaiiEp ètci tw v Kapvovxcov, bxav ÀaKxlÇp xb TraiÔlov xb ôppcoaxoûv KOI à7iooxpÉ(|)T|xai xà ttpoo(|)Ep6pEva oixia Tictpà xc5v laxpmv, xbv TiaxÉpa f| xbv Ttaiôaycoybv KaXéoavxEç oi TrpooESpeûovxEÇ, Tcapà xwv xoû laxpoû %Eipwv kapovxaç xà oixla TipoodyEiv KEÀ£ix)ixJiv, üâcfXE EK XOÛ (1)0(301) xoû Tipbç ek eIvod ç ôÉ^aoéai Kai fpuxàoai'

Homilia 29 in Genesim (PG 53, 269).

populum Antiochenum homilia 21 (PG 49,213-14). See also. In epistulam ii ad Corinthos homilia 15 (PG 61,504); In lohannem homilia 35 (PG 59,202); In epistulam ad Hebraeos homilia 22 (PG 63,158). 162

And just as in the case of those being sick, when the sick child kicks and turns away the food being brought in by the physician, the attendants call the father or the tutor, they bid them to take the food from the physicians hands and to bring it before (the child), so that out of fear of them he will take it and be quiet.^^

Also:

Koti xambv ylvexou, oxov ctv ei xiç Ttaxrp Ttépa xoû Séovxoç paÀGaKOÛ Ttaiôlou, Kaixoi àpptoaxoûvxoç, TtÀaKoûvxa èîtiô^ icai xiroxpov Ktt'i boa xépTtei pôvov, xœv ôÈ xpTptptov |iT|5£plav ÈTtipÉÀeiav Ttoidixo* eixa eYKaX-ouiievoq Ttapà xtov laxpwv, ànoXoryôixo À éy to v T i TtctBto; oûk ctvé%opat K À alov xb Ttaiôiov lôéiv, À 0?iie KCCI xoXatTttopE k o i 7t p o 5ôxa* où yàp ocv îtaxépa xov xoioùxov eÎTCoipi* KCCI Ttôacp pÉÀxiov èv | 3pa%ét X,UTtf|oavxa, ôiaîtavxbç ùyielçc TiccpaSoùvai, f| xqv TtpôoKaipov xaùxr]v %ôcptv, ÔiriveKOÙç txGojiiaç ùrtôGeoiv TtoifiaaaGai;

And so it is of this sort if some father of a child that is more weak and needful than usual, and yet being sick, (the father) gives to him cakes and cold (drinks) and treats only, and none of the needful things that would make for proper care. Then, being admonished by the physicians, saying in defense, "What can I suffer? I can not bear to see the child weeping." Poor, wretched betrayer! For I am not able to speak of such a one as a father. How much better giving pain in the short run, to restore health forever, than to make this temporary pleasure a foundation for continuing sorrow?^''

All of the above passages are evidence for the close involvement of fathers in the daily lives of their young children. This involvement is marked by a clear concem for the health and well being of their children, as well as the extensive contact that fathers typically seem to have had with even their very young children.

Fathers were expected to teach their children good habits and to supervise their education.^^ It was Chrysostom's concem that fathers should not let their

epistulam i ad Corinthos homilia 12 (PG 61,95-96).

In acta apostolorum homilia 30 (PG 60,226).

In epitulam ad Titum homilia 2 (PG 62, 671-72). 163

children spend too much time in idle leisure.^® Chrysostom advised fathers not to let

their sons consort with the servants, or only with those servants who conducted

themselves appropriately.^’ Fathers were responsible for setting up a tutor for their

children, to instruct them in proper behavior and to keep them out of trouble.^® Tutors

could be harsh on their charges and it was the responsibility of the father to act as

liaison between his children and tutor. The following passage demonstrates the

delicate balance that a father tried to maintain in administrating the tutelage of a child.

...Kcxi TtoXXaictg Ttccxrp |I£v TtaiSaycoy^ tov Tidiôa bpplaavu Kax iSiav EJiixtp^ Xéytûv Mr] eoo xpa%ùg, iitiS'e OKX,rpôç* ôe vÉ(p xà Evavxia XÉyEf Kàv âS'iKtoç 'oppi^p, (^pE*àno xrâv èvavxlcov ev xi Xpiyjiliov awàycûv.

...and many times while a father privately censures the tutor for maltreating his child, saying, "Do not be harsh, nor hard." But to the youth he says the opposite, "Even if he unjustly maltreats you, bear it." Gathering something useful out of these opposites.

In Chrysostom's view it was above all the duty of the father to develop the proper moral attitude of his children and to guide their chastity through the turbulent period of adolesence.'*” This is especially evident in the following passage. The following is excerpted from one of Chrysostom's homilies on Genesis and contains part of his commentary on the the story of Symeon and Levi, the two Old Testament brothers

Homilia 14 in Genesim (PG 53,113-1 (PG 53, 113-14).

De inani gloria et de educandis liberis, (Schulte, 13-14. 38).

Ad populum Antiochenum homilia 15 (PG 49,154); In epistulam ad Ephesios homilia 5 (PG 62, 39); Homilia 35 in Matthaeum (PG 57,411).

Homilia 35 in Matthaeum (PG 57,411).

‘*°De inani gloria et de educandis liberis, (Schulte, 7. 16). 164 who slaughtered the entire male population of a city in revenge for one man's sexual indiscretion with their sister.

âôeç, ayaTtrpE, oaov elpyaaaxo xaKov évbç véou npoTiExeia; elôeç boov fiveyxev ôÀeGpov Ttccoi xdiç xf|v kô?lIV oikoîxji; T a û x a pavGavovxeç àvajcaixiÇtopsv xrâv ppexépmv TtaiStov xàç ôppàç, Kai tioA-Ùv xp veôxr)xi xbv %aiivbv KaxaoKeuàÇcopev, xbv à m xoû (j)ôpoi), xbv à m XT|ç vouGeaiaç* Kai èTtipEÀcopsOa xpç aûxcôv aûxjipooûvriç, Kai îiàvxa Ttoiwpev Kai TtpayiiaxeixopeBa, œoxe xpv f]?iiK'iav xf|ç vEÔxTjxoç 5i)VT|0T|vai Ôia^uyElv xàç âxÔTiouç ÉmGupiaç. A ià yàp XOÛXO KOI ô Koivbç fp ô v AEtyjcôxriç lôàv x% âv0p«7civr|ç dûcEcoç xr|v âoGÉvEiav, xbv yàpov ÈvopoGÉxrpEv, axsTE xpç îtapavopou ppàç pl^ECûç à ita y a y É lv . Mp xolvuv âpE^œpEV xtov vewv, àXX’ Iûôvxeç xfjç Kaplvou xpv Ttupàv, îipiv f| EÎç àoÉÀyEiav ÊyKuXio8f|vai, CTiouôàÇtopEv Kaxà xbv xoû 0EOÛ vôpov aûxoùç auvarexEiv Ttpbç yàpov, 'Iva Kai xà xpç o (0(|)poGÛVT|ç aûxdlç 5iaxrpf|xai, Kai pr)5Epiav X,ûpr|v SÉ^tovxai e^ âKoXaolaç, Ê%ovxEç àpKOÛoav TcccpapuGlav, Kai SuvdpEvoi xpç aapKbç xà aKiprrpaxa KaxaoxÉÀÀEiv, KaiKoXàascaç ÈKxbç a v a i.

Do you understand, beloved, how much evil was caused by the young man's indiscretion? Do you understand how much desctruction was brought to all the inhabitants of the city? Learning these things let us shake off the eager desire of our children and take the reign of youthfulness, the reign of fear and warning. Let us encourage moderation in them, and let us make an effort in everything, so that the time of youth is able to be free from improper desires. For through this, our common Lord seeing the weakness of human nature, ordained marriage in order to prevent our unlawful intercourse. So now let us not neglect the young, but seeing the furnace fire before they are involved in licentiousness, let us be eager to unite them in marriage according to God's law, in order that moderation is observed in them, and no one accepts defilement from intemperence, having sufficient consolation, and being able to repress the impulses of the flesh, and to be free from punishment.'*'

Homilia 59 in Genesim (PG 54,517-18). 165

This is only one example of the numerous occasions on which Chrysostom exhorted

fathers to arrange early marriages for their sons/^

A father, in his capacity as instructor and disciplinarian, had recourse to

several means of discipline. In the case of young children, a father might resort to corporal punishment, or refusing the child a place at the dinner table.C hrysostom recognized these methods as common forms of discipline and he also understood them to be manifestations of fatherly love."” A child who was especially forward and difficult to control might actually have his feet tied and be subject to special rules that prevented him from leaving the house.'*’ In extreme cases, disorderly children who were undutiful to their parents could be sold into slavery.'*® It was necessary to combine fatherly advice with strict discipline so that children might know not only the course of proper behavior but also a fear of delinquency/^

Sailer has made the case that in classical Rome corporal punishment was reserved for younger children and that older sons were not beaten but instead were threatened with disinheritance.'*® This would also appear to be the case in late antiquity. In several different homilies Chrysostom discusses the occasional need for

*^Horriilia 59 in Matthaeum (PG 58,582-83); In epistulam i ad Timotheum homilia 9 (PG 62, 546); In epistulam i ad Thessalonicenses homilia 5(PG 62,427); De inani gloria et de educandis liberis, (Schulte, 27. 81).

Ad populm Antiochenum homilia 16 (PG 49,168); Ad populm Antiochenum homilia 7 (PG 49,94); Ad populum Antiochenum homilia 17 (PG 49,176).

^Ad populm Antiochenum homilia 7 (PG 49,94).

Homilia 39 in Genesim (PG 53, 366).

■*’7/1 epistulam ad Ephesios homilia 22 (PG 62, 157).

'*’/« epistulam ad Hebraeos homilia 4(PG 63,44); Ad populum Antiochenum homilia 7 (PG 49, 94).

“*® Sailer, "Corporal Punishment," 162. 166

fathers to expel their immoral and misbehaving sons from the paternal household/’ It

was incumbant upon the father to enforce this sort of discipline to prevent their sons

from indulging in licentious behavior such as gambling and carousing/" If the

wayward son corrects his behavior and once again shows himself worthy of paternal

favor it is possible that he will be restored and may again succeed to his father's

inheritance/' In the following passage Chrysostom recognized that some fathers

were overbearing and misused their authority and the practice of disinheritance.

à X k à 'd (|)Tiai; Mt] TtcxpopYlÇexe t à xÉKva njiœv, oiov o i n o X k o i TtOlOÛOlV, àTtOKTpUKtOnÇ TtOlOÔVXEÇ, KOI (j)0pXlKtûÇ èTtlKeipEVOl, 0Ù% (ûç ÊÀenGépotg, àXk’ (ôç âvôpattôôoiç. Aià to û x ô (j)T|oi; Mi] napofyyi^ETE m TÉKva vp&v.

But what does he (Paul) say? Do not provoke your children to anger, such as many do, making them disinherited, and coarsely imposing on them, not as free, but as slaves. On account of this he says; "Do not provoke your children to anger.

This passage is evidence that some fathers abused their authority and the practice of disinheritance, and behaved overbearingly toward their children. This passage also demonstrates the possibilty of a tense relationship between some fathers and sons.

Chrysostom, however, while allowing for the great authority of a father, also recognized that nature and custom tempered the harshness of this authority.

homiliam in paralyticum per tectum demissum (PG 51,51); Daemones non gubernare mundum homilia 1 (PG 49, 249): Homilia 18 in Genesim (PG 53, 149).

Homilia 59 in Matthaeum (PG 58, 582-83); In epistulam ad Ephesios Homilia 22 (PG 62, 162).

Daemones non gubernare mundum homilia 1 (PG 49, 249).

^^In epistulam ad Ephesios homilia 21 (PG 62,150). 167 Kai 6 Ttatrp 5È (xto xe xœv xfjç (|)t)C8coç, cxtiô xe xôv vôiicov xtov s^cûGev |iexà tioàXtiç xtîç EDKollag KEXprp:ai xjî Kaxà xoî» itaiôbç àpxfl* Kctv ttKOVxa TtaiSETjan Kai ÉKiTiiriÇîi, ovSeiç 6 KCûikvacav, à lX ’ otôSe am bç ékeivoç âvxiP?iÉV|/ai ÔWTiaExai*

And the father also, from both nature and from custom, employs the rule over his son with much good temper. And if ever he is sharp with instruction and with blows, there is no one who will prevent it, nor will the son himself be able to look him in the face.^^

Chrysostom, in fact, believed that fathers and sons were naturally inclined to be friends, but he also understood that the father/son relationship could be less than ideal.^'* It seems to have been widely understood that fathers and sons would normaly have a close relationship®^ and Chrysostom called upon fathers to bring their sons to church.®® The evidence of Chrysostom displays considerably more emphasis on the relationship between a father and son than it does on that between fathers and daughters. Chrysostom only rarely specifically refers to this relationship

(father/daughter) and it is always characterized by a protective father superintending his daughter's chastity and worthiness.®’ A father's love for his daughter was best evidenced in the arrangement of a suitable husband who would make her happy. It was Chrysostom's opinion that a father, by attending the theater, disgraced and demeaned his daughter.®®

®® In epistulam i ad Thessalonicenses homilia 10 (PG 62,455).

®‘‘/«epistulam ad Colossenses homilia 1 (PG 62,303).

®® In epistulam i ad Corinthos homilia 32 (PG 61, 272); In epistulam ad Hebraeos homilia 4 (PG 63, 43-44).

®®/«illud: Si esurierit inimicus tuus (Rom. 12, 20) (PG 51,176).

®’ De sacerdotio libri 3 (PG 48, 657).

Homilia 7 in Matthaeum (PG 57, 82). 168

Fathers, even on their deathbed, should be mindful of protecting the best

interests of their children. A father who is dying should choose one of his relatives to

assume the fatherly role over his children.^® Otherwise, widows displayed great

concern that their children might suffer through lack of a father's protection and

guidance.®” It was fitting that aged fathers should be attended to their graves by their

sons.®'

Motherhood in Classical Rome Roman mothers (and daughters) do not receive a considerable amount of

attention from the classical sources; certainly not as much relative to fathers and sons.

The Roman mother did not possess anything close to the legal authority ofpatria potestas.^^ Nonetheless, Roman mothers did hold a position of respect and authority within the household.®^ The role of the Roman mother in the early infancy of her children — especially among the wealthier classes — seems to have been very limited by the fact that most of the early childcare responsibilities were carried out by a wet- nurse, usually a slave.®* In fact, the role of the Roman mother was very similar to the role of the Roman father; both were involved in the education of their children and

®”/n epistulam ad Romanos homilia 7 (PG 60,452).

®”/rt epistulam i ad Thessalonicenses homilia 6(PG 62, 433).

®' In epistulam ad Hebraeos homilia (PG 63,43-44).

®^J. Gardner, Women in Roman Law and Society, (Bloomington and Indianapolis, 1986), 147.

®^S. Dixon, The Roman Mother, (Norman, Oklahoma, 1988), 41ff.

®* Dixon, Roman Mother, 122ff. 169 there is evidence for the role of mothers as disciplinarians.^ The Roman mother does not seem to possess any exclusive role or duty in the young child's life.“

Aristocratic Roman mothers might transfer their personal ambitions onto the careers and lives of their sons.” This, of course, could result in considerable friction between mothers and sons with the best examples being drawn from the Julio-

Claudian family. There is little evidence that reveals the normal relationship between mothers and sons but funerary inscriptions testify to mothers bitterly lamenting the loss of their young sons.®*

Roman mothers seem to have had considerable input in the arrangement of marriages for both daughters and sons.” Balsdon states that Roman mothers had a more intimate relationship with their daughters than they did with their sons;™ a statement that is probably true but difficult to prove empirically. It was the responsibility of Roman mothers to train their daughters in the management of a household and the proper behavior of a Roman matron.^' Phillips also provides evidence for affection and loyalty between mothers and daughters.’^

” Dixon,Roman Mother, 120 and 13Iff.

” Dixon,Roman Mother, 134.

” J. Hallett,Fathers and Daughters in Roman Society (Princeton, 1984), 243ff.

Dixon, Roman Mother, 199-202.

” Dixon,Roman Mother, 177ff. See also, J.E. Phillips, "Roman Mothers and the Lives of Their Adult Daughters," Helios 6.1 (1978) 69-80.

™J.P.V.D. Balsdon, Roman Women (New York, 1962), 203.

Dixon, Roman Mother, 210ff.

™ Phillips, "Roman Mothers and the Lives of Their Adult Daughters," 69-80. See also, J. Hallett, Fathers and Daughters in Roman Society (Princeton, 1984) 259ff. 170

The primary duty of a Roman mother to her daughter was the provision of a proper education and a suitable husband, and there is evidence that Roman society believed the behavior of a bride reflected on the training she received from her mother/^ A daughter owed her mother obedience and loyalty, and it was a daughter's

final duty to provide the proper funeral rites for her mother/"

Motherhood in Late Antiquity Motherhood begins with childbirth and in an era prior to modem medicine childbirth was often a painful and dangerous procedure. Chrysostom recognized that the danger and pain of childbirth could be used as a powerfully persuasive argument -

- at least to the potential mother — against having children, and he made just such an argument in his treatise on virginity.

K av pev eùGétûç K ufpp, pexà (|)6pon 7i(xX,iv f] %opà (ouSev youp xwv ÈV -yapQ) KccÀwv <{)ô^\) %(optg)' 6 Sè ((«poç, pfptoxe yEvopévriç àpPÀ-waetûç 5ia(t)0(xpTi pÈv x6 cuÀlT|(|)0EV, k iv ô w e u o îi ôe itEpt xœv Èo%axù)v f] K uonaa. Âv ôÈ koX vç pEXOc^ù yEvrixai xpôvoç, àKoppriaiaaxoç fi tuvt], œoTtEp auxT] KOpla o w a xoû xekéIv. ôxav ÔE ô xoû xÔKon Kaipoç ETtioxfi, ôiaKÔTtxotxïi p'ev Kcà ôiaoTcwai xriv ETci xooouxQ) xpovQ) 7covr|0Eiaav vTiôùv tûÔlvEç, a l Ktti p ô v a i iica v a i Ttàvxa auoKiâaai xà xoû yapon xprpxa.

If she becomes pregnant immediately, once again joy is mixed with fear — nothing that has to do with marriage is without fear. She fears that she might lose in a miscarriage what has been conceived and being pregnant her own life will be endangered. If, on the other hand, the pregnancy is protracted, the wife does not speak freely, as if she were in charge of the hour of delivery. When the time of birth is at hand, labor pains rend and tear the hard-pressed womb for an incredible

Dixon, Roman Mother, 215ff.

’"Dixon, Roman Mother, 221-22. 171 time; such pain is sufficient by itself to overshadow the good aspects of marriage.”

In the above passage Chrysostom presents a vivid image of the many anxieties that might accompany pregnancy and birth. He portrays the pregnant woman as worriedly pondering the prospect of a miscarriage and the consequent threat to her own life. He also provides a graphic image of the pain and agony a woman might experience in labor and birth. It would not have been necessary for most women to learn from

Chrysostom that childbirth was a painful and dangerous event as this was common knowledge, and so it is significant that Chrysostom also recognized that this common knowledge did not prevent women from having children, as the following passage testifies.

Tov aÛTOv 5f| tpoTOv m i f] yuvfi m i a^tn 7C0ÀX,àKiç petà toùç TtoXÀoùq |iT|vaç èK elvouç, pexà tà ç coSlvaç xocç ôt(j)opTixouç, pexà xàç viJKxaç xàç àuTtvouç, pexà xbv xrâv peA-cciv ôiaoJiaa|x6v, piK pâç xivoç tiEpiaxàaecûç yevopévriç, Tipo xoû 7tpoaf|KOVxoç m ip o û xb Ppé(t)OÇ

cû0f|oaoa à|iôp(j)(oxov m i àSiaxuTiwxov, f| petiopcjxopévov pèv, o Û k

àpxiov ôe, oûôè byièç, f| m i vexpbv 7coX,?i,àKiç, poXiç xbv k 'i v ô w o v Ôié^uye, m i bpcoç wortep è7tiA.a8opÉvx| xoûxtov àm vxojv, xwv aùxtov àvéxexai, m 'i xà aûxà 'OKopévei. K ai xi léycù xà aùxà; floÀXàKiç m i auvattoGaveiv x^ xe%8évxi oruvépr), m i oûôè xobxo xàç Àoittàç écjco())pôviae m i àvéTceiae xb ttpàypa* xoaauxriv b 0ebç èym xéoTteipe xdiç A.'UTtrpoiç xqv fiôovf|v bpoû K ai xqv eû^poauvriv.

Indeed, in the same way the woman herself also, often after those many months, after the insufferable pains of childbirth, after the sleepless nights, after the shift of limbs, some slight circumstances occur and before due time the fetus is forced out misshapen and undeveloped, or while fully developed on the other hand handicaped, or unhealthy, or even many times dead, she scarcely escapes the danger, and yet she forgets all this, bears up against these things, and submits to the same experience. And why do I say the same

Uirginitate (PG 48,578-74); translated by S. Shore,John Chrysostom: On Virginity; Against Remarriage (Lewiston, N.Y. 1983). 172 experience? Often it happens she dies in birth, but this does not worry other women and persuade them to avoid the matter; such is the pleasure and happiness that God mixed together with the pain.^®

In the above passage, Chrysostom explicitly states that even though childbirth often put the mother's life at risk, women were not avoiding the experience of becoming mothers. This is again important evidence that contradicts Patlagean's thesis that there was a movement in late antiquity to avoid marriage and procreation.’’

Patlagean has held that there was a movement in the fourth century, fostered especially by Christian rhetoric (both orthodox and heretical), to limit sexual procreation through abstinence.’® She is certainly correct to point out some of the examples in early Christian rhetoric that seem to discourage sexual procreation. In fact Chrysostom himself wrote a treatise encouraging certain women to remain virgins.” This is a treatise that is well known and often quoted in support of the notion that in the fourth century abstinence became the preferred method of family limitation. It is Patlagean's opinion that a combination of factors in the fourth century, Christian rhetoric foremost among them, led a significant portion of late antique society to reject sexual procreation.®'' In turn, this rejection had a significant impact on the demography and social structure of early Byzantium.®' Patlagean even

Homilia 17 in Genesim (PG 53, 144).

” Patlagean, "Sur la limitation de la fécondité dans la haute époque byzantine,"Annales 6 (1969) 1361 and 1368-69.

’® Patlagean,pauvreté 152-53.

”De uirginitate (PG 48,533-596).

®° Patlagean, fawvrefe, 152-53;

®' Patlagean, "Sur la limitation," 1368-69; "La ponction démographique sur la génération présente, et par conséquent sur l'avenir, opérée dès l'enfance ou à la veille de mariage, comme le montrent les récits hagiographiques, dispose désormais d'un procédé dont la réussite est démontrée par le dépérissement des forms individeulles de soustraction au mariage à partir du Ve siècle. Ce grand 173 goes so far as to say that monastic communities began to replace the central role of the family and family structure.®^ It can not be doubted that early Christian rhetoric preached that pious virginity was better than marriage and Christian rhetoric certainly discouraged remarriage among widows. However, as has already been pointed out, Chrysostom, the greatest of the early Christian rhetors, preached that marriage was good and he even encouraged fathers to arrange marriages for their sons at the earliest opportunity.

More significantly, and as the following passage will attest, Chrysotom preached women were saved by means of children; through the act of giving birth and the raising of children.

...ouToomi Evcavda zb ywaiKeiov yévoç napépri, ox> to àvSpelov. Ti ouv; ov)K e%ei oojTtplav; Nat, (jirial. flolav 6ti xaurriv; Tf|V ôià xwv xÉKVwv on yotp 5ti Ttepi xf|ç Eoxxç EÀeyev Éàv us'ivcocnv èv zf) niazEi Kcà rf) àyàKj] Kai tç) ayiaa/Kp /uerà aœ^)poavvr}g. Holçc TiloxEi; Ttolçc âyaTtîi; Jio'up âytaop^ pexà occxtipoo'üvriç; £^ç av Et EÀeyE' Mt] Kaxtytiéiç eoxe, a i yuvdiKEÇ, oxi xb yévoç nptov SictpépXrixai* eScûkev npîv 6 0ebç Kai éxépav à(|) 0ppf|v aœxrplaç, xnv Ttaiôoxpobiav oàoxE pi] pôvov ôi’ Êanxtov, àXkh Kai 5i’ Éxéptov atoÇEoOai. ôp a Tcôoa Kaxà xanxbv ÇTjxrpaxa xiKXExat.Ê yvvt) aTtaziTOéiaa, (jnyfiv, èv napapàaei yéyovs. Tiç; fi Ena. Aûxri ouv oto0T|oexai ôià xf|ç XEKVoyovlaç; On xonxô b iaiv,àXK’ ou f] (jinoiç f| ynvaiKEia otoGiTaExai. Anxr| ôv onK èv napajîaoei yèyove; Na'i, yéyovev. aXXjct îiapépr) pév t] Ena, otoBrioExai 5é xb ynvaiKÉiov yévoç 5ià xf|ç xEKVoyovlaç. Aià xi'yàp pi] Koi Sià xr|ç oiKEiaç ô^ETTÎç; pi] yàp ÈKEivr) xonxo xàiç àX,?taiç é^éKXÆias; xi onv Tipbç xàç îtapGévonç; xi Ôe Ttpbç xàç oxEipaç; xi ô'e Tcpbç xàç %xpaç, xàç Ttp'iv f| XEKÉIV xonç àvôpaç àjtol3aX,onaaç; àKo'kâXaaiv; èÀTiiôa onK effort constructeur des monastères se ralentit dans l'ensemble au cours des dernières décennies du Vie siècle. Les calamités qui ravagent l'Empire au Vie siècle, dont la peste n'est que la plus grave, surviennent, semble-t-il, au moment où la ponction monastique s'exerçait depuise assez de générations pour que l'effet en soit déjà cumulé. Les conséquences de la rencontre ont pu alors être sensibles."

Patlagean, "Sur la limitation," 1369; "Telle est du moins la conclusion démographique que nous proposerions. Mais la structure sociale n'en a pas moins été modifiée de façon définitive. La famille et le groupe de familles n'y jouent plus un rôle irremplaçable. 174 ê%owi; Kai |if|v ai mpGévoi elaiv ai iidXiOTa eî)6oKi|ioî)aai. Ti Tiorè ow poDÀeiai eiTtelv; .... ô o w Àéyei, xowô èauv* o u œoTiep jcàvteç aTiéGavov âv0pco7ioi ôiàTOÔ Évbç, èîtEiôTi 6 eiç iÎjiaptEV, owco Kai Tcâv t6 ywaiKelov yévoç Tiapépr), éTisièri èv Tiapapacei yéyovev f] yovf|. Mr]5èv o w àX,yelTû)* EôtOKev aôxfi 6 0ebç TcapaiiDGiav oô jiiKpàv, x6 xeKélv TiaiSia. AXkà xoôxo uiç (j)weo)ç, (j)rial. K ai ÈKéivo 1% (j>i5ae(ûç* ot> yàp liovov TO xf|ç (|)'üaea)ç, ôAÀà Kai x6 i% 7iaiÔorpo(j)iaç KExdpiaxai. Éàu ém/Æivcixn, (j)Tiai, rfj rdaxei Kai rjj âyâTij] Kai àyiaa/u(p /nerà aco^^xxrvvriç' touiéauv, èàv aôcoùç èv àyàîc]] pexà xo XEKEIV KOI âyvEiçc SiaxrpiTocoaiv. Év xoxixoiç ox) ixiKpbv e^oooi xov ÔTièp xoôxcov niadbv, àXXà Kcà a(j)ô5pa |iéyav, ou àGXxjxàç é0pE\|/av x0 Xpiax^.

...and so the female race transgressed, the men did not. So then what, will women not be saved? Yes, he says. By what means? By the means of children. For indeed it is not concerning Eve that he says, "If they remain in faith and charity and dedication with discretion." What faith? What charity? What dediction with discretion? It is as if he said, "Women, be not ashamed that your race was deceived. God has given to you another opportunity at salvation, by the rearing of children. So that they are saved not by themselves alone, but also through others. See how many questions are brought forward by this? "The woman being tricked," he says, "was in the transgression." Who? Eve. So she will be saved by child-bearing? He does not say this, but that the female race will be saved. Was it not in transgression then? Yes, it was. But while Eve transgressed, the female race will be saved through child-bearing. For why through this and not through their own virtue? For has she not included others in this? What about the virgin? What about the barren? What about the widow, the ones whose husbands have died before having children? Will they perish? Do they have no hope? Virgins are especially held in high repute. What then does he wish to say? .... So what he says is this; that just as all men perished on account of one, when he erred, so also the whole female race transgressed, when the woman was in transgression. But let her not suffer. God gave to her no small consolation, child-bearing. But this is natural, he says. Another is also natural. For it is not alone of nature, but the raising of children is also pleasurable. "If they continue," he says, "in faith and charity and dedication with discretion;" that is, if after having children they maintain them in charity and chastity. In this they will have no 175 small reward in behalf of them, but indeed very large, having raised an athlete for Christ.*^

In the above passage, Chrysostom explicitly states that the race of women is saved by

means of child-bearing. Women who have children and raise them in a healthy and proper manner can expect salvation. Chrysostom does not deny that virgins are held in the highest esteem but he makes it clear that sexual procreation is a means to salvation. The theology is, of course, Pauline, and Chrysostom is commenting on this theory of salvation as expressed by Paul in his first letter to Timothy. The passage is significant because it demonstrates that not all fourth century Christian rhetoric was discouraging sexual procreation, and that more specifically, Chrysostom, in certain circumstances might praise virginity, but in other circumstances he clearly recognized the legitimacy of sexual procreation and even called attention to it as a means of salvation. This does not necessarily prove that early Christianity significantly encouraged sexual procreation, but it is important for understanding the larger religous context for this issue in the fourth century. This passage provides important evidence that the rhetoric of Chrysostom, traditionally seen as an impassioned ascetic and an important voice of early Christianity, was not completely one sided on the issue of sexual procreation. This must be kept in mind when considering the veracity of Patlagean's thesis that due to cultural factors and Christian rhetoric, fourth century society turned away from marriage and sex.

It is clear that, just as in the case of fathers, mothers cared deeply for their children and displayed affection for them. In the following passage Chrysostom discusses how the bond between a mother and her children would not allow her thoughtlessly to bring harm upon her children.

83 In epistulam i ad Timotheum homilia 9 (PG 62,545-46). 176

O'üôeiila oiÎTWç eou ^firrp âaxopyoç Kai iiioôxekvoç, cbç xomov, ov wôivE Kai èxeKE Kai £0pEi|/E iiTi&iiiâç àvaYKoÇo'uariç TcpocjxxaEcoç, pTlôE piaÇoiiÉvoD Tivbç, KttKiÇEiv KOI SiopctXÀEiv Tuapà TcâoiV.

And no mother is so heartless and child-hating, as this, to revile and accuse before all him who she travailed in labor with, and gave birth to, and raised, unless an accusation or someone forced her.®'*

This passage provides a clear image of the affectionate relationship that might develop between a mother and child; a relationship borne from the intimate contact that a mother and child shared through the nurturing process. In another passage

Chrysostom describes a scene in which mothers are wailing and rolling around on the ground lamenting the prosecution of one of their children.®’ Mothers mourned the death of beloved children and an affectionate mother when she is setting the dinner table is sad that not all of her children will be home for dinner.®’ Mothers were greatly distressed when a young child fell ill, and on these occasions a mother might wish that she could be sick instead of her child.®’ In the realm of education a mother's role, at least in late antiquity, seems to have been to offer comfort and support. The following passage relates how a child, frightened by his teachers, is comforted by his mother.

Kct'i yàp ÈTt'i xœv mi5icov twv piKpmv owo) yivExai* 5i5aoKaA.oi xà m iô ia (|)oPoûcTi Kai rônxovoi, Kcà SEÔaKpupéva Tcpoç xàç prjxÉpaç TiapaîiÉpTio'üoiv a i 6e px|xÉpEÇ i)tto6E%à|iEvai xoiç kôX,tcoiç xdlç

De sacerdotio libri 6 (PG 48, 683).

Ad populum Antiochenum homilia 13 (PG 49, 137).

86 Ad , populum Antiochenum homilia 18 (PG 49,184); Ad populum Antiochenum homilia 9 (PG 49, 104).

87 Ad populum Antiochenum hoilia 13 (PG 49, 142). 177 éam wv Katexovai Kai TtepiacjjiTyoïxîi, Kai tà ôaKpixx KaTa(|)iXoi)Gi, K a i TTiv ôSw oD jiévnv a m co v àvaK X Ô vxai \|/D%r|v, Tte'iGoixrai ô i’ w v XÉyoïxîiv, on xprpipog 6 nov ÔiôaoKOÀiov aircdlç (j)ô|3oç.

For also it happens in this way with little children. Teachers terrify and strike children, and send them weeping to their mothers. And the mothers receive them to their bosoms, and hold and embrace them, and kiss the tears, and restore their pained spirits, and persuade them through what they say, that the fear of their teachers is useful.®®

This passage again provides an image of the tenderness and affection that mothers shared with their children. This image of the frightened child running home from school to the caring mother is not one that was readily apparent in the classical world.

Dixon discussed the role of the mother in the education of young children as one mainly characterised as that of disciplinarian, virtually indistinguishable from the paternal role, more so than as an affectionate refuge.®® This is not the same image that is provided by the above passage and it is possible that a more distinct maternal role was developing in this period.

The relationship between a mother and daughter receives more attention from

Chrysostom than the relationship between a mother and son. Chrysostom says that the young daughter stays at home with her mother and is occupied with childish cares and concerns.®® Chrysostom exhorted mothers to train their daughters in proper behavior and to be watchful over them and to instruct them in the management of the household, in anticipation of the day that they become wives.®'

Ad populum Antiochenum homilia 6 (PG 49, 81).

®® Dixon, Roman Mother, 131 and 134.

^ De uirginitate (PG 48,586).

®' De inani gloria et de educandis liberis, (Schulte, 29.90); In epistulam ad Colossenses homilia 10 (PG 62. 374). 178

Al |iT|xépEç, Tccç GDyaxépaç iioX iom ôiavel|a,aor0£* EÎiKoXog \)niv T] (j)i)ÀaKTi aÜTn* TiEpiaKOTTEi'tE, œaxE o’iKODpoùç E^vai* Ttpo ÔÈnâvmv eû^ocPeIç a m à ç Èivai îtaiôE'UE'CE, Kooixlaç, xpruiaicov Kaxa())povÉiv, (XKaX,X,co3rlaTODg jieveiv. Oikco Tipoç xov ydciiov ekôoxe. Av ovxoo, a m à ç ôia7iX.àxx(û|XEV, ovk a\)xàç |iôvov,àXkà Kai xbv àvôpa ÔiaocooEXE xbv (iéX,?iovxa abxqv àyayÉoBai* ob xbv âvôpa,akXà Ka'i xôt Tcaiôia* ob xà m iô ia , àXkà koli xà Èyyova.

Mothers, distribute especially the daughters. The regulation of them comes easy to you, be watchful so as to be mistress of the house. Before everything raise them to be pious, moderate, to think little of wealth, to remain unadorned. In this manner give them in marriage. If in this way, you mold them, you will save not only them, but also the husband who intends to carry her away. Not just the husband but also the children. Not Just the children but also the grandchildren.®^

It is apparent from the above passage that Chrysostom expected mothers, more so than fathers, to raise and train their daughters. It was a mother's obligation to make sure she gave in marriage a daughter properly trained in the virtuous attributes of a good wife. Mothers were to serve as models in proper behavior and modesty for their daughters who would imitate this worthy behavior.®^ It is also apparent from the above passage that Chrysostom expected daughters to imitate the behavior of their mothers and to pass down this knowledge and training to their own children. What is implied in the above passage is that Chrysostom expected married couples to have children, in other words, to not be a celibate couple. This can be taken as further evidence that married couples did not normally live in a celibate condition.

There is a slight indication that mothers were involved in establishing the position and careers of their young adult sons.®"* Chrysostom's own mother, a widow.

®^/n epistulam i ad Timotheum homilia 9 (PG 62, 547-48).

®^ In epistulam ad Colossenses hoilia 10 (PG 62, 374).

®'* In epistulam ad Philippenses homilia 14 (PG 62, 285). 179 was clearly involved in arranging, his education, among other things, but of course in the case of a widow we might expect greater involvement.®’ Finally, just as it was proper for sons to bury their fathers, daughters were expected to oversee the burial of their mothers.®’

®’ De sacerdotio liber 1 (PG 48, 624).

®’/n epistulam ad Hebraeos homilia 4(PG 63,43-44). Chapter VII: Childhood: Sons and Daughters

In this chapter the evidence of Chrysostom will be used to examine and

describe the character of childhood in the fourth century. The extensive interaction between parents and children in early childhood has already been discussed, as has the role of fathers and mothers. This chapter is primarily devoted to describing how children played, learned and advanced into adulthood. Education was a significant part of a child's life and the continuity between classical education and late antique education is discussed, as is its significance for the relationship between families and cities. The transitition from childhood to adulthood was another important aspect of urban childhood and this is an issue that was discussed by Thomas Wiedemann in his book Adults and Children in the Roman Empire. I will examine Wiedemann's conclusion that the ceremony — the exchange of thetoga praetexta for the toga virilis

— marking the transition from boyhood to adulthood began to lose its significance by the third century and that the corresponding distinction between a child citizen and an adult citizen lost recognition.

Children at Play Many of the traditional games that seem to come to children naturally in any culture were witnessed in late antiquity. Children were known to play tug-of-war

180 181 with a long rope.' They also played a game with crowns of grass in which children laughed endlessly at those who were crowned from behind.^ Parents might play with children by making scary faces or by telling them stories; a pastime that children especially loved.^ Children, using pot shards and clay as their materials, played at building houses." Parents might regulate the amount of playtime by hiding favorite toys, in order that children might not neglect necessary things.

KaOdcTtEp yàp etii xtov tiaiblcov xwv piKptov, oxav pÈv ETtiBuiifi x6 îiaiôiov îiaiôiKwv àGuppàxoov, pExà ttoXlfiq oTtouSfiç ekeIvo KpunxopEV, o\ov O(t)oâpav koi boa xoiaûxtx, 'iva pf) Êp7io5lÇT|xai xtov àvayKaltov bxav SÈ aùxtov Kaxa(j)povT^ji kol px|KÉxi ÈmGupp, txSEtoç aùxtov pExaSiSôapEV, eIôôxeç toç oùÔEpia pX,txpT| Àourbv aùx^ EVXEÙ0EV yivExai, xfjç £7ti0uplaçèke 'ivtiç oùkéu loxuoùoriç àjtayayÈtv aùxov xtôv àvayKaltov

Just as in the case of small children, when the child desires childish playthings, with great haste we hide the things, such as a ball and such like things, in order that they not hinder necessary things, but whenever he thinks slightly of them and no longer desires them, we give part of them back, knowing that no damage from them remains to him, the strength of the desire for them no longer pulls him away from necessary things.®

Some children teased their parents by constantly asking them silly questions.®

' Ad populum Antiochenum homilia 14 (PG 49. 145).

^In epistulam ad Romanos homilia 16 (PG 60. 571).

®/n acta apostolorum homilia 52 (PG 60. 364-65).

* Homilia 23 in Matthaeum (PG 57. 318-19).

®/« epistulam ad Hebraeos homilia 25 (PG 63.174); Homilia 23 in Matthaeum (PG 57. 318- 19).

®/n epistulam i ad Thessalonicenses homilia 9(PG 62.445). 182

It is clear that children in late antiquity experienced many of the same pleasures that childhood seems to offer in any historical period. The evidence that children enjoyed playing games with other children is not remarkable in itself, but its significance should not be ignored when attempting to understand the relationship between families and cities. In this context children from different families played together and possibly established lifelong friendships and contacts. It is also not difficult to imagine that the parents of playmates might experience increased contact with each other through the impetus of their children. It is therefore possible that families with children had frequent interaction with the children and parents of other families. This is another means by which families might interact in an urban context.

Education was also an important aspect of childhood and it is necessary to examine the character of education in late antiquity as evidenced by Chrysostom, and as compared to classical education.

Education The important role of fathers in classical Roman education has already been discussed. The traditional Roman ideal of family education was never entirely forgotten but in practice the Romans adopted almost completely the Hellenistic system of education.’ This Graeco-Roman system was divided into three schools or stages. At the age of seven children attended primary school for the purpose of learning their letters, and at the age of eleven or twelve, privileged children attended secondary school to learn grammer and literature. The young man, upon receiving the

’ For this and the following, H.I. Marrou, A History of Education in Antiquity, transi, by G. Lamb (Madison, Wisconsin 1982), 265ff. 183

toga of manhood — approximately age fifteen — might continue his education under

the direction of a rhetor and learn the fine art of oratory.

A discomforting aspect of this classical education was the severity of

discipline. It was not at all uncommon for children to be seriously beaten and Roman

men could recall in horror the thrashings they received in school. Marrou writes that

by the end of the first century A.D. a more humane approach to education was

begining to be practiced and that certain Roman moralists condemned this softening

of discipline.*

The evidence of Chrysostom makes it is clear that education had not

significantly changed by the end of the fourth century. Despite the ideal of home

education, parents still entrusted their children to teachers, and the distinction

between primary and secondary schools was maintained.

KaGoutep yàp ol SiôàoKaA,oi oi iropà xwv yovécov tà îtatôia ôEXÔpevoi tà Ttpôyca otoi/eia aùtdiç TtopaSiôaôaoiv, oi ôè m p’ èKeivtov tà Tiaiôta X,appàvovt8ç, tà t£À£i6t£pa twv paGrpàtcov (xùtdiç èvrixoûof

For just as teachers, those who receive children from their parents, teach them the first letters, and those who take the children from them, take them through more complete lessons.®

It is clear from this passage that there were two separate levels of education. The primary level was devoted to learning the fundamentals and once these had been

mastered the child was taught more advanced lesssons.

* Marrou, Education, 272-73.

® Homilia 2 in Genesim (PG 53, 29). 184

Children went to school everyday and sometimes were given homework to

complete at night.'” In primary school children learned the alphabet." It was mostly

through the method of memorization that children were taught to learn their lessons.'^

Parents monitored their children's developement and if they were not satisfied with

their child's progress they might blame the teacher and send their child to a different

schoolmaster.

E l yap naiSla rcpoç ÔiSaoKocXo-üç TcépKOVxeç, âv idtopevekeIGev p,r|§8V KttpJioupeva, O(j)0ôpoi Katriyopoi wiv SiSaoKaXmv yivôpeGa, KOI Tipoç ÈTÉpouç a m à peGlorapev TtoAlaKiç...

For if we sending children to teachers, should we observe them gaining no profit, we become vehement accusers of the teachers, and often remove them to others...'^

This is evidence that parents were involved in the education of their children and that there was some choice as to where to send a child to school. There was a need for parents to be involved in the schooling of their children since some teachers might simply give up on slow learners.'''

Children were frightened of their teachers who often were severe disciplinarians.'^ Teachers used fear as a motivational tool and children who had not correctly learned their lessons were beaten. The following passage demonstrates the

lohannem homilia 25 (PG 59, 147); Homilia 5 in Matthaeum (PG 57,55); Ad populum Antiochenum homilia 5 (PG 49, 79).

" In epistulam i ad Corinthos homilia 29 (PG 61, 248).

'^/n lohannem homilia 25 (PG 59, 147); Homilia 41 in Genesim (PG 53, 375).

Homilia II in Matthaeum (PG 57, 200).

Homilia 41 in Genesim (PG 53, 375).

In epistulam i ad Timotheum homilia 6 (PG 62, 532); Ad populum Antiochenum homilia 6 (P G 49,81). 185

use of corporal punishment in school and the extent to which children feared getting

beaten.

Mi|j,Tiaai Kctv xà m iSia xà elç ôiSaoKoXilov ({«iTMVxa, ccTtep ÈTteiôiàv TT|v Eamwv oujipoplav evSov i5ti xmv |ia0rpocxcov (XTtaixouixEvrjv xàçEt)0waç, Kai 5ià xr|v pçc9u|iiav àixavxaç xujixo)LiÉvot)ç, KOI Ka0’ 'éva 'ÉKaaxov è^ExaÇôjiEvov TiiKpcôç koi KOTCxô|iEvov m b xwv 7t?iTfy(ôv, àTtoxÉGvriKEv m b xoû ôéouç* Kav liDpla xiç aûxà xœv oup(|x3iTrp:cov, oûk àvéxexai opyiaBrivai, xoû (jjbpoD xTiv \|/i)xV KaxEXOvxoç, 0Û5È Èvxuxéîv x^ 5i5aaKoX,(p,àXK EÎç EV pôvov bpÿ xb eIoeA,0éIv Kai àtxaAÀayf|vai ixÀriyôv %(opiç, Kai Trpbç ÊKÉlvov xbv Kaipbv okotcei* kccv é^ÉA.0r|, eixe TrXrfyàç Àapàv e’îxe pf| Àapàv, 0Û5È eiç voûv ÈKEiva Àoinbv pàA,X£xaivno xpg pSovfiç.

Mimic even the children who go to school, as when they see their class inside and an examination of the lessons being demanded, and owing to laziness everyone being beaten, and each one being closely examined, being struck sharply by blows, ready to die from the fear. And if some number of their companions should strike them, they can not suffer to be angry, the soul possessed by fear, nor to meet with the teacher, but he looks to one thing alone, to enter and leave without blows, and he considers this time. And when they come out, whether taking blows or not, future blows do not enter their mind from the pleasure (of leaving).'®

A child who was not performing adequately at school might therefore get beaten at

school and then again at home by his father.”

One of Chrysostom's most famous essays is known as;Against Vainglory and

On the Education of Children}^ Chrysostom was enormously concerned that parents

16 In epistulam i ad Timotheum homilia 6 (PG 62, 532).

Homilia 11 in Genesim (PG 53, 94); Ad populum Antiochenum homilia 16 (PG 49,168); Homilia 23 in Matthaeum (PG 57, 319).

'*The following discussion is based on the 1914 Franciscus Schulte edition (Muenster, 1914) of this treatise. 186 should provide the proper education for their children. In this address, Chrysostom exhorts fathers to set up a strict tutor over their sons.'® He lamented that fathers made a great effort to train their sons in the arts and in literature but that equal training in virtue was neglected.^ This did not necessarily mean that Chrysostom expected parents to enroll their children in monasteries. In fact, Chrysostom explicitly stated that he did not expect parents to prevent their children from entering marriage since this was too heavy a burden.

0 0 Tcauopai 7tapocKaA.rôv bpâg xai ôeôpevoç koci àvxiPoÀwv, ü ote Ttpb Twv ccA-^cov aJcavTtov tétoç ûprôv p'uGplÇeiv rovç TidlSocç.... ©pexjiov à0X,T|TTiv X ptoT ^ . où TOÛTO Àéym, bn ydcpou anayaye Kai eîç TCCÇ èprpiccç dTuôoteiÀov Kcà tôv t c 5v pova^ôv TtocpaaKEuaaov êXéoGai plov où toûto Aiyco. BobXopai pèv xoûxo Kai Ttàvxaç x|ù%6|iT|v KaxaSé^ao0ai, àXÀ' èm ôTi (jxDpxiov eivai ôokeI , o û k âvayKàÇto. 0pÉi|/ov cx0A.T|xr|v xcp Xpiaxq) Ka'i èv KÔapç) ôvxa ôiôa^ov EÛÀopf| ÈK ttptoxqç Ti^iKiaç.

1 do not cease from exhorting you and begging and entreating, that before all else you train your sons.... Raise an athlete for Christ. I do not say this, that he is to be led away from marriage, and sent off to the deserts and prepared to take up the monastic life; this I do not say. While I wish for this, and I prayed for everyone to accept this, but since it seems to be a burden, I do not compel it. Raise up an athlete for Christ and being in the world teach him piety from the start.^'

This is explicit evidence that urban families were not commonly rejecting marriage as

Patlagean has suggested. Chrysostom, in fact, recognized that most families would continue to raise their children in an urban and secular context, and the point of this address was to encourage parents to provide the moral guidance that these children

'®£)e i/iamgloria et de educandis liberis, (Schulte, 7. 16).

^ D e inani gloria et de educandis liberis, (Schulte, 8. 18).

De inani gloria et de educandis liberis, (Schulte 8. 19). 187 would need to avoid the sinful temptations of the city. Chrysostom even advised parents to point out the finer achievements of politicians and soldiers as an example toward which children should aspire.^

Fathers should employ a balanced array of corrective devices — reproachful words, a stem glance — and not rely excessively on corporal punishm ent.Parents should take care in the appointment of a virtuous nurse so that in the begining a secure foundation is laid.^ As the child grows older he should not be allowed to consort with all the servants but only those that are worthy and if no worthy servants are at hand then one should be hired to act as tutor Children should be told stories from the bible when they are taking a break from their studies.^® Older boys should be told stories exemplifying God's wrath and the inevitability of divine punishment.

Mexà ÔT] ta w a Àéye a i^ v ^ é v u kcci (jx^epcoxEpa ôit|ynpata. Atcailfi pev yàp otxtp xf) ôiavolçt pxi xoçoûxov etxixIBei pàpoç, iva pxi Kaxa7tÂ,fi^pç. ôxav 5'e exwv TtEvxEKaiSsKa f| koi txàeiôvcov yevTjiai aKOUExto x à TCEp'i XÎÎÇ 7 EÉVVT1Ç* P&ÀA.OV 5e, bxav [e] xwv ôÉKa xa'i ÔKXW KOI ÊÀaXXOVtOV àKOUÉXCO x à TtEp'l xoû K a x a x lw p o û , x à XCEpi xtôv Soôôpcûv, xà Kax’AiyuTixov, Ttàvxa, boa KOÀàoECOç yépEi, psxà TtoXÀfig xr|ç 7t?iaxûxr|xoç.

After he has grown bigger, tell him, describing in detail, things more fearful. For so great a burden should not be put forward while (he) having a tender understanding, in order that he not be astounded. When he is fifteen or more, let him hear of things concerning hell.

De inani gloria et de educandis liberis, (Schulte, 28. 84).

^D e inani gloria et de educandis liberis, (Schulte, 12. 30).

^ De inani gloria et de educandis liberis, (Schulte, 13. 37).

inani gloria et de educandis liberis, (Schulte, 13-14. 38).

"®De inani gloria et de educandis liberis, (Schulte, 14-15. 39). 188 And moreover, when he is ten or eight or younger, let him hear things concerning the flood, things about Sodom, Egypt, everything, as much as is full of punishment, the whole breadth?^

A father should not let his son make contact with any women except his

mother and perhaps an old maidservant.^* He should not be allowed to use perfumes,

attend the theater, wear his hair long, or bathe in the company of women.^’

Young boys should be trained by their fathers and brothers in virtuous

behavior.*" Mothers should guide their daughters away from extravagance and

luxury, and instead train them in modesty and restraint.**

Chrysostom's primary concern in this treatise on education was to encourage

parents to raise virtuous children. Toward this end, Chrysostom exhorted fathers not

to let their sons attend the theater, advising them instead to arrange early marriages.**

Throughout the treatise Chrysostom took it for granted that families would continue

to educate their children in the traditional (classical) system, and this is indicative of

the continuing interaction between family and city in the fourth century.

In the fourth century education seems to have continued in the classical

fashion. Children went to public schools that were divided into primary and

secondary levels, and there was a continuing reliance on the use of memorization,

fear, and punishment. If Marrou is correct and a more humane approach to education

** De inani gloria et de educandis liberis, (Schulte, 8. 19).

** De inani gloria et de educandis liberis, (Schulte, 20. 53; and, 21. 62).

*"De inani gloria et de educandis liberis, (Schulte, 20. 54).

*®De inani gloria et de educandis liberis, (Schulte, 22. 68).

*' De inani gloria et de educandis liberis, (Schulte, 29. 90).

** Marriage, as we have seen above, in its arrangement and celebration still required much civic interaction. 189

was beginning to be practiced in the first century, this method does not seem to have

reached Antioch by the fourth century.

Education in late antique Antioch was another institution by which families

interacted with the city. Fathers sent their children to public schools, although it must

be kept in mind that these elementary schools were "public" in the sense that they

were communal and not in the sense that the city provided elementary education as a

service.^^ Children were taught in groups at these schools and thereby had daily

contact with children from other households. Parents, if they thought their child was

doing poorly might confront the teacher, blaming him and transferring their child to

another schoolmaster. This is just one scenario of how a parent could be involved in education and therefore interacting with teachers and possibly other parents. Young men that went on to study under a rhetorician, as Chrysostom did under Libanius, became steeped in civic affairs and civic tradition. Education was therfore a very prominent aspect of the interactive relationship that urban families continued to have with their civic surroundings.

Sons

There is evidence that sons were more troublesome than daughters to raise, and that despite the cost of dowries, sons could be more expensive than daughters on account of the cost of an advanced education,^'' This would of course, only apply to families that sent their sons to rhetoricians in pursuit of a higher education.^^

There is no doubt that teachers of rhetoric such as Libanius received both a civic and imperial salary, but there is no evidence that primary and secondary school masters received anything other than the fees that they collected from parents.

De sacerdotio libro 1 (PG 48. 625).

The different levels of education will be discussed below. 190

Chrysostom, beyond the necessity of fostering virtuous behavior from the start, does

not overly concern himself with the early childhood of young boys. An important

event in the life course of both men and women in classical antiquity was the

transition from childhood to adulthood. This event, in regard to sons, will be

examined in the following section.

Coming of Age In classical antiquity the transition from boyhood to manhood, marked by a

specific ceremony, was a very significant event in the life course of the Roman male.

The ceremony that occasioned this event was one in which the young man exchanged his childhood toga, the toga praetexta, for the toga virilis that distinguished the man from the boy.^® In his book on adults and children in the Roman Empire, Wiedemann explains how originally this event was contingent on a boy's ability to serve in the military.^’ Wiedemann states that at the establishment of the principate and the professionalization of military service, the ceremony continued as before and the toga now became the symbol of non-military public service.^® Thus, the transition from boyhood to manhood, due to the changing character of the empire, changed in emphasis if not in ritual.

Wiedemann states that for the purpose of holding public office, the distinction between child and adult was gradually abandoned due to the nature of imperial rule

J. Gardner and T. Wiedemann, The Roman Household: A Sourcebook (London, 1991), 108; Wiedemann, Adults and Children in the Roman Empire (London, 1989), 115-116.

” Wiedeman,Adults and Children, 113-14.

Wiedeman, Adults and Children, 115. 191 and the desire for emperors to prepare their sons for succession at an early age.^®

According to Wiedemann other factors in the process that gradually removed the distinction between child and adult citizen was the changing nature of city councils and civic patronage in the Later Roman Empire, and, most importantly, in AD 212 the extension of Roman citizenship to everyone who belonged to a city/" Wiedemann concludes that by the fifth century the distinction between toga praetexta and toga virilis and the consequent distinction between child and adult citizen had, for practical purposes, ceased to exist/' If this transition proceeded as Wiedemann suggests then we might expect

Chrysostom, writing in the late fourth century, to be unaware or indifferent to this coming of age ritual for late antique boys. However in the following passage he does provide some very significant evidence for the transition of boys to men.

To yap paoTaÇeoGai èv |ièv xf| Tiptoxntiàikiçc KaX,bv, pexà 6e xam a ôÀ£0piov xb pepaaTpevriv xpobhv èaBlsiv, èv pèv Ttpcoiploiq xqç Ç(ûf|ç fijirâv KaX,bv, pexà Se xabxa pSeÀxiypiag yéper xb ya?iaKXOxpo(j)Élo0ai Kai npbç xqv 0t|A,Tiv (jiEuyEiv, èv opxfl pèv Xpfptpov Kai ocûxlpiov, pexà ôè xabxa ôÀéGpiov kcci pXopepov. Ôpgç Ttwç xà aùxà îtpaypaxa mb xwv Kaipcàv KaX,à, xa'i où xoiaùxa batvexai TtàÀiv; Koù yàp xb ipdxiov (jx^pslv naiSiKbv peipaxiQ) pèv bvxi KoXbv, âvSpi Se yEVopévq) 7cdX,iv aloxpov. BoùÀEt xd i èx xôv èvavxicûv iiaGÉiv, tcôç xq) Ttaidi xà xoù âvSpbç àvàppooxa 7idX,iv; Abç x^ TtaiS'i xà ipdxiov dvSpixbv, x a i itoXùg Eoxai 6 yèÀtoç, xd i pEiÇcûv ô kIv Suvoç , èv xÿ poSlÇElV oùxtû TtEpiXpETtOpévO'ü TtOÀÀdxtg. Abç aùxq) pExaxeipiÇEiv itpdypaxa itolixiKà, x a i èpnopEÙEoGai, xa'i OTtElpEiv, Kai dpdoGai, xdi irdliv tcoXùç EOxai b yèA.(oç.

For to be carried in the first stage of life is good, but after this is destructive. To eat food that has been chewed, while in the begining

Wiedemann, Adults and Children, 119ff.

‘’“Wiedemann, to a/irfChildren, 13 Iff.

Wiedemann, Adults and Children, 139. 192 of our life is good, but after this fills us with disgust. To take milk for nourishment and to fly to the nipple is useful and saving in the beginning, but after this is destructive and hurtful. Do you see how the very same matters by reason of the times seem good, and the same things seem again not to be good? For also to wear the child's toga while being a boy is fine, but after having become a man is again shameful. Do you also wish to learn from the opposite, how to the child the things of the man are again unsuitable? Give to the child the toga of a man, and great will be the laughter, and greater the danger, to walk in this way he being often upset. Give to him civic affairs to handle, and to act as a merchant, and to sow and to reap, and again great will be the laughter.'*^

This passage provides specific evidence for the classical coming of age ritual that was still being practiced in the fourth century. The significance of this ritual is not only in the act itself but also in the symbolism and its meaning. Chrysostom states that the very image of a boy in a man's robe would be so ridiculous as to inspire laughter. If the toga virilis and the distinction between the child citizen and the adult citizen had lost their significance, or were on the verge of losing their significance, then it is difficult to understand the force of Chrysostom's argument. One might contend that

Chrysostom was merely classicizing in using the above analogy, but as I have argued before, in order for Chrysostom to be an effective preacher and communicator, he could not have used arcane analogies that held no significance among his audience.

There is no doubt that Chrysostom was a classicist in his grammer and rhetoric, but it should not therefore be construed that his arguments, analogies, and examples were also products of fifth century Athens. The fact that Chrysostom used the above analogy indicates that he expected his audience to understand and identify with the absurdity of a boy wearing a man's toga and attempting to fulfill a man's role. It is clear from the above passage that in fourth century Antioch there was a real difference

^^Homilia 17 in Matthaeum, (PG 57, 262). 193 perceived between men and boys and that this difference was defined in part by the man's ability to handle public affairs. This is very much in keeping with classical tradition and in the classical relationship between citizens and city.

I do not mean to suggest that Wiedemann is completely wrong in his supposition that the coming of age ceremony and the formal distinction between child and adult citizens gradually lost their significance. In fact, his argument seems fairly sound and perhaps only needs adjustment in consideration of the political and cultural differences between the East and West. In the fourth century the urban vitality of the

East was significantly better than that of the West and it should not surprise that gradual loss of distinction between child and adult citizens probably occured earlier in the West than it did in the East. Throughout the fourth, fifth and sixth centuries there was greater continuity of urban institutions in the East than in the West. The evidence of Chrysostom implies that the coming of age ceremony and its distinction between child and adult citizens was still understood in Antioch at the end of the fourth century.

It may, however, also be significant that in the above passage, Chrysostom provides an additional componet for the distinction between man and boy — a man's ability to transact business and/or work in the field. This was not at all a feature of the classical conception of this transition to manhood. As we have seen in an earlier chapter, the ability, or more precisely, the practice of conducting business or working in the field is closely associated with the man's role as provider, husband, and head of household.'*^ It is possible that the transition from boyhood to manhood was again experiencing a transformation in emphasis that reflected the changing character of the

Empire. As the prestige and functional importance of city councillors declined, the

See above, chapter six, roles. 194

emphasis on a man's role as public servant also declined. In its place arose an

emphasis on the man's duty to his household. Evidence for this transformation can be

seen in the above passage in which both of these conceptions are present. The

classical emphasis on public service as defining the man, and the later Byzantine

emphasis on family are both present in Chrysostom's conception of the defining

characteristics of adulthood.

In sum, Wiedemann has shown that originally the transition from boyhood to

manhood was defined by the ability to serve in the military, but as the character of the

Empire changed the emphasis of coming of age also changed — from military service

to public service. It is possible that in the fourth century another change in emphasis

was taking place and that as the significance of a man's role as an urban citizen was

declining, the significance of a man's role as head of household was increasing. The

primacy of a man's duty to his city was being replaced by a man's duty to his family.

This does not mean that adult male citizens no longer participated in urban life, rather

it is clear from the earlier chapters that there was an open and interactive relationship

between family and city. It is possible that late antique adult males participated in civic life in a mostly similar manner as had their classical counterparts, but a difference in the focus of their concern was beginning to emerge in the fourth century

and the coming of age ceremony is indicative of this transition.

Young Men

To judge by the words of Chrysostom, young men in fourth century Antioch were far more interested in women than in civic affairs. Chrysostom is single minded in his concern that young men should be prevented from attending the theater and 195 visiting prostitutes.'*'* As we have seen above and in the following passage, his remedy for this licentiousness was strong parental guidance and an early marriage.

...èv aoxtjpoouvp p d lto w Siaxrpcopev am ouç* toûto yàp Ttavxtov TcXfov Tqv veoTTTca A-upalvexai. Ilpbç toûroptv SeT tw v âytovcov, 7t noTJ^&v TjoXXfig xr|ç Jtpooo%f|g. Taxéœ ç aÛToiç yw aiK oç àyropev, œaxE KaGopà ctûxwv Kai àvémcjxx xà ocopaxa ôé% eo6ai xf)v v6p(j)r|v o u x o i 01 eptoxeç 0£ppôxepoi. Ô Ttpo xoû yàpou aoxtjpovcijv, ttoXÀQ) p&A,lov pexà xbv yàp ov ô Ô'e paGwv TtopvEueiv Tipb xoû yàpoi), Koi pexà xbv yàpov xoûxo Ttoifjaei.

Let us especially maintain them in self discipline, for this is the very ruin of youth. Toward this many meetings and much attention is necessary. Let us bring wives to them early, so that their wives may receive their bodies untouched, and these desires more heated. He being temperate before marriage, much more (will he be) after marriage. And he knowing fornication before marriage, will do this after marriage.'*^

It is clear that young men took great interest in their appearances and attempted to project a certain image. Chrysostom spoke against young men parading about with their long hair and golden necklaces and earrings.'*® He even chastised sandle makers for making the glitteiy sandles that young men seemed to prefer.'*’ In the following passage Chrysostom expresses his disgust for these young dandies and their declining values.

'*'*/« epistulam i ad Thessalonicenses homilia 5(PG 62,427-28); Homilia 59 in Genesim (PG 54, 517-18); Homilia 59 in Matthaeum (PG 58,582-83); In epistulam i ad Timotheum homilia 9 (PG 62,546).

'*® In epistulam i ad Timotheum homilia 9 (PG 62,546).

'*®Oe inani gloria et de educandis liberis (Schulte, 7. 16).

Homilia 49 in Matthaeum (PG 58, 502). 196 AXk’ o\) xà KoXjcaà toiaina, aX k’ âvôpaai npéîiovm. Ô0ev ëycoye JipOOSOKrô, XpÔVOD TipOlÔVTOÇ TO\)Ç VÉODÇ TODÇ TtOCp’ TpiV K ttl ywaiKWv moSTTiiaxa G%f|OEiv, kki ovk a lo x w É la G a i. K a i xb Xa?Æ7C(DX£pov, b u 01 JiaxépEÇ xam a ôpwvxEÇ oôk âyavaK xoôoiv, âÀ kà icai â5id())opov xb Trpâyjia Eivai von'iÇoDai....Ov y à p o m c o ç bipai oxpaxriybv êtxi xdlç axpfxxojiéSoiç Ka'i xpom loiç |iÉya cj)povÉlv, tûç xobç àK oiàaxooç véodç etci xm KalÀ(O7uop0 xwv moôT|iiàxwv, ÊTÙ x d lç OOpOHEVOlÇ l|XaxloiÇ, E7Ù xfl KOUpd ttîç KE(j)aA,flÇ*

But such things were not as this in the old days, but men are conspicuous. Wherefore I, at least, expect in the course of time the young men among us will wear even women's sandals, and not be ashamed. And the more grievous matter is that the fathers seeing these things are not angry, but even consider the matter to be indifferent.... For thus I do not think a general considers as highly his troops and trophies, as the undisciplined youth consider the ornamentation of their sandals, the trailing garments, the style of their hair."'*

It was possible that some young men would inherit their fortune at this early age and Chrysostom saw this as an obstacle to their attaing a virtuous life, since their impulse would be to squander their money on improper pleasures."® It was also possible that some young men, on account of their "worthless" behavior might be expelled from their paternal home and cut off from their inheritance.’” It was on account of this possibility that some sons grew impatient and dissatisfied with fathers who continued to live into old age.”

Homilia 49 in Matthaeum (PG 58, 502 and 503).

Homilia 66 in Genesim (PG 54. 570-71).

^°Daemones non gubemare mundum (PG 49,249).

”In epistulam ad Colossenses homilia I (PG 62, 303). 197

Daughters Chrysostom provides far less information about daughters than sons.

Chrysostom refers to daughters as being kept at home, cloistered within the household

and shielded from the public.’^ He says that a daughter is relieved from all anxiety

and that the only thing daughters need worry about is that they should neither do or

say anything unworthy.’^ Chrysostom describes an especially pampered daughter as

forever reclining on soft couches in inner chambers, wearing expensive jewelry, perfumes, and linens, and being attended by numerous handmaids.^^

In classical Rome, marriage was seen as the event that marked the coming of age for women.^^ This had not changed by the fourth century as is evidenced by the following passage.

ÙGTtep y à p Ti 7C(xp0Évoç 'étoç p èv â v biKOi pévri p e t à ptrtpbg, 7ToA,?iT|v Twv TiaiSiKwv (XTtàvxcov KOiÉim i (t)povxiSa, x a i Kipcùuov èv tapielç) Kaxa0£|a.£vr| xwv àTiOKEipévwv êkei, K ai xf^v kÀ£iv aôxti KÉKxrjxai, K ai xqv è^oixy'iavà n a c a v £%£i, K ai xooauxr|v biiEp xrjç xwv piKpwv £K£ivwv K ai (jxxTJÀwv (j)i)X,aKriç àva5£% £xai pépipvav, OGT|v 01 xàç pEyàXaç èTtixporobovxEÇ» £7t£i5àv ÔÈ iivrjaxEOEcGai Ôé^i Ka'i 6 xoû ydpoo Kaipbç àvayKdÇpi xr|v Jtaxp<;^v o’iKiav â(|)£ivai, xôxE xîjç £ÛX£A£'iaç EKEivriç aTcaXAayeioa Kai xriç xa7t£ivôxr|xoç, o’iKiaç Ttpooxaalav, Kai Kxrpdxwv Kai dvôpanôôwv 7cX,ij0oç, Kai dvôpoç 0£pa7t£iav, Kai xàakXa xà xoûxwv pEiÇova pEpipvÿv dvayKdÇExai*

The young girl, so long as she remains at home with her mother, is occupied with childish cares. She deposits her little chest in the

epistulam i ad Corinthos homilia 12 (PG 61.103); In epistulam ad Ephesios homilia 13 (PG 62, 98); De uirginitate (PG 48, 586); Homilia 42 in Matthaeum (PG 57, 455-56); De sacerdotio liber 3 (PG 48, 657); De inani gloria et de educandis liberis, (Schulte, 7-8. 18).

De sacerdotio Uber3 (PG 48, 657).

^ In epistulam ad Ephesios homilia 13 (PG 62,98).

Wiedeman, Adults and Children, 115-16.; Dixon, Roman Family, 101. 198 household treasury with its store; the key and all authority are in her possession. She is as solicitous of those little (riffles as guardians of important households are of what is in their charge. However, when she ust be betrothed and marriage forces her to leave her father's house, then she is removed from that world of (riffles and her lowly position. She is compelled to manage the household with its many possessions and slaves, to tend to her husband and other responsibilities greater than these numerous chores.^®

This passage indicates that marriage, for women, marked a transition from childhood and their primary role as daughter, to that of adulthood and their primary role as wife and household manager. We have already seen in an earlier chapter the very public nature of the wedding ceremony and so, just as in the case of boys/men, the coming of age "ceremony" for women was a public occasion and involved extensive interaction with the city.

56 De uirginitate (PG 48,586); transi, by S. Shore, John Chrysostom: On Virginity, 109. Conclusion

One of the primary purposes of this dissertation has been to discover the

degree of continuity in family structure between the Classical Roman period and the

fourth century. It is my belief that early Christianity did not significantly change

family structure, but this is not to say that Christianity had no impact at all. The

influence of early Christianity was most prominent in the formalization of

engagement and in its acceptance of abstinence.* I, however, disagree with

Patlagean that early Christianity and its active promotion of virginity and abstinence

were enormously influential in the supposed late antique rejection of marriage and

family. There is considerable evidence from the writings of Chrysostom to suggest

that marriage and family continued to serve as the principle social institution in

fourth century Antioch.

Family structure in late antique Antioch seems to demonstrate a considerable

amount of continuity with earlier Classical Roman family structure. The purpose of

Roman marriage was for the procreation of children and this continued to be a purpose for marriage in the fourth century. Chrysostom was familiar with this

Graeco-Roman idea of marriage but early Christianity also taught that marriage was for the suppression of lust. The legal requirements for entering a valid marriage were mostly the same as they had been in the classical period. Engagement before the fourth century had been loosely defined and had no formal procedures or

* Classical Roman law punished abstinence and the fact that later Roman law, most likely under the influence of Christianity, removed those penalties is significant unto itself.

199 2 0 0 consequences. However under the influence of Christianity engagement became more formalized and penalties were imposed on those who unjustly broke off an engagement.

The evidence of Chrysostom indicates that maniage in late antiquity continued to be arranged and celebrated in much the same fashion as earlier classical marriage. Fathers determined a suitable partner for either their son or daughter and in many cases the prospective couple would not have met until the final arrangements for the wedding. Chiysostom and Classical Roman moralists alike complained that many marriages were arranged according to material interests rather than virtuous ones. Patlagean has conjected that beginning in the fourth century family structure became increasingly closed and isolationist, and that many families resorted to an endogamous marriage strategy to protect famial wealth. The evidence of Chrysostom does not support this theory since he condemns men seeking to get rich by marrying wealthy women and he says nothing about families resorting to endogamy as a strategy to protect familial wealth. In addition, Chrysostom presents a highly detailed and lavish account of the wedding ceremony that many of these urban aristocrats were practicing, and it is clear that the celebration had much in common with earlier Roman ceremonies and that it was a very public affair. This again would seem to cast doubt on Patlagean's thesis of an increasing closed family structure in this period.

The roles of husbands and wives had not changed by the fourth century. The ideal was the husband as the head of the household and the wife as a subservient helpmate. In reality marriage was a partnership between husband and wife with each having distinct responsibilities. The wife's primary responsibility was still the management of the household, including the supervision of the servants. This did 201 not necessarily mean that she was not permitted outside the home and often her duties as household manager meant normally she came and went as she pleased. It was not considered shameful nor was it at all unusual for married women to be seen in the marketplace. She might either walk to and through the crowded markets, or as some women preferred, to ride on mules. At the same time there were some women who did not participate in public life but instead remained sequestered at home. Wives probably did not normally conduct "business" in the maiketplace, as that was considered the responsibility of the husband. Women who could afford it sometimes wore gold jewelry, pearls, brightly colored dresses and were active not just in the markets but were also present at other public institutions such as the baths and church. Apparently, pregnancy, even in its latest stages, did not impede women from going about their daily business in the city.

Chrysostom attests to both good and bad marital relationships. Some husbands and wives grew impatient with the habits of their spouses and this could cause marital friction. Despite the contractual nature of marriage it seems most husbands and wives expected to develope a loving and compassionate relationship.

Chrysostom does not devote much attention to criticizing divorce and it is possible that divorce was not a frequent occurance in late antiquity. This would seem to be an issue where a real difference can be detected between the classical Roman period and late antiquity. Some Roman family historians believe that in the Roman

Republic especially, divorce and serial marriage characterised urban aristocratic marriage. There is no evidence for frequent divorce and serial marriage among the urban aristocracy of late antique Antioch.

In classical antiquity there were a variety of means by which to limit family size. The same methods that were available in the classical period were also 2 0 2 practiced in the fourth century. Patlagean has argued that a newly important factor significantly contributed to limiting the birth rate in the fourth century — abstinence.

She believes that this movement toward sexual renunciation is partly in response to, and certainly reflected by, the rhetoric of early Christianity. The rhetoric of

Chrysostom however reveals a sincere and deep appreciation for children and the emotional bond that parents share with their children. Chrysostom discussed the joy that children commonly brought into the lives of their parents and he details the care and attention that parents gave to their young ones. While Chrysostom explicitly stated that virginity is better than marriage, he also explicitly stated that it was not realistic to expect people to turn away from marriage. He urged fathers to betroth their sons at an early age so that they might live a virtuous life and not fall into the sin of lust and fornication. The evidence of Chrysostom seems to weigh heavily against any notion that late antique society rejected marriage and procreation.

The primary role of the Roman father was to maintain order and discipline within the family and to supervise the education of his children. While there is clear evidence for affection between Roman fathers and their children, there is also evidence for a certain degree of tension between fathers and sons. The role of fathers and their relationship with their children had not changed by the fourth century. Chrysostom provides ample evidence demonstrating paternal affection and the extensive involvement of fathers in the lives of even very young children. A close relationship between fathers and sons was considered normal, although a certain amount of tension could also be present. The relationship between fathers and daughters is not as thoroughly attested as that between fathers and sons. A father-daughter relationship is normally characterized by a protective father 203 superintending his daughter's chastity and worthiness. In the end, sons were expected to attend their fathers to the grave.

As is the case with Roman women in general, Roman mothers do not receive a considerable amount of attention from the classical sources. Roman mothers seem to have had a closer relationship with their daughters than their sons, and the primary duty of a Roman mother toward her daughter was the provision of a proper education and a suitable husband. The relationship of Roman mothers — especially among the elite — with their infant children was limited by the extensive use of wet- nurses. It is not clear if the use of wet-nurses was as prominent in the later period as it was in the classical period, but Chrysostom offers clear evidence for motherly affection and love toward even the youngest children. The evidence of Chrysostom for the extensive involvement of parents in the lives of their children, and for the loving bond that normally developed between parents and children is significant in regard to the issue of sexual renunciation in late antiquity. It is difficult to understand why Chrysostom so often drew upon analogies of family life, and was so purposeful in describing parental roles in terms of endearment, if he lived in a period of sexual renunciation and the consequent rejection of family life.

It is not surprising that children in the fourth century played many of the same games that their classical predecessors had. Education in the fourth century was very simlar to the earlier Graeco-Roman educational system. The fear of corporal punishment continued to be a motivational tool of teachers and fathers alike. It is perhaps significant in regard to understanding the relationship between family and city that the coming of age ceremony for boys was the same in the fourth century as it had been in the classical period. Wiedemann has postulated that this 204 ceremony — the exchange of the boy's toga for the man's toga — had largely lost its significance by the fourth century due, in part, to the changing nature of city councils and civic pationage in the later Roman Empire. The evidence of

Chrysostom indicates that this ceremony had not lost its significance in fourth century Antioch.

It was Chrysostom's concern that young men be given proper moral guidance in the avoidance of lustful sins. In fact Chrysostom seems to characterize young adulthood as a continuous struggle to remain chaste and worthy. This was a struggle for young women no less than young men and it was incumbant upon parents to serve as role models and to guide their children down the virtuous path.

There was no significant change in the roles and relationships of family members from Classical antiquity to late antiquity. It is precisely in the roles and relationships of family members that family structure exists and so it can be said that family structure, at least in late antique Antioch, was continuous with its earlier

Classical predecessor. Bibliography

Antioch

Cumont, F. "The Population of Syria,"Journal o f Roman Studies 24 (1934), 187-90.

Devréesse, R. Le patriarcat d'Antioche depuis la paix de l’eglise jusqu’à la conquête arabe. Paris 1945.

Downey, G. A History o f Antioch in Syria. Princeton 1961.

Festugière, A.J. Antioche païenne et chrétienne. Paris 1959.

Kraeling, C.H. "The Jewish Community at Antioch,"Journal of Biblical Literature 51 (1932), 130-60.

Liebescheutz, W. "The Finances of Antioch in the 4th c. A.D.," Byzantinische Zeitschrift. 42 (1959), 344-56.

. "The Syriarch in the 4th c. A.D.," Historia 8 (1959), 113-26.

. "Money Economy and Taxation in Kind in Syria in the 4th c. A.D.," Rheinisches Museum fUr Philologie 104 (1961), 242-54.

. Antioch: City and Imperial Administration in the Later Roman Empire. Oxford 1972.

. Bishops and Barbarians. Oxford 1990.

Norman, A.F. "The Book Trade in Fourth-Century Antioch,"Journal o f Hellenic Studies 80 (1960), 122-26.

Syro-Roman Lawbook. Translated by A. Voobus, Stockholm 1983.

Petit, P. Libanius et la vie municipale à Antioche au I'Ve siècle après J.-C. Paris 1955.

205 206 Weulersse, J. "Antioche, essai de géographie urbaine," Bulletin d'Etudes Orientales 4 (1934), 27-79.

Chrysostom, John

Abengochea, S. "Ideas pedagogicas de S. Juan Crisostomo," Helmantica 12 (1961), 343-60.

Albornoz, A. Car. de. "Aspectos sociales dels IV a través de las obras de Juan Crisostomo,"Razony Fe 167 (1933), 204-17, 507-25.

. San Juan Crisostomo y su influencia Social en El Imperio Byzantino del Sigl. rV. Madrid 1934.

Altaner, B. "Augustinus und Johannes Chiysostomus: Quellenkritische Untersuchungen," Zeitschrift fur Neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 45 (1952-3), 76-84.

Attwater, D. Saint John Chrysostom. London 1959.

Baur, J.C. "Das Ideal der christlichen Volkonunenheit nach dem Heiligen Johannes Chrysostomus,"Théologie und Glaube 6 (1914), 564-74.

. Johannes Chrysostomos und seine Zeit, I: Antiochen; II: Konstantinopel, 1930. Transi, by Gonzaga, John Chrysostom and his Time. Westminister, Maryland 1959.

Boeckenhoff, K. and R. Stapper. "Gedanken des hl. Johannes Chrysostomus über Fragen der Sexual Pâdagogik," Vierteijahrsschriftfür Wissenschaftliche Padagogik 2 (1926),174-88.

Bruck, E.F. "Kirchlich-Soziales erbrecht in Byzanz, Johannes Chrsostomus und Die Mazedonischen Kaizer," in Studi Riccobono HI, Palermo 1937, 377-423.

Burger, D. A Complete Bibliography on the Life and Works of Saint John Chrysostom. Evanston 1964.

Clark, E. Jerome, Chrysostom, and Friends: Studies in Women and Religion vol. 2. New York 1979.

D'Alton, J.F. Selections from St. John Chrysostom. London 1940. 207 Dacier, H. S. Jean Chrysostome et la femme chrétienne au FVe siècle de l'eglise grecque. Paris 1907.

Dumortier, J. "La culture profane de Saint Jean Chrysostome,"Melanges de Science Religieuse 10 (1953), 53-67.

. "Les idée morales de Saint Jean Chrysostome," Melanges de Science Religieuse 12 (1955), 27-35.

Ettlinger, G.H., and B. Grillet, Jean Chrysostom. À une jeune veuve. Sur le mariage unique. Sources Chrétiennes 138, Paris 1968.

Field, F. loannis Chrysostomi: interpretatio omnium epistularum Paulinarum I-V. Oxford 1845-1862.

Gorce, D. "Mariage et perfection chrétien d'aprés S. Jean Chrysostome,"Études Carmelitaines 21 (1936), 245-84.

Grillet, B. "Introduction générale," Jean Chrysostome. La Virginité. Paris 1968.

Groehl, R. "Der hl. Joannes Chrysostomus über die christliche Familienerziehung," Théologie und Glaube 34 (1942), 301-07.

Haidacher, S. Des Heïlige Johannes Chrysostomus Büchlein überHojfart und kindererziehung. Freiburg 1907.

Jones, A.H.M. "St. John Chrysostom's Parantage and Education,"Harvard Theological Review 46 (1953), 171-73.

Jurgens, W.A. The Priesthood: A Translation o f the De Sacerdotio of St. John Chrysostom. New York 1955.

Kazhdan, A. "Hagiographical Notes," Byzantion 54 (1984), 188-92.

Maas, P. "Libanios und Johannes Chrysostomus,"Sitzungsberichte der Preuschischen Akademie der Wissenschaften (1912), 1123-26.

Malingrey, A.M. (ed.). Jean Chrysostome: Sur la Vaine Gloire. Sources Chrétiennes 188, Paris 1972.

Martin, F. Dialogue sur le Sacerdoce, Discours sur la Mariage, lettres â une Jeune Veuve. Paris 1932.

Moulard, A. Saint Jean Chrysostome. Paris 1941. 208

. Saint Jean Chrysostome, le défenseur du marriage et l'apôtre de la virginité. Paris 1923.

Nairn, J. A. De Sacredotio of Saint John Chrysostom. Cambridge 1906.

Neill, S. Chrysostom and His Message. New York 1963.

Puech, A. Saint Jean Chrysostome et les moeurs de son temps. Paris 1891.

Repp, A.C. "John Chrysostom on the Christian Home as a Teacher,"Concordia Theological Monthly 22 (1951), 937-948.

Schaff, Ph. Saint Chrysostom and Saint Augustine. New York 1891.

Schulte, F. S. Joannis Chrysostomus de inani gloria et de educandis liberis. Münster 1914.

Shore, S. John Chrysostom: On Virginity; Against Remarriage. New York 1983.

Vance, J.M. Beitrage zur byzatinischen Kulturgeschichte am Ausgang des IV Jahrhunderts aus den schriften des Johannes Chrysostomus. Jena 1907.

Von Bonsdorf, M.Zur predigttatigkeit des Johannes Chrysostomus. Helsingfors dissertatium 1922.

Wilken, R. John Chrysostom and the Jews. Berkeley 1983.

Family Studies

Anshen, R.N. (ed.). The Family: Its Functiq^andDestiny. New York 1959.

Aries, P. Centuries of Childhood: A Social History of Family Life. London 1960.

Bardis, P.D. "Family Forms and Variations Historically Considered," in Handbook of Marriage and the Family, edited by Harold Christensen. Chicago 1964.

Barnes, J.A. Three Styles in the Study of Kinship. London 1971.

Blitsten, D R. The World of the Family: A Comparative Study of Family Organizations in Their Social and Cultural Settings. New York 1963 209 Bott, E. Family and Social Network. Second edition; New York 1971.

Bucher, I.R. and H. Selby, Kinship and Social Organization: An Introduction to Theory and Method. New York 1968.

Coale, A.J. (ed.). Aspects o f the Analysis of Family Structure. Princeton 1965.

Collomp, A. "Ménage et famille: études comparatives sur la dimension et le structure du groupe domestique (note critique)," Annales esc 29 (1974), 777-786.

Comhaire, J.L. "Economie Change and the Extended Family," Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 305 (1956), 45-52.

Delcourt, J. "Influence of Urbanization on the Diverse Phases of Developement in the Family Cycle," Current Sociology 12 (1963), 34-45.

Duvall, E.M. Marriage and Family Developement. Fifth edition; Philadelphia 1977.

Elder, G.H. "Approaches to Social Change and the Family," in Turning Points, edited by J. Demos and S. Boocock, Chicago 1978.

Gilbert, J.B. and E. Hammel, "Computer Simulation and Analysis of the Problems in Kinship and Social Structure," American Anthropologist 68 (1966), 71-93.

Goldschmidt, W. and E.J. Kunkel, "The Structure of the Peasant Family," American Anthropologist 13 (1971), 1058-1076.

Goode, W.J. "The Theory and Measurement of Family Change," inIndicators of Social Change, edited by E.H. Sheldon and W.E. Moore. New York 1968.

Goody, J. "The Evolution of the Family,"Household and Family in Past Time, edited by P. Laslett and R. Wall. Cambridge 1972.

. The Developement of the Family and Marriage in Europe. Cambridge and New York 1983.

Goody, J. and S. Tambiah, Bridewealth and Dowry. Cambridge 1973.

Goody, J., J. Thirsk, and E. P. Thompson.Family and Inheritance: Rural Society in Western Europe, I200-I800. New York 1976.

Gough, K. "The Origin of the Family,"Journal of Marriage and the Family 33 (1971), 760- 771. 2 1 0

Hammel, E. and P. Laslett. "Comparing Household Structure over Time and Between Cultures," Comparative Studies in Society and History 16 (1974), 73-109.

Harevin, T.K. "The History of the Family as an Interdisciplinary Field," Journal of Interdisciplinary History 2 (1971-72), 399-414.

. "The Family in Historical Perspective," Geschichte und Gesellschaft 1 (1975), 370-386.

. "Cycles, Courses and Cohorts: Reflections on Theoretical and Methodological Approaches to the Historical Study of Family Developement,"Journal of Social History 12 (1978-79), 97-109.

Laslett, P. "The Comparative History of Household and Family,"Journal o f Social History 4 (1970-71), 75-87.

. "La famille et le ménage: approaches historiques,"Annales esc 27 (1971), 847-872.

. and R. Wall. Household and Family in Past Time. Cambridge 1972.

. "Characteristics of the Western Family Considered Over Time," Journal of Family History 2 (1977), 89-115.

Lautman, F. "Différences ou changement dans l'organisation familiale,"Annales esc 27(1972), 1190-1196.

Lévi-Strause, C. "The Family," in Man, Culture and Society, edited by H.L. Shapiro, revised edition. New York 1971.

Levy, M.J. "Aspects of the Analysis of Family Structure," inAspects of the Analysis of Family Structure, edited by A.J. Coaie, et al. Princeton 1965.

Mitterauer, M. and R. Sieder, The European Family: Patriarchy to Partnership from the Middle Ages to the Present. Oxford 1982.

Nimkoff, M.F. Comparative Family Systems. Boston 1965.

Nimkoff, M.F. and R. Middleton. "Types of Family and Types of Economy," American Journal of Sociology 66 (1960), 215-225. 2 1 1 Rabb, T.K. and R. Rotberg (eds.). The Family in History: Interdisciplinary Essays. New York 1973.

Razi, Z. "Family, Land and the Village Community in Later Medieval England," Past and Present 93 (1981), 3-36.

Rosenberg, C.E. (ed.). The Family in History. Philadelphia 1975.

Schultz, T. (ed.). Economics of the Family: Marriage, Children, and Human Capital. Chicago 1974.

Smith, R. "Hebrew, Greco-Roman, and Early Christian Family Patterns," in Marriage and the Family, edited by H. Becker and R. Hill. Boston 1942.

Stone, L. The Family, Sex and Marriage in England, 1500-1800. Harmondsworth 1979.

Wall, R. (ed.). Family Forms in Historic Europe. Cambridge and New York 1983.

Historical Studies

Amand de Mendieta, D. "La virginité chez Eusèbe d’Emèse et l'ascéticisme familial dans la première moitié de IVe siècle," Revue d'histoire ecclésiastique 50 (1955), 777-820.

Angold, M. “The Shaping of the Byzantine City,” Byzantinische Forschungen 10 (1985), 1-37.

Anné, L. Les rites des fiançailles et la donation pour cause de marriage dans le Bas-Empire. Dissertationes ad gradum masistri in Facultate Canonici luris consequendium, ser. 2 +.33. Louvain 1953.

Ariès, P. L ’Enfant et la vie familiale sous l’ancien régime, second edition. Paris 1973.

Ashtor, E. A Social and Economie History of the Near East in the Middle Ages. London 1976.

Arnold, K. Kind und Gesellschaft im Mittelalter und Renaissance. Paderbom & Munich 1980. 2 1 2 Baldwin, B. “Young and Old in Imperial Rome,” in S. Bertram (ed.). The Conflict of Generations in Ancient Greece and Rome. Amsterdam 1976.

Balsdon, J.P.V.D. Roman Women, Their History and Habits. London 1962.

. Life and Leisure in Ancient Rome. London 1969.

Bardis, P.D. "Selected Aspects of Family Life in Ancient International Review of History and Political Science 3 (1966), 1-16.

. "Marriage and Family Customs in Ancient Egypt: An Interdisciplinary study," Social Science 41 (1966), 229-45; 42 (1967), 104-19.

Bardy, G. "Traducteurs et adapteurs au IVe siècle," Recherches de Science Religieuse 30 (1940), 257-306.

Bauman, R.A. "The 'Leges ludiciorum Publicorum' and Their Interpretation in the Republic, Principate and Later Empire," in Aufsteig und Niedergang der romischen Welt, H. Temporini (ed.) Principat, Recht, II 13 (1980), 103-233.

Bennet, H. “The Exposure of Infants in Ancient Rome,”Classical Journal 18 (1923), 341-51.

Bertman, S. The Conflict of Generations in Ancient Greece and Rome. Amsterdam 1976.

Biller, P.P. A. "Birth Control in the West in the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Centuries," Past and Present 94 (1982), 3-26.

Boak, A.E.R. Manpower Shortage and the Fall o f the Roman Empire in the West. Ann Arbor 1955.

Boer, W. den. "Demography in Roman History: Facts and Impressions,"Mnemosyne 26 (1973), 29-46.

Private Morality in Greece and Rome. Leiden 1979.

Bonner, S.F. Education in Ancient Rome: From the Elder Cato to the Younger Pliny. London 1977.

Boswell, J. "Expositio and Oblatio: The Abandonment of Children in the Ancient and Medieval Family," American Historical Review 89 (1984), 10-33.

. The Kindness of Strangers. New York 1988. 213

Bouchard, C. R. "Consanguinity and Noble Marriages in the Tenth and Eleventh Centuries," Speculum 56 (1981), 268-87.

Bouchard, C. R. "The Origins of the French Nobility; A Reassessment," American Historical Review 86 (1981), 501-32.

Bradley, K. “Wet-nursing at Rome: A Study in Social Relations,” in The Family in Ancient Rome: New Perspectives, edited by B. Rawson. Ithaca, New York 1986.

. Slavery and Rebellion in the Roman World 140-70 B.C. Bloomington 1989.

. Discovering the Roman Family. Oxford 1991.

Brown, P. "The Rise of the Holy Man in Late Antiquity,"Journal of Roman Studies 61 (1971), 80-101.

. Religion and Society in the Age of Saint Augustine. New York 1972.

. "Eastern and Western Christendom in Late Antiquity: A Parting of the Ways," The Orthodox Churches and the West, edited by Derek Baker. Studies in Church History, 13. Oxford 1976.

. The Making of Late Antiquity. Cambridge, Mass. 1978.

. The Body and Society: Men, Women and Sexual Renunciation in Early Christianity. New York 1988.

Browning, R. "Ethics vs. Law: St. Paul, The Fathers of the Church, and the Cheerful Giver' in Roman Law,"Traditio 2 (1944), 97-121.

. "The Riot of A.D. 387: The Role of the Theatrical Claques in the Later Empire," Journal of Roman Studies 42 (1952), 13-20.

Brundage, J. Law, Sex, and Christian Society in Medieval Europe. Chicago 1987.

Brunt, P.A. Italian Manpower 225 BC - AD 14. Oxford 1971.

Buckland, W.W. A Manual o f Roman Private Law. Third edition revised by P. Stein. Cambridge 1966. 214 Bullough, D. "Early Medieval Social Groupings: the Terminology of Kinship,"Past and Present A5 (1969), 3-18.

Cameron, A. "Polynomy in the Late Roman Aristocracy; The Case of Petronius Probus," Journal of Roman Studies 75 (1985),164-82.

Cameron, A. "The Exposure of Children and Greek Ethics," Classical Review 46 (1932),105-114.

Carletta, C. “Aspetti biometrici del matrimonio nelle iscrzioni cristiane di Roma,” Augustinianum 17 (1977), 39-51.

Carroll, M. The Cult of the Virgin Mary. Princeton 1986.

Cherry, D.A. “Studies in the Marriage Legislation of Augustus,” Dissertation University of Saskatchewan. Saskatoon 1981.

Clark, E. "Ascetic Renunciation and Feminine Advancement: A Paradox of Late Ancient Christianity," Anglican Theological Review 63 (1981), 240-257.

. The Life o f Melania the Younger. New York 1984.

. "Theory and Practice in Late Ancient Asceticism: Jerome, Chrysostom, and Augustine," Journal of Feminist Studies in Religion 5 (1989), 25-46.

Claude, D. Die byzantinische Stadt im 6. Jahrhundert. Munich 1969.

Cooper, A. "The Family Farm in Greece,"Classical Journal 73 (1977-78), 162-175.

Cowell, F.R. Everyday Life in Ancient Rome. Putnam, New York 1961.

Crook, J.A.Law and Life of Rome. London 1967.

. "Patria Potestas," Classical Quarterly 17 (1967), 113-22.

Csillag, P. The Augustan Laws on Family Relations. Budapest 1976.

dAles, A. "L'hospitalité chrétienne aux IVe et Ye siècle," Études 189 (1926), 75- 79.

Davies, J.G. Daily Life in the Early Church: Studies in the Church Social History of the First Five Centuries. London 1952. 215 Dauvillier, J. Le marriage dans le droit classique de l'église depuise le décret de Gratian jusqu' à la mort de Clément V ( 1314). Paris 1933.

D’Ercoie, G. “Il consenso degli sposi e la perpetuità del matrimonio nel diritto romano e nei Padri délia Chiesa,” Studia et documenta histoiriae et iuris 5 (1939), 35-95.

Dilke, O.A.W. The Ancient Romans: How They Lived and Worked. New York 1975.

Dixon, S. "The Marriage Alliance in the Roman Elite,"Journal of Family History 10(1985), 353-78.

. The Roman Mother. London 1988.

. The Roman Family. Baltimore and London 1992.

Dodds, E.R. Pagan, and Christian in an Age o f Anxiety. Cambridge 1965.

Donahue, C. "The Canon Law in the Formation of Marriage and Social Practice in the Later Middle Ages," Journal o f Family Studies 8 (1983), 144-58.

Dover, K.Greek Popular Morality in the Time of Plato and Aristotle. London 1974.

Duby, G. Medieval Marriage: Two Models from Twelth-Century France, translated by E. Forster. Baltimore and London 1978.

. The Knight, the Lady and the Priest: the Making of Modem Marriage in Medieval France, translated by Barbara Bray. New York 1983.

Ducellier, A. Le drame de Byzance. Paris 1976.

Dumortier, J. "L'éducation des enfans au IVe siècle," Revue des Sciences Humaines (1947), 222-238.

Duncan-Jones, R. "Wealth and Munificence in Roman Africa," Papers of the British School at Rome (1963), 160-77.

. "Human Numbers in Towns and Town Organization of the Roman Empire," Historia 13 (1964), 198-208.

Ellis, S. "Privacy in Byzantine and Ottoman Houses," Byzantinische Forschungen 16(1991), 151-65. 216

Engels, D. “The Problem of Female Infanticide in the Greco-Roman World,” Classical Philology 15 (1980), 112-20.

Esmein, A. Le manage en droit canonique, edited by R. Génestal. Paris 1929-35.

Evans-Grubbs, J. "Abduction Marriage in Antiquity: a Law of Constantine and its Social Context,"Journal of Roman Studies 79 (1989), 59-83.

Eyben, E. "Roman Notes on the Course of Life,"Ancient Society 4 (1972), 213-238.

. "Antiquity's View of Puberty," Latomus 31 (1972), 678-682.

. “Geboortenbeperking in de Grieks-Romeinse Oudheid,” Kleio 7 (1977), 97- 12 7 .

. Famille et parenté dans l'occident médiéval. Rome 1977.

. "Family Planning in Greco-Roman Antiquity,"Ancient Society 5 (1980-81), 11- 12.

. “Fathers and Sons,” in Marriage, Divorce and Children in Ancient Rome. edited by B. Rawson. Oxford 1991.

Finley, M l. "The Silent Women of Rome,"m Aspects o f Antiquity. New York 1969.

. “The Elderly in Classical Antiquity,” Greece and Rome 28 (1981), 159-166.

Foss, C. “Archaeology and the Twenty Cities of ByzantineAsidi,” American Journal of Archaeology (1977), 469-486.

Fossier, R. "Les structures de la famille en occident au Moyen-Age," in XVe Congrès International des Sciences Historiques. Rapports 2 (1980), 115-32.

Frank, R I. “Augustus’ Legislation on Marriage and Children,” California Studies in Classical Antiquity 8 (1975), 41-52.

Frier, B.W. Landlords and Tenants in Imperial Rome. Princeton, 1980.

. “Roman Life Expectancy: Ulpian’s Evidence,”Harvard Studies in Classical Philology 86 (1982), 213-251. 217 . “Roman Life Expectancy: The Pannonian Evidence,”Phoenix 37 (1983), 328- 44.

French, V. "History of the Child's Influence: Ancient Mediterranean Civilizations," in Child Ejfects on Adults, edited by R. Bell and L. Harper. Hillsdale, N.J. 1977.

Fustel de Coulanges, N. D. "De la constitution de la famille," in Recherches sur quelques problèmes d'histoire. Paris 1885.

Galy, C. La famille à l’époque mérovingienne. Etude faite principalement d ’après les récits de Grégoire de Tours. Paris 1901.

Gardner, J. Women in Roman Law and Society. Bloomington and Indianapolis 1986.

Gardner, J. and T. Wiedemann, The Roman Household: A Sourcebook. London 1981.

Garland, R. The Greek Way of Death. I onéon 1985.

. The Greek Way of Life. Ithaca, New York 1990.

Gamsey, P. and R. Sailer, The Roman Empire: Economy, Society and Culture. Berkeley 1987.

Gamsey, P. (ed.). "Non-slave labour in the Graeco-Roman World,"Cambridge Philological Society, suppl. 6, 1980.

Gaudemet, J. "Les transformations de la vie familiale au Bas-Empire et l'influence du Christianisme," Romanitas 4 (1962), 58-85.

Gelzer, M. Die Nobilitat der rômischen Republik. Berlin 1912.

Gemet, L. "Structures sociales, et rites d'adolescence dans la Grèce antique," Revue des études grecques 57 (1944), 242-248.

Gies, F. and J. Gies. Women in the Middle Ages. New York 1978.

. Marriage and the Family in the Middle Ages. New York 1987.

Glotz, G. La solidarité de la famille dans le droit criminel en Grèce. Paris 1904. 218 Golden, M. “Demography and the Exposure of Girls at Athens,”Phoenix 35 (1981), 316-31.

. "Did the Ancients Care when Their Children Died?" Greece and Rome 35 (1988), 152-63.

. Children and Childhood in Classical Greece. Baltimore and London 1990.

Gomme, A.W. Ihe Population of Athens in the Fifth and Fourth Centuries B.C. Oxford 1933.

Gratwick, A.S. “Free or not so Free, Wives and Daughters in the Late Roman Republic,” in Marriage and Property, edited by E.M. Clark. Aberdeen 1984.

Gregory, T. Vox Populi. Columbus 1979.

Guillou, A. "Transformations des structures socio-économique dans le monde byzantin du Vie au VlUe siècle," Zbomik Radova Vizantoloskog Instituta 19 (1980), 57-66.

Hâhnel, R. “Der künstliche Abortus im Altertum,” Sudhoffs Archiv Gesch. Med. 29 (1936), 224-55.

Hajnal, J. "Age at Marriage and Proportions Marrying,"Population Studies 1 (1953), 111-36.

. "European Marriage Patterns in Perspective," inPopulation in History, ed. D. V. Glass and D. E. C. Eversley. London 1965.

. "Two Kinds of Pre-Industrial household formation Systems," inFamily Forms in Historic Europe, ed. R. Wall. Cambridge 1983.

Hallett, J. Fathers and Daughters in Roman Society. Princeton 1984.

Hammer, C. I. "Family and Familia in Early Medieval Bavaria," in Family Forms in Historic Europe, ed. R. Wall. Cambridge and New York 1983.

Hands, A.R. Charities and Social Aid in Greece and Rome. London 1968.

Harper, G.M. "Village Administration in the Roman Province of Syria,"Yale Classical Studies 1 (1928), 103-68. 219 Heers, J. Family Clans in the Middle Ages: A Study of Political and Social Structures in Urban Areas, translated by B. Herbert. Amsterdam and New York 1977.

Herlihy, D. "The Agrarian Revolution in Southern France and Italy, 801-1150," Speculum 33 (1958), 23-41.

. "The Carolingian Mansus," Economic History Review 13 (1960), 79-84.

. "Land, Family and Women in Continental Europe," Traditio 18 (1962), 89- 120.

. Medieval and Renaissance Pistola. The Social History of an Italian Town. New Haven 1967.

. "Family Solidarity in Medieval Italian History," in Economy, Society and Government in Medieval Italy, edited by D. Herlihy, R.S. Lopez, and V. Slessarev. Kent, Ohio 1969.

. "Family Solidarity in Medieval Italian History," Explorations in Economic History 1 {X969-1Q), 173-184.

. "The Population of Verona in the First Century of Venetian Rule," in Renaissance Venice, edited by J R. Hale. London 1973.

. The Family in Renaissance Italy. St. Charles, Mo. 1974.

. "Medieval Children," in The Walter Prescott Webb Memorial Lectures. Essays on Medieval Civilization. Austin and London 1978.

. The Social History of Italy and Western Europe. Collected Essays. London 1978.

. "The Making of the Medieval Family: Symmetry, Structure and Sentiment," The Journal o f Family History 8 (1983), 116-30.

. "Households in the Early Middle Ages: Symmetry and Sainthood," in. Households: Comparative and Historical Studies of the Domestic Group, ed. by R.M.C. Netting, Berkeley, Los Angeles, and London 1984.

Medieval Households. Cambridge, Mass. 1985.

. Tuscans and their Families. A Study of the Florentine Catasto o f1427. New Haven and London 1985. 2 2 0

Herlihy, D. and C. Klapisch-Zuber, Les Toscans et leurs familles. Une étude du catasto florentin de 1427. Paris 1978.

Herman, E. “De benedictione nuptiali quid statuent jus byzantinum sive ecclesiasticum sive civile,” Orienîalia Christiana Periodica 4 (1938), 189- 234.

Hobson, D. "House and Household in Roman Egypt,”Yale Classical Studies 28 (1985), 211-29.

Holum, K. Theodosian Empresses; Women and Imperial Dominion in Late Antiquity. Berkeley 1982.

Hopkins, K. "Contraception in the Roman Empire,"Comparative Studies in Society and History^ (1965-66), 124-151.

. "On the Probable Age Structure of the Roman Population,"Population Studies 20 (1966), 245-264.

. Death and Renewal. Cambridge 1983.

Hughes, D. "Urban Growth and Family Structure in Medieval Genoa," Past and Present 66 (1975), 3-28.

. "Kinsmen and Neighbors in Medieval Genoa," in The Medieval City, edited by H.A. Miskimin, D. Herlihy, and A.L. Udovitch. New Haven 1977.

. "From Brideprice to Dowry in Mediterranean Europe,"Journal of Family History 3 (1978), 262-96.

Humbert, M. Le remariage à Rome. Étude d'histoire juridique et sociale. Milan 1972.

Hunger, H. "Christliches und Nichtchristliches im byzantinischen Eherecht," Ôsterreichischen Archiv fur Kirchenrecht, 18 (1967), 305-25.

Irmscher, J. "Frau, Ehe, Familie in Byzanz," Jahrbuch Für Geschicte des Feudalismus 9 (1985), 9-18.

Jones, A.H.M. The Greek City from Alexander to Justinian. Oxford 1940.

. The iMter Roman Empire, 284-602. 2 vols. Oxford 1964. 2 2 1 The Cities of the Eastern Roman Provinces, revised edition. Oxford 1971.

Kajanto, I. "On Divorce Among the Common People of Rome,"Revue des études latines Al (1910), 99-113.

. "The Emergence of the Late Single Name System," in L'onomastique latine. Paris 1977.

Kampen, N. Image and Status: Roman Working Women in Ostia. Berlin 1981.

Kazhdan, A. and A. Cutler, “Continuity and Discontinuity in Byzantine History,” Byzantion 52 (1982), 429-478.

Kennedy, H. “From Polis to Medina: Urban Change in Late Antique and Early Islamic Syria,” Past and Present 106 (1985), 3-27.

. “The Last Century of Byzantine Syria: A Reinterpretation,”Byzantinische Forschungen 10 (1985), 141-183.

King, P.D. Law and Society in the Visigothic Kingdom. Cambridge Studies in Medieval Life and Thought, third series, 5. Cambridge 1972.

Klein, A.E. Child Life in Greek Art. New York 1932.

Krenkel, W. A. “Familienplanung und Familienpolitic in der Antike,” Wiirzburger JahrbiicherfUr die Altertumswissenschaft 4(1978), 197-203.

Kurbatov, G.L. "La désagrégation du regime esclavagiste et les problèmes du développement intérieur de la cité byzantine au Ve-VIe siècles a. J.-C.," Vestnik Leningradskogo Universiteta 3 (1965), 62-72.

Kurtz, D. and J. Boardman. Greek Burial Customs. London 1971.

Lacey, W.K. The Family in Classical Greece. Ithaca, New York 1968.

Laiou, A. "Contribution à l'ètude de l'institution familiaie en epire au Xnie siècle," Fontes Minores (part ofForschungen zur Byzantinishen Rechts Geschichte) 6 (1984), 275-323.

Laiou-Thomadakis, A. Peasant Society in the Late Byzantine Empire. Princeton 1977.

Laistner, M.L. Christianity and Pagan Culture. Cornell 1951. 2 2 2 Lattimore, R. Themes in Greek and Latin Epitaphs. Urbana 1942.

Le Bras, G. “Observations sur le marriage dans le corpus Justinien et dans le droit classique de l’église,” Études offertes à Jean Macqueron. D’Aix-en-Provence 1969.

L’Huillier, P. “Novella 89 of Leo the Wise on Marriage: An Insight into its Theoretical and Practical Impact,” Greek Orthodox Theological Review 32 (1987), 153-162.

MacMullen, R. Soldier and Civilian in the Later Roman Empire. Harvard 1963.

."The Preachers Audience (A.D. 350-400)," Journal of Theological Studies 40(1989), 503-511.

Markus, R. A. From Augustine to Gregory the Great; History and Christianity in Late Antiquity. London 1983.

Marrou, H.I. A History of Education in Antiquity, translated by G. Lamb. Madison, Wis. 1982.

Matringe, G. “La puissance paternelle et la mariage des fils et filles de famille en droit romaine,” in Studi in onore di Eduardo Volterra v. Milan 1971.

McNamara, J. "The Power of Women Through the Family in Medieval Europe: 500- 1100," Clio's Consciousness Raised: New Perspectives on the History of Women, edited by M.S. Hartman & L. Banner. New York 1974.

. A New Song: Celibate Women in the First Three Christian Centuries. New York 1983.

McNamara, J. & S. Wemple, "Marriage and Divorce in the Frankish Kingdom," in Women in Medieval Society, edited by S. M. Stuard. Philadelphia 1977.

Nardi, E. Procurato aborto nel mondo greco-romano. Milan 1971.

Nisbet, R.A. “Kinship and Political Power in First Century Rome,” in Sociology and History: Theory and Research, edited by W.J. Cahnman and A. Boskoff. New York 1964.

Noonan, J.T. “Novel 22,” inThe Bond of Marriage, edited by W.W. Bassett. Notre Dame 1968.

. Contraception. Cambridge, Mass. and London 1986. 223

Nôrr, D. “The Matrimonial Legislation of Augustus: An Early Instance of Social Engineering,” Irish Jurist 16 (1981), 350-364.

Norman, A.F. "The Family of Argyrius,”Journal of Hellenic Studies 74 (1954), 44- 58.

. "Gradations in Later Municipal Society," Journal of Roman Studies 48 (1958), 79-85.

Patterson, C. ‘“Not Worth Rearing:’ The Causes of Infant Exposure in Ancient Greece,” Transactions of the American Philological Association 115 (1985), 103-23.

Patlagean, E. “Sur la limitation de la fécondité dans la haute époque byzantine,” Annales esc 6 (1969), 1353-1369.

. "L'enfant et son avenir dans la famille byzantine (IVe - Xlle)," Annales de démographie historique. Paris, La Hague 1973.

. Pauvreté économique et pauvreté sociale à Byzance. Paris 1977.

. "Christianisation et parents rituelles; le domain de byzance," Annales esc 33 (1978), 625-36.

. Structure sociale, famille, chrétienté à Byzance (IVe-XIe). London 1981.

Phillips, J.E. “Roman Mothers and the Lives of Their Adult Daughters,”Helios 6.1 (1978), 69-80.

Pomeroy, S.Goddesses, Whores, Wives and Slaves: Women in Classical Antiquity. New York 1975.

. "The Relationship of the Married Woman to Her Blood Relatives in Rome," Ancient Society 1 (1976), 215-27.

. "Women in Classical Antiquity," Study-Guide of the American Philological Association. New York 1977.

Power, E. Medieval Women. Cambridge, London 1975.

Radin, M. “The Exposure of Infants in Roman Law and Practice,”Classical Journal 20 (1925), 337-43. 224 Rawson, B. "Family Life Among the Lower Classes at Rome,"Classical Philology 61 (1966), 71-83.

. "Roman Concubinage and Other de Facto Marriages," Transactions o f the American Philological Association, 104 (1974), 279-305.

. (ed.) The Family in Ancient Rome: New Perspectives. Ithaca, New York 1986.

Raepsaet, G. "A propos de l'utilisation de statistiques en démographie grecque. Le nombre d'enfants par famille," LAntiquité Classique," 42 (1973), 536-543.

Raepsaet-Charlier, M.T. “Ordre sénatoriale et divorce sous le haut-empire: un chapitre de l’histoire des mentalités,” Ac/a Classica Debrecen 17-18 (1981- 82), 161-73.

Reinhold, M. "The Generation Gap in Antiquity,” Proceedings o f the American Philological Society, 104 (1974), 347-365.

Ring, R. "Early Medieval Peasant Households in Central Italy," Journal o f Family History 2 (1979), 2-25.

Ritzer, K. Le mariage dans les églises chrétiennes du I au XI siècle. Paris 1970.

Russell, J. “Transformations in Early Byzantine Urban Life: the Contributions and Limitations of Archaeological Evidence,” inSeventeenth International Byzantine Congress: Major Papers. La Rochelle, New York 1986.

Russell, I.e. "Late Ancient and Medieval Population," Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 48 (1958), 3-148.

Sailer, R. "Familia, Domus, and the Roman Conception of Family,"Phoenix 38 (1984), 336-55.

. "Patria Potestas and the Stereotype of the Roman Family,"Continuity and Change 1 (1984), 7-22.

and B. Shaw, "Tombstones and Roman Family Relations in the Principate: Civilians, Soldiers and Slaves," Journal of Roman Studies 74 (1984), 124-56.

. "Men's Age at Marriage and its Consequences in the Roman Family," Classical Philology 82 (1987), 21-34.

. "Slavery and the Roman Family," in M.I. Finley, Classical Slavery (1987), 65- 87. 225

. "Pietas, Obligation and Authority in the Roman Family," Classical Philology 82 (1988), 21-34.

. "Childhood in Imperial Rome," a review of T. Wiedemann,Adults and Children in the Roman Empire, in Journal of Roman Archaeology 4 (1991), 240-43.

Salmon, P. Population et dépopulation dans l'Empire romain. Bruxelles 1974.

Sanders, H. “A Latin Marriage Contract,” Transactions of the American Philological Association 69 (1938), 104-117.

Savage, C. The Athenian Family: A Sociological and Legal Study Based Chiefly on the Works of the Attic Orators. Baltimore 1907.

Seyfarth, W. Soziale Fragen der Spatromischen Kaiserzeit im Spiegel des Theodosianus. Berlin 1963.

Shaw, B. "Latin Funerary Epigraphy and Family Life in the Later Roman Empire," Historia 33 (1984), 457-97.

. "The Family in Late Antiquity: the Experience of Augustine," Past and Present 115 (1987), 3-51.

Stambaugh, J. The Ancient Roman City. Baltimore 1988.

Tanzer, H. The Common People o f Pompeii. Baltimore 1934.

Thébert, “Private Life and Domestic Architecture in Roman Africa,” in A History of Private Life: From Pagan Rome to Byzantium Vol. 1, edited by P. Veyne. Cambridge, Mass. 1987.

Thompson, W.C.Legal Reforms o f the Iconoclastic Era: the Changing Economic Structure o f the Family. Brussels 1976.

Thompson, W.E. "Athenian Marriage Patterns: Remarriage,"California Studies on Classical Antiquity 5 (1972), 211-225.

Treggiari, S. "Family Life Among the Staff of the Volussii,"Transactions o f the American Philological Association 105 (1975), 393-401.

. Roman Marriage. Oxford 1991. 226 . “Divorce Roman Style: Ease and Frequency,” inMarriage, Divorce, and Children in Ancient Rome, edited by B. Rawson. Oxford 1991.

Vatin, C. Recherches sur le mariage et la femme mariée à l'époque hellénistique. Paris 1970.

Veyne, P. Le Pain et le Cirque. Paris 1976.

. "La famille et l'amour sous le Haut Empire romain,"Annales esc, 33 (1978), 35.

. “The Roman Empire,” in A History o f Private Life: From Pagan Rome to Byzantium Vol. 1, edited by, P. Aries and G. Duby, translated by A. Goldhammer. Cambridge, Mass. 1987.

Vogel, C. “L’âge des époux chrétiens au moment de contracter mariage d’après les inscriptions paléo-chrétiennes,”Revue Droit Canon 16 (1966), 355-66.

Volterra, E. “Quelques observations sur le marnagedes filiifamilias,” Revue International des Droit de l ’Antiquité 1 (1948), 213-42.

Wallace-Hadrill, A. "The Social Structure of the Roman House,"Papers of the British School at Rome 56 (1981), 43-97.

. "Family and Inheritance in the Augustan Marriage Laws," Proceedings of the Cambridge Philological Society 27 (1981), 58-80.

Watson, A. The Law of Persons in the Later Roman Republic. Oxford 1967.

. Law o f Succession in the Later Roman Republic. Oxford 1971.

. Rome of the XII Tables: Persons and Property. Princeton 1975.

Weaver, P.R.C. Familia Caesaris: A Social Study o f the Emperor's Freedmen and Slaves. Cambridge 1972.

Weiss, G. “Antike and Byzanz. Die Kontinuitat der Gesellschaftsstruker,” Historische Zeitschrift 224 (1977), 529-560.

Wemple, S. Women in Frankish Society: Marriage and the Cloister 500-900. Philadelphia 1981.

Williams, G. “Some Aspects of Roman Marriage Ceremonies and Ideals,”Journal of Roman Studies 48 (1958), 16-29. 227

Wiedemann, T. Adults and Children in the Roman Empire. New Haven 1989.

Wolf, H.J. "Marriage law and Family Organization in Ancient Athens," Traditio 2 (1944), 43-95.