Western Michigan University ScholarWorks at WMU

Dissertations Graduate College

4-2011

Women of Foreign Superstition: Christianity and Gender in Imperial Roman Policy, 57-235.

Karl E. Baughman Western Michigan University

Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.wmich.edu/dissertations

Part of the Feminist, Gender, and Sexuality Studies Commons, History of Christianity Commons, and the History of Religion Commons

Recommended Citation Baughman, Karl E., "Women of Foreign Superstition: Christianity and Gender in Imperial Roman Policy, 57-235." (2011). Dissertations. 324. https://scholarworks.wmich.edu/dissertations/324

This Dissertation-Open Access is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate College at ScholarWorks at WMU. It has been accepted for inclusion in Dissertations by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks at WMU. For more information, please contact [email protected]. WOMEN OF FOREIGN SUPERSTITION: CHRISTIANITY AND GENDER IN IMPERIAL ROMAN POLICY, 57-235

by

Karl E. Baughman

A Dissertation Submitted to the Faculty of The Graduate College in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy Department of History Advisor: Paul L. Maier, Ph.D.

Western Michigan University Kalamazoo, Michigan April 2011 WOMEN OF FOREIGN SUPERSTITION: CHRISTIANITY AND GENDER IN IMPERIAL ROMAN POLICY, 57-235

Karl E. Baughman, Ph.D.

Western Michigan University, 2011

The relationship between Christianity and the im­ perial Roman government from 57 to 235 was partially de­ pendent upon the enforcement of traditional gender roles and the exercise of those roles by women in unique posi­ tions of influence. Rather than attempt to break free of their defined gender roles, women with distinctive con­ nections to Christianity and the Roman government were, especially during times of crisis, able to influence im­ perial policies that provided an atmosphere conducive to positive growth for the early Church. This work concen­ trates on the crises which were connected to gender - es­ pecially times during which the emperors failed to ful­ fill their obligation as "manly" rulers.

Although these women wielded power without having to usurp the legitimate authority reserved only for men, some of the ancient writers, like Tacitus, Dio Cassius, and Herodian cast these women in heavily gendered lan­ guage with the intention both to assert traditional gend­ er roles and to explain the calamities associated with the emperors they considered unmanly. Pomponia Graecina,

Poppaea Sabina, Flavia Domitilla, Marcia, and Julia Ma- maea, all demonstrate the connection between gender and the religio-political system of the early Empire. Spe­ cifically, each also reveals the nuances of a Roman cul­ tural understanding of gender and its role within the em­ bodiment of imperial ideology. Otacilia Severa, Cornelia

Salonina, and Eutropia, although living in eras beyond the scope of this dissertation, further demonstrate the ability of women to use gendered norms to their advantage during times of crisis, even when it appears to be dis­ connected from issues of gender. In short, these women all show the pervasiveness of gender in all aspects of imperial culture.

Copyright by Karl E. Baughman 2011 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

In his Metaphysics, Aristotle wrote, "It is just that we should be grateful, not only to those with whose views we may agree, but also to those who have expressed more superficial views; for these also contributed some­ thing, by developing before us the powers of thought." Bearing this in mind, I have a host of professors, col­ leagues, friends, and family who have helped guide me in my quest for completing this dissertation, both through their agreeable and disagreeable viewpoints. Specifical­ ly, I am sincerely grateful to my doctoral advisor, Paul L. Maier, without whose guidance and attention this dis­ sertation could never have been completed. Joining Dr. Maier in my sincere thanks is the rest of my Dissertation Committee, Drs. Marion Gray, E. Rozanne Elder, and Dimi- ter Angelov. The staffs at the libraries of Western Michigan University, the University of Michigan, Concor­ dia College, and the countless others affected by my in­ ter-library loan account were of immeasurable assistance in acquiring the texts I needed. I received very helpful feedback regarding my paper on Flavia Domitilla I gave at the 2009 Annual Meeting of the Classical Association of

ii Acknowledgments—continued

Canada in Vancouver; chapter two was shaped by those helpful suggestions. My fellow graduate colleagues at WMU, Michael Ciletti, Johnny Smith, Joshua Schier, Elise Boneau, Brian Bradford, David Zwart, Kristi Dunn, Brian Becker, and many others were important in keeping my mind not only on my dissertation, but also on the weekly beer and trivia at Harvey's. My friends, Dion Garrett and Bill Wangelin, were of endless support. They cannot be thanked enough for their assistance in helping me articu­ late my argument in a style coherent to those outside the field, and our close friendships were strengthened in our long intellectual discussions. I am sincerely indebted to my wife, Sarah and my children, Magdalena and August, whose love and support kept me going. My parents, Pear- ley and Diane Baughman, and Gary and Ruth Palmer, and ex­ tended family were of incalculable support as well. And of course, the faculty, staff, and administration at Con­ cordia College in Selma, Alabama, who took a chance on me and hired me ABD in the Fall of 2009, have been most en­ couraging as I completed this dissertation. If I am for­ getting anyone, it is by no means on purpose. Finally, all errors and faulty interpretations are my own.

Karl E. Baughman

iii TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ii

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS v

CHAPTER

I. "FROM A KINGDOM OF GOLD TO ONE OF IRON AND RUST" Introduction 1

II. "PUNISH US AS YOU DO THEM" Gender, Law, and Culture: Pomponia Graecina, & Flavia Domitilla 48

III. "UNSEX ME" Gendered Crisis: Poppaea, Marcia, & Julia Ma- maea 96

IV. "THEY WILL BE YOUR SUPERIORS" Conclusions 181

Epilogue: "POWER IS LIKE BEING A LADY" Otacilia, Cornelia Salonina, & Eutropia 188

BIBLIOGRAPHY 233

iv LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

ActaSS Acta Sanctorum Bollandiana (1643- )

AJArch American Journal of Archaeology

AJPhil The American Journal of Philology

AJT American Journal of Theology

ANRW Aufstieg und Niedergang der Romischen Welt

C Phil Classical Philology

CJ Classical Journal

CQ Classical Quarterly

CW The Classical World

FuB Forschungen und Berichte

HTR Harvard Theological Review

Historia . . . . Historia: Zeitschrift fiir Alte Geschichte

JEH Journal of Ecclesiastical History

JFSR Journal of Feminist Studies in Religion

JBL Journal of Biblical Literature

JQR Jewish Quarterly Review

JRS The Journal of Roman Studies

JTS Journal of Theological Studies

LCL Loeb Classical Library

PG Patrologiae Cursus Completus, Series Graeca

PL Patrologia Latina v List of Abbreviations—continued

RE Realencyclopadie der Classischen

Altertumswissenschaft

Stud. Doc. Hist. Iur. ...Studia et documenta historiae

et iuris

TAPA Transactions of the American Philological

Association

TUGAL Texte und Untersuchungen zue Geschichte der

altchristlichen Literatur

Vig. Chr Vigiliae Christianae

Abbreviations of ancient authors and texts are from the Oxford Classical Dictionary

vi CHAPTER I

FROM A KINGDOM OF GOLD TO ONE OF IRON AND RUST Introduction

To Be or Not To Be: Defining Terms

At first glance of the title, "Women of Foreign

Superstition," this work appears to be solely the study of women. However, it would be mistaken immediately to categorize a work with the words "woman" or "man" in the title into the respective fields of either "women's" or

"men's" histories (as if the two should or even could be mutually exclusive) . This work is a study of gender - a study of the relationship between men and women; the relationship between what was masculine and feminine in

Roman culture; the relationship between men and women and how each used that division to influence and direct the course of imperial policy; the relationship between the divisions of Roman society which built, drove, and shaped what it was that made them Roman and made their men men,

1 This quotation is taken from Dio's summation of the Empire after the death of Marcus Aurelius and ascension of Commodus in 180: ...dmo jpvor\q xe fiaoiXeiaq kq aiSipav K|Lievr|v xcov te rcpaYndacov xoiq xoxe'Pco(xaioiq KOU fipav vuv Kaxamaov(jr\q xr\q laxopiaq. (Cass. Dio lxxi.36.4). 1 and their women women. The importance of gender is prevalent within the ancient sources. As will be demonstrated throughout this work, the ancient authors

(all men) were very interested in explaining, asserting, and evaluating the distinction of gender within their society. They were intent on ensuring that what they saw as the proper relationship of one's biological sex to constructed gender identities was exercised in a way that was both legally and culturally acceptable. This distinction between masculine and feminine was a foundation on which Romans judged the quality and effectiveness of someone's life and work, and was best expressed in the evaluation of those in positions of political authority or influence.

About the spread of Christianity in the early centuries, Jo Ann McNamara wrote, "Women helped to shape and spread Christianity as a validation of individual worth separate from worldly social status."2 This was most likely the case for many women in the first centuries of Christianity; however, in the case of the

2 Jo Ann McNamara, "Matres Patriae / Matres Ecclesiae: Women of Rome," in Becoming Visible: Women in European History, ed. Renate Bridenthal, Susan Mosher Stuard, and Merry E. Wiesner (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1998), 86. women examined in this work, instead of validating themselves separately from their worldly status, these women used their worldly position and the prevailing construction of gender within Roman society to accomplish tasks considered outside those boundaries while remaining well within them. Rather than merely finding something liberating within Christianity, these women found that their positions as noblewomen enabled them to support the Christian movement from within the gendered sphere Roman society had imposed upon them. In other words, these women sought not to liberate themselves because their positions actually provided an opportunity which was not available to men (or to women who attempted to work outside those same gendered boundaries). Much has been done in recent years to highlight the importance of gender history. Perhaps the greatest contribution to the field has been the emphasis on gender as "relational history,"3 rather than continuing to

3 For more on this idea of gender as a relational history, see: Kathleen Canning, Gender History in Practice: Historical Perspectives on Bodies, Class, and Citizenship (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2006); Joan Wallach Scott, "Gender: A Useful Category of Analysis," in Gender and the Politics of History, ed. Joan Wallach Scott (New York: Columbia University Press, 1998); Mathew Kuefler, The Manly Eunuch: Masculinity, Gender Ambiguity, and Christian Ideology in Late Antiquity (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 2001). divide the historical narrative into male and female, as if men and women live and operate completely separate from one another. Men and women in the early Empire existed within socially-recognized limitations based upon their sex and the expectations of gender constructed around their biology.

Barbara Hanawalt discussed the concept of gendered space in her *0f Good and 111 Repute' .4 Although

Hanawalt dealt with the enforcement of gendered physical space through law and custom in medieval England, much of this concept is applicable to the Roman world as well.

The term "gendered sphere" will be used in this work, and it encompasses more than just physical space. For this study, gendered spheres build upon Hanawalt's idea of gendered space, but extend beyond the physical to include mainly political and social boundaries associated with the Roman religio-political system. The religio- political reality of the early Empire maintained a disconnect between the power women could wield and the perceived impact upon the public life of society. As will be explored throughout this work, the extent to

4 Barbara Hanawalt, y0f Good and 111 Repute': Gender and Social Control in Medieval England (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998). which women could wield influence outside their recognized sphere was dependent upon the general stability of the Empire and the adherence of the emperor within the boundaries of his own gendered sphere - for even men were restricted in what was expected and required of them. While it is appropriate to describe the Roman world as divided into public and private spheres, it is not correct then to assume that only one gender was capable of exercising power in one or the other. The public and private spheres of Roman society were interdependent, and while men may have had priority in exercising legitimate authority in the public sphere, it did not mean women were completely excluded or incapable of exercising power or influence within it as well.

Power and authority, although sometimes used interchangeably in English, are for the purposes of this study, two connected, yet separate concepts. Power is the ability to steer the course of events in society; to influence and direct how things are carried out politically, socially, and culturally. Authority is the legitimate exercise of power according to the stipulations of law, custom, and culture. In the early Empire, authority was exercised only by men. For the purposes of this study, the terms power and authority reflect the Roman political concepts of potestas and auctoritas, respectively. As will be discussed in further detail in chapter three, even women like Julia

Mamaea, who essentially ran the Empire while her son,

Alexander Severus, was too young to assume full power, did so only under his recognized legitimacy. Apart from her son's authority, Mamaea would have been unable to exercise any power. Shortly before the army removed the authority of Alexander in 235, Mamaea's power was criticized by the ancient historians as an abrogation of recognized and accepted gendered actions. The proper delineation between two genders and its connection to ideas of power and authority were important to the

Romans, and the language of the ancient historians lends much to a fuller understanding of what was expected of men and women in the early Empire.

The Heart of the Matter: Organization

This study focuses on the ability of women, specifically noblewomen in the early Empire, to live and operate within gendered boundaries and societal expectations in order to take advantage of their situations for the purpose of assisting, safeguarding, and supporting the early Church. How these women were capable of carrying out this task sheds light upon Roman conceptions of marriage, virginity, homosexuality, masculinity, femininity, and law. The stability of the

Empire, politically, economically, and socially, impacted the ability of these women to influence those in legitimate authority and weighed heavily in the relationship between the imperial government and the

Christian movement. Crises created environments in which women with particular connections to imperial authority could wield power without overstepping their socially- expected gender behavior. For example, in the late- second century, the seeming lack of masculinity on the part of the Empire's first man (princeps) provoked a crisis of gendered expectations during the reign of

Commodus. Because of this crisis, the emperor's concubine, Marcia, was able to wield power previously unbeknownst to Christian women in imperial favor. As will be demonstrated throughout, a gendered crisis in which the masculinity of the emperor was called into question created both a fear of a general political crisis by those in positions of authority (most notably the army) and a peculiar opportunity for women close to the emperor to exercise considerable influence and power.

The Third Century Crisis which engulfed the Roman

Empire from 235-285, is beyond the scope of this study.

However, the Crisis demonstrates the thesis of this work and so shall be briefly examined in an epilogue in order to better accentuate the topic at hand. Although the sources are scant, it can be surmised that during the

Third Century Crisis, two empresses, Cornelia Salonina and Otacilia, could have influenced policies toward the

Christian community while their husbands busied themselves with ensuring their legacy and the stability of the Empire. These women all demonstrate that effective gendered response by Christian women in positions of influence was governed by political, social, and economic forces beyond their control, and so each situation demonstrates something uniquely peculiar about the role of gender within Roman society in the first three centuries of the Empire.

The division of chapters is thematic, yet there remains a relatively chronological approach. Each chapter examines how Christian women of the nobility were impacted by the construction of gender in relation to the religio-political system of the early Empire from 57-235.

The starting point of 57 was chosen because of the trial of Pomponia Graecina - a noblewoman accused and tried for

"foreign superstition" (a term whence this work takes its title) . The ending year of 235 marks the end of the reign of Alexander Severus and the beginning of the Third

Century Crisis. This work examines the connection between gender and the exercise of power during times of crisis, particularly crises of gender. A brief examination of the Third Century Crisis is included because the conclusions drawn from the focus of this study are further demonstrated within the period of greatest crisis the Empire had ever endured. However, the sources available which focus explicitly on how women in unique positions of power used the crisis to influence imperial policies toward the Christians are too scant to make definitive conclusions, and therefore only possibilities can be offered.

Each chapter provides examples of how gendered boundaries were interpreted and enforced by a male- dominated society. However, Christian women in positions of influence could, especially during times of crisis, use the accepted gender norms to the advantage of the

Christian communities they sought to protect and support.

In short, the gendered boundaries of the early Empire provided women of particular social status with opportunities of power and influence unknown even to most men.

Chapter one examines Pomponia Graecina and Flavia

Domitilla, two women of the first century who were arraigned for trial on account of their religious beliefs. The significance of their trials is connected to the Roman construction of gender in light of law and punishment. Restrictions on women's participation in the legal and political realms of Roman life, while sometimes tied to Roman understandings of womanly weakness

{infirmitas sexus), actually prove to be more closely tied to the relationship between gender and political stability. Chapter two introduces how women functioned within the legal and traditional constraints of the early

Empire and how gender provided the foundation for all other aspects of Roman life.

Chapter three builds upon these Roman ideas of gender expectations by examining the role of the emperor as "first man." With this general understanding of what the princeps should be, the Roman construction of masculine and feminine is explored through the connection of three women to the imperial throne. Poppaea Sabina, wife of Nero (r. 54-68), Marcia, concubine of Commodus

(r. 180-192), and Julia Mamaea, mother of Alexander

Severus (r. 222-235), each transcended the traditional gender roles while remaining within gendered expectations during times of crisis. In addition, each demonstrated the uniqueness and complexity of what was expected of them on account of their gender and their relationship to the emperor. The crises during the lives of these three women were connected to the socially expected construction of masculinity on the part of the emperors.

Because each emperor failed in his duty to exemplify what society considered to be masculine behavior, these women were able to exercise certain powers over imperial policies. In essence, these women demonstrated the ability of the feminine sometimes to subsume the masculine in order to avert or end a crisis of gender disorder. The relationship between the boundaries of masculine and feminine is demonstrated in the cases of these three women and sheds much light not only on the Roman construction of gender, but also understandings of homosexuality and the limitations of applying specifically gendered terms across gendered lines.

The epilogue consists of a brief analysis of the

Third Century Crisis. As mentioned earlier, this is not central to the purpose of this study, however, conclusions drawn from chapters two and three offer support in looking at crises which at first glance appear to be disconnected from gender. In this epilogue three empresses were brought into the spotlight: Otacilia, wife of Philip the Arab (r. 244-249), Cornelia Salonina, wife of Gallienus (r. 260-268), and Eutropia, wife of Maximian

(r.286-305).

The Third Century Crisis, unlike the gendered crises examined in chapter three, was exclusively political in the sense that it was not on account of a perceived lack of masculinity on the part of the emperor. From the conclusions drawn in this work, some things can be conjectured about the three Christian empresses in the epilogue, about whom little is known. These three empresses were in positions which could have enabled them to influence directly imperial policy toward the

Christians by taking advantage of their relationship to their husbands as well as the preoccupation of the imperial government with the economic, political, and military crises plaguing the Empire. Because the crisis was different from the crises examined in chapter three, power by women close to the emperor was exercised differently as well. The emperors presented no absence of a masculine presence, and so there was no need for the feminine to assume that masculine role. If Otacilia,

Salonina, and Eutropia influenced the imperial government's policies toward the Church under their respective husbands, then they did so within the bounds of what society considered normal feminine behavior.

Scratching Beneath the Surfaces: Methodology

The great difficulty in writing the story of gender in the ancient world is that women left few sources of their own. Because of the lack of sources written by women, conclusions have been drawn from the sources written by men about women. For this study, it is not only sources about women which unveil the intricacies of gender in the early Empire, but also the sources about men reveal much in understanding the relationship between masculine and feminine in the ancient world.

Vocabulary emphasizing what the ancient authors considered to be socially desirable qualities within men and women permeates their writings. The task of the gender historian is to draw out these terms and define their meaning within the context of the author. This task of contextualization is important in the historical works because oftentimes the authors sought to transfer constructions of gender and socially acceptable behavior from their own time onto the past events of which they wrote.

Roman law and ancient histories contribute the most to this study for uncovering the gendered boundaries within the early Empire. Laws as a source on the proper roles for each gender are somewhat limiting, however, in that they are more prescriptive than descriptive. As it has been aptly put, "for law... is about what people may or may not do, not what they actually do."5 The histories, from which most of the analysis of gender takes place for this study, provide important insight into the

5 Jane F. Gardner, Women in Roman Law and Society (Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana University Press, 1995 [Orig. 1986]), 3. expectations and assumptions about gender from later periods of history which are read back into earlier episodes of gender interaction.

In the second chapter, the exploration of women under the law demonstrates that within Roman law and culture, women were treated differently from men because elite Roman writers believed that nature had endowed each sex with distinctive qualities, abilities, and responsibilities. This chapter focuses less what the law expected of each gender, but rather on how Romans enforced the law upon men and women. Although gender was a construction of Roman society (what it meant to act as a man or as a woman) it was nevertheless attached to what

Romans could visibly demonstrate - sex.

Chapter three explores examples of when the emperor failed to operate within his own gendered sphere. When emperors took on feminine qualities and abandoned their masculine role of political authority, women could sometimes influence or directly assume the masculine role which the historians believed was needed for a stable society. The ancient historians portrayed this usurpation of masculinity by a woman as a negative but sometimes necessary (albeit temporary) reversal of gender roles.

In the epilogue, the opposite approach is examined.

Rather than assuming the masculine, the women explored in this chapter acted in strict accordance with what was expected of them. The crisis of gender explored in chapter three is not the crisis which could have provided advantage to the women explored in the epilogue. The purpose of this epilogue is to demonstrate that the approach used in this study could apply to later periods of Roman history as well, although for the Third Century

Crisis, the evidence is less conclusive. Although it is almost always portrayed in black and white by the ancient historians, gender was, in fact, a complex and multifaceted construction within Roman society.

When in Rome: Cultural Contexts

The women examined in this work were only able to wield the power they did because of what society expected of them as women. These expectations were cemented in

Roman culture through a number of legal and moral traditions, but perhaps most importantly, through the pens of the historians who sought to connect their understanding of gendered lines to nature. As will be further explored in each chapter, Roman historians, such as Tacitus, Dio, and Herodian, immersed their narratives in gendered language. These historians emphasized the distinction between the genders, and they made clear what was expected of each, thereby creating a sort of propaganda to serve as both a warning to future emperors, and a moral lesson on what becomes of a society that neglects the natural order.

Whether one was perceived as acting in accordance with his or her normative gender role was a foundation for how Romans judged the quality and morality of someone's life and work. Specifically, the princeps as first man of the Empire was to be the embodiment of manhood for all Roman men. In his The Manly Eunuch,

Mathew Kuefler argued that "the notion of masculinity - that is, what it meant to be a man - formed an integral part of the intellectual life of late antiquity."6

Kuefler's purpose was to connect this notion of masculinity to the development of Christian ideology.

6 Kuefler, The Manly Eunuch: Masculinity, Gender Ambiguity, and Christian Ideology in Late Antiquity, 1. Although distinct from the purposes of this work,

Kuefler' s thesis is important in supporting the idea that

Romans believed the proper exercise of one's gender assignment was essential to a stable and productive family, community, and empire.

Roman historians interpreted the actions of emperors within the framework of socially constructed gendered spheres. The purposes behind these historical interpretations were twofold: first, the historians made their fellow Romans aware of their own places on the social ladder; second, the historians could explain the success or failure of those at the top of society within the framework of masculine leadership. The political life of Rome was dominated by men. While women could exercise some rights within the public realm, men assumed all legal authority in the political and religious areas of life. Because men were the dominant force within the

Roman religio-political system, the language used to describe behavior associated with that arena was masculine. Therefore, what was appropriate for the proper exercise of political office was tied to what were believed to be masculine traits which could (or at least should) be found only in men. When women exercised these traits, their behavior could only be interpreted as an aberration of the natural order. This idea of the feminine usurpation of an inherently masculine responsibility is at the heart of chapter three and contributes much to understanding the formation and perception of gender explored in chapter two and the epilogue.

The vita militaris (military life) was the ultimate expression of masculinity in Roman culture.7 As first man, the princeps was especially expected to exude this masculine quality, and the ancient writers were quick to demonstrate the inadequacy of those emperors who failed to live up to society's expectations of manliness. The ancient historians used gender as a method of evaluating the success and failure of current emperors by comparison to those in the past, and to forewarn their contemporaries of the impending doom for those who stepped outside their gendered spheres. For example,

Boudicca's speech condemning the luxury and effeminacy of the Romans and their emperor (Nero, r. 54-68) most likely reflected Dio Cassius' assessment of the emperor

Elagabalus (r. 218-222) who reigned during Dio's own

7 Ibid., 37ff; 275ff. 20 career.8 Boudicca, who, in Tacitus' summation, had usurped the legal authority (imperium) restricted to men when she led a rebellion in Roman Britain, had taken on the preposterous gender monstrosity of a masculinized- female ruler {dux femina),9 Centuries later, Zosimus' denunciation of Marcia, Commodus' concubine, as masculine, was a masked insult of Commodus who, in the judgment of Roman expectations, had failed in his own masculinity.10 These examples and the idea of gender as a tool used by the ancient historians are further explored in chapter three.

In the second century BC, Polybius had warned that

When a state, after warding off many great dangers, achieves supremacy and undisputed sovereignty, it is evident that by the long continuance of prosperity, life will become more extravagant, and rivalry for office and in other spheres of activity, will become fiercer than it should. As the state of things goes on more and more, the aspiration of office and the shame of losing reputation which obscurity brings, together with the spread of ostentation and extravagance of living, will usher in the beginning of general deterioration.11

Cass. Dio lxii.6. Kuefler draws a similar conclusion: The Manly Eunuch: Masculinity, Gender Ambiguity, and Christian Ideology in Late Antiquity, 40-41. 9 lac, Agr. xvi.l; xxxi. 4. See chapter 3 and also: Francesca Santoro L'Hoir, "Tacitus and Women's Usurpation of Power," CW 88, no. 1 (Sep.-Oct. 1994). 10 Zos., Historia Nova i.7. For more see my discussion in chapter 3. 11 Polyb., vi.57. Although Polybius neglected to specifically incorporate conceptions of masculinity and femininity within his prophetic warning of Rome's future, the later Roman historians did not. Extravagance, ostentatious dress and lifestyle, and a life in stark contrast to the hard existence of a soldier - all negative qualities in

Polybius' admonition - were at the center of femininity in the Roman mind. For the Romans, the Greek empires had fallen because their men had abandoned their masculinity and succumbed to the comforts of a feminine life.12 By the mid-fourth century, Ammianus Marcellinus bemoaned the fact that the Romans of his day had abandoned' the military life {vita militaris) in favor of the effeminate life {vita mollitiae) .13 The writings of the ancient historians impart that the exercise of truly masculine qualities by a man ensured a successful reign, while femininity encouraged rebellion because society would naturally attempt to realign itself with nature.

As much as Roman society expected its men to reflect the vita militaris, it expected its women to live out a

12 For an examination of what the Romans thought of the Greeks and their decline, see: J.P.V.D. Balsdon, Romans and Aliens (Chapel Hill, NC: The University of North Carolina Press, 1979), esp. ch. 3. 13 7Amm. Marc, xxxi . 5 . 22 distinctly feminine existence. A valid feminine existence in Roman culture was one which fulfilled an

"unquestioned destiny"14 of marriage and childbirth. This strict delineation of what was culturally appropriate for

Roman women raises two concerns within the context of this study: 1) why did women, especially noblewomen, convert in greater numbers to Christianity than men in the first three centuries? and 2) where do the Vestal

Virgins fit into the Roman expectation of marriage and childbirth? These two concerns are closely connected, and can be appropriately treated by examining the relationship between marriage, virginity, and femininity within both Roman and Christian cultures.

In the first three centuries of Christianity, women converted in greater numbers to the new faith than men did.15 The first question, of course, is why? Jan

Bremmer briefly addressed this query16 and summarily

14 Peter R.L. Brown, The Body and Society: Men, Women and Sexual Renunciation in Early Christianity (New York: Columbia University Press, 1988), 9. 15 Robin Lane Fox, Pagans and Christians (San Francisco: Harper & Row Publishers, 1986), 310; Adolf von Harnack, Die Mission Und Ausbreitung Des Christentums in Den Ersten Drei Jahrhunderten (Charleston, SC: BiblioLife, LLC, 2010 [Orig. 1915]), 68ff; Rodney Stark, "Reconstructing the Rise of Christianity: The Role of Women," Sociology of Religion 56, no. 3 (Autumn 1995): 232ff. 16 Jan Bremmer, "Why Did Early Christianity Attract Upper-class Women," in Fructus Centesimus: Melanges Offerts a Gerard J.M. Bartelink a L'occasion de son soixante-cinquieme Anniversaire, ed. dismissed the traditional explanations that women were more credulous, or more receptive to "religious groups with orgiastic, emotional and/or hysterical aspects."17 Bremmer concluded that "intellectually, socially and sexually, early Christianity offered possibilities to upper-class women which were not provided to the same degree by other cults."18 These possibilities included greater self-expression for women, more opportunities of patronage, intellectual nourishment and advancement, and sexual liberation in the forms of divorce from their non- Christian husbands and/or a life of virginity. Furthermore, Bremmer claimed that the decline of manus marriage in the early Empire, which allowed single upper- class women a better chance at self-support, in addition to the disappearance of a clear distinction between public and private life in the eastern portion of the Empire contributed to the success of these possibilities for women in early Christianity.19

A.A.R. Bastiaensen, A. Hilhorst, and C.H. Kneepkens, Instruments Patristica (Steenbrugis: In Abbatia Sancti Petri, 1989). 17 Mentioned in Bremmer (Ibid., 40f.) as argued by: Max Weber, Wirtschaft Und Gesellschaft. GrundriB Der Verstehenden Soziologie (1925) . 18 Bremmer, "Why Did Early Christianity Attract Upper-class Women," 46. 19 For the decline of manus marriage, see: Susan E. Looper-Friedman, "The Decline of Manus-Marriage," Tijdschrift voor Rechtsgeschiedenis 24 While Bremmer's argument is a thorough attempt to address the question of why women seemed more inclined to the Christian faith in the early centuries, one must ask if the question can ever be definitively answered. In fact, the question itself implies that women choose religion based solely upon what advantages it has over and against their current situation - rejecting completely any kind of inexplicable spiritual or emotional motivations.20 Even if it were arguable that women chose their religion because they believed it would afford them greater liberty, Paul's entreaties that women remain silent and submit to their husbands' authority21 certainly seem to contradict a notion that women sought out greater self-expression and/or liberation from the patriarchal nature of Roman society by converting to

Christianity.

55 (1987). For the disappearance of public and private in the eastern Empire, as well as Rome itself, see: Bremmer, "Why Did Early Christianity Attract Upper-Class Women," 42, footnote 13. 20 While spiritual and emotional motivations are difficult to ascertain or explain without explicit mentions in the sources, one cannot deny that they are certainly part of the human condition and experience. In addition, modern historians cannot presume that current concepts of liberty and equality were shared or even understood by those who lived two millennia ago in a culture which did not espouse such ideas. 21 Some examples from Paul's letters which delineate a submissive role for women are: 1 Corinthians 11:3,9; Ephesians 5:22-24; Colossians 3:18; 1 Timothy 2:11-12. Bremmer's idea that sexual liberation for early Christian women was exercised through either divorce from their pagan husbands or voluntary virginity breaks down under closer scrutiny of the legal and cultural understandings of divorce and virginity in both Roman and Christian societies. In Roman culture, there were essentially two types of marriage: one where the wife became part of her husband's familia {cum manu), and the other where the wife remained a part of her father's (sine manu).22 By the end of the Republic, sine manu marriage had become the predominant form of marriage. Concerning divorce, it was undoubtedly more accepted in the Roman world to divorce one's husband than within the Christian community. Since Roman marriage was based upon the consent of both parties, either the husband or wife could initiate a divorce and no cause had to be alleged for the action.23 A stipulation which might have impacted

22 For more on Roman marriage see: Percy E. Corbett, The Roman Law of Marriage (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1930); Judith Evans Grubbs, Women and the Law in the Roman Empire: A Sourcebook on Marriage, Divorce and Widowhood (London and New York: Routledge, 2002); Susan Treggiari, Roman Marriage: Iusti Coniuges from the Time of Cicero to the Time of Ulpian (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991) . 23 Up until the reign of Marcus Aurelius (r.160-181), the paterfamilias was considered to be a consenting party to the marriage as well, and held the authority to initiate divorce. See: Karl Galinsky, "Augustus' Legislation on Morals and Marriage," Philologus 125 (1981); Gardner, Women in Roman Law and Society, 81; 26 who divorced whom in sine manu marriage, was in cases where if the wife or paterfamilias initiated the divorce, then the husband could sometimes claim a deduction of one-sixth of the dowry for the children.24 This could, of course, be argued as good reason for the woman actually to refrain from initiating the divorce herself. Of course, cum manu marriage was starkly different from free marriage {sine manu) because in this case a divorce required remancipation of the wife by exclusion from her husband's familia and a return to her father's. This type of marriage, however, had fallen out of practice for the most part by the end of the Republic.25 Regardless of who divorced whom, however, the sources indicate that the divorce rate among Romans may have been at a level somewhat similar to statistics in the United States

Leo F. Raditsa, "Augustus' Legislation Concerning Marriage, Procreation, Love Affairs and Adultery," ANRN 2, no. 13 (1980); Susan Treggiari, "Divorce Roman Style: How Easy and How Frequent Was It?" in Marriage, Divorce, and Children in Ancient Rome, ed. Beryl Rawson (Oxford & New York: Oxford University Press, 1991), 32-34; 38. 24 Treggiari, "Divorce Roman Style: How Easy and How Frequent Was It?," 39. 25 On divorce in cum manu marriage see: Corbett, The Roman Law of Marriage, Gardner, Women m Roman Law and Society, 83f, Treggiari, "Divorce Roman Style: How Easy and How Frequent Was It?," 33ff. 27 today, which implies a somewhat commonplace occurrence within Roman society.26

In the first century, marriage, or more accurately, divorce and inheritance, became topics of interest in the legislation of Rome's first emperor. There is no indication, however, that women who wished to free themselves from their husbands found it more difficult to do so in light of the new marriage laws imposed by

Augustus.27 In fact, one could argue that Augustus' legislation did little or nothing to discourage divorce, but rather only to encourage remarriage and childbearing.28 In the general picture, as a private act, divorce was free from most constraints of government regulation, yet Suetonius wrote that Augustus imposed a

"limit" on divorce.29 Suetonius' phrasing, however,

"divortiis modum imposuit" could also be translated as

26 Treggiari, "Divorce Roman Style: How Easy and How Frequent Was It?" 41ff. 27 Augustus' legislation was more concerned with connecting morality to the need for an increase in Roman birthrates: Galinsky, "Augustus' Legislation on Morals and Marriage," 132. 28 Gardner, Women in Roman Law and Society, 82f. 29 Suet., Aug. xxxiv. Judith Evans Grubbs interprets Suetonius' "modus" as a limit in the sense that Augustus tried to prevent men reluctant to marry from finding loopholes by betrothing themselves to girls under 12 and/or by having frequent marriages and divorces: Evans Grubbs, Women and the Law in the Roman Empire: A Sourcebook on Marriage, Divorce and Widowhood, 86. imposing a "set form" on divorce,30 rather than a limit on the frequency. Whether Augustus set limits, or merely a formula, what is known for sure is that the only occasions of divorce in which the government felt obliged to intervene were related to issues of property and intestacy. Examples which constituted an intervention on behalf of the imperial government included divorce between a freedwoman married to her patron, and when the wife was a proven adulteress. These two instances, however, are similar because they both relate to property and inheritance. In a marriage between a freedwoman and her patron, there was no separation of property between the husband and wife, and although it was a free marriage

{sine manu), the two were legally connected to the property in a way that marriage did not usually connect husband and wife.31 In the second case, if a husband knew his wife had committed adultery, then under the lex Iulia de adulteriis, he was obligated to divorce her or be prosecuted as a leno (pimp).32 A wife who committed

30 This is what is argued by Jane Gardner, since she believes Augustus' legislation did not discourage divorce, but rather encouraged it: Gardner, Women in Roman Law and Society, 85. 31 Dig. 24.2.11; See also: Gardner, Women in Roman Law and Society, 82-83. 32 Dig. 24.2.11; See also: Treggiari, Roman Marriage: Iusti Coniuges from the Time of Cicero to the Time of Ulpian, 454-57. adultery could not be confident in knowing who the father

of her sons was, and therefore the issue of inheritance

is the key to understanding why the government felt

compelled to intervene in these cases.

Roman marriage in the Empire was not the union of

two people or even two families, but rather an agreement between two families to produce heirs for the husband's posterity. Women contributed to Roman society only through their relationship to men. The procreative role was the paramount requirement and achievement of Roman women, and this was not legitimately realized outside of marriage. Because of this, marriage functioned as a

foundation of Roman society because it provided the only environment in which legitimate heirs could be produced.

Ensuring that women remained in their role as heir- producing contributors to society was a primary aspect of the laws of Augustus and his successors.33 While women enjoyed an equal status with their husbands in creating and ending their marriages, an unmarried woman was of little use to society because her purpose of childbearing

33 Evans Grubbs, Women and the Law in the Roman Empire: A Sourcebook on Marriage, Divorce and Widowhood, 87: "Augustus and his successors were promoting an imperial ideology that stressed marriage and child-bearing as the foundation for the state." was not being fulfilled. The legitimacy of heirs and the transfer of property weighed heavily in Roman understandings of divorce, because a married couple maintained separate property within the marriage.

Separate property and separate families, the concept of marriage as an institution whose sole purpose was to ensure the security of the husband's patrimony was definitively demonstrated in the continued growth of sine manu marriage in the early Empire.34 For first-century

Roman culture, a Roman woman's purpose and greatest contribution to society was the exercise of her biological ability to bear children.

Early Christian literature on marriage encouraged married couples to remain married despite disagreements even in religious belief. In 1 Corinthians 7, Paul outlined the principles for a Christian marriage. First,

Paul reiterated the Jewish understanding of marriage as the union of two people into one flesh35 - a concept of marriage quite foreign to Roman tradition and law. In emphasizing this, Christians were reminded not only that the married couple was inseparable, but neither exercised

34 Looper-Friedman, "The Decline of Manus-Marriage." 35 Genesis 2:24; Matthew 19:4-6; Mark 10:7-10; 1 Corinthians 6:16; 11:11-12; Ephesians 5:31. authority over his or her own body, for he or she was under the power of the other.36 Paul then outlined that, according to God, the wife was not to separate from her husband and the husband was not to divorce his wife.37

Based on this, Paul urged his own advice: if a Christian were married to a non-Christian, he or she should stay married and serve as an example of Christianity in hopes of eventually converting the unbelieving spouse.38 From this letter, one can draw two conclusions. First, the

Corinthian Christians may have been unfamiliar with the traditional Jewish understanding of marriage, which was being urged by Paul in his Christian ministry. Second,

Paul encouraged Christians to remain married to their pagan spouses because they were, in fact, divorcing them.

This second point would seem to support Bremmer's argument that women were converting to Christianity and using divorce as a means to liberate themselves from their husbands and the patriarchal hierarchy of Roman society they represented. This interpretation, however, ignores the fact that Roman women were not required to

36 1 Corinthians 7:4. 37 1 Corinthians 7:10-11. Under Jewish law, only the husband could initiate a divorce. 38 I Corinthians 7:12-16; 1 Peter 3:1-2. 32 give a reason for divorce.39 The ease of divorce in Roman society eliminated the need for a conversion to

Christianity for the purpose of attaining a divorce.

Furthermore, the Jews and Christians were certainly not exempt from Augustus' marriage laws which encouraged and required remarriage within eighteen months of a divorce.40

When it came to marriage, liberty, and the expectations of women, it could be said that while both Roman pagans and Christians set few restrictions on what women were capable of doing, they were quite restrictive in what they believed women should do.41

While virginity could be interpreted as a form of sexual liberation, as has been argued,42 the evidence suggests that those who chose a life of celibacy would do so not simply to eschew notions of patriarchal dominance, but rather because one truly believed in the sanctity of such an act. If virgins believed that their lives of chastity were an act of rebellion against the male-

39 Treggiari, "Divorce Roman Style: How Easy and How Frequent Was It?," 34. 40 Corbett, The Roman Law of Marriage, 250. 41 Jo Ann McNamara, "Sexual Equality and the Cult of Virginity in Early Christian Thought," Feminist Studies 3, no. 3/4 (Spring- Summer, 1976): 148. McNamara is referring only to Christian Church Fathers. However, McNamara's conclusion regarding the early Christian view of women is nearly identical with Roman pagan views. 42 Fox, Pagans and Christians, 372ff, McNamara, "Matres Patriae / Matres Ecclesiae: Women of Rome," 92. dominated world, then they left nothing written of their

own to indicate such, nor would conversion to

Christianity have exempted them from Roman laws and

traditional expectations for women of marriageable age

and qualities. Christian women who sought to live a life

of celibacy did so in stark contrast to the accepted

norms of Roman culture, however, they did not escape

those same cultural expectations within Christianity.

As seen in the marriage laws and traditions of Rome, marriage and the bearing of heirs was the normative

destiny of all Roman women. While virginity was a

visible part of ancient religious practice, it was first

and foremost an anomalous lifestyle.43 Religious virgins,

such as the Vestals, were expected to marry after their

tenure as virgins had ended. The religious celibates of

antiquity "were the exceptions that reinforced the rule...

[They]... heightened the awareness of contemporaries that marriage and childbirth were the unquestioned destiny of

all other women."44 Virgins, like the Vestals, in Roman

culture were neither male nor female. They were

aberrations of gender whose illegitimate existence was

43 Brown, The Body and Society: Men, Women and Sexual Renunciation in Early Christianity, 8. 44 Ibid., 9. made temporarily legitimate only because of their religious purpose. In the eyes of the pagan majority, virginity was a temporary and atypical condition, which, while carrying important religious functions in some situations, would not have been recognized as a legitimate long-term lifestyle within the early Empire.45

Christians viewed voluntary virginity differently than the surrounding Roman culture did. Within the literature of the early Christian Fathers, there was a strong connection between the life of wife and that of virgin.46 While virginity could be an accepted and fruitful lifestyle within the Christian community, the institution of marriage took precedence over virginity, especially if the woman was already married.47 Paul's exhortation that in marriage the spouse has control over the other's body created problems for women who wished to live the celibate life after marriage. After all, if the husband maintained control over his wife's body, then she had no more right to withhold sexual relations from her husband, than he had the right to withhold them from

45 For more on virginity and gender in the Roman world, see Brown's summary in: Ibid., 5-25. 46 McNamara, "Sexual Equality and the Cult of Virginity in Early Christian Thought," 148f. 47 Ibid.: 148. McNamara cites examples of married women who endeavored to live a celibate life while married. her.48 This Christian conception of the inseparable bond between husband and wife, although quite different from the Roman construct of marriage, was very similar to the

Roman understanding of the relationship between men and women in regard to virginity. Both Roman pagans and

Roman Christians understood women to be inseparable from their relationship to men within society through the institution of marriage.

The Christian understanding of virginity within the first century was far from the more systematized theology of the later centuries. While Christians, like pagans, sought to enforce historical gender expectations which encouraged women's paramount contribution to society through procreation, they also began to emphasize, contrary to pagan beliefs, that virginity was a lifestyle wholly compatible with a Christian understanding of feminine. This counter-cultural acceptance of virginity by Christians could be interpreted as a concept which

"threatened to destroy gender barriers by rejecting

48 1 Corinthians 7:3-5: "The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband. For the wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does. Likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. Do not deprive one another, except perhaps by agreement for a limited time, that you may devote yourselves to prayer; but then come together again, so that Satan may not tempt you because of your lack of self-control." traditional sexual and procreative roles that restricted women solely to relationships with men."49 However, the acceptance of virginity as a suitable way of life may have acted more to enforce gender barriers and expectations rather than to unravel them, by simply transferring the traditional expectations of wifely submission and obedience from a human husband to Jesus

Christ. Through this new spiritual marriage, Christian women could contribute to the benefit of society aside from physical marriage and procreation.

The experiences of female virgins within early

Christianity are preserved only in the texts written by male clergy and historians.50 The sources described female virgins as freeing themselves from the judgment upon Eve and her descendents. No longer would they fear the pains of childbirth, for "[y]ou virgins are free from this sentence... with that of men your lot and your condition is equal."51 This notion of equality between men and women through virginity developed later in the theology of virginity that began to dominate

49 McNamara, "Matres Patriae / Matres Ecclesiae: Women of Rome," 92. 50 A hole in the historical treasures of the Church which Elizabeth Castelli laments in: Elizabeth Castelli, "Virginity and Its Meaning for Women's Sexuality in Early Christianity," JFSR 2 (1986): 61-65. 51 Cyprian, De Habitu Virginum xxii (PL 461-462). ecclesiastical discourse in the third and fourth centuries and seems to be a very narrow interpretation of the impressions of equality conveyed by Paul in the first century, when he wrote "...there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus."52 In virginity,

Christian women did not find a freedom from traditional expectations, but rather an enforcement of gendered boundaries now fully realized in a celestial relationship with a spiritual husband maintained under the rigors of physical and spiritual exercise and control. Christian virgins were expected to act and dress as Christian wives, and the imagery of their lifestyles was eventually portrayed as a spiritualized sexuality.53 Christian virginity did not provide a freedom from the bonds of man and woman, but rather a transference to the bonds of God- man and woman. Christian virgins, although living a legitimate life outside of physical marriage and procreation within the Christian community, could not escape the expectations that women were socially bound to marry and bear children because of their sex. Through the words of later Christian writers, the celestial realm

52 Galatians 3:28. 53 Castelli, "Virginity and Its Meaning for Women's Sexuality in Early Christianity," 71ff. became molded to the language of the physical. Even if liberation was what these women had sought, it came to nothing as virginity became merely a new Christian form of marriage shrouded in traditional gendered expectations.

In better understanding the connection between gender and the conversion to Christianity, perhaps the question being asked should not be, "Why were women more attracted to Christianity than men?" but rather, "Why were men, particularly noblemen, not drawn to the new faith in equal numbers to the women?" This latter question, rather than the former, can be answered more conclusively based upon the evidence available. The nature of this question is connected to the political reality of the early Empire and the gendered construction of its religio-political system. Gendered spheres were the fabric of Roman society. The relationship between men and women was interwoven in daily life, however, in the carrying out of their culturally-understood duties, underlying social understandings of gendered purpose, place, and ability only further perpetuated the dichotomization of the masculine and feminine. This 39 connection between the religio-political system and

gender is further explored in chapter two.

The Kingdom of Heaven & The Kingdom of Caesar: Historical Contexts

While the Roman Empire emerged from the dust of the

Republic, Christianity was taking shape under the

umbrella of Second-Temple Judaism. The first century

witnessed the early rapid growth of both the Roman Empire

and Christianity, yet the growth of the Christian

movement attracted little attention from the imperial

government. There are examples of interaction by the

Roman authorities within the disputes between Jews and

Christians, but as a whole, the Romans regarded

Christianity as an internal affair of the Jews.54 For the

most part, what Romans knew or believed about Christians

Arguments can be made for when Christianity and Judaism officially went their separate ways in the eyes of the uninformed pagan. Many claim it to have occurred after the destruction of the Jewish Temple in 70, others as late as the Bar-Kokhba Revolt of 132-135. While many Jews may have been eager to disassociate themselves from Christians (and vice-versa) after the First Jewish War (66-70), it is more than plausible that the pagans were not as acutely aware of the intricacies of Jewish-Christian relations in the first century, and would have continued to regard Christians as part of Judaism. For more on this, see: Marcel Simon, Verus Israel: A Study of the Relations between Christians and Jews in the Roman Empire, Ad 135 - 425, trans. H. McKeating (London & Portland, OR: Vallentine Mitchell & Co Ltd., 1996 [Orig. 1948]). 40 in the first century was limited to rumor and assumptions about Judaism.55

Eusebius described an explosion of growth for the first-century Christian movement during the reign of

Tiberius. Much like the Acts of the Apostles, Eusebius credited the early Church with gathering in thousands of fresh converts in the first decades of its inception, as the missionaries and Apostles went out to the far reaches of the known world.56 Eusebius claimed that "[i]n every city and village arose churches crowded with thousands of men, like a teeming threshing-floor."57 As the Christian movement gained momentum, it not surprisingly caught the attention of the Roman authorities on more than one occasion. Not every encounter was hostile, however, and some Christian writers even went so far as to allege purposeful kindness showered upon the Church by the imperial government.58 Two examples of the interaction between the imperial government and the first-century

55 For examples see: Robert Louis Wilken, The Christians as the Romans Saw Them, 2nd ed. (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2003) . 56 Acts 2:41; Euseb., Hist, eccl. iii.l. For an alternate interpretation which examines the growth of Christianity apart from mass conversions, see: Stark, "Reconstructing the Rise of Christianity: The Role of Women," 229-31. 57 Euseb., Hist. eccl. ii.3.2. 58 For example, Eusebius' assessment of Tiberius (Euseb., Hist. eccl. ii.2) . Christians important to this study take place during the reigns of Nero (r.54-68) and Domitian (r.81-96).

What has become known as the Neronian persecution represents an anomaly within the relationship between

Christians and the imperial authorities of the first century. In short, Nero blamed the Fire of 64 on the

Christians. Because of this, Nero was termed the first persecutor of Christianity.59 Nero's actions against the

Christians shed light not only on the relationship between the first-century Church and the emperor, but also on the exercise of power by women within the imperial court - namely, Poppaea Sabina, Nero's wife.

During the reign of Domitian, Christian sources describe another first-century persecution.60 Eusebius, and the later historians who relied on his History, crowned Flavia Domitilla, Domitian's niece, as perhaps the most prominent victim of Christian persecution in the first century. The sources on Domitilla are not in full agreement concerning her connection to the Christian

59 Eusebius says Nero "was the first of the emperors to be pointed out as an enemy of the true God [...coq

61 The reign of the first five Antonine Emperors (Nerva, 96-98; Trajan, 98-117; Hadrian, 117-138; Antoninus Pius, 138-161; Marcus Aurelius, 161-180) has been termed that of the "Five Good Emperors" thanks in part to the peaceful succession of each, and the continued stability and prosperity under each. 43 During this same time in the reign of Commodus our circumstances changed to a milder one, and by God's grace, peace came to the churches throughout the world. And the word of salvation began to lead every soul of every race of men toward the devout worship of the God of the universe, so by this time those at Rome who were famous for wealth and family turned to their own salvation with their whole house and with all their relatives.62

Eusebius did not devote many pages to the reign of

Commodus, but his point was clear: Christianity flourished to a greater degree during the time of

Commodus than it had previously. Perhaps Commodus' own

"hedonism and lunacy likely distracted him"63 from pursuing a policy of intolerance towards the Christians

(or even paying any attention to them at all). If

Commodus' own private life was the reason for this prosperity, it is never explicitly stated. One could argue, however, that Eusebius alluded to the reason when he mentioned that Romans of wealth and fame had converted along with their whole families. As will be further explored in chapter three, the key to Eusebius' passage may lie in a closer examination of Marcia, Commodus'

62 Euseb., Hist, eccl. v.21. 63 As Paul Maier asserted in the commentary of his translation, Eusebius, The Church History, trans. Paul L. Maier (Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 1999), 204. concubine, and the connection between her position and the Roman construction of gender in the second century.

The relationship between the Church and imperial government within the third century took a dramatic shift on account of the Third Century Crisis. Christianity was no longer a tiny sect relegated to the frontiers of the

Empire. During the third century, the Christian Church experienced periods of relative peace as well as intense empire-wide systematic persecution by the imperial government. It is during this century that there was a shift in imperial policy concerned with Christianity.

The policies of Trajan and Hadrian which had created a curious disinterest in the Church on behalf of the government had shifted to a more hands-on approach.

This study ends with Alexander Severus, the last emperor before the dawn of the Third Century Crisis.

Alexander's relationship with his mother, Julia Mamaea, and her relationship with the Christian movement, provides important information on the intersection of gender and political authority. The overarching thesis which connects the religio-political system of the Empire to the construction of gender, is demonstrated through the reign of Alexander, however, there is an epilogue which briefly explores the relationship between gender and the religio-political system during the Crisis. The epilogue serves to further demonstrate the thesis of this work, although the evidence is less conclusive.

The Odd Couple: Christianity & the Imperial Culture

As Christians became more prevalent in the eyes of imperial law, the distinction of genders as seen in the cultures of Christians and pagans became more obvious.

While the religious beliefs of the Christians were in stark contrast to those of their pagan neighbors, the construction of gender and the expectations associated with masculine and feminine were similar. There were certainly differences in practice - especially in ideas such as marriage, marital headship, virginity, and sexuality for example - but in the general expectations for men and women, Christianity seemed very much at home within Roman culture. Despite these agreements between

Christians and pagans in the early Empire, however,

Christianity, even when under the umbrella of Judaism, could attract negative attention or violence against itself. The relationship between Christianity and the Roman Empire was unpredictable. Depending on political and economic stability, Christians found themselves on either neutral or hostile terms with the imperial government. The purpose of this study is to show that, combined with external forces, gender proved to be an important factor in determining how the imperial government dealt with not only Christianity, but many aspects of life in the Empire.

The survival of Christianity can sometimes seem an enigma, given its relationship first to the Jewish community whence it sprang, and then to the imperial government, which by the fourth century had made repeated attempts to eradicate it. Historians have long credited

Christianity's structure, its cult of the martyrs, and even its doctrine as reasons for its survival in such a hostile environment.64 What these historians have neglected to examine, however, is how gender, especially the roles expected within Roman and Christian societies, was used by Christian women in unique positions of power to influence those in unique positions of authority.

Amidst the crises affecting the Empire throughout the

64 For a summation on these ideas, see: W.H.C. Frend, The Early- Church (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 1991 [Orig. 1965] ) . latter centuries of its existence, the Christian Church embarked on an opposite trajectory from the one Dio had concluded about the Empire. Rather than deteriorating from gold to rust, the Christian movement by the beginning of the fourth century, had demonstrated that like gold, it could remain intact under fire, thanks to the assistance of women who used their position and gender to the advantage of the Church. CHAPTER II

"PUNISH US AS YOU DO THEM"1 Gender, Law, and Culture: Pomponia Graecina, & Flavia Domitilla

Purveyors of Foreign Superstition: The Connections of Pomponia & Domitilla to Christianity

Christianity's proselytism partnered with Roman dominance of the Mediterranean predestined an encounter between the growing Jewish sect and the imperial government. According to the Acts of the Apostles,

Paul's interactions with Roman courts may have occurred as early as 50.2 In addition, Nero's indictment of

Christian involvement in the Great Fire of 64 demonstrated that Christians were neither invisible nor

This quotation is taken from Horentsia's speech given in 42 BC against the edict by the Second Triumvirate which sought to tax the property of the 1,400 wealthiest women in Rome. Although the Greek is the technical term "proscribe," I believe "punish" is a suitable translation as well: "ei |o.ev 8r\ xi KOU npoq rpcov, oiov vnb xcov dv5pwv, r|8iKfia9ou (t>axe, 7ipoYpd\j/axe KOU i\\iac, coc ZKeivovq." (App. B Civ. iv.32) 2 Acts 16:19-24. I have chosen the year of 50 based upon the fact that Paul's arrest in Philippi in Acts 16 follows the Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15), which is dated to around 49-50. Also, Paul's arrest and appearance before the governor L. Junius Gallio in Acts 18 soon after can be dated to 51, as Gallio's tenure as proconsul of Achaea was from 51-52. For more on the trials of Paul, see: Paul L. Maier, In the Fullness of Time: A Historian Looks at Christmas, Easter, and the Early Church (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications, 1997 [Orig. 1991]); A.N. Sherwin-White, Roman Society and Roman Law in the New Testament: The Sarum Lectures, 1960-1961 (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock Publishers, 1963); Ben Witherington III, The Paul Quest: The Renewed Search for the Jew of Tarsus (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1998). 48 49 impervious to the hard hand of Roman law. The encounters between the Christian movement and the imperial government, although much less frequent in the first century than later, centered mostly around the political implications of Christianity's defiance of socio­ political rituals and requirements of Rome's civil religious system. These encounters, however, do more than simply juxtapose Judeo-Christian religion against

Roman religious politics. Two important trials in the first century elucidate the government's attempt to enforce its laws in accordance with traditional gender constructions in light of this new religious movement.

The trials of Pomponia Graecina in 57 and Flavia

Domitilla in 95 are early examples of the imperial government's attempts to address dissenting religious opinion among its nobility in the first century.

Little is known of Pomponia Graecina, apart from her brief mention in the Annals of Tacitus:

And Pomponia Graecina, a distinguished woman, wife of A. Plautius, whose ovation after the British campaign I recorded earlier, and now arraigned for foreign superstition [superstitio externa rea] , was left to the judgment of her husband. Following the ancient practice, he held an inquiry in the presence of a family council to determine the fate of his wife, and declared her innocent. Henceforth Pomponia was 50 to live with long life and continuing sadness. For after Julia the daughter of Drusus had been done away by Messalina' s treachery, for forty years she dressed herself in sadness, existing in perpetual mourning; this was unpunished under the reign of Claudius, and soon became a title to glory.3

As Tacitus stated, Pomponia was the wife of Aulus

Plautius, the man who had conquered Britain for Emperor

Claudius in 43.4 She was also most likely the daughter of G. Pomponius Graecinus, a friend of Ovid, and Asinia, the half-sister to Drusus Julius Caesar, son of Emperor

Tiberius and Pomponia's grandmother, Vipsania Agrippina.5

In addition, Pomponia may have been the niece of

Pomponius Flaccus, as well as cousin to several noble families through her grandmother's brief marriage to the imperial family. Her noble lineage and defiant 40-year mourning for her cousin Julia earned her a mention in

Tacitus' history.5 In fact, if it were not for

Pomponia's rebellious state of mourning for Julia, she

3 Tac, Ann. xiii.32. 4 Cass. Dio lx.19-21; lxi.30.2; Suet., Vesp. iv.l. 5 John Jackson, ed., Tacitus: The Annals, Books Xiii-Xvi, vol. 322, Lcl (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1937), 52 (footnote 1) • 6 Julia was the daughter of Drusus, the half-brother of Pomponia's mother. Julia was executed in 43 on orders of her uncle, Emperor Claudius, under the influence of his wife, Messalina. may not have been mentioned by Tacitus at all.7 It is

fortunate, however, that she was mentioned, since her trial, although seemingly referenced only in passing, provides important insight into the intricacies of gender, law, and religion within imperial Roman culture.

For the Christian movement at large, Pomponia's contribution is negligible. As far as one can gather from the sources, Pomponia participated in no missionary activity; she left behind no evidence of a relationship with the Bishop of Rome (or any Christian leader) ; she was never martyred; she held no position which would allow her presumed Christianity to influence imperial policy toward the Church; her trial found no justifiable reason to convict her of foreign superstition; and there remains no conclusive evidence as to whether Pomponia's superstitio externa was actually Christianity.8 So wherein lies her importance for this study? The charge of foreign superstition in addition to Pomponia being

7 As will be further discussed below, and in subsequent chapters, Tacitus, and other historians, often included extra information for the purpose of presenting the negative or positive aspects of someone's personality. In this case, Messalina is Tacitus' target. 8 The connection of Pomponia to Christianity was first made in the sixteenth century by Lipsius and has become the traditional argument to this day. The ambiguity of the term could lend support for Judaism, Isis and Osiris, and Druidism, as possible explanations as well. For more on the concept of superstitio, see pp. 82ff. 52 handed over to a family court, rather than an imperial one, provides important insight into Roman attitudes regarding the connection between gender, religion, and law in the first century of the Empire.

A generation after Pomponia, another woman aroused the attention of the imperial authorities for religious reasons. Flavia Domitilla was the granddaughter of

Emperor Vespasian through his only daughter Flavia

Domitilla the Younger.9 The niece of the two succeeding emperors, Titus and Domitian, Domitilla married the grandnephew of Vespasian, her cousin, Flavius Clemens.

On account of her relationship with the imperial family, and the deification of her mother by Domitian, Domitilla and Clemens' children were made heirs to the throne.10

Domitilla's apparent good fortune and intimate connection to the imperial throne was cut short, however, in 95:

And the same year [AD 95] Domitian slew, along with many others, Flavius Clemens the consul, although he was a cousin and had as his wife Flavia Domitilla, who was also a relative of the emperor. The charge brought against them both was that of atheism [aGeotTixog] , a charge on which many others who drifted into Jewish ways [TOC TWV 'IOVSOUOOV r|0T|] were condemned. Some of these were put to death, and the rest were at

9 Suet., Vesp. iii. 10 And also renamed Domitianus and Vespasianus: Suet., Dom. xv. 53 least deprived of their estates. Domitilla was only banished to Pandateria.n

The account by the Christian historian Eusebius differs slightly, but ends in similar fashion:

For the teaching of our faith shone so brightly in those days that even writers foreign to our belief wrote down the persecution and martyrdoms in their histories, and they even indicated the exact time, stating that in the fifteenth year of Domitian, Flavia Domitilla, who was the niece of Flavius Clemens, one of the Roman consuls that year, was banished with many others to the island of Pontia for professing Christ.12

The differences in the two accounts appear stark. In

Eusebius' version, Domitilla is referred to as the niece of Flavius Clemens, not his wife, and her exile was to

Pontia, not Pandateria.13 These inconsistencies have caused a divergence of interpretation on the importance and even the historicity of Domitilla.14 There are explanations, however, for the differences in these two sources. The story of Domitilla, like that of Pomponia

11 Cass. Dio, lxvii.14. 12 Euseb., Hist, eccl. iii.18. 13 The location of Pontia as Domitilla's place of exile is repeated by Jerome in his Ep. cviii.7. It is possible that Jerome repeated what had become tradition, especially since Eusebius' immortalization of Pontia in his Historia Ecclesiastica. 14 These inconsistencies have been summarized by: J.B. Lightfoot, The Apostolic Fathers, Part I: S. Clement of Rome, 2nd ed., vol. I (London: MacMillan and Co., 1890), 34-51; James S. Jeffers, "Social Foundations of Early Christianity at Rome: The Congregations Behind 1 Clement and the Shepherd of Hermas" (PhD diss., University of California, Irvine, 1988), 246-47. Graecina, provides historians with much in the way of

understanding the connection between gender, politics,

and religion in the early Empire.

These two short passages have forever immortalized

Domitilla within the debate about Christianity and

nobility in the first century. The complexities involved with properly interpreting these two sources in

ostensible disagreement compels one first to address this

apparent problem before moving on to an examination of

Domitilla in light of gender expectations and punishment

in the early Empire. Because of the disagreement between the accounts of Dio and Eusebius, some historians have

suggested that there may have been two different Flavia

Domitillas, both of whom were related to Flavius Clemens and both of whom were exiled by Domitian.15 Given the ubiquity of the name Domitilla in the Flavian family, this is not entirely unlikely.16 A more logical and less complicated suggestion, however, is that Eusebius, or his

15 George Edmundson, The Church in Rome in the First Century (London: Longmans, Green and Co., 1913), 230ff; Lightfoot, The Apostolic Fathers, Part I: S. Clement of Rome, 42-45. 16 Flavia Domitilla [the Elder] was the wife of Vespasian, who named her daughter Flavia Domitilla [the Younger], who then named her daughter Flavia Domitilla as well. 55 original source,17 mistakenly transferred the relationship of niece from Domitian to Clemens. The solution to this mystery was surmised by J.B. Lightfoot when he connected the fifth-century Acts of Nereus and Achilleus to Eusebius' account. In these Acts, Domitilla, a niece of Flavius Clemens, was banished to the island of Pontia by Domitian for refusing pagan worship. In Dio's account, the relationship between Domitilla and Domitian is the generic "relative,"18 although according to the Coemeterium Domitillae she is also the granddaughter of Vespasian19 and Quintilian refers to her as Domitian's "sister's daughter."20 Because of this, Domitilla as the daughter of Domitian's sister is an appropriate interpretation of Dio's generic "relative."21 In

Eusebius' source in this example is believed to have been a historian named Brutius, to whom Eusebius specifically refers in his Chronicle. For more on the identity of this Brutius and how Eusebius came to rely on him, see below on page 56 as well as: Lightfoot, The Apostolic Fathers, Part I: S. Clement of Rome, 46-49. 18 Cass. Dio lxvii.14: KOU OCUTTIV avyyEvr\ EOCUTOV.; For a similar discussion, see: Lightfoot, The Apostolic Fathers, Part I: S. Clement of Rome, 44f. 19 J.B. Lightfoot's reconstruction of the stone differs slightly from Theodor Mommsen's, and reads: "TATIA BAVCYL... [NV] TRIX SEPTVM LIB[ERORVM] DIVI VESPASIAN[I ATQVE] FLAVIAE DOMITIL[LIAE VXORIS EIVS, DIVI] VESPASIANI NEPTIS..." Both Lightfoot's and Mommsen's translations are found in: Lightfoot, The Apostolic Fathers, Part I: S. Clement of Rome, 114. 20 Quintilian refers to Domitilla's children as "sororis suae nepotes" ("the grandchildren of [Domitian's] sister"): Quint., Inst. iv.l. 21 For a more detailed account on the relationship Domitilla and the Flavian Emperors, see: Jeffers, "Social Foundations of Early Eusebius' account, the relationship between Domitilla and Clemens is also "sister's daughter."22 As J.B. Lightfoot aptly asked, "Have we not here the key to the confusion?"23 The simplest and most straightforward explanation for the difference in Domitilla's relationships to Domitian and Clemens comes from simple clerical error - a transference of Domitilla as the daughter of Domitian's sister in Dio's account, to the daughter of Clemens' sister by Eusebius (or his source).24 The difference in the place of exile is easily dismissed by the fact that they are neighboring islands which the imperial family used as places of exile throughout the first century, and therefore, effortlessly transposed in the sources. In addition to Eusebius' possible misconnection of Domitilla's relationship to Flavius Clemens, there are also the issues concerning the omission of Clemens' execution and Eusebius' interpretation of Dio's reference to the "atheism" and "Jewish ways" of Domitilla as

Christianity at Rome: The Congregations Behind 1 Clement and the Shepherd of Hermas", 250-54. 22 Euseb., Hist. eccl. iii.18: z% aSeA.(t>f|c; yeyovmav A.amou KXii^evxoq (literally: "born from the sister of Flavius Clemens"). 23Lightfoot, The Apostolic Fathers, Part I: S. Clement of Rome, 45. 24 See footnote 17. 57 distinctly Christian. This religious issue has commandeered the attention of nearly all historians who have investigated Flavia Domitilla and has limited the discussion of her role in history to a debate over whether she was a Jew or Christian. The concentration on

Domitilla's religious convictions stems from the difficulty with the precise definitions of her atheism

(dc0eoTri<;) and Jewish ways (xoc toiv 'lox)8aicov i\Qr\) . The argument in favor of interpreting these terms as Christian references is the older argument and dates back to

Eusebius' claim cited above.25 In the last century, however, there have been numerous works written lending support to the theory that Domitilla was in fact a Jew.26

The interpretation of Eusebius' statements as references to either Judaism or Christianity has been explored in

25 This argument has been continued by historians into the modern period. Some of the more prominent histories are: Giovanni Battista De Rossi, La Roma Sotterranea Cristiana (Rome: 1865); Johannes Knudsen, "The Lady and the Emperor: A Study of the Domitianic Persecution," Church History 14, no. 1 (Mar. 1945); Lightfoot, The Apostolic Fathers, Part I: S. Clement of Rome. 26 For example: Heinrich Gratz, Die Judischen Proselyten im Romerreiche unter den Kaisern Domitian, Nerva, Trajan und Hadrian (Breslau: 1883); Martin P. Charlesworth, "Some Observations on Ruler-Cult Especially in Rome," HTR 28, no. 1 (Jan. 1935); E. Mary Smallwood, "Domitian's Attitude toward the Jews and Judaism," C Phil. 51, no. 1 (Jan. 1956); Paul Keresztes, "The Jews, the Christians, and Emperor Domitian," Vig. Chr. 27, no. 1 (Mar. 1973); Claudia Setzer, Jewish Responses to Early Christians: History and Polemics, 30-150 C.E. (Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg Fortress Press, 1994) . detail elsewhere, so it is unnecessary to recite them in detail here. However, historians have attempted to connect Eusebius' statements to a first-century Roman understanding of both Judaism and Christianity. Numerous factors contribute to the difficulty for modern historians to determine definitively whether atheism and

Jewish ways refer to either Christianity or Judaism. The major factors, however, can be condensed into five interrelated yet independent examples:27 1) the use of the terms "atheism" (aGeornc;) and "Jewish ways" (TOC XWV 'lo\)8aitov

Ti'9r|) by first-century Romans; 2) the administration of the fiscus Iudaicus under Domitian; 3) the details of the

Domitianic persecution; 4) the Christian cemetery of

Domitilla; and 5) Eusebius' two passages about Domitilla.

The terms aQe6xr[C, and TOC TWV 'Iou8oda>v T(0TI at face value seem certainly to assume Jewish proselytism on the parts of Domitilla and her husband.28 To first-century Romans, however, Christians and Jews were virtually

27 There is also an argument which connects Flavius Clemens with a certain Kati'ah bar Shalom mentioned in Talmudic writings as a senator who adopted Jewish ways. 28 It should be noted that the concept of proselyte for the Jews consisted of two categories: 1) full proselytes, who were circumcised and enjoyed full membership within the synagogue, and 2) God-Fearers (oePonevoi) , who embraced the monotheism and moral code of the Jews, and sometimes attended synagogue, yet were not full- members of the Jewish faith. It is usually assumed that Clemens and Domitilla were of this latter variety, rather than the former. 59 indistinguishable, and in most cases, the terms for one group applied also for the other.29 Because of this, there are numerous sources in which these terms are utilized by Romans against both Jews and Christians in the first century. Josephus denounced Apollonius as someone who reviled the Jews "as atheists [dGeoucJ and misanthropes,"30 while Polycarp, the Christian bishop of

Smyrna, was condemned as an atheist {aQeoc,) by the crowds of Romans in c.156.31 The wide-ranging usage of the term atheism,32 among pagans in describing both Jews and

Christians in addition to the general ignorance of the diversity of first-century Judaism by the majority of

Romans, makes it difficult to take this terminology and to apply it definitively to either Christian or Jewish - a conclusion with which Eusebius would no doubt disagree.

29 See footnote 54 in chapter 1. 30 Josephus, Ap., ii.14 8. 31 The term atheist used by Romans is cited two times in The Martyrdom of Polycarp, with Polycarp redirecting the term back to the Romans once. See specifically: Martyrdom of Polycarp, iii.2 and ix. 2. 32 The terms used by the Romans in reference to the Christians range from atheism to superstition to "hatred of the human race" (Tacitus). Joseph J. Walsh examines these in his "On Christian Atheism." What is unique to Walsh's study is that he contends that contrary to common belief, atheism was not the primary reason for hatred of the Christians by their pagan neighbors, but rather a "melange of characteristics which irritated and affronted pagans" (268) . 60 The second issue which has occupied the attention of historians studying Domitilla is the fiscus Iudaicus.33

Instituted by Vespasian after the destruction of the

Jewish Temple in AD 70, the fiscus Iudaicus replaced the

Temple Tax paid by Jews for the maintenance of their

Temple in Jerusalem, and acted as a form of tribute paid in return for the liberty of the Jews to continue practicing their faith legally.34 According to Suetonius,

Domitian sought out those who lived as Jews but were not paying the tax, and prosecuted them vigorously.35

Suetonius' description of Domitian's administration of the tax is used as a possible connection to the prosecution of Consul Clemens and his wife, who, according to Dio, were denounced as living as Jews.35 The

33 See: Smallwood, "Domitian's Attitude toward the Jews and Judaism," 2-4; Keresztes, "The Jews, the Christians, and Emperor Domitian," 5- 10. 34 Cass. Dio, lxv.7.2; Josephus, BJ, vii.218. It was a dual punishment in that Jews now had to pay for the privilege to worship their God even though their Temple had been destroyed, and further so, the tax went to the maintenance of the Jupiter Capitolinus in Rome! 35 Suet., Dom. xii.2 which reads, "Praeter ceteros Iudaicus fiscus acerbissime actus est; ad quem deferebantur, qui vel inprofessi Iudaicum viverent vitam vel dissimulata origine imposita genti tributa non pependissent." 36 For the full argument see: Jeffers, "Social Foundations of Early Christianity at Rome: The Congregations Behind 1 Clement and the Shepherd of Hermas", 241-46; Keresztes, "The Jews, the Christians, and Emperor Domitian"; Smallwood, "Domitian's Attitude toward the Jews and Judaism"; Margaret H. Williams, "Domitian, the Jews and the 'Judaizers': A Simple Matter of Cupiditas and Maiestas?," Historia 39, no. 2 (1990). 61 sources convey that the administration of this tax involved such harsh enforcement that Domitian's successor, Nerva, had not only to end the unjust execution of the tax, but also to advertise his actions through coinage.37 This issue of the fiscus ludaicus is directly linked with the next factor at hand: the persecution of the emperor Domitian against either

Christians or Jews.

Historians have long debated the extent of

Domitian's cruelty beyond the generality of the Empire to the Jews and Christians in particular.38 Evidence of some form of persecution by Domitian's government exists to support a Jewish persecution as well as a Christian one.

Suetonius' report that Domitian vigorously prosecuted

Jews avoiding the fiscus ludaicus would certainly seem to

37 L.A. Thompson, "Domitian and the Jewish Tax," Historia 31, no. 3 (1982): 329. 38 Suet., Dom. x; xii. Also see: Shirley Jackson Case, "Josephus' Anticipation of a Domitianic Persecution," JBL 44, no. 1/2 (1925); Gratz, Die Judischen Proselyten im Romerreiche unter den Kaisern Domitian, Nerva, Trajan Und Hadrian; Keresztes, "The Jews, the Christians, and Emperor Domitian"; Knudsen, "The Lady and the Emperor: A Study of the Domitianic Persecution"; Donald McFayden, "The Occasion of the Domitianic Persecution," AJT 24, no. 1 (Jan. 1920); Donald W. Riddle, "Hebrews, First Clement, and the Persecution of Domitian," JBL 43, no. 3/4 (1924); Smallwood, "Domitian's Attitude toward the Jews and Judaism"; Thompson, "Domitian and the Jewish Tax"; K.H. Waters, "The Character of Domitian," Phoenix 18, no. 1 (Spring, 1964); Williams, "Domitian, the Jews and the 'Judaizers': A Simple Matter of Cupiditas and Maiestas?" 62 support a general feeling of persecution by Jews in the

Empire.39 In addition, the letter from Clement of Rome to the Church in Corinth alluded to a persecution against the Christians in Rome during the last years of

Domitian's reign.40 Clement's letter began with the explanation that their response had been delayed because of "sudden and repeated misfortunes and reverses which have happened to us."41 This letter connects well with an assumption that Domitian initiated an organized persecution against either Jews or Christians and that

Flavius Clemens and his wife Domitilla, were victims of this short, but vicious attack. The descriptions of

Domitian's character lend support to the probability that he carried out some kind of harsh policy against Jews and/or Christians, however, the cause was probably

39 On the discussion of a general persecution against the Jews, see: Case, "Josephus' Anticipation of a Domitianic Persecution"; McFayden, "The Occasion of the Domitianic Persecution"; Riddle, "Hebrews, First Clement, and the Persecution of Domitian"; Smallwood, "Domitian's Attitude toward the Jews and Judaism"; Thompson, "Domitian and the Jewish Tax"; Waters, "The Character of Domitian"; Williams, "Domitian, the Jews and the 'Judaizers': A Simple Matter of Cupiditas and Maiestas?" 40 For an examination of 1 Clement in connection with the Domitianic persecution and possible references in the New Testament, see: Riddle, "Hebrews, First Clement, and the Persecution of Domitian." For the authority on Clement, see: Lightfoot, The Apostolic Fathers, Part I: S. Clement of Rome. 41 1 Clement, i.l, which begins: "Aiot xaq aicjnSiouc; KOU kiiaXXi\kovq yevonevaq TIJUV aun^opag KOCI 7tepv7ixcooeiq..." vii.l also alludes to some kind of persecution as well. 63 economic, rather than religious. Suetonius mentioned

Domitian's "natural disposition" toward cruelty,42 and his financial straits which he attempted to solve through confiscations of aristocratic property, and a rigorous collection of the fiscus Iudaicus.43 Suetonius proclaimed that Domitian "was made insatiable through need and cruel through fear,"44 and this financial need and paranoia no doubt contributed to the downfall of Clemens and

Domitilla.45

A Christian cemetery, uncovered by Giovanni Battista

De Rossi in the middle of the nineteenth century, was built upon land donated by a Flavia Domitilla.46 This

Praedium Domitillae contains numerous graves, both pagan and Christian. De Rossi assumed that while initially begun as a pagan burial ground, the descendents of Flavia

Domitilla and her household converted to Christianity and

Suet., Dom. iii. 43 Suet., Dom. xii. 44 Suet., Dom. iii: "...quantum coniectare licet, super ingenii naturam inopia rapax, metu saevus." 45 For a brief account of Domitian's probable attitude toward the Christians, see: J.E.A. Crake, "Early Christians and Roman Law," Phoenix 19, no. 1 (Spring, 1965): 65-67. 46 De Rossi, La Roma Sotterranea Cristiana. This cemetery has been debated in numerous sources after De Rossi, and a few prominent ones are: Jeffers, "Social Foundations of Early Christianity at Rome: The Congregations Behind 1 Clement and the Shepherd of Hermas"; Smallwood, "Domitian's Attitude toward the Jews and Judaism"; Paul Styger, Die Romischen Katakomben: Archaologische Forschungen uber den Ursprung und die Bedeutung der Altchristlichen Grabstatten (Berlin: Verlag fur Kunstwissenschaft, 1933). 64 continued to use the cemetery for their burials, thereby sanctifying the land for Christian reverence.47 Because it appears that Christian tombs became more common as time went on, the cemetery's connection to Domitilla is determined to be proof of her Christianity by many historians.48

Two passages by Eusebius of Caesarea deserve some attention. The first passage is the one from Eusebius'

History mentioned above, in which Domitilla is branded a

Christian and identified as the niece of Clemens.49

Eusebius recorded nearly the same event in his Chronicon but also gave some clues as to the identity of one of the authors he described as "foreign to our belief":

Brutius writes that there were very many Christian martyrs under Domitian, among whom were Flavia Domitilla, granddaughter of the sister [ex sorore neptim]50 of Flavius Clemens the consul; she was banished to the island of Pontia, because she bore witness to being a Christian.51

47 Jeffers, "Social Foundations of Early Christianity at Rome: The Congregations Behind 1 Clement and the Shepherd of Hermas", 253-54. 48 G.B. De Rossi has become the father of this theory since the publication of his archeological findings in 18 65. He subsequently published articles defending this throughout the rest of the nineteenth century. His findings from the cemetery are summarized by J.B. Lightfoot, The Apostolic Fathers: S. Clement of Rome, 35-39. 49 Euseb., Hist. eccl. iii.18. 50 The grandchild of a sister could also be referred to with the generic "niece" or "nephew". 51 Jer., Chron, PL vol. 27, col. 603 (2110.16). With these two passages, those who argue for the

Christianity of Domitilla require no more evidence. The inconsistencies between Dio's and Eusebius' accounts, namely the relationship of Domitilla to Clemens, and the place of Domitilla's exile, are dismissed as error on

Eusebius' part. The unknown identity of the historian

"Brutius," whom Eusebius cited as his main source, lends much weight to the conclusion that Eusebius was misinformed.52 In spite of this, Eusebius' identification of Domitilla as a Christian is accepted as accurate by many. This is not to say, however, that no disagreement on the religion of Domitilla remains - quite the contrary, actually.53 It is for this reason that further examination of Domitilla outside of this sphere of religious conviction has likely failed to take place.

Examining the arguments surrounding Domitilla's religious persuasion has proven to be a digression that has stunted other interpretations of her importance to a fuller understanding of the role of gender in the political and religious institutions of the early Empire.

52 See footnote 17 for more on the identity of Brutius. 53 For the debate surrounding Brutius and Eusebius, see: Crake, "Early Christians and Roman Law, " 65f; Lightfoot, The Apostolic Fathers, Part I: S. Clement of Rome, 46ff; Jeffers, "Social Foundations of Early Christianity at Rome: The Congregations Behind 1 Clement and the Shepherd of Hermas", 246f. Almost exclusively, historians discuss this issue concerning Domitilla, yet her case reveals important conclusions regarding conceptions of punishment and gender within the early Empire - important conclusions that have been unexplored because of the traditional focus on Domitilla's religious affiliation. Domitilla's precise relationship to the emperor, her precise place of exile, her precise religious affiliation are all detours from what can be discovered about the relationship between religion, law, and gender in first-century Rome.

In the larger picture, the religion of both Pomponia

Graecina and Flavia Domitilla fails to be answered definitively by the sources available, so new questions must be asked. Why was the matter of Pomponia's superstition relegated to a family court, while

Domitilla's was brought before the emperor? And why was

Clemens executed for atheism, while Domitilla was only exiled? These questions require a different direction in the interpretation of the sources and explicit answers that provide a fuller incorporation of gender, religion, and politics within the framework of Roman history. The actions taken by the imperial government against Pomponia and Domitilla are the key to understanding the role of gender within the religio-political system of the early

Empire. As will be elaborated upon below, Pomponia's and

Domitilla's religious conversions were not a threat to the social and political order because of the existing understanding of gender within Roman culture and society.

This connection between gender and societal order is also why noblewomen far outnumbered noblemen among the converts to Christianity in the early centuries.

Battle of the Sexes: Gender and the Religio-Political System of Rome

The question of why women converted to Christianity in greater numbers than men in the early centuries was briefly explored in the first chapter. The conclusion, however, demonstrated that perhaps a more historically sound way to examine this phenomenon lies not in asking why noblewomen converted, but rather why did more noblemen not. Part of the reason why noblemen were more reluctant to convert to Christianity (at least publicly) is found in the relationship between politics, religion, and gender in Roman law and tradition. The trials of

Pomponia Graecina and Flavia Domitilla demonstrate the connection between gender and the religio-political nature of Roman law.

The trials of Pomponia Graecina and Flavia Domitilla were carried out in different ways - Pomponia in a family court, and Domitilla in front of the emperor. It is prudent to concentrate first on Domitilla's trial, for it reveals why Pomponia's unfolded the way it did a generation before. Flavia Domitilla was on trial for a capital crime. Roman law treated capital crimes as especially heinous because they could lead to the disruption of order and stability. The punishment of these capital crimes "was pursued in the interests of the community,"54 and the sentence was death. While exile could be voluntarily exercised by the accused to avoid this punishment, execution was still the most common end to those who threatened the stability and security of the

Roman state. In the case of Flavia Domitilla, she and her husband were both convicted of the same crime, yet

Clemens was executed, and Domitilla was involuntarily

54 Richard A. Bauman, Crime and Punishment in Ancient Rome (New York: Routledge, 1996), 2. For additional resources on the differentiation of crimes in Rome, see: J.A. Crook, Law and Life of Rome, 90 B.C. - A.D. 212 (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1967) . 69 exiled. Why were these two punished differently for the same crime?

In the first century, there were cases where women who participated in crimes alongside men were punished less severely than the men. This was not always the case, but it happened more than would be expected, and it certainly deserves more attention than it has previously been given. Examples of women involved in capital crimes include three women in the Conspiracy of Sejanus.55 Of those mentioned, six men were executed,56 one committed suicide,57 and the other survived the charges and lived.58

Two of the three women were executed,59 and the other committed suicide.60 The conspiracy against Caligula resulted in the execution of M. Aemilius Lepidus and his male co-conspirators and the exile of the emperor's sisters, Agrippina the Younger and Julia Livilla for

55 The main conspirators were: Sejanus himself, his wife (Apiacata) , his son and daughter, Livilla, Publius Vitellius, Pomponius Secundus, a poet, a historian, Carnulus, and Paconius. 56 Those executed are Sejanus, his son, the poet, the historian, Carnulus and Paconius. 57 Publius Vitellius. 58 Pomponius Secundus. 59 Sejanus' daughter, who was raped beforehand, since it was uncustomary to execute a virgin, and Livilla. Dio admits, however, that it is uncertain as to whether Livilla was executed or spared on account of her mother, Antonia, and then later starved to death by her mother (Cass. Dio, lviii.11.7). 60 Apiacata, Sejanus' wife, implicated Livilla before committing suicide herself. 70 their connection to Lepidus.61 The Pisonian Conspiracy against Nero led to the arrest of forty one, of whom four were women: Acilia, Caedicia, Claudia Antonia, and

Epicharis. Acilia was neither acquitted nor punished,62

Caedicia was exiled, and Claudia Antonia and Epicharis were both executed (although Antonia is said to have been executed for refusing to marry Nero) .63

What these crimes all share, in addition to having women highly involved in their implementation, is that they were all attempts to murder an emperor. These were crimes of treason {crimen maiestatis). The Roman concept of maiestas incorporated many more crimes than just those directed against the safety of the state.64 In the

61 Cass. Dio, lix.22. Agrippina and Livilla were also accused of many "impious and immoral actions" by Caligula to the Senate. 62 Tac, Ann. KV.11: "Acilia mater Annaei Lucani sine absolutione, sine supplicio dissmulata." 63 Suet., Afer. xxxv.4: "Antoniam Claudi filiam, recusantem post Poppaeae mortem nuptias suas, quasi molitricem novarum rerum interemit." Epicharis' death is of special mention, since she first endured incredible torture before taking her own life, rather than give up the names of her fellow conspirators (Tac, Ann. xv.57; Cass. Dio, lxii.27.3). 64 See: Richard A. Bauman, The Crimen Maiestatis in the Roman Republic and Augustan Principate (Johannesburg: Witwatersrand University Press, 1967). The crimes listed by Bauman include, in addition to conspiracy against the state and collusion with the enemy: "to lose a battle; to disregard the auspices; to ill-treat prisoners of war; to leave a province without authority; to use violence against a magistrate; to interrupt a tribune; to lay false claim to Roman citizenship; to visit a brothel in an official capacity; to hold court while intoxicated, or dressed in women's clothes; to incite civil commotion; to falsify public records; to examples cited here, these crimes threatened the safety of the state, because they placed the life of the emperor in jeopardy. In all these cases, save the conspiracy against Caligula,65 there appears to be no differentiation between men and women in their respective punishments.

This seems to be the situation in these crimes of treason, yet treason was not the only capital crime in

Rome.

In the case of Domitilla and Clemens, there was no murder conspiracy or political intrigue, yet their crimes still resulted in the highest form of punishment. Unlike the cases cited above, in addition to political and gender issues, this one involved religious questions that relate to the connections between gender and punishment in Roman legal practice. Ignoring the auspices was linked to the concept of atheism and was a capital crime.

When one was charged with a capital offense in the mid- to late-Republic, he or she had the opportunity to enter into exile voluntarily in order to avoid the death

publish defamatory pamphlets; and to commit adultery with the emperor's daughter" (viii). 65 Caligula's alleged incestuous relationship with his sisters may have played a part in his reluctance to have them executed (Cass. Dio lix.22) penalty.66 In exchange for retaining one's life, the accused lost his or her citizenship and any property left behind.67 Humanitas, a Roman concept which, when connected to ideas of punishment, can resemble modern notions ranging from chivalry to "civilized" punishment, may have played a part in encouraging an alternative to death as the penalty for capital crimes.68 This is not to say that the Roman state failed to execute its criminals.

As in the case of many other female criminals in Rome, however, Domitilla received a fate far less severe than the men involved in the same crime.69 Did Roman legal and religious practices encourage a strict dichotomy of punishment between men and women? And if so, how and when was this distinction applied?

Two theories can be deduced about why women sometimes suffered different punishments than men for the

66 Under the rule of L. Cornelius Sulla voluntary exile was officially guaranteed, according to the law. 67 For more on how exile worked within the Roman law, see: Mary V. Braginton, "Exile under the Roman Emperors," CJ 39, no. 7 (Apr. 1944); Crook, Law and Life of Rome, 90 B.C. - A.D. 212, 212-14; Bauman, The Crimen Maiestatis in the Roman Republic and Augustan Principate, 65-66; Bauman, Crime and Punishment in Ancient Rome, 13- 18. 68 Humanitas as an influential factor in encouraging exile over death is argued by Richard Bauman in his Crime and Punishment, esp. ch. 2. 69 Some examples include Fulvia and the men involved in the rebellion against Octavian; Julia the Elder and her lovers; Caligula's sisters, mentioned above. 73 same crime.70 First, one could speculate that the Romans used gendered ideas of punishment in order to strengthen a sense of gender difference within society, which they

saw as a continuation of what had always been done. Men were men, and women were women; different sexes, different roles, hence different punishments.71 Second, and connected to the first idea, a basic cultural understanding of gender and humanitas could be the answer. Perhaps a gentler form of punishment was deemed necessary for what Nature had failed to give the weaker sex {infirmitas sexus) .72 Both theories are compelling

70 Some general sources on Roman law are: Bauman, Crime and Punishment in Ancient Rome; W.W. Buckland, A Text-Book of Roman Law from Augustus to Justinian (London: Cambridge University Press, 1950); Crook, Law and Life of Rome, 90 B.C. - A.D. 212; J.A.C. Thomas, Textbook of Roman Law (Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing Company, 1976). 71 Although concerned with a different field and time period, Diana Paton suggests this idea in examining the difference in flogging for male and female slaves in Jamaica: Diana Paton, No Bond but the Law: Punishment, Race, and Gender in Jamaican State Formation, 1780-1870 (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2004). While colonial slavery of the 18th and 19th centuries is far removed from first-century Rome, it is not improbable to assume that the Romans, like any other people, wished to maintain a stable and orderly society through legal and cultural mores concerning gender identity and roles. 72 For more on the discussion of women viewed as weak or incompetent in Roman law, see: J.A. Crook, "Feminine Inadequacy and the Senatusconsultum Velleianum, " in The Family in Ancient Rome: New Perspectives, ed. Beryl Rawson (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1987); Crook, Law and Life of Rome, 90 B.C. - A.D. 212; Suzanne Dixon, "Infirmitas Sexus: Womanly Weakness in Roman Law," Tijdschrift voor Rechtsgeschiedenis 52, no. 4 (1984); Jane F. Gardner, Being a Roman Citizen (New York: Routledge, 1993); Gardner, "Gender-Role Assumptions in Roman Law," Classical Views 39, no. 3 (1995); John Nicols, "Patrona Duitatis: Gender and Civic Patronage," Studies in Latin Literature and Roman History, Collection Latomus 5 and provide logical assumptions for the differentiation in punishment for men and women. However, as blanket explanations, each requires multiple exceptions in order to adequately address many instances of the punishment of women in the early Roman Empire. The idea that Romans distinguished different punishments for each sex as a way to reinforce a sense of gender distinction within society is a conclusion that can be drawn from the Roman concept of moribus - custom. For Romans, custom was more than just traditional formality; it was equivalent to law.73 Therefore, the customs associated with gender distinction and place within Roman society were not merely traditions, but also legally binding social practices. Jane Gardner sees the customary roles of men and women in Roman society as consequences rather than causes of gender differentiation.74 Gardner argues that women were relegated to a different legal position because of their

(1989); P. van Warmelo, "Ignorantia Iuris," Tijdschrift voor rechtsgeschiedems 22 (1954); Marlene M. Wethmar-Lemmer, "The Legal Position of Roman Women: A Dissenting Perspective," Fundamma 12, no. 2 (2006). For an example from outside the ancient period, see: Marion A. Kaplan, Between Dignity and Despair: Jewish Life m Nazi Germany (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998). 73 Dig. 1.3.32. For more on the Roman concept of custom as it pertains to law, see: Gardner, Being a Roman Citizen, 88-89. 74 See: Gardner, "Gender-Role Assumptions in Roman Law." and Gardner, Being a Roman Citizen, ch. 4. physical weakness in comparison to men during a time early in Rome's history when families were forming and needed protection from other families or clans.75 Because of men's physical strength, they took on the role as paterfamilias and so it remained throughout the Kingdom,

Republic, and Empire of Rome. In other words, the Roman construction of the familia formed the basis of Roman legal and political customs and practice as they pertained to gender, and these practices and customs remained, even though much in society had changed from the time of the formation of the familia. The roots of gender differentiation demonstrate the Roman concept of mos maiorum, the "custom of the ancestors."

In the fourth century, Ambrose wrote, "A woman is not inferior in her own person. It is because of her condition, not her nature, that she is subjected to man and ordered to fear him."76 In explaining the Roman distinction between genders in politics, Fritz Schulz stated simply that women were excluded from affairs of state not because of a woman's inherent weakness, "but rather this tenet of old Roman custom: public life is

75 Gardner, Being a Roman Citizen, 108f. 76 Ambrose of Milan, Commentaria in epistolam ad Ephesios v.32 (PL xvii: 399). exclusively the business of the man."77 Women were excluded from positions of authority within the Roman religio-political system because, to the Romans, it was the way it had always been - it was a custom of the ancestors. Women and men were different; therefore,

Romans enforced what they saw as a historical practice of gender. Men and women were given different opportunities and responsibilities within Roman society, and were also treated differently when it came to the execution of justice, because it was how it had always been done.

A second theory on the Roman punishment of female criminals is a perceived notion of womanly weakness.78 If infirmitas sexus was an accepted legal or cultural construction concerning Roman women and their ability to participate in the public sphere, then this indeed may provide the most probable justification for Domitilla's exile, her husband's execution, and the treatment of

Pomponia Graecina a generation earlier. This theory is predicated on the assumption that the delineation of gender within Roman society is supported within the

77 Fritz Schulz, Classical Roman Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1951), 183. 78 For more on this, see: Dixon, "Infirmitas Sexus: Womanly Weakness in Roman Law"; Gardner, Being a Roman Citizen, ch. 4; van Warmelo, "Ignorantia Iuris." cultural and legal traditions by examples of female ignorance and/or weakness and its foundation within the natural design. A Roman concept of infirmitas sexus rests upon a culturally accepted limitation of the intrinsic nature of women, rather than upon an idea of mos maiorum.

The infirmitas sexus argument in Roman law has been examined by many historians, and a consensus on the proper use of the term in Roman society has for the most part been reached, although an agreement over its roots within Roman usage has not.79 Infirmitas sexus, and related ideas such as a woman's inexperience {imperitia) and her presumed ignorance of the law {ignorantia iuris),80 were Roman concepts tied mainly to a woman's physical weakness, not mental weakness. This is most clearly seen in the senatusconsultum Velleianum. The sc

Velleianum attempted to discourage women from acting as intercessors for others in court, or in simplest terms, assuming a debt on behalf of someone else. Ulpian quoted from the senatusconsultum which stated that legal action

79 Crook, "Feminine Inadequacy and the Senatusconsultum Velleianum"; Dixon, "Infirmitas Sexus: Womanly Weakness in Roman Law"; Gardner, "Gender-Role Assumptions in Roman Law." 80 Dixon, "Infirmitas Sexus: Womanly Weakness in Roman Law," 357. not be given against women in these cases because "it is not right that they discharge men's duties [virilibus officiis] and be bound by obligations of this kind."81 In the minds of the Roman jurists, the law "brought aid to women who, because of the weakness of their sex [sexus inbecillitatem], had been overcome and thwarted by many incidents of this sort."82 The law was intended to assist women, whom apparently Roman men viewed as weaker in comparison to themselves. This womanly weakness is more closely connected to ideas of physical weakness, rather than mental, since the jurists also clarified that "the weakness of women [infirmitas feminarum], not their cunning [calliditas] , deserved help"83 - demonstrating that they were fully aware that women had the mental capacity necessary to manipulate the law for a purpose not intended by the lawmakers. The sc Velleianum clearly defined an accepted public practice of women that was grounded in what Romans believed was a woman's naturally- given weakness in comparison to men.

81 Dig. xvi.l. 82 Dig. xvi.l. 2. 2. 83 Dig. xvi.l.2.3; Cod. lust, iv.29.5. Evans-Grubbs writes that between 212-294, there are twenty imperial rescripts (ten of which to women) clarifying the intent of the sc Velleianum: Judith Evans Grubbs, Women and the Law in the Roman Empire: A Sourcebook on Marriage, Divorce and Widowhood (London and New York: Routledge, 2002), 57. The foundational assumption of infirmitas sexus is that women were weaker than men. This argument proves unable to explain, however, women who certainly defied any conceptions of womanly weakness through their actions, and were recognized as such by the (male) Roman writers of their time. How does a cultural understanding of a weaker sex explain prominent women throughout Roman history who defied both Roman law and understandings of feminine frailty?84 Even in their explanation of the sc

Velleianum, the jurists acknowledged that women were fully capable of purposely misusing the laws intended for their protection.85 Much like the argument from custom, infirmitas sexus also fails to provide a blanket explanation for the differentiation in punishment between men and women in the Roman execution of justice, or even a specific justification in the case of Domitilla.

What might better address the exile of Domitilla, and by extension, the trial of Pomponia Graecina, is a closer examination of all the aspects of her case which make gender an especially important issue. At the heart of both Dio's and Eusebius' accounts about Domitilla lies

84 For example: Fulvia (c.83-40 BC); Livia (58 BC - AD 29); Agrippina the Younger (15-59); Epicharis (d.65). 85 Dig. xvi.1.2.3; Cod. lust, iv.29.5. 80 the issue of religion - an issue very relevant in the trial of Pomponia as well.

Roman women were not legally capable of holding and exercising officially sanctioned political power. Given this fact, could not the Romans have instituted a practice of different punishments based upon gender because the political system was in less danger of collapse from female crime than male crime? Since women could not hold political office, their actions could not destabilize the status quo.

Roman religion was an integral part of Roman culture, politics, and law.86 The rejection of Roman religion was only a problem when it interfered with public practice. For those in positions of political authority, the neglect of public duties, which were intrinsically tied to the state gods, was what could lead to punishment for atheism.87 Atheism was a serious charge, and not a catchword used merely to defame a political rival (although that does not mean it could not

86 Some recent publications on Roman religion are: James B. Rives, Religion in the Roman Empire (Maiden, MA: Blackwell Publishing, 2007); John Scheid, An Introduction to Roman Religion (Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 2003); Valerie M. Warrior, Roman Religion (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2006). 87 Adolf von Harnack, "Der Vorwurf des Atheismus in den drei ersten Jahrhunderten," TUGAL 28, no. 4 (1905): 11. be used as a political tool) . In the case of Flavius

Clemens and his wife, the charge of atheism inferred an incapability of properly ensuring and exercising the required religious roles of political figures. A political figure unable to carry out his religious obligations could bring divine punishment upon and instability within the Empire, hence the aforementioned reference to disregarding the auspices as a capital crime.88

The specific charge of "atheism" [dcGeoxriTOc;] in the trial of Clemens and Domitilla sheds light on the connection between it and the meting out of punishment in accordance with the relationship between gender and society in the early Empire. Roman conceptions of superstitio and atheism have garnered much attention by scholars attempting to ascertain how Romans indentified themselves within a religious milieu as well as contrary to those outside of it.89 In a general sense, the Roman

88 Bauman, The Crimen Maiestatis in the Roman Republic and Augustan Principate, viii. 89 See: Stephen Benko, "Pagan Criticism of Christianity During the First Two Centuries A.D.," ANRW 23, no. 2 (1980); Crake, "Early Christians and Roman Law"; G.E.M. De Ste. Croix, "Why Were the Early Christians Persecuted?" Past and Present 26 (Nov. 1963); Harnack, "Der Vorwurf des Atheismus in den drei ersten Jahrhunderten"; L.F. Janssen, "'Superstitio' and the Persecution of the Christians," Vig. Chr. 33, no. 2 (Jun. 1979); Dale B. Martin, Inventing Superstition: understanding of atheism meant a refusal to acknowledge the existence of the plurality of Roman gods and goddesses.90 As mentioned earlier, this charge was levied against both Christians and Jews on numerous occasions in the first three centuries. In the context of the first century, atheism was not the fundamental cause of hatred of the Christian sect by the pagan majority. There were numerous aspects of Christianity that pagans found particularly distasteful, among which were: "atheism, separateness, aggressive proselytizing and polemic, secrecy, Jewish origins, apocalyptic expectations, [and the] disruption of families."91 These numerous reasons that Romans singled out Christians and the lack of first- century sources which specifically attribute atheism as the cause of contention between Christians and Romans,92 complicate the connection between atheism and

From the Hippocratics to the Christians (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2004); William R. Schoedel, "Christian 'Atheism' and the Peace of the Roman Empire," Church History 42, no. 3 (Sep. 1973) ; A.N. Sherwin-White, "The Early Persecutions and Roman Law Again," JTS 3 (1952); Sherwin-White, "Why Were the Early Christians Persecuted? - an Amendment," Past and Present 27 (Apr. 1964); Joseph J. Walsh, "On Christian Atheism," Vig. Chr. 45, no. 3 (Sep. 1991); Robert Louis Wilken, The Christians as the Romans Saw Them, 2nd ed. (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2003). 90 A.B. Drachmann, Atheism in Pagan Antiquity (London & Copenhagen: Gyldendal, 1922). Drachmann bluntly declares on his first page that for those in antiquity, atheism was "the point of view which denies the existence of the ancient gods." 91 Walsh, "On Christian Atheism," 256. 92 Ibid. : 257. 83 Christianity in the example of Flavia Domitilla and her husband. 93

The importance of the charge of atheism is not because of its identification as Christianity or Judaism, but rather, the connection between the charge and the character and position of Flavius Clemens. Suetonius' account of Clemens' execution was placed within the context of his passionate criticism against the general unjust cruelty of Domitian:

Finally his [Domitian's] own cousin Flavius Clemens, who was a man of despicable laziness [contemptissimae inertiae] , whose sons, who were still very young, [Domitian] had openly named his successors, changing their former names and calling one Vespasian and the other one Domitian, suddenly on only a slim suspicion before the end of his consulship was done away with [by Domitian].94

Although brief, Suetonius' account supplements Dio's in ascertaining the motivation behind Domitian's attack against his cousins in 95. Suetonius' use of

"inertiae" to describe Clemens' character may indicate the underlying reasons why Clemens was executed for atheism, while his wife was only exiled - reasons connected more to political understandings of gender,

93 The same could be said of superstitio externa and Christianity against Pomponia Graecina. 94 Suet., Dom. xv. rather than to custom. It is likely that Suetonius failed to give the legal justification behind Clemens' execution because he was continuing his evidence of

Domitian's unjust and arbitrary cruelty,95 however,

Suetonius' careful vocabulary draws connections between gender and the religio-political system of Rome.

Translated strictly as "laziness," Clemens' inertiae would seem to indicate a lack of motivation not at all indicative of a threat to Domitian's claim of imperial authority. It is unlikely that a man bereft of any ambition would be such a threat to Domitian's reign to warrant execution. In this particular case, an insinuation that Clemens, as consul, had demonstrated a lackadaisical attitude in regard to his religio-political duties would certainly warrant the attention of the imperial government.96 Political life was the masculine life in Rome. Not only did politics serve as a connection to the expected gendered norms of Roman society, political life was also deeply connected to

95 For example: Suet., Dom., x; xii. 96 This definition is alluded to in Elmer Truesdell Merrill, Essays in Early Christian History (London: MacMillan and Co., Ltd., 1924), 149f., when he suggests "absence of interest in public affairs." For more on possible renditions of inertiae, see: Jeffers, "Social Foundations of Early Christianity at Rome: The Congregations Behind 1 Clement and the Shepherd of Hermas", 239-40. Rome's civil religious system and culture. While

Domitian may have at times appeared irrational and unjustly cruel in Suetonius' account, there are also examples of his adherence to and enforcement of religious obligations, which he seemed to have emphasized to a greater degree than some of his predecessors.

One obvious example, which stressed the gendered religious expectations of the early Empire, was

Domitian's enforcement of laws concerned with the Vestal virgins. Suetonius provided the example of Cornelia, a chief vestal who violated her vow of chastity, and whom

Domitian had buried alive, while her lovers were beaten to death with rods (save one ex-praetor).97 Domitian's care to "protect the gods from being dishonored"98 gives insight into why later, in 95, Flavius Clemens was executed for atheism. But if the crime of religious and political neglect warranted the execution of Clemens, why did Domitilla not share in her husband's fate?

If Flavia Domitilla, as wife of a consul, were

Christian or Jewish, her disconnect from the religious

97 Suet., Dom. viii.4. Suetonius explained that the ex-praetor was spared because he had confessed before the case was settled, and also because witnesses had failed to give any further information. 98 Suet., Dom. viii.5. and political segments of society would bring little disruption to Roman life. If, however, the consul himself were of a "foreign superstition" the connection between politics and religion in the Empire could be severely hampered. The discrepancy between the punishments of noblemen and -women could then be interpreted as perceived potential instability. As a woman, even a noblewoman, she had limited access to the public realm (and no recognized authority), so there was little need to worry about her impact upon the greater stability of the Empire. Romans may have understood that women remained outside the public sphere when it came to politics, and therefore interpreted their crimes as less destabilizing than a man's. However, in the cases of conspiracy, these crimes constituted a disregard of gendered boundaries by the attempt of a woman to usurp political authority by assuming the task of removing a man who exercised legitimate power. With this act, women then became just as threatening as their male comrades- in-arms. Even in the case of the Vestals, these women were anomalous in the sense that they were intimately connected to the religio-political system, and therefore very foreign to the Roman conception of feminine especially also in the sense that they voluntarily abrogated their responsibilities of marriage and childbirth, albeit only temporarily. In the case of

Domitilla, because a woman's religious duties were not intrinsically connected to her political life (since she had none), her beliefs could stray from the religio- political obligations of the state, and pose no real risk to stability. However, a consul's life was the state, and to unfasten himself from the religious segment, while clinging to the political, threatened an unraveling of the system that was deemed too important to ignore.

In a case where the consul wished to exercise religious beliefs inconsistent with his civic duty, he would have to be permanently removed from the scene, whereas his wife could simply be moved away from the center of political life - Rome. In this way too, humanitas would be retained, and any possible interference on her behalf would be squelched as she now resided outside the inner circles of Roman policy. Women like Domitilla lacked the opportunity to infect the religio-political system because they remained outside of it, whereas men in power, like Clemens, did not. This idea is seen in the imperial interpretation of the Julian treason law in 397, in which the practice of not

executing or disinheriting the daughters of traitors was

encouraged because "the sentence ought to be milder in

respect of those who, in view of the weakness of their

sex [infirmitate sexus], we are confident are less likely

to attempt anything."99 About this interpretation, Jane

Gardner remarked: "It is unclear whether the emperors

supposed women to be temperamentally too timid to attempt

rebellion, or simply presumed their lack of

opportunity."100 In the case of Domitilla, the latter

seems to be the case.

Flavia Domitilla's situation exposes how religion,

gender, and politics were inseparable facets of Roman

society. This interplay of Roman laws and customs

provides evidence of a gendered dichotomy of punishment

in regard to some capital crimes. The demonstration of

the gendered nature of the religio-political system does

not cover every case of capital punishment within the

early Empire, but as Domitilla's exile shows, there are multiple factors to consider in assessing Rome's

integration of gender difference in the execution of

Cod. lust, ix.8.5.3. Gardner, Being a Roman Citizen, 106f. justice. The religio-political system of Rome perpetuated an important and impenetrable gender divide within the public sphere. As the case of Domitilla illustrates, this divide prevented a woman's religious deviation from being any true threat to the stability of the Principate in the first century because it excluded women from the positions which would have allowed their misconduct to pose a risk to the societal order. This idea does not negate the concepts of moribus, humanitas or infirmitas sexus, but rather incorporates them in and with the important position of religion as it concerns both politics and gender differentiation within Rome.

This examination of the difference in punishment between Flavia Domitilla and Flavius Clemens informs an understanding of why Pomponia Graecina, who 38 years before Domitilla, found herself in front of a family court, rather than an imperial one. Tacitus used the phrase priscum institutum to describe the family trial which Pomponia Graecina endured.101 The use of "ancient custom" could imply that this private practice of a family trial was a relic of the past and falling out of

1 Tac, Ann. xiii.32. use as it came to be replaced by public trials.102 The resorting to this seemingly antiguated tradition to examine Pomponia's crime is telling in regard to how

Romans viewed the potential risk of her crime infecting the established order of things. While women were subject to the legal system just as men, many women continued to be under the potestas of their fathers, and the imperial government recognized, to a certain degree, the authority of the family in punishing criminal behavior.103 Criminal matters in which families could sometimes assume jurisdiction included religious concerns.104 The case of Pomponia Graecina and the action taken by the imperial government in relation to her crime give important clues about the connection of gender to the religio-political structure of first-century Roman society.

The suspicions about the religious convictions of

Pomponia Graecina seem not to have been threatening enough to warrant a bypassing of familial authority with

102 See: Anthony J. Marshall, "Roman Ladies on Trial: The Case of Maesia Sentinum," Phoenix 44, no. 1 (Spring 1990): 53-54. 103 See: Jane F. Gardner, Women in Roman Law and Society (Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana University Press, 1995 [Orig. 1986]), 6-7; Marshall, "Roman Ladies on Trial: The Case of Maesia Sentinum," 53. 104 Gardner, Women in Roman Law and Society, 6-7.: See especially footnote 6, in which Gardner explains examples which dealt specifically with religion and inter-familial problems. the intervention of the state-controlled administration of justice. Unlike in the trial of Flavia Domitilla,

Pomponia stood alone in judgment. No sources survive which either suggest or hint that her husband, Aulus

Plautius, was ever suspected of his wife's foreign superstition. Furthermore, and perhaps most importantly, by 57, Plautius had ceased to be at the center of Roman political life. It had been fourteen years since his conquest of Britain, and ten since his tenure as governor there had ended. This distance of Plautius from political life of Roman society, in addition to the absence of any suspicion of religious departure on his part, made Pomponia a non-entity in the eyes of Roman law and order. The Senate saw fit to refer Pomponia's trial to the jurisdiction of her family, because even if guilty, Pomponia's disconnect from Roman religious observance stood little chance of impacting the greater good of the community and the stability attained by the fusion of the religious and political systems.

Pomponia's trial was an affirmation and reinforcement of the distinction of gender within Roman society - women who violated the law, yet did not transcend their gendered sphere, were a problem too removed from the religio-political system to pose a threat to order.

Pomponia's trial by her family was more than just

Rome's way of demonstrating the historical prestige of familial authority. Much like how virginity was an enforcement of gender expectations within the Christian community, the family trial was Rome's way of enforcing the understanding of how women could and should remain outside the religio-political sphere of imperial culture, yet were still obligated to operate within the boundaries established by both culture and law. The trial enforced what Rome had consistently asserted: the religio- political life of Roman society was a distinctly masculine endeavor. Masculinity and femininity in the eyes of the Romans were mutually exclusive. A woman, who according to her biology was expected to be feminine, could not assume the qualities of masculinity without upsetting the balance of nature. In order to carry out masculine duties, the woman could no longer be considered a woman by society. If this were to happen, as in the case of those women who participated in capital crimes which could upset the stability of the Empire, the balance would need to be restored and the women responsible properly condemned for acting outside the limits of their gendered sphere.105

Separate but Not Equal: Conclusions

The trials of both Pomponia and Domitilla demonstrate that women were able to deviate from the religious realm of the state more easily than men because their lives were not intertwined within the political system, which was inseparable from religion in the ancient Roman world. Failure to fully uphold one's civic religious duty was more flexible in the case of women because their actions could not immediately impact the political stability of the Empire in the same way that the actions of men could, since women were not part of official political authority. The one exception which proves the rule is the Vestals.106 The Vestals were much entwined within the religio-political system of Rome, and because so, they were aberrations of the feminine. In contrast to social convention and expectation, they refused to marry or bear children until after the age of

105 This idea is further explored in the next chapter. 106 See chapter one for an examination of the Vestals as outside the masculine and feminine of Roman society. thirty. They stood as examples of the abnormal in order to enforce what was expected and not expected of women in general society. It could be said that in practice,

Vestals were held to the standards of what was expected of the masculine sphere in order to enforce what was expected of the feminine.

The times during which Pomponia Graecina and Flavia

Domitilla lived were periods of political stability.

During times of stability the status quo of gender relations remained in force and the likelihood that women could push the boundaries proved minimal. In times of instability, however, women could sometimes assume a greater role within the masculine-dominated spheres of religion and politics. When this happened, even when women remained within their gendered spheres, the ancient writers were quick to demonstrate the dangerous precedent these women had set in regard to the balance of nature.

As will be further demonstrated in the next chapter, stability, or the threat of its undoing, was a powerful impetus in enforcing or countermanding the understood roles of each gender within Greco-Roman society. Gender permeated all aspects of Roman life, and Christian women connected to men of power and authority found that they 95 could use this gendered system to the advantage of the

Christian community. CHAPTER III

"UNSEX ME"1 Gendered Crisis: Poppaea, Marcia, & Julia Mamaea

Man is the Head, but Woman is the Neck: Introductions

What did it mean for a man to act as a man, and a woman to act as a woman in the early Roman Empire? What attributes were distinctively masculine and therefore expected of a man and what were feminine and expected of a woman? Romans knew that what made men, men and women, women was their biology, but what determined who acted as a man or a woman was expected was on account of gender.

This understanding of gender was reinforced or stigmatized by what was already a biological fact.

During the first three centuries, the interaction between

Taken from Lady Macbeth's famous passage in William Shakespeare's "Macbeth", Act I, Scene 5, in which she attempts to put aside her femininity so that she can commit violent acts typically associated with masculine behavior: "Come, you spirits; That tend on mortal thoughts, unsex me here, And fill me from the crown to the toe top­ full Of direst cruelty! make thick my blood; Stop up the access and passage to remorse, That no compunctious visitings of nature Shake my fell purpose, nor keep peace between The effect and it! Come to my woman's breasts, And take my milk for gall, you murd'ring ministers, Wherever in your sightless substances You wait on nature's mischief! Come, thick night, And pall thee in the dunnest smoke of hell, That my keen knife see not the wound it makes, Nor heaven peep through the blanket of the dark, To cry 'Hold, hold!'" 96 Christianity and the imperial government evolved.

Poppaea Sabina, Marcia, and Julia Mamaea each took advantage of her unique position of power in order to impact the course of the evolving relationship between the imperial government and the Christian movement.

The daughter of Titus Ollius,2 Poppaea Sabina was not from humble origins. Through her influence, beauty, and intrigue, Poppaea married and divorced important

Roman noblemen until she married Emperor Nero in 62. 3

The depictions of Poppaea paint a mixed picture of her character, yet they all agree on her physical beauty and

Nero's passion for her. Accounts of her character shed light not only on how or why she influenced the most powerful man in the Empire, but also demonstrate conceptions of gender within first-century Roman society and how those conceptions could be used as a tool of propaganda by the ancient historians as well as those vying for political power.

Poppaea met an early death. The sources on her death agree that, whether intentional or not, the cause

2 Tactius explains that Poppaea took her name from her maternal grandfather, Poppaeus Sabinus, rather than her father, because of her grandfather's illustrious reputation and also on account of her father's friendship with Sejanus. Tac, Ann. xiii.45. 3 Although she was his mistress beginning around 58. was that Nero kicked Poppaea while she was pregnant.4

While accounts of the death of Poppaea are consistent, there was debate over Nero's intentions among the ancient historians, and there continues to be debate today.5 The slightly varied accounts of Poppaea's death are important because they demonstrate the ancient historians' use of gender as a normative tool for elite society.

Poppaea Sabina may seem out of place for this study, for she was not a Christian, nor did she seem to show any favor to the Christian movement (quite the opposite, actually). However, the purpose of this inquiry is the examination of gender and Christianity upon imperial policy toward the Christian movement. Poppaea, while not a Christian herself, may have influenced imperial policy toward the Christians more than any Christian woman in the first two centuries. The descriptions of Poppaea within the ancient sources reveal a woman who was independent yet dominant over Nero. Poppaea's character and power within the imperial government vis-a-vis her husband allows some conclusions to be drawn about her

4 Cass. Dio lxxii.28.1; Suet., Ner. xxxv.3; Tac, Ann. xvi. 6. 5 See: Roland Mayer, "What Caused Poppaea's Death," Historia 31, no. 2 (1982); Walter Ameling, "Tyrannen und Schwangere Frauen," Historia 35, no. 4 (1986). influence over Nero's policies concerning both Christians and Jews. Poppaea's relationship to the emperor provides an interesting antithesis to Marcia, a second-century woman who wielded power in a similar fashion, yet in a very different direction.

Not much is known of Marcia but that she was a freedwoman,6 and therefore of a different class entirely from Poppaea Sabina and Julia Mamaea. Eusebius mentioned in his early fourth-century History that during the reign of Emperor Commodus (r. 180 - 192), whole households of wealthy and influential Romans had converted to

Christianity.7 There is little evidence that any of the prominent Christians to whom Eusebius referred had the ear of the emperor or the wherewithal to intervene on behalf of the Church in imperial policy. Nevertheless, there was one woman whose proximity to Commodus allowed her the freedom to exert influence for the purpose of protecting the Christian community in Rome. Marcia

6 Marcia's status as a freedwoman is taken from her name (Marcia Aurelia Ceionia Demetriade) as well as the reference in the Epit. de Caes. xvii.5 which refers to her as generis libertini. See also the footnote of C.R. Whittaker in the Loeb Classical Library for Herodian, i.16. 7 Euseb., Hist. eccl. v.21. 100 became the concubine of Commodus sometime around 182,8 after the execution of her previous lover, Quadratus, and

then later her husband, Eclectus, a servant of the

emperor.9 With Marcia as the emperor's concubine, the

Christians in Rome reaped the benefits of having an ally

inside the walls of Babylon's fortress. As will be

demonstrated in further detail below, Rome's eventual

political instability under Commodus opened the way for

Marcia to move beyond the political and gendered

boundaries of Roman culture and exert her influence in a

variety of imperial matters - including the eventual

assassination of the emperor.

Daughter of Julia Maesa and Julius Avitus, sister of

Julia Soaemias, and niece of Emperor Septimius Severus

and Julia Domna, Julia Avita Mamaea was no stranger to

the intricacies of imperial life.10 Forming a virtual

This date is taken from Earnest Cary, the Loeb translator of Cassius Dio (lxxiii.4.6-7). 9 Cass. Dio, lxxiii.4.6-7. Marcia may have actually been Commodus' concubine before the execution of her husband (6 \ikv ml xov Ko^H-OSou npoKouoq, n 8e 71OCM.(XKTI eyeveto Kod xov EKXEKTO\) ^.exa xama yv\r\.) . This violated the custom and law, however, this usually did not stop most emperors from proceeding with their intended plans. For a brief examination of the intersection between law and social status, see: Peter Garnsey, Social Status and Legal Privilege in the Roman Empire (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1970). In addition, this emphasis on Commodus' scoffing of legal custom and tradition is no doubt part of the literary narrative on his unmanliness and inadequacy as a ruler (see my discussion on this below). 10 Cass. Dio lxxix.30.2-4. 101 triumvirate of power behind the throne, Julia Mamaea, her

sister Soaemias, and her mother Maesa, controlled the

throne of the Empire from 218 to 235 and embodied to the

fullest extent the idea of a ruling Roman empress. The

Severan women demonstrated the ultimate exercise of

gendered power during a time of crisis. Exerting their

influence under the emasculated emperor Elagabalus and

then the young Alexander Severus, the Severan women

enjoyed virtual autonomy of rule behind the robes of

their imperial male relatives. In the end, Julia Mamaea

met an untimely death, when, as the ancients record, her

abandonment of traditional femininity proved too much for

the soldiers to accept, and she and her son, Alexander,

were murdered in their tent in 235.

Much like Poppaea Sabina, Julia Mamaea may seem out

of place for this study, for no reliable sources indicate

she held a preference for Christianity. However,

Eusebius refers to her as a religious woman (Geoaepeaxatri yuvri) and mentions a meeting she called between herself

and the renowned Christian scholar, Origen.11 Paulus

Orosius claims she was indeed a Christian, but he is a

11 Euseb., Hist, eccl. vi.21; Jer., De vir. ill. liv. 102 late source, and he mentions it only in passing.12 As will be examined further, Mamaea's own personal beliefs are but a fraction of the evidence demonstrating a relationship between the imperial government and the state of the Church in the early third century.

Poppaea, Marcia and Mamaea demonstrate the ability of women to exert their influence for the purpose of protecting religious groups. Looking back on these women, Roman writers interpreted the actions of all three through the lens of gender. They described these women in similar fashion because they demonstrated the extent to which women could bend their culturally-constructed gendered sphere, while remaining within it. The understanding of how these women did what they did begins with recognizing the precise relationship each of these women had with her respective emperor. For Poppaea and

Marcia, the relationship was sexual, and they dealt with their lovers on a somewhat equal footing in relation to age and perceived abilities. Julia Mamaea, however, wielded her power over her young son, who, historians insinuate, treaded a thin line between masculine and feminine - a line which became more delineated as he

12 Orosius, Historiae adversum paganos vii.18. 103 matured. While Poppaea and Marcia extended their influence through the legitimate authority of their lovers, Julia Mamaea, and the Severan women ruled directly through the guise of the legitimate masculine authority of their sons, and because of this, a brief examination of the relationship between Poppaea and Nero, and Marcia and Commodus must be done separately from examining Mamaea's relationship with Alexander.

Mistresses and Concubines and Wives, Oh My!: Defining Terms of Relationships

The precise relationship of Poppaea Sabina and

Marcia to their respective emperors had important implications regarding their abilities to influence imperial policies regarding the Christian movement.

Through these two women, one encounters the Roman concepts of mistress, concubine, and wife. In the Roman legal system, concubinage (concubina) was recognized as a position virtually analogous to that of a legal wife13 while a mistress, in a strict sense meaning a woman with

13 Beryl Rawson, "Roman Concubinage and Other De Facto Marriages," TAPA 104 (1974): 288. 104 whom a man could have sexual relations while also married to another woman, was neither legal nor honorable.14

When Nero met Poppaea Sabina, she was still married to Rufrius Crispinus, an equestrian who commanded the

Praetorian Guard under Emperor Claudius, or to M. Salvius

Otho - the stories differ in the sources. Despite the fact that Poppaea was married, Nero became completely enamored with her.15 Nero, however, would not marry

Poppaea because he was married to Claudia Octavia16 and his mother Agrippina the Younger was against a divorce as well as the ascendancy of Poppaea to empress.17 It was not long though, before Poppaea became the mistress of

Nero and then his wife shortly after his divorce from

Octavia.

There were two competing stories for how Poppaea and Nero became eventual husband and wife. The first story, supported by Dio, Plutarch, Suetonius, and Tactius (in the Histories), related that the affair between Nero and

14 Some examples of the Latin used for these women would be scortum or paelex - both of which could be translated as harlot or prostitute. For a brief survey on the Roman understanding of mistress and concubine, see: J.A. Crook, Law and Life of Rome, 90 B.C. - A.D. 212 (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1967), esp. ch. 4; Rawson, "Roman Concubinage and Other De Facto Marriages." 15 Plut., Galb. xix.2. 16 Daughter of Emperor Claudius and step-sister to Nero. 17 Plut., Galb. xix.2. 105 Poppaea began early, and after her divorce from Rufrius

Crispinus, she married Otho as a cover for her relationship with the emperor.18 In the other version,

Otho had been married to Poppaea first, and his boasting over her beauty and charms aroused the interest of the emperor, who then relocated Otho to be governor of

Lusitania.19 Regardless of the competing versions, the basic framework is consistent in them all: Poppaea's relationship to Nero was first as an adulterous mistress, and then as wife, twelve days after Nero's divorce from the empress Octavia.20

The shift from mistress to wife requires particular attention in this case, especially to the terminology used by the ancient historians for Poppaea's role as mistress.21 Describing the events after Poppaea's marriage to Nero, the sources are consistent in their account of Poppaea as wife of the emperor. In her time as mistress, however, the vocabulary varies. The terms used by Tacitus and Suetonius provide valuable information on the intentions of the two historians and

18 Cass. Dio lxi.ll; Plut., Galb. xix.2,4; Suetonius, Otho iii.1-2; Tac, Hist. i.13. 19 Tac, Ann. xiii.46. 20 Suet., Wer. xxxv.4. 21 See chapter one for information on the concept of marriage within Roman society. 106 their estimation of Poppaea's character. In his account,

Suetonius uses the Latin amicam,22 which is easily interpreted as "mistress" in this context. Tacitus, however, uses principale scortum,23 most directly translated as "chief harlot."

The difference in their terms may be connected to the difference in the intended purpose of the two authors.24 Suetonius' purpose of mentioning Poppaea's relationship to Nero before their marriage seems to be purely informational. His use of "mistress" simply emphasizes the seguence of events and places the murder of Nero's mother into in the timeline in regard to the goings-on of Poppaea and Otho. Tacitus' purpose, on the other hand, may have been to demonstrate his distaste for

Nero, Otho, and Poppaea, all of whom he described as immoral, tyrannical, and conducting themselves in ways inconsistent with their gendered boundaries. Tacitus may have used a more derogatory term for Poppaea in order to interpret the fall of the Julio-Claudian dynasty in line

22 Suet., Otho iii. 1. 23 Tac, Hist. i.13. 24 Cass. Dio lxii.13.1 is the only other source which mentions Poppaea's status as mistress, but the term used, 7taXA,aKeux, is used for a variety of relational terms, and is dependent upon its context. For example, see its use with Marcia immediately following. 107 with his beliefs concerning the proper exercise of masculine and feminine power.25 For Tacitus, the balance of gender was foundational to a stable and productive society, and the confusion of gender roles was indicative of a rule in conflict with nature.

Marcia's official relationship to Emperor Commodus was that of concubine. There are five sources that mention Marcia as a concubine of Commodus. Four of these sources are in Greek26 and one is in Latin.27 The term concubina is used in the Latin source for Marcia's relationship to Commodus, and the Greek equivalent of

KaXkaKExa is used by the other four sources.

This distinction of Marcia's relationship to

Commodus is important. Marcia's legal status as a concubine enabled her to conduct her business more surreptitiously than if she were a legal wife and therefore empress. While a public figure, and one who had the power and opportunity to influence the emperor,

Marcia was still only a freedwoman. Because of her social status, Marcia was not capable of exercising

25 Francesca Santoro L'Hoir, "Tacitus and Women's Usurpation of Power," CW 88, no. 1 (Sep.-Oct. 1994). 26 Cass. Dio, lxxiii.4.7; Hdn. i.16.4; Hippol., Haer. ix.12.10; Zos., Historia Nova i.7. 27 SHA Comm. xi.9, xvii.1-2. 108 authority that was accepted or even seen as threatening by the ruling elite. While some historians28 viewed her influence over Commodus as disruptive or inappropriate, others viewed her as the sober-minded influence against

Commodus' more disturbing behavior.29 In short, Marcia was seen as an insignificant sexual partner of Commodus with no ability to personally disrupt state business to any great degree.

Marcia was able to conduct herself as an empress whenever she was in the presence of the emperor. At the same time, she was freed from some of the constraints intrinsic to societal expectations of noblewomen. For instance, Herodian remarked that Marcia "was treated just like a legal wife with all the honors due to an empress apart from the sacred fire."30 Marcia's lower social standing, gender, and legal status placed her on the margins of a society which distinguished ability and role according to these criteria. Because of this, Marcia was able to create her own sphere - a socially-recognized limitation which regulated her existence in society. The uniqueness of Marcia's position afforded her the

28 SHA, Comm. viii.7, xi.9; Epit. de Caes. xvii.5. 29 Hdn. i.16.4; i.17.5. 30 Hdn. i.16.4. 109 opportunity to pursue a more involved role in the Roman

Christian community as well as a more personal relationship with the Bishop of Rome. More importantly, in her position, she was able to operate according to the recognized gender customs of her day and at the same time stretch them to suit purposes deemed outside the purview of feminine power.

The relationships of Poppaea and Marcia to their respective emperors are important for two specific reasons. First, the language the ancient historians used to explain the connections of these women to their emperors was heavily steeped in conceptions of gender.

Second, the relationships between Poppaea and Marcia and their emperors reveal that neither their sex nor gender truly stood in the way of influencing the course of the imperial policies. Ability to exert authority was connected to the male sex, but the exertion of power, while shrouded in masculine terminology, was not. 110 The Son of Mamaea: Gendered Language in the Relationship between Alexander and Julia Mamaea

The relationship between the emperor Alexander

Severus and his mother Julia Mamaea deserves special attention. Julia Mamaea had engineered Alexander's appointment as Caesar under his cousin Elagabalus, and with the help of her mother, Julia Maesa, eventually the throne itself in the assassination of the emperor and his mother. Herodian presented Julia Mamaea's role in her son's reign as the natural triumph of the masculine over the feminine.31 Alexander and his mother together embodied the masculine, while Elagabalus assumed the role of femininity. This picture, however, dissolved shortly into Alexander's reign as the now feminine Mamaea attempted to overcome the now fully masculine Alexander.

Because Alexander was only thirteen when he assumed the throne in 218, his mother and grandmother maintained control over the affairs of state through the guise of legitimate authority of Alexander and his imperial advisors. After the death of Julia Maesa in 226, Julia

Mamaea continued on her own to dominate Alexander and the

31 Hdn. v.7.1-6. Ill governance of the Empire. Sources, such as the Historia

Augusta, diminish Alexander's status in relation to his mother's authority by referring to him as Alexander

Mamaeae32 - "Mamaea's Alexander."33 This "son of Mamaea" title was by no means official, but it demonstrates the subjection of Alexander to his mother's power.

Early in Alexander's reign, the role of Julia Mamaea was one of protector34 and the insurer of his ascendancy into manhood.35 The historians portrayed the idea of women running the affairs of state through Alexander as a positive change from reign of Elagabalus, and a return to

"moderate dignified government."36 In the accounts of

Elagabalus, his character as emperor was defined by an aversion to the vita militaris, and a rejection of all modesty. Elagabalus' complete disregard for the public expectation of a masculine emperor encouraged a reassertion of masculinity upon the throne, which in this case only came in the person of a boy under the influence of his mother and grandmother.

32 SHA, Alex. Sev. iii.l; v.2; SHA, Aurel. xlii.4; SHA, Car. iii.4. 33 Literally translated as "Mamaea's Alexander," it is commonly translated as "son of Mamaea" as it would be translated in common usage when the son is connected to his father's name for the purpose of identification. 34 Hdn. v.2-3. 35 Cass. Dio lxxx; Hdn. v.7.1-6. 36 Hdn. vi.1.1. 112 As Alexander matured, his duties became more in tune with the traditional expectations of a masculine Roman emperor. In 230, the Roman Empire was invaded by

Artaxerxes, King of the Persians.37 At this point in time when Alexander's masculine traits should have been most obvious - a time of war - the domination of Mamaea over her son took on a negative connotation in the sources.

Because of his education and upbringing, Alexander may have been able to position himself as an effective Roman general in the face of overwhelming enemies.38 However,

Herodian painted Alexander as an emperor "completely dominated"39 by his mother during the time Rome needed an emperor-general. Herodian explained that the army recognized the problems associated with having so strong a feminine influence over the first man, and so they sought to remove Alexander from authority and replace him with one of their own.40

The depiction of Mamaea's domination over Alexander by the Roman historians represents more than simple misogyny. They attributed the failure of Alexander's

37 Hdn. vi.2.1. 38 By 235, the Roman Empire had also been invaded by Germanic tribes in the north. 39 Hdn. vi.1.10. 40 Hdn. vi.8.3. 113 reign to Mamaea's femininity. The war with the Persians was not a complete Roman victory,41 even though the Roman army had been successful in halting the bulk of the

Persian incursion.42 Herodian's account demonstrates the uneasiness with which Romans accepted Mamaea's domination over her son. In his recounting of the Persian war,

Herodian relayed a story of how Alexander abandoned a complete victory by failing to send in his army when it was most opportune to do so.43 Herodian gives two possible reasons for this, although both reasons are connected to the idea of Alexander's lack masculinity:

But Alexander caused them to fall by not leading the army to invade, whether through fear, in order not to risk his life and limb for the Roman Empire, or his mother may have stopped him because of her womanly cowardice and excessive love for her son. She used to blunt his efforts to act bravely [dv8peiav]44, convincing him it was other people's job to risk their lives for him, and not his to get involved in the battle. It was this which destroyed the Roman army.45

41 SHA, Alex. Sev. lv-lvii; Aur. Vic, Caes. xxiv.2; and Eutr., Breviarium viii.23 all describe the war as a complete Roman victory, however, archeology and Herodian's account demonstrate that while not unsuccessful, Alexander's war was not a stunning victory. 42 Hdn. vi.6.6. 43 Hdn. vi.5.8. 44 A term which refers explicitly to a man. See pp. 118ff for an examination of this term. 45 Hdn. vi.5.8-9. 114 This summation of Mamaea's influence over Alexander is starkly different from how she was portrayed earlier in

Herodian's account as the purveyor of all things required for a proper masculine education.46

It was during this war that, in the accounts of the

Roman historians, Mamaea's influence ceased to be beneficial to Alexander's reign. Although the emperor had now reached an age when he should be running his own affairs, he was "[c]ompletely dominated by his mother,

[and] he did exactly as he was told."47 Even after his childhood, the sources emphasize that in all things,

Mamaea directed Alexander's decisions, and he was either unable or unwilling to assert his own masculinity over and against his mother's influence.48

In 234, Alexander mounted an expedition against the

Germanic tribes. The historians remark that although the war was an opportune time for Alexander to demonstrate the vita militaris, he instead continued to do

"everything in accordance with his mother's advice."49

Her advice was "to abandon the war against the Germans

46 Hdn. v.7.1-6. See below for more on Alexander's education in "manly exercises." 47 Hdn. vi.1.10. 48 Hdn. vi.1.8-10; vi.5.8-9; SHA, Alex. Sev. xiv.7; lx.1-2. 49 SHA, Alex. Sev. IK.2. 115 and return to the East in order to display her power there."50 The emphasis on Mamaea's desire to display her power is connected to the traditional notions of femininity and its "inherent greed."51 In the end, the army grew tired of Mamaea's influence and finally killed both Alexander and his mother.52 The ultimate summation of the reign of Alexander and his mother was succinctly given by Herodian:

So such an end took Alexander (and his mother) , after ruling fourteen years, which according to those he ruled, was blameless and without bloodshed. For murder and unjust cruelty were not part of his being, his inclination was toward humane and kind behavior. Indeed, Alexander's reign would have been completely successful, but for the blame brought on himself through his mother's love of money and her pettiness.53

The verdict was clear: Alexander's ruinous reign was not on account of himself, but rather of his mother.54

Historians like Herodian and Aurelius Victor saw

Alexander's own masculinity as unable to overcome the power Mamaea wielded over him. Because of his failure to fully assert his own authority as first man, Alexander

50 SHA, Alex. Sev. lxiii.5. 51 Hdn. vi.1.8; S52 Hdn. vi.8.3; SHA Alex. Sev. lxiii.5-6. 52 Hdn. vi.8.3; SHA Alex. Sev. lxiii.5-6. 53 Hdn. vi.9.8. 54 See also SHA, Alex. Sev. lix.8; Aur. Vict., Caes. xxiv. 116 joined the ranks of feminized emperors like Nero,

Commodus, and Elagabalus. The proper distinction between what was appropriately masculine or feminine is demonstrated in how men like Alexander, who for all intents and purposes was generally regarded as a masculine ruler, came to be despised as feminine because of his inability to remove himself from under the influence of his mother's feminine power.

Gender is in the Eye of the Beholder: The Gendered Nature of Power & Authority in Historical Accounts of the Early Empire

The well-known influence that Poppaea wielded over

Nero forced ancient historians to mention her in their accounts of him. Poppaea's seeming lack of respect for the gendered boundaries encouraged men like Tacitus to comment on her actions through language that was heavily laden with gender.

Tacitus' language in reference to Poppaea emphasized the distinction of gender in one's abilities and acceptable behavior. In Tacitus' account, Poppaea conducted herself in a manner contrary to her gender.

Nero, as emperor, held the highest and most masculine 117 position in the Empire. In the ideal of Augustus, each emperor was the patron, protector, and father of all

Romans. The imperial office was in name and essence, the position of the first man {princeps), the one to whom all men looked for an exemplar of masculinity. In the case of Nero, however, he was dominated first by his mother, and then his wife55 - his unwillingness to overcome their power combined with his debaucherous lifestyle was proof of his diminished masculinity.56

Tacitus' account of Nero and Poppaea may also be more than just a summation of disrupted gender roles. In addition to portraying Poppaea as a woman "possessed of all qualities but character, "57 and one who used her charms and beauty to attract the eye of the emperor so as to "establish her ascendancy,"58 Tacitus characterized

Nero as a great tyrant. Tacitus' emphasis on Poppaea's domineering nature and Nero's utter disregard for self- control and good governance may have been in order to cast Nero (and even Poppaea) in the light of a tyrant par

55 Examples of Agrippina's domination over Nero: Dio lxi.3-7; Tac, Ann. xiii.14. Examples of Poppaea's dominance: Tac, Ann. xiv.60- 61, 63-65; xv.61. 56 As will be elaborated upon further below, Tacitus held that a man under the power of a woman was devoid of any masculinity. L'Hoir, "Tacitus and Women's Usurpation of Power," 8. 57 Tac, Ann. xiii.45. 58 Tac, Ann. xiii.46. 118 excellence. The similarities between Nero and Greek tyrants of old are greater than seems historically reasonable.59 Perhaps Tacitus' emphasis on Poppaea's usurpation of power and Nero's misuse of authority are meant to serve as a commentary on proper gender distinctions. The confusion of gender roles are connected to the tyranny of Nero.

In the next century, the ancient historians penned

Commodus as Nero's moral heir. Zosimus mentioned Marcia briefly in his account of Commodus' reign and death:

"Then Commodus the son of Marcus, who was addicted not only to tyranny but also unnatural activities, assumed power. After he had been murdered by his concubine

Marcia, who had taken on a manly [dcvSpeia] mindset,

Pertinax was chosen to rule."60 In this passage, Zosimus subtly conveyed what he saw as the unnaturalness of

Marcia's actions within the predominantly Greek culture of the Eastern Empire. In its simplest definition, av8pela means manliness or courage (specifically a manly- courage) . In fact, in both the Greek and the Latin, the

59 For a brief study on the correlations between the tyrant Periander and Nero in regard to lifestyle and the death of their wives, see: Mayer, "What Caused Poppaea's Death." 60 Zos., Historia Nova i.7. 119 terms for courage contain the root of "man" itself: av8peioc (avip/av8p-) in Greek and virtus {vir) in Latin. In other words, to exhibit courage was by definition to exhibit qualities belonging to a man.61

The cultural understanding of courage in its

Hellenic context comes mainly from the teachings of Plato and Aristotle. Aristotelian categorization of terms drove the understanding of what dv5peioc was and to whom the term could be attributed. This manly courage was a virtue which could belong only to men. Women and slaves were excluded from the virtue of otv8peia,62 for while they did have human virtue, it was distinct from the virtue of free men, because theirs was to function in the role of obedience rather than as ruler.63 Because the feminine form of the virtue was "without authority" (aKupog),64

61 For a recent look at the complexity of the use of "manliness" in ancient literature, see: Ralph M. Rosen and Ineke Sluiter, eds., Andreia: Studies in Manliness and Courage in Classical Antiquity (Leiden & Boston: Brill, 2003) ; Angela Hobbs, Plato and the Hero: Courage, Manliness and the Impersonal Good (Cambridge & New York: Cambridge University Press, 2000); Harvey C. Mansfield, Manliness (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2006); Walter T. Schmid, On Manly Courage: A Study of Plato's Laches (Carbondale & Edwardsville, IL: Southern Illinois University Press, 1992). 62 Marguerite Deslauriers, "Aristotle on Andreia, Divine and Sub- Human Virtues," in Andreia: Studies in Manliness and Courage in Classical Antiquity, ed. Ralph M. Rosen and Ineke Sluiter (Leiden & Boston: Brill, 2003), 187. 63 Ibid., 195. 64 Arist., Pol. i.l3.1260a20-24. 120 women could not properly display the virtue of manly courage.

Similarly, there were instances when ruling men failed to live up to their culturally-understood role of masculinity.65 The descriptions of Commodus' character and actions in nearly all the sources judge Commodus to be wholly ineffective as emperor because of his debaucherous and unmanly lifestyle. The Historia Augusta described Commodus as "base, shameless, cruel, and lustful" even from his earliest years.66 In addition,

Commodus' sexual lifestyle was also disdained by his biographers. He is described as being "defiled of mouth... and debauched"67 - an allusion not only to his specific sexual acts, but also his homosexuality (or more specifically, his acts of fellatio),68 on which the

65 For a brief examination of what Roman nobility understood as masculine aristocratic behavior, see: Maud W. Gleason, "Elite Male Identity in the Roman Empire," in Life, Death, and Entertainment in the Roman Empire, ed. D.S. Potter and D.J. Mattingly (Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press, 1999). 66 SHA, Comm. i.7. 67 SHA, Comm. i.7. Mathew Kuefler translates this passage as "orally polluted and anally defiled" in order to better convey the impression of homosexual acts within the original Latin. See: Mathew Kuefler, The Manly Eunuch: Masculinity, Gender Ambiguity, and Christian Ideology in Late Antiquity (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 2001), 29. 68 The sources mention or allude to both fellatio and pederasty; both of these acts are connected to issues of virility, because the descriptions of Commodus' pederasty within the Historia Augusta imply that he is not the dominant male, but rather the passive 121 Historia Augusta comments in further detail.69 An accusation of fellatio, such as was also made against the emperors Nero70 and Elagabalus,71 was dependent upon the cultural understanding of virility and its connection to true manliness. For Romans, virility was the ultimate expression of masculinity. In the sexual act, men were expected to be the beneficiaries of pleasure (the virile - rooted in the Latin vir), while the partner was the servile instrument of that pleasure (rooted in the Latin servilis or servus - of a slave) . The partner that a Roman male chose for sex was, for the most part, inconsequential, so long as the citizen male was not the passive agent of another's pleasure.72 This understanding of virility within the framework of socially accepted masculine and feminine behavior is key for understanding the overly sexual illustrations of Nero, Commodus and Elagabalus' inability to govern. Nero and Commodus' eagerness to engage in behavior unbefitting of a male

(feminine) partner. See Kuefler's argument in relation to Elagabalus: Ibid., 88-91. 69 For example: SHA, Coram, v. 11, x.8-9. 70 Tac, Ann. xiv.60. See also: Paul Veyne, "Homosexuality in Ancient Rome," in Western Sexuality: Practice and Precept in Past and Present Times, ed. Philippe Aries and Andre Bejin (Oxford & New York: Basil Blackwell Ltd, 1985), 30f. 71 SHA, Heliogab. xxxi.6: Elagabalus preferred men who were "bene vasatorum [well-hung]." 72 Veyne, "Homosexuality in Ancient Rome," 30. Roman citizen associated each of them with servile natures. The imperial biographers used this image of servility as an image of femininity, and thus failure.

The sources present the emperor Alexander as the converse to Elagabalus who was the successor to emperors like Nero and Commodus in all things base and unbecoming of a masculine leader. Because of this contrast, the historians did not connect Alexander's masculinity to images of sexuality in the same way as they portrayed the overtly sexual emperors, Nero and Commodus. As examined above, Alexander was not relegated to the ranks of feminized emperors because of his debaucherous lifestyle, but rather on account of his inability to overcome the power and influence of his mother - a trait which Nero shared until his matricide in 59. While Alexander never seemed to have carried on in any kind of homosexual or perceived feminine form of sexual conduct, his mother's domination of him left him just as emasculated as Nero and Commodus in the eyes of the army - the embodiment of masculinity. Alexander became servile to his mother's power long after he had matured to the point when he should have been the dominant force in that relationship.

Although the relationship between Alexander and Mamaea was devoid of any sexual connotation, the construction of the relationship between the virile and servile, while sexual in nature, can nevertheless be applied in this situation. Alexander allowed his mother to continue the pursuit of her power and pleasure at the expense of his own inherent right to rule independently as first man, and to assert his role as ruler over and against her role as one who obeys.73 It is not only biological sex or sexual conduct which defined a person's gender in Roman society, but also the perception of his or her ability to remain within the expected boundaries of the defined gender of masculine or feminine.

Hadrian serves as an interesting example to illustrate how homosexuality and virility could be independent constructions within the Roman mind. Even more than Nero and Commodus, Hadrian is associated with a long-term homosexual relationship. Antinous, the young male lover of Hadrian, accompanied the emperor on many of his travels until Antinous' untimely death in the Nile

River in 130.74 Shortly after Antinous' death, Hadrian

73 See pages 131-134 for a fuller explanation of the nature of femininity as one of obedience. 74 There is disagreement within the sources as to whether Antinous died by an accidental drowning or for the purpose of being a willing 124 built a city in his memory,75 and elevated Antinous to the rank of god.76 Modern historians count Hadrian as one of

Rome's "Five Good Emperors,"77 however, the ancient

sources recounting the life of Hadrian are not entirely

favorable. It was not Hadrian's relationship to

Antinous, however, that drew the ire of his biographers.

The ancient historians presented Hadrian in much the same way as Nero and Commodus - as someone who wielded his authority not as an individual man, but in conjunction with and on account of a woman. Because of this, the ancient historians described some of Hadrian's actions in gendered terms which portrayed the emperor as feminine and inadequate in his role as a masculine leader at the beginning of his reign.

Two examples demonstrate how Hadrian's biographers emasculated him in an effort to explain perceived instability in the Empire. Plotina, Trajan's wife, was instrumental in securing the throne for Hadrian upon the

sacrifice on behalf of the emperor's life: Cass. Dio lxix.11.2-3; SHA, Hadr. xiv.5-7. 75 Antinopolis, the ruins of which are near the modern-day city of Sheikh 'Ibada, Egypt. 76 Cass. Dio lxix.11.2-4; SHA, Hadr. xiv.5-7. 77 The five consecutive reigns of Nerva (96-98), Trajan (98-117), Hadrian (117-138), Antoninus Pius (138-161), and Marcus Aurelius (161-180), which saw the longest continued period of stability since the unrest of the second century BC. 125 death of her husband in 117.78 Hadrian's securing of the throne as heir to Trajan was successful only on account of Plotina, who, according to Dio, had been in love with

Hadrian.79 Plotina did not live long into Hadrian's reign, and so her influence upon the affairs of state was limited to his ascendancy to the throne. In addition to having assumed power with the help of Plotina, Hadrian also upset the traditional balance between his personal life and the life of the state. Later in his reign,

Hadrian overemphasized the importance of his private relationship with Antinous to the overall stability and security of the Empire. Hadrian's insistence of intersecting his private relationship with the public good through his declaration of Antinous' divinity aroused concerns about his virility by the ancient historians. Because Hadrian's ability to rule is by no means seen as inadequate as that of Nero or Commodus, the ancient historians only hinted at it by relaying that upon Antinous' death, Hadrian "wept like a woman."80 The insinuation is that Hadrian's relationship to Antinous

78 SHA, Hadr. iv.10 & vi.l; Cass. Dio lxix.l & lxix.10.3-4. 79 Cass. Dio, lxix.l. 80 SHA, Hadr. xiv.5: "Antinoum suum, deum per Nilum navigat, perdidit, quem muliebriter flevit." 126 demonstrated an inability to maintain the virile persona required to effectively govern the Empire. Hadrian's relationship with Antinous was by itself not a demonstration of a lack of virility, but rather, it was the crossover between Hadrian's personal indiscretions with the affairs of public administration that the ancient historians found unacceptable.81

Hadrian's early dependence upon Plotina's power combined with his relationship to Antinous impacted

Hadrian's image within the histories to such a degree that Hadrian wrote his own autobiography, perhaps in order to clarify any rumors concerning his person.82

Because Hadrian's personal actions were not dangerous enough to cause the political instability that Nero's and

Commodus' lifestyles did, the reaction of the Roman elite was relegated to rumor and their recordings in history, rather than rebellion or assassination.

The conflict between the political and the personal was also the primary problem with Nero, Commodus, and

Alexander. As in Hadrian's case, the primary crisis was

81 This situation is quite similar to the case of Domitilla in the previous chapter 82 Both Dio and the Historia Augusta make references to Hadrian's autobiography: Cass. Dio lxix.11.2; SHA, Hadr. vii.2. 127 not the homosexual behavior of Nero and Commodus.83 The reputation of unmanliness for both of these emperors extended far deeper than their insatiably diverse sexual appetites. Nero and Commodus' own personal indiscretions overcame their political personae, which in turn instigated unease about the future of the Empire's stability. Roman citizens were ruled by the free. The embodiment of the freest citizen of all was the princeps.

To have a princeps who operated as the passive agent of another's pleasure or whim, was not only emasculating to the leader, but to those he led as well. Alexander too, although not on account of sexual passivity or homosexuality, operated as the passive agent of another's power and pleasure - his mother, Julia Mamaea. A truly free man, as embodied within the princeps, was not bound by any other's will.

In Roman society, a manly life was a combination of both military and political experience.84 Commodus

83 For an examination of homosexuality and the perception of manliness in Roman society see: Craig A. Williams, Roman Homosexuality: Ideologies of Masculinity in Classical Antiquity (Oxford & New York: Oxford University Press, 1999). 84 For further reading consult: Kuefler, The Manly Eunuch: Masculinity, Gender Ambiguity, and Christian Ideology in Late Antiquity, 37-55. succeeded in neither of these two endeavors. 5 In fact,

Commodus voluntarily neglected his responsibilities associated with ruling in order to further pursue pleasure.86 Part of this pleasure involved his love of gladiatorial combat, in which he actively participated to the detriment of his noble rank.87 Commodus' homosexual lifestyle combined with his abandonment of the masculine responsibility to rule in order to pursue the feminine quality of pleasure and extravagance was not interpreted as manliness by Romans of the time.88 Commodus was not the first or last emperor to be forever remembered in the literature so unmanly as to be judged inadequate to rule, however, his voluntary emasculation did provide a unique opportunity for a reassertion of the masculine, albeit not necessarily in the form of a male.

Zosimus' commentary on Marcia can be interpreted as a culturally understood (and justified) aberration of

85 Dio refers to Commodus as the "greatest coward" in lxxiii.13.6. 86 SHA, Coram, v. 4. 87 Cass. Dio, lxxiii.15-21; SHA, Comm. ii.9. 88 For an examination of extravagant wealth and dress and their connection to unmanly character, see: Kuefler, The Manly Eunuch: Masculinity, Gender Ambiguity, and Christian Ideology in Late Antiquity, 59ff. In this passage, Kuefler is writing about Elagabalus, but the description is applicable to Commodus: "So the concern about wealth spent on clothing, then, while framed in the traditional language of effeminacy, was intimately related to anxiety about the exercise of political power" (59). 129 gender roles in time of crisis. In times of instability, it was sometimes necessary for women to take on the role of protector or hero for the good of the community.

Jeremy Mclnerney examined this phenomenon in the context of Plutarch's descriptions of notable women. He concluded that Greek society permitted the masculinization, and therefore defeminization, of women in times of crisis in order to reestablish stability:

"[T]he restoration of order is finally made possible by the elimination of the female."89 Zosimus, who lived in the very Hellenized Eastern Roman Empire, applied the ancient Greek construction, av8peia, to Marcia, who intervened during a time of relative instability under

Commodus. This application of dcvSpeia to Marcia is more than an understanding of a woman with manly virtues - it is the complete replacement of the feminine by the masculine. If it was understood to be a simple function of manly attributes by a woman, then the Greek term oa^poyuvoc; (man-woman) would have been more appropriate.90

89 Jeremy Mclnerney, "Plutarch's Manly Women," in Andreia: Studies in Manliness and Courage in Classical Antiquity, ed. Ralph M. Rosen and Ineke Sluiter (Leiden & Boston: Brill, 2003), 334. 90 The straightforward combination of man (avip/dv8p-) and woman (yuvn) . As used by Valerius Maximus concerning Maesia of Sentinum's defense of herself in court: Memorial Deeds and Sayings viii.3.1. 130 According to Zosimus, Marcia's actions possessed no feminine qualities whatsoever; they were purely masculine and therefore incapable of being attached to any person or object which lacked this quality.

Given the use of dcv8peia as masculine (and thereby destined to rule), how then is one to explain the use of the term for Marcia? The reasoning in the Greek context is simple: because Commodus failed to rule in a manly fashion, the situation called for a masculine response where none existed. Marcia assumed that role through the purging of her feminine virtues in favor of the masculine for the purpose of reestablishing order and stability.

With the reestablishment of order, masculine again remained masculine, feminine remained feminine, and the domestic order of the household was again reflected in the greater order of state.91

Pliny the Elder also used the term for hermaphrodite: Plin., HN vii.3.34. For more on the specific qualities of avSpoyuvoq in ancient writings, see: Anthony J. Marshall, "Roman Ladies on Trial: The Case of Maesia Sentinum," Phoenix 44, no. 1 (Spring 1990); Wayne A. Meeks, "The Image of Androgyne: Some Uses of a Symbol in Earliest Christianity," History of Religions 13, no. 3 (Feb. 1974). 91 This is one of Mclnerney's conclusions in his examination of Plutarch's treatment of women: the sphere of influence appropriate for women in Greek culture was a reflection of a masculine conception of order extending from the household to the state. I believe this argument, with a little tweaking, is exactly what Zosimus intended to convey (intentionally or not) through his description of Marcia. See Mclnerney, "Plutarch's Manly Women," 341f. 131 While the analysis of Zosimus' commentary on

Marcia's actions is understandable within a Greek context, the Roman world, although extensively

Hellenized,92 was not the Greek world. Was the Greek conception of gender and virtue the same as the Roman?

In the monograph on Pertinax within the Historia Augusta, there is an exchange between the newly acclaimed Emperor

Pertinax and the consul, Falco:

When Pertinax had returned thanks to Laetus, the consul Falco said, "We understand what sort of emperor you will be from this: that we see Laetus and Marcia, the instruments of Commodus' crimes behind you." Pertinax replied to him, "You are young, Consul, and do not understand the necessity of obedience [parendi] . They obeyed [paruerunt] Commodus in the beginning, but against their will, and as soon as they had an opportunity, they showed what had always been their desire."93

The author of the Historia Augusta, rather than explaining away Marcia's actions as an aberration of her gender, attributed obedience to both Marcia and the

Praetorian Prefect, while also mentioning their innate desires to act against Commodus. Because both Laetus and

Marcia possessed the same qualities, both are praised by

92 This is especially true in regard to the Roman world in which Zosimus lived and wrote. 93 SHA, Pert. v. 2. 1

Pertinax (as well as virtually the entire populace)94 for their deeds. The Historia Augusta attributed an act of obedience {pareo)95, rather than bravery (virtus) to

Marcia because the author sought to emphasize Marcia's fulfillment as a good Roman woman. As a woman, Marcia would have been under the power of another man, and like the Praetorian Prefect, Laetus, she was under the power of the princeps.

The Historia Augusta conveyed through the words of

Pertinax an acceptable image of a Roman woman: she remained obedient until it became imperative to react against an imbalance in the natural order. The Romans attempted to enforce a clear distinction of gender roles within society, including a cultural understanding of what was expected of those in higher station in regard to their gender. The Historia Augusta and Zosimus drew connections between Marcia's participation in Commodus' assassination and the masculinity of such an act.

Zosimus bluntly attributed the absence of femininity and

Marcia's usurpation of masculinity with his use of the term dvSpeia. The Historia Augusta more subtly drew a

94 SHA, Comm. xvii.4; xviii.lff. 95 The Latin pareo can also be translated "to submit." 133 connection between the obedience of Marcia and that of

Laetus - associating them both to honorable service under the reign of Commodus, and then with the act of regicide in order to realign the natural order.96 Although with much more detail, the accounts of Dio and Herodian also imparted this Greco-Roman association of the masculine with the reassertion of gender balance.

Dio presented Marcia as a confidant of the conspirators, and one through whom the conspirators unsuccessfully attempted to poison Commodus.97 In

Herodian's history, Marcia discovered death warrants signed by Commodus containing her and Laetus' names.98 In reaction, Marcia informed two others whose names were listed and plotted the assassination of Commodus with them. In much the same way the Historia Augusta and

Zosimus presented Marcia as a woman who had assumed masculine identity in order to murder her lover, Dio and

Herodian demonstrated that the subjugation of the feminine to the masculine was necessary in order to reassert the natural order of things. Like a puppet,

96 SHA, Comm. xvii.2 mentions that Laetus and Marcia worked together to first poison Commodus, and then after that failed, they enlisted the help of an athlete to strangle him. 97 Cass. Dio, lxxii.22.4. 98 Hdn. i.16-17. Dio' s Marcia was able to act only through the actions of the men involved. The male conspirators administered the poison through Marcia - the third person plural for 8i8coM-i

(to give) is used for the action." Upon the discovery of the death warrants, Herodian quoted Marcia: UA drunkard shall not get the better of a sober woman."100 Through these words, Marcia's femininity was asserted, and then in her actions it was affirmed as she then relied on the male conspirators to carry out the task by taking advantage of her close relationship with the emperor.101

Although not overtly attributing masculine qualities to

Marcia, Dio and Herodian both asserted the same premise as Zosimus: the feminine must be overcome by the masculine in order to bring about the natural order, which had been lost under a feminine emperor.

Alexander Severus succeeded an emperor very similar in actions and lifestyle to Nero and Commodus. In the

Roman association of men with the vita militaris,

Elagabalus was the epitome of an emperor who had abandoned his masculinity. To ensure the continued

99 Cass. Dio, lxxii.22.4: ((xxpnocKOV 5itx xf|<; Mocpiciac; ev Kpeaov (toeioii; ocuxco e'8coKav. 100 Hdn. i.17.5. 101 Hdn. i.17.8. 135 influence and power of the Severan women, Julia Maesa convinced Elagabalus to appoint his cousin, Alexander as his Caesar and successor in 221.102 Once appointed, Maesa and Mamaea placed Alexander under the tutelage of teachers who "trained him in the exercises of self- control, introducing him to wrestling schools and manly- exercises [xoiq avSpwv yu^vocaioic]... and both a Latin and Greek education."103 In other words, an education in everything that was contrary to Elagabalus' lifestyle and behavior.

The phrase "manly exercises" deserves brief special attention. Herodian used a slightly varied term almost immediately after recounting that Elagabalus had become furious at what he saw as the corruption of his cousin.

Elagabalus brought "[r]idiculous charges against them

[the teachers], that they were corrupting his adopted son by not allowing him to dance or go in a frenzy, but teaching him prudence [aa>(j)povi£ovxec] and manly arts [xoc dcv8pa)v 8i8acKOVX£C] . "104 At the heart of both of these statements is the insinuation that what Elagabalus embodied was contrary to what the Romans considered

103 Hdn. v.7.5. 104 Hdn. v.7.6. masculine, and it would be through Alexander that the throne would return to the ideal of first man of Rome.

The Historia Augusta emphasized the difference in clothing between Elagabalus and Alexander, describing

Elagabalus as a woman in comparison.105 Clothing, especially the act of cross-dressing, was a powerful image of gender corruption - corruption that was thought to infect other aspects of imperial rule as well.

Alexander embodied the antithesis of Elagabalus' femininity in dress by declaring that "the imperial authority existed in manliness [virtute], not in decoration."106 Very simply, Herodian was saying that

Maesa and Mamaea were preparing Alexander to "act as

Roman as possible"107 - for to be Roman was to be a man.

Despite the immersion of Alexander into everything that was masculine, he failed to fully emerge as the idealized princeps. This was not, however, on account of Mamaea's assumption of the masculine into herself, but rather the

105 SHA, Heliogab. xxiii.3-5;xxvi.1-2; Alex. Sev. xl-xli;. For more on the idea of cross-dressing and transvestitism and their connection to femininity, see: Kuefler, The Manly Eunuch: Masculinity, Gender Ambiguity, and Christian Ideology in Late Antiquity, 55-61. 106 SHA, Alex. Sev. xxxiii.3. 107 Robert L. Cleve, "Severus Alexander and the Severan Women" (Ph.D. diss., University of California, Los Angeles, 1982), 150. It should be noted, however, that Cleve fails to fully consider the underlying gendered tone of Herodian's wording. 137 perception that her own femininity continued to consume all that Alexander was and could have been. Like all

Roman boys, Alexander was under the tutelage of his mother until he was old enough to take on the responsibilities of manhood and become a paterfamilias.

However, Herodian claimed that Alexander never achieved full manhood in the eyes of the Romans, because Mamaea's femininity had prevented it and forced him to remain forever a boy.108

Unlike Zosimus' account of Marcia, which cast Marcia in the light of replacing her own femininity with masculinity in order to bring order and stability to the state, the ancient historians painted Julia Mamaea as the ultimate feminine who, through her womanliness, brought the illusion of order until she was brought down by the army. The femininity of the Severan women is most clearly shown in Dio's account of the battle which brought on the end of Macrinus' reign and the beginning of Elagabalus' . Led by a eunuch named Gannys and the young Elagabalus, the forces under their command achieved victory through the reinforcement of gendered expectations. In his retelling, Dio records:

108 Hdn. vi.9.5. 138 Now in the battle Gannys made haste to occupy the pass in front of the village and skillfully positioned his troops, despite the fact he was without military experience and had lived in luxury. But fortune is of such great help in all things that it shows favor to the ignorant. However, his army made a weak fight, and if Maesa and Soaemias (for they were with the boy) had not leapt down from their chariots and into the fleeing men restraining them from further flight with their lamentations, and had not the boy drawing a sword, the one girded to his side, been seen by them on his horse about to charge the enemy in a maneuver that seemed divinely inspired, they would not have stood their ground. Even so they would have turned back, if Macrinus had not fled after seeing them offer resistance.109

Mamaea does not figure prominently in this story, but she

may have been present since she was part of the

conspiracy to overthrow Macrinus which set together out

from the camp shortly before.110 In this account, three

aspects deserve special attention: first, the leader of

Elagabalus' army was a eunuch; second, the Severan women

halted the retreat through their lamentations; and third,

Elagabalus, still a boy, rallied his troops by displaying

the actions of a manly general.

109 Cass. Dio lxxix.38.3-4. 110 This is evident by the fact that Macrinus had the Senate condemn not only Elagabalus, his mother Julia Soaemias and grandmother Julia Maesa, but also Alexander Severus and his mother Julia Mamaea (Cass. Dio lxxix.38.1); see also: Cleve, "Severus Alexander and the Severan Women", 102-03. 139 Eunuchs, because of their rejection of not only gender but of biological sex, demonstrated that the division of gender within Roman society was not as concretely defined as only male and female. No longer men, and certainly not women, eunuchs were a category of

"other."111 In Roman culture, the castration of a man led to a loss of "virility [av8peioc] , which is to say, masculinity."112 In relation to Dio's account, Gannys' role in the battle described above was outside of his expected gendered sphere. Since he was "[ujnmanly both in a moral and anatomical sense,"113 Dio could not attribute true masculine qualities to the eunuch. Even good fortune [xvjcn] could not ascribe true manliness to the eunuch's efforts in battle, and only the intervention of the Severan women kept the army from fleeing after

Gannys had made a weak fight and failed to turn the tide in favor of Elagabalus.114 For Dio, false masculinity had failed and only the proper exercise of traditional gender roles would ensure the safety and survival of the Empire.

111 Kuefler, The Manly Eunuch: Masculinity, Gender Ambiguity, and Christian Ideology in Late Antiquity, 32. 112 Ibid, quoting from Oribasius, Collectio medica 22.2.14. 113 Ibid., 35. 114 For more on the concept of masculinity and military life (vita militaris) see my first chapter and: Ibid., 37ff & 275ff. 140 The second and third aspects of Dio's account are connected. At the battle, there was no definitive masculine presence. Led by a eunuch and a boy, the army had only one other imperial connection, the Severan women. It was at the moment when the army most needed a masculine presence that the Severan women leapt from their chariots and restrained the men through their lamentations. It was not through the unnatural assertion of masculinity that Maesa and Soaemias helped turn the tide of the battle, but rather through the natural affirmation of their own femininity. The Severan women held back the soldiers with their tears - an expression of womanly emotion.115 This was not manly courage

(avSpsioc) , but rather womanly persuasion. In complete contrast to how he would later be portrayed in the sources, Elagabalus mounted his horse and exuded dcvSpeia as would be expected from the first man. So in this instance, Dio attributed the victory of Elagabalus and

115 For more on the concepts of gender and emotional restraint, see: Peter R.L. Brown, The Body and Society: Men, Women and Sexual Renunciation in Early Christianity (New York: Columbia University Press, 1988), 12ff; Robert A. Raster, Emotion, Restraint, and Community in Ancient Rome (Oxford & New York: Oxford University Press, 2005); Hans van Wees, "A Brief History of Tears: Gender Differentiation in Archaic Greece," in When Men Were Men: Masculinity, Power and Identity in Classical Antiquity, ed. Lin Foxhall and John Salmon (New York: Routledge, 1998). his forces to the traditional assertion of gender roles within Roman society. Dio was a strict moralist and therefore a staunch supporter of an established construction of gender identity and division within Roman society.116 Because of his aversion to the confusion of gender roles, Dio included the role of the Severan women and Elagabalus within his History. It was not with reluctance that Dio recorded the actions of those at the battle,117 but rather this story conveyed precisely what

Dio had intended - women as feminine and men as masculine is what brings order and stability to society. The proper roles of the Severan women and Elagabalus were emphasized and praised, as the cowardice of Macrinus was scorned. Even Edward Gibbon recognized the gendered nature of Dio's account:

Antoninus [Elagabalus] himself, who, in the rest of his life, never acted like a man, in this important crisis of his fate approved himself a hero, mounted his horse, and, at the head of his rallied troops, charged sword in hand among the thickest of enemy; whilst the eunuch Gannys, whose occupations had been confined to female cares and the soft luxury of Asia, displayed the talents of an able and

116 See: Cleve, "Severus Alexander and the Severan Women", 102ff; Fergus Millar, A Study of Cassius Dio (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1964). 117 As Robert Cleve implies in Cleve, "Severus Alexander and the Severan Women", 102. 142 experienced general... Macrinus might have obtained the victory, had he not betrayed his own cause by a shameful and precipitate flight. His cowardice served only to protract his life a few days, and to stamp deserved ignominy on his misfortunes.118

Here, for one brief moment of Elagabalus' performance in the spotlight, he stood out as the masculine representation of the princeps; the embodiment of first man, leading the army to victory against a usurper who had shown his true cowardly nature in the face of Roman manliness. This picture of Elagabalus was short-lived, however, as even Dio referred to him almost immediately after as the "False Antoninus."119

In the end, peace and harmony were temporarily returned to Rome, not through the assumption of the masculine by the feminine, as with Marcia, but rather through the affirmation of the traditional order of things. Alexander's reign which followed Elagabalus' as a return again to natural order, was ended as well on account of misaligned gendered boundaries. Julia

Mamaea's femininity, which the ancients admired and encouraged, was, in the end, seen as the reason for

Edward Gibbon, The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, 3 vols. (New York: Everyman's Library, 1993 [Orig. 1776-1788]), Vol I, 160. 119 Cass. Dio, lxxx. 143 Alexander's downfall by the historians. As noted above, it was Mamaea's feminine dominance over Alexander that brought about his assassination by the army. As an admirer of Alexander, Herodian had to explain why such a contrast to Elagabalus would have been overthrown by the army, and his answer explicitly condemned the emperor's mother, who, through her womanly influence and power, stunted the emperor's ability to fully exercise his masculine role as first man.120

Tacitus was not able to comment on either the actions or perceived masculinity of Marcia or Julia

Mamaea, because he had died in the early second century.

A Tacitean interpretation of Marcia and Julia Mamaea can be asserted, however, in the light of Tacitus' summation of Poppaea. All three women conducted themselves in a manner contrary to the Roman understanding of gender. By taking on the role of ruler through their influence over

Nero, Commodus, and Alexander, Poppaea, Marcia, and

Mamaea each made women out of their men. The three emperors were feminine because each allowed himself to be dominated by a woman - a dux femina. Francesca L'Hoir explored this concept in Tactius' Annals demonstrating

120 Hdn. vi.8.3; vi.9.5; Tacitus' linguistic skills in asserting that the women of the Julio-Claudian emperors appropriated masculine power for themselves over and against good order and the naturalness of gender association.121 Tacitus used the term dux femina to emphasize the usurpation of the strictly masculine power of leader {dux) by a woman

{femina),122 thereby attributing femininity to the concept of dux, while at the same time masculinity to femina.123

This was an especially preposterous construction for

Tacitus' Roman readers, since dux would, in most cases, refer to a male military commander. A dux femina was a monstrous concept; she was more than just a masculine woman, "she was an aberration—an unnatural woman."124

Much like Zosimus on Marcia, and Dio and Herodian on the Severan women, Tacitus interpreted Poppaea's life and actions in gendered terms within his narrative on the political history of Rome. The selection of specific words in connection with explicit social concepts illuminates the understanding of traditional gender norms within the Roman Empire. Furthermore, the use of

121 L'Hoir, "Tacitus and Women's Usurpation of Power," 25. 122 Ibid. : 6. 123 Ibid. : 8. 124 Ibid. : 23. 145 gendered words also conveys an understanding of ancient forms of political commentary. Tacitus' overemphasis on the lifestyle of Nero conjures images of tyrants past, confining the emperor to be forever remembered as an example of unprecedented tyranny. The influence of

Poppaea, Marcia, and Mamaea upon their respective emperors is well documented and provides an excellent source for examining the use of gendered terms used by the Roman historians for the purpose of asserting and defending the construction of gender in the Empire.

Power and Boundaries: Gender and the Ability to Influence Imperial Policy

Poppaea, Marcia, and Mamaea were able to observe their limitations while exuding a great deal of power over their respective emperors. The histories of these three women are what they are because of the interpretation of their actions by later male historians.

Poppaea, Marcia, and Mamaea's influence necessitated an explanation by historians as to how an emperor could be so easily coerced by a mere woman. Was the susceptibility of the emperors to these women's counsel a cause of or reaction to these women? And what can be 146 further said concerning the perceptions of incompetence, instability, and moral depravity associated with Nero and

Commodus in this regard? Alexander proves to be an exceptional case, since he is portrayed in the sources as the polar opposite of morally depraved emperors such as his cousin Elagabalus. However, as will be explored below, Dio's personal beliefs and account of the Severan women reveal how Romans attempted to explain what they saw as an aberration of expected gender roles.

There is no doubt among the sources that Nero was infatuated with Poppaea and allowed her certain liberties as well as influence because of his love for her and her beauty. Attention to beauty looms large in descriptions of Poppaea. Her beauty was so well known that she was credited with introducing the practice of bathing in milk to stave off wrinkles,125 and even a style of cosmetics was later termed "Poppaean. "126 Extravagance followed her wherever she went127 and her obsession with physical appearance was so great that after looking in the mirror

125 Juv., vi.4 62. 126 Cass. Dio, lxii.28.1; Plin., HN xxviii.183. 127 Two sources cite that she had shoes of gold made for the mules that drew her: Cass. Dio, lxii.28.1; Plin., ffl xxx.14. 147 one day, she prayed for death before her beauty faded.128

Her second husband, Marcus Salvius Otho, was said to have gained fame and prestige only through his marriage to such a beautiful and dignified woman.129 On account of her beauty and intrigue, she quickly caught the eye of

Nero.

With her beauty and Nero's love, Poppaea was able to manipulate her husband into acquiring what suited her.

Her sway over Nero impacted both the Jews and Christians during times that threatened their standing within the

Empire. Poppaea emerges as the first empress to have influenced imperial policies toward Christianity, albeit not always in the best interests of the Christian community. An interpretation of the sources on Poppaea through the lens of Rome's conception of gender elicits important information not only on how and why Poppaea did what she did, but also on the complexity of how she is remembered by the historians who wrote on her activities and motivations.

The imagery evoked by the characterizations of

Poppaea Sabina creates a dichotomy of interpretation of

128 Cass. Dio, lxii.28.1; Tac, Ann. xiii.45. 129 Plut. , Galb. xix.2. who Poppaea actually was and to what purpose some of these images were created. On one side there is a perception of Poppaea that connotes positive qualities capable of adding or preserving some integrity to the reign of Nero; to this end, the accounts of Josephus,

Plutarch, and, to some degree, Tacitus agree. The other side of the debate conjures images of a woman destined to dominate her husband and demonstrate her cruelty and feminine intrigue through the overthrow of traditional gender roles; Dio Cassius and Tacitus emerge as the staunchest purveyors of this thinking.

Dio painted a picture of Poppaea as a vain and selfish woman obsessed with her own beauty.130 In addition, Dio recounted that Poppaea was responsible for

Nero's murder of his mother, Agrippina: "Sabina on learning of this persuaded Nero to get rid of his mother, alleging that she was plotting against him."131 The

"this" to which Dio refers, is mentioned in the previous paragraph about Agrippina:

As if it were not enough that there were stories that she [Agrippina] had seduced her uncle Claudius with her trickery, licentiousness, glances, and kisses, she then

130 Cass. Dio lxii.28.1. 131 Cass. Dio lxii.12.1. 149 applied her efforts to enslaving Nero in a similar way. Whether this indeed truly happened or whether to fit her character it was invented, I do not know; but I say what everyone is saying, that Nero had a mistress who looked like Agrippina of whom he was very affectionate, and when he played with her and showed her off, he would say that he wanted intercourse with his mother.132

Connecting these two passages from Dio, one can decipher the underlying theme of the Hellenic interpretation of gender norms. Dio not only drew attention to Poppaea's ability to emasculate Nero by imposing her own masculine nature to lead {dux femina), but he also emphasized

Nero's failure as a leader by adding the sexual taboo of incest to Nero's crimes. Under Roman law and custom, incest was a grave moral sin [nefas] .133 Nero was guilty of this immorality and therefore outside the law of the gods and man.

Dio attributed further nefarious sexual deeds to

Nero. After the death of Poppaea, Nero was so distraught, that upon learning of a woman who resembled

Poppaea, he sent for her and kept her by his side.134

This alone would not have aroused too much disgust among

132 Cass. Dio lxii.11.4 133 For a summary of incest within the laws of Roman marriage, see: Susan Treggiari, Roman Marriage: Iusti Coniuges from the Time of Cicero to the Time of Ulpian (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991), esp. 37-39. 134 Cass. Dio lxii.28.2. 150 the public. However, after this woman, Nero found a young boy who also resembled Poppaea in appearance, whom he called Sporus, and had him castrated and then treated

"in every way like a wife."135 Dio highlighted the complexity of this "marriage," pointing out that Nero was at the time also "married" to a man named Pythagoras, who performed the role of husband to the emperor while Sporus was to be the replacement for Nero's wife.136 Nero's very public display of his homosexuality - going so far as to perform marriage ceremonies - conveyed the servility of the emperor, rather than the virility and ocv8peia associated with the vita militaris and the office of princeps. The accounts of Commodus and Elagabalus over a century later further elucidated the problems of such a lifestyle for an emperor.

Dio used Nero's sexual practices as evidence of the emperor's inability to rule as a man should rule - he was dominated by women, and his sexual appetite was beyond what was expected and lawful for a virile (masculine)

135 Cass. Dio lxii.28.2-3. 136 Cass. Dio lxii.13.1-2. man. The public displays of Nero's lack of masculinity connected to his debaucherous lifestyle demonstrated to the populace that Nero was allowing his personal pleasures to spill out over his public responsibilities, including a duty to exude the qualities of a just and sensible ruler. Much as in the case of Commodus explored above, Nero's failure to assuage the public's fear of an emasculated emperor under the power of his mother or wife only accelerated his removal from the throne. Tacitus, however, while also harsh on the memories of both Nero and Poppaea, had a slightly alternate interpretation of the legacy of Nero.

The description of Poppaea found in Tacitus' Annals demonstrates the two sides of the empress in a very succinct manner:

She was a woman of all advantages except an honest spirit. As one might expect, her mother, surpassing all the beautiful women of her day, had given her equal fame and looks; her wealth to the distinction of her birth. Her conversation was courteous, her nature not harsh: she paraded modesty and enjoyed playfulness; she rarely went out in public, and then with her face partly covered, so as not to satisfy the one looking, or rather because it was so becoming of her. She never used her

As will be elaborated upon further below, Tacitus held that a man under the power of a woman was devoid of any masculinity. For more on this, see: L'Hoir, "Tacitus and Women's Usurpation of Power." 152 fame sparingly, she did not distinguish between husbands and adulterers; but not vulnerable to her own or another's faults, where profit was present, there she transferred her desire.138

Tacitus' account of the two sides of Poppaea's character is unique. The other accounts mentioning her are either exclusively negative or positive about her character, lifestyle, influence, or actions. In this account of

Poppaea, Tacitus balanced each quality behavior with its opposite.

In his examination of Otho's usurpation of the throne during "Year of the Four Emperors,"139 Tacitus said that astrologers had convinced Otho the stars were in his favor to rebel and take the throne from Galba.140 Tacitus described the astrologers as "a race of men untrustworthy by the powerful, deceitful to the hopeful, who in our state will always be forbidden and restrained."141

Immediately after Tacitus' condemnation of astrologers, he associated Poppaea with the same group that had urged

1J8 Tac, Ann. xm.45. 139 Upon the death of Nero in 68: Galba (Jun 68 - Jan 69), Otho (Jan 69 - Apr 69), Vitellius (Apr 69 - Dec 69), and Vespasian (69 - 79). 140 Tac, Hist. 1.22. 141 Tac, Hist. 1.22; for more on astrology within Rome, see: Frederick H. Cramer, Astrology m Roman Law and Politics (Philadelphia, PA: American Philosophical Society, 1954); Ramsay MacMullen, Enemies of the Roman Order: Treason, Unrest, and Alienation m the Empire (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1966), esp. ch. 4. 153 Otho to act: "Many of these astrologers, the worst tools for an imperial spouse, supported Poppaea's secret plans..."142 After commenting earlier on Poppaea' s deviant behavior (as he saw it) , Tacitus then resurrected her memory in association with not only the untrustworthy advisors, the astrologers, but also of Otho. The main purpose of this passage may well have been an attempt to kill four birds with one stone. Tacitus presented Otho in a negative light because of his affiliation with the astrologers, whom he tagged as un-Roman. Associated with these un-Roman astrologers was also Poppaea, who was the wife and feminine influence first over Otho and then

Nero. In one swift motion, Tacitus subtly laid the claim that Otho, Nero, Poppaea and the astrologers were all un-

Roman: the astrologers because of their foreignness and deceit; Poppaea because of her association with them as well as her usurpation of masculine authority (which he had condemned earlier); Otho because of his association with the astrologers as well, and his association with

Poppaea; and Nero, because of his emasculation by

Poppaea. This apparent side comment unfolds into a much broader condemnation of Nero, Poppaea and Otho as unRoman

142 Tac. , Hist. i.22. 154 because of their associations with things which Tacitus argued were completely unRoman - astrology and more importantly, the upsetting of traditional gendered boundaries.

Josephus, the earliest of the historians to write about Poppaea, was by far the most generous in his compliments of the empress. The first-century Jewish historian mentioned the favor of Nero that Poppaea enjoyed in addition to her use of influence to benefit the Jewish people. In his Life, Josephus told the story of Jewish priests who had built a wall onto the Temple in order to obscure King Agrippa' s view into the interior.

After ignoring a command to disassemble the wall, the priests, including Josephus, were sent to Rome by the procurator Felix to appear before Nero. Josephus wrote:

"Through him [Aliturus]143 I was introduced to Poppaea,

Caesar's wife, and I took the earliest opportunity to ask her to free the priests. Having received large gifts from Poppaea in addition to this favor, I returned to my own country."144 The relationship between Josephus and

143 A Jewish actor whom Josephus had befriended in Puteoli, and who was a favorite of Nero. He is mentioned just before the meeting between Poppaea and Josephus. 144 Josephus, Vit. 16. Poppaea is much clearer in Josephus' retelling of the story in his Jewish Antiquities: "Nero, after the hearing, not only agreed with what they [the priests] had done, but also agreed to leave the building as it was.

This was done for his wife Poppaea, who was a worshipper of God [GeoaePtig] and requested these favors for the

Jews."145 How does 9eooepSi<; fit into the understanding the relationship between Poppaea and Josephus (or all Jews)?

The interpretation of Poppaea's motivation for assisting Josephus during his visit to Rome hangs on the translation of OEOOEPTIC. ©eoaePr^ is a compound word: the combination of Qeoc, (god) and ae|3o|i(xi (feel awe; worship) .

Most literally, Beoaepric; means: worshipper of a god or very religious, but the interpretation of BeoaePtiQ may go beyond its literal translation.146 Because of Poppaea's apparent relationship to Josephus and the Jews in this passage, it would not be irrational to conclude that Poppaea was a

Jewish proselyte, and to translate GeoaeP^ as such.

145 Josephus, AJ xx. 195. 146 The authors of the three major translations of Josephus' Antiquities all translate Qzoatfiryc, differently: William Whiston, ed., The Works of Josephus, 16th ed. (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, Inc., 1987): "a religious woman"; Louis H. Feldman, ed., Josephus: Jewish Antiquities, Books Xviii-Xx, vol. 433, Lcl (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1965) : "worshipper of God"; Paul L. Maier, ed., Josephus: The Essential Writings (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications, 1988): "sympathetic to the Jews." However, GeooePriq by itself has nothing to do with Judaism or the Jewish God; it was a word used to describe anyone who was in any sense devout or religious.147 In fact, if

Josephus had wanted to emphasize the status of Poppaea as a proselyte or even a God-Fearer, he would most likely have used the term, (|)o3o'U|U£VOi TOV Geov (those who fear

God).148 Placed within its context of the other account of Josephus as well as other Roman histories, however, it is more probable that Poppaea was in fact a Jewish sympathizer: she recognized and appreciated the Jewish teaching of monotheism, although she was not a Jewish proselyte.149

One could certainly argue that Poppaea was sympathetic to the Jews only because of her fondness for

Josephus, with whom she had just recently become acquainted. And perhaps Josephus merely inserted 0eocepT|c; as a compliment to a religious woman who helped save

Jewish priests from prison. Her possible affiliation

147 For a very helpful summary on the use of Geooepiiq, see: Louis H. Feldman, "Jewish 'Sympathizers' in Classical Literature and Inscriptions," TAPA 81 (1950). Its only use in the Christian Scriptures is in John 9:31, as a generic reference to those who worship or call upon God. 148 As used in Acts 13:16 & 26. 149 A proselyte would have been a Gentile who attended synagogue and practiced the Jewish faith. Poppaea's burial wishes in Tac, Ann. xvi.6 contradict the wishes of a follower of Judaism. 157 with Judaism, however, does not alter the fact that regardless of what her motivations were, Poppaea's influence shielded Jews from imperial harm. Whether she wished to or not, Poppaea became a protectress of the

Jewish people - at least in the eyes of Josephus.

Alongside Josephus, Plutarch also supported the perception of Poppaea as a woman with positive influence and intentions. Plutarch was the second earliest historian who wrote directly about Poppaea and had little in words to say of Poppaea's character. While Josephus concentrated his short biography of Poppaea on her ability to add dignity and justice to the reign of her husband, Plutarch's account presents Poppaea both as a woman capable of using her beauty to her advantage, and also as a victim of imperial masculine behavior over and against her more temperate character.

Plutarch described Poppaea's second husband, Otho, as a man corrupted by luxury and the pursuit of pleasure, whose only great attribute was Poppaea's hand in marriage.150 In his account of Galba, Plutarch detailed

150 Plut., Galb. xix.2. By the time that Plutarch is describing, Poppaea and Crispinus had already been divorced and Poppaea was already dead. On Otho's less than reputable behavior, see also: Tac, Hist, i.13; Cass. Dio lxii.ll. 158 what he saw as the moral corruption within the relationship between Nero, Otho, and Poppaea:

Nero was in love with Poppaea while she was still with Crispinus, but since he respected his wife and feared his mother, he used Otho to make advances toward her.... But at any rate Otho first seduced Poppaea himself and corrupted her with hopes of Nero's love, and convinced her to leave her husband. However, after she had become his wife, he was not pleased to share her, and was unwilling to give Nero a share, but Poppaea herself was not grieved, they say, at their rivalry. For she would shut out Nero, it is said, even in the absence of Otho, either to keep his pleasure in her from fading away, or, as some say, she did not want to be weighed down in marriage to the Emperor, but was not against being his lover, out of pure sexual indulgence.151

In this short passage, Nero and Otho were the actors upon

Poppaea. It was not until she was corrupted by the circumstances that Poppaea engaged in any actions of her own. In Plutarch's account, Poppaea was very much a product of her environment - her feminine nature was malleable and easily molded into a disreputable personality on account of the men involved.

Even if one takes Plutarch's insinuation of

Poppaea's feminine naivete into mind, there is confusion over the proper attribution of masculine and feminine in

151 Plut., Galb. xix.2, 4-5. 159 the relationship between Nero and Poppaea. In Plutarch's account, Nero was a sort of conglomeration of feminine and masculine qualities. He pursued and conquered his desire, Poppaea, although she first married Otho, carried on a sexual affair and then eventually married Nero. Yet at the same time, Nero was under the control of his mother. He feared the wrath and displeasure his mother would afflict upon him if he should divorce Octavia and marry Poppaea. Shortly thereafter, during their affair,

Nero fell under the power of Poppaea, who convinced him to kill his mother and divorce Octavia, after which, they were wed twelve days after his divorce.152 While his wife, Poppaea continued to dominate Nero.153 Poppaea does not appear to have been a helpless victim of a manly emperor after all. Based solely on Plutarch's account,

Poppaea emerges as a woman who feigned feminine fragility in the face of two feminine men, and once victorious in her marriage to the emperor, reasserted her own manly- femininity in order to attain what she wished through the

152 For a deeper understanding on the motivations of Nero in his relationship with his mother, Poppaea and others during this time, see: Robert S. Rogers, "Heirs and Rivals to Nero," TAPA 86 (1955). 153 Tac, Ann. xiv. 60-61, 63-65; xv.61. 160 power of the emperor - or so one could assert from

Tacitus' Annals:

And Poppaea received access [to Nero] first by flattering words and cunning, pretending that she was too weak to resist her passion and had been captured by Nero's beauty; then as Nero's love grew strong, turning to arrogance.154

Whether the sources on Poppaea agreed or disagreed on her character, they most certainly agreed on her ability to influence Nero in his imperial duties.

Of everything that transpired during the reign of

Nero, the event that had the greatest impact upon

Christianity was the Great Fire of Rome in 64. The blame attributed to the Christian movement invites questions about the possible involvement of Poppaea because of her close affiliation with Judaism. In 64, the city of Rome caught fire. The sources that mention the Fire of Rome vary on the extent of the fire's damage; nevertheless, the fire was severe enough to render many homeless and to rouse the population to call upon the emperor for action.155 In the end, Nero placed the blame upon a minority sect of Judaism called Christians, and

Tac, Ann. xiii.46. Tac, Ann. xv.38-41; Cass. Dio lxii.16-18. 161 thenceforth, Christians have made use of the term "Neronian Persecution." Although Poppaea was never implicated by the sources in any sort of connection to this incident, is it at all inconceivable that a woman with at least some familiarity with Judaism156 could have mentioned an irreconcilable sect to Nero in his quest to persuade the populace against blaming the emperor? The Poppaea who emerges from the sources was a woman fully capable of such an act. If Poppaea's interest was deep enough, she no doubt knew of the different parties within Judaism, and her friendship with Josephus might have inclined her more toward the party of the Pharisees.157 On the other hand, it was through Poppaea's influence that Nero appointed Gessius Florus as Procurator of Judaea in 64.158 Florus' corruption and lawless exercise of power pushed the Jews

The Great Fire occurred in the same year as Josephus' visit to Rome. H. St. J. Thackeray, in his Loeb translation of Josephus' Vita, places the visit of Josephus to Rome in 61, rather than 64. The year 61 is unlikely, however, since Josephus mentioned that he had just turned twenty-seven, which would be 64, since his birth was in 37. Furthermore, in recounting of the visit in Vita 16, Josephus called Poppaea the wife (yuvoaia) of Nero, which was not the case until 62. 157 The sect of which Josephus was a member. The Pharisees were not on the best of terms with either the Sadducees or the Christians (Nazarenes). 158 Josephus, AJ xx. 252. 162 to revolt in 66.159 According to Josephus' timeline in his Antiquities, this event occurred shortly after

Poppaea had met and helped Josephus. This being the case, Poppaea was either ignorant of Florus' incompetence and greed, or he truly did not understand the Jewish people and their relations with the Empire. Perhaps

Josephus' attribution of BeooepT^ upon Poppaea was more on account of her immediate action of assisting the Jews because of her new friendship with Josephus, rather than on her understanding of and adherence to Judaism.

While it is inconclusive whether Poppaea assisted the Jews on account of her friendship with Josephus or her own personal religious convictions, it is irrefutable that her direct intervention in the case ensured the freedom of the priests and the protection of the integrity of the Jewish Temple. Josephus' summation of

Poppaea was no doubt heavily colored by his own short and personal experience with her in this particular incident.

Of all those who recorded the life and deeds of the empress, Josephus seems to be the only one who had

159 Josephus, AJ xx.252; Josephus, BJ ii. 277-283; Tac, Hist. v.10. 163 actually met her in the flesh. Tacitus was the first160 to mention Poppaea's deviant behavior and the first to

cast her in the mold of a woman obsessed with power and

capable of continuing the unnatural dominance over Nero

after his mother's death.161 This gendered interpretation

of Poppaea as a usurper can, of course, be easily

explained by his subtle polemic against the exercise of

legitimate masculine authority by a woman.

Marcia stands out among some of the other Christian women in this study because her connection to actual

churchmen in Rome is documented with specificity in at

least one reliable source. In his Refutatio Omnium

Haeresium, Hippolytus mentioned Marcia in his

condemnation of Callistus:

But after a time, there being in that place [Sardinia] other martyrs, Marcia, being a God- loving woman and a concubine of Commodus, and having wished to do some good work, summoned before her the blessed Victor, who was a bishop of the Church at that time, and asked him what martyrs were in Sardinia;... Then Marcia, having obtained her request from Commodus, gave the letter of freedom to a certain Hyacinthus, an elderly eunuch.162

160 Of all those who wrote on or merely referenced Poppaea, Tacitus is the fourth to describe her in such a manner. Those who wrote before him were: Plin., HN xxviii.183; xxx.140, Josephus, AJ xx.195; Vit. xvi, and Plut., Galb. xix.2-5. 161 And even before, as Dio claimed she was the one who encouraged the assassination of Agrippina. 162 Hippol., Haer. ix. 12.10-11. According to Hippolytus, not only did Marcia summon the

Bishop of Rome for a personal visit, but she also used her influence over the emperor to secure the release of

Christian prisoners in Sardinia. This passage raises two important questions: First, what was the likelihood that a woman in an intimate relationship with the emperor could call upon and meet the leader of a minor religious sect; and second, would Marcia have been able to convince

Commodus to grant her wish of freeing the prisoners from

Sardinia?

The first question can be placed into the context of

Marcia's legal and social status examined above. Marcia enjoyed immense influence and power by virtue of her close association with Commodus. Women close to the emperor who may have been in contact with Christian leaders before the fourth century are not improbable, and the third century provides another important example for this study. During the reign of Alexander Severus (222-

235) , Origen is said to have met with the empress Julia

Mamaea,163 and perhaps around the same time, Hippolytus

163 Euseb., Hist. eccl. vi.21.3. 165 corresponded with "a certain queen."164 Unlike an empress, Marcia, as a concubine, did not automatically command political power. Much like the case of Domitilla examined in the previous chapter, Marcia remained outside the political sphere and was therefore freer to engage in activities which would have placed men in the same situation into serious jeopardy.

The answer as to whether Marcia was capable of influencing Commodus' will can be inferred by deconstructing the language and tone in the available sources. Some of the sources are kind in their interpretation of Marcia's relationship with Commodus while others are not. While the image of Marcia as manipulative or controlling comes through in some degree in nearly all the sources, the fact that Commodus was completely smitten with her is prominent. Herodian described Marcia as Commodus' "favorite,"165 and Dio

164 For more on this, see my discussion below, as well as: Brown, The Body and Society: Men, Women and Sexual Renunciation in Early Christianity, 151f; Christian K.J. von Bunsen, Hippolytus and His Age, 2 vols. (London: Longman, Brown, Green, and Longmans, 1854), 276. 165 Hdn., i.4. 166 claimed that because of Commodus' love for her, she was able to do anything she wanted.166

Some of the sources gave unflattering explanations for Commodus' love for Marcia, who showered him with flattery167 and vulgar sexual attraction168 which allowed her to gain control of his mind.169 In all, the sources are in general agreement that Marcia was able to use her beauty, charm, and position as concubine to influence and direct the attentions of the emperor, much in the same way Poppaea had done in the previous century. Dio gave an example of how Marcia used her power: "The tradition is that she was a supporter of the Christians and did many good things for them."170 These attributions of sway over Commodus and affection for Christianity lend credence to the opportunity for Marcia to act on behalf of the Christian community in Rome.

As concubine to the emperor, Marcia was able to maintain contact with the Bishop of Rome and use her status and gender to position herself as protectress of

166 Cass. Dio, lxxiii.4.7: "...axe icai 7tapa tw Ko|U|u6§a> Ttav 8woc|a.evTi." Commodus' passion for Marcia is also mentioned in SHA, Comm. xi.9. 167 SHA, Comm. viii.6. 168 Epit. de Caes., xvii.5 169 Epit. de Caes., xvii.5 170 Cass. Dio, lxxiii.4.7. 167 the Christian community there. Marcia's gender allowed her to maintain a close sexual relationship with

Commodus, through which she was able to provide the

Christian Church with eyes and ears deep within the recesses of the imperial government.

Marcia's eyes and ears were used not only for the

Church, however. In 192, Marcia conspired with the

Praetorian Prefect, Q. Aemilius Laetus, and murdered

Commodus.171 Marcia proved to be influential not only for the benefit of helping her Christian friends, but also for guiding the course of imperial succession. In addition, with her success in securing the freedom of the

Christian prisoners in Sardinia, which included the future Pope Callistus I, Marcia acted in a role of a patroness who used society's expectations of gender to protect a minority group.172

Marcia's patronage was not especially unique, given some early examples of female patrons in the first two

171 Cass. Dio, lxxiii.22.4-6; Epit. de Caes., xvii.5; SHA, Comm. xvii.1-2; Hdn., i.17.1-11; Zos., Historia Nova i.7. 172 Marcia's role is similar to later stories of Jewish women who used their gender to obtain the freedom of family and friends in Nazi Germany. See: Marion A. Kaplan, Between Dignity and Despair: Jewish Life in Nazi Germany (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998). 168 centuries.173 Her role as protectress, however, was quite unique and rather ironic. While the Christian church maintained a strictly male ecclesiastical hierarchy, as well as an understanding of woman as the "weaker vessel,"174 the Roman Christians relied upon the protection of a woman whom they needed to assume qualities generally associated with a masculine protector. The Church in Rome benefited from the protection afforded by a woman who exhibited the qualities of a man.175 The failure of Commodus to exude the qualities Roman society expected of its princeps disrupted the gender hierarchy and forced a woman to take on male responsibilities in protecting the Christians. Eusebius described the state of Christianity at the beginning of the third century as a time "[w]hen

173 Some examples of early patronesses of the Christian movement can be deduced from context, but their numbers pale in comparison to the third and fourth centuries. I am including in my list women who opened their homes for the use as early churches. Possible examples from the Scriptures are: Lydia (Acts 16); Phoebe (Romans 16); Prisca (Romans 16); Chloe can be inferred from 1 Corinthians 1:11; Nympha (Colossians 4); Apphia (Philemon 1). 174 1 Peter 3:7. 175 Marion Kaplan makes a similar observation when she notes that women assumed masculine roles in their attempt to getting their husbands and fathers released from prison. The irony was that while the Nazis attempted to enforce strict gender guidelines for society they in turn disrupted the gender hierarchy of the Jews, forcing women to take on male responsibilities in protecting the home and family. See: Kaplan, Between Dignity and Despair: Jewish Life in Nazi Germany, esp. ch. 2. [Septimius] Severus was stirring up persecution against the churches."176 By the reign of Alexander Severus, beginning in 222, the relationship of the Church to the imperial government appears to have taken a turn for the better. During the reign of Alexander, there was a purported meeting between the Christian writer Origen, and Mamaea. Eusebius wrote:

The emperor's mother, Mamaea by name, was a religious woman [Qeoae^eaxd%r\ yuvn] if ever there was one, and when Origen's fame had reached everywhere, including her own ears, she was eager to be honored with the sight of the man and to test his understanding of divine things which was the wonder of all. She was then staying in Antioch, and sent a military escort to bring him to her; he stayed with her for some time showing her many things for the glory of the Lord and the excellence of divine teaching, he then hurried back to his customary duties.177

Paulus Orosius, writing about two centuries after the reign of Alexander, wrote: "his [Alexander's] mother

Mamaea, a Christian, made it her business to hear from the presbyter Origen."178 Despite Orosius' claim, it is unlikely that Mamaea was indeed a Christian. The term used by Eusebius, GeoaePeoxaxri, suggests a possible interpretation of Mamaea's interest in Origen.

176 Euseb., Hist. eccl. vi. 1. 177 Euseb., Hist. eccl. vi.21. 178 Oros. , Historiae adversum paganos vii.18.7. 170 Very similar to the term 0EOOEPTIC, which Josephus had used in describing Poppaea, Geoaepecrcaxri can be best understood within its context. In its most basic definition, the term has a generic connotation of being religious. It is not specifically Christian, in much the same way that GeooepTi? is not specifically Jewish in the context of Poppaea Sabina. While not as precise as

Orosius' claim that Mamaea was a Christian, Eusebius' comment in his History connected Mamaea more closely to the Christian movement. In his recounting of the end of

Alexander's reign, Eusebius wrote:

After reigning thirteen years, the Roman emperor Alexander died and was succeeded by Maximinus. Hostile to the house of Alexander, since it consisted for the most part of believers, he started a persecution and ordered only the leaders of the church to be put to death as being responsible for the teaching of the Gospel.179

Alone, this comment by Eusebius would seem to imply some kind of preference for the Christian faith by Alexander and his mother. Lampridius brings Eusebius' account and his use of the term BeooePeoxdcxri into context. He writes that Alexander "respected the privileges of the Jews and

179 Euseb., Hist. eccl. vi.28. 171 allowed the Christians to exist unmolested."180 The

Historia Augusta goes on to demonstrate that Alexander had an interest not only in Christianity, but in religion in general.181 Alexander erected temples that contained the images of the deified emperors in addition to

"Christ, Abraham, Orpheus, and others of the same character."182 Because of this general interest in religion, Christianity found itself in a far better position politically under the protective eye of

Alexander and Mamaea.183 This is perhaps the best way to interpret Mamaea's influence on the treatment of

Christianity during the reign of her son. Since Mamaea was, for all practical purposes, running the Empire through the image of Alexander, her interest in all things religious encouraged an environment of relative tolerance for all beliefs, including Christianity and

Judaism.

180 SHA, Alex. Sev. xxii.4. 181 Some examples of Christianity's status under Alexander see: SHA, Alex. Sev. xxii.4; xxix.2; xliii.6-7; xlv.7; xlix.6; li.7. 182 SHA, Alex. Sev. xxix.2. 183 SHA, Alex. Sev. xliii.6-7 explains that Alexander wished to build a temple to Christ, however, this does not mean Christianity held any kind of favored position, since Lampridius then mentions that Hadrian had wished to do the same; an emperor who is never connected to any devotion of Christian belief. 172 This idea of a relative tolerance for all beliefs may explain Julia Mamaea's meeting with Origen, as well as the vague reference to Hippolytus' letter "to a certain queen [paoiA,i8a] . "184 The simplest explanation of the identity of this certain queen is Julia Mamaea. Her interest in things religious, including specifically,

Christianity, would undoubtedly have garnered the attention of one of the early Church's most prolific writers. There is also a mention of a letter to a

Severina by Hippolytus carved into a marble slab, and this unknown Severan has been connected by later historians to the "certain queen" named above. The diminutive form of Severa would imply a young girl, rather than someone of Mamaea's age, and so one theory connects the two letters to a daughter of Alexander

Severus.185 However, this explanation is needlessly complicated, and it is more likely that Julia Mamaea, who had already demonstrated an interest in Christianity would have been the intended recipient (whether actual or honorary) of Hippolytus' letter. The letter's content is an explanation of Christ's resurrection, and may be an

184 Hippol., Sermonum Fragmenta iii. 185 Bunsen, Hippolytus and His Age, Vol I, 27 6. 173 answer to a question by the unknown Severina. Regardless

of to whom the letter was intended, it serves as another

possible example demonstrating that the Christians during

Alexander's reign enjoyed a peculiar relationship with

the imperial throne. The peace during this short period

was markedly different from what they had experienced

under either Septimius Severus beforehand, or Maximinus

Thrax thereafter. The cause for this change can be

surmised from Mamaea's interest in religion, and her

influence over Alexander.

Although spanning the course of three centuries, the

accounts of Poppaea, Marcia, and Mamaea reveal three

women who shared similarities and differences in their

physical beauty, individual character, and personal motivations. Poppaea, through her assistance to

Josephus, Marcia, through her assistance to Bishop

Victor, and Mamaea, in her interest in Origen, became protectresses through the manipulation of gender roles in

relation to their respective emperors. Poppaea, Marcia,

and Mamaea provided stable examples of masculinity

through whom stability and order could be projected.

Without the perceived femininity of Nero and Commodus, which created an environment of uncertainty, Poppaea and 174 Marcia would not have been able to assert their own conveyance of masculinity into action on behalf the Jews and Christians as well as other issues in which they took interest. If not for Alexander's age, Julia Maraaea's ability to increase and maintain her power throughout his reign might have come to naught. However, because these women took advantage of their circumstances, they were able to manipulate the course of events concerning religious movements within the Empire, through the careful machinations within their established gendered boundaries.

Gendered Legacies Across the Centuries: Conclusions

Poppaea, Marcia, and Mamaea all had influence over their respective emperors, and all three took advantage of that privilege. It is impossible to know for certain the intentions of each of these women, especially in regard to the survival of the Christian Church. Poppaea and Mamaea were less connected to Judaism or Christianity than Marcia was to the Christian community in Rome, and yet each wielded influence which greatly impacted the course of Christian history. However, regardless of 175 their religious intentions or motivations, all three women demonstrated that the gendered boundaries of Roman culture could be utilized in a manner unnecessary for a man, yet profoundly profitable for a woman.

Gendered language permeated the accounts about

Poppaea's actions and personality. Mostly on account of

Tacitus, who was the first to address Poppaea in great detail, Poppaea's portrait in the annals of history has been limited with the stigma of a usurper of masculine authority and a corrupter of good morals and good sense.

Josephus' kindly portrayal of Poppaea as a benefactor and protectress of the Jewish people is a nice counterbalance to Tacitus, but it was, however, only a brief mention in a very long history. In addition, while Poppaea was indeed a protectress of the Jews, she was unlikely a Jew herself. Whatever one may wish to say about the personality or motivations of Poppaea, one can certainly not disregard her influence over Nero and her ability to push against the Roman understanding of gendered spaces.

Poppaea wielded influence comparable to that of an imperial advisor without ever leaving the confines of an empress' palace. 176 Unlike Poppaea, Marcia was not able to change or influence imperial policy. Instead, because of her gender and Christianity, she was able to take advantage of her position and protect the Church without the use of imperial policy. Marcia's rank, gender, and personal abilities allowed her to circumvent the political process and take up a role as protectress of the Christian community in Rome - a role which transcended the traditional understanding of what was expected of the feminine within both Roman and Christian cultures, while also remaining well within those gendered boundaries.

Marcia neither created nor violated any laws because it was not necessary. The uncertainty and instability connected with Commodus' reign created an environment in which Marcia could operate without impairment - a fortunate situation for the Church which resurfaced again, and to a much greater degree, in the midst of the

Third Century Crisis.

Just before the Empire was plunged into that crisis, the Severan women demonstrated that ideas of gendered boundaries could be blurred in the face of an unexpected and unwanted emasculation of the first man. Elagabalus' blatant disregard for what Romans considered masculine 177 behavior for the princeps cost him his life, and on account of the maneuverings of his grandmother and aunt, provided the way for his antithesis to ascend the throne.

With high hopes for Alexander the boy to become Alexander the man, the army and Senate eagerly awaited his maturation as they tolerated the rule of his mother,

Mamaea. In the end, Mamaea found herself as not only a protectress of religious tolerance, but also of her own son. Given the accepted division of gender in Roman culture, however, her role as protectress of Alexander was short lived because her control had failed to allow his ascendancy into manhood in the eyes of the army. The end of the Severans proved to be problematic for the

Church as well, as the laxity of religious regulation became more stringent in the later part of the third century.

As seen in the previous chapter in the examples of

Pomponia Graecina and Domitilla, stability, or the threat of its undoing, was a powerful impetus in enforcing or countermanding the understood roles of each gender within

Greco-Roman society. In the case of Poppaea, the Empire was still new and had emerged from the stable rule of

Claudius, whose predecessor had disrupted constancy and 178 reveled in extravagance, immorality, and cruelty.186

Because of Claudius' return to dignified and durable rule, men and women conformed to their socially- constructed conceptions of gender. The lack of volatility brought no need for a woman to break free of her mold of femininity and assume the masculine role. In much the same way, there was little reason to debate the proper duties of the masculine and feminine during the time of Marcia at the end of the second century because those on the interior of the Empire witnessed unprecedented prosperity and peace during what has been termed the Golden Age of Rome.187 The men, who ruled effectively, governed and protected the populace. The stability within political life provided an atmosphere conducive to stability between genders within society.

The reigns of Nero and Commodus, while not at the degree of calamity that befell Rome in the third century, were not interpreted by the ancient historians as steady and archetypal examples of how an emperor was to conduct himself, and therefore, in the midst of political disorder, gender disorder emerged. After Elagabalus,

186 Claudius (r. 41 - 54) was proclaimed emperor after the assassination of Caligula (r. 37 - 41). 187 The reign of the Five Good Emperors (96-180) described above. 179 Alexander was a return to the traditional expectations of masculine-enforced stability and order. However, in order to bring about this positive change, the feminine

Elagabalus had to be removed by someone capable of exuding the masculine qualities he lacked. The solution was Alexander, albeit he was too young to truly embody the Roman ideal of princeps. Julia Mamaea assumed this role through the image of her son and his potential masculinity. When Alexander became old enough to assume the role of princeps independently, the failure of Mamaea to relinquish her unsavory dominance over the masculine became problematic for the stability of the Empire, in the opinion of the Roman historians. The response was the elimination of both by the institution which was the epitome of masculinity - the army.

To the Romans, femininity was equal to tyranny; masculinity to order. The emphasized femininity of some emperors within the sources elucidates not only what

Roman society considered to be feminine nature, but also the propagandistic motivations of the Roman historians.

The perceived lack of stability on account of the reigning emperors in each case drew the public eye away from the activities of the women examined in this 180 chapter, allowing them to step outside their socially constructed limitations. It is only after the fact (and in most cases long after the fact) that their actions were reflected upon and then interpreted by the ancient historians within the confines of the divisions of gender-specific expectations. Poppaea, Marcia, and

Mamaea are three examples of how the Roman historians attempted to explain and defend the distinctiveness of male and female in an imperial culture that, in their eyes, failed to uphold the traditional balance. CHAPTER IV

'THEY WILL BE YOUR SUPERIORS'

Conclusions

Survey all the laws with which your forefathers restrained womanly license and made them subject to their husbands; even with all these bonds you can barely control them. What of this? If you support them to seize these bonds one by one and wrench themselves free and finally to be placed on parity with their husbands, do you think that you will be able to endure them? As soon as they begin to be your equals, they will be your superiors.1

The women examined in this work were by no means political equals to the men with whom they were connected. It could be argued, however, that they were nonetheless able to assume superior positions of power.

None of these women exercised legitimate political authority (although a case could be made for Julia

1 The response of M. Portius Cato to the request to repeal the Oppian Law in 195 BC. Recorded in Livy, Ab Urbe Condita xxxiv.3.1-3: "Recensete omnia muliebria iura quibus licentiam earum adligaverint maiores vestry per quaeque eas subiecerint viris; quibus omnibus constrictas vix tamen continere potestis. Quid? Si carpere singula et extorquere et exaequari ad extremum viris patiemini, tolerabiles vobis eas fore creditis? Extemplo, simul pares esse coeperint, superiores erunt."

181 182 Mamaea).2 What these women demonstrated was that, because of the gendered spheres constructed and enforced within imperial society, they did not have to become the equals of men in order to exercise power. What appeared on the surface to be gendered limitations within the religio-political system of imperial Rome could in fact be manipulated into opportunities of influence and power during times of instability or crisis. The influence which these women wielded was unique to their position and gender. No Christian man would have been able to be so intimately connected to the emperor and exercise the influence that these women did. Men of power and authority in imperial Rome were too intricately connected to the civil religion to have been able to work surreptitiously for the Church without attracting the full force of imperial law - as the case of Flavius

Clemens demonstrated in 95. Gendered boundaries which strongly delineated what was the acceptable social behavior of men and women within the public sphere were encouraged and enforced not only by men, who appeared to

2 Cleve argues that the Severan women did not merely exercise power through the authority of the men connected to them, but rather they exercised legitimate political authority. He is in the minority opinion: Robert L. Cleve, "Severus Alexander and the Severan Women" (Ph.D. diss., University of California, Los Angeles, 1982). 183 be the greatest beneficiaries of such laws and traditions, but also by women. Some women, such as those examined in this work, discovered the benefits of power that women could wield because of their exclusion from the religio-political system.

Authority was a strictly masculine construction within imperial Roman society. Masculine terms such as av8peioc and virtus demonstrated the underlying connection between the construction of gender and language. It was not the purpose of this study to examine in depth why

Roman society developed these strictly masculine terms without providing a feminine alternative (or incorporating the feminine within the masculine words).

Regardless of how or why these terms came about, by the time of the early Empire, they nonetheless reflected what had become an inherent mark of gender division within

Roman society. Although "gender history" as a field of modern historical interpretation is still relatively new, writers since the ancient period have recognized gender as an important element in historical discourse.

When these women appeared to exceed the boundaries of their gendered sphere, the memory of their actions 184 were forever penned as contrary to the forces of nature.

The ancient historians and writers saw an undisputed link between the gendered norms and historical consequence.

When emperors exuded the qualities and expectations of manhood, the Empire flourished. When emperors failed, and women attempted to fill the void, disaster followed, even when the actions of the women brought about a temporary return to what the historians understood was the natural order - as in the cases of Marcia and Julia

Mamaea.

The application of gender to politics as they relate to stability is a recurrent theme among the women examined in this study. Men were to be masculine to be true men; women were to be feminine to be true women.

Since men were the rulers in the Roman Empire, when they failed to successfully display masculine qualities, they were considered ill-qualified for their leadership role.

In order to remedy the situation of an effeminate emperor, the masculine had to remove the emperor and reassert the masculinity of his office. If a woman were capable of removing the feminine emperor, her classification could not be the same as his; it would be confusing for a man who was considered feminine (bad) to 185 be removed by a feminine woman, for they shared the same gender category - the hero cannot be of the same quality as the villain. So it followed that a feminine emperor could only be displaced by a masculine force, hence the attribution of masculinity to the woman capable of carrying out such a task.

The simplest interpretation of the Roman construction of gender roles, in regard to the specific instances of Nero, Commodus, Elagabalus, and Alexander, is that masculine and feminine did not necessarily connote specific connection to physical reflections of male and female (although Tacitus might disagree). The

Greek understanding of masculine as one who rules and feminine as one who obeys is theoretically a construction which exists outside of the biological sex of man and woman. However, the construction of gendered concepts was developed along biological lines: men were masculine, women were feminine - or at least they should be, according to the Romans. The questions which remained and which the Roman historians sought to answer, were: what did it mean to be masculine? And what did it mean to be feminine? 186 When women intervened, the ancient historians described their womanliness as being consumed by the masculine qualities necessary to accomplish their task.

Femininity remained absent from the respectful construction of the ideal ruler or leader. Even in the case of Alexander, while Mamaea was not portrayed in the same masculine language as Poppaea and Marcia, she was nonetheless an impediment to the proper exercise of masculinity by the princeps - who the Romans began to see as a boy unable to take his proper role of man. Because of this, a change in leadership was necessary in order to stabilize the proper balance between gender and good governance.

One major conclusion can be drawn from the gendered language and interpretations that the ancient historians used. As the relationship between the imperial government and the Christian community evolved, the gender expectations did not. Women did not flee to

Christianity in order to avoid the dominance of male- created gendered norms. As seen in examples of marriage and virginity, Christianity continued the enforcement of similar gendered spheres: women were expected to marry and bear children, while men continued to publicly direct 187 the affairs of state and religion. Even women who made vows of perpetual virginity were called brides of Christ and were expected to bear celestial children through their religious devotion.

Until the adoption of Christianity by the emperors in the fourth century, the Church partially depended on the Roman construction of gender to provide a defense against imperial harassment. Although these gendered boundaries and the effectiveness of a woman's influence was dependent upon the political and religious environment in which they existed, Christianity survived, in part, because of the enforcement of these gendered norms. EPILOGUE

"POWER IS LIKE BEING A LADY"1 Otacilia, Cornelia Salonina, & Eutropia

Identity Crisis?: Introductions and Limited Sources

Poppaea Sabina, Marcia, and Julia Mamaea had demonstrated that in a crisis which placed the gendered boundaries in question, women, who were expected to demonstrate femininity, could assume and preserve the masculine roles of the princeps. After the reign of

Alexander, the Empire was plunged into the Third Century

Crisis. From 235 to 285, the Empire experienced a torrent of political, economic, military, and religious instabilities exemplified by the ascension of roughly fifty emperors, of whom only twenty-two were officially recognized by the Senate. During the centuries before, the gender crises under the emperors Nero, Commodus, and

Alexander were catalysts for the assertion of the masculine expectation of the princeps by the women most closely associated with those emperors. During the Third

1 This phrase is taken from a quote by Baroness Margaret Thatcher, "Power is like being a lady. If you have to tell people you are, you aren't." 188 189 Century Crisis, the heart of the instability was unrelated to the masculinity of the emperor in most cases. However, the political turmoil may have allowed certain women close to both the emperor and the Christian movement to influence imperial policies because of the political instability that engrossed and diverted the attention of the military, political, and religious establishments. Two women may have impacted imperial policy toward the Christians through the assertion of ordered gendered boundaries during a time of uncertainty and disorder in the political arena. Otacilia Severa and

Cornelia Salonina were Christian empresses who had the opportunities to take advantage of their gender to attain a significant influence through means unavailable to most men.

In examining the possible influence these two women had over their husbands and the religio-political policies of the imperial government, it is difficult to ascertain their personal effectiveness. Since neither of these two women left behind any writing of her own, and because, compared to the women thus far examined, much less has been preserved on these two empresses by contemporary sources, the conclusions reached can only be 190 based on indirect evidence. Nevertheless, connecting these women to their actual and probable actions can shed much light on understanding the Roman construction of gender and its boundaries within times of political crisis and peace. As will also be further explored and specifically demonstrated in the case of a third woman,

Eutropia, who is examined at the conclusion of this chapter, these gendered limitations fluctuated with the perceived stability of the Empire.

Marcia Otacilia Severa was the wife of the emperor

Philip I the Arab (r. 244-249) and the mother of Philip

II, who co-ruled with his father from 247. Not much is known of Otacilia's background, but it is assumed she was of the Severan family, primarily on the basis of a passing reference in Eusebius' Historia.2 Zosimus mentioned that after Philip's ascension, he placed an officer named Severianus as commander of the troops in

Moesia and Macedonia.3 Severianus was either Otacilia's brother or father, a fact which supports Eusebius' claim

2 Euseb., Hist, eccl. vi.36. Eusebius refers to Philip and his wife, Severa. 3 Zos., Historia Nova i.19. 191 that she was of the Severan family.4 Eusebius directly associated Otacilia's husband Philip with Christianity, although not to the extent that the later historians, who had built on his history, would.

Julia Cornelia Salonina was the wife, daughter-in- law, and mother of emperors.5 Her husband, Gallienus (r.

260-268) began his rule as co-emperor with his father,

Valerian (r. 253-260) in 254. That same year, Salonina was elevated to the titles of Augusta and Mater Castrorum

[Mother of the Camps].6 Like Otacilia, Salonina has long been connected with Christianity and has enjoyed a special place in early Christian literature.

Saints Philip and Gallienus?: Philip's & Gallienus' Associations with Christianity

During the reigns of the Philips and Gallienus, the

Christians enjoyed relative peace in their relationship to the imperial government. The apparent tranquility

4 Zosimus' term is KT|8£(UII<;, a term used for a connection by marriage, and can be a brother-in-law or father-in-law. 5 Wife of Gallienus (r. 260-268); daughter-in-law of Valerian (r.253- 260); mother of the Caesars, Valerianus, Saloninus, and Marinianus. 6 Not much is known about the title, but it was especially employed by the Severan dynasty, no doubt to connect itself to the loyalty of the army. For more, see: Barbara Levick, Julia Domna: Syrian Empress, ed. Ronnie Ancona and Sarah Pomeroy, Women of the Ancient World (New York: Routledge, 2007), 42ff. 192 enjoyed by the Christian movement during these reigns is

notable because the sources indicate that the tolerance

was in marked contrast to the previous or following

regimes. Christians enjoyed freedom from imperial

harassment during these reigns because the imperial

governments of the Philips and Gallienus chose either to purposely ignore the movement or to actively halt persecution already in progress. Some insight about the

relationship between the Christian community and the

imperial government can be surmised by examining the

state of the Church during these specific reigns and

connecting it to what is known about the imperial household.

Given the tumult of the Third Century Crisis, it is not surprising that there is little written on the

empresses during this time. However, with great caution, the possible influence Otacilia and Salonina had upon their respective emperors can be deduced, as well as an understanding of how this influence protected the

Christian movement during unprecedented times of social, political, and economic upheaval. In describing the state of imperial affairs in relation to the Church in the mid-third century, Eusebius wrote:

It is beyond our ability to describe fully in worthy detail, that before the persecution of our day, the honor and freedom for the pious word toward the God of the universe proclaimed through Christ, was accorded by all men, Greeks and non-Greeks; and sure signs came from the rulers who granted favors to our people, entrusting them to govern provinces, freeing them from the agony of sacrificing because of their friendly opinion. What is necessary to say about the imperial houses and of all the rulers? Their households - wives and children and servants - came together to practice openly the divine word and faith to their face; these they regarded with prominence and more favorably than their fellow-servants, like the famous Dorotheus, who surpassed all in his devotion and faithfulness to them, and was more highly honored than rulers and governors. Together with him was the famous Gorgonius and all those like them who had been deemed worthy of the same honor because of the word of God; and each church leader was honored by every governor and leader. How can one describe the multitudes that gathered and the masses who in every city gathered on the famous concourses? Because they were no longer satisfied with the old buildings, more spacious churches were built in all the cities. And as these things progressed with the times and day by day increasingly grew in greatness, no envy could hinder them, nor was any evil spirit able to slander or prevent them with human schemes, so long as the divine and heavenly hand was looking out for and keeping watch over, as a worthy object, its own people.7

7 Euseb., Hist, eccl. viii.1.1-6. 194 According to Eusebius, while the Empire struggled for survival, the Church enjoyed a substantial period of peace and prosperity. Given what is known about the reigns of Philip the Arab and Gallienus, Eusebius' summation of the Church should not immediately be written off as embellishment by an inherently biased Christian author.

The son of an Arab sheikh, Philip married Otacilia probably some time around 2378 and had at least one child, a son, Marcus Julius Philippus Severus. From 242-

244, Philip served as Prefect of Mesopotamia during the

Persian campaign of Gordian III (r. 238-244), and after the death of the co-Praetorian Prefect Timesitheus9 in

243, Philip took Timesitheus' place. Soon after, Gordian

III died, and Philip was proclaimed Emperor by the soldiers. Historians then and now still debate the role

Philip played in each of those deaths, if, indeed, any.10

8 Epit. de Caes. xxvni.3 says Philip II was killed at age 12, which places his birth at about 237 or 238. 9 An equestrian who was father-in-law to Gordian, and co-Praetorian Prefect with Philip's brother, Priscus. 10 While many classical authors contend that Philip engineered the death of Timesitheus and the Emperor Gordian III, others are silent. Some recent historians have asserted Philip's innocence and proposed that later pro-Decius and/or pro-Constantine propaganda has encouraged a negative image of Philip the Arab. For the traditional view, see Lukas de Blois, Christian Korner and H.A. Pohlsander; for the revisionists see: John York, Jr. and Yasmme Zahran. 195 Philip's five-year reign is most noted for his overseeing of the millennial celebrations of Rome in 248.X1 These celebrations were Philip's last major task as emperor, for in 249, the army proclaimed Decius emperor, and

Philip and his family were ousted from power.12 Philip and his son Philip, whom he had just recently made co- emperor, were put to the sword, and the five-year reign of the Philippi was ended.13

When describing the ascension of Philip the Arab in

244, Eusebius wrote:

When after six whole years Gordian brought his government of the Romans to an end, Philip, together with his son Philip, took up rule. Rumor is [Kaxe^ei Xoyoc,]14 that he, being a Christian, wished on the day of the last paschal vigil to join with the multitude m the prayers at the church, but he was not permitted

11 The millennial celebration should have taken place m 247. However, an invasion of the Danube provinces forced Philip to postpone the festivities for a year. 12 Lukas de Blois, "The Reign of Philip the Arabian," Talanta 10/11 (1978-1979); Christian Korner, Philippus Arabs: Em Soldatenkaiser in der Tradition des Antonimsch-Severischen Prmzipats, vol. 61, Untersuchungen zur antiken Literatur und Geschichte (New York: Walter de Gruyter, 2002); H.A. Pohlsander, "Philip the Arab and Christianity," Historia 29, no. 4 (1980); John Marvin Jr. York, "The Image of Philip the Arab," Historia 21 (1972); York, "Philip the Arab: The First Christian Emperor of Rome" (Ph.D. diss., University of Southern California, 1964); Yasmme Zahran, Philip the Arab: A Study m Prejudice (London: Stacey International, 2001). 13 There is some disagreement among the original sources as to how the Philippi were actually killed - whether in battle or murdered - but it is not of concern in this study. 14 See below for more on the flexibility of this phrase. Similar to Maier's translation, I have emphasized the usage of Xoyoq in this context as uncertainty on Eusebius' behalf by utilizing the translation "rumor." 196 to enter by the one presiding at the time, until he confessed and joined with those who were judged to be in sins and were occupying the place of penitence. For otherwise, had he not done so, he would never have been received because of the many charges against him. And it is said that he eagerly obeyed, displaying by his actions how genuine and pious was his disposition toward the fear of God.15

This story raises important questions about the relationship of Philip to the Christian movement as well as the validity of Eusebius' account. Because of

Eusebius' record, a debate about Philip's Christianity has consumed nearly all literature concerned with his reign. Four issues are central to this debate: 1) the accounts of Eusebius and those who followed him; 2) the letters of Origen; 3) the bones of St. Pontian; and 4) the persecution of Christians in Alexandria.

The likelihood that a Roman emperor in the mid-third century would openly embrace the Christian faith by publicly confessing his sins to a Christian congregation is small. Eusebius' text reveals that the author shared this skepticism. Following the first sentence, Eusebius writes, "tomov Kocxexei Xoyoc, Xpicraocvov..."16 The translation of this short passage differs amongst the three major

15 Euseb., Hist. eccl. vi.34. 16 Euseb., Hist. eccl. vi.34. 197 English translations of Eusebius' Historia. In his 1932 translation for the Loeb Classical Library, J.E.L. Oulton translated "Kocxexei Xoyoc," as "it is recorded".17 G.A.

Williamson, in his 1965 translation (now the Penguin

Classic), chose "there is reason to believe";18 while Paul

Maier, in his 1999 translation wrote, "word has it".19

Williamson and Maier's translations are somewhat similar: they both imply a sense of uncertainty on the part of

Eusebius - almost a warning about what Eusebius himself believed concerning the credibility of the claim.20

Oulton's translation seems to imply the existence of a definitive historical record - a record which has failed to turn up in any other pre-Eusebian source. Placed within the context of the Third Century Crisis and his later stories about the imperial couple, Eusebius' caution is understandable. Later writers, like Paulus

Orosius, were not as skeptical as Eusebius: "He [Philip]

17 J.E.L. Oulton, ed., Eusebius: The Ecclesiastical History, Volume II, vol. 265, LCL (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2000 [Orig. 1932]). 18 G.A. Williamson, ed., Eusebius: The History of the Church (New York: Penguin Books, 1989 (Orig. 1965)). 19 Paul L. Maier, ed., Eusebius: The Church History (Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 1999). 20 As argued in Korner, Philippus Arabs: Em Soldatenkaiser in Der Tradition Des Antoninisch-Severischen Prmzipats, 261: "Durch die Hmweise KOCTEXEI ^oyoi; und Xiyzxai vermerkt Eusebios ausdrucklich und wiederholt, dass er em Gerucht wiedergibt." 191 was the first of all the emperors to be a Christian 21

Jerome, too, was sure of Philip's Christianity; however, he believed Philip II to be the first Christian emperor, not his father, Philip I.22 Eusebius' account offers more evidence that connects Philip to the Christian movement as well, and gives evidence to the notion that perhaps it was not Philip's Christianity that has earned him mention in the annals of Christian legend, but rather the old adage of the "good old days."

When introducing the reign of Decius (r. 249-251), who immediately followed Philip as emperor, Eusebius wrote: "Because of his [Decius'] hostility to Philip, he began a persecution against the churches."23 There is no explicit reference to Philip's Christianity in this sentence; however, there is an insinuation that Philip's reign was connected to the Church. Even with this implication, Eusebius made no claim that Philip himself was a Christian, only that Decius persecuted the church on account of his hatred toward Philip. Furthermore,

21 Oros. , Historiarum Adversum Paganos Libri VII, vn.20.2; "hie primus lmperatorum omnium Christianus fuit." Orosius then goes so far as to claim that during the millennial celebrations in Rome, Philip did the celebration in honor of Christ and the Church1 22 Jer., De vir. ill. liv. The reasons for the inconsistency in relating Christianity to either Philip I or his son, Philip II, is explored below beginning on page 202. 23 Euseb., Hist. eccl. vi.39.1. 199 Eusebius used the ambiguous phrasing, Kaxe/ei XoyoQ in prefacing the story of Philip mentioned earlier in his

History. Why would Eusebius, who undoubtedly held that

God was using the Roman Empire to bring about the consummation of Christianity's triumph, deliberately avoid connecting that triumph to Philip the Arab? Some would argue that Eusebius had a "tendency to omit or gloss over anything which might detract from the glory of

Constantine as the first Christian emperor."24 However, there are more probable reasons for Eusebius' reluctance to brand Philip as the first Christian emperor.

Writing in the late-fifth century, Zosimus, who was no friend to the Christians, introduced Philip in his

Historia Nova as "a native of Arabia, a worthless nation."25 He then proceeded to give an account of

Philip's sloth, greed, lust for power, incompetence, nepotism, and cronyism.26 Some have argued that Zosimus' poor treatment of Philip was in reaction to Philip's

Christianity.27 It is difficult to know for certain if

Philip's Christianity was a motivation for Zosimus'

24 York, "Philip the Arab: The First Christian Emperor of Rome", 96. 25 Zos., Historia Nova i.18. 26 Zos., Historia Nova i.19-23. 27 York, "Philip the Arab: The First Christian Emperor of Rome", 89f, Zahran, Philip the Arab: A Study in Prejudice, 109f. 200 summation of Philip's reign, especially since Philip's

Christianity is neither explicitly mentioned nor even alluded to within the Historia Nova. The majority of

Zosimus' account of Philip is devoted to his ineptitude as a ruler, and it is blamed on his Arabian origin, rather than his religious convictions. Zosimus' love of

Decius as the pagan ruler par excellence is very apparent within his History and forms a focal point for understanding Philip's personal relationship to the

Church.

As mentioned above, Eusebius' account of Decius was quite the opposite of Zosimus' and insinuated that Decius had begun his persecution against Christianity because of

Philip's connection to the Church.28 Shortly after making this assertion, Eusebius quoted from a letter written by

Bishop Dionysius of Alexandria to Bishop Fabius of

Antioch, in which Dionysius described the change of reigns from Philip to Decius as "the change from the reign that had been kinder to us."29 These two statements embody the motivation for attributing Christianity to

Philip the Arab. The dichotomy between the reigns of

Euseb., Hist, eccl. vi.39.1. Euseb., Hist. eccl. vi.41.9. 201 Philip and Decius, at least in regard to the relationship

between the Church and the imperial government, no doubt

encouraged many Christian writers to look with nostalgia

back to the days before the first systematic

persecution.30 The comparison of Philip to Decius is key

to understanding the later portrayal of Philip by the

Christian authors who followed Eusebius.

The pagan historian Zosimus demonstrated his bias in

opposite fashion to the later-Christian writers by

emphasizing that even before the end of Philip's reign,

the soldiers recognized that Decius "both would look

after the common good better than Philip and would

effortlessly surpass him in political excellence and military experience."31 This was no doubt on account of

the fact that Decius was "a man of distinguished family

and rank besides being adorned with every virtue."32 The

comparison between the reigns of Philip and Decius,

especially by Christian authors, implies some kind of

relationship between the Christian community and the

30 This is also argued in: Korner, Philippus Arabs: Ein Soldatenkaiser in der Tradition des antoninisch-Severischen Prinzipats, 260-76. 31 Zos., Historia Nova i.21. 32 Zos., Historia Nova i.21. This pro-Decian history is also supported by Zonaras, albeit he is not as pro-Decius as Zosimus (Zonar., Epitome Historiarum xii.19) 202 imperial family. There is nothing reliable to indicate that Philip personally was the connection between the

Church and imperial government, but there is, however, much that lends credence to the idea that there was a relationship between his wife Otacilia and Christianity.

In recording the list of writings of Origen's later life, Eusebius claimed that "[a] letter of his [Origen's] to the emperor Philip himself is extant, another to his wife, Severa, and various other letters."33 The letters of Origen to the emperor and empress are not unique.

Justin Martyr, Melito of Sardis, Apolinarius of

Hierapolis,34 and certainly many others, wrote letters and treatises addressed to the Roman emperors, thereby demonstrating little else than a Christian practice of addressing their works to the sitting emperors. The existence of these letters is not an indication of any kind of intimate relationship between the Christian writers and the imperial government. The true value of

Origen's letters lies in the interpretation of them by

Jerome. In his De Viris Illustribus, Jerome made a peculiar statement that Origen "sent letters to Emperor

33 Euseb., Hist. eccl. vi.36.3. 34 See: Euseb., Hist. eccl. iv.18, 26-27. 203 Philip, the first of the Roman rulers to become

Christian, and to his mother [mater/pir\zr\p] , which are still extant today."35 Further down the page, Jerome remarked: "It is unnecessary, however, to speak of the cruelty of the persecution, which was raised against the

Christians under Decius, because he had violent rage against the religion of Philip, whom he had slain."36 As stated above, Eusebius claimed that Origen wrote letters to "to the emperor Philip himself, and another to his wife [ya\iE%y\] Severa."37 The nouns for mother and wife used by each source are not ambiguous, and therefore, it is difficult to interpret them in a fashion that reconciles the two sources with each other.38 However, there are conjectures that can be made based on other evidence.

After his proclamation as emperor by the army,

Philip quickly secured peace with the Persians in the east and headed to Rome. If Philip were a Christian and since he spent the majority of his reign in Rome, then it seems logical to assume some kind of relationship between

35 Jer., De vir. ill. liv. 36 Jer., De vir. ill. liv. 37 Euseb., Hist. eccl. vi.36.3. 38 As was done in the case with Flavia Domitilla's relationship to Clemens and to Domitian in chapter two. 204 the emperor and the Church in Rome would have existed.

However, aside from a medieval legend, according to which

Philip was baptized by the Pope St. Fabian around the time of the millennial celebrations,39 only one story stands out that hints at any connection between the emperor and the Christian community in Rome. The account involves the Roman Bishop Fabian and his effort to move the bones of his martyred predecessor St. Pontian.

Pontian was exiled from Rome to Sardinia in 235 where he later died.40 Fabian wished to return the relics of

Pontian to Rome, but according to Roman law, moving a grave required an official permit and an animal sacrifice to the gods.41 This would, of course, have proved problematic for a Christian bishop. Not only would the bishop have had to attain an official legal document, but he would also have had to violate foundational principles of his faith by participating in a pagan sacrifice. It is possible that Philip allowed the Pope to move the grave without fulfilling the pagan rituals according to

39 ActaSS, St. Fabiano (20 January). 40 Liber Pontificalis, xix.2. 41 York, "Philip the Arab: The First Christian Emperor of Rome", 108- 09. 205 the law - hence Philip's continued decline in popularity among the pagan majority.42

There is room for a more feasible explanation, however. As there is no record of Philip giving permission to the see of Rome to move the buried remains of the martyr Pontian, the argument that permission was given is problematic. Philip's permission was not necessary for the action to be completed - only for the action to be completed legally. The stubbornness of the martyrs and the later leaders during the Diocletianic persecution who refused to hand over the Christian

Scriptures, or in some cases replaced them with clever decoys, are but a few examples of Christian defiance of secular authority. Christians had been commanded to

"obey God rather than men."43 The simple reasoning that the returned bones indicate that it must have been done according to the law is to assume a connection between the Church and imperial authority that the evidence does not support. This relationship is further complicated by events in Alexandria around the end of Philip's reign.

42 ibid. 43 Acts 5:29. 206 Eusebius preserves a letter written by Dionysius of

Alexandria to Fabius, Bishop of Antioch, in which

Dionysius described firsthand the persecution against

Christians in Alexandria in late 248 or early 249.

Dionysius wrote that "it was not with the imperial edict

[of Decius] that the persecution began against us, but it preceded it by a whole year."44 This incident proves to be problematic in establishing Philip's reign as a model of Christian integration in imperial rule. Some have asserted that it is precisely because of Philip's

Christianity that the Christians in Alexandria were singled out for persecution.45 However, this explanation is lacking, given the many times Christians were persecuted under the previous pagan emperors.

If the persecution was as terrible as Dionysius described, why would Philip, a rumored Christian, or at least a Christian sympathizer, not carry out punishment against those who started it? Indeed, there appears to be no involvement whatsoever on the part of the emperor - either in instigating the persecution, or in dealing with its aftermath. One could argue that the millennial

44 Euseb., Hist, eccl., vi.41.1. 45 York, "Philip the Arab: The First Christian Emperor of Rome", 73- 74; Zahran, Philip the Arab: A Study in Prejudice, 123. 207 celebrations or the revolt of Pacatianus in Moesia kept the emperor too busy. However, it is unlikely that the celebration would have prevented the emperor from ensuring order in his realm - as Philip had already postponed the games which were to occur the year before, thanks to an invasion of the Danube provinces.46 As for the Pacatianus rebellion, Philip remained at Rome, having dispatched Decius instead.47 Furthermore, throughout the five-year reign of Philip, nothing was done to alter the legal standing of the Christians.48

What then can be said about Philip's connection to the Christian Church? When all the evidence is brought together, Jerome's small reference to Philip may hold the most logical answer - an answer which, perhaps unbeknownst to him, incorporates Roman understandings of gender and the religio-political system of imperial culture. Jerome indicated, contrary to Eusebius, that

Origen had written letters to Philip and his mother, not

Philip and his wife. Furthermore, Jerome also indicated that Decius carried out a persecution against the

46 Korner, Philippus Arabs: Ein Soldatenkaiser in der Tradition des antoninisch-Severischen Prinzipats, 248; Zahran, Philip the Arab: A Study in Prejudice, 119. 47 York, "Philip the Arab: The First Christian Emperor of Rome", 75. 48 Timothy D. Barnes, "Legislation against the Christians," JRS 58, no. 1 and 2 (1968): 43. 208 Christians on account of his hatred for Philip's religion,49 not a hatred of Philip himself.50 With no further evidence to demonstrate a connection between

Philip I and Christianity, one can assume that the

Emperor Philip to whom Origen wrote was most likely

Philip II, son of Philip I. Otacilia's Christianity is not debated, yet she is rarely seen as the impetus behind the treatment of Christians during the reign of her husband and son. Like the case with Julia Mamaea and

Alexander, Otacilia may have used the authority of her son, and perhaps also her husband, in ensuring an environment conducive to growth for the Christian movement in the Third Century Crisis. When Christians looked back on the reign before the persecutions of the third century, they saw Philip as a stark contrast to the first systematic persecution under Decius. The simplest explanation was to attribute the days for which they pined to Philip I. However, the absence of an attribution of Christianity for Philip within Eusebius' account combined with Jerome's emphasis on the importance

49 Jer., De vir. ill. liv: "...eo quod in religionem Philippi desaeviret..." 50 Euseb., Hist. eccl. vi.39.1: "oq 5TI TO\J npoq iXmnov e.%0ovq evem... 209 of Philip II, encourages an alternate explanation for the

Philippan Peace of Christianity.

Eusebius was not shy in asserting that things were peaceful for the most part during the mid-third century for the Christian movement. He was also not eager to indulge his readers in what he understood to be unsubstantiated rumors about the religious convictions of the Roman emperor Philip I. Relating these two points,

Eusebius' account, in connection with the later accounts which built off of his Historia, implies a possible intervention by the empress Otacilia in the policies of her husband and her son. Through this connection, the exercise of gendered boundaries becomes prevalent even in the absence of gendered language in the sources. It can be surmised that the Church enjoyed peace during the reign of the Philips, not on account of a Christian

Philip, but more logically on account of a Christian

Otacilia.

Following the deaths of Trebonianus Gallas and

Aemilianus in 253, Valerian assumed the throne and had the Senate appoint his son, Gallienus, Caesar and co-

Augustus. The persecution of the Christian Church that had begun under Decius was reignited during the reign of 210 Valerian.51 In 260, however, Valerian became the first

Roman emperor to be captured in battle and was subsequently executed by the Persians. From 260 to 268, the Empire was ruled by Gallienus, who, Eusebius wrote,

"ruled more prudently and immediately ended the persecution against us by an edict."52 Eusebius recorded the edict:

The Emperor Caesar Publius Licinius Gallienus Pius Felix Augustus to Dionysius and Pinnas and Demetrius and the other bishops. I have commanded that the acts of kindness of my bounty be proclaimed throughout all the universe, in such manner that they [non- Christians] should withdraw from the places of [Christian] worship, and therefore you may also use the decree in my rescript so that no one may trouble you. And according to the power allowed to you to accomplish this, which has been conceded by me for a long time, and therefore Aurelius Quirinius, who is my chief minister, will observe the decree given by me.53

This edict afforded the Christians freedom to worship and returned their property. In addition to the edict,

Eusebius also provided a letter from Dionysius of

Alexandria to Hermammon and the Church in Egypt in which

51 For some brief accounts on the persecution of Valerian, see: Euseb., Hist, eccl. vii.10-12; Christopher J. Haas, "Imperial Religious Policy and Valerian's Persecution of the Church, A.D. 257- 260," Church History 52, no. 2 (Jun. 1983); Paul Keresztes, "Two Edicts of the Emperor Valerian," Vig. Chr. 29, no. 2 (Jun. 1975). 52 Euseb., Hist. eccl. vii.13. 53 Euseb., Hist. eccl. vii.13. 211 he described the reign of Gallienus in relation to

Christianity:

For I see, that indeed those ungodly [emperors], once well-known, after not much time have become nameless, but he who is more hallowed and filled with more love for God has passed seven years, and now at this time is finishing a ninth year, in which we may keep the festival.54

These two sources indicate that Christians noticed a shift in the relationship between the imperial government and the Christian community. Begun by Gallienus,

Christians experienced freedom from imperial persecution for the next forty years.

The question which historians must ask in relation to this edict is: "Was Gallienus' edict one of toleration?" Given the record of this edict within the

Christian historical tradition, it was more than likely not an edict of toleration.55 In the greater narrative of

Christian history, Lukas de Blois correctly summarized the reign of Gallienus: "The time of Gallienus was by no means as great a turning point in the history of the

54 Euseb., Hist, eccl. vii.23. 55 Lukas de Blois, The Policy of the Emperor Gallienus, ed. J.G.P. Best, A.B. Breebaart, and M.F. Jongkees-Vos, vol. VII, Studies of the Dutch Archaeological and Historical Society (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1976), 177-81. Especially this remark: "Had Gallienus issued an edict of toleration his reign would have been of far greater significance for the various aspects of Christian life" (180). 212 church as the time of Commodus and the Severi or of

Constantine the Great."56 Concerning the nature of the organization of the Christian communities and the recognition of the distinction between the clergy and laity, this is certainly true. If the policy of

Gallienus was not one of toleration in the sense of the later centuries, then what was the purpose of his edict?

There are currently two ways of interpreting this edict.

One, espoused by a number of historians,57 holds that through his prescript, Gallienus officially recognized the Christian communities as legal entities within the

Empire. On the other side, Lukas de Blois argued that

Gallienus' policy simply "acknowledged openly what most of his predecessors had acknowledged tacitly: that the

Christian communities possessed churches and cemeteries of their own and had the use of goods and buildings in the possession of rich community members."58

Gallienus' motivations behind his decree can be debated. A multitude of political, philosophical, and religious reasons can be used to explain Gallienus' sudden kindness toward the Christian communities after

56 Ibid., 179. 57 See those cited by de Blois: Ibid., 181 (fn 31). 58 Ibid., 181. 213 his father's capture and execution.59 Connected to any theory, however, is that nearly, if not all, instances of popular uprisings against Christian communities were accompanied by general riots or insurrections. Lukas de

Blois' account of Gallienus summarized the debate by conglomerating the different theories into an estimate of

Gallienus' possible motivations:

Gallienus put an end to Valerian's persecution of the Christians because he wanted to allay a source of trouble in the empire, because he wanted to win over the large group of Christians in the eastern parts of the empire from Macrianus60 and because he wanted to prevent them from becoming pro-Persian. Moreover, the persecution of Christians was ill-suited to his conception of his emperorship and he may well have feared the vengeance of the Christian God.61

While this summation of Gallienus' possible motivations is seemingly all-encompassing in regard to the multiple theories which have been offered over the centuries, it still neglects one important aspect of Gallienus' life that could well have had some influence over his reign - his Christian wife, Cornelia Salonina.

59 Ibid., 181-85. 60 Macrianus was a usurper who was acclaimed emperor by the army in Mesopotamia after Valerian's capture by the Persians in 260. He was defeated by Gallienus in 261. 61 Blois, The Policy of the Emperor Gallienus, 185. During the reigns of both Philip the Arab and

Gallienus, it is undeniable that the Christian community- at-large enjoyed a time of relative peace and freedom from interference by the imperial government. It can be argued that because of the Third Century Crisis, the focus of the emperors was concentrated on the economic and political aspects of imperial rule, and therefore the

Christians seemingly slipped under the radar - avoiding the attention of the imperial government because the emperor was far too occupied in ensuring his own authority and survival. However, this narrow interpretation neglects a commonality shared by both

Philip and Gallienus: both emperors had Christian wives.

The coincidence is too strong to simply ignore, and as can be supported by the sources available, it is reasonable to assume that these women were able to project an influence over their husbands that ensured an environment conducive to growth of the Christian communities in the Empire. 215 She's a Lady: Femininity and the Exercise of Power in the Third Century Crisis

The distinctive emphases on the peace and stability of Christianity during the reigns of Philip the Arab and

Gallienus by Eusebius and other early Christian writers implies something beyond mere coincidence or an assumption that the emperor was Christian. This is especially true, given the historical tradition that the wives of each of these emperors were Christians.

Otacilia Severa and Cornelia Salonina provide interesting perspectives into gender relations within the Third

Century Crisis. Although scant, the sources available demonstrate that these two empresses took advantage of their femininity as defined by Roman culture, and through it, exercised considerable control over imperial policies concerned with Christianity. Unlike the women examined in chapter three, Otacilia and Salonina did not attract the ire of later writers by bending their gendered spheres and thereby giving reason to be accused of disregarding what was a proper exercise of one's gender.

Instead, if each one exercised influence through her emotional attachment to the emperor, then in the eyes of 216 the Romans, these women acted as women ought to act in order to manipulate their husbands to follow their wills.

There are numerous examples in Roman history where women asserted themselves over and against a male- dominated religio-political system and sealed their fates in the annals of history as transgressors of what was proper behavior for a woman.62 Then there are numerous other examples of women who asserted themselves over and against a male-dominated religio-political system and sealed their fates in the annals of history as paragons of feminine virtue and honor.63 It was not the acts of defiance, influence, or seduction which caused the ancient historians to pen indelibly these women as examples of iniquity within society. Rather, it was how the historians interpreted the actions of these women as either in accordance with, or in defiance of, their socially-expected gendered spheres. Otacilia Severa and

Cornelia Salonina did not earn the ire of the ancient historians as did Poppaea, Marcia, and Julia Mamaea, because Otacilia and Salonina effectively carried out

62 For example: Sempronia (wife of Catiline), Agrippina the Younger, and Marcia. For more, see: Richard A. Bauman, Women and Politics in Ancient Rome (New York: Routledge, 1992) . 63 For example: the Sabine Women, Lucretia, Verginia, and Livia (wife of Augustus). See also Bauman cited in the previous footnote. 217 their tasks of Christian patronage within the boundaries of what was expected of women in the third-century

Empire. The fact that these women lived and operated in one of the most unstable periods of Roman history also gave advantage to their task at influencing imperial policy.

It is unlikely that Philip I was a Christian, yet

Christians seem to have enjoyed a remarkable peace during his reign. Jerome provided a hint as to why with his emphasis on a Christian Philip II and his mother the empress Otacilia. Assuming Jerome is correct, and it was

Philip II and Otacilia who were the Christians in the imperial family, suppositions can be made concerning the relationship between the Church and imperial government as well as the extent to which Otacilia could exercise the limitations of her gendered sphere for the advantage of the Christian community. There are two issues which connect Christianity to the imperial family which were mentioned above, but they must be reexamined in light of

Otacilia's influence: 1) Origen's letter to Otacilia and a Philip; and 2) the persecutions at Alexandria.

Origen's letters to Otacilia and Philip are reminiscent of his meeting with Julia Mamaea roughly a 218 decade or so earlier.64 Eusebius described Mamaea as a

"religious woman" (GeoaePeoxaxTi yuvri) .65 There is no mention of Otacilia as a religious woman, nor even one directly- claiming her Christianity. Otacilia's Christianity is asserted based on the letters of Origen. This assertion of Otacilia's Christianity, although based upon little written evidence, can be affirmed by context. Philip II and Otacilia as the intended recipients of Origen's letters make more sense given that Otacilia's influence over her own child would be greater than over any other person. Besides general assumptions, Cornelia and the

Gracchi, Agrippina the Younger and Nero, and the Severan women and their children suffice as examples demonstrative of a mother's hold over her children in

Roman literature. However, even if the letters were addressed to Philip I, the conclusions remain the same.

Otacilia's Christianity can be assumed based upon the context of the relative peace for the Christians,

Origen's letters recorded by Eusebius and Jerome, and the

Roman understanding of gendered spheres.

64 See chapter 3. 65 Euseb., Hist, eccl. vi.21; Jerome used "religiosam feminam" in his De vir. ill. liv. 219 The Christian Church enjoyed some type of imperial favor during the reign of Philip I and his son. By the third century, the Christians were no longer an unknown entity within the Empire. For the imperial government to be completely oblivious to the growing numbers and strength of the Church is inconceivable and contrary to sources demonstrating an increasing familiarity by imperial authorities through the centuries.66 Otacilia's

Christianity can be assumed because it makes sense, whereas Philip's can be questioned because it does not.

This explanation, of course, raises the concern that the reasons for which Philip's Christianity is denied - peace of the Church, Origen's letters, Eusebius' references -

Otacilia's is affirmed. However, as has been demonstrated thus far, the religious convictions of a noblewoman were of little consequence to the stability of the religio-political system of the Empire. The gendered understanding of religion and politics in Roman society allowed a certain level of freedom in regard to religion for empresses, while the emperors' lives were inseparable from the religio-political system. In addition, the

Third Century Crisis, much like the crises of gender

66 As seen in Pliny's letters to Trajan (c.111-113). 220 explored in chapter three, could have provided an opportunity for women like Otacilia to wield considerable influence over issues most considered to be disconnected from the important problems connected to the political, economic, and military stability of the Empire. It would not be until the reign of Decius, and even more so during the reign of Diocletian, that Christianity shifted from being unconnected to the Crisis, to being the problem which the government believed it had to address.

Regardless of Otacilia's intelligence or political shrewdness, a woman's ability to influence imperial policy was always limited to outside forces. The Roman construction of gender created too many obstacles for women to be considered recognized sources of legitimate power. This limitation is seen especially in the incident at Alexandria during the end of Philip's reign.

Dionysius, the Bishop of Alexandria, wrote an aforementioned letter to Fabius, Bishop of Antioch, about the persecution of Decius that followed Philip's reign.

In the letter, Dionysius gave clues to the circumstances surrounding the problems in his city:

It was not with the imperial edict [of January 250] that the persecution began among us, but preceded it by a whole year, and that prophet and maker of evils for this city, whoever that one was, set in motion and stirred up the heathen multitude against us, fanning the flames of their native superstition. Provoked by him and every unholy power, they conceived that the only pious form of worship was the thirsting for our blood.67

Two details from Dionysius' letter connect the incident at Alexandria with Otacilia and her influence during the reign of her husband and son. First, the persecution in

Alexandria definitely began during the reign of Philip and not Decius. Second, the instigator of the persecution was not the imperial government.

The imperial edict to which Dionysius referred is the one issued by Decius in January 250, which required all Roman citizens to sacrifice to the gods in an effort to appease them and end the crises afflicting the

Empire.68 As mentioned above, this is a stain on the record of Philip as an emperor who favored, or even just tolerated Christians. However, this incident is demonstrative of the limitations of imperial power and gendered influence during the Third Century Crisis.

Philip, like all the emperors during the Third Century

Crisis, spent the majority of his reign attempting to

67 Euseb., Hist. eccl. vi.41.1-2. 68 Barnes, "Legislation against the Christians," 43f. consolidate his power and survive long enough to die a peaceful death. His reign was plagued with unrest and instability - two major invasions of the frontier and five attempted usurpations, the last of which was successful.69 Given this volatile atmosphere, it is not surprising that Philip was unable to control a popular uprising against the Christians in Alexandria. It is also not surprising, that Otacilia, regardless of her level of influence, was unable to have an impact either.

The limitations of Philip and Otacilia in protecting the Christian community in Alexandria stem from the source of the violence. Dionysius poetically referred to the instigator of the riot as a prophet who conjured up evil in the city against the Christians. Whether he is referring to an actual person or a demon is not certain.

What matters in this example is that the participants in the violence against the Christians were the people of

Alexandria, not the government. During this time of crisis, Otacilia was no more capable of controlling the local populations than her husband or son. While crises provided many opportunities for the manipulation of

69 During Philip's reign, there were invasions of Pannonia and Moesia, as well as five usurpers to the throne: Pacatianus, Jotapianus, Silbannacus, Sponsianus, and Decius. 223 gendered boundaries, they did not create unlimited ones.

The political crisis of the third century proved too great for the empress to protect Christians in all parts of the Empire, especially places in which Christians made up a significant minority.

In addition, this incident places Decius' persecution into better context. The persecution in

Alexandria demonstrates that Decius may have built off perceived popular sentiment and such sentiment possibly even experienced in the army. This makes the statements of Eusebius and Jerome more understandable - Decius may indeed have hated Philip and the Christians. Because of the outbreak of popular persecution in Alexandria, Decius may have sensed a general feeling of hatred against the minor religious group and had seen the reign of his predecessor as the cause of the instability connected to

Christianity's conflict with the pagan masses.

Connecting Philip to the instability which the Christians seemed to provoke no doubt incited Decius' personal hatred toward Philip, and later-Christian writers built up that hatred in an effort to emphasize a distinct dichotomy between the two in regard to Church-State relations. 224 Dionysius described Gallienus not as a Christian, but rather in opposition to his third-century predecessors as someone "who is holier and loves God more."70 Other than this brief assertion of his tolerance for Christianity, there are no references made that branded Gallienus a Christian. In addition, much like

Otacilia, there are no specific ancient references to

Salonina's Christianity either, although she has always been counted as a Christian.71 The emphasis on the peace enjoyed by the Christians, specifically in the halting of the Decian and Valerian persecutions, in conjunction with what is known concerning the relationship between

Gallienus and his wife, lends evidence to support the possibility of Salonina's Christianity and a possible pro-Christian influence over imperial policy.

Salonina is only referenced in relation to her husband, and in all cases the purpose is to demonstrate that Salonina was a woman "whom Gallienus loved to distraction."72 During Gallienus' reign, the Christians

70 Euseb., Hist. eccl. vii.23: "6 8e oauotepoq KOU 0iXo0ecoTepoq" 71 A reference which emphasizes the Christianity of Salonina through coinage: William Smith and Samuel Cheetham, eds., A Dictionary of Christian Antiquities (Hartford: The J.B. Burr Publishing Co., 1880), 1274f. 72 SHA, Gallien. xxi.3 ("quam is perdite dilexit"). This is echoed in Epit. de Caes. xxxiii.l; Aur. Vict., Caes. xxxiii.6. acquired a reprieve from Valerian's persecution, and entered a period of about forty years of relative peace between the Church and the imperial government. Although the sources are not explicit, conjecture can be made that on account of his love for Salonina, Gallienus took measures to end the suffering of the Christians in his Empire. This especially seems probable when taken in conjunction with the other possible political motivations mentioned above. By the reign of Gallienus, the Christians may have numbered slightly more than one million, or roughly two percent of the total population, and they were growing.73 Two percent of a population is not a large minority, but they had already penetrated the upper echelons of society74 and the majority of these Christians lived in the eastern part of the Empire, where Gallienus needed

73 Rodney Stark, "Reconstructing the Rise of Christianity: The Role of Women," Sociology of Religion 56, no. 3 (Autumn 1995): 229-31; Stark, The Rise of Christianity: A Sociologist Reconsiders History (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1996), 6-7. Stark estimates the growth-rate of the Christians to be about 40% per decade (3.4% per year), which is roughly equivalent to the growth of Mormonism today. 74 In addition to bishops, presbyters, and deacons, Valerian's edict of persecution in 258 also specifically targeted senators, equestrians, matrons, and imperial civil servants. See: W.H.C. Frend, The Rise of Christianity (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1984), 326f; Haas, "Imperial Religious Policy and Valerian's Persecution of the Church, A.D. 257-260"; Keresztes, "Two Edicts of the Emperor Valerian." support in his struggle against the usurper, Macrianus.75

Given this political situation and his previous policies of appeasing border peoples, Gallienus may have ended the persecution in order to gain the support of the

Christians in the East.76 Salonina's role in this may have been very similar to Poppaea' s in defense of the

Jews in Fire of Rome in 64.77 If Gallienus were looking for a way to gain the upper hand in his war against

Macrianus, then Salonina may have proven valuable in informing Gallienus of the growing religious movement which was suffering at the hands of his father' s policies. She may have further suggested that if

Macrianus were to grant concessions to the Christians, the Christians would put their support behind the usurper

similar to how the Palmyrene Empire had granted concessions to the Jewish community after it had broken away from the Roman Empire (260-273).78

Otacilia and Salonina's influence upon their respective emperors is purely speculative in the absence

75 Blois, The Policy of the Emperor Gallienus, 183f. 76 Ibid., 183; Jean Moreau, La Persecution Du Christianisme Dans L'empire Romain (Paris: 1956), 104. 77 See chapter 3. 78 Fergus Millar, "Paul of Samosata, Zenobia and Aurelian: The Church, Local Culture and Political Allegiance in Third-Century Syria," JRS 61 (1971); Blois, The Policy of the Emperor Gallienus, 183. 227 of explicit historical evidence. However, given what is known about the enforcement of gendered spheres within

Roman society, it is not unlikely that these women were able to sway their husbands' tolerance toward the

Christian Church through the means of marital affection.

The physical closeness of both Otacilia and Salonina to their husbands could imply a level of emotional and intellectual closeness as well. Unlike the women examined in chapter three, Otacilia and Salonina did not have to assume what the Romans considered masculine qualities in order to reestablish stability. On the contrary, Otacilia and Salonina were able to influence the policies of their husbands precisely because they had exercised their femininity in accordance with traditional

Roman expectations.

Roman women's place was the Roman home. While they could exercise considerably more freedom in the public square and had more opportunities for education than their Greek sisters, the primary duty for Roman women was to enter into marriage, for it "completed the female, invested her with a social presence, and saved her from 228 her innate incompetence."79 During the instability of the

Third Century Crisis, Christianity in the eyes of most emperors was insignificant to the more pressing matters of insurrection, invasion, and economic collapse.

Because of the increasingly unstable political situation, it is possible that Otacilia and Salonina were able to wield their influence through the shared affection with their husbands over a seemingly irrelevant matter in the

Empire. The attempts of emperors like Decius and

Valerian to eradicate the Christians for the purposes of ending the crisis had failed, and it was not until the ascension of Diocletian and the return to stability that

Christianity's elimination seemed more consistent with effectively ending the instability. Beginning under

Decius, and significantly confirmed under Diocletian,

Christianity was no longer insignificant to the health of the Empire.

As the Romans Do: The Continuity of Gendered Spheres in the Christian Era

After the ascension of Diocletian in 285, the Empire moved toward stability as it reorganized and intensified

79 Eve D'Ambra, Roman Women (Cambridge & New York: Cambridge University Press, 2007), 12. See also chapter two above. 229 the role and power of the imperial office. As part of

Diocletian's plan to end the Third Century Crisis and bring stability and peace back to the Empire, he initiated what has been termed The Great Persecution against the Christians in 303. In the short period of time between the end of the Third Century Crisis and the beginning of the Christianization of the Empire under

Constantine, Christianity suffered under persecution even though there were Christian women in positions of potential influence and power. Eutropia was the wife of

Emperor Maximian (r. 286-305),80 and mother of Emperor

Maxentius and Fausta, the wife of Constantine (r. 306-

337). Her husband co-ruled with Diocletian and helped enforce the policies against the Christians.

The case of Eutropia demonstrates the limitations of gendered influence when stable society is reasserted and crisis is ended. Eutropia's reign as empress was outside the Third Century Crisis. Diocletian's policies which attempted to eradicate the Christian movement and reassert Rome's devotion to its traditional civic religion had ended fifty years of instability, economic ruin, war, and uncertainty. If Eutropia had attempted to

80 Maximian also proclaimed himself Augustus again from 307-310. 230 intervene on behalf of the Church in an effort to protect it from persecution, then would not her efforts have been interpreted as an attempt to undo the very stability her husband helped establish? An absence of instability combined with the realization that Christianity was no longer an insignificant institution within the Roman

Empire (and perhaps even the problem connected to the instability), prevented Eutropia from taking advantage of the unique abilities which her gender and position had afforded to the Christian empresses before her.

Most of the history concerned with Eutropia concentrates on her activities after the end of the civil wars and the ascension of Constantine as sole ruler of the Empire. The most well known story of Eutropia concerns her travels to the Holy Land, where she visited

Mambre81 - the place where, in Genesis, Abraham was visited by three strangers.82 Eutropia's complaint to

Constantine that the holy site had been defiled by pagan idolatry prompted Constantine to erect a Christian church in that place. Thus, Eutropia affirms the proper

11 Euseb., Vit. Const. iii.52-53. 12 Genesis 18:1-21. 231 function of gendered spheres in the budding Christian era of the Roman Empire.83

Much like Helena, the mother of Constantine,

Eutropia demonstrated the changing role that femininity would play in imperial politics in a post-Constantinian era. With the beginning of the Christianization, the

Church no longer required the assistance of women to protect it from the hard hand of imperial law. However, women in unique positions of power and influence would now provide a patronage previously unknown to the Church.

Christianity did not attempt to alter the legal and social standing of women from that of previous centuries within the Roman Empire. In fact, as was demonstrated in the Christian ideal of virginity, in most cases Christian ideology maintained and enforced what were considered traditional gender roles. In an era when Christianity no longer feared government reprisal and oppression,

Christian women with close ties to the imperial government now exercised power through active patronage of Christian churches and shrines. No longer needing to exercise political guile which sometimes threatened to arouse the condemnation of Roman writers seeking to

83 Euseb., Vit. Const. iii.52-53. 2 maintain the balance of gendered spheres, Christian women like Eutropia and Helena publicly asserted their roles of patronesses for the Christian Church. These women, who were excluded from both political and religious roles of authority, could wield power with their purses and piety.84 As benefactors of the Church, Christian noblewomen fulfilled their gender roles as obedient contributors to both secular and religious societies through their prayers and financial assistance. While changing to become more public, the feminine role within the Empire was in fact a continuation of what it had been all along - the production and rearing of children, and in this new Christian era, both physical and spiritual children.

84 For an examination of Christian women as patronesses of the Church in the post-Constantinian Empire, see: Elizabeth Clark, "Patrons Not Priests: Gender and Power in Late Ancient Christianity," Gender and History 2 (1990); Robin Lane Fox, Pagans and Christians (San Francisco: Harper & Row Publishers, 1986). BIBLIOGRAPHY

Primary Sources

Ambrose. Commentaria in epistolam ad Ephesios. Edited in PL 17.

Ammianus Marcelinus. Res gestae a fine Cornell Taciti. Edited by John C. Rolfe. LCL 331.

Appian. Bella civilia. Edited by Horace White. LCL 5.

Aristotle. Politica. Edited by H. Rackham. LCL 264.

Aurelius Victor. Liber de caesaribus. Edited by Franz Pichlmayr. Leipzig: Teubner, 1961.

Cassius Dio. Epitome historiae romanae. Edited by Earnest Cary. LCL 175-177.

Clement of Rome. Tlpoq KopivOiovg. In The Apostolic Fathers: Greek Texts and English Translations. Edited by Michael W. Holmes. Updated Edition. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1999.

Codex Iustinianus. Edited by Theodor Mommsen. Berlin: Weidmann, 1954.

Cyprian. De habitu virginum. Edited in PL 3.

233 Digesta lustiniani. Edited by Theodor Mommsen. Berlin: Weidmann, 1954.

Epitome de caesaribus. Edited by Franz Pichlmayr. Leipzig: Teubner, 1911.

Eusebius of Caesarea. Historia ecclesiastica. Edited by Kirsopp Lake and J.E.L. Oulton. LCL 153 and 265.

. Vita Constantini. Edited in PG 20.

Eutropius. Breviarium ab urbe condita. Edited by F. Ruehl. Leipzig: Teubner, 1887.

Herodian. Basileia historia. Edited by C.R. Whittaker. LCL 454-455.

Hippolytus. Refutatio omnium haeresium. Edited in PG 10.

. Sermonum Fragmenta. Edited in PG 10.

Jerome/Hieronymous. Chronica. Edited in PL 27.

. De viris illustribus. Edited in PL 23.

. Epistulae. Edited in PL 22.

Josephus. Antiquitates Judaicae. Edited by Louis H. Feldman. LCL 4 56.

. Bellum Judaicum. Edited by H. St. J. Thackeray. LCL 203 and 210.

. Contra Apionem. Edited by H. St. J. Thackeray. LCL 186. . Vita. Edited by H. St. J. Thackeray. LCL 186.

Juvenal. Saturae. Edited by Susanna Morton Braund. LCL 91.

Liber Pontificalis. Edited by Christopher Bainbridge. Whitefish, MT: Kessinger Publishing, 2008.

Livy. Ab urbe condita. Edited by Evan T. Sage. LCL 2 95.

Paulus Orosius. Historiarum adversum paganos libri VII. Edited by K. Zangmeister. Leipzig: Teubner, 1889.

Pliny (the Elder). Naturalis historia. Edited by W.H.S. Jones. LCL 418.

Plutarch. Galba. Edited by Bernadotte Perrin. LCL 103.

Polybius. Historiae. Edited by W.R. Paton. LCL 138.

Quintillian. Institutio Oratoria. Edited by Donald A. Russell. LCL 125.

Scriptores Historiae Augustae/Historia Augusta. Edited by D. Magie. LCL 139, 140, 263.

Suetonius. Divus Augustus. Edited by J.C. Rolfe. LCL 31.

. Domitianus. Edited by J.C. Rolfe. LCL 38.

. Nero. Edited by J.C. Rolfe. LCL 38.

. Otho. Edited by J.C. Rolfe. LCL 38. . Divus Vespasianus. Edited by J.C. Rolfe. LCL 38.

Tacitus. Agricola. Edited by M. Hutton and W. Peterson. LCL 35.

. Annales. Edited by John Jackson. LCL 322.

. Historiae. Edited by Clifford H. Moore. LCL 111 and 249.

Zonaras. Epitome Historiarum. Edited in PG 134.

Zosimus. Historia Nova. Edited by L. Mendelssohn. Leipzig: Teubner, 1887.

Secondary Sources

Ameling, Walter. "Tyrannen und Schwangere Frauen." Historia 35, no. 4 (1986): 507-08.

Balsdon, J.P.V.D. Romans and Aliens. Chapel Hill, NC: The University of North Carolina Press, 1979.

Barnes, Timothy D. "Legislation against the Christians." JRS 58, no. 1 and 2 (1968): 32-50.

Bauman, Richard A. Crime and Punishment in Ancient Rome. New York: Routledge, 1996. . The Crimen Maiestatis in the Roman Republic and Augustan Principate. Johannesburg: Witwatersrand University Press, 1967.

. Women and Politics in Ancient Rome. New York: Routledge, 1992.

Benko, Stephen. "Pagan Criticism of Christianity During the First Two Centuries A.D." ANRW 23, no. 2 (1980): 1054-118.

Blois, Lukas de. The Policy of the Emperor Gallienus. Edited by J.G.P. Best, A.B. Breebaart and M.F. Jongkees-Vos. Vol. VII, Studies of the Dutch Archaeological and Historical Society. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1976.

. "The Reign of Philip the Arabian." Talanta 10/11 (1978-1979): 11-43.

Braginton, Mary V. "Exile under the Roman Emperors." CJ 39, no. 7 (Apr. 1944): 391-407.

Bremmer, Jan. "Why Did Early Christianity Attract Upper- Class Women." In Fructus Centesimus: Melanges Offerts A Gerard J.M. Bartelink A L'occasion De Son Soixante-Cinquieme Anniversaire, edited by A.A.R. Bastiaensen, A. Hilhorst and C.H. Kneepkens, 37-47. Steenbrugis: In Abbatia Sancti Petri, 1989.

Brown, Peter R.L. The Body and Society: Men, Women and Sexual Renunciation in Early Christianity. New York: Columbia University Press, 1988.

Buckland, W.W. A Text-Book of Roman Law from Augustus to Justinian. London: Cambridge University Press, 1950. Bunsen, Christian K.J. von. Hippolytus and His Age. 2 vols. London: Longman, Brown, Green, and Longmans, 1854.

Canning, Kathleen. Gender History in Practice: Historical Perspectives on Bodies, Class, and Citizenship. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2006.

Case, Shirley Jackson. "Josephus' Anticipation of a Domitianic Persecution." JBL 44, no. 1/2 (1925): 10- 20.

Castelli, Elizabeth. "Virginity and Its Meaning for Women's Sexuality in Early Christianity." JFSR 2 (1986): 61-88.

Charlesworth, Martin P. "Some Observations on Ruler-Cult Especially in Rome." HTR 28, no. 1 (Jan. 1935): 5- 44.

Clark, Elizabeth. "Patrons Not Priests: Gender and Power in Late Ancient Christianity." Gender and History 2 (1990): 252-64.

Cleve, Robert L. "Severus Alexander and the Severan Women." Ph.D. diss., University of California, Los Angeles, 1982.

Corbett, Percy E. The Roman Law of Marriage. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1930.

Crake, J.E.A. "Early Christians and Roman Law." Phoenix 19, no. 1 (Spring, 1965): 61-70.

Cramer, Frederick H. Astrology in Roman Law and Politics. Philadelphia, PA: American Philosophical Society, 1954. Crook, J.A. "Feminine Inadequacy and the Senatusconsultum Velleianum." In The Family in Ancient Rome: New Perspectives, edited by Beryl Rawson, 83-92. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1987.

. Law and Life of Rome, 90 B.C. - A.D. 212. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1967.

D'Ambra, Eve. Roman Women. Cambridge & New York: Cambridge University Press, 2007.

De Rossi, Giovanni Battista. La Roma Sotterranea Cristiana. Rome, 1865.

De Ste. Croix, G.E.M. "Why Were the Early Christians Persecuted?" Past and Present 26 (Nov. 1963): 6-38.

Deslauriers, Marguerite. "Aristotle on Andreia, Divine and Sub-Human Virtues." In Andreia: Studies in Manliness and Courage in Classical Antiquity, edited by Ralph M. Rosen and Ineke Sluiter, 187-211. Leiden & Boston: Brill, 2003.

Dixon, Suzanne. "Infirmitas Sexus: Womanly Weakness in Roman Law." Tijdschrift voor Rechtsgeschiedenis 52, no. 4 (1984): 343-71.

Drachmann, A.B. Atheism in Pagan Antiquity. London & Copenhagen: Gyldendal, 1922.

Edmundson, George. The Church in Rome in the First Century. London: Longmans, Green and Co., 1913.

Eusebius. The Church History. Translated by Paul L. Maier. Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 1999. Evans Grubbs, Judith. Women and the Law in the Roman Empire: A Sourcebook on Marriage, Divorce and Widowhood. London and New York: Routledge, 2002.

Feldman, Louis H. "Jewish 'Sympathizers' in Classical Literature and Inscriptions." TAPA 81 (1950): 200- 08.

, ed. Josephus: Jewish Antiquities, Books Xviii-Xx. Vol. 433, Lcl. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1965.

Fox, Robin Lane. Pagans and Christians. San Francisco: Harper & Row Publishers, 1986.

Frend, W.H.C. The Early Church. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 1991 (Orig. 1965).

The Rise of Christianity. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1984.

Galinsky, Karl. "Augustus' Legislation on Morals and Marriage." Philologus 125 (1981): 126-44.

Gardner, Jane F. Being a Roman Citizen. New York: Routledge, 1993.

"Gender-Role Assumptions in Roman Law." Classical Views 39, no. 3 (1995): 377-400.

Women in Roman Law and Society. Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana University Press, 1995 (Orig. 1986).

Garnsey, Peter. Social Status and Legal Privilege in the Roman Empire. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1970. Gibbon, Edward. The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. 3 vols. New York: Everyman's Library, 1993 (Orig. 1776-1788).

Gleason, Maud W. "Elite Male Identity in the Roman Empire." In Life, Death, and Entertainment in the Roman Empire, edited by D.S. Potter and D.J. Mattingly, 67-84. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press, 1999.

Gratz, Heinrich. Die judischen Proselyten im Romerreiche unter den Kaisern Domitian, Nerva, Trajan und Hadrian. Breslau, 1883.

Haas, Christopher J. "Imperial Religious Policy and Valerian's Persecution of the Church, A.D. 257-260." Church History 52, no. 2 (Jun. 1983): 133-44.

Hanawalt, Barbara. yOf Good and 111 Repute': Gender and Social Control in Medieval England. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998.

Harnack, Adolf von. "Der Vorwurf des Atheismus in den drei ersten Jahrhunderten." TUGAL 28, no. 4 (1905): 3-16.

. Die Mission und Ausbreitung des Christentums in den ersten drei Jahrhunderten. Charleston, SC: BiblioLife, LLC, 2010 (Orig. 1915) .

Hobbs, Angela. Plato and the Hero: Courage, Manliness and the Impersonal Good. Cambridge & New York: Cambridge University Press, 2000.

Jackson, John, ed. Tacitus: The Annals, Books Xiii-Xvi. Vol. 322, Lcl. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1937. Janssen, L.F. "*Superstitio' and the Persecution of the Christians." Vig. Chr. 33, no. 2 (Jun. 1979): 131- 59.

Jeffers, James S. "Social Foundations of Early Christianity at Rome: The Congregations Behind 1 Clement and the Shepherd of Hermas." PhD diss., University of California, Irvine, 1988.

Kaplan, Marion A. Between Dignity and Despair: Jewish Life in Nazi Germany. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998.

Raster, Robert A. Emotion, Restraint, and Community in Ancient Rome. Oxford & New York: Oxford University Press, 2005.

Keresztes, Paul. "The Jews, the Christians, and Emperor Domitian." Vig. Chr. 27, no. 1 (Mar. 1973): 1-28.

. "Two Edicts of the Emperor Valerian." Vig. Chr. 29, no. 2 (Jun. 1975): 81-95.

Rnudsen, Johannes. "The Lady and the Emperor: A Study of the Domitianic Persecution." Church History 14, no. 1 (Mar. 1945): 17-32.

Korner, Christian. Philippus Arabs: ein Soldatenkaiser in der Tradition des antoninisch-severischen Prinzipats. Vol. 61, Untersuchungen zur antiken Literatur und Geschichte. New York: Walter de Gruyter, 2002.

Kuefler, Mathew. The Manly Eunuch: Masculinity, Gender Ambiguity, and Christian Ideology in Late Antiquity. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 2001. L'Hoir, Francesca Santoro. "Tacitus and Women's Usurpation of Power." CIV 88, no. 1 (Sep.-Oct. 1994): 5-25.

Levick, Barbara. Julia Domna: Syrian Empress. Edited by Ronnie Ancona and Sarah Pomeroy, Women of the Ancient World. New York: Routledge, 2007.

Lightfoot, J.B. The Apostolic Fathers, Part I: S. Clement of Rome. 2nd ed. Vol. I. London: MacMillan and Co., 1890.

Looper-Friedman, Susan E. "The Decline of Manus- Marriage." Tijdschrift voor Rechtsgeschiedenis 55 (1987): 281-96.

MacMullen, Ramsay. Enemies of the Roman Order: Treason, Unrest, and Alienation in the Empire. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1966.

Maier, Paul L., ed. Eusebius: The Church History. Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 1999.

. In the Fullness of Time: A Historian Looks at Christmas, Easter, and the Early Church. Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications, 1997 (Orig. 1991).

, ed. Josephus: The Essential Writings. Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications, 1988.

Mansfield, Harvey C. Manliness. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2006.

Marshall, Anthony J. "Roman Ladies on Trial: The Case of Maesia Sentinum." Phoenix 44, no. 1 (Spring 1990): 46-59. Martin, Dale B. Inventing Superstition: From the Hippocratics to the Christians. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2004.

Mayer, Roland. "What Caused Poppaea's Death." Historia 31, no. 2 (1982): 248-49.

McFayden, Donald. "The Occasion of the Domitianic Persecution." AJT2A, no. 1 (Jan. 1920): 46-66.

Mclnerney, Jeremy. "Plutarch's Manly Women." In Andreia: Studies in Manliness and Courage in Classical Antiquity, edited by Ralph M. Rosen and Ineke Sluiter, 319-44. Leiden & Boston: Brill, 2003.

McNamara, Jo Ann. "Matres Patriae / Matres Ecclesiae: Women of Rome." In Becoming Visible: Women in European History, edited by Renate Bridenthal, Susan Mosher Stuard and Merry E. Wiesner, 77-104. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1998.

. "Sexual Equality and the Cult of Virginity in Early Christian Thought." Feminist Studies 3, no. 3/4 (Spring-Summer, 1976): 145-58.

Meeks, Wayne A. "The Image of Androgyne: Some Uses of a Symbol in Earliest Christianity." History of Religions 13, no. 3 (Feb. 1974): 165-208.

Merrill, Elmer Truesdell. Essays in Early Christian History. London: MacMillan and Co., Ltd., 1924.

Millar, Fergus. "Paul of Samosata, Zenobia and Aurelian: The Church, Local Culture and Political Allegiance in Third-Century Syria." JRS 61 (1971): 1-17.

. A Study of Cassius Dio. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1964. Moreau, Jean. La Persecution Du Christianisme Dans L'empire Romain. Paris, 1956.

Nicols, John. "Patrona Duitatis: Gender and Civic Patronage." Studies in Latin Literature and Roman History, Collection Latomus 5 (1989): 117-42.

Oulton, J.E.L., ed. Eusebius: The Ecclesiastical History, Volume Ii. Edited by Jeffrey Henderson. Vol. 265, Lcl. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2000 (Orig. 1932) .

Paton, Diana. No Bond but the Law: Punishment, Race, and Gender in Jamaican State Formation, 1780-1870. Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2004.

Pohlsander, H.A. "Philip the Arab and Christianity." Historia 29, no. 4 (1980): 463-73.

Raditsa, Leo F. "Augustus' Legislation Concerning Marriage, Procreation, Love Affairs and Adultery." ANRW 2, no. 13 (1980): 278-339.

Rawson, Beryl. "Roman Concubinage and Other De Facto Marriages." TAPA 104 (1974): 279-305.

Riddle, Donald W. "Hebrews, First Clement, and the Persecution of Domitian." JBL 43, no. 3/4 (1924): 329-48.

Rives, James B. Religion in the Roman Empire. Maiden, MA: Blackwell Publishing, 2007.

Rogers, Robert S. "Heirs and Rivals to Nero." TAPA 8 6 (1955): 190-212. Rosen, Ralph M., and Ineke Sluiter, eds. Andreia: Studies in Manliness and Courage in Classical Antiquity. Leiden & Boston: Brill, 2003.

Scheid, John. An Introduction to Roman Religion. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 2003.

Schmid, Walter T. On Manly Courage: A Study of Plato's Laches. Carbondale & Edwardsville, IL: Southern Illinois University Press, 1992.

Schoedel, William R. "Christian ^Atheism' and the Peace of the Roman Empire." Church History 42, no. 3 (Sep. 1973): 309-19.

Schulz, Fritz. Classical Roman Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1951.

Scott, Joan Wallach. "Gender: A Useful Category of Analysis." In Gender and the Politics of History, edited by Joan Wallach Scott. New York: Columbia University Press, 1998.

Setzer, Claudia. Jewish Responses to Early Christians: History and Polemics, 30-150 C.E. Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg Fortress Press, 1994.

Sherwin-White, A.N. "The Early Persecutions and Roman Law Again." JTS 3 (1952): 199-213.

. Roman Society and Roman Law in the New Testament: The Sarum Lectures, 1960-1961. Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock Publishers, 1963.

. "Why Were the Early Christians Persecuted? - an Amendment." Past and Present 27 (Apr. 1964): 23-27. 247 Simon, Marcel. Verus Israel: A Study of the Relations between Christians and Jews in the Roman Empire, Ad 135 - 425. Translated by H. McKeating. London & Portland, OR: Vallentine Mitchell & Co Ltd., 1996 (Orig. 1948) .

Smallwood, E. Mary. "Domitian's Attitude toward the Jews and Judaism." C Phil. 51, no. 1 (Jan. 1956): 1-13.

Smith, William, and Samuel Cheetham, eds. A Dictionary of Christian Antiquities. Hartford: The J.B. Burr Publishing Co., 1880.

Stark, Rodney. "Reconstructing the Rise of Christianity: The Role of Women." Sociology of Religion 56, no. 3 (Autumn 1995): 229-44.

The Rise of Christianity: A Sociologist Reconsiders History. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1996.

Styger, Paul. Die romischen Katakomben: archaologische Forschungen fiber den Ursprung und die Bedeutung der altchristlichen Grabstatten. Berlin: Verlag fur Kunstwissenschaft, 1933.

Thomas, J.A.C. Textbook of Roman Law. Amsterdam: North- Holland Publishing Company, 1976.

Thompson, L.A. "Domitian and the Jewish Tax." Historia 31, no. 3 (1982): 329-42.

Treggiari, Susan. "Divorce Roman Style: How Easy and How Frequent Was It?" In Marriage, Divorce, and Children in Ancient Rome, edited by Beryl Rawson, 31-46. Oxford & New York: Oxford University Press, 1991. 248 . Roman Marriage: Iusti Coniuges from the Time of Cicero to the Time of Ulpian. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991. van Warmelo, P. "Ignorantia Iuris." Tijdschrift voor rechtsgeschiedenis 22 (1954): 1-32. van Wees, Hans. "A Brief History of Tears: Gender Differentiation in Archaic Greece." In When Men Were Men: Masculinity, Power and Identity in Classical Antiquity, edited by Lin Foxhall and John Salmon, 10-53. New York: Routledge, 1998.

Veyne, Paul. "Homosexuality in Ancient Rome." In Western Sexuality: Practice and Precept in Past and Present Times, edited by Philippe Aries and Andre Bejin. Oxford & New York: Basil Blackwell Ltd, 1985.

Walsh, Joseph J. "On Christian Atheism." Vig. Chr. 45, no. 3 (Sep. 1991) : 255-77.

Warrior, Valerie M. Roman Religion. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2006.

Waters, K.H. "The Character of Domitian." Phoenix 18, no. 1 (Spring, 1964): 49-77.

Weber, Max. Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft. GrundriB der verstehenden Soziologie, 1925.

Wethmar-Lemmer, Marlene M. "The Legal Position of Roman Women: A Dissenting Perspective." Fundamina 12, no. 2 (2006): 174-84.

Whiston, William, ed. The Works of Josephus. 16th ed. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, Inc., 1987. Wilken, Robert Louis. The Christians as the Romans Saw Them. 2nd ed. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2003.

Williams, Craig A. Roman Homosexuality: Ideologies of Masculinity in Classical Antiquity. Oxford & New York: Oxford University Press, 1999.

Williams, Margaret H. "Domitian, the Jews and the 1Judaizers': A Simple Matter of Cupiditas and Maiestas?" Historia 39, no. 2 (1990): 196-211.

Williamson, G.A., ed. Eusebius: The History of the Church. New York: Penguin Books, 1989 (Orig. 1965).

Witherington III, Ben. The Paul Quest: The Renewed Search for the Jew of Tarsus. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1998.

York, John Marvin Jr. "The Image of Philip the Arab." Historia 21 (1972): 320-32.

-. "Philip the Arab: The First Christian Emperor of Rome." Ph.D. diss., University of Southern California, 1964.

Zahran, Yasmine. Philip the Arab: A Study in Prejudice. London: Stacey International, 2001. UMI Number: 3455072

All rights reserved

INFORMATION TO ALL USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted.

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

UMI 3455072 Copyright 2011 by ProQuest LLC. All rights reserved. This edition of the work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.

ProQuest LLC 789 East Eisenhower Parkway P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346