The Body and Society: Men, Women and Sexual Renunciation in Early Christianity by Peter

Brown; Porneia: On Desire and the Body in Antiquity by A. Rousselle; F. Pheasant

Review by: Mary Beard
The Journal of Roman Studies, Vol. 81 (1991), pp. 180-182
Published by: Society for the Promotion of Roman Studies
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/300501 .
Accessed: 17/06/2014 21:51
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Society for the Promotion of Roman Studies is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend
access to The Journal of Roman Studies.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 62.122.76.48 on Tue, 17 Jun 2014 21:51:50 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

i8o

REVIEWS

determiningfactorin any of the attitudesstudied and, ifso, in what ways? To me this neverbecomes
clear. Greek and Roman 'citystates'are presentedas havingcrucialattitudesin common,apparentlyby
virtueofbeing citystates(cf. 19-23), but we are also told that'The Romans, unlikethe Greeks,clearly
distinguishedbetweenthe sphereof the communityand thatof the individual'(49). How, ifat all, do
these two points affecteach other?'Roman' or 'the Romans', moreover,are oftenused as if it did not
reallymatterwho theywere and to what factorsin theirlives we might,howevertentatively,connect
'their'attitudesto childhood.These attitudesare now explainedas thoseofa 'peasantsociety'(e.g. when
explaining the frequencyand acceptabilityof child-beating,30), now subsumed under those of
'Mediterraneanmenand women' (42); but we also encounterthemas thoseof'theLatin-speakingworld'
in its attitudesfromthe Mediterraneanworld?and how? and why?One
(e.g. 8o). Is the latterdifferent
cannot seriouslywritea studyof attitudesand mentalitieswithoutgettingthese basic mattersin place
first.
W.'s main propositions- theyare not firmconclusionsand theyneed to be pieced togetherfrom
various statements- are that in the 'classical city' the child is marginaland defined'negatively',
excluded fromcivic life,whereas in Late Antiquitychildrenhad 'overcome'this marginalityand 'the
distinctionbetweenchild and adult ceased to matterto Roman social organisation'.In pagan societyW.
sees this developmentas a resultof the increasingtendencywithinthe elite and the imperialfamilyto
bestowcivic and imperialofficeupon youngchildren.The Jewish-Christian
'solution'was to give 'even
the child in the womb the same rightto a place withintheirreligiouscommunityas any adult'. What if
anythingdo these two developments- if that is what theyare - have in common? A lack of clear
distinctionbetweenadult and child? But theseare doubtfuland empty'conclusions',drawnfromwhat
are in themselvesinterestingsocial phenomena. They reston an uneasy juxtapositionof questionable
generalisations(e.g. childrenin the classical cityas 'intermediate... betweenbeing fullyhuman and
being a beast'- 176) and anecdotalevidenceculled froma diverserangeof largelyliterarysources.
A studyofattitudesto childrenand childhoodis obviouslynoteasyto write.But ifitis to be done at
all well and convincinglyit ought surelyto be writtenalong the disciplinedlines of D.'s The Roman
Mother.
DepartmentofHistory,UniversityCollegeLondon

RIET

VAN BREMEN

P. BROWN, THEBODYANDSOCIE7TY. MEN, WOMENANDSEeUALRENUNCIATIONINEARLYCHR!STIANI7Y.

New York: ColumbiaUniversity
Press,I988. Pp. xx + 504, I map. ISBN 0-23I-06I00-5.
$52.00.
A. ROUSSELLE, PORNEIA: ONDESIREAND THEBODYINANTIQUI7TY. Trans. F. Pheasant.Oxford:Blackwell,
I988. Pp. x + 213- ISBN 0-631-13837-4- ?27-50-

The Body and Societyis a glitteringmosaic ofsophistication,insightand scholarship.PeterBrown

has an extraordinary
abilityto changethewaywe thinkabout theancientworld. Here, takingthe Roman
Empire as a whole (it is quite misleadingto portraythebook as a studyofLate Antiquity),he offersnew
ways of understandingthose most fundamentalareas of problem forthe Roman and early Christian
world: the body, sexuality,the verynotionof what it was to be human. Throughout he writeswith
respectand compassionforhis subjects- compassionthatonlyrarely(as on p. xviii,withhis verymale
sympathyforthe newlymenstruatingSt Eupraxia!) crossesthe boundariesintosentimentality.
The ostensiblethemeofthe book is Christiandiscourseon sexualityand sexual renunciationfrom
thewritingsof St Paul to thoseof St Augustine.B. chartsthechangingexpressionsofChristianthinkers
on sexual continence;and he exploresthe complex interrelationships
betweenthese different
writers,
whose disagreements(as B. himselfsays) help to explain the extraordinary
intellectualand ideological
creativityof the early Christianperiod. B.'s controlof the primarytextsis dazzling. Like the expert
gymnast,he makesitall lookverysimple. But anyonewho has triedto deal withthisenormousvolumeof
materialin Greek, Latin, Syriac and Coptic, oftenuntranslatedand bafflingly
opaque at firstreading,
will recognizethe immenseachievementof B.'s confident,easy exposition.
Underneath this brilliant,but in some respects quite conventional,analysis of early Christian
writing,B. broaches more innovative,more importantthemes. This is not simplya book about what
Christiansin the Roman empiresaid about theirbodies; stillless about the weirdthingstheyactually
inflictedon theirflesh.The recurringthemeis the role ofthe body as a means ofclassification;the part
playedby the body (or ratherdiscourseon the body) in definingand differentiating
humanexperience.
- differencebetween
It is a book about ancientways of constructingand understandingdifference
humansand beasts,menand women,settledcivilizationand thewild. And itshowsat thesame timehow
fraughtand fragilethose differences
were.
The oppositionbetweenhumans and beasts emergesparticularlyclearlyin B.'s discussionof the
Desert Fathers(213-40). Here he laysstressnotso muchon theappallingprivationsofdesertlife,buton
the ascetics'symbolicassertionof theirhuman status.Althoughlivingin the wild, amongstthe beasts,
theirtaskwas to remainmen - not, in otherwords, destroyingthe boundariesthatdemarcatedtheir
human nature fromthat of the animals. Hence the emphasis in Christianwritingon the bread (by

This content downloaded from 62.122.76.48 on Tue, 17 Jun 2014 21:51:50 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

I.

GENERAL

i8i

definition,thefoodofhumancivilization)stackedin one cornerofthesedesertcells; hencetheemphasis

too on the human labour of thesemonks,who despitetheirparaded physicalisolation,were notseen as
entirelyisolatedfromhumansocietyand economy.It is almostas iftheimageofthe Desert Fatherswas
theimageofessentialhumanity.That imageprovidedone answerto thequestionofhowfarone could go
withoutcollapsing'the boundariesofman and desert,humanand beast ... in chillingconfusion'(220).
Such questions,ofcourse,carrieda risk.They showedjusthow perilouslyfragiletheseboundarieswere.
It was almost inevitablethat some ascetics would findthemselveson the 'other side'. So it was, for
example, with some Syrian radicals, whose 'angelic freedom'removedthem fromhumanityand put
themintothe categoryof the beasts: theydid not eat the human diet of bread, but grazed, it was said,
'withthe sheep, on thenaturalgrasses' (332).
There is an overlap herewiththe traditionalconcernsof classical paganism. The ideologyof civic
similardesire to
sacrifice(to followHesiod and his moderninterpreters)had at its centrea strikingly
defineman's place in the world- in oppositionto the beasts on the one hand, and to the gods on the
other.And thepolaritybetweenthecivilizationofthecityand thewildnessofthenaturalworld(and the
behaviourappropriateto it) pervadesclassical literature.As B. shows, however,earlyChristianwriters
reworkedthesetraditionalthemesin a quite distinctiveway,to give themevengreaterimportancein the
'imaginativeeconomy' (B.'s repeatedphrase) of the earlyChristianworld. In the contextof a religion
thatwas makingclaims quite different
fromtraditionalpaganismabout the natureofgod and man and
about the boundariesbetweentheni,theold themesnecessarilycame to do a new and different
job.
B. makeshis readersworkhardfortheirrewards.His argumentsare elegant,but elusive; he rarely
spells out any general proposition; he particularlyshuns oversimplifications,
however helpful,they
mightbe. At firstreading,it is hard even foran attentivereaderto followthroughthe subtle linksthat
hold togethertheseparatechapters.It is nota book forthelazy; but forthosepreparedto spend thetime
and thoughtin drawingout and definingforthemselvesthe propositionswhichare often(strategically,
no doubt) masked by the carefullycraftedvignettesand the fineturnsof phrase. Needless to say this
effortis lavishlyrepaid.
The only regretis that The Body and Society so strikingly
neglectsthe whole visual aspect of its
subject. The natureofthebody and man's sense ofplace in theworldweredefinedin thevisual imagery
oftheearlyChristianChurchas well as in itsliterarydiscourse: paintingparaded different
visionsofthe
humanity(and divinity)ofChrist;thevisibleformofa churchor hermit'scell helpedto definethenature
of sacred space, whetherin the settledtownor in thewild. But in B.'s book, in 500 pages, thereare no
illustrations,no more than a handful of passing referencesto the visual world, and no extended
discussionofanyartobject. Even withinhis analysisofwrittentextshe is uncharacteristically
insensitive
to referencesto those bodily propertiesof seeing and being seen. Referencesin Christianwritersto a
saint'sblindness,forexample,or to his miraculouslyperfectsightat theage ofninetyare importantways
of constructingand definingsanctity- not (as B. appears to treat them) pieces of antiquarian
informationto set the scene. It is a pity that even B. seems to fall victim to that failingof most
conventionalhistorians- believingthattexts,not images,are the privilegedcarriersof meaning.
Aline Rousselle's Porneia coverspartof the same groundas The Body and Society,thoughwitha
different
aim. R. triesexplicitlyto show therootsofChristian(ascetic) discourseon thebody in classical
pagan writing- particularly,but notexclusively,themedicaltradition.It is not,forR., thatthereis no
difference
betweenChristianand pagan attitudesin thisarea. In manywaysshe sees Christianwritingas
representinga radical new stance on sexualityand desire, a new elevationof ideals of virginityand
chastity.But forher the importantpointis the existenceof an earlierpagan traditionof writingon the
body that was susceptible to reworkingand refocusingto formwhat now seems that distinctively
Christianvoice. The Christianbody did notspringfromnowhere.
R.'s style is straightforward
and clearlyargued; and her text is enlivenedby many of the more
colourfulanecdotes (on fornication,child-sacrifice,
disease, castrationand such like) fromboth pagan
and Christianantiquity.For thisreasonstudentsmaywell findPorneia a moreapproachableintroductionthan B.'s studyto the historyof the body in antiquity.But R. boughther clarityat a highprice
that is, at the price of loss of subtletyand sophisticationin the interpretation
of manyof the difficult
primarytexts. This is strikinglyrevealed in the firstchapters of the book, which are principally
concerned with Greek and Roman medical writing. Not only does she seem to assume that the
prescriptiveguides of men like Soranus and Oribasius are good evidence forgeneral attitudesin the
ancientpagan world; but moreextraordinarily
stillshe seems to regardthemas reliableevidenceforhow
people actuallybehaved. It may,of course, be the case thatmost Roman mothersand nursesfollowed
Soranus' advice and aftereverybath gave the new baby an elaborateseriesof massages- separatingits
thekneesand mouldingthecranium;we cannotpossiblyknowforcertain.But our
vertebrae,flattening
own experienceof the tensionbetweenscientificdiscourseand popular practiceor attitudes,our own
understandingofthecomplexideologicaland politicalbackgroundto scientificwriting,should makeus
instantlysuspiciousofanysuch simpleformsof analysis.
Even theScriptores
way. It would hardly
HistornaeAugustaeget treatedby R. in thisunreflective
need, forexample, a passionate defenderof the poor young emperorElagabalus to point out that he

This content downloaded from 62.122.76.48 on Tue, 17 Jun 2014 21:51:50 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

I82

REVIEWS

cannotbe assumed to have committedall thosecrimesparaded in hisLife- his plannedintroductionof

child sacrifice,his bizarresexual practices,his partialcastration(by ligature).R. apparentlyfailsto see
ratherthanits
thattheimportanceofhis biographylies in itsconstructionofa discourseoftransgression,
accuraterepresentation
of'real life'.It is a failingwhichmarksthewholebook- and which,by contrast,
emphasizesyetfurtherthe remarkableachievementof PeterBrown.

NewnhamCollege,Cambridge

MARY BEARD

W. V. HARRIS, ANCIENTLITERACY. Cambridge,Mass.: HarvardUniversity

Press,I989. Pp. xv + 383, 8 illus.ISBN
o-674-03380-9.?27-95-

This book scrutinizesthe evidence for Graeco-Roman literacyin what is probably the most
comprehensivestudy of ancient literacyyet. Harris' aim is essentiallyto determinethe extent of
'literacy', which he takes in the firstinstance to mean an ability to read or write at any level.
Undermining any optimisticexpectations, he emphasizes repeatedlythat few people outside the
educated elitewere literatein anysense, and in particularhow nothingeven approaching'mass literacy'
was everreachedin theancientworld. Veryfew,one would have thought,stillbelievein 'mass literacy',
but H. performsa valuable taskin showingonce and forall how verylittleevidencethereis forextensive
literateskills. Incidentalto this, he also gatherstogethermuch usefulinformationon schools and the
manifolduses ofliteracy,fromthetypesofdocumentmade in each periodto theroleofGreekliteracyin
theHellenisticworldin maintainingGreekidentity,or thelargenumberoflanguages(writtenand nonwritten)to be foundin the Roman Empire. Classical Athensand theHellenisticGreekcities,withtheir
interestin elementaryeducation,achievedslightlyhigherratesofliteracythantherest,and 'craftsman's
literacy'was visibleunderthe Roman Empire at least in the cities(321-2).
He is reluctantto accept less
than8o or 85 per centtotalilliteracyat anytimein the ancientworld.
His scepticism is a valuable antidote to certain overgenerousand modernizinginterpretations.
Graffitiwere not necessarilylowerclass (260); earlyChristianswere not all literate,and the Christian
messagewas carefullyspreadorallyas well as bywriting(298 ff.). But theevidenceforratesofliteracyis,
as H. stresses,dangerouslyvague or non-existent(and the distributionof inscriptionsis hardlya good
measure of literacy). It is thereforea pitythat H. dismissesor skimsover so much that is of interest
because itis notobviouslyrelevantto his overalltheme.His argumentis an essentiallynegativeone, and
his book is in a sense theculminationofa certainapproachto literacy,whichconcentrateson its extent.
Whereone goes fromherethereforedeservesseriousconsideration.
Firstly,whatdoes all thistellus? How much did such low levelsofliteracymatter?The prevalence
oforal communication,forinstance,is importantin itsown rightforgaugingtheroleofwriting;itmeant
thatilliterateswere not alwayscut offfromthe productsof writing.Public readingsat Rome were the
fastestmeans of literarypublication. It was not always thoughtnecessaryto read somethingyourself,
and in any case oral and writtencommunicationwere deeply intertwined.Augustus called someone to
read to himwhen he could notsleep. It was preciselyupper-classRomans, certainlyliterate,who could
always call on slaves to read forthem. So the role of writingis partlya functionof ancientattitudesto
writing. Ancient (rather than modern) perceptions of the importance of writingmay also have
determinedwhethercertainsocial classes thoughtit importantto learn to read. One could even argue
thatilliteracywas widespreadbecause most people could manage perfectlywell withoutwriting.Were
thereactuallylimitsto the state's use of writingpreciselybecause so few could read and write?The
problemis extremelycomplex. H. assumes thatliteracywould improveone's lot in the ancientworld
and that illiterateswould be at a disadvantagesince theycould not check laws and documents
(202),
(34). But more is at issue here. The disadvantagedepends on the extentto which documentationand
personal writingskillswereactuallyneeded, as well as thewiderpoliticaland social context.The wealthy
businessman P. Annius Seleucus at Pompeii was illiterate.The lower classes in the Roman Empire
were legallydisadvantagedanyway,whethertheycould read or not.
Take the extremeexample of Roman Egyptwherewrittendocumentswere needed even forminor
transactions.Illiterateslived in a sea of'paperwork'to whichtheyhad no directaccess themselves.Yet it
was a scribalculturewhichat leastmeantyou did nothave to writedocumentsyourself,onlysignthemif
you could. Indeed when you went to the scribe'sgrapheion,your contractor letterwas writtenout
amongsta crowdofothervillagers,and since ancientreadershabituallyread aloud, therecould be plenty
ofwitnessesto guard againstfraud.Certainlysome people's illiteracywas manipulated(Youtie, ZPE I7
205 ff.), but the extentof an illiterate'sdisadvantagecan only be gauged througha detailed
(I975),
analysisof the whole society,includingits approach to writing.If basic literacy(in demoticas well as
Greek) in Roman Egyptwas actuallysurprisinglyhigh,was thisbecause documentswere all-pervasive
in Roman Egypt,and literacymoreobviouslyuseful?In Egyptthe mostsignificant
elementin practical
termsmaybe thatboth literateand illiteratehad to go to a scribefordocumentation,and fora poor man
the scribal fee could be a worse burden than illiteracy.The social contextalso affectsthe documents

This content downloaded from 62.122.76.48 on Tue, 17 Jun 2014 21:51:50 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions