Women and Religion in the First Christian Centuries

Deborah F. Sawyer

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2002
• ISBN:
  9781134841783
• Edition: 1
• Topic: History
• Subtopic: Ancient History
• Index: History

Women and Religion in the First Christian Centuries focuses on religion during the period of Roman imperial rule and its significance in women's lives. It discusses the rich variety of religious expression, from pagan cults and classical mythology to ancient Judaism and early Christianity, and the wide array of religious functions fulfilled by women. The author analyses key examples from each context, creating a vivid image of this crucial period which laid the foundations of western civilization. The study challenges the concepts of religion and of women in the light of post-modern critique. As such, it is an important contribution to contemporary gender theory. In its broad and interdisciplinary approach, this book will be of interest to students of early religion as well as those involved in cultural theory.

Part I

THE SETTING—ANCIENT GREECE AND HELLENIZATION

Significant factors that need to be taken into account in assessing the lives of women living in late antiquity who encountered the religious environments of the Greco-Roman cults, Judaism and Christianity, are many and complex. The intention of this initial part of our study is to bring them to the fore and identify them from the wider categories of Hellenism and ancient Rome, to the more narrow ones of Judaism and Christianity. In this first part we attempt to recreate the atmosphere of women’s lives in the ancient world; then to note the distinctiveness of Jewish life for women; and, finally, to begin to understand the content of a new religious movement of that time, Christianity, and what it might have promised to women living in late antiquity.

The pervasive influence of Hellenism left the world with a political, social and cultural heritage, the extent of which has never been surpassed. It would be as impossible to assess the influence of Hellenization on the ancient Roman world as it would be to measure its continued effect on our present age. In order to paint a realistic picture of the time of the Roman Empire, at the very least we need to note the salient features of that Hellenistic, and, in particular, Greek influence, while always bearing in mind that its all-encompassing nature can never be contained within clearly defined boundaries.

Since our preoccupation is with women and religion in the Roman Empire, Hellenistic influence concerns us here only in so far as its philosophy and beliefs were prescriptive for the status of women at that later time, and influential in the evolution of the Greco-Roman religions, ancient Judaism, and, subsequently, early Christianity.

A general point to note is that as Rome extended her boundaries, taking over greater parts of the Hellenistic world, even Greece itself which was the centre of that former empire, opponents of Hellenistic influence believed this encounter led to the lowering of moral standards and a move away from the simplicity of Roman life. One champion of such a view was Cato, a key figure in Roman politics at the beginning of the second century BCE. However, even he could not escape the pervasiveness of Hellenistic influence, and, ironically, when it came to writing his account of Roman history, Origines, Hellenistic traditions were incorporated alongside local legends. In fact the concept of writing an account of origins was itself inspired by Hellenistic models.

Despite the efforts of Cato and others, from the time of the First Punic War (264-241 BCE), the gates of Rome were enthusiastically opened wide to Greek and Hellenistic influences. Hellenism was the emblem of civilization, standing in contrast to the culturally barbaric image of the emerging power of Rome. The influence of Greek culture on Roman life can be traced back to the time of Alexander the Great’s Empire when Greek cities were founded on Italian soil. Naples (in Greek, Neapolis—‘new city’), founded by Greek colonists in the sixth century BCE, was a key example. Influence came directly from the continuous influx of Greeks into Italy, particularly from teachers who were often slaves, as well as from traders, craft workers, artists and politicians. The almost total immersion of Rome and large sections of Italy in Greek culture justifies the use of the term Greco-Roman to describe the developing Roman world from at least the third century BCE.

In setting the scene for our observations on the interaction between women and religion in our given period, our intention is to examine religion within its broader social, political and cultural context. The overlap between society and religion both in Judaism and the pagan religions of the Empire will mean that inevitably, even at this early stage, our discussion includes a religious dimension.

Jews like any other people of the ancient world were influenced socially, politically and culturally by Hellenism. This was true for those living in Palestine and those who had settled in the cities throughout the Hellenistic world. Except for the brief period of autonomy following the Maccabean revolt in the second century BCE, the Jews of Palestine had to exist under the Persians, Greeks, Ptolemies, Seleucids and, finally, the Romans. All these powers left their marks on the traditions of Judaism to a greater or lesser extent. The concept of life after death, for example, although articulated in a uniquely Jewish way, belongs to the world of Persian religion.

Greek influence was inevitable from the time of Alexander the Great’s extensive empire-wide Hellenization programme in the fourth century BCE. The language of the empire was Greek, as a result innumerable examples of Greek loan words can be found in Hebrew and Aramaic texts, while from the second century BCE religious literature was being written with Greek as the primary language.¹⁷ The Jewish law, the Torah, was translated into Greek to produce the Septuagint. A gymnasium was built in every city, including Jerusalem, and, in becoming a member, the opportunities it provided for social, professional and commercial betterment ensured its popularity. The environment of the gymnasia encouraged conformity of style and dress, bringing about assimilation implicitly and subtly. Undressing at the gymnasium exposed the distinctive mark of circumcision, and according to the Jewish writer of 1 Maccabees, Jews who embraced Hellenism most enthusiastically were prepared to undergo an operation to remove this mark. Assimilation had its critics, but the inviting and beneficial aspects of the new culture meant it succeeded in infiltrating Jewish life. The fruits of Hellenization were tempting and Jewish culture was registering its effects, whether judged as complementary and enriching, or erosive and adulterating.

Greek civilization might have been welcomed as an enriching element to many aspects of Roman culture, but, as we shall see, its social system had little that was positive to offer Roman women. In Greek society the dichotomy between the domestic and public realms meant the strict containment of women’s lives. By contrast, in Roman society the dividing line was unclear and many domestic occupations and interests crossed into the public sphere. It would not be unusual, for instance, for a Roman woman to accompany her husband to a dinner party, while in Greek society any women attending such a party would tend to be foreigners engaged for the evening. With this contrast in mind, we begin in the domestic sphere to paint a fuller picture of women’s lives in ancient Rome.

1
ANCIENT ROME AND WOMEN’S LIVES

Even a glance at the evidence shows us how far Greek and Hellenistic practices and beliefs led to a submissive and excluding role for women within the domestic sphere, in contrast to Roman society where they are at the heart of domestic life. Aristotle had defined the female sex as defective and the male as normative,¹⁸ and in practice such a philosophy led to men, often slaves, being responsible for the early education of boys rather than their mothers which had been the usual practice in early Roman society. Roman traditions continued alongside newly introduced Greek ideas and practices, however, and this meant that there was variety regarding the estimation and role of women in Roman society.

In the upper echelon of Greek society women who were not slaves and who were married to the head of a household, led lives of seclusion from male company, spending most of their time in the gynaikonitis, the women’s quarters. Outings from these quarters would almost always be related to religious observances, and therefore did not include other areas of the public sphere such as the market, or the law court, or places of education. Moving down the social ladder, it appears that both sexes mingled more in the public arena where women slaves worked alongside and served men. There was also the category of foreign women, mentioned already, whose role was to provide entertainment: music, dancing, engaging conversation, as well as sexual pleasures for men when they met together outside the domestic sphere.

While according to Greek custom many women lived in almost total seclusion from men both in domestic and public life, a Roman wife would have had a high profile not only in household management where she had the task of overseeing male servants and slaves, but also in the education of both her sons and her daughters.

Legislation from 19/18 BCE provides interesting evidence concerning marriage in early imperial times. At this time there was an attempt to impose on Roman society good family values, as understood and interpreted by the imperial household of Augustus.¹⁹ The central reason for this seems to have been the increasing need for manpower in the Roman legions,²⁰ since it was felt in certain quarters that Roman society had become dissipated,²¹ and that the very existence of family life was threatened by a younger generation who preferred promiscuity to stable relationships. Two laws were passed by Senate. The first was to enforce marriage for men between the ages of 25 and 60, and for women between the ages of 20 and 50; and the second to restrain adulterous behaviour. This legislation was strengthened by a system of incentives; for example, a Roman mother of three children was given autonomy over her property. The same applied to an Italian mother of four, or mothers who had five children from other parts of the Empire. A Roman man who had fathered three children received rapid promotion in his public career; as in the case of mothers more progeny was required to qualify outside of Rome.

Judging from the content of this legislation we can deduce that it could only have been directed at the upper strata of society. Its overriding significance, putting aside the need to feed the constant appetite of the Roman legions, was that it kept inheritances intact and built on them through auspicious marital alliances.²² Members of the families and households of senators were the most significant group in terms of political power and invested wealth. Next were the equestrians, a grouping who were wealthy but who could only exercise political power indirectly. The legislation had little relevance to the lower classes, that is to say, the stratum of society known as the plebeians. Other Roman legislation on the family would have had limited relevance to the non-wealthy or non-landed classes.

One complication in this apparently clear-cut social system was the position of freed slaves. Although a good number belonged to the plebeian classes, one must remember that many had more in common with equestrian or even senatorial groups since they had belonged and contributed to those households. Many were very well educated and had been responsible for the education of the children of upper-class families.

The basic structure of the Roman family or household revolved around the paterfamilias. For upper-class households the position of this male head would be an especially important one since he would control more wealth and have more opportunity to exercise power than he would have in poorer households. Although the same structure applied to the lower classes, the head of a poor family obviously would have had less power. Paterfamilias was an officially recognized domestic institution, the basic social unit at every level of Roman society. Any change of headship for a family required a legal decree.

The outward appearance of Roman society, based on this type of family structure, to our modern critical gaze is overtly patriarchal and hierarchical. There would appear to be little room for female liberation. The situation for women was little different from those women in Greek or Hellenistic society. In fact the most ancient forms of Roman marriage held women in total subjection to their husbands as they had been in total subjection to their fathers prior to marriage.²³ But women’s discontent at this situation led to the general abandonment of these types of union by the third century BCE in favour of ‘free marriage’. In this new system a woman remained attached to her former family, she retained her own property, and she had the freedom to divorce her husband. This was a great achievement for women in the ancient world, a point reflected in a comment by the legal historian Fritz Schulz:

The classical law of marriage is an imposing, perhaps the most imposing, achievement of the Roman legal genius. For the first time in the history of civilization there appeared a purely humanistic law of marriage, viz. a law founded on a purely humanistic idea of marriage, as being a free and freely dissoluble union of two equal partners for life.²⁴

Although such a marriage may be without precedent in the ancient world, it did bring with it attendant problems—as we might expect when such a significant element of female emancipation was introduced into a patriarchal marriage. These problems may be over-represented in our sources since they all reflect the male perspective. For example, at the end of the second century BCE Livy records Metellus Numidicus exhorting men to marry with the following sentiment:

If, Romans, we could get along without a wife, we would all abstain from this annoyance; but, since nature has arranged things so that we can neither live with them very comfortably nor without them at all, we must look to our lasting well-being rather than the pleasures of the moment.²⁵

The context for such a negative view of marriage is to be found in the upper levels of Roman society in the particularly problematic situation of a household that included a rich wife. A husband gaining a rich dowry on marriage was able to use it as he willed, whether to pay off debts or to invest. If his wife then wished to divorce him, and if he was unable to prove her to be morally defective or to be divorcing him without cause, then he would have to return the dowry intact. This type of problem illustrates well the clash between female emancipation and a paterfamilias structure. While the husband as supreme head of the household can dispose of its wealth as he deems fit, his power is emasculated when his wife exercises her legal right to be free of him.

We cannot doubt the enlightened nature of this legislation for free marriage in Roman law. What is problematical is its introduction into a continuing patriarchal society. Rather than being an element of reform in that context, such emancipation can fuel undercurrents of prejudice and, in particular, misogyny. For Roman marriage to have been truly liberating for its women the notion of paterfamilias would have had to be radically changed.

In order to clarify the position of Roman women, and, by implication, other women living in the Empire under the direct influence of Rome, we need to glance back to earliest times, to the days of the early Republic,²⁶ and in particular to the law of the Twelve Tables (451–450 BCE). According to this law the position of women throughout their lives is under the control of a figure. Like that of her brothers, a female child’s life was always at the mercy of her father who held the legal right of ius vitae et necis, life and death, over his children. He would not be culpable if he murdered his child. In practice this legal right was usually exercised only in relation to selecting which children should be exposed at birth to die, but in theory it applied throughout an offspring’s life.

A system of tutelage is outlined in the Twelve Tables which compensates for the death of a father. In this circumstance many of the strict power-controls a father could exercise over his daughter were passed on to a relation on her deceased father’s side of the family who became her tutor (tutor legitimus). Scholars have pondered this legislation and the implications about the estimation of women that it reflects, and many have concluded that women were believed to be incapable of managing their own affairs.²⁷

Unreformed marriage at this time, as we have seen,²⁸ meant that women passed from the sovereignty of their father to that of their husbands, and in marriage they became in manu, ‘in the hand of, or ‘in the control of their husbands.²⁹ Whether this included the right of ius vitae et necis is unclear but not impossible.³⁰ Evans concludes his evidence on the legal status of women during this early period as follows: ‘in early Roman society all women, regardless of their age, were in a state of permanent ritual and jural subordination to their husbands, fathers, or guardians.’³¹ He notes that the only...

Table of contents

• COVER PAGE
• RELIGION IN THE FIRST CHRISTIAN CENTURIES
• TITLE PAGE
• COPYRIGHT PAGE
• INTRODUCTION
• PART I: THE SETTING—ANCIENT GREECE AND HELLENIZATION
• PART II: WOMEN IN NARRATIVE AND RELIGIOUS PRACTICE
• PART III: RELIGION AND GENDER
• EPILOGUE
• NOTES
• BIBLIOGRAPHY