Coreena McBurnie

Submitted in flllnllment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts

Daihousie UNversity Halif~x,Nova Scotia August, 1997

O CopynPYnghtby Coreena McBurnie, 1997 National Library Bibliothèque nationale l*I of Canada du Canada Acquisitions and Acquisitions et Bibliographie Services services bibliographiques 395 WelFngton Street 395, rue Wellington Ottawa ON K1A ONQ OtrawaON K1A ON4 Canada Canada

The author has granted a non- L'auteur a accordé une Iicence non exclusive licence dowing the exclusive permettant à la National Library of Canada to Bibliothèque nationale du Canada de reproduce, Ioan, distriie or seIl reproduire, prêter, distri'buer ou copies of this thesis in microform, vendre des copies de cette thèse sous paper or electronic formats. la forme de microfiche/film, de reproduction sur papier ou sur format électronique.

The author retains ownership of the L'auteur conserve la propriété du copyright in this thesis. Neither the droit d'auteur qui protège cette thèse. thesis nor substantial extracts fkom it Ni la thèse ni des extraits substantiels may be printed or otherwise de celle-ci ne doivent être imprimés reproduced without the author's ou autrement reproduits sans son permission. autorisation.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Table of Contents

Abstract

Abbreviations

Acknowledgements Introduction

Chapter 1: Historid Context of N. Maj. VI

Cbapter 2: The Text ofN. Ma..VI with Translation and Notes

Chapter 3: Commen&qon Majorian's Sixth Novel

Chapter 4: Novel Che of Severus

Appendix: The Transmission of N. Maj. VI

Bibliography The sixth novel of Majorian (N. Maj. VI) was in effect for five years before it was abrogated by Severn, who claimed thaî it was unjust and harsh Despite this cl*

Majorian enacted very little new legislation with his novel. This thesis examuies N. Maj.

VI in detail. It begins with a discussion of the historical context of the people and laws significant to N. Maj. VI, nameIy, virgins, widows, and laws dealing with mamhge and infieritance. Next, the text of N. Maj. VI is presented with a translation and notes. A paragaph-by-paragraph commentary fotlows. Finally, the text of N. Sev. 1 is presented with a translation and a discussion of its importance to N. Mat. VL This study will allow the reader to understand N. Ma.. VI in its historid context and reveai why N. Maj. VI wa~considered to be contentious. CI Th. Coda meodosi~m~~~

LRBurg. lex Romatlc~Bwgundiontan

N. Just. Novel of Jusfiruan

N. Maj. VI Sixth Novel of Majorian

N. Maj. XI Eleventh Novel of Majorkm

N. Sev. 1 First Novel of Severus

PL Patrologia Latina

Pr* prineipium 1thanL Dr. Peter Kussmaui, my supervisor, for bis insight and 1would

Wre to thank my readiers, h.Atherton and Dr. Friedrich Alsa, 1wodd like to thanL

Patncia bhacDodd, dose help was invduabk ta me at Dalhousie. Lastly, thank you to my family for îheir ongoing support, patience, and encouragement INTRODUCTION

The Empemr Majorian isdhis sixth novel (N. Maj. VI) in AD. 458, and it was in effeçt for five years. h his nrSt novel, writkn AD.463, the Emperor Severus (N. Sev.

I) abmgated aiI of the provisions ofN. Maj. VI except for one. Despite this, very few of the provinons in N. Maj. VI are new. The primary purpose of N. Maj. W is to encourage dagein order to replenish the dwindling Roman popuiation. Majorian îries to accomplish this goal by ciaiming to Wgins, widows, children, and young men entering mameageuegotiations, and by appealing dirsaly to ancient Roman values and laws. It is perhaps for these same three reasons that N. Uaj. M was found to be so contentiow: maay of the protedive measures were likely seen as behg intrusive, and

Majorian's appeal to pgan values and laws, especially to the Augustan la-, mim@have been intolerable to the Church. Nowhere in this novel does Majorian directly compel anyone to marry, though he does widen the options for mmiage and discornage women fiom remaining single, especidy those women Who have rnarried before.

Even though N. Maj. VI was repeaied so quickly afkr its promulgation, it has been pfe~ervedin manuscripts that were transmitted in Gaul. There are three masons why Gad is important for the suMval ofMajorianls novel. First, the Code of Justinian never supeneded the Theodosian Code and the pst-Thdosian novels in Gad, because

Gad had ceased to be a pait of the RomEmpire by the tirne the Codex Jimmia~l~was pmulgatd Second, Majorhm made a collection of constitinions that contained his own lm, and part of this collection was preserved in Gaul in the lex Rom 2

Visgothonatt. Majorian was popular in Gaul and was remembered die= longer thaa anywhere else.'

This thesis is divided into four parts. The first cbspter wilI discuss the historical context of the principal issues of N. Maj. VI, namely virgins, widows, and famiIy law, in order to demonstnite how Majorian's law fits into the progression of history. The second chapter presents the text of N. Maj. M with a translation and notes which take into acoormt the translations of this novel by phar? and Colemm-Norton3 The thkd chapter presents a detaiIed commentary of N. Maj. VI. Finally, the forirth chapter will present the text and translation of N. Sev. I, dong with a discussion ofwhat Severus found to be problematic in N. Maj. VI and why.

'paul M. Meyer and Th. Mommsen, ed,Cc, Vol. 2. Leges Novellae ad TheoQsianum (Berlin: Weidmam, 1954), p. XI-W; H.F. Jolowicz and Bany Nicholas, Hist~ricalIntroduction to the Sw of Roman Law, ThVd Ed (Cambridge: Caaibridge University Press, 1972), p. 465-67. For a more detailed discussion of this matter see Appendix. 2The Thdosian Code aml Novels and the Sinnondian Coastitutions. Clyde Pban; trans. (Princeton: Princeton University Ress, 1952). 3Roman State and Christian Church: A Collection of led Documents to AD. 535, Vol. 3. P.R Coleman-Norton, tram. (tondon: S.P.C.K, 1966). CWWTER ONE:

HISTONCAL CONTEXI' OF N. W.VI

a Women and Asceticism in the West

Asceticism has a long history in the East hennits went into the desert as fiu back

as the persecuîioas in order to obtain that perféct single-mindedness of the martyr and to

demonstrate ta God theïr exceptional cornmitment to Him. It was aot mtil the fourth

century that the ascetic movement prosperd in the West. The Western Church was

reluctarit ta embrace asceticism at first, because many eastem ascetics were involved in

heresies and controversies. Moreover, îhe ascetic life was thought to be humiliating and

degrading because of inferior Qess, lack of personal hygiene, and the breaks it codd

cause in successio~~~Eastern ascetics, for the most par?, were uneducaîed, poor, worked

for a living, and lîved simpIe tives devoid of dl Iwray.

ui the early fourth century, Athaaasius üavelled to Rome with his fmous book

The Life of Antonv. His descriptions of Eastern asceticism and of a.extraordinary

hennit capturai the imaginations of many in Roman aristocratie circles, including many

women, and incited them to live escetic lives.' Marcella was the nrst noble woman in

Rome to live a monastic lifé &r hearing Athanasius' stories. She, in turn, influenced

*Elizabeth A Clark Ascetic Pietv and Woman's Fa&: Essavs in Late Ancient ChristianW (Lewiston, NY: the Edwin Melien Press, 1986), p. 176-77. 'James k Mohler, The He- of Monasîicism. The Christian Mo&: Twes and Anti- Tm(New York: Aiba House, 1971), p. 91. rnqof her ftiends and people in her household to take up monasticisii16 Ascetics in the

West. however, pursued a different form ofasceticism than those in the East Western asceticism, estabbhed a genemtion afîer the Eastern ascetic movement, was marked by

houses and villas:

We have bekus [in the West] a genteel form of asceticism. No long-haired, wanderiag eccentrics, the subject of mockery among Western authors, these aristoc~~tspmctïced their renmciation in polite reaaf excbging the ieam that were the hallmark of cultivated society, making simpie meals palatable to their senatonal tastes, writing verse, worrying about the fate of vintage wines harvested hmtheir estates abdTheir mamer of life as ascetics diffed not totally fiom tbat of their secular days7

The modctife pmdby ascetic women was diffemt hmthat of their male cornterparts in both die East and the West women were not expected to go out into the desert, they practised house m~nasticisrn:~they either lived at home and were protected by thek fimilies, or they tended "to coagulate into dlgroups in ... [an] organic mamer." These women did not Iive by the *ct monastic codes of male monastics, but instituted îheir own des. The resultuig arrangement usually had an independent, prominent virgin or widow taking other women into her household, often fiiends or

Ewig Hickey. Women of the Roman (AM Aibor, Michigan: UMI Press7 1987), p. 38; Wan Clark, Womai in Late Antiauitv: Pagan and Christian Life-styles (Mord: Clarendon Press, 1993). p. 102. 'E. Ci& p. 18 1; see also: Peter Brown, nie Bodv and Societv: Mea Womea and Sefi (New YoW Columbia University Press7 1988), p. 344; anci GilhCloke, fi in the Patristic Aee. AD 35040 (London and New York: Routledge7 1995), p. 102-03. *G. Clark, p. 101. %mwn, p. 265. relatives, in order to fom a group McateR to celibacy under the direction of a male

as~etic.'~An exampIe of such a woman is Paula, a widow who converted to the ascetic

life, and who infiuenced many in her howhold to do the same. Jeme was her spintual

leader. Some ascetic women did start monasteries in the desert, but most continued to

Iive at home, a custom that continueci even when consecrated Wgins and widows

became more cornmon House monasticism pefsisted through the fouah and fi*

centuries: the monastery pperwas not common in Rome uatil the sixth century.

In die stories of Western iweîics nom tbe fourth centuryythe theme of fiimilial

opposition to women pzusuing asceîic Iives becornes common, even in stories cancerning

Christian fdes. Many women were ready to de@ their parents and resist getting

marrieci in order to dedicate their lives to God. There are two pimary reasons for this

familial opposition: nrsf many aristocratie wornen who converteci to Chnstianity gave at

least part of their considerable fortunes to the Church and to the poor, thus aiienating this

wedth fiom aristocratie circles, and second, their refùsal to bear children often threatened to end tàmîly lines. As Yarbrough says:

The present gmpof ascetic women [fourth century aristocmtic women such as Paula, Melania the Elder, Melania the Younger, and M&mz11albad more in cornmon than social status. Of those for whom evidence is available, it is clear that they came fiom nimilies where Christian@ was akeady an Muence. But in spite of the presence of Christian innuence, there is a pattern of fiimilial opposition to their conversion to asceticism, Familial opposition sheds some light on the aristocmtic famiIy of the fourth ceahuy: two of the primary duties of children to tbeir fimilies, it seems, were the transmission of Wlial wealth to the next generation and the continuation of the lineage itseIf. Conversions to asceticism were inimical to the fiilfIhent ofthese responsibilities. At least for these two reasons, the typicaf conversion to the ascetic life was accomplished in

"'Mahler, p. 91; Brown, p. 263-66;and E. Clark, p. 180-82. spite of streauous objections of the fhmily."

Co-tly, of the women who did dedicaîe themselves to asceticism, many were

daugMen of widowgd mothers or were widows themselves: pierd power had ceased

and these women were left with more Momto éo as they chose. * Ambnwe gives a

dramatic example of an incident that clearly iilustrafes tbis point a girl whose Mer

wes dead, ran up to the altar of a Church and asked to be consecrated a Wgin, samething

she never wodd have been able ta do if her Mer was stiIi living. This is made clear by

the exchange that follows her speech at the aitar:

When the others were silent, one burst forth somewhat roughly: "x"he said, "your fbther were alive, would he sser you to remain unmamieci?" Tben she repfied with more religion and mor restrained piety "And perchance be is gone that no one may be able to hinder me."l3

Women who pursued &ciSm, however, were thought to have conquered the

AM^ Yarbrough, "Cbristianîzation in the Fourth Century: The Example of Roman W~rnen.~Church History 45 (1976), p. 154. Yarbrougb, p. 156, gives the following specific example: "The Vira S. Meimiiae in @cular suggests the opposition that the &oversion to asceticism could arouse in the arhcmcy as a whole. The reason for such opposition couid lie in the fàct that by dispershg a signisamt amount of aristocratie wealth Melania irrevocably diminished the wealth of the next ~~c ge~*ol~" There are many o?herexamples of this among the lives of the ascetic arist~ratsin the fouth century, some ofwhich are discussed, for example, in Yarbrough, p. 155-56 and JilI Harnes, "Treasures in Heavenr: Property and Inheritance among Senators of Late Rome." In Marrime and Promrty, Elizabeth M. Cr* ed. (Aberdeen: Aberdeen University Press, 1984), p. 58-68. J. HBrrr*es, p. 66 explains that "...conceniover the earrsmission of property among senators went far Qeper than simple regard for popular opinion: dieu way of life and the standing of their fàmilies depended on itw '2~r~~p. 343-44. 13Ambrose,"Concerning Virgins," Book I, paragraph 66. In Nicene and Post-Nicene Faîhers of the Christian Chw4Vol. X, St. Ambrose: Select WorkP and Leaers. Phiiip ScMand Henry Wace, tram. and d (Cirand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Puôlishing Company, 1955). p. 373. The Eaglish is king quoted here because the Latin text is compt and unclear. negative qualities especidiy associated with their sex: women were widely tho- to be

weaker, less intelligent, and more f?ivolous than men." This meant that women who

were consecrated to vire, or Who dedicated their widowhood to cel~bricy,wuid be

praised as if they were men1'

Ascetic women were able to Live Iives similar to their male comterparts: they

studied, spent theu tirne in contemplation, traveIied on pfigrimages, and were GreRd fiom

the mstmdy concenis for husbands, children, the household, and the world in general.

Jerome vividy explains the greater value of the ascetic Iife with an aüegory that

compares marriage to a thirty-fold harvest, widowhood to a sixty-fold harvest, and

virginity to a hundred-fold West. AU three are good; nonetheless, they are still ranked:

Nunquid atgentum non erit orge- si a>arn argent0 prefiosiws est? Ata arboris et segetk confumelia est, si radici et filib, ahno et mistis, puma prcofrantw et-tw? Ut pma ex arbore,fMnentum e stipula: ita virginitar e nuptih. Cenfes~~et sexagesmtilr et î~icesmtz(sfiuc~qucmqm de una lm4 et de ma semente nascatur, tamen dimdflert in nmero. Tkiginla r~emntw ad nyptiar. Nmet ipro digitonun wnjr(llctio,quasi molli se cornpZe;xa11~osdo, etfoedrm, marittmr pingit et conjugent, Seuginfa ver0 ad viduas, eo quod in agustia et tribuktione SMI positae- Wnde et supriori digtlo deprimuntw; quantoque major est dfldtas experkze quo& volupfatisiflecebris abstinere, tant0 majus est praernium forro certtesirn~~~ntrmem (diligeenter, quaeso, lector, attende) de sinistra ttunsfertur oddèxterum, et iisdem quidem digitis, sed non eum manu, quibus in lamu nuptae sign@cantw et viduce, cirdumfociem, expriimt virginilalis CO~O~~~

Ascetic women were tho@t to possess remadcable traits that were Iooked upon wiîb srrlmiration and respect by their peen. "

I4E. Clark, p. 43; G. Cl& p. 119-26. 15G.Clark, p. 12û-29; Brown, p. 343. 16Jerome, "Adver- Jovinimum," liber I, 3 in P.L., vol. 23. '%rown, p. 263. Arist&c women, with theu money d influence, heIped to deascetickm respectable in the Chmh It was never believed, howwer, that evefyone couid attain the dcideal, because it involved an uncornmon cornmitment, but it was widely viewed as the epitome of Christian conduct

The pstristic authors were demonstmbly tom between wnflicting needs: whether to exhort their flocks to more exacting effort leading to greater reWEifdS, or whether to soft-pedal this course since it was fîaught with difEculties and gnater penaities for fidure. In that celiibacy was a higher path to virhre, it could not be recommended strongly enough; but in that some migbt try it and niil, thus being worse off spirïtually than before, gnat caution was needdl8

b. Consecrated Viqhs

The custom of women vowirig their vighity to God goes badc to the New

Tmentpend At this dythe, however, Wgins were not çonsecrated end did not hold a specific office in the Church: they did not want to appear to be flamting their vows, so, for the sake of moâesty, they oAen kept their vows private. l9 A Wgin did not even change her &atments lest she betray the wntidentidity of her vow. riistead, a woman who vowed lifelong virginity lived an inactive and contemplative lifi: at home. It is in the fourth century that we fïnd the institution of virgins well established in both the

Eamm and the Western Empires." The ascetic movement, which was also flourishing at this the, was an important impetus for the evolution of the order of comemated l8C1oke, p. 43. '9Cuthbert Hamiiton Tunier, "hrlinistriesof Women in the Rimitive Church." In Catholic end Amstolic: Collected P-rs, Herbert Neweil Bate, ed. (London: AR Mowbray and Co.,Ltd, 193 I), p. 343-44. qurner, p. 348. Wgins.

A daughter ApRicated to virginity would usually pmctice house moI18Sticism: she

was questered in the herrmms of the house with her f'aîher siandhg as guardian over

her, and she Ieft the house ody to go to Church. Co- Wgh brought

considerable prestige to theu homes, camrnunïties, and ~hmhes.*'As Duchesne

explains* "Les vierges des deux sexes, surtout les femmes, B cause de leur fiagilité

spéciale, sont 12ionneur de IEglise, les plus précieux joyaux de sa parure."* The Church

Fathers helped to elevate the status and prestige of consecrated Wgins through theù

@se of celibacy. These influentid writers encouraged life-long wginity md &lit#ccy

as a means of kingoneself fiom the distractions of the world in order to contemplate

God and be United with Him more compIeteIy. Brides of Christ were especially able to

dedicate their time to the worship of God and so were especially praised.

It is amund the end of the fourth century that we begin to hear of the formai

consecration of *gins. The ceremonious veihg of virgins, or vekutio. is a practice that

arose out of the pagan Roman marri* ceremony. The mmiage ceremony in the fourth

century involved a soIemn blessing and a veil king placed over the head of the marriecl

couple in a pHcecailed veiatio conjugailiZ In order to symbolize that a consecrateci

&gin became a Bride of Christ, the ceremony for the consecration of virgins logically

*lBrown, p. 263. %¶gr. L. Duchesne, ûriaiws du culte chrétien, Ciquikme Édition (Paris: Anciennes Maisons Thorin et Fontemoing, 1925), p. 442. %enri Mamu, "The Great Persecuîion to tbe Emergence ofMedieval Christianity." In The Christian Centuries, Jean Danielou and Henri Manou, eds., Vincent Cronin, m. (London: Darton, Longman and Todd, 1964), p. 3 14. 10 adopîed these two aspects ofthe marriage ceremonyu Ambm supplies us with the nrst reference of a coIlSecrafion ceremony when he discusses the consecration of his sister, -Ilina. on January 6, AD. 3~3.~Marcellina went to Rome to be consecrated by the Bishop there, afkwhich she cbanged her dress, most notably by assuming a veil.

This veil became the acceped garb of consecrated Wgias, which disthguished them as the Brides of Christ.

c. Widows

Like vowd virginity, the order of widows is as old as the Church itseif In fkt, the first and most freqwntly mentioned women in the early Church are widows."

Widows were not orAained because they had no IiturgicaI fimcti~n,~but were appointed and enroiled on the Church's list Stiii, they did have a very high sCatus in the Church

Being enraki on the Church's list meant that these widows had, in a sense, been ddcated to God; therefore, their integrity was an important issue and one which had to be scndinized ~mfidly.~In the early Church, widows had no specific activiîy beyond prayer. they were not supposed to socialize or teach. In the East, widows had active

24Mmou,p. 3 14. =M.OlpheGalliard. "ConsecratedVirginify in the Latin West" In Chastitv, Albert Plé, ed, Lancelot C. Sheppard, trans. (London: Blackf3iars Publications, 1955), p. 69-70. This reference appears in Arnbrose's De virginbw. %mer, p. 3 17. .. 90ger Oiyson, The Mmstry of Women in the Eariv Church, Jean Laporte and Mary Louise Hall, trans. (CollegeviIle, Mlirnesota: The Liturgical Press, 1976), p. 24. %mer, p. 322. bctions similar to those ~fdeaconesses,~but in the West deaconcsses were not wmmon, and the role of widows remained passive for a longer tirnemmIt was not mtil the fourth cenhiry that widows in the West began to take on an active role;' which meant that they could do such things as join a community, becorne deaconesses, or engage in charitable activity."

In pagan Roman society, it was normai for a widow to remany since widowhood was not an envied -te; women generally needed their fmilies or their husbds to support and pro- them. The Chuch, howewer, discouraged widows fiom remarrying after the death of dieir husbanâs so that these women could pursue the vhesof continent widoOWh0 In the fourth century, îhis was taken to an extreme when "...the

Fathers of the Church transfonned thïs preference [for widows to live their widowhood in continence] into an aversion of remarriage that verged on pr~hiiition."~This choice, however, couid easily leave widows without enough financial support As a resdî, the

Church was essentially obliged to maintain widows who couid not support themselves.

The order of widows thus evolved fiom a group of women who rquired the charity of the Church busethey had been left without sufncient support: they were "the

r)Frend, p. 41 1. %e term "deaconess"was introduced in the West for the nrst time by the Riscillianists in the fourth century as a means ofproviding women with an officia1 duty. This title, however, was probably honorary and was not Iinked to any active fiinctions, as it was in the East, Gryson, p. 101-102. "Turner, p. 328. 32~.Clark, p. 6 1. 3%ichelVerdon, "Virgias and Widows: European Kiaship and EarIy Christian@," IWm (ILS.) Vol. 23, No. 3 (September, 1988), p. 493. ncipients not the ministrants of poor relief?"' In nIcf by the third century, eighteen hundred widows, orphans and poor were suprted by the cbarity ofthe Church of

Goody views the Chmhts promotion of widowhd over remarriage as one of the ways by which the Chmh attempteâ to mate "heirlessness"and thereby to gain pr0pertypertyMIt cannot be doubtbd that the Church did benefit hmbeqwsts and giffs from the upper classes, especially beginning in the fourth century:

...in the fourth centrny it [Christianity] penetrated into the upper dasses and the large number of conversions hmtbat group gave its members a dominant position It was the ppeitied classes who were now to pass on some of their movable property to the Churchn

This argument is double edgeci: the Church may have @ed some property fiom wealthy chilâless widows, but it was alsa obIiged to support poor widows with no other meaas of incorne. As has been âiscussed earfïer, widows, traùitionally, were the recipieats, and not the givers, of charity. G. Clark points out, in reference to Goody's argument, that it is better to lmk at the whole pictlire: "The lesson here is probably to look for the feeling which prompted a paticdar le@ change rather than for the supposai grand It is not necessary that the Church advocated celibacy soieIy for financial reasons denit encouraged celibacy for so many other reasotls.

3s~vedCameron, The Later Roman Empire: AD 284430 (London: Fontana Ress, 1993). p. 126. =Jack Gcxxiy, The Develonnent of the Familv and hfhrri~~~(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983), p. 94-95. ncoody, p. 93. A woman was emoiied on the Chmh's list of widows only ifshe met certain criteria She had to be devoted to a lifé of continence, which placed her in a peculiar position because she had once been a &ed wommm She also had to be past aa age when she was iikely to marry again, as she would dishonour her order if she renounceâ ber vow; therefore, the Church did not want to risk letting a young woman take such a vow, only to break it ifsbe fomd her situation too difficult4 Thus, the age for eurolment on the Church's lis&wss usually put at sixty, buî this requirement was not strict4' She was expected to be a univira, a woman wfio had only marrieci once. A widow's integrity was dso twted To be enrolled on the list of widows, a widow needed to have a gdmord standing, which meant that she must have ken a good mother and have been chitable to others. She ahhad to have a moderate temper, and a mild disposition?* Finally, she could not have any living children or grandchiIdren, since they wwe obliged to take care of her. A widow was only ematled on the Church's Iist if she had no other means of support and if she was found desenring of such support in the eyes of the Church.

There were, however, younger women who wished to remain widows, but who did not have the financial means to do so. The Churçh afso protecfed and gave charity to this group of women so that they would not be forced into a second marriage tbat was perhaps necewuy, but not desired Ifthese women remained celibate end met the above

3')smwn, p. 148. %ryson, p. 36. "Glyson, p. 111. '*ûryson, p. 36; Turner, p. 320. aitmia, tky ddbe ervo11ed in the order of wi&ws when they reached the required

age. Young widows who were able to mnain tme to their convictions until the

appointai age were able to prove that they Wydid not want to remand thai thcy had

the stamina to live a continent Ise-

Some Christian widows, aitmmteIy, enterd into "spintual dages"witb

widowed men in order to receive the protection they required, a practice aiso found

among coasecrated virgias. Tho@ not forbidden, this practîce was genedly frowned

upon by the Church: it was not considered proper for a woman to have such an intimate

dationship with a man who was not related to her or who was wther husband

One of the most important requirements for an appointed widow was that she be

who had remained fhithfiil ?O her husband, whether he was still livÏng or whether he was

deadU This was an especially high honour in a society where divorce was cornonplace

and where it was normal for a woman to remany after the death of her husbaadU

Lightman and Zeisel argue that through much of Roman history mivira descni upper

class women and women who had the good fomme never to have been widowed or

orphaned, and that it was not until the imperid period that the t.was useci more

widelyf This view is problematic because it relies heavily on the scanty evidence of

43Br0wn,p. 149. %usan Treggiari, Roman Mimkge: Iusri Coniunes hmthe Time of Cicero to the Time of Ulaian (Oxford. The Clarendon Ress), p. 235. 45Marj~rieLightman and Wüliam Zeisei, "Univira: An Example of Continuity and Change in Raman Society," Church Histow, Vol. 46, No. 1 (1977), p. 19-23. tombstones and poeûy, d we do not know how the term was used outside these realms.

Univira is more likely a term used for ail women who married only once, or who outlived their husbands, regardiess of social class. There is no evidence that the ideai of

The Churcb, however, acideci a new dimension to the pagan Roman ideal of univira. Christian rhetoric took up the term and made it an epithet for continent widows." Widows codd use their widowfiood to demonstrate their cornmitment to

Christ through their continence:

Unlike the Romaa univira, who was p*sedby her husband for having beea loyal to him alone, in a society where she was îke to abandon him by divorce or by aduitery, the Chridm widow was keto chose ber Wtue only after the death of her husband At that time, thefidm that Romans occasionally expected a wornan to show even to her dead husband, by refiising to remarry, was transformeci into a perpetual loyalty to Christ, which good Christian widows were expected to show for the rest of their lives."

Widowhood was the Iast opporttmity for a womm to strive for the perfection of the

Virgh It is notable, however, that the good of being mivira was meant for women done: widowers did not receive the same stahis as widows did for remaining continent afkr the death of their sp~uses.~

4Lightmm and Zeisei, p. 27. 47Bmwn,p. 149; see also Lightmrui and ZeiseI, p. 27. 48Verdon,p. 494. d. Marri=. Dow-and Benothai Gifb

Throughouî most of Roman history7the legal bisof mniqehad four essential elements: that the couple had Mectio marital&, or the intent to be -ed; that they were at least of the minimum age for rn&age; that they had the civil capecity, conmrbium, to be marrie& and that they each had the consent of theirpterfmihW, if he existed* However, the prime element of mmiage was always the wnsent of the two

@es7 and, thus, this consent was required for the duration of the rmmiage; the mamage ended when one of the *es withdrew herhs consent. It is also notable that the husbaad and wife remaineci legdy independent ofeach other, maloing mmiage a primady social institution, dess the demd wiîh mmru~.~

Mamage, in Roman society, was an important am,and its Pnmary purposes mis to produce chüdrensl As proof, one need only ta look to the age of m~qe,which was set at the advent ofpuberty, spec~ifically,the age of twelve for women and fourteen for men, and to the vast body of Iegislation surr0mdi.grnanîage and Mpxhelits to marriage.MWiage was éeemed to be so important that thepte?$amiitm oftach Wly had to consent to the union. The muirement of this consent even predates the requirement of the consent of the couple, which is not attested before the late RepubIic.

In early Roman history women typidy msnied with manm. This means that

49J.A.C.Thomas, Textbook of Ronian Law (New York North-Hoiland Publishing Company, 1976), p. 420. %any Nicholas, An introduction to Roman Law (Mord: The Clarendon Press, 1962), p. 80. p. 42 1; Aadrew Bork~~~ki,Textbook on Roman Law (London: Blackstone Press Limited, 1994), p. L 10-1 1 1. when a woman marrie& she passed kmthe potestar of her iàther to that of ber hu~hd;

women et this eariy thewere never mder their owa poww. In early Roman society, the patefmifius had absolute power, putria potestt~,over his chirdren This power was

limited, however, so that he could not force his sons to ma~y.It is unclear whether a

Mer haà the rÏght ta force his daughters to marry or not, but he did have the right to prevent his daughters nom manyirig ifhe did not apveof the& choice." The only exception to this right ofwithholding consent was provided by Augustus' laws on

-age These laws forced thepute@iamitiliar to consent to the marriage of his daughter in some circumstances, because they ordaineci tbat women of certain ages must be mamïed. At the time of the Repubiic, however, women, because they were in the potestas of someone else, were considemi to have agreed to a if they did not voice their discontent to the union. Under this arrangement, a woman did wt enter into

on an equal basis with her husband and she haâ the legai status of a child in the marriage. Tt is ddgeady Roman history that the mce of a woman's family giving a dowry to her husbsnd at the time of &age devefoped Dowry had two important purposes which reflect dagewith rnanus: it compensated the daughter for the inheritance that she would lose hmher patdmly when she joined hahusbanâ's fiunily; and it contributedto her support in her new fdly." A woman wuid not own

''Perey EiIwdCorktt, The RomLaw of M;atriw (Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 1930), p. 66. 53~vaCantareIla, Pandora's Dauzhters: The Role and Statu of Women in Greek and Roman Antiauity, Mameen B. Fant, trans. (Baltimore: The Johns HopbUniversity Press, 1987). p. 138. pperty at this the, so her dowry kamethe prnperty of her hwbaad

By the end of the Republic. ke-age prevaileâ, that is, mamage in which the wife and the husband entered equally. The wife did not enter her husband's family, but remained a part of her fkther's Wly, or was legdly independent with a tutor. The custom of giving a dowry pVBiled in order to satisfy the second pupose of the earîier concept of dowry, to aid in the maintenance ofthe de's new household Added to this was the consideration that the property of husbands and wives were kept separate, and spouses were phiiited hmexchanging siffs? However, with tirne, and as divorce became more cornmon, the wife gainai rights to her dowry if the &age ended A legal process developeâ, calleci acrio rei uxoriae. dereby a wife was dtledto take

Iegal action to reclaim her dowq in the event her dageendd This was necessary so that the woman couid ensure her maintenance, or have a&quate property to use as a dowry in another rnafnage. The husband was entitled ody to the usuhct of the dowry during the marriage and was held accountable for its management. He was, however, able to keep the profits hmtbis property for himseK

Magecbged during the Christian era Free mm*age,-age into wtiich both partners entered on an quai basis, remaineci the nom. However, the consent of the spouses was reqwred oniy at the onset of mmiage. Tt was not neceswy that the consent to be &ed remain, as in earlier Roman fhe marnage;" Cbristians encoriraged monogamy and did not condone divorce. This can also be seen in the Chnstim treatment ofwidows and in the changing defmition of univira.

No specinc fom or legal arrangement for Roman marriage was necessary-, any terms or conditions there mi@ have been were agreed upon beforehand aad were at the discretion of the @es involvd There were, however, four cire-ces which were typidy used as evidence of a marriage: cohabitation, a ceremony, betmtbal, and a dowrywryDespite this, only the intent to be manid and cohabitation were stridy necessary for a dageto take place." Ceremonies, betrothats, and dowries, thaugh mecessary, were nonetheless useful in distinguishing the type of reiaîionship desired by the couple. The pfesence of any of these cwtoms clearly Uidicated a marrÏage, not a concubinage or a simpIe cohabitation, though the absence of these customs did not de out a marriage. Dowry, in paaicular, was an important custom busedage without dowry was neither desirable nor honourable?' This would be particularly important for the status of chilh legitimate chikdren were bom oniy in a legitimate marrhge.

in the nWi and sixth centuries, the pdceof a man giving a gift to his fian& deveIoped undet the influence of Eastern practices. This gïft, called the doncrrio ante mrptia, or the betrothai pi4 was comparable to dowry and was origiaally meant to secure the engagements8 It was also used to SBfeguard the interests of the wife in the

n~re@ari, p. 323; A. Lemaire, w"Onginede la régle 'dlmsine d'eflat conjugitan'." In Melanees Paul Fournier, de la bibliothhue -ire du droit (Paris: Recueil Sirey, 1929), p. 415-16. %LucienAnne, 6 Bas-Emoh (L,oUV8ifl: BibliotMque de l'université, 1941), p. 109. 20 event that she was lefi a widow or was divorced without causeusesThis poperty, lüre the . . dowry, was admmstered by the husband and was never fonnalIy conveyed to the wife unless the marriage ended

e. Laws of Weritance and Succession

Roman law developed a cornplex system to ded with the wncems of inheritance and succession:

This part of Roman law is chiefly temarkable in theways - for its ptecocious recognition of the dead man's last dl,for the bulk and complexity with which the lawyers endowed it in its maîurïty, and above ail for the rigomus application of the principle on which the whole structure rested, that of universal succession"

The original hction of the laws of succession were to pass down the family sucm and to continue the fmdy line by appointing a successor, the heres, for the testator. The hem took the place of the testator to avoid intewon in the dead man's duties.

Secondary to this fùnction was the -ssion of pr~perty,~'which did not take over as a primary fimction of succession tmtil the Republi~.~~

For much of Roman history women were in the musofa man, either theu father or their husband, which means that any property that mi@ belong to them was actually owned by the man who hacipotestas over them. Women did not actuaily own poperty, nor did they ever have anyone in their potesios; therefore, they did not need to

%cholas, p. 89. %cholas, p. 234. 6'Thomas, p. 479; Nichofas, p. 236-37. 6fThomas. p. 480. make wills. It was not imtil the theof Hadrim that women wuid commoniy rnake

wills." As we have seen, in the Republic it was nomial for women to be legally

independent, though they still mÏght be in someone's tutei'a. This means that women

were in the guardianship of a man, usually a relative from their faîhefs fkniIy, and that

they could not make any le@ txmsa%ions,including the writing of a will, without his

Meritance was based on agnatic nlationships, civil relationships whereby

everyone in the potestas of the same male ancestor in the male line was relateda The

cognatic link, or blood relatiomhip, was considerai to be less important in successioa

In fxt, a mother who was married without mrrcs was not legally cousidered to be a

close relation to her own childreds If a woman married with munus, then she was on an

quai footing with her children in her husband's succession because they were ail related

agaatically; she had no claims to succession in her paternal home because she was no

longer an agnate in that family. Stdgammi the middle of the Republic, women

married less fiequently with mmncr; thus, it became more acceptable that women name

their children as heirs, instead of their cognatic relatives. As Dixon says:

[tlhe tendeacy for women to retain fomal membership of their own natal fàmilies after mamïage and the greater fkquency of divorce fiom the second century BC did not prevent a growhg féeling that a woman's "naturd heirs' were slTh~mas,p. 486; LA Crwk, "Women in Roman Successio~"In The Famiiy in Ancient Rome: New Pdves,Beryl Rawson, ed. (Ithaca, N.Y.: Corne11 University Prcss, 1986), p. 64. 64Thomas,p. 4 13. bSSuzaaneDixon, The Roman Mother (Norman and London: University of Oklahoma Press, 1988), p. 45. her childnn rathm than her bmthers' children no matter what fomi of marriage she had f~llowed..~~

In the late Republic, women took on more responsibility for their own estates when it became cornmon for them to have tutors who were not agnatic relatives. As a result, tutors did not have a vested interest in women's estates, which made it easier for women to lave their property to their children."

nie quirements for making wills were difirent for men and women. A man had obligations to those in his potestasr,and if he did not want someone who was a s~lr heres to have a cIaim, he had to disinherit that person specifically. A woman had no sui heredes, therefore, sshe had more Momin mahgwills." She did not have cornpkte

£i=eedomwith her property, however, and was expected by cutom, and later by law, to recognize her children as hein in her dl.

"Suzanne Dixon, The Roman Mother (Norman and London: University of Oklahoma Press, 1988), p. 5 1. CHAPTER TWO:

THE TEXT OF MAJORIAN VI WITH TRANSLATION AND NOTES

VI, DE SANCTIMONIALIBUS VEL VI ABOUT SACRED WOMEN AND VIDUIS ET DE SUCCESSIONIBUS WIDOWS AND ABOUT THEIR EARUM, SUCCESSION, (458 Oct. 26) (458 Oct. 26)

IMPP, LE0 ET MAIORIANUS AA. EMPERORS LE0 AND BAS ILI0 P(RAEFECT0) MAJORIAN AUGUSTI TO BASILIUS. P(RAET0RI)O. PRAETORIAN PREFECT, Susceptis regendi impetii Having accepted the rudder of gubemaculis cogitare debemus. imperial govemment, we must consider quemadrnodum nostn res publica et how Our state may be preserved and may miset legibus et integn religionis advance by arms and by laws and by reverentia conservetur atque proficiat: complete reverence for religion. A great cui piurimum sub hac emendatione contribution will be made by our confertur, si nobilium ferninamm corrective measures, if the praiseworthy arnplectenda generositas procreatis liberis noble qualities of high-ranking women multiplicata subcrescat. si piae are rnultiplied and enhanced by the necessitudines inter parentes et filios procreation of children, if the bonds of nullis insidiarum vitiis inmutentur et piety between parents and children are vemm dei cultum mens non invita not altered by any vicious plots and if a suscipiat. Hoc enim quamprimum nostri not unwilling mind undertakes the true egere maiores. ut rem publicam amis et worship of God. For Our ancestors were. religione fundarcnt. cuius sanctam first of dl, intent on this: that they venentionem Iaedi commentis mortalium should establish the state by arms and by figrnentisque prohibernus. Quis enirn religion, -- religion, whose sacred ferat parentes filias. quas oderunt. his non veneration we prohibit' to be irnpaired tarn dicare quam darnnare consiliis. ut eas by the inventions and figments of in annis adhuc minoribus constitutas mortals. For who could bear that parents necessitati continuae virginitatis addicant not so much dedicate as condemn their ac. daughters, whom they hate, by these plans, that they dedicate them, while still in their years of minority, to be bound by the necessity of perpetual virginit y', and.

Coleman-Norton translates the indicative prohibemus as a subjunctive: "we should prohibit." Coleman-Norton translates constitc~isas "while they are still fixed in their minor years." ne aduiescentibus anirnis aliud velle sit lest adolescent minds be fkee to desire liberum, capitibus invitarum sacrum sonething else, they place the sacred velamen inponant. cum huiusrnodi veil on the heads of unwilling women. observatio philosophiam religiosa mente when observance of this kind ernbracing suscipiens non cogentis impeno, sed the spiritual life3with a pious mind, spontanea et matura delibentione should be adopted not at the command capiatur? Vitandae etenim sunt et magnis of someone employing force, but by free adtentionibus transeundae humanae and mature deliberation? Indeed, the cupiditatis inlecebrae. in quas praecipue allurements of human desire are to be prirnae aetatis ardor inpetlit. ut iuventutis shunned and avoided with great care4 calore sedato deo dicata virginitas praeter (allurements to which people are impelled ullum paenitentiae vitium ad senectutis especially by the ardour of young age), so annos et caelestis militiae palmam that, when the passion of youth has pervenire mereatur. Quid enim prodest. si calmed, virginity which has been cupiditas virginalis patria potestate dedicated to God without sin of conpressa subdolam volun tatem nubendi repentance, may deserve to attain the alte concipiat et a legitimo revocata years of old age and the palm of celestial consortio ad inlicitas trahatur in lecebras*? service. For what is the use, if the desire of a virgin which has been suppressed by paternal power conceives, deep within, a surreptitious wish to be manied, and. having been restrained from a legitimate union, is dragged into illicit allurements'? I Unde ne per huiusmodi inpietatem 1 Therefore, lest by such impiety parentum egestas et obprobnum personis of parents poverty and shame be nubilibus inrogetur et quod praecipue imposed on marriageable people. and subrnovendum est. innsionibus execrandis lest Almighty God be offended by omnipotentis dei contnhatur offensio. execnble mockeries (something that edictali lege sancimus filias, quas pater needs especially to be put down). we matreve a saeculari pemixtione translatas decree by eiiictal law that daughters Chistianae fidei servire praeceptis whose father or mother have decided continuata virginitate censuerint, in beatae that they should serve the precepts of the vitae proposito permanentes non ante Christian faith in perpetual virginity, suscepto honorati capitis velamine removed from secular association, and consecrari quarn quadngina annos aetatis who rernain in the purpose of the blessed life, should not be consecrated by accepting the veil of the honoured head before having reached fony years of age.

The word used is plzikosophictm, which, as both Pharr and Colman-Norton point out, obviously refers here to a spiritual way of life rather than a philosophical system. ' Pharr adds "young maidens" as the subject of this sentence, though there is no such speci fication and the subject is inlecebrae. emensae talibus in fulis inoffensa because they deserve to be decorated meruerint observatione decorai ut multi with such fillets on account of the temporis series et caelestis consuetudo blarneless observance. In this way. the servitii ad perfidarn voluntatern novis passage of much time md the habit of desideriis aditum non relinquant. heavenly seMce will not ailow new desires any access to a faithless will. 7 Quod si ante definitum temporis 2 But if before the estabiished spatiurn sanctimonialem puellam aliis space of time any of the previously adulti sexus sui votis calentem mentioned parents should cause or allow memoratorum quisqum parentum velari a holy maiden to be veiled who is fecerit atque permiserit. tertia bonorum inflamed by other desires of her adult parte rnultetur. Eadem poena constringet sex, let him or her be fined by a third part etiam illam, quae parentibus destituta of his or her property. The sarne penalty intra pnedictae aetatis annos voluent wil1 restrain aiso her who, having ken consecrari. Diaconi quoque. qui huic rei deprived of her parents, desired to be ministerium contra interdicta pnebuerint. consecrated within the yean of the given prosctiptione plectentur. age. And deacons. who have provided their service in this matter against Our prohibitions, shdl be punisheds with proscription. 3 Et quia eamrn coepit causa tractari. 3 And (as we have begun to treat quas ad divinm religionis cultum the cause of those women whom we cupientes demigrare volumus. non with to pass willingly, not by force to the comas, si qua parentum odiis ablegata worship of divine religion) if a wornan. propositum servandae virginitatis induerit. banished by the hatred of her parents. quae a fratrum consortio paricidali has mdertaken to preserve her virginity quodammodo me subtrahitur. ne aut -- a woman who has been removed by copulae tndenda maritati patris matnsve almost parricida1 artifice from the congru largitate aut eorum decedentium community of her brothers. lest she aequa cum reliquis filiis successione should benefit7either of the fitting potiatur. generosity of her parents, when given into mamage, or, at their death, of a share in their succession equal to that of the other children,

Coleman-Norton translates the future plectenrur as a subjunctive: "should be punished." "hm translates ub~eguruas "sent away" and Coleman-Norton as "dismissed"; however. both speciQ in their footnotes that the daughter was sent away to a monastic life. This is not specified in the text and would have been unusual in the West at this time. Instead. a daughter was usually segregated within her own household. ' Coleman-Norton adds a negative which makes the sentence confusing because it cancels out the ne: "...lest she, who ought to be given to a marital bond, should not acquire.. ." parentum obeuntium morte iam libera let her obtain the freedom to marry. if she necdum quaciraginta annos. quibus velari has been freed by the death of her nequivent. aetatis egressa nubendi. ex parents, and if she has not yet passed the quo suae potestatis esse iam coeperit. age of forty years. during which time she Iicentiam sortiatur. Neque enim sacrilega could not be veiled, (and Iet her obtain iudicanda est. quae se hoc ante noluisse that freedom) from the very beginning of aut certe non posse conplere adpetita her legal independence. For a woman coniugii honestate prodiderit. cum must not be considered sacrilegious. who. Christianae religionis institutio atque seeking an honourable marrïage. shows doctrina melius esse censuerït virgines that she did not want this (the consecrated nubere quam inpatientîae adore natunli life) before, or certainly was not able to professae pudicitiae non servare virtutern. fulfil it, For the instruction and doctrine Cum itaque in matrirnonium nuptias of the Christian religion has advised that secuta convenent, exheredatio illi ob hoc it is better that virgins marry than that a parentibus veniens aut sola Falcidiae they do not keep their vow of chastity. quantitas relicta non noceat, sed scnptis because they are unable to endure the heredibus vel suis in virilem portionem heat of Nature.Therefore, when she has vel extraneis in dimidiam tamquam entered into a marriage having chosen the praeterita secundum normam veteris iuris nuptial rites, let neither a disinheritance adcrescat. Digna siquidem tdi praemio et coming to her from her parents because of successione censenda est. quae this nor the Falcidian portion only being procreationem liberorum professa left to her harrn her, but let her inherit generositatem farniliae suae ab intentu dong with the hein mentioned in the nititur vindicare, will. as if she had been passed over. according to the nom of ancient law. She shall inherit an equd portion. if the heirs are sui. or a half portion if they are em-unei. For a woman must be considered worthy of such reward and succession, if, having cornmitted herself to the procreation of children, she stnves to vindicate the noble lineage of her family from destruction. 4 Illis autem. quae spontaneo 4 Moreover, to such an extent do laudabilique proposito sanctimoniae we favour those women, who, with observantiam virginitatis amore spontaneous and laudable design, have susceperint, in tantum favernus, ut, si taken up the observance of religious life forte profana cupiditas inproborum through a love of virginity, that, if the devotam deo mentem per crimen raptus profane desire of wicked men should try violare ternptaverit. non solum divalium to violate a mind devoted to God my the constitutorum qui id admiserit subiaceat crime of rape, the man who commits this ultioni. crime shd1 be subject not only to the mnalties of the imoerial constitutions, verum etiam cuiuslibet accusationi but also to accusation by anyone. so that reddatur obnoxius. ita ut. qui pollutum he who. after this constitution. prosecutes tanto scelere hominem rebus probatis post with proved facts a man polluted by so haec constituta perculerit. addicti censu geat a crime, shall obtain the property facultatibusque potiatur. Quod nos usque and means of him who has been adeo a religiosis feminis iubemus arceri. convicted. We command that this crime ut etiam. si quis simile aliquid in be so far rernoved from religious women. quacumque temptavent. pari se noverit that, if someone atternpts anything similar supplicia esse feriendum. against any such woman. that. if someone atternpts anything similar against any such woman" he, too, must know that he shall be smitten with equal punishment." 5 Viduarum sane obstinationibus 5. Certainly, we are disturbed by the permovemur. quae nulla prole suscepta obstinacy of widows, who. not having fecunditatem suarn repantionemque conceived any children, condemn their farniliae repudiata coniugii iteratione fertility and the renewal of their family by condemnant et solitariam vitam non eo repudiating a second marriage and choose eligunt. ut pudicitiae religionis more an unmmied Iife not for the purpose of farnulentur. sed potentiae ambitum serving chastity because of a love of orbitatis suae casibus viduitatisque religion. but choose a lascivious freedom captantes lascivam vivendi eligunt of living striving after an ambitious quest libertatem: quibus ad omnem licentiae for power using the circumstance of their usum aut sollicitantium ficta religio childlessness and widowhood: widows personarum aut favor callidi captatons whom either the feigned religion of adplaudit. Has ad honestioris vitae soliciting people or the favour of a clever tramitem pnsca dispositione revocantes legacy-hunter1° encourages toward al1 use aetemabili lege sancimus, ut maritali of license. Recalling these women to the obitu destituta mulier quadragenaria pathway of a more honounble life by an minor. donec procreare per aetatem enactment in the ancient spirit, we decree liberos potest. intra quinquennium nubat. by etemal Iaw, that a woman who has lost her husband and is less than forty years old, while her age still allows her to bear children. shall marry within five years.

Yoleman-Norton translates quucrmyue as "any woman at ail"; however, because of the antecedant, r-eligiosisfemitiis, the phrase must be translated by "any such woman." " Coleman-Norton ends his translation here and does not resume it again until pangnph tweive.

'O Pham translates captutoris as "suitoc" These are not suitors, but legacy-hunters, as is made clear by the preceding text which is trying to solve the problem of widows who do not want to remany. Cui idàrco currentis lustn largimur Therefore, we gant to her a delay of the indutias. ut per spatium legitimi tempons lustnim running [from the death of her luctus maerore deposito eligendi husband]. so that, dunng the statutory honestiores nuptias habeat potestatem. Sin time, she can lay aside her sorrow and ver0 saecularem vitam et coniugales grief and have the possibility of choosing taedas perosa damnaverit. emenso. ut a more honourable rnaniage. But if she dictum est. quinquennio in viduitate should abhor and condemn the secular persistens mox cum germais fratribus life and the mamiage torches. persisting in vel sororibus eorumque filiis vel a widowhood which has Iasted for five parentibus propinquisque. per quos yean, as it has been said, let her divide farniliae origo reparatur, suas dividat her resources with her brothers-german facultates aut, si hi fortasse defuennt, and sisters-german and with their children cum fisco patrimonium partiatur: nihil or with her parents and close relatives. intra lustrum temporis illius, quod luctui through whorn the source of family is delibentionique deputavimus, renewed, or if, by chance, these should be alienatunm de praedictis sex unciis se lacking, let her divide her patnmonium esse cognescens. quas parentibus vel with the fisc: knowing that she shalI propinquis statuit serenitas nostra alienate nothing from the aforesaid six proficere. usufructu tantum contenta twelfths. which portion our serenity has vivendi. quae tum se probare poterit established to assist her parents or close studio castitatis secundas nuptias repuisse. relatives, during the lustrum of that time cum liberalis fuerit in propinquos. which we have appointed for mourning and deliberation. king content with only the usufruct for her livelihood, Then, having been generous to her kinsmen, she will be able to prove that it is the zeal for chastity that caused her to reject another marriage. 6 Illarurn vero ratio diversa est. quae 6 However. the case is different for suscepta prole gaudentes ob hoc ad those women. who. rejoice in the children secundas nuptias non demigrant. ut dready bom and on account of this do not adfectuosam decedentis vin memoriam in pursue a second mariage, in order to alendis et locupletandis filiis sollicita keep with careful piety the fond memory pietate conservent: quas nubendi, si hoc of their dead husband in the rearing and maluerint, libertate suscepta a condicione endowing of their children. If these supenus enarratae definitionis wornen prefer to rnake use of their absohimus. freedom to rnarry", we dispense them from the condition of the enactment set forth above,

" Pharr translates: "They shall receive the freedom to marry." ita ut tiliis ex matrimonio priore with the provision that they take care of susceptis. si hoc tamen pars voluerit the children from their first marnage by filiorum. dato tideiussore prospiciant. qui giving them a surety (at least, if a pan of salva fore corpora omnia sponsaliciae the children wish this), who shdl promise largitatis evidenti sponsione promittat. clearly and formally that al1 the goods forming the betrothal gifts will be safe. 7 Optionem sane continuae viduitatis 7 Moreover, we render the option to matribus eatenus relaxamus. ut filios in remain widows easier for mothers to the gremio indulgentiae suae positos vel extent that they may either, during their donationibus pro mento prosequantur lifetirne, make donations according to viventes vel heredes suprema vol untate merit to the children placed in the bosom constituant. of their benevolence, or institute them as hein in their last wilI. 8 Illud sane latus divalis constitutionis 8 We also abolish that part of the abolernus. quo videbatur matribus fuisse i mperial constitution, whereby it permissum. ut ex quantitate sponsaliciae appearedl=that mothers were allowed to largitatis in unum filiurn. si vellent. confer freely, if they wished. the greatest pottionem maximam conferendi habeant portion of the amount of the betrothal gift libenm facultatem: in quarn nos filios upon one child. We command that the üequa iubemus lance succedere, si quidem children succeed to this amount with recte illa donatio inter bona patema equal portions, iP3indeed that gift is nurnenbitur, quarn in uxorem maritus counted rightly among the patemal goods. contulit ternpore nuptiarum. Si vero matri which the husband bestowed upon the contra religionern sanguinis wife at the time of the marriage. But if propositumque pietatis extemus heres an extraneous heir and schemer has insidiatorque subrepsent. quidquid ab ea rnanipulated a rnother in violation of non iustis causis exheredationis respect for blood relations and of her extantibus. quas sine dubio probatunis est purpose of piety, then everything that. qui videtur-filiis antefem, donatum fuerit without just cause of disinheritance vel relictum aut inreligioso aiienatum (causes which he who appean to be translaturnque commento. id totum ab preferred to the children must prove eisdem filiis vindicetur. beyond doubt), has ken donated or left or alienated and transferred by means of impious ties, -- dl this shall be vindicated by the said children. 9 Et quia studiose tractatur a nobis 9 And because we are zealously utilitas filiorum, quos et numerosius promoting the welfare of children, procreari pro Romani nominis optarnus wishing that they be procreated in greater augment0 numbers for the sake of increasing the Roman name.

l2 Pham translates the imperfect viedbatur as a present: "it appears." l3 Pharr translates si here as "since." et procreatis conpetentia cornrnoda perire and not allowing the advantages due to non patimur. hoc necessario putavimus those who have been procreated to be praecavendum. ut marem feminamque lost we thought it necessary to take the iungendos copula nuptiali par condicio - following precaution: when a man and a utrimque constringat. id est ut numquam woman are to be united in wedlock, the minorem quam exigit futura uxor same condition must bind both sides -- sponsaliciam largitatern dotis titulo se that is: the future wife must know that shc noverit conlaturam. scituris puellis ac witl never contribute more under the parentibus puellamm vel quibuscumque narne of dowry than what is promised to nupturis ambos infarniae maculis her as betrothal gift, and girls and parents inurendos. qui fuerint sine dote coniuncti. of girls or anyone at al1 who is going to ita ut nec matrimonium iudicetur nec marry must know that both will be iegi timi ex his filii procreentur. branded with the stain of infamy, who should be joined in mamage without a dowry, in such a way that their union shall not be considered a marriage and legitimate children cannot be born to them. 10 Sane quoniam quorundam 10 Moreover, action must be taken cupiditati bus obv iandum est. qui against the greed of some who exhaust generorum exhauriunt facul tates ac si bi the resources of their sons-in-law and vel fihabus suis vel subornatis cause many things to be conveyed qui buscumque personis. priusquarn secretl y and fraudulently to themselves or aliquid de nuptiarum pactione constituant. to their daughters or to substitutes by ab incautis iuvenibus et futuri coniugii incautious young men who are aroused by desiderio conci tatis mu1 ta faci unt occulta the desire of a future marriage. Once the fraude conferri, quae secuta sollemnitate solemnization of vows has followed, they votorum filiabus refundant aut forte refund these things to their daughters, or. maiore amore perfidiae sibi existimant sornetimes, if their love of perfidy is adquisita. unde huius callidi frivolique greater, they consider thern acquired for commenti ita nullum esse iubernus themsel~es.Therefore, we command that effecturn, ut infirmato talis colore such insidious and frivolous falsehood contractus sui iuris postea gener vindicet shall have no effect, so that the pretext of vel actione proposita securus reposcat. such a contract is declared void and the quidquid per inliciti posthac contractus son-in-law, being sui iuris, can later imaginem alienare conpulsus est. vindicate or recover safely in an action whatever he was compelled to alienate through the semblance of a contract which is hereafter ilkit. 1 1 Inter cetera captatorum etiarn avidi tas II Among other things, the greed of conprimenda est, qui nonnumquam legacy-hunten must dso be suppressed, ignotorum paene lectulis adsidentes who sometimes, sitting at the bedside of people almost unknown to them, animos ipsa corporum aegri tudine corrupt with a simulated affection minds fatigatos et sincera iam iudicia non already tired with the sickness of their habentes simulata adfectione depravant. bodies and no longer having sound ut plerique consanguinitatis et judgement, so that very many people necessi tudinum suarum frequenter O bli ti frequentlyI4forget their blood-kin and extraneos scri bere videantur heredes. cum near relatives and institute outsiders as insidiosa munuscula diriguntur. curn heirs. in situations where insidious IittIe subomantur medici. qui prava gifts are sent, where doctors are induced penuadeant et neglecto medendi studio to give bad advice, to neglect the pursuit fiant alienarum cupiditatum ministri. of healing and to become ministers of the Quibus omnibus serenitas nostra diligenti avarice of others. Al1 of these things examinatione perpensis hoc praesenti Iege having been considered wi th diligent decemit. ut. si is, qui nulla testatori examination, our sereni tyls decrees wi th propinquitate coniungitur neque ex iis the present law, that, if he. who is joined personis est. quibus etiam ab intestat0 by no kinship to the testator and is not deferri quocumque gradu vel titulo from those people, to whom, according to poterat antiquo iure successio. heres fuerit the ancient law, succession could be institutus. legatum fideicommissumve passed down even in the case of intestacy perceperit. ex relictis rebus atque by whatever grade or title, should be corporibus tertiam public0 inferat insti tuted as an heir, or should receive a portionem. quatenus hoc saltem rnetu et legacy or a trust, he will hand over to the testatorum iniquitas et captatorum cesset public treasury one third of the property inprobitas. and objects that have been left to him. since at least by the fear of this both the iniquity of the testators and the deprav i ty of legacy-hunters shdl cease. 12 Quae omnia constituta in futurum a 12 Wecommandthatallthesethings die latae legis vaiere praecipirnus, Basili constituted for the future prevail from the p(arens) k(arissime) a(tque) a(mantissme). day of the issue of this law, Badius. I~IUS~~~USigitur et praecelsa magnificentia father most dear and most loved. tua saluberrimarn sanctionem proposi tis Therefore, your illustrious and very high divulgabit edictis. ut omnes intellegant magnificence shall publish this most remotis inreligiosarum mentium fraudi bus sdutary sanction by posted edicts. in inpiisque cornmentis hoc constitutum order that al1 may know that the frauds fuisse, and impious inventions of irreligious minds have been removed and that this constitution has been established.

" Pham translates pleriqur as "very many descendents." Is Pham translates the nominative serenitas nostru as an ablative rather than as a nominative: "by Our Sereni ty." quod rmendationi moroum utilitatique which intends to promote mords and the publicae reducta in terras vi avorum public welfare, bringing back to earth the omnium socia pietate proficiat. DAT. VI1 strength of our ancestors by the united KAL. NOV. RAV(ENNAE) D. Nt piety of ail. GIVEN ON THE SEVENTH LEONE ET MAIORIANO AA. CONSS. DAY BEFORE THE KALENDS OF NOVEMBER AT RAVENNA IN THE Y EAR OF THE CONSULSHIP OF OUR LORDS LE0 AND MAJORIAN AUGUSTI- Upon first dng, N. Maj. VI appears to be hostile ta a Christian audience because of its overtones and its appeal to ancient Roman mores. The fwt tbat the

Emperor Severn, with N. Sev. 1, abrogated the bulk of N. Maj. VI five years &er its promulgation, because of what Severn cdled its mjust nature, serves to substantiate this view. Upon closer reading, however, much of Mhjorian's pagan style appears to be just that, style. Why, then, was N. Maj. VI abrogated so quickly and callexi hiusta and aspra?' The answer has to do largely with Majorian's seemingly extreme trament of virgins and widows and their rights in wusecration and marriage. Scnitiny of the text of

N. Maj. VI will help to determine if it is indeed extrerne or if it is in keeping with traditional Church views and the legai tradition of the the. This examination dlbring together the histoncal wntext introduced in ChaDter One and the te* and translation presented in Chaoter Two. Here, in Chauter Three, N. Maj. VI be evaluated in ternis of its language and content in a paf5lgraph by paragraph commen&uy,with attention given to preceding laws which have an impact on how N. Maj. VI is to be utlderstood and to how these new regdations affecteci the people they concemeci. Speciai attention wiU be paid to ZIans Wielings article "hiustalex hrIaiorianiWbecause it treats N. Maj. VI

'N.Sev. I, Pr. and 2. 34 extensively?

The twelve paragrapbs and theprincipium of N. Maj. Vi cm be divided iuto four general sections or nchapte~n:Wgias, widows withouî children, widows with children, and protection of the groom in the marriage negotiations. The principim and jmqppbs one to three deaf with the age and willingness of consecrated Wgins.

Paragraph four, a îransition paragraph, concerns the rape of consecrateci women.

Paragaph five considers widows without children Pampphs six to eigbt deal with widows who have childrett Paragraphs nine and ten cuncem the mam'age negotiations, specifidy the negotiations of the dos and the donatio ante nupias. Paragraph eleven deals with legacy huaters. Finaily, paragraph tweive lays out the terrns for the publication of the law.

%ans Wieling "Iniusta lex Maiorid." Revue Internatiode des Droits de I'Anti~uitc!~ 3e Série, Tome 38 (Bruxelles, 199 l), p. 385-420. a Princi~ium:- The Prrrpose of N-Mai. VI

Theprincipim of N. Maj. VI lays out the gromdwork for this novel by explainhg the reasoning bebuid the 1aw

...cogr'Iure debernus, quemadmodm nosm res publics et miset legibus et integ~areiigionis reverentia comewehrr afque proflciat: cuclci plwim2an sub hc em&ione cun#ertur. si nobiiimfemim an@ecten& generositas procreat t3 liber& MU[f ipIicata dcresaf, si pioe necessitudihes ihter parentes et filios nullis inrdimun viliis innrutentzcr et veMn dei dtmt mens non invita suscipiut.

This objective is in keeping with Majorian's character. One of bis most notable goals as emperor was to correct the decline ofthe Roman Empire and to relieve the anxieties of his people? No other emperor of the nfth century attempted to cteate laws such as

Majorian's. Throughout his legisiation Majorian writes with pagm overtones, and, as

Gibbon points out, he looked to ancient and pagan Ianguage in order to wnvey his purpose! In many of his mvels, Majorian hofds up ancient Roman customs and laws as those which should be emulated and presewed.' In N. Maj. VI, Majorian does this wtien he attempts to correct abuses relating to cehiacy and marrïage in an effort to increase the Roman populatiom

In his first sentence, Majorian uses a @le1 structure to make his intentions clear. The -te, he claims, can be preserved and increased by ody three things: anns, laws, and revereace of religion. The cui afkr the colon refers back to the state and then

3Edward Gibbon, The Histocy of the Deche and FaIl of the Roman Ern~ire,4th ed,Vol. N,J.B. Bury, ed. (London: Methuen & Co., Ltd., 191 l), p. 17. 4ûïbbon, p. 17. 'Wieiing, p. 386-7. Besides N. Maj. VT, Wieling points out examples of this in N. Maj. 9m,w,and=- 36 the pivalle1 is created denMajorian lis&the ahiee thiags that will help the state achieve this goal: women need to bear children, the bonds between parents and children must rernain pious, and oniy those who are willing are to be dedicated to Gd Majorian, thus, makes the private sphere political by imposing imperial legislaiion on matters wtiich were7 until that time, largdy unreguiated by laws. These affiwere traditionally handled within the fiunily or by the Church, Majorian, however, feels that the greater good of the Empire will be served by such laws because they will make the Empire stronger by increasing the population and affording the people of Rome the opportuni@ to demonsûate their true love of religion

In his next sentence, Majarian says that Rome's ancestors founded the state with arms and religion; no mention is made of laws. This is a conscious omission, probably because the Ernperor Augustus was the only previous emperor to regulate any of the three mattea that Majorian mentions in the second half of his paralle1 structure7that wornen need to bear chilchen, the bonds between parents and children must reniain pious, and ody those who are willing are to be dedicated to God Augustus limited people's choices to lead celibate Iives by requiring women to marry in order that they bear chikiren and the choice to live a çelibate life with his Za IuZia de maritandis ordinibw of

18 B.C. and the lex Papia Poppeu of AD. 9. These laws were ill-received because they penalized people for not king married and for not having children. These were repealed by the Emperor Constantine in A.D. 320; who removed the penalties imposed by the

6~.Th. WI, 16, 1: "Qui iute veteri caelibes habebuntut, inmimentibus le- terroribas liberentur crdque ita vivant. ac si nmero maritonart ~imoniifoedereficIcirentw, sitque omnibus aeqm condicio capsendi quodquisque mereanhrr. Nec vero quisquom 37

Augustan laws, even though they had never been effective. Thus, he need the way for

cellibates to pursue their ascetic choice without any Uireat of hcidor social

disadvantages. However, because N. Erlaj. VI touches on sidar issues, the Augustan

laws are Mmediaîely called to mind This Iink is the reason for the implicit pagan

overtones of N. Maj. VI. The other two mafters mentioned, that the bonds between

parents and children remain pious and that only willing people be dedicated to Gd, are

not the subjects ofprevious legislatioa Majorian, here, must be pointhg out his part in

the continuum of the ancesfrsil tradition; now that he is Emperor, he is filiing in the gap

Ieft by nostri muiores with N. Maj. M, and yet he is carrying through their intentions.

The phrase nostri maiores also brings out an ambiguity of this Iaw are these ancestors upon domMajorian is calling Christian or pagan? An apparent dichotomy is

created as Mhjorian repeatedly daims to be working with a Christian purpose, and with the best interests of the Church in minci, and yet his language suggests a pagan pupose.

The ambiguity of nostri mniores conjures up what is best about both pegan Roman ideals and more recent Christian values. This dichotomy is necessary, especiaily in view of the seemingly contradictory purpose of Majorian's law, specincally, to encourage marrïage and childbeariug and yet also to protect the integrity of the office of consecrated Wgins.

This apparent vagueness of the phrase noshi miores is Iikely a way for Majorian to warm his Christian audience to a law tbat wdd be construed largely as anti-CMstian in orbus habecntlut: propsita huic nomini dm~anon noceantr. Quam rem et circa ferninas aestinunus emqmque cervicibus imposita iuris impetiu veïut quaedam iuga so2vimuspromis~eomnibtis. Venrnr huis ben@cii immilis ex uxoribfls infer se u~urpationon ptebit, quo~nfuZZacesplenmque blanditiae vix etim oppsito iuris rigore cohibenh~r,sed maneut inter istas personas lemprisa auct~rita[s]~" content His methoci, therefore, encornpasses the religious aspects -priate to a

Christian Emperor, yet he looks back to and incoprates pagan aspects by considering

Rome's past in an effort to correct the contempotary ilis ofthe Roman Empire.

In the first sentence of this inîroductory paragraph Majorian appears to single out

noble women as the subjects for his law when he uses the phrase "nobilMnfeminm~t

atnpZecte& generosiirar." This view is put forth by Bamish, who claims that N. Maj. VI

is concemed oaiy with the ~stoaacy-' In order to support this claim. Bamish uses the

above and the following phrases for support " Viduannn .. . qurre nuifaprole suscepta fecunditatem SuQm reprationemquefamiliae repudiata coniugii iferatione condemnantW;

"prquosfmiliae origo repaîtun;"ulihsfiIiortll)t, quos et numerosius procreuti pro

Romani nominis optamus augment0 et procreatis conpetenfiaco~tuitocjaprire non patimzu-" These examples, however, are not conclusive. One place where Majorian

refers specifïcally to the aristmcy is in thepfincipim; to this we ca~add paragraph

three: "generositatemfamiliae suoe ab interitu nnititur vindicare." The other examples

given by Bamish are more general and do not refer exclusively to upperclass women

These references, and every other reference in this Iaw, are to wornen in general. For example, Majorian uses the phrases: "siqua pure- diis ableguta proposirum sentondie virginitoris iinduerit," and "ui nt~~italiobitu destiihur mulier quaCaagenmia

-or. donec procreare per aetatem Ziberos pores6 ima quinquennium mbat,"' which

'S.I.B. Baniish, "Transformation and Survivai in the Westem Senato~dAristocracy, c. AD. 400-700." Pa= of the British School at Rome Vol. LW(1988), p. 143. W. bj. VI, 3, and 5. seem to imply ail wornen, Although N. Maj. VI may have stenuned hma wncem with the upper classes, Majoriau does not single these women out Majorian is predominantly concernai with a women's age and her capacity to bear children, not with her social

Majorian's primary concem is to increase the declining Roman population. The basis for Majorian's anxiety for the population is most easily demonstrated among the

upper classes, which may have been the impetus for N. Wj. W. The average age for rnamkge among Christian girls was 15-1 8, appfoximately three years later than for pagan girls, which resuIted in three less childbearing years among Chridans. This, coupled with the relatively smd number of children bom to senatorial wuples end the move of many in the upper classes to asceticism, could have contriiuted to the decrease in the popdation:

Ifwe add the fact that the number of children produced by senatonai couples was aMylow, the dyirig of husbands leaving young chi1dess widows behind - as in the cases of e.g. Marcella and Blesilla - plus the reluctance of widows to remarry and that of young girls to marry at aü..., we might wnclude (though more investigation is newied) that there was a shortage ofwomen to secure the fiimily Iineage by pocreation. The consequence of this shorîage wodd have been a tremendous pressure by men on women to marry and bear ~bildren.~

Majon'm hoped to obviate this problem of the demashg Roman population with his legislation that virgins aumot be consecrated until they are old enough to make a mature decision and by removing obstacles for women who wish to rnarry*

Majorian next addresses, specificaily, the problem of women king forced to be consecmted by parents Who hate them. Uajorian cites two unjust resuits of forced 40

co-tion: that the integrity ofChurch offices suffas, and th& women consecrated

unwil1ingly wodd be more likely to indulge in forbidden &kirs because thqr may

harbour mtdesires to marry. The intention of this law, then, is to defend the honour

of Churcb offices and the right of young women to have fk choice in decisions that

affect their fbtms. Majorian, in this way, cornes BC~OSSas a defender of the iate@ty of

Church offices and as the champion of free choice. He also wntends that he is swing

young women firom themseives by requiring tht thqr be mature before they make such

an important, litélong decision, lest îhey change their mincis denthqr mature. These

are the evils that Majorian appears to be trying to correct, and the cause is, by dl

accounts, a noble one. After ail, who wuld objm to legislation that, quite reasonably,

protects the integrity of religious offices and the rights of young, easily uifluenced women?

Interestingiy, Majorian does not wnsider that parents wouid dedicate their

daughters to virginity for any reason other than because they hate them. Even though the

circw11sf8nces that Majorian describes were prevaient, parents wdd have had other

motives for consecrathg theü daughters. For instance, it is quite Iikely that many parents

wanted to obtain for the fàmily the considerable prestige that accompruiied having a

consecrateci virgin in the household

Wjorian gives the impression in this paragraph that he is dealing only with immature women For example, he is concerneci that women with adufescens unimus, and who are influenced byprimcie aetdis mdor and iwentutis dor.rn king med hto rives of wnsecrated virginity. Even Wieling summarizes this paragaph by saying that Majori;bllrspurpose is to forbid kthers kmforcing their miwr daugkrs into unwaated lives of cansectatsd ~irginity.'~The age of rnatllfity is not set in this paragaph, but one wouid expect this to be fàïrly young @en that most women

by the age of eighteen. Majorian uses his language carewy in order to corne acmss as the defémder of adolescent wornen, in an effort to gain support for this law.

It is signifiatut that Majorian reférs to the coercion of parents, and not çalely to the coercion of fathers: he uses the terms pwertles and pater materne throughout the novel; nowhere does he use pater exclusively. Wieling, however, implies throughout his work that it is the fkther done who has infiuence and power over his children, and that it is he alone who has the power to force a daughter into a life of Wginity; nowhere does he mention the mothefs practicai and real influence over her chiidren, an infiuence that

Majorian clearly recognizes. There was never any le@ requirernent in the Roman world that a mother agree to the mmiage of her chilclren; she did not possess any legai authority over them, such as the patria potestas of fathers. This does not mean that mothers did not play a farge role in their childreas lives. There was a general feeling that they should be respected and honoined by their children, even though they did not have potestas over them.12 Mothers, on a practical levei, did have a role in the decision of theit daughters to many and it was highly desirable that they support tbeir children's impending marriages. l3 Majorian clearIy demonsûates, through his choice of language,

'WieIing, p. 392. "Wieling uses only the word Vater, Le., p. 392,393. %ixon, p. 41. 13Treggiari, p. 172 and 177. 42 that he incldes motbers as a part of the decision making process in marters wncemhg cbildren

b. Paraera~h1: Women are wtto be Consecratecl Before the Am of Fortv

Parsgraph one beguis with powemil, Christian laaguage. Majorian cornes across as a strong Christian empemr defending Christian values. In fact, most of this paragraph is in keeping with the ideals ofchristiadty piety, honour, and tme devotion to God

Majorian seeks to accomplish two disparate ends in this paragraph by espushg

Christian Whies which uphold a secdar pinpose that would be contentious at the time.

He pro= young women hmking forced by their ~tsinto Iives of consecrated

Wginity, seemhgiy safeguarding the honour of the office, so that he can ais0 encourage these same women to many and bear children and, thmby, increase the Roman population. These goals are accomplished in the guise of a custom that is already in place, that virgins be tested thoroughly.

Majoriau recalls the primary purpose of this legislation by referring to apersom nubilis in the nist sentence of this -ph This phrase rerninds the reader that

Majoriads intention is to increase the waning Roman population by encouraging women to many. In this passage, nubilious is an emendation by Otto Seeck, accepted by Paul M.

Meyer. The manuscripts have nobiliba. Ifthe readhg of nobiliblls were correct, it wouid reinforce Majorian's ody other reference to the nobility and lend credibility to

Bamish's argument that N. Maj. VI is concerneci exclusively with the aristocw. If we foiiow Seeck and Meyer, N. Maj. VI must apply to ail women and not ody to ~stocmtic 43

women This is likely, given that Majorian bas not put any d emphask on aristocdc

women in the rest ofhis law, and it &es sense that Uajoriaa would want to b~gup

the subject of mamage, the focus of the Iaw, again at this important juncture.

It is in this patagraph that Uajorian introduces somethuig new when he stipuiates

that women cannot be consecrateci before the age offorty. Fmalmost two paragraphs

Majorian has led his audience to beüeve that he is referring to young adalescent women.

It is not untiî the end of this -ph that Majorian deshis legislation clear by

specifying that w women under the age of forty may be co~~ecratedas &gins. The fdse

impression that hes ken created up until this point is a ploy aimed at making N. M&j. VI

more acceptable. Resumably, there would be les opposition to a law that pmtects

immature women than there would be to a Iaw that restricts the choices of mature women.

There is precedent within the Church for setting a late age for consecration, but

N. Maj. VI is the first piece of imperial legislation to regulate this matter. It is

impossible to know whether Majorian was acting on his own initiative or whether he was

following Church custom in se?tingthe age for consecration at forty. The lack of

consistency in the Church's Mew of when virgins should be wnsecrated makes it difficult to resolve this question: Church tradition varies and is often divideci, and no officid

Church document survives which specifies the age for cotl~ecratingvirgins in Rome in the fifui century. Certainly, M&.joriadsNovel contains pagan language and overtones, but much of his law coincides with doctrine found in Church counciis and teachings.

The Chtuch Fathers do not provide a specific age for the consecration of virgias; the decision seems to have been Ieft to the didonof the individual bis- concemed. For example, TertuUim says tbst Wgins mmnot be comeaatd before the age when they are seff'tlsciou~, that is, before puberty, so that tbey can have full intelligence of theù decision:

Vbi enim grdm fuma de apostoii absoi~adefinitione, om~ndierem etimn omis aetatis mteliege~respnderi ex diuerso habeôat erg0 a ~tiuitateet aptRno nomine uetatis urignem opriti oprtere. itu est autent, sed ex quo se irirellgere coeperit et sennon natume sue mfrme et de uirginis exire et pali nouimi illd quod alteritrp aetatk est. "

Augustine, when placed in the position of making decisions for a young orphan-@, who was not yet old enough to marry, determitled that the girl must make up her own mind whether she will be a consecrateci vira or whether she will many. The age for this decision, though not specined, is presumably the same age at which she can decide to many, that is, approximately age fifteen to eigbteen:

... utrzun mtem ntptwa sit. etsi iUud quod in ore habet magis optamus, nunc tomen ignoramus, quia in his amis est ut et quod se dicit velle esse sonctimonialem, iomsit pot& gurrfentisqucmr sponio proftenti~!~

Jerome, on the other had, approves of girls being dedicated to virginity at much younger ages. For example, he praises the eariy consecration of the virgin Asella: "...quuti adhuc

beautittdinis consecriztut... "" With these divergent opinions, the Church did recognize the aeed to regdate this matter officidly. Several counciIs addresseci the question of the

'qertullian, De Virginih Velandis, XI. 1. "~ugustine.Epistoh CCCLN. I6~erorne,EpishJa JOW, 2. proper age for wnsecrating virgû~~and hvedat diffèrent wnclusions.

The Spanish CounciI of Samgossa in AD. 380 represents the first mention of consecrathg virgins at the age of forty, the age imposed by N. Maj. VL Canon 8 says:

"ItemZecr~m est: Non veIanriCrs esse virgines, quoe se Deo voveriiir, nisi qhaghta cmnortcm probuta aetute, qwm sucerdos comp'obmerril. "" Duchesne says, in reference to the Corncil of Saragossa, "Cette dernihre limite supprimait beaucoup de difficultes; une loi de i'amée 458 W. Maj. VI] la sanctionna ~fficiellement."'~There is, however, no mention of the Spanish council in Majorian's law, and it seems unlikely that Majorian wouid have been directly innuenceci by a Church amon written seventyeight years eariier in Spain Nonetheless, an incidental intluence may accomt for Majorian's choice of age for wasecration. This canon does however, show an earIy disposition in the

Church for consecrathg virgins at a late age.

The Corncil of Agde is the other Church Colmcil that has forty as the age for consecrating Wgins. This council to& place in Gaul in AD. 506, some fiftyeight years after Majotian's law. Canon 19 ofAgde States: "Sanciimondes, qwm2ibet uita eam et mores probati sini, meanma aetatis srrae q~agesimmnon ueIentw."l9 The

Western Roman Empire had ceased to exist by this the; therefore, Gad had no obligation to accept a law promdgated in Rome. Although Majoriari's Iegislation shved in Gad,= it is impossible to kuow ifh.lajorianls Novd had any influence on

"Concilm CoesumugzatamanII, in Godez, p. 306. '%Duchesne,p. 444. '9ConcihAgatheme, canon 19, in Muaier, p. 234. %e Appendor Coimcil of Agde. StiU, this corncil demoiistrates once again the desire for a late age for

codonin the Chwch

In a related matter, the Council of Chaicedon in AD. 451, an Eastern Council,

establishes that deaconesses cannot be orshed until the age of forty: "AL~KOVOVpfi

~aposov~~i&iyuvaî~a lrpb kôvt~aaap&~ovm ai m6qv pdr bicpipoû c

&~~paaia<."~'Barnish suggests that Majorian was acting in accordance with this

couacil in the matter of coasecratllig virgins," even though the Council of Chalcedon

nguiates the age of de8~0nesses. This cornecbon is uniikely given the vast clifferences

between the offices of deaconesses and virgins. Duchesne also does not think this

probable: in his work Le Liber PontXcaiis Duchesne discusses the ages for consecratkg

Wgins extensively and does not mention the Council of Chalcedon? Deaconesses and

virgins each held distinct offices in the Church. Deaconesses were not common in the

West at this theand were found primarily in the East until the eighth century."

Furthermore, the duîies of de8~0nesses,tasks such as visiting the sick and uistnicting

neophytes, wen thougbt to be better suited to mature women. Virgias, on the other

hand, were fmdin both the East and in the West, aad they had no chantable

responsibiilitie~;~~iilstead, they led contemplative lives. There was also a tradition in the

2'Canon 15, in Sch- p. 159. %misâ, p. 143; and Wieling, p. 392. Liber Pontificaiis: Text. introduction et commentaire. Tome Premier. L. Duchesne, ed. (Paris: Emest Thom), p. 241. '"J.G. Davies, 'l)eacons, Deaconesses and the Minor Orders in the Patristic Period," le .Journal of Ecclesiastical Historv 14 (1963), p. 6. -mer, p. 343. East of ordainiag deaconesses which dates nom the third century,= whüe virgins were consecrateQ not orAained It becornes obviaus that deaconesses and virghs have very different backgrounds and traciitions. The two offices were not Iuiked in any way, therefm, it is uniikely that Majorian used a canon about deaconesses to regdate concerning the codon of virgins

DitTerat ages for the consecration of virgins appear in the canons of other countries and in other sources. Three Afncan councils, the Council of Hïppo in AD.

393, the Council of Carthage in AD.418, and the Council of Milevis in AD. 402, ail put the age for consecration at îwenty-five. The Council of Hippo states: "Et ut ante viginti quique aetatis annos nec derici ordinentut nec virgines consecrenfur."n Canon

16 of the Council of Carthage reads: "Et ut meXXVamos aetatb nec diacones ordinentur nec virgines conseceentw." Finally, the Council of Cartbage mounces:

Item plucuit, ut qricumque episcopotum necessitafepericiitmtis Hicitiae vitginah quum vel petit potem vel ruptor &quis fonnidatur, vel si etiam abquo in mort&pericdo scrijdo comp~nctufkerit.ne non velala mortaltir, out exigentibus puriaut his ad quorum aum pertinet, veluverit virginem inha viginti qu~rqwmos aetatis, non ei obsit concilitan quod de isto mmrero annorzan constituhart est?

Basil, in a letter written in the East in AD. 375, says that the age at which a girl can marry, sixteen or seventeen, is the same age at which she can decide to become a

-mer, p. 337-38. %non 1, Incipt Brevis Statutonan of îhe Brevimium Hipponeme in Bruns, p. 136. =Canon 15 in Joannou, p. 231. 29Co~~i1of Mïlevis, canon 26 in Godez, wl 189. These documents ali allow for wnsiderably younger ages for consecrating virgins than do Majorian end the Church Counciis previoudy mentioned. None of these, however, bad any force in Rome. Yet, it is easy to undastand why younger ages wodd be acceptable for the consecration of vïrgins. Given the young age at which women could marry, one might expect that this same age would be used for the consecration of virgins, as it is in Basil's letter. In this way, women of hageable age who wanted to be consecrated Wgins would have their intentions made clear and they wodd not be expected to marry. Twenty-five is also an age when women wuid be tested in theu convictions and yet still be young enough for the wnsecmîion ceremony to mark the beginning of a vocation to virwty. The councils in ecamay have chosen the age of twenty-fIve for the consecmtion of virgins as a remlt of the influence of orientaI monesticism. There are precedents for such behaviour. For example, Augustine often looked to the East for guidance. Nonetheless, these early ages for consecration were rejected in other parts of the West.

Later ages for consecration are ais0 present in ecclesiastical documents, but these are in texts of dubious authenticity. One of these, the Comti~Silvestri, an apocryphal document of the sixth century attnïuted to Pope Sylvester, says that virgins are wt to be wnsecmted until the age of seventy-two: "Nuluserimn ep~coporum vkginem sacratam mitaIi consortio qtierit benedicere, nisi eam probaveriî septuaginta duonan mmonmr esse co~tstitut~mt."~~The section on Pope Leo 1in the Liber

Pont@calis, attributes to Leo a nile biat Wgins cannot be consecrateci until the age of sw "Hic constituft ut mo~chrrnon clccpertt vefaminiswpitis benedictionem, nisi probutaficerit in virgiinilate LXQ~~U~O~"~Metz believes that the age of sixty is a possible corruption in the text for the age offorty." This is probable, and coincides with the Church historians Baronius and Tillemont, both of whom believe that Majorian was ianuenced by Le0 in the matter ofchoosiag forty as the age for consecrating virgins.

Haec [N. Maj. VI3<] quidon sdente S. Leone Romano Pontijice, qui Eccksiastico deweto edempruhibuemt nobiiium Romanonun potentiam vh i~erentiumfiliabus; quede eodem sancto Leone habentut scripts in libro de Romonts Pontijicibw, satk ostendunf. 3s

Tillemont echoes Baronius:

.. . wjorian] fit me ioy celebre...que les mies ne recevront point la coasécration et le voile de la virginité avant ltâge de quarante ans; ...(hicroit que ce fut par Ie conseil de S. Léon qu'il fit cette loy, A cause que les Pontificaux disent que S. Mndéfendit aussi de donner le voile de la virginité aux mes, 8 moins qu'elles n'eussent esté 6prowées durant 40 ans.=

'%L. vol. 8. caput X col. 836. 3%eLiber Pontificalis, p. 239. '%en6 Metz, La co~rationdes viermzs daris l'enlise romaine: Etude dliistoire de la 1i-e (paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 19543, p. 109-1 10. YThe text previous specifies N. Maj. Vm, but when the content is exphined it becornes obvious that N. Maj. VI is meant 3sBaroni~,Annales Ecclesiatici, Vol. 5 (Mol), p. 304. ?illemont, Mémoires mur servir A IWs?oire eccl&idaue: des six Dnmiers si&&, Tome 15 (Paris, 171 l), p. 8 17-18. 50

Leo himeif never specined the age at which he would Ore virgins to be co~l~e~ratd,nor did Majorian attniute any part of his novel to Leo. Comequently, the issue of whether

Le0 did actually influence Uajoriau or not caanot be resolved. In any case7Miijorian cleady specines his own reasons for wanting Wgiiis to be consecrated at the age of forty, reasons which are both secuiar adreiigious. Uajorian may have been Muenced by Leo in his choice of age, but the dtclearly suited Majorids piifposes.

There is merevidence in letters by Pope Innocent 1and Pope Leo 1that a later age wss preferred for consecration, aithough neither pope states a specinc age in his writiags. Innocent wrote a Ietter in AD. 401, indicathg two steps for women follow

Who wanted to be consecrated. He uses the phreses "Itemquoe Christo spritituatiter mcpsemnt et velme a sucenioie me lue^" and "quae necdiun sacro SMI velamine consectatue, tmen in propsito virginaii se permanere ptomisermt, ficet vehae non sÏntw in reference to Mirent stages in the lives of women Who have consecrateci their virginity to Gd3' LAS, in a letter written between AD. 442 and 459, also distinguishes between two phases of vows as Innocent does. He uses the staternents npt~psitumutque habittmt sll~cep~~and "comecrafio non accessit."38Both of these examples clearIy descri'be this two-step process.

The two-step system for consecrathg virgins is an interesting development and does not seem to have been -nt in the East, where virgins wuld be wnsecrated at an eulier age. It resembles the presentday simple and solemn vows taken by nuns. The n~acentI, Epistola II, cupt W and XI& in P.L7vol. 20, col. 477-479. '%eo Magnus, Epistola CLXViI, qwestio XV, in POL,vol. 54, col. 1208. first vow of prospective consemted Wgins, an idormal vow of Wginity, app- to have been taken at some undetermined early age, patiaps at the same age at *ch they would bave been expeçted to marry, approximately nfteen to eiwnyears ofage. In this way, a woman would not be expected to maqdue to her vowed commitment to virginity. A womm who vowed would then Live a simple iife, most IikeIy at home. This praçtice must be wbat Majorian is referring ta when he objects to parents sequesteriug their daughters fiom secdar Me agahst theu wills. The formal consecration then took place at a later age. A late age for consecration was thought to reduce the risk of a woman breakhg her vow because she wodd have been tested extensively and would be past the tinte when she wodd be likely to marry. By consecraîing a woman at this late age, the actual veiling took on a diffemt significance in the West than in the East so, that, as Duchesne says: "Au lieu d'etre I'imuguration d'me carrière, elle n'en était plus guère que le couromement."" It is thk second step that

Miijorian must have had in mind when he says that virgins motbe consesrateci mtil the age of forty, and, b& on the evidence dN.Maj. VI and the Church Councils, it seems likely that forty was the age for consecrathg virgins in Rome in the fi% century."

Wieling argues that the age of forty may have been chosen as the age for m-r'ting *gins because by that thethe woman's father was not likely to & dl1 living. therefore, the daughter wodd not be iduenced by He then says, however, that a womrm of twenty-five can marry wÏth or without her fdefs permission as he will no longer have the pwer to force her either inta dageor into consecrateci virginityty4

Wkhg does not offer any support for this daim and there does not appear to be any mcient custom wnnrming that women receive this frsedom at the age of twenty-five.

There is a law of AD. 371 stating that widows uader the age of twenty-five camot remarry without their fathers' permissio~~~~This de7 howwer, does not apply to women who have never married before and so is not reIevant to N. Maj. VI, 1.

Majorim describes two situations concerning virein his Novel: nrst, that both the daugtiter and her parents agree that she should be consecrateci; second, that the daughter wants to mm7but her parents want her to be consecrateci. In both of these cases* Majorian honours the will ofthe daughter so that she can only be consecmted willingly. His wncern here is that wamen who want to marry be permitted to do so, in order tbat they have the opportunity to produce Roman citizens. This is not in wnflict with the Church cauncils which also advocate a late age for consecration.

There is, however, a third conceivable case that Majorkm does not consider in his law, that of a woman who wants to be consecrateci but her parents want her to many.

Oue explanation for this omission is that Majorian's aim is to increase the Roman population; therefore, he rnay not be overly concemed with this situation. Also, it was

42~ieling,p.393. "c. Th. III, 7,1, pr.: " Viduae intra vicesimm et qui- mmdegentes, etimi emanc@atïonislibertate gdent, tamen in semmbs mbtias non sine patris sententia corneniant uut in obpgmtione. cessent ifque seqrestres afqtce inferpretes,fuciii nuntii remmrique compti. Nubfias nobiles nemo redimat, nemo sollcitet, sedpublice co~~~ulclturdfinitas, dibeaturfiequentia procena." impossible, legally, for parents b force theïr daughters info dage.u Nevertheless, it

may have been difljcuit, on a practical leva for a daugtter to reha dagedesired

by her parents:

It is unfortuuately true that children have in the pst beea starved and beaten into submission to their fkthefs will and gone through long elsborate refigious ceremonies and given legal wnsent. But ttiere are also subtier ways of exerting pressure. Upbringing and social expectations may deit aimost impossible for a yomg person, especially a &@ter7 to refuse consent [ta marry].45

Conceivably, some may have presdtheir aaughters into -age7 just as some

parents may have pressUrrd their daugûters ta be consecrated.

One cmfkquentiy find this situation in the history of the Church, particularly in

the Iives of the saints. In these acoomts7women with vocations to virginity are typically

dedoff agaimt their wills, afkr which they either persuade their husbands to lead a

life of virginity, or Iive celibate Iives afkr bearùig a number of children, or remain

celibate after their husbaads die. For example, Melania the EIder was commandeci by

her parents to many at the age of fourteen, and when she was widowed at the age of

twenty-two she resisted the pressure hmher parents to rem- again, remaining a

cebate widow for the rest of her life. MiicMacrina, at the age oftwelve, resisted manying

after her fiancé died, claiining that hanng been betrothed was the equivalent of having

been married; therefore, she was a widow. Melania the Elder was mamieâ young, but

attempted to persuade her husband to live chastely. He agreed to do this only after

"'Max Kaser7DBS R6mische Privatrecht: Erster Abschnitt, Des Altromische. das Vorklassische und Klassische Recht, VOL 1 (Munich: C.H. Beschische Verlagsbubhhandung, 1955), para. 74, p. 268; Treggiari, p. 175. 45Treggih, p. 176. 54

Melania bore two chiibn to whom they wuld pass on the nimily fortune. Afkthese two chüdten died while stili very yormg, Melania and her busband lived a continent Ise, much to the disapproval oftheir parents.

Majonq in biis novel, suggests that there is an impiied blackmail on the part of certain parents Who threaten their daughters with wîthdrawn support ifthey many. In

Romsociety, women relied he8vily upon the protection of their households in order to survive: women had lirtle means of support on their own and they depended on theü felies for maintenance and a dowry. Women who wvjshedto vow their virginity to God were especidy in need ofthis security. Virgim norrnally lived at home; therefore, it was necessary fort their parents to support their decisions. Apparently, some parents threatened their daughters, forcing them to choose eikto becorne consecrateci virgins and be protecited by their families, or to de@ their parents and lose their familial protection. This second choice codd easily result in the poverty of the woman A virgin without familial protection would be cornpelleci to look elsewhere for support and shelter as she would have had little or no meam of supporthg herself. There are two sources of altemate protection: the philoparthenos, someone who helped virgins as a fom of chi@, or the virgin could become a subnrtroduc~aand Iive in a type of spiritual dagewith a man unrelatecl to her in order to meive his protection." This second siwon was fiowned upon by the Church as such a relationship could easily become sc811daIous.

Uajorian, in this novel, does not make it impossible for a woman to dediate her 5s

Iive to virginity, but he does deit a choice that requirts much thought and dce-A

virgiu had to Iive uuwtlSecrafed until the age of forty in order to prove thai she tdy

~8ntedto be consecrated- She may or may not have had the support of her -y, md

she rnay bave experienced pressure to marry. [fa virgin did reach the age of forty and

had overcome such obstacles, she wdd then be Majoriw however, is not

saying anything new here: the Chmh in the West had required late ages for

consecration for some tirne, so that virgins could be tested in their vocation. This is an

important part of the consecration process: the Chrach mtedto ensure the fidelity of

the Brides of Christ, and Majorian wantsd to give women every opportunity to marry and

have childten. UtimateIy, both T~~SOIISrequire that the woman not be in hayouth, a

tirne denher passions may lead her to make a potentiaily inappropriate decision. In

this way, a? least theoreticdly, a woman couid not be dedkated ta virginity before an age

where she wdd make up her own min4 an age, also, at &ch she will have lived long

enou@ to prove that she is true to her wnvictions. The nawning of the Chmh for late

consecration is more intelligiile than Majorian's. Majorian may be taking his cue from

the Church, but his regdation cornes across as severe given his rea~~ning

c. P81~~~lt8t)h2: Punishments

In para~pphtwo, Mitjorian specifies the punishments for disobeying the

regdation laid out in paragraph one, that is consecrating a virgin before she reaches the

age of forty. Majorian vwts his regdations to be taken senously and not to be taken as wdl-meaning advice; thetefore, he makes transgnssions of the law punishable offenses. 56

~irst,he prmishes parents who have dedicated their daughters before the pr;escnw age by nning them one third of their property. This pishment applies to pafents whether their daughters were consecrateci willingly or not. Resumably, it is up to the vntsto be fbmïïiar with the law and to guide th& daughters in the right dirrction

Major= @es an interestiilg statement when he forbids parents to permit ws~i~oni,Zempe[Iamaiiis dufi sextis sui vutis wientem . . . velari . ..' This comment impIies women naturally desire to be marrieci and to have children, and th& it is primarily adolescent women who wish to be consecrated. The reamning here is thaî

Uajorian, by imposiag his tige restrictionon the c012~e~~~tionof virgins, is saving yomg women hmmaLUig puerile and impuisive dezisions that they wiil regret when they mature. Again, Majorian appears to be protecting the interests ofyoung womea, den, in fat, he is regulating al1 women up to the age of forty. This Ievel protection is extraordinary, @va that even very young marrieci women were held responsible for their actions within their maniages." Thus, Màjorian objezts to only one kind of adolescent behaviour. It is also telling that Majorian does not repeat his age requirement here, but

=YS O~Y"siante definitum temporis spatium .. ." This phmm be another effort to gain the s~mpathyof his audience by trying to make them forget that he is nof in kt, wngody about very young women, as he did in theprincipim.

Second, Majorian's law punishes women deprived of their pafents in the same way it wouId punish parents if they allow theù daughters to be wnsecrated &fore the we of forty. The -te, in this case, has taken it upon itselfto purii-sh emtbehaviour in

*'CIoke, p. 52. the absence of parents, who wodd have, presumably, steered their daughters toward a proper course, if diey were alive.

Thir4 the deacons Who aid in these dorizedadVities are to be punished with proscriptio~tProscription, in the tifth century, did not retain its classical meaaing of haviag al1 of one's property con6scated; it meant any kiad of punishment. It is notable that bishops are not mentioued in this paragraph, because they wodd be the ones

PerfofmiLIg the consemtion ceremony. Bishops, trsditiodly, were beyond the jurisdiction of imperid prosecution, as diey wufd be judgeâ only by other bishops, wheieas deacons cddbe ûied by the secdar coutsUCCSA law of AD. 355 regdates this

M~uetudinzsnostrae legeprohibemus in ircdiciis episcopos ucctuati, ne. dm od/icnaa @mm benejicio inpunitas aestintaîw, libera sit adarguedos eos mhisfuruilibus copia Si quid est igitur querellanarx, quod quispiam dm, a@ ahporissimm episcopos cornenit qphrarï, ut opprtuna adgue commhczmctorum quaestionibus audientia c~mmodetur.~

A later Iaw, written in AD.425, reconfhns this regulation &er John, an unsuccessM usurper of power in Rome from AD. 423424, changed the law.

CIericos etiam, quos indscretim ad saecuImes iudices debere deduci injEaustus pruesumptor edixerut,,episcopoli audientiae resenamtls. Faenim non est. ut divini muneris ministri tempOmpOraliumpotestutwn subdanrw arbirri~.~~

A novel by Valentinian in AD. 452, however, changes thiosregdation again Vaientinian compels bishojx to be held accountable for their actions before secular courts:

48c.n. xvr, 2,12. 49C.Th. XVI, 2,47. ut. si in huitcsce ordinis homines actionempe~~~~iioniset utrudm iniuricaian dirigi newssefierit, per pfoc2aatom sollenuiferordinafum upud iudicem prrbliinmt inter leges et iras cofligmt. iudicati exim ad mdhtores sine dubio reverstao. .. in reliqtris negotiiis criminaiihs itata fegum ordinem pet se iudicium direcogantw. Si Ob aectdore conwntiparere detrectent, sentaro iuris ordine sententia teneut contumaces?

This law was in effect when Majorian wrote N. Maj. which means thai bishops could

be trieci before secular corn, wntrary to the previous, wefl-eSt8blishad custom. It may

then appear strange that Mjorian does not establish a puiiishment for errant bishops. A

later mvel by Majorian, in which he sen& bishops who have bansgressed the Iaw to be judged by the Apostolic See, may supply the answet:

.. . nec episoop~la verecunîiiu esse comtenit aiienum, ad apstoiiiccie sedis dèvocem antistitem, ut in illu reverentissirno sede notainlicitae praesMlplionis incturaf?'

From this, it would appear that Uajorien prefers that bishops be judged not by secular

courts, but by the Pope of Rome.

There could be, however, another aspect to this regdation- Deacons, as the ones

who îake care of clencal affairs for the Chm4 would be required to inform bishops of the law, therefore, if a bishop consecrates a woman agaimt the law, the blame falls upon the deacon, who, presumably, has not dom his duty of acquainting the bisbop with îhe

law properly. This is akin to the secuiar practice whereby both the provincial governor and bis dwerethmtened with ptmishment ifthe govemor broke the law, because it was the staffwho prepared the business in question for the governor. It was, thus, the

W. val. XML, 1,l. 'IN. Uaj. 1. 59

duty of the governofs subordhaîes to ~11dersbmdthe Iaw. There is also the pblem of

the weakness of the imperial government; therefore, it may have been easier ta take

action agaiast subordinates than against those with power. Paragraph two cleady

dernonstrates that the impexial govemment took the same approach dendealing with

Church administrators as when deaihg with its own adminisiraiion. This is what

Majonan means when he says: "Diuconiquoque, qui hicrei ministetim COMU

interdicta praebuerint . . ."

CL Paramph 3: Protection of Women

Paragraph three begins with yet another admonition agakt veiling virgins who are unwilling to be consecrated. This is a Merexpansion of wtiat is found in the principzun and indudes more specinc information about the motives behind coerced vows of vir@ty. Majorian gives two primary reasons why parents mi@ force their daughters into lives of virginily first. these daughters WUnot have to be given a dowry, and second, inheritances wiiI not have to be divided to include these daughters. Majorian deems these reasons to be selfish because they are based on greed and haîmi, even though such motives were prevaient at the time.

The Roman system of inheritance and dowry dictated that chüdren were normally entitled to a share in their parents' property, and that daughters wexe to be pfovided with pmper dowries. Inheritaaces and dowries would secm a livelihood, a place in society, and a suitable marriage for each child of the fhly, without which they could be left destitute. However, it could be equaily devastahg to divide the propexty of a family inta too many parts. Upper class fimilies, in particulau, had an interest in keeping their

property together to maintain their social The Roman upper classes had only

limited means of acquirug weaith, the normal ones king inheritances, dowries, and the

holding of govenimeat offices? mese fonns of inwme brought littie new dthto the

upper classes; therefore, several children, each Ealring hermis share, couid easily divide a

fiunily's for- into portions inadequate to maintain their desired social status.

The dilemma of what to do with an abundance of hein was Mtwith in various

ways. Traditionally, methods such as birth controI, abartion, giving children up for adoption, and childexposure were employed by parents to Iimit the size of their fimilies,

so that the paîrïmony would not have to be divided in too many ways, and that dl of the children Who were codd be duiy supportedY Girls, especially, fell victim to these methods of contmlling the number of heirs. The example of childexposure particularly illustrates the point

It is certainly hard to t&inkthat in the Romau Empire as a whole male infmts were exposed as oRen as female ones hdeed one of the reasons why the Romans relied bedyon child-exposure to control the popdation was thaf unlike contraception or abortion, it permitteci them to choose the sex of their ~hildren.'~ s2JohnEastburn Bosweil, "hpsitioand Oblario: The Abandonment of Children and the Ancient and Medieval Family," American Historical Review 89 (1984) p. 23. a~~eYarbrough, "ChristianWon in the Fourth Cen- The Example of Roman Women. Church Historv Vol. 45 (1976), p. 156. "1t is difficult to know how widaspread the practices of child exposure and of givhg children up for adoption were among the uppei classes. W.V. Harries, "ChiId Exposure in the Roman Empire," Journal of Roman Sbdies 84 (1984), p. 7 and 13, suggests that there are indicaîions of child-exposwe in the uppclasses, primarily as a means of keeping the f8mily's weaith together. "W. v.Harries,p. 11. 61

For the most part, bowever, such @ces were coademned by both Christhm and pagans. Iii kD.374, VaientiNan I declared that idinticide was murder,= and by the the of hilajorian, Christian wndemnation of ail fhlycontroI methods except abstinence was established. Meanwhile, rnany Roman Christian hilies found that an efféctive way to avoid paying a dowry or dividing the inheritance into srnail portions was to dedicate a daughter to virginity. This resolution easiIy remedied the moral and canonid dilemmas conceming infiticide and birth wntrol; fkthemore, dedicating girls to Wwty had the added advaatage of king Iooked upon favourably as a great gift to the Church. Out of this pctice came the later, widespread custom of oblation, or offering a child to a monastery at birul

The Church requued that virgins be willing to wdertake theu vocatio~~The

Couacils that regdate the age at which women could be consecrafed fkil to specifL that women must take the veil wiilingly, buî this may be because it was uot thought necessary to mention something so obvious. Nonetheless, yomg girls were occasioaally dedicated to virghity befm they couid give îheir tnie consent Severai letters that discuss this issue go into more detail. For example, Basil says:

Le0 reveais similar sentiments when he writes:

%C. Th IX,14.1: "Siquis necandi i$iis pidm4dgressus ad&ressave sit, erit capitale isfud mulwm" %asil, Later XVlIL Augustine, in the letter mentioned previousfy abouî a young girl in his care, quires that the decision to be consecrated must be the girl's ownSgAs was alsa seen earlier, however, Jerome @sed the early dedication of a girl, which would preclude her from giving her tnie consenta

Even with the precautions enacted in Majorian's legislation, pressure from parents in a wonun's decision to be coltsectateci was probably a fiictor, just as it was for

Some of thern [women dedicated to virginity] pbably had not made the choice to be a Wgin willhgiy, aad the opposition to marriage was not theirs but their family's whether out of excess ofzeal or in an attempt to Save on a dowry - and some, doubtless, having initially made their own decision, had had leisure to repent of it6'

This is exactly the sort of pmtice that Majorian was trying to deter with his legislation.

In the fourth and fifth centuries, it did not seem u~lfeasonablefor parents to decide whether their daughters would be dedicated to virginity or not while they were still prepubescent, or even hfànts." These early ages for dedication were thought to be desirable because they hrsd the advantage of ensuring the virginity of the women

''Lao, Epistoia CLXVII, inquis XV. sAugustine, Episda CCLN. *Jerome, Epistula XXrV* 2. 61Cloke,p. 73. -or example, Eustochium was dedicated before puberty and before she was expxted to many; Pauia the Younger was dedicated while still an innint, as was Melania the Youngefs ktâaughter. 63 dedicatedf This habit conflicts with the Church's teacbings tbaî spec* that Wghs be thomughiy tested in their wnvictions and be consecrated willingiy. Such women, however, brougM up to bekve that tbey wouid be wmmated Wgins, would have had a ciifficuit time asserthg their own choices if they differed kmthe choices of theù parents.

In his duation of this section, Wieling repe8tedly rnakes reference to daughters king pressureâ by their parents to enter mon as te rie^.^ Women, however, were not sent to live in moI18Sferies in the West until the sixth century-, indemonasteries were not common in the West in the nfth century. Majorian writes that womea should not be dedicated to virginity against their wills; he makes no mention of monasteries. The word actually used in this paragraph is ablegara, hmthe verb ablegare, mdg"to send away" or "to banish." In Majorian's opinion, many daughters choose the religious Me, because their parents "bmish"them, i.e. refuse to provide for them othmvise.

In the clause 'quibus velari nequiverit Majorien refers to the prohibition

Uitroduced by himeIf. He is speaLUig for the He does not mention the case of young women who were ahady formally veiled whea the law was issued. Robably he does not want to interfere with their vows.

We do not know for sure at what age virgïns were veiled in the Church of Rome at the time when Majorian's law was given. Quite lürely, a Iate age of consecration prevailed, as in other parts of the West In that case, a womants choice of the religious Me mi@ have ieceived, eariier in her Me, some kïnd of less solemn mgnition by the

Church Wehave al- discussed examples of such preliminary vows.

Virgins Who bmke their vows were treaîed differenity in the Chmh, dependhg

on wbether they had simply vowed virginity, or if they had adlybeen comxratd A

woman who had beea formally consecrated, the second step, was dealt with fhr more

severely for breakhg ber vow than a woman who had only taken the fïrst, novitiate vow, and had not yet been ceremoniously wiisecnited hocent 1descrii this issue in one

of his letters:

Item quae Christo spirittuditer mpsenmit et velmi a sucerdote meruenmt, si pustea vel pub fice nupsermt, vei occulte comptaefuerint, non ear &if te& esse ad agehpoenifeniam, nM hi. quibus se junxerant, de ltoc vita discesseriinr. Si enim de luicis hominibtcr hec ratio custodiiw, ut qteczunque vivente vira aiteri ntpserit habeatw adulrere. nec ei ugen

For this nason, the Western Church, on the whole, prefened consecration at a later age.

Being Brides of Christ, consecrateci women needed to be tested thoroughiy, because, if thqr broke their vows, they committed the grave sin of adultery against Christ himself.

This ttansgression had to be avoided at ail possible CO* Public opinion echoed this view, and, as a muit, the actual veiling of virgins occurred Iate in women's livd6 If preliminary vows were taken in the Chmh of Rome, they were not binding in the opinion of Mhjorian. 'Such women', he says, 'must not be considered sacrilegious'.

651naocentI, Episda II, caput Xm, in PL,vol. 20, col. 47û-479. 66Duchesne,p. 444. 65

Majorian gives two reasous why women should have the option of being released fiam their "novitiate vows" atter their patentsrdeath. First, he assumes that women are influenced greatly by their parents and sre not free to follow their own desires until after their parentst de& Second, Uajorh, again, refers to al1 women under foriy years of age as king easiiy inauadand subject to adolescent desires by saying that he does not want young women to be oonsecrated before the age of forty, and then to be placed in a position where they wodd be unable to change their min& about cage when they matureci. Thus, Majorian seems to be presenting himself as the protector of these women by fkeing them from their "novitiate vows," while, at the same the, continuing with his uitimate purpose of encoinaging women to marry and bear children in order ta increase the Roman population.

There couid also be another reason: an avowed Wgin, not yet consecraieci, couid conceivably be placed in a position upon the death of her poirents, because this couid dtin the loss of her support and protection. This would be a serious matter in a society where women could not easily support themselves, and where Wgias were e>rpected to lead contempIative lives. A virgin, quite undetstandably, might find that maniage was a more desirable alternative to living without support and protection.

Thus, virgins may have been campelled to marry under the regdation presented in this pamgrap4 more out of a harsh necessity thout ofa true desire to marry.

Majorian couches his pagan-sounding arguments of hingvirgins from their

"novitiate vows" in Biblid language, likely in an effort to make his argument more palatable to &is Christian dence. Majorian paraphrases Paul, 1Cor. 7,9, which reads: ki 62 O~K~'YK~OLTEUOVI(XI, yapqts&toaav- ~peirrovy&p éanv yapeîv fi mpoûaûa~/den he says: "nan ChnsCanae religionis Mtiftdhdio atque htrina mehs esse consuerit virgiines nubere quont iiyxlienîiue atdore ~r~rdiprofessaeplrdictiae non sentme virtu~em" Msjorian appeals to Christian sentiment; he emphasises that he is a Christian Empemr, and he uses Christian arguments, as he bas done before, to make a contentious secuiar regdation more agreeable.

Majorïan nexî protects those women who have not yet been fodyconsecrateci firom menviable lives, without inheritances or dowries, by eusuring that they will receive their fkir share of the petrimony, if they decide to marry af€er their parentsr de& By securùig an adeqmîe monof the inkitance for tbem, Majorian gives these wornen what they need to survive in Roman society, that is, money for a dowry so thet they can enter into an honourable marriage. Without such assurances, women who do not want to remain Wgins may be forced into other types ofrelationships, such as concubinages, which would not produce iegitimate Roman citizens. This brings Majoriau back to the primary purpose of his Iaw to encornage women to pursue what he considers to be the noble purpose of increasing the Roman population. Majorian lays out a three-fold plan for ptecting women: fht, they will not be disinherie second, they will not be iefi oniy the Falcidian portion; tbird, they will reccive their inheritance accordhg to the fornula laid out in ancient Iaw,

Majorian enacts that parents have no grouads for disïnheriting a daughter who does not remain a virgin and who marries against their will &er their deaths.

Tditionally, children could be disinherited for a good cause, such as disobedience or 67

for not flllfÏhg filial duty. A child who wished to wntest such a WUhad to do so

through the courts, as there were no set reasons for disuiberitance untiI JUSfUlIi8tl

Disinberiting daughters was easier than disinheriting sons in the ancient tradition:

daughters couid be disuiherited with a generai formula, while sons had to be disinherited

individuaiiy and by Disinheriting Mymembers was a serious matter since

childrem depended on theu inheritances for their liveiihood, and parents had a moral duty

to provide for their My." Ifa daughter wished to clah her share ofthe uiheritance

after king disinheriîed, she couid do so withouî mnlrnig the wiii invalid, dea son in

the same situation69 A prdce cailed quereiu inoflciosï testumentri developed in the

late Republic whereby someone could take action against a legal will if s/he wuid prove

that it was undutifi~l.~~In this pwqpph, Majoran changes the regdation in order to

defend a woman's Bght to mm,so that a woman disinherited for manying after her

parents' death did not have to go ttuough the courts and bring a qziereia inoflciosi

testamenti in order to prove her case. Lastead,Majorian automaticaiiy gants these

women their minimum share of the inheritance. Filial disobedience for the greater cause

of prescrving one's f~ly,and, thus, the Empire, is rewarded by Majorian and not

pimished

The Falcidian portion refers to the iex Fufcîdfaof 40 B.C. This law was designed

to overcome the potwtial fiscal dangers to the hem in accepthg an inheritance by

67Crook,p. 64; Thomas, p. 493. %rkowski, p. 229. 69Crook,p. 65. 70Crook,p. 65. giving her/him a guaranteed portion ofthe testator's estate Ifthe testator was in debt, or

had miscaiculated the vaiue of his pcoperty, it might be disadmntageous for the heres to

accept the inheritance. The Fdcidian portion edthat hein received at feast one

quarter of the testator's pfoperty, and if this was not available, all of the legacies were

decreasedpro rata In the case of more thaa one heir, each received a quarter of herf's

share of the inheritance."

Mkjorian ensures that women who marry agahst their parents' will after their

death will receive more than the Fdcidian portion, the minimum momt left to an hekR

7'~icho1as,p. 266; Thomas, p. 506. There is, howwer, some ambiguity wnceining this point. Borkowski, p. 225 maintains that ifthere was more than one heir then they divided one fourth of the estate bdween them. nChildren were guaranteed at least the Falcidian portion ifthey were dutifid (C. Th. II, 19,2 and C. Th. II, 19,4) or ifthey converteci to Christianity against the desises of their parents and bed committed a crime agaïmt their pareflts (C. Th XVi, 8,28). C. Th. II, 19,2 (AD.32 1): %cet legum auctoritasj?lionmrpotiw girmn mh~mpersonis voluit laborem imtmbere, ut de inoficioso agentes inira praefmita temporo doceant nullo suo vitio facîum nec offensionem se parentiibur praestitisse. sed iugiter obsemtos, ut ultwae ipsius reiigiojlclgitabat. disCiplinam inlaesam inoffensque servasse, ut utis probufis removere pafenhmi valeant testamenta .." C. Th. II, 19,4 (AD. 361): "Cmscribit moriens. ut arbitratu boni viri, si quid mimrsjXs sit relictwn qumn modus qumtue, qui per ~21ccessionembonis tantm liberis debena. Magitat, id ipsum ab herede iisdem in pectmia conpleatut?manfshan est nuilam improrsts nec slq>er testament0 nec super domtionibus querellmn renumere, praesertim cunr universam demrepelh et reprinuzt, qwe adpecuniam redgit. iwta taxatio." C. Th. XVI, 8,28 (AD.426): "Si I&ei vel Sàmutitae fdiw filime seu neps, MW aut pltues, ad ChriSime religionis lucem de tenebrisproprkae stq>erstztioni comilio meliore migraverint, non liceat eonan pen~iibrcs,id est patrà vel matri?avo vei aviae, exheredwe vei in testmento siientio praeterire veC minus aliquid eis relinquere, qwun puter&, si ab intestat0 vocatenhcr, dipisci. @dsi ita/ositan menerit, iubemuî emab intestatu rescissa voluntate succedere, libertatibta, qme in eodm testmento abaefirerint, si ima legitimum ntimenatl nmî,miun obtinentibwjhtitatem, Si quid ntaxinttan ctimen in mattem patremve? mtlan vel avim taiesfilios vel nepotes com&isse apetre ptuerit conproburi, manenfe in eos ultione legitiw si uccusatio intereu irae processerit, pentes tamen sub tali elogio. mi subpeditabbur~probabilio et mmifesta documenta, solm eis Faicidimn These women wodd receive the normal amount Ieft to aaughters who had beea overlooked in the dlwithout bebg disinherited. Thus*aaughters were to receive an equal share if the beirs were sui, or halfa share ifthey were ejctranei. These conditions regardutg the amount of the inheritance the daughter would receive are an ancient tradition, as Majorian himself points out, and wwe weil estabfished in Rominheritance

Iaw. It is new, however, thaî daughters specificaily disinhetited for disobedience receive this amount and not the Faicidian portion only. In bringing about this reguiation,

Majorian Iegiiïmizes this instance of filial disobedience to the point t&at it is not a valid reasan for disinheritance or for receiving only the minimum inheritance-

Two years after N. Maj. VI, Majorian issued N. Maj. XI, which deais with the ordination of clerics against their wills. N. Uaj. M cm be looked upas the male couterpart to the fïrst section of N. Maj. VZ, as both laws forbid religious offices to be filled by unwilling people and both proviâe punishments for transgressing their regulations. However, N. Maj. XI is different from N. Uaj. VI in many ways: it is short and not very wmplex; it does not use the involved bistoncal and traditional expianations of history and tradition of N. Maj. VI; the sensibiiity of the audience is not manipulated; there are no claims of increasing die Roman population; and, perhaps most importantIy, it puts no age restriction on the ordination of clerics. With both of these laws, Majorian does attempt to demonstrate his a strong cornmitment to the integrity of religious offices by banhg unwilling people from them. N. Maj. XI, however, is much more focused on

debitue successionis relinquant, ut hoc saitem Nt honorem religionis elecfaememisse vi&mtw, manente, ut dhinw, crirninlmr, siprobuta~riht,dtione. ." 70 the choice of the individuai to enter reiigious office thau is N. Mhj. VL As has been discussed earlier, N. Mej. VI bas motives bondthe fiee choice of women. Several reasons for the Merence between these laws can be noteck it wouid have been more dinicutt to restcict the righîs of men then those of women; women were pcesumed to require more protection than men, because it was thought they were more easiIy swayed; parnits were more lïkely to want to pass inheTit8LIces to their sons than to their daughters, ifthere was iasunicient paîrimony, as is indicated by the disproportionate number of girls exposed as inf8nts, wcompmxi to boys; and it would have ken important for

Majorian to fke as many women as possible to bear children i~ order to increase the

Roman population at a fàster rate. Lt is intedgto note that N. Maj. XI seems to bave been totally acceptable and was not abmgated as was N. Maj. VL

e. Pammph 4: The Ra= of Consecrateci Virgjns

Paragraph four annomces with a Io@ tone that the rape of coaseîrated virgins will not be tolerated, Despite this, very Mein this paragraph is new. Imperid legislation from AD. 354 dictates that any man who rapes a wnsecrated Wgin or widow shall be punished:

Eodem icmmrque raptorem severitasferior nec sit ulla disrretiu iiner em,qui pudorem virginm sacrosanctarum et castimonim virhroe iabefactwe sceierosz raptus acerbitate detegitut. Nec UIIZISsibi ex posteriore consensu valeat ruptae bldiri?

Another law ten years later makes the rape of consecrated virgins and widows a capital Si quis non dicam r-e, sed vel uttemptare matrimonii iungendi causa sucmtas viaines vel vidm~fire~it, capitali sententiafirietd4

A law of AD. 420 punisb lerapists of consecrated virghs wïth exile and deportation

It aiso aüows someone who suspects that such a rape bas taken place to Mom with

Si quis di- de0 virginem prodigus sui raptor rmrbieritppublicatis bonis deportarione pplectutwp cunctis a~ationishuius licentia ubsque metu delktiionis ididta Neque enim exigi comtenit proditorem. qumpro pidicitia religonh imitat hummitus?

In diis respect, N. Maj. VI, 4 can be seen as adding something new to this progression of

legïslation on rape: Majorian enacts that the succesSf.uI accuser of such a crime will

-ive the -le property of the convictad man as a bounty for his efforts:

... si forteprom capidifas inprobo~n&votarn deo mentem per cthten raptus violme temptaverit, non soium divalitun wnstiin(lo~)~qui id diserit stibiuceat riftioni. veeM etiam cuiwlibet occwationi rectdatw obnoxiza, ira ut, qui polIutwn tuMo scelere hominem dusprubatis post haec constituta perculerit, arklcti cemufacultaf ilfibusquepotiatur.

This admonition against rape is the exîent of Imperid protecfion of the consecrateci state. There is no other real Secunty offered to consecmted virgins in N.

Maj. VL, and even this regdation is not new or spedbuse all women wre protectd

Si quis nihil am parentibus puelue ante depecus imitum eum rupetit vel volentem abduxerit ptrucinium ox eiw resgmsiune sperans, quatn propter vitim ltwitatis et sema niobilitutem atque condi a postdationibur et testimoniis

74~.Th. K,25,2. Th. IX, 25,3. This peragraph may show, however*r.that Majorian is not hostile to the colisecrat#i state

as he is willing to offér some securïty to women who wish to remain virgins and wili

punish those who try to force them fiom that state-

Pasagraph five begins Mejorian's four paragraph treatment of widows. He mates an abrupt transition fiom his pcevious discussion of virgins by using " fiduanmt" as the fïrst word of this paragaph. Specifically, paragraph five deals with the case of childless widows who do not wish ta remerry, aithough Sb1 in their childbearing years. Majorian's laaguage is forcefbi in its condemnation of these widows. The phrases he uses are:

"Viduonmr. . . obsrinationiburpermovemla.. .," and ". . &ctmditafem suam repmctrionemguefamiiiae repudiata coniugii interatione condemnant. . ." This second phrase distinctiy recal1s the end of paragraph three, wtiere Majorian pfaises women Who marry and bear children: "Dig~siquidem tuli praemio et successione censetlcja est. quoe procreafionem iiberorrnn professu generositatemfamiliae suae ab interitu nititw vindiare." As these illusûationsreminci the reader, ffijorian's concem with chüdless wid~~,as with virgins, is to increase the Roman population.

Uajorian allows two legitimate optionsfor childless widows under the age of foity in this paragraph: either they can marry and bear children, or they can live lives of

76C.Th. IX, 24,1, pr. (AD.320). 73 chastity Qedicated to Go& This second choice is whst he is referring to when he says thaî widows can choosefcxmularipUriicitiaee Uajorian's obvious prefkrmce is that these wornen rembuf as a Christian Emperor, he could never prevent women hm dedicating their lives to God, ifthat is what they desire. Majorian wodd have had great diffiicuity in blatandy going against the practice of continent widowhood, whkh was sîrongly eacouraged by die Church, and which was finding the support of so many widows, especiaily since he also writes this law in order to preserve the honour of

Church offices. He can, however, compeI women ta prove their commitments to their decisions. Still, before Majorian pce~entsthe option of living a life of chastity, he makes it clear that he has no patience for widows who do not remany if they are childless.

Majorian, by requiring chüdess widows under the age of forty to marry withlli five y-, is preventing the scanda1 of widows leading lascivious lives. Coasequently, this wntentious regdation is pfe~entedmder the guise of leadhg widows to a more honest way of life. The ultimate goal of this novel, however, is still at the forefront: that wornen mmy and bear children In order to Merhis argument, fijorian maka the personai political: he appeais to a womaa's sense of du@ to continue her Wly, something to which she can readily relate, in an effort to achieve his greater goal of increasing the Rornaa population This argument ahalludes ta the üaditiod, pagan

Roman value ofdu@ to one's fàrniIy, which is different hmthe Christian value of duty to God. In a pgan way, Majorian asks women to put their duty to their fhlyabove the growing sense of ChriAm duty, which urged women to dedicate their widowhood to

Gad, 74 Paragraph five dlsMajorian's regulation in pagrapb one that virgins cannot be cansecrated until they nach forty yean of age. Both desencourage women under the age of forty to marry and bear children The age of forty becornes Majorian's chosen age at wtiich women iaay stop bearing chiIdren. However, Majorian treats Wgins and widows Meteatly. VVirgias are king protected fiom their own imniaturity and their susceptiiility to succumb to puentai pressure. Widows are also king protecteû, but, more irnportantly, they are king Ied to a more honest way of life. It would be impossible for Majorian to trmt widows as young and inexperienced women, as he treats virgins, even though he is Iegislating for women baween the aga of approximately fifteea to forty in both cases. Widows are undoubtedly experienced and mature; they have Iived outside their parents' house and have nm their own households. This mord aspect of the novel is required to make paragraph five more paiaîable to its audience, otherwise, it would appear as intrusive mdling on the part of the Empcror.

ajorian says that he is recalluig aprisca dispositio when he plaims that childiess widows must remarry within five years of the death of theù husbands. This reference is meant ta give N. Maj. VI, 5 more weight and, again, to take the focus off the

Emperor's intrusion into the private Iives of Romans. This phrase recdls theprincipium, where Majorian appeafs to Rome's past and nostri naaiores.

As in theprincipiunr, Mjori811can only be refhgto the Augustan laws on mamage, the laIulia de ntaritmrdis ordinibus of L 8 B.C. and its later revision, the lex

Pupzu Poppea of AD. 9, because there is no other legisfation that cieais witb the requirement to tll~ircy. Afthough there axe many differences between hilajoriian's and 75

Augustus' legislation, they are similar in tbat they bot&compel mdows to reremarry within a prescri'bed the.

Augustus' Iegislation aeatdproblems for those who wished to live lives of cehior to homm their dead spouses by remaining continent It was abolished by the

Emperor Constantine in in.320." With the growth of Christian@ and with asceticism and continence becoming more aiid more widely practised, this intrusive and restrictive legislation was widely criticid For example, in his De Viduis, Ambcose piaises widowhood and condemns the Augustaa legislation for requuing the remadage of widoo in order to incmse the population:

Bunu erg0 vzduila, qucre tolies Apstoficojudicio praedicatw; haec enim magistrufide, magistta est cartitatis. Udeet ifi qui deotm suonan adÜleriu et probra VenerCIItha, cwlibatus et viduitatis staturere poenas; ut aemuii crimimmr dturent shdia virfufion:sme quident qtaa feditatem qzcaererent, sed studio quo propsitunt castitatis ab~lerent.~

Majoriaa claims tb be protecting the morality of widows, yet he relies on a pagan law htwas hatefiil to the Ctiristians because it resblcted the fkedom of ceiibates. It is notable, however, that Majorian never names Augustus or refers to bis Iaws by name.

This omission is probably an effort to stave off the negative connotations ofthe Augustan laws white maintaining the backing of the ancient mores.

Majorian changes a previous law when he aiiows widows to remany without dishonour within the five years he allots for mouming. Yet by not specifying that tiiere is a minimum tirne for mouming, he implies that women are able to remarry at any time

"C. Th. VIiI, 16. %nbrose,De Viduis, curgul XIV, P.L, tomus XVl, col. 260. during those fieyears. A previous law assigns a minimum time of one year for a woman tb fernain in mouming before she manies again, widi the threat of severe punishment for marrying within ten months:

Si quo ex feminiqxrdito marito inha mi ptimalteri fèstimrit inmrbere - pmvum enin temporis pst decem menses setvandm odicim, tmnetsi id ipsfan exiguum putemus - probrosis imta notis honestioris nobifisqueperso~e et decore et Me prive- mque omnia, quoe de prioris mariti bonis vei iwe spottsaIlio~nvel idici0 defimcti coniagis consecu~afuerat,mittat et SC& nec de nostm beneficio vel dzotatzone sperandm sibi esse SU6sidiumm

Majorian, thus, tnakes it easier for women to remarry shdyafter king widowed in order to increase their chances of producing children; he demonstrates more conceni for marriage and the pcocfe8tion of children than he does for the custom of moumhgg

A wncem for the estates of widows is demonsüated in this paragaph, as

Majorïan does not want a widoufs property to be aiienated hmher family. Majorian is especiaily concerned with two possibiiities: tbat a legacy-hunter or a dishonest cleric will Cake a part ofa widogs money; or that a widow wi11 devote her ce11'bacyto God, and, presumably, take her money wïth her to the Church. Both situations would result in an overail 10sof revenue among families in the Roman population, @cdarly among upper class fhlies. As a resuit, Uajorian requires proof that childless widows are refhining hmremarrying out of a love of chastity, much in the same way that nrgins have to prove their cornmitment to virginity. Unlike virgins, however, widows have to prove theù cornmitment financidy. hhjorian tries to prevent widows from becomïng lascivious and ambitious; therefore, they must give up the means necessary for such behaviour by dividing up their esCstes ifthey are to prove that they are nmainùig und out ofa love ofchastity? This requinment sems two purposes: fbt, widows can prove that they are not moved by worldiy ambition; and second, it keeps at least half of their rnoney within their fàmilial circles. It is ironie, however, that, because the state will receive halfof a wihvtts estate ifshe has no fàmiIy, it stands to profit financiaiiy hm this regdation a@nst avarice.

There was wide-spread klief that the estates of widows were especially at risk of being "grasped by the 'dead hanâ'" of the Chutch," and especiaüy by opportunistic clerics. ûften, widows Who had been protected by the Church, or Who had tumed to m~~cism,named the Church as an heir or left it some other lem. This practice removed property hmthe traditionai hein, their nunilies. This muid cause hancial problems, especiaiIy in the upper classes. As was staîed earlier, iaheritance and dowry were the normal ways of accumuiating wealth in the upper class, which means that the arïstacracycoufd lose resources more easily than it couid increase thma There are maq examples among foiirth cenairy widows who, tuming to asceîicism, became benefma of Churches so that buildings codd be constwted and the poor wuid be fi" In this way, the Church consumeci resources tbat nodywould have remaineci in

"DIn the text, Majorian says that a widow who does not remarzy will have to reserve six tweW of ber property for her relatives. In the Roman world, estates were normally divided up into twelfths because the Roman system for weights and measures uses twelfths: then were twelve ounces (miae)to the pound (6Thomas, p. 491. 8tGoody,p. 95. "Yarbrough, p. 156. ")Brown, p. 150,263. secuiar circles; for example:

Paula..easiired that her children bad th& rightful inheritance, but used her own fortune to distriiute arnong the poor and to fond a moIiastery. She died heavily in debt, and her debts, too, were inhentedM

Because Pdabestowed a part of her estate on the Church, property which normaily would have gone entirely ta her fhmiiy, fiuids were irrevocabiy alienated fiom the aristocmcy- Her &b,also, must bave ken paid off by her children, meaning that even more of her estate lef€secular circles.

There was never any imperid legislation that Iimited the nght of the Church, speçificzilly, to inherit* In AD. 3 13, the Chwh received the dispensation it needed to accept inheritances with the Emperor Comtantinefs Edict of Milan. This fieedom was

Iater expandeci by Constantine in 0.321when he gave the Church the tight to acceqt al1 inheritances:

Habeut muîquisque licentiam sanctissimo cathoiiate venerubiiique comiiiio decedenr bono~nquod optavit relinquere. Non sint msu iudica Nihil est, quud magis hominibus debetur, quom ut sqremcIe voluntutis, pst quam aiid ium velle non posstmf, liber sit stiluF et licem. quod iterum non redit, mbitritcnr,

There were, however, problems conceming iaheritances and clergy: it was widely thought that women were ainerable in religious situations because they came into contact with men unrelated to them," a problem about which Majorian is clearly

Y%. Clark, p. 53. *%sec, vol. 2, p. 106; C. Th. XW, 2,28,pr. forbids deaconesses from namiag the Church as an heir, but does not mention limiting other fomof inheritances. This law was in effect for approximately two months. =c. Th XVI, 2,4. 8%.Cl* p. 55. concemed This means thaf in the eyes ofRoman society, women had to be protected hmmembers of the clergy who mi@ be seeking Iegacies fiom them. In AD. 370,

Valedinian I forbede individual clerics fiom receiving inheritances hmthe women y0 whome they have aîtached themselves under the pretext of religion':

Cenremus etium, ut mentorutri nihil de eius mulieris, mi se privutim sub ptaetextu religonis aditatxerint, Ziberulitate quatwnque vel extrema iudicio possint adipsci et onme in tantwn in@icm sit, qudaiicui hoMn ad hisficerit dereiicficm, ut nec pet subiectmn personrmt vaieant oliquid vel domfione vel tatumento per~ipee.~

In a law of AD. 390, Valenthian II required deaconesses to lerive their whole property to their families:

... dIamecclesiam, nuilm deriam, nuIZtun puuperem swibd heredes. Cmeat namque necesse est viribuq si quid contra vetittm circapersonas specïaliter conprehenssas fierit a moriente confecrtrm Inmio si quid ab his morientifierit atortunt, nec iaczto~commiks~aZiquid ciericis in fiaudem venerabilis sactionis callida mte uutprobrosa cuitapican coniventia dejètatlcr; atomes sint ab omnibus quibus inhimerani bonis.*

This law was abrogated two mon@ later:

~egent,~quae de dioconLsis veZ vidub mprestprodgata, ne quis videlicer cletim neve sub ecclesiae nomine ntcmcipiu sqpmiectilem pra& veht mfinni sextlr dispoliator invaderet et remotis odfiibus acpro@inquis @sesub pruetexfu cdioiicue disciplinue se ageret viventt;s heredm, eatentls minadbertut esse revocatant, ut de omnium chmris, si im nota est a@eruîtu neque QU&~I(MIout Zitigator eu sibi utendtan aut iirciex noverit exequemhm. ''

In order to put an end to any ambiguity of the law on this matter, Mircian confhed and

'"C. Th. XW, 2,20. Th. XVI, 2.27, p. *C. Th. XVI, 2,27. 9'C.Th. XVL, 2,28 (AD.390). 2 Sed ne in postetum vel ex prioribas comtitzûionibus. qzumun ~rit~~fic~ nsentionem et qtorrs mmc prcrecipio penitus abr~gmi.~vel ex pruesentis negotii dubitdione diquidforte relinq~anadi- semitai veIfiduciae morientunt providentes genemlipefpefuque victwa hoc iege sanchms, ut sive vidua sive diaconisa seu virgo cieo dicata vel sanctimonid~mulier, sive qtuwcranque alio numine religiosi homrh vel dignitatisferninu mmww. testmnento vel codicille suo. quod tamen dia omni iiars rufione ~tt~nihansit. ecclesiae vel mwtyrio vel clerico vel monacho vel~eriburaliquid vel ex infegro vel exporte in qtîacwnque re vel specie credidwit relinquendiinz, id disomnibus rattun fvque com~tat.sive hoc imtihdione sive substihrtione, sseu legato autfidecommtssoper miversitatem seu speciaiibus, sive swiptu sive non sctipta voZtlttlatefUerit dktelich~m:omni in parrem de huiustnodi negotio diguitate Submota 3 Donationibw etiam vel quolibet liberalitate tlom viduonmr qumn dioconissurtmt sive virgi.quae de0 dicutue stnrt. vel sanctimonialium quuecumque in ecclesiam vel martyTium vel clerim vel momchtan veipatpres conlctafuermt, pmi rubore fimua esse praecipio. . ." hhjorian dws not directly contraâict this Iegislation, but he does require childless widows who da not remarry to reserve at least half of their property for their families.

Such widows do not have the complete fiedom with their property as outlined in N.

Marc. V. Majorian cites conceni over dishonest clerics as part of the ce8so11~for this nile, an issue that Marcian doa not address, but clearly does not perceive to be an important consideration?

% Th. XVI,2,20 mdC. Th. XW, 2,27. %. m.V, l,Z-3 (AD. 455). %1t is interesthg to note that, in a move in the opposite direction, C. Th. V, 3,l of AD. 434 gave the Chmh more powers to inherit: Si quis episcopur autpresbfler asd diaconus aut diaconissa aut stïbdiuconus vel ctîiuslibet alterius loci clericur mrt mo~chwaut mulier. quae solimae vztue ddtaest, ndlo condito testament0 decessetit nec ei pentes utriusque SMLF vei ljberi vel si qui ugnationis cognationisve iwe iugrmtw vel uror ecxtiterif, bu^, qme ad ermr perfimerint, sacrosanctae ecdesiae vel monasterio, mi fierat destinajtl~,omifwim socientur. excepis hisfudtutibus, quapforte cemibus adpcripti vel izuiputronahrs subiecti vel cwiu2i condicioni obnoxii derici momchNe cuiwczunque s~lrrelinqurarl. 81

Majorian's novel changes the eariier regulation of Valenfinian III that required childIess widows to retum half of theu bebrothd gifts to their dead husbandsl perents, if they were stiu living "Ifquesi vir sine liber& laore syperstite moriafur, spoditan, quae mulier accepir. obemtisptri -ive medm r&tmztpurtionem sibi resirhrmn servattrra.. N. Maj. VI does not mention reainiirg any of the paternai goods to the husband's fdy. It is assumed that îhis property belongs to the widow, and that it is hen to districbute among her children and fktndy-

Majorian does restrict widows by aIlowing them only the usufhct of Woftheir resources during the time of their lusîrum of mourning Majorian's purpose is to ensure that at least halfof a widow's property will remah intact until she remanies, or dlthe lu~mrmis over and she has opted for chastity. In this way, the property set aside for her relatives will be secure and. most importantiy, unundiminished and will be guaranteed to remain in the Mly.

Wieling says that paragraph five of N. Maj. VI is unjust because a woman who desonce may not want to marry again, nor may she want ta enter a rn~nastery.~

Wieling assumes that Majorian is offering widows only these two choices, thougû

Majorian &es no mention of women going into monasteries. Majorian says only that if childless widows opt for a iife of chastity, they must prove themselves. Women who chose to live continent Iives under N. Maj. VI did not enter monasteries dessthey travelled East. As was explained earlier, monasteries were not common in the West in

'W. Val. MON,8 (AD.452). %Wieling,p. 395. 82 the nftb century. Even so, Wieling is correct in saying that this legislation would have been Mbearable to Christians; however, it would have been unbearable because many

Ctuistians preferred to pursue continent Iives after their spouses had die4 and Majorian's legishion made it more cKfEcuIt for Christian widows to do this.

g. Parama~h6: Widows with ChiIdren

Paragraph six presemts regdations conceming widows with children. Widowed mathers are treated very Merently by Mhjorian than chiidess widows are. Majorian fiees widowed rnothers nom the requirement to remarry of pmgmph five, because he feels that they have fidfilled their duty to their fbiIies and, thus, to the state. With this primary, traditional Roman duiy Wfilled, Majorian ailows these women to Ml0th responsibilities kly,without the compulsion of having to pove the Uitegrity of their comrnitments. Whether widowed mothers homm their dead husbands by remaining celihte or not is of littie wncem here. Majorian assumes that, in either case, these women will honour their dead husbands in what he considers to be the ideal way: by rearing their chiidrem He even says that widowed mothem are motivated to raise their children out of sollicita pietas, which links this acfivity to a religious commitment, presumbly one parallei to dedicating one's widowhood to Gd

Widows with children, because they have been freed fbm the requinment to marry, mut also, therefore, be fireed from the restrictions pIaced on theü property.

Widowed mothers are granteci more Momwith theu property than are childless widows. Still, the earlier conam of the law, that widows' property remain in the fàmily, 83 has not been forgotte~women with children had long shce been bound by law to leave at least part of their property to their childrea. A law pmulgated in AD. 321 by the

Emperor CoIIStEiIifiI1e gave children Who had not kengiven at least one fodof theü mother's pperty in her will, and who wdd prove that they bad always treated her well, the right to EsLe their case to wurt

Licet lesun, autoritmfilio~npotitaqumn ma- personis voluit laborem iltcranbere, ut de imficioso agentes mapraejthita tentpora doceanî dl0su0 vitiofuctwn nec oflettsionem se parentibta proestitrSse, sed iugitw obsecutos. ut natwae ipsius religiojlcgitabut, disciplinam inlaesam inofimamque semasse, ut bis pmbatis removere prenhan vaieant testamenta..97

This Iaw makes maternai property part of the deserved inheritance of dutifid children and ncognizes that pmperty hmuiheritances is necessary for the financiai SUIYival of chilcirea. It also guarantees that at least a certain amount ofa mothefs estate will stay

Widows with children are required, however, to keep their betrothal gifts intact for theu children's inheritance; du~gtheir lifetmes, widowed mothers have the benefit only of the usufnict of this property. This property does nof in reality, belong to the wife, but seems to be there to provide for her rnaintemce. The betrothd gifb belong to the husband and, as such, must be distnbuted amag the children hmthat marriage as a part of their patrimony. This situation can be seen as an extension of existing custom conceming inhentance Iaw, whereby the paterfamfias was the administrator of the family property, and upon his death, his sui aquired poperty that already belonged to

*C. Th. II, 19,2. th- rather than receiving an inkitance? The same logic appean in this pa~agraph: the patemal goods belong to the chiidren, and widows can have the usunnrçt as a living until they die, a time when the children can expect their sban of goods which, in essence, already belong to them. Majorian bas not introduced anythuig new here, but

Fernime, quae swceptis ex priore mclhimoniofiZiis ad se& transierznt mrbtim, quidqiid ex fadtatibus priorum mmito~nspo~~~alioonmt iiae. quidquid etiam mbtianmt sollemnitute percepint. quiciquid aut mortis causa domirionibusf4cris autestamenii hue directo uut fideiwmmissi vel ieguti titulo vel cuiwlibet munificae Ziberaliatis praemio ex bonb maritonanj'kerint atjlseeutae, id tomita ut perceperint integrtan adfiïios, quos ex praecedente coniugio hobuerinf,trrrmrnniitant vel ad quemlibet afliis, dmmmdo ex his tantum, quos tali successione dignissinros iudicums, in quem contemplorone meritonun fiberaIitaf&suae iudicnm, muter credicirit dirigendratr. Nec quii&umn eadem fenriMe ex isdenfacdtatzbus abalienandi in quantZibet atraneant persolt~mvel successionem ex dteriillr mattimonii coniuctione StlSceptm praesumant atque fiabeunt potestatem: possidendi tanftmt in diem vitae. non efiamabolienandi fadtate concessa Nam si quid ex isdem rebus per fiadem scc~eviiorismimi in ulitun quemiibetfirerit a opossidente tr411sI.m mufernalunt redinïegrabiha conpemationibbtlr fadtatem, quo inlioata ad hos quos statuimus heredes 60~et incompta pmeniunt.

A Iater law confimis this legislation:

Nulli videatw ambiguimi eorirm, quPe nubtimum tempore mulieres accipimt, etaimi ad secundm nubtiar extantiibus ex priore matrimonio Iiberis ememo tenrpore fme migraverint, in diem vitae mlo>rfnrctmczrcu eas debere diuare, salvo kis proprietate, quibus iw Megrtan posr ermrm obitm leges sac~atissiimoe reservanmt, ut rnanijès~hnest, quod delanmi ex priore conzugio iiberis constat. lm

In AD. 439, Theodosius II issued a novel thig again, addresses this issue:

Ptaeteritae co~tut~onesmalierem. morte mariti matrimonio dissohto Al1 ofthese laws agree that widoweâ mothers have their right to the usufinict of the betmthal gifts until their deaths, at which thne they must distri%& this property ammg the chiidren of that -age.

The last sentence of the psuagrslph specSes thet a widods chilchen can request a surety in order to purantee btthe betrothai giAs will remain safie, a clause that does not mur in any pnor la-. It is unclear why Uajorian introduces this regdation, since children already had the right of legal vindication ifthey did not -ive their share of the betrothal gifts. As C. Th. II& 8,2 says, ifa mother alienates any of the bthalgifts, then this pperty will be restored fiom her own resources.

Wieling in his discussion ofthis paragaph, says that if widows remarry, they have otdy the us- of the paterml goods.Io2 This is tme, but t is also tnie for widows who do not remarry. Nowhere in this paragraph or in any of the previous laws on this subject is a separate regulation set out for widows who do remarry and widows who do not remarry; there is only a distinction made between childless widows and widows with children In ht,Majorian makes it clear that a widow with chiIdren may marry or not as she pleases, with no conditions attacheci to either choice. In either case widows will not be bound by the reguiatioa of pacagriaph five.

'O'N. Th. XJV, 1, 1. "wieling, p. 396. In the seventh paragraph Majoriaa eppears t6 dlow widowed mothers who have not remanid a prirdege not dowed to widowed mothers who remarry, namely, that they are able to *our certain of their cbildrea with giAs or by nsming them as heirs in their wills. This pmtilege, however, is not new, nor is it exclusive ta mothers wntinuing in widowhood A law of AD. 3 19 states that al1 g&s between parents and children are

Iiata divi Pii collSlJtissimipri~t~ipisimtitutu vulere donafionesplacet imer liberos et pentes in quoaanque solo et cuiuslibet rei liberalitus ptobabiha extitisse. ket neque mancipatio di- neque trditiio subsecut~sedd tantum voluntas clmuerit, qircie non dubium consilium teneat nec incertum, sed iUdicim unimi tdeprofrut, ut nuh quuestio vol~atispossit inrepere et conlata inter ceteras exceptas Cinciae Iegipersonar obtinere propriant finnitatein, sive mmicpationis decutsajiietit s02Zemnita.s vel certe res rrodtu doce~tur.~

Ah, al1 parents alreedy had the right to name whomever they chose as hein in their wills, though narning children was cornmon. Mothers were restricted in that their wills

have the will set aside,IWas was descn'bed in the commenîmy on paragraph five Both of these laws were in place long before Mejorian's novel and neither distinguishes between widowed mothers who remarry and those Who do not remarry- Majorian does wt aiter the force of either of these laws, nor is he parîicularly aivouring widowed mottiers who do not remarry. He does, however, want to appear that he is doing both of these things.

Io3C. Th. Vm, i2,4. IwC. Th. II, 19.2 (AD. 321). 87

By creating the fdse impression that he is encoiiraging widows to remah single rather than to remarry, Majorh must be making an effort to gain fàvour with the Church

Wieling asserg that this paragaph allows wiâows unIimited fieedom to dispose of their ppertyrtYfMThis is only tcue to an extent As the cornrnentary on peragraph five expiaias, ail wornen had certain obligations to their children when making their wills, and there were restrictions pleoed on women laving property to clerics. Beyond these basic measUres, however, widows were essentially £keto dispose of their property as they saw fit. This Momwith theu ppersr daes not extend to use of their betrothai gifb or anyttiing else deemed part of the pated goods. Patemai pperty, as the commentary on paragraph six makes clear, did not belong to the widows; therefore, they did not bave the right to dienate it.

i. Pmh8: Succession

The nrst half of -ph eight is best understood in conjunction witb the end of paragraph six, where Majorian requires widowed mothers to onér sureties to their children for their betrothalgifts, if the children so wish. In eight, bQjorian introduces some innovatiom conceming how children succeed to the pated ptoperty.

Previous Iaws, as outlined in the comrnentary to paragraph SUS specified that widowed mothers had to leave theu betrothal gifb to the children fiom that dage, but it allowed them the fieedom to grant al1 or a disproprtionate part of these gifts to one or 88 more childrien as they saw fit? Majorkm changes these reguiations, so tbat dl of the children of a given -age are to succeed wyin mytiiing considenxi to be part of the paternal go&, which includes the betrothal m. E3y doing this, Miij0ria.u specincally aclmowledges that the betrothal giAs do not belong to the mother; therefore, it is not up to her how they are distriiiuted The only equitabfe thing to do in such a situation is to divide them evenly among the children, as this property already, in essence, be1oags to them.

An interestiag question eses when one tries to determine if this regdation pertaîns to dl widows, or oniy to those wtio have mmamied. Majorian does mt specifjC811y say that only widows who have remarried are bound by this regdation He does say, however, that he is abolishing that part of the ancient Iaw whereby a rnother can bestow a disproportionate amount of the betmthai gifbon a specific chdd 'Rie divine constitution to which hkjorian is referring is C. Th. RI, 8,2, a law that applies spificaily to widowed mothers who remarry. Majorian claims to be chmghg only tbat aspect of C. Th. IXX, 8,2 which specines how the betrothal gibare to be divided among the children; therefore, it would seem that he laves the rest of the iaw unaltend This panagaph, then, appears to affect only widowed mothers Who remany, and not al1 widowed mothers, a position that is codimed by Wieling '* It is unclear why Majorian would limit his regulation in this way when it wuld seem reasonabie for him, given his otkregdations conceming widows, to make his iaw eucornpss ail widows. It is ais0

W. Th. Iïï, 8,2,pr. andN. Th. XTV, 1,l- 'ORWieling,p. 397. unlike Majorian to be so ambiguous; whenever Majorian =fers to widows, he is extremely clear about whether he is refeniag to widows who remarry or not For example, in paragraph six, he uses the phrase: "~Iananver0 ratio diversa est, qtane surcepu prole gdentes ob hoc adsecimdap qtirnon demigrant. .." and in paragraph seven he says: ". . .continune viduitatis mahibus. .." In this -ph,

however, Majorian uses only the word "ma~ribzs,"which seems to be praposefküy vague. Despite this, a later law seems to hterpret N. Mkj. VZ. 8 as behg limited to widowed mothers Who remarry. N. Just. II, 1, Wtitten AD. 535, relies on N. Maj. VI, 8 and continues it for the WeEmpire. Jwtïnian makes it very clear that he is reguiating only widowed mothers Who remarry: "mese& odse~~t~ptius veniente. . ."

Therefore, it would seem that Majorïan, too, must be referring only to widowed mothers who remarry and not to ail widows.

The second half of this paragraph deds with the succession of a mothefs property. It appears that Mkjorian enlarges the scope of the second hslf of this pragraph to encompass al1 of a widow's property and not ody the betmthal gih. He also seems to expmd this part of the faw to include ail mothers: again, there is no Iimiting definition of what sort of mothers are included in this regdation, but, neither is there a direct mention of previous laws. This part of the law is re1ated to the regdation presented in paragraph five, where Uajorian is wncemed that women are king ianuenced by legacy- hunters and dishonest members ofthe clergy. In this pafagraph, Majorian is concemed that an extraneous persan wi11 -ive a widods inheritance at the expense of her children. There is a difference between these tw~reguiaîions, howver: paragraph five focuses on what a widow does with her pcoperty while she is alive; pazagraph eight focuses on whet a widow does with her pperty in her Again, Majoriau demonstrates a concem that the property of widows stays in the family and that children receive their inheritances, presdtysa that they can maintain their sacial statu. He dso presents an element of p-on for these women and their children by claiming to shield the women hmking mruiipulated, and the children fkom king rmjustly disinherited.

Children had long since won the right to protest unjust wills. This privilege had beeu granted to them in AD. 32 1 by the Emperor Constantine. ." UnlÏke Co~e's iaw, however, Majorian gives childm the automatic right to vindicate property alienated fiom them in tbeu mothefs will, and forces al1 othen to prove that they deserve what has been lefi to them. As a result, Majorian malces it clear that a mother's naturai awl tnie hein are her children, placing the buden of proof on the extraneous heu. Children can still be disinherited if just causes exist; however, these causes are not laid out by

Majoriae

j. Panmaoh 9:

Majorian begins paragraph nine with another reference to his desire for Romans to produce more children and to his wncern for protectuig children. It is in this light that the regdations in peragraph nine are to be understood In order to achieve his goals,

Majorian attempts to correct the peroeived abuses in mmiage arrangements by requirhg

IWC.Th. II, 19.2. 91 t&at the dowry and the bettothd gifts be equal. khjori81~~~wording for this condition, that the wifè SUnot give less dowq thshe demands as betrohal gifts, "- ..id est w

noverit conlattcmzatt. ..." puts the fecus on the desand implies that there were fiequent violations of the systern by the perty wgotiatllig on behalfof the mfé. 'O9 No abuses on the part of the husband are narned. Wieling sqggests that Majorian directly amibutes the decrease in the Romaa population to the exploitation of men in the mmhge process. "O

EVesdly, women and their fwies were demmdhg excessive betrotbalt gifts, or were refiising to give a dowry at ail, thereby making men wary of mmiage. This may have led men to opt for a con~ubinate~a union which did not produce legitimate children for the

Roman Empire, rather than for mmiqe. Thus, Majorian's dtimate objective is served by making mmiage more equitable, ad, in so doing, maloig marriage more lucrative to men.

Majorian bomwed his dethat the dowry and die betrodial gifts be equai fiom an earlier Iaw

Pmver0 fernime tantum &te debebit q~anruntspomaiibus ntaritw intuIerit, ut dantis et accipientls sir aeqtuz condicio. ne placita fuhaaque conitmctio mi itrcrunt, aireri facat detrimentun '"

As Wielîng points out, there is no specific pedty for disobeying this regdation in either

N. Val. XXXV, 9 or N. Maj. VI, 9; therefore, in his opinion, each of these regdations is

lwieiing, p. 398-399. ll%ieling, p. 398. lllN.Val. XXN,9 (AD.452). 92 the advice of the Empen>r and is not bindiag law.Iu Thei.intentions, then, must have been to encourage the practice of making the dowry equal to the betn,thal gifb so thaî marrïage would hdd no didvantage for either Party. As a dt,dage would be more ludve for mai. This, in tum, would resdt in more legitimate Roman cbildren

The next part of this -ph states that a marriage motexist without a dowry. Here, Majorian lays out harsh çotlsequences for non-complimce: the partnefs in such a union wiil be branded with infmy, their union dlnot be considered a maniage, and their children will be Uegitimate- Majonan seems to be Wtuting a ciefbite fom for marriage. Wieling fin& this problematic, primarily busethe fonn is ûriental and, by al1 accounts, Majorian was a co~lsecvativeRoman who looked back to Roman hi~tory."~Instead, Wieling believes that this regdation should be read in conjunction with paragaph tea. He goes on to argue that paragraphs nine and ten simply offer protection to sons-in-law against excessive avarice on the part of the wife's fiunily. The regdation in parorgraph nine, he says, simply al1ows over-eager grooms to recover their betrothal gifts legd1y by arguing that a marziage did not îake place if they did not receive any dowry. Wieling, then, does not believe that Majorian introduced any new le@ requirements for mairiage, he merely instituted a safeguard '"

Anné also argua that lMajorian hes not instiMed a form for marri= in this 93

p8cagraph, though his argument is merdhm Wieiing's. '" Anné argues that the text

strongiy emphash the equality ktween the dowry and the betrotbal gifk He then

argues ththe sewnd part oftbe reguiation, that there must be a dowry if a marriage is

to be codtuted, is superseded by the nrst part of the regdation; the second part of the

regdation reflects a situation thet codd never happm given the fbtpiut of the

reguiaîion. He adds that it is unlikely that Majorian wdd have wanted to change such a

bdamental aspect of mmîage in an incidenîai phrase* Firially, Anné iists seved

exampIes contempotary to N. Mj. VI that expiicitly indicate thaî a dowry was not

necessary for a marriage to take place and that the ~~entalrequirement continued to

be consent Despite the arguments of Wieling and Amie, Majorian, with strong and

unambiguous language, does lay out a regdation concerrïing marriages without dowry

with a clear penalty for disobedience: he makes the dowry a legai necessity for a me

marriage. As a asult, it becornes dinicuît to maintain that Majorian is not introducing a

form for marnage.

There is no precedent for a legal fom for maniage in the West, only the intention

of the couple to be &ed was absolutely required.

Si domtionum îmte nubtim vel dotis irtsh~mentadeferint, ppompo etimn aiique nubtianan celebritas omittatw, nullus aestimet O& id deesse recte alias inito matrimonio~rrnit~rernvel ex eo ~tisliberis ilao posse legit&toftanauferni, inter pares honestute personas nulla lege inpediente consortiran, quai ipsortîm consensu atque omic~lzmtfidefitmatur?'~

The Church, however, aùeady had a customary, but not legai, form ofmarriage that

1'5~~n6,p. 379-3 82. % 'RL DI, 7,3 (AD.428). included a dowry. Pope Leo 1mote a letter c. AD. 442-59 tkaQlresses this issue:

Leo comments indirectly on whether a dowry was mcesmy for a mamage to exîst or not Leo concludes that dowry is one of sevdthings tbat can pvethat a mmiage has taken place, but that the absence of a &wry does not precluâe a m*age. Wieling is correct when he says that this letter is not proof of a form for marxiage in the Chtuch, "'

Traditiody in Roman &qe, dowry was not mmpdsory, thaugh it was normd, md oAen distinguished the &age hma concubinate.Il9 Uajorian is the fkst empemr to state that a &wry is Iegally necesssry for a mmiage to take place; the intention to be married cames to be nqresented by the dowry under this Iaw.

Presdly, Majorian believes that rnarriage should have a dennite form so that there be no ambiguity about whether a couple is manieci or not As a resdt, the statu of the children will also be obvious, because couples wilI be forceci to make their intentions dfestbefore their Mion takes place. Majorian obviously hopes that couples will want to marry in order to emure the Iegitùnacy of their chilmwhich is why he tries to make the marriage negotiations equitable and clear. This is what Wjorian has in mind when

"'Lm, Epistolu cu

Wieling in concerneci by what he perceives to be an dairaspect of this law, tbat

Majorian denies legd marrïage to women too poor to sulrply dowriks, and that these regdations make it more difficdt for them to contract mani=, a fàct that wodd result in fewer legitimate ctii1dream These may or may nob bave ken legitimate concems at the the: dowry, though not a legal requinment und this time, was already a normal and expected sign of mMage;U' even very prwomen usually maaaged to put together mu@property to form a d~wry;,~and Majorian thought thaî he was deguarding the interesfs of children by clarifyuig the mage process. Nevertheless, Majorian bas laid dom a criterion for marri-, complete with penalties: it seems thai he intends a fonn.

k Paramph 10: Protection of Sons-inbw

Paragraph ten is an extension of paragraph nine: its purpose is to protect young men by offe~gthem legal cecourse against the avarice of those negotiating the marriage arrangements on behalf of the bride. As in -ph nine, Majorian implies that the

wiehg,p. 402-404. '%emaire, p. 4 15. '=Treggiari, p. 323: "How fhr the poorest members of the ~oman]population couid afEord this sentiment [of respectable marriage oniy with a dowryl, or could afford to get mam-ed at ail, is uncertain. Documents hmEgypt later attest quite ddowries, and the j~mspeak of reiativefy poor women who put ali theu property into their dowry and of slave-women, precliided fonn le@ mamiage, who nevertheless traasferred a quasidos to their mates. In short, there are Uidications that dowry was Myentrenched among al1 classes." % groom is the nsrty that II& protection from exploitation. The situation presented is that of an overeager young man who is cheated in the manïage negotiaitiom because he gives betrotbril giAs to the bride's nimily before the marri- contract is complete. This is why Uejorian stipulates in the previous peragraph that the do^ must eqdthe bdn,thal gifts, and that there must be a dowry, at the very leest. for a -age to take place.

In this paragraph, Majorian inboduces a new rule by making huddent mMage contracts invalid, and by giving the young and anxiour grooms, who are the victgns of such wntracts, the ngbt ta viudicate their betn,thal gih. He says that if grooms are deIiberateIy misled into tigreeing to a dishonest martiage matract, or are induced into conveying pmperty to the party negotiating for the bride before the contract is completed, they wül have the opportunity to renomce the marritige and recfaim their property. This is unprecedented in Roman Iaw. Until this the, &thal gifb were used ta emure the hcidsecUnty of the wife and her children," even thougb, as was demonstrated

=lier, these goods essentiaily remaineci a part of the patdproperty. It is understaadable, however, that Mkjorian wodd want to protect groom fiom king taken advmtage of, as he does in other paragraphs of this Iaw. Obviousiy, Majorian concluded that extreme measUres were warranted to deal with this problem He wanted to make mamage an amactive option for yomg men by removing any disadvantagrnus eiements sa that more legitim8fe Roman children could be boin, which is the prllnary purpose of

N. Maj. VI. Wieling agrees diat paragmphs nine and ten must be taken îogether. h an extension of bis views of psragraph nine, that Majorian is not trying to impose a fom for mamage and tbat it is only the adMce of the Emperor that the domy and the betrotbal giRs be equal, Wieliag believes that papphten is a way to protect the interests of young men who do not receive a dowry but who bave already given betroW gifk to the bride. The argument for the protection of young men is in keeping with the rest of N.

Mj. VI, dthough, again, Wjorian does create a set form for marrïage. He says that a specific procedure must be followed in the negotiation of the mmiage contract, so that the dowry and the betrothal gifbare exchanged in au quitable way. Ifthis procedure is not followed, the groom has the right to mounce the marrïage. The emperor must have intended ta impose a fonn for contracting marriûge.

Wieling also believes that Majorian, in his zeal to remedy a serious evil, has enacted too severe a solution with this regdation, because it was Roman custom that a groom give gifts to his bride. He also suggests that this law is incuasequentiai if it says that the grmm can reclaim his pioperty if he can prove naud Presumably, Wieling concIudes that there were other le@ remedies already in place to deal with hud, making this law redundant. However, Majorian specificaIIy cites the possibility of the groom pcoposing en action as one remedy for reclaimiiig his property when he says,

"gener...actione propsita seMus reposcat. .. " This must mean that Majorian intended the groom ?O take legai action in order to prove hudifthe situation warrantai, thus implementing a legal remedy. However severe this regufation mi@ seem to Wielùig,

Majorian's primary concem in N. Maj. VI is the marriage ofRoman cithas, and in order

to encorrrage marriage, Majorian must have felt it necesary to eliminate some of the

risks for potential grooms in or& for them to see as an atbactive prospect.

This incfuded eLUninnting the risk of the gtoorn king cheated by die party aegotiaîhg

the marriage wntract for the bride by offering clear le@ recouse.

1. Paramoh 1 1: Protection hmLemw-Hunters

In peragraph eleven, Majorian protects vulnerable peuple, especially those wb

are iII, hmthe greed of fraudulent Iegacy-hunters, a measure much in keeping with the

protective element fomd în the rest ofN. Maj. VL Legacy-hmters obviously created a

widespread problern. Roperty was dienateci firom Roman fiunilies, and, in this respect,

paragraph eleven is reminiscent of paragraph five: in both cases Majorian attempts to

pmtect defendes people, the sick in this paf8graph and widows in psragraph five, nom

the guile of lem-hmters. This was obviously a serious social problem, and one with

which Majorian was understandabIy concerned.

Majorian says in this paragraph that ail people Who receive inheritances, except

for those who are relateci to the testator and wodd receive a portion even in intestate

succession, must give to the fisc one third of any ideritance pperty they have receiveci

This was obviously meant to deter legacy hunters by makhg it les profitable for them to

try to acquire legacies. However, this legislation is extraordinary, given the Momto choose heirs and leave legacies tht Romans had aIways had Although there was a 99 problem with le--hunters that may have dishabed many people, Majorian interfbes extensively in the pivate Me of Romans once again, as Wieluig points out. Ub In order to sokhis Iegislation, Majorian preys on the reader's sympathy, by gohg into detail about how legacy-hunters solicit the help of docfors and prey on those who are weak hm ilhess. Another, indirect, result of this Iegislation is that Mjorian enwumges ppIeto lave their property to those withtheir fdycircle, as he does in previous paragraphs.

Aiso, in the same ironic fmhion as in paragraph five, the fisc stands to profit kma regdation agahst avarice.

m. Paraaraoh 12: Publication of the Law

Parehtwelve commands the publication of this law in ostentatious language and set formuiae. There are also references made to the improvement of mords and to the heomtion of Rome's ancestors, *ch immediately dîheptbzcipim and

Majorian's attempt to recail ancient mores. Again, Uajorian is vague concerrüng wnich ancestors he is rediing, and again, his mingling of pgan and Christian values Ieaves an arnbiguous impression. CHAPTER Fom NO= ONE OF SEVERUS

a The Text and Translation of N. Sev. 1

N0vEUAsEVERI:r NOVEL I OF SEVERUS Nov. 1 [=BREV. mica] (463 Febr. 20) Nov. 1[=BREV. mica] (463 Febr. 20)

IMPP. LE0 ET SEVERUS AA THE EMPERORS LE0 AND BASKI0 P(RAEFECT0) SEVERUS AUGUSn TO BASILNS, P(RAET0RI)û ET PATRICXO- PRAETORTAN PREFECT AND ABROGATIS CAPrnUS rMuSTrS PATRICTAN. HAVINGABROGATED LEGIS DMMMORIANI A AD THE UNJUST CWAPTERS OF THE LOCUU Iflud tantum ex eadem lege LAW OF THE SAINTED MAJORIAN retinentes, quod veterum legum AUGUSTUS, -pELONGING TO THIS commendat aumitas, scilicet ut pst PLACE] - re?aining hmthat law oniy viri obihm sponsalia in usumlÏuctum what is supported by the authonty of the tantun mater habeat et a filiis alienare ancient laws, namely that af€erthe death non possit, sive in alias neas venerït of ber husband a mother shodd have the sive non venerit, et ut omnibus ex Mggifts for usunUct oniy and eodem matrimonio filiis ex aequo shodd not be able to aiienate it hmher communia in unum aut alterum matri children, whether she contracts another conferre non liceat Nam quid est diud rnaniage or aot, and that she not be a mis alienare, si hoc non est, cum allowed to besîow upon one or the other proles aumerosa contigerit, child what is cornmon to all children praetermissis cetens uni vel aiü prava nom the same marriage. For what shall velle uitentione largki? Sint sane we cal1 'ta dienate fiom the childnn', if matres, si ita libuerit, pro inpemis not this: to wish with bad intention to obsequiis in fïiiorum electione liberaies, donate to one or the other, disregardhg usectumsuum cui voluerint the others, when there may be nurnerous largimtur: proprietatis cornoda off'spring Of course, mathers may be cunctis pariter filiis deputata non generous, choosing some children minit according to the fial piety they have shown, and donate their usufnct to whom they wish; let them not lessen the value of the property, which has been assigned eqdyto dl the cbiIdren 1 In illa tamen parte matribus &va 1 In this respect, however. we filiorum utilitate consuiemus, ne eas make provision for the mothers, having kept safè the interest of the chiidren, tbat we no longer subject the mothers to the necessity of Einding a surefy? quia et fiichi diffrcule est et super hoc for this is ciifficuit, and in this matter the nliis abdevel prionîus coastmitis vel children are abundantly pvided for praesenti lege prospicitur, quibus et both in prior wllsfitutions and in the alienatonun viadido coripe2it et ex present law totbem is amihbleboth matds bonis perditarum redintegratio the vindication of what has been kultatum, Basili Harem) k(arissime) alienated and compmation nom the a(tQue) 4mmtkime). goods of their mothers for whet hes been lost, Badius, Mer most dear and most loved- 2 Quare inlustns et jmeeeIsa 2 Therefore, yyour illustrious and magnificentia tua huius wIIStiîutionis most high magnificence shall cause the oracdum edictonrm kiet sol1etllILitaîe oracIe of this constitution to be proponi, ut legis asperitas7quae ad published with the solemnity of edicts, mplitudinemniam prirmfepf- sa thet it dlbe known through you that admùiistmtione daîa est, per te correcta the harshaess of the law which was atque emendata nilgetur. DAT. X KAL. given to your Grandeur in your first term MART. ROM(AE) BASILIO VC. in the prefecture has been corrected and CONS, redified GIVENON THE TENTH DAY BEFORE THE KALENDS OF MARCH AT ROME IN THE YEAR OF THE CONSULSHIP OF THE MOST NOBLE BASEWS,

INTERPRETATIO. Ehc lex INTERPRETATION: This law of the imperatorum Leonis et Severi ea, qw Emperors Le0 and Severus specificaliy Maioriani lex de diversis rebus, quas made void wtiat the law of Majorian ipsa testatur, obsemda esse about severai subjects uamed in its text pr;ieceperat, specialiter wuavit et id had wmanded to be observeci. mtum, quod rationabile et pnstinis (Severus) believed that only what was legibus mngruum fuif credidit ceasonable and in agreement with the reservandum- Quod ipse sua ancient Iaws should remaïn in force. coastitutione wnfInnat dicens, Fllud This he wnfirms himself in his tantum ex eadem lege &entes, quod constiîution, whea he says: 'retaining vetenun legum confirmat auctoritasr: hmthat law ody, what is supporteci by itaque ut pst Wi obitum relicta uxor the authority of the old lad Therefore, usumfÎuctum tantum sponsaliciae a widow shd have after the deah of her donationis habeat et nihil exinde husband only the usufruct of the dienare praesumat, sive ad alias nuptias betfothal gift and she may not preswe venerit sive certe non venerit, to alienaîe mything fkom hem, whether she contracts another mariage or, defhitely, does not do so. nec diis nisi tantum om-bus fissuis The betrothai # itselfshaii be Ieft to ex eodem patre genitis, cuius donaîio w others, but ody, by equal shares, to est, haec ipsa sponsalicia largiîas aii her children born firom the same miterdimittaîur nec liceat matri cui f'ather, dose gifi it is. and the mother voluerit de filiis aliquid exinde amplius shall not be allowed to give anything pro suavoluntate donare. Sane de more fhm the betmthal gi4 as she usductu su0 quoû ei lege concessuin wishes, to a chüd of her own choice. Of est domdi cui voluerit habeat iiberam course, she shall have unrestncted potestatem. Nam ea, quae omnibus power to give to whomever she may tantum filiis aequaliter iussa est wish hmher usuI.Nct which has been reservare* nec minuat nec inter nlios pro granted to her by law. For she may su0 arbitrio divida ulla ratione neither diminish that which she has been pf8esumat Hoc tamen matmibus hac ordered to mwve for al1 her childrea lege praestaai, ut salva Glionrm utilitate only, by equal shares. nor may she fideiussores pro retinenda hac ipsa presrmie to divide the property for any spoasalicia donatione dare non debeant, reason among her children 8ccorâhg to quia talis petïtio gravis est et sacit her own jument However, this is filiis, qwd vel hac iege vel prionius grantecl to mothers by this law, th& the statutis constat esse prospectum, ut, benefits of the children being kept safie, &amsi matres eom secundo nubserinc the mother is not bound to give des eorum maritom fmuitates loco for the integrity of the betrothal giff pignons obligentur et, si quid ipsae itself, because such a requirement is burdensome, and because the children fàcultatibus eanmi inla& sibi damna are sufnciently protected by the ressrciant. provisions of both this law and earlier statutes, namely tbat, even if îheir mothers should marry a second the, the resources of their husbands be obliged as a pledge and, if the mothers themselves shall presume to Eake mything hmthe bemthal gift, the children sh.resiore the losses that were brought upon them hmtheir motheis properiy. b. Discussion of N. Sev. 1

Severus' nrst novel is tée only ancient source in existence which records a

miction to N. EIlaj. VL From N. Sev. I, we can ascertain that this &on was

udkvourable: the sole purpose of N. Sev. 1is to abrogate the unjust provisions of N.

Ma..VI. Sevenis' incentive for his novel is uncertain. It is interesthg that both

Majoriaa's and Severus' wvels are addressed ta the same person, Basilius, the praetorisn

prefect of My. Severus couid have been responduig to an inquiry nom Basilius, who

was. perhsps, dissatisfied with Majorian's response, which would indicate an

unfivourab1e wonto N. Maj. VI, or Severus couid have been ûying to distance

hunself hmhis predecessor. However, nowhere in either novel does it say wfiether

Badius asked for a response to a question or whether these were ~sollicitedregdations

by the emperors.

The text that we have of N. Sev. 1 is wmpt; therefore, Severus' intentions are not

entirely clear. For instance, nowhere in this novel as we have it does Severus specificalIy

malce reference to N. Maj. VL However, the content of N. Sev. I distinctly =fers to N.

Maj. VI: Severus examines the property rights of children if their mothers are widowed,

and how widowed mothers are allowed to distnbute their property. N. Maj. VI is the only one of Majorian's novels to deal with these issues; therefore, it must be the object of

N. Sev. 1.

N. Sev. 1de& directly with only parts of three paragraphs of N. Maj. VI, aamely paragraphs six, seven, and eight These three ephsare concerned with the succession of widows. The ody parts that Severus reEains are those which bave authority 104 in the ancient laws. The ancient laws to which Severus refm are C. Th. III, 8,2 and N.

Th. XZV, 1, laws which are discussed in the commentary for N. Maj. VI, 6 and 8, and which state that widows are entitied to the usufbt of their betrotbal gifts, but that they are not entitled to alienate these goods fiom îheir children. The rest of N. Maj. VI appears to be abrogated outright as unjust and is not discussed at ail.

It is notable that Uajoriau also claims that he is following ancient laws when he mgdates marriage in paragraph five, a paragaph that was to be abolished by Severus.

The laws upon which Majorian relies ere the Augustan laws, though they are not specifically nzlllled Sevenis obviously does not consider the Augwîan legislation to have the same weight as the laws upon which he relies, and he does not acknowledge its ancient authority. He must not have felt wmpelled to consider the Augustan legislation because it had been abolished already by Constantine.

The first regdation that Severus presewes from N. Maj. VI is that widowed mothers shaii have oniy the usunuct of their betrothal g&, and that they shall not alienate any of this pperty fkm the children of that maniage. This refers directly to N.

Maj. VI, 8, &ch, in tum, refers to C. Th. 4 8,2 and N. Th. XIV, 1. There Ïs a ciifference between Sevenis' legislcttion and the ancient legishtion, however Uajorian, following C. Th. III, 8,2 stnctly, implies that this regdation applies only to remarried widows. Severus, on the other band, explicitly says Uiat the deapplies to al1 widows, whether they bave Tem8I1ied or not. Thus, Severn deviates fiom the ancient regdation and hmMajorian's novel in order to introduce his owtt innovation. As Wieling points out, this innovation of Sevenis demonstrates that Severus was not opposed to 105 innovations, per se;' Severus was opposed ody to those things that he considered to be unjwî in Majorian's Iegislation.

Following hilsjorianls eigbth -ph more closely, Severus forbids wido~ed motbers to bestow the betrothai gifb tmequally on her children. Here Sevenrs confimis

Majorian's innovation rathet tban the mcient laws, which have no such de,but which make it clear that widowed mothers are £tee to wnfèr the betrothal güts on theü children as they saw fit2 Severus next endorses Majorian's seventh paragraph when he says that mothers can be dispportionateIy generous with certain of their children with their usuhct, but not with the betmtbal gifts themseIves. 11 was a long-held tradition that mothers could bestow th& own pperty on any of their chiidren as they chose;3 Severn presewes the tradition of the ancient la-.

Paragraph one of N. Sev. I speciiïcaiiy abrogates part of paragraph six of N. Maj.

VI. Majorian had specified that widowed mothers were required to provide sureties for the betrothai giRr to their children ifthey nqwsted it Severn does away with this requirement, arguing that this is diacult to fÙIfil and that children already have the right of vindication of alienated property. Sevew, here, is following ancient laws rather than

Majorian's precept, though he bas not labelled this provision as unjwt, but as

WeceSSary-

Wieling, in his article, discusses which regdations Severus abmgated and why he

'Wieling, p. 397. *C.Th.~8,2,pr.amlN.Th.Xnr,l,I. %. Th. VJII, 12,4 of AD. 3 19 establisha this. 106

might have abrogated them. From the limited text we have of N. Sev. I, it seems clear

that all ofthe povisions of N. Uaj. VI, except those specifIed by Severus as haviag

authority in the ancient laws, are atm,gated ounight. This is demonstrated in the opening

sentence: "ABROGATISCAPIZ7BUS MCIS77SLEGlS DM? n?t41OlUM A. AD

LOCm IZld trmc~mex eadem lege retine-, qdvetetcon lepcornmen&

auctoritus." There is, however, an obbnous pmblem: the text of N. Sev. 1is not

complete. This makes it impossible to know if Severus made any other provisions

conceniing N. Maj. VI befon the place where the extant text begins. It is interesting that

Wieiing, despite the clarity of the extant text, does not argue that Severus abrogated al1

of N. Mj. VI except the provisions spineci directly by Severus in the existing text,

namely parts of paragraphs six, seven, and eight Instead, Wieling directs his attention to

the word iniwtus, maad evaluaîes N. Maj. VI himself in order to determine what Severus would have found tmjust According to the resuits, Wieling detemines what Severn is

likely to have abrogateà Consequently, Wieling argues that N. Maj. VI, 3 and the

regdation tbat virgias be not veiled before the age of forîy was probably not abrogated

by Severus because these regdations are just and are in keeping with the Wntings of

Pope Leo L4 Paragraphs five, nine, ten, and eleven are said by Wieluig to have bem

abrogated because the reguiations containeci in them are not heard of again.' This is a weak argument because Wieling provides no pfoof that the reguiaîion in paragraph three was heard of again, and yet he claims that it was maintaiaed by Severn. Granted, there couid have been same provision in the beghing of N. Sev. I that dedt with the beginning of N. Maj. VL, but we do not know this for certah We do howtbat the regulations of theprincipitan and paragraphs one, two, and three of N. Maj. VI are not found in ancient laws and so have no authorÏty there. btead, it wodd appear that because later traces of them are to be found and because no mention of tbis is made by

Severus, they must have been abro&ated

N. Sev. 1has an interptefatio,which was added later by the Visigoths when they used this novel Ui the laRomma Yisigotho~~m.The interpretatio says nothing new wnceniing the principm, buî dt does make an addition to the information in paragraph one by king more specinc about Severus' statement that children have the right of vindication of the betrothaI gîfb iftheir mother shouid try to alienate this property from them. It says that a widowed mother is not reqwred to give sureties to her children for the betrothal gifts because previous laws exïst which require that, if the mother marries again, her new husband's property will be pledged, and that the mother WU be obliged to more hmber own property to her chüdren mything she has taken fiom the betrothal

...q udvel hac fege vef prioribw staiutis constat esse prospechnn, ut, etiantsi matres eonnn secundo nubserinî, eommwitorrmt faadtates loco pignoris obligentur et, si quid ipsae mîres exinde prae3.umperint. de faculltibtlr earum idara sibi PZii danna resmciant.

This last part is interesting kause it lays out the options adable to children who do not receive their sbare of the betrothal giAs in more detail than was pmvided by Severus. THE TRANSMISSION OF N. MM. VI

It is remarlrabIe that we have the text of N. Maj. VI intact, considering it was

abrogated oniy five years afkits promulgation, and the Western Roman Empire ceased

to exist won after that The Codex Theodosianr(s and the pst-Thdosian mvels were

presewed and transmitted in Gad; hfkct, dmost di ofthe manuscripts that sunrive

today came fhm Gaul. ' There are nine manuscripts of the Codex Theodosiamrs, and at

Ieast haifofthese are hmGaul and Francia. However, the range of manuscripts shows

that the Codex Theodosiw also held interest over a long period of time and over a

large geogtaphicai area: the manuscripts date fiom the nfth to the ninth centuries and are

nom aiI over Northem France, Switzxlaad, and Itai~.~

The Codex ~eodosianuswas pfesewed so weii in Gad, &cause it continued to

be used in the West, even after the introduction of the first version of the Codex

Jhtinimur, dso dedthe Codex veius, in AD. 529. Justinian's purpose in Wnting this

lawude was to replace the three Roman law-cudes already in existence, the Codex

Gregorianm, the Codex Hennogenianus, and the Codex Theodosiuntls. However,

'Paul Meyer, "Prolegomenain Leges Novellar ad 27teodosiunrnn Pertinentes,'' in Codex Z%eodosianus, Vol. 2: Leges Novelloe ad 17teodosiantun, p. IX-CDC Th. Mommsen and Pauf M Meyer, ed (Berlin: Weidmann, 1954), p. XII; Ian Wood, The Code in Merovinpian Gaul," in The Theodosian Code: Studies in the Im~erialLaw in Late Antiauity, p. 16 1-1 77. Jill Harries and lan Wood, eds. (London: Duckworth, 1993), p. 164-165. 'Wood, p. 165. because Sudnian did not reconquer Ga4 his code did not becorne law there, leaving

Roman citizeas in the West subject to different laws, primarily the Codex ~eOdosi4ntrs,

and the codes of the Gedchgs.' As a resdt, the Coder l%eodosimulr aod the pst-

Theodosian novels were remembered and used in Gsul as the traditional sources of

Roman law. The Eastern Empire, on the other han& reiied on the Codex Jwtiniiznm

N. Ma,. VI was preserved both directly and indirectly via the lawuxies enacted

by the Ge-c kings, who, by the end of the hAh century, had hampletely conquered

the Western Empire. The Germanie tnhbrought with them theu own laws and customs. Gennaas and Romans, however, each tend& to use theu own laws, which

resulted in two sets of laws king used in the West, Gemianic mW law for Gennans, and Roman law for Roman provincials? Because of the isolation of the West hmthe

East, and the fact that the Germanic states were decliniog in inteIlectual and economic

power, a need developed for clear restatements of Roman law in the West These

restatements came primarily nom the Visigothic and Burgundian kingdoms,' and they

celied, in part, on the Codex Kheodosimus and the pst-Theodosian novels as theU

sources. Parts of the Codex Theodosiimnrs were pre~e~edin restatements of Roman law

written in Gad.

There are three collections of Roman law tiom the West: a collection by

Majorian, the lex Romam Visigothorum, and a third, unnameci collection6 The

3~~~~ki,p. 337. 4Kunkel, p. 159; Jolowicz, p. 466. 'Kunkel, p. 160. 6Meyer, p. W. 110 collection ofMajorian was a compilation of coristitutions by Theodosius IL, Vdentinim

& and Majorian's own novels. Though not a Gallic collection, this work is important here as a compilation of Iate post-Theodosian novels which was used as a source for law- desmen in Gad. This compilation wntn'buted to the presemtion of N. Maj. VI.

The sources of the lex Romna Visgothorum are discussed below. The third collection of Roman law, the unnamed compilation, was Wntten in Gad in the skth century. This collection drew directly on the compilation of Majorian and the Iex Romana

VisigothoMn, among other sources.7 It is especially important for the transmission of N.

Maj. VI, because it is the archetype for the existing manuscripts of the post-Theodosian novels and the lex Romma Visigothorum.'

The lex Romma Visïgothomn, aiso called the Brevianatt Almici, ws promulgafed by the Visigothic king Alaric II, approximately in AD. 506, specincaily for his Roman subjects, and was intended to supersede dl the other lawades of the the.

The code was divided into sixteen books, which were then subdivided into titles. These titles each contahed chronologically mg& constitutions, an arrangement similar to the Couda Zïzeodosian~.The lex Romana Visigothortart drew directly on various sources: the Codex Theodostams and the post-Thdosian novels, the Iiwiinues of

Gaius, the Senfentiaeof Paulus, the Codex Gregorianus, the Codex Hermogeniantl~,and a short respomum of Papinian. The wilectioa of Iaws compileci by Majorian was also

'Meyer, p. W. 'Meyer, p. MII. LI1 one of the sources of the lex Rommul ~isigothonmt?Of Majonan's own novels, only N.

Mej. W is preseat Howwer, W*s fàct contnibutes to our knowledge ofthe preseryation of N. Maj. VT, because it shows thaî Majoriaa's lawcode, which contained al1 of his novels, was used and remernbered in Gaul. Ail of these sources were abridged, and dl, except Gaius, are accornp81ukd by an intmpretatio, &ch contains references, paraphrases, and summdof the te*

There are three other law-codes which us& Majonan's compilation as a source.

These are the laRomam BwgMdiotl~~,the Codex Euricianus, and the Edictm

ïïieoderici." However, unlike the lex Romana Visigothonrnt, which used abridged te-, these three codes are independentiy worcîed. The f&st of these, the lex Romamz

BzagMdioommi, written in AD. 532, during the reign ofKing Gunobad, for his Roman subjecîs in what is now eastem Fmce, is related to the Liber Comtitutionem of the

Burgundiaas. This lawcode uses the same m8ferials as the lex Ront~ltaVisigothonntt, except for the responsum of Papinian It dso incorporates some aspects of Burguudian law. The text is arrangeci systematicaliy into forty-seven titles, often with specific, detailed references made to its sources.

The lex Romana B~~~gundioonmcontaias one direct reference to each of

Majorian's novels and severai to Seved." N. Maj. VI, 9 is expiicitly cited in L R Burg.

XXXM, 1-2, and is incodycited in f. R Bwg. XXV. There are also several other

%lowicz, p. 465. '!Meyer, p. m. "Wood, p. 163. implicit references to Majorian's novels and five to N. Ma.. VI. These an es follows:

R Burg. IX, 4 refm to N. Maj. VI, 2 and 3; 1. R Burg. X, 3,- 2, and XXXXV, 517 refer to N. Maj. VI, 3; and I. R Butg XXXW, If: refers to N. Maj. VI, 9. From this we know concIusive1y that N. Maj. VI was rernembered and used in Gad.

The Codex Euricianus was issued approximately AD. 475 by Roman jurists under King Eurich. U&e the two previously mentioned law-codes, however, the Codex

Etaicimus was intended for use only by Goths, and not by ~omaris.'~The Codex

Euricianus is important in the aansmission of Roman dgarlaw in the Ages, even diough it never supersedeci the existing Roman law of the day. This work was not a compilation of materid, as was the lex ROWM Visiguthoonmr, buî was an original composition based on Roman vulgar taw. l3 It included Majorian's lawude. " The Edicium Theoderici, a Visigothic restaternent of Roman law, was promulgated c. AD. 458-9 by the prefect Magus ofNarbo under the western Gothic king

Theoderic II. It contains 155 chapters of independently worded legal des.'5 These des, however, were not intended to supplant oîher laws, but to make them more clear. l6

This collection applied to both Goths and Romans. It is *tten in a vulm

-phrase of Roman law, namely the Codex Theodosianus, the Coda Hennogenirmus,

'%unkel, p. 16 1. 13Jolowicz,p. 467 note 6. IdMeyer, p. XIII. "Kunkel, p. 160; both Olga TellegerKoupem, A Short Histow of Roman Law (New York Routiedge, 1990), p. 140 aud Jolowicz, p. 468 say that there were 154 des. '%lowicz, p. 468. compilation of noveis was used."

From this we can clearly see that the Codex ~odosiattll~and the post-

Tbeodosian novels coatinued to be important in the baasmission and understanding of

Roman law long after the Western Roman Empire had ceased to exkt Specificdly, N.

Maj. VI codtinued to be transmitted, despite its abrogation five years after its inceptiotl,

It is also clear that later compilations and restatemats of Roman law in Gaul reiied on the pst-Thdosian uovels as well as on Majorîan's own compilation of constitutions. a Rimary Sources:

Ambrose. "Conceniiag Virgins," Book I, -ph 66. In Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathen of the Christian Chah, Vol. X, St. Ambrose: Select Works and Lettem. Phîlip Schaffand Henry Wace, aians. and ed. Orand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Pubiishing Company, 1955.

Augustine, "E@LsttdaCCLN." In Patrolozia Lufi.. Vol. 33, col. 1069-70. Migne, ed.

Basil. '2ettet CXCK" Ln WtBasile: Lettres. Tome 2, p. 154-164. Yves Courtome, ed. Paris: Société d'Édition "Les Belles Lettres). 196 1.

"Breviitriiun,Cmwntan Hippnemium." In Cmones A~ostoiortrmet Concihnan, Vetenmr Selecti, p. 134-139. Hem. Thecd Bnms, ed. Berlin: G. Reimer, 1839.

Codex Theodosianus, Vol. 1. Theodosiani Libri XVï cum Comtitutionibtlr Simondimis. Th. Mommsen, ed. Berlin: Weidmam, 1954.

Codex Theodosiîmw. Vol. 2. Leges Novelae ad ïïteodosiammt. Th. Mo- ad Paul M. Meyer, ed. Berlin: Weidmann, 1954.

"ConciliumAgathense. " In Concilia GulIiue A 3 l4A 506, p. 189-228. C. Munier, d Tumholti: Brepols, 1963.

"Concilitun Caesaraugus~lmimIL" In CollecfioCatulltum Ecclesiue Hisrxmre, cd. 3056. Francisco Antonio Godez, ed Madrid: Typographia Regia, 1808.

ConciIium UhbersuZe Chalcedoneme. Vol. 1. Eduard Schwartz, ed Berlin: Walter de Gruyter & Co., 1933.

Corvus lwis Civil&. Vol. 3. Rudolf Schoell and William Kroll, eds. Berlin: Weichann, 1959.

Jerome. nAdber~Jovinim~n.." Ln PatroIo~iuLutina. Vol. 23, col. 22 1-352. Migne, ed. . "EpstoIuCXXVIL" In PatroIogia Latina. Vol. 22, ml. 1087-1095. Migae, ed.

Leo Magnus. "Epistola CLXVKN In Putrolo~ia- Lati~. Vol. 54, ml. 1 197-12 11. Migne, ed.

Le Liber PontificaIis: Texte, introduction et commentah. Tome Premier. L. Duchesne, ed Paris: Emest Thom, 1886.

"Synodede Carhage (419)." In Poutificia commissione mr la redazione del Codice di Dirit0 Cauonico Orientale. Fonti. Farcicoio LX: Discidine Générale Antiaue (Ive-IXe s.l t I, 2: Les Canons des Synodes Particuliers, p. 190436. Joa~ou, ed Rome: Grottafenata, 1962.

Tertulliae "De Virginibur Velands." E. Dekkers, ed. In Tertulliani Obera: Pm11: Omra Montunisticu, p. 12074226. Tumholti: Brepols, 1954.

AM&, Lucien. Les Rites des Fiancailles et la Donaiion mur Cause de mwe sous le Bas-Em~ire. Lowain: Bibliothèque de l'unive~siîé,194 1.

Bdsh, S.J.B. "TransfomiaCionand Sunrivd in the Western Senatorial Atistocracy, c. AD. 400-700." Pauers of the British School at Rome Vol. LW(1988), p. 120- 155.

Baroaius, Cae~ar.Amies Ecciesiartici . Vol. 5, 160 1.

Baus, Karl. In Historv of the Church, Vol. II: " Part Thne: Inaer Life of the Church Between Nicaea and Chalcedon," p. 18 1-420. Hubert Jedin and John Dolan, ed. Anselm Bi-, tram. New York: The Seabury Ress, 1980.

Borkowski, Andrew. Texbook on Roman Law. London: Blackstone Ress, 1994. Boswell, John Eastt,um. "&wsitio and Obiatio: The Abandoment of ChiIdren and the Ancient and Medieval FrimilyynAmencan Historical Review, 89 (1 p. 10- 33.

Brown, Peter. The E3o& and Societv: Men. Women. and Sexual Renunciaîiion in &IY Chridanitv. New York: Columbia University Press, 1988.

Blay, JB. Historv of the Later Roman Em~ire:hm the death of Thedosius 1to the death of Jhnian. Vols. 1 and IL New York- Dover Publications7 Inc., 1958.

Cameron, Averil. The hter Roman Em~ire:AD 284430. London: Fontana Press, 1993.

Cantarella, Eva Pandora's Dauphterr: The Role and Status of Women in Greek and Roman Antiauitv. Maureen B. Fant, trans. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1987.

Clark, Elizabeth k Pietv and Woman's Faith: Essavs in Late Ancient Chnstianitv. Lewisîoa, NY: The Edwin Mellen Press, 1986.

Cl& Giliiae Women in Late Antiauity P- and Christian Life-styles. Oxford- Clarendon Press, 1993.

Cloke, Gillian. This Fernale Ahan of God: Women and Spintual Power in the Patnstic A=. AD 350-450. London and New York: Routledge, 1995.

Corbett, Percy Ellwood. The Roman Law of Marrias. Mord: The Clarendon Ress, 1930.

Crook, J.A. "Women in Roman Succession." In The Familv in Ancient Rome: New Persmctïves, p. 58-82. Bey1 Rawson, ed Iîhaca, N.Y.: Corne11 University Press, 1986.

Davies, J.G. 'I)eacons, Deaconesses and the Minor Orders in the Patristic Pend" The Journal of Ecclesiasticd Histow 14 (1963), p. 1-15.

Dixon, Suzanne. The Roman Modier. Nomian and London: University of Oklahoma Pressy 1988.

Donaidson, James. WomHer Position and Muence in Ancient Graxe and Rome, and Amonn the Earl~Chrisîians. New York: Gordon Press, 1973. Drijvers, Jan Wiilem. Yiand Asceticism in Late Roman Western Elites." Ln Sexud As~nmetrv:Studies in Ancient Societv, p. 241-273. Josine Blok and Peter Mason, eds. Amsterdam: J-C. Gieben, Publisher, 1987.

Duchesne, Mgr. L. ChiPims du culte chréfien Cinquihe Édition Revue et augmentée. Paris: Anciennes maisons Thorin et Fontemoing, 1925.

Frend, W.H.C. The @se of Chrïsthdy. Londo~Mon, Longman and Todd, 1984.

Gibbon, Edward The Histaw of the Decline and Fail of the Roman Empire. 4th ed. Vol. IV. J.B. Bury, ed London: Methuen & Co., Ltd, l911.

Goody, Jack. The Develo~mentof the Familv and Marrie in Eurow. Cambridge: Cambridge University Ms,1983.

Gryson, Roger. The Minisâv of Women in the Earlv Church. Jean Laporte d Uary Louise Hall, tnuis. CoUegeville, Mlluiesota: The Liturgical Ress, 1976.

Harries, Jill. "Treasuresin Heaven': Roperty and Mentance among Senators of Late Rome." In nhuriwand Pro~erty,Elizabeth M Cm& ed,p. 54-70. Aberdeen: Aberdeen University Press, 19W

Harris, W.V. "Chilci-Exposm in the Roman Empire." Jouraal of Roman Studies. 84 (1984), p. 1-22.

Hickey, Anne Ewig Women of the Roman Arist0cracy as Christian Modcs. Ann hr,Michigan: UMI Research Presst 1987.

Jolowicz, HF.and Bany Nîcholas. Historical introduction to the Shdv of Roman Law, Third Edition Cambridge: Cambridge University Ress, 1972.

Kaser, Max. Das Rdmische Privatmcht: Erster Abschnitt- Dcs Altromische. das Vorklassische und KTassische Recht. Vol. 1& 2. Munich: C.H. Beclàsche Verlagsbuchhdlung, 1955.

Lemaire, k "Origine de la régie 'dhnstne dotefiat conjugium'." Ln Mdlanpes Paul Fournier. Paris: Recueil Sm,1929.

Lightman, -orie and William Zeisel. "Univira:An Example of Continuity and Change in Rornan Society." Church Histow. Vol. 46, No. 1 (1977), p. 19-32. Miirrou, Henri In The Christian Centuries: "The Great Persexuion to the Emerpce of Medieval Cbnsti08Ltity,"p. 22 1-458. Jean Deni610u aiid Hemi Marrou, eds. Vincent Cronin, trans. London: Darton, Longman and Todd, 1964.

Me@ Re& La consecration cies vieras dans Melise romaine: Etude d%istoirede la lituree- Paris: Resses Universitaires de Fm-, 1954.

Meyer, Paul. "Prolegomenain Leges Ndmad I;tieori;OsîunumPertinentes." In Coda Thedosianus. Vol. 2. Leges Novellae ecrd 27teodosianum, p. IX-CLX Th Mommsen and Paul M. Meyer, ed. Berlin: Weidmann, 1954.

Mohier, James A The Heresv of MonastiBarrycism.The Christian Mo&: Tmand Anti- Typ. New York: Alba House, 1971.

Nichoh, BarryBarryAn Ifinoduction to Roman Law. Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 1962.

Olphe-ûalliard, M. "ConsecrateciV-ty in the Latin West." In Chastity, p. 57-76. Albert PM, eà Lancelot C. Sheppard, tram. London: Blackf?iars Publications, 1955.

Roman State and Chridan Church: A Collection of Led Documents to AD. 535, Vol. 3. P.R Coleman-Norton. trans. London: S.P.C.K, 1966.

Stewart, KF. "ChapterXX: Thoughîs and Ideas of that Pend" In The Cambridge MedieV811 Histow3Vol. 1, p. 568-597. J.B. Bury, planner, HM. Gwatkin and J.P. Whitney, ed Cambridge: Cambrïdp University Ress, 19 1 1.

Telleger&oupenis, Olga. A Short Historv of Roman Law. New Y&: Routledge, 1990.

The Thdosian Code d Novels and the Sirmoudian Constitutions. Clyde Pharr, trans. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1952.

Thom8s, J.AC. Te-k of RomLaw. New York: North-HoIIand Pubbshing Company, 1976.

Tillemonf Louis Sébastien. Mémoires DOW semir & l'histoire ecclesiastiaue: des six premiers siècles. Tome 15. Paris, 17 1 1.

Treggiari, Susan. Roman Mamsee: 1-i Coniwes fIOm the Time of Cicero to the The of Ul~iaaOxford: Clarendon Press, 199 1. Turner? Cuthbert Hamilton Whisüies of Women in the Primitive Chur~h,~In Catholic and Awstolic: Collecîed P80ers, p. 3 16-35 1. Herbert NewelI Bate, ecl. London: AR Mowbray and Co., Ltd., 1931.

Verdon, Michel. "Vugins and Widows: EmpanKinship and MyCkhtianit~~" M~Q(as.) Vol. 23, No. 3 (September, 1988), p. 48û-505.

Wieling, Haas. "Iniusta lex *oriani." Revue IntemationaIe des Droits de l'htiauité, 3e Série, Tome 38, p. 3 85-420. Bruxelles, 199 1.

Wood, lae "The Code in Merovingian GaululWIn The Theodosian Code: Studies in the Imwrial Law in Late Anticpitv, p. 16 1-177. Jill &mies and lan Wood, eds. Londoa: DuckWorth, 1993.

Yarbmugh, Anne. "Christi-on in the Fourth Century: The Example of Roman Womea" Church Histow, Vol. 45 (1976), p. 149-65. TEST TARGET- (QA-3)

APPLIED & IMAGE. Inc a 1653 East Main Street 7 ,=A Rochester, NY 14609 USA =-= =-= Phone: il6/48~-03OO ------Faxr 71 6/208-5989