Journal of Theological Studies, NS, Vol. 59, Pt 2, October 2008

MIRROR READING AND GUARDIANS OFWOMEN IN THE EARLY ROMAN EMPIRE

AbstractRoman laws, as well as papyrus and epigraphic evidence, show that maleguardianship over women was a reality in the lives of Roman women both inRome and in the eastern part of the Roman empire. This requirement,however, seemed burdensome to both women and men, and free-born womenwho had given birth to three children could claim exemption and men could beexcused from guardianship according to the ius liberorum. Again, thisexemption not only existed in law but is also evidenced by papyrus andepigraphic data for the first four centuries. Against this background, Ignatius’exhortation to Polycarp not to neglect widows but to be their guardian takeson a new light. Instead of being a means of patriarchal and episcopal controlover women (as alleged by contemporary feminist scholars employing ahermeneutic of suspicion), it is rather an invitation to bear with theinconveniences and burdensome demands as an example of the bishop’sendurance of all things and bearing with all people. As such, it is a mark offollowing Christ who endured all for the sake of his people.

I. INTRODUCTION

AS feminist scholars try to reconstruct the history of earlyChristianity to demonstrate that there was a time when Christianwomen enjoyed more equality with their male counterparts, theyusually trace the gradual patriarchalization of the church, layingthe blame on church leaders after the Apostle Paul, if not Paulhimself.1 One such leader viewed with suspicion is Ignatius ofAntioch, the Syrian bishop and Apostolic Father who welcomedthe prospect of martyrdom in Rome and wrote to churches andhis fellow bishop Polycarp en route to Rome in the first decadeof the second century.2

1 The most notable of such feminist historians is perhaps ElisabethSchussler Fiorenza, whose In Memory of Her: A Feminist TheologicalReconstruction of Christian Origins (London: SCM, 1982) laid the groundworkfor many subsequent feminist treatments of the early church. For a sustainedcritique of the notion of an initial ‘discipleship of equals’ in the JesusMovement, see John H. Elliott, ‘Jesus Was not an Egalitarian: A Critique ofan Anachronistic and Idealist Theory’, BTB 32/2 (2002), pp. 75–91; EstherYue L. Ng, Reconstructing Christian Origins? The Feminist Theology of ElisabethSchussler Fiorenza: An Evaluation (Carlisle: Paternoster, 2002).

2 For a succinct account of the circumstances under which Ignatius wrotehis letters and a discussion of the various recensions, see Bart Ehrman’s

� The Author 2008. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved.

For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oxfordjournals.org

doi:10.1093/jts/fln051 Advance Access publication 24 April 2008

Of course Ignatius has never lacked critics among modernscholars.3 However, possibly it is only in the past two decadesthat he has come under criticism for his authoritarian treatmentof women.4 The passage cited as evidence of his patriarchal andepiscopal control is his letter to Polycarp 4.1–2, which has beentranslated by Elisabeth Schussler Fiorenza as follows: ‘Do not letthe widows be neglected. After the Lord you must be theirguardian. Nothing is to be done without your approval, and youmust do nothing without God—as indeed is your practice. Standfirm. Meetings should be more frequent; seek out all indi-vidually.’5 The Greek word rendered ‘guardian’ is �rontist0",which is understood by her as either one with legal tutorshipover the widows in question, or one responsible for the adminis-tration of the widows’ aVairs; or the word may be used here in ageneralized sense. In line with her hermeneutic of suspicion,Fiorenza thinks that whatever the exact connotation of the word,‘it enforces the control of the bishop over the widows, and seeksto curtail their independence’.6 Likewise, Christine Trevettopines that ‘Ignatius’ concern about him [Polycarp] and thewidows in Smyrna was . . . due to more than the usual biblicallyinspired injunctions about care’.7 These two scholars came to

introduction to the letters in The Apostolic Fathers (LCL 24; Cambridge, MA:Harvard University Press, 2003), pp. 203–17.

3 As noted in Christine Trevett, ‘The much-maligned Ignatius’, ExpTim93/10 (1982), pp. 299–302.

4 See Fiorenza, Memory, pp. 313–15; Christine Trevett, Christian Womenand the Time of the Apostolic Fathers (AD c.80–160): Corinth, Rome and AsiaMinor (CardiV: University of Wales Press, 2006), pp. 220–1.

5 Translation given in Fiorenza, Memory, p. 313.6 Fiorenza, Memory, p. 314. The word �rontist0" is likewise translated in

The Apostolic Fathers: Greek Texts and English Translations, ed. and trans.Michael W. Holmes (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1999), p. 197. It is renderedby Christine Trevett as ‘protector’. See her Christian Women, p. 220. BartEhrman, however, gives the word a general sense and renders the sentence as‘Do not allow the widows to be neglected. After the Lord, it is you who mustbe mindful of them.’

7 Here, Trevett (Christian Women, pp. 220–1) agrees with Fiorenza’sreconstruction (Memory, pp. 313–15) of the historical situation underlyingIgnatius’ advice to Polycarp with regard to the widows. This seems a changeof position on her part, for she once wrote that ‘Unlike Elisabeth SchusslerFiorenza I do not think the evidence of these letters supports the contentionthat Ignatius had an especial concern about female activity apart from episcopalcontrol’ (Christine Trevett, A Study of Ignatius of Antioch in Syria and Asia[Studies in the Bible and Early Christianity, 29; Lampeter: Edwin MellenPress, 1992], p. 53.)

680 E S T H E R Y U E L . N G

such a conclusion by a process of mirror reading8 this passagetogether with their reconstruction of the situation of the celibatewomen on the basis of other passages among Ignatius’ letters.

Rather than treating all the passages involved and discussingIgnatius’ dealings with Christian women in general, this essayhas two modest and restricted purposes: (1) to ascertain as faras possible whether men (Christian or non-Christian) in AsiaMinor and Syria during the second century would generallycovet the role or status of a guardian to women, especially towidows; (2) to understand Ignatius’ specific words to Polycarp inthe light of prevalent attitudes and in the context of the situationin Smyrna and of the letter itself. To achieve these two purposes,mirror reading will be employed where applicable9 and we willlook at Roman laws as well as papyrus and epigraphic evidence.

II. WOMEN AND THEIR MALE GUARDIANS IN IMPERIAL ROME

1. Women Required to Have Male Guardians

A. Roman Laws

Under classical Roman law, underaged children were requiredto have guardians if they were fatherless. This guardianshipapplied to both sons and daughters and was called in Latin tutelaimpuberum. When sons reached puberty, by Roman law they nolonger needed guardians, but daughters over 12 still neededguardianship (tutela mulierum) and remained so ‘on account ofthe weakness of their judgement’10 unless they entered manus-marriage whereby they came under the marital power (manus) oftheir husbands and were regarded by law virtually like adaughter to the husband. This form of marriage, however,

8 For the meaning of the term ‘mirror reading’, see John Barclay, ‘Mirror-Reading a Polemical Letter: Galatians as a Test Case’, JSNT 31 (1987),pp. 73–93.

9 While mirror reading is used in this essay partly in response to its use byfeminist scholars in their interpretation of Ignatius’ words to Polycarp, thismust not be taken to mean an unquestioning endorsement of mirror reading ingeneral. Thus it may be fallacious to read an exhortation and infer that theopposite situation necessarily exists in reality. Likewise where Roman rescriptsaddress specific queries, it is risky to infer a prevalent situation. Consequently,in this essay mirror reading of Roman laws and of Ignatius’ exhortations isdone in conjunction with an examination of other data to check its validity.

10 Mentioned by Cicero (106–43 BC), Mur. 12.27, quoted in Judith E.Grubbs (ed.), Women and the Law in the Roman Empire (hereinafter cited asWAL) (London and New York: Routledge, 2002), p. 281, n. 81. Thissentiment is also noted by Gaius (Inst. 1.190); see excerpt in WAL, p. 29.

M I R R O R R E A D I N G 681

became rather rare by the reign of Augustus and married womentended to have their own guardians whether their fathers (if stillalive) or their male relatives or others (for fatherless women).11

In time (probably by early in the third century), Romans recog-nized the need of another kind of guardians for those who hadreached puberty but had not yet arrived at maturity (at the legalage of 25). This kind of guardianship was termed cura minorum(‘care of minors’).12

Roman women living outside Italy were likewise supposed tohave a tutor (called a k0rio" in Egypt and Greek-speaking areas)if they were no longer under their fathers’ authority (patriapotestas). The Greek word �rontist0" is also used frequently asan equivalent of the Latin term tutor.13 But Romans did recog-nize that their kind of tutela mulierum was not universallyupheld: ‘Among foreigners (peregrini), women are not in tutela inthe same sense as among us. However, they often are in a sort oftutela: as, for instance, the law of the Bithynians orders that if awoman undertakes any contract, her husband or adult son mustgive his authority.’14

One diVerence in question concerns the role of the husband.In earlier Roman law, a woman’s husband was not also her tutor,since the original purpose of tutela mulierum had been tosafeguard the woman’s property for her natal family against itspossible usurpers, including her husband. But in the east, withinthe Roman empire, it was customary for a husband to serve asthe k0rio".15

If the husband was not the tutor according to Roman law, howwere curators or tutors chosen for fatherless girls or women?First of all, they might be named in the fathers’ wills. Likewise ahusband might name in his will a tutor for his wife married withmanus.16 Secondly, for those fatherless children to whom a tutor

11 For a description of the manus-type of Roman marriages and its decline,see S. M. Treggiari, Roman Marriage: Iusti Coniuges from the Time of Ciceroto the Time of Ulpian (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1991), pp. 16–34.

12 For a description of the various kinds of guardianships, see WAL, p. 23;Antti Arjava, Women and Law in Late Antiquity (Oxford: Clarendon Press,1996), pp. 112–18.

13 WAL, p. 36. On �rontist0" used for ‘guardian’, see BDAG, s.v. �rontist0".For the use of the word together with k0rio" to refer to the same man assistinga legal act of donation by a woman named Phaenia, see R. Van Bremen, TheLimits of Participation: Women and Civic Life in the Greek East in theHellenistic and Romand Periods (Amsterdam: J. C. Gieben, 1996), pp. 231–3.

14 Gaius, Inst. 1.193, excerpted in WAL, p. 27.15 WAL, pp. 24, 45; Arjava, Women, pp. 140–1.16 Gaius, Inst. 1.145 and 148 respectively; see WAL, p. 25.

682 E S T H E R Y U E L . N G

was not given by will, a male on the agnate (paternal) side ofthe family would become the tutor (tutor legitimus) according toearly Roman law.17 This was usually the next in line to inherit ifthe person in tutela died without a will. However, in the mid-first century, the emperor Claudius abolished agnate tutelafor women beyond puberty.18 For girls or women whose fathersdied without giving them tutors or whose original tutors in turndied, it was then the prerogative or responsibility of the civicauthorities to provide them with tutors upon request on behalfof them. Depending on where the girls or women lived, theoYcials involved might be the praetors in Rome, the governorin a Roman province, or the duovir of non-Roman towns(municipia) granted Latin rights.19

Though guardians were required by law, the scope of theirguardianship was limited. Thus they did not necessarily live withtheir ward, nor were they responsible for the physical well-beingof the minor or woman. But a woman needed her guardian’sauthorization to make a will (though he need not know or approveof its contents) or to sell or give away certain types of propertyclassified as res mancipi (property subject to mancipation), whichincluded certain animals, urban and rural estates in Italy, andslaves. Since money was not considered res mancipi, she could givea loan to someone without her tutor’s authorization. Also, since thegeneral concern was primarily with minors or women losing theirproperty, money and property (whether or not it was res mancipi)could be paid over to women and even to minors without a tutor’sauthorization. And a tutor’s approval was not needed for theappointment of a legal advocate for women.20

17 Gaius, Inst. 1.155, in WAL, p. 25. This term was also used to refer to theformer owner of a slave woman who had been freed but still had obligations toher patron.

18 WAL, pp. 24–5.19 For the city of Rome and the provinces, see Gaius, Inst. 1.183, 185

(WAL, pp. 26, 27). For an example of a non-Roman town granted Latinrights, see Lex Irnitana, ch. 29 (WAL, p. 31, and discussion on p. 30). For theresponsibility of the mother to request a male guardian for her minor childrenin the absence of a tutor testamentarius or tutor legitimus, see discussion andlaws cited in WAL, pp. 236–9; Jane F. Gardner, Family and Familia in RomanLaw and Life (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1998), pp. 241–52.

20 Gaius, Inst. 2.80, 81, 83, 85, 118, 122, cited in WAL, pp. 28–9. See alsoUlpian 11.27, cited in WAL, p. 30 (‘The guardian’s authorization is requiredfor women . . . if they are acting legally or in a statutory court, if they putthemselves under an obligation, if they are undertaking civil business, if theyare allowing their freedwoman to live in an unoYcial union with someoneelse’s slave, or if they alienate property that is res mancipi’). For freedom toappoint a procurator, see WAL, p. 43. For secondary literature, see also

M I R R O R R E A D I N G 683

B. Papyrus and Epigraphic Evidence

While it is clear that Roman law required women to haveguardians in principle, it has been suggested by some contem-porary scholars that laws usually sounded more prescriptive thanactual practice, as people might not adhere to the letter of the law.21

Thus for a better understanding of the situation of women inRoman times, it is necessary to check the Roman statutes onguardianship of women against the evidence provided by occa-sional writings on papyrus and inscriptions.

There is ample evidence of this kind that women acted withthe authorization of their male guardians in various kinds ofactivities. Thus from the towns around the Bay of Naplesdestroyed by the eruption of Vesuvius in AD 79 were found twowax tablets recording the assignment of tutors to women by aduovir (from Herculaneum) and a few tablets in which womenfigured as borrowers or creditors with their tutors authorizingthe transactions (from Murecine). From Rome and its environs,epitaphs have been unearthed on which women included theirtutors among those to be buried in their tombs and an inscrip-tion found noting a woman’s donation of a field to a collegiumwith the consent of her tutor.22

In the eastern part of the Roman empire, similar documentationis available. Thus many Greek inscriptions from Asia Minor andGreece commemorate public actions by women, including sales,gifts to cities or associations, and legal transactions, often statingthat these women acted with their k0rio", whether their fathers,their husbands, their sons, or other male relatives. Similarly manydocuments from Egypt mention women acting with a k0rio" invarious transactions. From Egypt also come a number of requeststo oYcials from women, both Roman citizens and non-citizens,asking that a particular guardian be appointed for them. There arealso found replies from oYcials granting such requests. Guardians(called 2p0stropo" in Greek) are likewise mentioned in the legalproceedings and marriage contracts from Nabatea (in the Jewish

S. Dixon, The Roman Family (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press,1992), pp. 43, 72.

21 Fiorenza, Memory, pp. 108–9: ‘The formal canons of codified patriarchallaw are generally more restrictive than the actual interaction and relationshipof women and men and the social reality which they govern.’ Though it wasin the context of women in rabbinic Judaism that she made this statement,this is listed among other methodological rules for a feminist hermeneutic ofsuspicion.

22 See the texts in WAL, pp. 31–4.

684 E S T H E R Y U E L . N G

woman Babatha’s documents written in Greek, though not thosewritten in Aramaic or Nabatean) and from Judaea.23

Thus it is fair to say that tutela mulierum not only existed intheory but was also a daily reality in the lives of Roman women(except those who were exempted for various reasons), not onlyin Rome but also in the eastern part of the Roman empire aswell. In the following, we shall look at one exemption that wasstipulated by law and was actually in existence in the first fourcenturies.

2. Women Exempted from Male Guardianship

A. Ius Liberorum and Women’s Exemption fromMale Guardianship

Traditionally, the Vestal Virgins who attended to the worship ofthe Roman goddesss Vesta were free of male guardianship inhonour of their priesthood. But under the Julian and Papian–Poppaean laws enacted in the time of Augustus (18 BC and 9 BC

respectively), other women in Rome were likewise exempted frommale guardianship if they fulfilled certain requirements: havingborne three children for free-born women, and four children forfreed women (former slaves) if they were under the tutela legitimaof their patron or his sons.24 Such a statute was referred to as theius (trium) liberorum (literally ‘law/right of [three] children’).To qualify for exemptions granted by this statute, the number ofchildren born originally referred to living children but, fromthe late third century, three live births clearly suYced.25

In addition to noting the existence of such an exemption inRoman law, it is important to understand the rationale behind it.According to Dio Cassius, Augustus ‘laid heavier assessmentsupon the unmarried men and women and on the other handoVered prizes for marriage and the begetting of children’.

23 See discussion and texts in WAL, pp. 34–7; New Documents IllustratingEarly Christianity, ed. G. H. R. Horsley, vol. 2 (North Ryde, Australia:Macquarie University, 1982), pp. 28–9 (examples from 1976 and 1977 papyruspublications). For the Greek situation, see also Van Bremen, Limits ofParticipation, pp. 217–25, 229. For Roman Egypt, see also Arjava, Women,pp. 118–25. In some cases, while women acted as their sons’ 2p0stropoi, thesemothers were in turn assisted by their k0rioi; See Van Bremen, Limits ofParticipation, p. 229.

24 See Gaius, Inst. 1.145 and 194, cited in WAL, pp. 25 and 28 respectively.For more extensive citations of the Julian and Papian–Poppaean laws inEnglish, see Roman Civilization, Sourcebook II: The Empire, ed. NaphtaliLewis and Meyer Reinhold (New York: Harper & Row, 1966), pp. 49–52.

25 WAL, p. 278, n. 43; Arjava, Women, p. 78, n. 3.

M I R R O R R E A D I N G 685

Similarly, Tacitus notes that ‘Augustus in his old age supple-mented the Julian laws with the Papian–Poppaean law in order toincrease the penalties on celibacy and enrich the treasury’.However, Tacitus went on to observe that ‘people were not driventhereby to marriage and the rearing of children in any greatnumbers, so powerful were the attractions of the childlessstate’. Instead, the rewards oVered for successful prosecution ofevaders of these laws resulted in the rise of professional spies andinformers such that Roman people were victimized by them.26

Whatever the result, the laws were clearly promulgated toencourage marriage and the raising of children, negatively byimposing penalties on the celibate and positively by providingincentives for those who complied. Since the ius liberorum wasan incentive for marriage and raising children among otherincentives, by mirror reading it is possible to infer that womennormally did not aspire to bearing three or more children andneeded incentives to do so. Likewise by mirror reading one mayinfer that male guardianship was viewed by women in generalas burdensome and possibly as a restriction by male authority ontheir freedom, such that exemption from it was very desirable,oVsetting the inconvenience of having three or more children inmarriage!

B. Papyrus and Epigraphic Evidence for Women ClaimingExempt Status

One way to test the above mirror reading of the ius liberorumin the Julian–Papian–Poppaean laws is to review the papyrus andinscriptional evidence of women claiming the right to act withouta tutor or k0rio". In fact, the evidence is certainly there, but itsinterpretation is not so straightforward.

There is no doubt that women did appeal to the ius liberorum fortheir acting without guardians in various kinds of transactions andthey were sometimes commemorated as holding this right. Interms of inscriptions, the ius liberorum is attested on several Latininscriptions, whether recording a transaction or commemorating apatrona or members of family. Similarly, a number of Greekinscriptions commemorating elite women in Greece and AsiaMinor mention that the women held the t0knwn dika0w.27

26 Dio Cassius, Roman History 54.16.1–2; Tacitus, Ann. 3.25, excerpted inRoman Civilization, ed. Lewis and Reinhold, p. 50.

27 See WAL, pp. 40–3 for excerpts of these inscriptions. See also Arjava,Women, p. 119 (for third-century women in Pisidia).

686 E S T H E R Y U E L . N G

In terms of papyri, in 1982 P. J. Sijpesteijn published a list of110 women from Egypt who were described as acting without ak0rio", usually explicitly on account of the t0knwn dika0w.28 Tothese, G. H. R. Horsley and J. Sheridan noted additional occur-rences of women acting without guardians.29 It is worth remem-bering with Sijpesteijn and Horsley that such women knownfrom papyri may well be merely the tip of the iceberg owing tothe incomplete picture provided by haphazard finds of papyriand also the fact that the mention of ius liberorum was unneces-sary in surviving non-commercial or non-legal documents.30 Onthe other hand, the high proportion of wealthy women in suchpapyri may suggest that the application of the legal status mighthave been a rather complicated and expensive process not easilyundertaken by women.31

It is also worth noting that of the 110 incidences recorded bySijpesteijn, only 11–12 are dated before AD 212, the year whenthe Constitutio Antoniniana enacted by the emperor Caracallamade all free people in the Roman empire citizens. The rest ofthe incidences came later, with the last mention of women actingwithout guardians dated to AD 615. In the opinion of Sijpesteijn,the relative scarcity of earlier appeals to the ius liberorum is dueto the fact that prior to 212 there were few Roman citizens inEgypt to whom the law applied.32

28 Michigan Papyri 15, Appendix II (Zutphen, Holland: Tesink, 1982), pp.158–71. However, as pointed out by Joelle Beaucamp, judging from theformula used, the appeal to the ius liberorum apparently ceased from the fifthcentury onwards, even though women still claimed to be acting without aguardian. See Beaucamp, Le Statut de la femme byzance [4–7 siecle], vol. 2: LesPratiques sociales (Paris: Boccard, 1992), pp. 194–204. This being the case andsince even before then there were women who did not appeal to the iusliberorum in Sijpesteijn’s list, the total number of women recorded bySijpesteijn explicitly making the appeal to this right should be reduced toaround 95.

29 New Documents, ed. Horsley, vol. 2, pp. 30–1 and vol. 4 (1987), p. 101

respectively. See also J. Sheridan, ‘Women without Guardians: An UpdatedList’, Bulletin of the American Society of Papyrologists 33 (1996), 117–31. SinceSheridan does not include writing ability and persons assisting the women inher tabulation (123 entries), our discussion below will be based on Sijpesteijn’slist of 110 women.

30 P. J. Sijpesteijn, Aegyptus 45 (1965), pp. 171–89, at 174. (In this earlierwork, 83 examples were tabulated on pp. 180–7 of women acting without atutor [cwr1" kur0ou]). See also New Documents, ed. Horsley, vol. 2, p. 29.

31 See Sheridan, ‘Women without Guardians’, pp. 126–31.32 Sijpesteijn, Aegyptus, p. 176, commenting on the 10 (among 81) women

in Egypt who appealed to the law. In Sijpesteijn’s later updated table, thecorresponding numbers are 11–12 (among 110). In connection with the year212, it is interesting that one extant petition (and the approval) for the exercise

M I R R O R R E A D I N G 687

Outside Egypt, a parchment in Greek has been discovered onthe Middle Euphrates dated AD 235 recording some sort of legalact (which was not carried out) by a widow with the iusliberorum.33

The above evidence suYces to show that the appeal to the iusliberorum was made by women in diVerent parts of the Romanempire at least up to the fourth century.34 However, scholarshave made two observations that deserve mention. First, it iscurious that even in transactions where a tutor was not required,there was sometimes an appeal to the ius liberorum. Likewise,where inscriptions mention women with this qualification, some-times there was no apparent legal reason for doing so. Thus it issuggested by contemporary scholars that, in a society highlyconscious of honour, having given birth to three or morechildren (and thus being eligible for rights35 granted by imperiallaw) became an attained honourable status in itself.36

of the right in future transactions (P. Oxy. 12 [1916] 1467) is probably to bedated AD 263. See New Documents, ed. Horsley, vol. 2, pp. 29–30; WAL, p. 39.

33 See WAL, p. 38 and 278, n. 45.34 The ius liberorum seems to have faded by the end of the fourth century

and Justinian actually abolished it in the sixth. See WAL, pp. 45–6; Arjava,Women, pp. 79, 107, 126.

35 In addition to the exemption from male guardianship, women meeting therequirements of the ius liberorum also had certain privileges of inheritance (e.g.from their husbands or their sons) otherwise unavailable to women. See WAL,p. 38; Arjava, Women, p. 79. Thus it is not surprising that even men andwomen not meeting the requirements could petition the emperor to grant themthe status. See WAL, p. 38 (in the case of Pliny the Younger and Suetonius);Arjava, Women, p. 126.

36 Thus Sijpesteijn, Aegyptus, pp. 188–9; WAL, p. 38. In view of the legally‘needless appeal’ to the ius liberorum even in Latin inscriptions, this seems abetter interpretation than that of Arjava (Women, p. 121), who thinks thatpeople in Roman Egypt tended to confuse tutela mulierum with their owninherited guardianship, which covered wider functions than the Roman version.If women were proud to claim the honorific status, then probably it was notwithin the reach of most women. (See also n. 31 above.) This seems tomilitate against Arjava’s conjectures (Women, p. 122) that most women over theage of 25 had given birth three times and qualified for exemption, and thatfew adult freeborn women in the Roman empire were under guardianship.Arjava’s conjecture is untenable also because of the general antipathy toparenthood and the high mortality rate of children. See Trevett, ChristianWomen, p. 188. (The paucity of women in papyri actually having a k0rio" fromthe middle of the third century onwards may not reflect the actual number ofwomen with guardians. See also New Documents, ed. Horsley, vol. 4, p. 101;Van Bremen, Limits of Participation, pp. 217–25.)

688 E S T H E R Y U E L . N G

Secondly, in connection with the Egyptian women mentionedin papyri, it is curious that even though they appealed to theius liberorum for acting without their k0rio", the documentsnonetheless often mention the presence of men accompanyingor assisting them in their petition or transactions. Such a manis variously described, such as sunest1" ka1 (sum)par8n ka1(sun)e2dok8n, or only one or two of these terms.37 In fact, of the110 cases listed by Sijpesteijn, 25 mention the presence of a manor men, whether the husband (14), a son (one), or unknownrelations (10).38 In another papyrus not on Sijpesteijn’s list, theman assisting the woman appealing to the ius liberorum was afoster-father.39 If exemption from male guardianship was deemeda freedom eagerly sought by women, how are we to understandthe presence of the men accompanying these women? Onepossible interpretation is that the women were illiterate andneeded men to write for them. However, in Sijpesteijn’s list,some illiterate women were not accompanied by such men.Conversely, in a number of cases those accompanied by suchmen were literate. Clearly writing ability was not a determiningfactor.40 Another possible interpretation is that the men in thelives of these women found it hard to relinquish their authorityover them. If this is the real reason, then it is very strange thatthese papyri also show appeal to the ius liberorum for the womenacting without a guardian. Besides, ten of the associated menwere of unknown relationship to the women. While we maynever understand fully the rationale behind the male companyand it may vary from case to case, it probably had to do withlack of confidence in the women’s ability to act alone withoutmen (whether on the part of the women themselves or their malecompanions), since the notion of women’s weakness in judge-ment was deeply ingrained in ancient societies.41

37 Sijpesteijn, Michigan Papyri, p. 170, n. 7; New Documents, ed. Horsley,vol. 4, pp. 100, 133; Arjava, Women, p. 122; WAL, p. 46.

38 One case dated in AD 502 (where the document simply said cwr1" kur0ou)should perhaps be eliminated from our total of 25. Interestingly, the husbandof the woman is said to be sunest0". Perhaps the woman’s illiteracy accountsfor the husband’s assistance.

39 New Documents, ed. Horsley, vol. 4, p. 101.40 In the example cited by Horsley (ibid.), while the woman holding the

right of ius liberorum made her petition through her foster-father, another manactually wrote the petition.

41 Thus Arjava, Women, p. 115. For legal stereotypes of women’s abilitiesand behaviour, see WAL, pp. 51–5.

M I R R O R R E A D I N G 689

3. Ius Liberorum and Men’s Exemption from Guardianship

Besides encouraging women to bear children, the provision ofius liberorum was also applicable to men:42

Persons are exempted from serving as guardians or trustees for variousreasons, but generally because of their children, whether they are in thefather’s power or free from his power. For anyone who has three livingchildren in Rome, or four in Italy, or five in the provinces, can, after theexample of the other compulsory public services, be exempted fromserving as guardian or trustee.43

By mirror reading this rule, it is safe to infer that men did notfancy being a guardian (tutor) or trustee (curator), so thatexemption from guardianship could serve as an incentive to enterinto marriage and bear children. In fact, one gets the sameimpression about male reluctance to serve as tutors by mirrorreading other legal provisions. Thus one such statute states:‘Agnates, patrons, and manumitters of free persons are allowed tomake a legal cession of tutela over women to someone else; buttutela over male wards cannot be ceded, because it does notappear burdensome, since it terminates with puberty.’44

Later there was in fact legal discussion about circum-stances warranting exemption from tutela for men, and theexercise of a number of tutelages is a valid excuse for exemptionfrom undertaking another.45 That certain men could legitimatelyexcuse themselves from guardianship was generally assumed,

42 In addition to the exemption from guardianship and inheritance rights(see n. 35 above), men with the requisite number of children also enjoyedother privileges such as preference in standing for magistracies, in seniority inoYce, special seats at the Roman theatres, etc. For a list of such statutes, seeA. N. Sherwin-White, Letters of Pliny: A Historical and Social Commentary(Oxford: OUP, 1966), p. 558.

43 Gaius, Inst. 1.25. English translation from Roman Civilization, ed.Lewis and Reinhold, p. 51. The Latin reads: Excusantur autem tutores velcuratores variis ex causis: plerumque autem propter liberos, sive in potestate sintsive emancipati, si enim tres liberos quis superstites Romae habeat vel in Italiaquattuor vel in provinciis quinque, a tutela vel cura possunt excusari exemploceterorum munerum: nam et tutelam et curam placuit publicum munus esse.See The Institutes of Gaius (Latin text of Seckel and Kuebler), ed. and trans.W. M. Gordon and O. F. Robinson (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press,1988).

44 Gaius, Inst. 1.168, cited in Gardner, Family, p. 172.45 Dig. 27.1 de excusationibus (‘On Excuses’), noted in Gardner, Family,

p. 52, n. 82.

690 E S T H E R Y U E L . N G

as seen in the following excerpt from a letter of the emperorSeptimius Severus to the consul Cuspius Rufinus in AD 197:

I wish it to be clear to everyone that I use all possible means ofassisting wards, since it is a matter of public concern; therefore anymother who does not seek suitable tutors for her sons, or who doesnot promptly supply other names if the earlier ones excuse themselvesor are rejected, is not to have the right of applying for the propertyof her sons if they are intestate.46

If men wished to excuse themselves from being a tutor to malechildren, generally regarded as a temporary and thus less burden-some task, we can imagine their even greater reluctance to serve asa tutor to women. This is all the more so since adult women couldreplace their tutors with others of their choice. Thus ‘it has beenpermitted to women by a decree of the Senate to request anothertutor in place of one who is absent’. Also, a woman who wishedto get rid of her tutor could make a ‘mock sale’ (coemptio) of herselfby the tutor to the man she wanted, who in turn would free her andbecome her fiduciary tutor.47 Even without being replaced, tutorscould be compelled in a court to give their consent and disgruntledwomen might even sue their tutors.48

In short, instead of cherishing the opportunity to have some kindof control over women as their guardians, men in the Romanempire actually found tutela mulierum a burden to be evaded ifpossible. In the light of this historical context let us now turn toIgnatius’ advice that Polycarp serve as a guardian to widows.

III. IGNATIUS’ ADVICE TO POLYCARP REGARDING WIDOWS

1. Mirror Reading by Elisabeth Schussler Fiorenza and Others

According to Fiorenza (closely followed by Trevett),49

Ignatius’ advice in his letter to Polycarp 4.1–2 (see the

46 Dig. 38.17.2.23; 26.6.2.3, cited ibid. p. 248.47 Gaius, Inst. 1.173, 115 respectively, cited in WAL, p. 26.48 Gaius, Inst. 1.114–15, 190–2 (tutors compelled in court). For the charge

of being an untrustworthy tutor, see Gardner, Family, pp. 251–2.49 While the following is based on Fiorenza’s In Memory of Her, in fact

Christine Trevett has adopted a similar position, especially with regard toIgnatius’ desire to curb women’s power, and to virgins living as a group,possibly under the oversight of Tavia, a benefactress of celibate Christianwomen in Smyrna. Trevett even surmises that Smyrna may have incubated theseeds of the celibate life advocated in the Acts of Paul and Thecla. UnlikeFiorenza, however, Trevett does not regard the virgins or widows as amongthe heretics; see her Christian Women, especially pp. 218–20.

M I R R O R R E A D I N G 691

translation at the beginning of this article) is to be read as a unithaving to do with widows, and the thrust is to strengthen thecontrol of the bishop over them. This is to be seen in the meaningof the word �rontist0" and in the flow of the sentence: the wordconnotes legal tutorship or managerial administratorship and thefact that he urges Polycarp to be a �rontist0" to the widows mayimply that he views the latter as not exercising enough controlover them. This view is supposedly supported by the injunc-tions following (‘let nothing be done without your approval’ and‘stand firm’).

In addition, Fiorenza reconstructs the situation of the widowsmentioned here with reference to Ignatius’ letter to theSmyrneans. According to her, Smyrn. 13.1 puts the householdsof married members in parallel with the ‘virgins who are calledwidows’.50 From this she infers that these widows lived togetherin households, examples of which may be found in the house-holds of Alce and Tavia. As this letter also mentions somedeviant members of the Smyrneans who baptized and held the2g0ph without the bishop (Smyrn. 7.1; 8.2), she surmises thatcertain widows were accustomed to holding the eucharist in theirhomes. This would explain why, in his letter to Polycarp,Ignatius urged more meetings and personal acquaintance withthe members to strengthen the supervision of the bishop, notmerely in terms of spiritual care but also as legal and economiccontrol as well. This ties in with the fact that Ignatius also statesthat slave-women should not expect to be bought free withchurch funds (Pol. 4.3c), married women are to be satisfied withtheir husbands (5.1b), and marriages are to be contracted onlywith the approval of the bishop (5.2c).

In short, Fiorenza opines that the letters of Ignatius give ussome indication that the gradual patriarchalization of the churchand its leadership also engendered the ‘church of women’ andthat the gradually patriarchalized episcopacy sought very earlyon to control these women’s associations socially, legally, andeconomically.51

50 The expression ‘virgins called widows’ (a3 parq0noi a3 leg0menai c8rai) orthe notion behind it does not seems to be a Christian invention, as indicatedin Dig. 50.16.242.3 (Javolenus): Labeo says that not only that woman who hadat one time been married is called ‘widow’ (vidua), but also that woman whohad not (ever) had a man’. See citation in WAL, p. 19.

51 Memory, pp. 313–15.

692 E S T H E R Y U E L . N G

2. Mention of Widows in Ignatius’ Letter to Smyrnaand its Implication

Before assessing Fiorenza’s and Trevett’s interpretation of theletter to Polycarp 4.1–2, it is important to evaluate their under-standing of the situation of the widows in Smyrna based onIgnatius’ letter to the Smyrneans. The greetings to ‘virgins who arecalled widows’ after the families of the brethren with their wivesand children (Smyrn. 13.1) hardly suYce as evidence of widows orvirgins living together in households. In fact, it is by no meanscertain that the group of persons greeted as the ‘virgins calledwidows’ in Smyrn. 13.1 is the same as the ‘widows’ mentioned byIgnatius in Pol. 4.1. As for the household of Tavia and the personof Alce (Smyrn. 13.2), they are in fact mentioned separately laterafter two intervening sentences. In addition, there is no indicationin the letter to Polycarp or that to the Smyrneans that virginsor widows were among the schismatics who had separate meetingsfor baptism and the eucharist. In fact, the docetic heretics whostayed away from the church’s eucharist and prayer (Smyrn. 6.2c)are described earlier (6.2b) as having no concern for the widow,the orphan, the oppressed, the prisoner or the one released, thehungry, or the thirsty. By including the widow in this list, it is clearthat Ignatius regarded them as underprivileged, marginalized,and requiring help, rather than women whose power was fearedby patriarchal clergy and needed to be curbed. As for Alce, belovedby Ignatius, the household of Tavia, and that of the wife ofEpitropus (Pol. 8.2), they were evidently highly esteemed by himand had nothing to do with the schismatic heretics whatsoever.It is pure conjecture for Trevett to say that Polycarp’s dealingswith Tavia may not have been easy and that Ignatius advisedwresting the responsibility from others and concentrating powerin the hands of the bishop.52

3. A Better Interpretation of Ignatius’ Letter to Polycarp 4.1–2

If widows and virgins were not holding separate meetings inSmyrna, then Ignatius’ advice to Polycarp for meetings to bemore frequent and for him to know each church memberindividually was not targeted against widows in particular,contrary to Fiorenza’s mirror reading. Likewise the precedingsentence about the importance of doing everything with thebishop’s approval may also have little to do with the widows,since it is followed by ‘stand firm (e2st0�ei)’, an expression

52 Trevett, Christian Women, p. 220.

M I R R O R R E A D I N G 693

similar to the one used earlier (st8qi 3dra8o") in connection withthe proper attitude to adopt with the heretics (‘those who appearto be trustworthy yet who teach strange doctrines’) (3.1).This observation is strengthened when we recall that it was inthe context of refutation of heresy that Ignatius urged theSmyrneans: ‘Let no one do anything that has to do with thechurch without the bishop. Only that eucharist which is underthe authority of the bishop (or whomever he himself designates)is to be considered valid’ (8.1).

However, it is possible that the injunction (to do nothing withoutthe approval of the bishop) still has an eye on the treatment ofwidows. If so, it is necessary to examine the flow of the sentencesboth in 4.1–2 and in earlier paragraphs. Now it is interesting tonote that Ignatius repeatedly urged Polycarp to ‘bear with allpeople’, not just the good disciples, but also the troublesome onesand the heretics (1.2, 3; 2.1; 3.1).53 Moreover, this forbearance ofpeople is to be patterned after God (‘even as the Lord bears withyou’) (1.2) and for God’s sake (3.1). It is right after his mention ofChrist ‘who for our sake endured in every way’ (3.2) that Ignatiusurged Polycarp not to let the widows be neglected, followed by‘after the Lord, you be their guardian’. In the literary context,then, the injunction not to neglect the widows but to be theirguardian may be part of the exhortation to bear with troublesomedisciples and put up with all things. By mirror reading, we mayinfer that the concern and guardianship of widows was not awelcome task.

At this point, it is necessary to go one step further and ask whatkind of guardianship Ignatius might have in mind for Polycarp. Aswe saw earlier, a man could not become the legal tutor of anunrelated woman unless he had been named by the man legallyresponsible for her, or she herself had requested him before theauthorities. Moreover, women could change guardians and evensue them. Thus it is unlikely that Ignatius urged Polycarpto control women of means in his congregation by strivingto become their legal guardian, even if he were so minded.Moreover, as we saw above, the widows in Smyrna were regardedby Ignatius as among the underprivileged and marginalized, soit does not seem likely that they generally had financial transac-tions to make that would require a legal guardian’s approval.Nevertheless, we cannot rule this out completely, since even poor

53 While Ignatius used diVerent Greek words (b0staze, 2n0cou, 3pom0nein),variously translated as ‘bear’, ‘put up with’, and ‘endure’, they seem to be thesame in meaning; at least their meanings overlap.

694 E S T H E R Y U E L . N G

widows might have the occasion to become beneficiaries and makewills, or to nominate guardians for their children, or resolvematters in the court, thus requiring the approval of a legal tutor.Besides, a man could become the guardian of more than onewoman. Thus it is not impossible that Ignatius had in mindPolycarp’s legal guardianship (tutela) over needy women in hiscongregation, a task not necessarily to Polycarp’s liking, in linewith the mentality of men in general at that time, as we saw earlierby looking at Roman laws as well as papyrus and inscriptionalevidence. However, it is also possible that the word �rontist0" wasnot used in the technical sense of tutor, but more generally todenote caring concern for the widows in need. While legally lessaccountable, even in this scenario Polycarp might still find the taskfar from easy, as seen in 1 Tim. 5:9–16.

No matter what interpretation we take, and if the consent ofthe bishop still had to do with the widows, then Ignatius wasprobably urging Polycarp to be a conscientious guardian oradministrator such that the poor widows would not be defraudedby his neglect of them.54 On the other hand, the fact thatIgnatius went on to urge Polycarp not to do anything withoutGod’s consent would ensure that the guardianship was carriedout honourably and ethically.

IV. CONCLUSION

The above study of the tutela mulierum and the ius liberorum inthe early Roman empire indicates that male guardianship of adultwomen was regarded as burdensome not only to the womenconcerned but also to most men. Against this background,Ignatius’ exhortation to Polycarp not to neglect widows but to betheir guardian takes on a new aspect. Instead of being a means ofpatriarchal and episcopal control over women (as alleged bycontemporary feminist scholars employing a hermeneutic ofsuspicion), it is rather an invitation to bear with inconveniencesand burdensome demands as an example of the bishop’s enduranceof all things and bearing with all people. As such, it is a mark offollowing Christ who endured all for the sake of all people.

ESTHER YUE L. NG

Christian Witness Theological Seminary, Concord, CAestherng@cwts.edu

54 According to William R. Schoedel, Ignatius of Antioch (Hermeneia;Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985), p. 269, the stress on the bishop’s approval mayconceivably be related to the control of the funds involved in the relief ofwidows. This, however, may just be a precaution against monetary abuse.

M I R R O R R E A D I N G 695