Western Michigan University

ScholarWorks at WMU

Dissertations Graduate College

4-2011

Women of Foreign Superstition: Christianity and Gender in

Imperial Roman Policy, 57-235.
Karl E. Baughman
Western Michigan University

Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.wmich.edu/dissertations

Part of the Feminist, Gender, and Sexuality Studies Commons, History of Christianity Commons, and
the History of Religion Commons

Recommended Citation
Baughman, Karl E., "Women of Foreign Superstition: Christianity and Gender in Imperial Roman Policy,
57-235." (2011). Dissertations. 324.
https://scholarworks.wmich.edu/dissertations/324

This Dissertation-Open Access is brought to you for free

and open access by the Graduate College at
ScholarWorks at WMU. It has been accepted for inclusion
in Dissertations by an authorized administrator of
ScholarWorks at WMU. For more information, please
contact wmu-scholarworks@wmich.edu.
WOMEN OF FOREIGN SUPERSTITION:
CHRISTIANITY AND GENDER IN
IMPERIAL ROMAN POLICY,
57-235

by

Karl E. Baughman

A Dissertation
Submitted to the
Faculty of The Graduate College
in partial fulfillment of the
requirements for the
Degree of Doctor of Philosophy
Department of History
Advisor: Paul L. Maier, Ph.D.

Western Michigan University

Kalamazoo, Michigan
April 2011
 WOMEN OF FOREIGN SUPERSTITION:
CHRISTIANITY AND GENDER IN
IMPERIAL ROMAN POLICY,
57-235

Karl E. Baughman, Ph.D.

Western Michigan University, 2011

The relationship between Christianity and the im-

perial Roman government from 57 to 235 was partially de-

pendent upon the enforcement of traditional gender roles

and the exercise of those roles by women in unique posi-

tions of influence. Rather than attempt to break free of

their defined gender roles, women with distinctive con-

nections to Christianity and the Roman government were,

especially during times of crisis, able to influence im-

perial policies that provided an atmosphere conducive to

positive growth for the early Church. This work concen-

trates on the crises which were connected to gender - es-

pecially times during which the emperors failed to ful-

fill their obligation as "manly" rulers.

Although these women wielded power without having to

usurp the legitimate authority reserved only for men,

some of the ancient writers, like Tacitus, Dio Cassius,

and Herodian cast these women in heavily gendered lan-

guage with the intention both to assert traditional gend-

er roles and to explain the calamities associated with

the emperors they considered unmanly. Pomponia Graecina,

Poppaea Sabina, Flavia Domitilla, Marcia, and Julia Ma-

maea, all demonstrate the connection between gender and

the religio-political system of the early Empire. Spe-

cifically, each also reveals the nuances of a Roman cul-

tural understanding of gender and its role within the em-

bodiment of imperial ideology. Otacilia Severa, Cornelia

Salonina, and Eutropia, although living in eras beyond

the scope of this dissertation, further demonstrate the

ability of women to use gendered norms to their advantage

during times of crisis, even when it appears to be dis-

connected from issues of gender. In short, these women

all show the pervasiveness of gender in all aspects of

imperial culture.
 Copyright by
Karl E. Baughman
2011
 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

In his Metaphysics, Aristotle wrote, "It is just

that we should be grateful, not only to those with whose
views we may agree, but also to those who have expressed
more superficial views; for these also contributed some-
thing, by developing before us the powers of thought."
Bearing this in mind, I have a host of professors, col-
leagues, friends, and family who have helped guide me in
my quest for completing this dissertation, both through
their agreeable and disagreeable viewpoints. Specifical-
ly, I am sincerely grateful to my doctoral advisor, Paul
L. Maier, without whose guidance and attention this dis-
sertation could never have been completed. Joining Dr.
Maier in my sincere thanks is the rest of my Dissertation
Committee, Drs. Marion Gray, E. Rozanne Elder, and Dimi-
ter Angelov. The staffs at the libraries of Western
Michigan University, the University of Michigan, Concor-
dia College, and the countless others affected by my in-
ter-library loan account were of immeasurable assistance
in acquiring the texts I needed. I received very helpful
feedback regarding my paper on Flavia Domitilla I gave at
the 2009 Annual Meeting of the Classical Association of

ii
 Acknowledgments—continued

Canada in Vancouver; chapter two was shaped by those

helpful suggestions. My fellow graduate colleagues at
WMU, Michael Ciletti, Johnny Smith, Joshua Schier, Elise
Boneau, Brian Bradford, David Zwart, Kristi Dunn, Brian
Becker, and many others were important in keeping my mind
not only on my dissertation, but also on the weekly beer
and trivia at Harvey's. My friends, Dion Garrett and
Bill Wangelin, were of endless support. They cannot be
thanked enough for their assistance in helping me articu-
late my argument in a style coherent to those outside the
field, and our close friendships were strengthened in our
long intellectual discussions. I am sincerely indebted
to my wife, Sarah and my children, Magdalena and August,
whose love and support kept me going. My parents, Pear-
ley and Diane Baughman, and Gary and Ruth Palmer, and ex-
tended family were of incalculable support as well. And
of course, the faculty, staff, and administration at Con-
cordia College in Selma, Alabama, who took a chance on me
and hired me ABD in the Fall of 2009, have been most en-
couraging as I completed this dissertation. If I am for-
getting anyone, it is by no means on purpose. Finally,
all errors and faulty interpretations are my own.

Karl E. Baughman

iii
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ii

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS v

CHAPTER

I. "FROM A KINGDOM OF GOLD TO ONE OF IRON AND

RUST"
Introduction 1

II. "PUNISH US AS YOU DO THEM"

Gender, Law, and Culture: Pomponia Graecina, &
Flavia Domitilla 48

III. "UNSEX ME"

Gendered Crisis: Poppaea, Marcia, & Julia Ma-
maea 96

IV. "THEY WILL BE YOUR SUPERIORS"

Conclusions 181

Epilogue: "POWER IS LIKE BEING A LADY"

Otacilia, Cornelia Salonina, & Eutropia 188

BIBLIOGRAPHY 233

iv
 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

ActaSS Acta Sanctorum Bollandiana (1643- )

AJArch American Journal of Archaeology

AJPhil The American Journal of Philology

AJT American Journal of Theology

ANRW Aufstieg und Niedergang der Romischen Welt

C Phil Classical Philology

CJ Classical Journal

CQ Classical Quarterly

CW The Classical World

FuB Forschungen und Berichte

HTR Harvard Theological Review

Historia . . . . Historia: Zeitschrift fiir Alte Geschichte

JEH Journal of Ecclesiastical History

JFSR Journal of Feminist Studies in Religion

JBL Journal of Biblical Literature

JQR Jewish Quarterly Review

JRS The Journal of Roman Studies

JTS Journal of Theological Studies

LCL Loeb Classical Library

PG Patrologiae Cursus Completus, Series Graeca

PL Patrologia Latina
v
 List of Abbreviations—continued

RE Realencyclopadie der Classischen

Altertumswissenschaft

Stud. Doc. Hist. Iur. ...Studia et documenta historiae

et iuris

TAPA Transactions of the American Philological

Association

TUGAL Texte und Untersuchungen zue Geschichte der

altchristlichen Literatur

Vig. Chr Vigiliae Christianae

Abbreviations of ancient authors and texts are from the

Oxford Classical Dictionary

vi
 CHAPTER I

FROM A KINGDOM OF GOLD TO ONE OF IRON AND RUST

Introduction

To Be or Not To Be:
Defining Terms

At first glance of the title, "Women of Foreign

Superstition," this work appears to be solely the study

of women. However, it would be mistaken immediately to

categorize a work with the words "woman" or "man" in the

title into the respective fields of either "women's" or

"men's" histories (as if the two should or even could be

mutually exclusive) . This work is a study of gender - a

study of the relationship between men and women; the

relationship between what was masculine and feminine in

Roman culture; the relationship between men and women and

how each used that division to influence and direct the

course of imperial policy; the relationship between the

divisions of Roman society which built, drove, and shaped

what it was that made them Roman and made their men men,

1
T h i s q u o t a t i o n i s t a k e n from D i o ' s summation of t h e Empire a f t e r
t h e d e a t h of Marcus A u r e l i u s and a s c e n s i o n of Commodus i n 1 8 0 : ...dmo
jpvor\q xe fiaoiXeiaq kq aiSipav K<XI Komu>|Lievr|v xcov tercpaYndacovxoiq xoxe'Pco(xaioiq KOU
fipav vuv Kaxamaov(jr\q xr\q laxopiaq. ( C a s s . Dio l x x i . 3 6 . 4 ) .

1
and their women women. The importance of gender is

prevalent within the ancient sources. As will be

demonstrated throughout this work, the ancient authors

(all men) were very interested in explaining, asserting,

and evaluating the distinction of gender within their

society. They were intent on ensuring that what they saw

as the proper relationship of one's biological sex to

constructed gender identities was exercised in a way that

was both legally and culturally acceptable. This

distinction between masculine and feminine was a

foundation on which Romans judged the quality and

effectiveness of someone's life and work, and was best

expressed in the evaluation of those in positions of

political authority or influence.

About the spread of Christianity in the early

centuries, Jo Ann McNamara wrote, "Women helped to shape

and spread Christianity as a validation of individual

worth separate from worldly social status."2 This was

most likely the case for many women in the first

centuries of Christianity; however, in the case of the

2
Jo Ann McNamara, "Matres Patriae / Matres Ecclesiae: Women of
Rome," in Becoming Visible: Women in European History, ed. Renate
Bridenthal, Susan Mosher Stuard, and Merry E. Wiesner (Boston:
Houghton Mifflin Co., 1998), 86.
women examined in this work, instead of validating
themselves separately from t h e i r worldly status, these
women used their worldly position and the prevailing
construction of gender within Roman society to accomplish
tasks considered outside those boundaries while remaining
well within them. Rather than merely finding something
liberating within Christianity, these women found that
t h e i r p o s i t i o n s as noblewomen enabled them to support the
C h r i s t i a n movement from within the gendered sphere Roman
society had imposed upon them. In other words, these
women sought not to liberate themselves because their
p o s i t i o n s a c t u a l l y provided an opportunity which was not
available t o men (or to women who attempted to work
outside those same gendered boundaries).
Much has been done in recent years to h i g h l i g h t the
importance of gender history. Perhaps the greatest
c o n t r i b u t i o n to the f i e l d has been the emphasis on gender
as "relational history,"3 rather than continuing to

3
For more on t h i s idea of gender as a r e l a t i o n a l h i s t o r y , s e e :
Kathleen Canning, Gender History in Practice: Historical
Perspectives on Bodies, Class, and Citizenship ( I t h a c a , NY: C o r n e l l
U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 2006); Joan Wallach S c o t t , "Gender: A Useful
Category of A n a l y s i s , " i n Gender and the Politics of History, ed.
Joan Wallach S c o t t (New York: Columbia U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1998);
Mathew Kuefler, The Manly Eunuch: Masculinity, Gender Ambiguity, and
Christian Ideology in Late Antiquity (Chicago: The U n i v e r s i t y of
Chicago P r e s s , 2001).
divide the historical narrative into male and female, as

if men and women live and operate completely separate

from one another. Men and women in the early Empire

existed within socially-recognized limitations based upon

their sex and the expectations of gender constructed

around their biology.

Barbara Hanawalt discussed the concept of gendered

space in her *0f Good and 111 Repute' .4 Although

Hanawalt dealt with the enforcement of gendered physical

space through law and custom in medieval England, much of

this concept is applicable to the Roman world as well.

The term "gendered sphere" will be used in this work, and

it encompasses more than just physical space. For this

study, gendered spheres build upon Hanawalt's idea of

gendered space, but extend beyond the physical to include

mainly political and social boundaries associated with

the Roman religio-political system. The religio-

political reality of the early Empire maintained a

disconnect between the power women could wield and the

perceived impact upon the public life of society. As

will be explored throughout this work, the extent to

4
Barbara Hanawalt, y0f Good and 111 Repute': Gender and Social
Control in Medieval England (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998).
which women could wield influence outside their

recognized sphere was dependent upon the general

stability of the Empire and the adherence of the emperor

within the boundaries of his own gendered sphere - for

even men were restricted in what was expected and

required of them. While it is appropriate to describe

the Roman world as divided into public and private

spheres, it is not correct then to assume that only one

gender was capable of exercising power in one or the

other. The public and private spheres of Roman society

were interdependent, and while men may have had priority

in exercising legitimate authority in the public sphere,

it did not mean women were completely excluded or

incapable of exercising power or influence within it as

well.

Power and authority, although sometimes used

interchangeably in English, are for the purposes of this

study, two connected, yet separate concepts. Power is

the ability to steer the course of events in society; to

influence and direct how things are carried out

politically, socially, and culturally. Authority is the

legitimate exercise of power according to the

stipulations of law, custom, and culture. In the early

Empire, authority was exercised only by men. For the

purposes of this study, the terms power and authority

reflect the Roman political concepts of potestas and

auctoritas, respectively. As will be discussed in

further detail in chapter three, even women like Julia

Mamaea, who essentially ran the Empire while her son,

Alexander Severus, was too young to assume full power,

did so only under his recognized legitimacy. Apart from

her son's authority, Mamaea would have been unable to

exercise any power. Shortly before the army removed the

authority of Alexander in 235, Mamaea's power was

criticized by the ancient historians as an abrogation of

recognized and accepted gendered actions. The proper

delineation between two genders and its connection to

ideas of power and authority were important to the

Romans, and the language of the ancient historians lends

much to a fuller understanding of what was expected of

men and women in the early Empire.

The Heart of the Matter:

Organization

This study focuses on the ability of women,

specifically noblewomen in the early Empire, to live and

operate within gendered boundaries and societal

expectations in order to take advantage of their

situations for the purpose of assisting, safeguarding,

and supporting the early Church. How these women were

capable of carrying out this task sheds light upon Roman

conceptions of marriage, virginity, homosexuality,

masculinity, femininity, and law. The stability of the

Empire, politically, economically, and socially, impacted

the ability of these women to influence those in

legitimate authority and weighed heavily in the

relationship between the imperial government and the

Christian movement. Crises created environments in which

women with particular connections to imperial authority

could wield power without overstepping their socially-

expected gender behavior. For example, in the late-

second century, the seeming lack of masculinity on the

part of the Empire's first man (princeps) provoked a

crisis of gendered expectations during the reign of

Commodus. Because of this crisis, the emperor's

concubine, Marcia, was able to wield power previously

unbeknownst to Christian women in imperial favor. As

will be demonstrated throughout, a gendered crisis in

which the masculinity of the emperor was called into

question created both a fear of a general political

crisis by those in positions of authority (most notably

the army) and a peculiar opportunity for women close to

the emperor to exercise considerable influence and power.

The Third Century Crisis which engulfed the Roman

Empire from 235-285, is beyond the scope of this study.

However, the Crisis demonstrates the thesis of this work

and so shall be briefly examined in an epilogue in order

to better accentuate the topic at hand. Although the

sources are scant, it can be surmised that during the

Third Century Crisis, two empresses, Cornelia Salonina

and Otacilia, could have influenced policies toward the

Christian community while their husbands busied

themselves with ensuring their legacy and the stability

of the Empire. These women all demonstrate that

effective gendered response by Christian women in

positions of influence was governed by political, social,

and economic forces beyond their control, and so each

situation demonstrates something uniquely peculiar about

the role of gender within Roman society in the first

three centuries of the Empire.

The division of chapters is thematic, yet there

remains a relatively chronological approach. Each

chapter examines how Christian women of the nobility were

impacted by the construction of gender in relation to the

religio-political system of the early Empire from 57-235.

The starting point of 57 was chosen because of the trial

of Pomponia Graecina - a noblewoman accused and tried for

"foreign superstition" (a term whence this work takes its

title) . The ending year of 235 marks the end of the

reign of Alexander Severus and the beginning of the Third

Century Crisis. This work examines the connection

between gender and the exercise of power during times of

crisis, particularly crises of gender. A brief

examination of the Third Century Crisis is included

because the conclusions drawn from the focus of this

study are further demonstrated within the period of

greatest crisis the Empire had ever endured. However,

the sources available which focus explicitly on how women

in unique positions of power used the crisis to influence

imperial policies toward the Christians are too scant to

make definitive conclusions, and therefore only

possibilities can be offered.

Each chapter provides examples of how gendered

boundaries were interpreted and enforced by a male-

dominated society. However, Christian women in positions

of influence could, especially during times of crisis,

use the accepted gender norms to the advantage of the

Christian communities they sought to protect and support.

In short, the gendered boundaries of the early Empire

provided women of particular social status with

opportunities of power and influence unknown even to most

men.

Chapter one examines Pomponia Graecina and Flavia

Domitilla, two women of the first century who were

arraigned for trial on account of their religious

beliefs. The significance of their trials is connected

to the Roman construction of gender in light of law and

punishment. Restrictions on women's participation in the

legal and political realms of Roman life, while sometimes

tied to Roman understandings of womanly weakness

{infirmitas sexus), actually prove to be more closely

tied to the relationship between gender and political

stability. Chapter two introduces how women functioned

within the legal and traditional constraints of the early

Empire and how gender provided the foundation for all

other aspects of Roman life.

Chapter three builds upon these Roman ideas of

gender expectations by examining the role of the emperor

as "first man." With this general understanding of what

the princeps should be, the Roman construction of

masculine and feminine is explored through the connection

of three women to the imperial throne. Poppaea Sabina,

wife of Nero (r. 54-68), Marcia, concubine of Commodus

(r. 180-192), and Julia Mamaea, mother of Alexander

Severus (r. 222-235), each transcended the traditional

gender roles while remaining within gendered expectations

during times of crisis. In addition, each demonstrated

the uniqueness and complexity of what was expected of

them on account of their gender and their relationship to

the emperor. The crises during the lives of these three

women were connected to the socially expected

construction of masculinity on the part of the emperors.

Because each emperor failed in his duty to exemplify what

society considered to be masculine behavior, these women

were able to exercise certain powers over imperial

policies. In essence, these women demonstrated the

ability of the feminine sometimes to subsume the

masculine in order to avert or end a crisis of gender

disorder. The relationship between the boundaries of

masculine and feminine is demonstrated in the cases of

these three women and sheds much light not only on the
Roman construction of gender, but also understandings of

homosexuality and the limitations of applying

specifically gendered terms across gendered lines.

The epilogue consists of a brief analysis of the

Third Century Crisis. As mentioned earlier, this is not

central to the purpose of this study, however,

conclusions drawn from chapters two and three offer

support in looking at crises which at first glance appear

to be disconnected from gender. In this epilogue three

empresses were brought into the spotlight: Otacilia, wife

of Philip the Arab (r. 244-249), Cornelia Salonina, wife

of Gallienus (r. 260-268), and Eutropia, wife of Maximian

(r.286-305).

The Third Century Crisis, unlike the gendered crises

examined in chapter three, was exclusively political in

the sense that it was not on account of a perceived lack

of masculinity on the part of the emperor. From the

conclusions drawn in this work, some things can be

conjectured about the three Christian empresses in the

epilogue, about whom little is known. These three

empresses were in positions which could have enabled them

to influence directly imperial policy toward the

Christians by taking advantage of their relationship to

their husbands as well as the preoccupation of the

imperial government with the economic, political, and

military crises plaguing the Empire. Because the crisis

was different from the crises examined in chapter three,

power by women close to the emperor was exercised

differently as well. The emperors presented no absence

of a masculine presence, and so there was no need for the

feminine to assume that masculine role. If Otacilia,

Salonina, and Eutropia influenced the imperial

government's policies toward the Church under their

respective husbands, then they did so within the bounds

of what society considered normal feminine behavior.

Scratching Beneath the Surfaces:

Methodology

The great difficulty in writing the story of gender

in the ancient world is that women left few sources of

their own. Because of the lack of sources written by

women, conclusions have been drawn from the sources

written by men about women. For this study, it is not

only sources about women which unveil the intricacies of

gender in the early Empire, but also the sources about

men reveal much in understanding the relationship between

masculine and feminine in the ancient world.

Vocabulary emphasizing what the ancient authors

considered to be socially desirable qualities within men

and women permeates their writings. The task of the

gender historian is to draw out these terms and define

their meaning within the context of the author. This

task of contextualization is important in the historical

works because oftentimes the authors sought to transfer

constructions of gender and socially acceptable behavior

from their own time onto the past events of which they

wrote.

Roman law and ancient histories contribute the most

to this study for uncovering the gendered boundaries

within the early Empire. Laws as a source on the proper

roles for each gender are somewhat limiting, however, in

that they are more prescriptive than descriptive. As it

has been aptly put, "for law... is about what people may or

may not do, not what they actually do."5 The histories,

from which most of the analysis of gender takes place for

this study, provide important insight into the

5
Jane F. Gardner, Women in Roman Law and Society (Bloomington and
Indianapolis: Indiana University Press, 1995 [Orig. 1986]), 3.
expectations and assumptions about gender from later

periods of history which are read back into earlier

episodes of gender interaction.

In the second chapter, the exploration of women

under the law demonstrates that within Roman law and

culture, women were treated differently from men because

elite Roman writers believed that nature had endowed each

sex with distinctive qualities, abilities, and

responsibilities. This chapter focuses less what the law

expected of each gender, but rather on how Romans

enforced the law upon men and women. Although gender was

a construction of Roman society (what it meant to act as

a man or as a woman) it was nevertheless attached to what

Romans could visibly demonstrate - sex.

Chapter three explores examples of when the emperor

failed to operate within his own gendered sphere. When

emperors took on feminine qualities and abandoned their

masculine role of political authority, women could

sometimes influence or directly assume the masculine role

which the historians believed was needed for a stable

society. The ancient historians portrayed this

usurpation of masculinity by a woman as a negative but

sometimes necessary (albeit temporary) reversal of gender

roles.

In the epilogue, the opposite approach is examined.

Rather than assuming the masculine, the women explored in

this chapter acted in strict accordance with what was

expected of them. The crisis of gender explored in

chapter three is not the crisis which could have provided

advantage to the women explored in the epilogue. The

purpose of this epilogue is to demonstrate that the

approach used in this study could apply to later periods

of Roman history as well, although for the Third Century

Crisis, the evidence is less conclusive. Although it is

almost always portrayed in black and white by the ancient

historians, gender was, in fact, a complex and

multifaceted construction within Roman society.

When in Rome:
Cultural Contexts

The women examined in this work were only able to

wield the power they did because of what society expected

of them as women. These expectations were cemented in

Roman culture through a number of legal and moral

traditions, but perhaps most importantly, through the

pens of the historians who sought to connect their

understanding of gendered lines to nature. As will be

further explored in each chapter, Roman historians, such

as Tacitus, Dio, and Herodian, immersed their narratives

in gendered language. These historians emphasized the

distinction between the genders, and they made clear what

was expected of each, thereby creating a sort of

propaganda to serve as both a warning to future emperors,

and a moral lesson on what becomes of a society that

neglects the natural order.

Whether one was perceived as acting in accordance

with his or her normative gender role was a foundation

for how Romans judged the quality and morality of

someone's life and work. Specifically, the princeps as

first man of the Empire was to be the embodiment of

manhood for all Roman men. In his The Manly Eunuch,

Mathew Kuefler argued that "the notion of masculinity -

that is, what it meant to be a man - formed an integral

part of the intellectual life of late antiquity."6

Kuefler's purpose was to connect this notion of

masculinity to the development of Christian ideology.

6
Kuefler, The Manly Eunuch: Masculinity, Gender Ambiguity, and
Christian Ideology in Late Antiquity, 1.
Although distinct from the purposes of this work,

Kuefler' s thesis is important in supporting the idea that

Romans believed the proper exercise of one's gender

assignment was essential to a stable and productive

family, community, and empire.

Roman historians interpreted the actions of emperors

within the framework of socially constructed gendered

spheres. The purposes behind these historical

interpretations were twofold: first, the historians made

their fellow Romans aware of their own places on the

social ladder; second, the historians could explain the

success or failure of those at the top of society within

the framework of masculine leadership. The political

life of Rome was dominated by men. While women could

exercise some rights within the public realm, men assumed

all legal authority in the political and religious areas

of life. Because men were the dominant force within the

Roman religio-political system, the language used to

describe behavior associated with that arena was

masculine. Therefore, what was appropriate for the

proper exercise of political office was tied to what were

believed to be masculine traits which could (or at least

should) be found only in men. When women exercised these

traits, their behavior could only be interpreted as an

aberration of the natural order. This idea of the

feminine usurpation of an inherently masculine

responsibility is at the heart of chapter three and

contributes much to understanding the formation and

perception of gender explored in chapter two and the

epilogue.

The vita militaris (military life) was the ultimate

expression of masculinity in Roman culture.7 As first

man, the princeps was especially expected to exude this

masculine quality, and the ancient writers were quick to

demonstrate the inadequacy of those emperors who failed

to live up to society's expectations of manliness. The

ancient historians used gender as a method of evaluating

the success and failure of current emperors by comparison

to those in the past, and to forewarn their

contemporaries of the impending doom for those who

stepped outside their gendered spheres. For example,

Boudicca's speech condemning the luxury and effeminacy of

the Romans and their emperor (Nero, r. 54-68) most likely

reflected Dio Cassius' assessment of the emperor

Elagabalus (r. 218-222) who reigned during Dio's own

7
Ibid., 37ff; 275ff.
 20
8
career. Boudicca, who, in Tacitus' summation, had

usurped the legal authority (imperium) restricted to men

when she led a rebellion in Roman Britain, had taken on

the preposterous gender monstrosity of a masculinized-

female ruler {dux femina),9 Centuries later, Zosimus'

denunciation of Marcia, Commodus' concubine, as

masculine, was a masked insult of Commodus who, in the

judgment of Roman expectations, had failed in his own

masculinity.10 These examples and the idea of gender as a

tool used by the ancient historians are further explored

in chapter three.

In the second century BC, Polybius had warned that

When a state, after warding off many great

dangers, achieves supremacy and undisputed
sovereignty, it is evident that by the long
continuance of prosperity, life will become
more extravagant, and rivalry for office and in
other spheres of activity, will become fiercer
than it should. As the state of things goes on
more and more, the aspiration of office and the
shame of losing reputation which obscurity
brings, together with the spread of ostentation
and extravagance of living, will usher in the
beginning of general deterioration.11

Cass. Dio lxii.6. Kuefler draws a similar conclusion: The Manly

Eunuch: Masculinity, Gender Ambiguity, and Christian Ideology in
Late Antiquity, 40-41.
9
l a c , Agr. xvi.l; xxxi. 4. See chapter 3 and also: Francesca
Santoro L'Hoir, "Tacitus and Women's Usurpation of Power," CW 88,
no. 1 (Sep.-Oct. 1994).
10
Zos., Historia Nova i.7. For more see my discussion in chapter 3.
11
Polyb., vi.57.
Although Polybius neglected to specifically incorporate

conceptions of masculinity and femininity within his

prophetic warning of Rome's future, the later Roman

historians did not. Extravagance, ostentatious dress and

lifestyle, and a life in stark contrast to the hard

existence of a soldier - all negative qualities in

Polybius' admonition - were at the center of femininity

in the Roman mind. For the Romans, the Greek empires had

fallen because their men had abandoned their masculinity

and succumbed to the comforts of a feminine life.12 By

the mid-fourth century, Ammianus Marcellinus bemoaned the

fact that the Romans of his day had abandoned' the

military life {vita militaris) in favor of the effeminate

life {vita mollitiae) .13 The writings of the ancient

historians impart that the exercise of truly masculine

qualities by a man ensured a successful reign, while

femininity encouraged rebellion because society would

naturally attempt to realign itself with nature.

As much as Roman society expected its men to reflect

the vita militaris, it expected its women to live out a

12
For an examination of what the Romans thought of the Greeks and
their decline, see: J.P.V.D. Balsdon, Romans and Aliens (Chapel
Hill, NC: The University of North Carolina Press, 1979), esp. ch. 3.
13
7Amm. M a r c , xxxi . 5 .
 22

distinctly feminine existence. A valid feminine

existence in Roman culture was one which fulfilled an

"unquestioned destiny"14 of marriage and childbirth. This

strict delineation of what was culturally appropriate for

Roman women raises two concerns within the context of

this study: 1) why did women, especially noblewomen,

convert in greater numbers to Christianity than men in

the first three centuries? and 2) where do the Vestal

Virgins fit into the Roman expectation of marriage and

childbirth? These two concerns are closely connected,

and can be appropriately treated by examining the

relationship between marriage, virginity, and femininity

within both Roman and Christian cultures.

In the first three centuries of Christianity, women

converted in greater numbers to the new faith than men

did.15 The first question, of course, is why? Jan

Bremmer briefly addressed this query16 and summarily

14
Peter R.L. Brown, The Body and Society: Men, Women and Sexual
Renunciation in Early Christianity (New York: Columbia University
Press, 1988), 9.
15
Robin Lane Fox, Pagans and Christians (San Francisco: Harper & Row
Publishers, 1986), 310; Adolf von Harnack, Die Mission Und
Ausbreitung Des Christentums in Den Ersten Drei Jahrhunderten
(Charleston, SC: BiblioLife, LLC, 2010 [Orig. 1915]), 68ff; Rodney
Stark, "Reconstructing the Rise of Christianity: The Role of Women,"
Sociology of Religion 56, no. 3 (Autumn 1995): 232ff.
16
Jan Bremmer, "Why Did Early Christianity Attract Upper-class
Women," in Fructus Centesimus: Melanges Offerts a Gerard J.M.
Bartelink a L'occasion de son soixante-cinquieme Anniversaire, ed.
dismissed the t r a d i t i o n a l explanations that women were
more credulous, or more receptive to " r e l i g i o u s groups
with orgiastic, emotional and/or hysterical aspects."17
Bremmer concluded that "intellectually, socially and
sexually, early Christianity offered possibilities to
upper-class women which were not provided to the same
degree by other c u l t s . " 1 8 These p o s s i b i l i t i e s included
greater self-expression for women, more o p p o r t u n i t i e s of
patronage, i n t e l l e c t u a l nourishment and advancement, and
sexual l i b e r a t i o n in the forms of divorce from t h e i r non-
Christian husbands and/or a life of virginity.
Furthermore, Bremmer claimed t h a t the decline of manus
marriage in the e a r l y Empire, which allowed s i n g l e upper-
c l a s s women a b e t t e r chance at s e l f - s u p p o r t , in addition
to the disappearance of a clear distinction between
public and p r i v a t e life in the eastern portion of the
Empire contributed to the success of these possibilities
for women in e a r l y C h r i s t i a n i t y . 1 9

A.A.R. B a s t i a e n s e n , A. H i l h o r s t , and C.H. Kneepkens, I n s t r u m e n t s

Patristica ( S t e e n b r u g i s : In Abbatia S a n c t i P e t r i , 1989).
17
Mentioned i n Bremmer ( I b i d . , 40f.) as argued by: Max Weber,
Wirtschaft Und Gesellschaft. GrundriB Der Verstehenden Soziologie
(1925) .
18
Bremmer, "Why Did E a r l y C h r i s t i a n i t y A t t r a c t U p p e r - c l a s s Women,"
46.
19
For t h e d e c l i n e of manus m a r r i a g e , s e e : Susan E. Looper-Friedman,
"The Decline of Manus-Marriage," Tijdschrift voor Rechtsgeschiedenis
 24
While Bremmer's argument is a thorough attempt to

a d d r e s s t h e q u e s t i o n of why women seemed more i n c l i n e d to

the Christian faith in the early centuries, one must ask

if the question can ever be definitively answered. In

fact, the question itself implies that women choose

religion based solely upon what advantages it has over

and against their current situation - rejecting

completely any kind of inexplicable spiritual or

emotional motivations.20 Even if it were arguable that

women c h o s e t h e i r r e l i g i o n because they believed i t would

afford them g r e a t e r liberty, Paul's entreaties that women

remain silent and submit to their husbands' authority21

certainly seem t o contradict a notion that women sought

out greater self-expression and/or liberation from the

patriarchal nature of Roman society by converting to

Christianity.

55 (1987). For t h e d i s a p p e a r a n c e of p u b l i c and p r i v a t e i n t h e

e a s t e r n Empire, as well as Rome i t s e l f , s e e : Bremmer, "Why Did Early
C h r i s t i a n i t y A t t r a c t Upper-Class Women," 42, f o o t n o t e 13.
20
While s p i r i t u a l and emotional m o t i v a t i o n s a r e d i f f i c u l t t o
a s c e r t a i n or e x p l a i n without e x p l i c i t mentions i n t h e s o u r c e s , one
cannot deny t h a t they a r e c e r t a i n l y p a r t of t h e human c o n d i t i o n and
e x p e r i e n c e . In a d d i t i o n , modern h i s t o r i a n s cannot presume t h a t
c u r r e n t concepts of l i b e r t y and e q u a l i t y were shared or even
understood by t h o s e who l i v e d two m i l l e n n i a ago i n a c u l t u r e which
d i d not espouse such i d e a s .
21
Some examples from P a u l ' s l e t t e r s which d e l i n e a t e a submissive
r o l e for women a r e : 1 C o r i n t h i a n s 1 1 : 3 , 9 ; Ephesians 5:22-24;
C o l o s s i a n s 3:18; 1 Timothy 2 : 1 1 - 1 2 .
 Bremmer's idea that sexual liberation for early
C h r i s t i a n women was exercised through e i t h e r divorce from
t h e i r pagan husbands or voluntary v i r g i n i t y breaks down
under closer scrutiny of the legal and cultural
understandings of divorce and v i r g i n i t y in both Roman and
Christian societies. In Roman culture, there were
essentially two types of marriage: one where the wife
became part of her husband's familia {cum manu), and the
other where the wife remained a p a r t of her father's
(sine manu).22 By the end of the Republic, sine manu
marriage had become the predominant form of marriage.
Concerning divorce, i t was undoubtedly more accepted in
the Roman world to divorce one's husband than within the
C h r i s t i a n community. Since Roman marriage was based upon
the consent of both p a r t i e s , e i t h e r the husband or wife
could i n i t i a t e a divorce and no cause had to be alleged
for the a c t i o n . 2 3 A s t i p u l a t i o n which might have impacted

22
For more on Roman m a r r i a g e s e e : Percy E. C o r b e t t , The Roman Law of
Marriage (Oxford: Oxford U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1930); J u d i t h Evans
Grubbs, Women and the Law in the Roman Empire: A Sourcebook on
Marriage, Divorce and Widowhood (London and New York: Routledge,
2002); Susan T r e g g i a r i , Roman Marriage: Iusti Coniuges from the Time
of Cicero to the Time of Ulpian (Oxford: Oxford U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s ,
1991) .
23
Up u n t i l t h e r e i g n of Marcus A u r e l i u s ( r . 1 6 0 - 1 8 1 ) , t h e
paterfamilias was c o n s i d e r e d t o be a c o n s e n t i n g p a r t y t o t h e
m a r r i a g e as w e l l , and h e l d t h e a u t h o r i t y t o i n i t i a t e d i v o r c e . See:
Karl Galinsky, "Augustus' L e g i s l a t i o n on Morals and M a r r i a g e , "
Philologus 125 (1981); Gardner, Women in Roman Law and Society, 81;
 26
who d i v o r c e d whom i n sine manu m a r r i a g e , was i n cases
where i f t h e wife or paterfamilias i n i t i a t e d the divorce,

then the husband could sometimes claim a deduction of

o n e - s i x t h of t h e dowry for t h e c h i l d r e n . 2 4 This could, of

course, be argued as good r e a s o n for t h e woman a c t u a l l y

to refrain from initiating the divorce herself. Of

course, cum manu m a r r i a g e was s t a r k l y d i f f e r e n t from free

marriage {sine manu) because in this case a divorce

r e q u i r e d r e m a n c i p a t i o n of t h e wife by e x c l u s i o n from her

husband's familia and a r e t u r n to her father's. This

type of m a r r i a g e , however, had f a l l e n out of p r a c t i c e for

t h e most p a r t by t h e end of t h e R e p u b l i c . 2 5 R e g a r d l e s s of

who d i v o r c e d whom, however, t h e s o u r c e s i n d i c a t e t h a t the

divorce rate among Romans may have been at a level

somewhat similar to statistics in the United States

Leo F. R a d i t s a , "Augustus' L e g i s l a t i o n Concerning Marriage,

P r o c r e a t i o n , Love A f f a i r s and A d u l t e r y , " ANRN 2, no. 13 (1980);
Susan T r e g g i a r i , "Divorce Roman S t y l e : How Easy and How Frequent Was
I t ? " i n Marriage, Divorce, and Children in Ancient Rome, ed. Beryl
Rawson (Oxford & New York: Oxford U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1991), 32-34;
38.
24
T r e g g i a r i , "Divorce Roman S t y l e : How Easy and How Frequent Was
I t ? , " 39.
25
On d i v o r c e i n cum manu marriage s e e : C o r b e t t , The Roman Law of
Marriage, Gardner, Women m Roman Law and Society, 83f, T r e g g i a r i ,
"Divorce Roman S t y l e : How Easy and How Frequent Was I t ? , " 33ff.
 27
today, which implies a somewhat commonplace occurrence

within Roman society.26

In the first century, marriage, or more accurately,

divorce and inheritance, became topics of interest in the

legislation of Rome's first emperor. There is no

indication, however, that women who wished to free

themselves from their husbands found it more difficult to

do so in light of the new marriage laws imposed by

Augustus.27 In fact, one could argue that Augustus'

legislation did little or nothing to discourage divorce,

but rather only to encourage remarriage and

childbearing.28 In the general picture, as a private act,

divorce was free from most constraints of government

regulation, yet Suetonius wrote that Augustus imposed a

"limit" on divorce.29 Suetonius' phrasing, however,

"divortiis modum imposuit" could also be translated as

26
Treggiari, "Divorce Roman Style: How Easy and How Frequent Was
It?" 41ff.
27
Augustus' legislation was more concerned with connecting morality
to the need for an increase in Roman birthrates: Galinsky,
"Augustus' Legislation on Morals and Marriage," 132.
28
Gardner, Women in Roman Law and Society, 82f.
29
Suet., Aug. xxxiv. Judith Evans Grubbs interprets Suetonius'
"modus" as a limit in the sense that Augustus tried to prevent men
reluctant to marry from finding loopholes by betrothing themselves
to girls under 12 and/or by having frequent marriages and divorces:
Evans Grubbs, Women and the Law in the Roman Empire: A Sourcebook on
Marriage, Divorce and Widowhood, 86.
imposing a "set form" on divorce,30 rather than a limit on

the frequency. Whether Augustus set limits, or merely a

formula, what is known for sure is that the only

occasions of divorce in which the government felt obliged

to intervene were related to issues of property and

intestacy. Examples which constituted an intervention on

behalf of the imperial government included divorce

between a freedwoman married to her patron, and when the

wife was a proven adulteress. These two instances,

however, are similar because they both relate to property

and inheritance. In a marriage between a freedwoman and

her patron, there was no separation of property between

the husband and wife, and although it was a free marriage

{sine manu), the two were legally connected to the

property in a way that marriage did not usually connect

husband and wife.31 In the second case, if a husband knew

his wife had committed adultery, then under the lex Iulia

de adulteriis, he was obligated to divorce her or be

prosecuted as a leno (pimp).32 A wife who committed

30
This is what is argued by Jane Gardner, since she believes
Augustus' legislation did not discourage divorce, but rather
encouraged it: Gardner, Women in Roman Law and Society, 85.
31
Dig. 24.2.11; See also: Gardner, Women in Roman Law and Society,
82-83.
32
Dig. 24.2.11; See also: Treggiari, Roman Marriage: Iusti Coniuges
from the Time of Cicero to the Time of Ulpian, 454-57.
adultery could not be confident in knowing who the father

of her sons was, and therefore the issue of inheritance

is the key to understanding why the government felt

compelled to intervene in these cases.

Roman marriage in the Empire was not the union of

two people or even two families, but rather an agreement

between two families to produce heirs for the husband's

posterity. Women contributed to Roman society only

through their relationship to men. The procreative role

was the paramount requirement and achievement of Roman

women, and this was not legitimately realized outside of

marriage. Because of this, marriage functioned as a

foundation of Roman society because it provided the only

environment in which legitimate heirs could be produced.

Ensuring that women remained in their role as heir-

producing contributors to society was a primary aspect of

the laws of Augustus and his successors.33 While women

enjoyed an equal status with their husbands in creating

and ending their marriages, an unmarried woman was of

little use to society because her purpose of childbearing

33
Evans Grubbs, Women and the Law in the Roman Empire: A Sourcebook
on Marriage, Divorce and Widowhood, 87: "Augustus and his successors
were promoting an imperial ideology that stressed marriage and
child-bearing as the foundation for the state."
was not being fulfilled. The legitimacy of heirs and the

transfer of property weighed heavily in Roman

understandings of divorce, because a married couple

maintained separate property within the marriage.

Separate property and separate families, the concept of

marriage as an institution whose sole purpose was to

ensure the security of the husband's patrimony was

definitively demonstrated in the continued growth of sine

manu marriage in the early Empire.34 For first-century

Roman culture, a Roman woman's purpose and greatest

contribution to society was the exercise of her

biological ability to bear children.

Early Christian literature on marriage encouraged

married couples to remain married despite disagreements

even in religious belief. In 1 Corinthians 7, Paul

outlined the principles for a Christian marriage. First,

Paul reiterated the Jewish understanding of marriage as

the union of two people into one flesh35 - a concept of

marriage quite foreign to Roman tradition and law. In

emphasizing this, Christians were reminded not only that

the married couple was inseparable, but neither exercised

34
Looper-Friedman, "The Decline of Manus-Marriage."
35
Genesis 2:24; Matthew 19:4-6; Mark 10:7-10; 1 Corinthians 6:16;
11:11-12; Ephesians 5:31.
authority over his or her own body, for he or she was

under the power of the other.36 Paul then outlined that,

according to God, the wife was not to separate from her

husband and the husband was not to divorce his wife.37

Based on this, Paul urged his own advice: if a Christian

were married to a non-Christian, he or she should stay

married and serve as an example of Christianity in hopes

of eventually converting the unbelieving spouse.38 From

this letter, one can draw two conclusions. First, the

Corinthian Christians may have been unfamiliar with the

traditional Jewish understanding of marriage, which was

being urged by Paul in his Christian ministry. Second,

Paul encouraged Christians to remain married to their

pagan spouses because they were, in fact, divorcing them.

This second point would seem to support Bremmer's

argument that women were converting to Christianity and

using divorce as a means to liberate themselves from

their husbands and the patriarchal hierarchy of Roman

society they represented. This interpretation, however,

ignores the fact that Roman women were not required to

36
1 Corinthians 7:4.
37
1 Corinthians 7:10-11. Under Jewish law, only the husband could
initiate a divorce.
38
I Corinthians 7:12-16; 1 Peter 3:1-2.
 32
39
give a reason for divorce. The ease of divorce in Roman

society eliminated the need for a conversion to

Christianity for the purpose of attaining a divorce.

Furthermore, the Jews and Christians were certainly not

exempt from Augustus' marriage laws which encouraged and

required remarriage within eighteen months of a divorce.40

When it came to marriage, liberty, and the expectations

of women, it could be said that while both Roman pagans

and Christians set few restrictions on what women were

capable of doing, they were quite restrictive in what

they believed women should do.41

While virginity could be interpreted as a form of

sexual liberation, as has been argued,42 the evidence

suggests that those who chose a life of celibacy would do

so not simply to eschew notions of patriarchal dominance,

but rather because one truly believed in the sanctity of

such an act. If virgins believed that their lives of

chastity were an act of rebellion against the male-

39
Treggiari, "Divorce Roman Style: How Easy and How Frequent Was
It?," 34.
40
Corbett, The Roman Law of Marriage, 250.
41
Jo Ann McNamara, "Sexual Equality and the Cult of Virginity in
Early Christian Thought," Feminist Studies 3, no. 3/4 (Spring-
Summer, 1976): 148. McNamara is referring only to Christian Church
Fathers. However, McNamara's conclusion regarding the early
Christian view of women is nearly identical with Roman pagan views.
42
Fox, Pagans and Christians, 372ff, McNamara, "Matres Patriae /
Matres Ecclesiae: Women of Rome," 92.
dominated world, then they left nothing written of their

own to indicate such, nor would conversion to

Christianity have exempted them from Roman laws and

traditional expectations for women of marriageable age

and qualities. Christian women who sought to live a life

of celibacy did so in stark contrast to the accepted

norms of Roman culture, however, they did not escape

those same cultural expectations within Christianity.

As seen in the marriage laws and traditions of Rome,

marriage and the bearing of heirs was the normative

destiny of all Roman women. While virginity was a

visible part of ancient religious practice, it was first

and foremost an anomalous lifestyle.43 Religious virgins,

such as the Vestals, were expected to marry after their

tenure as virgins had ended. The religious celibates of

antiquity "were the exceptions that reinforced the rule...

[They]... heightened the awareness of contemporaries that

marriage and childbirth were the unquestioned destiny of

all other women."44 Virgins, like the Vestals, in Roman

culture were neither male nor female. They were

aberrations of gender whose illegitimate existence was

43
Brown, The Body and Society: Men, Women and Sexual Renunciation in
Early Christianity, 8.
44
Ibid., 9.
made temporarily legitimate only because of their

religious purpose. In the eyes of the pagan majority,

virginity was a temporary and atypical condition, which,

while carrying important religious functions in some

situations, would not have been recognized as a

legitimate long-term lifestyle within the early Empire.45

Christians viewed voluntary virginity differently

than the surrounding Roman culture did. Within the

literature of the early Christian Fathers, there was a

strong connection between the life of wife and that of

virgin.46 While virginity could be an accepted and

fruitful lifestyle within the Christian community, the

institution of marriage took precedence over virginity,

especially if the woman was already married.47 Paul's

exhortation that in marriage the spouse has control over

the other's body created problems for women who wished to

live the celibate life after marriage. After all, if the

husband maintained control over his wife's body, then she

had no more right to withhold sexual relations from her

husband, than he had the right to withhold them from

45
For more on virginity and gender in the Roman world, see Brown's
summary in: Ibid., 5-25.
46
McNamara, "Sexual Equality and the Cult of Virginity in Early
Christian Thought," 148f.
47
Ibid.: 148. McNamara cites examples of married women who
endeavored to live a celibate life while married.
her.48 This Christian conception of the inseparable bond

between husband and wife, although quite different from

the Roman construct of marriage, was very similar to the

Roman understanding of the relationship between men and

women in regard to virginity. Both Roman pagans and

Roman Christians understood women to be inseparable from

their relationship to men within society through the

institution of marriage.

The Christian understanding of virginity within the

first century was far from the more systematized theology

of the later centuries. While Christians, like pagans,

sought to enforce historical gender expectations which

encouraged women's paramount contribution to society

through procreation, they also began to emphasize,

contrary to pagan beliefs, that virginity was a lifestyle

wholly compatible with a Christian understanding of

feminine. This counter-cultural acceptance of virginity

by Christians could be interpreted as a concept which

"threatened to destroy gender barriers by rejecting

48
1 Corinthians 7:3-5: "The husband should give to his wife her
conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband. For the wife
does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does.
Likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but
the wife does. Do not deprive one another, except perhaps by
agreement for a limited time, that you may devote yourselves to
prayer; but then come together again, so that Satan may not tempt you
because of your lack of self-control."
traditional sexual and procreative roles that restricted

women solely to relationships with men."49 However, the

acceptance of virginity as a suitable way of life may

have acted more to enforce gender barriers and

expectations rather than to unravel them, by simply

transferring the traditional expectations of wifely

submission and obedience from a human husband to Jesus

Christ. Through this new spiritual marriage, Christian

women could contribute to the benefit of society aside

from physical marriage and procreation.

The experiences of female virgins within early

Christianity are preserved only in the texts written by

male clergy and historians.50 The sources described

female virgins as freeing themselves from the judgment

upon Eve and her descendents. No longer would they fear

the pains of childbirth, for "[y]ou virgins are free from

this sentence... with that of men your lot and your

condition is equal."51 This notion of equality between

men and women through virginity developed later in the

theology of virginity that began to dominate

49
McNamara, "Matres Patriae / Matres Ecclesiae: Women of Rome," 92.
50
A hole in the historical treasures of the Church which Elizabeth
Castelli laments in: Elizabeth Castelli, "Virginity and Its Meaning
for Women's Sexuality in Early Christianity," JFSR 2 (1986): 61-65.
51
Cyprian, De Habitu Virginum xxii (PL 461-462).
ecclesiastical discourse in the third and fourth

centuries and seems to be a very narrow interpretation of

the impressions of equality conveyed by Paul in the first

century, when he wrote "...there is no male and female, for

you are all one in Christ Jesus."52 In virginity,

Christian women did not find a freedom from traditional

expectations, but rather an enforcement of gendered

boundaries now fully realized in a celestial relationship

with a spiritual husband maintained under the rigors of

physical and spiritual exercise and control. Christian

virgins were expected to act and dress as Christian

wives, and the imagery of their lifestyles was eventually

portrayed as a spiritualized sexuality.53 Christian

virginity did not provide a freedom from the bonds of man

and woman, but rather a transference to the bonds of God-

man and woman. Christian virgins, although living a

legitimate life outside of physical marriage and

procreation within the Christian community, could not

escape the expectations that women were socially bound to

marry and bear children because of their sex. Through

the words of later Christian writers, the celestial realm

52
Galatians 3:28.
53
Castelli, "Virginity and Its Meaning for Women's Sexuality in
Early Christianity," 71ff.
became molded to the language of the physical. Even if

liberation was what these women had sought, it came to

nothing as virginity became merely a new Christian form

of marriage shrouded in traditional gendered

expectations.

In better understanding the connection between

gender and the conversion to Christianity, perhaps the

question being asked should not be, "Why were women more

attracted to Christianity than men?" but rather, "Why

were men, particularly noblemen, not drawn to the new

faith in equal numbers to the women?" This latter

question, rather than the former, can be answered more

conclusively based upon the evidence available. The

nature of this question is connected to the political

reality of the early Empire and the gendered construction

of its religio-political system. Gendered spheres were

the fabric of Roman society. The relationship between

men and women was interwoven in daily life, however, in

the carrying out of their culturally-understood duties,

underlying social understandings of gendered purpose,

place, and ability only further perpetuated the

dichotomization of the masculine and feminine. This

 39
connection between the religio-political system and

gender i s f u r t h e r explored in chapter two.

The Kingdom of Heaven & The Kingdom of Caesar:

H i s t o r i c a l Contexts

W h i l e t h e Roman Empire emerged from t h e d u s t of the

Republic, Christianity was taking shape under the

umbrella of Second-Temple Judaism. The first century

w i t n e s s e d t h e e a r l y r a p i d g r o w t h of b o t h t h e Roman Empire

and Christianity, yet the growth of the Christian

movement attracted little attention from the imperial

government. There are examples of interaction by the

Roman authorities within the disputes between Jews and

Christians, but as a whole, the Romans regarded

C h r i s t i a n i t y a s an i n t e r n a l affair of t h e J e w s . 5 4 For the

most p a r t , what Romans knew o r b e l i e v e d about Christians

Arguments can be made for when C h r i s t i a n i t y and Judaism o f f i c i a l l y

went t h e i r s e p a r a t e ways i n t h e eyes of t h e uninformed pagan. Many
claim i t t o have o c c u r r e d a f t e r t h e d e s t r u c t i o n of t h e Jewish Temple
i n 70, o t h e r s as l a t e as t h e Bar-Kokhba Revolt of 132-135. While
many Jews may have been eager t o d i s a s s o c i a t e themselves from
C h r i s t i a n s (and v i c e - v e r s a ) a f t e r t h e F i r s t Jewish War (66-70), i t
i s more than p l a u s i b l e t h a t t h e pagans were not as a c u t e l y aware of
t h e i n t r i c a c i e s of J e w i s h - C h r i s t i a n r e l a t i o n s i n t h e f i r s t c e n t u r y ,
and would have c o n t i n u e d t o r e g a r d C h r i s t i a n s as p a r t of Judaism.
For more on t h i s , s e e : Marcel Simon, Verus Israel: A Study of the
Relations between Christians and Jews in the Roman Empire, Ad 135 -
425, t r a n s . H. McKeating (London & P o r t l a n d , OR: V a l l e n t i n e M i t c h e l l
& Co L t d . , 1996 [Orig. 1 9 4 8 ] ) .
 40
in the first century was limited to rumor and assumptions

about Judaism.55

Eusebius described an explosion of growth for the

first-century Christian movement during the reign of

Tiberius. Much like the Acts of the Apostles, Eusebius

credited the early Church with gathering in thousands of

fresh converts in the first decades of its inception, as

the missionaries and Apostles went out to the far reaches

of the known world.56 Eusebius claimed that "[i]n every

city and village arose churches crowded with thousands of

men, like a teeming threshing-floor."57 As the Christian

movement gained momentum, it not surprisingly caught the

attention of the Roman authorities on more than one

occasion. Not every encounter was hostile, however, and

some Christian writers even went so far as to allege

purposeful kindness showered upon the Church by the

imperial government.58 Two examples of the interaction

between the imperial government and the first-century

55
For examples see: Robert Louis Wilken, The Christians as the
Romans Saw Them, 2nd ed. (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press,
2003) .
56
Acts 2:41; Euseb., Hist, eccl. iii.l. For an alternate
interpretation which examines the growth of Christianity apart from
mass conversions, see: Stark, "Reconstructing the Rise of
Christianity: The Role of Women," 229-31.
57
Euseb., Hist. eccl. ii.3.2.
58
For example, Eusebius' assessment of Tiberius (Euseb., Hist. eccl.
ii.2) .
Christians important to this study take place during the

reigns of Nero (r.54-68) and Domitian (r.81-96).

What has become known as the Neronian persecution

represents an anomaly within the relationship between

Christians and the imperial authorities of the first

century. In short, Nero blamed the Fire of 64 on the

Christians. Because of this, Nero was termed the first

persecutor of Christianity.59 Nero's actions against the

Christians shed light not only on the relationship

between the first-century Church and the emperor, but

also on the exercise of power by women within the

imperial court - namely, Poppaea Sabina, Nero's wife.

During the reign of Domitian, Christian sources

describe another first-century persecution.60 Eusebius,

and the later historians who relied on his History,

crowned Flavia Domitilla, Domitian's niece, as perhaps

the most prominent victim of Christian persecution in the

first century. The sources on Domitilla are not in full

agreement concerning her connection to the Christian

59
E u s e b i u s s a y s Nero "was t h e f i r s t of t h e e m p e r o r s t o be p o i n t e d
o u t a s an enemy of t h e t r u e God [...coq <xv rcpokoq onjTOKpaxopwv xf[q eiq TO 9elov
eTjaefteiaq noXt\aoq avaSeixGeiTi. ] " ( E u s e b . , Hist, eccl. i i . 2 5 . 3 ) and " t h e
f i r s t t o b e p r o c l a i m e d a s a f i g h t e r a g a i n s t God [...Qzo\ia%oc, ev xoiq \iaX\.a%a
7tpwToq avotKTipuxQei?-• • 1 " ( i i . 2 5 . 5 ) .
60
Euseb., Hist. eccl. iii.17-20. In this section of his History,
Eusebius preserved a portion of the account by Hegesippus as well.
movement; however, Domitilla's t r i a l in 95 provides the
bedrock for understanding the r e l a t i o n s h i p between gender
and the r e l i g i o - p o l i t i c a l system of the f i r s t century.
Although t h e r e were instances of persecution in the
second century, they were counter-balanced by times of
peace and p r o s p e r i t y . During the reigns of Rome's "Five
Good Emperors," 61 examples of Christianity's most
prominent martyrs exist alongside examples of imperial
tolerance and justice. The interaction between the
Christian Church and Roman a u t h o r i t i e s throughout the
second century was sporadic and localized. This
intermittent relationship is demonstrated by both the
growth of the Christian movement as well as by the
examples of r e l a t i o n s between prominent bishops and the
imperial government. The example connected to t h i s study
concerns the reign of Commodus (r.180-192), who began h i s
r u l e at the end of the Roman Golden Age.
Eusebius painted the reign of Commodus as a time of
great p r o s p e r i t y for the C h r i s t i a n Church:

61
The r e i g n of t h e f i r s t f i v e Antonine Emperors (Nerva, 96-98;
Trajan, 98-117; Hadrian, 117-138; Antoninus P i u s , 138-161; Marcus
A u r e l i u s , 161-180) has been termed t h a t of t h e "Five Good Emperors"
thanks i n p a r t t o t h e p e a c e f u l s u c c e s s i o n of each, and t h e c o n t i n u e d
s t a b i l i t y and p r o s p e r i t y under each.
 43
During this same time in the reign of Commodus
our circumstances changed to a milder one, and
by God's grace, peace came to the churches
throughout the world. And the word of
salvation began to lead every soul of every
race of men toward the devout worship of the
God of the universe, so by this time those at
Rome who were famous for wealth and family
turned to their own salvation with their whole
house and with all their relatives.62

Eusebius did not devote many pages to the reign of

Commodus, but his point was clear: Christianity

flourished to a greater degree during the time of

Commodus than it had previously. Perhaps Commodus' own

"hedonism and lunacy likely distracted him"63 from

pursuing a policy of intolerance towards the Christians

(or even paying any attention to them at all). If

Commodus' own private life was the reason for this

prosperity, it is never explicitly stated. One could

argue, however, that Eusebius alluded to the reason when

he mentioned that Romans of wealth and fame had converted

along with their whole families. As will be further

explored in chapter three, the key to Eusebius' passage

may lie in a closer examination of Marcia, Commodus'

62
Euseb., Hist, eccl. v.21.
63
As Paul Maier asserted in the commentary of his translation,
Eusebius, The Church History, trans. Paul L. Maier (Grand Rapids:
Kregel Publications, 1999), 204.
concubine, and the connection between her position and

the Roman construction of gender in the second century.

The relationship between the Church and imperial

government within the third century took a dramatic shift

on account of the Third Century Crisis. Christianity was

no longer a tiny sect relegated to the frontiers of the

Empire. During the third century, the Christian Church

experienced periods of relative peace as well as intense

empire-wide systematic persecution by the imperial

government. It is during this century that there was a

shift in imperial policy concerned with Christianity.

The policies of Trajan and Hadrian which had created a

curious disinterest in the Church on behalf of the

government had shifted to a more hands-on approach.

This study ends with Alexander Severus, the last

emperor before the dawn of the Third Century Crisis.

Alexander's relationship with his mother, Julia Mamaea,

and her relationship with the Christian movement,

provides important information on the intersection of

gender and political authority. The overarching thesis

which connects the religio-political system of the Empire

to the construction of gender, is demonstrated through

the reign of Alexander, however, there is an epilogue

which briefly explores the relationship between gender

and the religio-political system during the Crisis. The

epilogue serves to further demonstrate the thesis of this

work, although the evidence is less conclusive.

The Odd Couple:

Christianity & the Imperial Culture

As Christians became more prevalent in the eyes of

imperial law, the distinction of genders as seen in the

cultures of Christians and pagans became more obvious.

While the religious beliefs of the Christians were in

stark contrast to those of their pagan neighbors, the

construction of gender and the expectations associated

with masculine and feminine were similar. There were

certainly differences in practice - especially in ideas

such as marriage, marital headship, virginity, and

sexuality for example - but in the general expectations

for men and women, Christianity seemed very much at home

within Roman culture. Despite these agreements between

Christians and pagans in the early Empire, however,

Christianity, even when under the umbrella of Judaism,

could attract negative attention or violence against

itself. The relationship between Christianity and the

Roman Empire was unpredictable. Depending on political

and economic stability, Christians found themselves on

either neutral or hostile terms with the imperial

government. The purpose of this study is to show that,

combined with external forces, gender proved to be an

important factor in determining how the imperial

government dealt with not only Christianity, but many

aspects of life in the Empire.

The survival of Christianity can sometimes seem an

enigma, given its relationship first to the Jewish

community whence it sprang, and then to the imperial

government, which by the fourth century had made repeated

attempts to eradicate it. Historians have long credited

Christianity's structure, its cult of the martyrs, and

even its doctrine as reasons for its survival in such a

hostile environment.64 What these historians have

neglected to examine, however, is how gender, especially

the roles expected within Roman and Christian societies,

was used by Christian women in unique positions of power

to influence those in unique positions of authority.

Amidst the crises affecting the Empire throughout the

64
For a summation on these ideas, see: W.H.C. Frend, The Early-
Church (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 1991 [Orig. 1965] ) .
latter centuries of its existence, the Christian Church

embarked on an opposite trajectory from the one Dio had

concluded about the Empire. Rather than deteriorating

from gold to rust, the Christian movement by the

beginning of the fourth century, had demonstrated that

like gold, it could remain intact under fire, thanks to

the assistance of women who used their position and

gender to the advantage of the Church.

 CHAPTER II

"PUNISH US AS YOU DO THEM"1

Gender, Law, and Culture: Pomponia Graecina, & Flavia
Domitilla

Purveyors of Foreign Superstition:

The Connections of Pomponia & Domitilla to Christianity

Christianity's proselytism partnered with Roman

dominance of the Mediterranean predestined an encounter

between the growing Jewish sect and the imperial

government. According to the Acts of the Apostles,

Paul's interactions with Roman courts may have occurred

as early as 50. 2 In addition, Nero's indictment of

Christian involvement in the Great Fire of 64

demonstrated that Christians were neither invisible nor

This quotation is taken from Horentsia's speech given in 42 BC

against the edict by the Second Triumvirate which sought to tax the
property of the 1,400 wealthiest women in Rome. Although the Greek
is the technical term "proscribe," I believe "punish" is a suitable
translation as well: "ei |o.ev 8r\ xi KOU npoq rpcov, oiov vnb xcov dv5pwv, r|8iKfia9ou
(t>axe, 7ipoYpd\j/axe KOU i\\iac, coc ZKeivovq." (App. B Civ. iv.32)
2
Acts 16:19-24. I have chosen the year of 50 based upon the fact
that Paul's arrest in Philippi in Acts 16 follows the Council of
Jerusalem (Acts 15), which is dated to around 49-50. Also, Paul's
arrest and appearance before the governor L. Junius Gallio in Acts
18 soon after can be dated to 51, as Gallio's tenure as proconsul of
Achaea was from 51-52. For more on the trials of Paul, see: Paul L.
Maier, In the Fullness of Time: A Historian Looks at Christmas,
Easter, and the Early Church (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications,
1997 [Orig. 1991]); A.N. Sherwin-White, Roman Society and Roman Law
in the New Testament: The Sarum Lectures, 1960-1961 (Eugene, OR:
Wipf & Stock Publishers, 1963); Ben Witherington III, The Paul
Quest: The Renewed Search for the Jew of Tarsus (Downers Grove, IL:
InterVarsity Press, 1998).

48
 49
impervious to the hard hand of Roman law. The encounters

between the Christian movement and the imperial

government, although much less frequent in the first

century than later, centered mostly around the political

implications of Christianity's defiance of socio-

political rituals and requirements of Rome's civil

religious system. These encounters, however, do more

than simply juxtapose Judeo-Christian religion against

Roman religious politics. Two important trials in the

first century elucidate the government's attempt to

enforce its laws in accordance with traditional gender

constructions in light of this new religious movement.

The trials of Pomponia Graecina in 57 and Flavia

Domitilla in 95 are early examples of the imperial

government's attempts to address dissenting religious

opinion among its nobility in the first century.

Little is known of Pomponia Graecina, apart from her

brief mention in the Annals of Tacitus:

And Pomponia Graecina, a distinguished woman,

wife of A. Plautius, whose ovation after the
British campaign I recorded earlier, and now
arraigned for foreign superstition [superstitio
externa rea] , was left to the judgment of her
husband. Following the ancient practice, he
held an inquiry in the presence of a family
council to determine the fate of his wife, and
declared her innocent. Henceforth Pomponia was
 50
to live with long life and continuing sadness.
For after Julia the daughter of Drusus had been
done away by Messalina' s treachery, for forty
years she dressed herself in sadness, existing
in perpetual mourning; this was unpunished
under the reign of Claudius, and soon became a
title to glory.3

As Tacitus stated, Pomponia was the wife of Aulus

Plautius, the man who had conquered Britain for Emperor

Claudius in 43.4 She was also most likely the daughter

of G. Pomponius Graecinus, a friend of Ovid, and Asinia,

the half-sister to Drusus Julius Caesar, son of Emperor

Tiberius and Pomponia's grandmother, Vipsania Agrippina.5

In addition, Pomponia may have been the niece of

Pomponius Flaccus, as well as cousin to several noble

families through her grandmother's brief marriage to the

imperial family. Her noble lineage and defiant 40-year

mourning for her cousin Julia earned her a mention in

Tacitus' history.5 In fact, if it were not for

Pomponia's rebellious state of mourning for Julia, she

3
T a c , Ann. xiii.32.
4
Cass. Dio lx.19-21; lxi.30.2; Suet., Vesp. iv.l.
5
John Jackson, ed., Tacitus: The Annals, Books Xiii-Xvi, vol. 322,
Lcl (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1937), 52 (footnote
1) •
6
Julia was the daughter of Drusus, the half-brother of Pomponia's
mother. Julia was executed in 43 on orders of her uncle, Emperor
Claudius, under the influence of his wife, Messalina.
may not have been mentioned by T a c i t u s at all.7 It is

fortunate, however, that she was mentioned, since her

trial, although seemingly referenced only in passing,

provides important insight into the intricacies of

gender, law, and r e l i g i o n w i t h i n i m p e r i a l Roman c u l t u r e .

For the Christian movement at large, Pomponia's

contribution is negligible. As f a r as one can gather

from t h e s o u r c e s , Pomponia p a r t i c i p a t e d i n no m i s s i o n a r y

activity; she l e f t behind no evidence of a relationship

with t h e Bishop of Rome (or any C h r i s t i a n leader) ; she

was never martyred; she held no position which would

allow her presumed Christianity to influence imperial

p o l i c y toward t h e Church; h e r t r i a l found no justifiable

r e a s o n t o c o n v i c t her of f o r e i g n superstition; and t h e r e

remains no c o n c l u s i v e e v i d e n c e as t o whether Pomponia's

superstitio externa was actually Christianity.8 So

wherein l i e s h e r importance for this study? The charge

of foreign superstition in addition to Pomponia being

7
As w i l l be f u r t h e r d i s c u s s e d below, and i n subsequent c h a p t e r s ,
T a c i t u s , and o t h e r h i s t o r i a n s , o f t e n i n c l u d e d e x t r a i n f o r m a t i o n for
t h e purpose of p r e s e n t i n g t h e n e g a t i v e or p o s i t i v e a s p e c t s of
someone's p e r s o n a l i t y . In t h i s c a s e , Messalina i s T a c i t u s ' t a r g e t .
8
The c o n n e c t i o n of Pomponia t o C h r i s t i a n i t y was f i r s t made i n t h e
s i x t e e n t h c e n t u r y by L i p s i u s and has become t h e t r a d i t i o n a l argument
t o t h i s day. The ambiguity of t h e term could l e n d support for
Judaism, I s i s and O s i r i s , and Druidism, as p o s s i b l e e x p l a n a t i o n s as
w e l l . For more on t h e concept of superstitio, see p p . 82ff.
 52
handed over to a family court, rather than an imperial

one, provides important insight into Roman attitudes

regarding the connection between gender, religion, and

law in the first century of the Empire.

A generation after Pomponia, another woman aroused

the attention of the imperial authorities for religious

reasons. Flavia Domitilla was the granddaughter of

Emperor Vespasian through his only daughter Flavia

Domitilla the Younger.9 The niece of the two succeeding

emperors, Titus and Domitian, Domitilla married the

grandnephew of Vespasian, her cousin, Flavius Clemens.

On account of her relationship with the imperial family,

and the deification of her mother by Domitian, Domitilla

and Clemens' children were made heirs to the throne.10

Domitilla's apparent good fortune and intimate connection

to the imperial throne was cut short, however, in 95:

And the same year [AD 95] Domitian slew, along

with many others, Flavius Clemens the consul,
although he was a cousin and had as his wife
Flavia Domitilla, who was also a relative of
the emperor. The charge brought against them
both was that of atheism [aGeotTixog] , a charge on
which many others who drifted into Jewish ways
[TOC TWV 'IOVSOUOOV r|0T|] were condemned. Some of
these were put to death, and the rest were at

9
Suet., Vesp. iii.
10
And also renamed Domitianus and Vespasianus: Suet., Dom. xv.
 53
least deprived of their estates. Domitilla was
only banished to Pandateria. n

The account by the Christian historian Eusebius differs

slightly, but ends in similar fashion:

For the teaching of our faith shone so brightly

in those days that even writers foreign to our
belief wrote down the persecution and
martyrdoms in their histories, and they even
indicated the exact time, stating that in the
fifteenth year of Domitian, Flavia Domitilla,
who was the niece of Flavius Clemens, one of
the Roman consuls that year, was banished with
many others to the island of Pontia for
professing Christ.12

The differences in the two accounts appear stark. In

Eusebius' version, Domitilla is referred to as the niece

of Flavius Clemens, not his wife, and her exile was to

Pontia, not Pandateria.13 These inconsistencies have

caused a divergence of interpretation on the importance

and even the historicity of Domitilla.14 There are

explanations, however, for the differences in these two

sources. The story of Domitilla, like that of Pomponia

11
Cass. Dio, lxvii.14.
12
Euseb., Hist, eccl. iii.18.
13
The location of Pontia as Domitilla's place of exile is repeated
by Jerome in his Ep. cviii.7. It is possible that Jerome repeated
what had become tradition, especially since Eusebius'
immortalization of Pontia in his Historia Ecclesiastica.
14
These inconsistencies have been summarized by: J.B. Lightfoot, The
Apostolic Fathers, Part I: S. Clement of Rome, 2nd ed., vol. I
(London: MacMillan and Co., 1890), 34-51; James S. Jeffers, "Social
Foundations of Early Christianity at Rome: The Congregations Behind
1 Clement and the Shepherd of Hermas" (PhD diss., University of
California, Irvine, 1988), 246-47.
Graecina, provides historians with much in the way of

understanding the connection between gender, politics,

and religion in the early Empire.

These two short passages have forever immortalized

Domitilla within the debate about Christianity and

nobility in the first century. The complexities involved

with properly interpreting these two sources in

ostensible disagreement compels one first to address this

apparent problem before moving on to an examination of

Domitilla in light of gender expectations and punishment

in the early Empire. Because of the disagreement between

the accounts of Dio and Eusebius, some historians have

suggested that there may have been two different Flavia

Domitillas, both of whom were related to Flavius Clemens

and both of whom were exiled by Domitian.15 Given the

ubiquity of the name Domitilla in the Flavian family,

this is not entirely unlikely.16 A more logical and less

complicated suggestion, however, is that Eusebius, or his

15
George Edmundson, The Church in Rome in the First Century (London:
Longmans, Green and Co., 1913), 230ff; Lightfoot, The Apostolic
Fathers, Part I: S. Clement of Rome, 42-45.
16
Flavia Domitilla [the Elder] was the wife of Vespasian, who named
her daughter Flavia Domitilla [the Younger], who then named her
daughter Flavia Domitilla as well.
 55
17
original source, mistakenly transferred the relationship

of n i e c e from D o m i t i a n t o C l e m e n s . The s o l u t i o n to this

m y s t e r y was s u r m i s e d by J . B . Lightfoot when h e connected

the fifth-century Acts of Nereus and Achilleus to

Eusebius' account. In these Acts, Domitilla, a niece of
Flavius Clemens, was banished to the i s l a n d of Pontia by
Domitian for refusing pagan worship. In Dio's account,
the r e l a t i o n s h i p between Domitilla and Domitian i s the
generic "relative,"18 although according to the
Coemeterium Domitillae she i s also the granddaughter of
Vespasian 19 and Q u i n t i l i a n refers to her as Domitian's
" s i s t e r ' s daughter." 2 0 Because of t h i s , Domitilla as the
daughter of Domitian's sister is an appropriate
interpretation of Dio's generic "relative."21 In

E u s e b i u s ' s o u r c e i n t h i s example i s b e l i e v e d t o have been a

h i s t o r i a n named B r u t i u s , t o whom E u s e b i u s s p e c i f i c a l l y r e f e r s i n h i s
Chronicle. For more on t h e i d e n t i t y of t h i s B r u t i u s a n d how
E u s e b i u s came t o r e l y on him, s e e b e l o w on p a g e 56 a s w e l l a s :
L i g h t f o o t , The Apostolic Fathers, Part I: S. Clement of Rome, 4 6 - 4 9 .
18
C a s s . Dio l x v i i . 1 4 : KOU OCUTTIV avyyEvr\ EOCUTOV.; For a s i m i l a r
d i s c u s s i o n , s e e : L i g h t f o o t , The Apostolic Fathers, Part I: S.
Clement of Rome, 4 4 f .
19
J . B . L i g h t f o o t ' s r e c o n s t r u c t i o n of t h e s t o n e d i f f e r s s l i g h t l y from
T h e o d o r Mommsen's, and r e a d s : "TATIA BAVCYL... [NV] TRIX SEPTVM
LIB[ERORVM] DIVI VESPASIAN[I ATQVE] FLAVIAE DOMITIL[LIAE VXORIS
EIVS, DIVI] VESPASIANI NEPTIS..." Both L i g h t f o o t ' s and Mommsen's
t r a n s l a t i o n s a r e found i n : L i g h t f o o t , The Apostolic Fathers, Part I:
S. Clement of Rome, 1 1 4 .
20
Q u i n t i l i a n r e f e r s t o D o m i t i l l a ' s c h i l d r e n as " s o r o r i s suae
n e p o t e s " ( " t h e g r a n d c h i l d r e n of [ D o m i t i a n ' s ] s i s t e r " ) : Q u i n t . , Inst.
iv.l.
21
For a more d e t a i l e d a c c o u n t on t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p D o m i t i l l a a n d t h e
F l a v i a n E m p e r o r s , s e e : J e f f e r s , " S o c i a l F o u n d a t i o n s of E a r l y
Eusebius' account, the r e l a t i o n s h i p between Domitilla and
Clemens i s also " s i s t e r ' s daughter." 2 2 As J.B. Lightfoot
aptly asked, "Have we not here the key to the
confusion?" 23 The simplest and most straightforward
explanation for the difference in Domitilla's
r e l a t i o n s h i p s to Domitian and Clemens comes from simple
clerical error - a transference of Domitilla as the
daughter of Domitian's s i s t e r in Dio's account, to the
daughter of Clemens' s i s t e r by Eusebius (or his source). 2 4
The difference in the place of e x i l e i s e a s i l y dismissed
by the fact t h a t they are neighboring i s l a n d s which the
imperial family used as places of e x i l e throughout the
first century, and t h e r e f o r e , effortlessly transposed in
the sources.
In addition to Eusebius' possible misconnection of
Domitilla's relationship to Flavius Clemens, there are
also the issues concerning the omission of Clemens'
execution and Eusebius' i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of Dio's reference
to the "atheism" and "Jewish ways" of Domitilla as

C h r i s t i a n i t y a t Rome: The Congregations Behind 1 Clement and t h e

Shepherd of Hermas", 250-54.
22
E u s e b . , Hist. eccl. i i i . 1 8 : z% aSeA.(t>f|c; yeyovmav <J>A.amou KXii^evxoq
( l i t e r a l l y : "born from t h e s i s t e r of F l a v i u s Clemens").
23
L i g h t f o o t , The Apostolic Fathers, Part I: S. Clement of Rome, 45.
24
See f o o t n o t e 17.
 57
distinctly Christian. This religious issue has

commandeered the attention of nearly all historians who

have investigated Flavia Domitilla and has limited the

discussion of her role in history to a debate over

w h e t h e r s h e was a Jew o r C h r i s t i a n . The c o n c e n t r a t i o n on

Domitilla's religious convictions stems from the

difficulty with the precise definitions of her atheism

(dc0eoTri<;) and J e w i s h ways (xoc toiv 'lox)8aicov i\Qr\) . The a r g u m e n t

in favor of interpreting these terms as Christian

references is the older argument and dates back to

Eusebius' claim cited above.25 In the last century,

however, there have been numerous works written lending

support to the theory that D o m i t i l l a was i n f a c t a Jew.26

The i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of Eusebius' statements as references

to either Judaism or Christianity has been explored in

25
This argument has been continued by h i s t o r i a n s i n t o t h e modern
p e r i o d . Some of t h e more prominent h i s t o r i e s a r e : Giovanni B a t t i s t a
De Rossi, La Roma Sotterranea Cristiana (Rome: 1865); Johannes
Knudsen, "The Lady and t h e Emperor: A Study of t h e Domitianic
P e r s e c u t i o n , " Church History 14, no. 1 (Mar. 1945); L i g h t f o o t , The
Apostolic Fathers, Part I: S. Clement of Rome.
26
For example: H e i n r i c h G r a t z , Die Judischen Proselyten im
Romerreiche unter den Kaisern Domitian, Nerva, Trajan und Hadrian
(Breslau: 1883); Martin P. Charlesworth, "Some O b s e r v a t i o n s on
R u l e r - C u l t E s p e c i a l l y i n Rome," HTR 28, no. 1 (Jan. 1935); E. Mary
Smallwood, " D o m i t i a n ' s A t t i t u d e toward t h e Jews and J u d a i s m , " C
Phil. 5 1 , no. 1 (Jan. 1956); Paul K e r e s z t e s , "The Jews, t h e
C h r i s t i a n s , and Emperor Domitian," Vig. Chr. 27, no. 1 (Mar. 1973);
Claudia S e t z e r , Jewish Responses to Early Christians: History and
Polemics, 30-150 C.E. (Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg F o r t r e s s P r e s s ,
1994) .
detail elsewhere, so it is unnecessary to recite them in

detail here. However, historians have attempted to

connect Eusebius' statements to a first-century Roman

understanding of both Judaism and Christianity. Numerous

factors contribute to the difficulty for modern

historians to determine definitively whether atheism and

Jewish ways refer to either Christianity or Judaism. The

major factors, however, can be condensed into five

interrelated yet independent examples:27 1) the use of the

terms "atheism" (aGeornc;) and "Jewish ways" (TOC XWV 'lo\)8aitov

Ti'9r|) by first-century Romans; 2) the administration of

the fiscus Iudaicus under Domitian; 3) the details of the

Domitianic persecution; 4) the Christian cemetery of

Domitilla; and 5) Eusebius' two passages about Domitilla.

The terms aQe6xr[C, and TOC TWV 'Iou8oda>v T(0TI at face value

seem certainly to assume Jewish proselytism on the parts

of Domitilla and her husband.28 To first-century Romans,

however, Christians and Jews were virtually

27
There is also an argument which connects Flavius Clemens with a
certain Kati'ah bar Shalom mentioned in Talmudic writings as a
senator who adopted Jewish ways.
28
It should be noted that the concept of proselyte for the Jews
consisted of two categories: 1) full proselytes, who were
circumcised and enjoyed full membership within the synagogue, and 2)
God-Fearers (oePonevoi) , who embraced the monotheism and moral code of
the Jews, and sometimes attended synagogue, yet were not full-
members of the Jewish faith. It is usually assumed that Clemens and
Domitilla were of this latter variety, rather than the former.
 59
indistinguishable, and in most cases, the terms for one

group applied also for the other.29 Because of this,

there are numerous sources in which these terms are

utilized by Romans against both Jews and Christians in

the first century. Josephus denounced Apollonius as

someone who reviled the Jews "as atheists [dGeoucJ and

misanthropes,"30 while Polycarp, the Christian bishop of

Smyrna, was condemned as an atheist {aQeoc,) by the crowds

of Romans in c.156.31 The wide-ranging usage of the term

atheism,32 among pagans in describing both Jews and

Christians in addition to the general ignorance of the

diversity of first-century Judaism by the majority of

Romans, makes it difficult to take this terminology and

to apply it definitively to either Christian or Jewish -

a conclusion with which Eusebius would no doubt disagree.

29
See footnote 54 in chapter 1.
30
Josephus, Ap., ii.14 8.
31
The term atheist used by Romans is cited two times in The
Martyrdom of Polycarp, with Polycarp redirecting the term back to
the Romans once. See specifically: Martyrdom of Polycarp, iii.2 and
ix. 2.
32
The terms used by the Romans in reference to the Christians range
from atheism to superstition to "hatred of the human race"
(Tacitus). Joseph J. Walsh examines these in his "On Christian
Atheism." What is unique to Walsh's study is that he contends that
contrary to common belief, atheism was not the primary reason for
hatred of the Christians by their pagan neighbors, but rather a
"melange of characteristics which irritated and affronted pagans"
(268) .
 60
The second issue which has occupied the attention of

historians studying Domitilla is the fiscus Iudaicus.33

Instituted by Vespasian after the destruction of the

Jewish Temple in AD 70, the fiscus Iudaicus replaced the

Temple Tax paid by Jews for the maintenance of their

Temple in Jerusalem, and acted as a form of tribute paid

in return for the liberty of the Jews to continue

practicing their faith legally.34 According to Suetonius,

Domitian sought out those who lived as Jews but were not

paying the tax, and prosecuted them vigorously.35

Suetonius' description of Domitian's administration of

the tax is used as a possible connection to the

prosecution of Consul Clemens and his wife, who,

according to Dio, were denounced as living as Jews.35 The

33
See: Smallwood, "Domitian's Attitude toward the Jews and Judaism,"
2-4; Keresztes, "The Jews, the Christians, and Emperor Domitian," 5-
10.
34
Cass. Dio, lxv.7.2; Josephus, BJ, vii.218. It was a dual
punishment in that Jews now had to pay for the privilege to worship
their God even though their Temple had been destroyed, and further
so, the tax went to the maintenance of the Jupiter Capitolinus in
Rome!
35
Suet., Dom. xii.2 which reads, "Praeter ceteros Iudaicus fiscus
acerbissime actus est; ad quem deferebantur, qui vel inprofessi
Iudaicum viverent vitam vel dissimulata origine imposita genti
tributa non pependissent."
36
For the full argument see: Jeffers, "Social Foundations of Early
Christianity at Rome: The Congregations Behind 1 Clement and the
Shepherd of Hermas", 241-46; Keresztes, "The Jews, the Christians,
and Emperor Domitian"; Smallwood, "Domitian's Attitude toward the
Jews and Judaism"; Margaret H. Williams, "Domitian, the Jews and the
'Judaizers': A Simple Matter of Cupiditas and Maiestas?," Historia
39, no. 2 (1990).
 61
sources convey that the administration of this tax

involved such harsh enforcement that Domitian's

successor, Nerva, had not only to end the unjust

execution of the tax, but also to advertise his actions

through coinage.37 This issue of the fiscus ludaicus is

directly linked with the next factor at hand: the

persecution of the emperor Domitian against either

Christians or Jews.

Historians have long debated the extent of

Domitian's cruelty beyond the generality of the Empire to

the Jews and Christians in particular.38 Evidence of some

form of persecution by Domitian's government exists to

support a Jewish persecution as well as a Christian one.

Suetonius' report that Domitian vigorously prosecuted

Jews avoiding the fiscus ludaicus would certainly seem to

37
L.A. Thompson, "Domitian and the Jewish Tax," Historia 31, no. 3
(1982): 329.
38
Suet., Dom. x; xii. Also see: Shirley Jackson Case, "Josephus'
Anticipation of a Domitianic Persecution," JBL 44, no. 1/2 (1925);
Gratz, Die Judischen Proselyten im Romerreiche unter den Kaisern
Domitian, Nerva, Trajan Und Hadrian; Keresztes, "The Jews, the
Christians, and Emperor Domitian"; Knudsen, "The Lady and the
Emperor: A Study of the Domitianic Persecution"; Donald McFayden,
"The Occasion of the Domitianic Persecution," AJT 24, no. 1 (Jan.
1920); Donald W. Riddle, "Hebrews, First Clement, and the
Persecution of Domitian," JBL 43, no. 3/4 (1924); Smallwood,
"Domitian's Attitude toward the Jews and Judaism"; Thompson,
"Domitian and the Jewish Tax"; K.H. Waters, "The Character of
Domitian," Phoenix 18, no. 1 (Spring, 1964); Williams, "Domitian,
the Jews and the 'Judaizers': A Simple Matter of Cupiditas and
Maiestas?"
 62
support a general feeling of persecution by Jews in the

Empire.39 In a d d i t i o n , the l e t t e r from C l e m e n t of Rome t o

the Church in Corinth alluded to a persecution against

the Christians in Rome during the last years of

Domitian's reign.40 Clement's letter began with the

explanation that their response had b e e n d e l a y e d because

of "sudden and repeated misfortunes and reverses which

have happened t o u s . " 4 1 This l e t t e r c o n n e c t s w e l l w i t h an

assumption that Domitian initiated an organized

persecution against either Jews or Christians and that

Flavius Clemens and h i s wife Domitilla, were v i c t i m s of

this short, but vicious attack. The descriptions of

Domitian's character lend support to the p r o b a b i l i t y that

he carried out some kind of harsh policy against Jews

and/or Christians, however, the cause was probably

39
On t h e d i s c u s s i o n of a g e n e r a l p e r s e c u t i o n a g a i n s t t h e Jews, s e e :
Case, " J o s e p h u s ' A n t i c i p a t i o n of a Domitianic P e r s e c u t i o n " ;
McFayden, "The Occasion of t h e Domitianic P e r s e c u t i o n " ; R i d d l e ,
"Hebrews, F i r s t Clement, and t h e P e r s e c u t i o n of Domitian";
Smallwood, " D o m i t i a n ' s A t t i t u d e toward t h e Jews and Judaism";
Thompson, "Domitian and t h e Jewish Tax"; Waters, "The C h a r a c t e r of
Domitian"; Williams, "Domitian, t h e Jews and t h e ' J u d a i z e r s ' : A
Simple Matter of C u p i d i t a s and M a i e s t a s ? "
40
For an examination of 1 Clement i n connection with t h e Domitianic
p e r s e c u t i o n and p o s s i b l e r e f e r e n c e s i n t h e New Testament, s e e :
Riddle, "Hebrews, F i r s t Clement, and t h e P e r s e c u t i o n of Domitian."
For t h e a u t h o r i t y on Clement, s e e : L i g h t f o o t , The Apostolic Fathers,
Part I: S. Clement of Rome.
41
1 Clement, i . l , which b e g i n s : "Aiot xaq aicjnSiouc; KOU kiiaXXi\kovq yevonevaq
TIJUV aun^opag KOCI 7tepv7ixcooeiq..." v i i . l a l s o a l l u d e s t o some kind of
p e r s e c u t i o n as w e l l .
 63
economic, rather than religious. Suetonius mentioned

Domitian's "natural disposition" toward cruelty,42 and his

financial straits which he attempted to solve through

confiscations of aristocratic property, and a rigorous

collection of the fiscus Iudaicus.43 Suetonius proclaimed

that Domitian "was made insatiable through need and cruel

through fear,"44 and this financial need and paranoia no

doubt contributed to the downfall of Clemens and

Domitilla.45

A Christian cemetery, uncovered by Giovanni Battista

De Rossi in the middle of the nineteenth century, was

built upon land donated by a Flavia Domitilla.46 This

Praedium Domitillae contains numerous graves, both pagan

and Christian. De Rossi assumed that while initially

begun as a pagan burial ground, the descendents of Flavia

Domitilla and her household converted to Christianity and

Suet., Dom. iii.

43
Suet., Dom. xii.
44
Suet., Dom. iii: "...quantum coniectare licet, super ingenii naturam
inopia rapax, metu saevus."
45
For a brief account of Domitian's probable attitude toward the
Christians, see: J.E.A. Crake, "Early Christians and Roman Law,"
Phoenix 19, no. 1 (Spring, 1965): 65-67.
46
De Rossi, La Roma Sotterranea Cristiana. This cemetery has been
debated in numerous sources after De Rossi, and a few prominent ones
are: Jeffers, "Social Foundations of Early Christianity at Rome: The
Congregations Behind 1 Clement and the Shepherd of Hermas";
Smallwood, "Domitian's Attitude toward the Jews and Judaism"; Paul
Styger, Die Romischen Katakomben: Archaologische Forschungen uber
den Ursprung und die Bedeutung der Altchristlichen Grabstatten
(Berlin: Verlag fur Kunstwissenschaft, 1933).
 64
continued to use the cemetery for their burials, thereby

sanctifying the land for Christian reverence.47 Because

it appears that Christian tombs became more common as

time went on, the cemetery's connection to Domitilla is

determined to be proof of her Christianity by many

historians.48

Two passages by Eusebius of Caesarea deserve some

attention. The first passage is the one from Eusebius'

History mentioned above, in which Domitilla is branded a

Christian and identified as the niece of Clemens.49

Eusebius recorded nearly the same event in his Chronicon

but also gave some clues as to the identity of one of the

authors he described as "foreign to our belief":

Brutius writes that there were very many

Christian martyrs under Domitian, among whom
were Flavia Domitilla, granddaughter of the
sister [ex sorore neptim]50 of Flavius Clemens
the consul; she was banished to the island of
Pontia, because she bore witness to being a
Christian.51

47
Jeffers, "Social Foundations of Early Christianity at Rome: The
Congregations Behind 1 Clement and the Shepherd of Hermas", 253-54.
48
G.B. De Rossi has become the father of this theory since the
publication of his archeological findings in 18 65. He subsequently
published articles defending this throughout the rest of the
nineteenth century. His findings from the cemetery are summarized
by J.B. Lightfoot, The Apostolic Fathers: S. Clement of Rome, 35-39.
49
Euseb., Hist. eccl. iii.18.
50
The grandchild of a sister could also be referred to with the
generic "niece" or "nephew".
51
Jer., Chron, PL vol. 27, col. 603 (2110.16).
With these two passages, those who argue for the

Christianity of Domitilla require no more evidence. The

inconsistencies between Dio's and Eusebius' accounts,

namely the relationship of Domitilla to Clemens, and the

place of Domitilla's exile, are dismissed as error on

Eusebius' part. The unknown identity of the historian

"Brutius," whom Eusebius cited as his main source, lends

much weight to the conclusion that Eusebius was

misinformed.52 In spite of this, Eusebius' identification

of Domitilla as a Christian is accepted as accurate by

many. This is not to say, however, that no disagreement

on the religion of Domitilla remains - quite the

contrary, actually.53 It is for this reason that further

examination of Domitilla outside of this sphere of

religious conviction has likely failed to take place.

Examining the arguments surrounding Domitilla's

religious persuasion has proven to be a digression that

has stunted other interpretations of her importance to a

fuller understanding of the role of gender in the

political and religious institutions of the early Empire.

52
See footnote 17 for more on the identity of Brutius.
53
For the debate surrounding Brutius and Eusebius, see: Crake,
"Early Christians and Roman Law, " 65f; Lightfoot, The Apostolic
Fathers, Part I: S. Clement of Rome, 46ff; Jeffers, "Social
Foundations of Early Christianity at Rome: The Congregations Behind
1 Clement and the Shepherd of Hermas", 246f.
Almost exclusively, historians discuss this issue

concerning Domitilla, yet her case reveals important

conclusions regarding conceptions of punishment and

gender within the early Empire - important conclusions

that have been unexplored because of the traditional

focus on Domitilla's religious affiliation. Domitilla's

precise relationship to the emperor, her precise place of

exile, her precise religious affiliation are all detours

from what can be discovered about the relationship

between religion, law, and gender in first-century Rome.

In the larger picture, the religion of both Pomponia

Graecina and Flavia Domitilla fails to be answered

definitively by the sources available, so new questions

must be asked. Why was the matter of Pomponia's

superstition relegated to a family court, while

Domitilla's was brought before the emperor? And why was

Clemens executed for atheism, while Domitilla was only

exiled? These questions require a different direction in

the interpretation of the sources and explicit answers

that provide a fuller incorporation of gender, religion,

and politics within the framework of Roman history. The

actions taken by the imperial government against Pomponia

and Domitilla are the key to understanding the role of

gender within the religio-political system of the early

Empire. As will be elaborated upon below, Pomponia's and

Domitilla's religious conversions were not a threat to

the social and political order because of the existing

understanding of gender within Roman culture and society.

This connection between gender and societal order is also

why noblewomen far outnumbered noblemen among the

converts to Christianity in the early centuries.

Battle of the Sexes:

Gender and the Religio-Political System of Rome

The question of why women converted to Christianity

in greater numbers than men in the early centuries was

briefly explored in the first chapter. The conclusion,

however, demonstrated that perhaps a more historically

sound way to examine this phenomenon lies not in asking

why noblewomen converted, but rather why did more

noblemen not. Part of the reason why noblemen were more

reluctant to convert to Christianity (at least publicly)

is found in the relationship between politics, religion,

and gender in Roman law and tradition. The trials of

Pomponia Graecina and Flavia Domitilla demonstrate the

connection between gender and the religio-political

nature of Roman law.

The trials of Pomponia Graecina and Flavia Domitilla

were carried out in different ways - Pomponia in a family

court, and Domitilla in front of the emperor. It is

prudent to concentrate first on Domitilla's trial, for it

reveals why Pomponia's unfolded the way it did a

generation before. Flavia Domitilla was on trial for a

capital crime. Roman law treated capital crimes as

especially heinous because they could lead to the

disruption of order and stability. The punishment of

these capital crimes "was pursued in the interests of the

community,"54 and the sentence was death. While exile

could be voluntarily exercised by the accused to avoid

this punishment, execution was still the most common end

to those who threatened the stability and security of the

Roman state. In the case of Flavia Domitilla, she and

her husband were both convicted of the same crime, yet

Clemens was executed, and Domitilla was involuntarily

54
Richard A. Bauman, Crime and Punishment in Ancient Rome (New York:
Routledge, 1996), 2. For additional resources on the
differentiation of crimes in Rome, see: J.A. Crook, Law and Life of
Rome, 90 B.C. - A.D. 212 (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press,
1967) .
 69
exiled. Why were these two punished differently for the

same crime?

In the first century, there were cases where women

who participated in crimes alongside men were punished

less severely than the men. This was not always the

case, but it happened more than would be expected, and it

certainly deserves more attention than it has previously

been given. Examples of women involved in capital crimes

include three women in the Conspiracy of Sejanus.55 Of

those mentioned, six men were executed,56 one committed

suicide,57 and the other survived the charges and lived.58

Two of the three women were executed,59 and the other

committed suicide.60 The conspiracy against Caligula

resulted in the execution of M. Aemilius Lepidus and his

male co-conspirators and the exile of the emperor's

sisters, Agrippina the Younger and Julia Livilla for

55
The main conspirators were: Sejanus himself, his wife (Apiacata) ,
his son and daughter, Livilla, Publius Vitellius, Pomponius
Secundus, a poet, a historian, Carnulus, and Paconius.
56
Those executed are Sejanus, his son, the poet, the historian,
Carnulus and Paconius.
57
Publius Vitellius.
58
Pomponius Secundus.
59
Sejanus' daughter, who was raped beforehand, since it was
uncustomary to execute a virgin, and Livilla. Dio admits, however,
that it is uncertain as to whether Livilla was executed or spared on
account of her mother, Antonia, and then later starved to death by
her mother (Cass. Dio, lviii.11.7).
60
Apiacata, Sejanus' wife, implicated Livilla before committing
suicide herself.
 70
their connection to Lepidus.61 The Pisonian Conspiracy

against Nero led to the arrest of forty one, of whom four

were women: Acilia, Caedicia, Claudia Antonia, and

Epicharis. Acilia was neither acquitted nor punished,62

Caedicia was exiled, and Claudia Antonia and Epicharis

were both executed (although Antonia is said to have been

executed for refusing to marry Nero) .63

What these crimes all share, in addition to having

women highly involved in their implementation, is that

they were all attempts to murder an emperor. These were

crimes of treason {crimen maiestatis). The Roman concept

of maiestas incorporated many more crimes than just those

directed against the safety of the state.64 In the

61
Cass. Dio, lix.22. Agrippina and Livilla were also accused of
many "impious and immoral actions" by Caligula to the Senate.
62
T a c , Ann. KV.11: "Acilia mater Annaei Lucani sine absolutione,
sine supplicio dissmulata."
63
Suet., Afer. xxxv.4: "Antoniam Claudi filiam, recusantem post
Poppaeae mortem nuptias suas, quasi molitricem novarum rerum
interemit." Epicharis' death is of special mention, since she first
endured incredible torture before taking her own life, rather than
give up the names of her fellow conspirators (Tac, Ann. xv.57;
Cass. Dio, lxii.27.3).
64
See: Richard A. Bauman, The Crimen Maiestatis in the Roman
Republic and Augustan Principate (Johannesburg: Witwatersrand
University Press, 1967). The crimes listed by Bauman include, in
addition to conspiracy against the state and collusion with the
enemy: "to lose a battle; to disregard the auspices; to ill-treat
prisoners of war; to leave a province without authority; to use
violence against a magistrate; to interrupt a tribune; to lay false
claim to Roman citizenship; to visit a brothel in an official
capacity; to hold court while intoxicated, or dressed in women's
clothes; to incite civil commotion; to falsify public records; to
examples cited here, these crimes threatened the safety

of the state, because they placed the life of the emperor

in jeopardy. In all these cases, save the conspiracy

against Caligula,65 there appears to be no differentiation

between men and women in their respective punishments.

This seems to be the situation in these crimes of

treason, yet treason was not the only capital crime in

Rome.

In the case of Domitilla and Clemens, there was no

murder conspiracy or political intrigue, yet their crimes

still resulted in the highest form of punishment. Unlike

the cases cited above, in addition to political and

gender issues, this one involved religious questions that

relate to the connections between gender and punishment

in Roman legal practice. Ignoring the auspices was

linked to the concept of atheism and was a capital crime.

When one was charged with a capital offense in the

mid- to late-Republic, he or she had the opportunity to

enter into exile voluntarily in order to avoid the death

publish defamatory pamphlets; and to commit adultery with the

emperor's daughter" (viii).
65
Caligula's alleged incestuous relationship with his sisters may
have played a part in his reluctance to have them executed (Cass.
Dio lix.22)
penalty.66 In exchange for retaining one's life, the

accused lost his or her citizenship and any property left

behind.67 Humanitas, a Roman concept which, when

connected to ideas of punishment, can resemble modern

notions ranging from chivalry to "civilized" punishment,

may have played a part in encouraging an alternative to

death as the penalty for capital crimes.68 This is not to

say that the Roman state failed to execute its criminals.

As in the case of many other female criminals in Rome,

however, Domitilla received a fate far less severe than

the men involved in the same crime.69 Did Roman legal and

religious practices encourage a strict dichotomy of

punishment between men and women? And if so, how and

when was this distinction applied?

Two theories can be deduced about why women

sometimes suffered different punishments than men for the

66
Under the rule of L. Cornelius Sulla voluntary exile was
officially guaranteed, according to the law.
67
For more on how exile worked within the Roman law, see: Mary V.
Braginton, "Exile under the Roman Emperors," CJ 39, no. 7 (Apr.
1944); Crook, Law and Life of Rome, 90 B.C. - A.D. 212, 212-14;
Bauman, The Crimen Maiestatis in the Roman Republic and Augustan
Principate, 65-66; Bauman, Crime and Punishment in Ancient Rome, 13-
18.
68
Humanitas as an influential factor in encouraging exile over death
is argued by Richard Bauman in his Crime and Punishment, esp. ch. 2.
69
Some examples include Fulvia and the men involved in the rebellion
against Octavian; Julia the Elder and her lovers; Caligula's
sisters, mentioned above.
 73
70
same crime. First, one could speculate that the Romans

used gendered ideas of punishment in order to strengthen

a sense of gender difference within society, which they

saw as a continuation of what had always been done. Men

were men, and women were women; different sexes,

different roles, hence different punishments.71 Second,

and connected to the first idea, a basic cultural

understanding of gender and humanitas could be the

answer. Perhaps a gentler form of punishment was deemed

necessary for what Nature had failed to give the weaker

sex {infirmitas sexus) .72 Both theories are compelling

70
Some general sources on Roman law are: Bauman, Crime and
Punishment in Ancient Rome; W.W. Buckland, A Text-Book of Roman Law
from Augustus to Justinian (London: Cambridge University Press,
1950); Crook, Law and Life of Rome, 90 B.C. - A.D. 212; J.A.C.
Thomas, Textbook of Roman Law (Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing
Company, 1976).
71
Although concerned with a different field and time period, Diana
Paton suggests this idea in examining the difference in flogging for
male and female slaves in Jamaica: Diana Paton, No Bond but the Law:
Punishment, Race, and Gender in Jamaican State Formation, 1780-1870
(Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2004). While colonial slavery
of the 18th and 19th centuries is far removed from first-century Rome,
it is not improbable to assume that the Romans, like any other
people, wished to maintain a stable and orderly society through
legal and cultural mores concerning gender identity and roles.
72
For more on the discussion of women viewed as weak or incompetent
in Roman law, see: J.A. Crook, "Feminine Inadequacy and the
Senatusconsultum Velleianum, " in The Family in Ancient Rome: New
Perspectives, ed. Beryl Rawson (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University
Press, 1987); Crook, Law and Life of Rome, 90 B.C. - A.D. 212;
Suzanne Dixon, "Infirmitas Sexus: Womanly Weakness in Roman Law,"
Tijdschrift voor Rechtsgeschiedenis 52, no. 4 (1984); Jane F.
Gardner, Being a Roman Citizen (New York: Routledge, 1993); Gardner,
"Gender-Role Assumptions in Roman Law," Classical Views 39, no. 3
(1995); John Nicols, " P a t r o n a Duitatis: Gender and Civic Patronage,"
Studies in Latin Literature and Roman History, Collection Latomus 5
and provide l o g i c a l assumptions for the differentiation
in punishment for men and women. However, as blanket
explanations, each r e q u i r e s multiple exceptions in order
to adequately address many instances of the punishment of
women in the e a r l y Roman Empire.
The idea that Romans distinguished different
punishments for each sex as a way to reinforce a sense of
gender d i s t i n c t i o n within society is a conclusion that
can be drawn from the Roman concept of moribus - custom.
For Romans, custom was more than just traditional
formality; it was equivalent to law. 73 Therefore, the
customs associated with gender distinction and place
within Roman society were not merely t r a d i t i o n s , but also
l e g a l l y binding s o c i a l p r a c t i c e s . Jane Gardner sees the
customary roles of men and women in Roman society as
consequences rather than causes of gender
differentiation.74 Gardner argues that women were
relegated to a d i f f e r e n t l e g a l p o s i t i o n because of t h e i r

(1989); P. van Warmelo, " I g n o r a n t i a I u r i s , " Tijdschrift voor

rechtsgeschiedems 22 (1954); Marlene M. Wethmar-Lemmer, "The Legal
P o s i t i o n of Roman Women: A D i s s e n t i n g P e r s p e c t i v e , " Fundamma 12,
no. 2 (2006). For an example from o u t s i d e t h e a n c i e n t p e r i o d , s e e :
Marion A. Kaplan, Between Dignity and Despair: Jewish Life m Nazi
Germany (Oxford: Oxford U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1998).
73
Dig. 1 . 3 . 3 2 . For more on t h e Roman concept of custom as i t
p e r t a i n s t o law, s e e : Gardner, Being a Roman Citizen, 88-89.
74
See: Gardner, "Gender-Role Assumptions i n Roman Law." and Gardner,
Being a Roman Citizen, ch. 4.
physical weakness in comparison to men during a time

early in Rome's history when families were forming and

needed protection from other families or clans.75 Because

of men's physical strength, they took on the role as

paterfamilias and so it remained throughout the Kingdom,

Republic, and Empire of Rome. In other words, the Roman

construction of the familia formed the basis of Roman

legal and political customs and practice as they

pertained to gender, and these practices and customs

remained, even though much in society had changed from

the time of the formation of the familia. The roots of

gender differentiation demonstrate the Roman concept of

mos maiorum, the "custom of the ancestors."

In the fourth century, Ambrose wrote, "A woman is

not inferior in her own person. It is because of her

condition, not her nature, that she is subjected to man

and ordered to fear him."76 In explaining the Roman

distinction between genders in politics, Fritz Schulz

stated simply that women were excluded from affairs of

state not because of a woman's inherent weakness, "but

rather this tenet of old Roman custom: public life is

75
Gardner, Being a Roman Citizen, 108f.
76
Ambrose of Milan, Commentaria in epistolam ad Ephesios v.32 (PL
xvii: 399).
exclusively the business of the man."77 Women were

excluded from positions of authority within the Roman

religio-political system because, to the Romans, it was

the way it had always been - it was a custom of the

ancestors. Women and men were different; therefore,

Romans enforced what they saw as a historical practice of

gender. Men and women were given different opportunities

and responsibilities within Roman society, and were also

treated differently when it came to the execution of

justice, because it was how it had always been done.

A second theory on the Roman punishment of female

criminals is a perceived notion of womanly weakness.78 If

infirmitas sexus was an accepted legal or cultural

construction concerning Roman women and their ability to

participate in the public sphere, then this indeed may

provide the most probable justification for Domitilla's

exile, her husband's execution, and the treatment of

Pomponia Graecina a generation earlier. This theory is

predicated on the assumption that the delineation of

gender within Roman society is supported within the

77
Fritz Schulz, Classical Roman Law (Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 1951), 183.
78
For more on this, see: Dixon, "Infirmitas Sexus: Womanly Weakness
in Roman Law"; Gardner, Being a Roman Citizen, ch. 4; van Warmelo,
"Ignorantia Iuris."
cultural and legal traditions by examples of female

ignorance and/or weakness and its foundation within the

natural design. A Roman concept of infirmitas sexus

rests upon a culturally accepted limitation of the

intrinsic nature of women, rather than upon an idea of

mos maiorum.

The infirmitas sexus argument in Roman law has been

examined by many historians, and a consensus on the

proper use of the term in Roman society has for the most

part been reached, although an agreement over its roots

within Roman usage has not.79 Infirmitas sexus, and

related ideas such as a woman's inexperience {imperitia)

and her presumed ignorance of the law {ignorantia

iuris),80 were Roman concepts tied mainly to a woman's

physical weakness, not mental weakness. This is most

clearly seen in the senatusconsultum Velleianum. The sc

Velleianum attempted to discourage women from acting as

intercessors for others in court, or in simplest terms,

assuming a debt on behalf of someone else. Ulpian quoted

from the senatusconsultum which stated that legal action

79
Crook, "Feminine Inadequacy and the Senatusconsultum Velleianum";
Dixon, "Infirmitas Sexus: Womanly Weakness in Roman Law"; Gardner,
"Gender-Role Assumptions in Roman Law."
80
Dixon, "Infirmitas Sexus: Womanly Weakness in Roman Law," 357.
not be given against women in these cases because "it is

not right that they discharge men's duties [virilibus

officiis] and be bound by obligations of this kind."81 In

the minds of the Roman jurists, the law "brought aid to

women who, because of the weakness of their sex [sexus

inbecillitatem], had been overcome and thwarted by many

incidents of this sort."82 The law was intended to assist

women, whom apparently Roman men viewed as weaker in

comparison to themselves. This womanly weakness is more

closely connected to ideas of physical weakness, rather

than mental, since the jurists also clarified that "the

weakness of women [infirmitas feminarum], not their

cunning [calliditas] , deserved help"83 - demonstrating

that they were fully aware that women had the mental

capacity necessary to manipulate the law for a purpose

not intended by the lawmakers. The sc Velleianum clearly

defined an accepted public practice of women that was

grounded in what Romans believed was a woman's naturally-

given weakness in comparison to men.

81
Dig. xvi.l.
82
Dig. xvi.l. 2. 2.
83
Dig. xvi.l.2.3; Cod. lust, iv.29.5. Evans-Grubbs writes that
between 212-294, there are twenty imperial rescripts (ten of which
to women) clarifying the intent of the sc Velleianum: Judith Evans
Grubbs, Women and the Law in the Roman Empire: A Sourcebook on
Marriage, Divorce and Widowhood (London and New York: Routledge,
2002), 57.
 The foundational assumption of infirmitas sexus is

that women were weaker than men. This argument proves

unable to explain, however, women who certainly defied

any conceptions of womanly weakness through their

actions, and were recognized as such by the (male) Roman

writers of their time. How does a cultural understanding

of a weaker sex explain prominent women throughout Roman

history who defied both Roman law and understandings of

feminine frailty?84 Even in their explanation of the sc

Velleianum, the jurists acknowledged that women were

fully capable of purposely misusing the laws intended for

their protection.85 Much like the argument from custom,

infirmitas sexus also fails to provide a blanket

explanation for the differentiation in punishment between

men and women in the Roman execution of justice, or even

a specific justification in the case of Domitilla.

What might better address the exile of Domitilla,

and by extension, the trial of Pomponia Graecina, is a

closer examination of all the aspects of her case which

make gender an especially important issue. At the heart

of both Dio's and Eusebius' accounts about Domitilla lies

84
For example: Fulvia (c.83-40 BC); Livia (58 BC - AD 29); Agrippina
the Younger (15-59); Epicharis (d.65).
85
Dig. xvi.1.2.3; Cod. lust, iv.29.5.
 80
the issue of religion - an issue very relevant in the

trial of Pomponia a s well.

Roman women w e r e n o t legally capable of holding and

exercising officially sanctioned political power. Given

this fact, could not the Romans have instituted a

practice of different punishments based upon gender

because the political system was in less danger of

collapse from f e m a l e crime t h a n male crime? S i n c e women

could not hold p o l i t i c a l office, their actions could not

destabilize the status quo.

Roman religion was an integral part of Roman

culture, politics, and law.86 The rejection of Roman

religion was only a problem when it interfered with

public practice. For those in positions of political

authority, the neglect of public duties, which were

intrinsically t i e d t o t h e s t a t e g o d s , was what c o u l d lead

to punishment for atheism.87 Atheism was a serious

charge, and not a catchword used merely to defame a

political rival ( a l t h o u g h t h a t d o e s n o t mean i t could not

86
Some r e c e n t p u b l i c a t i o n s on Roman r e l i g i o n a r e : James B. Rives,
Religion in the Roman Empire (Maiden, MA: Blackwell P u b l i s h i n g ,
2007); John Scheid, An Introduction to Roman Religion (Bloomington,
IN: I n d i a n a U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 2003); V a l e r i e M. W a r r i o r , Roman
Religion (New York: Cambridge U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 2006).
87
Adolf von Harnack, "Der Vorwurf des Atheismus i n den d r e i e r s t e n
J a h r h u n d e r t e n , " TUGAL 28, no. 4 (1905): 1 1 .
be used as a political tool) . In the case of Flavius

Clemens and his wife, the charge of atheism inferred an

incapability of properly ensuring and exercising the

required religious roles of political figures. A

political figure unable to carry out his religious

obligations could bring divine punishment upon and

instability within the Empire, hence the aforementioned

reference to disregarding the auspices as a capital

crime.88

The specific charge of "atheism" [dcGeoxriTOc;] in the

trial of Clemens and Domitilla sheds light on the

connection between it and the meting out of punishment in

accordance with the relationship between gender and

society in the early Empire. Roman conceptions of

superstitio and atheism have garnered much attention by

scholars attempting to ascertain how Romans indentified

themselves within a religious milieu as well as contrary

to those outside of it.89 In a general sense, the Roman

88
Bauman, The Crimen Maiestatis in the Roman Republic and Augustan
Principate, viii.
89
See: Stephen Benko, "Pagan Criticism of Christianity During the
First Two Centuries A.D.," ANRW 23, no. 2 (1980); Crake, "Early
Christians and Roman Law"; G.E.M. De Ste. Croix, "Why Were the Early
Christians Persecuted?" Past and Present 26 (Nov. 1963); Harnack,
"Der Vorwurf des Atheismus in den drei ersten Jahrhunderten"; L.F.
Janssen, " ' S u p e r s t i t i o ' and the Persecution of the Christians," Vig.
Chr. 33, no. 2 (Jun. 1979); Dale B. Martin, Inventing Superstition:
understanding of atheism meant a refusal to acknowledge
the existence of the plurality of Roman gods and
goddesses. 9 0 As mentioned e a r l i e r , t h i s charge was levied
against both C h r i s t i a n s and Jews on numerous occasions in
the f i r s t three centuries. In the context of the first
century, atheism was not the fundamental cause of hatred
of the C h r i s t i a n sect by the pagan majority. There were
numerous aspects of Christianity that pagans found
particularly distasteful, among which were: "atheism,
separateness, aggressive proselytizing and polemic,
secrecy, Jewish o r i g i n s , apocalyptic expectations, [and
the] disruption of f a m i l i e s . " 9 1 These numerous reasons
t h a t Romans singled out C h r i s t i a n s and the lack of first-
century sources which s p e c i f i c a l l y a t t r i b u t e atheism as
the cause of contention between C h r i s t i a n s and Romans,92
complicate the connection between atheism and

From the Hippocratics to the Christians (Cambridge, MA: Harvard

U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 2004); William R. Schoedel, " C h r i s t i a n 'Atheism'
and t h e Peace of t h e Roman Empire," Church History 42, no. 3 (Sep.
1973) ; A.N. Sherwin-White, "The E a r l y P e r s e c u t i o n s and Roman Law
Again," JTS 3 (1952); Sherwin-White, "Why Were t h e E a r l y C h r i s t i a n s
P e r s e c u t e d ? - an Amendment," Past and Present 27 (Apr. 1964); Joseph
J . Walsh, "On C h r i s t i a n A t h e i s m , " Vig. Chr. 45, no. 3 (Sep. 1991);
Robert Louis Wilken, The Christians as the Romans Saw Them, 2nd ed.
(New Haven, CT: Yale U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 2003).
90
A.B. Drachmann, Atheism in Pagan Antiquity (London & Copenhagen:
Gyldendal, 1922). Drachmann b l u n t l y d e c l a r e s on h i s f i r s t page t h a t
for t h o s e i n a n t i q u i t y , atheism was " t h e p o i n t of view which d e n i e s
t h e e x i s t e n c e of t h e a n c i e n t g o d s . "
91
Walsh, "On C h r i s t i a n Atheism," 256.
92
I b i d . : 257.
 83
Christianity in the example of Flavia Domitilla and her

husband. 93

The importance of the charge of atheism is not

because of its identification as Christianity or Judaism,

but rather, the connection between the charge and the

character and position of Flavius Clemens. Suetonius'

account of Clemens' execution was placed within the

context of his passionate criticism against the general

unjust cruelty of Domitian:

Finally his [Domitian's] own cousin Flavius

Clemens, who was a man of despicable laziness
[contemptissimae inertiae] , whose sons, who
were still very young, [Domitian] had openly
named his successors, changing their former
names and calling one Vespasian and the other
one Domitian, suddenly on only a slim suspicion
before the end of his consulship was done away
with [by Domitian].94

Although brief, Suetonius' account supplements Dio's in

ascertaining the motivation behind Domitian's attack

against his cousins in 95. Suetonius' use of

"inertiae" to describe Clemens' character may indicate

the underlying reasons why Clemens was executed for

atheism, while his wife was only exiled - reasons

connected more to political understandings of gender,

93
The same could be said of superstitio externa and Christianity
against Pomponia Graecina.
94
Suet., Dom. xv.
rather than to custom. It is likely that Suetonius

failed to give the legal justification behind Clemens'

execution because he was continuing his evidence of

Domitian's unjust and arbitrary cruelty,95 however,

Suetonius' careful vocabulary draws connections between

gender and the religio-political system of Rome.

Translated strictly as "laziness," Clemens' inertiae

would seem to indicate a lack of motivation not at all

indicative of a threat to Domitian's claim of imperial

authority. It is unlikely that a man bereft of any

ambition would be such a threat to Domitian's reign to

warrant execution. In this particular case, an

insinuation that Clemens, as consul, had demonstrated a

lackadaisical attitude in regard to his religio-political

duties would certainly warrant the attention of the

imperial government.96 Political life was the masculine

life in Rome. Not only did politics serve as a

connection to the expected gendered norms of Roman

society, political life was also deeply connected to

95
For example: Suet., Dom., x; xii.
96
This definition is alluded to in Elmer Truesdell Merrill, Essays
in Early Christian History (London: MacMillan and Co., Ltd., 1924),
149f., when he suggests "absence of interest in public affairs."
For more on possible renditions of inertiae, see: Jeffers, "Social
Foundations of Early Christianity at Rome: The Congregations Behind
1 Clement and the Shepherd of Hermas", 239-40.
Rome's civil religious system and culture. While

Domitian may have at times appeared irrational and

unjustly cruel in Suetonius' account, there are also

examples of his adherence to and enforcement of religious

obligations, which he seemed to have emphasized to a

greater degree than some of his predecessors.

One obvious example, which stressed the gendered

religious expectations of the early Empire, was

Domitian's enforcement of laws concerned with the Vestal

virgins. Suetonius provided the example of Cornelia, a

chief vestal who violated her vow of chastity, and whom

Domitian had buried alive, while her lovers were beaten

to death with rods (save one ex-praetor).97 Domitian's

care to "protect the gods from being dishonored"98 gives

insight into why later, in 95, Flavius Clemens was

executed for atheism. But if the crime of religious and

political neglect warranted the execution of Clemens, why

did Domitilla not share in her husband's fate?

If Flavia Domitilla, as wife of a consul, were

Christian or Jewish, her disconnect from the religious

97
Suet., Dom. viii.4. Suetonius explained that the ex-praetor was
spared because he had confessed before the case was settled, and
also because witnesses had failed to give any further information.
98
Suet., Dom. viii.5.
and political segments of society would bring little

disruption to Roman life. If, however, the consul

himself were of a "foreign superstition" the connection

between politics and religion in the Empire could be

severely hampered. The discrepancy between the

punishments of noblemen and -women could then be

interpreted as perceived potential instability. As a

woman, even a noblewoman, she had limited access to the

public realm (and no recognized authority), so there was

little need to worry about her impact upon the greater

stability of the Empire. Romans may have understood that

women remained outside the public sphere when it came to

politics, and therefore interpreted their crimes as less

destabilizing than a man's. However, in the cases of

conspiracy, these crimes constituted a disregard of

gendered boundaries by the attempt of a woman to usurp

political authority by assuming the task of removing a

man who exercised legitimate power. With this act, women

then became just as threatening as their male comrades-

in-arms. Even in the case of the Vestals, these women

were anomalous in the sense that they were intimately

connected to the religio-political system, and therefore

very foreign to the Roman conception of feminine

especially also in the sense that they voluntarily

abrogated their responsibilities of marriage and

childbirth, albeit only temporarily. In the case of

Domitilla, because a woman's religious duties were not

intrinsically connected to her political life (since she

had none), her beliefs could stray from the religio-

political obligations of the state, and pose no real risk

to stability. However, a consul's life was the state,

and to unfasten himself from the religious segment, while

clinging to the political, threatened an unraveling of

the system that was deemed too important to ignore.

In a case where the consul wished to exercise

religious beliefs inconsistent with his civic duty, he

would have to be permanently removed from the scene,

whereas his wife could simply be moved away from the

center of political life - Rome. In this way too,

humanitas would be retained, and any possible

interference on her behalf would be squelched as she now

resided outside the inner circles of Roman policy. Women

like Domitilla lacked the opportunity to infect the

religio-political system because they remained outside of

it, whereas men in power, like Clemens, did not. This

idea is seen in the imperial interpretation of the Julian

treason law in 397, in which the practice of not

executing or disinheriting the daughters of traitors was

encouraged because "the sentence ought to be milder in

respect of those who, in view of the weakness of their

sex [infirmitate sexus], we are confident are less likely

to attempt anything."99 About this interpretation, Jane

Gardner remarked: "It is unclear whether the emperors

supposed women to be temperamentally too timid to attempt

rebellion, or simply presumed their lack of

opportunity."100 In the case of Domitilla, the latter

seems to be the case.

Flavia Domitilla's situation exposes how religion,

gender, and politics were inseparable facets of Roman

society. This interplay of Roman laws and customs

provides evidence of a gendered dichotomy of punishment

in regard to some capital crimes. The demonstration of

the gendered nature of the religio-political system does

not cover every case of capital punishment within the

early Empire, but as Domitilla's exile shows, there are

multiple factors to consider in assessing Rome's

integration of gender difference in the execution of

Cod. lust, ix.8.5.3.

Gardner, Being a Roman Citizen, 106f.
justice. The religio-political system of Rome

perpetuated an important and impenetrable gender divide

within the public sphere. As the case of Domitilla

illustrates, this divide prevented a woman's religious

deviation from being any true threat to the stability of

the Principate in the first century because it excluded

women from the positions which would have allowed their

misconduct to pose a risk to the societal order. This

idea does not negate the concepts of moribus, humanitas

or infirmitas sexus, but rather incorporates them in and

with the important position of religion as it concerns

both politics and gender differentiation within Rome.

This examination of the difference in punishment

between Flavia Domitilla and Flavius Clemens informs an

understanding of why Pomponia Graecina, who 38 years

before Domitilla, found herself in front of a family

court, rather than an imperial one. Tacitus used the

phrase priscum institutum to describe the family trial

which Pomponia Graecina endured.101 The use of "ancient

custom" could imply that this private practice of a

family trial was a relic of the past and falling out of

1
T a c , Ann. xiii.32.
use as it came to be replaced by public trials.102 The

resorting to this seemingly antiguated tradition to

examine Pomponia's crime is telling in regard to how

Romans viewed the potential risk of her crime infecting

the established order of things. While women were

subject to the legal system just as men, many women

continued to be under the potestas of their fathers, and

the imperial government recognized, to a certain degree,

the authority of the family in punishing criminal

behavior.103 Criminal matters in which families could

sometimes assume jurisdiction included religious

concerns.104 The case of Pomponia Graecina and the action

taken by the imperial government in relation to her crime

give important clues about the connection of gender to

the religio-political structure of first-century Roman

society.

The suspicions about the religious convictions of

Pomponia Graecina seem not to have been threatening

enough to warrant a bypassing of familial authority with

102
See: Anthony J. Marshall, "Roman Ladies on Trial: The Case of
Maesia Sentinum," Phoenix 44, no. 1 (Spring 1990): 53-54.
103
See: Jane F. Gardner, Women in Roman Law and Society (Bloomington
and Indianapolis: Indiana University Press, 1995 [Orig. 1986]), 6-7;
Marshall, "Roman Ladies on Trial: The Case of Maesia Sentinum," 53.
104
Gardner, Women in Roman Law and Society, 6-7.: See especially
footnote 6, in which Gardner explains examples which dealt
specifically with religion and inter-familial problems.
the intervention of the state-controlled administration

of justice. Unlike in the trial of Flavia Domitilla,

Pomponia stood alone in judgment. No sources survive

which either suggest or hint that her husband, Aulus

Plautius, was ever suspected of his wife's foreign

superstition. Furthermore, and perhaps most importantly,

by 57, Plautius had ceased to be at the center of Roman

political life. It had been fourteen years since his

conquest of Britain, and ten since his tenure as governor

there had ended. This distance of Plautius from

political life of Roman society, in addition to the

absence of any suspicion of religious departure on his

part, made Pomponia a non-entity in the eyes of Roman law

and order. The Senate saw fit to refer Pomponia's trial

to the jurisdiction of her family, because even if

guilty, Pomponia's disconnect from Roman religious

observance stood little chance of impacting the greater

good of the community and the stability attained by the

fusion of the religious and political systems.

Pomponia's trial was an affirmation and reinforcement of

the distinction of gender within Roman society - women

who violated the law, yet did not transcend their

gendered sphere, were a problem too removed from the

religio-political system to pose a threat to order.

Pomponia's trial by her family was more than just

Rome's way of demonstrating the historical prestige of

familial authority. Much like how virginity was an

enforcement of gender expectations within the Christian

community, the family trial was Rome's way of enforcing

the understanding of how women could and should remain

outside the religio-political sphere of imperial culture,

yet were still obligated to operate within the boundaries

established by both culture and law. The trial enforced

what Rome had consistently asserted: the religio-

political life of Roman society was a distinctly

masculine endeavor. Masculinity and femininity in the

eyes of the Romans were mutually exclusive. A woman, who

according to her biology was expected to be feminine,

could not assume the qualities of masculinity without

upsetting the balance of nature. In order to carry out

masculine duties, the woman could no longer be considered

a woman by society. If this were to happen, as in the

case of those women who participated in capital crimes

which could upset the stability of the Empire, the

balance would need to be restored and the women

responsible properly condemned for acting outside the

limits of their gendered sphere.105

Separate but Not Equal:

Conclusions

The trials of both Pomponia and Domitilla

demonstrate that women were able to deviate from the

religious realm of the state more easily than men because

their lives were not intertwined within the political

system, which was inseparable from religion in the

ancient Roman world. Failure to fully uphold one's civic

religious duty was more flexible in the case of women

because their actions could not immediately impact the

political stability of the Empire in the same way that

the actions of men could, since women were not part of

official political authority. The one exception which

proves the rule is the Vestals.106 The Vestals were much

entwined within the religio-political system of Rome, and

because so, they were aberrations of the feminine. In

contrast to social convention and expectation, they

refused to marry or bear children until after the age of

105
This idea is further explored in the next chapter.
106
See chapter one for an examination of the Vestals as outside the
masculine and feminine of Roman society.
thirty. They stood as examples of the abnormal in order

to enforce what was expected and not expected of women in

general society. It could be said that in practice,

Vestals were held to the standards of what was expected

of the masculine sphere in order to enforce what was

expected of the feminine.

The times during which Pomponia Graecina and Flavia

Domitilla lived were periods of political stability.

During times of stability the status quo of gender

relations remained in force and the likelihood that women

could push the boundaries proved minimal. In times of

instability, however, women could sometimes assume a

greater role within the masculine-dominated spheres of

religion and politics. When this happened, even when

women remained within their gendered spheres, the ancient

writers were quick to demonstrate the dangerous precedent

these women had set in regard to the balance of nature.

As will be further demonstrated in the next chapter,

stability, or the threat of its undoing, was a powerful

impetus in enforcing or countermanding the understood

roles of each gender within Greco-Roman society. Gender

permeated all aspects of Roman life, and Christian women

connected to men of power and authority found that they

 95
could use this gendered system to the advantage of the

Christian community.
 CHAPTER I I I

"UNSEX ME"1
Gendered C r i s i s : Poppaea, Marcia, & J u l i a Mamaea

Man i s t h e Head, b u t Woman i s t h e Neck:

Introductions

What d i d it mean f o r a man t o act as a man, and a

woman t o a c t a s a woman i n t h e e a r l y Roman E m p i r e ? What

attributes were distinctively masculine and therefore

e x p e c t e d of a man and what were f e m i n i n e and e x p e c t e d of

a woman? Romans knew t h a t what made men, men and women,

women was t h e i r b i o l o g y , b u t what d e t e r m i n e d who a c t e d as

a man o r a woman was e x p e c t e d was on a c c o u n t of gender.

This understanding of gender was reinforced or

stigmatized by what was already a biological fact.

During t h e f i r s t three centuries, the i n t e r a c t i o n between

Taken from Lady Macbeth's famous passage in William S h a k e s p e a r e ' s

"Macbeth", Act I , Scene 5, i n which she a t t e m p t s t o put a s i d e her
f e m i n i n i t y so t h a t she can commit v i o l e n t a c t s t y p i c a l l y a s s o c i a t e d
with masculine b e h a v i o r : "Come, you s p i r i t s ; That tend on m o r t a l
t h o u g h t s , unsex me h e r e , And f i l l me from t h e crown t o t h e t o e t o p -
f u l l Of d i r e s t c r u e l t y ! make t h i c k my blood; Stop up t h e a c c e s s and
passage t o remorse, That no compunctious v i s i t i n g s of n a t u r e Shake
my f e l l purpose, nor keep peace between The e f f e c t and i t ! Come t o
my woman's b r e a s t s , And t a k e my milk for g a l l , you m u r d ' r i n g
m i n i s t e r s , Wherever i n your s i g h t l e s s s u b s t a n c e s You wait on
n a t u r e ' s m i s c h i e f ! Come, t h i c k n i g h t , And p a l l t h e e i n t h e dunnest
smoke of h e l l , That my keen k n i f e see not t h e wound i t makes, Nor
heaven peep through t h e b l a n k e t of t h e dark, To cry 'Hold, h o l d ! ' "
96
Christianity and the imperial government evolved.

Poppaea Sabina, Marcia, and Julia Mamaea each took

advantage of her unique position of power in order to

impact the course of the evolving relationship between

the imperial government and the Christian movement.

The daughter of Titus Ollius,2 Poppaea Sabina was

not from humble origins. Through her influence, beauty,

and intrigue, Poppaea married and divorced important

Roman noblemen until she married Emperor Nero in 62. 3

The depictions of Poppaea paint a mixed picture of her

character, yet they all agree on her physical beauty and

Nero's passion for her. Accounts of her character shed

light not only on how or why she influenced the most

powerful man in the Empire, but also demonstrate

conceptions of gender within first-century Roman society

and how those conceptions could be used as a tool of

propaganda by the ancient historians as well as those

vying for political power.

Poppaea met an early death. The sources on her

death agree that, whether intentional or not, the cause

2
Tactius explains that Poppaea took her name from her maternal
grandfather, Poppaeus Sabinus, rather than her father, because of
her grandfather's illustrious reputation and also on account of her
father's friendship with Sejanus. T a c , Ann. xiii.45.
3
Although she was his mistress beginning around 58.
was that Nero kicked Poppaea while she was pregnant.4

While accounts of the death of Poppaea are consistent,

there was debate over Nero's intentions among the ancient

historians, and there continues to be debate today.5 The

slightly varied accounts of Poppaea's death are important

because they demonstrate the ancient historians' use of

gender as a normative tool for elite society.

Poppaea Sabina may seem out of place for this study,

for she was not a Christian, nor did she seem to show any

favor to the Christian movement (quite the opposite,

actually). However, the purpose of this inquiry is the

examination of gender and Christianity upon imperial

policy toward the Christian movement. Poppaea, while not

a Christian herself, may have influenced imperial policy

toward the Christians more than any Christian woman in

the first two centuries. The descriptions of Poppaea

within the ancient sources reveal a woman who was

independent yet dominant over Nero. Poppaea's character

and power within the imperial government vis-a-vis her

husband allows some conclusions to be drawn about her

4
Cass. Dio lxxii.28.1; Suet., Ner. xxxv.3; T a c , Ann. xvi. 6.
5
See: Roland Mayer, "What Caused Poppaea's Death," Historia 31, no.
2 (1982); Walter Ameling, "Tyrannen und Schwangere Frauen," Historia
35, no. 4 (1986).
influence over Nero's policies concerning both Christians

and Jews. Poppaea's relationship to the emperor provides

an interesting antithesis to Marcia, a second-century

woman who wielded power in a similar fashion, yet in a

very different direction.

Not much is known of Marcia but that she was a

freedwoman,6 and therefore of a different class entirely

from Poppaea Sabina and Julia Mamaea. Eusebius mentioned

in his early fourth-century History that during the reign

of Emperor Commodus (r. 180 - 192), whole households of

wealthy and influential Romans had converted to

Christianity.7 There is little evidence that any of the

prominent Christians to whom Eusebius referred had the

ear of the emperor or the wherewithal to intervene on

behalf of the Church in imperial policy. Nevertheless,

there was one woman whose proximity to Commodus allowed

her the freedom to exert influence for the purpose of

protecting the Christian community in Rome. Marcia

6
Marcia's status as a freedwoman is taken from her name (Marcia
Aurelia Ceionia Demetriade) as well as the reference in the Epit. de
Caes. xvii.5 which refers to her as generis libertini. See also the
footnote of C.R. Whittaker in the Loeb Classical Library for
Herodian, i.16.
7
Euseb., Hist. eccl. v.21.
 100
8
became the concubine of Commodus sometime around 182,
a f t e r t h e e x e c u t i o n of h e r p r e v i o u s l o v e r , Q u a d r a t u s , and

then later her husband, Eclectus, a servant of the

emperor. 9 With Marcia as the emperor's concubine, the

C h r i s t i a n s i n Rome reaped t h e b e n e f i t s of having an a l l y

inside the walls of Babylon's fortress. As will be

demonstrated in further detail below, Rome's eventual

political instability under Commodus opened t h e way for

Marcia to move beyond the political and gendered

b o u n d a r i e s of Roman c u l t u r e and e x e r t her i n f l u e n c e in a

variety of imperial matters - including the eventual

a s s a s s i n a t i o n of t h e emperor.

Daughter of J u l i a Maesa and J u l i u s A v i t u s , s i s t e r of

Julia Soaemias, and n i e c e of Emperor Septimius Severus

and J u l i a Domna, Julia A v i t a Mamaea was no s t r a n g e r to

the intricacies of imperial life.10 Forming a virtual

This d a t e i s taken from E a r n e s t Cary, t h e Loeb t r a n s l a t o r of

Cassius Dio ( l x x i i i . 4 . 6 - 7 ) .
9
Cass. Dio, l x x i i i . 4 . 6 - 7 . Marcia may have a c t u a l l y been Commodus'
concubine b e f o r e t h e e x e c u t i o n of her husband (6 \ikv m l xov Ko^H-OSou
npoKouoq, n 8e 71OCM.(XKTI eyeveto Kod xov EKXEKTO\) ^.exa xama yv\r\.) . This v i o l a t e d
t h e custom and law, however, t h i s u s u a l l y d i d not s t o p most emperors
from p r o c e e d i n g with t h e i r i n t e n d e d p l a n s . For a b r i e f examination
of t h e i n t e r s e c t i o n between law and s o c i a l s t a t u s , s e e : P e t e r
Garnsey, Social Status and Legal Privilege in the Roman Empire
(Oxford: Oxford U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1970). In a d d i t i o n , t h i s emphasis
on Commodus' s c o f f i n g of l e g a l custom and t r a d i t i o n i s no doubt p a r t
of t h e l i t e r a r y n a r r a t i v e on h i s unmanliness and inadequacy as a
r u l e r (see my d i s c u s s i o n on t h i s b e l o w ) .
10
Cass. Dio l x x i x . 3 0 . 2 - 4 .
 101
triumvirate of power behind the throne, Julia Mamaea, her

sister Soaemias, and her mother Maesa, controlled the

throne of the Empire from 218 to 235 and embodied to the

fullest extent the idea of a ruling Roman empress. The

Severan women demonstrated the ultimate exercise of

gendered power during a time of crisis. Exerting their

influence under the emasculated emperor Elagabalus and

then the young Alexander Severus, the Severan women

enjoyed virtual autonomy of rule behind the robes of

their imperial male relatives. In the end, Julia Mamaea

met an untimely death, when, as the ancients record, her

abandonment of traditional femininity proved too much for

the soldiers to accept, and she and her son, Alexander,

were murdered in their tent in 235.

Much like Poppaea Sabina, Julia Mamaea may seem out

of place for this study, for no reliable sources indicate

she held a preference for Christianity. However,

Eusebius refers to her as a religious woman (Geoaepeaxatri

yuvri) and mentions a meeting she called between herself

and the renowned Christian scholar, Origen.11 Paulus

Orosius claims she was indeed a Christian, but he is a

11
Euseb., Hist, eccl. vi.21; Jer., De vir. ill. liv.
 102
late source, and he mentions it only in passing.12 As

will be examined further, Mamaea's own personal beliefs

are but a fraction of the evidence demonstrating a

relationship between the imperial government and the

state of the Church in the early third century.

Poppaea, Marcia and Mamaea demonstrate the ability

of women to exert their influence for the purpose of

protecting religious groups. Looking back on these

women, Roman writers interpreted the actions of all three

through the lens of gender. They described these women

in similar fashion because they demonstrated the extent

to which women could bend their culturally-constructed

gendered sphere, while remaining within it. The

understanding of how these women did what they did begins

with recognizing the precise relationship each of these

women had with her respective emperor. For Poppaea and

Marcia, the relationship was sexual, and they dealt with

their lovers on a somewhat equal footing in relation to

age and perceived abilities. Julia Mamaea, however,

wielded her power over her young son, who, historians

insinuate, treaded a thin line between masculine and

feminine - a line which became more delineated as he

12
Orosius, Historiae adversum paganos vii.18.
 103
matured. While Poppaea and Marcia extended their

influence through the legitimate authority of their

lovers, Julia Mamaea, and the Severan women ruled

directly through the guise of the legitimate masculine

authority of their sons, and because of this, a brief

examination of the relationship between Poppaea and Nero,

and Marcia and Commodus must be done separately from

examining Mamaea's relationship with Alexander.

Mistresses and Concubines and Wives, Oh My!:

Defining Terms of Relationships

The precise relationship of Poppaea Sabina and

Marcia to their respective emperors had important

implications regarding their abilities to influence

imperial policies regarding the Christian movement.

Through these two women, one encounters the Roman

concepts of mistress, concubine, and wife. In the Roman

legal system, concubinage (concubina) was recognized as a

position virtually analogous to that of a legal wife13

while a mistress, in a strict sense meaning a woman with

13
Beryl Rawson, "Roman Concubinage and Other De Facto Marriages,"
TAPA 104 (1974): 288.
 104
whom a man could have sexual relations while also married

to another woman, was neither legal nor honorable.14

When Nero met Poppaea Sabina, she was still married

to Rufrius Crispinus, an equestrian who commanded the

Praetorian Guard under Emperor Claudius, or to M. Salvius

Otho - the stories differ in the sources. Despite the

fact that Poppaea was married, Nero became completely

enamored with her.15 Nero, however, would not marry

Poppaea because he was married to Claudia Octavia16 and

his mother Agrippina the Younger was against a divorce as

well as the ascendancy of Poppaea to empress.17 It was

not long though, before Poppaea became the mistress of

Nero and then his wife shortly after his divorce from

Octavia.

There were two competing s t o r i e s for how Poppaea and

Nero became eventual husband and wife. The f i r s t story,
supported by Dio, Plutarch, Suetonius, and Tactius (in
the Histories), r e l a t e d t h a t the a f f a i r between Nero and

14
Some examples of t h e L a t i n used for t h e s e women would be scortum
or paelex - both of which could be t r a n s l a t e d as h a r l o t or
prostitute. For a b r i e f survey on t h e Roman u n d e r s t a n d i n g of
m i s t r e s s and concubine, s e e : J.A. Crook, Law and Life of Rome, 90
B.C. - A.D. 212 ( I t h a c a , NY: C o r n e l l U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1967), e s p .
ch. 4; Rawson, "Roman Concubinage and Other De Facto M a r r i a g e s . "
15
Plut., Galb. xix.2.
16
Daughter of Emperor Claudius and step-sister to Nero.
17
Plut., Galb. xix.2.
 105
Poppaea began early, and after her divorce from Rufrius

Crispinus, she married Otho as a cover for her

relationship with the emperor.18 In the other version,

Otho had been married to Poppaea first, and his boasting

over her beauty and charms aroused the interest of the

emperor, who then relocated Otho to be governor of

Lusitania.19 Regardless of the competing versions, the

basic framework is consistent in them all: Poppaea's

relationship to Nero was first as an adulterous mistress,

and then as wife, twelve days after Nero's divorce from

the empress Octavia.20

The shift from mistress to wife requires particular

attention in this case, especially to the terminology

used by the ancient historians for Poppaea's role as

mistress.21 Describing the events after Poppaea's

marriage to Nero, the sources are consistent in their

account of Poppaea as wife of the emperor. In her time

as mistress, however, the vocabulary varies. The terms

used by Tacitus and Suetonius provide valuable

information on the intentions of the two historians and

18
Cass. Dio lxi.ll; Plut., Galb. xix.2,4; Suetonius, Otho iii.1-2;
T a c , Hist. i.13.
19
T a c , Ann. xiii.46.
20
Suet., Wer. xxxv.4.
21
See chapter one for information on the concept of marriage within
Roman society.
 106
their estimation of Poppaea's character. In his account,

Suetonius uses the Latin amicam,22 which is easily

interpreted as "mistress" in this context. Tacitus,

however, uses principale scortum,23 most directly

translated as "chief harlot."

The difference in their terms may be connected to

the difference in the intended purpose of the two

authors.24 Suetonius' purpose of mentioning Poppaea's

relationship to Nero before their marriage seems to be

purely informational. His use of "mistress" simply

emphasizes the seguence of events and places the murder

of Nero's mother into in the timeline in regard to the

goings-on of Poppaea and Otho. Tacitus' purpose, on the

other hand, may have been to demonstrate his distaste for

Nero, Otho, and Poppaea, all of whom he described as

immoral, tyrannical, and conducting themselves in ways

inconsistent with their gendered boundaries. Tacitus may

have used a more derogatory term for Poppaea in order to

interpret the fall of the Julio-Claudian dynasty in line

22
Suet., Otho iii. 1.
23
T a c , Hist. i.13.
24
Cass. Dio lxii.13.1 is the only other source which mentions
Poppaea's status as mistress, but the term used, 7taXA,aKeux, is used
for a variety of relational terms, and is dependent upon its
context. For example, see its use with Marcia immediately
following.
 107
with his beliefs concerning the proper exercise of

masculine and feminine power.25 For Tacitus, the balance

of gender was foundational to a stable and productive

society, and the confusion of gender roles was indicative

of a rule in conflict with nature.

Marcia's official relationship to Emperor Commodus

was that of concubine. There are five sources that

mention Marcia as a concubine of Commodus. Four of these

sources are in Greek26 and one is in Latin.27 The term

concubina is used in the Latin source for Marcia's

relationship to Commodus, and the Greek equivalent of

KaXkaKExa is used by the other four sources.

This distinction of Marcia's relationship to

Commodus is important. Marcia's legal status as a

concubine enabled her to conduct her business more

surreptitiously than if she were a legal wife and

therefore empress. While a public figure, and one who

had the power and opportunity to influence the emperor,

Marcia was still only a freedwoman. Because of her

social status, Marcia was not capable of exercising

25
Francesca Santoro L'Hoir, "Tacitus and Women's Usurpation of
Power," CW 88, no. 1 (Sep.-Oct. 1994).
26
Cass. Dio, lxxiii.4.7; Hdn. i.16.4; Hippol., Haer. ix.12.10; Zos.,
Historia Nova i.7.
27
SHA Comm. xi.9, xvii.1-2.
 108
authority that was accepted or even seen as threatening

by the ruling elite. While some historians28 viewed her

influence over Commodus as disruptive or inappropriate,

others viewed her as the sober-minded influence against

Commodus' more disturbing behavior.29 In short, Marcia

was seen as an insignificant sexual partner of Commodus

with no ability to personally disrupt state business to

any great degree.

Marcia was able to conduct herself as an empress

whenever she was in the presence of the emperor. At the

same time, she was freed from some of the constraints

intrinsic to societal expectations of noblewomen. For

instance, Herodian remarked that Marcia "was treated just

like a legal wife with all the honors due to an empress

apart from the sacred fire."30 Marcia's lower social

standing, gender, and legal status placed her on the

margins of a society which distinguished ability and role

according to these criteria. Because of this, Marcia was

able to create her own sphere - a socially-recognized

limitation which regulated her existence in society. The

uniqueness of Marcia's position afforded her the

28
SHA, Comm. v i i i . 7 , x i . 9 ; Epit. de Caes. xvii.5.
29
Hdn. i . 1 6 . 4 ; i . 1 7 . 5 .
30
Hdn. i . 1 6 . 4 .
 109
opportunity to pursue a more involved role in the Roman

Christian community as well as a more personal

relationship with the Bishop of Rome. More importantly,

in her position, she was able to operate according to the

recognized gender customs of her day and at the same time

stretch them to suit purposes deemed outside the purview

of feminine power.

The relationships of Poppaea and Marcia to their

respective emperors are important for two specific

reasons. First, the language the ancient historians used

to explain the connections of these women to their

emperors was heavily steeped in conceptions of gender.

Second, the relationships between Poppaea and Marcia and

their emperors reveal that neither their sex nor gender

truly stood in the way of influencing the course of the

imperial policies. Ability to exert authority was

connected to the male sex, but the exertion of power,

while shrouded in masculine terminology, was not.

 110
The Son of Mamaea:
Gendered Language in the Relationship between Alexander
and Julia Mamaea

The relationship between the emperor Alexander

Severus and his mother Julia Mamaea deserves special

attention. Julia Mamaea had engineered Alexander's

appointment as Caesar under his cousin Elagabalus, and

with the help of her mother, Julia Maesa, eventually the

throne itself in the assassination of the emperor and his

mother. Herodian presented Julia Mamaea's role in her

son's reign as the natural triumph of the masculine over

the feminine.31 Alexander and his mother together

embodied the masculine, while Elagabalus assumed the role

of femininity. This picture, however, dissolved shortly

into Alexander's reign as the now feminine Mamaea

attempted to overcome the now fully masculine Alexander.

Because Alexander was only thirteen when he assumed

the throne in 218, his mother and grandmother maintained

control over the affairs of state through the guise of

legitimate authority of Alexander and his imperial

advisors. After the death of Julia Maesa in 226, Julia

Mamaea continued on her own to dominate Alexander and the

31
Hdn. v.7.1-6.
 Ill

governance of the Empire. Sources, such as the Historia

Augusta, diminish Alexander's status in relation to his

mother's authority by referring to him as Alexander

Mamaeae32 - "Mamaea's Alexander."33 This "son of Mamaea"

title was by no means official, but it demonstrates the

subjection of Alexander to his mother's power.

Early in Alexander's reign, the role of Julia Mamaea

was one of protector34 and the insurer of his ascendancy

into manhood.35 The historians portrayed the idea of

women running the affairs of state through Alexander as a

positive change from reign of Elagabalus, and a return to

"moderate dignified government."36 In the accounts of

Elagabalus, his character as emperor was defined by an

aversion to the vita militaris, and a rejection of all

modesty. Elagabalus' complete disregard for the public

expectation of a masculine emperor encouraged a

reassertion of masculinity upon the throne, which in this

case only came in the person of a boy under the influence

of his mother and grandmother.

32
SHA, Alex. Sev. iii.l; v.2; SHA, Aurel. xlii.4; SHA, Car. iii.4.
33
Literally translated as "Mamaea's Alexander," it is commonly
translated as "son of Mamaea" as it would be translated in common
usage when the son is connected to his father's name for the purpose
of identification.
34
Hdn. v.2-3.
35
Cass. Dio lxxx; Hdn. v.7.1-6.
36
Hdn. vi.1.1.
 112
As Alexander matured, his duties became more in tune

with the traditional expectations of a masculine Roman

emperor. In 230, the Roman Empire was invaded by

Artaxerxes, King of the Persians.37 At this point in time

when Alexander's masculine traits should have been most

obvious - a time of war - the domination of Mamaea over

her son took on a negative connotation in the sources.

Because of his education and upbringing, Alexander may

have been able to position himself as an effective Roman

general in the face of overwhelming enemies.38 However,

Herodian painted Alexander as an emperor "completely

dominated"39 by his mother during the time Rome needed an

emperor-general. Herodian explained that the army

recognized the problems associated with having so strong

a feminine influence over the first man, and so they

sought to remove Alexander from authority and replace him

with one of their own.40

The depiction of Mamaea's domination over Alexander

by the Roman historians represents more than simple

misogyny. They attributed the failure of Alexander's

37
Hdn. vi.2.1.
38
By 235, the Roman Empire had also been invaded by Germanic tribes
in the north.
39
Hdn. vi.1.10.
40
Hdn. vi.8.3.
 113
reign to Mamaea's femininity. The war with the Persians

was not a complete Roman victory,41 even though the Roman

army had been successful in halting the bulk of the

Persian incursion.42 Herodian's account demonstrates the

uneasiness with which Romans accepted Mamaea's domination

over her son. In his recounting of the Persian war,

Herodian relayed a story of how Alexander abandoned a

complete victory by failing to send in his army when it

was most opportune to do so.43 Herodian gives two

possible reasons for this, although both reasons are

connected to the idea of Alexander's lack masculinity:

But Alexander caused them to fall by not

leading the army to invade, whether through
fear, in order not to risk his life and limb
for the Roman Empire, or his mother may have
stopped him because of her womanly cowardice
and excessive love for her son. She used to
blunt his efforts to act bravely [dv8peiav]44,
convincing him it was other people's job to
risk their lives for him, and not his to get
involved in the battle. It was this which
destroyed the Roman army.45

41
SHA, Alex. Sev. lv-lvii; Aur. V i c , Caes. xxiv.2; and Eutr.,
Breviarium viii.23 all describe the war as a complete Roman victory,
however, archeology and Herodian's account demonstrate that while
not unsuccessful, Alexander's war was not a stunning victory.
42
Hdn. vi.6.6.
43
Hdn. vi.5.8.
44
A term which refers explicitly to a man. See pp. 118ff for an
examination of this term.
45
Hdn. vi.5.8-9.
 114
This summation of Mamaea's influence over Alexander is

starkly different from how she was portrayed earlier in

Herodian's account as the purveyor of all things required

for a proper masculine education.46

It was during this war that, in the accounts of the

Roman historians, Mamaea's influence ceased to be

beneficial to Alexander's reign. Although the emperor

had now reached an age when he should be running his own

affairs, he was "[c]ompletely dominated by his mother,

[and] he did exactly as he was told."47 Even after his

childhood, the sources emphasize that in all things,

Mamaea directed Alexander's decisions, and he was either

unable or unwilling to assert his own masculinity over

and against his mother's influence.48

In 234, Alexander mounted an expedition against the

Germanic tribes. The historians remark that although the

war was an opportune time for Alexander to demonstrate

the vita militaris, he instead continued to do

"everything in accordance with his mother's advice."49

Her advice was "to abandon the war against the Germans

46
Hdn. v.7.1-6. See below for more on Alexander's education in
"manly exercises."
47
Hdn. vi.1.10.
48
Hdn. vi.1.8-10; vi.5.8-9; SHA, Alex. Sev. xiv.7; lx.1-2.
49
SHA, Alex. Sev. IK.2.
 115
and return to the East in order to display her power

there."50 The emphasis on Mamaea's desire to display her

power is connected to the traditional notions of

femininity and its "inherent greed."51 In the end, the

army grew tired of Mamaea's influence and finally killed

both Alexander and his mother.52 The ultimate summation

of the reign of Alexander and his mother was succinctly

given by Herodian:

So such an end took Alexander (and his mother) ,

after ruling fourteen years, which according to
those he ruled, was blameless and without
bloodshed. For murder and unjust cruelty were
not part of his being, his inclination was
toward humane and kind behavior. Indeed,
Alexander's reign would have been completely
successful, but for the blame brought on
himself through his mother's love of money and
her pettiness.53

The verdict was clear: Alexander's ruinous reign was not

on account of himself, but rather of his mother.54

Historians like Herodian and Aurelius Victor saw

Alexander's own masculinity as unable to overcome the

power Mamaea wielded over him. Because of his failure to

fully assert his own authority as first man, Alexander

50
SHA, Alex. Sev. lxiii.5.
51
Hdn. vi.1.8; S52 Hdn. vi.8.3; SHA Alex. Sev. lxiii.5-6.
52
Hdn. vi.8.3; SHA Alex. Sev. lxiii.5-6.
53
Hdn. vi.9.8.
54
See also SHA, Alex. Sev. lix.8; Aur. Vict., Caes. xxiv.
 116
joined the ranks of feminized emperors like Nero,

Commodus, and Elagabalus. The proper distinction between

what was appropriately masculine or feminine is

demonstrated in how men like Alexander, who for all

intents and purposes was generally regarded as a

masculine ruler, came to be despised as feminine because

of his inability to remove himself from under the

influence of his mother's feminine power.

Gender is in the Eye of the Beholder:

The Gendered Nature of Power & Authority in Historical
Accounts of the Early Empire

The well-known influence that Poppaea wielded over

Nero forced ancient historians to mention her in their

accounts of him. Poppaea's seeming lack of respect for

the gendered boundaries encouraged men like Tacitus to

comment on her actions through language that was heavily

laden with gender.

Tacitus' language in reference to Poppaea emphasized

the distinction of gender in one's abilities and

acceptable behavior. In Tacitus' account, Poppaea

conducted herself in a manner contrary to her gender.

Nero, as emperor, held the highest and most masculine

 117
position in the Empire. In the ideal of Augustus, each

emperor was the patron, protector, and father of all

Romans. The imperial office was in name and essence, the

position of the first man {princeps), the one to whom all

men looked for an exemplar of masculinity. In the case

of Nero, however, he was dominated first by his mother,

and then his wife55 - his unwillingness to overcome their

power combined with his debaucherous lifestyle was proof

of his diminished masculinity.56

Tacitus' account of Nero and Poppaea may also be

more than just a summation of disrupted gender roles. In

addition to portraying Poppaea as a woman "possessed of

all qualities but character, "57 and one who used her

charms and beauty to attract the eye of the emperor so as

to "establish her ascendancy,"58 Tacitus characterized

Nero as a great tyrant. Tacitus' emphasis on Poppaea's

domineering nature and Nero's utter disregard for self-

control and good governance may have been in order to

cast Nero (and even Poppaea) in the light of a tyrant par

55
Examples of Agrippina's domination over Nero: Dio lxi.3-7; T a c ,
Ann. xiii.14. Examples of Poppaea's dominance: T a c , Ann. xiv.60-
61, 63-65; xv.61.
56
As will be elaborated upon further below, Tacitus held that a man
under the power of a woman was devoid of any masculinity. L'Hoir,
"Tacitus and Women's Usurpation of Power," 8.
57
T a c , Ann. xiii.45.
58
T a c , Ann. xiii.46.
 118
excellence. The similarities between Nero and Greek

tyrants of old are greater than seems historically

reasonable.59 Perhaps Tacitus' emphasis on Poppaea's

usurpation of power and Nero's misuse of authority are

meant to serve as a commentary on proper gender

distinctions. The confusion of gender roles are

connected to the tyranny of Nero.

In the next century, the ancient historians penned

Commodus as Nero's moral heir. Zosimus mentioned Marcia

briefly in his account of Commodus' reign and death:

"Then Commodus the son of Marcus, who was addicted not

only to tyranny but also unnatural activities, assumed

power. After he had been murdered by his concubine

Marcia, who had taken on a manly [dcvSpeia] mindset,

Pertinax was chosen to rule."60 In this passage, Zosimus

subtly conveyed what he saw as the unnaturalness of

Marcia's actions within the predominantly Greek culture

of the Eastern Empire. In its simplest definition,

av8pela means manliness or courage (specifically a manly-

courage) . In fact, in both the Greek and the Latin, the

59
For a brief study on the correlations between the tyrant Periander
and Nero in regard to lifestyle and the death of their wives, see:
Mayer, "What Caused Poppaea's Death."
60
Zos., Historia Nova i.7.
 119
terms for courage contain the root of "man" itself:

av8peioc (avip/av8p-) in Greek and virtus {vir) in Latin. In

other words, to exhibit courage was by definition to

exhibit qualities belonging to a man.61

The cultural understanding of courage in its

Hellenic context comes mainly from the teachings of Plato

and Aristotle. Aristotelian categorization of terms

drove the understanding of what dv5peioc was and to whom

the term could be a t t r i b u t e d . This manly courage was a
v i r t u e which could belong only t o men. Women and slaves
were excluded from the v i r t u e of otv8peia,62 for while they
did have human v i r t u e , i t was d i s t i n c t from the v i r t u e of
free men, because t h e i r s was to function in the role of
obedience r a t h e r than as r u l e r . 6 3 Because the feminine
form of the v i r t u e was "without authority" (aKupog),64

61
For a r e c e n t look a t t h e complexity of t h e use of " m a n l i n e s s " i n
a n c i e n t l i t e r a t u r e , s e e : Ralph M. Rosen and Ineke S l u i t e r , e d s . ,
Andreia: Studies in Manliness and Courage in Classical Antiquity
(Leiden & Boston: B r i l l , 2003) ; Angela Hobbs, Plato and the Hero:
Courage, Manliness and the Impersonal Good (Cambridge & New York:
Cambridge U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 2000); Harvey C. Mansfield, Manliness
(New Haven, CT: Yale U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 2006); Walter T. Schmid, On
Manly Courage: A Study of Plato's Laches (Carbondale & E d w a r d s v i l l e ,
IL: Southern I l l i n o i s U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1992).
62
Marguerite D e s l a u r i e r s , " A r i s t o t l e on Andreia, Divine and Sub-
Human V i r t u e s , " i n Andreia: Studies in Manliness and Courage in
Classical Antiquity, ed. Ralph M. Rosen and Ineke S l u i t e r (Leiden &
Boston: B r i l l , 2003), 187.
63
I b i d . , 195.
64
A r i s t . , Pol. i . l 3 . 1 2 6 0 a 2 0 - 2 4 .
 120
women could not properly display the virtue of manly

courage.

Similarly, there were instances when ruling men

failed to live up to their culturally-understood role of

masculinity.65 The descriptions of Commodus' character

and actions in nearly all the sources judge Commodus to

be wholly ineffective as emperor because of his

debaucherous and unmanly lifestyle. The Historia Augusta

described Commodus as "base, shameless, cruel, and

lustful" even from his earliest years.66 In addition,

Commodus' sexual lifestyle was also disdained by his

biographers. He is described as being "defiled of mouth...

and debauched"67 - an allusion not only to his specific

sexual acts, but also his homosexuality (or more

specifically, his acts of fellatio),68 on which the

65
For a brief examination of what Roman nobility understood as
masculine aristocratic behavior, see: Maud W. Gleason, "Elite Male
Identity in the Roman Empire," in Life, Death, and Entertainment in
the Roman Empire, ed. D.S. Potter and D.J. Mattingly (Ann Arbor, MI:
University of Michigan Press, 1999).
66
SHA, Comm. i.7.
67
SHA, Comm. i.7. Mathew Kuefler translates this passage as "orally
polluted and anally defiled" in order to better convey the
impression of homosexual acts within the original Latin. See:
Mathew Kuefler, The Manly Eunuch: Masculinity, Gender Ambiguity, and
Christian Ideology in Late Antiquity (Chicago: The University of
Chicago Press, 2001), 29.
68
The sources mention or allude to both fellatio and pederasty; both
of these acts are connected to issues of virility, because the
descriptions of Commodus' pederasty within the Historia Augusta
imply that he is not the dominant male, but rather the passive
 121
69
Historia Augusta comments in further detail. An
accusation of f e l l a t i o , such as was also made against the
emperors Nero70 and Elagabalus, 7 1 was dependent upon the
c u l t u r a l understanding of v i r i l i t y and i t s connection to
t r u e manliness. For Romans, v i r i l i t y was the ultimate
expression of masculinity. In the sexual a c t , men were
expected to be the b e n e f i c i a r i e s of pleasure (the virile
- rooted in the Latin vir), while the p a r t n e r was the
servile instrument of t h a t pleasure (rooted in the Latin
servilis or servus - of a slave) . The p a r t n e r t h a t a
Roman male chose for sex was, for the most part,
inconsequential, so long as the c i t i z e n male was not the
passive agent of a n o t h e r ' s pleasure. 7 2 This understanding
of virility within the framework of socially accepted
masculine and feminine behavior i s key for understanding
the overly sexual illustrations of Nero, Commodus and
Elagabalus' inability to govern. Nero and Commodus'
eagerness to engage in behavior unbefitting of a male

(feminine) p a r t n e r . See K u e f l e r ' s a r g u m e n t i n r e l a t i o n t o

Elagabalus: Ibid., 88-91.
69
For e x a m p l e : SHA, Coram, v . 1 1 , x . 8 - 9 .
70
T a c , Ann. x i v . 6 0 . See a l s o : P a u l Veyne, " H o m o s e x u a l i t y i n
A n c i e n t Rome," i n Western Sexuality: Practice and Precept in Past
and Present Times, e d . P h i l i p p e A r i e s and Andre B e j i n (Oxford & New
York: B a s i l B l a c k w e l l L t d , 1 9 8 5 ) , 3 0 f .
71
SHA, Heliogab. x x x i . 6 : E l a g a b a l u s p r e f e r r e d men who were " b e n e
vasatorum [ w e l l - h u n g ] . "
72
Veyne, " H o m o s e x u a l i t y i n A n c i e n t Rome," 3 0 .
Roman citizen associated each of them with servile

natures. The imperial biographers used this image of

servility as an image of femininity, and thus failure.

The sources present the emperor Alexander as the

converse to Elagabalus who was the successor to emperors

like Nero and Commodus in all things base and unbecoming

of a masculine leader. Because of this contrast, the

historians did not connect Alexander's masculinity to

images of sexuality in the same way as they portrayed the

overtly sexual emperors, Nero and Commodus. As examined

above, Alexander was not relegated to the ranks of

feminized emperors because of his debaucherous lifestyle,

but rather on account of his inability to overcome the

power and influence of his mother - a trait which Nero

shared until his matricide in 59. While Alexander never

seemed to have carried on in any kind of homosexual or

perceived feminine form of sexual conduct, his mother's

domination of him left him just as emasculated as Nero

and Commodus in the eyes of the army - the embodiment of

masculinity. Alexander became servile to his mother's

power long after he had matured to the point when he

should have been the dominant force in that relationship.

Although the relationship between Alexander and Mamaea

was devoid of any sexual connotation, the construction of

the relationship between the virile and servile, while

sexual in nature, can nevertheless be applied in this

situation. Alexander allowed his mother to continue the

pursuit of her power and pleasure at the expense of his

own inherent right to rule independently as first man,

and to assert his role as ruler over and against her role

as one who obeys.73 It is not only biological sex or

sexual conduct which defined a person's gender in Roman

society, but also the perception of his or her ability to

remain within the expected boundaries of the defined

gender of masculine or feminine.

Hadrian serves as an interesting example to

illustrate how homosexuality and virility could be

independent constructions within the Roman mind. Even

more than Nero and Commodus, Hadrian is associated with a

long-term homosexual relationship. Antinous, the young

male lover of Hadrian, accompanied the emperor on many of

his travels until Antinous' untimely death in the Nile

River in 130.74 Shortly after Antinous' death, Hadrian

73
See pages 131-134 for a fuller explanation of the nature of
femininity as one of obedience.
74
There is disagreement within the sources as to whether Antinous
died by an accidental drowning or for the purpose of being a willing
 124
75
b u i l t a c i t y i n h i s memory, and e l e v a t e d Antinous t o t h e
rank of god. 7 6 Modern h i s t o r i a n s count Hadrian as one of

Rome's "Five Good Emperors," 7 7 however, the ancient

sources recounting the l i f e of Hadrian a r e not entirely

favorable. It was not Hadrian's relationship to

A n t i n o u s , however, t h a t drew t h e i r e of h i s biographers.

The a n c i e n t h i s t o r i a n s p r e s e n t e d Hadrian i n much t h e same

way as Nero and Commodus - as someone who wielded his

authority not as an i n d i v i d u a l man, but in conjunction

with and on account of a woman. Because of this, the

a n c i e n t h i s t o r i a n s d e s c r i b e d some of H a d r i a n ' s a c t i o n s in

gendered terms which p o r t r a y e d the emperor as feminine

and i n a d e q u a t e i n h i s r o l e as a m a s c u l i n e l e a d e r a t the

b e g i n n i n g of h i s reign.

Two examples demonstrate how H a d r i a n ' s biographers

emasculated him in an effort to explain perceived

instability i n t h e Empire. Plotina, Trajan's wife, was

instrumental i n s e c u r i n g t h e t h r o n e for Hadrian upon t h e

s a c r i f i c e on b e h a l f of t h e e m p e r o r ' s l i f e : Cass. Dio l x i x . 1 1 . 2 - 3 ;

SHA, Hadr. x i v . 5 - 7 .
75
A n t i n o p o l i s , t h e r u i n s of which a r e near t h e modern-day c i t y of
Sheikh ' I b a d a , Egypt.
76
Cass. Dio l x i x . 1 1 . 2 - 4 ; SHA, Hadr. x i v . 5 - 7 .
77
The f i v e c o n s e c u t i v e r e i g n s of Nerva (96-98), Trajan (98-117),
Hadrian (117-138), Antoninus Pius (138-161), and Marcus A u r e l i u s
(161-180), which saw t h e l o n g e s t c o n t i n u e d p e r i o d of s t a b i l i t y s i n c e
t h e u n r e s t of t h e second c e n t u r y BC.
 125
78
death of her husband in 117. Hadrian's securing of the

throne as heir to Trajan was successful only on account

of Plotina, who, according to Dio, had been in love with

Hadrian.79 Plotina did not live long into Hadrian's

reign, and so her influence upon the affairs of state was

limited to his ascendancy to the throne. In addition to

having assumed power with the help of Plotina, Hadrian

also upset the traditional balance between his personal

life and the life of the state. Later in his reign,

Hadrian overemphasized the importance of his private

relationship with Antinous to the overall stability and

security of the Empire. Hadrian's insistence of

intersecting his private relationship with the public

good through his declaration of Antinous' divinity

aroused concerns about his virility by the ancient

historians. Because Hadrian's ability to rule is by no

means seen as inadequate as that of Nero or Commodus, the

ancient historians only hinted at it by relaying that

upon Antinous' death, Hadrian "wept like a woman."80 The

insinuation is that Hadrian's relationship to Antinous

78
SHA, Hadr. i v . 1 0 & v i . l ; C a s s . Dio l x i x . l & l x i x . 1 0 . 3 - 4 .
79
C a s s . Dio, l x i x . l .
80
SHA, Hadr. xiv.5: "Antinoum suum, deum per Nilum navigat,
perdidit, quem muliebriter flevit."
 126
demonstrated an inability to maintain the virile persona

required to effectively govern the Empire. Hadrian's

relationship with Antinous was by itself not a

demonstration of a lack of virility, but rather, it was

the crossover between Hadrian's personal indiscretions

with the affairs of public administration that the

ancient historians found unacceptable.81

Hadrian's early dependence upon Plotina's power

combined with his relationship to Antinous impacted

Hadrian's image within the histories to such a degree

that Hadrian wrote his own autobiography, perhaps in

order to clarify any rumors concerning his person.82

Because Hadrian's personal actions were not dangerous

enough to cause the political instability that Nero's and

Commodus' lifestyles did, the reaction of the Roman elite

was relegated to rumor and their recordings in history,

rather than rebellion or assassination.

The conflict between the political and the personal

was also the primary problem with Nero, Commodus, and

Alexander. As in Hadrian's case, the primary crisis was

81
This situation is quite similar to the case of Domitilla in the
previous chapter
82
Both Dio and the Historia Augusta make references to Hadrian's
autobiography: Cass. Dio lxix.11.2; SHA, Hadr. vii.2.
 127
not the homosexual behavior of Nero and Commodus.83 The

reputation of unmanliness for both of these emperors

extended far deeper than their insatiably diverse sexual

appetites. Nero and Commodus' own personal indiscretions

overcame their political personae, which in turn

instigated unease about the future of the Empire's

stability. Roman citizens were ruled by the free. The

embodiment of the freest citizen of all was the princeps.

To have a princeps who operated as the passive agent of

another's pleasure or whim, was not only emasculating to

the leader, but to those he led as well. Alexander too,

although not on account of sexual passivity or

homosexuality, operated as the passive agent of another's

power and pleasure - his mother, Julia Mamaea. A truly

free man, as embodied within the princeps, was not bound

by any other's will.

In Roman society, a manly life was a combination of

both military and political experience.84 Commodus

83
For an examination of homosexuality and the perception of
manliness in Roman society see: Craig A. Williams, Roman
Homosexuality: Ideologies of Masculinity in Classical Antiquity
(Oxford & New York: Oxford University Press, 1999).
84
For further reading consult: Kuefler, The Manly Eunuch:
Masculinity, Gender Ambiguity, and Christian Ideology in Late
Antiquity, 37-55.
succeeded in neither of these two endeavors. 5 In fact,

Commodus voluntarily neglected his responsibilities

associated with ruling in order to further pursue

pleasure.86 Part of this pleasure involved his love of

gladiatorial combat, in which he actively participated to

the detriment of his noble rank.87 Commodus' homosexual

lifestyle combined with his abandonment of the masculine

responsibility to rule in order to pursue the feminine

quality of pleasure and extravagance was not interpreted

as manliness by Romans of the time.88 Commodus was not

the first or last emperor to be forever remembered in the

literature so unmanly as to be judged inadequate to rule,

however, his voluntary emasculation did provide a unique

opportunity for a reassertion of the masculine, albeit

not necessarily in the form of a male.

Zosimus' commentary on Marcia can be interpreted as

a culturally understood (and justified) aberration of

85
Dio refers to Commodus as the "greatest coward" in lxxiii.13.6.
86
SHA, Coram, v. 4.
87
Cass. Dio, lxxiii.15-21; SHA, Comm. ii.9.
88
For an examination of extravagant wealth and dress and their
connection to unmanly character, see: Kuefler, The Manly Eunuch:
Masculinity, Gender Ambiguity, and Christian Ideology in Late
Antiquity, 59ff. In this passage, Kuefler is writing about
Elagabalus, but the description is applicable to Commodus: "So the
concern about wealth spent on clothing, then, while framed in the
traditional language of effeminacy, was intimately related to
anxiety about the exercise of political power" (59).
 129
gender roles in time of crisis. In times of instability,

it was sometimes necessary for women to take on the role

of protector or hero for the good of the community.

Jeremy Mclnerney examined this phenomenon in the context

of Plutarch's descriptions of notable women. He

concluded that Greek society permitted the

masculinization, and therefore defeminization, of women

in times of crisis in order to reestablish stability:

"[T]he restoration of order is finally made possible by

the elimination of the female."89 Zosimus, who lived in

the very Hellenized Eastern Roman Empire, applied the

ancient Greek construction, av8peia, to Marcia, who

intervened during a time of relative instability under

Commodus. This application of dcvSpeia to Marcia is more

than an understanding of a woman with manly virtues - it

is the complete replacement of the feminine by the

masculine. If it was understood to be a simple function

of manly attributes by a woman, then the Greek term

oa^poyuvoc; (man-woman) would have been more appropriate.90

89
Jeremy Mclnerney, "Plutarch's Manly Women," in Andreia: Studies in
Manliness and Courage in Classical Antiquity, ed. Ralph M. Rosen and
Ineke Sluiter (Leiden & Boston: Brill, 2003), 334.
90
The straightforward combination of man (avip/dv8p-) and woman
(yuvn) . As used by Valerius Maximus concerning Maesia of Sentinum's
defense of herself in court: Memorial Deeds and Sayings viii.3.1.
 130
According to Zosimus, Marcia's actions possessed no
feminine q u a l i t i e s w h a t s o e v e r ; t h e y were p u r e l y m a s c u l i n e

and t h e r e f o r e i n c a p a b l e of b e i n g a t t a c h e d t o any p e r s o n

or o b j e c t which l a c k e d t h i s quality.

Given the use of dcv8peia as m a s c u l i n e (and thereby

d e s t i n e d t o r u l e ) , how t h e n i s one t o e x p l a i n t h e use of

t h e term for Marcia? The r e a s o n i n g i n t h e Greek c o n t e x t

is simple: because Commodus f a i l e d to rule in a manly

fashion, the situation called for a masculine response

where none e x i s t e d . Marcia assumed t h a t r o l e through t h e

p u r g i n g of h e r feminine v i r t u e s i n favor of t h e m a s c u l i n e

for the purpose of reestablishing order and stability.

With the reestablishment of order, masculine again

remained m a s c u l i n e , feminine remained feminine, and the

domestic order of the household was a g a i n reflected in

t h e g r e a t e r o r d e r of s t a t e . 9 1

P l i n y t h e Elder a l s o used t h e term for h e r m a p h r o d i t e : P l i n . , HN

v i i . 3 . 3 4 . For more on t h e s p e c i f i c q u a l i t i e s of avSpoyuvoq i n a n c i e n t
w r i t i n g s , s e e : Anthony J . M a r s h a l l , "Roman Ladies on T r i a l : The Case
of Maesia Sentinum," Phoenix 44, no. 1 (Spring 1990); Wayne A.
Meeks, "The Image of Androgyne: Some Uses of a Symbol i n E a r l i e s t
C h r i s t i a n i t y , " H i s t o r y of Religions 13, no. 3 (Feb. 1974).
91
This i s one of Mclnerney's c o n c l u s i o n s i n h i s examination of
P l u t a r c h ' s t r e a t m e n t of women: t h e sphere of i n f l u e n c e a p p r o p r i a t e
for women i n Greek c u l t u r e was a r e f l e c t i o n of a masculine
conception of o r d e r e x t e n d i n g from t h e household t o t h e s t a t e . I
b e l i e v e t h i s argument, with a l i t t l e tweaking, i s e x a c t l y what
Zosimus i n t e n d e d t o convey ( i n t e n t i o n a l l y or not) through h i s
d e s c r i p t i o n of Marcia. See Mclnerney, " P l u t a r c h ' s Manly Women,"
341f.
 131
While the analysis of Zosimus' commentary on

Marcia's actions is understandable within a Greek

context, the Roman world, although extensively

Hellenized,92 was not the Greek world. Was the Greek

conception of gender and virtue the same as the Roman?

In the monograph on Pertinax within the Historia Augusta,

there is an exchange between the newly acclaimed Emperor

Pertinax and the consul, Falco:

When Pertinax had returned thanks to Laetus,

the consul Falco said, "We understand what sort
of emperor you will be from this: that we see
Laetus and Marcia, the instruments of Commodus'
crimes behind you." Pertinax replied to him,
"You are young, Consul, and do not understand
the necessity of obedience [parendi] . They
obeyed [paruerunt] Commodus in the beginning,
but against their will, and as soon as they had
an opportunity, they showed what had always
been their desire."93

The author of the Historia Augusta, rather than

explaining away Marcia's actions as an aberration of her

gender, attributed obedience to both Marcia and the

Praetorian Prefect, while also mentioning their innate

desires to act against Commodus. Because both Laetus and

Marcia possessed the same qualities, both are praised by

92
This is especially true in regard to the Roman world in which
Zosimus lived and wrote.
93
SHA, Pert. v. 2.
 1

Pertinax (as well as virtually the entire populace) 94 for

their deeds. The Historia Augusta attributed an act of

obedience {pareo)95, rather than bravery (virtus) to

Marcia because the author sought to emphasize Marcia's

fulfillment as a good Roman woman. As a woman, Marcia

would have been under the power of another man, and like

the Praetorian Prefect, Laetus, she was under the power

of the princeps.

The Historia Augusta conveyed through the words of

Pertinax an acceptable image of a Roman woman: she

remained obedient until it became imperative to react

against an imbalance in the natural order. The Romans

attempted to enforce a clear distinction of gender roles

within society, including a cultural understanding of

what was expected of those in higher station in regard to

their gender. The Historia Augusta and Zosimus drew

connections between Marcia's participation in Commodus'

assassination and the masculinity of such an act.

Zosimus bluntly attributed the absence of femininity and

Marcia's usurpation of masculinity with his use of the

term dvSpeia. The Historia Augusta more subtly drew a

94
SHA, Comm. xvii.4; xviii.lff.
95
The Latin pareo can also be translated "to submit."
 133
connection between the obedience of Marcia and that of

Laetus - associating them both to honorable service under

the reign of Commodus, and then with the act of regicide

in order to realign the natural order.96 Although with

much more detail, the accounts of Dio and Herodian also

imparted this Greco-Roman association of the masculine

with the reassertion of gender balance.

Dio presented Marcia as a confidant of the

conspirators, and one through whom the conspirators

unsuccessfully attempted to poison Commodus.97 In

Herodian's history, Marcia discovered death warrants

signed by Commodus containing her and Laetus' names.98 In

reaction, Marcia informed two others whose names were

listed and plotted the assassination of Commodus with

them. In much the same way the Historia Augusta and

Zosimus presented Marcia as a woman who had assumed

masculine identity in order to murder her lover, Dio and

Herodian demonstrated that the subjugation of the

feminine to the masculine was necessary in order to

reassert the natural order of things. Like a puppet,

96
SHA, Comm. xvii.2 mentions that Laetus and Marcia worked together
to first poison Commodus, and then after that failed, they enlisted
the help of an athlete to strangle him.
97
Cass. Dio, lxxii.22.4.
98
Hdn. i.16-17.
Dio' s Marcia was able to act only through the actions of

the men involved. The male conspirators administered the

poison through Marcia - the third person plural for 8i8coM-i

(to give) is used for the action." Upon the discovery of

U
the death warrants, Herodian quoted Marcia: A drunkard

shall not get the better of a sober woman."100 Through

these words, Marcia's femininity was asserted, and then

in her actions it was affirmed as she then relied on the

male conspirators to carry out the task by taking

advantage of her close relationship with the emperor.101

Although not overtly attributing masculine qualities to

Marcia, Dio and Herodian both asserted the same premise

as Zosimus: the feminine must be overcome by the

masculine in order to bring about the natural order,

which had been lost under a feminine emperor.

Alexander Severus succeeded an emperor very similar

in actions and lifestyle to Nero and Commodus. In the

Roman association of men with the vita militaris,

Elagabalus was the epitome of an emperor who had

abandoned his masculinity. To ensure the continued

99
C a s s . D i o , l x x i i . 2 2 . 4 : ((xxpnocKOV 5itx xf|<; Mocpiciac; ev Kpeaov (toeioii; ocuxco
e'8coKav.
100
Hdn. i . 1 7 . 5 .
101
Hdn. i . 1 7 . 8 .
 135
influence and power of the Severan women, Julia Maesa

convinced Elagabalus to appoint his cousin, Alexander as

his Caesar and successor in 221. 102 Once appointed, Maesa

and Mamaea placed Alexander under the tutelage of

teachers who "trained him in the exercises of self-

control, introducing him to wrestling schools and manly-

exercises [xoiq avSpwv yu^vocaioic]... and both a Latin and Greek

education."103 In other words, an education in everything

that was contrary to Elagabalus' lifestyle and behavior.

The phrase "manly exercises" deserves brief special

attention. Herodian used a slightly varied term almost

immediately after recounting that Elagabalus had become

furious at what he saw as the corruption of his cousin.

Elagabalus brought "[r]idiculous charges against them

[the teachers], that they were corrupting his adopted son

by not allowing him to dance or go in a frenzy, but

teaching him prudence [aa>(j)povi£ovxec] and manly arts [xoc

dcv8pa)v 8i8acKOVX£C] . "104 At the heart of both of these

statements is the insinuation that what Elagabalus

embodied was contrary to what the Romans considered

103
Hdn. v.7.5.
104
Hdn. v.7.6.
masculine, and it would be through Alexander that the

throne would return to the ideal of first man of Rome.

The Historia Augusta emphasized the difference in

clothing between Elagabalus and Alexander, describing

Elagabalus as a woman in comparison.105 Clothing,

especially the act of cross-dressing, was a powerful

image of gender corruption - corruption that was thought

to infect other aspects of imperial rule as well.

Alexander embodied the antithesis of Elagabalus'

femininity in dress by declaring that "the imperial

authority existed in manliness [virtute], not in

decoration."106 Very simply, Herodian was saying that

Maesa and Mamaea were preparing Alexander to "act as

Roman as possible"107 - for to be Roman was to be a man.

Despite the immersion of Alexander into everything that

was masculine, he failed to fully emerge as the idealized

princeps. This was not, however, on account of Mamaea's

assumption of the masculine into herself, but rather the

105
SHA, Heliogab. xxiii.3-5;xxvi.1-2; Alex. Sev. xl-xli;. For more
on the idea of cross-dressing and transvestitism and their
connection to femininity, see: Kuefler, The Manly Eunuch:
Masculinity, Gender Ambiguity, and Christian Ideology in Late
Antiquity, 55-61.
106
SHA, Alex. Sev. xxxiii.3.
107
Robert L. Cleve, "Severus Alexander and the Severan Women" (Ph.D.
diss., University of California, Los Angeles, 1982), 150. It should
be noted, however, that Cleve fails to fully consider the underlying
gendered tone of Herodian's wording.
 137
perception that her own femininity continued to consume

all that Alexander was and could have been. Like all

Roman boys, Alexander was under the tutelage of his

mother until he was old enough to take on the

responsibilities of manhood and become a paterfamilias.

However, Herodian claimed that Alexander never achieved

full manhood in the eyes of the Romans, because Mamaea's

femininity had prevented it and forced him to remain

forever a boy.108

Unlike Zosimus' account of Marcia, which cast Marcia

in the light of replacing her own femininity with

masculinity in order to bring order and stability to the

state, the ancient historians painted Julia Mamaea as the

ultimate feminine who, through her womanliness, brought

the illusion of order until she was brought down by the

army. The femininity of the Severan women is most

clearly shown in Dio's account of the battle which

brought on the end of Macrinus' reign and the beginning

of Elagabalus' . Led by a eunuch named Gannys and the

young Elagabalus, the forces under their command achieved

victory through the reinforcement of gendered

expectations. In his retelling, Dio records:

108
Hdn. vi.9.5.
 138
Now in the battle Gannys made haste to occupy
the pass in front of the village and skillfully
positioned his troops, despite the fact he was
without military experience and had lived in
luxury. But fortune is of such great help in
all things that it shows favor to the ignorant.
However, his army made a weak fight, and if
Maesa and Soaemias (for they were with the boy)
had not leapt down from their chariots and into
the fleeing men restraining them from further
flight with their lamentations, and had not the
boy drawing a sword, the one girded to his
side, been seen by them on his horse about to
charge the enemy in a maneuver that seemed
divinely inspired, they would not have stood
their ground. Even so they would have turned
back, if Macrinus had not fled after seeing
them offer resistance.109

Mamaea does not figure prominently in this story, but she

may have been present since she was part of the

conspiracy to overthrow Macrinus which set together out

from the camp shortly before.110 In this account, three

aspects deserve special attention: first, the leader of

Elagabalus' army was a eunuch; second, the Severan women

halted the retreat through their lamentations; and third,

Elagabalus, still a boy, rallied his troops by displaying

the actions of a manly general.

109
Cass. Dio lxxix.38.3-4.
110
This is evident by the fact that Macrinus had the Senate condemn
not only Elagabalus, his mother Julia Soaemias and grandmother Julia
Maesa, but also Alexander Severus and his mother Julia Mamaea (Cass.
Dio lxxix.38.1); see also: Cleve, "Severus Alexander and the Severan
Women", 102-03.
 139
Eunuchs, because of their rejection of not only

gender but of biological sex, demonstrated that the

division of gender within Roman society was not as

concretely defined as only male and female. No longer

men, and certainly not women, eunuchs were a category of

"other."111 In Roman culture, the castration of a man led

to a loss of "virility [av8peioc] , which is to say,

masculinity."112 In relation to Dio's account, Gannys'

role in the battle described above was outside of his

expected gendered sphere. Since he was "[ujnmanly both

in a moral and anatomical sense,"113 Dio could not

attribute true masculine qualities to the eunuch. Even

good fortune [xvjcn] could not ascribe true manliness to

the eunuch's efforts in battle, and only the intervention

of the Severan women kept the army from fleeing after

Gannys had made a weak fight and failed to turn the tide

in favor of Elagabalus.114 For Dio, false masculinity had

failed and only the proper exercise of traditional gender

roles would ensure the safety and survival of the Empire.

111
Kuefler, The Manly Eunuch: Masculinity, Gender Ambiguity, and
Christian Ideology in Late Antiquity, 32.
112
Ibid, quoting from Oribasius, Collectio medica 22.2.14.
113
Ibid., 35.
114
For more on the concept of masculinity and military life (vita
militaris) see my first chapter and: Ibid., 37ff & 275ff.
 140
The second and t h i r d aspects of Dio's account are
connected. At the battle, there was no definitive

masculine presence. Led by a eunuch and a boy, t h e army

had only one other imperial connection, the Severan

women. I t was a t t h e moment when t h e army most needed a

masculine presence that the Severan women leapt from

their chariots and restrained the men through their

lamentations. I t was not through t h e u n n a t u r a l assertion

of m a s c u l i n i t y that Maesa and Soaemias h e l p e d turn the

tide of the battle, but rather through the natural

affirmation of t h e i r own f e m i n i n i t y . The Severan women

h e l d back t h e s o l d i e r s with t h e i r tears - an expression

of womanly emotion. 1 1 5 This was not manly courage

(avSpsioc) , but rather womanly persuasion. In complete

contrast to how he would later be portrayed in the

sources, Elagabalus mounted h i s horse and exuded dcvSpeia

as would be expected from the first man. So i n this

instance, Dio a t t r i b u t e d the victory of Elagabalus and

115
For more on t h e concepts of gender and emotional r e s t r a i n t , s e e :
P e t e r R.L. Brown, The Body and Society: Men, Women and Sexual
Renunciation in Early Christianity (New York: Columbia U n i v e r s i t y
P r e s s , 1988), 12ff; Robert A. R a s t e r , Emotion, Restraint, and
Community in Ancient Rome (Oxford & New York: Oxford U n i v e r s i t y
P r e s s , 2005); Hans van Wees, "A Brief H i s t o r y of T e a r s : Gender
D i f f e r e n t i a t i o n in Archaic G r e e c e , " i n When Men Were Men:
Masculinity, Power and Identity in Classical Antiquity, ed. Lin
Foxhall and John Salmon (New York: Routledge, 1998).
his forces to the traditional assertion of gender roles

within Roman society. Dio was a strict moralist and

therefore a staunch supporter of an established

construction of gender identity and division within Roman

society.116 Because of his aversion to the confusion of

gender roles, Dio included the role of the Severan women

and Elagabalus within his History. It was not with

reluctance that Dio recorded the actions of those at the

battle,117 but rather this story conveyed precisely what

Dio had intended - women as feminine and men as masculine

is what brings order and stability to society. The

proper roles of the Severan women and Elagabalus were

emphasized and praised, as the cowardice of Macrinus was

scorned. Even Edward Gibbon recognized the gendered

nature of Dio's account:

Antoninus [Elagabalus] himself, who, in the

rest of his life, never acted like a man, in
this important crisis of his fate approved
himself a hero, mounted his horse, and, at the
head of his rallied troops, charged sword in
hand among the thickest of enemy; whilst the
eunuch Gannys, whose occupations had been
confined to female cares and the soft luxury of
Asia, displayed the talents of an able and

116
See: Cleve, "Severus Alexander and the Severan Women", 102ff;
Fergus Millar, A Study of Cassius Dio (Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 1964).
117
As Robert Cleve implies in Cleve, "Severus Alexander and the
Severan Women", 102.
 142
experienced general... Macrinus might have
obtained the victory, had he not betrayed his
own cause by a shameful and precipitate flight.
His cowardice served only to protract his life
a few days, and to stamp deserved ignominy on
his misfortunes.118

Here, for one brief moment of Elagabalus' performance in

the spotlight, he stood out as the masculine

representation of the princeps; the embodiment of first

man, leading the army to victory against a usurper who

had shown his true cowardly nature in the face of Roman

manliness. This picture of Elagabalus was short-lived,

however, as even Dio referred to him almost immediately

after as the "False Antoninus."119

In the end, peace and harmony were temporarily

returned to Rome, not through the assumption of the

masculine by the feminine, as with Marcia, but rather

through the affirmation of the traditional order of

things. Alexander's reign which followed Elagabalus' as

a return again to natural order, was ended as well on

account of misaligned gendered boundaries. Julia

Mamaea's femininity, which the ancients admired and

encouraged, was, in the end, seen as the reason for

Edward Gibbon, The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, 3 vols.
(New York: Everyman's Library, 1993 [Orig. 1776-1788]), Vol I, 160.
119
Cass. Dio, lxxx.
 143
Alexander's downfall by the historians. As noted above,

it was Mamaea's feminine dominance over Alexander that

brought about his assassination by the army. As an

admirer of Alexander, Herodian had to explain why such a

contrast to Elagabalus would have been overthrown by the

army, and his answer explicitly condemned the emperor's

mother, who, through her womanly influence and power,

stunted the emperor's ability to fully exercise his

masculine role as first man.120

Tacitus was not able to comment on either the

actions or perceived masculinity of Marcia or Julia

Mamaea, because he had died in the early second century.

A Tacitean interpretation of Marcia and Julia Mamaea can

be asserted, however, in the light of Tacitus' summation

of Poppaea. All three women conducted themselves in a

manner contrary to the Roman understanding of gender. By

taking on the role of ruler through their influence over

Nero, Commodus, and Alexander, Poppaea, Marcia, and

Mamaea each made women out of their men. The three

emperors were feminine because each allowed himself to be

dominated by a woman - a dux femina. Francesca L'Hoir

explored this concept in Tactius' Annals demonstrating

120
Hdn. vi.8.3; vi.9.5;
Tacitus' linguistic skills in asserting that the women of

the Julio-Claudian emperors appropriated masculine power

for themselves over and against good order and the

naturalness of gender association.121 Tacitus used the

term dux femina to emphasize the usurpation of the

strictly masculine power of leader {dux) by a woman

{femina),122 thereby attributing femininity to the concept

of dux, while at the same time masculinity to femina.123

This was an especially preposterous construction for

Tacitus' Roman readers, since dux would, in most cases,

refer to a male military commander. A dux femina was a

monstrous concept; she was more than just a masculine

woman, "she was an aberration—an unnatural woman."124

Much like Zosimus on Marcia, and Dio and Herodian on

the Severan women, Tacitus interpreted Poppaea's life and

actions in gendered terms within his narrative on the

political history of Rome. The selection of specific

words in connection with explicit social concepts

illuminates the understanding of traditional gender norms

within the Roman Empire. Furthermore, the use of

121
L ' H o i r , " T a c i t u s and Women's U s u r p a t i o n of P o w e r , " 2 5 .
122
I b i d . : 6.
123
I b i d . : 8.
124
Ibid. : 23.
 145
gendered words also conveys an understanding of ancient

forms of political commentary. Tacitus' overemphasis on

the lifestyle of Nero conjures images of tyrants past,

confining the emperor to be forever remembered as an

example of unprecedented tyranny. The influence of

Poppaea, Marcia, and Mamaea upon their respective

emperors is well documented and provides an excellent

source for examining the use of gendered terms used by

the Roman historians for the purpose of asserting and

defending the construction of gender in the Empire.

Power and Boundaries:

Gender and the Ability to Influence Imperial Policy

Poppaea, Marcia, and Mamaea were able to observe

their limitations while exuding a great deal of power

over their respective emperors. The histories of these

three women are what they are because of the

interpretation of their actions by later male historians.

Poppaea, Marcia, and Mamaea's influence necessitated an

explanation by historians as to how an emperor could be

so easily coerced by a mere woman. Was the

susceptibility of the emperors to these women's counsel a

cause of or reaction to these women? And what can be

 146
further said concerning the perceptions of incompetence,

instability, and moral depravity associated with Nero and

Commodus in this regard? Alexander proves to be an

exceptional case, since he is portrayed in the sources as

the polar opposite of morally depraved emperors such as

his cousin Elagabalus. However, as will be explored

below, Dio's personal beliefs and account of the Severan

women reveal how Romans attempted to explain what they

saw as an aberration of expected gender roles.

There is no doubt among the sources that Nero was

infatuated with Poppaea and allowed her certain liberties

as well as influence because of his love for her and her

beauty. Attention to beauty looms large in descriptions

of Poppaea. Her beauty was so well known that she was

credited with introducing the practice of bathing in milk

to stave off wrinkles,125 and even a style of cosmetics

was later termed "Poppaean. "126 Extravagance followed her

wherever she went127 and her obsession with physical

appearance was so great that after looking in the mirror

125
J u v . , v i . 4 62.
126
Cass. Dio, l x i i . 2 8 . 1 ; P l i n . , HN x x v i i i . 1 8 3 .
127
Two sources c i t e t h a t she had shoes of gold made for t h e mules
t h a t drew h e r : C a s s . Dio, l x i i . 2 8 . 1 ; P l i n . , ffl x x x . 1 4 .
 147
128
one day, she prayed for death before her beauty faded.

Her second husband, Marcus Salvius Otho, was said to have

gained fame and prestige only through his marriage to

such a beautiful and dignified woman.129 On account of

her beauty and intrigue, she quickly caught the eye of

Nero.

With her beauty and Nero's love, Poppaea was able to

manipulate her husband into acquiring what suited her.

Her sway over Nero impacted both the Jews and Christians

during times that threatened their standing within the

Empire. Poppaea emerges as the first empress to have

influenced imperial policies toward Christianity, albeit

not always in the best interests of the Christian

community. An interpretation of the sources on Poppaea

through the lens of Rome's conception of gender elicits

important information not only on how and why Poppaea did

what she did, but also on the complexity of how she is

remembered by the historians who wrote on her activities

and motivations.

The imagery evoked by the characterizations of

Poppaea Sabina creates a dichotomy of interpretation of

128
Cass. Dio, l x i i . 2 8 . 1 ; T a c , Ann. x i i i . 4 5 .
129
P l u t . , Galb. x i x . 2 .
who Poppaea actually was and to what purpose some of

these images were created. On one side there is a

perception of Poppaea that connotes positive qualities

capable of adding or preserving some integrity to the

reign of Nero; to this end, the accounts of Josephus,

Plutarch, and, to some degree, Tacitus agree. The other

side of the debate conjures images of a woman destined to

dominate her husband and demonstrate her cruelty and

feminine intrigue through the overthrow of traditional

gender roles; Dio Cassius and Tacitus emerge as the

staunchest purveyors of this thinking.

Dio painted a picture of Poppaea as a vain and

selfish woman obsessed with her own beauty.130 In

addition, Dio recounted that Poppaea was responsible for

Nero's murder of his mother, Agrippina: "Sabina on

learning of this persuaded Nero to get rid of his mother,

alleging that she was plotting against him."131 The

"this" to which Dio refers, is mentioned in the previous

paragraph about Agrippina:

As if it were not enough that there were

stories that she [Agrippina] had seduced her
uncle Claudius with her trickery,
licentiousness, glances, and kisses, she then

130
Cass. Dio l x i i . 2 8 . 1 .
131
Cass. Dio l x i i . 1 2 . 1 .
 149
applied her efforts to enslaving Nero in a
similar way. Whether this indeed truly
happened or whether to fit her character it was
invented, I do not know; but I say what
everyone is saying, that Nero had a mistress
who looked like Agrippina of whom he was very
affectionate, and when he played with her and
showed her off, he would say that he wanted
intercourse with his mother.132

Connecting these two passages from Dio, one can decipher

the underlying theme of the Hellenic interpretation of

gender norms. Dio not only drew attention to Poppaea's

ability to emasculate Nero by imposing her own masculine

nature to lead {dux femina), but he also emphasized

Nero's failure as a leader by adding the sexual taboo of

incest to Nero's crimes. Under Roman law and custom,

incest was a grave moral sin [nefas] .133 Nero was guilty

of this immorality and therefore outside the law of the

gods and man.

Dio attributed further nefarious sexual deeds to

Nero. After the death of Poppaea, Nero was so

distraught, that upon learning of a woman who resembled

Poppaea, he sent for her and kept her by his side.134

This alone would not have aroused too much disgust among
132
Cass. Dio lxii.11.4
133
For a summary of incest within the laws of Roman marriage, see:
Susan Treggiari, Roman Marriage: Iusti Coniuges from the Time of
Cicero to the Time of Ulpian (Oxford: Oxford University Press,
1991), esp. 37-39.
134
Cass. Dio lxii.28.2.
 150
the public. However, after this woman, Nero found a

young boy who also resembled Poppaea in appearance, whom

he called Sporus, and had him castrated and then treated

"in every way like a wife."135 Dio highlighted the

complexity of this "marriage," pointing out that Nero was

at the time also "married" to a man named Pythagoras, who

performed the role of husband to the emperor while Sporus

was to be the replacement for Nero's wife.136 Nero's very

public display of his homosexuality - going so far as to

perform marriage ceremonies - conveyed the servility of

the emperor, rather than the virility and ocv8peia

associated with the vita militaris and the office of

princeps. The accounts of Commodus and Elagabalus over a

century later further elucidated the problems of such a

lifestyle for an emperor.

Dio used Nero's sexual practices as evidence of the

emperor's inability to rule as a man should rule - he was

dominated by women, and his sexual appetite was beyond

what was expected and lawful for a virile (masculine)

135
Cass. Dio l x i i . 2 8 . 2 - 3 .
136
Cass. Dio l x i i . 1 3 . 1 - 2 .
man. The public displays of Nero's lack of masculinity

connected to his debaucherous lifestyle demonstrated to

the populace that Nero was allowing his personal

pleasures to spill out over his public responsibilities,

including a duty to exude the qualities of a just and

sensible ruler. Much as in the case of Commodus explored

above, Nero's failure to assuage the public's fear of an

emasculated emperor under the power of his mother or wife

only accelerated his removal from the throne. Tacitus,

however, while also harsh on the memories of both Nero

and Poppaea, had a slightly alternate interpretation of

the legacy of Nero.

The description of Poppaea found in Tacitus' Annals

demonstrates the two sides of the empress in a very

succinct manner:

She was a woman of all advantages except an

honest spirit. As one might expect, her
mother, surpassing all the beautiful women of
her day, had given her equal fame and looks;
her wealth to the distinction of her birth.
Her conversation was courteous, her nature not
harsh: she paraded modesty and enjoyed
playfulness; she rarely went out in public, and
then with her face partly covered, so as not to
satisfy the one looking, or rather because it
was so becoming of her. She never used her

As will be elaborated upon further below, Tacitus held that a man

under the power of a woman was devoid of any masculinity. For more
on this, see: L'Hoir, "Tacitus and Women's Usurpation of Power."
 152
fame sparingly, she did not distinguish between
husbands and adulterers; but not vulnerable to
her own or another's faults, where profit was
present, there she transferred her desire.138

Tacitus' account of the two sides of Poppaea's character

is unique. The other accounts mentioning her are either

exclusively negative or positive about her character,

lifestyle, influence, or actions. In this account of

Poppaea, Tacitus balanced each quality behavior with its

opposite.

In his examination of Otho's usurpation of the

throne during "Year of the Four Emperors,"139 Tacitus said

that astrologers had convinced Otho the stars were in his

favor to rebel and take the throne from Galba.140 Tacitus

described the astrologers as "a race of men untrustworthy

by the powerful, deceitful to the hopeful, who in our

state will always be forbidden and restrained."141

Immediately after Tacitus' condemnation of astrologers,

he associated Poppaea with the same group that had urged

1J8
Tac, Ann. xm.45.
139
Upon the death of Nero in 68: Galba (Jun 68 - Jan 69), Otho (Jan
69 - Apr 69), Vitellius (Apr 69 - Dec 69), and Vespasian (69 - 79).
140
Tac, Hist. 1.22.
141
T a c , Hist. 1.22; for more on astrology within Rome, see:
Frederick H. Cramer, Astrology m Roman Law and Politics
(Philadelphia, PA: American Philosophical Society, 1954); Ramsay
MacMullen, Enemies of the Roman Order: Treason, Unrest, and
Alienation m the Empire (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press,
1966), esp. ch. 4.
 153
Otho to act: "Many of these astrologers, the worst tools

for an imperial spouse, supported Poppaea's secret

plans..."142 After commenting earlier on Poppaea' s deviant

behavior (as he saw it) , Tacitus then resurrected her

memory in association with not only the untrustworthy

advisors, the astrologers, but also of Otho. The main

purpose of this passage may well have been an attempt to

kill four birds with one stone. Tacitus presented Otho

in a negative light because of his affiliation with the

astrologers, whom he tagged as un-Roman. Associated with

these un-Roman astrologers was also Poppaea, who was the

wife and feminine influence first over Otho and then

Nero. In one swift motion, Tacitus subtly laid the claim

that Otho, Nero, Poppaea and the astrologers were all un-

Roman: the astrologers because of their foreignness and

deceit; Poppaea because of her association with them as

well as her usurpation of masculine authority (which he

had condemned earlier); Otho because of his association

with the astrologers as well, and his association with

Poppaea; and Nero, because of his emasculation by

Poppaea. This apparent side comment unfolds into a much

broader condemnation of Nero, Poppaea and Otho as unRoman

142
Tac. , Hist. i.22.
 154
because of their associations with things which Tacitus

argued were completely unRoman - astrology and more

importantly, the upsetting of traditional gendered

boundaries.

Josephus, the earliest of the historians to write

about Poppaea, was by far the most generous in his

compliments of the empress. The first-century Jewish

historian mentioned the favor of Nero that Poppaea

enjoyed in addition to her use of influence to benefit

the Jewish people. In his Life, Josephus told the story

of Jewish priests who had built a wall onto the Temple in

order to obscure King Agrippa' s view into the interior.

After ignoring a command to disassemble the wall, the

priests, including Josephus, were sent to Rome by the

procurator Felix to appear before Nero. Josephus wrote:

"Through him [Aliturus]143 I was introduced to Poppaea,

Caesar's wife, and I took the earliest opportunity to ask

her to free the priests. Having received large gifts

from Poppaea in addition to this favor, I returned to my

own country."144 The relationship between Josephus and

143
A Jewish actor whom Josephus had befriended in Puteoli, and who
was a favorite of Nero. He is mentioned just before the meeting
between Poppaea and Josephus.
144
Josephus, Vit. 16.
Poppaea is much clearer in Josephus' retelling of the

story in his Jewish Antiquities: "Nero, after the

hearing, not only agreed with what they [the priests] had

done, but also agreed to leave the building as it was.

This was done for his wife Poppaea, who was a worshipper

of God [GeoaePtig] and requested these favors for the

Jews."145 How does 9eooepSi<; fit into the understanding the

relationship between Poppaea and Josephus (or all Jews)?

The interpretation of Poppaea's motivation for

assisting Josephus during his visit to Rome hangs on the

translation of OEOOEPTIC. ©eoaePr^ is a compound word: the

combination of Qeoc, (god) and ae|3o|i(xi (feel awe; worship) .

Most literally, Beoaepric; means: worshipper of a god or very

religious, but the interpretation of BeoaePtiQ may go beyond

its literal translation.146 Because of Poppaea's apparent

relationship to Josephus and the Jews in this passage, it

would not be irrational to conclude that Poppaea was a

Jewish proselyte, and to translate GeoaeP^ as such.

145
Josephus, AJ xx. 195.
146
The authors of the three major translations of Josephus'
Antiquities all translate Qzoatfiryc, differently: William Whiston, ed.,
The Works of Josephus, 16th ed. (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson
Publishers, Inc., 1987): "a religious woman"; Louis H. Feldman, ed.,
Josephus: Jewish Antiquities, Books Xviii-Xx, vol. 433, Lcl
(Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1965) : "worshipper of
God"; Paul L. Maier, ed., Josephus: The Essential Writings (Grand
Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications, 1988): "sympathetic to the Jews."
However, GeooePriq by i t s e l f has n o t h i n g t o do with Judaism

or t h e Jewish God; i t was a word used t o d e s c r i b e anyone

who was i n any s e n s e devout or r e l i g i o u s . 1 4 7 In f a c t , if

Josephus had wanted t o emphasize t h e s t a t u s of Poppaea as

a proselyte or even a God-Fearer, he would most likely

have used the term, (|)o3o'U|U£VOi TOV Geov (those who fear

God). 1 4 8 Placed w i t h i n i t s context of t h e o t h e r account

of Josephus as w e l l as o t h e r Roman h i s t o r i e s , however, it

is more probable that Poppaea was in fact a Jewish

sympathizer: she recognized and appreciated the Jewish

teaching of monotheism, although she was not a Jewish

proselyte.149

One could certainly argue that Poppaea was

s y m p a t h e t i c t o t h e Jews only because of h e r fondness for

Josephus, with whom she had just recently become

acquainted. And p e r h a p s Josephus merely i n s e r t e d 0eocepT|c;

as a compliment to a religious woman who helped save

Jewish priests from prison. Her possible affiliation

147
For a very h e l p f u l summary on t h e use of Geooepiiq, s e e : Louis H.
Feldman, "Jewish ' S y m p a t h i z e r s ' i n C l a s s i c a l L i t e r a t u r e and
I n s c r i p t i o n s , " TAPA 81 (1950). I t s only use i n t h e C h r i s t i a n
S c r i p t u r e s i s i n John 9 : 3 1 , as a g e n e r i c r e f e r e n c e t o t h o s e who
worship or c a l l upon God.
148
As used i n Acts 13:16 & 26.
149
A p r o s e l y t e would have been a G e n t i l e who a t t e n d e d synagogue and
p r a c t i c e d t h e Jewish f a i t h . Poppaea's b u r i a l wishes i n T a c , Ann.
x v i . 6 c o n t r a d i c t t h e wishes of a follower of Judaism.
 157
with Judaism, however, does not alter the fact that

regardless of what her motivations were, Poppaea's

influence shielded Jews from imperial harm. Whether she

wished to or not, Poppaea became a protectress of the

Jewish people - at least in the eyes of Josephus.

Alongside Josephus, Plutarch also supported the

perception of Poppaea as a woman with positive influence

and intentions. Plutarch was the second earliest

historian who wrote directly about Poppaea and had little

in words to say of Poppaea's character. While Josephus

concentrated his short biography of Poppaea on her

ability to add dignity and justice to the reign of her

husband, Plutarch's account presents Poppaea both as a

woman capable of using her beauty to her advantage, and

also as a victim of imperial masculine behavior over and

against her more temperate character.

Plutarch described Poppaea's second husband, Otho,

as a man corrupted by luxury and the pursuit of pleasure,

whose only great attribute was Poppaea's hand in

marriage.150 In his account of Galba, Plutarch detailed

150
Plut., Galb. xix.2. By the time that Plutarch is describing,
Poppaea and Crispinus had already been divorced and Poppaea was
already dead. On Otho's less than reputable behavior, see also:
T a c , Hist, i.13; Cass. Dio lxii.ll.
 158
what he saw as the moral corruption within the

relationship between Nero, Otho, and Poppaea:

Nero was in love with Poppaea while she was

still with Crispinus, but since he respected
his wife and feared his mother, he used Otho to
make advances toward her.... But at any rate
Otho first seduced Poppaea himself and
corrupted her with hopes of Nero's love, and
convinced her to leave her husband. However,
after she had become his wife, he was not
pleased to share her, and was unwilling to give
Nero a share, but Poppaea herself was not
grieved, they say, at their rivalry. For she
would shut out Nero, it is said, even in the
absence of Otho, either to keep his pleasure in
her from fading away, or, as some say, she did
not want to be weighed down in marriage to the
Emperor, but was not against being his lover,
out of pure sexual indulgence.151

In this short passage, Nero and Otho were the actors upon

Poppaea. It was not until she was corrupted by the

circumstances that Poppaea engaged in any actions of her

own. In Plutarch's account, Poppaea was very much a

product of her environment - her feminine nature was

malleable and easily molded into a disreputable

personality on account of the men involved.

Even if one takes Plutarch's insinuation of

Poppaea's feminine naivete into mind, there is confusion

over the proper attribution of masculine and feminine in

151
Plut., Galb. xix.2, 4-5.
 159
the relationship between Nero and Poppaea. In Plutarch's

account, Nero was a sort of conglomeration of feminine

and masculine qualities. He pursued and conquered his

desire, Poppaea, although she first married Otho, carried

on a sexual affair and then eventually married Nero. Yet

at the same time, Nero was under the control of his

mother. He feared the wrath and displeasure his mother

would afflict upon him if he should divorce Octavia and

marry Poppaea. Shortly thereafter, during their affair,

Nero fell under the power of Poppaea, who convinced him

to kill his mother and divorce Octavia, after which, they

were wed twelve days after his divorce.152 While his

wife, Poppaea continued to dominate Nero.153 Poppaea does

not appear to have been a helpless victim of a manly

emperor after all. Based solely on Plutarch's account,

Poppaea emerges as a woman who feigned feminine fragility

in the face of two feminine men, and once victorious in

her marriage to the emperor, reasserted her own manly-

femininity in order to attain what she wished through the

152
For a deeper understanding on the motivations of Nero in his
relationship with his mother, Poppaea and others during this time,
see: Robert S. Rogers, "Heirs and Rivals to Nero," TAPA 86 (1955).
153
T a c , Ann. xiv. 60-61, 63-65; xv.61.
 160
power of the emperor - or so one could assert from

Tacitus' Annals:

And Poppaea received access [to Nero] first by

flattering words and cunning, pretending that
she was too weak to resist her passion and had
been captured by Nero's beauty; then as Nero's
love grew strong, turning to arrogance.154

Whether the sources on Poppaea agreed or disagreed on her

character, they most certainly agreed on her ability to

influence Nero in his imperial duties.

Of everything that transpired during the reign of

Nero, the event that had the greatest impact upon

Christianity was the Great Fire of Rome in 64. The blame

attributed to the Christian movement invites questions

about the possible involvement of Poppaea because of her

close affiliation with Judaism. In 64, the city of Rome

caught fire. The sources that mention the Fire of Rome

vary on the extent of the fire's damage; nevertheless,

the fire was severe enough to render many homeless and to

rouse the population to call upon the emperor for

action.155 In the end, Nero placed the blame upon a

minority sect of Judaism called Christians, and

T a c , Ann. xiii.46.
T a c , Ann. xv.38-41; Cass. Dio lxii.16-18.
 161
thenceforth, Christians have made use of the term
"Neronian P e r s e c u t i o n . "
Although Poppaea was never implicated by the sources
in any sort of connection to t h i s i n c i d e n t , i s i t at a l l
inconceivable t h a t a woman with at l e a s t some f a m i l i a r i t y
with Judaism 156 could have mentioned an irreconcilable
sect to Nero in his quest to persuade the populace
against blaming the emperor? The Poppaea who emerges
from the sources was a woman fully capable of such an
act. If Poppaea's i n t e r e s t was deep enough, she no doubt
knew of the d i f f e r e n t parties within Judaism, and her
friendship with Josephus might have inclined her more
toward the p a r t y of the Pharisees. 1 5 7 On the other hand,
it was through Poppaea's influence that Nero appointed
Gessius Florus as Procurator of Judaea in 64. 158 Florus'
corruption and lawless exercise of power pushed the Jews

The Great F i r e o c c u r r e d i n t h e same year as J o s e p h u s ' v i s i t t o

Rome. H. S t . J . Thackeray, i n h i s Loeb t r a n s l a t i o n of Josephus'
Vita, p l a c e s t h e v i s i t of Josephus t o Rome i n 61, r a t h e r than 64.
The year 61 i s u n l i k e l y , however, s i n c e Josephus mentioned t h a t he
had j u s t t u r n e d t w e n t y - s e v e n , which would be 64, s i n c e h i s b i r t h was
i n 37. Furthermore, i n r e c o u n t i n g of t h e v i s i t i n Vita 16, Josephus
c a l l e d Poppaea t h e wife (yuvoaia) of Nero, which was not t h e case
u n t i l 62.
157
The s e c t of which Josephus was a member. The P h a r i s e e s were not
on t h e b e s t of terms with e i t h e r t h e Sadducees or t h e C h r i s t i a n s
(Nazarenes).
158
Josephus, AJ xx. 252.
 162
159
to revolt in 66. According to Josephus' timeline in

his Antiquities, this event occurred shortly after

Poppaea had met and helped Josephus. This being the

case, Poppaea was either ignorant of Florus' incompetence

and greed, or he truly did not understand the Jewish

people and their relations with the Empire. Perhaps

Josephus' attribution of BeooepT^ upon Poppaea was more on

account of her immediate action of assisting the Jews

because of her new friendship with Josephus, rather than

on her understanding of and adherence to Judaism.

While it is inconclusive whether Poppaea assisted

the Jews on account of her friendship with Josephus or

her own personal religious convictions, it is irrefutable

that her direct intervention in the case ensured the

freedom of the priests and the protection of the

integrity of the Jewish Temple. Josephus' summation of

Poppaea was no doubt heavily colored by his own short and

personal experience with her in this particular incident.

Of all those who recorded the life and deeds of the

empress, Josephus seems to be the only one who had

159
Josephus, AJ xx.252; Josephus, BJ ii. 277-283; T a c , Hist. v.10.
 163
160
a c t u a l l y met h e r i n t h e f l e s h . T a c i t u s was t h e first
t o mention Poppaea's deviant behavior and t h e first to

c a s t h e r i n t h e mold of a woman o b s e s s e d w i t h power and

c a p a b l e of continuing the unnatural dominance over Nero

after his mother's death.161 This gendered interpretation

of Poppaea as a usurper can, of course, be easily

e x p l a i n e d by h i s s u b t l e polemic a g a i n s t the exercise of

l e g i t i m a t e m a s c u l i n e a u t h o r i t y by a woman.

Marcia s t a n d s out among some of t h e o t h e r Christian

women in this study because her connection to actual

churchmen in Rome i s documented with specificity in at

least one reliable source. In his Refutatio Omnium

Haeresium, Hippolytus mentioned Marcia in his

condemnation of C a l l i s t u s :

But a f t e r a t i m e , t h e r e b e i n g i n t h a t p l a c e
[ S a r d i n i a ] o t h e r m a r t y r s , Marcia, b e i n g a God-
l o v i n g woman and a concubine of Commodus, and
having wished t o do some good work, summoned
b e f o r e h e r t h e b l e s s e d V i c t o r , who was a b i s h o p
of t h e Church a t t h a t t i m e , and asked him what
m a r t y r s were i n Sardinia;... Then Marcia, having
o b t a i n e d h e r r e q u e s t from Commodus, gave t h e
l e t t e r of freedom t o a c e r t a i n H y a c i n t h u s , an
e l d e r l y eunuch. 1 6 2
160
Of a l l t h o s e who wrote on or merely r e f e r e n c e d Poppaea, T a c i t u s i s
t h e f o u r t h t o d e s c r i b e her i n such a manner. Those who wrote b e f o r e
him were: P l i n . , HN x x v i i i . 1 8 3 ; xxx.140, Josephus, AJ x x . 1 9 5 ; Vit.
x v i , and P l u t . , Galb. x i x . 2 - 5 .
161
And even b e f o r e , as Dio claimed she was t h e one who encouraged t h e
a s s a s s i n a t i o n of A g r i p p i n a .
162
H i p p o l . , Haer. i x . 1 2 . 1 0 - 1 1 .
According to Hippolytus, not only did Marcia summon the

Bishop of Rome for a personal visit, but she also used

her influence over the emperor to secure the release of

Christian prisoners in Sardinia. This passage raises two

important questions: First, what was the likelihood that

a woman in an intimate relationship with the emperor

could call upon and meet the leader of a minor religious

sect; and second, would Marcia have been able to convince

Commodus to grant her wish of freeing the prisoners from

Sardinia?

The first question can be placed into the context of

Marcia's legal and social status examined above. Marcia

enjoyed immense influence and power by virtue of her

close association with Commodus. Women close to the

emperor who may have been in contact with Christian

leaders before the fourth century are not improbable, and

the third century provides another important example for

this study. During the reign of Alexander Severus (222-

235) , Origen is said to have met with the empress Julia

Mamaea,163 and perhaps around the same time, Hippolytus

163
Euseb., Hist. eccl. vi.21.3.
 165
164
corresponded with "a certain queen." Unlike an

empress, Marcia, as a concubine, did not automatically

command political power. Much like the case of Domitilla

examined in the previous chapter, Marcia remained outside

the political sphere and was therefore freer to engage in

activities which would have placed men in the same

situation into serious jeopardy.

The answer as to whether Marcia was capable of

influencing Commodus' will can be inferred by

deconstructing the language and tone in the available

sources. Some of the sources are kind in their

interpretation of Marcia's relationship with Commodus

while others are not. While the image of Marcia as

manipulative or controlling comes through in some degree

in nearly all the sources, the fact that Commodus was

completely smitten with her is prominent. Herodian

described Marcia as Commodus' "favorite,"165 and Dio

164
For more on this, see my discussion below, as well as: Brown, The
Body and Society: Men, Women and Sexual Renunciation in Early
Christianity, 151f; Christian K.J. von Bunsen, Hippolytus and His
Age, 2 vols. (London: Longman, Brown, Green, and Longmans, 1854),
276.
165
Hdn., i.4.
 166
claimed that because of Commodus' love for her, she was

able to do anything she wanted.166

Some of the sources gave unflattering explanations

for Commodus' love for Marcia, who showered him with

flattery167 and vulgar sexual attraction168 which allowed

her to gain control of his mind.169 In all, the sources

are in general agreement that Marcia was able to use her

beauty, charm, and position as concubine to influence and

direct the attentions of the emperor, much in the same

way Poppaea had done in the previous century. Dio gave

an example of how Marcia used her power: "The tradition

is that she was a supporter of the Christians and did

many good things for them."170 These attributions of sway

over Commodus and affection for Christianity lend

credence to the opportunity for Marcia to act on behalf

of the Christian community in Rome.

As concubine to the emperor, Marcia was able to

maintain contact with the Bishop of Rome and use her

status and gender to position herself as protectress of

166
C a s s . D i o , l x x i i i . 4 . 7 : "...axe icai 7tapa tw Ko|U|u6§a> Ttav 8woc|a.evTi."
Commodus' passion for Marcia is also mentioned in SHA, Comm. xi.9.
167
SHA, Comm. v i i i . 6 .
168
Epit. de Caes., xvii.5
169
Epit. de Caes., xvii.5
170
C a s s . Dio, lxxiii.4.7.
 167
the Christian community there. Marcia's gender allowed

her to maintain a close sexual relationship with

Commodus, through which she was able to provide the

Christian Church with eyes and ears deep within the

recesses of the imperial government.

Marcia's eyes and ears were used not only for the

Church, however. In 192, Marcia conspired with the

Praetorian Prefect, Q. Aemilius Laetus, and murdered

Commodus.171 Marcia proved to be influential not only for

the benefit of helping her Christian friends, but also

for guiding the course of imperial succession. In

addition, with her success in securing the freedom of the

Christian prisoners in Sardinia, which included the

future Pope Callistus I, Marcia acted in a role of a

patroness who used society's expectations of gender to

protect a minority group.172

Marcia's patronage was not especially unique, given

some early examples of female patrons in the first two

171
Cass. Dio, lxxiii.22.4-6; Epit. de Caes., xvii.5; SHA, Comm.
xvii.1-2; Hdn., i.17.1-11; Zos., Historia Nova i.7.
172
Marcia's role is similar to later stories of Jewish women who used
their gender to obtain the freedom of family and friends in Nazi
Germany. See: Marion A. Kaplan, Between Dignity and Despair: Jewish
Life in Nazi Germany (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998).
 168
173
centuries. Her r o l e as p r o t e c t r e s s , however, was q u i t e
unique and r a t h e r ironic. While the C h r i s t i a n church
maintained a s t r i c t l y male e c c l e s i a s t i c a l hierarchy, as
well as an understanding of woman as the "weaker
vessel," 1 7 4 the Roman Christians relied upon the
protection of a woman whom they needed to assume
qualities generally associated with a masculine
protector. The Church in Rome benefited from the
protection afforded by a woman who exhibited the
q u a l i t i e s of a man.175 The f a i l u r e of Commodus to exude
the qualities Roman society expected of its princeps
disrupted the gender hierarchy and forced a woman to take
on male r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s in p r o t e c t i n g the C h r i s t i a n s .
Eusebius described the s t a t e of C h r i s t i a n i t y a t the
beginning of the third century as a time "[w]hen

173
Some examples of e a r l y p a t r o n e s s e s of t h e C h r i s t i a n movement can
be deduced from c o n t e x t , but t h e i r numbers p a l e i n comparison t o t h e
t h i r d and f o u r t h c e n t u r i e s . I am i n c l u d i n g i n my l i s t women who
opened t h e i r homes for t h e use as e a r l y c h u r c h e s . P o s s i b l e examples
from t h e S c r i p t u r e s a r e : Lydia (Acts 1 6 ) ; Phoebe (Romans 1 6 ) ; P r i s c a
(Romans 1 6 ) ; Chloe can be i n f e r r e d from 1 C o r i n t h i a n s 1:11; Nympha
(Colossians 4 ) ; Apphia (Philemon 1 ) .
174
1 Peter 3:7.
175
Marion Kaplan makes a similar observation when she notes that
women assumed masculine roles in their attempt to getting their
husbands and fathers released from prison. The irony was that while
the Nazis attempted to enforce strict gender guidelines for society
they in turn disrupted the gender hierarchy of the Jews, forcing
women to take on male responsibilities in protecting the home and
family. See: Kaplan, Between Dignity and Despair: Jewish Life in
Nazi Germany, esp. ch. 2.
 [Septimius] Severus was stirring up persecution against

the churches."176 By the reign of Alexander Severus,

beginning in 222, the relationship of the Church to the

imperial government appears to have taken a turn for the

better. During the reign of Alexander, there was a

purported meeting between the Christian writer Origen,

and Mamaea. Eusebius wrote:

The emperor's mother, Mamaea by name, was a

religious woman [Qeoae^eaxd%r\ yuvn] if ever there
was one, and when Origen's fame had reached
everywhere, including her own ears, she was
eager to be honored with the sight of the man
and to test his understanding of divine things
which was the wonder of all. She was then
staying in Antioch, and sent a military escort
to bring him to her; he stayed with her for
some time showing her many things for the glory
of the Lord and the excellence of divine
teaching, he then hurried back to his customary
duties.177

Paulus Orosius, writing about two centuries after the

reign of Alexander, wrote: "his [Alexander's] mother

Mamaea, a Christian, made it her business to hear from

the presbyter Origen."178 Despite Orosius' claim, it is

unlikely that Mamaea was indeed a Christian. The term

used by Eusebius, GeoaePeoxaxri, suggests a possible

interpretation of Mamaea's interest in Origen.

176
Euseb., Hist. eccl. vi. 1.
177
Euseb., Hist. eccl. vi.21.
178
Oros. , Historiae adversum paganos vii.18.7.
 170
Very similar to the term 0EOOEPTIC, which Josephus had

used in describing Poppaea, Geoaepecrcaxri can be best

understood within its context. In its most basic

definition, the term has a generic connotation of being

religious. It is not specifically Christian, in much the

same way that GeooepTi? is not specifically Jewish in the

context of Poppaea Sabina. While not as precise as

Orosius' claim that Mamaea was a Christian, Eusebius'

comment in his History connected Mamaea more closely to

the Christian movement. In his recounting of the end of

Alexander's reign, Eusebius wrote:

After reigning thirteen years, the Roman

emperor Alexander died and was succeeded by
Maximinus. Hostile to the house of Alexander,
since it consisted for the most part of
believers, he started a persecution and ordered
only the leaders of the church to be put to
death as being responsible for the teaching of
the Gospel.179

Alone, this comment by Eusebius would seem to imply some

kind of preference for the Christian faith by Alexander

and his mother. Lampridius brings Eusebius' account and

his use of the term BeooePeoxdcxri into context. He writes

that Alexander "respected the privileges of the Jews and

179
Euseb., Hist. eccl. vi.28.
 171
allowed the Christians to exist unmolested."180 The

Historia Augusta goes on to demonstrate that Alexander

had an interest not only in Christianity, but in religion

in general.181 Alexander erected temples that contained

the images of the deified emperors in addition to

"Christ, Abraham, Orpheus, and others of the same

character."182 Because of this general interest in

religion, Christianity found itself in a far better

position politically under the protective eye of

Alexander and Mamaea.183 This is perhaps the best way to

interpret Mamaea's influence on the treatment of

Christianity during the reign of her son. Since Mamaea

was, for all practical purposes, running the Empire

through the image of Alexander, her interest in all

things religious encouraged an environment of relative

tolerance for all beliefs, including Christianity and

Judaism.

180
SHA, Alex. Sev. xxii.4.
181
Some e x a m p l e s of C h r i s t i a n i t y ' s s t a t u s u n d e r A l e x a n d e r s e e : SHA,
Alex. Sev. x x i i . 4 ; x x i x . 2 ; x l i i i . 6 - 7 ; x l v . 7 ; x l i x . 6 ; l i . 7 .
182
SHA, Alex. Sev. xxix.2.
183
SHA, Alex. Sev. xliii.6-7 explains that Alexander wished to build
a temple to Christ, however, this does not mean Christianity held
any kind of favored position, since Lampridius then mentions that
Hadrian had wished to do the same; an emperor who is never connected
to any devotion of Christian belief.
 172
This idea of a relative tolerance for all beliefs

may explain Julia Mamaea's meeting with Origen, as well

as the vague reference to Hippolytus' letter "to a

certain queen [paoiA,i8a] . "184 The simplest explanation of

the identity of this certain queen is Julia Mamaea. Her

interest in things religious, including specifically,

Christianity, would undoubtedly have garnered the

attention of one of the early Church's most prolific

writers. There is also a mention of a letter to a

Severina by Hippolytus carved into a marble slab, and

this unknown Severan has been connected by later

historians to the "certain queen" named above. The

diminutive form of Severa would imply a young girl,

rather than someone of Mamaea's age, and so one theory

connects the two letters to a daughter of Alexander

Severus.185 However, this explanation is needlessly

complicated, and it is more likely that Julia Mamaea, who

had already demonstrated an interest in Christianity

would have been the intended recipient (whether actual or

honorary) of Hippolytus' letter. The letter's content is

an explanation of Christ's resurrection, and may be an

184
H i p p o l . , Sermonum Fragmenta i i i .
185
Bunsen, Hippolytus and His Age, Vol I , 27 6.
 173
answer to a question by the unknown Severina. Regardless

of to whom the letter was intended, it serves as another

possible example demonstrating that the Christians during

Alexander's reign enjoyed a peculiar relationship with

the imperial throne. The peace during this short period

was markedly different from what they had experienced

under either Septimius Severus beforehand, or Maximinus

Thrax thereafter. The cause for this change can be

surmised from Mamaea's interest in religion, and her

influence over Alexander.

Although spanning the course of three centuries, the

accounts of Poppaea, Marcia, and Mamaea reveal three

women who shared similarities and differences in their

physical beauty, individual character, and personal

motivations. Poppaea, through her assistance to

Josephus, Marcia, through her assistance to Bishop

Victor, and Mamaea, in her interest in Origen, became

protectresses through the manipulation of gender roles in

relation to their respective emperors. Poppaea, Marcia,

and Mamaea provided stable examples of masculinity

through whom stability and order could be projected.

Without the perceived femininity of Nero and Commodus,

which created an environment of uncertainty, Poppaea and

 174
Marcia would not have been able to assert their own

conveyance of masculinity into action on behalf the Jews

and Christians as well as other issues in which they took

interest. If not for Alexander's age, Julia Maraaea's

ability to increase and maintain her power throughout his

reign might have come to naught. However, because these

women took advantage of their circumstances, they were

able to manipulate the course of events concerning

religious movements within the Empire, through the

careful machinations within their established gendered

boundaries.

Gendered Legacies Across the Centuries:

Conclusions

Poppaea, Marcia, and Mamaea all had influence over

their respective emperors, and all three took advantage

of that privilege. It is impossible to know for certain

the intentions of each of these women, especially in

regard to the survival of the Christian Church. Poppaea

and Mamaea were less connected to Judaism or Christianity

than Marcia was to the Christian community in Rome, and

yet each wielded influence which greatly impacted the

course of Christian history. However, regardless of

 175
their religious intentions or motivations, all three

women demonstrated that the gendered boundaries of Roman

culture could be utilized in a manner unnecessary for a

man, yet profoundly profitable for a woman.

Gendered language permeated the accounts about

Poppaea's actions and personality. Mostly on account of

Tacitus, who was the first to address Poppaea in great

detail, Poppaea's portrait in the annals of history has

been limited with the stigma of a usurper of masculine

authority and a corrupter of good morals and good sense.

Josephus' kindly portrayal of Poppaea as a benefactor and

protectress of the Jewish people is a nice counterbalance

to Tacitus, but it was, however, only a brief mention in

a very long history. In addition, while Poppaea was

indeed a protectress of the Jews, she was unlikely a Jew

herself. Whatever one may wish to say about the

personality or motivations of Poppaea, one can certainly

not disregard her influence over Nero and her ability to

push against the Roman understanding of gendered spaces.

Poppaea wielded influence comparable to that of an

imperial advisor without ever leaving the confines of an

empress' palace.
 176
Unlike Poppaea, Marcia was not able to change or

influence imperial policy. Instead, because of her

gender and Christianity, she was able to take advantage

of her position and protect the Church without the use of

imperial policy. Marcia's rank, gender, and personal

abilities allowed her to circumvent the political process

and take up a role as protectress of the Christian

community in Rome - a role which transcended the

traditional understanding of what was expected of the

feminine within both Roman and Christian cultures, while

also remaining well within those gendered boundaries.

Marcia neither created nor violated any laws because it

was not necessary. The uncertainty and instability

connected with Commodus' reign created an environment in

which Marcia could operate without impairment - a

fortunate situation for the Church which resurfaced

again, and to a much greater degree, in the midst of the

Third Century Crisis.

Just before the Empire was plunged into that crisis,

the Severan women demonstrated that ideas of gendered

boundaries could be blurred in the face of an unexpected

and unwanted emasculation of the first man. Elagabalus'

blatant disregard for what Romans considered masculine

 177
behavior for the princeps cost him his life, and on

account of the maneuverings of his grandmother and aunt,

provided the way for his antithesis to ascend the throne.

With high hopes for Alexander the boy to become Alexander

the man, the army and Senate eagerly awaited his

maturation as they tolerated the rule of his mother,

Mamaea. In the end, Mamaea found herself as not only a

protectress of religious tolerance, but also of her own

son. Given the accepted division of gender in Roman

culture, however, her role as protectress of Alexander

was short lived because her control had failed to allow

his ascendancy into manhood in the eyes of the army. The

end of the Severans proved to be problematic for the

Church as well, as the laxity of religious regulation

became more stringent in the later part of the third

century.

As seen in the previous chapter in the examples of

Pomponia Graecina and Domitilla, stability, or the threat

of its undoing, was a powerful impetus in enforcing or

countermanding the understood roles of each gender within

Greco-Roman society. In the case of Poppaea, the Empire

was still new and had emerged from the stable rule of

Claudius, whose predecessor had disrupted constancy and

 178
reveled in extravagance, immorality, and cruelty.186

Because of Claudius' return to dignified and durable

rule, men and women conformed to their socially-

constructed conceptions of gender. The lack of

volatility brought no need for a woman to break free of

her mold of femininity and assume the masculine role. In

much the same way, there was little reason to debate the

proper duties of the masculine and feminine during the

time of Marcia at the end of the second century because

those on the interior of the Empire witnessed

unprecedented prosperity and peace during what has been

termed the Golden Age of Rome.187 The men, who ruled

effectively, governed and protected the populace. The

stability within political life provided an atmosphere

conducive to stability between genders within society.

The reigns of Nero and Commodus, while not at the

degree of calamity that befell Rome in the third century,

were not interpreted by the ancient historians as steady

and archetypal examples of how an emperor was to conduct

himself, and therefore, in the midst of political

disorder, gender disorder emerged. After Elagabalus,

186
Claudius (r. 41 - 54) was proclaimed emperor after the
assassination of Caligula (r. 37 - 41).
187
The reign of the Five Good Emperors (96-180) described above.
 179
Alexander was a return to the traditional expectations of

masculine-enforced stability and order. However, in

order to bring about this positive change, the feminine

Elagabalus had to be removed by someone capable of

exuding the masculine qualities he lacked. The solution

was Alexander, albeit he was too young to truly embody

the Roman ideal of princeps. Julia Mamaea assumed this

role through the image of her son and his potential

masculinity. When Alexander became old enough to assume

the role of princeps independently, the failure of Mamaea

to relinquish her unsavory dominance over the masculine

became problematic for the stability of the Empire, in

the opinion of the Roman historians. The response was

the elimination of both by the institution which was the

epitome of masculinity - the army.

To the Romans, femininity was equal to tyranny;

masculinity to order. The emphasized femininity of some

emperors within the sources elucidates not only what

Roman society considered to be feminine nature, but also

the propagandistic motivations of the Roman historians.

The perceived lack of stability on account of the

reigning emperors in each case drew the public eye away

from the activities of the women examined in this

 180
chapter, allowing them to step outside their socially

constructed limitations. It is only after the fact (and

in most cases long after the fact) that their actions

were reflected upon and then interpreted by the ancient

historians within the confines of the divisions of

gender-specific expectations. Poppaea, Marcia, and

Mamaea are three examples of how the Roman historians

attempted to explain and defend the distinctiveness of

male and female in an imperial culture that, in their

eyes, failed to uphold the traditional balance.

 CHAPTER IV

'THEY WILL BE YOUR SUPERIORS'

Conclusions

Survey a l l t h e laws with which your forefathers

restrained womanly license and made them
s u b j e c t t o t h e i r husbands; even with a l l t h e s e
b o n d s you c a n b a r e l y c o n t r o l t h e m . What o f
this? I f you s u p p o r t them t o s e i z e t h e s e bonds
one by one and wrench themselves free and
finally to be p l a c e d on p a r i t y with their
h u s b a n d s , do you t h i n k t h a t you w i l l be a b l e t o
e n d u r e them? As s o o n a s t h e y b e g i n t o b e y o u r
e q u a l s , t h e y w i l l be your s u p e r i o r s . 1

The women examined in this work were by no means

political equals to the men with whom they were

connected. It could be argued, however, that they were

nonetheless able to assume superior positions of power.

None of these women exercised legitimate political

authority (although a case could be made for Julia

1
The response of M. P o r t i u s Cato t o t h e r e q u e s t t o r e p e a l t h e Oppian
Law i n 195 BC. Recorded i n Livy, Ab Urbe Condita x x x i v . 3 . 1 - 3 :
"Recensete omnia m u l i e b r i a i u r a quibus l i c e n t i a m earum a d l i g a v e r i n t
maiores v e s t r y p e r quaeque eas s u b i e c e r i n t v i r i s ; quibus omnibus
c o n s t r i c t a s v i x tamen c o n t i n e r e p o t e s t i s . Quid? Si c a r p e r e s i n g u l a
e t e x t o r q u e r e e t e x a e q u a r i ad extremum v i r i s p a t i e m i n i , t o l e r a b i l e s
vobis eas fore c r e d i t i s ? Extemplo, simul p a r e s e s s e c o e p e r i n t ,
superiores erunt."

181
 182
Mamaea). 2 What these women demonstrated was that,

because of the gendered spheres constructed and enforced

within imperial society, they did not have to become the

equals of men in order to exercise power. What appeared

on the surface to be gendered limitations within the

religio-political system of imperial Rome could in fact

be manipulated into opportunities of influence and power

during times of instability or crisis. The influence

which these women wielded was unique to their position

and gender. No Christian man would have been able to be

so intimately connected to the emperor and exercise the

influence that these women did. Men of power and

authority in imperial Rome were too intricately connected

to the civil religion to have been able to work

surreptitiously for the Church without attracting the

full force of imperial law - as the case of Flavius

Clemens demonstrated in 95. Gendered boundaries which

strongly delineated what was the acceptable social

behavior of men and women within the public sphere were

encouraged and enforced not only by men, who appeared to

2
Cleve argues that the Severan women did not merely exercise power
through the authority of the men connected to them, but rather they
exercised legitimate political authority. He is in the minority
opinion: Robert L. Cleve, "Severus Alexander and the Severan Women"
(Ph.D. diss., University of California, Los Angeles, 1982).
 183
be the greatest beneficiaries of such laws and

traditions, but also by women. Some women, such as those

examined in this work, discovered the benefits of power

that women could wield because of their exclusion from

the religio-political system.

Authority was a strictly masculine construction

within imperial Roman society. Masculine terms such as

av8peioc and virtus demonstrated the underlying connection

between the construction of gender and language. It was

not the purpose of this study to examine in depth why

Roman society developed these strictly masculine terms

without providing a feminine alternative (or

incorporating the feminine within the masculine words).

Regardless of how or why these terms came about, by the

time of the early Empire, they nonetheless reflected what

had become an inherent mark of gender division within

Roman society. Although "gender history" as a field of

modern historical interpretation is still relatively new,

writers since the ancient period have recognized gender

as an important element in historical discourse.

When these women appeared to exceed the boundaries

of their gendered sphere, the memory of their actions

 184
were forever penned as contrary to the forces of nature.

The ancient historians and writers saw an undisputed link

between the gendered norms and historical consequence.

When emperors exuded the qualities and expectations of

manhood, the Empire flourished. When emperors failed,

and women attempted to fill the void, disaster followed,

even when the actions of the women brought about a

temporary return to what the historians understood was

the natural order - as in the cases of Marcia and Julia

Mamaea.

The application of gender to politics as they relate

to stability is a recurrent theme among the women

examined in this study. Men were to be masculine to be

true men; women were to be feminine to be true women.

Since men were the rulers in the Roman Empire, when they

failed to successfully display masculine qualities, they

were considered ill-qualified for their leadership role.

In order to remedy the situation of an effeminate

emperor, the masculine had to remove the emperor and

reassert the masculinity of his office. If a woman were

capable of removing the feminine emperor, her

classification could not be the same as his; it would be

confusing for a man who was considered feminine (bad) to

 185
be removed by a feminine woman, for they shared the same

gender category - the hero cannot be of the same quality

as the villain. So it followed that a feminine emperor

could only be displaced by a masculine force, hence the

attribution of masculinity to the woman capable of

carrying out such a task.

The simplest interpretation of the Roman

construction of gender roles, in regard to the specific

instances of Nero, Commodus, Elagabalus, and Alexander,

is that masculine and feminine did not necessarily

connote specific connection to physical reflections of

male and female (although Tacitus might disagree). The

Greek understanding of masculine as one who rules and

feminine as one who obeys is theoretically a construction

which exists outside of the biological sex of man and

woman. However, the construction of gendered concepts

was developed along biological lines: men were masculine,

women were feminine - or at least they should be,

according to the Romans. The questions which remained

and which the Roman historians sought to answer, were:

what did it mean to be masculine? And what did it mean

to be feminine?
 186
When women intervened, the ancient historians

described their womanliness as being consumed by the

masculine qualities necessary to accomplish their task.

Femininity remained absent from the respectful

construction of the ideal ruler or leader. Even in the

case of Alexander, while Mamaea was not portrayed in the

same masculine language as Poppaea and Marcia, she was

nonetheless an impediment to the proper exercise of

masculinity by the princeps - who the Romans began to see

as a boy unable to take his proper role of man. Because

of this, a change in leadership was necessary in order to

stabilize the proper balance between gender and good

governance.

One major conclusion can be drawn from the gendered

language and interpretations that the ancient historians

used. As the relationship between the imperial

government and the Christian community evolved, the

gender expectations did not. Women did not flee to

Christianity in order to avoid the dominance of male-

created gendered norms. As seen in examples of marriage

and virginity, Christianity continued the enforcement of

similar gendered spheres: women were expected to marry

and bear children, while men continued to publicly direct

 187
the affairs of state and religion. Even women who made

vows of perpetual virginity were called brides of Christ

and were expected to bear celestial children through

their religious devotion.

Until the adoption of Christianity by the emperors

in the fourth century, the Church partially depended on

the Roman construction of gender to provide a defense

against imperial harassment. Although these gendered

boundaries and the effectiveness of a woman's influence

was dependent upon the political and religious

environment in which they existed, Christianity survived,

in part, because of the enforcement of these gendered

norms.
 EPILOGUE

"POWER IS LIKE BEING A LADY"1

Otacilia, Cornelia Salonina, & Eutropia

Identity Crisis?:
Introductions and Limited Sources

Poppaea Sabina, Marcia, and Julia Mamaea had

demonstrated that in a crisis which placed the gendered

boundaries in question, women, who were expected to

demonstrate femininity, could assume and preserve the

masculine roles of the princeps. After the reign of

Alexander, the Empire was plunged into the Third Century

Crisis. From 235 to 285, the Empire experienced a

torrent of political, economic, military, and religious

instabilities exemplified by the ascension of roughly

fifty emperors, of whom only twenty-two were officially

recognized by the Senate. During the centuries before,

the gender crises under the emperors Nero, Commodus, and

Alexander were catalysts for the assertion of the

masculine expectation of the princeps by the women most

closely associated with those emperors. During the Third

1
This phrase is taken from a quote by Baroness Margaret Thatcher,
"Power is like being a lady. If you have to tell people you are,
you aren't."

188
 189
Century Crisis, the heart of the instability was

unrelated to the masculinity of the emperor in most

cases. However, the political turmoil may have allowed

certain women close to both the emperor and the Christian

movement to influence imperial policies because of the

political instability that engrossed and diverted the

attention of the military, political, and religious

establishments. Two women may have impacted imperial

policy toward the Christians through the assertion of

ordered gendered boundaries during a time of uncertainty

and disorder in the political arena. Otacilia Severa and

Cornelia Salonina were Christian empresses who had the

opportunities to take advantage of their gender to attain

a significant influence through means unavailable to most

men.

In examining the possible influence these two women

had over their husbands and the religio-political

policies of the imperial government, it is difficult to

ascertain their personal effectiveness. Since neither of

these two women left behind any writing of her own, and

because, compared to the women thus far examined, much

less has been preserved on these two empresses by

contemporary sources, the conclusions reached can only be

 190
based on indirect evidence. Nevertheless, connecting

these women to their actual and probable actions can shed

much light on understanding the Roman construction of

gender and its boundaries within times of political

crisis and peace. As will also be further explored and

specifically demonstrated in the case of a third woman,

Eutropia, who is examined at the conclusion of this

chapter, these gendered limitations fluctuated with the

perceived stability of the Empire.

Marcia Otacilia Severa was the wife of the emperor

Philip I the Arab (r. 244-249) and the mother of Philip

II, who co-ruled with his father from 247. Not much is

known of Otacilia's background, but it is assumed she was

of the Severan family, primarily on the basis of a

passing reference in Eusebius' Historia.2 Zosimus

mentioned that after Philip's ascension, he placed an

officer named Severianus as commander of the troops in

Moesia and Macedonia.3 Severianus was either Otacilia's

brother or father, a fact which supports Eusebius' claim

2
Euseb., Hist, eccl. vi.36. Eusebius refers to Philip and his wife,
Severa.
3
Zos., Historia Nova i.19.
 191
that she was of the Severan family.4 Eusebius directly

associated Otacilia's husband Philip with Christianity,

although not to the extent that the later historians, who

had built on his history, would.

Julia Cornelia Salonina was the wife, daughter-in-

law, and mother of emperors.5 Her husband, Gallienus (r.

260-268) began his rule as co-emperor with his father,

Valerian (r. 253-260) in 254. That same year, Salonina

was elevated to the titles of Augusta and Mater Castrorum

[Mother of the Camps]. 6 Like Otacilia, Salonina has long

been connected with Christianity and has enjoyed a

special place in early Christian literature.

Saints Philip and Gallienus?:

Philip's & Gallienus' Associations with Christianity

During the reigns of the Philips and Gallienus, the

Christians enjoyed relative peace in their relationship

to the imperial government. The apparent tranquility

4
Zosimus' term is KT|8£(UII<;, a term used for a connection by marriage,
and can be a brother-in-law or father-in-law.
5
Wife of Gallienus (r. 260-268); daughter-in-law of Valerian (r.253-
260); mother of the Caesars, Valerianus, Saloninus, and Marinianus.
6
Not much is known about the title, but it was especially employed
by the Severan dynasty, no doubt to connect itself to the loyalty of
the army. For more, see: Barbara Levick, Julia Domna: Syrian
Empress, ed. Ronnie Ancona and Sarah Pomeroy, Women of the Ancient
World (New York: Routledge, 2007), 42ff.
 192
enjoyed by the Christian movement during these reigns is

notable because the sources indicate that the tolerance

was in marked contrast to the previous or following

regimes. Christians enjoyed freedom from imperial

harassment during these reigns because the imperial

governments of the Philips and Gallienus chose either to

purposely ignore the movement or to actively halt

persecution already in progress. Some insight about the

relationship between the Christian community and the

imperial government can be surmised by examining the

state of the Church during these specific reigns and

connecting it to what is known about the imperial

household.

Given the tumult of the Third Century Crisis, it is

not surprising that there is little written on the

empresses during this time. However, with great caution,

the possible influence Otacilia and Salonina had upon

their respective emperors can be deduced, as well as an

understanding of how this influence protected the

Christian movement during unprecedented times of social,

political, and economic upheaval.

 In describing the state of imperial affairs in

relation to the Church in the mid-third century, Eusebius

wrote:

It is beyond our ability to describe fully in

worthy detail, that before the persecution of
our day, the honor and freedom for the pious
word toward the God of the universe proclaimed
through Christ, was accorded by all men, Greeks
and non-Greeks; and sure signs came from the
rulers who granted favors to our people,
entrusting them to govern provinces, freeing
them from the agony of sacrificing because of
their friendly opinion. What is necessary to
say about the imperial houses and of all the
rulers? Their households - wives and children
and servants - came together to practice openly
the divine word and faith to their face; these
they regarded with prominence and more
favorably than their fellow-servants, like the
famous Dorotheus, who surpassed all in his
devotion and faithfulness to them, and was more
highly honored than rulers and governors.
Together with him was the famous Gorgonius and
all those like them who had been deemed worthy
of the same honor because of the word of God;
and each church leader was honored by every
governor and leader. How can one describe the
multitudes that gathered and the masses who in
every city gathered on the famous concourses?
Because they were no longer satisfied with the
old buildings, more spacious churches were
built in all the cities. And as these things
progressed with the times and day by day
increasingly grew in greatness, no envy could
hinder them, nor was any evil spirit able to
slander or prevent them with human schemes, so
long as the divine and heavenly hand was
looking out for and keeping watch over, as a
worthy object, its own people.7

7
Euseb., Hist, eccl. viii.1.1-6.
 194
According to Eusebius, while the Empire struggled for

survival, the Church enjoyed a substantial period of

peace and prosperity. Given what is known about the

reigns of Philip the Arab and Gallienus, Eusebius'

summation of the Church should not immediately be written

off as embellishment by an inherently biased Christian

author.

The son of an Arab sheikh, Philip married Otacilia

probably some time around 2378 and had at least one

child, a son, Marcus Julius Philippus Severus. From 242-

244, Philip served as Prefect of Mesopotamia during the

Persian campaign of Gordian III (r. 238-244), and after

the death of the co-Praetorian Prefect Timesitheus9 in

243, Philip took Timesitheus' place. Soon after, Gordian

III died, and Philip was proclaimed Emperor by the

soldiers. Historians then and now still debate the role

Philip played in each of those deaths, if, indeed, any.10

8
Epit. de Caes. xxvni.3 says Philip II was killed at age 12, which
places his birth at about 237 or 238.
9
An equestrian who was father-in-law to Gordian, and co-Praetorian
Prefect with Philip's brother, Priscus.
10
While many classical authors contend that Philip engineered the
death of Timesitheus and the Emperor Gordian III, others are silent.
Some recent historians have asserted Philip's innocence and proposed
that later pro-Decius and/or pro-Constantine propaganda has
encouraged a negative image of Philip the Arab. For the traditional
view, see Lukas de Blois, Christian Korner and H.A. Pohlsander; for
the revisionists see: John York, Jr. and Yasmme Zahran.
 195
Philip's five-year reign is most noted for his overseeing

of the millennial celebrations of Rome in 248.X1 These

celebrations were Philip's last major task as emperor,

for in 249, the army proclaimed Decius emperor, and

Philip and his family were ousted from power.12 Philip

and his son Philip, whom he had just recently made co-

emperor, were put to the sword, and the five-year reign

of the Philippi was ended.13

When describing the ascension of Philip the Arab in

244, Eusebius wrote:

When after six whole years Gordian brought his

government of the Romans to an end, Philip,
together with his son Philip, took up rule.
Rumor is [Kaxe^ei Xoyoc,]14 that he, being a
Christian, wished on the day of the last
paschal vigil to join with the multitude m the
prayers at the church, but he was not permitted

11
The millennial celebration should have taken place m 247.
However, an invasion of the Danube provinces forced Philip to
postpone the festivities for a year.
12
Lukas de Blois, "The Reign of Philip the Arabian," Talanta 10/11
(1978-1979); Christian Korner, Philippus Arabs: Em Soldatenkaiser
in der Tradition des Antonimsch-Severischen Prmzipats, vol. 61,
Untersuchungen zur antiken Literatur und Geschichte (New York:
Walter de Gruyter, 2002); H.A. Pohlsander, "Philip the Arab and
Christianity," Historia 29, no. 4 (1980); John Marvin Jr. York, "The
Image of Philip the Arab," Historia 21 (1972); York, "Philip the
Arab: The First Christian Emperor of Rome" (Ph.D. diss., University
of Southern California, 1964); Yasmme Zahran, Philip the Arab: A
Study m Prejudice (London: Stacey International, 2001).
13
There is some disagreement among the original sources as to how
the Philippi were actually killed - whether in battle or murdered -
but it is not of concern in this study.
14
See below for more on the flexibility of this phrase. Similar to
Maier's translation, I have emphasized the usage of Xoyoq in this
context as uncertainty on Eusebius' behalf by utilizing the
translation "rumor."
 196
to enter by the one presiding at the time,
until he confessed and joined with those who
were judged to be in sins and were occupying
the place of penitence. For otherwise, had he
not done so, he would never have been received
because of the many charges against him. And
it is said that he eagerly obeyed, displaying
by his actions how genuine and pious was his
disposition toward the fear of God.15

This story raises important questions about the

relationship of Philip to the Christian movement as well

as the validity of Eusebius' account. Because of

Eusebius' record, a debate about Philip's Christianity

has consumed nearly all literature concerned with his

reign. Four issues are central to this debate: 1) the

accounts of Eusebius and those who followed him; 2) the

letters of Origen; 3) the bones of St. Pontian; and 4)

the persecution of Christians in Alexandria.

The likelihood that a Roman emperor in the mid-third

century would openly embrace the Christian faith by

publicly confessing his sins to a Christian congregation

is small. Eusebius' text reveals that the author shared

this skepticism. Following the first sentence, Eusebius

writes, "tomov Kocxexei Xoyoc, Xpicraocvov..."16 The translation of

this short passage differs amongst the three major

15
Euseb., Hist. eccl. vi.34.
16
Euseb., Hist. eccl. vi.34.
 197
English translations of Eusebius' Historia. In his 1932

translation for the Loeb Classical Library, J.E.L. Oulton

translated "Kocxexei Xoyoc," as "it is recorded".17 G.A.

Williamson, in his 1965 translation (now the Penguin

Classic), chose "there is reason to believe";18 while Paul

Maier, in his 1999 translation wrote, "word has it".19

Williamson and Maier's translations are somewhat similar:

they both imply a sense of uncertainty on the part of

Eusebius - almost a warning about what Eusebius himself

believed concerning the credibility of the claim.20

Oulton's translation seems to imply the existence of a

definitive historical record - a record which has failed

to turn up in any other pre-Eusebian source. Placed

within the context of the Third Century Crisis and his

later stories about the imperial couple, Eusebius'

caution is understandable. Later writers, like Paulus

Orosius, were not as skeptical as Eusebius: "He [Philip]

17
J.E.L. Oulton, ed., Eusebius: The Ecclesiastical History, Volume
II, vol. 265, LCL (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2000
[Orig. 1932]).
18
G.A. Williamson, ed., Eusebius: The History of the Church (New
York: Penguin Books, 1989 (Orig. 1965)).
19
Paul L. Maier, ed., Eusebius: The Church History (Grand Rapids:
Kregel Publications, 1999).
20
As argued in Korner, Philippus Arabs: Em Soldatenkaiser in Der
Tradition Des Antoninisch-Severischen Prmzipats, 261: "Durch die
Hmweise KOCTEXEI ^oyoi; und Xiyzxai vermerkt Eusebios ausdrucklich und
wiederholt, dass er e m Gerucht wiedergibt."
 191
21
was the first of all the emperors to be a Christian

Jerome, too, was sure of Philip's Christianity; however,

he believed Philip II to be the first Christian emperor,

not his father, Philip I.22 Eusebius' account offers more

evidence that connects Philip to the Christian movement

as well, and gives evidence to the notion that perhaps it

was not Philip's Christianity that has earned him mention

in the annals of Christian legend, but rather the old

adage of the "good old days."

When introducing the reign of Decius (r. 249-251),

who immediately followed Philip as emperor, Eusebius

wrote: "Because of his [Decius'] hostility to Philip, he

began a persecution against the churches."23 There is no

explicit reference to Philip's Christianity in this

sentence; however, there is an insinuation that Philip's

reign was connected to the Church. Even with this

implication, Eusebius made no claim that Philip himself

was a Christian, only that Decius persecuted the church

on account of his hatred toward Philip. Furthermore,

21
Oros. , Historiarum Adversum Paganos Libri VII, vn.20.2; "hie
primus lmperatorum omnium Christianus fuit." Orosius then goes so
far as to claim that during the millennial celebrations in Rome,
Philip did the celebration in honor of Christ and the Church1
22
Jer., De vir. i l l . liv. The reasons for the inconsistency in
relating Christianity to either Philip I or his son, Philip II, is
explored below beginning on page 202.
23
Euseb., Hist. eccl. vi.39.1.
 199
Eusebius used the ambiguous phrasing, Kaxe/ei XoyoQ in

prefacing the story of Philip mentioned earlier in his

History. Why would Eusebius, who undoubtedly held that

God was using the Roman Empire to bring about the

consummation of Christianity's triumph, deliberately

avoid connecting that triumph to Philip the Arab? Some

would argue that Eusebius had a "tendency to omit or

gloss over anything which might detract from the glory of

Constantine as the first Christian emperor."24 However,

there are more probable reasons for Eusebius' reluctance

to brand Philip as the first Christian emperor.

Writing in the late-fifth century, Zosimus, who was

no friend to the Christians, introduced Philip in his

Historia Nova as "a native of Arabia, a worthless

nation."25 He then proceeded to give an account of

Philip's sloth, greed, lust for power, incompetence,

nepotism, and cronyism.26 Some have argued that Zosimus'

poor treatment of Philip was in reaction to Philip's

Christianity.27 It is difficult to know for certain if

Philip's Christianity was a motivation for Zosimus'

24
York, "Philip the Arab: The First Christian Emperor of Rome", 96.
25
Zos., Historia Nova i.18.
26
Zos., Historia Nova i.19-23.
27
York, "Philip the Arab: The First Christian Emperor of Rome", 89f,
Zahran, Philip the Arab: A Study in Prejudice, 109f.
 200
summation of Philip's reign, especially since Philip's

Christianity is neither explicitly mentioned nor even

alluded to within the Historia Nova. The majority of

Zosimus' account of Philip is devoted to his ineptitude

as a ruler, and it is blamed on his Arabian origin,

rather than his religious convictions. Zosimus' love of

Decius as the pagan ruler par excellence is very apparent

within his History and forms a focal point for

understanding Philip's personal relationship to the

Church.

As mentioned above, Eusebius' account of Decius was

quite the opposite of Zosimus' and insinuated that Decius

had begun his persecution against Christianity because of

Philip's connection to the Church.28 Shortly after making

this assertion, Eusebius quoted from a letter written by

Bishop Dionysius of Alexandria to Bishop Fabius of

Antioch, in which Dionysius described the change of

reigns from Philip to Decius as "the change from the

reign that had been kinder to us." 29 These two statements

embody the motivation for attributing Christianity to

Philip the Arab. The dichotomy between the reigns of

Euseb., Hist, eccl. vi.39.1.

Euseb., Hist. eccl. vi.41.9.
 201
Philip and Decius, at least in regard to the relationship

between the Church and the imperial government, no doubt

encouraged many Christian writers to look with nostalgia

back to the days before the first systematic

persecution.30 The comparison of Philip to Decius is key

to understanding the later portrayal of Philip by the

Christian authors who followed Eusebius.

The pagan historian Zosimus demonstrated his bias in

opposite fashion to the later-Christian writers by

emphasizing that even before the end of Philip's reign,

the soldiers recognized that Decius "both would look

after the common good better than Philip and would

effortlessly surpass him in political excellence and

military experience."31 This was no doubt on account of

the fact that Decius was "a man of distinguished family

and rank besides being adorned with every virtue."32 The

comparison between the reigns of Philip and Decius,

especially by Christian authors, implies some kind of

relationship between the Christian community and the

30
This is also argued in: Korner, Philippus Arabs: Ein
Soldatenkaiser in der Tradition des antoninisch-Severischen
Prinzipats, 260-76.
31
Zos., Historia Nova i.21.
32
Zos., Historia Nova i.21. This pro-Decian history is also
supported by Zonaras, albeit he is not as pro-Decius as Zosimus
(Zonar., Epitome Historiarum xii.19)
 202
imperial family. There is nothing reliable to indicate

that Philip personally was the connection between the

Church and imperial government, but there is, however,

much that lends credence to the idea that there was a

relationship between his wife Otacilia and Christianity.

In recording the list of writings of Origen's later

life, Eusebius claimed that "[a] letter of his [Origen's]

to the emperor Philip himself is extant, another to his

wife, Severa, and various other letters."33 The letters

of Origen to the emperor and empress are not unique.

Justin Martyr, Melito of Sardis, Apolinarius of

Hierapolis,34 and certainly many others, wrote letters and

treatises addressed to the Roman emperors, thereby

demonstrating little else than a Christian practice of

addressing their works to the sitting emperors. The

existence of these letters is not an indication of any

kind of intimate relationship between the Christian

writers and the imperial government. The true value of

Origen's letters lies in the interpretation of them by

Jerome. In his De Viris Illustribus, Jerome made a

peculiar statement that Origen "sent letters to Emperor

33
Euseb., Hist. eccl. vi.36.3.
34
See: Euseb., Hist. eccl. iv.18, 26-27.
 203
Philip, the first of the Roman rulers to become

Christian, and to his mother [mater/pir\zr\p] , which are

still extant today."35 Further down the page, Jerome

remarked: "It is unnecessary, however, to speak of the

cruelty of the persecution, which was raised against the

Christians under Decius, because he had violent rage

against the religion of Philip, whom he had slain."36 As

stated above, Eusebius claimed that Origen wrote letters

to "to the emperor Philip himself, and another to his

wife [ya\iE%y\] Severa."37 The nouns for mother and wife

used by each source are not ambiguous, and therefore, it

is difficult to interpret them in a fashion that

reconciles the two sources with each other.38 However,

there are conjectures that can be made based on other

evidence.

After his proclamation as emperor by the army,

Philip quickly secured peace with the Persians in the

east and headed to Rome. If Philip were a Christian and

since he spent the majority of his reign in Rome, then it

seems logical to assume some kind of relationship between

35
Jer., De vir. i l l . liv.
36
Jer., De vir. i l l . liv.
37
Euseb., Hist. eccl. vi.36.3.
38
As was done in the case with Flavia Domitilla's relationship to
Clemens and to Domitian in chapter two.
 204
the emperor and the Church in Rome would have existed.

However, aside from a medieval legend, according to which

Philip was baptized by the Pope St. Fabian around the

time of the millennial celebrations,39 only one story

stands out that hints at any connection between the

emperor and the Christian community in Rome. The account

involves the Roman Bishop Fabian and his effort to move

the bones of his martyred predecessor St. Pontian.

Pontian was exiled from Rome to Sardinia in 235 where he

later died.40 Fabian wished to return the relics of

Pontian to Rome, but according to Roman law, moving a

grave required an official permit and an animal sacrifice

to the gods.41 This would, of course, have proved

problematic for a Christian bishop. Not only would the

bishop have had to attain an official legal document, but

he would also have had to violate foundational principles

of his faith by participating in a pagan sacrifice. It

is possible that Philip allowed the Pope to move the

grave without fulfilling the pagan rituals according to

39
ActaSS, St. Fabiano (20 January).
40
Liber Pontificalis, xix.2.
41
York, "Philip the Arab: The First Christian Emperor of Rome", 108-
09.
 205
the law - hence Philip's continued decline in popularity

among the pagan majority.42

There is room for a more feasible explanation,

however. As there is no record of Philip giving

permission to the see of Rome to move the buried remains

of the martyr Pontian, the argument that permission was

given is problematic. Philip's permission was not

necessary for the action to be completed - only for the

action to be completed legally. The stubbornness of the

martyrs and the later leaders during the Diocletianic

persecution who refused to hand over the Christian

Scriptures, or in some cases replaced them with clever

decoys, are but a few examples of Christian defiance of

secular authority. Christians had been commanded to

"obey God rather than men."43 The simple reasoning that

the returned bones indicate that it must have been done

according to the law is to assume a connection between

the Church and imperial authority that the evidence does

not support. This relationship is further complicated

by events in Alexandria around the end of Philip's reign.

42
ibid.
43
Acts 5:29.
 206
Eusebius preserves a letter written by Dionysius of

Alexandria to Fabius, Bishop of Antioch, in which

Dionysius described firsthand the persecution against

Christians in Alexandria in late 248 or early 249.

Dionysius wrote that "it was not with the imperial edict

[of Decius] that the persecution began against us, but it

preceded it by a whole year."44 This incident proves to

be problematic in establishing Philip's reign as a model

of Christian integration in imperial rule. Some have

asserted that it is precisely because of Philip's

Christianity that the Christians in Alexandria were

singled out for persecution.45 However, this explanation

is lacking, given the many times Christians were

persecuted under the previous pagan emperors.

If the persecution was as terrible as Dionysius

described, why would Philip, a rumored Christian, or at

least a Christian sympathizer, not carry out punishment

against those who started it? Indeed, there appears to

be no involvement whatsoever on the part of the emperor -

either in instigating the persecution, or in dealing with

its aftermath. One could argue that the millennial

44
Euseb., Hist, eccl., vi.41.1.
45
York, "Philip the Arab: The First Christian Emperor of Rome", 73-
74; Zahran, Philip the Arab: A Study in Prejudice, 123.
 207
celebrations or the revolt of Pacatianus in Moesia kept

the emperor too busy. However, it is unlikely that the

celebration would have prevented the emperor from

ensuring order in his realm - as Philip had already

postponed the games which were to occur the year before,

thanks to an invasion of the Danube provinces.46 As for

the Pacatianus rebellion, Philip remained at Rome, having

dispatched Decius instead.47 Furthermore, throughout the

five-year reign of Philip, nothing was done to alter the

legal standing of the Christians.48

What then can be said about Philip's connection to

the Christian Church? When all the evidence is brought

together, Jerome's small reference to Philip may hold the

most logical answer - an answer which, perhaps

unbeknownst to him, incorporates Roman understandings of

gender and the religio-political system of imperial

culture. Jerome indicated, contrary to Eusebius, that

Origen had written letters to Philip and his mother, not

Philip and his wife. Furthermore, Jerome also indicated

that Decius carried out a persecution against the

46
Korner, Philippus Arabs: Ein Soldatenkaiser in der Tradition des
antoninisch-Severischen Prinzipats, 248; Zahran, Philip the Arab: A
Study in Prejudice, 119.
47
York, "Philip the Arab: The First Christian Emperor of Rome", 75.
48
Timothy D. Barnes, "Legislation against the Christians," JRS 58,
no. 1 and 2 (1968): 43.
 208
Christians on account of his hatred for Philip's

religion,49 not a hatred of Philip himself.50 With no

further evidence to demonstrate a connection between

Philip I and Christianity, one can assume that the

Emperor Philip to whom Origen wrote was most likely

Philip II, son of Philip I. Otacilia's Christianity is

not debated, yet she is rarely seen as the impetus behind

the treatment of Christians during the reign of her

husband and son. Like the case with Julia Mamaea and

Alexander, Otacilia may have used the authority of her

son, and perhaps also her husband, in ensuring an

environment conducive to growth for the Christian

movement in the Third Century Crisis. When Christians

looked back on the reign before the persecutions of the

third century, they saw Philip as a stark contrast to the

first systematic persecution under Decius. The simplest

explanation was to attribute the days for which they

pined to Philip I. However, the absence of an

attribution of Christianity for Philip within Eusebius'

account combined with Jerome's emphasis on the importance

49
J e r . , De vir. ill. l i v : "...eo quod i n r e l i g i o n e m P h i l i p p i
desaeviret..."
50
Euseb., Hist. eccl. vi.39.1: "oq 5TI TO\J npoq <S>iXmnov e.%0ovq evem...
 209
of Philip II, encourages an alternate explanation for the

Philippan Peace of Christianity.

Eusebius was not shy in asserting that things were

peaceful for the most part during the mid-third century

for the Christian movement. He was also not eager to

indulge his readers in what he understood to be

unsubstantiated rumors about the religious convictions of

the Roman emperor Philip I. Relating these two points,

Eusebius' account, in connection with the later accounts

which built off of his Historia, implies a possible

intervention by the empress Otacilia in the policies of

her husband and her son. Through this connection, the

exercise of gendered boundaries becomes prevalent even in

the absence of gendered language in the sources. It can

be surmised that the Church enjoyed peace during the

reign of the Philips, not on account of a Christian

Philip, but more logically on account of a Christian

Otacilia.

Following the deaths of Trebonianus Gallas and

Aemilianus in 253, Valerian assumed the throne and had

the Senate appoint his son, Gallienus, Caesar and co-

Augustus. The persecution of the Christian Church that

had begun under Decius was reignited during the reign of

 210
Valerian.51 In 260, however, Valerian became the first

Roman emperor to be captured in battle and was

subsequently executed by the Persians. From 260 to 268,

the Empire was ruled by Gallienus, who, Eusebius wrote,

"ruled more prudently and immediately ended the

persecution against us by an edict."52 Eusebius recorded

the edict:

The Emperor Caesar Publius Licinius Gallienus

Pius Felix Augustus to Dionysius and Pinnas and
Demetrius and the other bishops. I have
commanded that the acts of kindness of my
bounty be proclaimed throughout all the
universe, in such manner that they [non-
Christians] should withdraw from the places of
[Christian] worship, and therefore you may also
use the decree in my rescript so that no one
may trouble you. And according to the power
allowed to you to accomplish this, which has
been conceded by me for a long time, and
therefore Aurelius Quirinius, who is my chief
minister, will observe the decree given by me. 53

This edict afforded the Christians freedom to worship and

returned their property. In addition to the edict,

Eusebius also provided a letter from Dionysius of

Alexandria to Hermammon and the Church in Egypt in which

51
For some brief accounts on the persecution of Valerian, see:
Euseb., Hist, eccl. vii.10-12; Christopher J. Haas, "Imperial
Religious Policy and Valerian's Persecution of the Church, A.D. 257-
260," Church History 52, no. 2 (Jun. 1983); Paul Keresztes, "Two
Edicts of the Emperor Valerian," Vig. Chr. 29, no. 2 (Jun. 1975).
52
Euseb., Hist. eccl. vii.13.
53
Euseb., Hist. eccl. vii.13.
 211
he described the reign of Gallienus in relation to

Christianity:

For I see, that indeed those ungodly

[emperors], once well-known, after not much
time have become nameless, but he who is more
hallowed and filled with more love for God has
passed seven years, and now at this time is
finishing a ninth year, in which we may keep
the festival.54

These two sources indicate that Christians noticed a

shift in the relationship between the imperial government

and the Christian community. Begun by Gallienus,

Christians experienced freedom from imperial persecution

for the next forty years.

The question which historians must ask in relation

to this edict is: "Was Gallienus' edict one of

toleration?" Given the record of this edict within the

Christian historical tradition, it was more than likely

not an edict of toleration.55 In the greater narrative of

Christian history, Lukas de Blois correctly summarized

the reign of Gallienus: "The time of Gallienus was by no

means as great a turning point in the history of the

54
Euseb., Hist, eccl. vii.23.
55
Lukas de Blois, The Policy of the Emperor Gallienus, ed. J.G.P.
Best, A.B. Breebaart, and M.F. Jongkees-Vos, vol. VII, Studies of
the Dutch Archaeological and Historical Society (Leiden: E.J. Brill,
1976), 177-81. Especially this remark: "Had Gallienus issued an
edict of toleration his reign would have been of far greater
significance for the various aspects of Christian life" (180).
 212
church as the time of Commodus and the Severi or of

Constantine the Great."56 Concerning the nature of the

organization of the Christian communities and the

recognition of the distinction between the clergy and

laity, this is certainly true. If the policy of

Gallienus was not one of toleration in the sense of the

later centuries, then what was the purpose of his edict?

There are currently two ways of interpreting this edict.

One, espoused by a number of historians,57 holds that

through his prescript, Gallienus officially recognized

the Christian communities as legal entities within the

Empire. On the other side, Lukas de Blois argued that

Gallienus' policy simply "acknowledged openly what most

of his predecessors had acknowledged tacitly: that the

Christian communities possessed churches and cemeteries

of their own and had the use of goods and buildings in

the possession of rich community members."58

Gallienus' motivations behind his decree can be

debated. A multitude of political, philosophical, and

religious reasons can be used to explain Gallienus'

sudden kindness toward the Christian communities after

56
Ibid., 179.
57
See those cited by de Blois: Ibid., 181 (fn 31).
58
Ibid., 181.
 213
59
his father's capture and execution. Connected to any

theory, however, is that nearly, if not all, instances of

popular uprisings against Christian communities were

accompanied by general riots or insurrections. Lukas de

Blois' account of Gallienus summarized the debate by

conglomerating the different theories into an estimate of

Gallienus' possible motivations:

Gallienus put an end to Valerian's persecution

of the Christians because he wanted to allay a
source of trouble in the empire, because he
wanted to win over the large group of
Christians in the eastern parts of the empire
from Macrianus60 and because he wanted to
prevent them from becoming pro-Persian.
Moreover, the persecution of Christians was
ill-suited to his conception of his emperorship
and he may well have feared the vengeance of
the Christian God.61

While this summation of Gallienus' possible motivations

is seemingly all-encompassing in regard to the multiple

theories which have been offered over the centuries, it

still neglects one important aspect of Gallienus' life

that could well have had some influence over his reign -

his Christian wife, Cornelia Salonina.

59
Ibid., 181-85.
60
Macrianus was a usurper who was acclaimed emperor by the army in
Mesopotamia after Valerian's capture by the Persians in 260. He was
defeated by Gallienus in 261.
61
Blois, The Policy of the Emperor Gallienus, 185.
 During the reigns of both Philip the Arab and

Gallienus, it is undeniable that the Christian community-

at-large enjoyed a time of relative peace and freedom

from interference by the imperial government. It can be

argued that because of the Third Century Crisis, the

focus of the emperors was concentrated on the economic

and political aspects of imperial rule, and therefore the

Christians seemingly slipped under the radar - avoiding

the attention of the imperial government because the

emperor was far too occupied in ensuring his own

authority and survival. However, this narrow

interpretation neglects a commonality shared by both

Philip and Gallienus: both emperors had Christian wives.

The coincidence is too strong to simply ignore, and as

can be supported by the sources available, it is

reasonable to assume that these women were able to

project an influence over their husbands that ensured an

environment conducive to growth of the Christian

communities in the Empire.

 215
She's a Lady:
Femininity and the Exercise of Power in the Third Century
Crisis

The distinctive emphases on the peace and stability

of Christianity during the reigns of Philip the Arab and

Gallienus by Eusebius and other early Christian writers

implies something beyond mere coincidence or an

assumption that the emperor was Christian. This is

especially true, given the historical tradition that the

wives of each of these emperors were Christians.

Otacilia Severa and Cornelia Salonina provide interesting

perspectives into gender relations within the Third

Century Crisis. Although scant, the sources available

demonstrate that these two empresses took advantage of

their femininity as defined by Roman culture, and through

it, exercised considerable control over imperial policies

concerned with Christianity. Unlike the women examined

in chapter three, Otacilia and Salonina did not attract

the ire of later writers by bending their gendered

spheres and thereby giving reason to be accused of

disregarding what was a proper exercise of one's gender.

Instead, if each one exercised influence through her

emotional attachment to the emperor, then in the eyes of

 216
the Romans, these women acted as women ought to act in

order to manipulate their husbands to follow their wills.

There are numerous examples in Roman history where

women asserted themselves over and against a male-

dominated religio-political system and sealed their fates

in the annals of history as transgressors of what was

proper behavior for a woman.62 Then there are numerous

other examples of women who asserted themselves over and

against a male-dominated religio-political system and

sealed their fates in the annals of history as paragons

of feminine virtue and honor.63 It was not the acts of

defiance, influence, or seduction which caused the

ancient historians to pen indelibly these women as

examples of iniquity within society. Rather, it was how

the historians interpreted the actions of these women as

either in accordance with, or in defiance of, their

socially-expected gendered spheres. Otacilia Severa and

Cornelia Salonina did not earn the ire of the ancient

historians as did Poppaea, Marcia, and Julia Mamaea,

because Otacilia and Salonina effectively carried out

62
For example: Sempronia (wife of Catiline), Agrippina the Younger,
and Marcia. For more, see: Richard A. Bauman, Women and Politics in
Ancient Rome (New York: Routledge, 1992) .
63
For example: the Sabine Women, Lucretia, Verginia, and Livia (wife
of Augustus). See also Bauman cited in the previous footnote.
 217
their tasks of Christian patronage within the boundaries

of what was expected of women in the third-century

Empire. The fact that these women lived and operated in

one of the most unstable periods of Roman history also

gave advantage to their task at influencing imperial

policy.

It is unlikely that Philip I was a Christian, yet

Christians seem to have enjoyed a remarkable peace during

his reign. Jerome provided a hint as to why with his

emphasis on a Christian Philip II and his mother the

empress Otacilia. Assuming Jerome is correct, and it was

Philip II and Otacilia who were the Christians in the

imperial family, suppositions can be made concerning the

relationship between the Church and imperial government

as well as the extent to which Otacilia could exercise

the limitations of her gendered sphere for the advantage

of the Christian community. There are two issues which

connect Christianity to the imperial family which were

mentioned above, but they must be reexamined in light of

Otacilia's influence: 1) Origen's letter to Otacilia and

a Philip; and 2) the persecutions at Alexandria.

Origen's letters to Otacilia and Philip are

reminiscent of his meeting with Julia Mamaea roughly a

 218
64
decade or so earlier. Eusebius described Mamaea as a

"religious woman" (GeoaePeoxaxTi yuvri) .65 There is no mention

of Otacilia as a religious woman, nor even one directly-

claiming her Christianity. Otacilia's Christianity is

asserted based on the letters of Origen. This assertion

of Otacilia's Christianity, although based upon little

written evidence, can be affirmed by context. Philip II

and Otacilia as the intended recipients of Origen's

letters make more sense given that Otacilia's influence

over her own child would be greater than over any other

person. Besides general assumptions, Cornelia and the

Gracchi, Agrippina the Younger and Nero, and the Severan

women and their children suffice as examples

demonstrative of a mother's hold over her children in

Roman literature. However, even if the letters were

addressed to Philip I, the conclusions remain the same.

Otacilia's Christianity can be assumed based upon the

context of the relative peace for the Christians,

Origen's letters recorded by Eusebius and Jerome, and the

Roman understanding of gendered spheres.

64
See chapter 3.
65
Euseb., Hist, eccl. vi.21; Jerome used "religiosam feminam" in his
De vir. i l l . liv.
 219
The Christian Church enjoyed some type of imperial

favor during the reign of Philip I and his son. By the

third century, the Christians were no longer an unknown

entity within the Empire. For the imperial government to

be completely oblivious to the growing numbers and

strength of the Church is inconceivable and contrary to

sources demonstrating an increasing familiarity by

imperial authorities through the centuries.66 Otacilia's

Christianity can be assumed because it makes sense,

whereas Philip's can be questioned because it does not.

This explanation, of course, raises the concern that the

reasons for which Philip's Christianity is denied - peace

of the Church, Origen's letters, Eusebius' references -

Otacilia's is affirmed. However, as has been

demonstrated thus far, the religious convictions of a

noblewoman were of little consequence to the stability of

the religio-political system of the Empire. The gendered

understanding of religion and politics in Roman society

allowed a certain level of freedom in regard to religion

for empresses, while the emperors' lives were inseparable

from the religio-political system. In addition, the

Third Century Crisis, much like the crises of gender

66
As seen in Pliny's letters to Trajan (c.111-113).
 220
explored in chapter three, could have provided an

opportunity for women like Otacilia to wield considerable

influence over issues most considered to be disconnected

from the important problems connected to the political,

economic, and military stability of the Empire. It would

not be until the reign of Decius, and even more so during

the reign of Diocletian, that Christianity shifted from

being unconnected to the Crisis, to being the problem

which the government believed it had to address.

Regardless of Otacilia's intelligence or political

shrewdness, a woman's ability to influence imperial

policy was always limited to outside forces. The Roman

construction of gender created too many obstacles for

women to be considered recognized sources of legitimate

power. This limitation is seen especially in the

incident at Alexandria during the end of Philip's reign.

Dionysius, the Bishop of Alexandria, wrote an

aforementioned letter to Fabius, Bishop of Antioch, about

the persecution of Decius that followed Philip's reign.

In the letter, Dionysius gave clues to the circumstances

surrounding the problems in his city:

It was not with the imperial edict [of January

250] that the persecution began among us, but
preceded it by a whole year, and that prophet
 and maker of evils for this city, whoever that
one was, set in motion and stirred up the
heathen multitude against us, fanning the
flames of their native superstition. Provoked
by him and every unholy power, they conceived
that the only pious form of worship was the
thirsting for our blood.67

Two details from Dionysius' letter connect the incident

at Alexandria with Otacilia and her influence during the

reign of her husband and son. First, the persecution in

Alexandria definitely began during the reign of Philip

and not Decius. Second, the instigator of the

persecution was not the imperial government.

The imperial edict to which Dionysius referred is

the one issued by Decius in January 250, which required

all Roman citizens to sacrifice to the gods in an effort

to appease them and end the crises afflicting the

Empire.68 As mentioned above, this is a stain on the

record of Philip as an emperor who favored, or even just

tolerated Christians. However, this incident is

demonstrative of the limitations of imperial power and

gendered influence during the Third Century Crisis.

Philip, like all the emperors during the Third Century

Crisis, spent the majority of his reign attempting to

67
Euseb., Hist. eccl. vi.41.1-2.
68
Barnes, "Legislation against the Christians," 43f.
consolidate his power and survive long enough to die a

peaceful death. His reign was plagued with unrest and

instability - two major invasions of the frontier and

five attempted usurpations, the last of which was

successful.69 Given this volatile atmosphere, it is not

surprising that Philip was unable to control a popular

uprising against the Christians in Alexandria. It is

also not surprising, that Otacilia, regardless of her

level of influence, was unable to have an impact either.

The limitations of Philip and Otacilia in protecting

the Christian community in Alexandria stem from the

source of the violence. Dionysius poetically referred to

the instigator of the riot as a prophet who conjured up

evil in the city against the Christians. Whether he is

referring to an actual person or a demon is not certain.

What matters in this example is that the participants in

the violence against the Christians were the people of

Alexandria, not the government. During this time of

crisis, Otacilia was no more capable of controlling the

local populations than her husband or son. While crises

provided many opportunities for the manipulation of

69
During Philip's reign, there were invasions of Pannonia and
Moesia, as well as five usurpers to the throne: Pacatianus,
Jotapianus, Silbannacus, Sponsianus, and Decius.
 223
gendered boundaries, they did not create unlimited ones.

The political crisis of the third century proved too

great for the empress to protect Christians in all parts

of the Empire, especially places in which Christians made

up a significant minority.

In addition, this incident places Decius'

persecution into better context. The persecution in

Alexandria demonstrates that Decius may have built off

perceived popular sentiment and such sentiment possibly

even experienced in the army. This makes the statements

of Eusebius and Jerome more understandable - Decius may

indeed have hated Philip and the Christians. Because of

the outbreak of popular persecution in Alexandria, Decius

may have sensed a general feeling of hatred against the

minor religious group and had seen the reign of his

predecessor as the cause of the instability connected to

Christianity's conflict with the pagan masses.

Connecting Philip to the instability which the Christians

seemed to provoke no doubt incited Decius' personal

hatred toward Philip, and later-Christian writers built

up that hatred in an effort to emphasize a distinct

dichotomy between the two in regard to Church-State

relations.
 224
Dionysius described Gallienus not as a Christian,

but rather in opposition to his third-century

predecessors as someone "who is holier and loves God

more."70 Other than this brief assertion of his tolerance

for Christianity, there are no references made that

branded Gallienus a Christian. In addition, much like

Otacilia, there are no specific ancient references to

Salonina's Christianity either, although she has always

been counted as a Christian.71 The emphasis on the peace

enjoyed by the Christians, specifically in the halting of

the Decian and Valerian persecutions, in conjunction with

what is known concerning the relationship between

Gallienus and his wife, lends evidence to support the

possibility of Salonina's Christianity and a possible

pro-Christian influence over imperial policy.

Salonina is only referenced in relation to her

husband, and in all cases the purpose is to demonstrate

that Salonina was a woman "whom Gallienus loved to

distraction."72 During Gallienus' reign, the Christians

70
E u s e b . , Hist. eccl. v i i . 2 3 : "6 8e oauotepoq KOU 0iXo0ecoTepoq"
71
A reference which emphasizes the Christianity of Salonina through
coinage: William Smith and Samuel Cheetham, eds., A Dictionary of
Christian Antiquities (Hartford: The J.B. Burr Publishing Co.,
1880), 1274f.
72
SHA, Gallien. xxi.3 ("quam is perdite dilexit"). This is echoed
in Epit. de Caes. xxxiii.l; Aur. Vict., Caes. xxxiii.6.
acquired a reprieve from Valerian's persecution, and
entered a period of about forty years of r e l a t i v e peace
between the Church and the imperial government. Although
the sources are not e x p l i c i t , conjecture can be made t h a t
on account of his love for Salonina, Gallienus took
measures to end the suffering of the C h r i s t i a n s in h i s
Empire. This e s p e c i a l l y seems probable when taken in
conjunction with the other p o s s i b l e p o l i t i c a l motivations
mentioned above.
By the reign of Gallienus, the C h r i s t i a n s may have
numbered s l i g h t l y more than one m i l l i o n , or roughly two
percent of the t o t a l population, and they were growing. 73
Two percent of a population i s not a large minority, but
they had already penetrated the upper echelons of
society 7 4 and the majority of these C h r i s t i a n s lived in
the eastern p a r t of the Empire, where Gallienus needed

73
Rodney S t a r k , " R e c o n s t r u c t i n g t h e Rise of C h r i s t i a n i t y : The Role
of Women," Sociology of Religion 56, no. 3 (Autumn 1995): 229-31;
S t a r k , The Rise of Christianity: A Sociologist Reconsiders History
( P r i n c e t o n , NJ: P r i n c e t o n U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1996), 6-7. Stark
e s t i m a t e s t h e g r o w t h - r a t e of t h e C h r i s t i a n s t o be about 40% per
decade (3.4% per y e a r ) , which i s roughly e q u i v a l e n t t o t h e growth of
Mormonism t o d a y .
74
In a d d i t i o n t o b i s h o p s , p r e s b y t e r s , and deacons, V a l e r i a n ' s e d i c t
of p e r s e c u t i o n i n 258 a l s o s p e c i f i c a l l y t a r g e t e d s e n a t o r s ,
e q u e s t r i a n s , matrons, and i m p e r i a l c i v i l s e r v a n t s . See: W.H.C.
Frend, The Rise of Christianity (Philadelphia: Fortress Press,
1984), 326f; Haas, " I m p e r i a l R e l i g i o u s P o l i c y and V a l e r i a n ' s
P e r s e c u t i o n of t h e Church, A.D. 257-260"; K e r e s z t e s , "Two E d i c t s of
t h e Emperor V a l e r i a n . "
support in his struggle against the usurper, Macrianus.75

Given this political situation and his previous policies

of appeasing border peoples, Gallienus may have ended the

persecution in order to gain the support of the

Christians in the East.76 Salonina's role in this may

have been very similar to Poppaea' s in defense of the

Jews in Fire of Rome in 64. 77 If Gallienus were looking

for a way to gain the upper hand in his war against

Macrianus, then Salonina may have proven valuable in

informing Gallienus of the growing religious movement

which was suffering at the hands of his father' s

policies. She may have further suggested that if

Macrianus were to grant concessions to the Christians,

the Christians would put their support behind the usurper

similar to how the Palmyrene Empire had granted

concessions to the Jewish community after it had broken

away from the Roman Empire (260-273).78

Otacilia and Salonina's influence upon their

respective emperors is purely speculative in the absence

75
Blois, The Policy of the Emperor Gallienus, 183f.
76
Ibid., 183; Jean Moreau, La Persecution Du Christianisme Dans
L'empire Romain (Paris: 1956), 104.
77
See chapter 3.
78
Fergus Millar, "Paul of Samosata, Zenobia and Aurelian: The
Church, Local Culture and Political Allegiance in Third-Century
Syria," JRS 61 (1971); Blois, The Policy of the Emperor Gallienus,
183.
 227
of explicit historical evidence. However, given what is

known about the enforcement of gendered spheres within

Roman society, it is not unlikely that these women were

able to sway their husbands' tolerance toward the

Christian Church through the means of marital affection.

The physical closeness of both Otacilia and Salonina to

their husbands could imply a level of emotional and

intellectual closeness as well. Unlike the women

examined in chapter three, Otacilia and Salonina did not

have to assume what the Romans considered masculine

qualities in order to reestablish stability. On the

contrary, Otacilia and Salonina were able to influence

the policies of their husbands precisely because they had

exercised their femininity in accordance with traditional

Roman expectations.

Roman women's place was the Roman home. While they

could exercise considerably more freedom in the public

square and had more opportunities for education than

their Greek sisters, the primary duty for Roman women was

to enter into marriage, for it "completed the female,

invested her with a social presence, and saved her from

 228
her innate incompetence."79 During the instability of the

Third Century Crisis, Christianity in the eyes of most

emperors was insignificant to the more pressing matters

of insurrection, invasion, and economic collapse.

Because of the increasingly unstable political situation,

it is possible that Otacilia and Salonina were able to

wield their influence through the shared affection with

their husbands over a seemingly irrelevant matter in the

Empire. The attempts of emperors like Decius and

Valerian to eradicate the Christians for the purposes of

ending the crisis had failed, and it was not until the

ascension of Diocletian and the return to stability that

Christianity's elimination seemed more consistent with

effectively ending the instability. Beginning under

Decius, and significantly confirmed under Diocletian,

Christianity was no longer insignificant to the health of

the Empire.

As the Romans Do:

The Continuity of Gendered Spheres in the C h r i s t i a n Era

After the ascension of Diocletian in 285, the Empire

moved toward s t a b i l i t y as i t reorganized and i n t e n s i f i e d
79
Eve D'Ambra, Roman Women (Cambridge & New York: Cambridge
U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 2007), 12. See a l s o c h a p t e r two a b o v e .
 229
the role and power of the imperial office. As part of

Diocletian's plan to end the Third Century Crisis and

bring stability and peace back to the Empire, he

initiated what has been termed The Great Persecution

against the Christians in 303. In the short period of

time between the end of the Third Century Crisis and the

beginning of the Christianization of the Empire under

Constantine, Christianity suffered under persecution even

though there were Christian women in positions of

potential influence and power. Eutropia was the wife of

Emperor Maximian (r. 286-305), 80 and mother of Emperor

Maxentius and Fausta, the wife of Constantine (r. 306-

337). Her husband co-ruled with Diocletian and helped

enforce the policies against the Christians.

The case of Eutropia demonstrates the limitations of

gendered influence when stable society is reasserted and

crisis is ended. Eutropia's reign as empress was outside

the Third Century Crisis. Diocletian's policies which

attempted to eradicate the Christian movement and

reassert Rome's devotion to its traditional civic

religion had ended fifty years of instability, economic

ruin, war, and uncertainty. If Eutropia had attempted to

80
Maximian also proclaimed himself Augustus again from 307-310.
 230
intervene on behalf of the Church in an effort to protect

it from persecution, then would not her efforts have been

interpreted as an attempt to undo the very stability her

husband helped establish? An absence of instability

combined with the realization that Christianity was no

longer an insignificant institution within the Roman

Empire (and perhaps even the problem connected to the

instability), prevented Eutropia from taking advantage of

the unique abilities which her gender and position had

afforded to the Christian empresses before her.

Most of the history concerned with Eutropia

concentrates on her activities after the end of the civil

wars and the ascension of Constantine as sole ruler of

the Empire. The most well known story of Eutropia

concerns her travels to the Holy Land, where she visited

Mambre81 - the place where, in Genesis, Abraham was

visited by three strangers.82 Eutropia's complaint to

Constantine that the holy site had been defiled by pagan

idolatry prompted Constantine to erect a Christian church

in that place. Thus, Eutropia affirms the proper

11
Euseb., Vit. Const. iii.52-53.
12
Genesis 18:1-21.
 231
function of gendered spheres in the budding Christian era

of the Roman Empire.83

Much like Helena, the mother of Constantine,

Eutropia demonstrated the changing role that femininity

would play in imperial politics in a post-Constantinian

era. With the beginning of the Christianization, the

Church no longer required the assistance of women to

protect it from the hard hand of imperial law. However,

women in unique positions of power and influence would

now provide a patronage previously unknown to the Church.

Christianity did not attempt to alter the legal and

social standing of women from that of previous centuries

within the Roman Empire. In fact, as was demonstrated in

the Christian ideal of virginity, in most cases Christian

ideology maintained and enforced what were considered

traditional gender roles. In an era when Christianity no

longer feared government reprisal and oppression,

Christian women with close ties to the imperial

government now exercised power through active patronage

of Christian churches and shrines. No longer needing to

exercise political guile which sometimes threatened to

arouse the condemnation of Roman writers seeking to

83
Euseb., Vit. Const. iii.52-53.
 2
maintain the balance of gendered spheres, Christian women

like Eutropia and Helena publicly asserted their roles of

patronesses for the Christian Church. These women, who

were excluded from both political and religious roles of

authority, could wield power with their purses and

piety.84 As benefactors of the Church, Christian

noblewomen fulfilled their gender roles as obedient

contributors to both secular and religious societies

through their prayers and financial assistance. While

changing to become more public, the feminine role within

the Empire was in fact a continuation of what it had been

all along - the production and rearing of children, and

in this new Christian era, both physical and spiritual

children.

84
For an examination of Christian women as patronesses of the Church
in the post-Constantinian Empire, see: Elizabeth Clark, "Patrons Not
Priests: Gender and Power in Late Ancient Christianity," Gender and
History 2 (1990); Robin Lane Fox, Pagans and Christians (San
Francisco: Harper & Row Publishers, 1986).
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Primary Sources

Ambrose. Commentaria in epistolam ad Ephesios. Edited in

PL 17.

Ammianus Marcelinus. Res gestae a fine Cornell Taciti.

Edited by John C. Rolfe. LCL 331.

Appian. Bella civilia. Edited by Horace White. LCL 5.

Aristotle. Politica. Edited by H. Rackham. LCL 264.

Aurelius Victor. Liber de caesaribus. Edited by Franz

Pichlmayr. Leipzig: Teubner, 1961.

Cassius Dio. Epitome historiae romanae. Edited by Earnest

Cary. LCL 175-177.

Clement of Rome. Tlpoq KopivOiovg. In The Apostolic Fathers:

Greek Texts and English Translations. Edited by
Michael W. Holmes. Updated Edition. Grand Rapids,
MI: Baker Books, 1999.

Codex Iustinianus. Edited by Theodor Mommsen. Berlin:

Weidmann, 1954.

Cyprian. De habitu virginum. Edited in PL 3.

233
Digesta lustiniani. Edited by Theodor Mommsen. Berlin:
Weidmann, 1954.

Epitome de caesaribus. Edited by Franz Pichlmayr.

Leipzig: Teubner, 1911.

Eusebius of Caesarea. Historia ecclesiastica. Edited by

Kirsopp Lake and J.E.L. Oulton. LCL 153 and 265.

. Vita Constantini. Edited in PG 20.

Eutropius. Breviarium ab urbe condita. Edited by F.

Ruehl. Leipzig: Teubner, 1887.

Herodian. Basileia historia. Edited by C.R. Whittaker.

LCL 454-455.

Hippolytus. Refutatio omnium haeresium. Edited in PG 10.

. Sermonum Fragmenta. Edited in PG 10.

Jerome/Hieronymous. Chronica. Edited in PL 27.

. De viris illustribus. Edited in PL 23.

. Epistulae. Edited in PL 22.

Josephus. Antiquitates Judaicae. Edited by Louis H.

Feldman. LCL 4 56.

. Bellum Judaicum. Edited by H. St. J. Thackeray. LCL

203 and 210.

. Contra Apionem. Edited by H. St. J. Thackeray. LCL

186.
 . Vita. Edited by H. St. J. Thackeray. LCL 186.

Juvenal. Saturae. Edited by Susanna Morton Braund. LCL

91.

Liber Pontificalis. Edited by Christopher Bainbridge.

Whitefish, MT: Kessinger Publishing, 2008.

Livy. Ab urbe condita. Edited by Evan T. Sage. LCL 2 95.

Paulus Orosius. Historiarum adversum paganos libri VII.

Edited by K. Zangmeister. Leipzig: Teubner, 1889.

Pliny (the Elder). Naturalis historia. Edited by W.H.S.

Jones. LCL 418.

Plutarch. Galba. Edited by Bernadotte Perrin. LCL 103.

Polybius. Historiae. Edited by W.R. Paton. LCL 138.

Quintillian. Institutio Oratoria. Edited by Donald A.

Russell. LCL 125.

Scriptores Historiae Augustae/Historia Augusta. Edited by

D. Magie. LCL 139, 140, 263.

Suetonius. Divus Augustus. Edited by J.C. Rolfe. LCL 31.

. Domitianus. Edited by J.C. Rolfe. LCL 38.

. Nero. Edited by J.C. Rolfe. LCL 38.

. Otho. Edited by J.C. Rolfe. LCL 38.

 . Divus Vespasianus. Edited by J.C. Rolfe. LCL 38.

Tacitus. Agricola. Edited by M. Hutton and W. Peterson.

LCL 35.

. Annales. Edited by John Jackson. LCL 322.

. Historiae. Edited by Clifford H. Moore. LCL 111 and

249.

Zonaras. Epitome Historiarum. Edited in PG 134.

Zosimus. Historia Nova. Edited by L. Mendelssohn.

Leipzig: Teubner, 1887.

Secondary Sources

Ameling, Walter. "Tyrannen und Schwangere Frauen."

Historia 35, no. 4 (1986): 507-08.

Balsdon, J.P.V.D. Romans and Aliens. Chapel Hill, NC: The

University of North Carolina Press, 1979.

Barnes, Timothy D. "Legislation against the Christians."

JRS 58, no. 1 and 2 (1968): 32-50.

Bauman, Richard A. Crime and Punishment in Ancient Rome.

New York: Routledge, 1996.
 . The Crimen Maiestatis in the Roman Republic and
Augustan Principate. Johannesburg: Witwatersrand
University Press, 1967.

. Women and Politics in Ancient Rome. New York:

Routledge, 1992.

Benko, Stephen. "Pagan Criticism of Christianity During

the First Two Centuries A.D." ANRW 23, no. 2 (1980):
1054-118.

Blois, Lukas de. The Policy of the Emperor Gallienus.

Edited by J.G.P. Best, A.B. Breebaart and M.F.
Jongkees-Vos. Vol. VII, Studies of the Dutch
Archaeological and Historical Society. Leiden: E.J.
Brill, 1976.

. "The Reign of Philip the Arabian." Talanta 10/11

(1978-1979): 11-43.

Braginton, Mary V. "Exile under the Roman Emperors." CJ

39, no. 7 (Apr. 1944): 391-407.

Bremmer, Jan. "Why Did Early Christianity Attract Upper-

Class Women." In Fructus Centesimus: Melanges
Offerts A Gerard J.M. Bartelink A L'occasion De Son
Soixante-Cinquieme Anniversaire, edited by A.A.R.
Bastiaensen, A. Hilhorst and C.H. Kneepkens, 37-47.
Steenbrugis: In Abbatia Sancti Petri, 1989.

Brown, Peter R.L. The Body and Society: Men, Women and
Sexual Renunciation in Early Christianity. New York:
Columbia University Press, 1988.

Buckland, W.W. A Text-Book of Roman Law from Augustus to

Justinian. London: Cambridge University Press, 1950.
Bunsen, Christian K.J. von. Hippolytus and His Age. 2
vols. London: Longman, Brown, Green, and Longmans,
1854.

Canning, Kathleen. Gender History in Practice: Historical

Perspectives on Bodies, Class, and Citizenship.
Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2006.

Case, Shirley Jackson. "Josephus' Anticipation of a

Domitianic Persecution." JBL 44, no. 1/2 (1925): 10-
20.

Castelli, Elizabeth. "Virginity and Its Meaning for

Women's Sexuality in Early Christianity." JFSR 2
(1986): 61-88.

Charlesworth, Martin P. "Some Observations on Ruler-Cult

Especially in Rome." HTR 28, no. 1 (Jan. 1935): 5-
44.

Clark, Elizabeth. "Patrons Not Priests: Gender and Power

in Late Ancient Christianity." Gender and History 2
(1990): 252-64.

Cleve, Robert L. "Severus Alexander and the Severan

Women." Ph.D. diss., University of California, Los
Angeles, 1982.

Corbett, Percy E. The Roman Law of Marriage. Oxford:

Oxford University Press, 1930.

Crake, J.E.A. "Early Christians and Roman Law." Phoenix

19, no. 1 (Spring, 1965): 61-70.

Cramer, Frederick H. Astrology in Roman Law and Politics.

Philadelphia, PA: American Philosophical Society,
1954.
Crook, J.A. "Feminine Inadequacy and the Senatusconsultum
Velleianum." In The Family in Ancient Rome: New
Perspectives, edited by Beryl Rawson, 83-92. Ithaca,
NY: Cornell University Press, 1987.

. Law and Life of Rome, 90 B.C. - A.D. 212. Ithaca,

NY: Cornell University Press, 1967.

D'Ambra, Eve. Roman Women. Cambridge & New York:

Cambridge University Press, 2007.

De Rossi, Giovanni Battista. La Roma Sotterranea

Cristiana. Rome, 1865.

De Ste. Croix, G.E.M. "Why Were the Early Christians

Persecuted?" Past and Present 26 (Nov. 1963): 6-38.

Deslauriers, Marguerite. "Aristotle on Andreia, Divine

and Sub-Human Virtues." In Andreia: Studies in
Manliness and Courage in Classical Antiquity, edited
by Ralph M. Rosen and Ineke Sluiter, 187-211. Leiden
& Boston: Brill, 2003.

Dixon, Suzanne. " I n f i r m i t a s Sexus: Womanly Weakness in

Roman Law." Tijdschrift voor Rechtsgeschiedenis 52,
no. 4 (1984): 343-71.

Drachmann, A.B. Atheism in Pagan Antiquity. London &

Copenhagen: Gyldendal, 1922.

Edmundson, George. The Church in Rome in the First

Century. London: Longmans, Green and Co., 1913.

Eusebius. The Church History. Translated by Paul L.

Maier. Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 1999.
Evans Grubbs, Judith. Women and the Law in the Roman
Empire: A Sourcebook on Marriage, Divorce and
Widowhood. London and New York: Routledge, 2002.

Feldman, Louis H. "Jewish 'Sympathizers' in Classical

Literature and Inscriptions." TAPA 81 (1950): 200-
08.

, ed. Josephus: Jewish Antiquities, Books Xviii-Xx.

Vol. 433, Lcl. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press, 1965.

Fox, Robin Lane. Pagans and Christians. San Francisco:

Harper & Row Publishers, 1986.

Frend, W.H.C. The Early Church. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress

Press, 1991 (Orig. 1965).

The Rise of Christianity. Philadelphia: Fortress

Press, 1984.

Galinsky, Karl. "Augustus' Legislation on Morals and

Marriage." Philologus 125 (1981): 126-44.

Gardner, Jane F. Being a Roman Citizen. New York:

Routledge, 1993.

"Gender-Role Assumptions in Roman Law." Classical

Views 39, no. 3 (1995): 377-400.

Women in Roman Law and Society. Bloomington and

Indianapolis: Indiana University Press, 1995 (Orig.
1986).

Garnsey, Peter. Social Status and Legal Privilege in the

Roman Empire. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1970.
Gibbon, Edward. The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire.
3 vols. New York: Everyman's Library, 1993 (Orig.
1776-1788).

Gleason, Maud W. "Elite Male Identity in the Roman

Empire." In Life, Death, and Entertainment in the
Roman Empire, edited by D.S. Potter and D.J.
Mattingly, 67-84. Ann Arbor, MI: University of
Michigan Press, 1999.

Gratz, Heinrich. Die judischen Proselyten im Romerreiche

unter den Kaisern Domitian, Nerva, Trajan und
Hadrian. Breslau, 1883.

Haas, Christopher J. "Imperial Religious Policy and

Valerian's Persecution of the Church, A.D. 257-260."
Church History 52, no. 2 (Jun. 1983): 133-44.

y
Hanawalt, Barbara. Of Good and 111 Repute': Gender and
Social Control in Medieval England. Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 1998.

Harnack, Adolf von. "Der Vorwurf des Atheismus in den

drei ersten Jahrhunderten." TUGAL 28, no. 4 (1905):
3-16.

. Die Mission und Ausbreitung des Christentums in den

ersten drei Jahrhunderten. Charleston, SC:
BiblioLife, LLC, 2010 (Orig. 1915) .

Hobbs, Angela. Plato and the Hero: Courage, Manliness and

the Impersonal Good. Cambridge & New York: Cambridge
University Press, 2000.

Jackson, John, ed. Tacitus: The Annals, Books Xiii-Xvi.

Vol. 322, Lcl. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press, 1937.
Janssen, L.F. " * S u p e r s t i t i o ' and the Persecution of the
Christians." Vig. Chr. 33, no. 2 (Jun. 1979): 131-
59.

Jeffers, James S. "Social Foundations of Early

Christianity at Rome: The Congregations Behind 1
Clement and the Shepherd of Hermas." PhD diss.,
University of California, Irvine, 1988.

Kaplan, Marion A. Between Dignity and Despair: Jewish

Life in Nazi Germany. Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 1998.

Raster, Robert A. Emotion, Restraint, and Community in

Ancient Rome. Oxford & New York: Oxford University
Press, 2005.

Keresztes, Paul. "The Jews, the Christians, and Emperor

Domitian." Vig. Chr. 27, no. 1 (Mar. 1973): 1-28.

. "Two Edicts of the Emperor Valerian." Vig. Chr. 29,

no. 2 (Jun. 1975): 81-95.

Rnudsen, Johannes. "The Lady and the Emperor: A Study of

the Domitianic Persecution." Church History 14, no.
1 (Mar. 1945): 17-32.

Korner, Christian. Philippus Arabs: ein Soldatenkaiser in

der Tradition des antoninisch-severischen
Prinzipats. Vol. 61, Untersuchungen zur antiken
Literatur und Geschichte. New York: Walter de
Gruyter, 2002.

Kuefler, Mathew. The Manly Eunuch: Masculinity, Gender

Ambiguity, and Christian Ideology in Late Antiquity.
Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 2001.
L'Hoir, Francesca Santoro. "Tacitus and Women's
Usurpation of Power." CIV 88, no. 1 (Sep.-Oct. 1994):
5-25.

Levick, Barbara. Julia Domna: Syrian Empress. Edited by

Ronnie Ancona and Sarah Pomeroy, Women of the
Ancient World. New York: Routledge, 2007.

Lightfoot, J.B. The Apostolic Fathers, Part I: S. Clement

of Rome. 2nd ed. Vol. I. London: MacMillan and Co.,
1890.

Looper-Friedman, Susan E. "The Decline of Manus-

Marriage." Tijdschrift voor Rechtsgeschiedenis 55
(1987): 281-96.

MacMullen, Ramsay. Enemies of the Roman Order: Treason,

Unrest, and Alienation in the Empire. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press, 1966.

Maier, Paul L., ed. Eusebius: The Church History. Grand

Rapids: Kregel Publications, 1999.

. In the Fullness of Time: A Historian Looks at

Christmas, Easter, and the Early Church. Grand
Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications, 1997 (Orig. 1991).

, ed. Josephus: The Essential Writings. Grand Rapids,

MI: Kregel Publications, 1988.

Mansfield, Harvey C. Manliness. New Haven, CT: Yale

University Press, 2006.

Marshall, Anthony J. "Roman Ladies on Trial: The Case of

Maesia Sentinum." Phoenix 44, no. 1 (Spring 1990):
46-59.
Martin, Dale B. Inventing Superstition: From the
Hippocratics to the Christians. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press, 2004.

Mayer, Roland. "What Caused Poppaea's Death." Historia

31, no. 2 (1982): 248-49.

McFayden, Donald. "The Occasion of the Domitianic

Persecution." AJT2A, no. 1 (Jan. 1920): 46-66.

Mclnerney, Jeremy. "Plutarch's Manly Women." In Andreia:

Studies in Manliness and Courage in Classical
Antiquity, edited by Ralph M. Rosen and Ineke
Sluiter, 319-44. Leiden & Boston: Brill, 2003.

McNamara, Jo Ann. "Matres Patriae / Matres Ecclesiae:

Women of Rome." In Becoming Visible: Women in
European History, edited by Renate Bridenthal, Susan
Mosher Stuard and Merry E. Wiesner, 77-104. Boston:
Houghton Mifflin Co., 1998.

. "Sexual Equality and the Cult of Virginity in Early

Christian Thought." Feminist Studies 3, no. 3/4
(Spring-Summer, 1976): 145-58.

Meeks, Wayne A. "The Image of Androgyne: Some Uses of a

Symbol in Earliest Christianity." History of
Religions 13, no. 3 (Feb. 1974): 165-208.

Merrill, Elmer Truesdell. Essays in Early Christian

History. London: MacMillan and Co., Ltd., 1924.

Millar, Fergus. "Paul of Samosata, Zenobia and Aurelian:

The Church, Local Culture and Political Allegiance
in Third-Century Syria." JRS 61 (1971): 1-17.

. A Study of Cassius Dio. Oxford: Oxford University

Press, 1964.
Moreau, Jean. La Persecution Du Christianisme Dans
L'empire Romain. Paris, 1956.

Nicols, John. " P a t r o n a Duitatis: Gender and Civic

Patronage." Studies in Latin Literature and Roman
History, Collection Latomus 5 (1989): 117-42.

Oulton, J.E.L., ed. Eusebius: The Ecclesiastical History,

Volume Ii. Edited by Jeffrey Henderson. Vol. 265,
Lcl. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2000
(Orig. 1932) .

Paton, Diana. No Bond but the Law: Punishment, Race, and

Gender in Jamaican State Formation, 1780-1870.
Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2004.

Pohlsander, H.A. "Philip the Arab and Christianity."

Historia 29, no. 4 (1980): 463-73.

Raditsa, Leo F. "Augustus' Legislation Concerning

Marriage, Procreation, Love Affairs and Adultery."
ANRW 2, no. 13 (1980): 278-339.

Rawson, Beryl. "Roman Concubinage and Other De Facto

Marriages." TAPA 104 (1974): 279-305.

Riddle, Donald W. "Hebrews, First Clement, and the

Persecution of Domitian." JBL 43, no. 3/4 (1924):
329-48.

Rives, James B. Religion in the Roman Empire. Maiden, MA:

Blackwell Publishing, 2007.

Rogers, Robert S. "Heirs and Rivals to Nero." TAPA 8 6

(1955): 190-212.
Rosen, Ralph M., and Ineke Sluiter, eds. Andreia: Studies
in Manliness and Courage in Classical Antiquity.
Leiden & Boston: Brill, 2003.

Scheid, John. An Introduction to Roman Religion.

Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 2003.

Schmid, Walter T. On Manly Courage: A Study of Plato's

Laches. Carbondale & Edwardsville, IL: Southern
Illinois University Press, 1992.

Schoedel, William R. "Christian ^Atheism' and the Peace

of the Roman Empire." Church History 42, no. 3 (Sep.
1973): 309-19.

Schulz, Fritz. Classical Roman Law. Oxford: Oxford

University Press, 1951.

Scott, Joan Wallach. "Gender: A Useful Category of

Analysis." In Gender and the Politics of History,
edited by Joan Wallach Scott. New York: Columbia
University Press, 1998.

Setzer, Claudia. Jewish Responses to Early Christians:

History and Polemics, 30-150 C.E. Minneapolis, MN:
Augsburg Fortress Press, 1994.

Sherwin-White, A.N. "The Early Persecutions and Roman Law

Again." JTS 3 (1952): 199-213.

. Roman Society and Roman Law in the New Testament:

The Sarum Lectures, 1960-1961. Eugene, OR: Wipf &
Stock Publishers, 1963.

. "Why Were the Early Christians Persecuted? - an

Amendment." Past and Present 27 (Apr. 1964): 23-27.
 247
Simon, Marcel. Verus Israel: A Study of the Relations
between Christians and Jews in the Roman Empire, Ad
135 - 425. Translated by H. McKeating. London &
Portland, OR: Vallentine Mitchell & Co Ltd., 1996
(Orig. 1948) .

Smallwood, E. Mary. "Domitian's Attitude toward the Jews

and Judaism." C Phil. 51, no. 1 (Jan. 1956): 1-13.

Smith, William, and Samuel Cheetham, eds. A Dictionary of

Christian Antiquities. Hartford: The J.B. Burr
Publishing Co., 1880.

Stark, Rodney. "Reconstructing the Rise of Christianity:

The Role of Women." Sociology of Religion 56, no. 3
(Autumn 1995): 229-44.

The Rise of Christianity: A Sociologist Reconsiders

History. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press,
1996.

Styger, Paul. Die romischen Katakomben: archaologische

Forschungen fiber den Ursprung und die Bedeutung der
altchristlichen Grabstatten. Berlin: Verlag fur
Kunstwissenschaft, 1933.

Thomas, J.A.C. Textbook of Roman Law. Amsterdam: North-

Holland Publishing Company, 1976.

Thompson, L.A. "Domitian and the Jewish Tax." Historia

31, no. 3 (1982): 329-42.

Treggiari, Susan. "Divorce Roman Style: How Easy and How

Frequent Was It?" In Marriage, Divorce, and Children
in Ancient Rome, edited by Beryl Rawson, 31-46.
Oxford & New York: Oxford University Press, 1991.
 248
. Roman Marriage: Iusti Coniuges from the Time of
Cicero to the Time of Ulpian. Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 1991.

van Warmelo, P. "Ignorantia Iuris." Tijdschrift voor

rechtsgeschiedenis 22 (1954): 1-32.

van Wees, Hans. "A Brief History of Tears: Gender

Differentiation in Archaic Greece." In When Men Were
Men: Masculinity, Power and Identity in Classical
Antiquity, edited by Lin Foxhall and John Salmon,
10-53. New York: Routledge, 1998.

Veyne, Paul. "Homosexuality in Ancient Rome." In Western

Sexuality: Practice and Precept in Past and Present
Times, edited by Philippe Aries and Andre Bejin.
Oxford & New York: Basil Blackwell Ltd, 1985.

Walsh, Joseph J. "On Christian Atheism." Vig. Chr. 45,

no. 3 (Sep. 1991) : 255-77.

Warrior, Valerie M. Roman Religion. New York: Cambridge

University Press, 2006.

Waters, K.H. "The Character of Domitian." Phoenix 18, no.

1 (Spring, 1964): 49-77.

Weber, Max. Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft. GrundriB der

verstehenden Soziologie, 1925.

Wethmar-Lemmer, Marlene M. "The Legal Position of Roman

Women: A Dissenting Perspective." Fundamina 12, no.
2 (2006): 174-84.

Whiston, William, ed. The Works of Josephus. 16th ed.

Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, Inc., 1987.
Wilken, Robert Louis. The Christians as the Romans Saw
Them. 2nd ed. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press,
2003.

Williams, Craig A. Roman Homosexuality: Ideologies of

Masculinity in Classical Antiquity. Oxford & New
York: Oxford University Press, 1999.

Williams, Margaret H. "Domitian, the Jews and the

1
Judaizers': A Simple Matter of Cupiditas and
Maiestas?" Historia 39, no. 2 (1990): 196-211.

Williamson, G.A., ed. Eusebius: The History of the

Church. New York: Penguin Books, 1989 (Orig. 1965).

Witherington III, Ben. The Paul Quest: The Renewed Search

for the Jew of Tarsus. Downers Grove, IL:
InterVarsity Press, 1998.

York, John Marvin Jr. "The Image of Philip the Arab."

Historia 21 (1972): 320-32.

-. "Philip the Arab: The First Christian Emperor of

Rome." Ph.D. diss., University of Southern
California, 1964.

Zahran, Yasmine. Philip the Arab: A Study in Prejudice.

London: Stacey International, 2001.
 UMI Number: 3455072

All rights reserved

INFORMATION TO ALL USERS

The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted.

In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed,
a note will indicate the deletion.

UMI'
Dissertation Publishing

UMI 3455072
Copyright 2011 by ProQuest LLC.
All rights reserved. This edition of the work is protected against
unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.

ProQuest LLC
789 East Eisenhower Parkway
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346