ARTICLES





Université de Sudbury, Ontario



expressing social status but they were also subject to severe scrutiny by the group.
Women’s dress, in particular, faced repeated criticism by male authors. Wealthy

they should not be overly adorned lest they be accused of luxuria. Given that
most women could not pursue honourable exploits in war or politics, this article

means of constructing status for women and a strategic tool that they could use to
manoeuvre throughout a patriarchal society. Such a phenomenon was no different
for early Christians, including the women who are subjects of intense critique by
the church leaders, Tertullian and Cyprian, who associate adornment with moral
and theological dangers. Yet wealthy women played important roles as patrons and
benefactors throughout Carthage, and in the church they served as martyrs, virgins,
prophets, intercessors and possibly confessors. They undoubtedly knew that their
adornment, which was portable wealth, enabled them to exert a certain degree of
power, as did their detractors. Attention to this dimension of social history thus
deserves more examination when analysing ancient Christian texts that seek to
regulate dress.

 
In his Commentary on 1Peter, John Elliott observes that various early Christian
authors show much more interest in the letter’s directives to wives than they do in its
Christological statements or soteriological ideas (Elliott 2000:565). As many are aware,
1 Peter 3:1–7 together with some Pauline and Deutero-Pauline references, are popular
in the early church as they serve to support statements some writers make about the

Journal of Early Christian History Vol 1.1.2011 pp 3–21

ISSN 2222-582X © Unisa Press

3
Alicia Batten

necessity of regulating women’s appearance and comportment. Such interest in female

adornment was not a Christian innovation but consistent with a long tradition of male
commentary about what was deemed to be inappropriate decoration. The answer to the

writings is multi-faceted, and can be explored in connection with a variety of issues

including the perception of the church in the wider society, the desire to develop clear
markers between Christians and non-Christians, appropriate gender roles, charismatic
authority, the overall criticism of wealth and luxury, attitudes towards the body and
sexuality, and last but not least, theological concerns.

interconnected reasons for worries about female dress, and some of them will emerge
throughout the discussion. The primary aim here, however, is to investigate a dimension
of the contextual background of this anti-adornment rhetoric that to my knowledge
has not been discussed extensively in relation to early Christian literature. This is the
function and meaning of dress for the women; that is, from their point of view; and

male critique of adornment. Among the recent developments in scholarship produced

examining the role of dress in antiquity,1
adornment are concurring that self-presentation and style were vital to women, because
this was a means to publically express status within the community. “Status” is here

professional or public honour” (Abbott 1981:820) and is usually determined by wealth,

power or knowledge.2 Characteristics that place people in different status categories
are constructed by both status value (e.g. literate people are more valued than illiterate
people) and beliefs about the qualities and performance abilities of persons in those
categories (Berger et al 2002:157). As women generally could not pursue political,
military or academic honours, they were limited in their “performance abilities.” Their
ornamenta were a means, therefore, of performing their wealth, and as a consequence,
exerting a certain degree of power. Livy suggests this when he writes that “elegance
of appearance (munditia), adornment (ornamenta), and apparel (cultus), these are the
women’s badges (insignia) of honour” (34.7.8). Personal effects, such as jewels, clothes,
hairpieces, etc., were key forms of wealth for women – portable wealth that they could
enjoy and place on display in order to demonstrate their lineage and riches. And given
that status is very much about who the larger community believes one to be, and that it
can be constructed,3 adornment could serve an important purpose for women insofar as
it contributed to this construction.
When we focus on early Christian women, we observe that many women were

or, some of them engaged in certain ascetic disciplines, such as continence, without
abandoning their wealth. In this article, therefore, I want to speculate, in an introductory
way, that one of the additional reasons why some of the ancient Christian writers dwell

4
 Carthaginian Critiques of Adornment

upon women’s appearance is that while on the one hand they may have appreciated
the economic support provided by women, on the other, they were not as receptive
to the sorts of status recognition and authority that certain wealthy women may have
expected as their due. By drawing upon the tradition of anti-adornment rhetoric, these
writers were seeking to undermine the social prestige of women who used their personal
accoutrements as a public display of wealth, style, and possibly for strategic purposes. I
will focus on Tertullian and Cyprian, both Christian writers in the North African city of
Carthage, albeit a generation apart from one another.

 
Before turning to the ancient world, it is worth noting that within the general shift in
anthropology from the study of social structure to the focus on agency and practice, dress
is perceived by some as a “set of competing discourses, linked to the operation of power,
that construct the body and its presentation” (Tranberg Hansen 2004:370). In the past the
study of dress has been marginalized for a variety of reasons, including the tendency to
view it as a trivial matter of concern primarily to women, rather than understanding it as

sociology and performance studies, possibly because, as anthropologist Karen Tranberg

Hansen points out, it both “touches the body and faces outward towards others;” it has
a “dual quality” similar to what Turner coined as “social skin” (in Tranberg Hansen
2004:372). As a result of this social dimension, dress is often a source of debate; it

encounters, in interactions across class, between genders and generations, and in recent
global cultural and economic exchanges” (ibid.). We can assume that some of these

to dress, especially that of women.

The analysis of clothing and style is linked to the fundamental insight of
anthropologist Mary Douglas, who put forward the notion of the body as symbolic of the
social order (Douglas 1970). Subsequent studies have built upon this idea, explaining
how the body is foundational to social and individual identities. The ways in which the
body is attired and decorated aid in the expression of these identities (Goffmann1965;
Davis 1992; Roach and Eicher 1965; Eicher 1995). Dress is thus a “language” (Roach
and Eicher 1979) and a “text” that can non-verbally express and “perform” a whole range
of things that the wearer both consciously and unconsciously wants to communicate.
The study of dress therefore assists in asking basic questions about how human beings
understand themselves (see Schwarz 1979).
In addition, dress is part of what sociologist Pierre Bourdieu has termed habitus: a
system of “structured, structuring dispositions ... which is constituted in practice and is
always oriented towards practical functions” (Bourdieu 1984). Habitus is also formed
by viewers’ perceptions, and as such dress functions not only an expression of identity

5
Alicia Batten

(which can include gender, ethnicity, class, power, etc., cf. Polhemus and Procter
1978; Kaiser 1985) but as something which will be interpreted by onlookers. Style and
manner of dress, therefore, both create and are shaped by social forces. In deviating
from expected dress codes, groups and individuals can transgress social norms and
establish distinct identities. However, precisely because a transgression of dress codes
is perceived as “deviant” we are reminded that dress also functions as a type of social
control. The latter was certainly true in antiquity, and as many would agree, continues
to be the case today (Roach and Eicher 1965).
As indicated earlier, adornment was both a vehicle for women to express status
and honour within the larger society, but also an important source of economic power.
Clothes and jewellery were both economic and symbolic capital, terms also coined by
Bourdieu (1990). He explains how when certain items take on symbolic meanings,
their economic and material worth becomes masked. Not surprisingly, anthropological
literature assesses not only the symbolic meanings of dress, but the modes of production,
sales and distribution of clothing and related items (Schneider 1987; Sciama and Eicher
1998; Eicher 2000; Tranberg-Hansen 2004; note too, that weaving and textile production
was a major activity for women both in antiquity and today).4 This article will thus take
seriously the economic value of clothes and jewels as often when elite males attack
women for their elaborate adornment, they accuse them of greed and luxuria and attach
moral and symbolic meanings to the women’s dress when what may be fuelling this
invective, at least in part, are worries about the economic power of the women who
owned and wore such items. Tertullian and Cyprian may imbue their anti-adornment

 
In antiquity, social interaction was subject to intense scrutiny. The Romans’ obsession
with how they, their family members, or close associates appeared in the communal
space is understandable for one serious gaff in self-presentation and behaviour could
result in scorn and dishonour, and no matter how highly placed in society one was,
attacks could come from any direction (Lendon 1997:51; Barton 2001:13). No one was
immune from public inspection and there is evidence that concern for reputation and
honour existed at all levels, including among slaves (Lendon 1997:95–103).5
Dress and adornment were crucial components of this public performance. The
fact that so many writers – both Christian and non-Christian – addressed these issues is
an indication of the central role they played in the ancient Roman mentality and even
beyond it, for authors continued to write about Roman clothing many decades after the
mighty empire had fallen, such as the 7th century bishop Isidore, who furnishes us with
a systematic series of observations about Roman dress and accessories for both men and

6
 Carthaginian Critiques of Adornment

women (Edmondson and Keith 2008:13). Male jewellery, for example, was an indicator
of rank. Men wore signet rings to seal documents and boys wore gold amulets (bulla)
until they had grown up. If a woman wore a pearl diadem or rosette broach she was most
likely a member of the imperial family (Swift 2004:217), whereas if she wore a toga
there is a good chance she was a prostitute or some sort of loose woman because she was
rejecting the typical matron’s uniform of a standard tunic, covered by a stola (a pinafore
dress over the tunic) and palla and the “moral code” of chastity and modesty that was
bound up with such garments (Olson 2008:47). Likewise if a man wore his tunic in an
inappropriate way (too loose or too long), he might be accused of immorality, 6 and if
he dressed effeminately or appeared to attend too closely to his appearance, he invited
ridicule and even suspicion. Ovid provides instructions for the well but not overly

smelly of breath or body, but attending any more assiduously to his looks would raise
questions about his manliness (Ars. 1.509–522). Tertullian likewise counsels similar
things for men in On the Apparel of Women when he says that men should not trim or
pluck their beards too carefully, nor arrange and dye their hair, nor gaze anxiously into
the mirror for such things are inappropriate and hostile to modesty, which is where God
is (Cult. fem.2.8 cf. Shumka 2008:177). Tertullian, like Ovid, is part of a context in
which dress served as a form of social control, since “deviation in terms of dress was
seen as a threat to the social order and was very closely associated in Roman mentality
with moral deviance” (Edmondson 2008:32), which recalls an earlier theoretical point.
Not only could dress and adornment signal status and character, they could be
“adopted by groups or individuals in order to make a claim for a particular status which
[such groups] do not actually hold” (Swift 2004:218). Donning various decorative items

fashion. However, such beads were also associated with the elite in Rome and thus one
could interpret the primary purpose for wearing the corals as an attempt to identify
with Roman culture and all that it represented (Swift 2004:219). Although they could

glass gemstones which Pliny says are often hard to distinguish from the real thing (Nat.
37.197–200 cf. Olson 2008:46). Poorer women clearly adorned themselves if they could
with the ancient equivalent of costume jewellery, and although it is a later source, the
Theodosian Code
presumably because, as Kelly Olson explains, “such ornamentation was considered
inappropriate for their low status, and thought to devalue the ornaments of upper class
matrons who rightfully wore them” (Olsen 2008:47).
During the Republican period, dress, hairstyle and jewellery served partly as
a means for a woman to advertise the wealth of her husband, but also as a way to

7
Alicia Batten

“compensate” for her clothes, which ideally were supposed to be well made, but in
drab, dull colours, so as not to attract too much attention. Wives of the patres, or men
who controlled big households, each had their own personal ornatrix or hair stylist.
These matrons had their hair arranged in a tutulus or cone-shaped hairstyle and the hair
was tied with vittae vittae were
a badge of honour in Roman historical tradition as they symbolized the achievements
“of Coriolanus’ female relatives, who had saved the Roman state in the early days”
(2005:129). Earrings were especially important for as the matron was pretty well covered
from head to foot, the earrings could peek out from underneath the palla which covered
the matron’s head when she went out in public. Even statues of females have pierced
ears such that earrings could be hung on the stone image of the particular woman or
goddess. Similarly, bracelets could dangle at the wrist, necklaces could glint beneath the
palla, and there is plenty of evidence for beautiful rings.
Kunst argues that a new function for jewellery emerged in the imperial period.
Caesar had prohibited the use of litters, purple cloth and pearls for unmarried and
childless women under 45 years of age in 46 B.C.E. This policy was continued by
Augustus in order to encourage population growth. Wearing pearls thus indicated
motherhood; a woman had done her service to society by bearing children and she could
advertise this through her jewellery. Pearls were astronomically expensive and homes
even had “pearl keepers” to look after them and keep them safe (Kunst 2005:137).
Apparently freedwomen were not allowed to wear them, even if they could afford them,
and there is an account of a freedwoman, Scantilla, who wore them in a box around her
neck (Kunst 2005:138; see Petronius 67). Brides could wear pearls, however, because
the pearls symbolized their future role as mothers. Therefore not only does ornamenta
signify familial and economic status but the individual merits of the woman, especially
the achievement of having given birth (Kunst 2005:140).
Manner of dress could also invite evasion, for laws such as the ones mentioned above
would not have emerged gratuitously (Edmondson 2008:40). People violated dress codes
regularly; or at least, they violated the codes that the male literary sources considered
to be appropriate. Juvenal, for example, delights in ridiculing women’s hairstyles that
he deems unacceptable (Sat. 6.501–503). In addition, if we consider that one’s public

including one’s husband and father, we see that one of the motivations behind male
critique of women’s clothing was a concern about how wives,’ daughters’ and sisters’

culture – we can appreciate why some writers were so concerned. Elizabeth Bartman’s
work on women’s hairstyles has shown, for example, that while a wealthy woman was
expected to have her hair elaborately arranged by her slaves to demonstrate her station
in life and that of her husband, the hairstyle should not be “over the top,” however,
with showy ornamentation. If it was, the woman and her family could be ridiculed for
overly valuing wealth and luxuria (Bartman 2001:1–3) or she could be accused even

8
 Carthaginian Critiques of Adornment

of being receptive to sexual advances, given that lavish hairdos could represent sexual
vigour for women (D’Ambra 2007:74). A woman wearing fancy clothes and too many
jewels, or gems that were overly expensive, or wearing inappropriate dress to a given
occasion, might be perceived as holding undue sway over her husband, or as gauche.
For example, Pliny castigates one Lollia Paulina for wearing pearls and emeralds worth
forty million sesterces to an engagement party because the event was not important
enough; she was overdressed in his view (Pliny, Nat. 9.117). In general, the public
presentation of a woman had clear consequences, then, for the assessment of both her
and her husband’s character (see Cooper 1992), and some women were likely quite
savvy about these social dynamics. They may have used their dress and ornamentation
as a means of manipulating some of the men with whom they were associated. Clothing
and adornment could be strategic tools.
Certainly many wealthy women were well turned out for their own satisfaction. A
carefully made up face required leisure and time; it often signalled a woman of rank, and
not simply some sort of seductress. Likewise clothes of expensive fabrics were prized
as symbols of wealth, and gems and pearls could serve as money for their wearers.
Their worth was extensively assessed and documented, they could be removed from
necklaces and earrings and sold, and they were often in the independent ownership
of women who inherited them from family members or received them as gifts. Kunst
thinks it indubitable that jewels functioned as cash reserves (Kunst 2005:135) and Ria
Berg explains how women would use their jewellery to pay off debts or as back up for
loans. She sums up her extensive research by saying that “it was possible for Roman

as symbols of those resources” (Berg 2002:62). Because other opportunities, such as

public civic life and warfare, were not the usual domains for female activity, 7 dressing

died. In her study of funerary monuments, the purpose of which was to preserve
memories of a person’s accomplishments, Leslie Shumka concludes that the attention
paid to ornamenta on these monuments indicates that “self-presentation was an integral
part of the literal and metaphorical construction of a feminine identity, and that the
capacity to design and maintain a look, whether stylish or conservative, was one of the
few ways in a patriarchal society which women had available to them of expressing
themselves as women.”8
Of course we know that women could possess their own property, including land,
and in many cases it was the woman’s legal right to decide how to dispose of her
wealth (Treggiari 1996:118–19). There is no overall consensus as to how much wealth,
including property and liquid assets (such as gems and clothing) women possessed at

but Janne Pölönen thinks that women received 40–50 percent of the inheritances that
were passed on (2002:179). This means that women were important economic agents

9
Alicia Batten

Adornment also demonstrated, for many, a level of educational and intellectual

sophistication. Archaeological evidence, such as a pair of reliefs from Carthage from the

presents the matron by herself, dressed and coiffed, reading from a scroll. This is clearly

Despite the impression given by many of our literary sources that women were
decorating themselves in order to attract men; this was not generally the case. What
we tend to read about is how men saw women; not how women saw themselves (Clark

reason to question the notion that they took pleasure in dressing well for themselves; for

Epist. 128.2). As Olson concludes in

her study of Roman women and self-presentation, “[w]omen were not ignorant cultural

adept cultural actors” (2008:111).

 
Early Christian women did not eagerly give up the arts of adornment when they joined the
church. We see this in texts such as 1 Timothy 2:9–15 and 1 Peter 3:1–6, which counsel
modest dress for women. Later on, Clement of Alexandria (150–215 C.E.) complains
about women who wear gold who, he judges, “seem afraid, lest, if one strip them of
their jewellery, they should be taken for servants, without their ornaments” (Paed.
3.11).9 From our earliest sources on through the centuries many women are mentioned,

and monasteries. Although women did not gain access to high levels of ecclesiastical

Constantine, a majority of aristocratic women had become Christian throughout the

empire, and they had to be reckoned with by the likes of John Chrysostom and Jerome,
th
century
the wealthy widow and eventual deaconess Olympias, for example, had provided so
many resources to the church (some say that her donations would have amounted
to the equivalent of 900 million dollars cf. Denzey 2007:191), that when it came to
ecclesiastical matters, Bishop Nectarius of Constantinople “obeyed her completely.” 10

and her wealth was able to liberate some people held hostage by barbarians (see Cooper

that she could give it to the church. Thus many male clerical leaders had to curry favour
with these female aristocrats given the massive fortunes that lay so temptingly at their

10
 Carthaginian Critiques of Adornment

What is especially interesting is the manner in which these wealthy women are
described by their Christian male hagiographers. Here, the women are repeatedly cast
as poor widows who give away their fortunes for the sake of the poor. They renounce

contributed to the “fashioning” of Christian women ascetics as humble and restrained,

unlike other women whose luxurious dress was assessed as indicative of women’s natural
inclination towards irrationality and lack of control. As Kristi Upson-Saia has recently
argued, this characterization of Christian women ascetics assisted the early church as
it sought to demonstrate that Christians were spiritually and morally superior to their
contemporaries (Upson-Saia 2011:107).11 Thus male Christian writers were not only
interested in criticizing women’s dress because such criticism was typical and common,

the perception of the larger Christian community.

 
As far as we know, Tertullian (approx. 160–220 C.E.) and Cyprian (roughly 208–258
C.E.) were not acquainted with women as rich as Olympias within the late 2 nd and
early 3rd
communities. A relevant contextual detail to note here is that as Carthage had been
under Roman control for a few centuries, many rich Roman families had settled there,
with their descendents calling it home. North Africa was as wealthy and as Romanized
as other regions such as southern Gaul or Mediterranean Spain (Fantham 1995:220–21).
By the end of the 2nd century, there is no reason to think that the status obsession of
the Romans was less prevalent in Carthage than in Italy, for as the Roman world had
expanded to colonize the provinces, it also “exported the ideological importance of
status and class” (Wilhite 2007:109). If a Carthaginian did not come from a noble Roman
family, he or she could still be admitted to the elites by means of wealth and education.

were as keen to advertise their status as rich Romans were, perhaps even more so, and

Women were active participants in this jostling for status. Second century
inscriptional evidence from Carthage and surrounding towns indicates that in general,
more women are named as patrons in this Roman province than in any other, and that

and public patronage, which bought them status. Although the majority of Christians
in the Carthaginian church were not aristocrats, there were some rich people. This
can be deduced by both the things that Tertullian and Cyprian say about wealth and
adornment, as well as other clues, such as Tertullian’s list of “senators, governors and
imperial freedmen who are either Christians or sympathetic to Christianity” (Barnes
1991:236) which he includes in his letter to Scapula (Scap. 4.1–4; 5.1–3). Women were

11
Alicia Batten

among these wealthy people, and some of them played important roles in the church.
For example, the martyr Perpetua, herself an aristocrat, had captured the imagination
of many and her martyrdom and the martyrdom of other women contributed to a sense
among some Carthaginian Christians that equal authority was bestowed upon women
and men within the Christian community (Miles 1986:172).

 
Although he was one of the architects of Latin Christianity, we know only a little about
Tertullian’s life, and must reconstruct him based primarily on what he wrote. For one,
he was clearly combative, a trait that comes through in most his texts. Moreover, as
David Wright has written, he was “predominantly concerned to foster distinctiveness
and even separation, [he was] scornful of excuse and compromise, exhort[ed] to
martyrdom, tend[ed] towards asceticism, and, as he became a champion of the New
Prophecy, explicitly escalat[ed] the standards of spiritual Christians in terms of what
may be called a development of ethics (rather than doctrine)” (Wright 2000:1040). A
variety of motivations are thus at work in prompting Tertullian to compose what he
does. Moreover, although he is famous for some particularly negative comments about
women, he also speaks of some individual women positively, and here I think of his
admiration for martyrs, including Perpetua (An.55), and prophets, such as Priscilla, one
of the co-founders of the Montanist movement (Exh. cast.
ability to prophesy (An. Virg. 9).
Moreover, and as we have already seen, Tertullian has concerns about male dress and
appearance (albeit not to the same extent as he does for women), as evident in De pallio
for example, and makes a point of refusing to wear a Roman toga as it symbolized, for
him, the craving for public honour and glory. He favoured the pallium, which represented

Tertullian wants to mark a distinct boundary between Christians and non-Christians and
one of the ways in which this could be done was through dress.
In On the Veiling of Virgins Tertullian tells us that a few women were teaching and
baptizing, which he forbids (Virg.9). Some virgins were not veiling themselves in the
church assembly and thus he angrily attempts to convince their male supporters that
the women should cover their heads, only speaking directly to the virgins at the end of
his text (Virg. 16). He assumes that virgins are appearing unveiled in church in order
to please men (Virg. 13), and appeals to the standard arguments that women should be
modest and chaste. In fact, his entire essay here is a treatise focused on asceticism, and as

from scripture, intellect and discipline (Dunn 2005:13). Tertullian does not say how
well off these young women are, but he unequivocally states that nothing is permitted in
the way of public honour to the virgin (Virg. 9). In fact it is the honour that these virgins
are seeking and apparently receiving that incenses Tertullian as much as the danger
of their exposed heads (D’Angelo 1995:147).12 Here I will venture that some of these

12
 Carthaginian Critiques of Adornment

virgins were wealthy, in fact, and given the more receptive attitudes towards women’s
participation in the Carthaginian church at this point historically, these virgins may have
wanted to express their status and honour in the Christian assembly, especially if there
were fewer avenues for them to do this in public. This is suggested when Tertullian rails,
“to what purpose then do they thrust their glory out of sight abroad, but expose it in the
church. I demand a reason” (Virg. 13).13 One of the ways that they could make public

cosmetics, perhaps quite tastefully; all things that Tertullian refers to in chapter 12 of
the text. Tertullian is particularly perplexed about veils because the veil could cover up

which garnered her honour among some. No doubt concerns about sexual protection, the
distraction of men, the purity of the virgins and salvation are key reasons for Tertullian’s
ire, but it is possible that the women’s motivation was not at all to distract or lead men
into sin, but to draw general attention to their status, which may have strengthened
their abilities to participate more actively in the church, even in the worship setting. 14
Tertullian must have known this at some level but by stressing the moral and theological
risks of the women’s attire, he cloaks the economic capital with that of the symbolic, to
recall Bourdieu’s terminology.
Turning to On the Apparel of Women
the arts of adornment. This work is divided into two books which were possibly written
at different times. One reason for this is the shift in tone. Book one offers warnings
to women not to succumb to wealth and ornamentation but it avoids chastising them
directly, whereas book two addresses women who are dressing like the “women of
the nations,” relaxed in extravagant clothing (Cult. fem. 2.1). Book 1 is less helpful in
determining what the women were actually doing, given that it is a warning, but it does
supply some choice examples of Tertullian’s rich rhetorical attacks on adornment.
Tertullian (Cult. fem. 1.4) examines the questions of the inherent merit of cultus
(dress) and ornatus (adornment). He equates ambition with dress and prostitution with
adornment – typical characteristics of moral assessments of women’s appearance – and
concludes that such principles are not appropriate to Christian women who are judged
based upon humility and chastity. References to ambition keep emerging throughout
the text as they do throughout much of Tertullian’s writing (Groh 1971). Women who
don jewels in particular are equated with ambition which is here described explicitly in
economic terms. He states that “on one single thread is suspended a million of sesterces.
One delicate neck carries about it forests and islands. The slender lobes of the ears

bag.” He continues that, “such is the strength of ambition equal to bearing on one small
body, and that a woman’s the product of so copious wealth” (Cult. fem. 1.9). Tertullian
develops arguments against gold and silver (ibid.1.5) and against precious stones which

quite rightly, that rarity is the thing that renders such objects precious and buttresses his

13
Alicia Batten

arguments with examples of some “barbarians” who have an overabundance of gold and
jewels such that in Rome, gems “blush” in the presence of Roman matrons when they
witness the contemptuous usage of such gems by the Parthians and Medes. The latter
wear belts on which emeralds “lurk” and their boots sport massive single pearls which
do not even get lifted out of the mud (ibid.1.7).
In book two, which presents itself as a treatise on modesty, Tertullian confronts

would dress humbly and limit their public activities to visiting the sick or attending the
Christian assembly (Cult. fem. 2.11). He even indicates that women are claiming that
they do not require approval by men (ibid.2.13), only by God, against which he argues
that they must let their good works shine, not their jewellery. Here he also moves into
the importance of a willingness to be martyred, and exclaims that “the neck, beset with
pearl and emerald nooses, will give no room for the broadsword” (ibid.). If the women
are required to visit non-Christian friends or are called out for other reasons, they should
do so looking humble and different from non-Christians, such that “they may be an
example” (ibid. 2.11). He claims that it is a “grand blasphemy [to say that] ‘ever since
she became a Christian, she walks in poorer garb’” and states that the poorer they look,
the wealthier they will be (ibid.). No doubt the women’s reasons for dressing up are
likely variable, but one strong possibility is that they enjoyed this public recognition and

be some “among you whom the exigencies of riches, or birth or past dignities, compel
to appear in public so gorgeously arrayed as not to appear to have attained wisdom” and
counsels them to “take heed to temper an evil of this kind” (ibid. 2.10) which indicates
that he knew some of the women were accustomed to adorning themselves in public
because of their social level. He wants them to look different now, but obviously some
are refusing to do so.

 
Several decades after Tertullian, Cyprian’s text on the dress of virgins, written in his early
years as a bishop, indicates that the issue of adornment was still far from resolved. For
Cyprian the virgins represent, as Geoffrey Dunn argues, the purity of the Church itself
(Dunn 2003); a main reason for why the bishop is so adamant about their appearance
and reputation. Veiling is not a concern, which is interesting. He asks, at one point, why
the virgins are going out in public adorned with dressed hair and it seems that they are
without a veil. Yet he does not complain about the lack of a veil, but that they were
dressed up and showing off their beauty (Hab. virg. 5). Neither does the issue of women
teaching and baptizing come to the fore; rather, Cyprian directly addresses the wealth of
the virgins, and what they are to do with it (nearly a third of the work focuses on this),
as well as their dress. Although it is a different situation than that of Tertullian writing
generally to women about their apparel, Cyprian draws heavily from his predecessor’s

14
 Carthaginian Critiques of Adornment

wealth (ibid. 10). The virgins had attained a stature in the church by virtue of their
roles as consecrated virgins. They could not be clergy, yet they could possess a level

and make-up. Cyprian exhorts that such rebellious women be kicked out, for they are
“like infected sheep and diseased cattle [who should be] driven out from the holy and

contagion” (Hab. virg. 17).15

Cyprian insists that the virgins’ wealth be used to support the poor, and that in no

1988:193). Like Tertullian, he repeatedly castigates the women for wearing their wealth

directed to any wealthy Christian woman (Dunn 2003: 9). The bishop argues that these
women should not dress up as if they wanted to attract a man (Hab. virg. 5–6). He claims
that by decorating themselves they are sullying their reputation which could never be
regained (ibid. 2). Like Tertullian, he appeals to the virtue of modesty. He quotes 1
Timothy 2 and 1 Peter 3 in exhorting them not to wear gold or pearls. He indicates that
some married women had objected that they had to dress well because of their wealthy
husbands, to which Cyprian counters that just as these women should be subject to the
Church’s discipline, all the more should unmarried women, the virgins, dress modestly,
for they do not even have the excuse of pressure from a wealthy husband – the virgins
themselves are fully responsible. He employs some of Tertullian’s arguments that if
God had wanted women to wear scarlet or purple woollen clothes, God would have
made scarlet and purple sheep (Hab. virg.14)! Likewise, he attacks the use of jewellery,
including piercing the ears, and cosmetics, blaming such arts on the apostate angels who
according to 1 Enoch, a text to which Tertullian also appeals, taught human beings such
deceitful practices (Hab. virg. 14).
However, in reality was it the case that these women were coiffed and bejewelled
simply because they wanted to attract men’s attention, or because they lacked modesty,
as Cyprian claims? Perhaps the public display of such wealth by the virgins was a means

within the church. There is no reason to think that Cyprian is not genuinely concerned
about their welfare, just as Tertullian undoubtedly cared about the future and salvation
of women in his Christian community. Both men wanted women to live a life pleasing
to God and this entailed modesty and purity, especially for virgins. Some of the virgins
in Cyprian’s church had presumably taken his counsel to heart, but not all.
Moreover, Cyprian has political motives for his pastoral advice. Later on, during
and after the Decian and Valerianic persecutions, one of Cyprian’s central concerns was
dealing with the lapsed, both men and women, and with the confessors in addition to
other individuals, male and female, who interceded on behalf of the lapsed. Letters went
back and forth between Cyprian, especially when he was in hiding, and various members

15
Alicia Batten

of the church in Carthage as well as between other bishops and Carthaginian confessors.
Throughout these letters there are references to women and men who needed pastoral
care because they had lapsed, and male and female confessors who were engaged in such
ministry. Cyprian mentions some lay women confessors by name; he clearly admired
them for their steadfastness during the persecutions, and he valued their role in assisting

church. There is evidence that women were involved in very important decisions about
people’s ecclesial standing. For example, in a letter from an imprisoned Carthaginian
confessor Lucian, to a Roman, Celerinus (who later became a lector in Carthage), Lucian
says that several martyrs, before they died, had recommended the “granting of peace”
to a group of brothers and sisters who needed reconciliation. 16 These martyrs included
several men and women, such as Fortunata, Credula, Hereda and Iulia. Lucian and
his group of surviving confessors requested reconciliation for these lapsed by issuing

no reason to assume that none were. When Lucian ends his letter, he sends greetings to
women in Rome, and offers good wishes on behalf of “his sisters,” Ianuaria and Sophia,
who are with him in prison. The confessors were largely laypeople; they did not have
the position of presbyters and they were not attempting to administer the Eucharist. This
all means that women could have been among their number. What they were asking for
was a guarantee that the group of lapsed be readmitted, based on the dying wishes of the
martyrs. This was no small matter and even if women were not among the confessors,
they were among the martyrs who issued the original instructions.
In another letter that Cyprian received from two of his fellow bishops who were
investigating some confessors in Carthage, it says that two women, Irene of the Rutili
and Paula, were going to be excommunicated for their “laxist” approach. 17 Thus we have
another example of women intervening on behalf of the lapsed. In all of these instances,
Cyprian objects to the actions of these confessors, both women and men. He thinks
that such people are overstepping their boundaries insofar as they are undermining his

to the faith. The point, however, is to demonstrate that despite the dominant view of
the day that women were the weaker sex, these women were taking active roles in
key church decisions. Dunn even comments that “women seemed to have played a
prominent role in undermining Cyprian’s authority” (Dunn 2006:224).
The purpose, therefore, of this brief discussion about the lapsed and the confessors
is to demonstrate that women were continuing to undertake important responsibilities as
laypeople in the Carthaginian church. Provided that they did not undermine his authority
and monopolization over what to do about the lapsed, Cyprian was not opposed to
their activity. Some of these women, both those who had lapsed, and those who were

people as part of their penance (Dunn 2006:219). This example illustrates that material
assets could serve to the advantage of some. Cyprian also castigates some lapsed and

16
 Carthaginian Critiques of Adornment

their lost salvation (Dunn 2006:216). In On the Lapsed, Cyprian writes, “although you
clothe yourself in foreign garments and silken robes, you are naked; although you adorn
yourself to excess both in pearls, and gems, and gold, yet without the adornment of
Christ you are unsightly” (Laps.
political reasons for holding on to their wealth and dressing well, for this caused them
to be noticed, welcomed as potential benefactors, and may have enabled a speedier
re-entry into the church. The women were not maintaining or seeking to regain their
social status out of vanity, or the desire to attract men, but as a strategy to negotiate their
relationship with the Christian community. Their dress and adornment assisted them in
doing so partly because of its economic capital.

 
In conclusion, despite the constant criticism from male sources, adornment could be a

patriarchal culture. There is no reason to think that the function of these feminine

decided to live as virgins, than it was for women in general. Christian authors, in this case
Tertullian and Cyprian, were undoubtedly aware of the power of the public exhibition

bring the wearer. Tertullian, for his part, wants Christians to reject the status seeking
preoccupation that Rome represented, and for women to reject adornment and men
to reject the toga. But the more social recognition a wealthy woman had, the more
she could exert pressure on the church. If women were valued for certain roles in the
Christian community, such as their ability to prophesy and their pastoral work, they
may have questioned why they could not do more, especially when some women had

possibly opening the door to greater participation. It is my contention that this economic

we examine ancient pieces of rhetoric that instruct people what and what not to wear.


* Alicia J. Batten is a Research Fellow with the Department of New Testament and Early Christian
Studies, College of Human Sciences, University of South Africa, Pretoria.
2 See also, Neyrey (2007).
3 On status construction theory, see Berger et al (2002).
4 As Coon (1997:42) observes, for the patristic writers, “the spinning and weaving of virgins

spiritual piety throughout the history of Christianity.

17
Alicia Batten

5 Lendon bases his arguments on the literary evidence of Dio Chrysostom in this case, who states
that slaves competed for glory (2 Tars. 51).
6 See Dio Chrysostom, In cont.18.2 and Quintilian, Inst. 11.3.143, citing Pliny the Elder. On loose
tunics, see Suetonius,Jul. 45.3; Dio Chrysostom, Pol. 43.4. These are all cited by Edmondson
(2008:37).
7 To be sure, there are examples of women who are admired by males for military exploits as
well as for their intellectual acumen. For examples, see Plutarch’s Mulierum virtutes and the
discussion by Crook (2009:604–611).
8 Shumka (2008: 173) states, “[i]f the overriding purpose of funerary monuments was to preserve
memory, as Ulpian suggests it was (Dig. 11.7.2.6), and to ensure that future generations might
be witness to the virtues or accomplishments of the deceased, what were images of the mundus
muliebris meant to commemorate? An examination of their relationship to cultus (dress and
grooming) and ornatus (adornment) reveals that self-presentation was an integral part of the
literal and metaphorical construction of feminine identity, and that the capacity to design and
maintain a look, whether stylish or conservative, was one of the few ways in a patriarchal society
which women had available to them of expressing themselves as women.”
9 The translation of Clement used here is from Cleveland Cox (1885).
10 Life of Olympias 14:12–13. Olympias is admired in the Life for not adorning her face (13),
but we must remember that these “lives” of early Christian women were highly literary and
rhetorical texts. See also Alexandre (1992:409–44).
11 Upson-Saia does not focus solely on wealthy women who have forsaken their riches but
especially on the Lives of cross-dressing saints from the 4th to the 7th century.
12 In addition, Torjeson (1993:166) states, “It was this public honour, and not so much the absence
of veils, that most offended Tertullian.”
13 The translation of Tertullian used here is from Cleveland Cox (1885).
14 For an excellent discussion of the theological implications of these exposed heads, see Daniel-
Hughes (2010).
15 The translation of Cyprian used here is from Cleveland Cox (1885).
16 Cyprian, Ep. 22. 2.2 (CCSL3B117–118). See Dunn (2006:220).
17 Cyprian, Ep. 42 (CCSL 3B 199). See Dunn (2006:224).


Abbott, A. 1981. Status and status strain in the professions. American Journal of Sociology 86:819–
835.
Alexandre, M. 1992. Early Christian women. In A history of women from ancient goddesses to
Christian saints. Edited by P. Schmitt Pantel, 409-444. Translated by A. Goldhammer. University
Press, Cambridge.
Barnes, T. D. 1991. Pagan perceptions of Christianity. In Early Christianity: Origins and evolution to
AD 600: In honour of W. H. C. Frend. Edited by I. Hazlett, 231–243. SPCK, London.
AJA 105:1–25.
Barton, C. 2001. . University of California Press, Berkeley.

18
 Carthaginian Critiques of Adornment

Berg, R. 2002. Wearing wealth: mundus muliebris and ornatus as status markers for women in
imperial Rome. In Women, wealth and power in the Roman empire. Edited by P. Setälä, R. Berg,
R. Hälikkaä, M. Keltanen, J. Pölönen, and V. Vuolanto, 15–73. Acta Instituti Romani Finlandiae
25. Institutum Romanum, Rome.
Berger, J., C. L. Ridgeway and M. Zelditch. 2002. Construction of status and referential structures.
Sociological Theory 20:157–179.
Bourdieu, P. 1984. Distinction: a social critique of the judgment of taste. Translated by R. Nice.
Harvard University Press, Cambridge.
Bourdieu, P. 1990. The Logic of practice. Translated by R. Nice. University Press, Stanford.
Brown, P. 1988. The body and society: Men, women and sexual renunciation in early Christianity.
Columbia University Press, New York.
Clark, G. 1993. Women in late antiquity: Pagan and Christian lifestyles. Clarendon Press, Oxford.
Cleveland Cox, A. (ed.). 1885. ANF, vol. 2: Hermas; Tatian; Athenagoras; Theophilus and Clement
of Alexandria. Edited by A. Cleveland Cox, A. Roberts and J. Donaldson. 10 Vols. Christian
Literature Publishing, New York.
Cleveland Cox, A. (ed.). 1885. ANF, vol. 4: Tertullian, Part Fourth; Minucius Felix; Commodian;
Origen, Part First and Second. Edited by A. Cleveland Cox, A. Roberts and J. Donaldson. 10
Vols. Christian Literature Publishing, New York.
Cleveland Cox, A. (ed.). 1885. ANF, vol. 5: Hippolytus; Cyprian; Caius; Novatian; Appendix. Edited
by A. Cleveland Cox, A. Roberts and J. Donaldson. 10 Vols. Christian Literature Publishing,
New York.
Colburn, C.S., and M. K. Heyn. (eds.) 2008. Reading a dynamic canvas: Adornment in the ancient
Mediterranean world. Cambridge Scholars Publishing, Newcastle.
Coon, L. L. 1997. . University of
Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia.

aristocracy. JRS 82:150–164.

Cooper, K. 1996. The virgin and the bride: Idealized womanhood in late antiquity. Harvard University
Press, Cambridge.
Cooper, K. 2010. Poverty, obligation and inheritance: Roman heiresses and the varieties of senatorial
Religion, dynasty, and patronage in early Christianity.
Edited by K. Cooper and J. Hillner, 165–189. University Press, Cambridge.
Crook, Z. 2009. Honour, shame and social status revisited. JBL 128:591–611.
D’Ambra, E. 2007. Roman women. University Press, Cambridge.
D’Angelo, M. R. 1995. Veils, virgins, and the tongues of men and angels: women’s heads in early
Christianity. In Off with her head! The denial of women’s identity in myth, religion, and culture.
Edited by W. Doniger and H. Eilberg-Schwartz, 131–164. University of California Press,
Berkeley.
Daniel-Hughes, C. 2010. “Wear the armor of your shame!” Debating veiling and the salvation of the
SR 39:179–201.
Davis, F. 1992. Fashion, culture and identity. University Press, Chicago.
Denzey, N. 2007. The bone gatherers: The lost worlds of early Christian women. Beacon, Boston.

19
Alicia Batten

Douglas, M. 1970. Body symbols. Blackstone, Oxford.

of virgins. JECS 11:1–20.

Dunn, G. 2005. Rhetoric and Tertullian’s De Virginibus Velandis. VC 59:1–30.
Dunn, G. 2006. Cyprian and women in a time of persecution. JEH57:205–225.
Edmondson, J. and A. Keith (eds.). 2008. Roman dress and the fabrics of Roman culture. University
Press, Toronto.
Edmondson, J. 2008. Public dress and social control in late republican and early imperial Rome. In
Roman dress and the fabrics of Roman culture. Edited by J. Edmondson and A. Keith, 21–46.
University Press, Toronto.
Eicher, J. B. (ed.). 1995. Dress and ethnicity. Berg, Oxford.
Eicher, J. B. 2000. The anthropology of dress. Dress 27:59–70.
Elliott, J. H. 2000. First Peter: A new translation with introduction and commentary. AB 37B.
Doubleday, New York.
Fantham, E. 1995. Aemilia Pudentilla: Or the wealthy widow’s choice. In Women in antiquity: New
assessments. Edited by R. Hawley and B. Levick, 220–231. Routledge, New York.
Goffmann, E. 1965. Identity kits. In Dress, adornment and social order. Edited by M. A. Roach and
J. B. Eicher, 246–264. John Wiley, New York.
Groh, D. 1971. Tertullian’s polemic against social co-optation. CH 40:7–14.
Kaiser, S. B. 1985. The social psychology of clothing and personal adornment. Macmillan, New York.
Kunst, C. 2005. Ornamenta uxoria: Badge of rank or jewellery of Roman wives? The Medieval
History Journal 8:127–142.
Lendon, J. E. 1997. Empire of honour. Oxford, New York.
Miles, M.R. 1986. Patriarch as political theology: the establishment of North African Christianity. In
Civil religion and political theology. Edited by L. S. Rouner, 169–186. University Press, Notre
Dame.
Neyrey, J. 2007. Role and status in the fourth gospel: Cutting through the confusion. In “The impartial
God”: Essays in biblical studies in honour of Jouette M. Bassler. Edited by C. J. Roetzl and R.

Olson, K. 2008. Dress and the Roman woman: Self-presentation and society. Routledge, London.
Polhemus, T. and L. Procter. 1978. Fashion and anti-fashion: An anthropology of clothing and
adornment. Thames & Hudson, London.
Pölönen, J. 2002. The division of wealth between men and women in Roman succession (c. a. 50 BC-
AD 250). In Women, wealth and power in the Roman empire. Edited by P. Setälä, R. Berg, R.
Hälikkaä, M. Keltanen, J. Pölönen, and V. Vuolanto, 147–179. Acta Instituti Romani Finlandiae
25. Institutum Romanum, Rome.
Roach, M.E. and J. B. Eicher. 1965. Dress, adornment and the social order. John Wiley, New York.
Roach, M. E. and J. B. Eicher. 1979. The language of personal adornment. In The fabrics of culture:
The anthropology of clothing and adornment. Edited by J. M. Cordwell and R. A. Schwarz,
7–21. Mouton, Den Haag.
Schneider, J. 1987. The anthropology of cloth. Annual Review of Anthropology 16:409–448.

20
 Carthaginian Critiques of Adornment

Schwarz, R. A. 1979. Uncovering the secret vice: Toward an anthropology of clothing and adornment.
In The fabrics of culture: The anthropology of clothing and adornment. Edited by J. M. Cordwell
and R. A. Schwarz, 23–45. Mouton, Den Haag.
Sciama, L.D. and J. B. Eicher (eds.) 1998. Beads and bead makers: gender, material culture and
meaning. Berg, Oxford.
Shumka, L. 2008. Designing women: the representation of women’s toiletries on funerary monuments
in Roman Italy. In Roman dress and the fabrics of Roman culture. Edited by J. Edmondson and
A. Keith, 172–191. University Press, Toronto.
Swift, E. 2004. Dress accessories, culture and identity in the late Roman period. Antiquité Tardive
12:217–222.
Torjeson, K. J. 1993. When women were priests: Women’s leadership in the early church and the
scandal of their subordination in the rise of Christianity. Harper, San Francisco.
Tranberg Hansen, K. 2004. The world in dress: Anthropological perspectives on clothing, fashion and
culture. Annual review of anthropology 33:369–392.
Treggiari, S. 1996. Women in Roman society. In I Claudia: Women in ancient Rome. Edited by D. E.
E. Kleiner and S. B. Matheson, 116–125. Yale University Press, New Haven.
Upson-Saia, K. 2011. Early Christian dress: gender, virtue, authority. Routledge, New York.
Wilhite, D. 2007. Tertullian the African: An anthropological reading of Tertullian’s context and
identities. Millenium – Studien zu Kultur und Geschichte des ersten Jahrtausend n. Chr., vol.
14. De Gruyter, Berlin.
Wright, D. 2000. Tertullian. In The early Christian world, vol. 2. Edited by P. F. Esler, 1027–1047.
Routledge, New York.

21