Roman Wives, Roman Widows

by Bruce W Winter

  Most of these practices [from ancient times] are also forbidden by our laws, but ours contain an additional proviso that such offenders shall be punished by the supervisors of women ((gpio066aw roux Ta zotaUTa Trotouvzac urro zwv yvvatxov6µwv).47

  Menander was known to have held this public office in Cornlia in Didyma in the second century A.D. and it also operated in Miletus. In the first century B.c. evidence comes from Crete and Ilion.48 `The survival of the liturgy [public office] throughout the Principate may well reflect the importance which the Roman city attached to the decorous celebration of its traditional festivals, in which wives and daughters of citizens played a prominent part, but strictly regulated as to dress and behaviour.'49

  Ogden examines in some detail a long inscription from Andania dated 92-91 B.C. which is concerned primarily with instructions to the `controllers of women' (yvvatxovbµot) for regulating the dress codes of women who participated in the religious processions connected with the cult of Demeter.50 The dress of women was very closely defined by their class, i.e., matrons, girls and slaves, and also by their status within the cult. In addition, no female could wear `gold jewellery, or rouge, or white lead, or a hair-band, nor plaited hair nor shoes, unless of felt or sacred leather.' The aim was to restrict elabo rate dress and placed a ceiling on how much money could be spent; this varied from zoo drachmas down to 50 in the case of slaves. Transparent clothing was specifically mentioned in the instructions and was banned from the procession; the `controllers of women' had authority to tear any clothing that was worn contrary to the rules of the cult and to dedicate it to the deity.51

  The office was clearly an onerous one as has already been noted and those elected to this honorary public liturgy discovered it was no sinecure. `A person who dreams of being city warden, boy-warden or a yvvatxovoµoc" is beset with worries and anxieties concerning his state, his children or his women, a reference to the burden of responsibility of the separate offices.52

  Evidence of this office has been found at Sparta in Achaia. The office operated `according to the ancient traditions and the laws' (KaTa za &pXaia EOq Kai Tots voµouS) of Sparta as an inscription in Trajan's reign records.53 This Spartan magistrate had five others who carried the title of Gvvyuvatxovoµos. The entry of Liddell and Scott on the latter group as `fellow-yuvalKovoµos' is not helpful. Cartledge suggests that `At Sparta the post is attested from the Augustan until the late Severan age, its duties sufficiently weighty, it seems, to require the assistance of (usually) five junior colleagues (GvvyuvalKov6µot).'54 The need for assistance in policing dress codes was not because there was a greater degree of immorality among Roman Spartan women. `Nor does the women's sphere at Roman Sparta display any of the licence for which it was notorious in Classical times. In honorific dedications for Spartan matrons from the second and third centuries the repetitive praise of their "moderation" (sophrosune), "husband-love" (philandria), "dignity" (semnotes) and "decorum" (kosmiotes) shows that the local society, at least in its upper reaches, valued the domestic virtues in women as those held up for praise by Plutarch of Chaeronea, in this period Greece's fullest surviving spokesman on the themes of love, women and marriage .155

  It has been suggested that `the role of women in public life was largely confined to religious cults'.56 However in Menander Rhetor it is clear that the controller of women was also connected to the public sphere. `Self-restraint (ocw4ponuvq) is proven in two contexts, in the public community and in private houses. In the public community it is associated with the education of boys and girls, weddings and marriages, laws about offences of disorder (6xo6µoc)'. Then immediately this observation was made, `There are many cities that elect yuvatxov6pot'. On this evidence, this office clearly aimed to restrain women's conduct in public. Menander then refers to the private sphere with specific mention of adultery and `other errors'.57

  Was this liturgy also operational in Roman Corinth? There are two reasons for supposing so. We lack, to date, any extant evidence of inscriptions recording the office of the gynaikonomos in Corinth. This is not surprising given the destruction of the city by the Herulians in A.D. 267 and the violent sacking by the Goths in A.D. 395, but there is widespread epigraphic attestation for such a position in the East.58 Sparta, estimated to have had some 100,000 inhabitants, was in the same province as Corinth. Cities elsewhere which had the cult of Demeter, would have possessed this office. There is firm evidence that Corinthian women were connected to the cult of Demeter which we know operated in Roman Corinth in Paul's day in the temple on the slopes of the Acrocorinth overlooking the city.59 Curse inscriptions written by women have been discovered there.e0

  Do we have evidence that information concerning the conduct of married women while worshipping would have leaked out beyond the gathering of Christians in Corinth? i Corinthians 14:23 reveals the presence of outsiders and unbelievers at the gatherings with the implication that this was not unusual. The layout of the house was such that the main room, which would have been the place where they met, was immediately accessible from the entrance. While it is common to refer to the `house' churches, the term consistently used in the New Testament is more specific. If one simply wished to indicate that the gathering was not in a hired hall but in the house (the physical building), then the term oixia would be the right designation. In all the refer ences to the locations in which Christians gathered in the Pauline communities O KO was used. This refers to `a room' within the house (oixia) which would have been what we would now designate the sitting or lounge room.br Their meetings were readily accessible to anyone so that an outsider could readily come in.

  In the passage under consideration a clue may rest in the fact that wives were under obligation to wear the veil because of the ayyrXXot. While much attention has been given to the struggle to untie the Gordian knot when the Greek word is translated 'angels 162 I have argued elsewhere that the term should be `messengers'. 63 That word was used not only of those who brought information, but also of those who came to carry information away to others. Epictetus, writing in the early second century A.D., provides evidence of this. `What messenger is so swift and so attentive as the eye?' he noted of one who could be sent `as a scout' to report back. In discussing the role of the Cynic philosopher Epictetus observed that the present time could be compared to a war situation where the Cynic could not operate as he would normally do. If he did, he would destroy his role as `the messenger, the scout, and the herald of the gods that he is'. Epictetus also reported that after Domitian banished the philosophers from Rome, a young man from Nicopolis was sent to Rome to spy out the land on their behalf. Philosophers had been banished from Rome from time to time by a number of emperors, hence the need for a messenger to report back to those exiled from the capital of the Empire on whether it was safe for them to return.64 One reason why the term was always rendered as `angels' is that it was presumed that the messengers only brought information. If this translation is used, as it is on other occasions in the New Testament, it is suggested that the impression given to the informationgatherer is Paul's concern (ii:io) and is the reason for wearing the marriage veil while praying and prophesying.

  What cultural precedents would have coloured the perception of the messengers? There are statue types of Livia, the wife of Augustus and mother of Tiberius, in the role of priestess with her marriage veil drawn over her head.65 There is evidence of both the emperor's wife operating as a priestess and a provincial priestess of the imperial cult in honour of Livia not only in the East (see pp. 210-11) but also throughout the Empire.66 `What woman will not follow when an empress leads the way?' Juvenal asked.61 Wives participating in pagan religious activities would have had the marriage veil drawn over the top of their heads. We know of at least one Corinthian woman who was a priestess whose inscription reads, `To Polyaena, daughter of Marcus, priestess of Victory. The high priest [Publius] Priscus Juventianus [while still living (set up this monument)] with the official sanction of the city council to (this) excellent woman.'68 It can be c
oncluded, therefore, that those wives who undertook religious functions would have covered their heads with the marriage veil, given that all respectable married women would wear their veil outside the home, as Roman law and custom prescribed. This raises the possibility that those who sent messengers to spy out the activities of Christian gatherings could have reported to the men elected to officially supervise women's dress codes in Corinth that some Christian married women were inappropriately attired while engaging in a religious activity.

  The other possibility is that messengers simply came to report back to a member of the elite of Corinth or any interested person who was curious but who did not feel free to attend in case it was a political gathering of an association. Augustus had legislated against the political activities of associations as soon as he had secured power, and all the emperors in the Julio-Claudian dynasty, apart from Gaius, remained highly suspicious of them.69 Guilt by association had been established in the Principate of Tiberius in the famous trea son trial following the Sejanus conspiracy.70 A client of a patron or a trusted household servant would have been a safe person to send to see that this meeting did not breach Roman law.

  Whatever the motive in sending messengers, the report would have gone back telling of certain Christian women who were engaged in praying and prophesying, activities that would be interpreted in a religious context as connected to an important priestly office. Their deliberate removing of their veils while praying and prophesying would have sent a signal that they were identifying themselves in this religious gathering with the new women who behaved loosely at banquets which were often held in private homes. According to Acts 18:7, private homes were also the setting for Christian gatherings including the Lord's Supper (i Cor. 11:17-34). As we will see, it was not unknown for married women to engage in inappropriate conduct in the `after-dinners' in private homes. (See p. 153.)

  It should have been self-evident to the Corinthian Christians that the removal of their veil was totally inappropriate (i Cor. 11:13). `Judge among yourselves (sv u iiv (XToic KpivaTE): is it proper (7rp61rov sczty) for a wife to pray to God with her head uncovered?' In the Roman world the expectation of conformity was at the heart of its cultural norms; such was the nature of Roman thinking and its impact throughout the Empire from recent social engineering on the part of Augustus.

  The actual Greek sentence `it is proper' (7rp6 rov ~(Tzty) used in 11:13 appears elsewhere in contemporary and second-century literary sources to indicate this. Even noting the difference in character of those who attended the symposia of Epicurus and Plato - they were flatterers and snobs who jeered - Athenaeus recorded that the entirely inappropriate comment of Telemachus was `neither proper (oi rp6 rov smzty) of a flatterer nor one who turns his nose up'.71 The young men `held their peace in the presence of Helen [of Troy], as is proper (irp6irov taTiv), struck completely dumb before her famous beauty'.72 In `The Precepts of Statecraft', Plutarch writes of what everyone would consider to be appropriate or inappropriate to ask for on the basis of their status: `favours of this sort are proper for courtesans to receive, but not for generals (EZatptbiotc of 6zpazqyoic 7tpETov E(Tziv)'.73

  Sextus Empiricus in discussing the rearing of a child argued that there were certain conventions which were considered to be appropriate for all children because of common characteristics.

  Having knowledge of a child, no less and no more of favourite than a nonfavourite child, nor of female than a male; favourite or non-favourite, males or females, no different conduct, but the same things are proper and are proper to all alike (&XXa zauza 7pt7TCt zs xai rtptrrovTa EoTiv).74

  There were also certain things in first-century society that were considered to be improper or unseemly. Dionysius of Halicarnassus, who wrote a history of the Roman people in the Augustan period, condemned a custom concerning slaves, `looking upon it as unseemly' (ws of 7rp6 rov). He refers to established procedures for consulting members of the magistracy of the consuls and tribunes for them to give their opinion in order of their seniority by beginning with the oldest and going to the youngest members as is 'customary' (rrpErrov). He also wrote of an action disdainful for a father yet `proper' (7rpe rov) for a freedman of lofty spirit, and the bestowing of gifts that was `proper' (7rpE1rov) for a ruler whose task it was to confer benefits upon good men.75 Earlier Plato had contrasted `propriety' (sump6Trsta) with 'impropriety' (&urpETrsta) with respect to writing, how that should not be done improperly (&rpFmw ).76 `Impropriety' was also used of the conduct of men who were disreputable and indecent.77 In Koine Greek irp6 rov was the appropriate term to use for approved conduct, given that Roman society was clear as to what was proper and what was not, not least of all in terms of dress codes, because of the underlying protocol of Roman law. Therefore there was no need to use the prefix su, as in Classical Greek, in the case of delineating `propriety' (su1rpE rEla) and its cognates.

  The command `You judge among yourselves' (tv bµiv abzois) includes the additional word abzbs (11:13). The phrase `among yourselves' (tv bµiv auzoiS) is used here emphatically both through its placement in the sentence and also by the addition of abzbs, which in normal circumstances would be an unnecessary duplication. Its purpose is to give intensity to the statement.78 The implication is that, on reflection, it should be completely obvious to everyone why it is improper for the wife to do this. If `you were what you wore' (or rather what you did not wear) while undertaking to pray and prophesy in public, then a clear signal was being sent and received by the messengers. Yes, they were married because they wore the mantle, the upper part of which was used as a veil. They were not dressed as prostitutes who wore the toga. However, they were flagrantly defying their status by deliberately removing the marriage veil from their head. They looked like the promiscuous married women, for the absence of the veil sent an unmistakable signal. It was not proper by first-century standards to do this.

  Just as it was improper for a wife to pray unveiled, so too it was later said to be shameful for a woman to speak in the Christian meeting in the context of weighing up of prophecy, `even as the law says' (14:34). While it has been argued that the law refers to the Mosaic Law, no specific injunction can be cited from it that forbids women speaking in the assembly. Women were not to intervene (intercede) in public settings or come between two parties, and an imperial ban had already existed from the time of Augustus on women intervening on behalf of their husbands in the context of legal argument. In the time of Claudius, according to Ulpian, the Velleian decree of the Senate (senatus consultum Velleianum) was passed by the Senate.79 The disruption of Carfania from a previous era was still being held up as a negative example and was seen as the excuse for this prohibition. (See PP. 177-78.) Whether this was the law being referred to is uncertain, but it may provide an alternative explanation to the Mosaic law, where commentators refer to Genesis 3, which is not strictly the Torah, although the matter of subordination was established in that passage. The concern for the wrong impression being given to the outsider is also central to the issue of order in the service and particularly prophetic activity which is for unbelievers (14:22-25) and in which women also engage (11:5).

  If propriety and shame were powerful arguments to invoke in Roman culture, so too was that of obligation, for it was a society ruled by the laws of obligation. The reason already given as to why the wife had to wear the marriage veil while praying and prophesying was that she was under an obligation to do so (ciao). Obligations were binding in Roman culture, and to lay something on the conscience of others as an obligation meant that there was no alternative - in this case married women had to wear the marriage veil; otherwise their action would be misunderstood. 80

  Before dealing with the motivation for removing their veil (n:16), it is important to examine the terminology used for veiling and unveiling in i Corinthians 11:2-16 because it is something of a puzzle and may throw light on what was happening. While Cairns in his short discussion on the meaning of veiling cautions against seeking to express the notion of status by t
he use of one Greek word,81 the particular terminology used in i Corinthians 11:2-16 may provide clues as to what was actually happening during the Christian gathering. Neither the usual Greek term for a `veil' (7rpox6(Xuµµa) was chosen, nor the verb `I veil my head, I wrap up' (syxaX1 rzco), nor its antonym `I unveil' (sKKaX1 rzco). Elsewhere in the New Testament when veiling is mentioned the verb used is KaX15rrzco.82 It is also used twice metaphorically in 2 Corinthians 4:3 to denote the gospel `being veiled' from understanding (KEKaXv i i vov) in keeping with the idea of veiling the eyes, for which the second century A.D. writer, Athenaeus, provides an example.83 However in i Corinthians 11:3-7 and 13 neither `I unveil' (sKKaXirrrzco), nor its antonym `I veil my head, I wrap up' (syxaX6TTTco), was used but rather `I veil' (KazaxaX157rzc)), its antonym `I unveil' (&.KaTaKaX157TW) and the cognate `unveiled' (6xazaxaXu1rzov). In ii:4 the clause xaza xs4aafc 9Xcov which would be roughly synonymous for `I veil' (syxaX1 rzco) is used. What is the significance of adding the prefix Kaza to the stem of the verb?

  The verb `I veil' (KaTaxaX1 TTW) was used in other ancient sources. In Diodorus Siculus it referred to the convention of covering the walls of the city in terms of tragedy and mourning.84 It was used by Dio Cassius when Claudius ordered the statue of Augustus to be covered so that he would not witness the slaughter at the gladitorial games, and by Strabo for the covering of the sacred tripods in the temple for ritual purposes.85 At the Festival of Naked Youths in Sparta, Herodotus indicated that Demaratus covered his head and left the theatre, not because he was offended by the spectacle, for he had presided over it before, but because of the shame he felt having lost his position of power and being reminded of that fact in public.86 In all these instances the action involved a cloth and an act of covering that was a considered response to a crisis situation or an offence.