'Pagan' and 'Christian' Marriage: the State of the Question

"P n" nd " hr t n" rr : Th t t f tht nJudith Evans Grubbs

Journal of Early Christian Studies, Volume 2, Number 4, Winter 1994,pp. 361-412 (Article)

Published by The Johns Hopkins University PressDOI: 10.1353/earl.0.0198

For additional information about this article

Access provided by Emory University Libraries (13 Aug 2014 13:04 GMT)

http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/earl/summary/v002/2.4.grubbs.html

http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/earl/summary/v002/2.4.grubbs.html

"Pagan" and "Christian"Marriage: The Stateof the Question

JUDITH EVANS GRUBBS

There has been a great deal of scholarly interest in marriage and the family inpre-Christian Rome in the past ten years, and recent work has called for a re-evaluation of older scholarly views of "pagan" sexual mores and family life. Atthe same time, much work has been done on attitudes toward sexuality andmarriage in the early Christian period, particularly in the writings of Christianintellectuals like Augustine. Little attempt has been made, however, to bridgethe gap between "pagan" and "Christian" or to examine late antique, Christianattitudes toward sexuality and marriage from the viewpoint of the "average"Christian. The first half of this article surveys marriage in pre-Christian Romanideology and practice and in imperial law of the first three centuries; the secondhalf looks at the evidence for Christian marital practice in the ante-Nicene pe-riod, using sources that are often overlooked: the Divine Institutes of the Chris-tian writer Lactantius, the canons of early church councils, and Christian in-scriptions of the second half of the third and early fourth centuries. Thesesources suggest a much greater degree of continuity with pre-Christian valuesand practice than the writings of more ascetically minded Christian theologiansimply.

The Roman family has received a great deal of attention recently, with newstudies of marriage and divorce, motherhood, and parent-child relation-ships. These studies focus on the family in the "classical" period of Romanhistory, the first century B.CE. and first two centuries CE., and make littleuse of material dating after the mid-third century, particularly the works ofChristian authors.1 Implicit in many of these studies is the assumption that

1. Books on the Roman family published within the last decade include: KeithBradley, Discovering the Roman Family: Studies in Roman Social History (Oxford:Oxford University Press, 1991 ); Suzanne Dixon, The Roman Mother (Norman: Univer-Joumal of Early Christian Studies 2:3, 361-412 Â© 1994 The Johns Hopkins UniversityPress.

362 JOURNAL OF EARLY CHRISTIAN STUDIES

Christian ideology and practice introduced dramatic changes into ancientmarital and family life, and this claim is sometimes accepted by medieval-ists and those interested in Christianity in late antiquity.The notion of asharp break between "pagan" and "Christian" mores has been furtherreinforced by Peter Brown's book, The Body and Society: Men, Women,and Sexual Renunciation in Early Christianity.2 In this brilliant study ofevolving Christian attitudes toward sexuality, Brown focuses on polemicaltracts praising celibacy and virginity written by Christian writers whowere extremely eloquent and sincere, but who quite often did not representthe mainstream of Christian thought, particularly in the ante-Nicene pe-riod.

In this paper I would like to suggest a reconsideration of the popularlyheld view of "Christian" as opposed to "pagan" ideals of marriage andfamily life. After providing an overview of marriage in the ideology andpractice of the Roman imperial period and in pre-Constantinian Romanlaw, I shall look at the evidence for marriage ideology and practice amongChristians in the same period, particularly in the latter part of the thirdcentury and the first quarter of the fourth century, using sources that areoften overlooked in favor of more original but less representative theologi-cal works.3

THE MARRIAGE ALLIANCE IN THE ROMAN EMPIRE:IDEOLOGY AND PRACTICE

The institution of marriage was fundamental to Greco-Roman society.Marriage and the begetting of children were considered the duty of allRoman citizens, and the same ideology is found among the cities of the

sity of Oklahoma Press, 1988) and The Roman Family (Baltimore: The Johns HopkinsUniversity Press, 1992); Jane F. Gardner, Women in Roman Law and Society (London:Croom Helm, 1986); two volumes edited by Beryl Rawson, The Family in AncientRome: New Perspectives (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1986) and Marriage, Di-vorce, and Children in Ancient Rome (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991); SusanM. Treggiari, Roman Marriage: lusti Coniuges from the Time of Cicero to the Time ofUlpian (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1991).

2. Peter Brown, The Body and Society: Men, Women, and Sexual Renunciation inEarly Christianity (New York: Columbia University Press, 1988).

3. The content of this article is taken from my forthcoming book, Law and Family inLate Antiquity: Constantine's Legislation on Marriage (Oxford: Oxford UniversityPress, 1995). Work on the book and on this article was completed at the NationalHumanities Center in Research Triangle Park, where I was a Fellow for the 1993-94academic year. I would like to express my appreciation to the Jessie Ball Dupont Reli-gious, Charitable and Educational Fund and to Sweet Briar College for supporting myyear at the NHC.

GRUBBS/"PAGAN" AND "CHRISTIAN" MARRIAGE 363

Greek East and in contemporary Judaism. A recent discussion of literaryand inscriptional references to marital and family life from the late Repub-lic and early Empire concludes that already by the first century b.c.e.,Romans had a " . . . sentimental ideal . . . focused on a standard of com-panionate (but not necessarily equal) marriage and a delight in children asindividuals and as symbols of the home comforts,"4 although of coursethis ideal was not always realized in practice. In the early third century, theRoman jurist Modestinus expressed the traditional Roman ideology ofmarriage as a consensual, lifelong union of two people: "Marriage is thejoining of a male and female and a partnership (consortium) of all of life, asharing of divine and human law."5

Among the Roman upper classes, betrothal was an important agree-ment entered into by the families of the prospective bride and groomÂ—properly speaking, by the male head of each family (the paterfamilias)Â—though mothers and sometimes other relatives also played a role. Thebetrothal was generally preceded by protracted negotiations between thetwo families, each of which was anxious to determine the suitability ofthe potential son-in-law or daughter-in-law, and to secure the best possibleterms for their own family.6

Epigraphic evidence indicates that Roman men usually married at be-tween twenty-five and thirty years of age (those of the senatorial elite a fewyears earlier), and women usually in their mid-to-late teens (again, inaristocratic families somewhat earlier, perhaps between twelve and fif-teen).7 The legal age of marriage for women was twelve. Roman lawrequired that not only the couple to be married give their consent to amarriage but also the paterfamilias of each, either their fathers or (if stillalive) paternal grandfathers.8 A union made without the consent of the

4. Quote from S. Dixon, "The Sentimental Ideal of the Roman Family" in Rawson,Marriage (cited n. 1), 99-113, at 111. See also Treggiari, Roman Marriage (n. 1),229-62.

5. Digest 23.2.1 (my translation). References to the Digest are from The Digestof Justinian, edited by T. Mommsen and P. Krueger, and from the English translationedited by Alan Watson (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1985), and areabbreviated as D.

6. Treggiari, Roman Marriage, 83-138; and S. M. Treggiari, "Digna Condicio: Be-trothals in the Roman Upper Class," E.M.C./C.V. 28 (1984): 419-451.

7. Richard P. Sailer, "Men's Age at Marriage and Its Consequences in the RomanFamily," CPh. 82 (1987): 21-34; Brent Shaw, "The Age of Roman Girls at Marriage:Some Reconsiderations," J.R.S. 77 (1987): 30-46, modifying M. K. Hopkins, "The Ageof Roman Girls at Marriage," Population Studies 18 (1965): 309-327. Legal age:D.23.1.9;D.23.2.4.

8. D.23.2.2; cf. 23.1.11; P. E. Corbett, The Roman Law of Marriage (Oxford:Clarendon Press, 1930), 53-67; S. M. Treggiari, "Consent to Roman Marriage: Some


paterfamilias was not a fully legitimate marriage (iustum matrimonium).However, the agreement after the fact of a father who had not known of orapproved of the marriage was taken to imply consent.9

The prospective husband generally had some say in the negotiations,and might perhaps even suggest possible brides for consideration. If hisfather (and paternal grandfather) were deadÂ—which could well be thecase for a man of twenty-five or olderÂ—he would be legally independent[sui iuris) and could control the negotiations himself, though his mother, ifstill alive, might still exert considerable influence.10 The prospective bride,on the other hand, would be considerably younger and was often a passiveparticipant expected to accept the partner chosen for her by her parents,who would have spent considerable time and energy investigating possiblesuitors and were thought to have the expertise necessary to make such animportant decision. Her consent was required, but in the case of a youngwoman in her early teens, lack of objection to a chosen sponsus would betaken to imply consent. This does not mean that her wishes and prefer-ences were not taken into account by her parentsÂ—provided, of course,that they met the required standards of birth, social standing, moral pro-bity and wealth.11 A woman in her twenties or thirties, already marriedonce and then widowed or divorced, who wished to remarry, would havemore autonomy in choosing a new spouse and might well control thenegotiations, especially if her paterfamilias was dead and she was sui iuris.But even then, considerations of female modesty and sexual propriety(pudicitia) might discourage her from acting too openly or boldly.12

Once the projected match had been agreed upon by both families (alongwith related matters like dowry), the sponsalia would be celebrated with aparty, which could be quite elaborate. After the betrothal agreement but

Aspects of Law and Reality," E.M.C./C.V. 26 (1982): 34-44. A son emancipated frompatria potestas did not need his father's consent: D.23.2.25.

9. Codex Justinianus 5.4.5 (Alexander Severus). The Codex Justinianus is cited fromthe edition by P. Krueger (Frankfurt: Weidmann, 1967) and abbreviated as CJ. Cf. alsoSententiae Pauli 2.19.2 and Fragmenta Vaticana 102, both in Fontes Iuris RomaniAnteiustiniani, 2nd ed., vol. II, ed. J. Baviera (Florence: Barbera, 1968); hereafter citedas FIRA2 II.

10. R. P. Sailer, "Men's Age" (cited n. 7) has shown persuasively that few Romanmales of 25 or over would still have a father living. Mother's involvement: Dixon,Roman Mother (cited n. 1), 62-3; and cf. Monica, Augustine's mother (Confessions6.13 and 6.15).

11. D.23.1.11-12; Treggiari, "Consent to Roman Marriage" (cited n. 8).12. See S. M. Treggiari, "lam proterva fronte: Matrimonial Advances by Roman

Women" in The Craft of the Ancient Historian, ed. J. W. Eadie and J. Ober (Lanham,Mich., 1985), 331-52.


before the wedding itself, the couple might exchange gifts, and the sponsuswould send the sponsa a ring as a pledge of his intentions and fidelity.13There could be other rites and customs accompanying a betrothal, but theydepended solely on the wishes of the families involved and not on any legalor religious requirements.

Under Roman law, no written contract or ceremony was necessary toconclude a betrothal, or indeed to give legal validity to the marriage itself.As long as the couple consented and there were no impediments arisingfrom prohibitions based on legal status or kinship connections, the unionwould be considered iustum matrimonium. However, there was usuallysome sort of written document attesting the marriageÂ—perhaps recordingthe dowry contributed by the bride, (all or some of which would have to bereturned to her in the event of the dissolution of the marriage) or theproperty with which each partner entered the marriage, since in imperialRoman society a married woman (or her paterfamilias) kept control oftheir property and gifts between spouses during the marriage were gener-ally invalid.14 A dowry was not required in order for a marriage to be validin Roman law, but it was in the best interests of the woman and her familyto provide a dowry, even a small one. This would indicate that the unionwas intended to be a legal marriage and not concubinage. The dowry alsoserved as a sort of "insurance policy" if the marriage were ended by di-vorce or the husband's death: not only would it provide financial security,but it would enable her to marry again.15

Although marriage was envisioned as a lifelong union, divorce waslegally possible for both men and women in the pre-Constantinian Empire.In early Roman law, only the husband had been able to bring about adivorce, and even then he would have incurred a financial penalty if he hadrepudiated his wife for any reason other than a serious fault on her part(e.g., adultery) By the first century B.ce., however, women who had notcome under their husband's legal power (manus) when they married couldrepudiate their husbands. Whether wives who had entered their husband'smanus upon marriage had the freedom to initiate divorce is not clear, but

13. Treggiari, Roman Marriage, 147-52 and especially Lucien Anne, Les Rites desfianÃ§ailles et la donation pour cause de mariage sous le Bas-Empire (Louvain, 1941).

14. D.24.1. discusses the ban on gifts between spouses in great detail. The restrictionswere relaxed under the emperor Caracalla. See Treggiari, Roman Marriage, 366-374.Pacta dotalia: Treggiari, ibid. 357-60.

15. D.23.3.2; D.24.3.1; Treggiari, Roman Marriage, 434-4 and 361-4; Dixon, Ro-man Family, 51-3 and 65-7. In 454 the emperor Majorian ruled that dowry wasnecessary for a marriage to be valid (Novel 6.9), but his law was rescinded in 463(Severus, Novel 1).


in any case marriage where the wife was in manu was already less commonthan the alternative, where she remained under her father's potestas (orwas sui iuris if her paterfamilias was dead), by the end of the first centuryB.ce. and virtually obsolete by the third century ce.16

Under imperial law before Constantine, either partner could uni-laterally end the marriage by sending a repudium, usually in writing or by atrusted messenger such as a freedman. The repudium did not have to begiven in the presence of the party being divorced; nor, apparently, did ithave to be received by the divorced party in order for the divorce to bevalid. The spouse who wanted a divorce did not have to justify the repu-dium or to undertake any formal legal proceedings. However, it would bein the divorcing partner's interest to have witnesses or a written notice ofintent to divorce, to ensure that the divorce would be legally and sociallyrecognized. This would be particularly important if either partner wishedto remarry.17

If a divorce were due to the wife's fault (or that of her paterfamilias), herex-husband was entitled to retentiones, with-holdings from her dowry, ifthere were children of the marriage, since they would remain in theirfather's power and were his financial responsibility. He could also keeppart of the dowry if the divorce were caused by her sexual misconduct orother inappropriate behavior. If the divorce were due to the husband'smisconduct, he might be forced to repay the dowry in full within aninconveniently short period of time.18 The Romans also had "no fault"divorce (divorce bona gratia), when the spouses agreed to sever the mar-riage without assigning fault. The ex-wife would get back her dowry, thecouple would make sure that their families and society at large were awarethat they no longer considered themselves married, and they were bothfree to contract new unions.19

How frequent divorce bona gratia was relative to unilateral divorce is

16. Treggiari, Roman Marriage, 441-46; S. M. Treggiari, "Divorce Roman Style:How Easy and How Frequent Was It?" in Rawson, Marriage, 31-46. Decline of mar-riage in manu: Treggiari, Roman Marriage, 30-32; David Noy, "The SenatusconsultumGaetulicianum, Manus and Inheritance," Tijdschrift voor Rechtsgeschiedenis 56(1988): 299-304.

17. D.24.2.2; CJ 5.17.6. Seven citizen witnesses were required for the divorce of awife by her husband on account of her adultery (D.24.2.2.9); whether witnesses wererequired for other divorces is a matter of debate. See in general Treggiari, RomanMarriage, 446-58.

18. Retentiones for children: Regulae Ulpiani 6.10 (in FIRA2 II, 270). Propter mores,ibid., 6.12-13. See Treggiari, Roman Marriage, 352, 463-4.

19. Treggiari, Roman Marriage, 453,457,465,470-1, and 482, who uses the termsbona gratia, "by mutual consent" and "bilateral" synonymously.


unknown, as indeed, is the frequency of divorce of any kind in Romansociety. Epigraphical evidence has been used to argue both for and againstthe frequency of divorce among the general population, but since the factof a divorce is virtually never mentioned in funerary inscriptions, explicitevidence is difficult to find.20 A study of women of the senatorial aristoc-racy from the Augustan period to around ce. 200 found that out of 562women for whom there is sufficient data, at most fifty-one (and probablyfewer) had marriages ending in divorce. Most of those marriages that didend in divorce occurred in the Julio-Claudian period (from 31 B.ce. to CE.68) and often involved members of the imperial family, and therefore hadpolitical and dynastic implications. There are far fewer attested or possibledivorces for the second than for the first century.21 It appears that divorceswere usually initiated by the husband or by mutual consent and that men,and especially women, who repudiated their spouse for any reason but themost serious misconduct (in particular, the wife's adultery) were open tocriticism.22

Evidence for the marriage arrangements of those outside the elite fami-lies of Rome (on whom most classical literary and legal texts focus) ismuch less abundant, particularly for the third and early fourth century.Doubtless there was considerable variation in marital arrangements indifferent parts of the Empire, though it appears that the marriage arrangedby parents and preceded by betrothal was the norm throughout the Medi-terranean world. Epigraphic and skeletal evidence (mainly from thesecond and third centuries) suggests that in Roman Britain women mar-ried in their late teens and early or mid-twenties. This is somewhat laterthan the age suggested by pre-Christian inscriptions from Rome, whichattest mainly to the practices of the urban elite of Rome and the freedmenand freedwomen who had served that elite. In the provinces and among thelower-class free in Rome, other considerations (such as the need to work or

20. Iiro Kajanto, "On Divorce among the Common People of Rome," MÃ©langesMarcel Durry (= REL 47 bis) 1969, 99-113, thinks divorce was rare; but cf. MichelHumbert, Le Remariage Ã Rome: Etude d'histoire juridique et sociale (Milan: GiuffrÃ©,1972), 78-112, who thinks remarriage (after divorce or spouse's death) was common.See also Treggiari, "Divorce Roman Style" (cited n. 16), 42-6.

21. See Marie-Therese Raepsaet-Charlier, "Ordre Senatorial et divorce sous le Haut-Empire: Un chapitre de l'histoire des mentalitÃ©s," Acta Classica Universitatis Scien-tarium Debreceniensis 17-18 (1981-82): 161-173. Treggiari, Roman Marriage, 518-19 interprets the evidence somewhat differently but reaches the same conclusions asRaepsaet-Charlier.

22. Cf. Treggiari, Roman Marriage, 464-5 and 471-3 and "Divorce Roman Style,"40-1; Antti Arjava, "Divorce in Later Roman Law," Arctos 22 (1988): 5-21, at 6;Mireille Corbier, "Divorce and Adoption as Roman Familial Strategies" in Rawson,Marriage, 47-78, at 50-1.


wait for a parent's death in order to be able to support a family) may havepromoted a later age of marriage for women as well as men.23

The notable exception to the dearth of documentary source material onmarriage practice in the Empire is Roman Egypt, where "non-literary"records from public and private archives such as private letters, wills, andcertificates of marriage and divorce have survived. In particular, censusreturns have been used to provide estimates of average age at marriage andhousehold composition. Women usually were married by age twenty, menbefore they turned thirty.24 Unlike Rome and the Latin-speaking West,where the "nuclear family" was apparently the norm, Egyptian towns andvillages had more complex households, with "patriarchal householdswhere grown brothers live together, with their father if he is still living, andpresumably with their own wives and children . . . families lived close toone another, perhaps in compounds with shared facilities."25 It was cus-tomary for the parties involved in arranging a marriage to draw up acontract, known in Latin as tabulae nuptiales, not to ensure the legalvalidity of the union but to give a detailed list of the bride's dowry andprovide for the disposition of property in the event of divorce. The remainsof dozens of such agreements, most of them in Greek, have been found inEgypt, dating from the late fourth century B.ce. through the sixth centuryce. Latin contracts from before 212 record unions between Roman citi-zens in Egypt and state that the couple was marrying according to theAugustan marriage laws and "for the purpose of begetting children."26

Egypt and the Near East provide evidence for marital customs quitedifferent from those of the Roman West, in particular marriage betweensiblings, which was not common outside of the royal family until the

23. Britain: Lindsay Allason-Jones, Women in Roman Britain (London: British Mu-seum Publications, 1989), 30-1. See further below, notes 108-109.

24. M. K. Hopkins, "Brother-Sister Marriage in Roman Egypt," ComparativeStudies in Society and History 22 ( 1980): 303-54, at 333-4 suggests "a median of age ofmarriage for both sexes in mid-twenties"; but recent work by Roger Bagnall and BruceFrier points to marriage in later teens for women, and between 20 and 30 for men; seeR. Bagnall, Egypt in Late Antiquity (Princeton: Princeton U. Press, 1993), 189-90.

25. Deborah W. Hobson, "House and Household in Roman Egypt," Y.C.5. 28(1985): 211-29, at 222.

26. Orsolina Montevecchi, "Ricerche di sociologÃa nei documenti dell'Egitto greco-romano: II. I contratti di matrimonio e gli atti di divorzio," Aegyptus 16 (1936): 3-83,supplemented by Montevecchi, La Papirologia (Torino, 1973), 203-7; Hopkins,"Brother-Sister Marriage," 334-41. Latin contracts: H. A. Sanders, "A Latin MarriageContract," T.A.P.A. 69 (1938): 104-117. Note also the marriage contracts found in theCave of Letters (n. 28), two in Greek (Documents 18 and 37) and a ketoubah in Aramaic(Document 10).


Roman period. Close-kin marriage, especially between cousins or uncleand niece, also occurred elsewhere in the eastern Mediterranean well intolate antiquity.27 Papyri found in a cave in the Judean desert, dating to justbefore the outbreak of the Bar-Kokhba revolt in 132 indicate that at thatperiod bigamy was still found among Jews in the Near East. The docu-ments relate to the affairs of a woman called Babatha, whose husband hadbeen married simultaneously to another woman. However, there is noevidence for bigamy in the Jewish inscriptions of the Diaspora. Likebrother-sister marriage, it was against Roman law and mores.28

Christian apologetic writings of the second and third centuries fre-quently declare that Christian marriages adhered to higher standards ofmorality than pagan ones, and this claim is still accepted by some scholarswho cling to an erroneous view of Roman society as debauched andprofligateÂ—a world where adultery, abortion and multiple divorce wererampant.29 Such a view is derived from early imperial satirists and moral-ists like Juvenal and Seneca, who were describing (with exaggeration) themores of a very small group of people at a particular time; that is, thearistocratic elite of the city of Rome in the last first century b.c.E. andthe first century ce. We must also remember the conventions of the liter-ary genres in which such observations were made: satire, for instance,required biting criticism of the faults of contemporary society. The "goodold days" motif has a long history in Roman literature: moralists werealways looking back longingly to the days of yore before the wealth andculture brought by conquests in the Greek East had corrupted simpleRoman minds and promoted an enervating sophistication.

As was noted above, the divorce rate among senatorial women in thePrincipate was lower than has often been assumed, especially when com-pared to the divorce rate in the United States in recent decades. In any case,there is no reason to suppose that the behavior of the senatorial aristocracy

27. See Hopkins, "Brother-Sister Marriage" (cited n. 24), and further at notes 92-93.

28. See Naphtali Lewis, Yigael Yadin, and Jonas C. Greenfield, The Documents fromThe Bar Kokhba Period in the Cave of Letters (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society,1989), 22-24 and 113-115. Laws: CJ 5.5.2 (285) and 1.9.7 (393), the latter explicitlyreferring to Jewish custom.

29. E.g., Karl Baus, History of the Christian Church from the Apostolic Communityto Constantine (New York: Herder and Herder, 1965), 306: "The sexual licentiousnesswhich characterized moral life in later antiquity particularly necessitated a high degreeof self-discipline." On this outdated view of Roman morality, cf. Rawson, The Family inAncient Rome, 1-3. Roman motif of "the good old days": cf. Dixon, Roman Family,21-23.


under the Principate was typical of everyone else in the Roman Empire, oreven of the Roman aristocracy in the third and fourth centuries. In theprovinces and in Italy outside of Rome, and probably also among thelower classes in Rome, standards were quite different. The early imperialwriters who are the harshest in castigating contemporary morals were notfrom the city of Rome: Seneca and Martial were from Spain, and Juvenalfrom Italy outside of Rome.

In a now-famous essay, the French scholar Paul Veyne declared that inthe second century, the prevailing morality (as described in contemporarysources) became much more "bourgeois," with a greater emphasis placedon family values and reciprocal conjugal relationships.30 Whether thesevalues were really new is questionable. Latin funerary inscriptions fromthe late Republic on attest to the qualities felt most important in a marriedwoman: pudicitia (modesty, particularly in regard to female sexual behav-ior), castitas (chastity in the sense of complete sexual fidelity within mar-riage), marriage to one man, and industriousness in household duties(exemplified by the quintessentially feminine task of woolworking).31 Thechange Veyne perceived is due less to a real transformation in mores thanto a shift in the focus of our sources, which no longer are as exclusivelycentered upon the senatorial aristocracy of Rome as they were in the lateRepublic and under the Julio-Claudians. The first Flavian emperor Vespa-sian, from old Italian municipal stock, was known to have brought a moreold-fashioned moral tone to his reign, and the trend continued with theSpanish-born Trajan, the first emperor from outside Italy. The encourage-ment of "provincial," family-oriented values by these emperors and theirfamilies affected both the contemporary moral climate and the viewpointof our sources.32 Thus early second-century sources writing about theirown day, like Plutarch or Pliny the Younger, provide quite a differentpicture of marital mores than those who focus on the recent past, such asTacitus or Juvenal. Trajan's pudor (modesty, sense of shame, appropriateto both males and females) is stressed by his panegyricist Pliny the Younger

30. Paul Veyne, "La Famille et l'amour sous le haut-empire Romain," Annales E.S.C.33 (1978): 35-63.

31. E.g., ILS 8403 (2nd c. b.c.e); 8393 (the Laudatio "Turiae"); 8394 (LaudatioMurdiae); 8402; 8441; 8450; 8451; 8456; 8527 (all from Rome); 8442 (Puteoli); 8444(near Thelepte in Algeria). See Treggiari, Roman Marriage, 229-249; Gordon Williams,"Some Aspects of Roman Marriage Ceremonies and Ideals," J.R.S. 48 (1958): 16-29;Richmond Lattimore, Themes in Greek and Latin Epitaphs (Urbana: Univ. of Illiois,1942), 293-7; cf. 277-80.

32. Tacitus, Annales 3.55. But cf. K. R. Bradley, "Ideals of Marriage in Suetonius'Caesares," Rivista storica dell'antichitÃ 15 (1985): 77-95, at 86; such ideals "hadalways characterized marriage in the Roman upper class."

GRUBBSrPAGAN" AND "CHRISTIAN" MARRIAGE 371

and contrasted with the licentiousness of his predecessors, as is the modeldeportment of Trajan's womenfolk. Indeed, says Pliny, Trajan's good repu-tation is dependent on the behavior of his wife PlotinaÂ—an idea still foundamong traditional Mediterranean peoples.33

Representations of the goddess Pudicitia appear regularly on coins ofthe Antonines commemorating imperial women.34 Also celebrated onAntonine coins is the concordia (sense of harmony, agreement) shared bythe emperor and his wife, symbolized by the dextrarum iunctio (joining ofhands) of the imperial couple. Previously employed to represent politicalagreement between male members of the ruling family, from the secondcentury on the dextrarum iunctio came to symbolize marital concordespecially. Many sarcophagi of the late second and third centuries portraythe deceased standing hand in hand with his or her spouse, sometimes in aniconographie context suggesting the marriage ceremony itself. On thesesarcophagi, as on Antonine coins, a female figure stands between thecouple, identified as Concordia or as Juno PrÃ³nuba, the divine representa-tion of the once-married matron who attends the bride.35

Pliny, who may fairly be taken as representative of the educated andwealthy elite under in the Principate, came from an equestrian family ofComum in northern Italy and entered upon the senatorial cursus bonorumunder Domitian and Trajan, ultimately serving as governor of the provinceof Bithynia-Pontus from about 109 to his death in about 111.36 In his

33. Pliny, Panegyricus 83. See Bradley, "Ideals" (cited n. 32), 84-6; and cf. Mary T.Boatwright, "The Imperial Women of the Early Second Century A.c.," A.J.P. 112( 1991 ): 513-540, esp. 530-40. Modern Mediterranean ideology of female behavior: cf.Jane Schneider, "Of Vigilance and Virgins: Honor, Shame and Access to Resources inMediterranean Societies," Ethnology 10 (1971): 1-24 and Maureen Giovannini, "Fe-male Chastity Codes in the Circum-Mediterranean: Comparative Perspectives," inDavid Gilmore, ed., Honor and Shame and the Unity of the Mediterranean (Washing-ton, D.C.: A.A.A. Publication 22, 1987), 61-74.

34. Pudicitia on coins: Harold Mattingly and Edward A Sydenham, The RomanImperial Coinage (London, vol. II, 1926; vol. Ill, 1930), vol. II, p. 388, nos. 406-7; andp. 477, nos. 1032-33; vol. Ill, p. 94, nos. 507-88; p. 192, nos. 1380-82; p. 194, nos.1403-4; p. 270, nos. 707-8; p. 275, nos. 778-81; p. 353, nos. 1758-9; p. 399, no. 285;p. 442, no. 670. On the meaning oipudicitia in this context, see vol. Ill, pp. 19 and 364.

35. See Louis Reekmans, "La 'dextrarum iunctio' dans l'iconographie romaine etpalÃ©ochrÃ©tienne," Bulletin de l'Institut Historique Belge de Rome 31 (1958): 25-59;Carola Reinsberg, "Concordia: Die Darstellung von Hochzeit und ehelicher Eintrachtin SpÃ¤tantike" in SpÃ¤tantike und frÃ¼hes Christentum, Austellungskatalog (Frankfurt,1983), 312-17; Glenys Davies, "The Significance of the Handshake Motif in ClassicalFunery Art," A.J.A. 89 (1985): 627-40.

36. Pliny's background and career: A. N. Sherwin-White, The Letters of Pliny (Ox-ford: Clarendon Press, 1966), 69-82. For another recent use of Pliny to elucidate"family values" among upper-class Romans, see K. R. Bradley in CPh. 1993,246-50.


letters, published during his lifetime, Pliny consciously strikes an (appar-ently quite genuine) pose of erotic love within a conjugal relationship,ostentatious pleasure in domesticity, and a desire for children which to hisregret was never fulfilled. His description of his third marriage to Calpur-nia, who was evidently much younger than her husband, stresses theirmutual amor and concordia.37 Carefully arranged marriages in which themoral qualities of both parties are taken into account reveal an ideal ofmarriage as a well-planned partnership intended to produce children towhom moral values as well as family name and property are to be trans-mitted.38 Adultery and sexual unchastity are abhorrent and shameful toall parties concerned, and subject to legal penalties.39 Stoic wives deter-mined to die with their husbands are held up as models for other marriedwomen and, as in contemporary inscriptions, homage is paid to unionswhich endured for several decades without dissension.40 Children andgrandchildren are wanted and cherished, and fathers whose daughters diein childbirth or on the threshold of marriage are to be pitied.41

A similar but stricter ethos of marriage and sexual relations is found inthe writings of the first-century Italian eques and Stoic philosopher Mus-onius Rufus, who believed that procreation was the only valid reason forsex, even in marriage. Musonius went so far as to condemn all extramari-tal sex (including homosexuality and casual relationships with slaves) formen as well as women, and claimed that women had the same moral andintellectual capabilities as men (though he firmly believed in traditionalgender roles and the importance of female chastity). He extolled the pres-ence of mutual sympathy and concord between husband and wife, andalso believed that the (apparently common) ancient practice of limitingfamily size through the abandonment of unwanted infants was wrong.42

Another Stoic, Hierocles, writing in the early second century, agreedthat marriage was a duty incumbent on all men, including philosophers;like his teacher Musonius, he argued against the claim made by some

Letters of Pliny are cited from the Loeb edition by Betty Radice (Cambridge, MA:Harvard University Press, 1969).

37. Erotic love: Epistle 6.4, 7; 7.5; cf. 4.19. Desire for children: 7.10, 11; 10.2.38. Epistle 1.14; 6.26; 6.32.39. Epistle 6.31; cf. 4.11 (incestum with Vestal; Domitian's incest with niece).40. Stoic wives: Ep. 3.16; 7.19; cf. 6.24. Long-lasting unions: 8.5.41. Epistle 4.21; 5.16; cf. 3.16.42. See Cora Lutz, "Musonius Rufus: 'The Roman Socrates,'" Y.C.S. 10 (1947): 3-

147, esp. 38-49 and 84-101. Michel Foucault, The Care of the Self (\9%A; Eng. ed.New York: Random House, 1986), Part Five ("The Wife") is a good discussion ofmarriage in the writings of early imperial philosophers, including Musonius, Hieroclesand Plutarch.


philosophers that marriage and household cares interfered with the properpursuit of philosophy. According to Hierocles, the married couple is thebasis of the household and the household is essential for civilization. Pro-creation of children is the most important purpose of marriage, but amarried couple without children still constitutes a household and a wifeprovides companionship, sympathy and support.43

Plutarch, a Greek from Chaeronea in Boiotia, was a contemporary ofPliny and like Musonius, was inclined to philosophical speculation on thenature and purpose of marriage and sexual relations. The ideal of marriageas a loving and'affectionate bond between two people is well-expressed byPlutarch in his Advice to the Bride and Groom, full of sage advice for twoyoung newlywed friends of his:

... it is a lovely thing for the wife to sympathize with her husband's concernsand the husband with the wife's, so that, as ropes, by being intertwined, getstrength from each other, thus, by the due contribution of goodwill in corre-sponding measure by each member, the copartnership may be preserved bythe joint action of both.44Plutarch's treatise reflects essentially the same attitudes as those of his

Roman contemporaries, but he lays greater stress on the wife's subordi-nate position and her dependence on her husband for all things.Sophrosyne (modesty, prudence, roughly equivalent to the Latin pudor) isthe crowning virtue of a good wife.45 However, Plutarch attributes greaterimportance to the physical aspect of the marital union than do Romanwriters, and his representation of marriage as the union of erontes, pas-sionate lovers, is echoed in the Greek romantic novels of the period. In hisfocus on marriage as a sexual and moral partnership between husband andwife and lack of emphasis on children as the purpose of marriage, Plu-tarch's attitude recalls that of his Christian near-contemporary, Paul, in hisfirst letter to the Corinthians.46

Given the scanty and scattered nature of our sources, it is impossible toprovide a comprehensive view of marriage practices and ideologythroughout all the provinces of the Empire. Funerary inscriptions fromthe Latin-speaking western provinces display similar language of conju-

43. For Hierocles, see Abraham Malherbe, Moral Exhortation: A Greco-RomanSourcebook (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1986), 102.

44. Trans, by F. C. Babbitt in Loeb Classical Library edition, vol. 3 of Moralia, 313(Babbit chapter 20).

45. See esp. Babbitt chapters 14, 16,19, 32 and 33 (306-11, 322-3).46. Cf. Paul 1 Cor 7. For the novels, see David Konstan, "Love in the Greek Novel,"

Differences: A Journal of Feminist Cultural Studies 2.1 (1990): 186-205. They are nowtranslated in Collected Ancient Greek Novels, ed. B. P. Reardon (Berkeley: Univ. ofCalifornia Press, 1989).


gal affection as those from Rome, implying a shared ideology of marriageamong those provincials who were sufficiently wealthy and "Ro-manized" to set up inscriptions.47 Regional differences between westernprovinces in attitudes toward marriage and children have been deducedfrom tombstone dedications. Based as they are on statistical analysis of avast quantity of extant inscriptions erected over a period of several hun-dred years, such conclusions are of great interest but can only be sugges-tive.48 Concern with female virtue and a traditional ideology regardingthe behavior of women appear also in the inscriptions set up by and forthe urban elites of the Greek-speaking cities around the Aegean, eventhose which praise wealthy women for their financial contributions totheir native cities.49

Of course, when discussing marital ideology and sexual behaviors,not only regional differences (particularly those between East and West)but also class differences must be taken into consideration. The statusconsciousness so pervasive in Roman law reflects deeply felt divisionswithin ancient society. Decorum and modesty (Greek sophrosyne, Latinpudor) on the part of both men and (especially) women, particularly inregard to sex, respect for married women and unmarried girls and boys,and condemnation (social and legal) of adulteryÂ—these standards wereexpected of and applied to the "more honorable" (honestiores) by theGreek and Roman moralists and legal writers whose works we have(who were of course themselves honestiores). A man, married or unmar-ried, who had sexual relations with a married woman of respectablestatus was guilty of adultery; if his lover was unmarried but of respect-able status, he was committing stuprum (the general term for illicitsex).50 But if the same man chose to sleep with his own slaves (male orfemale), he acted within the bounds of acceptable behavior, althoughexcessive indulgence in such pursuits might damage his reputation and

47. E.g., ILS 8158 (Lyons); 8162 (Lambaesis, North Africa); 8444 (near Thelepte,Algeria); CIL 8.7156 (Cirta), cited by Treggiari, Roman Marriage, 246.

48. R. P. Sailer and B. Shaw, "Tombstones and Roman Family Relations in thePrincipate: Civilians, Soldiers, and Slaves," J.R.S. 74 (1984): 124-156; B. Shaw, "TheCultural Meaning of Death: Age and Gender in the Roman Family," The Family in Italyfrom Antiquity to the Present, ed. D. I. Kertzer and R. P. Sailer (New Haven: Yale Univ.Press, 1991), 66-90.

49. See Riet van Bremen, "Women and Wealth" in Images of Women in Antiquity,ed. Averil Cameron and AmÃ©lie Kuhrt (Detroit: Wayne State Univ. Press, 1983); RamsayMacMullen, "Women in Public in the Roman Empire," Historia 29 (1980): 208-18.

50. See David Cohen, "The Augustan Law on Adultery: The Social and CulturalContext" in Kertzer and Sailer (cited n. 48), 109-126 and Elaine Fantham, "Stuprum:Public Attitudes and Penalties for Sexual Offenses in Republican Rome," E.M.C/CV.n.s. 10 (1991): 267-291.

GRUBBS/'TAGAN" AND "CHRISTIAN" MARRIAGE 375

bring humiliation upon his wife or family.5 x Respectable women, on theother hand, could not behave equally freely with slave menÂ—strict mar-ital fidelity was required of them, and unmarried women were expectedto be celibate. Though criticized by more high-minded pagans andChristians, this "double standard" continued throughout late antiquityand can be found in the fifth century among Christian aristocrats andeven some church leaders.52

However, the inherent vulnerability of slaves to sexual exploitation doesnot imply that slaves and former slaves had no family life or did not alsofeel the importance of marital and parental bonds. Although pre-Christianliterary sources focus almost exclusively on the upper classes, Latin in-scriptions can illuminate family life among the lower classes. Studies ofgrave inscriptions from late republican and imperial Rome have demon-strated that not only were people of free (often freed) and slave statusliving together in permanent relationships and raising families, but theyalso appropriated the terminology of legal marriage to describe these rela-tionships, which were properly termed contubernia rather than conubia.53The freedman butcher Aurelius Hermia described his freedwoman wife as"chaste, modest, unknown to the common crowd, faithful to her hus-band." The freedwoman Furia Spes commemorated her "dearest hus-band" (coniunx carissimus) with whom she had been "bound by love"since youth; an "evil hand" had separated them.54

Unfortunately, there is much less material extant for the period betweenthe death of Alexander Severus in 235 and the death of Constantine in 337,particularly from the West. A marriage contract dated 260 from Oxy-rhynchus in Egypt records that Aurelia Thaesis (accompanied by a manwho may have been her kyrios, or legal guardian) had given her daughterin marriage to Aurelius Arsinous; presumably the girl's father was dead.The dowry, consisting of jewelry and several fine shawls, is carefully listedand detailed arrangements for the return of the dowry are made in the

51. Traditional view in Horace, Satire 1.2. On "double standard," see esp. Treggiari,Roman Marriage, 299-309.

52. Brown, Body and Society (cited n. 2), 23-4. Pagan philosophers' objections todouble standard: e.g., Musonius Rufus (cited n. 42); cf. Plutarch Advice 44, 47 (Bab-bitt).

53. See Beryl Rawson, "Family Life among the Lower Classes at Rome in the FirstTwo Centuries of the Empire," CPh. 61 (1966): 71-83 and "Roman Concubinage andOther de facto Marriages," T.A.P.A. 104 (1974): 279-305; S. M. Treggiari, "Concu-binae," P.B.S.R. 49 (1981): 59-81 and "Contubernates in CIL 6," Phoenix 35 (1981):41-69; Paul Weaver, Famila Caesaris: A Social Study of the Emperor's Freedmen andSlaves (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1972), 95-195.

54. Aurelius Herma: ILS 74772. Furia Spes: 8006. Cf. also 7804; 7674; 8451 (allfrom Rome); 7805 (Capua).


event that the marriage should end in divorce. In another document, Au-relia Kyrilla gives herself in marriage to Aurelius Pasigonis, who under-takes to supply all her needs to the best of his ability and they both agree tokeep "the rights (ta dikaia) of marriage"; no dowry is mentioned.55Among the few ancient papyri found outside of Egypt is a marriage con-tract of 232 found at Dura Europos, a Roman military outpost on theEuphrates, recording the marriage of Aurelius Alexander to Aurelia Mar-cellina. The marriage took place not at Dura but in a place called Qatna atthe camp of the Cohors DuodÃ©cima Palestinorum, to which the bride-groom belonged. The bride was a widow who, like Aurelia Kyrilla, isexplicitly said to give herself in marriage (her mother and brother werepresent for the occasion; there is no mention of a kyrios). The bride'sdowry includes clothing (whose monetary value is also given), cookingutensils, jewelry and 565 silver denarii. The fragmentary end of the docu-ment makes provision for divorce.56

Part of a marriage contract dated 305 survives from Hermopolis inEgypt. The union is said to take place "according to the Papian-Poppaeanlaw," and the bride is explicitly described as "consenting" (eudokousa) tothe union. Again the bride is given in marriage by her mother; the groom,evidently under twenty-five, has a legal guardian (curator). The documentbreaks off in the middle of the description of the dowry, which includesclothing, linen, "feminine implements" and two slaves.57

Out of about two dozen papyrus documents attesting divorce that sur-vive, only a handful date from the third and fourth centuries. Usually theyinvolve divorce by mutual consent. The couple would draw up a documentrecording the return of the dowry and other items (parapherna) to the wifeand renouncing claims on each other's property and person, and eachparty would receive a copy.58 In two divorce documents from Dura Eu-ropus (both third century), each spouse agrees to pay a fine (half to theother party and half to the imperial fiscus) if he or she breaks the agree-ment. The couple in a divorce agreement from Egypt dated 305/6 declares

55. Aurelia Thaesis: P. Oxy. X. 1273. Aurelia Kyrilla: P. Oxy. XLIX.3500 (no date;apparently not an official document but a record kept by the couple).

56. P. Dura 30, in C. B. Welles, R. O. Fink and J. F. Gilliam, The Excavations at Dura-Europus: Final Report V, Part I: The Parchments and Papyri (New Haven: Yale U. Press,1959), 153-9.

57. P. Vind, Bosw. 5. For the "Papian-Poppaean Law," see below at n. 65. Curator:from the early 3rd c. on, both males and females under age 25 whose paterfamilias wasdead were required to have a legal guardian; the tutor appointed for pre-pubescentfatherless children was replaced by a curator at puberty (considered to be age 12 forgirls).

58. For divorce agreements, see Montevecchi (cited note 26).


that their marriage broke up through the machinations of a "wicked dai-mon" and that each has received back what he or she brought into themarriage. The wife, Senpsais, has recovered her dowry and other items ofher own, and the husband, Soul, acknowledges that he has "received in fullall the objects given to her by me in any manner whatsoever and I will nothereafter take proceedings against her about cohabitation or wedding-gift(hedna)."59 This is an early reference in the papyri to the pre-nuptial gift(called donatio ante nuptias in late Roman law) presented by the prospec-tive bridegroom to his fiancÃ©e, as a counterpart to the dowry provided bythe bride's family. This gift (which could be quite substantial) was oftenseen as a compensation for the bride's loss of virginity and was intended tohelp sustain her in the event of her husband's pre-deceasing her. Though itremained in the husband's control during the marriage (like the dowry, butunlike the gifts given by sponsus to sponsa in classical Roman law andsociety), he would forfeit it to his wife if he divorced her without goodreason. Such a gift seems to have been customary in the eastern Mediterra-nean, especially among Semitic peoples. For Jews in the Talmudic period(c. 200-500), it was part of the marriage settlement (ketoubah) made atthe time of betrothal.60

Some sense of the ideological construct of marriage in the early fourthcentury can be gleaned from contemporary panegyric. In the Greek East,the handbook of "Menander Rhetor" provided instructions to aspiringpanegyricists on the composition of a wedding hymn (epithalamium):

After the proemia there should follow a sort of thematic passage on the godof marriage, including the general consideration of the proposition that mar-riage is a good thing. You should begin far back, telling how Marriage wascreated by Nature immediately after the dispersal of Chaos, and perhaps alsohow Love too was created then. . . . You should go on to say that the order-ing of the universe . . . took place because of Marriage. . . . [Marriage] alsomade ready to create man, and contrived to make him virtually immortal,furnishing successive generations to accompany the passage of time. . . . Mar-riage gives us immortality ... it is due to Marriage that the sea is sailed, theland is farmed, philosophy and knowledge of heavenly things exist, as well aslaws and civil governmentsÂ—in brief, all human things.61

In the kateunastikos (bedroom speech), when the couple is to be ex-59. P. Dura 31 (204) and 32 (254) in Welles et al. (cited note 56), 160-69; P. Grenf.

11.76, trans, from A. S. Hunt and C. C. Edgar, Select Papyri (Cambridge, MA: LoebClassical Library, 1932), vol. I, p. 27. Hedna are also mentioned in P. Sakaon 38 (312).

60. On the pre-nuptial gift, see Anne, Les Rites de fianÃ§ailles (cited Î·. 13).61. Menander Rhetor, Treatise H[VI] in D. A. Russell and N. G. Wilson, Menander

Rhetor (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 136-9, whose translation I quote. See also D. A.Russell, "Rhetors at the Wedding," P.C.Ph.S. 1979, 104-17.


horted to fulfill marriage's primary goal, sexual intercourse for the pur-pose of providing descendants, Menander advises rhetors to ". . . add aprayer, asking the gods to grant them goodwill and harmony, happiness (?)in their union, a mingling of souls as of bodies, so that the children may belike both parents. . . . And you may add: 'so that you can provide childrenfor the city, who will flourish in letters, in generosity, in charitable benefac-tions.'"62

A less mythologically oriented epithalamium was given at Trier in 307by an unknown panegyricist to celebrate the nuptials of Constantine andFausta and the alliance between Constantine and Fausta's father Maxi-mian:63

This is a true sense of duty (pietas), this [is] the desire of preserving the hu-man race, to give an example to [your] peoples for seeking marriages morezealously and for bringing up children, so that as the succeeding generationsof individuals take their place, the fact that each person is mortal shall notbe an obstacle, since the commonwealth shall be immortal in the posterity ofall.

This idea, that matrimony was an honorable and desirable conditionenjoined upon citizens by the state that ensured the continuation of thehuman race and provided a sort of communal immortality, appears widelyin imperial sources, including Roman law.64 Roman legal sources can alsoprovide evidence for the ideology of marriage espoused by the rulingpower, and help to elucidate our fragmentary knowledge of practice in thefirst three centuries of the Empire, and point up where "Christian" ideol-ogy and practice differed from, and where they simply continued, pre-Christian "pagan" norms.

IMPERIAL LEGISLATION ON MARRIAGE

Imperial legislation on marriage begins with Augustus, whose Lex Julia demaritandis ordinibus and Lex Julia de adulteriis (both of 18 b.c.e.) andLex Papia-Poppaea (c.E. 9) turned what had previously been a privatefamily responsibility into a public concern, and established the basis formarriage legislation for the next five hundred years. The Augustan legisla-tion attempted to repress adultery and other irregular sexual activity and

62. Menander Rhetor, Treatise H[VII], trans. Russell and Wilson, 150-2.63. Panegyric 6.2.3 in X/7 Panegyrici Latini, ed. R. A. B. Mynors (Oxford: O.U.P.,

1964). My translation.64. D.50.16.220.3 (Callistratus); Musonius Rufus XIV (Lutz, 90-7); speech of Au-

gustus to Ã©quitÃ©s reported in Cassius Dio 56.2-9 (Loeb ed.).


to mandate marriage and childbearing for all adult Roman citizens, partic-ularly those of the upper classes.65

Before Augustus, a married woman suspected of adultery or othergrave misconduct was judged and punished by a council (consilium) ofher husband and male relatives.66 But under the lex Julia de adulteriis,adultery and stuprum were for the first time designated public crimesrather than offenses to be punished within the family. Adultery, in Ro-man legal (and social) terms, was extra-marital sexual relations with orby a married woman; the term stuprum covered illicit sexual relations ingeneral, including adultery and relations with a vidua (a widow or di-vorcee) or with an unmarried virgin or a boy of respectable status. Men(married or single) who had sex with slaves, prostitutes or others consid-ered beneath the legal and social definitions of respectability were notcommitting adultery or stuprum according to Roman law, and so werenot liable to prosecution.67

Under the Augustan law, a woman could not be prosecuted for adulterywhile still married; her husband had to divorce her before he or anyone elsecould bring charges. A husband who did not divorce a wife he had caughtin the act of adultery was liable to charges of pandering ( lenocinium ) .68 If awoman's husband had divorced her, but neither he nor her father chose toprosecute within sixty days after the divorce, prosecution was open tooutsiders (extranet), but if he did not divorce her, an accuser would haveto bring about the conviction of her alleged lover first or accuse her hus-band of lenocinium.69 A woman could not be prosecuted for adulterymore than six months after her divorce or five years after the alleged act ofadultery; her lover could not be prosecuted more than five years after the

65. Bibliography on the Augustan legislation is vast. Some of the most recent work is:Treggiari, Roman Marriage, 37-80; Riccardo Astolfi, La lex Iulia et Papia, 2nd ed.(Padua: Antonio Milani, 1986); Andrew Wallace-Hadrill, "Family and Inheritance inthe Augustan Marriage Laws," P.CPh.S. 207 (1981 ): 58-80; Dieter NÃ¶rr, "The Matri-monial Legislation of Augustus: An Early Instance of Social Engineering," Irish Jurist 16(1981): 350-64; and Pal Csillag, The Augustan Laws of Family Relations (Budapest:AkadÃ©miai KiadÃ³, 1976).

66. On the consilium, see Treggiari, Roman Marriage, 264-8. Dionysius of Halicar-nassus, Antiquities 2.25.7 attributes its establishment to Romulus.

67. Lex Julia de adulteriis D.48.5 and 48.2.3; Treggiari, Roman Marriage, 277-90.Definition of adultery and stuprum; D.48.5.6.1 and 50.16.101 pr.; Gardner, Women inRoman Law, 121-31; Treggiari, ibid. 263-A.

68. D.48.5.2.2-7; 48.5.30 pr. This was still the case in the 3rd c: cf. CJ 9.9.2 (199);9.9.9 (224); 9.9.27 (295).

69. D.48.5.4.1; 48.5.27 pr.; 48.5.31.1; 48.5.40.1. If she had been divorced but hadremarried, an accuser would have to prosecute her lover first: D.48.5.2 pr.; 48.5.5;48.5.12.11. The procedure for lodging an accusation is given at D.48.2.3 pr.


adultery.70 A wife could not prosecute her husband for adultery, but underclassical Roman law, she could divorce him and get her dowry back.71

In the early Empire, adultery defendants in Rome came before a stand-ing court (quaestio perpetua) established by Augustus, although membersof the senatorial aristocracy might be tried before the Senate instead.Sometimes the Emperor himself would judge a case.72 A woman convictedof adultery was relegated to an island and lost a third of her property andhalf her dowry, and could not contract a valid marriage again. Her lover,who would have to be tried and convicted separately, would be relegatedto a different island and lose half of his property.73

Under the lex Julia de maritandis ordinibus and the lex Papia-Poppaea,men who were still unmarried by twenty-five and women unmarried bytwenty forfeited their right to receive inheritances or legacies from non-relatives (or from relatives beyond the sixth degree of kinship); those whowere married but had no children forfeited half of such inheritances orbequests. On the other hand, there were rewards for those who compliedwith the law: men were given preference in appointments to office, andfreeborn women with three children (freedwomen with four children)were granted the "right of [three] children" (ius liberorum), and releasedfrom the perpetual legal "guardianship of women" (tutela mulierum).74

Also under the lex Julia de maritandis ordinibus, the marriage of sena-tors or their children or grandchildren with freed persons or actors wasforbidden, as was marriage of freeborn persons (ingenui) with prostitutesor others who had legal infamy. While such unions might still occur, thepartners were liable to the financial penalties mentioned above in regard totheir inheritance rights.75 By making legitimate marriage between those of

70. D.48.5.30.5-7; 48.5.32; D.48.16.1.10; CJ 9.9.5 (223).71. CJ 9.9.1 (197). Women could only bring criminal charges in certain circum-

stances: e.g., concerning the death of a close relation or patron (D.48.2.1; 48.2.2 pr), orrelating to the grain supply (D.48.2.13).

72. Quaestio: Peter Garnsey, "Adultery Trials and the Survival of the Quaestiones inthe Severan Age," J.R.S. 57 (1967): 56-60; R. A. Bauman, "Some Remarks on theStructure and Survival of the Quaestio de Adulteriis," Antichthon 2 (1968): 68-93.Trials in Senate: P. Garnsey, Social Status and Legal Privilege in the Roman Empire(Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1970), 21-24. Before emperor: Pliny, Ep. 6.31 (Trajan).

73. Sententiae Pauli 2.26.14 (in FIRA2 II, 352); Csillag, Augustan Laws (cited n. 65),195-9. A woman convicted of adultery was also branded with infamia and could not actas a witness: D.23.2.43.12; 22.5.18; cf. 28.1.20.6.

74. Regulae Ulpiani 15, 16 and 18 (text in FIRA2 II, 278-80); cf. Tacitus, Annales3.25 and 28; Treggiari, Roman Marriage, 60-80. On the ius liberorum and Romanfertility, see Tim Parkin, Demography and Roman Society (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins U.Press, 1992), 111-133.

75. D.23.2.43-44; cf. 23.2.23; Regulae Ulpiani 13 (FIRA2 II, 277).


senatorial birth and those of slave birth impossible, Augustus effectivelypromoted an alternative form of monogamous union, concubinatus. Con-cubinatus (usually translated, somewhat inaccurately, as "concubinage")was not, by the Roman definition, an extra-marital relationship between amarried man and a mistress, but a monogamous, possibly lifelong unionbetween partners whose respective legal and social status precludediustum matrimonium. Such concubinatus with a social inferior might beentered upon by young men not yet ready for the responsibility of legiti-mate marriage with a social equal (like Augustine in the fourth century) orby older men who already had children by a previous legal union and didnot want to produce more legitimate offspring.76

The Augustan laws continued in effect through the third century, withlater revisions and additions. The legislation penalizing celibacy and pro-moting childbearing remained "on the books" until the fourth centurythough it seems to have been unpopular and not particularly effective.77Childbearing was further encouraged by imperial grants of exemptionfrom service as a legal guardian of a minor to inhabitants of Rome withthree children (and to Italians with four children and provincials withfive).78 Septimius Severus and Caracalla decided that a woman who hadhad an abortion without her husband's consent was to go into temporaryexileÂ—not out of concern for the fetus, but on the grounds that her hus-band had been unjustly defrauded of offspring.79

Periodically, an emperor would express particular concern for the moralconduct of his subjects and revive the adultery law by encouraging pros-ecution. This happened in the late first century under Domitian and in thelate second century under Septimius Severus. Septimius Severus and Car-acalla also extended the right of prosecution for adultery to fiancÃ©s(sponsi), though a sponsus could bring charges only as an outsider (extra-neus), not as a husband.80 The quaestio de adulteriis was no longer active

76. On concubinatus, see Rawson, "Roman Concubinage" and Treggiari, "Concu-binae" (both cited note 53); T. A. J. McGinn, "Concubinage and the Lex Julia onAdultery," T.A.P.A. 121 (1991): 335-75. Augustine's concubine: Conf. 4.2. and 6.12-15; good discussion in John T. Noonan, Jr., Contraception, enlarged ed. (Cambridge:MA: Harvard U. Press, 1986), 125-26.

77. See J. Evans Grubbs, "Constantine and Imperial Legislation on the Family" inThe Theodosian Code, ed. Jill Harries and Ian Wood (London: Duckworth; Ithaca:CornellU.Press, 1993), 120-142, at 122-23. Balanced discussion of laws'effectivenessin NÃ¶rr (Î·. 65).

78. CJ 5.66.1 (203), a rescript of Septimius Severus and Caracalla.79. D.47.11.4, a rescript. See Gardner, Women in Roman Law, 159.80. Domitian: Martial, 6.7; Suetonius, Domitian 8.3. Septimius Severus: Cassius Dio,

Epitome of Book 77,16.4 (Loeb numbering). Prosecution oÃsponsa: D.48.4.14.3 and 8.


by the end of the Severan period, having been replaced by a trial before ajudge (cognitio extra ordinem). In Rome and within a hundred miles be-yond Rome, the judge would be the urban prefect; in the rest of Italy and inthe provinces, cases would be judged by the governor of the province.8 J Bythe third century, adultery merited a "capital" penalty, although whetherthis meant death or exile (a harsher penalty than relegation) is unclear.82

After Augustus, further restrictions were placed on the unions betweenthose of widely disparate social status, particularly unions between free orfreeborn people and slaves or former slaves. The senatusconsultum Clau-dianum of c.e. 52 penalized free women who lived in a quasi-maritalrelationship (contubernium) with another's slave by reducing them to thestatus of the owner's freedwomen or slave; children of the union might alsobe slaves.83 Marcus Aurelius and Commodus decreed that unions betweenmembers of the senatorial aristocracy and former slaves had no legalvalidity whatever, whereas previously they had simply not been iustummatrimonium according to the Augustan laws.84 And a private rescript ofSeptimius Severus states that a freedman who married his patrona or hispatron's wife, daughter, granddaughter, or great-granddaughter could beprosecuted.85 On the other hand, Septimius Severus seems to have re-moved the rule against the marriage of Roman soldiers which had been inexistence since Augustus: they no longer had to wait until they were re-leased from service for their unions to become iustum matrimonium andtheir children to be legitimate.86

Until the early third century, these laws applied to Roman citizens only.In the provinces non-citizens under Roman rule continued to follow the

81. Exactly when the quaestiones went out of use in Rome is disputed. Garnsey,"Adultery Trials," argues for pre-Severan date, Bauman, "Some Remarks" for just afterSeveran period. The quaestio de adulteriis was the last to go. Urban prefect: A. Chastag-nol, La PrÃ©fecture urbaine Ã Rome sous le Bas-Empire (Paris: Presses Universitairesde France, 1960), 84-91 and 379-84. Governor: Garnsey, "Adultery Trials," 57; CJ9.9.16(256).

82. CJ 9.9.9 (224) mentions poena capitalis and 2.4.18 (293) crimen capitalis; theseare used by Garnsey, Social Status and Legal Privilege, 111, note 3 as evidence for deathpenalty. But in the 3rd c. a capital penalty could mean the severest form of exile as well asexecution, at least for honestiores, cf. D.48.1.2 (Paulus); D.2.11.4 pr; 48.19.2.

83. Gaius, Institutes 1.84-86; Tacitus, Annales 12.53; P. R. C. Weaver, FamiliaCaesaris (cited n. 53), 162-9; J. Evans Grubbs," 'Marriage More Shameful than Adul-tery': Slave-Mistress Relations, 'Mixed Marriages,' and Late Roman Law," Phoenix 47(1993): 125-54.

84. D.23.2.16 pr.; cf. 24.1.3.1.85. CJ 5.4.3 (196); Evans Grubs, "'Marriage More Shameful,'" (cited n. 83),

128-30.

86. J. B. Campbell, "The Marriage of Soldiers under the Empire," J.R.S. 68 (1978):153-66; Dixon, Roman Family (cited n. 1), 55-8.

GRUBBS/'TAGAN" AND "CHRISTIAN" MARRIAGE 383

marriage laws and customs of their forefathers, even if these customs werenot in accordance with Roman law. There is substantial papyrologicalevidence for the practice of brother-sister marriage among Egyptian andGreek inhabitants of Roman Egypt, although marriage within the seconddegree of kinship went against Roman law and Roman mores.87 TheGnomon of the ldiologos, from around the middle of the second century,contains a number of regulations on marriage and the disposal of propertyamong Roman citizens. From these rules it appears that imperial officialsin Egypt (and presumably elsewhere, though we cannot be sure) couldconfiscate the property, including inheritances and legacies, of Romanswho followed non-Roman marriage practices or who did not meet therequirements of the Augustan marriage legislation.88

In 212, the Constitutio Antoniniana of Caracalla bestowed Romancitizenship on all free inhabitants of the Empire, and thereby extended theapplication of Roman law to all imperial subjects. In theory, this wouldhave meant that all new citizens were bound by the Roman law of mar-riage, but in fact Caracalla's decree appears to have had little effect onmarriage practice in the provinces. In the West, many provincials in thecities had received the citizenship before 212, and in any case the westernprovinces did not have well-developed pre-Roman legal systems whichmight conflict with Roman imperial law.89 In the East, on the other hand,it appears that by and large people continued to follow their local laws andcustoms, which might be of much greater antiquity than those of theRomans. Many inhabitants of eastern provinces were not familiar withRoman law, and the large number of imperial rescripts to individuals onmarriage-related matters, such as betrothal gifts and adultery prosecu-tions, demonstrates the problems involved in applying the principles ofRoman marriage law to new citizens who were essentially ignorant of it.90But in general, third-century emperors do not seem to have been concernedto enforce Roman marriage law in the provinces, apart from responding

87. Hopkins, "Brother-Sister Marriage." On mariage and law in Roman Egypt, seeJ. Modrzejewski, "Le Droit de famille dans les lettres privÃ©es grecques d'Egypte,"Journal of Juristic Papyri 9-10 (1955/56), 339-63; R. Taubenschlag, The Law ofGreco-Roman Egypt in the Light of the Papyri, 2nd ed. (Warsaw, 1955).

88. A partial text of the Gnomon is found in FIRA21,470-8; trans, and notes in A. C.Johnson, P. R. Coleman-Norton, and F. C. Bourne, Ancient Roman Statutes (Austin: U.of Texas Press, 1969), 210-13. Note paragraphs 23-33,39,46,52-54 on marriage andinheritance.

89. On the Constitutio Antoniniana, see A. N. Sherwin-White, The Roman Citizen-ship, 2nd ed. (Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1973), 279-87 and 380-94.

90. On third-century imperial rescripts and the rescript system, see T. HonorÃ©, Em-perors and Lawyers (London: Duckworth, 1981) and Fergus Millar, The Emperor in theRoman World (Ithaca: Cornell U. Press, 1977), esp. 240-52 and 537-49.


via rescript to petitions from subjects unsure of the law. This is not surpris-ing, especially in view of the continual political and military crises andrapid turnover of emperors. Studies of imperial rescripts issued between235-284 have concluded that Roman legal standards and procedurescontinued to follow classical precedents even in the troubled conditions ofthe mid-third century.91

Papyrological evidence does indicate a definite decline in brother-sistermarriages in Egypt after 212, presumably in response to the new demandsof Roman law. However, close-kin unions did not cease completely in theNear East. On 1 May 295, an imperial edict was issued at Damascuscondemning all close-kin marriages made contrary to Roman law andcomparing incestuous unions to the matings of cattle or wild beasts," without any respect for modesty (pudor) or piety. " Children born of theseunions were declared illegitimate, and anyone who contracted such amarriage after December 30 of the year before was to be harshly punished.The penalty is not specified, except that it is to be "of worthy severity"Â—presumably the death penalty, since those who have entered upon inces-tuous unions in the past are told that they should be grateful that they havebeen allowed to live.92 (However, despite repeated attempts by later em-perors to enforce conformity with Roman taboos against close-kin mar-riage, the practice persisted in some regions well into the Byzantine pe-riod.93)

We are fortunate to have this tetrarchic edict fully preserved in theMosaicarum et Romanarum Legum Collatio, an interesting collection ofparallel passages from the Septuagint and Roman law compiled in thefourth century by someone (presumably a Christian or Jew) who wantedto demonstrate the similarities between the two legal systems.94 The edict'spurpose was to ensure that all Roman citizens obey the ancient laws of theRomans and "that they know that only those marriges are

91. E.g., Alan Watson, "Private Law in the Rescripts of Cams, Carinus, and Numer-ianus," Tijdschrift voor Rechtgeschiedenis 19 (1973): 19-34; "The Rescripts of theEmperor Probus," Tulane Law Review 48 (1974): 1122-28; Fr. Wieacker, "Le Droitromain de la mort d'Alexandre SÃ©vÃ¨re Ã l'avÃ¨nement de DioclÃ©tien," R.H.D.F.E. 49(1971): 201-23.

92. The edict is found in Mos. et Rom. Leg. Collatio 6.4 (in FIRA2 II, 580-1 ). A briefextract is preserved at CJ 5.4.17. See T. D. Barnes, Constantine and Eusebius (Cam-bridge, MA: Harvard U. Press, 1981), 19-20 and 295 and The New Empire of Diocle-tian and Constantine (Cambridge, MA: Harvard U. Press, 1982), 54 and 62-63, wherehe attributes the edict to the Caesar Galerius rather than Diocletian.

93. Cf. CTh 3.12.1 & 3; 3.10.1; CJ 5.5.4 & 5; 5.4.19; 5.5.8 & 9; A. D. Lee, "Close-Kin Marriage in Late Antique Mesopotamia," G.R.B.S. 29 (1988): 403-13.

94. On the Collatio: Jean Gaudemet, La Formation du droit sÃ©culier et du droit del'Ã‰glise aux IVe et Ve siÃ¨cle, 2nd ed. (Paris, 1979), 96-8.


licit, which have been permitted by Roman law." Only in this way can theRoman people hope to keep the favor and goodwill of the gods: "For thusthere is no doubt that the immortal gods themselves will be well-disposedand reconciled to the Roman name, as they always have been, if we haveseen to it that all living under our rule lead a pious and religious andpeaceful and chaste (casta) life entirely in all respects." This is not simply aquestion of penalizing a custom offensive to Roman sensibilities; the pre-servation of the Empire itself is at stake. The same urgency of purpose andoutraged denunciation of immorality and sacrilege is found in Diocletian'sEdict on Prices and in his law against the spread of Manicheism, and nodoubt his decrees against the Christians also displayed this tone of venge-ful piety.

In both tone and content, Diocletian's edict against close-kin marriageanticipates legislation on marriage and sexual morality by later, Christianemperors, and this should warn us against assuming that the self-righteouswrath and moral indignation evident in the laws of the Theodosian Codearise from a new, "Christian" ethos. Other third-century examples ofimperial concern for the preservation of sexual morality are found in theCodex Justinianus. Septimius Severus insisted on a penalty suitable to the"mores of my times" for the freedman who "dared" to marry his formermistress. Proper prosecution under the Augustan law "is in keeping withthe chastity (castitas) of my times," according to Alexander Severus; and inencouraging adultery prosecutions, the Tetrarchs declared: "We so havepudor at heart."95 Although it has been claimed that these are interpola-tions by Justinian's compilers and therefore are due to Christian influence,it is unlikely that the compilers would have taken the time to interpolatesentiments of sexual morality into so many pre-Christian imperial re-scripts.96 If anything, in the course of the third century there may havebeen a "hardening of the public mood"97 in regard to sexual moralityÂ—amood confirmed, but not initiated, by the conversion of the Empire's rulersto Christianity. Christian emperors of the later Empire did indeed intro-duce substantial modifications into classical law on marriage and the fam-ily, but caution must be exercised in attributing these changes to the em-perors' religious beliefs when there were so many other factors at work inlate antique society.98

95. Septimius Severus: CJ 5.4.3 (note 85 above). Alexander Severus: CJ 9.9.9 (224);cf. 9.9.10 (225). Tetrarchs: CJ 9.9.27 (295); cf. 2.4.18 (293).

96. See JoÃ«lle Beaucamp, "Le Vocabulaire de la faiblesse feminine dans les textesjuridiques romains du HIe au Vie siÃ¨cle," R.H.D.F.E. 54 (1976): 485-508.

97. Brown, Body and Society, 22.98. There has long been debate over the extent of Christian influence on late Roman


Under Constantine, much of Augustus' legislation was repealed or mod-ified. A law of 320 abrogated the penalties on the unmarried and childless.This was part of a longer edict designed to ease restrictions in the Roman lawof inheritance and remedy other constraints on Roman subjects. WhileChristian influence has often been claimed for Constantine's repeal of thepenalties on celibates, it is more likely that these measures were intended towin favor from the senatorial aristocracy of Rome and other upper-classcitizens in the western half of the Empire who had always resented imperialattempts to curtail their personal liberty and their inheritance rights. (Fur-thermore, in 320 the East, where the great majority of Christians lived, wasstill under the control of Licinius and would have been unaffected byConstantine's laws until after his victory over Licinius four years later.)99

Constantine also modified Augustus' adultery legislation by restrictingthe right to accuse a woman of adultery to her husband and close malerelatives. No longer could unrelated third parties (extranet) bring suchcharges, though they could still accuse a married woman's alleged malelovers and bring charges of stuprum against unmarried women. Constan-tine entrusted a married woman's family with the duty of guarding hersexual behavior, thereby marking a return to the official attitude towardadultery in Rome before Augustus. But the legal definition of adultery asextramarital relations with or by a married woman of respectable statusdid not change under the Christian emperors of the late Empire, and amarried man's extramarital liaisons with slaves, prostitutes and otherwomen of low status remained outside the concern of the law.100

In addition, in 331 Constantine introduced restrictions on the right ofone spouse to repudiate the other unilaterally. His divorce law represents

law. In regard to Christian influence on Roman marriage law, the greatest contributionshave been made by the French scholar Jean Gaudemet: see for instance, "Tendancesnouvelles de la legislation familiale au IVe siÃ¨cle," in Transformations et conflits au IVesiÃ¨cle aprÃ¨s J.-C, Antiquitas 29 (Bonn, 1978), 187-207 and the articles collected inSociÃ©tÃ©s et mariage (Strasbourg, 1980). Also excellent is Manlio Sargenti, "Matrimoniocristiano e societÃ pagana," S.D.H.I. 1985, 367-91, reprinted in Accademia Ro-manistica Costantiniana: Atti VII Convegno (Perugia, 1988), along with many otherpapers from the seventh conference of ARC, all dealing with late Roman marriage law.On the question of Christian influence on Constantine's legislation, see my forthcomingbook (cited n. 3) and "Constantine and Imperial Legislation" (cited n. 77).

99. Codex Theodosianus 8.16.1 (ed. Th. Mommsen, Berlin 1905, hereafter CTh);Evans Grubbs, "Constantine and Imperial Legislation," 122-26.

100. Restriction of right of extranei: CTh 9.7.2 (326). Legal definition: CTh 9.7.1(326) uses traditional Roman legal and social criteria to define which women are thosewith whom adultery can be committed and which are beneath the notice of the law.


a complete overhaul of the procedures for unilateral divorce in effectsince Augustus, and almost reverts to the legal position of divorce in theearly Republic, when wives could not divorce their husbands and hus-bands who repudiated their wives for any but the most serious miscon-duct were penalized. In this case, it is not unreasonable to see Christianinfluences at work, though Constantine's law does not entirely corre-spond to Christian teachings. It was apparently annulled by his nephew,the emperor Julian, but in the fifth century restrictions on unilateraldivorce were re-introduced, though in a milder form than under Con-stantine (in particular, the harsh criminal penalties that he had threatenedagainst wives who illegally repudiated their husbands were mitigated).101

In regard to unions between those of different social status, however,earlier imperial legislation was not repealed but expanded to cover previ-ously unpenalized unions. Constantine extended the Augustan ban onmarriage between senators and their descendants with former slaves oractors to apply also to officials of the provincial and municipal aristocra-cies, and men who attempted to benefit their illegitimate offspring bylowborn women whom they were forbidden by law to marry were pun-ished by loss of citizen rights and legal infamy. Here especially it is clearthat legislation was motivated not by Christian concerns, but by increasedsocial mobility and imperial creation of a new aristocracy, especially in theeastern Empire.102THE MARRIAGE ALLIANCE AMONG CHRISTIANS

In general, ante-Nicene Christian moralists have little to say about mar-riage or family life; it would be more than fifty years after Constantine'sdeath before attempts to set forth an ethics of marital relationships weremade, by John Chrysostom in the East and especially by Augustine in theWest.103 Early Christian moralists who do discuss the role of marriage inChristian life are usually writing in response to challenges or threats from

101. CTh 3.16.1 (331); Evans Grubbs, "Constantine and Imperial Legislation,"127-30; Arjava, "Divorce in Later Roman Law" (cited n. 22); Roger Bagnall, "Church,State and Divorce in Late Roman Egypt" in Florilegium Columbianum: Essays inHonor of Paul Oskar Kristeller, ed. R. E. Somerville and K.-L. Selig (New York: Colum-bia U. Press, 1987), 41-61.

102. See Evans Grubbs, " 'Marriage worse than Adultery,' " 140-50.103. Excerpts from Chrysostom collected and trans, in Catherine P. Roth and David

Anderson, St. John Chrysostom on Marriage and Family Life (New York: St. Vladimir'sSeminary Press, 1986), esp. 14-23; cf. Brown, Body and Society, 305-22. For Au-gustine, see esp. de bono coniugali (CSEL 41,187-231) and ad Pollentium de adulter-inas coniugiis (ibid., 347-410); Brown, Body and Society, 387-427.


those outside or (more often) within the Christian community, whoseattitudes or practices they believe to be immoral and dangerous. Thus thefullest ante-Nicene exposition of the "Christian" position on marriage, byClement of Alexandria, is a response to this "radical fringe" (Encratites,Marcionites, Gnostics) who completely denigrated marriage, and the clos-ing chapter of Tertullian's second treatise To His Wife, often praised for itssympathetic and moving evocation of the beauty of Christian marriage,was intended as a contrast to the horrors of "mixed" marriages betweenpagan men and Christian women, and not a spontaneous outburst ofpraise for the institution of marriage per se.104

It is therefore difficult to extract information about the marriage ideol-ogy and practices of ordinary Christians in the ante-Nicene period fromcontemporary Christian writers. Occasionally we can get glimpses fromstray remarks in apologetic or doctrinal literature. The arranged marriagepreceded by betrothal seems to have been customary among Christians inthe Empire, as it was among non-Christians.105 Tertullian implies thatamong Christians at Carthage (and probably elsewhere in the West), bothnuptial and dotal contracts were drawn up, and betrothal rites (sponsalia)were marked by the exchange of a kiss and the clasping of hands.106Interestingly, he also suggests more than once that men chose their ownwives (rather than having their marriages arranged by their parents) andthat sexual attraction, or at least approval of a prospective wife's physicalappearance, was a determining factor.107

Tertullian also reproached Christian parents for marrying off theirvirgin daughters at a later age than was customary among pagans. He mayhave been thinking of the practices of the pagan urban elite, where (atRome at any rate, and presumably also at Carthage), women often mar-ried in their early teens, not long after turning twelve, the legal age ofmarriage. Christian inscriptions from Rome (dating from the mid-third

104. Clement's writings on marriage and sex are mainly in Book 3 of his Stromateis;see J. E. L. Oulton and H. Chadwick, Alexandrian Christianity (London, 1954), 21-39(intro.); 40-91 (text). Cf. Brown, Body and Society, 122-39. Tertullian: ad Uxorem2.8.6-9.

105. See B. Shaw, "The Family in Late Antiquity: The Experience of Augustine," Pastand Present 115 (1987): 3-51, at 34-6 for Christians in Roman Africa; David Noy,"Matchmakers and Marriage-Markets in Antiquity," E.CM./C.V 1990, 375-400 forGreek East.

106. Tabulae: de Pudicitia 1.20. Osculum and handclasp: de virginibus velandis 11.3and 5; cf. de oratione 22.10. See Anne, Les Rites 63-73; Treggiari, Roman Marriage,149-51.

107. Cf. de exhort, castitatis 9.2 (addressing widowers who wish to remarry); decultu feminarum 2.4.1 (addressing married women).


through the sixth century) indicate that in late antiquity Christian womandid tend to marry in their late teens, somewhat later than in pre-ChristianRome.108 However, the age differential is probably not a reflection ofreligious difference: the Christian inscriptions may well reflect marriagepractices outside the Roman aristocracy even in the pre-Christian period,where there is evidence for later age at marriage.109

At least some Christians wished to have the consent and blessing of theirbishop or the leader of their congregation, and by the end of the fourthcentury it had become customary in some regions of the Empire for a priestto bless the marriage of a Christian couple.110 Already in the early secondcentury Ignatius, the bishop of Antioch, had declared, "It is right that menand women who marry be united with the consent (gnome) of the bishop,in order that the marriage be according to the Lord and not according tolust."111 But here, as elsewhere in his writings, Ignatius was advocating amore prominent role for the bishop in the Christian community than wascommon in his own day or for some time afterwards.

In general, Christians followed the traditional nuptial rites of the prov-ince in which they lived, except that they rejected any customs involvingsacrifice to pagan gods or idolatry. There was no standard or requiredchurch wedding ceremony in either the Latin West or the Greek East untilwell into the Middle Ages.112 To judge from the prescriptions made bychurch leaders regarding the behavior of their flocks, it appears that manyChristians were all too ready to accept traditional pagan wedding rites,including drunken carousing and the serenading of newlyweds with ob-scene songs.113

Egyptian papyri relating to marriage among Christians are unfor-

108. Tertullian, de virgin, vel. 11.6. See H. Leclerq, "Mariage," D.A.C.L. 10.2(1932), col. 1964-73; Hopkins, "The Age of Roman Girls" and Shaw, "The Age ofRoman Girls" (both cited n. 7); C. Vogel, "L'Age des Ã©poux chrÃ©tiens au moment decontracter mariage d'aprÃ¨s les inscriptions palÃ©ochrÃ©tiens," Revue de droit canonique16 (1966): 355-66; C. Carletti, "Aspetti biometrici del matrimonio nelle inscrizionecristiane di Roma," Augustinianum 17 (1977): 39-51.

109. I accept Shaw's conclusions in "The Age of Roman Girls." Carletti sees thedifference as due to change in practice over time.

110. See Anne, Les Rites, 156-9; cf. K. Ritzer, Le Mariage dans les Ã‰glises chrÃ©-tiennes du I au XI siÃ¨cle (Paris, 1970, orig. German ed. 1962), 104-123.

111. To Polycarp 5.2, trans, by Kirsopp Lake in The Apostolic Fathers (Cambridge,MA: Loeb Classical Library, 1912), vol. 1,273. See Anne, Les Rites, 140-2; Ritzer, 81-3. Ignatius' conception of bishop's role: H. Koester, History and Literature of EarlyChristianity: Introduction to the New Testament, vol. 2 (Philadelphia: Fortress Press,1982), 284-5.

112. See Anne, Les Rites, 137-231; Ritzer, 81-97.113. Cf. Council of Laodicea, canons 53-54; Cyprian, de habitu virginum 18.


tunately much less abundant for the fourth century than for the earlierperiod (or for the fifth and sixth centuries). A marriage contract from themid-fourth century reveals the existence of a custom found in othercultures in later times, but not otherwise known in antiquity. The bride-groom, who is explicitly said to be without means, contracts to live withand work for his bride's father. If he abandons his wife (and father-in-law),he must pay a fine of ten nomismata of gold. Since both men are illiterate, athird person signs for themÂ—the papas Ammonius, evidently the localChristian priest, who perhaps also pronounced a nuptial blessing.114 Apetition to the prefect of Egypt dated 312 indicates what could happen ifthe betrothal gifts promised by the bridegroom (hedna) failed to material-ize. The petitioner alleges that his son's father-in-law had abducted hisdaughter and taken her back home, "on the pretext of the marriage gifts,claiming that he did not receive any. "11S And a private letter from a youngman to his future mother-in-law Nonna discusses preparations for theupcoming wedding and respectfully requests that she find a house for thenewlyweds near her own home. The writer adds that if Nonna dislikes theidea of her daughter and son-in-law living so close by he will get hisbrother to make other housing arrangements.116

If Christians really observed Jesus' ban on divorce and Paul's counselagainst remarriage, we could expect that Christian family life was lesssubject to the "dislocation" that Keith Bradley has claimed occurred inRoman marriages of the classical period.117 Prohibition of divorce ex-cept for adultery and prohibition of remarriage after divorce are the twomost often-repeated features of the "Christian" ideology of marriage. Inreality, more leniency was often granted to individual Christians whowished to end their marriage. Already in his first letter to the Corinthians,Paul had allowed dissolution of a marriage when one partner had con-verted to Christianity during the marriage and the non-Christian partnerdemanded a divorce, though he believed that if possible such "mixed"marriages should continue in hopes of the non-Christian partner convert-ing also.118

Justin Martyr recounts an incident at Rome where a woman converted

114. P. Ross. Georg. III.28 (343 or 358); cf. Montevecchi, "Ricerche di socio-logia," 18.

115. P. Sakaon 38 (Theadelphia, 312), translation from The Archive of AureliusSakaon, ed. and trans. George M. Parassoglou (Bonn, 1978).

116. P. Ant. 11.93 (4th c. ).117. "Dislocation": Bradley, Discovering the Roman Family (cited n. 1), esp.

125-55.

118. 1 Corinthians 7.12-16, the so-called "Pauline privilege." See Henri Crouzel,L'Ã‰glise primitive face au divorce (Paris, 1971), 24-5 and 371-2.


to Christianity, renounced the flagrantly immoral life she and her husbandhad been living, and while he was away in Alexandria, sent him a repu-dium. In return he accused her of being a Christian. The woman thenrequested and received from the emperor a grant of time in which to puther affairs in order; meanwhile, her Christian teacher was arrested andexecuted on the instigation of her estranged husband.119 Justin does nottell us what happened to the woman; presumably she was not also mar-tyred. She may have returned to her husband to escape prosecution.

In this case, although the pagan husband had not instigated the divorce,in the eyes of contemporary Christians the woman had good reason toseparate from her husband. The Shepherd of Hermas, written at Rome atabout the time this incident took place, makes it clear that Christiansshould separate from a spouse who continues in evil ways and refuses toreform, especially if the unrepentant partner tries to force the other into sinas well.120 There is no suggestion that the woman in Justin's accountwanted to marry someone else, which Hermas would not have allowed.But divorce, and even remarriage after divorce, were sometimes allowed inless dire circumstances. Origen, writing in the early third century, notedthat some Christian leaders (apparently in Alexandria) allowed divorcedwomen to remarry because worse (i.e., fornication) could happen if theydid not. Origen himself believed this was contrary to the teachings of Jesus,but he understood the reason for it.121

In a divorce deed from Egypt of 304, the couple explicitly gives eachother the power to make Ã new union, "since we have no children fromeach other." The wife's name, Maria, suggests that she was Christian.122Papyri from the fourth and fifth centuries reveal attempts by one spouse oranother to break up a marriage, either by requesting a divorce or (perhapsmore commonly) by simple abandonment. It is unclear how much effectlate imperial legal restrictions on unilateral repudiation had on prac-tice 123

119. Justin, Apology 2.2. See Crouzel, L'Ã‰glise primitive, 54-6; Robert Grant, "AWoman of Rome," Church History 54 (1985): 461-72.

120. Shepherd of Hermas, Mandate 4.1. See Crouzel, L'Ã‰glise primitive, 44-51.121. From his Commentary on Matthew 14.23; see Crouzel, L'Ã‰glise primitive, 82-

4. Tertullian, ad Uxorem 2.1 mentions Christian women remarrying after divortium aswell as after husband's death.

122. P. Oxy. XXXVI.2770. R. Bagnall, Egypt in Late Antiquity (cited n. 24), 193,note 72 suggests Maria was Christian (or, less probably, Jewish).

123. Only one actual divorce agreement survives from between Constantine andJustinian: P. Strass. III.142, dated 391. It is by mutual consent; the marriage was brokenup by an evil daimon (cf. P. Gren. 11.76, cited n. 59). There are two complaints byunhappy wives who attempted to divorce but were assaulted by their estranged hus-


When it was a question of remarriage after a spouse's death rather thandivorce, both Paul and the Pastoral epistles display an ambivalent attitude.A church leader was supposed to have had only one wife and only once-married widows over sixty could be enrolled among the widows of thechurch, but 1 Timothy enjoins young (and presumably still lusty) widowsto remarry in order to avoid sin and idleness.124 Strong disapproval ofremarriage after the death of a spouse is found in several ante-Nicenewriters, most notably Tertullian.125 Interestingly, Tertullian chose to backup his rather tortured exegesis of Paul's counsel against remarriage in 1Corinthians with exempla from pagan Roman culture, including hisfellow-Carthaginian Dido, who preferred (claimed Tertullian) "to burnrather than to marry."126

There was some precedent among non-Christians for refusal to marry orremarry, though it was confined to a much narrower segment of societythan that at which Christian advocates of celibacy aimed. Tertullianadapted the ancient Roman ideal of the univira, the woman who had onlymarried once, though the pagan ideal differed somewhat in emphasis fromthe Christian. In pre-Christian inscriptions the univira is usually a womanalready deceased, who has been fortunate enough never to have had hermarriage disrupted by divorce or her husband's death, whereas Christianunivirae (or univiriae) are widows who refuse to remarry even when theyoutlive their husbands by many years.127 The corresponding male ideal of

bands after sending a repudium: P. Lips. 39 = M. Chr. 127 (390) and P. Oxy. L.3581(4th/5th c. ). They are not the only abused wives to file complains: cf. P.S.I. 41 (4th c. ) andP. Oxy. VI.903 (4th c). Several documents attest abandonment of one spouse by theother: cf. P. Oxy. LIV.3770 (334) and P. Oxy. L.3581, wives abandoned by husbands;P. Cair. Preis. 2 (362) and P. Lond. V.165 (363), husbands abandoned by wives. Forimperial law, see above at n. 101.

124. 1 Cor 7; cf. Romans 7.3; 1 Tim 3-5.125. Tertullian's treatises attacking remarriage (ad Uxorem, CCL I, 373-83); de

Exhortatione Castitatis, CCL II, 1015-35); and de Monogamia (ibid., 1229-53) be-came more polemical as he gravitated toward Montanism. Of other ante-Nicenewriters, Justin Martyr (Apology 1.15) and Athenagoras (Apology [= Legatio] 33)oppose remarriage; the Shepherd of Hermas (Mandate 4.4) and Clement of Alexandria{Stromateis 1.82) are in line with the Pauline position. See Humbert, Le Remariage(cited n. 20), 309-14.

126. de Exhort. Cast. 13.3; Tertullian uses the pre-Vergilian version of Dido's sui-cide. Cf. also ad Uxorem 1.6; de Exhort. Cast. 13.1-3; de Monog. 17 (same examples inall).

127. Pagan univira; e.g. ILS 8527; 8559 (both Rome); 8444 (north Africa). SeeHumbert, Le Remariage, 59-75; Treggiari, Roman Marriage, 233-6. Christian adapta-tion; Marjorie Lightman and William Zeisel, " Univira; An Example of Continuity andChange in Roman Society," Church History 46 (1977): 19-32; Bernhard KÃ¶rting," Univira in Inschriften" in Romanitas et Christianitas, ed. W. den Boer et al. (Amster-


the virginius also appears, which (for Christians) meant a man who hadmarried only once.128

The pre-eminence of celibacy over marriage had been an important partof the Christian message from the first century on; indeed, some Chris-tians, and some religious movements on the fringes of Christianity, went sofar as to deny any positive value to marriage or even to procreation.129How much these denunciations of sex and marriage really affected thelives of most Christians in the ante-Nicene period is unknown; it is easy toconclude that the eloquent and polemical positions held by small groupsscattered throughout the Empire were far more influential than they were.Certainly not all Christians could live up to the ideal of celibacy. Around170 Dionysius, bishop of Corinth, wrote to Pinytos, his fellow-bishop inCnossos, "... not to put on the brethren a heavy compulsory burdenconcerning chastity (hagneia) and to consider the weaknesses of themany."130

Nevertheless, Christians who had chosen a celibate lifestyle for spiritualreasons are found already in the early second century.131 Tertullian wasannoyed at the behavior of dedicated female virgins at Carthage (theywould not wear veils) and by Cyprian's day such women were numerousenough (and of high enough social standing) to be a source of someconcern to their bishop.132 Not all professed celibates were able to with-stand temptation: Cyprian and other North African bishops were dis-tressed to discover that dedicated virgins were cohabiting and even sharinga bed with male celibates, including a deacon. While conceding that thesecelibates might have managed to remain chaste in such intimate circum-stances, the African clergy were well aware of the dangers and decided that

dam, 1973), 195-206; J.-B. Frey, "'La signification des termes MONANAROX etunivira;" Recherches de science religieuse 20 (1930): 48-60. Examples: /LCV 404;1581; 4287; 4302; 4723.

128. Virginius: Leclerq, "Mariage" (citedn. 108),col. 1951-2; Ã•LCV 3016E; 4542;4310; 4268C, etc. Cf. Humbert, Le Remariage, 66 and Treggiari, Roman Marriage,234-5 on pagan virginii (again, a different meaning from Christian one).

129. See Brown, Body and Society, 83-102; Noonan, Contraception (cited n. 76),56-77.

130. Dionysius of Corinth apud Eusebius, Hist. Eccles. 4.23.7-8. From Eusebius'account, it appears that Pinytos was not persuaded, but thought Dionysius was toolenient.

131. 1 Clement 38.2 (end of 1st c, Rome); Ignatius to Polycarp 5.2 (early 2nd c,Asia); Justin Martyr, Apology 1.15.5-6 (mid-2nd c, Rome); Tertullian, Apolog. 9.19(197); de exhort, cast. 13.4 (c. 204-210).

132. Tertullian, de vel. virg.; Cyprian, de habitu virginum and Epistle 4; cf. alreadyIgnatius to the Smyrneans 13: "the parthenoi who are called widows" (though they mayactually have been widows).


the women should be examined by a midwife before being admitted tocommunion; anyone who was found to be no longer a virgin was to do fullpenance, as she was "an adulteress not of her husband but of Christ."133

By the early fourth century, Christian women devoted to a life of virgin-ity are also attested in Spain and Gaul and in Syria, Egypt and Palestine,and the neo-Platonist Porphyry criticized their behavior.134 Normally theywould have continued to live a life of seclusion and devotion in theirparents' home, but there do seem to have been, in some areas at least,proto-monasteries where groups of virgins lived together.135 A third alter-native was the cohabitation of a female and a male celibate, sometimeswith the unfortunate results deplored by Cyprian and his fellow bishops.Among the many charges brought against the bishop of Antioch, Paul ofSamosata, by the synod of clergy which met at Antioch during the reign ofAurelian, was that he not only surrounded himself with such female com-panions, but by his conduct encouraged others to do the same.136 Despiterepeated condemnation by church leaders and by imperial law, this prac-tice seems to have been quite popular and continued for several centu-ries. 137

LACTANTIUS ON CHRISTIAN MARRIAGE

In the period between 250 and 325, only one patristic writer really exam-ines marriage in a Christian context: Lactantius, the "Christian Cicero,"who converted to Christianity sometime before the outbreak of the "GreatPersecution" in 303. Lactantius had been employed as a teacher of Latin

133. Cyprian, Epistle 4 in CSÂ£L 3.2; cf. Ep. 13.5.134. Spain: Council of Elvira, canons 13 and 27 (see below). Gaul: Ausonius, Paren-

talia 6 and 26 (both a maternal and paternal aunt). Syria: "home-style" monasticismclearly in the Homily on Virginity, on which see Teresa M. Shaw in Ascetic Behavior inGreco-Roman Antiquity: A Sourcebook, ed. V. L. Wimbush (Minneapolis, 1990), 29-44. Life of Antony 3 and 54 imply the existence of a group of parthenoi in Egypt beforePachomius. Cf. Methodius, Symposium (Asia Minor, c. 300). Porphyry: J.-M. De-marolle, "Les Femmes chrÃ©tiennes vues par Porphyre," /.A.C. 13 (1970): 42-7.

135. See Brown, Body and Society, 259-64.136. For Paul of Samosata, see Eusebius, Hist. Eccles. 7.27-30.19. Tertullian, de

Exhort. Cast. 12.2 apparently refers (favorably) to the practice.137. Condemned by the Councils of Ancyra in 314 (canon 19) and Nicaea in 325

(canon 3); cf. also Elvira canon 27; also Jerome, Ep. 22.14 and 117; and esp. JohnChrysostom, on whom see Elizabeth Clark, Jerome, Chrysostom, and Friends (NewYork: Edwin Mellen, 1979), 158-248. See also P. de Labriolle, "Le 'Mariage spirituel'dans l'antiquitÃ© chrÃ©tienne," Revue Historique 137 (1921): 204-25. Law: CTh 16.2.44(420), in full at Sirmond. Const. 10.


rhetoric at Nicomedia, Diocletian's capital, but during the persecution, heleft Nicomedia for the less hostile West, probably returning to his nativeNorth Africa. There he finished his Divine Institutes, a handbook designedto prove the falseness of pagan religion and philosophy and set forth thebasic tenets of Christianity. There were two "editions" of the DivineInstitutes, the second of which was dedicated to the emperor Constantine.Constantine seems to have thought highly of the Christian rhetor, since atsome point after 312 he appointed Lactantius tutor to his son Crispus.138

In the first book of the Divine Institutes, Lactantius condemns the un-chaste behavior of the pagan gods and the general dissoluteness of Romanreligious worship. The alleged existence of female gods is the cornerstoneof Lactantius' proof that the beings worshipped by pagans were not in factdivine. For (says Lactantius) the only reason for the existence of two sexesof any species is reproduction. And while there are plenty of examples inpagan myth of gods engendering children, at some point this reproductiveactivity must have ceased; otherwise the gods, being immortal, wouldgreatly outnumber mortal men, and the fact that relatively few are wor-shipped indicates they do not. Furthermore, the gods, despite their gener-ally disgraceful behavior in sexual matters, at least would have the decencynot to copulate in public. They would therefore need houses, and it followsthat they have cities and fields for crops. Fields imply the need for foodÂ—thus these domestic fornicators cannot be divine. In any case, the femalesex is ipso facto the weakerÂ—but how can any god be weak? Clearly theyare not really gods.139 The speciousness of this argument should notobscure the implication that, for Lactantius, woman was created solely sothat there could be sexual intercourse resulting in procreation, and thatwomen and sex are inextricably linked with agriculture and civilizationand thereby with mortality.

Later, Lactantius attacks Plato's blueprint in the Republic (which heknew only through Cicero's work of the same name) for being a Utopianstate in which women would be held in common, and many men mightmate with the same woman, "like dogs." The Christian writer is shockedat these immoral suggestions: "O marvelous justice of Plato! Where is then

138. On Lactantius, see J. Stevenson, "The Life and Literary Activity of Lactantius,"Studia PatrÃstica I, ed. K. Aland and F. L. Cross (Berlin, 1957), 661-77; T. D. Barnes,"Lactantius and Constantine," J.R.S. 63 (1973): 29-46; and E. D. Digeser, "Lactantiusand Constantine's Letter to Aries: Dating the Divine Institutes," J.E.C.S. 2 (1994):33-52.

139. Divinae Institutiones (hereafter D.I.) 1.16-17; 20-22. Text in C.S.E.L. 19.1,(ed. S. Brandt), 61-3. Translations my own.


the virtue of chastity? Where is conjugal fidelity?" Monogamy is essentialfor the preservation of the community, for only thus will caritas be pre-served. "What man would love a woman, or what woman a man, unlessthey always lived together, unless a devoted mind and fidelity mutuallypreserved has made affection (caritas) inseparable?" Only if a man knowsthat his children are really his will he be able to love them.140 Platoadvocated community of wives and the opening of "male" professions towomen because he took his examples from the wrong animals; he shouldhave observed birds instead: "For almost all birds make marriages, andequals join together, and they defend their own nests like nuptial beds(geniales toros) with harmonious mind (concordi mente); and they lovetheir own offspring, since they are certainly their own; and if you shouldsubstitute someone else's children, they drive them off."141

In other words, birds live according to what sounds very much like thetraditional Roman ideal of marriage. God is, as it were, the paterfamiliasof mankind, who demands undivided loyalty and obedience from hischildren and slaves and in return governs and nurtures them. Just as therecan be only one father and master in a household, so there can be only oneGod. Likewise, a decent woman can have only one man, for otherwise shewill be a prostitute or adulteress. Such women lack all virtus, for they donot have pudor, castitas, and fidesÂ—the three qualities regularly attestedfor virtuous wives on funerary epitaphs, Christian and pagan.142

But, Lactantius claims, Christians respect this Roman-Christian ideal ofmarriage, whereas pagans do not. Christians do not kill their wives inorder to get their dowries or kill their husbands in order to marry adul-terers; they do not kill or expose their children; they do not commit incestor crimes against the state, or chase after legacies, substitute false wills,prostitute themselves or have homosexual relationships.143 All this, asLactantius admits, is traditional apologetic material, though by using logicand the works of pagan philosophers (especially Cicero) rather than bibli-cal texts, he claims to have presented his arguments more eloquently andpersuasively than his predecessors.144

Lactantius does stress two aspects of Christian morality which, though

140. D.I. 3.21.5-8. For Lactantius' secondhand knowledge of Plato, see R. M.Ogilvie, The Library of Lactantius (Oxford: Oxford U. Press, 1978), 78.

141. D.I. 3.22.9.142. D.I. 4.3. For pudor, castitas and fides, cf. Treggiari, Roman Marriage, 232-8.143. D.I. 5.9.15-18; cf. 6.23, discussed below.144. Lactantius on his predecessors: D.I. 5.1.22-28 and 4; Ogilvie, Library of Lac-

tantius, 88-95. Lactantius' preference for pagan classical writers rather than biblicaltexts in the D.I. has often been noted: e.g., Ogilvie, 96.


not unknown among pagans, were not really part of the common Romanideology of marriage and the family. The first concerns the exposure ofnewborn infants, which Lactantius, like other Christian apologists, de-nounces in strong terms.145 The other is that Christians do not believe in adouble standard of marital fidelity which punishes as adultery all sexualrelations outside of marriage by a woman but allows a husband to engagein extramarital sex as long as he confines himself to slaves, prostitutes andother women of low degree. The clearest expression of the Christianprohibition of the double standard is found in the sixth book of the DivineInstitutes:

I have not yet related all the obligations of chastity, which God limits notonly within private walls, but even by the rule of the [marriage] bed; so thatwhoever has a wife should not wish to have in addition either a slave or afree woman, but should keep faith with his marriage. Indeed, it is not as thereasoning of public law (ius) has it, that only the woman who has anotherman is an adulteress, but the husband, even if he has many women, has beenabsolved from the crime of adultery. But divine law (lex) so joins the two inmarriage, that is in one body, with an equal right (ius), that whoever has bro-ken apart the joining of the body is held as an adulterer. . . .146

In fact, says Lactantius, it is the very inequity of this double standardthat causes women to commit adultery, out of jealousy and resentment oftheir husbands' infidelities.

The assertion that husbands were to be held to the same standards ofmarital fidelity as wives was often repeated by late antique Christianwriters, although they admitted that in reality less was expected of menthan women. Such an idea was not completely foreign to non-ChristianRomans; it is found in Musonius Rufus (who also condemned exposure),and in a rescript of the emperor Caracalla that was cited by Augustine twohundred years after its promulgation as proof that even pagans rejected thedouble standard.147 But it is true that Roman law did not demand the samestandards of sexual behavior from men as from women, whereas Christianteachings did, in theory if not always in practice.

Compared to other ante-Nicene Christian writers, Lactantius' treat-ment of marriage and sexual relationships between men and women isunusual in that he considers sexual desire and the urge towards procrea-tion not only natural but perfectly acceptable. "Each person should pro-

145. D.I. 6.20.18-25.146. D.I. 6.23.23-30.147. Musonius: note 42 above. Rescript of Caracalla: cited by Augustine, de adulter-

ios coniugiis 2.8 (C.S.E.L. 41, 389-90). D.48.5.14.5 (Ulpian) closely paraphrases thisrescript, but without attributing it to Caracalla.


pose to himself that the joining of the two sexes was given to living beingsfor the sake of procreation and that this law has been ordained by means ofthese desires [sc. sexual], so that they may prepare for succession."148 Godcreated two sexes because he intended that they be attracted to each otherand procreate. Evil ("the Adversary") is only involved when these naturalurges are abused.149 Homosexuality (primarily pederasty) and prostitu-tion are strongly condemned; interestingly, Lactantius sees the prostitutesthemselves as the unhappy victims of the evil plan of the Adversary, whocreated brothels so that men who fear the penalty for adultery could stillindulge their wicked lust.150Procreation is the purpose of sex, but Lactantius admits that men havenatural, God-given urges toward sex even when procreation is impossible,and this is understandable and allowable, provided that such sex is keptstrictly within marriage. Alone among extant Christian writers, he evenallows the possibility of sexual intercourse when the wife is pregnant, sinceconjugal relations are intended not only for procreation, but also to pre-vent immorality by confining lust to one's own spouse (the Paulineview).151 In an impassioned tirade against the abandonment of newborninfants, Lactantius declares that a man who cannot afford to raise hischildren should refrain from intercourse with his wife.152 This is the onlytime that he counsels celibacy within marriage.Like other Christian writers, Lactantius condemns divorce for any reasonother than the wife's adultery, and considers remarriage after divorce to beadultery: "... he who has married a woman dismissed by her husband isan adulterer, and he who has dismissed his wife, except for the crime ofadultery, in order to marry another woman; for God did not want the body[of the married couple] to be disjoined and torn apart." Not only is the actof adultery to be shunned, but (as Jesus said) even its contemplation.Earlier Christian writers also deride the mere physical preservation ofchastity when the mind is soiled.153It is only after this long disquisition on the need for mutual fidelitywithin marriage and the absolute prohibition of extramarital sexual rela-

148. D.I. 6.23.17: "Oportet ergo sibiquemqueproponere duorum sexuum coniunc-tionem generandi causa datam esse viventibus eamque legem his affectibus positam, utsuccessionem parent."

149. D.I. 6.23.1-6.150. Homosexuality: D.I. 5.9.17; 6.23.8-10; cf. 1.20.15 on pederasty in Greek

gymnasia. Prostitution: 5.8.7; 6.23.7 and 15.151. D.I. 6.23.26, on which see Noonan, Contraception, 77-8.152. D.I. 6.20.25.

153. D.I. 6.23.33-36. Whether a man who divorced his wife for adultery mayremarry is unclear. Cf. Matt 5.28. See Crouzel, L'Ã‰glise primitive, 111-12.


tions, even in imagination, that Lactantius brings up a point frequentlymade by Christian writers before and after Constantine: that celibacy ispreferable to sex. God has given man the ability to preserve his bodyincorrupt, and there are many who enjoy this very blessed "celestial kindof life." However, he has not demanded celibacy of everyone, "since it isnecessary that men be born." God knows how difficult abstinence is andthus those who have managed to refrain from sex are particularly blessedand certainly most similar to God themselves.154In short, Lactantius lauds the practice of celibacy for spiritual reasons, buthe realizes that this is an ideal only the most devoted and disciplined canactually attain (although every Christian has the potential), and he giveslittle attention to it. Instead, his focus is on the family unit, in whichspouses are faithful to each other and responsive to each other's needs, andchildren are brought up and protected by their parents like little birds.

RULES FOR CHRISTIAN CONGREGATIONS: EARLYCHURCH COUNCIL CANONS

Whereas treatises on marriage and virginity were written by and for aChristian intellectual elite and probably had little direct impact on thepractice of less educated, more "ordinary" Christians in the ante-Niceneperiod, the rulings, or canons, passed by church councils had more immedi-ate relevance. Ecumenical councils, like the one held at Nicaea in 325, dealtprimarily with doctrinal disputes, but local synods were more likely toaddress disciplinary issues. Their canons were intended as rules for every-day behavior in Christian communities, and would be communicated tothe laity by their bishops and priests, who might themselves have attendedthe council and helped to make policy. Thus the canons reveal not only theguidelines church leaders wanted to impose on the laity, but also thesituations requiring guidance that had arisen in Christian communities.155

The canons of four church councils held in the first quarter of thefourth century (before Nicaea) survive. The earliest of these councils washeld at Elvira in Spain (near modern Grenada), probably between 305and 314.156 We have eighty-one canons attributed to the Council of

154. D.I. 6.23.37-40. The message is that of I Cor 7.7-8.155. On early church councils and their canons, see C. J. Hefele and H. Leclerq,

Histoire des conciles d'aprÃ¨s les documents originaux, vol. I (Paris, 1907).156. The date of the Council of Elvira is in dispute. Most scholars would put it in

the period after the end of persecution in the West but before the Council of Aries in314. See for discussion Jean Gaudemet, "Le Concile d'Elvire," D.H.G.E. 5 (1963), col.317-48.


Elvira; this is an unusually large number and it has been argued that morethan half of these are from councils held later in the fourth century.157The Council of Aries was convened in 314 by Constantine primarily asan attempt to settle the nascent Donatist dispute in Africa, but it alsoproduced several canons concerning Christian moral behavior.158 In theeastern half of the Empire, clerics in central Asia Minor also met in 314to discuss disciplinary issues at Ancyra (modern Ankara); not long after-wards another council was held at Neocaesarea.159 The canons passed atAries and Ancyra imply that those who attended those councils knew ofand adopted some of the rulings from Elvira.

Thirty-five of the eighty-one canons attributed to the Council of Elviraconcern marriage, sexuality or the behavior of women; another four referto grave sins, including sexual offenses. Six of the twenty-five canons fromAncyra are directed explicitly at issues concerning marriage and sexuality;another two have been variously interpreted as prescribing penalties forbestiality or homosexuality.160 Only two of the twenty-two canons fromAries deal with issues of marriage or sex, but seven of the fifteen canonsfrom Neocaesarea do, and an eighth refers more vaguely to sins whichwould include those of a sexual nature. Church leaders of this periodclearly were concerned about the marital and sexual practices of theircommunities.

Penalties, usually involving a period of penance and temporary ex-communication, were solely ecclesiastical and had no force in secular

157. For text of the canons of Elvira, see Concilios visigÃ³ticos e hispano-romanos,ed. J. Vives, T. Marin and G. Martinez (Barcelona, 1963), 1-15. The traditional attribu-tion of all 81 canons to the same council was challenged by Maurice Meigne, "Concileou Collection d'Elvire?" R.H.E. 70 (1975): 361-87, who accepted only canons 1-21and 63-75 as pre-325. His conclusions on this point were accepted by Roger Gryson,"Dix ans de recherches sur les origines du cÃ©libat ecclÃ©siastique," Revue thÃ©ologique deLouvain 11 (1980): 157-85. Most of the canons discussed here would still be consid-ered pre-325 by Meigne.

158. Text used for canons of Council of Aries is Conciles gaulois du IVe siÃ¨cle, ed.Jean Gaudemet (S.C. 241; Paris, 1977), 46-57. (There are also six spurious canonsattributed to this council of Arles, three of which concern marriage.)

159. Ancyra: intro. and text in Hefele-Leclercq, I.l, 298-326. Neocaesarea: ibid.,326-34.

160. Ancyra, Canons 16 and 17. Controversy centers on interpretation ofalogeuomai. Hefele-Leclercq 1.1, 317-320 take it to refer to bestiality, but medievalLatin translations took it to mean homosexual acts. Cf. John Boswell, Christianity,Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality (Chicago: Univ. of Chicao Press, 1980), 178-9.Danilo Dalla, 'Ubi Venus Mutatur;' OmosessualitÃ e diritto nel mondo romano (Milan,1987), 154-61, shows that bestiality and homosexuality were often linked in easternChristian writings.


law.161 The most serious sexual offense was adultery, particularly on thepart of married women. At Elvira, the penalty for the gravest kinds offornication, such as a second lapse by those who had already done penanceonce, or permanent abandonment of their husbands by women who"joined themselves" to other men, was excommunication until the sinnerwas dying, sometimes with no hope of communion even then.162

However, at Elvira premarital sex was less harshly penalized, as long asit ended in marriage. Unmarried women "who have not guarded their ownvirginity" but who marry the man who "violated" (violaverint) them, haveonly to undergo a year's abstention from communion without penance,"in that they have violated only the marriage rites" (eo quod solas nuptiasinviolaverint). But those who have slept with more than one man must dopenance for five years before they can be readmitted to communion, "inthat they have committed fornication" (eo quod moechatae sunt). This isthe same penalty as that decreed for single acts of adultery, but a lighterpenalty than the lifelong excommunication decreed for women who lefttheir husbands to marry another man.163

Young men (adolescentes) who have committed fornication (fuerintmoechati) after baptism are to be readmitted to communion after doingpenance, when they have married. It is not clear whether this means theymust marry the woman with whom they slept before marriage, but thiswould probably be the case (unless she was already married).164 A widowwho sleeps with a man and later marries him must do penance for fiveyears; however, if she marries someone else, she is excommunicated for-ever.165 And according to the fifty-fourth canon of Elvira:

If parents break the faith of a betrothal agreement (fides sponsaliorum), theyshall abstain [from communion] for three years. However, if either the sponsusor the sponsa has been caught in a serious offense (crimen), the par-ents will be excused. If it was a sin (vitium) between the couple and they havepolluted themselves, the former decision shall stand.166

161. On penance in the early church, see W. H. C. Frend, The Rise of Christianity (Phil-adelphia: Fortress Press, 1984), 409-11. Penance at Elvira: Gaudemet, "Le Concile deElvira" (citedn. 156), col. 336-339. In Asia Minor: Roy J. Deferrari, ed. and trans., SaintBasil: The Letters (Cambridge, MA: Loeb Classical Library, 1961-62), vol. 3, xi-xv.

162. Elvira, Canons 7 (lapse after penance); 8 and 64 (married women who "joinedthemselves with other men"); cf. 69 (single act of adultery: 5 years penance).

163. Elvira, Canon 14.164. Elvira, Canon 31 (Meigne thinks this is post-325.) Moechare and moechia are

used in the Elvira canons to describe adultery as well as pre-marital sex.165. Elvira, Canon 72; harsher than the policy on virgins who do the same (note

163).166. Elvira, Canon 54 (my trans.). (Meigne would consider this a later canon.)


Probably both the crimen and the vitium involve sexual relations. Ifeither of the betrothed couple has been unfaithful to the other, then theparents are justified in breaking off the engagement. On the other hand, ifthe sponsus and sponsa have had sexual relations with each other, thenthey are committed to the match and it would be wrong for the parents ofeither party to try to break it off.

In these rulings, it is clear that premarital sex, unlike extra-marital sex, ispardoned if the lovers get married; indeed it was thought that sexualrelations between unmarried people created a bond which was not to bebroken by marriage to someone else. The bond of betrothal is important,but a fiancÃ©(e) whose betrothed has been unfaithful is not under obligationto marry him or her. The canons of Elvira also assume that parents areresponsible for arranging their daughters' marriages, except in the unfor-tunate event that the girls themselves decide the match by having premari-tal relationsÂ—a situation that Tertullian had predicted would occur ifparents insisted on delaying the marriage of their daughters until they werepast puberty!167 The Council of Ancyra decided that if a betrothed girlwere abducted by someone else, she was to be returned to her fiancÃ© (if hewas willing to have her) rather than marry her abductorÂ—which wasprobably what would have happened had she not been already en-gaged.168

Thus in Spain and Asia (and probably in Christian communities else-where), church authorities did not interfere in marriage arrangementsexcept when an already concluded engagement had been violated by oneparty. But at Elvira a clear distinction was made between girls who simplylost their virginity before getting married (unfortunate but understand-able) and "virgins who have dedicated themselves to God" who broketheir vow of virginity, even by marriage. The latter were to be excommuni-cated forever unless they did penance and lived in celibacy for the rest oftheir lives, and even then they were to receive communion only "at theend."169 The fathers meeting at Ancyra were less harsh: those (both maleand female) who had broken their vow of virginity had to undergo thesame penalty as the twice-married, which was apparently exclusion fromcommunion for one year.170

167. Tertullian, de virg. vel. 11.4: "Alia in occulto mater, natura, et alius in latentipater, tempus, filiam suam legibus suis maritarunt."

168. Ancyra, Canon 11. See J. Evans Grubbs, "Abduction Marriage in Antiquity: ALaw of Constantine (CTh IX.24.1) and its Social Context," J.R.S. 79 (1989): 59-83.

169. Elvira, canon 13; see above, note 134 on dedicated virgins at this period.170. Ancyra, canon 19, on which see Hefele-Leclercq 1.1, 322. The penalty for the

twice-married is referred to also at Neocaesarea canon 7, but neither council says what


At Elvira, the Spanish church leaders also expressed concern about casesof marriage with non-Christians. "Mixed marriages" between Christiansand pagans were apparently not uncommon; a century earlier, Tertullianhad devoted the second book of his treatise To His Wife to argumentsagainst unions between Christian women and pagan men.171 The Spanishchurch leaders who met at Elvira were also concerned about such mis-alliances, and decreed that Christian girls were not to be given in marriageto pagans; this was a dangerous possibility "on account of the abundanceof girls" (propter copiant puellarum). No penalty was prescribed for suchmarriages, however, except when parents had married their daughters topagan priests, in which case the girl's parents were denied communion"even at the end." Parents who married their daughters to heretics were toabstain from communion for five years, "because there can be no allianceof faithful with unfaithful."172

The canons of Elvira also preserve the first extant rule of clericalcelibacy: married bishops and presbyters and other officiating clergy (in-cluding deacons) were ordered to abstain from their wives and not to havechildren. Although it has been argued that this rule dates from the latefourth century, canons from other councils indicate that by 325 someChristian churches expected those dedicated to holy service to refrain fromall sexual activity once they were ordained.173 Indeed, the sexual life ofclergy was of great concern to those meeting at Elvira and Neocaesarea:those who committed moechia after ordination were excommunicated;and sexual misbehavior prior to ordination made a man unfit for thehighest sacred office. If the wife of a cleric committed adultery, he had to"throw her out" (proiecerit) or be banned from communion forever; hiswife's misbehavior had brought dishonor (and impurity) upon his sacredoffice.174

the penalty was. See Basil of Caesarea, canon 4 (Deferrari vol. 3, 24-5). For "fallenvirgins" in later church council canons, cf. Basil, canon 18; Council of Valence (374),canon 2; Council of Toledo (397-400), canons 16 and 19.

171. ad Uxorem 2. See Joseph Kohne, "Ãœber die Mischehen in den erstemchristlichen Zeiten: Die allmÃ¤hliche Zunahme der Ehen zwischen Christen undHeiden," Theologie und Glaube 23 (1931): 333-350.

172. Marriage to pagans: Elvira, canon 15. To pagan priests: canon 17. To heretics:canon 16. Cf. Council of Aries, canon 12 (following Gaudemet's S.C. ed.; 11 in somemss).

173. Elvira, canon 33; on date see n. 157. But cf. Neocaesarea canon 1 and Ancyracanon 10, both deposing clerics who decide to marry after ordination. Epigraphicevidence for married clergy in Leclercq, "Mariage," col. 1973-6.

174. Clergy who commit fornication: Elvira, canon 18; Neocaesarea canon 1, cf. 9and 10. Clergy with adulterous wives: Elvira canon 65; Neocaesarea canon 8.


There appear to have been regional differences as to what were consid-ered inappropriate unions. The church authorities in the West, particularlyat Elvira, were worried about the marriages of Christian girls to pagans orheretics; this does not seem to have been a concern in the East, perhapsbecause there were more orthodox Christian young men available.175Some unions were considered incestuous: Neocaesarea penalized awoman who married two brothers in succession; Elvira penalized a manwho married two sisters. Elvira also considered marriage to a step-daughter incestuous, as did Roman (and Jewish) law.176 Remarriage aftera spouse's death clearly was not approved of in Asia Minor and requiredpenance, but in Spain and Gaul it seems to have been unproblematic forthose who were not going to undertake priestly functions.177

Remarriage after divorce, however, was a different matter. The eighthcanon of Elvira declares that women who leave their husbands "with noprevious cause" to live with other men are to be denied communion even atthe end. The ninth canon says that a Christian woman who left anadulterous husband was not to remarry; if she did, she could receivecommunion only when her first husband died or if she herself was close todeath. The next two canons address cases where a man has left his(apparently innocent) wife and remarried: the abandoned wife, if she is acatechumen, may remarry and later be admitted to baptism (unlike thealready baptized wife in canon 9). As for the woman who marries the manwho wrongly left his first wife, if she is already baptized she is excommuni-cated until the end of her life; if she is a catechumen, she must wait fiveyears before receiving baptism, unless she becomes gravely ill in theinterim.178 With all these careful distinctions between baptized and un-baptized women, and between women who are abandoned and womenwho marry a man who abandoned his first wife, nothing is said aboutsanctions against the men involved in these situations, even when theyhave left innocent spouses. Men who knew their wives had committedadultery were indeed ordered to eject them under threat of excom-

175. Elvira, canons 15-17 (above, note 172); Aries, canon 12.176. Neocaesarea, canon 2 (excommunication until death); Elvira, canon 61 (5years

excommunication; though this could be post-325); canon 66 on marrying step-daughter.

177. East: Ancyra canon 19 and Neocaesarea canon 7 (see note 170) and Neo-caesarea canon 3 for more than two marriages. West: cf. only Elvira canon 38: laymenmay baptize in some cases, but not a bigamus (considered post-325 by Meigne).

178. There have been differing interpretations of Elvira, canons 10 and 11: seeHefele-Leclerq, Histoire des Conciles 1, 227-8; but cf. Crouzel, L'Ã‰glise primitive,116-121.


munication, though they were not explicitly permitted to remarry.179 TheCouncil of Aries does go so far as to advise young men who have leftadulterous wives not to remarry as long as their first wives are living, butdoes not attempt to enforce this advice with any sanctions.180 ClearlyLactantius' claim that Christianity exacted the same standards of sexualbehavior from men as women was not reflected in contemporary pastoralpractice.

From the number of canons devoted to the subject at the Council ofElvira, it appears that the remarriage of women who had separated fromtheir first husbands (either by their own choice or because they had beenabandoned) was more than just a theoretical issue. It is also clear that mostancient church leaders and writers were far more concerned with thesexual and marital behavior of women than of men. The attitude todivorce and remarriage among Christians was certainly stricter than thatfound among contemporary Jews and pagans, but is nevertheless firmlyrooted in the double standard of sexual mores for men and womenprevalent throughout the ancient Mediterranean. Paul's emphasis on thereciprocity of marital obligations was largely neglected in favor of thetraditional, entrenched gender ideology held by Romans, Greeks and Jewsin the Roman Empire. Before Christianity, only a few philosophers hadobjected to the double standard, and perhaps it is not surprising that only afew, primarily western, Christian writers objected.

We do not know precisely how these local councils made their rules; theprocedure for proposing canons at Elvira has been the subject of a stimu-lating study.181 Presumably the problems addressed at these meetings werethose encountered by the bishops and priests in their own churches andreflect provincial social life. It is quite likely that at least some canons wereprompted by specific incidents which church leaders wished to prevent inthe future. This was certainly the case for the last canon of the Council ofAncyra:

A man engaged to a girl corrupted her sister, so that he got her pregnant.He then married his fiancÃ©e, and the seduced girl hanged herself. All whoknew about the situation were ordered to be received among the "standing"

179. Elvira, canon 70; and cf. 65 for clerics with adulterous wives (n. 174).180. Aries, canon 11 (following Gaudemet's S.C. text; 10 in some mss.). They are

called adulescentes (cf. Elvira, canon 31 at n. 164). See Crouzel L'Ã‰glise primitive,121-23.

181. Samuel Laeuchli, Power and Sexuality: The Emergence of Canon Law at theSynod of Elvira (Philadelphia, 1972). But Meigne thinks the apparently illogical ar-rangement of canons is due to its being a collection of canons rather than those of onecouncil.)


[the final stage of penance] after ten years according to the determined steps[of penance].182

Most church council canons were of course prescriptive rather thandescriptive (the one from Ancyra being an exception); like imperial law,they tell us what authorities thought people should or should not be doingand not necessarily what they did. They do to some extent, however, reflectcurrent practice, since lawmakers do not usually trouble themselves tomake rules which no one would ever consider breaking. They reflect bothpractice and ideology, as do early Christian inscriptions.

EARLY EPIGRAPHIC EVIDENCEFOR CHRISTIAN MARRIAGE

Just as scholars of the pre-Christian Roman family have turned to thesizable corpus of Latin inscriptions for evidence of popular marriageideology and practice, so study of Christian funerary inscriptions can offera better understanding of early Christian marriage. Unfortunately, verylimited epigraphic evidence of Christian family life is available for the pre-Constantinian period, since until the end of the persecutions Christianswere not inclined to record openly their religion on their graves. Studies ofChristian attitudes toward family and marriage which view the inscrip-tional evidence from the mid-third century through the sixth as a wholecannot be used to assess Christian mores in the third or early fourthcentury, since the material upon which they rely comes mainly from thelate fourth and fifth centuries, when the religious, social and politicalsituation in the Empire was quite different. Indeed, it is quite misleading tojuxtapose inscriptional evidence from about 300 to 700 with that from thefirst three centuries of the Empire and conclude that any differences thatappear are indicative of "Christian" versus "pagan" attitudes.183 Imperialsociety under Constantine resembled that of the Antonines more than thatof Justinian, and Christianity underwent substantial changes between 325and 565.

A small corpus of inscriptions, mainly from the Roman catacombs, isgenerally agreed to date from before Constantine's victory over Maxentius

182. Ancyra, canon 25 (my translation).183. Therefore studies of Christian epigraphy over several centuries, like B. Shaw,

"Latin Funerary Epigraphy and Family Relations in the Later Roman Empire," Historia33 (1984): 457-97, and E. Patlagean, "Families chrÃ©tiennes d'Asie Mineure et histoiredÃ©mographique du IVe siÃ¨cle," in Transformations et conflits au IVe siÃ¨cles aprÃ¨s J.-C,Antiquitas 29 (Bonn, 1978), 169-86 cannot be used to identify pre-ConstantinianChristian marriage ideology or practice.


and the subsequent "peace of the Church."184 These have been identifiedprimarily on the basis of consular dating (which appears only on a minor-ity of private inscriptions, both Christian and pagan), appearance on sar-cophagi or in areas of the catacombs known to date before Constantine,and iconography. Not all of these epitaphs involve marital relationships, ofcourse; but a few observations can be made.

Of the handful of pre-Constantinian Christian dedications fromspouses, the same adjectives are used to describe the deceased's virtues andthe couple's relationship as are used in dedications from non-Christians.Two of the third-century Christian women who were commemorated bytheir husbands, and two who commemorated their deceased husbands,were of senatorial status.185 In these inscriptions, praise of the deceased isrestrained and highly traditional: coniugi amantissimae," "coniugi sanctis-simae incomparabili," "coniug[i] kariss[imo]," "coniugi suo innocin-tissimo.,,1S6 Other spouses were more effusive:

Here L. Fonteia Concordia, wife of Stenus Callicras Gaudentius, [has been]placed next to her son Polycronius. Chaste, modest, wise, content with onehusband, she joined her grandchildren [in marriage] (nepotes iuncsit), fromwhom she saw children. She lived 70 years, always the citizens called her"mother" and they led [her funeral procession] with wax chalices (cereis cal-icibus).187

From your virginity (or "from your virginius") you lived willingly with me,most innocent wife, Cervonia Silvana. Taste the refrigerium with a holyspirit!188To Marc. IuI. Baebia Hermofila, h.m.f (= honestae memoriae feminae), sister

184. Known ante-Nicene Christian inscriptions are listed and discussed in GraydonF. Snyder, Ante Pacem: Archaeological Evidence of Church Life before Constantine(Macon, GA: Mercer Univ. Press, 1985), 119-48. Citations are from Ernest Diehl, ed.,Inscriptiones Latinae Christianae Veteres, 2nd ed. (Berlin, 1961), hereafter cited as/LCV.

185. On senatorial Christian women in ante-Nicene period, see Werner Eck, "DasEindrigen des Christentums in den Senatorenstand bis zu Konstantin den Grossen,"Chiron 1 (1971): 381-406, at 389-91; and AndrÃ© Chastagnol, "Les Femmes dansl'ordre senatorial: Titulature et rang sociale Ã Rome," Revue Historique 262 (1979): 3-28 at 22-3. Note, however, that Flavia Speranda, mentioned by both Eck and Chastag-nol, is probably neither a clarissima nor a Christian; her stone was reused in the cata-comb: now see ICUR n.s. Ill, 7599.1 owe this information to Antti Arjava.

186. Quotations from /LCV 178 (Hydria Tertulia, Aries), 158 (Cassia Feretria,Rome), wives commemorated by their husbands; 157 (Luria lanuaria, Rome) and 224(Varia Octabiana, Rome), husbands commemorated by wives.

187. /LCV 1578 (Chiusi). For iuncsit as "joined in marriage," cf. /LCV 98. Thiswould then be a marriage between first cousins.

188. /LCV2305 (Rome, Via Appia, 291). On virginius, see note 128.


and comrade of unique chastity (unice castitatis sorori et cornitt), loving herhusband above love's limit (super finem amoris), most kind wife and incom-parable matron. . . .189

Although it has been suggested that Baebia Hermofila and her husbandhad a "chaste marriage" in which they abstained from sex completely, weshould be careful not to read the practices and expressions of a later periodinto ante-Nicene Christianity. Other early Christian marriages certainlyproduced children.190

From the reign of Constantine, we find Aurelia Martina, "a most chasteand modest woman," who died at the age of forty after twenty-three yearsof marriage. Valeria Constantia, "most praiseworthy spouse," died at theage of fourteen. Stratonice set up an eight-line verse inscription to Anto-nius, lamenting that he had died before her, after thirty-five years of mar-riage.191

Pescennia Quodvultdeus lived thirty years and gave birth to three boysand two girls, none of whom survived her. She and all five children arecommemorated by her grieving husband, P[escennius?] Marcellus, in aNorth African inscription. His description of her, "of good birth, marriedin the proper way, a chaste wife, a dutiful mother" (bonis natalibus nata,matronaliter nupta, uxor casta, mater pia) echoes that of another AfricanChristian matron, the third-century martyr Perpetua.192 Brattia Dignitas,another short-lived but fecund wife, lived thirty-three years and had sevenchildren, one of whom was buried with her; her husband describes her as"of wondrous goodness and inestimable sanctity, of complete chastity, achaste woman of rare example" (mire bonitatis adque inemitabili sancti-tatis, totius castitatis, rari exempli femine caste). They had been marriedfor fifteen years.193

189. /LCV 1585 (Rome, late 3rd c).190. On "mariage blanc," see Leclercq, "Mariage," col. 1963-4; cf. Tertullian, ad

Uxorem 1.6.2. But wives are routinely praised for castitas in pre-Christian epitaphs,where sexual fidelity, not celibacy, is meant.

191. Aurelia Martina: /LCV 3648 (Rome, 336). Valeria Constantia: /LCV 4667(Rome, 330); Stratonice and Antonius: /LCV 3311 (Aquileia, 336).

192. /LCV 333 ("in municipium Giufitano"). Her Â«oweÂ« is given in full, her hus-band and children all have the initial P to designate Â«oweÂ«, expanded by Diehl as"Pescennius." (Use of Â«oweÂ« is an indication of earlier date in Christian inscriptions;after about the mid-4th c. use of Â«oweÂ« drops out.) Like Baebia Hermofila (above, at n.189), Pescennia is described as honestae memoriae femina, implying good birth, possi-bly high rank. Cf. Passio Perpetuae 2: "honeste nata, liberaliter instituÃa, matronaliÃernupla."

193. Brattia Dignitas: /LCV 3343 (Rome, no date but cf. Î·. 192 above). For largenumber of children in Christian inscriptions, cf. Carletti, "Aspetti biometrici," (cited


The same qualities of sexual fidelity and devotion are prized by Chris-tian spouses as by pagans in earlier centuries, and the same phrasesused.194 Castitas and devotion to husband and children are still thequalities most valued in married women. A ten-line verse dedication froma bereaved wife to her dead husband begins, "Alas, why do you leave mewretched, dearest husband?" and ends with a vow not to remarry: "unvio-lated, I shall preserve your bed."195 The adoption of a pre-Christianmarital ethos by late antique Christians is illustrated by the use on Chris-tian sarcophagi of the iconography of marital concord found on secondand third century pagan tombs: the dextrarum iunctio ( joining of hands)of the deceased and his or her spouse. A well-known example is the so-called PrÃ³nuba sarcophagus in the Vatican Museum. Only the biblicalscenes at the corners of the sarcophagus indicate that the deceased wasChristian.196

The inscriptions so far discussed are all from the Latin West. In the East,a group of funeral stelai from the Upper Tembris Valley in Phrygia pro-vides an interesting exception to the general absence of openly Christianinscriptions in the pre-Constantinian period. Ranging in date from the240s to the early fourth century, these inscriptions declare their faithboldly, often with the formula "Christians for Christians." Although somescholars have identified the dedicators as adherents of Montanism, there isno evidence for specifically Montanist belief or practices on the inscrip-tions from the Upper Tembris Valley, and a recent editor was inclined to seethem as the product of a non-Montanist Christian community.197

The "Christians for Christians" inscriptions shed valuable light on pre-Constantinian Christian family life. Their dedicators were prosperousfarmers and craftsmen who decorated their tomb-markers with exuberantreliefs of the tools of their trade (for men) or "feminine" implements likedistaffs and mirrors and combs (for women). Dedications are made to

n. 108), 46.194. On vocabulary and sentiments of Christian marital epitaphs, see Lattimore,

Themes in Greek and Latin Epitaphs (cited n. 31), 335-7; Leclercq, "Mariage," col.1944-1963.

195. /LCV3885A, from the catacombs of Saint Felicitas on the Via Salaria, dated bythe editors to 3rd c. For vow not to remarry, cf. Lattimore, Themes, 205; Treggiari,Roman Marriage, 246 (pagan examples); Lattimore, Themes, 214 (Christian verseepitaph);/LCV 267.

196. Reinsberg, "Concordia," 312-313; Reekman, 60-91. See above, note 35.197. See Elsa Gibson, The "Christians for Christians" Inscriptions of Phrygia (Mis-

soula, Montana: Scholar's Press, 1978). On whether they are Montanist, see Gibson,125-44. W. M. Calder, "Early Christian Epitaphs from Phrygia," Anatolian Studies 5(1955): 25-38, argues for a Montanist context.


several deceased family members together by all surviving relatives as agroup, and often three generations are commemorated in one inscription,as in:

Christians for Christians. Aurelios Patrikis and Makedonis and Zotikos andAmmias and Epiktes, for their dear father Kyrillos, and their mother, Am-mia, and their sons Onesimos and Kyrillos and Patrikios and for their sisterDomna in memory.198Kyrillos and Amnia had at least six children, three male and three

female. The family size attested here is not at all unusual. In twenty-nine ofthe Upper Tembris Valley "Christians for Christians" inscriptions, fourfamilies had at least four children, another four had at least six children,another had at least eight, and two others had at least ten.199 Foster-children (sunteknoi) are also commemorated.200 Female children are aswell represented as male, but since married women are commemoratedwith their husband's family rather than their natal family, the familiesrepresented presumably do not include some married daughters (severalepitaphs include daughters-in-law along with married sons).201

The obvious prosperity of the Phrygian Christians doubtless helps toaccount for the large numbers of offspring; not all imperial subjects,pagan or Christian, could afford to rear six children. Of course, not all ofthe children born to a couple would be alive at the same time; given thehigh infant mortality rates of the ancient world, it is likely that some ofthe children attested died in childhood and were replaced by others men-tioned on the same stele.202 Though the number of relevant inscriptionsis regrettably small, they are still of value in assessing the possible impact

198. Gibson, Christians, 50, #19.199. Four children: Gibson, Christians, #9,10,12,16. Six children: #1,15,19,21.

Eight: #25. Ten: #8, 29. (#15 & 16 may not be Christian.) See also J. G. C. Anderson,"Paganism and Christianity in the Upper Tembris Valley," in W. M. Ramsay, ed., Studiesin the History and Art of the Eastern Provinces of the Roman Empire (Aberdeen, 1906),183-227, #18 (early 4th c): with four children, two male, two female.

200. For sunteknoi, see Anderson, "Paganism," 222; Calder, "Early Christian Epi-taphs," 34; for threptoi (here meaning adopted children), see J. Fraser, "Inheritance byAdoption and Marriage in Phrygia as Shown in the Epitaphs of Trophimus and HisRelatives," in Ramsay, Studies (cited n. 199), 137-153.

201. See Gibson, Christians, 13; Fraser, "Inheritance," 150; Patlagean, "FamilieschrÃ©tiennes" (cited n. 183), 179-80. In Gibson #22 it appears that maternal grand-parents are rearing grandchildren along with widowed father. Daughters-in-law areamong the commemorators in Gibson #3, 5, 9,10,14,15, and 29; and are commemo-rated by in-laws in #7 and 32. In #10 a mother-in-law is commemorated by four sons-and daughters-in-law.

202. See Gibson #1, where a mother commemorates five children, the second andfifth having the same name. Presumably the last-born was given the name of an oldersibling who had already died.


of Christian teachings concerning the superiority of celibacy (whichseems to have made little impression on these Christians) and perhapsalso the condemnation of infant exposure (which appears not to havebeen practiced). Evelyne Patlagean, whose study of the Christian inscrip-tions of Asia Minor covers a much wider area and time period (c. 250-550), remarks that the spread of encratite heresies in the fourth centuryseems not to have affected the birthrate, which she suggests was anaverage of six children born to each couple, of whom four survived morethan five years.203

There are other identifiably Christian inscriptions from Phrygia, butthey do not so often reveal the large families of the Upper Tembris Valley.This is probably due to different patterns of commemoration rather thanactual differences in family size; the "Christians for Christians" epitaphsare unusual in being group dedications from all surviving relatives. Oneinscription, apparently also Christian, attests eight children by one mar-riage.204 The traditional language of praise for female virtues, especiallysophrosyne and love for one's husband, is also found.205 Second marriage,presumably after the death of the first spouse, is attested on two PhrygianChristian inscriptions; this is interesting in view of the condemnation ofremarriage by Montanists. But another inscription of a slightly later pe-riod stresses that the man it commemorates was monÃ³gamos and re-mained a widower for thirty years.206

In conclusion, I would suggest the need for a modification of the often-expressed idea that there was a radical break in marriage ideology andpractice between late antique Christianity and classical "paganism." Thisis not to claim that Christianity brought no change to ideological andsocial constructs of the family in late antiquity. But too often changes thatoccurred in the late Roman Empire have been attributed, directly or indi-rectly, to a nebulous "Christian influence" whose characteristics andmodus operandi are never properly described. Excessive significance hasbeen accorded to eloquent but atypical writers like Tertullian and Jeromeat the expense of other evidence, and developments of post-Nicene Chris-tianity have been read back into an earlier age. In the late fourth century,

203. Patlagean, "Families chrÃ©tiennes," esp. 180-4.204. Fraser, "Inheritance," 143-7 (three sons, five daughters). Anderson, "Paga-

nism," #18 and Calder, "Early Christian Epitaphs," #4 both attest four children;Calder's "Addendum" (dated 246) shows four daughters.

205. Philandria: Gibson, Christians, #31; cf. Anderson #18. Sophrosyne: Ander-son, "Paganism," #22. In Gibson #28, a man who died c. age 30 is noted for hissophrosyne.

206. Gibson, Christians, #44 (remarried man); Fraser, "Inheritance," 147 (remar-ried woman); Calder, "Early Christian Epitaphs," #1 (monÃ³gamos; dated c. 325-350).


some time after the period represented by the sources discussed here, theascetic ideal became more firmly promulgated by church leaders like Am-brose and Augustine and the Cappadocian fathers. Had Lactantius setforth his views on the natural importance of sex and procreation at the endof the century rather than in the early part of Constantine's reign, he mighthave been condemned by enthusiasts of the ascetic lifestyle, as Jovinianwas to be.207 But in his own time Lactantius expressed an ideology ofmarriage and marital relations that, to judge from funerary inscriptions,both Christians and pagans would have admiredÂ—although contempo-rary church council canons suggest that the ideal was actually upheld nomore by Christians than by pagans.

Judith Evans Grubbs is an Associate Professor of Classics at SweetBriar College

207. Condemnation of Jovinian: see David G. Hunter, "Resistance to the VirginalIdeal in Late-Fourth-Century Rome: The Case of Jovinian," Theological Studies 48(1987): 45-64.

'Pagan' and 'Christian' Marriage: the State of the Question

Documents

Transcript of 'Pagan' and 'Christian' Marriage: the State of the Question