CHAPTER 5: THE FOURTH GOSPEL AND THE PLIGHT OF WOMEN AND THEIR ROLES IN THE FIRST CENTURY MEDITERRANEAN WORLD
5.3 The condition of women of the first century Greco-Roman Mediterranean world Discrimination against women was generally grounded on questions of their ability to
5.3.2 Women’s restricted contribution to public life
In the male-dominated society of the Roman empire, women were not officially recognized in matters of economy-building or leadership. The reason may be found in Richard Saller’s comment: “Less training of women, hence lower productivity and lower wages for women, hence less economic independence and possibly lower valuation of women in their families, and less growth in productivity for economy as a whole” (Saller 1994:195). Saller states that some domains were exclusive and closed to females.
Women were specifically employed in domestic services. Concerning noble women who may have had opportunities outside their homes, Evans comments that information at our disposal about the statistics of noble women are poor (Evans 2002:38).
However, women’s contribution towards the economy of the society was important if one agrees that the economy was based on the land and the participation of women was felt in the households. Yamaguchi points out that ordinary peasant women worked in the fields almost year-round and supplemented their farm incomes by making and selling their handcrafts, some of them working as various kinds of day labourers, wet-nurses for instance, or domestic servants for wealthy families (Yamaguchi 2002:18). Men were also responsible for the well-being of their families in terms of providing, but women had a double load of work. Besides their domestic work, which included the daily management of the house, they were also responsible for outside work as well, in the fields and other supplementary work for more family income. Considering their involvement in the stewardship of agrarian products which were the fundamental elements of the whole economy of the region, women played an important role.
117
As seen above, public participation of women in the political life was scarce if it could ever happen. Grubbs argues that at no time in Roman history could women themselves serve as senators or hold political magistracies at the imperial, provincial or local level.
In fact public offices were closed to them:
Just as women were banned from representing others in court [Part V.A], they also could not themselves serve as judges in court cases or hold public office, both of which ipso facto involved representing others. As the jurist Paulus (writing in the third century) realized, the real reason for this restriction was that it had been instituted that in the long-ago past, and respect for the ‘customs of the ancestors’ (mos maiorum) was so great that it over-rode contemporary social realities (Grubbs 2002:74).
Grubbs argues that those who were privileged could play important roles in imperial society because of their wealth and family connections. But despite the exceptional cases of women with high social status, it seems that generally women had little say or opportunity in public matters. According to Lewis, the male-driven social mentality of this period presupposed that males were formed mentally and physically for outdoor work while women were suited primarily for indoor work (Lewis 2002:59-60).
Such unfortunate discrimination against women did not, however, deprive them of all influence. Women could not hold office but they did wield influence, particularly in their homes, though it was indirect. Bauman notes, “It was through men that women could exert any influence in the public sector, whether by council, enjoyment, manipulation or promise, a woman could only operate behind the scenes” (Bauman 1992:2). The participation of any member of the society of the Roman Empire was determined by the law. The law then put women in a particular position by prescribing limitations to them.
However, Winter argues that most scholars who perceive women to have been totally kept away from the public gaze in the first century do so because they see women’s roles in terms of a single stereotype of restriction to the home and reproduction activity in the vast Roman Empire. He claims that first century women, unlike their sisters in the previous Classical Greek and Hellenistic eras, certainly appeared in public. Even in the
118
Classical Greek period, cultural mores for women were not always the same as for the Mediterranean as a whole (Winter 2003:6). Winter believes that the conditions of life for women had undergone changes over the centuries but scholars report only the primitive period. He believes that the situation of women during the first century C.E. had improved compared to the Classical Greek period.
In agreement with Winter, Ilan points to aspects of women’s roles during the same period which were not confined to indoor work. Women’s work extended from domestic to shopkeepers and to innkeepers, though he agrees that these were not respectable occupations. Women were also midwives and if a woman could work as a midwife she probably could round out her knowledge of anatomy and work as a physician, whether or not she had formal training. Ilan believes that women had general medical knowledge and were customarily consulted regarding the treatment of illnesses (Ilan 1995:187-189). But even though Ilan speaks about this important knowledge of women, he is aware that it was just a general knowledge, which was rather elementary; they could not secure a firm career outside the home.
Collins also believes that women were involved in the society in the same manner as men. He presumes that, given the exchange involved in the patron-client system, it appears that wealth and beneficence were tied closely to public honour and influence for all members of the Roman Empire. He believes that the absence of women patrons in the scholarly literature was the result of Roman legislation restricting the role of women;
otherwise, some women functioned as patrons in a manner similar, if not identical to that of men. “Women appear to have rendered the same social, political and financial services to their cities as their male fellow citizens and they were honoured for those services in the same way” (Collins 1995:15).
A close to this discussion reveals some controversies in this information about women’s contribution. One of the major reasons for the debates may be connected to the lack of written material produced by women’s hands. Information connected to women is obtained from reading in-between the spaces of males’ materials written on other
119
subjects, not necessarily on women. This is because males were the ones who were privileged with that capacity. As Yamaguchi and Richlin note, ancient literature was almost exclusively written by privileged males who reflected the perspective of a tiny elite male group rather than the majority of the ordinary people, particularly women (Yamaguchi 2002:11; Richlin 2006:330). Levine’s observation is that “the barriers to learning about women when our only data come from men are notorious and legion”
(Levine 1992:1).
The issue of lack of material from women’s hands extends also to biblical texts. Rakoczy highlights the fact that the books of the canon of Scripture were all written by men. It was, she observes, the patriarchal church tradition which decided which writings were to be included as ‘canonical’ (Rakoczy 2004:103). The point here is that as far as we know, the biblical texts were composed by males and were interpreted by males in order to decide the books to be included into the canonical list. This may confirm Wordelman’s assertion on the New Testament material - that it contains many images of women but reveals little about their everyday lives. Wordelman observes, for instance, that there are images of women drawing water, anointing bodies, travelling and so on, but those individual images do not provide the social context from which the reader can clearly identify them (Wordelman 1998:482).
Considering the arguments of the scholars discussed above, the assumption may be that no or at most very few Mediterranean women had the opportunity to hold a political office in the Roman Empire. There may have been exceptions but a generalization cannot be made that women were actively involved in the politics of the Empire. Certainly the norm of male political power and authority was at the expense of women because of the way they were portrayed by the society as “mentally and physically inferior, irrational and superstitious” (Wordelman 1998:482). However, one should also be careful of assuming that women were banned from any important activities, though they were certainly excluded from certain ritual and cultic activities reserved for men (e.g. the male priesthood in Israel, which is prescribed by Torah). The best way to go about it may be to adopt Collins’ argument: “The percentage of women of wealth in the synagogue was
120
representative of the women of wealth of the larger population, both constituting a small percentage of the total population” (Collins 1992:19).
In this regard, considering the hierarchical administration of the empire - also associated with male dominance - one may speculate that women exercised some influence. Haas believes that although women were not included in chains of males’ influence when establishing policy or during its control, women may still have exercised some power by means of their behaviour and persuasion, influencing men’s decision-making without using authority. He believes therefore that each mode of influence is effective, and for him it distorts reality to assume that only male authority has been important in that society (Haas 1995:2). Women’s participation was not in the same manner or at the same level with men, but they exercised their power in other ways which also had some impact on the society. One way of assessing this is to consider their roles in families.
5.3.2.1 The concept of family in the broader region of Mediterranean
Family in the Mediterranean region during the first century was viewed as fundamental to the society. The family was the basic reference for individuals and the channel through which he or she was inserted into social life. It was from the family that the individual received his or her status because, “the family was like the depository of position in the society and the transmitter of economic resources” (Guijarro 1993:62). From this tradition therefore, women in their families were also builders of economy in the family, and so in the society. The value of their contribution to their community is linked to the role of the family.
Speaking about ‘family’ requires some understanding of that term. The term family does not have a universal meaning. For some it refers to a nuclear group of husband, wife and children; for others, it refers to a larger group. For instance in the Rwandan context, family means more than just husband, wife and children. Rwandans view the family primarily in terms of relations; referring to the extended family including relatives of both the husband and the wife. In collectivist cultures, the family is viewed in terms of
121
consanguinity, that is, a blood connection. They determine membership of a ‘family’ on the basis of shared blood via a common ancestor (Hellerman 2001:28).
In the first century, in the New Testament as well as in Greek literature, there was no specific word for ‘family’ in the sense of a nuclear group that consists of wife, husband, and children. Instead in the Mediterranean region during the first century and even before the Christian era, the term family was used in various perspectives referring to a larger number of people, household, kinship, marriage, and inter-relations between members (Campbell 2003, Yamaguch 2002:20-21). Grubbs observes that the Romans did not have a Latin word corresponding exactly to the English term ‘family’. For them the term familia which translated as family has a meaning closer to ‘household’. She therefore points out that the Roman familia comprised all those under the power of the male head including slaves and his children (Grubbs 2002:17).
The society of the Mediterranean region was a patriarchal society. The father/husband was the head of the family, the paterfamilias, who governed the household, the wife and other members of the extended family like the unmarried sisters and brothers of the husband, slaves etc (Grubbs 2002:18). But there were also families that were headed by females, in cases of single parents, widows or even families headed by one of the siblings at the absence of the parents. The Bethany family of Mary, Martha and Lazarus is one example (John 11:1-44). Women had a specific place and role in their families, as discussed below.
5.3.2.2 The condition and role of women in family settings in Roman society
Roman society considered marriage as one of the fundamental institutions in the community. Marriage was viewed as an act that joined not only two individuals but two families. It was, as Hellerman saw it, “a legal and social contract between two families for the promotion of each family, the production of legitimate offspring, and appropriate preservation and transferral of property to the next generation” (Hellerman 2001:31). In Roman society, marriage was an act of constructing and firming the ties of the families of the bride and the groom in a new relationship. But it was also significant for the couple; it
122
was meant to join them together for life with all expected benefit from it. Grubbs described it as being “the joining of male and female and a partnership for all life, a sharing of divine and human law” (Grubbs 2004: 81).
The Roman culture believed that the family was the ‘seed-bed of the city’ (Lassen 1997:103). It seems also that marriage was not only valued by the civil law, but even culturally, families were highly respected. This assumption comes from Treggiari’s observation that the Roman culture had set specific rules of ancestral custom to shape and protect families. There was also the ancestral law which provided and strengthened the power of the head of the family, the father (Treggiari 2002:132).
Concerning the citizen body of Roman society, Treggiari and Lassen say that it was composed of two groups, the patricians and the plebeians. The major group of the society was the plebeians. The second group, the patricians, was restricted but it was the one that supplied the senators (Treggiari 2003:132; Lassen 1997:104). Grubbs refers to the patrician group when she speaks about the contribution of women of high status in the empire. “Women of high status – those from high senatorial and equestrian families and those in the municipal elites of the empire – played an important role in imperial society because of their wealth and family connection” (Grubbs 2002:71). But one may concur with Evans that those who could grasp the opportunities of freedom because of their status, and make some contribution, were few. Otherwise most of them were still considered to be very inferior and remained under the male’s dominance, especially their husbands’ (Evans 2002:39-41). Thus, as discussed above with respect to the exclusive political system, the contribution of women was limited. The normal participation of women was rather felt in the domestic sector, not in public. Dixon (Dixon 2001:112-113) clarifies that military, literary and political activity, supervisory care of landed estates and the duties of patronage were the proper business of an elite male. She however specifies that women were not idle; they were praised for their domestic duties.
The primary role of a dutiful wife was to be engaged in childbearing and managing the household but without being independent. The extreme treatment of females is reported
123
by Wordelman (1998:484-485) who states that in the Greco-Roman world property rights and social conventions favoured males; citizen households could choose not to rear female babies. They would rather place them outside where anyone who wanted could take them. Some of them died, and those who survived ended up being slaves or prostitutes.
Both young girls and the young men were under the control of their father. However, the extent of the dominance over the children differed due to its time frame. Female children were under male (paterfamilias) authority for life, because the control of their fathers before marriage was legally replaced by the control of their husbands at the time of marriage (Treggiari 2002:132-136). Young girls and boys were not free to choose their partners; their marriages were arranged by their fathers following their own motives. This implies that the spouses were not necessarily happy in their marriages; perhaps this was the reason for a great number of concubines in this society. Dixon and Wordelman argue that most men looked for prostitutes, slaves and mistresses for sexual satisfaction besides their wives (Dixon 2003:112; Wordelman 1998:484), and there were societal norms that were designed to protect the sexual adventures of married men. Osiek specifies that a husband incurred no legal punishment for infidelity unless the affair was with a married woman. According to Osiek, it was accepted that husbands would make use of slaves, both male and female, for sexual purposes while married women who sought sexual relationships with their male slaves could be charged with adultery (Osiek 2006:22). In fact almost everything in this society favoured men at the expense of women. If a man was not pleased with his wife, he was legally allowed to have another wife because polygamy was culturally accepted, or he could look for prostitutes or divorce her (Dixon 2003:112; Wordelman 1998:484). The condition of women was also reflected in the attitude of the society towards slave women in the community.
5.3.2.3 Slave women in the first century Greco-Roman Mediterranean region
In the Greco-Roman Empire of the first century, wives and slaves shared much in common within the patriarchal household. “Both fitted, by nature, to be ruled, not to rule.
Both shared intimately in the life of the household, including religion, economy, child-
124
production and nurturing, and burial. Both wives and slaves in many ways remained in a state of perpetual liminality” (Osiek 2006:95). Nobody can say that all women in the whole empire were treated at the same level; however, some women, from the high social class, were treated differently. But it was an insignificant number compared to the rest of the women in that society. Generally women shared the fate of submitting to male domination.
Slaves, whether male or female, owned nothing, had no independent legal rights and were obligated to follow the instructions of their master. The position of a female slave, however, whether Hebrew or pagan, was quite different from that of a male slave. They did not enjoy the same rights even in their master’s houses; men were more respected than women (Daniel-Rops 1962:144). Slave women were viewed as less valuable human beings than men.
Moreover, in terms of marriage, regardless of the class of the girl in this society, slave or citizen, throughout the Empire, marriage often took place when the girls were still too young to begin family responsibilities; they married at the age of twelve. This involved a number of risks in their lives including the dangers of early pregnancy. Wordelman estimates that the situation of slave girls was even worse because of their vulnerability to sexual abuse by their masters and other more powerful males. Slave women had little or no protection against sexual abuse and rape; they were considered available for any male, free or slave (Wordelman 1998:285).
Because of their vulnerability to sexual abuse, dangerous methods were used by women, whether slave or citizen, to avoid unwanted pregnancies. Wordelman records a few examples; for instance they used resins to block the cervix, or herbal concoctions to create infertility. Some were advised to use hard strategies to avoid the implantation of sperm in their wombs while others would attempt to terminate their pregnancies by using concoctions to induce abortion (Wordelman 1998:285-288). There were many dangers;
they could die from childbirth infections, through the process of abortion, by malnutrition and so on. Death of women when giving birth was frequent; Osiek confirms that giving