Diakonos and prostatis: Women’s patronage in Early Christianity 1 Carolyn Osiek Texas Christian University Texas (USA) Abstract In spite of numerous studies on the patronage system in Mediterranean antiquity, little attention has been paid to either how the patronage of women was part of the system or how it differed. In fact, there is substantial evidence for women’s exercise of both public and private patronage to women and men in the Greco- Roman world, by both elites and sub-elites. This information must then be applied to early Christian texts to infer how women’s patronage functioned in early house churches and Christian life. 1. INTRODUCTION The name of Phoebe and the allusion to Romans 16:1 these days evokes interest, controversy, and extensive bibliography. I do not intend here to exegete this passage, but to use it as a springboard to examine a significant part of the social life of early Christianity that has received little attention: the role of women patrons in the life of the church. To do that, we must back up and look first of all at the wider phenomenon of patronage in the ancient Greco-Roman world and how it functioned with regard to women. The phenomenon of patronage in ancient Roman society has been well studied. There are major cross-cultural studies of the social construction of patronage (Gellner & Waterbury 1977; Eisenstadt & Roniger 1984; Elliott 1996) and of its specific exercise in ancient Rome (Saller 1982; Wallace- Hadrill 1989; Krause 1987). Patronage in early Christianity is now beginning to occupy the attention of biblical scholars and historians, beginning already with 1 Prof Dr Carolyn Osiek is Professor of New Testament at Brite Divinity School, Texas Christian University, Fort Worth (TX), USA. She was President of the Catholic Biblical Association of America in 1994-1995 and is currently President of the Society of Biblical Literature (2005). Prof Dr Carolyn Osiek is a member of the International Advisory Board of HTS Theological Studies and a research associate of Prof Dr Andries G van Aarde, Department of New Testament Studies, Faculty of Theology, University of Pretoria. HTS 61(1&2) 2005 347 Diakonos and prostatis: Women’s patronage in early Christianity Fred Danker’s influential Benefactor 1982 (later, Chow 1992; Joubert 2001) and of course, the ever-insightful E A Judge already in 1960. In all of the above cases, however, the androcentric norm prevails, and women are hardly mentioned, in spite of the fact that they participated heavily in the patronage system on both sides, as patrons and clients. Thus, this article has four parts: first, a quick survey of patronage and how it functioned; second, women’s exercise of patronage in the Roman world; third, the role of patronage in early Christian life; and finally, the role of Christian women in this social system. 2. PATRONAGE IN THE ANCIENT MEDITERRANEAN AT THE TIME OF THE EARLY ROMAN EMPIRE In their cross-cultural study of patronage, Eisenstadt & Roniger (1984:48-49) list nine characteristics of patron-client relations. They are usually “particularistic and diffuse.” They are characterized by simultaneous exchange of different kinds of resources, economic and political on one side and “promises of reciprocity, solidarity, and loyalty on the other.” The exchange of resources usually comes as some kind of “package-deal” in which none can be exchanged separately, but only in full combination. They contain an ideal of “unconditionality and of long-range credit.” They bring with them a strong sense of interpersonal obligation that is intricately connected with concepts of honor and shame. Patron-client relationships are not fully legal but rather more informal, and at times, go directly against or furnish a means to circumvent laws. These relationships are entered into and can be abandoned more or less voluntarily, though social constraints can certainly set up a situation in which a client has little choice. They are formed in vertical personal relationships and tend to undermine any sense of horizontal solidarity. Finally, they are “based on a very strong element of inequality and of differences of power between patrons and clients.” John Elliott (1996:148) notes that patronage “involves issues of unequal power relations, pyramids of power, power brokers, protection, privilege, prestige, payoffs and tradeoffs, influence, ‘juice,’ ‘clout,’ ‘connections,’ Beziehungen, raccomendazioni, ‘networks,’ reciprocal grants and obligations, values associated with friendship, loyalty, and generosity, and the various strands that link this institution to the social system at large.” Richard Saller (1982:1), in his study of Roman personal patronage, synthesizes it all into three pivotal characteristics: there is reciprocal exchange of goods and services, the relationship is personal and of some duration, and finally, the relationship is asymmetrical. A fourth characteristic is often added 348 HTS 61(1&2) 2005 Carolyn Osiek in the consensus: that is it voluntary and not legally enforceable (Wallace- Hadrill 1989:3). One of the contributions of the patronage system to the social order is to give the weak a means of influencing the powerful (Saller 1982:191-92). The client could expect to receive economic and political benefits, for example, gifts of food, invitations to dinner (for the importance of this dinner invitation as symbol of patronage, see Juvenal, Sat 5.12-15), gifts of land, house, or sometimes cash, low or no interest loans, lodging in the town house or villa of the patron, favorable recommendations and appointments, help with matchmaking, and bequests and inheritance (White 1978:90-92). The patron in return could expect loyalty, public support, economic assistance if needed and possible, votes, and most important, public praise and presence, especially at significant times for the political advancement of the patron. Clients found themselves in a double bind: it was expected that they would publicize the generosity of their patron’s beneficia, but the admission of having received them marked one’s own lower social status (Saller 1982:127-28). A client who did not give proper praise was considered ingratus and unworthy of more benefaction. It is recognized by ancient social historians that patronage systems definitely existed to some extent in the cities of classical Greece even though there seems to have been no terminology to refer to it exactly (Millett 1989). For example, the word prostatēs, so important to us for understanding Romans 16:1, was in classical Athens the term for the required citizen patron of a metoikos, so no citizen would acknowledge having one. Yet in the Roman period, Plutarch understands prostatēs as the equivalent of patronus (Romulus 13) (Millett 1989:33-34). However, the institution of patronage never developed in earlier Greece in the extensive way that it did in Roman society. Moreover, the end of the Republic and the beginning of the Empire signaled a new resurgence in patronal relationships, as the old structures of government and power gave way to the uncertainty of newly developing ways of exercising power. The new figure of the imperator took advantage of the vacuum of power to seize control of major power networks, governing by an intricate balance of relationships with the elite families. Augustus was able to consolidate power and set up a system in which “the inaccessibility of the center except through personal links” deepened and nourished the patronal structure of society, and to cast himself as pater patriae, chief benevolent father figure of the entire Mediterranean world (Saller 1982:2-3; Wallace- Hadrill 1989:74, 79-81; Johnson and Dandeker 1989:237-38). While the Latin language of patronage contained such direct words as patronatus, patronus/a, clientela, and cliens, by the time of the early Empire HTS 61(1&2) 2005 349 Diakonos and prostatis: Women’s patronage in early Christianity this language was generally considered too abrasive to the delicate honor system, and a new set of terms was adapted into the structures of patronage: that of friendship. Thus the semantic field of amcitia becomes the preferred language (Saller 1982:11-15; Brunt 1965). Because the patronage relationship was by definition asymmetrical but the language of friendship could also be used in the topos of true friendship, one could speak of amici minores (Pliny, Ep 2.6.2), amici pauperes (Pliny, Ep 9.30), amici inferiores (Seneca, Ep ad Lucilium 94.14) or the like, all of which were meant to be less condescending than the bald word cliens (Saller 1982:12; White 1978:81). Seneca (De beneficiis 6.34.2) credits Gaius Gracchus and Livius Drusus as the first to classify their “friends” into three categories, and suggests that the classification is reasonable and to be continued: amici primi who are received in private, amici secundi received with others, and numquam veri (never trustworthy) to be received all together. Some preferred the term cultor for one who was attempting to ingratiate him/herself with a patron, and more commonly, the verb colere, which also applied to honor and reverence due to the gods, a meaning that carried over into Christian usage. One of the major ways of exercising patronage was with regard to artists, poets, and writers; here words like patronus and patrocinium are never used (Joubert 2001:20; White 1978:79; cf Gold 1982). The range of terms employed for this informal but essential social custom varies greatly: amare/amor, sodalis, dliigere/dilectus, contubernium (more often used for a non-legal marriage), caritas/carus, familiaritas/familiaris, even meus and noster (White 1978:80-81). The exchange of goods and services was connoted by such terms as meritum and gratia, but primarily under the name of officium and beneficium, originally a gesture of duty and loyalty from the inferior vs. a gesture of largesse on the part of the superior. Gradually, however, the terms became almost interchangeable, and are thus used even by Cicero in his treatise De officiis (Saller 1982:12-22). The language of friendship could be used in an upward as well as a downward direction, that is, toward one’s patron as well as toward one’s client. The patronal relationship was often between two persons of distinctly different social classes, but it need not be. It could exist between near-equals, for example between a senior and a junior senator. Even senators could be referred to as imperial clientes. While one would think that the loyalty inherent in the patron-client relationship should have implied that a client could have only one patron, there is some evidence that it was possible to have more than one patron, perhaps in a way that would make it possible for the client to subtly play them off each other (Saller 1989:53-54). In the fourth century, the famous orator Libanius delivered at Antioch his oration 350 HTS 61(1&2) 2005 Carolyn Osiek against patronage (De patrociniis vicorum) in the context of social and political upheavals that were driving peasants to align themselves in clientage with powerful military patrons, undermining the authority of aristocratic landowners over their peasants. In this context, he argues strongly that there must be only one patron: the landowner. Here, in the interest of wealthy landowners (Libanius’ own class), we see both the ideal and the reality. Two further aspects of the patronage system deserve further comment. The first is the particular relationship between patron and freed slave. Most of the characteristics of patronage still apply here, the main difference being that the officia and loyalty owed to the patron, under the title of operae and obsequium, was specifically designated, not at all voluntary, and enforceable by law. Here the terminology of patron and libertus/a was used, even in funerary inscriptions. The relationship was certainly not voluntary on the part of the freedperson, who often continued doing pretty much what he or she had done as a slave. Jennifer Glancy (2002:124-26) cautions that the patron-client model was not a good one in this more coercive case. Nevertheless, the terminology was used and some of the same mutually advantageous benefits were applied. The second aspect is the phenomenon of public patronage or euergetism (Harmand 1957; Hands 1965; Joubert 2001)2 and of an intermediate form that is important for early Christianity, patronage of a private group. While the essence of the patronage system is a relationship between two individual persons who are not social equals, in fact the relationship of one dominant person to groups of social inferiors has always been part of the system as an extension of the personal relationship into one with a collective relationship, whether a professional guild, a club, a group of the poor, the devotees of a private religion, or a city. Building public facilities like fountains or baths, providing free meals to the needy or to children of the city, or holding banquets at civic celebrations are all examples of public patronage. Building meeting houses and temples for groups, providing economic assistance or banquets to devotees are examples of the exercise of private patronage to groups. In return, the patron is named in thankful inscriptions or has a statue erected in his or her honor, is seated in a place of honor at official gatherings of the group, appointed to an official position (which may be honorary), and generally hailed as VIP. Of course, the role of the emperor constitutes the highest form of public patronage. The giving of public banquets by the emperor or by wealthy private citizens on the occasion of a festival or celebration is a familiar form of patronage, and those forms that we would call 2 Joubert’s (2001) attempt to draw sharp distinctions between Roman patronage and Greek euergetism is not convincing. HTS 61(1&2) 2005 351 Diakonos and prostatis: Women’s patronage in early Christianity charity or social aid were exercised not primarily out of compassion, but for the motive for which all patronage was exercised: honor, philotimia, philodoxia (Hands 1965:49). 3. WOMEN’S PATRONAGE IN THE ROMAN WORLD Both private and public patronages were activities in which women were deeply involved. Women could attend the morning salutatio (Juvenal, Sat 1.120-16). There is ample evidence of women’s participation in business. Women who had the legal status sui iuris could conduct their own transactions, though there were some legal limitations imposed. The earlier institution of tutela, male guardianship requiring permission to alienate property, was mostly inactive by the Augustan age, though former owners could still exercise considerable control over the property of a liberta. Other legislation was enacted that prevented women from taking on liability for the debts of others. Roman legal scholars think that this restriction was primarily aimed to protect women from unscrupulous husbands. As is often the case with Roman law, what is on the books is not necessarily what is done, and there were many exceptions (Gardner 1991:233-36). The social and political patronage of elite women can be well documented. First, of course, women often served as patrons for other women. Cratia, the wife of M Cornelius Fronto, tutor of Marcus Aurelius, is called in one of his letters to the emperor a clienta of Domitia Lucilla, the emperor’s mother. As such, she visited the imperial family, staying with them in Naples without her husband to celebrate her patron’s birthday (Fronto 1.145-51; Champlin 1980:25). An otherwise unknown woman named Valatta on the British frontier writes to Flavius Cerialis, commanding officer of the Vindolanda outpost, about a favor mediated by his wife (“Per Lepidinam”), Sulpicia Lepidina (Bowman & Thomas 1994:230-231).3 The epitaph of Epiphania, a second or third century benefactor, the well-traveled daughter and wife of ship owners, reports that she was generous with her wealth, motivated by eusebeia, especially to abandoned friends hōs gynē gynēksi, as a woman to women (Llewelyn et al 1981-84, 2:55-56). Women’s patronage was not limited to women, however. Though women could not vote or hold elective office, elite women were heavily involved in the exertion of political pressure and the informal negotiations that were always included. Indeed, it seems likely that all elite women were involved in politics at some level by reason of their family connections. The influence of powerful women in the palace and the law court through their 3 No 257 (inv. 85.117). The tablet is dated to period 3 of the fort, 97-102/3 CE. 352 HTS 61(1&2) 2005 Carolyn Osiek exercise of patronage, amicitiae muliebres, was ever present (Champlin 1980:109, 171 note 87; Bauman 1992; Dixon 1983:91). Moreover, Valerius Maximus 8.3 cites situations in which women argued their own cases in court. Though he thought this self-defense unusual, he does not at all imply that it was unusual for women to be involved in legal suits, either as defendant or plaintiff (Dixon 1983:100). Roscius of Ameria, later defended by Cicero in a parricide case that involved political machinations against Sulla, fled for protection in Rome to the aristocrat Caecilia Metella, and not to any of her abundant male relatives or her husband, because of her amicitia with his deceased father. Whatever the political intricacies in the story, it was recognized that she was his patron, not one of the male members of her family (Dixon 1983:94, with other examples). Augustus’ wife Livia was exalted in public imagery as the paragon of wifely virtue, patrona ordinis matronarum, and upholder, with her husband, of “family values,” in spite of their utter failure as parents to instill the advantages of the virtuous life in their daughter, Julia. Livia had her own entourage and client loyalties, even receiving the Senate in her house during her widowhood. Josephus recounts her benefactions to the Herodian family, including marriage advice to Salome (Ant 17.10).4 Upon her death, the grateful Senate voted the erection of an arch in her honor, which had never before been done for a woman, but Tiberius never allowed it to be built. The Senate’s gratitude arose because she had saved the lives of some of its members, provided for their orphaned children, and helped many by paying their daughters’ dowries. She was so popular that she was called informally, in parallel to Augustus’ title, mater patriae, a title that was denied to her officially, alas, even after her death (Dio Cassius 58.2.3) (Bauman 1992:124-129).5 Nero’s aunt Domitia had clients, and the schemer Agrippina, Nero’s mother, was known to be a patron for numbers of men eager for political advancement. It was she who succeeded in getting Seneca’s exile rescinded (Tacitus, Ann 12.8). On the death of her father Germanicus, his clientela passed to her as well. At one point, Nero had her residence moved from the palace to the house that had belonged to Antonia in order to prevent the crowds that arrived for the morning salutatio to their patron (Tacitus, Ann 13.18.5). Her political enemy, Junia Silana, got two of her own male clients to charge Agrippina with inciting revolt from imperial authority in the person of 4 Other imperial women who were benefactors to the Herodians, according to Josephus, were Antonia and Aggrippina the Younger. Poppaea Sabina, wife of Nero, was also said to be mediator for Jewish causes (Ant 18.143, 164; 20.135-36; 20.189-96; Life 13-16), and Domitia, wife of Domitian, a personal benefactor of Josephus (Life 429) (see Matthews 2001:30-36). 5 Livia’s power was derivative of that of Augustus, but, like many queens and empresses, while she had it, she exercised it quite independently. HTS 61(1&2) 2005 353 Diakonos and prostatis: Women’s patronage in early Christianity Rubellius Plautus (Bauman 1992:146-48). Antonia Caenis, freedwoman of Claudius’ mother Antonia, became mistress of Vespasian until her death. Dio Cassius (65.14.1-5) gives a vivid description of her patronal power and wealth: she gave in exchange for money various kinds of public offices and priesthoods, and obtained imperial decisions and secured imperial pardons in favor of her clients. Many more incidents could be mentioned. The names of Poppaea Sabina with Nero, Plotina with Trajan, Marcia with Commodus, and Julia Domna with Caracalla are among them. These stories of political involvement of elite women, or women who gain access to elite status through consorting with an elite male, are well known. Less attention has been paid to lesser women and their exercise of patronage. Cornelius Nepos’ comment about the presence on the dining couches of Roman women – as contrasted to Greek – at dinner parties indicates greater social freedom of movement for first-century Roman and romanized women, but it also means greater access to the corridors of informal power and greater ability to influence them (Preface, Illustrious Lives). Juvenal complains of women who not only attend mixed dinner parties but also host them, and discourse on politics and literature (Sat 6.434-456) (Dixon 2001:101). He also hints (1.39) that the best way to social advancement is through the patronage of some aging wealthy woman. The exercise of women’s patronage was not limited to the elite, however. The evidence from Pompeii reveals women active in a variety of businesses and trades. They rented out and leased buildings and sold various commodities. The 154 wax tablets in the business files of the auctioneer L Caecilius Iucundus, for example, contain references to fourteen women who transacted business with him, including Umbricia Ianuaria who received 11,039 sesterces from the proceeds of a sale he had conducted for her (CIL 4.3440) (Ward s a:10-11). Other women lent money and, though they could not vote, supported local candidates for public office on wall graffiti like this one: “Statia and Petronia ask you to vote for Marcus Casellius and Lucius Alfucius for aediles. May our colony always have such citizens!” (CIL 4.3678; other examples in Lefkowitz and Fant 1992:152-53). Some women earned income from use of their property,6 like the enterprising Julia Felix, probably a freedwoman, who owned a vast urban property in the northeast corner of Pompeii that contained a parking lot for horses and carriages, private dining rooms (one with its own fountain), baths, swimming pool, wine shop, and more modest areas for dining – and probably for takeout as well. She had more than what meets the eye today, for her notice on the outside wall advertised for lease “the Venus baths, fitted up for the best people, taverns, 6 For a discussion of women landowners in Hellenistic Egypt, see Pomeroy (1984:148-60, 171-73). 354 HTS 61(1&2) 2005 Carolyn Osiek shops and second story rooms.”7 The property is situated just across the street from the city palestra and amphitheatre. One suspects that this was the place to stop off before and after sports activities. This kind of evidence is important for seeing the wide range of possibilities for women’s personal patronage. All of these non-elite women who had accumulated even a modest amount of wealth and connections could be active in patronage relationships. A freedwoman named Manlia T l Gnome, for example, boasts on her epitaph that she had many clients (clientes habui multos – CIL 6.21975). Women were also patrons of their own freedmen and freedwomen, with the differences that these legal relationships carried. A patronissa whose name has been lost from the inscription is honored on a second or third century Roman Greek epitaph by the freedman Gaius Fulvius Eutyches (Llewelyn et al 1981-84, 2:60-61). The same laws and customs applied to female as to male patrons. They set up their libertus/a with loans or gifts of money to start a new business, with a certain amount of legal control and the expectation of generous bequests in their former slaves’ will.8 Marriages between a patrona and her libertus, though heavily discouraged and even forbidden by law at some points, are not unknown (e g, CIL 6.14014; 14462; 15106; 15548; 16445; 21657; 23915; 25504; 28815; 35973). Some of these were likely cases in which the patrona herself came from originally servile status, but at least one is not: T Claudius Hermes in Rome commemorates his freeborn wife, Claudia, as patrona optima and coniux fidelissima (no 5106). Alimentary and funerary foundations provided sustenance in life and burials and commemorations at death, whether in the patron’s lifetime or by bequest, for members of the familia, that is, predominantly slaves and former slaves (Dixon 2001:106-7). Women’s patronage of unofficial groups is an activity that bears directly on our understanding of their patronage in early Christianity. Euxenia, priestess of Aphrodite in Megalopolis in the Peloponnesus in the second century BCE donated a guesthouse and a wall around the temple (IG 5.2.461) (Van Bremen 1993:223). Tation, daughter of Straton son of Empedon, from Kyme either built or remodeled at her own expense the building and the surrounding precinct of a synagogue, for which the Jews honored her with two traditional ways of rewarding a patron: a gold crown and a place of honor (proedria). The wording of the inscription (“the Jews honor her”), as well as the family names, suggests that she was not Jewish, but an outside benefactor (CIJ 2.738; Llewelyn et al 1981-84, 1:111). Similarly, Julia Severa of Acmonia in Phrygia who held a number of distinguished priesthoods and 7 Translation by Ward (s a:9). 8 This was a bit restricted by the Papian Law of the Augustan period: patronae acquired more inheritance rights if they had two or three children (see Treggiari 1991:74-75). HTS 61(1&2) 2005 355 Diakonos and prostatis: Women’s patronage in early Christianity city offices, of a family sufficiently prominent that her son entered the Senate, donated property to the local synagogue, perhaps because two of its archons were freedmen or clients (CIJ 2.766; MAMA 6.264; L M White 1992:18-19). Eumachia a public priestess of Pompeii, patroness of the fullers’ guild, in her own name and that of her son, Numistrius Fronto, erected at her own expense a gallery, cryptoporticus, and portico for the fullers’ building in a prominent place in the forum, dedicating them herself to concordia and pietas augusti. In gratitude, the guild erected a dedicatory statue of her with inscription, a copy of which still stands behind its building in Pompeii. She also built a tomb for herself and her familia outside one of the city gates (CIL 10.810, 811, 813). Alimentary programs for poor children were popular ways for both men and women to exercise civic patronage. Besides imperial subsidy of these charitable projects, such as those in memory of the two imperial Faustinas, other wealthy women found this a suitable outlet for their money and a suitable way to be immortalized. Crispia Restituta of Beneventum set up one such project on income from her farm in 101 CE (ILS 6675). Caelia Macrina set up a fund to distribute a monthly meal to one hundred boys and one hundred girls in Tarracina (ILS 6278=CIL 10.6328). Fabia Agrippina of Ostia contributed the sizable sum of one million sesterces to such a program for one hundred girls, in memory of her mother (CIL 14.4450). Since officially sponsored alimentary programs favored boys, these deliberate acts of attention to the needs of girls may have been a conscious effort on the part of women benefactors to create a balance (Dixon 2001:108). Menodora in first century Sillyon in Pisidia gave wheat and money to her city, including 300,000 denarii for the support of its children. She also erected a statue of her deceased son, all the donations being in his memory (Van Bremen 1993:223). Other forms of public patronage by women are also common, including in Asia Minor those connected with the holding of public office. The same Menodora held quite a number of public offices, including priestess of Demeter and of the imperial cult, hierophantis (a priest involved in initiations), decaprōtos (a committee of ten who supervised public revenue and collected taxes), ktistria (founder), dēmiourgis (magistrate), and gymnasiarchos (superintendent and/or supplier of the palestra). She was honored with many statues and inscriptions, as was the early second-century benefactor of Perga, Plankia Magna, who held the titles of dēmiourgos and gymnasiarchos.9 Vedia Marcia of late third century Ephesus had held the title of prytanis, representative of the official cult of Artemis and also one of the 9 Other female gymnasiarchs are known (see Casarico 1982:118-22). There is even one in Egypt, and a female tax collector (see Llewelyn et al 1981-84, 8:49). 356 HTS 61(1&2) 2005