`In keeping with the musical metaphor, sophrosyne has been translated as "temperance"; but it also connotes chastity and self-restraint. Sophrosyne was the pre-eminent virtue of Greek women; it is mentioned more frequently than any other quality on women's tombstones.'56 A manual of female discretion (sophrosyne) attributed to another woman, Phintys, called it the greatest female virtue, since it enabled her to love and honour her husband.57
Surely, by controlling her desire and passion, a woman becomes devout and harmonious, resulting in her not becoming a prey to impious love affairs.... For all those women who have a desire for extramarital relations [lit. "alien beds"] themselves become enemies of all the freedmen and domestics in the house. Such a woman contrives both falsehood and deceits for her husband and tells lies against everyone to him as well, so that she alone seems to excel in good will and in mastery over the household, though she revels in idleness.58
... a woman will neither cover herself with gold or the stone of India or of any other place, nor will she braid her hair with artful device; nor will she anoint herself with Arabian perfume; nor will she put white makeup on her face or rouge her cheeks or darken her brows and lashes or artfully dye her graying hair; nor will she bathe frequently. For by pursuing these things a woman seeks to make a spectacle of female incontinence.... A woman must bear all her husband bears, whether he be ... drunk or sleep with other women. Rather it brings vengeance upon her. Therefore, a woman must preserve the law and not emulate men.59
Like the Stoics, the Neo-Pythagoreans did not restrict sophrosyne to women, but considered it especially appropriate for the married man.60
The evidence assembled in this chapter on the philosophical schools provides further confirmation of the existence of the `new' women. These sources are invaluable both in terms of what they reject and the alternative life style they present to men and women from their philosophical traditions. There has been a tendency to overlook the fact that in the early Empire, the Christian movement was not the only one that argued for a view of marriage and sexual morality where men and women operated with faithfulness and integrity against what had become a significant, alternative lifestyle for wives. This brings to a close Part I in which the evidence gives a common first-century Sitz im Leben for Roman wives and Roman widows. It is with this information that we now turn to Part II of this book.
In the last three years significant new material has been published by ancient historians which throws important light on the issue of veiling in 1 Corinthians 11:2-16.' It supports the interpretation that the wives praying and prophesying with their heads uncovered in the Christian gathering were replicating the attitude and actions of `new' wives. As Christians, they defied a traditional imperial and Corinthian norm for wives engaging in what their compatriots would have judged to be a religious activity.
This chapter will explore (I) the significance attached to the veil in marriage in the first century; (II) the symbolic importance attached to its removal in public; (III) the defining in Roman law of modesty and immodesty based on appearance; (IV) the official policing by specially appointed magistrates of the dress codes of those women participating in religious festivals; and (V) the appearance of contentiousness on the part of those wives who removed the veil in the Christian community.
The veil was the most symbolic feature of the bride's dress in Roman culture. Plutarch indicated that `veiling the bride' (if v vt i4rw KazaxaX1 lpaVTEs) was, in effect, the marriage ceremony. Other writers in the early Empire confirm that the bride's veil was an essential part of her apparel.' The Romans evidently thought of her as one who was `clouded over with a veil', because Felix, writing in the late fourth century A.D., speculated on the nexus of the Latin word for `cloud' (nubes) with the verb `to be married' (nubere). `Nuptials are so called because the head of the bride is wrapped around the bridal veil, which the ancients called "to cloud over" or "veil".'3
This philological nexus suggested in the fourth century has been recently challenged by La Follette.4 She herself speculates on the origins of the veil: it `apparently was a symbol of constancy and lifelong fidelity because of its ritual association with the faithful wife of the priest of Jupiter'.5 The later tracing of possible philological links in order to uncover the origin of a custom is an inexact endeavour if there is no literary evidence of any discussion at the point at which it is alleged to have begun.
However, the symbolic significance of the veil can be verified from important extant evidence in the early Empire statue types. G. Davies in an essay, "Clothes as Sign: The Case of the Large and Small Herculaneum Women," draws attention to the two distinct statue types prevalent in the first century that were thought to have been borrowed from the early Hellenistic period.6 In the larger Herculaneum statues depicting the modest married women, the female figure was sculptured wearing the veil thus representing the married woman. She was portrayed clothed in a long dress with a large mantle drawn around her which she used to cover the back of her head to form the marriage veil. Her right arm was drawn across her body to hold her veil in place on her head so that the right breast was hidden from view. Davies observes that these statues were `heavily draped, not much body showing, [posing] defensive gestures [with the right arm above their breasts], with their modesty often reinforced by a lowered gaze and [in all statues reproduced in this type] veiled.''
The smaller statue type had two important distinguishing features. First, the right arm was bent at the elbow so that the hand touched the mantle at the top of the right shoulder. The left hand was not relaxed, as in the larger statue type, but rested protectively on her thigh and also revealing only the tips of her fingers instead of her whole hand. This represented the younger, unmarried woman who was expected to arrive at her marriage a virgin, hence the slightly more guarded body language compared with that of the married woman.' The second feature was the absence of any veil, with the mantle drawn over her shoulder and not her head.9
Davies also observes that the long dress falling down to her feet and in the case of the married woman the large mantle drawn over the head epitomised modesty. This was not peculiar to the Herculaneum statue type, but was shared by an earlier type called `Pudicitia, so named because of the Latin term that conveyed the most important Roman virtue of married women, i.e., modesty.1° The examples Davies uses in her essay were drawn from the famous Nymphaeum in Olympia given by the noted orator and benefactor of Athens and Corinth, Herodes Atticus. It is specifically stated in the inscription at the base of a statue of his wife in Corinth that the sculptor had captured her modesty. (See pp. 35-36.) Other extant examples have been located in numerous cities in the East of the Empire.
This representation was not restricted to statues in formal settings such as the forum and private homes or gardens. As La Follette observed, wives `depicted on tombstones are most typically in the pose called pudicitia (modesty), in which they have the mantle (palla, i.e., the veil) up over their heads, holding part of it in front of their faces'." Therefore, it can be confidently concluded that the veiled head was the symbol of the modesty and chastity expected of a married woman.
Some twenty years ago R. MacMullen sought to argue that, because of the influence of the imperial court in the early days of the Latin West, veiling was less common among women of the higher classes in the East. `Women of humbler class went veiled, but these others behaved exactly like their counterparts observed in Italy, fully visible, indeed making their existence felt very fully in public."' More recently, however, Sebesta refutes this thesis by drawing attention to statues showing an empress veiling her head with a palla, the rectangular mantle of a woman. It `was used to veil her head when she went out in public'.13 Davies' discussion re-enforces Sebesta's conclusion.
How did the dress of the immodest woman differ from that of the modest wife? Two bronze statues found in a house in Herculaneum are now located in the Museum of Classical Archaeology, University of Cambridge. They portray two dancing girls who wear no veils or mantles; one,
in fact, is depicted undoing her dress (chiton) so as to expose her shoulder and part of her breast. These were clearly struck to convey the exact opposite of the modest wife.14 In keeping with the double standards of Roman society, these women were dressed in different and not Roman attire to convey the idea of promiscuity by portraying them as foreign rather than Roman women.15 The statues were meant to pander to the sexual propensities of their owner and the guests in his household even though the home was meant to convey domestic bliss between the husband, his wife and children.
In his essay "Levels of Concealment: The Dress of the Hetairai and Pornai in Greek Texts," Dalby also discusses at length the distinguishing features of the immodest woman, whether she is a high-class promiscuous person who `entertained' at the dinners of the rich, or the prostitute who serviced clients from other classes.16 He notes that the hetairai not only wore more clothes than other women, but also finer ones. If a woman wished to be considered respectable she did not dress ostentatiously. In comparison, a competitor for her husband's attention `dressed better, more visibly, more expensively, more showily than other women'. He goes on to note, `In such Greek views dress mattered to hetairai: they needed to catch the eye.117 The transparent material of which their dresses were made revealed as much as possible.
On the Roman side Seneca C. A.D. 41-49 wrote to his mother commending her choice of dress: `Never have you fancied the kind of dress that exposed no greater nakedness by being removed', and elsewhere complained of young women `in silk dresses, if dress is the word. Truly nothing shields their bodies, nothing guards their modesty: they are naked.'18 The other feature that stood out and was linked to the dresses of hetairai was gold ornaments (iµdzta Kul Kp15Gra).19 Dalby concludes that hetairai, compared with the ordinary prostitutes, did not need to advertise their `wares' in public because they already had a distinguishing feature. They wore `transparent veils' that were fastened at the shoulder with a brooch, unlike the marriage veil where a large mantle was drawn over the top of the head.20
What signals might be given by the actual removal of the veil? Sebesta argues, `As the veil symbolised the husband's authority over his wife, the omission of the veil by a married woman was a sign of her "withdrawing" herself from the marriage.' She proceeds to illustrate this with an anecdote about Sulpicius Gallus, a consul in 166 B.c. Gallus divorced his wife because she had left the house unveiled, thus allowing all to see, as he said, what only he should see. When his wife removed her veil, she, in effect, excluded herself from the rank of matron. It was on the basis of her `bare head' (capite aperto) that Gallus divorced her.21 Valerius Maximus reported that Gallus had justified his actions thus -
To have your good looks approved, the law limits you to my eyes only. For them assemble the tools of beauty, for them look your best, trust to their closest familiarity. Any further sight of you, summoned by needless incitement, has to be mired in suspicion and crimination.22
Valerius saw this as `frightful marital severity' on the part of Sulpicius Gallus.23
Isidore argued that an adulteress wore an amiculum - the linen pallium dress of the prostitute.24 `We do know the dress of the adulteress. No longer a matron, the woman was not permitted to wear the stola or vittae. Instead, according to custom, the woman divorced for promiscuity wore a plain toga. The symbolism behind the assumption of the toga would seem not to be that the woman had assumed the sexual freedom allowed males, but that she had lost her status and role as a sexually mature woman in Roman society. If you were married you wore a stola; if you were not, you wore a toga, praetexta if you were still a child, plain if you were an adulteress .121 By implication she could no longer wear the traditional mantle to signify marriage and hence pull it over the top of her head in public.
i Corinthians ii:5 itself provides an explanation of the significance of removing the marriage veil. `It is one and the same thing' (Ev yap s(YTty Kal To auro) as having your head shaved.26 Dio Chrysostom records that `Fortune' was sometimes blamed for emotional weaknesses and cites Medea in this regard because of her sexual passion for Jason. Dio noted: `a woman guilty of adultery shall have her hair cut off according to the law and play the prostitute (Kal Tl V Koµgv a7rEKEiparo Kara Tov voµov Kal ET
In his book on Law and Life of Rome, J. Crook, who is an ancient historian specialising in Roman law, long ago argued that it is impossible to deal with Roman law and Roman society as if they were autonomous spheres. He has demonstrated that essential aspects of Roman society were consciously built on Roman law and operated on that basis; hence the title of his book.29 It is therefore to be expected that the important social symbol of the veil and other distinguishing garments worn by married women would be underpinned by Roman law and be observed in the Roman colony of Corinth.30 Whether they wished society to perceive them as a modest matron or the `new' wife was a deliberate choice that they themselves made and conveyed to the public by the way they dressed.
Roman law encapsulated this in a number of ways. It specifically exempted from prosecution those men who acted on the basis of the sexual signal sent by what a married woman was wearing.
If anyone accosts ... women [who] are dressed like prostitutes, and not as mothers of families ... if a woman is not dressed as a matron [veiled] and some one calls out to her or entices away her attendant, he will not be liable to action for injury.31
It takes little imagination to see how, after an illicit, consensual sexual encounter, it would be possible for the wife who had dressed like a prostitute to argue that she was an unwilling party. This legal provision closed that loop- hole.32 A first-century married woman had to take personal responsibility for the way she dressed. Groom comments that protection from sexual predators and legal redress could be secured for the married women `only if they looked respectable .133
The dichotomy between the promiscuous wife and a modest one was also reflected in legislation on rape in Roman jurisprudence. The Digest states -
The laws punish the detestable wickedness of [married] women who prostitute their chastity to the lusts of others, but do not hold those liable who are violated by force and against their will. And, moreover, it has very properly been decided that their reputations are not lost, and that their marriage with others should not be prohibited on this account .31
The woman who committed adultery was condemned, but a distinction was observed in law for the victim of a forced sexual assault. She was declared innocent, suffered no loss of respectability and was not thereby ineligible for marriage.
Roman law contained another important provision that seems to have been overlooked. Again, it was meant to send a clear signal to society concerning the status of the woman.35 Augustus' legislation sought to distinguish between the modest wife, the adulteress and the prostitute.36 `Women [convicted of adultery] were also compelled to wear the toga as a symbol of their shame.'37 `The lex Julia specified certain articles of clothing - such as the stola [suspended from the shoulder by straps and covering the feet] and vittae [a woollen band used in women's hairstyles] - as peculiar to matronae and forbade these to be worn by prostitutes.'38 It is true that `Matrons were not compelled by law to wear the stola and the other "matronal" articles of cloth- ing;39 but they did symbolise and advertise the wearer's chastity. It has been noted already that Roman law protected those who were accused of misread ing the intentions of a matron because of her dress code.40 So there were legal incentives to dress appropriately, and therefore McGinn's comment that `you were what you wore' is highly apposite because it succinctly summarizes the principle underlying Roman law on this
issue.41
Daniel Ogden has drawn attention to what he sees as a failure on the part of ancient historians to discuss the important civic role of the `controllers of women' (yvvatxovbµot) in Roman times, a deficiency that he seeks to make good.42 P. Cartledge and A. Spawforth had written earlier of the yuvatxo - v6pot, noting the office was not restricted to Roman Sparta. `That the public deportment of free-born women was the object of civic surveillance is shown by the existence of a gunaikonomos, a type of magistrate widespread in the Greek world by the first century B.c.'43 It was also prevalent in the following centuries.
Sarah Pomeroy, in a brief discussion of the role in Sparta, speaks of `state surveillance' of women's activities. She speculates `one imagines that some participants might have over-indulged in feasting, drinking, singing, and dancing in the guise of religious activity.... Gynaikonomoi in other poleis [cities] not only supervised women but imposed sumptuary restrictions'. 44
A composite picture of the roles of gynaikonomoi emerges from the extant evidence. They were to enforce sumptuary laws, curb excessive spending by women on clothing for religious festivals, restrict the competitive display of wealth, promote female chastity for the sake of fathers and husbands and the gods, and standardise dress in processions. They were to maintain traditions in religious processions and ensure that the status difference was reflected in dress codes between (i) the initiated and newly initiated into the cult; (ii) wives and unmarried women; (iii) free women and slaves; (iv) respectable wives and adulteresses and prostitutes.45
To enforce these roles they had official powers to confiscate women's clothing, to impose certain fines and to restrict their conduct. They could tear or confiscate in public a dress that was considered offensive and dedicate it to the gods. This would be a public humiliation for the woman involved. They could also exclude women from public participation in festivals and sacrifices and downgrade women to a lower status on their festival lists.46 Plutarch traced the origins of this office back to the Classical Greek period of Solon, whose laws `prohibited wild and wilfully disorderly behaviour' on the part of women. He commented:
Roman Wives, Roman Widows Page 9